Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ranillon" data-source="post: 808461" data-attributes="member: 6699"><speaking of people who perform evil acts>If either of the above two characters also did their best to keep their image in their community up - rescuing kittens, defeating invading armies, or any other thing that helps the community with their own intrests in mind - would that make them any less evil? No malice, no benevolence - just a complete lack of any type of moral restraint in what they'd do to gain power, or anything else. To me, that's evil.--------------------------------------------------------------------Concepts like "evil" or "good" really only have any practical application when we talk about >actions<, not so much intent.  A person can, for example, think "evil" thoughts without per se being evil (or good thoughts without being good).  So, the question becomes just what is the ratio of good to netural to evil actions that the individual takes.  Find that ratio and you get a handy, general indication of their alignment.Clearly anyone of any alignment can be "selfish", the question is how is it that they demonstrate that selfishness.  A "merely" selfish person -- someone who is just as willing to perform good acts as evil acts to reach his aims -- would be some sort of flavor of neutral (mind you, not all neutral characters would be like this).  If the selfish person habitually attempts to reach his selfish aims through evil acts then he is evil.  But, in such a case the individual wouldn't >just< be acting in his own best interest as the evil acts he commits are quite likely to be ultimately self-defeating.  His own evil ways would be interfering with his own selfish aims to one extent or another.That's what I see as the fundamental difference.</blockquote>

Verification