Neutral alignment

[Question]

If a neutral character does something evil, does he remain neutral if he does a good deed to "balance it out", as per the argument of "balance between good and evil"?

 

[Hypersmurf]

If a neutral character does something evil, does he remain neutral if he does a good deed to "balance it out", as per the argument of "balance between good and evil"?

It all depends on how one rules alignment.

Is it an indication of one's personality and state of mind, or is it a record of one's past deeds?

Let's take Xena as an example. She's slaughtered innocents, trampled people underfoot in her climb to power, pursued her own ends by whatever means necessary, etc, etc.

Then she has a change of heart, vows to repent for her wickedness, and devotes herself to heroic deeds.

At this point - when she's decided to be a force for Good, but before she's actually taken any tangible actions in its name - is her alignment still evil, is it neutral, or is it good?

You'll find people who will argue for all three.

Some will say that because she is determined to do good deeds, and finds her past acts repugnant, she is good.

Some will say that because she has performed no good actions to balance the scales, she is evil.

And some will say that putting evil behind her means she is no longer evil, but until she has actually worked for good, she cannot be good... so for now, she is neutral.

-Hyp.

 

[Jack Simth]

If a neutral character does something evil, does he remain neutral if he does a good deed to "balance it out", as per the argument of "balance between good and evil"?

Let's see.... explicit intent is for balance, he's conciously doing a good deed to "balance" an evil deed.... yeah, probably neutral, provided they are of similar magnitudes (e.g., Summon Monster V for a Fiendish Dire Boar - casting an [Evil] spell - and later, a Summon Monster V for a Celestial Giant Stag Beetle - casting a [Good] spell - both to help in different battles).

 

[calypso15]

Let's see.... explicit intent is for balance, he's conciously doing a good deed to "balance" an evil deed.... yeah, probably neutral, provided they are of similar magnitudes (e.g., Summon Monster V for a Fiendish Dire Boar - casting an [Evil] spell - and later, a Summon Monster V for a Celestial Giant Stag Beetle - casting a [Good] spell - both to help in different battles).

I suspect no one cares, but I find this (not you, D&D) childish attempt to codify a system of moral principles to be rather silly. To say that summoning a Fiendish Dire Boar is an act of evil is just plain silly. What if you use the boar to save a burning orphanage on 'Visiting Nuns Day'?

I can appreciate a need for a system of classification for ones alignment along the moral and legal axis, but to say, flat out, that "Act X and Y are evil" is draconian.

As for the actual question at hand, which I think Hypersmurf summarise quite nicely, I tend to fall into the "intent trumps history".

Calypso

 

[shilsen]

If a neutral character does something evil, does he remain neutral if he does a good deed to "balance it out", as per the argument of "balance between good and evil"?

Unless your DM runs alignment extremely stringently and simplistically, a neutral character who does something evil remains neutral whether he does something good or not. A single action shouldn't change one's alignment, though multiple actions of a particular kind may.

 

[Quasqueton]

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

If a neutral character does something evil, does he remain neutral if he does a good deed to "balance it out", as per the argument of "balance between good and evil"?

This is not an alignment question, this is a psychological health question. The character in this situation is insane.

schizophrenia - “Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.” [bold emphasis mine]

Now, I’m not a psychologist/psychiatrist, so my “diagnosis” may not be really accurate, but my point is that a concept like this is outside the alignment bounds – it is mental illness.

Quasqueton

 

[werk]

This is not an alignment question, this is a psychological health question. The character in this situation is insane.

schizophrenia - “Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.” [bold emphasis mine]

Now, I’m not a psychologist/psychiatrist, so my “diagnosis” may not be really accurate, but my point is that a concept like this is outside the alignment bounds – it is mental illness.

Quasqueton

So...chaotic neutral?

I was going to say that feeling compelled to do good to balance out past evil acts would either be lawful neutral (utilizing a process to balance the equation) or chaotic neutral (acting morally erratically).

As for summoning demons to rescue children...yeah, I wouldn't consider that exactly good but YMMV.

 

[calypso15]

As for summoning demons to rescue children...yeah, I wouldn't consider that exactly good but YMMV.

My mileage *does* vary. Why is it not a good act? What makes it a neutral or evil act?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

My mileage *does* vary. Why is it not a good act? What makes it a neutral or evil act?

Because they are demons and devils. Fiends. Evil incarnate. You are calling on the powers of Hell itself and summoning a creature of unspeakable horror.

 

[Soulsong]

This is not an alignment question, this is a psychological health question. The character in this situation is insane.

schizophrenia - “Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.” [bold emphasis mine]

Exactly. I agree completely. Even if one could come up with some sane explanation for this "balancing" intent/behavior, I dare say it would be more evil than neutral. Neutrality does not make sense as a "balancing" alignment. It does make sense as ammorality/anethicality (either ignorance or apathy), indecision (I know what is Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic, but I have not determined/realized/accepted which goal I will consciously seek), or as alignment "laziness" (for lack of a better term at the moment. ie I know what is Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic, and have a preference, but I choose not to bother because of the effort involved).

I might propose a thought experiment to help people understand what their own view of alignment is. It is nothing grand, and has numerous holes, but I think it could be illuminating:

Creature A has 100% LG intent (you decide what that is).
Creature B is stuck under the influence of a hypothetical alignment translation machine that recognizes the intent (including any meta intent) of each of his actions and causes the performance of an action intending to have the opposite moral/ethical outcome.

What alignment would you label this creature if he was further deceived into beleiving that his actions were indeed good, but in reality, continued to cause Chaos and Evil?
What alignment would you label this creature if he was able to perceive his true actions and the effects of his actions, but had no way to prevent himself from causing Chaos or Evil?
How would this effect the intent of the creature in the long term? It would not want to continue effecting actions opposite of its intent, but it also could not fool the machine into doing what it truly intended. My supposition might be that it would eventually precipitate either cognative dissonance (insanity) or a gradual progression towards moral/ethical apathy.