Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tsyr" data-source="post: 1262631" data-attributes="member: 354">Remember, when it comes right down to it, the DnD alignment system is painfully simple. It's like a three year old... You have &quot;Good men&quot; and &quot;Bad men&quot; and a few &quot;Ok men&quot;. I don't like it, but by the rules, that's more or less what it is. For any one situation, you have essentialy three outcomes on the good/evil axis... Good, Neutral, and Evil. The Good response would have been to get help or intervene. The Evil response would have been to join in or keep help from arriving. The neutral response was to do nothing. &quot;The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good to not thwack it repeatedly&quot; is a nice sentiment, but it doesn't hold true in DnD's alignment system, because the system defines neutrality as not thwacking evil with a stick, and reserves evil for activly participating in evil. The &quot;thwack with stick&quot; arguement actually pretty much removes the possibility of neutrality... It's very much a &quot;If ye aint fer us yer agin' us&quot; attitude. So, baring some wild new information, I'm going to say it's a neutral act. Intent would determine its possition on the law/chaos axis... &quot;I don't want to interfere&quot; would be Lawul, &quot;It's not my problem&quot; would be neutral, and &quot;I don't want to get involved&quot; would be chaotic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tsyr, post: 1262631, member: 354"] Remember, when it comes right down to it, the DnD alignment system is painfully simple. It's like a three year old... You have "Good men" and "Bad men" and a few "Ok men". I don't like it, but by the rules, that's more or less what it is. For any one situation, you have essentialy three outcomes on the good/evil axis... Good, Neutral, and Evil. The Good response would have been to get help or intervene. The Evil response would have been to join in or keep help from arriving. The neutral response was to do nothing. "The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good to not thwack it repeatedly" is a nice sentiment, but it doesn't hold true in DnD's alignment system, because the system defines neutrality as not thwacking evil with a stick, and reserves evil for activly participating in evil. The "thwack with stick" arguement actually pretty much removes the possibility of neutrality... It's very much a "If ye aint fer us yer agin' us" attitude. So, baring some wild new information, I'm going to say it's a neutral act. Intent would determine its possition on the law/chaos axis... "I don't want to interfere" would be Lawul, "It's not my problem" would be neutral, and "I don't want to get involved" would be chaotic. [/QUOTE]

Verification