Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1812875" data-attributes="member: 17296">I don't see the acts as evil now, nor do I see a future filled with such acts as evil. I'll agree that the paladin wouldn't associate with someone who continues to act like this, assuming the paladin knows. But that's the violates code part, not the evil part. And, of course, it says consistently, so he could see it several times, and try an unspecified number of times to "correct" the actions.I have to agree with this part too. Stealing from harmless passengers is no more evil than from villians. And no less chaotic. Yea, if you're going to have issue with this character type, it should be discussed soonest. I don't think it's the definition of evil, others obviously don't either... I can see him not thinking it's evil. I CAN understand how this type of thing can hurt the party, especially if it's going to be the rogue stealing from the party (which this character type could do, and still non-evilly). On the other hand, there are ways to allow even this without truly hurting the party... if you (all) talk about it and make attempts to incorporate it appropriately into the campaign. But, regardless of whether this IMO choatic behavior can be or even wants to be (by you) accomodated in the game, no amount of stealing for profit is evil. For that matter... even if the party was bleeding and he left them... that's not necessarily "evil". That could easily be self centered and thoughtless/impulsive. It's possible and even probable that the type of character described is thoughtless and impulsive. A key point here... is that there ARE grey areas. There IS an alignment called neutral. And it's not good. It's not even a little good, or else it would be called "a little good". It's also not evil, however. And a lot of people have a hard time distinguishing between not good and evil. Many people also have problems understanding the law/chaos axis as a different entity. Stealing, however, falls pretty firmly on the law/chaos axis, and not anywhere on the good/evil axis. But, once again, there's still the fact that the paladin won't associate with THAT type of behavior either, as it violates his codes, evilness or not aside.Here's a quote I find quite appropo:Saying that good and evil are black and white is tantamount to saying that there IS no neutral alignment. There is no grey, as it were. And a lot of people think this way. It's patently not true, as right there in black and white is a neutral alignment. Two, in fact, one good/evil and one lawful/chaotic.A "low grade, borederline evil" is practically the definition of neutral. Not that whole definition, sure. It also encompases low grade borderline goods. As well as large, obvious evils tempered with large, obvious goods. It is, in short, neutral.However, that being said... sure, you can break EVERYthing down into quantum minutia of good and evil. But then you have to realize that the neutral alignment is there for a reason, which is that people who do "evil" but less than X amount of evil, are not evilly aligned. And people who do "good" but less than X amount of good, are not goodly aligned.Sure, you'll have to define this, each individual has to define this. But, in general, the very fact that this question is questionable, that so many people are saying that it's not evil... that's pretty good evidence that, whether it contains quantum bits of Evil or not (and anyone person good at debate can come up with quantum bits of Good in the act as well if he/she tried)... whether or not that is, it's obviously neutral to at least some, and likely neutral to the character in question. I also *have* to add this quote:And my own opinion, which is that, in my eyes, forcing your own moralistic opinions on others is evil... which really, to me, seems to be what the Captain is suggesting people should do. Put there mostly as an interesting example of different people's definitions of evil. Both Good and Evil would like to take up all of neutral, if you look at good and evil as a force. One main difference, in my opinion, is that forcably classifying a neutral person as evil is an evil act when done by a good person... whereas an evil person can forceably classify anyone as anything while remaining evil.Which is interesting, IMO, because under that definition items such as a "Helm of Alignment Opposition" is evil, whether used on a good person or an evil person.</blockquote>

Verification