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="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1484724" data-attributes="member: 17296">I have no problem with there being an evil. I only have a problem with people actively pushing evil, as if there were no non-good alternative. And neutral people are not always evil. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes a person isn't being mean, just wanted or need that gold more than you did... in his opinion.Having no compassion simply means having no good. Evil people shouldn't, but neutral people don't need to have it either, as long as they don't have evil, they're still neutral.A neutral person could even have some compassion and take it anyway. I mean, "I hope he didn't really need that, but it would be too much to check, and besides, I know I DID need it."And I'd say the system does indeed agree with me:"Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion." --PHBA neutral character doesn't feel strongly one way or the other. Doesn't care really that it's hurting the other person, didn't really think about it. And doesn't feel too strongly about the "minor" incovenience of that person having to deal with the loss of that item. --MeAnd actually the first quote is more precisely:"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." --PHBIt does not say "...to hurt others just to get one's own way is evil, not neutral." Of course, there are definitions and degrees of hurt.  --MeAnd, more importantly:"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." PHBMeaning something that is slightly on the evil side is still a neutral thing. As is somthing that's slightly good. Even things that could be highly good or highly evil CAN still be neutral. Depending.So, back to what I was describing"As opposed to Neutral evil "malefactor (Which I don't have a problem with, if that's who your character ISThere's also the :Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. (I think it would be a good idea for me to have that thing. A good idea,, in this context, does not mean having a motive for "good") She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil (He might want it? Meh, So do I.) or law vs. chaos. (It's illegal? So? It's legal? Did I ask??) Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones (Sure I wouldn't want anyone taking things from ME) . Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. (But still, really, I want that thing a lot, and I don't really care that the other person might. If they do, they can go get another one.)Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. (I've actually played one of these. Now that's an interesting and really rather difficult concept) Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion (Except in the second case, in which you DO have both predjudice and cumpulsion... ah, the dicotomy of life)But... without prejudicedly deciding that it's "wrong" or "illegal" for me to have a thing I want just because someone else wants it and just because it might "legally" belong to them. Right there, in actual black in white, a description of grey.Possession baybe.When I want somethin, man, I don't want to pay for it. I walk right --  through the door. If I get by, it's MINE! Mine all mine.Anyway, like I say, Evil is fine, in it's place. BUT, there simply IS a grey area. It's right in the description of alignments. It has it's own slots, definitions, and everything. My only issue really is with people saying that it cannot be, that there is no neutral, that you must align yourself with something or another.Now, sure, there is an alignment just for taking that neutrality away. Lawful, to want everything neatly lined up, and Evil, to want everyone under their control and power.And that's fine too. Lawful Evil is also a defined alignment. But you should realize this for what it is, and any chaotic good cleric should do zir best to expunge such things from the world.Of course, they'll fight back. That's what they do, they're the enemy.OK, fine. It's in all the forces interest to chew up neutral, to try to claim here or there. Law wants you or hates you. Good entices and evil seduces.But some people just aren't any of that. Or either. OR all. And, no matter which of those they are, they're neutral.</blockquote>

Verification