Would this be evil?

[EP]

There is, IMO, no such thing as a "neutral act." You can have a good act, an evil act, or an act that is neither good nor evil--but it is not neutral. "Neutral" is a lack of action. It's passive, not active. People who "strive for balance" do so either via acts that are neither good nor evil, or a combination of good and evil acts. But by definition, you cannot have a "neutral act," because "neutral" implies inaction.

Typically, maybe, but in a game where the planes are formed on the foundation of alignments, it is possible for someone to actively pursue neutrality. If a character chooses to right a wrong against an individual in a way that redeems the victim and punishes the guilty, it covers the entire gammut of morality (good for helping another, lawful for assisting in the punishment of a crime, chaotic for taking on the matter in your own way, and taking on evil for stopping those who would enjoy bullying others for their own benefit).

Planes of Conflict in the old Planescape had this motto for the neutral planes and made a huge point about neutrality being more than just a default choice. Not that it's a rule that overwrites anything else, but something that I think completely applies. It is possible to be actively neutral, just not very common.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Typically, maybe, but in a game where the planes are formed on the foundation of alignments, it is possible for someone to actively pursue neutrality. If a character chooses to right a wrong against an individual in a way that redeems the victim and punishes the guilty, it covers the entire gammut of morality (good for helping another, lawful for assisting in the punishment of a crime, chaotic for taking on the matter in your own way, and evil for stopping those who would enjoy bullying others for their own benefit).

How is that last example evil?

But even if an act covers all four, it's still not a "neutral act." It's an act that happens to be good, evil, lawful, and chaotic. That may default to neutral on the alignment scale, but only by a zero-sum measurement, as each cancels out the other. There was still nothing inherently neutral about the act itself.

Pursuing neutrality just means making sure you perform a relatively balanced number of good, evil, lawful, and chaotic acts. It may be possible to take an act that benefits "Neutrality" as a cosmic force*, but it's still not a "neutral act."

*(That assumes a given campaign acknowledges "neutrality" as a cosmic force. Mine don't, precisely because neutrality isn't a drive or an action, but a lack of drive or action. The game may be written otherwise, but it's never managed to make the idea make any real sense upon close examination, IMO.)

 

[EP]

How is that last example evil?

By evil, I meant that it deals with evil by stopping bad guys.

I do use alignments as cosmic forces and the idea of having one in the bunch sitting back and just taking credit for anything the others don't speak up for doesn't seem right. And boring. It's an active pursuit of maintaining balance, no matter the scale. An eye for an eye, almost.

 

[Maldor]

Not Evil.
for a evil act the chore you make them do at sorwd point is dig the grave you plan to put them in.
P.S. always kill the nobles they are nothing more then pains in the butt

 

[Presto2112]

And BTW, at the risk of starting a whole different alignment debate...

There is, IMO, no such thing as a "neutral act." You can have a good act, an evil act, or an act that is neither good nor evil--but it is not neutral. "Neutral" is a lack of action. It's passive, not active. People who "strive for balance" do so either via acts that are neither good nor evil, or a combination of good and evil acts. But by definition, you cannot have a "neutral act," because "neutral" implies inaction.

LOL, I'm picturing billions of inhabitants of the Plane of Concordant Opposition doing nothing but sitting on their couch watching cartoons. An adventuring party breaks down their doors, and they just go "hey", and change the channel.

 

[Merkuri]

Are any of you actualy suggesting that HUMILIATION is an evil act? Get serious.

Search the news from sometime last year about what happened to some prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I'd say that certain forms of humiliation certainly can be evil.

This kind? No.

 

[green slime]

LOL, I'm picturing billions of inhabitants of the Plane of Concordant Opposition doing nothing but sitting on their couch watching cartoons. An adventuring party breaks down their doors, and they just go "hey", and change the channel.

That'd be a good act.

Watching cartoons rots your brain.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I find the defendant not evil!

 

[The Lost Muse]

IMHO this is the model of Good behavior.

"For punishment, you must do good works which aid those you harmed."

Cheers, -- N

Are any of you actualy (sic) suggesting that HUMILIATION is an evil act? Get serious.

Quoted for truth.

 

[GAAAHHH]

Beige alert...

If I don't make it, tell my wife, "Hello."

LOL, I'm picturing billions of inhabitants of the Plane of Concordant Opposition doing nothing but sitting on their couch watching cartoons. An adventuring party breaks down their doors, and they just go "hey", and change the channel.