Do evil acts weight more than good acts? Would you forgive the

>>53162047
To be good is expected; an average person is expected to meet some minimum standard of ethical and citizenly standard.

Being evil is in direct opposition to what you're supposed to be, while being better than normal is only a small shift from your nominal position.

If the scale of good and evil was something numbered from -100 to 100, with -100 being Hitler Satan McStalin, 0 being neutral selfishness, and 100 is Jesus O'Buddha, most people would be expect to sit somewhere around 15.

Going to -25 is a 40 point shift, while going to 25 is only a 10 point shift.

>>53162047
>Do evil acts weight more than good acts?
Not really, but it's much easier to do something evil (like, kill someone for your own pleasure) than to do good (raising someone from the dead isn't cheap and requires powerful magic).

>Would you forgive the guy who killed your brother but saved your sister from certain death?
This has nothing to do with alignments. You could argue that someone good might find it easier to forgive. Mercy is often associated with good, however righteous vengeance is also something good characters can do.
On the other hand someone lawful evil might find himself obliged to forgive due to his personal code or some sort of law. It's more of a case where alignment might give you a hint on how to act, but it's entirely up to the player how he imagines his character (maybe he cared more for his brother than his sister or the other way around, which would make (not) forgiving easier or harder)

>A character who does unspeakable evil things and at the same time do extremely selfless actions is neutral, evil or good?
Should be neutral, although it's kind of hard to imagine someone like that and how he could do both to not skew in one direction or the other or be seen as a lunatic

>>53162047
If you're talking about D&D, they weigh evenly in a literal sense regarding the metaphysics (e.g. one evil act and one good act combine to create a neutal identity), but owe no obligation in a moral sense.
>A character who does unspeakable evil things and at the same time do extremely selfless actions is neutral, evil or good?
True Neutral. Their soul will find the Concordant Domain of the Outlands.

Depends on the context of the act. If the guy just rides up and skewers my brother, but later rescues my sister from bandits without ulterior motives, I'll be pissed off, but I won't hurt him down. If it was something like a duel, or war or even an accident, I'll be angry, but I won't consider him evil. If he saves my sister for some personal, selfish goal or gain, then I will be even angrier at him for trying to use my sister after killing my brother. Acts on their own are nearly impossible to truly judge as good or evil, it's the context that dictates that judgement.

>>53162257
>To be good is expected; an average person is expected to meet some minimum standard of ethical and citizenly standard.
What? No. A regular citizen in a setting from a game with alignments (so mostly D&D) is either lawful neutral or simply neutral.
If you want a more recent example, look at the PF NPC portfolio. Most dudes are neutral there

>>53162328
We're not talking about any specific game or setting (least of all fucking PF), but rather in general.

In general, people are expected to be marginally good, marginally law abiding people. They're expected to obey ethical conventions even if they're against their best interest.

They may be "neutral" out of ease of description, but on the average, it's expected that you lean good.

>>53162403
Yeah, you might be expected to be good, but as seen in most information you get on these people, they end up neutral.
Probably because they hit their wive from time to time or are cheating a bit on their taxes, stuff like that.
That's just how it is

>>53162645
Right, and the dicussion is why evil acts are more serious than good acts.

Although people tend to be neutral, the center of the scale is skewed towards goodness; cheating on your taxes or whatever is looked down upon more than being a slightly better person is praised. That's the point of this thread that I was trying to answer.

>>53162281
So if he was a lunatic, really capable of doing genocide in one day and curing cancer in the other, he would be true neutral?

>>53162047
"good" and "evil" should apply only to the end results of actions, not to people. I wouldn't judge that person as "evil", but their past actions imply that they're mentally unstable enough that their future actions are likely to create more evil than good in the world, meaning that removal from society, and subsequent rehabilitation if possible, or execution if not, is the best course of action.

>>53162047
That's called chaotic neutral buddy. Also, i wouldn't forgive or forget, but i might let them go as long as they dont show up again. if they do, its on.

By definition good is held to a higher standard than evil.

Like the saying: build 10 bridges and nobody calls you the bridge builder, fuck one goat and you're a goatfucker forever.

>>53162047

That is a classic case of a D&D neutral, who really should be given a more technical term because they're clearly dangerous to be around, both for the wicked and the innocent. A LN would have them locked up on sight.