Is Neutral more Evil than Good?

If your idea of neutral is have a near equal amout of light side and dark side points, then it is more evil to be neutral than good.

If your idea of neutral is that you just really want to make high quality swords then fuck whoever's harassing you for not being "good enough"

File: Francisco_de_Goya_Saturn_devouring-his-son_1819-1823.jpg (78KB, 544x1000px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 544x1000px

>>54058776
Why do so many posters have small images nowadays. Painting is "Saturn devouring his son" by Francisco Goya

I'm having trouble getting my head around the idea of an alignment like true neutral. Surely such an alignment would be better called true evil (or just plain evil) since to maintain such an alignment a character would have to commit good and evil acts in equal measure.

In fact, to do so is quite chaotic so the alignment of True Neutral really seems to fit the definition of Chaotic Evil to me.

>>54058776
A good character doesn't necessarily need to commit evil acts to become neutral, nor does he need to become neutral before turning evil.
A good character can become neutral just from ceasing to take opportunities to commit acts of good. Ignoring those in need, not saving those who need it, not caring about evil doers running about, etc can make a good character become neutral. Neutral is what most real people are, as it is often more of a "not my problem" stance. I would argue that, it is just less good than good, not more evil. A neutral person doesn't necessarily do anything bad, besides remaining a bystander when they are needed to do something good. It certainly can be someone who does both good and evil, but their motives for doing those deeds are typically neither good nor evil. Someone who does good or bad things, but does them for money, would be neutral. (thieves are neutral, not evil.)

Likewise, a good character who snaps and begins killing or otherwise blighting others for no reason other than wanting to becomes evil immediately, and does not pass through neutrality. Neutrality would not commit evil acts like that, unless they did it for their own personal gain, such as being a soldier in a war, doing it to avoid their own deaths, or being a bounty hunter (See: "It's just business, nothing personal")

>>54058975
It's usually a matter of describing their nature more than their actions. Being committed enough to something that isn't good or evil is really all it takes. There are exceptions like druids who just care a lot about "balance" and that sort of thing though

>>54058776
> I DONT KNOW HOW ALIGNMUNT WURKS PLEASE EAT MY BAIT

File: Transition Chart.jpg (72KB, 1099x321px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1099x321px

>>54059070
What's this, then? Explain to me how a character on the good end of this chart can become evil without passing through neutral and vice versa.

Anyway, it seems evident that the alignment of Neutral contains a greater amount of Evil than it does Good simply because having any evil is evil and it overshadows the good.

>>54058975
True neutral isnt a perfect balance of good and evil actions, nor is it a perfect balance of chaotic and lawful actions. In fact, you could commit nearly exclusively one type of action and remain true neutral. Alignment is more about one's motives rather than the outcome of their actions. A character who cures a disease that wouldve been a plague, saves a nation, and frees slaves might be seen as doing good deeds, but if they just did it so they could become rich from the rewards, they are just neutral.
A true neutral character doesn't care if what he does is good or evil, nor does he concern himself with order vs anarchy. He just does what is best for himself, or otherwise just does what he thinks is the best or most interesting course of action at the time.

Chaotic neutral focuses mostly upon the aspect of choosing what is the most interesting, and preferably the most whimsical and new experience. A chaotic neutral character is a free spirit who just wants an adventure. They just want to go see the world and try new things, just for the heck of it. In parallel with this, a lawful character typically is very meticulous about what they do. They take a lot of thought into deciding what the most beneficial course of action is. They likely have grand plans for their future, or otherwise have an idea for how to gain power, skill, or wealth. A lawful neutral character is least likely to do things out of the kindness of his heart or just to spite others, as they would think "Yeah but this could be dangerous for me, and gives me nothing" or "I might hate them, but that is just not a smart thing to do" respectively.

Neutral is motivated by acting for themselves
Good is motivated by acting for others
Evil is motivated by acting against others

>>54059157
Well thats just one system though
In the real world or in works of fiction that dont have strict rules regarding good and evil, the way i described is how characters work.

A rules system might limit themselves that way, but it doesn't really make much sense.

Just saying "But this game i play says thats not how it works" is a poor argument. You asked a general question about neutrality in tabletop gaming, not in a specific system.

>>54059157
Neutral is just that, it is not more good that evil, or evil than good, although a character can tend more towards either side. The point where it's more evil than good is the transition phase, where the character risks tipping over into evil.

Likewise, a good character, does not need to commit evil deeds to transition to neutral, but simply refrain from acting good at all times.

Obviously it would depend on the GM, but a good character committing a series of grave evil deeds, should simply receive enough "transition points" to skip the neutral stage altogether.

>>54058957
He painted that on the wall of his house. Just for himself. That's the sort of thing he liked to have staring at him while he went about his daily business.

Nah if you are good maybe your faith is destroyed and you stop helping people. You aren't evil but you aren't good. You don't have to commit an evil act.

>>54059424
Jesus christ.

>>54060684
We already noted that is Saturn you idiot.

>>54060751
Good lord.

File: alignments.jpg (74KB, 821x524px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 821x524px

>>54058776
It's really just a continuum of selfishness, ranging from ruthlessly selfish to altruistic. Within each alignment rung, there's a decent range of behaviors, but in essence, a Good character will make personal sacrifices (put self in danger) to help others out.

A Neutral character is generally looking out for number one. They may help somebody out if it doesn't put them out too much, or if they feel a connection or something, but similarly, they may exploit somebody if it's easy to do, doesn't do too much damage to that person's life, or is easy to rationalize or justify to themselves somehow, but their base level of operation (even if they don't admit it to themselves) is "what's in it for me?"

An Evil character is also looking out for number one, but they're ruthless about it and don't need to justify things to themselves in the same way that a Neutral character might. If a Good character sees somebody drop a money purse, they're liable to return it. If a Neutral character would be more liable to keep the purse and might even take a purse that somebody left carelessly exposed (sitting next to them on the bench, etc.). An Evil character might knife or beat somebody to get their purse.

Of course, it's all a bit more complicated than this. A Lawful Evil character is going to generally behave in an honorable manner, but will try to exploit social norms to their advantage. Meanwhile, a Chaotic Good character might steal a rich man's purse in order to put the money towards some altruistic cause.

Also, Neutral and Evil characters can act altruistically towards people within a certain group they hold deal -- their family, loved ones, maybe even their ethnic or political group -- but are selfish or ruthless towards those outside the group.

>>54059157
Th chart describes shifting alignment towards the result of taking good, evil, OR neutral actions. Thus some actions a person can take are neither good nor evil, thus neutral i.e. neutrality does not contain elements of evil or goodness but is a valu of its own.