Originally posted by Xalthar
An action can be \"good\" to one part, whilst at the same time be \"evil\" to another.. What then, defines the true moral value of the action?
well ok, i agree that something that is evil for one can be considered to be good by another, but...
Originally posted by Draklar
i think that being pure evil is as hard as being pure good.
I was saying about being good person, and being evil person.
good is something that is desired, or liked. So for someone that is \"bad\" stealing can be good - that\'s right. Although what you think doesn\'t change how others perceive you.
So what makes you evil/good person is how you influence your surroundings. If things that you do are desired or liked by other people, you are consired to be good person, but if your deeds bring hate, you\'re evil.
Edit: ok, now that i think about it...

something that is evil for one and can be seen as good for other can\'t be good deed.
Let\'s say that you stolen money from blind beggar - that would be evil since this thing was bad for beggar (nevermind that he would buy a booze - stealing is stealing), from this point generally you can do 3 things with those money: give them to people that really need it (then this deed generally would be more like neutral), spend them on yourself (evil with touch of neutral), or just throw it away to some sewers or something (pure evil).
That\'s just my point of view.