Ok, so this is basically what we\'ve heard for the last several posts, and I also looked on one site. According to the site:
It does not depend on the act that is good or evil. Actually:
If it strengthens the neighbourhood, populace, world, etc., it should be considered good.
If it weakens the neighbourhood, populace, world, etc., it should be considered good.
And also, how Monketh said that taking things from others are never good.
What if a paladin stole a great artifact of evil from a dark mage? That would be considered good because he is preventing the mage from damaging whatever he has in mind. However, if the paladin stole the artifact to use it for himself, it can be considered evil. But maybe not, because maybe his intention is to do something good.
Even if the paladin was lawful good, stealing an artifact in order to save the world is probably not against his code, especially since its from an evil character.
Another thing, you have to look at evil and good from different perspectives. Lets say a King ordered a genocide on a bunch of lepers in order to save the rest of his people from leoprosy. To his people, he\'s a hero. To the lepers, he\'s a crazy, senile, cruel, etc. tyrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Besides that, I also have an opinion on true neutrality. Whoever is true netural doesn\'t nessacarily mean he acts to give gains to himself. Doesn\'t it mean he strives to balance good and evil so that one side doesn\'t become too exsistent? There aren\'t many characters like this, especially among humans(because of their natural chaotic/changing ways), and even among other races, it is extremely rare.
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHEW! That was my third and longest post ever lol. Thx for hearing me out.
