What it means to be good, evil, or neutral

[Axsyrus]

Hear ye, hear ye. Members of the PS forums, bear witness to the fact that Phinehas is a moron.

Just wanted to make sure everyone noticed. (although you must be pretty ignorant not to have noticed this before! rofl)

[Phinehas]

yeah, Ax, I\'m aware that you hate me. I assume it has to do with that one conversation in irc?

[Axsyrus]

lol, what conversation? that post was just the lamest post I\'d seen for a while so I couldn\'t stop myself replying to it

[Phinehas]

Yeah, it was lame, I\'ll be the first to admit it. But I couldn\'t resist. It all seemed so redundant, and then Auran started his post off so cool, and then like, posted a 500 word essay on the subject. Anyway, since I got us Off Topic, I\'d better get us back On. I\'d have to say that I believe something in between Drak and Auran(I could be mistaken, I didn\'t read all the posts). I think that you shouldn\'t be too inhibited with what your alignment is, but I do believe that it helps rp if you try and stick with a general alignment. Take me for instance, I\'m neutral, sometimes I do things that\'d be classified as \"good\" and sometimes I do things that would be considered \"evil\", but in the long run, I\'m just in it for myself and you all can get lost.  

[Auran]

Oh lordy! Pinehas doesn\'t approve of my actions8o! Whatever shall I do?(

I do and say what I like Piney. I didn\'t care what anyone thougth before  why would you think I could make an exception for you. Blab all you want I love it:). I do what i feel like and offer no explanations or excuses.  Countless people think I am a fool and countless others think I am a genius. I don\'t care either way. I know who I am; \"The guy who will get you stuff when you die\", and I am happy being that guy;). Its all that matters.

BTW: Thank you for thinking my post started out cool. Not that I needed your approval but I must respect the deed that you do. I am a fair man;).

Anyhow Drak:
Yes RL is roleplay where you play as yourself. Some realise it others don\'t. Either way, play everyone does.

[Sangwa]

So much discussion about a simple thing, there is Good, there is Evil and there is Neutral, each have their standarts or something that sounds like that. Your alignement is built while you role play. Its not that abstract, at least not in a game, Planeshift seems to use D&D\'s way of characterizing the alignment( Neutral Evil Good / True Chaotic Lawful) and i think that\'s just fine.

[Phinehas]

Well, technically, in PS, the alignments are decided by the community since it\'s not as rigid as some other games.

[Waylander]

Well I have to go with Auran on this one, I dont completely agree but he is the closest to the truth from my point of view, I see wat draklar is saying tho (well I believe I do) but, in the end it is really other ppl who decide ur alligment judged on ur actions...Of course u could go with the whole
Evil:Dictator
Neutral:Lazy dude who screws up
Good:Guy who beats the dictator
Or you could realize that in the end there is no allignment, an evil man can do a good thing as easy as a good man can do an evil thing
And before you even think of posting on the whole \"Evil is the easy path\" think of this is it easier to be hated by ppl or loved by them
\"Evil is the selfish acts\" giving somebody help will make you feel good and so if you do have money to give, giving it would be a selfish act.

So in the end there are too many ways of looking at evil good and neutral so, I decided never to really care for them (same with the different shades of gray (or grey)).

[Levski]

Erhem....  I dug this thread up because I wanted to share my views on alignment (views, its just my opinion).

I believe there is no good or evil...  Good and evil are just propaganda.  They are just excuses to make people flock to your banner.

Now Justice is real.  Fairness is real.  Rightness is real.  But good and evil are just propaganda.  There is no true evil, just someone who wants something awfully bad, and is an advertising genius.

That is why neutrality is the best.  Neutral aligned beings see everything as cause and effect, no strings attached.

The philosophical neutral sees good, evil, law and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. The middle way of neutrality is advocated as the best, most balanced road in the long run. Followers of this way can act naturally, without prejudice and compulsion.

Adapted from D&D 3rd Ed. PHB, pp.89

Besides, true evil can only exist in a world where true good exists, as my fellow guild members illustrate.

Good, and Evil, being defining philosophies, are also diametrically opposite, meaning they repell and attract each other. It is also their nature, to NEED the other to exist, no good without evil to contrast against. Neutrality is the common ground between the two, the grey zone, where evil and good no longer really exist, it is more a state of cause and effect, because good sees evil as bad, and evil sees good is bad, but who is right? Both? Neither? Well, the answer is both are right, and finally, both are wrong... because it is all cause and effect, to neutral eyes.

-- Myysst

Well something over neutrality or the \"balance concept\" I read long ago.  

It was the answer of a wiseman who was asked about the good and evil principles... The picture he used as an answer was:

\"Look at this mountain.. it has a shiny side with all the bright colors where the sun touches it.... and it has a shadow/dark-side which defines it\'s depth and contures.... you can\'t take away any side from the mountain ... only as a whole it is complete\" So he said that in a balanced world you have to accept the presence of good end evil... you can\'t eleminate one of them without destroying nature in itself. So being neutral and supporting a healthy \"nature\" you have to accept good and evil and have to see that their presence is balanced.

-- Manden

Just some ideas about alignment.

[Zetsumei]

Eh, I figure I might as well throw in my two-bits.

Personally, to me, the only way you can truly do evil is to go against your own morals, ethics, and conscience.  If you just blatantly ignore what your body, and arguably your soul, is trying to tell you, then it will more than likely be evil.  But that\'s more of a \"be in harmony with the world argument\" rather than defining good and evil.

I liked Draklar\'s definitions.  To me, a Lawfully-Good person is a Knight, a Champion of the weak, upholding honor, chivalry, and fighting the evil ones with a vengeance.  I don\'t like em ^^\'.  Chaotic-Goods are the vengeance-type people, the Robin Hoods of the land.  In the end, their deeds are beneficial to all, but it\'s not exactly very legal.

Lawfully-Neutral would be...someone who doesn\'t take sides, someone who obeys the laws of neutrality.  Chaotic-Neutral would be...hmm...someone who does what he wants when he wants, and is either aligned with no one, or has both good and evil alliances.  He\'s not evil, but he isn\'t good either.

Lawfully-Evil people would be evil by profession.  Typically nice guys you might get along with, but you\'d never want to get on their bad sides.  Sangwa and Draklar are good examples, I think.  People who have a code, morals, ethics, but are evil because of their profession, not necessarily their personality.  Chaotic-Evil people would be the ones to look out for.  Chaos, rampage, destruction, those are their main tools.  They do what they want, when they want, and not too many people like them.  A good example would be a thief who kills his victims then takes their money.

That\'s my take on everything, with the main difference between lawful and chaotic being following the rules vs following your own rules.

And sorry if I wound up repeating some things, because I only skimmed through the last half of the forum thread.

[TheRedMonk]

I agree with you Zetsumei, Im Lawful Evil and that is because of my proffesion more then for my personality, even if I can be evil sometimes like I was to Annah (...).
l just thought that the example with the thief that steals money wasnt very good because being a thief can be pretty much a proffession. To me, a thief could be chaotic evil only when he cares as much about the misery he is causing his victims that he does about the money. He just loves being evil and theres nothing but his personality that guides guides his actions. Please correct me if Im wrong

[Draklar]

I agree completely.
Still most of rogue-like characters are neutral-evil.
They don\'t care about law that much, but still don\'t break it just for the fun of doing so...

[Sangwa]

Actually I think \"genuine\" thieves are chaotic neutral, since they can be stealing a worthless pocket clock from a commoner in a momment and be stealing a famous jewel in another they aren\'t predictable.
Thieves aren\'t out there to kill people; they don\'t respect people but their objective is not to hurt or impose their will, just to get wealthy ^^ and be known among other thieves.
They do it as naturally as a smithy froges his swords ^^. It\'s their work .
That\'s how I see it , not saying you are wrong, thieves can be evil but they aren\'t \"genuine\" that way .

[Draklar]

thief = malefactor (not always but mostly)
anyway, nice description of lawful-evil, Zet... that would also include Aelya, Kwartz and Fiere I guess... So I guess you got it right

[Zetsumei]

My example was of a thief killing his victim, not just thieving in general.  Thieve\'s run the gamut, from chaotic-good to lawful-evil, with chaotic neutral and evil in-between.  Chaotic-good would be robin hood, chaotic-neutral a...petty thief, I suppose, I dunno, chaotic-evil being the ones you have to look-out for, and lawful-evil the ones who only go after the big-shots.  I\'m unsure about lawful-evil being for thieves though, as chaotic-neutral and lawful evil seem to be a lot alike in this particular profession, to me anyway.