Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scrdest]

I'd call myself good creepy considering I'm ussaly a good guy.

Lawful Creepy, maybe.

[AbstractTraitorHero]

Moral code? Yeah i guess i have one.

[highmax28]

Lawful creepy sounds about right

[AbstractTraitorHero]

Luckily my morals are not evil.

[WillowLuman]

Again I ask, where do people who have ideals, but lack the strength of character to act on them? People who consistently act against their beliefs because it's more convenient that way?

[AbstractTraitorHero]

I'd say it depends if in their darkest hour what would they do?

[GiglameshDespair]

Luckily my morals are not evil.

No one thinks theirs are.

Again I ask, where do people who have ideals, but lack the strength of character to act on them? People who consistently act against their beliefs because it's more convenient that way?

If they don't do good acts because it's easier to do evil acts, then they lean towards the evil side of the spectrum in my reckoning.

[AbstractTraitorHero]

True but i roleplay mainly good guys so that's gotta count for something.

[Harry Baldman]

Again I ask, where do people who have ideals, but lack the strength of character to act on them? People who consistently act against their beliefs because it's more convenient that way?

Neutral, pretty much. They prefer good overall (with a significant minority of highly unmotivated evil people), but aren't really committed to doing anything actually good (or profoundly evil) without additional prodding.

[Neonivek]

Again I ask, where do people who have ideals, but lack the strength of character to act on them? People who consistently act against their beliefs because it's more convenient that way?

Neutral, pretty much. They prefer good overall (with a significant minority of highly unmotivated evil people), but aren't really committed to doing anything actually good (or profoundly evil) without additional prodding.

I prefer good

Good isn't naturally heroic and a lot of good people are cowed into compliance even in the manual.

A true coward is definitely neutral as they are too hypocritical to be good.

[BlackHeartKabal]

Neutral Evil has no drive? They're ineffectual? Ahahaha. I need my home PC, I'll refute that when I can.

[Loud Whispers]

I prefer good

Good isn't naturally heroic and a lot of good people are cowed into compliance even in the manual.

A true coward is definitely neutral as they are too hypocritical to be good.

I love that one true coward rogue. He never said he was a good hero, and in reality he wasn't. All he did was make up tales about how heroic he was, how he slayed great monsters he never saw, enjoying in the hospitality of the townsfolk whilst robbing them senseless. Most amusingly he was sent to kill a vile bandit leader, that was in reality himself by another name - after an "epic battle", the villainous rogue was dead and Sir Coward became the town's Champion, its protector. The great luxuries in life were well enjoyed and nothing of value accomplished till the arrival of a fearsome warlord who wasn't visiting the town to marvel in its pond fauna. The townsfolk turned to their protector, who had kept them safe from bandits this whole time.
He nearly abandoned them to their fate, but figured he'd at least do this one right. They gave him heavy armour, a master crafted sword, and sent him forth to challenge this warlord for the future of the town. He charges at the warlord, swinging his sword - it is easily batted away and he takes a pommel strike to the face, knocking his helmet ajar. He takes it off. He lunges in for a great strike to the warlord's head, seeking to cleave him in two - and the warlord merely lunges through his open guard and into his silver cuirass. He is forced back by the blow and struck to the ground by the following hit, knocking his sword aside.
He's no warrior, no great slayer of beasts, no protector. He lies on the ground, bloodied and armour broken, he's bleeding to death. The people see their hopes and dreams fall with a fraud. The warlord walks past the fallen champion, victorious.
The warlord's celebrations are cut short with a dagger's edge. The cowardly rogue takes his dagger and finishes the job before giving up.

Good, Neutral or Evil?

[Harry Baldman]

Neutral Evil has no drive? They're ineffectual? Ahahaha. I need my home PC, I'll refute that when I can.

Oh no, not at all. The difference between Neutral (in terms of morality) and either of the two extremes is that they don't feel compelled to do anything particularly altruistic or selfish. Like an everyday person, not plagued by guilt or restlessness, generally content with whatever happens as long as it doesn't affect them directly. Somebody who finds things generally simpler to ignore than engage.

The difference between a Good oppressed peasant, a Neutral oppressed peasant and an Evil oppressed peasant would be something like this:

Good: life sucks, but you have to keep trying, keep helping, keep hoping. If we all did the best we can, you can bet things would be better.
Neutral: life sucks, but what're you gonna do? If things are ever going to change, it's not going to be because some dirty peasant said so.
Evil: life sucks, but what if all you need to get out of this hole is to step on someone? Works well for the people in charge.

As for ethicality, you could likely work out something similar.

Good, Neutral or Evil?

Seems pretty neutral to me, if only to signify how much of a gray area it might be. Really, it's a classic tale of evil turning good, sort of. Not terribly depraved evil, not incredibly shining good. Humble in both directions.

[Rolan7]

Good, Neutral or Evil?

Personally I'd say a neutral life that ended with a good act.
But then, my personal understanding of DND morality is that evil is sadistic, good is altruistic, and normal self-interest is neutral.  Altruism/Good being specifically selfless, self-sacrificing.  I think almost all typical commoners are true neutral, just trying to look after themselves and their own.

The books are all over the place about what "good" and "evil" mean so I think my interpretation is decent enough.

[Jimmy]

Robbing people is an evil act, enjoying their freely given hospitality is a neutral act, actively protecting them by risking your own life is a good act.