If a True Neutral character allows the death of innocents in the course of remaining Neutral...

If a True Neutral character allows the death of innocents in the course of remaining Neutral, is a LG Paladin obligated to smite them?

another thread died for this.

Oh christ here we go. GUARANTEED REPLIES THE THREAD BUT I CANT STOP

Good: Generally does good actions to help others.

Neutral: Generally helps themselves, but would rather not hurt others. Most people fit here.

Evil: Helps themself, and are willing to hurt others to do it.

Lawful: Prefers Law

Neutral: Doesn't really care or prefers a balance.

Chaotic: Prefers chaos/no laws/anarchy.

If mr true neutral was a fuckwit and got people killed and is a danger to society, mr paladin would probably smite him.

user no

user stop

Gygaxian morals are fairly straightfoward user, if you are an asshole paladins will smite you no matter what their karmic barometer tells them you are.

No. True neutrals likely don't let innocents die unless to get involved would mean their own death. In which case, Paladins are probably too busy kicking the ass of whomever killed the innocents. That's all there is to it. Nice wasted thread.

Since this is dead thread. Should a game system have mechanical effects due to alignment/morality?

CANT STOP WONT STOP

I feel like it would only work well if it was the crux of the system itself

technically those balance of good and evil faggots are allowed to do pretty much whatever because gygax had a thing for that stupidity for some reason.

but generally most people will agree its retarded to think like that if you dont save people just to stay neutral and there would have been no inconvenience or danger to you in doing so its probably an evil act

No, letting die is not the same as killing.

>If a True Neutral character allows the death of innocents in the course of remaining Neutral, is a LG Paladin obligated to smite them?

No.

It would be like re-classifying Buzzards as predators as opposed to scavengers and then labeling their primary means of taking down prey as "spectating".

i fucking hate alignments

Well, what if they were at risk of becoming good on the karma-o-meter (N+) and needed to cap an orphan just to stay N=? I mean, if they become G than they lose their...

...

Why the hell would anyone care if their alignment shifted away from neutral anyway, even looking at alignment from the most retarded way possible?

Why is the Paladin wasting time murdering a neutral character instea of saving people?

No it isn't. It's a neutral act according to diverse alignment books.

alignments were a fucking mistake

decades of autists arguing in circles about pointless bullshit

Did Batman commit an evil act when he let Liam in that train?

Lawless people are no longer protected by he law. That's the old definition. This means that you can do wathever you want to do to hem without fear of punishment.

Let the clergy do the saving.
Paladins are here for smiting.

>Why the hell would anyone care if their alignment shifted away from neutral anyway, even looking at alignment from the most retarded way possible?

Since you allowed for "the most retarded way possible", let's consider druids.

In some sources, druids are required to have some neutral component in their alignment. A neutral evil druid who becomes lawful evil, or a chaotic neutral druid who becomes chaotic good, risks losing their druid powers.

>Most people fit here.
Nope.

>another thread died for this.
To be fair, that thread was at the bottom of page 11, hadn't been bumped in several hours, and wasn't even visible on the catalog.

The Paladin is obligated to save the innocents. If that involves smiting the TN character in the process, so be it. Otherwise, he's busy saving innocents.

For example a fire occurs and innocent people are captured inside a burning building and a TN character doesnt jump inside because his fear...
Yeah a paladin wouldn't smite for it

Blind man walks towards a cliff. Bystander can see it and does nothing. The blind man falls off the cliff and dies. Who is to blame?

The blind man shouldn't have walked there. This is what canes are for.