What's the difference between an evil and a neutral character? Both seem to only care about themselves...

>more ambitious and less apathetic
Boom. There you go.

>ambition is evil

Ambition and diligence does not make you more evil, it just means you're more likely to do evil deeds as opposed to just lazing around the house all day, being evil but not doing evil.

Imo neutral is you might want something, but wouldn't hurt someone else to get it unless you felt it was necessary.

Evil is, you want something, so you're going to get it, and if someone's in the way of that you have no problem at all hurting them.

Neutral doesn't mean you're some kind of worthless piece of shit who feels nothing for suffering. That's evil. You can be selfish and still not be completely blind to sympathy.

There is a turtle on it's back on the sidewalk. The good man flips it over. The neutral man ALSO flips it over, because how much effort does it take to flip over a turtle? Even a very selfish person has ONE SECOND to make sure something else doesn't die horribly.

Only the evil person walks past the turtle. "It's not me, why do I give a shit?" That's a mindset only for vile slimeballs.

In 5e you could be a devout Nazi or ISIS fighter and legitimately count as Lawful Good due to that alignment's retarded wording.

And you offend the merchant who now has to prevent their stock escaping as well as sell items, prevent theft of their goods, calculate how much they need to make on the next deal, etc.
Just because you don't consider turtles to be edible!

Alignment can be tricky, but I took a lot of time to sit down and nail this out for my blog, so I'll go ahead and link that. Hopefully it helps clarify things a bit.
>draconick.com/2017/12/15/alignment-the-good-and-the-bad/

Good characters will go out of their way to help people
Neutral characters don't go out of their way
Evil characters go out of their way to hurt people

Attached: batman-alignment-chart.jpg (1280x1024, 252K)

Neutrals care about something higher than themselves usually.

Neutral
>Me and those close to me before anyone else

Evil
>Other people are merely dirt to be trampled under my boot

A neutral cherecter wont give you oj after you brush your teath but will leave the bootle on the table where it can seduce you. A evil cherecter will ha d you a cup of oj and if you wont drink it will force it down your throat

Those both sound like someone who serves an evil aligned diety.

A True Neutral character is the kind of person who goes slays a dragon because he happened to be passing by its dungeon on his way to do something he personally cares about and it just so happens that the dragon's presence inconveniences him.

The way I see it:
A good character sacrifices of himself to help others, even strangers. He will seek out people who need help.
A neural character works for the benefit of his and his own. He will help others for compensation.
An evil character takes from others to help himself. He looks to others for what they can give him or what he can take from them.

So then the difference is that a neutral character is selfish, but not covetous. He might want something, but he doesn't want to take that something from someone else, either because of his ethics, because he fears reprisal or because he knows that, should others do the same, he'd be at risk.

I mean, if the only thing keeping you from murdering and stealing is the fear that you might get caught or wouldn't be able to fight people off if they found out you're still very much evil.

I would say the difference is between the willingness to apply your own agency into hurting people who don't deserve it.

A stupid neutral character might come across a bunch of suffering people and disregard their cries for help, perhaps utilizing the opportunity to enrich himself.

But he wouldn't be the cause of whatever suffering they are going through.

On the other hand, it is a blurry line. A lot of evil right-hand men or bumbling sidekicks to evil characters in childrens movies are frequently really neutral, but their inactivity in the face of evil, or the complicity in the evil of their masters eventually means they must either rebel or be condemned as evil for taking part.

This, but one thing that kinda needs to be said but paradoxically also does not is that everyone, in some way, is self serving. There is no totally self-less act. Even extremely painful martyrdom comes with at least a partial mote of self-satisfaction in the person performing martyrdom. This isn't surprising and every character of every alignment seeks satisfaction, either from sustenance, nobility, or gain, and this is kind of important when putting something simply put like this into how it's actually meant.

Good characters feel good by helping people. This is how they enjoy themselves. Their one greed is knowing other people are living better lives because of themselves, that they made a difference in the world for the better. Some people might derive more enjoyment from this and this may be clearer in some more than others, but it's still prevalent throughout most good characters. Good is Good, to others and themselves, so Good characters do Good things.
Evil characters will go out of their way to hurt others if it will make them feel better than anyhow else. Getting rid of a fellow guardsman because they found out about your secret relations with the thieves' guild may or may not feel good in itself, but this act is done primarily to protect the typically less than savory lifestyle that you have chosen. Now, you could be pursuing white-collar crime and human trafficking to ensure that your kids have everything they need to succeed, or to send the money back home. Motive doesn't matter because all motivations are a means to the end goal of self-satisfaction. It's the fact that you are stepping all over others to see your will be wrought that will, without a doubt, be evil.
Neutral characters seek these pleasures and satisfactions within the rules. Food. Drink. Money. Basic things, things that normal people want. Neutral people aren't without ambition or motivation, they mind their own business. They live and let die.

Attached: 1517251264245.jpg (1920x1625, 401K)

>A stupid neutral character might come across a bunch of suffering people and disregard their cries for help, perhaps utilizing the opportunity to enrich himself.
>But he wouldn't be the cause of whatever suffering they are going through.

More like if the task is more trouble than he's willing to bear, the stupid neutral aka. Chaotic Neutral wouldn't hesitate to abandon it.

Pretty much this. Don't need to over complicate it.

Not at all. Honest people being kept honest are an important part of the neutral demographic. The difference is that if a neutral person thought they could get away with it, they still wouldn't without good reason.

A highwayman might be neutral, if he's stealing gold from travelers because he cannot feed his family or himself. He would rather not do this, both because of the risk and because he knows it to be wrong, but he will do it because he feels a responsibility or need.

An evil bandit would probably do worse, kidnapping and ransoming the travelers. He isn't concerned with just getting by, he feels he has the power necessary to get away with doing what he pleases.

If the law was strong and strict in the area, the neutral man would probably hang it up; he can't afford to be thrown in jail. The evil man would probably instead try to acquire greater power to subdue lawmen or bribe them to continue his conquest.

It's almost like the 9-box alignment system is stupid, and serves only to fill empty boxes on a grid, rather than to actually create a model for understanding and simplifying the roleplay of morality and ethics.

So how does your alignment system work?

That's an interesting premise.
Where's the argument.

In the overwhelming majority of games I run, morality isn't a measurable cosmic truth, but a series of decisions and judgement calls, that don't always (but sometimes do) have clear right answers; decisions and judgement calls that the players are free to dive into the deep end of, or ignore for more loot at their discretion.... you know, like in real life.

This isn't your high-school debate club, or /pol/. Not everything has to be an argument.

So you don't use an alignment system.

As the old saying goes, he'a who don't play'a the game don't make'a da rules.

An evil person will expend additional effort to cause more harm to others, a neutral person causes harm to others through a lack of care

I'd argue Alan Shore, at least as he appeared in The Practice, is a pretty good case of Chaotic Neutral played seriously without just being "self-interested". He rather hates the legal system, but his own principles aren't quite consistent. He'll represent a bad client for the sake of winning, but bend or break the law for a client he sympathizes with. He can be self-sacrificing, but also cruel and prideful, effectively a workplace bully.

Attached: latest[1].jpg (793x1024, 84K)

>if the only thing keeping you from murdering and stealing is the fear
>Not at all.
>if a neutral person thought they could get away with it, they still wouldn't
Are you illiterate or just plain stupid?

Autistic Evil versus Lazy neutral

good- moral
neutral-amoral
evil-immoral

What, like make them your religion again?

Evil is not mere selfishness. Evil is sadism. If you’re character does not actively go out of their way to cause suffering then they are not evil by D&D definitions. Consider all evil outsiders (devils, demons, ect). They don’t merely do evil things because it’s beneficial, they do it because they enjoy it and because suffering is in fact the goal.

Attached: Alignments for Gordons.png (1340x2230, 277K)

>t. Neutral person trying to explain why no they're really Good.

People are not outsiders, however. You can't expect a mortal person to act in a way that matches, nor hold them to the same standards as, a being literally composed of a philosophical trait.

Ebenezer Scrooge prior to his visit from the ghosts is my go-to example of relatively "mundane" evil. He did not intentionally want to cause suffering, he was just totally indifferent to it. But by being indifferent, he allowed immense suffering to exist in his world.

That's why people are all neutral unless they channel the Good/Evil powers (see Cleric's aura).

Evil isn't just selfish, it's sadistic. They actively derive pleasure from bringing misfortune down upon others.

Attached: GoodvsEvilAlignment.png (669x315, 57K)

so cats are evil because they like hurting and playing with their prey before they eat them?
alignment system is stupid

>He did not intentionally want to cause suffering, he was just totally indifferent to it. But by being indifferent, he allowed immense suffering to exist in his world.
In response to both above. No.

The question here isn’t about actual, real life morality. It’s about D&D alignment. Good means trying to do the best for people, neutral means selfish interests and evil means sadism. In D&D Scrooge would be Lawful Neutral.

No because cats don't have the necessary intelligence to consider that.

That’s true in real life too... yes cats ARE evil you retard.

This is basically true tbf.

Neither, you're clearly mistaken on both counts.

You're continuing to consider the neutral specification in a vacuum. A neutral individual is not compelled by a desire to take or do harm; any more than he is compelled to do good. To look after one's own interests is not an evil act in and of itself; it's a matter of extent and purpose. When confronted with an obstacle a neutral individual isn't consumed by some sort of rote apathy, they have to make a choice the same as anyone else, but what motivates them is a desire for comfort and peace of mind, instead of a motivation of either justice and right or power and control.

Neutrals aren't meme centrists that keep a tally of good and evil deeds, nor are they randomly acting non-agents. They're just not intrinsically motivated toward either altruism or cruelty; they just want to get by comfortably.

>living for your own interests is evil
>serving others and being part of the community is the only way to be good
What kind of commie bullshit is this?

Yes cats are evil and water is wet, any other revelations?

>>living for your own interests is evil

no, but harming others for your own sake is

Neutral characters don't generally dick other people over for their own benefit.

Stupid then, seeing as you keep arguing against something no one said.