What is the bare minimum level of decency to be Neutral ( not evil )?

[Conradine]

There's a character who knows with reasonable accuracy what Evil afterlife is and doesn't like it in the slightest.

That character is greedy, selfish and amoral ( although not a sadist or psychopath ) and, weren't for the afterlife issue, he would probably be a non-monstrous Neutral Evil.
But since he fears the Big Fire Below, he tries to stick to True Neutral alignment, doing the bare minimum required to not trespass the Evil line.

So the question is: in your opinion, what is this bare minimum?

[Dezea]

To be fair, I really love this game for those kind of question, who begs answer that are actually deeply philosophical.

And the fact is, the core of your question has been the subject of philosophical war for centuries. One of the most important question one would ask in the case of your character being "If you are evil at the core but try to hold back because of your fear of punishment, aren't you evil anyways ?"

Some philosopher would say yes, definitely. Other would say that you are what you do.

Does this help in the slightest with your question ? I guess probably not, but I also means that, basicaly, in D&D, since there is no true answer in real life for morality, your answer as a DM is the right one.

...and that kind of makes things easier, I guess

(By the way, sorry for my english, I'm french)

[Darg]

The DM is more powerful than any D&D God or overgod. Not to mention it's much easier to ask the DM.

Honestly the character sounds more chaotic neutral.

[Feantar]

There's a character who knows with reasonable accuracy what Evil afterlife is and doesn't like it in the slightest.

That character is greedy, selfish and amoral ( although not a sadist or psychopath ) and, weren't for the afterlife issue, he would probably be a non-monstrous Neutral Evil.
But since he fears the Big Fire Below, he tries to stick to True Neutral alignment, doing the bare minimum required to not trespass the Evil line.

So the question is: in your opinion, what is this bare minimum?

This character sounds more like a True Neutral character who would very easily slip into Neutral evil territory if any hardship befel them...

If we see this from a evil/good points perspective, there seems to be one very important distinction between the two. For good deeds, intentions matter. For evil ones not that much (going by the simplistic BoVD, BoED definitions). As in, there are actions that are always evil, but not actions that are always good. As such, if this character doesn't want to slip into evil, the best tactict would be: 1) Avoid doing clearly evil acts like the plague, since they are unable to repent, and b) try to find a couple of people they care about (as in, loved ones). The second is because they would assist this character into doing a couple of good deeds (as in, intentionally good, because the character wants to help them, and not to avoid hell) to outweigh the evil ones they definitely will do.

[Quertus]

When someone else kicks a puppy, does it bring a smile to your face? Do you delight in the pain and suffering of others? Do you answer "what is best in life" with "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women"? If the answer to any of these or similar questions is "yes", then you are evil.

Also, since you care about the afterlife, I think RAW says something like "7 evil acts / 7 [evil] spells" guarantees you a "toasty" afterlife.

So, afaict, for your purposes, your charter can be doomed by attitude *or* actions.

[Conradine]

When someone else kicks a puppy, does it bring a smile to your face? Do you delight in the pain and suffering of others? Do you answer "what is best in life" with "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women"? If the answer to any of these or similar questions is "yes", then you are evil.

Let's say that character ( I was thinking about a commoner or an expert, rather an adventurer ) actually likes the pain and suffering of others...
but he fears punishment so much that he force himself to avert his gaze and tries his best to not indulge ( too much ) in vengeful meditations. And refrain from doing cruel acts himself, obviously.
All that motivated only by fear.

[Zanos]

Your actions actually do matter in 3.5 land. So the two answers are 'did he commit enough of the acts that add points that make you go to hell outlined in Fiendish Codex II', which is above but I think most people agree are a little goofy. And the second slightly more sane method is, does he actively harm other people for his own advancement? True Neutral can look out for themselves all day and not be particularly generous, Evil only comes into play when you start hurting others.

[Yogibear41]

If he has evil in his heart, but doesn't act on it, he is still evil. He cannot change his alignment based on action or inaction alone. It's a lot easier to shift from Good to evil, than it is to shift from evil to good, or neutral.

[Zanos]

If he has evil in his heart, but doesn't act on it, he is still evil. He cannot change his alignment based on action or inaction alone. It's a lot easier to shift from Good to evil, than it is to shift from evil to good, or neutral.
As far as I know that isn't the case. You don't get The Big Fire(tm) unless you actually take Evil actions.

[Morty]

The lack of a good official answer to this question is one of the reasons alignment discussions tend go in circles and get nowhere.

[GrayDeath]

Now to answer this question one has to assume that you are not asking about a world where Fiendish Codex 2 is Law, otherwise it would be too easy to answer.


Lets say he always, always looks out for himself FIRST.
He must qwrite into his calendar "Save an orphan every Sunday"/Give Money to a good Church once every Month" to even remember it, that much of an Ego?

Then his easiest non Adventurer path is to find a local Good Enterpriose (usually but not always connected to a God God) and force himself to Do Good there once in a while, while avoiding ACTUAL big E Evil like the plague.

It will balance out, and he`ll land in a neutral Afterlife.

or

2.: Choose an Evil God to worship whose Afterlife is the least repugnant for him.
Enjoy being Evil to his hearts content.

[Efrate]

Being selfish is not evil. You care not a bit for anyone else, and do not go out of your way to help nor hurt anyone, you are pretty clearly CN IMO. You need to hurt others and/or enjoy it to get to E. Being unconcerned isnt evil. Not helping the guy trapped under a horse cart and dying is not evil. Laughing at him or leaning on the cart is.

[Lagtime]

That character is greedy, selfish and amoral ( although not a sadist or psychopath ) and, weren't for the afterlife issue, he would probably be a non-monstrous Neutral Evil.


So, right before we even start this IS a problem. If a character IS greedy, selfish and amoral....then they ARE greedy, selfish and amoral. A person can't just change who they are on a whim. People are who they are. And once a person gets to a point where both they and others will describe them as something: there is no going back. While people can change, it's rare and it's hard. A person does not just snap their fingers and change: to really change a person is a huge invested deal. A person can't just ''stop" being greedy, they have to utterly destroy the whole greed related part of their whole persona and then rebuild it as something else. And that is very hard.

A greedy, selfish and amoral person is just about always evil. Those three personality traits, alone are almost always evil.....and together almost always make a nice foundation of evil. Once you are greedy, selfish and amoral, there is not much going back as you are evil. There is a tiny amount of wiggle room where you can be like 3/4th of the way down the slope to be greedy, selfish and amoral....but your not quite there 100%. That character could still be neutral.

Though right here....right on this metaphysical edge....THIS is where evil lives to push and knock people over to the dark side. To walk of edge of 'almost but not quite greedy: Thrifty' and 'almost but not quite selfish: Self Love' and 'almost but not quite amoral: Questionable Morals' is a very, very, very, very narrow path to walk. It's not an impossible path to walk, but the twist is you can only walk the path if it IS who you are and it's YOUR path.

When it comes to alignment, there is no quick and easy mechanical cheat sheet. You can't just do "five good actions per day" and then get to check off the "I am good box". You are not greedy if you take 100 gold, but you'd be a good saint if you only took 99 gold. It's a whole lifestyle and is who you are.

A greedy person, by definition, has to do greedy things all the time: if they don't they are not greedy in the first place. But this does not have a mortal time limit like 'they must be greedy once per 24 hours", and is a lot more like 'how do they act all the time when money/value/ownership/power effects their life.' Though keep in mind the split between mortal rants and real cosmic alignment. A lot of poor mortals will just say anyone with any money is "greedy", but this is just a whine and personal attack. Alignment does not care what people say and is more for huge metaphysical concepts.

At the end of the day, the cosmic alignment can read your head, heart, mind and soul: it knows you better then you know yourself. You can't do things to fool it: it already knows.

So this does make the question a bit more "how does an evil character change their alignment to neutral". And remember this is hard. The character can not just "say" they are changing or take an act or two: they must mentality destroy who they were as an evil person and rebuild themselves back up as a neutral person. And they must do extreme things to change. For example a greedy person giving up all their money.....and. of course, few greedy people can ever do that, so they will never change.

So it basically comes down to a person leading a good neutral life. Keeping good and evil in check and walking in the middle ground.

Also note our evil greedy, selfish and amoral person does have another potion: Rule in Hell. Not ALL evil folks are tossed in the Pit. Some, those select special few, do get a Dark Promotion to Pure Evil. And many evil folks set their sights on being one of those special Evil Chosen.

[legomaster00156]

Let's say that character ( I was thinking about a commoner or an expert, rather an adventurer ) actually likes the pain and suffering of others...
but he fears punishment so much that he force himself to avert his gaze and tries his best to not indulge ( too much ) in vengeful meditations. And refrain from doing cruel acts himself, obviously.
All that motivated only by fear.

Normally, this would be someone's actions while on the path of redemption. However, that's not his goal. He's just trying to escape punishment, not change himself. I'd still call him Evil, but also self-deluded.

[Eldonauran]

For these kinds of moral 'dilemmas', I tend to look at it this way... Barring some powerful being having a claim on your soul upon death, your soul naturally gravitates to the Outer Plane that most resembles the inherent landscape of your own soul. You would, naturally, end up in the 'best' place suited for you. If you don't want to end up in an Evil place.... Well, you have to change yourself so that you don't end up there. That requires an actual alignment shift.

Now, as for your character that is pinging all along the axis of Evil, but doesn't want to end up there... Let's take a look at the description of Neutral along the Good/Evil alignments.


"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships."
It sounds like your character DOES NOT actually have compunctions (a feeling of guilt or moral scruple that prevents or follows the doing of something bad) against killing the innocent and is merely terrified of the consequences of those actions (fears the punishment in the afterlife). You want to avoid the BIG BAD place after death? You better start working on finding really good, personal reasons as to why it is not ok to kill the innocent, and start believing in them. If your character is incapable of actually feeling that not killing the innocent is the right thing to do, then do the next best thing... Start believing that it takes a very good reason to kill innocents.

[SangoProduction]

To define the terms:
Good - you go out of your way to help others and alleviate pain
Neutral - you keep to your lane, but have basic moral compunctions against harming others
Evil - you go out of your way to hurt others, or are so reckless and uncaring that you hurt others

The guy in the scenario doesn't do anything one way or the other. They keep to themselves. Solidly neutral actions.
They have motivations leaning towards the uncaring-Evil side, but it is moderated by the fear of retaliation. By much of moral philosophy, that's the way all people are. Everyone wants to be wealthy, and have all the [insert status symbol here], but we are moderated by other people wanting it as well, and them being willing to retaliate if we did anything they found uncouth or unfair.
As such, unless he's got overtly Evil, disdainful, harmful motivations, and so long as he's not jumping on every opportunity like a rabid wolf, then I don't see his underlying motivations being much of an impact.

Now, there's also the idea that all people are innately good...but [not forum-friendly example] and [*really* not forum-acceptable example] would be things that I would point to as counter points to anyone who tried to suggest such a thing.

[Segev]

Given that he doesn't take joy in evil acts, and even if he willingly committed them, he would find them at best (and at worst) to be a chore, he's not inherently evil. There's nothing in his makeup that needs "fixing" to avoid being drawn to a fiendish afterlife. What he needs to do, however, is avoid anything but petty evils in terms of actions. Nothing big. He needs to avoid causing harm to others when it's even moderately unreasonable to avoid it. I say "moderately unreasonable" because a man of his caliber will otherwise find it too easy to justify. For him, evil deeds are tempting because they can make achieving his goals more convenient.

By implication, he also takes no joy in helping others. There's not really an altruistic bone in his body. Any time he feels a slight urge to help out, though, he should probably follow it; helping others and resenting them for it may not qualify as "good" and certainly doesn't make your life any more pleasant. But since D&D's morality system is one where deeds matter, piling up good deeds can help make up for the minor evils he likely will commit as a matter of course.

He should cultivate being nice. It will generally cost him little, and will tend to make others be nicer to him, so will make his life a bit more bearable. While nice is not necessarily good, being nice will tend him towards avoiding needless petty evils such as pointlessly hurting others' feelings.

He need not be super-duper sweet and friendly, but he should at least be polite and offer a smile and a polite "excuse me, got to go" if he wants to avoid a conversation, rather than rudely brushing people off. That doesn't mean he needs to go overboard with it; he's not out to be a saint, so he can feel free to be a bit socially blunt if people try to take advantage of social niceties to annoy him. Just try to avoid being needlessly cruel about it. "I'm sorry, but I just don't feel like talking right now," is better than, "You bore me." And, "You bore me," is better than, "You're worthless and unlikable and I'm insulted you would dare to think I might entertain listening to you."

In general, he should look out for himself, cultivate the philosophy of enlightened self-interest. It is one that even evil people who follow it can get along well with good-aligned sorts, because much of what good folks do is optimal behavior for social animals, such as most humanoids and demihumans. Treating others in a manner that lubricates his social interactions to getting what he wants is short-term costly/annoying, but long-term more profitable. And will tend to keep him from committing acts of evil and even get him doing some things that outside observers might rate as "good."

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Just pay a Neutral or Good spellcaster to change your alignment for you, or find a Neutral or Good natural lycanthrope willing to give you lycanthropy. A Neutral or Good cleric may do so for free if you explain yourself and tell them that you've tried really hard to change, and you've altered your actions as best you can, but something about you is broken and you can't fix it yourself, and you can't afford to purchase salvation.

Alternatively, look for a helm of opposite alignment or other "cursed" item to do so.

[Particle_Man]

Alternatively, fine a true neutral god to worship, and get tied to that god's particular afterlife (not great, but not too bad), and get a phylactery of faithfulness (they are cheaper than a set of full plate!) to make sure you stay just barely on the neutral side of the neutral vs. evil divide, and also on your god's good side.

Or double down and become a lich. :smallbiggrin:

[Mechalich]

Alternatively, fine a true neutral god to worship, and get tied to that god's particular afterlife (not great, but not too bad), and get a phylactery of faithfulness (they are cheaper than a set of full plate!) to make sure you stay just barely on the neutral side of the neutral vs. evil divide, and also on your god's good side.

More generally, just find a greedy, selfish, and amoral TN deity and worship them hard, no phylactery required. This should be easy enough to do since there are deities that largely match up with this sort of creed. Waukeen, the FR goddess of wealth, is a fine example of someone who would take on this sort of worshipper, especially if they were in business in any way.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

More generally, just find a greedy, selfish, and amoral TN deity and worship them hard, no phylactery required. This should be easy enough to do since there are deities that largely match up with this sort of creed. Waukeen, the FR goddess of wealth, is a fine example of someone who would take on this sort of worshipper, especially if they were in business in any way.And after you die, you get to literally swim in money, like a certain scrooge of a duck?

[Darg]

I like Waukeen, I just find her promenade too well traveled by spawns of evil.

[denthor]

An animal is true neutral. They have likes dislikes for people. Attack anything to satisfy hunger.

DO NOT GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO KILL.

Do not target for pleasure or hated.

[Eldonauran]

An animal is true neutral. They have likes dislikes for people. Attack anything to satisfy hunger.

DO NOT GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO KILL.

Do not target for pleasure or hated.
Actually, animals are true neutral because they distinctly LACK any sort of moral compass (or ability to make moral decisions). They are, literally, amoral.

[Conradine]

In my opinion the most intelligent apes ( chimpanzee, gorillas, orangutans ) have some kind of moral sense, at a very basic level.

[Eldonauran]

In my opinion the most intelligent apes ( chimpanzee, gorillas, orangutans ) have some kind of moral sense, at a very basic level.
Once they get an intelligence of 3 or more in the D&D universe, I suppose we'll have to decide what kind of alignment they should have. Until then... who knows?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

What happens if you give a headband or ioun stone of Int to a creature of animal intellect? Does it suddenly have morals? Can it suddenly speak despite most animals literally being unable to? Can it read?

Enquiring minds want to know!

[Segev]

What happens if you give a headband or ioun stone of Int to a creature of animal intellect? Does it suddenly have morals? Can it suddenly speak despite most animals literally being unable to? Can it read?

Enquiring minds want to know!

You could reasonably argue that it could learn them, at the least.

[False God]

This depends largely on the setting. Is it a monotheistic world where there is a known Good God and a known Bad God and the associated known Good Place and known Bad Place?

From a ground-level perspective, the easy solution is to follow the rules and don't make a fuss. You're not doing it because you support rules, you're doing it because you don't want to be punished. You're not keeping your head down because you're timid but because you don't want someone to peer beneath the veil and see your dark predilections. In situations where there are no laws or no enforcers you follow the most basic "might makes right". If your 3 party members disapprove of something you go along with it because 3 people have more power than 1. (assuming you're all roughly equal)

From a god-level perspective things get stickier. The rules of Good God apply at all times, regardless of if there are boots on the ground to enforce them because the god can typically pop in and see what you're doing whenever they want.

----
Alternatively if you're in a polytheistic setting where there are many Good Endings and many Bad Endings and just as many gods, just pick the one that says "Don't be a jerk and I'll let you live forever on a grassy hill with all my other not-jerk followers." when you die, and follow their code. In which case answering the base question of the thread is "Do what that god says."

You can of course try the Faustian approach, make the best deal with the best of the worst Bad Gods in a great gamble to end up with a good seat in the Bad Place. Ya know, better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. You'll most likely fail though, but then again this is D&D so....

[Eldonauran]

What happens if you give a headband or ioun stone of Int to a creature of animal intellect? Does it suddenly have morals? Can it suddenly speak despite most animals literally being unable to? Can it read?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Well, the first thing that would happen is that it would cease to be an animal and instead become a magical beast. It would be able to learn to understand a language (perhaps write replies if it lacked the ability to speak said language). As for its morality? It would probably remain neutral in all regards until it began making moral decisions, reasoned responses rather than acting on purely instinct.

Im not sure how in depth D&D 3.5e went into the subject but Pathfinder 1E expanded on the dynamics of the consequences of making an animal intelligent.

[mindstalk]

There's a character who knows with reasonable accuracy what Evil afterlife is and doesn't like it in the slightest.

That character is greedy, selfish and amoral ( although not a sadist or psychopath ) and, weren't for the afterlife issue, he would probably be a non-monstrous Neutral Evil.
But since he fears the Big Fire Below, he tries to stick to True Neutral alignment, doing the bare minimum required to not trespass the Evil line.

So the question is: in your opinion, what is this bare minimum?

In your setting, who/what decides where souls go in the afterlife, and what do they want to accomplish/encourage?

If there's some Overgod that wants to police behavior, then avoiding evil actions out of fear is the system working as intended.

If your soul is drawn to the more resonant plane based on your desires, regardless of actions, then the character is ****ed, unless "fear of pain" is in itself a desire that would pull him to Neutral plane.

If the gods bid/argue over souls, then... it's complicated. Are there Good/Neutral gods who'll argue aggressively for every soul they can save, or would they look at him and go "meh, not worth our effort"?

[Quertus]

Let's say that character ( I was thinking about a commoner or an expert, rather an adventurer ) actually likes the pain and suffering of others...
but he fears punishment so much that he force himself to avert his gaze and tries his best to not indulge ( too much ) in vengeful meditations. And refrain from doing cruel acts himself, obviously.
All that motivated only by fear.


Your actions actually do matter in 3.5 land. So the two answers are 'did he commit enough of the acts that add points that make you go to hell outlined in Fiendish Codex II', which is above but I think most people agree are a little goofy. And the second slightly more sane method is, does he actively harm other people for his own advancement? True Neutral can look out for themselves all day and not be particularly generous, Evil only comes into play when you start hurting others.

Huh. Maybe I'm remembering 3.0, or maybe the SRD doesn't match the books, or maybe I'm just blind, but I'm not seeing the text I remember. So… it is arguable that 3e alignment is based *only* on *actions*.

In which case… just don't rack up 7 evil points, and you're fine. of course, most kids commit orders of magnitude more evil acts long before they reach adventuring age, IRL, IME. So, if your character has an evil nature, and any of the actions that explicitly garner points are ones that a kid could take, it's probably best to assume they've already lost before the game starts.

[Bartmanhomer]

Don't get involved in the conflict and mind your own business. :smile:

[hamishspence]

Alignment is partly acts, and partly attitude.


The "LE but with minimal evil acts to their debit" character might be expected to go to Acheron instead of the Nine Hells or lower. Similarly, the" CE but with minimal evil acts to their debit character", might be expected to go to Pandemonium instead of the Abyss or lower.

"NE but with minimal evil acts" is a bit trickier. They don't really belong in Hades, but they don't fit neatly into the Outlands either. Though they could end up gravitating to the Gate Town to Hades in the Outlands - the Gate Towns seem ideal for characters who are very borderline.