[3.5] Can "acts of neutrality" change a Good (or Evil) character to Neutral?

[hamishspence]

I ask this because I saw it argued that:

"Multiple, persistent, unrepentant acts of neutrality" should change a Good or Evil character's alignment to Neutral.

Is there such a thing as an "act of neutrality" which has such moral weight, that if done repeatedly, it will change non-neutral (morally) characters alignment?

I find the whole concept a bit baffling.

Mostly because (going by FC2) most actions by average characters are Neutral- few are aligned toward Law, Chaos, Good, or Evil.

So most of a Good character's acts will be Neutral- it's the fact that they do some Good as well (along with their Good personality traits) that makes them Good-aligned.

[Snake-Aes]

I don't think you can just "sum" the deeds. That statement covers a line of thought similar to "If you willingly behave as a neutral character the most, you are neutral". It applies to any alignment.

[Shadowleaf]

Indifference springs to mind. A good character watching crimes happen, but does not prevent them? It's not Evil, but it's not Good, either.

[Mongoose87]

What makes a man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[Kish]

Indifference springs to mind. A good character watching crimes happen, but does not prevent them? It's not Evil,

Highly, highly debatable.

I agree with hamishspence. Most acts are Neutral acts. Eating dinner is a Neutral act most of the time (not when dinner is alive and screaming at the time). Going to the bathroom is a Neutral act. No number of Neutral acts will make someone change alignment. If you're evil and never do anything good, you'll stay evil.

[hamishspence]

Indifference springs to mind. A good character watching crimes happen, but does not prevent them? It's not Evil, but it's not Good, either.

That's one way of looking at it.

An Evil character who "watches crimes happen but does not prevent them" shouldn't really change to Neutral if they do that a lot though- which is what's implied by "Neutral acts that can change an Evil character to Neutral".

[Erom]

I'd say that most neutral actions are of low enough moral weight as to be negligible. Most everyday stuff we do, like brushing our teeth and reading the newspaper, are both neutral and super super minor.

The number of devotedly neutral acts that are actually important enough to count worth a damn are pretty small, actually, so I could see it being possible but extremely rare.

[Heliomance]

Bringing balance to the Force?

[Snake-Aes]

Indifference springs to mind. A good character watching crimes happen, but does not prevent them? It's not Evil, but it's not Good, either.

"Indifference" is a little more than that. A neutral character that doesn't put himself at risk to stop something bad from happening is likely to do so. Someone that is perfectly capable of easily stopping a monster from eating <generic npc> and doesn't do so is likely evil(here enters the "complete lack of concern about others").



Regardless...back to the op: If someone willingly acts consistently as one alignment, someone has that alignment.

[hamishspence]

The number of devotedly neutral acts that are actually important enough to count worth a damn are pretty small, actually, so I could see it being possible but extremely rare.

It's hard to think of ones- resolving disputes between Good and Evil?

Regardless...back to the op: If someone willingly acts consistently as one alignment, someone has that alignment.

When a character does both Good and Neutral acts consistantly- which takes precedence?

[Serpentine]

I'd say yes, but very very slowly.

[Shadowleaf]

Possible examples-

persuading Good and Evil beings to resolve their disputes peacefully?
Passing a law that forbids unprovoked attacks by either side on each other?

It's hard to think of ones that make sense.

Neutral does not mean referee between Good and Evil.

And the other is argueably just being Lawful.

[Yora]

I'd say yes, but very very slowly.

In the same way as "stoping to do evil things"?

When a character does both Good and Neutral acts consistantly- which takes precedence?

This doesn't work. Any act that is neither good nor evil is neutral. Even the most good or evil character will spend the vast majority of their day doing neutral acts.

[hamishspence]

The Regalia of Neutrality mentioned resolving disputes (not always peacefully) as one of the traits a character in possession of part of the Regalia develops.

This doesn't work. Any act that is neither good nor evil is neutral. Even the most good or evil character will spend the vast majority of their day doing neutral acts.

That was my view- but the claim that was made to me was that Neutral acts have a moral weight all their own- that can move Good or Evil characters away from Good or Evil.

I don't know what they'd call "ordinary neutral acts"- "Unaligned Acts"?

[Shadowleaf]

The Regalia of Neutrality mentioned resolving disputes (not always peacefully) as one of the traits a character in possession of part of the Regalia develops.

That's.. Odd. I mean, both Good, Evil and Neutral characters resolve disputes - one way or the other.

Though I guess one could argue judges mainly are Lawful, I still hate to see them as the 'bufferzone' between Good and Evil.

[hamishspence]

The regalia were a bit odd- a crown, scepter, and orb, each of which affected the personality. For one of the items:

Evil- Character can only tell lies while they have it
Good- Character can only tell the truth while they have it
Neutral- Character must reveal all falsehoods, including their own, while they have it.

[Fouredged Sword]

I think the act of TN that we are looking for is an act of doubt. A good character that doubts his acts of good would slide twards TN. A lawful character that doubts the law would slide twards TN. A chaotic character that doubts the benifits of his freedom would slide twards TN. An evil character that doubts his need for power would slide twards TN.

Doubt is a corrosive thing, and it would take time and serious doubt to change an alignment, but I think that is the first step twards most alignment change. Very few people go from good to evil or evil to good in a day. Most spend some time in the middle figgureing out who they truely are first.

[hamishspence]

Isn't doubt a big part of some characters?

Just because a character doubts their acts are the right thing- doesn't mean their alignment will slide.

Not all aligned characters are self-confident with no doubt in themselves or their cause. A character could be a do-gooder, but a doubter, all their life.

[Yora]

But a good character would rather doubt that his good action was maybe not the best way to achieve a good end, than to doubt that doing a good thing was the right choice.
I don't think this system of good and evil acts is workable at all, even though some poorly written lines in several books mention them. I think alignment works only if you take intentions as the defining factor. Did a character help out of compassion or for selfish reasons, or was bringing harm to others his outright intention or the result of misjudging a situation?

[hamishspence]

The example given at the time, was violence in self-defense being possibly a Neutral, potentially alignment changing act, for both Good and Evil characters:

A paladin's problem in this case would be striking too quickly. A Tyrants problem would be not killing them fast enough.

[Totally Guy]

There was one time I was playing a cleric who was Chaotic Good and I was about to going to level up soon and have access to the atonement spell which be perfect for out not-so-evil evil party member.

I had been using cards for my spells to remind me of all the magic I could do.

So I made up this massively oversized card with Atonement" on it in big letters.

Just before we levelled up the GM said that he'd not been evil enough so now he'd be neutral... I was really looking forward to pulling out that spell.

[hamishspence]

I think alignment works only if you take intentions as the defining factor. Did a character help out of compassion or for selfish reasons, or was bringing harm to others his outright intention or the result of misjudging a situation?

BoED seems to go with-

for "Good" actions intention matters a lot (selfish reasons make "Good" acts Neutral)

for at least some "Evil" actions, intention matters not at all

for others, intent and context can make the difference between an act being Evil, and an act being nonevil.

[Person_Man]

Bringing balance to the Force?

Actually, no. From Wookieepedia:

The idea of balance of the Force, a central tenet of the Jedi Order, refers to the ideal state in which the Force exists in nature, i.e. as the light side. The presence of the dark side corrupts and destroys this natural balance, and the Jedi viewed it as their duty to restore it.

So bringing "balance" to the force was when "Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe." It was clearly a Good act, not a Neutral one.

Lots of fans (myself included) have a hard time believing this, because the word "balance" implies equal parts of Light and Dark existing in harmony and/or symbiosis and/or equilibrium, and in many "cannon" expanded universe novels the Sith continue to exist after Return of the Jedi.

Basically, it was just a really poor choice of words on the part of Lucas that makes little to no sense, and no one called him out on it.

[Kish]

Strictly speaking, the movies (at least the three original movies--I honestly don't remember whether the prequel movies did or not) never use the term "light side." It's the Force vs. the dark side of the Force.

[2xMachina]

You breathe too much. That's neutral.

Paladin, you FALL!

[Teron]

In my opinion, actions don't determine alignment (except when a player's actions don't match what he wrote on his character sheet, and the simplest solution is to change the latter, but that's essentially a retcon, not a realistic occurrence within the game's fiction); alignment determines actions. Some sort of change in the character's outlook has to precede a lasting change in his behaviour. "Acts of neutrality" (more likely, a decrease in good actions) won't make a good character neutral, and to start "performing" them for no reason is bad role-playing; a loss of interest in others' well being (caused by a bad experience, perhaps) will make a good character neutral. The actual "cosmic" change (erasing the G on the character sheet, and its mechanical effects) might wait for confirmation in the form of actions, but the psychological change comes first.

[Cogidubnus]

Bringing balance to the Force?

No, the Jedi still do good. Balance to the Force is simply because ALL people have Evil in them, so only by removing the ultimate evil can evil be less prevalent than good.

But I would say that preserving SOME balance is definitely Neutral, though possibly more on the Law/Chaos axis than the Good/Evil one. For example, an Urban Ranger/Sniper I made recently loves the city, but grew up in the forest. She wants to see cities develop and grow but without hurting nature, so she's Neutral.

[LibraryOgre]

I ask this because I saw it argued that:

"Multiple, persistent, unrepentant acts of neutrality" should change a Good or Evil character's alignment to Neutral.

Is there such a thing as an "act of neutrality" which has such moral weight, that if done repeatedly, it will change non-neutral (morally) characters alignment?

I find the whole concept a bit baffling.

Mostly because (going by FC2) most actions by average characters are Neutral- few are aligned toward Law, Chaos, Good, or Evil.

So most of a Good character's acts will be Neutral- it's the fact that they do some Good as well (along with their Good personality traits) that makes them Good-aligned.

I think what will change a person to neutral alignment isn't a preponderance of neutral acts; rather, it is a preponderance of neutral acts when there was another, reasonable, alternative.

Sure, it is "good" to give away your breakfast instead of eating it yourself... until you starve yourself. So it's neutral to eat your own breakfast, and not necessarily reasonable to give it away.

However, if you're a mid-level fighter, and you see a couple guys giving someone a beat-down in an alley, the neutral response is to walk away... but it's quite reasonable for you to intervene, because someone should and you can.

And once again, it comes back to my hero's maxim: We do what we must because we can. If you are capable of doing something about a wrong, and choose to do nothing, that is neutral (sometimes evil, but usually neutral). If you are not really capable of doing something about a wrong (O'chuul on the tower of Azure City, pervasive hunger and poverty), then doing nothing is just what you can do.

[Keld Denar]

What makes a man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Prepare to continue the epic struggle between good and neutral!

[mucat]

I tend to agree that, at least on the Good/Evil axis, there are not a hole hell of a lot of morally significant "acts of neutrality". There are morally insignificant acts -- as people have said, brushing your teeth, reading a book, scratching an itch -- but these don't reveal anything at all about a person's alignment.

The example given at the time, was violence in self-defense being possibly a Neutral, potentially alignment changing act, for both Good and Evil characters:

That's not a neutral act; it's another example of an act without much moral weight, because nearly anyone, good, neutral, or evil, will defend themselves when attacked. If you use more violence than necessary (which will sometimes mean any violence at all, if there was an obvious alternative), then it is an evil act, gaining more and more moral weight as the violence becomes more disproportionate to the situation.

But no matter how many times an evil character is attacked and fights in self-defense, he doesn't become any less evil, unless he also stops doing whatever it was that marked him as evil in the first place.

On the example of a character who actively works to balance good and evil...this might represent an actual, morally significant act of neutrality. But good and evil are not symmetric, and trying to "balance" them often results in an evil character. (As an extreme example, back in Second Edition it was popular to create "neutral" characters whose ideology was to kill evil creatures if Evil was becoming too powerful, and kill good creatures if Good was becoming too powerful. i hope no one today would call such a character anything but an evil sociopath.)

You could have a John Constantine-style character who is actively neutral in some sort of cosmic war between between Celestial and Infernal forces, trying to keep either side from overpowering the other...but in order for the character to be non-evil, their reason for wanting to keep the Celestials in check has to be something other than "they're too Good". For example, if the decisive final battle will inevitably destroy the Material plane, then a neutral or good-aligned mortal might work to make sure neither side is winning. But he's not trying to balance good and evil, he's trying to save his world.

On the law-chaos axis, it seems much more possible to be "actively neutral" and work for balance, opposing both excessive law and excessive chaos. And in this case, a character who was originally Lawful or Chaotic, but starts working for a balance, would become neutral on this axis. (Or more precisely, as Teron points out, their actions would reveal that they had already turned neutral.)