Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyy High
Lawful evil: Hitler, Stalin, any evil dictator really.
The four corners of the alignment system were always easy, it was the "neutralities" that threw wrenches in the works. Closest I ever came to understanding "neutral" was "whatever benefits me the most".
|
The problem comes when you see them as a 9 alignment, instead the mix of two values for two aligments.
You are neutral when you don't discard neither of the two opposites.
A good character won't do evil and viceversa, a legal character won't behave outside the law and vice-versa.
As I see t, you are not really 'neutral', but actually 'not definitely good or evil'. or "not definitely chaotic neither legal".
You can get there wither by not doing things (standing aside when you must choose) or by doing either things (sometimes good, sometimes evil), instead going just one way.
One thing I never liked of that system is that it doesn't take into account sanity. "Mad" characters are often portrayed as chaotic, but one person can be good, but mad, and do evil things without intention to harm. D&D cannot portray that in aligments.