“i don't understand what precludes a good neutral evil”

@Lady Desire to control others vs. Desire to improve the lives of others.

Various forms of authoritarian paternalism can be Evil Neutral Good or Evil Lawful Good (or probably Evil Chaotic Good, but I can't think of what specifics that would mean right now). ("Desire to control others in order to improve the lives of others", specific details depend on the flavor.)

... I'm not sure what Good Neutral Evil would be.

@gaditb so you think what distinguishes good (d&d alignment) from evil (d&d alignment) is ends and not means

@gaditb under your definitions, the good neutral evil character understands that material conditions are such that their aims are most achievable when people work together in solidarity over shared mutual interest. they do not care about “helping people” in the abstract, but materially, they believe that a mass perspective will do better for them than a perspective of individualism and manipulation. it so happens that a mass perspective is also, materially, what is best for people in general

does it really matter whether you are organizing a union because you are a disempowered worker who wants more power, or if you are organizing a union because you want what is best for society? in the end, disempowered workers getting more power IS what is best for society

@Lady Well, I think that morality is judged in terms of individual actions (however you divide up behavior into separate actions), not inherent traits. I did say "desire", but I think I meant more "acts in ways that produce as an end-result". ("... on a regular basis", for [person] is [alignment]. If the pattern reccurs enough, you can assume it's probably deliberate.)

I'm not sure if I buy the whole "ends/means" separation, as a general thing. You do stuff, and the outcome is a particular situation that is both the end-result and the world that exists after you've taken the means to get there. The specifics of how you did it are part of that outcome. "Somebody grabbed a magic rock with the power of the gods and wished out a restructuring of society" is going to impact how that society plays out (e.g., people now dealing with "one person took and used all that power to individually shape all of our lives" as a political reality).

@Lady I'd just classify that character as sdam Neutral Good, honestly. Selfishness isn't Evil, imo (not by the definitions I gave, at least), and if the character decides their best choice for their own selfish interests is to do things that improve the lives of other people, then they're doing Good and they're Good.

@gaditb but actions which "control others" and "improve the lives of others" aren't mutually exclusive, and in fact every lawful character has an aim of controlling others regardless of alignment

it sounds like you want to say that if it improves the lives of others at all, it is good, and it's only evil if it never does, and i don't think that's a balanced framing

@Lady Oh! no yeah, I was simply Cheating and not actually defining them as opposites. I think I assumed you were doing that too?-- I don't know if I understand how you were thinking of Good Lawful Evil fitting as something coherent with them as real opposites.

So an action can be both, by my definitions! (As a particularly strong example, I'm sure SOME individual actions as part of some specific person's implementation/experience of ABA have been helpful/life-improving for them.)

(I'm not... TOTALLY sure that Lawful implies an aim to control. It could be an aim to structure, systematize, and make consistent. Not necessarily to do those to other people and their behavior. Maybe?)

@gaditb see the question which started this discussion was what alignment i pick for my baldur's gate character so i needed a definite answer

(i wasn't framing good and evil as non-opposites i was just using them with multiple meanings; the adjectival “good/evil” was morally good/evil, while the nominal “good/evil” was good/evil according to the d&d alignment system; i do not equivalate these)

@Lady @gaditb hmm, then i would say that I do not understand how a person who cares only about their own benefit, caring nothing (positively or negatively) about other people or any other principle seems (this is how 2e describes neutral evil characters) could be morally good.

@alyssa @gaditb oh because i don't believe moral good is a property of people but of actions and systems, and the actions and systems which provide the most benefit for the oppressed happen to be (perhaps definitionally?) good ones