The most random thread ever!!!

[LT Sandpaw]

This is amazing.

[Rusvul]

It does seem contradictory but I would suspect its a character who does both good and evil things- maybe having episodes of one or the other. Although I think a term like gray character would be a better fit...

There's something for that already.

It's called Neutral.

No, not necessarily. A neutral character is one who isn't a member of any of the major factions in the piece. They might have an own individual goal or interest they seek to accomplish and aren't interested in the bigger picture/struggle. It doesn't really speak about their "morality" either. Now if there are only two factions-a good and evil one and all of the members of each faction are intrinsically good or evil then the characters who aren't members of either faction could be termed neutral. But I wouldn't say that the two terms are inter-challengeable in most cases.

   Agreed. A character that's neutral on an axis fits into neither extreme. If they fit into both, the system kind of breaks.
   It seems like there's two schools of thought for categorizing characters who are both extremes on an axis. Some people judge a character's "true" alignment based on their ideals (Terezi, to use Jet's example, has Lawful Evil ideals) while others judge based on a character's methods. (Terezi uses Chaotic Evil methods.) I'm honestly not sure which of these I prefer... Really, all it showcases is that the D&D alignment system is kind of terrible.
   I think having two separate grids for "Ideals" and "Methods" would be a good start. I think renaming the axes to things less controversial than "Good" and "Evil" would help too. (Altrustic and Egotistical, for example.) "Law" and "Chaos" are oft-misunderstood as well, and should probably have new names... More on that later, perhaps.

[Jetthebinturong]

I'd actually say Terezi's ideals more align with evil, but her actions with good, since she's a thirteen year-old girl who lives in a society which has been conditioned to respect and idealise violence and see it as a core trait of their species. Or maybe ideals good, actions evil, due to the many thousands of young trolls whom she's had a part in killing.

[The Skarzs]

This is amazing.

No, it's disgusting.

[Grond]

It does seem contradictory but I would suspect its a character who does both good and evil things- maybe having episodes of one or the other. Although I think a term like gray character would be a better fit...

There's something for that already.

It's called Neutral.

No, not necessarily. A neutral character is one who isn't a member of any of the major factions in the piece. They might have an own individual goal or interest they seek to accomplish and aren't interested in the bigger picture/struggle. It doesn't really speak about their "morality" either. Now if there are only two factions-a good and evil one and all of the members of each faction are intrinsically good or evil then the characters who aren't members of either faction could be termed neutral. But I wouldn't say that the two terms are inter-challengeable in most cases.

   Agreed. A character that's neutral on an axis fits into neither extreme. If they fit into both, the system kind of breaks.
   It seems like there's two schools of thought for categorizing characters who are both extremes on an axis. Some people judge a character's "true" alignment based on their ideals (Terezi, to use Jet's example, has Lawful Evil ideals) while others judge based on a character's methods. (Terezi uses Chaotic Evil methods.) I'm honestly not sure which of these I prefer... Really, all it showcases is that the D&D alignment system is kind of terrible.
   I think having two separate grids for "Ideals" and "Methods" would be a good start. I think renaming the axes to things less controversial than "Good" and "Evil" would help too. (Altrustic and Egotistical, for example.) "Law" and "Chaos" are oft-misunderstood as well, and should probably have new names... More on that later, perhaps.

I do not know anything about that particular series/anime or character that you are discussing so I can't really say anything about it. Since this is a forum about Redwall- I'll use an example from this series- since everyone on here is familiar with it. The character who fits best in the neutral category would be Argulor the eagle from Mossflower. He was neither in league with Kotir (the evil side) nor with Corim (the good side). He also did not appear to care which direction the war went or who won. His primary interest was to eat or get food- which in this case was Kotir soldiers. Nowhere in the book is it mentioned that he ever ate Woodlanders/ good guys, however Chibb the Robin was terrified of him- and Argulor momentarily mused eating him however he decided not to since it would take to much energy for such a small meal. Now it's unclear why he didn't eat woodlanders but it's possible that since they were familiar with Mossflower they were harder to catch than Kotir soldiers who simply provided an easier meal. I think Brian Jacques also portrayed or intended him to be a neutral character.

I would also argue that Asmodeus and Baliss for example, given their actions and motivations in the book, were more neutral than evil- even though Jacques intended them to be evil characters.

[The Skarzs]

In the adders' cases, they'd be neutral evil, methinks, because what they want is evil to the protagonist, but not advantageous, though perhaps destructive, to the antagonist.
Such weird terms.

[Grond]

Yes but look at Captain Snow in Redwall and the Snakefish in Mossflower. Captain Snow is known to have eaten many shrews and mice as well. He wanted to eat Matthias, the main protagonist. Only Basil's medal and his proposal of fighting and killing Asmodeus saved him. The snakefish gave Martin and co in the pit one day either to get him out or that he would eat them. Neither of these characters had any qualms about killing and eating good characters. They had the same interests/motivations, food, as the adders- yet they aren't described as evil.

[The Skarzs]

Heh. This is an incredibly expansive topic. It's like having something in extra medium or less medium.

[Lady Ashenwyte]

In the adders' cases, they'd be neutral evil, methinks, because what they want is evil to the protagonist, but not advantageous, though perhaps destructive, to the antagonist.
Such weird terms.

Chaotic Neutral.

[Lady Ashenwyte]

A kid in my class asked a Jewish girl if she likes Hitler.

My class is messed up.

[Kitsune]

..What

[Lady Ashenwyte]

I kid you not he actually said that.

[Kitsune]

That's terrible

[Lady Ashenwyte]

I think he's disabled so there's that.

[Kitsune]

¯\_(?)_/¯

Still.