By the definition of alignments as laid out in D&D, yes, most humans are neutral (either lawful or chaotic). This doesn't necessarily mean they do both good and evil (though that can certainly be true), as this is a common and age old misconception of the alignment. What it means is, they do not go out of their way to do either. Yes neutral can mean that you actively pursue the goals of “neutrality” or “balance”, but these are the rare exception (and are more often than not, true neutral). And yes, you are correct, Good and Evil are meant to be extremes and rare (though common amongst adventurer’s, but then, adventurer’s are meant to be a rare breed in themselves). They are the people that actively go out and pursue the aims and goals of Good or Evil, be that in day to day life or in some more grand method.Xanthalas wrote:Thats kinda what I meant to say actually but that does bring up a question of mine.Sable wrote:In RL good and evil are subjective. This is not the case in D&D. They are "alignments" in the very literal meaning of the word, they are not perspectives.
Like them or not, they are the very basis of the game, so you can not change them without changing the game itself at a fundamental level.
But isnt thats the problem? the very words have failings in the definitive soloutioun according to english confines. Unless you refer to the DnD precepts in which case ((and my english isnt great so correct me if wrong)) Neutrality is the majority and any varience is considered extremism and or zealousness. ((IE most people would be neutral something. neutral good evil lawful or chaotic. rare to have non neutrality)) Which does make sense. But please correct me as I have always been a little confused of this.
Please note however, this is the view from the point of D&D, not necessarily Hala. For that, you will obviously need to look to the Hala team