• queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    That sure seems like chaotic neutral or maybe neutral evil. Chaotic evil always came across to me as being evil for the lulz

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 years ago

        True neutral wouldn’t harm others for their own benefit. Saying someone would do anything with no regard for morality implies they are willing to harm others.

        Good goes out of their way to help others.

        Neutral doesn’t go out of their way to help, but also doesn’t harm others.

        Evil is willing to harm others.

        • Zloubida@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Thanks! I thought that neutral was not being interested about consequences for others, but it looks like I misunderstood.

    • sparky1337@ttrpg.networkOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      I guess the only real argument is that “acting in their own self interest” is quite selfish and moderately evil. So I guess it comes down to the context of the selfishness that’s being exhibited. I feel like there is much more room for interpretation there.