[ SECRET POST #5953 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5953 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.

























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 25 secrets from Secret Submission Post #851.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[feotakahari]

I would call “helps people when it benefits them, and hurts people when it benefits them” neutral.

(Both Zapp Brannigan and the narrator in a Brandon Sanderson novel have argued this makes neutral people worse than evil people. That’s why I don’t read Sanderson anymore.)

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, if they're just taking whatever actions will ultimately benefit them in the long run without regard to the consequences, I would call that "self-interested" rather than "evil." It's not that they're purposefully seeking to hurt others, it's that they're looking out for themselves first and foremost and don't care about what happens to anyone else in the process.

I'd argue there's a pretty big difference between that and a person who deliberately takes actions to harm others.

[(Anonymous)]

I wouldn't call it worse than evil, but I would call it a different kind of evil and one that is going to really benefit the actual villains.

[(Anonymous)]

What makes a man turn neutral? Were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[(Anonymous)]

Whenever I think of this character type, I think of Mulder calling Krycek an "invertebrate scum-sucker whose moral dipstick is about two drops short of bone dry," and I get all nostalgic. XD