Refusing to heal the overtly evil is evil?

[lonnarin]

Hey, ultimately it is your quest and your decision and I can respect that, even if I dont agree with it.

But one thing is for certain.  Never before has a paltry ONE point of alignment shift been so rigorously debated with so many paragraphs.  For that we have attained major nerd pwnage.

*suddenly realizes why he hasn't had a date in 5 years, heheh*

[Weeblie]

Some matters can just be debated so strongly...

Politics... Religion... and now Alignments.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

At least you forum lurkers didn't get my IRC rant. Whew!

[Hellblazer]

The dark elf would not have been able to scream that (unconcious?).

 
 The only problem in this case is that there was three others dark elf guard, in the same place as we were. So the others could have .

[Weeblie]

The only problem in this case is that there was three others dark elf guard, in the same place as we were. So the others could have .

"... so their ensured death would likely have been as a result of other dark elves snooping on the people doing this most strange act of compassion ..." :p

[Nehetsrev]

Bah I say!  A clever group of do-gooders would have done the following:

The one that struck the darkelf woman would have barked out an order to one of the members of the group of the opposite gender, as though ordering an inferior slave, to drag away the body and clean up the mess that was just made.  Once out of sight, those posing as 'slaves' would have attempted to heal the dying woman, and also adaquately bound and gagged her, leaving her in a well hidden spot to be found later, or alternatively leaving the darkelf in the care of the other members of the party that had stayed behind.  The party of good-hearted adventurers thus can go on with clean conscience and minimal risk of discovery.

Or something like that...

 Hehehehe.

[lonnarin]

And the chaotic neutral rogue could quietly doubleback to stab the stabilized dark elf once the party was all feeling good about themselves two blocks away.  Win/win situation for all!

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

The only good dark elf is a dead dark elf.

[Link092]

The only good dark elf is a dead dark elf.

Hear hear! A man of well spoken words!


*Grins*

[Gulnyr]

I'd like to toss out an opinion because I am apparently temporarily too stupid to just keep it to myself.  

The way I have always understood the alignment system is that it is an objective system.  Actions that can bear on a character's alignment should be considered without consideration of the circumstances.  What that means as far as the main example used here (and the dispute thread it comes from) is that Good characters chose to act Neutral to avoid more trouble, thus earning a shift in alignment away from Good.  

The thing that differentiates a hero from a normal citizen is the willingness to take action.  Similarly, the average commoner might be a good person but isn't Good because he lacks the courage to take action and be Good.  Good is the conviction to actively do Good things, and Evil the conviction to actively do Evil things.  This is from the 3.0 PHB, with parts bolded by me:

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and concern for the dignity of sentient beings.  Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

People who are Neutral with respect to Good and Evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.  Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.  A Neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.

So, clearly, being Good or Evil (or Lawful or Chaotic) is about actively being that alignment, not just thinking the thoughts.  A character has to do Good to be Good.  Again, in the case mentioned in this thread, the characters did not want to make the sacrifice to help another sentient (and blow their cover), so they acted Neutral.  There aren't "Neutral points," no, but if someone acts Neutral rather than Good, should he not move toward Neutral?  Maybe it would have been totally stupid to do the Good thing in that situation, but that doesn't mean the action was somehow still Good despite being objectively not Good.  An important thing to remember is that no character is expected to be 100% Good or Chaotic or whatever; every character does things that are not in perfect accord with his alignment letters from time to time.

The alignment system is based upon that the closer you come to the edges, the more difficult will it be to sway your alignment further in that direction. It comes to a point when "what you did was expected of you".

An easy way to see why it is so? Well... otherwise, everyone would end up as 50/50, 100/0, 100/100, 0/100 or some other similar combo. Those with slight tendencies towards one direction would, after a short time, accumulate enough points to "bottom"/"roof" the axis.

Now, to the last paragraph there, before I move on to the rest, I say, "Who cares?"  What difference do the numbers make?  None, because there is no standard for handing out alignment points.

As I said above, the alignment system is objective, not subjective.  Good is Good and Evil is Evil.  The circumstances - external or internal - shouldn't be considered.  Just like it doesn't matter if a person bleeding to death is a dark elf or an old human lady, it also doesn't matter that a character is Good or Evil.  If a character performs a Good act, he should earn Good points.

"What was expected" should not enter the equation.  I understand the concept, but the system is actually not designed that way; it's designed to have lots of actions averaged together to produce the final number.  If all actions were taken into account and alignment points distributed more commonly, then every Good character, for example, would have more than enough chances to gain Evil points for certain actions, thus helping to balance the numbers so that everyone would not have alignment numbers on the ends of the scales without really, truly striving to play the epitome of whatever alignment.  That is the real problem, that alignment points are handed out rarely rather than commonly.  If points were being tossed about more freely, the numbers on the character sheet would then matter because they would more accurately reflect the actual alignment level of the character; until and unless alignment points being handed out becomes a regular thing, the numbers themselves will remain meaningless.

Also, alignment points are a sort of reward (as well as a consequence for certain actions).  Players like to be rewarded for good roleplaying, and alignment points are a way to do it.  Jennara has been given three Good points during the time I've played her - one for the Rohden relief effort beginning, and two for returning to Highpass Fort to pay for damages inadvertently caused by party actions.  I really like having those points because I feel like Jennara really earned them, and that I earned them for good roleplaying.  Should she have never been awarded the points because Good was expected of her?  That's weird, and it also removes a very nice (if ultimately pointless) reward for the RP.

There are at least three problems with handing out lots of points.  First, there would be more disputes and complaints if people were getting points they didn't think they deserved, so a lot of situations would be getting review.  Second, a few people would probably try to take advantage of the system to take a back door to an alignment that would otherwise be restricted to them, so new rules and guidelines and all that mess would have to be put in place, which is just not worth it.  Third, for practical reasons, it might only see a lot of action on quests, meaning a lot of actions done between quests and without DM supervision would be ignored, and a lot of alignment stuff happens then.  Think of all the Good characters out there slaughtering sentient life they could otherwise avoid...

Right, enough out of me.

[Weeblie]

The alignment system is much more complex than to say Good is Good and Evil is Evil. If the circumstances are not considered (i.e. the different parts of the circumstances are not weighted against each other), then you have some very serious conflicts. For example: "You are killing an innocent child (someone good)." vs "You are killing a dark elf."

If one follows the "usual common sense" about the alignments used in layo itself, then there is a conflict. But strictling following the PHB guidelines, I agree that there are none (in this particular case). Because:

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

As for alignment points beind used as rewards. Yes... well... heh... indeed. I personally find them as an excellent tool to do that too. I'm more than agreeing on that Jennara deserves those points, but being good already, would you be very comfortable of being awarded good points for some vague "generally good behaviour" rather than the two much clearer cases of doing something good? Granted, the events she was awarded for most likely took months instead of minutes, but they were still very specific cases of "because of this, you got that".

I consider the "pattern behaviour" to be expected to follow the "current alignment" of one's character and only use that analysis to do a shift if the "pattern alignment" is found to be greatly different from a character's "current alignment". Otherwise, it is the events that I think should be judge of a shift. It could be a short term event (running forward and killing the kind king)... or a long term one (making a deal with a Corathite high priestess in order to secure some large sum of money for yourself).

[Gulnyr]

Were you not arguing a few posts back that the alignment system should not consider circumstances?  And now you are saying circumstances should be considered?  That's very confusing.  

Also, your examples are vague, and I'm not seeing a conflict.  Was the child attacked directly with little explanation, or was it collateral damage during an attack on a town, maybe?  What did the dark elf do?  Just live?  "Killing" alone doesn't carry enough meaning to show the alignment.  The PHB even adds more text to show what it means, and if killing, period, were Evil, then there would never, ever be any Good characters in any campaign.  Killing to kill is Evil, but killing in true* self defense is alignment-void, meaning it doesn't cause any shift in alignment; the character is just reacting naturally to a threat.  This is why I agree with you (just not for your reason) that those of Neutral alignment on the quest should not have been moved toward Evil; the act of killing was apparently defensive, first of all, and Neutral characters aren't obligated to help people they don't know.  The Good characters, on the other hand, didn't help a stranger and risk themselves, thus acting Neutral rather than Good.

would you be very comfortable of being awarded good points for some vague "generally good behaviour" rather than the two much clearer cases of doing something good?

No, but neither would I appreciate having an Evil consequence point tacked on randomly when I could not expect a randomly attached Good reward point when the two situations were approximately of equal "value."  If it takes X effort to lose a Good point, it should take a similar effort to gain one.  If I should earn an Evil point, I want that Evil to be equal in value to the Good of the Good point.  A character's position on the alignment scale is irrelevant.  Alignment points are handed out rarely (in my experience, anyway, though I know some people have asked for them after quests and had them granted for this action or that because, hey, the numbers don't matter and neither do the points, really), so there is no reason to expect that the next time a similar situation arises that any Good character would be given an Evil point while an NPC bleeds, or that any Good act will be rewarded with a Good point.  

I don't know who the dark elf who died on the quest was, important noble or nobody commoner.  It doesn't really matter.  Objectively, people are people and Good characters should generally act to help them.  It doesn't matter who she was because the actions (or lack thereof) of the Good characters were Neutral, and the "Neutral point" seems deserved.  But imagine the same Good characters are on another quest and do something actually a little worse and closer to Evil, and then aren't given any Evil points.  That's what I mean by "random" above.  They could let a nobody commoner die today and get an alignment hit for it, then turn around tomorrow and do something worse to a prominent community leader and suffer no alignment point consequences despite it being both objectively and subjectively "worse."

Think of this from a different angle.  We all know that no character is ever 100% toward any alignment.  Even though the numbers really don't matter, just for this example let's pretend the 85 on a Good character's sheet is "typical."  Then look at it like a crafting roll.  85% of the time, the character does Good things.  15% of the time, the character does things that could be Neutral or Evil.  That is what is expected, not absolute and unwavering perfection in adherence to the alignment letters.  To "punish" a Good character with an Evil point when she can be expected to do Neutral things from time to time but not "reward" her with a Good point when she does the Good things she is also expected to do seems wrong.  I'm just saying it shouldn't be harder to go one way than the other.  A Good act is a Good act no matter who does it.  

I know the argument about it being easier to fall off the pedestal than stay on it, but I don't buy it.  First, it is always stated in just that way, that it's easier to slide into evil than do good.  No one ever says it's easier to slide into good than be evil.  I'm not even sure that makes sense, so it's good no one says it.  Notice that I didn't capitalize the words.  That's because this concept is rooted in the real world ideas of good and evil, not game system ideas of Good and Evil.  They are different things.

Besides all that, if points are withheld from those whose alignments are similar to the action ("You don't get a Good point because you are already Good, so it was expected."), then it becomes a system of easy punishment distribution with few rewards that are hard to gain.  Players should not only have consequences for acting outside their characters' alignments, but should have rewards for acting within them, too, without the need for extra effort.  Neither punishments nor rewards should be too easy or too hard to gain.  Hand out points, sure, but hand them out as both punishment and reward without bias.

One problem with the "deserve" question ("Does this character deserve a small alignment shift?") is that alignment points have no value.  How can you determine that a character deserves one point rather than two or five?  More correctly, then, the value is determined on the fly with no guidelines.  Of the two situations where Jennara was given Good points, which was "Gooder," helping refugees and survivors on the islands or paying for an inn that burned down?  She got one Good point for the first, and two for the second.  Was that one really twice as Good?  I still like having earned the points, even if the numbers don't add up in my head.  Was letting the dark elf bleed to death slowly of the same value on the Good-Evil axis as helping the survivors on Rohden?  Both were one-point shifts.  Jennara has also gotten a Law point, for bothering a tomb as little as possible and convincing others to follow the rules they set for themselves regarding the bothering of that tomb.  Though they are different axes, is that bit of Lawful behavior about as much Lawful as the Good done for the survivors is Good?  They were both one point of alignment shift.  Maybe different axes aren't comparable, and that's fine.  Actions on the same axis should be, and they are, but there isn't any comparing done and no guidelines for how to determine the value.  That's a shame, because it would nice if the points did matter, though, again, there would be a lot of complaints, probably.

* I added "true" there because it's possible to manipulate a situation so that someone else throws the first punch and looks like the aggressor, though goading them into attack so they could be killed was the objective.

[Weeblie]

Were you not arguing a few posts back that the alignment system should not consider circumstances?  And now you are saying circumstances should be considered?  That's very confusing.

I'm curious to where you have found me state that circumstances should not be considered? Circumstances should always, in my opinion, be examined before one makes a final verdict. It's just that circumstances cannot excuse all sort of behaviours.

Also, your examples are vague, and I'm not seeing a conflict.  Was the child attacked directly with little explanation, or was it collateral damage during an attack on a town, maybe?  What did the dark elf do?  Just live?  "Killing" alone doesn't carry enough meaning to show the alignment.  The PHB even adds more text to show what it means, and if killing, period, were Evil, then there would never, ever be any Good characters in any campaign.  Killing to kill is Evil, but killing in true* self defense is alignment-void, meaning it doesn't cause any shift in alignment; the character is just reacting naturally to a threat.  This is why I agree with you (just not for your reason) that those of Neutral alignment on the quest should not have been moved toward Evil; the act of killing was apparently defensive, first of all, and Neutral characters aren't obligated to help people they don't know.  The Good characters, on the other hand, didn't help a stranger and risk themselves, thus acting Neutral rather than Good.

Agreed. The examples are somewhat vague, but that was on purpose, to reflect on that the exact circumstances (everything that lead up to the event) do have a strong bearing on the judgement, not merely the action (killing in this case) itself.

No, but neither would I appreciate having an Evil consequence point tacked on randomly when I could not expect a randomly attached Good reward point when the two situations were approximately of equal "value."  If it takes X effort to lose a Good point, it should take a similar effort to gain one.  If I should earn an Evil point, I want that Evil to be equal in value to the Good of the Good point.  A character's position on the alignment scale is irrelevant.  Alignment points are handed out rarely (in my experience, anyway, though I know some people have asked for them after quests and had them granted for this action or that because, hey, the numbers don't matter and neither do the points, really), so there is no reason to expect that the next time a similar situation arises that any Good character would be given an Evil point while an NPC bleeds, or that any Good act will be rewarded with a Good point.

I'm certain that you realise it's far easier to get evil points than good points, if you just think a little about it. It's really a no brainer to walk around and start killing people. The opposite which is most likely to toss oneself in the line of fire every now and then might work, but probably not for very long to make it really matter (one's character can only die so many times...).

Because of a core disagreement about whether the actual position on the scale mattering or not, a few of the points here is not very much debatable. The "almost equally easy" is very reasonable if the shifting is based on a linear scale, but is not if one accepts the notion of "being more difficult closer to the edges".

Think of this from a different angle.  We all know that no character is ever 100% toward any alignment.  Even though the numbers really don't matter, just for this example let's pretend the 85 on a Good character's sheet is "typical."  Then look at it like a crafting roll.  85% of the time, the character does Good things.  15% of the time, the character does things that could be Neutral or Evil.  That is what is expected, not absolute and unwavering perfection in adherence to the alignment letters.  To "punish" a Good character with an Evil point when she can be expected to do Neutral things from time to time but not "reward" her with a Good point when she does the Good things she is also expected to do seems wrong.  I'm just saying it shouldn't be harder to go one way than the other.  A Good act is a Good act no matter who does it.

Is a good character still good merely because he spends 85% of his time donating to charity and helping the old and sick, while the rest 15% he uses to kick random beggars he founds on the street? This example is heavily exagerrated but still suitable to forward my thoughts on the matter. Small variations from one's alignment and I won't say a word, even a greater one if it is trivial issues and I will remain quiet. But a non-trivial issue? Hmm...

The absolute and unwavering perfection to the alignment is not required but I am of the very strong belief that something that's too severly outside the alignment of one's character should result in shifts, if not just in order to auto-balance the alignments.

An easy way to see this is:

1. Alice had a neutral alignment 20 years ago, and has acted accordingly to all the points integral to a neutral character for the last 20 years. Alice should therefore have a neutral alignment still.

2. Bob had an evil alignment 20 years ago, but has acted accordingly to all the points integral to a neutral character for the last 20 years (for simplicity, he has acted exactly like Alice for the last 20 years). Because it's equally easy to get from evil to neutral as to get from neutral to good, and Alice has an unchanged alignment, Bob should still remain evil today.

It is of my opinion that Bob's alignment in this case would be wrong. I do not consider the alignment system to be really karma based and hence not necessary for Bob to do good acts in order to "redeem" himself. Instead, prolonged acting against his previous alignment is enough to slowly move him towards a new one.

One problem with the "deserve" question ("Does this character deserve a small alignment shift?") is that alignment points have no value.  How can you determine that a character deserves one point rather than two or five?  More correctly, then, the value is determined on the fly with no guidelines.  Of the two situations where Jennara was given Good points, which was "Gooder," helping refugees and survivors on the islands or paying for an inn that burned down?  She got one Good point for the first, and two for the second.  Was that one really twice as Good?  I still like having earned the points, even if the numbers don't add up in my head.  Was letting the dark elf bleed to death slowly of the same value on the Good-Evil axis as helping the survivors on Rohden?  Both were one-point shifts.  Jennara has also gotten a Law point, for bothering a tomb as little as possible and convincing others to follow the rules they set for themselves regarding the bothering of that tomb.  Though they are different axes, is that bit of Lawful behavior about as much Lawful as the Good done for the survivors is Good?  They were both one point of alignment shift.  Maybe different axes aren't comparable, and that's fine.  Actions on the same axis should be, and they are, but there isn't any comparing done and no guidelines for how to determine the value.  That's a shame, because it would nice if the points did matter, though, again, there would be a lot of complaints, probably.

Alignment points do have a phycological RP value, or this thread would never have existed, would it? +/- 1 point... or even +/-10 points does not change the alignment itself.

But you are very right that the exact "value" of each point is very subjective. You have one thought about it, I have one, and ask someone else, they will have yet another opinion. Direct measurement between different events generating alignment shifts can really only be done if it's the same person handing the points out in both cases (not even always feasible then).

[Gulnyr]

I'm curious to where you have found me state that circumstances should not be considered? Circumstances should always, in my opinion, be examined before one makes a final verdict. It's just that circumstances cannot excuse all sort of behaviours.

Could be confused memories on my part, or maybe an over-generalization of a specific circumstance that was deemed irrelevant.  Sorry.

[ycleption]

I'm also going to add in here, if you feel like your character has been given an undeserved alignment point, you can always ask for a point the other way in the next quest, assuming you have taken some action to justify it. Some DMs run quests with more opportunities for showcasing alignment, but if that 15, 50, or 85 is important to you, you will find a way to get back there. There's a reason DMs hold those little debriefing things, and it can never hurt to ask for an alignment point, if you think it is deserved.

[Gulnyr]

That's actually how I recall it happening - "Can I have a point of Chaotic for doing that thing to the guy, please?"  I don't have any problem with that, really.  The only issue is whether alignment points matter at all, and whether they should all be of equal value if they do.  I think it would be nice if they mattered and if one person's point was given for an equal level of alignment activity as another person's rather than one point counting for a great span of value.  If they don't have equal value, it's hard to see how they could really matter, y'know?

[Weeblie]

(added more text to earlier post)

That's actually how I recall it happening - "Can I have a point of Chaotic for doing that thing to the guy, please?"  I don't have any problem with that, really.  The only issue is whether alignment points matter at all, and whether they should all be of equal value if they do.  I think it would be nice if they mattered and if one person's point was given for an equal level of alignment activity as another person's rather than one point counting for a great span of value.  If they don't have equal value, it's hard to see how they could really matter, y'know?

"They matter for the one handing it out, and they matter for me (if I wish them to matter for me). For others? They shouldn't matter."

Edit: "They" in this case is refering to whether it is +1, +2, +3 or +4...

[Link092]

Just my two cents:

I would imagine that you would had out those few rare alignment points to push the characters alignment towards the alignment acted out. so your not necessarily being pushed towards evil, but to neutral. Another thing to consider is, If a Lawful good character does something neutral (good), give him/her a 1 point push in that direction, but i he/her does something totally opposite (chaotic neutral), that would reward(punishment) maybe 2, because that alignment is 2 steps away. Or maybe a Chaotic Evil character acts totally out of alignment, and does something good, Lawfully. I imagine that he should get 4 points, 2 to good, 2 to lawful. (or more, depending on the severity of the act.) Personally, I would award points dynamically, as actions should be evaluated in both aspects of moral and ethic.

As for True neutral characters, the best I can think of is to give them some points to put them smack center of the grid. like you all said, there aren't any "neutral points". Then again, you could always replace it with XP.

[Gulnyr]

I'm certain that you realise it's far easier to get evil points than good points, if you just think a little about it. It's really a no brainer to walk around and start killing people. The opposite which is most likely to toss oneself in the line of fire every now and then might work, but probably not for very long to make it really matter (one's character can only die so many times...).

No, I don't realize that.  If Eddy Evil starts walking around killing people, will he easily gain Evil points?  What if he decides to give 100,000 True to a charity just because and dive in front of poisoned arrows to save strangers?  Would he then get only a single Good point, because Good points are harder to gain?  

You stated previously that if you are near the edges you shouldn't gain points as easily in that direction.  If that holds, and we avoid the exaggeration I just made to demonstrate another point, then everyone necessarily eventually becomes Neutral, since it is easier, by your definition, to gain points in the opposite alignment.  This is like saying everyone is True Neutral and actually force themselves to be other alignments, rather than saying some people are naturally inclined to some alignment other than Neutral.  I think the latter is truer, though I do think many characters should be Neutral rather than Good or Evil.

Is a good character still good merely because he spends 85% of his time donating to charity and helping the old and sick, while the rest 15% he uses to kick random beggars he founds on the street?

Despite your exaggeration, the basic notion is correct, yes.  Since a character's alignment is judged by the overall average of his actions, then a character who does Good things 85% of the time and Neutral or Evil things 15% of the time is still Good.  Even Good characters are not Good now and then, and the RP is an important factor.

Small variations from one's alignment and I won't say a word, even a greater one if it is trivial issues and I will remain quiet. But a non-trivial issue? Hmm...

I never suggested otherwise.  I still agree that the Evil point to the Good characters on your quest was alright.

The absolute and unwavering perfection to the alignment is not required but I am of the very strong belief that something that's too severly outside the alignment of one's character should result in shifts, if not just in order to auto-balance the alignments.

It's the balance part that gets me.  You've said that it's easier to get points in the opposite alignment.  The numbers don't matter right now, remember, so NG at 80 is just as Good as a NG at 100 and will lose just as many Good points for a given Neutral or Evil action.  If that is the standard, then everyone drifts slowly to Neutral, period.  "Everyone is Neutral" is not the right balance.

2. Bob had an evil alignment 20 years ago, but has acted accordingly to all the points integral to a neutral character for the last 20 years (for simplicity, he has acted exactly like Alice for the last 20 years). Because it's equally easy to get from evil to neutral as to get from neutral to good, and Alice has an unchanged alignment, Bob should still remain evil today.

It is of my opinion that Bob's alignment in this case would be wrong. I do not consider the alignment system to be really karma based and hence not necessary for Bob to do good acts in order to "redeem" himself. Instead, prolonged acting against his previous alignment is enough to slowly move him towards a new one.

Agreed.  Bob should never have been approved for Evil if he couldn't play Evil, and a correction of his alignment is not a bad thing.  We are all expected to play our characters' alignments properly, remember.  That really has nothing to do with whether or not there should be rewards as often as punishments, which is my main point.  If you want to discuss correcting improper alignments on characters, maybe we should start building a standard.

Alignment points do have a phycological RP value

Yes, exactly.  If every alignment point given is a punishment for drifting, and there are few pats-on-the-back reward points, then it becomes a morale problem.  And everyone becomes Neutral.  And, to tie this into value and Ycleption's point, if some DMs are using them for psychological reinforcement of actions, good or bad, and all a player has to do to recover is a point toss out the tiniest notion of the alignment they want on the next quest with the next DM (because value is subjective), then the points also lose a lot of their psychological value.  This is basically the situation now, unfortunately.

I guess the simple summary of my points is that some standard would be nice, even though I know it is highly unlikely, and that rewards are just as important psychologically as punishments and shouldn't be overlooked for vague "edge" reasons on a scale that is already irrelevant because the numbers have no meaning.

[Weeblie]

No, I don't realize that. If Eddy Evil starts walking around killing people, will he easily gain Evil points?

How many innocent children can you kill per hour, compared to how many knives you can throw yourself before at the same time? How much money can you donate compared to how much you can steal?

There are strictly "per rule" nothing that makes it easier to get evil points than good points. But in practice, it's far easier to perform an evil act rather than a good one with the same "strength".

Easier to raze a house rather than building one, you know.

ps. Easier or more difficult is here calculated from the point of view of a neutral character.

You stated previously that if you are near the edges you shouldn't gain points as easily in that direction.  If that holds, and we avoid the exaggeration I just made to demonstrate another point, then everyone necessarily eventually becomes Neutral, since it is easier, by your definition, to gain points in the opposite alignment.

You cannot draw that logical conclusion as it would be very similiar to "it's easier to spend money rather than getting more of it, and therefore everyone is broke".

If we base on a "more difficult on the edges" system, you have:

1. People who acts neutral will eventually end up as neutral.
2. People who shows a general pattern of good will eventually stabilize somewhere on the good part of the axis, exactly where depending on "how good" he or she is.
3. People who shows a general pattern of evil will eventually stabilize somewhere on the evil part of the axis, exactly where depending on "how evil" he or she is.

Why would it end up as relatively stable? Easy... Consider two actions "kill an innocent" and "save an innocent". Assume for now that they are exactly the opposite to each other. For simplicity, weight the actions as following, based on the character's alignment:

Good: "Save" = 1, "Kill" = -5
Neutral: "Save" = 3, "Save" = -3
Evil: "Save" = 5, "Kill" = 1

What does they have to do to ensure that they will not change their alignments?

Good: 5 saves for 1 kill
Neutral: equal split between saves and kills
Evil: 1 save for 5 kills

So... to remain good, you actually have to do a much higher proportions of good deeds.

While this does not address the "85% pure good, 15% pure evil"-weirdness, what it does address is the later "I can remain good by only playing neutral, under a completely linear system".

Agreed.  Bob should never have been approved for Evil if he couldn't play Evil, and a correction of his alignment is not a bad thing.  We are all expected to play our characters' alignments properly, remember.  That really has nothing to do with whether or not there should be rewards as often as punishments, which is my main point.  If you want to discuss correcting improper alignments on characters, maybe we should start building a standard.

It was merely as an example on why I think a linear "all good actions result in equal shifts, no matter what alignment the character originally had" system has a few too huge flaws. The "you don't have to play good, to stay good"-thing.

Not meant to be applied on PCs in general. If someone was consistently and clearly breaking their alignment, then it will be really handled in an OOC administrative fashion instead.

The threshold tend to be very high anyway, as we do are aware of that DMs do not always have all the info about people's characters, certainily not as clear picture as the players' behind the characters themselves.