PDA

View Full Version : Is True Neutral just a scapegoat?



Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 12:33 AM
Alright so in my party there are four neutral players and they all seem to just be neutral so they don't have to choose a side. However, they all seem to help everyone we come across and all seem to get angry when my character (evil) happens to kill some one is this true neutral? Are they just this way to avoid prejudice? It seems also that Neutral is the most common alignment in my party but only 1 person ever in my eyes true neutral.

Audious
2009-07-16, 12:35 AM
Alright so in my party there are four neutral players and they all seem to just be neutral so they don't have to choose a side. However, they all seem to help everyone we come across and all seem to get angry when my character (evil) happens to kill some one is this true neutral? Are they just this way to avoid prejudice? It seems also that Neutral is the most common alignment in my party but only 1 person ever in my eyes true neutral.

Neutral doesn't mean apathetic. If they didn't care about murder at all, they would more than likely be evil and not neutral.

Quietus
2009-07-16, 12:37 AM
A Neutral person in general will still dislike Evil acts, because ultimately, who DOESN'T prefer to have Good aligned friends over Evil? They're a lot less likely to slit your throat in the night and run off with your coinpurse.

Tempest Fennac
2009-07-16, 12:39 AM
I'd agree that they sound more neutral good. Regarding the murder, I would say that objecting to it wouldn't be alignment based (my logic is that most evil people probably have issues with needless killings in real life, but I'm judging evil as being "harming others for personal gain/fun" rather then the D&D-type of evil).

Recaiden
2009-07-16, 12:43 AM
Alright so in my party there are four neutral players and they all seem to just be neutral so they don't have to choose a side. However, they all seem to help everyone we come across and all seem to get angry when my character (evil) happens to kill some one is this true neutral? Are they just this way to avoid prejudice? It seems also that Neutral is the most common alignment in my party but only 1 person ever in my eyes true neutral.

They sound neutral to me. Depends on how much they help people, how and why, etc.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 12:44 AM
But being against evil is not neutral at all and besides i am not asking for apathy i am asking for neutrality for example a good person would want to strike me down after i killed some one not a neutral person in in addition a neutral person should not be the first one to object out loud to the evil character's action. Would a neutral person not say anything but feel however he sees fit. In other words a neutral person shouldn't rush to take sides right?

Pika...
2009-07-16, 12:49 AM
A Neutral person in general will still dislike Evil acts, because ultimately, who DOESN'T prefer to have Good aligned friends over Evil? They're a lot less likely to slit your throat in the night and run off with your coinpurse.

I use this reasoning when playing neutral characters. However, I imagine LE allies would be trustworthy.

Another thing I use to explain it is that good enemies tend to go much farther out of their way to "avenge" and all that stuff.


I have actually been wanting to play a character concept for two weeks now which I keep thinking of. Basically, a True Neutral grey elf psion who believes he has no place interfering in the careful balance between good and evil (PCs supposedly being important people who as a standard rule). Instead, he is adventuring for his own reason: To sketch and paint whatever he sees or encounters, be it strange human cities, the beautiful ancient cities and settlements of other elven clans, the wild wildernesses, or the hellish landscapes of the abyss. The reason he aids his adventuring group is that although he could go it alone (grey elf aloofness here), he knows adventurers attract trouble like a magnet, and also want to travel to strange new places. However, he would refuse to aid a village under siege by orcs, for he does not see the party's reasoning that the "good" villagers deserve his powerful balance breaking psionic aid any more than the orcs.

He would say something like "But do the orcs not need eat as well? This is how they obtain their supplies, and the workforce their societies are founded on. What right do I have to cause an orc tribe to starve? Would it be any different than keeping a lioness from killing a young zebra, for while the infant zebra might live another day the lioness and her cubs will surely starve.".

retkin
2009-07-16, 12:49 AM
Stop playing alignments and start playing characters. Killing someone is pretty far end evil, if you are not evil you will probably say something about it.

warrl
2009-07-16, 12:52 AM
Killing someone is pretty far end evil, if you are not evil you will probably say something about it.

Carelessly killing people, or pointlessly killing non-enemies, is not merely evil but Stupid Evil. (It creates enemies with motive. If you're evil you don't really mind having enemies, but you don't want too many enemies with motive at one time.)

Hanging out with such people is somewhere between Stupid Evil and Stupid Neutral.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 12:58 AM
But why would a neutral character go against reasonable actions toward an evil without knowing the story and lets get back to the point where they help ever one we come across

retkin
2009-07-16, 01:05 AM
They probably help everyone they come across because its Dungeons and Dragons and thats where the usual plot hooks are. With the EXTREMELY vague descriptions you are giving us we are doing our best. Helping people also usually has rewards. A good person would help people because that is the good thing to do. A neutral person would help someone if its not too much of a hassle and there is probably something in it for them.

The real question here is why is an evil character traveling with a bunch of goody two shoes?

Pika...
2009-07-16, 01:05 AM
But why would a neutral character go against reasonable actions toward an evil without knowing the story and lets get back to the point where they help ever one we come across

Well, as a DM I would have switched their alignment to good at that point. Unless of course they are also doing an equalish amount of bad/evil things as well. Then it balances out. A person who for personal reasons felt "innocents" do not deserve to die young (perhaps because thier parents died that way?), but at the same time sees nothing wrong with taking what he needs to survive would be looked at others as somewhere between a thief and a savior.


Personally, what I REALLY hate is people who play CN, but in truth are actually playing CE, since the DM had said "No evil characters". :smallfurious:

Redpieper
2009-07-16, 01:06 AM
But why would a neutral character go against reasonable actions toward an evil without knowing the story and lets get back to the point where they help ever one we come across

Because they want too? An alignment does not dictate the way you should play your character, it's a guideline at best. Besides there are plenty of reasons why they would want to help others. For example, helping others could feel gratifying to them. Making them feel better then the one they're helping. Since they're doing good to make themselves feel better, it is not truly "good" now is it, hence a case could be made for neutral.

There's just one of many reasonings they could be using :smallsmile:

Amiel
2009-07-16, 01:09 AM
Neutral, "Undecided"
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.
Bolded for emphasis.

As long as the the players don't actively preach or promote goodness and as long as the anger - preferable if it is verbal - does not escalate into physical wrath, it seems acceptable within the definition of neutrality.

Neutrality should not be synonymous with indifference or ignorance nor should it be synonymous with silence; your players can actively be engaged in a dispute yet not choose a side.


Following the Rule of Three, there should be three sides to neutrality.

Those that desire true Balance; balance between all alignments, equilibrium between Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, Right, Wrong, between action and inaction, et al. These are akin to the greatest Chess players, eternally moving and re-moving the pieces to react and act, and who check and balance and correct errant or 'perfect' pieces.

Those who see Neutrality as the only alignment, as the one true alignment, who view all other alignments as dangerous extremes. These are who seek to eradicate all other alignments as the errors they are. They are the most active Neutral force.

Those who see Neutrality as the culmination of all alignments. Neutrality cannot exist and cannot perpetuate without all of the other alignments. Good is without meaning if Evil does not exist. Law has no meaning if Chaos is not there to counter it. Neutrality is meaningless without all other to alignments to define and shape it. These are the most reactive force.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 01:09 AM
The Evil character travels for his brother and i agree with pika the should have turned good and as far as rewards go we have not received rewards for 6 out of 10 side quest in addition not one of them promised a reward in the first place. What usually happens is OOC they say Experience but shouldn't the characters not know about that

Milskidasith
2009-07-16, 01:12 AM
I would see somebody who objected to evil acts and helped people for their money to be pretty neutral. I mean, randomly killing somebody = stupid in the eyes of a sane evil PC, evil in the eyes of everybody else, and enough to get a comment from pretty much anybody; it's not exactly a Good act to say "why did you just stab a peasant who was just passing by us?" Likewise, it is not a good act to, say, meet the captain of the guard, go kill some orcs to protect the city, and then get all the money you can out of it; mercenary work is pretty neutral because the reward is forefront, and helping people is only a secondary concern.

Also, the True Neutral psion idea seems like it would be very annoying to the other players; lugging around somebody who isn't going to act is probably going to cause a lot of problems.

Teron
2009-07-16, 01:12 AM
Most people in real life are not good aligned by D&D standards (or particularly virtuous by most moral standards I know, either). Yet most people disapprove of murder. Alignment is not "us versus them", where neutrals aren't supposed to care; it's a continuum of values with, basically, "helping people" at one end and "screw other people" at the other; you don't have to be a hero to object to the latter, especially when they kill people.

Revanmal
2009-07-16, 01:15 AM
The Evil character travels for his brother and i agree with pika the should have turned good and as far as rewards go we have not received rewards for 6 out of 10 side quest in addition not one of them promised a reward in the first place. What usually happens is OOC they say Experience but shouldn't the characters not know about that

"Practice Makes Perfect" is a very universal concept. The characters may not think in terms of "Let's do this to get some XP" but perhaps "Doing this will let us practice our skills and get better."

Just a thought.

Pika...
2009-07-16, 01:18 AM
mercenary work is pretty neutral because the reward is forefront, and helping people is only a secondary concern.

Hmm. But what happens if it is mercenary work for the evil side? Say working for drow wanting to kill off a High Elf city?




Also, the True Neutral psion idea seems like it would be very annoying to the other players; lugging around somebody who isn't going to act is probably going to cause a lot of problems.

Well, of course he would act and aid his companions. Being TN does not mean you are emotionless (well, kinda), and even chaotic PCs and NPCs can be loyal (aka lawful) when it comes to comrades and family. However, he would just refuse to intervene in large and or important issues and events. Random encounters, OK. Dealing with a crazy wizards up in a tower, heh, he could learn from his spellbooks. Making a vital decision which either means the fall of a good kingdom, or an evil one never having the chance to rise, well that would not be his place to decide.

retkin
2009-07-16, 01:20 AM
40% isn't that bad, and we know you think they should be turned to good. You have been heavily biased and pushing you view point since you posted. Unfortunately the forum doesn't seem to be agreeing with you.

Alignment in dnd is a pretty terrible concoction anyways and if it werent for certain spells it would be best to play without it.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 01:20 AM
alright i see where some of you are coming from but take out the reward entirely and as to the subject of murder i am not saying it is good to question but rather to raise arms against an evil person out of impulse would make you good and btw all of the killings besides one had a reason behind them so it is not stupid evil but true neutral as i see it is almost always neutral good

Amiel
2009-07-16, 01:20 AM
I'm not sure why they should be turned to good. Opposition to murder is not inherently good. Heck, even an evil character would be opposed to murder if it interfered with its plots or schemes; especially those of a LE or NE alignment. And going to the opposite extreme, good characters do commit murder, well not that in definition, but they do kill.

I see no indication of personal sacrifices to help others nor is there of altruism, all basic tenets for any good alignment.

Saph
2009-07-16, 01:22 AM
Maybe they're not upset at you being Evil, they're upset about you being Psychotic Evil?

Assuming your avatar accurately represents how you play, it shouldn't be a surprise that other characters don't like what you're doing. No-one with a brain is going to want Richard in their party, not even an Evil character - evil doesn't mean stupid!

- Saph

Guancyto
2009-07-16, 01:24 AM
to raise arms against an evil person out of impulse would make you good

It depends. Risking your life against an evil person for a peasant who you don't know and means nothing to you?

That's good.

Doing the same against a heavily armed psychopath who presents a clear and present danger to those around him?

Neutral people are not corpses, nor are they spineless quivering lumps of flesh. Unless, y'know, they are. Neutrality is flexible like that. But they don't have to be.

Pika...
2009-07-16, 01:25 AM
And going to the opposite extreme, good characters do commit murder, well not that in definition, but they do kill.

I know.

I go to sleep at night crying for all those poor kobolds that have been needlessly, and so brutally killed in their own homes by gredy gold craving adventurers. It just isn't right...:smallfrown:

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 01:25 AM
40% isn't that bad, and we know you think they should be turned to good. You have been heavily biased and pushing you view point since you posted. Unfortunately the forum doesn't seem to be agreeing with you.

Alignment in dnd is a pretty terrible concoction anyways and if it werent for certain spells it would be best to play without it.

I take your point. However, i believe the alignment system to be great but you have to Fully Understand the alignment before you choose it. And did i mention the decision to accept these side quests was made knowing there would be no benefit other than OOC Experience but when discussing in character improving the skills of our party never came up

Milskidasith
2009-07-16, 01:26 AM
Hmm. But what happens if it is mercenary work for the evil side? Say working for drow wanting to kill off a High Elf city?

Mercenary work for an evil cause is probably evil; mercenary work for the good side is neutral tending towards good. The difference is that mercenary work for an evil side is doing a very evil action (killing innocents) for a neutral cause (getting money), while mercenary work for a good cause involves killing some CE race (A neutral act) for a neutral cause (getting money) with the side effect being you did some good.

If you were to do mercenary work for the BBEG himself, but the work was "hey, kill the ogres who think my skeletal servants are chew toys, would you?" it would still be neutral.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 01:30 AM
Maybe they're not upset at you being Evil, they're upset about you being Psychotic Evil?

Assuming your avatar accurately represents how you play, it shouldn't be a surprise that other characters don't like what you're doing. No-one with a brain is going to want Richard in their party, not even an Evil character - evil doesn't mean stupid!

- Saph

I really really agree with and am impressed by the richard part:smallwink:. However, i don't kill in front of them nor do i hinder party progress but still i am scroned because of OOC knowledge. In addition, The neutral character oppose evil acts that are not just murder that have no reflection on them.

Guancyto
2009-07-16, 01:31 AM
And did i mention the decision to accept these side quests was made knowing there would be no benefit other than OOC Experience but when discussing in character improving the skills of our party never came up

Well, it depends. Does helping these people involve beating the tar out of a large, powerful enemy? Does helping these people help these characters win fame and acclaim?

There are lots of reasons to adventure that have nothing to do with Goodness, even if the effects are the same.

Edit: Oh, there might be another explanation for why the Neutral guys are taking exception to your guy's evil acts: they may simply not like him.

Milskidasith
2009-07-16, 01:33 AM
Look, I really can't pass any kind of judgement at this point. You are being incredibly vague; "Other evil acts" can mean anything from threatening somebody to get more money to pickpocketing to raping your enemies, and I still don't even know if your aforementioned murder was stupid evil (Kill that guy we just met for no reason) or not quite as stupid evil (you got in our way and the fastest solution is to eliminate you from this plane.)

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 01:35 AM
Well, it depends. Does helping these people involve beating the tar out of a large, powerful enemy? Does helping these people help these characters win fame and acclaim?

There are lots of reasons to adventure that have nothing to do with Goodness, even if the effects are the same.

I agree with you there but one of the side quest was getting a werewolf antidote for the son of the female gnome that was poor and had nothing to offer

retkin
2009-07-16, 01:37 AM
Neutral people in general still favor good in general over evil. Evil tends to cause problems. If you want to do evil acts without their knowledge have private conversations with your dm. They wouldnt know in character and so they dont have to know out of character. If they act on ooc knowledge call them out on it. But otherwise they are playing their characters fine as neutral.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 01:40 AM
Look, I really can't pass any kind of judgement at this point. You are being incredibly vague; "Other evil acts" can mean anything from threatening somebody to get more money to pickpocketing to raping your enemies, and I still don't even know if your aforementioned murder was stupid evil (Kill that guy we just met for no reason) or not quite as stupid evil (you got in our way and the fastest solution is to eliminate you from this plane.)

Alright i can't tell why i kill because i have a plan that is totally reliant on the secrecy of the plan to my party. But i once be the crap out of this guy because he was trying to kill me. I can tell you that once i killed was stupid evil, i killed a little kid in the first session because i wanted OOC to see how much my DM would allow, but i have never killed in my 6 times of killing done the latter in fact 5 of the 6 kills were for the same reason

Guancyto
2009-07-16, 01:44 AM
I agree with you there but one of the side quest was getting a werewolf antidote for the son of the female gnome that was poor and had nothing to offer

Well, there's another thing. If you pat an adventurer on the back and tell them, "you're a Neutral man, Charlie Brown" they're probably going to punch you in the face. Even if you aren't dedicating yourself to Goodness, it doesn't mean you don't want to feel good about yourself or like the idea that you're making the world a better place.

A textbook "I am an awesome person for doing this" quest like that, especially if the solution is straightforward? If my schedule's free, sign me up!

TSED
2009-07-16, 01:50 AM
I take your point. However, i believe the alignment system to be great but you have to Fully Understand the alignment before you choose it. And did i mention the decision to accept these side quests was made knowing there would be no benefit other than OOC Experience but when discussing in character improving the skills of our party never came up


You don't seem to fully understand neutrality.


Many people have emphasized what you seem to be missing.

To sum it up:
1) You don't have to be good aligned to be opposed to people being violently denied their right to live. Maybe you need some examples?

LG, CG, NG: Self-explanatory.

LN: The rule of law states that murder is wrong. You murdered, therefore you are in the wrong.
CN: Hey! I liked him! What's the big deal!?
TN: Oh, that was just unnecessary. Why would you kill him? He just said you look fat in that dress, there's no reason to escalate the problem!

CE: You idiot! I bet we could've stolen a ton of money off him if you let him live!
LE: You moron! Now that we're criminals we have to be extra careful! And how am I going to get him to pay me that 10 gp back now?!
NE: You imbecile! Now everyone knows I associate with murderers, making me a suspect for a bunch of crimes! And on top of that, I can't blackmail him with these fake compromising photographs I had made up!


If evil characters can get mad at you for committing evil acts, why can't a neutral one?


EDIT:: 'Total secrecy.' Do you really think that your DM and players will read this, figure out it's you, and spoil your plans?

Sounds like you're being intentionally evasive so that your motives can't be called out on. Or your definitions. Go on, tell us what you think neutrality means.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 01:51 AM
Well, there's another thing. If you pat an adventurer on the back and tell them, "you're a Neutral man, Charlie Brown" they're probably going to punch you in the face. Even if you aren't dedicating yourself to Goodness, it doesn't mean you don't want to feel good about yourself or like the idea that you're making the world a better place.

A textbook "I am an awesome person for doing this" quest like that, especially if the solution is straightforward? If my schedule's free, sign me up!

I so Neutral characters help people because it feels good to them. But please elaborate on the Charlie Brown part. And i will give you another example we helped a farmer who wanted to win the biggest fruit contest he told us he couldn't pay but we helped him by killing the ants around his farm you can't tell me that was neutral.

TSED
2009-07-16, 01:55 AM
"Sweet! I'll be directly responsible for a farmer winning a contest!? I'm so awesome!"

"No moneys, though."

"All I have to do is squash a few bugs? Oh what a 'challenge.' Yeah, sure man, I'm up for it. Though I have to ask why I can't get a bit of your biggest fruit windfall. Eh, whatever."



Yeah, that's so good-aligned.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 01:59 AM
You don't seem to fully understand neutrality.


Many people have emphasized what you seem to be missing.

To sum it up:
1) You don't have to be good aligned to be opposed to people being violently denied their right to live. Maybe you need some examples?

LG, CG, NG: Self-explanatory.

LN: The rule of law states that murder is wrong. You murdered, therefore you are in the wrong.
CN: Hey! I liked him! What's the big deal!?
TN: Oh, that was just unnecessary. Why would you kill him? He just said you look fat in that dress, there's no reason to escalate the problem!

CE: You idiot! I bet we could've stolen a ton of money off him if you let him live!
LE: You moron! Now that we're criminals we have to be extra careful! And how am I going to get him to pay me that 10 gp back now?!
NE: You imbecile! Now everyone knows I associate with murderers, making me a suspect for a bunch of crimes! And on top of that, I can't blackmail him with these fake compromising photographs I had made up!


If evil characters can get mad at you for committing evil acts, why can't a neutral one?


EDIT:: 'Total secrecy.' Do you really think that your DM and players will read this, figure out it's you, and spoil your plans?

Sounds like you're being intentionally evasive so that your motives can't be called out on. Or your definitions. Go on, tell us what you think neutrality means.

I have understood what you say people have emphasized from the beginning but i don't think that a neutral or evil person would try and kill me if i killed someone that had no connection to them. And neutrality is not just one thing i think that true neutral would mean on most subjects you don't care for evil, good , law, or chaos. But when i comes to something you care about you will stand up for ex. neutral druid stopping someone from burning a forest down. You don't condone evil or good. You do what benefits you, and regards to murder you would not do it yourself and you would normally be against it all together but you would not try and kill a someone that murdered someone because they committed an evil act unless it was something you truly cared about. And my DM knows my plan i just don't want my party to. Yet.

KBF
2009-07-16, 02:00 AM
Maybe the alignment doesn't matter. Maybe you play characters and the alignment is an afterthought used for various spell effects. That's kind of how I think of it. But if they are mad at you OOCly for things their characters don't know, maybe they are opposed to your play style instead of your character. You have to remember that it's a group game, and maybe dialing back the killing would be a good option.

Also, your really long sentences are kind of distracting. Commas are definitely, definitely your friend.


I have understood what you say people have emphasized from the beginning but i don't think that a neutral or evil person would try and kill me if i killed someone that had no connection to them.

This. This is your problem. Alignments are not the end-all be-all of character interaction. Most people are opposed to murder, and most people are neutral.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:01 AM
"Sweet! I'll be directly responsible for a farmer winning a contest!? I'm so awesome!"

"No moneys, though."

"All I have to do is squash a few bugs? Oh what a 'challenge.' Yeah, sure man, I'm up for it. Though I have to ask why I can't get a bit of your biggest fruit windfall. Eh, whatever."



Yeah, that's so good-aligned.

Okay that was worded wrong on my part his fruit was already destroyed and they were just ants they weren't a challenge. trust me if the fruit was still intact then i wouldn't have been opposed to helping him

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:03 AM
Maybe the alignment doesn't matter. Maybe you play characters and the alignment is an afterthought used for various spell effects. That's kind of how I think of it. But if they are mad at you OOCly for things their characters don't know, maybe they are opposed to your play style instead of your character. You have to remember that it's a group game, and maybe dialing back the killing would be a good option.

Also, your really long sentences are kind of distracting. Commas are definitely, definitely your friend.

Sorry about that if i think about punctuation i kinda lose train of thought

TSED
2009-07-16, 02:04 AM
Uhhhhhhh, wrong.


Let's use politicians as an example. Very few are actually good. The stereotype goes that most aren't even neutral.

They 'care' about things all the time, in order to look good. Appearances are everything, and if you're an adventurer, you HAVE to keep up appearances.

Armed to the teeth, capable of murdering half or more of the town, and roaming the world? Word gets out that you lot condone murders or even actively participate in them, people will NOT want to deal with you. In fact, you'll probably get good-aligned adventuring parties coming after you, even if you're 'neutral.'

And you just saw a dude get murdered by this other dude. How do you know that you, a loved one, a friend, or a needed contact won't be next?

Murder is such a crime because it has huge ramifications that I don't think you're realising.

Guancyto
2009-07-16, 02:09 AM
There's a very fundamental disconnect going on here! Let's see if we can spot it:


i killed a little kid in the first session


And i will give you another example we helped a farmer who wanted to win the biggest fruit contest he told us he couldn't pay but we helped him by killing the ants around his farm


But if they are mad at you OOCly for things their characters don't know, maybe they are opposed to your play style instead of your character.

KBF
2009-07-16, 02:09 AM
Sorry about that if i think about punctuation i kinda lose train of thought

You uh.. You're supposed to think about your post before you type it.

Or at least insert punctuation afterwards. Posts, unlike IMs, are supposed to take a minute or two. Minimum.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:10 AM
Uhhhhhhh, wrong.


Let's use politicians as an example. Very few are actually good. The stereotype goes that most aren't even neutral.

They 'care' about things all the time, in order to look good. Appearances are everything, and if you're an adventurer, you HAVE to keep up appearances.

Armed to the teeth, capable of murdering half or more of the town, and roaming the world? Word gets out that you lot condone murders or even actively participate in them, people will NOT want to deal with you. In fact, you'll probably get good-aligned adventuring parties coming after you, even if you're 'neutral.'

And you just saw a dude get murdered by this other dude. How do you know that you, a loved one, a friend, or a needed contact won't be next?

Murder is such a crime because it has huge ramifications that I don't think you're realising.

Uhhhh, wrong spelling.

i never said condoning murder anyway i wouldn't want that i am saying that a neutral person would go out of their way to help someone with no return what-so-ever.

And you must realize that in an old world such as d&d morality is different in fact during the middle ages murder was common for personal gain.

You are also implying that all murder is stupid evil.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:13 AM
There's a very fundamental disconnect going on here! Let's see if we can spot it:

I have already resolved this with my party. I am not questioning there anger towards my character but rather their characters anger toward mine. please tell me about the disconnect though.

KBF
2009-07-16, 02:14 AM
And you must realize that in an old world such as d&d morality is different in fact during the middle ages murder was common for personal gain.

No. This is not a fact. This is a hilarious stereotype contributed to by certain comedian groups, possibly British. All stereotypes have a certain truth about them, but it's typically hugely exaggerated.

Guancyto
2009-07-16, 02:17 AM
Ui am saying that a neutral person would go out of their way to help someone with no return what-so-ever.

Weird, I thought the N side of the fence was all about avoiding being put in silly boxes like that. N people do what they want to, or what seems to be a good idea, or what makes them feel good, or furthers their goals, or goes along with their ideas, etc.

They may not give over a Sacred Stone of Ultimate Power so a podunk little village can live in peace (although they might if given a good reason to), but they're also not going to charge money for squishing ants.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:17 AM
No. This is not a fact. This is a hilarious stereotype contributed to by certain comedian groups, possibly British. All stereotypes have a certain truth about them, but it's typically hugely exaggerated.

How can you say that is not a fact watch the movie Mongol or simply look at the middle east where muslim sheiks would kill each other for their throne.

Milskidasith
2009-07-16, 02:17 AM
If I were good, I'd be really pissed at you doing the stuff you did, and stop associating with you. If I had the chance to stop you from doing more evil deeds, I would take it, but I'd rather just leave and hope you get what is coming to you. (This depends on what type of good I'm playing; If I'm playing the "works for the greater good" type of good, I'd be more inclined to kill you, if I was playing the "all life is sacred, only kill what you have to" type of good, I'd let you live).

If I were neutral, I'd kill you in your sleep; you are a detriment to me and clearly capable of murdering for little to no reason; trying to just casually say "hey, I'm really not feeling comfortable working with a murderer" would probably start a fight.

Honestly, I can see no reason for anybody wanting to associate with you. From what little we know, you have a shadowy "plan" that even the DM can't know (despite the fact you should definitely tell him so that he can incorporate it or shut you down before you get to the big payoff and he has to say "no, you can't do X, that's too evil" which would lead to a bigger fight), and because you haven't revealed it, you seem less like CE (which I assume you are playing, if you have killed six people), and more like psychotic/stupid evil.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:19 AM
Weird, I thought the N side of the fence was all about avoiding being put in silly boxes like that. N people do what they want to, or what seems to be a good idea, or what makes them feel good, or furthers their goals, or goes along with their ideas, etc.

They may not give over a Sacred Stone of Ultimate Power so a podunk little village can live in peace (although they might if given a good reason to), but they're also not going to charge money for squishing ants.

Would a N person help someone for no reason or waste time to squish ants. Oh and sorry about the quote earlier i meant to say i think a N person wouldn't help a person for no reward what-so-ever

Guancyto
2009-07-16, 02:24 AM
Would a N person help someone for no reason or waste time to squish ants. Oh and sorry about the quote earlier i meant to say i think a N person wouldn't help a person for no reward what-so-ever

Does he have something better to do that evening? The answer's more likely to be "sure, why not" rather than "justice demands we correct this unjust injustice! For justice!" but sure, why not?

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:25 AM
If I were good, I'd be really pissed at you doing the stuff you did, and stop associating with you. If I had the chance to stop you from doing more evil deeds, I would take it, but I'd rather just leave and hope you get what is coming to you. (This depends on what type of good I'm playing; If I'm playing the "works for the greater good" type of good, I'd be more inclined to kill you, if I was playing the "all life is sacred, only kill what you have to" type of good, I'd let you live).

If I were neutral, I'd kill you in your sleep; you are a detriment to me and clearly capable of murdering for little to no reason; trying to just casually say "hey, I'm really not feeling comfortable working with a murderer" would probably start a fight.

Honestly, I can see no reason for anybody wanting to associate with you. From what little we know, you have a shadowy "plan" that even the DM can't know (despite the fact you should definitely tell him so that he can incorporate it or shut you down before you get to the big payoff and he has to say "no, you can't do X, that's too evil" which would lead to a bigger fight), and because you haven't revealed it, you seem less like CE (which I assume you are playing, if you have killed six people), and more like psychotic/stupid evil.

What happened to "I can't judge at the moment". My DM knows and i have made amends with my fellow PCs i am not CE but rather NE and if i kill for a reason even if it is my own reason i believe it is not stupid evil, besides i have only killed 6 people and we have played about 16 times.

It is true for a while there was a problem with association but i contribute to the group and proved to even the good player to keep me around. So don't try and tell me my group should play with me when you know too little about the subject.

Quietus
2009-07-16, 02:26 AM
I have already resolved this with my party. I am not questioning there anger towards my character but rather their characters anger toward mine. please tell me about the disconnect though.

If I were Neutral IRL, and someone MURDERED someone else near me, you're damn right I'd take action. In my case it'd more involve contacting the proper authorities, since I'm built like a caster, without the actual spells, but the fact remains; No one who isn't Evil wants to associate with someone who IS. At least, not someone who is openly murdering random people, particularly children.

That being said, it sounds like your group is a little more hack and slash than roleplay. WHich means they aren't killing ants and hunting werewolves because It's The Good/Right Thing To Do, they're doing it because that's what the DM had planned for that day's adventure. In games like that, there's less focus on alignment, but you still need to maintain a certain level of in-game coherence; And again, no one really wants to associate with a murderer.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:27 AM
Does he have something better to do that evening? The answer's more likely to be "sure, why not" rather than "justice demands we correct this unjust injustice! For justice!" but sure, why not?

In fact yes our entire campaigned is based on retrieving these artifacts quickly that just slowed us down and the whole party up to that pointed wanted to hurry up the pace any way.

Thylornas
2009-07-16, 02:28 AM
Instead, he is adventuring for his own reason: To sketch and paint whatever he sees or encounters, be it strange human cities, the beautiful ancient cities and settlements of other elven clans, the wild wildernesses, or the hellish landscapes of the abyss.".

I once played a Neutral Bard who was a semi-pacifist painter, and would do sketches and caricatures as his perform. I thought he was a rather interesting character, but the other members of my party seemed to disagree and came close to killing him once. Now perhaps it was due to his relative uselessness in combat or just that I myself am annoying but they did not seem to appreciate when i would stop to make a sketch of something in the middle of a dungeon. Although, I'm sure your Psion will be more useful in a fight than a semi-pacifist Bard.

TSED
2009-07-16, 02:29 AM
I have understood what you say people have emphasized from the beginning but i don't think that a neutral or evil person would try and kill me if i killed someone that had no connection to them.

Followed by



i never said condoning murder anyway i wouldn't want that i am saying that a neutral person would go out of their way to help someone with no return what-so-ever.

Now you don't even remember what you said.

Why am I arguing with you?


Also, I find it amusing that some one has the gall to call me out for improperly spelling a word (which I am pretty sure I didn't do), while making absolutely no attempt at all to use punctuation, capitalization, or other basic tenets of grammar.


You are also implying that all murder is stupid evil.

No I'm not. I'm just trying to show you that anyone can have a motive for thinking that a murder is a bad idea.



How can you say that is not a fact watch the movie Mongol or simply look at the middle east where muslim sheiks would kill each other for their throne.

Regicide is not common murder. These are persons with power killing persons with power in an attempt to get power. This is not some backwater roaming band of fighting men stabbing peasants or merchants or whatever in the face for 'justified' reasons.

That kind of in-fighting is stereotypically common, but I don't really think it was as common as people think. See above for british comedy groups. Furthermore, people just focus on the bad. MADE UP EXAMPLE TIME: From the years 800 to 1250, some iffy moments but an unbroken lineage from father to first-born son. Suddenly 15 kings get murdered in, oh, 25 years, and suddenly Fictionopia was "filled with regicide during the medieval period." This is just how people think, but it's still wrong.



And neutrality is not just one thing i think that true neutral would mean on most subjects you don't care for evil, good , law, or chaos. But when i comes to something you care about you will stand up for ex. neutral druid stopping someone from burning a forest down. You don't condone evil or good. You do what benefits you, and regards to murder you would not do it yourself and you would normally be against it all together but you would not try and kill a someone that murdered someone because they committed an evil act unless it was something you truly cared about. And my DM knows my plan i just don't want my party to. Yet.

"I think." That right there says everything. You're pushing your views as correct without stopping and considering that you are not the decisive authority on D&D morality. There are countless interpretations of every alignment; yours is not the only correct one.

warrl
2009-07-16, 02:30 AM
Oh and sorry about the quote earlier i meant to say i think a N person wouldn't help a person for no reward what-so-ever

I would say that no character would help a person for no reward whatsoever.

However, that reward might accrue to some organization (not necessarily very organized) or ideal that the character values, rather than to the character. "Remember this symbol, it is the mark of {deity}, and be kind in turn to those who wear it."

Or it might be indirect and hypothetical. "I want my future children to live in the sort of world where people help each other, so I do my part to make this world that sort of world."

Or it might be purely internal. "Helping little old ladies cross the street makes me feel good about myself."

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:31 AM
If I were Neutral IRL, and someone MURDERED someone else near me, you're damn right I'd take action. In my case it'd more involve contacting the proper authorities, since I'm built like a caster, without the actual spells, but the fact remains; No one who isn't Evil wants to associate with someone who IS. At least, not someone who is openly murdering random people, particularly children.

And again, no one really wants to associate with a murderer.

Yeah but why during that time murder was all around it is still around go to the bronx in New York you would see.

And i kill a random person ONE time. But you are right some one did contact the authorities and i was banished from town and the way you are putting it Good and Evil cannot coexist.

And if a murder helps you achieve your own ends why not keep him if you are neutral.

KBF
2009-07-16, 02:34 AM
I have to say, even before TSED's win post, I couldn't help but think...

This smells of a really bad troll.

Milskidasith
2009-07-16, 02:34 AM
I am not saying that all murder is stupid evil. But you killed a little kid for no reason by your own admission. I could see a party working with a NE character who only killed just to speed things up or when somebody got in their way, (though I'd be wary of somebody so ruthless), but somebody who murders even one person randomly really has no right to judge other people's morality (even if this is D&D with it's only barely useful objective morality system.)

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:38 AM
That kind of in-fighting is stereotypically common, but I don't really think it was as common as people think. See above for british comedy groups. Furthermore, people just focus on the bad. MADE UP EXAMPLE TIME: From the years 800 to 1250, some iffy moments but an unbroken lineage from father to first-born son. Suddenly 15 kings get murdered in, oh, 25 years, and suddenly Fictionopia was "filled with regicide during the medieval period." This is just how people think, but it's still wrong.




"I think." That right there says everything. You're pushing your views as correct without stopping and considering that you are not the decisive authority on D&D morality. There are countless interpretations of every alignment; yours is not the only correct one.[/QUOTE]

You just said i think in the above passage one and two i do think that are different interpretations i never said mine was correct that is why i used i think.

Oh btw i am sorry i did type that contradiction but corrected myself after it

Also do you really think that murdering someone for their position of power isn't murder and broaden your view a little as in not just Europe. Take a look at the vile acts at the siege of Jerusalem in 1099 the murder and butchered civilians because it was common practice. Open a history book come on.

ericgrau
2009-07-16, 02:38 AM
Alright so in my party there are four neutral players and they all seem to just be neutral so they don't have to choose a side. However, they all seem to help everyone we come across and all seem to get angry when my character (evil) happens to kill some one is this true neutral? Are they just this way to avoid prejudice? It seems also that Neutral is the most common alignment in my party but only 1 person ever in my eyes true neutral.

Awesome. Let them. IMO more people should do this. Lots of people across the full spectrum like helping people - especially friends, get mad at injustice, etc.; that doesn't make them especially good or evil. Wait for something truly heroic, a heinous crime, or etc. Otherwise alignments just force people into stereotypes. Like you seem to have a stereotype for neutral, but your players don't. Just chill. Consider their "neutral" as "could be anything but not extremely in any one direction". So ya, they probably all fit neutral.

I'd let them until you see one extremely favor one alignment. Generally I simplify all 9 as helping friends & family by any means (sometimes even against their public personality), good as helping a stranger even at personal expense, evil as helping yourself even at the expense of another (but typically even evil won't hurt friend/family), lawful as respect for structure/society/order (but not necessarily every society) and chaos as a total disregard for such (but that doesn't mean he won't follow them when it best suits him or if threatened or if he doesn't care or etc.). So short of risking their life for treasure-free orphans, murder, etc., I'd just keep it simple and not force them into any alignment; let them stay neutral.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:40 AM
I am not saying that all murder is stupid evil. But you killed a little kid for no reason by your own admission. I could see a party working with a NE character who only killed just to speed things up or when somebody got in their way, (though I'd be wary of somebody so ruthless), but somebody who murders even one person randomly really has no right to judge other people's morality (even if this is D&D with it's only barely useful objective morality system.)

I agree but i already apologized and received consequences for that one time.

Milskidasith
2009-07-16, 02:46 AM
People don't just say "OK, you got punished, now it's OK for you to be a murderer." You killed somebody in cold blood; regardless of the punishment received, that is going to affect how people see you, or it should. "Oh hey, I'm sorry I killed a little kid for no reason, just banish me and I'll be on my way, kay?" shouldn't be enough of a justification for neutral or even (sane) evil characters to stick around with you after something like that.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:47 AM
I would say that no character would help a person for no reward whatsoever.

However, that reward might accrue to some organization (not necessarily very organized) or ideal that the character values, rather than to the character. "Remember this symbol, it is the mark of {deity}, and be kind in turn to those who wear it."

Or it might be indirect and hypothetical. "I want my future children to live in the sort of world where people help each other, so I do my part to make this world that sort of world."

Or it might be purely internal. "Helping little old ladies cross the street makes me feel good about myself."

Alright aside from the intentional, yes i agree the only problem is these reason were never brought up in the debate it was simply lets do it for exp

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:49 AM
People don't just say "OK, you got punished, now it's OK for you to be a murderer." You killed somebody in cold blood; regardless of the punishment received, that is going to affect how people see you, or it should. "Oh hey, I'm sorry I killed a little kid for no reason, just banish me and I'll be on my way, kay?" shouldn't be enough of a justification for neutral or even (sane) evil characters to stick around with you after something like that.

Why not? Besides no even figured out about it. So why should that curse me forever?

Milskidasith
2009-07-16, 02:51 AM
Your party members know. The town you were banished from knows. Realistically, there should be a "wanted: dead or alive" sign for your head, or at least a "caution: murderer" message sent around. Your party members shouldn't be accepting of a cold blooded murderer, regardless of alignment; it's too evil for good people, too evil for neutral people, and too stupid for any sane evildoer.

The real issue here is that your playing a stupid evil character, or at the very least a character with strong stupid evil tendencies, and are blaming the fact you get (way too little) flak for it on your party members not playing their alignments correctly. There is nothing else to say, really.

Quietus
2009-07-16, 02:52 AM
I have to say, even before TSED's win post, I couldn't help but think...

This smells of a really bad troll.

Honestly, I agree. Which is why I'm leaving the thread; Mindleshank isn't really responding in a sensible way to any arguments being put out there. It feels more like a "Nuh uh, they're Neutral, they shouldn't care if I kill people!" response more often than not. Which means at best, he's not actually looking for real discussion, just for someone to agree with him so he can declare himself right. At worst, troll.

I'm not sure which is worse.

ericgrau
2009-07-16, 02:52 AM
Generally murder is not something easily overcome morally. If your PC says "Oh, come on, I'm over that", then you're taking it way too lightly. But, then, that's the problem to begin with. Even evil people rarely kill for no reason. There's almost always a motive. Hence the slip into "stupid evil" territory when you randomly kill a kid. And the continuation thereof when you don't have months of guilt & relapses into despair following it even if (especially if) you're sorry for what you did.

EDIT:

Honestly, I agree. Which is why I'm leaving the thread; Mindleshank isn't really responding in a sensible way to any arguments being put out there. It feels more like a "Nuh uh, they're Neutral, they shouldn't care if I kill people!" response more often than not. Which means at best, he's not actually looking for real discussion, just for someone to agree with him so he can declare himself right. At worst, troll.

I'm not sure which is worse.

Is that so? Well what a shame. If that's so, then one last simple point: If the people with certain alignments you describe don't exist IRL, you're doing something horribly wrong and really have no idea what you're talking about. Watching killing around you bothers everyone. Youre only thinking of the alignments "stupid X", which only work in cartoons and games.

warrl
2009-07-16, 02:53 AM
Why not? Besides no even figured out about it. So why should that curse me forever?

Because people have memories.

"See that bridge? I designed it. Nobody calls me John the Engineer.

That church? My money built it. Nobody calls me John the Pious.

Those fields of grain? They are mine. Nobody calls me John the Farmer.

But f*** just one goat..."

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:54 AM
Your party members know. The town you were banished from knows. Realistically, there should be a "wanted: dead or alive" sign for your head, or at least a "caution: murderer" message sent around. Your party members shouldn't be accepting of a cold blooded murderer, regardless of alignment; it's too evil for good people, too evil for neutral people, and too stupid for any sane evildoer.

The real issue here is that your playing a stupid evil character, or at the very least a character with strong stupid evil tendencies, and are blaming the fact you get (way too little) flak for it on your party members not playing their alignments correctly. There is nothing else to say, really.

Alright the only person that knows is the wizard of the very small town (about 10 people) who scryed on me. And why do you say stupid evil.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 02:56 AM
Because people have memories.

"See that bridge? I designed it. Nobody calls me John the Engineer.

That church? My money built it. Nobody calls me John the Pious.

Those fields of grain? They are mine. Nobody calls me John the Farmer.

But f*** just one goat..."

Yeah people have memories but the ones who don't know or don't remember it shouldn't call me out on that incident right?

KBF
2009-07-16, 02:56 AM
No guys, trust me. This has to be a troll.

A few historical events in which people were killed does not mass random slaughter make. His points are relatively non-sensible. He is attempting to purposely fight our logic while pretending to conform to it. He keeps bringing up points that were disproved last page, and next page he will bring them up again. It's an alignment thread, which are known for lots of argument, but nobody can argue on his side because he did it wrong.

This is a really bad troll. Like, really.

warrl
2009-07-16, 03:25 AM
And why do you say stupid evil.

The evil character desires to NOT be identified as a villain worthy of the attention of any high-level characters (say, one level higher than the evil character, or three characters one level lower, or...), with the possible exception of the higher ranks of a villainous organization he is or desires to be a member of. Even when that exception applies he doesn't want to be identified as someone this organization would be better off eliminating.

The stupid evil character does evil things without regard to how the consequences might come back to bite him. Forgets that even nobodies might have connections. Ignores risk/reward.

Belkar is stupid evil. Almost everyone he kills (at least outside of combat, and excluding undead) could have connections to someone that would make an unpleasant enemy, and certainly will NOT be pleased when the person who (they know via scrying) killed their boyfriend's mother's sister's lover and thus got the whole family upset, walks in to request assistance or buy supplies. And, outside of combat, they rarely get any benefit at all from his killing - and when they do, not a big one.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 03:27 AM
The evil character desires to NOT be identified as a villain worthy of the attention of any high-level characters (say, one level higher than the evil character, or three characters one level lower, or...), with the possible exception of the higher ranks of a villainous organization he is or desires to be a member of. Even when that exception applies he doesn't want to be identified as someone this organization would be better off eliminating.

The stupid evil character does evil things without regard to how the consequences might come back to bite him. Forgets that even nobodies might have connections. Ignores risk/reward.

Belkar is stupid evil. Almost everyone he kills (at least outside of combat, and excluding undead) could have connections to someone that would make an unpleasant enemy, and certainly will NOT be pleased when the person who (they know via scrying) killed their boyfriend's mother's sister's lover and thus got the whole family upset, walks in to request assistance or buy supplies. And, outside of combat, they rarely get any benefit at all from his killing - and when they do, not a big one.

Right but when i the reason is logical and the escape from consequence if planned then why stupid evil?

Killer Angel
2009-07-16, 03:47 AM
No guys, trust me. This has to be a troll.


Even if it's true, I remember to all of you the rules of posting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=30&a=1).

EDIT: Grammar wrong (ah, the foreign language...). Even if it were true.

And, OP: a neutral character believes that the world should be relatively balanced.
He don't like evil acts, eventually he can close an eye if the evil act is a goal to some other good thing.
But he will not like it, and you can be sure that, if such evil act (homicide?) is committed by someone close to him, he will react. Even only because he knows that this kind of behaviour will bring bad consequences, and he don't want to be involved.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 03:50 AM
Even if it's true, I remember to all of you the rules of posting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=30&a=1).

And, OP: a neutral character believes that the world should be relatively balanced.
He don't like evil acts, eventually he can close an eye if the evil act is a goal to some other good thing.
But he will not like it, and you can be sure that, if such evil act (homicide?) is committed by someone close to him, he will react. Even only because he knows that this kind of behaviour will bring bad consequences, and he don't want to be involved.

i agree completely

kamikasei
2009-07-16, 04:15 AM
It's possible that the other players are not staying in character properly by condemning your character for actions of which theirs are not aware.

However. If you're committing wanton evil while out of sight of the rest of the party, it's possible that this is a problem for the players rather than their characters, and that they're just making the common mistake of misbehaving in character over an out-of-character issue. It may be that the players are not happy about having your character in the party, whether their characters are aware of all his activities or not.

I would strongly suggest discussing this with them out of character and offering to change your character if the rest of the group find him to be disruptive. (Bear in mind that even an extremely able deciever who commits all his crimes with perfect stealth, in such a way that no consequences come back to the rest of the party and the other characters are completely oblivious to the serpent in their midst, is still taking time at the table to go off and have solo adventures indulging his bloodlust while the other players get bored or queasy.)

I think others have explained well enough, and you seem to have understood, that neutral characters can quite reasonably a) behave altruistically and b) condemn murder. If that question is settled for you and it's the issue of in- and out-of-character knowledge that's bothering you, please give the above some consideration.

Mathius
2009-07-16, 04:34 AM
Of all the alignments True Neutral is the most abused. If a player chooses to be True Neutral and play it properly they must commit one evil action in balance with any good action they commit. The purpose of True Neutral is to mantain the balance between law, chaos, good and evil.

True Neutral is also not Unaligned from 4th ed.

If there is any "scapegoat" alignment, it is Chaotic Neutral.

Your friends may have a point, however. If you just wander through town butchering everything with a pulse, then they have a legitimate bitch. But just taking out key people to promote your character's own private agenda (and don't try saying you ain't got one) then YOU are the only one who is playing your alignment.

kamikasei
2009-07-16, 04:37 AM
If a player chooses to be True Neutral and play it properly they must commit one evil action in balance with any good action they commit. The purpose of True Neutral is to mantain the balance between law, chaos, good and evil.

This is entirely false. It may have been true in earlier editions but is not in 3.5.

Tackyhillbillu
2009-07-16, 04:38 AM
Of all the alignments True Neutral is the most abused. If a player chooses to be True Neutral and play it properly they must commit one evil action in balance with any good action they commit. The purpose of True Neutral is to mantain the balance between law, chaos, good and evil.

True Neutral is also not Unaligned from 4th ed.

If there is any "scapegoat" alignment, it is Chaotic Neutral.

Your friends may have a point, however. If you just wander through town butchering everything with a pulse, then they have a legitimate bitch. But just taking out key people to promote your character's own private agenda (and don't try saying you ain't got one) then YOU are the only one who is playing your alignment.

That's not true at all. That is one possible reading given by the books. The other is that they simply lack strong convictions one way or another.

Edit: Ninja'ed

Teron
2009-07-16, 04:45 AM
Of all the alignments True Neutral is the most abused. If a player chooses to be True Neutral and play it properly they must commit one evil action in balance with any good action they commit. The purpose of True Neutral is to mantain the balance between law, chaos, good and evil.
No. That was only true before 3rd Edition, and it was frickin' retarded. Now neutral just means you're not particularly altruistic or selfish.

Mathius
2009-07-16, 04:48 AM
There is a huge difference between True Neutral and Neutral Undecided. I am speaking to the alignment that the original poster offered up.

Personally, I have abolished alignments in my games and allow my players to act as they will. Of course, they must face the consequences of their actions. And as far I can tell death is still the only sure fire cure for stupid.

Yora
2009-07-16, 04:52 AM
Alright so in my party there are four neutral players and they all seem to just be neutral so they don't have to choose a side. However, they all seem to help everyone we come across and all seem to get angry when my character (evil) happens to kill some one is this true neutral? Are they just this way to avoid prejudice? It seems also that Neutral is the most common alignment in my party but only 1 person ever in my eyes true neutral.
When you think they take considerable efforts to help strangers without hoping for any real rewards, it's your right as the gm to consider them neutral good instead of rather neutral. Since I always encourage my players to play their characters as they see fit without thinking about alignment too much, that's what I would do. Ultimately it's your choice if a Holy Word spell leves them unharmed or not. And alignment doesn't have much more actual impact than that.

kamikasei
2009-07-16, 04:54 AM
There is a huge difference between True Neutral and Neutral Undecided. I am speaking to the alignment that the original poster offered up.

There... really isn't. I mean, if you want to say that True Neutral means what you've described when you use the term and that there's this other category of Neutral Undecided which just happens to occupy the same space on the alignment grid and be called True Neutral in the rules, you're free to do so, but that's using language to hinder rather than aid communication.

There are nine alignments. One of them is True Neutral, which means being Neutral both with regard to Law-Chaos and Good-Evil. There are many ways to be True Neutral. The one you describe is not the only one. Nor is it, nor should it be, the default.


it's your right as the gm... Ultimately it's your choice if a Holy Word spell leves them unharmed or not.

Actually, he's a player rather than a GM. It appears this thread is not looking for advice about how to rule something, but for support to let him tell the other players they're doing it wrong.

Mathius
2009-07-16, 05:03 AM
There... really isn't. I mean, if you want to say that True Neutral means what you've described when you use the term and that there's this other category of Neutral Undecided which just happens to occupy the same space on the alignment grid and be called True Neutral in the rules, you're free to do so, but that's using language to hinder rather than aid communication.


And I would fully expect a response like this as the topic is completely subjective. To each their own.

Bottom line: It is all about what the DM will or will not allow and how strict they do or do not choose to be about the alignment rule.

kamikasei
2009-07-16, 05:08 AM
And I would fully expect a response like this as the topic is completely subjective. To each their own.

No, I'm sorry, but on this issue it really isn't.

Alignment is defined in game terms. The definitions are, well, crap, but on this point they're quite clear: to fall within the category of "True Neutral", one need not be pursuing any active philosophy of balance. What you call "True Neutral" and "Neutral Undecided" are not two separate alignments within the rules. Of course you may rule otherwise in your own games, but so may anyone on any issue whatsoever. When someone uses the term "True Neutral" on these forums, it's only reasonable to assume they're using the definition from the books.

Since you started out telling the OP what neutrality was and was not and how it should be played, it's rather a cheap dodge to now say "oh but it's all subjective".

Tackyhillbillu
2009-07-16, 05:22 AM
No, I'm sorry, but on this issue it really isn't.

Alignment is defined in game terms. The definitions are, well, crap, but on this point they're quite clear: to fall within the category of "True Neutral", one need not be pursuing any active philosophy of balance. What you call "True Neutral" and "Neutral Undecided" are not two separate alignments within the rules. Of course you may rule otherwise in your own games, but so may anyone on any issue whatsoever. When someone uses the term "True Neutral" on these forums, it's only reasonable to assume they're using the definition from the books.

Since you started out telling the OP what neutrality was and was not and how it should be played, it's rather a cheap dodge to now say "oh but it's all subjective".

Seconded. Alignment in D&D is not Subjective. It is an Objective methodology. A lot of people try to make it subjective, but that is a pointless approach.

If you want to say Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, and Neutral are Subjective, that is fine. But not in the RAW. According to the Raw-

"A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way."

Your description is an option, but one that is specifically stated to not be the one choosen by the majority of TN characters.

kamikasei
2009-07-16, 05:28 AM
Seconded. Alignment in D&D is not Subjective. It is an Objective methodology. A lot of people try to make it subjective, but that is a pointless approach.

Well, I'm not even saying that. I'm just saying that what the rules say is an objective fact. How one interprets and runs them at your table is a matter of preference, and how one would rule any particular action is largely a matter of subjective judgement, but it is still possible to make a statement about alignment that entirely contradicts what the books say (and what is therefore by default the assumed shared definition in a discussion like this one).

Mathius
2009-07-16, 05:30 AM
Is there an alignment in 3 or 3.5 called "True Neutral"? No. There isn't. Therefore, unless the original poster wants to bounce into this argument and clarify that he is indeed speaking about the Neutral "Undecided" alignment, there really is no comparing the two.

According to the 3 and 3.5 rules, Neutral "Undecided" is exactly what it says it is. Someone with no alliegances. I do not deny that.

But that is NOT True Neutral. The very definition of TRUE NEUTRAL is exactly what I described. It is a maintaining of the balance at all times, never wavering. The books (second edition, admittedly) states that someone of a True Neutral alignment has been known to change sides in the middle of battle to even the odds if either side should gain that upper hand. THAT is True Neutral.

3rd and later editions chose to give an "Undecided" alignment because they beleived that not everyone is going to go out of their way to adhere to any specific mores.

I personally agree with this. It all depends on what the Dungeon Master feels is the truest definition of Neutrality. Not all DM's do it the same way.

kamikasei
2009-07-16, 05:46 AM
Is there an alignment in 3 or 3.5 called "True Neutral"? No. There isn't. Therefore, unless the original poster wants to bounce into this argument and clarify that he is indeed speaking about the Neutral "Undecided" alignment, there really is no comparing the two.

Oh, I see. Well, firstly, there's no alignment called "Neutral Undecided" either. There are the alignment descriptions, of which one is 'Neutral, "Undecided"'. The alignment is called simply Neutral, in the same way that Lawful Neutral is not called "Lawful Neutral Judge".

That bit of confusion aside, are you aware that "True Neutral" is very widely used as a synonym for the "Neutral" alignment (in order to distinguish it from Neutral X or X Neutral)? Indeed, I would say it is almost universally used thus in discussions of 3.5. I was mistaken in saying it was the term used in the alignment descriptions, I apologize, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it is used elsewhere in WotC publications as a synonym.

I would also say it's quite clear from the the OP that he's not talking about characters actively committed to any 2e version of balance.


According to the 3 and 3.5 rules, Neutral "Undecided" is exactly what it says it is. Someone with no alliegances. I do not deny that.

But that is NOT True Neutral.

But you're missing the fact that what you're calling "True Neutral" (and which I will henceforth call "Neutral, bitches") is subsumed under the "Neutral" alignment:


Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

...and that there is no other separate alignment called "True Neutral".

That the middle section of the alignment grid in 3e is given a one-word description of "Undecided" does not mean that that is a full and apt description of all who fall in to that category. "Neutral Undecided" and "Neutral, bitches" are both just ways to play "Neutral".


The books (second edition, admittedly) states that someone of a True Neutral alignment has been known to change sides in the middle of battle to even the odds if either side should gain that upper hand. THAT is True Neutral.

No - it's what 2e considered "True Neutral". Nowadays the term just means "Neutral".

One Step Two
2009-07-16, 05:46 AM
He would say something like "But do the orcs not need eat as well? This is how they obtain their supplies, and the workforce their societies are founded on. What right do I have to cause an orc tribe to starve? Would it be any different than keeping a lioness from killing a young zebra, for while the infant zebra might live another day the lioness and her cubs will surely starve.".

This line, right here, is exactly how you play a Jedi of the "light" side of the Force in every way. May I use this when citing examples to my players?

Mathius
2009-07-16, 05:49 AM
Alignment is defined in game terms. "True Neutral" on these forums, it's only reasonable to assume they're using the definition from the books.
Since you started out telling the OP what neutrality was and was not and how it should be played, it's rather a cheap dodge to now say "oh but it's all subjective".

What books? I am sorry but from what I have understood of this forum and all of its material it is not limited to just 3rd ed and newer. Since there is no such alignment as True Neutral in 3rd ed, it is obvious that I am simply addressing the alignment of the name the original poster gave in the most recent book in which it appears. That would be the 2nd edition Players Handbook (made for the *gasp* *shock* Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Roleplaying Game). In this very tome, it states that someone of True Neutral alignment has been known to switch sides in the middle of a battle to even the odds should a side gain the upper hand. They maintain the balance, never faltering.

The "Undecided" alignment is not the same. This was an alignment set forth in 3rd edition and newer games because (and I agree with the reasoning on this) not everyone goes out of their way to subscribe to a particular set of moral, ethical, or legal mores. They do what they want and deal with the consequences as they come.

Oh, and as for the "cheap dodge" as you call it? Unlike you, I addressed his concern by informing him of the exact meaning of the two words he had concern about "True Neutral". Since this term does not appear in the books you are referring to, your argument was completely moot, since I made no mention of what edition I was referring to. You kind of shot yourself in the foot with that one. You should have asked what book I got my info out of before attempting to argue with me. And the reason I state that it is completely subjective is because anyone who has DMed knows that anything in the books is subjective. When the rules conflict with the story, the story wins every time.

Oslecamo
2009-07-16, 05:55 AM
The evil character desires to NOT be identified as a villain worthy of the attention of any high-level characters (say, one level higher than the evil character, or three characters one level lower, or...), with the possible exception of the higher ranks of a villainous organization he is or desires to be a member of. Even when that exception applies he doesn't want to be identified as someone this organization would be better off eliminating.
Says who? How are you going to start your reign of terror and tyranny if people don't know it was you who massacrated that orphanage on a whim?

Sure some evil people prefer to go unnoticed, but others like to have an aura of fear around them. And what best way to acomplish this than to leave a trail of dead bodies behind you? Adventurers may come after you, but other equally minded people will want to join you out of admiration and then you can start your own evil organization.

There's plenty of evil guys who enjoy an evil reputation in order to strike fear in the hearths of the people, in order to make them easier to control. People are gonna take you much more seriously if they know it was you who murdered the family next door.



The stupid evil character does evil things without regard to how the consequences might come back to bite him. Forgets that even nobodies might have connections. Ignores risk/reward.

On the other hand, the enemy of my enemy is my ally. If he killed a member of an important family, this will pleasure other rival organizations wich benefited from this death.



And, outside of combat, they rarely get any benefit at all from his killing - and when they do, not a big one.
[/QUOTE]

Satisfaction. Addiction. Just like drugs, certain activities can become a vice. And then you can never have enough of it. The guy who slaughtered the drow city for money and power now gets pleasure in killing. He needs it. Random weack people are an excellent way to satisfy his addiction untill finding a new quest of slaughter.

Sure, he could try to resist, but how many people can stop their addiction to drugs? How many go out there and kill people in order to get more money to supply the vice that is killing them? That's evil on it's purest form.

Also, there's the power corruption fact. If you're powerfull enough that few can challenge you, killing random people becomes that much easier.

Remember, kill one people, you're a murderer, kill ten and you're a monster, kill one hundred and you're a hero, kill a thousand and you're a conqueror.

Countries have been created this way. Kill enough people, get away with it, and you'll have a lot of people following you.

Specially because you'll be the only one left to tell the history of what hapened.

Mathius
2009-07-16, 05:59 AM
But you're missing the fact that what you're calling "True Neutral" (and which I will henceforth call "Neutral, bitches") is subsumed under the "Neutral" alignment:
...and that there is no other separate alignment called "True Neutral".


In 3rd Edition and newer editions of the game, I agree. And since you point this fact out, I have decided to give him the definition of the alignment in question from the source in which it appears. In the 2nd edition players handbook, there is an alignment titled 'True Neutral'.

This is the defintion I provided.

It is vastly different from the 'Neutral' in the 3rd edition players handbook.

kamikasei
2009-07-16, 06:05 AM
Ho boy.

The rules for alignment in 2e and 3.5 are not interchangeable. You are correct that I was mistaken that the term "True Neutral" was used in the 3.5 books, I've already conceded that. If you were genuinely unaware that it has nonetheless been consistently used as a synonym for "Neutral" throughout the lifetime of 3e, and genuinely thought that the OP was therefore playing 2e and wanted advice based on 2e alignment guidelines, then this is simply a misunderstanding. However, since it seems quite clear to me that the OP was overwhelmingly likely to be referring to 3e and you made no effort to point out that you were referring to 2e in your post, it seem more likely to me that this was just deliberate obfuscation on your part.


Since there is no such alignment as True Neutral in 3rd ed, it is obvious that I am simply addressing the alignment of the name the original poster gave in the most recent book in which it appears.

That is, to put it mildly, high pedantry.


That would be the 2nd edition Players Handbook (made for the *gasp* *shock* Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Roleplaying Game).

Gasp, shock? What point do you think you're making?


Oh, and as for the "cheap dodge" as you call it?... And the reason I state that it is completely subjective is because anyone who has DMed knows that anything in the books is subjective. When the rules conflict with the story, the story wins every time.

No, nothing in the books is subjective. It's all open to change, but the text in the books is an objective fact. You seem not to understand what those words mean.

Well, anyway. If, as I said, you genuinely thought the OP wanted advice about 2e alignments, then I apologize for the misunderstanding and would advise you to be clearer in future (the same goes for the OP, of course, who really should have tagged the thread subject with an edition). In that case there doesn't seem to be much more to discuss. If, as I suspect, this was an attempt to make some point about editions and assumptions or just an attempt to be deliberately unhelpful, then I see no point in continuing the discussion.

Curmudgeon
2009-07-16, 06:20 AM
OK, here's how I play neutral characters.

You do the "help the helpless" bit because: it's an excuse to go adventuring
it's the easiest way to get those suckers good guys to provide support
adventuring leads to profit

The Rose Dragon
2009-07-16, 06:31 AM
True Neutral was used as the name for Neutral in 3rd Edition. Just like True Good and True Lawful were used for Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral.

I just don't remember where.

Mathius
2009-07-16, 06:39 AM
The way I see it, a question was raised about an alignment that, in my experience, does not exist within the current setting of the Dungeons and Dragons system. Instead of just spewing crap about what the original poster "could be talking about", I read into the letter of the querie, and gave the definition I felt best answered the question.

I could really give two sh!ts what his edition or preference was. I am a technical person and tend to like to give answers to the questions asked, not blow sunshine up someones ass about what they may or may not mean. If my answer was what they were looking for, great. If not? I could care less. I saw the words and answered accordingly.

I say everything in the games is subjective. My intention was that use what you like, scrap what you don't bad word choice. Open to interpretation.

The GASP, SHOCK line was because throughout the argument you have been useing the 3.X rules and text as your ONLY source of information. You did this without asking for any kind of clarification and, apparently under the assumption that I was using the same guidelines. You stated that the rules in the books were the be all and end all, yet you blatantly told me I was wrong when I used a wider array of literature to prove my point.

Yes, you did admit that 'True Neutral', was not used in the 3.5 books. But you also stated that it was subsumed under "Neutral" in 3.X. This is not true at all. In any way. According to the design team for 3.x True Neutral was done away with because of it's seemingly impossible roleplay implications. It was widely believed that it was a nigh impossible alignment to properly play. I find this hard to believe as I have successfully played this alignment numerous times and find it very enjoyable to DM for, but that is just me.

Oh and just because I can quote the rules, does not mean I follow them.

Now that we have finished (hopefully) hosing the thread down with testosterone, let's get back to the question.

If the OP is referring to the 'True Neutral' as used in 2nd Edition, then no, it is not a scapegoat alignment. It takes concentration and good roleplaying to pull it off. The players in the example are far from this alignment.

If the OP is referring to the Neutral, Undecided alignment in the more modern editions of the game, then, in my estimation, yes, it does seem to be a cop-out alignment of sorts.

Evil is evil. Whether by the law or in spite of it. Just be careful who you take out, and why.

Mathius
2009-07-16, 06:52 AM
Just as side note, has anyone noticed the new alignment system for 4th edition? What do you think of it?

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-16, 08:05 AM
Just as side note, has anyone noticed the new alignment system for 4th edition? What do you think of it?

Fly, you fool! :smallwink:

This should be the topic of another thread, and I think thet we discussed about it. Make a search.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-16, 08:44 AM
To the OP:

I have a feeling that your friends are playing out of character from experience; most of us have bad experiences with players letting their characters play "Stupid Evil", and that kind of play usually end up ruining everyone's experience.

It might, unfortunately, be so that the other players do not trust you not to repeat something similar later, and they are just waiting for it to happen.
Even if the PCs have forgiven your PC (something that sounds way out of character for neutral PCs, anyway) the players might suspect you of repeating this later.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-16, 08:46 AM
Well, as a DM I would have switched their alignment to good at that point. Unless of course they are also doing an equalish amount of bad/evil things as well. Then it balances out.
*Smacks Pika with a rolled up newspaper*

Talya
2009-07-16, 09:18 AM
scapegoat

Alignment discussion aside...

/inigo on
...I do nah thin' that word means what you thin' it means.
/inigo off

So no, True Neutral is not a convenient fall-guy to take the blame for the failures of something else.

Pika...
2009-07-16, 10:51 AM
This line, right here, is exactly how you play a Jedi of the "light" side of the Force in every way. May I use this when citing examples to my players?

LoL. Someone citing me? That's pretty cool. :smallbiggrin:

Pika...
2009-07-16, 10:52 AM
I once played a Neutral Bard who was a semi-pacifist painter, and would do sketches and caricatures as his perform. I thought he was a rather interesting character, but the other members of my party seemed to disagree and came close to killing him once. Now perhaps it was due to his relative uselessness in combat or just that I myself am annoying but they did not seem to appreciate when i would stop to make a sketch of something in the middle of a dungeon. Although, I'm sure your Psion will be more useful in a fight than a semi-pacifist Bard.

I guess there is a fine line between character concept, and working with the party and IRL group I need to walk.




*Smacks Pika with a rolled up newspaper*

Pika-pi....?

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 12:51 PM
Alright well heres the problem then what is the difference between NG and true neutral? Because reading back on these replies i see a lot of blurred lines.

At least evil(for me is easy to understand).

AstralFire
2009-07-16, 01:01 PM
Alright well heres the problem then what is the difference between NG and true neutral? Because reading back on these replies i see a lot of blurred lines.

At least evil(for me is easy to understand).

Only touching the neutrals here, they're less complicated.

EXALTED NEUTRAL GOOD: Every fiber of my being is devoted to doing maximum good at all times. I engage in self-sacrifice rigorously, though not necessarily stupidly.

NEUTRAL GOOD: Wherever I go, whatever I do, I must seek out and try to make the world a better place. This is my driving purpose in life. I am not always angelic, but 90% of the time, I will be.

NEUTRAL-LEANING-TO-GOOD: Wherever I go, I will try and help people, as long as it doesn't cost me too much. However, I'm not too concerned with fighting an abstract concept of evil that's not clear to present a danger to those I care about.

NEUTRAL (Militant): Good and evil are both imbalances. For the universe to survive, neither can hold too much sway.

NEUTRAL (Apathetic): No skin off my nose. I'll help if I feel like it or someone I care about is in trouble.

NEUTRAL-LEANING-TO-EVIL: Hey, that guy looks like he's about to keel over and die. Eh, well, not much I can do about it now. Might as well take his stuff and get out of here.

NEUTRAL EVIL: That guy looks in a bad way, and like he's got fat wallets. Let's me and my pal Duke Daggers help him on that way... Still, I'll help out people I take a liking to. Taking a liking to people may be very rare, however.

VILE NEUTRAL EVIL: Well, that guy's about to die. I'll probe his mind for memories of his loved ones, conjure an illusion of one, and have them scream, curse and berate him, chanting at him to commit suicide and finish it, that he was never loved anyway. If he doesn't, I'll beat him with a crowbar until he's too weak to defend himself, then kick him in the gut until he dies. Then I take the wallet.

Talya
2009-07-16, 01:01 PM
Alright well heres the problem then what is the difference between NG and true neutral? Because reading back on these replies i see a lot of blurred lines.

At least evil(for me is easy to understand).

At its oversimplified basics, Good is active in spreading good. Neutral doesn't do evil, but isn't running around righting wrongs, either.

Actually, forget it. You have Richard as an avatar.

Just slaughter them all.

Myrmex
2009-07-16, 01:05 PM
Neutral can also be due to people stealing and cheating sometimes, and helping people out other times. In my experience, most people do good AND evil, and end up about neutral.

Fixer
2009-07-16, 01:06 PM
Alright well heres the problem then what is the difference between NG and true neutral? Because reading back on these replies i see a lot of blurred lines.

At least evil(for me is easy to understand).
I wrote up a short essay on "True" Neutrality (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3318285#post3318285). Perhaps you can peruse it and it might help you find the differences.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 01:06 PM
Actually, forget it. You have Richard as an avatar.

Just slaughter them all.

Haha thats the way.


NEUTRAL-LEANING-TO-GOOD: Wherever I go, I will try and help people, as long as it doesn't cost me too much. However, I'm not too concerned with fighting an abstract concept of evil that's not clear to present a danger to those I care about.



This is the one i think my group is the most. Without me it would act as a "good" party

Talya
2009-07-16, 01:06 PM
Neutral can also be due to people stealing and cheating sometimes, and helping people out other times. In my experience, most people do good AND evil, and end up about neutral.

Yes, but that can be taken too far.

The good upstanding citizen who donates to charity, helps the poor and downtrodden, valiantly serves his country, and on the side rapes and tortures and kills young women in his basement dungeon, is no less evil for his philanthropism.

AstralFire
2009-07-16, 01:07 PM
Yes, but that can be taken too far.

The good upstanding citizen who donates to charity, helps the poor and downtrodden, valiantly serves his country, and on the side rapes and tortures and kills young women in his basement dungeon, is no less evil for his philanthropism.

I really hope there wouldn't be anyone who would argue him as anything more virtuous than 'messed up in the head' Evil.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-16, 01:07 PM
Pika-pi....?

Alignment is *not* a bank account.

hamishspence
2009-07-16, 01:09 PM
true. Champions of Ruin had example (an ex-paladin werewolf) in description of various evil character archetypes.

"Most of the time he is Good, but his Evil outweighs all the Good he does"

(which is why he had the Evil alignment)

Fixer
2009-07-16, 01:11 PM
Alignment is *not* a bank account.
In D&D, it almost is.

Alignments are representations of moral and ethical beliefs which grant one alignment or another more 'karmic currency'. A good character performing an evil act is considered to be giving their money to an evil cause, even if it was being done for noble reasons. Likewise, an evil being which demonstrates kindness, remorse, or forgiveness is giving their money to a good cause.

Now, what that currency might be used for I have no clue.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-16, 01:12 PM
In D&D, it almost is.

Alignments are representations of moral and ethical beliefs which grant one alignment or another more 'karmic currency'. A good character performing an evil act is considered to be giving their money to an evil cause, even if it was being done for noble reasons. Likewise, an evil being which demonstrates kindness, remorse, or forgiveness is giving their money to a good cause.

Now, what that currency might be used for I have no clue.

Yes, but being neutral doesn't mean helping old ladies across the street one moment and kicking puppies the next.

hamishspence
2009-07-16, 01:15 PM
yes- helping old ladies across the street 27 days out of 28 and committing atrocities on the 28th was the MO of the Evil ex-paladin werewolf I mentioned.

Neutral can, however, be the midpoint of the falling hero, who has started doing Evil for his "good cause".

Before he slips all the way into Evil while still believing himself to be in the right.

AstralFire
2009-07-16, 01:17 PM
Evil would be represented as a loan out to a loanshark with a 4000% interest rate. As soon as you end the loan and declare bankruptcy, you are no longer losing money, but your prior currency, credit history, and subsequent earnings determine whether you end up positive or negative.

Mindleshank
2009-07-16, 01:22 PM
I wrote up a short essay on "True" Neutrality (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3318285#post3318285). Perhaps you can peruse it and it might help you find the differences.

Yeah this helped a lot now i just need to show this to my group and i will be all set

Myrmex
2009-07-16, 01:30 PM
Evil would be represented as a loan out to a loanshark with a 4000% interest rate. As soon as you end the loan and declare bankruptcy, you are no longer losing money, but your prior currency, credit history, and subsequent earnings determine whether you end up positive or negative.

No, taking out a loan with 4000% interest is Lawful Stupid.

Mongoose87
2009-07-16, 01:31 PM
No, taking out a loan with 4000% interest is Lawful Stupid.

If you owe me thirty dollars, you have a problem. If you owe me thirty thousand dollars, I have a problem.

olentu
2009-07-16, 01:58 PM
True Neutral was used as the name for Neutral in 3rd Edition. Just like True Good and True Lawful were used for Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral.

I just don't remember where.

It was in the 3.0 PHB where True Neutral, True Good, and so forth were used.

Starbuck_II
2009-07-16, 02:33 PM
If you owe me thirty dollars, you have a problem. If you owe me thirty thousand dollars, I have a problem.

Is that why the banks in America went under?

AstralFire
2009-07-16, 02:40 PM
No, taking out a loan with 4000% interest is Lawful Stupid.

As an analogy, not an example. :P

Pika...
2009-07-16, 03:06 PM
Alignment is *not* a bank account.

*Pouts, then jumps in his pokeball for the rest of this alignment argument*