[3.5] Is there ever a disadvantage for going True Neutral?

[rmg22893]

I always go true neutral unless there's an alignment restriction on the class I'm playing, because it allows you the most freedom, doesn't seem to restrict you from doing much, and class features based on alignment often give you the best of both worlds for being true neutral. Are there any cases where true neutral is worse than a more polarized alignment?

[Little Brother]

You can be hit by Dictum, Blasphemy, Holy Word, and Word of Chaos?

[Kantolin]

You also are hit by holy smite, Unholy blight, Order's Wrath, and Chaos hammer.

Admittedly for lesser effect, but you can't do tactics like 'my whole party is good, I holy smite my allies to hit the enemies therein'.

There are then tons of classes for good and an array for evil that are very powerful or at least neat, but the only one I can think for neutral is druid (And that's only a sort of, as you do get NG/NE/LN/CN options there).

[Viktyr Gehrig]

The class restrictions are a big deal. Most of my builds have levels in either Monk or Warlock, and Neutral doesn't allow me to play either. Indeed, most of my favorite classes have alignment restrictions in one direction or another-- and most of them are absolutely ridiculous.

[motoko's ghost]

Yeah, N gets hurt by just about every [alignment] spell or effect, but you do get your own called word of balance(which is a bit better than the other words)

[NeoSeraphi]

Classes with alignment restrictions that stop you from being True Neutral:

Monk
Battle Dancer (Dragon Compendium)
Paladin of Honor
Paladin of Freedom (Unearthed Arcana)
Paladin of Tyranny (UA)
Paladin of Slaughter (UA)
Incarnate (Magic of Incarnum)
Soulborn (MoI)
Knight (PHB II)
Samurai (Complete Warrior)
Warlock (Complete Arcane)
Cleric (Unless your deity is True Neutral)
Favored Soul (Unless your deity is True Neutral)
Dragon Shaman (PHB II, I think)

Not to mention all the awesome prestige classes. (Ur-Priest, Wild Mage, Assassin, to name a few)

And plenty more. But that's the main reason. Options. People like options.

[erikun]

I can't say that I've ever felt restricted by any particular alignment. Even my LG guys rarely run into issues of alignment and actions taken... assuming the character is actually LG and doesn't just have that listed on their character sheet for class reasons.

[Zaq]

You can't be a Crusader. And that's terrible.

[Dr.Epic]

There's no book for Neutral:

Book of Vile Darkness
Book of Exalted Deeds

[BobVosh]

There's no book for Neutral:

Book of Vile Darkness
Book of Exalted Deeds

Ahaha, good one.


That's the problem with Neutrals - you never know where you stand. Damn them and their neutrality.

[MeeposFire]

Raise the white flag of war.

[motoko's ghost]

There's no book for Neutral:

Book of Vile Darkness
Book of Exalted Deeds

Your wrong, It's simply every other book APART from those two:smalltongue:

Also why didnt this post when I submitted it a few minutes ago?:smallconfused:

[MukkTB]

I find LG hard to deal with especially when class features demand you stay on the straight and narrow.

On the other hand I've been able to play CE without major issues. A normal adventurer making his way along does a lot of slaughter even if you're not trying to go off the adventure rails. Those elves that invited me to a feast in order to attack the party? Yeah I killed them. Their high priestess/queen. Their wizards. Their guards. At the end they had no government left. What they get for worshiping their dark god and assaulting the party.

A LG character going into that situation would probably have ended up killing them too. They were definitely bad guys. But the fluff would be different.

With to alignment as long as the DM isn't looking over your shoulder to enforce a class feature it just comes down to how you want to play. And then somehow making that playstyle fit in the party. TN or CN on a character with no class alignment restrictions is a pretty good way to insure that even the most anal DM isn't going to dictate how you should play, or pass shattering judgement on you.

[TuggyNE]

TN or CN on a character with no class alignment restrictions is a pretty good way to insure that even the most anal DM isn't going to dictate how you should play, or pass shattering judgement on you.

Ah, the wonders of the famed Chaotic Derp alignment.... :smallamused:
(For the curious, I often call CE "Crazy Evil" and LG "Stupid Good" :smalltongue:)

Back on topic, though, I guess I'm not a very sophisticated roleplayer, since I'd feel a bit strange writing anything other than that "G" on my alignment sheet.


There's no book for Neutral:

Book of Vile Darkness
Book of Exalted Deeds

Well, if it helps, there's a project in homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220877) for that....

[Ceaon]

Are there any cases where true neutral is worse than a more polarized alignment?

I don't think so. From a mechanical point of view, True Neutral seems to be the 'best' alignment. Especially for clerics and the like. But of course, fluff-wise, an entire setting full of True Neutral pro- and antagonists might get boring quickly.

[Hirax]

I've also considered true neutral to be the most optimal in the back of my head for years, though I've never seen anything that makes a compelling argument for any alignment being the best mechanically. With how old 3.X is I'm sure it's been done, hopefully there's someone around that knows where to look.

[Darth_Versity]

You can't play the awsomeness that is the MONK! :smallbiggrin:

[Jeff the Green]

But of course, fluff-wise, an entire setting full of True Neutral pro- and antagonists might get boring quickly.

Eh, I'm not sure about that one. Neutral doesn't mean apathetic. It just means not willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good and doesn't hurt or oppress. Probably most of humanity fits under that umbrella, only leaning one way or the other. Yet we have interesting conflicts in real life.

[missmvicious]

*Opens mouth to make a point about True Neutral*

Nah... this is one of those threads that tempts me to deliver a sermon about alignment differences from a philosophical perspective. And even though I have studied philosophy, I'm hardly a scholar in D&D, and will only get myself into trouble here.

I'll just say something innocuous, like:
Fluff-wise, NPCs and animals tend to be more NN than adventures. They're not driven by the same motifs (yes I meant motif not motive) as adventurers do. I find that RP is better (more fulfilling) if you at least pick a side on one aspect of your alignment: LN, CN, NG, NE. I interpret it as the Neutral side is reflective of the other alignment... effectively creating an LL, CC, GG, EE character. It's pretty fun to create a character who obsessively serves the cause of one thing... and a bit more appropriate for fantasy storytelling than a more complex character would be like some NN nihilist or existentialist who doesn't see the point in diving into that dungeon.

LN: Judge Dredd
CN: All good Punk bands (like Pump N Ethyl, NOFX, or The Distillers)
NG: Captain Kirk
NE: Great Evil from The 5th Element

[Ceaon]

Eh, I'm not sure about that one. Neutral doesn't mean apathetic. It just means not willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good and doesn't hurt or oppress. Probably most of humanity fits under that umbrella, only leaning one way or the other. Yet we have interesting conflicts in real life.

You are correct. But many of those interesting conflicts translate very badly to tabletop RPGs.

[Eisirt]

There's no book for Neutral:

Book of Vile Darkness
Book of Exalted Deeds

This makes me wish there was a "Like" button on this forum. :smallsmile:

[Starscream]

There's no book for Neutral:

Book of Vile Darkness
Book of Exalted Deeds

Nuh uh! What about the Book of Adequate Lighting Conditions?

The Arcane Accountant prestige class is awesome if you want a character based around fiscalmancy. And the chapter on enchanted surrender flags is excellent. +2 grovelling is useful in so many scenarios, and it stacks with your Trousers of Self-Wetting.

And the monsters! Cardboard Golem, Beige Dragon, Oatmeal Elementals, and the Corpse template that lets you make undead who don't care enough to move and just rot in their coffins.

If you get the 3.5 updated edition, it comes with a free DM screen with tax forms on the inside, and dungeon safety inspection sheets. Remember, this is D&D, and there's always more than one way to deal with your enemies. Why stick a sword in Lord Darkenkill when you can handle him just as easily by having him fined for not installing railings around his lava pit?

[elvengunner69]

*Opens mouth to make a point about True Neutral*

Nah... this is one of those threads that tempts me to deliver a sermon about alignment differences from a philosophical perspective. And even though I have studied philosophy, I'm hardly a scholar in D&D, and will only get myself into trouble here.

I'll just say something innocuous, like:
Fluff-wise, NPCs and animals tend to be more NN than adventures. They're not driven by the same motifs (yes I meant motif not motive) as adventurers do. I find that RP is better (more fulfilling) if you at least pick a side on one aspect of your alignment: LN, CN, NG, NE. I interpret it as the Neutral side is reflective of the other alignment... effectively creating an LL, CC, GG, EE character. It's pretty fun to create a character who obsessively serves the cause of one thing... and a bit more appropriate for fantasy storytelling than a more complex character would be like some NN nihilist or existentialist who doesn't see the point in diving into that dungeon.

LN: Judge Dredd
CN: All good Punk bands (like Pump N Ethyl, NOFX, or The Distillers)
NG: Captain Kirk
NE: Great Evil from The 5th Element

I thought him more Chaotic good because he never (or rarely) does what Starfleet tells him to do.

Excellent stuff though in all seriousness and I agree picking your alignment should really tie in with role playing but often gets overlooked/ignored. If it had a number it would be a dump stat.

[ericgrau]

There are a thousand exceptions pointed out, but overall true neutral is the best mechanically because the least things affect it. On the flipside it also limits your options available. But if you weren't planning on playing a class with alignment requirements anyway it's probably your best option.

[hamishspence]

There's no book for Neutral:

Book of Vile Darkness
Book of Exalted Deeds

Fluffwise, there was one in the splatbook Underdark though- the Book of Perfect Balance. As well as a Talisman of Pure Neutrality.

The Regalia of Neutrality (Neutral counterpart to the Regalia artifacts in BoED and BOVD) is in Arms & Equipment Guide,

[missmvicious]

I thought him more Chaotic good because he never (or rarely) does what Starfleet tells him to do.

Hm... I always viewed his decisions as if he was ok with doing what Starfleet wanted, but for the greater good, he'd gladly break the Prime Directive. I always though of chaotic as a bit more anarchistic than Kirk.

But maybe you're right. So who would be better suited to the role of the-greater-good-is-all-that-matters?

Empowered? I'd like to think Empowered would be that way. Plus, that puts a girl on the list. :smallwink:

[ericgrau]

The thing is, is there ever any starfleet captain that won't break the prime directive? :smalltongue:

That aside, yeah Kirk tends to be fairly chaotic overall. You could maybe argue neutral because he follows regulation at times, but I think he only does it as much as he must.

[huttj509]

The thing is, is there ever any starfleet captain that won't break the prime directive? :smalltongue:

That aside, yeah Kirk tends to be fairly chaotic overall. You could maybe argue neutral because he follows regulation at times, but I think he only does it as much as he must.


The goal of the Prime Directive is to make you THINK before you break it.

[Starscream]

Here's a potential problem with TN, but it's very specific.

Let's say you are a cleric of Obad Hai, or any other neutral god. Now let's say you come in contact with a Helm of Opposite Alignment.

If you were NG, NE, LN, or CN, you'd become the opposite. Inconvenient, but you'd still have all your cleric powers, because you'd still be within one step of neutral.

But if you are already True Neutral, you'd become LG, CG, LE, or CE and basically become useless.

[rmg22893]

Here's a potential problem with TN, but it's very specific.

Let's say you are a cleric of Obad Hai, or any other neutral god. Now let's say you come in contact with a Helm of Opposite Alignment.

If you were NG, NE, LN, or CN, you'd become the opposite. Inconvenient, but you'd still have all your cleric powers, because you'd still be within one step of neutral.

But if you are already True Neutral, you'd become LG, CG, LE, or CE and basically become useless.

This is why I never use strange items without having them identified first :P

[RndmNumGen]

This is why I never use strange items without having them identified first :P

Strange. That is why I always use strange items without having identified them first...

Actually, I usually do identify them if I can(if only so it can be given to the person where it will do the most good), but if we're low level and don't have a source of identify on hand, I'm going to have some fun!

As a side note, I also identify potions by taste :smalltongue:

[TroubleBrewing]

As a side note, I also identify potions by taste :smalltongue:

This is totally off-topic, but if you have a habit of doing this, does your group use the Potion Miscibility (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20060401b) rules? :smalltongue:

Why does Wizards always do their best work on April Fools day?

[motoko's ghost]

This is totally off-topic, but if you have a habit of doing this, does your group use the Potion Miscibility (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20060401b) rules? :smalltongue:

Why does Wizards always do their best work on April Fools day?

Cause silly is frequently awesome:smallbiggrin:
Also I fail to see how its a joke, it seems like a serious rulesystem

[Kantolin]

To swap this around, actually, what do you get for being true neutral?

I mean... you can't be smitten by the increasingly-specific list of smites that only smite good or evil? Tons of classes have smites that work on everything, in fact...

[Jack_Simth]

I always go true neutral unless there's an alignment restriction on the class I'm playing, because it allows you the most freedom, doesn't seem to restrict you from doing much, and class features based on alignment often give you the best of both worlds for being true neutral. Are there any cases where true neutral is worse than a more polarized alignment?
Yes. Alignment-altering effects when you're required to stay within one step of True Neutral.

If a NG Druid of a TN deity (not that Druids actually specifically require deities...) fails a save vs. a Helm of Opposite Alignment, that NE Druid is just fine.

However, if a TN Druid fails a save vs. a Helm of Opposite Alignment, the Druid loses all class features.


Cause silly is frequently awesome:smallbiggrin:
Also I fail to see how its a joke, it seems like a serious rulesystem
Suppose you're, oh, level 10, and doing this when you've got lots of down-time in your lab.
If you get 200 potions of Protection From Evil, and 200 potions of Mage Armor, and do 200 mixings of Protection From Evil and Mage Armor, get yourself an assistant that's immune to poison (such as, say, a few castings of Unseen Servant) and begin mixing them externally, ID'ing them as possible, and then drinking them, you've spent 20,000 gp (assuming you bought the potions), and most of the results you can just ignore - a ten foot spread of poison gas twenty feet away doesn't bother you, a summon monster I spell that lasts a round is unlikely to cause you significant injury, a -4 penalty on AC for an hour isn't going to do much, potions that work one way or the other are just ignored, and so on, changing color for a while for an hour doesn't matter, a random potion from the DMG isn't going to hurt you at all (none of them are negative), and so on. The only one that has a noticeable effect, long-term, is the double-ought "Discovery"... which you've got a good chance of getting once per potion. So 20,000 gp, a bit of time, and you've got permanent immunity to contact by many summoned evil monsters (as long as they don't have SR), a permanent +2 Deflection and Resistance bonus vs. Evil critters, permanent immunity to many forms of mind control, and a permanent +4 Force Armor to AC. Oh yes, and they can't be stolen from you, ever. You might get them earlier, you might get them later, but the 20,000 gp mark, with 200 of each potion, is the statistically expected.

Is that worth 20,000 gp, do you think?

Oh yes, and you can get any two 1st level spell effects (of those suitable for making into a potion, anyway... although I don't really want to think about what happens when you make an Instant effect Permanent...) this way for about that price. Lesser Vigor, Endure Elements, Pass Without Trace, either Reduce or Enlarge Person to your tastes, and so on.

2nd and 3rd level spells get excessively expensive for what they do (120,000 gp and 300,000 gp, respectively), and there's a couple of lower-level spells that make for odd numbers because you want the higher caster level version (Barkskin+5 and Shield of Faith+5 potions, when doing the 200 each bit for having a very good chance of getting both Permanent and Slotless, would cost 420,000 gp).

Yes, if custom item creation is permitted, it's a waste of cash. Otherwise, it can be useful.

[motoko's ghost]

To swap this around, actually, what do you get for being true neutral?

I mean... you can't be smitten by the increasingly-specific list of smites that only smite good or evil? Tons of classes have smites that work on everything, in fact...

You can be what you want to be. You are not beholden to any one alignment, you get to stay out of alignment wars.:smalltongue:

[ORione]

You can be what you want to be. You are not beholden to any one alignment, you get to stay out of alignment wars.:smalltongue:

No one likes a fence-sitter.

[motoko's ghost]

No one likes a fence-sitter.

your true neutral, your not a fence sitter, you are the fence, your keeping good and evil from wandering into each other gardens and doing ...unpleasant things to the begonias.:smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

You can't pick any of the aligned domain feats:

Chaos Devotion
Evil Devotion
Good Devotion
Law Devotion

Domain feats are a new category of feats that signify a character's dedication to a particular religious ideal or tenet. ... These beliefs must also be consistent with your alignment.

[motoko's ghost]

You can't pick any of the aligned domain feats:

Chaos Devotion
Evil Devotion
Good Devotion
Law Devotion


yeah,but most of those su...I mean aren't very good:smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

yeah,but most of those su...I mean aren't very good:smalltongue:
You only need to be denied one good feat to have it hurt, though. +7 to either attack or AC, on demand, for 10 rounds of every combat (assuming you've got Cleric levels to power this) is pretty spiffy.

[missmvicious]

4e replaced True Neutral with Unaligned. Probably, for the very reason that NN is difficult to interpret, and therefore role-play.

Some say: NN = I don't care about nothin'. I'll do what I want, when I want.

Other's say: NN = I don't care about anything. Nothing matters and nothing is relevant. I'm on this adventure ironically.

While yet other's may say: I care about everything, and am therefore completely ambivalent. I shall therefore maintain a balance of moral stasis until some greater truth reveals itself to me.

And then there's the heroically absurd (Druids often take this route: I AM THE GREAT DEFENDER OF THE BALANCE! I TAKE WITH MY LEFT HAND AND GIVE IN EQUAL PORTION WITH MY RIGHT! THERE IS NO GOOD OR EVIL! ONLY THE GREAT ZERO-SUM EQUATION, AND I SHALL DEFEND THAT BALANCE IN LIFE OR BY MY DEATH IF NEEDED! *dramatic echo*

Fluffwise, NN is far more entertaining than Unaligned, but Unaligned cuts down on arguments with the DM.

If you really want to know how NN is played in your campaign, try discussing it with you're DM. Different DMs and different campaigns may produce any number of NN interpretations (way beyond the basic 4 I just mentioned), but at least you and the DM will see eye-to-eye on this and the DM can better cultivate a campaign around that mutual viewpoint. A friend of ours recently joined a campaign I am currently in (we're only 8 in-game days into it) did that, since he was thinking about playing an NN character, and that blew my mind. I don't know why it didn't occur to me to extend that courtesy to a DM before. The PC decided, based on the DM's interpretation of neutrality, to go with LN, and he has since been a valued role-player. The DM really appreciated the discussion and the two developed a level of respect for each other that would typically have taken much longer to develop, so I thought that was really cool... top shelf D&D courtesy. :smallsmile:

[DoctorGlock]

The biggest advantage is when a rather retentive DM pulls "but your alignment says x!" on you and you get to say "nah, i'm true neutral, you can't tell me squat!"

The only real disadvantages happen to be the inability to get into prestige paladin or chosen of mystra.

[Analytica]

Looking for mechanical reasons not to be neutral is unlikely to give you much, though there are some nice options that are limited - Ur-Priest first and foremost.

Rather... consider what personality you want to play, which examples from fiction you want to embody, or religions or factions within the game world. Chances are, you will find many of these cases are non-neutral. That is the reason for why you might want to play a non-neutral character. To me, that seems like the only reason anyone should need.

[Analytica]

The biggest advantage is when a rather retentive DM pulls "but your alignment says x!" on you and you get to say "nah, i'm true neutral, you can't tell me squat!"

Alternately, just say "If you think this action would change my alignment, go ahead and change it on the sheet." Alignment is arguably something that describes you, not a set of restrictions you must abide by. Unless your class features depend on alignment, I guess...

[DoctorGlock]

Alternately, just say "If you think this action would change my alignment, go ahead and change it on the sheet." Alignment is arguably something that describes you, not a set of restrictions you must abide by. Unless your class features depend on alignment, I guess...

Usually that's how I play things. Write out a personality and generally leave the alignment tab blank. But I have had DMs say "You need an alignment" and then stick some arbitrary idea of morality on my char (usually I end up with something in the N spectrum) but occasionally the DM is a bit of a twerp about the whole thing.

"Well, your nihilist is evil and since he's evil he'd never help anyone, the act you are performing is against your alignment and thus you cannot do it" is that kind of DM. So I changed to CN and said "whoops, CN is crazy, looks like's i'll do what I choose rather than what you think I should choose". The best thing to do is to leave though if you have a DM like that.

[missmvicious]

That's horrible awful DM'ing and it's railroad role-playing... the worst kind of railroading.

Alignments matter in some cases for spells (particularly Divine spells) and for attacks (Smite Good/Evil) but for the most part, a DM should only discuss alignment issues with a player if it becomes a game-breaker to do so.

For instance...

I'm in a Lawful (military) campaign right now. We could be any form of Lawful we wanted but we had to be Lawful. The DM explained why in great detail and how it wasn't only germane, but actually critical to the plot that we play it so. I should clarify that we are allowed to change our alignments as the plot thickens in complexity, therefore developing our characters further.

I'm LG. But I've been disobeying direct orders to accomplish my own goals, which I believed would produce better results in the end. My DM warned me that this may cause an alignment ping to CG or NG and I accepted the consequences. The only consequences I've seen so far is:

The team isn't following my orders as readily because they're beginning to suspect that I'm going renegade. (The DM didn't put them up to this... they just decided this on their own.)

The LN Cleric in our group has an Artifact that wreaks havoc on Non-Lawful types, and if she figures out that I'm disobeying direct orders, she may actually arrest me and have me sent back to our home town in shackles.

Apparently, the direct order I was given was a good order that I should've followed, because the DM isn't going to stop the progression-of-consequence for the rest of the world just because I wanted to go on some side quests. And things are starting to get out of hand. I talked to the DM and asked if I killed the campaign. He refuses to answer, but also clarified that he has no intention of railroading the campaign, either for our benefit or loss.

The DM never forced me to behave a certain way just because it reads LG on my Character Sheet, but he did issue more than enough gentle warnings about my decisions. I'm paying the price for it now, and am running a split campaign, throwing myself to the wolves to try to save the quest. I'll probably die in the game and will have to roll up a new character. :smallfrown: I liked my Wizard.

But I digress. That was just, what I feel, is a good example about how involved a DM should ever get regarding alignments. Alignments should effect how your role-play. That's part of getting into character, but there's room to evolve in complexity. DMs can adjudicate Alignment pings, but for the most part, your alignment determines how you play, and how the world around you reacts to you once your alignment has been revealed.