How to be True Neutral?

[Chained Birds]

For a while now, I've been under the impression that a True Neutral (TN) aligned character is pretty much a potential backstabber, and if they are not, they are not playing their alignment right. The reason why I call them 'backstabbers' is because they can either side with good or evil with only the thought of "I guess with me siding with the Enemy for now, the Enemy and my party will be on equal gound."

Now I might be wrong about this, so can anyone tell me how a TN character actually behaves. Do they always have to do evil and good stuff every now and then to maintain the TN equilibrium?

[Cespenar]

Forget the "MUST KEEP THE BALANCE" True Neutrals. True True Neutrals are your ordinary people.

[Yora]

You just are not good, evil, chaotic, and lawful.

[Tenno Seremel]

"I guess with me siding with the Enemy for now, the Enemy and my party will be on equal gound."

That's not True Neutral, that's Chaotic Insane :smallbiggrin:

[SpaceBadger]

True Neutral is not about keeping any kind of balance, either on an encounter level or cosmic level. True Neutral is self-centered, doing whatever seems best or most advantageous for that character without consideration of some cosmic goal of Good or Evil or Law or Chaos.

[Hanuman]

Lawful: To adhere to one's morals.
Chaotic: To break from one's morals.
Good: To cherish and respect life.
Evil: To ignore or disrespect life.

Neutral: and/neither

Labels on personality or human behavior in general is applied post-fact, my suggestion on playing TN is play and see what your DM sticks you as.

[Gullintanni]

The True Neutral is the guy who's just trying to get by in life. He is primarily self-interested, and doesn't care for any particular code. He will preserve and obey laws that serve his own well-being, but will not hesitate to decry those which encroach upon his liberty, happiness, safety or other self-centered concern.

He doesn't protest against the moral ills of society, nor does he express malice against any individual. He is, by all accounts, doing what he can to keep his head down, stay out of others crosshairs and enhance his own position as best is as possible.

The Commoner working on a farm is an example of True Neutral. He just wants to make his money by plying his trade. He's averse to paying taxes unless he can see the immediate benefit he receives from paying them. When the king frivolously beheads a member of the upper caste, he doesn't particularly care, but takes note to avoid that king's company in future, as he's got something of a cruel streak.

[gkathellar]

I'm pulling this out of a thread I did on alignment a while back (link in my sig) which encapsulates my take. Note that it came after my perspectives on the other alignments, and probably makes a lot more sense in that context.*

True Neutral, "The Unaligned"
A true neutral character is bound by neither strong behavioral convictions nor a deep preoccupation with personal freedom, neither morally bankrupt nor driven to righteousness. They are in some ways disciplined and cruel, and in other ways self-indulgent and benevolent. In most cases, they simply have no strong beliefs regarding any of these things, but rarely they take the position that these are not fundamentally contradictory ways to live. Most shy away from extreme behaviors, doing their best to look out for themselves, helping the people they like, and occasionally impeding those they don't. Most are content not thinking about themselves or the state of the world. When they break from this mold, they don't usually stay true neutral for long, but those that do become the reluctant heroes and cautious champions of legend.

*(I am not asking anyone to necro the thread and get it locked. Please don't do that. I may go back to it some day.)

[Venger]

be apathetic (IC) with regard to law and order and good and evil and you're playing TN right. the random backstabbing you describe is historically more CN, or chaotic random/chaotic derp/ chaotic randumb as it is sometimes affectionately referred to.

but as the old adage goes, play your character, not your alignment, and you'll be fine.

[Hanuman]

The True Neutral is the guy who's just trying to get by in life. He is primarily self-interested, and doesn't care for any particular code. He will preserve and obey laws that serve his own well-being, but will not hesitate to decry those which encroach upon his liberty, happiness, safety or other self-centered concern.

He doesn't protest against the moral ills of society, nor does he express malice against any individual. He is, by all accounts, doing what he can to keep his head down, stay out of others crosshairs and enhance his own position as best is as possible.

The Commoner working on a farm is an example of True Neutral. He just wants to make his money by plying his trade. He's averse to paying taxes unless he can see the immediate benefit he receives from paying them. When the king frivolously beheads a member of the upper caste, he doesn't particularly care, but takes note to avoid that king's company in future, as he's got something of a cruel streak.
This is a passive TN, you can be a forward TN as well having a full sense of emotion and character, but with a sense of implacability.
Normally people would reserve that for chaotic, but a balance between strong morals AND breaking from them creates a complex character, and often TN classifies the most complex rather than the most dull.

[Dr.Epic]

Good: I don't put myself above others and need to protect people for the greater good regardless of profit.

Evil: I come first before everyone and will harm anyone who gets in the way of my quest for personal power and wealth.

Neutral: I look after myself first before anyone, but will lend a hand to others possibly if the price is right or the danger is great enough.

[Curmudgeon]

Backstabbers:

Evil characters: because it's fun.
Chaotic characters: just because.
Lawful characters: when told to do so.
Good characters: if they suspect you're Evil.

[Gullintanni]

This is a passive TN, you can be a forward TN as well having a full sense of emotion and character, but with a sense of implacability.
Normally people would reserve that for chaotic, but a balance between strong morals AND breaking from them creates a complex character, and often TN classifies the most complex rather than the most dull.

Well...yeah passive TN. The active TN in that case may start evaluating how he can dethrone the king, for fear that said king's cruel streak may one day be brought to bear upon him.

He wouldn't particularly care for evil, good, law or chaos. He'd do whatever needed to be done. He'd probably choose murder or assassination as a last resort though, because that's obviously evil. He might have his companions look through law books for obscure laws that he might use to arraign the king (Law). He might also try to incite revolt against the king among the populace (Chaos).

In either of those two cases, he would seek to achieve his ends based on which of the two approaches was most likely to succeed...but sticking to the farmer metaphor, in the specific case of a king beheading underlings, he's most likely to keep on farming...given how poor period relevant farmers tended to be and how deviating from farming would most likely result in starving to death.

He'd also probably consider whether or not the king was also an otherwise fair monarch whose laws resulted in strong personal benefits, before electing to take any action.

...Still I take your point :smalltongue:

[gkathellar]

Good: I don't put myself above others and need to protect people for the greater good regardless of profit.

Evil: I come first before everyone and will harm anyone who gets in the way of my quest for personal power and wealth.

Neutral: I look after myself first before anyone, but will lend a hand to others possibly if the price is right or the danger is great enough.

This is a pretty good rule of thumb, but I would be careful about simplifying all behavior on the good/evil spectrum down to altruism vs. ambition. You can have ambitious, self-centered good characters (see: Philip Marlowe). Likewise, you can have altruistic evil characters who are basically huge jerks or very selective about being altruistic, or unambitious evil characters.

In general, OP, alignment should be the last consideration for your character's personality: once you're done outlining how kind or cruel, how selfish or giving, how shortsighted or disconnected your character is, then you decide which alignment your character fits into from an overall assessment of those features. True Neutral is no different — it implies a character with no particularly strong ethical or behavioral convictions, but who probably has some that he doesn't think about much.

[Gotterdammerung]

For a while now, I've been under the impression that a True Neutral (TN) aligned character is pretty much a potential backstabber, and if they are not, they are not playing their alignment right. The reason why I call them 'backstabbers' is because they can either side with good or evil with only the thought of "I guess with me siding with the Enemy for now, the Enemy and my party will be on equal gound."

Now I might be wrong about this, so can anyone tell me how a TN character actually behaves. Do they always have to do evil and good stuff every now and then to maintain the TN equilibrium?

The easiest way I have found to roleplay a true neutral character, is to basically take the world view that concepts like good evil law and chaos do not exist. Now this is an extreme view but it helps get you in the right mindset. More accurately, it isn't that you don't believe in the other alignments. It is that you see the flaws and merits of all the other alignments and decide that they are all technically one thing. They are the balance of the universe. Evil acts can be justified, good intentions can cause great harm, Chaos and law co-exist and even more to the point it can be argued that chaos is nothing more than a complicated form of law and neither hold any inherent value other than to keep each other in balance. Even when one particular alignment has garnished more sway over the universe, you can take a step back and add in the measure of time and suddenly see the balance again. Everything in this life is always in balance or in the process of returning to balance, like a seesaw. A true neutral character should embody this philosophy.

Now you can spin it a bunch of different ways. I have played characters who took offense to the ignorance of extreme view characters. He would laugh at their ignorance as they clutched to their extreme alignment as if it had more value. He was smug and condescending about these issues.
But I have also played characters who took a more nonintervention based approach. They felt that it was not their place to educate people of the true nature of things as it might unnaturally sway the balance of the universe.
I have also played characters who outright opposed extreme alignments. They would war to bring the world into balance by attempting to reign in everything and everyone to a place of neutrality.

There are lots more ways to manifest these ideals into your roleplay. I think the one you are describing in the OP is a form of nihilism. I.E. Nothing really matters so I just do what I want. And it definitely fits into one of the possible manifestations of a true neutral personality.

[Chained Birds]

From what people are saying (and by the way, much appreciated), A TN character only thinks about #1, but follows the rules (but not 100% of the time). I get that, but many of my friends would just call the character Chaotic Neutral as CN seems to be a standby for "unaligned" characters in their book. Is there a big difference between the two?

If a TN character was offered 10 platinum at around lvl 1-3 to steal something of relative insignificance (a fairly easy task for this particular character), would he/she do it? Or does it depend on the character? And if he/she does do it, would his/her alignment change (as in this action is more likely to come from a CN character)?

Thanks so far, I think I'm getting close to understanding this.

[Tenno Seremel]

If a TN character was offered 10 platinum at around lvl 1-3 to steal something of relative insignificance (a fairly easy task for this particular character), would he/she do it? Or does it depend on the character?
Everything depends on the character. Even evil character might refuse to help you to take over the world / destroy it for one reason or another.

[gkathellar]

From what people are saying (and by the way, much appreciated), A TN character only thinks about #1, but follows the rules (but not 100% of the time).

Some TN characters only think about #1, just as some Evil characters only think about #1, some CN characters only think about #1, some LN characters only think about #1, and certainly a good character who followed the Aristotelian model of ethics is a good person as a direct result of thinking chiefly about #1. In every case, they would probably think about #1 in different ways. And any of those alignments could also be pretty unselfish (although evil is less inclined towards this).

What characterizes the TN character is that their action are not primarily motivated by deep-seated convictions about how they should live their life (avoiding the more lawful and good side of the spectrum), but they are not entirely without such convictions (avoiding the more chaotic and evil side of the spectrum). In general, TN is characterized by a lack of extreme behaviors or extreme motivations, which makes it hard to characterize.


If a TN character was offered 10 platinum at around lvl 1-3 to steal something of relative insignificance (a fairly easy task for this particular character), would he/she do it? Or does it depend on the character? And if he/she does do it, would his/her alignment change (as in this action is more likely to come from a CN character)?

This one. And changing a character's alignment over a single act is generally bad form, unless it goes hard against what justifies that alignment in the first place.

[SpaceBadger]

From what people are saying (and by the way, much appreciated), A TN character only thinks about #1, but follows the rules (but not 100% of the time). I get that, but many of my friends would just call the character Chaotic Neutral as CN seems to be a standby for "unaligned" characters in their book. Is there a big difference between the two?

That would not make him CN in my view. CN is definitely not "unaligned" - CN is actively anti-law, pro-individual. "Stop oppressing my culture, you ethnocentric bitch!"


If a TN character was offered 10 platinum at around lvl 1-3 to steal something of relative insignificance (a fairly easy task for this particular character), would he/she do it? Or does it depend on the character? And if he/she does do it, would his/her alignment change (as in this action is more likely to come from a CN character)?


Like you said, depends on the character. That act would not change someone's alignment from TN to CN.

[Chained Birds]

Thanks guys, now I can shove this thread into my friends' faces whenever they say a TN character is not probable. :smallwink:

[Rubik]

Do keep in mind that most TN characters prefer to have Good friends rather than Evil ones. They might find self-sacrifice to be fairly silly, but nobody wants to be around someone who will obliterate you in the most painful way possible to get what they want (assuming they're not absolutely attached to you, and find it convenient).

Though this isn't always the case, since some Good characters can be extreme bastards too.

[zlefin]

Different people hold different views on what counts as what alignment (especially when it comes to evil)

One way to do it would be a strong emphasis on moderation;
There's probably some stuff in taoism and buddhism that could represent it.
particularly certain uses of yin yang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

[SowZ]

How to use alignment:

Step One: Create a fleshed out character with little concern for alignment.

Step Two: Look at the alignments and then ballpark where your character fits best without feeling the need to adapt anything to 'fit' and play your alignment.

Step Three: Play according to how the individual would act. Your alignment is what your character fits best as, not necessarily what it is. You shouldn't always think, "Is this what my alignment would do before doing something."

A true neutral character may do the right thing and may be compassionate in a given scenario, but they are not likely to do so at great risk or sacrifice to themselves. They may do the wrong thing for personal gain, which they may feel serious guilt about and may not feel guilty about, but usually won't do so with cruelty or if the outcome is particularly bad.

Then again, they may feel malice and be cruel to certain individuals and groups and they may be willing to sacrifice themselves completely for certain loved ones or if the alternative to not sacrificing themself is really, really terrible. But perhaps not.

There isn't a concrete way you need to play your character. True Neutral is what most people are and doesn't embody nothing. It doesn't emboddy being apathetic and unwilling to make commitments. A TN person can be like that. But isn't always.

Sometimes normal people can be pushed to do terrible things and in certain circumstances they will rise to the occasion of good things.

[JonRG]

If a TN character was offered 10 platinum at around lvl 1-3 to steal something of relative insignificance (a fairly easy task for this particular character), would he/she do it?

Mine would not, because it's obviously a trap. :smallamused:

[Morty]

A True Neutral character is someone whose traits aren't skewed strongly enough towards good, evil, law or chaos. It's simple as that, really. It doesn't have to mean apathy either - an extremely internally conflicted character could be True Neutral.

[gkathellar]

There's probably some stuff in taoism and buddhism that could represent it.
particularly certain uses of yin yang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

That's a faulty use of the concept. Yin and yang don't constitute good and evil. Evil, in the philosophy of taiji (the Supreme Ultimate or Two Great Extremes, encompassing the balance of yin and yang forces) is generally held to result from the imbalance of yin and yang forces. Whereas good generally results from their proper balancing and harmony.

In a setting where such a philosophy was empirically correct, a good character would actively strive to achieve balance, an evil character would be perfectly happy to sicken the world with imbalance, and a neutral character would make no effort to achieve balance but would also probably find the results of drastic imbalance distasteful.

Which is a good explanation of True Neutral, actually.

[Dr.Epic]

Here are some helpful images to remember the differences in alignment:

This guy is good:
http://desktop.freewallpaper4.me/view/original/3246/watchmen-rorschach.jpg

This guy is neutral:
http://desktop.freewallpaper4.me/view/original/3246/watchmen-rorschach.jpg

This guy is evil:
http://desktop.freewallpaper4.me/view/original/3246/watchmen-rorschach.jpg

Any questions?:smallwink:

[Marnath]

Easydamus has a pretty nice explanation of the alignments.

True Neutral (http://easydamus.com/trueneutral.html)


Chaotic Neutral (http://easydamus.com/chaoticneutral.html)

The X alignment vs. Y alignment essays near the bottom of each page are of particular value, at least I think so.

[zlefin]

That's a faulty use of the concept. Yin and yang don't constitute good and evil. Evil, in the philosophy of taiji (the Supreme Ultimate or Two Great Extremes, encompassing the balance of yin and yang forces) is generally held to result from the imbalance of yin and yang forces. Whereas good generally results from their proper balancing and harmony.

In a setting where such a philosophy was empirically correct, a good character would actively strive to achieve balance, an evil character would be perfectly happy to sicken the world with imbalance, and a neutral character would make no effort to achieve balance but would also probably find the results of drastic imbalance distasteful.

Which is a good explanation of True Neutral, actually.

it's not a faulty use of the concept; it's an ACCURATE use of the concept.
I NEVER SAID yin yang were good and evil.
And I posted the link to a wiki article which EXPLAINED that quite clearly;
it also represents a philosophy which one could call neutral.
And i correctly prefaced my points with notes on how alignment means different things to different people. As Dr epic demonstrated with how a single character could have several different alignments depending on how people intrepret alignments and actions.
And under one such interpretation of alignment, the philosophy would be true neutral (though under others it would not)
But given the degree to which the text for true neutrals talks about maintaining balance being important, and says taht extremes in either direction are bad, that sounds alot like taoism.

[gkathellar]

it also represents a philosophy which one could call neutral.

Certainly not under its own internal assumptions. Yin-yang philosophy* is about the harmonization of forces like weakness and strength, yielding and pushing, soft and hard, etc., not about any kind of ethical neutrality. Yin-yang philosophy and most larger philosophical systems that incorporate it tend to stress virtue ethics, and use the terminology of yin and yang to justify and explain the ideas behind those ethics. Just because it counsels the middle way doesn't mean it's counseling neutrality — Aristotle counsels the middle way and he's still talking about how to be morally good.

You're going to have a hard time finding any philosophical system that equates easily with True Neutral. Maybe stoicism, or nihilism. But overall, philosophers tend to construct systems of what appears to be morality. That's why it seems to me as though True Neutral is the alignment best associated with not having really thought about these questions. It's the alignment of most people, because most people just live their lives without figuring out any real theory of how they exist in the world, for better or for worse. And I imagine that for that reason, it's the least common alignment among heroes, villains and adventurers.


As Dr epic demonstrated with how a single character could have several different alignments depending on how people intrepret alignments and actions.

Google "batman alignment." This point has been made infinitely clear.

Although seriously, are there really people who read Rorschach as good? An ambiguously heroic sociopath with a solid point about nihilism, maybe. But a good person?

*And Taoism is a lot more sophisticated than yin-yang philosophy.

[zlefin]

this will be my last post, as dealing with people who are wrong on the internet isn't a solvable problem.

It doesn't matter how the philosophy classifies itself; Sith could call themselves lawful good for following their code because they believe it is best. Indeed, every system calls itself good (well, most) so self-classification is irrelevant.

Fact: d&d is a game, not a deeply thought out ethical/moral system.
Fact: rule 0 states the DM's word is law
Fact: alignments, and what constitutes them, is subject to DM interpretation (quite a lot of variations on what constitutes evil)

Given those 3 facts; I as a DM, can state: yin-yang philosophy represents True Neutral.
this makes it so for my campaigns, regardless of how many others agree with me.


I don't have to find a moral system that equates with YOUR OPINION of what True Neutral is; different people have different opinions on what it is.

As per original post; all i'm doing is describing one belief system that could plausibly be considered True Neutral; whether original poster finds it to fit their definition of True Neutral is up to them and their DM.

Now if original poster would like to hear about more ways to look at true neutral i'd be happy to talk to him about it. But not arguing more with gkat.

[Venger]

Although seriously, are there really people who read Rorschach as good? An ambiguously heroic sociopath with a solid point about nihilism, maybe. But a good person?


yes, as a matter of fact, reading rorschach as being good-aligned is rather common. in alignment debates, which are among the most common subjects of discussion on D&D forums, rorschach is quite frequently brought up as an example by people on both sides of all the alignment grid both for and against each facet of the alignment grid.

the argument made for people who read rorschach as good is him being the same flavour of good as the archetypal "cleave and smite" paladin. I can't recall the source, but I believe one of the D&D books started off with one of those in-character quotes that said of paladins

"Evil is the cancer; you are the scalpel; the world is the patient; start cutting."

which seems in line with rorschach's canonical behaviour, regardless of where you'd place him on the alignment grid.

[Jopustopin]

True Neutral is at once the rarest and the most common alignment in the multiverse. Neutral characters are either incapable of making moral and ethical decisions or refrain from them actively. "Actively" is the key phrase here. A character that is incapable of moral and ethical decisions would have intelligence and wisdom scores of no higher than 6. Very few player characters qualify on that account, therefore the vast majority of PC Neutrals actively refrain from moral and ethical judgments. Within this context there are two reasons a character may not actively pursue ethical and moral thinking. The first, and most storied in the AD&D tradition, is the druidical "preservation of the balance" mentality. However, this view, for obvious reasons, is uncannily rare.

The second and most common example is the character that simply doesn't care. Neutrals of this type aren't concerned for the welfare of anybody (except themselves), but they aren't willing to advance themselves at any cost like Neutral Evil characters. They are comparatively lazy and lacking in drive in this respect, still there are certainly other reasons. The character may see advancement beyond reasonable comfort through reasonable risk as pointless. Not surprisingly, these Neutrals have a bleak view on life. As for the ethical (law vs. chaos) leanings of these characters, they may follow orders if it serves them, disobey if it doesn't, act on the occasional whim but otherwise keep to a reasonably predictable life.

True Neutrals are all about reason, and perhaps that's why they are so few. Everybody seems to get behind some banner or cause, Neutrals couldn't care less about such trivial matters. Often they have one fascination in their lives which they are preoccupied with, and everything else doesn't matter to them. In the case of druids, this is the "preservation of the balance."

True Neutral societies are very rare, but when they do occur they tend to be primitive. The concerns of simple survival dominate the daily lives of such people, and for them further complications aren't worth the effort to create. In a way, Neutrals are the most peaceful of societies, but they are also the most infuriating because of the nearly universal lack of a drive the members of this alignment possess.
All who are of a truly balanced disposition congregate in The Outlands.


Source (http://wiki.avlis.org/Alignment)

[Venger]

people who are wrong on the internet

http://xkcd.com/386/

[NNescio]

yes, as a matter of fact, reading rorschach as being good-aligned is rather common. in alignment debates, which are among the most common subjects of discussion on D&D forums, rorschach is quite frequently brought up as an example by people on both sides of all the alignment grid both for and against each facet of the alignment grid.

the argument made for people who read rorschach as good is him being the same flavour of good as the archetypal "cleave and smite" paladin. I can't recall the source, but I believe one of the D&D books started off with one of those in-character quotes that said of paladins

"Evil is the cancer; you are the scalpel; the world is the patient; start cutting."

which seems in line with rorschach's canonical behaviour, regardless of where you'd place him on the alignment grid.

Paladins don't go around using excessive lethal force on sanctioned agents of the law. Especially not on innocent ones who are just doing their job. Especially NOT after having provoked them in the past by murdering somebody (okay, a criminal, but still) and leaving his body in front of a police station.

Any paladin would fall a long, long way before that, even under the most lenient of DMs.

And on a side note, let me make a generalisation that I'm confident in: For any anti-hero, there will always be someone who will attempt to justify his alignment as Good, no matter how heinous or depraved his activities are.

(*cough* Light Yagami *cough*Hannibal Lecter *cough* Michael Corleone)

[Venger]

Paladins don't go around using excessive lethal force on sanctioned agents of the law. Especially not on innocent ones who are just doing their job. Especially NOT after having provoked them in the past by murdering somebody (okay, a criminal, but still) and leaving his body in front of a police station.

Any paladin would fall a long, long way before that, even under the most lenient of DMs.

And on a side note, let me make a generalisation that I'm confident in: For any anti-hero, there will always be someone who will attempt to justify his alignment as Good, no matter how heinous or depraved his activities are.

(*cough* Light Yagami *cough*Hannibal Lecter *cough* Michael Corleone)
chill, it's just an alignment debate, no need to whip out the Capital Letters. we all know we're not going to change each others' minds.

first of all, he asked how someone would read rorschach as good-aligned, so I tried to explain, since he comes up a lot on alignment threads. given the wording of the question it seemed like a genuine request for information rather than an expression of incredulity.

second of all, I don't think that he'd be best statted as a paladin, I just used the "cleave and smite paladin" since people are all familiar with the mindset of the attitude towards character's enemies.

I agree with your generalisation, they are antiheroes after all. they are the protagonists of the stories that they feature in and their actions are often portrayed in a favourable or sympathetic light by the narrative, the audience is often supposed to understand their actions. like the ones you mentioned, dexter morgan is another good example

the main issue here is something that is seldom mentioned in alignment debates. the D&D terms "good" and "evil" have nothing to do with the real-world words of the same name, just as the D&D "law" and "chaos" don't really have anything to do with the law, since canon establishes that you're not bound to follow immoral laws when you are visiting another country.

the hilariously campy BoVD and the much reviled BoED pontificate more on everyone's favourite topic of debate, but one particularly useful example of text comes from the much-reviled savage species p30:

"Many monstrous beings are
not tolerated by the surrounding community and must keep
their existence secret. Evil communities may tolerate the presence
of monsters that other communities would not, but
neutral and good communities are liable to drive away
monsters and those who would associate with them."

in real life, racial intolerance is bad, and racial tolerance is good, but in D&D, the opposite is true, and driving creatures out of town because of what they look like is "good" (as in alignment good) so alignment good/evil don't mean that a character is good/evil in the real world, but that they are good/evil in the D&D world.

a character who is said to be "lawful" might very well be breaking some real world laws (depending on your country of residence) despite his or her personal code of behaviour

dexter morgan is once again a good example, the code of harry is definitely a lawful character trait, even though it permits for killing people, which is against the law in miami where he happens to live.

so in the same way, I really don't think good/evil mean the same thing in D&D as they do IRL.

[olentu]

chill, it's just an alignment debate, no need to whip out the Capital Letters. we all know we're not going to change each others' minds.

first of all, he asked how someone would read rorschach as good-aligned, so I tried to explain, since he comes up a lot on alignment threads. given the wording of the question it seemed like a genuine request for information rather than an expression of incredulity.

second of all, I don't think that he'd be best statted as a paladin, I just used the "cleave and smite paladin" since people are all familiar with the mindset of the attitude towards character's enemies.

I agree with your generalisation, they are antiheroes after all. they are the protagonists of the stories that they feature in and their actions are often portrayed in a favourable or sympathetic light by the narrative, the audience is often supposed to understand their actions. like the ones you mentioned, dexter morgan is another good example

the main issue here is something that is seldom mentioned in alignment debates. the D&D terms "good" and "evil" have nothing to do with the real-world words of the same name, just as the D&D "law" and "chaos" don't really have anything to do with the law, since canon establishes that you're not bound to follow immoral laws when you are visiting another country.

the hilariously campy BoVD and the much reviled BoED pontificate more on everyone's favourite topic of debate, but one particularly useful example of text comes from the much-reviled savage species p30:

"Many monstrous beings are
not tolerated by the surrounding community and must keep
their existence secret. Evil communities may tolerate the presence
of monsters that other communities would not, but
neutral and good communities are liable to drive away
monsters and those who would associate with them."

in real life, racial intolerance is bad, and racial tolerance is good, but in D&D, the opposite is true, and driving creatures out of town because of what they look like is "good" (as in alignment good) so alignment good/evil don't mean that a character is good/evil in the real world, but that they are good/evil in the D&D world.

a character who is said to be "lawful" might very well be breaking some real world laws (depending on your country of residence) despite his or her personal code of behaviour

dexter morgan is once again a good example, the code of harry is definitely a lawful character trait, even though it permits for killing people, which is against the law in miami where he happens to live.

so in the same way, I really don't think good/evil mean the same thing in D&D as they do IRL.

Actually the book of exalted deeds lists discrimination as evil. Take that elves.

[Venger]

discrimination as evil


Take that elves.

*head explodes*

[JaronK]

What I go with:

Good: Cares about and acts to the benefit of the well being of others
Evil: Does not care about the well being of others, will happily harm innocents for own well being
Lawful: Has a code that is as important as or more important than their goals
Chaotic: Considers their goals to be more important than any particular code

True Neutral: For each axis, either neither of those things are true, or both are.

For example, I had one character who had a code (might makes wrong and the strong survive, so the strongest should rule) that almost never got in the way of his goals (he was a Half Dragon who was bigger than most, and felt that if he was strong enough to take something he could. Around those stronger than him he'd submit). In that sense, neither Lawful nor Chaotic (in some ways, he was both).

And he looked out for himself and those close to him, unless he felt like they were trying to cross him. He did what benefited him... this tended to help those with the strength to profit him and hurt those without it (and often meant stopping evil folks). So was he good or evil? Neither were particularly relevant.

JaronK

[ericgrau]

Forget the "MUST KEEP THE BALANCE" True Neutrals. True True Neutrals are your ordinary people.
Solved on 2nd post. The average human is neutral by the rules too. Characters that are stereotypes are actually called lawful stupid, stupid evil, true stupid, etc.



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.

Most true neutrals kinda like good, but really don't care enough to bother with it. They are your average Joe. Someone who upholds the well being of the party for a while and then kills an innocent person is called a murderer, not a balanced person.

[Gotterdammerung]

All these short hand lists and blanket statements are really erroneous. You can't pigeon hole alignments that easily. As I said earlier, you start with an alignment core. This is the fundamental base of the alignment. Good people try to do good. Evil People are twisted and prefer to do evil. Chaotic people promote Chaos over Law. Lawful people promote law over chaos. Neutral axis 1 people do not value good or evil. Neutral axis 2 people do not value law or chaos. Neutral people promote balance.

This alignment core can be simplified. It is what you do next that is broad and varied. Next you decide how these particular beliefs affect your personality and life choices, and what particular spin you put on these beliefs.

For instance, a Good character who is generally seen as a villain because he focuses on the greater good and therefore sees many issues of good vs evil as petty and inconsequential.

An evil character who believes that the easiest way to cause great harm is to maintain a position of good standing in the community. He often does goodly acts but they are only to fool everyone so that he can cleverly guide everyone to ultimate destruction.


There are a lot more interpretations. I listed some in my earlier ignored post. All of these are core alignment interpretations. And they are all valid character roleplay concepts.

Another way of putting it. It is like everyone here is saying, "Chicken is a chicken sandwich!" and then someone else is saying "No chicken is chicken nuggets!" and someone else is saying "No, Chicken is Fried Chicken!"

The reality is, "Chicken is chicken. You can make many different types of food with chicken, though."

[Hanuman]

Most of these responses contain flawed reasoning, the order of reasoning for alignments is: If I do X I am Y Alignment, where as the majority of these premises are If I am Y alignment I do X.

It's fairly deceptive, and far more complex, but when you consider alignment it's always more true to state an example and why it's classified the way it is rather than state an activity or line of reasoning and have it define the label instead.

The exception being activities that are stated to force or strongly imply an alignment shift, which are true examples that their labels.

[Toastkart]

I've never felt really comfortable with the idea of true neutral upholding some cosmic balance or being apathetic and lacking in conviction. I suppose those things work, but neither approach is particularly interesting to me.

Here's how I see the true neutral alignment, but keep in mind this is my interpretation.

True neutrals can have strong convictions, but for ideas rather than ideals. They can be passionate about the things they believe in, but what they believe in tends to be more concrete than abstract. And when it is abstract, they tend to be open minded rather than absolutist.

True neutrals may believe that good is no more "Good" than evil is "Evil." That is, despite the objective nature of D&D alignment, they may take a more subjective stance on it. They tend not to concern themselves with whether a particular action is right or wrong, but whether the results are worth it. This includes both short and long term consequences.

True neutrals will follow important laws and laws that they agree with, but will ignore or outright break laws that don't matter--those that cover actions that harm no one or are purely social laws. They tend to think people should be personally responsible for their actions, and that laws really only serve a purpose when they act to protect people from harm.

True neutral is sort of the agnostic alignment, for lack of a better analogy. When they don't have the answers they're comfortable saying they don't know. The thing is, they work on those answers taking this little bit from this source, that little bit from that source, until they've built up a sort of worldview that works for them, and probably no one else.

What distinguishes true neutral from chaotic neutral is this: chaotic neutral tends towards a streak of individualism and they would believe that most people should be as individualistic as they are, whether they act on it or not. True neutrals are just happy to be the way they are, and let everyone else be the way they are.

[Hanuman]

I've never felt really comfortable with the idea of true neutral upholding some cosmic balance or being apathetic and lacking in conviction. I suppose those things work, but neither approach is particularly interesting to me.

Here's how I see the true neutral alignment, but keep in mind this is my interpretation.

True neutrals can have strong convictions, but for ideas rather than ideals. They can be passionate about the things they believe in, but what they believe in tends to be more concrete than abstract. And when it is abstract, they tend to be open minded rather than absolutist.

True neutrals may believe that good is no more "Good" than evil is "Evil." That is, despite the objective nature of D&D alignment, they may take a more subjective stance on it. They tend not to concern themselves with whether a particular action is right or wrong, but whether the results are worth it. This includes both short and long term consequences.

True neutrals will follow important laws and laws that they agree with, but will ignore or outright break laws that don't matter--those that cover actions that harm no one or are purely social laws. They tend to think people should be personally responsible for their actions, and that laws really only serve a purpose when they act to protect people from harm.

True neutral is sort of the agnostic alignment, for lack of a better analogy. When they don't have the answers they're comfortable saying they don't know. The thing is, they work on those answers taking this little bit from this source, that little bit from that source, until they've built up a sort of worldview that works for them, and probably no one else.

What distinguishes true neutral from chaotic neutral is this: chaotic neutral tends towards a streak of individualism and they would believe that most people should be as individualistic as they are, whether they act on it or not. True neutrals are just happy to be the way they are, and let everyone else be the way they are.
What mortals think little influences their alignment, it is intention and action, and confusion of principles, or even disbelief in gods little effect the judgement by the universe (talkin magic here, the source of alignment).

[Telonius]

Here's my quick and dirty guide to the alignments.

Good: would go out of their way to help people.
Neutral: would do good and/or evil, but doesn't go out of their way to do so.
Evil: would go out of their way to hurt people.

Law: would go out of their way to follow the law/traditions.
Neutral: would follow and/or break laws and traditions, but doesn't go out of their way to do so.
Chaotic: would out of their way to break the law/overturn traditions.

It's possible for a person to have never committed an evil act in their life, and be Neutral instead of Good. It's possible for a person to have never done a good act in their life, and be Neutral instead of Evil. Same way with Law and Chaos. If a character's actions are done mainly out of convenience, if they don't actively pursue the extremes, they're probably Neutral. If they actively pursue a lack of extremes, they're definitely Neutral.

A True Neutral character is a person just trying to muddle through. Most likely they don't care one way or the other about alignments in an abstract sense. If they're aware enough to genuinely try to be Good or Lawful (or less often, Evil or Chaotic), they don't make it a central part of their life, treating it as more of a "should" than a "shall." They're the person who doesn't stick their neck out if it's too dangerous, or too much effort. They might give a few coppers when the Cleric passes around the collection plate, but they won't take a chance to hire an allegedly reformed criminal. They might not oppose the Evil Overlord, but they don't go out of their way to butcher their friends just because he's in charge. They're the commoner who cares more about his land and his family than the lord taxing them. They might take a bribe if they think it's worth it, and they won't get caught. Then again, they might not take a bribe, if they think it's likely to come back to haunt them.

Much more rarely, they're a Monk or a Druid or a Cleric of a TN god whose sole purpose is to maintain balance within and balance without.

A Chaotic Neutral character would be a character that actively tries to overturn traditions or break laws, but doesn't go out of their way to hurt or help people. Examples of this might be a traveling Bard who really doesn't like his society's views on monogamy; a poacher who hunts in the king's woods to feed his family; someone who runs an underground betting ring or speakeasy; a rebellious princess who doesn't accept the limitations society wants to put on her.

[hamishspence]

There's also "balanced by accident".

A character whose combination of good and evil traits has not (yet) tipped one way or another- even though they're not actually trying to stay in balance.

They might be a hero part way through a Fall, or a villain part way through a Rise.

[Chained Birds]

What I go with:

Good: Cares about and acts to the benefit of the well being of others
Evil: Does not care about the well being of others, will happily harm innocents for own well being
Lawful: Has a code that is as important as or more important than their goals
Chaotic: Considers their goals to be more important than any particular code

True Neutral: For each axis, either neither of those things are true, or both are.

For example, I had one character who had a code (might makes wrong and the strong survive, so the strongest should rule) that almost never got in the way of his goals (he was a Half Dragon who was bigger than most, and felt that if he was strong enough to take something he could. Around those stronger than him he'd submit). In that sense, neither Lawful nor Chaotic (in some ways, he was both).

And he looked out for himself and those close to him, unless he felt like they were trying to cross him. He did what benefited him... this tended to help those with the strength to profit him and hurt those without it (and often meant stopping evil folks). So was he good or evil? Neither were particularly relevant.

JaronK

Hey thanks JaronK for answering a question I was just about to ask.

That Half Dragon sounded like a pretty nice guy, though it seems like the party would have hated him...

FYI: The question was, how would a TN PC work in actual gameplay without being a boring and/or lazy character?

[Coidzor]

I'll let Baby Cakes take this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqZXPX0CiQI)


*head explodes*

You didn't know? Elves are racist, that's why everyone else hates them.

[SowZ]

Certainly not under its own internal assumptions. Yin-yang philosophy* is about the harmonization of forces like weakness and strength, yielding and pushing, soft and hard, etc., not about any kind of ethical neutrality. Yin-yang philosophy and most larger philosophical systems that incorporate it tend to stress virtue ethics, and use the terminology of yin and yang to justify and explain the ideas behind those ethics. Just because it counsels the middle way doesn't mean it's counseling neutrality — Aristotle counsels the middle way and he's still talking about how to be morally good.

You're going to have a hard time finding any philosophical system that equates easily with True Neutral. Maybe stoicism, or nihilism. But overall, philosophers tend to construct systems of what appears to be morality. That's why it seems to me as though True Neutral is the alignment best associated with not having really thought about these questions. It's the alignment of most people, because most people just live their lives without figuring out any real theory of how they exist in the world, for better or for worse. And I imagine that for that reason, it's the least common alignment among heroes, villains and adventurers.



Google "batman alignment." This point has been made infinitely clear.

Although seriously, are there really people who read Rorschach as good? An ambiguously heroic sociopath with a solid point about nihilism, maybe. But a good person?

*And Taoism is a lot more sophisticated than yin-yang philosophy.

He has dedicated himself to helping others, even if to him that means hurting others first.

I used to think his desire to help people was a justification and a shield, not a real motivation to do what he does, (which is how I view Batman. He is about self-gratification.) Now I think he has a desire to help people mixed in with such aggression and hatred that he doesn't know how to do it right. But he is sincere.

What convinced me of this is partially Dr. Malcolm Long. Rorsach convinced Malcolm of his philosophy and this led Malcolm to depression, sure, but it also led Malcolm to the conclusion that helping each other is the only worthwhile thing we can do.

Good? I wouldn't say so. But I can see why some people would say he is.

[Ajadea]

The best way I've found to characterize alignments is figure out which behaviors fit. The peasant who cares more about the state of his crops than about the nebulous and far-off evil, who obeys the laws but won't go up to the taxman and point out that he accidentally skipped his house is True Neutral. So is the rogue who goes into dark dungeons for no other reason than to keep her friends from waking up in an ogre's belly. The wizard who fights relentlessly to save the world, but will spend her free time scribing scrolls in the library instead of risking her neck helping the ranger get slaves to freedom is True Neutral as well.

True Neutral will not risk their life for a stranger, but could be willing to die for their family or close friends or even their nation. True Neutral doesn't believe that laws are always the best solution to fall back on, but may well obey them anyways because breaking them is a big hassle and tends to end poorly. True Neutral values personal freedom, but doesn't like anarchy much and is okay with bowing down to a reasonable authority figure. True Neutral can be cruel and ambitious, but won't completely ignore the well-being of others in pursuit of their goals.

True Neutral isn't quite the altruist Good is, and doesn't disregard others like Evil does. True Neutral doesn't value Law for the sake of being Lawful, and isn't quite as willfully rebellious as Chaos. True Neutral people care about those they are close too, and their personal interests (nothing stops a TN person from being a patriot), more than any particular moral or ethical things. True Neutral probably prefers to work with Good people rather than Evil people, but that's mostly because Evil could start ignoring their well-being, mixed in with a good dose of general prejudice against Evil.

[Venger]

I'll let Baby Cakes take this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqZXPX0CiQI)



You didn't know? Elves are racist, that's why everyone else hates them.

heh, that's cute

yes, I did know about elves, I was making a joke since "discrimination is evil" was followed by a negative remark about a race due to the fact that they practised discrimination (which was the joke the other poster made) I don't like elves very much either.

[Thurbane]

For a while now, I've been under the impression that a True Neutral (TN) aligned character is pretty much a potential backstabber, and if they are not, they are not playing their alignment right. The reason why I call them 'backstabbers' is because they can either side with good or evil with only the thought of "I guess with me siding with the Enemy for now, the Enemy and my party will be on equal gound."
"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

http://i42.tinypic.com/1zejvx5.gif

[Sgt. Cookie]

Alignment in a quote:
"I will further my own goals, the way that it's done is irrelevant"

[TheArsenal]

Be devoted to a (Non crazy) goal.

Such as arcane research. You just don't care that much about other really. Youl totally save a guy from being mugged, but you wont donate money to get muggers off the street.

You don't WANT to break any rules but if your research demands it you will.