PDA

View Full Version : Gamer Humor What would be the most obnoxious TN character ever?



roko10
2015-06-09, 03:24 AM
So, I have seem threads about Lawful Stupid, Supid Good, Stupid Evil, and especially Chaotic Stupid, but I never saw a thread about Stupid (True) Neutral.

What would it be like?

Lord Raziere
2015-06-09, 03:46 AM
The kind of guy who sees two orphanages, goes over to one, takes all the wealth and items they have for themselves, slaughters every kid there, tortures then kills the orphanage matron, then burns the orphanage down....

....then turns around to the second orphanage, gives all the wealth they took away to it, makes friends with everyone, and pitches in to get everyone to help the second orphanage so that its a better orphanage than ever.

For No Reason.

roko10
2015-06-09, 04:00 AM
The kind of guy who sees two orphanages, goes over to one, takes all the wealth and items they have for themselves, slaughters every kid there, tortures then kills the orphanage matron, then burns the orphanage down....

....then turns around to the second orphanage, gives all the wealth they took away to it, makes friends with everyone, and pitches in to get everyone to help the second orphanage so that its a better orphanage than ever.

For No Reason.

That's Chaotic Neutral and you know it!

A better example would be if he runs and improves the second orphanage, and then completely annihilate the first orphanage.

Mastikator
2015-06-09, 04:04 AM
Someone who sides with the enemy trying to kill you right when you gain the upper hand "because balance".

Someone who must keep a people saved : people killed ratio even, even if it means killing someone in cold blood or using nonlethal defense against a very dangerous enemy trying to kill you.

Someone who avoids adventure because "they're just trying to get by"

Lord Raziere
2015-06-09, 04:06 AM
Nope.

Chaotic Stupid is picking up a sword to throw it at a dartboard then suddenly go dancing out a tavern window to kidnap a child, paint him green to him throw at the mayor, so that you can run three and half times around a wheelbarrow, then suddenly invent a rocket to jump onto to fly to a mountain top, then jump down a big chasm while cackling madly all along the way, just so he could eventually slide his way down to another village just so he can punch a guy for making the best tea in the world.

True Stupid has a dualistic order to it. Chaotic Stupid is just random.

LeSwordfish
2015-06-09, 04:10 AM
I would suggest that True Stupid would be something like Futurama's Neutral Zone, but more infuriating.

"What does your character think?"
"They don't have an opinion either way."

"What does your character do?"
"They don't do anything in particular."

roko10
2015-06-09, 04:17 AM
I thought the most obnoxious TN character ever would be that guy who argues about alignments and acts as if Good and Evil and law and chaosdoes not exist, because "the world is not black and white.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-09, 04:18 AM
The guy who will sell his party out to the city guard for stealing from the main, villain, then go and rob the King's treasury, snark at a druid, heal some peasants and then burn down their crops just to be on the safe side.

He'll then do some calculations and spend the rest of the night summoning the right number of the correct kind of extraplanar monkey to balance his alignment as True Neutral.

Kriton
2015-06-09, 05:33 AM
Yeah, I agree with most of the people before me, a TN character that strives to embody their alignment in character would be pretty stupid. But isn't that the case with all alignments?

roko10
2015-06-09, 07:20 AM
Nope.

Chaotic Stupid is picking up a sword to throw it at a dartboard then suddenly go dancing out a tavern window to kidnap a child, paint him green to him throw at the mayor, so that you can run three and half times around a wheelbarrow, then suddenly invent a rocket to jump onto to fly to a mountain top, then jump down a big chasm while cackling madly all along the way, just so he could eventually slide his way down to another village just so he can punch a guy for making the best tea in the world.

True Stupid has a dualistic order to it. Chaotic Stupid is just random.

This is now my new sig.

GungHo
2015-06-09, 09:16 AM
The one that does nothing, will commit to nothing, and claims to have no preferences, while passive-aggressively having obvious preferences that they refuse to share.

It's like asking someone out on a date and saying, "Hey, so what food do you like?"
"Oh I like everything."
"Great, I know this Chinese place that..."
"I don't like Chinese."

prufock
2015-06-09, 09:59 AM
The ruler of the universe from the Douglas Adams Hitchhiker series is arguably true neutral. He suffers from severe solipsism.

daremetoidareyo
2015-06-09, 02:35 PM
I had a DM who had us encounter this dude on the plains outside sigil. He was really nice to us, gave a free healing potion and a place to stay for the night. While staying, one of the PCs wakes up to a little noise, wanders into the basement to find a bunch of tied up amputees with gags on their faces. And a wall with the word "balance" on it.

Apparently this guy had a scoring system for good and evil acts and for every good act rendered to those in the outside world, he would exert a "balance" payment on the slave in the basement to compensate.

Geddy2112
2015-06-09, 02:47 PM
"What does your character do?"
"They don't do anything in particular."


The one that does nothing, will commit to nothing, and claims to have no preferences, while passive-aggressively having obvious preferences that they refuse to share.


As much as nihilist murderhobos, lawful sticks in the mud, and "balance seekers" who save one puppy, kill one puppy can be irritating and infuriating to no end, apathetic TN is by far my least favorite alignment. These characters just don't care about anything, at all. They add nothing more to the party than a rock. Intelligent summoned monsters are better adventuring companions. As players, they fall into a similar camp, just wasting space at the table. At least I can interact with an extremist, and we can actually play the game together(even if its with knives at each others throats). With an apathetic neutral in the party, you have to go to hell and back just to get the party to do anything.

Bard1cKnowledge
2015-06-09, 11:29 PM
"If I don't make it, tell my wife I said hello."

GungHo
2015-06-10, 09:25 AM
With an apathetic neutral in the party, you have to go to hell and back just to get the party to do anything.
They will make the most paladiny of paladins fall after inducing a rage of epic proportions.

Demidos
2015-06-10, 10:11 AM
If their entire character concept consists of saying --

''Meh, don't care.''

:smallfurious:

Aedilred
2015-06-10, 03:44 PM
They will make the most paladiny of paladins fall after inducing a rage of epic proportions.

Well someone has to continue the epic struggle between good and neutral.

chainer1216
2015-06-10, 05:03 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zR5uyJ7l2L0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BoyRjFcrjL4

These videos are about The Grey Storm the truest of true neutrals!

Bard1cKnowledge
2015-06-10, 05:09 PM
Just think, WWSD (What Would Switzerland DO?)

Kitten Champion
2015-06-10, 05:12 PM
The 1st edition interpretation of TN is plenty obnoxious --


True Neutral: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.

That whole Fern Gully angle seems impressively wrought with sanctimony for something described as neutrality.

golentan
2015-06-10, 05:14 PM
Someone who comes to the table, with a 500 page book of tables which they possess in character, and who in character rolls on the table to determine every action and who it's directed to.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/cd/18/92/cd189221bae7cf94c83ce71ef36f1df2.jpg

Keltest
2015-06-10, 05:23 PM
A character who deliberately avoids taking sides in any conflict or potential conflict, no matter how small. "Who should we help?" "I dunno." "Should we have another mage in the party?" "I dunno." "What do you want for breakfast?" "I dunno."

Kane0
2015-06-11, 02:25 AM
"I have no strong feelings one way or another."

Hillariously aggrivating.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-11, 03:29 AM
"I have no strong feelings one way or another."

Hillariously aggrivating.

Combine it with the most annoying character motivation:

'I have no strong feelings one way or-they can pay? Excuse me while I fleece them for everything they own. No, this does not make me evil.'

nedz
2015-06-11, 05:06 AM
A Kender who steals from everyone, because.

Strigon
2015-06-11, 07:26 AM
For your consideration: http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140317163136/mlp/images/1/10/Maud_Pie_ID_S4E18.png

Note: I loved that episode, and Maud is one of my favourite characters. She doesn't belong in my adventuring party, though.

Ettina
2015-06-11, 09:19 AM
A lot of the character being described in this thread are Chaotic Neutral (Chaotic Stupid), not True Neutral. A True Neutral character does not behave randomly, because behaving randomly is strongly Chaotic. Remember, they are Law-Chaos Neutral, as well as Good-Evil Neutral.

Bard1cKnowledge
2015-06-11, 05:03 PM
Think Athena from borderlands, or Wilhelm's back story

"He Wilhelm, want to hunt a vault on the moon?"
"No."
"I'll give you a couple of million dollars."
"Okay."

Back to Athena. After the events of the first game, she went to work as a private mercenary, not caring where the money came from or what to do. She had a nice side to her, but tried her*best to hide it.

When she finished Jack's first job she left, ignoring his offer for job number two, and was prepared to die knowing what she did

Aka, no regrets

TheThan
2015-06-12, 12:53 PM
For me it would be the druid that refuses to go adventuring with the party because his forest or glade or whatever is more important to him than helping friends, saving the world or any other reason. It’s “neutral” because he’s not taking sides and just focusing on nature. But in reality, he’s being very selfish by making the campaign be about him and his woods and he gets to be a jerk to the Dm by saying things like “how does this affect my forest?”

Mastikator
2015-06-12, 01:44 PM
Yeah, I agree with most of the people before me, a TN character that strives to embody their alignment in character would be pretty stupid. But isn't that the case with all alignments?

Nah, you can definitely do a good character devoted to some good cause without it being obnoxious or stupid. It's all the other alignments that are bad to be devoted to.

Wardog
2015-06-18, 05:11 PM
The 1st edition interpretation of TN is plenty obnoxious --


True Neutral: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.

That whole Fern Gully angle seems impressively wrought with sanctimony for something described as neutrality.



Is that worse than the 2nd Edition version?


True Neutral: True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention. True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly, there are very few true neutral characters in the world.

Kitten Champion
2015-06-18, 06:39 PM
Is that worse than the 2nd Edition version?

They're both pretty awful in their own way. Clearly the first was to make a tree-hugging misanthropic Druid/Ranger character, whereas the 2nd edition is just confusing.

Besides, why would they deny actions are implicitly Good or Evil but then comprise their whole moral philosophy around preserving the balance between Good and Evil? When, really, the only thing distinguishing the two alignments are the actions their proponents take.

Keltest
2015-06-18, 06:41 PM
They're both pretty awful in their own way. Clearly the first was to make a tree-hugging misanthropic Druid/Ranger character, whereas the 2nd edition is just confusing.
In first edition, Druids had to be True Neutral, since nature doesn't care either way. Fun times...

FabulousFizban
2015-06-18, 07:26 PM
the "I only have one rule: I get paid," character can be pretty irritating. It can also be pretty awesome when done well.

nedz
2015-06-18, 07:45 PM
the "I only have one rule: I get paid," character can be pretty irritating. It can also be pretty awesome when done well.

That can be true of any character — I have seen Kender played well.

Bard1cKnowledge
2015-06-19, 11:10 AM
the "I only have one rule: I get paid," character can be pretty irritating. It can also be pretty awesome when done well.

I've played this guy, it was fun.

He was from a group of thieves the party wiped out earlier (he was away at the time) and joined up for personal reasons. I made him kind of trusting, picking on the paladin by saying he WS supposed to have a cape. Otherwise he didn't kill if it wasn't necessary, he respected the goals of the party, but made it slightly clear if he got a better offer he was most likely going for it

MrStabby
2015-06-19, 11:36 AM
There is also the ambiguous Neutral character where everything is subordinated to their personal plot. They will break any law, kill any number of innocents and generally be a bit of a **** to find their husband/wife/child/pet cat. They then justify their actions as being Neutral because they did it for love rather than for fun or direct personal gain. The fact that they were still prepared to kill hundreds of people to get what they want notwithstanding.

Keltest
2015-06-19, 11:44 AM
I've played this guy, it was fun.

He was from a group of thieves the party wiped out earlier (he was away at the time) and joined up for personal reasons. I made him kind of trusting, picking on the paladin by saying he WS supposed to have a cape. Otherwise he didn't kill if it wasn't necessary, he respected the goals of the party, but made it slightly clear if he got a better offer he was most likely going for it

Personally I would rule someone who was willing to abandon one contract prior to completion in favor of another one to be chaotic, but I suppose you could make the argument depending on the kind of contract and the payment offered for each.

Strigon
2015-06-19, 12:35 PM
Personally I would rule someone who was willing to abandon one contract prior to completion in favor of another one to be chaotic, but I suppose you could make the argument depending on the kind of contract and the payment offered for each.

I believe the post stated he joined for personal reasons. Which implies to me there was no contract.

Lurkmoar
2015-06-19, 12:52 PM
I've played mostly good alignments, neutral as a base several times and evil on occasion when it wouldn't cause too much party conflict(or where party conflict was explictly expected).

I've never played a True Neutral PC. I've never gamed with a person playing a True Neutral PC. I haven't put much thought into why, but reading this topic gave me a few ideas:

-The write up in the 2e PHB scared me off. They seemed even more unreliable then Chaotic Evil characters; a CE always puts himself ahead by putting others down. A TN seems like they would help you one minute and then later decide you're too big for your britches and punt you down.

-I've heard some folks around the forums here and elsewhere that LG is the alignment of the status quo. I personally reject that idea, because if anything TN is status quo personified, acting when something is going to upset the apple cart one way or the other.

-TN feels almost alien in nature. I can wrap my head around the other alignments fairly well... but I hit a mental brick wall at True Neutral.

As for the most obnoxious TN character... someone that follows Obad-Hai and terminates things that are too extreme, like overly spicy stew?

"This stew is proof that you are a harbinger of extremity! Fire Storm!"*

*I kid

mr_odd
2015-06-19, 01:22 PM
The one that does nothing, will commit to nothing, and claims to have no preferences, while passive-aggressively having obvious preferences that they refuse to share.

It's like asking someone out on a date and saying, "Hey, so what food do you like?"
"Oh I like everything."
"Great, I know this Chinese place that..."
"I don't like Chinese."


A character who deliberately avoids taking sides in any conflict or potential conflict, no matter how small. "Who should we help?" "I dunno." "Should we have another mage in the party?" "I dunno." "What do you want for breakfast?" "I dunno."

So the ultimate true neutral characters are those that embody girlfriends...

Socksy
2015-06-19, 01:29 PM
They're both pretty awful in their own way. Clearly the first was to make a tree-hugging misanthropic Druid/Ranger character, whereas the 2nd edition is just confusing.

Besides, why would they deny actions are implicitly Good or Evil but then comprise their whole moral philosophy around preserving the balance between Good and Evil? When, really, the only thing distinguishing the two alignments are the actions their proponents take.


In first edition, Druids had to be True Neutral, since nature doesn't care either way. Fun times...

And Rangers had to be Good.

Keltest
2015-06-19, 02:02 PM
And Rangers had to be Good.

Because logic!

Although at the time, rangers were foresters who learned to live in the wilderness like Aragorn rather than fighters who were druids on their days off.

FabulousFizban
2015-06-20, 06:53 PM
That can be true of any character — I have seen Kender played well.

pics or didn't happen

Thrudd
2015-06-20, 07:35 PM
Dirty Neutrals.

http://youtu.be/fpaQpyU_QiM

http://youtu.be/k8ws_APXilE

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-06-24, 01:56 PM
It's kind of weird that even the official descriptions go down the road of madness for true neutral. Yeah sure, a "wise" wizard guarding the balance of forces and being dedicated to the idea of neutrality would be true neutral, but so would many people you meet every day in real life. A neutral character is not going to search out a quest to save the world (and might only join the voluntary fire brigade if they thought it would help them pick up girls), but if it drops in their lap and nobody else will or can do it they're not just going to let the world end. It's also perfectly possible for a neutral character to care about stuff. Their family, their friends, their country, their house and car donkey cart, whether the prince of their preference ends up becoming king, who wins this season of Gobbotopia's next topmodel. You don't need to be any of the other alignments to care about that stuff. But those things only come up if you write the character first and then decide on an alignment. And honestly, in a game that's mostly about all sort of ways of saving the world, it's often better to start a character that has a really good reason to go do that.

As for the most dumb version I think I am voting for the people who try to be neutral by balancing their (extremely) evil and good acts. They are not chaotic, they have a strict rule to how they do things. It's just an incredibly stupid rule. It starts out as finding an alignment that's a good excuse for doing anything you like, as long as you balance it out later, but it gets even worse when it becomes a religious exploit. We saved way too many people on that last quest, must burn orphanage!

Both the "wise" folk and the "meh" people may be easily more annoying to play with, at least the checkbook balancer could prove to be entertaining ones in a while. But this seems to me like an even dumber way to interpret being neutral. There's real evidence that we normal people do this, we think it's fine to be rude because we just gave money to whatever foundation knocked on our door today, and humans will seek out good things to do to feel better about themselves and better than other people, but that's subconscious stuff. Nobody has that as a philosophy.

Spartakus
2015-06-24, 02:53 PM
A true stupid charachter believes in the law and follows it most of the time as most people do. He would protect the innocent without question and does not strive for personal power or wealth.

However, he would do absolutely everything (even CE things) to put the party including himself into trouble.

Hawkstar
2015-06-24, 03:59 PM
As for the most dumb version I think I am voting for the people who try to be neutral by balancing their (extremely) evil and good acts. They are not chaotic, they have a strict rule to how they do things. It's just an incredibly stupid rule. It starts out as finding an alignment that's a good excuse for doing anything you like, as long as you balance it out later, but it gets even worse when it becomes a religious exploit. We saved way too many people on that last quest, must burn orphanage!
It's dumb when they have that as a belief/prescribed behavior. However, extremely good balancing extremely evil IS a valid (And not stupid) form of Neutral when it just is what it is, and retroactively describes the character's adventures. He hasn't, over the course of his adventures, done great Good and Great Evil to be neutral, but is Neutral because over the course of his adventures, he's done Great Good and Great Evil (Each for their own reasons. Some chaotic, some lawful. Some on Good principals, some on "Screw the 'right thing', I'm not taking this **** any more" This kind of Neutral is a Hero to some, Villain to others, and possibly even a Monster to a few.

hamishspence
2015-06-25, 01:29 AM
Problem is, "extremely Good" is much more subjective than "extremely evil" since (in Fiendish Codex 2) "extremely evil" acts are defined, with pts values (Indescribable Torture, and Murder for Pleasure, being the highest examples listed)

Whereas no book, not even BoED, assigns values to specific "extremely good" acts.

Mastikator
2015-06-25, 02:23 AM
Problem is, "extremely Good" is much more subjective than "extremely evil" since (in Fiendish Codex 2) "extremely evil" acts are defined, with pts values (Indescribable Torture, and Murder for Pleasure, being the highest examples listed)

Whereas no book, not even BoED, assigns values to specific "extremely good" acts.

Not really, extreme good means putting others first, their health, safety, dignity, happiness, etc comes before your own. The most obnoxious version would be someone who's trusting and forgiving to a fault and end up dying.

Which is only sort of annoying at worst when you compare it with literally every other alignment's worst version.

Lathund
2015-06-25, 04:32 AM
I second the 'must balance everything' version of a TN character as most obnoxious.

However, I'd say it matters why the character is trying to balance stuff. If it's solely for the sake of balance, then yes, annoying. But I'm currently playing a TN character myself. He also more or less has this trait, but mostly because he's a commitophobe. He's a professional adventurer, never staying long with any group. Has he been involved with a very Good quest? Better join up with some evil team, lest he doesn't get recruited to their missions lateron. Has he helped to overthrow a government? Okay, next party should really be more Lawful. Etc.. Of course, his current 'prevent the end of existence' gig doesn't leave much time for team-swapping, but he surely feels uncomfortable following Good party members for this long.

hamishspence
2015-06-25, 06:21 AM
Not really, extreme good means putting others first, their health, safety, dignity, happiness, etc comes before your own.

Sure - but which "extremely good acts" are equal to the "extremely evil acts" in the "balance" version, is a pain to assess, and different DMs will judge differently.

nedz
2015-06-25, 08:17 AM
I second the 'must balance everything' version of a TN character as most obnoxious

The PvP variant of this would be more obnoxious though.

TNPC: "Whilst I'm on watch, I murder everyone else in their sleep"
Everyone else: "WTF?"
TNPC: "Balance. We've been working together for ages and have developed real trust between us."

TurboGhast
2015-06-25, 01:17 PM
The PvP variant of this would be more obnoxious though.

TNPC: "Whilst I'm on watch, I murder everyone else in their sleep"
Everyone else: "WTF?"
TNPC: "Balance. We've been working together for ages and have developed real trust between us."

That action seems DM retcon worthy. Sudden betrayal for bad reasons IC and OOC is a signal that nobody should play that character.

Fiery Diamond
2015-06-25, 03:51 PM
I'm going to agree with people stating that the balancing of good and evil can be non-stupid if it's description rather than prescriptive of their actions.

For example, my last character was a lightning mage named Tonitrius. I put him as TN. He was a "wandering historian" and "combat mage" who pursued magical history. He had a friendly, caring, considerate personality. He was mostly altruistic, helping strangers out of genuine concern. He respected laws and conventions because it was convenient, but had no innate respect for authority. He liked to be in control of his own fate and didn't pay taxes because he was always traveling. Vigilante justice and killing those who try to kill you was common sense to him. He also wanted to become famous. Sounds NG, right?

Well... he also had a temper problem in battle. You hurt someone badly (friends, himself, bystanders) and he went into a focused rage, blasting enemies with a malicious fervor. Mercy to those that surrender? Depends on whether they deserve it. And if you're a truly wicked villain? Let's just say he was a firm believer in "do evil unto evil," to the extent that he was willingly (with it providing him a measure of catharsis) viciously and deliberately painfully tear true villains apart, making them die swift and torturous deaths. A little bit of a sadistic streak, exercised only against those who he felt deserved it.

So... I put him as TN.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-06-25, 05:35 PM
I'm going to agree with people stating that the balancing of good and evil can be non-stupid if it's description rather than prescriptive of their actions.

Your example has good parts and less good parts to his personality. He has a reason for his actions. If combat wouldn't come up he'd end up doing more good, if he was in a sneaky resistance movement or something somewhere he'd be known as a sadistic torturer. In his current environment, the actions sort of balance out. But he doesn't perform those acts with the intend to keep balance. The obnoxious turns up when it turns into some sort of OOC calorie counting. "Oh, I'd better be nice right now or I'll lose my alignment."

Ettina
2015-06-27, 10:54 AM
I've never played a True Neutral PC. I've never gamed with a person playing a True Neutral PC.

I have a TN character (an Unseelie fae raised by ordinary elves). He's not anything like any of the 'obnoxious TN' characters - he's just a guy with a mix of mildly good, evil, lawful and chaotic traits.

Good:
He cares about certain people, he worries about being a bad guy and tries not to be. If you're nice to him, he'd go to the ends of the earth to save you.

Evil:
He has a vicious temper, and puts up a shield of cold arrogant superiority if someone rubs him the wrong way.

Lawful:
He never lies and always keeps his promises, even if he suffers personally for doing so. (Good or bad promises - if he vows revenge, he'll get it someday.)

Chaotic:
He's impulsive, makes snarky comments and likes to be free. He tends to be a loner because then he doesn't have to answer to anyone.

It all ties together into a complex guy who doesn't really fit any other alignment, so I figured he must be TN.

HolyCouncilMagi
2015-06-27, 12:23 PM
Nah, you can definitely do a good character devoted to some good cause without it being obnoxious or stupid. It's all the other alignments that are bad to be devoted to.

Yes, a Good character devotes to a good cause works, much like an Evil character devoted to an evil cause works and a Neutral character devoted to a neutral cause works. But while it's somewhat more sensible than with Neutral or Evil, as a rule, a Good character's motivations should not be as skin-deep as "I want to be Good."

As for what everyone's been saying about how annoying the "seekers of balance" are, well, I think it can be done well, but it's important to remember that that's a character trait all its own and could certainly be reconstituted in a way that people of other alignments could have the same goal.

For example, I once played a Lawful Neutral Sorcerer who was rather savvy about the nature of the D&D cosmos and who didn't subscribe to the idea that the balance needed to be maintained, but rather that it would maintain itself no matter what. He decided he would do Good, for the most part, because he didn't agree with the idea that doing Evil-balancing himself was better than letting the cosmos balance out his Good acts elsewhere, and he just sort of didn't like how doing Evil felt. So near the end of the campaign, despite my protests, he changed my sorcerer to Lawful Good.

Two sessions later, he had an "oooohhhh" moment when my character opposed the party destroying the slumbering godlike abomination that was spewing out demons and abominations and the like. My character's view was that this thing was basically a giant sleeping mass of Evil, and that it was channeling more Evil (the demons and abominations it summoned) in a form that it would be possible for people in the Prime Material to oppose in some capacity. He, ultimately being the "balance type" everyone here dislikes (and who knows, maybe you'd all hate my character too) decided that he rather prefers the sleeping and possible-to-oppose mass of Evil to the potential consequences of destroying it; in his view of the universe, that would leave a gigantic vacuum of Evil to be filled, and the Evil that would be borne of that might not be something the Prime Material could handle.

So... Everybody at the table thought that was pretty cool, anyway. But I understand why a lot of people would see it as annoying, as well.

I would personally throw my vote in for the "indecisive but passive-aggresively biased" True Neutral being the worst.

AinSoph
2015-06-28, 11:19 AM
I'd vote for the apathetic as being the worst, because that's just a bad character full stop. You gotta care about something to have agency and drive plot. Closely followed by the self-nullifying checks and balances TN who cures you as he stabs you. That one cares about *something*, but is completely ineffectual and frustrating. Maintaining natural order TN can be very interesting in comparison.

About to play a meta-ethical skeptic. Doesn't buy into good and evil as being real things, even though D&D makes them well-established objective fact. Knowingly pursuing a morally iffy goal with morally iffy methods, and tries to consider the objective ramifications of actions rather than "did I do a good or a bad". Drawing a little bit of inspiration from Kreia from KOTR II- awesome example of having genuinely neutral views in a black and white universe.

Hawkstar
2015-06-29, 06:20 PM
Yes, a Good character devotes to a good cause works, much like an Evil character devoted to an evil cause works and a Neutral character devoted to a neutral cause works. But while it's somewhat more sensible than with Neutral or Evil, as a rule, a Good character's motivations should not be as skin-deep as "I want to be Good."Why not? Doesn't everyone?

Keltest
2015-06-29, 06:29 PM
Why not? Doesn't everyone?

Indeed. Being good for its own sake is often portrayed as an ideal in itself for one reason or another. In fact, its usually portrayed as the "purest" form of good, because there is no carrot to keep you working for it.

Lord Raziere
2015-06-29, 06:36 PM
Indeed. Being good for its own sake is often portrayed as an ideal in itself for one reason or another. In fact, its usually portrayed as the "purest" form of good, because there is no carrot to keep you working for it.

Yes. Your only as good as the reason why you do good. Do the right thing because its the right thing and you will always do it. Do the right thing for money and it will only last as long as you get money. and so on.
virtue is always about the sake of being virtuous.

FabulousFizban
2015-07-02, 03:33 PM
alignment system sucks (insert flame war)

tabletops should use myers-briggs from now on.

AinSoph
2015-07-02, 03:52 PM
alignment system sucks (insert flame war)

tabletops should use myers-briggs from now on.

Definitely. MBTI is the best personality typology out there. Still fundamentally flawed, but way better at describing people.

Hawkstar
2015-07-02, 05:58 PM
alignment system sucks (insert flame war)

tabletops should use myers-briggs from now on.

Alignment doesn't have anything to do with personality. Otherwise, it would be called Personality.

Alignment is Allegiance to a higher cause. Neutral is either a rejection of that allegiance, or a commitment to keeping the other two/four powers in balance.

The only overlap is in how the goals and means of those allegiances dictate how people behave in order to strengthen the influence of that power, partly by setting an example, and partly by disrupting the spread and means of the other power.

HolyCouncilMagi
2015-07-02, 08:14 PM
Yes. Your only as good as the reason why you do good. Do the right thing because its the right thing and you will always do it. Do the right thing for money and it will only last as long as you get money. and so on.
virtue is always about the sake of being virtuous.

When I said "doing Good for a reason other than wanting to be Good," I didn't mean "do it for money" or anything like that. Most people do things for results, rather than abstract ideologies. Maybe we just know different people, but the people in my life don't do things because they're "the right thing to do," they do them because they want to protect or help people. It seems like a subtle difference, but it's the same as the difference between the villain who's like "hahaha I want to be evil!" and the villain who tortures others due to sadism or kills and robs others out of greed.

Hawkstar
2015-07-02, 09:18 PM
When I said "doing Good for a reason other than wanting to be Good," I didn't mean "do it for money" or anything like that. Most people do things for results, rather than abstract ideologies. Maybe we just know different people, but the people in my life don't do things because they're "the right thing to do," they do them because they want to protect or help people. It seems like a subtle difference, but it's the same as the difference between the villain who's like "hahaha I want to be evil!" and the villain who tortures others due to sadism or kills and robs others out of greed.We definitely know different people Most people in my area (Including the family I was raised with) believe in doing "The right thing" because "It's the right thing to do".

And in fantasy, Evil for the sake of Evil can be awesome. You get the coolest lines, the coolest armor, the coolest music, and a bunch of other stuff as well, but it looses its impact if it's not for the sake of Being Evil.\

Amusingly, both Good and Evil agree that Hopes and Dreams make awesome roads - Good because of all the places Hopes and dreams can take people, and Evil because of the satisfying crunch of those hopes and dreams under heavy treads.

FabulousFizban
2015-07-07, 05:34 PM
Alignment doesn't have anything to do with personality. Otherwise, it would be called Personality.

Alignment is Allegiance to a higher cause. Neutral is either a rejection of that allegiance, or a commitment to keeping the other two/four powers in balance.

The only overlap is in how the goals and means of those allegiances dictate how people behave in order to strengthen the influence of that power, partly by setting an example, and partly by disrupting the spread and means of the other power.

I don't disagree, but I think it would be better for everyone if instead of saying, "is this action good/evil/neutral?" we instead only had to ask, "does this action fit my character's personality?"

I think it helps shift the game to a roleplaying perspective instead of a mechanics one.
EDIT: plus I think everyone should learn about myers-briggs; as it really helps us relate to other people we might not otherwise understand/tolerate.

Raimun
2015-07-07, 09:14 PM
The True Neutral character is eating a meal in a restaurant. The GM describes the food as excellent. The player asks if he's ever eaten a meal of that type that is as good. The GM tells him it's the best meal of that type he has ever tasted. Of course, at that point, the TN-character marches casually to the kitchen, shoots the cook with a pistol that has a silencer attached and leaves quickly.

Why? Because The Balance must be kept, damn it!

This actually happened in the film...

Once Upon a Time in Mexico. The character was agent Sanders, played by Johnny Depp.

Or... you know, older edition Druid. Right after the party has slayed the Evil demon lord, who tried to conquer and then destroy the world, thus ending the threat of Evil for at least a milennia, the Druid starts a reign of terror against the forces of Good, because now there's too much Good in the world.

Basically any kind of True Neutral character who feels compelled to uphold the ideals of True Neutrality (The Balance!) with zeal and ardor that would make paladins and (especially) divine avengers jealous.

Compared to this, it's actually better to be a moral mercenary.

Keltest
2015-07-07, 09:30 PM
The True Neutral character is eating a meal in a restaurant. The GM describes the food as excellent. The player asks if he's ever eaten a meal of that type that is as good. The GM tells him it's the best meal of that type he has ever tasted. Of course, at that point, the TN-character marches casually to the kitchen, shoots the cook with a pistol that has a silencer attached and leaves quickly.

Why? Because The Balance must be kept, damn it!

This actually happened in the film...

Once Upon a Time in Mexico. The character was agent Sanders, played by Johnny Depp.

Or... you know, older edition Druid. Right after the party has slayed the Evil demon lord, who tried to conquer and then destroy the world, thus ending the threat of Evil for at least a milennia, the Druid starts a reign of terror against the forces of Good, because now there's too much Good in the world.

Basically any kind of True Neutral character who feels compelled to uphold the ideals of True Neutrality (The Balance!) with zeal and ardor that would make paladins and (especially) divine avengers jealous.

Compared to this, it's actually better to be a moral mercenary.

Ironically, that druid wouldn't be keeping the balance. If removing that evil had meant imbalance would be created, he wouldn't have helped in the first place.

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-07-08, 02:22 AM
Ironically, that druid wouldn't be keeping the balance. If removing that evil had meant imbalance would be created, he wouldn't have helped in the first place.

No, that was too much evil. By replacing the evil overlord with himself he could get it to just the right amount.


alignment system sucks (insert flame war)

tabletops should use myers-briggs from now on.

Smite introvert!

(:smalltongue:)

prufock
2015-07-08, 06:22 AM
Alignment doesn't have anything to do with personality. Otherwise, it would be called Personality.
Personality includes alignment. Personality has to do with the ways people differ in thought, emotion, and behaviour. Alignment is a pattern of thought and behaviour (maybe emotion too, but I can find less support for that).

Hawkstar
2015-07-08, 07:40 AM
Personality includes alignment. Personality has to do with the ways people differ in thought, emotion, and behaviour. Alignment is a pattern of thought and behaviour (maybe emotion too, but I can find less support for that).

Personality only includes alignment insofar as Personality also includes political party affiliation.

prufock
2015-07-08, 07:59 AM
Personality only includes alignment insofar as Personality also includes political party affiliation.
So that's a yes.

Kriton
2015-07-08, 08:03 AM
Personality only includes alignment insofar as Personality also includes political party affiliation.

Well, Google gives a couple of definitions for personality, the one applying to personality as used in the context of this discussion, I think is this:


the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character.
"she had a sunny personality that was very engaging"
synonyms: character, nature, disposition, temperament, make-up, persona, psyche, identity
"her cheerful and vibrant personality"


With this definition of personality, the political ideology the person subscribes to, should be included; though the political party affiliation of the person, is not necessarily relevant, but possibly.

paddyfool
2015-07-08, 04:39 PM
What's most obnoxious is when a character is TN simply because their player seeks the minor mechanical advantage of not being targetable by most alignment-specific effects (e.g. Smite Evil). Especially if they then seem to play them as if they really should be another alignment. Say, of the "so... how are you not Chaotic Evil exactly" variety.

What's quite fun for a one-shot is to have a character be obsessed with one particular other thing that's neither good nor evil, lawful nor chaotic, and frame their actions around that. Say, if you will, a druid whose alignment is basically "trees". Their primary adventuring motivation could be to plant and/or maintain forests, negotiate protected status for forests, persuade people of the value of forests, etc. Right down to planting trees in hell, limbo, the astral realm or wherever else they happen to find themselves. Of course, to get them to cooperate with the rest of the party, you'd probably need some kind of big threat to forests everywhere that's somehow linked to whatever other threats the party is dealing with. And beyond one-shots, one-dimensional characters of this kind get a little tedious.

Keltest
2015-07-08, 04:47 PM
What's most obnoxious is when a character is TN simply because their player seeks the minor mechanical advantage of not being targetable by most alignment-specific effects (e.g. Smite Evil). Especially if they then seem to play them as if they really should be another alignment. Say, of the "so... how are you not Chaotic Evil exactly" variety.

What's quite fun for a one-shot is to have a character be obsessed with one particular other thing that's neither good nor evil, lawful nor chaotic, and frame their actions around that. Say, if you will, a druid whose alignment is basically "trees". Their primary adventuring motivation could be to plant and/or maintain forests, negotiate protected status for forests, persuade people of the value of forests, etc. Right down to planting trees in hell, limbo, the astral realm or wherever else they happen to find themselves. Of course, to get them to cooperate with the rest of the party, you'd probably need some kind of big threat to forests everywhere that's somehow linked to whatever other threats the party is dealing with. And beyond one-shots, one-dimensional characters of this kind get a little tedious.

"See the world they said. Plant some trees, they said. What was I thinking when I agreed to follow these guys around, anyway?"

goto124
2015-07-08, 07:59 PM
What if the druid IS a tree?

Lurkmoar
2015-07-08, 10:44 PM
What if the druid IS a tree?

Was said druid BORN a tree or did the druid BECOME a tree? The latter is fairly easy to pull off, the former... would take some doing. Unless it was a Treant with Druid levels... but aren't they usually Chaotic/Neutral Good?

FabulousFizban
2015-07-08, 11:58 PM
What if the druid IS a tree?

http://trolledbot.net/pix/1536.jpg

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-07-09, 08:00 AM
What's quite fun for a one-shot is to have a character be obsessed with one particular other thing that's neither good nor evil, lawful nor chaotic, and frame their actions around that. Say, if you will, a druid whose alignment is basically "trees".

Or a bard who's alignment is "party!", or a barbarian who's alignment is "yummy", or a ranger who's alignment is "adventure", or a paladin who's alignment is "honor". O wait, maybe not the best example...

But yeah, some OOC'ing may be useful in getting at least some of these to join pretty much any quest.