Is true neutral the "pragmatist alignment"?

[Zhentarim]

Maybe I will create a mad-max type character flavor-wise who is a human ranger with the human favored enemy, has two weapon fighting and improved shield bash as his feats, is clad in scale mail, and wields a heavy wooden shield in his main hand and a dagger in his off hand. I will probably dump charisma a lot, and if necessary, int will be my next dump.

Anyway, this character, which I believe will be labeled true neutral, doesn't care about morality and just does what he believes is in his best interest for his own survival in a apocalyptic world. He might kill a family to take their supplies, including the children since not only does he not want to have more mouths to feed, but leaving orphans is "cruel, even for a hardened 'survivalist' like me". He will side with whoever he believes to be of benefit to him, whether they be devil or saint, and is quick to turn on that ally if he feels he got "a raw deal".

Sound true neutral?

[legomaster00156]

No, this guy sounds blatantly Neutral Evil: looking out for #1 while kicking #2.

[LTwerewolf]

NE or maybe CE, definitely not neutral.

[Zhentarim]

NE or maybe CE, definitely not neutral.

Although, he will not flaunt chaos and evil at every opportunity, and finds it is sometimes smartest to go along to get along until something better comes along.

[LTwerewolf]

Although, he will not flaunt chaos and evil at every opportunity, and finds it is sometimes smartest to go along to get along until something better comes along.

That just means he's not stupid. Doesn't make him not evil.

[denthor]

Killing when you could help until the next opportunity. Is Evil. Help others until it is convenient to leave. Then leave when something better comes do not steal just gone. When the sun comes up. That is True Neutral.

I want your stuff I am stronger than you give or be killed is Chaotic and Evil unless you provide something in return then it is Lawful Evil. Killing person who gets in the way is Neutral Evil.

[ahanna12345]

Remember it's not only the actions but the thought processes that determine those actions which dictate morality and alignment. In all honestly this guy sounds like a clear cut neutral evil but you can defiantly spin him to be pure neutral.
Doesn't care about morality and just does what he believes is in his best interest for his own survival in a apocalyptic world. This is a neutral evil sentiment but if you change "my best interest" to some variation of "the best interest of me and mine" it fits more.




He might kill a family to take their supplies, including the children since not only does he not want to have more mouths to feed, but leaving orphans is "cruel, even for a hardened 'survivalist' like me".

"These people will die anyways, if I am able kill them with impunity they wont last the month to this world. therefore I can kill them and take their food because without it I won't survive."

A neutral character should try to get it without violence if he can but if he needs the food he needs the food. Also I can see how a mercy killing is better than being left to starve to death. However if he isn't evil he should feel guilt over it. If you want a hardened killer who doesn't care who dies so he can survive, then yeah you're evil. But if you try to let others live, and regret the lives you need to take so that you can survive then it falls into the more neutral category.



He will side with whoever he believes to be of benefit to him, whether they be devil or saint, and is quick to turn on that ally if he feels he got "a raw deal".

This is just dependent on what qualifies as a "raw deal"' If you are willing to stab the other guy cause he got an extra twinkie then yeah your evil. But if someone screws you over bad then you stab him thats ok.

[Zhentarim]

Remember it's not only the actions but the thought processes that determine those actions which dictate morality and alignment. In all honestly this guy sounds like a clear cut neutral evil but you can defiantly spin him to be pure neutral.
Doesn't care about morality and just does what he believes is in his best interest for his own survival in a apocalyptic world. This is a neutral evil sentiment but if you change "my best interest" to some variation of "the best interest of me and mine" it fits more.



"These people will die anyways, if I am able kill them with impunity they wont last the month to this world. therefore I can kill them and take their food because without it I won't survive."

A neutral character should try to get it without violence if he can but if he needs the food he needs the food. Also I can see how a mercy killing is better than being left to starve to death. However if he isn't evil he should feel guilt over it. If you want a hardened killer who doesn't care who dies so he can survive, then yeah you're evil. But if you try to let others live, and regret the lives you need to take so that you can survive then it falls into the more neutral category.



This is just dependent on what qualifies as a "raw deal"' If you are willing to stab the other guy cause he got an extra twinkie then yeah your evil. But if someone screws you over bad then you stab him thats ok.

Yeah, then my guy is likely NE.

[Zanos]

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

If you don't have issues with killing innocent people for personal gain, you're probably Evil.

[DeadMech]

Allot of people can claim to be pragmatic to try to justify their actions.

A good person will claim it is pragmatic to make friends and help others because that's the type of behavior most conducive to rebuilding society and because those people will look out for them in the future.

A neutral person will claim it pragmatic to avoid making enemies by harming others but keep what they do scavenge for their own gain.

An evil person will claim it pragmatic to take whatever they want even for others because it maximizes their chances of survival.

Most of them are lying to themselves. The good person is setting themselves up to be taken advantage of. The neutral person is just trying to avoid making hard decisions. And the evil person is assuming they are the biggest fish in the pond when they almost certainly aren't.

[Zhentarim]

Allot of people can claim to be pragmatic to try to justify their actions.

A good person will claim it is pragmatic to make friends and help others because that's the type of behavior most conducive to rebuilding society and because those people will look out for them in the future.

A neutral person will claim it pragmatic to avoid making enemies by harming others but keep what they do scavenge for their own gain.

An evil person will claim it pragmatic to take whatever they want even for others because it maximizes their chances of survival.

Most of them are lying to themselves. The good person is setting themselves up to be taken advantage of. The neutral person is just trying to avoid making hard decisions. And the evil person is assuming they are the biggest fish in the pond when they almost certainly aren't.

Interesting observation.

[Seto]

A True Neutral character has lines they will not cross. (Within these boundaries, yes, a lot of them can be defined as pragmatic).

[Grytorm]

Hmm, just thinking about neutral alignment in general. What if a ranger in a resource scarce area who robbed others for supplies, sometimes killing their victims. But only when supplies were low and only targeting other loner types who looked capable of defending themselves.

(Or rob and sometimes kill people without dependents of some sort)

[DeadMech]

Hmm, just thinking about neutral alignment in general. What if a ranger in a resource scarce area who robbed others for supplies, sometimes killing their victims. But only when supplies were low and only targeting other loner types who looked capable of defending themselves.

(Or rob and sometimes kill people without dependents of some sort)

Lawful evil probably or at least leaning that way. Because you are still doing that whole killing or disadvantaging others for your own gain but now you have a personal code and rules of engagement. Now if this were a death games scenario where everyone involved was aware of and had these rules imposed on them then they probably have a lot more leeway... Perhaps the more neutral path would be for the ranger to warn the people he's competing with for resources to move out of his territory "or else". It's still bullying and adversarial but it allows his competition agency to choose and fair chance to defend what's theirs if they disagree.

That said objective morality is not my favorite part of DnD in most cases. Everyone has a subjective opinion about right and wrong. And most people twist that to their own benefit. In gaming only the DM gets final say.

I for instance wouldn't give people much benefit of arguing their actions are less evil because of scarcity. It makes the killing and stealing and other evil acts more explainable, more understandable, more common but not right. Arguably it makes it worse. If you steal something necessary but plentiful the victim is annoyed by the inconvenience of having to go get some more. If you steal something needed and scarce, you've probably killed the victim. In a setting of prosperity killing the main breadwinner of a family is bad but the family will have supports to rely on to continue living. Kill the main breadwinner is a setting of poverty and you have caused that whole family to starve to death.

Apocalypse settings don't tend to be filled with much good. There isn't much forgiving, second chances, or trying to reform the bad guys. Mostly because it really isn't something you can afford in most cases. Even helping innocent people is hard. At best you get killing the bad guys so that maybe there will be less bad in the world.

Kinda of makes one thing about morality a bit harder. Is anyone really a good person in a world where sharing or being kind and helpful has no real risk?

[Lord Raziere]

Kinda of makes one thing about morality a bit harder. Is anyone really a good person in a world where sharing or being kind and helpful has no real risk?

What use is such a question?

We do not live in such a world and if we could figure out how to make it so as you ask, I bet there would be a lot of people going for it simply to make sure that no one selfish has any incentive to not be those things.

Last time I checked, good deeds are not lauded for the risks they take. they are lauded for helping someone else, regardless of the risk.

Heroic actions on the other hand are. But heroic actions are not inherently Good. Heroes can be Great People, larger than life, but that does not equate to Goodness, only Greatness. Risk only means that your actions are fantastic, are a spectacle to see, are miraculous when pulled off but none of that means your a Good person.

You can be Good without being Great, and you can be Great without being Good. The greatest paladin is humble, and knows that he is no better than the lowly farmer who is kind to all those in his community, that Good is not a competition and that he is not better than any just because takes more risks. To think of yourself as being more Good than others just because you take more risks in your Goodness, sounds an awful lot like pride and foolhardiness.

"I take more risks than the rest of you! I am holier than all!" sounds more like a zealots cry than real good. Do you consider a warrior who charges into an army blindly with no plan to save a village truly good?Someone so inconsiderate that they don't take into account what is actually needed to save them, only caring for proving how holy and Great they are by taking this enormous risk that could end with his death as well the village all dying?

[hamishspence]

If Good is judged by one's willingness to be self-sacrificing, "regularly exposing oneself to considerable pain and danger" can be considered a form of self-sacrifice.

But it's not the only one.

"Will murder for my own benefit" changing to "will murder for my loved ones' benefit" isn't really a huge jump - it's the difference between Palpatine and Anakin in ROTS, but they're both Sith Lords and villains.

[Zhentarim]

Lawful evil probably or at least leaning that way. Because you are still doing that whole killing or disadvantaging others for your own gain but now you have a personal code and rules of engagement. Now if this were a death games scenario where everyone involved was aware of and had these rules imposed on them then they probably have a lot more leeway... Perhaps the more neutral path would be for the ranger to warn the people he's competing with for resources to move out of his territory "or else". It's still bullying and adversarial but it allows his competition agency to choose and fair chance to defend what's theirs if they disagree.

That said objective morality is not my favorite part of DnD in most cases. Everyone has a subjective opinion about right and wrong. And most people twist that to their own benefit. In gaming only the DM gets final say.

I for instance wouldn't give people much benefit of arguing their actions are less evil because of scarcity. It makes the killing and stealing and other evil acts more explainable, more understandable, more common but not right. Arguably it makes it worse. If you steal something necessary but plentiful the victim is annoyed by the inconvenience of having to go get some more. If you steal something needed and scarce, you've probably killed the victim. In a setting of prosperity killing the main breadwinner of a family is bad but the family will have supports to rely on to continue living. Kill the main breadwinner is a setting of poverty and you have caused that whole family to starve to death.

Apocalypse settings don't tend to be filled with much good. There isn't much forgiving, second chances, or trying to reform the bad guys. Mostly because it really isn't something you can afford in most cases. Even helping innocent people is hard. At best you get killing the bad guys so that maybe there will be less bad in the world.

Kinda of makes one thing about morality a bit harder. Is anyone really a good person in a world where sharing or being kind and helpful has no real risk?

Thomas Hobbes said that without order imposed upon us by the social contract, we are all monsters. When **** hits the fan, people eat each other.

[Zhentarim]

The question becomes...how would one play lawful good under extreme scarcity? A couple of lawful good apps were just submitted, as well as a neutral good and a true neutral. I may try to spin the backstory to make chaotic good...but I'm not sure how.

[Strigon]

The question becomes...how would one play lawful good under extreme scarcity? A couple of lawful good apps were just submitted, as well as a neutral good and a true neutral. I may try to spin the backstory to make chaotic good...but I'm not sure how.

The LG types are those trying to restore civilization. They'd try to get a group together, and keep them alive, try to crack down on raiders, and protect the few people who could actually provide vital resources.
There are, of course, tough decisions to be made, but being Good doesn't mean you can't make tough calls, just that you probably don't make selfish ones.

[Segev]

If nothing else, a Neutral person who genuinely thought it was absolutely necessary he take the supplies from a starving family would give those he'd overpowered a choice before executing them. If the brats want to starve to death rather than get a swift death at his blade, that's their choice.

It's not a mercy-kill if the "beneficiary" doesn't want it.

[Zhentarim]

speaking of...would a good ranger ever have human as the favored enemy?

[Strigon]

speaking of...would a good ranger ever have human as the favored enemy?

Yes. Perhaps he wants to be a city guard, or he protects the wilderness like a Druid.

[KarlMarx]

speaking of...would a good ranger ever have human as the favored enemy?

Sure.

Consider an orc ranger who, although good at heart, has lost everything to evil human brigands.


The true neutral alignment, in my opinion, contains three distinct alignments:

-Unaligned: An unaligned creature is one incapable of moral reasoning, such as an unintelligent animal. Their actions may be perceived as good or bad, but they are incapable of reflecting on this.

-Neutral: A neutral creature is intelligent but does not engage in complex moral reasoning. They are instead practical and down-to-earth. They do no wrong to anything, yet at the same time don't go out of their way for strangers.

-True Neutral: true neutral creatures have a philosophical commitment to balance, often viewing good and evil, etc, as parts of a whole. They may actively champion this ideology, but they are not simply material pragmatists.

Therefore, a neutral creature is a pragmatic one--unless it takes actions it knows causes harm to others, which would be evil.

A true neutral creature's actions, however, are devoted to upholding the balance of opposed forces.

[Zhentarim]

Yes. Perhaps he wants to be a city guard, or he protects the wilderness like a Druid.

There are barely any living things in this setting and 90% of cities are ruins.

[Zanos]

You can be Good without being Great, and you can be Great without being Good. The greatest paladin is humble, and knows that he is no better than the lowly farmer who is kind to all those in his community, that Good is not a competition and that he is not better than any just because takes more risks. To think of yourself as being more Good than others just because you take more risks in your Goodness, sounds an awful lot like pride and foolhardiness.

"I take more risks than the rest of you! I am holier than all!" sounds more like a zealots cry than real good. Do you consider a warrior who charges into an army blindly with no plan to save a village truly good?Someone so inconsiderate that they don't take into account what is actually needed to save them, only caring for proving how holy and Great they are by taking this enormous risk that could end with his death as well the village all dying?
Pride comes before the fall, not during. Being humble is no more associated with Good than it is with Evil, and people who believe they are carrying out the will of Angels and Gods are more susceptible to pride than most. There's also no mandate to be particularly clever, so yes, someone who charges into overwhelming odds with no real plan with the intent to die to defend others is still Good.

[Strigon]

There are barely any living things in this setting and 90% of cities are ruins.

You really should've specified you still meant in that setting; saying "ever" kind of implies... well, ever.
Anyway, still yes, the ranger could be trying to stop bandits, raiders, or whatever they're called in that setting.

[tomandtish]

speaking of...would a good ranger ever have human as the favored enemy?


There are barely any living things in this setting and 90% of cities are ruins.

As others have said, it is certainly possible, especially in a scenario like that. The Ranger may not be human and humans are actually the biggest threat to their people. Even if the Ranger is human, humans aren't off the table. This is simply role-played as the ones this Ranger has the most experience again. Throw a good human Ranger in the worlds of Mad Max or Water World. Plenty of human enemies who are evil there. No reason the same can't be true here.