My Opinion About The Three Neutral

[Bartmanhomer]

Hey everybody. I'm going to explain my opinion about the three neutral (True Neutral, Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral.) First off I'm going to say that neutrality is a very tricky alignment to play. It can shift to good or evil. And I'm going to say that True Neutral is the most trickiest alignment of all. The True Neutral can shift to mostly all other alignment. I have no problem playing with Neutral PC even though I never play Neutral PC before. So what's your opinion of the three neutral?

[OldTrees1]

I have no strong feelings one way or another.


As a more serious answer:
1) I find NG, LN, CN, & NE to be purer lenses through which to examine aspects of human nature.
2) I also find Neutrals to be convenient starting points for when you do not know how to classify a character. I initially marked LN as the alignment of my blue/orange necromancer. I expected that the DM would eventually classify it in one of the 3 Lawful alignments.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm also think that True Neutral is shifted by choice. I just thought about it just now.

[Psyren]

If I cared enough to participate, I'd direct you to these three threads:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448817-My-Country-Right-Or-Wrong-A-Lawful-Neutral-Alignment-Handbook

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?453304-Pursuit-of-Happiness-a-practical-Guide-to-playing-True-Neutral

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448806-We-re-Rebels-Without-A-Clue-A-Chaotic-Neutral-Handbook

[Remuko]

Neutral Good and Neutral Evil are Neutrals as well and True Neutral is basically two opposite alignments with the same name.

[Bartmanhomer]

Neutral Good and Neutral Evil are Neutrals as well and True Neutral is basically two opposite alignments with the same name.

Yes I forgot to mention that as well.

[Segev]

True Neutral is basically two opposite alignments with the same name.

While I think I see where you're coming from, I'm not sure this is accurate, or at least, not unique to TN. It is most commonly called out in TN, because TN is the one where it's the most prominent trait, but it's true of all alignments.

It's a question of militancy. The two TN "alignments" that I think you're referring to (and please correct me if I'm wrong) are essentially "BALANCE AT ALL COSTS" and "meh."

Or, in more colorful terms: Militant vs. Uncaring.

Militant neutrality will strive to enforce a balance of all alignments. Have I been too authoritarian lately? Best foment some chaos. Have I kicked enough puppies? That means I can help this child find her way out of the forest safely.

Uncaring neutrality is where you just can't be bothered with this whole 'alignment' business. You're not passionate enough to HURT people, generally, but helping them's a pain, too. You've got energy to look out for yourself, and to follow laws where convenient and skirt them where inconvenient (and you can get away with it). But whatever.

The thing is, the other alignments have these strains, too.

Militant LN has a strict code and will live it religiously. If it calls for enforcement, militant LN will seek to impose it wherever he can.

Uncaring LN finds that obeying the rules is the easiest way to get through life. There is discomfort in not knowing his place, in violating taboos or ignoring traditions. He doesn't really CARE; if you want to break those rules, he's not going to stop you if he doesn't HAVE to, but he's going to follow them because they're comfortable.

Militant LG is the paladin. The hero who goes out and does good and enforces and keeps the codes of honor which preserve it for everyone.

Uncaring LG is misleading, a bit; Good cares, just not about the fact that it's "good." Uncaring LG shares uncaring LN's comfort with tradition and rules, and also has a conscience and empathy for others. Not about to philosophize on the subject, they just know the rules are the best way to promote happiness, but also will be horrified by rules that are unfair or cruel.

Militant NG is spreading the word of charity and kindness, and actively seeking to help others. It is Good for the Good God.

Uncaring NG just likes everybody being happy. And not hurting each other.

And I am a bit bored of working my way around this cycle, but I might come back and post again to finish it out later. Sorry guys. I hope you get the idea.

[Malimar]

I'm playing a True Neutral sorcerer right now. He's fun because he's willing to just go along with whatever anybody else suggests without being morally opposed to anything but also without being vicious, cruel, self-centered, or anything. He's the "doesn't give a crap" flavor of TN and doesn't tend to have strong feelings about anything one way or the other. (He's in Wrath of the Righteous, where fighting demons can be a matter of pragmatic survival and self-defense if nothing else.)

Personally, I'm Lawful Neutral. I don't generally tend to enjoy playing LN characters, though, because I have more fun playing D&D when I get to explore characters who are different from me. Though I did once play Jack Jackson, Attorney at Law, Specializing in Interspecies Law, Also an Adventurer, however, who was LN in the most literal sense -- his habit was to obey the law of whatever nation he happened to find himself in, which is rather different than most forms of LN. It got interesting when he ventured into a drow city.

Chaotic Neutral is often the domain of garbage jerkholes who suck and use it as an excuse to play evil in games where evil is ostensibly banned. It can be played well in the hands of a skilled player, but that tends to be the exception, not the rule.

[Deadline]

I have no strong feelings one way or another.

Obligatory Brannigan quote:


What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[Segev]

A somewhat unusual - for me - character I'm playing in a d20 modern game that is gestalting "X Hero" classes with Occult classes from PF is one I finally nailed down his alignment based on his behavior, and it's a very high-functioning, reasonably party-friendly CN.

Drake isn't a lolrandom character. He is actually shockingly brilliant, and extremely fast at analyzing situations and coming to accurate conclusions about what can and cannot work. He seems impulsive because he acts while others are still dithering. This isn't what makes him CN, but it is behavior that might make others think he's acting chaotically. At least until the method to his apparent madness reveals itself.

He also will happily explain himself in fast, rambling excitement while working. If you can keep up, he's explaining exactly what he's doing, but it sounds like blather to most.

What makes him CN, though, is that he literally disregards authority. It isn't a disrespect, nor a bucking. He is so far turned to the Chaotic side on this aspect that he doesn't even consider matters of authority.

He considers expertise. He listens to and makes rapid analytical judgments of advice. He will ask questions as to WHY somebody tells him to or not to do something, and listen seriously to the answers. But despite being quite capable of recognizing that somebody believes they have authority, it doesn't even enter into his head that he should care. Neither to follow it nor to deliberately oppose it.

He doesn't ask permission. He informs people of what he's going to do, and then does it. If he's asking somebody about an action, he's gathering information about what they'll do if he does it, not asking them if it's okay. If he literally asks if something is "okay" with somebody else, it's not because he cares about their authority, but because he cares about whether his action would hurt their feelings, or cause them distress. Or make them happy, perhaps. It is possible he's inviting them to participate.

It isn't that he assumes people will obey him, either. He is just supremely self-reliant, and does what he thinks is the smartest, most effective action available, and gauges safety in his own (typically rather accurate) terms, taking into account his own usually accurate assessment of his own abilities.

But with his utter disregard for authority, he is a planner who is still definitely CN. Maybe CG, since he isn't mean and is happy to help people.

[OldTrees1]

What makes him CN, though, is that he literally disregards authority. It isn't a disrespect, nor a bucking. He is so far turned to the Chaotic side on this aspect that he doesn't even consider matters of authority.

-snip-



This is what I am talking about when I say the Neutrals are purer lenses. If I wanted to observer/experiment with the absence of authority, I could observe that aspect easier as a CN character rather than as a CG or CE character.

[Segev]

This is what I am talking about when I say the Neutrals are purer lenses. If I wanted to observer/experiment with the absence of authority, I could observe that aspect easier as a CN character rather than as a CG or CE character.

In my not so humble opinion, they're also the true extreme alignments. Despite the grid being commonly depicted as a square, making LG, LE, CE, and CG seem further from the middle than any other, I think that's inaccurate. It's really a circle. To be more LG, you have to give up on being more L and more G individually. You'll be more than 50% L and 50% G if you're as extremely LG as you can get, but you won't be 100% L nor 100% G.

Okay, technically, that makes NONE of them the "most extreme," but the N* alignments are the ones where you can maximize a single axis the most. Being "corner"-aligned makes you less than extreme on either of the two components.

As you say, "purer."

[Remuko]

While I think I see where you're coming from, I'm not sure this is accurate, or at least, not unique to TN. It is most commonly called out in TN, because TN is the one where it's the most prominent trait, but it's true of all alignments.

It's a question of militancy. The two TN "alignments" that I think you're referring to (and please correct me if I'm wrong) are essentially "BALANCE AT ALL COSTS" and "meh."

Or, in more colorful terms: Militant vs. Uncaring.

Militant neutrality will strive to enforce a balance of all alignments. Have I been too authoritarian lately? Best foment some chaos. Have I kicked enough puppies? That means I can help this child find her way out of the forest safely.

Uncaring neutrality is where you just can't be bothered with this whole 'alignment' business. You're not passionate enough to HURT people, generally, but helping them's a pain, too. You've got energy to look out for yourself, and to follow laws where convenient and skirt them where inconvenient (and you can get away with it). But whatever.

The thing is, the other alignments have these strains, too.

Militant LN has a strict code and will live it religiously. If it calls for enforcement, militant LN will seek to impose it wherever he can.

Uncaring LN finds that obeying the rules is the easiest way to get through life. There is discomfort in not knowing his place, in violating taboos or ignoring traditions. He doesn't really CARE; if you want to break those rules, he's not going to stop you if he doesn't HAVE to, but he's going to follow them because they're comfortable.

Militant LG is the paladin. The hero who goes out and does good and enforces and keeps the codes of honor which preserve it for everyone.

Uncaring LG is misleading, a bit; Good cares, just not about the fact that it's "good." Uncaring LG shares uncaring LN's comfort with tradition and rules, and also has a conscience and empathy for others. Not about to philosophize on the subject, they just know the rules are the best way to promote happiness, but also will be horrified by rules that are unfair or cruel.

Militant NG is spreading the word of charity and kindness, and actively seeking to help others. It is Good for the Good God.

Uncaring NG just likes everybody being happy. And not hurting each other.

And I am a bit bored of working my way around this cycle, but I might come back and post again to finish it out later. Sorry guys. I hope you get the idea.

I prefer to call them as Inclusionary Neutral and Exclusionary Neutral and obviously theyre just extreme end points on a wide array of viable TN beliefs. Inclusionary Neutral is like what you said about balance. Its where they thing Neutral is Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos all in equal parts working in harmony. Exclusionary Neutral holds the opposite believe that all other alignments are too extreme and that Neutrality is the complete lack of any of those things and that people should strive to avoid actual "alignments" because theyre less natural or some other superstitious mumbo jumbo.

[OldTrees1]

In my not so humble opinion, they're also the true extreme alignments. Despite the grid being commonly depicted as a square, making LG, LE, CE, and CG seem further from the middle than any other, I think that's inaccurate. It's really a circle. To be more LG, you have to give up on being more L and more G individually. You'll be more than 50% L and 50% G if you're as extremely LG as you can get, but you won't be 100% L nor 100% G.

Okay, technically, that makes NONE of them the "most extreme," but the N* alignments are the ones where you can maximize a single axis the most. Being "corner"-aligned makes you less than extreme on either of the two components.

As you say, "purer."

I partially agree with that. The square is a representation of the possibility space however the population fills out in an emanation. Theoretically a Paladin could be as Lawful as a Modron and as Good as an Angel, but generally they will be lesser on each front (although Paladins are usually though of a lG so it might be a 50%/90%* split).

*(rCos(Theta),rSin(Theta)) so LG(Theta = 45) is 70%/70%

[Mordaedil]

I think True Neutral is just the default state of being.

Heck, in some of my games, it has been the starting point for players and they'd have to "earn" the other alignments by picking sides on a cosmic level.

I really like the way the Manual of the Planes outlign alignment in terms of how planes do, and use similar to describe players. "Well, I am minor good aligned, because I sometimes sacrifice a little of my own personal gain to benefit others, but not to the point where it causes me great harm." and "I am also minor lawful aligned, because I often end up obeying the rules and obeying people of authority, but I have no strong feelings about the benefit of law besides that it is convenient in preventing harm on me."

And then eventually "I am strongly good aligned, because I will sacrifice personal gain to benefit others, often excessively so, because we all are better off suffering a little, rather than someone else suffering a lot." and "I am also strongly lawful aligned, because I always follow the word of authority and I feel very strongly about the benefits of law, as they protect everyone equally."

Someone could be "not aligned" and "mildly neutral aligned" or "strongly neutral aligned" depending on their stance this way. Not aligned is the default state of being.

Mild neutrality aligned means they favor equally between law-chaos or good-evil axis, where they feel both are necessary, even if they don't feel very strongly about maintaining that balance. They just prefer some security without sacrificing too many liberties. They prefer to take what they are owed, but also feels others are due what they are owed.

Strongly neutrality aligned means they basically worship neutrality and are the worst people and should be avoided at all costs.