Good "True Neutral" Characters?

[Captain Kablam]

Are there any true neutral characters that have ever been fun or interesting to watch or play? Also, what does it mean to actually be truly neutral? Is it simply apathy and a go with the flow mentality in all things? Or is it seeking a true balance in the way one approaches the problems in life? Thoughts?

[Drakevarg]

I generally take alignment as descriptive rather than prescriptive. So a True Neutral character isn't necessarily one dedicated to the idea of neutrality, but just one whose moral compass doesn't lean very hard in any particular direction. They're like Neutral Good, except less benevolent. They're like Lawful Neutral, but less strict. Like Chaotic Neutral, but more predictable.

In other words, they're basically just average.

[insert obligatory Futurama joke here]

[Eldariel]

Are there any true neutral characters that have ever been fun or interesting to watch or play? Also, what does it mean to actually be truly neutral? Is it simply apathy and a go with the flow mentality in all things? Or is it seeking a true balance in the way one approaches the problems in life? Thoughts?

True Neutral has two completely different poles. The "everything has something worthwhile to it and I don't mind" and the "neutrality is the only path with anything else leading the world to ruin". The former goes pretty well into any character, the latter is pretty demanding and hard to play well. Druids in the older editions were kinda written as the latter - natural order, death and rebirth, survival of the fittest over everything. That's a very strong attitude and certain to cause intraparty conflict but it can be quite rewarding.

I've played the more laidback neutral a fair bit. "Sanction evil tools to good ends" works as does simple lack of commitment. "Accept things as they come", "keep balance in both, good and evil, and lawful and chaotic" can work.

[Geddy2112]

As said above, a lot of true neutral characters boil down apathy or balance. There are a lot of other ways to go with true neutral-truly dedicated self interest without malice is true neutral. People who are too much of a coward to take sides are true neutral. Having a truly mercenary approach to life is true neutral(although not to extremes), as is being an objective scientific mind. Pragmatism can lead towards darker alignments, but most hard pragmatists are true neutral.

The only true neutral character I have played was an inquisitor of a true neutral deity(of life and death). Although they were questing to defeat a great evil, they did so primarily in self interest. Sure, the evil monster is a threat to balance and the world, but they are a threat to their existence first and foremost. They did not want to see their homeland, way of life, or generally leisurely existence threatened. Removing the threat is out of self defense, and once the evil was defeated they went back to doing their own thing in their own self interest(but without malice or animosity towards order).

There is a really good guide here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?453304-Pursuit-of-Happiness-a-practical-Guide-to-playing-True-Neutral).

[Zanos]

I think a good example is that if you're pragmatic, but your pragmatism stops when it comes to hurting other people, you're True Neutral.

[Kurald Galain]

Are there any true neutral characters that have ever been fun or interesting to watch or play?

It may help to show some characters from popular fiction that are commonly seen as true neutral. Of course, the alignment of any fictional character is subject to debate, but then such debate may give additional insight in what is fun about true neutral characters. I'd argue that most of the below are fun and/or interesting.

For instance,
The Dude.
Hawkeye from the Avengers movies.
Mr. Universe from Serenity.
Maes Hughes from Fullmetal Alchemist.
Pintel and Ragetti from Pirates of the Caribbean.
Watto from Star Wars.



[insert obligatory Futurama joke here]
Aside from the famous Neutral Planet, Scruffy the Janitor is a good example.

[denthor]

True Neutral is hard.

You must allow evil to continue so that people can see a difference.

Chaotic and law must be observed and helped if eit her gets the up hand you work with the underdog then switch sides if they get more powerful than the other.

You might very well go against friends or former associates. You end with few friends and very little social help.

[zlefin]

True Neutral in the balance sense would require a better thought out system than DnD uses for alignment; with more coherent and reasonable philosophies representing the various alignments.
soft neutral aka neutral is of course (the kind that's just not caught up in the alignment system at all).

[Ellrin]

I've always thought True Neutral, as an alignment, was one of the easiest to play. You're just playing someone simply not strongly motivated to do good, though not an actually evil person; while at the same time not an especially faithful adherent to law and order, without being particularly willing to break the law for any old reason.

I feel like that honestly describes the vast majority of personality types, and you can still easily have strong motivations and character traits. I decided the character I'm currently playing, whose main motivation in adventuring is trying to find a lost mentor and has a mainly mercantile background, probably fits into TN.

Playing a TN character who's actively dedicated to promoting his alignment is weird, but I've always found playing any character who's actively trying to promote any alignment, except maybe NG, to be pretty weird, anyway.

[Goaty14]

I prefer to think of neutral as "passive" more than anything else

[Seto]

There is a really good guide here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?453304-Pursuit-of-Happiness-a-practical-Guide-to-playing-True-Neutral).
I'm happy to know that people are still checking it - and if you do take a look at it, happy to follow up on any questions you might have.

[Thurbane]

IMHO, True Neutral lends itself to two distinct play styles: apathy on both the Good/Evil and Law/Chaos axis; or seeking balance in all things, so that no one moral philosophy dominates others.

I've always been interested in playing a Cleric (or other divine) type who strongly focuses on maintaining balance in the multiverse.

[Slimmy]

I tend to play my true neutral characters as people who try to be good guys, who try to follow the law but are just not good at it. It's just one possibility but I'm a sucker for the guy who wants to be lawful but gets fed up with law and tries to be good while having a bloodthirsty tendency.

[icefractal]

I think TN is probably the most common alignment IRL, as well as in media. It doesn't need to mean you're "devoted to balance" (though it can), but simply that you're not strongly enough devoted in one direction to be anything else.

For example, someone who basically tries to be a good person, but when push comes to shove they wouldn't go very far to help a stranger. They generally follow the rules and keep their word, but would break that if the reason was important and/or the consequences were minor. That's TN. And that describes a lot of characters.

[Aegis013]

Are there any true neutral characters that have ever been fun or interesting to watch or play? Also, what does it mean to actually be truly neutral? Is it simply apathy and a go with the flow mentality in all things? Or is it seeking a true balance in the way one approaches the problems in life? Thoughts?

I played a TN character that I liked very much, back when I first joined this forum. He was a TN Whisper Gnome Shadowcraft Mage and optimized to the brink. However, what TN was to that character was a combination of insatiable curiosity and unfettered patriotism. That might sound like Lawful to some, but this character had no qualms operating in the morally or legally gray if he believed it would serve his homeland.

He discovered that their country wasn't surrounded by impassable borders on all sides and found out that the continent was expansive with many other countries. While he generally found altruism and diplomacy the best tactics for advancing his homeland's cause, he would resort to extortion, intimidation, blackmail, and other underhanded tactics with little to no hesitation. It was never simply to cause harm to the other party though, he always believed that the arrangements he created would be mutually beneficial to all parties, even if that benefit was lopsided. He simply subscribed to the ends justifying the means.

[Sam K]

TN can be many things: apathy ("I just don't care about morality"), passive neutrality ("Everyone has their own view and I respect that as long as they don't try to force that view upon me"), active neutrality ("The balance must be preserved!"), or a devotion to something that does not fit into the alignment spectrum ("Knowledge is more important than your petty squabbles.")

[Luccan]

I'm happy to know that people are still checking it - and if you do take a look at it, happy to follow up on any questions you might have.

Just read through that for the first time: Nice. Definitely reading that every time I run a TN character. And it makes me want to actually run a TN character more often.

[Mordaedil]

I usually see True Neutral as being the default alignment, with everything else requiring effort to maintain.

Want to be Neutral Good? Well, you better go out and dedicate your ass to doing good, not just doing well. Want to be lawful good? You better stick to it hardcore and maintain consistant effort to be lawful good.

Creatures that are any alignment but true neutral have dedicated themselves to that alignment.

[Seto]

Just read through that for the first time: Nice. Definitely reading that every time I run a TN character. And it makes me want to actually run a TN character more often.
Thanks, I appreciate it! That's what it's here for :smallsmile:

I usually see True Neutral as being the default alignment, with everything else requiring effort to maintain.

Want to be Neutral Good? Well, you better go out and dedicate your ass to doing good, not just doing well. Want to be lawful good? You better stick to it hardcore and maintain consistant effort to be lawful good.

Creatures that are any alignment but true neutral have dedicated themselves to that alignment.
I would generally agree with that, with a caveat regarding Evil: sometimes (living under the rule of someone Evil who wants you to obey them, for example, or generally being raised in a society with Evil principles), slipping into Evil can be done out of laziness rather than effort. It's especially dangerous for those Neutral characters without a strong drive to do good - staying Neutral requires you to keep a certain standard of decency, and in some situations, even that requires effort.

[Mordaedil]

A cowardly people is an evil population, eh? Well, I can see it as sort of an extension on power center rules rather than personal alignments.

[Eldariel]

Thanks, I appreciate it! That's what it's here for :smallsmile:

I would generally agree with that, with a caveat regarding Evil: sometimes (living under the rule of someone Evil who wants you to obey them, for example, or generally being raised in a society with Evil principles), slipping into Evil can be done out of laziness rather than effort. It's especially dangerous for those Neutral characters without a strong drive to do good - staying Neutral requires you to keep a certain standard of decency, and in some situations, even that requires effort.

When I play evil, it's almost always pragmatism/utilitarianism/consequentialism. Not so much moustache-twirling world domination evil but just saving the world no matter the cost. This is I find the least effort evil - you have a clear goal and you don't give any consideration to the means. It's also an alignment type that's an awful lot of fun to play - a lot of freedom but still lofty goals. The kind that has no ethical problems with using undead to power perpetual motion engines or Mind Rape to make the evil mastermind into the most devoted world healer ever. Evil apathy and evil goals feel like they have too few guiding principles to really get them to adventure or do much of anything by comparison (though anything can be made to work of course).

[Lvl 2 Expert]

True neutral characters are mostly characters whose main goals and characteristics can't be appropriately described in the two dimensions the alignment system gives. Maybe they mostly like money, maybe they're looking for love, maybe they just want the undead wizard threatening their village to **** off. They are not overly benevolent or sadistic and they are not overly in love with or opposed to the idea of rules. Some true neutral characters are the opposite, as several people pointed out, they care a lot about the two axis on which the alignment system scores them, and they want to stay balanced in the middle at all cost. But most true neutral characters are just normal people, and in a more realistic game a lot of the more believable characters will be true neutral. It's also an alignment you have a good chance to land on if you make up the personality of your character without having an idea of what alignment they should be. True neutral characters can still fight the evil overlord. Just because they're not pure and good heroes doesn't mean they don't care if the world gets dipped into eternal darkness. Neutral people are often more likely to side with the good folks than the bad, particularly the cartoonishly villainous. They might suck it up and just live with the dictator, but that's more a matter of how much they value life versus how much they value a good life and the options they have, not a matter of not being good enough. And if they do save the galaxy that's not to say they'll turn good. If they just did their part for their own benefit, family and friend, an ideal other than good (say a political idea) or just common decency, anything other than wanting to be good, they can be a neutral hero just fine.

[Thealtruistorc]

This is by far my favorite TN character I have ever played.

Silban (Samsaran Occultist) is a man of science and of reason in a world where both are in short supply. As the nations around him rally for war, Silban has noticed that each side has something worth fighting for but also many things worthy of condemnation. As a result, he has taken to the role of a mage-for-hire, using his influence to mitigate the combat abilities of nations rather than using his powers to take more lives. This isn't out of any particular love for creatures, but merely an acknowledgement that constant warfare is destructive and undesirable for everyone involved. Conflict to him is a waste, and that is why he works so hard to put a stop to it.

[Fouredged Sword]

I once ran a high diplomacy tourist/newsman as a TN character. The party got captured by orcs. By the second day he talked his way into being released and managed to integrate himself with the tribe. By the fourth day the party realized he wasn't following some grand plot to free them with diplomacy and was actually having fun exploring the life and times of nomadic orc bandits. When they eventually freed themselves he was disappointed, but realized that this too was part of the wandering orc tribe life-cycle, if a sad one as their slaughter by adventurers ends their part in the circle of life.

He had tea with a lich and talked philosophy. He briefly joined a demonic cult. See, he didn't really care what was going on, he just wanted to be involved. He wanted to see history as it happened. He wanted to KNOW the heroes that people would eventually come to remember, but also the evils they fought and why the conflict happened in the first place. He would talk to anyone, and sometimes even spoke with dead to do post interviews with notable people the party killed.

He drove the DM batty.

[Bohandas]

Thanks, I appreciate it! That's what it's here for :smallsmile:

I would generally agree with that, with a caveat regarding Evil: sometimes (living under the rule of someone Evil who wants you to obey them, for example, or generally being raised in a society with Evil principles), slipping into Evil can be done out of laziness rather than effort. It's especially dangerous for those Neutral characters without a strong drive to do good - staying Neutral requires you to keep a certain standard of decency, and in some situations, even that requires effort.

Or those wih too strong a drive to do good. As Nietzsche said "He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

[Hackulator]

I don't personally think True Neutral characters are problematic in terms of being interesting. As has been stated, there are basically two kinds of neutral.

The "Hardcore balance" kind can be very hard to play as a PC in certain situation, as if the PCs are generally successful they may start to push things out of balance in their direction. However, this doesn't make the character less interesting, just more difficult to integrate into a game. It takes a pretty specific group for this character to work well with.

The other is the more general combination of the two neutral aspects

On the Law/Chaos axis, a neutral character is one who will break laws if it suits him, but does not have an inherent distaste for them. He likely recognizes that laws are necessary for civilization, but doesn't feel any sort of moral obligation to follow them himself. He will generally follow the law if he can as it is easier, but will break the law when it is the best path to his goals. He doesn't HATE the law, and he won't actively attempt to subvert or destroy it purely for it's own sake.

On the Good/Evil axis, a neutral character is one who simply makes decisions without bringing the question of whether it is a "good" or "evil" act into consideration, and doesn't do things purely for the sake of the ideals of good or evil. A neutral character won't rush into a burning house to save a stranger, but he will rush into a burning house to save someone he cares about. He won't murder someone for the enjoyment of it, but he will kill a relative innocent if it's the best way to achieve his goals.

Basically, this kind of True Neutral character is simply one who is driven by his own internal desires and goals as opposed to some external set of rules. This character can be quite interesting, depending entirely on what those desires and goals are. He will also, if roleplayed correctly, often form an interesting swing vote in party disputes.

For example, he will often side with an evil party-mate over a good one if they are arguing over whether to kill a captured guard to avoid him raising alarm while they break into a castle. The good player may want to tie the guard up, but the pragmatic neutral character may agree with the evil character that killing him is a more certain method of ensuring his silence.

On the flip side, he will help the good character stop the evil character from killing people who just piss him off, as this will cause more trouble than it is worth from his point of view.

[Fouredged Sword]

I don't personally think True Neutral characters are problematic in terms of being interesting. As has been stated, there are basically two kinds of neutral.

The "Hardcore balance" kind can be very hard to play as a PC in certain situation, as if the PCs are generally successful they may start to push things out of balance in their direction. However, this doesn't make the character less interesting, just more difficult to integrate into a game. It takes a pretty specific group for this character to work well with.

The other is the more general combination of the two neutral aspects

On the Law/Chaos axis, a neutral character is one who will break laws if it suits him, but does not have an inherent distaste for them. He likely recognizes that laws are necessary for civilization, but doesn't feel any sort of moral obligation to follow them himself. He will generally follow the law if he can as it is easier, but will break the law when it is the best path to his goals. He doesn't HATE the law, and he won't actively attempt to subvert or destroy it purely for it's own sake.

On the Good/Evil axis, a neutral character is one who simply makes decisions without bringing the question of whether it is a "good" or "evil" act into consideration, and doesn't do things purely for the sake of the ideals of good or evil. A neutral character won't rush into a burning house to save a stranger, but he will rush into a burning house to save someone he cares about. He won't murder someone for the enjoyment of it, but he will kill a relative innocent if it's the best way to achieve his goals.

Basically, this kind of True Neutral character is simply one who is driven by his own internal desires and goals as opposed to some external set of rules. This character can be quite interesting, depending entirely on what those desires and goals are. He will also, if roleplayed correctly, often form an interesting swing vote in party disputes.

For example, he will often side with an evil party-mate over a good one if they are arguing over whether to kill a captured guard to avoid him raising alarm while they break into a castle. The good player may want to tie the guard up, but the pragmatic neutral character may agree with the evil character that killing him is a more certain method of ensuring his silence.

On the flip side, he will help the good character stop the evil character from killing people who just piss him off, as this will cause more trouble than it is worth from his point of view.

He could just as easily argue that killing the guard may be an escalation with consequences lasting longer than simply being caught sneaking around. Neutral characters are great for being eminently sane. A TN character, in my mind, tends to do what make the most sense in the moment. They are untied to any specific archtype. They will follow a talented leader or strike out on their own if no such leader presents themselves. A TN character can do good deeds for good people and serve evil to evil with equal ease.

[Hackulator]

He could just as easily argue that killing the guard may be an escalation with consequences lasting longer than simply being caught sneaking around. Neutral characters are great for being eminently sane. A TN character, in my mind, tends to do what make the most sense in the moment. They are untied to any specific archtype. They will follow a talented leader or strike out on their own if no such leader presents themselves. A TN character can do good deeds for good people and serve evil to evil with equal ease.

Of course, however considering every possible factor in such a situation was outside the realm of what I was going to do in a post. The point stands.

[icefractal]

I don't think killing people for convenience is typical N behavior. Somebody could maybe do it and still be N in total, but it's more of an evil thing.
Also, risking your life to save people you love doesn't prove anything - even evil people often do that.

Although for that matter, it's not like alignment and general demeanor are very much linked. Someone can be nice 99% of the time and still be evil, for instance.

[Fouredged Sword]

An evil character kills people for convenience. A good character doesn't. A neutral character kills people for convenience when he really thinks it is the best.

Evil characters do evil. Good characters don't do evil. Neutral characters do evil when they feel they have few other options.

That is not to say a neutral character cannot slide into evil. It is very easy to do, and easier for a neutral character to do than a good character. A neutral character is one who will do evil, but doesn't tend to do evil very much. Even good characters can take evil actions without breaking their alignment. Neutral characters have slightly more latitude.

[icefractal]

I guess to me "convenience" implies a not very strong reason, to the point that killing someone over it would almost always be evil.

Like if someone was drowning and you didn't throw them a life preserver ...
Because it was the last one and you were drowning too - neutral, and wouldn't hurt your Good status.
Because it was tangled in barbed wire and you would have gotten seriously cut up (but not fatally) - neutral.
Because it was covered in mud and you didn't want to get your suit dirty - evil.

"Convenience" sounds more like the last one to me.

[Hackulator]

I guess to me "convenience" implies a not very strong reason, to the point that killing someone over it would almost always be evil.

Like if someone was drowning and you didn't throw them a life preserver ...
Because it was the last one and you were drowning too - neutral, and wouldn't hurt your Good status.
Because it was tangled in barbed wire and you would have gotten seriously cut up (but not fatally) - neutral.
Because it was covered in mud and you didn't want to get your suit dirty - evil.

"Convenience" sounds more like the last one to me.

Eh, not saving someone is pretty morally neutral in D&D terms. In a world where "neutral" is a thing, not doing good isn't evil, it's neutral.

[rel]

A true neutral character has no specific moral leanings and tends to approach every situation without reference to the alignment system. Basically, they do whatever seems like the best idea given the circumstances.

[Marlowe]

Currently; Avita Santiago, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511596-The-Black-Shingle-Fiasco), True Neutral Dread Necromancer, is a lot of fun. Although she's drifting towards Lawful. It will be fun to see what happens as she goes up levels.

[Pleh]

I've always seen Neutrality defined by what it isn't, rather than what it is.

That is to say, it isn't good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. So we have to carve out the territory for what belongs to these non-neutral alignments and give everything else to Neutrality.

Most actions in D&D can be generally categorized in the following way: Sadistic, Callously Apathetic, Distantly Empathetic, and Charitable. These largely speak to the available motives behind choices and actions. These motives are built on the Good-Evil axis, while Law-Chaos axis speaks less to motive and more to method. You can easily do this same analysis by inverting these two axes and the end result is largely the same.

There IS technically a definitive "middle point" between these four categories, but it is almost meaningless. This categorization system basically says, "you will either heed your empathetic connections to others or you will ignore them." There is room for neither, but the number of different ways to do it are more limited: Animal Intelligence (not being cognizant of morality nor motivated beyond simple instinct), Insanity (failing to perceive reality to such a degree as being incapable of interacting with it rationally), and Willful Non-Interaction (rather than respond at all to your empathetic connection, you simply remove yourself from the equation so you are neither ignoring nor acting upon your empathy, such as moving out of society to live as a hermit). While these options technically exist on the spectrum, they are largely trivial non-issues because these kinds of characters usually don't make good PCs (except as a backstory, as long as they leave their inability to avoid moral decisions behind them as they begin adventuring). Moving on to the spectrum of Actual Alignments.

Sadism and Charity are easy to identify. Sadism seeks profit exclusively from the expense of others (sometimes the expense of others being itself the exact reward) and it sits quite intuitively on the evil end of the spectrum (in fact, Sadism is largely a monstrous quality, rather than a villainous one). Charity is the self-sacrificing pursuit of helping others profit (often at the giver's own personal expense) and sits on the far good end of the spectrum.

Then we get into shades of apathy in between these extremes. On the evil border with Sadism is Callous Apathy, which mostly includes evil activities rather than neutral ones. Callous Apathy doesn't necessarily seek harm to others like Sadism, but it also doesn't do much work to avoid it and it often goes so far as to be unconcerned if harm to others is created by collateral. Callous Apathy is the realm of Dramatic Villains, who can offer much more complex moral dilemmas to heroics characters than straight up Sadistic Monsters can.

Neutral can sometimes stray into the Callous Apathy without descending into actual evil, but usually not very far unless they have very low intelligence.

Most of the real-game interpretations of Neutrality fall in the Distantly Empathetic motivations. This form of character motivations are largely reactionary. Being hungry doesn't feel good, so killing or stealing in order to eat is justified, but non-aggressive alternatives will be preferred (because killing and stealing aren't actually fun to do). Being socially powerful would feel nice, but engaging in political assassination or making deals with demons is taking it too far. I wish I could help those poor people living in the slums, but I'm not made of money and I have my own family to feed.

As becomes quickly apparent, most Neutral alignments aren't truly 100% neutral (that would almost require animal intelligence to negate your ability to understand the consequences of your actions). Rather, most neutral alignments balance the extremes in some way. Usually, neutral humanoids will bounce back and forth between Callous Apathy actions and Charity actions while the majority of actions end up Distantly Empathetic. I think 4e introduced the concept of being "Unaligned" which is actually a brilliant alternative to saying, "I'm neutrally aligned."

Much more rare are the individuals who bounce back and forth between Sadism and Charity. These characters, while certainly intriguing thought experiments, often are less fun to try play in a Real Game. For one thing, their alignment is so interesting it can eclipse the rest of the heroes and the adventure itself. For another, it can be harrowing to try to get along with a creature so provocative and largely unpredictable.

The most coherent "extreme balance" based TN character is likely depicted not as one who instigates both extreme good and extreme evil, but one who observes the necessity of it. Rather than an agent undermining both good and evil forces to make sure no one wins, a TN extreme character likely is a Diviner who has looked into the future and sees that it is impossible to be fully rid of one or the other and efforts to make these things happen are pointless. These people probably check the spirit forecast frequently and check to see which way the pendulum is swinging today so they can plan their activities accordingly. Not to intervene in the swaying back and forth in the fight between good and evil (the universe will make it swing back the other way), but to capitalize on the direction it is currently heading.

[Bohandas]

I don't personally think True Neutral characters are problematic in terms of being interesting.

Indeed, some of my favorite characters from movies and literature are true neutral, like Rincewind the "wizzard" from Discworld and Ash Williams from Evil Dead parts 1-3 (Bruce Campbell's character)