Why Do True Neutral Characters And Deities Don't Get Involved With Conflicts

[Bartmanhomer]

It's just occurred to me that True Neutral characters and deities mind their own business and don't get involved with fights and conflicts. I wonder why is that? :confused:

[Tiktakkat]

According to who?

Gygax wrote six novels, a collection of short stories, and a handful of uncollected short stories, where the entire plot was Neutral characters and deities getting involved with a conflict.
Of course one element that came up in that was how easily such interference could go wrong.

[Bartmanhomer]

According to who?

Gygax wrote six novels, a collection of short stories, and a handful of uncollected short stories, where the entire plot was Neutral characters and deities getting involved with conflict.
Of course, one element that came up in that was how easily such interference could go wrong.

Just a thought. Also, I didn't know that Gygax wrote novels.

[tyckspoon]

True Neutral characters will certainly get into conflict; they just don't do it for very broad, easy to call upon reasons like 'to combat Evil' or 'because I like destroying things.' Consider the standard undead infestation: A Good character will likely go out of their way to destroy them, because Undead are a manifestation of Evil, because they threaten everything in the area, because the spirits of those used to create the undead deserve to rest, and similar motivations. The Neutral character probably doesn't much care unless there's some personal relevance to them. Maybe these particular Undead directly threaten their personal home or other property. Maybe they're a follower of a death god (not a god of killing people, a god of managing the natural processes of death) and raising undead is offensive to their creed. Maybe they're just getting paid to go handle it. Maybe they're friends with an altruistic crusading Good type, and they go along because "That bullheaded idiot will get himself killed if I'm not there to watch his back." Basically, while characters with an extreme alignment element probably have at least one thing where they are just outright opposed to something and will fight to deny or destroy it, Neutral characters tend to ask "Why should I care about this?" before putting themselves at risk.

[Bartmanhomer]

True Neutral characters will certainly get into conflict; they just don't do it for very broad, easy to call upon reasons like 'to combat Evil' or 'because I like destroying things.' Consider the standard undead infestation: A Good character will likely go out of their way to destroy them, because Undead is a manifestation of Evil because they threaten everything in the area because the spirits of those used to create the undead deserve to rest, and similar motivations. The Neutral character probably doesn't much care unless there's some personal relevance to them. Maybe this particular Undead directly threatens their personal home or other property. Maybe they're a follower of a death god (not a god of killing people, a god of managing the natural processes of death) and raising undead is offensive to their creed. Maybe they're just getting paid to go handle it. Maybe they're friends with an altruistic crusading Good type, and they go along because "That bullheaded idiot will get himself killed if I'm not there to watch his back." Basically, while characters with an extreme alignment element probably have at least one thing where they are just outright opposed to something and will fight to deny or destroy it, Neutral characters tend to ask "Why should I care about this?" before putting themselves at risk.

Well, that's very understandable and reasonable that neutral characters do get involved in a conflict which has relevance to them.

[KillianHawkeye]

The thing about character motivation is that it isn't just about alignment. Many characters will get involved in a conflict if it coincides with their interests or responsibilities, while many other characters will ignore a conflict if it has nothing to do with them. This is true for pretty much all characters.

People with a strong association with a particular alignment will likely have additional motivation to insert themselves into various situations, but neutral characters have just normal human being reasons for doing what they do.

Alignment makes the most sense if you think of most people as being neutral. They're mostly selfish and behave in their own interests or the interests of people they care about. Not as many people are really so bad or so good that they go out of their way to help or harm others. Of course, adventurers are often the exceptions to the norm (because most people wouldn't do what adventurers do), so it's pretty common to find all kinds of alignments in Player Characters.

[OrbanSirgen]

Some do, but usually only if it's personal or if the price is right... On the other hand, they are usually the best ones to call in as mediators afterwards...

[Monsterpoodle]

No reason why they shouldn't. A true neutral character could get into lots of fights because they hate everybody equally.
They could get into lots of fights because their job is to keep everything in balance if one faction gets too powerful.
They could be the most mercenary and will fight for the best offer.
On this note, why do druids tend to be part of good parties? Doesn't seem very neutral unless evil is on the ascendancy.

[Peat]

No reason why they shouldn't. A true neutral character could get into lots of fights because they hate everybody equally.
They could get into lots of fights because their job is to keep everything in balance if one faction gets too powerful.
They could be the most mercenary and will fight for the best offer.
On this note, why do druids tend to be part of good parties? Doesn't seem very neutral unless evil is on the ascendancy.

Because it's mostly good parties out there, and because its easier for neutral to co-exist with good than it is with evil.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Something to keep in mind is that there are multiple facets of TN, just as there are of the other alignments. Some of the most common versions you'll see detailed in splatbooks or played at the table include, but are not limited to, the following:

1) Cosmic neutrality. The character believes in Neutrality-with-a-capital-N as its own cosmic force just as important as Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, and everything should keep to itself and be in balance with the rest. This is the kind of "activist" neutrality that would e.g. burn down a hospital after someone else burned down a slave market to keep things from tilting too far towards Good. Traditionally, TN druids fall in this bucket, because they're concerned with Nature first, last, and only and any cosmic alignment force getting the upper hand over its opposite would likely lead to the winner starting in on the Material Plane, and turning the Prime into Ysgard would be just as bad as turning it into Baator.

2) Philosophical neutrality. The character believes in neutrality-with-a-lowercase-n as a cosmic concept, but views it as having more of an absence of bias rather than a presence of a strong viewpoint of its own. This is the kind of "compromising" neutrality that would e.g. bring feuding archons and demons to Sigil to have them hash things out and come to an understanding. Traditionally, TN gods (and their servants) fall in this bucket because being TN means their (or their patron's) portfolio doesn't have any moral or ethical leanings but they still have to deal with godly politics to some extent so they have to play nicely with others.

3) Political neutrality. The character believes in neutrality as the best/smartest/safest/etc. position between extremes without having much of a cohesive philosophical conception about it. This is the kind of "pragmatic" neutrality that would e.g. form an adventuring party that includes both a CE assassin and a LG paladin because they're the best ones for the job. Traditionally, TN adventurers fall in this bucket because they feel that when the fate of the multiverse and/or their pocketbook is on the line, one should put that first and not worry about philosophical differences.

4) Apathetic neutrality. This character doesn't really actively think about neutrality at all, they just do their thing. This kind of neutrality is hard to generalize, for obvious reasons. Traditionally, the average village of TN commoners falls in this bucket because they don't (and don't have any reason to) self-reflect about their alignment or that of their neighbors.

KillianHawkeye and Monsterpoodle gave some good examples of various kinds of neutrality:


3) Many characters will get involved in a conflict if it coincides with their interests or responsibilities, while many other characters will ignore a conflict if it has nothing to do with them. This is true for pretty much all characters.
1) People with a strong association with a particular alignment will likely have additional motivation to insert themselves into various situations,
4) but neutral characters have just normal human being reasons for doing what they do.

4)Alignment makes the most sense if you think of most people as being neutral. They're mostly selfish and behave in their own interests or the interests of people they care about.
1)Not as many people are really so bad or so good that they go out of their way to help or harm others.
3) Of course, adventurers are often the exceptions to the norm (because most people wouldn't do what adventurers do), so it's pretty common to find all kinds of alignments in Player Characters.


4 A true neutral character could get into lots of fights because they hate everybody equally.
1) They could get into lots of fights because their job is to keep everything in balance if one faction gets too powerful.
3) They could be the most mercenary and will fight for the best offer.

Bold numbers added to illustrate which phrases match which concepts of neutrality.


On this note, why do druids tend to be part of good parties? Doesn't seem very neutral unless evil is on the ascendancy.

Because it's mostly good parties out there, and because its easier for neutral to co-exist with good than it is with evil.

Also because differently-aligned druids have different takes on the neutrality of nature.

If NE druids are all about nature being "neutral" in the sense that animals should be able to act out their instincts with no civilized trappings or philosophical musings holding them back, while NG druids are all about nature being "neutral" in the sense that every living thing in nature should living in harmony and balance with one another (views chosen arbitrarily that would obviously vary by setting and druidic organization), then both NG and NE druids would likely be inclined to go around fixing (what they see as) disruptions to the natural order, but NG ones would be happy to work with non-druids to do so while NE druids are going to take a red in tooth and claw/might makes right/rule of the fittest/etc. view of things that's not really compatible with partnering with non-druids.