Is True Neutral just a scapegoat?

[Mindleshank]

Alright so in my party there are four neutral players and they all seem to just be neutral so they don't have to choose a side. However, they all seem to help everyone we come across and all seem to get angry when my character (evil) happens to kill some one is this true neutral? Are they just this way to avoid prejudice? It seems also that Neutral is the most common alignment in my party but only 1 person ever in my eyes true neutral.

[Audious]

Alright so in my party there are four neutral players and they all seem to just be neutral so they don't have to choose a side. However, they all seem to help everyone we come across and all seem to get angry when my character (evil) happens to kill some one is this true neutral? Are they just this way to avoid prejudice? It seems also that Neutral is the most common alignment in my party but only 1 person ever in my eyes true neutral.

Neutral doesn't mean apathetic. If they didn't care about murder at all, they would more than likely be evil and not neutral.

[Quietus]

A Neutral person in general will still dislike Evil acts, because ultimately, who DOESN'T prefer to have Good aligned friends over Evil? They're a lot less likely to slit your throat in the night and run off with your coinpurse.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'd agree that they sound more neutral good. Regarding the murder, I would say that objecting to it wouldn't be alignment based (my logic is that most evil people probably have issues with needless killings in real life, but I'm judging evil as being "harming others for personal gain/fun" rather then the D&D-type of evil).

[Recaiden]

Alright so in my party there are four neutral players and they all seem to just be neutral so they don't have to choose a side. However, they all seem to help everyone we come across and all seem to get angry when my character (evil) happens to kill some one is this true neutral? Are they just this way to avoid prejudice? It seems also that Neutral is the most common alignment in my party but only 1 person ever in my eyes true neutral.

They sound neutral to me. Depends on how much they help people, how and why, etc.

[Mindleshank]

But being against evil is not neutral at all and besides i am not asking for apathy i am asking for neutrality for example a good person would want to strike me down after i killed some one not a neutral person in in addition a neutral person should not be the first one to object out loud to the evil character's action. Would a neutral person not say anything but feel however he sees fit. In other words a neutral person shouldn't rush to take sides right?

[Pika...]

A Neutral person in general will still dislike Evil acts, because ultimately, who DOESN'T prefer to have Good aligned friends over Evil? They're a lot less likely to slit your throat in the night and run off with your coinpurse.

I use this reasoning when playing neutral characters. However, I imagine LE allies would be trustworthy.

Another thing I use to explain it is that good enemies tend to go much farther out of their way to "avenge" and all that stuff.


I have actually been wanting to play a character concept for two weeks now which I keep thinking of. Basically, a True Neutral grey elf psion who believes he has no place interfering in the careful balance between good and evil (PCs supposedly being important people who as a standard rule). Instead, he is adventuring for his own reason: To sketch and paint whatever he sees or encounters, be it strange human cities, the beautiful ancient cities and settlements of other elven clans, the wild wildernesses, or the hellish landscapes of the abyss. The reason he aids his adventuring group is that although he could go it alone (grey elf aloofness here), he knows adventurers attract trouble like a magnet, and also want to travel to strange new places. However, he would refuse to aid a village under siege by orcs, for he does not see the party's reasoning that the "good" villagers deserve his powerful balance breaking psionic aid any more than the orcs.

He would say something like "But do the orcs not need eat as well? This is how they obtain their supplies, and the workforce their societies are founded on. What right do I have to cause an orc tribe to starve? Would it be any different than keeping a lioness from killing a young zebra, for while the infant zebra might live another day the lioness and her cubs will surely starve.".

[retkin]

Stop playing alignments and start playing characters. Killing someone is pretty far end evil, if you are not evil you will probably say something about it.

[warrl]

Killing someone is pretty far end evil, if you are not evil you will probably say something about it.

Carelessly killing people, or pointlessly killing non-enemies, is not merely evil but Stupid Evil. (It creates enemies with motive. If you're evil you don't really mind having enemies, but you don't want too many enemies with motive at one time.)

Hanging out with such people is somewhere between Stupid Evil and Stupid Neutral.

[Mindleshank]

But why would a neutral character go against reasonable actions toward an evil without knowing the story and lets get back to the point where they help ever one we come across

[retkin]

They probably help everyone they come across because its Dungeons and Dragons and thats where the usual plot hooks are. With the EXTREMELY vague descriptions you are giving us we are doing our best. Helping people also usually has rewards. A good person would help people because that is the good thing to do. A neutral person would help someone if its not too much of a hassle and there is probably something in it for them.

The real question here is why is an evil character traveling with a bunch of goody two shoes?

[Pika...]

But why would a neutral character go against reasonable actions toward an evil without knowing the story and lets get back to the point where they help ever one we come across

Well, as a DM I would have switched their alignment to good at that point. Unless of course they are also doing an equalish amount of bad/evil things as well. Then it balances out. A person who for personal reasons felt "innocents" do not deserve to die young (perhaps because thier parents died that way?), but at the same time sees nothing wrong with taking what he needs to survive would be looked at others as somewhere between a thief and a savior.


Personally, what I REALLY hate is people who play CN, but in truth are actually playing CE, since the DM had said "No evil characters".

[Redpieper]

But why would a neutral character go against reasonable actions toward an evil without knowing the story and lets get back to the point where they help ever one we come across

Because they want too? An alignment does not dictate the way you should play your character, it's a guideline at best. Besides there are plenty of reasons why they would want to help others. For example, helping others could feel gratifying to them. Making them feel better then the one they're helping. Since they're doing good to make themselves feel better, it is not truly "good" now is it, hence a case could be made for neutral.

There's just one of many reasonings they could be using

[Amiel]

Neutral, "Undecided"
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.

Bolded for emphasis.

As long as the the players don't actively preach or promote goodness and as long as the anger - preferable if it is verbal - does not escalate into physical wrath, it seems acceptable within the definition of neutrality.

Neutrality should not be synonymous with indifference or ignorance nor should it be synonymous with silence; your players can actively be engaged in a dispute yet not choose a side.


Following the Rule of Three, there should be three sides to neutrality.

Those that desire true Balance; balance between all alignments, equilibrium between Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, Right, Wrong, between action and inaction, et al. These are akin to the greatest Chess players, eternally moving and re-moving the pieces to react and act, and who check and balance and correct errant or 'perfect' pieces.

Those who see Neutrality as the only alignment, as the one true alignment, who view all other alignments as dangerous extremes. These are who seek to eradicate all other alignments as the errors they are. They are the most active Neutral force.

Those who see Neutrality as the culmination of all alignments. Neutrality cannot exist and cannot perpetuate without all of the other alignments. Good is without meaning if Evil does not exist. Law has no meaning if Chaos is not there to counter it. Neutrality is meaningless without all other to alignments to define and shape it. These are the most reactive force.

[Mindleshank]

The Evil character travels for his brother and i agree with pika the should have turned good and as far as rewards go we have not received rewards for 6 out of 10 side quest in addition not one of them promised a reward in the first place. What usually happens is OOC they say Experience but shouldn't the characters not know about that

[Milskidasith]

I would see somebody who objected to evil acts and helped people for their money to be pretty neutral. I mean, randomly killing somebody = stupid in the eyes of a sane evil PC, evil in the eyes of everybody else, and enough to get a comment from pretty much anybody; it's not exactly a Good act to say "why did you just stab a peasant who was just passing by us?" Likewise, it is not a good act to, say, meet the captain of the guard, go kill some orcs to protect the city, and then get all the money you can out of it; mercenary work is pretty neutral because the reward is forefront, and helping people is only a secondary concern.

Also, the True Neutral psion idea seems like it would be very annoying to the other players; lugging around somebody who isn't going to act is probably going to cause a lot of problems.

[Teron]

Most people in real life are not good aligned by D&D standards (or particularly virtuous by most moral standards I know, either). Yet most people disapprove of murder. Alignment is not "us versus them", where neutrals aren't supposed to care; it's a continuum of values with, basically, "helping people" at one end and "screw other people" at the other; you don't have to be a hero to object to the latter, especially when they kill people.

[Revanmal]

The Evil character travels for his brother and i agree with pika the should have turned good and as far as rewards go we have not received rewards for 6 out of 10 side quest in addition not one of them promised a reward in the first place. What usually happens is OOC they say Experience but shouldn't the characters not know about that

"Practice Makes Perfect" is a very universal concept. The characters may not think in terms of "Let's do this to get some XP" but perhaps "Doing this will let us practice our skills and get better."

Just a thought.

[Pika...]

mercenary work is pretty neutral because the reward is forefront, and helping people is only a secondary concern.

Hmm. But what happens if it is mercenary work for the evil side? Say working for drow wanting to kill off a High Elf city?

Also, the True Neutral psion idea seems like it would be very annoying to the other players; lugging around somebody who isn't going to act is probably going to cause a lot of problems.

Well, of course he would act and aid his companions. Being TN does not mean you are emotionless (well, kinda), and even chaotic PCs and NPCs can be loyal (aka lawful) when it comes to comrades and family. However, he would just refuse to intervene in large and or important issues and events. Random encounters, OK. Dealing with a crazy wizards up in a tower, heh, he could learn from his spellbooks. Making a vital decision which either means the fall of a good kingdom, or an evil one never having the chance to rise, well that would not be his place to decide.

[retkin]

40% isn't that bad, and we know you think they should be turned to good. You have been heavily biased and pushing you view point since you posted. Unfortunately the forum doesn't seem to be agreeing with you.

Alignment in dnd is a pretty terrible concoction anyways and if it werent for certain spells it would be best to play without it.

[Mindleshank]

alright i see where some of you are coming from but take out the reward entirely and as to the subject of murder i am not saying it is good to question but rather to raise arms against an evil person out of impulse would make you good and btw all of the killings besides one had a reason behind them so it is not stupid evil but true neutral as i see it is almost always neutral good

[Amiel]

I'm not sure why they should be turned to good. Opposition to murder is not inherently good. Heck, even an evil character would be opposed to murder if it interfered with its plots or schemes; especially those of a LE or NE alignment. And going to the opposite extreme, good characters do commit murder, well not that in definition, but they do kill.

I see no indication of personal sacrifices to help others nor is there of altruism, all basic tenets for any good alignment.

[Saph]

Maybe they're not upset at you being Evil, they're upset about you being Psychotic Evil?

Assuming your avatar accurately represents how you play, it shouldn't be a surprise that other characters don't like what you're doing. No-one with a brain is going to want Richard in their party, not even an Evil character - evil doesn't mean stupid!

- Saph

[Guancyto]

to raise arms against an evil person out of impulse would make you good

It depends. Risking your life against an evil person for a peasant who you don't know and means nothing to you?

That's good.

Doing the same against a heavily armed psychopath who presents a clear and present danger to those around him?

Neutral people are not corpses, nor are they spineless quivering lumps of flesh. Unless, y'know, they are. Neutrality is flexible like that. But they don't have to be.

[Pika...]

And going to the opposite extreme, good characters do commit murder, well not that in definition, but they do kill.

I know.

I go to sleep at night crying for all those poor kobolds that have been needlessly, and so brutally killed in their own homes by gredy gold craving adventurers. It just isn't right...

[Mindleshank]

40% isn't that bad, and we know you think they should be turned to good. You have been heavily biased and pushing you view point since you posted. Unfortunately the forum doesn't seem to be agreeing with you.

Alignment in dnd is a pretty terrible concoction anyways and if it werent for certain spells it would be best to play without it.

I take your point. However, i believe the alignment system to be great but you have to Fully Understand the alignment before you choose it. And did i mention the decision to accept these side quests was made knowing there would be no benefit other than OOC Experience but when discussing in character improving the skills of our party never came up

[Milskidasith]

Hmm. But what happens if it is mercenary work for the evil side? Say working for drow wanting to kill off a High Elf city?

Mercenary work for an evil cause is probably evil; mercenary work for the good side is neutral tending towards good. The difference is that mercenary work for an evil side is doing a very evil action (killing innocents) for a neutral cause (getting money), while mercenary work for a good cause involves killing some CE race (A neutral act) for a neutral cause (getting money) with the side effect being you did some good.

If you were to do mercenary work for the BBEG himself, but the work was "hey, kill the ogres who think my skeletal servants are chew toys, would you?" it would still be neutral.

[Mindleshank]

Maybe they're not upset at you being Evil, they're upset about you being Psychotic Evil?

Assuming your avatar accurately represents how you play, it shouldn't be a surprise that other characters don't like what you're doing. No-one with a brain is going to want Richard in their party, not even an Evil character - evil doesn't mean stupid!

- Saph

I really really agree with and am impressed by the richard part. However, i don't kill in front of them nor do i hinder party progress but still i am scroned because of OOC knowledge. In addition, The neutral character oppose evil acts that are not just murder that have no reflection on them.

[Guancyto]

And did i mention the decision to accept these side quests was made knowing there would be no benefit other than OOC Experience but when discussing in character improving the skills of our party never came up

Well, it depends. Does helping these people involve beating the tar out of a large, powerful enemy? Does helping these people help these characters win fame and acclaim?

There are lots of reasons to adventure that have nothing to do with Goodness, even if the effects are the same.

Edit: Oh, there might be another explanation for why the Neutral guys are taking exception to your guy's evil acts: they may simply not like him.

[Milskidasith]

Look, I really can't pass any kind of judgement at this point. You are being incredibly vague; "Other evil acts" can mean anything from threatening somebody to get more money to pickpocketing to raping your enemies, and I still don't even know if your aforementioned murder was stupid evil (Kill that guy we just met for no reason) or not quite as stupid evil (you got in our way and the fastest solution is to eliminate you from this plane.)