What's your take on Neutrality? (3.5)

[WarKitty]

I am a die-hard druid player - and no it's not about the class abilities. I do genuinely like the flavor. My issue is with the "neutrality" clause. The way the fluff is written, TN would seem to be the embodiment of the druidic ideal. TN always struck me as sort of, well, lazy, though. Admittedly I am no fan of alignment in general, but I figured I'd give it a shot here.

So, playgrounders, what are your takes on what a TN character would be like?

Edit: anyone posting anything along the lines of "just build a character and then decide what alignment they fit" or "don't play that alignment if you don't like it" will have an internet fired at them from a ballista. That's not the point of this thread.

[Rixx]

"I don't know and I have no opinion."

[Sir_Elderberry]

I think there are two kinds of neutrality, and I think it would have been nice to have it spelled out. One is communicated in 4e by "Unaligned"--a character who solely seeks knowledge, or is otherwise unconcerned with the cosmic war between law, chaos, good, and evil. Another is the "balance" form of neutral, which I've always considered to make pretty much no sense in the "balance of good and evil" sense, mostly because, as written, D&D Good is absolutely, universally, a good thing. Most arguments I've heard against Good being so good apply better to Law, actually.

[bloodtide]

I like the idea of The Balance.

So a TN person could look at it like, for every good, evil, lawful or chaotic action they take...then must then take an action for the other three alignment types. So that everything is balanced. So a TN person would do a crime(evil act), but then give some of the money to the hungry(good act)...so in the end the good/evil balances out.

A TN person can also walk the line, and help all sides, but fully support none of them.

A TN person can pick a side. If they feel the Army of Gold Evles has made too much peace and saftey and in land, they will do evil acts to lessen the good.

For a druid, they see nature as supreime. Nature has no alignment, it just IS. A storm or a plauge or a wild cat just ARE. And Druid's see man as a part of nature.

[Ravens_cry]

A certain moral and ethical apathy usually. Sure, you don't want to get hurt, but if those guys in Elsewherevania are attacked, OK, sucks to be them, but why should you care? You won't go out to kick the dog, but your not as likely to rush out and stop someone. Paying your taxes, on time, if not gladly, that kind.
Joe Blow average, in fact. I see most people in a society as being of this alignment.

[Lord Vampyre]

Personally, I've always seen a True Neutral character as someone who adheres to a cause that supercedes the normal alignment rules.

Now, unfortunately this point of view tends to overwrite alignments in the first place. Just give a character a particular cause and call them True Neutral no matter what they do, as long as it is justified by the cause. Therefore it becomes a hassle on truly identifying whether or not something was done to further the cause or to further the character, or does the cause in and of itself adhere to a particular alignment.

Now, most of this view is strongly based on 2nd edition and works well with the druid. Since nature can be seen as being neither good or evil, and having a certain amount of order with random acts of destruction.

[WarKitty]

I never really liked the "balance out your good acts with evil ones." Mainly because I can't think of a remotely sensible way to play it. "I'm going to rob a peasant village and give the money to an orphanage" just seems sort of, well, insane? Apathy makes sense, although I don't think it seems to fit very well with a druid. Obviously if you're going to be a champion of nature you're not apathetic because you care about nature?

[hamishspence]

Agreed- Heroes of Horror handles it slightly better- balance mild evil acts (like casting [Evil] spells and rebuking undead) with an overall heroic outlook and behaviour, and you have the "Flexible Neutral character" or possibly the "antihero".

They're more the "hero not afraid to get their hands a little dirty" than the "Agent of the Balance."

Easydamus is often an interesting source- I like it, though I'm away not everyone may:

http://easydamus.com/trueneutral.html

[Thurbane]

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

"I hate these filthy neutrals Kif! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me."

"How very neutral of you!"

[Project_Mayhem]

If I die, tell my wife hello

Edit:

On a serious note, you could play Druidic neutral as basically nature embodied. NG is focusing more on the protective Mother nature side, NE would be focusing on the predator side, with TN in the middle.

I see the character as very animalistic, spending most time in wildshape, and not caring about the axis your neutral in at all.

[imp_fireball]

"I don't know and I have no opinion."

There are many many examples of TN.

- "I have no opinion, I don't know. My wisdom score is in the dumps because I'm stupid. Or I'm lazy."

- "I simply don't care. I'm an apathetic nihilist."

- "Life is without meaning. Just live your life to the fullest. Help out those that help you, don't get in trouble, do not disturb the peace. Do what makes you happy. Don't piss off other people."

- "The universe must remain in balance and I must do what it takes to retain that balance."

- "Nature must be conserved and protected. Nature is fragile."

- "Nature does not need protection. But do not piss off nature because it can exact great vengeance. Live a balanced life style and take only what you can return later on."

- "Everyone is stupid with their opinions. Opinions only lead to hate and war. The only true good is harmony and emotional calm. Conflicts must be resolved logically. Compromise is preferred in extreme circumstances. In a perfect world, there is a great force of peace that seeks to prevent good and evil from entirely destroying one another. The best outlet for this force is possibly nature itself."

- "Greed is bad. So are powerful emotions such as intense pain or intense happiness. The most healthy emotion is the point where it breaks even. We as mortals must learn to endure at that state of mind. We cannot ask for more than what we can get for ourselves and are worthy of. No creature was born to serve another unless it requires it to survive or the existing service is a stable contract."

- "It's all about survival of the fittest. I will do what I can to ensure that my friends and family survive. But I have no reason to help strangers unless it is immediately within my means to do so - in all honest technicality though, I have no reason to impose myself upon the lives of others and it is my natural given right to look after myself."

- "Some laws can imbalance the order of things. Nature is the ultimate compromise giver."

- "Mankind must work on a balanced medium to support all lifestyles. As long as we can continue to ensure our existence, all is right in the world. I will help others when it is directly imposed upon myself in some manner."

- "I am not a perfectionist. I will go with what life gives me and seek no more. Greed and ego are sins after all."

- "Life is scary! I must do what it takes to get through the world. I must put myself at a safe distance from any sort of conflict."

- "Fighting for good or evil is stupid. Both can easily get you killed. What's the point of that? The greatest reward is life itself."

- "If the world were perfectly balanced, then their would be the most peace. Death is perhaps the worst thing because it removes the gift of life. The after life is a complete crock. Life is rough and we must live our present life to the fullest until our time is up."

Apathy makes sense, although I don't think it seems to fit very well with a druid. Obviously if you're going to be a champion of nature you're not apathetic because you care about nature?

Druids tend to have high wisdom scores, so I think the stereotypical druid should be a hermit sage. He knows the answers but not the questions. He believes that life is the most important thing and not anything that could possibly extinguish life. He doesn't use metal because it's believed across the land that metal is commonly signified by the 'sword and armor' which are both weapons. After all, military pursuits are what lead to heavy industries such as the mining of copper and iron to make bronze or steel.

The more evil druid (you could give this one 'evil tendencies' if the GM doesn't think it violates alignment restriction) is misanthropic and chose to be a hermit to get away from it all. He tries to be an ally of nature by defiling civilization whenever possible (but never going to actual evil extremes such as murder).

or does the cause in and of itself adhere to a particular alignment.

Good and Evil aren't forces or political stand points. A cause might be 'evil' if it tends to cause more violence than help people. It's very easy for a cause to sway to either good or evil even if the cause has a charter of its own ideals, no matter how obscure.

Beliefs and actions go together to determine alignment. But usually it's actions more than beliefs. If the person hardly commits to any actions but has strong beliefs, that could also influence their alignment.

[hamishspence]

The misanthropic one could comfortably be a CN, N, or NE druid. All of which are allowed.

I like the "tendencies" system from 2nd ed as well.

[Wonton]

True Neutral can be the hardest alignment to roleplay because of how it overlaps with Neutral Good. I think most TN characters that saw a burning orphanage would try and help. Some of the braver ones would even run in, risking their lives in the process. Does that make them NG? I don't think so. It's when you start actively seeking out people in need of help that you become NG, in my opinion, at least.

[imp_fireball]

The misanthropic one could comfortably be a CN, N, or NE druid. All of which are allowed.

So I suppose the heavily misanthropic one could be NE and a worshiper of fiendish fey and one who attacks civilization every other weekend.

mostly because, as written, D&D Good is absolutely, universally, a good thing. Most arguments I've heard against Good being so good apply better to Law, actually.

Thing is, any good aligned person stereotypically thinks about helping the populace more than advancing a cause or operating by logic in regards to winning a war or whatever.

Ie. Marcus Fenix from Gears of War might delay a mission to help some soldiers. If he were neutral, he'd be more concerned about the mission.

[LibraryOgre]

True Neutral can go a few different ways.

1) Disinterested, lesser. Someone who is not interested in questions of good and evil. They do what they do without trying to hurt anyone too much, but not objecting to it if its necessary. This is usually not an alignment for Druids, but works well for Rogues or Bards. Could be called "selfish".

2) Disinterested, greater. Someone who has an interest that is divorced from questions of good and evil. This one is hard to maintain, but a stereotypical druid, who cares not about civilization or benevolence, except insofar as they help their cause. This could be called "motivated" or "dedicated". It is a frequent alignment of druids.

3) Philosophically neutral. Someone who is dedicated to the cosmic balance. They look at whether the area is trending towards good or evil, law or chaos, and work to build the opposite side. If things are too lawful, they start to build chaos. If things are too evil, they work with the side of good. This is the "classical" view of TN, and probably the one hardest to maintain as a PC.

[PinkysBrain]

So, playgrounders, what are your takes on what a TN character would be like?

Someone who acts out of pure self interest and cares nothing about people in general, neither their well being nor their rights for self determination ... a sociopath (Zapp Brannigan is an excellent example).

[Sir_Elderberry]

Stereotypically, maybe. But look at what happens in the part of the multiverse where Good really is the absolutely dominant power--Celestia and its ilk. It's not an awful place, and they're not stupid.

[hamishspence]

So I suppose the heavily misanthropic one could be NE and a worshiper of fiendish fey and one who attacks civilization every other weekend.

Or just someone whose personality is nasty enough, and methods are evil enough (just) to push him across the line- depending on how widely Evil is defined.

"Extreme Jerk" so to speak.

He wouldn't have to be an outright murderer- though that's an option as well.

"NE with N tendencies" might be an interesting character to play.

Someone who acts out of pure self interest and cares nothing about people in general, neither their well being nor their rights for self determination ... a sociopath.

Champions of Ruin suggests that "the sociopath equally capable of acts of good or evil, neither of which move him emotionally" is probably Evil rather than Neutral.

[imp_fireball]

This is the "classical" view of TN, and probably the one hardest to maintain as a PC.

Not really, a TN druid PC could just say that they're adventuring with the party as part of some obscure unseen goal towards conserving the balance of the cosmos and the reason no one else can see this goal is because the druid has a higher wisdom score than everyone else ("You'd never understand! I've spent years meditating upon this."). Through this argument, they can do almost anything short of anything that is openly chaotic or lawful.

Granted, the GM can spring a related quest upon them, but chances are it'll become the main quest that every PC has to be a part of as 'next in line' in the advancing plot, since 'restoring the balance' is a pretty lofty goal.

Someone who acts out of pure self interest and cares nothing about people in general, neither their well being nor their rights for self determination ... a sociopath (Zapp Brannigan is an excellent example).

That's... evil. Everyone gets demanded favors at some point in their lives. Zapp Brann would weasel his way out of it.

Also I don't like how Wizards has made some creatures that devour everything 'chaotic neutral' unless they happened to be unintelligent or animal.

[hamishspence]

I like Julius the Symmetrical:

http://www.mimir.net/essays/morals.html

who seems eager to criticize every one of the 17 common viewpoints- even True Neutral.

Maybe he's more "Flexible Neutral" than "True Neutral"?

[imp_fireball]

And if they're all flawed, then why not neutrality?

The fact that someone sees an alignment as 'flawed' is a logical viewpoint. It tends to be neutral.

Good guys tend to see evil as disagreeable because it's 'bad' and 'nobody deserves the cruelty that evil has given' thus evil must be 'prevented'.

Champions of Ruin suggests that "the sociopath equally capable of acts of good or evil, neither of which move him emotionally" is probably Evil rather than Neutral.

He's evil because he's incapable of feeling happiness or pleasure, which are the sole drive of good. Evil is the sole drive of anything that begets happiness and pleasure. Neutrality is the sole drive of not emotion, but logic.

A force that destroys everything isn't logical. It's evil. Unless it has no mind of its own.

All beings are born equal. You make your own fate. Only by toiling and hard graft can you elevate yourself. Work well in all things, and you will achieve what you deserve. Life is an auction, and those who bid the highest stakes will reap the greatest rewards. Help others, but help them to help themselves first. Charity is worthless if those who you aid don't take steps to improve themselves. If someone is willing to make an effort then they deserve as much help as you can give. There is no room for free-loaders or slackers, and do not feel guilty about their fate - they chose it for themselves.

Using those of this perspective, the alignments could affect them as follows:

A CN person with the above belief would look out for himself. He might help others since he is within reach of them but only if he thinks they're cool people. He might actively ignore people if he finds he doesn't like them or they offended him, whether or not accidentally. He could be an arrogant intellectual that considers stupid people to be absolute filth and those that work hard enough should have everything. He works hard because he values the freedom it offers. He doesn't enjoy governments that provide stupid laws and especially not those that restrict freedom.

A CE person would make his own way in the world, and probably even go out of his way to laugh at the less fortunate. He'd think that society is merely a hub at which work can be done. He enjoys civilization because it can actually reward you more for hard work rather then the more rural life of 'work hard to survive and any extra work is wasting time'. Anyone who imposes this on him will be punished twenty times as hard in kind. He values freedom more than anything else. People who don't share his beliefs annoy him so much that he may even seek to swiftly do away with them in some manner.

A CG person would help others whenever he can but he doesn't think that government should get involved in the process. He values community for what it can do and the intimacy it provides. Don't expect others to help out. You can't change what people think. You must provide for yourself by working hard and then you'll have the most means to help others. This sort of society is truly unfortunate for the disabled, but efficient societies can find other ways to make use of them. There should be some method of profiling people and allowing them the freedom to enjoy their own lives.

A LG person would support the existing government so that it can better work out a functioning, uncorrupted society. Respect all laws, and work hard. Don't expect others to help each other. You must help them. They would attack the contradiction to the above quoted belief by arguing that they would help others whenever they could and that such a thing is up to the individual.

IMO, the most likely alignment to correspond with the above belief is neutral.

Take it upon yourself to help someone in need. It doesn't matter who they are, or who you are - if you are capable of helping someone then do so. If a rich man falls sick, and you are poor, then help him as you hope he would do for you. Do not expect gratitude or payment for your aid. Treat others as you expect to be treated yourself. Love your enemies as well as your friends - when they realise you treat them as equals then they will have no choice but to love you in return. Forgive the faults and misdeeds of others.

This pretty much only corresponds with the Good aligned. Neutrals of this belief might not venture to help others as much as the good since they worry about their own well being as well - they'd commit to this as a form of strong discipline, hoping to earn the respect of morally wiser peers. They might be angered by disrespect equally as much as a good aligned or they may not respond at all, learning to render themselves immune to all but the most mortally intense of frustrations (as much as a good aligned might).

The most likely alignment for the above is Neutral Good.

Society should care for all, no matter how weak or useless they may seem to be. Everyone has an equal right to life. The good and the civilised must care for one another. The strong should support the weak. The rich should help the poor. The stronger or richer you are, the more you should help those less fortunate than you. Only in this way can a spirit find true release and happiness. Of course, it's best not to have people get into a plight in the first place. That's why a society needs fair laws to set a framework of what's permitted and not permitted. Never take advantage of those in a position below you, and always respect those above you. Consider the feelings of all in every action you take, and do nothing which is not for the good of society as a whole.

Neutrals and Evils will probably hate abiding by the above belief. Helping the weak because they are weak just isn't logical. Some people are just far too pathetic, to the point that it is shocking, to warrant help.

Some neutrals might help only those close to them, or obvious social targets such as the elderly. Good aligned would make an effort to help everyone whenever they ask, but they would be very depressed by the self deprecating and un-giving manner of mankind.

The above belief is most likely to go with Lawful Good, since a Lawful Good person may often believe that law is the most powerful incentive for benevolence. Also stereotypically, they are the most naive. LG clerics may consult with superior immortal beings of the good aligned plane to descend to the material and assist mortals in retaining the socialist utopia that they have worked hard to create.

Life is a complicated environment. Some will win, and some will lose. Protect those close to you, like your family, and help to see they it is they who win. Strive to do the best for yourself. Set an example for others to follow. Do not put others down in order to rise above them, for this is selfish. Advance yourself by improving the way you do things. Compete, but do not let competition drive you away from doing good. Do not take what you do not need, and do not waste resources. Help others if it does not endanger yourself. Everyone is important in the grand scheme, even the most lowly, so do not take advantage of those weaker than yourself.

A largely neutral and good aligned belief. The good aligned would strive to be paragons of humility - knowing that they are but tiny rats in a greater multiverse and that that is just the way of things. Neutrals might be more extreme in serving self interests and attacking obstacles as well as those that oppose them.

The evil ones of this belief, while somewhat rare, might frame themselves as advocates of it but in reality serve the interests of only themselves and/or their family.

Life is precious, and none more so than your own. You are the only one to care for yourself so much, so make sure you look after your interests. Live to make each moment count. Life can be short, so live it for yourself, and allow others to do the same. Help them if it pleases you, because you cannot be happy if those around you are miserable. Care for those you love, but do not love lightly. Do not accept help if you do not need it, and likewise, do not offer aid unless asked first.

Very neutral stand point. Even good followers might be mistaken for neutrals, but in effect respect mankind's ability to formulate opinions very well.

Evils would find it difficult to follow this alignment, after all they cannot go far with it. But if it allows them to be selfish without seeming all that selfish, they might do with it just fine. Maybe they conceal found loot and snatch it behind the backs of other party members in return for helping the party. Maybe they'll poison those they don't like and make it look like an accident, offering to consul the family members later on. Clearly, they would neglect to help anyone unless they were asked and might lay low on the public scene in an effort to deny beggers.

Depend upon nobody except yourself. You are the only person you can afford to rely on, because only you know what you really want. Be filled with courage, and act upon your desires. Do what you wish, but bear no malice towards those who do not wish to live as you do. Earn the respect of others by your brave acts. Prove you are worthy of their attention and admiration. Be an example to others, but do not force them to follow it. Do not agree unless you know what you hear to be true. Life is as good as you care to make it.

A strong belief of many chaotic neutrals and chaotics in general. They'd argue that the existence of teams is a product of environment. Evils are highly selfish. Some neutrals and even weak willed goods do only what feels good. Lawfuls are highly organized and help further lawful causes subtly, but are perhaps the most 'lesser' of the lawful aligned in existence.

Most likely alignment for the above is Chaotic Neutral although it could arguably be Chaotic Good for the painstakingly honor driven too (for example, someone who refuses to kill and seeks to allow others to pursue individuality as well). Chaotic Neutral is the safest alignment to be for this and Chaotic Evil could conceivably work as well. This also reflects my own beliefs in real life as a person.

Do nothing you do not want to do. Do not be bound by the laws of others, for they do not have your best interests at heart. Laws are made by those who serve themselves, so let your laws be your own and change them when you wish. Do not be set in your ways. It is not weak to change your mind. It is weak to stick to beliefs which are no longer the truth. Enjoy life while it lasts, for happiness is transient. See as much as you can. There's beauty in not knowing what's coming around the next corner; surprises are fun and stop a body getting stuck in the dreary ruts of life. Live to act - do not make assumptions about what you haven't experienced. Open your mind and learn!

Stereotypical Chaotic Any. Nobody lawful would ever be of this alignment. Neutrals are a hard case to make.

Most likely alignment for the above is Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil (in the most extreme case, a CE would believe 'existence is fake! Might as well have fun no matter how much it disturbs, disrupts or harms others.'.

Live how you will, but be careful. They are out there, and they are after you. They are envious of you, of your possessions and accomplishments, of your spirit. Watch every shadow, and be wary of every footstep. They will not rest until they have what They want. Hide if you can, but be warned that in the end They will find you. Keep moving so They do not find you. Do not keep to routines. They could be anywhere, so take care of who you trust. Do not help others in case it is Them you are really helping. Choose your friends and allies wisely, because any one of them could be one of Them.

Good could never abide by this belief. Most likely candidates are Neutrals. Lawfuls obey and remain organized to satisfy a higher power that perhaps they are afraid of - they also enjoy the lifestyle. Chaotic Neutrals are very subtle and quiet about their life style, trusting very few people and Chaotic Evils obviously abide this belief as 'kill or be killed' or even 'kill a stranger who hasn't even seen you yet, just to be safe. Human life doesn't matter compared to your own life.'

Most likely alignment for the above belief is Chaotic Neutral or any Evil.

You owe others nothing. Everyone is self-serving. Putting the interests of others over those of yourself is foolish. Obeying laws which do not serve you is weak. Stand up to your oppressors, make them fear you instead. Let them feel the lash of their own whips on their skins. Take what you can, because life is short and harsh. People may pretend to care, but they are trying to win your confidence so they have power over you. Society exists only in the mind of fools - everyone really seeks their own personal gain. Strength is everything. Show others you are not weak, then you will not have to fear their betrayal.

Possibly only evil people can truly abide by the above. But even the good can follow this belief by including the clause 'I owe others nothing, yet I give to them anyway.' Neutrals might give away their possessions to weaken others, and may be jealous of competition towards their strong lifestyle. Evils will obviously give nothing and take everything, and commit to pre-emptive tactics, sometimes even against their own families.

Most likely alignment for the above is Any Evil.

Others have what you do not. Nobody gets anything without treading on someone else's feelings to get it. The ones who deserve to win will never win. There is always a bigger struggle beyond the horizon. The harder you try, the more they take away from you, so why bother? Life is not fair, because you can't win. Everyone dies in the end. You are trapped in the cage of society. If you can, slip between the bars and escape. Break their rules, else you will never get what you want. Steal if you dare, but don't expect them to be merciful if they catch you.

Only chaotics abide by the above belief, but even neutrals of this philosophy may be dragged into helping others as their chance for a 'hand up' (though that could easily apply to chaotics as well).

CEs are so embittered that they're insane with cynicism. They argue that they are monsters because of what life has given them and so they're only repaying it in kind.

The most likely alignment for the above belief is Chaotic Neutral.

Why care? Does anybody else really care? You are born, some live, all die. Does it really matter when? Sure, there is pain, but that is only brief. Emotions are muted, everything is too transient. People are shallow, so why should you respect them? Do not care what others think of you - it is not your problem. Try to make the misery you feel lessen for yourself. That is what everyone else does, but they don't care about you. Work for yourself, and don't be afraid to do what you need in the course of that work. Make yourself numb, and the hurt will go away. The ends always justify the means.

Any alignment can resort to this as a coping mechanism. But other parts of this philosophy are strongly neutral and evil oriented.

Most likely alignment for the above is Any Evil.

Hierarchies are only useful so you know where to aim next. Work your way into power, and guard your back. If you can achieve power, so can others. Give nothing away, for gifts only weaken your position. You have to fight for what you deserve, so make sure others have to do the same. Take what you can from other people. Weakening others can only strengthen yourself. Anything that will let you get ahead has got to be good. Earn people's trust, as this gives you power over them. Let nobody do the same to you. See the selfish motives behind everyone's actions, and be happy you are careful.

Any Neutral or Evil can abide by the above belief. Good would likely be too concerned with altruism to actually push itself into any position of this sort of social might - if they were pre-occupied with this, they could even face conversion to Neutral or Evil as they are opposed on all sides despite their benevolence which is shadowed by political opponents and the media all the way up until they become supreme dictator, able to maximize the scope of their benevolence (which would be their goal, but a lofty one).

The most likely alignment for the above is Lawful Evil.

Work to advance yourself in society. Use the laws to aid you, and punish those who do you wrong. Look after number one, and use any means you can to further your own interests. Break laws if you dare, for there are others like you who will use whatever they can against you. Conform, and make sure others do as well, for your own good. If they cheat, make sure you catch them first! Grind them beneath your feet once you have finished with them. Follow your laws to the letter, not the spirit - so long as you do not break them you are safe. There is an advantage in every situation, and every law has its loophole. Find them!

Any evil can be of this belief. If they are neutral, it's likely a ruse.

Most likely alignment for the above is Any Evil (although many seem to think LE).

Never question the rules, live your life by them. Fulfil them to the letter - there is no room in this life for those who make mistakes. Punish those who do wrong. If you know you are right, then any who stand against you are wrong. Persuade them by force if you must, but know that people are stubborn. If violence is the only redress then so be it. It is wrong to question everything; children ask questions, men know the answers. The leader has all the answers, and leadership is divine. Any punishment is legitimate for criminals - when they choose to break the laws they also choose to bear the consequences. Life brings only one choice: obey or do not. If you do not, expect no mercy from those who do.

[hamishspence]

The fact that someone sees an alignment as 'flawed' is a logical viewpoint. It tends to be neutral.

Even Neutrality came in for some flak:

On the planes, belief is everything. This is a vacuous hole in the concept of belief; a null choice. Can anything come from lack of action? Maybe, but what if the outcome is one which is bad? Do you chalk one up for evil and blandly say 'the time for good will come'? Do you take direct action to ensure it comes sooner? How can a state in which you don't pose any questions ever bring you answers? Or don't you care about the answers?

[Magnema]

I believe the "balance" TN would most likely be the kind against a utopia philosophically, in one of two ways. Firstly, you could be against it in that in order to create a no-evil-utopia, you would need to eliminate all evil and keep things the way they are with no changes - in which case you need an overwhelming lawfulness and lack of freedom (to be the alignment you choose) - or leave evil somewhere in existence, become complacent (if not quickly, over generations), and die when they attack you. Alternatively, you could be against it in that that if the world was perfect, then life would have no meaning for many, because life's meaning is defined by struggle, of which a utopia has none. Therefore, for the sake of the world, I have to keep it from becoming perfect, so that others continue to have to work for a utopia, and their lives will have meaning. However, I must also prevent evil from winning, because then there would be none to struggle. This could become an evil attitude if there is more of the former than the latter as well.

[PinkysBrain]

I think there is interaction between alignment and personality, it's not a one way street ... committing evil gets you a taste for it where there was none before, the allure of the dark side.

Neutral characters instinctively shy away from too explicitly evil acts to preserve themselves.

[hamishspence]

Or, if you prefer to think of Evil as a cosmic force that can affect, change, and warp things- committing Evil can cause the Cosmic Force to seep into the mind, warping it slightly, and making further Evil acts that much easier.

A ruler might start out sentencing criminals convicted of heinous crimes to severe punishments solely "to deter further crime, thus protecting the innocent" and end up doing it to gratify his own developing tastes.

[SilveryCord]

So a TN person could look at it like, for every good, evil, lawful or chaotic action they take...then must then take an action for the other three alignment types. So that everything is balanced. So a TN person would do a crime(evil act), but then give some of the money to the hungry(good act)...so in the end the good/evil balances out.

Acting in this matter would not be neutral, it would be evil. (In D&D terms)

[dsmiles]

Oooooo...True Neutral, one of my favorite subjects.
[tirade]
JimBob the dirt farmer, whose only goal in life is to harvest enough dirt to live through to next dirt season, when he can try to harvest enough dirt to live through to next dirt season, ad infinitum. He's true neutral. He is too busy to care about good or evil, law or chaos.
Gorgonzola the mighty druid, who seeks out powerful entities of good and evil, law and chaos, and kills them to 'maintain the balance,' he is also true neutral.
Bob the everything-a-phobe, who is too scared to get off his couch because he might upset the balance, but is torn because inaction might upset the balance, is (yep, you guessed it) true neutral.
Archimedes the all powerful wizard, who seeks for knowledge of new things, and considers himself above the concerns of the world he lives in, and (coincidentally, mind you) takes no action that would neither promote nor forbear law, chaos, good, or evil is...need I say more? Oh, alright. He is also true neutral.
And this my friends (and not-so-much-friends) is why I personally prefer the shiny new 4e term "Unaligned." It describes the condition that the term "True Neutral" is meant to represent much better than the term "True Neutral."
[/tirade]
Just my take on it, of course.

[snoopy13a]

In my opinion, a neutral character is one who believes it is wrong to exploit or hurt others. However, he or she either does not believe one should be charitable towards others or does believe that people should be charitable but does not "walk the walk".

It isn't exactly laziness. A successful merchant with a reputation for fair dealing and honesty is neutral if he or she does not help out the community.

[darkpuppy]

I've posted before on this self-same subject, and everyone is correct that it is one of the thorniest alignments to adjudicate. But to say True Neutral is merely apathetic is only part of the vast tapestry that is... N.

As already noted, one can be apathetic, one can be passionately against everything (even themselves), one can be passionately for everything (although this technically qualifies as Neutral-Insane... :oD), one can be passionate for balance, or... one can seek balance, not knowing whether they can achieve it.

The closest thing to this form of TN is the Taoist. The taoist believes that you cannot have good without evil, beauty without ugliness... everything is connected. Everything is one. By opening the eyes to the universe, acknowledging the good and the bad, and accepting that such things are merely transitory, subjective value judgements, and that reality is there to be experienced, one achieves True Neutrality. Obviously, I haven't worded this brilliantly (it's an extremely difficult concept to get across, Taoism, although kudos to the author of The Tao of Pooh for trying so hard!)

But, in any case, a TN druid can go several ways. He can act according to the rules of nature, and claim them as his morals (No, that doesn't necessarily mean "The strong survive"... after all, that's not actually true. It means that everyone and everything has its niche.) He can look on good and evil in a more philosophical manner, questioning, trying to lead other to his viewpoint that "It just is..." The possibilities are endless with TN.

But to examine this, think of alignment as a two axes XY graph. Let's assume evil and chaos are "negative" X and Y, and good and law are "positive" XY. Good is "others over the self", evil as "self over others", law "the rules are the be-all and end-all", chaos "there are no rules, stoopid!"... now... TN? is actually, on a scale of 1-10, roaming constantly around -1<X<1, and -1<Y<1.

Anyways, that's just my own take on it.

[HunterOfJello]

"I don't know and I don't care."