To thine own self be True Neutral

[Morgarion]

I like alignment questions. They interest me. There's a lot of threads where people argue about paladins and rationalizing evil until it sounds good, and am I lawful even if I'm breaking the law, etc. One thing that I haven't seen discussed much are the neutral alignments, but specifically the mac daddy - true neutral.

I think neutrality in D&D is actually really interesting (or rather, it can be), so you can imagine my dismay at how often it gets turned into some sort of alignment junk drawer for creatures that are too stupid to understand good and evil, or people who don't care one way or another. Almost worse (or perhaps just worse) are the conceptions of true neutral as some sort of two-faced goon who switches sides in some sort of juvenile attempt at 'creating balance' between good and evil.

The reason I don't care for this is because in D&D, evil isn't relative and it isn't the absence of good. It is an absolute and positive force. But neutrality ends up just being some midpoint between law and chaos and good and evil.

But I think neutrality can and should be a positive force of its own, rather than just a lack of good or evil. I know there's a line about how some neutral characters see the ends of the axes as dangerous extremes, but we don't get a whole lot of guidance about how such characters achieve neutrality the way a paladin wants to achieve good, or that fiends want to achieve evil.

What do you think? Had any good experiences working with true neutral characters? Any interesting takes?

[Dr. Yes]

Whenever I play neutral characters, I basically run them as nihilists who see the concepts of good and evil as petty and specious and recognize the value of laws as a means to the end of a well-functioning society. These characters would pity paladins for their arbitrary and restrictive code of conduct and scorn antipaladins for their childish inability to see beyond base self-gratification.

[narelith]

A Neutral character might believe in the coexistence of Good and Evil: while a Good adventurer might scour it from the land, a Neutral character might not fight Evil where other options are present. A Neutral character might believe in the coexistence of Law and Chaos: that a society, for example, cannot function without both.

D&D by default seems to assume that Good characters are truly Good, and that if you commit murder on a surrendering goblin, for example, you must be Evil. To better frame the alignment system, you have to look at the alignments as different sides, albeit sides where those in the camp of Good pursue selfless, pure objectives and those in the camp of Evil pursue selfish, impure objectives.

Good people can do bad things, Evil people can have friends, and Neutral characters might want differing philosophies to coexist where each philosophy may not.

A Neutral character might also be averse to conflict, meaning that they want to put an end to conflict between Good or Evil, even if there is not a decisive victor, Good or Evil. So, another interpretation of a True Neutral character might be just that: wanting neither side to win, not necessarily for the sake of the status quo (although that might be the case), but for other reasons: to protect the world from conflict, because on a cosmic scale such conflict cannot be prevented in the long-term and each side's effort is better used elsewhere... there are many options.

[Segev]

True Neutral comes in 2, maybe 3 flavors in D&D.

The first is the one you've mentioned: things that just don't "get" alignments. They're not evil, they're just creatures doing what creatures do. They pursue food and shelter and personal safety, and they do not discriminate in their targets except as those targets help or hinder their goals.

This type would be Evil if they understood their actions, if only because their willingness to directly take from/cause harm to other sentient creatures for their own personal selfish interests is one of the definitions of evil acts. But evil requires at least some level of intent.


The second is the old classic jerk-druid alignment: Neutrality through Fanatical Balance. For every puppy you pet, you have to kick another one. If a kingdom is full of good and virtue, you have to foment sin and suffering. If it is full of corruption and vice, you seek to tamp it down with an equal measure of goodness. For every law that is fairly enforced, you need to encourage arbitrary antiauthoritarianism. For every law ignored and freedom granted, you have to ensure somebody is enforcing order to counter it.

This kind sounds interesting, but in reality just makes for schizophrenic antagonists or unreliable allies.


The third kind is, arguably, the "don't care" variety. They'll live and let live. They understand well enough that hurting others for pure selfish convenience or comfort is not cool, and thus they typically won't do it. But they're not likely to go out of their way to help somebody without at least some persuasion (or personal stake, like that "somebody" being a friend or loved one). They ARE as likely to steal if they think it's "victimless" (e.g. the target can afford it) as to refrain (if they think they'd get caught, or they decide that their need for it doesn't justify the theft). They will bend the rules or ignore them where they feel they have a good reason, but they will not rail against them and will expect others to follow them unless there's good reason not to.


True Neutral is usually not all that interesting because it's the "normal" state for a human who is not particularly devoted to helping others and views laws as guidelines worth following but not slavishly adhering to. It's said humans lack a predisposition to any alignment, including neutral, but in truth, most humans are True Neutral with a leaning towards the edges, not real paragons of any of them.

I'd venture to say that most modern Americans fall somewhere in the True Neutral with Lawful or Good Tendencies category. We do value charity and think following the law is a good idea, but we'll rationalize ignoring the latter when it's a major hassle or doesn't seem important, and we tend to be more focused on our own benefit than our neighbors'. But at the same time, we admire good people for being good and charitable, and we respect the honor of those who are strict in their adherence to law - at the least it's spirit. (We may, if anything, be more solidly neutral on the law/chaos axis, as we tend to also sometimes view strict adherence to law as a bit silly.)

Neutral people find murder abhorrent, but aren't above revenge (as opposed to justice).

[hamishspence]

True Neutral comes in 2, maybe 3 flavors in D&D.

The first is the one you've mentioned: things that just don't "get" alignments. They're not evil, they're just creatures doing what creatures do. They pursue food and shelter and personal safety, and they do not discriminate in their targets except as those targets help or hinder their goals.

This type would be Evil if they understood their actions, if only because their willingness to directly take from/cause harm to other sentient creatures for their own personal selfish interests is one of the definitions of evil acts. But evil requires at least some level of intent.

Animals are a notable example of this.

[Sergeantbrother]

I person who doesn't prefer good to evil or doesn't care about the distinction isn't neutral, they are a psychopath. Everybody prefers good over evil, even evil people would rather be surrounded by good people.

A neutral person isn't weird, they aren't crazy, they aren't stupid, they aren't fanatics. They are just regular every day joes who live their lives and go about their daily business. They are primarily concerned about their own benefit and that of their close friends and family, they wont take any major risks or make any major sacrifices to help others. Then again, they won't hurt anybody else either unless they are defending themselves or things they care about. So for the most part, they neither hurt nor help, that is the essence of neutrality.

And if there happens to be a battle between good and evil, of course the neutral person is going to pull for good to win. In fact, they would probably consider themselves good if you asked them. They might even join in the fight to vanquish evil, though likely with the consideration that doing so would benefit them and theirs.

[hamishspence]

True Neutral is usually not all that interesting because it's the "normal" state for a human who is not particularly devoted to helping others and views laws as guidelines worth following but not slavishly adhering to. It's said humans lack a predisposition to any alignment, including neutral, but in truth, most humans are True Neutral with a leaning towards the edges, not real paragons of any of them.

Alignments don't need to be "paragon" level- they can be looser.

Though it's true that TN is at least the "typical" alignment of humans by PHB, even if it isn't necessarily vastly more common than the others.

[Morgarion]

We keep going back to this idea that neutral is some kind of a default, that if you don't do anything you get stuck in neutral, as it were. And further, it keeps grinding on the mechanics of the other alignments because of it's relationship to intent and action. For example, good characters can't just be well-wishers who do whatever it takes out of some kind of ends-justify-the-means utilitarianism. They have to intend good, as well as actually do good.

According to the typical description of your average, commoner neutrality, they might not have any preference toward intending toward good or evil, or law or chaos, but in action it certainly sounds like they tend toward good behavior. So being neutral doesn't take hardly any work at all, but you have to actually try to be good. It seems a little strange to me.

Another area we've touched upon is the idea that neutral alignment reflects a character primarily concerned with behavior along an axis other than ethics and morality. The idea of doing good or evil for its own sake doesn't interest them, but they'll help their friends and fight their foes. This description of neutral alignment, though, has implications for evil and good characters as well. After all, rarely do evil characters conduct evil for its own sake. Often times, the evil is a byproduct or a symptom of behavior intended toward achieving something on another spectrum.

[Segev]

I would argue that Neutrals would pull for good to win in a fight between good and evil iff the evil were offering them nothing but misery. But if the evil were offering them good pay for punch-clock micro-villainy (being the guy manning the border post, driving delivery trucks for the Evil Army, etc.), or the evil side was going to be oppressive but favored their race over the race that'd been competing with them for control of the best farmland for generations, the Neutrals may well side with the evil guys, or at least root for them. After all, the "good guys" are refusing to help drive out the enemy race, while the evils are promising to do just that.

[kyoryu]

There's True Neutral from a balance standpoint - the "jerk" druid type.

There's True Neutral for animals and whatnot, things that don't have enough intelligence/moral sense to make a choice.

The other type is the "normal" True Neutral.

On a good/evil axis, I see neutral as being "I'm mostly out to help myself, but I won't generally do it by screwing other people over." You're not robbing people or beating them up (evil), but you're also not donating your time to help the needy (good). The vast majority of people fall into this bucket.

On the Lawful/Chaotic side, a neutral person generally respects order, but also sees individual freedom as important. They recognize the positive impacts of order and agree to the necessity of order to make a society, but also think that within that order there needs to be sufficient freedom for people to make their own choices and to experiment.

And yeah, neutrals would root for good over evil, just because they're smart enough to know that good will be likely to either help them, or at worst leave them alone. (Which is why just the fact that you go "yay team good!" doesn't make you good)

[TuggyNE]

So being neutral doesn't take hardly any work at all, but you have to actually try to be good. It seems a little strange to me.

Why is this even slightly strange? It's a very common theme in nearly all literature/fiction that covers good/evil/law/chaos that being really good takes work and effort and dedication that most are unwilling to invest in. (Somewhat the same for most other alignments, in fact.) You can't just happen to be dedicated to self-sacrifice and helping strangers at your own expense by chance, you know; it's a choice most people don't make.

[QuintonBeck]

TN of the average peasant variety does not a hero, or villain, or anyone of interest make really. They're just a person with no strong convictions. I've never played older editions but I seem to remember reading that in older editions the vast majority of the people were considered to have no alignment/TN because only "big" people, heroes and villains and what have you have the drive and desire to actually define themselves and act as a force of X alignment.

Following the vein of the conversation insofar I believe there's only one "interesting," and by that I mean could build a PC or NPC around, interpretation of True Neutral and that's the TN who believes in balance between all things.
Now, I don't mean the schizo pet-puppy-then-kick-puppy balance but a TN that works for a much longer term and in fact I think being such a TN character requires the character to be incredibly intelligent or wise, and with a lot of foresight or perhaps have some level of deity-ism so as to be a character who doesn't interfere with affairs unless something severely threatens to unbalance the world.
Warlord in some small country kills the benevolent king and takes over the country, not a big enough concern, it'll be balanced out. A kindly cleric establishes an organization dedicated to healing, teaching, and bettering the people, not a big enough deal to interfere with. A mad man looking to blow up the world, time to step in. Someone attempting to remove all strife and threat of harm by purifying the world (and actually being capable of doing it) also unacceptable, time to get involved.
So a TN character of the balance variety to me comes with baggage of necessitating a powerful mind/extremely planning oriented one with lots of time and good judgement on when to get involved. This may be why I usually make creator gods/the big G god in my campaigns extremely distant TN aligned ones who isn't worshiped as the lesser gods are.

[Lord Raziere]

it sort of helps to think about what happens when neutrals encounter a moral quandary

for example, an adventurer accepts a job to go kill orcs, but they find out that the orcs are good and mean no harm.

good: they try to help everyone to the best of their ability so that no one gets hurt.

evil: they kill them anyways and take the money as well as all the loot they can get.

however, what about the neutrals?

lawful neutral: they see that the orcs are good….and turn around and say that the contract is null and void, because of false information and then walk away to find another job, not solving anything.

True Neutral: see that killing the orcs would be wrong, doesn't do it and just go their own way without solving anything, because they don't want to deal with it.

Chaotic neutral: see that killing orcs would be wrong…then either goes back and steals the money from the guy offering the money or scams it out of them by convincing him he did do the job when he didn't, and get the money, then go his own way without solving anything.

neutrals avoid moral quandaries, if the orcs and the village are both good and have a conflict that can't be solved by normal adventuring, a neutral adventurer won't bother doing it. however if they find that the orcs are evil, they will kill the orcs just like any other adventurer, because thats what adventurers do.

good characters go beyond the call of duty. neutrals just do the job given to them, and if it falls outside what adventurers are supposed to do, they go their own way to find a job that does.

[Ravian]

I remember one example of a real world figure that I think really fits true neutral. I don't remember alot of details but apparently during the cold war there was an American spy who turned traitor and gave secrets on nuclear power to the soviets. His justification? That the world could not survive when only one nation had nuclear power. He was arguably the reason the cold war was as bad as it was but he also had a bit of a point. He did it for the sake of balance to the world and was undeniably the best example of true neutral I've seen.

(note: I'm not trying to get into a political debate here about the cold war. I'm simply stating this opinion and leaving it at that)

[Lorsa]

I remember one example of a real world figure that I think really fits true neutral. I don't remember alot of details but apparently during the cold war there was an American spy who turned traitor and gave secrets on nuclear power to the soviets. His justification? That the world could not survive when only one nation had nuclear power. He was arguably the reason the cold war was as bad as it was but he also had a bit of a point. He did it for the sake of balance to the world and was undeniably the best example of true neutral I've seen.

(note: I'm not trying to get into a political debate here about the cold war. I'm simply stating this opinion and leaving it at that)

Technically I believe such a person could just as easily be neutral or chaotic Good. He is going out of his way to make the world a better place, sacrificing his own safety and wellbeing to do it.

[prufock]

I played a conjurer once that was true neutral, which I interpreted as somewhat Spock-like. He was a "scientist" (aka magical researcher) whose priority was his research. He was not malicious, and took no joy in harming others, and avoided it where possible so that he wouldn't get into trouble. He adventured for money to continue his research, to test out his theories, and to discover new and interesting types of magical theory.

He was not good - no altruism or personal sacrifices for the greater good.
He was not evil - he didn't hurt, oppress, or kill others (except in the line of adventuring duty or when absolutely necessary otherwise).
He was not lawful - he cared nothing for tradition or authority, except in how it would interfere with his work, and butted heads with the big wigs at the mage's guild over his new theories.
He was not chaotic - he wasn't reckless or irresponsible, nor was he highly adaptable. In fact he preferred routine.

[Ravian]

Technically I believe such a person could just as easily be neutral or chaotic Good. He is going out of his way to make the world a better place, sacrificing his own safety and wellbeing to do it.

Well I couldn't really call it good if you think about how the cold war went as a result. There were plenty of times where it really looked like we were going to kill each other regardless of M.A.D. Of course he also saw consequences of only one nation with power. So he balanced it out, balanced being the key term to neutrality.

[SiuiS]

I like alignment questions. They interest me. There's a lot of threads where people argue about paladins and rationalizing evil until it sounds good, and am I lawful even if I'm breaking the law, etc. One thing that I haven't seen discussed much are the neutral alignments, but specifically the mac daddy - true neutral.

I think neutrality in D&D is actually really interesting (or rather, it can be), so you can imagine my dismay at how often it gets turned into some sort of alignment junk drawer for creatures that are too stupid to understand good and evil, or people who don't care one way or another. Almost worse (or perhaps just worse) are the conceptions of true neutral as some sort of two-faced goon who switches sides in some sort of juvenile attempt at 'creating balance' between good and evil.

What about law and Chaos? No one ever balances law and chaos, nor brings up that 'balance' is strictly lawful (stasis) or in quick succession, entropic anarchy (chaos).

The reason I don't care for this is because in D&D, evil isn't relative and it isn't the absence of good. It is an absolute and positive force. But neutrality ends up just being some midpoint between law and chaos and good and evil.

This is a good point, and I'd never put it so succinctly. Thanks.

I think you need to look at the neutral arbiters to see what it should be – the Druids and Paramanders.

Druidry is interesting, and I like to pose it as a semi-neopagan mash up, mostly of generic "Norse" themes; the Druid stands and arbitrates et week the equally valid Chaos of natural progression, the giants and titans, and the more civilized Law which orders human civilization. It makes for interesting drama.

I'm suddenly too tired to form sentences though >_< sorry

[Morgarion]

What about law and Chaos? No one ever balances law and chaos, nor brings up that 'balance' is strictly lawful (stasis) or in quick succession, entropic anarchy (chaos).

I don't know that I entirely agree with that.

I've always favored an interpretation of lawful and chaotic alignments that casts them upon a spectrum from socialistic to libertarian, more or less. So, a lawful character's ideal society is one that focuses on structural solutions to problems, who believes that a strong community produces strong individuals. The chaotic character, on the other hand, is more inclined to see problems, even large ones, as the result of individuals making individual decisions, rather than some flaw in the system. As a corollary to this, lawful characters are more inclined to posit 'nature or nurture' as influences on individuals, where chaotic characters would argue in favor of free will and, therefore, personal responsibility being important concepts.

The 'shadow' of these more noble attributes of law and chaos are their flaws, in extremis. Lawful characters appreciate consistency; they believe in uniform applications of laws and justice and shy away from taking things on case by case bases. Think existentialism's focus on integrity, or the idea of the categorical imperative. If they have a theory about the way the world works, they won't allow exceptions. However, they might lose sight of certain things and, rather than rewriting their theories and redrawing their models, they might go out to change the world to fit them better.

A chaotic character isn't rattled by that which cannot be categorized or quantified. They put more weight on the situational circumstances when solving a problem or making a judgement about something - if an established logic suggests a solution or answer they don't like or that doesn't work, they'll ignore it. The downside is that, as much flexibility as they permit themselves, they can go too far and become highly inconsistent and even reckless.

In my mind, a balance between law and chaos is someone who appreciates enough structure in their life that also allows them a good deal of freedom. A possible example: regulating magic. I consider myself pretty far over on the lawful scale. Like, way, way lawful. I'm the kind of guy that says, 'yeah, magic can be really dangerous. it's not worth the potential damage to risk letting anyone use it'. But a more chaotic person would say 'you can't be serious! magic isn't inherently dangerous, but some people are jerks and they use it to hurt others. the harm you do by banning magic altogether far outweighs the risk of some people using it improperly'. A neutral character with respect to law and chaos would probably think both arguments are wrong, and suggest that there should be some restrictions on magic use, but that outright eliminating it is excessive and heavy-handed.

[SiuiS]

I don't know that I entirely agree with that.

I've always favored an interpretation of lawful and chaotic alignments that casts them upon a spectrum from socialistic to libertarian, more or less. So, a lawful character's ideal society is one that focuses on structural solutions to problems, who believes that a strong community produces strong individuals. The chaotic character, on the other hand, is more inclined to see problems, even large ones, as the result of individuals making individual decisions, rather than some flaw in the system. As a corollary to this, lawful characters are more inclined to posit 'nature or nurture' as influences on individuals, where chaotic characters would argue in favor of free will and, therefore, personal responsibility being important concepts.

They can't be. Consider, the law/chaos axis is equal to the good/evil axis; allowing law and chaos to be a spectrum is directly contrary to your own endorsement of good and evil as separate, objective, cosmic absolutes. The ethical axis is equally absolute, equally cosmic and equally misunderstood.

The biggest thing to look at are the effects; how do law and chaos manifest?
Chaos manifests in ways which are inimical to life as we know it, hange so sudden and abrupt that the very air could be ripped from your lungs, altered into a flammable toxin and congealed ito a liquid on your skin before detonating (abyss, limbo). Chaos allows for the individual to be supreme, but never secure. Sure, you can own a demon fiefdom or carve a swathe of clarity out of limbo, but there's always a change coming that will oust you.
Law manifests in ways which are inimical to individual life, where life will go on but it isn't important which life goes on. Structure more concerned with filling roles and doing what is necessary in the obligatory sense than with any individual's right to exist. There are living things in hell and mechanus, and there always will be, but if you join these groups, there's no safety for you so much as for the group.

This can possibly be construed to be social, jut like good and evil (in the alignment sense) can be construed as moral ideas, but that's incidental and not germane to what they are.



Your description matches what I remember of the Paramander, actually. But it's been a while.

[Morgarion]

They can't be. Consider, the law/chaos axis is equal to the good/evil axis; allowing law and chaos to be a spectrum is directly contrary to your own endorsement of good and evil as separate, objective, cosmic absolutes. The ethical axis is equally absolute, equally cosmic and equally misunderstood.

You're right. I'm being imprecise with these terms. I guess the 'balance' between law and chaos isn't truly neutral, in my own thought. It's almost like not having anything specified at all, instead of being actively neutral for the sake of neutrality itself.

Edit: I guess my whole point was just that the idea that 'balance is strictly lawful' is paradoxical because a state of lawfulness to the extreme is imbalanced, in several ways (freedom, uniformity, etc), but the equation of lawfulness with balance would imply that extreme lawfulness is perfectly balanced.

[JennTora]

I remember in the cartoon Jackie Chan Adventures there was the idea that if you eliminate a villain it leaves a literal power vacuum that can be filled by a stronger one. The idea makes perfect sense if evil is an eternal force. So maybe sometimes True Neutral just feel it's better to stick with the villains they know how to beat, I think Mordenkainen had a similar view, right?

Plus you don't want your good guys getting lazy while the bad guys are prepping for action.

Besides, with no true villains to fight, all the lawful stupid paladins would go around harassing people for inane things. Oh... wait...

[Arkhosia]

I remember in the cartoon Jackie Chan Adventures there was the idea that if you eliminate a villain it leaves a literal power vacuum that can be filled by a stronger one. The idea makes perfect sense if evil is an eternal force. So maybe sometimes True Neutral just feel it's better to stick with the villains they know how to beat, I think Mordenkainen had a similar view, right?

Plus you don't want your good guys getting lazy while the bad guys are prepping for action.

Besides, with no true villains to fight, all the lawful stupid paladins would go around harassing people for inane things. Oh... wait...

We once called a PC a paradox because he was a lawful neutral Paladin/Rogue Hybrid

[NichG]

The thing is, there has to be a 'dumping ground' alignment of some sort, because characters whose main drive has nothing to do with cosmic good/evil/law/chaos are still assigned an alignment. So TN gets recruited for this because it satisfies the requirement of 'does not particularly care about good/evil/law/chaos'.

The alternative - prescriptive alignment - is pretty odious from an RP standpoint, so I generally reject it on those grounds. It technically can solve this problem and make TN also be a proactive force, but the consequence is pretty bad. It would mean that all people in D&D care strongly only about one of nine particular viewpoints, and it is physically impossible (in the alignment-driven physics of D&D I mean) to care more strongly about anything other than your chosen viewpoint, because then there is no alignment that you follow and you must follow an alignment.

[Lorsa]

I've always favored an interpretation of lawful and chaotic alignments that casts them upon a spectrum from socialistic to libertarian, more or less. So, a lawful character's ideal society is one that focuses on structural solutions to problems, who believes that a strong community produces strong individuals. The chaotic character, on the other hand, is more inclined to see problems, even large ones, as the result of individuals making individual decisions, rather than some flaw in the system. As a corollary to this, lawful characters are more inclined to posit 'nature or nurture' as influences on individuals, where chaotic characters would argue in favor of free will and, therefore, personal responsibility being important concepts.

I would like to point out that socialism and libertarianism are by no means mutually exclusive so trying to have an axis where they are at opposite ends won't work. Chaotic aligned people will definitely be libertarian in outlook but lawful has nothing to do with socialism. Socio-liberal or socia-anarchistic even is a perfectly valid political standpoint and calling them exclusive is rather narrowminded. Furthermore I think a chaotic character would be inclined to see large problems as the faults of the system just as likely or maybe even more likely than individuals. A lawful person would say "the system is great, it was just this person that failed it" whereas a chaotic person would say "if one person can do this, the system is obviously failed".

[Slipperychicken]

But neutrality ends up just being some midpoint between law and chaos and good and evil.

On the good/evil axis, I see Neutrality as a state where a person is not willing to commit truly heinous or selfless acts. To a Neutral person, heinous/Evil acts (murder, torture) are unconscionable under normal circumstances, yet overly selfless/good acts (risking one's life or financial survival for others) ask too much of him. Though circumstance can potentially press him into either extreme, he doesn't normally act like a particularly good or bad person.


A Neutral person doesn't try to fight evil or commit it. He might want the forces of good to win (though if evil can offer him a better deal, he'll take it), but he won't make big sacrifices unless he needs to. He just keeps his head down, stays out of trouble, and tries to make the best of things.

[JennTora]

I would like to point out that socialism and libertarianism are by no means mutually exclusive so trying to have an axis where they are at opposite ends won't work. Chaotic aligned people will definitely be libertarian in outlook but lawful has nothing to do with socialism. Socio-liberal or socia-anarchistic even is a perfectly valid political standpoint and calling them exclusive is rather narrowminded. Furthermore I think a chaotic character would be inclined to see large problems as the faults of the system just as likely or maybe even more likely than individuals. A lawful person would say "the system is great, it was just this person that failed it" whereas a chaotic person would say "if one person can do this, the system is obviously failed".

Law does not have to be based on government. An anarchy can be just as lawful as any society. It would have to be a kind of structured anarchy where everyone lives by a complex code but no one is really forcing that code on anyone.

I could see dwarves having such a society, in some settings.

[Slipperychicken]

Law does not have to be based on government. An anarchy can be just as lawful as any society. It would have to be a kind of structured anarchy where everyone lives by a complex code but no one is really forcing that code on anyone. Which pretty much sounds like several forms of social anarchy to me.

Anarchy is not chaos. All it means is there isn't a higher sovereign authority. International relations, for example, are considered anarchic because there is no single absolute authority over all countries (international organizations are by no means sovereigns), but they can certainly be civil, and cooperation happens more often than you'd think. I'll stop myself there to avoid being censored, but I think I got the point across.

Anarchy as a philosophy relies on the idea that peoples' inherent good tendencies will lead them to treat each other justly and have a functional society, provided they are not restrained or oppressed by authorities. So although the only law under anarchy is inner morality, it is possible for an anarchist to be considered "Lawful" in the D&D sense.

[JennTora]

Anarchy is not chaos.

An anarchy can be just as lawful as any society.

Excellent job saying pretty much exactly what I said there buddy.

[imaloony]

I have never played with a true neutral character, no, because True Neutral kind of changed between AD&D and 3.5

In AD&D, True Neutral is literally "Balance in everything." If you save someone's life, you've got to kill someone else. If you're in a battle and the other side is horribly outnumbered, you join their side. My DM's advice on TN in AD&D? "Don't play it."
In 3.5 TN is more an average peasant who doesn't really care one way or another. Similar to CN, but just not horribly greedy.

This is more from our group's perspective, however, I'm sure other people interpret it differently.