TN and How Strict You Follow AL

[ndragonsbane]

A friend of mine and I were having a discussion the other day and we found that we could not both define True Neutral and agree on a way that it should be played without having the character shift alignment by at least one step.

The problem for us is that we tend to use a rather subjective AL system, mentality, moral code, and intentions are more important for us than the actions themselves; granted the system doesn't seem to be setup to support that, but that's what we both do.

How do you guys view TN? Do you think it can be effectively played without changing AL? Hand in hand with that last question is just how strictly do you follow the preset AL guidelines?

As for me, I only really use alignment as an initial guide and I've had many games as both player and DM where alignment literally NEVER had any impact after character creation (and frankly I didn't notice any real difference in campaigns where AL was important).

[cody.burton]

The thing about TN is that there are at least three ways for a player to act and qualify as TN.

1. The generic human is supposed to be TN. Liking nice people and not liking mean people, but overall not caring enough to do too much about it. If you play this way, you wouldn't care or notice even if your alignment did change.
2. Holding all things in balance. This one is probably the hardest to pull off. It seems harder on the law-chaos axis than the good-evil axis, but that might just be me.
3. Being outside normal morality. e.g. A druid's primary concern is woodland and nature, not human morality, so they have to be at least part neutral.

[Emperor Tippy]

I usually play TN as someone who is just unconcerned with most things. Someone who has realized that doing a good thing can be quite evil and doing and evil thing can prevent a greater evil. The guy who will kill an innocent child when he overthrows the evil king because the child is the prince and could act as a rallying point for a civil war in 10 to 20 years.

As for the Law/Chaos axis its just a complete lack of caring what other people say the laws are.

[Hallavast]

As for the Law/Chaos axis its just a complete lack of caring what other people say the laws are.

Hmm... I'd have to dissagree here. If you don't care what other people say the laws are, then are you likely to obey the ones you don't want to? I'd say most people where i live do care what the laws are. Now, the people might actually be more lawful where i live (or people in general may be more lawful). But it's an interesting line of thought.

I would say that neutral characters dont care what the laws are that do not directly affect them. Thoughts?

[MrNexx]

True neutral characters are people who obey the law unless the consequences for breaking it aren't important to them, and who help others so long as it doesn't put them out.

For example, most people obey most laws most of the time... but how many people do you know feel fine doing 5-10 miles above the speed limit, or rolling through a stop sign if they don't see anyone coming? Those are unlawful acts... but those same people aren't robbing liquor stores or beating up old ladies for their SS checks.

Morally neutral characters tend to want to help people, but only so long as it doesn't put them out. They'll help old ladies cross the street, if they're going that way anyway. They like the idea of helping out starving people, and may even toss them a chunk of money (pocket change, especially), but certainly not if it means higher taxes, or losing something they have or value.

[Saph]

True neutral (neutral neutral) is just the human average, that's all. It's hard to define because it's the benchmark by which you define all the other alignments. When you say that a character's Lawful Good, or Chaotic Neutral, what you're really saying is "compared to a Neutral person".

Anything that's not particularly good, evil, lawful, or chaotic (which is most things) is neutral by definition. Most of the actions a PC does in a day are neutral. True Neutral should be the easiest alignment to play, not the hardest - just act normal.

There's also the "balance in everything" approach to True Neutral, but that's less common.

- Saph

[Curmudgeon]

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.

Playing a "lack of conviction" regarding chaos/law/good/evil should be the easiest, and most forgiving, of all the alignments to play. So going out of their way to help someone wouldn't push them a step toward good if there's a decent chance for personal gain by doing so. And obeying orders in an army wouldn't push them a step toward law if they're looking for a chance to cut and run when the opportunity knocks.

[MrNexx]

Ok, so you're a TN in a group full of good people, doing good things. How does this work?

1) You're in this for something other than good. Sure, it's nice to help people, but gratitude doesn't pay your bills. I had a bard whose motivation for being a hero was that would make him famous. He didn't particularly care about people (wasn't actively uncaring, just not really into helping for helping's sake), but he liked the fringe benefits of it... being famous, having women interested in him, and making gobs of money.

2) The people you are adventuring with (or for) are friends. A really easy one to overlook, but if your friends are going into danger, going along to make sure they live isn't "good" per se. They're people you know and care about. It is, in some ways, self-motivated to protect your "in-group."

3) It aligns with something else you care about. You're not driving off the gnoll raiders because they're killing people, but because their actions are hurting trade in the region, and you're a priest of the god of trade. Or you're a druid, and their hunting practices and mine tailings are ruining the environment.

Know your motivation. That's the key to neutral.

[Irreverent Fool]

I usually play TN as someone who is just unconcerned with most things. Someone who has realized that doing a good thing can be quite evil and doing and evil thing can prevent a greater evil. The guy who will kill an innocent child when he overthrows the evil king because the child is the prince and could act as a rallying point for a civil war in 10 to 20 years.

As for the Law/Chaos axis its just a complete lack of caring what other people say the laws are.

I think there is a problem here. I tend to define that sort of act as Chaotic Good (Or Chaotic Neutral depending on motives). I have trouble defining 'true neutral' in a way that agrees with my group as well. Luckily nobody ever has an intrest in trying to play TN. :)

[Bosh]

TN doesn't have to be apathetic, they can be very driven but just driven by things that aren't good/evil/lawful/chaotic. Like a workaholic businessman would probably be TN...

[TheOOB]

True Neutral isn't an alignment so much as a lack of an alignment. Alignment is measured if you are good or evil, lawful or chaotic. If none of those tags apply you are true neutral. True Neutral isn't "upholding the balance", thats a subjective ideal, and beings alignment is presented as being fairly objective, has little to do with balance.

Good, evil, law, and chaos all are qualities of people who have a stronger then average leaning twords that alignment. The average person tends to lean twords law and good for example, but not enough so to be either lawful or good, thus they are neutral. Someone can also have chaotic and evil tendancies, but not have them strong enough to be chaotic evil.