There are actually 10 D&D alignments. Discuss.

[Mr. Friendly]

Inspired by the difficult alignment thread, it got me thinking there are really 10 D&D alignments.

Lawful Evil/Good/Neutral
Chaotic Evil/Good/Neutral
Neutral Evil/Good

Then comes the 9th alignment: Neutral

and the 10th: True Neutral

While they are technically the same from a mechanical standpoint, they are pretty far apart in roleplaying and philosophy.

Neutral is the average person and the average animal. They don't really care, they are out to protect themselves and their interests, but won't go out of their way to help or hinder anyone.

True Neutral on the other hand is the active "Neutral Crusader" who seeks to bring balance to everything. So they are actively Helping/Hindering everyone as is needed.

That's a pretty significant deviation within one alignment.

Functionally I don't think it makes any difference within the game, with the exception of a Helm of Opposite Alignment, which I could see case for having it shift a Neutral "Bystander" to a True Neutral "Crusader" and vice versa.

It is however an interesting philosophical discussion.

[Catch]

I think that varying degrees of severity are applicable to all alignments, though.

Consider the Lawful Good village mayor who keeps his people civil and cooperating compared to a vengeful Paladin, hellbent on smiting evil whatever form it takes. The same goes for the Chaotic Evil thief who loves the thrill of breaking and entering. He's radically different from the megalomaniac Wizard who demands ultimate power no matter the cost. There's a big difference, yet the alignment is the same.

It all comes down to your perceived duty and goal in life. Alignment just shows your moral leanings; it doesn't necessarily predict how you'll act on them, though.

[Riffington]

I never bought that whole Crusading True Neutral thing.
It makes sense if you see alignments as political affiliations, sure. If Good means simply "I joined Bahamut in his fight against Tiamat", and you can be a rapist or a murderer or whatever as long as you're doing it to orcs, then fine. You can think that deep down, Bahamut's rule would suck as much as Tiamat's and play one side against the other.

But if alignments govern behavior rather than politics, then what would it mean to be Crusading Neutral? That you don't want too many murders, but you don't want too few? You want people to give charity... but if too many people are being too kind/nice then you better encourage asshattery and theft in order to stop this rampant happiness? I'd call that a special type of evil, not of neutral.

[Mr. Friendly]

Well, that's my point though. The description of the "nine" alignments as per the PHB; which even allowing for RP and minor outlook differentials within a single alignment, neutral and "True Neutral" are miles apart. One passively does nothing, the other actively does everything. At least, that's how it reads to me.

[Duke of URL]

You could just as easily say that there are , for example, two Neutral Good alignments -- one where the character actively seeks balance between law and chaos and another where issues of law and chaos don't matter in the cause of good.

People have enough problems with understanding alignments to make it more complicated, in my opinion.

[Mr. Friendly]

You could just as easily say that there are , for example, two Neutral Good alignments -- one where the character actively seeks balance between law and chaos and another where issues of law and chaos don't matter in the cause of good.

People have enough problems with understanding alignments to make it more complicated, in my opinion.

This was intended neither as a rules discussion, nor to help or hinder people with interpretations of alignments (neutral you might say), nor even as a discussion of how an alignment should or should not be played but rather as a philosophical discussion about alignment.

As for your example of the two NG characters, even if one did passively ignore Law/Chaos while the other actively crusaded to balance them, they are both still tempered by their Good nature. Thus the greater Good still must be served. There is no such requirement on the Neutral character.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, frankly, there's also a huge difference between Lawful Good , and Lawful Good . Does that make eleven, then? Or fourteen?

[Ulzgoroth]

I think you're misunderstanding the TN crusader. It doesn't say that they advocate an even balance of good and evil deeds. That would probably be a rather eccentric lawful evil, really.

What they do advocate is a 'balanced' neutral perspective. They think good is as bad as evil, but not that good should be counterweighted by evil. Both the good and the evil need to go away for the neutral to be satisfied. There is one point about advocating a balance between good and evil. But that was for each individual, and it's reasonable to say that they also favor a balance in each act.

The difference between active and passive true neutral is really that a passive true neutral may well disapprove of or be unaware of their own neutrality.

[Riffington]

What they do advocate is a 'balanced' neutral perspective. They think good is as bad as evil, but not that good should be counterweighted by evil. Both the good and the evil need to go away for the neutral to be satisfied.

So it is as important to stomp out charity, love, and hugs as it is to stomp out theft and hatred?

[Tengu]

True Neutral Crusader has a prerequesite of being completely retarded, possessing a moral system that makes all other armchair philosophers laugh at you. Such characters probably carry notebooks with themselves where they check the balance of their good and evil deeds:
"Hmm, I have just kicked a puppy, so I must help an old lady cross the road now. I also must go on a small murderous rampage to balance the fact that I saved that hamlet from goblins last Wednesday."

[Aris Katsaris]

Well, frankly, there's also a huge difference between Lawful Good , and Lawful Good . Does that make eleven, then? Or fourteen?

Roy is Actively Good, but only Passively Lawful -- he goes out of his way to do good things, but doesn't go out of his way to enforce either a personal code of honour or the community's legal system on others.

Miko is Actively Lawful -- she seeks to enforce what she feels her duty or her gods command.

Haley is Actively Good and Passively Chaotic - goes out of her way to do good things, but chaotic is simply part of her personality, she doesn't actively seek it out.

Belkar is Actively Evil and Actively Chaotic - he enjoys chaos and disrupting order for its own sake. (see for example when he preferred putting things on fire compared to Haley's more orderly approach).

Other alignments as I perceive them:
Elan: Actively Good, Actively Chaotic
Durkon: Actively Good, Actively Lawful
Nale: Actively Evil, Passively Lawful
Varsuvius: Passively Neutral. (she is balanced, she doesn't seek to enforce balance)
Roy's dad: Passively Good, Passively Lawful

[Fishy]

The alignment system is one of the three stupidest things about D&D.

That said, in a universe where 'Killing halflings' is Evil, but 'Killing Goblins' is Good, there's room for a philosophical position of 'Stop it, both of you'- which I guess you could call True Neutral.

[Tengu]

Killing goblins usually is good because, you know, you are defending someone from them. Just entering a peaceful goblin village and slaughtering all denizens is not good.

[Fishy]

Zombies, then.

[Hallavast]

I agree. True Neutral is indeed different from Neutral. The balance crusader is not retarded or otherwise deficient of logical thought. Nor is he evil. We as humans are simply culturally biased against this kind of thinking. We can't see the big picture. If there is indeed a reason that there must be a balance between some semi-tangible force of good and one of evil, would we be able to percieve it anyway?

As an example, I will use an idea from the Avatar series by Troy Denning. In Fae Run the new god of the dead, Kelemvor has been granting pardons and asylum for those who die without faith in the gods but ar otherwise good people. The broad effect of this would be that people are no longer afraid of dying without faith in any god, and so many turn from the gods (who in turn lose power and control over the world and some messed up **** starts to happen). So, by sentencing a faithless soul to their doom regardless of the content of thier character, Kelemvor preserves the balance and the world can continue to go on.

So a true neutral person would not excercise this idea on such a small scope as to "kick a puppy to balance out saving someone from a mugger earlier that day". They would instead make sure that a general balance is kept within the town between the forces of good and evil. If one side is about to totally dominate the other in a specific region, the true neutral person would take small steps to counterbalance this herneation of power.

It's the same idea that without a sensation of "warm", there can be no "cold". And by lighting a candle, you cast a shadow. Everything in moderation and nothing in excess. For every high there is a low, and for every to there is a fro. If everyone was a millionaire, then nobody would be rich. A story without conflict is rather lame, and a hero without a villain is nonexistent.

In this great story of life, some are forced to play the part of evil and some the part of good. True Neutral characters are the ones that realize we need moderation between the two for the story to go on.

[Riffington]

You mean, ensuring that human corpses get a proper burial? Isn't that considered a good thing in every society?

[Ulzgoroth]

So it is as important to stomp out charity, love, and hugs as it is to stomp out theft and hatred?

Well, charity maybe. Love and suchlike is probably not objectionable in most TNs. Self-sacrifice for individual relationships is well within the scope of neutral.

But...essentially yes. Probably doesn't call for the same means, but for activist neutrality to work you have to take the premise that Good is a bad thing too. I haven't read any, but from what I've heard Ayn Rand might be a good reference for this perspective.

It's easier to make the case, though, when good is constantly and violently uprooting evil without regard for side effects.

[Riffington]

I haven't read any, but from what I've heard Ayn Rand might be a good reference for this perspective.

It's easier to make the case, though, when good is constantly and violently uprooting evil without regard for side effects.

No, this does not describe Ayn Rand at all. She advocates against charity, but only because she thinks it destroys self-reliance and is illogical, and otherwise antithetical to human flourishing. Actual followers of her are usually NG, but the standard English definitions of her words would be LE. She is not a useful example because she's confusing to most people.

As to good uprooting evil without regard for side effects... well, good people (or neutral, or evil) can certain oppose other good peoples' haste. But if you have a principled position of supporting evil as a counterweight to goodness (and for the sake of making peoples' stories more interesting), you're being evil, not neutral.

[Hallavast]

You mean, ensuring that human corpses get a proper burial? Isn't that considered a good thing in every society?

Uh. No. Kelemvor is the god of the dead. He rules his own plane. This plane is where people go when they die if they are either a worshiper of Kelemvor, or a faithless soul. The punishment for the faithless is that they form the wall of souls surrounding the city of the dead (not a pleasant fate). Kelemvor tried to change this by saying that even if you don't follow the gods, you can still live peacefully in my city if you were a generally good person. This caused people to lose fear of dying without faith, and so some stopped worshiping the gods altogether (which, on a large enough scale, would lead to the destruction of the world).

So, by doing something evil (damning a good soul to a version of hell), Kelemvor helps protect the world.

Edit: sorry, Riff. I didn't realize you weren't addressing my ealier post.

I will leave this here for clarification though...

[Fishy]

You mean, ensuring that human corpses get a proper burial? Isn't that considered a good thing in every society?

Not even among humans, actually.

Not if you have complete and total assurance that the fate Grandpa's soul is pretty much independant of his body. Not if eating the corpse is a sign of respect, or if you feel the need to return the biomatter to the ecosystem, or if zombies are tilling your fields and feeding your village, or any thousand things.

Kelemvor tried to change this by saying that even if you don't follow the gods, you can still live peacefully in my city if you were a generally good person. This caused people to lose fear of dying without faith, and so some stopped worshiping the gods altogether (which, on a large enough scale, would lead to the destruction of the world).

So, by doing something evil (damning a good soul to a version of hell), Kelemvor helps protect the world.

That's... really stupid. If he's going to inspire faith through fear (which is already morally questionable), why didn't he tell the humans that the world would die if they stopped worshipping?

[Duke of URL]

As for your example of the two NG characters, even if one did passively ignore Law/Chaos while the other actively crusaded to balance them, they are both still tempered by their Good nature. Thus the greater Good still must be served. There is no such requirement on the Neutral character.

Yes, there is. The crusading "true neutral" still has to temper issues of law and chaos with those of good and evil. Just because the NG, LN, CN, or NE folks are skewed on one axis or another doesn't change the fact that on the non-skewed axis, there is a difference between active balance and inactive indifference.

If you're really trying to represent the difference between active vs. passive neutrality, then let me suggest that passive neutrality (on either axis) is not a Neutral alignment, but rather no alignment at all. A NG whose law/chaos view is ambivalent would simply have an alignment of "Good". A TN who either lacked the capacity (e.g., a non-intelligent animal) or the passion to care about issues of law and chaos or good and evil would essentially be unaligned.

So it is as important to stomp out charity, love, and hugs as it is to stomp out theft and hatred?

Sure, why not? From a Neutral (good/evil axis) viewpoint, the former leads to creating a sense of dependency and the denial of the responsibilities of the individual; the latter acts step on the rights of the individual.

It's easier to accept, perhaps, on the Law/Chaos axis -- rigid rules/codes are too restrictive, but anarchy is likewise unacceptable.

[Hallavast]

That's... really stupid. If he's going to inspire faith through fear (which is already morally questionable),

K. He didn't make the rules for his job (and he isn't the first god of the dead).
Also, morality is apparently not a goal that the creator of Toril (Ao) was striving for, as it is subjective in his eyes.

why didn't he tell the humans that the world would die if they stopped worshipping?

How can you get an entire planet to listen to you just by telling them something? Even a god couldn't do that. You need some kind of reinforcement, or most people just tell you to piss off.

Edit: Another important part of this story that I forgot to mention is that, by not going through with damning good souls, Kelemvor also made it so that some people were no longer afraid to die (like soldiers). So battles were beginning to be fought differently as well. This further messed up the world.

[Riffington]

Sure, why not? From a Neutral (good/evil axis) viewpoint, the former leads to creating a sense of dependency and the denial of the responsibilities of the individual; the latter acts step on the rights of the individual.

It's easier to accept, perhaps, on the Law/Chaos axis -- rigid rules/codes are too restrictive, but anarchy is likewise unacceptable.

Well, with the Law/Chaos axis, this makes more sense. There is something you believe in, it's a worthwhile thing to be believing in, and you strive to promote it. So that makes you Good. You could easily do it in a Neutral Good way. Note that you could as easily be an LG or CG person promoting this NG goal.

But as for Good/Evil... what is motivating you? If you want to ensure that people avoid dependency, and to promote personal responsibility... those are Good aims. Just like in my religion, the highest form of charity is to help someone start a business.

I mean, there are goals that people crusade for, which are neither good nor evil. Like some people work hard to promote stamp-collecting. So in that sense you could be a neutral crusader. But to crusade for balance? I mean, "Death to all Fanatics" is a great bumper sticker and all, but...

[Fixer]

I made a post a while back about neutrality. Never did get enough feedback to complete it.

I must disagree that there are 10 alignments. There are simply degrees of the 9 alignments. Some are more passionate than others about their particular ethical or moral belief. Those more passionate then have decisions on how to demonstrate their passions, either by active enforcement or by role-model.

So, I suppose, two degrees of each ethical and alignment choice as well as two means of demonstrating each choice. So... (4+4+4+4+2+2+2+2+1)x2 is 50 various methods of demonstrating ones' beliefs.

These would be the active enforcement stereotypes:
{table]|Strong Good|Weak Good|Neutral|Weak Evil|Strong Evil
Strong Lawful|Paladin|Noble Police|Regular Police|Dirty Police|Corrupt Bureaucrat
Weak Lawful|Paladin|Noble Police|Regular Police|Crooked Cop|Criminal Enforcers
Neutral|Really Nice People|Mostly Nice People|Balancers|Mostly Mean People|Really Mean People
Weak Chaotic|Social Activists|Opportunistic Helpers|Opportunistic Criminals|Mean Gang Members|Cruel Gang Members
Strong Chaotic|Robin Hood-types|Freedom Fighters|Active Criminals|Solo Career Criminals|Mostly Psychopaths[/table]

[Azerian Kelimon]

I might also point out Gods have above epic powers. D'you think Gods can't do a Worldwide telepathic bond spell?

[Riffington]

I made a post a while back about neutrality. Never did get enough feedback to complete it.

I remember seeing it, and thinking "golly there's a lot of traits there that neutral people might have, but so might non-neutral people". I don't know that there'll ever be a unified theory of what is sort of the "miscellaneous" alignment.

[Fishy]

How can you get an entire planet to listen to you just by telling them something? Even a god couldn't do that. You need some kind of reinforcement, or most people just tell you to piss off.

The entire world apparently got the message that Kelemvor was damning people.

Edit: Another important part of this story that I forgot to mention is that, by not going through with damning good souls, Kelemvor also made it so that some people were no longer afraid to die (like soldiers). So battles were beginning to be fought differently as well. This further messed up the world.

But is that 'messed up', truly, or 'changing to reflect the new reality?' The status quo isn't necessarially a good thing, particularly if there really is an infinite afterlife.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as abrasive, but it just seems to me that underneath the fantasy trappings, this is a 'god works in mysterious ways' story, and I just can't stand those.

[Fixer]

I remember seeing it, and thinking "golly there's a lot of traits there that neutral people might have, but so might non-neutral people". I don't know that there'll ever be a unified theory of what is sort of the "miscellaneous" alignment.

Well, yeah. A neutral good person will have some aspects of neutrality, a Neutral Evil person will have similar aspects of neutrality, a Chaotic Neutral person will have an entirely different aspect of neutrality, etc.

[Ulzgoroth]

No, this does not describe Ayn Rand at all. She advocates against charity, but only because she thinks it destroys self-reliance and is illogical, and otherwise antithetical to human flourishing. Actual followers of her are usually NG, but the standard English definitions of her words would be LE. She is not a useful example because she's confusing to most people.

Um, while I may be one of the confused, your statement about why she advocates against charity seems well within the bounds of neutral thinking. So I don't see your disagreement here. You could claim that that's a 'good' motivation for radically defying traditional Good principles, but I'm not seeing the self-sacrifice here. Which means that socially favorable or not, we're looking at neutral.

As to good uprooting evil without regard for side effects... well, good people (or neutral, or evil) can certain oppose other good peoples' haste. But if you have a principled position of supporting evil as a counterweight to goodness (and for the sake of making peoples' stories more interesting), you're being evil, not neutral.

However, this may be it. I explicitly rejected the notion that active neutral means counterweighting good with evil. Good and evil are both the enemy. That doesn't mean, in general, that you help one enemy or the other so that the foes on both sides are more symmetric.

[Hallavast]

The entire world apparently got the message that Kelemvor was damning people.

I would assume this is because there was evidence to this effect. You can't prove the world will die without the world actually dying, unfortunately... Also, there are some groups of people that actually want the world to die, so telling them how to do it wouldn't be productive.

But is that 'messed up', truly, or 'changing to reflect the new reality?' The status quo isn't necessarially a good thing, particularly if there really is an infinite afterlife.

It was "messed up" in the eyes of Ao (whom I personally don't like), because this would eventually destroy the way he wanted the world to work. Whether this is good or bad is almost certainly unknowable.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as abrasive, but it just seems to me that underneath the fantasy trappings, this is a 'god works in mysterious ways' story, and I just can't stand those.

I don't mind you coming off as abrasive. Frankly it's one of the few ways to "come off" that I actually understand. And in Fae run, I don't think the whole "god works in mysterious ways" thing is put there to stop us from questioning the motives of higher beings. I think it's there because Ao has a secret agenda.

But like I said, just because something is alien to us doesnt mean it is illogical. It probably just means there is something about it that we don't know yet. That's what I believe about True Neutrality. I just wish I could figure out what the unknown bit is. I don't think anyone on earth knows, though.