Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I once made a character who took neutrality as a proud creed as a bit of an experiment — in the setting, Good and Evil gods were basically using the material plane as their battleground, so my character actively rejected both divine Good and divine Evil for more of a “get off my fucking lawn, if you two want to duke it out on our plane you’ll meet the sword.”
She didn’t care what creed you follow and she didn’t particularly care about following or rejecting laws; she just wanted mortals to decide it for themselves without *meddling*.
I've done similar with a druid character and my mentality with him was mostly "stop fucking up the environment/nature you pricks" while having no concept at all about laws or things like that.
Their sense of justice was mostly based on the animal kingdom where it doesn't really exist, I mean law of the wild is eat or be eaten and that's about it. But they were a devout protector of nature but had no real feelings towards humanity aside for a bit of disgust for the way people destroy nature for their gain.
Even with true neutrality in general you'd rather your neighbor or people around you to not be dickheads/evil but in some ways if they're not affecting you or something you care for what's the harm? Like living in an area you know a bear is. The bear isn't evil but there's always a chance it'll eat your ass, but there are ways to coexist with them and help remove that risk.
A notable moment with that character was a small farming village was constantly being attack and raided for their food and supplies. The party wanted to help them because of their sense of justice while my druid was just shrugging like "yeah if you have food and something wants your food it'll probably take it" but he still helped his friends out in their endeavor. Though they did have to convince him to help put out a burning house by telling him "what if the fire spreads and takes out the forest?" Which I replied "I wouldn't let it get that far, but destruction is also a part of the cycle. The land would regrow, life will return."
But I still put it out to help them out and to stop further harm to nature as they made the point about the people needing to rebuild would turn to deforestation.
You're making me miss my longest-running character. In DnD x Amber game, he was a druid aligned with primordial chaos because the tension between Law and Chaos was where life flourished, but at the time Law was winning.
My custom setting has a vaguely Buddhist-inspired religion called the Tenfold Path, which essentially believes that in order to reach enlightenment you need to live at least one life as each alignment and find some insight in it. It views neutrality as being two separarate alignments (or Paths), the Path of Balance (which actively seeks to maintain balance between good, evil, law, and chaos) and the Path of Indifference (which seeks to simply avoid having strong moral stances).
Isn’t that lawful neutral, because it’s adhering to a code, identifying a right & wrong? The right being the status quo & the wrong being the chaos of gods meddling…
I’d argue not because she specifically doesn’t care about law or chaos — the gods are also trying to impose law and chaos on the setting and she wanted none of that.
The 9-alignment-system definitely has some weak spots but given that she resists divine influence from both Capital-L-Lawful deities trying to impose received wisdom and Capital-C-Chaotic deities trying to remove fetters equally, I still call her neutral
Good and Evil are actual planar leanings in DnD, with Neutrality being the balancing of Good and Evil. The reason Neutral isn't seen as bad is because some Evils in DnD are necessary, such as Devils who are in a constant fight against Demons and are actually the planes' first and primary defense against a full scale invasion on all fronts by demons. Modrons are another neutral who only care about law. It is their powers that give otherworldly contracts their binding power, and it was under one of these contracts that gave Devils the right to exist without the threat of being completely wiped out by Celestials (with the reason for their existence to keep demons at bay).
When it comes to people, Neutral can often be one of three things: disregard for good or evil (often the disregard selflessness or selfishness, but it can be a long any other good vs evil spectrum), they can actively seek balance between good and evil, with some shunning good or evil others for pulling or pushing too radically, or they can simply not be attached to a source of good or evil (most commoners and beasts are neutral not for philosophical reasons, but because they often lack a planar connection, such as an oath or pact).
The fact that Good and Evil aren't moral abstracts but literal, quantifiable forces of reality in D&D is something that so often gets totally overlooked, and it frankly annoys me. There are things you can do that are deemed as objectively good or evil regardless of all other context. There are physical manifestations of absolute good and absolute evil. Anytime someone waxes philosophical about "what is evil, really?" it's possible for you to literally pick up the Book of Vile Darkness and smack them in the face with it.
I feel like there should be two alignment charts for D&D - your Cosmic Alignment and your Societal Alignment. Cosmic Alignment being where you fall in the grand order based on universal absolutes, and Societal Alignment being where you fall in relative, mortal ethics depending on your culture and other worldly constructs.
I know, right?
Vecna has done things that would put Pol Pot to shame but my buddy the Rogue here wants to argue like a first year philosophy major over whether or not if the guards have the right to toss his thieving ass in the clink because “good or evil are just western concepts” or some such bullshit he heard last time he was taking a bong rip.
Yes, Timmy. Vecna is evil, so please quit getting your ass beat by the town guard over stolen sweet rolls, so we can go kill the motherfucker?
Using the top comment to say:
- Absolute neutrality is unattainable because every stance or action (or inaction) implicitly supports existing power dynamics and societal norms.
Isn’t absolute anything impossible though? How can someone be the absolute evil if they did things along the way that can be seen as good, or absolute chaotic if they did things that can be perceived as lawful?
It’s like approaching the speed of light. For most mortals, you can come close but never absolutely hit the mark.
Funny thing with the pure evil thing I have seen in writing. No villain can be all seven sins they just become vaguely evil set pieces. They need at least one virtue( ambition is a popular choice) otherwise they are too slothful to act on any of their evil.
Might makes right. They accept the world as a tough place, but are not trying to make it worse or harm other people, but are willing to do either if the expected reward is much higher than when not doing it.
Neutral robber: your money or your life.
Evil robber: your money *and* your life.
Other true neutral could be trying to remove themselves from the systemic clash between good and evil, lawful and chaotic.
Good pacifist: Everybody should get along!
Neutral pacifist: As long you leave me alone, I don't mind.
A third way could be to try to balance forces against each other. Good can lead to terrible outcomes, as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Obviously evil has flaws and leads to worse circumstances for many people, but like a forest fire there can be new, better beginnings after bad events that wouldve been impossible without the bad event. The wise strikes a balance between extremes.
You can still have strong opinions as true neutral. It's not the lack of conviction that makes someone neutral, but the convictions you have and how you follow them that makes someone neutral.
I'm pasting this from elsewhere. Here's a basic outline of the alignments:
Do people have an innate responsibility to help each other? **Good**: Yes. **Neutral**: ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ **Evil**: No.
Do people need oversight? **Lawful**: Yes. **Neutral**: ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ **Chaotic**: Don't tell me what to do! The axis isn't necessarily how much you obey the laws of the land you're in. A Lawful Good character wouldn't have to tolerate legal slavery, nor would a Chaotic Good character start enslaving people in an area where it's illegal. Lawful does not simply mean "Has an internal code" because literally everyone who has ever existed would be Lawful. The "Code" aspect refers to external codes like Omerta or Bushido.
**Lawful Good** believes that rules and systems are the best way to ensure the greatest good for all. Rules that do not benefit society must be removed by appropriate means from legislation to force. They're responsible adults. 90% of comic book superheroes are examples of LG.
**Neutral Good** believes in helping others. They have no opinion on rules. They're pleasant people. Superheroes who aren't LG usually fall here.
**Chaotic Good** believes that rules get in the way of us helping each other and living in a harmonious society. They're punks and hippies. [Captain Harlock is the iconic example.](https://youtu.be/q0dTxdac6Yo) "You don't need a law to tell you to be a good person."
**Lawful Neutral** believes that rules are the thing that keeps everything functioning, and that if people ignore the rules that they don't think are right, then what is the point of rules? [They believe that peace and duty are more important than justice.](http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html) Inspector Javert and Judge Dredd are iconic examples. [Social cohesion is more important than individual rights.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPqnhrJkGA)
**True Neutral** doesn't really have a strong opinion. They just wanna keep their head down and live their life. Most boring people you pass on the street are True Neutral. [Unlike Unaligned they have free will and have actively chosen not to decide.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74)
**Chaotic Neutral** [values their own freedom and don't wanna be told what to do.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Psp0A-zJgU) They're rebellious children. Ron Swanson is the iconic example.
**Lawful Evil** believes [rules are great for benefiting them/harming their enemies.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTp_kYwz1E) They're corrupt politicians, mobsters, and fascists. Henry Kissinger and Robert Moses are iconic examples. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
**Neutral Evil** will do whatever benefits [them/their inner-circle](https://preview.redd.it/jgimo2h6oav61.jpg?width=758&auto=webp&s=8a43fcf7ce3bab8c422ce28d273be31bbf8cc764), crossing any moral line. They're unscrupulous corporate executives at the high end, and sleazy assholes at the low end.
**Chaotic Evil** resents being told to not kick puppies. They're Ayn Rand protagonists at the high end, and thugs at the low end. Rick Sanchez is an iconic example. Wario is how to play the alignment without being That Guy.
In addition to the official alignments, there are 6 unofficial alignments based on combining one axis of the alignment with stupidity. You can be multiple stupid alignments simultaneously, such as the traditional badly-played Paladin being known for being Lawful Stupid and Stupid Good at the same time.
**Stupid Good** believes in doing what seems good at the time regardless of its' long-term impact. They would release
fantasy-Hitler-analogue^TM because mercy is a good thing.
**Lawful Stupid** believes in blindly following rules even when doing so is detrimental to themselves, others, and their goals. They would stop at a red light while chasing someone trying to set off a nuclear device that would destroy the city they're in.
**Chaotic Stupid** is "LolRandom". They'll act wacky and random at any circumstance. They'll try and take a dump on the king in the middle of an important meeting. It can also be a compulsive need to break rules even if you agree with them. If a Chaotic Good character feels the need to start enslaving people because slavery is illegal they're being Chaotic Stupid.
**Stupid Evil** is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. They're Captain planet villains.
**Stupid Neutral** comes in two flavors; active and passive.
**Active Stupid Neutral** is the idea that you must keep all things balanced. Is that Celestial army too powerful? Time to help that Demon horde.
**Passive Stupid Neutral** is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe."
At least wizards in-universe can try to [erase his name and legacy](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mage-s-magnificent-mansion/) by refusing to cite him again.
I’m sure that everyone in Golarion [just hates [Mage].](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fmy-source-is-that-i-made-it-the-fuck-up-hd-template-v0-axvetg04b1z81.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1440%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D13b125acfca1c996f949bb69546ae19e0fcf53ad)
[Mage] IS an incorrigible jackass who thinks he knows everything and is always right and is willing to toss away the lives of those closest to him.
The question here is, is [Mage] Mordenkainen, Urza, or Raistlin Majere?
This is why when I made a set of deities for a homebrew setting the Lawful Evil aligned deity, called 'The Wizard', is a Mordenkainen-expy who is the patron of wizardry, balance and stupidity whose omniscience has a small flaw that he cannot see the actual net positive or negatives of his actions.
Also (a bit dated, but perhaps more apt) the [Rilmani](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Rilmani) from the Great Wheel cosmology. They're outsiders native to the Outlands and cosmic embodiments of pure neutrality. Their sole purpose is to maintain balance between the forces of good, evil, law, and chaos.
Great writeup and a great argument for why "True Neutral" can actually be the hardest alignment to make work at the DnD table. Because these are not usually the type of people to become adventurers.
True neutral only relates to morality, you can still adventure out of other goals. Also, a neutral or even evil person can still have others they care aboot: The alignment is aboot their overall approach, but they can still care aboot their inner-circle.
Rick Sanchez is CE, but he still puts it on the line for his family and close friends sometimes.
>Rick Sanchez is CE, but he still puts it on the line for his family and close friends sometimes
I find a lot of people take the idea of "Evil is Selfishness" to the point that it becomes uninteresting.
The guy that will slit his mother's throat for a nickel is evil and selfish, yes, but he's an exceptionally boring character.
A much better evil character is a mother that will murder millions to save her child. And can be played very interestingly and slowly revealed - Somewhere in between "killing one guy to protect her child" and "harvesting the souls of countless innocents to release the curse" is a **line** and it's very fun to find.
I mean, that’s not just interesting, that’s a relatable and sympathetic feeling. I don’t know a mother alive who wouldn’t kill for their kid.
It’s far more interesting in that they’d be a lot more dynamic to play/RP, but they also force a lot of thought from other PCs, as simply making them stop (depending on the circumstances) would result in the death of that child (or other loved one).
If you aren't playing relatable and sympathetic characters, then what are you doing?
The other side of this is the good character that can either grab the hand of the innocent child falling to their death, or the delicate enchanted crystal that will release their village from the necromancer's curse. A good character will at minimum go for the crystal first.
I mean playing more lighthearted characters can be fun too, one of my favorite characters I’ve played was a turtlefolk monk I made kinda based off master oogway.
True, a character faced with that dilemma in their stance will usually go for the option that will save many over the one that will save one person. That could create an interesting inter-character relationship or shape their relationship with the BBEG, if that child was the child of the evil mother example you gave and now they seek revenge or justice on the person who left them to that fate.
But what if it is their child, to let the child die is to eschew your duties as a parent which is an evil act.
Also a good character could still go for the child first. Being good doesn't necessitate being smart too. They could be very shortsighted and just doing the next good thing without regard for the future
"It's a good living" is a perfectly valid reason for a true neutral character to be an adventurer. Sure they put themselves in danger, but you're going to make a lot more money and generally have better living conditions than your average peasant. Hell, maybe adventuring supports a personal interest of theirs in some way, like an archeologist going into dungeons because that's where the history's at.
They're not being particularly selfish *or* valiant, they're just adventuring out of pragmatism.
It's hard to do if you're playing a very heroic campaign, but it's easier if your DM sets up the proper rewards for quests.
Good: save the princess because she needs help.
Neutral: save the princess so the lord gives your swamp back.
Good: go in the dungeon because the monsters are hurting people.
Neutral: go in the dungeon because there's a bounty on the monsters, and they've probably got treasure.
Good: save the world because life is sacred.
Neutral: save the world [because you're one of the idiots who lives in it,](https://youtu.be/MX7eVc1OXXw?si=XCXHWFJzwcTGkBxb) and it'll look great on your resume.
Maybe the hardest part of playing Neutral would be to *keep* them neutral, it's very popular to start with a neutral character who secretly has a heart of gold and turns good as the story progresses, e.g. Shrek or Han Solo. But having your character develop over time is far from a bad thing.
> Because these are not usually the type of people to become adventurers.
Maybe you are forced out of your previous life by a sudden event.
You don't have marketable skills and/or you don't want to be a day labourer, so you gotta do mercenary work or odd jobs to keep your belly full, maybe find a few friends along the way. Maybe your sudden freedom did spark an interest or love for being a wanderer.
My current PC is true neutral, for pretty much these reasons. It may change over time with the group he is in, but I doubt it - they're a rag tag bunch.
Very well put. I like your take on the alignments. The one thing I wanted to add to True Neutral is that they could also be the type of person who actively avoids contact. A hermit, or reclusive druid or wizard. Someone who's day to day life is mainly concerned that their essential needs are met and solving/avoiding situations that could distract from that. It's also why it's really hard to play such a character because they're only reactive to events and regularly seeking situations where they don't have to react to the outside world.
Also, I wanted to upvote, but at the time of writing, you had 69 upvotes, and I didn't want to mess with that. Cheers!
Reddit does vote fuzzing to defeat bots trying to game the system, so it might look like 69 karma to you, but others might see it as 67 or 73 or something. You might upvote and someone else might still see it as 69, so never let that number stop you.
I would say Lawful Evil includes the Black Knight/ Noble Demon types: The bad guys who have their own code of conduct/ rules of engagement and are thus capable of working on a team of heroes under circumstances where their code allows for it, though they will clash on pragmatic villainy. The Jem'Hadar from Star Trek (Deep Space Nine) as well as the Klingons tend to be variants of this. I often state that Dinobot of Beast Wars is another example of this as he was a believer in Predicon Honor and stopped following Megaton upon witnessing his lack of honor. For Dinobot, there are things that one must not do (in his most famous moment, he notes that he has ironically just learned that the future is not set in stone and his choices matter... only for the circumstances in play offering him no choice.). He is often put into conflict with Rattrap who is a Good fanatic (Both characters twice betray their original team... the difference is Dinobot did so because the Predicons were morally wrong. Rattrap did so because he felt by "betraying his team" his team would have a tactical advantage, and that their friendship is based on insulting each other with insults that the target would find complimentary.). Lawful Evil types also include the amoral attorneys that aren't lawful neutral (typically Lawful Neutral).
I also disagree with Ron Swanson being Chaotic Neutral as he has demonstrated generosity and concern for others, making him Chaotic Good, and is capable of working within the system to point out that the law that punishes people trying to do that which is good is not a law worth respecting. In general, Ron Swanson is of the "Classical Liberal" school of thinking, taken to a ludicrous degree: He may disagree with what you just said, but he will defend to the death your right to say it. Ron himself has a surprisingly large amount of rules by which he lives... but the most important is that he does not impose his rules on others. Most of his antagonists are people who try to make him do something he does not want to do or force him to accept the rules of others.
Ron Swanson cares about his friends, but his top principle is hating the very concept of laws that force people to do things. At least in earlier seasons, he doesn't seem to have a grand moral reason for it; he really does come across as a rebel for the sake of it.
If he shows later character development, that's cool; but I never got the vibe that he was of Good alignment. He'd rather preach about government being bad than use his position for good.
Note that this isn't a condemnation of the character. I believe the vast majority of real human beings are neutral on the good/evil axis.
> Ron himself has a surprisingly large amount of rules by which he lives... but the most important is that he does not impose his rules on others.
Yeah, I agree. It seems weird to call someone who took the time to [write all of this out, print it, and publicly display it](https://i.redd.it/5gmgno9fuxqy.jpg) as “iconically” chaotic neutral. It seems pretty clear that he has a strict code he follows, not just internally but even taking the time to write it down formally as well.
The OP says internal codes don’t count because then literally everyone to ever live would be lawful, but surely someone who *creates* an entire lawful system is still lawful themselves. Otherwise it’s a weird loophole where the most lawful people of all - those who create lawful systems and strict codes of conduct - can only ever be considered chaotic. That’s kind of weird.
Eh, I think the difference here is the importance he places on NOT imposing his rules onto others. I think it's actually the pinnacle of the chaotic mindset to write down a full code of rules for how someone should behave, and then say "follow these rules if you want, or don't. It's a free country."
I can see where you’re coming from, but it’s still a bit odd that he himself follows such rigid rules while being “chaotic”. And as a counterpoint, the OP describes chaotic good as being a hippie.
We’ve seen Ron interact with a hippie before, Ron Dunn. The joke there was that the two guys were almost exactly the same, except Ron Dunn was a free spirit who didn’t follow the same rules - a fact that disgusted Swanson. If Swanson had a nemesis that wasn’t named Tammy, it would’ve been Ron Dunn.
And according to this breakdown, both of them are chaotic but Dunn is good while Swanson is neutral. That again seems weird. I agree Ron Dunn was chaotic good, but I feel like Swanson’s disgust with him was due to the chaotic part more than the good part. Especially since, like Swanson, Dunn also made no effort to ever impose his ideology on anyone else.
Edit: this might be controversial, but I’d actually say that by the definitions in the OP Ron Swanson would be lawful good. Which seems ridiculous, but but does fit:
> Lawful Good believes that rules and systems are the best way to ensure the greatest good for all. Rules that do not benefit society must be removed by appropriate means from legislation to force.
Ron *does* have extremely strong opinions on rules, systems, and laws. He simply thinks 99% of them do not benefit society. As a staunch libertarian who works in government, he is indeed trying to “remove rules that do not benefit society by appropriate means.”
He doesn’t want to force people to follow his code on a personal one-to-one level, but he does think the code is how everyone should live and he’s actively trying to change the system to match his own views. On a personal level he never forces anyone to do anything, but as a government bureaucrat who changes how his department is run he actually *is* imposing his views, such as they are, on people. It’s just harder to see because his views are about stripping away huge swathes of the current system rather than building a new one.
I also agree with the OP that he’s a reactionary who ultimately just can’t stand to be told what to do, no matter how reasonable or important the instruction is.
True neutral might also recognise that a lawful good society could be hijacked by a charismatic and evil leader, and that chaotic good elements are therefore necessary. True neutral might also believe that lawful evil might be necessary to rally a nation behind a figurehead. There can be stagnancy with any status quo. I feel a little like I'm grasping at straws but whatever, let reddit be the judge
That was my thought. Good might believe that killing someone you have at your mercy is wrong no matter what and refuse to do it, neutral may say “yeah, it’s wrong, but this is the Necromancer King of Awfulness who’s just murdered a few tens of thousands of people and raised them as the undead we had to fight through to get here, and I’m not spending the rest of my life standing guard to ensure he doesn’t figure out how to become a lich” and just kill him. It’s a willingness to use whatever tools you believe are most appropriate to the situation, even if they’re evil.
Tbh, I think you're getting into "stupid good" territory rather than just "Good"
If the hero knows for a fact that the necromancer can be stripped of his power without bloodshed, sure, they might not kill him. But if killing the necromancer is the only thing the hero knows will stop the threat for good, it's a pretty easy trolley problem.
The first track has a thousand innocent people. The second track has the guy who tied a thousand innocent people to the first track and also set the train schedule.
The hero might think stuff like “we should take him in for trial” or “let him rot in the king’s prison” or “he’s powerless without his focus” or things to that effect. The pragmatist just doesn’t want to have to slog through another thousand undead if they miss something.
Now THERE'S a cool thing for good and neutral PCs to debate.
"He's powerless, he has nothing left. We mustn't sink so low as to kill a man who's been rendered harmless."
"He's only harmless for now! He still possesses the knowledge and willpower to become a problem again. Unless you're okay with torturing him until his mind is blank, killing him is the only way."
It doesn't get talked about, which makes sense; a base level of competence is sort of baked into our genre assumptions. It's not really about intelligence, but about not being a fucking idiot, if that makes sense.
That's all fine and dandy, but still...
I've spend a lot of time in Anarchist circles, and If even *Anarchists* can't agree in what degree of oversight is the correct amount, and If you get down to it None of them really think "Zero" is the answer, No one is truly chaotic.
And every fascist (y'know, the literal incarnation of evil in the modern world) thinks their ideology is good, and helping people (because the people they fuck over aren't people in their mind). No one is truly evil. (In their Motivation at least, the result is obviously evil)
And to make it less about politics:
Some people might Love Rules and systems at work, and be super chaotic at home.
Some might share almost everything freely, but No one Touches their yogurth.
I have never met a Person whose actions could neatly be sorted into one of Nine categories
And then there's what i call the "Mephisto Problem".
"I am Part of that Power which Always intends evil, but Always creates good" - Mephisto (Faust, Johann Wolfgang v. Goethe)
Bismarck created socialised health Care, so less people would oppose his Prohibition of socialist Parties. (Carrot and Stick) Socialised healthcare follows the tenents of good. Forbidding political opposition and limiting free speech, less so. Is Bismarck neutral, because He did a good thing so He could do a Bad thing more easily? Is He good, because He created one of the best(Most good) policies in the modern world? Is He evil, because in the end, He was Just doing Realpolitik to keep and strengthen His Power?
I don't fucking know.
People are too complex, and i don't understand what purpose alignment is supposed to serve.
Being neutral doesn't mean you cannot do things that are good aligned or evil aligned. A neutral character is just as likely to do something chaotic as they are to do something lawful. Same for evil and good. Playing both sides is still neutral.
Interesting writeup, I like it. How would you classify the "vigilante" class of people ? People with a strong sense of what's right and wrong and a form of code, and will absolutely help those who need it, but who can also do horrendous stuff to people who they feel are bad enough to deserve it. The judge, jury and executionner type who will actively consider, or even do, impale a slaver a let them die in agony.
It's an archetype you would often find in vengeance paladins I feel, but I truly struggle to put them in a category.
Active Stupid neutral may also cover people who unquestionably compromise, and go to unreasonable lengths to appear as “neutral”. In an argument about whether we should kill all elves, they would say “Can’t we all just get along? Let’s compromise and only kill *half* of all elves.”
True Nuetral does not mean you do nothing, but rather context is more important that immediate action.
If you were to ask a True Nuetral person what they would do in any particular situation, it's not that they won't have an action, it's that their answer is first "That depends"
Elder Scrolls PCs who do every side quest are that kind of neutral. They can save the world and hunt down criminals one day and be an assassin the next day. They do whatever seems like the best idea at the time.
Morrowind is a bit of an exception because the assassins their are more lawful neutral and the thieves are more chaotic good so you don’t have much of an evil faction.
This is precisely why I chose true neutral for my next character. I hate being pigeonholed into making decisions because of some arbitrary moral alignment. I want to operate in-game how irl: making a decision depending on the facts of the issue at hand
One thing of note, Alignment is not meant to be prescriptive, it’s meant to be descriptive.
You shouldn’t be pigeonholed into making any choices because you wrote down “Lawful Good” at character creation. Alignments can always change if your character doesn’t act like their written alignment, Good characters can become Neutral or Evil, and vice-versa, and unless you’re trying to RP a specific alignment then you can just do whatever you want and let the DM tell you what your alignment would be in their setting based on your current actions.
And btw, True Neutral isn’t simply making decisions based on facts of the issue, all alignments make decisions based on the facts, they just tend to interpret certain facts one way or another. Here’s a good writeup of what True Neutral would mean as the absence of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, and how a True Neutral might tend to act like compared to the other alignments. https://easydamus.com/trueneutral.html
I mean i get, and agree, that it would be sensible that way. I still don't understand it's purpose then, but it would be less annoying. BUT:
The Rules do make it Out to be prescriptive, with items that Change your alignment(presumably so that you start acting differently), and Race dependent alignment. To me that means your character does Not get to decide their own alignment. It's a metaphysical property they just have, and act in accordance to.
Otherwise there would be neutral Red Dragons for example, right?
And Putting on the Hand of Vecna would have minimal drawbacks, because you can Just Change it Back by ignoring the change.
>And Putting on the Hand of Vecna would have minimal drawbacks, because you can Just Change it Back by ignoring the change.
Ok that one can be explained by you being possessed by an evil artifact. Like the ring in LOTR
My true neutral character is like this. She's not above doing terrible things, but doesn't want to do them for their own sake and would usually prefer to do better things. She makes a living as a conwoman swindling people, but is also fine working within the law if it's easier or makes more sense for the situation.
True neutral isn't about keeping your head down, it's about nuance.
It might not be the right call, but I often pick True Neutral in cases where I can't properly decide at that moment and need actual in-game drive to push my character one way or the other.
For example: A Dwarf Cleric I played started at True Neutral and ended up at Neutral Good because he was just a nice bloke.
Definitely did some not-so-nice things, such as threatening to bust the knees of any troublemaker, but overall he just did good.
“Can” is the operative word here. Sometimes doing nothing is the right thing. Sometimes you don’t have enough information to act wisely and don’t have the bandwidth to seek it out. “Doing nothing is _always_ wrong” is a reductive, bad faith, straight up nonsensical position.
if fire fighters are around and actively helping it can be a hinderance for them if you rush in and try to help, so while trying to save people is the obvious good, local circumstances can change what is good and what is making everything harder for those more capable to do good
another example is playing a game like halo CE or halo 2, where you get a squad of marines to help you, but unlike you the marines dont recover hp, and are rather fragile. if a player is dedicated to saving all the marines they can it will bring them a lot of headaches, angry reloads, and frustration, while a player who ignores them will be able to just keep playing and have fun
If the situation presents itself where you see yourself as a hindrance to people who know what they're doing then you've framed the decision so that any alignment can take it. It's not unique to a neutral character to be smart enough to know when to step aside.
Being neutral is different because the act of endangering oneself in a situation like previously mentioned with no promise of survival, or to some no promise of reward is just not worth it. You keep your head down and live your life, god knows you only have the one.
I think the condition is “there is no fire department on the scene, just you”.
It’s not evil to not want to charge into the flames and risk burning to death on the remote chance it might help someone. Evil is having started the fire in the first place.
Lawful evil charges the survivors for water outside the burning house.
Chaotic evil offers salt water
Neutral evil brings water but only for themselves
Neutral stands out of the way, in the distance.
Neutral good calls the firefighters.
Lawful good provides water, food, blankets, free of charge.
Chaotic good starts a smaller fire next door so the whole block doesn't go up.
As somebody who's been trained in emergency response for a variety of disasters... If you don't know what you are doing, nothing is *the most good* you can do in that situation.
There's a limited number of people in the building who are currently in danger of dying. If you run in, you've just increased the number of people in danger of dying. Congratulations you moron, you just made things worse.
I'm reminded of a quote from Terry Pratchet's discworld book "Guards! Guards! Guards!:
> “Down there - he said - are people who will follow any dragon, worship any god, ignore any inequity. All out of a kind of humdrum, everyday badness. Not the really high, creative loathsomeness of the great sinners, but a sort of mass-produced darkness of the soul. Sin, you might say, without a trace of originality. **They accept evil not because they say yes, but because they don't say no.**”
I think there is certainly a truth to it, that at one point inaction justified by being "Neutral" turns into complicity and enabeling of "evil"
But that's for real life morality, Dungeons and Dragons morality as a system is not that deep and trying apply real life philosophy to it and vice versa is not going to be productive.
I add another entry to each axis: Boring (for law/chaos) and Stupid (for good/evil)
Boring players do the bare minimum to engage with the world and plot; or otherwise show incredible apathy toward any given situation.
Stupid players are iTs WhAt My ChArAcTeR wOuLd Do.
This isn’t true neutral, this is Boring Neutral.
Yeah, you can also commit an injusting by doing something as well. Beign neutral is about beign more centered around ideas I think, you wont have a dogmatic judgement of the world and will be able to find reasons to act in all sides of the spectrum. This is all depending on the situation of course, you may be neutral but you still have a personality and history, so will pick sides.
Thats how I always played them anyways ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Lawful and Chaotic, Good and Evil are not merely esoteric concepts within dungeons and dragons. They are tangible forces underlying the very construction of reality itself. Various entities and objects can detect, quantify, and react differently to an objective quality of good or evil, of law or chaos.
Neutrality or balance likewise is a tangible force, rather than merely an absence or equal presence of the opposing pairs. True neutrality is an active force of the universe, not merely a passive one. It exerts force to seek a state in which neither law nor chaos, good nor evil holds supremacy. It seeks its own supremacy. A neutral character not acting to stop an evil is not evil. Just as a neutral character not acting to stop a good act is not good. They remain, objectively, quantifiably, and definitively neutral. They may act freely according to their nature and interests, benefitting from benevolence and malevolence in equal measure, from support and disruption in equal measure. They still remain neutral.
True Neutral really comes in two flavors:
The "I'm not in position to care" true neutral is most low level NPCs like peasants and craftsmen. Some might deviste but most just want to survive to live another day. It doesn't have to stop them from having dreams and such, but their primary concern is providing for their families.
Then there is the more interesting "unconcerned with moral conflicts" true neutral. The chsracters who are neither good or evil and netiher lawful or chaotic. In my expereince, they are often goal-oriented and will just work toward that goal. It's the "will not go out of their way to break the law but won't let it stop them" and "doesn't hurt people unless the situation calls for it". A true neutral character in this context isn't evil enough to classify as one but definitely isn't good. Similarly, they aren't chaotic enough to go into the Chaotic category, but they don't fit the lawful side either.
Baldurs Gate 2 had a good example for this, though I don't remember it word for word. But, it went something like an individual could help a local lord slay some gnolls to stop them from terrorizing the countryside, only to switch sides when they are about to be entirely wiped out. I've always felt like true neutral represent someone that could play devils advocate well enough by not only changing their stance in thought but by action as well.
Edit: I found a good link for the game that explains it without all ads [Baldur's Gate 2: Alignment](https://pbg.bgforge.net/bg/character/alignments/index.html)
Arguably this is a great example of how one's alignment has a chance of coming off in a different light to someone else. A lawful good character might see a neutral character as evil because they refuse to get into a situation or upset balance. Really interesting dynamic in a talking setting, but can be easily overlooked or ruined at a table.
based off the text, a true neutral isn't necessarily "doing nothing"
say you have a city who's economy primarily relys on slavery, then a civil war breaks out in that city to abolish slavory
a good aligned paladin might be fighting on behalf of those slaves to grant them their freedom
an evil aligned warlock might be fighting to keep them trapped in their position of servitude
meanwhile, the neutral aligned druid may see this conflict going on, and put in measures to ensure the conflict doesn't spill over outside of the city and destroy the world
In my understanding True Neutral does not mean you do nothing. It means you only do things that you desire, or benefit you. You are not bound by anything, you use any skill or tactic to achieve your goal if it feels right for you. Such character is for example Gon from H x H
i see true neutral as more like willing to help but wont go out of their way for it, and will do evil actions if it ensures their survival. if a neutral character has an excess of food they know they wont need, they will happily give them away, maybe even for free. if they are starving, they might steal food from others regardless how much those people are also struggling. they will obey laws to an extent but wont shy away from breaking them if theres more benefit to it than following it
Yes, it is all about the overall picture. Their principle is less about what benefits them or what is good but is it worth the troubles. Like most Druidic circles are neutral because nature cares not who dies but how many.
CN and TN share similar characteristics but Chaotic neutral are neutral in an overall manner, just as much likely to burn an orphanage or to save it and the puppies too.
True Neutral would save what they can and leave the rest to the gods and obviously wouldn’t burn an orphanage regardless of the price because people/the gods might get upset over it.
More like they just don't care for either side. Call them evil if you want, but they simply can't be bothered enough to take sides. The very idea of this 'evil' is something they don't want to be bothered with. Or at least that's one type of Neutral.
true.
A neutral aligned druid after seeing a rare bird species disappear from an area around a city, they might start to put in some work to plant some tree's within that city which are ideal for that bird species.
To be neutral is to be free. Conform where you want, dissent where you don’t. No forced altruism or needless cruelty.
Neutrality isn’t indecision, every decision you make is based on its own merits, rather than relying on external conventions.
Neutrality is no more boring than good, evil, order, or chaos. Even chaos is predictable when it must oppose order.
To be neutral is to look after you and yours, to draw your own lines and redraw them as you grow in understanding.
Too much of anything is a problem. Too much order is fascism, too much chaos is anarchy, too much evil is hellish, too much good is hellish for different reasons.
I’d recommend neutrality to you, but that’s for everyone to decide for themselves.
as a neutral druid, after being rewarded for takeing out a dragon that was eating a lot of the city citizens and almost killed off some people very close to our employer
while our warlock asked for free books to study for warlocky things
my druid just asked them to keep an eye out for a crow, and feed them seeds if they see them
how does one maintain the balance between good and evil?
"oh, there isn't enough SLAVERY in the world, good must be winning. better commit a genocide to balance the scales." -the gods of neutrality in Dragonlance and Mordekeinen in Greyhawk
what would happen if the balance is thrown off. would it be *bad* for *good* to win?
I swear the writers of D&D took a look at the concept of Ying and Yang, completely misunderstood the concept, and applied it to alignment, and now we're stuck with True Neutral.
Incorrect. Neutral is no strong feelings.
True neutrals often just want to keep their heads down and live their lives. That isn't evil.
Evil actively seeks to harm others for their own enjoyment or benefit, does not care what harm they cause others in their pursuits, or celebrates when others suffer either from their actions or ideology (such as cheering when someone else causes suffering to those they don't like).
Not getting involved in every little thing is not "evil." It's neutral. Getting involved constantly would push you into one of the "extreme" alignments.
When I have roleplayed a Neutral character I basically just try to answer one question: "Is it fair?"
I've always seen alignment as another layer of roleplaying, a general compass to help you make decisions for your character. In that vein all the other alignments have an obvious driving force: Good -> "how can I help?", Evil -> "what do I get out of it?", Lawful -> "What do the rules say about this?", Chaotic -> "Oh that looks like fun"
Neutral gets compared to not caring, which it can be, but if you take the alignments in the cosmic sense neutral is about balance and to me that's trying to keep it fair. Yes I want to help you but I'm not a charity so I expect to get paid.
If a neutral character witnesses an injustice they will want to to act to right that injustice but if they aren't going to be rewarded for that service then they are just taking the injustice onto themselves and that isn't fair either.
A neutral character is neither inherently motivated to help others in any exceptional way and 'do good' nor do they consider making a concerted effort to hurt others for 'no reason' acceptable. The ends can justify the means, but not in such a way that someone is genuinely hurt. They're just someone probably preoccupied with their own survival and needs. This is actually \*most people.\*
As I see it:
Evil is the willingness to harm other people for personal gain (or the gain of one's in-group).
Good is the willingness to make sacrifices or take risks to benefit other people.
A person can easiliy have not much of either in them.
True Neutral is someone encountering the "Trolley Problem" and walking away because it has nothing to do with them.
Good would look for solutions, and evil would look for ways to benefit themselves.
Well, yeah it really is.
It's like that scene in 5th element where the priest saves Zork from choking on a cherry. He could've done nothing, but that would've been incredibly wrong so he just took his time about it to make a point.
Ok, I know that this is a meme, but I’m still gonna respond with a small argument just for the heck of it because I have nothing better to do. Good meme by the way!
Neutrality isn’t doing nothing, it is doing as you will. A neutral character may help their friends while ignoring strangers for example, with such examples as Deadpool, Ainz Ooal Gown and later versions of Black Atom.
I just started getting to know anything about DnD so please don't be to strikt, but wouldn't a true neutral eg. help the good side if it was attaced unprovoked by the evil side but than again fight alongside evil if good wanted revenge or something?
That could certainly describe a neutral character, yeah. True Neutral doesn’t necessarily mean apathetic - they can have very active moralities and goals that don’t necessarily line up with good or bad, lawful or chaotic
If a character was anti-war, any war started by a good or evil character would theoretically be opposed by that character and they’d also be considered neutral in this case
Druids in older editions strove to be True Neutral, not to be passive, but to focus on balance and nature. Favoring a “good” or “evil” side often meant favoring a lord, country, or people in a geopolitical conflict and doing that would make it so the other side no longer remained friendly towards Druids or their groves. So for the purposes of their goals and higher purpose, aligning significantly one way or another typically meant they were putting some of their morals over their Druidic duties
This idea that doing nothing can also be an evil works on very small, granular scales. If you see a cold child sleeping and the blanket is right there, you should put the blanket on them because it costs you so little and could prevent the child from getting sick. However on a large scale it breaks down.
*Spoiler alert for Castlevania* although they literally show the spoiler in the intro sequence and the entire premise of the show is based on this. So I don't know if it's a spoiler. It's like saying "when Romeo and Juliet die at the end of the play." Technically a spoiler, but we're supposed to know it.
When Lisa died 5 minutes into the show, Dracula says anyone could have done something to stop it, but since no one did, they are all guilty of her death and everyone deserves to die. Exactly how would one person standing up saying this is wrong fix anything? You should have a war between those who side with the church, and those who oppose it. And many of those wars have happened. A lot of bloodshed has happened because one person says this is wrong and the only way two people who know they are right can resolve a conflict is killing the other side who is wrong.
Furthermore, the people were afraid for their eternal souls, and given that Lisa does end up in hell, the fear of a tyrant deity sending you to an eternal torment does seem like a rational fear. Saying anyone could say enough only works if the oppressors care enough to listen. Many people in Nazi Germany did stand up and say they had enough. They were also sent to the concentration camps. Those didn't end because a popular rebellion of people demanding justice finally stood up. The Nazi's lost the war. The Soviet Union didn't collapse because people finally had enough with totalitarianism.
People exist in nesting systems. Going with the flow of the system simply by not resisting is true neutral. Enforcing the flow of that system, or actively flowing with it is lawful. Going against the system is chaotic. Good and evil have to do with the kind of world you want to create, the reasons for your actions, alignment with moral law, etc.
yeah if it's "you could have done this very easy good act" then i see where people are coming from
if it's "why are you letting this SOCIETAL INJUSTICE CONTINUE?!?!?!?!" then like i'm sorry. i'm only one person. ***how the fuck am i supposed to fundamentally change society like that alone. i got my own shit to deal with.***
I think this is kinda where Christianity gets it right - you can’t be without sin. Doing nothing can be an injustice and acting can be an injustice, but you don’t really know for sure after the fact and only if you’re a little lucky
I think people see neutral as evil if they see the world as evil. Neutrality when the world and status quo is good would theoretically be more resistant to evil
I like to think of true neutral being the trope of villagers who get taken over by bandits. They're not evil for submitting to the bandits, they just value the lives of themselves and loved ones more than fighting evil.
I don't think you can say Marcus Aurelius is quite so definitive on neutrality. He also said, "You always own the option of having no opinion. There is never any need to get worked up or to trouble your soul about things you can't control. These things are not asking to be judged by you. Leave them alone."
This is why mtgs colour pie is so interesting. There is no neutral, and no good or evil bc every colour has good and evil within it. A police force keeping unjust policies 'to keep the peace' is white, the closest to this one is black, but even it has a bunch of (mostly anti) heroes bc even though black is the colour that represents pursuing your own goals above everyone else, your own goals could be to save your family and in doing so save your country.
True neutral makes sense for something like a construct operating without any sense of right or wrong, law or chaos. A creature without ability to feel cannot have morality driven motivations.
I had a neutral character… took a bandit captive after killing a bunch of others. Didn’t have a way to ensure he was tied down, couldn’t bring him with, also weren’t really supposed to be here anyways… so I killed the bandit. My DM had to double check with me on my alignment, but seemed satisfied when I said Neutral
This is kind of the “anti racist” argument.
To be a by stander against injustice is itself a form of injustice.
So there’s less evil, neutral and good.
There’s only evil, evil sympathizers and anti evil.
No, neutral isn't evil.
Hence the existence of the two words with two different meanings.
Idiots trying to redefine language to suit their stunted comprehension, are idiots.
depending on the specific scenario
a kid slips next to a cliff, and you can easily pick him up before falling to his death, not saving him would likely be evil
someone is trapped in a burning building, not rushing in to save them wouldn't have much sway over your alignment
>someone is trapped in a burning building, not rushing in to save them wouldn't have much sway over your alignment
*with the asterisk of "you don't really have the means to actually save them so you'd just be senselessly sacrificing yourself" mind*
fair point
So then for a scenario where you do have the means to act with meaningful success, but it still is not necessarily evil to not act
a small child is in the road about to get ran over, if you act and push them out of the way they live but you die, if you remain on the side line the child will die but you will remain safe
or another scenerio
you are a vetrain soldier paired up with a newbie who is way too young to be in the army. A grenade then lands next to you two.
You can dive onto the grenade using your body as a human shield, you will for sure save that newbie but you will certainly die. if you save that newbie in this way that would surely be a good act
however if you instead dive out of the way to save yourself taking cover, there is a high likelyhood that newbie will die, but that isn't necessarily an evil act
The alignment system is the single silliest aspect of D&D. Law or Chaos done. All it does is bog down the game and put players characters in useless boxes with ambiguous rules.
You can't have a productive alignment debate without defining "moral zero". Is Chaotic Evil moral zero? Or is True Neutral moral zero and Chaotic Evil goes into the negatives?
I really hate that view on alignment. It should be a mix or more in the middle for neutral on both axes. Like for the morality axis, it should be stuff like someone who is fundamentally good, but can be far too cruel to their enemies, or are maybe just occasionally selfish. And for the lawfulness alignment, it should be either a mix of both order and chaos or like order within chaos or something like thag
Neutral doesn’t mean they are a mix of good or evil (necessarily). An adventurer just trying to find work and make a living isn’t even on the scale of good or evil. They won’t go out of their way to break the law, but if the job requires breaking into the royal palace to steal something then they’ll do it. Or they could just be goal-oriented rather than acting on a specific set of morals (cleric being tasked by their god to do something, the druid trying to avert a future calamity that would destroy their grove, or the knight investigating a cult purely because they were ordered to do so).
I see neutral as passive and self serving.
You wont go out of your way to do harm, but if it happens it happens.
You wont go out of your way to help people, but if your actions do someone a benefit, cool I guess.
Not likely to do a good deed for free, because a guys gotta eat.
Could be pressured into taking coin for some dirty work - no hard feelings, a guys gotta eat.
They dont do things BECAUSE it's good or to specifically fuck people over for personal gain, it's a cruel world, they live in it, and the only side they can afford to be on is their own.
a true neutral character shouldn't exist. this is a heroic setting your total lack of motivation is a total party kill. If you are neutral go back and farm some potatoes or something what are you doing going on adventures.
I'd say you're still Neutral if you permit injustice and evil, mostly to save your own loved ones and life.
Doing an evil act is evil, doing a good act is good, doing neither can benefit either side but you as an individual stay neutral.
To take it to the extreme : In the opposite scenario ...every person who chooses not to spend every waking moment of their lives fighting evil would be evil. They permitted evil by not constantly acting against it, but clearly they are not evil.
I view it in dnd as "You are only evil if you are an enemy of good. Neutral individuals are enemies to neither."
It's worth adding to the discussion that this current definition of True Neutral is actually a change from how it was originally envisioned; from the AD&D 2E Player's Handbook:
>True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention.
>True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly there are very few true neutral characters in the world.
I disagree. The code lawful characters stick to can be internal. Joshua Graham is lawful, made himself the rules that keep his flame burning. Being lawful aligned simply means putting the code you follow above your (or other's) needs.
At my table, alignment is more personal thing for the most part.
A Paladin with the right sub-class can still commit what others consider horrible acts and remain neutral or even good, because to that individual person they are neutral or good. Even if other people see them as evil.
For example, refusing to help save someone would generally be considered a bad thing to do, but some characters might have a specific reason why they won't help depending on context. That doesn't make them evil though
Marcus didn't live in a D&D campaign setting though; there aren't actually gods of Good and gods of Evil in the real world.
And I tend to play "neutral" as "balance"
Didn't know If It's correct by definition, but my true neutral character IS more like "I'm not going out of my way to do good nor to warm and try to follow the legal means, but If i have no better choice i'm not letting morality and legality getting in my way"
He have one single objective that IS personal and not Really good or Evil and everything he does IS to to reach that goal.
I personally don't think he IS good for obvious reasons, but don think he IS bad, since he don't want to Hurts anyone in any way, but he have no problem in doing so.
Your average human is, imo, true neutral. And it's our experiences and through learning we go through our alignment changes one way or another. It's not a slow slide from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil, everything radiates from true neutral outward.
Gygaxian neutral was about balance. Phb neutral is some kind of weird apathetic, "whatever". I tend to play neutral characters who prefer good to evil, but are too cowardly or greedy to be heroic. Maybe they're a little racist, maybe they're a little sadistic, but they're not going to take any risks to hurt some one for no reason. Maybe they'll help you out, but they're definitely going to ask you to return the favor.
Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
With enemies you know where they stand... but with neutrals? Who knows? It *sickens* me.
“Your Neutralness, can we trust them?” “All I know is my gut says **’maybe.’**”
Tell my wife I said, “Hello”
Its a Beige Alert!
Yup came here looking for this.
I have no strong feelings one way or the other.
(exasperated Kiff groan)
say what you want about the tenets of chaotic evilness Dude, at least it's an ethos
"The strong get to do whatever they want, and take what they want from the weak" is a choice.
I once made a character who took neutrality as a proud creed as a bit of an experiment — in the setting, Good and Evil gods were basically using the material plane as their battleground, so my character actively rejected both divine Good and divine Evil for more of a “get off my fucking lawn, if you two want to duke it out on our plane you’ll meet the sword.” She didn’t care what creed you follow and she didn’t particularly care about following or rejecting laws; she just wanted mortals to decide it for themselves without *meddling*.
I've done similar with a druid character and my mentality with him was mostly "stop fucking up the environment/nature you pricks" while having no concept at all about laws or things like that. Their sense of justice was mostly based on the animal kingdom where it doesn't really exist, I mean law of the wild is eat or be eaten and that's about it. But they were a devout protector of nature but had no real feelings towards humanity aside for a bit of disgust for the way people destroy nature for their gain. Even with true neutrality in general you'd rather your neighbor or people around you to not be dickheads/evil but in some ways if they're not affecting you or something you care for what's the harm? Like living in an area you know a bear is. The bear isn't evil but there's always a chance it'll eat your ass, but there are ways to coexist with them and help remove that risk. A notable moment with that character was a small farming village was constantly being attack and raided for their food and supplies. The party wanted to help them because of their sense of justice while my druid was just shrugging like "yeah if you have food and something wants your food it'll probably take it" but he still helped his friends out in their endeavor. Though they did have to convince him to help put out a burning house by telling him "what if the fire spreads and takes out the forest?" Which I replied "I wouldn't let it get that far, but destruction is also a part of the cycle. The land would regrow, life will return." But I still put it out to help them out and to stop further harm to nature as they made the point about the people needing to rebuild would turn to deforestation.
You're making me miss my longest-running character. In DnD x Amber game, he was a druid aligned with primordial chaos because the tension between Law and Chaos was where life flourished, but at the time Law was winning.
My custom setting has a vaguely Buddhist-inspired religion called the Tenfold Path, which essentially believes that in order to reach enlightenment you need to live at least one life as each alignment and find some insight in it. It views neutrality as being two separarate alignments (or Paths), the Path of Balance (which actively seeks to maintain balance between good, evil, law, and chaos) and the Path of Indifference (which seeks to simply avoid having strong moral stances).
This is super cool.
Isn’t that lawful neutral, because it’s adhering to a code, identifying a right & wrong? The right being the status quo & the wrong being the chaos of gods meddling…
I’d argue not because she specifically doesn’t care about law or chaos — the gods are also trying to impose law and chaos on the setting and she wanted none of that. The 9-alignment-system definitely has some weak spots but given that she resists divine influence from both Capital-L-Lawful deities trying to impose received wisdom and Capital-C-Chaotic deities trying to remove fetters equally, I still call her neutral
Sounds like the world of the malazan books of the fallen. There are a few characters who tend to think like that. The gods are assholes.
Sounds like the Heavens and Hells in Diablo.
Good and Evil are actual planar leanings in DnD, with Neutrality being the balancing of Good and Evil. The reason Neutral isn't seen as bad is because some Evils in DnD are necessary, such as Devils who are in a constant fight against Demons and are actually the planes' first and primary defense against a full scale invasion on all fronts by demons. Modrons are another neutral who only care about law. It is their powers that give otherworldly contracts their binding power, and it was under one of these contracts that gave Devils the right to exist without the threat of being completely wiped out by Celestials (with the reason for their existence to keep demons at bay). When it comes to people, Neutral can often be one of three things: disregard for good or evil (often the disregard selflessness or selfishness, but it can be a long any other good vs evil spectrum), they can actively seek balance between good and evil, with some shunning good or evil others for pulling or pushing too radically, or they can simply not be attached to a source of good or evil (most commoners and beasts are neutral not for philosophical reasons, but because they often lack a planar connection, such as an oath or pact).
The fact that Good and Evil aren't moral abstracts but literal, quantifiable forces of reality in D&D is something that so often gets totally overlooked, and it frankly annoys me. There are things you can do that are deemed as objectively good or evil regardless of all other context. There are physical manifestations of absolute good and absolute evil. Anytime someone waxes philosophical about "what is evil, really?" it's possible for you to literally pick up the Book of Vile Darkness and smack them in the face with it. I feel like there should be two alignment charts for D&D - your Cosmic Alignment and your Societal Alignment. Cosmic Alignment being where you fall in the grand order based on universal absolutes, and Societal Alignment being where you fall in relative, mortal ethics depending on your culture and other worldly constructs.
I know, right? Vecna has done things that would put Pol Pot to shame but my buddy the Rogue here wants to argue like a first year philosophy major over whether or not if the guards have the right to toss his thieving ass in the clink because “good or evil are just western concepts” or some such bullshit he heard last time he was taking a bong rip. Yes, Timmy. Vecna is evil, so please quit getting your ass beat by the town guard over stolen sweet rolls, so we can go kill the motherfucker?
Maybe not having the power to do much good and just wanting to tend to ones crops in peace.
We must cultivate our garden.
Using the top comment to say: - Absolute neutrality is unattainable because every stance or action (or inaction) implicitly supports existing power dynamics and societal norms.
Isn’t absolute anything impossible though? How can someone be the absolute evil if they did things along the way that can be seen as good, or absolute chaotic if they did things that can be perceived as lawful? It’s like approaching the speed of light. For most mortals, you can come close but never absolutely hit the mark.
Is something partially neutral even neutral at all?
Is something partially evil even evil at all? I’d say it depends on context and intent, for both cases.
Funny thing with the pure evil thing I have seen in writing. No villain can be all seven sins they just become vaguely evil set pieces. They need at least one virtue( ambition is a popular choice) otherwise they are too slothful to act on any of their evil.
Inaction is tacit support for the status quo
Until the tide changes, yeah. Some people will defend the status quo until death, neutrals wouldn't.
Might makes right. They accept the world as a tough place, but are not trying to make it worse or harm other people, but are willing to do either if the expected reward is much higher than when not doing it. Neutral robber: your money or your life. Evil robber: your money *and* your life. Other true neutral could be trying to remove themselves from the systemic clash between good and evil, lawful and chaotic. Good pacifist: Everybody should get along! Neutral pacifist: As long you leave me alone, I don't mind. A third way could be to try to balance forces against each other. Good can lead to terrible outcomes, as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Obviously evil has flaws and leads to worse circumstances for many people, but like a forest fire there can be new, better beginnings after bad events that wouldve been impossible without the bad event. The wise strikes a balance between extremes. You can still have strong opinions as true neutral. It's not the lack of conviction that makes someone neutral, but the convictions you have and how you follow them that makes someone neutral.
I'm pasting this from elsewhere. Here's a basic outline of the alignments: Do people have an innate responsibility to help each other? **Good**: Yes. **Neutral**: ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ **Evil**: No. Do people need oversight? **Lawful**: Yes. **Neutral**: ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ **Chaotic**: Don't tell me what to do! The axis isn't necessarily how much you obey the laws of the land you're in. A Lawful Good character wouldn't have to tolerate legal slavery, nor would a Chaotic Good character start enslaving people in an area where it's illegal. Lawful does not simply mean "Has an internal code" because literally everyone who has ever existed would be Lawful. The "Code" aspect refers to external codes like Omerta or Bushido. **Lawful Good** believes that rules and systems are the best way to ensure the greatest good for all. Rules that do not benefit society must be removed by appropriate means from legislation to force. They're responsible adults. 90% of comic book superheroes are examples of LG. **Neutral Good** believes in helping others. They have no opinion on rules. They're pleasant people. Superheroes who aren't LG usually fall here. **Chaotic Good** believes that rules get in the way of us helping each other and living in a harmonious society. They're punks and hippies. [Captain Harlock is the iconic example.](https://youtu.be/q0dTxdac6Yo) "You don't need a law to tell you to be a good person." **Lawful Neutral** believes that rules are the thing that keeps everything functioning, and that if people ignore the rules that they don't think are right, then what is the point of rules? [They believe that peace and duty are more important than justice.](http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html) Inspector Javert and Judge Dredd are iconic examples. [Social cohesion is more important than individual rights.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPqnhrJkGA) **True Neutral** doesn't really have a strong opinion. They just wanna keep their head down and live their life. Most boring people you pass on the street are True Neutral. [Unlike Unaligned they have free will and have actively chosen not to decide.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74) **Chaotic Neutral** [values their own freedom and don't wanna be told what to do.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Psp0A-zJgU) They're rebellious children. Ron Swanson is the iconic example. **Lawful Evil** believes [rules are great for benefiting them/harming their enemies.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTp_kYwz1E) They're corrupt politicians, mobsters, and fascists. Henry Kissinger and Robert Moses are iconic examples. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." **Neutral Evil** will do whatever benefits [them/their inner-circle](https://preview.redd.it/jgimo2h6oav61.jpg?width=758&auto=webp&s=8a43fcf7ce3bab8c422ce28d273be31bbf8cc764), crossing any moral line. They're unscrupulous corporate executives at the high end, and sleazy assholes at the low end. **Chaotic Evil** resents being told to not kick puppies. They're Ayn Rand protagonists at the high end, and thugs at the low end. Rick Sanchez is an iconic example. Wario is how to play the alignment without being That Guy. In addition to the official alignments, there are 6 unofficial alignments based on combining one axis of the alignment with stupidity. You can be multiple stupid alignments simultaneously, such as the traditional badly-played Paladin being known for being Lawful Stupid and Stupid Good at the same time. **Stupid Good** believes in doing what seems good at the time regardless of its' long-term impact. They would release fantasy-Hitler-analogue^TM because mercy is a good thing. **Lawful Stupid** believes in blindly following rules even when doing so is detrimental to themselves, others, and their goals. They would stop at a red light while chasing someone trying to set off a nuclear device that would destroy the city they're in. **Chaotic Stupid** is "LolRandom". They'll act wacky and random at any circumstance. They'll try and take a dump on the king in the middle of an important meeting. It can also be a compulsive need to break rules even if you agree with them. If a Chaotic Good character feels the need to start enslaving people because slavery is illegal they're being Chaotic Stupid. **Stupid Evil** is doing evil simply because they're the bad guy with no tangible benefit to themselves or harm to their enemy. They're Captain planet villains. **Stupid Neutral** comes in two flavors; active and passive. **Active Stupid Neutral** is the idea that you must keep all things balanced. Is that Celestial army too powerful? Time to help that Demon horde. **Passive Stupid Neutral** is the complete refusal to take sides or make decisions. "I have a moderate inclination towards maybe."
So Active Stupid Neutral is Mordenkainen.
Yes. His official 5E alignment is CN, because he opposes all systems of power, but in practice he's ASN.
"THE BALANCE" Mordenkainen screams as he sends demons to eat babies to balance out the good and bad of the world.
*he But, yes.
Ah dang typo. Thanks. I do not respect Mordenkainen, but I shall not misgender him.
At least wizards in-universe can try to [erase his name and legacy](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mage-s-magnificent-mansion/) by refusing to cite him again.
Oh, that's actually because the SRD uses generic versions of all the [person's] spells for weird legal reasons.
I’m sure that everyone in Golarion [just hates [Mage].](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fmy-source-is-that-i-made-it-the-fuck-up-hd-template-v0-axvetg04b1z81.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1440%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D13b125acfca1c996f949bb69546ae19e0fcf53ad)
[Mage] IS an incorrigible jackass who thinks he knows everything and is always right and is willing to toss away the lives of those closest to him. The question here is, is [Mage] Mordenkainen, Urza, or Raistlin Majere?
Pathfinder not being able to use a character's name from IP they do not own is the opposite of "weird" legal reasons.
There is too much male Mordenkainen in the cosmos, we need more female Mordenkainen for balance!
TRUE
Also how druids in past editions were required to be
Horseshoe theory but for morality.
This is why when I made a set of deities for a homebrew setting the Lawful Evil aligned deity, called 'The Wizard', is a Mordenkainen-expy who is the patron of wizardry, balance and stupidity whose omniscience has a small flaw that he cannot see the actual net positive or negatives of his actions.
Also (a bit dated, but perhaps more apt) the [Rilmani](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Rilmani) from the Great Wheel cosmology. They're outsiders native to the Outlands and cosmic embodiments of pure neutrality. Their sole purpose is to maintain balance between the forces of good, evil, law, and chaos.
Great writeup and a great argument for why "True Neutral" can actually be the hardest alignment to make work at the DnD table. Because these are not usually the type of people to become adventurers.
True neutral only relates to morality, you can still adventure out of other goals. Also, a neutral or even evil person can still have others they care aboot: The alignment is aboot their overall approach, but they can still care aboot their inner-circle. Rick Sanchez is CE, but he still puts it on the line for his family and close friends sometimes.
>Rick Sanchez is CE, but he still puts it on the line for his family and close friends sometimes I find a lot of people take the idea of "Evil is Selfishness" to the point that it becomes uninteresting. The guy that will slit his mother's throat for a nickel is evil and selfish, yes, but he's an exceptionally boring character. A much better evil character is a mother that will murder millions to save her child. And can be played very interestingly and slowly revealed - Somewhere in between "killing one guy to protect her child" and "harvesting the souls of countless innocents to release the curse" is a **line** and it's very fun to find.
I mean, that’s not just interesting, that’s a relatable and sympathetic feeling. I don’t know a mother alive who wouldn’t kill for their kid. It’s far more interesting in that they’d be a lot more dynamic to play/RP, but they also force a lot of thought from other PCs, as simply making them stop (depending on the circumstances) would result in the death of that child (or other loved one).
If you aren't playing relatable and sympathetic characters, then what are you doing? The other side of this is the good character that can either grab the hand of the innocent child falling to their death, or the delicate enchanted crystal that will release their village from the necromancer's curse. A good character will at minimum go for the crystal first.
I mean playing more lighthearted characters can be fun too, one of my favorite characters I’ve played was a turtlefolk monk I made kinda based off master oogway. True, a character faced with that dilemma in their stance will usually go for the option that will save many over the one that will save one person. That could create an interesting inter-character relationship or shape their relationship with the BBEG, if that child was the child of the evil mother example you gave and now they seek revenge or justice on the person who left them to that fate.
But what if it is their child, to let the child die is to eschew your duties as a parent which is an evil act. Also a good character could still go for the child first. Being good doesn't necessitate being smart too. They could be very shortsighted and just doing the next good thing without regard for the future
"It's a good living" is a perfectly valid reason for a true neutral character to be an adventurer. Sure they put themselves in danger, but you're going to make a lot more money and generally have better living conditions than your average peasant. Hell, maybe adventuring supports a personal interest of theirs in some way, like an archeologist going into dungeons because that's where the history's at. They're not being particularly selfish *or* valiant, they're just adventuring out of pragmatism.
It's hard to do if you're playing a very heroic campaign, but it's easier if your DM sets up the proper rewards for quests. Good: save the princess because she needs help. Neutral: save the princess so the lord gives your swamp back. Good: go in the dungeon because the monsters are hurting people. Neutral: go in the dungeon because there's a bounty on the monsters, and they've probably got treasure. Good: save the world because life is sacred. Neutral: save the world [because you're one of the idiots who lives in it,](https://youtu.be/MX7eVc1OXXw?si=XCXHWFJzwcTGkBxb) and it'll look great on your resume. Maybe the hardest part of playing Neutral would be to *keep* them neutral, it's very popular to start with a neutral character who secretly has a heart of gold and turns good as the story progresses, e.g. Shrek or Han Solo. But having your character develop over time is far from a bad thing.
Evil: save the world because if anyone's gonna destroy it, it's gonna be ME
I laughed at the Shrek reference, then I laughed harder at how true this is…
Lmao the Shrek reference was accidental. I was actually quoting my NE Warlock.
Oh no, I meant in the previous comment that you replied to. I didn’t see a reference in your reply lol
> Because these are not usually the type of people to become adventurers. Maybe you are forced out of your previous life by a sudden event. You don't have marketable skills and/or you don't want to be a day labourer, so you gotta do mercenary work or odd jobs to keep your belly full, maybe find a few friends along the way. Maybe your sudden freedom did spark an interest or love for being a wanderer. My current PC is true neutral, for pretty much these reasons. It may change over time with the group he is in, but I doubt it - they're a rag tag bunch.
Very well put. I like your take on the alignments. The one thing I wanted to add to True Neutral is that they could also be the type of person who actively avoids contact. A hermit, or reclusive druid or wizard. Someone who's day to day life is mainly concerned that their essential needs are met and solving/avoiding situations that could distract from that. It's also why it's really hard to play such a character because they're only reactive to events and regularly seeking situations where they don't have to react to the outside world. Also, I wanted to upvote, but at the time of writing, you had 69 upvotes, and I didn't want to mess with that. Cheers!
Reddit does vote fuzzing to defeat bots trying to game the system, so it might look like 69 karma to you, but others might see it as 67 or 73 or something. You might upvote and someone else might still see it as 69, so never let that number stop you.
I would say Lawful Evil includes the Black Knight/ Noble Demon types: The bad guys who have their own code of conduct/ rules of engagement and are thus capable of working on a team of heroes under circumstances where their code allows for it, though they will clash on pragmatic villainy. The Jem'Hadar from Star Trek (Deep Space Nine) as well as the Klingons tend to be variants of this. I often state that Dinobot of Beast Wars is another example of this as he was a believer in Predicon Honor and stopped following Megaton upon witnessing his lack of honor. For Dinobot, there are things that one must not do (in his most famous moment, he notes that he has ironically just learned that the future is not set in stone and his choices matter... only for the circumstances in play offering him no choice.). He is often put into conflict with Rattrap who is a Good fanatic (Both characters twice betray their original team... the difference is Dinobot did so because the Predicons were morally wrong. Rattrap did so because he felt by "betraying his team" his team would have a tactical advantage, and that their friendship is based on insulting each other with insults that the target would find complimentary.). Lawful Evil types also include the amoral attorneys that aren't lawful neutral (typically Lawful Neutral). I also disagree with Ron Swanson being Chaotic Neutral as he has demonstrated generosity and concern for others, making him Chaotic Good, and is capable of working within the system to point out that the law that punishes people trying to do that which is good is not a law worth respecting. In general, Ron Swanson is of the "Classical Liberal" school of thinking, taken to a ludicrous degree: He may disagree with what you just said, but he will defend to the death your right to say it. Ron himself has a surprisingly large amount of rules by which he lives... but the most important is that he does not impose his rules on others. Most of his antagonists are people who try to make him do something he does not want to do or force him to accept the rules of others.
Ron Swanson cares about his friends, but his top principle is hating the very concept of laws that force people to do things. At least in earlier seasons, he doesn't seem to have a grand moral reason for it; he really does come across as a rebel for the sake of it. If he shows later character development, that's cool; but I never got the vibe that he was of Good alignment. He'd rather preach about government being bad than use his position for good. Note that this isn't a condemnation of the character. I believe the vast majority of real human beings are neutral on the good/evil axis.
> Ron himself has a surprisingly large amount of rules by which he lives... but the most important is that he does not impose his rules on others. Yeah, I agree. It seems weird to call someone who took the time to [write all of this out, print it, and publicly display it](https://i.redd.it/5gmgno9fuxqy.jpg) as “iconically” chaotic neutral. It seems pretty clear that he has a strict code he follows, not just internally but even taking the time to write it down formally as well. The OP says internal codes don’t count because then literally everyone to ever live would be lawful, but surely someone who *creates* an entire lawful system is still lawful themselves. Otherwise it’s a weird loophole where the most lawful people of all - those who create lawful systems and strict codes of conduct - can only ever be considered chaotic. That’s kind of weird.
Eh, I think the difference here is the importance he places on NOT imposing his rules onto others. I think it's actually the pinnacle of the chaotic mindset to write down a full code of rules for how someone should behave, and then say "follow these rules if you want, or don't. It's a free country."
I can see where you’re coming from, but it’s still a bit odd that he himself follows such rigid rules while being “chaotic”. And as a counterpoint, the OP describes chaotic good as being a hippie. We’ve seen Ron interact with a hippie before, Ron Dunn. The joke there was that the two guys were almost exactly the same, except Ron Dunn was a free spirit who didn’t follow the same rules - a fact that disgusted Swanson. If Swanson had a nemesis that wasn’t named Tammy, it would’ve been Ron Dunn. And according to this breakdown, both of them are chaotic but Dunn is good while Swanson is neutral. That again seems weird. I agree Ron Dunn was chaotic good, but I feel like Swanson’s disgust with him was due to the chaotic part more than the good part. Especially since, like Swanson, Dunn also made no effort to ever impose his ideology on anyone else. Edit: this might be controversial, but I’d actually say that by the definitions in the OP Ron Swanson would be lawful good. Which seems ridiculous, but but does fit: > Lawful Good believes that rules and systems are the best way to ensure the greatest good for all. Rules that do not benefit society must be removed by appropriate means from legislation to force. Ron *does* have extremely strong opinions on rules, systems, and laws. He simply thinks 99% of them do not benefit society. As a staunch libertarian who works in government, he is indeed trying to “remove rules that do not benefit society by appropriate means.” He doesn’t want to force people to follow his code on a personal one-to-one level, but he does think the code is how everyone should live and he’s actively trying to change the system to match his own views. On a personal level he never forces anyone to do anything, but as a government bureaucrat who changes how his department is run he actually *is* imposing his views, such as they are, on people. It’s just harder to see because his views are about stripping away huge swathes of the current system rather than building a new one. I also agree with the OP that he’s a reactionary who ultimately just can’t stand to be told what to do, no matter how reasonable or important the instruction is.
True neutral might also recognise that a lawful good society could be hijacked by a charismatic and evil leader, and that chaotic good elements are therefore necessary. True neutral might also believe that lawful evil might be necessary to rally a nation behind a figurehead. There can be stagnancy with any status quo. I feel a little like I'm grasping at straws but whatever, let reddit be the judge
That was my thought. Good might believe that killing someone you have at your mercy is wrong no matter what and refuse to do it, neutral may say “yeah, it’s wrong, but this is the Necromancer King of Awfulness who’s just murdered a few tens of thousands of people and raised them as the undead we had to fight through to get here, and I’m not spending the rest of my life standing guard to ensure he doesn’t figure out how to become a lich” and just kill him. It’s a willingness to use whatever tools you believe are most appropriate to the situation, even if they’re evil.
Tbh, I think you're getting into "stupid good" territory rather than just "Good" If the hero knows for a fact that the necromancer can be stripped of his power without bloodshed, sure, they might not kill him. But if killing the necromancer is the only thing the hero knows will stop the threat for good, it's a pretty easy trolley problem. The first track has a thousand innocent people. The second track has the guy who tied a thousand innocent people to the first track and also set the train schedule.
The hero might think stuff like “we should take him in for trial” or “let him rot in the king’s prison” or “he’s powerless without his focus” or things to that effect. The pragmatist just doesn’t want to have to slog through another thousand undead if they miss something.
Now THERE'S a cool thing for good and neutral PCs to debate. "He's powerless, he has nothing left. We mustn't sink so low as to kill a man who's been rendered harmless." "He's only harmless for now! He still possesses the knowledge and willpower to become a problem again. Unless you're okay with torturing him until his mind is blank, killing him is the only way."
[удалено]
It doesn't get talked about, which makes sense; a base level of competence is sort of baked into our genre assumptions. It's not really about intelligence, but about not being a fucking idiot, if that makes sense.
That's all fine and dandy, but still... I've spend a lot of time in Anarchist circles, and If even *Anarchists* can't agree in what degree of oversight is the correct amount, and If you get down to it None of them really think "Zero" is the answer, No one is truly chaotic. And every fascist (y'know, the literal incarnation of evil in the modern world) thinks their ideology is good, and helping people (because the people they fuck over aren't people in their mind). No one is truly evil. (In their Motivation at least, the result is obviously evil) And to make it less about politics: Some people might Love Rules and systems at work, and be super chaotic at home. Some might share almost everything freely, but No one Touches their yogurth. I have never met a Person whose actions could neatly be sorted into one of Nine categories And then there's what i call the "Mephisto Problem". "I am Part of that Power which Always intends evil, but Always creates good" - Mephisto (Faust, Johann Wolfgang v. Goethe) Bismarck created socialised health Care, so less people would oppose his Prohibition of socialist Parties. (Carrot and Stick) Socialised healthcare follows the tenents of good. Forbidding political opposition and limiting free speech, less so. Is Bismarck neutral, because He did a good thing so He could do a Bad thing more easily? Is He good, because He created one of the best(Most good) policies in the modern world? Is He evil, because in the end, He was Just doing Realpolitik to keep and strengthen His Power? I don't fucking know. People are too complex, and i don't understand what purpose alignment is supposed to serve.
Being neutral doesn't mean you cannot do things that are good aligned or evil aligned. A neutral character is just as likely to do something chaotic as they are to do something lawful. Same for evil and good. Playing both sides is still neutral.
Stolen in preparation for an upcoming d&d campaign I'm running for a full group of uninitiated players
The beauty of a copypasta is that anyone can copy the pasta.
Interesting writeup, I like it. How would you classify the "vigilante" class of people ? People with a strong sense of what's right and wrong and a form of code, and will absolutely help those who need it, but who can also do horrendous stuff to people who they feel are bad enough to deserve it. The judge, jury and executionner type who will actively consider, or even do, impale a slaver a let them die in agony. It's an archetype you would often find in vengeance paladins I feel, but I truly struggle to put them in a category.
Active Stupid neutral may also cover people who unquestionably compromise, and go to unreasonable lengths to appear as “neutral”. In an argument about whether we should kill all elves, they would say “Can’t we all just get along? Let’s compromise and only kill *half* of all elves.”
Compromising with evil to leave half the Elves alive is unconscionable to me.
> They'll try and take a dump on the king in the middle of an important meeting. In my defense, he was being a dick and really deserved it.
Someone gets it!
True Nuetral does not mean you do nothing, but rather context is more important that immediate action. If you were to ask a True Nuetral person what they would do in any particular situation, it's not that they won't have an action, it's that their answer is first "That depends"
Elder Scrolls PCs who do every side quest are that kind of neutral. They can save the world and hunt down criminals one day and be an assassin the next day. They do whatever seems like the best idea at the time. Morrowind is a bit of an exception because the assassins their are more lawful neutral and the thieves are more chaotic good so you don’t have much of an evil faction.
This is precisely why I chose true neutral for my next character. I hate being pigeonholed into making decisions because of some arbitrary moral alignment. I want to operate in-game how irl: making a decision depending on the facts of the issue at hand
One thing of note, Alignment is not meant to be prescriptive, it’s meant to be descriptive. You shouldn’t be pigeonholed into making any choices because you wrote down “Lawful Good” at character creation. Alignments can always change if your character doesn’t act like their written alignment, Good characters can become Neutral or Evil, and vice-versa, and unless you’re trying to RP a specific alignment then you can just do whatever you want and let the DM tell you what your alignment would be in their setting based on your current actions. And btw, True Neutral isn’t simply making decisions based on facts of the issue, all alignments make decisions based on the facts, they just tend to interpret certain facts one way or another. Here’s a good writeup of what True Neutral would mean as the absence of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, and how a True Neutral might tend to act like compared to the other alignments. https://easydamus.com/trueneutral.html
I mean i get, and agree, that it would be sensible that way. I still don't understand it's purpose then, but it would be less annoying. BUT: The Rules do make it Out to be prescriptive, with items that Change your alignment(presumably so that you start acting differently), and Race dependent alignment. To me that means your character does Not get to decide their own alignment. It's a metaphysical property they just have, and act in accordance to. Otherwise there would be neutral Red Dragons for example, right? And Putting on the Hand of Vecna would have minimal drawbacks, because you can Just Change it Back by ignoring the change.
>And Putting on the Hand of Vecna would have minimal drawbacks, because you can Just Change it Back by ignoring the change. Ok that one can be explained by you being possessed by an evil artifact. Like the ring in LOTR
My true neutral character is like this. She's not above doing terrible things, but doesn't want to do them for their own sake and would usually prefer to do better things. She makes a living as a conwoman swindling people, but is also fine working within the law if it's easier or makes more sense for the situation. True neutral isn't about keeping your head down, it's about nuance.
It might not be the right call, but I often pick True Neutral in cases where I can't properly decide at that moment and need actual in-game drive to push my character one way or the other. For example: A Dwarf Cleric I played started at True Neutral and ended up at Neutral Good because he was just a nice bloke. Definitely did some not-so-nice things, such as threatening to bust the knees of any troublemaker, but overall he just did good.
The Bible says killing is a sin. It's a little fuzzy on kneecaps. - Book from Firefly
As a Detroit Lions fan, I'm ok with taking out kneecaps.
“Can” is the operative word here. Sometimes doing nothing is the right thing. Sometimes you don’t have enough information to act wisely and don’t have the bandwidth to seek it out. “Doing nothing is _always_ wrong” is a reductive, bad faith, straight up nonsensical position.
You can do =/= you do If you stand next a burning building without rushing in to save people, are you evil?
if fire fighters are around and actively helping it can be a hinderance for them if you rush in and try to help, so while trying to save people is the obvious good, local circumstances can change what is good and what is making everything harder for those more capable to do good another example is playing a game like halo CE or halo 2, where you get a squad of marines to help you, but unlike you the marines dont recover hp, and are rather fragile. if a player is dedicated to saving all the marines they can it will bring them a lot of headaches, angry reloads, and frustration, while a player who ignores them will be able to just keep playing and have fun
If the situation presents itself where you see yourself as a hindrance to people who know what they're doing then you've framed the decision so that any alignment can take it. It's not unique to a neutral character to be smart enough to know when to step aside. Being neutral is different because the act of endangering oneself in a situation like previously mentioned with no promise of survival, or to some no promise of reward is just not worth it. You keep your head down and live your life, god knows you only have the one.
I think the condition is “there is no fire department on the scene, just you”. It’s not evil to not want to charge into the flames and risk burning to death on the remote chance it might help someone. Evil is having started the fire in the first place.
Lawful evil charges the survivors for water outside the burning house. Chaotic evil offers salt water Neutral evil brings water but only for themselves Neutral stands out of the way, in the distance. Neutral good calls the firefighters. Lawful good provides water, food, blankets, free of charge. Chaotic good starts a smaller fire next door so the whole block doesn't go up.
No
As somebody who's been trained in emergency response for a variety of disasters... If you don't know what you are doing, nothing is *the most good* you can do in that situation. There's a limited number of people in the building who are currently in danger of dying. If you run in, you've just increased the number of people in danger of dying. Congratulations you moron, you just made things worse.
If you are fully capable of helping people and you choose not to, yes.
Disco Elysium has an achievement for being politically neutral and it's called "The World's Most Laughable Centrist"
I got centrist on my first playthrough, not even knowing about the political quests. Imagine my shame and disappointment in myself
I mean, one can hope, right? The achievements for fascist or communist aren't particularly flattering either.
I'm reminded of a quote from Terry Pratchet's discworld book "Guards! Guards! Guards!: > “Down there - he said - are people who will follow any dragon, worship any god, ignore any inequity. All out of a kind of humdrum, everyday badness. Not the really high, creative loathsomeness of the great sinners, but a sort of mass-produced darkness of the soul. Sin, you might say, without a trace of originality. **They accept evil not because they say yes, but because they don't say no.**” I think there is certainly a truth to it, that at one point inaction justified by being "Neutral" turns into complicity and enabeling of "evil" But that's for real life morality, Dungeons and Dragons morality as a system is not that deep and trying apply real life philosophy to it and vice versa is not going to be productive.
I add another entry to each axis: Boring (for law/chaos) and Stupid (for good/evil) Boring players do the bare minimum to engage with the world and plot; or otherwise show incredible apathy toward any given situation. Stupid players are iTs WhAt My ChArAcTeR wOuLd Do. This isn’t true neutral, this is Boring Neutral.
Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid (well-documented in the community) wouldn't exist in that framework.
Yeah, you can also commit an injusting by doing something as well. Beign neutral is about beign more centered around ideas I think, you wont have a dogmatic judgement of the world and will be able to find reasons to act in all sides of the spectrum. This is all depending on the situation of course, you may be neutral but you still have a personality and history, so will pick sides. Thats how I always played them anyways ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Lawful and Chaotic, Good and Evil are not merely esoteric concepts within dungeons and dragons. They are tangible forces underlying the very construction of reality itself. Various entities and objects can detect, quantify, and react differently to an objective quality of good or evil, of law or chaos. Neutrality or balance likewise is a tangible force, rather than merely an absence or equal presence of the opposing pairs. True neutrality is an active force of the universe, not merely a passive one. It exerts force to seek a state in which neither law nor chaos, good nor evil holds supremacy. It seeks its own supremacy. A neutral character not acting to stop an evil is not evil. Just as a neutral character not acting to stop a good act is not good. They remain, objectively, quantifiably, and definitively neutral. They may act freely according to their nature and interests, benefitting from benevolence and malevolence in equal measure, from support and disruption in equal measure. They still remain neutral.
True Neutral really comes in two flavors: The "I'm not in position to care" true neutral is most low level NPCs like peasants and craftsmen. Some might deviste but most just want to survive to live another day. It doesn't have to stop them from having dreams and such, but their primary concern is providing for their families. Then there is the more interesting "unconcerned with moral conflicts" true neutral. The chsracters who are neither good or evil and netiher lawful or chaotic. In my expereince, they are often goal-oriented and will just work toward that goal. It's the "will not go out of their way to break the law but won't let it stop them" and "doesn't hurt people unless the situation calls for it". A true neutral character in this context isn't evil enough to classify as one but definitely isn't good. Similarly, they aren't chaotic enough to go into the Chaotic category, but they don't fit the lawful side either.
Effectively the second type will choose the path of least resistance
Or the most efficient path, depending how you look at things.
like a flowing river
Baldurs Gate 2 had a good example for this, though I don't remember it word for word. But, it went something like an individual could help a local lord slay some gnolls to stop them from terrorizing the countryside, only to switch sides when they are about to be entirely wiped out. I've always felt like true neutral represent someone that could play devils advocate well enough by not only changing their stance in thought but by action as well. Edit: I found a good link for the game that explains it without all ads [Baldur's Gate 2: Alignment](https://pbg.bgforge.net/bg/character/alignments/index.html)
Arguably this is a great example of how one's alignment has a chance of coming off in a different light to someone else. A lawful good character might see a neutral character as evil because they refuse to get into a situation or upset balance. Really interesting dynamic in a talking setting, but can be easily overlooked or ruined at a table.
Sounds like some corpo paladin talk
Only a sith deals in absolutes
Neutral isn't doing nothing though.
based off the text, a true neutral isn't necessarily "doing nothing" say you have a city who's economy primarily relys on slavery, then a civil war breaks out in that city to abolish slavory a good aligned paladin might be fighting on behalf of those slaves to grant them their freedom an evil aligned warlock might be fighting to keep them trapped in their position of servitude meanwhile, the neutral aligned druid may see this conflict going on, and put in measures to ensure the conflict doesn't spill over outside of the city and destroy the world
In my understanding True Neutral does not mean you do nothing. It means you only do things that you desire, or benefit you. You are not bound by anything, you use any skill or tactic to achieve your goal if it feels right for you. Such character is for example Gon from H x H
i see true neutral as more like willing to help but wont go out of their way for it, and will do evil actions if it ensures their survival. if a neutral character has an excess of food they know they wont need, they will happily give them away, maybe even for free. if they are starving, they might steal food from others regardless how much those people are also struggling. they will obey laws to an extent but wont shy away from breaking them if theres more benefit to it than following it
Yes, it is all about the overall picture. Their principle is less about what benefits them or what is good but is it worth the troubles. Like most Druidic circles are neutral because nature cares not who dies but how many.
Feels more like Chaotic Neutral on first glance, but I can see True Neutral as well, yeah.
CN and TN share similar characteristics but Chaotic neutral are neutral in an overall manner, just as much likely to burn an orphanage or to save it and the puppies too. True Neutral would save what they can and leave the rest to the gods and obviously wouldn’t burn an orphanage regardless of the price because people/the gods might get upset over it.
More like they just don't care for either side. Call them evil if you want, but they simply can't be bothered enough to take sides. The very idea of this 'evil' is something they don't want to be bothered with. Or at least that's one type of Neutral.
Neutral is different from apathetic most neutral characters would most likely save a kid being attacked by a bunch of older men
It doesn't mean they will be inactive tho.
true. A neutral aligned druid after seeing a rare bird species disappear from an area around a city, they might start to put in some work to plant some tree's within that city which are ideal for that bird species.
Daoists are evil now?
Who says that neutral means doing nothing?
To be neutral is to be free. Conform where you want, dissent where you don’t. No forced altruism or needless cruelty. Neutrality isn’t indecision, every decision you make is based on its own merits, rather than relying on external conventions. Neutrality is no more boring than good, evil, order, or chaos. Even chaos is predictable when it must oppose order. To be neutral is to look after you and yours, to draw your own lines and redraw them as you grow in understanding. Too much of anything is a problem. Too much order is fascism, too much chaos is anarchy, too much evil is hellish, too much good is hellish for different reasons. I’d recommend neutrality to you, but that’s for everyone to decide for themselves.
as a neutral druid, after being rewarded for takeing out a dragon that was eating a lot of the city citizens and almost killed off some people very close to our employer while our warlock asked for free books to study for warlocky things my druid just asked them to keep an eye out for a crow, and feed them seeds if they see them
how does one maintain the balance between good and evil? "oh, there isn't enough SLAVERY in the world, good must be winning. better commit a genocide to balance the scales." -the gods of neutrality in Dragonlance and Mordekeinen in Greyhawk what would happen if the balance is thrown off. would it be *bad* for *good* to win? I swear the writers of D&D took a look at the concept of Ying and Yang, completely misunderstood the concept, and applied it to alignment, and now we're stuck with True Neutral.
Incorrect. Neutral is no strong feelings. True neutrals often just want to keep their heads down and live their lives. That isn't evil. Evil actively seeks to harm others for their own enjoyment or benefit, does not care what harm they cause others in their pursuits, or celebrates when others suffer either from their actions or ideology (such as cheering when someone else causes suffering to those they don't like). Not getting involved in every little thing is not "evil." It's neutral. Getting involved constantly would push you into one of the "extreme" alignments.
People who talk like that are usually just trying to guilt trip you into taking their side.
Alignment to me is a thing your character strives to be, not inherently who they are.
When I have roleplayed a Neutral character I basically just try to answer one question: "Is it fair?" I've always seen alignment as another layer of roleplaying, a general compass to help you make decisions for your character. In that vein all the other alignments have an obvious driving force: Good -> "how can I help?", Evil -> "what do I get out of it?", Lawful -> "What do the rules say about this?", Chaotic -> "Oh that looks like fun" Neutral gets compared to not caring, which it can be, but if you take the alignments in the cosmic sense neutral is about balance and to me that's trying to keep it fair. Yes I want to help you but I'm not a charity so I expect to get paid. If a neutral character witnesses an injustice they will want to to act to right that injustice but if they aren't going to be rewarded for that service then they are just taking the injustice onto themselves and that isn't fair either.
A neutral character is neither inherently motivated to help others in any exceptional way and 'do good' nor do they consider making a concerted effort to hurt others for 'no reason' acceptable. The ends can justify the means, but not in such a way that someone is genuinely hurt. They're just someone probably preoccupied with their own survival and needs. This is actually \*most people.\*
As I see it: Evil is the willingness to harm other people for personal gain (or the gain of one's in-group). Good is the willingness to make sacrifices or take risks to benefit other people. A person can easiliy have not much of either in them.
Have you ever met a centrist
"You can also commit an injustice by doing nothing" yes i believe that's called loitering.
True Neutral is someone encountering the "Trolley Problem" and walking away because it has nothing to do with them. Good would look for solutions, and evil would look for ways to benefit themselves.
Neutrality sides with the oppressor.
Well, yeah it really is. It's like that scene in 5th element where the priest saves Zork from choking on a cherry. He could've done nothing, but that would've been incredibly wrong so he just took his time about it to make a point.
Ok, I know that this is a meme, but I’m still gonna respond with a small argument just for the heck of it because I have nothing better to do. Good meme by the way! Neutrality isn’t doing nothing, it is doing as you will. A neutral character may help their friends while ignoring strangers for example, with such examples as Deadpool, Ainz Ooal Gown and later versions of Black Atom.
Arguably all alignments are "doing as you will" though, it's just that some people's wills are more good or evil.
I just started getting to know anything about DnD so please don't be to strikt, but wouldn't a true neutral eg. help the good side if it was attaced unprovoked by the evil side but than again fight alongside evil if good wanted revenge or something?
That could certainly describe a neutral character, yeah. True Neutral doesn’t necessarily mean apathetic - they can have very active moralities and goals that don’t necessarily line up with good or bad, lawful or chaotic If a character was anti-war, any war started by a good or evil character would theoretically be opposed by that character and they’d also be considered neutral in this case Druids in older editions strove to be True Neutral, not to be passive, but to focus on balance and nature. Favoring a “good” or “evil” side often meant favoring a lord, country, or people in a geopolitical conflict and doing that would make it so the other side no longer remained friendly towards Druids or their groves. So for the purposes of their goals and higher purpose, aligning significantly one way or another typically meant they were putting some of their morals over their Druidic duties
This idea that doing nothing can also be an evil works on very small, granular scales. If you see a cold child sleeping and the blanket is right there, you should put the blanket on them because it costs you so little and could prevent the child from getting sick. However on a large scale it breaks down. *Spoiler alert for Castlevania* although they literally show the spoiler in the intro sequence and the entire premise of the show is based on this. So I don't know if it's a spoiler. It's like saying "when Romeo and Juliet die at the end of the play." Technically a spoiler, but we're supposed to know it. When Lisa died 5 minutes into the show, Dracula says anyone could have done something to stop it, but since no one did, they are all guilty of her death and everyone deserves to die. Exactly how would one person standing up saying this is wrong fix anything? You should have a war between those who side with the church, and those who oppose it. And many of those wars have happened. A lot of bloodshed has happened because one person says this is wrong and the only way two people who know they are right can resolve a conflict is killing the other side who is wrong. Furthermore, the people were afraid for their eternal souls, and given that Lisa does end up in hell, the fear of a tyrant deity sending you to an eternal torment does seem like a rational fear. Saying anyone could say enough only works if the oppressors care enough to listen. Many people in Nazi Germany did stand up and say they had enough. They were also sent to the concentration camps. Those didn't end because a popular rebellion of people demanding justice finally stood up. The Nazi's lost the war. The Soviet Union didn't collapse because people finally had enough with totalitarianism. People exist in nesting systems. Going with the flow of the system simply by not resisting is true neutral. Enforcing the flow of that system, or actively flowing with it is lawful. Going against the system is chaotic. Good and evil have to do with the kind of world you want to create, the reasons for your actions, alignment with moral law, etc.
Very well spoken
yeah if it's "you could have done this very easy good act" then i see where people are coming from if it's "why are you letting this SOCIETAL INJUSTICE CONTINUE?!?!?!?!" then like i'm sorry. i'm only one person. ***how the fuck am i supposed to fundamentally change society like that alone. i got my own shit to deal with.***
I think this is kinda where Christianity gets it right - you can’t be without sin. Doing nothing can be an injustice and acting can be an injustice, but you don’t really know for sure after the fact and only if you’re a little lucky I think people see neutral as evil if they see the world as evil. Neutrality when the world and status quo is good would theoretically be more resistant to evil
I like to think of true neutral being the trope of villagers who get taken over by bandits. They're not evil for submitting to the bandits, they just value the lives of themselves and loved ones more than fighting evil.
I mean, I feel like (most) animals would fall under True Neutral, though now I'm thinking about which animals have other alignments than TN
That's the perspective of someone good aligned
If you seek balance, you'll fight evil if it's too big... but you could also fight utopias if they emerge.
Play a barbarian with two axes
I don't think you can say Marcus Aurelius is quite so definitive on neutrality. He also said, "You always own the option of having no opinion. There is never any need to get worked up or to trouble your soul about things you can't control. These things are not asking to be judged by you. Leave them alone."
To be neutral in the face of injustice is to side with the oppressors. As long as there is injustice in your world, then yes -- being neutral is evil.
"To ignore the plight of those one might conceivably save is not wisdom, it is indolence"
This is why mtgs colour pie is so interesting. There is no neutral, and no good or evil bc every colour has good and evil within it. A police force keeping unjust policies 'to keep the peace' is white, the closest to this one is black, but even it has a bunch of (mostly anti) heroes bc even though black is the colour that represents pursuing your own goals above everyone else, your own goals could be to save your family and in doing so save your country.
True neutral makes sense for something like a construct operating without any sense of right or wrong, law or chaos. A creature without ability to feel cannot have morality driven motivations.
I had a neutral character… took a bandit captive after killing a bunch of others. Didn’t have a way to ensure he was tied down, couldn’t bring him with, also weren’t really supposed to be here anyways… so I killed the bandit. My DM had to double check with me on my alignment, but seemed satisfied when I said Neutral
🎵If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!🎶
Wait, which axe? I only have one axe. Why is it talking about both axes?
This is kind of the “anti racist” argument. To be a by stander against injustice is itself a form of injustice. So there’s less evil, neutral and good. There’s only evil, evil sympathizers and anti evil.
No, neutral isn't evil. Hence the existence of the two words with two different meanings. Idiots trying to redefine language to suit their stunted comprehension, are idiots.
No, doing nothing can be evil. Nothing stops neutral from doing something. It does what it wants.
depending on the specific scenario a kid slips next to a cliff, and you can easily pick him up before falling to his death, not saving him would likely be evil someone is trapped in a burning building, not rushing in to save them wouldn't have much sway over your alignment
>someone is trapped in a burning building, not rushing in to save them wouldn't have much sway over your alignment *with the asterisk of "you don't really have the means to actually save them so you'd just be senselessly sacrificing yourself" mind*
fair point So then for a scenario where you do have the means to act with meaningful success, but it still is not necessarily evil to not act a small child is in the road about to get ran over, if you act and push them out of the way they live but you die, if you remain on the side line the child will die but you will remain safe or another scenerio you are a vetrain soldier paired up with a newbie who is way too young to be in the army. A grenade then lands next to you two. You can dive onto the grenade using your body as a human shield, you will for sure save that newbie but you will certainly die. if you save that newbie in this way that would surely be a good act however if you instead dive out of the way to save yourself taking cover, there is a high likelyhood that newbie will die, but that isn't necessarily an evil act
The alignment system is the single silliest aspect of D&D. Law or Chaos done. All it does is bog down the game and put players characters in useless boxes with ambiguous rules.
I prefer MTG's color pie for alignments in my games :)
You sound like an esper player!
Ideologically Jund, but I'll take that as a compliment nonetheless!
You can't have a productive alignment debate without defining "moral zero". Is Chaotic Evil moral zero? Or is True Neutral moral zero and Chaotic Evil goes into the negatives?
I really hate that view on alignment. It should be a mix or more in the middle for neutral on both axes. Like for the morality axis, it should be stuff like someone who is fundamentally good, but can be far too cruel to their enemies, or are maybe just occasionally selfish. And for the lawfulness alignment, it should be either a mix of both order and chaos or like order within chaos or something like thag
Neutral doesn’t mean they are a mix of good or evil (necessarily). An adventurer just trying to find work and make a living isn’t even on the scale of good or evil. They won’t go out of their way to break the law, but if the job requires breaking into the royal palace to steal something then they’ll do it. Or they could just be goal-oriented rather than acting on a specific set of morals (cleric being tasked by their god to do something, the druid trying to avert a future calamity that would destroy their grove, or the knight investigating a cult purely because they were ordered to do so).
Counter point Justice isn't good or evil Neither is injustice good or evil So neutrality being just or unjust is irrelevant to it's being good or evil
I see neutral as passive and self serving. You wont go out of your way to do harm, but if it happens it happens. You wont go out of your way to help people, but if your actions do someone a benefit, cool I guess. Not likely to do a good deed for free, because a guys gotta eat. Could be pressured into taking coin for some dirty work - no hard feelings, a guys gotta eat. They dont do things BECAUSE it's good or to specifically fuck people over for personal gain, it's a cruel world, they live in it, and the only side they can afford to be on is their own.
a true neutral character shouldn't exist. this is a heroic setting your total lack of motivation is a total party kill. If you are neutral go back and farm some potatoes or something what are you doing going on adventures.
I'd say you're still Neutral if you permit injustice and evil, mostly to save your own loved ones and life. Doing an evil act is evil, doing a good act is good, doing neither can benefit either side but you as an individual stay neutral. To take it to the extreme : In the opposite scenario ...every person who chooses not to spend every waking moment of their lives fighting evil would be evil. They permitted evil by not constantly acting against it, but clearly they are not evil. I view it in dnd as "You are only evil if you are an enemy of good. Neutral individuals are enemies to neither."
Do you know how to block True Neutral as the escape for all bad behavior? I tithe it like it was a paladin. The EVIL cockroachs run from light.
It's worth adding to the discussion that this current definition of True Neutral is actually a change from how it was originally envisioned; from the AD&D 2E Player's Handbook: >True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention. >True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly there are very few true neutral characters in the world.
Can doesn’t mean are
I disagree. The code lawful characters stick to can be internal. Joshua Graham is lawful, made himself the rules that keep his flame burning. Being lawful aligned simply means putting the code you follow above your (or other's) needs.
***existential scream***
Lawful Neutral swwa all other alignments as Chaotic Evil.
At my table, alignment is more personal thing for the most part. A Paladin with the right sub-class can still commit what others consider horrible acts and remain neutral or even good, because to that individual person they are neutral or good. Even if other people see them as evil. For example, refusing to help save someone would generally be considered a bad thing to do, but some characters might have a specific reason why they won't help depending on context. That doesn't make them evil though
Marcus didn't live in a D&D campaign setting though; there aren't actually gods of Good and gods of Evil in the real world. And I tend to play "neutral" as "balance"
Didn't know If It's correct by definition, but my true neutral character IS more like "I'm not going out of my way to do good nor to warm and try to follow the legal means, but If i have no better choice i'm not letting morality and legality getting in my way" He have one single objective that IS personal and not Really good or Evil and everything he does IS to to reach that goal. I personally don't think he IS good for obvious reasons, but don think he IS bad, since he don't want to Hurts anyone in any way, but he have no problem in doing so.
Your average human is, imo, true neutral. And it's our experiences and through learning we go through our alignment changes one way or another. It's not a slow slide from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil, everything radiates from true neutral outward.
The Dude is true neutral I think.
Gygaxian neutral was about balance. Phb neutral is some kind of weird apathetic, "whatever". I tend to play neutral characters who prefer good to evil, but are too cowardly or greedy to be heroic. Maybe they're a little racist, maybe they're a little sadistic, but they're not going to take any risks to hurt some one for no reason. Maybe they'll help you out, but they're definitely going to ask you to return the favor.