Alignment: True versus Neutral
delericho
Legend
The problem is that "Neutral" says something - you're neither actively Lawful nor actively Chaotic. Much like when a car is in neutral.
But "True" doesn't say that. At best, it can be taken to mean "honest", but that itself is a Lawful trait so doesn't really work.
(And the argument that NG is somehow "more good" than LG or CG is a long one that really doesn't want reopened.
)
IMO, if you're going to change alignment at all, there's only one change that's worth making: drop it entirely.
But "True" doesn't say that. At best, it can be taken to mean "honest", but that itself is a Lawful trait so doesn't really work.
(And the argument that NG is somehow "more good" than LG or CG is a long one that really doesn't want reopened.
)IMO, if you're going to change alignment at all, there's only one change that's worth making: drop it entirely.
If there is a problem in naming the Alignments, it's that some of them are called "good", which obviously makes them better than the others.
There is a quite good approach to alignments in D&D, in D&D 4e in fact, even though it's not called alignment. That is the commandments of the gods in the 4e PHB. Each god provides three rather specific commandments.
Much less fuzzy than the original alignments and people can make moral judgments within their creed.
There is a quite good approach to alignments in D&D, in D&D 4e in fact, even though it's not called alignment. That is the commandments of the gods in the 4e PHB. Each god provides three rather specific commandments.
Much less fuzzy than the original alignments and people can make moral judgments within their creed.
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Hm, no more ambiguity regarding TN, and it reflects how I see TG and TE -- I like it!
To be fair, it's not like D&D has never reinvented an English word to a different game-specific term.
Yaarel
He Mage
Yeah, ‘True Good’ versus ‘True Evil’ reflects how I see these too.
What ‘Neutral Good’ really means is someone who optimizes between Lawful group identity and Chaotic individual identity, whichever can achieve the most Good possible. This ethic is pure Good. ‘True Good’.
Moreover, the identity axis (Lawful versus Chaos) behaves differently from the ethics axis (Good versus Evil).
In the ethics axis, the default is a mix of Good altruistic sharing and Evil predatory theft. Doing only Good while also figuring out ways to sustain each other by Good means, is a difficult situation to achieve.
By contrast, in the identity axis, the default is either Lawful group identity or Chaotic individual identity. The ability to make these principles work together constructively is a difficult situation to achieve. For example, in Daoism, the Lawful principle (Yang) conflicts with the Chaotic principle (Yin). The True Way (Dao) is to balance these two principles in a kind of dynamic equalibrium to nourish and nurture each other. Similarly, in the Middle Path of Buddhism (between self-abnegation and self-indulgence), and in the Golden Mean (between others and self) of various cultures, including Judaism and Christianity, the True identity is both Lawful group and Chaotic individual. But this True identity is spiritually difficult, and takes great effort to achieve and sustain.
In the context of D&D, an annoying misinterpretation of alignment sometimes emerges. The error is, somehow Lawful Good is more Good than Good. Obviously, Good is as Good as Good can get.
If anything Lawful Good is less Good than Good, because where lawfulness and goodness conflict, the hero who promotes both must compromise.
By referring to the alignment as ‘True Good’, it helps clarify, the one who strives for True Good does the most Good possible.
The hero can empower the group to do as much Good as possible, and the hero can empower an individual, one-on-one, to do as much Good as possible. This harmony between lawfulness and chaoticness - where all things work together for Good - is a tricky ideal to achieve. True Good.
What ‘Neutral Good’ really means is someone who optimizes between Lawful group identity and Chaotic individual identity, whichever can achieve the most Good possible. This ethic is pure Good. ‘True Good’.
Moreover, the identity axis (Lawful versus Chaos) behaves differently from the ethics axis (Good versus Evil).
In the ethics axis, the default is a mix of Good altruistic sharing and Evil predatory theft. Doing only Good while also figuring out ways to sustain each other by Good means, is a difficult situation to achieve.
By contrast, in the identity axis, the default is either Lawful group identity or Chaotic individual identity. The ability to make these principles work together constructively is a difficult situation to achieve. For example, in Daoism, the Lawful principle (Yang) conflicts with the Chaotic principle (Yin). The True Way (Dao) is to balance these two principles in a kind of dynamic equalibrium to nourish and nurture each other. Similarly, in the Middle Path of Buddhism (between self-abnegation and self-indulgence), and in the Golden Mean (between others and self) of various cultures, including Judaism and Christianity, the True identity is both Lawful group and Chaotic individual. But this True identity is spiritually difficult, and takes great effort to achieve and sustain.
In the context of D&D, an annoying misinterpretation of alignment sometimes emerges. The error is, somehow Lawful Good is more Good than Good. Obviously, Good is as Good as Good can get.
If anything Lawful Good is less Good than Good, because where lawfulness and goodness conflict, the hero who promotes both must compromise.
By referring to the alignment as ‘True Good’, it helps clarify, the one who strives for True Good does the most Good possible.
The hero can empower the group to do as much Good as possible, and the hero can empower an individual, one-on-one, to do as much Good as possible. This harmony between lawfulness and chaoticness - where all things work together for Good - is a tricky ideal to achieve. True Good.
Last edited:
Yaarel
He Mage
In the alignment axes, the mix between Good and Evil on the ethics axis is a separate variable from the mix between Chaotic and Lawful on the indentity axis. Having different names for these different variables is useful: Neutral and True, respectively.
Especially when creating digital forms and calculating statistics, having Neutral and True as separate variables is friendly. For example, when calculating the percentages of each alignment in an ‘archetypal’ Drow population, I made a database structure that can calculate the percentages for other races as well. It is convenient to have N and T as separate field names for separate percentages. The point is, it is generally useful to give mechanics that are different, different names.
The mix of Chaotic and Lawful means something different than the mix of Good and Evil does.
It occurs to me. D&D 5e has a tenth alignment, ‘Unaligned’. This is for natural animals and so on that dont really have ethical capacities.
My understanding is, Unaligned creatures are essentially reflexive slaves to power. These creatures become Lawful (obedient) whenever someone has more power over them but swing to Chaotic (individualistic) whenever they have more power over someone else. There is no inner ethical conviction. Ethical struggles require a strong capacity of language. Language allows a creature to imagine and to understand possibilities beyond the immediate senses.
So, there are actually three separate alignments where the word Neutral used to stand:
• Neutral
• True
• Unaligned
N, T, and U.
Especially when creating digital forms and calculating statistics, having Neutral and True as separate variables is friendly. For example, when calculating the percentages of each alignment in an ‘archetypal’ Drow population, I made a database structure that can calculate the percentages for other races as well. It is convenient to have N and T as separate field names for separate percentages. The point is, it is generally useful to give mechanics that are different, different names.
The mix of Chaotic and Lawful means something different than the mix of Good and Evil does.
It occurs to me. D&D 5e has a tenth alignment, ‘Unaligned’. This is for natural animals and so on that dont really have ethical capacities.
My understanding is, Unaligned creatures are essentially reflexive slaves to power. These creatures become Lawful (obedient) whenever someone has more power over them but swing to Chaotic (individualistic) whenever they have more power over someone else. There is no inner ethical conviction. Ethical struggles require a strong capacity of language. Language allows a creature to imagine and to understand possibilities beyond the immediate senses.
So, there are actually three separate alignments where the word Neutral used to stand:
• Neutral
• True
• Unaligned
N, T, and U.
Last edited:
Yaarel
He Mage
If some players dislike the concept of alignment, that is fine, they can drop it in their own games. 5e makes it easy for one to ignore.
However, for D&D players who like the concept of alignment, it is worthwhile to make the alignment system clearer in meaning.
I dislike alignment mechanics, but enjoy thematic flavor. It is a handy rubric, to sketch outlooks and behaviors.
Last edited:
"Clearer" than Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic and Good-Neutral-Evil. Clearer than that, you mean?
I heartily agree.
But I've never heard of alignment having an "identity/ethics" rubric.
It's an "ethics/morals" rubric. "Do I lie [chaotic] or tell the truth [lawful]? Do I follow the rules [lawful] or not [chaotic]? Do I steal [chaotic] or pay [lawful]?" That's ethics, "the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles." Do I follow the rules/norms of the society?
Then, "Is killing wrong? Yes/No [evil/good]. Is oppressing others wrong? Yes/no [evil/good]. Is helping others worthwhile? Yes/no [good/evil]." That's morals, "a person's standards of behavior concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do." Am I comfortable with this?
If this "True/Neutral" thing works for you...have at it.
I find it kinda silly and not at all necessary. Might as well make the alignment chart a color wheel and just call ethical Neutral "Magenta" and moral Neutral "Chartreuse."
delericho
Legend
Indeed. 5e has pretty much the ideal solution.
No doubt. Unfortunately, this proposal doesn't do that, IMO.
What an individual group does with alignment (or anything else in the game, for that matter) is really not my business. By all means, if you like this change, go ahead and make it! But if we're talking about the game as a whole making a change to alignments, then my opinion remains that there's only one change worth making: drop them entirely.
