Alignment thread - True Neutrality

[MechaTarrasque]

I think this is an interesting way to think about alignment conflict between (say) clerics of St Cuthbert and clerics of Tritherion.

For myself, I still have trouble projecting it onto the standard outer planar framework, though, because there is nothing about that set-up which gives any basis for the archon's belief. Eg everyone who has CG written on his/her PC sheet ends up in Olympus living a flourishing life - there is nothing that suggests any sort of tendency of the CG to fall or fail more easily than the LG.

The archon might be wrong, but he might be right too--that is a DM/setting issue. I am not aware of any alignment/theological longitudinal surveys of people in any setting that look at the average alignment, self perception vs. actual alignment, and alignment changes over time from WotC, Paizo, or TSR that could give us a clue in how many people think they are "CG" (or whatever someone in universe would call it) while having a different alignment. If half the souls going to Limbo incorrectly thought they were "CG" when they died, the archon might have a good point, and the eldarin aren't as effective at selling "good" as they are "chaos." Really all we know about are PC's who are special in a lot of ways, including having players who will argue with DM's about changing their alignment, even after said player had the PC burn down an orphanage on the off chance there was some gps in the basement (and I quote "who ever heard of poor orphans?").

 

[pemerton]

I think the style and genre of the intended game using alignment necessarily influence interpretations of alignment in that game and vice versa.

Agreed.

In an action adventure genre with typical "goodish" PCs, they use fairly straighforward tactics including violence to solve their problems, and do so effectively.

<snip>

In such a game, A True Neutral(TN) attitude that major change is impossible or detrimental isn't a useful one, it's the attitude of an obstacle NPC or antagonist.

<snip>

My personal problem with TN is that I prefer straightforward action adventure, and "don't bother" TN is a poor fit for such a game style.

Also agreed.

The sort of "action adventure" style you describe is one that I would say doesn't really need or use alignment. That may be overly sweeping or simplistic, though - the core of what I mean is that, in an "action adventure" sort of game, the moral answers are already known and available, the goals are clear, and what is at stake is immediate choice of means (is it better to strike now, or to rest first?) and the efficacy of those means.

In that sort of game, it seems to me that the point of labelling the PCs "good" and their enemies "evil" is simply to provide a pretty thin layer of colour, and perhaps to provide some sort of assurance (with both ingame and metagame aspects) that the PCs aren't just being vicious murderers.

In that sort of game, labelling an NPC "true neutral" would indicate, I think, that they are some sort of Yoda-esque mystic or hermit who might have information or other resources the PCs need, but that they will only hand it over under certain quirky or irritating conditions. (I see this as being consistent with your description of such an NPC as an obstacle.)

For naturalistic True Neutrality to play any more significant role in the game - for it to actually become a focus of debate or contention or exploration - I think some sort of set-up like the one I described not far upthread in reply to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] would be needed. The play of the game actually needs to put into question whether intentional action and cosmological purposes are merely disruptions to the balance that just muck everything up. That's not going to be just an action adventure game.

EDIT: I think I missed another theme in your post.

To the extent that True Neutrality in the naturalistic/quietistic mode is mostly reactive rather than active, there is a tension with RPGing, where players have to declare actions for their PCs to make things happen. But I think this tension can be overcome through deft handling of metagame/ingame distinctions: the player is ready to act in order to drive the game, but the PC is played as reacting to particular circumstances that the GM has framed him/her into.

If, over the course of play, the PC succeeds in dealing with the situations that the GM had framed, and re-establishes balance and calm, the game might be seen as having provided some sort of vindication of True Neutrality.

On the other hand, if the course of play drives the PC to become more and more active, and to formulate and implement affirmative agendas, then it looks as if True Neutrality has been refuted in that particular campaign.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If it is a crack, it's not just in my theory - it goes back to Gygax's description of True Neutrality as a "naturalistic ethos"!

This is yet another point where - to me, at least - it becomes evident that alignment is not an all-purpose labelling system, but rather makes sense against a particular set of world assumptions.

You are right that if the mortal realm ("nature") is the creation of the gods, and in some sense plays out or expresses their cosmological concerns, then the idea of nature as "neutral" or "balanced" breaks down....
Another way of going, though, would be to allow the cosmological status of the mortal world to be something that is up for grabs in play. Is it, in fact, as the naturalistic True Neutrals conceive of it, and to the extent that it looks otherwise that's just because of imbalances introduced by human and divine action? Or is it inherently a site of mortal and divine striving that makes so-called True Neutrality mere foolishness?

And that reminds me of Moorcockian balance, as well, so you could have not just the 'nature' of the mortal world or prime material, but the broader nature of the universe be neutral, with gods as well as mortals imposing moral/ethical ideals.

I think I was maybe emphasizing the wrong point, though. You said that Golems or Skelletons weren't neutral in the same sense as completely non-intellegent animals or monsters like insects or oozes, because they weren't part of the natural balance. I should have gotten right to the point that you could conceivably have an un-natural/outside-nature balance that's just as TN as a naturalistic one. Mindless undead might be a creation of evil and serve evil ends, but, being mindless have the same little-n neutrality of mindless animals and apathetic humans. Or, a construct might serve TN ends as part of a TN extra-natural balance, like an artificial ecosystem in a pocket dimension, while being little-n mindlessly neutral.


That is, the line between neutral and having no alignment at all (if that's even a thing - in 1e, it was a result of insanity, for instance), isn't just being 'natural' or not. A mindless plant or insect, or contruct or golem, or magically-created ooze are all still just mindless.

 

[pemerton]

I still have trouble projecting it onto the standard outer planar framework, though, because there is nothing about that set-up which gives any basis for the archon's belief. Eg everyone who has CG written on his/her PC sheet ends up in Olympus living a flourishing life - there is nothing that suggests any sort of tendency of the CG to fall or fail more easily than the LG.

The archon might be wrong, but he might be right too--that is a DM/setting issue. I am not aware of any alignment/theological longitudinal surveys of people in any setting that look at the average alignment, self perception vs. actual alignment, and alignment changes over time from WotC, Paizo, or TSR that could give us a clue in how many people think they are "CG" (or whatever someone in universe would call it) while having a different alignment. If half the souls going to Limbo incorrectly thought they were "CG" when they died, the archon might have a good point, and the eldarin aren't as effective at selling "good" as they are "chaos."

This is true. I was assuming that the GM wasn't deciding, as part of the backstory of the campaign world, which alignment makes true claims and which makes false claims.

 

[pemerton]

I think I was maybe emphasizing the wrong point, though. You said that Golems or Skelletons weren't neutral in the same sense as completely non-intellegent animals or monsters like insects or oozes, because they weren't part of the natural balance. I should have gotten right to the point that you could conceivably have an un-natural/outside-nature balance that's just as TN as a naturalistic one. Mindless undead might be a creation of evil and serve evil ends, but, being mindless have the same little-n neutrality of mindless animals and apathetic humans. Or, a construct might serve TN ends as part of a TN extra-natural balance, like an artificial ecosystem in a pocket dimension, while being little-n mindlessly neutral.

Although you have presented this as focusing in on your particular point, to me it evokes the other (bigger?) point that I picked up on in your earlier post.

While it's against ENworld policy to talk directly about living, breathing real world analogues of True Neutrality, they exist and - whether or not one agrees with them - I think they have at least a surface logic or plausibility that helps one see how a sensible person might come to adhere to such a view. The idea of "nature" as complete in itself, and the idea of intentional human action as having a disruptive tendency, is an idea which - whether or not one agrees with it - one can see as something that a reasonable person might at least entertain as worth thinking about.

But how would that sort of idea be plausibly or meaningfully extended to an artificial ecosystem in a pocket dimension? Eg in so far as it is artificial, there already seems to be a concession that it is not complete in itself. This is why I have trouble seeing that golems or skeletons would be of True Neutral alignment. Unlike animals, griffons, etc they are not elements in larger natural systems that can plausibly be regarded as complete and perfect in themselves.

That's not to say that I couldn't imagine some particular quirky NPC who reveres artificial ecosystems in pocket dimensions to the same degree as genuine ecosystems that are candidates for completeness in the sense I've tried to describe. But I would have trouble seeing that NPC as any sort of coherent True Neutral type - they would look to me like some sort of oddball aesthete or even a nutter. But they would not seem to me to be coherently articulating some sort of conception of nature as inherently balanced and hence not need improvement.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, I don't think we can explore that too deeply without getting into modern environmentalism.


As I said upthread, one thing I quite liked seeing added to the alignment system was the concept of Unaligned. Though, unaligned, neutral, or even 'insane,' there need to be alternatives to the protect-the-balance extreme of TN.

 

[pemerton]

As I said upthread, one thing I quite liked seeing added to the alignment system was the concept of Unaligned. Though, unaligned, neutral, or even 'insane,' there need to be alternatives to the protect-the-balance extreme of TN.

I have an intuitive sense that you are right here, but need to think through how it fits into my developing conception of Gygaxian AD&D alignment.

 

[Aenghus]

The sort of "action adventure" style you describe is one that I would say doesn't really need or use alignment. That may be overly sweeping or simplistic, though - the core of what I mean is that, in an "action adventure" sort of game, the moral answers are already known and available, the goals are clear, and what is at stake is immediate choice of means (is it better to strike now, or to rest first?) and the efficacy of those means.

In that sort of game, it seems to me that the point of labelling the PCs "good" and their enemies "evil" is simply to provide a pretty thin layer of colour, and perhaps to provide some sort of assurance (with both ingame and metagame aspects) that the PCs aren't just being vicious murderers.

Such a game may or may not use alignment. Alignment can be used constructively in many different ways, and I think it's entirely possible to scale down the amount of uncertainty and confusion in a game and still have moral and ethical questions and debates, just shorter and less fraught ones. There will still be worries about legitimate targets and tactics, dubious allies and alliances.

Commonly a game like this colour codes the factions for the convenience of the players and the PCs, so NPCs literally wear their alignments. Unrealistic but useful for styles of play which emphasise action and straightforward plots. This also facilitate "good" characters who to remain "good" need to restrict their use of violence to legitimate targets, and allows them to be be more proactive.

In a grittier game "good" PCs are often stuck in reactive mode as there are no safe proactive directions, unless you don't mind the risk of mowing down innocent people, or unlucky people. It's one of the reasons more callous PCs are an easier fit for such games.

In that sort of game, labelling an NPC "true neutral" would indicate, I think, that they are some sort of Yoda-esque mystic or hermit who might have information or other resources the PCs need, but that they will only hand it over under certain quirky or irritating conditions. (I see this as being consistent with your description of such an NPC as an obstacle.)

Agreed

For naturalistic True Neutrality to play any more significant role in the game - for it to actually become a focus of debate or contention or exploration - I think some sort of set-up like the one I described not far upthread in reply to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] would be needed. The play of the game actually needs to put into question whether intentional action and cosmological purposes are merely disruptions to the balance that just muck everything up. That's not going to be just an action adventure game.

RPGs feature complex interactions, and the people involved can make certain plots impractical. For instance many groups feature what I call the "barbarian" player, who preferred method of roleplaying is a headlong charge at a clear enemy, and gets twitchy when denied such opportunities, until their fuse blows and their PC flips out and kills someone. Groups with such a player have issues with lots of talky talk or more cerebral play, but that's the price to play to facilitate such a player.

The risk of throwing everything up to debate is creating situations like the PCs convincing themselves to all accept the universe is doomed and retire to remote places to await the inevitable end of all things in some comfort. I haven't seen this happen to a whole group, but I've seen a number of PCs retire in despair or resignation.

EDIT: I think I missed another theme in your post.

To the extent that True Neutrality in the naturalistic/quietistic mode is mostly reactive rather than active, there is a tension with RPGing, where players have to declare actions for their PCs to make things happen. But I think this tension can be overcome through deft handling of metagame/ ingame distinctions: the player is ready to act in order to drive the game, but the PC is played as reacting to particular circumstances that the GM has framed him/her into.

If, over the course of play, the PC succeeds in dealing with the situations that the GM had framed, and re-establishes balance and calm, the game might be seen as having provided some sort of vindication of True Neutrality.

On the other hand, if the course of play drives the PC to become more and more active, and to formulate and implement affirmative agendas, then it looks as if True Neutrality has been refuted in that particular campaign.

I find True Neutral to be IMO a rare alignment, somewhat elitist and by definition disconnected from the ebb and flow of standard politics in any particular gameworld. They work better IMO as defenders of small enclaves, such as stone circles, mystic forests and other places of power.

I am a big fan of the "unaligned" alignment, for all the NPCs who don't care about cosmic balance and just go with the flow, picking the path of least resistance.