D&D General Which type of True Neutral are you?

[Ruin Explorer]

I want to see more of your point about chaos.

You mean re: Chaos-Nature connection? I think it's something a lot of fantasy fiction has considered, unfortunately none that I'd recommend really makes it a central point. Miles Cameron's Traitor Son series (starting with The Red Knight) makes it a core point = Law = Civilization/Safety/Sanity, Chaos = Nature/Risk/Instinct, but I didn't really enjoy those (and only read the first and part of the second), so can't endorse them.

D&D has touched on it at times, but has been utterly hamstrung by the boneheaded and nonsensical "Druids = True Neutral balance-keepers" bad idea from back in the day (where on Earth they got that from I do not know). Also a lot of authors can't really handle the ambiguity so end up leaning excessively to one side or another, which makes the conflict boring or even stifling.

I think it works if both sides would generate a situation so antithetical to what we want out of life as to be equally undesirable thus by keeping them in balance you create a good situation to be in

@Umbran is right though - because to make it work, you have presuppose balance is the right thing for humans, and once you do that, anyone who is pro-Chaos or pro-Law is obviously an alien-minded maniac who wants to destroy humanity and life, so can be completely and immediately dismissed as a dangerous loon. Thus the poles merely become a source of weird villains and nothing more.

So as such it's not really that meaningful or compelling. It doesn't have anything to say beyond that "extremes are bad, man". Like wow whoa thanks for that amazing 1960s insight.

I'm not saying Tolkien's approach is better, which is basically "Monarchy by pre-destined guys is cool, but yo did you ever hear about Utopian Anarchism, here's a self-insert dude to briefly interrupt the story to tell you about it - but yeah just keep going with the bloodline Monarchy, that's cool if you're not into the Utopian Anarchy!"

So, I never got the idea that Moorcock was worried about being philosophically deep on Order and Chaos, and he certainly wasn't setting up a system for others to work in. He simply wanted powerful antagonists and complications for his characters. Yes, either of them "winning" would be bad for mortals. But neither of them winning isn't really a good situation, either, because then they keep using people as proxies in their conflicts, making life unpleasant that way.

I feel like that's certainly true of later Moorcock, but when I read most of his works (at the time) in the mid-90s it felt - and I can't back this up with cites, because it's been a very long time - like there was a period particularly re: Von Bek, where he thought he was making a serious point with Law/Chaos, and then he got over it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

4E got a lot wrong about alignment

Continuing to have it for one!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I propose that we switch to alignments based on flavors.

Bitter vs Sweet, Spicy vs Umami. True Neutral now has the Bland and Harmonious versions, and Saltiness is a modifier applicable to any flavor of alignment.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I propose that we switch to alignments based on flavors.

Bitter vs Sweet, Spicy vs Umami. True Neutral now has the Bland and Harmonious versions, and Saltiness is a modifier applicable to any flavor of alignment.

Makes at least as much sense than the current system...

 

[Vaalingrade]

And old school fans would be happy because paladins could go back to always being bitter and salty.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I propose that we switch to alignments based on flavors.

Bitter vs Sweet, Spicy vs Umami. True Neutral now has the Bland and Harmonious versions, and Saltiness is a modifier applicable to any flavor of alignment.

Bracing for my entire main group to select Umami. I know they would.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What about if you're just complex and conflicted like a real person, and as the alignment system cannot handle that, you end up reading as neutral. Like if you're a super organised anarchist or something. Lawful or chaotic? Has strong traits of both, so they cancel out, so neutral...

Unaligned.

 

[dead]

It is ideological. It is not a separate pole from the other ideologies. It is only defined with respect to the others, and cannot exist without them.

Maybe Good and Evil can't exist without Balance? Balance came first and Good and Evil spawned from it. Maybe all ideologies are defined in relation to other ideologies?

 

[dead]

It would be easier to believe they weren't defined by opposing the other two if you were to give us an example of what agenda they personally have. (I recognize this is at least partially tongue-in-cheek; I am choosing to respond seriously.)

I wasn't being tongue-in-cheek. I was just suggesting some new ways of thinking to stimulate thought.

Mordenkainen's agenda seems to be to preserve a "status quo" on Oerth (and the planes) in a way he believes will ensure Oerth's survival and continued prosperity. Good doesn't believe this, though. They think the world and the planes are best served if the stain of evil is expunged - the glory of Heaven is the only way. Evil also disagrees with Mordenkainen - they want a Hell on Oerth where might makes right and Evil can cavort and indulge in the pleasures and sins that are rightfully theirs for the taking.

 

[Chalice]

My take on TN is simply not doing a heck of alot of G, E, L or C things. Not enough to tip the scales.

Then again, of course, you might get the odd zealous TN type that’s all about perfect balance and absolute neutrality. But I’d have it as either they don’t exist, or they’re very rare.