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

[Alzrius]

"What makes a man turn neutral?" -Zapp Brannigan

Having played D&D for several decades now, I've run across this idea that certain actions necessarily indicate that the person doing them is good/lawful/evil/chaotic. That always surprised me, because one of the definitions of True Neutral that I recall reading was that it was a mixture of the other four. So a TN character could do something evil, for instance, and it wouldn't be in conflict with their alignment in-and-of itself, since at some point we'd see the "good aspect" of their neutrality, showcasing that they were still in balance (as it were) on the alignment scale. Caricatures of keeping tally sheets for their actions aside, this struck me as a sensible aspect to what it meant to be True Neutral.

However, I've also come across a different interpretation of True Neutral over the years, where it's one that essentially refrains from the other alignments. That essentially, you won't ever see someone who's Neutral doing anything (particularly/significantly/notably) good or evil or lawful or chaotic, avoiding such actions if they can and moderating or ameliorating them if they can't. So in other words, if a True Neutral character does do something that could be characterized as good, evil, etc. it means that they're not actually TN at all, or have just undergone an alignment change.

What do you think? Does being neutral mean partaking of either extreme in relatively equal measures, or does it mean avoiding them?

 

[Fanaelialae]

In the classic (2e) definition of True Neutral, as keepers of the balance, I'd say a Neutral character could commit any act as long as it furthered the cause of balance. In order to perform a "neutral" evil-act, there would need to be an imbalance in the favor of good. They can't just perform evil acts whenever they feel like, but only in the pursuit of balance. Otherwise, the evil act is simply evil.

In the modern (5e) definition, whereby Neutral individuals avoid moral questions and just do what they see as best, I definitely think there are certain acts that would not qualify as neutral.

Stealing a loaf of bread because you're hungry? Sure, that's neutral. Burning down an orphanage because you feel like it? I'd say that's an evil act, and not in keeping with neutrality.

YMMV

 

[aco175]

I always found the "keeper of balance" definition difficult or odd. It should not be a tally of good deeds and evil deeds and checking today to see what you should be. There is no flipping a coin like Two-Face to see if you are going to kill the prisoner or not. It should also be one of the least taken alignments.

I think people take it so they have the out to say that they are acting like their alignment. We have had threads before on alignment or paladins being able to kill babies or such and still be acting on their thin slice of what good means, or good commands from their boss or god.

I always looked at true neutral as being more uncaring on stuff around you. Goblins stole the farmer's kid, boy, bad stuff happens. Oh, you want me to go find him and fight goblins, gee that is dangerous, what is in it for me. Sorry, I do not need a bag of turnips and a free night in your barn. You should find another. The alignment does not aid in taking hooks for quests. As part of a party it can be ok if there is reason to tie the PC to another PC and get towed along in some of this.

 

[Quickleaf]

Cash on the barrel head... unless we have a prior relationship, in which case deferred payment is possible with sufficient interest and commensurate hazard pay.

But I don't kill monarchs, innocents, or kittens.

 

[Deset Gled]

"What makes a man turn neutral?" -Zapp Brannigan

Having played D&D for several decades now, I've run across this idea that certain actions necessarily indicate that the person doing them is good/lawful/evil/chaotic. That always surprised me, because one of the definitions of True Neutral that I recall reading was that it was a mixture of the other four. So a TN character could do something evil, for instance, and it wouldn't be in conflict with their alignment in-and-of itself, since at some point we'd see the "good aspect" of their neutrality, showcasing that they were still in balance (as it were) on the alignment scale. Caricatures of keeping tally sheets for their actions aside, this struck me as a sensible aspect to what it meant to be True Neutral.

However, I've also come across a different interpretation of True Neutral over the years, where it's one that essentially refrains from the other alignments. That essentially, you won't ever see someone who's Neutral doing anything (particularly/significantly/notably) good or evil or lawful or chaotic, avoiding such actions if they can and moderating or ameliorating them if they can't. So in other words, if a True Neutral character does do something that could be characterized as good, evil, etc. it means that they're not actually TN at all, or have just undergone an alignment change.

What do you think? Does being neutral mean partaking of either extreme in relatively equal measures, or does it mean avoiding them?

Your second type of True Neutral (refraining from alignment) can exist is virtually any gaming world. Doing nothing that is evil/good/lawful/chaotic will universally prevent you from tipping in any direction. But your first type of True Neutral is world and circumstance dependent.

There is a difference between a world where good and evil are ideas and concepts, and a world where Good and Evil are a physical part of the magic in the universe. As a DM, I generally build my fantasy worlds as the latter. This has no bearing about my feelings of how real life works.

In a world where Evil/Good/Lawful/Chaotic are part of reality, there can be certain acts that immediately stop you from being True Neutral. Channeling large amounts of axiomatic energy might turn you to that direction. Casting certain spells that are intimately aligned in a direction will taint caster with that alignment. Gods that use Evil/Good/Lawful/Chaotic energy will have power over the energy and people associated with it. A world where evil/good/lawful/chaotic are more general ideas obviously lacks such strict rules. The amount of acts/ideas a Neutral can have before tipping is a direction is fuzzier, and ultimately up to the DM.

But even is a world where Evil/Good/Lawful/Chaotic are physical entities, there will be acts and ideas that are "good" or "evil" (etc.) that don't inherently channel "Good" or "Evil". For example, killing may be "evil", but isn't necessarily "Evil" and can be either "chaotic" or "lawful" based on circumstance. So, even in those worlds, it is possible for True Neutral character to perform a mixture of evil/good/lawful/chaotic deeds, but not "Evil/Good/Lawful/Chaotic" deeds.

 

[Oofta]

I define neutral (and all alignments) as more of a view of the world. In general terms law is logical, ordered, the universe works like a clockwork mechanism. Chaos doesn't believe there's any natural order, just random chance, luck and individual choice. Good and evil are just the capacity for empathy and wanting to help others, evil is being totally self-centered even to the point of enjoying causing harm to others just for fun.

So a neutral alignment sees elements of both sides of law and chaos, sometimes there's a logical inherent pattern sometimes not. Good and evil are not particularly relevant, they try not to harm others but also won't necessarily go out of their way.

All that is in broad terms of course and people are more complicated than their default outlook on life. Someone that is neutral could decide that they need to seek out balance of the forces, but most? Most just want to do their thing without causing too much harm to others.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To the degree I think D&D alignments are valid, I'd always considered the middle-spot Neutral to be people who are very situation-dependent in their reactions, and are driven by their own reactions to same rather than intrinsically benign or malicious, naturally ordered or disordered. They'll sometimes do good things, but because of their reaction to the situation, and vice versa.

 

[Scribe]

I don't have it for characters, and only 2 God like beings have that alignment.

 

[CleverNickName]

Most of my players treat "True Neutral" and "unaligned" as the same thing: they have little interest in the struggles of Good vs. Evil, or Law vs. Chaos. They usually act out of their own self-interest. They're not malicious about it, mind you: they're heroes, they will definitely help defend the town from the marauding band of hobgoblins, and will cheerfully donate gold to the orphanage whenever they can. But they do these things because it helps their hometown, or it repays a favor someone did for them a while back, or because it helps out a family member...not because it Furthers Some Great Cause or whatever.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Cash on the barrel head... unless we have a prior relationship, in which case deferred payment is possible with sufficient interest and commensurate hazard pay.

But I don't kill monarchs, innocents, or kittens.

So, you're not taking my commission to assassinate the young, naive tabaxi prince then?