Quickleaf
Legend
Nah. I can smell a cat's paw job from a mile away.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D General Which type of True Neutral are you?
- Thread starter Alzrius
- Start date
ezo
I cast invisibility
True Neutral doesn't mean you don't do lawful, good, chaotic, or evil ever IMO. It means you don't do "extremes" often or on any sort of continual basis. You have a moral compass, it is just more centered. They understand the differences between lawful/chaotic, and good/evil. They simply don't (in a general sense) adhere to any of them.
An unaligned creature does not have a more moral compass as we know it. They don't view things in terms of lawful or chaotic, good or evil. They either have their own "compass" which we fail to recognize or understand in terms of alignment, or they don't have any "compass" at all.
Finally, it is important to remember that a creature's disposition is not the same as its alignment. A pet, for example, can be friendly to others, and we might say it is "good". But we mean well-behaved, not actually good. The pet does not have a moral compass as we recognize it. A wild animal might be aggressive, but that doesn't make it good or evil, lawful or chaotic... just--aggressive.
That is my view anyway.
An unaligned creature does not have a more moral compass as we know it. They don't view things in terms of lawful or chaotic, good or evil. They either have their own "compass" which we fail to recognize or understand in terms of alignment, or they don't have any "compass" at all.
Finally, it is important to remember that a creature's disposition is not the same as its alignment. A pet, for example, can be friendly to others, and we might say it is "good". But we mean well-behaved, not actually good. The pet does not have a moral compass as we recognize it. A wild animal might be aggressive, but that doesn't make it good or evil, lawful or chaotic... just--aggressive.
That is my view anyway.
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
I describe neutral to my players as "how most people are."
Not likely to help you or risk something to help you unless they know you or it is really easy (and low risk), and not likely to screw over people unless they don't know them and it is really easy (and low risk). Self-interested but also potentially community minded to a point (as long as it intersects with that self-interest). Not likely to break a rule, unless it is convenient, low-stakes, and there is little to no chance of being caught. And so on. . .
Not likely to help you or risk something to help you unless they know you or it is really easy (and low risk), and not likely to screw over people unless they don't know them and it is really easy (and low risk). Self-interested but also potentially community minded to a point (as long as it intersects with that self-interest). Not likely to break a rule, unless it is convenient, low-stakes, and there is little to no chance of being caught. And so on. . .
Stormonu
Legend
Sounds like the difference between "Mordenkainen Neutral" and the later Unaligned to me.
As I recall, Gygax used to claim Mordenkainen as True Neutral in that he had his character seeking to ever balance the scales of good and evil, law and chaos - at least outwardly. His character wasn't a reactionist, but planned his actions - when one force became too entrenched, he'd act as a counterpoint to bring things back to center, changing allegiances or taking direct action himself. In actions there was his willingness to work with the evil Sir Rolibar, his mental domination of Bigby to "reform" the wizard and other (selfish) acts that sometimes benefited one extreme or another, but always was to his own benefit.
Druidic principles for older editions were of a similar thought - neither Good nor Evil, nor Law nor Chaos had the right to hold sway - there was a time and a place for each force and allowing one to reign dominant was abhorrent to the natural cycle of the world. Too much good and natural selection cannot take place and a species/society grows weak. Too much Evil and natural selection cannot occur as everything is a target to corruption, death and animosity. Too much Law, and the world becomes stagnant and unchanging, unable to adapt and grow. Too much Chaos and there is no dependable cycle of birth, growth and death - the continuation of species is put too much at risk.
The other end of that is sort of the "survivalist" mentality of Unaligned - do whatever needs to be done in the moment to stay alive and ultimately benefit yourself (and possibly others). Acts of goodness may be performed not out of a sense of necessity or altruism, but an understanding of like often invokes like - doing good to others reflects back in similar acts performed to your benefit. An unaligned might resort to evil if they felt oppressed or jilted - an eye for an eye and perhaps then some, if one could get away with it. Same for lawful behavior - being organized, working in a group or following the laws of the land being honored and done so because it makes your own life easier. Being chaotic in independent thought, rebellion or being spurious because it suits the situation.
Personally, I posit myself in the range of Chaotic Good (with some Lawful tenancies), so my outlook may be skewed. From my point of view, there are few people or things I would classify as actively Neutral, but I can settle with the idea of a great many being Unaligned. More likely, I feel most simply aren't introspective enough to know where they might sit on D&D's alignment scale.
As I recall, Gygax used to claim Mordenkainen as True Neutral in that he had his character seeking to ever balance the scales of good and evil, law and chaos - at least outwardly. His character wasn't a reactionist, but planned his actions - when one force became too entrenched, he'd act as a counterpoint to bring things back to center, changing allegiances or taking direct action himself. In actions there was his willingness to work with the evil Sir Rolibar, his mental domination of Bigby to "reform" the wizard and other (selfish) acts that sometimes benefited one extreme or another, but always was to his own benefit.
Druidic principles for older editions were of a similar thought - neither Good nor Evil, nor Law nor Chaos had the right to hold sway - there was a time and a place for each force and allowing one to reign dominant was abhorrent to the natural cycle of the world. Too much good and natural selection cannot take place and a species/society grows weak. Too much Evil and natural selection cannot occur as everything is a target to corruption, death and animosity. Too much Law, and the world becomes stagnant and unchanging, unable to adapt and grow. Too much Chaos and there is no dependable cycle of birth, growth and death - the continuation of species is put too much at risk.
The other end of that is sort of the "survivalist" mentality of Unaligned - do whatever needs to be done in the moment to stay alive and ultimately benefit yourself (and possibly others). Acts of goodness may be performed not out of a sense of necessity or altruism, but an understanding of like often invokes like - doing good to others reflects back in similar acts performed to your benefit. An unaligned might resort to evil if they felt oppressed or jilted - an eye for an eye and perhaps then some, if one could get away with it. Same for lawful behavior - being organized, working in a group or following the laws of the land being honored and done so because it makes your own life easier. Being chaotic in independent thought, rebellion or being spurious because it suits the situation.
Personally, I posit myself in the range of Chaotic Good (with some Lawful tenancies), so my outlook may be skewed. From my point of view, there are few people or things I would classify as actively Neutral, but I can settle with the idea of a great many being Unaligned. More likely, I feel most simply aren't introspective enough to know where they might sit on D&D's alignment scale.
LordEntrails
Hero
I see neutral in 2 ways.
The one who believes in balance. That for good (or evil) to exist, their must be evil (or good) to oppose it. (i.e. what is hot if you never know cold?)
And what 4E defined as 'unaligned'. The one who doesn't care or believe in good or evil, they just are who they are and morales an ethics do not drive their actions. Perhaps they are unaware, perhaps they don't care, perhaps they are truly selfish and are driven only by what is easiest for themselves (though maybe this aspect would be chaotic evil).
The one who believes in balance. That for good (or evil) to exist, their must be evil (or good) to oppose it. (i.e. what is hot if you never know cold?)
And what 4E defined as 'unaligned'. The one who doesn't care or believe in good or evil, they just are who they are and morales an ethics do not drive their actions. Perhaps they are unaware, perhaps they don't care, perhaps they are truly selfish and are driven only by what is easiest for themselves (though maybe this aspect would be chaotic evil).
I used to treat "True Neutral" as the alignment that actively sought to create balance - so when they saw excesses, they'd seek to remedy them. They'd fight for freedom when they saw oppression, they'd seek to impose a bit of sensible order on anarchy, and so on.
I no longer find alignment to be a terribly valuable concept to apply to PCs, so I don't think much of anything about it any more.
Professor Murder
Hero
So for me, Alignment is more useful for npcs and monsters than PCs, so to give a broad strokes overview of expected behavior. Neutral on the Law-Chaos spectrum I usually take to mean just how organized and forward planning a person or group tends to be. So someone who is Neutral as opposed to Lawful or Chaotic is down the middle when it comes to personal organization. Sometimes they plan ahead, sometimes they make it up as they go. For the Good-Evil axis, I have a basic concept of help and harm. Good aligned beings will help strangers and avoid harming strangers. Evil aligned will rarely help anyone and will actively harm others. For Morally Neutral beings, I usually view it as they will help those they know and care about but will be reluctant to help strangers and will avoid harming those who they value and will harm outsiders if it makes sense to do so. Neutral is in essence pragmatism.
OB1
Jedi Master
I actually keep the two axis pretty separate in my mind, as they do different things.
Neutral on the Good/Evil axis for me means that you help others only if it doesn't come at a cost to yourself (and often needs a benefit to yourself).
Neutral on the Order/Freedom axis (I reject the Order adherents created names of Law/Chaos, which were a blatant attempt to hijack the debate between Order and Freedom in favor of the former) generally does seek balance between the two sides (seeing Order and Freedom both as necessary for mortals to flourish).
So True Neutral means that you don't sacrifice others to help yourself, and that you value both Order and Freedom in society and yourself.
Neutral on the Good/Evil axis for me means that you help others only if it doesn't come at a cost to yourself (and often needs a benefit to yourself).
Neutral on the Order/Freedom axis (I reject the Order adherents created names of Law/Chaos, which were a blatant attempt to hijack the debate between Order and Freedom in favor of the former) generally does seek balance between the two sides (seeing Order and Freedom both as necessary for mortals to flourish).
So True Neutral means that you don't sacrifice others to help yourself, and that you value both Order and Freedom in society and yourself.
I see them as two different alignments. True Neutral are those that attempt to balance the world, not necessarily themselves. Unaligned are those who avoid major moral issues, focusing upon themselves and their loved ones. Most people are going to be unaligned, because it's the easy path; True Neutral requires dedication.
Note that True Neutral are not psychopaths that do good/evil/law/chaos in some weird attempt to achieve personal balance. They see the world, and act to move it back into balance. If evil is on the rise, they will work with good to stop it. If evil is scattered, they will work against the forces of good. A nation under strict law will find a True Neutral working against its oppression. A lawless land might find a True Neutral attempting to bring civilization.
Note that True Neutral are not psychopaths that do good/evil/law/chaos in some weird attempt to achieve personal balance. They see the world, and act to move it back into balance. If evil is on the rise, they will work with good to stop it. If evil is scattered, they will work against the forces of good. A nation under strict law will find a True Neutral working against its oppression. A lawless land might find a True Neutral attempting to bring civilization.
Zardnaar
Legend
I think it's mostly indifference. Most of the planet is probably neutral.
Even a lot of "neutral good" types are very selective about what they care about. Probably more neutral aligned tbh as everyone thinks they're "good".
Neutrals can care about friends a d family or local communities things like that. If one can still be cruel occasionally or inconsistent based on convenience to me that's more neutral than good.
Even a lot of "neutral good" types are very selective about what they care about. Probably more neutral aligned tbh as everyone thinks they're "good".
Neutrals can care about friends a d family or local communities things like that. If one can still be cruel occasionally or inconsistent based on convenience to me that's more neutral than good.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
