D&D General "True Neutral": Bunk or Hogwash

[Professor Murder]

I will regret this, but meh.

So are there actual lore examples of "True Neutral" NPCs and their actions that have any justification for their positions beyond something supernatural, ie "good" and "evil" are fundamental forces that must exist in some degree of balance to maintain the spiritual health of the universe?

Take Mordenkianen. He is often described as upholding True Neutrality as his motivating ethos, and while its usually Evil that he must keep in check, in practical terms, were Good to be too ascendant, well he would logically have to act to either weaken it or strengthen Evil. So for example, a prosperous, Good aligned nation based in principles of Justice and Equality? Time for Mordy to help the black market slave trade thrive. In 1e, Elves and Dwarves are listed with Good Alignments. If a given Elf or Dwarf kingdom was proving too successful, wouldn't he have to try and assassinate it's leaders or undermine it in some way?

Hyperbolic, of course, but my point stands. Unless there is some supernatural fabric of reality reasoning, he is willing not to merely condone the existence of Evil but he would have to foster and aid its propagation just as he has good.

Before someone chimes in "Well, what is Good? Left unchecked, could it not become tyranny?" Sure. And then it's Evil.

So Yeah. True Neutral? It's nonsense.

 

[Scribe]

Its a concept that is difficult to discuss on this forum.

First, to accept 'True Neutral' or Militant Neutral, we have to accept Good and Evil as cosmic forces.
Second, we have to accept that Good and Evil (not good and evil) have agreed upon definitions.

Since 2, is impossible here, and discussion invites the Red Text in all cases on a long enough timeline....

 

[Clint_L]

I think all of the alignments are completely subjective, so I'm gonna with: there are as many examples of "true neutral" as you think there are.

 

[Professor Murder]

Its a concept that is difficult to discuss on this forum.

First, to accept 'True Neutral' or Militant Neutral, we have to accept Good and Evil as cosmic forces.
Second, we have to accept that Good and Evil (not good and evil) have agreed upon definitions.

Since 2, is impossible here, and discussion invites the Red Text in all cases on a long enough timeline....

So Im not arguing Good or Evil as they exist in our world where their existence is something people enjoy debating. I mean in D&D early editions, they are a real game mechanic. They are a metareality both in setting and in the game's systems.

 

[Koloth]

True Neutral Murderhobo = Kill everything and let whatever, if any, afterlife sort it out. And keep all the loot.
True Neutral Pacifist = Find an out of the way place and ignore the rest of the world.

 

[Professor Murder]

True Neutral Murderhobo = Kill everything and let whatever, if any, afterlife sort it out. And keep all the loot.
True Neutral Pacifist = Find an out of the way place and ignore the rest of the world.

A jest I assumed. Your first example is Chaotic Evil.

 

[Scribe]

So Im not arguing Good or Evil as they exist in our world where their existence is something people enjoy debating. I mean in D&D early editions, they are a real game mechanic. They are a metareality both in setting and in the game's systems.

I agree, to be more clear.

I think the concept of someone seeking to maintain a balance between Cosmic Forces of Good and Evil, would....yes do some evil things and actively hamper the cause of Cosmic Good.

Good Nation, could become tyrannical.
Evil Nation, could become tyrannical.

A balanced nation however, where neither side can gain a dominating upper hand? Maybe it would have a harder time becoming tyrannical?

I mean thats kind of the theory as I see it anyway.

Good aligned nation based in principles of Justice and Equality

To go back to your example, taken to an extreme, after some time? Justice and Equality can absolutely be perverted to have a negative impact on the common man. danger danger this line of discussion gets us in trouble I mean we have seen this in our own world.

I do not think it is beyond consideration, that someone working to keep both ends of the extreme from being realized, is logical.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

While in BX / BECMI / RC, the axis of concern is Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic.

True Neutral is neutral on both the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axis.

As for characters?
How about The Lady of Pain?

 

[Professor Murder]

I agree, to be more clear.

I think the concept of someone seeking to maintain a balance between Cosmic Forces of Good and Evil, would....yes do some evil things and actively hamper the cause of Cosmic Good.

Good Nation, could become tyrannical.
Evil Nation, could become tyrannical.

A balanced nation however, where neither side can gain a dominating upper hand? Maybe it would have a harder time becoming tyrannical?

I mean thats kind of the theory as I see it anyway.



To go back to your example, taken to an extreme, after some time? Justice and Equality can absolutely be perverted to have a negative impact on the common man. danger danger this line of discussion gets us in trouble I mean we have seen this in our own world.

I do not think it is beyond consideration, that someone working to keep both ends of the extreme from being realized, is logical.

As I state initially, saying "Unchecked Good can lead to Tyranny" is a facile argument because by definition when that happens it is no longer Good, it is Evil.

 

[Professor Murder]

While in BX / BECMI / RC, the axis of concern is Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic.

True Neutral is neutral on both the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axis.

As for characters?
How about The Lady of Pain?

The Lady of Pain isn't a human being so moral contsructs around their behavior are vague. There is no indication their motives are "Uphold balance between alignments." It is "By any means possible, avoid disruptions to Sigil." I would argue The Lady is LN anyway.