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

[CreamCloud0]

When rolling up new characters, I always tell my players to choose Neutral for their alignment unless they have a reason to choose otherwise. This begs the question, "why would I choose to be Good or Chaotic or whatever," and in my opinion? Getting the players to ask themselves that question is the whole point of having alignment mechanics in the first place.

also IMO, players often far underestimate what it should take to qualify themselves as being Good aligned, take a honest look at yourself you're a glorified mercenary not a paragon of morality.

 

[Bohandas]

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?

In some editions the Lady is lawful neutral rather than true neutral

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It’s very Old Testamenty, which isn’t really surprising considering the other real-life religious parallels invoked in Dragonlance.

OK, and would we consider that good?

 

[Alzrius]

In some editions the Lady is lawful neutral rather than true neutral

I'm going to have to ask for a citation, there.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As near as one can get, it seems like the Good/Neutral/Evil gods in Krynn did a sort of detente where they have this "Doctrine of Balance" to prevent them warring etc. (no sign this in any way works, so it's very odd that it's supposedly a thing, they fight constantly through proxies)

Dragonlance was created at the height of the Cold War, which probably plays into things.

The Cold War's use of proxies probably did prevent the U.S. and U.S.S.R. from nuking each into craters. Sure, it sucked for large parts of the rest of the world as a result, but it worked out for Washington and Moscow.

I don't think Weis and Hickman were consciously making a Cold War parallel, but it was definitely the world they lived in and I can certainly see that sort of thinking seeming like what powerful entities just do.

(But also, not remotely Good and, as you said, they used a meteorite to accomplish what an assassin could have more easily done, without requiring all the divinities working together on the project.)

 

[CreamCloud0]

all this debate about 'is good really good and is evil ever justified' is why i just go with yes, Good is Good, but Evil is always creeping in and sprouting up in new places, Neutral just wants to be left to live their lives, but Good can't eradicate Evil because to do so would require an offensive level of privacy violation and it respects the sanctity of free will.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

also IMO, players often far underestimate what it should take to qualify themselves as being Good aligned, take a honest look at yourself you're a glorified mercenary.

Nah, no XP for gold. Modern D&D characters definitely tend to have heroic motivations, especially in the WotC adventures, where even the collection of heist adventures is reframed as being heroic activity.

 

[Bohandas]

Has anyone posted this yet:

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Good can't eradicate Evil because to do so would require an offensive level of privacy violation and it respects the sanctity of free will.

Free will is a Chaotic ideal. You can definitely have a Good surveillance state. There are a number of what we'd consider Lawful states in real life that have convinced their public to give up a significant degree of personal liberty in return for the greater Good.

Too many examples would likely run afoul of ENWorld's politics rules, but I would Google collectivist nations and cultures. Some of them aren't great, but others are pretty clearly trying to create a great quality of life for their residents, which is definitely what we'd consider a Good motivation in D&D terms.

 

[Bohandas]

I'm going to have to ask for a citation, there.

Planar [sic] Handbook pg 142, column 1. An old 3.5e planes supplement