Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6756072" data-attributes="member: 2656">I've always had a problem with True Neutrality in D&D as it hasn't been treated consistently in the writing. My opinions on this matter stem from 1e and 2e primarily. In the early editions some of the writing implied that LG was the "goodest" alignment, and CE was the "evelist" alignment. At the same time, fitting in sword and sorcery and the ambiguous protagonists it features led to different treatments where there was contempt for apparently rigid law and order and blackest villainy alike and the neutral alignments were privileged as more "realistic", appropriate to adventuring, able to collaborate with different viewpoints, and not object to the behavior of others. IMO True Neutral can't be *both* the actively seeking literal and mystical balance in the world alignment *and* the pragmatic realist alignment . And the writing indicating True Neutrals should constantly swap alliances and betray former allies at the drop of a hat I found freaky in the extreme and instinctively rejected.I tend to play good PCs and my small exposure to the version of Greyhawk run locally had insufferably smug True Neutral NPCs, druids and wizards and others, inscrutable, uncooperative, secretive and oh so much better and more knowledgeable than the PCs, especially the good ones. But then I disagree with the OP in that I require good to be good and evil to be evil to bother with alignment at all.  When I play a good PC I don't want them to be some dupe that's manipulated by more clued in NPCs with contempt. A particular alignment can make a problem easier or more difficult for a PC. The benefits of good alignments come from building up a good reputation and good will in the community, less relevant to campaigns with nomadic adventurers and grittier worlds. Neutral alignments allow more self-centred PCs, pragmatic decision making and dubious allies. Evil alignments allow fun with bad guy PCs and exploring dark territory. And True neutrals get to be smug and superior.My own alignment interpretation has a metarule that no alignment is privileged over the others in a majority of cases, all have advantages and disadvantages. No alignment should be the alignment of "What I was going to do anyway", something often said of CN, CE, all the evil alignments in general, and  True Neutral.Or alternatively, acknowledge that the alignment system should be customised to suit the needs of the campaign intended, so neutrality is privileged in Sword and Sorcery worlds over intolerant "good" and destructive "evil", while LG can be privileged in Paladins and Princesses worlds with black hats and white hats and both Providence and Cosmic Evil active in the world. These are different worlds, with different requirements and call for different PC concepts.</blockquote>

Verification