"I only allow Neutral Alignments for PCs"

[JeffK1966]

I think most people generally tend towards a slight degree lawfulness and of goodness, be it helping a child or an older person, or a family member or following the general laws of their country. While if you watch the evening news, it seems the world is full of evil folks, I think they are more the exception. Sure, people may not follow ALL the laws (speeding, fudging their taxes), but they generally follow most of them.

Most of the games I have played in have not allowed true neutral as an alignment, as they did not see it as a realistically playable alignment - nobody could be that big a fence sitter.

 

[Magius del Cotto]

Most of the games I have played in have not allowed true neutral as an alignment, as they did not see it as a realistically playable alignment - nobody could be that big a fence sitter.

Well, True Neutral doesn't have to be neutral because they can't decide which side to join. It's entirely possible for someone to be neutral because they believe in Balance above all other things. Is it common? No. Is it possible? Yes. However, such a character may appear to be chaotic to others, since they work on a different basis than others do, possibly going so far as to record every deed they've done, and making sure that they balance out the good with the bad, the lawful with a chaotic.
In short, you don't have to not care to be neutral.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Well, True Neutral doesn't have to be neutral because they can't decide which side to join. It's entirely possible for someone to be neutral because they believe in Balance above all other things. Is it common? No. Is it possible? Yes. However, such a character may appear to be chaotic to others, since they work on a different basis than others do, possibly going so far as to record every deed they've done, and making sure that they balance out the good with the bad, the lawful with a chaotic.
In short, you don't have to not care to be neutral.

Now that has always seemed like an unplayable philosophic idea that could really only even be conceived of apart from reality.

OTOH at least in 3e (which at least partially jetissoned that hideous interpretation), true neutral doesn't necessarily mean that you're a fence sitter who can't decide whether good is better than evil or who doesn't care about good and evil (people completely unconcerned about the moral qualities of their actions are usually Neutral Evil in D&D). Instead, true neutral usually represents a willingness to compromise. A true neutral character believes in doing the right thing and prefers good to evil but doesn't have the consistency of conviction to make too much sacrifice for those beliefs. If it would be advantageous to steal and they wouldn't get caught, they might steal (as long as they could convince themselves it didn't hurt anyone or they were remedying some real or imagined injustice). If they hear someone screaming for help but think it might be a trap, they won't help. (After all, they'd probably just get there too late--it's not as if they could really make a difference anyway). If they are in a party and someone needs to sacrifice themselves to save the rest of the party, they'll probably wait for someone else to volunteer. And if they have the choice between the slim hope of taking the One Ring to Mount Doom and destroying it, or the risking corruption by using the ring's power against its master, they'll use the ring. After all, they could probably stop before it corrupted them completely. And they didn't really have a choice anyway--I mean what other hope was there?

In that sense, 3e true neutral is a pragmatic alignment. It is like good but not as committed. It is also often a transitional alignment because circumstances often present choices (such as whether or not to use the One Ring) which demand firm commitment and sacrifice or lead inevitably to corruption.

 

[Whodat]

I don't ban evil characters from my game.

I ban evil players.

Seriously though, if you have a good group of mature gamers, you can allow them to be free-thinkers without placing blanket restictions.

 

[Alchemist]

Wizards has an online alignment test for helping players determine the alignment of their character. I put myself in the character's place to determine my (theoretical) alignment. To my surprise, I came up the ever pragmatic True Neutral. I thought I was Neutral Good. I guess I'm ready to let the common morality slide once in a while for my own self gratification more often than I thought.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that I am really True Neutral. I don't subscribe to any extremes, and I certainly don't believe any extremes are healthy ones, whether in politics, religion, eating, sleeping, philosophy or anything. I am often very ambivalent about taking a stand on an issue, because I realize (believe?) that there are multiple correct viewpoints, and upholding any one may be detrimental to the whole. I prefer good over evil and law over chaos in general, but "good" and law can both become extremely tyrranical if given free reign. Elder-Basilisk's observations ring true to me.

So yeah. True Neutral exists in the real world. I may not be a paragon of the alignment, but I feel I sit on that fence pretty well, and still manage to sleep at night.

 

[jollyninja]

Wizards has an online alignment test for helping players determine the alignment of their character.

link link link link link link link link link link link link

 

[Alchemist]

link link link link link link link link link link link link

Okay, okay. Here you go:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20001222b

Hey. You're the 3rd Albertan (other than myself) I've seen on these boards. Funky.

 

[Umbran]

I don't think it'd be that odd at all. Some of the most memorable characters in fantasy fiction are Neutrals, and their influences on the game are pretty obvious. Characters like Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser - all neutrals. Not every campaign has to be centered on crusading for the light.

That being said, the line, "No good or evil humanoids are born, they must be developed," is a pretty weak justification unless you start the characters as literal infants. By the time people are old enough to be adventurers, they are old enough to have moral leanings.

Not that you cannot choose this as a limit for your game. I'm just picking nits with what seems to be an implausible justification for that limit

 

[LostSoul]

I think it would make a really interesting campaign.

Rather than start off all Good or Evil, your characters can make moral choices and live with the consequences. Maybe they'll evolve like Han Solo. Or fall in disgrace.

I think it's better than starting off Good (unless you plan to turn Evil and then Redeem yourself...).

 

[LostSoul]

Hey. You're the 3rd Albertan (other than myself) I've seen on these boards. Funky.

I wonder how many of us there are in Calgary?