Neutral alignment in game

[Quasqueton]

We know that in core/default D&D, Good and Evil (and Law and Chaos) exist as universal powers. Tangible forces. Characters in the game can speak of, discuss, and identify Good and Evil.

Does Neutral exist? It exists as a game term, just like "BAB" and "ability score", but does it exist as a recognizable power/force in the game world? Note that all spells that refer to alignment, refer to "good", "evil", and "neither good nor evil". To my knowledge, no spell or other in-game effect refers to "neutral" or "neutrality".

Druids and clerics have restrictions with regard to neutral alignments. How would this restriction be explained in game?

And since Good and Evil are known elements of the world, can/do characters in the world refer to "alignment"? Can someone ask, "What is your alignment?" and it make sense in the world? It might be rude to ask and it might not be answered truthfully, etc., but does the question have meaning in the game world. [Asking "What is your Wisdom score?" would have no meaning in the game world.]

Quasqueton

 

[Psion]

Well, I don't know if this addresses your question directly, but I consider the loosening of druid alignments one of the great steps forward for 3e, and I really do not miss the notion that was once very prevalent that "true neutral is obsessive neutral." to me, the most basic sort of neutral is having an admixture or moderation of good and evil qualities. That seems way more natural, playable, and beleivable than the idea of characters who go around trying to actively act against the "causes" of good and evil.

As for druids and neutrality, I just see it as requiring some level of spiritual detachment from moral philosophy associated with the civilized world.

 

[MoonZar]

In my campaign world, some people play true neutral as the balance alignement. They simply try to achieve balance. If they have too much evil in the world they try to do good, and if they are too much good in the world they try to do evil.

But as Psion say this should be a mix of good and evil deeds.

 

[billd91]

There is more than one way to view neutrality.

There's the somewhat contrived view of neutrality as actively seeking balance. This requires a philosophy that holds that there should be a balance between extremes like good and evil. I think this philosophy also has to assume that there is a benefit to evil at a conceptual level, something I think is kind of bizarre.
Now, if we take this conception of neutrality to the more pragmatic level, then I think it starts to make sense. While there may be no positive value in evil as a concept, there is positive value in people that happen to be evil much of the time. The evil king may be bad, but he has a right to his throne if he ascended the normal way, and he may be a competent, if authoritarian ruler. Stuff like that. This sort of neutrality is probably more concerned that the trains run on time so that we can all benefit from normality rather than niceties like life, liberty, and sapient rights. This sort of philosophical pragmatic neutrality shows up in Greyhawk (and is one reason many people like the setting, the forces of neutrality actually exist). The Circle of Eight, powerful wizards who pull levers behind the scenes, tend to promote a certain pragmatic neutral balance to keep things predictable and prosperous.

The second major view of neutrality is not really philosophical at all. It's more of a rejection of the other alignments as meaningless. This is the neutrality of nature, and I would argue, druids. Good and evil don't really matter much. At least, they're not compelling enough to force the neutral character to take a side.
Closely related to this is the general neutrality of the average village of peasants. They aren't evil in the sense that they actively want to hurt someone (even if they might take advantage of an outsider with deep pockets by raising their prices or bartering harder). They aren't good in that they won't really risk their necks for just anybody (though they'll do what they can for their kin and neighbors whom they know well). In this case, the sides in the moral alignment war just aren't important enough to embrace in the face of getting the work of the day done. They don't actively seek balance, it's just that the extremes are irrelevant to them. And though they care capable of making the moral choices that nature cannot, they don't really need to.

 

[Warehouse23]

Projecting neutrality onto the good/evil and law/chaos axes as "midpoints" or "balances between the two" really gets my goat sometimes. I've come to understand neutrality in D&D as deliberate, directed non-involvement. It's a way of interacting with a world in which forces of Good and Evil, Law and Chaos clash on the battle fields, and saying, "I'd rather not take sides. I'd rather not be involved." Neutrality is an alignment for the foot soldier on the front, who has been thrown into epic combats against mighty dragons of darkness (or what have you) and really just wishes he was back on his farm, rather than on some damn fool idealistic crusade. It's an alignment for the wizard who knows better than to meddle in the affairs of gods or dragons.

Neutral characters will do their job to accomplish their goals, but won't rescue the damsel in distress or sacrifice themselves for the sake of innocents, unless there's a damn good reason to do so. They're not good and they're not evil--the idea would never cross their mind--they're just looking out for themselves and their way of life in a world which seems to be run by epic figures of Virtue or Wretchedness, intent on forcing their way of life on the rest of the populaiton. Neutral is the alignment for all of those characters who wake up one morning, thinking, "How the hell did I end up in a fantasy RPG?"

 

[John Morrow]

We know that in core/default D&D, Good and Evil (and Law and Chaos) exist as universal powers. Tangible forces. Characters in the game can speak of, discuss, and identify Good and Evil.

Does Neutral exist?

Yes, I think it does. Basically, I handle it by treating the word "Neutral" as "Pragmatic" (in either direction) and Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos as active rather than passive alignment categories and it works reasonably well within the RAW definitions. I'm going to focus on Good and Evil here because that seems to be your focus.

The way I've been handling it is that Good is actively altruistic. As per the RAW, "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." A Good character will put the welfare of others, even innocent strangers, above their own welfare. It's not simply a matter of tossing some money to a beggar but being willing to run into a burning building to save that beggar or spend weeks working to get them back on their feet again. Yes, tossing money to a beggar might be a kind and good act, but it's not simply a matter of being on the Good side of the Neutral line between Good and Evil. To be Good, one has to reach a higher standard.

Similarly, I've defined Evil as actively cruel or indifferent to the suffering of others. As per the RAW, "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." An Evil character is either indifferent to the suffering of others or actively seeks to cause suffering because the enjoy it. The RAW simply requires that, "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent." So Neutral people can kill the innocent. What seperates them from an Evil person is that an evil person will kill out of convenience or pleasure. Yes, killing someone to take their stuff might be a ruthless and evil act, but it's not simply a matter of being on the Evil side of the Neutral line between Good and Evil. To be Evil, one has to reach a higher standard.

Ultimately, Neutral is moderate, pragmatic, and self-interested. As per the RAW, "Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships." They are not cruel, so they won't kill out of convenience or for pleasure, and they are not altruistic so they "lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

Think of it like IQ. One might be smart with a 115 IQ but you won't get into Mensa with that score. Similarly, one might be somewhat deficient with a 90 IQ but they won't qualify as mentally challenged. If we draw a sharp line at 100 and say that only exactly 100 is "normal" and everyone over 100 is smart and everyone under 100 is mentally deficient, then we've narrowed "normal" to the point where it is a useless category. And that's exactly why they don't do that for IQ. Instead, "normal" is considered at least a 20 point range (from roughly 90 to 110). And if you want three categories like Deficient, Normal, and Genius (to correspond to Good, Neutral, and Evil), the line for Deficient might be 70 and the line for Genius might be 140. A person with a 130 IQ might be plenty smart and a person with a 75 IQ might be plenty slow, but they aren't Deficient or a Genius unless they cross that standard.

So going back to alignment, the way I've been playing it is that a Neutral person might be a very good person who everyone likes but unless they are willing to run into that burning building to save a stranger, they aren't Good. Similarly, a Neutral person might be a very bad person who cheats, steals, and even kills others from time to time but unless they are doing it casually or out of cruelty, they aren't Evil. That's how I carve out a place for Neutral. On a pure binary scale, the first character may be Good and the second character may be Evil. But once a broad space is carved out for Neutral, they are Neutral, instead.

Druids and clerics have restrictions with regard to neutral alignments. How would this restriction be explained in game?

I think the idea there (and this is how I play it) is that Druids are supposed to be indifferent to strong ideologies and focus on nature and survival while clerics are supposed to be idological rather than pragmatically selfish.

And since Good and Evil are known elements of the world, can/do characters in the world refer to "alignment"? Can someone ask, "What is your alignment?" and it make sense in the world? It might be rude to ask and it might not be answered truthfully, etc., but does the question have meaning in the game world. [Asking "What is your Wisdom score?" would have no meaning in the game world.]

Once something can be detected, it becomes a knowable quality that can be discussed. So, yes, I think characters can refer to alignment. In my setting, Evil often actively hides what it is within normal human society because being known to be Evil is often a liability. There are plenty of spells and magic items that make this possible. Of course there is also a reason why my players (in jest) asked me if all bards were Evil in my setting, because they are particularly well-suited for hiding what they really are.

[EDIT: Spelling]

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think this philosophy also has to assume that there is a benefit to evil at a conceptual level, something I think is kind of bizarre.

And that's where I think you're wrong.

Because, if there is absolutely no benefit to Evil on a conceptual level, the only rational reason to pursue Evil is ... none. And, therefore, anyone who is Evil is by extension insane.

Rather, if there is a reason for Evil to exist other than as a label applied to cackling madmen who all want *WORLD DOMINATION*, then there must be some tangible benefit - some logical reason - behind it. Evil must have its own viable philosophies, even if it's just one as simple as "Greed is morally right. It drives innovation, which drives progress."

For anyone who has the game Alpha Centauri, I think the Morgan Industries quotes provide a great starting point for such thinking.

 

[threshel]

I take my online name from the first character (a druid, natch) I made to specifically explore this issue, although he spells his with a capital "T".
Considering that last night was the first time I've had a chance to play him in roughly five years, I like the timing of this thread.

His philosophy is that Good and Evil, Law and Order are the forces which pull the world into round. While "The Balance" is an issue, it isn't the motivation. In his mind, a round wheel makes the ride smoother, but it ain't what pulls the cart. He's more concerned with the cycle of life and decay that drives the natural world. And here is where we get to what "Neutral" means in the game.

Neutral is a place to put anyone not involved in the cosmic tug of war. All of it's various meanings are valid, because what it really means is "I have priorities that don't lay along either of those two axes." An animal hunts and kills for food, a farmer aids a traveller or not depending on how far it takes him out of his way to market, or the inhabitants of a city pressure their leaders to turn away a tide of refugees in fear of famine and disease from overcrowding. The motivations in these instances are narrowly focused and usually involve choices in the gray areas. I think that people who have problems with alignment in D&D may be too rigidly defining "neutral." I like John Morrow's explanation above.

Neutral in the story isn't usually expressed using that word. My druid sees the promotion of the life side of the cycle labeled "good" and the decay side labeled "evil." "Law" is an anthill, "chaos" is merely the pattern the leaves make as they fall. He defines his beliefs based on what drives the cart, which to him, is the cyle of life. Too much Good = Stagnation. Too much Evil = Desolation. What he does not do, however, is define his purpose by detecting alignment.
After all, it's an organic process, this tending of the world.


J

 

[Voadam]

If you are playing dragon lords of Melnibone then Balance exists just like Law and Chaos.

In general D&D under RAW. No there is no assumed force of neutrality, no neutral descriptor spells or subtypes.

 

[John Morrow]

His philosophy is that Good and Evil, Law and Order are the forces which pull the world into round. While "The Balance" is an issue, it isn't the motivation. In his mind, a round wheel makes the ride smoother, but it ain't what pulls the cart. He's more concerned with the cycle of life and decay that drives the natural world. And here is where we get to what "Neutral" means in the game.

There is a definite "balance" element to the druids in my game. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos all want to reshape the world into their own image of perfection that doesn't allow room for the full array of perspectives to thrive. Nature is interested in variety and survival and the spirit of the world is best served by diversity in the sense that bio-diversity (which extends into alignment) makes life on a world more durable and resilient. In fact, the druid was warned by the spirit of the world not to get too carried away with exterminating the evil humanoids because they provide a natural pressure against the expansion of humans into all areas of the world. Basically, think about what happens to nature when you have all rabbits and no wolves or all wolves and no rabbit.