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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

There are three pathways by which "True Neutral" can be made to work--but you've already excluded one of them.

The first is, as you say, more or less the assertion that what we call "Good" is not actually Good; it is merely the force that, ordinarily, is most similar to Good. And, likewise, the force we call "Evil" is not actually Evil; it is merely the force that, ordinarily, is most similar to Evil.

The second, as various others have said in this thread (probably numerous others, but I haven't read it closely), is something in the direction of pacifism, non-intervention, disengagement, etc. What 4e called "Unaligned", basically--specifically choosing to just...not get involved. You make no commitments and claim no moral stance, more or less. This is usually dismissed because what people want is a form of "Muscular" Neutrality--a Neutrality which actually does stand for something, even if that something is weird or dumb or whatever.

The third, which I suspect will be most relevant here, is the idea that Good and Evil both need to be limited for a universe that achieves some "optimal" form. That is, a sort of detached stance where one says: "Good people are not sufficiently motivated unless they know there is Evil to oppose. Evil people act as catalysts for change, even if that change is sometimes harmful. Evil actions keep the system lean and focused, trimming the fat. Without just the right amount of Evil, Good becomes complacent. Too much Evil is of course horrible and nobody wants THAT, but things would be ever-so-slightly less effective if there were genuinely no Evil at all." More or less, this views both Good and Evil in purely instrumental terms.

To a Good person, this looks like a soft form of Evil. To an Evil person, this looks like a manipulable or persuadable form of Good. A Neutral person might see that as a good thing ("a compromise should please nobody" and similar ideas are, collectively, an incredibly irritating assertion treated as though it were some kind of profound wisdom when it's outright bollocks.)

More or less? You're a Good person arguing that True Neutral fence-sitting (or outright "but Evil is useful!") facilitates more Evil, and is thus Evil itself. The True Neutral person would look you dead in the eye and say, "You're already proving right the folks who say that Good turns into Evil when it has no actual Evil to fight."

And to be clear, I agree with you. I think "muscular" True Neutral is an oxymoron, a logical contradiction. But that's what you'd be hearing from someone who actually adheres to this philosophy. If you want to argue with them, you have to argue on their terms to show that their position is untenable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Maintaining the status quo seems like a pretty solid motivation, especially when the consequence of one side or another winning is the end of the multiverse, at least as we know it. True neutrals are just trying to keep this going.

But all that's doing is saying that the faction labelled "Good" is really just stupid.

That's the problem here. When you make Neutral (on the G/N/E axis) into "we're actually protecting all of us by preventing the end of the universe", you're making them into the Actually Good faction--the faction trying to make as much good as actually achievable--while the "Good" faction is really the Stupid Good faction that wants to maximize the goodness-state right this very instant even though doing so will actually result in enormous and irreparable harm to everyone everywhere.

You haven't defined a form of so-called "muscular" Neutrality. You've defined two Good factions where one is smart and thinks ahead, and the other is stupid and barrelling toward universal annihilation. Smart people join the faction called "Neutral" that actually wants to do the best by everyone. Stupid people join the faction called "Good" that simply wants to make everyone feel great even though doing so will destroy the universe.