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

[Tonguez]

The only human I can think of is Odysseus - who lies constantly, is capable of cruelty and heroism and is loyal only to his idea of home.

Tom Bombadil - Helps the hobbits, doesnt care about Sauron, doing his own thing

Loki and other Trickster gods - they help and hinder in equal measure

Puck of the fey - he's out for a good time, entertaining himself but otherwise does as he pleases

Baba Yaga - she doesnt care about good or evil, if you bring law or chaos, just that you show respect

The Cheshire Cat - another Trickster who both offers advises and confuses Alice

Death (Discworld) - Death is an interested observer, but does not intervene (usually), things happen, Death waits

 

[Professor Murder]

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?

BTW, I think this right here is where the problem comes from originally.
The idea of needing a dynamic between law and chaos for things to work makes sense. So when your alignment system only have that one axis, the existence of a "militant neutral" ethos makes sense. But in terms of Good vs Evil? I'm just saying, at some points in his life, Mordenkainan sacrificed some babies, perhaps with a tear in his eye.

 

[Scribe]

As I state initially, saying "Unchecked Good can lead to Tyranny" is a facile argument because by definition when that happens it is no longer Good, it is Evil.

At what point do we cross the line from liberty, to tyranny?

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Buridan's Ass is true neutral. It is, ultimately, not a moral position, but a superposition of all moral positions; agentic suicide.

 

[Professor Murder]

At what point do we cross the line from liberty, to tyranny?

When the limitations on liberty are not founded in justice.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

BTW, I think this right here is where the problem comes from originally.
The idea of needing a dynamic between law and chaos for things to work makes sense. So when your alignment system only have that one axis, the existence of a "militant neutral" ethos makes sense. But in terms of Good vs Evil? I'm just saying, at some points in his life, Mordenkainan sacrificed some babies, perhaps with a tear in his eye.

The notion of there needing to be a "balance" between law and chaos seems to fly in the face of entropy. Assuming that physics in D&D works the same as it does in reality (and at least the Doomguard of Planescape do), someone like Mordenkainen or a druid circle interested in maintaining "the balance" would actually be working constantly towards law and order, knowing that they are fated towards failure.

 

[slobster]

I might argue that strong moral relativism is pretty true neutral. (I might regret making that argument too, but let's give it a shot) It's not actively trying to maintain a balance between "Good" and "Evil", it's arguing that such definitions are actually highly subjective and constructed by thinking beings rather than fundamental to reality.

It's harder, but not impossible to take a stance like that in a D&D cosmology, depending on your setting of choice. I would argue that the Blood of Vol from Eberron is prone to true neutrality (the mortal faith, not the lich queen who secretly pulls their strings)

 

[Professor Murder]

I might argue that strong moral relativism is pretty true neutral. (I might regret making that argument too, but let's give it a shot) It's not actively trying to maintain a balance between "Good" and "Evil", it's arguing that such definitions are actually highly subjective and constructed by thinking beings rather than fundamental to reality.

It's harder, but not impossible to take a stance like that in a D&D cosmology, depending on your setting of choice. I would argue that the Blood of Vol from Eberron is prone to true neutrality (the mortal faith, not the lich queen who secretly pulls their strings)

Moral relativism is how Neutral is described in I think from 3rd ed onward. Which makes sense overall. Its why most people in DnD are neutral now. But thats not militant neutral, which by ethos, is just as likely to enslave people as it is to liberate them purely to keep the numbers balanced.

 

[Professor Murder]

The notion of there needing to be a "balance" between law and chaos seems to fly in the face of entropy. Assuming that physics in D&D works the same as it does in reality (and at least the Doomguard of Planescape do), someone like Mordenkainen or a druid circle interested in maintaining "the balance" would actually be working constantly towards law and order, knowing that they are fated towards failure.

The physics of a universe that has magic clearly doesn't operate as ours does.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

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?
< snip >
So Yeah. True Neutral? It's nonsense.

Justification as in the best way to examine an NPC’s alignment? Or justification for a Good-Evil axis?

—
I am inclined to view alignment as a descriptive aid.
Since it’s closest to hand, you get a snippet from the gold box:

In d20 Modern, a character could have THREE “allegiances” with moral and ethical alignment among the options.

—
Once things move into the strongly aligned outer planes, I think the “fundamental forces” idea has a stronger hold. The “Great Wheel” cosmology leans into this.