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

[Piperken]

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?

Laozi (老子) enters the chat.

A lot of decisions rooted in Daoism would look like neutrality imo.

Like other philosophical systems, it's subject to criticism which this thread likely doesn't warrant, but it's what immediately came to mind when I consider this question.

 

[aco175]

I tend to see people playing a Neutral PC and then acting another way, which is according to my definitions and not theirs on what I think it means. Most of these PCs are acting more good because the other PCs are doing the same and saving the village and such. The player seems to just want options to be able to justify something.

In my game last night the PCs were in the feywild saving stolen kids from their village to being back home. They killed all the bad guys and now have the kids, but there are also like 50 other kids from who knows where. There was some discussion on what to do with these kids. They are freeing all of them, but do they bring all of them back to their village not knowing where on the world or if on this material plane they came from. They seem to be leaning that way since they have not thought to look for some kind of logbook to say where they came from. I might have to insert that clue into the next adventure.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Its a concept that is difficult to discuss on this forum.

First, to accept 'True Neutral' or Militant Neutral, we have to accept Good and Evil as cosmic forces.
Second, we have to accept that Good and Evil (not good and evil) have agreed upon definitions.

Since 2, is impossible here, and discussion invites the Red Text in all cases on a long enough timeline....

Yeah the second point is the huge issue.

The whole thing is very firmly Gygax and Arneson's own stupid fault. They're both worthy of significant criticism for creating the whole situation.

True Neutral made sense when the Cosmic Forces were Chaos and Law, neither of which was inherently "good" or "evil" in a relative human sense, and some of which are required for a society to function, for freedom to exist meaningfully, for people to live their lives.

Whereas in any even vaguely conventional-adjacent definition of Good/Evil doesn't work remotely the same way. You have to start coming up with truly demented visions of what Good/Evil mean to try and argue opposing anyone doing "too much" Good is sane in the sane way too much Law might kind of obviously be. Gygax and Arneson also totally failed to provide a vision of what an all-Good or all-Evil universe would look like (particularly where both were negative and to be avoided), whereas Moorcock did provide ones for Chaos and Law.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Laozi (老子) enters the chat.

A lot of decisions rooted in Daoism would look like neutrality imo.

Like other philosophical systems, it's subject to criticism which this thread likely doesn't warrant, but it's what immediately came to mind when I consider this question.

I don't think Daoism can really be argued to oppose Good, or to promote Evil, in D&D senses, though. Daoism certainly fits with Moorcockian neutrality - i.e. between Chaos and Order, but ultimately it's actually pretty concerned with what it sees as "good".

I mean, for example, the "three treasures" in Daoism are compassion, humility and frugality. That's obviously totally incompatible with opposing Good at times and promoting Evil at times.

 

[TwoSix]

If we run with the idea that the center point of balance is the "true good", and what we classify as Good and Evil are both actually overly extreme poles of a spectrum (like Law and Chaos), what could we relabel those two poles as that keeps the feel but doesn't trigger as much of a "well, this good isn't the real good" pushback?

I don't love Life and Death, but maybe something like Abundance and Desolation?

 

[Brendan Byrd]

If we run with the idea that the center point of balance is the "true good", and what we classify as Good and Evil are both actually overly extreme poles of a spectrum (like Law and Chaos), what could we relabel those two poles as that keeps the feel but doesn't trigger as much of a "well, this good isn't the real good" pushback?

I don't love Life and Death, but maybe something like Abundance and Desolation?

Or viewed with a third axis to get a co-ordinate:
Balance vs. Imbalance
???

ETA: I take the Good-Neutral-Evil “axis” and fold it into a triangle. I find that easier to manage.
Edit2: “Unaligned” is the point in the center of the triangle.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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?

Sparrowhawk and the mages of Roke (well, other than one particularly unpleasant one in the later books).

I suspect Mordenkainen's depictions in the 1980s and onward were a garbled version of what the writers got from A Wizard of Earthsea.

 

[CreamCloud0]

true neutral to me has always been 'i'll make sure my needs are taken care of before i start considering anyone else', they will help others but will generally be in expectation of some kind of recompense for doing so, but they won't be so greedy to steal from other's mouths to feed themselves, leave me to my business and i'll leave you to yours.

 

[Epic Meepo]

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?

If we take True Neutral to mean actively balancing out one's Good acts and one's Evil acts, I could see certain anti-heroes qualifying as True Neutral. Assuming there are equal numbers of Good people and Evil people in the world, if you believe you should perform Good acts to benefit (only) Good people and perpetrate Evil acts to punish (only) Evil people, then you have a moral philosophy that requires you to perform Good acts and Evil acts in equal measure.

 

[Marc17]

Well, the utilitarian answer is ask your DM as they're the only one that can answer that for the game you are in (and perhaps not even then).

IMC (or at least most of them), True Neutral would seek to limit the effects of the outer planes. The prime material is not good or evil, lawful or chaotic, it is a mixture of all of them. Every world in the Prime Material works at least a little bit differently than the others and each has its own spiritual component and afterlife that matches the make up of the physical part of the world. The outer planes operate by different rules and can be considered pure Good or pure Evil; Law or Chaos. Both are not meant to be in the Prime Material and contradict the Natural Order no matter where they are in it. Thus, the True Neutral are those that seek to limit the effects of all of them.

Somewhere I have a scene written up of an angel meeting a good adventurer. It describes how it come from a plane where there is no death, suffering, war, or selfishness. It looks upon the adventurer with revulsion as its body is a churning charnel house of the things it considers Evil. There is birth and life, but it is locked in an eternal conflict of kill or be killed where animals and plants much be murdered to sustain life. Even inside of it, the bits that make up its body are at war with intruders and even deviant parts of itself. Still, it smiles as it knows the adventurer means good and seeks to be what it can never be. So it will help. However, it needs to do so as quickly as possible. Its very nature attacks the natural order. It can feel creatures to small to be seen land on it's body and failing to find anything that can sustain them begin to starve, suffer, and die. It's every step crushes living things under its foot. Even when its energies interact and bring forth new life to replace what was killed in their footsteps, of these new plants and creatures most will not survive as they are not meant for this world. Of the ones that do, they will just enter into the cycle of life and death, thus the angel contributes to the system it finds so repugnant. It is also meant to be an explanation of why the higher planes do not walk the prime material as much as the lower planes creatures who find pleasure in the suffering, death, and corruption they cause by just existing where they shouldn't.