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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Radiant Citadel I think I would question whether that's actually a utopian situation, because it's got that classic 1980s D&D "we slapped this setting together from disparate and incoherent elements and ideas we thought we cool, without really seeing if they fit" deal going, accidentally I suspect. I mean, on one level that means a lot of the haters are wrong to hate because that's absolute classic D&D there baby! There are times, for example, where it lapses into a sort of "authoritarianism is cool so long as the authorities are on what I perceive as my side" mode too, which ill-befits some of what it's doing, and other times where it's sort of trying to do IDIC but like, imho without real conviction, which makes it ring hollow.

I do feel that, if the citadel setting got the spotlight, rather than the Concord Worlds, it would quickly become apparent to WotC that there are a lot of groups in conflict (ancestral spirits of a culture vs. living members of the culture, living citadel legislature vs. Concord World rulers, essentially immortal founder who doesn't seem to really want to give up power despite otherwise being a good guy) that make it hard to see how it'll last in its current state.

I would love to see a campaign based on the citadel, with the missions to the Concord Worlds being sidequests for the main action, sort of a Deep Space 9 structure for this fantasy Star Trek set up.

 

[tetrasodium]

In real life? Sure, they wouldn't be.

But in the vast majority of D&D groups and groups in a lot of other games, realistically they are basically doing as a form of demented benevolence.


Not sure I'd equate donating to churches in D&D with benevolence given how awful most gods are, but I've absolutely seen PCs drop huge amounts of money on stuff like building/supporting orphanages, cast healing spells on villagers with no expectation of pay and so on. I think that's routine in my experience. Ironically it's often PCs who talk a lot of smack about how they're "just mercenaries" who actually do it. This is something that comes up in fiction from time to time too - just look at the recent "Sentenced to be a Hero" anime, where the hilariously-named Xylo Forbartz tries to pass himself off as a hard-bitten selfish badass in the Snake Plissken mode, but as pointed out by other characters, he's anything but that in terms of what he does (as opposed to the persona he adopts), and virtually everything he does is about helping innocent or helpless or weak people or minimizing casualties or the the like. Even his "horrific crime" which lead to being made into a Hero (basically someone who can be resurrected and made to fight demons over and over) was (minor spoilers, resolved in like E2 or E3), an act of pure mercy/compassion which cost him everything.

(EDIT: As an aside, Sentenced to be a Hero is interesting in that it's a rare modern example of dark fantasy that definitely isn't grimdark, even though there are tons of signifiers that make you think it's going to be.)

It's a critically important difference then vrs now now for purposes of measuring alignment. Because characters who hypothetically donate wealth to churches or use it start orphanages and whatever are not giving up anything that they need now it's an action that carries no weight should alignment ever be relevant. In every past edition those actions carried weight (as did the inverse) because that wealth was a thing PCs were expected to spend significantly on growing stroner.

Being particularly good/evil carried weight in the world and it could manifest in play with memorable visceral results. The gm no longer has that weight to consider and the loss is mirrored in the lack of weighty good/evil for the world/gods/etc to take action with.

 

[Scribe]

I think it's probably a reflection of a large strain of patriarchal thought in American culture, especially at the time, with both religious leaders and God being seen as the ultimate authority figure and that what they do is inherently right, even if we disagree with it, by virtue of their position.

Yes, and as one who came up through that and the particular branch of it which informed a lot of Dragonlance, I gotta say its wild that people dont get it but then I had a conversation with my now adult son a few months ago, who was very much NOT raised under that same uh....structure, and he just couldnt get it at all.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

Went digging through my copy of the 3e MotP to see what it said about Sigil & The Lady of Pain…

This seems relevant to the discussion of militant neutrality: