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

[Brendan Byrd]

Of course to the people writing 1E, or at least Gygax, "Good" meant something very different, both narrower and broader than what Good means to most 1990s and later D&D players, specifically in that he explicitly considered "Kill em all and let [the gods] sort 'em out" (i.e. "just kill everyone in the area the evil guys are in, don't stop and try and work out who is good and who bad") and "Nits make lice" (i.e. specifically "make sure to kill the women and children") to be cool, Good-aligned sentiments.

Which perhaps explains the weird pro-genocide theme on earlier Ranger designs ("racial enemy" always seemed messed up to me, always).

When I took a university level course on Medieval History decades ago, among the first things the Professor addressed was the romanticized version of knighthood that was so very common at the time.
[The Hell’s Angels of the Middle Ages; fully capable by the age of 13 of robbing a neighbour’s church, especially the younger sons.]

 

[Epic Meepo]

I don't know that I'd agree with that from either angle. One, I wouldn't agree that Mira embraces blind hatred; both she and Au and two, that "hatred" of demons, such as it is presented in the film, comsically feels like/aligns itself with the classical Ranger's "Favored Enemy" ability; Rangers of course originally required to be of "Good" alignment.

You make a fair point about Favored Enemy mechanics. That would probably be a feature of any hypothetical Demon Hunter class. But I'm not sure a Demon Hunter class would just be a copy of the D&D Ranger. It would probably also have some Bard and Paladin class features. And as a new class, it wouldn't have any historical connection to any one D&D alignment.

Either way, I'm not convinced Mira's hatred of demons stops at merely having Favored Enemy: Demons. At one point, she expresses enthusiasm for condemning an entire category of sapient beings to eternal suffering, without judging any of them on their personal merits. Based on that, I'm inclined to say Mira bought into Celine's intolerant world view. (Despite Celine's good intentions, she's so intolerant, I can't accept her as being Good herself. She seems very Lawful Neutral.)

In contrast to Mira and Celine, both Rumi and Zoe (who also have demons as a favored enemy) are willing to consider the possibility that not all of their enemies are irredeemable monsters (which also happens to be true on a cosmological level). That, to me, places those two characters clearly in the Good camp. Presumably, by the end of the film, Mira is also in that camp. Celine probably isn't.

 

[Moving Pictures]

I'm playing a true neutral in an online game; but I'm focussing on trying to place her as a "any time you get too much bureaucracy, you get bad things happening to people" point of view.

 

[Voadam]

For the maintain the balance sort of True Neutral you have to frame your scope. Is it if outsiders of one type are taking over the world (classic demon invasion, Eberron style Far Realm aberration invasion, etc.) you actively oppose that? Or is it a world level thing like Mordenkainen where he does not want any one kingdom good or evil aligned becoming too powerful? Or is it the 2e local balance where you support whoever is the underdog you come upon down to the band of gnolls level, even if you were fighting them before and reduced them down to underdog status now? Is it a personal action philosophy of beware of being too fanatical in doing anything, even becoming a martyr saint of good, instead you actively go for the golden mean of balancing aspects of your life?

 

[GobHag]

Here's another way to see TN other than a want to control or distance both(or all four sides) the other alignment; A singular obsession that trumps anything else. The mad scholar recording all knowledge, A warrior who only cares about their swordsmanship, the severe addict can be considered True Neutral too;Not a hedonist but someone whose whole world revolves on a singular thing

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

This is the only acceptable expression of a True Neutral character and it's how I personally prefer to play Mordenkainen

As Howard Zinn says, you can't be neutral on a moving train. Therefore we need to kidnap neutral characters and bring them to Eberron, where the marvels of mass transit will cause them to have a spiritual epiphany.

 

[Umbran]

That is to say the True Neutral is not only rebelling against evil's end goal of infinite pain, infinite loss, total destruction, and to make everything not, but also against literal paradise of no unhappiness, unending growth, unending health, endless bounty and joy - not because they believe those things were evil but in some sense they believed them wrong anyway.

There are other possibilities.

One is that alignment, overall, is about things bigger than mortals.

Like, what if morality isn't about creating eternal paradise or eternal pain for mortals? What if that's not actually the result should Good or Evil win?

Or, what if there's a catch to that eternal paradise, an aspect of it that some cannot conscience?

And so on. If Good and Evil are truly cosmic ends, it would seem starnge that the ends are primarily a mortal concern, and not cosmic.

 

[Celebrim]

There are other possibilities.

One is that alignment, overall, is about things bigger than mortals.

I never really suggested this couldn't be a possibility.

Like, what if morality isn't about creating eternal paradise or eternal pain for mortals?

Who said anything about mortals? For one things, there is no reason why mortality would exist in either of the stated end conditions that I postulated, as in the first case no one ever dies and in the second case no one is alive to die. Morality as a concept ceases to exist in either case. So what makes you think I think this is primarily happening for the sake of mortals or even that mortals are central to it in some fashion?

In some sense both Good and Evil have to do away with mortals by some means to achieve their end goal.

Or, what if there's a catch to that eternal paradise, an aspect of it that some cannot conscience?

Yes, that's exactly what I said stated in a different way.

And so on. If Good and Evil are truly cosmic ends, it would seem strange that the ends are primarily a mortal concern, and not cosmic.

It would. What's your point? That they don't believe those things were evil but in some sense, they believed them wrong anyway? The they honestly believe that paradise is made better if someone is unhappy in it, even if that someone is themselves? Wanting mortality and the cycle of life and death to continue endlessly as things are now, would be an example of exactly what I'm describing.

Recognizing that you'd have to radically change to fit into Good's paradigm and not wanting to do that, and yet also not believing everything should be wiped out because as Douglas Adams put it "In the beginning the Universe was created.
This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” would very much fit within my definition of "True Neutrality".