D&D General Which type of True Neutral are you?

[Ruin Explorer]

i honestly don't think they are wildly different concepts at least from the ideas that lawful and chaotic alignment intend to represent

Law - i believe that with the right set of rules, and if we follows those rules, is the best way to achieve (success /prosperity /happiness /achieving goals /whatever) - Structure

Chaos - i believe that having the freedom to be able to act in whatever ways you think you need to as you need to is the best the way to achieve (success /prosperity /happiness /achieving goals /whatever) - Liberty

I think you're talking about how people tend to RP Law/Chaos, not what Law/Chaos are in the D&D universe, though. That's the issue for me - Law and Chaos are cosmic forces that have gradually become confused for behaviours, yet technically still are these cosmic forces.

 

[Mannahnin]

Did the big Three Hearts and Three Lions quotes get run out in this discussion yet?

Chapter 3​

Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them was almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faeries, Trollheim, and the Giants -- an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and to extend their own shadowy dominion.

The whole thing seemed so vague that Holger switched the discussion to practical politics. Hugi wasn't much help there either. Holger gathered that the lands of men, where Law was predominant, lay to the west. They were divided into the Holy Empire of the Christians, the Saracen countries southward, and various lesser kingdoms. Faerie, the part of the Middle World closest to here, lay not far east. This immediate section was a disputed borderland where anything might happen.

Chapter 11​

He lost sight of the camp as he wandered on, trying to fit what he had learned into a pattern. This business of Chaos versus Law, for example, turned out to be more than religious dogma. It was a practical fact of existence, here. He was reminded of the second law of thermodynamics, the tendency of the physical universe toward disorder and level entropy. Perhaps here, that tendency found a more... animistic... expression. Or, wait a minute, didn't it in his own world too? What had he been fighting when he fought the Nazis but a resurgence of archaic horrors that civilized men had once believed were safely dead?

In this universe the wild folk of the Middle World might be trying to break down a corresponding painfully established order; to restore some primeval state where anything could happen. Decent humanity would, on the other hand, always want to strengthen and extend Law, safety, predictability. Therefore Christianity, Judaism, even Mohammedanism frowned on witchcraft, that was more allied to Chaos than to orderly physical nature. Though to be sure, science had its perversions, while magic had its laws. A definite ritual was needed in either case, whether you built an airplane or a flying carpet. Gerd had mentioned something about the impersonal character of the supernatural. Yes, that was why Roland had tried to break Durendal, in his last hour at Roncesvalles; so the miraculous sword would not fall into paynim hands...

The symmetry was suggestive. In Holger's home world, physical forces were strong and well understood, mental-magical forces weak and unmanageable. In this universe the opposite held true. Both worlds were, in some obscure way, one; the endless struggle between Law and Chaos had reached a simultaneous climax in them. As for the force which made them so parallel, the ultimate oneness itself, he supposed he would have to break down and call it God. But he lacked a theological bent of mind. He'd rather stick to what he had directly observed, and to immediate practical problems. Such as his own reason for being here.

Chapter 12​

There were still many miles of wilderness to travel on the other side of the range, but she had seen a few clearings, isolated farmsteads, and hamlets. "And where'er several men dwell, if they be not evil doers, will belike lie hallowed ground -- a shrine, if naught else -- which most o' the creatures that dog us dare no approach closely."

"But in that case," Holger asked, "how can the Middle World even think of seizing human land?"

"By help o' beings who need no fear daylicht or priestcraft. Animals like yon dragon; creatures wi' souls, like bad dwarfs. However, such allies be too few, and mostly too stupid, to have more than special use. Chiefly, methinks, the Middle World will depend on humans who'll fight for Chaos. Witches, warlocks, bandits, murderers, 'fore all the heathen savages o' the north and south. These can desecrate the sacred places and slay such men as battle against them. Then the rest o' the humans will flee, and there'll be naught left to prevent the blue gloaming being drawn over hundreds o' leagues more. With every such advance, the realms of Law will grow weaker; not alone in numbers, but in spirit, for the near presence o' Chaos must affect the good folk, turning them skittish, lawless, and inclined to devilments o' their own." Alianora shook her head, troubled. "As evil waxes, the very men who stand for good will in their fear use ever worse means o' fighting; and thereby give evil a free beachhead."

 

[payn]

I think you're talking about how people tend to RP Law/Chaos, not what Law/Chaos are in the D&D universe, though. That's the issue for me - Law and Chaos are cosmic forces that have gradually become confused for behaviours, yet technically still are these cosmic forces.

Yeah, one of the things I love about law/chaos in D&D is that tangible cosmic force. If you believe in a system enough, you can practice ways in which to embody the very philosophy into physical means. Not every game has/needs this level of granularity with alignment. It's not much different to me in games in which Gods grant spells and abilities but have zero actual impact in play if thats how folks run it.

 

[Celebrim]

Anyone saying that the 21st century isn't someone who is interested in science or facts, I would suggest, or very selective about it, and primarily choosing to believe something to support an otherwise hard-to-support political philosophy.

And there would be plenty who was say the very same thing about your claims. Frankly, whenever you start asserting to me that anthropologist has facts or a sociologist is a scientist, I'm inclined to just tune you out. I don't think either field is well noted for rigor or has reached the level of maturity that we could take their assertions as proven facts.

I'm less interested though in litigating this than you are as I'm not aligned with either side of this argument, though I'm not particularly inclined to giggle or mock either side of the dispute as well.

Also, just because a creature is sometimes selfish, doesn't make it not inherently social. Anyone trying to tell you chimps aren't social because they ate more cherries than they gave away is selling you a bridge, frankly (doubly so with humans, who routinely make more altruistic or group-favouring decisions than that).

This is a gross simplification of what is at stake.

There are always the equivalent of Flat Earthers out there, for every subject.

I just finished watching a total eclipse that can be calculated using our models down to the second and even meter to a very high degree of precision. This is a very high standard of evidence in favor of the heliocentric globe model that I don't see in evidence in of the social "sciences". Heck, I'm published in bioinformatics and my wife is many times over published in biochemistry and human understanding in these fields tends very much toward, "This is our best guess at the moment." So I tend to be a lot more understanding of disputes in some areas than I am in harder fields of science with higher evidentiary standards.

Though heck, I could sympathize with someone who concurs the Earth isn't flat but isn't convinced yet the sun does not revolve around it. That the Earth isn't flat can be proven with observations that aren't too hard to make and which don't require levels of precision that an average observer would find challenging. Proving for yourself the Earth really goes around the sun rather than merely trusting someone else has proven it requires sophisticated and pain staking observation few people could make.

No? That's a truly bizarre and seemingly completely ignorant simplification of Marxist and communist thought that is also not even true, because opinions on the degree of human eusociality vary pretty widely in various different schools of Marxist and communist thought. I don't want to litigate that here in detail because ENworld is not really the place for it but I really suggest you might want to read and try to understand some Marx, and then compare and contrast with say, Mao, before making such wild generalizations in future.

I wonder how you think this is refutation of my central points in this discussion which is that alignment is quite broad and each encompasses multiple philosophies and justifications for believing it. If you want to point out that real-world belief systems also have wide philosophical disparity on how they are rationalized and justified and implemented by society, this does the actual points I care about in this thread no harm, as I am really interested in alignment and not real-world political views.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Though heck, I could sympathize with someone who concurs the Earth isn't flat but isn't convinced yet the sun does not revolve around it.

You're completely proving my point mate. Your whole "Oh those lack rigour" is very funny.

as I am really interested in alignment and not real-world political views

Interesting, given you're the one who has kept bringing them up and attempting to critique them.

 

[Celebrim]

You're completely proving my point mate. Your whole "Oh those lack rigour" is very funny.

I don't think you understand what my point is.

Interesting, given you're the one who has kept bringing them up and attempting to critique them.

And that would be supporting evidence to the aforementioned thesis.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And there would be plenty who was say the very same thing about your claims. Frankly, whenever you start asserting to me that anthropologist has facts or a sociologist is a scientist, I'm inclined to just tune you out. I don't think either field is well noted for rigor or has reached the level of maturity that we could take their assertions as proven facts.

This disdain towards social sciences certainly helps to explain why you'd think that alignment is a sensible descriptor of human ethical behaviour.

 

[Celebrim]

This disdain towards social sciences certainly helps to explain why you'd think that alignment is a sensible descriptor of human ethical behaviour.

I don't think I even asserted that.

As for the rest, I'd debate it elsewhere. But I do invite members of the board who are curious to go look at the abstracts of the most recent publications in say "Current Anthropology" if they want to see where I'm coming from when I say it's not science.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As for the rest, I'd debate it elsewhere. But I do invite members of the board who are curious to go look at the abstracts of the most recent publications in say "Current Anthropology" if they want to see where I'm coming from when I say it's not science.

How many journals did you have to skip past before finding a journal that to your untrained laymen's eye looked "woke" or whatever the problem you have with it is? The one you linked is focused mostly on ethnographic research, which is more about documenting cultures than scientific analyses. I point this out because I find your position that that is "not science" to be ill-informed and I think it's helpful to illustrate this given you are voluntarily illustrating the depth of your ignorance here.

Perhaps you would prefer:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/26927691

You're telling me that's not science?

 

[R_J_K75]

That always surprised me, because one of the definitions of True Neutral that I recall reading was that it was a mixture of the other four.

Obviously, it's all open to interpretation so a player can play the alignment anyway they see fit, but I recall reading somewhere (can't recall when or where, think in a 2E book) that a TN character will usually lean towards one of the other alignments, say CG, day to day and its when they are faced with a moral decision, or when the balance of power shifts greatly towards law, chaos, good or evil is when their TN nature comes out. Just one's persons take on it, so who is to say who is right or wrong but makes sense to me. Playing TN tit for tat, where if the character gives a homeless person a few coppers and then feels they need to punch a random stranger 5 mins later seems kind of ridiculous to me.