yet another alignment question

[bolen]

I kind of thought neutral had ideas of balance. Everyman does not want "balance" he cares about his part of the pie and as long as it really does not harm anyone else, he will look out for himself. (Now that sounds evil)

Could someone tell me what this "new" alignment system that Monte came up with sounds good.

 

[Trickstergod]

In 2nd edition, Neutral meant a balance of ideas, a moral disposition to maintaining law versus chaos, good versus evil.

3rd gave a more reasonable idea on it just being undecided, or not particularly strong in ones moral convictions.

Remember, folks, the alignment tendency of humans is True Neutrality. Our own general attitudes and actions are what constitutes Neutrality.

Archie Bunker isn't Lawful Neutral, because he doesn't particularly have a personal code, isn't particularly disciplined, and for that matter, seems the sort of person who would spit on a sidewalk, toss a piece of garbage out his window onto the street, and would run a red light, so he only respects and believes in the law more or less in a convenient way, as a way to keep him safe as opposed to in any idealistic fashion.

He's not Good in much of a capacity because, while he might be a decent guy, he doesn't really sacrifice much to help out his fellow man. He's not a hero, or a martyr, or a the like. If he saw someone being mugged, or even murdered, it's likely his reaction would be to call the police, instead of risking himself to stop the act. Being concerned for other people just isn't enough - letting evil deeds go by without taking a direct hand to stop them makes for more of a neutral perspective. The ignorant bigotry certainly doesn't help, either.

He's not particularly Chaotic, either. He may be opinionated, but he's more or less respectful of authority, and isn't particularly impulsive - he doesn't strike me as the sort of the fellow who would wake up one morning and go "I feel like going to Las Vegas. Right now", and then do it.

I don't believe anyone here believes him to be Evil.

Over all, he's just Neutral. That's it. He's the Everyman, as Umbran said. This can be applied to most characters, and people. They're just Neutral, and that's about it.

 

[Umbran]

I kind of thought neutral had ideas of balance.

That's one flavor of neutrality, but as Trickstergod has noted, it's not the majority one. Take a look at the PHB, pg 89:

"Most neutrality is a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality."

In general, a neutral character may like the world to be one way or another, but it not interested or willing to stick their own neck out to make it that way. One way to think of it is that characters that bear one or more of the alignment labels (Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic) are activists.