Neutral, the alignment of non-sentient animals, plants, and elemental creatures driven by instincts.
True Neutral, an advanced philosophical alignment dealing with the balance between the great profound alignment forces. Found most frequently among students of mystic forces and nature.
False Neutral, the utter opposite of True Neutrals, caring nothing for philosophy. Can almost be likened to a sentient animal. Concerned with Maslowe's Heirarchy of needs, with basically materialistic goals at the high end instead of obtruse ones. Tend to be pretty uncaring of anything not involved with their immediate needs and goals.
That's how I see Neutrality.
Oh, come on. Do they have to either be radically moderate, or else they are animals? Can't people be moderately moderate?
Self actualization can include things such as a desire for invention (which could fit into magical research).
And it isn't like people can't find their own personal goal all the sweeter because they have the rationalization from external sources. One joining the crusade against demons may desire to build up his military career as his initial goal, but that doesn't necessarily make him a bad person. If he sees a village burning under demon's hooves, he may still feel like he should act.
Just skimmed the whole thread.
You are all failures, because there have since been zero Fututama references.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just skimmed the whole thread.
You are all failures, because there have since been zero Fututama references.
Ahem.
I hate these filthy neutrals. With enemies at least, you know where you stand. But with neutrals? Who knows.
What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Ban TN.
This big brain am winning again i am the greetest.
"I have no strong feelings one way, or the other"
Neutral, the alignment of non-sentient animals, plants, and elemental creatures driven by instincts.
True Neutral, an advanced philosophical alignment dealing with the balance between the great profound alignment forces. Found most frequently among students of mystic forces and nature.
False Neutral, the utter opposite of True Neutrals, caring nothing for philosophy. Can almost be likened to a sentient animal. Concerned with Maslowe's Heirarchy of needs, with basically materialistic goals at the high end instead of obtruse ones. Tend to be pretty uncaring of anything not involved with their immediate needs and goals.
That's how I see Neutrality.
Oh, come on. Do they have to either be radically moderate, or else they are animals? Can't people be moderately moderate?
Self actualization can include things such as a desire for invention (which could fit into magical research).
And it isn't like people can't find their own personal goal all the sweeter because they have the rationalization from external sources. One joining the crusade against demons may desire to build up his military career as his initial goal, but that doesn't necessarily make him a bad person. If he sees a village burning under demon's hooves, he may still feel like he should act.
I find the idea that people who refrain from attaching themselves to an ideology are "sentient animals" to be incredibly uncomfortable.
A 'balancer TN' PC is probably sceptical about any other alignment:
CE: No trust, no safety, just destruction - not desirable.
NE: Unnatural nihilism or overly destructive selfishness - not desirable.
LE: Suffering under the cloak of law - not desirable.
CN: Unresponsible, not bowing to natural or useful civilized rules - not desirable.
LN: Caging everything in rules - not desirable.
CG: Erratic deeds of good and destroying structures because of imagined 'freedom' - not desirable.
NG: Weakening others with their help - not desirable.
LG: Oppressive in the name of good, hence hypocritical - not desirable.
Beside this, a TN PC could be impressed how balance works well in nature, for example seeing prey and hunter populations growing and shrinking. History with its ups and downs can evoke the impression the world is TN overall. And blodshed often enough comes from people who have an agend motivated by extreme alignment. This technically includes most adventurers, though.
Personally?
Entirely self-interested, their goal in life would be to make sure as many nice things as possible happen to them, not cruel to others but above all interested in the self with no regard for kindness or intentional cruelty, law or rebellion against it, is how I'd play a TN character if I ever played one.
|
Someone who is True Neutral simply has priorities that they find more important than morality, and no strong leanings towards either rigid behavioral codes nor a militant desire for personal freedom. This is, frankly, true of most people in the real world, and certainly most in Pathfinder.
So they might be a shopkeeper who loves his family, and would die for them, but doesn't consider his neighbor's problems to be any of his business. Maybe he's a little racist, though he'd never actually hurt someone just for being one of those people. He's patriotic and believes in his country's values, but he wouldn't get in a bar fight to defend them, much less do anything important.
Or they might be a powerful Wizard whose search for pure arcane knowledge takes precedence over everything else in her life. She doesn't do anything unethical in her experiments, mind you, she just doesn't care much about, or put much effort into doing anything about, anything that doesn't interfere with her work. She may have friends who she'd stir herself to help...but strangers? Her work is far more important than their petty problems.
Or they might be a cunning politician (in, say, Andoran) who happens to be an opportunist and a bit of a coward. He's not a bad man, you understand, he wants what's best for his city, his nation, and even the world, but he's ambitious, too. And he lacks the courage of his convictions. Don't get me wrong, he has beliefs, probably even good ones, but when he's challenged, when he has the opportunity to risk his career to make them happen? He balks. He delays. He takes the safe path, because he's not willing to risk anything for what he says he believes. He doesn't actually do anything too morally wrong, beyond perhaps cheating on his husband or engaging in deals giving political pull in exchange for funding, and he may even do great good, but it's incidental Good, the kind that required little effort on his part. Like the shopkeeper above, he loves his family, and would move heaven and earth to help them, but strangers aren't real to him in the same way, and if some of them get hurt or don't get helped because he was selfish? That's simply not his problem.
Or they might be an amoral mercenary. She's personally brave, friendly, loyal to her friends, and has certain highly specific categories of jobs she won't take (perhaps anything hurting children)...but she goes where the money is. Need a caravan robbed? Sure. A small nation conquered? If the money's right. An innocent man killed? Sounds good. Now, she prefers legal jobs, and ones unlikely to lead to future trouble, so she'd probably rather guard a caravan than rob it, or work as a bodyguard rather than an assassin, but that's a preference, not a rule. Likewise, she'll usually keep her word about doing a job, that's just good business, but she'd switch sides for the right price. In the end, she's just not that concerned about the morality of the jobs she takes. When she's not on the job, as mentioned, she's nice as could be, heck, she's probably the kind of person to save random people she sees in trouble...as long as it's not too risky, anyway. But on the job? She's all business.
And that's four different Neutral characters off the top of my head.
A very low level description of Good is that you put the well being of others ahead of your own, and Evil being that you put your well being ahead of others. Good gives of itself to help others, Evil takes from others to help itself. Neutral would be that you see the well being of others as being the same as yours. You won't hurt anyone to help yourself, but you won't hurt yourself to help them either.
Same for law and chaos. At the root of it, lawful means you put the well being of society above your own, and chaos means you put your own choices and freedoms ahead of society's. Neutral is again where you simply say that you don't put society or yourself first, you just go with the flow. You don't suffer in order to make society better, but you don't make society suffer to help yourself either.
Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, they are extremes.
And remember; alignment is a thermometer, not a thermostat. It reflects what is already there, it doesn't make anything happen. The thermometer reads 100 degrees because it is hot outside, a thermostat makes it hot because it is set to 100 degrees. Your character is Good because of how they see the world and how the interact with it, not the other way around.
Arabs and Israelis: If you are on my side, you're good. If you're not on my side, you're evil.
Delicatessen Samurai: If you like mayonnaise you're evil, if you like mustard you're good.
Ents: As for the 'great powers' I'm not on anybody's side. Because nobody's on my side.
Conclusion: Everyone is neutral and self-interested. The rest is salad dressing.
|
Almost 50 posts and no real BADWRONGFUN-post? This isn't a real alignment thread! Blasphemy! BLASPHEMY!!!
Blasphemy is covered here. :)
I played it as the Dude from the Big Lebowsky.
It made the best character ever, maxed out diplomacy, took profession philosopher and bowler. Best druid I ever played.
I destroyed most villains with dialogue and cunning use of the F word.
If that did not work I had my bear named "Rug" mauled them, needless to say nobody dared urinate on the "Rug".
"The Dude Abides"
I find the idea that people who refrain from attaching themselves to an ideology are "sentient animals" to be incredibly uncomfortable.Neutral, the alignment of non-sentient animals, plants, and elemental creatures driven by instincts.
True Neutral, an advanced philosophical alignment dealing with the balance between the great profound alignment forces. Found most frequently among students of mystic forces and nature.
False Neutral, the utter opposite of True Neutrals, caring nothing for philosophy. Can almost be likened to a sentient animal. Concerned with Maslowe's Heirarchy of needs, with basically materialistic goals at the high end instead of obtruse ones. Tend to be pretty uncaring of anything not involved with their immediate needs and goals.
That's how I see Neutrality.
Oh, come on. Do they have to either be radically moderate, or else they are animals? Can't people be moderately moderate?
Self actualization can include things such as a desire for invention (which could fit into magical research).
And it isn't like people can't find their own personal goal all the sweeter because they have the rationalization from external sources. One joining the crusade against demons may desire to build up his military career as his initial goal, but that doesn't necessarily make him a bad person. If he sees a village burning under demon's hooves, he may still feel like he should act.
and the counterpoint is that animals don't attach themselves to ideologies, either.
So, other then being sentient and having the choice to do some higher order thinking and saying no, what, behavior-wise, makes you all that different then any other pack animal? Your drives are basically identical in many ways.
a fellow player and i got in an argument over it. he says that true neutral is not allowed for pc since no one can be true neutral. i say that it is but he is the type of person who you don't wana argue with he also thinks that change alignment spells/potions are evil since they are "mind raping". so i am thinking about making and playing a true neutral under his nose. i just want to know some pointers maybe a true neutral wizard with merciful spells.
Neutral in the game doesn't mean you never take sides, it means you don't go out of your way to enforce a certain code or ideology. My Inquisitor is neutral and I play him as an "ends justify the means" kind of guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Herd animals have a tendency to follow along with higher beings with goals beyond their comprehension, but I wouldn't compare you to a herd animal because I'm not an a#&&#$&.
Neutral, the alignment of non-sentient animals, plants, and elemental creatures driven by instincts.
True Neutral, an advanced philosophical alignment dealing with the balance between the great profound alignment forces. Found most frequently among students of mystic forces and nature.
False Neutral, the utter opposite of True Neutrals, caring nothing for philosophy. Can almost be likened to a sentient animal. Concerned with Maslowe's Heirarchy of needs, with basically materialistic goals at the high end instead of obtruse ones. Tend to be pretty uncaring of anything not involved with their immediate needs and goals.
That's how I see Neutrality.
Oh, come on. Do they have to either be radically moderate, or else they are animals? Can't people be moderately moderate?
Self actualization can include things such as a desire for invention (which could fit into magical research).
And it isn't like people can't find their own personal goal all the sweeter because they have the rationalization from external sources. One joining the crusade against demons may desire to build up his military career as his initial goal, but that doesn't necessarily make him a bad person. If he sees a village burning under demon's hooves, he may still feel like he should act.
define moderately moderate.
Looks like someone sticking to Maslowe tier one or two, which is basically survival thinking, and just about every living thing can act that way. Surviving and going with the flow is about as moderate as you can get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"What makes a man turn neutral? Is it money? Lust for power? Or was he just born with a heart full of NEUTRALITY??"
and the counterpoint is that animals don't attach themselves to ideologies, either.
So, other then being sentient and having the choice to do some higher order thinking and saying no, what, behavior-wise, makes you all that different then any other pack animal? Your drives are basically identical in many ways.
But can all ideologies tied entirely to alignment. No...middle ground at all, where you have an opinion without instantly pinging as an alignment? No ability to understand and appreciate an ideology without devoting your entire life to it and becoming its champion? You are either an animal or one of the talking heads on the news, screaming around the table for the audience to see?
[badpoliticalhumor] lets admit it, those people they put on the screen are also animals. Feral and unhousebroken. [/badpoliticalhumor]
Herd animals have a tendency to follow along with higher beings with goals beyond their comprehension, but I wouldn't compare you to a herd animal because I'm not an a$!%~+%.
the lowest common denominator is a truism used and abused when large numbers of people are involved. Invoking mob rule, people like sheep, and a congress of baboons are just signs that in large numbers, instincts have always been at the core of what people are.
And I said pack animals, not herds. Calling people sheep, cows, bulls, wolves and lions have very different connotations!
and the counterpoint is that animals don't attach themselves to ideologies, either.
So, other then being sentient and having the choice to do some higher order thinking and saying no, what, behavior-wise, makes you all that different then any other pack animal? Your drives are basically identical in many ways.But can all ideologies tied entirely to alignment. No...middle ground at all, where you have an opinion without instantly pinging as an alignment? No ability to understand and appreciate an ideology without devoting your entire life to it and becoming its champion? You are either an animal or one of the talking heads on the news, screaming around the table for the audience to see?
[badpoliticalhumor] lets admit it, those people they put on the screen are also animals. Feral and unhousebroken. [/badpoliticalhumor]
well, they call that one channel fox, so it fits...
|
It seems you have some solid Ideas about your Character. Benevolent like the Quakers. They don't pick sides in a conflict.
You could follow the high ground pay slaves for the services they provide to you. Help the underdog escape regardless of alignment. Provide comfort to all; so have have extra food water to share.
Try by diplomacy to save every life. You could also provide voice for the defense. Everyone deserve representation before the law.
Neutral in the game doesn't mean you never take sides, it means you don't go out of your way to enforce a certain code or ideology. My Inquisitor is neutral and I play him as an "ends justify the means" kind of guy.a fellow player and i got in an argument over it. he says that true neutral is not allowed for pc since no one can be true neutral. i say that it is but he is the type of person who you don't wana argue with he also thinks that change alignment spells/potions are evil since they are "mind raping". so i am thinking about making and playing a true neutral under his nose. i just want to know some pointers maybe a true neutral wizard with merciful spells.
Well, you can enforce a certain code or ideology. Nothing in Neutrality bans that. All that matters is that you aren't Good enough to be Good and aren't Evil enough to be Evil.
A knight on a quest to close the Worldwound or die trying would be Neutral if he follows no particular code and is willing to resort to some sketchy acts to achieve his goals.
Conversely, a wizard in league with a dictator aiming to help chase out some self-righteous paladins (who want to sabotage his necromantic studies and potentially bring war to the region) would be Neutral so long as he bowed out when the dictator actually started slaughtering people. He's not eager to kill paladins, but he will in self-defense if they get really bent on killing him.
A Neutral character can actually have very strong moral beliefs or a very firm cause. "Meh" isn't actually a rule for Neutrality, it's just a decent guess. Plenty of Neutral characters do pursue good causes. They just either aren't willing to die for them or are willing to do too much for them.
Remember, guys, when we talk about whether or not something is an evil act and someone says "Nah, it's a neutral act." Neutrality isn't just apathy. Sometimes it's just something that definitely isn't Good but isn't quite Evil, either.
Arabs and Israelis: If you are on my side, you're good. If you're not on my side, you're evil.
Delicatessen Samurai: If you like mayonnaise you're evil, if you like mustard you're good.
Ents: As for the 'great powers' I'm not on anybody's side. Because nobody's on my side.
Conclusion: Everyone is neutral and self-interested. The rest is salad dressing.
since Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are fundamental forces and not airy philosophy in PF, it doesn't quite work that way.
And I'll note that taking money to kill an innocent or serve as an assassin probably makes you straight off evil, not neutral.
Also, animals, constructs, oozes and plants are effectively just Unaligned. Something without a mind can't have an alignment. They're just called Neutral because it's convenient. Frankly, though, they deserve to have a — on that row.
Also, animals, constructs, oozes and plants are effectively just Unaligned. Something without a mind can't have an alignment. They're just called Neutral because it's convenient. Frankly, though, they deserve to have a — on that row.
agreed, which is why I seperate them out from true and false neutrals. Animals can't really choose, where false neutrals make the choice to not care/not choose.
And I'll note that taking money to kill an innocent or serve as an assassin probably makes you straight off evil, not neutral.
Assassin work can fall into a bit of a grey area depending on who the target is and how you define the term. After all, it's not exactly a rare adventure hook for the party to be offered a substantial cash reward by the local authorities in exchange for killing some Big Bad Evil Guy.
"True" and "false" neutrality is a meaningless invention, though. There's "Neutral", meaning an informed alignment, and then there's "—", meaning no capacity for alignment to begin with.
Killing someone that is a threat to others is not evil. Its probably proactive self-defense.
Killing an innocent or just any random person you are paid to is something else.
Ron Swanson is a dead ringer for Lawful Neutral, actually. Like, he's an almost cartoonish example of it—and the best example of a non-law abiding Lawful there is. Ron has a firm code he never breaks, and does not respect anyone who lacks a code of their own. His commitment to his own personal rules can become utterly insufferable to his friends and coworkers, but he will never bend it without a damn good reason. And a lot of shoving.
It's of course true that he doesn't believe in the government's law, but as we all know, Law Is Not Legal.
I'actually peg him as NG, since he's working for a system he doesn't believe in, but he's a decent man who cares about those around him. The fact he isn't a highly charitable fellow means nothing. He's a staunch individualist, which is a chaotic hallmark, likes small government, etc. I'd call him TN if he were more self-serving and less willing to throw muscle around for his friends, but NG just seems to fit better.
He might be an individualist, but he still follows a code above his own interests. That's all that Law means.
Chaos: I might follow a vague set of rules, but I'll throw them aside easily if they get in the way of good/my own interests.
Law: I believe that even I should be bound by certain rules, even if they sometimes make it harder to achieve good/my own interests. They're worth the inconvenience. I will file the paperwork and follow the code when at all possible.
Ron's code comes from within, but it is stronger to him than anything. He will break the federal law if comes between him and his personal law, and will only accede it it becomes absolutely impossible to keep fighting without hurting those around him.
Ron Swanson props up "evil" (or highly neutral) causes, like the Sweetums dispensers, because they are a private business, and by his Code, it is better to have a private business serving dangerously unhealthy food than a government-run business serving healthy food—even if the town has a horrible obesity problem. That's Lawful. He puts his personal law above what is debateably more morally sound, because to him, his personal law is the only reliable path to the greatest good for all.
You can care about those around you and be Neutral (or even Evil), so that doesn't really mean anything with regards to moral alignment. A Chaotic Evil barbarian could give his lives for his family. It wouldn't change his alignment one bit. I could see Ron as Lawful Good, with an emphasis on the Lawful side. People really have to push and prod him to get him to act, but he will always do the right thing. That said, Ron's personal philosophy of "I look out for myself, and they should look out for themselves" makes me kind of doubt an especially Good outlook overall. If he is Good, he straddles a line. A Ron Swanson-style paladin would struggle heavily—not to avoid evil acts, but to just reconcile their alignment with their neutral-leaning philosophy.
My true neutral character is a chronicler interested primarily in learning about the cultures of the diverse people of the world and happens to be on a quest to save the world because that's where all the stuff is.
He might be an individualist, but he still follows a code above his own interests. That's all that Law means.
Chaos: I might follow a vague set of rules, but I'll throw them aside easily if they get in the way of good/my own interests.
Law: I believe that even I should be bound by certain rules, even if they sometimes make it harder to achieve good/my own interests. They're worth the inconvenience. I will file the paperwork and follow the code when at all possible.Ron's code comes from within, but it is stronger to him than anything. He will break the federal law if comes between him and his personal law, and will only accede it it becomes absolutely impossible to keep fighting without hurting those around him.
Ron Swanson props up "evil" (or highly neutral) causes, like the Sweetums dispensers, because they are a private business, and by his Code, it is better to have a private business serving dangerously unhealthy food than a government-run business serving healthy food—even if the town has a horrible obesity problem. That's Lawful. He puts his personal law above what is debateably more morally sound, because to him, his personal law is the only reliable path to the greatest good for all.
You can care about those around you and be Neutral (or even Evil), so that doesn't really mean anything with regards to moral alignment. A Chaotic Evil barbarian could give his lives for his family. It wouldn't change his alignment one bit. I could see Ron as Lawful Good, with an emphasis on the Lawful side. People really have to push and prod him to get him to act, but he will always do the right thing. That said, Ron's personal philosophy of "I look out for myself, and they should look out for themselves" makes me kind of doubt an especially Good outlook overall. If he is Good, he straddles a line. A Ron Swanson-style paladin would struggle heavily—not to avoid evil acts, but to just reconcile their alignment with their neutral-leaning philosophy.
actually, those are all chaotic arguments. Better to give people the right to use those dispensers then to take away their choice and force them to eat healthy. Pure chaotic belief.
And it is Good which follows a code above its own interests. Law is about putting society above yourself for a nebulous 'greater good', and he's pretty much the antitesis of that. Nor is he the extremely disciplined chap holding to a private path and code. He's got some strong beliefs, but doesn't let them lead him astray. He's a believer in people, not institutions. LN just doesn't fit a libertrarian.
My true neutral character is a chronicler interested primarily in learning about the cultures of the diverse people of the world and happens to be on a quest to save the world because that's where all the stuff is.
dang that greedy world, hoarding all the stuff for itself!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're chaotic arguments, but it's a lawful personality. His code is extreme libertarianism, but he follows the code consistently and lawfully (not to mention his related rules, like "Always keep your word" and "Always handle problems directly"). A chaotic libertarian would break those rules when it suited the purposes of bringing the government down. Ron would never lie or cheat to achieve his beliefs. He follows a code that is compatible with them.
Also, Good does follow a code, yes. That code is "altruism". It is, however, an extremely vague code other than that, and is only a code in a technical, philosophical sense. Lawful is effectively "every single other code". If moral alignments represent your goals, or what you'll stoop to to achieve your goals, Lawful represents a binding net placed around those goals and methods that restrains them further.
Lawful Good: Follow a code even if it gets in the way of altruism. An example would be a judge who refuses to break the law if it can be helped, even if it might lead to a dangerous criminal being set loose, or an innocent person being held for a crime they didn't commit. The judge would only break that law if there was absolutely no other choice.
A paladin who insists on giving the enemies a fair fight is another example. By her rules, even if a quick fight would accomplish more good (make it easier to take people alive, keep her companions safe), her personal code requires that she hold herself to these standards. She would only break it if doing otherwise would surely lead to her companions' deaths.
An evil knight who refuses to kill someone who surrendered is another example. Even if not killing that person might hurt his own interests, he simply won't do it—unless it comes down to being either his life or theirs.
A Lawful Neutral druid who wishes to restore the forest by tearing down a town might have specific rules, like "give the town fair warning" and "let them keep access to their defenses", out of a sense of fairness. But if the town chooses to use this warning to set fire to the forest...well, say goodbye to that armory of yours. Or the druid might be more committed to her code than her goal, and might accept the fire as a reasonable countermeasure. Sometimes Law pulls more weight. Sometimes the evil knight really does die for his code. Sometimes the judge really would rather accept a criminal being set loose than risk destabilizing the existing order.
These are all merely examples, of course. Different judges, knights and paladins would behave differently. But these are examples of how Law can bind your moral alignment.
To Emphasize:
Law has nothing inherently to do with society. Society is a law, not Law itself. Again, Law Is Not Legal.
Nah, kc, you are describing a good character with a personal code of honor, which is often EXTREMELY important in chaotic cultures. He's an individualist, he doesn't believe in collective power or overarchjng beliefs. Tough love and rugged self-reliance while letting others do their own thing without you butting in is also Good, you know.
Lawful is about following an exterior code and placing it above yourself and others, legal or no. He doesn't believe in systems or institutions, only people as Individuals. Saying a character with chaotic leanings can't have a personal code is very misleading...his honor might be ALL be has, since there's no family name or else to fall back on.
So,nah, I'm not going to accept LN. He fits none of the trope definitions, and libertarianism alone pushes him to N on the L/C axis.
Honor is a Lawful concept, not a Good one (though anyone can use it to some extent—see below). We just think of it as Good because we favor traditional ideas like "fair fights are good".
Tough love and rugged self-reliance while letting others do their own thing without you butting in is also Good, you know.
Exactly what does it have to do with Good? At all? You might think it's right or desirable, but it has nothing inherently to do with the Good moral alignment as a belief system. That could easily be neutral or even evil, depending on how you interpret it.
Chaotic characters can have codes, like I said, but they won't follow that code if it gets in the way of doing the right thing (or, if they're evil, the right thing for whatever they think is right). Codes are not totally binding. A chaotic warrior might prefer to follow "Always let the enemy fight armed", but most chaotic characters (bearing in mind there's a sliding scale here) will break it if need be. A truly honorable warrior who follows those rules as law will eventually end up with a lawful alignment.
Ron Swanson certainly doesn't fit any "tropes". He also definitely fits Lawful Neutral, in every field save for the entirely superficial.
I think "neutral" on the law/chaos axis can easily be interpreted as "the law generally serves to enforce the will of the powerful, and can be trusted only insofar as we can trust those who wield that power." That the laws are what they are is generally an issue of circumstance and who held power when the law was enacted than anything else, so it's odd to be simply in favor of codified laws when you realize that bad laws can (and do) exist.
The good/evil axis is trickier but you can certainly read neutral as "I understand that I do not know, in all cases, what the 'right' thing to do is, and that what seems 'right' from one perspective may be incompatible with what seems 'right' from a equally valid alternative perspective." After all the "Detect Evil/Good" sorts of spells are on the cleric spell list, so they're divinely endowed powers and can simply be interpreted as "detect the thing that is not on the same team as my god is." Yes, wizards get "protection from evil" but that can be seen as "protection from things that are charged with this kind of energy."
I mean, any system of moral judgement that assigns "evil" to the children of "evil races" just by virtue of the circumstances of their birth, before they've had the opportunity to actually make choices, is a deeply suspect system of moral judgement.
I personally dislike the 9 point alignment system (and prefer not to use it) for precisely this reason.
An active balancer is more concerned on the larger scale. He might aide a good nation against orcs... and when they have their triumph an a bout to complete the final extermination of the orcs, he kills their lead Paladin and breakes their forces.I never liked the Balance version of True Neutral. I guess it works for an Outsider that really is there to balance the universe, but for a person to go around stepping on a puppy because she saved one yesterday, doing a bad deed for ever good... that's goofy and kinda' psychopath.
.
I kind of look at it this way:
You have a horde of evil orcs who are plundering and burning their way through an unclaimed frontier. The "active balancer" comes out from the shadows and aids the armies of a good-aligned neighboring nation. Point of fact, he may very well have manipulated the do-gooders into intervening, or even outright negotiated their entry into the conflict. Once the horde is defeated and sent packing, though, the balancer would take actions to ensure that the otherwise well-meaning good nation doesn't huge this situation as pretext to occupy the frontier - and thus impose their (admittedly, fair and moral) rule on the free peoples of these lands.
Those actions may very well come into include violence. Diplomacy could certainly play a part, though, as could comparatively harmless sabotage (busting up the roads and bridges the encroaching do-gooders need to establish control), non-violent banditry (stealing the crown's coin or supplies, which stall out any campaigns), etc.
Finally, from the book itself:
"Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run."
So there's a great cross-range of "True Neutral" available to players. Drahliana's "active balancer" would fit in the latter category. A Rogue-type character, on the other hand, may very well be a good portrayal of the former: she's not an awful person, per se, but is willing to work for a nasty crime boss... for the right money... and assuming she doesn't have to do anything that will keep her up at night.
Honor is a Lawful concept, not a Good one (though anyone can use it to some extent—see below). We just think of it as Good because we favor traditional ideas like "fair fights are good".
Tough love and rugged self-reliance while letting others do their own thing without you butting in is also Good, you know.Exactly what does it have to do with Good? At all? You might think it's right or desirable, but it has nothing inherently to do with the Good moral alignment as a belief system. That could easily be neutral or even evil, depending on how you interpret it.
Chaotic characters can have codes, like I said, but they won't follow that code if it gets in the way of doing the right thing (or, if they're evil, the right thing for whatever they think is right). Codes are not totally binding. A chaotic warrior might prefer to follow "Always let the enemy fight armed", but most chaotic characters (bearing in mind there's a sliding scale here) will break it if need be. A truly honorable warrior who follows those rules as law will eventually end up with a lawful alignment.
Ron Swanson certainly doesn't fit any "tropes". He also definitely fits Lawful Neutral, in every field save for the entirely superficial.
straight objection, KC. honor is not a lawful thing. Honor SYSTEMS are often used as representations in lawful societies, but even there chaotics can have honor.
The difference is that in an honor system like that, everyone else having the same lawful set of values defines your honor. A chaotic character, on the other hand, will have his own personal code of honor and won't give a fig if it contradicts that of everyone else, and he"ll cleave to it as firmly as any lawful type. In effect, he determines what his honor is, not others. The main difference is that a chaotic code is far more about the spirit then the letter of the code, which Ron is pretty much a textbook illustration of...he's willing to compromise the anti-government portion of his code to satisfy the spirit of people being left to do what they do best, or to truly help people.
Actually, they are prevelent among illiterate societies, which are your small, clannish Neutral and Chaotic tribes. Since house, ruler and nation meant jack squat, your personal honor was the only thing you could fall back on. Blows to reputation for honesty and trustworthiness were big things!