The best description I can give is this: Cutting out the fanatic balance seekers, true neutral is the average joe. They are not concerned with larger events, because they have their own life to get on with. As the 4e PHB so nicely sums up "just let me go about my business." A neutral person wont do things that harm others, even if they are slightly beneficial to themselves, because they dont like seeing their actions lead to harm and it might get them in trouble. Likewise they will usually do good acts...if there is no threat to them. Extra incentives might tip them one way or the other (such as a load of money tempting them towards evil, or helping a friend avoid a beating tempting them towards good) but left to their own devices they will just live their lives as best they can.
This makes it REALLY hard to justify N characters as adventurers. They might start out N, but the very nature of adventuring pushes a choice sooner or later. By choosing to harm others to get what he wants, your player is leaning his character towards evil. Keep track, perhaps with the point system that was suggested, and flag him as evil if he moves more than 3 steps away from neutral for any length of time.
Intent does matter here, just not as much as results. If he gets duped into doing an evil act when he though he was helping is one thing. If he is just doing as he pleases and doesn't show some level of empathy or compassion, then he is definitely NE, leaning towards CE. If you want to force a choice in game, I suggest confronting him with the people who were harmed by his actions. A grieving widow, an orphaned child, or a beggared noble tracking him down for the town guard are all great ways to ram home the message that what he is doing harms others.
"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
Out of curiosity, how do you interpret/define Good, Neutral and Evil?
Well, it took me a while to come up with a delineation I could stand by. This is what I came up with:
Good characters value humanoid life; Evil characters view humanoid life as disposable. The Lawful and Chaotic varieties of each are more likely to sacrifice their own lives in the pursuit of their goals: the Lawful on principle, the Chaotic on impulse. Neutral Good characters seek to benefit the community; Neutral Evil characters seek their own benefit.
So that leaves True Neutral which, in its non-druidic incarnation, I see as a form of existentialism/nihilism: the belief that good and evil are irrelevant and life has no ultimate meaning. Kill people or save people, it doesn't make any difference in the long run. Neutral druids I see as uber-PETA activists: They value only natural life and all its variants equally, whether humanoid, animal, or plant, and see those who don't share their worldview as terrible bigots, privileging their own type of life above that of the animals and plants.
I'm not sure how that squares with the game-rule definitions, but it's what makes sense to me.
Hey, Drew! *waves excitedly* Did you get my e-mail?
Yes, I did, and then I started a home remodeling project that has my computer under wraps...for now.
Anyway, why does Abraham Spalding's avatar and pithy reply remind me so much of another jester I once tangled with??? :)
|
You could do nothing but evil acts your entire life but it might not mean you're evil. It might mean it's what you HAD to do. It might mean it seemed like a good idea. It might be he just felt like it but took no joy out of it (though just feeling like it off of a whim seems much more chaotic neutral which is my favorite neutral alignement ... and NOT as a sloppy out to do whatever you want but as a fun alignment).Again, we're talking about D+D (where good and evil are defined by gaming conventions, not real world philophic debates on the question of Evil. In D+D if you "did nothing but evil acts in your entire life" you're Evil. period, no questions asked. You might not believe you're evil,(very few evil people do) but you'll register such to Detect Evil. (because a life that devoted to Evil matches that of the most pious cleric) and items keyed to alignment will react appropriately.
In D+D Actions mean EVERYTHING.
Zaknafein by RA Salavtore was some form of neutral or neutral good even though he spent his life murdering who he was told to because he had no other way out, or so he thought. In order to survive it was what h e had to do but never took any joy in it.
Until I say a table showing that "if you perform this action, move characters alignment this way" in the core books then I've always thought it was up to the GM to move things along. And as I see it so far, I put my characters into many moral dilemmas. I weigh their motives and intent behind them along with the actions their doing. However I'm not so quick to say that if a gladiator continues to murder people in t he pit in order to survive to see his family again one day, that he is, in fact, evil.
Hey, Drew! *waves excitedly* Did you get my e-mail?
Yes, I did, and then I started a home remodeling project that has my computer under wraps...for now.
Anyway, why does Abraham Spalding's avatar and pithy reply remind me so much of another jester I once tangled with??? :)
It's the pith.
However if one was to seriously watch animals behavior then watch humans behavior in the same way that person would quickly realize that they aren't that different.
Yes we have logic and reason to help us, but that doesn't replace our natural instincts.
However it could be pointed out that there should be more good people in the world. After all they are generally helpful, able to work together, and able to avoid self distructive behaviors.
So why are there more of them? They are naturally self limiting, (harder to be good than neutral as you must actively be good, and you can passively be neutral -- the indifference of good men causes them to no longer be good men), and they get gunned for more often. Lets fact it, being good aligned is not a survival trait.
The best description I can give is this: Cutting out the fanatic balance seekers, true neutral is the average joe. They are not concerned with larger events, because they have their own life to get on with. As the 4e PHB so nicely sums up "just let me go about my business." A neutral person wont do things that harm others, even if they are slightly beneficial to themselves, because they dont like seeing their actions lead to harm and it might get them in trouble. Likewise they will usually do good acts...if there is no threat to them. Extra incentives might tip them one way or the other (such as a load of money tempting them towards evil, or helping a friend avoid a beating tempting them towards good) but left to their own devices they will just live their lives as best they can.
This makes it REALLY hard to justify N characters as adventurers. They might start out N, but the very nature of adventuring pushes a choice sooner or later.
Totally agree with all of this. I would say the majority of people/commoners/etc. would be Neutral. They're trying to survive--don't want to hurt anyone (the average person has some compunctions against doing harm)--but aren't going to take crazy risks, especially if it isn't going to help them or someone personally important to them. Neutrals operate out of personal fears and loves (but never more than the bare minimum required for protection) rather than an external morality.
Adventurers stand out from the crowd precisely because they've made some moral or ethical decision to get up and do something about the world around it, whether it's to harm, help, restore, oppress, liberate, or destroy. (Indeed, some may believe they're doing a "good" thing, but if your idea of "good" is "I have to destroy the world now because its possible future might be bad" then you're still fairly evil. Deeds dictate your alignment.)
The only way a Neutral character works as an adventurer is by giving them a goal that is in line with "protecting me and my own." Neutral druids work with the "protecting nature" bit. Or an adventurer starts out as a mercenary and is doing the job because he's paid to.
But Glan Var is right... it seems likely someone who starts as TN in an adventure is going to end up being forced into decisions that slowly makes him shift into another alignment. And there shouldn't be any problem with this. Alignment, as the rules state, "is not a straitjacket." It's a broad definition, and can change over time.
However if one was to seriously watch animals behavior then watch humans behavior in the same way that person would quickly realize that they aren't that different.
Yes we have logic and reason to help us, but that doesn't replace our natural instincts.
I disagree. It makes a certain kind of sense to say that, since animals are Neutral, humans behaving like animals are also Neutral. However, I feel that, once again, this is an example of the term Neutral being used as a catch-all to embrace several incompatible worldviews/philosophies.
Animals are Neutral because they are incapable of making moral judgments. They have no concept of Good or Evil. Some domesticated/trained animals understand that certain types of behavior bring them reward and/or punishment, but this is not the same as a moral capacity. What we term morality is not simple behaviorism; after all, one of the main tests of a person's morality is what one does when one cannot reasonably expect direct reward or punishment.
Humans (and, in game terms, the other PC races), on the other hand, do have the capacity to make moral judgments. Beyond simple "animal" desires, humans also have the ability to categorize the fulfilling of those desires into Good or acceptable ways and Evil ways which violate the well-being of others or the integrity of principles. Animals never have to "rationalize" their behavior, whereas human actors who choose to do things their moral sense categorizes as Evil routinely make up fictions as to why in this particular case their actions are acceptable to assuage their inflamed moral sense. Humans engage in self-deception; animals do not.
Because of this vast chasm between animal and human moral life, I don't think it's even possible for a humanoid character to be Neutral in the same way as an animal is Neutral, barring extreme mental disorder. Even if it were, however, a human behaving amorally -- fulfilling his or her desires and instincts as if the categories of Good and Evil did not exist -- would, IMO, actually have slipped to the Evil side of the spectrum. Because he has the capacity to make moral judgments and chooses not to use it, he is denying his responsibility as a moral agent; that is, actively ignoring one's moral capacity is a moral deficiency, something along the lines of ignorance of the law being no excuse.
I'm not denying that humans can act like animals, but I do disagree that such characters are Neutral. Because humanoids demonstrably have the ability to make moral judgments, refusing to do so is in itself a moral offense, the way I see it.
See my base premise is humans (and other humanoids in the case of D&D) are animals.
It is scientific fact. We are organic creatures that follow the based needs of life and are in fact mammals.
To deny our base characteristics means we can not move beyond them. You have to accept that you have these drives and baser nature in order to recognize when they are influencing you.
While we have developed technology that doesn't mean we have moved beyond these base natures. In fact the vast majority of our technological expertise is devoted to the simple fulfillment of the desires. Much like animals, only the technology is our evolutionary trait instead of claws and thick hides. Animals also display reason and logic skills, they simply don't display technology. They form societies, rebel against society, kill each other (murder even in cases) perform cannibalism, lust, raise families, and nuture each other. Nothing we do is any different. These are basic survival traits. Necessary for the continuation of that species as far as is known. Humans do the same, we perform as necessary in order to perpetuate our own lines.
Here's a basic experiment: Watch a group of people who's language you don't understand. Don't interact with them simply watch. Then go watch a group of animals in the same way. You'll see the exact same behaviors.
The only people that don't conform are the outliners -- those of other alignment. These have recognized our base selves and decided that they will force that to the back for a reason. Good in order to move beyond the base and bring the world into something better, evil in order to improve their own standings beyond those of the rest of the ramble, Lawful in order to predict nature and gain dominion over self, while chaotic individuals try to escape it by simply turning away from it. Each case denies the basic tenets of survival and in doing so makes survival more difficult for themselves. However this also tends to make them stand out and if adaptable enough to survive lead others into their form of thinking in a herd like effect of wanting what they have.
Neutral will accept evil in order to survive, it will not struggle for good sense that takes more effort and leads to more struggle that could lead to earlier death, and generally doesn't offer anything in the way of improving ones odds of survival. Lawfulness is useful in surviving, if you can get everyone playing by the same rules then you know what to look out for, however without chaotic freedom you'll get caught in the rules by someone maneuvering around you... your freedom of choice allows you the option of ignoring the rules when needed to survive.
As always extremism is a danger to survival. Which leads to another thought: When discussing alignment people tend to start in the middle of the slippery slope fallacy... they assume and act from the most extreme example of the alignment and try to paint in black and white from there. Each alignment isn't an inflexible dogma that never sees gray, and most people of any given alignment really aren't that committed to it just as most "religious" people really are that tied up in their faith. If you were to remove the person from their comfort zone and place them with other people at the same time, you'll generally see a herd effect where they adapt to their new surroundings by joining the new herd. This isn't always the case of course, but on average, is what will happen.
|
Alignment is, for the most part, a perceived straight-jacket among many players. Now I'm not saying that it is, just that it is subconsciously seen as that by a majority of players. I've never felt completely comfortable with the system because it lists so many things under just 9 alignments, and many people do, as Abraham says, try to fill each with their own specific brand of black and white. Having classes that have features that can be lost based off of a different person's idea of how their character should be behaving is inherently flawed. Of course arguments are going to occur, it is a very ambiguous system at best.
Now, neutrality is no different. Every single person is going to have a different idea of what they can and can't do, and whether it is possible or not.
Adventurers in the world of D&D generally need some sort of motivation because without it that player would get bored. I don't know about you, but I've seen characters in books and TV shows that wandered around (some might refer to this as adventurer-type behavior) and trouble found him. He wasn't on an inquisition to destroy evil, and he wasn't oppressing the populace, he was just unlucky. Then there's always the person that just follows the one of the more morally (or less) inclined around for whatever reason, helping out a friend or chasing unrequited love. Because they see things in a different way (through gray-colored glasses) than the rest of the party, they can find solutions other don't. They can be more even-headed. They can also be more hesitant and unsure, lacking the conviction of the paladin or cleric.
But that's my view.
There is a sense in which the player is getting all "What is truth?"
When I read it, I read "A neutral character doesn't care if something is good or evil as long as it doesn't personally affect him." But when the player read it, he read "As long as I do things without caring whether I'm doing wrong or right, I'm neutral." Both readings are plausible, but to me the latter is actually the definition of neutral evil.
If I were to place an alignment on your player's actions with the above definition... I'd say Chaotic Neutral(Evil tendencies). His lack of empathy and caring for anything around him is a love for chaos and a disrespect of laws and those who abide by them. However continually pushing the envelope in a negative direction should eventually have repurcussions.
From what I've read, the player hasn't done anything purposely because it would 'benefit him' in some way, that would be my perception of Neutral Evil.
This is similar to the age old discussion about a Paladin being Lawful Good... If a Chelaxian Paladin is Lawful Good law-abiding citizen in demon-summoning abyss-welcoming Chelaxia, what the hell is he when he leaves HIS laws/community and goes to one where Lawful Good isn't represented with a swift punishment? He was taught it's perfectly acceptable to have slave girls, demon mistresses and to 'slay' vagrants in the gutter where they lie, as it's illegal to loiter in the street where he's from. Perhaps Alignment-Global, Alignment Local is required? XD
Where is that fine line between knowing the laws and knowing what YOU were taught is acceptable? All alignments/races/communities have THEIR heroes, but is said individual is STILL a hero outside of his/her social realm? Not usually.
I remain Neutral on this topic, lmao.
Animals are Neutral because they are incapable of making moral judgments. They have no concept of Good or Evil.
...<snip>...
Humans (and, in game terms, the other PC races), on the other hand, do have the capacity to make moral judgments.
Having the capacity to make moral judgements good, evil or otherwise is NOT guaranteed. 'Dogbert' made the reference earlier... socipaths and criminals. Morals have to be 'taught' and 'successfully' learned.
True Neutral, "Undecided"
True Neutral reflects someone who has enough moral strength to resist evil, but not enough to go through the effort of actually being good. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. True Neutral characters usually still prefer associating with good over evil.
LOL! By this definition, Neutral is a relatively spineless, hippie, pothead sitting on a commune listening to Bob Marley.
It's all very 70's to just sit around in a haze pointing the 'not cool' finger, but then pulling out the hemp whenever someone wants to do something to change the 'not cool'... likely because that's what THE MAN and BIG BROTHER wants you to do dude.
LOL! By this definition, Neutral is a relatively spineless, hippie, pothead sitting on a commune listening to Bob Marley.It's all very 70's to just sit around in a haze pointing the 'not cool' finger, but then pulling out the hemp whenever someone wants to do something to change the 'not cool'... likely because that's what THE MAN and BIG BROTHER wants you to do dude.
Or, the neutral between good and evil is reflected by the Japanese peasant farmer in Seven Samurai who doesn't care who his lord is or whether or not his lord is good or wicked - because, from a peasant's point of view, they're all equally bad. The farmer peasant who will finish off samurai dying on recent battlefields and steal their stuff but who will work in concert to do the work the village needs to do to survive.
He's the small community member who watches as the landscape is ravaged by the armies of people who have convictions, either good or evil, and wants to wash hands of either and just be left alone.
Since when has relativism been applicable to D&D?
It doesn't matter if Cheliax says X is good or bad. If the descriptions of alignment in the Player's Handbook (which I find, shockingly enough, rather clear cut) says is good or bad, then X is good or bad, as the book indicates. No if's, and's, or but's about it; case closed, nothing to see here folks, move along now.
I'll go a step further and say that, although there have been some truly intellectual and taxing cases of morality and alignment discussed on these boards; most of the discussions, and most of the tales of disagreements over alignment at the table, involve either a player or a DM who, quite frankly, is being absolutely stupid. I swear, what some DMs expect people of X alignment to have to do, or what some players think X alignment allows them to get away with, boggles the mind.
It doesn't matter if Cheliax says X is good or bad ... then X is good or bad, as the book indicates ... what some DMs expect people of X alignment to have to do, or what some players think X alignment allows them to get away with, boggles the mind.
Damn, I was never any good at Algebra. I always thought X just marked the spot for pirate treasure and porn.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Zaknafein by RA Salavtore was some form of neutral or neutral good even though he spent his life murdering who he was told to because he had no other way out, or so he thought. In order to survive it was what h e had to do but never took any joy in it.
An argument can also be made that this character is Lawful Evil.
It is not a requirement that evil characters enjoy performing evil actions. Keep in mind, evil characters CAN be remorseful after performing evil actions. They may even justify their actions based on extenuating circumstances (such as your example, Zaknafein). The fact that they continue to perform the evil actions over and over again is what makes them evil, not how they feel about their actions afterwards.
Many serial killers are genuinely sorry for what they have done when confronted with their actions during trial, but it doesn't make them any less evil. Nor does it mean they would stop killing if they were not convicted.
It takes a change in behavior to turn away from evil, not a guilty conscience or empty apologies.
It doesn't matter if Cheliax says X is good or bad ... then X is good or bad, as the book indicates ... what some DMs expect people of X alignment to have to do, or what some players think X alignment allows them to get away with, boggles the mind.Damn, I was never any good at Algebra. I always thought X just marked the spot for pirate treasure and porn.
I was going to say the porn required X cubed, but I don't know how to make a superscript 3 on the boards here, if it's possible at all. Damn. :)