Let's talk about Neutrality.
There are all sorts of threads on falling paladins, and what it means to commit good and evil acts, but not on the nature of neutrality. I feel like I'm a neutral guy, and I usually gravitate towards that alignment for my characters, but what is neutral? I think that characterizing it with labels like "apathy" are just as bad as those who think that CN = schizophrenia, or that LG = Lawful Stupid.
I usually just play my TN characters as characters who will do the greatest good for her/himself - this usually equals doing good for others for the sake of the character's own well being, but not being afraid to commit a little larceny and murder to get the job done, if need be.
Stereotypes of the TN character:
-Apathetic
-Actively seeking balance in the world (eye for an eye, etc)
-Totally doing whatever (but not in a destructive CE way)
What are your thoughts on the matter?
Let's keep this civil :)
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Seriously though I kinda like the alignment myself sometimes.
If you totally do whatever, and what is the greatest good for yourself, I'd say that is a bit on the neutral evil side.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that the alignment becomes a magnet for players who want their characters unfettered by morality, but who are unable or unwilling to be "evil".
Too often, if a NPC does a bad thing he's "evil", but if a PC does it he's "doing whatever" and thus "neutral".
a PC doing 'whatever' doesnt sound TN... maybe CN, but not really TN...
|
I view neutrality as the "whatever goes" alignment.
You're generally a pretty decent person. You don't really want to see other people suffer. But honestly, you're not really motivated or selfless enough to put your neck on the line to help them. When it affects you enough to make a move on things (probably because of personal influence), you'll do as much as it takes to settle down to the status quo, or at least make life good for you personally again.
Viciousness and brutality isn't really your thing, but sometimes you gotta do some not-so-nice things in life. It's not something you enjoy, but if the need arises, you'll do it. Maybe sometimes you're cruel to people and get a kick out of it, but only those who "deserve" it and when you've had a bad day. And sometimes you feel altruistic enough to donate to charity or volunteer at the orphanage.
You're okay with laws and customs, but if they become too restrictive you'll complain about them. You're also okay with personal freedoms, but think some people probably go a little too far sometimes. You're adaptable, and can handle both a structure and whimsy without much of a problem.
tl;dr: I think neutrality is basically an average person, caring only as much about anything as it affects themselves, and able to reasonably adapt to whatever life throws at them.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's helpful to consider alignment in terms of the real world. Heroic fantasy tends to fall into cliched black-and-white ideas of morality. Life is more nuanced than Gandalf versus Sauron, High Elves versus Drow. With all of the outlandish elements found in your garden variety RPG world, it aids suspension of disbelief if the people act like people and not action figures.
The whole "seeking balance" thing, in particular, never really struck me as remotely plausible. Almost everyone believes they're good, even when their actions contradict this belief. If you feel compelled to do good simply because there's too much evil in the world, then you're Good. There has always been too much evil in the world and there always will be. As the Dread Pirate Roberts said, " Life is pain...Anyone who says differently is selling something."
On the other side of the coin, no sane person --ever-- feels compelled to do evil because there's too much good in the world.
Instead, I look at Neutrality as the state between the selfless altruism of Good and the active malice of Evil. The neutral character looks out for number one, but he isn't a jerk about it. He might occasionally commit a random act of kindness -- but only when it doesn't inconvenience him. He might also do something really crappy - but only when it serves his own immediate benefit and he can justify it to himself somehow.
In other words: most real people are neutral.
For example, let's say a character finds a wallet full of large bills in a parking lot. The address on the driver's license is in a very wealthy part of town.
- A LG character would take the wallet directly to the local police station -- or maybe to the address on the license. If the owner could not be located, she would give the cash to a charitable organization.
- A CG character would skip the police and just give the money anonymously to a needy acquaintance -- maybe a big bag of groceries would show up on the doorstep of a neighbor who recently lost a job. She might then mail the credit cards etc. back to the owner.
- A NG character could do any combination of the above, depending on the circumstances.
- A LN character would keep the money and use it to pay down bills or complete home repairs. She might mail the empty wallet back to the owner if she had some stamps laying around.
- A CN character would keep the money and spend it on something frivolous: booze, hookers, a case of Pathfinder Battles Miniatures, etc. Maybe she'd mail the wallet if she felt like it.
- TN might do any combination of the above depending on the circumstances.
- A LE character would keep the money, max out the credit cards, and then dispose of the evidence in her backyard trash burning barrel.
- A CE character would keep the money, go to the address, break in, murder the owner, and make a suit out of his skin.
- NE, again, might do any combination of the above.
That's my interpretation anyway. YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think of a neutral person as someone who pursues an ideal without considerations of good or evil. In game terms, this could be a wizard who seeks all magical knowledge...necromancy or healing, it's all the same to him. It could be a martial artist who would learn dragon style from the most evil master, as well as turtle style from a pious and sequestered pacifist. They neither delight in cruelty, nor take pleasure in charity.
Lawful neutral people either follow the laws of their homeland, or have their own moral code...one which is likely more pragmatic. They value order, and respect any system which works well and predictably.
Chaotic neutral people don't recognize or respect order in anything...all things are now and in this moment. They neither regret the past, which is unchangeable, nor concern themselves with the future, which is unknowable. They are hedonists, ruled by passion.
True neutral people...well, they could be many things. They could seek balance through a study of the natural world, like a druid. They could be that wizard who craves both "light" and "dark" magic. They could be a gnome working to build the world's largest, most complex clockwork construct...not caring what the construct might do for good or ill once it is complete.
A CE character would keep the money, go to the address, break in, murder the owner, and make a suit out of his skin.
I couldn't help but laugh when I read this.
I don't think it's possible to play a true neutral character, because sooner or later a player is going to be faced with a moral/ethical decision, and he's going to have to make a decision. Thus, his character is going to lean one way or another. This tends to snow-ball the more power the character collects. As spidey's uncle once said, "With great power comes great responsibility."
The only way someone could feasibly remain neutral is by keeping a running tally of decisions he's made. Well, seems I have three checks for "good" and only two for "evil". Guess I'm gonna be evil this time 'round.
Life doesn't work that way. That's Two-Face logic. Unless you're playing a mad-man, it's impossible.
Not necessarily. You can play the mercenary, which means you will help if there is something in it for you such as money or influence or favors you can call upon at some other time.
It would be difficult to ascribe a mercenary as true neutral. Being motivated by self-interest and profit is evil when it comes at the expense of others. Most likely, they would be neutral evil. If they have some sort of code, perhaps lawful evil (if they are still willing to do heinous acts) or lawful neutral (if they are not).
Defending a village against a monster horde is good, unless you are demanding money for your services in which case it is neutral as you are not motivated by any sense of altruism.
If a mercenary is unwilling to assist those in need, he is committing an evil act. Not because he refuses to put his life on the line, but because he is benefiting from the misery of others. He could help them, but he won't. That's pretty wicked, and not to mention cowardly. He's not expected to throw his life on the line, but he could help. Not everyone could. A commoner, for example, could do little to aid others, except maybe by devising a plan of escape, but a warrior--a warrior could do a great deal. Someone once said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I think this to be a very true statement. Those in a position of power have a moral obligation to protect others who are not.
|
Also, keep in mind that single actions never equal to an alignment. One could make a fateful decision and still remain neutral, because he'll just go back to doing his thing next time. The idea of true neutrality, at least in my mind, is to be the moral equivalent of play-dough. You can reshape it whoever you like depending on the circumstances, and you can just mash it back into putty when you feel the structure is no longer necessary. A neutral character is motivated by what feels good at the time, not by altruism, not by spite, not by a sense of civil duty or a desire for individuality or self-expression. Neutral people are those that don't particularly commit one way or the other, and if they do, it isn't for very long. Mostly they just like being left alone, and if they ARE motivated, its to stay alive and content.
In other words, the only way you can remain TN is if you avoid a "higher calling." You have opinions, but they shouldn't be very strong ones one way or the other. Mostly, you just follow your gut and live life in whatever manner you can. You'll sometimes do nasty things because you have to, or good deeds because they seemed right at the time, but you'll never throw in, you'll never donate a kidney or volunteer long-term at a charity (and likewise won't go on a murderous rampage or start up a totalitarian regime). You'll just be you.
|
|
I don't think it's possible to play a true neutral character, because sooner or later a player is going to be faced with a moral/ethical decision, and he's going to have to make a decision.
I think it makes more sense to look at true neutral as NN. The age old question of "do the ends justify the means" is a great way to understand alignment. The law-chaos (ethical) axis represents the means and the good-evil (moral) axis is the ends. It becomes two questions:
1. What motivates this character to do what they do? and
2. What are they willing (or not willing) to do to achieve that motivation?
If the answer to the first question is anything besides some form of either "the greater good" (good) or "to crush my enemies and hear the lamentations of their women," (evil) the character is morally neutral. Revenge, pleasure, riches, fame, guilt, survival, insecurity, self-loathing, mommy/daddy issues... everything else falls into the category of neutral.
If the answer to the second question is anything beyond shrugged shoulders and a blank stare, the character is either lawful or chaotic. Ethical neutrality is a wish-washy alignment choice and I've almost never seen it played effectively. And -- let's be honest -- it's boring.
Animals are true neutral because they lack the capacity for complex thought. Characters are neutral when they lack personality beyond their class description (or are druids -- six of one, half dozen of the other). NG and NE characters are even worse, since they are inevitably one-dimensional heroes and villains.
IMO morally neutral, ethically aligned characters are most interesting because they're the most complex. Think of Professor Snape in the Harry Potter Series or Tyrion Lannister from A Song of Ice and Fire. Both are far-and-away the most interesting characters in their respective series.
Professor Snape is a great example of LN -- he's not motivated by any heroic impulse; he's motivated by regret over unrequited love. He's lawful in that he keeps to his word, regardless of the cost. Tyrion, on the other hand, is textbook chaotic neutral. His motivation is split between simple survival and resolving his troubled familial relationships. He never harms anyone just for the hell of it, but he doesn't hesitate to do what is necessary. Like Snape's honor, Tyrion's shifty nature causes him nearly as much difficulty as any external conflict he encounters.
I'm probably overthinking this.
|
|
Doesn't it say this directly in the book?
Neutral people don't generally hurt, oppress, or kill others. They also don't go out of their way to help others, especially if they need to sacrifice something to do so.
Neutral people generally respect authority (if they only respected as they see fit, they'd be chaotic), and will have a good mixture of traits from both the Lawful and Chaotic sections.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil requires some malevolent intent or purpose, not just apathy. Not being good is not the same as being evil.
That's my take as well. Evil actions are not the same as evil alignment. Intent matters.
A mercenary wouldn't necessarily be evil aligned for involving himself in a war where he had no stake other than money. Yes, his work may make him a party to atrocities -- and he would certainly be morally culpable for his actions or inaction. But moral culpability for a single incident (or even several such incidents) does not change the character's nature.
People do horrible things every day -- even people who could otherwise be considered "good." What matters (for the sake of alignment) is the response to those actions. Is the mercenary wracked by guilt? Does he wake up in a cold sweat every night after seeing the faces of slaughtered innocents in his dreams? Does he try to make amends somehow?
If, on the other hand, if has no remorse for his actions in the cold light of day -- maybe even enjoys doing it -- then the shift to an evil alignment is warranted.
Stepping outside the mercenary example, consider a woman who comes home and catches her husband doing the deed with her best friend. In the heat of the moment, she kills them both with her +5 vorpal steak knife. Murder is unquestionably an evil act and the woman bears moral responsibility for her crime. However, that single incident does not in-and-of-itself change her basic nature. She could still be considered neutral or even good, depending on her actions and motivations outside of that single incident.
However, if the same woman regularly murders her husbands when she gets bored with them -- that's evil.
On the opposite side of the coin, a character might join a good cause for a non-good reason reason (Han Solo in the original Star Wars*). He's aiding the forces of goodness, but his motivation for doing so is purely selfish. Therefore, he's still neutral. If he eventually drinks the Kool-Aid of Light begins to believe in what he's doing for its own sake, he would then become good aligned (Han Solo in Return of the Jedi).
*I refuse to call it Episode IV: A New Hope. I'll fight anyone who tries to make me.
Reading some of the other replies, I think it's actually simpler than it first appears.
A Good character is motivated by altruism, an Evil character by malice. Everything else falls under Neutrality. It's a big tent, which is probably why folks have so much trouble with it as a concept
That is pretty much how I see it, with a bit of a twist.
Good -> Selfless.
Evil -> Selfish to the point that it is significantly harmful to others.
Neutral -> insignificant selfishness(IE everything in between).
Thus, it is possible to do evil without the intent to do evil(IE without malice). A lot of evil is done with good intentions. The person has an unselfish goal, but take a few selfish shortcuts to get there. These are possibly lesser evil done the service of a greater good, but they are evils none the less.
Torturing a prisoner to get information is a good example. Even if you do it without malice, you are still hurting another person. There are other less harmful ways to get the information, like befriending the person, but that is a harder and takes time(IE more selfless). Torture may be a lesser evil in the service of a greater good, but that doesn't stop it from being a lesser evil.
This also means that the transition from good to neutral to evil isn't a hard line but a gradual slope depending on exactly how selfish or unselfish the act is and how harmful the act is to others.
So you have a village about to be attacked by some bad guys
Defend the village for no reward -> very good
Defend the village for small reward -> good
Defend the village for substantial reward -> neutral
Burn the village to the ground to keep the enemy from getting it -> evil
Put the villagers to the sword after you burn down the village because they might join the other army -> very evil
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well True neutral is someone that dose not lean towards any aliment they are the fence sitters of the game they will not have any morale decisions law, chaos, good, and evil. Thats why all animals are TN. I dont believe that any human can be true netural.
Humans can't fence sit?
I don't think it's possible to play a true neutral character, because sooner or later a player is going to be faced with a moral/ethical decision, and he's going to have to make a decision. Thus, his character is going to lean one way or another. This tends to snow-ball the more power the character collects. As spidey's uncle once said, "With great power comes great responsibility."
The only way someone could feasibly remain neutral is by keeping a running tally of decisions he's made. Well, seems I have three checks for "good" and only two for "evil". Guess I'm gonna be evil this time 'round.
Life doesn't work that way. That's Two-Face logic. Unless you're playing a mad-man, it's impossible.
That's because these characters don't make decisions based on "is this good/is this evil?" They make these decisions based on "what's in it for me and mine?" Sometimes this ends up pushing them towards good or evil if they start to enjoy the benevolent side effects of their actions, or to evil if they start to devalue others in their pursuit of their goals. But that's only one possible outcome - it's entirely possible for a character to help save the world because "I live here too, don't I? Not going to let you altristic idiots screw up the job of saving my world."
It's also possible for a character to have a neutral cause (like knowledge) which they are extremely dedicated to and will almost always act to serve regardless of other moral implications.
If a mercenary is unwilling to assist those in need, he is committing an evil act. Not because he refuses to put his life on the line, but because he is benefiting from the misery of others. He could help them, but he won't. That's pretty wicked, and not to mention cowardly. He's not expected to throw his life on the line, but he could help. Not everyone could. A commoner, for example, could do little to aid others, except maybe by devising a plan of escape, but a warrior--a warrior could do a great deal. Someone once said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I think this to be a very true statement. Those in a position of power have a moral obligation to protect others who are not.
So a doctor should be required to treat everyone without asking for any payment? A cook should be required to feed the hungry for free? Characters who do these things are good, but those who ask for payment for their trade are not evil. Not to mention that in most cases the warrior could "do a great deal" only by laying their life on the line, and refusing to sacrifice your life for no reward is not evil.
Characters are neutral when they lack personality beyond their class description (or are druids -- six of one, half dozen of the other).
I like most of your comments my good goblin, but speak for your own druids.
As spidey's uncle once said, "With great power comes great responsibility."
Well, what Spider-Man got wrong was that in reality, with great power comes zero accountability. Who's going to demand you stop throwing cars at old women if you're bullet proof? :)
I don't think it's possible to play a true neutral character, because sooner or later a player is going to be faced with a moral/ethical decision, and he's going to have to make a decision.I think it makes more sense to look at true neutral as NN. The age old question of "do the ends justify the means" is a great way to understand alignment. The law-chaos (ethical) axis represents the means and the good-evil (moral) axis is the ends. It becomes two questions:
1. What motivates this character to do what they do? and
2. What are they willing (or not willing) to do to achieve that motivation?
If the answer to the first question is anything besides some form of either "the greater good" (good) or "to crush my enemies and hear the lamentations of their women," (evil) the character is morally neutral. Revenge, pleasure, riches, fame, guilt, survival, insecurity, self-loathing, mommy/daddy issues... everything else falls into the category of neutral.
If the answer to the second question is anything beyond shrugged shoulders and a blank stare, the character is either lawful or chaotic. Ethical neutrality is a wish-washy alignment choice and I've almost never seen it played effectively. And -- let's be honest -- it's boring.
Animals are true neutral because they lack the capacity for complex thought. Characters are neutral when they lack personality beyond their class description (or are druids -- six of one, half dozen of the other). NG and NE characters are even worse, since they are inevitably one-dimensional heroes and villains.
IMO morally neutral, ethically aligned characters are most interesting because they're the most complex. Think of Professor Snape in the Harry Potter Series or Tyrion Lannister from A Song of Ice and Fire. Both are far-and-away the most interesting characters in their respective series.
Professor Snape is a great example of LN -- he's not motivated by any heroic impulse; he's motivated by regret over...
I think that a neutral character can be just as interesting as any other alignment. Their motivations are character driven, be it by their past or their personalities, making ethical neutrality a bit more complex.
Any alignment can give you a cookie cutter character - Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Bipolar, etc. However, as mentioned in the OP, I wanted to get away from thought of poorly played/written, cookie cutter characters. We've all seen the great LG characters, and the great CE characters who are more than just walking alignments, and I wanted to talk about the N characters who fall into this portion of alignment.
Here's my thing: I believe that we're all intrinsically selfish and self serving.
Now, you can conflate that belief with Natural Law vs Common Law and get Calvin and Hobbes (John and Thomas, respectfully) into a fight. I can also counter myself by suggesting that just like all of the ethics philosophers out there, I can't possibly know what is going on in other people's minds, and we're making rash judgements based on assumptions of other people.
What I can say is that I think that I'm intrinsically selfish and self-serving, but not to the extent that I wish to harm other people. I will only do good for people when it would ultimately serve me or someone close to me, because the people I care for bring me joy, and therefore, my mind equates them to property. I'm not bragging about thinking this way; in fact, it bothers me to think it, but its the truth.
And that's the key here. I don't go out of my way to help people, but I also won't go out of my way to harm them, either.
As for laws...I'll follow what I personally think is right and wrong unless people are looking, but I won't break laws that could hurt me or others. That doesn't mean I'll never jaywalk ever again, or stop going 5mph over the speed limit on an empty road, but If I don't think I'm hurting anyone, where is the harm?
I think that this is the key to TN characters - there is no IMPULSE to act lawfully or chaotically, to do harm or help, and so they're capable of anything. Their impulses come from their characters, rather than their alignment. To me, that's a more flexible, interesting, and realistic character.
|
|
I always give my neutral characters a specific purpose as to drive them, They will do all aspects of alignment to get it done, if nothing conflicts or hinders there mission, than they act accordingly. Current neutral character, is a Longsword Weapon Master, with unique maneuvers he has perfected over the years and is seeking a pupil to teach them too. However, he often just lives other wise.
He is joining a pirate crew, and was at one time a pirate hunter. he however is also older and through his years has whittled away his sheer look of good and evil, law and chaos and sees life as it is and takes it. He has made a goal and will see it done, every thing else is just that. How he reacts is how he has in the past, or how he needs to at the time.
The neutrality lets you breath some when making decisions. I've come from playing three paladins in a row, and neutrality seems to me the best at being able to assume any alignment at any time, making your characters personal morality, just that personal and unique to just them.
If you see alignment as some sort of set of nine poles and if you fall off of one you must jump to another, you are going to constantly run into things like "nobody could every be TN, they would eventually have to make some kind of choice".
The idea that a single act that is not INCREDIBLY vast in scope is capable of instantly sliding the way the universe perceives you is almost laughable. And even then, I only say almost because such a universe, while not something I nor those I play with would enjoy, may appeal to others.
I do not believe alignment is a field of nine poles. Rather, I believe it is nine fields. A mortal such as a human may wander within Neutral, coming near the borders of NG, CN, LN, NE, without actually crossing into them. They may be described as "that nice fellow who always has a kind word" or "that wretched creature that just seems to enjoy being mean." They could even approach the corners of LG, CG, LE, CE, where worldviews become even more extreme. Some may even hop the fence and set up their homestead in an outer field. They are noted by their neighbors, either being seen as strange: "He gives so much, I wonder how he pays his own bills," or worse: "Should have seen it coming, what with the cats and dogs dissapearing around his house. Lucky that one poor soul managed to get away and inform the authorities, who knows how long he would have done that for?"
Outsiders start in those further fields, and on their worst days should have difficulty even approaching the inner fences, much less going so far as to cross them. The most selfish archon is still as generous as the all but the greatest mortal philanthropists. The most benevolent demon is still just as vicious and depraved as the average horror movie psychopath.
tldr: Alignment is a tic-tac-toe grid. Draw a dot, move it appropriately for actions taken: maybe a little, rarely a lot.
Evil does not have to be actively malicious. That is such a cheap cop out. By that token, only a true mustache-twirling comedy villain can ever be evil. Oooo, the hero loves his wife so he'll get hurt if I kill her!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! Do try to get real. Evil people have motivations just like everyone else. One might abhor being weak, another have a utopian vision for society, another wants immortality, another wants wealth, etc etc etc. The hallmark of evil is to what lengths they are ready to go to in getting it, and how much they are willing to let others pay along the way. The most defining expression is "but it is for a good cause".
|
|
I like most of your comments my good goblin, but speak for your own druids.
I probably should have followed that comment with some kind of emoticon, like ;) or even :P
I will say that Druids, like Paladins, tend to get played as walking ideologies rather than three-dimensional people. That's more a fault of individual players, but it doesn't help that TN is difficult for a lot of folks to wrap their heads around. The most organic (so to speak) Druid RPing I've seen had them simply unconcerned with everyday ethics and morality. They weren't for or against any of those things per se -- they just don't matter. Order, to a druid, has more to do with weather and migration patterns than the rules of society. The greater good is about sustainability and food chains, not heroics. If orcs kill all the serfs, their bodies enrich the soil and feed generations of future serfs, all we are is dust in the wind -- that kind of thing. I imagine that Druids would actually see themselves as the purest of Lawful Good -- everyone else is wrapped up in things that really don't matter in the big scheme of things. It really puts them off the normal alignment grid.
Stereotypes of the TN character:
-Apathetic
-Actively seeking balance in the world (eye for an eye, etc)
-Totally doing whatever (but not in a destructive CE way)What are your thoughts on the matter?
I always view 'good' and 'evil' as a reflection of 'where you draw the line'.
Everyone has someone they care about - themselves, those close to them, those they have something in common with, or those who see themselves in everyone.
This is the line we draw: People inside that line are those that we care about and would help. Those outside it aren't.
The Evil person has usually just himself inside that line. The good person puts everyone inside that line. The neutral person, he has a line that is more than himself, but less than everyone in the world.
Another way of looking at neutrality is as 'undecided' or 'uncommitted' - a neutral person may be good enough to those around him, but wouldn;t risk his skin for people in the next village, or regards their problems as 'not my concern'. Likewise, a neutral person could be bitter and unpleasant, but doesn't want to risk punishment or retaliation for actually performing deeds others would frown on.
Let's expand on the mercenary and town example for a bit.
Someone said that not helping the townsfolk is evil while helping them is good. That's rather black and white.
So think of this instead: The evil overlord's henchmen want to raid a small village with a population consisting mainly of hunters who can very well shoot their slings or bows at intruders as well as animals. Even if the villagers are outnumered they could take some of the raiders with them what is something the evil guy rather don't want.
So they decide to hire the mercenaries camping near the next town, waiting for work.
Example 1: The mercs listen to the bad guys and while they really could use the money they decline. By that alone they sacrifice something: The money they could earn. And for real mercs most likely easy money, going against mere hunters.
So what alignment is the act of declining the contract?
Example 2: This time the mercs accept but instead of doing what they were hired for they turn on the evil henchmen during the raid slaughtering them, taking their stuff and moving on.
What alignment would this act be?
And which mercs are the better people, those in example 1 or those in 2?
For me the mercs in #1 are neutral (perhaps LN) while those in #2 are CN or even CE. And while most people in need of merc would not mind the reaction in #1 the one in #2 might very well mean no more contracts for the mercs if anyone ever hears about what they did.
And the whole killing evil is good and killing good is evil is nonsense in my opinion. If two evil armies fight each other just for the fun of it or for some personal gain there is no good deed involved. Likewhise if one good guy kills some bandits without knowing that one of them is a good aligned covert agent he isn't really doing an evil deed.
I always viewed neutrality on the good/evil axis as you prefer to do the right thing but aren't always willing to incur the costs of being good. You will also sometimes commit acts you feel are wrong because the pay out is extremely tempting.
An evil character almost never feels remorse for acts they commit and believe they are justified in stepping on others to succeed.
On the law/chaos axis a neutral character appreciates law and order but doesn't always feel obligated to act in a lawful or orderly manner.
A chaotic character actively disdains law and order and sees outside forces trying to impose rules on them as hostile.
And you also get those neutral types that believe in balance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that a neutral character can be just as interesting as any other alignment. Their motivations are character driven, be it by their past or their personalities, making ethical neutrality a bit more complex.
I'll grant you that TN characters are not inherently bland. I may have overstated things a little in my earlier post. However, extra work needs to be done to flesh these characters out -- if their convictions fall outside the typical axes, then those convictions need to be explicitly defined. If the character simply lacks convictions of any kind, then it's tough to make the case that they're worth paying attention to.
And again, morally conflicted characters are the most interesting. Ethical dilemmas -- whether internal or external-- are a basic feature of storytelling. Morally simplistic characters are just less compelling -- it's why X-Men comics outsell Superman comics. A character who abstains from taking any kind of moral or ethical stand needs to fill that gap or risk becoming milquetoast.
But please understand I'm talking about fictional characters only. To wit:
Here's my thing: I believe that we're all intrinsically selfish and self serving.
A gamey abstraction like alignment can't really be accurately applied to real-life people. People are infinitely more complicated than that -- it's a hopeless exercise to try putting them into one of nine moral boxes. If there were 9,000 alignments, it still wouldn't be enough.
Yes, people are selfish. They're also altruistic. Sometimes they're both at the same time. In my professional life, I've had the opportunity to observe people in all sorts of ethically challenging situations. More often than not, people will do the right thing when there's no tangible benefit benefit -- even when they think no one is looking. They probably don't even think about what they're doing; they act according to instinct.
Time and again, science has shown that there's an evolutionary advantage to selflessness. More than our big brains or opposable thumbs, it's the reason why human beings have lasted as long as we have. One naked ape with a pointy stick is no match for the brutality of nature. One thousand naked apes working together, on the other hand, has ensured our collective survival.
And yes, people also do horrible things to one another and to themselves. It's so self-evident that I hardly need to provide examples to prove the point.
I will, however, say that we pay disproportionate attention to these things -- and remember them -- precisely because they are unusual. "Dog bites man" isn't news, but "man bites dog" is. Mass media, by it's very nature, distorts our view of reality by drawing our collective eyeballs to the unusual. For example:
- Do you think there's more violent crime or less than there was 30 years ago? Most people would say things have gotten worse, but the statics say that incidences of violence have dropped by more than half during that time.
- What's more dangerous? Getting on an airplane or buying a soda? More people die every year from tipped vending machines than plane crashes and terrorism combined.
- If you have children, do you check their Halloween candy for razor blades? Do you know how often children have been injured by sabotaged treats? It's happened exactly once, and it was the kid's mother who did it.
Conversely, real-life goodness is boring. It's not dragon-slaying or rescuing maidens from towers -- it's holding a door for a stranger or giving up your seat on the bus to an old lady with a walker. It's putting a can of food or an old coat in the collection box. It's ubiquitous; so much so that we don't even see it.
In the world of fantasy, good and evil are monolithic, opposing forces. In the real world, good is mundane and evil is sensationalistic. It's easy to become cynical if you don't get into the habit of looking beneath the surface of things.
|
|
I do not believe alignment is a field of nine poles. Rather, I believe it is nine fields. A mortal such as a human may wander within Neutral, coming near the borders of NG, CN, LN, NE, without actually crossing into them.
Exactly. It's an alignment axis, not an alignment binary - good, evil, law, and chaos come in small servings and degrees and any serving sufficiently close to center is "neutral."
I always view 'good' and 'evil' as a reflection of 'where you draw the line'.
Everyone has someone they care about - themselves, those close to them, those they have something in common with, or those who see themselves in everyone.
This is the line we draw: People inside that line are those that we care about and would help. Those outside it aren't.
The Evil person has usually just himself inside that line. The good person puts everyone inside that line. The neutral person, he has a line that is more than himself, but less than everyone in the world.
Not a bad idea, but I think it's an oversimplification because it prevents Evil people from having loved ones. A guy who doesn't bat an eye at murder and torture is still evil, even if he adores his little daughter.
I'll grant you that TN characters are not inherently bland. I may have overstated things a little in my earlier post. However, extra work needs to be done to flesh these characters out -- if their convictions fall outside the typical axes, then those convictions need to be explicitly defined. If the character simply lacks convictions of any kind, then it's tough to make the case that they're worth paying attention to.
And again, morally conflicted characters are the most interesting. Ethical dilemmas -- whether internal or external-- are a basic feature of storytelling. Morally simplistic characters are just less compelling -- it's why X-Men comics outsell Superman comics. A character who abstains from taking any kind of moral or ethical stand needs to fill that gap or risk becoming milquetoast.
The thing is, good and evil (and lawful and chaotic) characters also need further development or else they turn into boring caricatures - Superman is largely considered a classic LG character but you just described him as morally simplistic. It's not TN's fault, it's the fault of people who slap an alignment/generic moral stance on a character and call that "characterization." Any character of any alignment needs more than that. They need to have what they care about most defined, and the things that are most likely to make them violate their principles. They need relationships. They need personal aspirations. They need personal history. "Duncan the LG Fighter" is no more or less inherently interesting than "Duncan the TN Fighter" - without anything else, they're both boring. "Duncan, the fighter who watched his brother murdered as a child and vowed to become strong in order to protect others (LG)/himself (TN)" - now we're starting to get somewhere.
Conversely, real-life goodness is boring. It's not dragon-slaying or rescuing maidens from towers -- it's holding a door for a stranger or giving up your seat on the bus to an old lady with a walker. It's putting a can of food or an old coat in the collection box. It's ubiquitous; so much so that we don't even see it.In the world of fantasy, good and evil are monolithic, opposing forces. In the real world, good is mundane and evil is sensationalistic. It's easy to become cynical if you don't get into the habit of looking beneath the surface of things.
Holding a door for a stranger is nice not Good. Giving up your seat is again nice not Good.
Now:
It's putting a can of food or an old coat in the collection box.
These are good charity deeds.
A gamey abstraction like alignment can't really be accurately applied to real-life people. People are infinitely more complicated than that -- it's a hopeless exercise to try putting them into one of nine moral boxes. If there were 9,000 alignments, it still wouldn't be enough.
And I agree with that. But I think that over-generalization helps us build our way to the truth of the matter - its why I both hate and am interested in ethics philosophers. People like Kant always miss the bigger picture due to their over-generalization, but it does get the conversation rolling.
Anyway, I was only using myself as an example to point towards my idea of what TN is; capable of leaning either way, but never doing anything completely altruistic or selfish, like most other humans.
Animals are true neutral because they lack the capacity for complex thought.
I don't think that's fair. Animals show emotion and care towards their own, just as often as they show disdain for eachother. I never like discounting an animals cognitive efforts or their level of language skills. Otherwise, I make the people saying it look silly when I bring up elephants mourning their dead, tigers holding grudges, wolves planning group assaults, and apes learning sign language.
NG and NE characters are even worse, since they are inevitably one-dimensional heroes and villains.
Disagree. I think there's a difference between Robin Hood (CG) and Gandalf (NG). I liked TV Tropes' definition of NG: "a [NG] character will usually comply with laws if doing so benefits the greater good, but rebel against those they consider unjust or which conflict with the greater good."
As for NE, I like these characters for the same reason: complying with laws when it suits them, but ignoring the ones that hold them back from what they want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we accept that being good is alturistic behavior, and the definition of alturistic behavior is:
unselfish concern for the welfare of others;
Then opening a door for a stranger or giving up your seat IS good. You are putting their needs above yours.
If you give up your seat because your society expects you to do it it's not good but lawful.
|
I don't think it's possible to play a true neutral character, because sooner or later a player is going to be faced with a moral/ethical decision, and he's going to have to make a decision. Thus, his character is going to lean one way or another. This tends to snow-ball the more power the character collects. As spidey's uncle once said, "With great power comes great responsibility."
The only way someone could feasibly remain neutral is by keeping a running tally of decisions he's made. Well, seems I have three checks for "good" and only two for "evil". Guess I'm gonna be evil this time 'round.
Life doesn't work that way. That's Two-Face logic. Unless you're playing a mad-man, it's impossible.
You know, I run a Lawful Neutral character and he is keeping a tally. He is altruistic or selfish depending on the circumstances. He is completely unconcerned with good or evil. He has is own agenda, his own plans and so long as those are not interfered with, he doesn't care if good or evil wins. Now chaos? He doesn't are for that. He's a gnome and likes predictability since he's a crafter. He doesn't mind following a given set of laws so long as they won't interfere with his agenda (which is an abstract concept). As has been stated, a single action doesn't make an alignment, usually. So if someone murders and bathes in the blood, this doesn't make them evil or chaotic, though the act is both. It IS a significant mark (or several marks) towards both.
We have(had) a player who refused to think he was anything but good, however, this particular gunslinger CONSTANTLY bullied innocent women and children, threatened their lives, injured and maimed people, all because he wanted casual information that they could obviously not have.
Gunslinger: Tell me why the evil sorceress has come! *grabs shirt* NOW!
Woman with now crying child: I..I don't know. Just please, let me go so I can get to safety. She's coming!
Gunslinger: No, you will tell me EVERYTHING you know!
Woman: *tries to flee*
Gunslinger: I grappled the woman and backhand her across the face. I then pull out my gun and place it against her temple. 'You will tell me or you're childs going to be an orphan. That Sorceress whose on her way? Don't worry about what she'll do to you if she catches you out here. Worry about what -I'LL- do to you if you don't explain everything to me. Right here. Right now.
I kid you freaking not. He's no longer a part of our group. He quit (thank god). But he truly believed that he was good. And he went out of his way to justify his actions as good and got QUITE upset when told that his actions were anything but good. He has no concept of what good is. This leads me to believe he is at least evil. Either lawful or chaotic evil. I'd lean towards lawful since they tend to be the only type who might not actually see themselves as evil. Chaotics know what they are. And neutral evil folk shouldn't have any delusions either.
Being lawful neutral, I didn't bother to step in- though being logical, I considered kicking him in the nuts for being stupid.
"Alignment is an aid to the participants in order to define roles and to enable the players to better play their characters. Its function is clear when the decision of PC selection needs to be made. Mind-set, GM preference, and group predominance will modify this choice to some
extent. Otherwise there is no particular meaning with respect to this aspect of the RPG system."
- Gary Gygax, Role Playing Mastery
I'm doing a series of posts on this book. I just thought that the last sentence was interesting. He seems to indicate that alignment doesn't mean much. Now, the game as he has invented it was pretty much good characters going around and killing evil monsters.
Personality/character development was probably pretty shallow compared to today. Such as the nuances discussed in this thread. Meaning alignment is more important in the overall game today.
You may resume relevant posts....
We have(had) a player who refused to think he was anything but good, however, this particular gunslinger CONSTANTLY bullied innocent women and children, threatened their lives, injured and maimed people, all because he wanted casual information that they could obviously not have.Gunslinger: Tell me why the evil sorceress has come! *grabs shirt* NOW!
Woman with now crying child: I..I don't know. Just please, let me go so I can get to...
He sounds neutral. Lawful Neutral. He has a code. He follows it.
|
|
Code? Hmm. His code doesn't extend to not harming innocents, not harming civilians, is subject to change based on the situation and whether he can get something out if it (he is greedy and that is a major motivation for him in game and out of game). I don't see a real code.
Unless by code, we are talking about the code of convenience or the code of whatever makes me walk away with more wealth. In this regard, you could say he is neutral. But since he is willing to do anything to satisfy his greed, and typically the things he does leans heavily on the evil side (crippling innocents, murdering helpless non-threats, torture, etc) I'd say, at best he is neutral evil and at worst, chaotic evil. So if he has a Code (which he would need to role play more to develop and for me to see, then I would go with Lawful evil. Either way, whether he is lawful, chaotic or neutral, this guy is absolutely evil.
I think he has done more harm to neutral and good aligned characters than all the 'villains' we've actually faced. And he's even worse to the villains, well, worse to anyone he can't physically overpower. He's a bully. You know what he reminds me off now that I think about it? You know how there is the BBEG and he has that one annoying little lackey who is always mistreated and abused and the laughingstock? But that same lackey takes any conceivable and every possible opportunity to strut his stuff and enforce his will on others when the big boss is gone? That's this guy. More or less.
|
|
I don't think that's fair. Animals show emotion and care towards their own, just as often as they show disdain for eachother. I never like discounting an animals cognitive efforts or their level of language skills. Otherwise, I make the people saying it look silly when I bring up elephants mourning their dead, tigers holding grudges, wolves planning group assaults, and apes learning sign language.
Strong emotional and social behavior are not the same thing as complex and abstract philosophical thought. The idea that animals are neutral isn't based on a (false) assumption that they can't perform actions that would be good or evil if performed by a human. It's that animals (as far as we know) don't understand the concepts of "right" and "wrong." Being good/evil/lawful/chaotic requires not only performing aligned acts but having the ability to think about those acts morally. Whether or not you have an accurate picture of your own morality is a different question.
|
|
Neutrality on the moral axis is simply non-malicious self-interest. If you care about anyone, it is because you have close emotional ties to them or you depend on them somehow.
A Lawful/Chaotic/True Neutral character may fight to the death to protect his family, his lover, his neighbors, etc. Generally he could not give two flying figs about the villagers being oppressed by the Hobgoblin Empire on the other side of the mountain. That might change if the Hobgoblin Empire could clearly be seen as a threat to the neutral character or those that the neutral character cares about.
When it comes to an ideal society for particular neutral characters, I generally see it as the following:
(1) Lawful Neutral Societies value order, stability, and are generally hierarchical. Everybody knows their place in a Lawful Neutral society. Lawful neutral laws are generally made to promote societal stability rather than justice, while a Lawful Good society generally believes that justice leads to social stability. While this may seem somewhat callous, a Lawful Neutral person would argue that if everyone follows the law, everything will work itself out, and justice will be a natural byproduct.
(2) True Neutral value harmony, social cohesion and reciprocity. No judgments. I won't stick my nose into your business if you don't stick your into mine. If you treat me nicely, I will treat you nicely. If you stick up for me, I'll stick up for you. That's the kind of society True Neutrals generally form.
(3) Chaotic Neutral Societies value freedom and flexibility. Despite being somewhat "anarchistic," Chaotic Neutral societies may indeed have leaders. However, the leaders may change quickly depending on the situation. A good example would be a tribe that elects a leaders who can lead the tribe in war, but who then elects a leader to lead the tribe for harvest. If the society has true leaders, the leaders are chosen on the basis of their ability, rather than birth.