Before we get into the topic, I want to clarify that True Neutral is the same as being simply Neutral in alignment; however, this clarifies that they have no lean toward any alignment axis, whereas the given definition only answers one of two axis that defines a character's alignment.
I read the staple for True Neutral characters. I'll cite it for reference; from the PFSRD:
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). 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.
Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.
Reading the large paragraph, it says that most of the time, a True Neutral character does whatever the heck they want and don't give two coppers about alignment. Of course, this doesn't mean they won't bias towards the nature of different entities, but simply that when faced with alignment, they're all like "Whatever".
The second paragraph, on the other hand, then goes to say that alignments outside of neutrality are extremes that they will not partake in.
The final sentence then says that you just act however the heck you want, without any sort of recoil.
How exactly does one play this without being seen (or perhaps labeled) as a bias? Would it go something like this?
TN Guy: Yeah, something like that.
Bad Guy: I have come to rain death upon you all.
TN Guy: Cool story, bro.
Good Guy: It's the bad guys, we need to do something! You there, come help us fight this evil!
Bad Guy: No, they are the evil ones! Join us in our quest to eliminate them!
TN Guy: What if I don't want to?
Good Guy: But you'll fight for the good of us all!
TN Guy: Blah blah blah, not interested.
Bad Guy: I'll give you a handful of nachos if you smite these whelps.
TN Guy: I like nachos. Deal.
*Fight Scene*
Bad Guy: You did good, random person. Want to serve more evil?
TN Guy: No.
Bad Guy: Oh. Want more nachos?
TN Guy: Sure.
Bad Guy: But you'll have to serve more evil people for more nachos.
TN Guy: What am I doing helping you for? I can get nachos down the street.
*Another Fight Scene with Bad Guy dying*
TN Guy: Alright, that got me craving nachos. Now I feel like finding the Holy Nacho Grail.
This would make sense, except the TN Guy wants nachos, of all things. That would probably make him Chaotic Neutral, not True Neutral. But if we gave him any semblance of code, that would make him have a Lawful background.
Honestly, True Neutral as an alignment seems only fit for things that either don't know any better, or things that are just naturally fit for tasks it was born and bred for.
Thoughts?
Think of a baby or animal.
It does what it wants. Morals don't matter.
On the other hand in your example, a true neutral person could very easily join up with the Good Guys in the event the Evil Ruler dude would make his life any harder by conquering his homeland or whatever. Then immediately when his way of life isn't really being threatened he leaves the party.
Here's a Website that has some sources about alignments, though i'd also like to see some examples of what True Neutral is.
The sources for true neutral are from;
(1) Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide. TSR:1979. and Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook. TSR:1978.
(2) Renaud, J.R. "Making law out of chaos." Dragon (#163). November 1990: 74-78.
(3) Pulver, David. The Complete Druid's Handbook. TSR: 1994.
(4) Parlagreco, Carl. "Another View of the Nine-Point Alignment Scheme." The Dragon (#26). June 1979: 23.
Or another could be that you have an adventuring friend whom you care about, and when he/she feels strongly about something you kinda get rolled along with it. Personally you don't really give a rats ass about the matter, but hes your friend and if it makes him shut up you'll do it.
don't try to reconcile all of that into one character. It's actually describing at least two, and possibly three, different outlooks on being truly neutral.
Especially the first and second paragraphs, you won't find any one character ever who can be described by both paragraphs at the same time.
Reading the large paragraph, it says that most of the time, a True Neutral character does whatever the heck they want and don't give two coppers about alignment. Of course, this doesn't mean they won't bias towards the nature of different entities, but simply that when faced with alignment, they're all like "Whatever".
Simple enough. Neutrals do what they want, when they want, but they're not fanatic about being neutral. They don't worry about things like "Gosh, have I been too lawful or too evil this week?". They just do what they think is right, most of the time. Maybe all the time. If they find themselves helping feed orphans all month long, they won't let that bother them - it's not like they're actually trying to be neutral; it just happens.
The second paragraph, on the other hand, then goes to say that alignments outside of neutrality are extremes that they will not partake in.
This is describing a different kind of "True Neutral". That's why it says "Some neutral characters...". These are the ones that actually DO try to be balanced in all that they do. They are the opposites of the guys in the first paragraph. These guys really will say "Gosh, I fed too many orphans, I need to go kick some kittens to balance myself out."
Personally, I think this is rather weird and only eccentrics, or zealots of a neutral deity, would actually behave this way.
The final sentence then says that you just act however the heck you want, without any sort of recoil.
"act however the heck you want" and "act naturally" are not exactly the same thing. The first (your quote) implies a lot of chaos. Neutral characters are not actually chaotic (or else their alignment would be Chaotic-Neutral). So neutral characters are probably, usually, predictable - they will act the same way, "naturally", each time a certain situation comes up. But they're also not lawful about it, so they aren't fanatical about always doing the same thing every time; it's probably just happens organically, or, "naturally".
And "without any sort of recoil" doesn't mean that a true neutral character would feel blameless or guiltless about doing bad things. If they happen to kill a child, they'll certainly feel bad about it, even if it was "the right thing to do" and "what came naturally" at the time. So there is "recoil". They don't like to feel bad about themselves, so unless they're one of those weird "I must be balanced at all times" fanatics, they'll usually do far more "good" or "neighborly" or "decent" things than they do bad things.
Mostly.
*Rolls WILL save... Natural 20* Yay! I won't partake in another silly alignment thread ... this time.
Lacking commitment to any specific principle except for protecting yourself.
A NN character is probably against general evil (its usually bad for them if an evil person is succeeding at things) but they're not helping because of a commitment to stopping them. They're helping because it helps them. They are willing to commit evil acts if it would benefit them, but they might also do good acts if it will make them feel better.
Similar in regard to law and chaos.
If I die, tell my wife... Hello.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True neutral is every human being that isn't ACTIVELY making themselves LG, LN, LE, NG, NE, CG, CN, or CE. All of the alignment extremes are just that: extremes. They require dedication and effort to reach, intentionally or not, and that dedication has no bearing on the Law/Chaos axis.
Alignment isn't a series of nine dots and you circle one. Its a grid of nine squares and while you may just put an "X" in one of them, in reality that "X" is floating somewhere within that square, a certain distance from its borders and, by proxy, its neighbors. You may wander in that square, but you don't leave it, unless you take effort to do so.
Yes, having all bandits be CE makes it easier to enjoy the game and kill those ruffians for the good of the land. But that is implying that all bandits are at least as evil as the most pleasant of demonkind, which is a concept I can not agree with. Many a bandit who kills to feed himself and get rich is in my opinion N, and will remain so until he no longer considers the blood he spills (E) and enjoys a lifestyle free of the rules put in place by others (C).
But I beleive alignment is 60% intent, 40% action. Just my personal interpretation. I also think Paizo removing the alignment "frequency" in the bestiary was a bad call, but again, just my personal opinion.
You don't.
You play your character's personality. Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around.
Just play your guy and let alignment take care of itself, or better yet, just ignore it.
One of the interpretations of true neutral is straightforward. The seeker of balance: He/she seeks balance in all that he does, as he/she believes that balance must be sought in everything.
Nobody should be completely under the control of the law and neither does one have unlimited personal freedom. The balance in keeping the extremes leveled is neccasary in order to exist. Without balance there is no existence only chaos, or strict law. Without good there is no evil and when there is evil, there is good. It's all about maintaining balance between the opposites as neither may have absolute power.
I want to play a TN Druid who's emotions and opinions vary based on weather patterns and their surroundings. Bright and sunny and they are cheerful and lean NG. Stormy makes them moody and lean towards CN. Surrounded by mountains with little change in weather makes 'em lean LN, stoic in the extreme. And surrounded by fire or lava makes them act almost cruel, leaning NE.
I want to play a TN Druid who's emotions and opinions vary based on weather patterns and their surroundings. Bright and sunny and they are cheerful and lean NG. Stormy makes them moody and lean towards CN. Surrounded by mountains with little change in weather makes 'em lean LN, stoic in the extreme. And surrounded by fire or lava makes them act almost cruel, leaning NE.
That does pose a problem: How would you act flying above a storm in the warm sun, while circling an active volcanoe in a mountain range. As you see this might overload your druids mood center.
;)
You don't.
You play your character's personality. Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around.
Just play your guy and let alignment take care of itself, or better yet, just ignore it.
I'd like to think this way, but the Alignment system is not perfect, and it quantifies what types of personalities fall under the respective alignment(s).
This is especially important for characters whose code of conduct are reliant upon their alignment and actions. By this logic, you might as well ignore (Anti-)Paladins, Druids, Monks, and Barbarians because they must be Lawful Good/Chaotic Evil, Neutral, Lawful, or Chaotic, respectively, and ignoring the alignment factor removes a very key factor of keeping classes and characters in their place.
The quarrel I have with TN is that (as Aragorn would put it), "One cannot simply be True Neutral." A character's actions define what type of alignment they serve, as well as the knowledge and intent of the actions they take. The issue is that "One cannot simply play all the bases," as what may or may not be required by a True Neutral character, and even if you look out for #1 (as many people have put it) over everyone else, what does that make people think? You're a selfless a**hole who should die for their sin of negligence. Or perhaps they may think you're just another pawn in the service of your diabolical plan that the TN guy doesn't know about.
Alike with a Paladin keeping his LG alignment, it is equally as taxing (if not more so) to say that any character can be TN by picking X amount of Good/Lawful/Chaotic/Evil acts for the week/month, or just simply being there and doing absolutely nothing, which in the eyes of many people, is action enough to determine Good/Lawful/Chaotic/Evil alignments for them.
I want to play a TN Druid who's emotions and opinions vary based on weather patterns and their surroundings. Bright and sunny and they are cheerful and lean NG. Stormy makes them moody and lean towards CN. Surrounded by mountains with little change in weather makes 'em lean LN, stoic in the extreme. And surrounded by fire or lava makes them act almost cruel, leaning NE.That does pose a problem: How would you act flying above a storm in the warm sun, while circling an active volcanoe in a mountain range. As you see this might overload your druids mood center.
;)
This is where the Confused condition comes into play...
|
Lacking commitment to any specific principle except for protecting yourself.
1. The Apathist... or (I don't give a ^$%^$) philosophy. He literally isn't drawn to anything, or it may be a creature that's so unintelligent that it lives almost entirely on instinct. such as most animals.
Not true. True Neutral characters can be committed to some principles, or otherwise have strong motivations outside of selfishness (or a search for alignment "balance"). They just aren't dedicated to anything that falls within either alignment axis. Druids are committed to defending and revering nature, but are frequently of TN alignment (and can be good or evil, lawful or chaotic). Other principles falling within the neutral alignment include knowledge and beauty. You could also be a devoted follower of a TN deity like Pharasma, whose teachings are not tied to a particular alignment.
And while some TN characters are just out for themselves, characters of any alignment can have loved ones, and many will make sacrifices for those loved ones. (You don't fall into a Good alignment unless you'll help strangers and even enemies.)
First lets be rational , if there are NN gods and we asume gods do ANYTHING and are not RETARDED with INT 0 , then people with inteligence can assume a neutral posture , just like a god can.
Or people now believe some alig only belong to gods also?
Anyway , http://www.easydamus.com/trueneutral.html this site the guy gave talks alot over this , im guessing this should have been enough by now.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see several ways to play a True Neutral character.
1. Somebody who actively seeks to maintain a balance, always helping the underdog and opposing the dominate force. The archetypical druid may fall into this category.
2. A pragmatist. Somebody who does what is necessary, even if they find it unpleasant.
3. A person who simply lacks the conviction to act. Very common but highly unlikely to be an adventurer.
Most people in any given society will fall somewhere between #2 and #3.
Neutral is not "not caring" about good, evil, law or chaos.
True Neutral is about seeking balance in all things.
I have a couple very different neutral characters:
Pogrist is (apparently) a human necromancer. He views necromancy as a science, and as such a means to an end- knowledge. He sees nothing wrong with conducting any sort of experiments he sees as necessary. (LAW/CHAOS) While he obeys most local laws, sometimes the legal system impedes his work and must be circumvented. (GOOD/EVIL) He never intentionally commits evil, but certainly dabbles with evil magic, and while he might go to great lengths to help a friend, his research comes first.
Merin is (apparently) an elven druidess. She sees herself as an agent of balance, restoring the natural equilibrium to her island and the world she travels through. (LAW/CHAOS) The laws of man mean little to her, as she answers to the higher laws of nature. (GOOD/EVIL) Often she is sought out to help combat evil creatures (such as undead) that infest her homeland, but just as often evil humanoid races driven to near extinction by human advancement count her aid.
Dargon was once an ordinary doggie, similar to a bulldog. He was a good dog and served his master faithfully. (LAW/CHAOS/GOOD/EVIL) Dargon knows his place in his master's pack,and fights anyone who threatens master but doesn't think about i much besides food, pooping, and that itch behind his ear. BUT THEN the inevitable happens, and Dargon is killed on one of his master's adventures. Don't worry! Master is a necromancer and brings him back! Now Dargon is confused... he still knows master, but doesn't remember much else. Now he likes his adventures with master even more, because master lets him eat the people who threaten him... (EVIL)?
Ah well,I think I digressed, but you get my mention, yes?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueNeutral
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I protect strangers" -> Good
"I harm strangers" -> Evil
"I'll leave strangers alone if they leave me alone" -> Neutral
"Laws keep us civilized" -> Lawful
"Laws were made to be broken" -> Chaotic
"Laws are a good idea, but no one can follow them all" -> Neutral
"I protect strangers" -> Good
"I harm strangers" -> Evil
"I'll leave strangers alone if they leave me alone" -> Neutral"Laws keep us civilized" -> Lawful
"Laws were made to be broken" -> Chaotic
"Laws are a good idea, but no one can follow them all" -> Neutral
These are a bit adversarial. I believe something more like this.
"I donate, look out for, and protect others even at the expense of myself" -> Good
"I am out for the top and I don't care for the people in my way" -> Evil
"Be and let be, go with what feels natural" -> Neutral
"Harm to others must be minimized when pursuing self interest and harm to oneself must be minimized when advancing others" -> Lawful, Lawful is more about setting the groundwork for equality than actual Laws itself. Its simply by happenstance that the best way to pursue an equal playing field is by enacting laws by which all abide.
"Personal Freedom is paramount" -> Chaotic
"Some laws are great, but if I can break a law and further my goals, I will" -Neutral
Being neutral is simply looking out for yourself and what matters to you. You're not trying to lead a crusade or conquer a nation, you just want to pay your bills and go home. If you're forced to go outside your comfort zone you pick the option that has the most benefit for you, that creates the least trouble in one's life. Being neutral isn't about chaos it's about stability. A neutral person can imagine a better world for all but isn't going to risk his life or his family in pursuit of it. A neutral person has the attitude of "I'll keep my house in order and you do the same and everything will work out". I firmly believe that the vast majority of us are in fact neutral. We all want a better world but most of us are too busy just trying to maintain our own lives to truly stick our neck out. It takes action (IMO) not just thought, to be anything other than neutral.
I think that the average person might think of themselves as a "good" person. D&D/Pathfinder is more cynical; the average human is neutral. So TN might be getting characterized as more extreme than it commonly is.
...
So it's not that a TN character never commits acts of good, evil, law, or chaos, but that these principles don't shape his character in a substantial way.
This.
Most people I know about would fall into the TN category.
We do good, whenever we can, but we don't sacrifice ourselves to do some. The majority of our actions go toward taking care of our selves and those closest to us, eventhough we might donate money or volunteer to help good causes.
On the law-chaos scale, people tend to fall between as well. While most generelly believe in upholding the law, but we are prone to break the law 'when it doesn't matter much' (like crossing the road when no traffic; Doing work for friends in exchange for a gift that formally should be taxed). Eventhough we mostly like the laws we have, many of us have a distrust of 'the system', and enjoy critizising it.
On the other hand some people I know that have a severe disregard for the law, have an intensely ordered personality, which in no way fit a chaotic person.
A Lawful person can follow a set of personal moral beliefs just as strictly and be considered lawful.
A Lawful person can follow a set of personal moral beliefs just as strictly and be considered lawful.
And that's where you are wrong. A psychopath usually follows a certain patern and lives by his own laws and he certainly is not lawfull.
Lawfull means a set of laws endorsed by a group and not personal laws as that is chaotic. Laws and rules that are followed by yourself only can be lawfull, but usually are chaotic as your own set of rules does not have to keep account for others, but they might. So the personal laws would have to be judged by comparing them to the laws and rules that are valid in the surroundings.If the common law is the right of the strongest and your personal laws and rules follow that principle nicely, then you are not lawfull.
Say... someone who has dedicated his life to getting his rose garden in good shape, and will fight like crazy, even to the death without hesitating, if it's threatened. Apart from that, though, other people simply cannot fathom the immensity of the f!!& he doesn't give. As long as his garden is in good shape, he's a happy camper.
Point being: Not every person fights for something that resonates with Law, Chaos, Good or Evil. ALL of those will, per definition, be Neutral. The LCGE alignments are broad strokes, but hardly monolithic or all-encompassing. There are shades of gray between them, though ALL the LCGE people and forces and gods WILL try to tell you differently.
There are shades of gray between them, though ALL the LCGE people and forces and gods WILL try to tell you differently.
...about 50 or so, yes?
A Lawful person can follow a set of personal moral beliefs just as strictly and be considered lawful.And that's where you are wrong. A psychopath usually follows a certain patern and lives by his own laws and he certainly is not lawfull.
Lawfull means a set of laws endorsed by a group and not personal laws as that is chaotic. Laws and rules that are followed by yourself only can be lawfull, but usually are chaotic as your own set of rules does not have to keep account for others, but they might. So the personal laws would have to be judged by comparing them to the laws and rules that are valid in the surroundings.
If the common law is the right of the strongest and your personal laws and rules follow that principle nicely, then you are not lawfull.
No. So much no. Not every law is Lawful. A law that says the king has the right to execute anyone he feels like without reason is the very definition of a Chaotic (and Evil) law. A community following it will be Chaotic, not Lawful. A law that allows everybody the right to say what they please is another Chaotic law. Lawful means predictability, first and foremost. As an expression of this, structure is necessary. Lawful societies grow institutions like weeds - to make life in such a society predictable. Lawful is really a stupid name for it. Orderly would have been far better.
That said, lawful people who live in a system that has bad laws will usually follow said laws as well, but complain and try to change them, because they respect the underlying system of society, namely how laws are made, who has what power, what is required for citizenship, and so on. They are Orderly people, and it takes more than a little bit of inconvenience for them to start a revolution.
A Lawful person can follow a set of personal moral beliefs just as strictly and be considered lawful.And that's where you are wrong. A psychopath usually follows a certain patern and lives by his own laws and he certainly is not lawfull.
Lawfull means a set of laws endorsed by a group and not personal laws as that is chaotic. Laws and rules that are followed by yourself only can be lawfull, but usually are chaotic as your own set of rules does not have to keep account for others, but they might. So the personal laws would have to be judged by comparing them to the laws and rules that are valid in the surroundings.
If the common law is the right of the strongest and your personal laws and rules follow that principle nicely, then you are not lawfull.No. So much no. Not every law is Lawful. A law that says the king has the right to execute anyone he feels like without reason is the very definition of a Chaotic (and Evil) law. A community following it will be Chaotic, not Lawful. A law that allows everybody the right to say what they please is another Chaotic law. Lawful means predictability, first and foremost. As an expression of this, structure is necessary. Lawful societies grow institutions like weeds - to make life in such a society predictable. Lawful is really a stupid name for it. Orderly would have been far better.
That said, lawful people who live in a system that has bad laws will usually follow said laws as well, but complain and try to change them, because they respect the underlying system of society, namely how laws are made, who has what power, what is required for citizenship, and so on. They are Orderly people, and it takes more than a little bit of inconvenience for them to start a revolution.
You just gave a perfect example of lawfull evil and maybe your proposal of the different name has merit. But the law you stated as the king's right to kill someone is a perfect example of a nonlaw as it does not apply to anyone, but just to the king. Also it's a dangerous law for the king him/herself as an assasin killing the king proclaiming himself the (new) king as the old one was illegal could not be prosecuted for murder as he/she was within his/her rights to do so, as the rightfull king. And then you are back at the right of the strongest (not lawfull).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to see most true neutral characters as being more focused on a particular goal than on the broader issues of morality and the wider world in general. The classic example is the farmer/tradesman who cares more about providing for his family than big moral questions of the day.
However, I'd say there are plenty of ways to take that base idea of having a narrow focus on one's goals, and apply it to an adventurer. A wizard who want to explore ancient ruins searching for lost magic, a fighter who want to become the greatest swordsman in Golarion, a Barbarian who's after the Big Bad to avenge his family, and so on.
A law that adds nothing to order, predictability, stability, cooperation or security in society is not Lawful. A law is merely a statement that certain things should be done a certain way - thus the concept includes every possible nuance of human psychology. As strange as it sounds, laws can promote any alignment. It is just that Lawful people like laws as a tool, because MOST laws make society more predictable.
Make a character who has a real fear of death, like most sane people.
Then figure out if dying is worth saving the villiage or not.
'
I think the first paragraph was more or less how I played my witch for KM. She didn't feel the need to do/become good but she really did not want to be evil. So she ended up adventuring with the good guys, helping them out but because she sometimes did stuff that was considered evil she remained neutral.
In the end kind of self balancing by seldom doing evil and not investing energy into being actively good.
On the law-chaos axis it was more like: Being annoyed by the chaotic guys in party but not really into ordering everything. And laws exist and are a good thing but to follow everyone of them would be madness.
But there can be the guys who actively try to maintain balance. But you can't play those with every GM because some claim that helping neither the good nor the evil side is committing evil by inaction.
I believe it was Christopher Stasheff's Wizard in Rhyme series has a character that is trying to stay in balance between Good and Evil. (He's not all that successful 'on camera.')
A true neutral character who actively tries to promote balance is somebody who tries to make sure neither side becomes too strong or too weak... just like predator and prey cycle in dominance (which is normal and balanced), the predator should never be allowed to drive the prey into extinction because after that the predator will become extinct from lack of food.
And just like the cycle of day and night, neither can exist without the other but if one becomes dominant for too much time, balance is broken: the consequences would be dire (major changes in the ecosystem).
Tyrannies are broken by revolutions and eventually people in charge after such revolutions become corrupted by power/money, becoming the very tyranny they were fighting before (usually about an opposite extremist thing).
The best way to stop this usually is to "break the cycle"... neither revolutions nor coups nor any other extremist way of solving problems.
...as a TN character, I'd probably opt to assassinate the tyrant instead of doing a country-scale revolution/war and act from the back-lines to make sure whatever new leadership emerges is not a new tyranny (hopefully with nobody ever figuring out it was "me").
(the assassination vs revolutions, ensures no hero-worship will happen: powergrabbing)