as the descriptor states there are two kinds of TRUE neutral. One, Those who take on a cosmic balance of alignment. These i view as highly intelligent folk on a pursuit to maintain harmony and balance between good vs evil. observing from a distance and only stepping in when he feels the scale is tipping in evil or goods favor. To have a healthy reality- evil and good must be in balance, cause one cannot exist without the other and conventional reality could collapse. For obvious reasons i feel very few people would actually have the mentality to maintain such a life, especially humans or demi-humans. although i could see this type of alignment fitting a truly alien type of race or higher power like a diety or demi-god.
2)the other general neutral alignment i think people are overthinking it. "A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea". this is a little TOO general and leads to jumping to conclusions. I believe a neutral character would do what he seems to be a good idea- TO PRESERVE HIS LIFE WITH THE LITTLEST OF EFFORT. So in the original post the neutral character isnt going to help EITHER the good guy OR the bad guy.
TN GUY: The hell with both of your lot you ALL are crazy! Im getting the hell out of here, i got work in the morning! you guys can kill each other if you want im sure the gods will sort it out in the end..FOOLS.
He's not going to run to the law, for fear of reprisal from either party. He's sure not going to put his life on the line for the sake of nothing that concerns him. A neutral minds his own, and his main concern in life is his own self preservation. he will go to work to survive, care for his family and land, keeps his head low and mind his own, and generally obey the law so as to be left alone and so not to be inconvenienced or his life put in danger. He could care less if society is considered "evil" or "good" he just deals with what is and tries to make a living and survive. He may go out on a limb for a friend or out of his way. But, an actual neutral character is hardly the type to make a lot of friends to begin with. I see players using this an easy cop-out to play neutrals all the time. "well since my FRIEND is going out adventuring putting his life on the line im going too. ANd now that im off adventuring i dont have to make and rational decisions..." this is why i dont allow neutrals.
This is why animals are neutral. it's basically just concern over survival. Heroes and villains both get them selves killed its just safer to tend the fields and mind your own business. to me neutral is an easy alignment to play, but in an RPG why would you want too? Most people actually live there REAL life neutral (though most THINK there good lol), so why would you want to play same as you live RL..
Being neutral can be about looking out for pretty much just yourself, but it doesn't have to be. Being not particularly philosophical about good, evil, law, or chaos, the neutral character can be played as needing more extreme motivations before he gets up and does something. He's not someone who joins a cause because he's enthusiastic about supporting his moral or ethical causes. He's a reluctant joiner who signs up because circumstances would be to troublesome if he doesn't finally do so. He may be capable of great good deeds (without risking his neutrality) for those with whom he is closely related as well as being capable of casual indifference for those he doesn't know and care for.
For example, a kid is swimming with difficulty in the river's current and may drown. A good character probably doesn't hesitate no matter if the kid is his own, his neighbor's, some random kid from another kingdom, or the evil overlord's. The kid simply needs saving. An evil character would calculate what's in it for him and, if nothing significant, probably lets the kid survive or die on his own. A neutral character probably reacts without hesitation for the kids he's mostly closely related - his own and his neighbor's but probably doesn't risk his own life for someone he doesn't know.
|
In a Skull and Shackles game my True Neutral Undine Cleric of Gozerah ended up becoming the Captain of the ship. Initially she wanted to have the group's bard to take up the leadership role after the mutiny but a shark killed him thus leaving my character the only one left in the party with a decent charisma score (14 Charisma, where the rest of the party had Charisma 10 or less). It was hard to decide what a True Neutral character would do in a position of leadership though. She was initially press ganged against her will and not really keen on being a pirate. But she also knew that if she turned the ship off the way of Piracy, she would lose the loyalty of the crew. Thus she created a Pirate Contract and swore the crew to it. She would also be a more moderate captain and much less bloodthirsty than the other captains. She would raid ships and towns but offer quarter to those who would surrender their goods without a fight. She would also avoid sinking ships if all possible and spare at least a skeleton crew to pilot it back to a port as that means the ship can be raided again once it has been restocked with supplies in future encounters (unless she decides to claim the ship for herself). I don't know if this is how a True Neutral captain would act but hopefully I got it right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Sigh*
I knew this would happen.
A guy asks for advice on playing a true neutral character, and then within 30 posts or so, people are arguing (and of course, disagreeing) on what is evil, what is lawful, what a Lawful Good character has to do, etc.
Couldn't we just have left this at the level of the advice the OP requested? Must it turn into another debate about every alignment known to Paizo?
Nevermind. I know the answer.
Hint: we need a new alignment, one not used in-game, but rather, only used for the message boards. Something like "Lawful-awful Argumentative" - and then we apply it to all of us...
I read the staple for True Neutral characters.
Well, there's your first mistake!
Alignment was created to model Disney characters and personality-less legends, not real people or even vaguely-realistic characters. TN in particular took on a really bizarre meaning during 2e, which you describe pretty accurately here:
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...
I think you meant to be tongue-in-cheek here, but this is actually how D&D defined TN for a long time. And echoes of this definition still remains in modern D&D. If you think this definition is at all silly, it's time to think for yourself when it comes to alignments, and work out your own definitions for when you DM.
Personally, I call TN "The default alignment that most of humanity never outgrow." Most people think they're Good, and they do good things for their friends and family, but they lack the commitment to really deviate from neutrality. They're not committed to some ideal of balance; they're not apathetic; they're not solely 'out for #1.' They just don't act on their good intentions often enough to be Good.
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.
Codes and alignment restrictions are overrated at best, and role playing gags at worst.
As an experiment, forget about 'keeping the characters in their place' during your next one-shot. Tell your players that they have to work together and be heroic, but forget about codes and restrictions. You might find the experience to be a breath of fresh air. At least one or two of your players probably will too.
A guy asks for advice on playing a true neutral character, and then within 30 posts or so, people are arguing (and of course, disagreeing) on what is evil, what is lawful, what a Lawful Good character has to do, etc.
Couldn't we just have left this at the level of the advice the OP requested? Must it turn into another debate about every alignment known to Paizo?
Wait, this is about Darksol role playing a PC?
If that's the case, Darksol, why on earth are you asking us? Your DM's opinion on TN is the only one that matters!
It's going to vary. Alignment is such as huge spectrum that I think of the "alignments" as more "broad archetypes." There's room for improvisation within each of these archetypes.
As an example...way back in 2nd edition, I remember reading about a villainous interpretation of TN from TSR.
The idea was that the villain believed in absolute Balance. So at one point, he killed his parents. He also aided, then undermined nations if they went too far one way or the other.
Cold bastard.
I remember reading that a long time ago and it seeming so alien, so...robotic, I suppose, that I'd had a hard time relating to it.
OK, so the OP threw a pebble in a pond and wants to know about the pebble, yet half of the thread has been discussing the various ripples, often to the exclusion of even mentioning the pebble or how the ripple relates to it.
[Wall of text] And so I proved without doubt that the pineapple is strictly superior to the banana in every regard!
Edit: Oops, wrong Thread. But I guess it doesn't matter.
But neither are migratory.
|
I have found it useful, in role-playing true neutral characters, to pick an extreme that they are not.
For example, in our Kingmaker game, I am playing a true neutral priestess of Calistria. Although she still serves the goddess of revenge, she's a little bit calmer and seeks more of a "punishment that fits the crime" kind of revenge compared to her peers in the Calistrian church. Her neutrality is expressed in being not so extremely chaotic as those who are otherwise similar to her.
I feel like you could do that with a lot of different foils. My character is similar to X, but not so extreme, or tempered with a little bit of the opposite alignment's influence.
How exactly does one play this without being seen (or perhaps labeled) as a bias?
Be Pokemon.
Party leader throws Ion Stone yells, "Darksol, I choose you!" You run to battle front line.
Party leader shouts names of moves. You do.
After battle hug party leader. Party cleric say "You won because you have good heart."
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...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.
SnowLeopard,
From the description in the book.
"A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot."
Please don't post absolutes like flat out telling someone they're wrong when you have obviously not actually read the descriptions in question. We can argue interpretations till we're blue in the face, but there is absolutely no vagueness to suggest the otherwise..
There are actually two ways of handling the alignment which ironically are almost totaly opposite of each other.
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.
2. The Activist... This person looks at the global scale and he is of the belief that the best world is one in which all four of the contending forces of alignment Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, are kept in precise balance.. at least balance as he sees it. Mordenkainen of Greyhawk is the archetypical example of this... he was so neutral that even the Grand Druids of Oerth wondered ... and worried about where he stood.
I personally consider the Apathist to be more natural and playable.
I find the Activist True Neutral to be a way archaic 1e (and possibly before that) construct that is both unplayable and unbelievable. I've heard about Paladins "Falling". That would have nothing on the consta-trip of an Activist True Neutral with any self-judgement.
Firstly a true neutral character DOES believe in something - relative balance, that is extreme forces become dominant then it will foster an opposite extreme backlash and the resulting war/conflict be bad for everyone ultimately.
Going to your example - they would not act as a nachos paid mercenary because they would be aware of the consequences of an evil victory. Likewise they would side with good, they would probably use their 'deciding vote' to try and set up some kind of truce which they would broker.
In essence what was missing from your example was the neutral character asserting their viewpoint alongside the good/evil.
[Emphasis mine] This is your assertion, but it does not hold true for every True Neutral character. As LazarX pointed out there are at least two distinct approaches, and many nuances in between.
I have a True Neutral (or as I prefer, Neutral) Cavalier in Wrath of the Righteous currently. He doesn't believe in much at all (though he "follows" Pharasma as a familial cult/deity). Not even "relative balance".
He "believes" in giving respect where it is due, regardless of other's perceived alignments, and admires both strength and compassion in equal measure, and understands that strength encompasses emotional, social, economic, personality.... and compassion is not the sole purview of the "good".
He understands that many "good" folk, through their inability to have a context for "evil" or low acts (and the reasons they are arrived at), create and promulgate just as many evils as the "evil". So he avoids these extremes of human agency as collective madnesses.
He's a pragmatist and follows his own heart, as well as being an adept "leader of men". Not through courage or valor. But through being fairly unattached from moral obligations that make heroes into haunches of crispy flesh and villains into saviors.
He has no truck with upsetting or righting the "balance".
|
|
This is probably the easiest question in the world to answer:
Think of damn near every single person that you know. Does anybody you encounter in your day to day life really concern themselves with how much good they're doing in the world? Or how they can reign death upon their enemies? Most people are just concerned with paying their bills, keeping themselves and their family fed, and amusing themselves.
TN adventurers simply do what they do for value-neutral (no pun intended) reasons. The good character fights the dragon to save the village and protect innocent lives. The evil character does it so he can extort them later or establish himself as a bigger threat. The neutral character does it for gold, or to test himself, or for thrill.
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?
You're thinking in terms of the two concepts of Neutrality being in one individual. They are not.
For instance, the second example is really talking about a philosopher, maybe a sort of monk, who is contemplating the road of Neutrality. Juxtapose that with the first example, which is really something more like a slacker.
The final sentence is a summary of sorts and does not preclude the other two.
This is probably the easiest question in the world to answer:
Think of damn near every single person that you know. Does anybody you encounter in your day to day life really concern themselves with how much good they're doing in the world? Or how they can reign death upon their enemies? Most people are just concerned with paying their bills, keeping themselves and their family fed, and amusing themselves.
TN adventurers simply do what they do for value-neutral (no pun intended) reasons. The good character fights the dragon to save the village and protect innocent lives. The evil character does it so he can extort them later or establish himself as a bigger threat. The neutral character does it for gold, or to test himself, or for thrill.
Or the neutral character watches the dragon devastate the village not caring. (Or so that the dragon has more loot for him to take later on.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or the neutral character watches the dragon devastate the village not caring. (Or so that the dragon has more loot for him to take later on.)This is probably the easiest question in the world to answer:
Think of damn near every single person that you know. Does anybody you encounter in your day to day life really concern themselves with how much good they're doing in the world? Or how they can reign death upon their enemies? Most people are just concerned with paying their bills, keeping themselves and their family fed, and amusing themselves.
TN adventurers simply do what they do for value-neutral (no pun intended) reasons. The good character fights the dragon to save the village and protect innocent lives. The evil character does it so he can extort them later or establish himself as a bigger threat. The neutral character does it for gold, or to test himself, or for thrill.
Two things about that:
1. We're talking about role-playing adventurers. If you're going to make a TN character, he still needs to find an excuse to be a part of things.
2. Neutrality is not psychopathy. "Ha, I'll let that dragon kill everybody and take the treasure for myself!" is definitely E-V-I-L. I can see the argument for neutral ignoring conceptual evil, because to some degree we all have to do this. I can see the argument for self-preservation, but see number one for that.
Neutral means the average person - the person that cares most about their job, their family, and their close friends, but has no concern for the greater community. In our world, anyone who doesn't give to charity, care about the environment, or volunteer their time for any lawful or good causes is basically neutral (assuming they don't do proactively evil or chaotic things either).
So, probably 80% of Westerners.
I generally play it as Devil's Advocate.
Whatever the reasons a group has for doing something offer up a contrasting point of view. All the options need to be on the table to make an informed decision.
"Those Orcs that have been raiding the town need to be gotten rid of to protect the people"
"But why are they attacking the town, have they been driven out of their regular hunting grounds? Maybe the townsfolk did something to offend them? Maybe they have been driven to desperate measures by something more dangerous. You don't know. I don't think we should jump to killing them until we have the full picture."
How to easily roleplay True Neutral.
Step 1. Act like most people do in real life.
Step 2. See Step 1.
Most people may think of themselves as "good people", but unless you are actively involved in helping out people who are strangers to you, are actively involved in harming people (who may or may not be strangers), are devoted to an internal or external code to the point that is the most important thing to you, or you find doing as you please to be the most important thing to, then you can roleplay True Neutral simply by being yourself.
Or the neutral character watches the dragon devastate the village not caring. (Or so that the dragon has more loot for him to take later on.)This is probably the easiest question in the world to answer:
Think of damn near every single person that you know. Does anybody you encounter in your day to day life really concern themselves with how much good they're doing in the world? Or how they can reign death upon their enemies? Most people are just concerned with paying their bills, keeping themselves and their family fed, and amusing themselves.
TN adventurers simply do what they do for value-neutral (no pun intended) reasons. The good character fights the dragon to save the village and protect innocent lives. The evil character does it so he can extort them later or establish himself as a bigger threat. The neutral character does it for gold, or to test himself, or for thrill.
Two things about that:
1. We're talking about role-playing adventurers. If you're going to make a TN character, he still needs to find an excuse to be a part of things.
2. Neutrality is not psychopathy. "Ha, I'll let that dragon kill everybody and take the treasure for myself!" is definitely E-V-I-L. I can see the argument for neutral ignoring conceptual evil, because to some degree we all have to do this. I can see the argument for self-preservation, but see number one for that.
2. Going in and stopping the Dragon is definitely G-O-O-D. What's your point? If the character is TN, why would he do the GOOD thing? Aiding the Dragon is EVIL.
2. Going in and stopping the Dragon is definitely G-O-O-D. What's your point? If the character is TN, why would he do the GOOD thing? Aiding the Dragon is EVIL.Or the neutral character watches the dragon devastate the village not caring. (Or so that the dragon has more loot for him to take later on.)This is probably the easiest question in the world to answer:
Think of damn near every single person that you know. Does anybody you encounter in your day to day life really concern themselves with how much good they're doing in the world? Or how they can reign death upon their enemies? Most people are just concerned with paying their bills, keeping themselves and their family fed, and amusing themselves.
TN adventurers simply do what they do for value-neutral (no pun intended) reasons. The good character fights the dragon to save the village and protect innocent lives. The evil character does it so he can extort them later or establish himself as a bigger threat. The neutral character does it for gold, or to test himself, or for thrill.
Two things about that:
1. We're talking about role-playing adventurers. If you're going to make a TN character, he still needs to find an excuse to be a part of things.
2. Neutrality is not psychopathy. "Ha, I'll let that dragon kill everybody and take the treasure for myself!" is definitely E-V-I-L. I can see the argument for neutral ignoring conceptual evil, because to some degree we all have to do this. I can see the argument for self-preservation, but see number one for that.
It comes down to what the TN character thinks really. I would roleplay it as thus.
"Man that dragon would really be a bother to leave rampaging about, plus it probably has some really sweet treasure, and I'm really not interested in watching a bunch of people die."
We have a bit of apathy, with a touch of self interest, and a desire to deal with a matter just so you don't have to deal with repercussions of leaving it.
2. Going in and stopping the Dragon is definitely G-O-O-D. What's your point? If the character is TN, why would he do the GOOD thing? Aiding the Dragon is EVIL.Or the neutral character watches the dragon devastate the village not caring. (Or so that the dragon has more loot for him to take later on.)This is probably the easiest question in the world to answer:
Think of damn near every single person that you know. Does anybody you encounter in your day to day life really concern themselves with how much good they're doing in the world? Or how they can reign death upon their enemies? Most people are just concerned with paying their bills, keeping themselves and their family fed, and amusing themselves.
TN adventurers simply do what they do for value-neutral (no pun intended) reasons. The good character fights the dragon to save the village and protect innocent lives. The evil character does it so he can extort them later or establish himself as a bigger threat. The neutral character does it for gold, or to test himself, or for thrill.
Two things about that:
1. We're talking about role-playing adventurers. If you're going to make a TN character, he still needs to find an excuse to be a part of things.
2. Neutrality is not psychopathy. "Ha, I'll let that dragon kill everybody and take the treasure for myself!" is definitely E-V-I-L. I can see the argument for neutral ignoring conceptual evil, because to some degree we all have to do this. I can see the argument for self-preservation, but see number one for that.
It comes down to what the TN character thinks really. I would roleplay it as thus.
"Man that dragon would really be a bother to leave rampaging about, plus it probably has some really sweet treasure, and I'm really not interested in watching a bunch of people die."
We have a bit of apathy, with a touch of self interest, and a...
"Man that dragon would really be a bother to leave rampaging about, good thing I'm just passing through. It probably has some really sweet treasure, I wonder if I can find its lair while it's out trashing the countryside. If not, maybe the locals will soften it up enough that I can take it out."
We have more apathy, more self interest, and not doing the Good thing.
I've always held the belief that any alignment is capable of being a jerk, and any alignment is capable of being a "nice guy". CE being a nice guy?? UNpossible! Ta Da ...Yes, well...
Speaking of using specific characters to structure alignments, I think the reason people have so much trouble playing a TN character is there aren't really many TN characters in books, comics, TV or movies (at least that I've seen). There are still a few, however - Luna Lovegood from Harry Potter is a good example of a TN character.
Also: it really bothers me that the only perceived personality of a TN character is apathetic or greedy. A TN character could be the most enthusiastic or selfless person that ever was. In fact, that would make it easier to RP: you're motivation for going on adventures is you really, REALLY, love adventures:
"That old wizard with the huge glowing eye, gnarled hand, and Palpatine-esque voice wants me to go find the Book of the Dead! No, I didn't ask him what he was going to use it for. So are you coming or not? Yipee!"
"Ah, back from another adventure. Wait a minute...you guys go tell the King of our success without me; that little girl's cat is stuck up a tree! I don't care what you do with my share, there is a CAT up a TREE! Nethys, give me strength..."
Obviously, I'm over-playing it and being silly, but I think I've illustrated my point well enough :)
I've always held the belief that any alignment is capable of being a jerk, and any alignment is capable of being a "nice guy". CE being a nice guy?? UNpossible! Ta Da ...Yes, well...
Speaking of using specific characters to structure alignments, I think the reason people have so much trouble playing a TN character is there aren't really many TN characters in books, comics, TV or movies (at least that I've seen). There are still a few, however - Luna Lovegood from Harry Potter is a good example of a TN character.
Actually in Elizabeth Moon's Paladin's Legacy series, she writes of a Chaotic Evil semi deity (everyone thought it was a deity) doing good for an entire nation. The deity in question protected the people, taught them better weaving techniques, and helped them in other ways for generations. Of course all this "good work" was solely for her evil ends, but it was good for the people.
...2. Going in and stopping the Dragon is definitely G-O-O-D. What's your point? If the character is TN, why would he do the GOOD thing? Aiding the Dragon is EVIL.Or the neutral character watches the dragon devastate the village not caring. (Or so that the dragon has more loot for him to take later on.)This is probably the easiest question in the world to answer:
Think of damn near every single person that you know. Does anybody you encounter in your day to day life really concern themselves with how much good they're doing in the world? Or how they can reign death upon their enemies? Most people are just concerned with paying their bills, keeping themselves and their family fed, and amusing themselves.
TN adventurers simply do what they do for value-neutral (no pun intended) reasons. The good character fights the dragon to save the village and protect innocent lives. The evil character does it so he can extort them later or establish himself as a bigger threat. The neutral character does it for gold, or to test himself, or for thrill.
Two things about that:
1. We're talking about role-playing adventurers. If you're going to make a TN character, he still needs to find an excuse to be a part of things.
2. Neutrality is not psychopathy. "Ha, I'll let that dragon kill everybody and take the treasure for myself!" is definitely E-V-I-L. I can see the argument for neutral ignoring conceptual evil, because to some degree we all have to do this. I can see the argument for self-preservation, but see number one for that.
It comes down to what the TN character thinks really. I would roleplay it as thus.
"Man that dragon would really be a bother to leave rampaging about, plus it probably has some really sweet treasure, and I'm really not interested in watching a bunch of people die."
We have a bit of apathy, with a touch
Are you just trying not to take part in the adventure or what? A TN character needs to be assumed to have some motive in the adventure otherwise WHY ARE YOU PLAYING. Why was the character even made if your determined not to take part in the adventure?
These reasons can be as simple as "Oh man, the town where I came from is just the next one over, I'd rather them not all die horribly."
The dragon could have destroyed your home when you were young and you pledged vengeance. To all other priorities you are rather ambivalent, but there is just this one thing you need to do. You don't have to be good to have friends or loved ones. You don't have to be good to leap to their defence if they're in trouble.
Heck when you went through the town the day before, everyone was fairly nice to you and treated you well. TN tends to be an alignment of instinct. Do you really want to leave all those people who were nice to you and welcomed you to die at the hands of the dragon?
"I really don't want to fight that stupid dragon, but all my friends are going..."
In general, I find TN can use any possible motivation for any possible situation. A TN character is without a clear tendency toward any other alignment. A combination, an amalgamation of the other eight. So really, anything goes.
Are you just trying not to take part in the adventure or what? A TN character needs to be assumed to have some motive in the adventure otherwise WHY ARE YOU PLAYING. Why was the character even made if your determined not to take part in the adventure?
These reasons can be as simple as "Oh man, the town where I came from is just the next one over, I'd rather them not all die horribly."
The dragon could have destroyed your home when you were young and you pledged vengeance. To all other priorities you are rather ambivalent, but there is just this one thing you need to do. You don't have to be good to have friends or loved ones. You don't have to be good to leap to their defence if they're in trouble.
Heck when you went through the town the day before, everyone was fairly nice to you and treated you well. TN tends to be an alignment of instinct. Do you really want to leave all those people who were nice to you and welcomed you to die at the hands of the dragon?
What's the adventure? Are we out hunting dragons? Are we traveling from point A to B and see the dragon? There is a big difference there.
If the dragon is rampaging near my home town, yes the TN will try to stop the dragon, to save his family and friends. But out somewhere else? Stopping the dragon isn't directly effecting him or his own, so he needs a reason, and doing the "GOOD" thing as opposed to the "EVIL" thing isn't reason enough.
Sure you can keep adding things that would give the TN a reason to go fight the dragon, but there are also reasons why he wouldn't. What if the innkeeper was a jerk?
While you don't have to be good to jump to their defense, not jumping to their defense doesn't make you evil.
If the TN is traveling from point A to point B and along the way he sees a dragon out rampaging, there is no reason for him to interfere. He might, he might not.
This is probably the easiest question in the world to answer:
Think of damn near every single person that you know. Does anybody you encounter in your day to day life really concern themselves with how much good they're doing in the world? Or how they can reign death upon their enemies? Most people are just concerned with paying their bills, keeping themselves and their family fed, and amusing themselves.
This comparison holds no gravity at all. Everyone working in a soup kitchen is TN? The dozens of people per community who molest/rape aren't a smidge evil? Your friend who went to school for political science doesn't lean towards lawful? Your other friend who never ever, not even after his third ticket, even once, observes the speed limit couldn't possibly be chaotic?
One doesn't need to change the world with their morals to have an alignment. However, it's once they're given the ability TO change the world with their morality that their alignment is easily observed. If you took all the monsters, magic, evil plots, etc. out of Pathfinder, you'd find the heroes with very little to do, and even less to do that would outline their alignment. And yet, this would not remove their alignment.
Indeed, this change would effect TN characters just as much as any other alignment. TN's quest, plunder, and fight just as much as other alignments. In fact, I could argue that they do these activities even more so than other alignments, because their activities aren't restricted to a sense of right and wrong, or order and chaos, and can therefor justify going on any adventure for any reason.
Scavion said:
SnowLeopard,
From the description in the book.
"A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot."
Please don't post absolutes like flat out telling someone they're wrong when you have obviously not actually read the descriptions in question. We can argue interpretations till we're blue in the face, but there is absolutely no vagueness to suggest the otherwise..
My reply: I was reacting to the statement that someone who was following a personal code was lawfull by definition. I specifically stated that although this is possible, following a certain personal code does not make one lawfull. And I gave an example stating the right of the strongest as your personal code.
So I think I was in the clear stating that simply following a personal code does not make someone lawfull, but it might depending on the code.
Research suggests that about 10% of people will refuse to administer seemingly dangerous electric shocks to a supposed research participant, regardless of inducement. So, at least 10% of people are either Good or Chaotic.
Less than 2% of people show signs of psychopathic or sociopathic behavior, so at least 1% of the population is Chaotic Evil, constitutionally.
I think a good case can be made for suggesting that the bulk of modern, Western humans are split about evenly between TN, NG, and LN, with single digit percentages of the other alignments. Most people are vaguely self-absorbed, vaguely benign, and vaguely conformist; whichever one of those thing preponderates determines their alignment. Few people are psychopathic, orthodox, unorthodox, social anarchics, authoritarian sadists, or cruel opportunists.
|
Research suggests that about 10% of people will refuse to administer seemingly dangerous electric shocks to a supposed research participant, regardless of inducement. So, at least 10% of people are either Good or Chaotic.
Less than 2% of people show signs of psychopathic or sociopathic behavior, so at least 1% of the population is Chaotic Evil, constitutionally.
I think a good case can be made for suggesting that the bulk of modern, Western humans are split about evenly between TN, NG, and LN, with single digit percentages of the other alignments. Most people are vaguely self-absorbed, vaguely benign, and vaguely conformist; whichever one of those thing preponderates determines their alignment. Few people are psychopathic, orthodox, unorthodox, social anarchics, authoritarian sadists, or cruel opportunists.
The results of the Milgram Experiment, the shock experiment you're referring to, have increasingly been called into question. It appears that Dr. Milgram manipulated the results to fit his preconceptions, and several people who had participated in the test independently claimed that Milgram had violated the conditions he described in his paper by telling them the shocks weren't real or repeating his commands dozens of times before allowing them to leave. Overall, more than 50% of test subjects still disobeyed.
That being said, there's still the question of stress. A good character is good under even dire circumstances; they wouldn't deliver a seemingly lethal shock even if you held a gun to their head. A neutral character might break down crying and hate themselves afterwords, but their instinct for self-preservation would outweigh their commitment to protecting others. An evil character wouldn't be particularly bothered by following the order to kill a seemingly innocent person they'd never met, and might even be morbidly fascinated to watch them die.
At least, that's how I see it.
The results of the Milgram Experiment, the shock experiment you're referring to, have increasingly been called into question. It appears that Dr. Milgram manipulated the results to fit his preconceptions, and several people who had participated in the test independently claimed that Milgram had violated the conditions he described in his paper by telling them the shocks weren't real or repeating his commands dozens of times before allowing them to leave. Overall, more than 50% of test subjects still disobeyed.
The experiment has been tried many times, by many researchers, under varying conditions. Sometimes, almost no one will do it. Sometimes, almost everyone will. But there is always a group of holdouts who just won't do it; this sets a lower limit to how few Good or non-evil Chaotic people exist in the general population.