|
As the title says, I have a character concept that I am planing out but the one thing I can't pin down is his alignment. He is such a tough nut to crack because he is such a..well..grey character, and thus I'm having issues pinning down where he would be on the alignment scale. Anyway, the character in question is one who has two motivations that drive him, a desire to make the world better and revenge. Yeah, strange combination, I know, but there are reasons for it.
What makes him difficult to place in terms of alignment is that he is one part doo-gooder, one part power-hungry avenger. On one hand, he desires change in the world. He sees how so many people suffer because of a few greedy, selfish individuals who sit at the top of society and wants to do good in the world. Yet, on the other hand, he feels the best road to do that is expanding his own personal power. He studies magic so he can one day become the reality-warping gods high-level casters are, and has no qualms about lying and manipulating others and "playing politics" to get forward in the world. However, despite being a-ok with lying and manipulating, he never harms innocents; he dosen't torture and only kills creatures that are evil. He not only desires a better world, but works towards it. If given the opportunity to save the town/kingdom/world he would take it gladly.
However, at the same time, a big part of his character is revenge, specifically against his father, who is himself an extremely powerful, and evil spellcaster. Due to a desire to kill his father and end his wicked ways, he craves power, and while he tries to do good in the world he places a lot of value on expanding his personal power so he can one day confront, and defeat, his father. Again, he places his desire to not become his father at the front of his priorities and thus won't do terribly evil things such as kill or hurt innocents, torture etc..he is more then willing to off the guilty and dose not shy away from "underhanded" deeds like manipulation, lying etc.. to forward his goals and could be seen as dishonorable.
He also is a bit preoccupied with power, and believes it to be one of the more viable ways to change the world for the better. As a result, he can come off as selfish, but he believes that by forwarding himself he will eventually become strong enough to forward and help others. Even further, while he does desire to help others he will often site acrewing more power as a motivation behind "saving the village" and is totally honest about the fact that expanding his power is a big reason for doing the act. Each village saved is more experience under his belt, and unlike most heroes who will talk about how they must save X, he will talk about how X will allow him to improve his own skills.(which he believes, is, in turn, doing good for the world. and in turn allow him to one day, make everybody's lives better. He is also quite...arrogant..and this further makes him come off like a selfish *******. Even further, he will not only gladly accept rewards for his services, but actively look for quests that will increase his prestige and standing in the world. Again, he plans to use his power for the better of the world, but as a low-level character becoming that powerful, prestigious person is priority #1 because he believes that he can only change the world through being one of it's prime movers and shakers.
He tends to be stingy with gold, and as a result is not very charitable, but he doesn't not care about the poor, and in fact desires to change their lot. It's just he seeks to change their situation and the world by becoming strong enough to take down the bad guys and finding like-minded people with power who want to change the world with him. Thus, in his mind, each gold spent on items for himself is going to help the world in the future. He's very much future-minded, and while he may be stingy with gold he is not stingy with his time and work. While he may not be one to donate piles of gold to the poor, he would be the kind who would risk his life to protect a bunch of peasants from monsters or other threats, with the thoughts of BOTH their well-being and the experience and power he will gain from the act in his mind.
But anyway, this character is an odd mix of good and evil traits. On one hand, he is dishonorable, could be considered power-hungry and has revenge as one of his major character motives. Yet on the other hand he won't commit most evil acts due to his own desire to not become what his father is and does truly care for others. He has a desire to destroy his father but also to help others and the world, it's just that he has a less then normal view about how to go about that.
Anyway, what alignment would you place this guy as? True neutral? Or does he, despite all his flaws, come off "heroic" enough to pass the litmus test for good?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What makes him difficult to place in terms of alignment is that he is one part doo-gooder, one part power-hungry avenger. On one hand, he desires change in the world. He sees how so many people suffer because of a few greedy, selfish individuals who sit at the top of society and wants to do good in the world. Yet, on the other hand, he feels the best road to do that is expanding his own personal power. He studies magic so he can one day become the reality-warping gods high-level casters are, and has no qualms about lying and manipulating others and "playing politics" to get forward in the world. However, despite being a-ok with lying and manipulating, he never harms innocents; he dosen't torture and only kills creatures that are evil. He not only desires a better world, but works towards it. If given the opportunity to save the town/kingdom/world he would take it gladly.
Have you seen Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog? It's quite good, and it sounds a lot like the character you describe.
Offhand, I'd say that he's chaotic evil. The fact that he's in theory out to make the world a better place doesn't mean much; the road to hell is famously paved with good intentions. I think he's an interesting and possibly sympathetic evil character,.... which is quite an impressive feat to create, and I compliment you.
|
|
Interesting. I never saw him as -chaotic- evil. If he would be any evil alignment I would pick neutral evil since he is very concerned about his standing in society...which is quite non-chaotic. On the other hand, though, he tends to despise most tyrants and dosen't really care about traditions or order. He's also not looking to rule the world as a tyrant either, though, but is instead concerned more with ousting the bad guys and working with others to make a new system; he seeks a temporary throne, not a permanent one, and dosen't intend to "rule" anything when he's done. Political power, like magical power or otherwise, is a means to a better world, not an end in and of itself. Likewise, he is NOT willing to harm innocents in most ways and is totally apposed to things like murder(Unless it's an -always evil- creature that is in no way innocent) torture etc.. that most chaotic evil types would not only be for, but crave.
Label him as Chaotic Neutral and you won't be questioned much.
One of the places the alignment system is really weak is in defining a 3 dimensional character with a lot of traits and who acts differently based on circumstances.
Neutral Evil. It doesn't particularly sound like he cares much about the freedoms or choices of others, and he doesn't hold liberty in particularly high esteem (aside from his own). He also doesn't really sound terribly unpredictable. Chaotic he certainly isn't.
He doesn't hold up Law as a virtue and will gladly break it if it serves his purpose, and he has no code of honor he holds himself to.
He is selfish first, and while he ostensibly is out to make the world better, he thinks it would best come through his own power, and not through any other sort of ideals.
There are some things that don't quite fit, I'm sure, but remember that alignment is not a straightjacket.
being obsessed with power is not how the system defines Evil. Evil, in the game, is defined by a character's regard to the sanctity of life. If the character feels that killing other creatures, even when those creatures pose no threat to anyone else, as the first solution to a problem, then he or she is evil, if the character thinks of other alternatives to manage problems, other than kill the other guy before he kills me, then you can label him or her neutral or good.
I would place this character as chaotic evil, until he demonstrates that he understands that killing other intelligent beings is not the solution and should only be done in self defense, or in defense of other life.
|
CN seems a good fit to me. Neutral because while he isn't about harming innocents, he really isn't helping them either. Chaotic because he is meeting his personal ambitions by lying, manipulating, and accumulating personal power.
Lets look at pathfinder's most prominent CN deity, Calistria. She is the goddess of revenge, lust, and secrets. She is arrogant and moody and this guy's seems to be following in her footsteps.
Lets look at pathfinder's most prominent CN deity, Calistria. She is the goddess of revenge, lust, and secrets. She is arrogant and moody and this guy's seems to be following in her footsteps.
Where do you get arrogant from? And why secrets? She's Lust, Trickery, and Revenge.
|
|
From Calistria is not only vengeful, but vindictive when she has been wronged by another; she will take her time returning such disfavor, maneuvering in order to attain the best position from which to savor her retribution.
The faithful of Calistria can be found across Golarion, but her tenets of lust and vengeance have taken especially firm root in Absalom, Galt, Kyonin, Nex, the River Kingdoms, the Shackles, Taldor, and Varisia. The followers of the Lady in the Room fulfill varied roles wherever they are encountered, anything from spy to prostitute and beyond, but always in support of their goddesses' mercurial nature.[2] Such individuals deal in trickery and mischief, encounters of the flesh and knowledge that is both secret or dangerous, and the pursuit of these goals can often lead these faithful to wander the world in order to achieve them.[5]
Arrogant because she in VERY moody, and it takes very little to set her off. Secrets is a big part of her church, her sacred prostitutes are trained to be seductive and gather info while they are working.
Neutral. The character isn't driven by moral or ethical questions so much as their own complex goals. They have aspects of good (better world), evil (tyranny), chaos (self focus), and law (impulse to control others). I'd say he doesn't trouble himself with the moral and ethical implications of his actions. Besides, that's the greyest alignment.
I'm picturing the flame alchemist when I'm reading this lol.
Since this perwon respects innocents and will go outta his way to not harm them I'm gonna be the oddball here and I'd label him nuetral good.
Reason being is because he's doing selfish things for the sake of bettering the world. Now tbh that's what I've gathered from ur description but due to how the character acts could easily end up as nuetral evil if ur not careful.
Judging by the replies already posted, I would say you are right: his alignment is a tough nut to crack.
As far as the morality spectrum, I would say he would start his career as a Good person, but one with lots of chances to commit evil and quasi-evil acts. These acts will slowly drag him down to the darker parts of his personality, where he will stay if he's not careful.
Along the order branch, I see him starting Neutral, willing to follow the rules as long as they work for him, or just make life a little less difficult. He isn't bound by them, and will break them when it suits his purposes, but he also doesn't have the knee-jerk reaction to break the rules. However, this indifference to law will change into a disdain for laws, or the idea they don't even apply to him, and he can easily slip (or jump) into Chaotic.
I guess a "good guy out for power and revenge" would be what closest fits the bill. So, if I was the GM, would say "Sure, he's neutral good. You do understand that if you continue do this path your going to change alignment a few times, right?"
Don't worry about it. Just play your character and let alignment take care of itself.
|
Ambition isn't evil unless it causes you to harm others (particularly innocents). If this character isn't hurting innocents or causing needless suffering (eg torture), he isn't evil. I'm inclined to agree with Scythia that he should be True Neutral because his primary motivations don't fit well with alignment.
However, I could see Good if his end goals for improving the world are realistic rather than delusional.
If he would be any evil alignment I would pick neutral evil since he is very concerned about his standing in society...which is quite non-chaotic.
Concern for social standing isn't always lawful. In this case, it seems more individualistic (chaotic). He doesn't want to bring honour to his family, he wants to have personal social influence (along with other types of power). So that's a neutral point, and his dishonourable methods point slightly to chaos. He doesn't seem to have the distaste for authority I'd associate with chaos, though.
Offhand, I'd say that he's chaotic evil. The fact that he's in theory out to make the world a better place doesn't mean much; the road to hell is famously paved with good intentions.
But it travels by landmarks such as the tavern of poor judgment, the bridge of disproportionate retribution, and the cliffs of cruelty. Good intentions lead plenty of places, not all of them to Hell. Saying you have good intentions therefore you're going to Hell is like saying you're driving on asphalt therefore you're going to the shopping mall.
Chaotic Neutral. It seems to fit, for one.
For another, nobody's likely to question "inconsistent" action if you're CN. You won't have somebody crawling up your ass because you do something slightly morally questionable and you called yourself CG or NG.
For a third, unless you're a Divine caster, a Monk, or a Barbarian, alignment doesn't really matter. Like at all. Nobody's going to give a crap what alignment is on your sheet if it doesn't affect your character.
Write down CN, play your guy, and call it a day.
True neutral. Chaotic neutrals wouldn't be motivated "for the good of society." On the other hand, maybe the character really is Chaotic Neutral (concerned only with their own advancement, but not willing to murder or enslave others to achieve it) and all that "for the greater good" schtick is just self-rationalization.
(Spellcheck doesn't recognize "schtick"? Oy vey iz mir.)
Don't worry about it. Just play your character and let alignment take care of itself.
This. Also, Chaotic Neutral.
I don't see the character as evil. A lot of what you're probably concerned about is him having an abrasive personality, and motivations that most associate with villains, however the motivation for power is not evil in itself. Now, is he lawful, neutral or chaotic? You can get some help figuring that out by determining how he reacts to society. If he's good or neutral, does he need a reason to do good deeds or does he just do them because it's his nature?
I think you could make an interesting Lawful Good character with this backstory. You'd have enough conflict to keep it fresh in a story based campaign and will turn heads with a non-standard portrayal of a much maligned alignment.
I'd say Neutral Evil, Lawful evil, Neutral or Chaotic Neutral would fit best, in that order.
Obsessed with power and revenge, inflated self-importance and generally dismissive of individual suffering. (He would walk past a sick/starving family unless he could do something without it costing him anything.
He's focussed on the greater good, which is not good at all in pathfinder.
Also I would avoid Chaotic Neutral alignment like the plague and find Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Good likewise redundant additions to the alignment system.
Why is it that whenever a character is complex, that instantly means he must be Chaotic? I'd honestly call him Neutral... Even LN. He doesn't strike me as very Chaotic at all, in all honesty.
Why is it that whenever a character is complex, that instantly means he must be Chaotic? I'd honestly call him Neutral... Even LN. He doesn't strike me as very Chaotic at all, in all honesty.Chaos is a matter of how self oriented you are as opposed to the group oriented extreme of being Lawful. If you don't accept directions from any external force, if you reject all hierarchy, then you're chaotic.
Exactly this.
Chaotic characters don't necessarily want to IMPOSE Chaos on everyone else. Many of them just want to be left alone to do what they want. Don't poke them with a stick and they might never come into conflict with you.
Unfortunately many players portray their Chaotic characters as seeking to IMPOSE Chaos on the world around them. SOME Chaotics will be like this, sure, but not ALL of them.
I'd say Chaotic mostly because this character seems to be in opposition to those who seek to impose control on those around them. At that point, whether they are "Good" or not is largely a function of specifics. Do they oppose control because it inconveniences or hurts them personally, or because it inconveniences or hurts others? It looks more like the former here, so I say Chaotic Neutral.
|
|
I thank you for all the replies. I've gotten answers all over the spectrum on this guy and it's nice to see that he's made the messageboards just as confused as to what his alignment is as he's made me. I definitely don't think he'd be good-aligned, but I'm still going back and forth between neutral and evil. While he will do underhanded things, he dosen't resort to torture, murder ect.. and tries VERY hard not to hurt or harm innocents. About the worst thing he will to do innocents is lie to them if he must to achieve his ends. He won't even scam them, either. Just lies to, say, get into a place he must go that he normally would not be allowed into. Or scenarios like that. He does see the sanctity of life as important, and will go out of his way to help others, but also sees such things as a path to more power. Simply put he's always thinking about himself, but also thinking about others at the same time. He's not saving the people SOLELY for himself, but he's also not doing it solely for them. He's doing it for both himself and them at the same time, and he sees the former as working towards his greater goal of changing the world.
As for his lack of charity, it's again, not because he dosen't care for the poor, but because he feels that, in his current state, his money would do them, and the world, more good if spent on himself. If, say, he was a wealthy noble, he would probably be the kind who would spend his wealth on helping the poor. It's not so much that he would -NEVER- spend gold on charity, it's just that in his current socioeconomic status he believes that he simply dosen't have enough gold to both spend on charity and spend on items that will help him save said poor people from monsters and help him move up in the world. So, if/when he is higher level and a wealthy individual, chances are he would be willing to spend gold on charity, it's just that in his current situation he believes gold spent on himself will do the poor more good(when future good is factored in) then gold spent on charity.
Think of it this way. A few gold pieces donation to the poor will buy them a days meal, making their life a bit easier for one day, but that's about all it does. A day without worrying about food is a great thing for the poor, but in the end it does little to help their overall situation. It's simply giving them one day with less pain and dose nothing to improve their situation after that day is done. A new item will allow him to better fight the monster that is trying to kill said people and even further will let him advance himself so, some day, he will be in a position to better those poor people's lot in ways much more significant then a days meal. If he survives to become somebody, he could feed them for weeks, months and years. He could give them jobs. He could better their lives in ways far more profound them simply making one day out of their life slightly less miserable. He is very much a "big picture" thinker; he weighs out how much good his actions will do and factors in future good into this, so for him spending the gold on the item, when you factor in the immediate and future good, would in his mind do more for the poor then simply giving them a few gold. "Trickle-down good," as somebody said it, is a good way to put it.
Likewise, while he may not give gold to beggars, he's not indifferent about their suffering either. If he has trail rations or some other foodstuffs on it he would be the kind to give it out. He dosen't ignore the suffering of the poor and is quite upset about it(and, in fact, seeing the plight of the poor is one of the things that sparked off his desire to change things in the first place.), it's just that he feels small donations, which are all he can really afford at this point in his life, do too little for the poor and don't actually help them beyond giving them comfort for a very short time.
So, to the person who said he would walk by a beggar and "not care" that is an incorrect assumption. If he walked by a beggar, he would care deeply about them and hate to see how society has wronged them, yet instead of letting those feelings move him to give the beggar some coins it would instead solidify his desire to become stronger and make the world better so people like him could be free from suffering. Also, as stated before, if he had any food on him he would give that to the beggar, and possibly even steal food for them if he thought he could get away with it.
Seeing all this, I can't really label him as truly evil. He dosen't harm innocents, he dosen't torture. He may lie and manipulate, but he generally tries to keep such things as tools to be used against non-innocents and is not one to scam innocent people to forward himself. He dosen't show callous indifference to the suffering of the poor and really does want to help them, but he just feels that the small donations he could make with his current resources would not do enough good compared to the good spending that gold himself would do for them both in the present(save their lives from monsters) and the future(become rich/powerful enough to raise them out of poverty.)He cares deeply about other people and will gladly risk his life for them.
At the same time, however, I can't call him truly good either. While he desires to do good in the world, he can be quite dishonorable. He WILL lie to innocents. He won't scam them for selfish gain or otherwise manipulate them in ways that would harm them, but he is a-ok with tricking them if his mission demands it. He is also very self-focused. Yes, wants to help people but he believes that HE is the one who can help them the most. He believes that HE has the answers and that his way is what is best for everybody. As a result of this selfishness I cannot truly call him good either, as despite his desire to help others and the world he is too caught up on the "big picture" and using his own power as a tool and as a result I cannot see him as truly good character.
To figure out whether this guy was good, neutral or evil I put him in a hypothetical situation. I said, what if he had only two options(for whatever reason), and one of those was to sacrifice his life to save an innocent and the other was for him to flee and save his own life at the cost of the innocent one. I factored in all of his personality, his selfishness, his goals, his concern for others and in the end decided that, while he would have some second thoughts/internal debate about it he would, ultimately, give his own life for the inocent. Why? Because at the core of his character is not only a hatred for his father, but a desire to not become him. He is selfish, yes, and vengeful and arrogant, but at the same time his goal(a better world for all) and as a result his hunger for power all derive from a base desire to -not- be his father.
While he may be selfish at times, it is because that's what he's been used to for most of his past. Due largely to his father, power is what he has understood from even his youngest years to be the greatest mechanism for getting things done. Yet, at the same time, due to his father's twisted ways his first, true desire was to -not- be like him and make the world a better place for everybody. His ideas about how to save the world came later, as well as his global, future-minded, big picture thinking. All of his later goals and ideas come from the early desire of his youth to "do better" then his father did, and thus, while he would have internal conflict over whether or not to save himself and his goals or end all that for the innocent life he ultimately would choose to sacrifice himself for the innocent. The reason being is if he lets an innocent die to save himself he has become his father, and thus his root desire to become his father's foil will be compromised. Simply put, he could not live with himself if he let the innocent die, doing so would compromise all he is about and his conscience and morals would never let him forget such an act.
Thus, considering all of this and your input I peg him as neutral on the good and evil axis. Why? Lets look at that situation. if he was truly an evil person, he would never even consider sacrificing himself for another. He may believe he's doing good if he where evil, but like Danzo from Naruto he would have no issues/debates over sacrificing innocent life for the "greater good"; he would do it without a second thought as one life compared to the greater good is a paltry sacrifice in the mind of an evil person. Likewise, if he was truly a good person, he would never even consider choosing his own life over the life of an innocent. Like the evil character, the good character would have no internal debate over this issue; they would sacrifice themselves in a heartbeat. Seeing this, I have decided that the best place for this character on the good-evil axis would be neutral.
As for the law/chaos axis, he is clearly not lawful. He is willing to lie, cheat and use underhanded tactics and while he does have the desire of -not- being his father as a sort of guiding code that code is less about law/chaos and more about good/evil. He cares little about tradition and dosen't hold order in high regard. Thus, I cannot see him as lawful under any circumstances. As for chaos, while he has some chaotic tendencies, I am not sure I can call him chaotic. While he holds order and tradition in no high esteem, he dosen't see them as things to eschew either. Order and tradition, he believes, can be a good thing when used for good purpose and can be bad things when used for bad reasons. He has no -hatred- for authority itself and will follow the rules when it benefits his cause. He's not one to rebel for the sake of it, to him authority is again, only as good or bad as the person holding it. Thus, I have issues seeing him as chaotic, but at the same time can see the argument for it due to his selfishness. At this moment, I still cannot place him on the law-chaos axis..and am looking for help from you with this. I have, however, narrowed him down to two possible alignments: True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. Any ideas/comments on the law/chaos axis for this guy would be appreciated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because he wouldn't give his life for another's without a second thought does not mean he is not good. Even saints have doubts and the desire to live is a powerful thing. I would put his alignment at neutral good. He seems to have two main goals, helping others and getting revenge on his father. Helping others is Good of course, and since his father is evil I would put the second motivation at neutral. Therefore he is good. He would just have to watch out for the ends justify the means syndrome.
You could also put down true neutral and say he has recently realized that he needs to be careful to not become what he despises.
This is a very cool character with tons of roleplaying potential.
|
|
From the way you describe him, he's got at least some drive behind him beyond "it's just the way things are done" so he's very likely not TN.
Not necessarily. TN characters can be strongly motivated - they're just not motivated by anything that fits one of the two alignment axes. A druid who will do anything to protect nature but doesn't care about what humanoids do to each other is driven, but TN. So is a wizard who craves knowledge and is uninterested in anything that doesn't improve his understanding of the arcane.
He cares little about tradition and dosen't hold order in high regard. Thus, I cannot see him as lawful under any circumstances. As for chaos, while he has some chaotic tendencies, I am not sure I can call him chaotic. While he holds order and tradition in no high esteem, he dosen't see them as things to eschew either. Order and tradition, he believes, can be a good thing when used for good purpose and can be bad things when used for bad reasons. He has no -hatred- for authority itself and will follow the rules when it benefits his cause. He's not one to rebel for the sake of it, to him authority is again, only as good or bad as the person holding it. Thus, I have issues seeing him as chaotic, but at the same time can see the argument for it due to his selfishness. At this moment, I still cannot place him on the law-chaos axis..and am looking for help from you with this.
Selfishness isn't enough to call him chaotic. Most people are selfish to some extent. Since he doesn't see authority or tradition as inherently good or bad, and doesn't rebel for the sake of it, he is probably Neutral on that axis.
Also I would avoid Chaotic Neutral alignment like the plague and find Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Good likewise redundant additions to the alignment system.
I disagree. The Good/Evil axis and the Law/Chaos axis express two entirely different things. The first is whether you're more willing to sacrifice yourself for others or others for yourself, while the second is whether you are more communal or individualistic. There's nothing redundant about an individualist who sacrifices themselves for others (I will die for your freedom, CG) or a character who uses a communal system to benefit from the sacrifice of others (the iron-fisted tyrant, LE). And the distinction between Judge Dredd and Jack Sparrow (LN-CN) is just as meaningful as the one between Gandalf and Voldemort (NG-NE).
If we find it at all valuable to define Lawful and Chaotic alignment (as in LG and CE) then it is valuable to apply them to characters at all points on the good-evil axis.
Furthermore, having an extreme on both axes means they reinforce and reciprocate. Both Lawful Good and Chaotic Good are better at being Good than Neutral Good because they're larger in scale. But Neutral Good, while having a much lesser angle, won't run into as many qualms and issues that may prevent them from exorcising their morality.
This is contradictory. If a NG character doesn't run into as many issues that prevent them from exercising their (good) morality, then they are better at being Good than LG and CG.
|
|
Not really. Which is the stronger expression of "goodness", the person who just does "the best they can" (NG) or the person who is dedicated to honor and compassion.
You're misquoting. "A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. ... Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order. ... Because supporting either extreme on the axis does not motivate them, neutral good characters are often considered the “true good” alignment."
If a NG character does the best a good person can do, no other alignment is better at being good than a NG person. The character dedicated to both honour and compassion may let honour get in the way of compassion.
Now, I'm not saying that every NG person is more good than all (LG) paladins - there's certainly some characters who just barely good (just like some LG or CG character hug the LN/CN border). But a NG person is capable of being more good than a LG person, and the most good paladins must tend more towards Good than Law (hence the instruction that a paladin should choose good over law given a choice).
NG is "small" goodness while LG and CG are "large" goodness. The NG's good is helping at the soup kitchen or looking the other way for a family trying to get by. LG is fighting against corrupt and self-serving evil while CG is fighting against oppressive and organizational evil. NG is fighting against mundane and personal evils.
Gandalf is fighting against mundane and personal evils? Because he sure isn't lawful or chaotic.
Both the LG and the CG knows that there are things they aren't willing to do in the pursuit of Goodness. They'll do it the harder way to avoid compromising their own morals, driven either by a sense of discipline or a sense of pride. That means they'll try harder to be more good to compensate for the times where it's just not in the cards. NG doesn't have this problem so they wouldn't feel that drive to be more good compensatorially; they'll be "good enough". But it's never enough for the LG or the CG.
How do you go from "the best a good person can do" or even "the best they can" to "a NG person will feel they're good enough and not try as hard as a LG or CG"?
You also just allowed (in my italics) that a LG or CG person may sometimes fail to act for the good due to their lawful or chaotic bias.
Regarding TN, there's really two kinds of TN. One kind lacks drive in either direction but the other actually props neutrality on top of neutrality which creates a unique kind of drive in itself. But that drive is towards "enforced balance". This character we're discussing doesn't want to enforce balance against extremes. He wants to be the extreme because he believes the world needs an extreme and he wants that extreme to be good rather than evil.
Except the first kind doesn't lack direction period, it lacks direction with respect to law, chaos, good, and evil, not with respect to other motivators like knowledge, magical power, physical beauty, the natural world, the desire to explore, the love of a single person (as opposed to general compassion), etc.