| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
TN is actually the most common alignment among people. For most, it means that they don't have any strong ideological leanings; your average villager isn't going to be opposing a ruler as long as the treatment is reasonable, but they aren't going to go out of their way to enforce that ruler's laws either. They'll do good when good is easy, but if it doesn't affect them personally they might shrug and say it isn't their problem.
There are other ways to play TN of course but this is probably the most "typical". You care about yourself and the people close to you, and unless it directly affects that circle of interest the larger world just isn't your concern.
Basically everyone is true neutral. Your friend is probably true neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also depends on what *setting* one is playing in.
For example, in most Palladium games, your fellow player would be right. The breakdown of alignments in those systems are Good/Selfish/Evil.
In Pathfinder, though, there is an option to be 'true' neutral. Much like AF said above, there's the fact that someone may not 'pick a moral side'.
The other way to play it is as someone who does truly *nasty* things... and then goes and does equally *great* things, to keep things 'in balance'.
Check with your GM before deciding that route.
Your 'neutral' character could get strung up faster by fellow players than an 'evil' one if it looks like there's no penalty for it/you're getting away with murder.
BUT BEFORE ANY OF THE ABOVE...
Don't just do the alignment choice to piss off the player. Don't. Not only is it bad form, but it will look like a conspiracy against the player and their beliefs. No possible good can come of that.
True neutral is a very common alignment, yet tough to use for an adventurer PC. It is hard to imagine someone motivated enough to adventure, yet not motivated enough to go in some alignment cardinal direction more than others.
It is not impossible, just difficult.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are too types of True Neutral and both are complete opposites to each other.
1. The Unaligned, a person withy no agenda, no particular drives, also most non-sentient creatures.
2. The Balancer. A person who actively maintain balance by suppressing aligned forces when they threathen a defined balance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the "Just Business" sort of character is True Neutral or Lawful Neutral (Lawful if their "business" practices are above the table, Choatic if they're shadier).
So the bounty hunter who does what he does because it's what he's good at and what puts food on the table might very well be true neutral.
If he only takes contracts on the scummiest individuals and only from the proper authorities? Good.
If he'll take hits on innocents from the evilest guy in town, or he enjoys causing undue suffering in the course of his job? Evil.
If it's just the way of the world and he draws the line somewhere, Neutral.
This is my personal favorite way to play true neutral, in case it wasn't obvious.
My druid is TN. She's a bit of a wild child that will defend nature to the death and freaks out when she sees undead or an aberration, but she gives no f*##s if a party member's brother was attacked. Suffering and death are just a part of nature after all, and she doesn't get why people mourn over the dead.
Of course that's just one way to play them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do wonder why he thinks no one can be true neutral....
Playing one.
Mostly my PC goes with the flow of the party while he makes sure to follow pharasma ideals mostly.
To me it is: you help others around you , but you wont get out of your way to help anyone , you follow the laws as long as you can , but you wont let them screw you over and so on...
I just try to not be extreme in any direction , unless ofc it envolves pharasma :P.
|
I never liked the Balance version of True Neutral. I guess it works for an Outsider that really is there to balance the universe, but for a person to go around stepping on a puppy because she saved one yesterday, doing a bad deed for ever good... that's goofy and kinda' psychopath.
For me, for regular mortals, the Good/Evil thing is basically, "Would you go out of your way to help someone?" Would you put yourself at risk? A Good person would. He'd run into a burning building to save a stranger. A Neutral person wouldn't. Doesn't mean she's bad, just not going to stick her neck out for a random dude. Would probably run in for her own kids, or might help a stranger get up who fell in front of her, but isn't really going to go out of her way to help someone else. The crown of lookie-loo's are Neutral. And Evil is more than just the guy who stabs people in the face just to watch them die, it's also the person who steps over the guy who got hit by a wagon and doesn't stop to help (no danger to self, no risk, just not interested, too selfish to be inconvenienced). Not necessarily sexy Evil, but selfish to the point where you're causing harm to others... that's not Neutral anymore, that's a choice and it crosses into Evil in my book.
I've been playing my Rogue as TN and to me, he's the epitome of self-serving. He doesn't go out of his way to break the law or sow Chaos but he's not threatened by breaking laws at all to get what he wants. He helps his friends and those he cares about, so adventures are common considering the amount of situations they put themselves in.
If he's in a town (like Sandpoint in our ongoing RotRL campaign) and the town is attacked, he defends it. Not out of some altruistic notion of protection and service but usually for fame, renown, money, leverage, and practice. If things gets bad, he casually will leave. He has no reservations about using torture, extortion, poison, thievery, and kidnapping to get what he wants BUT doesn't specifically enjoy it.
Basically TN is the one motivated to do things because they directly affect them and those they care about.
I never liked the Balance version of True Neutral. I guess it works for an Outsider that really is there to balance the universe, but for a person to go around stepping on a puppy because she saved one yesterday, doing a bad deed for ever good... that's goofy and kinda' psychopath.
.
An active balancer is more concerned on the larger scale. He might aide a good nation against orcs... and when they have their triumph an a bout to complete the final extermination of the orcs, he kills their lead Paladin and breakes their forces.
Mordenkainen was frequently portrayed as being so true neutral, he'd spook out Druids.
God in the show "Lucifer" seems to be on these lines as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
he thinks that true neutral is for animals and animals alone.
Animal can only have neutral as their alignment =! animals are the only ones with neutral alignment (... this is easy disproven by the bestiaries at the very least)
he got all huffy and said that pathfinder allows druids/paladins to be any alignment.
So he hasn't read the core rule book? Is there actually any reason why you're arguing with him over just suggesting he read the books?
i don't wana argue with him about it because he is stubborn and does not listen is under the impression everything he spouts is right and true.
Tell him to show you evidence for his position in the books, if he is so stubborn to refute that, then there is no argument you could pose to change his mind.
I consider the Ents from LotR (the two towers movie) to be very TN. They took the not taking part in the affairs of others to the extreme for a long time.
I never liked the Balance version of True Neutral. I guess it works for an Outsider that really is there to balance the universe, but for a person to go around stepping on a puppy because she saved one yesterday, doing a bad deed for ever good... that's goofy and kinda' psychopath.
.
An active balancer is more concerned on the larger scale. He might aide a good nation against orcs... and when they have their triumph an a bout to complete the final extermination of the orcs, he kills their lead Paladin and breakes their forces.
Mordenkainen was frequently portrayed as being so true neutral, he'd spook out Druids.
God in the show "Lucifer" seems to be on these lines as well.
There's a relatively obscure fantasy novel I'm quite fond of called "Villains By Necessity" where one of the party members is a balance-based Neutral Druid. The concept is that, after the Great Evil is thoroughly vanquished evil in general starts to go on its way out due to some incredibly aggressive policy by the Heroic Party's wizard (you know that a+&$&*+ paladin everyone hates so much? he's that guy except he's a 9th level caster who's very proficient with compulsions) the world is about to be bathed in blinding light and it's up to her and her rag tag team of villains to make sure there's still room in the world to choose evil.
I think it's harder to pull off balance neutral believably when good hasn't overpowered evil because it's harder to believe that's a bad thing when you can't see it for yourself.
The flawed hero is a good example of a neutral character. They try to do the right thing but they fall short for some reason. Maybe they love money a bit too much, maybe they lack compassion, maybe they tend to draw their sword a little too often.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played multiple TN characters. It's an incredibly easy alignment to play. You just aren't particularly high-minded, bent on a code, irritated by rules, or wicked. You can still have major goals! You can still be highly motivated to be a good adventurer, or to make your parents proud, or to get enough money to get married, or to end a war so your village will be safe. Maybe you even have incredibly noble Good goals, but are willing to, as Boomerang put it, "draw your sword a little too often".
Neutral can be a Good person with fewer standards, or a self-motivated person who tries not to hurt others in their pursuits.
People who claim TN to be a "balancekeeper" are generally wrong. Doing an evil act and then a good act does not even out to True Neutral—it makes you Evil. Burning down an orphanage and then donating to a charity does not make you a True Neutral character. You're an evil, rather pretentious person.
The other type of balancekeeper—someone who wants to keep, say, civilization and nature, or Good and Evil, in balance? Lawful Neutral. Strong code, few strict moral limitations. If they're willing to do anything to maintain that balance, or they back up outright Evil sides, they're actually Lawful Evil. Again, it doesn't balance out.
I've played multiple TN characters. It's an incredibly easy alignment to play. You just aren't particularly high-minded, bent on a code, irritated by rules, or wicked. You can still have major goals! You can still be highly motivated to be a good adventurer, or to make your parents proud, or to get enough money to get married, or to end a war so your village will be safe. Maybe you even have incredibly noble Good goals, but are willing to, as Boomerang put it, "draw your sword a little too often".
Neutral can be a Good person with fewer standards, or a self-motivated person who tries not to hurt others in their pursuits.
Pretty much all of this. I've never understood why people think the only possible motivation someone might have for doing something is based on alignment.
To cite a couple examples of my own True Neutral Characters.
- A True Neutral Wizard whose goal was just to learn everything he could about magic. Magical research is expensive, ergo he went on adventures to get more money. Plus there were plenty of opportunities to recover lost spells/artifacts while delving in ancient ruins or taking on hostile mages.
- A True Neutral Fighter whose goal was to be the greatest swordsman in the land. He went adventuring because he thought the best way to hone his skills than to constantly test himself against stronger, more dangerous opponents.
- A True Neutral Druid who initially went adventuring because his home town got attacked and destroyed. After he and his companions hunted down the ones responsible, he stuck with group because he he'd become friends with them and didn't really have a compelling reason to go elsewhere.
- A True Neutral Investigator who i played as an almost pure mercenary. He was into adventuring because it brought him fame and fortune, and he liked those things.
I really like true neutral as a roleplaying device. One character I had was a vapid beat stick trying to emulate 80s action heroes in a space campaign until an artifact changed his alignment to back before his mind broke down.
I also like toying with vengeful balancers that go Darth Vader on the force or Luke Skywalker when necessary, but my favorite variant of that is not one trying to balance the universe but a character trying to emulate every extreme. Like someone who is a hero because the idea of murdering tons of sapient 'evil' creatures and being herald as a saint is the perfect way to satisfy all their desires. This hero will defend towns from Goblins by slaughtering them down to last man woman and child with a smile on her face and blood on her tongue. This is the hero that opens soup kitchens in the capital with her own money while murdering the homeless in alleyways, leading to no net loss of life. This is the kind of hero with lovers that found her repugnant after learning about the side of her they wouldn't approve of. Orc chieftans finding her too soft to raise their child. Elvish rangers balking at her ritualistic serial killing of woodland creatures. Serial killers growing concerned that she might turn them in. In the end, she leaves the world no worse or no better than when she entered it. Loveless, friendless, and ostracized by any who know her well. This is the kind of hero that won't stop adventuring until she is dead for their is no other way for her to live.
A pragmatist is most likely a true neutral.
Philosophically, he may well support the moral ideas of "law" and "good" but, when the cards hit the table, he's going to do what needs to be done.
Weighing the pros and cons of every decision equally.
|
|
True neutral is a very common alignment, yet tough to use for an adventurer PC. It is hard to imagine someone motivated enough to adventure, yet not motivated enough to go in some alignment cardinal direction more than others.
It is not impossible, just difficult.
Not really. I have a bard who is TN. He's a bit of a narcissist. He mostly adventures because he wants to be famous, and he's building a name for himself.
He kinda likes helping people out, but he'll mostly just go out of his way to do it if it'll make him look good. He also claims credit for pretty much everything the group does. "You remember when I did X!! You were there doing... something."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Anyone can see ... Nothing really matters, nothing really matters to me .... Any way the wind blows ..."
The way I've been playing TN with my current character, and for all I know or care he may not be TN and in fact lean towards something else, is this:
He made a promise to himself to protect the innocent due to something that happened in his past, and he follows through with that promise doggedly. That said, he'll do almost anything to achieve this. Including less than moral things. He'd rather live in a world with good people, than evil. Most of the time, he's very much a "it's just business," sort, gen78nely nice, makes jokes and has fun, but when something crosses a line with him, he gets brutal and ruthless to the point where one might think he was on the evil side.
Basically, I play TN, with this character at least, like his alignment needle can flicker from good to bad to "doesn't matter to me" at a given moment and will do "evil" things to achieve his goal and keep promises.
Again, may be not TN. But, it doesn't seem good or evil in my book either. Might be CN? I dunno haha
True neutral is the alignment when you want to have goals that are not tied to alignment.
-no great crusades to protect distant lands, like good
-no desire to lead rebellions
-no desire to join/create huge organizations
-no thirst for power at the expense of the lives of others.
Nope. Just doing your own shtick and thinking 'well, adventuring is a quick way to make cash/fame...'
True neutral is the alignment when you want to have goals that are not tied to alignment.
-no great crusades to protect distant lands, like good
-no desire to lead rebellions
-no desire to join/create huge organizations
-no thirst for power at the expense of the lives of others.Nope. Just doing your own shtick and thinking 'well, adventuring is a quick way to make cash/fame...'
Ditto.
Simply no desire to get involved in any political stuff, simply caring about his own live, but in a sensible, non-invasive way. Not wanting to impose some of his opinions on others. Let live, as long you are let to live.
True neutral is the alignment when you want to have goals that are not tied to alignment.
-no great crusades to protect distant lands, like good
-no desire to lead rebellions
-no desire to join/create huge organizations
-no thirst for power at the expense of the lives of others.Nope. Just doing your own shtick and thinking 'well, adventuring is a quick way to make cash/fame...'
I completely agree with your first statement but then disagree with all your examples! "Goals that are not tied to alignment" is probably the best way to describe TN that I can think of, kudos.
However, what if your goal is to protect your town? Not because it's the right thing to do, but because it's been attacked before and you lost a loved one? A selfish motivation to do a good thing, and may involve founding a city watch, building a castle or any number of dramatic adventures.
It all comes down to intent or motivation rather than the resultant action. You could travel a thousand miles to defend a foreign town because you fear that your homeland could be next. Leading a rebellion because the current government is intolerable for whatever reason would be within the scope of TN, as it would for most alignments (if the conditions were right).
I hate the term "True Neutral" because it evokes the ridiculous old style "maintain the balance" trope which is really annoying.
In Pathfinder, they're neutral along both Good v. Evil and Law v. Chaos.
As far as good v. evil goes, they're not going to go out of their way to help someone at a cost to themselves unless it's a friend but they're not going to hurt someone just to benefit themselves. They'll not feel guilty walking past a beggar but they're not going to kick them on the way past. They'll figure that someone else can help the lost kid because it's better not to get involved but they're not going to take advantage of him.
As far as the law v. chaos goes, they're going to generally follow the laws but if they don't think they'll get caught shorting their taxes they might keep a couple extra silvers. They're fine with lying or welching on a bet now and then but they know that they're going to be honest more often than not.
Some people say a N character doesn't have any drive and wouldn't be a good adventurer. I disagree - personal gain, personal advancement, wealth, fame, fun, adventure, all good reasons to be an adventurer. They are going to be pragmatic about it, though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are various ways to play True Neutral. Here's the description from The Very Last Book About Alignment.
A true neutral character is likely to consider philosophical
notions of morality or justice to be naive or passé. She will
usually render aid to those that she feels deserve it, but
only if it does not overly inconvenience her. She may also
try turning such action to her advantage at the same time.
She tends not to go out of her way to make either friends
or enemies, but can usually be trusted and depended on
by her associates if they don't ask too much of her. She is
likely to prefer negotiation for solving problems, but only
from a strong bargaining position. She can be equally
comfortable working both inside and outside the law, so
long as her personal risk is low. Where authority is
oppressive or unjust, she may actively avoid it and
attempt to leave the area.
|
|
I hate the term "True Neutral" because it evokes the ridiculous old style "maintain the balance" trope which is really annoying.
In Pathfinder, they're neutral along both Good v. Evil and Law v. Chaos.
I actually think that there should almost be two middle alignments.
True Neutral & just plain Neutral (Neutral Neutral?). The former is concerned with balance, while the latter is just in the middle on both of the axis.
Neutral characters can have goals based around "the right thing to do". Keep in mind alignment is generally a measure of what you won't do. A neutral or even evil character can do good acts for good reasons.
A Good character won't let someone needlessly suffer if it can be helped.
A Neutral character won't commit any blatantly evil acts, but might stand by and let evil take place if it doesn't directly affect them and theirs, or might resort to questionable means of achieving their goals.
Only Evil has no restrictions.
So a Neutral PC can absolutely be on a crusade to save the world purely out of altruistic intent. They just might do some questionable things along the way. Nothing evil, of course—just enough to keep them from being Good.
I really like true neutral as a roleplaying device. One character I had was a vapid beat stick trying to emulate 80s action heroes in a space campaign until an artifact changed his alignment to back before his mind broke down.
I also like toying with vengeful balancers that go Darth Vader on the force or Luke Skywalker when necessary, but my favorite variant of that is not one trying to balance the universe but a character trying to emulate every extreme. Like someone who is a hero because the idea of murdering tons of sapient 'evil' creatures and being herald as a saint is the perfect way to satisfy all their desires. This hero will defend towns from Goblins by slaughtering them down to last man woman and child with a smile on her face and blood on her tongue. This is the hero that opens soup kitchens in the capital with her own money while murdering the homeless in alleyways, leading to no net loss of life. This is the kind of hero with lovers that found her repugnant after learning about the side of her they wouldn't approve of. Orc chieftans finding her too soft to raise their child. Elvish rangers balking at her ritualistic serial killing of woodland creatures. Serial killers growing concerned that she might turn them in. In the end, she leaves the world no worse or no better than when she entered it. Loveless, friendless, and ostracized by any who know her well. This is the kind of hero that won't stop adventuring until she is dead for their is no other way for her to live.
Sounds like a pretty soundly evil protagonist. Definitely not neutral, by Core rules, but it sounds like you houserule alignment heavily, so that's cool. :)
I hate the term "True Neutral" because it evokes the ridiculous old style "maintain the balance" trope which is really annoying.
In Pathfinder, they're neutral along both Good v. Evil and Law v. Chaos.
I actually think that there should almost be two middle alignments.
True Neutral & just plain Neutral (Neutral Neutral?). The former is concerned with balance, while the latter is just in the middle on both of the axis.
But the former wouldn't even be Neutral. They'd be Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Evil, or Lawful Good. They clearly have a strict code, and depending on how committed they are to "balance", they might even resort to evil acts to stick to that code!
So a Neutral PC can absolutely be on a crusade to save the world purely out of altruistic intent. They just might do some questionable things along the way. Nothing evil, of course—just enough to keep them from being Good.
So basically, Renegade Shepard? Perfectly willing to bust some heads and make a few necessary sacrifices if it means the day is saved. I can work with that.
True neutral is the alignment when you want to have goals that are not tied to alignment.
-no great crusades to protect distant lands, like good
-no desire to lead rebellions
-no desire to join/create huge organizations
-no thirst for power at the expense of the lives of others.Nope. Just doing your own shtick and thinking 'well, adventuring is a quick way to make cash/fame...'
Ditto.
Simply no desire to get involved in any political stuff, simply caring about his own live, but in a sensible, non-invasive way. Not wanting to impose some of his opinions on others. Let live, as long you are let to live.
That could be viewed as somewhat chaotic though.
I think TN just has a REALLY high threshhold before they start caring enough to do anything. And maybe they get involved with politics...if it is involved with their own personal goals (ie- joining the army since barmaids dig uniforms, and the pay is nice).
Maybe less likely to do something for political sake alone? Joining the crusade, not because he is mr LG, but because the king is offering really good wages and chances for promotion?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost 50 posts and no real BADWRONGFUN-post? This isn't a real alignment thread! Blasphemy! BLASPHEMY!!!
I hate these filthy neutrals. With enemies at least, you know where you stand. But with neutrals? Who knows.
What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Ban TN.
Generally either "principled neutrality as a conscious choice" (which is only really appropriate for some concepts, like druids) or "unsure or wary of ideological extremes."
I'm playing a true neutral character right now and part of her background was that she basically spent several decades during her formative years (Dwarf, so she's ~45) trapped by herself in an abandoned underground city, so a lot of the conventions of civilized society are largely alien to her, so it would be weird for her to have strong opinions about law or chaos. She's generally benevolent, but suspicious enough of selflessness as a virtue in and of itself to actually qualify as "good" (though she'll probably get there sooner or later.)
But most people in real life are going to be either LN or TN if we tried to fit them to the alignment grid (which probably isn't a good idea.)
'not allowed' is strange wording, since obviously that isn't true. Not a good idea not doesn't make sense is more debatable.
It is called 'Alignment' instead of 'Morality' because once upon a time it was more the idea of choosing your team instead of just describing how you acted. From the 'team' perspective, neutral was either not choosing a team, or choosing the 'neutral' team.
Now we tend to more often view alignment as describing what your actions have been, rather than what ideal you hold or what you are trying to promote. From that point of view, anyone would either be more good or more evil, so if they view neutral only as being exactly perfectly balanced (a super thin line implying perfect balance between the two or lack of mens rea, like an animal) then what your friend says makes sense. The general view of the game and the Golarion universe is not that however, neutral is a area that encompasses everything from the nebulous 'not bad enough to really be evil' to the equally nebulous 'not good enough to really be good'. This is a broad area where many, perhaps the majority, sentients with moral culpability are.
Almost 50 posts and no real BADWRONGFUN-post? This isn't a real alignment thread! Blasphemy! BLASPHEMY!!!
I'm getting close. A lot of people on this thread seem to hold more, uh, traditional viewpoints on how Neutrality works. :P
I think it's because Neutrality gets so neglected in alignment debates. The boards have yet to really decide how they feel about them, so there's much more "share your diverse points of view" and much less "I am f*#%ing sick of people being WRONG about GAMES".
People being neutral about Neutrality, KC? We are so meta.
'not allowed' is strange wording, since obviously that isn't true. Not a good idea not doesn't make sense is more debatable.
It is called 'Alignment' instead of 'Morality' because once upon a time it was more the idea of choosing your team instead of just describing how you acted. From the 'team' perspective, neutral was either not choosing a team, or choosing the 'neutral' team.
Now we tend to more often view alignment as describing what your actions have been, rather than what ideal you hold or what you are trying to promote. From that point of view, anyone would either be more good or more evil, so if they view neutral only as being exactly perfectly balanced (a super thin line implying perfect balance between the two or lack of mens rea, like an animal) then what your friend says makes sense. The general view of the game and the Golarion universe is not that however, neutral is a area that encompasses everything from the nebulous 'not bad enough to really be evil' to the equally nebulous 'not good enough to really be good'. This is a broad area where many, perhaps the majority, sentients with moral culpability are.
Where I struggle with the idea of NN being a thin balancing line is that it would have the same implications for the other alignments with neutral components. Because not picking a side on good-evil being a balancing act is the same whether you have picked a side on law-chaos or not.
I don't want to get into a drawn-out discussion of what alignment really means, though (I'm still winded from the last time :-)).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neutral, the alignment of non-sentient animals, plants, and elemental creatures driven by instincts.
True Neutral, an advanced philosophical alignment dealing with the balance between the great profound alignment forces. Found most frequently among students of mystic forces and nature.
False Neutral, the utter opposite of True Neutrals, caring nothing for philosophy. Can almost be likened to a sentient animal. Concerned with Maslowe's Heirarchy of needs, with basically materialistic goals at the high end instead of obtruse ones. Tend to be pretty uncaring of anything not involved with their immediate needs and goals.
That's how I see Neutrality.