Roleplaying » Discussions


Discussion: Alignments - True Neutral

Tags: #RP:Discussion  #Alignments  #Zonnonn  #RP:Series 
  • Member
    October 13, 2017

    True Neutral is difficult to describe but according to my scale I'd have to say these people are survivalists who will attempt to follow the laws but will break them if need be. Some examples of this would be a mercenary, a traveller, and a hunter.

  • Member
    October 13, 2017

    The Lorc of Flowers said:

     Just imagined it...

     

    Aaaaaand I have a brand new thing to be terrified of xD

  • October 13, 2017

    Practically speaking, I'd argue that Calcelmo is true neutral. His society-serving efforts seem largely ego-driven, yet his actions never directly harm anyone. Additionally, he refers to the Forsworn happenings as "nonsense" and "inconvenient," demonstrating cultural and political neutrality. 

  • Member
    October 13, 2017

    Our bro Calcelmo just wants some of dat Redguard a$$ !! :D Aside from that hm I agree that Calcelmo looks like a neutral character but not enough info on him to know his true disposition etc but I think he is a good example in Skyrim at least. 

  • Member
    October 13, 2017

    I always saw true neutral as being best characterized by an average citizen; this person knows of concepts like good and evil, and tries to abide by them, but doesn't do so for their inherent virtue as much as they do it because it best suits their own needs/desires. People generally retort here, and tell me that your average Joe is probably lawful neutral, but I'm hard pressed to find a regular person that doesn't jay walk, or run a red on occassion. Abiding by laws prevents harm (ie jail time, stigma) from befalling them, and that serves as the main motivator for their compliance with it - not necessarily an undying subscription to it, as rules can be bent. Of course, rule breaking is only really done for convenience, and not for its own sake like with an evil/chaotic character. Maybe this reinforces the true neutral = indifference predicament, but I think it's a pretty nifty conceptualization myself. I generally roll with true neutral characters as being highly personal individuals. It's not that they have no moral code or extrinsic motivation, it's just that it isn't generalizeable and therefore operationalized by broad concepts like goodness, or law.  

  • October 14, 2017

    Delidas said:

    I always saw true neutral as being best characterized by an average citizen; this person knows of concepts like good and evil, and tries to abide by them, but doesn't do so for their inherent virtue as much as they do it because it best suits their own needs/desires. People generally retort here, and tell me that your average Joe is probably lawful neutral, but I'm hard pressed to find a regular person that doesn't jay walk, or run a red on occassion. Abiding by laws prevents harm (ie jail time, stigma) from befalling them, and that serves as the main motivator for their compliance with it - not necessarily an undying subscription to it, as rules can be bent. Of course, rule breaking is only really done for convenience, and not for its own sake like with an evil/chaotic character. Maybe this reinforces the true neutral = indifference predicament, but I think it's a pretty nifty conceptualization myself. I generally roll with true neutral characters as being highly personal individuals. It's not that they have no moral code or extrinsic motivation, it's just that it isn't generalizeable and therefore operationalized by broad concepts like goodness, or law.  

    Hammer, meet nail. *tink*

  • Member
    October 15, 2017

    Delidas said:

    I always saw true neutral as being best characterized by an average citizen

    If I may I'm gonna disagree with you there. To me citizens are Lawful Neutral. The average citizen would abide by the law even if it's not the most beneficial route for them because it's the law (up to a certain degree though, which depends on the individual), and would only go against it for a very big reason. For example a beggar would steal, and so break the law, but that's only to survive. If they get back on their feet and become more of a normal citizen, they'd stop stealing because they don't need to. I'd love to hear your conterpoint though.

    Ebonslayer said:

    True Neutral is difficult to describe but according to my scale I'd have to say these people are survivalists who will attempt to follow the laws but will break them if need be. Some examples of this would be a mercenary, a traveller, and a hunter.

    So they only follow the law because it'd create a hassle not to? I kinda like that actually - they don't really give a shit, but would you rather pay a toll or end up in jail or worse? So they'll suffer through little inconveniences, but when it comes to important stuff they'll happy disregard it.

    Duvain said:

    So by D&D standards Neutral or True Neutral is a person who isn't commited towards good vs evil or law vs chaos. There are those who truly seek balance in all things  in the way they act or those who just show a cold apathy in almost everything that happens around them. A prime example of the Neutral alignment are the druids, you might see them defend man and then you might see them be against man and defend forests, animals, spirits etc.

    Out of D&D standards. Out of the D&D model all alignments are subjective. A True Neutral character would still be one of the two things I said above someone that truly seeks balance in his decisions or someone cold and distant showing apathy at almost (key word - almost) everything. I don't think there is someone that can keep being True Neutral at all times unless he can cut off all of his emotions and truly has the intellect to discern what is the middle way or the way. I can imagine someone though trying to be Neutral in most types of circumstances he comes across but not someone being able to remain Neutral 100% of the time.

    So, just go chaotic neutral to be done with it! :D

    I agree with the whole Druid thing - people who truly want balance in everything have to remain neutral to al outside threats and look at it from a larger perspective. So do you think these people will generally have a larger reason of being (ie saving the world, trying to bring order to nature etc) or are they just chill dudes?

    Oh and also I think maybe not everyone who's TN has to be 'cold'. I mean it definitely makes sense and some definitely will be, but there might be some more jovial people out there who don't really care. But maybe that's more Chaotic Neutral...

    Vargr White-Tree said:

    Resoning beings cannot be true neutral.  As soon as you have the ability to reason, to know the why of something, you loose that instinctualness of true neutrality.  Show me a character that is true neutral and I'll show you a character that is actually all the other alignments except true neutral. 

    The ranger Karver described is what I would call Lawful Neutral they hold order as paramount in this case that order is described as balance.   Your ranger is willing to fight on both sides (wolves and men) in order to maintain that order/balance this is the same with the "classic" D&D definition of Neutral Druids, they are LN not TN by the definitoin provided. 

    The wepons merchant who sells to both sides of a war for profit is not TN they're Evil, they are knowingly consigning hundreds maybe thousands of people to death for their own benefit (a few more coins) this is selfishness on a evil scale NE, LE, or CE.

    Really only animals and creature of only animal levels of intelligence are True Neutral.  They exist simply in the now without thought of the implications, indeed they are incapable of thinking about the implications because they are not reasoning beings.  Animals function purely on instinct, they follow their urges to fulfill basic needs not out of selfishness but simply because that's what animals do. 

    Oooh, this is a nice point Vargr! And I think I actually agree, as soon as you have any bias or outside experience that'll shape you, you lose true neutrality. There would definitely be some situation where you can act neutrally, but not every situation can end like that. There has to be some bias result.

    But as far as the Druid example is concerned, I might have to disagree. To me 'Law' and 'Order' are different, if very similar. Druids want Order, which is an ever shifting equilibrium of sides, where Law is more about, well, laws, guidelines to follow. There aren't any guidelines in nature, just survival.

  • Member
    October 15, 2017

    @Zonnonn - Yeah Zonnonn after thinking about it I was kinda influenced by the characters I played in various games or wrote something about the last two - three years which have been for the most part rogues, rangers or some "weird" wizards and all of them were on the Chaotic Neutral side. Also agree that certainly there would be some more jovial people out there. That got me thinking that a TN character would have it hard most of the time and be conflicted  on how he has to act when he comes across serious things concerning maybe his friends, family or some other scenario (quest) in a fantasy setting etc. I don't know this is the hardest alignment for me to relate to even though Chaotic Neutral is my favorite alignment but it is still vastly different from the TN.

  • Member
    October 15, 2017

    @Zonnon - I'm good with a little contention, hah! I definitely see your point, but in my mind a lawful character intrinsically values law as an institution and procedure, and I don't think an average citizen really does. Consider a story breaking about a pedophile being killed by a vigilante; most average people are going to harbor an attitude along the lines of "good riddance to bad rubbish". The danger posed by the pedophile is mitigated, so they're fine with the lawless way in which it was done. I also think that (and maybe I'm being optimistic here) an average person wouldn't report a crime of necessity (ie a man stealing food for his children). That being said, a truly lawful character - in my eyes - is one who would be bound by the law regardless of what they may view as contextual circumstance, or personal opinion; they would be bound to report the man stealing for his kids. Average people break the law all the time (speeding up to get through a yellow light, not reporting under-the-table earnings, etc). Obviously these aren't indictable (or "big deal") crimes, but they still demonstrate a looseness, or somewhat cavalier attitude in regard to law as a legitimate institution of authority. They don't break the law all of the time, or for its own sake (this would make them chaotic in my opinion), but they don't follow it all of the time, or for its own sake, either; this serves to tell me that they aren't truly lawful. But hey, this is all subjective anyhow. Different strokes for different folks, right? 

     

  • Member
    October 15, 2017

    Duvain said:

    @Zonnonn - Yeah Zonnonn after thinking about it I was kinda influenced by the characters I played in various games or wrote something about the last two - three years which have been for the most part rogues, rangers or some "weird" wizards and all of them were on the Chaotic Neutral side. Also agree that certainly there would be some more jovial people out there. That got me thinking that a TN character would have it hard most of the time and be conflicted  on how he has to act when he comes across serious things concerning maybe his friends, family or some other scenario (quest) in a fantasy setting etc. I don't know this is the hardest alignment for me to relate to even though Chaotic Neutral is my favorite alignment but it is still vastly different from the TN.

    That's the thing isn't it? Can someone remain truly in the middle when they have family and friends, loved ones who they need and want to protect? If they can, they've gotta be the 'cold and calculating' ones you were talking about (but can they ever have family and friends, the rabbit hole continues), as a happy-chappy couldn't remain impartial to stuff like that in my eyes. Similar to what Vargr said, impartiality ends when relationships begin.

    Delidas said:

    @Zonnon - I'm good with a little contention, hah! I definitely see your point, but in my mind a lawful character intrinsically values law as an institution and procedure, and I don't think an average citizen really does. Consider a story breaking about a pedophile being killed by a vigilante; most average people are going to harbor an attitude along the lines of "good riddance to bad rubbish". The danger posed by the pedophile is mitigated, so they're fine with the lawless way in which it was done. I also think that (and maybe I'm being optimistic here) an average person wouldn't report a crime of necessity (ie a man stealing food for his children). That being said, a truly lawful character - in my eyes - is one who would be bound by the law regardless of what they may view as contextual circumstance, or personal opinion; they would be bound to report the man stealing for his kids. Average people break the law all the time (speeding up to get through a yellow light, not reporting under-the-table earnings, etc). Obviously these aren't indictable (or "big deal") crimes, but they still demonstrate a looseness, or somewhat cavalier attitude in regard to law as a legitimate institution of authority. They don't break the law all of the time, or for its own sake (this would make them chaotic in my opinion), but they don't follow it all of the time, or for its own sake, either; this serves to tell me that they aren't truly lawful. But hey, this is all subjective anyhow. Different strokes for different folks, right?

    Well colour me corrected mate! You've made an excellent point Delidas, one that is swaying me over to your side I think. I reckon that to really figure out why laws aren't broken you'd have to delve into some deeper psychology shizzle - is it preservation of self or the whole that drives people to not go over the spped limit etc? But maybe that's better left to another time, and perhaps with someone who didn't have to look up how to spell 'psychology' XD