So how would you describe a person that is True Neutral?

What behavior would they demonstrate?






Zapp Branigan knows all about Neutrality!



Zapp: What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Zapp: I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.

Zapp: Meanwhile, I have a plan. We will single-handedly attack our archenemy the Neutral Planet.

Zapp: Prepare to continue the epic struggle between good and neutral.

Zapp: Now, in the name of all that is good and honourable, we'll call the Neutral President with a message of peace, then blast him.

Zapp: This is Zapp Brannigan of the good ship... Planet Express Ship. I come swinging the olive branch of peace.
Neutral President's Aide: Should we trust him, Your Neutralness?
Neutral President: All I know is my gut says maybe.

Quote from: Bill;690479So how would you describe a person that is True Neutral?

What behavior would they demonstrate?


.

I would think there are a 3 main options (but I am probably mossing a few).

First is the Tao neutral. Good and Evil , Law and Chaos these are just human constructions masking the true nature of the universe. Such a person would strive to do nothing to take no action because all action is futile and instead devote themselves to meditation. A strict regime of physical and mental deprivation is probably out though(too lawful and supresses the inner self) so as they say Pooh just is.

Then there is the polar oposite to that. The selfish neutral cares only about themselves. They will help people if there is some benefit to themselves they will hurt people if it benefits themselves they will keep there word if there is no cost to it and they will break it if its expedient. they take no pleasure in evil so they won't take the Neutral evil path of comitting sin for its own sake but likewise they take no pleasure in helping people so won't veer to good.

Then there is neutral zealot. These guys, and they can only exist in a fictional world, exist to counter the powers of Law and Chaos, Good and Evil, unlike the tao neutral who withdraws from the world because these forces are illusional the zealot aims to actively balance the universe. They probably have a tattoo of a pair of scales on their back and they seek out powerful forces and literally neutralise them. (all Libras of course )

"Well, he's just this guy, you know?"

Quote from: Daztur;690485"Well, he's just this guy, you know?"

I can't recall....anything about him....strange....

Quote from: jibbajibba;690483I would think there are a 3 main options (but I am probably mossing a few

This pretty much covers it.

The selfish axis, though it typically on the good/evil line for me.

I actually liked Palladium's take on selfish alignments.  I think they had three different flavors.

As for D&D I could see the value in adding axises for clarity, so maybe self-centered-ness is one of them.  You could differentiate these types of neutral that way, as well as splitting the 'evil to harm' from 'evil from not caring'.

I've always considered Nuetral to be "True Good".

One definition of Evil is Selfish.

Quote from: Bill;690566One definition of Evil is Selfish.

Agreed but the idea of all those American's in their SUVs being really evil kind of weakens the word a little too much.

I prefer Evil to actively inflict harm as opposed to doing nothing to stop it.

I think you can map alignment on a cartesian grid and you need to get a ways past the inner ring, of vain, selfish and uncharitable to be truely Evil.

Quote from: jibbajibba;690574Agreed but the idea of all those American's in their SUVs being really evil kind of weakens the word a little too much.

I prefer Evil to actively inflict harm as opposed to doing nothing to stop it.

I think you can map alignment on a cartesian grid and you need to get a ways past the inner ring, of vain, selfish and uncharitable to be truely Evil.

Selfishness facilitates evil at the very least.

Quote from: jibbajibba;690574Agreed but the idea of all those American's in their SUVs being really evil kind of weakens the word a little too much.

"The love of money is the root of all evil."

Quote from: Bill;690566One definition of Evil is Selfish.

On the good/evil axis, "just" selfish - as in, "I owe you nothing" - is Neutral.

You've gotta be willing to actively harm others to cross over into Evil territory.

(I prefer the phrase "infringe on the natural rights of others", to clarify that competing for something, even if other people need it, isn't "Evil").

Not giving a beggar money isn't Evil.  It's Neutral.  Giving him money is Good.  Stealing his money is Evil.

I prefer 'Unaligned' to 'Neutral', though it makes as good a definition as any for a 'Neutral' position.

Neutral characters are just folks, who haven't explicitly aligned themselves with either the forces of Law or those of Chaos, because such axiomatic positions are one of extremes.

Neutrals are the moderate voters of the planes, the ones without a political party on their registration card and who vote with their conscience.

We've coined a term to describe our groups lately: maliciously neutral.

We're squarely on the side of good, but we're on the side of good for all the wrong reasons.  We're do-gooders because we're mercenaries.  And while we serve the greater good, we often get messy with the details.  We're willing to 'hurt' bad people in bad ways to achieve the greater good.

If you consider a 'good guy' like the Lone Ranger who never shoots to kill, a neutral person won't hesitate to shoot the bad guy in the back.  

It's not just what you do - it's why you do it.  A good person considers doing the right thing it's own reward.  A neutral person would rather do good than evil, but they need some enticement.

Quote from: J Arcane;690610I prefer 'Unaligned' to 'Neutral', though it makes as good a definition as any for a 'Neutral' position.

Yeah, I think "unaligned" is a useful concept to come out of 4e – definitely a lot more common and very distinct from 1e's druidic True Neutral ethos.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;690625We've coined a term to describe our groups lately: maliciously neutral.

We're squarely on the side of good, but we're on the side of good for all the wrong reasons.  We're do-gooders because we're mercenaries.  And while we serve the greater good, we often get messy with the details.  We're willing to 'hurt' bad people in bad ways to achieve the greater good.

If you consider a 'good guy' like the Lone Ranger who never shoots to kill, a neutral person won't hesitate to shoot the bad guy in the back.  

It's not just what you do - it's why you do it.  A good person considers doing the right thing it's own reward.  A neutral person would rather do good than evil, but they need some enticement.

People often overlook intent as part of alignment.