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.
Maybe it also matters how much you care about your beliefs.
A casual neutral is the guy who wants to stay out of trouble, not take sides, just mind his own business. Don't rock the boat and not really feel very strongly about anything in particular. He doesn't leave home a lot.
The zealous neutral is invested in no one getting the upper hand... he's an active iconoclast who will seek to weaken any faction that gains power. He'll throw in with whoever he perceives to be the underdog... for a while. Might sign on as a mercenary/hireling. Might raise a small army of like-minded warriors.
Quote from: jibbajibba;690483I 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.
This is in no way an accurate description of Taoism.
Taoism is actually about the opposite of taking no action; its about taking the right action at all times and not trying to force your own ideas onto reality (be those ideas "bash everything that gets in my way literally or metaphorically" or "avoid doing anything and get as stuck as possible right where I am"). The right metaphor for Taoism is of trying to stay in the flow of a river's current. Whether this is true Neutral or not, I can't say; but it sounds more like it than "avoid all actions".
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;691255This is in no way an accurate description of Taoism.
Taoism is actually about the opposite of taking no action; its about taking the right action at all times and not trying to force your own ideas onto reality (be those ideas "bash everything that gets in my way literally or metaphorically" or "avoid doing anything and get as stuck as possible right where I am"). The right metaphor for Taoism is of trying to stay in the flow of a river's current. Whether this is true Neutral or not, I can't say; but it sounds more like it than "avoid all actions".
RPGPundit
I was just taking the concept of Wu Wei and applying it to a discussion of the D&D alignment nuetral and calling it a Taoisty approach was a simple shorthand. the explanation as always is more important than the label.
Quote from: jibbajibba;691367I was just taking the concept of Wu Wei and applying it to a discussion of the D&D alignment nuetral and calling it a Taoisty approach was a simple shorthand. the explanation as always is more important than the label.
So you were just going with the flow?
Quote from: jibbajibba;691367I was just taking the concept of Wu Wei and applying it to a discussion of the D&D alignment nuetral and calling it a Taoisty approach was a simple shorthand. the explanation as always is more important than the label.
Again, though, "wu wei" is not "doing nothing". That's a common but profoundly incorrect understanding of Taoist concepts.
Wu Wei means "effortless", that is, naturalness. It means acting in accordance one's true nature, and thus the harmony of the universe. It is the equivalent of the western hermetic (thelemic) notion of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" (AL I:40), elaborated by the notion "For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect" (AL I:44).
That is, Taoism says that if you "know yourself" (or your Will, so to say) then you will be able to act always in harmony with the will of nature. And doing so is effortless, because all the force of the Tao is trying to push that along.
RPGPundit
GOOD: I act to increase the well-being of others, even at a cost to myself
NEUT: I don't do hurtful things, but I wont help you if it harms me
EVIL: I act for my own benefit, even if it harms others
CHAOS: I don't care about tomorrow or what people think of me, I'm just about the moment
NEUT: I don't want to be crazy, but sometimes you've just got to cut loose
LAW: I follow the rules and I make plans for my future, even when that requires sacrifice
Working on my minor osr effort, Druids & Doldrums I've reworked alignment so it now reflects what Totemic animal a character is aligned with, and affects beginning stats and magical affinities. I went with 9 choices, all animals I thought the most iconic in Celtic folklore, so a PC's alignment could be
Bear, Boar, Hawk, Owl, Raven, Stag, Swan, Trout, or Wolf
Each is associated with some stereotypical personality traits, like Astrological Signs, but these aren't enforced and it's perfectly acceptable to play against type.
My true neutral characters end up like Gordon Gekko. Ruthless, but never bloodthirsty. Actions are typically born of enlightened self-interest, rather than from ethos or instinct. As prone to sentimentality as anyone else, but vindictive when this aspect of their nature is abused.
It's usually my preferred playstyle, period.
Quote from: Shauncat;694397My true neutral characters end up like Gordon Gekko. Ruthless, but never bloodthirsty.
Apparently, I've missed a few of those insurance commercials.
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.
Quote from: Old Geezer;690605"The love of money is the root of all evil."
Hey, hey, HEY! The reason why "selfish" is no longer considered "evil" and we don't use the "love of money" quote very much is because you can't have a properly-functioning capitalist economy if envy and greed are considered "sins". Who's going to buy the most expensive, gas-guzzling vehicles available if everyone thinks that's morally wrong?
My own definition of "Neutral" is "unaligned". I don't like to equate alignment to behavior or personality, but "Neutral" is basically people minding their own business and focusing on worldly concerns. You have some who are generous and friendly, some who are a little more clannish, some who are pretty selfish, but in a petty way.
Law and Chaos (I don't use Good/Evil) are the "Big Picture" guys. Adherents of Law believe the universe is an orderly place and they are devoted to keeping it that way, willing to make a few self-sacrifices or sacrifices of others to maintain the Cosmic Order. Adherents of Chaos are the supremely selfish, only working together for as long as it benefits them, dedicated to taking over or destroying as much as they can. But I kind of think that the terms "Law" and "Chaos" were chosen partly because each GM can and probably should define them for their own campaign; Neutral is the only thing I think is well-defined, at least before the 9-fold alignment and the BS about True Neutrals and the Balance.
Quote from: talysman;694419Hey, hey, HEY! The reason why "selfish" is no longer considered "evil" and we don't use the "love of money" quote very much is because you can't have a properly-functioning capitalist economy if envy and greed are considered "sins". Who's going to buy the most expensive, gas-guzzling vehicles available if everyone thinks that's morally wrong?
There are two approaches you can take to "greed". One is the attitude espoused here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF_iorX_MAw (take note, NOT a reptile that sells insurance). That ambition is something that all can exercise equally, and do the same as you do to accumulate wealth and power, lifting themselves by the bootstraps. An attitude born of empathy and a belief in shared humanity, if not always a realistic perspective.
Others believe that what they take for themselves is their imminent domain, due to a greatness that is either inherent to them (Raskolnikov, The Joker, the archetypical "bad" businessman), or because of superior ideology (fascism, nationalist socialism, etc). That is where "greed" becomes "evil".
The second just sounds like a rationalization for the first.
I'd separate it this way:
There is Greed (Gluttony/Lust), where a person just wants everything they could possibly have.
Then there is Greed (malicious), where the person doesn't just want everything, they want other people to not have stuff as well.
I generally interpret neutral as "the average person". Some of them want to claim they have high ideals but when push comes to shove those ideals fold; others want to pretend they're tough loners and badasses but when push comes to shove they will submit and obey with the rest of the crowd.
Most of them really just want a comfortable life for themselves.
Lawful and Chaotic are for people with strong conviction, AND the courage of their convictions.
RPGPundit