I don't understand True Neutral
Grum
Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,100
Someone please explain.
Jaheira is clearly a good person. She is a harper, which is a very good aligned organization. She fights slavers, seeks to keep the realms safe. She balks at any evil course of action and can be counted on to always do the right thing. She comes across as being very clearly neutral good.
Faldorn is clearly an evil person. She is a shadow druid, which we clearly see resorts to murder (BG1, the poisoning of a druid enclave), terrorism (kill people so they don't even enjoy nature, which does happen in BG1) and all out warfare on population centers merely for existing (BG2). She also goes a step further in BG2 and poisons nature itself just to make herself immune to harm, which is so blatantly selfish that it is mind boggling.
How do they share the same alignment?
As I see it, you can believe that both good and evil are necessary for existence. That is being reasonable. But from there, you have intentions.
Would you sacrifice your own well being to help others? Do you try to make the world a better place? Congrats, you are neutral good!
Do you believe in the letter of the druid code, and are willing to enforce it no matter what (such as the druids who side with Faldorn even though they are unhappy with the way she is doing things)? Then you are lawful neutral.
Do you not give two figs about the happiness, well being, safety or survival of your fellow human beings? Will you kill people for disagreeing with you? Are you willing to destroy the very thing that you claim to protect for the sake of your own protection? Then you fall into the evil spectrum, depending on what you said yes to.
And yet, all of those very different people all share the same alignment. I just don't get it.
Jaheira is clearly a good person. She is a harper, which is a very good aligned organization. She fights slavers, seeks to keep the realms safe. She balks at any evil course of action and can be counted on to always do the right thing. She comes across as being very clearly neutral good.
Faldorn is clearly an evil person. She is a shadow druid, which we clearly see resorts to murder (BG1, the poisoning of a druid enclave), terrorism (kill people so they don't even enjoy nature, which does happen in BG1) and all out warfare on population centers merely for existing (BG2). She also goes a step further in BG2 and poisons nature itself just to make herself immune to harm, which is so blatantly selfish that it is mind boggling.
How do they share the same alignment?
As I see it, you can believe that both good and evil are necessary for existence. That is being reasonable. But from there, you have intentions.
Would you sacrifice your own well being to help others? Do you try to make the world a better place? Congrats, you are neutral good!
Do you believe in the letter of the druid code, and are willing to enforce it no matter what (such as the druids who side with Faldorn even though they are unhappy with the way she is doing things)? Then you are lawful neutral.
Do you not give two figs about the happiness, well being, safety or survival of your fellow human beings? Will you kill people for disagreeing with you? Are you willing to destroy the very thing that you claim to protect for the sake of your own protection? Then you fall into the evil spectrum, depending on what you said yes to.
And yet, all of those very different people all share the same alignment. I just don't get it.
3
Comments
With regard to Faldorn, I think the case for true neutral is that she's utterly devoted to a single cause (the protection of nature), and she will stop at nothing in order to carry out that cause. Her actions are not dictated by empathy (like a good character) or selfishness (like an evil character), but rather, solely by what is required to carry out her cause, whether those actions happen to be good or evil.
Yes, she fights evil and respects good allies, but she also argues with them at several situations, and openly disagrees when we take certain altruistic decisions. When it comes to evil companions, she shows a great deal of tolerance for Viconia and Edwin. She still despises their beliefs, though.
Compare Jaheira's reactions with Mazzy, Aerie, Keldorn or even Minsc's. Those who are definitely good characters are quite uninterested in associating with anyone who might take evil decisions. . Also, she shows little compassion for extremes - if she knew that Keldorn and Korgan were about to start a war, she would rather kill both leaders and have their armies flee the battlefield.
True neutral characters may show both compassion and cruelty , but are usually drawn by a neutral goal. It is the bard who entertains villages but never seems to make real friends, the druid who knows that life and death are natural and will prevent people from accelerating the process or even the mercenary who loves gold and will never swear fealty to a single commander.
Faldorn, meanwhile, is willing to warp and destroy the very nature she seeks to protect, in order to take revenge on civilized society. Like many shadow druids, I suspect her heart was once in the right place, but by BG2, at least, she's lost it. In BG1 she's a slightly more debatable case, but I'd still probably make her neutral evil.
I think it would've been interesting if, upon siding with your character against her fellow Harpers, Jaheira's alignment shifted to a good one, much like Anomen when you complete his quest.
Druid balance is a very tricky to point down as everyone has a different take on what true balance is. Is it to leave nature as it is (shadow druids) and going to extreme lengths to keep it that way, or is it to coexist (Jaheira) with nature as elves another woodland races do.
Druids tend to be TN because they won't side with a small hamlet looking to cull a wolf population that has been feeding on thier flock and may even harm he village if they do kill too many wolves. They may warn the village forst, amd help them build better structures to protect thier flocks, but they wouldn't harm the wolves.
An example of True Neutral is a bard who is looking to compose the ultimate song. He may follow around the lawful good Paladin as he smites evil, but will also follow around the tyrant blackguard that kills said hero.
He won't care that the black guard burnt down a village, and may even rejoice in such an act since it makes his song better.
He will not take action to stop him, but he also will not stand in the way if someone wants to kill him.
True neutral, the most misunderstood of all alignments, often causes problems for players. One common mistake is for neutral characters, such as druids, to seek a balance by deliberately acting chaotic evil one day and lawful good the next. Such behavior makes characters unpredictable, and the cumulative effect promotes chaos more than anything else.
Druids consider each alignment equally valid in a cosmic sense. They try to remain nonjudgmental and uncommitted to any specific moral, legal, or philosophical system beyond the basic tenets of the druidic order. Because a druid's main charges--plants, animals, and the health of the planetary ecology--essentially lack alignment or ethos, the character feels free to use almost any means necessary to protect them.
Chapter 4 of the Player's Handbook discusses alignments in a general sense; the druidic order works to maintain the natural balance among these alignments. (See "Keeper of the Balance" later in this chapter.) However, druids do realize that most individuals actions--including their own--will not prove significant to the cosmic balance. The druid sees the friction between alignments as the driving force in the world. Although most druids personally may prefer to live among good people, they recognize that the existence of evil keeps intelligent beings from stagnating.
Despite their neutral status, druids don't resent being pulled into the struggle between alignments. Neutral individuals do not lack interest, ambition, or passion--they value their own well-being and that of friends and loved ones. They may struggle passionately on behalf of themselves and others, as well as feel a compassion blanketing everything that makes up the Nature they swear to protect. Never doubt that druids will act for their own goals and the Order's.
For example, the druid Rebecca has no philosophical objection to helping a group of lawful good paladins and clerics defeat an evil dragon--if they can demonstrate a good reason. She won't agree to kill the dragon merely "because it is evil." But, she might help if the dragon had harmed or threatened her friends or a forest or village under her protection.
She might also offer assistance simply because she realizes the danger of living near a powerful and unpredictably evil creature inclined to wreak havoc upon the natural surroundings. Finally, she might join the party in return for a pledge that the members aid her in protecting a wilderness area from those who would exploit it--or in order to get treasure and magical items to do the job on her own.
Clearly, playing a druid true to alignment is no easy task. The character must consider carefully all the variables in a situation before acting. Remember that, when faced with a tough decision, a druid usually stands behind the solution that best serves Nature in the long run. So, Rebecca could have an equally valid reason to join a band of evil adventurers hunting a lawful good dragon as she has to join a good party hunting an evil dragon. Although a gold or silver dragon is unlikely to threaten Rebecca or her sacred grove, she might wish to use its treasure to purchase equipment to fight a greater threat or win the trust of an evil party she can use for her own ends.
Of course, druids understand that others may not take so pragmatic a view. Rebecca knows a party of adventurers wouldn't be pleased to find she has stymied its efforts. Alignment struggles constitute just another aspect of Nature, so Rebecca would never seek to stop the members of a party from continuing the struggle unless she deems it harmful to her own interests or those of the force she worships and safeguards.
A druid allied with a party of adventurers usually goes along with the party's actions unless they threaten trees, crops, wild plants, and other things the druid holds sacred. At the same time, the character needs a reason for joining a party--often something as simple as a desire to gain the experience and power needed to become a more effective guardian of Nature. Druids tend to react nonjudgmentally toward other races. With the possible exception of undead, they feel that every race and species has its place in the world.
For instance, a druid recognizes most orcs as evil and cruel. The character might not enjoy the company of orcs, but doesn't consider this feeling an excuse to exterminate the entire race. Conflict between orcs and humans is the way of the world, some druids say. They point out that orcs live a harsher existence than humans, often dwelling in the deadly subterranean world. And, while the average human may be less cruel than the average orc, mankind is capable of greater evil through superior organization and civilization.
Druids who stray from their alignment or cease to follow the tenets of the Order lose major sphere spell access and granted powers until they make atonement. In addition, the circle's great druid may place any subordinate druid under the ban as a temporal punishment for such violations.
People are not only their actions, they are also their motivations. And both of these are far too complex to be captured within nine frames of personality/alignment. I usually ignore the alignment description and focus on who my char is, and how he relates to the NPC's and their *personalities*.
In practice I almost invariably end up choosing Chaotic Neutral - for no other reason than the complimentary cat.
Instead of cherry-picking certain actions/thoughts/words of characters that appear to fit in the narrative that the alignment system is broken, consider looking at most (if not all) of the actions/thoughts/words of characters as a collective whole.
Consider Jaheira:
1. Worships Silvanus, a True Neutral god, instead of other good-aligned nature deities with druid clergy
2. Repeatedly emphasises the need for balance (all those selection speeches)
3. Refuses to raise Khalid from the dead because this is against the cycle of nature
4. Turns a blind eye to Harper plotting (plot line with Xzar and Montaron in BG2)
5. Is confused as she assesses her actions with PC on whether they fit the overall balance
Jaheira does have a benevolent side to her. However, there are also aspects of her that are not inconsistent with her True Neutral alignment. Note my double negative - "not inconsistent". In the overall scheme of things, it is not inconceivable that she is True Neutral, even if she appears less so than most. On the whole, consider her as a seeker of the balance (True Neutral), but her actions are tempered by her nascent good side - not enough of it to be officially good-aligned, but enough to color a shade or two.
Also, in 2E ADnD, characters who drift from their alignments suffer an experience penalty. I consider her professed confusion in #5 to be a valid in-game demonstration of her deviation from her alignment.
There is indeed a precedent of such an alignment. If you have read the stories of the Moonshaes, you may know Robyn Kendrick, Great Druid of the Moonshaes (worshipper of Chauntea as the Earthmother), whose alignment is given as True Neutral but with strong good tendencies. In game terms, N(G). I believe Jaheira is rather similar. However, the game does not allow for the inclusion of alignment extensions. All things considered, there is a case for her being good-aligned but it can also be argued that there is insufficient evidence for this.
1. Believes in the cause of nature above all
2. As a Shadow Druid, she feels the cause of nature has been betrayed by existing druidic circles
3. Shadow Druids are active in the wilderness but do not appear to encroach on civilised areas (Cloakwood, Druid Grove in Amn, wilderness)
For Faldorn, she is extreme, violent, and vindictive. However, if we view her actions as a collective whole, it can also be argued that she is a "Nature's Avenger" in a way to fight those who have violated nature. Shadow Druids may resort to extreme measures, but it's possible they see the balance as already been gravely disrupted hence they need to resort to extreme measures to rectify the situation. This does not preclude them having evil tendencies, of course. It's also possible she may be an N(E).
In another way, in 2E AD&D, all priests, including druids, pray for divine spells. If a druid fails the cause of the deity, the deity often denies spells as a punishment and demands penance before restoration of spells. That the Shadow Druids are competent spell casters suggests that they still have divine approval, or at least, they have not drawn the disapproval of their divine patron. As a comparison, Lolth denies her priestesses spells if they are outed as double agents of Vhaeraun.
I'll cite information on Silvanus since he is the most powerful of the non-good nature deities.
Silvanus' dogma as noted in 2E AD&D Faiths and Avatars has the description... "...They are strongly on the side of wild nature, the natural state of matters, over any civilising force..." If a True Neutral deity of nature espouses such a dogma, it should not be strange for a Shadow Druid to be violently opposed to civilisation if he feels that the cause of nature is gravely threatened. Silvanites are also known to sponsor brigands to thwart developments that they feel may threaten nature.
Also, one of Silvanus' affiliated orders is the Emerald Enclave, which is supposedly an aggressive sect considered radical even by fellow Silvanites who fear their actions may provoke a backlash against their cause. That they are still sanctioned by Silvanus also suggests that the Shadow Druids are not exactly out-of-step with the True Neutral alignment of their deity.
The whole point is... Shadow Druids as a whole, as they exist in the game, may not have gone past the point of no return where it is more appropriate to reclassify them as evil than neutral. Hence, as a Shadow Druid, Faldorn may still be considered a True Neutral character (even if a borderline one with evil tendencies).
But, like @Hudzy said, it's mainly because of restrictions.
Hopefully this gives a picture of how a character other than a Druid (though they are the most common TN class) would identify with an alignment such as TN: an alignment which caters much more to personal perceptions and relative circumstances than any of the other alignments - one which I, personally, believe is under-appreciated for it's awesome RP potential.
Of course, most people tend to see themselves as 'pretty much good, with the odd failing'.
Green activists or gay-rights promoters for example are exceptions, and fall into the (T)N category, because they believe that law isn't always correct. Or it may be downright flawed. This also includes people that believe that the moral compass of the world is pointing in the wrong direction. This is the liberal world-view as well.
Then there's always rebellious individuals, the party people, Artists and hippie types, which sometimes fall into the Chaotic Neutral territory. Not giving a damn about tomorrow, smoking weed and sometimes drinking their day away.
Working within the boundaries of the law to change them for what they see as being what is right.
A green or gay rights protestor doesn't believe in the balance of good and evil. They believe in saving the planet/equal rights. Two 'good' goals. And they work tirelessly against laws which they see as being harmful/oppressive/bigoted. That is behavior which is both lawful and good.
The same can be said of pro-lifers, who don't hurt, abuse, or attack anyone. Those who work within the system (ie: not screaming abuse or attacking people) for a cause they see as just, and to change a law they see as unjust, is lawful good.
Now a protestor of any kind who *breaks* the law, without hurting anyone else, to do what they see as right, is chaotic good.
Everyone who doesn't think about whether laws or good or bad and is just happy to follow them is lawful neutral.
Unlike D&D we don't have proven planes of good and evil, nor do we have detect spells (or spells of any kind!) So RL exames come down to intention (for good/evil) and action (law/chaos).
To paint liberals as true neutral is stange, given that it is kind of an anti-alignment.
To sum up:
Activists who obey the law: lawful good
Activists who break the law: chaotic good
Just follow the law: lawful neutral
Internet users in general: chaotic neutral, and on some forums, chaotic evil
A lawful good person is motivated to use the law in favor of the goals he believes in, be it improving healthcare, creating jobs for people or fighting global warming.
Chaotic Good people intentionally break the law to drive a point, or to prevent something from happening. They try to enforce the greater good, even when it means they break a few windows doing it. They do this in a way that doesn't harm people, and in the end, they have the common good at heart.
Lawful Good: Butters Stotch or paladin (conservative)
Neutral Good: Activist or dissident (liberal)
Chaotic Good: Rebel or freedom fighter (communist)
Lawful Neutral: Anomen or the CCP (establishment)
True Neutral: People who don't think about morality or Druids (simply neutral people)
Chaotic Neutral: Mao Zedong or the Yes Men from the movie Yes Man (free spirit)
Lawful Evil: Shyster or politician (fascist)
Neutral Evil: Eric Cartman or cutthroat businessman ("true evil" in DnD terminology)
Chaotic Evil: Warlord or terrorist (stereotypical orc)
Longer definition:
LG wants to do the right thing and never break the rules. Stereotypical good guy.
NG wants to help people, doesn't really care about the rules. Will break the rules if it helps people, will follow the rules if it helps people.
CG wants to help people, and thinks the system is an obstacle to that.
LN wants to follow the rules, whether it hurts people or helps people.
TN has two groups in DnD: either they want to preserve a balance for its own sake (doesn't want any group, either evil or good, to dominate the world), or are simply "non-aligned." An animal is non-aligned because it has no sense of morality. Some people have the same attitude. Nobody in our world fits the former kind; an office drone or someone simply floating through life would be the latter kind of TN.
CN either follows any whim that enters their head, or is simply anti-law. Haer'dalis does whatever is interesting to him, and so is CN. Mao Zedong wanted to revolutionize literally everything (I study China), and so is CN.
LE wants to profit him or herself, and prefers to use the system to do so. Will twist the law to suit their ends.
NE wants to profit him or herself, and will do whatever it takes to do so. Eric Cartman will openly break the law (Scott Tenorman) or manipulate the system (form a Christian rock band) to seek his goals.
CE wants to profit him or herself, and will kill people who get in the way.
I'd say LG and NG would be the most common alignments among people, though few people will dedicate their lives to any particular cause. We are mostly good, but we are not all dragonslayers.
I'd tend to agree that Faldorn became evil in the end, though I think that's the point of the Cernd quest, returning balance to the grove.
Whether killing is "murder" or evil obviously still relies on perspective. An LG Paladin would shed no tears after killing a group of marauding Gnolls and similarly a Shadow Druid would see themselves doing the right thing by wiping out a town and returning the land to nature.
Now that doesn't mean they aren't good people. They might be the funniest or most caring person you ever knew, but it doesn't mean they are of good alignment. An evil person could just as well be as funny as the good guy. Actually, the evil guy is probably funnier than the good guy..
To me, Drizzt is the pinnacle of goodness. The true good as there's true evil as well. A LG Paladin would eagerly dive into combat with a bunch of orcs to rid the countryside from their evil presence, whereas a NG Ranger would try to avoid the combat to prevent needless bloodshed. Now, if those orcs are threatening a village with an attack, the Ranger will dispatch the orcs as well, choosing the lesser evil.
When talking about real people, there are layers to people. Where a person might want to appear to be lawful good on the surface, they may have another layer that is selfish and only wants to appear good to profit from it. Or they may want both, to be good AND profit from it. They aren't mutually exclusive. On top of that, there may be supressed feelings that when let out are chaotic and metaphorically destructive. This happens for example when people get drunk and start to act violently.
@semiticgod So, this leads me to believe that LG and TN alignments are the rarest in the world. CE isn't too common either.
Since this thread has segued a bit into a discussion of alignments in general, I felt that I would post this chart, which I feel is one of the best alignment charts that I've come across:
Those paladins killed those Orcs! Now they will leave poor baby orcs at home all defenseless and scared and *sob* ALONE ! ! !
But those Orcs will grow up into big bad Orcs that could possibly eat me... So... What the paladins did was right? RIGHT ! ! !
But maybe we could have just sat around and talked it out? Solve it like rational, sentient life forms!
But paladins are not rational... A rational orc is one that has not eaten for a while...
Perhaps a game of paper, rock, scissors? Yeah!
In 2E Player's Handbook, in a description of how the CN character would behave in a party,
"... he would join forces with whichever side appealed to him most at the moment. If he couldn't decide he'd flip a coin."
However, put ourselves in the position of a human Dungeon Master and we can better understand the need for broad categorisations that govern the general behaviour of characters. If all non-player characters (who have to be controlled by the DM) have to be micromanaged, the DM may go insane from the herculean effort required.
Having such categorisations does not preclude DMs from exercising greater control over the characters they manage, especially for major NPCs, but where necessary or desirable, he can run them with a broad brush.
For all players (both DMs and players), having an alignment system can be helpful if we need to imagine content to fill in the gaps of characters whom we don't know in depth. The alignment system, for all its limitations and inadequacies, is a ready-to-use, relatively accessible set of guidelines for us to flesh out unknown characters quickly if required or desired for role-playing purposes.