Skip to content

Which Neutral Alignment Do You Prefer to Play?

13»

Comments

  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975
    Kaigen said:


    Furthermore, you talk in Good and Evil as if they are subjective terms and merely "teams," which ignores the fact that they are objective concepts in D&D and that a creature gains an alignment out of behavior. If you do more harm than good with your actions, then your alignment will inexorably shift to Evil.

    A serious problem with that, however, is that it is impossible to agree on what entails "doing more harm than good" in real life, and thus by necessity some of what constitutes "good" is going to be arbitrary rules (hey, isn't that normally a Lawful thing?) that reasonable non-evil people disagree with.

    Citation: Every political debate ever. Special attention paid to debates about terrorism, and the United States in general.
    Kaigen said:


    Alignment is not a jersey you are assigned, it is a reflection of your actions and intentions. And a Demon is not misapplying a perceived good or failing to fully comprehend its own actions, it is a being dedicated to bringing pain and destruction to everything.

    I believe even in D&D it is possible for a demon or devil to have a different alignment than the norm. If not, I assume more people would complain about Fall-From-Grace. Modrons can do it (albeit only by breaking free of their collective), why not anything else?
  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    I have to agree with @kaigen here. Good and evil are not subjective, and I still think that neutral characters try to maintain balance with their actions. And @battlehamster, I don't think you can effectively use the gnoll stronghold for your argument because they had captured dynahair and planned to eat her, and most gnolls barley have enough intelligence to speak. And, the gnolls attack as soon as you see them, before you can even talk to them.
  • BattlehamsterBattlehamster Member Posts: 298
    Kaigen said:

    @Battlehamster To me you seem to be conflating Thoughtfulness with Neutrality, when I consider Thoughtfulness to be a trait independent from alignment.

    This was the EXACT point I was trying to make. A 100% perfectly True Neutral character would, by definition, have to be non-bias when it comes to all things and would necessarily have to literally exist outside the bounds of alignment altogether and exist in a state where all actions are governed by pure reason not by morality as all moral judgements are in of themselves biases towards something being better than another - which is why no perfectly True Neutral agents ACTUALLY exist and why we wouldn't desire anyone to be "True Neutral". To be perfectly true neutral would make you perfectly apathetic as well - something no living creature would desire as it would make us unfeeling abominations - but attempting to reach that state is good because the process betters us individually and we need not fear ever truly reaching that point. By all rights its an alignment which really shouldn't even be playable, not without at least some slight bias on the alignment scales. Regardless, I like to play true neutral anyways because I enjoy contradicting philosophies whenever possible - it challenges both myself as well as the philosophy.
    In my view, a Thoughtful Good character acts much in the way you describe a True Neutral character--considering the impact of their actions and trying to achieve the greatest good for as many as possible (and that includes considering the consequences of allowing unrepentant evil to continue unchecked). Whereas a Thoughtful Evil character acts in their own interests while considering ways in which their actions might backfire on them in the future.
    And in my example, a thoughtful evil character isn't truly possible, or at least would exist as being LESS thoughtful than the good one. A good person could be more or less chaotic or lawful, but being less thoughtful precedes more evil while more thoughtful leads to more good. Its not an argument of good vs. evil - just an argument against excess vs. deficiency but since you can't have an excess of infinite knowledge, gaining knowledge and insight is ALWAYS better as you are trying to make it halfway to infinity from a point of zero. But if infinity is truly infinite, making it halfway to infinity is still, well...an infinite path.

    Any act which causes harm to another harms the tapestry of their own reality despite it being subjective. A thoughtful good character as you described as they see the consequences of their own actions extending beyond their own life and thus has the information to really be a thoughtful character. A thoughtful Evil character on the other hand lacks the insight to see how their actions will damage their subjective reality beyond their own life. The thoughtful good character is simply MORE thoughtful than the evil one as the former can foresee more consequences than the evil one. If on the other hand, an evil character could have insight on more consequences than the good one, and could foresee that benefiting him or herself benefited their subjective reality the most even past their own life - then I'd have a difficult time saying they were evil, ex: Someone who engages in a terrible war to become king knowing that such an action will lead to an millennium long golden age of peace and prosperity for example - tends to be very morally grey because often we only consider the immediate undesired consequence "death" and are unable to perceive the long term consequence of peace, prosperity, and non-suffering. This of course is assuming their thoughtfulness is derived from actual facts and information rather than assumption and supposition. Oftentimes we call people who make these claims "evil" because they don't actually have a factual basis to support their claims and commit a great evil assuming there will be good consequences without any legitimate concrete reason to support that assumption - thus making them "evil".


    For the record, I'm not disagreeing with the ideal of true neutrality - I'm actually trying to say its impossible for someone to fully be true neutral and interact with the world. My argument is that trying to aspire to be the perfectly "True Neutral" neutral is a worthy goal since in so doing it encourages you to be thoughtful bt eradicating your biases, but since its an untenable goal it simultaneously leaves thoughtlessness and biases in place so that we are always having to strive to better ourselves.

    You can't make the realms a better place if they're already perfect.
    Evil carried to its extreme is unlimited pain, suffering, self-agrandization and short-sighted.

    Good carried to its extreme is selflessness, the ability to perceive consequences to avoid accidental evil but the inability to prevent evil as doing so would be an evil in of itself

    Neutrality carried to its extreme would be apathetic, unfeeling and un-opinionated, but unbiased enlightened and always able to make any choices as all choices stem from a form of bias.

    In-between evil and neutrality is self-value, the inability to perceive consequences and the creation of accidental evil and the ability to make the "right" choice while simultaneously neglecting the "right" outcome.

    In-between good and neutrality is selflessness, the ability to perceive some consequences to avoid most accidental evil but at the same time respecting the self enough that some evil is allowed so that it isn't continued understanding that some long term consequences are evil. It allows just enough bias to allow for action, and empathy, but not so much that bias is used to justify a choice lacking thoughtfulness and permitting unwarranted supposition.

  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    Isn't there something official that tells us the exact definitions of alignments so we don't have to argue over what they mean?
    Not that this is bad or anything, but shouldn't we consult the original stuffs?
  • MortiannaMortianna Member Posts: 1,356
    http://easydamus.com/alignment.html has, in my opinion, one of the most thorough discussions of each of the nine alignments that incorporates canonical sources from the 1st through 3rd editions.

    There seems to be two general types of "Neutral Neutral" alignments: Absolute Neutral and True Neutral.

    My favorite alignment quiz has interesting discussions on the differences between Absolute Neutral and True Neutral. While some people have been put off by the tone of his writing, I like his analysis because he doesn't equivocate; he says what he really thinks.
  • JohnSmith921030JohnSmith921030 Member Posts: 10
    True neutral with lawful good tendencies. However I don't play neutral very often.
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975


    And in my example, a thoughtful evil character isn't truly possible, or at least would exist as being LESS thoughtful than the good one. A good person could be more or less chaotic or lawful, but being less thoughtful precedes more evil while more thoughtful leads to more good. Its not an argument of good vs. evil - just an argument against excess vs. deficiency but since you can't have an excess of infinite knowledge, gaining knowledge and insight is ALWAYS better as you are trying to make it halfway to infinity from a point of zero. But if infinity is truly infinite, making it halfway to infinity is still, well...an infinite path.

    Any act which causes harm to another harms the tapestry of their own reality despite it being subjective. A thoughtful good character as you described as they see the consequences of their own actions extending beyond their own life and thus has the information to really be a thoughtful character. A thoughtful Evil character on the other hand lacks the insight to see how their actions will damage their subjective reality beyond their own life. The thoughtful good character is simply MORE thoughtful than the evil one as the former can foresee more consequences than the evil one. If on the other hand, an evil character could have insight on more consequences than the good one, and could foresee that benefiting him or herself benefited their subjective reality the most even past their own life - then I'd have a difficult time saying they were evil, ex: Someone who engages in a terrible war to become king knowing that such an action will lead to an millennium long golden age of peace and prosperity for example - tends to be very morally grey because often we only consider the immediate undesired consequence "death" and are unable to perceive the long term consequence of peace, prosperity, and non-suffering. This of course is assuming their thoughtfulness is derived from actual facts and information rather than assumption and supposition. Oftentimes we call people who make these claims "evil" because they don't actually have a factual basis to support their claims and commit a great evil assuming there will be good consequences without any legitimate concrete reason to support that assumption - thus making them "evil".

    I disagree. To my mind, you are making the unwarranted assumption that being thoughtful equates to being concerned about damaging others. A brilliant, patient, methodical thinker who can see the results of their actions with uncanny forethought can still not give a damn about anyone but themselves.

    To put it another way, what you call "consequences" are only consequences if you consider them consequential. If you don't really care what happens to reality after you're dead, then it would seem foolish to you, not thoughtful, to govern your actions based on what consequences might occur after your death. A sort of perfect machiavellian character (acknowledging the irony that "the Prince" was not actually an instruction manual) could be very thoughtful to any reasonable sense of the word, but still not have any desire beyond their own power and wealth.

    This is doubly so in D&D since "living forever" is not necessarily an unreachable goal. :)

    [Deleted User]
  • wampawampa Member Posts: 68
    There are lots of epistemological issues associated with D&D alignments - characters willing to kill for what they perceive to be as the greater good of all mankind can get dumped firmly into both good and evil camps. Pragmatism, as a characteristic, also can allow a character to be lumped into good or evil camps. There's plenty of that apparently-good guy turning out to be an evildoer, but "having trust and faith in that apparently-bad guy over there" rarely makes the PC suffer.

    Take the classic evil overlord list - Don't allow the good PC to infiltrate your organization to destroy it from within because you're confident you can corrupt him and turn him to the dark side. Maybe you succeed temporarily, but inevitably the initially-good character later has a moment of dramatic heroism / redemption and backstabs you for the good of all mankind.

    The converse rarely, if ever, happens to the good PC who takes a chance on the evil NPC and allows him/her to tag along on his adventures. These characters are often redeemed, or at least just so impressed with the PC's level in badass that they decide it's best to be a helpful goon even if the PC is being all righteous and saving innocents.
  • LordRumfishLordRumfish Member Posts: 937
    Chaotic Neutral just has this freedom about it. I can be nice, I can be mean, I can kill this guy for any reason I like, or I can help little girls get their drowned cats back. I can be friends with whoever I want, for whatever capricious reason I like. It's fun.
Sign In or Register to comment.