True Neutral [Archive] - Wizards Community

True Neutral [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Zen5887
02-16-08, 11:25 AM This is my first time playing a N character (gnome bard) and I have become quite confused.

I planned him to be a wandering sage (think Taoist sages) who had done a whole heap of jobs in his life (RP reason for having the jack of all trades feat). He stays out of peoples way a lot but he isnt selfish - if someone asks for advice he will offer it. Thats my idea of N

One of the dudes I game with says that N must keep a balance meaning for every good act he does he must follow it up with an evil act. I disagree with this however this guy (most of the time) knows his stuff so I wasnt sure..

Also any tips/ideas for playing an N character would be good

Thanks!
- Lachlan
Ironblue
02-16-08, 03:40 PM That's an interesting conundrum, Zen. By the way, that's a really cool character... Giving him a taoist-type philosophy is a great way to add a vague and contemplative moral center for his actions.

True Neutral, if that is indeed what you're playing, is both one of the easiest and hardest alignments to roleplay. On one hand, you're really not bound by any sort of code defining how you have to act in a certain situation, but on the other hand, you have absolutely no easy morality or temperament guidelines to fall back on when you are unsure of what to do. Oftentimes, a truly neutral character may agree with the views of another, perhaps more opinionated character, if only because your gnome happens to personally like that guy. Otherwise, you could literally do nothing, and wait for a course of action to present itself to you... this is probably the most true neutral thing you could do, and it reinforces the Taoist, wise, wait-and-see kind of angle you got going there.

If your character tends to commit good acts more often, and doesn't generally commit evil acts at all, then perhaps your alignment is better represented by neutral good. Still, if you want to stay TN, I don't think you're doing anything wrong in the first place. There's no written law for committing one evil act for every one good act... that kind of idea is, in itself, a very biased and lawful dogma, and isn't what neutrality's all about.

The definition of good and evil is probably something you should clear up for yourself as well, because it may surprise you how differently people view supposedly 'good' or 'evil' acts. I've been in campaigns where the rogue was allowed to pick plenty of pockets and lie through his teeth without anyone batting an eye, and others where that very same rogue could tell a joke about picking a fellow adventurer's pocket, and instantly be suspected of an 'evil' act.

It's all about how much everything is taken in moderation. Continuing the rogue example, I'd consider that character to be neutral until he goes so far as to harm somebody in his quest for easy money, once he really starts being nasty, he's committing evil acts. Otherwise, I'd say the occasional thief's greed is selfish, but still neutral.
Terjon of the Blue Rose
02-16-08, 10:13 PM Personally I tend to see alignment heavily in terms of intention. A person who does a good deed because it's the right thing to do is good, where a person who does a good deed because it's the easy thing to do is often nuetral. You're fine with a nuetral alignment because you're not seeking out opportunities to do good.

You may well simply find that evil actions come with consequences you wish to avoid while good ones often come with rewards you enjoy. If that's why you prefer good to evil then there is nothing wrong with calling it N. You are playing someone who doesn't much care for good or evil and that's certainly N. Of course if this is your route then don't forget that their will be times when evil will work sufficiently to your benefit you are willing to take the appropriate consequences. In those situations you should consider and probably even act in an evil fashion.
CrimsonDeath
02-17-08, 08:47 PM There are two types of true neutral characters. The kind your friend mentioned are the less common, who actively pursue balance. The other kind are far more common. They pretty much react to things as they happen, acting mostly in their own self-interest but not actively harming people if they can help it, following laws whenever it's convenient and breaking them only when it's unlikely that they'll get caught. The vast majority of Humans in D&D-- especially NPCs-- are that type of True Neutral.
Tovec
02-18-08, 01:09 PM A few points.

All animals are N.
Most commoners are N.
People say in real life I'm N.

Neutral is, as said before, a lack of wanting to do something. I think it fits fine with your wanderer. Fharlanghn is the N wanderer.

You don't seek out evil but you don't do good for good's sake. You help someone because they asked not because you feel obligated to help.

In general people won't go out of their way to help the less fortunate. Some may offer to help the old lady across the street. In general most won't, unless asked.

I would check with your DM, and play it by ear. If he feels you are slipping NG then accept it unless you are trying to maintain your N status.
Orchomenos
02-18-08, 02:14 PM Would you offer an advice to a Good character if he asks? Probably yes.
Would you offer an advice to an Evil character if he asks? Probably yes.

Would you put your life at risk to save a kitty in a tree? Probably no.
Would you behead a kitty just for the sake of it? Probably no.

Result: True Neutral.
Passivearmada
02-19-08, 05:28 PM You see, this is exactly why True Neutral is my favorite alignment: do what you want, and don't feel pressured to do anything.

"I wanna help the old lady across the street!" You can!
"I wanna go steal from the mean old rich merchant!" You can!
"I wanna sit at home today!" YOU CAN!

"I wanna go kill off a village of halflings and become a necrophiliac!" Well, you can't do that without shifing alignment, and if you're a munchkin, then I'm sure you can become Chaotic Good:
"I swear, i just tapped him on the arm a little too hard, and they all attacked me. If I hadn't killed them, who knows what they woud have done?!"

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zen5887 02-16-08, 11:25 AM	This is my first time playing a N character (gnome bard) and I have become quite confused. I planned him to be a wandering sage (think Taoist sages) who had done a whole heap of jobs in his life (RP reason for having the jack of all trades feat). He stays out of peoples way a lot but he isnt selfish - if someone asks for advice he will offer it. Thats my idea of N One of the dudes I game with says that N must keep a balance meaning for every good act he does he must follow it up with an evil act. I disagree with this however this guy (most of the time) knows his stuff so I wasnt sure.. Also any tips/ideas for playing an N character would be good Thanks! - Lachlan
Ironblue 02-16-08, 03:40 PM	That's an interesting conundrum, Zen. By the way, that's a really cool character... Giving him a taoist-type philosophy is a great way to add a vague and contemplative moral center for his actions. True Neutral, if that is indeed what you're playing, is both one of the easiest and hardest alignments to roleplay. On one hand, you're really not bound by any sort of code defining how you have to act in a certain situation, but on the other hand, you have absolutely no easy morality or temperament guidelines to fall back on when you are unsure of what to do. Oftentimes, a truly neutral character may agree with the views of another, perhaps more opinionated character, if only because your gnome happens to personally like that guy. Otherwise, you could literally do nothing, and wait for a course of action to present itself to you... this is probably the most true neutral thing you could do, and it reinforces the Taoist, wise, wait-and-see kind of angle you got going there. If your character tends to commit good acts more often, and doesn't generally commit evil acts at all, then perhaps your alignment is better represented by neutral good. Still, if you want to stay TN, I don't think you're doing anything wrong in the first place. There's no written law for committing one evil act for every one good act... that kind of idea is, in itself, a very biased and lawful dogma, and isn't what neutrality's all about. The definition of good and evil is probably something you should clear up for yourself as well, because it may surprise you how differently people view supposedly 'good' or 'evil' acts. I've been in campaigns where the rogue was allowed to pick plenty of pockets and lie through his teeth without anyone batting an eye, and others where that very same rogue could tell a joke about picking a fellow adventurer's pocket, and instantly be suspected of an 'evil' act. It's all about how much everything is taken in moderation. Continuing the rogue example, I'd consider that character to be neutral until he goes so far as to harm somebody in his quest for easy money, once he really starts being nasty, he's committing evil acts. Otherwise, I'd say the occasional thief's greed is selfish, but still neutral.
Terjon of the Blue Rose 02-16-08, 10:13 PM	Personally I tend to see alignment heavily in terms of intention. A person who does a good deed because it's the right thing to do is good, where a person who does a good deed because it's the easy thing to do is often nuetral. You're fine with a nuetral alignment because you're not seeking out opportunities to do good. You may well simply find that evil actions come with consequences you wish to avoid while good ones often come with rewards you enjoy. If that's why you prefer good to evil then there is nothing wrong with calling it N. You are playing someone who doesn't much care for good or evil and that's certainly N. Of course if this is your route then don't forget that their will be times when evil will work sufficiently to your benefit you are willing to take the appropriate consequences. In those situations you should consider and probably even act in an evil fashion.
CrimsonDeath 02-17-08, 08:47 PM	There are two types of true neutral characters. The kind your friend mentioned are the less common, who actively pursue balance. The other kind are far more common. They pretty much react to things as they happen, acting mostly in their own self-interest but not actively harming people if they can help it, following laws whenever it's convenient and breaking them only when it's unlikely that they'll get caught. The vast majority of Humans in D&D-- especially NPCs-- are that type of True Neutral.
Tovec 02-18-08, 01:09 PM	A few points. All animals are N. Most commoners are N. People say in real life I'm N. Neutral is, as said before, a lack of wanting to do something. I think it fits fine with your wanderer. Fharlanghn is the N wanderer. You don't seek out evil but you don't do good for good's sake. You help someone because they asked not because you feel obligated to help. In general people won't go out of their way to help the less fortunate. Some may offer to help the old lady across the street. In general most won't, unless asked. I would check with your DM, and play it by ear. If he feels you are slipping NG then accept it unless you are trying to maintain your N status.
Orchomenos 02-18-08, 02:14 PM	Would you offer an advice to a Good character if he asks? Probably yes. Would you offer an advice to an Evil character if he asks? Probably yes. Would you put your life at risk to save a kitty in a tree? Probably no. Would you behead a kitty just for the sake of it? Probably no. Result: True Neutral.
Passivearmada 02-19-08, 05:28 PM	You see, this is exactly why True Neutral is my favorite alignment: do what you want, and don't feel pressured to do anything. "I wanna help the old lady across the street!" You can! "I wanna go steal from the mean old rich merchant!" You can! "I wanna sit at home today!" YOU CAN! "I wanna go kill off a village of halflings and become a necrophiliac!" Well, you can't do that without shifing alignment, and if you're a munchkin, then I'm sure you can become Chaotic Good: "I swear, i just tapped him on the arm a little too hard, and they all attacked me. If I hadn't killed them, who knows what they woud have done?!"