Post/Author/DateTime	Post
disposable 11-18-06, 09:52 AM	When explaining alignment to players, I often help them understand alignments by given them examples of a few famous characters (or historical figures) that represent each alignment. This approach generally works quiet well. Sayings "Sir Lancelot" can instantly convey the image of a crusading Lawful Good knight. Saying "Robin Hood" can instantly convey the notion of the chaotic good outlaw. Adolph Hitler or Charles Manson can quickly convey LE and CE. Obviously, whole discussions could be held about whether these characters/people actually ARE the alignments I've assigned them. But regardless of whether they really are or not, they are a useful teaching device-- they get the idea across. Only problem is-- I'm stuck when it comes to True Neutral. I don't really know what to say for that one. Can anyone think of a famous character from a book or movie that might qualify as "True Neutral"? Willy Wonka, particularly as portrayed by Gene Wilder, strikes me a one possible candidate. When bad things happen to "bad" children, he responds with a certain detachment that suggests True Neutrality. When bratty Veruca and her father fall into tube to the incinerator, the LG Charlie Bucket asks if they will really be incinerated. Wonka, rather than intervening to prevent or ensure their deaths , merely replies "Well, I think that furnace is only lit every other day, so they have a good sporting chance, haven't they? " Other than him, I can't think of any fictional characters that might be true neutral, but there must be some. Dr. Strangelove, perhaps-- existing as advisor, but seeming unfazed by the imminent destruction of the world? Similarly, if anyone can think of a famous person who qualifies as True Neutral, that would work too, but here I'm skeptical that anyone comes up. People often talk about adherents of eastern religions when True Neutral is discussed, but all the famous ones I can think of (e.g. Gandhi, Dalai Lama, etc) seem more like dedicated crusaders for Good than True Neutrals. Totally guessing now. J. Robert Oppenheimer, perhaps? Fearing a world dominated by Nazis he works hard to develop the atomic bomb-- only to lament the bomb's existence afterwards? Does anyone have any ideas for famous people or fictional characters are True Neutral (or if not actually BEING True Neutral, at least exhibit trends in that direction)?
Need_A_Life 11-18-06, 10:05 AM	Arthur Dent.
Vintar 11-18-06, 10:24 AM	Anyone really into Tauism (Ying/Yang). Yoda (might have very slight leanings to good)
Gahread 11-18-06, 11:17 AM	The random joe snuffy. He's just trying to make a living. Laws are a good thing in general, but some aren't important/can be gotten around/oops was I just speeding officer? Likewise, do unto others and all that, but it's not worth bending yourself out of shape to volunteer every day or anything along those lines.
CharlieRock 11-18-06, 12:05 PM	I prefer to think of Dr.Strangelove (http://www.filmsite.org/drst.html) as TN, myself. Talk about emotional detachment, impending global doom didn't seem to derail his trains of thought. :cool: (Peter Sellers was nominated for Academy Award for his triple role in the film).
Thubby 11-18-06, 12:50 PM	RED X FROM TEEN TITANS, if their is a more neutral character out there, id like to see him. he takes what he wants, but doesnt take any pleasure in hurting people, he just wants what he wants, and he takes it. as he said "not everyone wants to play the big villain" he was even willing to help save the city, not to save the city, but because he doesnt like beng discintegrated
Malkieri 11-18-06, 01:02 PM	An interesting thread, TN is so ambiguous to me, I don't even allow TN characters in my games. Why? I find it difficult to believe someone can have no moral/structural inclinations whatsoever. I mean, as TN you'd have to not care for law, chaos, good, or evil. It's the ultimate shallowness to me, someone who's so worried about themselves or their own world they could care less about anything else, in that aspect, Willy Wonka is a good example I believe. The PHB description doesn't make sense, I mean, it basically describes a neutral "almost good". Anyhow, I consider Roland in the Dark Tower Series as TN early on, in the first few book. Why? Well, he doesn't seem to care about morality, or good/evil, the only thing he cares for in any way, is the completion of his quest. Now, this changes as the series progresses. However, I have a hard time deciding if he's TN or LN, since he does have a personal "code" he goes by, which is reminiscent of the kind of "lawful" described under the monk. Anyway, that's my 2 cents
JerBar 11-18-06, 01:03 PM	Most reporters are trying to be TN when it comes to reporting the news. It's not easy but some may have accomplished it. I would not call Willy Wanka TN, more like CN. There is no rhyme or reason to what happens in the Chocolate factory. Red X, again I would say is CN, takes what he wants with no regard for Law or Order in any way. The thing about being true neutral is that it means you are rarely shooting for any higher purpose, and so it is difficult for a TN character to become the "Star" in written material. It is usually the TNs who become side characters. Like the guy who sells weapons to both sides of a conflict, or the merc who's faverate quote is "I don't care about your cause, I just want the money". --edit-- although that might be LN as well--
olshanski_home 11-18-06, 01:09 PM	What would you call Clint Eastwood's main character in Unforgiven? He breaks the law, but he has a moral code. He commits murder, but some would say it was for a good cause. He certainly had loyalty and was selfless.
Zerchai 11-18-06, 01:26 PM	I believe Thomas Covenant in Stephen R. Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever could be called TN. If not Thomas (who *might* be a little evil) is not TN, certainly Therasa Morgan, the main character of Mirror of Her Dreams and A Man Rides Through is (also by Donaldson). Arthur Dent is a wonderful example of TN. Apathetic, uncaring, mildly oblivious - if you told me that Arthur Dent had any particular care for Law, Chaos, Good, or Evil, I would strongly have to disagree with you. Trillian is probably TN as well. I think I'd also consider Alice of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass to be TN - she might be surrounded by madness, but she herself isn't precisely predisposed towards being Chaotic. Mowgli from the Jungle Book would probably be another good example. Shadow from Final Fantasy VI is certainly TN, and I'm sure that you can find many, many other examples in the various Final Fantasy games, like Cloud Strife. Probably many other video games as well; Protoman from Mega Man - oh yeah, that's some TN. In cinema, we have many, many examples, my favorite probably being the Dude in The Big Lebowski. Again, talk about apathetic. He just, like, goes with the flow, man. Just a couple characters off of the top of my head, although Need_A_Life beat me to Arthur.
fatal error 11-18-06, 01:28 PM	Inara from Serenity/Firefly? She doesn't really have a cause besides her work. She's not out to make the world a better place, but isn't especially manipulative, thus making her neutral for good/evil. She isn't a rebel or purposeful law breaker. But she doesn't especially care about upholding said laws either, and is pretty devoid of a code of conduct so common in lawful characters. Thus she is neutral on law/chaos.
Whisper_Swiftblade 11-18-06, 01:35 PM	you don't see much well known TN. Why? Because they just don't have the driveing force do do something attention grabing, they are not greedy, nor noble, they are just there.
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 11-18-06, 01:39 PM	Tom Bombadil (sp?)
efraker 11-18-06, 01:45 PM	People really make way too big of a deal of "True Neutral". True Neutral is the default alignment; it is ascribed to the majority of NPCs. Most every single one of the nameless, faceless people you pass on the streets of Sharn or the City of Splendors is True Neutral. ...yet in my last campaign, we had a True Neutral wizard who, in a 5-on-1 fight vs. a beholder, decided that we were being "unfair", and switched sides, attacking the party, so it was 4-on-2. He then panic'd the barbarian. Is this the way your average commoner would behave? No, obviously. The commoner would run for his life; even if he could contribute meaningfully, he wouldn't. Why risk his life? This is a RAI argument, but I would say that by the fact that True Neutral is the "default", "man-on-the-street" alignment, it is essentially another way of describing apathy. True Neutral ought to be the very easiest argument to play, because it implies that you do not consistently tend towards chaos, law, good, or evil... which would accurately describe pretty much anyone I've ever met. How many people do you know who allow one of the four alignments to influence all or even the majority of their decisions? The majority of people don't hold in any direction... they just kind of "go with the flow". That's True Neutral. If you fundamentally disagree with me (and I can see there are a lot of people who may), please explain how your vision of True Neutral explains the behavior of the vast majority of people. If True Neutral is so hard to roleplay, why is it an accurate description of the daily lives of the vast majority of roleplayers? If you think of yourself as "chaotic", tell me this, what happens when the police sirens come on? If you think of yourself as "lawful", tell me this, do you jay-walk? Did you smoke or look at "adult only" material before you were 18? Did you drink before you were 21? If you're a Christian or a Jew, do you ever work on the sabbath? And before you answer that, remember that the biblical definition of work includes a lot of things that don't garner a paycheck. Most people break all sorts of laws all the time; yet at the same time, most people would never question authority if they stood to lose something from their rebellion. Furthermore, the argument that the average person isn't "good" or "evil" is even easier than the argument that they aren't "law" or "chaos".
stargate525 11-18-06, 02:09 PM	Sherlock Holmes. oh wait... that woulld be lawful neutral, wouldn't it? Yeah, ignore me.
AntiDjinn 11-18-06, 02:31 PM	Destiny of the Endless (DC/Vertigo Comics, Sandman and related series). He basically just watches the universe unfold, and while he may offer commentary, he doesn't take action to alter events. It seems the only thing about which he has a strong opinion is that people (including his family) should be properly dressed and behave in a manner appropriate for their station. He isn't concerned about what might be or what should be, only what is. Dream might also be TN. He does some chaotic things in the series (such as sending his lover to hell for millennia because she fell out of love with him) but he is lawful to a fault when it comes to his duties as lord of The Dreaming. With respect to humans he is definitely TN: He doesn't care about good and evil, he cares about the realm of dreams. Good people, bad people, axiomatic people, and anarchistic people all dream, and they all get the same treatment. Basically, anyone who exists above morality or for whom the concept of morals and ethics is inapplicable, is probably TN.
LukiLoki 11-18-06, 02:40 PM	I've always figured there are two sides to "True" Neutrality. Like efraker says, there's the default element to it. TN is what's left when you don't have any overriding ideology or philosophy of good and evil in a cosmic sense. In that sense it's the typical "man in the street" alignment, though in my view only as the modal value between LN and NG. Thomas Covenant is too conflicted to be a good illustration IMO. He's a good example of how D&D alignments don't map well onto RL accounts of morality and behavior. But then, in a fantasy world, there's what I call "ideological" TN. In this case, it's no kind of default, it's concerned with "balance" in the cosmic conflicts between Law and Chaos, Good and Evil. So a fictional character who isn't an intentionally ironic non-entity like Arthur Dent and who personified TN would probably fit in this category of neutrals. Certain portrayals of Merlin might fit. Tom Bombadil was a good call. Can't think of too many more. Perhaps it's an artifact of the D&D alignment system, and nothing more.
The_Hedgewizard 11-18-06, 02:50 PM	I can think of an arseload of philosophers, poets, etc. who I would call True Neutral, and they are hardly shallow or apathetic. I really don't agree that True Neutral can't stand out either. Someone who says "good and evil are a load of crap" and lives accordingly is likely to get plenty of attention. Because someone doesn't care about morality or ethics hardly means they aren't working towards something or aren't devoted to something. Druids are the best example of this; nature doesn't care about human morality, so why should they? The idea of good creating evil and vice versa, like in Taoism as was mentioned, would cause one to consciously avoid acting too good or evil or making too many value judgements about them as well, as opposed to simply not caring about them or ignoring them. Plenty of room for dramatics there (although most of it would be internal, true). I think Tom Bombadil as one poster said above was a standout example for a fictional character though. Tom sort of *is* nature.
Thubby 11-18-06, 03:32 PM	Red X, again I would say is CN, takes what he wants with no regard for Law or Order in any way. but he does have some semblance of fair play, when he loses in the big daddy episode. he conceeds his loss (despite having the perfect opportunity to attack robin). he then, as you said, diregards almost every law in existance. to opposites in 1 guy= neutral.
Iyestorm 11-18-06, 03:50 PM	Strange. I was thinking of this exact same thing this morning. Hmm... ...I wanna say Shadow the Hedgehog, but I'm pretty sure that's wrong. :P Umm... Tough one... Sorry, I can't think of any.
totoro 11-18-06, 04:12 PM	The Road Warrior. Luke Skywalker's uncle. The Governor in Pirates of the Carribean. The main character is Soylent Green is a good example of a Neutral who actually wants to do something, instead of just being apathetic like most Neutrals. Flashman (from the many Flashman books) is basically all bad, but not evil. The ugly guy in Sin City. The main character in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Witch 11-18-06, 04:16 PM	Anyone really into Tauism (Ying/Yang). Yoda (might have very slight leanings to good) Both Taoism and Yoda are likely to be good. Note that all the eastern religions support the Golden Rule in one form or another, and that rule is considered good. True Neutral, in its two incarnations: Balance: I don't know. I don't believe they exist. Being undecided: The majority of population.
Gondor 11-18-06, 04:23 PM	I always saw Yoda as strictly good-aligned. He works to prevent the spread of evil in the universe. It's true that he has no illusions regarding his ability to "fix" the galaxy, but he does what he can to defeat the Sith, guide the Jedi, and later defeat the Empire. One character who comes to mind to me is Q from Star Trek. I can see him falling into either CN or N; he is certainly neutral with respect to good versus evil. He's capricious, certainly, but he always keeps his bargains and the games he creates are always more or less "fair". Actually... I can think of quite a few N characters in Star Trek. Garak, from DS9, would certainly qualify, as would Quark, although he has NG leanings at times. Most Romulans to appear in any of the series are neutral, although there are, as always, exceptions.
sicsemperjohn 11-18-06, 04:27 PM	There are three, if not more, kinds of True Neutral. You have those who haven't thought about anything too hard, who worry about where the next meal is coming from and keep their ears clean. This is most people on the boards, and out there in the real world. This is everyday life. This is what we all start from. This is the most flexible neutrality because it is the most accessible. There are those who believe in balance, and fairness, and not letting any kind of good or evil or law or chaos get too powerful lest the balance be shifted. The multiverse as it exists right now is the multiverse as it must exist. Extremity is catastrophic unless it is balanced out with the opposite extremity. This is the most flexible neutrality because it ranges across all other alignments. There are those for whom alignment doesn't matter. Seriously, there's no such thing as good, or evil, or law, or chaos. Ethics and morality are the playtoys of those who still believe in individual selves. This is the view from the Dharma Eye. This is the most flexible neutrality because it pierces through false distinctions.
AntiDjinn 11-18-06, 04:36 PM	In the standard D&D cosmology the active True Neutral or advocate of centrism is known as the position of Concordant Opposition. This is not neutrality by default or apathy, but active opposition to extremes of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. The one who takes this position is often considered an enemy or traitor by all because he has opposed everyone who is trying to get something done at one point or another. Another shade of this would be one who simply favors the status quo; the way things are now is just fine, no need to make changes. Such people are not lawful because they would not favor passing new laws either; making society more lawful is not necessary, things are just fine now. Neither would they favor elimination of chaotic elements of society because they too are part of the status quo and are fine as is. You won't find many famous examples of this because by definition they never really do anything. Unaligned as neutrality isn't really TN. A normal chair doesn't have an alignment, but that does not make it TN. It simply has no morality or ethics because such terms do not apply to it, not because it is apathetic.
Witch 11-18-06, 04:38 PM	There are those for whom alignment doesn't matter. Seriously, there's no such thing as good, or evil, or law, or chaos. Ethics and morality are the playtoys of those who still believe in individual selves. This is the view from the Dharma Eye. This is the most flexible neutrality because it pierces through false distinctions. You mean, like believing in the collective, and hence being lawful?
HamHam 11-18-06, 04:39 PM	I believe Thomas Covenant in Stephen R. Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever could be called TN. More like Chaotic Stupid.
sicsemperjohn 11-18-06, 05:01 PM	You mean, like believing in the collective, and hence being lawful? The possibility of a collective is impossible if there was no-one there to be in one, in the first place. Neither from their own selves, nor from any other, nor from a combination, and not from nothing is any being established.
aramilcaelvan 11-18-06, 06:30 PM	Yoda (might have very slight leanings to good) Gotta disagree with you there, all Jedi are almost always LG, and though there are exceptions such as Echu-Shen-Jon (I spelled that wrong), Yoda isn't really one of them. I would say the Waylander from "Hero in the Shadows". It's not a real common book, but the Waylander cares about those he loves, but is totally merciless to those who would mean him harm. He exicuted a child assassin, for instance, after the boy turned down the chance to leave him alone. He has a huge mercantile company, and many men under his hiarchical control, to define lawful, but he himself likes to wander alone for days at a time, just doing what he feels like. Definetly chaotic. Yup, the Graylander is TN.
Raygenh 11-18-06, 09:00 PM	Um... the Dharma is definetely NOT a True Neutral perspective on the world. You are referring to Nihilism, a very different school of thought. Dharma is most definetely a NG philosophy, because compassion for others and moderation are the focal points of that lifestyle. Moderation does not mean you never stick your neck out in any way, it means that most actions can have beneficial effects if practiced in moderation, but taking them to extremes is harmful to everyone. Example: Alcohol. Having 5 beers and getting kind of tipsy on your birthday is fine. Drinking till you puke every day is not. Dharma is definetely a philosophy aimed at living a morally good life, so there`s no way you could say it is True Neutral.
Minister_for_Moral_Truth 11-18-06, 09:06 PM	I retain a hatred for any alignment of "balance" or "neutrality". Whilst there are perhaps a few examples, it's terribly flawed as a moral philosophy. A Neutral character in the D&D system, in my opinion, is one with no strong convictions either direction, or one who is conflicted. Not one who is dedecated to all alignments in equal mesure.
pmurray@bigpond.com 11-19-06, 01:37 AM	Lord Vetinarii, of Ankh-Morpork.
Palin the Wizard 11-19-06, 04:01 AM	Interesting question. No, I can't think of anyone specifically with the TN alignment, but that doesn't really surprise me--in fiction, any "extreme" is usually exaggerated. Hmm... Perhaps Gandalf in the Hobbit.
Stev Beren 11-19-06, 07:36 AM	Interesting question. No, I can't think of anyone specifically with the TN alignment, but that doesn't really surprise me--in fiction, any "extreme" is usually exaggerated. Hmm... Perhaps Gandalf in the Hobbit. Gandalf? Neutral? Perhaps neutral GOOD, but just plain neutral? No. .
Andron 11-19-06, 07:50 AM	I was thinking perhaps the ghosts from a Christmas carol. Or at the very least Death.
Witch 11-19-06, 08:02 AM	Um... the Dharma is definetely NOT a True Neutral perspective on the world. You are referring to Nihilism, a very different school of thought. I'd place nihilism at Neutral Evil, myself.
Stev Beren 11-19-06, 08:28 AM	I was thinking perhaps the ghosts from a Christmas carol. Or at the very least Death. Almost place death as Lawful Neutral. Depending on WHOSE fictional incarnation of death you are talking about.
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 11-19-06, 08:33 AM	Lord Vetinarii, of Ankh-Morpork. I've always seen him as LN but fair enough. However, if you are looking for TN in Diskworld, I'd go with Death
Stev Beren 11-19-06, 08:48 AM	I've always seen him as LN but fair enough. However, if you are looking for TN in Diskworld, I'd go with Death Discworld? ALmost put him at lawful neutral> Definite set of rules to follow, etcetera etcetera.
Orbb_was_railed_by_God 11-19-06, 10:42 AM	Vetinari is not TN. He has an agenda. True Neutral is really fairly impossible to be because if you have an opinion, you simply aren't. IMO only creatures incapable of concious thought can be True Neutral.
Witch 11-19-06, 10:54 AM	Vetinari is not TN. He has an agenda. True Neutral is really fairly impossible to be because if you have an opinion, you simply aren't. IMO only creatures incapable of concious thought can be True Neutral. That might be your opinion, but it doesn't conform to the rules.
PSchirf 11-19-06, 11:03 AM	... is definitely a philosophy aimed at living a morally good life, so there is no way you could say it is True Neutral.Goal and practice are two different things. It's possible to have a philosophy or religion that professes "good" goals and yet uses evil tactics to achieve said goals. Would this be good or evil? Or neutral? The argument that neutral is indicative of lack of caring, lack of motivation, or lack of strong philosophy is flawed. Then again, so is the D&D alignment system.
Zerchai 11-19-06, 11:34 AM	I retain a hatred for any alignment of "balance" or "neutrality". Whilst there are perhaps a few examples, it's terribly flawed as a moral philosophy. A Neutral character in the D&D system, in my opinion, is one with no strong convictions either direction, or one who is conflicted. Not one who is dedecated to all alignments in equal mesure. This is an absolutely great way to put this; I've played many Neutral characters over my D&D years, and you'd be surprised, they CAN be quite heroic - they just don't care about going on crusades for the greater good, hurting people, causing rebellions or uprisings, or joining in and following along with the consensus. They just... don't really care. That doesn't mean that can't have their *own* personal goals, it just means those goals aren't likely to swing towards some greater purpose (an example would be a wizard who wants to gather rare and expensive tomes - not so he can do anything particularly exciting with them, just read them - or a blacksmith who wants to create a truly impressive piece of craftsmanship. They have goals, it's just that their goals are likely to have no impact on the world around them.) On the other hand, followers of the balance do strike me as a little odd - even a N druid I see as being neutral in a sense of wanting to coexist with the natural order and making sure that nothing hurts his or her forest (so if the orcs nearby try to burn it down, she gets involved - if the humans nearby try to chop it down, she gets involved - if the orcs try to burn the humans down or the humans try to chop the orcs down, she doesn't really care, just one less threat to the forest.) The only really good example of a fictional character who actively goes out to keep a balance of law, good, chaos, and evil is the druid out of Villains by Necessity (can't remember her name.)
Usiris 11-19-06, 12:17 PM	Hopefully this will help, I know a real life person who I consider to be True Neutral. I'll call him "C". C is a person who is committed to being non committed. He pays his taxes but doesn't vote or read the news unless it's computer news. We belong to a WWII reenactment group and if asked to vote yes/no on something he says "I don't care." even if the decision has no effect on him one way or the other. If pressed, he'll continue to say "I don't care." If he wants something he'll get it in whichever way is easier, whether by "lawful" or "chaotic" means. In a nutshell, the only things he can commit to will be those that will improve his situation but asks the least of him. Hope this helps.
Witch 11-19-06, 12:22 PM	Hopefully this will help, I know a real life person who I consider to be True Neutral. So do I. In fact, almost everyone I know is.
DMR 11-19-06, 12:28 PM	I think another take on this is to consider a TN character one who strives to maintain "universal balance" (between law and chaos). So depending on the story, they might appear to be lawful if they happen to be fighting forces of chaos (which seems to be the usual case), or they might appear chaotic if fighting the forces of law. I say this because it seems to be common to assume the TN = uncaring and/or apathetic, and this is not necessarily the case. This makes me think of Elric (or any of the other eternal champions), Adam Warlock (the Starlin stuff, from Marvel back in the 70s). And the librarian in the original two DragonLance trilogies (forget his name - sorry).
leather_book_wizard 11-19-06, 12:33 PM	. This makes me think of Elric (or any of the other eternal champions), Adam Warlock (the Starlin stuff, from Marvel back in the 70s). And the librarian in the original two DragonLance trilogies (forget his name - sorry). I believe you are thinking of Astinus? Yes,he is the epitome of true neutral. And maybe Doc Brown from Back to the Future, but he's probably more neutral good.
Witch 11-19-06, 12:43 PM	I say this because it seems to be common to assume the TN = uncaring and/or apathetic, and this is not necessarily the case. Not uncaring, nor apathetic. Rather: caring, but not enough to risk stuff for it.
primemover003 11-19-06, 01:21 PM	I'm fairly sure that Mordenkainen of Greyhawk tries to preserve a TN outlook. His goal along with the rest of the Citadel/Circle of Eight is to enforce the status quo of the Flanaess allowing neither the forces of good or evil to shift the power balance too far in any direction. Mordenkainen is an Active Neutral. Astinus of Palanthus is also TN chronicalling the world as it goes by, he's a passive neutral.
Kaligrad 11-19-06, 03:40 PM	...The main character is Soylent Green... Soylent green is made of main character! Garrett from the Thief series. He doesn't care about you, your friend, or your property laws, but he still manages to save the city he lives in on three occasions when he fights chaotic evil, lawful evil, and neutral evil villians that were spawned out of the chaotic, lawful, and neutral organizations respectively. In fact, the Keeper organization in the Thief series is almost completely True Neutral to a man.
pmurray@bigpond.com 11-19-06, 07:20 PM	I've always seen him as LN but fair enough. However, if you are looking for TN in Diskworld, I'd go with Death That's the thing. He is quite comfortable with the chaos of AM - the way the whole mish-mash seems to work. Vimes is LN (off the chart), whereas Carrot is more LG. Compare Vimes and Vetinarii and you'll see what I mean about him being true nutral. I would opine, in fact, that TN make the best rulers - they see and accept the world as it is. NG people tend to defer to LG, LG listen to their LN advisors, they all work for LE hierarchies, and at the top of those are NE people who know that all this business about laws and rules is just plain rubbish. I had an idea for urban campaigns (like Ebberon), where large cities would have urban planners. These urban planners would be druids who specialise in the intelligent species, much in in the same way that a druid might have an affinity for aquatic creatures, or the desert. Hmm. Might develop the idea a bit on another board.
Meshakhad 11-19-06, 07:35 PM	Red Mage from 8-bit Theater, perhaps?
theotherdraxen 11-19-06, 08:05 PM	There are three, if not more, kinds of True Neutral. You have those who haven't thought about anything too hard, who worry about where the next meal is coming from and keep their ears clean. This is most people on the boards, and out there in the real world. This is everyday life. This is what we all start from. This is the most flexible neutrality because it is the most accessible. I would call this true-neutral. There are those who believe in balance, and fairness, and not letting any kind of good or evil or law or chaos get too powerful lest the balance be shifted. The multiverse as it exists right now is the multiverse as it must exist. Extremity is catastrophic unless it is balanced out with the opposite extremity. This is the most flexible neutrality because it ranges across all other alignments. This strikes me as lawful neutral: note that the person is dedicated to balance. Scales are a big iconic symbol of law. This is because the Law tries to establish a social balance. One dedicated to balance is lawful. There are those for whom alignment doesn't matter. Seriously, there's no such thing as good, or evil, or law, or chaos. Ethics and morality are the playtoys of those who still believe in individual selves. This is the view from the Dharma Eye. This is the most flexible neutrality because it pierces through false distinctions. This strikes me as chaotic-neutral: they do whatever they wish regardless, following their impulses. Neutral on the Law to Chaos scale would have someone land between the two, but following personal impulses is chaotic. Lord Vetinarii, of Ankh-Morpork. So true. He has an incredibly logical mind, but it is in no way lawful or chaotic. He follows neither personal code nor impulse. I'd place nihilism at Neutral Evil, myself. Nihilists believe that the world is without meaning. Nothing more. True Neutral, though a nihlist could probably be any alignment. The philosphy itself would not lend well to one of the four extremes, IMO. Almost place death as Lawful Neutral. Depending on WHOSE fictional incarnation of death you are talking about. I always call Death Lawful Neutral. It is a part of life (specifically the end), and is no more than a mechanical process. You get shot in the head, you die, and regardless of emotional attachment, your soul gets carted off. End of story. I've always seen him as LN but fair enough. However, if you are looking for TN in Diskworld, I'd go with Death Death in Discworld is LG, with lawful being far more important than the good. In a number of the novels, he goes far out of his way to help the humans. Remember, that he is being persecuted by those enforcers of the universe (can't remember the name, just remember that they warp reality at will, but aren't allowed to have a personal identity of any kind). He does a good deed (for the sake of goodness) often. Vetinari is not TN. He has an agenda. True Neutral is really fairly impossible to be because if you have an opinion, you simply aren't. IMO only creatures incapable of concious thought can be True Neutral. I disagree here. Having an agenda doesn't mean you have to have an alignment. When I get up in the morning, my agenda is to cram breakfast down my throat. Why? Because I'm hungry. Completely TN. People can live this way, though I admit, I find it hard to believe that such a life would be very fulfilling (not that it couldn't be). That's the thing. He is quite comfortable with the chaos of AM - the way the whole mish-mash seems to work. Vimes is LN (off the chart), whereas Carrot is more LG. Compare Vimes and Vetinarii and you'll see what I mean about him being true nutral. IMO, Vimes is NG, possibly CG. He very often does good purely for the sake of good. Also, he abuses the law, violates his own personal code of conduct (example: he says you can't take the law into your own hands, and yet he does this on a number of occassions, once saying 'and this time, we're going to squeeze'). I would opine, in fact, that TN make the best rulers - they see and accept the world as it is. NG people tend to defer to LG, LG listen to their LN advisors, they all work for LE hierarchies, and at the top of those are NE people who know that all this business about laws and rules is just plain rubbish. Only if they have the people's best interests at heart, which is hard to justify for a TN person. I think that a wise and charismatic NG leader would be better than TN. LG and CG leaders would likely be worse than NG, IMO. Anyway, if you want a good example of a TN person, I think that the drill sergeant from Apocalypse Now was TN. He did evil things, but all he cared about was glory; nothing more. TN because the extremes of law and chaos, as well as good and evil, would distract from the pursuit of glory. Another kind of TN person would be those occupied with a goal that does not fall into one of the four extremes (like the sergeant).
Minister_for_Moral_Truth 11-19-06, 08:40 PM	On neutral (rather than the mythical True Neutral Servants of Balance) heroes: "I'll kill a man in a fair fight, or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight… If he bothers me, or if there's a woman… Or if I'm gettin' paid. Mostly only when I'm gettin' paid." Though he's probably more CN. Picture a mercenary character. Sellsword. He fights wars for pay, fights monsters for loot, robs from the evil ritch and gives to the poor (as long as those poor are arms merchants, barkeeps or ladies of negotiable afection). He may give a few spare coins to a beggar, or feel sorry for somebody going hungry and offer up a bit of food, but he's hardly going to go out of his way to help, and doesn't feel compelled to do so every time. He obeys laws most of the time, because there wouldn't be a society if people broke all the rules all the time, but doesn't worry too much if he has to break a few. He does some things which are somewhat on the evil side, some on the good side, but mostly just does what benefits him, his friends and his family. Neutral hero (or at least neutral character, he has to succeed to be a hero).
Benedictus 11-19-06, 08:51 PM	People have breaking this into types of true Neutrals. They mentioned the conflicted true neutral. Darth Vader? He was supposed to bring balance. He did in the end. He wasn't consistently Neutral but I think Anakin fits as a conflicted neutral. I think that there is the super wise neutral - So wise that they see shades of grey where everyone else is looking for black and white. It's hard to think of an example of this right off but maybe some versions of Merlin from the legends of Arthur. I need to reread Lankhmar so I might be wrong but Ningauble of the Seven Eyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ningauble_of_the_Seven_Eyes) seesm like a choice. I think that there is the reserved selfishishness neutral, or the you get what you ask (and more) for neutral. Think of movies like Kill Bill, or the Sin City stories. Unforgiven, the William Munny character is more redeemed evil but that is a type neutral so I'll agree with the earlier suggestion. So I am back to Vader type characters again. Good question,
DrMorganes 11-19-06, 09:11 PM	Hm. True Neutrality, I think, is very difficult for mortals. I take issue that True Neutral is the default alignment for most commoners. Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good are likely closer to the mark. They see the benefit of most laws and feel that working together to do what is right is important. True Neutral - striking the balance between Good and Evil AND Law and Chaos - is a tough one for sentient creatures. Animals - even predators - are Neutral because they simply ARE. They understand nothing of evil, good, law, chaos - just eat or be eaten, and survive long enough to reproduce. Sentients have a tendency to lean in one direction or another: Chaos, Law, Evil, or Good. I find that describing True Neutral is best done in elemental terms. Lightning, fire, hurricanes, blizzards, the aforementioned animals. These things all are True Neutral, as they act on all things equally without care, passion, or intentional malice. A hungry lioness will kill and eat you if you happen to be an easy target, but she'll leave you alone in favor of that sick gazelle over there if see deems you to be too powerful an opponent. For fictional characters, I like to use Niel Gaimen's Endless: Death, Dream, Desire, Despair, Delirium, Destiny, Destruction (though he abdicated his position millennia ago) all fulfill the functions without particular concern. Dream in particular has performed some rather horrible acts to protect the Dreaming. Of course, these characters all fall into the elemental category noted above... Rhynn and Kwll of Moorcock's Corum series might be True Neutral in D&D terms. They exist outside of the Cosmic Balance. Having sworn fealty only to each other, they have power beyond anything even the Lords of the Higher Worlds can fathom - yet the two brothers care nothing for the struggles of Law and Chaos. More on this here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swords_Trilogy).
TarlSS 11-19-06, 10:34 PM	Nietzche. Macciavelli is lawful neutral. The Kaminoans from Star Wars. The Weird Sisters from Gargoyles. Macbeth from Gargoyles. Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears. True neutral more or less means you're devoted to a neutral cause (LIke...being a librarian) or you're devoted to yourself, but without bothering anyone and occasionally helping out when neccessary.
Ephraim 11-19-06, 10:47 PM	Arthur Dent. I dunno about Dent, but another character from H2G2 really is True Neutral -- the guy in charge of the galaxy. (Not Beeblebrox. He's just the president. I mean the guy who's actually running things.)
jokem 11-19-06, 11:01 PM	Sherlock Holmes. oh wait... that woulld be lawful neutral, wouldn't it? Yeah, ignore me. I would say Neutral Good, as he was always out to protect the innocent, and was willing to use trickery and subterfuge if needed.
Witch 11-20-06, 01:42 PM	Nietzche. Macciavelli is lawful neutral. The Kaminoans from Star Wars. The Weird Sisters from Gargoyles. Macbeth from Gargoyles. Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears. True neutral more or less means you're devoted to a neutral cause (LIke...being a librarian) or you're devoted to yourself, but without bothering anyone and occasionally helping out when neccessary. Machiavelli? Likely Lawful Evil, though I can see a case made for Lawful Neutral too. Nietzsche? Evil. Advocates the gathering of power for yourself.
HamHam 11-20-06, 01:58 PM	Machiavelli is not Lawful in the slightest. And Nietzche is not Evil.
Witch 11-20-06, 02:04 PM	Machiavelli is not Lawful in the slightest. And Nietzche is not Evil. Care to tell how you decided that Machiavelli, whose concerns are the state and nothing but the state, is not lawful? And Nietzsche not Evil? Pity stands in opposition to all the tonic passions that augment the energy of the feeling of aliveness: it is a depressant. A man loses power when he pities. Through pity that drain upon strength which suffering works is multiplied a thousandfold. Suffering is made contagious by pity; under certain circumstances it may lead to a total sacrifice of life and living energy--a loss out of all proportion to the magnitude of the cause.
AntiDjinn 11-20-06, 02:11 PM	Don't confuse Niccolo Machiavelli, the author and stateman, with the protagonist of The Prince. The author and his character are not the same.
HamHam 11-20-06, 02:12 PM	Care to tell how you decided that Machiavelli, whose concerns are the state and nothing but the state, is not lawful? Because it's not the State that's his concern. It's the Ruler, and what that individual should do to gain power (in so far as The Prince goes). There is nothing Lawful about that, because "order" and "justice" are not the end goals. Go read Mandragora sometime. Machiavelli is the source of "ends justify the means" and that includes breaking the law when it suits you. And Nietzsche not Evil? That depends on how you read Nietzsche. You look at that quote and apparently see selfishness (or something). I read it and see an idea for limiting human suffering. Nietzsche is TN because he's about empowering yourself to achieve your goals, be they Lawful, Chaotic, Good, or Evil.
kliate 11-20-06, 02:15 PM	I propose Lassie as being a True Neutral character, as animals tend to be TN by default.
Witch 11-20-06, 02:16 PM	Because it's not the State that's his concern. It's the Ruler, and what that individual should do to gain power (in so far as The Prince goes). There is nothing Lawful about that, because "order" and "justice" are not the end goals. Go read Mandragora sometime. Machiavelli is the source of "ends justify the means" and that includes breaking the law when it suits you. Breaking a Law doesn't make you non-lawful. And it is -the state- that is his concern. The book is about strong rulers, because of the state of Italy when he wrote it. It required strong rulers, because there was utter chaos there. Don't confuse Niccolo Machiavelli, the author and stateman, with the protagonist of The Prince. The author and his character are not the same. There -is- no protaganonist in The Prince. The book isn't written in prose. I'm aware that Machiavelli didn't live by his ideas, however.
Heros_Backpack 11-20-06, 02:36 PM	If you're looking for the sort of TN character who works to keep the balance between the extremes, have you tried Colbey Calistinsson from the 'Last of the Renshai' trilogy? He fights pure Chaos on its own terms, defys the essence of Law itself and willingly battles wizards, demons and gods alike when they try to get rid of Chaos completely and have only three extremes in the world.
katarl 11-20-06, 03:01 PM	Anyone who balances good, law, chaos and evil might be considered true neutral, it's not being completely amoral, its often having conflicting, balancing views, making priorities quite important. A strong utilitarian might be considered neutral for benign purposes. They might do something horribly 'evil' for a good purpose. They believe that good acts do not always relate to good ends. I like to think of neutrals taking the long view, such as keeping angels and demons at war, rather than doing the immediate apparent good, by helping the angels, for example. It's the ultimate in pragmaticism, but the smart character knows that they should do good when it doesn't matter, and evil when it does. I think that Gandalf and Yoda are both neutral good, since they lean so strongly towards altruism. That said, i'm a strong believer that everyone is neutral really, theres no such thing as concepts as good and evil; only the goals change.
jdarksong 11-20-06, 03:29 PM	Great thread! I'm surprised I haven't seen this on here yet (being a D&D thread) but, Mordenkainen. Enforced neutrality, baby. ;)
Palin the Wizard 11-20-06, 03:41 PM	I believe you are thinking of Astinus? Yes,he is the epitome of true neutral. And maybe Doc Brown from Back to the Future, but he's probably more neutral good. Ah, yes, Astinus! Of course.
primemover003 11-20-06, 04:12 PM	Great thread! I'm surprised I haven't seen this on here yet (being a D&D thread) but, Mordenkainen. Enforced neutrality, baby. ;) Page 2, post 49... :tiphat: I'm fairly sure that Mordenkainen of Greyhawk tries to preserve a TN outlook. His goal along with the rest of the Citadel/Circle of Eight is to enforce the status quo of the Flanaess allowing neither the forces of good or evil to shift the power balance too far in any direction. Mordenkainen is an Active Neutral. Astinus of Palanthus is also TN chronicalling the world as it goes by, he's a passive neutral.
Palin the Wizard 11-20-06, 04:15 PM	In a similar vein, one could mention Khelben "Blackstaff". Working to preserve a balance between good and evil is not necessarily neutral. It can be both good and evil also, depending on which way the balance is currently leaning.
Pallin Rahl 11-20-06, 04:21 PM	AntiDjinn: I too thought of the Endless when considering True Neutral characters, but they're more... well... embodiments of abstract concepts... they can get away with the detachment that common player characters can't - in group situations ;) Thing with True Neutral is... it's simply a difficult alignment to nail down. In mortal characters, you can almost always see at least some leaning in their morality that allows you to classify them in another similar alignment (NG, LN, CN, etc...). Honestly, in all my years of roleplaying I've never met a player interested in actually playing a True Neutral character, so in practice it's never really come up as an issue. :) You know, considering the Vertigo side of things (from the mentioning of The Endless)... I could see an arguement to be made for John Constantine (Hellblazer) as a True Neutral character (as represented in the comics...). Sure, he's often found in opposition with the forces of Hell, but not because of some high moral ground... moreso because he simply doesn't want to see the balance tip too far in any direction (or some other immediate necessity). ...this stance has taken him in direct opposition to the forces of Heaven as well. The major drive that remains constant in his character is the desire to protect his friends & loved ones and, if possible, to make sure that neither Hell nor Heaven tip the scales... (well that... and lots of drinking and smoking :P). He walks the line of good and evil as he deals with the problematic supernatural forces that he crosses paths with... most-often chosing the path of "survival" and "protecting those close to him" over any sense of morality... Then again, as with most discussions of characters that can be perceived as TN, I could also easily see arguments for Constantine as being everything from Good to Evil (depending on the timeframe)... or most things in-between (save LG or CE :P).
Timespike 11-20-06, 04:34 PM	Lord Vetinarii, of Ankh-Morpork. Vetinari is LN with slight good leanings. Death, on the other hand, is Neutral. (Though a kind, friendly sort of neutral)
Orbb_was_railed_by_God 11-20-06, 04:35 PM	"What makes a man turn Neutral, Kiff?" Well, not much. If you have an opinion, you aren't truly neutral on a subject. IMO humans are only capable of being neutral towards something of which they have absolutely no concept. Opinions are like *******s; everyone has one.
Witch 11-20-06, 04:37 PM	Let's just remind everyone: Neutral, "Undecided" A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.
OleOneEye 11-20-06, 06:42 PM	All of these have elements of neutrality: Han Solo in Star Wars A New Hope Ents in Lord of the Rings Ashe in Evil Dead Yssarian in Catch 22 Baron Munchausen for the first 75% of the movie
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 11-20-06, 06:56 PM	All of these have elements of neutrality: Han Solo in Star Wars A New Hope Ents in Lord of the Rings Ashe in Evil Dead Yssarian in Catch 22 Baron Munchausen for the first 75% of the movie I agree with you on all exept Han Solo and Ash. Han Solo, while he was a mercenary, was a complete scofflaw. I'd call him CN. Ash? Also CN. Why? Well... I don't really have an good answer. That's just how he feels to me. (Sorry). Also, I want to say it again: Tom Bombadil. I was argueing with my friend over this (yes, I am a horrendous nerd, deal with it) and he maintains that he is NG. Any feedback on this? The Count :dragon:
axwielder 11-20-06, 07:11 PM	Created by Gary Gygax for the Greyhawk setting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gord_the_Rogue
Witch 11-20-06, 07:13 PM	I agree on Bombadil. He's Neutral, in the sense he doesn't care. Sure, he's a nice guy to meet. But not nice enough to be a hero and save the world, even though his powers are quite substantial. Good example.
DM_Shonuff 11-20-06, 07:30 PM	Old school.... Excalibur.. Merlin. He did what he did because it was asked of him. good or evil...he chose no sides. He brought arthur to his destiny, but also did not help in times of crisis. It was the way of the bystander..which is what neutral do..stand by and do not affect the flow. good or evil, law or chaos. Now if you swim in all those pools....you're chaotic.. If you pee in them too...your evil AND chaotic... heheh
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 11-20-06, 08:13 PM	Old school.... Excalibur.. Merlin. *snip* QFT
DM_Shonuff 11-20-06, 08:18 PM	not to spam, but QFT? :confused: :confused: :confused:
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 11-20-06, 08:21 PM	not to spam, but QFT? :confused: :confused: :confused: Quoted for Truth. In other words: ditto, I agree. ;)
theotherdraxen 11-20-06, 08:57 PM	Vetinari is LN with slight good leanings. Death, on the other hand, is Neutral. (Though a kind, friendly sort of neutral) I still disagree here. Death has, on a number of occasions done good deeds purely for the sake of goodness (he's saved the Disc before, IIRC). Note that he's being hunted by those enforcers of reality (still can't remember the name, but they have power over reality, but can't have a personal identity). Vetinari breaks tons of laws all the time. He murders people (or is otherwise very good at threats). He doesn't appear to have a personal code that I'm aware of, and his actions do not denote anything more than, as you say, slight good leanings. He's very logical, but he isn't lawful, IMO. That depends on how you read Nietzsche. You look at that quote and apparently see selfishness (or something). I read it and see an idea for limiting human suffering. Nietzsche is TN because he's about empowering yourself to achieve your goals, be they Lawful, Chaotic, Good, or Evil. I see a man declaring that pity and self-sacrifice are flaws, and I would think such a philosophy evil (the kind of evil that can confuse the mind to think it is good). How can a total rejection of pity be good? Pity stands in opposition to all the tonic passions that augment the energy of the feeling of aliveness: it is a depressant. A man loses power when he pities. Through pity that drain upon strength which suffering works is multiplied a thousandfold. Suffering is made contagious by pity; under certain circumstances it may lead to a total sacrifice of life and living energy--a loss out of all proportion to the magnitude of the cause. Look at it. He's saying that if you pity, you suffer, which is true. But it is a noble suffering, a good suffering; something his philosophy has no room for. If you have no room for good, then you are evil (as even neutral people leave some space for it). If I were a paladin, I could smite his ass.:fight!:
HamHam 11-20-06, 09:03 PM	I see a man declaring that pity and self-sacrifice are flaws, and I would think such a philosophy evil (the kind of evil that can confuse the mind to think it is good). How can a total rejection of pity be good? Look at it. He's saying that if you pity, you suffer, which is true. But it is a noble suffering, a good suffering; something his philosophy has no room for. If you have no room for good, then you are evil (as even neutral people leave some space for it). If I were a paladin, I could smite his ass.:fight!: Pity does no one any good. There is nothing "noble" about it. It's needless suffering that just makes the situation worse. Rather than feel pity, do something about it. There are far better, more productive ways, to feel and express one's care for others. PS: Note also that it's a translation from German. Don't assume too much about the connotations of "pity" in English that may or may not apply.
theotherdraxen 11-20-06, 09:56 PM	I disagree here. If you felt no pity, then you would have little motivation to do anything about it. Do you really think that those charities that are dedicated to helping the starving homeless don't feel any pity for them? Besides, there is no such thing as a useless emotion. They are all there for a reason, and assuming there is a 'bad' way to feel I have been told (by men with degrees) is one route to neurosis (an outdated term, but you get my point). Good catch on the translation, though. Hadn't considered that.
HamHam 11-20-06, 10:16 PM	I disagree here. If you felt no pity, then you would have little motivation to do anything about it. What about the good feeling you get from helping others? Or a general principle of generosity? Besides, there is no such thing as a useless emotion. They are all there for a reason, and assuming there is a 'bad' way to feel I have been told (by men with degrees) is one route to neurosis (an outdated term, but you get my point). Please. Many of our emotions are outdated, accidental results of our previous evolutionary needs. Besides, there's a difference between what you feel impulsively, and how you should react when confronted with those feelings. If you're depressed, it does no good to dwell on that fact. It's merely a signal that you need to change your situation. And thus you should put aside that depression to do what needs to be done to get rid of it for good.
efraker 11-20-06, 10:21 PM	My students often come to the same conclusion. Y'all know how Nietzsche died? He saw an angry man whipping his horse in the face, out in the middle of the street, and ran over to the horse, hugging his arms around its neck to prevent the guy from hitting it. The man started screaming at Nietzsche to get out of his way, threatened to lash him. Then Nietzsche collapsed to the ground, dead (of syphilus; the only person he ever had sex with was a hooker, and she infected him. He felt tremendous guilt about it too). If you can't reconcile his death with your readings of Nietzsche, then you are clearly wrong, in my opinion. As an alternate theory, think of the way Nietzsche lived and died. Pathetically, miserably... and think of how many people helped him out, to their own detriment. Nietzsche wasn't saying "don't pity anyone"; he was saying "don't pity me".
theotherdraxen 11-20-06, 10:24 PM	What about the good feeling you get from helping others? Or a general principle of generosity? They're good too, but I don't think that pity is bad as a result. Pity, concern, and all other things are analogous with love. If I have to have a tooth drilled by a dentist, and my mother holds my hand, is she wrong to do so, even if her motive is pity? Please. Many of our emotions are outdated, accidental results of our previous evolutionary needs. Besides, there's a difference between what you feel impulsively, and how you should react when confronted with those feelings. If you're depressed, it does no good to dwell on that fact. It's merely a signal that you need to change your situation. And thus you should put aside that depression to do what needs to be done to get rid of it for good. I do not believe that there is such a thing as a useless emotion, or a meaningless one. Like you said, depression is a sign that you need to change your situation, not succumb to it, curl up, and die. However, emotions themselves are not bad: it is what we do with them that really matters.
SirCaran 11-20-06, 10:54 PM	Connor MacLeod face it toward the end of the movies he was just stopping the BBEG for doing what he was doing. not really seeking it out but it came to him. and in endgame he got duncan to *writing this to not spoil it for those who havent seen it* IMO in a related topic there is another highlander movier coming out Highlander: The Source (http://imdb.com/title/tt0299981/)
HamHam 11-20-06, 11:05 PM	They're good too, but I don't think that pity is bad as a result. Pity, concern, and all other things are analogous with love. If I have to have a tooth drilled by a dentist, and my mother holds my hand, is she wrong to do so, even if her motive is pity? I'd say that's a misassignment of motive. The motive for doing that is wanting to comfort you. That's not pity. I think pity, as he's using it there, is a far more narrow term for a certain kind of reaction to the suffering of others, distinct from concern, sympathy, etc. I do not believe that there is such a thing as a useless emotion, or a meaningless one. Like you said, depression is a sign that you need to change your situation, not succumb to it, curl up, and die. However, emotions themselves are not bad: it is what we do with them that really matters. Pity isn't a raw feel, I would say. Pity is a sort of thing you're doing with your emotion. It's a certain kind of concious response to seeing others suffering.
theotherdraxen 11-20-06, 11:24 PM	Pity isn't a raw feel, I would say. Pity is a sort of thing you're doing with your emotion. It's a certain kind of concious response to seeing others suffering. It's actually both noun and verb. Gotta love semantics! Anyway, I do concede that pitying or taking pity (ex: Mr. T pities the foo) is a waste of time. Standing there, saying "Oh, you poor thing." is actually kind of degrading to both parties involved. However, I would not be happy with a total ban on pity in all forms. For example, to take pity means to show mercy or compassion, both of which are good things. Can we agree on this?
HamHam 11-20-06, 11:33 PM	It's actually both noun and verb. Gotta love semantics! Anyway, I do concede that pitying or taking pity (ex: Mr. T pities the foo) is a waste of time. Standing there, saying "Oh, you poor thing." is actually kind of degrading to both parties involved. However, I would not be happy with a total ban on pity in all forms. For example, to take pity means to show mercy or compassion, both of which are good things. Can we agree on this? Sure. I'm just going to add that my guess is that in German, the word Nietzsche is using is refering to "pitying" in the wasteful sense. Which makes him TN.
theotherdraxen 11-20-06, 11:51 PM	Sure. I'm just going to add that my guess is that in German, the word Nietzsche is using is refering to "pitying" in the wasteful sense. Which makes him TN. Yep, he's neutral, and misunderstood.:D Oh, and I guess I couldn't smite him...
efraker 11-21-06, 12:15 AM	Oh, and I guess I couldn't smite him... You could always try. That was always the fool-proof system in the Ravenloft campaign I played in (in Ravenloft its impossible to know alignment)... have the paladin smite them with the cruddiest weapon you can find. We used a tiny-sized rapier; we thought of it as one of the needles they used to poke witches with. If you're unfamiliar with what I'm talking about, according to a famous (real-life) book on witch-hunting called the Malleus Maleficarum, witches could be poked in certain spots with needles and wouldn't feel a thing. The Ravenloft evil-test works the exact opposite way... a normal person takes 1 damage, and gets a complimentary cure minor (which probably cures their acne and gingivitis)... an evil person gets smited. :D
JerBar 11-21-06, 03:11 AM	You know, in a way you could say it is next to impossable to be truely neutral (IRL, not role playing) because: "Chaos" is ever changing, or no rhyme or reason, this is far from being bad or evil, just unpredictable "Lawful" is following guidelines, staying within the rules colouring within the lines, it does not always mean following the laws (lets face it, some laws are pretty chaotic themselves) but more like following a pattern. It could be argued that serial killers are lawful because they follow the same pattern every time, that's how they get caught, when they can be. On the other side of it, a person who follows all the laws could still be chaotic, random and wild, totaly unpredictable. If you use these definitions (which I am not saying are the only ones, or that they are even correct), being neutral would basicly fall under the lawful catagory because it would be predictable. If it were not predictable it would fall under chaos. There is not really a "somewhere in-between" because if you sometimes follow order but sometimes do not, then you would be unpredictable and therefore chaotic. I usually reserve TN for animals and non-thinking creatures, almost never for NPCs, and rarely for PCs. But really it all depends on what you feel "lawful" and "chaotic" mean.
Palin the Wizard 11-21-06, 04:49 AM	They're good too, but I don't think that pity is bad as a result. Pity, concern, and all other things are analogous with love. If I have to have a tooth drilled by a dentist, and my mother holds my hand, is she wrong to do so, even if her motive is pity? She would do so out of compassion, not pity.
Dradjeel 11-21-06, 03:30 PM	I actually consider Sam Vimes from the Discworld novels as being TN. While he obeys the spirit of the law in many cases, he has no qualms about stepping outside it when the situation so requires. While mostly a friendly person, he also has no problem being fairly vicious at times. Arthur Dent is another very good specimen, although in his case it's simply because his control over his own life is tenuous at best and as such he spends most of it trying to hold on. Rincewind is a very similar character in this respect, always looking out for his own survival and generally uninterested in anything else. The best-known example would be Treebeard, I guess. He's on nobody's side but his own, looking out for his own people the best way he can and ignoring the needs of others.
theotherdraxen 11-21-06, 09:19 PM	She would do so out of compassion, not pity. Eh, semantics. I don't consider there to be much of a difference, but to each his own. I actually consider Sam Vimes from the Discworld novels as being TN. While he obeys the spirit of the law in many cases, he has no qualms about stepping outside it when the situation so requires. While mostly a friendly person, he also has no problem being fairly vicious at times. I completely agree with your other ones, but Sam Vimes is a good man, who does good things, and sometimes, just for the sake of goodness. He steps outside the law every so often because he's neutral good, and it is his dedication to goodness that causes him to do so. He tries to protect people and lead people, even when it's against what the government wants (good example: Night Watch).
CharlieRock 11-22-06, 01:07 AM	Picture a mercenary character. Sellsword. He fights wars for pay, fights monsters for loot, robs from the evil ritch and gives to the poor (as long as those poor are arms merchants, barkeeps or ladies of negotiable afection). He may give a few spare coins to a beggar, or feel sorry for somebody going hungry and offer up a bit of food, but he's hardly going to go out of his way to help, and doesn't feel compelled to do so every time. He obeys laws most of the time, because there wouldn't be a society if people broke all the rules all the time, but doesn't worry too much if he has to break a few. He does some things which are somewhat on the evil side, some on the good side, but mostly just does what benefits him, his friends and his family. Neutral hero (or at least neutral character, he has to succeed to be a hero). That is accurate to some extant. However trying to 'typify' a mercenary is over-ambitious. Some are 'cowboys' but feel they are the good guys. Many don't care for the money as much as the cause. Presenting themselves as 'for hire' is just the financial benefit. Like the old western "Paladin". His ad read 'have gun.will travel'. But, he wouldn't work for people that his scruples wouldn't allow (and sometimes worked for much less then he could have as a result).
Palin the Wizard 11-22-06, 07:39 AM	Eh, semantics. I don't consider there to be much of a difference, but to each his own. There are connotations associated with "pity" which isn't associated with "compassion".
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 11-23-06, 11:21 AM	:bump:
theotherdraxen 11-23-06, 11:25 AM	There are connotations associated with "pity" which isn't associated with "compassion". Connotations. That's the word I was looking for. Right, pity only has connotations that compassion does not. Otherwise, they are virtually identical. Choosing the word compassion over pity would be, IMO, a euphamism (while the converse would be a...non-euphamism?).
babysamurai 11-23-06, 12:18 PM	I want to say Leto II, but he would be more LN wouldn’t he, maybe even with evil tendencies? The Bene Gesserit? Sepiriz? …I don’t know. I do know that I have a Spirit Shaman (TN) in the campaign I’m running at the moment and the player is doing a fantastic job of being primal/fecund, like an animal, and doesn’t like the balance to be tipped too much in any direction (Law/Chaos/Good/Evil).
AMac 11-23-06, 01:36 PM	Jolee Bindo from KotOR.
Heros_Backpack 11-23-06, 02:53 PM	Note that he's [Death] being hunted by those enforcers of reality (still can't remember the name, but they have power over reality, but can't have a personal identity). If you're thinking of those grey robes with no-one inside, they're Auditors.
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 11-23-06, 03:51 PM	Severain the Torturer from the quartet starting with the Book of the new Sun. He is traned in the inflicting of pain and death, but his chif concerns are taht his excrsiations do not exceed the point lawfuly establisged by the vicims sentance, and that an execution is done cleanly, profesionaly. The only joy he gains from iether is the same that a craftman gets from any job well done, his mercy is a freshly honed edge to each neck. Yet he breaks the rules of his guild for reasons of his own, and saves lives he perhaps shuld have taken. True neutral becase none of his extreams pushes him far aginst some other act to tip the scales.
AegisShade 11-23-06, 07:12 PM	MILD: Phillip Marlow (detective by Raymond Chandler) MEDIUM: Santa! (courtesy of Coca Cola so I hear) SPICY: The Ascended (SG-1)
Piuro 11-23-06, 11:26 PM	If its been pointed out, sorry, not willing to read four pages to make an example. Death, Rincewind and C.M.O.T. Dibbler from the Discworld books. Death is neutral by his very nature, as described in Mort. Rincewind is TN because he doesnt care if its big and scary or small and cute, his only concern is if he can outrun it. C.M.O.T. Dibbler is TN because hed stand in the middle of a church or the middle of a barbarian hoard if it meant selling somthing onna stick. Edit: Seems Dradjeel beat me to rincewind. Despite all evidence, we see that vimes is just a bitter apathetic LG. Mainly he's bitter at the fact the LG was changed by the Patrician to encompas every other alignment. Actaully, the Patrician, Lord Vetinari, is an amazing example of TN. Look him up on Wikipedia.
Dark Brandon 11-23-06, 11:31 PM	No idea behind the mythos of this guy, but if you've played World of Warcraft Reign of chaos, I think the wizard who turns into a raven might be concidered TN.
CryoSilver 11-23-06, 11:49 PM	Kevin Spacey in "American Beauty"
theotherdraxen 11-24-06, 12:50 AM	If you're thinking of those grey robes with no-one inside, they're Auditors. Ah, that sounds right. Yeah, he can't be lawful. If its been pointed out, sorry, not willing to read four pages to make an example. Death, Rincewind and C.M.O.T. Dibbler from the Discworld books. Death is neutral by his very nature, as described in Mort. Rincewind is TN because he doesnt care if its big and scary or small and cute, his only concern is if he can outrun it. C.M.O.T. Dibbler is TN because hed stand in the middle of a church or the middle of a barbarian hoard if it meant selling somthing onna stick. Edit: Seems Dradjeel beat me to rincewind. Despite all evidence, we see that vimes is just a bitter apathetic LG. Mainly he's bitter at the fact the LG was changed by the Patrician to encompas every other alignment. Actaully, the Patrician, Lord Vetinari, is an amazing example of TN. Look him up on Wikipedia. In total agreement with Vetinari, CMOT, and Rincewind. Vimes isn't lawful: he has no personal code, and only obeys the law itself when it's convenient. For example, he often says that one must not take the law into his own hands, but at a later point, he is asked if he is going to break this, and he says, "Yes, but this time, we're going to squeeze." You see there, he is more than willing to break the law, if it is for good purposes. Vimes acts as lawful as he does chaotic, thus, NG. Carrot is LG, but not Vimes. Death seems to be good to me, for he holds compassion for humans in general (kind of wants to be one). He acts TN, even LN, but I think that, at heart, he's NG.
Piuro 11-24-06, 01:59 AM	Re-read Guards! Guards! again and you'll see what im talking about. Vimes only ignores the law becase the law specifically states that the law is not the law (If that confuses you, read Discworld). Death is, in many ways NG. That said, he is bound to be TN, we see in Mort the consequences of Death (the personification, not the character) switching to another alignment. The only time that death consistently acts good and shows real emotion is reguarding cats. Edit: Vimes is LG, Carrot is Paladin Code LG.
Orbb_was_railed_by_God 11-24-06, 03:16 AM	Vimes not having a personal code? Vimes' personal code is the only thing stopping him from going berserk. Read Night Watch and tell me why he doesn't just splatter Carcer's brains across the cemetery at the end.
Asciiman 11-24-06, 04:08 AM	Artemis Entreri, at the END(AND ONLY THE END) of the second book of the Sell Swords Trilogy, Promise of the Witch King. He changes. He begins to see that perhaps Drizzt was right, that maybe there is more to life then power, security and having others fear/respect you. He's almost the definition of undecided. Still cruel, but not to those that don't cause him trouble, and he helps without any regard to profitting himself. Then again, I just love the character.
Raygenh 11-24-06, 04:19 AM	Griffith from the Berserk anime. Although he obeys the commands of those who hire him and later the royalty whom he serves (swallowing his pride in doing so, such as the time he allowed a noble to punch his face because standing up to him would be illegal and destroy his reputation, which he needs for his goals) he only follows the law to the point where it serves his purposes (he secretly had Gatts simply kill a noble who was causing him trouble). The moment he needs to break the law to get what he wants, he will, without hesitation, but he is by no means rebellious against authority by principle. This means he is neither Lawful or Chaotic. He is willing to do morally wrong things to get what he wants (he kills, often unnecessarily, and shows no remorse for it) but has also shown on numerous occasion mercy and compassion (Caska`s background story shows a good example of this, he saves her life despite having no obligation or motive to do so) and will also do what he can to protect the men of his band in the hopes their desires might also be fulfilled (sometimes risking his life to save theirs). He lacks the conviction to righteousness to be Good, but shows enough restraint to not be Evil. This is all based on what I`ve seen of the anime so far, based on some foreshadowing it`s likely Griffith becomes evil later in the anime, but from episodes 2-16 or so I think Griffith is a prime example of True Neutral.
Asche 11-24-06, 05:14 AM	I would have to say Riddick from Chronicles. He really doesnt show much inclination to act or any sort of vision about where he intends to end up, other than just reacting to the task at hand. He doesnt care enough about either law nor chaos.
theotherdraxen 11-24-06, 05:57 PM	Re-read Guards! Guards! again and you'll see what im talking about. Vimes only ignores the law becase the law specifically states that the law is not the law (If that confuses you, read Discworld). Death is, in many ways NG. That said, he is bound to be TN, we see in Mort the consequences of Death (the personification, not the character) switching to another alignment. The only time that death consistently acts good and shows real emotion is reguarding cats. Edit: Vimes is LG, Carrot is Paladin Code LG. Carrot is overly lawful and good. Vimes might be a lesser form of LG, but I don't know...what is his code? Every on-line test (and anyone else who has played D&D) tells me that I'm Lawful Good, and I can't say I regard Vimes as lawful enough to really call himself lawful. What code does he follow? On second thought, Death might just be TN, and he just has a soft spot for some lucky mortals. Hence, he appears good to them, but absolutely neutral to all else. Vimes not having a personal code? Vimes' personal code is the only thing stopping him from going berserk. Read Night Watch and tell me why he doesn't just splatter Carcer's brains across the cemetery at the end. That's because he recognized the importance of the scene: he can't just kill Carcer, or he would be just as bad. Even a Chaotic Good person could understand this (although they would have a much harder time resisting, IMO). His 'berserk' nature is another factor keeping him from being truly lawful. I'll admit, at the end of Night Watch, he came off a pretty lawful, but for most of the preceding books, he didn't appear to be.