Alignment - Neutral is NEUTRAL

[GodBeastX]

Alright, I think people are STILL confused about what Neutral means, so I need to beat it into people's heads again. So if you see me shifting your alignment and go "WHYYY?!", then this might help clarify. I need to just bump these threads when people start to fall off again:

Lawful Neutral
Lawful Neutral is called the "Judge" or "Disciplined" alignment. A lawful neutral character typically believes strongly in Lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules and tradition, and often follows a personal code. A Lawful Neutral society would typically enforce strict laws to maintain social order, and place a high value on traditions and historical precedent. Examples of Lawful Neutral characters include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the word of the law, a disciplined monk, and the Dungeon Master of a D&D game. Lawful Neutral creatures also include the Modrons and Inevitables, a strict hierarchy of incredible extraplanar constructs who embody the very concept of order.

Characters of this alignment are neutral with regard to Good and Evil. This does not mean that Lawful Neutral characters are amoral or immoral, or do not have a moral compass; but simply that their moral considerations come a distant second to what their code, tradition or law dictates. They typically have a strong ethical code, but it is primarily guided by their system of belief, not by a commitment to Good or Evil.

James Bond, Odysseus, and Sanjuro from Yojimbo are Lawful Neutral. Three exemplars of Lawful Neutral exist. These are the Formians, the Inevitables and the Modrons.

Lawful neutral people shouldn't be the moral police. You have some morals, but they aren't as important as the code. Too many Lawful/Neutral moral police for my brain to wrap itself around lately. L/N people are more than likely to go, "Well, he did summon a devil in his house, but... he does have a license to do it. So I guess he is obeying the law, so I guess I'll let him slide."

Neutral

Neutral alignment, also referred to as True Neutral, is called the "Undecided" or "Nature's" alignment. This alignment represents neutral on both axes, and tends not to feel strongly towards any alignment. A farmer whose only concern is to feed his family is of this alignment. Most animals, such as monkeys, lacking the capacity for moral judgement, are of this alignment.

Some neutral characters, rather than feeling undecided, are committed to a balance between the alignments. They may see Good, Evil, Law and Chaos as simply prejudices and dangerous extremes. Mordenkainen is one such character who takes this concept to the extreme, dedicating himself to a detached philosophy of neutrality to ensure that no one alignment or power takes control of the Flanaess.

Druids frequently follow this True Neutral dedication to balance, and under Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules were required to be this alignment. In an example given in a D&D rulebook, a typical druid might fight against a band of marauding gnolls, only to switch sides to save the gnoll's clan from being exterminated.

Lara Croft, Lucy Westenra from Dracula, and Han Solo in his early Star Wars appearance are Neutral. The True Neutral outsiders are known as the Rilmani.

This part is important:

They may see Good, Evil, Law and Chaos as simply prejudices and dangerous extremes.

People who pick T/N definitely shouldn't be the moral police. I'd say Myrddin on the server has been the best representation of this attitude of any T/N PC on the server.

The farmer concerned about feeding his family might plant crops. If a Banite comes along and says "Yo, I got the food, and I'm a Banite, give me da cash and you can have the goods!" He's not going to be like "OMG! Banite?! JESUS! I can't buy from you!" He might be like, "Well, you're quite an extremist aren't you? But I just want your food. No need to preach to me about Bane today. Take care, thanks for the business."

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral is called the "Anarchist" or "Free Spirit" alignment. A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, shirks rules and traditions. They typically act out of self-interest, but do not enjoy seeing others suffer. Many adventurers are of this alignment.

An unusual subset of Chaotic Neutral is "strongly Chaotic Neutral", describing a character who behaves chaotically to the point of appearing insane. Characters of this type may regularly change their appearance and attitudes for the sake of change, and intentionally disrupt organizations for the sole reason of disrupting a Lawful construct. Characters of this type include the Xaositects from the Planescape setting, and Hennet from the third edition Player's Handbook. In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Chaotic Neutral was frequently assumed to refer to this subset.

Captain Jack Sparrow, Al Swearengen from the TV series Deadwood, and Snake Plissken from Escape from New York are verifiably Chaotic Neutral characters. Slaadi represent pure Chaos.

They don't like seeing people suffer, but that does not mean they are going to work to end all suffering. Meaning, if you see someone bleeding, "Shit man, I better help you!" But if you see a man being chased by a bunch of Orcs, "Shit man, I better run before they chase me instead!"

I like the fact they said many adventurers are this alignment, because it's true on Sundren.


Anyway, I'd like to see people who get made about being shifted to good and evil take into account that you're not neutral meaning you can do good all month and still have room for an evil act now and then. I'll be shifting people as I see things happen, so don't be surprised if you're not neutral as you choose a path for alignment.

[FunkGuru]

Lawful Neutral
Lawful Neutral is called the "Judge" or "Disciplined" alignment. A lawful neutral character typically believes strongly in Lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules and tradition, and often follows a personal code. A Lawful Neutral society would typically enforce strict laws to maintain social order, and place a high value on traditions and historical precedent. Examples of Lawful Neutral characters include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the word of the law, a disciplined monk, and the Dungeon Master of a D&D game. Lawful Neutral creatures also include the Modrons and Inevitables, a strict hierarchy of incredible extraplanar constructs who embody the very concept of order.

I'm not sure how accurate this can be. You expect players to believe DM's are LN? We all know they are CE.

[Echelon13]

Actually, a good example of the Lawful Neutral alignment is probably — dare I say it — the Magister Dion.
DMs, however, are generally lawful evil. Or I am, at least.

[nutranurse]

Hate to toot my own horn here (wait, no, I love it actually) but for all of you sods who remember Rook, I can say she was (and was told this myself...) a rather good example of LN. She was all about Order. Order order order. She had a strict sense of decency: the result of strong cultural ties which she kept with herself all the way to her unmarked grave. Granted she shifted to LE... but... that is another story.

When you think of LN you should always consider the character having a strict sense of their own code. If you want to think of a LN organisation.... think Government. The Government is not supposed to take the 'good' or 'evil' side, just do what is best for its people, which can dictate that they do a fair share of 'good' and 'evil' things.

But.... LN does not always mean LAW ORDER LAW ORDER in larger external forms... it can be the old warrior who has a strict sense of honour and passionately seeks to uphold his honour no matter what. It could be a bomber who, while seemingly chaotic, only does what he/she does to protect his friends, family, and those under his/her charge, more so does whatever needs to be done in order to maintain the safety of those he/she cares for. It can be an assassin who does what he does for whatever reason and he always maintains a degree of honour/follows some kind of code (mind you killing does not equate to evil all the time....)

So.... yea, just tossing a few examples out there.

[wangxiuming]

I think part of the problem is sometimes it's hard to define the line between "playing your alignment" and "playing your character." As in, your alignment should in some sense dictate how your character would act and react. Part of playing your character "correctly" (I hesitate to use that word, but I'm too tired to think of another one) is making sure his actions correspond to his alignment.

However, by playing your alignment too closely, that limits room for growth and change, which is a very real part of anybody's story. What I'm trying to say is I don't think people should be afraid of alignment shifts - it's all part of your character's growth and development. As GBX said, just because you think your character is good but a DM hits you with a few evil points - that doesn't mean you're "evil." It means in that one instance, from the DM's point of view, your character performed a morally questionable act. You can still redeem yourself.

The only concern for some I can think of here is that alignment points are extraordinarily hard to earn, or earn back - I was on a server once that handed out alignment shifts in great quantities - but only in the opposite direction. For some reason, they loved making people neutral, and only rarely gave shifts towards the extremes. But it seems like Sundren's staff is going to keep a more watchful eye on alignment now, so it should be all good.

Of course, if you just saved a damsel in distress, rescued a baby out of a dragon's mouth, and donated your entire inventory to the Triumvirates, and you STILL got hit with evil points ... that's a whole 'nother story :P

[Scavar]

Personally for me, my main started off NG, and it still says NG, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets shifted to TN or CN sometime soon though.

Neutral is sweet.

[Rhifox]

Your alignment should correspond to your character, not vice versa. Alignment should, at best, be a closest match, and that's it. I don't think you should ever look at your alignment and then go 'I need to change my character, I'm not exactly following it'. If the alignment doesn't match up perfectly, don't worry about it. Just get the closest fit and then never think of it again. I still can't decide whether Josephine is best as Neutral or Chaotic on the law scale and Evil, Neutral, or Good on the moral scale (hence why I picked chaotic neutral, because that also indicates a lack of moral conviction... can't decide if you're evil or good? Then that means you're neutral morally.).

And yep, you should let your alignment be fluid. If a DM hits you with a new alignment or an alignment shift, then take it. Again, RP the character out, fuck the alignment. The alignment should match the character, and if the character acts a certain way that causes the alignment to change, then let it. Better than trying to stick to the alignment and ignore the way the character should act.

[Tassafina]

Hehe well I definitely dont have any problems with you changeing my alignment as long as its not icky lawfull...but dont think will have to worry about that too much Though of course she is innocent...Tass usually swings between neatral and good..unless of course someone hurts someone she cares about then she can swing the other way pretty quickly

[Inconsiderable]

Heh, main problem is neutral being best enginewise :b

Jokes aside, usually I find it pretty easy to say what alignment my characters have.

Lawful vs Chaotic - Core Question:
Does the character follow any codex or laws or tradions beside "to avoid trouble"?

Good vs Evil - Core Question:
Will the character kill innocents because he feels like or because he is being payed for it?

The good vs evil one is the easier one. A mercenary that would kill a child because he is payed for it is evil, even thou he has nothing incommon with other persons people define as evil. Or a thief who kills someone so he isnt reported and will not go to jail is also evil.
(Sidenote: If someone is forced todo something evil, like for example kill a child for whatever cruel reason his alignment either shifts or takes a big hit)
Lawful vs Neutral can become tricky. It kinda depends on the characters priorities. We have laws here IRL and they are kinda important for us; yet most of us would be more neutral than lawful.

As 99% of my chars are either lawful evil or lawful good, its easy for me :b

[Ithildin]

I know i tend to learn toward good with my characters so I saved you the trouble and made my druid neutral good from the start

[FunkGuru]

Its an abstract concept and you can at best only follow guidelines as you interprete them. I think the point is not to ignore them.

Some people might want a slow shift, reflecting how they change due to their experiences and environment etc. But I suspect GBX means the players who just pay no attention to alignment after they take CN (Care Not) because they assume they can do whatever they like.

I'm not telling what Shane's alignment is.

[FreakyFerret]

I agree with Rhifox.

When I made Gran, I had to think what's his alignment? Well, he grew up in Waterdeep with a good home and loving parents. He was shown the path of Good an encouraged the follow it. He did his best to do so. T

hen he started working in a dwarven tavern. While dwarves by their nature are not unGood, a building full of drunken dwarvens with lots of loud music, lots of drinking, and lots of postering and lots of womenfolk around will eventually if not normally erupt into violence. Since he was a bard, his job was to keep playing/entertaining the guest no matter what. This meant sometimes standing idly by while one person is assaulted by another and his friends. Watching silently as a waitress was harrassed and manhandled (dwarfhandled?). Turn a blind eye to someone cheating at games of chance. Then of course there's all those "back room deals" he noticed.

Through all this, he didn't embrace a philosophy of Evil and Chaos, but he certainly lost some of the Good in him. At first, he was disturbed by what he saw, but as time went on, he became cold and indifferent to it. He didn't have to force himself to sit quietly, he discovered it was easier and more to his benefit to do so.

So, I went with True Neutral. Due to his upbringing and nature, he was likely Neutral Good, but due to his actions and long-term conditioning, he's become True Neutral at best.

Since arriving at Sundren though, he's seen more injustice and openly-evil people and creatures than he's been exposed to previously. He finds himself wanting to help those who really need it (like the poor guy who was bleeding to death at the crossroads the other day). He's also finding he's a lot more brave than he once thought he was.

Anyway, that's my take on alignment and how someone can shift from one axis to another through their actions.

[Xanderleo]

I'm not telling what Shane's alignment is.

CE

Chaotic Egoist




Your avatar cracks me up by the way.

[Aries1918]

I try not to limit my character by his alignment. He will probably shift around a lot as time goes by. I only use alignment as more of a 'guideline' for his actions, and nothing more. If there were no outside influences, his alignment would stay perfectly where it is, but we all know that never happens in life.

Oh, he's not neutral btw, so I'm not sure if my 2 cents belongs here or not.

[Lanemeyer]

I'm playing Lane as neutral good and I think it is being easy. When I am on Elly, she is lawful neutral (more to good), this one it is being a bit harder to RP because she would be the same as Quy and I am having dificult to find another way to RP with her because I don't want to make her just like Quy...

So, if the DMs change my alignment, fine by me, but I will still do my best to stay LN =P