OOTS #1063 - The Discussion Thread

[GreatWyrmGold]

Not even that, so much as an argument against merging some aspects of "standard D&D cosmology" with a particular political philosophy and a number of unstated assumptions.

I was thinking of an argument along the lines of "Death has no consequence, and in fact is a net benefit to the beings people revere, so there's little to no reason to care about death".

Although in my opinion, no one can ever play "true" neutral. I believe that your alignment is just going to go everywhere, and you will be continually going between Good, Evil, Order, and Chaos unless a certain chain of events lean you farther into one of the other alignments.

I guess that depends on if you define True Neutral as "not strongly anything" or "actively tries to maintain a balance, regardless of the consequences".

[8BitNinja]

I guess that depends on if you define True Neutral as "not strongly anything" or "actively tries to maintain a balance, regardless of the consequences".

I guess that there are multiple flavors to it. I don't know that much about TN, since in most of the campaigns I play, only animals have that alignment.

[Snails]

I guess that depends on if you define True Neutral as "not strongly anything" or "actively tries to maintain a balance, regardless of the consequences".

One of things I admire about the Giant is, with Tarquin, he created a very original (I believe) idea of what Insanely Lawful Evil could look like. He rose above Stupid Lawful Evil by avoiding the obvious like the painful stick up the you know what and a weird pleasure in inflicting pain.

As the entry on D&D 3e from your link points out, "militantly true neutral" by flip flopping on both allies and enemies in order to maintain some enforced kind of balance is actually Chaotic Neutral.

Versions 3.0 and 3.5 explicitly point out that PCs playing "true neutral" shouldn't fit this trope. Even though they usually don't care about greater causes, true neutrals still prefer neighbors who aren't going to betray, kill, or enslave them. And a "militantly neutral" character who flip-flops between backstabbing one side and the other in a conflict so as to always support the underdog would actually fall on the extreme end of the Chaotic axis of the alignment chart.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I guess that depends on if you define True Neutral as "not strongly anything" or "actively tries to maintain a balance, regardless of the consequences".

True Neutral is like the government body in charge of detecting and stopping monopolies: it doesn't care what your business is, just that it won't come to dominate the market. A TN character doesn't want the Empire taking over the world, regardless of whether it is Evil, Good, Lawful, Chaotic or Neutral in its essence. They try to preserve all flavours of morality, and stop one from dominating the rest (including, of course, its own).

Yes, it might do that by flip-flopping, I suppose. But that seems unnecessary tinkering: if constantly switching who they oppose is effective, that suggests that the forces are close to balanced. More likely, they should wait until one force is in clear ascendency, and then devote themselves to slowing them down.

GW

[Peelee]

Alright, never mind.

Although in my opinion, no one can ever play "true" neutral. I believe that your alignment is just going to go everywhere, and you will be continually going between Good, Evil, Order, and Chaos unless a certain chain of events lean you farther into one of the other alignments.

That's an excellent argument for why you specifically could never play True Neutral. It is, however, a very poor argument for why other people would be incapable of doing so.

[Chei]

That's an excellent argument for why you specifically could never play True Neutral. It is, however, a very poor argument for why other people would be incapable of doing so.

Damn, this line actually woke me up. Good stuff.

[Aeson]

True Neutral is like the government body in charge of detecting and stopping monopolies: it doesn't care what your business is, just that it won't come to dominate the market. A TN character doesn't want the Empire taking over the world, regardless of whether it is Evil, Good, Lawful, Chaotic or Neutral in its essence. They try to preserve all flavours of morality, and stop one from dominating the rest (including, of course, its own).

I don't agree that True Neutral must be concerned with the balance between the various moral/ethical alignments. A person who isn't interested in making sacrifices for the good of others but also isn't inclined to advance themselves, their groups, or their causes at the expense of others is neutral on the good-evil axis, and a person who feels that adherence to tradition, law, or some other external or internal code of behavior is neither more nor less important than freedom of action and personal choice is neutral on the law-chaos axis. Someone who fits both of these descriptions is True Neutral, and moreover I'd expect that this is a much more common form of True Neutral than the form that acts to preserve the balance between the alignments.

I would also argue that the form of True Neutral which acts to preserve the balance between alignments runs a very real risk of 'falling' to some form of Evil, depending on how far they're willing to go to preserve the balance. Declining to donate to an order of monks dedicated to improving the lives of the poor and the infirm is a neutral act; stealing from the order or killing its members is evil whether you do it to preserve the cosmic balance or because you hate monks. Someone who justifies too much on the basis of "preserving the Cosmic Balance" is just as evil as someone who justifies too much "for the Greater Good;" the only difference is that for one, the greater good is the Greater Good while for the other it's the Cosmic Balance.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't agree that True Neutral must be concerned with the balance between the various moral/ethical alignments.

And I never claimed that. Everyone agrees that passive true Neutrals exists: animals, for one thing. The context of the discussion is on what we might call militant TN, and whether they can exist.

I would also argue that the form of True Neutral which acts to preserve the balance between alignments runs a very real risk of 'falling' to some form of Evil, depending on how far they're willing to go to preserve the balance. Declining to donate to an order of monks dedicated to improving the lives of the poor and the infirm is a neutral act; stealing from the order or killing its members is evil whether you do it to preserve the cosmic balance or because you hate monks. Someone who justifies too much on the basis of "preserving the Cosmic Balance" is just as evil as someone who justifies too much "for the Greater Good;" the only difference is that for one, the greater good is the Greater Good while for the other it's the Cosmic Balance.

This is not an argument against what I said. Just turn the example around: imagine that the order of monks is in fact Evil. Does the TN's stealing/killing suddenly make him more chaotic good? Yes - after all, that is practically the story of Robin Hood. But as we know, intention counts for a lot, and thus if the TN is doing this to prevent the monks from gaining more power, then his actions, even if they seem "Good" or "Evil" due to their opposition to the monks, are nevertheless a TN action. Put simply: if the TN's actions are the same no matter the alignment of the people they oppose, they are TN.

Grey Wolf

[Snails]

Someone who justifies too much on the basis of "preserving the Cosmic Balance" is just as evil as someone who justifies too much "for the Greater Good;" the only difference is that for one, the greater good is the Greater Good while for the other it's the Cosmic Balance.

Impressive. You completely demolished the concept of Militant True Neutral in one sentence.

[Snails]

This is not an argument against what I said. Just turn the example around: imagine that the order of monks is in fact Evil. Does the TN's stealing/killing suddenly make him more chaotic good? Yes - after all, that is practically the story of Robin Hood. But as we know, intention counts for a lot, and thus if the TN is doing this to prevent the monks from gaining more power, then his actions, even if they seem "Good" or "Evil" due to their opposition to the monks, are nevertheless a TN action. Put simply: if the TN's actions are the same no matter the alignment of the people they oppose, they are TN.

Opposing an order of monks because they are evil is a good or neutral act -- it might be either. Opposing an order of monks because they are creating problems could be good or neutral or evil -- I need to know more information.

Tarquin's actions are the same no matter the alignment of the people he is grinding into a fertilizer slurry for his wife's garden. Does that make him true neutral?

There is a kernel of truth to your argument: the alignment of the target may not matter, it is the action itself that is of primary importance.

I would point out it is perfectly plausible for a Good person to attack another Good person, and that not be an evil act. That they surely share some strong moral commonalities only means that talking it out is very likely to succeed, not that it must succeed. People can fight for neutral reasons, after all.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Impressive. You completely demolished the concept of Militant True Neutral in one sentence.

People can fight for neutral reasons, after all.

Congratulations, you defeated your own argument.

There is a kernel of truth to your argument: the alignment of the target may not matter, it is the action itself that is of primary importance.

No. What matters is the intention behind the act. Tarquin is Evil because he opposes others that are above him so he can increase his own power. A Good person might oppose the same to protect the weak. A TN might do the same because he does not want a monolithic empire. They could even all join forces to accomplish their separate goals. That does not mean that the TN of CG are suddenly Evil.

Are there shades to the actions? Certainly. Advancing their common cause, Tarquin might enjoy the killings, the Good guy be filled with guilt, and the TN not feel much either way. Tarquin may torture people for information, the Good guy let the prisoners go and the TN attempt to talk them around. And so on. But claiming that TN cannot exist because opposing a Good force automatically makes you Evil, regardless of intention (as per Aeson's argument), that makes no sense.

Grey Wolf

[pendell]

I don't get the talk of neutral as being 'concerned about balance' vis-a-vis good. Another word for 'everything in balance' is harmony. It's opposite is dischord. Or , another word for 'balance' is 'justice' -- that every man receives that which they are owed , no more , no less. That's why the statue of justice carries a pair of scales.

So to increase the amount of evil in the world means to increase the amount of disharmony, dischord, injustice, and every other form of imbalance there can be. So if 'preserving the balance' does not mean 'lawful good', it would seem to be meaningless.

I think I agree with 8-bit Ninja: TN is an alignment best given to creatures or things with no moral faculties. Intelligent creatures, by their actions, must of necessity lean towards good or evil.

I realize other players and gamers don't do it this way but I don't see any other way to do it within a consistent philosophical framework.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Snails]

Congratulations, you defeated your own argument.

You are going to have to be more explicit.

[dancrilis]

I realize other players and gamers don't do it this way but I don't see any other way to do it within a consistent philosophical framework.

I think this might cover that:

That's an excellent argument for why you specifically could never play True Neutral. It is, however, a very poor argument for why other people would be incapable of doing so.

My take on it is that at if at a cosmic level too much good (or evil) will tip the scales and result in the destruction of reality than it makes sense to oppose both.

At a more prime level a LG (for example) society that trys to make itself dominant because they see themselves as morally and ethically superior to other alignments is going to find itself in conflict with 8/9ths of the populace (assuming even alignment spread) - as such opposing such a group from forming a significant powerbase will prevent any alignment wars occusing on the plane.

[TheNecrocomicon]

TN is an alignment best given to creatures or things with no moral faculties. Intelligent creatures, by their actions, must of necessity lean towards good or evil.

I realize other players and gamers don't do it this way but I don't see any other way to do it within a consistent philosophical framework.

Ever heard of a false dichotomy?

Beings with no mental capacity to make reasoned decisions are the reason 5e has "Unaligned". One cannot be good, evil, lawful, chaotic or neutral without the means to understand what morals are in the first place.

True Neutral, on the other hand, just strikes me as the sort of alignment for a character for whom the ends always justify the means. In that sense, they may take actions of any moral character, good, evil, lawful and/or chaotic, towards whatever their end goal(s) happens to be. In contrast to an Evil character, those ends will not necessarily be cruel and hateful; in contrast to a Good character, those ends are not always benevolent or altruistic. It's the "do whatever" alignment; the most pragmatic stance but probably also the hardest to pin down or trust as to how they will react.

[Keltest]

Something to keep in mind is that the Militant Neutral believes that there is such a thing as "too much Good". Usually this is some variation of Evil being important on a cosmic level and that having Good actually triumph over it would have serious repercussions... somehow.

[Kish]

Andi's actions are clearly suicidally stupid and motivated by pure ego, a belief that she deserves deference from Bandana without regard for whom Julio left in charge.

[KorvinStarmast]

Andi's actions are clearly suicidally stupid and motivated by pure ego, a belief that she deserves deference from Bandana without regard for whom Julio left in charge.

Would that correlate to an alignment of "Neutral Stupid" or "Chaotic Stupid?"

[Chei]

Would that correlate to an alignment of "Neutral Stupid" or "Chaotic Stupid?"

In my opinion, Andi's a pretty decent example of a True Neutral person who has done evil as a result of her own personal attachments. I don't think she's capital E Evil, or any other possible capitalization of the word. She's been primarily motivated by her love of the ship, her loyalty towards Julio, and her dislike of Bandana - these are personal attachments/enmities that indicate no strong moral/philosophical convictions, so I consider them Neutral.

[Quibblicious]

Would that correlate to an alignment of "Neutral Stupid" or "Chaotic Stupid?"

Chaotic Angry.

Q

[Jasdoif]

I think I agree with 8-bit Ninja: TN is an alignment best given to creatures or things with no moral faculties. Intelligent creatures, by their actions, must of necessity lean towards good or evil.

I realize other players and gamers don't do it this way but I don't see any other way to do it within a consistent philosophical framework.

Suppose having a True Neutral alignment means your morals are closer to the middle point between Good and Evil than they are to either extreme, and your ethics are closer to the middle point between Law and Chaos than they are to either extreme.

[Quibblicious]

Suppose having a True Neutral alignment means your morals are closer to the middle point between Good and Evil than they are to either extreme, and your ethics are closer to the middle point between Law and Chaos than they are to either extreme.

TN could also be someone dedicated to a purpose that doesn't place primary value on evil vs. good or order vs. chaos.

Illarith is a TN mage I'm running in a 2E campaign. He's an elf dedicated to knowledge and the acquisition thereof. He doesn't brook the destruction of manuscripts or books, and has forced the party to sit while he copies inscriptions and other information from various sites. He's put party members to sleep when they've attempted to wreck books or manuscripts because the items were "evil".

Evil and good in the classic sense mean little to him. Good and evil have to him have to do with the preservation of knowledge. Preservation is good, destruction is bad.

He's in a party with a paladin and a couple good clerics partly to gather their knowledge for preservation, but also because they "evil" they're fighting threatens to erase much knowledge from the world.

Not a perfect example, but IMO closer to TN than not.

Q

[Aeson]

No. What matters is the intention behind the act. Tarquin is Evil because he opposes others that are above him so he can increase his own power. A Good person might oppose the same to protect the weak. A TN might do the same because he does not want a monolithic empire. They could even all join forces to accomplish their separate goals. That does not mean that the TN of CG are suddenly Evil.

Intention counts, but cannot be taken in isolation. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" and all that. When considering a character's internal alignment, you need to think about the intended and unintended effects of the action, the actor's awareness of these effects, what the actor would do if made aware of some or all of the unintended consequences, and what the actor's intentions were when the act was taken. Pressing a big red button to see what it does is a Neutral act; pressing a big red button to see what it does despite knowing that doing so will trigger a global nuclear war is something else entirely.

Going back to the examples of the monastic orders, a supposedly-Neutral character who kills members of either order so as to "preserve the Cosmic Balance" had better have a damn good argument for why the cause of Cosmic Balance is so important that homicide is an act which is both acceptable and consistent with their alignment if taken in pursuit of this cause, and they need at least a reasonable argument for why theft is justified, or they're well on their way to ending up in the Evil bin by way of Fanaticism, especially if acts which inflict harm upon others were their first option rather than their last recourse.

An Evil monastic order is growing powerful enough to upset the Cosmic Balance with its Evil acts? Try setting up a counter-movement to restore the Cosmic Balance with Good acts. Try to make the Evil monastic order something which is unattractive to the general public. Draw the attention of a local government to the order's excesses and get the government to reign in the order. Stealing the order's money should be pretty close to the last recourse, and killing the order's members shouldn't even be up for consideration except in fairly extreme cases.

A Good monastic order is growing powerful enough to upset the Cosmic Balance through its compassionate acts towards the poor and the infirm? Try to get the populace to believe that the order needs no further support, or should support itself rather than taking their charity to support the infirm. Find corruption within the order and try to discredit the order in the eyes of the public by exposing it (there is no organization with more than one or two people in it which is composed solely of saints).

[8BitNinja]

That's an excellent argument for why you specifically could never play True Neutral. It is, however, a very poor argument for why other people would be incapable of doing so.

What I am saying is that every action has consequences. When you are adventuring, really big moral desicions are made. Usually, the party will all gravitate towards an alignment due to the goal. In my opinion, TN characters cannot stay neutral unless they do not go adventuring.

But that is just me. I'm not trying to debate with you. If you think it's a poor argument, think that. I don't care.

That last part sounded a little too neutral for me.

Must.Stay.Lawful.Good.

[Keltest]

What I am saying is that every action has consequences. When you are adventuring, really big moral desicions are made. Usually, the party will all gravitate towards an alignment due to the goal. In my opinion, TN characters cannot stay neutral unless they do not go adventuring.

But that is just me. I'm not trying to debate with you. If you think it's a poor argument, think that. I don't care.

That last part sounded a little too neutral for me.

Must.Stay.Lawful.Good.

Neutral characters are perfectly allowed to follow decisions made by the group, not because of the underlying (I'm)moral reasons, but because they were made by the group and disrupting the group is To Be Avoided.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

<snip>

Your argument would seem to apply equally to a Good person, killing enemies for their cause. If your argument against TN is "anyone that goes on adventures involving killing becomes Evil", then I reject such declaration, and there is nothing further to discuss. Adventurers in D&D go on adventures for all kinds of reasons, and none of them suddenly lose their alignments just because they kill creatures of other alignments. If your argument applies to TN, then it also applies to, say, CG, as I already mentioned above.

Also, I did not bring up any mystical "Cosmic Balance". I said from the start that a TN might simply be against dominance of a single alignment over all the others. A monastic order, of any alignment, that threatens to take over the world (or the country, or city, or whatever the appropriate scale is) will be seen as a threat by a TN who'd rather preserve all ways of life, instead of having the conquerors decide for them.

If you play M:tG, think of TN as the people who don't think all land should be plains, or all mountains, or all forests, or all seas or all swamps.

GW

[Aeson]

Also, I did not bring up any mystical "Cosmic Balance". I said from the start that a TN might simply be against dominance of a single alignment over all the others. A monastic order, of any alignment, that threatens to take over the world (or the country, or city, or whatever the appropriate scale is) will be seen as a threat by a TN who'd rather preserve all ways of life, instead of having the conquerors decide for them.

You claim that you do not bring up any mystical "Cosmic Balance" and then in the very next sentence you claim that a TN character can act with the specific intent of preventing any one alignment from becoming dominant. Acting with the specific intent of preventing any one alignment from becoming dominant is virtually the textbook definition of acting to preserve a cosmic balance, whether you have a formal concept of Cosmic Balance or not. Dominance is a question of relative abundance or relative power, and if you do not have a concept of what the relative abundance or relative power of something 'should' be, you cannot act with the specific intention of preventing it from becoming dominant. Whether that concept is some formal theological definition of Cosmic Balance or an informal and nameless concept of "that's the way things are/always have been/were before (some event)" does not matter; if you are acting because you do not wish to see rampant Good crowd out Evil or rampant Law crowd out Chaos or whatever, you are acting to preserve some form of cosmic balance.

I would further add that acting to prevent an organization from becoming dominant is not the same thing as acting to prevent an alignment from becoming dominant. Neutral characters can act to prevent an organization from gaining power without reference to any form of cosmic balance, regardless of whether the organization is overall a force for Good, Evil, or Gouda.

Your argument would seem to apply equally to a Good person, killing enemies for their cause. If your argument against TN is "anyone that goes on adventures involving killing becomes Evil", then I reject such declaration, and there is nothing further to discuss. Adventurers in D&D go on adventures for all kinds of reasons, and none of them suddenly lose their alignments just because they kill creatures of other alignments. If your argument applies to TN, then it also applies to, say, CG, as I already mentioned above.

If you have no reasonable alternatives to violence or if the violence is justifiable given the circumstances, then it is not going to affect your character's alignment. You're ambushed by bandits? You're not going to get "Evil points" for killing them. The dragon is unwilling to consider any deal which does not allow it to continue eating the villagers? You're not going to get "Evil points" for killing the dragon, unless you somehow make it abundantly clear that the only reason why you're killing the dragon is for your personal gain or enjoyment. You wander into the orcs' sacred burial grounds and get attacked by a party of orcs? You're not going to get "Evil points" for killing the orcs unless you knew that going into that area was going to provoke the orcs into attacking you, or unless you unreasonably ignored the orcs' initial nonviolent attempts to get you to leave the area. You're tasked with obtaining an artifact from its current owner, a prominent businessman, so as to return it to its 'rightful' owners from whom it was stolen more than a century ago? If you choose to try violence first without even considering another course of action, you're getting "Evil points," big time, and you're probably getting "Evil points" even if you did consider other alternatives but still chose to resort to violence without attempting any of them, unless you had very good cause to believe that alternative methods of obtaining the artifact would not work.

[Mightymosy]

[...]
If you play M:tG, think of TN as the people who don't think all land should be plains, or all mountains, or all forests, or all seas or all swamps.

GW

Are you aware that WotC has been pushing Good vs Evil out of the colors of Magic for quite some time? They are trying hard to abandon the old "white/plains = good vs black/swamps = evil" scheme.
It feels pretty forced at times, if you consider all the white villains they have invented over time.

But i do appreciate the general idea. White means value of the group first, black means value of the individual first.
Where is good or evil? Actually, the Good is in a balance between these.

And because balance of egoism and altruism is generally good, things get so mixed up and don't work as well when you try the whole balance between good and evil as a "neutral" alignment.

EDIT: Also, I believe you were about to say "islands", not "seas" ;-)

[8BitNinja]

Neutral characters are perfectly allowed to follow decisions made by the group, not because of the underlying (I'm)moral reasons, but because they were made by the group and disrupting the group is To Be Avoided.

Your argument would seem to apply equally to a Good person, killing enemies for their cause. If your argument against TN is "anyone that goes on adventures involving killing becomes Evil", then I reject such declaration, and there is nothing further to discuss. Adventurers in D&D go on adventures for all kinds of reasons, and none of them suddenly lose their alignments just because they kill creatures of other alignments. If your argument applies to TN, then it also applies to, say, CG, as I already mentioned above.

Also, I did not bring up any mystical "Cosmic Balance". I said from the start that a TN might simply be against dominance of a single alignment over all the others. A monastic order, of any alignment, that threatens to take over the world (or the country, or city, or whatever the appropriate scale is) will be seen as a threat by a TN who'd rather preserve all ways of life, instead of having the conquerors decide for them.

If you play M:tG, think of TN as the people who don't think all land should be plains, or all mountains, or all forests, or all seas or all swamps.

GW

Never mind, my argument makes no sense.

[dancrilis]

You claim that you do not bring up any mystical "Cosmic Balance" and then in the very next sentence you claim that a TN character can act with the specific intent of preventing any one alignment from becoming dominant. Acting with the specific intent of preventing any one alignment from becoming dominant is virtually the textbook definition of acting to preserve a cosmic balance, whether you have a formal concept of Cosmic Balance or not. Dominance is a question of relative abundance or relative power, and if you do not have a concept of what the relative abundance or relative power of something 'should' be, you cannot act with the specific intention of preventing it from becoming dominant. Whether that concept is some formal theological definition of Cosmic Balance or an informal and nameless concept of "that's the way things are/always have been/were before (some event)" does not matter; if you are acting because you do not wish to see rampant Good crowd out Evil or rampant Law crowd out Chaos or whatever, you are acting to preserve some form of cosmic balance.

I would further add that acting to prevent an organization from becoming dominant is not the same thing as acting to prevent an alignment from becoming dominant. Neutral characters can act to prevent an organization from gaining power without reference to any form of cosmic balance, regardless of whether the organization is overall a force for Good, Evil, or Gouda.

I am not seeing your distinction here.

Let us say a kingdom is about to have a new leader (currently a baron) - this person is a LG fanatic, all should be good and all laws should exist to enforce and promote good.

One of the laws they have enforced on their barony is as follows:

Law: One should always say 'excuse me' after farting.

Rational for the Law:
1). Not saying 'excuse me' after farting can lead to the wrong person being blamed and that person feeling bad about being falsely accused.
2). Given the existance of extraplaner entities who may leave suspicious smells not saying 'excuse me' may result in people informing local clerics about potentially malicious spirits - taking time from there duties.
3). Saying 'excuse me' may alert nearby medical practitioners to pay closer attention to the smell and thereby note indications of poor health which can than be corrected prior to more serious ailments being detected.

Sub-Clause: One should always say 'excuse me' unless one has farting due to potential misunderstanding - please see the relevant laws and rationals for the correct pharsing to use in other situations.

Penalty for Breaching the Law:
First time offender - verbal warning and reminder of the law.
Second time offender - written and verbal warning and reminder of the law.
Third to tenth time offender - minor fine (proportional to income so as to prevent the wealthy avoiding the law).
Offences past the Tenth: Will be subjected to Lesser Geas to enforce behaviour.

Now the law is intended to promote good behaviour and secure the safety of the realm and be fair to all, but some TN (and others) might find it excessively controlling and so oppose it and seek to have the baronies reject this new king and install someone less concerned with how they speak after bowel movements. They would oppose any such extremism.

This would meet the stated: 'a TN character can act with the specific intent of preventing any one alignment from becoming dominant'