Wat would a True Neutral character do?

[Pinjata]

Here is the situation: True Neutral character is in possession of an Item, that, if given to Bandits, will surely destroy a city. Item is irreplaceable, can not be re-crafted, etc. One day, he is faced with Bandits, who demand for him to hand them over an Item, or they will kill this woman, they are holding hostage. They are unable to just take this item from him. TN sees the woman, it's all very dramatic, taking place on a sunny meadow :D

What is a proper choice for TN?

[LibraryOgre]

As always, it depends on a lot of things.

What's his relationship to the city? What's his relationship to the woman? Why is he True Neutral?

The last question is the first... some people are True Neutral out of a devotion to the principles of Neutrality. AD&D Druids were often presented this way... they believed in explicitly upholding a Balance between Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, and so would act within those parameters. For such a person, making a decision based on their ethics and morals (rather than emotions; q.v. relationships to woman and city), they would likely say that the little evil of the death of the woman would be a minor blip, but the greater evil (and likely chaos) of the destruction of a city would be harder to counterbalance, unless the city itself were a source of the imbalance.

Other folks are TN because they're not particularly good or evil, lawful or chaotic. A lot of people fall into this category, and they're more likely to react purely on emotion.

But relationships, emotions, and the nature of the woman and the city can also enter into it. Is the city the character's home? Is the woman someone he knows? If he lets this woman die, does he think the bandits will consider it a fair trade, or are they likely to just kill the woman and try to take the item anyway?

[False God]

Depends on your TN. IME: there are two approaches "Neutrality" and "Balance".

Captain Neutrality refuses to get involved. The woman could not save herself, the bandits cannot take the item from him. It's not his concern.

Mr Balance sees the loss of one woman as acceptable to prevent "the sure destruction of a city"(and presumably its people). Said destruction would do far more to upset the balance (local, regional, cosmic) than the death of one (presumably average) woman.

[jayem]

Here is the situation: True Neutral character is in possession of an Item, that, if given to Bandits, will surely destroy a city. Item is irreplaceable, can not be re-crafted, etc. One day, he is faced with Bandits, who demand for him to hand them over an Item, or they will kill this woman, they are holding hostage. They are unable to just take this item from him. TN sees the woman, it's all very dramatic, taking place on a sunny meadow :D

What is a proper choice for TN?

Depends a bit on where in TN, where his self interests lie, and how strong he is.

It's a dilemma that at it's basic gets stronger for TG (who want both saved) and weaker for TE, rather than one that strongly shifts.

Does he care about the city?
Does he care about the woman?

Can he reasonably recover the item, between giving it over [and city destruction?]
Can he reasonably rescue/avenge the woman without giving it over?

[Zhorn]

These types of scenarios are what I find to be the greatest limitation of playing by alignments. It ignores what the character values in favour of some binary (trinary?) mindset of good and evil.

Like what Mark Hall says above, answering some of the additional details to that scenario can flip the answer around very easily, as can your definition of neutral, or what aspect of neutrality is held in importance.

Spoiler: All I know is my gut says 'maybe'

Show

[Morty]

I don't see any particular reason why every character with this particular alignment would or should react the same way.

[Lord Raziere]

Here is the situation: True Neutral character is in possession of an Item, that, if given to Bandits, will surely destroy a city. Item is irreplaceable, can not be re-crafted, etc. One day, he is faced with Bandits, who demand for him to hand them over an Item, or they will kill this woman, they are holding hostage. They are unable to just take this item from him. TN sees the woman, it's all very dramatic, taking place on a sunny meadow :D

What is a proper choice for TN?

Whatever choice is easiest and doesn't get him killed.

[Vaern]

The proper choice for a good character would be to refuse to cooperate with the bandits and attempt to save the hostage.
The proper choice for an evil character would be to hand over the item, join the bandits, and tell that they can kill the hostage anyway.
As far as a neutral character goes, there is no one correct choice. Rather than trying to save everyone, a neutral character might weigh the lives at stake against each other and sacrifice the one for the good of the many. If the hostage is someone particularly close to him, he might have no qualms with sacrificing the city for her. They aren't bound by a need to help or harm others, so their decisions come down to what is personally important to them.

[JNAProductions]

The proper choice for a good character would be to refuse to cooperate with the bandits and attempt to save the hostage.
The proper choice for an evil character would be to hand over the item, join the bandits, and tell that they can kill the hostage anyway.
As far as a neutral character goes, there is no one correct choice. Rather than trying to save everyone, a neutral character might weigh the lives at stake against each other and sacrifice the one for the good of the many. If the hostage is someone particularly close to him, he might have no qualms with sacrificing the city for her. They aren't bound by a need to help or harm others, so their decisions come down to what is personally important to them.

That's true of any alignment of PC.

A Good character will, if there's no other involvement, attempt to save the hostage but not let the city die. But what if that city orphaned them, exiled them, and has a kill-order on them? They might save the hostage by handing the item over-no, not a good action, since the city has lots of innocents, but a perfectly in-character one.

An Evil character will, if there's no other involvement, attempt to get the most from this situation. Perhaps trade the artifact for something of value from the bandits. But what if that's their home? Even if they aren't based there, they have personal attachments. They might not care about the woman's life, but they care about the city.

[redwizard007]

Can you clarify a little? Specifically, why do you think alignment has any bearing on this at all?

[Kaptin Keen]

It's a false dilemma, really. The fact that they cannot simply take the items means he can keep them from taking it. For that reason, he can also quite simply free the woman. He may chose not to - he is TN after all, and his reasons for doing or not doing anything are as inscrutable as the wind - but he could, should he chose to.

For all we know, he's actually on his way to use the item himself - destroying a city he feels somehow disturbs the balance. So he'll just go 'oh - ok, here ya go!' grab the woman and walk off, glad someone else is doing his dirty work for him.

[jayem]

That's true of any alignment of PC.

A Good character will, if there's no other involvement, attempt to save the hostage but not let the city die. But what if that city orphaned them, exiled them, and has a kill-order on them? They might save the hostage by handing the item over-no, not a good action, since the city has lots of innocents, but a perfectly in-character one.

If that were the motivation, in my opinion, that would be a case where they failed to be truly "good". If in character it's something to be considered, but it's a case where their alignment is over-ruled by specific details (to the improvement of the game).

There is a "good" conflict, between which of the good actions most important if they can-not be done, and how much the failure of the other breaks them.

An Evil character will, if there's no other involvement, attempt to get the most from this situation. Perhaps trade the artifact for something of value from the bandits. But what if that's their home? Even if they aren't based there, they have personal attachments. They might not care about the woman's life, but they care about the city.

Again, if it's purely for "personal attachments" it's a deviation from the platonic evil. Evil with it's root in a good gone wrong. makes for character growth and makes a much more interesting character.

Of course there are purely selfish reasons to care about the city (or hostage). Or they might just want the irreplaceable artifact, or be pissed about some upstart trying to threaten them.

[Anymage]

AD&D style True Neutral would be even nuttier than Mark Hall mentions. Saving the woman would be a Good act. Saving the city would be a Lawful act. The AD&D balance fetishist would be more concerned with the balance of alignments in the region than any personal interest; if a nearby order of paladins caused an overall surplus of Good and Law in the area, he'd brutally murder the woman and then nuke the city himself. If rampaging orcs created a surplus of Chaos and Evil, he'd act like a saint.

Assuming a more reasonable interpretation of neutrality, where it just means an average person who isn't especially devoted to any of the cosmic forces, a neutral person would do what any normal person would do. And given that it's very rare for someone holding hostages to be given high explosives to try and secure the release of said hostages, I think your average neutral would be similarly disinclined to hand over a nuke.

[notXanathar]

basically: the question is does he care. if the city is useful to him, like somewhere where he stays or has trade etc. then he will keep the item. if he knows the hostage, or thinks he can get something more valuable out of them in return he will give it. if he doesn't care about either, he will keep it.

the constant question of true neutrality in G-E is what is my relationship with this thing: I help people I like or who help me, but not necessarily strangers unless it is to my profit. In L-E it is whether the law is a good law: I will follow a law that is important to my profit, and maybe even enforce it, but if it is against my morality or causes a problem, such as bad trade to give an example, then I will not support it, may break it, and may work to have it removed, (so long as that itself is unlikely to cause problems if i am G-E neutral).

I hope this helps.

[patchyman]

Here is the situation: True Neutral character is in possession of an Item, that, if given to Bandits, will surely destroy a city. Item is irreplaceable, can not be re-crafted, etc. One day, he is faced with Bandits, who demand for him to hand them over an Item, or they will kill this woman, they are holding hostage. They are unable to just take this item from him. TN sees the woman, it's all very dramatic, taking place on a sunny meadow :D

What is a proper choice for TN?

There is no proper choice for a TN character, because TN characters do not exist. There only exist characters who happen to be TN, and who will make a decision based on their traits, ideals, bonds and flaws. Capitalize as necessary.

[Grek]

Being TN (or any other alignment for that matter) does not decide what you should do; it is decided by what you do do. Just like eating too much makes you fat, but being fat doesn't mean that you should eat excessively whenever you get a chance.

A TN character is someone who's behavior doesn't strongly affiliate them with any alignment. What they should do depends on what they think of the city vs the hostage vs the risk of danger to themselves.

[Seto]

There is no proper choice for a TN character, because TN characters do not exist. There only exist characters who happen to be TN, and who will make a decision based on their traits, ideals, bonds and flaws. Capitalize as necessary.

This.

Your post, Pinjata, is a very good example of why the alignment system is descriptive, not prescriptive. True Neutral throws that fact into sharper relief than any other alignment.
I've written a whole manual on TN and I'm unable to answer your question. That's because the answer depends on your character, and if alignment is the only factor you take into consideration, then you don't have a character. Other alignments, such as LG or CE, can serve as a roleplaying crutch and give you general guidelines to begin answering the question. Mind you, you shouldn't solely rely on them, either, but they can serve as a crutch. TN doesn't allow for that. TN is demanding. It won't let you substitute alignment for personality.

[Studoku]

They pull a lever, redirecting the trolley to hit the bandits.

[legomaster00156]

Alignment is not personality. Alignment is not motivation. Alignment does not define a character.

[Strigon]

The issue is, there usually isn't one answer to the question "what would an (insert alignment) person do here?"
This is doubly true for True Neutral, because that particular combination can mean a whole lot of things.
It could mean they refuse to involve themselves in outside affairs. Even in that case, both choices could be justified; he doesn't care about the city or the woman, after all.
It could mean he's devoted to neutrality in all things, in which case his answer would depend on what he thinks the world needs right now.
It could mean he's a nice guy, but he lacks the conviction to be Good. In this case, he might crack under the pressure of being forced to watch an innocent woman die, and give them what they want.
It could mean dozens of other things.

The character exists independently of their alignment, and the alignment is simply tacked on later. It doesn't influence the person, the person influences their alignment.
Unless you believe that there are exactly 9 types of people, and there's no variation within those types, then you have to accept that the answer to questions like this will usually be "not enough information."

[zinycor]

A TN character would act in whatever way they wished to act in this situation.

At my table TN characters don't try to keep the balance on good/evil or law/chaos. They just care about things outside of those parameters.

I would expect this particular character to always care about the big picture, and the greater good. Therefore they would let the woman die, for giving his magical artifact to evil could be catastrophic for the whole world, and risking his own life also endangers the artifact.

But, whatever way the TN character chooses to act, would probably be justified from an RP perspective

[Jorren]

Alignment is not personality. Alignment is not motivation. Alignment does not define a character.

At some point when a tool or concept is misunderstood or misapplied enough, it is fair to question the usefulness or validity of that tool or concept.

I think that pretty much sums up my entire view on the alignment system.

[Tvtyrant]

Alignments don't work, period. If a person believes balance is more important then people, that makes them lawful doesn't it? The rule is more important then the effect it has on people. If they commit evil acts to balance their good acts, that makes them lawful evil. So a true neutral person is lawful evil as well.

But wait, what if imbalance will lead to the universe being destroyed? Oh no! Then acting good will get everyone killed, so being good is evil and being neutral is good! Okay but what if individual rights are more good then some sort of communal good, so killing evil beings isn't good because it helps the community but neutral or evil because it hurts people? Then chaotic neutral is in fact good, and good is evil.

Even making the moral system reliant on gods doesn't work, because there are neutral and evil gods. Good and Evil are teams, so you are aligned with a team. Team Good is just as easily Team Yellow and Team Evil is Team Green. Of course everyone like Mindflayers and Ethergaunts, or Ur Priests, that choose not to believe in a team are Team Green anyway.

[LibraryOgre]

Alignments don't work, period. If a person believes balance is more important then people, that makes them lawful doesn't it? The rule is more important then the effect it has on people. If they commit evil acts to balance their good acts, that makes them lawful evil. So a true neutral person is lawful evil as well.

But wait, what if imbalance will lead to the universe being destroyed? Oh no! Then acting good will get everyone killed, so being good is evil and being neutral is good! Okay but what if individual rights are more good then some sort of communal good, so killing evil beings isn't good because it helps the community but neutral or evil because it hurts people? Then chaotic neutral is in fact good, and good is evil.

Even making the moral system reliant on gods doesn't work, because there are neutral and evil gods. Good and Evil are teams, so you are aligned with a team. Team Good is just as easily Team Yellow and Team Evil is Team Green. Of course everyone like Mindflayers and Ethergaunts, or Ur Priests, that choose not to believe in a team are Team Green anyway.

Yeah, this is wrong.

A True Neutral individual, one who believes that balance is important, takes actions with the explicit purpose of maintaining the balance. That balance includes the needs of the many v. the rights of the one, and order v. freedom. A lawful evil person imposes order to personally advantage themselves; a true neutral person will oppose that order, and the exclusiveness of their selfishness. Conversely, a Chaotic Good person opposes order and institutions, with the intention of making things better for everyone. A true neutral person doesn't mind removing some of the order and institutions, but does not want to remove all of them. They don't mind that some people are selfish and take advantage... but when it becomes a societal way of life, it threatens the balance between the various forces.

[Tvtyrant]

Yeah, this is wrong.

A True Neutral individual, one who believes that balance is important, takes actions with the explicit purpose of maintaining the balance. That balance includes the needs of the many v. the rights of the one, and order v. freedom. A lawful evil person imposes order to personally advantage themselves; a true neutral person will oppose that order, and the exclusiveness of their selfishness. Conversely, a Chaotic Good person opposes order and institutions, with the intention of making things better for everyone. A true neutral person doesn't mind removing some of the order and institutions, but does not want to remove all of them. They don't mind that some people are selfish and take advantage... but when it becomes a societal way of life, it threatens the balance between the various forces.

I disagree. Any definition of Good and Evil where you would balance them and not be Evil is going to either treat them as teams, or it is going to make Evil not mean evil at all. There is no reasonable balance between eating babies and volunteering at orphanages, the former is inherently appalling.

A better version would be Altruistic, Selfish, Sinister. Neutral is Selfish, it has no relationship between Good and Evil at all.

Edit: So we aren't talking past each other. Morality is subjective, and we have multiple philosophies that we use to define it. Objective morality is simply the selection of one of those and saying the others are wrong, which was my point about Good being Evil if we disagree on the moral system. A Neutral character "balancing" those is saying that morality is subjective after all, but in game people who reject the god's moral standards are treated as Evil in most settings. Forgotten Realms especially.

[Seto]

I disagree. Any definition of Good and Evil where you would balance them and not be Evil is going to either treat them as teams, or it is going to make Evil not mean evil at all. There is no reasonable balance between eating babies and volunteering at orphanages, the former is inherently appalling.

Yeah, except that's a strawman, because:
1. That philosophy is very rare. The overwhelming majority of TN characters don't actively advocate for balance, they just don't belong in other alignments. They're the people who DON'T eat babies or volunteer at orphanages, but they might make donations to an orphanage and stay in their own living room when they hear the drunk neighbor beating his child.
2- Even those rare TN characters who do consciously try to balance Good and Evil don't do it in the way you described, because that would be patently stupid. ("Neutral Stupid".)
Realistically, they would first balance the different tendencies within themselves, so they don't get carried away by their own instincts towards an alignment or another.
If they consider themselves a keeper of balance not only in themselves, but in the world (which is a minority in a minority of TN characters), then they most certainly won't try to balance individual acts. Rather, they will, as you point out, take the view that alignment are "teams" - because at the level of individual morality, they aren't, but on a cosmic level, they are. They will act as a last resort, to ensure that no one alignment "wins" and irreversibly eradicates another. One serial killer painting a town in blood? One kingdom enforcing its laws a little too strictly? That's not imbalance, it's just the world turning, ebbing and flowing as it does. It's petty stuff. Now, a plot to turn the material plane into a layer of Hell? A plague designed by the forces of Chaos that hits all Lawful people? A grand plan to infuse the human race with celestial essence and suppress any of their Evil instincts? Now we're talking. A TN keeper of balance will be part of the last battle. (That's why they're so rare btw: it's a weird and distinctly superhuman perspective to have.)

In other words, if you don't like the alignment system, it's easy enough to caricature it and claim it doesn't work. But if you make a good-faith effort at giving it meaning, it's actually rather robust.

[BWR]

True Neutral is also the alignment of most people, generally OK sorts who muddle through life without taking a serious stance on moral issues.
They may tend more towards Law and Good than Chaos and Evil, but aren't committed. The default alighnment, if you will.

E.g. Your average citizen. Loves her family, is hospitable to strangers, occasionally helps out friends and neighbors when they need a hand, but is mostly concerned with her own immediate issues. The sort of person who mutters "that poor woman" when hearing that the neighbor is drunk and beating his wife again, but will not do anything about it. The sort of person who would give her life for her kids but just hurries away when seeing other kids in trouble. The sort of person who says "Someone should do something about X" but doesn't do anything herself.

Most TN characters don't have great philosophical backing for their choices, no dedication to Balance or anything, they just want to get by and be left along by the bigger issues in the world.

[GloatingSwine]

An Evil character will, if there's no other involvement, attempt to get the most from this situation. Perhaps trade the artifact for something of value from the bandits. But what if that's their home? Even if they aren't based there, they have personal attachments. They might not care about the woman's life, but they care about the city.

An evil character with an artifact that has the power to destroy a city probably isn't giving it to some pissant bandits that are already comprehensively weaker than him.

[Corneel]

A True neutral character would decide based on his affinities with the parties involved, agonise about having to make the decision, deflect all guilt and responsibility on the bandits and try to ensure they're punished for making him feel bad.

[Knaight]

There's a whole 9 alignments that characters are fit to - but there are definitely more than 9 possible responses here. That means alignments have to double up, and while it's theoretically possible that these pairings are all located outside TN that seems somewhat unlikely.

Or, slightly more cliche: play characters, not alignments.