Baldur's Gate The Baldur's Gate Series Thread

[NecroLord]

It's difficult to define TN as an ethos. It's better described as simply rejecting extremes. Otherwise you wind up with a detached cosmic mentality of total indifference or that the universe should be static. It doesn't lend well for adventuring player characters in a game of heroic fantasy where morality shapes the cosmos. I can conceptualize a few true neutral PCs, but it's not as easy as others.

1. A farmhand that wants to leave the village and see the world but still loves home. Neither rebellious nor a product of their culture.
2. An autist scholar/academic.
3. A hedonistic merchant trying to make some coin for their lifestyle.

All of these characters would need to be fairly indifferent. Self-interested without being malicious. Plays by the rules and norms or break them depending on the situation. Skie is TN, and it makes sense for her. A bored rich kid who enjoys her status but also likes breaking its rules. Out for fun, maybe even at another's expense, but not sinister or nefarious. As others have said, it makes sense that druids can be NG or NE with Jaheria and Faldorn as excellent examples.

In the Forgotten Realms setting,the overdeity Ao is True Neutral. As an overdeity he is so powerful that he does not even need worship to maintain his power(like normal deities). He can grant godhood and just as easily take it away. He keeps the balance between all deities. Yeah,cosmic balance sounds right.
Also,I would like to add that TN can also be the alignment of a literal NPC. A person with no faith or personal beliefs of his own. A malleable side liner.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

I like the idea of True Neutral being following the law of nature, as opposed to the norms and laws of society, which fits with druids. But one could argue that using animals as cannon fodder is Evil, I guess.

This does make sense only if someone sees norms and laws of society as something separate from nature, which does not correspond to reality. Human/ nature divide is useful shortcuts when you try to explain the need of nature preservation to imbeciles, but as a whole is a meaningless distinction.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

All of these characters would need to be fairly indifferent. Self-interested without being malicious. Plays by the rules and norms or break them depending on the situation.

In other words: a normie. TN, the most popular alignment of them all.

 

[Desiderius]

I like the idea of True Neutral being following the law of nature, as opposed to the norms and laws of society, which fits with druids. But one could argue that using animals as cannon fodder is Evil, I guess.

This does make sense only if someone sees norms and laws of society as something separate from nature, which does not correspond to reality. Human/ nature divide is useful shortcuts when you try to explain the need of nature preservation to imbeciles, but as a whole is a meaningless distinction.

Nature is red in tooth and claw. Base human nature has a pejorative connotation for a reason. But so does unnatural. Hence true neutral.

The good comes not to abolish the law (of nature) but to fulfill. Nature transcends itself all the time. It’s only natural for man to do likewise.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43595/morality

 

[Desiderius]

I like the idea of True Neutral being following the law of nature, as opposed to the norms and laws of society, which fits with druids. But one could argue that using animals as cannon fodder is Evil, I guess.

This does make sense only if someone sees norms and laws of society as something separate from nature, which does not correspond to reality. Human/ nature divide is useful shortcuts when you try to explain the need of nature preservation to imbeciles, but as a whole is a meaningless distinction.

It's difficult to define TN as an ethos. It's better described as simply rejecting extremes. Otherwise you wind up with a detached cosmic mentality of total indifference or that the universe should be static. It doesn't lend well for adventuring player characters in a game of heroic fantasy where morality shapes the cosmos. I can conceptualize a few true neutral PCs, but it's not as easy as others.

1. A farmhand that wants to leave the village and see the world but still loves home. Neither rebellious nor a product of their culture.
2. An autist scholar/academic.
3. A hedonistic merchant trying to make some coin for their lifestyle.

All of these characters would need to be fairly indifferent. Self-interested without being malicious. Plays by the rules and norms or break them depending on the situation. Skie is TN, and it makes sense for her. A bored rich kid who enjoys her status but also likes breaking its rules. Out for fun, maybe even at another's expense, but not sinister or nefarious. As others have said, it makes sense that druids can be NG or NE with Jaheria and Faldorn as excellent examples.

In the Forgotten Realms setting,the overdeity Ao is True Neutral. As an overdeity he is so powerful that he does not even need worship to maintain his power(like normal deities). He can grant godhood and just as easily take it away. He keeps the balance between all deities. Yeah,cosmic balance sounds right.
Also,I would like to add that TN can also be the alignment of a literal NPC. A person with no faith or personal beliefs of his own. A malleable side liner.

It ill befits a high king to comport himself like a mere commoner. Even Machiavelli can tell you that. Which is why the Almighty is LG, the everlasting source of His power, and that of those with the wisdom to recognize it.

I’m TN by temperament, as any contrarian must be, but I’m lazy enough to recognize that the true, the good, and the beautiful is the path of least resistance.

 

[octavius]

I like the idea of True Neutral being following the law of nature, as opposed to the norms and laws of society, which fits with druids. But one could argue that using animals as cannon fodder is Evil, I guess.

This does make sense only if someone sees norms and laws of society as something separate from nature, which does not correspond to reality. Human/ nature divide is useful shortcuts when you try to explain the need of nature preservation to imbeciles, but as a whole is a meaningless distinction.

It's not meaningless when human norms and laws are variable both in time and location. What's normal in one society may be sick in another society, but whatever is natural is more fixed.

 

[Storyfag]

I’m TN by temperament, as any contrarian must be

Surely a true contrarian cannot exist without a dose of Chaos?

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

I like the idea of True Neutral being following the law of nature, as opposed to the norms and laws of society, which fits with druids. But one could argue that using animals as cannon fodder is Evil, I guess.

This does make sense only if someone sees norms and laws of society as something separate from nature, which does not correspond to reality. Human/ nature divide is useful shortcuts when you try to explain the need of nature preservation to imbeciles, but as a whole is a meaningless distinction.

It's not meaningless when human norms and laws are variable both in time and location. What's normal in one society may be sick in another society, but whatever is natural is more fixed.

But it's natural for humans to have variable social norms and culture. Other social animals too have diverse cultures.

 

[MajorMace]

The alignment system is too rigid to be taken too seriously in terms of role play anyway.
What about the lawful dude who's flagged as lawful specifically because he's the ambact of someone else, held by oath or equivalent, and sees no dilemma in following his commander into the most unlawful ventures ?
What about the opposite scenario, where M. Lawful is ready to backstab any of his lifelong friends in order to preserve law and order ?
One can argue that drive and motive solely matter, but it doesn't change the elasticity of both oppositions law/chaos & good/bad (the latter being even more up to interpretation, as you can be an evil altruist as much as a benevolent egocentrist, and stretch any definition of either good or evil as you reasonably can) which ultimately ends in alignment being almost entirely up to the player and its DM.
I think new rulesets have gotten rid of it entirely in the character creation process as well as the last restrictions that still existed. Good riddance I say. This shit has always been, de facto, a house rule anyway.

I think not a single group I've been a part of (which doesn't amount to more than 4 mind you, though) has ever made use of it beyond a couple of spell usages.

 

[Sarathiour]

Are you even reading the manual at this point.

What about the lawful dude who's flagged as lawful specifically because he's the ambact of someone else, held by oath or equivalent, and sees no dilemma in following his commander into the most unlawful ventures ?

Then he's a retard, oath and loyalty go both way, why the fuck would you have to keep your side of the bargain if the other don't ?

What about the opposite scenario, where M. Lawful is ready to backstab any of his lifelong friends in order to preserve law and order ?

So in your mind there is a paradox if your sent your friend to jail because he starts murdering random people ?
Seriously ?

One can argue that drive and motive solely matter, but it doesn't change the elasticity of both oppositions law/chaos & good/bad (the latter being even more up to interpretation, as you can be an evil altruist as much as a benevolent egocentrist, and stretch any definition of either good or evil as you reasonably can) which ultimately ends in alignment being almost entirely up to the player and its DM.

Once again, the problem with alignement is the unavoidable apparition of some retard claiming that "akschually good and evil are subjective, so there is no action that is really 100% good or evil. I am very smart".

Good and evil are not subjective, especially in DnD.

 

[Blutwurstritter]

I like the idea of True Neutral being following the law of nature, as opposed to the norms and laws of society, which fits with druids. But one could argue that using animals as cannon fodder is Evil, I guess.

This does make sense only if someone sees norms and laws of society as something separate from nature, which does not correspond to reality. Human/ nature divide is useful shortcuts when you try to explain the need of nature preservation to imbeciles, but as a whole is a meaningless distinction.

It's not meaningless when human norms and laws are variable both in time and location. What's normal in one society may be sick in another society, but whatever is natural is more fixed.

But it's natural for humans to have variable social norms and culture. Other social animals too have diverse cultures.

The term "natural" is often understood to mean things not caused or made by humans. Just think of the common theme of nature vs civilization. But any discussion of "natural" things should start with a definition of the term natural. I assume you use the term more in the sense based on the laws of nature, which basically makes everything natural in the end. While octavius seems to belong to the first case. This term has caused myself a lot of grief in the past. As chemist I often had unproductive discussions with people, as I attempted to explain that their bio/organic-products are in no scientific sense more "natural" than many conventional products...

 

[octavius]

If you leave out morals you have natural. Yes, I know, gross generalization.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

If you leave our morals you have natural. Yes, I know, gross generalization.

But it's natural for most people to have morals. You say that we become natural only if we do something unnatural?

 

[MajorMace]

Are you even reading the manual at this point.

What about the lawful dude who's flagged as lawful specifically because he's the ambact of someone else, held by oath or equivalent, and sees no dilemma in following his commander into the most unlawful ventures ?

Then he's a retard, oath and loyalty go both way, why the fuck would you have to keep your side of the bargain if the other don't ?

What about the opposite scenario, where M. Lawful is ready to backstab any of his lifelong friends in order to preserve law and order ?

So in your mind there is a paradox if your sent your friend to jail because he starts murdering random people ?
Seriously ?

One can argue that drive and motive solely matter, but it doesn't change the elasticity of both oppositions law/chaos & good/bad (the latter being even more up to interpretation, as you can be an evil altruist as much as a benevolent egocentrist, and stretch any definition of either good or evil as you reasonably can) which ultimately ends in alignment being almost entirely up to the player and its DM.

Once again, the problem with alignement is the unavoidable apparition of some retard claiming that "akschually good and evil are subjective, so there is no action that is really 100% good or evil. I am very smart".

Good and evil are not subjective, especially in DnD.

Could you happen to be an autist, per chance ?

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

It's difficult to define TN as an ethos.

None of the nine alignments in the two-axis system should be defined as an ethos in their own right; this was a terrible mistake that has led to endless misinterpretations and pointless bickering. Animals are generally defined as being "true neutral" because they lack the intelligence even to be good or neutral or similarly to prefer law or chaos (although the latter might depend on the exact definition of the law versus chaos axis). Humans and other sapient beings should be true neutral only if they have no strong inclination to either side of either axis; i.e., someone has no real tendency either to good or evil or to law or chaos. Anyone who begins at "true neutral" but develops a tendency to any of these four positions would shift alignment.

Druids were introduced as a class in original Dungeons & Dragons Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry to fill the gap between lawful clerics and chaotic anti-clerics, keeping in mind that in OD&D's one-axis alignment system lawful might as well have been called good (as it sometimes was in the text) and chaotic might as well have been called evil (as it frequently was in the text). When Gary Gygax wrote alignment descriptions for AD&D's two-axis, nine-alignment system, this conception of druids was transferred to the "true neutral" alignment, which was now considered not only a "naturalistic ethos" but one that advocated maintaining a sort of cosmic balance between good and evil and between law and chaos. Quite silly and unnecessary.

 

[octavius]

If you leave out morals you have natural. Yes, I know, gross generalization.

But it's natural for most people to have morals. You say that we become natural only if we do something unnatural?

So everything is natural? There's no difference between natural and normal?

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

natural and normal

Those are two different things, and what's normal is mightily subjective.

 

[Cryomancer]

All of this talk about alignment. Chaos > Law. Law is merely an excuse to restrict magical experiments which move the humanity foreward!!!

 

[Sarathiour]

Could you happen to be an autist, per chance ?

Why do you keep asking rhetorical questions ?

 

[Storyfag]

Animals are generally defined as being "true neutral" because they lack the intelligence even to be good or neutral or similarly to prefer law or chaos

Which sadly indicates that Gygax was a poor observer of animals.

 

[Storyfag]

If you leave out morals you have natural. Yes, I know, gross generalization.

But it's natural for most people to have morals. You say that we become natural only if we do something unnatural?

So everything is natural? There's no difference between natural and normal?

People using airplanes is normal these days. Still, people moving through the air is quite far from natural.

 

[octavius]

natural and normal

Those are two different things, and what's normal is mightily subjective.

Gee, who told you that?

 

[BruceVC]

Animals are generally defined as being "true neutral" because they lack the intelligence even to be good or neutral or similarly to prefer law or chaos

Which sadly indicates that Gygax was a poor observer of animals.

Why do you say that, animals arent good or evil and they ruled by instinct?

A female dog can kill its malformed pups, its not malicious

 

[Storyfag]

Animals are generally defined as being "true neutral" because they lack the intelligence even to be good or neutral or similarly to prefer law or chaos

Which sadly indicates that Gygax was a poor observer of animals.

Why do you say that, animals arent good or evil and they ruled by instinct?

A female dog can kill its malformed pups, its not malicious

One dog will come and cheer you up when you're sad, another will sulk under the bed. Different reactions in the same situation suggest intelligence enough to support a rudimentary personality.

One cat will cause mischief (chaos), another will not (neutrality).

And so on, and so forth.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

natural and normal

Those are two different things, and what's normal is mightily subjective.

Gee, who told you that?

I think it's normal to think like that.