Bump. Hello, any opinions?
$50 a day, plus expenses
Sorry, Walls of Text (Even if you're just copy-pasting from the main article) scare people.
To sum it up, you're proposing that we shrink the article down to its bare bones, right?
Don't take life too seriously. It's only a temporary situation.
I want to reduce the length and get rid of the types.
I'd recommend using [[quoteblock]]s simply to reduce the amount of text. Makes it easier to read.
Thanks.
number 7 should stay i think.
Cure Candy
Toss the types in a Folder a lot of that is worthy of the page with a lot of related tropes potholes. As well as they are brought up in the examples.
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!
The thing is, that many of these types are actually pointless to lists as alignment is not a straightjacket and so it would not IMO make sense to differentiate two True Neutral characters just because they may not be similar. Also I feel my option offers a lot less longer page and feels more... um... similar to the other pages, keeping a sense of consistency
AXTE INCAL AXTUCE MUN
I think K Sonic's proposal is a clear improvement over the ridiculous list format we currently have.
I didn't write any of that.
Diva of Virtual Death
Yeah, your new improvement definitely sounds a lot closer to D&D's definition of the term as I'm aware of it. Since IIRC basically there is only those three types canonically: Someone who purposefully acts to stay in balance; someone who behaves in a way that's neither particularly L, C, G, or E just because it's the way they are; and someone who just doesn't have morality as we think of it. Usually the first type is called "True Neutral" and the latter two types "Neutral Neutral", if people want to be clear/pedantic.
Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
In d&d, I split it as "active" and "inactive" True Neutral. The active true neutral tries to keep balance. The inactive true neutral cannot be encouraged to invest in any moral cause. Yes, I use neutral hungry for creatures that don't have the intelligence to make moral choices.
Inactive true neutral is categories 1,2,6,7,9,10,11,12,13 Active true neutral is category 4.
I don't count the Blue-and-Orange Morality, because noone has explained to me how it is different from Chaotic Neutral from an in-character perspective. The "person isn't smart enough" is just a player not wanting to take responsibility for their actions. IRL, the people I've known who couldn't understand social norms operate more on a Blue-and-Orange Morality than a True Neutral morality. They have a sense of right and wrong that work differently than normal people, but it still functions.
The point of this is to say that in a work where evil is not bad, but a balance to good (hate them, but it is used) then the active true neutral is an important faction that affects the dynamics of the characters. Because so many other types of characters are possible with the "inactive" true neutral, the game designers changed the name to Unaligned in 4e.
Thus, d&d now has True Neutral and Unaligned for the two types of characters that don't fit good/evil, law/chaos. True Neutral isn't used because most players see it as Stupid Neutral.
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Actually I would not include type 9 as that is obviously some sort of an Evil alignment.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
It's not. Imagine that type of character in a) good b) evil c) chaotic d) lawful aligned surroundings — they will follow the standard. Type 9 is a True Neutral precisely because of the apathy — the character will follow the example set by others, because what they're doing should be ok and right, and at the least won't get them in trouble. Of course, it might lead to them performing good, evil, chaotic or lawful actions...
Btw this is why Sloth is a deadly sin for Christians. It's not about doing too little stuff — it's about the mental apathy that can lead to all kinds of bad stuff like mentioned above.
They are still responsible for their actions and so should be judged for them. A character killing innocent people under orders does not become Lawful Neutral just because he has no bias towards good or evil philosophically.
edited 22nd Aug '11 6:51:39 AM by KSonik
Diva of Virtual Death
@K Sonik
It's a matter of, in D&D at least, alignments are based on a pattern of actions, almost never one single action.
Someone typically has to repeatedly do only or mostly evil actions to qualify as evil, for instance. If someone ends up doing about as many good actions as they do evil, then they end up neutral.
edited 22nd Aug '11 6:47:34 AM by Jeysie
Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
Ahem
it seems you missed the part where I said "character killing innocent people " implying that they do it regularly instead of a one time action.
Also it is type 10 that follows whatever people do not type 9(who does Evil or good based on whather they feel like it)
Anyways back on the topic before alignment debate. Does anyone has any opposition to my proposed idea.
edited 22nd Aug '11 6:52:23 AM by KSonik
Diva of Virtual Death
Well, yes, because you edited it in after I posted. 
Your original point was that type 9 was an Evil thing, which is not the case, because someone who "focus[es] on their own goals and help or hurt other people if they feel like it" winds up as neutral if they end up doing about as much helping as they do hurting.
10 is trickier, as motivation technically doesn't count under D&D alignment. (Wasn't that a fun argument with my DM.)
Though honestly I think the existing "types" are irrelevant anyway, as like I said, there's canonically actually only three types of Neutral to begin with. The existing list seems more like someone getting too crazy with listing possible scenarios.
edited 22nd Aug '11 7:10:09 AM by Jeysie
Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
And you are right the existing types are unnecessary and can be removed.
edited 22nd Aug '11 7:14:04 AM by KSonik
I think those scenarios are valid though. It just bugs me that we have a over simplification of whats true neutral. I still think type 7 is a valid "scenario" though.
Diva of Virtual Death
It's not an oversimplication at all. From the SRD
:
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.
edited 24th Aug '11 5:32:07 AM by Jeysie
Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)
So what's the decision?
Personally, I think that having all these types is rather silly when the trope can't actually be listed anywhere outside of works with an actual canonical alignment system (not that I'm complaining about that).
Welcome, traveller, welcome to Omsk
Good point.
So, you're basically saying that it only counts as a "trope" if the medium is in-your-face about it? Sounds fair to me. Pointing out the neutrality of everything that's neutral quickly falls into People Sit On Chairs territory. I wouldn't mind cutting this back to only indicate occurrences of neutrality that are trope worthy. How about: 1) Actively balances good deeds and evil deeds. 2) Actively seeks to never do good nor evil deeds. 3) Is obviously indifferent in a manner that stands out. For example, a thief in a heroic party that doesn't care about morality one way or the other.
Crown Description:
Vote up for yes, down for no.
I personally feel that the True Neutral page is way to cluttered, not to metion the fact that there are way to many specific types of this aligment that can be easily merged into ways in which you can play this alignment, rather than subtypes of the same alignment. I mean, you don't see other character alignments with this many types of the same alignment. So here is how I propose to change the page from this:
2. They don't care about the conflict between Good versus Evil and Order versus Chaos. The Neutrals have their own ideals, concerns, goals and needs that are different from either side of the fence, so to speak. These kind will be very committed to the Prime Directive (but not too committed...) This may be explicit in the declaration that they are Above Good And Evil. This can result from a Blue And Orange Morality as well.
3. Similarly, animals in Dungeons And Dragons are not credited with the ability to make moral or ethical distinctions. Since their existence is amoral and they have no way of changing this, all animals are True Neutral. Often called "Neutral Hungry", they'll leave you alone if you leave them alone (and aren't tasty).
4. They are committed to the philosophical or cosmic principle of Neutrality or Balance itself, and they actively seek to preserve the Balance Between Good And Evil. They only intervene in conflict to prevent the underdog from being wiped out - should their allies gain the upper hand, the True Neutral will probably switch sides from the point of view of his friends; in his eyes, he is keeping true to his own convictions. This can manifest as Chronic Backstabbing Disorder. Stupid Neutral is an extreme version of this.
5. A variant of the True Neutral mindset is a character so completely amoral that he acts more like a force of nature than a person. His actions may seem cruel or random, as he can be kind and helpful and then vindictive the next moment, or worse, acts in a manner that he considers kind but is horrifically amoral from the point of view of a human. Many fairies from folklore, i.e. The Wild Hunt, fall into this category, as does the Stranger in Mark Twain's tale "The Mysterious Stranger".
6. They just don't care about anything, including their own hygiene or reputation or moral values. The stereotype stoner character who doesn't hate anyone enough to want to hurt them.
7. These types could also be seen as Fence Riding Bastards. People who just can't make a tough (possibly morally gray) decision. So they try to avoid getting put into that uncomfortable position. Could also be both friend and/or Ally to both protagonist and antagonist. Some Actual Pacifists fall into this.
8. Characters with a very low intelligence will be True Neutral by default. They are simply too stupid to figure out the consequences of their actions, and are utterly unable to put any planning, motives or logic behind them. Any good or evil they might inflict is therefore completely unintentional.''
9. They may have once been committed to a cause, but have gone through so much strife and been betrayed or failed so many times that they simply don't care anymore, and will only focus on their own goals and help or hurt other people if they feel like it. This can be a more tempered variant of Vigilante Man.''
10. They just live life by doing whatever everyone else is doing. They'll follow the trends, and follow the law whenever the law is generally followed, but believe that if everyone else is doing it, it can't be wrong, right? They're never the first to do anything, but might get caught up in a I Am Spartacus moment once the Nakama have started the call, or grab a rock once the Untrusting Community finds out that there's no Hero Insurance to cover the damage. Can also be called "True Average".
11 Machines and robots that are limited by their programming are True Neutral. Sapient machines capable of independent thought may have other alignments, but a machine whose ethical and moral framework is decided by its programming is inherently incapable of making ethical or moral decisions on its own and thus is inherently neutral.
12. They want to be left alone. Enjoy life for themselves and possibly family, let other people do whatever. If someone defies that, though, usually villains, they'll fight back.
13. They aren't dedicated to any side, but they have both kinds of tendencies at the same time. They may be good in one area and evil in another. They aren't neutral in the sense of not taking sides; it's simply that the sum of their actions is between good and evil and order and chaos. Anti Heroes and similar characters who live by Gray And Gray Morality are often this kind of neutral. Often overlaps with Selfish Good Selfish Evil.
A True Neutral character or organization is usually introduced as a Wild Card, neither aligned with the Hero or the Big Bad. They may become friend, foe, or neither (and may even switch sides), depending on how their goals align (or conflict) with the Hero's. See Neutral No Longer, for when True Neutral characters are forced to take up sides.
Muggles and Punch Clock Villains are often the "don't care" variety of True Neutral.
''In RP Gs, Druids are generally of the True Neutral alignment, siding with the animals and the forest. (That's only neutral if you do not consider the animal world and nature elementals a side of their own, as the game designers apparently did.) Essentially, a True Neutral is somebody whose solution to any dilemma is 'what would a bear do?'. Such a character can slide easily into amorality or tribal thinking. "
Fisrtly we can remove and merge type 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12 as reasons to be this alignment in the first paragraph. I'll also mention 13
Then further on merge 3, 8 and 11 into a paragraph explaining that those that are incapable of making moral and ethical judgment are by default this alignment like babies, animals and robots.
Finally I propose to talk about type 4 at some point as well as in practice how this can end up with the character acting at best an idiot and at worst in an evil way, betraying everyone.
To this:
True Neutral (also known as Neutral Neutral) is the Character Alignment that takes no side either ethically or morally.
This is usually, though not automatically, the alignment of those that don't care at all about anything, lacking passion in any cause. Or they might have other reasons for being this alignment like being too cowardly or unable to choose sides. More likely, they might be characters that are far too commiting to acting in their best interest (and those of their loved ones) and far too unwilling to make personal sacrifices to care about righting the wrongs they see unless they can benefit from acting like a good guy, yet far to willing not to harm other people to be evil. Unuslually, but possible, is the notion of a True Neutral character whose sums of action(good, evil, chaotic, lawful) means they end up as True Neutral
In theory a person who is willing to switch sides between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys(or possobly between Order and Chaos) in order to preserve the "Balance" so to speak would be considered a type of True Neutral in Dn D. In practice however this will usually end up with the character at best being an idiotic Stupid Neutral and at worst acting in a Neutral Evil manner (betrayal is obviously evil)
Non sentientAnimals and little babies, seeing as they are literally incapable of actually being able to differ between good and evil and being lawful or chaotic, following only their instints, are this alignment by default.In theory, many people might think that someone who espouses Blue and Orange Morality, such as the Fair Folk and the Ubermensch, should be this alignment. Of course, seeing as in Dungeon And Dragons alignment works on the basis that morality is absolute and not subjective, these archetypes may end up as some other alignment.
Personally I feel that this is better seeing as it gets rid of the types, instead turning them into reason why someone would be True Neutral and making the page more comprehensible and similar to the other character alignment pages. What do you think?
edited 21st Aug '11 9:16:54 AM by KSonik