>>97940769
Because good vs evil and law vs chaos slapfights ultimately don't benefit anybody

>>97940769
Most people don't dedicate themselves to a particular alignment, they just wind up there based on their nature and behavior.

>>97940769
>but why would you devote yourself philosophically to the idea of neutralness?
because middle of the road is the only true path once you have been both-sidsed pilled

File: GOqpta1WAAE318D.jpg (64 KB, 1080x569)

64 KB JPG

>>97940786
this is MAYBE true for law vs chaos but opposing evil wherever it dwells is literally good for everybody

>>97940769
what game enforces this? Or are you talking about something outside games?

>>97940769
it's not " I dont care" it's "I care about family, what affects me directlydaily life and what affects me and not the cosmic clusterfuck". Most humans are true neutral. Almost all animals are true neutral .

>>97940798
When a typical person gets an AMBER alert on their phone do they drop everything and go looking for the missing child or do they shrug and hope the police handle it?

>>97940769
For the same reason you'd be neutral instead of good to begin with; mental illness.

>>97940820
An Amber alert isn't a call for a citizen militia, it's just to distribute the missing person's details so you can keep an eye out for them.

>>97940769
I can see neutrality as desirable _politically_ - if there are two or more competing sides of roughly same power, there is competition between them, and something better can grow out of this struggle. They also don't have power to bully and subjugate everyone else. That is desirable, if you're not tied to those major competing factions.

Philosophically, I think such person would view capital E Evil as something necessary in right dosage. Life is not all ponies and rainbows, and suffering is part of it. And you must have strength and willingnes to hurt others, to assert yourself as person.

Also, golden middle way - little bit of that.

File: image.jpg (266 KB, 916x1024)

266 KB JPG

>>97940769
>2O26
>still taking retarded D&Disms seriously

>>97940769
Because neutrality is morally superior to all other alignments. Neutrality asserts that all beings have natural rights that end where the rights of others begin. It's unethical to coerce others to give over their wealth, give over their arms, give over their bodies, and give over their minds to a cause that violates the rights of others.

>>97940769
Because there will always be conflict. If Good eradicates Evil, it will turn on the Less Good as the new Evil. Moderation in all things.

>>97940914
>Because there will always be conflict. If Good eradicates Evil, it will turn on the Less Good as the new Evil. Moderation in all things.
And that is why we channel arms and funds to the Dark Lord of the Castle of Infinite and Terrible Evil to ensure that they can continue to resist the forces of Good.

>>97940769
I always imagine true neutral to be something like Bruce Lee's 'water' speech. A character that ebbs and flows according to the situation.

>>97940798
>this is MAYBE true for good vs evil but opposing chaos wherever it dwells it literally law for everybody

>>97940913
>Neutrality asserts that all beings have natural rights that end where the rights of others begin.
Does it?

>It's unethical to coerce others to give over their wealth, give over their arms, give over their bodies, and give over their minds to a cause that violates the rights of others.
Right, so you are against Evil winning. That's great, I think most of us are.

But why would you be against the Good winning? Surely that would be better for everyone - by definition?

>>97941064
No, because Good is just a rival philosophy to Evil with better branding.

It's human nature to lean into your bias. Apple Android, Ford Chevy, etc. Trying to be true neutral is a vibe man.

>neutralfag
>look under the mask and it's just an evilfag
Every time.

File: mister-gotcha-4-9faefa-1.jpg (102 KB, 814x578)

102 KB JPG

>>97940820
is this you?

Moralists don't really *have* beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded. Centrism isn't change -- not even incremental change. It is *control*. Over yourself and the world. Exercise it. Look up at the sky, at the dark shapes of Coalition airships hanging there. Ask yourself: is there something sinister in moralism? And then answer: no. God is in his heaven. Everything is normal on Earth.

>>97940769
brain damage

>>97941072
The rival philosophies in question:
Lord Rapetimus Babymuncher the Inbred says we should legalize kicking puppies directly into the faces of the orphans who love them.
Sir John Humble-Before-The-Grace-Of-The-Heavens says we should kill the other guy to stop him from continuing his presently-illegal puppy-kicking activities.
Vote now on your phones.

>>97941187
neutral factions tend to side with good over evil when they are forced to act at all, simply because they can co-exist with good but cannot with evil

>>97941203
more like side A kicks puppies and is proud of it, side B also kicks puppies and says its for the greater good and you are just too short sighted to see the eventual fruit of their strategic puppy kicking

between openly evil and claims to be good but does the exact same things as evil, then a "screw you guys, got my own" mentality is pretty justified

>>97941210
Please see >>97940798

>>97940769
The other side is entitled to nothing from me, that they demand it means they don't deserve it

>>97941219
but if the "good" side is harming you just as much as the "bad" side, then it becomes much more reasonable to keep distance from both

>>97940820
There are too many kids anyway.

>>97941191
Is "we should improve society somewhat" a Good sentiment? Is that the limit of what you can picture an angelic being saying? Is Joe Paladin getting the backing of his chosen god because he has the courage to say that?

>>97940913
This sounds like the sort of thing a Chaotic Good character might use to argue against a Lawful Good character. But it's not the sort of argument someone Neutral could use against a Chaotic Good character.

>>97941226
>but if the "good" side is harming you just as much as the "bad" side
Then you're dealing with two Evil sides and neither is actually Good. Because that's not how alignment works.

>>97941226
The "good" side minorly inconveniences you in the abstract and benefits you greatly in the practical, and asks you to hold some personal and moral accountability for your actions amd the actions of your community. The "bad" side actively skullfucks any hope you have of a comfortable future and then goes into the town square to declare that both sides are absolutely equal and it's all just a matter of perspective, and if you really think about it the "good" side is really the bad side because they're disapproving when you join in the skullfucking and that's just totally not okay, man.

>>97941255
"We should improve society somewhat" are the people pointing out that Paladins are helpful to society for eliminating Evil criminals and monsters.
"And yet you live in a society" is saying that someone cannot thing Paladins are Good without also being a Paladin.

>>97940769
>Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.
You can adhere to neutrality to make sure that man is always ready to take up the sword for the sake of mankind. You can also adhere to it to act as an unbiased third party/moderator for negotiations between good and evil races to make sure that it doesn't come to blows within the first five minutes and escalate into a full-blown war. Again.

You also get characters like Mordenkainen who followed the philosophy that good, evil, law, and chaos had to exist in tandem with one-another as one cannot exist without its counterpart.

>>97940816
That's not true neutral anon it's just being a selfish cunt, which is evil.

I think there's a hint of a deeper idea here that isnt being expressed. All allignments are "good" in the same way all moral philosophies are "good".
>goodness is preserving others
>goodness is the gain and expression of power over others
>goodness is upholding the natural/social/cosmic order
>goodness is preserving individual freedom
All allignments are just vague moral philosophies elevated to cosmic forces, where neutrality is anything from apathy to outright rejection of these forces.

>>97941265
if the good side is kicking puppies and saying its for the greater good while the evil side is kicking puppies and saying its because they like it
then it becomes more reasonable to not back either side, because neither seem very trustworthy

>>97941278
We're talking about different things. A guy who thinks paladins are helpful but wouldn't become one himself is a perfectly valid type of guy who exists, and gets labeled as neutral.

>>97941371
>We're talking about different things
No, I'm talking about the thing the reply chain originated with. Good opposing Evil literally benefits everybody. Somebody doesn't personally need to go fight Evil in order to think that.
Thinking instead, that Good opposing Evil is just a silly slapfight that doesn't benefit anyone is a retard's understanding of neutrality.

>>97941203
A true neutral character or nation would say that as long as those puppies are the property of Lord Rapetimus, he's free to do what he likes with them up to the point where he's kicking those puppies into the faces of the orphans, because when the puppies hit the orphans he's violating their rights.

The true neutral would also say Sir John is a crazy fanatic who kills anyone he dislikes and is the far greater threat to the true neutral.

>>97940769
Classic cop-out answer of some kind of spiritual balance.

Could be an immortal who wants to experience literally all of what life has to offer, carefully balancing himself between good and evil.

Could be an 'I don't care' who has turned militant after more philosophically-inclined types destroyed his lively-hood.

Could be a madman who believes that some reward awaits him by keeping the karmic scales perfectly symmetrical.

Could be someone who's entire worldview is disconnected from the moral axis; not entirely apathetic as was implied by the OP, but treats traditional ethics as a sideshow to what really matters.

File: Eternal_Champion.jpg (316 KB, 924x1484)

316 KB JPG

>>97940769
Alignment is not necessarily something your character chooses. Remember that in the fantasy books that inspired d&d alignment gods are real and in a cosmic struggle against each other. And in many real life mythologies characters are judt "tools of fate" or whatever. Your character can just as well be a pawn of said cosmic force and/or god. Or they can choose it. Or it can be both ways. Or is it both ways at the same time? Whichever way swings your boat. It's your game dude.

>>97940769
It doesn't matter what happens. It's all based off of someone's inferior framework. What else is there left to be but an observer? They'll call you mad, they'll call you weak, but none of them can ever really kill you. So what are they, but weak and insane themselves? "Good, evil", each would know nothing without knowing each other. Neutrality knows it all, steps back, and lets it all fall apart.

File: 597302a2e39f8b8a03119da31(...).jpg (150 KB, 450x450)

150 KB JPG

>Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
>—C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock

When did you realize that paladins were the worst tyrants of them all, and that anyone playing lawful good is actually playing lawful evil?

>>97940934
OK SPLC

>>97940769
The 9-point alignment grid never made sense and is a D&Dism that Gygax added onto the Law/Chaos axis from the Elric books.

>>97940769
you wouldnt which is why youre neutral. you retarded?

>>97941880
C.S. Lewis was a faggot who got on the "gargling 20th century English country life" bandwagon without a single critical thought.

>>97941932
good vs evil makes intuitive sense, someone who kicks puppies is evil and someone who helps orphans are good
obviously if you scrutinize it like its ethics 101 its not going to hold up, but for the purposes of role-playing games it works fine as a way to summarize the character in 10 seconds or less

>>97941971
People need to stop using puppies as an example. It's utterly infantile and there are some puppies who need to have their heads stomped in.

>>97941975
Also Hitler hecking loved the pupperinos.

>>97941975
Puppies are a good example because they are totally defensless and incapable of harming you in any way while also essentially being innocent, since they have no concept of evil
So only someone evil would kick one for no reason

>and there are some puppies who need to have their heads stomped in.
This is a good example of why a neutral faction might be hesitant to join a side claiming they are good
If they claim they need to kick puppies for the greater good, then maybe it's a good idea to neither help nor hinder them
Since you obviously dont want to kick puppies for any reason but you want to give them the benefit of the doubt no matter how insane they seem at the moment

>>97941980
If even hitler wouldn't kick a puppy, this makes a hypothetical puppy kicker worse than hitler

>>97940798
Not to say one shouldn’t fight evil, but an absence of evil redefines itself within good, eventually corrupting what was once good. It’s why moral relativism, neutrality is sought after. Ying and yang and all that shit.

>>97940769
Cause it's good and evil, order and chaos, whatever the fuck they call themselves are just two side fighting to wipe anyone that isn't them out. Good isn't always pure good. Same with Evil. So it's whatever just leave me out of this and I don't care who wins. (When you get the "I will destroy the world demon king" or the "world must be cleansed angel" then yeah, you're goal is fucking with my freedom and well being. You got to go.)

>>97940769
Because it's not my problem, and if you try to make it my problem, YOU'RE my problem.

>>97940769
It goes back to Moorcock's Law vs Chaos alignment cosmology. Neither side achieving total victory would be good for reality so Neutral was focused on maintaining the balance of forces. It breaks down when you add Good and Evil alignments to the mix.

>>97942126
Pretty much. The classic "I DON'T GIVE A FUCK" and if you make give a fuck. I will fuck YOU up.

>>97940806
>>97940769

OP is a no-games who got his view on neutrality from futurama

>>97941438
One mans good can always be another mans evil so the assertion that there is a universal good that benefits everyone all the time is already circular reasoning.

>good is good because its good

>>97942023
That's not true. You can look ahead 6 months and see how stray puppies become feral dogs and conclude they are going to be a danger that it's better to poison right now. We do it all the time at Humane Society.

>>97941289
Not according to D and D, and this is the games board, not the philosophy board. D and D made in clear what neutral was in the 1970s .

>>97940769
True Neutral could also be viewed as balance. The understanding that too much of good, evil, law, or chaos is destructive in different ways and the eradication of any element leads to negative outcome overall.

Of course, from a game mechanic standpoint, the ENTIRE point of the alignment system was for quick cohesive world building and something being True Neutral was a way of saying "This guy might be incredibly helpful or murder you outright with no guaranteed outcome based on their personal inclination." Very much a context matters thing. Another interpretation is "Do anything for a price". You pay this guy to get you from point A to point B, cover your ass the whole way, and such? They do so. They follow the laws of the land or disregard them and act as their employer desires to keep their employer's set of ethics and reputation in tact. Being lawful, chaotic, good, or evil doesn't personally mean shit to them.

File: andrea-dalla-bona-suk-sup(...).jpg (86 KB, 755x1058)

86 KB JPG

>>97940769
Instead of "neutralness" (neutrality is the proper term), consider it as devoting oneself to "balance." Neither good nor evil, ordered or chaotic, but the point between where enlightenment is reached.

People who insist on goodness to the point of being insufferable faggots to be bad.

>>97940769
while "i don't care" is a valid way for true neutral to manifest, it's even more valid for chaotic neutral and chaotic evil, so that's really not true neutral's identity, true neutral is more an alignment that cares somewhat about matters like empathy and order, but values other things more, like maybe their quest to go save their sister or something

the rest is a nonsense question, true neutrals don't devote themselves to an idea of true neutrality any more than lawful good devotes itself to the idea of lawful good or chaotic evil devotes itself to the idea of chaotic evil, all of them have actual ethics and morals, or lack thereof, they don't do things for the sake of fitting into an alignment

>>97942802
muh balance is the stupidest type of true neutrality, it's entirely unnecessary in general and only exists because of classic druid nonsense

>>97940769
Neutrality sucks as a philosophy of its own - a friend to everyone is a friend to no one. It works better as a catchall for when a philosophy has goals outside of good-evil or law-chaos. Or for those that accept they are not all-powerful and prefer to simply protect their friends and family.

>>97940769
Who said "devote"? Alignment is descriptive.

>>97941191
The guy in the well is always correct btw

>>97941203
What is Lord Rapetimus' position on mass transit?

>>97940913
This is the position of Good btw

>>97940913
Neutrality and Good have the same beliefs in that regard. The difference is that Good goes out of its way to enforce that belief, whereas Neutrality just enforces it in a self-defensive way that doesn't really work on a societal level

>>97942226
Relativist nonsense. "Killing you so I can steal your property" would be morally defensible in your fantasy land. Please return to Somalia

>>97941864
Don't quit your day job.

>>97942105
No, good is always pure good.

>>97942226
Nope, it's objective.

>>97941204
This implies neutral is good at distinguishing the two

>>97942226
We're not talking about good. We're talking about Good. Capital G Good is an objective alignment that is universal to a D&D setting.
That's why I used the Paladin example, because they literally have to be Good or else they cease being a Paladin.

The way you're trying to use subjective morals has no place within an alignment discussion.

>>97940769
Why? Because I want to annoy the retards that fall for "muh current thing" or any other false idol / spook / mental masturbation.

>>97941204
>they can co-exist with good but cannot with evil
I don't think that's the case.

>>97943030
That would be evil, tho

>>97940769
I don't care.

>>97940769
Ask a Centrist.

>>97943030
So your just wanking yourself raw, mentally, over your own contrarianism.

>>97942062
That's retarded.

>>97943030
Chaotic Neutral

>>97940769
Alignment was more of a grouping rather than a moral description back in 1st Edition. Druids are TN because animals and plants are also TN. Being TN also rendered you immune to spells thst affect Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic creatures.

>>97942944
It's also a fifteen year old edgelord's misunderstanding of "Eastern philosophy", ying/yand and all that. It isn't that good and evil needs to be balanced, instead balance brings good and good is balanced while evil comes from imbalance and brings further imbalance if left to its own. (The whole thing is probably as popular as it is because said edgelord really wants to be the Great Big Hero, but also wants to wallow in gratuitous atrocities on a regular basis.)

>>97940769
some people see the damage the battle of good and evil does on the land and decide they want no part of either.

>>97941700
What if the orphans are also the property of Lord Rapetimus?

>>97941351
the evil side convinced you the good side is kicking puppies btw
they're pretty opposed to puppy kicking if you actually look at their policies

File: imrryr_the_dreaming_city_(...).jpg (160 KB, 756x1057)

160 KB JPG

An alignment is not something you devote yourself to, it is something you are aligned with. You don't wake up one day and say
>I fucking love neutrality
it's just that your being and behaviors are net neutral (or close to it). I.e. alignments are descriptive not normative.

Moorcock more or less popularized law vs. chaos in fantasy fiction, and his main characters (most of em) are neutral aligned.

File: 1769987641530895.png (3.14 MB, 1560x1490)

3.14 MB PNG

>good spook
>evil spook
no thanks
read Stirner

>>97940769
it's not "I don't care", it's "I won't get involved"

>>97945856
notice that none of the fish are in any of the alignment boxes

>>97940798
>opposing evil wherever it dwells is literally good for everybody
It's like the meme:
>we call ourselves the good guy squad, that means everything we do is justified
Obsessive good leads to things like witch hunts, censorship, utilitarians straight up murdering people. Or you're completely paralyzed because of over conscientiousness.
Ironically, everyone here understands this. 4chan's entire purpose is a place with lax rules, and, at its best, it's a magical place because of the wild west freedom it has (although it's rarely at its best).

>>97940769
Isn't that Buddhism? Those guys don't want anything.

>>97940769
True Neutral is reserved for those who cannot help but empathise with everyone, and must therefore stay neutral or risk their personal relationships by playing the devils advocate.

I jest, of course. True Neutral is something like this:

Imagine someone comes up to your front porch and tells you that tomorrow morning they'll be back with a gun to shoot you. If, the next day, you're on your porch unarmed and get shot, a Neutral person will say, "That's your own damn fault."

>>97946140
to be fair the neutral person got a point. They fucking said they coming back to shoot you and you did nothing.

File: necropolis_ii_by_jakewyat(...).jpg (3.49 MB, 1000x3028)

3.49 MB JPG

>>97942958
>>97941255
>>97941191
>a demon literally poisoning the well advises you to moral relativism and suggests inaction

>>97940769

>i don't want to get involved in their bullshit
>everything in moderation
>i don't think any side is wrong
>i don't think either side is right
>compromise is the only way we'll avoid conflict
>i only care about how this affects me and the people closest to me

simple as

>>97946153
Neutral wouldn't exist unless it was based in reality.
A better term would be Natural Morality.
>Let's live in harmony, but carnivores do exist, and if death weren't real by now we'd be up to the clouds in squirming lifeforms

>>97946251
Basically the viewpoint is "Do no harm. Unless you mean to do harm, then do lots of HARM." I mean, if someone try to harm you can return the favor without guilt.

>>97946076
Animal intelligence = Unaligned

>>97940769
In game terms your alignment has effects such as being vulnerable to "Magic Circle against Evil" or "Detect Evil". A character with a neutral alignment then is not affected.

>>97946342
Nope, it's aligned to animal's own prosperity. From the lion's pov, eating you is a moral act, as it fills the lion's belly.