Thoughts on Playing Team Neutral

[DaloLorn]

It really is, just as its predecessors... but as long as they're all used responsibly, IMO...

[predrag]

Alignment teams being nonsense aside .

I do enjoy playing characters close to true neutral , makes more sense for them to grow over time and have more directions to do so in , or even stay in place .

My main character for years has been a druid slowly drifting from an emotionally detached individual , used to letting things be , as in nature he learned to do , to a more involved benevolent form .

Many things have changed over the years with the Elder Circle / Green Enclave , but I still enjoy my character's part in it .

I do feel the idea for neutral characters is they usually , but not always , prefer the company of good folks over evil ones , but for nature folks this is far from allying with either side automatically .

In the Zhentarim - LA war , it was always pointed out both sides are harming nature , and it made no sense to aid either side from this perspective .

In the Aurelite terror over Nashkel time , it made more sense to aid the town , because Auril is an enemy of the Green Triad , and there were some more in depth RP reasons for my character helping .

In times of Silvanite wrath against Flaming Fist , if it continued on , rather than end with diplomacy , and I didn't have some OOC rl interfering at event times , my character would have been on the evil side of things , to the benefit of the wild and Silvanus .

Neutrality has it's moments overall . And many fun times had for me over many years .

[Kitunenotsume]

As has been mentioned here "Team Neutral" is an incredibly varied definition, but in my opinion one wrought with so much breadth as to be useless.
Until further qualified, it technically encompasses five alignments (NG, CN, TN, LN, NE) for both Ethical and Moral Neutrality, as well as being readily confused with Political or Ideological Neutrality, the everpresent multitudes of other conflations of "I'm not this type of extremist, therefore I'm Neutral", as well as the unique case of "Unaligned" (like animals, plants, golems, rocks, etc. lacking in the means to make any such decisions.). As such, I generally advocate for defining a position not by their moderation, but by their excess.

However, in this particular discussion, we have further qualified, to examine the circumstance as Neutral on the moral axis. At this point, I reject the idea of "Team Næ[ut/tu]ral" as a combined unit, for it is not strictly performed in the interests of a singular perspective of 'The Natural Order'. The alignment band includes everything from extremists willing to endorse both violently Good and Evil acts in equal measure if it means accomplishing their goals, to extremists who interfere with as little as possible with events within the world even it it means a concession of power.

I tend to see Emanuel as one of the former, as an advocate for a specific cause (the interests of the Forests) at the cost of treating "Civilisation" as seperate from "Nature". While this fits the dogma of Sylvanus and the opposition of great Evils will fairly reliably be in the interests of the Wilds, advocating the death of sentient beings (as in the example provided) is still Evil from the objective morals of the setting, and overall leans towards a more active form of Moral Neutrality who express or impress their goals on others. Meanwhile numerous elements of Team Natural lean towards NG because the ensopuse Good principles (Such as the devotees of Eldath) or explicitly oppose Evil (Such as Mielikki).

In contrast, characters exist who strive to remove themselves from the problem. There are Neutral characters who see civilisation as just as much a part of the natural order as the Wilds are - people being simply bipedal animals of their own form and many driven by base behavior imposed upon them by the gods. Some characters might simply have their nose focused on a specific outcome, like research or a great work, and neglect or ignore the greater philosophical questions. Meanwhile, foreigners like my own character, Sayushi Furuki, may see it as entirely out of place to interfere with the moral and metaphysical politiciking of the lands beyond the Dragonwall because it isn't her world. These examples of Passive Neutrality tend to focus on either removing themselves from the moral/ethical problems, or turning them into a matter of enforcing internal balance rather than external balance.

Where "Team Natural" and other advocacy guilds are clearly self-organising groups, the latter I would consider as "a loose coalition of independent members". These players still have plenty of value to add to the community as a whole, but in smaller and more discrete contributions often as a speciality or buisness for others to request. As an example, Sayushi has focused on her buisness as a tavernkeep and culinarian; These skills have a demand completely independent of morality and may be of interest to anyone with need for them. However, a customer is unlikely to patronise a buisness that they find antagonistic, so ideological bias may make a simple job harder. For settings where the goal is a impartial meeting spot, a willingness to broker and enforce peace between different extremist groups is all but manditory.

Part of why I bring this up is that it is entirely reasonable to be Neutral on the moral axis and oppose Team Natural. Much of the discussion thus far has been conflating Neutrality with Naturality, but a variety of arguments can be made that are just as valid that characterise the latter as a group of meddlesome ecoterrorists. A Gondar focused on their next construction, a justicar of the law, and a self-interested scoundrel may all find it terribly offensive when informed that the forest-folk are gearing for war once again to oppose some new city expantion. These views are equally as Neutral, but demonstrate that "Team Neutral" is not a monolithic cohesion with any expectation of shared values to bind them, the way that Good or Evil might.

I have often found amoral characters to be satisfying, and shall likely continue to do so in future, but in no way have I ever perceived myself to be a portion of any "Team" of such. There is plenty of opportunity for individuals for whom the objective moral grading-rubric dosen't need to be a constant and lurking concern, and none of them need share the same values.

[burbles]

Why, in DnD Team Neutral is perfectly valid. It's philosophical basis is balance or refusal to take sides of Good or Evil. That may be, for example, consciously or unconsciously putting an individual path or natural way/law above interests of Good and Evil agendas. They would rather have good neighbours, than bad ones, but they would rather not have a strong Good ruling over their lives, because Good power would inevitably fight Evil. In short, Neutrals would rather have both Good and Evil be gone from the world. Good and Evil could be viewed by Neutrals as equally alien forces. An individual True Neural is more than "undecided", because it takes effort to avoid taking sides. Lawful Neutral lets order decide their stance, not good or evil, while chaotic refuses any lasting order, both either don't believe in good or evil philosophies, or don't value them. But that goes for people with free will, while in the DnD multiverse there are beings Neutral, Good and Evil by nature. So there are possible connections and agendas for Neutral characters to stand behind, allies and rivals to have.

[blazerules]

I'll be honest I dont think too much on alignments and think more in terms of what the people actually did and do that I know of.

I do not understand why Team Good would be surprised at "Team Neutral" not joining them in the Zhent V LA war beyond it being simply boiled down to a Evil V Good conflict. When as you mention, from a goals and actions perspective its Nature Harmers Vs Nature Harmers so at the end of the day for a nature focused group... hey let them kill each other this is great. As far as you are concerned they are both the evil bad guys. Because their alignment is largely irrelevant to what they'd do (I'd argue there may have been more reason to join Zhents since Flaming Fist troubles with nature a while back could be seen as a revenge worthy thing).

In my observation it pretty much comes down to that. Some people, not all, boil down a lot of conflicts to good vs bad rather than actual goals and taking into things into account from the perspective of what they're trying to accomplish, what other groups and people are willing to provide aid and so on. I can understand this from the perspective of Paladins and Clerics but that's about it.

Yuri for example is Neutral Good and would align with even Bhaalists if the goals aligned. It's highly improbable, but there is a possibility if enough things line up to work for that. Of course that highly depends on the whys and who gains how much from what and what possible issues down the road this may cause etc. Basically its complicated but its not Good Vs Evil.

Its always Good Vs Evil, Right Vs Wrong rather than it all being about a lot of wrongs being committed. To the point I think that if we had a massive food crisis, and a blatantly Bhaalist murder group said hey we got TONS of food we just need your help with this one thing a huge amount of team good would not touch that with a ten foot pole held by someone else.

[DaloLorn]

Yuri for example is Neutral Good and would align with even Bhaalists if the goals aligned. It's highly improbable, but there is a possibility if enough things line up to work for that. Of course that highly depends on the whys and who gains how much from what and what possible issues down the road this may cause etc. Basically its complicated but its not Good Vs Evil.

Funny, Lin goes about things the exact opposite way. She's a Neutral Evil who wouldn't think twice about teaming up with paladins if it furthered her agenda.

(Not that any paladins worth their title would do so knowingly, seeing as she's the matron of a drow house...)