The Gaming Den

Technically SFW, but I'll spoiler it for your delicate sensibilities.

That is spectacular. Context?

Baby shower, I think.

We just bought a bunch of those babies for a craft last weekend. They were in the baby shower section of Party City.

Totally no bias there, obviously.

virgil wrote:

confused_looking_dude_with_interrogation_marks_around_his_head.jpg

After perusing the twitter feed, I believe he meant the white alignment in the box is what the player writes on their sheet, and the colored alignment outside the box is how they actually act.

Zaranthan wrote:After perusing the twitter feed, I believe he meant the white alignment in the box is what the player writes on their sheet, and the colored alignment outside the box is how they actually act.

I got that part.

What I don't get is the mapping. How does somebody try to play LG and ends being N?

I thought the character of Vulture in the recent Spiderman film was a great example of a True Neutral with Neutral Evil tendencies character.

nockermensch wrote:

Zaranthan wrote:After perusing the twitter feed, I believe he meant the white alignment in the box is what the player writes on their sheet, and the colored alignment outside the box is how they actually act.

I got that part.

What I don't get is the mapping. How does somebody try to play LG and ends being N?

That's reversed. If youu write Lawful Good on your character sheet, the chart indicates that you'll actually play as 'Lawful Evil'. If you write 'True Neutral' you'll play as 'Lawful Good'. So let's talk about what it sounds like he's saying.

If you're Lawful Good (traditionally), you believe that your beliefs are correct and you should try to lead the rest of the world to follow those beliefs. Making people do what you want them to do is traditionally associated with 'Lawful Evil'.

If you write True Neutral on your character sheet, you believe that all beliefs are equally valid. You would support the establishments of laws that respect the rights of all minority beliefs and provide them protection. As someone who protects others regardless of their beliefs, you're REALLY Lawful Good.

To a degree, I think it makes sense. D&D Alignments are hot garbage, but this posits that the alignments make sense but are just mapped incorrectly. What everyone thinks is 'Chaotic Neutral' is actually 'Chaotic Evil' and so on and so forth.

If you write True Neutral on your character sheet, you believe that all beliefs are equally valid.

Depends. Most people pick the alignment that lets them do what they want to do with the character. Whatever the character's in-character justification is for it, it's all about what the players want to do. And the definition of True Neutral has changed throughout the editions of D&D. So the argument for someone writing True Neutral on their character sheet actually being Lawful Evil is that they're trying to find the game-mechanically legal way to give as much freedom of action to their character.

Having said that, this whole chart is confusing and bullshit.

I honestly can't parse that.

The point is either that D&D alignments are gibberish or Twitter is gibberish -- but I will never know which one to file that under.

Since when does being True Neutral mean you believe "all beliefs are equally valid"? That's both stupid and absurd. True Neutrality means you don't have strong inclinations along either of the alignment axes.

Neutral, as far as I've seen in any game which people have chosen to be neutral, seems to mean "I do whatever I think is reasonable at the time without getting crazy with it". Basically a less crazy version of Chaotic whatever. Anecdotal I know but I've also never had anyone choose to be neutral evil.

Occluded Sun wrote:Since when does being True Neutral mean you believe "all beliefs are equally valid"? That's both stupid and absurd. True Neutrality means you don't have strong inclinations along either of the alignment axes.

You are an idiot and have always been an idiot. But in the hopes that you can learn to stop being an idiot, I will quote the 1st edition Player's Handbook.

True Neutral: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus each aspect -- evil and good, chaos and law -- of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily ,and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces -- such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what it was meant to be.

That is to say, it is not that you are not strongly aligned one way or another (though that is true) but that you believe that all the alignments are valid and should exist in balance with each other. 'thus each aspect of things must be retained in balance'.

Of course it's dumb, but that's D&D.

deaddmwalking wrote:

Occluded Sun wrote:Since when does being True Neutral mean you believe "all beliefs are equally valid"? That's both stupid and absurd. True Neutrality means you don't have strong inclinations along either of the alignment axes.

You are an idiot and have always been an idiot. But in the hopes that you can learn to stop being an idiot, I will quote the 1st edition Player's Handbook.

True Neutral: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus each aspect -- evil and good, chaos and law -- of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily ,and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces -- such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what it was meant to be.

That is to say, it is not that you are not strongly aligned one way or another (though that is true) but that you believe that all the alignments are valid and should exist in balance with each other. 'thus each aspect of things must be retained in balance'.

Of course it's dumb, but that's D&D.

This is the old "Druid's True Neutral". D&D has been adopting the "Animals' True Neutral" on its guidebooks for quite some time now.


It's not you, sit down.

So, the True Neutral version most people these days should be familiar with should have more to do with this one:

d20 SRD wrote:Neutral, "Undecided"

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

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.

Let's go deeper