I'm kinda bored of good and evil characters. Wanna make someone that serves a purpose apart from either. My first thought was a character truly loyal to her country and it's monarch, whether the actions of them are good or evil.
Do you mean just neutral w/r/t good and evil (LN, CN, true N)? Or do you mean true neutral only?
True Neutral doesn't strike me as loyal to king and country - that is more LN. A neutral character would not care what the law says or doesn't say (or what the king does or doesn't say).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I played a Druid who was sent out of his beloved wilderness by his Druidic circle’s elders to investigate disturbances that they saw in the sky. He was neutral. He didn’t care about good or evil, law or chaos. He cared about the circle of life, the wilderness, etc. and that’s how I played him.
He also hated being in cities, which made life interesting!
I had a lawful neutral detective character (aasimar Inquisitive rogue) who was pretty fun. He was super into law as a kind of morality that mortals chose rather than the good/evil dichotomy that was foisted on them, and he hid the fact that he was an aasimar so people wouldn't assume he was on the side of the angels necessarily. Instead, he cared more about helping the disadvantaged when they were exploited by the powerful.
Here are some examples for different neutral alignment:
Lawful Neutral: Judge Dredd, Robocop
True Neutral: Jayne Cobb, Bronn of the Blackwater, Red Hood
Chaotic Neutral: Jack Sparrow, Deadpool
I'd say the character you describe fits best for Lawful Neutral.
I would say Jayne Cobb is a chaotic evil character. He only cares about himself and his money, enjoys fighting and inflicting pain, and treats people like they're things.
Self-centeredness is not the only requirement for a neutral character, i would say.
Sure, that would be lawful neutral. I actually think most real people are neutral. They try to avoid hurting others, but they rarely go out of their way to help someone else.
An example of chaotic neutral would be a wandering bard who's just interested in collecting interesting stories to tell. He'll join an evil party if they're doing interesting evil, or a good party if they're doing interesting good.
True neutral is probably like a wealthy merchant. They aren't lawful, because they sometimes might dodge taxes or trade contraband goods. But they aren't chaotic, because they keep orderly accounts. They aren't evil, because they provide a valuable service, but they aren't good, because they could help the poor with the wealth they hoard, but don't.
Or for a true neutral with a class, maybe a fighter who's a mercenary.
Here are some examples for different neutral alignment:
Lawful Neutral: Judge Dredd, Robocop
True Neutral: Jayne Cobb, Bronn of the Blackwater, Red Hood
Chaotic Neutral: Jack Sparrow, Deadpool
I'd say the character you describe fits best for Lawful Neutral.
I would say Jayne Cobb is a chaotic evil character. He only cares about himself and his money, enjoys fighting and inflicting pain, and treats people like they're things.
I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. ;)
He most definately cares about other people, he is willing to give up money and loot, sometimes, and he genuinly cares about (some) people. He likes fighting, yes. But so do a lot of character we consider "good" as well. He is very much a mercenary, willing to change sides for money but he's never curel just for the sake of being cruel and he keeps his word most of the time.
I had a lawful neutral detective character (aasimar Inquisitive rogue) who was pretty fun. He was super into law as a kind of morality that mortals chose rather than the good/evil dichotomy that was foisted on them, and he hid the fact that he was an aasimar so people wouldn't assume he was on the side of the angels necessarily. Instead, he cared more about helping the disadvantaged when they were exploited by the powerful.
Sure, that would be lawful neutral. I actually think most real people are neutral. They try to avoid hurting others, but they rarely go out of their way to help someone else.
Most people in a western civilised country are lawful good or lawful neutral, by a huge majority. First, it's not true that they rarely go out of their way to help someone else, lots of people donate to charities for example, or look at what happens when catastrophe strikes. But what is most important is that the people who commit truly evil acts (compared to just being somewhat selfish) are very very rare. And a huge majority follows the law and rules of society, and it's not a necessarily a question of the pear of police and retribution, it's a lot of habit as well. And also, there are almost no chaotic people. Do you really know a lot of people who live haphazardly and make their decisions on a whim every day of their life ? Our societies strongly discourage this and most people plan ahead and try to follow that plan to a certain extent.
It's a sliding scale. Even in a D&D world, many chaotic chaotic characters obey the law most of the time. Otherwise they wouldn't last long in civilized areas. They just break the law when they can get away with it.
I would say there are lawful evil people in western society. Many politicians and corporate execs would qualify. They don't murder people, but they send them to kill and die in foreign countries to increase their approval rating.
Here are some examples for different neutral alignment:
Lawful Neutral: Judge Dredd, Robocop
True Neutral: Jayne Cobb, Bronn of the Blackwater, Red Hood
Chaotic Neutral: Jack Sparrow, Deadpool
I'd say the character you describe fits best for Lawful Neutral.
I would say Jayne Cobb is a chaotic evil character. He only cares about himself and his money, enjoys fighting and inflicting pain, and treats people like they're things.
I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. ;)
He most definately cares about other people, he is willing to give up money and loot, sometimes, and he genuinly cares about (some) people. He likes fighting, yes. But so do a lot of character we consider "good" as well. He is very much a mercenary, willing to change sides for money but he's never curel just for the sake of being cruel and he keeps his word most of the time.
Evil characters can still care about some select few people while still being evil. I'd weigh the fact that he's cruel and enjoys hurting people weaker than him more heavily than the fact that he has some passing feeling for some people on his crew and also likes his mom. The only reason to consider him neutral is that he's working for a good guy and not actively doing evil cause he's not being paid to. If he worked for Niska though, he'd be all too enthusiastic. (Bonus points for Adam Baldwin being a POS in real life haha)
I had a lawful neutral detective character (aasimar Inquisitive rogue) who was pretty fun. He was super into law as a kind of morality that mortals chose rather than the good/evil dichotomy that was foisted on them, and he hid the fact that he was an aasimar so people wouldn't assume he was on the side of the angels necessarily. Instead, he cared more about helping the disadvantaged when they were exploited by the powerful.
Where's the neutral part in this?
He doesn't believe in following Good or Evil just because they exist, but rather emphasizes Law, and holding to the spirit of Law.
His neutrality lies more in the fact that he does not take part in the Good vs Evil axis of the alignment grid, but rather positions himself on the Law vs Chaos axis. Neutrality is not necessarily *between* good and evil, but it can also be *apart* from good and evil.
Here are some examples for different neutral alignment:
Lawful Neutral: Judge Dredd, Robocop
True Neutral: Jayne Cobb, Bronn of the Blackwater, Red Hood
Chaotic Neutral: Jack Sparrow, Deadpool
I'd say the character you describe fits best for Lawful Neutral.
I would say Jayne Cobb is a chaotic evil character. He only cares about himself and his money, enjoys fighting and inflicting pain, and treats people like they're things.
I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. ;)
He most definately cares about other people, he is willing to give up money and loot, sometimes, and he genuinly cares about (some) people. He likes fighting, yes. But so do a lot of character we consider "good" as well. He is very much a mercenary, willing to change sides for money but he's never curel just for the sake of being cruel and he keeps his word most of the time.
Evil characters can still care about some select few people while still being evil. I'd weigh the fact that he's cruel and enjoys hurting people weaker than him more heavily than the fact that he has some passing feeling for some people on his crew and also likes his mom. The only reason to consider him neutral is that he's working for a good guy and not actively doing evil cause he's not being paid to. If he worked for Niska though, he'd be all too enthusiastic. (Bonus points for Adam Baldwin being a POS in real life haha)
Again, I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. He never really does any of the things you ascribe to him. But it seems that you have some kind of issue with the character and the actor playing him, so it's probably pointless trying to get proper discussion out of this.
I had a lawful neutral detective character (aasimar Inquisitive rogue) who was pretty fun. He was super into law as a kind of morality that mortals chose rather than the good/evil dichotomy that was foisted on them, and he hid the fact that he was an aasimar so people wouldn't assume he was on the side of the angels necessarily. Instead, he cared more about helping the disadvantaged when they were exploited by the powerful.
Where's the neutral part in this?
He doesn't believe in following Good or Evil just because they exist, but rather emphasizes Law, and holding to the spirit of Law.
His neutrality lies more in the fact that he does not take part in the Good vs Evil axis of the alignment grid, but rather positions himself on the Law vs Chaos axis. Neutrality is not necessarily *between* good and evil, but it can also be *apart* from good and evil.
Except that you just described him as doing something that is classically considered good, namely " he cared more about helping the disadvantaged when they were exploited by the powerful."
Evil characters can still care about some select few people while still being evil. I'd weigh the fact that he's cruel and enjoys hurting people weaker than him more heavily than the fact that he has some passing feeling for some people on his crew and also likes his mom. The only reason to consider him neutral is that he's working for a good guy and not actively doing evil cause he's not being paid to. If he worked for Niska though, he'd be all too enthusiastic. (Bonus points for Adam Baldwin being a POS in real life haha)
I agree with you. This is again very important to consider, a few exceptions do not make a rule, apart from outsiders, no one is monolithic in his alignement, there are exceptions about some people and some situations, yes, but it does not change the overall outlook. As you point out, he is still mostly evil in his outlook (and chaotic, actually the whole crew is very chaotic in their outlook, and this goes back to the fact that, for me, the "frontier" situation is probably one of the only one in which a chaotic "civilisation" might function), because it's clearly pointed out that the very few "nice" actions that he does are out of character for him. It could be said that is is now mostly chaotic neutral as he is in a good crew and being influenced by the others around, but I would still label him as CE with neutral tendencies.
That's doesn't correspond with what the rules tells us. BUt sure, you are welcome to your opinion.
The spirit of the Law is the it's meant to protect people, so I don't think it's that far out to say a character that revers that spirit wouldn't want to protect people from those that would exploit it.
As for Jayne, I feel like context is important. True, we only *see* him in the context of his good/chaotic good crew where it's simply more convenient for him to go along with things and get paid, but outside of that group, with no Mal or Shepherd or Zoe keeping him in check, I think the show gives you a pretty good idea of what kinda guy he'd be. He's a natural bully, he's cruel, and it's like River said about Juble Early in the last episode; he likes hurting people, and hurting people being part of the job is probably why he took the job. It's not that deep below the surface for him.
I agree with you. This is again very important to consider, a few exceptions do not make a rule, apart from outsiders, no one is monolithic in his alignement, there are exceptions about some people and some situations, yes, but it does not change the overall outlook. As you point out, he is still mostly evil in his outlook (and chaotic, actually the whole crew is very chaotic in their outlook, and this goes back to the fact that, for me, the "frontier" situation is probably one of the only one in which a chaotic "civilisation" might function), because it's clearly pointed out that the very few "nice" actions that he does are out of character for him. It could be said that is is now mostly chaotic neutral as he is in a good crew and being influenced by the others around, but I would still label him as CE with neutral tendencies.
That's doesn't correspond with what the rules tells us. BUt sure, you are welcome to your opinion.
Which part does not correspond ? Because the main part of what I said is straight from the PH, for example: "few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."
I think the problem is that you are focussing on what Jayne does during the episodes, and actually fairly late in the episodes overall, but he did not get his reputation for nothing and the way he is played in the first few episodes show him as fairly clearly CE. And this is why Jaynestown comes as such a surprise, but it's still clearly an exception.
Well, yeah. Of course we have to go by what the character does in the episodes, otherwise we're just making things up. I pointed out that, according to the actual show, he fits pretty well for a True Neutral character (prefers to steer clear of moral questions, doesn't take sides, does what's best at the moment). But sure, if you like writing fan fiction where Jayne is a Chaotic Evil (prone to arbitrary violence, spurred on by hatred, greed or bloodlust) then that's your thing. Enjoy yourself.
The spirit of the Law is the it's meant to protect people, so I don't think it's that far out to say a character that revers that spirit wouldn't want to protect people from those that would exploit it.
That would make him Lawful Good, then.
As for Jayne, I feel like context is important. True, we only *see* him in the context of his good/chaotic good crew where it's simply more convenient for him to go along with things and get paid, but outside of that group, with no Mal or Shepherd or Zoe keeping him in check, I think the show gives you a pretty good idea of what kinda guy he'd be. He's a natural bully, he's cruel, and it's like River said about Juble Early in the last episode; he likes hurting people, and hurting people being part of the job is probably why he took the job. It's not that deep below the surface for him.
Wait, you're taking what someone said about one character and apply that to a different character? Oookey.
The spirit of the Law is the it's meant to protect people, so I don't think it's that far out to say a character that revers that spirit wouldn't want to protect people from those that would exploit it.
That would make him Lawful Good, then.
As for Jayne, I feel like context is important. True, we only *see* him in the context of his good/chaotic good crew where it's simply more convenient for him to go along with things and get paid, but outside of that group, with no Mal or Shepherd or Zoe keeping him in check, I think the show gives you a pretty good idea of what kinda guy he'd be. He's a natural bully, he's cruel, and it's like River said about Juble Early in the last episode; he likes hurting people, and hurting people being part of the job is probably why he took the job. It's not that deep below the surface for him.
Wait, you're taking what someone said about one character and apply that to a different character? Oookey.
It applies to both.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm kinda bored of good and evil characters. Wanna make someone that serves a purpose apart from either. My first thought was a character truly loyal to her country and it's monarch, whether the actions of them are good or evil.
Do you mean just neutral w/r/t good and evil (LN, CN, true N)? Or do you mean true neutral only?
True Neutral doesn't strike me as loyal to king and country - that is more LN. A neutral character would not care what the law says or doesn't say (or what the king does or doesn't say).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I played a Druid who was sent out of his beloved wilderness by his Druidic circle’s elders to investigate disturbances that they saw in the sky. He was neutral. He didn’t care about good or evil, law or chaos. He cared about the circle of life, the wilderness, etc. and that’s how I played him.
He also hated being in cities, which made life interesting!
Professional computer geek
I mean C/N, N, or L/N
Following King and Country (i.e., the law) no matter what, would work for LN.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Here are some examples for different neutral alignment:
I'd say the character you describe fits best for Lawful Neutral.
I had a lawful neutral detective character (aasimar Inquisitive rogue) who was pretty fun. He was super into law as a kind of morality that mortals chose rather than the good/evil dichotomy that was foisted on them, and he hid the fact that he was an aasimar so people wouldn't assume he was on the side of the angels necessarily. Instead, he cared more about helping the disadvantaged when they were exploited by the powerful.
I would say Jayne Cobb is a chaotic evil character. He only cares about himself and his money, enjoys fighting and inflicting pain, and treats people like they're things.
Self-centeredness is not the only requirement for a neutral character, i would say.
Sure, that would be lawful neutral. I actually think most real people are neutral. They try to avoid hurting others, but they rarely go out of their way to help someone else.
An example of chaotic neutral would be a wandering bard who's just interested in collecting interesting stories to tell. He'll join an evil party if they're doing interesting evil, or a good party if they're doing interesting good.
True neutral is probably like a wealthy merchant. They aren't lawful, because they sometimes might dodge taxes or trade contraband goods. But they aren't chaotic, because they keep orderly accounts. They aren't evil, because they provide a valuable service, but they aren't good, because they could help the poor with the wealth they hoard, but don't.
Or for a true neutral with a class, maybe a fighter who's a mercenary.
I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. ;)
He most definately cares about other people, he is willing to give up money and loot, sometimes, and he genuinly cares about (some) people. He likes fighting, yes. But so do a lot of character we consider "good" as well. He is very much a mercenary, willing to change sides for money but he's never curel just for the sake of being cruel and he keeps his word most of the time.
Where's the neutral part in this?
It's a sliding scale. Even in a D&D world, many chaotic chaotic characters obey the law most of the time. Otherwise they wouldn't last long in civilized areas. They just break the law when they can get away with it.
I would say there are lawful evil people in western society. Many politicians and corporate execs would qualify. They don't murder people, but they send them to kill and die in foreign countries to increase their approval rating.
Evil characters can still care about some select few people while still being evil. I'd weigh the fact that he's cruel and enjoys hurting people weaker than him more heavily than the fact that he has some passing feeling for some people on his crew and also likes his mom. The only reason to consider him neutral is that he's working for a good guy and not actively doing evil cause he's not being paid to. If he worked for Niska though, he'd be all too enthusiastic. (Bonus points for Adam Baldwin being a POS in real life haha)
He doesn't believe in following Good or Evil just because they exist, but rather emphasizes Law, and holding to the spirit of Law.
His neutrality lies more in the fact that he does not take part in the Good vs Evil axis of the alignment grid, but rather positions himself on the Law vs Chaos axis. Neutrality is not necessarily *between* good and evil, but it can also be *apart* from good and evil.
If you went Lawful Neutral, an Oath of the Crown Paladin would be good as it swears an oath to king and country.
Any Druid fits well with Neutral alignments. Ranger too.
Again, I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. He never really does any of the things you ascribe to him. But it seems that you have some kind of issue with the character and the actor playing him, so it's probably pointless trying to get proper discussion out of this.
Except that you just described him as doing something that is classically considered good, namely " he cared more about helping the disadvantaged when they were exploited by the powerful."
That's doesn't correspond with what the rules tells us. BUt sure, you are welcome to your opinion.
The spirit of the Law is the it's meant to protect people, so I don't think it's that far out to say a character that revers that spirit wouldn't want to protect people from those that would exploit it.
As for Jayne, I feel like context is important. True, we only *see* him in the context of his good/chaotic good crew where it's simply more convenient for him to go along with things and get paid, but outside of that group, with no Mal or Shepherd or Zoe keeping him in check, I think the show gives you a pretty good idea of what kinda guy he'd be. He's a natural bully, he's cruel, and it's like River said about Juble Early in the last episode; he likes hurting people, and hurting people being part of the job is probably why he took the job. It's not that deep below the surface for him.
Well, yeah. Of course we have to go by what the character does in the episodes, otherwise we're just making things up. I pointed out that, according to the actual show, he fits pretty well for a True Neutral character (prefers to steer clear of moral questions, doesn't take sides, does what's best at the moment). But sure, if you like writing fan fiction where Jayne is a Chaotic Evil (prone to arbitrary violence, spurred on by hatred, greed or bloodlust) then that's your thing. Enjoy yourself.
That would make him Lawful Good, then.
Wait, you're taking what someone said about one character and apply that to a different character? Oookey.
It applies to both.