A TN picks his/her battles. TN's are far from emotionless or indecisive. Most of the time as long as the TN is left alone he will tolerate pretty much both good and evil. As long as things are not to bad or to good the TN goes about his life and ignores what is going on around him. It has nothing to do with only doing something if the TN gets something out of it. A TN is not outwardly selfish but looks at self preservation as the driving force. But sometimes he will come across something that will make them take a stand and fight to the death. A TN can be basically any alignment at any given time depending on the circumstances ranging from LG to CE. It all depends on how the TN sees the situation and how to resolve it. There are a huge bunch of books and movies about a normal Joe Schmuck who is just living his life as a TN until something happens that makes him take a stand. He does what he has to do to get back to the norm which is neutrality.
I'd say this absolutely fits within True Neutral as well! And the key part you mention is getting back to a norm of neutrality; correcting balances and whatnot. The tricky part I find, both as a Player and as Dm, is going back. Many players, whether they realize it or not, tend to keep following a path forwards, instead of looping back to where they were. And understandably so, which is part of what makes True Neutral so tricky in my mind. But I have to say I absolutely love what you describe; it fits to a T.
For the most part, you described a passive neutral, one who stays disengaged unless or until engaged. A TN is simply an impossible alignment to achieve for human beings. It's possible nowadays with Artificial Intelligence etc. Movies and shows mislead us by portraying TN individuals because those are well-planned and scripted. As human beings, we will always display passive neutral, chaotic neutral or neutral good traits
"With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another... To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation... I am confident of my ability to demonstrate that one can sometimes believe in something and yet not believe in it... One's first step in wisdom is to question everything - and one's last is to come to terms with everything." ~ Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
Great quote. "With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another." So true. I would love to have more people around me who simply had a desire to explore everything openly, honestly, and WITHOUT EGO. It is incredible how... binary(?)... people can be. Their search for the complexion of any given subject matter seems to be purely based on cascades of emotional reactions to simplistic fragmented interpretations of overgeneralized profiles... and that's the way they assume you work too. Eg, (I won't go down this rabbit hole, but) When I say I am Agnostic, people think it means I'm an Atheist and that I thnk all religious people are morons. My point is just that they have simple archtypal identifications that they cling to; narrowly-preconceived emotional character archetypes of perspective or something. When I say stuff like, "The search for an understanding of one's, "relationship with God," doesn't seem stupid at all to me," (or if I say something else positive about a religion or wisdom within The Bible or something) they are confused as hell about me. I've even had an individual angrily say that, "You're just trying to confuse me," when I SIMPLY said it was true that Affirmative Action can stop more qualified individuals from getting jobs (that go to less qualified individuals based on skin color). A bunch of black people were going NUTS on me, even though every last one of them CLEARLY also heard me say, JUST PREVIOUS to the aforementioned, that the positives of Affirmative Action ultimately outweigh the negatives. They just can't seem to readily grasp nuance. Everything is about character archetypes and overgeneralized complexions. It all seems so dishonest and propaganda-ridden. You have to be either ALLL out for something and be willing to utterly lie about it to endorse it or be ALL out against something. NO room for any nuanced truth, whatsoever. Sry for length. Thanks if you read.
I always thought True Neutral meant that you were basically an NPC. I thought when something bad happens, they just go "Oh no, anyway", but this idea that they're more of an advocate who tries to maintain balance in the group makes a lot more sense and actually makes them a valuable member of the group as they can be like a mediator between especially the lawful and chaotic members.
Hey, I'm glad I can help! Nolan's comment down below also has good ideas on what a True Neutral character could be like! And Thank you! I hope to keep putting it to work for a long time to come!
The best way to play a true neutral character in my opinion is the cynic. Someone who lacks the idealism that good is known for and while selfish at times they don't go out of thier way to be selfish or cruel to get ahead like evil does. This puts them straight in the middle. It could be someone who tried to be good but was given a bad hand or perhaps they were taken advantage of and this makes them scared of letting themselves be vunerable like that again. There might even be hints that they want to believe in good and are desperate to be proven wrong.
this is from the mercenaries book (aeg 8511) section on alignments, in specific to this conversation, what is said about the alignment Neutral (true neutral)... "they do their job solely out of the desire for profit and care very little for moral semantics or the cause for which they fight...they are no more callous killers than they are altruistic heroes...as like as not to become swayed by a cause, but in the grand scheme of things, it matters very little to them. far more important are the task at hand and the payment at stake." in other words, in my opinion, think Bron from Game of Thrones... excellent video, by the way...
Bron certainly strikes a Neutral chord, doesn't he? Certainly if the drive is coin, or survival, without a whole lot of malice and a bit of a "Damn shame, sorry about that." as he's cutting some poor saps throat.
@@GamersDenLoremaster i found a quote that i feel helps describe the "lack of conviction" part of every definition of Neutrality... "I'm loyal to my friends, not to any ideals,and everyone else can take a trip down the Styx for all i care."
I see True Neutral following some of the following tenants: Embracing and living within a Systems of Change like: -The Economy, Politics, Nature, Relationships They will be Playing the game of life They will identify with a system of change and embrace a position within such a system, with those who threaten this system being their enemy.
so one of the ways that I handle alignment in my game is I asked the player to tell me what alignment they think their character is going to be I take that into consideration but in the end I ultimately decide their alignment by watching them play the character, if they call themselves neutral but do a whole bunch of evil crap all the time then I will just assume them evil now for the most part the only negative effect this will have is people who use spells with the good or evil descriptor on them or items that have similar descriptors or something like that, the only time this gets a little tricky is when we're talking about Divine casters who are required to stay within a step or so from their gods alignment so if you have a god that is neutral good you could be awful good you could be chaotic good you could be neutral, but if you start to become evil the god might take your power away
That sounds like a pretty reasonable course of action and is pretty close to what I do too. I never liked taking XP as penalty for alignment shifts, when a character could have a really cool story arc with it instead
Im more Neutral Evil,but pretty near to be True Neutral So... im kinda trying to get advantages for myself,but not risking too much with it i guess,or i dunno how explain something like that
Name: Šaður Karović Alignment: True Neutral Race: Dragonfolk Origin: Kingdom of Surva I was born in an oppressive kingdom that guided its people to heresy, as a rightful prince for the throne. Early in my life, my kingdom was invaded and annexed by the forces of the Holy Empire, as they restored proper teachings of Triune Orthodoxy to the nation. This kingdom is struck with conflict between those that wish to see the old Kingdom and its heretical ways restored, and those who currently side with the Empire. As for me? I live in a wizard tower on the other side of the world, practicing my craft. Not because I wish to reclaim the kingdom, help the Republicans get their way, or to help the forces for good within it. I seek to separate myself from that legacy and claim a position as my own man, far away from the troubles of the world.
True Neutral is a very subjective alignment. If someone defied laws in Nazi Germany, they would be considered "Chaotic" because they were not "Lawful". Someone opposed to slavery in Tennessee in 1840 would ve considered "Chaotic" to one group, and "Lawful" to another group. The same goes with intent. An action could be perceived as good or evil based on religious beliefs, or popular demand.
Precisely! It's very much so context based and is such a huge part of why I try and be flexible on alignment related issues, if those are relevant at all.
@GamersDenLoremaster I've been growing cannabis in far northern California for 3 decades. If we based alignment on laws and public perception, I have been chaotic, lawful, and back to chaotic again, depending on the current marijuna laws. And some heavily religious NPCs would consider me evil for growing, and others would consider me an herbal Paladin. Alignment should be a sliding scale based on the campaign, and no player should have to declare their own alignment. It should be something other players come to realize over time. "Yeah that guy is unpredictable. He won't betray us, his companions, but you never know if he's going to run up and ✂️ someone's throat for a bag of gold, or if he's going to help an old woman across the street and give her 20 silver pieces.
@@CANNABISfreedomNOtaxes I can understand that take, it makes a good deal of sense to me. I still like having my players start off with an alignment, but I don't penalize them for either wanting to switch because they realized that's not what they want to play, or if it's a progression of events, or a reaction to traumatic/major events. I suppose I could sum it up as: "as long as a story's being told and we're having fun, it's all good."
This slime character is gunna be a fun challenge, organic material equals food, only healing things because of an annoying voice in their head that quiets when they do said healing
I actually kinda like this, particularly for a monster races campaign. Stone Golem/Warforged Monk built to be a grappler that works with you to pin something in place as you envelop them both?
@@GamersDenLoremaster I honestly hadn't thought about having someone else grapple, but yeah that sounds cool, sadly I'd need someone else to suggest it in game as my slime doesn't have the intelligence to come up with something like that.
@@breydenrussell4915 You could always discuss it with other players, or the DM. Bounce the idea off of them and see if anyone can come up with a plausible way. It could be argued one of the brainier characters might see advantage with something like that. Some might say it's metagaming and yeah, maybe a little. But as long as you come up with plausible reasons in game and run it by your DM, I don't see how it'd be a problem.
My all time character is a True Neutral. He is summoned by an ancient force to clean up everytime the World is unbalanced or when the entire mortal races are at risk of extinction. He is a tool, he has no free will of his own he is a sword for someone else to use. He will kill hundreds of people if it means to save thousands, irrelevant if they are good or evil
Nice try SHODAN, but this insect knows better. Joking aside, I think I know which one you're talking about. It's been a few years, but I tend to flit between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good.
Hello , I am an experienced player, so comfortable trying out for the first time playing a true neutral character. Let me give some character background. The character is a warforged. I am playing him as sort of a hitman/ assassin/ bounty hunter type where he will kill for profit through contracts. To him it isn't personal, its just his job and its survival. He was originally created by an ancient race to be an assassin, its what he was created to do, and the race that created him was far more technologically advanced then any other race. He decided that he no longer wanted to be there slave, and ran away. He was on the run for a while hiding from them til one day The race that created him called Dwimmer disappeared suddenly without warning , just one day gone. Ok now how i see playing him is He is alot like "pops" ( the terminator that was sent back to save john conor.) he doesn't have remorse, or concept of higher morality, he is sentient. He takes contracts to kill people , but to him killing has no malice, its just something that needs to be done and by taking contracts he gets money which helps him in survival. he doesn't really ask questions on who he is killing nor does he really care for to him concepts of innocents or guilty , right and wrong, or good and evil are best left to philosophical types that care. For him though for that kind of stuff he has apathy, and killing is just what he was made to do so it was the easiest way to make a living. It is done without remorse, or malice, or pity, or greed. He will help out friends or ones he might be hired to protect, but if anyone tries to hurt him or those under his care, they are dealt with impunity. There has been one conflict so far with in the party. we have a paladin in the party that is lawful good. we captured prisoners , after interrogating them, I went to kill them because we were still in the dungeon and from his perspective is they are still a possible threat if let go of warning their friends in the dungeon. So to my character the easiest way to fix the threat is kill the threat. he had no malice for them or hated, it was just the quickest solution at hand. The paladin put him self in the middle and went to try to stop me by warning me as an over pious paladin he was they were under his protection and he wouldn't let me kill them. So very next second i took my shot and almost killed the captured cultist. Because to him he just couldn't understand why this human was protecting a threat to the whole party. So this caused a heated debate in character about how i was forcing the paladin's hand, but while we were arguing the cultist escaped. conflict resolved. and my character then went back to like nothing happened between them. The character is a multi class going 12 warlock (hexblade) / lvl 6 fighter ( gunslinger) / lvl 2 artificer ( mostly for repeating shot infusion). First level was as a fighter. He is built around a sniper rifle using the "bad news " stats from gunslinger, and took the close quarters shooter fighting style. The campaign setting is homebrew set in a world that is as i was told a mix between elder scrolls and steam punk.) and i am playing him as this sort of warforged coybow, equipped with a prop of a metal magic cigar. the effects from it are purely visual illusions like the glow from it when puffed on and the exhale of smoke.
Sorry for the late response, but yeah: That's definitely a True Neutral character. Disassociated, pragmatic, not motivated by good bad but by logic. I'd say it fits. I like the character build overall and I really love the Rifle being named "Bad News". First thing I thought of was your Warforged carefully chiseling onto each bullet "To whom it may concern." Maybe see if you can snag ammunition with the slaying effect and etch onto those: "To" And leave space for a name so when you load and speak the name of who the effect is supposed to kill, the name appears on the bullet.
I think that this isn't either hard to grasp or to implement. The way I understand true neutral character would be someone like Han Solo in New Hope, Kratos in God of War 2018 or... Shrek in his first movie!😂 Han only cared about money, his ship and Chewi - he didn't give a damn about conflict between Empire and Rebels. Kratos just want to teach his boy to survive and to carry ashes of his late wife to the top of the highest mountain, he doesn't care about anything else - if you don't bother him, he will leave you alone. Shrek just want to live alone on his swamp - he agree to go for a quest just to get rid of fairytale creatures from his property, he he don't give a crap about anything else. Is this really hard to play character like that in D&D ?
A pretty solid argument can be made for Han starting out as Neutral, very much so. But then he's also just like anybody else in the galaxy: Trying to earn a living and pay his bills; he's just in a situation where the bills include a debt to a Crime Lord. But he really starts to make a switch right at the end of a New Hope when he and Chewie took their space semi and blew up one of Vader's wingmen. My larger point is that it's hard to maintain and be consistent, to the point where it can be hard to define if a Dm wants to have a more clear definition of alignments, particularly where mortals are concerned. And that's mainly because at a certain point a choice has to be made and no choice is also a choice, one that happens to benefit power. So, in this instance, Han made a choice that put him on the side of good, fighting against a fascist, genocidal Empire hell bent on kicking down at people. But some might argue that that's hardly a choice at all and might look at the Empire and say: "Well, the Neutral character is choosing to help restore balance." But that's just a step removed from "both sides"-ing an argument. And now I'm winding off on a tangent; my apologies. Point being: True Neutral is difficult to play because, unless you're just concerned with day to day survival, look at things from a not all that mortal cosmic perspective, it's hard to declare who is neutral. But, folks disagree and that's okay too. Hell, tomorrow I might look at this and find my own perspective has shifted in some way.
True neutrality is impossible to achieve for human beings. It's there as a type of neutrality, but sadly not as an option that we can achieve. Based on the situation, we will always assume other types of neutrality at any given point in time, even exhibiting true neutral traits, which ultimately prove the impossibility of true neutrality. Anyone who claims to be a true neutral individual is simply thriving to live out as one. INTPs are the closest to being true neutral, but we end up being passive-neutral or chaotic neutral in circumstances where we have outbursts of assertiveness and confidence. Due to our confident nature, we are often mistaken for extroverts when performing tasks that we are sure of, but that's the only time we are chaotic neutral. For the most part, we are passive-neutral and prefer to stay out of the way unless we feel the need to provide input or defend ourselves
I am an INTP and I'd say True Neutral is the most fitting for me. The tendency to weigh things by pros, cons and logical consistency as well as potential consequences ends up naturally leaning into such a classification in my opinion. I will sometimes do what's right for me, sometimes what's right for others, something evil, something good; something very chaotic or something lawful. And it will be circumstance relative rather than ideological.
They can be difficult, given how tricky it is to even maintain that even, Neutral outlook without being an absolute cartoon of a character. But it's great when a player captures it just right.
A TN picks his/her battles. TN's are far from emotionless or indecisive. Most of the time as long as the TN is left alone he will tolerate pretty much both good and evil. As long as things are not to bad or to good the TN goes about his life and ignores what is going on around him. It has nothing to do with only doing something if the TN gets something out of it. A TN is not outwardly selfish but looks at self preservation as the driving force. But sometimes he will come across something that will make them take a stand and fight to the death. A TN can be basically any alignment at any given time depending on the circumstances ranging from LG to CE. It all depends on how the TN sees the situation and how to resolve it. There are a huge bunch of books and movies about a normal Joe Schmuck who is just living his life as a TN until something happens that makes him take a stand. He does what he has to do to get back to the norm which is neutrality.
I'd say this absolutely fits within True Neutral as well! And the key part you mention is getting back to a norm of neutrality; correcting balances and whatnot.
The tricky part I find, both as a Player and as Dm, is going back. Many players, whether they realize it or not, tend to keep following a path forwards, instead of looping back to where they were.
And understandably so, which is part of what makes True Neutral so tricky in my mind.
But I have to say I absolutely love what you describe; it fits to a T.
For the most part, you described a passive neutral, one who stays disengaged unless or until engaged. A TN is simply an impossible alignment to achieve for human beings. It's possible nowadays with Artificial Intelligence etc. Movies and shows mislead us by portraying TN individuals because those are well-planned and scripted. As human beings, we will always display passive neutral, chaotic neutral or neutral good traits
A True Neutral Uses A Paraphrased Version Of A Kevin Hart Joke. "Your Bullshit Is Your Bullshit, Unless Your Bullshit Becomes My Bullshit"
Kinda like when you kill the entire goblin camp in BG3 bc it's in the way.
"With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another... To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation... I am confident of my ability to demonstrate that one can sometimes believe in something and yet not believe in it... One's first step in wisdom is to question everything - and one's last is to come to terms with everything."
~ Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
Great quote. "With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another."
So true. I would love to have more people around me who simply had a desire to explore everything openly, honestly, and WITHOUT EGO.
It is incredible how... binary(?)... people can be. Their search for the complexion of any given subject matter seems to be purely based on cascades of emotional reactions to simplistic fragmented interpretations of overgeneralized profiles... and that's the way they assume you work too.
Eg, (I won't go down this rabbit hole, but) When I say I am Agnostic, people think it means I'm an Atheist and that I thnk all religious people are morons. My point is just that they have simple archtypal identifications that they cling to; narrowly-preconceived emotional character archetypes of perspective or something.
When I say stuff like, "The search for an understanding of one's, "relationship with God," doesn't seem stupid at all to me," (or if I say something else positive about a religion or wisdom within The Bible or something) they are confused as hell about me.
I've even had an individual angrily say that, "You're just trying to confuse me," when I SIMPLY said it was true that Affirmative Action can stop more qualified individuals from getting jobs (that go to less qualified individuals based on skin color). A bunch of black people were going NUTS on me, even though every last one of them CLEARLY also heard me say, JUST PREVIOUS to the aforementioned, that the positives of Affirmative Action ultimately outweigh the negatives.
They just can't seem to readily grasp nuance. Everything is about character archetypes and overgeneralized complexions. It all seems so dishonest and propaganda-ridden. You have to be either ALLL out for something and be willing to utterly lie about it to endorse it or be ALL out against something. NO room for any nuanced truth, whatsoever.
Sry for length. Thanks if you read.
I always thought True Neutral meant that you were basically an NPC. I thought when something bad happens, they just go "Oh no, anyway", but this idea that they're more of an advocate who tries to maintain balance in the group makes a lot more sense and actually makes them a valuable member of the group as they can be like a mediator between especially the lawful and chaotic members.
With plans on making my true neutral ranger this really helps.
Also. G-dang! You got a smooth voice.
Hey, I'm glad I can help! Nolan's comment down below also has good ideas on what a True Neutral character could be like!
And Thank you! I hope to keep putting it to work for a long time to come!
the mind of the wolf was: kill, alert the others for safe feast, eat, THRIVE
Per 2008 Star Wars is another good example.
You've convinced me that my dog is neutral evil.
Hah! That seems less than ideal, but as long as you love the little critter, can't say too much.
The best way to play a true neutral character in my opinion is the cynic. Someone who lacks the idealism that good is known for and while selfish at times they don't go out of thier way to be selfish or cruel to get ahead like evil does. This puts them straight in the middle. It could be someone who tried to be good but was given a bad hand or perhaps they were taken advantage of and this makes them scared of letting themselves be vunerable like that again. There might even be hints that they want to believe in good and are desperate to be proven wrong.
That's another great example of a True Neutral mindset and probably a lot easier to play in many instances; thanks for that!
this is from the mercenaries book (aeg 8511) section on alignments, in specific to this conversation, what is said about the alignment Neutral (true neutral)...
"they do their job solely out of the desire for profit and care very little for moral semantics or the cause for which they fight...they are no more callous killers than they are altruistic heroes...as like as not to become swayed by a cause, but in the grand scheme of things, it matters very little to them. far more important are the task at hand and the payment at stake."
in other words, in my opinion, think Bron from Game of Thrones...
excellent video, by the way...
Bron certainly strikes a Neutral chord, doesn't he? Certainly if the drive is coin, or survival, without a whole lot of malice and a bit of a "Damn shame, sorry about that." as he's cutting some poor saps throat.
@@GamersDenLoremaster i found a quote that i feel helps describe the "lack of conviction" part of every definition of Neutrality...
"I'm loyal to my friends, not to any ideals,and everyone else can take a trip down the Styx for all i care."
I see True Neutral following some of the following tenants:
Embracing and living within a Systems of Change like:
-The Economy, Politics, Nature, Relationships
They will be Playing the game of life
They will identify with a system of change and embrace a position within such a system, with those who threaten this system being their enemy.
so one of the ways that I handle alignment in my game is I asked the player to tell me what alignment they think their character is going to be I take that into consideration but in the end I ultimately decide their alignment by watching them play the character, if they call themselves neutral but do a whole bunch of evil crap all the time then I will just assume them evil now for the most part the only negative effect this will have is people who use spells with the good or evil descriptor on them or items that have similar descriptors or something like that, the only time this gets a little tricky is when we're talking about Divine casters who are required to stay within a step or so from their gods alignment so if you have a god that is neutral good you could be awful good you could be chaotic good you could be neutral, but if you start to become evil the god might take your power away
That sounds like a pretty reasonable course of action and is pretty close to what I do too. I never liked taking XP as penalty for alignment shifts, when a character could have a really cool story arc with it instead
Im more Neutral Evil,but pretty near to be True Neutral
So... im kinda trying to get advantages for myself,but not risking too much with it i guess,or i dunno how explain something like that
This is really great. I appreciate the video!
Thank you! I'm always a little hesitant when it comes to alignments; I'm glad you found value in this!
I'm going to be roleplaying a Neutral cleric gem dragonborn under the Ruby Dragon.
Im just going completely loosey Goosey
Sometimes it's the best way to go about things. Sounds like a character that'll be fun as hell though!
Name: Šaður Karović
Alignment: True Neutral
Race: Dragonfolk
Origin: Kingdom of Surva
I was born in an oppressive kingdom that guided its people to heresy, as a rightful prince for the throne. Early in my life, my kingdom was invaded and annexed by the forces of the Holy Empire, as they restored proper teachings of Triune Orthodoxy to the nation. This kingdom is struck with conflict between those that wish to see the old Kingdom and its heretical ways restored, and those who currently side with the Empire. As for me? I live in a wizard tower on the other side of the world, practicing my craft. Not because I wish to reclaim the kingdom, help the Republicans get their way, or to help the forces for good within it. I seek to separate myself from that legacy and claim a position as my own man, far away from the troubles of the world.
I really love the story you put into these comments, it's a great read, thank you!
@@GamersDenLoremaster You're welcome! Nice videos too, by the way.
True Neutral is a very subjective alignment. If someone defied laws in Nazi Germany, they would be considered "Chaotic" because they were not "Lawful". Someone opposed to slavery in Tennessee in 1840 would ve considered "Chaotic" to one group, and "Lawful" to another group. The same goes with intent. An action could be perceived as good or evil based on religious beliefs, or popular demand.
Precisely! It's very much so context based and is such a huge part of why I try and be flexible on alignment related issues, if those are relevant at all.
@GamersDenLoremaster I've been growing cannabis in far northern California for 3 decades. If we based alignment on laws and public perception, I have been chaotic, lawful, and back to chaotic again, depending on the current marijuna laws. And some heavily religious NPCs would consider me evil for growing, and others would consider me an herbal Paladin.
Alignment should be a sliding scale based on the campaign, and no player should have to declare their own alignment. It should be something other players come to realize over time.
"Yeah that guy is unpredictable. He won't betray us, his companions, but you never know if he's going to run up and ✂️ someone's throat for a bag of gold, or if he's going to help an old woman across the street and give her 20 silver pieces.
I think Sandor Clegane is a good example of a true neutral character.
@@CANNABISfreedomNOtaxes I can understand that take, it makes a good deal of sense to me.
I still like having my players start off with an alignment, but I don't penalize them for either wanting to switch because they realized that's not what they want to play, or if it's a progression of events, or a reaction to traumatic/major events.
I suppose I could sum it up as: "as long as a story's being told and we're having fun, it's all good."
This slime character is gunna be a fun challenge, organic material equals food, only healing things because of an annoying voice in their head that quiets when they do said healing
I actually kinda like this, particularly for a monster races campaign. Stone Golem/Warforged Monk built to be a grappler that works with you to pin something in place as you envelop them both?
@@GamersDenLoremaster I honestly hadn't thought about having someone else grapple, but yeah that sounds cool, sadly I'd need someone else to suggest it in game as my slime doesn't have the intelligence to come up with something like that.
@@breydenrussell4915 You could always discuss it with other players, or the DM. Bounce the idea off of them and see if anyone can come up with a plausible way.
It could be argued one of the brainier characters might see advantage with something like that.
Some might say it's metagaming and yeah, maybe a little. But as long as you come up with plausible reasons in game and run it by your DM, I don't see how it'd be a problem.
@@GamersDenLoremaster I could, and I might, but that's a matter for the future, again thanks for the idea
My all time character is a True Neutral. He is summoned by an ancient force to clean up everytime the World is unbalanced or when the entire mortal races are at risk of extinction. He is a tool, he has no free will of his own he is a sword for someone else to use. He will kill hundreds of people if it means to save thousands, irrelevant if they are good or evil
I liked your video. I'm sure it wasn't easy to do. When do you think you will be releasing Chaotic Neutral?
Ideally I should have it out next Friday, or Saturday. Glad that I'm meeting expectations!
There’s a website where you could answer questions to see what alignment you are thought it was fun to try turns out I am TN
Nice try SHODAN, but this insect knows better.
Joking aside, I think I know which one you're talking about. It's been a few years, but I tend to flit between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good.
Hello , I am an experienced player, so comfortable trying out for the first time playing a true neutral character. Let me give some character background. The character is a warforged. I am playing him as sort of a hitman/ assassin/ bounty hunter type where he will kill for profit through contracts. To him it isn't personal, its just his job and its survival. He was originally created by an ancient race to be an assassin, its what he was created to do, and the race that created him was far more technologically advanced then any other race. He decided that he no longer wanted to be there slave, and ran away. He was on the run for a while hiding from them til one day The race that created him called Dwimmer disappeared suddenly without warning , just one day gone. Ok now how i see playing him is He is alot like "pops" ( the terminator that was sent back to save john conor.) he doesn't have remorse, or concept of higher morality, he is sentient. He takes contracts to kill people , but to him killing has no malice, its just something that needs to be done and by taking contracts he gets money which helps him in survival. he doesn't really ask questions on who he is killing nor does he really care for to him concepts of innocents or guilty , right and wrong, or good and evil are best left to philosophical types that care. For him though for that kind of stuff he has apathy, and killing is just what he was made to do so it was the easiest way to make a living. It is done without remorse, or malice, or pity, or greed. He will help out friends or ones he might be hired to protect, but if anyone tries to hurt him or those under his care, they are dealt with impunity. There has been one conflict so far with in the party. we have a paladin in the party that is lawful good. we captured prisoners , after interrogating them, I went to kill them because we were still in the dungeon and from his perspective is they are still a possible threat if let go of warning their friends in the dungeon. So to my character the easiest way to fix the threat is kill the threat. he had no malice for them or hated, it was just the quickest solution at hand. The paladin put him self in the middle and went to try to stop me by warning me as an over pious paladin he was they were under his protection and he wouldn't let me kill them. So very next second i took my shot and almost killed the captured cultist. Because to him he just couldn't understand why this human was protecting a threat to the whole party. So this caused a heated debate in character about how i was forcing the paladin's hand, but while we were arguing the cultist escaped. conflict resolved. and my character then went back to like nothing happened between them. The character is a multi class going 12 warlock (hexblade) / lvl 6 fighter ( gunslinger) / lvl 2 artificer ( mostly for repeating shot infusion). First level was as a fighter. He is built around a sniper rifle using the "bad news " stats from gunslinger, and took the close quarters shooter fighting style. The campaign setting is homebrew set in a world that is as i was told a mix between elder scrolls and steam punk.) and i am playing him as this sort of warforged coybow, equipped with a prop of a metal magic cigar. the effects from it are purely visual illusions like the glow from it when puffed on and the exhale of smoke.
Sorry for the late response, but yeah: That's definitely a True Neutral character. Disassociated, pragmatic, not motivated by good bad but by logic. I'd say it fits.
I like the character build overall and I really love the Rifle being named "Bad News". First thing I thought of was your Warforged carefully chiseling onto each bullet "To whom it may concern." Maybe see if you can snag ammunition with the slaying effect and etch onto those: "To" And leave space for a name so when you load and speak the name of who the effect is supposed to kill, the name appears on the bullet.
I think that this isn't either hard to grasp or to implement. The way I understand true neutral character would be someone like Han Solo in New Hope, Kratos in God of War 2018 or... Shrek in his first movie!😂 Han only cared about money, his ship and Chewi - he didn't give a damn about conflict between Empire and Rebels. Kratos just want to teach his boy to survive and to carry ashes of his late wife to the top of the highest mountain, he doesn't care about anything else - if you don't bother him, he will leave you alone. Shrek just want to live alone on his swamp - he agree to go for a quest just to get rid of fairytale creatures from his property, he he don't give a crap about anything else. Is this really hard to play character like that in D&D ?
A pretty solid argument can be made for Han starting out as Neutral, very much so. But then he's also just like anybody else in the galaxy: Trying to earn a living and pay his bills; he's just in a situation where the bills include a debt to a Crime Lord.
But he really starts to make a switch right at the end of a New Hope when he and Chewie took their space semi and blew up one of Vader's wingmen.
My larger point is that it's hard to maintain and be consistent, to the point where it can be hard to define if a Dm wants to have a more clear definition of alignments, particularly where mortals are concerned.
And that's mainly because at a certain point a choice has to be made and no choice is also a choice, one that happens to benefit power. So, in this instance, Han made a choice that put him on the side of good, fighting against a fascist, genocidal Empire hell bent on kicking down at people.
But some might argue that that's hardly a choice at all and might look at the Empire and say: "Well, the Neutral character is choosing to help restore balance."
But that's just a step removed from "both sides"-ing an argument.
And now I'm winding off on a tangent; my apologies.
Point being: True Neutral is difficult to play because, unless you're just concerned with day to day survival, look at things from a not all that mortal cosmic perspective, it's hard to declare who is neutral.
But, folks disagree and that's okay too. Hell, tomorrow I might look at this and find my own perspective has shifted in some way.
True neutrality is impossible to achieve for human beings. It's there as a type of neutrality, but sadly not as an option that we can achieve. Based on the situation, we will always assume other types of neutrality at any given point in time, even exhibiting true neutral traits, which ultimately prove the impossibility of true neutrality. Anyone who claims to be a true neutral individual is simply thriving to live out as one. INTPs are the closest to being true neutral, but we end up being passive-neutral or chaotic neutral in circumstances where we have outbursts of assertiveness and confidence. Due to our confident nature, we are often mistaken for extroverts when performing tasks that we are sure of, but that's the only time we are chaotic neutral. For the most part, we are passive-neutral and prefer to stay out of the way unless we feel the need to provide input or defend ourselves
I am an INTP and I'd say True Neutral is the most fitting for me. The tendency to weigh things by pros, cons and logical consistency as well as potential consequences ends up naturally leaning into such a classification in my opinion. I will sometimes do what's right for me, sometimes what's right for others, something evil, something good; something very chaotic or something lawful. And it will be circumstance relative rather than ideological.
True neutrals are a nightmare for me to play with as a DM.
They can be difficult, given how tricky it is to even maintain that even, Neutral outlook without being an absolute cartoon of a character.
But it's great when a player captures it just right.