What is true neutral anyway?

Rethinking alignment

“Fight to the Finish: Law Against Chaos” by John Blanche

Overall I like the idea of player alignment in D&D. I’m not really a fan of the 9 point alignment system but do enjoy the more old school Law - Neutral - Chaos way of doing things. I like it because it adds a sense of cosmic scope to things. Where the alignments aren’t super rigid, but more represent general philosophical outlooks that people, creatures, supernatural beings, tend to coalesce around. They’re helpful shorthand’s that help define a characters outlook.

Law I would define as those that want to protect and preserve the status quo in a classic small ‘c’ conservative way. Where they see value in protecting existing social structures and view change should come gradually.

Chaos I would define as inherently more radical where they want to shake up or destroy the status quo. They want to create change and are agents of change.

Now agents of both these forces could be good or evil. Sometimes the status quo really does need to be shaken up, to change, and those who are resisting such change are resisting simply because they are the ones whom benefit from the unfairness of the status quo. But at the same time, sometimes the status quo or slow and gradual change of the status quo is better than tearing the system down and having wide spread anarchy. Or those whom want to destroy the status quo are doing so because they simply want to replace those in power with themselves. Each alignment can be self-serving, good or evil, in it’s own way.

And if you apply this to a cosmic scale things could get equally complicated. You’re most hardcore radical would probably be against demons who want to open a rift that causes the very laws of physics to become unhinged and shifting and your most law abiding citizen would probably be against angelic forces that wanted to wipe out their entire city because they were a little too sinful.

What is the Neutral Alignment?

Now what does all this mean if you have an alignment of neutral?

Usually, not very much. Most often I find the neutral alignment is kind of just treated as the in-between point on the whole law/chaos spectrum where you’re not really one or the other quite yet but will probably slide to one end or the other as you continue to adventure.

Either that or you’re seen as the ‘seeking to keep the balance between the forces of law and the forces of evil’ but even this I find kind of a non-answer where if you’re seeking to keep or preserve the balance between existing forces, wouldn’t that kind of just make you lawful? As your essentially trying to preserve the status quo? The apposing forces might not be lawful forces that you’re personally aligned with, but if they’ve largely existed in a state of co-existence and now that state is becoming disrupted, you’re still kind of just trying to keep things as they are and preserve the balance of power.

Why have the Neutral Alignment?

This all kind of begs the question, why even keep the Neutral Alignment? Why not simply just have Law - Chaos? I find a lot of OSR stuff tends to do this if they involve alignments. I don’t mind it but I like having at least three alignments. If you have only two, it’s too easy for them to become a very simple binary and everything in your game become ascribed to one or the other. This can create a simple dichotomy where it’s easy to see one side, usually chaos, as the forces of evil, and the other, law, the forces of good. Yeah this isn’t always the case and it’s possible to have nuance and create interesting situations with a sense of complicated morality but if you have three alignments I think it’s harder for things to fall into a simple binary.

What should the third alignment be?

Instead of neutral, I think there should be a third alignment that is a little more something in of itself, rather than simply being the ‘middle point’ in-between the other two. A third ‘pole’ if you will.

I’m not exactly sure what this should be called or what it is exactly but the closest thing I can kind of think up would be Transcendence. In Hegelian philosophy you have the idea of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis:

The dialectic proposes that a thesis, or a foundational idea, is challenged by an antithesis, a contradictory idea, leading to a synthesis, a new idea that reconciles the thesis and antithesis

For example, in political history, a thesis might be a monarchical system. The antithesis could be a revolution demanding a democratic republic. The synthesis could be a constitutional monarchy or a republic with checks and balances, incorporating elements of both previous stages.

I think this kind of fits well with my thoughts and definitions of Law and Chaos. Where Law is more the thesis, how things are. Antithesis is represented by the forces of chaos.

However, I don’t think I would define the third alignment purely as synthesis where you’re trying to find a compromise between all the elements. That’s something that I think just happens as the forces of Law and Chaos naturally come to some form of compromise after a while (or if they can’t because they’re supernatural like demons and angels, the war is unending).

Instead I think the idea of transcendence represents a more interesting third alignment. With transcendence the person isn’t really seeking to preserve or destroy the status quo of a certain social or cosmic force, instead they don’t really see the point of the structure in the first place. Maybe they see themselves as outside or above it, maybe they feel it’s not what other people should focus on, maybe their way of thinking is so alien and different it’s simply impossible for the status quo or against it, to really understand.

What would this look like in play?

I think characters with a transcendent alignment could take many forms.

Your classic evil Lich or powerful Wizard would probably be transcendent. They would see themselves as above most common social structures, neither bound by them nor with any particular interest in overthrowing them. They have the power to simply exist outside them and having existed outside them can’t relate to those much anymore who still exist within them. They would probably be pretty self-serving, or at the very least unpredictable and willing to sacrifice others, in this regard.

Religious orders more focused inwardly on growth and personal transcendence would probably fit this alignment also. Ones which kind of see themselves as apart from society. Certain monastic orders or those which seek to encourage their followers to try and overcome their more flawed or base nature and transcend in some way.

Alien beings or gods or godlings or aberrant creatures so strange that they’re essentially incomprehensible, their motivations and actions almost appearing random; these I’d label as transcendent also. Your typical Lovecraftian horrors and creatures with a sense of cosmic awe and dread.

When it comes to player characters, I’d label those who see themselves as apart from human concerns; druids whom just want to be hermits in the woods and commune with nature, wizards who are care only for long running intellectual matters and mysteries which they have devoted their lives to, thieves who are are willing to just make their way in the world with a grin as they are tossed about by the winds of fate as the wheel of fortune turns, mercenary warriors who care not which army or cause they fight for, enjoy only the thrill of battle where anything could happen; all these characters I would say have found a sense of transcendence in their own way.

Transcendence as a term

I’m still not 100% sold on it as the name or term for the third alignment I’m seeking to define. Maybe transient? But that kind of sounds too vague like neutral. I also don’t know enough about philosophy to know if there’s a better word or term for it. There probably is. Probably some Nietzschean idea or term like Overman or some such thing.

Still workshopping this one and what it would mean in an RPG.