Lawful neutral are similar to true neutral in skyrim sometimes

ronal1 · Apr 21, 2016

Hi.-----possible spoiler----

Sometimes i use the alignments for my character and i want your opinions.

I use this link
http://easydamus.com/trueneutral.html (if links are not allowed feel free to delete it)

Brief comment

When you are lawful neutral, you follow the laws, or traditions or your honor code. Easy and understandable, probably, companions. The respect the laws, wont transform in public, the fight for their honor, but they wont hassle if they arent paid.

True neutral, do what you feel is right. If you harm others for your benefits, you become, neutral evil, if you do the opposite you become neutral good, so you dont let others get hurt but you dont over-try it.

More like greybeards. They are peaceful, if you want their knowledge, they will teach you. They mind their business, but if they see skyrim is in trouble, they try to end the civil war.

So how different is a lawful neutral, just following his personal code, with a true neutral? They both do what they think is right. They both help others when they feel they should, they both will avoid benefiting themselves at benefit of others.

Hellknight Anna · Apr 21, 2016

I think you're misunderstanding what True Neutral is.. TN does not "do what you believe is right". They do what they must (or nothing at all) to preserve a balance in all things - good/evil; law/chaos. In all honestly I think the tropes website explains alignments better than the actual descriptors in the D&D books:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment

So ... reading on the LN and TN of those, should answer your question a lot better.

ronal1 · Apr 22, 2016

Strangely, the link supports my opinion even more, on a second view. It says its about acting naturally and keeping balance, either by actively trying, or by not participating.

Therefore a true neutral person, helps those that help him/her, does not harm those who do not harm him/her, its something we could call peaceful. If there is a great evil coming, he will risk to help stop it, but he will not risk to have a greater good. Balance hides some sort of peace/good moral thinking, otherwise,
"Neutral evil beings consider their alignment to be the best because they can advance themselves without regard for others," they become neutral evil.

So while helping others isnt the main issue of a true neutral (because then he is good neutral), he still values others to some degree, helping them, else he becomes ignorant, disregards to their needs and falls to the neutral evil.

For example, greybeards at some point, try to help you stop alduin and civil war, because if they dont, their actions dont really differ from dark brotherhood. (Greybeards would passively, let everyone die, db actively try to kill people, both results are similar).

PS. I am not trying to be smart, i am just debating because i like different opinions.

Hellknight Anna · Apr 22, 2016

I'm just saying I disagree with the view of "True Neutral characters do what they feel is right". Because that's a rather vague statement inappropriately assigned to one alignment. ALL Characters do what they feel is right. Even the Chaotic Evil ones. Maybe they were wronged when they were young, and their whole upbringing was a series of unfortunate events that lead them to believe the world is cruel and evil and should be 'purified', so they see it as a necessity.

Grey Beards do make a good True Neutral example though as they stay seclusive up on the mountain until "needed" per se.

But either way a Lawful Neutral character does what they can/what they will within certain boundaries of the law, a code of conduct, standards of behavior, etc. But they can also act upon good and evil deeds when deemed necessary as that is their balance to maintain. a True Neutral character balances everything - free will vs Order / benevolence vs malevolence. Being passive, seclusive, and un-involved doesn't make a TN character ignorant. A lich (D&D) could remain passive, secluded, and un-involved in his/her/it's tower for millennia just studying and researching spells, keeping up with current events through scrying, etc.

I'm sure the Greybeards have their own way of keeping up with current events.

ronal1 · Apr 22, 2016

I will disagree at some degree to the "everyone does what he feels is right". The potential "evil" characters, agree that are not right, (not always) but they dont care and they prefer to do what they like instead. Example, dark brotherhood, know they are sadists, the just like it. They didnt like when they were betrayed, so they agree betrayal is not right, they just like it when THEY do it to others.

On the straight comparison, i dont get how a true neutral differs from a specific lawful neutral following his code above laws. I mean, True neutral, does what seems natural to him, that realistically, is his individual "code", he also will avoid breaking the law, not because he believes in the laws in general, but for convenience (why ask for trouble with the law).

So a true neutral will avoid breaking the law if he can help it, just because he lives in society and wants to not cause problems. The lawful neutral (following a code) will not break the law, because he believes in laws.

In the end for different reasons, both will try to not break the law if they can help it, the only difference i see, is the lawful neutral, would be a tick more disciplined to it.
SO greybeards, while true neutral, they still avoid breaking laws or customs. They dont have it as main concern, but its important to them. They also respect the order (by inviting both general tulious and ulfric) and customs.

I want your opinion in that as well.
About the ignorance. I believe a true neutral, will help others if needed even if he has no profit from that, just not at great cost. For example, i see a true neutral, buying food or water to an injured person that has collapsed because if they stay passive, something very bad will happen (the injured person, will be in great pain, or die) but they wouldnt want to starve so one other person doesnt. How do you see that?

Hellknight Anna · Apr 22, 2016

Well see this is the problem with Alignment System in general (and which is why my custom world doesn't have them) is because you can literally have an unlimited views on how you see good/neutral/evil characters. I see them (as I often play villains in RPGs if I can), with their own backgrounds and stories that made them the villains they are and not just some randomly generated evil things to be created for plot sake. Of course I am not debating that ALL villains are that way, some may truly just be twisted and psychologically unstable; while others - like in my example - there was a motive and a reasoning behind what they thought might be right -- even if the world does not see it the same way.

And I still believe you are mixing up LN with TN more than their descriptors explain

True Neutral typically don't care about laws but respects them, just as much as they respect freedom of choice - within certain boundaries (again dipping into that whole "Alignments are an iffy and crude system" thing) :\

And I don't remember them inviting General Tullious or Ulfric in anything

I only remember they stayed in High Hrothgar the entire time.
---

I believe a TN character in THAT particular situation would act depending on their upbringing. If they were raised to be the "do nothing" type, then they'll probably see the situation as a "Well if they can't muster the will to find food or water, the strength to survive, then they die. It's just nature taking its course." type of thinking. But if they're more the Karma type where there's a balance to everything in a more pro-active kind of way, then yeah. They'd help them out, and most likely be rewarded themselves -- but not because they wanted reward, but because of that balance.

So again it all depends on circumstance I guess.

ronal1 · Apr 22, 2016

They invite in high rogthar so the civil war ends. (You wont see this quest, if you finish the civil war with a side).

The issue i have here, is the "nothing type" as you call him, is more like evil neutral rather than true neutral. As quoted above from your site. "evil neutral can advance in their goals without regarding others". So isnt it, un-true-neutralish to let a person die, just because its a "hassle to try"? How will a true neutral be different than evil neutral, if they both let others helpless in time of need?

As i view it, balance has a part of justice and fairness. You wont actively fight for good, but you will not allow anything bad to happen. A good example from a movie for thought.

Treebeard in lotr. The 2 hobbits walk in his forest, been chased by a goblin soldier. In his eyes, the 2 hobbits are going to be harmed without a reason. So he protects them. But after that, he is not sure the 2 hobbits are spies or good, so he takes them with him to decide.
When they ask for help, the ents and treebeard refuse to help, because its too much risk, to fight for the a cause far away from their way of life. Though when they see the burnt trees, they join war and help the good side overwhelm evil.
So isnt true neutral's balance a person that is good hearted, will stop something bad from happening, but not risk too much for someone else.
Still in my view if a true neutral, doesnt help others, he is the definition of evil neutral.

Hellknight Anna · Apr 22, 2016

because Neutral Evil characters are out for themselves plain and simple. They use laws when it suits them, but they also favor free will. They'll do whatever, whenever, and however it takes to advance themselves. The "Do nothing" type isn't letting the person die for personal gain; they're letting them die because they have nothing to do with them. The TN char was not involved (presumably) so they have no obligation to rectify the situation. A Neutral Evil character might leave them to die because it's a "hassle to try", and they wouldn't gain anything from it.

Do you see how the two are vaguely similar but still differ? If not... then that only furthers the "alignments are ambiguous" argument lol (which they are). it's one reason I don't use alignments is because they're vaguely subjective. You could view angels as Lawful Good, but if an angel is going around killing mortals because they might "become killers one day", wouldn't you think that'd fall more toward an evil end? Despite the angel believes in this cause wholeheartedly and is not opposed by other celestial factions, etc.?

As I view it, balance does not include justice. Justice would be a more Lawful/Order type of thing, along with retribution. Fairness yes. a TN character shouldn't let good or evil happen. Or ... actullay that's wrong. They let them happen, but not to an overpowered amount. If GOOD were the dominant alignment in the world then the balance is off; and the TN character would rectify it by aligning with EVIL; and vice versa. Or they should anyways according to their alignment.

Hellknight Anna · Apr 22, 2016

But we seem to just be going in circles. I would like to hear opinions from others on this matter

ronal1 · Apr 22, 2016

As far as i am concerned a tn, is at equality. He wont sacrifice himself for the greater good, nor the greater good for his selfishness. I dont see a tn, STOPPING something good from happening. Just not going out of their way to do it. But i DO seem stopping something bad from happening.

If you dont participate in life, you are not in balance, you are with the bad guys. If people around you get damaged, and you dont help them, you dont balance things. You see something bad happening "meh, i am ok, i have nothing to gain". Thats a bad principle. Also, while i see tn, doing good, when there is bad in the world, to balance this out, i dont see a balancer doing something bad when things are good. Because then he creates a disturbance ruining, the balance, which is bad itself and ruins the whole point of balance.

remember tn, are the natural behaviors. Its not natural, to damage others, just because they are living well. But it is natural to protect other species of the ecosystem.
So while you cant naturally do bad things to correct balance, you DO naturally good things to improve balance.

Even in real life. We do regulate our behavior and protect animals, but no sane/balanced person will say "lets kill people so animals can live better". Because we realize we are parts of nature as all other animals and all should be respected.

Hellknight Anna · Apr 22, 2016

ronal1 said:
As far as i am concerned a tn, is at equality. He wont sacrifice himself for the greater good, nor the greater good for his selfishness. I dont see a tn, STOPPING something good from happening. Just not going out of their way to do it. But i DO seem stopping something bad from happening.

Yeah this here.... that wouldn't be a TN character then. To be true neutral is to take no sides at all. So you can't favor one way over the other.

The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass · Apr 22, 2016

ronal1 said:
I will disagree at some degree to the "everyone does what he feels is right". The potential "evil" characters, agree that are not right, (not always) but they dont care and they prefer to do what they like instead. Example, dark brotherhood, know they are sadists, the just like it. They didnt like when they were betrayed, so they agree betrayal is not right, they just like it when THEY do it to others.

On the straight comparison, i dont get how a true neutral differs from a specific lawful neutral following his code above laws. I mean, True neutral, does what seems natural to him, that realistically, is his individual "code", he also will avoid breaking the law, not because he believes in the laws in general, but for convenience (why ask for trouble with the law).

So a true neutral will avoid breaking the law if he can help it, just because he lives in society and wants to not cause problems. The lawful neutral (following a code) will not break the law, because he believes in laws.

In the end for different reasons, both will try to not break the law if they can help it, the only difference i see, is the lawful neutral, would be a tick more disciplined to it.
SO greybeards, while true neutral, they still avoid breaking laws or customs. They dont have it as main concern, but its important to them. They also respect the order (by inviting both general tulious and ulfric) and customs.

I want your opinion in that as well.
About the ignorance. I believe a true neutral, will help others if needed even if he has no profit from that, just not at great cost. For example, i see a true neutral, buying food or water to an injured person that has collapsed because if they stay passive, something very bad will happen (the injured person, will be in great pain, or die) but they wouldnt want to starve so one other person doesnt. How do you see that?

I would like to clarify that what you are saying about evil people knowing they're evil does not apply. They still believe they are right, they are just conscious that their actions are evil in the process. The Brotherhood example is flawed because you are looking at it from a broad view, "They don't like being betrayed but like when they betray others, so they made a rule about" doesn't mean they believe betrayal as a whole is wrong. They just believe it is wrong to be betrayed within their own order. They are fully aware that betrayal is malicious, but that doesn't mean they believe they are in the wrong when they betray others. Right and wrong are different from good and evil.

The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass · Apr 22, 2016

ronal1 said:
They invite in high rogthar so the civil war ends. (You wont see this quest, if you finish the civil war with a side).

The issue i have here, is the "nothing type" as you call him, is more like evil neutral rather than true neutral. As quoted above from your site. "evil neutral can advance in their goals without regarding others". So isnt it, un-true-neutralish to let a person die, just because its a "hassle to try"? How will a true neutral be different than evil neutral, if they both let others helpless in time of need?

As i view it, balance has a part of justice and fairness. You wont actively fight for good, but you will not allow anything bad to happen. A good example from a movie for thought.

Treebeard in lotr. The 2 hobbits walk in his forest, been chased by a goblin soldier. In his eyes, the 2 hobbits are going to be harmed without a reason. So he protects them. But after that, he is not sure the 2 hobbits are spies or good, so he takes them with him to decide.
When they ask for help, the ents and treebeard refuse to help, because its too much risk, to fight for the a cause far away from their way of life. Though when they see the burnt trees, they join war and help the good side overwhelm evil.
So isnt true neutral's balance a person that is good hearted, will stop something bad from happening, but not risk too much for someone else.
Still in my view if a true neutral, doesnt help others, he is the definition of evil neutral.

True Neutral doesn't really HAVE a heart one way or the other. At its strictest definition it is someone who could be perceived as flat- they don't care for good or evil in one preference over another. They just do whatever keeps balance. It is one of the broadest and loosest alignments, however, and everyone has their own subjective view on the alignment system. So you're not wrong- you're just not right either

The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass · Apr 22, 2016

I would say a more accurate example is The Living Tribunal from DC comics.

ronal1 · Apr 23, 2016

Ok when i disapprove of an act. I think its not right, because if it was right i would approve it.
We do what we like even a slave does what he likes. He has the choice to move as he wishes (of course he may be punished for that afterwards, still has freedom of choice).

So realistically, when db thinks its wrong to get betrayed, i think its like "i know its wrong, but i dont care if i do it to others". Its still disapproval, of the betrayal itself, it is just they dont care if they can benefit from that. Thats my first comment

The second. I know i am repeating myself but i really dont get it. If a tneutral becomes apathetic, isnt that the definition of evil neutral. I get that true neutral, avoids picking sides, but to seek balance, you act in a mediocre way, being totally passive for the welfare of others for the sake of your goals, is the definition of evil neutral.

Tn is lack of commitment or commitment to balance and natural action. I mean ok, a person that minds his own business while others suffer, is not achieving any balance.

Picture it as a scale, that you want to balance. When something bad happens, you do something good to fix it, but everything is good, you dont care much for everything.

But if something bad happens and you stay idle, the average of bad + no action= bad/2.
In a balance, as i see it, you respect everyone equaly, both the good guys, and the bad guys.
So you wont let a good person get harmed, (if its not a great effort) nor do you go to hunt the bad guys.
Basically, dont help others, but dont let them get harmed either.
Dont care for their well being and riches, just care enough to help them survive unharmed or something.

ronal1 · Apr 23, 2016

Simply if someone is chocking you help him or you dont. If you dont act at all, even the court would judge you for indirect murder of the person. (I cant name the correct crime as engish is my second language, there is law in my country, if someone dies next to you and you do nothing-like calling ambulance- you share some responsibility)

"Neutral evil beings consider their alignment to be the best because they can advance themselves without regard for others, but it is also the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation."

If you advance without helping anyone in need, what is the difference between the 2 groups?

The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass · Apr 23, 2016

ronal1 said:
Ok when i disapprove of an act. I think its not right, because if it was right i would approve it.
We do what we like even a slave does what he likes. He has the choice to move as he wishes (of course he may be punished for that afterwards, still has freedom of choice).

So realistically, when db thinks its wrong to get betrayed, i think its like "i know its wrong, but i dont care if i do it to others". Its still disapproval, of the betrayal itself, it is just they dont care if they can benefit from that. Thats my first comment

The second. I know i am repeating myself but i really dont get it. If a tneutral becomes apathetic, isnt that the definition of evil neutral. I get that true neutral, avoids picking sides, but to seek balance, you act in a mediocre way, being totally passive for the welfare of others for the sake of your goals, is the definition of evil neutral.

Tn is lack of commitment or commitment to balance and natural action. I mean ok, a person that minds his own business while others suffer, is not achieving any balance.

Picture it as a scale, that you want to balance. When something bad happens, you do something good to fix it, but everything is good, you dont care much for everything.

But if something bad happens and you stay idle, the average of bad + no action= bad/2.
In a balance, as i see it, you respect everyone equaly, both the good guys, and the bad guys.
So you wont let a good person get harmed, (if its not a great effort) nor do you go to hunt the bad guys.
Basically, dont help others, but dont let them get harmed either.
Dont care for their well being and riches, just care enough to help them survive unharmed or something.

Incorrect. It is evil to take a life, but whether it is right or wrong is up to the context of the situation. Betrayal is a malicious act, but was it wrong to betray the Nazis?

You're generalizing. The context of the situation changes everything. While the Dark Brotherhood commit a malicious act through betrayal, they can only consider it right when they're the ones orchestrating it. An action can be right but still evil, or wrong and still good.

No it is not. Evil is actively commiting malicious or evil actions, whereas Neutral does not actively seek to do evil nor good, but whatever maintains balance between the two.

Another example of true neutral is nature. Is it evil for one animal to kill and consume another? No. It is natural. It's not good or evil, it's just keeping its world in balance.

At the end of the day, however, when it comes to alignments it quickly becomes completely subjective. So while you're not wrong, once again you're not right either

ronal1 · Apr 24, 2016

Ok i think we might use same meaning with different words. Everyone does what they want, or at least what they want more than the alternatives.
Example in the movies the good guy will go unharmed to meet the bad guy, so the bad guy can let his family free. Its not that he wants to go, but he makes a priority in his want. "i dont want to go, but i want more to save my family, so the latter desire prevails"

While we always do what we want (more or less), we dont always do what we think its right. Example thieves guild, know stealing is bad, but they want to do it, so they do it. So same might work in the nazi thing. Its wrong to betray people, but its even worse to not betray someone that causes mass unhappiness and destruction. Ideally we wouldnt want to pick the lesser evil, but we dont live in an ideal world.

I agree with natural behavior. Indeed animals are not evil, for doing what there is in their nature. Though they do it because its in their nature to preserve themselves. If we had an animal doing mass murder for fun, while there is no natural need to survive, that could be described as evil.

My view is, when you are natural, therefore true neutral, you dont try for the well being of others, but you try for the balance and the perpetual life of the natural. For example human. He doesnt actively try save animals, but should some species become endangered he will take part to protect the balance of nature. Thats my main argument.
(Test has found me true neutral myself

), you dont care for other to be rich or live in prosperity, but you care (if you can help it) that he has his basic needs covered. So while you wouldnt lose your sleep, so others will advance their lives, you will not remain calm, if they are in great danger of their lives, because then, the balance is off.

So i see it, "i wont lose my comfort so you can have yours" "i wont lose my life so you can have yours" "but i will lose my comfort to assist you if you are in great need". More like soldiers in a defending country. They arent saints, they will still fight for the independence of their people, as for theirs.

The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass · Apr 24, 2016

ronal1 said:
Ok i think we might use same meaning with different words. Everyone does what they want, or at least what they want more than the alternatives.
Example in the movies the good guy will go unharmed to meet the bad guy, so the bad guy can let his family free. Its not that he wants to go, but he makes a priority in his want. "i dont want to go, but i want more to save my family, so the latter desire prevails"

While we always do what we want (more or less), we dont always do what we think its right. Example thieves guild, know stealing is bad, but they want to do it, so they do it. So same might work in the nazi thing. Its wrong to betray people, but its even worse to not betray someone that causes mass unhappiness and destruction. Ideally we wouldnt want to pick the lesser evil, but we dont live in an ideal world.

I agree with natural behavior. Indeed animals are not evil, for doing what there is in their nature. Though they do it because its in their nature to preserve themselves. If we had an animal doing mass murder for fun, while there is no natural need to survive, that could be described as evil.

My view is, when you are natural, therefore true neutral, you dont try for the well being of others, but you try for the balance and the perpetual life of the natural. For example human. He doesnt actively try save animals, but should some species become endangered he will take part to protect the balance of nature. Thats my main argument.
(Test has found me true neutral myself ), you dont care for other to be rich or live in prosperity, but you care (if you can help it) that he has his basic needs covered. So while you wouldnt lose your sleep, so others will advance their lives, you will not remain calm, if they are in great danger of their lives, because then, the balance is off.

So i see it, "i wont lose my comfort so you can have yours" "i wont lose my life so you can have yours" "but i will lose my comfort to assist you if you are in great need". More like soldiers in a defending country. They arent saints, they will still fight for the independence of their people, as for theirs.

I felt like I understood you up until now, but now I feel like there has been some sort of massive miscommunication... I can't follow what you're trying to say

I THINK you're trying to say that we're meaning the same thing but with different words for the first part, but I can't tell if you're agreeing or presenting a counterpoint for the second part.

And yeah I would agree that an animal killing for fun or sport was evil, but that isn't a normal animal. Like those two brother lions that had hundreds of skeletons in their lair.

ronal1 · Apr 25, 2016

Ok i am sorry, i will put it more simply. We do agree, i think.
What i say is when we do something we more or less want to do it. Maybe not in a genuine way, maybe we just want it, compared to alternatives. Example someone puts a gun in your face and orders you to do something. You dont want to do it, but you want to live. So you do it, in your free will, for your own reason.

So we do what we want. What we want isnt always what we think is right. I know its not right to talk in the lectures, but sometimes i want it, so i do it.

Therefore, you may think betrayal is bad, but for a specific scenario, you want to do it, to protect something of higher value. Example, you betray a villain to save your country.

Then i told you, about the balancing of humans. We dont care for environment, but should a natural resource or animal go endangered, we do take action to prevent extinction.

So in my eyes, you keep the balance by preserving the lives of anyone around you.
Tn imo, wont care for happiness for others, not ignore it. He just acts enough for the basic survival and freedom of others.

Lawful neutral are similar to true neutral in skyrim sometimes

Latest Videos

Member

Empress of the Inferno

Member

Empress of the Inferno

Member

Empress of the Inferno

Member

Empress of the Inferno

Empress of the Inferno

Member

Empress of the Inferno

Sahrot Vahlok Spaan. Bahnahgaar. Minion #88!

Sahrot Vahlok Spaan. Bahnahgaar. Minion #88!

Sahrot Vahlok Spaan. Bahnahgaar. Minion #88!

Member

Member

Sahrot Vahlok Spaan. Bahnahgaar. Minion #88!

Member

Sahrot Vahlok Spaan. Bahnahgaar. Minion #88!

Member

Share this page

Recent chat visitors