Lawful neutral are similar to true neutral in skyrim sometimes

  • Welcome to Skyrim Forums! Register now to participate using the 'Sign Up' button on the right. You may now register with your Facebook or Steam account!

The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass

Sahrot Vahlok Spaan. Bahnahgaar. Minion #88!
Staff member
I think I follow you now.

In regards to the last part, it is not Neutral to seek to preserve the lives of anyone around you. That is Good. The reason why it isn't Neutral is because True Neutral sees the loss of life as one less drain on resources in an already overpopulated world. He does not act for others in any capacity save that which maintains balance- whether it be good or evil or neither.
 

ronal1

Member
Ok, you are clear.
Though why greybeards, help in defeating alduin then?

Also, my constant question, will a true neutral remain apathetic to problems of others?

I mean, if a war is coming and he has some more food, shouldnt he help when he can afford, the others, or assist the orphans maybe?

You know, something bad happens, so he must do something good to balance it.
 
Last edited:

The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass

Sahrot Vahlok Spaan. Bahnahgaar. Minion #88!
Staff member
Ok, you are clear.
Though why greybeards, help in defeating alduin then?

Also, my constant question, will a true neutral remain apathetic to problems of others?

I mean, if a war is coming and he has some more food, shouldnt he help when he can afford, the others, or assist the orphans maybe?

You know, something bad happens, so he must do something good to balance it.
It's extremely hard to say exactly, as few people align completely with JUST ONE alignment. Usually every action is colored differently.

But I would say in my subjective point of view on the matter that a True Neutral would generally remain apathetic. And as far as "should" they help, that's a little more complicated. While "should" is the wrong word (for I don't imagine they'd feel any obligation to help), I would say in most cases they wouldn't help simply because a True Neutral character would see it as a stronger army overcoming a weaker civilization and overall strengthening the losers in the long run. If the others can't take care of themselves, then they are overall just a drain on resources.
 

The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass

Sahrot Vahlok Spaan. Bahnahgaar. Minion #88!
Staff member
The Greybeards helped defeat Alduin because they were Neutral Good. Alduin is Evil.
 

ronal1

Member
Hmmm we go in circles. In the definitions of tn, being apathetic, is the corrupted version of true neutral. More like
"good think, you act naturally, bad possible outcome, you grow apathetic".

And i ask again, how does an apathetic person who you say is tn, different from evil neutral. "I live in my comfort, i help nobody but myself". Well, always someone helps you, even indirectly, if you help none you are basically using everyone.

Well i dont want to force my opinion so i stop now.
 

The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass

Sahrot Vahlok Spaan. Bahnahgaar. Minion #88!
Staff member
Hmmm we go in circles. In the definitions of tn, being apathetic, is the corrupted version of true neutral. More like
"good think, you act naturally, bad possible outcome, you grow apathetic".

And i ask again, how does an apathetic person who you say is tn, different from evil neutral. "I live in my comfort, i help nobody but myself". Well, always someone helps you, even indirectly, if you help none you are basically using everyone.

Well i dont want to force my opinion so i stop now.
While I concede that selfishness is Evil, True Neutral is selfishness with cold logic and, in cases of nature, usually are composed of natural intents. A Neutral Evil character, however, is classified as more Evil than Neutral. It composes one of the three branches of Evil on the alignment chart, and is not included among the three Neutral branches. This is because they are Evil without regard to anyone but themselves. This is a character that would not only choose not to feed orphans, but to actively remove them. They're more motivated and much less passive, and their logic usually has no long term reasoning, whereas True Neutral does.
 

Hellknight Anna

Empress of the Inferno
Eh... Gid that's mostly true. As one who mostly plays Neutral Evil characters myself, I'd say NE chars can and do have long term reasoning - but it's all about themselves. Everything they do is for personal gain whether it be playing by rules and laws (should it suit them), and as well favor lawless and illogical decisions if it should please them. They are not necessarily "evil for evil sake" but they are motivated by their own desires.

A Lich is a perfect example. A mage who spends his every waking moment dedicated to learning magic and to unlock immortality will stop at nothing to achieve it. Schemes and plots to get cozy with people with positions of power, and being a master manipulator while even getting his/her hands dirty themselves. They won't just go on a rampant slaughter unless it benefits them in someway. Even in the end when they achieve their result and become an undead lich, they'll still have the same desire for more knowledge and power and will continue their journey until the end of time (or until they're destroyed).

---

As Gid said, True Neutral is selfishness with cold logic and everything is focused on balance (of all things - good/evil; law/chaos). And as I've been saying.... this is why Alignment systems are ambiguous and screwy, lots of blurred lines, hard to tell what is actually what :p
 

The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass

Sahrot Vahlok Spaan. Bahnahgaar. Minion #88!
Staff member
Eh... Gid that's mostly true. As one who mostly plays Neutral Evil characters myself, I'd say NE chars can and do have long term reasoning - but it's all about themselves. Everything they do is for personal gain whether it be playing by rules and laws (should it suit them), and as well favor lawless and illogical decisions if it should please them. They are not necessarily "evil for evil sake" but they are motivated by their own desires.

A Lich is a perfect example. A mage who spends his every waking moment dedicated to learning magic and to unlock immortality will stop at nothing to achieve it. Schemes and plots to get cozy with people with positions of power, and being a master manipulator while even getting his/her hands dirty themselves. They won't just go on a rampant slaughter unless it benefits them in someway. Even in the end when they achieve their result and become an undead lich, they'll still have the same desire for more knowledge and power and will continue their journey until the end of time (or until they're destroyed).

---

As Gid said, True Neutral is selfishness with cold logic and everything is focused on balance (of all things - good/evil; law/chaos). And as I've been saying.... this is why Alignment systems are ambiguous and screwy, lots of blurred lines, hard to tell what is actually what :p
Nowhere near as long term as True Neutral, who would allow people to die for reasons such as decreasing the strain on population or allowing one empire to fall so that its conqueror can improve it over generations.
 

Hellknight Anna

Empress of the Inferno
Yup, no arguments from me on that one :p True Neutral are dicks xD lol
 

ronal1

Member
Hmm, then thats where we disagree, for me true neutral is the person you cant hate, because you realize in his situation you would also do the same.

True neutral is the kind of person, he sees the natural needs of everyone more or less equal. Be it rich, or poor, good or bad, selfish or altruist, you believe not deserves more to live than you, nor you deserve to live more than others. You act as your nature suggests you at a time.
You dont force yourself to apply a law you dont agree, nor you will fight the order in general. You wont let something great evil happen, nor you will sacrifice yourself for something great good.

But most of all, you believe in natural balance, you take as much as you give to the others. This is where i disagree with you guys. Being apathetic, when you live in a society, is evil. If you live as a hermit, its ok to not be concerned with others because you live alone. You dont see the suffering of others, nor you cause it in any direct way. You live in your forest/mountain/monastery in peace, so you CAN be neutral by not looking for others. But when you LIVE in a society, and you have taken the aids of others, its your duty to yourself, to return the favor.

If others help you, but you dont help the world back, you create an imbalance, where you deserve more than others, pretty un-true neutral for me.

For me being true neutral is like animals (they generally are the most close if not perfect example of natural balance)
Those that hunt alone, give no help to anyone, but take no help from anyone.
Those that are social, form packs and herds and help each other, they protect their babies, the females, or the weaker animals of the herd. Even out of your self interest you realize your survival goes with the survival of the others. So you see for example bishons forming a wall against the predators, hunting the herd. If they were apathetic, they would run away and let the herd get eaten.

But that goes against their nature (and thefore against their natural neutrality) when they have the reproductive needs.

So you live in a society, where by default everyone plays his role so we can exist together. Or you help, or you become evil, because my definition when you live in a society, someone helps you. So you have to return the favor. As animals in herds/packs do. Where they protect each others, they all scout for food, they all try for the common as the individual interest.

Imo 2 very good and clear examples are.
-LOTR, ents. I will not harm those who do no harm me. I will not go beyond my woods to help others(they dont initially go to fight). If something walks in my woods and he means no harm but he has need, i might help him(saving hobbits from orc/goblin). Should i see the need to go for war, i will honor my allies and help them, as i help my family. (fighting in the iseguard to assist saving the middle earth).

fullmetal alchemist brotherhood, briggs soldiers.
We protect our own people. The strongest by nature will survive. If you help us , we will help you, if you want to stay with us you will work for your food, and we will assist you as well. Should something terrible, come to destroy the world, we will stop it, because its our world as well.

Both the examples in by opinion are excellent true neutrals. They live with their natural ideas, help those that help them, protect themselves from those to harm them, and if needed harm those, who are trying to bring a great destruction.
You cant hate them, or like them. They seem just (at least to me).
 
Last edited:

ronal1

Member
Also i found that
Believes people deserve the treatment they are willing to endure.
In true neutral and society.
http://easydamus.com/trueneutral.html

So i think we may have found a medium solution.
Its about fairness. If you see a beggar and you help him, out of kind heart, you are good neutral.
If you had helped him, because you would have wanted to be helped in his situation, you are a true neutral.

So a true neutral, that wants to be help by others, when in need, should help those in need, (so you can not exactly good, you are just trying to be fair and balanced)
a true neutral, that would not want for help in times of need should not help others.

I think thats fair enough.
 

Dabiene Caristiana

Your friendly neighborhood weirdo
I think a good example about morality scales is the Fable series. However, this is also the series that makes you receive corrupt points for eating meat so...

I truly think that True Neutral is literally a moral grey area. But unfortunately, they don't stay that way forever. Inevitably their actions and reactions to situations and events in their... adventures? I guess? Would help them tip to a side eventually.

I found it hard to stay truly neutral in fable, just as much in Skyrim. Of course, this could be the fact that I implant my real life moral code into the virtual world. (Better than reverse, eh?! o_O)

I do think true neutral is very interesting in terms of scale and what it could or does represent. It's a very small space of occupancy on the scale, because every action is automatically sorted into the Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil categories. However, like Gid pointed out, it's a matter of perspective. Actions in the eyes of a Good and Righteous person could be seen as Chaotic by an Evil Character, usurping his plans.

Look no further than Fable 2, between the main character, and Lucien. Fine example of perspectives right there. :p

Sorry I didn't add much to the conversation lol
 

Hellknight Anna

Empress of the Inferno
I just can't agree with the opinion "apathetic is evil" that you're saying Ronal. Being apathetic does not automatically assume one is evil. Evil is usually associated with extremes (murder being the most obvious one), but letting someone die because they were not strong enough to survive is not the same as murder. You - the character - are not actually killing them in any way (even by 'letting' them die). But the moment you go to help/save them, you are committing a good act - not a neutral one - because you no longer are remaining neutral to that incident.

That single incident alone though does not dictate you to be Neutral Good either; as Dabs said, it's a moral gray area, and every action leads to to a Law/Chaos/Good/Evil point. As I have said countless times (and will keep repeating), Alignment systems are fundamentally flawed and ambiguous. Everything matters on perspective and situation. :p
 

Hellknight Anna

Empress of the Inferno
There is also this which I can agree with -- that seems to support your theory on TN chars, but doesn't disprove mine either:

"The division between a True Neutral character of the "unthinkingly amoral and selfish" type and a Neutral Evil character may also be questionable. A good guideline is that a True Neutral character will have basically innocent objectives and motivations like self-preservation, or pleasures that don't inherently damage others, while a Neutral Evil one will be motivated by actively unpleasant desires like dominating others or taking pleasure in cruelty."

- http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueNeutral
 

ronal1

Member
Hmm, in my opinion, true neutral, has some point of good in it, just not to much to take it on the next level.
Any sane person (as most people in society minding their own business are true neutral) will want good people around them (job, neighborhood and so on). So they want a touch of good in their life, as you say they fight for self preservation, so they directly oppose destruction.

Therefore they like good around them, they just dont want to have the cost of it.

So being completely apathetic is evil if you live in a society. being neutral isnt always doing neutral acts, something it can be, "some days i give more than i take, some i will take more than i give, but in the end it will be fair". So sometimes you will do charity, sometimes you will be selfish. If you NEVER do charities, the scale will favor your selfish self. So you are not balanced, and you didnt act naturally, because you took more, from your allies, natural environment, than what you gave back.

So since neutrals help those that help them, they need to eventually be merciful, else they dont return the favor.

Think about it. You live in a nice apartment, with stable and good income. Your parents showed you love, and helped you grow up, your teachers helped you go college and with the degree your employer trusted you for a job.

So the world gave you many chances to be happy, and you have taken them with great success. Shouldnt you return the good you have received back to the world? (not higher, just the same amount) And i dont mean returning it just to your parents, your teachers, your employer. Shouldnt you be the good parent, teacher, or employer to someone else? Not over trying...just return the good the world has given you.

So society is your natural ally. You choose to live with other humans. You work with them, you communicate with them. They are your allies. You dont trust them completely, as you are not lawful. You dont distrust them though.
You view them with skepticism.

So to be neutral and not selfish. You have to help the allies that help you. The society educated you, gave you rights, opportunities to be happy. Give the same opportunities to someone else.
 

ronal1

Member
Also i think the previous i have said is quite accurate for both of us.
There can be 2 mindsets of tn that i think off.
"I am alone at my problems, so i help no one, unless he is a friend, so i expect nothing from others when i have my own problems"
or the
"I give some money to the homeless, because if i ever happened to be homeless, i would like to be assisted by others"

I think in the end it goes
neutral good. I will sacrifice something so someone in need will be better. But if i was in the same situation, i wouldnt demand the others to do the same.

true neutral. I behave to those in need, as i think i should be helped if i am in need, though i will not ask for it.

evil neutral. I probably wont help you in your need. But if you help me in my need, sometimes i will return the favor.
 
Last edited:

Hellknight Anna

Empress of the Inferno
Well that's just it though. It's your opinion. That's what we've been trying to say, alignments are subjective based on the people who play/view them. And even sane people can understand "necessary evil" just as much as they "want good around them" :p

The underlying facts seems to be this though:
* True Neutrals just want to live their lives without giving sway to one axis or another.

I would say that also includes "doing nothing when a situation arises if it doesn't affect them". Which again, I still say Apathy != "Evil". For Apathy to be evil, there would have to be some kind of malicious motive to it. Such as if that person was dying and needed drink or water ... BECAUSE the person who does nothing put them in that situation in the first place... then I would agree.
 

ronal1

Member
Ok, but what about the "help your allies view". Or if the person sometimes helps strangers because he expects he will be helped in a though situation as well.

Isnt this tn?

Animals, help their herd and they are true neutral. Isnt this same?
You help the society that you live in, out of self interest.
 
Last edited:

Recent chat visitors

Latest posts

Top