In a lot of ways, I think Neutral Good is as easy to play as Chaotic Evil. I think NG is the default alignment for hero PCs in any game, even games that do not technically have alignments. This is the person who's primary response is to do what they think is right, regardless of how that fits in to prevailing structures and laws.
This is a popular alignment choice, and it's easy to play. Neutrality on the Law-Chaos scale is something I usually recommend for first-time roleplayers. When you're not used to alignments, it can seem pretty daunting. Good versus evil is pretty easy to suss out, but the other axis is a bit trickier. In this way, a new player can be a hero without having to strain themselves too much on what it means to be lawful or chaotic. They can focus on being good. In this particular interpretation of the alignment, "neutrality" means that you don't care to choose between the two. You are most concerned with the second axis (in this case, Good). If doing good means following the laws, that's all fine and dandy. If doing good means breaking the law, then so be it. There's nothing holding them except their own concept of right and wrong.
However, for more experienced roleplayers, neutrality on the Law-Chaos scale could mean more. While there's nothing wrong with the "neutrality-as-ambivalence" angle, we've seen with the other alignments that neutrality could also be caused by indecision or a conscious choice to keep some kind of balance.
Neutrality as indecision, in the case of NG, I think largely depends on the setting for the game and how the character reacts. When a character runs up against a corrupt governing system or unjust laws, there is conflict there when they try to do good (and, as we've discussed before, we tend to default into assuming that following "Law" is the right thing to do, as opposed to disorder and anarchy). Perhaps they believe in some laws and not others, like a Robin Hood who sees nothing wrong with stealing from the rich to give to the poor, because it is the Good thing to do (even though normally stealing would be considered bad or "evil"). A lot of times, breaking the law in regards to an evil person or thing falls nicely into neutrality. Sure, murder is wrong, but killing a cadre of rampaging, bloodthirsty orcs is good.
Harder still would be the character who chooses neutrality as a way to maintain some kind of balance. When paired with Good, you have a character who thinks the world needs to have some rules and order, but also some freedom of choice. Again, as Americans, this is a mindset that we easily fall in to (for the most part) just by virtue of the culture we are brought up in. What makes it tricky is when you find yourself needing to do something unpopular to maintain that order. Sure, redistributing wealth may satisfy your ideals of balance, but what then do you make of the PCs who are going to end up toting small fortunes in magical gear? Is it Vow of Poverty time? And what if you save a village by killing off a band of raiding orcs? Doesn't balance need restored to the orcish community who just lost so many of their members? Or does the writ of "good" override this sense of balance? It could be an interesting way to play a character, who may be constantly having to reassess his or her ideas of what is the "right" thing to do.
Nevertheless, don't be afraid to let NG be a mainstay for your characters, especially if it makes it more fun to play. Sometimes you just want to saddle up and slay the evil dragon, and not have to worry about the destabilizing the local economy when you come back to the city with ten wagonloads of loot from the hoard.
 |
| Let's see you bastard adventurers loot my hoard after I melt it all into one giant gold puddle. |
No comments:
Post a Comment