I've played through Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 multiple times. Generally I play either good or evil aligned characters. I've always been at a bit of a loss as to how to approach a neutral aligned character. Is it as simple (and boring) as playing as a mercenary and demanding money as payment for all quests? Are you supposed to perform an equal amount of evil actions and good actions? Save an orphan here and take a job from a crime boss there?

It always seemed to me that the dialogue choices in Baldur's Gate are driven largely by alignment rather than character stats. Which leaves the mercenary role of requiring reimbursement for quests as the neutral response.

So how do you guys play a neutral character?

As much as I would love to play a neutral character in many RPGs, the vast majority don't give me the opportunity.

Baldur's Gate is better, but still has precious few options. As you say, you can play the mercenary character, but truly RPing as Neutral is tough.

Just doing half evil and half good things is not Neutral in my eyes, trying to balance the scales like that just feels like gaming the system. Possibly counts as Chaotic Neutral though, but you'd have to ask a proper D&Der.

Yeah, I found neither the "true mercenary" nor the "half good, half evil" paths to be satisfactory. Especially after playing a good character in Baldur's Gate 2 and having Jaheira constantly whining about maintaining balance after every good deed.

Personally, I just play it for what ever benefits me the most. If it's in my best interest to do something good, I do it. Same goes for evil deeds. To me, neutral is not caring about the consequences of your actions.

That's a very good example of playing evil actually. An evil person doesn't care about doing good deeds as long as he/she profits from doing so. Only cartoon villans care about doing evil for the sake of doing evil.

Playing neutral is very very hard

THe "true mercenary" is rather "chaotic" as DD define it... not so neutral.

The problem of the True Neutral is that it's not very heroic. FOr me a TN is one who doesn't really want to take risks, unless really necessary. . Unlike good or evil chars, he has no deep reason to get involved. He would probably try to avoid troubles. A neutral is not easy to play as a PC : a wizard in his tower only interested by his research and not by any moral problems would be neutral. A druid, living in the forest, focused on the rituals, the cycle of the seasons, sometimes helping animals and travellers would be neutral. A wandering adventurer, seeking for answers about his past, revenge for the death of his tutor, who meets a lot of people and have to make choices all the time would be unlikely to be - or to stay - a Neutral.

As a neutral in BG, I would avoid the danger as much as I can, only do a few sidequests and would try complete my objective as fast as possible (the lack of experience and gear would be a great challenge on top of the RP challenge :) ).

(Or maybe I would try to gather a good-evil mixed party, and listen to my companions and do my best to please all of them : a TN would probably be a terrible leader, unable to follow a line. Could be fun :p )

Most RPGs don't allow you to follow a completely Neutral path, eventually you're going to have to make a choice to save/ruin everything around you. You usually end up fighting the same final boss regardless of you're alignment anyway, only your motivation changes. The True Neutral alignment in D&D can be done in two ways. The most common variety is the average person who's ideals don't really move them to action one way or the other. The other way is a dedication to balance and neutrality, Druids are a good example, though most classes could roleplay this by helping good and evil organizations equally. In BG2 this is pretty difficult and not very feasible in the later stages. I attempted playing a True Neutral character once and it mostly involves the mercenary route mentioned above, as well as doing missions for both the Radiant Heart and the Shadow thieves, etc. It can lead to some pretty interesting party interactions, but ultimately isn't very rewarding.

Some typical very bland examples of neutral..


neutral evil... Save the king? I think not.. lets find this assassin, take care of him then take his payment.. Unless of course the king will quadruple it for our time, i might let him live..

But what about his children?

You mean there are children involved? he'll pay 10x.. on second thought, i hate children... guess this peons payment will be enough..
.



neutral good, Help the king, dont help the kind, i dont care,, I dont have time to worry about everyone in the world, so there is an assassin after the king, like thats a shock.

But sharry, the assasine is right there, on the other side of the bar.. we can stop this, an innocent man might die..

*sigh, fine,, oky.. i supose we should, perhaps there will be some reward..



Neutral.. yes we should help the king, we cant have a mad man incharge of the kindom...

Ohh you mean the mad man wants to pay us? and says he only has the greater good for all? You know he may have a point...




In BG, its a bit harder as this is where the table top just has so much more over a coded PC game.

For example, in BG2, a good chance to be neutral is anomens quest, letting him go off on his tangent, becoming chaotic.. that is a perfect example of being neutral. Im not sure i agree with that, atleast in some ways. yes, you outlined a couple perfect examples,, But to me neutral doesnt have to be about being passive, Infact it can be a very active character..

A mercanary could easliy be neutral good. Im a memember of this band sent to take care of a local band of theives that have taken over a town. But on arrival, you find the these not so bad, and infact seam to have a better way, atleast in your mind, to how things should run. Its not lawlessness, like the king suggested.. and besides taxes and the ocasional troop march what has he done anyway.. Jumping sides could easily be in this characters personality.


Or being a quester in general.. seeking the countryside seeking out wrongs, which wrongs are to be righted are up to you... how the world perceives them is not your problem.


To me robin hood was neutral good... He was far from chaotic as he had his own laws, he surely wasnt lawfull, cause that would mean he wouldnt be stealing.. But he never killed out of malice, and had the greater good in mind.

Robin hood was a great adventurer with a huge agenda,, But a perfect example of a neutral player.


Now true netural, its a bit tougher, but balance is part of it. and its not so much good and evil, help a preist, kill a baby.. its much more a shade of grey. To the RP responces i try to think more logically.. I supose i tend to take the vulcan way of thinking.. whats better for the greater good or balance.. if killing this merchant would in turn help the docks area prosper instead of his represive taxing, the fact that killing an innocent isnt even in the equasion. He isnt an innocent, he is infact the cause of the hurt around him..

While the evil man might be doing it just to make a buck, or to see what color his insides are.. or hopes that there is personal profit involved.

To me a great synonym to 'true neutral' is indifference. The true neutral character is entirely indifferent to the outcome. Which is pretty much impossible in bg because you have to take a stand either way, dialogue options force it in my opinion.

Oh- haha, oops! I guess I'm evil and didn't even know it... :O