Stupid Neutral: Difference between revisions

{{trope}}

{{quote|'''''"[[Omnicidal Neutral|Good, they're both dead. The Balance has been preserved.]]"'''''

'''Or...'''

 

'''[[No Real Life Examples, Please]]'''

 

* Probably one of the most well-known examples is Meursault, from ''[[The Stranger]]'', who shoots an Arab because he sees no reason in doing so (the text implies it's because the sun was in his eyes), being an emotionless shell to all the wrong people before that, and not caring about anything in jail, awaiting execution.

* In ''[[Villains by Necessity]]'', the [[True Neutral]] druid rounds up a bunch of "villains" (most of whom are pretty decent sorts) to save the world from destruction at the hands of [[Lawful Stupid]] [[Knight Templar|Knights Templar]], and advises them that she would be equally willing to turn against them if the "balance" began tipping in favor of evil.

** For an idea how well this policy worked out for them, they're functionally extinct in the present.

* The troop of Dwarfs we see in ''[[The Last Battle]]''. They don't want the heroes ''or'' the Calormenes to win, so they shoot at whichever side seems to have the advantage. "The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs." It doesn't work out well for them, when the Calormene reinforcements arrive.

* Bisochim the Wildmage from the ''Enduring Flame'' books brought evil back into the world and re-created the [[Our Demons Are Different|Endarkened]], simply because he thought the Light was becoming too powerful and wanted to restore the True Balance. He gives many metaphors about how "light" blinds and burns and "darkness" is a desert-dweller's friend, but never gives any concrete examples of how ''evil'' could possibly be useful.

* The [[Douglas Adams]] book ''[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy/Mostly Harmless|Mostly Harmless]]'' features a race that is almost indistinguishable from human beings, save that they have no desires. Arthur reads one of their books, and is rather taken aback when the main protagonist dies of thirst midway through. He backtracks and finds a single offhand reference to the character's plumbing being broken. He simply didn't care enough to have it fixed, or to seek another source of water.

 

* The royal court on ''[[Kings]]'' bounce David around so much—changing alliances, pitting him against each other, it feels like they change sympathies solely to hammer into you that it's a morally ambiguous world.

 

* This is the MO of the Rilmani of ''[[Dungeons & Dragons]]''. They're anthropomorphic personifications of the Balance, and will take steps to ensure that balance.

** Early editions of the game strongly suggested that this is how druids (who were always supposed to be true neutral) should behave, basically stepping in to support whichever side is weakest in any given situation. 3rd edition relaxed things a bit by requiring druids to be only partially neutral, implied that their previous methods (flip-flopping one's agenda and allegiances) fostered chaos more than anything, and suggested that true neutrality was more about detaching oneself from concepts of ethics and morality than about maintaining an arbitrary balance.

* Nix from ''[[Queen's Blade]]'' isn't the stupid one; rather her stave, the Funikura, is essentially an unstable piece of work that can either destroy a village or kill the evil leader of said village. Needless to say, she sticks with it.

* Rounding out the ''[[Warhammer 40,000]]'' Inquisition examples: the Amalathian faction are the ultimate conservatives, believing that the Imperium as it currently exists is the Emperor's divine work, and that mere mortals have no right to interfere with His divine plan. As such, the Amalathians fight to preserve the Imperium in its current state, [[Inherent in the System|despite all its lumps and imperfections]]. At their most extreme, the Amalathians will even fight to keep corrupt or ineffectual leaders in power, simply to avoid the inevitable shakeup associated with replacing those leaders, even in the face of an ensuing crisis that requires effective leadership. As you can imagine, Amalathians and Recongregators [[Right Hand Versus Left Hand|don't get along very well]].

 

* This is the only way to have a neutral character in ''[[Fable]]'' due to how combat works. After several missions (most of which don't have an evil option) you'll be so far to the good side of the [[Karma Meter]] that slaughtering an entire village barely gets you halfway to the middle.

* Probably the best example is ''[[Neverwinter Nights]]'' and its expansions and [[Neverwinter Nights 2|sequel]]. It is damn-near impossible to keep a True Neutral alignment because there never is a neutral option to dialog, so you're acting either as a jerk (evil), a loony (chaotic), the messiah (good) or a robot (lawful), and to try to keep a balance there will make you seem bipolar.

** It's implied that a major part of the problem is that the Pfhor aren't much inclined to listen to the AI that was just helping you kill them. Its schizoid side-swapping put a serious dent in its credibility.

*** To further complicate the issue is Durandal's reputation to [[Chronic Backstabbing Disorder|screw over anyone and anything]] he can in order to achieve his often enigmatic goals. Thoth wasn't trying to balance good and evil, he was trying to strike a balance between an [[Evil Empire]] and a psychotic [[Master Computer]] with its own agenda.

* In many early [[MUD]] games, alignment was determined by what monsters you were killing. Kill some innocent Gnomes in the Gnome Village, and your alignment shifts towards evil. Kill some Lamias in the ruins across the forest and your alignment shifts towards good. Neutral characters, to maintain their alignment, had to kill an ''equal'' number of creatures from both alignments. This lead to "Neutral" characters being "justified" for massacring a peaceful village by simply cleaning out an evil temple later. Granted, you could seek out and kill only neutral creatures all the time, but these (usually animals) obviously almost never carried many powerful items.

* ''[[Planescape: Torment]]'' features a character called Blackrose, who lurks in the corner of a dangerous alley. In the alley are two gangs, one good and one evil. Blackrose will ask you what your alignment is, and ask you to kill the opposite gang. Once you've done that, he'll ask you to kill the other to maintain the balance. Then he'll request that you fight him to the death because it's the right thing to do. You can at least avoid the fight to the death by informing him that you're immortal and would eventually win.

** Also, there's a third option for the civil war between the [[La Résistance|Scoia'tael]] and the Order of the Flaming Rose: you can in fact remain neutral.

 

* The Archdruid in ''Dungeon Crawl Inc.'' He's an evil antagonist (despite technically being neutral at this point) specifically because... good is somehow too prevalent in the world.

 

* This sometimes pops up in ''[[Survival of the Fittest]]'' with non-players who refuse to attack ''anyone'' under any circumstances (at least one person has died because they refused to defend themselves).

* This seemed to be the concept behind a majority of the neutral route players of the game [[Nexus War]] before it shut down. you learn to stop trusting "neutral" players rather quickly after the counter for Myrmidons that have senselessly slaughtered your Good character in the night hits double digits.

*** Unlikely, a neutrality agreement means no crimes or crime fighting. Anyway you don't learn anything about sneaking behind authorities back if they turn a blind eye.

 

** Based on Libra, from the main DC Universe, who also "maintains the balance", but what that translates to is "giving the baddies some wins."

{{quote|'''Neutral President:''' I don't know, but my gut says "maybe."

'''Neutral President:''' If I die, tell my wife, "hello." }}