Neutral Factions

tim-cain narrative-design factions alignment game-design worldbuilding

Abstract

Problem: Good and evil factions in games have become overused tropes — cartoonish villains monologue endlessly, and "lawful stupid" good guys are rigid and dull. Worse, strongly aligned factions create narrative friction with blank-slate player characters whose backgrounds may clash with the faction's morality.

Approach: Tim Cain proposes that designers lean into neutral factions, which sidestep alignment problems entirely while offering rich narrative possibilities. He presents a four-part taxonomy of neutrality.

Findings: There are at least four distinct types of neutral factions, each with unique motivations and narrative hooks. They naturally accommodate any player build without requiring contrived justifications.

Key insight: Neutral factions are not boring — they are narratively richer than good or evil factions because "neutral" can mean wildly different things, and multiple neutral factions can even oppose each other while all legitimately claiming neutrality.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n5vnrkwAzI

The Problem with Good and Evil

Good and evil have been done to death in games. Tim calls out "cartoony evil" specifically — the villain who monologues about taking over the world while everything goes dark and smoky. Evil in video games is "incredibly watered down and worse, talkative." Every villain must deliver a soliloquy explaining their motivations and plans.

Good factions fare no better. "Lawful stupid is a meme for a reason." Good-aligned groups are portrayed as either dumb or overly rigid, forgetting that lawful good isn't the only kind of good. Even chaotic good characters get reduced to simplistic "I gotta do this thing cuz I'm good" motivations.

The Blank-Slate Problem

The deeper issue is mechanical: if you support blank-slate player characters — letting players decide their build, history, and moral outlook — then strongly aligned factions need narrative justification for working with any player. Why would an evil faction work with a priest of a good god? Why would good folks work with a player who's actively murdering everyone? Tim points to Arcanum as a game where some good factions really should have recognized the player's dark background.

You can bend over backwards with narrative reasons, but Tim argues you don't always have to. Neutral factions solve this problem elegantly.

The Four Types of Neutral Factions

Type 1: The Non-Participants ("Leave Me Alone")

These factions have decided not to take sides — before, during, and after events. Their reasons vary:

  • Weakness — Like hobbits, they're too small or powerless to fight. Farmers just want to grow their crops and be left alone.
  • Aloofness — Dwarves mining in their underground cities, wizards doing research in their towers. They see no reason to get involved.
  • Power — Elves and gods who feel they shouldn't step in. "We're not going to get involved in the affairs of mortals."
  • Philosophy — Monks and scribes who won't take sides on principle. A scribe might follow events to write history but refuses to participate.
  • Greed — Merchants and caravans who stay neutral because they want to sell to both sides. "I'll sell to anybody who has gold."
  • Apathy — Groups that literally do not care what the fight is about or who wins. This can range from sarcastic NPCs (which Tim hates) to a more dignified "I've taken sides before, I'm done — you're not dragging me into your petty argument of the year."

Type 2: The Opportunists ("Wait and See")

These factions stay neutral during conflict but are actually watching to see who wins. Their plan is to ingratiate themselves to the victor. Tim describes this as a "survival of the fittest mechanism."

Merchant guilds and political guilds often work this way — they're too politically involved to stay out forever, so they wait to see which side is winning, then throw their hat in the ring after the match is over.

Type 3: The Balancers ("Support the Underdog")

This is the opposite of the opportunists. These factions don't want either side to have the upper hand. They frequently support the underdog, the downtrodden, the oppressed.

Druids in D&D are the classic example — they're true neutral and fight for nature, for forests that can't defend themselves against logging, for animals that can't defend themselves against humans. They don't want to take sides; they just want to keep everything in balance.

Type 4: The Eliminators ("Wipe Out Both Sides")

This sounds evil but Tim argues it isn't. These are neutrals tired of being on the sidelines, tired of being used, tired of being dragged into the endless good-versus-evil conflict. Their position: "It's BS from both sides. The world would be a lot better if we just wiped out all of them. No more angels, no more demons — just get rid of anybody who's too extreme."

Tim compares this to Sigil in D&D's Plane of Concordance, and to the TV show Supernatural where the Winchesters grow frustrated with all the supernatural factions fighting. He notes he hasn't seen a game fully built around this concept and thinks it would be fascinating — an aggressive form of neutrality where anyone who picks a side gets eliminated.

Why Neutral Factions Work

The practical payoff is significant:

  • All four types can legitimately claim neutrality while being completely different from each other
  • Neutral factions can oppose each other — the opportunists (survival of the fittest) are naturally against the balancers (support the underdog)
  • None of them need contrived narrative reasons to work with the player — they already have their own motivations, and since they're neutral, they won't be immediately opposed to any player regardless of background or choices
  • They add nuance — Tim's word — to faction design, moving beyond the binary of good and evil

References