Neutrality

[Alphadragon]

http://en.ravenblackcity.com/wiki/Neutrality

"Neutrality is a power that designates a vampire as "non-violent" and someone above petty conflicts."

We all know (or should know) that violence and cruelty happen. We all know (or should know) that conflict is built into the foundations of this city, and that Vampires can be cruel.

We all know and should know that we are all fair game.

Conflict happens, from the most petty of reasons to the most glamorous, it happens. We are all subject to the lowest common denominator. We cannot possibly live our unlives thinking and saying "it will never happen to me?"
Or worse: "It will happen when I want it to happen, and how I want it to happen".
Or worse yet "It didn't happen the way it should have happened!"

Do people stop and ask themselves, "do I want it to happen to me, or not?"

And is there something wrong with that?

Is there a stigma against people taking the Neutral option? Do people even know it exists?
Is the fact that we are all still fair game (more so once we have Full Power) being considered and taught and the appropriate choices suggested and encouraged? Should they be?

[Xedanis]

This's a thought provoking topic, Alpha mate. Haven't seen any discourse on it in a very long time indeed.

Hilarious fact: I consider meself neutral. One of the core tenets of my second-lease-at-unlife is basically what you jus' quoted from the neutrality power there: "Above Petty Conflicts."

There's a lot of people in this fair city o' ours that would say I'm not above petty conflict. They'd be right. I prefer t'think of meself as against it. An aye, there's a difference.

Sayin' you're "above" conflicts, and wearin the neutral panties, is a nametag. a soapbox. "Look at me," you scream. "I am above all of you."

True neutrality, in my humble opinion, is a matter of willpower. Diplomacy, aye, but more willpower. To force yourself not to rise t'bait. To resist the all-too-natural urge to provoke your fellow being. To seek blood because y'er bored, or some other reason from the very vague and diaphanous to the solid and justified.

So, fr'm where I stand, Neutrality's neutrality. Do i think people who take the power are cowards? Nope. Why havent I taken it meself?

Heh.

I haven't taken it meself because honestly, I don't feel the need to. And neither does the fam. If you can't master your own will without a power to assist you, then it's really no power at all.

Lookin' forward t'hearin' everyone else's thoughts too!

[Seppuku]

In my opinion: to be neutral, you have no desire for conflict, petty or otherwise. You are detached. When people take on the power of Neutrality, it signifies their desire to remain unaligned. If you're a loner or just not interested in war, I can see this power being considered; though I've heard of neutral groups providing resources to all warring parties without being directly involved.

Would I ever take Neutrality? No.
Do I condemn those who do? No, not unless they hide behind it. Only then, would they be cowards.

[Julia]

http://en.ravenblackcity.com/wiki/Neutrality

"Neutrality is a power that designates a vampire as "non-violent" and someone above petty conflicts."

We all know (or should know) that violence and cruelty happen. We all know (or should know) that conflict is built into the foundations of this city, and that Vampires can be cruel.

We all know and should know that we are all fair game.

Conflict happens, from the most petty of reasons to the most glamorous, it happens. We are all subject to the lowest common denominator. We cannot possibly live our unlives thinking and saying "it will never happen to me?"
Or worse: "It will happen when I want it to happen, and how I want it to happen".
Or worse yet "It didn't happen the way it should have happened!"

Do people stop and ask themselves, "do I want it to happen to me, or not?"

And is there something wrong with that?

Is there a stigma against people taking the Neutral option? Do people even know it exists?
Is the fact that we are all still fair game (more so once we have Full Power) being considered and taught and the appropriate choices suggested and encouraged? Should they be?

Neutrality to me is a choice, like all things.

In this city it can be used as a weapon, and of course people get ridiculed for it... if it get used for purposes of running away from a conflict that they were directly involved in.

To be neutral is to not have a opinion on the "petty" conflicts in this city. One must be... morally above all of those things. Meaning you can't be emotionally invested in the conflicts in this city. Literally taking a step back from what makes this city turn, and I know a few people here are of a neutral mindset and haven't donned the "panties" themselves.

My utmost admiration for them, truly. They have the fortitude to handle that without having the hand of RavenBlack holding them back from trigger moments.

I would never take the cloak or panties myself. (They don't match my sense of style) However, it's a good point for others to know that there are options out there.
Even the Battlecloak, it's an object, that I haven't really seen used very often.

[Alphadragon]

Even the Battlecloak, it's an object, that I haven't really seen used very often.

The Battlecloak is flawed by nature: one does not need it do battle. I think most people know it.

You raise good points re being above the petty.

[Alex Ayres]

Every response to your initial question seems to revolve around the one subjective part of the introduction of the wiki article on neutrality:

"Above petty conflict."

I went ahead and removed that part, as the wiki is supposed to be a resource and should be as objective as possible. That statement has, at least, two things wrong with it:

1. It presumes, as it seems a lot of people do, that to be neutral is to believe that you are above conflict. This is a flawed notion for many reasons, but the one I'd like to focus on is because neutrality doesn't protect you from conflict. It offers you (some) protection from violence. Conflict and violence are not synonymous. Human and supernatural society could not progress without conflict. It could progress without violence (some people would say more slowly, given the economic growth and technological advancements afforded to human society by some wars).

While a neutral person may believe that they are above violence (to use the correct word), that isn't the rule for people who take neutrality. And people who believe that this is the only reason to take neutrality, let their bias against neutrality leak through.

2. The word petty is extremely subjective and again, adds a negative connotation both to the person taking neutrality, and to all of the violence in this city. You seem to use the words "conflict" and "violence" interchangeably, so the next part of my statement is pure speculation.

You've stated "We all know (or should know) that conflict is built into the foundations of this city, and that Vampires can be cruel" and, again, I'm assuming by conflict you mean violence, seeing as conflict is built into the foundation of every society on some level, whereas violence being built into the foundations of a city is probably only true for RBC (if you believe your hypothesis) and Sparta.

If some amount of that violence is petty (some people would argue, based on their personal definitions of petty, that there hasn't been a "glamorous" or honorable" bit of violence in the city for years) wouldn't that make some of the foundation of this city petty? If you believe that a majority of the violence that has happened in the past few years is petty, than our city isn't built on a foundation of violence, it's built on a foundation of pettiness.

I think most of us would wholeheartedly disagree with that hypothesis. I personally also disagree that violence is built into the foundations of the city. The city was founded in July 2002 and the first act of aggression against non-humans wasn't until December of that year, and there was even a vampire who tried to stop the violence (this is how the Nightwatch was born). The very first act of organized movement on the city grid was aimed to stop aggression.*

I would argue that the foundation of this city was that of a haven to beings like us who were lost, displaced, refused, or for some reason didn't feel comfortable or safe in the rest of society, and we found refuge in this city. The violence only came when the violent people came.



All of that aside, my opinion on each of your questions in turn:

Do people stop and ask themselves, "do I want it to happen to me, or not?"
I've thought about this many times. I can't speak for anyone else.

And is there something wrong with that?
I don't see why there would be anything wrong with anyone thinking anything.

Is there a stigma against people taking the Neutral option? Do people even know it exists?
I know it exists. And, based on two of your responses, I would say there is a stigma against it. It appears that the stigma against it is someone who takes neutrality sits on a pedestal believing they're better than everyone who chooses to engage in violence. I don't personally care either way if someone takes neutrality. If someone took neutrality and took to verbally harassing people and thus exempted themselves from the traditional sense of punishment for such things, it might be a different conversation.


Is the fact that we are all still fair game (more so once we have Full Power) being considered and taught and the appropriate choices suggested and encouraged? Should they be?

I don't think it matters what's being taught. There are ways to lessen your chances of being hit or zeroed, but there is no way to guarantee it (assuming the wiki article on neutrality is still up to date and you still take damage from weapons, just significantly less). You can look at someone for a bit too long on a day that their significant other(s) left them and you're going to get hit. There is no "proper etiquette" as any etiquette will get you hit, depending on the day and any given person's mood.

Is it being considered that everyone is fair game? Probably. I'm sure that idea is what keeps the very thin line of order between families and clans. Do people think much of it? No, that's why the line of order is very thin. Needless, but for some reason necessary, I'll let you sort out the paradox, to say, this is all my opinion.



*http://en.ravenblackcity.com/wiki/2002

[Vex]

Neutrality is a state of mind, not putting something on to protect a person from attacks. Running your mouth from behind a pink shield isn't neutrality, and moreover neutrality is not non-violence. I disagree entirely with the concept of purchased neutrality because it doesn't actually promote the concept of neutrality - it's more like hiding.

A truly neutral person shouldn't necessarily need that protection. Also, a truly neutral person doesn't necessarily have to be non-violent. True neutrality often means taking a stand for neutrality, not simply sitting on the fence and watching the world flow by.

[Amari]

I don't believe there is anything wrong with someone deciding to don themselves with the additional power of Neutrality, if they choose and decide it for the proper reasons. One could counter question, does the power itself, neutrality, implicate one's views being less impartial then they want to admit if they didn't use it?

Either way... I believe to some people, the power is another way to further they journey on the path absence expression, or strong feeling to keep them away from conflict. I do not find it showing a lack of will power (though that doesn't mean some people couldn't use it for that extra bit of assistance). For those that need the "extra push" to keep them in place, I wouldn't call it weakness, but wisdom for their own faults. So in most cases I find the power is just a way for a person to solidify their resolve... if it comforts them.

It holds negative impressions, some believe it is useless, some question 'does that really make you neutral?' I don't disagree with above statements, it begs to question a person's intentions. If a person got it for the mere reason to hide from the consequences of their actions/words, then yes, I believe they are far from neutral and more so cowards.

I knew it existed, though some, newer (fewer as they are) may not. Ignorance is always possible.

Personally I wouldn't use it. I find it a waste of resources. However, if a person had the right intention I wouldn't judge them for it.

[Amaya_Shannis]

I think Neutrality gets its bad rep from those who don the cloak and use it as a shield so they can say rude, belittling things and be protected.

Would I don the cloak? No. I like battle, fighting, tension.... The ache the moment a vial breaks against your skin and it hurts, but you feel so damned alive....

[ophelia]

Just to clarify

When we had no weapons we had bite wars from the get go and were squaring up.
Then scrolls of turning were introduced and we learned they took blood off of a target.
Then the rest of the weapons came