Update: Neuts should not be able to faction change to good/evil

After careful consultation with “the guild” (i.e. the voices in my head), we’ve decided that neuts should be neuts for life, and that they should never be able to change faction.

However, only neuts can decide whether or not they are currently supporting either good or evil, and tip the balance.

When the campaign starts, most neuts have whole-heartedly sided with evil, mainly to profit. Will Good mount a comeback, and convince neuts to their side?

Anyway, it rests.

“Neuts for life” I suppose. How’s that for a motto? Until I think of a better one.


“Neutral G.”

Steve Mini from the 6.

I suppose I have to answer the question: Just why am I supporting both good and evil as a neutral person? I espoused this tradition, this neutrality guild, this meta, as a joke to myself, as a joke to the voices in my head. I never thought I’d actually sit down and analyze the disposition, and actually agree with it.

Certainly therefore I am ill. note: Evil just means selfish, it doesn’t mean anything else. A CEO is typically evil in my world, which i’ve troll dubbed: “Gaya” or “Gaia”, because he probably stands to profit at the expense of, well, everyone else. Making a quick buck is seen as evil, because only you stand to profit, making it a selfish act.

Doc says I’m doing great. Better than ever. Passed my yearly course. Back in university finishing my BA.

By the way fellas, I have no criminal record, and don’t condone the use. I am ill.

See you next time.

Goodies and Baddies are diametrically opposed; Neuts side with either/or.

I suppose in this “game” or “campaign” of mine, Goodies are always opposed to Baddies and vice versa in a classic Good Vs. Evil campaign. (note: I hear voices. I often run a homebrew campaign of Dungeons and Dragons with the voices in my head as player characters. warning: If you hear voices, talk to your doctor. I’m also medicated and am managing my symptoms well – but i do hear bad voices from time to time. Gaming is a coping mechanism in my opinion).

Anyway: this is a classic two-faction war, Goodies vs. Baddies, Good vs Evil. Except there’s a third faction which tips the scales of balance: Neuts.

Goodies often accrue more than enough wealth, and give the rest away to other goodies. Perhaps a percentage, say, 25-40% would be welcomed, sort of like a tithe or tax, to be given away to other players. Baddies are by far the richest by the end of the “game” therefore; having accrued more wealth than goodies and of course, more than neuts, who don’t accrue much wealth at all – though some neuts are comfortably wealthy, none are fantastically rich – or else they are no longer neut, according to neuts, for, If they earn too much, they’re forced to faction change permanently into either good or evil.

The strategic choice, therefore, might be to start as neut, learn the game, make too much wealth intentionally to trigger a faction change, and then decide whether or not you want to convert to good or evil at that point. And this is, in fact, always encouraged, so that starting players are usually neut – if not always.

But this is a video game i’m designing; and I need to design a fantasy campaign for Dungeons And Dragons and/or a few novels.

I literally play this by myself. “1 player map” as I often joke.

I want to mention that I’m “metastatic” as the “Neutral God” of the campaign; Which is a neologism I coined (I’m diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia and hear voices, too; apparently I coin my own words, which mean whatever I want them to mean). Metastatic basically means that I can be anyone, anywhere in the world, and talk speak act and think like them, sort of like the agents in the matrix, or the gods in ancient Greece. (Note: This word already exists. I just gave it a new meaning).

When I “become” someone else, and talk to the voices in my head, which make up a plethora of dialogue, fiction, characters, heroes, and villians … they literally think i’m that other person that I morphed into, and I hear them react and talk and think like i’m that other person i’ve metastatically morphed into. (Like the agents in the matrix or gods in ancient Greece).

Go figure that one out: I didn’t: I couldn’t figure out the voices for a bunch of years where I was afraid. I’m now recovering well, still medicated, and finishing my BA.

Like I said. If you hear voices, talk to your doctor. I manage my symptoms enough to be back in University finishing my degree in English literature. I want to be a writer. I hope to inspire other paranoid schizophrenics or otherwise disabled people and their families. So here we are.

“Neutral G.”

Steve Mini from the 6.




Can Neuts accept wealth and remain neutral?

I’ve been writing a campaign where neuts side with evil and good, but espouse their own, middle path, called: Neutrality.

I’ve been toying with the idea that Neuts can no longer accept wealth, in exchange for becoming neutral. When they do, they’re either siding with good or evil respectively. Evil is fantastically rich, Goodies just make ends meet, and give a lot of wealth away if and when they have more than they need, and Neuts often decline to accrue wealth altogether – and when they do, Good or Evil stands to profit.

But, I hear y’all crying, how will neuts ever come to wealth, power, prestige and fame? Having no wealth for one faction will cripple an entire Neutrality faction, in my fictional world, which I’ve troll called: “Gaya” or “Gaia”.

Well in this fictional world, some of the most powerful people have no wealth, and espouse a neutral way. Judges, Lawyers, Executives of large Corporations – all of these people are wealthy, but not as rich as Evil people, and not fantastically rich, per-se.

I hear y’all thinking: Evil is the way to go. Since you can accrue wealth, not give a poop about morality, and in general, have a higher chance of making more money than the other two factions.

But that’s just the point. Evil often prevails over Good, and neuts often side with evil to make a profit.

Sort of like real life.

I’ll toy with this idea for a while and see where neuts stand – I literally run a campaign with the voices in my head as player characters. Sounds confusing? It is. That’s why I’m medicated. Talk to your doctor if you hear voices. I see my doctor all the time.

Your artist friend,

Steve Mini from the 6,
“Neutral G.”,
Creator of “Gaya”.

Selfless Good; Selfish Evil. A third option: Neutrality?

I have been toying with my moral compass. In a prior post, for example, I asked myself: am I a selfless Hedonist and lover, or a selfish one? Perhaps I am a little bit of both at different times … isn’t there always a neutral way, a way to strike a balance between Good and Evil, without being one or the other?

This, along with reading Tolstoy, inspired me ever to direct my thoughts toward a balance of things, to embrace my own moral philosophy of being neither Selflessly Good nor Selfishly Evil but rather, I espoused a third way: a way of Neutrality for myself.

I don’t know. I’m pretty damn selfless, rarely act out of selfishness, and might score, on my own morality “test” as a Selflessly Good Person.

But I’m adamant. Sometimes, I feel like I’m just a neutral guy, who makes selfish decisions. And that’s alright, too. Siding with evil for a gain, sounds awful, but let’s face it: most people only act out of selfish self interest i.e. profit, and siding with them to make a quick profit isn’t exactly a bad thing: That’s neut. It ain’t good or evil.

By the way, that’s just an example. I don’t often make a quick buck. I don’t make much money at all (But that’s another article for another time).

And I don’t really “side with evil”, as I say rather poetically. Often, I’m opposed to selfishness in others.

I think to clean up this essay or theory, and talk about a moral compass which has led me to neutrality, I would have to define just who or what evil truly is.

So far: I’ve defined Evil as anybody who is out to make a profit. That’s it. You want money? You’re evil. You act selflessly? You’re Good. Selfish? Evil or Bad.

But this falls apart when, Goodies stand to profit, and Baddies act selflessly for personal gain.

Still, I think it’s a pretty good working model of the condition of life, and I prospect often and place my ideas in the public domain for y’all to comment on and test the waters.

Let me know what you think. My “essay notes” are coming along, even if they’re just dumb ideas and/or rough drafts right now.

“Neutral G.”,
Steve Mini from the 6.

The New Poem: A Theory Of Innocence

I remember one time ,in my youth, where I began to modify and edit Northrop Frye’s theories for fun. I never quite respected Frye after that. I thought he needed a good edit. A younger man’s mistake, for sure. I now returned to him the other day and respect him very much.

I don’t remember much about my youth. But I do remember that one of my early responses to Frye was my Theory Of Innocence. It simply states that the younger a person is, the more potential they have. I applied this to art objects, which were, scientific objects, too: the younger art was, the more potential it had.

My ignorant, half-assed poem on the internet could be, in theory, more famous than a masterpiece in sanskrit which nearly nobody could read. It was young, it was new, it was in English. At least, that’s what my younger self projected. And if my confusions and misunderstandings are correct, perhaps we might see the rise of Chinese art in a century or two, and the setting of the sun of the entire English language thereafter.

I don’t know where the future lies. But I do know this: I aught to write some of my whacky and zany theories down. I never wrote or published whilst I was young; I just read quite a bit. But now I’m 41 and won’t live forever. Might as well start to write a-now.

a-Lack-a-Day!

“Steve Mini from the 6”.

PS: Northrop Frye makes short work of my doubts in his Polemical Introduction to his Anatomy Of Criticism, where he sums up the situation of Literary Criticism rather well. Will I ever modify Frye satisfactorily? Probably not. But I definitely have some literary criticism in me – perhaps a few essays should suffice. I’d like to publish a collection of essays some day. We’ll see. Fiction first, most likely.