Neutrals and Non-Violents: The Other White Meat

[Sapphira de Lioncourt]

Since I came to Ravenblack City over five years ago, there have been varying views on what exactly neutral is. It seems to be one of those topics that has been at the heart of debate in recent times with the observance of more neutrals and non-combatants springing up within clan warfare. This debate really didn't concern me until I opted for the route of non-violence myself when I hopelessly watched my childer fall to torpor when he was abandoned by his clan leader. What lead me to think harder on this topic was my experience with a discrimination of sorts against someone of my beliefs with in a clan setting.

So I asked myself what exactly is neutrality anyways? The answer I have found is nothing short of complex, so let us start with a few definitions I came up with in my debating of this topic.

Neutral: individuals whom have set themselves apart from the ebb and flow of city politics for a variety of reasons. In most cases, they also choose to not take up arms was this would go against their stance of objectivity and neutrality in political matters. May or may not include the in-city designation of neutrality, but more often then not does. Involvement with assisting family should be limited to teaching, diplomacy, and shop finding in order to maintain the neutrality they are striving to uphold.

Non-Violent: An individual who is an objector to warfare and has taken a vow against the harming of others. May not necessarily include the in-city power of neutrality, but is an appeasing option for many to prevent unwanted attacks from random passers-by.

Non-Combatant: an individual whom abstains from one or more conflicts due to a personal issue such as a conflict of interest. These personal conflicts range from family and friends involved on the opposing side, absences from the battlefield, or debts of gratitude. This occurs both in family and clan conflicts, and often happens on a case by case basis. These should be honored provided that the person choosing to be a non-combatant communicative about it.

I do not see it as negative for non-violents and non-combatants to assist others in the waging of their warfare. Just because they choose not to actively partake in the violence, does not mean that they are useless to the clans or families that they wish to support. Teaching and mentoring are undervalued tasks that I don't think enough emphasis is placed on, and these can be done by people who do not wish to fight. Same with researching, shop finding, and recon for battle planning – all can be carried out by people who never lift a vial to strike another.

But what often stirs the debate are those individuals that claim they are neutral where they actually are closer to a non-violent alignment. When true neutrals choose to financially aid clanned family members, provide them movement assistance, or publicly support the war efforts of a particular side, they are, in essence, going against what sets them apart as neutrals: political objectivity. This, in my opinion makes neutrality the hardest path to walk correctly as many would put their necks on the line to help out their family.

This is what gives non-violence a bad name: people saying that they are of one belief and practicing another. So if you are of the anti-warfare slant, ask yourself, am I actually living up to my beliefs or should I redefine them? If you are wanting to consciously object to a particular fight, do so openly so people do not get the wrong idea later when you waffle about the decision you make to pull out half way through. So what we all need to see eye to eye, and understand these diverse stances on the overall topic of neutrality, is an open dialogue between all members of the community. Not only will this create an open discussion about these topics to further hash out what is expected of people who hold these morals, but how they should be embraced into the culture of the city on the whole.

[CG Dragonfly]

My personal opinion of neutrality is that it is a balance, a struggle against falling into the easy trap of being good or evil. It is a strength and shows a level of development beyond the baser level of most vampires and is rather like the state of Golconda espoused by the Temple... Neutrality is supposed to be a dispassionate, disinterested view on events or at minimum a balance between being a bloodsucking fiend and an angel of the night.


Part of something I wrote up almost two years ago. I think it sounds a little repetitive. Maybe that will help though? >.>;


Yes, shock and awe that a member of The Sun Clan has an opinion.

[black_dragonet]

I am one who speaks his mind, sometimes forcefully.
I think my voice would sound somewhat hollow if I could not be held accountable for all my words and actions. I think all I do and stand for takes value in the fact that I am willing to be zeroed in defence of them.

It if very ironical for me to say that, since I weight 109 000 pints of blood, but I think a lot of vampires just take blood level too seriously.
I have been zeroed several times, by hunters. I perfectly remember the last time it happened, since it is the day I entered the SIE school. It hurts, yes, it does, but it is worth doing. We do not die. We're just weaker for a time.
There is something worse than losing a fight, it is fleeing before that fight. Many people fail to see that to be willing to die for a cause is the ultimate way to defend it.
Though I quite disliked the vampire, that is something that noone could remove from Scythian, this willingness to die to prove a point made him stronger than several vampires with a lot more weaponry, coinage, and blood.

Seriously, folks, what's wrong with fighting? Some of the best friends I have in this city I met on opposing sides of a battlefield. We share something that neutral people canot and will never feel, maybe remember for some: memories, pain, pleasure, and above all, respect and honour. They are my honoured enemies, become friends for many.

The important thing with regard to fighting is to choose which fights you are going to fight, and which just are not worth it. For instance, I feel injured pride is not worth fighting, but in defence of honour I'm willing to be zeroed for any day.
The people who know me well know that I am a rather peaceful vampire, more busy finding solutions than problems, but they also that when I let the war fury engulf me, then it is better to have me on their side than the other. When the fighting subsides, then I can go back to my calm and serene self, fondly remembering the good moments and comradeship shared while fighting.

By choosing neutrality, you deprive yourself of that. Your choosing to don the neutrality cloak I can understand, but I regret it. You are surrendering a part of yourself.


Neutrality...
Theorically, a sound idea, a way to protect the weak and peaceful from the violence and fury of fights, of war.
Theorically...

In reality, it is something that is more misused than used, a way for the coward to escape the consequences of their acts, and keep running their mouth.
The peacekeepers are poor character judges, and these greedy fools grant neutrality to anyone who pays them the price.

Some neutral vampires also act as succour trains, thus taking active part to a battle, which is a distorsion of the spirit of neutrality. I wish one could not succour to neutered vampires. I think this would help keeping the neutrals out of the fights.

Some of you remember the fellows who defiled Wyndcryer's vigil, burnssteer and/or Blutengel. How would you have reacted and liked it if they had been protected by neutrality?
That's another flaw I find it this power.

The best protection is not that of neutrality, it is that of truth, honour and courage.

[melkya]

I was informed that this thread was about how Neutrals are treated as well as how some show they aren't really neutral by assisting when they shouldn't. Being neutral isn't about going and getting the Cloak of Neutrality. It is however, as CG has stated, raising above the lines of "good" and "evil". Not all of us who take on the state of neutrality, don this pink cloak. Not all who don the Cloak of Neutrality are in fact neutral. To make such a claim of those of us who are truly neutral, speaks of a clear lack of understanding of what neutral is.

Black_Dragonet, how exactly can you, a vampire who's clearly not neutral make a claim like, "We share something that neutral people canot and will never feel, maybe remember for some: memories, pain, pleasure, and above all, respect and honour..." When your first assumption is that we put on the Cloak of neutrality to avoid being killed. I, for one, have grown beyond feeling the need for fighting. I have grown away from needing death. As such the obvious next step of my personal evolution was tossing aside my weapons. Many of us hold true, the ideals of truth, honor, respect, and courage. In the face of such, bigotry seems the best word, as what you have shown here, these ideals shine brighter among the True Neutrals who can simply smile and move past.

There was no losing or surrendering any part of myself the day I hung my weapons what I believed. My choice was not "save my blood" as others would claim, but rather a realization that I was something more. In fact, I've never once thought of donning the Cloak of Neutrality. To say I'm coward because I have chosen a path that doesn't involve war also speaks of a clear lack of understanding about who I really am. Those vampire who claim they're neutral, but then perform non combative support in any fight or war, are in fact the cowards for claiming a belief, then acting against it when it's no longer convenient.


Without Evil, there can be no Good. Without Good, there can be no Evil. However, without Neutrality, there can be no balance between.

[black_dragonet]

I believe that I have oversighted a category of people, that is the category of those who do NOT wear the pink mantle of neutrality, people like you who have just decided to not pick fights. You know, it is not that remote from where I stand, deciding to fight only in the fights I deem worth it.
Yet, you are still accountable of your words and acts, and that's to me the single most important thing. If I may use this linguistic subtlety to precise my point, you are not neutral to me, as in wearing the pink cloak, but non-violent, which is completely different. This I understand AND respect. I never said or thought you were a coward.

I still think the main reason why people put on the pink cloak is fear of being zeroed. I think some vampires have grown away from the need to fight. Well, I almost have, but I keep that fire at the ready, in case it were needed, which now and then happens, though rarely these times.

Dec 1, 2009 15:34:48 GMT -8 melkya said:

To say I'm coward because I have chosen a path that doesn't involve war also speaks of a clear lack of understanding about who I really am. Those vampire who claim they're neutral, but then perform non combative support in any fight or war, are in fact the cowards for claiming a belief, then acting against it when it's no longer convenient.


Without Evil, there can be no Good. Without Good, there can be no Evil. However, without Neutrality, there can be no balance between.

Neutrality brings a loaded balance, when non-violence brings balance indeed.
Neutrality is for cowards, when your road does take balls to follow.

[Bug Merovingian]

A very worthy topic Sapphira.

I started my clan life in a neutral clan, and held to the tenets as dictated to me. Yet in my heart of hearts, I was not a true neutral. Neutrality to me means, not so much of which cloak you wear, nor even whether you lift a vial. But more of your political affiliations, or the reactions to the movements of the political tides. To be able to shrug off another's attack, does not preclude true neutrality, nor does it imply cowardice. That is situational at best. But in my eyes pragmatism would dictate none could be truly neutral and still find means in which to function in any sort of political forum. To me the truest form of neutrality is closer to a form of apathy but, minus the total lack of caring. More of a moral standing not to take an action about certain situations, such as the propagation of any form of violence, be it physical or emotional. I would also include any political actions in this.

[Damia]

On this topic I am split.

On one hand I am a true believer that as dragonet said, one must be accountable for all words and actions. But then on the other hand, if one practices a neutral stance, without the cloak, then indeed their words nor actions will get them in trouble.

I am not one to say that every clan does not have its peaceful vampires, who find more pleasure in teaching or helping then in actual wars.

But the question that I am now pondering is one of choices. It is not bad to practice the peaceful side of things, nor is it shameful to want to be left out of a fight, but if one is truly a neutral alignment, then why would such a person even join a clan of warring status. It is one that I have always thought of and this debate brought it up for me. For while a clan values all their members, unless that clan is neutral say as Bug's clan is, then why would one who wants to be to avoid fighting and is truly neutral to all aspects of immortality, join any clan for that matter unless it is one such as Sun clan.

Though I will not derail Sapphira's original point, it was just a question that came to mind as I was reading over replies.

[Henry Key]

I have Neutrality jus' to piss ev'ryone off.

Nyah nyah nyah whatcha gonna do? Zero me? OH WAIT you can't. You flaccid penii.

Though I do miss smashin' vials of holy water in the faces of random strangers. Good times, good times.

[Blicious]

I don't see how obtaining a pink cloak has any reflection on a pire's political or philosophical views. Just because someone chooses to wear a Cloak of Neutrality does not necessarily mean they are Neutral in their political stance. Perhaps a different name for the garment is in order?-Just a thought, for it does cause confusion.

If someone were to tell me that So n'So is Neutral, I would first have to ask if meant in terms of clans and such or if it was strictly in reference to a Cloak before I made any decisions on the matter. I am not the first to point out that the two are different. Communication and clarification are key.

For someone to claim to be Neutral and belong to or financially supply a non-neutral clan is absurd. I would like to think as a Neutral, one could fully support family members but it seems to me that clans and family are too intermingled to be able to draw a solid line between the two. It would be simple enough to provide guidance and knowledge and stay Neutral, however defending family is another matter. Maybe it is possible to fight for a family member and remain Neutral, but it would have to be over a truly personal issue-unrelated to politics which will be hard to find. Again, you'd have to be clear on your motives. Personally, there is too much mist and mud there. I'd rather not put myself in that position.

I don't think anyone should assume when a pire says they are Neutral it means that they will not use weapons or fight. There are those out there who would be happy to pitch a HW in your direction no matter what clan you are in. Are they not Neutral? (I'm using "you" in general, not meaning to single anyone out.)

[Idony]

Neat debate. I want to introduce the following question: does neutral attitude exist?

The city-status of Neutrality was well intended, but its use has been perverted. I don't think the power should change, I think the people should change, because the fault is in them, not the concept. Same for the Battle Cloak.

However, I've come to the conclusion that neutrality in itself is nigh impossible to reach in any self-conscious creature. In order to be neutral one has to not cast an effect on the world, in order for the world to not have an effect on them - because that is what neutrality is, at its very foundation: not letting yourself be affected by what's going on around you and in turn not reacting to it.

But the world does react to your presence or your person, and given the laws of reciprocity (Every action has an equal and opposite reaction) the individual, in their hearts, do feel and think in a biased fashion, if even towards the very concept of neutrality: they are biased towards the idea, or their neutral clan, etc. Yes, I realise this is splitting hairs. I don't care (pun).

What most people probably aim at with calling themselves neutral is Detachment. Detachment in itself introduces the concept that one cuts themselves off from emotional implication, or at the very least physical one.
Neutrals may stay away from city politics and hearing about them in order to stay neutral, but that in itself breaks their philosophy and exposes their natures as weak - they're not neutral, they're just forcing ignorance on themselves. All my praise to the neutrals that choose to partake in city-wide debates and keep a controlled demeanour. There aren't many of them.

Detachment is the ability to cut off the chords of feeling even when faced with conflicting attitudes and ideas, and reach neutrality that way.
It doesn't involve non-violence. Neutrals try to stay away from violence in order to not be affected by their experience. Detached individuals may partake in violence all the time in order to flex the nerves of their mind to cut off feeling, in time rendering their attitudes neutral.

That is what I think the issue is; and as always, it's the individual that is the start of the problem, not the ideas themselves.

[kaio999]

They're the people who have chosen not to matter anymore. ;D

[Beezil]

Dec 1, 2009 21:27:10 GMT -8 Idony said:

....

However, I've come to the conclusion that neutrality in itself is nigh impossible to reach in any self-conscious creature. In order to be neutral one has to not cast an effect on the world, in order for the world to not have an effect on them - because that is what neutrality is, at its very foundation: not letting yourself be affected by what's going on around you and in turn not reacting to it.

I donned the pink panties for a while... pretty much for the above reasons. I didn't want anything to do with what was going on around me. I've learned since then that I don't need a special power to remove myself from a situation. I thank Annabelle for teaching me that.

(edited because I forgot some words. )

[Sweets]

This is indeed an interesting debate and one I question about myself daily. I was once a member of what started out as a neutral clan but became a warring clan as time progressed. I felt I had to distance myself from that clan as I did not believe in the reasonings behind the attacks. Thus I left it, and to my shame, joined an assassin clan. Being a paid assassin with my beliefs did not sit well with me, and I found I could not continue along that venue. I have not belonged to a clan since then, and have found myself to be content. Many do not realize I am Nghthawk's daughter as I stay out of the city politics and wars, even though I keep well informed of what occurs in the city. When my father was put into torpor I did not retaliate as it was his decision to wage a battle with his clan, of which I did not belong. This is not to say I have not thrown holy water since leaving my last clan. I must admit I was rather bored one day and saw the waffle man hawking his wares and, seeing as I had an extra holy water on hand I threw it at him to see what his reaction would be. Since that day my weapons have not seen use and I find I am quite content in this.

Even my betrothed, Fador, who happens to be Mona's son, does not follow the mandates of his family. He is also without a clan. Neither of us have found any reason to join a clan. Neither of us wear a cloak of neutrality. If either of our sires become victims of an unprovoked attack, we will both pick up our weapons and fight for their honor. If either of us are attacked without provocation, we will pick up our weapons and fight. But we will not wage a war without a reason. This bull of "he said/she said and it hurt my feelings" just does not fly with us. That is not a matter of defending one's honor but of defending one's hurt feelings. They can defend themselves if that is the case. So, neutral, non-violent or non-combative? We all have our places in this universe. I do not feel it necessary any more to attempt to put a name to it. We are who we are. Labels are nothing more than a word or title given to something or someone in an attempt to understand what that thing or person is, and give them a place in someone else's orderly little world.

[Bambi]

I'm not neutral.. I'm just very lazy.

;D

[Bug Merovingian]

Dec 2, 2009 8:37:12 GMT -8 Bambi said:

I'm not neutral.. I'm just very lazy.

;D

But humorus!

Just for clarification...... Ventrue is not a neutral clan. The clan I spoke of was the first one I was a part of when I began my clan life.