Neutral people stay out of everything and do not take a stand. This will inevitably lead to problems in real life because this neutral person is not taken seriously by anyone and is therefore meaningless.
It will also likely lead to a DIK or a CHICK continuing to vote neutral to put the affiliation into perspective. As I understand it in EP8, if the affinity is NEUTRAL, the MC can decide if he prefers CHICK or DIK. The only problem is that it is no longer the player's choice because he gets either CHICK OR DIK as an option even though he is NEUTRAL.
Ergo, if the MC has a NEUTRAL affinity, he will likely become a follower instead of deciding for himself if he wants to make a NEUTRAL decision.
Explanation.
DIK: DIK and NEUTRAL (The options are set).
CHICK: CHICK and NEUTRAL (The options are set)
NEUTRAL: NEUTRAL and DIK or CHICK (The options are not set because the MC gets either CHICK or DIK as an additional option, but not both. So the MC (player) can get a choice he doesn't want at all and must inevitably choose the lesser evil NEUTRAL).
This is not desirable for me.
My MC actually only defeats Dawe, Chad and Tommy because he has a real reason to. He is defending himself.
That doesn't sound about right. The way I see it, the affinity system would work is this:
Minor choises will still be up to us and we will similarly choose between
DIK and
CHICK options.
Major choices will no longer be in our power and will automatically be given to us based on
permanent affinity. And in this sense the affinities are no different.
But even if there is a system like you described, I don't see how
Neutral is any different. According to you, if you're
Neutral, you'll have
Neutral and
DIK/CHICK options depending on your gradient, and if you're
DIK/CHICK, you'll have
DIK/CHICK and
Neutral options... But changing the order of addends doesn't change the sum. And being
DIK/CHICK you can also find yourself in a situation where you don't like both options and have to choose the lesser evil.
Either I don't understand you, or nothing changes in this equation.
About the very concept of "neutral person." In the case of Being a DIK, I don't mean neutral like Switzerland (which, by the way, is taken very seriously) or Geralt of Rivia. I mean rarely do people act like a crazy aggressive party monster 100% of the time (
DIK) or a "very mature" empathic snivel (
CHICK). The former can slack off, fall apart, and the latter can get angry and punish the abuser, for example. Beware of a silent dog and still water, as they say. Would such a person be taken less seriously because of that? My experience shows that no.
So
Neutral Tremolo is simply a more versatile character, not a follower or undecided.