Well, it depends on how the TN character is being played, really.
There are several approaches to True Neutral, but the two most prevalent are:
[list=1]
- A character who believes in balance and neutrality for its own sake
- A character whose good acts offset the evil acts that they commit
In the former case, if the group were too evil (working towards an evil goal, aiding an evil cause, or simply spreading the influence of evil), a True Neutral character would chafe. If the group were too good, the character would likewise object. Balance, in all things. If they were too lawful, or too chaotic, likewise, the TN character seeking balance would take issue with the group ideology.
In the latter case, it depends on the duration. If the group were disinclined to support good actions at ALL, the True Neutral character would likely be upset. Likewise, if they were the pinnacle of righteousness, she would feel constrained.
Basically, if the group ideology strays too far from center in
any direction - if one ideology gains more support in the group than any other, say- a True Neutral character will feel uncomfortable.
If one character always takes leadership, and they lead the group into a balanced worldview, a TN character is likely to be just fine with that. If one character kills more than another, but in so doing serves their purpose in the group (say, a powerful fighter), this too is balance. If, however, the group finds itself in a war between good and evil, and the group starts slaughtering one side or the other, a true neutral character would find themselves on the horns of a dilemma.
So, in answer to your examples... no, none of those would be an unbalanced group. It is ideology, not group dynamics, that drives the alignment system. That being said, True Neutral characters can be as ticked off as anyone if some loudmouth braggart always tries to assume command. It's just not an alignment issue.
