| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do know that according to the base game the majority of people are true neutral, right?
True neutral is going to generally be someone who prefers good to evil (but only because it benefits them) and they will lack a strong will to do particularly good or evil things. Law and chaos are difficult to give more clear cut examples of compared to good and evil, but most people comply with the law only to the extent that they are trying to avoid being punished. Similarly they are chaotic enough to enjoy themselves and their freedom, but most people are smart enough rein it in before they let it hurt themselves in a significant way.
Of course there are outliers, but if you can't understand how people can be not lawful, not good, not chaotic, and not evil and thusly be neutral neutral I think you're not trying hard enough.
|
I have a character I personally treat as TN as his view of Good and Evil, Law and Chaos is that of opportunity. He is willing to follow the law, as long as it doesn't get in the way of his goals and motives, while also breaking it if needs be. He is willing to oppose tyrants, if more for the challenge and chance of being a hero while also support a ruler or leader he agrees with. He is nice and friendly to most, though is willing to manipulate and deceive even those he considers friends while even doing that which others would consider morally questionable.
I am comfortable in having him play the role of either protagonist or antagonist, mattering what his mood or interest is and whether he feels he could be more benefit to a party of adventurers as one or the other. As a storyteller he understands some of the best stories are those in which heroes must overcome a villain or foe, and if he must be such he will.
Opportunity, that is the key word. Also, he does technically have his own code of conduct. Mostly in keeping promises and preventing harm to women or children.
Neutral doesn't have an opposed alignment, that's sort of the whole point...
Saying otherwise merely reflects a gaping hole in knowledge of the English language.
Educate the ignorant, and pity them if they continue to incorrectly assert that Neutrality opposes anything.
Two whomever made the comment about not summoning outside of a step away from alignment, that would work well but it would have to apply to non neutrals as well which would change what could be summoned.
Allow me to provide this insight to why TN is still diametrically opposed to everything without a neutral in the alignment:
Alignment is based off of two axis, good/evil and law/chaos, also known a diametric.
Diametrically opposed means opposed across two dimensions or two "metrics [measurements]."
Alignment is diametrically opposed by axis: good vs evil and law vs chaos.
We would not assume that someone who is NG is not opposed to someone who is NE, and we would also not assume that they are not opposed to L/CE as...
Alignment does not have a qualifier to state someone who is LG in not opposed to someone who is LE; they share one axis point but the other is still opposed.
Assuming the above is true, alignment is always opposed when it is at least 2 steps away.
The above is supported by the fact clerics may only be one step away from their god.
If all the above is true, TN is diametrically opposed to anything without a neutrality and vice versa. As well, NG is opposed to CN and LN as well as anything evil and so are the others two their respective alignments.
This does not mean all paladins have to start murdering all the TN Beggars or any lesser extreme of this, but it does mean, for the sake of game mechanics, "Diametrically opposed" is anything 2 or more steps away.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
AwesomeonessDog, I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong.
LE is diametrically opposed to CG. You will note that is two steps along the good evil axis (because you have to step through neutral) and two step away along the law chaos axis (because you must step through neutral). Diametrically opposed alignments are 4 steps away.
Also, it's important to note that diametrically opposed doesn't mean opposed across two dimensions. It means (from Meriam Webster):
completely opposed, being at opposite extremes
Neutral is clearly not the opposite extreme of anything.
Good is opposed to evil.
Law is opposed to chaos.
Neutral is not opposite of anything.
LG is diametrically opposed to CE.
LE is diametrically opposed to CG.
Neutral neutral is still not opposed to anything.
@AwesomenessDog: So far, so go, but....
If your god is CN, this means you would be limited to summoning CG, TN, CE, and CN. However, they also get NG and NE summons. The god said "No Law", not "One Step".
Same goes for NG, LN, and NE gods.
A CG god said "No Law & No Evil", not "One Step".
And the TN god either does not care, wants you to balance them out, or for you to pick a side.
You said:
"alignment is always opposed when it is at least 2 steps away."
LG is 2 steps from TN.
CE is 2 steps from TN.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
So LG likes CE? Don't think so. Your assertion does not work.
/cevah
@AwesomenessDog: So far, so go, but....
If your god is CN, this means you would be limited to summoning CG, TN, CE, and CN. However, they also get NG and NE summons. The god said "No Law", not "One Step".
Same goes for NG, LN, and NE gods.
A CG god said "No Law & No Evil", not "One Step".
And the TN god either does not care, wants you to balance them out, or for you to pick a side.
You said:
"alignment is always opposed when it is at least 2 steps away."
LG is 2 steps from TN.
CE is 2 steps from TN.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
So LG likes CE? Don't think so. Your assertion does not work./cevah
I would counter with "enemy of my enemy" is a fallacy and that I said [LG] is opposed to all but [LG, NG, and LN] meaning both [TN] and [CE] are opposed but the point is more or less moot. I would also argue that someone who is NG wouldn't hate someone less because they are CE instead of NE, and the morality of gods would follow.
As far as neutral intended to pick a side for summoning, while I would agree with you, I don't know of any mechanic that states this. The channeling and spontaneous casting rules have this on a GvE basis so I guess that's how it would work. It doesn't seem to be intended that a cleric can just summon a Balor and an Archon and not have any ramifications from their neutral god.
So AwesomenessDog, if you asked somebody their opinion on a political matter and they said they didn't have strong feelings one way or the other, you would consider them directly opposed to everybody who took a stance on the issue?
It doesn't seem to be intended that a cleric can just summon a Balor and an Archon and not have any ramifications from their neutral god.
Why not? If anything, summoning both would prove your neutrality and that you don't have a bias of alignment when choosing your help. If anything, choosing only one type of outsider would be bad for a neutral cleric (be it summoning azatas or demons or devils or angels), because that shows a tendency towards a more extreme alignment.
You don't seem to even understand the concept of neutrality.
Neutral: not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.
And the quote from the core rulebook.
Neutral
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.
So you say these characters simply don't exist? It is impossible to not feel strongly towards good or evil or law or chaos? It is impossible to simply act pragmatically without preconceptions or bias, it is impossible to be devoted to balance? What you are saying is the most ridiculous houserule I have ever heard of. It's one thing to say your PCs can't be neutral aligned. There are plenty of campaigns that have alignment restrictions. But to say neutral doesn't exist is just flat out wrong. You would have to alter human nature and reality as we know it.
On another note, I want to ask this question again since you failed to answer it. Do the neutral gods simply not exist in your campaign?
Ha, I found rules text for this.
Chosen Alignment
At 1st level, a champion of the faith must select one of the following as his chosen alignment: chaos, evil, good, or law. This choice must be one of the alignments shared by the champion of the faith and his deity. Champions of the faith who are neutral with no other alignment components (or whose deity is) can choose any of the above alignments for this purpose. Additionally, a champion of the faith must select the blessing corresponding to his chosen alignment, even if it's not on his deity's list of domains.
His chosen alignment's opposite is referred to as his opposed alignment. Good and evil oppose one another, just as law and chaos oppose one another.
Proposed Houserule (Yeah I know this is the Rules Questions section but whatever)...
Anyone of True Neutral alignment affected by a Helmet of Opposite Alignment is instead inflicted with a Permanent Confusion effect, the magic of the helm unable to properly adjust their alignment and instead scrambling their minds.
This causes me to lose faith in humanity...
So AwesomenessDog, if you asked somebody their opinion on a political matter and they said they didn't have strong feelings one way or the other, you would consider them directly opposed to everybody who took a stance on the issue?
It doesn't seem to be intended that a cleric can just summon a Balor and an Archon and not have any ramifications from their neutral god.Why not? If anything, summoning both would prove your neutrality and that you don't have a bias of alignment when choosing your help. If anything, choosing only one type of outsider would be bad for a neutral cleric (be it summoning azatas or demons or devils or angels), because that shows a tendency towards a more extreme alignment.
You don't seem to even understand the concept of neutrality.
Neutral: not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.And the quote from the core rulebook.
So you say these characters simply don't exist? It is impossible to not feel strongly towards good or evil or law or chaos? It is impossible to...Neutral
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.
Actually, I would say a "neutral" would be opposed to any far outsider (moderate vs extremist), we just usually have those kinds of discussion because we no longer live in the dark ages.
IMO, neutral isn't implied to be the middle man so much as the guy who doesn't want to start s$%~: and as such a neutral god wouldn't take kindly to the ramification of Archon's and Demon Lords fighting about who summoned their underlings. Starting fights usually is never practical, to the average joe.
I don't recall the first time you asked the question being directed at me, and I made no houserule suggestion: just what seemed to be my take on alignment rules (which your find actually supports for the most part). Once again, opposes means nothing save for game mechanics, you have NG clerics healing the CE rogues all the time throughout all the games ever held and while they might not go out drinking with them, they don't pull out their various murderhobo tools and start swinging on sight.
Since when does someone interpret "neutral" to mean "diametrically opposed to everything else"?
True Neutral Intelligent Weapons with the special purpose "Slay Opposite Alignment" are targeted at the four corner alignments.
Since when does someone interpret "neutral" to mean "diametrically opposed to everything else"?True Neutral Intelligent Weapons with the special purpose "Slay Opposite Alignment" are targeted at the four corner alignments.
That is because they cannot be "diametrically opposed" to another alignment.
/cevah
IMO, neutral isn't implied to be the middle man so much as the guy who doesn't want to start s+@@: and as such a neutral god wouldn't take kindly to the ramification of Archon's and Demon Lords fighting about who summoned their underlings. Starting fights usually is never practical, to the average joe.
False. You are generalizing all kinds of neutral people into one category. There are many kinds of ways to be neutral, two of which are explicitly stated in the alignment section.
1) There are absolutely neutral people who are simply the middle man.
2) There are also neutrals who don't want to start crap.
3) There are also neutrals who don't want Archon's and Demon Lords fighting them.
4) There are also neutrals who do want to fight Archon's and demons.
That is a small list of the infinite number of different types of neutral characters.
Your take on alignment is fine, but it doesn't belong in the rules forum. They are clear houserules, black and white.
Alignment is far more vague and subjective than the categorizations you're making it out to be.
I disagree Kazaan, you can have different oppositions depending on stance.
Personally, I solve this problem in my games by just not allowing True Neutral, because, well, unless you are an animal, it makes no sense. Also, usually, people are tying to use TN to gain an advantage.
As is the case here, more or less.
The ability to get around a restriction.
You need better players.
I'm still interested in knowing Awesomenessdog, do the neutral gods simply not exist in your world? After all, they're not animals. Are Pharasma and Gozreh just lies?
Gozreh isn't really True Neutral—he's Deity Neutral. Deity alignments tend to be slightly off what they would be if they were mortal. Nethys and Gozreh, for instance, would be flat-out Chaotic Evil if they were treated like normal characters. ;D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gozreh isn't really True Neutral—he's Deity Neutral. Deity alignments tend to be slightly off what they would be if they were mortal. Nethys and Gozreh, for instance, would be flat-out Chaotic Evil if they were treated like normal characters. ;D
There's a great line in Dragonstar. "Sure the Gold Dragons are good. But they pursue good as a Dragon would, which is not the same point of view as a Human."
I'm still interested in knowing Awesomenessdog, do the neutral gods simply not exist in your world? After all, they're not animals. Are Pharasma and Gozreh just lies?
They exist, where was my comment that sparked this question? I have already answered twice. Where you looking at HWalsh's comment (", I solve this problem in my games by just not allowing True Neutral, because, well, unless you are an animal, it makes no sense.")?
1) There are absolutely neutral people who are simply the middle man.
2) There are also neutrals who don't want to start crap.
3) There are also neutrals who don't want Archon's and Demon Lords fighting them.
4) There are also neutrals who do want to fight Archon's and demons.
That is a small list of the infinite number of different types of neutral characters.
3 is encompassed by 2, 4 is a massive exception to what defines normal people (borderline CS), and I'm not sure what you exactly meant by middleman: do you mean a LN fights for justice, a CN fights for freedom, and TN fights for neither, or something along those lines?
Anything can be called "houserules" for alignment, a clear universal RAW isn't defined (Is NG opposed to CE?). So we move to RAI, which this is my view on what it is. Would you like to actually contribute to discussion or continue to attack an argument I didn't make?
While yes there are plenty of possibilities, it isn't what defines your run of the mill, average NPC who doesn't want to get involved with things: the majority of TNs.
No, you're generalizing again. It's possible that those people share the same goals, it's possible they do not. It's too vague to fall into your narrow definition.
Yes, RAW is very clearly defined. Neutral is very clearly an alignment choice for players and NPCs.
Stop deflecting.
@ Nawiex: I think that the position that Neutral has no opposite is supported by the rules, but your GM has imposed a reasonable house rule.
Playing a Neutral character is a way to get around a lot of mechanics in the game. Guy resisted your charm spell with protection from evil? Sorry, I'm neutral. Villains have smite good? Sorry, I'm neutral.
An aligned cleric has limitations on what creatures he can summon. Your Neutral cleric should be getting around this limitation through a loophole, but what your GM has done is restrict the allowable alignments of your summons to the alignments that a Neutral deity would allow. While this isn't RAW, it is a reasonable limitation, considering that your summon spells are granted by your deity in the first place.
Ultimately it ends up meaning that there isn't yet another exploit based on being neutral. And I think that's fine. With 5 out of 9 alignments to choose from, you still have more options than a LG or CE cleric.
Protection from Evil actually blocks all charm spells, not just those from evil casters. I've always thought it's a tiny bit overpowered as a spell, but not enough to really complain about it.
Protection from Evil actually blocks all charm spells, not just those from evil casters. I've always thought it's a tiny bit overpowered as a spell, but not enough to really complain about it.
"This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion."
Nope, just from evil casters.
Wait what
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HA!
EDIT: Oh, wait, I am evil still...
And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that spell and those pesky alignment details...
Yeah, there's no protection from pure neutral compulsion or your own alignment doing it to you.
No, you're generalizing again. It's possible that those people share the same goals, it's possible they do not. It's too vague to fall into your narrow definition.
Yes, RAW is very clearly defined. Neutral is very clearly an alignment choice for players and NPCs.
Stop deflecting.
I don't think you know what deflecting is. Moreover, generalizing is a part or logical reasoning, granted it has to be taken with a grain of salt.
I never said it doesn't exist, where have I said it doesn't? Where have not said "other possibilities exist" but this is what a majority of the population (NPCs+PCs) that are neutral fall under.
It's not narrow, it is the most common (version of neutral), which isn't even on the same comparison spectrum of "narrow".
Wait what
Just when you thought pathfinder had nerfed save-or-lose spells.... BAM huge neutral caster buff!
|
@ Nawiex:
Ultimately it ends up meaning that there isn't yet another exploit based on being neutral. And I think that's fine. With 5 out of 9 alignments to choose from, you still have more options than a LG or CE cleric.
Nop, i actually have less options than being LG or CE, because im limited to animals and elementals, and those clerics have access to them too. Almost every other option has 2 alignments involved, except for a few exceptions (that again are open for a wide variety of clerics, because of having only one alignment restriction). According to my GM i have my advantage covered by being able to prepare the four kind of protections (protection from evil, good, chaos and law).
I agree that those spells are OP when used against the right alignment, but a summon is more versatile since you don't have to specifically prepare "summon archon" like you do with protection from evil. To be able to do it right you need more skills/spells involved, and usually an specific spell prepared like protection from chaos is an easy target to transform to "cure" spell, because is not that useful unless you KNOW you are going to face a chaotic challenge.
Your GM is wrong from a RAW standpoint. If he wants to make that a houserule, then it's his game.
Elementals and animals are some of the most common and broadly useful summons anyway. I know my wizard usually went with earth elemental or big cats.
The only big losses from alignment extremes I can think of off hand are lantern archons (meh) and lillend azatas.
Elementals and animals are some of the most common and broadly useful summons anyway. I know my wizard usually went with earth elemental or big cats.
The only big losses from alignment extremes I can think of off hand are lantern archons (meh) and lillend azatas.
The lists limit themselves more than alignment ever would.