Except by choosing to smite only one type of person you are no longer neutral, you are no longer committed to the balanced path but to punishing one specific path.The way I see it (and apparently the designers agree) smiting is something that involves conviction. Neutral is a decided lack of conviction, you aren't committed to destroying evil, you are perfectly willing to sit aside and let it happen. From the rules -> "She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality."Excuse me, sir. You dropped the second half of that rules entry.
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.Now explain why that kind of person couldn't be universally opposed to uppity aligned folk and smite them silly.
For the record, the case made by Nyarai is a strong supporting argument for allowing Philosophically Neutral Inquisitors the ability to smite *all* non-Neutral alignments, and an attempt to refute it by clinging to the proposed mechanics of a single chosen alignment is an elaborate dodge of the question of why TN Inquisitors shouldn't be able to Smite things.
Let's approach the proposition of a Neutral Inquisitor smiting Evil from a different angle: Rather than the "Force for Balance" neutrality, suppose that the posited Neutral Inquisitor loathes evil of all sorts, but is not particularly interested in "doing good" - he loves nothing more than smiting devils and undead and the like, and while he always charges off to kill the Demon, he demands to be paid for his services afterwords, and doesn't give a damn about non-evil suffering ("Gee, there's a famine, that's a crying shame. Bring me another beer! ... What?! No, I'm not going to donate any of my hard-won booty to your piddling charity, I need that cash! ... You want me to do something about it? How much are you offering, I don't work for free..."). Definitely a Neutral character, definitely holding strong convictions about the need for Evil to die, but not behaving in a particularly Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic manner. He's anti-evil, but this fails to automatically qualify him as Good. (In support of my contention that one can be anti-evil without being good, I reference the Church of St. Cuthbert - granted it's a LN organization, but under the "one alignment step" rules, there can and are many TN Clerics of St. Cuthbert who are dedicated foes of Evil without being Good-aligned.)
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a non-Good person could still have strong enough convictions against Evil to fuel a Smite.
Returning to the Philosophically Neutral Inquisitor, perhaps the reason he chooses Evil as his Smite targets is because he sees Evil creatures as posing the *greatest* threat to the Balanced road, and thus sees the need to strike forcefully at Evil moreso than at Good, Law, or Chaos. (The same argument can be made for the other three alignments, naturally, explaining why some TN Inquisitors would choose one alignment and others, another.) Also, just because the TN Inquisitor can't Smite Chaos, because he chose Evil as his Smite feature, doesn't mean that he lacks conviction in his opposition to Chaos, and his selection of Evil doesn't necessarily mean that he is any less opposed to the supremacy of Good, just that he feels the greatest threat to Balance comes from the forces of Evil. Surely that should provide him with sufficient conviction to fuel his Smites?
|
So... this guy, just likes killing demons, he's all over demon killing, but wants money when he's done? Sounds really dedicated to demon hunting to me. I'm a god and I'm passing out holy smites, I only have 10 so am I gonna toss it down to this guy here who's a true evil hating ass kicker, or to johnny 2 bucks who only hunts when the money is right?
I would suggest ranger is a better choice for your demon hunter; a class that's dedicated to hunting one specific type of creature. No divine stuff or sticky alignments to get in your way.
So... this guy, just likes killing demons, he's all over demon killing, but wants money when he's done? Sounds really dedicated to demon hunting to me. I'm a god and I'm passing out holy smites, I only have 10 so am I gonna toss it down to this guy here who's a true evil hating ass kicker, or to johnny 2 bucks who only hunts when the money is right?
I would suggest ranger is a better choice for your demon hunter; a class that's dedicated to hunting one specific type of creature. No divine stuff or sticky alignments to get in your way.
Are you even listening to yourself anymore?
So... this guy, just likes killing demons, he's all over demon killing, but wants money when he's done? Sounds really dedicated to demon hunting to me. I'm a god and I'm passing out holy smites, I only have 10 so am I gonna toss it down to this guy here who's a true evil hating ass kicker, or to johnny 2 bucks who only hunts when the money is right?
I would suggest ranger is a better choice for your demon hunter; a class that's dedicated to hunting one specific type of creature. No divine stuff or sticky alignments to get in your way.
Demons, Undead, Devils, Aberrations, etc. (Perhaps in service to a Neutral deity who also dislikes Evil?) And note that I said that he kills the evil stuff first and then asks to be paid for his services, rather than offering his services for hire only for the right price. He's a dedicated foe of Evil but he's going to ask to be paid directly rather than hoping for a reward afterwords. If there's no Evil to be fought, regardless of other good that could be done, he'll ask about payment up front. If the person he'd been talking to had said "Well, I don't know about payment, I just wish that someone would stand up to the evil Vampiric Vizier who caused it all..." my hypothetical guy would be out of the tavern in an instant, possibly causing a sonic boom (and deafening everyone on the premises) in his haste to confront the Evil Bad Guy behind the famine. Because he and his church find Evil to be bad news. But when he comes back with the corpse of the Vizier, he'll totally ask again about payment - if no payment is to be had, he'll be out of luck, but for sure he won't revive the Vizier. He's the sort of guy who, if he's in a city that an opposing army is marching against in a land war between Lawful Neutral nations, will zark off to deal with (kill) a Lich in the mountains he hears about, even though that Lich might have been willing to defend the city and his own presence among the defenders could have saved lives. Totally not a Good character; but for sure a dedicated Inquisitor. The Lich scenario especially sounds a lot like the actions of an Inquisitor of Pharasma, since the dead from the battle at the City could be viewed as a Plus on top of the destruction of a major Undead creature.
Could that be done as a Ranger, sure! But the class provides for Neutral Inquisitors, and it strikes me that there is thematic support for giving the Neutral Inquisitor the ability to choose a Smite-alignment. Regardless of the feasibility of another class option to attain similar in-character abilities, why shouldn't the Inquisitor class offer this potential? This is the question that matters, and that has not been answered to my satisfaction as of yet.
As regards your supposed God handing out Smites, exactly who would Pharasma, for example, be giving smites to other than Inquisitors, and if she gives smites to NG, LN, NE, and CN Inquisitors who are all one step away from her own Godly alignment, why would she withhold Smites from those Inquisitors who most closely match her own moral compass?
Returning to the Philosophically Neutral Inquisitor, perhaps the reason he chooses Evil as his Smite targets is because he sees Evil creatures as posing the *greatest* threat to the Balanced road, and thus sees the need to strike forcefully at Evil moreso than at Good, Law, or Chaos. (The same argument can be made for the other three alignments, naturally, explaining why some TN Inquisitors would choose one alignment and others, another.) Also, just because the TN Inquisitor can't Smite Chaos, because he chose Evil as his Smite feature, doesn't mean that he lacks conviction in his opposition to Chaos, and his selection of Evil doesn't necessarily mean that he is any less opposed to the supremacy of Good, just that he feels the greatest threat to Balance comes from the forces of Evil. Surely that should provide him with sufficient conviction to fuel his Smites?
Also, with respect, I'm still interested in this case that you have conveniently ignored in your above-quoted reply, sir.
|
|
Demons, Undead, Devils, Aberrations, etc. (Perhaps in service to a Neutral deity who also dislikes Evil?) And note that I said that he kills the evil stuff first and then asks to be paid for his services, rather than offering his services for hire only for the right price. He's a dedicated foe of Evil but he's going to ask to be paid directly rather than hoping for a reward afterwords.
So make up your mind, does he fight evil for money, so he's just a picky mercenary; or does he voluntarily fight evil because he hates evil? Because the picture of a guy who runs out and fights evil then looks for payers doesn't make any sense at all.
If your guy goes out and fights evil when he sees it without knowing he's getting paid in advance then he's good. If he's a mercenary then he's neutral.
Look at it another way, if someone is a doctor and they go out and battle disease and plague regardless of compensation then they are a force for good. If that same doctor won't leave his house without knowing he's getting paid then he's neutral. Neither one of these guys is going to go out and fight evildoers because it's not what they do.
If you do nothing but fight evil creatures you are a force for 'good' and not neutral at all. Just because he doesn't mess with plagues doesn't mean anything, the doctor isn't swinging a sword either. People aren't 2 dimensional cardboard cutouts, you can be good without being 'good' in all aspects of your life.
And with all due respect if you want me to reply to some specific point I suggest you keep your posts on one point rather than straying all over a bunch of topics.
|
|
Returning to the Philosophically Neutral Inquisitor, perhaps the reason he chooses Evil as his Smite targets is because he sees Evil creatures as posing the *greatest* threat to the Balanced road, and thus sees the need to strike forcefully at Evil moreso than at Good, Law, or Chaos. (The same argument can be made for the other three alignments, naturally, explaining why some TN Inquisitors would choose one alignment and others, another.) Also, just because the TN Inquisitor can't Smite Chaos, because he chose Evil as his Smite feature, doesn't mean that he lacks conviction in his opposition to Chaos, and his selection of Evil doesn't necessarily mean that he is any less opposed to the supremacy of Good, just that he feels the greatest threat to Balance comes from the forces of Evil. Surely that should provide him with sufficient conviction to fuel his Smites?
The entire concept of a balance warrior by it's very nature implies that he is equally willing to fight good should the need arise. He's also equally committed to stamping out too much organization or too much anarchy. So yeah, the balance warrior by nature lacks conviction because tomorrow he may well be fighting on the other side.
Personally, the whole concept is goofy. As far as I know there no analogies of this sort of person in the real world, nor can I recall any examples of this sort of person in fiction. Maybe you have some examples of a 'balance warrior' that I can hang the concept on? I'm pretty blank on it.
Demons, Undead, Devils, Aberrations, etc. (Perhaps in service to a Neutral deity who also dislikes Evil?) And note that I said that he kills the evil stuff first and then asks to be paid for his services, rather than offering his services for hire only for the right price. He's a dedicated foe of Evil but he's going to ask to be paid directly rather than hoping for a reward afterwords.So make up your mind, does he fight evil for money, so he's just a picky mercenary; or does he voluntarily fight evil because he hates evil? Because the picture of a guy who runs out and fights evil then looks for payers doesn't make any sense at all.
If your guy goes out and fights evil when he sees it without knowing he's getting paid in advance then he's good. If he's a mercenary then he's neutral.
Look at it another way, if someone is a doctor and they go out and battle disease and plague regardless of compensation then they are a force for good. If that same doctor won't leave his house without knowing he's getting paid then he's neutral. Neither one of these guys is going to go out and fight evildoers because it's not what they do.
If you do nothing but fight evil creatures you are a force for 'good' and not neutral at all. Just because he doesn't mess with plagues doesn't mean anything, the doctor isn't swinging a sword either. People aren't 2 dimensional cardboard cutouts, you can be good without being 'good' in all aspects of your life.
And with all due respect if you want me to reply to some specific point I suggest you keep your posts on one point rather than straying all over a bunch of topics.
A character is capable of performing Good acts without attaining a Good alignment; in this case, his engagement of Evil may very well be a Good act, but his general apathy towards the suffering of others keeps him from being a Good character - nowhere did I indicate that the slaying of the Vizier would address the famine, for example. What about a doctor who goes out and battles disease and plague regardless of foreknowledge of payment but with the *expectation* of getting paid? Suppose the doctor sweeps into town, sets up a Clinic tent and at the end of his stay, sends out bills to everyone for his services? At no time does he make any kind of statement that he's giving away his services, and if asked will freely disclose his expectation of payment, but he treats everyone he can. When asked for a donation to the local orphanage to improve conditions, though, he declines. When told that his patients can't pay, he tries to negotiate some non-monetary reimbursement, and will accept IOUs to be claimed at a later date.
Turning your own argument against itself, you say thht one can be Good without being good in all aspects of one's life. I challenge you that the same goes for Neutrality: One can be Neutral without the necessity that all of one's actions be Neutral.
You said, above, "If you do nothing but fight evil creatures you are a force for 'good' and not neutral at all." By this logic, some Devils OR some Demons are Good, since all they do are fight evil creatures. (You are familiar with the Blood War, I trust - given the literature published about it, I think that it's fair to say that there are a number of Demons and Devils whose sole occupation is fighting Devils or Demons respectively.) Obviously, they can't *both* be good, but by your logic, whichever group is Evil, the other group must be Good, which is nonsense.
My Dread Necromancer character is Lawful Neutral; I have his backstory as that of a person who has been gifted with a knack for the powers of Darkness who uses them to advance the agenda of Good. Animate Dead has the Evil descriptor; casting it is manifestly an Evil act. Yet he does so as often as he finds it necessary, apologizes to the disturbed spirits (if any), and often makes tithes and offerings to various Good gods. He supports an orphanage (and often has one of his skeletal minions deliver the weekly budget) and collects the fallen bodies of his undead minions to re-bury them with the appropriate rites and rituals once he no longer needs them. The Paladin in the party is wholly mystified at how my character doesn't register as Evil and how he has not Fallen from the association with my character, but our quest continues. My character is not Evil, but does Evil things; my character fights Evil foes but is not Good.
The point is, and has remained, the question: what is it about the conviction "necessary" to fuel an Inquisitor's Smite that precludes a Neutral alignment? All of my remarks have been attempts to contribute to this theme, and to elicit answers about and further clarification of the position that the Smite ability demands an alignment other than True Neutral.
As regards your flippant dismissal of my suggested Inquisitor character who kills Evil first and demands payment second, the character doesn't fit into the two options you've presented; just because you find the character's behavior silly or irrational shouldn't prevent you from reaching a determination about what his behavior says about his alignment. He kills evil things and is unmoved by the suffering of the innocent. To me, that sounds like it fails to meet the guidelines presented for a Good character:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. ... Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
My sample Inquisitor doesn't do that, even though he does fight Evil creatures.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
My sample Inquisitor, in spite of the fact that he does risk his life to fight and kill Evil creatures, lacks the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. He's not killing the Evil creatures to protect the villagers, he's doing it for some personal reason. The acquisition of personal power, the spread of his name and story, the observation that it usually pays pretty well, any of these could motivate him. Since he's not motivated by a desire to protect others, his actions don't seem to me to be particularly deserving of a Good alignment, regardless of the fact that sometimes his actions do protect others. In the example of the Lich that I cited in my last post, his actions against an Evil creature actually could have cost innocent lives.
I've provided several cases that, to me, seem to support the perspective that Neutral Inquisitors should be able to Smite. You raised the point that Smiting implies a necessary conviction; I believe that I have addressed that need while maintaining a True Neutral alignment. That said, I continue to be interested in the opinions of others both in opposition to and in accord with mine, for it is through an honest exploration of the differences of opinion regarding these subjects that a better understanding of the nuances of the game may be obtained. ^_^
Returning to the Philosophically Neutral Inquisitor, perhaps the reason he chooses Evil as his Smite targets is because he sees Evil creatures as posing the *greatest* threat to the Balanced road, and thus sees the need to strike forcefully at Evil moreso than at Good, Law, or Chaos. (The same argument can be made for the other three alignments, naturally, explaining why some TN Inquisitors would choose one alignment and others, another.) Also, just because the TN Inquisitor can't Smite Chaos, because he chose Evil as his Smite feature, doesn't mean that he lacks conviction in his opposition to Chaos, and his selection of Evil doesn't necessarily mean that he is any less opposed to the supremacy of Good, just that he feels the greatest threat to Balance comes from the forces of Evil. Surely that should provide him with sufficient conviction to fuel his Smites?The entire concept of a balance warrior by it's very nature implies that he is equally willing to fight good should the need arise. He's also equally committed to stamping out too much organization or too much anarchy. So yeah, the balance warrior by nature lacks conviction because tomorrow he may well be fighting on the other side.
Personally, the whole concept is goofy. As far as I know there no analogies of this sort of person in the real world, nor can I recall any examples of this sort of person in fiction. Maybe you have some examples of a 'balance warrior' that I can hang the concept on? I'm pretty blank on it.
I remember reading an old 2nd Edition source book that addressed in detail the question of how Druid PCs could justify continuing to adventure with a predominantly non-Neutral party and allow their comrades to do all these Good acts (in 2nd Ed., Druids *had* to be TN, that was the only alignment available, and they were all required to be the sort of militant Balance advocates that this perspective hinges on). The source book suggested that, rather than taking a very local perspective of Balance, the Druid and the DM work together to ensure that the sense of the world justified the (usually Good) actions the Druid participated in. Admittedly, this is an exceptionally artificial mechanism and one of the reasons that the alignment restriction was relaxed for 3rd edition, but at the same time is it really so hard to imagine that in the big picture, a particular alignment axis represents the largest threat to Balance? (I mean, especially Evil, what with the burgeoning masses of festering Evil that typically infest the landscape of your typical game setting...) One of the major problems underlined with respect to the Militant Neutrality worldview by this 2nd Ed sourcebook was the tendency of the Druid to think local, not global, and it feels like that is the sort of thinking that you're approaching this from as well, with your implication that the TN character could be switching sides on a daily basis. In general, people who switch sides on a daily basis tend not to experience many days in which to switch, and it is for this reason that most Militant Neutrality proponents elect not to switch sides very frequently, but will perhaps send for another character dedicated to Militant Neutrality to counteract whatever imbalances the first character might be provoking.
As far as a concrete example of a Balance Warrior... I admit that I am also drawing a literary blank. The Moonshae Trilogy and the Druidhome Trilogy by Douglas Niles may provide some insight, but that's a guess. Most of my perspective on the TN alignment comes from Complete Druid (the 2nd Ed. sourcebook that, among other things, addresses the True Neutral alignment as it pertains to Druids, but could be interpreted as pertaining to anyone holding that worldview, Druid or not).
I wish I could provide a solid literary example, but I've played a number of "Balance Activist" characters, many of them Druids, and not felt odd about the characters. <shrug> The gist of the message that I got from the reference materials about being a Balance Activist, though, was that the motivations that stirred my characters to action were broad and far-reaching, and not significantly subject to change on a day-to-day basis, so that my convictions for Balance on a global scale justified my actions with Good consequences on the local level without jeopardizing my alignment. (Or in the one case, justified my actions with Evil consequences on the local scale without jeopardizing my alignment.)
rule 0 and or house rule it if you dislike it so much...carry on