This came up in another thread, but it got me thinking. There is no Protection from Neutral spell in the core books, but should there be?
In 3.5, good/evil/law/chaos protection spells worked vs. neutrals anyway for 2/3 of the benefits. That changed in PF, and now all benefits are alignment specific.
Is it an oversight that you cannot protect yourself from neutrals, or is that intentional?
Is it an oversight that you cannot protect yourself from neutrals, or is that intentional?
I think it's very intentional. You can still protect yourself from neutrals in a variety of ways, but just not ways that focus on their neutrality.
"Neutral" is a lack of alignment more than it's really an alignment. Just as there's not a Heat Non-Metal spell or a Turn Non-Flesh to Stone spell, similarly there's not a Protection from Neutral spell, which would really be protection from an absence of alignment.
|
Is it an oversight that you cannot protect yourself from neutrals, or is that intentional?
I think it's very intentional. You can still protect yourself from neutrals in a variety of ways, but just not ways that focus on their neutrality.
"Neutral" is a lack of alignment more than it's really an alignment. Just as there's not a Heat Non-Metal spell or a Turn Non-Flesh to Stone spell, similarly there's not a Protection from Neutral spell, which would really be protection from an absence of alignment.
Just to be clear, your interpretation has no grounds in RAW. A neutral character is no less possessing of their alignment than a good/evil/chaotic/lawful character.
Also, the examples you use are slightly silly. Protecting against neutral covers 55% of alignments, protecting against the others is 33%, so it's more powerful, but not on the order of "heat non-metal" and your other examples.
I think the reason these spells were skipped is simply because they figure that characters who are neutral don't normally care about alignment, along with the fact that such "non-neutral" spells would be between 33% and 66% more effective (depending on whether they were anti-non-neutral, or pro-neutral) compare to their non-neutral counterpart abilities.
Is there such a thing as an "aura of neutrality" that clerics of, say, Irori emit?
|
|
Is there such a thing as an "aura of neutrality" that clerics of, say, Irori emit?
No. As written clerics who follow a neutral god do not get the effect of the aura ability. They themselves might still ping under detect after level 5 if they are non-neutral.
Pathfinder is really just not written with the idea of "emphasize neutrality" in mind. That's why there is no Detect Neutral, there is no Protection from Neutral, etc. If you want to add such things you'd have to go all out and add similar things for all alignment related stuff (such as following a neutral deity giving you an aura of neutrality). Balancing them would be hard, though, since the neutral/non-neutral ratio is different than the evil/non-evil ratio (for example).
Just to be clear, your interpretation has no grounds in RAW. A neutral character is no less possessing of their alignment than a good/evil/chaotic/lawful character.Is it an oversight that you cannot protect yourself from neutrals, or is that intentional?
I think it's very intentional. You can still protect yourself from neutrals in a variety of ways, but just not ways that focus on their neutrality.
"Neutral" is a lack of alignment more than it's really an alignment. Just as there's not a Heat Non-Metal spell or a Turn Non-Flesh to Stone spell, similarly there's not a Protection from Neutral spell, which would really be protection from an absence of alignment.
I agree that, mechanically, neutral is a definite alignment, yes. However, RAW does support that neutral often reflects a simple absence of conviction regarding a given alignment axis, rather than being a strong conviction towards neutrality.
And, as you've pointed out, this is mechanically supported as well not only by a lack of "neutral-aligned" spells and equipment, but also by a lack of an "aura of neutrality", a lack of neutrality detection, and most everything in the game representing neutral as defined by the absence of either of the two extremes.
With all this evidence, I think my interpretation has considerable grounds in RAW.
|
|
Just to be clear, your interpretation has no grounds in RAW. A neutral character is no less possessing of their alignment than a good/evil/chaotic/lawful character.Is it an oversight that you cannot protect yourself from neutrals, or is that intentional?
I think it's very intentional. You can still protect yourself from neutrals in a variety of ways, but just not ways that focus on their neutrality.
"Neutral" is a lack of alignment more than it's really an alignment. Just as there's not a Heat Non-Metal spell or a Turn Non-Flesh to Stone spell, similarly there's not a Protection from Neutral spell, which would really be protection from an absence of alignment.
I agree that, mechanically, neutral is a definite alignment, yes. However, RAW does support that neutral often reflects a simple absence of conviction regarding a given alignment axis, rather than being a strong conviction towards neutrality.
And, as you've pointed out, this is mechanically supported as well not only by a lack of "neutral-aligned" spells and equipment, but also by a lack of an "aura of neutrality", a lack of neutrality detection, and most everything in the game representing neutral as defined by the absence of either of the two extremes.
With all this evidence, I think my interpretation has considerable grounds in RAW.
If not for this paragraph under the description for Neutral:
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.
This exactly represents the idea of neutral being an extreme alignment (if so desired) and is one of the two possible "Neutral" characters described by RAW. I reiterate my claim that the lack of "Neutral" spells was more of a balance (or possibly legacy) issue than anything related to flavor.
Then again, unless the designer of the setting comes out and says how neutral is treated in Golarion we can't really be sure.
EDIT: And later stuff that does not have strong neutrality probably follows from this earlier lack of mechanical support for it.
If not for this paragraph under the description for Neutral:
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.This exactly represents the idea of neutral being an extreme alignment (if so desired) and is one of the two possible "Neutral" characters described by RAW.
That is one of the two ways a character can be "neutral", yes -- but as even you admitted upthread, almost certainly the minority one.
And even this position, while expressing a strong conviction, is still really expressing an opposition to holding any extreme position. That is to say, it's a conviction about avoiding any of the alignment extremes.
But at least you're agreeing with me that, mechanically, the entire game treats True Neutral as an absence rather than presence of an alignment.
Protecting against neutral covers 55% of alignments, protecting against the others is 33%, so it's more powerful, but not on the order of "heat non-metal" and your other examples.
One of the issues is that the same term is used for balancing good and evil, and law and chaos. I was imagining two spells, one to protect vs. those who have no bias towards good or evil, and one to protect vs those who have no bias towards law or chaos. It retains the 33% aspect of the other spells. I just don't know what they are called.
The thing that strikes me as strange is that pro from evil used to give you benefit vs. non-good, so there wasn't much use for pro from neutral. With the recrafting of the spell, neutral is left out. Seems like a hole that could be exploited.
|
|
Protecting against neutral covers 55% of alignments, protecting against the others is 33%, so it's more powerful, but not on the order of "heat non-metal" and your other examples.One of the issues is that the same term is used for balancing good and evil, and law and chaos. I was imagining two spells, one to protect vs. those who have no bias towards good or evil, and one to protect vs those who have no bias towards law or chaos. It retains the 33% aspect of the other spells. I just don't know what they are called.
The thing that strikes me as strange is that pro from evil used to give you benefit vs. non-good, so there wasn't much use for pro from neutral. With the recrafting of the spell, neutral is left out. Seems like a hole that could be exploited.
Be a neutral person summoning neutral things. Mwahaha! Nothing can stop you now!
|
|
If not for this paragraph under the description for Neutral:
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.This exactly represents the idea of neutral being an extreme alignment (if so desired) and is one of the two possible "Neutral" characters described by RAW.That is one of the two ways a character can be "neutral", yes -- but as even you admitted upthread, almost certainly the minority one.
And even this position, while expressing a strong conviction, is still really expressing an opposition to holding any extreme position. That is to say, it's a conviction about avoiding any of the alignment extremes.
But at least you're agreeing with me that, mechanically, the entire game treats True Neutral as an absence rather than presence of an alignment.
So they have a strong conviction against have strong convictions. What's wrong with that? It's still a strong conviction (that they evidently don't recognize for what it is).
Anyway, it's obvious that mechanics aren't there to back it up, that's the whole point of this thread. Neutral is this weird dead-zone, mechanically speaking, and it seems perfectly fine flavor-wise to fill it.
Creative Director
|
To a certain extent, "neutral" means no alignment. It's the lack of law, chaos, good, or evil that makes you neutral. That's why animals and other relatively unintelligent creatures are neutral—they're not smart enough to consciously make moral judgements or choices.
And since neutral means "no alignment," it's kind of hard to protect against or attack something that doesn't exist. Therefore, no anti-neutral effects or protection from neutral effects... and no pro neutral effects either.
(That said, I'm sure someone will cite an exception to that statement... but even so, the statement holds.)
|
|
To a certain extent, "neutral" means no alignment. It's the lack of law, chaos, good, or evil that makes you neutral. That's why animals and other relatively unintelligent creatures are neutral—they're not smart enough to consciously make moral judgements or choices.
And since neutral means "no alignment," it's kind of hard to protect against or attack something that doesn't exist. Therefore, no anti-neutral effects or protection from neutral effects... and no pro neutral effects either.
(That said, I'm sure someone will cite an exception to that statement... but even so, the statement holds.)
So either the statement in the description of Neutral about it being possible to be convicted to neutrality is wrong, or it just doesn't apply to Golarion. I find it hard to imagine being strongly tied to an alignment without it being an alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So either the statement in the description of Neutral about it being possible to be convicted to neutrality is wrong, or it just doesn't apply to Golarion.
... or it is possible to be strongly convicted to NOT being evil or good, just as the description you quoted actually says. The statement isn't wrong; you're reading it to mean more than it actually says.
Atheism isn't a religion. Even if you are strongly opposed to religions and convicted to atheism, that doesn't suddenly make atheism a religion; it's still a non-religion, the absence of religion.The same as true neutrals being actively opposed to good or evil is really them being actively tied to the absence of either extreme.
I find it hard to imagine being strongly tied to an alignment without it being an alignment.
Many people find it hard for someone to be strongly-opinioned athiest and still claim to not have a religion. And yet, it's true.
|
|
So either the statement in the description of Neutral about it being possible to be convicted to neutrality is wrong, or it just doesn't apply to Golarion.... or it is possible to be strongly convicted to NOT being evil or good, just as the description you quoted actually says. The statement isn't wrong; you're reading it to mean more than it actually says.
Atheism isn't a religion. Even if you are strongly opposed to religions and convicted to atheism, that doesn't suddenly make atheism a religion; it's still a non-religion, the absence of religion.
The same as true neutrals being actively opposed to good or evil is really them being actively tied to the absence of either extreme.I find it hard to imagine being strongly tied to an alignment without it being an alignment.Many people find it hard for someone to be strongly-opinioned athiest and still claim to not have a religion. And yet, it's true.
Actually, it's not. Belief, whether in a thing or in the lack of a thing, still triggers the same centers in the brain. Heck, being a devoted apple fan can trigger the religiously-associated areas of the brain. All it takes is strong conviction, regardless of the nature of that conviction or whether that conviction is based on rationality.
Also, your definition of atheism is wrong. You can have a religion (a system of beliefs) without that religion requiring a god. Atheism simply means "I do not believe in a god or gods." That's it. Atheism is not the anti-religion, just the anti-deity.
(DISCLAIMER: I am not saying Golarion would ever treat it this way, but I *am* saying it is perfectly reasonable to do in a custom setting.)
|
Creative Director
|
So either the statement in the description of Neutral about it being possible to be convicted to neutrality is wrong, or it just doesn't apply to Golarion. I find it hard to imagine being strongly tied to an alignment without it being an alignment.To a certain extent, "neutral" means no alignment. It's the lack of law, chaos, good, or evil that makes you neutral. That's why animals and other relatively unintelligent creatures are neutral—they're not smart enough to consciously make moral judgements or choices.
And since neutral means "no alignment," it's kind of hard to protect against or attack something that doesn't exist. Therefore, no anti-neutral effects or protection from neutral effects... and no pro neutral effects either.
(That said, I'm sure someone will cite an exception to that statement... but even so, the statement holds.)
Not wrong at all. You could look at it as being strongly convicted to be non-evil, non-good, non-lawful, and non-chaotic. That's strongly neutral in conviction. Doesn't mean that neutrality suddenly becomes something more than a lack of moral or ethical traits.
|
|
Not wrong at all. You could look at it as being strongly convicted to be non-evil, non-good, non-lawful, and non-chaotic. That's strongly neutral in conviction. Doesn't mean that neutrality suddenly becomes something more than a lack of moral or ethical traits.So either the statement in the description of Neutral about it being possible to be convicted to neutrality is wrong, or it just doesn't apply to Golarion. I find it hard to imagine being strongly tied to an alignment without it being an alignment.To a certain extent, "neutral" means no alignment. It's the lack of law, chaos, good, or evil that makes you neutral. That's why animals and other relatively unintelligent creatures are neutral—they're not smart enough to consciously make moral judgements or choices.
And since neutral means "no alignment," it's kind of hard to protect against or attack something that doesn't exist. Therefore, no anti-neutral effects or protection from neutral effects... and no pro neutral effects either.
(That said, I'm sure someone will cite an exception to that statement... but even so, the statement holds.)
Except that being convicted to the center is itself an ethical/moral trait. If it wasn't you'd be the "apathy" type of neutral who simply lacks conviction.
I guess my argument here is that the there are two "neutral"s. One is the lack of conviction to one side or the other, and the other is a strong conviction to the center. The former very much is a lack of moral and/or ethical traits, while the latter is the moral/ethical outlook that a balance in viewpoints is the best.
Good: Stealing is bad. Don't do it.
Neutral (Apathy): You probably shouldn't steal.
Evil: Heck yes, I'm stealing that!
Neutral (Convicted): Stealing is perfectly acceptable within a band of parameters that include ... and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic.
This came up in another thread, but it got me thinking. There is no Protection from Neutral spell in the core books, but should there be?
In 3.5, good/evil/law/chaos protection spells worked vs. neutrals anyway for 2/3 of the benefits. That changed in PF, and now all benefits are alignment specific.
Is it an oversight that you cannot protect yourself from neutrals, or is that intentional?
I find it being so limitating...
I say, "Protection True, x" (x being 1, 2, or 3, or whatever you think it right, working "against" every alignment ... is so gamebreaking?stripping protection from evil to base "bonus +2 to AC and ST", with no such things as hedging out psi or conjurations, well worthy of their single spell of "protection from" ...
I think it 1st or 2nd spell! to make it 1st, tone it down to +1 bonus...
but with it, along with "magic circle agaist...." I would place a "enhanced Protection True" (or enhanced protection x+y, to meet the new SpellLevel [range 1-9, obvioulsy])
these being my two cents of voice. :-)
Protection from Neutral
School abjuration; Level cleric 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
This spell functions like protection from evil, except that the deflection and resistance bonuses apply to attacks made by neutral creatures. The target receives a new saving throw against control by neutral creatures and neutral summoned creatures cannot touch the target.
There we go, problem solved.
A protetion from neutral spell is extremely boring and mechanicy, it is much easier to imagine evil being repelled by the power of good (or love if you are a hippy) than the power of neutral being repelled by.. anything that opposes neutral.. whatever it is..
The spell should be so that it draws upon your own conviction to repel whatever wants to harm you, same alignment has minimal effect, one step difference has moderate effect, opposed has strong effect.. that way it could be fairly balanced.
Atheism isn't a religion. Even if you are strongly opposed to religions and convicted to atheism, that doesn't suddenly make atheism a religion; it's still a non-religion, the absence of religion.
I'm not so sure I agree:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=798#comic
The problem with the Neutral alignment is that it really encompasses two dynamics. (omissis) ... these two types of Neutral alignment mixed up.
True, and there's more....
[me thinking]Protection from evil, law, chaos and good, all specifically focus and limit 1/3 of the alignments.
Boost it to include the other 2/3 and you have "Protection from generic enemies". What this could be, a spell of level of 2 or 3?
Well, let's proceed.
Divide and conquer- that is, there are 3/4 powers working here: deflect bonus to AC, bonus to Saving Throw, putting to sleep undue controlling mental powers, keeping away summoned creatures. Keeping the first one (maybe two, I have no problems with this), entitles us to bring back the 2-3-level "protection from generic enemies" to a more affordable 1-2 level spell.
the last 2 effects could well be (to me) spells in themselves...
I would terribly like this... I would like to allow it to an Abjurer (abjuration specialist) as the "Abjurer's deflector 1" as a 1st level spell, since he should be the master of protective effects (maybe a prerequisite of specialization is needed, to let all others continue with this protection as a 'powerful and empowered' protection as a 2nd level spell...).
Truth is protection from evil is a very powerful spell for 1st level spell, having it single out evil or good allows it to be more powerful than usual.
You could easily make a spell called :
Lesser Warding and have it only provide one of the benefits but against all alignments. A level 1 spell.
Warding, have it protect against two of the effects. A level 2 spell.
Greater Warding and have it protect agaisnt all three effects. A level 3 spell.
Warding Circle, Greater Warding in a 10' radius centered on the caster. A level 4 spell.
An abjurer should get benefits when casting abjuration spells, though that is sort off build in the class now, instead of providing energy resistance the deflection and save bonus could be increased by 1 at the abjurer's option.
I like where your head is at here Remco. And I like your wording. "Warding" is a much better sound than "Protection from Neutrality."
|
In my opinion, the fairest thing is to have Nuetrals count as an extreme Alignment, I think. Otherwise, playing nuetral, especially "true nuetral" offers a mechanical advantage, by being immune to certain spells/effects, and also significantly reducing them. Maybe like Clerics, a nuetral character needs to pick an alignment to count as for those purposses.
|
|
Protection from Neutral
School abjuration; Level cleric 1, sorcerer/wizard 1This spell functions like protection from evil, except that the deflection and resistance bonuses apply to attacks made by neutral creatures. The target receives a new saving throw against control by neutral creatures and neutral summoned creatures cannot touch the target.
There we go, problem solved.
Does it also apply against all non-Alignment spells, even if cast by a caster with an alignment?
Lesser Warding and have it only provide one of the benefits but against all alignments. A level 1 spell. Warding, have it protect against two of the effects. A level 2 spell.
Good...
Only one thing....
You say +2 deflect protection at first, adding the +2 to ST at second....
I think deflect adding something to ST... what about +1 deflect protection&+1 to ST at first, enhancing the two bonuses to +2 at second?
In my opinion, the fairest thing is to have Nuetrals count as an extreme Alignment, I think. Otherwise, playing nuetral, especially "true nuetral" offers a mechanical advantage, by being immune to certain spells/effects, and also significantly reducing them. Maybe like Clerics, a nuetral character needs to pick an alignment to count as for those purposses.
Perhaps Neutral being able to bypass the "Protection" spells is a sacred cow that needs serious review, but I happen to like it the way it is. On the one hand, if Neutral were to be able to be affected by Protection spells, you would need two spells to pull it off properly (Protection from Law/Chaos Neutrality, and Protection from Good/Evil Neutrality). To do otherwise would be to seriously overpower the "Protection from N" spell, relative to the existing spells.
Secondly, just as a Paladin can bypass Protection from Evil spells without difficulty, just as a Blackguard can bypass Protection from Good spells with no trouble, a True Neutral Fighter can bypass both. It's part of the design.
Not having Protection from Neutral spells means that there's always a hole in the magical wards... there's a way around the protections, no matter how good at it a person is.
I have Protection from Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil up! I'm safe from EVERYTHING!
Heh... CHARM PERSON!!!!