|
In direct opposition to the idea of a "balance in all things" neutral character, the Pathfinder system treats neutral as the LACK of alignment, rather than a true alignment.
A spell that targets neutral would have to be targeting "not good" or "not evil" rather than neutral.
Why? Why cant it target indecision? Or people on the fence? And I dont just mean pathfinder- also D&D.
Target those in balance .
Because, as I said, the systems treat neutral as a LACK of alignment, rather than an alignment in-and-of itself.
You could make a spell that only affects people who are "Not evil or good" or "not chaotic or lawful", but you can't make one that targets "neutral" because neutral is not a thing, it's a lack of a thing. You have to target the lack of a thing.
It's not a position I necessarily agree with, but that's the position I've seen expressed and the way the system is written.
I tend to think of philosophies adhering to strict balance (not the bugnuts insane 1e druid balance, mind you) to be lawful, not true neutral. I agree with neutral being 'unaligned' rather than balanced.
Has anyone actually seen a 'balance' philosophy that made the slightest bit of sense?
I tend to think of philosophies adhering to strict balance (not the bugnuts insane 1e druid balance, mind you) to be lawful, not true neutral. I agree with neutral being 'unaligned' rather than balanced.
Has anyone actually seen a 'balance' philosophy that made the slightest bit of sense?
Not at all, but our world does not have good and evil as actual definable things in the same sense that fantasyland does. I guess the belief that something bad would happen if any one alignment had to much of an advantage might have some merit, but only if the universe is made of up the alignments, which seem to be the suggestion. In that case maybe the universe would cease to exist, at least as it is known, but that should be stated so that the outsider devoted to neutrality actually have more of a place in the game.
Has anyone actually seen a 'balance' philosophy that made the slightest bit of sense?
Would “Moderation in all things“ count as a philosophy? "Take only what you need" could be another one for neutrality
Also I would be against any spell/ability that attacks just Neutrality, there are quite simply way too many things for it to effect (the majority of the various races, plant and animals. elementals, druids…eh forget the druids).
The objective presence of tangible good and evil has let me do some fun things with philosophically-minded characters.
Such as questioning whether good(tm) is actually 'good' or whether it is merely a label a group of gods have granted themselves and by extension the acts they approve of.
This is partly inspired by the discourse between Socrates and Euthyprho (see the Euthyphro dilemma).
Ok, as we all know there are tons of spells out there that target good/evil or law/chaos.
Sure, I've even found a few of such spells have lesser/secondary effects against neutral alignments, but I'm sure most of you agree its pretty weak.Doesnt there exist any spells that are specifically directed at the Neutral axis? Like the with (x) effect (whether bad or good) to creatures with Neutral on either side of the axis (Neutral/% or %/Neutral) and double effect on Neutral/Neutral creatures. With no effect on LG,CG, LE, or CE creatures.
I can see farmers contracting casters to design such spells (like protection from Neutral) with the original intent being to keep out predators and vermin. (since all animals are N/N by default) With other applications of keeping away lesser undead and such.
Or hunting traps (smite neutral?) to catch a bear or something and you dont wanna risk kids playing in the woods and being injured on a traditional bear trap.
Or even like those magic weapons with alignment enchants...
Say, an evil sword bestowing 3 negative levels on good creatures and 1 negative level on neutrals, vice versa for good weapons and law/chaos etc.How about a Neutral aligned magic weapon? Bestowing 1 negative level for NG, NE, LN, CN, and 3 neg levels for characters with no Neutral axis.
There are spells that will affect "all nongood" or "all nonevil," though they're less common. It's because of this that I've seen TN alignments taken for RP reasons as well as minmax reasons.
It's probably only historic precedent that they don't exist, and something like that could be fun to develop within a campaign if it fit that campaign's theme. Perhaps a druid-centric world, or man v. nature?
|
|
I take True Neutral alignment with characters for one of two reasons:
1) I haven't settled on a strong personality and will shift when one appears.
2) The character just does whatever seems like a good idea without being particular good, evil, lawful or chaotic. They won't screw people over because that gets you labeled and people stop helping you, and help friends because they will help in return, but they don't help everyone because it's not in their best interests to do so (the ROI isn't good enough). They use logic where planning is possible, but are willing to resort to instinct when the chips are down.
In short: They aren't good enough to be good, evil enough to be evil, lawful enough to be lawful, or chaotic enough to be chaotic, so they end up at true neutral for lack of a better place to be.
Magic Circle of protection from evil will help when trying to bind neutral outsiders but that's all I got.
i won´t repeat the reasons why this doesn´t exist in the rules.
accepting the broad premises of those reasons, I /do/ think it would be reasonable to tweak the rules to allow a Neutral sub-type of Outsiders, but only for True Neutral Outsiders. That makes it a WEAKER choice, statistically, for Favored Enemy or Bane, but given ´Alignment Exemplar Outsiders´ it seems plausible enough? Stuff that targets ANY creature with True Neutral, much less ANY Neutral component Alignment? No way. ;-)