Have you taken a look at Treantmonks guides yet? They are on d20pfsrd.com, (among other places).
I really enjoyed playing a bard (half-orc greataxe-power-attacks) and you have lots of options. Everyone else in the group will love having you around.
Druids can be amazing even without summoning and animal companion. You can swap the animal out for the fire domain, and drop fireballs on entangled chumps!
Stuff
Have you looked into a bard? Just focus on being the party face, with plenty of buffs and skillz on the side. Use a whip or bow to keep yourself relevant in combat.
Meh i wish they were allowing at least the APG. Archetypes are nice.
If you are leaning druid, but are concerned about the lack of arcane magic, this might be an option, if you just want to be an unholy blaster. Take one level of sorcerer to get the elemental bloodline - choose water - then take all other levels as a druid with the fire domain. People underestimate (I almost wrote misunderestimate - damn you George W. Bush) the elemental damage potential of the druid, and with the water elemental bloodline, you can convert all that fire damage to cold damage, which is the hardest elemental damage type to get reasonable damage out of at low levels. Plus, creatures with fire immunity have cold vulnerability, and vice-versa.
Choosing the fire domain means you won't have an animal companion, and you certainly are not forced to spontaneously cast summon spells, so you don't need to worry about adding confusion to the melee situation. And you will have enough fire damage (or cold damage) spells and sla's to always have an offensive action at your fingertips.
An Inquisitor can make a great face.
Core rulebook only. I know it's a bummer. APG is like the other half of the core rulebook.
as above, play a bard. always fun to whip up a rousing song while everyone is being all serious battle mode.
also ask your GM if you can use other sourcebooks, it's usually a simplification factor and if you explain how you feel he might be willing to reconsider. at least for something like archetypes or the above mentioned bloodlines.
Build whatever damn character you want to play. After everyone is at the table you guys can figure out if you guys have any weaknesses and work to mitigate them as a group. Considering that you'll be playing at lower levels the bard will be just as much of a boon to the party as a wizard would be.
I agree with "Writer".
If your party needs an arcane caster and you want to do melee, then play a summoner so you can do both!
If you're truly stuck with just the core book then maybe consider another cleric and try to play it with a different spin.
Uh, I'd say go reread the aberrant bloodline for sorcerers. Their bloodline powers are pretty wicked.
Though that doesn't solve your problem about not really liking the arcane casters.
Take the druid: you don't have to take an animal companion, you can get a cleric Domain instead (short list of 'em). I recommend Weather.
Yeah, someone handed him the Advanced Player Guide while we were rolling up our characters and he was like 'yeah, no...let's keep it simple'. Were the advanced allowed, no issue...woulda just rolled a Flame Oracle (sick flavour to the character, nice damage out put...very posh imo).
Yea, that's a shame. Most people read the core rulebook, then read the APG, then say "why wasn't this in the core rulebook to begin with?" It really does happen just like that.
Oh, and to sate my curiousity, would you mind posting whatever character build you come up with? It's always nice to see other people's thoughts on class-building.
If the game is only going to 8th level you do really, really do not need an arcane caster.
Just play whatever you want to play.
|
Check out the Undead Sorcerer bloodline and put lots of points into intimidate? Use a scythe as your main weapon. You can be the creepy one who nobody's really sure about. :) Bonus points if you talk like Lurch.
Or just go to a different extreme: sorcerer, elemental bloodline fire, or else draconic bloodline red. All fire evocation, all the time. Blow stuff up real good.
Also: if you want to retain the mischievous feel of an arcane trickster while filling the role a full spell progression arcane caster, look into being either an illusionist or a transmuter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you play a sorcerer (with only core) i highly suggest the arcane bloodline, it's one of the best bloodlines in the core and it actually helps you with the arcane magic user thing.
Also don't try to blast with any character, blasting isn't going to do anything without at least the APG.
|
Bard -- if the rogue is a typical human TWF DPR min/maxer with dumped INT & CHA, you might be the only person in the party capable of making skill checks. Combat Expertise and Improved Trip (while using a whip standing behind a tank) keep you relevant in combat. Multiclass one level of fighter as soon as you have 4250gp, and buy mithral breastplate for awesome AC.
Stats: bards work best with everything mostly even, with most emphasis on CHA while WIS is a dump stat (and STR, if you avoid melee, or will be in a fast-advancing, cash-rich campaign where Agile weaponry is available).
Bards are great. It might be tempting to play a Magician archetype bard but I would go with the vanilla bard.
Bardic performance, especially inspire courage, will greatly help the party.
I would not play a Charisma bard but a dex bard. You are not a full caster but a jack of all trades.
Edit:
Str 12.
Dex 17 (15 + 2)
Con: 12
Wis 8
Int: 12 (or 10)
Char: 16
Str: Depends if you are using a cross bow or a bow. You can use a composite short bow. Long bow only gives you +1 to damage and isn't worth a feat.
As a human 10 int is fine. Me I like Int, but 10 is fine.
If you use a cross bow str can be 10 or 11. You want to be able to carry stuff, but you can go as low as 9 or even 8 if you use a cross bow.
BTW, Hafling might look good, but go human.
The favored class option giving you more spell know is fantastic and with only one arcance caster in the group you want it.
What does CC means? Crowd control?
If yes and if by crowd control you mean battlefield control then no the bards do not make better controlers than the wizards.
If it were me, I'd probably switch the emphasis from dex to cha.
I'm running a combat druid focusing on wildshape in a 7 player game.
This has my str higher than wis, which make for a more powerful wildshape.
However, it also means the save dice for my spells are low enough that no-one has failed in 6 levels, meaning I have to focus on no save or save for limited effect spells.
Your party will handle the combat, especially with the bard bonuses- I would suggest spending more time making sure your spells work.
Also, you will get your own bard bonus when you want to whip or shoot.
Most importantly- worry less about what class the party needs and more about what class fits your play style.
It doesn't matter how effective the character is if you don't like doing what it's effective at.
A two handed fighter with my stats and feats would deal more damage reliably than my druid does, but I have lots to do outside combat.
What does CC means? Crowd control?
If yes and if by crowd control you mean battlefield control then no the bards do not make better controlers than the wizards.
This is not necessarily true. In a group where role-play is valued over crunch, the Bard is the best battlefield controller. If the rest of the players are not quick to pull the trigger, the Bard has plenty of opportunity to turn potential combat situations into either diplomatic coups, or at the very least distract the enemy so completely that when combat does start, they are sitting ducks for the rest of the party.
From the reaction that the rogue player and one of the other players had to his question about dumping stats, I am guessing this is a role-play heavy campaign, and a bard will be king of the controllers.
...I'd ideally want him as CN for RP purposes and that alignment is considered 'too evil' for our group...which is retarded, if you ask me...if anything CN is the most flavourful of the alignments allowing you to walk whatever line is interesting...though CG isn't too too bad all things considered)...
I understand what you are saying, but I also understand where the GM is coming from. I have been in several and heard of several more groups where someone plays CN as just and excuse to be a complete @$$ hat and wreck the game.
"I'm insane, I'm unpredictable, I can do whatever I want, hey it's just what my character would do he doesn't care about what anyone else wants, etc..."I have seen it played very well. But I don't like it in my games either unless I know the players very well and am sure they can ALL handle it in a civilized manner and not destroy the game and group.
For example: in my current group, I have a player who I think could play the alignment very well and not wreck things. However, others in the group just assume anyone playing CN will do all those awful things and immediately start making plans to kill the character. So it will destroy the game even though the particular player could handle it intelligently.
|
I could see a party lacking a "full caster" type if they had a bard who put some points into Spellcraft, Knowledge Arcana, and Use Magic Device. :)
Like other folks said, not all the sorceror bloodlines are ultra lame. Abyssal and Celestial can be fun to play, and I really find Destined to be useful for those with the Dice Curse of Ultimate Betrayal(tm).
Sounds great, should be a very effective bard, and even more important, it is the bard you want to play. Keep in mind that if your party is fairly RP focused (and it sounds like they are, from your description), then they should be very compatible with the controller capabilities of the bard which are hard to pull off with a more combat-oriented group - such as bard-song fascinate, distraction, suggestion,charm person/monster, and bluff/diplomacy/inimidate (don't forget versatile performance if you don't put points in all 3).
Be "the Voice", even if the rogue is "the Face", and I think you will fit with the group very well, and you will all have fun.
... To Kydeem: Personally, I think the 'I'm insane therefore I do what I want' reading is vastly oversimplistic...
I happen to agree that there shouldn't be anything wrong with CN. It sounds like you are one of the players that can handle it well. Problem comes from the fact that alot of us have seen many more people that can't handle it. Wait until you and the group know each other better. If at that time you still think you, the other players, and the GM can all handle it bring it up again. Until then, I'd suggest CG (with just barely enough good to qualify). You can pretty much play it the same, but it doesn't usually cause everyone to groan and raise their hackles.
... ... All of them have feats I know my sorc would never end up taking ... At least two come to mind that have 'claw attack' type abilities which...why? How is that a good idea for the unarmored sorcerer? ... Abyssal and Celestial were pretty cool but why I kinda dropped them as potentially viable for my character is because they're summoning based bloodlines ... Abyssal suffers the same 'useless abilities' problem I mention above. What good are claws and strength bonuses to my caster save those situations where the caster can't help but get dragged into melee which most of the time are never gonna happen because one ought do everything possible to keep that from happening anyways? ...
I agree, some of the feat lists are odd. The aberrent attack ability is great to specialize in bunch of touch attack spell without quite getting into melee. Abyssal and Celesstial aren't really summon based, that is just one of its abilities and imo not even the best. The thing i like best about celestial is a bit of healing. Our group is usually low on healing unless I want to run the cleric, and I get tired of that after a while. The claws are good for 2 reasons. First, it isn't always possible to stay out of melee. Our current campaign seems to be mostly incorporeal and invisible creatures waiting in ambush. My wizard is getting pounded on in melee in almost 1 in 3 encounters. Second several people advocate taking 1 or 2 level in fighter, barbarian, paladin, or monk to up survivability even if you are not going to try for a melee build. I personally am partial to 2 levels of paladin for the massive saves. My wizard is constantly failing saving throws.
Destined is good for second chances to stay alive. Fey also has some kool abilities. I have not had a chance to play either yet, but considering it for my next char. Just a guess from the way you write, but you might like one of those if you are still considering sorc.
Now of course having defended the sorc, I'm going to contradict myself.
{I still think sorc is very good and you could probably get alot of fun out of it.}
I agree with some of the other posters.
1) Druid just don't take the companion option or use the SNA spells except for special situations. Can easily have the philosophy that the creatures of the natural world are not there to be your playthings. They should only be called on in extremis.
2) Bard with whip. Sounds like you want to have some combat capability too. And this would give you that plus amazing buffs and pretty good control spells. {However, I don't like being a buff bot.}
3) Witch. Kinda similar to wizard so you many not like it. However, some people really like the hexes to de-buff the bad guy constantly.
The elemental ability to switch the damage of any spell to my bloodline type is also pretty cool...but which to take? Inevitably, I know I'll pick the wrong one and end up utterly useless for most of the campaign.
Why so? Look at what energy spells are available, and then consider which is least used. That way, you cover all the bases. Also, consider crafting feats and staves.
I'm just...not excited. I feel like I'm basically...forced into this kind of role that I really don't wanna have. I've played casters before (albeit mostly in PC games as opposed to tabletops) and I'm less than keen about 'em. TBH, I really wanted to roll an Arcane Trickster focused on maximizing ranged sneak attack damage but given we've already got a ranger and a rogue...the only real use my character would be is in terms of casting in which case, may as well go full wizard which really isn't interesting to me at all.
This is your main problem. At the end of the day, play what YOU want to play. You will likely not please everybody with your choice if you are trying to fill out the party, so you may as well please yourself.
My best advice to you and your dm is to bring in the apg. The book itself expands the game so much that I don't think it's sensible to play without it. Of course I'm bias because half of my favorite classes come from the apg.
...regarding splashing fighter/barb/paladin...its funny, you're the first person I've encountered on these boards that is not utterly opposed to going the idea of not full caster ... One of the first objections in any thread about any of those kinds of PrCs is that 'you loose a caster level' and/or 'you lose out on the capstone'. If that's true, the 'taking a level of fighter for survivability' is gonna be subject to the same line of objection... Its just that it seems those levels of fighter types are, end of the day, gonna be irrelevant for your survivability (two levels of fighter averages out to 10 health whereas two levels of a caster averages out to 6; yes higher saves in fortitude which'd bring it to a +9 at the end of the game...but *really* that'll only help you v. save or die spells because all other spells/effects can be countered or cured by stuff someone in your party can probably do as a reaction anyway i.e. poisons, diseases)...
It is true, the number of people for it on these forums are much lower than the number of people against it. But there are some. For various reasons it can be a good idea sometimes.
- Some people don't lose out on the capstone because they weren't going to get it anyway. My current group has never played above 15the level and we usually stop sooner.
- Depends on GM and campaign. Some GM's and/or campaigns play the opposition more intelligent than others. Almost every PC group usually tries to take out the caster first. Why would an intelligent NPC not do the same? Some campaigns feature alot of encounters where it is difficult to protect the squishies.
- Depends on the PC group. Some groups are just very bad at protecting the squishies (mine is still in the learning process on this).
- Yes at high levels it isn't as necessary. It is much more of an issue at low levels. From levels 1-4 (and for a variety of reasons), my wizard was on deaths door at almost every other encounter. Now that we are around 5-6 level, I am only occasionally down and out.
- Some of those splashes are useful later than others. 2 levels of paladin should be giving a sorc (charisma) a +5 early to +10 late on all saves. The empyreal sorc/monk will be giving the same bonus to AC and a +2 on all saves. Those could be game changers at any level.
If we were restarting Carrion Crown, I would choose paladin 2 / celestial sorc after that. The whole first module would have been a lot more fun for me because I wouldn't have always been on the edge of death and using all my magic defensively. I would have contributed more to the rest of the group even with lower level spells becuase I could have used some offensively or used a bow. Also the goup would not have had to burn so much time and resources trying to keep my wizard alive. Levels 1-2 i was definitely a drain on the group. 3-4 broke about even. At level 5 i'm finally being a positive contributor.
...regarding splashing fighter/barb/paladin...its funny, you're the first person I've encountered on these boards that is not utterly opposed to going the idea of not full caster ... One of the first objections in any thread about any of those kinds of PrCs is that 'you loose a caster level' and/or 'you lose out on the capstone'. If that's true, the 'taking a level of fighter for survivability' is gonna be subject to the same line of objection... Its just that it seems those levels of fighter types are, end of the day, gonna be irrelevant for your survivability (two levels of fighter averages out to 10 health whereas two levels of a caster averages out to 6; yes higher saves in fortitude which'd bring it to a +9 at the end of the game...but *really* that'll only help you v. save or die spells because all other spells/effects can be countered or cured by stuff someone in your party can probably do as a reaction anyway i.e. poisons, diseases)...It is true, the number of people for it on these forums are much lower than the number of people against it. But there are some. For various reasons it can be a good idea sometimes.
- Some people don't lose out on the capstone because they weren't going to get it anyway. My current group has never played above 15the level and we usually stop sooner.
- Depends on GM and campaign. Some GM's and/or campaigns play the opposition more intelligent than others. Almost every PC group usually tries to take out the caster first. Why would an intelligent NPC not do the same? Some campaigns feature alot of encounters where it is difficult to protect the squishies.
- Depends on the PC group. Some groups are just very bad at protecting the squishies (mine is still in the learning process on this).
- Yes at high levels it isn't as necessary. It is much more of an issue at low levels. From levels 1-4 (and for a variety of reasons), my wizard was on deaths door at almost every other encounter. Now that we are around 5-6 level, I am only...
Wouldn't the Toughness feat at those levels be more beneficial? Or having the familiar that gives you 3hp, than to losing a caster level?
NOW, if you want a character who is proficient in all martial weapons and shields, or an exotic weapon with the bonus feat...go for it...
...Wouldn't the Toughness feat at those levels be more beneficial? Or having the familiar that gives you 3hp, than to losing a caster level?
NOW, if you want a character who is proficient in all martial weapons and shields, or an exotic weapon with the bonus feat...go for it...
...
Toughness feat would give 3 hp (I took the familiar that helps with fort save). I'd still have an AC of 12 or 13 (unless I burn my few spells on defense) and lousy saves. I was being hammered by failing saves as often as attack damage.
On the other hand 2 paladin levels would give: 4 hp at 1st level, another 2 hp average at 2nd level, can wear armor so AC 17 or 18 for those 2 levels, I could use a bow with a decent chance to hit (which would help more than acid splash i was usually using), I'd have a little bit of healing which our group was low on, and all saves would have been +4 to +6.
Is it for everybody or always better, no. Certainly not. But I would have enjoyed the first 1/3 of this campaign much more if I had.
(in my GM's infinite wisdom, he's ruled 'only good' alignments...which I think is lame as you only get flavour from the more neutral and under alignments...). So basically, Neutral Good...and that's a weak alignment in terms of RP value, imo.
This is generally a player's failing, not the GM's. A talented player can make a a solid and intriguing character of any alignment; any-Good still leaves a lot of room for varied concepts and themes.
I can understand why a GM would limit players in this way, though, especially with a large group. It's actually a very valid precaution.
|
i had a chance to read the first handful of posts but not all so if anything i write is redundant feel free to ignore it or skip ahead. you game has several melee characters in it but i have not yet discerned what there purposes are. are they cmb masters, charges tanks trippers or what. a handful of beaters and no tank leave a lot to be desired. also if you are limited to low levels then a lot of stuff can just be made up with wands not to expensive so umd could be a huge boon to any character you create.
one thing that i have taken from treantmonks guide is the importance of the group. a wizard wins a fight by putting his friends in winning positions, a bard by buffing the party and recruiting enemies to fight for you, and so on and so on.
people will want you to stick around and give you really shiny nice things if you buff them or save there butts. no class is better at this than the wizard. yeah yeah healers can bring them back from the brink of death but as a wizard you can make things happen so they never see the brink of death. haste protection from evil and resistance spells just to name a few. now what i have taken from this is you really like to role play, you have to be good, and for some unknown reason you do not like the most powerful (albeit difficult) classes in the game.
i have been a wizard for as long as i have played. sorcerers are a simplified version of a wizard who wont take time to do a daily spell list.
have you considered building a wizard to fit you?? choosing spells and feats that match your preference. i mean if you want to be a rogue then pick spells for disguise picking locks and being tricky. if you wanna fight invest in powerful abjuration and transmutation buffs.
use low level summon monster spells to give all your allies flanking. use wall spells to separate armies. make your rogue a wand of something cool and hell love you forever. take an item creation feat like arms and armor and all those melee guys will LOVE YOU and with no more xp component it'll save them THOUSANDS of gold and get better items. they will let the healer die before they let you get a scratch on your head.
again being a wizard at heart and on paper i implore you to take a stab at customizing a feat/gear/skill list with a back story and character to make him your own.
oh one more thing. you have a spell book. you can learn every single spell anyone is ever going to want. all they have to do is buy or find you the scroll and your golden. before you know it you will be the mind behind the face and the impulse behind the muscle. before your players know what happened there asking you what they should do and all you say is "have fun ill make sure it all works out". you are now a god with unbeknownst worshipers.
but if you don't have it in you to take the reigns of destiny and ride it tell its exhausted broken and eating out of your hand..... i guess roll a hippy ;-) (a.k.a. druid) or a zealot (a.k.a. enhancement style cleric of combat)
Good does not have to equal boring.
A good person does not have to be a nice person or friendly person. He/she can still lie from time to time, be manipulative and still be stingy.
Some of my Paladins have be real Jerks AND holding on to their money real tight.
Both FBI Agent Albert Rosenfield in Twin Peaks and Dr. Gregory House in House are two jerks from time to time and real funny.
Good does not have to equal boring.
And this is the fundamental point where we're not likely to agree.
Yep.
I'd hardly consider House to be 'Good' of any significant kind. What 'good' he ends up doing is incidental to him - he doesn't give a crap about the patient at all and their recovery is good to him only insofar as it means he solved the puzzle associated with their disease.Unless, of course, you side with Wilson and want to read levels of morality into everything House does...which I think is the more uphill battle.
You actually can side with Wilson, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up yourself.
Greg is just hiding the fact that he actually care about people. When he start caring for his patients he stops acting professional and think rational. Or at least that is what he seem to think. He manipulates and lies just to save someone, so he is more of a NG or CG person. As for not caring, I think Wilson's chat with Greg during Euphoria pretty much proved House does care. Even if you don't agree, House is just an example. You can create a character out of House and add some more 'good' to him and still let him be a complex, strange jerk, but with a heart.Regardless, Paizo view on alignment is different from 3.x. In Pathfinder a good person can be shady. He/She can even occasionally perform acts of evil.
A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are
represented by its alignment: [...]
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s
identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character.
Each alignment represents a broad range of personality
types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the
same alignment can still be quite different from each
other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
I think a CG or even a NG character can be fun. Even a grumpy LG. Sure a Neutral gives you more options and less 'straitjacket', but the rules are clear: alignment is not a straitjacket for restricting your character.
You and I probably won't change your GM, so you will play a good character. You might as well do the best you can and try to find a interesting angle to your alignment.
BTW, With cross bow you won't need str 14. You lose Manyshot but gain a better thread range. Better threat range is nice when you got Arcane strike, inspire courage, Good Hope, etc.
Too bad he won't let you use the APG. He really should. UC is also an nice book. It has the Discordant Voice feat. And don't pick Extra Performance. Once you reach level 6 o 7 you have all the round per day you need. With high charisma you will do just fine without Extra Performance.
I would probably start with 16 char and boost dex, but then I would probably play a hafling, human or half elf.
snark stuff
You are missing the point. I was trying to help you, not saying you are a crappy role player. We may disagree on House and on other stuff, that is fine. But if you ask for help and then respond in a hostile manner you won't get much help.
See, I don't want to go totally bard archer as we've already got our ranged damage covered. The 14 STR is to help out with the attack rolls on the whip trip checks. The bow is just really incidental damage that I'll be doing to help out whenever things are pretty much going our way already.
I actually think the whip idea is far from solid, and it will be less useful (or even useless) at higher levels. Having two archers isn't bad. Most players to focus too much on melee and forget range weapons. But if whip is what you really want, go for it.
As to the better threat range...I thought that threat range stuff only worked on 'naturals' i.e. my dice just rolled a 19, or a 20...which means things like the buffs don't matter (except for the confirmation roll)...?
I meant a bow crit on 20. With improved crit it is 19-20.
A cross bow has 19-20 and with improved crit it's 17-20.Greater threat range = more crits. More crits = More damage.
More damage per arrow also helps vs. damage reduction.
The buffs will not grant you a greater threat range but they will:
a) help to confirm the crits (inspire courage, haste, heroism or Good hope, etc.).
b) deal more damage (inspire courage, arcane strike , Good hope +2, etc.). If the base damage is high more Crits are more important. Using a cross bow (and getting more crits) can be as can as good using a bow (and getting less crits).
At level 11 you probably have a +3 weapon, so: Point black shot +1, weapon damage 1d8+3 + inspire courage +3 and arcane strike +3 and Good hope +2. If you chose to use deadly aim the base damage is even greater.
If you don't plan to invest in many shot, the crossbow isn't a bad idea. If you plan to pick many shot and the rest of the archer feats, then it does sound like you are building an archer.
BTW, Deadly aim is a great feat but don't use it every time.
Even if Good hope and Heroism doesn't stack you should probably have them both. Having heroism always on will help you a lot if you don't have the time to cast good hope in every battle. Later levels you can get a wand with Heroism and swap it out from your list.
Use magic device is your friend. There are a lot of useful spells to help you out.
The good and righteous types of characters assosciated with the 'good' alignment always or, at the very least, *almost* always, come off as naive and exceedingly shallow in every major piece of literature, comics, cinema, and television I've ever come across.
Wow. I have no idea what sort of films, TV, comics and literature you have been exposed to, but it certainly has nothing to do with most of the stuff I have seen.
'Good' has a HUGE scope for characterisation. One feature of Good characters is a huge awareness of their own failings, they very rarely think of themselves as being virtuous. Many evil people have considered themselves to be very virtuous indeed; Tomás de Torquemada considered himself to be virtuous and righteous as he grimly tortured and executed those he considered to be heretics.
Good people wrestle with their consciences. They are not naive - in fact an old saying is: "Evil is constantly surprised by Good, because it fails to appreciate that Good does not preclude being clever." There is a tendency for Evil people to also think that they are not, in fact, evil, they justify their actions in that they think they are clever, seeing opportunities that others do not, or that these people are 'hoodwinked' by societies rules intended to keep them down.
Good people can have the same character flaws as evil and neutral ones. They just put other people first when the crunch comes, is all. Good people do not have to charge blindly into danger, or donate all their spare cash to orphanages - if you want to do good in the world, martyring yourself is a bad way to achieve it. Looking after your own life is important if you want to help others, because if you die, or have insufficient resources to help when called upon, you will not be able to achieve much.
NG, the alignment my Druid would have effectivley been restricted to (and the particular Good alignment in question I was referencing), seems the most lame of the bunch. The description just seems...empty. 'Virtue for virtue's sake', basically. And that is simply not a real motivation for any kind of remotely real person.
I've met a lot of people I would call that, actually, making it very much a real-world stance. Neutral good is someone who doesn't need a code or rule book to want to do the right thing, but doesn't feel free to do whatever they feel like either.
I can see that you are reading the alignments looking for motivation, but actually the motivation is in the character. If you've ever felt good about helping a friend out of a jam, you have experienced 'virtue for virtue's sake'. To the neutral good person, there's no reason any decent person shouldn't be a friend of theirs - and that's really all there is too it.