Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being Yes, I see what you mean. We would definitely need to describe the characteristics of Entropy and apply them to meaningful in game actions.
I don't necessarily think we would need a flag, just that a flag like system represents whether you are or you're not aiding the cause of Entropy. It's like that fine line between robots meant to preserve and when they decide the nature of humanity prevents them from doing so. Main benefit of any kind of flag would just be so people can see what they're dealing with.
Ultimately I can't see much mechanical difference between a TN killing a TN that is Entropic and one that is not Entropic. It all winds up being meta at that point. We should either look at those actions that a TN would partake in that discourages the flourishing of life, or simply move on with TN being an Alignment hit across the board in the spirit of an Alignment Decay and their opposition consisting of ordinal Alignments in equal measure, though with less fervor than they have for each other, and a passing understanding with the four cardinal Alignments.
I love the idea of Life vs Entropy, but perhaps it is a system best measured in degrees in which case it should be left to the side of the table to be looked at again down the road.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
One point I would like to bring up is that while preventing entropy could be a valid TN activity, a TN character should be able to stay true neutral by skirting the lines between L, C, G, E. IE with the point system you mentioned you should be able to maintain TN by also balancing your actions between good and evil acts and lawful and chaotic acts. This is the way that I would be playing a TN character (even though I know I will end up being more lawful neutral :D)
N vs radicals works fine. So you stay n by knocking off LG and CE.
A true neutral or party that fought evil, then turned against the forces of good when they became too strong, wow, good gaming potential there.
Reminds me of galactic civ 2. I form a neutral coalition, good is thrashed by evil, we ally to defeat evil, crush it, neutral backs out of thewar. Good never stops and then very soon they become the problem, pushing planets around and exterminating those that aren't "good".
Had to kill every last one of them to stop the space wars, and then the neutrals that survived became the administrators of the formerly good regions. Calm down and drink some space tea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reactionary. You are proposing the true neutral seeks balance, the means to an end, but without mention of what that end might be.
It is one thing to seek balance, but balance isn't something in itself.
The Good struggle against Evil for the sake of Goodness and The Evil struggle against the Good for the sake of Evil. Chaos struggles against the Lawful because of the oppression of regulation and for Liberty, while the Lawful struggle against Chaos to bring order and peace to the lands.
I propose the True Neutral struggles against entropy, and for Nature. Part of the struggle against entropy is effort to establish and maintain balance between the natural forces of law and chaos and good and evil because those are characteristics of nature rather than opposites against nature. But leaving entropy faceless and empty is inadequate and incomplete. We can describe its characteristics as decay and disproportion, extinction of species, and even overpopulation.
So meaningful True Neutral actions would be to promote the diversity of species, nurture life in its variety, fight decay and depletion (such as clear-cutting forested areas rather than selective forestry), preserve endangered species, and combat overpopulation.
How can this be realized and measured in game?
Some of it won't be measurable to the game. But, for example, if there is an untended harvester camp it would tend toward depletion of resources so its destruction should increase neutrality. Thinning overpopulation in species is sound animal husbandry, so hunting could be a neutral-enhancing activity. And activites that tend to balance the power between the four primary aligments is also promoting true neutrality.
I suggest that the True Neutral should be considered different from merely unaligned.
Reactionary. You are proposing the true neutral seeks balance, the means to an end, but without mention of what that end might be.
It is one thing to seek balance, but balance isn't something in itself.
The Good struggle against Evil for the sake of Goodness and The Evil struggle against the Good for the sake of Evil. Chaos struggles against the Lawful because of the oppression of regulation and for Liberty, while the Lawful struggle against Chaos to bring order and peace to the lands.
I propose the True Neutral struggles against entropy, and for Nature. Part of the struggle against entropy is effort to establish and maintain balance between the natural forces of law and chaos and good and evil because those are characteristics of nature rather than opposites against nature. But leaving entropy faceless and empty is inadequate and incomplete. We can describe its characteristics as decay and disproportion, extinction of species, and even overpopulation.
So meaningful True Neutral actions would be to promote the diversity of species, nurture life in its variety, fight decay and depletion (such as clear-cutting forested areas rather than selective forestry), preserve endangered species, and combat overpopulation.
How can this be realized and measured in game?
Some of it won't be measurable to the game. But, for example, if there is an untended harvester camp it would tend toward depletion of resources so its destruction should increase neutrality. Thinning overpopulation in species is sound animal husbandry, so hunting could be a neutral-enhancing activity. And activites that tend to balance the power between the four primary aligments is also promoting true neutrality.
I suggest that the True Neutral should be considered different from merely unaligned.
Real good description of TN.
|
I would consider balance a to be something in of itself, even a goal.
That said, generally old folks are lawful and want things to stay the same, while young folks are generally chaotic and bring change, generally becomeing neutral through midlife (except for their crisis moments).
Good, in the game, actually represents the extreme, those who believe you should absolutly minimize death what-so-ever, not even criminals should die if can be helped, kind of people. Evil is never a goal unto itself, people who are evil are so because they are willing to sacrifice and kill anyone or anything for any reason, and there is always a reason, sometimes the reason being pleasure or because they were in the way, etc. Sometimes evil even believes itself to be acting for the greater good, having lost sight of the line between the two.
Good, places the community and life of others above oneself.
Neutral, acts for self but generally doesn't sacrifice others.
Evil, acts for self or an ideal, and destroys anyone/anything in the way.
Lawful, tries to keep things the same, and follows a rigid discipline.
Neutral, accepts change, but doesn't seek it.
Chaotic, constantly causeing change, either by seeking it, or simply by resisting the "stuffy" traditions.
That said I would also consider there to be a second catagory of true neutral, of people that absolutly believe in balance and seek it. I would be in this catagory. I would consider the opposite of this catagory, to be those who are true neutral through lack of being any extreme, rather then dedication.
The greatest majority of people are true neutral. Good and evil require a true dedication or absolute lack of caring, while lawful and chaotic are often phases for people who spend most the time in between.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DarkLightHitomi
This seems to assymetrical and unbalanced. Deities are integral to the gameworld. Evil and Good are not relative values, and Law and Chaos are more than indecisive conditions of those on the spectrum between good and evil. The greatest majority of people are indifferent, not True Neutral.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the problem with apathy, no one ever does nothing about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, Being, it is. Explicitly.
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.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am getting the impression that there are some Lawfuls who are comfortable locked into their habitual definitions and would rather not consider the merits of a different idea.
Have True Neutrals just always given up when confronted with incalcitrant opinions bound up in chains of tradition?
I am getting the impression that there are some Lawfuls who are comfortable locked into their habitual definitions and would rather not consider the merits of a different idea.
Have True Neutrals just always given up when confronted with incalcitrant opinions bound up in chains of tradition?
Maybe that's why Druids often live off in the woodlands ;) far from 'civilization'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can we please break this mental association between True Neutral and Nature/Druids? Druids do not own the TN alignment. You can just as easily have a fighter, or wizard, or especially a cleric who is devoted to balance in the world. They're not necessarily out planting trees and saving the endangered wild skunkpossum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Was that intended for me? If so, I'm not sure where you're going with it. You said that the apathy/devotion dichotomy isn't reflected in the description of True Neutral. I pointed out that it, in fact, is.
Apathy is certainly toward entropy I will admit. My chaotic rebel element gained ascendency for a moment. What I wonder is that the dichotomy has been left so underdeveloped that is is like a vestigial limb dangling weakly off the corpus of the alignment system. It has very little vitality to it, as if it were withered by the very apathy it opposes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can we please break this mental association between True Neutral and Nature/Druids? Druids do not own the TN alignment. You can just as easily have a fighter, or wizard, or especially a cleric who is devoted to balance in the world. They're not necessarily out planting trees and saving the endangered wild skunkpossum.
I just think of it in context with Druids is all. I fear there will be few who actually try and view TN as an achievement the way a Druid or Ranger would.
In fact it seems to me focusing on the Druid in terms of the Neutral is rather like focusing on Cleric for good or evil. Ranger should (IMV) be considered the Paladin of True Neutral.
Do we consider Paladin primarily for seeking understanding of the LG alignment? If we will stop treating Paladins as if they owned Lawful Good I can attempt to do the same with druids.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A wizard who's a follower of Nethys or a cleric follower of Pharasma is as likely to view the balance of True Neutral as a goal as much as any druid.
But I agree about Paladins. The alignment decisions should not be based on any particular class. It is LG that places restrictions on Paladins, not Paladins who define LG.
The main reason I brough it up was that all the discussion about what boosts TN was nature based, or involved inventing some new "entropy" alignment that doesn't exist in Pathfinder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yet it does make sense, wouldn't you reasonably agree, that the True Neutral would oppose something other than Good and Chaos and their antitheses? And if there are gods and goddesses favoring neutrality there would be a system of devotion thereto? And that if there is to be meaningful interaction available for the Neutral there would be directly opposing conflict rather than only oblique minor conflict? Neutrality should be more adequately represented instead of ambivalent and dithering. Neutrality should be caring, rather than apathetic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, I would disagree that it makes sense to invent some new aspect for neutral to be against. At that point, it is no longer neutral, it is anti-something. Active Neutral (to distinguish it from lack of commitment neutral) should be about working to balance the other, opposing forces. That means working good in the world when there is evil, and working evil when there is good. That isn't apathy, it's about balance and counterbalance. Passive Neutral (what you term apathetic) is a result of doing whatever comes naturally do you, and having it happen to balance out.
Edit to add: Caring neutral sounds more like Neutral Good to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see why Rangers would want to be True Neutral. In AD&D they were required to be any Good alignment. Y'know, when Druids were only True Neutral.
To be honest I asserted it for the sake of symmetry alone. It fit the argument I wished to present. I have no real counterargument, save that as a rule of canon, your argument is a strictly Lawful reading, to the letter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see why Rangers would want to be True Neutral. In AD&D they were required to be any Good alignment. Y'know, when Druids were only True Neutral.To be honest I asserted it for the sake of symmetry alone. It fit the argument I wished to present. I have no real counterargument, save that as a rule of canon, your argument is a strictly Lawful reading, to the letter.
Well, if we're going all meta about this, then the only way for PFO to handle this argument is to be purely freeform role-playing. Otherwise we need to look into Lawful rules to handle Neutrality. =P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just checking. Sometimes it can be hard to tell between Humor/Trolling/Bizarre Viewpoints on the internet.Keep in mind that Being is probably half senile. ^_~
I'm shocked. Shocked I say! Only half??? Listen you young pup if I do something I'm gonna do it right!
And get off my lawn! <waves cane menacingly>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just checking. Sometimes it can be hard to tell between Humor/Trolling/Bizarre Viewpoints on the internet.Keep in mind that Being is probably half senile. ^_~I'm shocked. Shocked I say! Only half??? Listen you young pup if I do something I'm gonna do it right!
And get off my lawn! <waves cane menacingly>
With Newspaper for feet, yes, yes. You told us that story last week, gramps.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I certainly don't view Entropy as an anti-neutral form of alignment, or as an added alignment or anything of the sort. I really don't think a 3rd axis has any place in the discussion.
Entropy for me is just an aspect of TN that seeks neutrality in the death of all things rather than the preservation of anything. Very simple to oppose for someone committed to staying alive.
The idea of TN being a force unto itself that pulled other Alignments back into it actually has a lot to do with apathy. If you don't care what you're doing, and don't go around being a murderhobo, you would likely wind up being neutral again before too long if all the TN stuff out there pulled you back that way, in addition to your other Alignment based actions being possibly counterproductive to each other.
If you DO care what you're doing, then you've got an active role in maintaining your Alignment whatever that might be. For TN that care, Entropy would represent a conflict. For those that didn't it would continue to not matter as its effect on them would simply drive them further into neutrality.
The real problem I see in this discussion is defining what Entropy represents, mechanically. Where it belongs, what kind of actions a player could take to engender the Entropic path, and by extension what mechanical actions an NPC would be doing to give players the cue necessary to understand the danger they represent.
The matter of clearcutting from a Druidic point of view is so very small in the grand scheme of things, it represents a lack of care for the land, in essence a lack of preservation, a very small point compared to the desire to end all things.
So lets try to take the 10,000 foot view on this, what is happening on the macro level that gives weight to the presence of Entropy. We can look at the micro to further define this once we have a clearer idea of what is happening.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
True Netural wizard 1: "Don't care about right and worng, don't care about order or disorder, just leave me to my arcane studies and advancement of magic. Oh and talk to my attendant liberian Frankle about the fees for a copy of latest research into the annotmy of the East bank root rummager parakeet, he keeps tack of those details as I'm too busy advancing magic to care."
True Netural wizard 2: "My divining Scales of Balance have tipped! The world needs a disrupting hero! Quick to the nearest hobbit hole! ..... Wait... Now I need to help train a new despotic tyrant... now a campion of justice... now an indie music band? What is going on in the world!
Chaotic Netural gnome rogue in hidden spot above wizard 2, yanking on clear fishing lines attached to the Scales of Balance.
You can have passive and active neutrality. It's just a question if the Extreme of neutrality. Are you neutral because you don't really take sides or are you neutral because you actively seek to thwart all other extremes when they gain an advantage over the other?
Both seem viable. Almost sounds like the need for a chartered company called "The guild of Active Balance" with the moto "We have our foot on the scales of morality and are not afraid to put weight on it!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I keep finding holes in my own ideas here.. decay and preservation themselves are two sides of the same coin. They are also a form of balance. So in what way can we measure someone's dedication to decay instead of a balanced approach between the two.. without some stupid meter or something =\
I think taking my own advice about the 10,000 foot view here reveals that what would be viewed as Entropic to a TN is CE (it both fosters change/death and the lack of interest in others' well-beings) and Preservation is LG (for the opposite reasons) .. which falls right back to us simply being the arbiters in between.
The fact that I thought Entropic should be a flag closely resembling Criminal itself should have been an indicator to this. ><
Still, the TN Alignment Decay system we came up with is completely viable here, whatever Entropy appears as. This just keeps it simple.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Typically "death of all things" "destroyer of all" types are CE, not some variant of neutral. Active agency (the thing generally required to have an alignment) taking actions to destroy is an evil act. For example, I cite the Destroyer in the Pathfinder Mythos, Rovagug.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it's less that lg is defined by paladins, but more that paladins are defined by LG.
I still say the point here is that alignments and motivations are not the same thing. Someone can be lawful good because they keep their head down and follow the law, and they do things the gods consider good. No particular conviction is required to be both lawful and good. Yes it probably means they are helpful people, but not commited to fighting evil.
The same goes for TN. A commitment to balance is a motivation, but someone who is not commited to balance can also be tn. Perhaps they simply don't care what the gods think, they're not cruel, they're not kind, they just do what they think is necessary and are uninterested in the problems of others.
There being gods means that someone who kills someone because they felt justified for whatever reason does not make them justified. If killing people is an act considered evil, then it is evil regardless of what the person thinks.
An argument could be made that a commitment to balance is lawful neutral, as it's about maintaining a state. Same motivation, different alignment. But that's mostly a philosophical point. Mechanically it would make a difference if it were decided commitment to balance was lawful, as it would change the actions for that alignment. I agree that tn balance for a Druid is less about balancing good actions against evil, and more about maintaining nature, so the alignment system doesn't seem to quit sit right with it. But a Druid can be any neutral, and true neutral isnt just for Druids and balance, so you can't build a while rule set for an alignment based around one alignment set for one class.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than try to track each alignment axis seperately, why not allow the player to specify an alignment, and then track only violations of the claimed alignment and atonements for those violations? The benefits associated with an alignment would be based on the violations and atonements, perhaps with extreme violations requiring long times and major sacrifices to atone.
Changing alignment in such a system would be problematic, but resolvable.