Downside of being neutral rather than good?

[Sqwonk]

I know there are many spells/SLAs that do less damage/effect if the target is not good. So why not always be neutral (paladins excluded)? Are there many spells/affects that you would lose out on for not being good?

Comments welcome.

[PossibleCabbage]

Really, the best reason to choose any alignment is "it fits the character you want to play better than any of the other alignments." If you write LG on your character sheet and act in every waylike an LG person, some people might have questions about your roleplaying.

But in terms of magical effects that hinge on alignment, there are roughly as many beneficial ones as there are negative ones, and choosing to avoid the downsides means you miss the upsides. But neither of these are common enough that you should pick an alignment for a mechanical benefit.

[Bob Bob Bob]

The spells that do less damage if you're Neutral? There are always two (maybe four?). One for both sides of the spectrum. Good makes you immune to one and take full damage from the other. Ditto Evil. Neutral takes half damage from both. So it balances out. Then there's Blasphemy and Holy Word. Those affect nonevil and nongood, respectively, so Neutral is taking the full brunt of both. In return they'd be immune to Holy Aura and Unholy Aura though.

So if it has less of an effect on Neutral then you're vulnerable to all versions of the spell (of which there are at least two). And there's a bunch of stuff that affects non<alignment>, which would hit Neutral every time.

Short answer, don't get between high level outsiders flinging around AoEs.

[Kileanna]

My character in RoW spent the whole AP avoiding damage (not often enough to call it an advantage) for being true Neutral instead of good. I even received a Smiting attempt from someone who couldn't check my alignment previously.

By the end of the campaign my alignment changed spontaneously to Good (the GM and I talked and aggreed that I had been behaving like NG for a while). I started taking full damage from evil spells and my character is still wondering why is she receiving so much damage lately. She hasn't got her alignment checked by an ally lately and she sees herself as a worse person than she is, so she'd be surprised when she realises.

From my experience you get affected by harmful effects based on alignment more often than benefical ones, so being neutral might probably be of some mechanical benefit.

But the interesting thing about an alignment is from a roleplaying point of view, so, as Possible Cabbage says, you should just pick whatever fits your character's personality best.

Unless there is a campaign heavily based on creatures with smiting abilities and similar stuff, the damage based on alignment shouldn't be too relevant.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

I am often neutral in games that use alignment, because I find alignment simplistic and irritating. It takes away from the actual verisimilitude of the game. Also, unless you're trying to do something specific (like sacred summons) there are mechanical benefits to neutrality.

But the best reason to do it is to express your moral compass as you see fit. If you have a good GM, this isn't an issue.

[Sqwonk]

I agree with the role-playing aspect of it. I was asking more with my GM hat on. Wondering what impact it would have to change Neutral to mean you are affected as both good AND evil rather than neither.

I usually don't pay much attention to alignment. The player plays the PC how they feel they would act. But we are in Book 5 of WotR and it is becoming a noticeable advantage for the two PCs who are neutral rather than good.

[Kileanna]

I haven't read WotR as I avoid spoilers just in case I play an AP.
But it seems like WotR would count as a game with a lot of alignment based effects, so I guess a neutral character might have some advantages combat wise.

[lemeres]

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

The spells that do less damage if you're Neutral? There are always two (maybe four?). One for both sides of the spectrum. Good makes you immune to one and take full damage from the other. Ditto Evil. Neutral takes half damage from both. So it balances out. Then there's Blasphemy and Holy Word. Those affect nonevil and nongood, respectively, so Neutral is taking the full brunt of both. In return they'd be immune to Holy Aura and Unholy Aura though.

So if it has less of an effect on Neutral then you're vulnerable to all versions of the spell (of which there are at least two). And there's a bunch of stuff that affects non<alignment>, which would hit Neutral every time.

Short answer, don't get between high level outsiders flinging around AoEs.

I don't think it balances out. I think neutral has the edge there,

I am just saying- I don't usually ahve both demons and angels aiming for my head. You usually only see the 'evil targeting good' versions. The good people can usually be negotiated with. At least, if you are not in an evil game (where rival, back stabbing schemers and righteous paladins are both enemies).

Of course, this depends on your GM. There are of course fine reasons for why an angel would try to attack you- maybe you are a key ingredient in unsealing an ancient evil, or you are protecting an item that could save your kingdom (but Heaven's rules prevent it from being in mortal hands).

But those are usually specific encounters, acting as midbosses or bosses. The bread and butter of the game remains 'evil enemies'.

[Java Man]

The two downsides I can think of are friendly fire from AoE holy zaps and the inability to use some aligned magic items. The unholy zap effects being less damaging is probably worth these downsides.

[The ə!]

{squints suspiciously}

[Bob Bob Bob]

Yeah, I didn't mean affected by both as a "you're fighting demons and angels". I meant friendly fire. The Cleric in my WotW game uses Unholy Blight specifically because they know it'll never affect the party. That one's at least targeted. Blasphemy/Holy Word just blast everything around the caster, no choice in the targets. Real easy to do friendly fire.

Honestly, it probably is an advantage to be Neutral (it certainly is for casting spells) but I don't think it's really a significant one. It's basically just Cleric spells and aligned outsiders that have the "only works this way for certain alignment" stuff. In certain campaigns (WotR) that might matter a whole lot. In others (Skull and Shackles) probably not so much.

[lemeres]

The ə! wrote:

{squints suspiciously}

The problem is that this reaction is entirely fair for CN.

A well known Cham-paggin connoisseur wrote:

I hate these filthy neutrals Kif! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me

[Taja the Barbarian]

Kileanna wrote:

I haven't read WotR as I avoid spoilers just in case I play an AP.

But it seems like WotR would count as a game with a lot of alignment based effects, so I guess a neutral character might have some advantages combat wise.

Yes, but someone in your party will be throwing Holy Smites and Holy Words around, and that can will get painful for the non-good fairly quickly.

Playing a good Aasimar in WotR, I ended up taking Worldwound Walker feat to save myself from the Unholy Blights, though it hasn't come into play nearly as often as I thought it would.

[thistledown]

More enemies really need to prepare Ardor's Onslaught. Finally something to deal with those neutrals.

[Imbicatus]

I once fought several antipaladins with my LN monk in a pfs scenario. It was very satisfying when they wasted their smite good on me.