PDA

View Full Version : Tests of Neutrality?



Brauron
2009-09-09, 12:16 AM
In my campaign, it's about to shift into Quest Mode. The PCs are going to stumble upon the BBEG's plot to find and destroy the Seven Keys of Balance -- seven artifacts of neutrality which exist to balance the universe -- ensuring neither Law, nor Good, nor Chaos, nor Evil ever holds too much sway. I'm kind of going with a Michael Moorcock-esque universe here.

The PCs will also quickly learn that if "champions of balance" collect the artifacts (which are scattered across the multiverse) they can use them to bring about an incredible age of peace and prosperity. Hint Hint, the PCs should go after the artifacts.

To find the artifacts, they first have to find the map showing where they are -- and this map is concealed in the Tomb of the Last Champion of Balance, who hid them all away.

The Tomb is going to be a dungeon crawl guarded by constructs and elementals, mostly -- very neutral things. The main challenge of the Tomb though is three Tests of Balance. These are major puzzles to be solved in order to prove the worth of any who would enter. I'm thinking of things akin to the booby-traps guarding the Grail in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Now, I naturally can't use those specific booby-traps as the players know how to get through them.

I was wondering if anyone could recommend good puzzles and solutions. The only one I've come up with so far would be the final one before reaching the Last Champion's crypt:

A huge iron door engraved with the words "Only those who trust completely in the balance may pass", the door flanked by statues holding large platters. The door won't open unless the PCs disarm completely, placing every weapon they carry on the platters. I'm not happy with the phrasing just yet, it will be reworked until the solution can be figured out from it without just giving it away.

Any ideas for two more?

chiasaur11
2009-09-09, 12:20 AM
A series of yes or no puzzles where the only way to pass is consistant "maybe"s.

Swordguy
2009-09-09, 12:25 AM
Question 1: If you die today, what message do you want carried to your wife?

a) I love you
b) Remember me always
c) I'll come back and haunt you
d) Hello.


If you answered (d), you're neutral.

Yukitsu
2009-09-09, 12:28 AM
"Would you drown a kitten if it meant saving the world? Explain your answer."
"There are no threats to the world in your immediate vicinity. What do you do, and why?"
"You are offered a devil pact for overwhelming power. Do you accept it? Why or why not?"

Reasoning behind answers is always more relevant than the answers in isolation.

Milskidasith
2009-09-09, 12:30 AM
I don't know how to answer the question in the title, but my gut says maybe.

Human Paragon 3
2009-09-09, 12:36 AM
Have one of the rooms trap the players in a seemingly no-win situation. There's no way out of the room, except by pressing a button at the bottom of an enchanted pool. Scribed on or near the pool is a warning that whoever enters the water must die.

But there's no other way out of the room.

Eventually, the group must do the nuetral thing, which is to fairly choose a member to go into the water and press the button. If they do this, the person who went into the pool is instantly True Res'd and they can move on, getting the awesome stuff.

If they use an unfair method (such as bullying or forcing somebody into the pool) then instead they are expelled from the tomb and get no True Res for their dead ally, who turns to dust in the water a'la Destruction. Note that one PC volunteering is a fair method. Putting a summoned creature into the pool, however, is not, and will end in the creature dying (not returning to its home plane) and the party being expelled from the temple.

You may want more specific instructions or none at all available in the room depending on your group. This is a serious test of neutrality, one I'd leave for the very last test.

Could this get out of hand? My gut says maybe.

Grynning
2009-09-09, 12:52 AM
... Putting a summoned creature into the pool, however, is not, and will end in the creature dying (not returning to its home plane) and the party being expelled from the temple...

umm...this seems to me to be exactly the right solution from a "neutral" character. If their logic is "ok, summoned creatures can't be killed on this plane, so using one is the safest and least morally subjective thing to do" that's pretty darned objective and neutral sounding to me. Why punish them for being smart instead of using something as arbitrary as a volunteer or random selection?

My own suggestion: Have them stumble upon an illusion depicting a monstrously evil creature in conflict with an angelically good one (preferably using examples already established from the campaign, for bonus points, have them be enemies/allies they've faced before, the idea being that the illusion is drawn from their own minds). Have the situation be plausible, so it's not immediately obvious that it's an illusion. The creatures both appeal to the players for aid, both giving logical reasons as to why victory for one would lead to horrific consequences for the players/the world/etc. The logical conclusion is to destroy them both (as leaving either alive would cause the consequences to occur). Helping one or the other fails the test. It seems a bit obvious, but if you make the critters persuasive enough it could be a tough choice for the characters, especially depending on their own alignments.

If you don't want to involve combat, have the two beings fighting over an item, with the solution being to destroy the item so neither side gets it. If you want to cut out the illusion bit, have it be stone statues depicting the creatures, each with a place that looks like it would hold the key (a shiny gem or something else found in the room). Of course the solution is just break the key.

chiasaur11
2009-09-09, 12:55 AM
Have a engraved stone with the words "What makes a man turn neutral?" on it.

random11
2009-09-09, 01:17 AM
That depends on the specific goals of the champion.

What exactly are the forces of good and evil (or law and chaos) trying to achieve?
In what way does making sure non of them win improves the world, and what are the expectations from the champion of balance?

I can think of two examples from books:

1) In the fourth book (http://www.fetchbook.info/reviews.do?search=9780451458926) of the Dresden Files series , the winter and summer courts are on a constant war. While in some ways, the summer is considered to be the "good guys", balance must be kept because regardless of who wins, the world will be destroyed.


2) In a trilogy that starts with Star Ascendant (http://www.fetchbook.info/reviews.do?search=9780812551754) by Louise Cooper, there is the side of law and the side of chaos. Only one of the two groups of gods can rule humanity, but non of the two are actually good for humanity.

Rixx
2009-09-09, 01:38 AM
Question: "Does the path of true balance come from intentions of Good or Evil?"

Answer: "No."

Godskook
2009-09-09, 01:55 AM
There are 4 tests of neutrality, not 3. Specifically:

1.Would you be 'good' for 'evil' purposes.
2.Would you be 'lawful' for 'chaotic' purposes.
3.Would you be 'evil' for 'good' purposes.
4.Would you be 'chaotic' for 'lawful' purposes.

On the 'good'/'evil' issue, D&D morality is based partly on the idea of selfish/selflessness, and it is in that area that we can find 'evil' purposes, hopefully.

Test 1:

This will be the hardest, as I've yet to come up with a way of being selflessly selfish.

Test 2:

Again, this'll be a little hard. The next two are easy though, promise.

Test 3:

You're presented with a child, and told four things:
1.He's an immortal child, incapable of self-defence
2.If he ever fell into the wrong hands, that person could commit horrible atrocities.
3.The man you hear coming down the hall is one such 'wrong hands'.
4.Due to X, they can not use the child's power.

If they attack the man, they fail. The 'correct' answer is to kill the child, as that is the only way to guarantee success(or, use the version in LFG).

Test 4:

You're presented with an opponent you must defeat, but told he's too strong for your current party. A hated nemesis of your party is shown, and offered as an ally for the fight. Acceptance of the offer passes the test.

---------

I'll think about the first two, and if I come up with something, I'll get back to you.

random11
2009-09-09, 04:12 AM
One more thing, be careful not to enter the realm of "stupid neutral (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidNeutral)".
If the champion is expected to behave in a way that was parodied in Futurama, you're probably doing it wrong...

Fixer
2009-09-09, 07:38 AM
Some of the best puzzles would be based around balance and counterbalance.

Have four rooms, each with a collection of items within it, keyed to a single door to the 'treasure'. Keep track of what items are in which room. If the players enter a room, it always falls a little (due to their weight) but not enough to do damage. This should alert them to something unusual.

The items in question are weighted such that each is valuable (making the players want to take them) but each belongs within a certain room. Once the characters figure out what goes in each room, they then return to a central chamber and try to open the door. Only if all the rooms are balanced will the final door open, and all the outside rooms seal shut (to maintain the balance).

If the characters attempt to take anything from the rooms out of the 'dungeon', the item dissolves and marks that character with a particular curse to be unable to enter that dungeon again (and make it a hard curse to break for the PCs level). The item is then recreated within the room it was originally found via magic.

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-09, 07:43 AM
One room's floor has a ball joint at the centre, causing the room to tilt depending on how much weight is put on each side. The trick is to have the characters stand in certain places in order to fix the floor into the right nooks so that the door opens-

Oh, wait, not that sort of balance? Okay, never mind.

Zen Master
2009-09-09, 07:49 AM
Question 1: If you die today, what message do you want carried to your wife?

a) I love you
b) Remember me always
c) I'll come back and haunt you
d) Hello.


If you answered (d), you're neutral.

I'd go with:

a) I love you
b) Remember me always
c) I'll come back and haunt you
d) Have a nice day

Because, just because I'm actually neutral and don't give much of a damn about your day, I can still at least be polite about it.

Zen Master
2009-09-09, 07:50 AM
One room's floor has a ball joint at the centre, causing the room to tilt depending on how much weight is put on each side. The trick is to have the characters stand in certain places in order to fix the floor into the right nooks so that the door opens-

Oh, wait, not that sort of balance? Okay, never mind.

How about a plate that tilts according to your alignment tho? Dunno quite how to play it, but it could be good fun. Send in the CE guy, see what way it tilts - so ok, the LG has to stand opposite of that. Or something.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-09, 08:04 AM
The PCs will also quickly learn that if "champions of balance" collect the artifacts (which are scattered across the multiverse) they can use them to bring about an incredible age of peace and prosperity.
That doesn't sound very neutral ... that sounds good. Is it supposed to be their intention to destroy the balance the artifacts seek to preserve just as much as it is for the BBEG?

Mongoose87
2009-09-09, 08:05 AM
That doesn't sound very neutral ... that sounds good.

They should have to hide them, to prevent said era.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-09, 08:13 AM
They should have to hide them, to prevent said era.
That would be a test of neutrality :)

lsfreak
2009-09-09, 08:35 AM
That doesn't sound very neutral ... that sounds good. Is it supposed to be their intention to destroy the balance the artifacts seek to preserve just as much as it is for the BBEG?

Agreed. Reword it from "peace and prosperity" to an era that is neither constant, brutal war nor the slow, deadly stagnation of absolute law and rigidity. It is a balance of good and evil, law and chaos (note that balance does not mean equal parts, but enough to be balanced; law and evil could "weigh" more than chaos and good, for example).

This might mean that one of the tests is to put the players up against other heroes in order to maintain the balance. If they are after a balance of the axises they must be willing to fight all sides if one or two of them are gaining too much power. For example, local clergy and a small branch of "crusaders" (for lack of a better word) of a good god are well-liked by almost everyone, but their strict adherence to the law has the beginnings of stagnation, and they discourage and sometimes react violently to new ideas. The players must find some way of dealing with this problem; of course, the crusader branch will resist by every and any means possible (which could be used to the player's advantage, if they're smart, by befriending the people and showing them how bad Law can be).

Ending the authoritarian views of the village in any way gets them neutrality. Ending it without harming any of the villagers themselves gets them bonus. Managing it without harming anyone gets them crazy-awesome-treasure for being so neutral that they bring others to neutrality rather than balance Law and Good with more Evil and Chaos.

JeenLeen
2009-09-09, 08:35 AM
That doesn't sound very neutral ... that sounds good. Is it supposed to be their intention to destroy the balance the artifacts seek to preserve just as much as it is for the BBEG?

I think it can be neutral.

A LE person can create an era of peace and prosperity (for those he cares about). A LG, NG, or CG era of peace and prosperity would differ vastly.

If the items create said era by maintaining that no other force upsets the balance – perhaps by sealing off the aligned realms (at least to a degree—that would cause clerics of all alignments to be foes eventually) – then it can be a neutral objective. Everyone likes the world how they like it, and for most people that is peace and prosperity. How it occurs and is maintained seems the key.

Grumman
2009-09-09, 08:43 AM
Something people should keep in mind: a test that rewards a suboptimal solution where the alternatives don't cause harm (to anyone undeserving of that harm, anyway) is not rewarding neutrality, it's rewarding stupidity. A test of neutrality should determine that (1) they don't sacrifice their own well-being if there are reasonable alternatives, and (2) they don't sacrifice the well-being of others for their own benefit.

Fixer
2009-09-09, 10:34 AM
Peace is not a "Good" concept. Peace is simply not having to worry about fighting. All alignments want it, because it means various things for them.

For Good it means a lack of evil and violence. For Evil it means a lack of anything powerful enough to threaten. For Lawful it means all beings living in harmony. For Chaos it means complete and utter personal freedom.

ZeroNumerous
2009-09-09, 10:44 AM
Test 1:

This will be the hardest, as I've yet to come up with a way of being selflessly selfish.

"I'm donating my kidney. Because I want you to live. Because I don't want to live alone."

Selfless: Donating a kidney. Selfish: "I want you to live for me, not you"


Test 2:

Again, this'll be a little hard. The next two are easy though, promise.

"I infiltrate the local constable's office as a law-abiding, well-mannered, helpful and respectful officer. When he shuffles off I immediately murder all the deputies and disband the position of constable."

Lawful Good: Being law-abiding, well mannered etc. Chaotic Evil: Your end result.


Test 3:

You're presented with a child, and told four things:
1.He's an immortal child, incapable of self-defence
2.If he ever fell into the wrong hands, that person could commit horrible atrocities.
3.The man you hear coming down the hall is one such 'wrong hands'.
4.Due to X, they can not use the child's power.

If they attack the man, they fail. The 'correct' answer is to kill the child, as that is the only way to guarantee success(or, use the version in LFG).

A) He's immortal. Can't be killed.

Actual Answer: "I cast Dominate Person." "I cast Imprisonment."

Evil actions, good purpose.


Test 4:

You're presented with an opponent you must defeat, but told he's too strong for your current party. A hated nemesis of your party is shown, and offered as an ally for the fight. Acceptance of the offer passes the test.

A) Told =/= Shown.

Answer: Accept his help. At the end of the fight, when he's tired and exhausted, challenge him to a duel to the death. If he refuses, accept his decision and tell him you gave him a chance before casting Disintegrate.

Chaotic actions, Lawful result.


-------


I do believe I have passed. When I get the keys, I destroy them anyway. Because I was actually Chaotic Evil the entire time. :smalltongue:

The Neoclassic
2009-09-09, 10:49 AM
"I infiltrate the local constable's office as a law-abiding, well-mannered, helpful and respectful officer. When he shuffles off I immediately murder all the deputies and disband the position of constable."

Lawful Good: Being law-abiding, well mannered etc. Chaotic Evil: Your end result.

Some of your ideas are good, but this one strikes me as not. At all. The beginning actions are mildly LG, but the end actions are very CE. Being polite is less good than murder is evil. I mean, by that logic, a person who did that would be neutral, which clearly isn't the case. Chaotic evil people are perfectly capable of deception, including stretches of acting like normal citizens.

OK, I shouldn't be bringing this into an alignment debate, so sorry about that. I just... wouldn't think this idea is really neutral. The kidney idea is good though.

EDIT: Also, many people don't use "End justifies the means" sort of morality, or even a neutralizing approach. Many DMs in fact would say that using evil actions to attain good intent is, in most cases, evil. There can be misguided LE individuals who think they're doing things for the greater good in committing terrible acts.

ZeroNumerous
2009-09-09, 10:58 AM
OK, I shouldn't be bringing this into an alignment debate, so sorry about that. I just... wouldn't think this idea is really neutral. The kidney idea is good though.

Ironically, his tests are not about being neutral.


1.Would you be 'good' for 'evil' purposes.
2.Would you be 'lawful' for 'chaotic' purposes.
3.Would you be 'evil' for 'good' purposes.
4.Would you be 'chaotic' for 'lawful' purposes.

I did Lawful Things for a Chaotic Purpose.

On Evil:

Again, Evil Things for a Good Purpose.

Whether it's actually neutral or not is irrelevant as it fulfills the criteria of the test adequately. Plus it showcases just how silly the alignment system really is.