Book of Neutrality: why not?

[Isamu Dyson]

Why did Wizards never put out a Book of Neutrality in the same vein as "Book of Vile Darkness" and "Book of Exalted Deeds"?

[Spore]

While moral gray area is exciting in a story it is entirely bland in a philosophical view.

[Kazyan]

How would you even market it, for one?

[Necroticplague]

While moral gray area is exciting in a story it is entirely bland in a philosophical view.

Neutral doesn't have to be a grey area. It can equally as much be about balance, which would be very interesting philosophically, especially in a world where all the extremes exist in a physical way, but the middle does not usually.

[ArqArturo]

How would you even market it, for one?

What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?


EDIT:


Neutral doesn't have to be a grey area. It can equally as much be about balance, which would be very interesting philosophically, especially in a world where all the extremes exist in a physical way, but the middle does not usually.

Could we also go with the LN and CN axis, or just True Neutral? Either way, a Book of Balance would more likely to be a rough text written in a stone book, written in the deep, cavernous depths of an old mountain temple, forgotten by time, and only the most resolute of adventurers would go to look upon it, and read the first book written in the Material Plane, and fill their minds with true Balance.

[Menzath]

My friends and I joke that it would be called
"The Book of Apathy"
Not many player characters seem to be true neutral and last for very long in D&D is the big issue I think. I think that the adventure mentality that a lot of characters get is just not conducive for the alignment, it just doesn't mesh/flow in a lot of ways.

I mean Bards, Barbarians, Monks, and paladins all specifically state that they cannot be true neutral.
And again from a player point of view, it can be tough, when do you follow the law and not break/ignore it, when do you save the monsters and not kill 'em.
The alignment Axis means you have to walk a lot of fine lines to stay True neutral.

[NichG]

It needs a more verbose title than 'Book of Apathy'...

How about 'The Book of Ineffable Meh'?

Actually, that brings up something interesting. Good has its 'exalted' characters, evil has its 'vile' characters... What adjective would one use to instantly communicate 'epitome of neutrality'?

[Vanitas]

It needs a more verbose title than 'Book of Apathy'...

How about 'The Book of Ineffable Meh'?

Actually, that brings up something interesting. Good has its 'exalted' characters, evil has its 'vile' characters... What adjective would one use to instantly communicate 'epitome of neutrality'?

'Boring'? :smallbiggrin:

[Big Fau]

Because no one cared enough.

I'd have been more interested in a Law Vs Chaos book, with additional Inevitables and Slaadi.

[ArqArturo]

Actually, now that I recall, I do remember that in both books, when explaining the Good/Evil Regalias, they mention a Regalia of Order.

[Jeff the Green]

Because no one cared enough.

I'd have been more interested in a Law Vs Chaos book, with additional Inevitables and Slaadi.

The Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds are supposed to be artifacts that exist in the game word. That wouldn't work for Law and Chaos the Book of Eternal Order weighs literal tons because it's etched in adamantine tablets miles high and the Book of Ineffable Chaos avocado kidney bubble yahtzee!

[Menzath]

and the Book of Ineffable Chaos avocado kidney bubble yahtzee!

Charlie Day?

[Isamu Dyson]

Because no one cared enough.

I'd have been more interested in a Law Vs Chaos book, with additional Inevitables and Slaadi.

The Book of Neutrality would encompass Lawful Neutral, Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral.

[Zhentarim]

Add it to your game

[Captnq]

Why did Wizards never put out a Book of Neutrality in the same vein as "Book of Vile Darkness" and "Book of Exalted Deeds"?

Some people look at the way things could be and say, "Why?"
I look at the way things could be and scream, "GET IT OFF ME! GET IT OFF ME!"

Why? Because it's dull. It'd be the big book of dullness. Here. Look at THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ussCHoQttyQ).

That is your book of neutrality. A five second clip on Futurama. Enjoy.

[Necroticplague]

Since everybody seems to think nuetral only means absolutely middle-road, lets quote the SRD about it:


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.

So the Book of Balance would be about this philosophical approach.

[Menzath]

So the Book of Balance would be about this philosophical approach.

But as a player character you are taking a more active role in the world, yes it would be a practice of philosophy, but in this case you would have to actually practice this otherwise you would have a NPC that only "talks" about this rather than adventuring to defeat the BBEG, or vise-versa in the Evil campaigns that I see people speak of.
Because destroying evil is very good unless you can come up with a GREAT reason to counter balance it. If it's for more personal self gain than for greater good that makes it chaotic rather than lawful and your neutrality is messed up again!

btw yes in a current game that started a few months back I am playing a true neutral, so I get that it can be played, but http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313982

A lot of people have trouble grasping the concept as players, if a majority of your players aren't going to buy a book, why publish it?

[Emmerask]

To me there never actually are neutral player characters.
Some god yes, maybe some old hermit etc.

there basically are two ways to play a neutral character (that i know of maybe there are more?)...

there is the indifferent version who does not care one way or the other in the usual good vs evil overarching struggle most campaigns have going (why would you take such a person with you... why would he want to come with you?).

and we have the psychopaths who have to balance every good deed with an evil one and vice versa which neither a good nor an evil party would take with them.

In any case the fewest adventurers will actually be neutral (most that claim so on their char sheet are actually evil) so a book about them is a waste of time tbh :smallwink:

[Divayth Fyr]

So the Book of Balance would be about this philosophical approach.
Seeing how they handled that in BoVD and BoED, perhaps it is better the BoB never came to be (I also can't stop the feeling they didn't have anyone able to write enough material to make a whole book for it)

[MukkTB]

I hate the neutral as balance philosophy. Its a schizophrenic thing that saves orphans one moment and eats virgins to make up for it the next. There actually might be a 'balance' philosophy that works. It would have to drop the part where it goes back and forth between extremes.

The most convincing true neutral philosophy I have seen is a summation of Machiavelli: Whatever Works.

[Necroticplague]

Because destroying evil is very good unless you can come up with a GREAT reason to counter balance it. If it's for more personal self gain than for greater good that makes it chaotic rather than lawful and your neutrality is messed up again!

Destroying evil is not a good act, it is practically the definition of a neutral one. Yes, it does move the total scale closer to good, but it also moves it closer to the center. Actively altruisitic deeds would tip the scales towards good, but destroying one of either the two extremes would simply be a neutral act, not an act of th opposite alignment. Or both at once, depending on your perspective.

[Chronos]

The most convincing true neutral philosophy I have seen is a summation of Machiavelli: Whatever Works.
That's evil, not neutral. A fiend will save an orphanage, if doing so serves the fiend's interests.

[Menzath]

a summation of Machiavelli: Whatever Works.

I am afraid that doesn't quite work in D&D where good and evil are (more)clearly defined than in real life.
Real life has to much moral gray, where as DnD has the opposite problem of to little.

[AstralFire]

Systems of balance that make sense are predicated on balancing things like Law and Chaos, Selflessness and Selfishness, not Good versus Evil. Balance is Good in these systems. And killing someone who's going out of their way to help others, simply because their selflessness is "out of balance" is nonsensical by any measure; you try to persuade or convince them, not murder.

[MukkTB]

I'm pretty sure whatever works is not evil. Furthering your own interests without going out of your way to help others that are immediately related to you or commit atrocities is pretty much the definition of neutral.

Yo get to evil you need whatever works and I will wade through a sea of blood to make it work.

[Menzath]

I'm pretty sure whatever works is not evil. Furthering your own interests without going out of your way to help others that are immediately related to you or commit atrocities is pretty much the definition of neutral.


yes that's not evil, but almost the very description of chaotic.

Just stop and look at all the deities, how many of them are true neutral besides Io, and what exactly do those gods do?

[Slipperychicken]

I would be pretty interested if they released sourcebooks for law* and chaos. Especially chaos. However, they'd have to do something seriously interesting to sell me on a Tome of Neutrality.


Neutrality also includes creatures which, however bloodthirsty they are, WotC thinks are incapable of moral action, like animals and mindless creatures.

*Inevitables/Mechanus are super badass and I would love to see more fluff about them.

[MukkTB]

I don't see why. It neither embraces law dogmatically or says that it intends to break the law rampantly. Things that work often stay within the law because there are consequences for breaking the law. These consequences get in the way of things working.

Law / Chaos is a bizarre axis anyway.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?372544-Tome-of-Fiends

[urkthegurk]

I hate the neutral as balance philosophy. Its a schizophrenic thing that saves orphans one moment and eats virgins to make up for it the next. There actually might be a 'balance' philosophy that works. It would have to drop the part where it goes back and forth between extremes.

The most convincing true neutral philosophy I have seen is a summation of Machiavelli: Whatever Works.

While Machiavelli may have been TN, the 'Prince' that he was writing about/to was clearly evil. 'Whatever works- to your advantage' has a telling spin on it.

A TN philosophy cannot advocate 'saving orphans and eating virgins.' That would be arguing that every act is equally weighted, when in fact it takes only a few acts of selfishness, of the appropriate nature, to taint an otherwise noble life, whereas redeeming some villains might take a miracle. They can turn away from their path, but it will always haunt them.

In a world, like many DnD campaigns, constantly upset by monsters and fiendish machinations, a TN character has a clear duty: side with the forces of good. If the heroes win, the world goes on, if the baddies win, the world may be ruined forever.

When it comes to conflicts of a less cosmic scale, though, the TN character might be less interested in picking the 'good' side, but there are still reasons to get involved. Good people often make better neighbours, after all, but a TN character wouldn't want a Ned Flanders type neighbour either. They'd be more likely to judge people on their actions, not their alignment and outlook, since the actions of good characters can cause harm, and detecting 'evil' to a simple spell is not a conviction of guilt. They would advocate against any infringement of good persecuting people just for being 'evil,' while at the same time approving of appropriately designed laws which would keep the social machinery from getting gummed up, and maintaining an unbiased system for all citizens.

They would likely be a more reflective group of people, somewhat on the existentialist side, but also interested and willing to consider other points of view. Many of them would advocate non-attachment, meditation, and consideration, but of course not all of them would have the high wisdom score this implies. Low wisdom characters who are attached to this alignment are likely of the more apathetic kind, unattracted to any kind of moralizing but disgusted by evil. They're likely absorbed in their work or their own lives, and don't really want to deal with zealots. However, they're still capable of forming strong friendships and long-term goals, its just that these connections are less thoroughly thought out.

[dascarletm]

yes that's not evil, but almost the very description of chaotic.

Just stop and look at all the deities, how many of them are true neutral besides Io, and what exactly do those gods do?

The archetypical druid is true neutral.

[Chronos]

Quoth MukkTB:

I'm pretty sure whatever works is not evil. Furthering your own interests without going out of your way to help others that are immediately related to you or commit atrocities is pretty much the definition of neutral.

Yo get to evil you need whatever works and I will wade through a sea of blood to make it work.
"Whatever works" includes wading through a sea of blood, if that's what works. Evil doesn't usually care what happens to other people. Going out of your way to make others suffer, just for the sake of suffering, is a silly cartoon caricature of evil.

[Scumbaggery]

Book of Ineffable Chaos avocado kidney bubble yahtzee!

This may be the most intelligent thing I've heard all day.

[Slipperychicken]

The archetypical druid is true neutral.

Since they require one axis on Neutrality (much like Clerics must remain within one step of their gods' alignments) it seems to imply that if "nature" was a deity, it would be True Neutral. That makes even more sense when one realizes that natural things (animals, trees, etc.) are overwhelmingly unaligned.

[AgentofHellfire]

"Whatever works" includes wading through a sea of blood, if that's what works. Evil doesn't usually care what happens to other people. Going out of your way to make others suffer, just for the sake of suffering, is a silly cartoon caricature of evil.


That's not always true, actually, and in fact I'm sick of people claiming this--after all, people shoot and kill animals for fun all the time. If you think of people, or even a certain group of people, in a similar fashion, you might sometimes hurt them for fun if you've got a sadistic streak.

[Angelalex242]

The guy who saves an orphanage one day and murders babies the next day is technically suffering from multiple personality disorder...kinda like what'd happen if somebody thought he was a Paladin of Heironeus in one personality, and a Blackguard of Erythnul in the other. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde aren't what I'd call 'neutral.' They're not just crazy, they're a little unwell too.

[Lord Raziere]

I see neutrality in a different way:

I don't see it as a comment on morality itself, but avoiding morality, or avoiding taking a moral stance.

for example.

say a group of good adventurers is sent to kill a bunch of orcs, but find that the orcs are good and are no threat. the adventurers being good, then go back and explain the situation to try and resolve things peacefully as possible for everyone.

now consider the same scenario, but with evil people- they would rather have money, kill the orcs joyfully and take the reward from their suffering.

a neutral character, however? well to them, it would just mean that they are out of a job. their job is to kill orcs threatening the village, but if the orcs aren't a threat, there is no need to kill them, but this moral conundrum is beyond their caring to solve, so they just go their own way seeking another job to carry out to the best of their ability without taking any effort to solve the morality of the situation.

if however, the orcs ARE a threat, all three kinds of adventurers kill the orcs, for different reasons. the good person because it protects the village, the evil people because they get to slaughter people without anyone telling them no, and the neutral person because that is their job and they need the money for food.

basically, the good person is only differentiated from a neutral one by how they react when faced with a moral conundrum. a good person tries to solve it as best they can for the benefit of everyone. a neutral person avoids the moral conundrum, and gets on with their life.

[Menzath]

Since they require one axis on Neutrality (much like Clerics must remain within one step of their gods' alignments) it seems to imply that if "nature" was a deity, it would be True Neutral. That makes even more sense when one realizes that natural things (animals, trees, etc.) are overwhelmingly unaligned.

well most animals, plants, and magical beasts(not all though) are true neutral because of a lack of intelligence and not being able to understand morals at all.

Another goofy failing in the DnD system, you have to comprehend morals to have them?

And yes Druids tend to be the stereotypical naturery true neutral types(when not worhsipping Elhonna) but those again tend not to end up being player characters, that or keeping the true neutral alignment for very long.

I don't argue that it is not possible, just that the alignment mechanics make it incundusive for players to do so.

Also again, you CANNOT apply real life morals to DnD, it just does not translate through the mechanics well.

[Slipperychicken]

Another goofy failing in the DnD system, you have to comprehend morals to have them?

It's more that animals, and other creatures with Intelligence under 3, lack the capacity to choose between good and evil (though some animal rights activists might disagree). They act purely according to instinct, and without the ability to choose, can't be held responsible for their actions. I think this rule* is quite fair. It explains why Paladins who are affected by magical compulsion do not fall for evil acts which their bodies are forced to take.

*(that agency, or control over one's own actions, is required for them to count against ones alignment)



And yes Druids tend to be the stereotypical naturery true neutral types(when not worhsipping Elhonna) but those again tend not to end up being player characters, that or keeping the true neutral alignment for very long.

They don't have to be True Neutral, just to keep one alignment axis there. One could, for example, have an Neutral Evil Druid who thinks that humanoid civilization should be destroyed to preserve nature, or a Neutral Good druid who always helps injured creatures because it's the right thing to do.

[ArqArturo]

I think a Book of Balance (the aforementioned artifact) must be something made out of the three elements: The pages are set in stone, bound in apparently-living wood, and the writing changes at each turn. The book offers the same benefits of the other two books, but to neutral characters.

The splatbook should be a focus on:

1.- THIS IS BOOK CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT (following the motto of the previous two).

2.- What means to not choose a side, but try and follow an ethos.

3.- The true nature of the neutral beings (maybe slap faeries in general in this section?).

4.- Acts of balance

5.- PrCs for the Enlightened (including a monk PrC that increases Flurry of Blows, maybe even some psionics and maneuver-using classes).

6.- Neutral Lords (From Inevitables, to Slaads, to maybe even Faerie Lords, too).

7.- Neutral Magic (And psionic powers, as well as maneuvers too).

[geekintheground]

I think a Book of Balance (the aforementioned artifact) must be something made out of the three elements: The pages are set in stone, bound in apparently-living wood, and the writing changes at each turn. The book offers the same benefits of the other two books, but to neutral characters.

The splatbook should be a focus on:

1.- THIS IS BOOK CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT (following the motto of the previous two).

2.- What means to not choose a side, but try and follow an ethos.

3.- The true nature of the neutral beings (maybe slap faeries in general in this section?).

4.- Acts of balance

5.- PrCs for the Enlightened (including a monk PrC that increases Flurry of Blows, maybe even some psionics and maneuver-using classes).

6.- Neutral Lords (From Inevitables, to Slaads, to maybe even Faerie Lords, too).

7.- Neutral Magic (And psionic powers, as well as maneuvers too).

as a major fan of True Neutral, i want this

[NichG]

Don't forget the Rilmani, the original true neutral BBEGs!

You could also have PrCs/stuff relating to the spire in the center of the Outlands. A PrC that can actually shut down alignment-based effects around it by removing the very meaning of good, evil, law, and chaos, etc.

[Slipperychicken]

The pages are set in stone

Personally, that's what I would expect from the Law book, because the phrase "set in stone" refers to something being unchanging and usually inflexible -qualities associated with laws.

Also, that would be an awfully heavy book :smalleek:

[ArcturusV]

I think the question of "Why no book of neutrality" comes down to the simple question of "... what would you put into there?"

Consider what the Books of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds actually had in them.

Variant Alignment Rules to add to the game. In the case of Exalted Deeds things like Holy Relics, Words of Creation, Virtues, etc. In Vile Darkness it had rules for various types of mental conditions (Sadists, Masochists, Psychopaths), Demonic/Devil Possessions, Evil Races, Dark Speech, Hiveminds.

What would neutrality have to offer to that? It's not exactly very fertile ground. It's not something where I instantly leap up and go "Ah ha... rules for..."... I can't even think of one right now. I might if I spent some serious time brainstorming for it. But it doesn't have the immediate catch that Good and Evil do.

PrCs:

This is probably one area where the Book of Neutrality might have some traction. But in the vein of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness it'd need PrCs that aren't "just neutral" but fully embrace neutrality as a Force and Philosophy. Thus "Self Interested Guy" wouldn't be applicable. Something like "Enforcer of the Eternal Order", a Lawful Neutral type who seeks to make sure the accords written in the laws of creation from the very first moment always are followed, might. And that might actually end up as an interesting PrC. Thing is, with a theme like Neutrality that they have to cleave to, I'm not sure if you could really come up with 20 or so good PrCs that are thematically and mechanically different enough to pad out the chapter.

Feats:

The idea of Neutral Feats seems... odd. Again, not saying it couldn't exist, but like the PrCs, it'd be a very restrictive territory. You can't even fall back on "Smite evil/smite good" sort of themes like they did with Vile/Corrupt feats and things like Exalted Turning and Sanctify Martial Strike.

Magic:

Magic by itself is pretty Neutral, lacking alignment except in a small minority of cases. I can't quite figure out what "Balanced Neutrality" magic might look like. I imagine it'd be something like a Cease Fire spell. "Targets who fail their save in a 100' radius centered on you cannot attack, cast spells without the (Healing) tag, use Spell Like Abilities unless they mimic spells with the (Healing) tag, use Psionics. Those who fail their save cannot be attacked in these manners unless the attacker passes a Will Save with +8 to the Cease Fire spell's DC" etc, etc, etc. I mean as, shown, it probably can be done. Just not very fertile grounds.

Neutral Items:

... how can an item really be neutral? The nearest I can think of is "mercy" stuff that lets you keep the balance by being non-lethal. But that stuff is in Exalted Deeds.

Monsters:

This is easy. All the animals. All the Lawful Neutral outsiders, all the Chaotic Neutral outsiders, etc. Probably the biggest part of the book by far just because it's one of the few places where the design will be obvious, fertile, and ripe for expansion.

And really that's the problem. Neutral as a concept that is extolled and exemplar'd is just too narrow of a design space. That and a lot of the "Keep the peace" ideals that might have existed in Neutral design space got shuffled off to Exalted Deeds as is.

[Menzath]

I think that's a great start.
I would love to see more classes to do with Boccob and Io.
And if you are more the type to Enforce balance just look to mordekainin, it is a possible route in DnD if he can do it(though everyone tends to think him a jerk for doing so).


I can see there being divine, Arcane, Psi PrC's easy, the more mundane/maneuver class is possible just gotta fluff it right.
The best would be Binder and Incarnum PrC's though if I had to bet.

[Vedhin]

Actually, now that I recall, I do remember that in both books, when explaining the Good/Evil Regalias, they mention a Regalia of Order.

If it matters, there's a Regalia of Neutrality in the Arms & Equipment Guide. It's more of a LN (Order) than TN thing, but hey.


And having had this topic raised, I want a Book of Unimpeachable Balance. If there was also a Book of Implacable Order and Book of Indescribeable Chaos, that would be great. I'd love to learn more about the Rilmani, Slaad, and Formians. I'd also like Fiendish Codex analogs for Celestia and Arborea, but that's less pressing than the need for a Book of Unimpeachable Balance.

[ArqArturo]

I think the question of "Why no book of neutrality" comes down to the simple question of "... what would you put into there?"

Consider what the Books of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds actually had in them.

Variant Alignment Rules to add to the game. In the case of Exalted Deeds things like Holy Relics, Words of Creation, Virtues, etc. In Vile Darkness it had rules for various types of mental conditions (Sadists, Masochists, Psychopaths), Demonic/Devil Possessions, Evil Races, Dark Speech, Hiveminds.

What would neutrality have to offer to that? It's not exactly very fertile ground. It's not something where I instantly leap up and go "Ah ha... rules for..."... I can't even think of one right now. I might if I spent some serious time brainstorming for it. But it doesn't have the immediate catch that Good and Evil do.

I think this where the Ideals, or Ethos, can bring. Instead of going for the 'This is what Neutrals do', or 'This is what X should do', it could bring archetypes like a Judge sort of character, a caretaker, or a warbringer (without relishing in death by combat, just bring war for war's sake), the revolutionary, the sage, etc.


PrCs:

This is probably one area where the Book of Neutrality might have some traction. But in the vein of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness it'd need PrCs that aren't "just neutral" but fully embrace neutrality as a Force and Philosophy. Thus "Self Interested Guy" wouldn't be applicable. Something like "Enforcer of the Eternal Order", a Lawful Neutral type who seeks to make sure the accords written in the laws of creation from the very first moment always are followed, might. And that might actually end up as an interesting PrC. Thing is, with a theme like Neutrality that they have to cleave to, I'm not sure if you could really come up with 20 or so good PrCs that are thematically and mechanically different enough to pad out the chapter.

Well, instead of Smite X, there's just Smite. I think this is where you could bring in PrCs that help classes that have been sort of neglected (I'm looking at you, Incarnum), even bring in -like I said before- support of 'Enlightened' psionics, and martial devotees.


Feats:

The idea of Neutral Feats seems... odd. Again, not saying it couldn't exist, but like the PrCs, it'd be a very restrictive territory. You can't even fall back on "Smite evil/smite good" sort of themes like they did with Vile/Corrupt feats and things like Exalted Turning and Sanctify Martial Strike.

Perhaps instead, feats that require the normal prerequisites, plus some alignment issues, and psionic/divine/martial maneuvers that require certain Initiation Feats (Edict of the Inevitables, Elemental Scion, Mark of the Slaad).


Magic:

Magic by itself is pretty Neutral, lacking alignment except in a small minority of cases. I can't quite figure out what "Balanced Neutrality" magic might look like. I imagine it'd be something like a Cease Fire spell. "Targets who fail their save in a 100' radius centered on you cannot attack, cast spells without the (Healing) tag, use Spell Like Abilities unless they mimic spells with the (Healing) tag, use Psionics. Those who fail their save cannot be attacked in these manners unless the attacker passes a Will Save with +8 to the Cease Fire spell's DC" etc, etc, etc. I mean as, shown, it probably can be done. Just not very fertile grounds.

Druid spells could also fall in this category.


Neutral Items:

... how can an item really be neutral? The nearest I can think of is "mercy" stuff that lets you keep the balance by being non-lethal. But that stuff is in Exalted Deeds.

I'll have to agree, this would have issues.


Monsters:

This is easy. All the animals. All the Lawful Neutral outsiders, all the Chaotic Neutral outsiders, etc. Probably the biggest part of the book by far just because it's one of the few places where the design will be obvious, fertile, and ripe for expansion.

And really that's the problem. Neutral as a concept that is extolled and exemplar'd is just too narrow of a design space. That and a lot of the "Keep the peace" ideals that might have existed in Neutral design space got shuffled off to Exalted Deeds as is.

No argument on the monsters bit.

[Isamu Dyson]

Perhaps we'll just have to settle on a thread form of such a Book, then :smallcool:.

[ArcturusV]

It'd be an interesting thing to push myself to create for. If someone wanted to do a "Book of Neutrality" homebrew project I could toss my support into it.

... heck, now that I'm thinking about it might even do it myself. Maybe. When things calm down a bit more as I"m quite busy at this particular moment.

[Jeff the Green]

This may be the most intelligent thing I've heard all day.

Barrel pyramid velcro!


Personally, that's what I would expect from the Law book, because the phrase "set in stone" refers to something being unchanging and usually inflexible -qualities associated with laws.

Also, that would be an awfully heavy book :smalleek:
See my statement on the Book of Eternal Order.

I feel like a book of Chaos would be paradoxical (by putting it down in writing you're giving it order, which is antithetical to chaos). A book of Balance would be ephemeral, something that could be divined from the stars, the earth, and the moon, but never accurately put into words.

[Slipperychicken]

See my statement on the Book of Eternal Order.


I could totally imagine this massive immovable tome located somewhere like Mechanus.

Perhaps a Book of Chaos would be written such that almost every reader sees something different on the pages? Maybe the words constantly shift to say different, sometimes conflicting/paradoxical things about the nature of chaos?

[ArqArturo]

So, all in all:

Book of Ineffable Order: Lawful Neutral. Heavy-bound and immobile.

Book of Change: Chaotic Neutral. Has contradictions.

Book of Balance: True Neutral. Not really a book, but maybe a series of symbols and scrolls all thought the Elemental Planes.

Perhaps a recollection of all them could be possible?.

[ArcturusV]

Thinking something like "The Song of All", a long epic composition which weaves together Law, Chaos, and Neutrality into a singular whole, avoiding the extremist and exclusionary nature of Good and Evil to tell the story of creation. The Song of All being penned by a mortal Druid originally, added to by a Bard, etc (Mirroring how the Book of Vile Deeds was penned and distributed).

[ArqArturo]

Thinking something like "The Song of All", a long epic composition which weaves together Law, Chaos, and Neutrality into a singular whole, avoiding the extremist and exclusionary nature of Good and Evil to tell the story of creation. The Song of All being penned by a mortal Druid originally, added to by a Bard, etc (Mirroring how the Book of Vile Deeds was penned and distributed).

I like the idea :).

[GoblinArchmage]

I have often considered Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos to be extremes and Neutrality to be more...average, I guess.

[Gnome Alone]

The Book of Neutrality
Chapter One: Eh.

[hamishspence]

The Underdark splatbook has rules for the Book of Perfect Balance minor artifact (and rules for the Talisman of Neutrality.)

[The_Snark]

Since everybody seems to think nuetral only means absolutely middle-road, lets quote the SRD about it:

[SRD quote on True Neutral as opposing all extremes]

So the Book of Balance would be about this philosophical approach.

I can't help but feel that any in-depth exploration of the balanced alignment philosophy would quickly run afoul of the fact that this philosophy is kind of nuts. Maybe with Law and Chaos it makes sense; I can see those two being dangerous when taken to extremes. Seeking a balance between total anarchy and absolute rigid hierarchy makes sense. (I half-suspect this True Neutral-as-balance viewpoint dates from the days when alignment only had the Law-Chaos axis.) But Good and Evil are not two equivalent, equally dangerous viewpoints. One is good, and the other is bad. That's tautological. Trying to enforce a balance between them is... absurd. What does this philosophy actually stand for? Kneejerk preservation of the status quo?

I mean, you can always handwave it by proclaiming that the world will explode if it ever gets too good or too evil (like Dragonlance, and possibly Planescape), but this has always struck me as a bit of a cop-out.

I think devoting books to Law and Chaos would be more interesting - people argue over what those two mean all the time, but at least you've got material to cover, and they'd probably focus on LN/CN simply because the upper and lower realms have been thoroughly covered elsewhere.

[ArcturusV]

Well, comes down to one of the weird bits of Dragonlance for example. I know that setting was very big on "Balance". The idea being that you couldn't have a world that embraced Evil because Evil was destructive and disruptive. It doesn't Create, and would eventually destroy everything, even itself. Thus the future where Raistlin disposed Tahkisis (And became the most powerful god) ended up an apocalypse where everything went to hell and was utterly destroyed.

Similarly if Good holds sway (As it did pre-cataclysm) it becomes tyrannical in it's own way. So puritanical that when it defeats Evil, it seeks to purge anything that isn't Good (Including Neutrality) and keeps trying to purge the least good among it. It's a weird concept, but they ran with it, eventually leading to the King Priest of Ishtar demanding that the God of Good use his miracle powers to wipe out what little remained on the world that wasn't the purest good.

... so he dropped a rock and nuked most of the world causing untold suffering and wiping out something like 70% of the world's population, plunging it into a new dark age that took about 200 years to recover from.

IF... if you had a world where Good worked like that (Which it might in DnD with it's absolutism to Alignment), it might make sense to shun both Good and Evil, as both lead to total destruction and the end of life. So you try to keep either from becoming too powerful.

[Devronq]

What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?


EDIT:



Could we also go with the LN and CN axis, or just True Neutral? Either way, a Book of Balance would more likely to be a rough text written in a stone book, written in the deep, cavernous depths of an old mountain temple, forgotten by time, and only the most resolute of adventurers would go to look upon it, and read the first book written in the Material Plane, and fill their minds with true Balance.

Speaking of futurama was this a quote from Zap Branagan?

[Manly Man]

Neutrality also includes creatures which, however bloodthirsty they are, WotC thinks are incapable of moral action, like animals and mindless creatures.

I can attest to there being animals who are moral and supposedly 'mindless' vermin being intelligent. I've seen pets show great frustration at watching while someone they love is being hurt by someone they know they're not supposed to bite at, and studies show that ants are, essentially, humans who haven't developed technologically because they don't have the hands to do it. I usually call bee-ess on a lot of the stuff Wizards says about arthropods being mindless.

[NichG]

I can't help but feel that any in-depth exploration of the balanced alignment philosophy would quickly run afoul of the fact that this philosophy is kind of nuts. Maybe with Law and Chaos it makes sense; I can see those two being dangerous when taken to extremes. Seeking a balance between total anarchy and absolute rigid hierarchy makes sense. (I half-suspect this True Neutral-as-balance viewpoint dates from the days when alignment only had the Law-Chaos axis.) But Good and Evil are not two equivalent, equally dangerous viewpoints. One is good, and the other is bad. That's tautological. Trying to enforce a balance between them is... absurd. What does this philosophy actually stand for? Kneejerk preservation of the status quo?

I mean, you can always handwave it by proclaiming that the world will explode if it ever gets too good or too evil (like Dragonlance, and possibly Planescape), but this has always struck me as a bit of a cop-out.

I think devoting books to Law and Chaos would be more interesting - people argue over what those two mean all the time, but at least you've got material to cover, and they'd probably focus on LN/CN simply because the upper and lower realms have been thoroughly covered elsewhere.

Actually, how about this for a True Neutral Balance point of view:

- Each extreme alignment fundamentally seeks to remove something its opposite from the world

- However, each alignment arises from things that are fundamental and inevitable about the world. People do evil not because there is some evil energy going around that you can remove, but because there elements of the natural order that you wouldn't want to get rid of (people want things, there is the possibility for growth, etc) that necessarily cause some people to go evil. Even things like conflict are fundamentally necessary to make life interesting, but can easily turn towards evil.

- Therefore, embracing the true extreme of an alignment means denying part of the world. Forwarding its cause keeps the world interesting, but actually succeeding means making the world a fundamentally less interesting place.

So in this point of view, an example True Neutral character might be a bard who wants to write the world's stories. If either good or evil has won, all the stories will be boring. The bard may not personally go and try to commit evil acts to balance the good ones done by others - that doesn't actually serve his goal - but instead may encourage forces of good and evil to grow in interesting ways, so that the story of their conflict will be as epic as possible.

Another True Neutral character with this kind of philosophy might be a sort of larger-than-life warrior figure who loves the act of challenge and combat. He could have friendly duels with other people if Good 'won', but it would lack the visceral thrill of life and death battle. So rather, he fights evil but is secretly glad for/supportive of its existence, because it gives him a target that is acceptable to go all out against.

[Viros]

It ought to be called "The Book of Equitable Inaction".

[Eldan]

Well. The Book of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds already have to unite three very different philosophies each in a book. Devils and Demons are very different and they share only some very few traits.

But a book on neutrality? Law and Chaos are diameterically opposed forces. The only thing that unites Modrons (or Formians, sadly, in third edition) and Slaad is that they are neither good nor evil. But then? What would the book actually discuss? "How not to care about two of the cosmic forces, because you think another cosmic force is more important?"

Now, I'd quite like something new on the Rilmani. They were never properly developed anywhere, as far as I know. But putting Modrons and Slaad into the same book is just silly, unless hte book is about the difference between them.

Instead, how about a Book of Unbending Principle and a Book of the Free Spirit? Sure, there would be some overlap, since it would cover the extremists of LG, CG, LE and CE again. But it could look at them in a different light.

By the way, the cosmology book I most sorely missed in third edition was Fiendish Codex III: Deceivers of the Wastes. And then, perhaps, if I can dream, Celestial Codex I: Nobles of the Olympian Glades

[nedz]

I actually find neutral characters more interesting. They can focus on things like


Defending their interests
Defending the interests of their village
Defending the interests of their tribe


That sort of thing, well politics really.

This can lead to characters doing things for non ideological reasons, e.g.:


Acquiring knowledge for purely academic reasons
Exploring the wilderness/mountains/ocean


Which can give rise to characters with more depth.

[Eldan]

I actually find neutral characters more interesting. They can focus on things like


Defending their interests
Defending the interests of their village
Defending the interests of their tribe


That sort of thing, well politics really.

This can lead to characters doing things for non ideological reasons, e.g.:


Acquiring knowledge for purely academic reasons
Exploring the wilderness/mountains/ocean


Which can give rise to characters with more depth.

There's no reason why evil or good characters couldn't do all of those things.

[nedz]

There's no reason why evil or good characters couldn't do all of those things.

No, but these things are not intrinsically good nor evil — they are neutral.

[ArcturusV]

Dunno if you can even say they're Neutral. I mean if someone claims something "is" a particular alignment, that suggests to me that it is exclusive to that alignment.

Like you can say that a Good thing is: Sacrificing yourself for the good of strangers. That's a good ideal, that Neutral or Evil wouldn't pursue. Similarly you can go with an Evil principle like "Sell your soul to an Archdevil for POWAAAAR" as Neutral and Good aligned people wouldn't do it. Well, they might claim they are good or neutral, but at the "sell your soul" stage you aren't anymore.

So if you claim something IS neutral, it has to be something that isn't Good or Evil as well. Thus the "Cosmic Balance Philosopher" works out as Good and Evil won't do it. But "Be self interested" or "Likes adventure" is universal.

[AstralFire]

Dunno if you can even say they're Neutral. I mean if someone claims something "is" a particular alignment, that suggests to me that it is exclusive to that alignment.

Like you can say that a Good thing is: Sacrificing yourself for the good of strangers. That's a good ideal, that Neutral or Evil wouldn't pursue. Similarly you can go with an Evil principle like "Sell your soul to an Archdevil for POWAAAAR" as Neutral and Good aligned people wouldn't do it. Well, they might claim they are good or neutral, but at the "sell your soul" stage you aren't anymore.

So if you claim something IS neutral, it has to be something that isn't Good or Evil as well. Thus the "Cosmic Balance Philosopher" works out as Good and Evil won't do it. But "Be self interested" or "Likes adventure" is universal.

Neutral is merely the basketbin where all the other stuff ends up. There is no difference in this system between philosophically neutral and uncategorized. Good characters don't have to take exclusively good actions, but rather have a majority or plurality of good actions and few evil actions (with very few of consequence, if any).

[hamishspence]

Dunno if you can even say they're Neutral. I mean if someone claims something "is" a particular alignment, that suggests to me that it is exclusive to that alignment.

I tend to think of it as more "will ping for class purposes" than "exclusive"

So an Evil person can make a huge personal sacrifice for a stranger- it will just be a very Good act, that will cause a Paladin of Tyranny to Fall.

Similarly, a Good person can destroy a soul (pushing someone into a Sphere of Annihilation, according to Complete Divine, does this) - but, as per BoVD, Destroying Souls is an extremely Evil act (that might be expected to cause an alignment shift to Evil if the DM is feeling harsh).

[NichG]

I think its fair to say that it 'is neutral' of goals such that a character who singlemindedly pursues that goal above and beyond everything else ends up being True Neutral.

Basically, goals that are not intrinsically aligned are neutral goals. You don't have to be advancing the cause of Neutrality as a philosophical ideal to be a neutral character.

That said, a book on the lines of Exalted Deeds for neutrality kind of suggests that it wouldn't just be about neutral characters, but rather about paragons of neutrality.

[Joe the Rat]

Yeah, I think a big chunk of the opening would be about defining Neutrality in a universe where Good and Evil aren't just descriptions of acts, but a Material thing that you can bottle up and put on your spice rack, and forge into mighty artifacts, and there are literally places and beings made of the stuff. There is a relevance to Good (rather than good) and Evil (rather than bad). Consider if there is more to the Moral Neutrality than finding the line between utter selflessness and wanton selfishness with a side of suffering to be the best. This is also literally orthogonal to the old Planes of Conflict supplement - which in itself might say something.

We aren't coming to a single definition of Neutral. Not surprising. We need to look at the Flavors of Neutrality. We may not find them all valid or workable for Boons, but we need to look at them. It may be worth focusing on one, or giving equal time (heh) to the varieties. Right now I'm seeing three major themes or views of Neutrality discussed here:

First we have Passive Neutral. Classic Noncommittal/Apathy, or Selfish Neutral. Beast Neutral. In other words, Unaligned. The choice not to make a commitment or stand for or against anything in particular. The alignment of the "watching out for his own" peasant, the "making a buck, hold the war crimes" mercenary, and the beasts that wander the forest. Giving if it doesn't take too much, taking if it isn't too problematic. Acknowledging others, but trying to let everyone go about their business (not helping, not hindering) unless there is a greater need (helping them helps you, directly or indirectly; stopping them helps you, directly or indirectly). Unless you have really philosophically engaged players, a lot of Neutrals probably land here. It is worth discussing, but these are folks that would probably not be eligible for the Ineffable Boons of Neutrality. The Single-minded laser-focused goal-seeker is probably in this category as well, unless that goal is related to the Big N.

Second, we have Balancing Neutral. Aristotelian "All things in Moderation", Cosmic Balance Neutral. If you treat the Great Wheel as a spinning platter, putting too much power (weight) onto any extreme threatens to topple the whole lot, and possibly break Reality. On a less airy-fairy note, this is also the philosophy of for all things there is a season. A lot of Death deities are Evil-aligned, but death is a necessary element of the Circle of Life. If Death goes away, it becomes very crowded, with unending suffering the standard (unending hunger... or the grim alternative). Or you get the Marvel Cancerverse. Natural Order is a positive thing, Mucking up the order (undeath, raising the dead, summoning seasons out of season, Far Realms-type nonsense) is negative. Now these folks could be of the "Get rid of the Non-Neutral" sort, gradually drawing the multiverse into the Outlands, or they could be of the "Everything in Measure" sort, where Each aspect (Good, Evil, Order, Chaos) should have its fair amount. That may be another philosophical split to view, or one of these should be foisted onto the next one. In reading, looks like it is a philosophy that trends towards the Order side of things.

The Third one is Conflicting Neutral - the somewhat Chaotic bent opposite the Order-tinted theme of Balance. This is the approach that all of the philosophies (Good, Evil, Order, Chaos) need to exist, but the ideal is not to sit serenely in the eye of the hurricane, but to walk the line(s) between them. The Storm of Conflict is what drives existence, if anything dominates, the whole collapses. The Whirlwind of A Thousand Voices: Don't be too good or too evil; don't be too orderly or chaotic. Yes, this is where the crazy puppy-kicking do-gooder vigilante criminals would sit, actively seeking out Saints and Fiends to punch them in the face. Good has Mother-Smother Zealots, and Evil has its Mustache Twirling Card-Carrying Villains, Neutral should have its own brand of crazy enforcer, no? The "sane" approach here is the reactive balance - making sure evil does not conquer all, making sure good does not mandate selflessness. Since evil tends to be the more proactive about Taking Over The World, you will spend a lot more time fighting against Evil than Good. Trickster Neutrality. Yeah, I'm not doing a good job explaining this one - it's the tough one.tl,dr: Three flavors of Neutrality: Calm Balance, Conflict/Opposition, Don't Care

An exploration of Pure Law and Chaos (possibly with an active balancing of Good and Evil) would be nice as well.

For the goodies: following themes of Balance and Conflict, I can see an emphasis on Cancellation and Countering other effects. Something that can give all four protections (or at least the ones you don't count as). An Outland-themed Anti-Magic PrC. Also, PrCs for Boccob, Fahrlanghn, Obad-Hai, & Wee Jas (Or do Black Flame Zealots count?). Gem Dragons. Nirvana (not referring to the old name of Mechanus) and Oblivion.

[nedz]

Dunno if you can even say they're Neutral. I mean if someone claims something "is" a particular alignment, that suggests to me that it is exclusive to that alignment.

Like you can say that a Good thing is: Sacrificing yourself for the good of strangers. That's a good ideal, that Neutral or Evil wouldn't pursue. Similarly you can go with an Evil principle like "Sell your soul to an Archdevil for POWAAAAR" as Neutral and Good aligned people wouldn't do it. Well, they might claim they are good or neutral, but at the "sell your soul" stage you aren't anymore.

So if you claim something IS neutral, it has to be something that isn't Good or Evil as well. Thus the "Cosmic Balance Philosopher" works out as Good and Evil won't do it. But "Be self interested" or "Likes adventure" is universal.

They are not GOOD
They are not EVIL
They are not LAWFUL
They are not CHAOTIC

If they are not neutral, what else might they be ?

[ArcturusV]

Universal, like Arcane Mark and Prestidigitation is Universal to schools of magic. Because in the end Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos all CAN do those things and not in any way be in danger of jeopardizing their alignment. Like Vecna for an example. Typical example of Neutral Evil as the god of knowledge and secrets. But is very much on a quest just to amass knowledge by the fluff. Which means it's not "not evil", as a prototypical evil God has that ideal in his wheelhouse, a creature who's very essence is Evil is defined by it.

[nedz]

Semantics. You say universal, I say neutral.

Also, IIRC, Vecna is after knowledge and secrets for the power they yield, not for the things themselves.

Ed: you could make the same argument about Nature. That's universal too, but in alignment terms it's regarded as neutral.

[NichG]

I agree that neutrality tends to have more flavors in itself because its such a grab bag. I might break them down a little differently though. It seems like the Conflicting Neutral group in your description specifically believes that each individual must be a storm in a bottle, with extremes of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. But I think it'd be more reasonable given the fluff before that to say that they just believe that those extremes need to exist in balance in the universe.

So from the viewpoint of making three 'Ineffable' neutrals, here's my take:

Anti-aligned: For the paragons of neutrality, this isn't just 'I don't care about alignment', this is composed of people who actively believe that alignment as it stands is in opposition to what is important in life. Basically, the belief that Good is not good and Evil is not evil, because they are tainted by being cosmic absolutes. This is the sort of person who might revel in setting up a situation where the Paladin can't help but fall no matter what they do, because it proves their philosophical point that the cosmic absolutes are actually inconsistent.

Balancers: As in the previous post, but I'm going to narrow it down. These are the people who believe that everyone should be neutral, that every person must have moderation within their own existence and that the extremes of alignment are harmful by virtue of their very existence. Kill all the devils and celestials and let mankind deal with itself.

Conflict-Seekers: These people do not necessarily believe than an individual must have all extremes in their life, but they actively want to preserve the balance of extremes in the multiverse. This is a mix of 'everything in its season' and 'for the joys to be sublime, the sorrows must be harsh'. Personally they need not do crazy balancing acts, because their interest is in the conflict existing in the world around them, not in their own souls.

So you wouldn't get someone who punches a devil and then an angel, but you'd get someone who sells arms to both sides of the war between heaven and hell, because to them the war itself is the valuable thing.

[supervillan]

Might I refer the playground to Gary Gygax's "Gord the Rogue" saga? Gord was True Neutral and eventually became the Cat Lord, a demigod like being (who was statted in one of the first edition monster manuals). His role was as a champion of Balance, and accompanied by a mighty bard he quested against those powers who would overthrow the Cosmos. Principally these foes were demon lords iirc, but you might expect their ilk to want to destroy the multiverse somewhat more than the paragons of other alignments would. The novels do give an insight into what GG thought of True Neutral.

My first AD&D character was True Neutral, a dark elf magic user / thief. He wanted to be the best and richest thief in the world, as well as a mighty wizard. He didn't really care about much else but was ruthless in pursuing his personal goals and revenging himself on those who wronged him. There was also the period he spent as a CE vampire after being cursed by a magic ring :smalleek:

[Joe the Rat]

I agree that neutrality tends to have more flavors in itself because its such a grab bag. I might break them down a little differently though. It seems like the Conflicting Neutral group in your description specifically believes that each individual must be a storm in a bottle, with extremes of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. But I think it'd be more reasonable given the fluff before that to say that they just believe that those extremes need to exist in balance in the universe.
That's a little closer to what I was aiming for, though it would be reasonable for this flavor to see everyone has the potential for any aligned act, and to actively seek and test that balance within themselves through the conflict of influences.

A Chaotic Neutral (Conflict) might seek more extremes of action than a Lawful Neutral (Conflict) - possibly to tempest in a teapot levels.

[NichG]

That's a little closer to what I was aiming for, though it would be reasonable for this flavor to see everyone has the potential for any aligned act, and to actively seek and test that balance within themselves through the conflict of influences.

A Chaotic Neutral (Conflict) might seek more extremes of action than a Lawful Neutral (Conflict) - possibly to tempest in a teapot levels.

Yeah, I really like the 'everyone has the potential for any act' idea in particular, I think that might be a key point of constructing a True Neutral philosophy that isn't too crazy.

[unseenmage]

Constructs have never gotten their own book either, and i always thoguht they should. And many Constructs are true neutral. One could almost argue that those Constructs which are forced to share their creator's alignment are actually true neutral if left to their own devices.

The Book of Balance would have to have at least some info on Constructs. Defining their soullessness and lack of desire, and how soullessness is possible without evil. For the sentient ones defining what it is for a creature to have mind without soul, and worse a mind immune to most mental powers.


I'm liking this thread so far. The productive bits are awesome, the alignment debates less so. At least it's an interesting (as in not about good v evil) alignment debate though. :smallwink:

[ArqArturo]

[B]

Speaking of futurama was this a quote from Zap Branagan?

Yes, yes it was :smallbiggrin:.

[Jeff the Green]

Constructs have never gotten their own book either, and i always thoguht they should. And many Constructs are true neutral. One could almost argue that those Constructs which are forced to share their creator's alignment are actually true neutral if left to their own devices.

There are a lot of creature types that got severely neglected. Where's my book of fey fay? Why don't we have a single compendium of animals extant and extinct? (I want my thylacoleo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial_lions), dammit!) What motivates elementals?

[unseenmage]

There are a lot of creature types that got severely neglected. Where's my book of fey fay? Why don't we have a single compendium of animals extant and extinct? (I want my thylacoleo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial_lions), dammit!) What motivates elementals?

AN excellent point. Many of the Neautral creatures could and perhaps even should be represented in the Book of Balance.

[ArqArturo]

Constructs have never gotten their own book either, and i always thoguht they should. And many Constructs are true neutral. One could almost argue that those Constructs which are forced to share their creator's alignment are actually true neutral if left to their own devices.

The Book of Balance would have to have at least some info on Constructs. Defining their soullessness and lack of desire, and how soullessness is possible without evil. For the sentient ones defining what it is for a creature to have mind without soul, and worse a mind immune to most mental powers.


I'm liking this thread so far. The productive bits are awesome, the alignment debates less so. At least it's an interesting (as in not about good v evil) alignment debate though. :smallwink:

Actually, back in 3.5, the MM2 had a sentient construct that was chaotic neutral (due to the fact it had a water elemental instead of an earth elemental), and therefore not only was it more creative with the commands, it was prone to wander freely. And in heroes of horror, they spoke of giving sentience to the flesh golem as a result of the golem being made of pieces of living creatures now dead.

I think, in the case of golems, you could borrow a bit from Protean: The Created to get ideas on how a sentient golem would react to things.

[unseenmage]

Actually, back in 3.5, the MM2 had a sentient construct that was chaotic neutral (due to the fact it had a water elemental instead of an earth elemental), and therefore not only was it more creative with the commands, it was prone to wander freely. And in heroes of horror, they spoke of giving sentience to the flesh golem as a result of the golem being made of pieces of living creatures now dead.

I think, in the case of golems, you could borrow a bit from Protean: The Created to get ideas on how a sentient golem would react to things.

I did say many, not all.

The Bogun (Druidic Homunculus basically) is in SC and it flat out ignores like 25% of the commands you give it.

To reiterate, not all Constructs are Neautral, but the majority of them are.

[Larkas]

For those criticizing the possibility of an interesting, complex neutral philosophy, Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics) probably (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#DocMea) has (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue) something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy)) to say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Ethics) about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arete).

In short, to Aristotle (and several, SEVERAL others; it's not that his philosophy is extremely popular, it's just that it seems that it was/is a very common theme all across the world!) "virtue"* is found in the middle between two extremes. Courage is a virtue, but excess of courage is recklessness, while a deficiency of courage is cowardice, both vices in their own right. Generosity is a virtue, but excess of generosity is wastefulness, while a deficiency of generosity is miserliness. "Virtue" can be found in the middle point. Harmony, symmetry and proportion are all attributes of Beauty. To Aristotle, there is always a middle ground to be found, a "middle path" to be taken. It doesn't take high intelligence to find the middle, just common-sense. Learning virtue is usually difficult at first, but becomes easier with practice over time until it becomes a habit. Being virtuous is excelling at being human.

We can easily extrapolate that to the D&D universe. In a world that's black and white, "virtue" can be found in the minute line that separates them** - for a few people, at least. For these guys, self-righteous archons are missing the point as much as any bloodthirsty demon. Beauty, True Harmony can only be found in the middle. What's more: two wrongs don't make a right. You don't go balancing saving an orphanage by killing the orphans. Saving the orphans might be the virtuous thing to do; killing the ones that were endangering them might not. You strive to perfect yourself, to be the best you can be. To find YOUR path. You don't go around telling people what to do (educating is okay, dictating is not). Virtue is something that only one can know what is for him/herself. The problem with Good and Evil is that each is trying to destroy, or at least undermine, the other. Likewise for Law and Chaos. Neutrality, TRUE neutrality, might be the doctrine of true peace, simply because it tries to accommodate between two extremes, not dislodge them.***

Of course, this is a possible neutrality philosophy. It doesn't mean there can't be others, and doesn't mean that neutral creatures need to follow this or any other philosophy. An unaligned/unconcerned creature is as neutral as a thinker that goes by this school of thought, as is a creature that borders on having DID, such as classical fey.

*The quotation marks are there because virtue here doesn't mean exactly what we commonly take the word to mean. Instead, it is the ancient Greek meaning of the word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arete). Basically, being virtuous means "being the best you can be", or "reaching your highest human potential". The morality attached to the modern word only came later (i.e.: being virtuous now means being Good, not merely good). Vice is still the antonym of virtue here, but its meaning is related to "not reaching your potential" or "not being the best you can be".

**It's somewhat impossible to think about that and not remember this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/U%2B262F.svg/200px-U%2B262F.svg.png). Or this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Ancient_version_of_the_Taijitu_by_Lai_Zhi-De%2C_sideways.svg/200px-Ancient_version_of_the_Taijitu_by_Lai_Zhi-De%2C_sideways.svg.png).

***Of course, a darker twist could be possible, where a few people are trying to destroy the alignments.

PS: A few parting words (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Taoism) from a different school of thought, but that is remarkably similar:

"The Tao that can be expressed is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be defined is not the unchanging name.
Non-existence is called the antecedent of heaven and earth; Existence is the mother of all things.
From eternal non-existence, therefore, we serenely observe the mysterious beginning of the Universe; From eternal existence we clearly see the apparent distinctions.
These two are the same in source and become different when manifested.
This sameness is called profundity. Infinite profundity is the gate whence comes the beginning of all parts of the Universe.
Tao Te Ching, Ch 1, as translated by Ch'u Ta-Kao (1904)"

PPS: ... Yeah, I wrote a paper about a related subject. Things may be clearer to me than to other people. Sorry if this is hard to understand. :smallfrown:

[AstralFire]

Excellent summary on balance philosophies in the real world.


Systems of balance that make sense are predicated on balancing things like Law and Chaos, Selflessness and Selfishness, not Good versus Evil. Balance is Good in these systems. And killing someone who's going out of their way to help others, simply because their selflessness is "out of balance" is nonsensical by any measure; you try to persuade or convince them, not murder.

Not that you suggested the "murder good person" bit, but it bears noting.

[unseenmage]

snip


And with that I think we have our forward for the Book of Balance.

Very well said.

[Razgriez]

Why Not? Well for starters, compare the 2 other books: BoED is all about being a Good character. Doesn't matter what Prefixed adjective you attach to it, it's pretty much completely about the forces of good having various ways to combat evil. Because at the end of the day, the overall minor philosophical differences in what exactly turns up a Good aligned character's Berserk button intensity level to 11 doesn't change the fact that "Being evil, and committing various evil" pushes that to a baseline reading of 10.

Likewise, BoVD is all about aligned creatures may just possibly withhold backstabbing each other long enough to say "There's Evil to commit, and Heroes epics to be cut short, so let's tag team to finish off a mutual foe! And for the Evulz"

This is not true with LN, and CN. What we have there, is almost as much a conflict between the two, as Good Vs. Evil.

Both in general have two popular general views: LN has the "Judge/absolute Order", and the other being the monk like "I seek perfection through Order" view point.

On the CN side, we have the "I seek fulfillment through pleasure and partying/putting me above all others" and the "I seek to cause mischief because it amuses me and annoys those in power"

And on top of all this, for a "Book of Neutrality, we have to include Neutral: which is so mind boggling confusing as to what exactly the requirements are, short of being either an Animal which by it's mere nature, is neutral, seems to come off most of the time as either "I haven't decided which way to support", "I'm apathetic to all but one singular goal (Read: I'm a power hungry mage seeking arcane lore)" and "Well, I did just save that orphanage in the last town, so I guess I need to do 3 or 4 Renegade interrupts to balance that out."

Basically, the Book of Neutrality, would be anything but, Neutral, and would be better off as singular alignment category books.

Of course, one could argue that almost every book in the game in some gives something to Neutral characters,

[Eldan]

On the CN side, we have the "I seek fulfillment through pleasure and partying/putting me above all others" and the "I seek to cause mischief because it amuses me and annoys those in power"

That seems a very shallow view of chaos, if I can say that. Surely there's more to CN than that. They can just as much be motivated by a desire to improve life, for themselves or for society. Just as you have tyrants and judges in lawful neutral, you can have anarchists and revolutionaries in CN. Likewise, artists, radical philosophers and even those who have just slightly insane views on what they have to "liberate" people from in order to free them.

I like a philosophical bent on my chaos. Those who detach themselves, one by one, from all conventions and laws, of society, of nature, of the mind. Classic Cynics, Libertarians, Anarchists, Discordians. Ofcourse, pleasure can work too, but not necessarily in the egoistical way you mention. That seems more chaotic evil. But there can be hedonists and epicureans.


Order and Chaos has far more often been the driving conflict of D&D. The Wind Dukes and the Queen of Chaos. The Blood War. Gods and Titans.

The Blood War has been ongoing for aeons and has swallowed worlds. Occasionally, it draws in Modrons and Slaad. Very rarely evne the Celestials. Devils and Demons will not ally. Devils and Archons just might.

[ArqArturo]

Chaotic Neutral, in the civilized world, could very well be associated with the Decadent Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decadents).


A later generation of Romantics, such as Théophile Gautier and Charles Baudelaire used the word proudly, to represent their rejection of what they considered banal "progress." During the 1880s a group of French writers referred to themselves as Decadents. The classic novel from this group is Joris-Karl Huysmans' Against Nature (1884), often considered the first great decadent work, though others attribute this honour to Baudelaire's works. Decadence is now regarded as a transition between Romanticism and Modernism.

In Britain the leading figures associated with the Decadent movement were Oscar Wilde, Aubrey Beardsley and some artists and writers associated with The Yellow Book. In the United States, the brothers Edgar and Francis Saltus wrote decadent fiction and poetry.

In other words, they could be regarded as Mad, bad, and dangerous to know.

[Eldan]

Chaotic Neutral, in the civilized world, could very well be associated with the Decadent Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decadents).
In other words, they could be regarded as Mad, bad, and dangerous to know.

That reminds, me Romanticism. I forgot that one.


The movement validated strong emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as apprehension, horror and terror, and awe—especially that which is experienced in confronting the sublimity of untamed nature and its picturesque qualities, both new aesthetic categories. It elevated folk art and ancient custom to something noble, made spontaneity a desirable characteristic (as in the musical impromptu), and argued for a "natural" epistemology of human activities as conditioned by nature in the form of language and customary usage. Romanticism reached beyond the rational and Classicist ideal models to elevate a revived medievalism and elements of art and narrative perceived to be authentically medieval in an attempt to escape the confines of population growth, urban sprawl, and industrialism, and it also attempted to embrace the exotic, unfamiliar, and distant in modes more authentic than Rococo chinoiserie, harnessing the power of the imagination to envision and to escape.

If that isn't chaotic, nothing is.

[nedz]

And with that I think we have our forward for the Book of Balance.

Very well said.

+1 to this, excellent post.


A Chaotic Neutral (Conflict) might seek more extremes of action than a Lawful Neutral (Conflict) - possibly to tempest in a teapot levels.

Vorlons v Shadows

Orderly development v Survival of the fittest

[Vedhin]

I finally realized the right name for the Book of Neutrality-- Book of Harmonious Deeds. It continues the "Book of Whatever Deeds" theme, and harmony is a Neutral kind of thing, with everything present in the correct amounts.

[unseenmage]

I just remembered, isn't the Plane of Mirrors an all Neutral zone as well?

[Eldan]

I just remembered, isn't the Plane of Mirrors an all Neutral zone as well?

If you want to go by that, all non-outer planes are more or less neutral overall. The Astral, Ethereal, Shadow, the Elemental and energy Planes... though writers often seem to think negative is evil and positive good. And there's elemental good and elemental evil, of course

Thing is, the inner planes are about reality and matter far more than they are about philosophy. If you want to write a book on grand cosmological concepts, beliefs and creeds, you should probably stick to the outer planes.

[Vedhin]

I just remembered, isn't the Plane of Mirrors an all Neutral zone as well?

The Plane of Mirrors is evil opposites. Or whatever other alignment is diametrically opposed to yours. I suppose it averages to Neutral, but it isn't a dedicatedly Neutral plane like the Outlands.

[unseenmage]

If you want to go by that, all non-outer planes are more or less neutral overall. The Astral, Ethereal, Shadow, the Elemental and energy Planes... though writers often seem to think negative is evil and positive good. And there's elemental good and elemental evil, of course

Thing is, the inner planes are about reality and matter far more than they are about philosophy. If you want to write a book on grand cosmological concepts, beliefs and creeds, you should probably stick to the outer planes.

That is a very good point.
I'm starting to think that a Book of Neutrality would have been a wonderous idea, but folk just didn't have the vision to see all the material they had lying around for it.

Not to mention that if this thread has been any example a clearer denomination of what the Neutral Alignment is and how it's not just 'undecided' could have been very useful.

[karkus]

Why did Wizards never put out a Book of Neutrality in the same vein as "Book of Vile Darkness" and "Book of Exalted Deeds"?

Boy, that book would be really...

:smallsmile:

Gray
:smallcool:

YEAAAAAAAH!

[Vedhin]

I'm starting to think that a Book of Neutrality would have been a wonderous idea, but folk just didn't have the vision to see all the material they had lying around for it.

Yes. For example, I realized what Neutral monsters might be like. They would be creatures tasked with weighting the balance back in order when it got messed up. Sort of like Inevitables, but they would play both sides of the issue, essentially.

[Eldan]

Yes. For example, I realized what Neutral monsters might be like. They would be creatures tasked with weighting the balance back in order when it got messed up. Sort of like Inevitables, but they would play both sides of the issue, essentially.

They're called Rilmani.

[Vedhin]

They're called Rilmani.

Yeah, but we have all of what, two? I seem to remember a lack of silver-based Rilmani.

[Clistenes]

You have a ton of "neutral" books: Tome of the Mage, Complete Arcane, Complete Scoundrel, Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, Song of Silence...etc. Those are focused towards adventurers of any alignment.

I don't think a Book of Neutral Alignment would make much sense. I think people are neutral because they care about something else than alignment (Nature, Arcane Magic, Knowledge, Music, Martial Arts...etc.), not because they specifically support Neutral Alignment.

Supporting Neutral Alignment on itself would be like "supporting the act of not supporting anything".

[Vedhin]

I don't think a Book of Neutral Alignment would make much sense. I think people are neutral because they care about something else than alignment (Nature, Arcane Magic, Knowledge, Music, Martial Arts...etc.), not because they specifically support Neutral Alignment.

Supporting Neutral Alignment on itself would be like "supporting the act of not supporting anything".

You seem to forget the dedicated, "maintain the Balance" kind of Neutral, who certainly support nothing. As I know multiple True Neutrals of this type, I can attest to it definitely being deserving of a closer look.

[Jeff the Green]

I finally realized the right name for the Book of Neutrality-- Book of Harmonious Deeds. It continues the "Book of Whatever Deeds" theme, and harmony is a Neutral kind of thing, with everything present in the correct amounts.

It's not "Book of <adjective> Deeds," it's "Book of <adjective> <noun>". Also, 'Harmonious' is Lawful. A better name would be Book of Ineffable Balance.

I still maintain that Law's should be the Book of Eternal Order, while I've changed my mind on Chaos to the Book of Primordial <noun>. It seems like every mythology involves some power spinning the world out of a primordial chaos (Ouranos, Marduk, Izanagi and Izanami, Indra, etc.), and this is reflected in a lot of D&D myths, so 'Primordial' fits. I'm not sure what the noun should be, though. 'Tumult' or 'Turmoil' might work, but I'm not sure how euphonic they are with 'Primordial'.

(I reject 'Axiomatic' and 'Anarchic' as the adjectives, despite the parallel between 'Vile' and 'Exalted'. They're quite cacophonic.)

[Clistenes]

You seem to forget the dedicated, "maintain the Balance" kind of Neutral, who certainly support nothing. As I know multiple True Neutrals of this type, I can attest to it definitely being deserving of a closer look.

I am aware of characters trying to preserve Balance, but I never really liked it. It's kind of too metagame, from my point of view. It breaks completely with our Real Life morality of "Good is how things should be", and adopts a Blue and Orange morality of "Good and Bad must be balanced (because the game would be really boring if there weren't evil monster to fight)".

For a character that is inside the setting, it makes little sense to devote itself to Balance. If the character is willing to hurt others for its own pleasure and/or benefit, then the character is Evil; if the character is selfish but unwilling to hurt others too much, or desires to help others but is too lazy or unwilling to take any risk or make any sacrifice to do so, then it tends to Neutrality. If it works to help others, then its Good.

A character who believes that the world or the Universe needs a measure of Good and Evil to exist, and who works to preserve that Balance is in fact working to preserve the world, is doing a Good thing. Remember the first Dragonlance trilogy: Paladine, the Good god was working to restore the Balance between Good and Evil with the help of the Good characters, while the Evil Queen of Darkenss was trying to break the Balance. Astinus, the champion of Neutrality, was at home writing it all down.

[Vedhin]

Remember the first Dragonlance trilogy: Paladine, the Good god was working to restore the Balance between Good and Evil with the help of the Good characters, while the Evil Queen of Darkenss was trying to break the Balance. Astinus, the champion of Neutrality, was at home writing it all down.

What about the Kingpriest of Istar and the Cataclysm? He set out to eradicate Evil, so he was stopped by the gods to preserve the Balance. Even if keeping the Balance is intrinsically Good, few people would claim that the Cataclysm was an act of Good.
There's also the fact that the Dragonlance setting has Good and Neutral sitting near each other, and Evil is way over on the other side of the room. In most D&D settings, Good and Neutral are seperated by a gulf the same size as that between Neutral and Evil. It's just that most people don't bother the Neutrals when they could bother those with opposing alignments.

[Clistenes]

What about the Kingpriest of Istar and the Cataclysm? He set out to eradicate Evil, so he was stopped by the gods to preserve the Balance. Even if keeping the Balance is intrinsically Good, few people would claim that the Cataclysm was an act of Good.
There's also the fact that the Dragonlance setting has Good and Neutral sitting near each other, and Evil is way over on the other side of the room. In most D&D settings, Good and Neutral are seperated by a gulf the same size as that between Neutral and Evil. It's just that most people don't bother the Neutrals when they could bother those with opposing alignments.

Paladine and the others Good deities helped provoke the Cataclism because the alternative was the complete wreck of Balance and the return of the Queen of Darkness. They chose the lesser Evil for the sake of Krynn. so, strange as it seems, launching the Cataclism was an act of Good.

Anyways, if you remove the threat of world destruction if the balance between alignments is destroyed, if you have a setting where the world can go Bad, Good or Neutral without dire consequences...why would anybody fight to preserve Balance?
Evil beings would fight against the forces of Good for their own selfish reasons, because they have sworn loyalty to Hell, or because of psychotic hate and wrath, but, why would anybody else want to prevent the triumph of Good?

Yes, ambitious Neutrals could fight the forces of Good to gain power and wealth, Neutral druids could do the same to preserve Nature, Neutral wizards could do it because of a rivalty with divine-empowered casters...etc., but, who would fight for the Neutral Alignment on itself?
If you could create a world without hunger, war, disease, tyranny, crime, hate,...why try to avoid it? Why would you want to preserve an amount of rape, murder, hunger, disease, robbery and racism (because that's what fighting for Neutrality would entail) without being Evil?.
I just can't see any reason for a character to support the concept of Neutrality at all, unless the setting requires a balanced presence of all alignment for the world to survive...and even then, people wouldn't be fighting for Neutrality on itself, they would be fighting to preserve the world.

[Agent 451]

What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

All I know is my gut says "maybe"

http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Brannigan-Begin-Again-2.gif

[NichG]

Yes, ambitious Neutrals could fight the forces of Good to gain power and wealth, Neutral druids could do the same to preserve Nature, Neutral wizards could do it because of a rivalty with divine-empowered casters...etc., but, who would fight for the Neutral Alignment on itself?
If you could create a world without hunger, war, disease, tyranny, crime, hate,...why try to avoid it? Why would you want to preserve an amount of rape, murder, hunger, disease, robbery and racism (because that's what fighting for Neutrality would entail) without being Evil?.
I just can't see any reason for a character to support the concept of Neutrality at all, unless the setting requires a balanced presence of all alignment for the world to survive...and even then, people wouldn't be fighting for Neutrality on itself, they would be fighting to preserve the world.

I gave examples of this earlier in the thread, but I'll restate here.

If you have someone who thrives on conflict (a warrior who knows nothing but battle, and who is defined by their fights) then they can end up being neutral on the G/E axis because while they always choose to fight evil, they resist anything that would actually end the war. Their passion is the fight, and if either side wins, that passion is destroyed.

In fact, the Planescape supplement that covered the L/N/C neutral planes was called 'Planes of Conflict'. The Outlands is otherwise known as the Plane of Concordant Opposition. It seems very much like the hallmark of true neutrality is a desire to preserve the idea of conflict itself.

[Joe the Rat]

Planes of Conflict was the other way: NG-N-NE, and the nearbys. Planes of Order, Planes of Chaos, Planes of Conflict.

On Balance: Maintaining Balance (and the whole not destroying/subverting/altering reality in the process) is good, but not strictly speaking Good. Yeah, Good would probably consider it Good, though they might find an eternity of nothing but Good to be better. Evil wouldn't find Balance good, and might even consider it Good if they felt it was opposing their Evil, which they find to be good. Balance seekers find the balance between Good and Evil good, as it could really much things up, which would be bad.

See, this is why I want something besides Good and Evil labels. Capitalization is not enough to break the cognitive dissonance.

Consider this:
The good ending for Good is "And they lived happily ever after."
The good ending for Evil is "And everything burned."
The good ending for Neutral is "To be continued."

[NichG]

Planes of Conflict was the other way: NG-N-NE, and the nearbys. Planes of Order, Planes of Chaos, Planes of Conflict.


Ah, you're right, my mistake there.



On Balance: Maintaining Balance (and the whole not destroying/subverting/altering reality in the process) is good, but not strictly speaking Good. Yeah, Good would probably consider it Good, though they might find an eternity of nothing but Good to be better. Evil wouldn't find Balance good, and might even consider it Good if they felt it was opposing their Evil, which they find to be good. Balance seekers find the balance between Good and Evil good, as it could really much things up, which would be bad.


I think there are deeper depths to True Neutral that can be explored other than 'if we don't maintain balance something cosmically bad will happen'. That just turns True Neutral into a less-deluded Good.

Instead, I think its interesting to ask 'what is actually appealing about a world with both good and evil in it?'. We actually have this answer, because whenever we run a campaign we need there to be antagonists for the campaign to really be interesting or meaningful.



Consider this:
The good ending for Good is "And they lived happily ever after."
The good ending for Evil is "And everything burned."
The good ending for Neutral is "To be continued."

I've been in a campaign with a character I'd describe as LN, who basically had the philosophy 'It is okay for the world to end, so long as the ending of the world is fitting. We should only fight against ends that are inappropriate.' He had a particular aesthetic sense about whether an end was inappropriate or not, the same way one could have a certain aesthetic sense about what is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.

[Joe the Rat]

I think there are deeper depths to True Neutral that can be explored other than 'if we don't maintain balance something cosmically bad will happen'. That just turns True Neutral into a less-deluded Good.

Instead, I think its interesting to ask 'what is actually appealing about a world with both good and evil in it?'. We actually have this answer, because whenever we run a campaign we need there to be antagonists for the campaign to really be interesting or meaningful.That's the trick though: Finding reasons beyond the metagame concept of "there would be no story/game." I think both questions are important. There are folks who don't see how there can be a perspective, point or possibility to a Paragon of Neutrality. Having Cosmological and Worldly rationales for the Actively Neutral may not change minds, but would give the foundation of the idea - something to build on.

[NichG]

That's the trick though: Finding reasons beyond the metagame concept of "there would be no story/game." I think both questions are important. There are folks who don't see how there can be a perspective, point or possibility to a Paragon of Neutrality. Having Cosmological and Worldly rationales for the Actively Neutral may not change minds, but would give the foundation of the idea - something to build on.

Its not like that has to be a metagame concept. Consider people in real life who choose dangerous lifestyles or careers for themselves - cop, firefighter, soldier. While some of them are doing it because it needs to be done, others just like the adrenaline. There are less extreme examples too: throughout all walks of life there are people who specifically seek out challenges.

Something that threatens to remove all the challenges from life would be a threat to those people. They're going to be the ones who argue to Good 'no, you can't just pump happy drugs into everyone and have everyone be happy forever, thats unsatisfying'.

[Vedhin]

I think there are deeper depths to True Neutral that can be explored other than 'if we don't maintain balance something cosmically bad will happen'. That just turns True Neutral into a less-deluded Good.

Instead, I think its interesting to ask 'what is actually appealing about a world with both good and evil in it?'.

In a word: contrast.
The existence of both Good and Evil makes them both seem more towards their extreme than one without. In a world without Evil, Good would be less important and noteworthy, because it would be the norm. The same is true in reverse with Evil. If horrors were all the world knew, they would become less horrifying. So why fight for Neutrality? Fight that everything may maintain its fullness of meaning.

[geekintheground]

could a neutral character fight for the greater good, under the philosophy "without evil there can be no good"? what would that look like? now i REALLY want this book.

[NichG]

could a neutral character fight for the greater good, under the philosophy "without evil there can be no good"? what would that look like? now i REALLY want this book.

Imagine someone who fights but refuses to deal the finishing blow. Someone who does just enough to fend off the forces of evil, but never quite enough to weaken them to the point of destruction. The kind of person who seals away the demon lord rather than finishing them off, or who does something that will come back and cause future conflict in order to resolve the present one.

In the very extreme case, you can have the sort of entity that throws hardship after hardship at the heroes to toughen them up to the point where they can eventually win. 'I had your village attacked because you were content to become a farmer - now that your life's work is to kill me, you will become a very strong force for good indeed'

[Clistenes]

I think there are deeper depths to True Neutral that can be explored other than 'if we don't maintain balance something cosmically bad will happen'. That just turns True Neutral into a less-deluded Good.

Yes, that's what I think too. In the settings in which the characters can't allow Good to triumph because the Universe would unravel, the characters fighting for Neutrality are in fact fighting for the Greater Good.


Instead, I think its interesting to ask 'what is actually appealing about a world with both good and evil in it?'. We actually have this answer, because whenever we run a campaign we need there to be antagonists for the campaign to really be interesting or meaningful.

Problem is, that's kind of metagame.


That's the trick though: Finding reasons beyond the metagame concept of "there would be no story/game."

Exactly.


I think both questions are important. There are folks who don't see how there can be a perspective, point or possibility to a Paragon of Neutrality. Having Cosmological and Worldly rationales for the Actively Neutral may not change minds, but would give the foundation of the idea - something to build on.

Problem is, it's very difficult to conceive a philosophy or ethos defending Neutrality on itself and that is relatable to us as human beings.

A character can reject both Good and Evil and fight for Knowledge, for Nature, for Power, for Chaos/Freedom, for Order/Law, for Art or just for fun...but it's very difficult to conceive a philosophy that would defend Neutrality on itself.


I've been in a campaign with a character I'd describe as LN, who basically had the philosophy 'It is okay for the world to end, so long as the ending of the world is fitting. We should only fight against ends that are inappropriate.' He had a particular aesthetic sense about whether an end was inappropriate or not, the same way one could have a certain aesthetic sense about what is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.

But that character, while being Neutral, isn't fighting for Neutrality. He's fighting for his sense of Aesthetics.


Its not like that has to be a metagame concept. Consider people in real life who choose dangerous lifestyles or careers for themselves - cop, firefighter, soldier. While some of them are doing it because it needs to be done, others just like the adrenaline. There are less extreme examples too: throughout all walks of life there are people who specifically seek out challenges.

Something that threatens to remove all the challenges from life would be a threat to those people. They're going to be the ones who argue to Good 'no, you can't just pump happy drugs into everyone and have everyone be happy forever, thats unsatisfying'.


Imagine someone who fights but refuses to deal the finishing blow. Someone who does just enough to fend off the forces of evil, but never quite enough to weaken them to the point of destruction. The kind of person who seals away the demon lord rather than finishing them off, or who does something that will come back and cause future conflict in order to resolve the present one.

I dunno. Those characters that you describe would be Chaotic rather than True Neutral. They would be fighting for their own pleasure and thrill without caring other people's suffering. And if they keep that mindset after watching people suffer (being killed, raped, tortured, suffering hunger, suffering the loss of loved ones)...I would brand them as Chaotic Evil: "Oh, yes, the orcs ate your son alive, raped your daughter until killing her, cut your hands and plucked out your eyes, and yes, I could have stopped the war before it started, preventing all those nasty things...but avenging you makes for a better, more thrilling adventure!".


In the very extreme case, you can have the sort of entity that throws hardship after hardship at the heroes to toughen them up to the point where they can eventually win. 'I had your village attacked because you were content to become a farmer - now that your life's work is to kill me, you will become a very strong force for good indeed'


In a word: contrast.
The existence of both Good and Evil makes them both seem more towards their extreme than one without. In a world without Evil, Good would be less important and noteworthy, because it would be the norm. The same is true in reverse with Evil. If horrors were all the world knew, they would become less horrifying. So why fight for Neutrality? Fight that everything may maintain its fullness of meaning.

There was a comic, Universe X, in which Thor and Loki discover that Odin had been manipulating them to fight each other all their lives. Why? Because Odin likes heroic fights, and without Good and Evil, there can't be heroic fights, to he subtly guided his sons to become a hero and a villain, and while openly supporting Thor, he always allowed Loki to escape so there could be another fight.

When Thor and Loki discovered that, they didn't think that Odin was "Neutral", they considered him the most monstrous Evil, and teamed to defeat him.

The problem with that concept of "Neutrality" is that, when confronted with the realities of suffering and pain, looks like a kind of Evil.

[ArqArturo]

Yes, that's what I think too. In the settings in which the characters can't allow Good to triumph because the Universe would unravel, the characters fighting for Neutrality are in fact fighting for the Greater Good.

http://www.pietersingh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1365922470719.jpg

The Greater Good.

[NichG]

Problem is, that's kind of metagame.

I answered this up-thread. Anyone who wants 'an interesting life' would fall under this, without reference to some sort of game or campaign.



Problem is, it's very difficult to conceive a philosophy or ethos defending Neutrality on itself and that is relatable to us as human beings.

A character can reject both Good and Evil and fight for Knowledge, for Nature, for Power, for Chaos/Freedom, for Order/Law, for Art or just for fun...but it's very difficult to conceive a philosophy that would defend Neutrality on itself.




But that character, while being Neutral, isn't fighting for Neutrality. He's fighting for his sense of Aesthetics.


I think at some point you have to allow for that though. Someone who fights for Good is probably fighting for the things that are characteristic of Good - people being happy, peaceful, prosperous, etc. You could similarly argue that they aren't fighting for Good but are fighting for happiness or peace or their people. They aren't fighting just because they want the blue team to win.

(and if they are fighting just because they want the blue team to win, then you don't actually need a reason other than 'thats the team they got sorted on', which is unsatisfying)

So basically, there are things that are characteristically supported by, or even require a form of neutrality. If you fight for one of these things, you are in fact fighting for neutrality.



I dunno. Those characters that you describe would be Chaotic rather than True Neutral. They would be fighting for their own pleasure and thrill without caring other people's suffering.

So the question is, is desiring conflict always chaotic, or can you conceive of 'lawful' forms of conflict? And if you can conceive of both, then its possible to be between the two extremes.

Someone who loves the life of a soldier, for example. Its highly regimented, but at the same time that order is constantly forced into chaotic situations. A soldier who really loves fighting a war, loves the camaraderie of the battlefield, the conflict, the challenging moments would probably be True Neutral. They desire both order and chaos, they engage in both good and evil.


And if they keep that mindset after watching people suffer (being killed, raped, tortured, suffering hunger, suffering the loss of loved ones)...I would brand them as Chaotic Evil: "Oh, yes, the orcs ate your son alive, raped your daughter until killing her, cut your hands and plucked out your eyes, and yes, I could have stopped the war before it started, preventing all those nasty things...but avenging you makes for a better, more thrilling adventure!".


There's always going to be some line of course. Thats the nature of neutrality. Take a paladin who revels in destroying evil. Make them like the fight slightly more than the outcome and eventually you'll push out of Good. Push a bit further and you'll hit Evil, as you said. That's the nature of neutrality - its between the extremes.



There was a comic, Universe X, in which Thor and Loki discover that Odin had been manipulating them to fight each other all their lives. Why? Because Odin likes heroic fights, and without Good and Evil, there can't be heroic fights, to he subtly guided his sons to become a hero and a villain, and while openly supporting Thor, he always allowed Loki to escape so there could be another fight.

When Thor and Loki discovered that, they didn't think that Odin was "Neutral", they considered him the most monstrous Evil, and teamed to defeat him.

The problem with that concept of "Neutrality" is that, when confronted with the realities of suffering and pain, looks like a kind of Evil.

By definition, one who is neutral will be less moved by suffering and pain than someone who is good. What you're arguing is that basically 'there is no middle - if you do not do all you can to stop suffering, that is the same as causing it'. I think you basically have to relax that assumption to allow for neutrality. Someone neutral can be okay with some suffering but also not cause it unduly.

[ArqArturo]

I think, in my honest opinion, that real-life philosophical view on life could help define what means to be neutral. For example, I post some examples when it comes to Transcendentalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism)

The transcendentalists desired to ground their religion and philosophy in transcendental principles: principles not based on, or falsifiable by, physical experience, but deriving from the inner spiritual or mental essence of the human.

It was rooted in English and German Romanticism, the Biblical criticism of Herder and Schleiermacher, and the skepticism of Hume, and the transcendental philosophy of Immanuel Kant (and of German Idealism more generally), interpreting Kant's a priori categories as a priori knowledge. The transcendentalists were largely unacquainted with German philosophy in the original, and relied primarily on the writings of Thomas Carlyle, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Victor Cousin, Germaine de Staël, and other English and French commentators for their knowledge of it.

In contrast, they were intimately familiar with the English Romantics, and the transcendental movement may be partially described as a slightly later American outgrowth of Romanticism. Another major influence was the mystical spiritualism of Emanuel Swedenborg.

[NichG]

Could you maybe expound on that? I don't really know how to interpret the spoilered text as a character, since its mostly just references to other philosophies and the origins of the transcendentalists.

How specifically is it neutral as opposed to good or evil or chaotic or lawful or whatever? What particular insights are central to it?

[jedipilot24]

Dragonlance is about the only setting where Neutrality (as Balance) is its own side. The history of Krynn provides a good example of why too much Good is, in its own way, just as bad as too much Evil.

[unseenmage]

I was never big into it myself as I've never had the pleasure of Campaigning there, but doesn't Sigil have some organizations who represent Neutrality?

[Clistenes]

Dragonlance is about the only setting where Neutrality (as Balance) is its own side. The history of Krynn provides a good example of why too much Good is, in its own way, just as bad as too much Evil.

There is something that feels weird in the relationship between Good, Evil and Neutrality in Krynn.

The Good deities are, well, Good, but the "Good" mortal collectives (the elves, the Knights of Solamnia, the Kingdom of Ishtar, the Clergy of Good...etc.) are mostly a bunch or jerks. And the Good deities, despite not being opposed to direct intervention, don't bother kicking the asses of people like the Kingpriest of Ishtar or the racist elven leaders and putting them in their place, allowing them to become corrupted instead.

The Good deities (Paladine, Mishkahal...etc.) aren't really fighting for the triumph of Good, but for Neutrality and Balance (Paladine contributed to the Cataclism, and later manipulated events so the forces of Evil came back), while the deities of Neutrality are doing nothing.

Some gods of Evil. like for example, Sargonnas, don't look so bad, and his chosen race, the minotaurs, aren't that horrible, being more Lawful Neutral than Lawful Evil. Some Evil dragons can be kind and loving.

And then you have the "Evil" Knights of Takhsis, who are honourable in their own way, and mostly civilized when not waging war, and who joined forces with their "Good" Solamnic counterparts during the Age of Humans. And the mages, who are all allies despite serving opposing deities...

When I put it all together, I get a feeling that, while deities mostly follow their alignments (Paladine and Mishkahal are Good, Takhsis and Morgion are Evil), mortals are in fact overwhelmly neutral, and to follow the sides of Good, Neutral or Evil is kind of like being part of a team for them (white hats, red hats and black hats).

I dunno, it could be because the novels were marketed towards a young public and they didn't dare make the Evil characters really despicable "on screen", so Sleet, Kitiara, Soth, Dalamar and Black Robed Raistlin don't look so bad, while Porthios, Solostaran, Derek Crownguard, Crysania..etc,. who are fighting on the side of Good are often insufferable jerks.

[NichG]

Many (not all) of Sigil's factions in some sense are a philosophical rejection of the importance of alignment, so that may be part of it.

The Transcendent Order basically believes in 'go with the flow' and has a big true neutral following. Basically the idea is that the 'cadence', the underlying pattern of the multiverse, will guide one to perfect action, so there is no need to think, moralize, etc - just act as one with the universe.

They of course don't say (or know, or care) what 'the cadence of the multiverse' actually wants. But if nothing else, self-preservation seems to be a big part of it (Factol Rhys was iirc the only one to leave Sigil ahead of time and thereby emerge unscathed from the Faction War).

The Sensates always struck me as weighing toward the chaotic side, but the hardcore Sensates certainly believe in the neutrality of experience at least - good and bad, they should experience everything without giving preference to positive or negative experiences. Be tortured, eat at a sumptuous banquet, experience the loss of a loved one; everything.

The Bleakers basically just don't care about anything. Actually thats too weak of a statement - they believe that fundamentally there is no point to the multiverse, nothing to care about. There is no universal truth, no real 'reason' for things. Nothing is good or bad, because nothing matters. They might be True Neutral but they're difficult PCs and by definition not very proactive.

The Athar are the anti-gods faction. Specifically, they believe that divinity is a lie - the gods have no 'right' to their powers, no right to judge others or set the rules of reality - they're just powerful beings that have created a belief feedback loop to fill their batteries, and should be overthrown the same way one would overthrow a corrupt king. As a faction they're probably on the chaotic side due to the whole 'bring down the order of the gods', but factol Terrence at least is more introspective and less 'bring down the system' (he's LG though).

The Sign of One believe that they're all basically overgods (or at least in principle one of them is an overgod and the rest are his imaginary friends). I don't really know that they favor any particular alignment though.