Neutral Characters in Good Campaigns

[Angel Bob]

Ah, right, sorry, I mean "cut through" as in "take out your sword and cut people down", not "step in front of others".

Ah. Well, then, that probably would be Evil, yes.

[veti]

It's closer to how an otherwise Good person can be Neutral by having a few Evil traits as well. Seriously, have you ever played Skyrim? Have you ever NOT wanted to beat Braith down or set the Jarl of Whiterun's kids on fire?

Braith is mildly annoying, but she'll grow out of it. She can easily be talked out of bullying that little wimp Lars. And the Jarl of Whiterun's kids are

Spoiler

Show

about as close to 'possessed' as the game gets. One of my bigger annoyances with the game is that you can't actually do anything about that - there's no option to tell the Jarl what's going on and let/help him do something about it.

[Slipperychicken]

Spoiler

Show

about as close to 'possessed' as the game gets. One of my bigger annoyances with the game is that you can't actually do anything about that - there's no option to tell the Jarl what's going on and let/help him do something about it.

Spoiler

Show

That's my main beef with the thieves guild and dark brotherhood questlines too. I witness firsthand the depravity they routinely sink to, have a change of heart, decide to destroy their organization from the inside, or at least report their lair's location and lead a squad of law enforcement to bust them... only to find out I can't. Because Bethesda wants me to follow the rails, and no other reason. Even when NPCs tell me how bad a person my character is for continuing those questlines, there's no option to quit.

[Scow2]

Braith is mildly annoying, but she'll grow out of it. She can easily be talked out of bullying that little wimp Lars. And the Jarl of Whiterun's kids are

Spoiler

Show

about as close to 'possessed' as the game gets. One of my bigger annoyances with the game is that you can't actually do anything about that - there's no option to tell the Jarl what's going on and let/help him do something about it.

You have to talk her out of it, instead of showing her respect on her level and punching her out of it (She's young and tough - she'll heal. And probably prefer the lesson in humility given her way than condescendingly talked down to like the child she actually is). I was annoyed that it was impossible to help Lars grow a backbone.

On topic - Respect for Life is a "Good" trait. Lacking that means you're Not Good. It doesn't necessarily mean you're Evil (Though it can)

And, I never said "Burn a child to death" - merely "Set one on fire" - which, at first, envisioned as igniting an article of clothing or hair (Richard ****head gets ALL his clothes and hair ignited for being a monster - he'll still live). Unless the kids in question are pickpockets/thieves, when it's Explosive Runes all the way.

[Slipperychicken]

And, I never said "Burn a child to death" - merely "Set one on fire" - which, at first, envisioned as igniting an article of clothing or hair (Richard ****head gets ALL his clothes and hair ignited for being a monster - he'll still live). Unless the kids in question are pickpockets/thieves, when it's Explosive Runes all the way.

Just remember to dismiss the runes before you pay for groceries, drinks, or anything else. The results of such a mishap could be unpleasant, to say the least.

"Oi, shine ya shoes, sir?"

"Sure thing, ya rascal" [tosses a coin to him]

"Oh boy, a gold piece!.. what does it say here? I prepared..."

"WAIT NO DON'T READ THAT IT'-"

[Massive explosion kills everyone within 10ft]

[hamishspence]

On topic - Respect for Life is a "Good" trait. Lacking that means you're Not Good. It doesn't necessarily mean you're Evil (Though it can)

I prefer to think of it as a continuum:

"Great respect for all life = Good"
"Moderate respect for all life = Neutral"
"Low respect/severe disrespect for some life = Evil"

And, I never said "Burn a child to death" - merely "Set one on fire" - which, at first, envisioned as igniting an article of clothing or hair (Richard gets ALL his clothes and hair ignited for being a monster - he'll still live).

"Setting someone on fire" as "punishment for being obnoxious" is revoltingly cruel- whether the intention is to kill them or not.

Especially when it's a child - even if that child is a "teenage monster".

only the worst get outright immolated - and WILL suffer long-term damage(And get a lesson in humility), but only because they did something to deserve it, and can still Stop, Drop+Roll before he dies

Indeed, wanting them to live with severe burns for the rest of their life (assuming healing potions are not available) is pretty Vile.

[GybeMark]

I've seen a few ways to play neutral characters that "work". A PC in one of the first campaigns I played was LN in that all they cared about was "the law". The character's primary motivation for adventuring was a personal drive to punish lawbreakers (this was high school, and we had just discovered Judge Dredd comics...). In this character's view, if you stole treasure from an evil sorcerer's grave to feed orphans, than you were equally guilty of "theft" as someone who was stealing food from the orphans to throw a party. The fact that (at least in this campaign) most "laws" were there to enforce "good" behavior (don't murder, don't steal, etc) had no bearing on alignment.

So in answer to "a way to play neutral characters in a good campaign" is to pick *something* that the character is devoted to, regardless of whether it's "good" or "evil". Since you've already been adventuring with the party, maybe your character believes in "all debts should be paid", and feels that she owes the party something. They don't care how they accomplish the "payback".

If you feel like you need to justify "neutrality" by doing some less-than-good tasks, then maybe you could talk to your DM about putting the characters in a situation where being good just doesn't cut it, and the party has to rely on you to take care of things that their character cannot in good conscience do. Maybe an NPC with information is captured and while the rest of the party is indisposed, and you "persuade" them to give you information...

[Coidzor]

"Setting someone on fire" as "punishment for being obnoxious" is revoltingly cruel- whether the intention is to kill them or not.

Or it's comedy gold if played for laughs.

[hamishspence]

I was going with "how would I react if I was on a jury and was shown a videotape of it happening, and heard the guy's testimony of why he did it."

[The Oni]

Or it's comedy gold if played for laughs.

Yet, I can't imagine a mostly Good campaign playing it for laughs unless the PC who does it is a Joker expy.

[Scow2]

"Cosmic forces" don't have the power to make choices "I won't tolerate this kind of person being on my side" - they don't have intelligence in that sense.

Actually, they do because Magnets are also not intelligent, but still choose what particles to attract. When people perform deeds in line with a given alignment, they start aligning themselves with that alignment just as the electrons in an iron bar align themselves with the poles of a magnet and become magnetized. That's why it's called "Alignment", not "personality".(I know that's not QUITE how magnets work.... but it's an analogy)

A person doesn't cease to be Evil merely because they do Good deeds now and again.

But they DO cease to be Evil if they do Good deeds in a Good Mindset with greater or equal frequency than Evil Deeds in an Evil mindset. "All the ****ing time" is not "Now and again"

Eh.

Truth be told, as punchy as what I said earlier sounds in my head, the presence and nature of Cosmic Good really depends on the setting, so it's not really useful to make blanket statements about it.

Not only that, but actual "Balance Neutral" requires the sort of cosmic perspective that comes with being the wizard ubermensch a la Mordenkainen and is thus pretty useless for 99.9999% of player characters.

Actually, most player characters have enough power to swing the cosmic powers one direction or another by annihilating, marginalizing, or converting the forces of the other side.

Neutral is BROAD. The reason why 1/3rd of Humans can be "more evil" than someone who has "Kills babies" or "Sets children on Fire" or "Guns down civilians" on their list of behaviors is because they have no other redeeming qualities.

I prefer to think of it as a continuum:

"Great respect for all life = Good"
"Moderate respect for all life = Neutral"
"Low respect/severe disrespect for all life = Evil"

Fixed that for you. Your standards are WAY too high. Neutral is NOT "Good Light". Very few people have respect for all life (Do you really give a damn about the billions of bacteria and fungus you kill every time you wash your hands? You didn't specify "Intelligent" life.) Also, you can respect life and still freely take it.

"Setting someone on fire" as "punishment for being obnoxious" is revoltingly cruel- whether the intention is to kill them or not.

Merely being obnoxious and continuing to tick off the pyromancer after being warned results in at worst a damaged piece of clothes and a light burn for a day, or smelling terrible and being partially bald for a week.

Especially when it's a child - even if that child is a "teenage monster".

Indeed, wanting them to live with severe burns for the rest of their life (assuming healing potions are not available) is pretty Vile.

Severe burns require a MUCH worse transgression than merely being obnoxious.

On the other hand... would it really have been better for Pyro to just abandon the kid after he proved uncooperative in the fire, and without the demeaning and foul-mouthed dead weight was better-able to save the other kids with less damage to himself and the others (Including the puppy managing to survive), while the jerk burned/asphyxiated to death in the fire because he rejected his chance at salvation?

Yet, I can't imagine a mostly Good campaign playing it for laughs unless the PC who does it is a Joker expy.

Which is why the character is Neutral. And the kid isn't in any danger. He's obnoxious? The Sorcerer sets his hair on fire. He'll stink for a day, possibly be bald for a week, get spooked a bit, but otherwise be fine. (I know I've set myself on fire several times!)

Also - all three situations have the character respect life.
Pyro respects the lives of the Orphans enough to nearly get himself killed ensuring they all get out, but not to the extent of tolerating an obnoxious, degrading bully insulting and belittling his selfless efforts and tormenting the ones who've lost things in the fire. (And in his extended action, he respects the livelihoods of the people of Foresttown to sacrifice his own life to destroy the invading army, but not to the point that he'll let the few within the blast radius allow him to let the army overrun the town and kill everyone else... and he respects the lives of both the Rakshasa and their slaves enough to completely overhaul their society and ensure they can live in harmony, but not to the extent of allowing slave rebels to undermine the peace with partisanship (Who are themselves Neutral, not Evil), nor the rights of both to self-determination to the point that they can revert to a position to wipe the other out again.)

The Charioteer has enough respect for the lives of the people in town to intervene and stop the Mad Poisonbomber from killing everyone, but not to the extent of caring about the few who fail to heed his warnings and get run over more than the lives of those who will die if he doesn't stop the Mad Poisonbomber ASAP.

Even TriggerHappy has enough respect for life of the people of the planet he's on to stop the invasion of the Aliens of Subjugation and Slaughter, but not enough to feel bad about accidentally killing the scientists and civilians in the compound who get in his way (And are possibly accessory to allowing the invasion to occur in the first place). He tries not to shoot them, but if he does, "What's done is done, I can't do anything about it now - and they would have died anyway if I wasn't here to clean up this mess."

[hamishspence]

Also, you can respect life and still freely take it.

You can also "respect the lives of some" "have contempt for the lives of others" and be Evil.

A elf who is kind and altruistic toward strangers who are not dwarves - and cruel & vicious toward dwarves - can cross the line into Evil, and stay there no matter how kind and altruistic toward most people they meet, they are.

.
Merely being obnoxious and continuing to tick off the pyromancer after being warned results in at worst a damaged piece of clothes and a light burn for a day, or smelling terrible and being partially bald for a week.

Earlier though:

(Richard gets ALL his clothes and hair ignited for being a monster - he'll still live).

[Coidzor]

Yet, I can't imagine a mostly Good campaign playing it for laughs unless the PC who does it is a Joker expy.

Well, it'd have to be someone receiving karmic retribution, mostly.

I was going with "how would I react if I was on a jury and was shown a videotape of it happening, and heard the guy's testimony of why he did it."

I'm just reminded of the time my best friend set his arm on fire with rubbing alcohol and managed to avoid getting any burns from the experience.

And the slapstick conventions in play in certain anime. XD

[Slipperychicken]

I'm just reminded of the time my best friend set his arm on fire with rubbing alcohol and managed to avoid getting any burns from the experience.

Isn't that actually supposed to be safe? I've seen that trick being done with paper bills, but I guess that could work with body parts too.

[Coidzor]

Isn't that actually supposed to be safe? I've seen that trick being done with paper bills, but I guess that could work with body parts too.

Well, he'd been doing it with his fingers without incident. He just sorta spilled it and it spread further than he intended, so, the worst part as far as I can recall was the surprise and having to resist the urge to panic.

[TuggyNE]

Earlier though:

The backtracking will continue until morale improves. At first it was "burns X to death", then it was "burns X, but maybe they won't die", then it was "burns X, but only one or two patches on X get scorched", and who knows what it'll be next?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Isn't that actually supposed to be safe? I've seen that trick being done with paper bills, but I guess that could work with body parts too.

As I understand it, rubbing alcohol burns at a very low heat, and if there's enough of it, the liquid itself actually provides some insulation.

That being said, in this particular incidence I had too much rubbing alchohol too poorly distributed (so flames were falling across dry skin), so I'm fairly sure that if I hadn't put it out as quickly as I did, I would have suffered burns.

[Angel Bob]

The backtracking will continue until morale improves. At first it was "burns X to death", then it was "burns X, but maybe they won't die", then it was "burns X, but only one or two patches on X get scorched", and who knows what it'll be next?

Once we get to "Doesn't burn X whatsoever, but in the heat* of the situation, snaps and maybe threatens to burn X", then I'll be satisfied. That's the worst Pyro can do without remorse for me to still consider him non-Evil.

*Ba-dum-tsh.

[veti]

Spoiler

Show

That's my main beef with the thieves guild and dark brotherhood questlines too. I witness firsthand the depravity they routinely sink to, have a change of heart, decide to destroy their organization from the inside, or at least report their lair's location and lead a squad of law enforcement to bust them... only to find out I can't. Because Bethesda wants me to follow the rails, and no other reason. Even when NPCs tell me how bad a person my character is for continuing those questlines, there's no option to quit.

Yep, and that's why Skyrim, despite its best intentions, isn't really a roleplaying game. It makes some effort - more than most offline computerised games - but there's a finite limit to how much complexity and choice you can build into a static world. And in practice, your development schedule and budget will mean you'll never get close even to that limit. That's why there are so many mods for it.

A mod to "fix" the children of Whiterun would be pretty straightforward, although I don't know of any. It'd be significantly more work to fix what's wrong with Riften, or the civil war, or allow you to betray the Dark Brotherhood after joining them - and at that point, you also run into the "voice acting" limitation. (Seriously, whoever's bright idea it was that all characters need to be fully voice-acted needs to be punched. Hard. Then forced to play 'Morrowind' until they get it.)

[Slipperychicken]

(Seriously, whoever's bright idea it was that all characters need to be fully voice-acted needs to be punched. Hard. Then forced to play 'Morrowind' until they get it.)

I mean, voice acting does help immersion somewhat, things like hearing NPCs say background stuff in town, or shout things during combat. Granted, that gets old once you hear the same lines repeated like 20 times.

I would be okay with sacrificing voice-acting if it meant way more dialogue options. Of course, removing the voice-acting would also make it infinitely easier for people to seamlessly mod in character interactions: Just throw down the NPC model and dialogue text.

[Rhynn]

This is pretty off-topic, but I 100% agree that full voice-acting is a cancer in computer RPGs. It results in horrible and incomplete, almost crippled dialogue like seen in Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas. It doesn't help that it's usually pretty bad in quality (making listening to a lot of it painful), and huge wads are blown on famous actors who are not nearly worth it when you can't see them act, just hear them reading lines...

[Scow2]

You can also "respect the lives of some" "have contempt for the lives of others" and be Evil.

Not if you "respect the lives of most" and "Have contempt for the lives of those who go out of their way to lose my respect".

A elf who is kind and altruistic toward strangers who are not dwarves - and cruel & vicious toward dwarves - can cross the line into Evil, and stay there no matter how kind and altruistic toward most people they meet, they are.

Actually, if they're actually beneficial to most people they meet, they're Neutral, not Evil... but Dwarves will think he's Evil because they only see the darkest side of him, instead of the lighter sides as well. Good and Evil DO balance out if the acts are of comparable regularity and/or severity.

Earlier though:

That's because Richard went beyond "Pest" to outright "menace".

The backtracking will continue until morale improves. At first it was "burns X to death", then it was "burns X, but maybe they won't die", then it was "burns X, but only one or two patches on X get scorched", and who knows what it'll be next?

I never said Burns X to death. The term I've used consistently in all my posts is "Set X on fire", which generally implies a delay between ignition and horrible horrible death, which can be averted by stopping, dropping, and rolling. If Richard burns to death, it's because he wouldn't stop being an annoying little ****head to extinguish it.

[PersonMan]

The term I've used consistently in all my posts is "Set X on fire", which generally implies a delay between ignition and horrible horrible death, which can be averted by stopping, dropping, and rolling.

When I picture a pyromancer "setting X on fire", I don't think of them just igniting their clothes or something, but fully engulfing them in flame. Which is significantly harder to stop drop 'n roll out of because you're engulfed in flame.

Also, expecting a child to not panic when set on fire but rather go through a specific sequence of actions which he's never been taught to put it out is kind of...unrealistic?

[Slipperychicken]

Also, expecting a child to not panic when set on fire but rather go through a specific sequence of actions which he's never been taught to put it out is kind of...unrealistic?

I don't know about you, but I was taught "stop, drop, and roll" relatively early on*. Also, the reflex save to put out flames doesn't require any special procedure: rolling on the ground, or smothering with a cloak merely gives a +4 bonus on the save.

*(I have not, thankfully, yet had the opportunity to use that knowledge, but I feel like I would remember it if there wasn't a water source at hand.)

Of course, I don't know whether the average child in dnd-land would be taught what to do if he's set on fire.

[TuggyNE]

I never said Burns X to death. The term I've used consistently in all my posts is "Set X on fire", which generally implies a delay between ignition and horrible horrible death, which can be averted by stopping, dropping, and rolling. If Richard burns to death, it's because he wouldn't stop being an annoying little ****head to extinguish it.

Ah. Then, when multiple forumgoers exclaimed over how evil it would be for Pyro to burn someone to death on page 3, why didn't you say "no, that's not what I meant"? You switched from "yes, it's totally fine to kill people in the course of being an antihero without going Evil [including, presumably, Pyro burning Richard to death]" to "nah, Richard would just get minor first-degree burns" without clarifying your position at all in between, which looks a lot more like changing your position than clarifying it from here.

Not that changing your position is something to be ashamed of, as such, but it's best to be aware of it when it happens, rather than trying to say how consistent you've been all along.

[PersonMan]

I don't know about you, but I was taught "stop, drop, and roll" relatively early on.

I don't know about you, but I live in a modern world that spends a massive amount of time, energy and resources on people's safety.

I'm not sure if orphans in a semi-medieval fantasy setting would be taught it, is what I'm saying.

EDIT: Ninja-edit. Yeah, we're on the same page now.

[Scow2]

Ah. Then, when multiple forumgoers exclaimed over how evil it would be for Pyro to burn someone to death on page 3, why didn't you say "no, that's not what I meant"? You switched from "yes, it's totally fine to kill people in the course of being an antihero without going Evil [including, presumably, Pyro burning Richard to death]" to "nah, Richard would just get minor first-degree burns" without clarifying your position at all in between, which looks a lot more like changing your position than clarifying it from here.

Not that changing your position is something to be ashamed of, as such, but it's best to be aware of it when it happens, rather than trying to say how consistent you've been all along.

I'm saying that Pyro wouldn't care if the kid saved himself from the fire or not. He uses "Minor ignition" on mere nuisance kids, but when it comes to people who are outright malevolent (But not violent about it), it's Immolation, no matter how old or young they are (But young people get more warnings - Richard was warned 3 times. Also, after nearly suffocating and suffering severe burns himself, our Antihero isn't in a tolerant mood). Also, another mitigating/karmic factor is that Pyro revoked the salvation he'd offered the kid for continuing to be a bullying menace after being warned off.

Had Pyro merely given him a "Minor Ignition", he'd be Good, not Neutral, because he wouldn't have committed an evil act (Disciplining an unruly child is not Evil.)

Someone who remorselessly commits evil acts with similar frequency as he commits unqualified and unmitigated Good acts is Neutral in D&D 3.5 (Through the "Frequent alignment changes"/"Wishy-washy" clause in the DMG), and Unaligned in 4e (Where being Evil actually requires a commitment to the furthering of Evil on the world.)

The PHB dramatically undersells Neutrality in characters that are Larger Than Life figures, painting Neutrality simply as an alignment for those who are passive/uninvolved/hard-to-motivate, as opposed to characters who act with proactive conviction that tends to careen all over the place on the moral and ethical axis. (It also short-sells all other alignments as well by painting a narrow view of them)... And seems to all around focus too much on the "personality" and not enough on the "Alignment" ends. Such as discounting the Chaotic Neutral person who wants to revert to anarchy and remove the restrictions and pressures Society puts on people to act as Evil or Good.

Then again, I think they did so to discourage thoughtless application of "Psychotic Neutral" and "Crazy Hijinks" Chaotic Neutral.

In Pyro's case here, he is Neutral because he is both Good and Evil.

I don't know about you, but I live in a modern world that spends a massive amount of time, energy and resources on people's safety.

I'm not sure if orphans in a semi-medieval fantasy setting would be taught it, is what I'm saying.

EDIT: Ninja-edit. Yeah, we're on the same page now.

Well, this is a semi-medieval fantasy setting with pyromancers that travel the world saving people but igniting little kids who annoy them.

[Scootaloo]

Let's stick with the "rescuing the village" thing.

A good character rescues the village because it's the ethically good thing to do. The people are (for all it counts) innocents in need, victims of some more powerful force. He can of course have selfish aims - perhaps he sees rescuing the village as a chance to atone for some other misdeed of his, or to proselytize a religion (think of churches feeding the homeless, there) but unless he's deeply cynical, the first motive is that it's the right thing to do.

The evil character might also rescue the village... but his reasons are going to be mostly selfish. Maybe he wants the village in his debt. maybe by salughtering the orcs he can get new materials for a flesh golem. Maybe it's just that the inn is cozy and he can't drink booze there if it's on fire. Whatever the reason he has, it's going to revolve around himself. oh, he can certainly do it for a good reason too, but even those are likely to be tied to himself. nostalgia, or letting the orphanage burn is "too much, even for me."

The neutral character rescues the village because it just makes sense to do. If those orcs triumph here, well they have more resources with which the accost the next village over. Without this village, the duchy will lose an important trade hub, and famine may strike with the fields burned. He may have an ethical stance - neutral defaults closer to good than to evil after all - but mostly it's going to be because letting orcs tromp the place into the mud staggers common sense... Unless, perhaps, there's something deeper afoot, like the village had been sending adventurers to raid the orc tribes all year...

[Scow2]

Let's stick with the "rescuing the village" thing.

A good character rescues the village because it's the ethically good thing to do. The people are (for all it counts) innocents in need, victims of some more powerful force. He can of course have selfish aims - perhaps he sees rescuing the village as a chance to atone for some other misdeed of his, or to proselytize a religion (think of churches feeding the homeless, there) but unless he's deeply cynical, the first motive is that it's the right thing to do.

But with the current debate, what about the guy who saves the village because it's the ethically good thing to do, but ends up killing a few of the citizens through Friendly Fire? (And not regretting/feeling remorse over it because ♫there's no use crying over every mistake♪he'll just keep on going 'til he runs out of cake♫)

Also, neutral does NOT default closer to Good than Evil. That's a misconception. It's right in the middle.

[hamishspence]

The PHB dramatically undersells Neutrality in characters that are Larger Than Life figures, painting Neutrality simply as an alignment for those who are passive/uninvolved/hard-to-motivate, as opposed to characters who act with proactive conviction that tends to careen all over the place on the moral and ethical axis.

I prefer splatbooks like Champions of Ruin- which go into much more detail on various Evil Archetypes- like the person who uses Evil means toward good ends-

or the person who, while capable of being kind, just doesn't control their violent impulses.

Had Pyro merely given him a "Minor Ignition", he'd be Good, not Neutral, because he wouldn't have committed an evil act (Disciplining an unruly child is not Evil.)

Igniting a person's hair, or a small part of their clothing- seems like child abuse to me - a very far cry from "normal" discipline.