delfytheelfy Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 Wondering what peoples views on what exactly true neutral really is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 True neutral in my opinion is that guy that always fights with the underdog, even if he fought against them the same day. Everything in the world must fall to balance. If savants and warmasters fight, and savant sweeps the floor, the guy will fight the savants until they are on even footing with the warmasters. Same with good and evil, law and chaos. Everything must be continual, no ultimatums in terms of worldly affairs. No destruction of a viewpoint, but it must fall into balance with everything around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrek Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 n/n has two versions: balance at it's purest or totally insane. I guess you could play one like the cause heads from PCU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killalou Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 Like Myrek said, true neutral has two versions in my opinion. A religious true neutral which twinblades described a non religious true neutral who is just trying to survive. What this means is the former will be a pk intensive player while the later will try to avoid fights and situations where they are forced to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 I don't say you are wrong, of course not. But I completely disagree. I would think crazy would be chaotic neutral if anything. I'm open to discussion, and am not against being convinced otherwise, but alignment has been one of my favorite things about roleplaying, so I like to know the alignments. That's usually the first thing I decide to play, then I choose my race/class combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grosek_ Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 eshaine sent a lengthy pm to my cousin and I a while back but i've since lost it, on just this subject. i do believe an essay should be written on this, and I do believe that she has the best ideas i've heard on it. true neutrality is the hardest rp to play, imo. it requires (le GASP!) making very good decisions EVERY time. there is little margin for error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delfytheelfy Posted November 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 Law, Neutrality and Chaos... Attitudes towards order and chaos are divided into three opposing beliefs. Picture these beliefs as the three points of a triangle, all pulling away from each other. The three beliefs are Law, Chaos and Neutrality. One of these represents each character's ethos, or ethical beliefs - his understanding of society and relationships. Neutral people follow those rules they find convenient or obviously necessary. They tend to take a more balanced view of things. They hold that for every force in the universe, there is an opposite force somewhere. Where there is lawfulness, there is also chaos; where there is neutrality, there is also partisanship. The same is true of good and evil, life and death. What is important is that all these forces remain in balance with each other. If one factor becomes ascendant over its opposite, the universe becomes unbalanced. If enough of these polarities go out of balance, the fabric of reality could pull itself apart. For example, if death became ascendant over life, the universe would become a barren wasteland. Philosophers of neutrality not only presuppose the existence of opposites, but they also theorize that the universe would vanish should one opposite completely destroy the other (since nothing can exist without its opposite). Fortunately for these philosophers (and all sentient life), the universe seems to be efficient at regulating itself. Only when a powerful, unbalancing force appears (which almost never happens) need the defenders of neutrality become seriously concerned. Good, Neutrality, and Evil... Like law and order, the second set of attitudes is divided into three parts. These parts describe, more or less, a character's moral outlook; they are his internal guideposts to what is right or wrong. Those with a neutral moral stance often refrain from passing judgement on anything. They do not classify people, things, or events as good or evil; what is, is. In some cases, this is because the creature lacks the capacity to make a moral judgment (animals fall into this category). Few normal creatures do anything for good or evil reasons. They kill because they are threatened. They sleep where they find shelter. They do not worry about the moral consequences of their actions - their actions are instinctive. True Nuetral True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding wih forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention. True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls are brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly, there are very few true neutral characters in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 Lol, that true neutral definition sounds like exactly what I said. And I didn't look up a reference anywhere... I just pulled that out from what I remembered and have rped in the past. It's not easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrek Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 This is an observation from the pen and paper days. True neutrals could also be played as total fanatics. All they had was their religion (or the leadership of whatever organization they belonged to). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 True neutral is actually one of my more favorite RPs. I rolled a True neutral character... A tribute to Isadora's awesomeness. But she disappeared. The biggest conflict with a true neutral is that it's almost impossible to join a cabal, since all cabals seek to... Destroy balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrek Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 you could join certain cabals and attempt to lead it to true neutrality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 True neutral is actually one of my more favorite RPs. I rolled a True neutral character... A tribute to Isadora's awesomeness. But she disappeared. The biggest conflict with a true neutral is that it's almost impossible to join a cabal, since all cabals seek to... Destroy balance. Agreed. A true neutral watcher doesn't seem realistic at all, and based on their align, it seems watcher is the closest cabal to a true neutral character, and it wouldn't even come close to making sense. True neutrals do have a purpose, and everything must remain balanced. Killing tribbies and burning cities to the ground does no good if there's no one to derend against it. And if it's a common struggle the true neut wouldn't join the fight because a regular struggle -is- balance, and aiding either side would imbalance that... heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 you could join certain cabals and attempt to lead it to true neutrality. It'd be very hard if your cabal had an antithesis... savant-warmaster, knight-nexus. Because the point would be to destroy the other and educate/rule the rest of the world, which is no good to a true neutral. A True Neutral Syndi might be able to work. Herald for sure, they have no war oriented obligations. EDIT: There may be a way... hehe. If a true neutral was with warmaster, (since neither knight or nexus allows neutrals) they would fight savant as long as the battlefield is square. If savant begins to win, sure , they keep fighting. If Warmaster begins to win, the True neut holds back and fights less, (Possibly angering cabal mates/imm) and attempts to keep lands fairly equal, not for equality of power, but balance so that someone is always fighting for more land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrek Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 you could always strive to force balance upon the world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 A true neutral Stalker would make sense. A true neutral Warder would not. Remember, subcabals have different RPs, people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyoki Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 Watchers don't even come close to true neutrality. Not even Watcher Warders. A true neutral wouldn't fit in Aabahran's current cabals. A new cabal, pointed in keeping true balance however, would, and it would definitely fit into the current cabals. A certain spell or skill would allow the cabal to know if Order/Chaos prevails (such as how many chars that are chaotic versus how many that are lawful), if Good/Evil prevails (same concept), or some other imbalance I can't think of right now (magic/no magic? I don't know). Another spell would also let them see and know who is chaotic/lawful/good/evil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 You guys are touching a subject I have toyed around with in my head for a very long time. I have a neutral only cabal/class/etc. All thought out. Of course, I never posted anything because I thought it was unlikely and well... I can't decide which is coolest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 Watchers don't even come close to true neutrality. Stalkers do. Their goal is simply the eradication of unnatural beings, which from a true neutral's perspective makes perfect sense; these are powerful beings that are also extremists, ideals given form and strength, and they ALWAYS disrupt the balance of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 I think you are seeing things only from one side of the street. But this street has two way, and a small alley. In my view a True Neutral is someone who does not cares. He does not cares about the Goods cause, or the Genocide done by evils. As long as he isn't the one being killed (self preservation is at the core of every character), he can rationalize it into not caring. He surely does not cares about laws, as long as he is not being robed. Then he will act in his interest and demand Lawmen to uphold their function, even tho he "forgets" to pay his taxes with regularity. Vampires roaming in Mirhuv ? He could not care less, he lives in Rheydin. Watchers razed Val Miran, to bad. Maybe the price of wood will go down. It sure gets cold in Rheydin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrek Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 I partially disagree, Pali. By saying there shall be NO supernatural beings, you've taken a very unbalanced view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 I partially disagree' date=' Pali. By saying there shall be NO supernatural beings, you've taken a very unbalanced view.[/quote'] Thing is... This RP can be done almost ANY way. It just depends on your personal thought process and how you want to rationalize/justify your characters RP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 I partially disagree' date=' Pali. By saying there shall be NO supernatural beings, you've taken a very unbalanced view.[/quote'] Not if it is your belief that the natural world needs to remain balanced... any force highly disruptive to that balance is then a threat, and supernatural forces tend to be rather disruptive. If you saw a vampire who was crappy and not doing anything, well, yeah, you could let that one slide... but those are rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrek Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 Not if it is your belief that the natural world needs to remain balanced... any force highly disruptive to that balance is then a threat' date=' and supernatural forces tend to be rather disruptive. If you saw a vampire who was crappy and not doing anything, well, yeah, you could let that one slide... but those are rare. [/quote'] I'm just saying that your approach lacks balance between the natural and the supernatural. There are all kinds of ways to view "balance". Not pickin on you. Just trying to stir up some ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 Man, there was a Herald monk some time ago that strived ABSOLUTELY all the time to embody pure neutrality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 I'm just saying that your approach lacks balance between the natural and the supernatural. There are all kinds of ways to view "balance". ...well played, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.