Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 shrykull_dup Nov 05, 2008 0:22:03	First of all, is there one already? We have the book of vile darkness and the book of exalted deeds, since I didn't know what it would be called I tried a google search with these two books and the word neutral. And, if it doesn't, what would the book be called, The Book of Impeccable Equilibrium perhaps? I started to think about Primus, he was Modron correct? Prior to Planescape Mechanus was ruled by three mediators, who are basically clusters of geometric shapes, basically machines that could will anything to happen in order to keep the plane is perfect balance, but I heard that Planescape says Primus rules Mechanus. The roots of the mediators go back a long way, and I mean long, they were created by the same deities who created the outer planes, the powers of creation to keep Mechanus balanced, they can't be killed because they have a built in defense mechanism that protects them from any attack without the slightest bit of conscious effect.
#2 jedrious Nov 05, 2008 2:13:18	First of all, is there one already? We have the book of vile darkness and the book of exalted deeds, since I didn't know what it would be called I tried a google search with these two books and the word neutral. And, if it doesn't, what would the book be called, The Book of Impeccable Equilibrium perhaps? I started to think about Primus, he was Modron correct? Prior to Planescape Mechanus was ruled by three mediators, who are basically clusters of geometric shapes, basically machines that could will anything to happen in order to keep the plane is perfect balance, but I heard that Planescape says Primus rules Mechanus. The roots of the mediators go back a long way, and I mean long, they were created by the same deities who created the outer planes, the powers of creation to keep Mechanus balanced, they can't be killed because they have a built in defense mechanism that protects them from any attack without the slightest bit of conscious effect. I hate to state the obvious, but you have noticed we have a different edition, right? WotC cannot afford to splt their focus on doing 3.5 material while keeping the steam up on 4th edition that said, books on alignments don't really fit the alignment paradigm that 4th has put forward, alignment is now fully placed on the background for mechanics where it always belonged, roleplaying within the contraints of the 9 alignment grid is clunky at the best of times and counterproductive at the worsts of times
#3 Grimcleaver Nov 05, 2008 3:36:15	I'd recommend you look at some of the older books talking about druids. There was a lot of emphasis on the idea of balance and moral equilibrium. Planescape would be another good choice, particularly books dealing with the area known as the Outlands. Here's a couple of suggestions that are PDF downloads of old D&D books that might help you out. They're dirt cheap and hopefully will guide you in the right direction. Guide to the Outlands (the plane of true neutrality) http://paizo.com/store/downloads/wizardsOfTheCoast/aDAndD2/planescape/v5748btpy7mnu&source=search Planes of Law (would have the Mechanus stuff) http://paizo.com/store/downloads/wizardsOfTheCoast/aDAndD2/planescape/v5748btpy7mo6 Complete Druid (would deal with druid ethical neutrality) http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/w/wizardsOfTheCoast/byProductType/roleplayingGames/dungeonsDragons/aDAndD2/rulebooks/completeHandbooks/v5748btpy7mry Hopefully those are of some help to you. There's some stuff in later books that might help too, but probably not a book's worth and you'd be paying real money for those (at least $15 a pop).
#4 doctorhook Nov 05, 2008 18:13:35	...Neutral? What's that?
#5 thax Nov 05, 2008 20:18:27	Truly, there is no reason to play a character neutral. I am glad it is gone in this new edition. the TN alignment is one that never really has a grasp in reality. I can not see anyone standing aside as bad stuff happens, and either try to stop it or join in. It just isn't realistic. Playing a neutral character is boring, the character being uncommitted, never leading, and just following what the others do. You don't need a sourcebook for that. I think the suggestions given above is good, though. Playing a character that is more sympathetic for the "other side" as he adventures may be a way to play a character that is unaligned.
#6 shrykull_dup Nov 06, 2008 22:14:27	I hate to state the obvious, but you have noticed we have a different edition, right? WotC cannot afford to splt their focus on doing 3.5 material while keeping the steam up on 4th edition Yes, I knew there's 4th, that's why I asked if it would be in this one.
#7 shrykull_dup Nov 06, 2008 22:15:02	I hate to state the obvious, but you have noticed we have a different edition, right? WotC cannot afford to splt their focus on doing 3.5 material while keeping the steam up on 4th edition Yes, I knew there's 4th, that's why I asked if it would be in this one.
#8 shrykull_dup Nov 06, 2008 22:21:46	the TN alignment is one that never really has a grasp in reality. I can not see anyone standing aside as bad stuff happens, and either try to stop it or join in. It just isn't realistic. I met someone, who with 2nd edition totally threw away most of the definitions of alignment. He thought that Chaotic anything, Lawful Neutral and True Neutral were too much like insanities than alignments. I found him pretty inspirational myself to go against the Dogma of AD&D, since I kind of agreed with this when I first read the neutrals in AD&D 2E. He also mentioned there was a book about a druid who was true neutral and she came across as seeming totally insane. Wish I could remember the author he said. My problem with true neutral was just that, why someone would run back and forth making sure good and evil were balanced, good can't really hurt you after all. Though it can be subjective most of the time, as people have different ideas about what's good and evil, it varies in the real world to which part of it you visit. Of course, I'm talking about the 2E player's handbook edition, not the 3E or subsequent ones where they true neutral is defined differently. Playing a neutral character is boring, the character being uncommitted, never leading, and just following what the others do. You don't need a sourcebook for that. Again, this sounds like you're talking about 3E, 3.5 edition and 4E.
#9 ranadiel Nov 07, 2008 6:40:20	Yes, I knew there's 4th, that's why I asked if it would be in this one. Alright so you are aware that we are in a new edition. Are you aware that there is no neutral alignment in 4th edition?
#10 Grimcleaver Nov 07, 2008 18:30:26	If there is one weakness of the otherwise fine D&D boards, one lesson that should be learned above all--it's this: People don't come to boards with questions to be told they're wrong and or delusional for wanting to do what they want to do. Ultimately that just starts a fight, and possibly makes posters stop posting or go away. Does it help anyone? No. Not at all. But I see it over and over. I can predict it, in fact, when I first see a post's title come up. I wonder what people get out of it? I couldn't tell you. I think the guy knows D&D has a new edition. Now personally I'm not sure exactly where he is coming from, since apparently my attempt to provide some links to what I thought he was looking for apparently didn't help. That said, could we talk about his topic now for a bit? Cause I'm curious to find out a bit more about what he's looking for without people jumping up and down on him like the gorilla in some kind of Samsonite luggage commercial. Thanks.
#11 thax Nov 07, 2008 19:59:43	I met someone, who with 2nd edition totally threw away most of the definitions of alignment. He thought that Chaotic anything, Lawful Neutral and True Neutral were too much like insanities than alignments. I found him pretty inspirational myself to go against the Dogma of AD&D, since I kind of agreed with this when I first read the neutrals in AD&D 2E. He also mentioned there was a book about a druid who was true neutral and she came across as seeming totally insane. Wish I could remember the author he said. My problem with true neutral was just that, why someone would run back and forth making sure good and evil were balanced, good can't really hurt you after all. Though it can be subjective most of the time, as people have different ideas about what's good and evil, it varies in the real world to which part of it you visit. Of course, I'm talking about the 2E player's handbook edition, not the 3E or subsequent ones where they true neutral is defined differently. I agree with the insane assessment.
#12 commissar Nov 07, 2008 20:03:58	What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
#13 thax Nov 07, 2008 20:07:03	"I... don't want to get involved." Neutral are for NPC's.
#14 kythri Nov 08, 2008 15:35:42	Neutral are for NPC's. Yet, oddly enough, a significant portion of the D&D community disagrees with your personal opinion regarding alignments. Now, if you're done hijacking the thread, we could get back to the subject at hand. I don't believe that there's currently any book slated along the lines of what you're looking for, shrykull. I'm curious if they're even going to put out a BoED-style or BoVD-style book for 4E, given the current fallacious belief that alignments are "too-restrictive" (play how you want to play. Anyone who tells you that you're doing it wrong is wrong themselves)...
#15 doctorhook Nov 08, 2008 21:48:12	I don't believe that there's currently any book slated along the lines of what you're looking for, shrykull. I'm curious if they're even going to put out a BoED-style or BoVD-style book for 4E, given the current fallacious belief that alignments are "too-restrictive" (play how you want to play. Anyone who tells you that you're doing it wrong is wrong themselves)... I like this way of thinking, if I'm understanding correctly. While I won't go as far as some do, calling for the removal of alignment altogether, I will say that I think the less is officially written about it, the better. Player's Handbook already gives fine descriptions of how the alignments are defined, and the more that gets said, the more straightjacket-ing they get.
#16 kythri Nov 08, 2008 23:47:36	I like this way of thinking, if I'm understanding correctly. I think you are. While I won't go as far as some do, calling for the removal of alignment altogether, I will say that I think the less is officially written about it, the better. For the most part, agreed. I actually quite like/liked the defined alignments of 3E/3.5, and never had an issue with them. There were there as a guide or suggestion. Further, I've always had a problem with the belief that many people have that a good-aligned character would never do something "evil", or that an evil-aligned character can't co-exist with a good party. Mr. Evil McNasty does bad things. He meets some interesting people. He finds that he enjoys hanging out with them, and as a result, joins the party. He travels with them far and wide, assisting with their good deeds. Not because he's good, but because these guys are his friends, and they want/need his help. That doesn't mean he's not still plotting world domination - that just means that he's not lonely while he's doing it. Down the road, it may come to the point where he's got to choose his friends or his evil plot. What's he going to do? Is it possible to have both? Beats me. He's got an entire world of options, and there's no mechanical or metagame reason, least of all the alignment system, to stop him from exploring any of those possibilities.
#17 doctorhook Nov 09, 2008 11:55:00	For the most part, agreed. I actually quite like/liked the defined alignments of 3E/3.5, and never had an issue with them. There were there as a guide or suggestion. Further, I've always had a problem with the belief that many people have that a good-aligned character would never do something "evil", or that an evil-aligned character can't co-exist with a good party. Mr. Evil McNasty does bad things. He meets some interesting people. He finds that he enjoys hanging out with them, and as a result, joins the party. He travels with them far and wide, assisting with their good deeds. Not because he's good, but because these guys are his friends, and they want/need his help. That doesn't mean he's not still plotting world domination - that just means that he's not lonely while he's doing it. Down the road, it may come to the point where he's got to choose his friends or his evil plot. What's he going to do? Is it possible to have both? Beats me. He's got an entire world of options, and there's no mechanical or metagame reason, least of all the alignment system, to stop him from exploring any of those possibilities. Amen! For my current campaign, I've instituted a "The PCs are all friends" rule. Characters of any alignment or belief system are allowed, but every character has to behave as though he or she cares about every other PC regardless. This doesn't mean they have to agree, but they have to get along relatively peaceably. So far, this rule has worked beautifully for me! It keeps the party functioning and provides some meaty roleplaying opportunities as characters struggle to resolve their friendships with incompatible belief systems. FWIW, I would be comfortable with articles that discussed "faction" rather than alignment. (Specifically, I'm thinking of "factions" as the different schools of though regarding each deity.) For example, while I'd really prefer that they NEVER write a 4E article saying, "This is what Lawful Good is!", I would be happy with an article which said, "This is what a devout follower of Bahamut is!" Even within that context, (especially given then open-ended nature of alignment and religion in 4E), one could probably identify a dozen distinct belief-systems of various alignments and varying degrees of rarity, all of which are based upon (to a greater or lesser extent) the philosophy of Bahamut, a Lawful Good deity. With 20 + 1 core deities, these sorts of articles could easily provide hundreds of pages of reading. (It wouldn't have to necessarily be limited to religion, either. The important part is that they could write about alignment without writing about alignment.)
#18 Grimcleaver Nov 10, 2008 23:04:42	That's one part of Planescape that I always thought added a neat dimension to the game--faction. Something like that could make a huge contribution to the fourth edition version of things. I wouldn't necessarily keep the same factions. Some of them (like the Xaosects--with their "Bizarro World" way of doing things) were a little weird even for Planescape. That said, I think the mechanic has a lot of cool possibilities. The article on warlock motivations was a fun example of what I'm talking about. It took various angles on the whole "works at the behest of a dark power" bit of warlock background and developed a few different philosophies for reconciling it. It'd be nice to see something similar done just for characters in general, something like what they were starting toward the end of 3.5 with the allegiance system.