Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Mulhull Jul 31, 2009 4:25:32	Why was there no book of playing neutral characters, the three neutrals I'd Imagine The Book of Impeccable Equilibrium
#2 archyneir Jul 31, 2009 13:07:06	'Cause it'd be a really small book, not even worth the money it'd make on the return profit?
#3 EscherEnigma Jul 31, 2009 13:30:01	'cauase by-and-large the other alignment books weren't that great, and people tend to be more interested in extremes then in moderation?
#4 tiwaztyrsfist Jul 31, 2009 17:29:18
#5 Greater_Lammasu Jul 31, 2009 23:38:36	Tell my wife hello
#6 Mulhull Aug 01, 2009 5:09:55	'cauase by-and-large the other alignment books weren't that great, and people tend to be more interested in extremes then in moderation? I'd be interested in reading it. Though, I never really agreed with the neutral alignments, neutral means (at least should mean) indifferent, not someone like a true neutral who runs back and forth making sure good and evil are balance, that sounds more like an insanity to me. Has there ever been a real-life historical example of someone who acted that way? I don't see why even someone would in a fantasy game.
#7 EscherEnigma Aug 01, 2009 10:56:09	I'd be interested in reading it. Though, I never really agreed with the neutral alignments, neutral means (at least should mean) indifferent, not someone like a true neutral who runs back and forth making sure good and evil are balance, that sounds more like an insanity to me. Has there ever been a real-life historical example of someone who acted that way? I don't see why even someone would in a fantasy game. ... Yeah... that whole "preserving the balance" thing was only the "main" interprettation of neutral back in 2e (well, maybe 1e) and wasn't really pushed in 3e. The main interprettation was "someone that doesn't do evil, but isn't committed enough to good to be good." As for why... Well, if you believe that there's only so much capacity for good and evil in the world, and that things will go out of wonk if it's too out of balance (too much evil or good) then it makes sense. All it takes is a different set of beliefs. 'sides, I think it wasn't supposed to be as cut and dry as that, but more of "Well, the orc tribes are about to be wiped out, I'll help them. Wait, now the human settlements are all being crushed, I'll help them" until things reach an equilibrium. As for who does that... Nations. Siding with one side, only to later swap and support the other, is a pretty consistent thing. People like underdogs for some reason, and root for them.
#8 strand0 Aug 09, 2009 4:57:34	Has there ever been a real-life historical example of someone who acted that way? I don't see why even someone would in a fantasy game. In a fantasy world fighting for a recognized neutral position can keep things for becoming DIFFERENT. Compare it to someone working against Global Warming. If the gases get too high... big changes. Or can't you see the problems that occur in a world that is TOO good?
#9 salla Aug 09, 2009 16:03:31	The book would consist of one page with one word on it. "Meh."