killjoy32 wrote:yeah that was always something i tended to have problems getting my head around on a constant basis.i could accept neutrality on the basis that you extract yourself from everything and do your own thing and not be involved in any way with one or the other. that kinda works in my head.but then most of my characters were always chaotic neutral. basically very instinctive and pretty much off the cuff lunacy. this used to wind up the whole party loads, but it was worth every penny.specially trying to creep up on a black dragon, and there is me standing there throwing stones at it (just about every player in the room at that time threw a book at me)Al
Badmike wrote:killjoy32 wrote:yeah that was always something i tended to have problems getting my head around on a constant basis.i could accept neutrality on the basis that you extract yourself from everything and do your own thing and not be involved in any way with one or the other. that kinda works in my head.but then most of my characters were always chaotic neutral. basically very instinctive and pretty much off the cuff lunacy. this used to wind up the whole party loads, but it was worth every penny.specially trying to creep up on a black dragon, and there is me standing there throwing stones at it :D(just about every player in the room at that time threw a book at me)AlDruids in all my campaigns are NG or NE...no one, I'm sorry, could ever be TRUE neutral without eventually going bonkers at some point in their lives "Did I take too many pine cones from the forest today for my stew? If I eat thisrabbit, does the balance of the woods tip to one side or another? Should I rescue that small child from the jaws of the hungry wolf, who is only feeding his poor wolf cub family, but then the human family will be upset.....?" Enough! Dimbulb the 1st level druid should never have to wrestle through existential questions of existance that a Tibetian Zen Master could only begin to fathom. Also, true neutral IMO means you can never go adventuring....what party in their right mind harbors a guy who any moment might yell "Run away, grizzly bear, the party wants to take your fur!" In my campaign, NG druids work for the general good of all humans in harmony with the forest, in general putting the rights of living thinking reasoning beings above those of ravening, wasteful and unintelligent monsters, animals or humans, unless such thinking beings are wantonly destroying the flora or fauna. NE druids might be perfectly ok guys, but they respect the rights of animals or plants over that of us pesky humans in all circumstances, no matter what. So Druid #2 might sit and watch you get eaten by a python because that's the "circle of life, my friend" and not violate his ethos, while Druid #1 would feel compelled to rescue you (hopefully by not killing the snake) in the hopes of some "greater good" arising from allowing a thinking being to live. It sure solved a lot of dilemmas we had when trying to play the old strict Neutral type druids.Mike B.
killjoy32 wrote:yeah that was always something i tended to have problems getting my head around on a constant basis.i could accept neutrality on the basis that you extract yourself from everything and do your own thing and not be involved in any way with one or the other. that kinda works in my head.but then most of my characters were always chaotic neutral. basically very instinctive and pretty much off the cuff lunacy. this used to wind up the whole party loads, but it was worth every penny.specially trying to creep up on a black dragon, and there is me standing there throwing stones at it :D(just about every player in the room at that time threw a book at me)Al
Marlith wrote:This is very similar to how they worked in my campaigns. I did though have true Neutrals though the balance they tried to maintain was the order brought forth by the Light and Dark Druids. The Druids were actually the most powerful organization in my campaigns. It was rare I would let any players play one as I preferred to keep them as NPCs.My campaign had the Good Druids being the friendly environmental types who wanted to protect the environment but if civilization was really going to suffer they would agree to what was for good of civilization (within reason). The Dark Druids were the radical environmental types. They were anti-civilization and would often go out of their way to disrupt things they saw an encroachment on their "wilds".
Badmike wrote:Druids in all my campaigns are NG or NE...no one, I'm sorry, could ever be TRUE neutral without eventually going bonkers at some point in their lives... Enough! Dimbulb the 1st level druid should never have to wrestle through existential questions of existance that a Tibetian Zen Master could only begin to fathom. Also, true neutral IMO means you can never go adventuring....what party in their right mind harbors a guy who any moment might yell "Run away, grizzly bear, the party wants to take your fur!"
Marlith wrote:My campaign had the Good Druids being the friendly environmental types who wanted to protect the environment but if civilization was really going to suffer they would agree to what was for good of civilization (within reason). The Dark Druids were the radical environmental types. They were anti-civilization and would often go out of their way to disrupt things they saw an encroachment on their "wilds".
MShipley88 wrote:"Balance" is another fantasy gaming concept that I find amusing. I could accept the Balance between Chaos and Law of Michael Moocock's writings. That works. But a "Balance" between Good and Evil makes me laugh: "I need some evil to balance all the good I have done. What do you suggest?" There is too much good? We need some evil?:
DungeonDelver wrote:"El, you really must try this because it's puerco pibil. It's a slow-roasted pork, nothing fancy. It just happens to be my favorite, and I order it with a tequila and lime in every dive I go to in this country. And honestly, that is the best it's ever been anywhere. In fact, it's too good. It's so good that when I'm finished, I'll pay my check, walk straight into the kitchen and shoot the cook. Because that's what I do. I restore the balance to this country. And that is what I would like from you right now. Help keep the balance by pulling the trigger. "
Deadlord36 wrote:And the muff. Don't forget the muff.
Achizar wrote:I personally never understood the interpretation that the neutrality balance has to have such granularity that each individual act has to be balanced. That indeed is just silly.I always interpreted it as more of a Daoist big picture concept of balance, or better yet, a position above/beyond moral classifications & judgments, as in Nature itself. I.e., in nature nothing judges whether a lion eating an antelope is good or evil, or whether a beaver cutting down a tree is good/evil. Nature just happens, and is self-regulating through maintenance of balances. (e.g., get too many prey species, and predator species flourish...until there are are too many predators, and they die down a bit. Anything that throws off that self-regulating mechanism is bad, but there's no moral component to it.
