Lack of neutral characters?

[Manabi]

So, I've realized one of two things. One, there is a lack of neutral characters. Two, there are quite a few neutral characters who really hate necromancers, summoned balors, Sharrans, Banites, ETC.

So, let me go about my characters thought, maybe he's evil. . .

SCENERIO 1:Character sees someone with an animated zombie.
It's just a dead body that really is serving no other purpose than fertilizing the ground. There's that voodoo hooyah about it torturing the souls, but there are so many contradicting thoughts on this, that it's hard to say. Animation isn't really THAT big of a deal. If you find a dead body useful for combat, use it. It's better than dying trying to please some of these zealots.


SCENERIO 2: Gate = Balor
Alright, as long as it's not killing anyone, then it's fine. If it starts running around throwing spells and swinging a sword, we'll kill it. It's a demon, yeah, but that guy has it under control. If he can find a useful situation for it, let him do it.

SCENERIO 3: Sharrans, Banites, Talosians, etc.
Ok, so these people are sometimes equally as fanatical about their faiths as you all are. Maybe you can learn something from them, and maybe you will learn to tolerate one another after you see how identical you are. For now, it looks like it's a good idea to be against them, so I guess I'll do it.

SCENERIO 4: On using Balor's & Undead
Ok, I probably shouldn't summon balors anymore - but if I was skilled in necromancy and could think of a reason to use a balor, I'd definitely go for it. For now, it seems like there are a lot of people spying on me/walking around invisible. Even if I was a skilled necromancer, I probably wouldn't do it because of the raging fanatics.

This occured to me when my character asked about a bone golem. Here he was thinking "Oh, so this thing may be useful and since nobody is using necromancy to create it, maybe it's not THAT big of a deal." And. . . strange looks and, "Why would you even consider using one of those abominations" followed.

So, is my character neutral or evil? Maybe chaotic neutral?

Also, with everybody hating on animation & whatnot, it seems like there is a huge lack of neutral characters. Or maybe I just have the wrong idea of it - or maybe my character got sloshed in with the good crowd.

Thoughts?

TL;DR version. Character doesn't care about animation, balor sumonning, evil faiths. Wouldn't care if someone walked by with a Zombie as long as nobody was being hurt.

Are there other characters like that who aren't evil? is my character evil by Arelith standards and I don't know it?

[Twily]

Well I actually have a chaotic neutral character currently. The alignments are open to interpretation though. My character is a mage who opposes animation, shadow magic, etc. The real question in my case though is why does my character oppose it?
It's not because it's by nature an evil act, but because she would rather be around people inclined toward good rather than evil. By opposing those, society accepts her for what she is. That's not to say she's lawful , or good, and sometimes her actions can be for rather selfish reasons. She just hides it.

Ultimately,People can conform to society while still remaining themselves, so that they are accepted rather than thrown out like evil people can be

So for your characters alignment what I would consider is their motive to their actions. If their actions seek to further themselves without causing unneeded harm to others, I'd say they're neutral

[Manabi]

Huh. . . That makes a great deal of sense.

So, does the Arelith crowd like to pick the extremes of good and evil? Or are all the neutral people just thrown in one side or another, realizing there is no middle ground. So, "pretending" pretty sure that's what mine is doing.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

No, most Arelith characters are probably in the neutral category. Arelith doesn't have a lot of extremities (besides paladins and LG monks).

[Nitro]

I don't think there's a lack of neutral character, but more of a case of the good/evil characters being far more outspoken about their respective ideals and thus more visible, while us neutrals don't have the same burning convictions to shout loudly about.

[Manabi]

No, most Arelith characters are probably in the neutral category. Arelith doesn't have a lot of extremities (besides paladins and LG monks).

Yes! but look at how things go though! I've seen warlocks harassed, Necromancer's killed for answering honestly that they've animated corpses, laws against speaking of ungoodly faith in certain settlements, Sharran homes broken into due to faith, Banites killed for being Banites, etc. I mean, it's "everywhere."

Alright, so my character is neutral. The characters in the game made me second guess it! How's that for pushing an RP concept?

[Manabi]

I don't think there's a lack of neutral character, but more of a case of the good/evil characters being far more outspoken about their respective ideals and thus more visible, while us neutrals don't have the same burning convictions to shout loudly about.

ALRIGHT, that does make a lot of sense.

[The Rambling Midget]

I play neutral characters almost exclusively. Just because they're not champions of the forces of goods, though, doesn't mean that they can't be offended, disgusted, or frightened by certain acts. Animation is a desecration of remains, which is offensive and disgusting to most cultures. Demons suck people's souls out, which is frightening. Sharrans, Banites, and whoever else do a lot of torturing and murdering, and that's also scary.

It's perfectly normal for neutral characters to be opposed to these things. The difference is their reasoning and often their level of dedication to that opposition. While a Paladin might devote his or her life to the destruction of these profanities, a neutral character might simply say Not In My Back Yard.

[Winter83]

Animating spells have an descriptor of evil. For a reason. My take on these that every time a person uses an evil tagged spell he loses a bit of "good points", get tainted a bit, slowly drifting towards evilness.
But there comes the debate of morality and absolute evil and absolute good.

Undead are evil. In this game at least. (save a few notable exceptions like Baelnorn lich)
I found this on a different forum:

Player's Handbook, 174 (Descriptor): The descriptors are ... evil .... Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with ... alignment, and so on.

Player's Handbook, 32 (Cleric, Spells): However, his alignment may restrict hom from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs.

Player's Handbook, 33 (Cleric, ... Evil ... Spells): A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or hos deity's. For example, a good cleirc cannot cast evil spells.

Book of Vile Darkness, 77 (Evil Spells): Spells that have the evil descriptor because they do one or more of the following things: they cause undue suffering or negative emotions; they call upon evil gods or energies; they create, summon, or improve undead or other evil monsters; they harm souls; they involve unsavory practices such as cannibalism or drug use.

[Rattus_norvegicus99]

I see neutral characters as more "go with the flow" types. Many are on the fence about issues, but look at what TRM stated - necromancy, demons, devils ... that's scary stuff!

[Ecstatic]

It is important to remember that Neutral does not imply a bland acceptance of good and evil equally. And while there is room for a neutral character who equally accepts people of all alignments, this character should be fully prepared to be called foolish, stupid, or worse: this isn't a setting where tolerance is an advisable answer to evil. I think most neutral characters are unlikely to see "zealot who sacrifices people to appease an evil deity", or "zealot who believes in spreading plague" as "very similar" to a "zealot who purges fiends from the world" or "zealot who cares for the poor and infirm and agitates against a society that overlooks their needs". They are all zealots, but the first two are zealous about things that make life harder and worse for the average person, no matter how well intended they are, and the second two are zealous about things that make life worse for people. Evil dogmas are not labeled evil at random.

In fact many evil characters have more to fear from neutral characters who may be less inclined to reach or redeem them, and who are not influenced by good's tendency to pick the most merciful option that is readily available. Neutral encompasses a lot of viewpoints which can be imminently hostile to evil: it can be anything from a character who opposes evil but lacks the capacity for well-reasoned mercy to qualify as good, to someone who takes a "not in my backyard" view on evil, because evil makes bad neighbors.

As an example: Druids are probably going to mostly be some flavor of neutral on the good-evil axis, and are probably the people least likely to be amused and appeased by the "animation of undead isn't really evil" line of reasoning.

Pretty much that entire list of things you've seen happening is a reasonable response, even from neutral characters.

Animating dead? Those things are dangerous, malevolent, horrible creatures which actively threaten my family and friends. Time to kill you so you don't raise any more.

Struck a bargain with a fiend for a wellspring of eldritch power? Pls GTFO, I don't want people who traffic with demons and devils influencing my society, thank you. Who knows what their agenda is?

Banite standing on the street corner explaining that might makes right and expressing a belief that military capacity for conquest secures the right to rule? If we can, better show him right the hell now that we've got plenty of might, and know how to use it to keep him out.

Sharran home on my street corner? Yeah, please get the guard to raid the place, find as many of those people as possible, and toss them out of my city. I've heard that those people like subverting governments, and that sounds terrible for business.

[Chalan]

My main character is TN.
She would be disgusted by undead. Probably would be very, very afraid of demons and whatnot.

[The Pretty Prince of Parties]

If you're asking for advice on what your character's alignment is, well - from the examples given, I'd say that (on the Ethical spectrum) they lean more towards Chaos; you seem to regularly engage in practices that most cultures find strongly taboo. On the other hand - he IS a wizard, and the vast majority of players on Arelith lean towards playing wizards as pseudo-scientists (not my cup of tea, but to each their own), which makes them shoe-ins for Lawful alignments (structure, order, et cetera).

On the Moral spectrum, I'd say that you're probably Evil, but don't think of yourself as evil. You don't really seem to hurt people out of hand, or go out of your way to be sadistic, et cetera, but every scenario listed deals with tacit approval or open participation in acts that are inherently evil. There's also a lot of "This is useful to me"/"This serves my purposes", and so on, which are hallmarks of a gently evil character.

[IndifferentPerson]

A good aligned character tries to be a good neighbor.
An evil aligned character will ramp up their dubstep to max volume and be a horrible neighbor.
A neutral character wants to live next to good neighbors.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Basically what Ecstatic said.

Neutrality has an interesting place on Arelith, where it can often display a greater moral rigor than good characters, at least in common perception. Goodness can prevent necessary action, neutrality often allows for greater heroism than initially perceived.

[Manabi]

HUH, alright, so I just went from TN to CE.

Let me state my case. I believe my character has a "live and let live" policy. A sort of, "if you stay out of mine and my associate's affairs, I have no business meddling with what you do, what pacts you have made, and what deity you worship." Probably a peacemaker of sorts.

Sort of like this - "Alright, so 'this' person belongs to a faith that killed your whole family. Are you really going to take your frustration out of this person, who may be 'nothing' like the individuals your are familiar with. Without any evidence to support your claims besides a rather basic knowledge of their faith, you are going to seize this person's house, invade their privacy, and quite possibly put their head on the end of a stick. That is quite barbaric."

Yes, he is most definitely a scientist, and follows suite on a number of things, but it comes down to a small thought process. Questions such as, "Is this person a threat? Will they become a threat? How likely is it that they will become a threat?" He is more likely going to tell someone with a zombie following them that, "This type of thing is not accepted by local customs. Unless you wish to get yourself killed, you should probably stop." but not in a "preachy" kind of way, but in a "Yeah, they really don't like this here."

Another important thought that I didn't bring up - he believes that there is a good and evil use for everything. A demon/undead could be summoned to save himself, or another's life. At the same time, positive energy can be used to bring back villains from he dead after they have felled in battle. Healing works the same way. So, it just comes down to, "There really isn't a solid label for what is good and what is evil, everything lies behind the intention.

I remember a long conversation with another player's character that went something like, "If you go down into a vampire's lair, you should expect to be attacked. That Vampire, as wicked as you may think it is in its nature, is acting the same way you would if a rabbit stumbled in your path when you were hungry. To the Rabit, you are evil. To you, the rabbit is food. The same goes for you and vampires. A hungry being is going to act out of hunger. Let us not be so quick to label things. Almost every being has the will to live - and we all act in such a way. And really, neither of us have any way of knowing what circumstances led up to that person's transformation."

So - he thinks tradition makes people close minded, basically. Of course, he isn't exactly happy if he sees someone kill another being, and shows a great amount of compassion when the strong prey on the weak, and often sticks up for those that are being bullied.

So - someone who strongly disagrees with tradition, but often influences things that removes the chaos from situations.

I'm. . . not sure. Chaotic Neutral, maybe. But at the same time, I don't want to get slapped for acting out of alignment when I am trying to fix Chaos. Of course, he is also helping with slaves of the UD, handing out money to the poor, and does everything he can to help new mages on the Island while asking very little in return.

So it's just - complicated. Sometimes I'm swinging towards Chaotic Good for all the money & help he offers people, but I doubt a good character would tolerate necromancy. Evil doesn't make sense - because giving alms to the poor and helping slaves while asking nothing in return is not something an evil character does. Ughh. . . Alignments.

I type wayy to much.

[Twily]

It sounds like TN or CN would both fit.

I don't want to get slapped for acting out of alignment when I am trying to fix Chaos

I wouldn't worry much about this if I were you. If your class supports a different alignment the DMs can simply shift it if they feel your character doesn't fit it's current alignment. The problem only really arises in the case of classes that are restricted to certain alignments, because shifting their alignment is no longer a choice without causing a ton of issues.

Also, with an adequate reason DMs may also shift other peoples alignment on request, I've had this done once or twice when RP changed my characters path. Again though, your current class(es) need to support the new alignment.

Note: I don't want to give the impression that people can make a Neutral character and play it as good until the DMs notice and shift the alignment for the sake of a temporary mechanical advantage, this would not be allowed and odds are you would get slapped for it. You need to roleplay your character sheet, but if your character sheet is wrong as a result of player error, misguidance or misinterpretation that is the case where alignment shifts are more likely than punishments. (DMs may of course over-rule anything said here)

[Queen Titania]

If you are a class that can be of any alignment, have fun. You should aim for consistent character, of course, but don't over fret about the alignment. Characters change due to events and people around them. I'll give minor shifts if they do something significantly of a different alignment, or shift entirely if its very major. Alignment requests are also doable.

If you are a class of a specific alignment, have fun, but be more mindful of the alignment. We don't do illegal alignment shifts, and if your alignment is shifted toward an illegal alignment, its a kind staff warning to be careful.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Titania i love you thank you that needed to be said.

Stop stressing about alignment. Seriously. Stop. Go with the gut, and then just play and stop worrying about it.

Seriously.

Alignment debates and discussions, unless you are asking a very very naunced question (does the idea of selfishness for familial preservation reside in 'law' or 'chaos' spectrum?), don't even bother asking open-ended questions. Unless you're ultimately curious, but it shouldn't be pertaining to worries about character.

99.9% of people can't see your character sheet. DMs are reasonable and don't hate on you.

[DM Nito]

DMs are reasonable and don't hate on you.

cough

[IndifferentPerson]

DMs are reasonable and don't hate on you.

cough

[Nitro]

DMs are reasonable and don't hate on you.

cough

IT'S BECAUSE MY NAME IS SIMILAR, ISN'T IT?

[Manabi]

Alright, thanks for the help everyone. No more allignment questions from this guy!

And uh. . . .

I'm sort of concerned about DM Nito's response to that post.

[Rystefn]

Evil doesn't make sense - because giving alms to the poor and helping slaves while asking nothing in return is not something an evil character does.

*cough* Layla does both those things. Because here's the simple truth: No one is wholly evil. Evil people are till people. They can still have love, compassion, kindness, friendships. They can still dream of the simple life, raising their children and tending to a garden. Evil people tend to be motivated by the same goals as good people. They want to live their lives, pursue their hobbies, look after the people they care about ad see them thrive and flourish.

The main difference between good and evil (outside of cartoons), isn't what what they're trying to do, but how far they are willing to go to see it done. Almost everyone will try to protect their family. Most people will fight to protect their family. Many will kill to protect their family. Who will summon demons to protect their family? Who will destroy nations and wipe out entire peoples?

I doubt you could find a single person who would call Layla's ultimate goal of [FOIG] evil. You probably couldn't find more than a handful to call it anything other than good, even. But the fact that she's willing to, and is actively working towards, [FOIG] to do it? Yeah, that's evil.

So what you need to ask yourself is "How far is this character willing to go?" In the case of a "Live and let live" philosophy, "What is this character willing to ignore?" I'm not sure I'd say the one you described is necessarily evil, but he's dancing kind of close to the line, at the very least.