That just doesnt work because there are different types of neutral. Some neutrals favor good or evil but their own morality and actions dont go far enough to push them out of neutral. They would still prefer the company of a certain type of people. Other neutrals actually push for neutrality instead of just being a mix of extremes or too close to the middle to go out of neutral um if that makes any sense
I don't agree that neutrals would 'favour' evil, more like:
LNs will serve and work with evil if the law requires it.
TNs respect evil and believe that both good and evil need to exist, but they wouldn't support or favour acts of pure evil.
CNs will work with, or carry out evil deeds if it benefits them, but with limits on how far they will go without getting into trouble (they won't support CE murderous rampages, but may support a NE friend's thirst for vengeance, or a LEs orders to kill someone if doing so would improve their reputation in an evil society).
Again, it depends on the individual. Garrick, for example, would likely find evil acts completely distasteful and leave if he became aware of them. I mean, look at what happened with the previous groups he was in. Safana would likely be okay with a variety of evil acts as long as they aren't TOO villainous. Haer'Dalis, on the other hand, probably just wouldn't give a shit.
I think in order to be considered truly "neutral," a char has to show a certain amount of indifference to good and evil, unless it becomes absolutely extreme and unbearable in either direction.
That's why Jaheira and Branwen don't really qualify as neutral IMO - they clearly are preoccupied with doing good, and push you on that path.
Safana, Skie, Quayle (before he met Aerie, LOL), and Xan are examples of genuinely neutral chars IMO - they aren't intent on doing either good or evil, just on existing (or in Safana's case, making money - though I think an argument could be made that Safana is neutral evil rather than neutral). You don't hear Skie saying things like, "We must stay true to the noble path," etc.
I find the new table a little bizarre for this reason: good characters are now happier with lower reputations than neutral characters. Well I guess the reputation system was always flawed to begin with...
The logic we used was that it took more work to get Neutral characters responding to reputation shifts.
This is actually how the reputation shifts work now:
- Good aligned characters will always be happy with rep increases and will always be unhappy with rep decreases (in the old system, for example, if your rep dropped from 20 to 19, they'd chim in with their "I'm happy" lines, or if your rep increased from 3 to 4 they would complain).
- Vice-versa for evil aligned.
- Neutrals will stay silent in the neutral zone and only start chiming in once you reach reputation extremes.
Well that is great news indeed, and especially since I had requested it!!
I think it is definetly a good idea to give them a rel range where they are happy,but I think it should turn back to neutral at least on very high reps (19-20). As a chaotic neutral/good, I would like some fame,but if it would be too much I would feel a bit uncomfortable. "Leave me alone, I'm just doing what I feel I should. You should do that too and mind your own goddamn business!"
Comments
That just doesnt work because there are different types of neutral. Some neutrals favor good or evil but their own morality and actions dont go far enough to push them out of neutral. They would still prefer the company of a certain type of people. Other neutrals actually push for neutrality instead of just being a mix of extremes or too close to the middle to go out of neutral
um
if that makes any sense
LNs will serve and work with evil if the law requires it.
TNs respect evil and believe that both good and evil need to exist, but they wouldn't support or favour acts of pure evil.
CNs will work with, or carry out evil deeds if it benefits them, but with limits on how far they will go without getting into trouble (they won't support CE murderous rampages, but may support a NE friend's thirst for vengeance, or a LEs orders to kill someone if doing so would improve their reputation in an evil society).
Safana would likely be okay with a variety of evil acts as long as they aren't TOO villainous.
Haer'Dalis, on the other hand, probably just wouldn't give a shit.
That's why Jaheira and Branwen don't really qualify as neutral IMO - they clearly are preoccupied with doing good, and push you on that path.
Safana, Skie, Quayle (before he met Aerie, LOL), and Xan are examples of genuinely neutral chars IMO - they aren't intent on doing either good or evil, just on existing (or in Safana's case, making money - though I think an argument could be made that Safana is neutral evil rather than neutral). You don't hear Skie saying things like, "We must stay true to the noble path," etc.
"Leave me alone, I'm just doing what I feel I should. You should do that too and mind your own goddamn business!"
Strong /= do-gooders.