Why are the Harpers considered a Neutral organizations when they seem to mostly oppose evil?
gregorsamsa
Member Posts: 24
I'm not really up on D&D lore and my exposure to it is pretty much limited to the events in BG1&2, but most of the Harpers we come across talk about balance and neutrality, but it seems that most of their members are good aligned.
As I understand, neutral is neither pro-good, nor pro-evil. My understanding of a "neutral" character is that they are more in line with nature.
A lion doesn't kill because it is evil - it's kills because it's hungry or feels threatened. That is the way of nature.
In BG1 we mostly saw Jaheira's Druidic associations and I took it for granted that the Harpers were a Druidic group. But in BG2 we learn that all classes serve the Harpers but that they are dedicated to neutrality. We see some "evil" characters infiltrate the Harpers, however, the good members are never called out for their association with this supposedly neutral group.
As I understand, neutral is neither pro-good, nor pro-evil. My understanding of a "neutral" character is that they are more in line with nature.
A lion doesn't kill because it is evil - it's kills because it's hungry or feels threatened. That is the way of nature.
In BG1 we mostly saw Jaheira's Druidic associations and I took it for granted that the Harpers were a Druidic group. But in BG2 we learn that all classes serve the Harpers but that they are dedicated to neutrality. We see some "evil" characters infiltrate the Harpers, however, the good members are never called out for their association with this supposedly neutral group.
0