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
Comments
As I said before, my only knowledge of the lore stems from BG1/2 in the D&D universe
Overall I'd argue the Harpers are mainly known for Elminster-style meddling that's benevolent in intention but often goes unappreciated by those in authority due to the Harpers' willingness to go around unjust laws and rulers. That said, Realms heroes like Xenk Yendar clearly see the Harpers as good-aligned and it's worth noting that all 12 of the organizations catalogued in the FR Wiki as foes of the Harpers are evil-aligned. There have been isolated occasions when the Harpers opposed a good-aligned group whose actions were unintentionally hurting innocents, but never because the Harpers felt selflessness had become too strong and needed to be combated in order to balance the scales.
Every now and then you hear about some Harper good deed, but its always obscure and hidden by other interests, like taking out someone evil to take their property... for example the friendly arm inn was a Bhaal former temple, i have no doubt Harpers did massacre everyone in it to take the property, not out of "taking out an evil", and a monthly cut probably goes to the Harpers, Galvarey estate was probably same deal, they only tell their half of story, which is extremely convenient.
They meddle in politics and society without having the peoples permission or government authorization to do so, in order to make their illegal fascist organization grow in numbers, resources and power, they follow the structure of a mafia, Elminster is literally a Godfather, or consigliere, an old priviledged powerful prick, senile and out of touch with reality, and i always suspected Gorion isnt the angelic saviour the game tries to portray him as, he obviously done a lot of dirty things in past, I dont believe they saved Gorions ward out of pity, they knew what was gonna come in future, they knew the profecy, and they put their bets on that kid, Every single harper is doing dodgy shit, its unbelievable actually.
I always murder every harper i get my hands on, they are no different than the Iron Throne ruled by Sarevok, their goal is power and control by the means of pretending they are holier than thou.
I dismiss jaheira immediately like i do Minsc, another fraudulent "good" character, but thats another topic completely...
Theres very few pure good characters in this game, Nalia is one. Hell id even rate Jan as a more better person than Jaheira. She isnt Gorion ward friend in anyway shape or form, her mission is to spy on him for Harpers, she is evil.
Any wrong chosen dialogue line with Galvarey, and she will abandon you to your fate against her mates, knowing full well its probably the end of you, and your other mates, since its 6 vs 5, even after 2 games on your side, thats cold even for a evil player like me.
Harpers demand absolute loyalty like the fanatic zealots they are, this is why Jaheira even fake romances Gorion Ward while khalid body isnt even cold, she is a complete psychopath, im not even sure how druids accepted her. She obviously has some magic to hide her evil.
In that whole conversation, the only point that actually matters is the very last one, when the fight is inevitable and Jaheira speaks up.
If you're not in Jaheira's romance, and your reputation is decent (7 or more), Jaheira stands with you. No choice.
If you're not in Jaheira's romance, and your reputation is terrible (6 or less), Jaheira leaves. No choice.
If you're in Jaheira's romance, you get a choice. Tell her "I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you", and she leaves. Be a little nicer ("I would not wish you to harm your friends") and she stands with you.
Yep, you're evil. Or at least, the persona you use posting on these boards is.
Jaheira is a pretty solid companion. She will stand by you and stand up for you at almost every opportunity. Even if it means taking up arms against her fellow Harpers, she will side with you unless you’ve actively worked at driving her away (pointedly evil actions that will tank your reputation, or you TELLING her to go away). At one point her alignment in BGII was listed as NG, but I think for EE they moved at back to N? Not so sure of that actually, I’ve played with enough mods I don’t exactly recall what all has been official or not; but my point is, many gamers see her as more good than neutral.
Which leads to Harpers. I’m not completely nuts about the organization, they do tend to meddle in the affairs of sovereign states. BUT, they mostly do it for the cause of good, so I’m mostly okay with that. And I believe they seem to be even more good-aligned in recent Realms history? Certainly the new D&D movie portrays them as very Good. I don’t really know the status quo anymore, but that was strongly suggested (A Paladin as a member, in the time frame of the Bhaal-spawn saga such a thing would have been unlikely).
There are of course mods which have loosened those rules. And when you do that, making Jaheira NG and Faldorn NE is a natural extension. They're basically written that way already, after all.
Also i forgot about Drizzt, another psycopath on the loose like Minsc, refuse to help him when he is in trouble, and he will murder you out of butthurt, unbelievable. In Faerun most people simply cannot take No for an answer, they immediately resort to violence. But at least lets label these mobsters as evil, instead of pretending they are friendly and humanitarian.
But yes, in this case it could have been some sort of rebalancing mod I had.
A possible conversation path at that first meeting:
Drizzt: You there! Will you help a stranger in need? I am beset by gnolls!
PC: This is not my concern and I would rather be elsewhere. Fight your own battles.
Drizzt: I see you standing out of the filed of battle! Choose your side quickly, for I will be done forthwith and need to know whether to extend you my hand or my blade!
PC: Our minds are made up, drow! We'll not help you!
The conversation ends there. Drizzt stays neutral to you, and fights the gnolls until they're all dead. Then he talks to you again:
Drizzt: Had you joined the battle, I would know whether you are well met or not. As it is, I will simply take my leave and avoid the issue altogether. You are one of the few who can say your meeting with Drizzt Do'Urden was uneventful, as friend or foe.
Then he leaves. Encounter over.
No, Drizzt doesn't "murder you out of butthurt". He only fights you if you deliberately pick a fight with him. A neutral stance is a legitimate option here.
What's confusing is that "Neutral" is not the same as "Good." A Neutral character and/or organization shouldn't mind the evil actions of an individual or organization. Nor should they praise the good deeds of a good individual or organization.
In that case, then what the heck is the difference between a "Good" organization or person and a "Neutral" organization or person?
The answer to this is in character creation, quite simple
; "Some Neutral characters, rather than feeling undecided, are committed to a balance between the alignments. They may see good, evil, law and chaos as simply prejudices and dangerous extremes. Mordenkainen is one such character who takes this concept to the extreme, dedicating himself to a detached philosophy of neutrality to ensure that no one alignment or power takes control of the Flanaess.
Druids frequently follow this True Neutral dedication to balance, and under Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules were required to be this alignment. In an example given in the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, a typical druid might fight against a band of marauding gnolls, only to switch sides to save the gnolls' clan from being totally exterminated."
The thing is that Harpers are a group of vigilantes which dont get their authority from no government, or deity, and can basically run amok, Galvarey is a perfect example, but at least he shows openly hes evil. Others are more subtle like Elminster and Gorion. I gave some examples to my argument above, how Harpers collect property unlawfully, and no one bothered reading or trying dispute them.
Just look at the mess that follows after you kill Galvarey, theres no communications inside that fascist group, just pure anarchism and everyone is jury judge and executioneer, i think you get ambushed like 2 times if i recall correctly, and only then the Godfather appears and gives you a pin LOL
Edit: i forgot about Dermin, another fake POS that wants murder you because hes also corrupt harper
Just imagine nowadays an anarchistic group trying to meddle in sovereign states like Antifa does, you can see how cancerous they are.
Power in all of its purest forms corrupts, no matter how well intentioned the group starts. Structure leads to organization, organization leads to accumulating resources, accumulating resources leads to profit, profit to greed and corruption.
Hes a psychopath on the loose who wants an excuse to exert violence on someone, of course he goes willingly.
"No, Drizzt doesn't "murder you out of butthurt". He only fights you if you deliberately pick a fight with him. A neutral stance is a legitimate option here."
I told him i didnt want to help him and he came after me, thats being evil in my book.
And I think it may be reasonable to say many neutrals prefer the company of good aligned characters. Goods are presumably less likely to turn on them for no reason (or for personal gain) and generally get along with friends better. Bardssuck is providing a nice illustration of the problems with having an evil persona mixed in, he’s insulting and belligerent (playing an evil role quite nicely!). But while ultimately a neutral aligned character may prove to be a loyal friend, they do not share the goals and values of their good-aligned companions. And THAT may be too fine a line to show for a computer game!
I also think that may be why newer material (the movie is all I’m familiar with, source material may or may not do the same) shows the Harpers as more clearly “Good”.
They do some good. They help some poor people.
But then many priests enjoy sucking kids penis, yet many people say church is good, "we cant judge church because few rotten apples" yada yada
There are no absolutes or definitive answer, you take your conclusions.
I find that there are some characters who are "good" whom I cannot stand and find irritating (Minsc, Kivan from BG1) and "evil" characters who I really enjoy and think that their writing and banter is loads of fun (Korgan, Viconia, Edwin). Hell, even Sarevok I found to be a very worthy adversary in BG1 and I really liked him. And vice-versa (can't stand Hexxat and Dorn, absolutely love Valygar, Anomen, and Keldorn).
But when I think of "neutral" I tend to think of animals. An animal does not kill out of malice, but out of hunger or self defense. Sometimes it is altruistic. Sometimes it eats its own baby if it's hungry enough. I can't imagine a lion sadistically torturing a gazelle for fun. Nor could I imagine a giraffe selflessly defending a gazelle from a lion out of sheer altruism.
Animals are the closest template I have in the real world for a "neutral" character.
But I would agree with saying animals, even predators are true neutral. They lack any moral dimension. "Dangerous" is not the same as evil. Even to say a "good" or "evil" tribal group may find a need to eliminate a tiger or bear that has developed a taste for human. Although presumably the "good" tribe would give more thought to relocating or "re-educating" the beast. While an evil group might be more likely to consider exploiting it (zombie Tiger?).
An old-school druid seeks to maintain the world's balance, and opposes any force that deviates too far from it. That's neutral.
An average commoner doesn't think about the big picture; they just go about their lives. Sometimes they'll be helpful, sometimes they won't. That's neutral.
An animal follows their instincts, with no sapience to inform morality. A hungry predator will attack if it thinks it sees a vulnerable source of meat, but that's still neutral.
A golem has no mind at all, following its programmed commands whatever they may be. That's neutral too.
Neutrality is less common at the higher echelons of power. You don't gather that much power without an agenda of some sort, and that agenda is aligned one way or another most of the time. But it never truly goes away.
Cernd is a great example of a decent druid. Hes way more interested about the balance than Jaheira. Super chill, He looks for the good, but if some dirty has to be done to preserve balance he will. I would argue That Faldorn might even be the most true neutral druid in the game, she has a lot of good points about society destroying nature too much and needing a kick in the ass.
What about Jan ? Clearly a decent character, sure he might sell ilegally some crazy stuff, and avoid taxes, but who can survive solely from selling turnips ? Hes a perfectly example of a neutral, someone who is good, and does some dirty stuff.
Of course from this perspective Keldorn is evil from cheering on viconia dying without any proof of sort....
I think comparing neutral characters to animals is limiting yourself to understanding the characters.
The source material is at least partly to blame for your confusion regarding alignment. The alignment system itself is fine, as far as it goes, but some of the alignment descriptions that you see during character generation in Baldur's Gate - which were copied verbatim from 2nd Edition D&D - are utter garbage. The issue is that the descriptions tend to focus on extreme examples and/or overly specific examples of a character of the alignment in question, with the result that the nine alignments, as described, don’t even come close to capturing the breadth of behaviours and personalities out there.
In addition, Bioware’s writing around alignment was sometimes rather poor. I don’t really want to get into the weeds on that point, but I agree with atcDave and jmerry about Jaheira, Shadow Druids, and Druids in general. I’d also second atcDave’s suggestion that Neera is very well conceived as a Neutral, and specifically Chaotic Neutral (albeit that I haven’t played her BG2 content yet).
Like jmerry said, there is more than one kind of Neutral. Your statement applies only to the rarest form of neutrality. The average Neutral person will in fact be pro-Good and anti-Evil. There may be some degree of morality involved but, even disregarding morality, self-interest will generally lead Neutrals to be pro-Good. This is because Evil people will advance themselves at the expense of the Neutral, while Good people are prepared to make personal sacrifices that benefit the Neutral.
There's a difference between being pro-Good and being actively Good. On average, Neutral is neither actively Good nor actively Evil. Neutrals tend be too selfish, too disinterested in big picture issues, or too biased towards their in-groups to do much in the way of Good acts, but decent enough to not commit Evil acts. The distinction between endorsing and doing really is critical - some Neutrals may profess to hold Good beliefs, and may even delude themselves into thinking that they are Good, only to repeatedly fail to act in accordance with Good when their professed beliefs are put to the test.
I agree with more or less everything that atcDave said in his post that you were responding to. Your reply seems to be about what you find fun in a game, in which case I think you missed their point. Sure, some amoral people can be charming and interesting, and some thoroughly decent people can be boring or even irritating, whether in a game or in real life. I think atcDave's comment about Goods getting along with friends better was about loyalty and general agreeableness, not entertainment value.
I recently read a short answer on the nature of alignment from a former D&D writer, which should do a good job of answering your questions about the Neutral alignment. Here it is:
1. Good characters aim to ease suffering, help people, and will actively go out of their way to do this.
2. Evil characters aim to CAUSE suffering, hurt people, and will actively go out of their way to do this.
3. Neutral characters typically fall somewhere in the middle. As a general rule, Neutrals will help only their friends and family, and will only hurt those they view as their bitter enemies, but generally they will not go out of their way to help or hinder if it involves more than socially expected customs or duties.
Think of the average bandit. Bandits make their victims suffer - suffer from losing their possessions; suffer the trauma of being robbed; and suffer physically if they attempt to resist. Some bandits may even kill their victims, even those that pose no immediate threat. Are they doing it because they want to cause suffering? Or are they doing it for the money? Plainly, it is the latter. Even bandits who kill unresisting victims likely do so as a means to an end - dead men tell no tales, as the saying goes.
I do think part of the problem is that nine alignments may be too restrictive to cover every living creature.
Further, over the course of a lifetime most people will act outside of their character or core beliefs at one time or another; whether because its strongly not in their best interests or those of a loved one. Think of a violent purge going on of a certain religion. If its a “Lawful” religion adherents may be required to be truthful, but what will they really do if called on to identify themselves?
I’m not trying to pick a fight with this! Just to note people may betray their own values, and often for much more trivial situations.
Anyway, I think of alignment as a simplification of a moral process. Unfortunately, “true neutral” can be anything from a very principled neutrality, to a thoughtless creature. To some extent this goes even broader. There are creatures that are innately of some alignment, Demons are evil because that’s just how they are. Yet a human will live by, or not live by some ethos and/or morality that influences (or doesn’t influence!) their actual actions.
I think that the alignment system is a decent tool for describing philosophy and morality - it even translates to the real world, despite the thoroughly unrealistic nature of D&D. I do agree that having only nine alignments is restrictive, but I don't think that means that they can't cover every living creature; instead, I'd say that the low number of alignments can make it difficult to categorise some creatures, and difficult to act sensibly only on the basis of alignment labels. Case in point:
Despite being worlds apart, Person A and Person B are both unequivocally Chaotic Evil. However, without access to D&D alignment magic, mortals would likely find it very difficult to determine whether Person B is TN, CN, NE, or CE. Moreover, the actions that mark Person A as CE would require a very different response to those of Person B...
I'd also say that there is some conceptual confusion and/or inconsistency on the part of the writers over whether Law is objectively more Good than Chaos, or Law and Chaos are morally Neutral. For example, CE is often presented as the worst kind of Evil, while LG is presented as the best kind of Good, yet Law and Chaos are presented as morally Neutral. It's a bit incoherent, and probably partly a holdover from D&D pre-history (where Good and Evil didn't exist in the alignment system, but Law was typically associated with good and Chaos with evil).
Finally, I think that "Law vs Chaos" invites overly simplistic readings of that axis. The conflict is more "Order vs Chaos" on a grand scale; "Collectivism vs Individualism" on a societal scale; and "Consistency vs Inconsistency" on an individual scale.
Edit: I forgot to respond to the above quote. Yeah, that adds a degree of complexity not present in the real world. That said, I know that WotC are moving away from the "always evil" label for most races, which I'm on board with.
No doubt the presence of magic to detect alignment (and deceptions!) would have a big impact on all of this. Although that impact may vary a great deal depending on local issues, the dominance of law/chaos or good/evil may have an extreme effect. I can’t honestly imagine what all this might mean, but everything from special treatment for devout members of a preferred faith to summary executions for undesirable alignments are possibilities. Obviously BG does little with this, as an old PnP guy I’d say the possibilities are rich for the custom world builder!
I have mixed feelings about WoTC latest doings. I’m okay with idea of different races having different leanings and different temperaments. But then I do like the idea of exceptions and variety. Of course even the old “Queen of the Demonweb Pits” (David Southerland and Gary Gygax, 1980) had CG Drow “rebels”; so variation has a long tradition!
But I also like the idea of a sort of “elemental evil” (demons and devils) or “elemental good” (devas and solars) that is a sort of physical manifestation of pure good or evil; variation is not welcome there!
Of course ultimately I’m an 2E guy. All my books say “TSR” on the spine and WoTC makes little difference to me!
Oh a last thought. I’ve often seen the alignment grid portrayed as more of a diamond. So “NG” becomes the “highest” good and “NE” then is the lowest evil. But this may be splitting hairs…
Yes, yes, and yes. That raises a few interesting ideas, now you mention it...
I have mixed feelings, too. As far as monster alignment is concerned, while exceptions exist, I feel that too much D&D material has presented certain humanoid and demi-human races as invariably evil. I don’t even mind if fantasy races are labelled “usually Evil”, just as long as the accompanying descriptions don't proceed as if the “usually” wasn’t there (what 3E MM does, unfortunately).
Yeah, that works for me. That said, if the fallen angel archetype is used, then the reformed fiend should also be possible. I don’t really care if neither exist, though, and if they do exist then they should be extraordinarily rare.
No, I don’t think it’s splitting hairs. I hadn’t come across the “alignment grid as a diamond”, so thanks for that. It visually represents what I already thought of as the most sensible and ideologically coherent result of the dual axis alignment system.
So, if you have three very Good characters, one LG, one NG, one CG, then, on average - and all else being equal - the NG person should be the most consistently and effectively Good in practice. They are best suited to utilise both Lawful and Chaotic means to achieve Good ends, and less likely to prioritise the needs of Law or Chaos above those of Good. I think the requirement for Paladins to be LG is one of the things that points away from that interpretation, unfortunately, as they tend to be held up as the best that Good has to offer.
Edit: Removed redundant "a"; added "certain" in third paragraph.
Chaotic neutral would be something like Deadpool imo. Someone who dips both in good and evil, in chaotic way.
Fallen Anomen is also a perfect example of chaotic neutral, hes derranged, broken, does good and evil....