Can a creature be neither an enemy nor an ally?
- Thread starter UltimaGabe
- Start date
Tony Vargas
Legend
Technically, in 4e, there are two categories of creature. Allies, and enemies, who are defined as all creatures who are not allies. You are explicitly /not/ your own ally. Draw your own conclusions.... 
OK, so, reasonably, there are 3 categories. Self, Alliles, and all others, who are enemies. So, no, by the often-silly 'RAW,' there is no non-ally/non-enemy category of creature. However, if you wanted to be nice, you could say that ongoing effects on an ally end if the ally becomes an enemy...
OK, so, reasonably, there are 3 categories. Self, Alliles, and all others, who are enemies. So, no, by the often-silly 'RAW,' there is no non-ally/non-enemy category of creature. However, if you wanted to be nice, you could say that ongoing effects on an ally end if the ally becomes an enemy...
Rulewise: it looks a creature is one or the other, no middle ground.
But there is absolutely no reason as far as game balance etc not to let there be neutral designations. I can think of no reason why you couldn't have a third faction that was neither a foe nor friend, it would be fun, it would be useful, it would be flavorful, and it wouldn't break anything...do it!
Bottomline: Rules kind of say no, But in general you can say yes with zero bad results.
But there is absolutely no reason as far as game balance etc not to let there be neutral designations. I can think of no reason why you couldn't have a third faction that was neither a foe nor friend, it would be fun, it would be useful, it would be flavorful, and it wouldn't break anything...do it!
Bottomline: Rules kind of say no, But in general you can say yes with zero bad results.
Flipguarder
First Post
Saying the rules say no is the same thing as citing a republican-democrat debate and claiming everyone is either a republican or a democrat. Why would combat rules mention anything that's not an ally or an enemy. Its so rarely an issue it's not worth mentioning.
Why indeed? However they do mention them (PHB, 57: "whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not").
If the definition of "Republican" was "someone who is not a Democrat", then yes, your argument would be valid. However, that is not how this word is defined, so your analogy is invalid.
Enemy is explicitly defined in game terms as another person that is on not your ally. The condition is simple.
Flipguarder
First Post
I honestly didn't believe that there were rules on what enemies/allies were. That rule changes the whole feel of this game imo. Everyone who isn't fighting with you against whatever you are fighting is an enemy.
Thats... quite dogmatic.
Thats... quite dogmatic.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Game language....
They felt it necessary to say the spell cant detect which beings not in your known allies list (which you chose) are hostile or not (Your spell will not be able to magically auto detect for you so you will have to decide -- darn I wanted the spell to do it for me.).
As far as I am concerned if you want decide the guys in blue are allies for this casting and those in red are allies for your next casting ;-) go ahead.
Dogmatism me thinks comes from rules lawyers hashing with wording ;-) on the net.
Ultimategabe -- I know this is a 'cheater' response but all I can say is "How do you want it to work in your game (presuming you're the DM) ?"
Go with that. As you can see, the rules text will get picked apart and hear several opinions. But the final interpretation really is what you think will work best for you and your game.
Having said that, if you want my opinion --
I would say make him choose one or the other at the time the power is used. Does it make 100% sense? NO! But will it be simpler/faster to make a determination at the start and stick with it rather than reevaluating every round or to try and make the seperate distinction everytime that power or powers with similar wording is used? Yes. So that's how I'd rule it if it were my game.
Go with that. As you can see, the rules text will get picked apart and hear several opinions. But the final interpretation really is what you think will work best for you and your game.
Having said that, if you want my opinion --
I would say make him choose one or the other at the time the power is used. Does it make 100% sense? NO! But will it be simpler/faster to make a determination at the start and stick with it rather than reevaluating every round or to try and make the seperate distinction everytime that power or powers with similar wording is used? Yes. So that's how I'd rule it if it were my game.
Similar Threads
