Can a creature be neither an enemy nor an ally?

[N0Man]

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.

I don't see how this is "dogmatic"... and I think you are reading too much into things.

This doesn't mean the world is out to get you, they are simply definitions of scope of effect. It even says that the enemy does not need to be "hostile" to you, but rather an "enemy" is just a term meaning that they aren't your ally.

The use of "enemies" in 4E simply is a mechanic to allow you to give immunity to your allies. When this immunity is not granted, then "creatures" encompasses all. Affecting only "enemies" is really an *advantage* to a power.

 

[Flipguarder]

I was joking about that. I understand its just for combat mechanics. But it still seems odd to me. Imagine:

You are in the middle of a town fighting off a surprise attack from a gnoll tribe. You fight with your 4 adventuring friends. A mob of people are running away from the streets through the town. Due to their lack of bravery and unwillingness to fight back, you don't really consider them allies. That means they are now your enemies.

 

[Jhaelen]

Due to their lack of bravery and unwillingness to fight back, you don't really consider them allies. That means they are now your enemies.

No, it just means, they are affected by your powers as if they were enemies.

 

[Garthanos]

No, it just means, they are affected by your powers as if they were enemies.

and since you explicitly chose not to exclude them from the negative effects you declared them enemies and they will likely call you enemy now... eh.

 

[Garthanos]

Additional note you can declare if the attack reduces any of the villagers to zero or fewer hitpoints (and since most are minions) that they are knocked out by your attack not killed. ;-), problem solved.

 

[N0Man]

I was joking about that. I understand its just for combat mechanics. But it still seems odd to me. Imagine:

You are in the middle of a town fighting off a surprise attack from a gnoll tribe. You fight with your 4 adventuring friends. A mob of people are running away from the streets through the town. Due to their lack of bravery and unwillingness to fight back, you don't really consider them allies. That means they are now your enemies.

Honestly, I wouldn't see the townsfolk as "enemies" here, but I think that this is something for you and your group to decide.

I'd personally consider them as allies for the following reasons:

1. You are defending them, and you are obviously on their side.
2. They have a stake in this battle, since you are defending them from a clear threat. My gut says that in spirit, they are on your side (even if not in action).
3. Their unwillingness to help does not make them neutral any more than a teammate who has been intimidated or fallen prey to some fear effect and incapacitated with fear (and keeps failing his save) and is running away.

Now, under other circumstances, these circumstances may not apply, and the townsfolk truly would be neutral (and therefor, fall in the "enemies" category).

Having to be careful with area effects when innocent bystanders are near has always been a consideration in D&D (hopefully).

 

[UltimaGabe]

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) ?"

As a matter of fact, I was not the DM at the time- but everyone in our group is fairly rules-conscious as well as reasonable, so we agreed pretty quickly that there's nothing wrong with allowing a middle ground (so that, in the example the DM used, a crowd of peasants caught in the crossfire simply wouldn't be affected). And, when I do DM, I plan on using the same ruling.

For what it's worth, the Death Knight turned out to be an enemy after all, but he aided us in killing his master (by flying away on his master's mount before his master could get to it, thus establishing himself as a possible future villain).

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, to be fair 'enemy' and 'ally' as game terms have nothing to do with storyline intentions or future plot twists.

If, for this use of a power, they are willing to not be cooked by your smite-spell, and you are willing not to smite them with that smite-spell, they are allies by the game rules.

Does it matter if you like them? No.
Does it matter if you trust them? No.

So, if you have a spell that attacks all enemies, you -can- exclude 'neutral' parties if you wish, and they wish (if they want to be treated as enemies and attacked by it, well, that's an option too).

And by the same token: If you have a spell that buffs all allies, you -can- exclude 'neutral' parties if you wish and treat them as enemies for that spell.

This means, however, if as a bard (for example) you use a power that gives a bonus to allies, and harms enemies, and the 'neutral' party gets caught in the effect, that a decision has to be made whether they benefit or are harmed by it. There is no 'non-affected' in this instance. Everything gets affected by the magic, the limit of control you have is whether it is good for them or bad for them. In some cases, the enemy might -prefer- to be an enemy rather than an ally. That's his choice to make as well.