Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9534493" data-attributes="member: 42856">That's a possibility, and it can be extended outside of the classical alignment system by having "Muscular Neutral" that believe in a morality that doesn't align perfectly with Good and Evil as defined by the OP. For example, let's imagine I have a group that is Neutral, by virtue of believing in the virtue of both utmost respect for life (Good-side) and total support for oppressio (Evil side). Their moral motto would be "As long as you don't kill people, everything is fair game". So they could be a king who think he owns every one of his subjects by divine right, but said divinity said "Thou shalt not commit the mortal sin of Murder") so despite treating peasants like furniture, he will never kill anyone. He might even feed them better than the Good's kingdom's peasants are fed, for all we know. This lord would be Neutral, and would side with Evil and Good according to his whim, not caring about the E-G axis of alignment. On average, he'd support both sides. And since he abbhors people dying, he would let it know that he'll side with the losing side to prevent too many death (both Evil and Good would see that attacking the other side is a bad proposition because the neutral lord would side with the losing one, tip the balance and press for negociations).You can have any metaphysical concept, outside of Good and Evil, used to justify a behaviour of siding with either side at the same time, or switching side. You mention Chaos, which is the "D&D classical one" and I agree with you it's probably the most common for this reason, but really, any concept work. Depending of one's campaign mood, you can have:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Serious ones:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A MN group believing in Diversity wouldn't want one side to triumph because they actively want different ideas to express themselves and noone with an actual agenda being in too much power, because both Good and Evil can create great ideas -- "We don't separate the author from the artwork, and we actually think that only evil persons can write some masterpieces and only good persons can write other masterpieces, so we need both because we value diverse artworks"),</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A MN country with a population that has families/religious ties to both the Good neighbour and the Evil neighbour would feel in internal pressure to prevent the loser from losing "too much" -- "Franckly, as a person, I am not a fan of Oppressing John, the neighbouring tyrant, but he's on the verge of losing the war, and as the Doge of Neutralia I must respect the 73% of voters in our border province of South Johnland  rooting for him. I will intervene on John's behalf so I can keep the Senate at the next election!",</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A MN group believing in Peace and Territorial Integrity that would defend the side that is attacked, disregarding if the one actually being attacked is Good or Evil, or whether they warrant an agression, because they just don't like offensive wars, period (and unless the attacker is stupid, they'd generally side with the underdogs on the basis that the one initiating the war has assessed that he can win it),</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A MN group believing in Fate as ordained by a higher power would see that Evil and Good are part of the Creator's world, and wouldn't want any of them to disappear, because it would be an insult to the Creator's work -- "He wouldn't have created evil and evil gods if He didn't think that Evil was something we need, for He is perfect, almighty, and even if we can't understand why, we must respect His will",</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A MN group believing of nothing but purely materialist would side with the losing side because the losing side is certainly the one most ready to pay more for itshelp -- those MN groups are often called adventurers,</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Less serious to silly ones:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A MN group believing in Progress would side with the country where the industry is the most creative, and since necessity often prompts creativity, they'd side with the losing side more often than not, changing from time to time,</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A MN group worshipping Goal, the godess of Soccer, would side with whichever side is leading in the Champions' League,</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sinister ones:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A MN group of elves could be siding both with the Evil Drow Queen and the Good Elf Council President, when they fight respectively the Paladin President and the Evil Human Lich-King. He would always intervene when elves are losing, without consideration of what value the elves hold -- "after all, even if misguided morally, an elf is still a brother elf, we're member of the same species, and there is no reason not to help them when threatened by other species, that's only natural" [actually, I realize writing this that this is much less sinister with the switch from race to species],</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A MN group worshipping the God of Endings might actually see the eternal strife as a very good thing for strengthening its patron god, and prevent one side for utterly losing so they can regrow and breed generational hatred between the two groups to ensure a steady arrival of souls to their god's domain. They would consider that the absolute victory of Good would prevent further massacre, and the absolute victory of evil would lead to a police state so intense that there would be no hope for armed rebellion, so a victory of a side would mean a long period of peace, not something they actually want, even if they would never kill people themselves.</li> </ul></li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification