Does anyone have any experience in roleplaying nuetral characters?

If so then how is it best to aproach quests?

I have mainly played with good parties but always end up with the same party and get bored in chapter 3. I am currently split between an evil party and a nuetral party. However, i think i am more likely to find a balnced nuetral party due to limited evil npc's.

The best way to discover what neutral characters are is by reading the description of the chosen neutral alignment. That should provide you with a decent picture, I'd think.

Besides that: neutral is not good, not evil. You don't spend too much time/money on yourself, but not too much on others as well. You just waver somewhere in between.

Neutral characters are also less likely to march off and do any quest anybody asks them to without question, and more likely to ask for a reward or incentive first. They're likely to not let somebody push them around because they're in power (Think Nalia's aunt, Trax, and the priest of Helm.... unless the character actually follows Helm).

Example: You just need to point Mara the CG sorceress in the right direction. "Why would druids do such a thing to Trademeet? I haven't heard of such a thing... Something's wrong. I better check this out for myself.

However, a neutral character might have a few questions first, and certainly would not endanger themselves without a reason first. After all, a good-aligned char would do it out of the goodness of their hearts!

THAT being said, Neutrals aren't heartless, either. They might have a personal reason to march off to Trademeet. Faldorn the True Neutral Avenger Druid did the Trademeet quest without hesitation, because, as a druid, she felt it was important for her to do.

Looking at the definition for the neutral characters in 2nd edition, it is very difficult to play that type character.

</font>

• Lawful Neutral: it says in effect to follow the law without question. And if the rules conflict with other rules/promises?</font>
• Chaotic Neutral: it says that it is the alignment of madmen, doing whatever on a whim. Look at Jan and Haer'dalis. Do they act that way.</font>
• True Neutral: it says they actively try to balance forces, switching sides in the middle of things if the forces change. Really tough to play.</font>

Personally, I like the 3rd edition definitions better. It defines neutral as more of an apathy, rather than an active desire to balance forces. The reason most animals are True Neutral is because they could care less about hurting others for profit or helping others out of charity; they are just trying to survive and reproduce, or in other words just get by. Neutrals could be defined the same way. They are just trying to get by; in adventuring terms they would be mercenary in their views, doing whatever needs to be done, not killing out of hand but also not doing stuff for free without good justification. A way to look at each alignment in this terms:

</font>

• Lawful Neutral: follows a certain code to the letter, with no exceptions. The code is all important. They probably do their best to follow the law, except when it conflicts with their code. Then the code trumps the law, without question. If the code requires them to kill someone, then they die. If the code requires them to save someone, then you save them. Think of a die-hard samurai that follows his lord's wishes without questions.</font>
• Chaotic Neutral: This is the ultimate free spirit. He just looks out for himself, and lets everyone look out for themselves. He just doesn't like being "forced" to do things; if he chooses to do it, then he does it. He may not like watching others suffer, but is not terribly motivated to do anything about it unless it affects him directly. Think of Jan and Haer'dalis. They just kind of do their own thing, not going out of their way to hurt or help anyone.</font>
• True Neutral: this is much like the average Joe. Has no problem following orders, especially with someone standing over them to make them do it. However, really has no compunctions about breaking the law in ways that do not hurt anyone, if they think they can be caught. Will gladly help out friends and relatives, but will just as quickly pass by someone on the street that needs help (probably thinking "too bad about all of these homeless people, someone should do something about them"). They just really want to get by without ruffling too many feathers. As long as things don't intrude too much on their lives, then they'll be fine.</font>

Now there are some areas where this definition breaks down. The prime example being druids. They are supposed to take an active roles in preserving the balance, so would fall under the 2nd edition definition instead of the 3rd edition definition.

Wow, thanks. It looks like playing a nuetral character may be too difficult. I am more inclined to be chaotic nuetral or even an evil alignment.

What about Neutral Evil and Neutral Good? [img]smile.gif[/img] Those come under the definitions of neutral as well don't they?...

I'm really just posting this to see if you'll define them the same way you did the others.. excellent definitions if I may say it [img]smile.gif[/img]

Neutral can always be only caring about yourself or the rewards, while never doing anything that would actually hurt another being if it would aid you. So, you can be the most selfish bastard out there as long as you are not actively hurting other people. For instance, I have a true neutral commando type of rogue in a PnP game. He cares only about getting loot and good shite for himself. Does not mean he is evil though, since he will never actively seek to hurt anyone. However, if that mad wizard who took his freedom is at his mercy, that wizard must pay. And he'll loot his place to. To show him.

Actually, by 3rd edition rules, the neutral types are the easiest to play. Good requires a more active effort to help others and do the right thing (i.e. you have to go out of your way to help others, etc.) than the average person does. The one thing about evil is an actual effort to promote your own self interest (i.e. actually going out of your way to burn others for your own profit). Neutral is more of a lack of active effort to do anything except getting by. In other words, the average Joe. For example, you are in your house, and suddenly a woman starts banging on your door screaming for help. Here's pretty much how it would break down:

</font>

• Good: Open the door and let her in. Call the police, if needed.</font>
• Evil: Shout at her to quit yelling and go away. Or even tell her that you hope she gets killed so she'll quit disturbing you.</font>
• Neutral: Pretend you don't hear her and/or aren't home.</font>

A neutral character would be more the mercenary than the good guy. Oh you paid me to do something. No problem. Lawful Neutral may view this as their code (always do what you were paid to do) and do whatever you got paid to do. Chaotic Neutral would do whatever they are inclined to do, regardless of whether they are getting paid or not. True Neutral would probably try to stick with whatever they got paid to do, but if things changed to make sticking with their current employer bad, then they would switch sides or go off on their own (they would be reluctant to do so, however; it's bad for business to be screwing your employers). None of the three would really care what the employer wanted them to do, except in ones that bother them personally (for example, if you were an escaped slave, then you would have a problem with someone hiring you to guard slaves. You might not actively try to save them, either, but you would turn down the job in the first place). Evil guys actively go out of their way to do stuff to hurt others and/or get extra benefit from the situation, while good guys may still get paid, but if the mission was for the right thing then they may do it for free. Neutrals aren't that motivated. They just do what they need to do.

I believe that Ironbar was speaking about the Good-Neutral-Evil spectrum rather than the Law-Neutral-Chaos spectrum. But since you asked... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Good guys want to do the "right" thing. They go out of their way to help others. Lawful good would do this by following their code of good conduct to the letter (i.e. think Order of the Radiant Heart) and sticking to their moral values regardless. Chaotic Good would be more of an individualist, doing what they felt best and helping others find their own best path (rather than trying to tell them what the "best way" was). Neutral good just wants to do the right thing. No major code of conduct, no desire to just help others find the right path. They would do both or neither, depending on the situation. They would probably seek to follow the law (generally a bad idea to be breaking the law, considering the penalties), but if the laws are the problem then they'll break them if necessary. Think of it as wanting to do the right thing, but really not having the die-hard conviction to stick to a strong code of conduct (nor the die-hard belief to let others have the opportunity to choose their own best path). In effect, they want to do the right thing. They just don't have a strong conviction about the "right" way to do it (i.e. they are apathetic about codes of conduct, etc.).

Evil guys are all about themselves, but unlike neutral if they can manipulate, bully, etc. to get extra advantage then so be it. Lawful Evil has a code of conduct, but follows it and manipulates it to achieve the best result for them (think evil politician, sticking to the law but using it to screw others over for their benefit). Chaotic Evil just grabs what they want when they want it, going off on their own path to get ahead (but unlike Chaotic neutral, they generally will go out of their way to hurt others if they don't like them or it will benefit them more). Neutral Evil does whatever (and I mean whatever) it takes to get ahead. If working with others gets you ahead, then so be it. If they have to strike off on their own, so be it. All that matters is that you get benefit from the situation, and if you can screw others over in the process then so much the better. They don't have either a free-spirited attitude or a code of conduct; all that matters is self-interest in the extreme.

I'm playing a true neutral party at the moment with a reputation of 20. Jaheira keeps complaining, but could it not just be coincedence that all my balancing acts were destroying evil? That the oppurtunity to destroy law never arose? Anyway, what's wrong with being heroic? Could it not be just pure luck that evil is the side gaining more power and we're just neutralising it?

That's what the problem with rep is. It doesn't take into account things like that. There's so much evil that good deeds must be done left and right to even begin to counteract that, but does the rep system care? Noooo. So you just live with it.