2012-02-21, 09:21 AM (ISO 8601)
Re: Vote me up a Kingdom!
+1 Lawful neutral
I thing they should be ordered as a society, if they are ment to support a matriachy (Or otherwise, after the first war in which you need to send the men because women are the determining factor in population stability, the men would say: Hey, now we are in charge!). But I dislike the Drow society so nol LE.
-1 True neutral
Because I totally dislike your definition. It makes no sense. Even if someone thinks, evil is part of the universe, why would he work towards making this part of his society, if though everybody is happy with "good"?
Even if leaders are thinking: "Hey, the "good" needs an counterexample of plain, ugly evilness, so that everybody will stays watchful, or evil will grow in secret." Will not greate a neutral society. It will (if it works) be good, because a few "examples" do not shift the mass.
And it will definitly not necessary be neutral on the law/chaos axis. Can be but this way of thinking is already leaning towards law. And adding "and we need a few examples of violent chaos somewhere at our borders, to make the people appreciate order." too, than it is most definitly lawful all the way.
The point is, that only a few weired people would do something for the sake of cosmological balance (especially facing the fact that there are good aligned planes out there where people are happy that show, that the balance is not needed and an unbalanced world works).
You can't make a whole kingdom out of such weirdos. People do stuff because they gain something from it and their life is better afterwards.
Some people think, that a strong society is best suited for everybody inside to gain most, so they do good to others if these need it, so that the others will later be able to repay the favor, or maybe not directly but they'll help someone else looking over the whole society, everybody gives and recieves all the time.
Some take this pattern so deep into their unconcious decission making, that they don't even question it on a case-by-case basis.
Others think, that if they care for themselves, they will be best off. Either because the others will still form a nice, frindly society they can abuse, or because the others will only look for themselves too and trying to build something altruistic up will only get abused by others or because they think that if everybody just acts egoisticly, they will get most out of it because they are the strongest.
And then there are those that think a little egoism is okay / they won't get caught / only if the lure of personal gain is to big, they get tempted / if the antisocial deed is so big, they don't want to imagine anyone else to do it, they stay away from it.
This is the kind of neutral I like. And it's a pretty big range of neutral, just like people are neutral on the law/chaos slider if
-They have a personal codex that does not really effect their decissions most of the time -or-
-They have a personal codex but in a very serious decission, they are willing to make compromises.
(One, whose codex falls under both criterias should be considered chaotic. Or as the Joker said: "This ONE precious rule of you, I will make you break it" - or similar. In D&D terms: "I will make your alignment change towards chaotic. Muhaha!")
Last edited by Maraxus1; 2012-02-21 at 09:22 AM.