about the new druid linesEdit

wouldn't a NN Druid try to achiev a good solution (e.g. peace agreement) for both sides directly; rather than killing some of side A first, then killing some of side B? Gruftlord 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do not always fully in advandse know what we are getting into. Let's say a True Neutral has agreed to root out some alien infestation, but durring the mission she finds out that the cause for the infestation, because the home world of the infestation was destroyed by the one which asked them to solve the problem. In those cases, a true neurtral character would switch sides Programmer 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Meabee its an idea to differantiate between high wisdom charachters and low wisdom charachters on this matter. A true neutral character with low wisdom (like a rogue) will not actively persue neutrality while a strong wisdom character (like a druid or ranger) would. Programmer 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he would chose a side so quickly. why should he agree to root the infestation? i think a NN character would say he is not goint to slaughter anyone he doesn't know; but he will go have a look at hte problem and find a solution (which in his case means: a losution both sides, good and evil can live with (maybe the evil side will not want to do this, but unless this isn't proven, the neutral character souldn't take side at all).
Well you know, this is how i would play a NN character. what i'm trying to say is: if the descriptions were left that vague as they were, people could act as they interpreted these things. the more guidelines there are, the less likely people are to make up their own way to interpret. and you can't neglect, that the "don't chose a side unless forced to" aproach isn't a propper NN exegesis Gruftlord 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.