I was looking through the helpfiles to try to figure out why shamans are only good or evil. Aside from the way that a good character would fight enemies of a faith versus the way an evil character would fight enemies of the faith, couldn't the neutral characters have their own distinctive brand of dealing with enemies? There aren't, and probably won't, ever be a high-elf shaman to counterbalance the dark-elf shaman, but it would seem reasonable a wood-elf might become one.

I suppose an argument against a neutral shaman would be a less-discerning view of who the shaman's enemies would be. Also, who would be let into the group? Cloud giants? Wood-elves? It would be hard to see a gnome as a shaman. Svirfnebli?

I suppose that with the new changes to the shaman class, I would be excited to play one if the option of neutrality were available.

There is no reason not to have a morally neutral shaman. A shaman is a zealot, a fighter, for a cause. Not a moral stance. For a particular deity. You cannot say to me that a tribunal prizes morality more than order. By definition a shaman, anyone, can fight for an cause or precept that has no particular morality.

It's an artifical decision made and one without a real basis, logically. Always been that way. When I first raised it years ago, a then-imm said that they just didn't want neutral shamans, and that, as they say, is that.

But I think they would be an excellent addition, and would make sense.

than a high-elf or neutral shaman anytime

Shamans are priests of extreme faith. There is no fence sitting. Thus it is easier with good vs evil shamans. Neutrals tend to have a wait and see attitude, while good and evil are more extreme in their beliefs. Furthermore shamans fight over good-evil and beliefs, communing with supplications that are more damaging those of opposite alignment. Neutrals don't quite fit in with those supplications.

As for High-elf shaman, it has been brought up many times. Do a search 'elf shaman' and you may get good arguments from players and Imms. Basically High-elfs value life and goodness. Cursing/plaguing/damnation/energy drain kind of prayers do not reflect a high-elf characteristics.

I dislike the idea of neutrality being considered "fence-sitting". Would a neutral battlerager be considered a fence-sitter if he saw a mage? I like to think of a neutral character as someone who doesn't care about good or evil so much as the furtherment of their own beliefs. The Outlanders are a prime example because the majority of them are neutral and they are considered extremist in their views. If it came down to attacking the elf conjurer or the duergar shaman, they would attack the one they perceived to be the greatest threat as opposed to a good-aligned Outlander would attack the shaman first.

I wasn't really arguing for elf shamans, merely giving example of a perceived imbalance against the dark-elf shaman. No biggie. My main argument for the allowing of neutral shamans. You were right when you mentioned that a lot of supplications are communed against opposite aligned people, but perhaps this could be the balancing crutch to allowing a neutral shaman. I could see plenty of extremists among the neutrals who would go crazy and attack anything against their beliefs.

Thanks always for the input! : )

Well, I can start a thread about why elves can be assassins. There are just some classes that don't cut well for elves. Shamans are about curses and maledictions. Something I don't see elves playing that role.

There is a thin line between beliefs (religions included) and alignment. Will a good tribunal kill a wanted maran paladin? That again, is another topic altogether.

PS. Always felt tribunals should be a neutral only cabal.