Alignment Question--admittedly subjective, but in need of answers. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alignment Question--admittedly subjective, but in need of answers. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Lorillomar
01-17-07, 09:57 PM Hello again,

In 3.5, alignment is more a guideline than a stricture, right?

That being said, if a character identified himself as being "a good person", i.e. "good-aligned", and performed only good and neutral acts, where does one draw the line between that character being "good" or "neutral"? How many neutral acts does it take to draw one down that unwittingly slippery path?

What if the character acted self-motivated some times, but still acted selflessly other times?

The difference between neutral and evil is easier to delineate, IMHO.

Help?
jaelis
01-17-07, 10:13 PM Plain neutral acts don't really affect your alignment at all. It's neutral to have pancakes for breakfast rather than oatmeal, and its not an alignment issue.

I would say that things that tend to make you neutral are when you consciously choose not to do something good. If you see a dying man beside the road and don't stop to help (and don't have some more pressing reason you can't stop), that would push you towards neutrality.

If a character sometimes acted good and sometime neutral (in this sense), then he'd be on the border of neutral and good. I'd probably let him list his alignment as he chose to. If the real neutral acts become dominant, he would shift to neutral.
johnhansen
01-17-07, 11:00 PM I would say that things that tend to make you neutral are when you consciously choose not to do something good. If you see a dying man beside the road and don't stop to help (and don't have some more pressing reason you can't stop), that would push you towards neutrality.

On the other hand if the after-life is a existence of pure ecstasy then letting him die might be a good act. Or if we are are just meat pies and there is nothing after death letting him die might be a evil act.
Rocketboy13
01-17-07, 11:14 PM On the other hand if the after-life is a existence of pure ecstasy then letting him die might be a good act. Or if we are are just meat pies and there is nothing after death letting him die might be a evil act.

And eating human meat pie is widely considered to be an evil act, just for clarity's sake.
Seeker95
01-18-07, 09:26 AM In 3.5, alignment is more a guideline than a stricture, right?As it has been in every edition. Some players just like treating it as a straight-jacket. :DWhat if the character acted self-motivated some times, but still acted selflessly other times?Depends on how the character acts when self-motivation conflicts with the right thing.
Character is what you do when nobody is looking.
Good is what you do when it is not necessarily in your best interest.

To me, what you have described is a neutral person.
Doing good when it is easy does not make you a good person.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lorillomar 01-17-07, 09:57 PM	Hello again, In 3.5, alignment is more a guideline than a stricture, right? That being said, if a character identified himself as being "a good person", i.e. "good-aligned", and performed only good and neutral acts, where does one draw the line between that character being "good" or "neutral"? How many neutral acts does it take to draw one down that unwittingly slippery path? What if the character acted self-motivated some times, but still acted selflessly other times? The difference between neutral and evil is easier to delineate, IMHO. Help?
jaelis 01-17-07, 10:13 PM	Plain neutral acts don't really affect your alignment at all. It's neutral to have pancakes for breakfast rather than oatmeal, and its not an alignment issue. I would say that things that tend to make you neutral are when you consciously choose not to do something good. If you see a dying man beside the road and don't stop to help (and don't have some more pressing reason you can't stop), that would push you towards neutrality. If a character sometimes acted good and sometime neutral (in this sense), then he'd be on the border of neutral and good. I'd probably let him list his alignment as he chose to. If the real neutral acts become dominant, he would shift to neutral.
johnhansen 01-17-07, 11:00 PM	I would say that things that tend to make you neutral are when you consciously choose not to do something good. If you see a dying man beside the road and don't stop to help (and don't have some more pressing reason you can't stop), that would push you towards neutrality. On the other hand if the after-life is a existence of pure ecstasy then letting him die might be a good act. Or if we are are just meat pies and there is nothing after death letting him die might be a evil act.
Rocketboy13 01-17-07, 11:14 PM	On the other hand if the after-life is a existence of pure ecstasy then letting him die might be a good act. Or if we are are just meat pies and there is nothing after death letting him die might be a evil act. And eating human meat pie is widely considered to be an evil act, just for clarity's sake.
Seeker95 01-18-07, 09:26 AM	In 3.5, alignment is more a guideline than a stricture, right?As it has been in every edition. Some players just like treating it as a straight-jacket. :DWhat if the character acted self-motivated some times, but still acted selflessly other times?Depends on how the character acts when self-motivation conflicts with the right thing. Character is what you do when nobody is looking. Good is what you do when it is not necessarily in your best interest. To me, what you have described is a neutral person. Doing good when it is easy does not make you a good person.