Post/Author/DateTime	Post
vonklaude 07-24-07, 11:06 AM	Yet another attempt at a definition of what constitutes 'alignment' in the abstract. I've left out the arguments either way; so please refer to the many threads on this subject for the soundly argued cases people have brought both for and against. Acknowledging those cases, on balance I feel this formulation works. It demands no exceptions from any part of RAW. Alignment is the detectable compulsion to act a certain way with respect to Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, and Neutrality. Alignment is objective, not subjective: it doesn't matter how you feel about that compulsion, nor even whether you are capable of acting on it. The compulsion to act is not invariable: in expression it can fluctuate from time-to-time without affecting detectable internal 'alignment'. Your alignment can change; this can happen as a result of your experience of actions, even other peoples, or as a result of a sudden and dramatic change of heart. Is it good? Helpful to the DM? -vk
StSteven 07-24-07, 11:09 AM	Obviously, I totally agree with what you are saying.
Kaligrad 07-24-07, 11:12 AM	*Ahem* Alignment is a classification, and like all classifications, it is hard to shoehorn people into them. Much like the zodiac, and any number of classification systems set up by psychologists, alignment can only vaguely describe the person it is attributed to, and even then, that is only if you agree with the definitions given. If it is any consolation, however, I do agree with your rather broad and vague definitions. Now where a character would fit into them...we could argue for days about that. I believe I speak for myself.
StSteven 07-24-07, 11:18 AM	*Ahem* I believe I speak for myself. What you say is true as well.
vonklaude 07-24-07, 12:46 PM	I've sneakily dragged a post of pres-man's over here to answer it... Frankly as a player and as a DM I find the idea of an alignment being a compulsion to act a certain way instead of a measurement of the "stain" of your deeds on your soul, disturbing. I have heard players make statements like, "I have to do this because my characters is Lawful Good." Which just makes my skin crawl. A player shouldn't feel obligated to act in a certain fashion merely because of two letters on their sheet (an exception might be a change of alignment forced on them). It's an interesting case, isn't it. You make a character (Fat Freddy) who is Lawful Good. In play, you never break the law and you never do evil. Ever. You even have a session where you are fighting an anti-paladin, and boy do you get smote good. Ouch! Then one day you rock up to the game (or however you get there - perhaps arrive one hand clutching a bud and the other holding up your trousers) and your DM tells you she's changing Fred's alignment to Neutral. What the! She explains that having taken no good or lawful actions (even though you have taken no chaotic or evil actions) you must be Neutral. She rules that the only reason you fought the anti-paladin was because he was threatening you, which as it happens is true. So, er, can't you play the alignment you want to play? Were you 'mistaken' to choose LG in the first place? No matter how it feels, I believe D&D intends alignment to motivate acts. It even says so, or hints very, very heavily ;) It's a deliberate simplification which sophisticated players will RP around with ease. But the idea of compulsory alignment fails again when applied to zombies and skeletons. A group of skeletons that do nothing but row a boat, where is the evil being done. If they are evil, and alignment is a compulsion for them to act then they should follow it, yet do not. Actually zombies and skeletons are a very poor example of anything to do with alignments. Here is why, in 3rd edition both zombies and skeletons had a neutral alignment (which made sense given the alignment rules), but when 3.5 edition came out they for some reason got the NE alignment, despite not changing one lick in detail. Why the change then? I'm not sure if anything official as come out for the reason, if I had to guess I'd say that so things like Smite Evil would work on them. ./nods I think that's the reason too. As for 'compulsion': this is how they would act if they had a chance to. Set a few skeletons free in a daycare center and they'll butcher the children. As I've said, "The proof is in the pudding." Irregardless as to what ultimately causes an alignment (attitude or sum of actions), a creature that does not act in accordance with the alignment should not have the alignment. An evil being that never once has done an evil act (or a good one), should be neutral, because they lack the commitment as demonstrated by their lack of action. This doesn't mean evil beings have to be stupid about doing evil acts and doing them in ways that will obviously get them caught (though of course some stupid ones will), but they have to have enough of a commitment to actually do evil. If it requires the alignment of the planets for the being to do evil, then they are not evil, they don't have a strong enough commitment. Given the right circumstance just about anyone will do evil. That ruling limits the DM considerably, and what is the advantage? The evil guy is likely to do evil, eventually; he has no compunction against it and a definite compulsion or committment - intent, whatever - to doing it. When it comes to player behaviour, the 'Changing Alignment' rules are advocating good RP and no exploits. It even adds a system for redemption that gives good players more options when confronting evil (or vise versa, depending how your tastes run!) -vk
Gyrofthewastes 07-24-07, 12:52 PM	Pretty much in line with what I think. I'd be more inclined to use the word "tendency" than "compulsion", however, since "compulsion" 1) has a specific in-game definition/usage, and 2) some connotations that I'm not sure are appropriate. Edit: In any event, it must describe how you will act in the future, barring some manner of ethical change.
vonklaude 07-24-07, 12:59 PM	And also Solik... Hate that you're leaving, don't see much in the other thread to discuss, but just to address the comments here for the benefit of others: Hmm. I'm going by memory of texts in the Book of Exalted Deeds that speak of redemption. Perhaps I need to take a closer look at them, but I don't believe I'm incorrect. Thank you :) but sadly you don't get off so lightly ;) Page 8 of the BoED tells you what you want to know: 'almost entirely hopeless' is the wording. 'Almost.' That's not what I mean at all, at least in a general sense. It's true for the Always aligned creatures who aren't Neutral, and that's described in various books and entries. Demons and devils are Evil because their physical makeup is actually imbued with Evil. Skeletons are Evil because they are created with animate dead [Evil]. I don't hold to this for other creatures whose ultimate alignment is due to moral action, within or without. There's no "mystical energies" within, but rather semi-consistent choices to follow (or not) the ideals represented by those "mystical energies." Although, now that I think about it, the "energies" idea does sort of fit once you consider detection spells, alignment-required magical items, and so forth. I wouldn't say, though, that the "energies" provide the compulsion, but rather that they come to reside there because the person's choices opened the door for it. That's my opinion, of course, not any interpretation of RAW. You can certainly go either way with it. Sorry for mistaking your meaning, but I like the conclusion you meandered to! I don't see how the anti-paladin remark fits, sorry. It's a thought experiment to show that the wording 'incapable of moral action' means what it says, and does not mean just 'incapable of action'. No matter how long you wait, a Good creature deprived of the capability to act doesn't have to turn Neutral. (Although under RAW they might, as we know, have a 'change of heart' sans act.) I guess an intelligent sword left alone in a dungeon for an eon isn't forced to become Neutral either. -vk
vonklaude 07-24-07, 01:05 PM	Pretty much in line with what I think. I'd be more inclined to use the word "tendency" than "compulsion", however, since "compulsion" 1) has a specific in-game definition/usage, and 2) some connotations that I'm not sure are appropriate. I liked 'compulsion' more than 'intent', but perhaps 'tendency' is better yet. How is this? Alignment is the detectable tendency to act a certain way with respect to Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, and Neutrality. Alignment is objective, not subjective: it doesn't matter how you feel about that tendency, nor even whether you are capable of acting on it. The tendency to act is not invariable: in expression it can fluctuate from time-to-time without affecting detectable 'alignment'. Your alignment can change; this can happen as a result of your experience of actions, even other peoples, or as a result of a sudden and dramatic change of heart. If we need a mechanic for this, the one I'm moving toward is that Solik meandered to. -vk
Solik 07-24-07, 01:09 PM	Well, I disagree with the idea that a Good person turns Neutral by not doing Good acts for a long time. To me, you turn Neutral by doing approximately equal Good and Evil acts for a time. Or, well, not equal, because Evil acts tend to be more severe than Good ones... rather, you start doing more Evil acts than a Good person should do. In other words, maintaining alignment requires no effort or action. Only changing it does.
StSteven 07-24-07, 01:30 PM	How about for the second one: Alignment is objective, not subjective: it doesn't matter what tendency you feel you have, nor even whether you are capable of acting on it.
pres_man 07-24-07, 02:04 PM	I've sneakily dragged a post of pres-man's over here to answer it... That is fine, but it would be polite if you actually go back to the other thread and inform the posters you are replying to that your reply is here, and perhaps supply a link. In a day or two this thread may be several pages back and the other thread might be revived, without some kind of connection between the two there leaves some confusion on some readers. It's an interesting case, isn't it. You make a character (Fat Freddy) who is Lawful Good. In play, you never break the law and you never do evil. Ever. You even have a session where you are fighting an anti-paladin, and boy do you get smote good. Ouch! Then one day you rock up to the game (or however you get there - perhaps arrive one hand clutching a bud and the other holding up your trousers) and your DM tells you she's changing Fred's alignment to Neutral. What the! She explains that having taken no good or lawful actions (even though you have taken no chaotic or evil actions) you must be Neutral. She rules that the only reason you fought the anti-paladin was because he was threatening you, which as it happens is true. A couple of things: 1) Any DM that would change someone's alignment before discussing (barring say a curse) the possibility lacks any respect in my mind. If the DM thought they were getting close enough to shift they should have informed the player. As with most things dialogue is almost always the better way, this example smacks of "DM-God" complex. 2) The question should be, were there opportunities to do good that were by-passed to do neutral actions. This also relates to your trapped individual example. A good person trapped should try to do what they can that is as close to their alignment as possible, if there are no choices that match their alignment, then they can't be held responsible for that fact. So, er, can't you play the alignment you want to play? Were you 'mistaken' to choose LG in the first place? Well assuming a non-arse of a DM (which given the above example with changing without discussion is very unbelievable assumption), then yes, you can play the alignment which means if there are choices which correspond to your alignment and choices that don't and you consistently chose the ones that don't then either you were wrong in the first place or you have slid into another alignment. No matter how it feels, I believe D&D intends alignment to motivate acts. It even says so, or hints very, very heavily ;) It's a deliberate simplification which sophisticated players will RP around with ease. Yes alignment is to aid players who don't live the life of their character and play it 24/7 to make decisions consistent with the idea of the character. On the other hand, how do most think a player should design a character in the first place? Pick an alignment and then design the character around it or design the character and then pick the alignment that most accurately reflects it? The problem is that alignment as a game mechanic does not "cause" anything. It is a measurement tool, just like a thermometer. A thermometer can tell you how hot it is but it does not force the temperature to stay at a temperature. Likewise an alignment will tell you either the sum of your actions or your tendency/intent/compulsion, depending on your interpretation, but it should not be telling how to act (or think) in the future. Now it may indicate a trend of behaviour (or thought) and a trend can be used to forecast future events but they can't absolutely predict them. ./nods I think that's the reason too. As for 'compulsion': this is how they would act if they had a chance to. Set a few skeletons free in a daycare center and they'll butcher the children. Yet in the description there is no indication that will happen unless it is instructed to do that. Again, I in my own games would act the way you have described, especially if masterless, but there is no reason given the actual rules that they should act in any fashion different then a construct. That ruling limits the DM considerably, and what is the advantage? The evil guy is likely to do evil, eventually; he has no compunction against it and a definite compulsion or committment - intent, whatever - to doing it. By limits the DM I assume you mean, limits the DM from having a bunch of "evil" guys running around that aren't "bad". But what is the advantage? The advantage is that players can feel a sense of consistency, they have to "prove" their alignment (a DM may change their alignment if they don't), they should feel when they detect an alignment on an NPC, that the NPC actually "earned" that alignment and it wasn't given "whilly-nilly". When it comes to player behaviour, the 'Changing Alignment' rules are advocating good RP and no exploits. It even adds a system for redemption that gives good players more options when confronting evil (or vise versa, depending how your tastes run!) -vk Well the redemption rules are in BoED, there are vague "redemption" hints in the core rules (atonement, shifts of alignment, etc), but there are no "redemption rules". How long does a good person have to "influence" (probably through diplomacy, but again no rule) an evil person before they are willing to atone/be redeemed?
vonklaude 07-24-07, 04:12 PM	That is fine, but it would be polite if you actually go back to the other thread and inform the posters you are replying to that your reply is here, and perhaps supply a link. In a day or two this thread may be several pages back and the other thread might be revived, without some kind of connection between the two there leaves some confusion on some readers. Consider me chastened, and I mean that non-ironically. Which thread did we come from? I'll go fix it. 1) Any DM that would change someone's alignment before discussing (barring say a curse) the possibility lacks any respect in my mind. If the DM thought they were getting close enough to shift they should have informed the player. As with most things dialogue is almost always the better way, this example smacks of "DM-God" complex. In constructing cases to pump intuition, it's easy to step over the line isn't it? What I am trying to draw attention to, however clumsily, is that under RAW the DM is authorised to do exactly what I described. Like you, I believe a skilled DM will inform the player 'Hey, are you sure you're playing LG' long before the day of reckoning. OTOH it's possible that DM and player won't agree. As a player I would hate my DM to mandate an alignment change (to Neutral) if I was taking a backseat and not overtly playing to alignment. What if I'm shy? Some players don't do much of anything, but they like the feel of being Good aligned and they definitely don't feel like they are Neutral, even where they are taking no actual Good actions. In giving a heavy-handed example, I did mean to draw attention to how noxious a requirement to act could become. 2) The question should be, were there opportunities to do good that were by-passed to do neutral actions. This also relates to your trapped individual example. A good person trapped should try to do what they can that is as close to their alignment as possible, if there are no choices that match their alignment, then they can't be held responsible for that fact. I roughly agree with what you are saying, and especially the last part. Thing is, I feel like I've proposed a model that lets the last part work without harming the first part. Yes alignment is to aid players who don't live the life of their character and play it 24/7 to make decisions consistent with the idea of the character. On the other hand, how do most think a player should design a character in the first place? Pick an alignment and then design the character around it or design the character and then pick the alignment that most accurately reflects it? For a lot of players that is exactly how alignment helps them, and RAW is pretty clear on that. As an experienced player, you have no need to draw your motives from alignment. Your group will understand your alignment without being told anything, based on your RP. For many, many players, alignment is a crucial anchor for motivation that drives their RP. Case in point, in my current game 2 of 5 players are complete novices, and one of those is a lurker. For them alignment as motive is 100% of it's value. They'd be lost if it worked any other way. The problem is that alignment as a game mechanic does not "cause" anything. It is a measurement tool, just like a thermometer. A thermometer can tell you how hot it is but it does not force the temperature to stay at a temperature. Likewise an alignment will tell you either the sum of your actions or your tendency/intent/compulsion, depending on your interpretation, but it should not be telling how to act (or think) in the future. Now it may indicate a trend of behaviour (or thought) and a trend can be used to forecast future events but they can't absolutely predict them. Again, you say much that I agree with. Alignment can be used to forecast future events, but not absolutely. I find that useful. Especially so when I can treat the past symmetrically with the future, which is a round-about way of saying that to the same extent I can't be certain an Evil character will in fact do Evil in future - they might choose to act differently and thus change their alignment - I can't be certain about how they acted in the past - they might have only just become Evil. This all becomes so complex once you insist on an action requirment, and so simple when its tendencies or compulsions. By limits the DM I assume you mean, limits the DM from having a bunch of "evil" guys running around that aren't "bad". But what is the advantage? The advantage is that players can feel a sense of consistency, they have to "prove" their alignment (a DM may change their alignment if they don't), they should feel when they detect an alignment on an NPC, that the NPC actually "earned" that alignment and it wasn't given "whilly-nilly". I'd insert 'guilty' above, rather than 'bad', but nm. Players still have to prove their alignment, if only by not adopting a different one. Elsewhere you expressed abhorrence at players being forced to act by their alignment choice, but now you call that an advantage (or am I thinking of someone else, in which case take my apology in advance!) Well the redemption rules are in BoED, there are vague "redemption" hints in the core rules (atonement, shifts of alignment, etc), but there are no "redemption rules". How long does a good person have to "influence" (probably through diplomacy, but again no rule) an evil person before they are willing to atone/be redeemed? I think the example in bullet-point two of Changing Alignment is really suggestive that redemption is possible, and gives mechanics for it. The answer of course is up to the group, as with most things. Players get redeemed by telling the DM 'Okay, the example of that Lich has finally made me realise LE is best, can I change?' to which the DM says 'Sure, but I'd like to see you RP it. Give me some Evil'. As for NPCs, DM fiat, as ever, rules. -vk
vonklaude 07-24-07, 04:16 PM	How about for the second one... Adjusted as proposed, although to my reading this becomes a bit more contentious. BTW How are your feeling about 'tendency' vs 'compulsion'? Alignment is the detectable tendency to act a certain way with respect to Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, and Neutrality. Alignment is objective, not subjective: it doesn't matter what tendency you feel you have, nor even whether you are capable of acting on it. The tendency to act is not invariable: in expression it can fluctuate from time-to-time without affecting detectable 'alignment'. Your alignment can change; this can happen as a result of your experience of actions, even other peoples, or as a result of a sudden and dramatic change of heart. I'll be using this in my game, with the old wording for the second point as the new reading feels... well, a bit harshly put let's say. When I introduce it my players will no doubt rail at my perfidious high-handedness, as normal, and I will treat their complaints with cavalier indifference, as normal, and we'll all get along fine ;) -vk
StSteven 07-24-07, 04:52 PM	Adjusted as proposed, although to my reading this becomes a bit more contentious. BTW How are your feeling about 'tendency' vs 'compulsion'? I wasn't trying to be more contentious, just word smithing. I'm ok with it. Either on is better than my soul wiring wording. They both get to the meaning I was attempting. I think that you will find as much contention with the tendency wording since defining tendency in the rules as alignment is a bit controversial. I don't think that was the intention. Though the definition of it is perfect: a proneness to a particular kind of thought or action (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tendency).
Mock26 07-24-07, 05:18 PM	I personally think that at the beginning of every campaign, or whenever a new player joins an existing game, that everyone needs to sit down and discuss thier viewpoints and expectations on the alignment of their characters and that the DM should give his views and expectations on those same alignments. This will go a VERY LONG way towards preventing potential problems about alignment that may creep up in the future.
vonklaude 07-24-07, 05:48 PM	I wasn't trying to be more contentious, just word smithing. I appreciated that :) No criticsm was intended. I really do want this damn thing word-smithed, having spent so much time on it. I'm ok with it. Either on is better than my soul wiring wording. They both get to the meaning I was attempting. I think that you will find as much contention with the tendency wording since defining tendency in the rules as alignment is a bit controversial. I don't think that was the intention. Though the definition of it is perfect: a proneness to a particular kind of thought or action (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tendency). Just realised what my nag was. 'It doesn't matter what tendency you feel you have' sounds like it is addressing the player and telling them that what they feel is unimportant; whereas 'it doesn't matter how you feel about that tendency' to my ear creates a useful separation. Your character may become aligned Evil if they tend to do things that harm innocents, even if your feeling about that tendency is that it's good. I slightly prefer compulsion because I like more forceful language in my rules, but as Gyr says it creates confusion with other RAW. Besides, the literal definition of tendency that you found really seems to make it best. For my part, then, I'm back to: Alignment is the detectable tendency to act a certain way with respect to Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, and Neutrality. Alignment is objective, not subjective: it doesn't matter how you feel about that tendency, nor even whether you are capable of acting on it. The tendency to act is not invariable: in expression it can fluctuate from time-to-time without affecting detectable alignment. Your alignment can change; this can happen as a result of your experience of actions, even other peoples, or as a result of a sudden and dramatic change of heart. I personally think that at the beginning of every campaign, or whenever a new player joins an existing game, that everyone needs to sit down and discuss thier viewpoints and expectations on the alignment of their characters and that the DM should give his views and expectations on those same alignments. This will go a VERY LONG way towards preventing potential problems about alignment that may creep up in the future. That sounds good, but as with most RAW (well, all, strictly speaking) it's good to have a robust platform to base those discussions on. Knowing that a lot of people have poured over RAW to come up with some reasonable guidelines is a step forward, I hope. At the very least it should help delimit one edge of your discussion: a justifiable position you can take if you want to.
StSteven 07-24-07, 06:21 PM	I would also reword the last on slightly: Your alignment can change; this can happen as a result of your experience of actions, even other peoples, or, rarely, as a result of a sudden and dramatic change of heart.
Mock26 07-24-07, 06:34 PM	That sounds good, but as with most RAW (well, all, strictly speaking) it's good to have a robust platform to base those discussions on. Knowing that a lot of people have poured over RAW to come up with some reasonable guidelines is a step forward, I hope. At the very least it should help delimit one edge of your discussion: a justifiable position you can take if you want to. You have to remember that, by the RAW, the definitions are merely guidelines. Additionally, even if they are taken verbatim people can still view different acts in a different light. It is merely a part of human nature.
pres_man 07-24-07, 09:07 PM	OTOH it's possible that DM and player won't agree. As a player I would hate my DM to mandate an alignment change (to Neutral) if I was taking a backseat and not overtly playing to alignment. What if I'm shy? Some players don't do much of anything, but they like the feel of being Good aligned and they definitely don't feel like they are Neutral, even where they are taking no actual Good actions. Well again, "feel" is kind of irrelevant. What it comes down is the DM can merely say, "You think you are good, ok, prove it." I think it is reasonable for the DM to give a player the benefit of the doubt, but being shy shouldn't stop you from doing acts consistent with your alignment. Shyness is a personality trait not a moral trait. For a lot of players that is exactly how alignment helps them, and RAW is pretty clear on that. As an experienced player, you have no need to draw your motives from alignment. Your group will understand your alignment without being told anything, based on your RP. For many, many players, alignment is a crucial anchor for motivation that drives their RP. Case in point, in my current game 2 of 5 players are complete novices, and one of those is a lurker. For them alignment as motive is 100% of it's value. They'd be lost if it worked any other way. So they chose or were assigned an alignment and then drafted the character from there? Again, you say much that I agree with. Alignment can be used to forecast future events, but not absolutely. I find that useful. Especially so when I can treat the past symmetrically with the future, which is a round-about way of saying that to the same extent I can't be certain an Evil character will in fact do Evil in future - they might choose to act differently and thus change their alignment - I can't be certain about how they acted in the past - they might have only just become Evil. This all becomes so complex once you insist on an action requirment, and so simple when its tendencies or compulsions. I don't see how it is more complex with requiring acts. You say you can't say how they acted in the past with alignment, if you require actions then you very well can say. You might not be able to say what exact actions or in what time frame (recently or many years ago) but you can be sure they did actions that were "evil". On the other hand with "tendency" all you can say is what they feel at that point in time, it tells you nothing of their past or definitively about their future. Now that is fine, not everybody agrees that punishing evil-doers is a Good. Some feel that punishment is never good and is rarely non-evil, and the only good way to handle evil-doers is to redeem them. That is fine, but that is not how the good characters in the core materials are described. In those punishment is a very acceptable idea for Good beings. Thus defining evil doers by the fact that they have actually done evil means that there is no moral issue when dealing with them lethally. If you only treat an evil being as evil for having evil "thoughts" then it becomes a much more complex moral mess. Which is fine, but lets remember children are expected to play this game, so we shouldn't expect moral messes as the default. I'd insert 'guilty' above, rather than 'bad', but nm. Players still have to prove their alignment, if only by not adopting a different one. Elsewhere you expressed abhorrence at players being forced to act by their alignment choice, but now you call that an advantage (or am I thinking of someone else, in which case take my apology in advance!) I think you misunderstood me somewhere. I said that forcing someone to act in a certain way because of two letters on their sheet was bad (m'kay). What I said was an advantage (what was good) about using action to base alignment on was that when a PC learns that someone is LE, they can make a reasonable assumption that this character has acted in a lawful and evil way in the past. They can use that to make judgements on the character. If alignment is not based on actions and is based on "thoughts" then the PC can't make that assumption. Which means that if you learn someone is LE all you can assume is that at that moment in time, they have a high probability of acting LE in the future, but you don't know anything about their past behaviour. Which seems strange to a player when they are told that their character has to prove their alignment, why didn't the LE NPC have to prove theirs? Because the DM can assign alignments to NPCs willy-nilly seems a poor reason to me.
StSteven 07-24-07, 11:27 PM	Now that is fine, not everybody agrees that punishing evil-doers is a Good. Some feel that punishment is never good and is rarely non-evil, and the only good way to handle evil-doers is to redeem them. That is fine, but that is not how the good characters in the core materials are described. In those punishment is a very acceptable idea for Good beings. Thus defining evil doers by the fact that they have actually done evil means that there is no moral issue when dealing with them lethally. If you only treat an evil being as evil for having evil "thoughts" then it becomes a much more complex moral mess. Which is fine, but lets remember children are expected to play this game, so we shouldn't expect moral messes as the default. I don't agree with you here. Not that I think that punishment is evil (it's actually lawful), but I don't think that it's what good characters do. They fight evil. Killing evil is one way to do that. They are not punishing; they are vanquishing. Another (more effective) way is redemption. It isn't as easy or as fun, but it definitely is more good (I think that's good grammar in this case). It most certainly swings the balance toward good more than killing does. Another thing that you keep talking about is evil thoughts. That is not what is meant by the (newly adopted) term tendency. You look at an evil alignment as a stain on the soul. I look at alignment as a game mechanic that reflects the course of action that a character will take, if possible without undue risk. Different characters will define their acceptable risk at different levels, but they will define their own acceptable risk level and act when it is acceptable to them. This applies to good and evil alike. An evil character will act evil when they can do so with an acceptable risk level. A good character will do good when it is within their risk level. If someone only thinks evil and never does evil, then they probably are not evil. They only think that they are. An evil character will probably find an opportunity to act on that impulse. I guess what I am trying to say is that you seem to be translating "intent" or "tendency" a little less emphatically than I mean it. I don't mean that it is something you think about. I mean it is a driving impulse (conscious or not) to do good or evil. It isn't something someone can ignore. Actions will come from it. Not like the guy who just think evil thoughts. Like someone who does evil because they are evil to the core.
trapspringer 07-24-07, 11:35 PM	OP, I've got no problems with your definition. In practice, however, it may be necessary to adjust alignment when it becomes apparent that a player inaccurately assessed the nature of the force that compels his character.
pres_man 07-24-07, 11:39 PM	I don't agree with you here. Not that I think that punishment is evil (it's actually lawful), but I don't think that it's what good characters do. They fight evil. Killing evil is one way to do that. They are not punishing; they are vanquishing. Another (more effective) way is redemption. It isn't as easy or as fun, but it definitely is more good (I think that's good grammar in this case). It most certainly swings the balance toward good more than killing does. That is nice that you feel that way, yet as I said the way good characters are often described in the core books punishment is a fine example. Heck just look at the paladin: Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Heck it is part of the paladin's mandate. Look at the description of LG, they hate for the guilty to go unpunished. Punishment can be a concept accepted by good folk. Does it always have to be lethal in nature, no. If someone only thinks evil and never does evil, then they probably are not evil. They only think that they are. An evil character will probably find an opportunity to act on that impulse. :clap: Exactly, I would even go so far as to say that anyone with an alignment for any reasonable amount of time is going to find opportunities to act in ways that correspond to that alignment. It is fairly unreasonable to assume that someone would never act that way (assuming they were given opportunities, sorry legless armless blackguard). I guess what I am trying to say is that you seem to be translating "intent" or "tendency" a little less emphatically than I mean it. I don't mean that it is something you think about. I mean it is a driving impulse (conscious or not) to do good or evil. It isn't something someone can ignore. Actions will come from it. Not like the guy who just think evil thoughts. Like someone who does evil because they are evil to the core. I totally agree with that view, I think that anyone that claims that a person is evil (assuming they didnt' just spontaneously shift) hasn't done anything evil is being silly. As you say, actions are going to come from it, and I might add, those actions are going to help reinforce that alignment.
StSteven 07-24-07, 11:51 PM	That is nice that you feel that way, yet as I said the way good characters are often described in the core books punishment is a fine example. Heck just look at the paladin: Heck it is part of the paladin's mandate. Look at the description of LG, they hate for the guilty to go unpunished. Punishment can be a concept accepted by good folk. Does it always have to be lethal in nature, no. I think you are missing the part where the paladin is Lawful. Those are lawful traits that are a part of the paladins creed. They are not good traits (that's not to say that they are evil).
pres_man 07-25-07, 12:12 AM	I think you are missing the part where the paladin is Lawful. Those are lawful traits that are a part of the paladins creed. They are not good traits (that's not to say that they are evil). My point was when you said: Not that I think that punishment is evil (it's actually lawful), but I don't think that it's what good characters do. That is what (some) good characters do, maybe more so if they are also Lawful, but (some) good characters are perfectly fine with punishment. Supporting or applying punishment is not incompatible with being good.
StSteven 07-25-07, 08:10 AM	My point was when you said: That is what (some) good characters do, maybe more so if they are also Lawful, but (some) good characters are perfectly fine with punishment. Supporting or applying punishment is not incompatible with being good. OK. Fair enough. How about "it's not what good characters do because they are good."
vonklaude 07-25-07, 09:26 AM	I look at alignment as a game mechanic that reflects the course of action that a character will take, if possible without undue risk. Different characters will define their acceptable risk at different levels, but they will define their own acceptable risk level and act when it is acceptable to them. This applies to good and evil alike. An evil character will act evil when they can do so with an acceptable risk level. A good character will do good when it is within their risk level. This risk angle is quite interesting, isn't it. It raises another issue for me with forcing alignment to require action. What say I'm very, very, cowardly. So in RP, Carol the Cowardly Cleric (a new Lawful Good character in my game) sees Mean Eric (a Chaotic Evil NPC) slapping down Nice Mr Norris (a commoner). Carol is very, very afraid of Mean Eric. She's sure he'll easily kill her and Nice Mr Norris if she intervenes. She can envision herself lying in a pool of blood. She sure wants to intervene, and she feels just terrible about not doing so, but she's just too frightened. The risk, as Carol the Cowardly sees it, is simply too high. Must she now turn Neutral? Despite being frightened (continually) into inaction, Carol doesn't 'act naturally, without prejudice or compulsions'. She has compulsions, and prejudices, let's call them tendencies, twoward law and good. Can she retain alignment if her sense of risk favours inaction? Okay, as DM, I'm inclined not to force Carol to take risks that she doesn't want to take. On the other hand I'm ruling that her feelings about her tendencies are irrelevant, and that she can be affected by seeing Mean Eric do bad things. But how? She could become gradually more outraged until one day she plucks up her courage and stands up to Mean old Eric. Or she could gradually come to despise herself and twist, slowly away from good. Or maybe neither, maybe her player persuades me that the two options cancel out. Carol wavers continuously between them, maintaining alignment. What the hell, I'm not falling for that flimsy excuse. Three sessions later (we play once a week) Carol turns Lawful Neutral (Eric's an Aristocrat, he's allowed to slap commoners by the laws of the land). I've been watching for Carol to do anything, literally any act at all, that shows her to be good, and nothing. Zilch. Nada. Lot's of highly entertaining whimpering and weaving, to be sure, but that's not what this is about. Carol's player objects. Lawful Neutral, he says (why do boys play girl characters, I've got to know, and what's with those dresses he wears to the game?) means 'Judge'. It means being 'reliable and honorable without being a zealot'. 'Order and organization are paramount'. His character, he tells me, values order and organisation, but they aren't 'paramount' and shouldn't become so just because she is too frightened to stop Eric. He reminds me Eric is a Noble, and her Law side shouldn't even be asked to stop him. I remind him back that what I'm changing is the Good side, so the Law side is irrelevant. He reminds me further that Carol's actions do combine 'honor and compassion'. She never lies, steals, cheats, or tries to hurt anyone. Really, she's a bit of a sap. Her whole problem is inaction. She does 'feel strongly one way or other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos'. She's 'personally committed to upholding good' in an abstract way. She doesn't simply do what seems to be a good idea. In short, as soon as I change her to Lawful Neutral Carol is no longer Carol! Carol's player, Bob, reminds me about killing all those CE Orcs the other day. I remind him that violence is part of the game, it's not considered particularly good or bad, and what about that loot she took from the bodies? Bob fumes and demands Carol be allowed a sudden and dramatic change of heart, to Chaotic Evil! He explains that it's his character, and in her mind the fear is just too much. She wants to strike back, at everybody! And just then, a Paladin wanders up, casts Detect, and bops her on the head... Now it seems to me, YMMV, that this grisly scenario only came about because as DM I wanted Carol to act to somehow 'confirm' Bob's alignment choice. Neither of us could have foreseen the future. Maybe one day her tendency to Good was going to come to fruition. A whole scene occurred that just puts too damned much emphasis on alignment. Pres-man, correctly, states that he doesn't want to see people forced to act just because of two letters on their character sheet. Me neither. I'm happy for alignment to be about their compunctions, their tendencies, their compulsions, all good stuff to help the player in RP, but I don't want to see them have to walk about looking for 'actions' they can take to prove to me what their alignment is. In hindsight I feel like I should have cut Bob some slack. Everyone was enjoying his RP, and for sure Carol never crossed the line. She didn't ever do evil, or break laws. And sure, if Carol got in there and helped Eric give Norris a kicking, then she'd be risking a change. Actions can change your alignment, but actions aren't needed to sit right where you are.
StSteven 07-25-07, 09:47 AM	I was thinking along the lines of the 1st level paladin and the ancient red dragon threatening the land, but your's is much more interesting. I just wonder if Carol had acted against the mean guy, would she have been changed to NG?
vonklaude 07-25-07, 10:14 AM	I was thinking along the lines of the 1st level paladin and the ancient red dragon threatening the land, but your's is much more interesting. I just wonder if Carol had acted against the mean guy, would she have been changed to NG? Argh! A possiblity I never considered. Carol was damned either way, I guess. What a horrible DM I am; damn my intolerable perfidy. Your example of a red dragon makes it even clearer. Risk has got to factor in there somewhere, otherwise a lich's best strategy may just be to let the n00bs know where he lives. The counter-argument is to say Aligned doesn't mean stupid, which of course it doesn't, unless you are forced to act. Or wait, maybe you aren't always forced to act. Maybe sometimes it's okay for Lawful Good to let Chaotic Evil go by? An even better answer is to say that 'acting' can mean going and telling someone bigger (on your side) where the dragon is. Like they didn't already know, and (obviously) were keenly making plans to go out there and get her. Of course, that might then result in a lot of LGs walking around, whistling, and wearing blinkers, just so they won't be forced to right every wrong they see on the way to buy eggs. Ah, but God Knows what is in your heart. Your Paladin is obliged to expend her Detect Evils every day to Find Evil And Smite it, lest she not be Acting Goodly. And don't come whimpering to me that you're afraid. I want action. I want throwing yourself into the maw of Evil. Even now every creature in my lands is getting up, up I say! To carry out their mandated alignment actions, lest in my wrath I punish them by turning every last mother's son of them Neutral. And Hill Giants! I want Hill Giant babies on their feet fighting! I want no more non-Neutral Intelligent Weapons, unless they can propel themselves to action. I want... Sorry, I'm getting hysterical.
Solik 07-25-07, 12:18 PM	This is why I made my post defending the idea that simple inaction does not result in alignment change; IOW, you do not gravitate to Neutral simply because you don't do anything Good or Evil for awhile (even a long while). I didn't see any response to that post; perhaps it was missed, or dismissed as an opinion not agreed with? If you follow the ideals in that post, there's no problem with Carol or level 1 paladin remaining Lawful Good due to inaction in the face of an overwhelming threat.
pres_man 07-25-07, 02:28 PM	Very cute guys. :clap: Yes, risk is a factor, but that goes back to my suggestion that if there is no choice that corresponds to a characters alignment available then they should try to act as close as they can. If a first level character sees an ancient wyrm, it is not a viable option to take on that creature, that is suicide. Nobody is suggesting anyone play XX-Stupid. But if actions aren't required, then that means it is ok not to try to stop things you fear, but it also means it is ok to not deal with things that you could. You pass a person that has been attacked on the road, they are bleeding in a ditch. You are LG, you could aid them but you hey you consider it for a moment that is "good" enough to maintain your alignment and you go about your business leaving the person bleeding to death. As for your cleric-noble situation, I would hope that again the player was informed that their (in)actions were threatening their good alignment. That the player needs to remember that good beings "protect the innocent". Does that require violence? No, it sounds like the two characters are in the same party, it should be simple enough to say, "I know you are ALLOWED by the laws of this land to behave that way, but if you wish to continue to adventure with me, you will refrain from doing so." If the noble won't compromise, then they go their separate ways and the party decides who gets to make a new character. Personally sounds like the reason why most DMs don't allow evil characters in a party, people often play evil as Evil-Stupid.
vonklaude 07-25-07, 03:22 PM	Very cute guys. :clap:. :dancin: But if actions aren't required, then that means it is ok not to try to stop things you fear, but it also means it is ok to not deal with things that you could. You pass a person that has been attacked on the road, they are bleeding in a ditch. You are LG, you could aid them but you hey you consider it for a moment that is "good" enough to maintain your alignment and you go about your business leaving the person bleeding to death. With all these examples it's possible to forget that the player is putatively playing an alignment that they actually wanted to play and chose for themselves. DM coersion is expected to rarely be needed, if at all, and neither is any special proof. The idea of 'proving' your alignment just drags this down into the mud somehow. I take my players on a little more faith; heck, maybe I'm just lucky. But the tools are there if you need them. The whole Changing Alignment section primarily serves the purpose of letting you know it's possible, and secondarily provides a helpful answer for when players abuse the system. That section came into being as a consequence of experience with our game; conscious of possible exploits and desirous of allowing characters to change their minds or undergo reversals of faith. In earlier versions it doesn't appear. Although for awhile there were those fiddly Alignment Graphs that you drifted around on. I like to let my players define their characters by more than just their alignment. Maybe Oscar turns a blind eye to Rose's wickedness because he hopes to bed her? Perhaps Barbu has a blind hatred of his nemesis that goes beyond caring anymore what his alignment is, or whether it would be right to kill them. And it hardly needs mentioning that I won't have any problem with my cast of entities, from Always, to Usually, to Often, to Conjured, to Made, to... well you get the picture. So to tendencies. Tendencies can, and at a metagame level if held sincerely should, be expressed consistently in actions. If not, well it's no big deal unless the player has mistaken the system or is abusing it. -vk