Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nukacola 03-08-05, 03:50 PM	I was wondering if I could get some opinions on a situation that cropped up in the last few gaming sessions: In my game there's a character who's a War Wizard of Cormyr (FR) whose alignment was LG at character creation. The character, for the first few game sessions, was run fairly well, and although not a paragon of LG, didn't really do anything obviously evil. I use a blend of PHB and BoED good, (spare opponents that surrender, nobody is beyond redemption, torture is bad, etc). The character never blatantly violated any of these concepts at first, so I didn't question is alignment. However, after a while, the way the player was roleplaying the character started to seem a bit less like lawful good and more like lawful neutral, starting with a suggestion that the group torture an enemy that they captured to get info when he refused to talk willingly (the group didn't actually torture the NPC, but I felt that suggesting the use of torture was certainly unbecoming of a LG character, so an alarm went off in my head to watch for more incidents like this). The next adventure, the group (of which one of its members is a Harper) was asked by a senior Harper to investigate a dragon attack at a farming village. To make a long story short, the characters beat the dragons, but upon returning to the village from the dragon fight, they discover that a group of Zhentarim that the group encountered earlier have kidnapped a villager and are threatening to kill her unless the group comes to a nearby meadow. Two of the characters (the CG harper bard and the CN cleric of Tempus) actually go to the meadow (the bard to save the woman's life and the cleric because the Zhents had killed another Cleric of Tempus earlier). Our LG wizard (and another LN cleric of the Red Knight), however, do NOT go to the meadow and stay behind to "make a plan for the villagers to defend themselves from the zhents" (note that the zhents threatened to kill the villager if the group did not show... the characters that did not go knowingly compromised the kidnapped villager's safety. maybe not a problem for LN , but LG?). This made me wonder just how LG the character was (or was being roleplayed).. so I decided to test him: I set up a situation where the wizard encountered a half-fiend that the group had run into in the past, and had been warned not to listen to by a senior Harper. The LE half-fiend told the LG wizard that he knew the location of a War Wizard that had turned traitor against Cormyr during the war they experienced a few years ago. The half-fiend suggested that the LG PC wizard make the traitor suffer and die horribly at the hands of the PC wizard for his treachery (the half-fiend personally didn't care, he only wanted to see a good heart corrputed). To this end, the half-fiend offered the LG PC wizard 4 scrolls containing spells of terrible, evil power (spells from the BoVD) for the LG PC wizard to use to destroy the traitor. During the conversation, the group bard notices what is happening and for the rest of the conversation tries to warn the PC wizard that the half-fiend is not to be trusted and is trying to corrupt him. The half-fiend laughs at the bard, tells her that she cannot possibly fathom how the PC wizard feels about a traitor that killed so many of his comrades, and tells her to mind her own business. The bard does not relent and continues to try to dissuade the PC wizard. The PC wizard willingly accepts the vile spells despite the bard's warning that the half-fiend was trying to corrupt him, and when he later confronts the traitor, uses some of the vile spells in the battle (vile lance and drown). This showed me that the LG character was willing to use evil power to deal with treachery, and it struck me that I should shift his alignment to LN, but I held off and later warned the player that his alignment was compromised. The straw that broke the camel's back was when they encountered a halfling trying to get their attention from behind a rock, and the first words out of the LG wizard's mouth was "let's torture him for information". I told the player to change his character's alignment to LN, and he claimed that his character was "just kidding". I didn't buy it, and the change stood. Next game session the, player confronted me about the alignment change, claiming that it was "his character and the DM has no right to change his alignment and the alignment change wasn't justified anyway and his character is still lawful good" Did I do the right thing by changing the character to LN?
jnrhayz 03-08-05, 04:37 PM	Personally, I would have changed his alignment when he used the evil spells from the devil. I would just be honest with the guy and say I should have changed your alignment here, I forgot to and I was just correcting my mistake using this action. Sorry, I will be more mindful in the future. The thing you should watch out for, is if he is doing good because the group is doing good, for reward, or other selfish reasons or is he doing good because he is actually worried about other people. He sounds evil to me. Consorting with devils and using vile magic...
ManinDarkness 03-08-05, 05:22 PM	Ask him to prove you wrong. Tell him what actions made you take that decision. If he is truly repetant (don't like his new alignment) he should strive to get the good back. If he doesn't care and continues to act this way, he should stay (and possibly slip into evilness, evil spells are not evil because the designers like it).
Guy Humual 03-08-05, 05:50 PM	Perhaps he was just kidding out of character, it doesn't really matter, I think you were fair in your ruling that the character should suffer an alignment shift. I also agree with ManinDarkness, you should give the character the chance to redeem himself. Personally I don't think threatening torture is an evil act. It's certainly not a nice thing to do! But I think good characters should be able to bluff.
Zee'Tah 03-08-05, 08:50 PM	Wow, I thought I was loose with Good and Evil. I just forced my groups Cleric of Pelor to get atonement. What that wizard did was much worse. I do think that you should explain to the character why you changed it and remind him that you do have the right to do so. If he feels that it is wrong, tell him its final, but he can try to redeem himself.
Nukacola 03-08-05, 09:42 PM	Thanks for the input so far, everybody. Just about everybody that replied mentioned that I should discuss why I shifted the character's alignment with the player. I didn't mention this in my original post because I figured it was too long as it was, but I did discuss the issue with the player and he drug it out into a 45 minute argument. He said that I didn't have a good reason to change his alignment to LN. I told him that if he wants to have a LG character, he needs to roleplay a LG character. Guy Humual: I agree with you that threatening torture isn't necessarily evil, but I do feel that it's certainly very much non-good, and it isn't becoming of a lawful good character. ManInDarkness/Zee'tah: Part of the issue is that he is not only unrepentant, but he doesn't want to settle on the new alignment either. He's not interested in redemption because he doesn't think there's anything to redeem. He believes that I don't have a sufficient reason to shift his alignment to LN, and he even stated that he believes that a DM doesn't have the right to EVER shift a character's alignment because "It's not the DM's character"... which showed me that he obviously doesn't understand the player-DM relationship. He even re-wrote Lawful Good on his character sheet.
otomik 03-08-05, 11:22 PM	Our LG wizard (and another LN cleric of the Red Knight), however, do NOT go to the meadow and stay behind to "make a plan for the villagers to defend themselves from the zhents" (note that the zhents threatened to kill the villager if the group did not show... the characters that did not go knowingly compromised the kidnapped villager's safety. maybe not a problem for LN , but LG?). This made me wonder just how LG the character was (or was being roleplayed).. so I decided to test him:you put that in quotes like we didn't make a plan, we made a good plan. I had my suspicions about the note, I even made plans to call to the chaotic characters if there was an attack while they were away. you keep acting like it was a clear cut thing and we chickened out, even saying that it was like watching a mugging and not doing anything. what? the note was plenty suspicious, why did they want to meet at a place miles away from the town? the kidnapped villagers safety was compromised, they risked getting her killed with their impulsive confrontation. I don't think what happened at that town was relevant to the good/evil alignment thing, that was a law/chaos thing. and really it was played appropriately but it felt like playing our alignments appropriately punished us (if you want to equalize for that how about giving the lawful characters some XP for following the conscription order and killing craploads of undead while defending the wall at the city of Blackwood). they were lucky that time but sometimes it feels like you give to much to Greg when he wanders off and should have been killed my badass orcs (a simple sanctuary spell would have been enough to get through, he was being plain stupid) or trapped in Blackwood without a gate. the whole 45 minute argument was horrible, i'm not standing up for Robb in that regard, when he accepted those vile spells he even mentioned a desire to go lawful neutral, it sucked but at least now the terms are crystal clear to him. you were absolutely right about the vile thing but I don't know why you had to muddy the waters by mentioning the much more morally ambiguious zhents threaten the village incident.
Nukacola 03-08-05, 11:32 PM	Well, Ed, the reason why I mentioned the zhent thing was not to sully your decision. I even took the time to point out that your character's alignment was not compromised. Your character is LN, and as I saw it, didn't do anything outside his alignment. The reason why I mentioned it was that a LG character blatantly ignoring the plight of an innocent who was in very explicitly stated danger at the time probably isn't sticking to the "good" part of the alignment too much. This was the incident that made me question just how "good" he was, and made me consider setting up the situation with the cambion to test his goodness. I never doubted the "lawful" part... of either your character or his.
zenmastervex 03-11-05, 02:05 AM	I am the Wizard in question in this incident, so perhaps I can provide some insight? First and foremost, I want to stress the fact that I am not an avid D&D player. I am part of a group that gets together to play every Sunday, and that is all. I try to avoid participation in D&D conversations outside this time which has been set-aside. I feel there is a time and place for these discussions, and I try to stick to them. So, if my views seem skewed, try to remember I am a "roleplayer" and not a "D&D Enthusiast". I really hold no regard for the alignment considering it will never affect how I play my character. I just felt the entire situation was a bit unfair. Now, on to the show. The alignment shift originally happened because of something I an notorious for: Out of character chit-chat. I feel that OOC talk is instinctual and unavoidable, so why should I be punished for it, especially considering that the rest of the people in this group have never had their characters affected by OOC chat? Perhaps one answer, the first that comes to mind, is that I am playing a character that is completely unlike my real life personality. In real life, I think I would consider myself lawful neutral... however in game I am playing a Lawful Good. For this reason, the OOC chat could make one wonder if my character was LG or LN. The control held over the group about OOC chat is constantly fluctuating... one minute it's ok, the next minute it's completely unacceptable. I blame the one specific point in time about torturing the creature for information on OOC chat. Further, I would like to point out that I was able to convince the DM that my past actions have in some ways pointed my character toward LG. I am playing perhaps the hardest alignment possible, correct? While my character may not be 100% Good, he's atleast more Good than Neutral. However, it was recently brought to my attention that Good is not based on a scale... You're either 100% Good, or not Good at all. After this was cleared up, I was willing to play my character to the full extent of good. I also want to make a comment about the vile spells. My character's background has him often longing to learn the deepest secrets of the world's magical personality, and striving for as much knowledge of the magical arts as possible. My character background and goals conflicts with my alignment? If this is the case, I choose "roleplaying" over "alignment". If I need to be purely Neutral to accomplish this roleplaying goal, then so be it. I have therefore decided to play LN in the name of knowledge. Finally, I make a plea to people wanting to flame me for not knowing how to play the game. Yeah, I'm basically a novice to D&D... but remember my civility in this post and try to follow suit. Sorry to air the dirty laundry, but I can't sit idly by without posting an explanation... and because I thought after the first post this turned into a form of mental masturbation by skewering the way I play my character. Was it really necessary to post that I argued about how it's my character (not the DMs) and wrote LG on my sheet even after you "ordered" me to change it? Nope, not even closely relevant. The only things about D&D that I absolutely hate are alignment issues and the so-called "Player-DM" relationship that pretty much forces me to do what the DM wants to... as if this isn't me playign a character, just another person to play the DM's game? I also think alignment should have no affect on the game play because quite simply lawful/chaotic and good/evil can't quite possibly cover the entire spectrum of a character's personality. Thanks in advance.
ShadowDragon8685 03-11-05, 02:21 AM	Inform him that the end do not, in fact, justify the ends. Tell him he's LN and needs to repent. Ignore what's on his sheet. You know his alignment. He's playing LN, so he is LN. And possibly playing LE.
MrkGrismer 03-11-05, 09:05 AM	Lawful Good is actually one of the easiest alignments to play. Eveybody knows what is good and lawful. It might be more difficult for a LG character to become rich and powerful, but LG is a cinch to play. If you are not worried about alignment, then don't worry about your alignment! :D The DM should simply track how the character's alignment is played, and perhaps warn the player if the alignment is in danger of changing. If the player actually wants to keep the character the alignment he originally choose then the player needs to play the character that way. If the player would prefer to play the character another way, and the DM thinks that is a different alignment then the two should probably discuss it, but in the end the DM decides what alignment the character actually is at any specific time. Note that this is mostly only really important for classes that must remain certain alinments (monk, bard, paladin, etc.), and for things like smite. Personally I think the xN alignments are actually the most difficult to play, because those alignments must maintain a lack of commitment to good or evil, something that is difficult to do in a heroic fantasy game like D&D.
jnrhayz 03-11-05, 10:33 AM	Well, I would like to point out that Lawful Good doesn't mean you are good 100% of the time. It means you don't do evil acts. You can still take neutral actions. As long as the majority of your actions are good, you are okay. The problem arises when you start throwing evil actions into the mix. Following the 1st post, although not a paragon of LG, didn't really do anything obviously evil. This is fine, like I said more good than neutral. starting with a suggestion that the group torture an enemy This is more neutral by core dnd standards and some say more chaotic than lawful. I believe it has a lot to do with the DM's interpretation, which he has already stated as: I use a blend of PHB and BoED good, (spare opponents that surrender, nobody is beyond redemption, torture is bad, etc). And as in the quote, exalted states that torture is evil, so at best the threat is neutral in this case, at worst evil. Our LG wizard (and another LN cleric of the Red Knight), however, do NOT go to the meadow and stay behind to "make a plan for the villagers to defend themselves from the zhents" (note that the zhents threatened to kill the villager if the group did not show... the characters that did not go knowingly compromised the kidnapped villager's safety. maybe not a problem for LN , but LG?). I was not at this session, but if the Lawful Good wizard believed that the other two could handle taking care of the villager then I see this as more neutral. But by helping the village he was still doing a good act so this is pretty much a wash. But by this time, the DM is expressing his doubts so it is important to add. I set up a situation where the wizard encountered a half-fiend that the group had run into in the past, and had been warned not to listen to by a senior Harper. The PC wizard willingly accepts the vile spells despite the bard's warning that the half-fiend was trying to corrupt him, and when he later confronts the traitor, uses some of the vile spells in the battle (vile lance and drown). This is both unlawful and evil. Disobeying a superior officer and then using vile spells. At this point, it is important to point out that vile is more evil than evil. So at this point the wizard, in conjunction with his more neutral actions, has fallen from good and is now neutral. The DM, I am guessing to avoid confrontation, doesn't change the alignment at this time. Big mistake. The straw that broke the camel's back was when they encountered a halfling trying to get their attention from behind a rock, and the first words out of the LG wizard's mouth was "let's torture him for information". In our group, unless you say "out of character" or indicate in some way you are speaking out of character, then your character is speaking in character and you would be big time screwed for something like this. We had one guy get into some big problems with a druid. It was pretty funny. It seems the DM is correcting his previous mistake of not changing the alignment. Which is followed by the player disagreeing because he believes this act shouldn't change his alignment. Which, I have to agree, shouldn't, but it should have been changed before. Now, on to the player... I am playing perhaps the hardest alignment possible, correct? I would say no, just the most misunderstood. Just because you are lawful good doesn't mean you are exalted. They made a book for that. I was able to convince the DM that my past actions have in some ways pointed my character toward LG. This is what makes you neutral and not evil. If you didn't do good things and only did neutral and evil things, you would be evil. However, it was recently brought to my attention that Good is not based on a scale... You're either 100% Good, or not Good at all. After this was cleared up, I was willing to play my character to the full extent of good. While I disagree with this part, it contrdicts this part: If I need to be purely Neutral to accomplish this roleplaying goal, then so be it. I have therefore decided to play LN in the name of knowledge. Finally, I make a plea to people wanting to flame me for not knowing how to play the game. While I know nothing about you or how you play, but you obviously disagree with the alignment system. If you don't like it, why do you even care? When I first started playing, I ignored alignment and after the first couple of sessions the DM would just assign something to the way I played. As I became a "D&D enthusiast", as you put it, I came to see alignment more as a part of the game and another level of difficulty. Some people view it as a rule, I guess, but then it just causes fights. If you don't like alignment, just tell the DM and suggest he just assign something that fits, which in this case is Lawful Neutral. It allows you to perform good acts and pursue the "evil" magic and increase your knowledge. The important thing to remember is that in D&D, evil and good are tangible things. Angels and demons visit between planes and the gods work miracles daily. When mere concepts become tangible, you need a way to define it and this is where alignment comes from. It is more important in some games than in others. Good Luck working this out, but I suggest sticking with the Lawful Neutral. It will allow you to pursue the goals of your character and my suggestion to the DM is to bring this up sooner with the player if you believe their alignment is beginning to shift.
zenmastervex 03-11-05, 04:59 PM	A bunch of good stuff.... Very good post, jnrhayz. Perhaps I can reply to some of the points you listed? For one, you say just because I am good doesn't mean I am exalted? I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. However, the argument/discussion during the most recent sessions of D&D pretty much strictly stuck to facts pointed out in the Exalted Deeds book. My DM said that if I am not 100% good, then I'm neutral. This is where the problem lies currently. I think I can be "good" of heart but still roleplay my character how I want. Also, I thinkt he idea of using a "test" to figure out who or what someone is could be counted as a cowardly move. Instead of my DM telling me he didn't think I was playing LG and was more LN, he waited until he sprung the change upon me. This form of control is where the real problem started. This argument is merely the straw that broke the camels back, because quite simply our sessions are turning into "us vs. the DM" instead of "us vs. the game". The competetion and ambush tactics (such as the test) is something I don't condone and would never do in a game I run. The DM should be part of the group, not against the group. Right? Otherwise the fun of the game disappears as competetion and contest grow. Furthermore, I do want to point out that this argument is, atleast in my mind, completely resolved. Im LN now, and i'm not going to do anything to allow the DM to ambush me, whether it's how I play or what I play. I may not care or like the alignment aspect of the game, and your point of why I care is noted. However, I want to point out that this argumnent was not really started because of alignment. It was started because I don't like DM's with the "i own everyone" attitude... as was the case when i was ordered to change my alignment to LN. This could potentially make friendships a rocky road, and the game isn't worth playing at that point. Finally, I may have failed to express the intention in my original post: I want to see how other DMs handle "Out of Character" chat amongst players during a gaming session. Thoughts or comments? Thanks in advance.
jnrhayz 03-11-05, 05:10 PM	However, the argument/discussion during the most recent sessions of D&D pretty much strictly stuck to facts pointed out in the Exalted Deeds book. My DM said that if I am not 100% good, then I'm neutral. This is where the problem lies currently. I think I can be "good" of heart but still roleplay my character how I want. Well, in that case, you are kind of screwed there. Exalted is a difficult path to follow. I discourage it in most games unless I know the player is really into the idea of an exalted character (not some concept from the book). It is probably better that you are neutral now. quite simply our sessions are turning into "us vs. the DM" instead of "us vs. the game". Well, that stinks. We had a game blow up over this and the trust issue came into play and eventually we had to part ways. I hope you all have learned from this and things are able to calm down in game. I know it sucked when our group when through that. want to see how other DMs handle "Out of Character" chat amongst players during a gaming session. Our current DM makes everything in character. When we started, a lot of things would happen that people would get confused if it was in or out of character and to elminate that, the rule was implemented. I have to say it has worked well, but only because the DM has enforced it in-game.
pres_man 03-11-05, 05:37 PM	I am good doesn't mean I am exalted? I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. However, the argument/discussion during the most recent sessions of D&D pretty much strictly stuck to facts pointed out in the Exalted Deeds book. My DM said that if I am not 100% good, then I'm neutral. This is where the problem lies currently. I find that interesting, since this almost the exact opposite of quite a few DMs on this board. I have heard several say, that an individual in their game can't be neutral in the long run, they either choose to align themselves good or evil, only creatures that can't "think" can be neutral in their games. So I find it interesting that a DM has almost the opposite view, most individuals are neutral with only a very few very dedicated individuals being good or evil. Interesting. I think I can be "good" of heart but still roleplay my character how I want. Well your character can certainly view himself as "good". Though whether by the rules of the specific game you are playing in views him that way is totally dependent on the DMs interpretation. This way you can't say I'm good so that spell that harms evil and neutral don't hurt me, and then the next session you claim to be evil so that the spell that harms good and neutral doesn't harm you (not that I am claiming you would do such a thing, but some "powergamer/munchkin" players might). Also, I think the idea of using a "test" to figure out who or what someone is could be counted as a cowardly move. Instead of my DM telling me he didn't think I was playing LG and was more LN, he waited until he sprung the change upon me. If this was truly the first indication your DM ever gave you that you were acting "abnormal" for a good character then you are right. If he had made mention of things, you know like, "You know doing torture is evil right?" then he was certain in the rights to put a situation forth that would indicate your character's true stance in the "war" of good vs. evil. Also from the original description is seems you were given plenty of warning that you were getting involved with something bad, and you had the choice not to do it. In the end you choose your character's course of action, so you only have yourself to blame. This form of control is where the real problem started. The DM is the one who decides what everyone's alignment is ultimately, that is the nature of the beast. For most classes it is not really even an issue. It was started because I don't like DM's with the "i own everyone" attitude... as was the case when i was ordered to change my alignment to LN. This could potentially make friendships a rocky road, and the game isn't worth playing at that point. The way it was stated my have been harsh, but that might have been due to the player saying, "I decide the alignment of my character!" The player certainly can decide the alignment their character may try to be, but the DM decides how successful it is. Finally, I may have failed to express the intention in my original post: I want to see how other DMs handle "Out of Character" chat amongst players during a gaming session. Thoughts or comments? In my group, which is very abnormal (5 females, 3 males, of which 3 are married couples), we do a lot of out of game talking/joking. When someone says something like, "We should push the guy off a cliff." I usually ask, "Is that what your character is saying?" Alot of times, they say that they were just kidding, sometimes they say yup. I totally understand some games where all talking is in game, but to me that is very boring. I game partially to socialize with people I don't see all week. Though it might be that the whole OOC comment was more of a reminder to your DM to something he had already decided, then the actual thing that changed it.
Full_Circle 03-11-05, 05:44 PM	Finally, I may have failed to express the intention in my original post: I want to see how other DMs handle "Out of Character" chat amongst players during a gaming session. Thoughts or comments? I don't know that I could handle a game where everything had to be said in-character. There are far too many hilarious things that can be said out of character, and in my opinion, game-related jokes make the game. As far as alignment goes... well, I've played for a long time (mostly 2nd Edition), but I'm new to 3.5, and I only recently discovered that in 3.5 it's HORRIBLY WRONG for a DM to act as a judge and deduct experience for people going against their alignments. So... there's no penalty for changing alignments, right? (Unless your class has to be good, and it doesn't sound like that's the case) If there's no penalty, why does it matter what your alignment is? If you don't like alignment, just say you don't like it, write your DM up a character history and a list of your goals and tell him to figure it out... then leave your character sheet blank.
ManinDarkness 03-11-05, 05:51 PM	There are a lot of things that the DM can change to a character within the rules, as in level loss, ability damage, etc. A character, in my POV, is neither "owned" by the player or by the DM, it is an agreement between both. They both agree on which rules should the character live, the DM is in the right to disallow any choice he deems unbalanced or wacky, but the player can choose whatever is left. The character's decisions are (mostly, some spells and effects can intervene) solely taken by the player, as the NPCs' decisions are taken by the DM. The DM has another role, he is the final arbiter. A player can challenge his rulings, but he is in no way required to see her point. A player also is in no way required to play a game, such is life. It is the DM's interpretation of the rules what finally counts at a D&D game table. Alignment is, sadly, one of the more interpretable parts of the game. As a DM has the power to say that a player write up 3 hp damage in her sheet, I think he also has the power to say that she change her character's alignment due to his own interpretation of alignment. I can see faults on either side, but if there weren't there wouldn't be a discussion. The DM should have advised the alignment change beforehand. He is not required to, but it is a polite thing to do. Testing a character's resolve is done very frequently in literature, I don't see what is wrong with that. The DM is supposed to set up challenges to the characters so he is with the players but against the characters. In regards to alignment, releasing Demogorgon on the world by good intentions is evil, because D&D morality is objective. I don't see a problem with the ruling, just with people interaction. IMC, when there is a comment that could be either IC or OOC, I usually ask for clarification. But discussion of the paladin turning around so that an assassin can do her work is heavily frowned upon, and usually has in-game consecuences, albeit minor ones. Jnrhayz, I disagree. Good people han do evil things. They usually seek redemption. They usually seek to right the wrong. But I concede, good people do not do vile things.
scott644 03-11-05, 05:55 PM	If you play neutral, you're neutral. A being who does good deeds, then evil deeds, is being played neutral - and using vile spells is unconditionally an evil deed. Disregarding the welfare of another is at best neutral. Doing all the things indicated while being warned over time, is a solid indicator the character is NOT good. Frankly, the DM should just mark it on their sheet and allow the now non-good PC to try things that require good alignment, only to see them not happen. That's how it would work from the perspective of the PC; they did nasty stuff and now good things simply aren't coming their way. This is why in most games I'm in everybody gives a copy of their character sheet to the DM.
Moon-Lancer 03-11-05, 06:30 PM	Its the spell thing (see above) bovd is vial. Using those spells is a quick trip to alignment change. So now you have to live with lawful natural. Your character concept seems more neutral anyway. I say go for it. May I suggest chaotic Neutral? Very fun to play. Don’t worry about your alignment. Just play as you see fit. Let the dm keep track of your morality.
Nukacola 03-11-05, 08:23 PM	However, it was recently brought to my attention that Good is not based on a scale... You're either 100% Good, or not Good at all. I never said that. What I said was that there's no "point system" to determine what alignment you are. There's no "you gain 2 good points". Either you're Good, you're Neutral, or you're Evil. Should I have changed your character's alignment the instant he used the vile spells, oreven showed his willingness to accept them from a half-fiend (making a deal with the devil, as another group member put it)? Yes, absolutely, but I didn't, I decided to wait and see what your character would do in the next game session. I was thinking "heck, maybe his character won't use them anymore, now that the mage duel is over"... a bit of "novice's leeway", if you want to call it that. However, when the next "in-game" day rolled around and your character memorized his spells again, what was on his list? Vile lance and Drown, the vile spells. The torture comment came at a point where everybody else in the group was talking in character... and suddenly you talk out of character? What am I supposed to do, ask each player every time they speak if they're talking in character or not? It's not like it was a suggestion that your character never made before. My character background and goals conflicts with my alignment? If this is the case, I choose "roleplaying" over "alignment". If I need to be purely Neutral to accomplish this roleplaying goal, then so be it. I have therefore decided to play LN in the name of knowledge. That's exactly what you should do. Your alignment is a guideline for the roleplaying of your character. You wrote your character background AFTER you decided on your character's alignment, so why do they conflict? If you decided on lawful good during character creation, why create character goals and a background that conflict with that?
Nukacola 03-11-05, 08:49 PM	Also, I thinkt he idea of using a "test" to figure out who or what someone is could be counted as a cowardly move. DM's "test" players all the time. I test my players all the time. Every time a DM places a situation into a game where the characters have to choose between good and evil or law and chaos is a "test". Almost every serious roleplaying opportunity is a "test". Different DM's call it different things, but it's the same. Testing a character's resolve is done very frequently in literature, I don't see what is wrong with that. The DM is supposed to set up challenges to the characters so he is with the players but against the characters. And that's exactly what I did. Other characters in the group made it very clear that following the path your character followed would have been evil. The bard tried very hard to point that out to your character.
Nukacola 03-11-05, 09:06 PM	For one, you say just because I am good doesn't mean I am exalted? I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. However, the argument/discussion during the most recent sessions of D&D pretty much strictly stuck to facts pointed out in the Exalted Deeds book. I never insinuated that your character was Exalted. Your character was Good. The only argument necessary to make the alignment change, as many people on this thread have re-affirmed, was that vile spells (evil beyond evil) were accepted and used. Even if your character had been solidly LG, or even if he had been Exalted, doing what he did was plenty good enough to justify a shift to LN. DM said that if I am not 100% good, then I'm neutral. This is where the problem lies currently. I think I can be "good" of heart but still roleplay my character how I want. That's not what I said. What I said was that your character had a LG alignment... and he did something to cause that to go away. Alignment shifted to LN. If your character is "good of heart" but does evil things like cast Vile spells, he's not good. I want to point out that this argumnent was not really started because of alignment. It was started because I don't like DM's with the "i own everyone" attitude... as was the case when i was ordered to change my alignment to LN.. Your character was LG... did something sufficient to change his alignment to LN... so the DM told you to change the character's alignment to LN. What's out of the ordinary here?
zenmastervex 03-12-05, 02:26 AM	From what I gather, it seems to be the general opinion of those who replied to this thread that the alignment change was justified, but wasn't done in a polite or player-friendly manner. Correct?
otomik 03-12-05, 03:19 AM	The half-fiend in this faustian bargain seemed pretty honorable, the wizard didn't heed the warning of his companions about corrupting him. Was the player or character aware of the sweet special dark chocolate evilness of vile spells? (i'm sticking to the vile spells issue because it's the most clearcut). Did he think it was like a normal evil spell that anybody can cast once in a while? The cormyrian wizard cast the vile lance spell on more than one occasion but if he wasn't fully aware of it's effects pretty soon my cleric of the red knight could cast atonement on him. Of course if it was deliberate it would cost me a lot of XP, and I'd have to contact my deity to intercede on his behalf, which might damage my personal standing with my deity (unless she just has the machine picking that call up most tactically). http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=7 http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/spellsAtoB.html#atonement in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden.
MrkGrismer 03-12-05, 10:22 AM	From what I gather, it seems to be the general opinion of those who replied to this thread that the alignment change was justified, but wasn't done in a polite or player-friendly manner. Correct? If, as mentioned, the DM warned the player that his character's actions are putting the character's alignment in jeapordy and was willing to discuss what consitutes good/evil actions in the context of his game then it would be done in a player-friendly manner. If there was no mention and the alignment was just shifted based on the character's actions then it is less player-friendly, although not necessarily a bad thing by any means. If what exactly is good/evil or lawful/chaos seems quesionable in a specific game then the DM and players should sit down and write out more concreate rules. Of course, I do use a point scale, although I haven't written it out (should do that some time).
zenmastervex 03-12-05, 02:59 PM	Of course, I do use a point scale, although I haven't written it out (should do that some time). I'd be interested to see your point scale sometime.
MrkGrismer 03-12-05, 07:44 PM	Generally it is an opened ended scale of +100 (Exalted) to -100 (Vile), with normal good/evil falling at +50/-50. Similar for Law/Chaos. Any deed which knowingly harms another unecessarily get's negatives on g/e proportionate to the amount. Any deed that knowingly spares someone from harm (rescuing, etc.) get's postitives on g/e proportionate to the amout. Realizing that 25 points is enough to put an alignment in jeapordy, usually 1-10 points for minor-major. This is for neutral characters. Good characters get twice as many negative points as well as half as many postitive points, and evil characters get twice as many positive points and half as many negative points. Additionally, any time things cross a '25' marker the points are halved again. Law vs. Chaos works the same, but postive is received by upholding laws and putting society/group first, while negative is received by pushing freedom, individualism and such. Additional, for neutral characters any time they are faced with a decision in which they can choose a middle ground and they do, they get either positive or negative points depending which side of zero they are on (to bring them towards zero). Has worked pretty good so far, although I had players complain when I told them their alignments had shifted to good from saving so many prisoners and such. ;)
Arkonth 03-12-05, 08:54 PM	I personally think the entire view of alignment in general is a big cause of all problems. I see alignment not as a force tied to a character. A character doesn't choose to be Lawful Good, rather their actions make them Lawful Good. Because alignment is such an important force in DnD I see it as the aura a character emits into the universe around them.