Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Master_Vega 09-10-07, 12:25 PM	Yup! Another alignment thread. :P A few people around here seem to be of the opinion that a single act can dramatically alter your alignment... but only in the case of good (or so is the only case I've read.) Others seem to think it's the thought behind the act that counts. This question applies to both of those opinions, and a few others I'm too hungry to think about. What happens when an evil person has a Darth Vader-esque change of heart? Did Darth Vader instantly switch from LE to CG with a single decision? What about these poor evil cultists who run around surrendering to adventurers? (that was a joke.) Does their possible change of heart cause them to stop showing up on "Detect Evil"? Discuss, bring up more situations of this nature, have fun, and don't maim each other... well... we'll see about the maiming. j/k :D *goes to make brunch*
Cantankerous 09-10-07, 12:38 PM	An egregious action, one undertaken with full malice of forethought and of sufficiently awful nature CAN change the Alignment of a character in one fell swoop. If Alhandra (the supposed D&D Paladin example) were to suddenly rip a child from it's mother's arms and begin mutilating it on a whim, she might well end up being Lawful Neutral former Paladin afterwards. Her alignment moving one step towards Evil for the utterly repugnant and Evil nature of the action. But, mind you, it would have to about that bad, I would say. It has to be utterly, overwhelmingly Evil for the one shot rule to apply. Likewise an action certainly can change towards Good in the same manner. But remember, it has to be a BIG difference for the single act to be enough. Ol' Darth's decision would be, I think, the classic example. The switch isn't all the way to CG by any means, but would, I'd say, take him from LE (or maybe NE, as I think he never more than used laws to follow his own agenda) to LN (or Neutral in my own perspective). Isshia
Aberlonian 09-10-07, 01:00 PM	The problem with alignment changes is that everyone has a different opinion. This is only my perception of alignments as it relates to D&D. Specific actions can have alignments associated with them, but a character alignment has more to do with an overall perception of the character. If Mother Theresa suddenly decided to beat and murder a homeless person, her good acts would be overshadowed by the single evil one. Society would start to perceive her as evil. If Charles Manson saved a drowning orphan, it still wouldn't make up for the evil acts he committed in the past. Society would still perceive him as evil. A single evil act can warrant an alignment change, but good acts must be sustained for a period of time for people to start to trust you.
Nephlite 09-10-07, 01:07 PM	If Charles Manson saved a drowning orphan, it still wouldn't make up for the evil acts he committed in the past. Society would still perceive him as evil. A single evil act can warrant an alignment change, but good acts must be sustained for a period of time for people to start to trust you. It doesn't matter how peoplep recieve you. It matters how the universe does. Alignment is'nt subjective: otherwise: Smite Evil becomes smite enemy.
Cantankerous 09-10-07, 01:14 PM	The problem with alignment changes is that everyone has a different opinion. This is only my perception of alignments as it relates to D&D. Specific actions can have alignments associated with them, but a character alignment has more to do with an overall perception of the character. If Mother Theresa suddenly decided to beat and murder a homeless person, her good acts would be overshadowed by the single evil one. Society would start to perceive her as evil. If Charles Manson saved a drowning orphan, it still wouldn't make up for the evil acts he committed in the past. Society would still perceive him as evil. A single evil act can warrant an alignment change, but good acts must be sustained for a period of time for people to start to trust you. People trusting you has nothing to do with either alignment in general or with good and evil in specific. If Alhandra were to have tortured and murdered someone without anyone ever knowing it, it would still be just as utterly and reprehensibly evil as if it was done publicly. Isshia
Eric888 09-10-07, 02:39 PM	A sudden shift in tempo for a character, or to use better nomenclature, "bad roleplaying," needs to be in the extreme to cause an alignment shift, but, for purposes of drama and climactic redemption/corruption, it can happen. I disagree with cantankerous in that I don't think you should only go one step towards an alignment. If you ever have an alignment change, you should move straight to the alignment that you are acting. In the example of alhondra, she would not become LN, she would become CE, without collecting 200 dollars for passing "go." That being said, most of the time I issue an alignment warning for a first offence. Even LG charecters will have moments of weakness, jealousy, or anger. Unless I see a pattern (and for me, twice is a pattern) I will not issue an alignment change.
Prelate 09-10-07, 02:57 PM	I think it depends on the situation and the involved player(s). some actions demand a radical shift. some might be more circumstantial and require some 'PR' or rehabilitation IC. there is also some leeway, IMO, based on what might have facilitated said action. Bill the LG Paladin finds out his mother was brutally raped and murdered by some thief. he finds the thief and guts him without a trial or even taking him to jail or whatever legal authority resides in the area. Would you force an alignment change on that, or consider it an opportunity to advance additional RP, etc? Would this one arguably unlawful act permanently taint his heart? Ted the CE Sorcerer gives 1000 gold to a local orphanage. He is Chaotic, so he can do random stuff on occassion, but he is evil... so is he not allowed to ever do an act that others would take as being 'good'? Would the act of giving change his CE heart to anything less ill intentioned permanently?
Thubby 09-10-07, 04:09 PM	actions do not corrupt or redeem people, its the person behind them that realy matters. vader didnt save the day which made him good. something at his core changed, shifted from obedient evil slave to hero. all that was focused into a fraction of a second, which resulted in him making the sacrifice. on the flip side, alot has to go on in someones head in order to do something morally reprehensible. something has to be compromised, forgotten, or just plain ignored. that doesn't realy go away. the question is, when is that change enough to change who they are?
Dragonsblood 09-10-07, 04:14 PM	It wasn't Darth's change of heart that changed his alignment. It was the action he took to save his son's life by destroying the Emperor. We also don't know what was going on behind the scenes. Darth could have had a pattern of good actions leading up to the end. If a player told me his character had a change of heart and wanted to change his alignment, I would tell him to "prove it." I think that both the action and the thoughts behind that action that determine someone's alignment.
Puca 09-10-07, 04:29 PM	There is a prior question that needs to be answered. What does alignment mean? There are (at least) two conflicting perspectives: Alignment is a descriptive term: If you believe this (I dont hold this by the way) then alignment is basically a general description of the actions you commit. We call people Good because they do good things, and we call people Evil because they do a lot of bad things, or a few really, really bad things. Alignment is a prescriptive term: Ill spend a bit more time on this one, because it is the one I actually have. A prescriptive view of alignment can take a few forms, but the way I see it, alignment is a statement about the underlying values of the character. Your underlying values shape your motives and actions. They are also the yardstick by which you measure actions and motives. From this perspective, sudden shifts are very, very rare. It would be like loving bacon your whole life and one morning just deciding you dont. Even if you converted to a religion that forbade pork, that doesnt mean you wouldnt find bacon to taste bad.) Now, from this perspective, a person can commit acts contrary to their alignment in two (general) ways: Mistake - Weakness – Neither of these shift your alignment because neither of these change the way you see the world. But they are still important. Even though they dont, in and of themselves change the way you see the world, they can have an impact on your thinking. For example, you might, in a moment of passion, kill an innocent person. The act doesnt change your alignment, but your reaction to it might. A paladin who commits a murder might consider himself irrevocably lost, and that perception might lead him to consciously adopt an Evil out look. I think far more often, the “one act” is not really a sudden change. It is the big moment that marks the end of a long, gradual change. Since Darth Vader was mentioned earlier, I use that. There were actually two changes in his life. When he embraced evil (Episode III) and when he rejected it in Episode VI. From my perspective, neither of these were “sudden changes.” Good(ish) to Evil Yeah, theres the big moment where he kneels down and swears allegiance to the dark side. Even before that was the big moment where he assaulted Mace Windu. You could look at these as the “one act” but youd have to have ignored a lot of the previous behavior. He was passionate, selfish, and arrogant long before these moments. He was tumbling down the hill for so long that his final conscious step wasnt that big. Evil back to Good OK, he saw his son being killed and reacted to it, killed the emperor and saved him. “Yeah, he loved his son! He risked his life to save him! Now hes Good.” Slow down Skippy. He “loved” his wife too. There were some pretty serious sacrifices he was willing to make then too, and thats was part of the evil. Killing someone you hate (and Id posit he did hate the emperor) to save someone you like more (i.e. Luke) doesnt suddenly make you a good guy. There has to have been something else. Vader had been looking for his son for quite a while, pretty much since the moment his son briefly reappeared in his life. Whatever the motive, this was still connection to what he once was, to when he was not wholly selfish and consumed with hate. Now, this is just my theory, but it makes more sense than a “sudden change of heart.” I believe that this process of trying to reconnect with his son was the gradual process of change that brought him back. It may have started for evil purposes, but he couldnt help the effect it was having on him. By the time Luke surrenders to him, the only thing keeping him “Evil” was the feeling that “it is too late for me, my son.” In order to say that, or even think it, you must have considered the possibility of something different. The fact that he was thinking something different is evidence that the final change was not a sudden one. Only one fine thread was holding him back, and the selfless example of Luke finally snapped it.
Kamin_Majere 09-10-07, 04:37 PM	Heroic does not equal Good. In a game a few years back my character was Lawful Evil. Through out my career i had set little things in motion to be able to take over the land. At the end to finally push myself into power i started a war that lead to a rip in the prime material plane and made the war become a blood bath from demonic infestation. I realized the error of what i had done and i rallied the remaining forces of good to drive off the threat. Even after all that my character had done to become in the name of evil and my gaining power, the populace at large now considered me a great hero and one of the "goodest (for lack of a better term)" people in the realm. But i was still very much Lawful Evil and only actually entered the war to correct a mistake i made that might would have cost me later in life. It is the essence of change that will cause an alignment shift, not the actions that one preforms. And anyway, Vader just wanted to die near the Skywalker so he could get a blue force body, nothing to do with being good :p
eclpmb 09-10-07, 04:43 PM	A thing to remember - it's really hard to sustain a change like this. I would view such an event as a declaration 'I want to be different' - whether to good or bad. It's keeping things going that makes for a change. You know how hard it is to change a habit? Well this is far bigger then that, it's a way of life.
darkneolink 09-10-07, 05:18 PM	Well if you are talking about alignment you have to remember a couple of basics Alignment is not a Shackle: Sometimes DM's use it as a shackle, yet alignment is a guideline for the character, you can be evil and do some good from time to time, or you could be good and comit some evil acts (same goes to Law and Chaos) only the paladin is diferent as she can't comit any evil act or lose paladinhood but it doesn't change her alignment (paladinhood = LG yet LG =/= paladinhood) Alignment is not a excuse: You can see this more with CN characters that do evil or stupid acts and says "thats what my CN (something) would do... he is CN" and with some paladins who impose their points of view to the party saying or impliying that they know whats best because they are LG Lawful =/= Law: Altough a lawful character respect laws, he doesn't follow all of them (a LG paladin shouldn't follow a CE law) Chaos =/= Random: altough a chaotic character tends to be less strict than a lawful. One have to remember that a chaotic character values freedom (so be his own, everybody or somewere in the midle) once we have those basics we have to think about your questions What weights more... action or intent? Some people say that someone who does a lot of evil acts but with a good intent wouldn't turn into evil (maybe neutral) Other says that no matter the intent if you do many evil act you turn evil (like casting an evil spell even for good purposes) Other say that one action out of alignment (i.e. a LE character does an obvious CG action) change to the other extreme I say that someone who is good and does many evil acts will turn neutral as he is reevaluating things in life if he keeps doing evil he turns into evil (this applies to CN who act evil too) But even someone who is good if he knowlingly does an evil ritual (like sumoning a dark god so he (the god) will rule the material plane... wel that is too evil to just wight him to neutral (but if he does this he might have turned neutral before) But that is just my opinion. And if the greatest minds on the world havent pondered what is good and what is evil don't expect this forum poster to explain it perfectly
Witch 09-10-07, 05:25 PM	An egregious action, one undertaken with full malice of forethought and of sufficiently awful nature CAN change the Alignment of a character in one fell swoop. If Alhandra (the supposed D&D Paladin example) were to suddenly rip a child from it's mother's arms and begin mutilating it on a whim, she might well end up being Lawful Neutral former Paladin afterwards. Her alignment moving one step towards Evil for the utterly repugnant and Evil nature of the action. But, mind you, it would have to about that bad, I would say. It has to be utterly, overwhelmingly Evil for the one shot rule to apply. Ofcourse, Alhandra would not suddenly rip a child from her mother's arms and begin mutilating it on a whim. That simply doesn't happen without compulsion. Alignment changes are gradual. Not sudden. A LG person would simply not do such a thing, because alignment determines how a character acts, even if it does not allow a DM to say "you can't do that because of your alignment", because the alignment may have been subtly changing.
Cifer 09-10-07, 06:43 PM	A LG person would simply not do such a thing, because alignment determines how a character acts, I disagree. I like the school of thought that says "The way a character acts (and thinks) determines the character's alignment". I especially prefer the WoD-system morality/humanity to what is often seen as the D&D-type of Alignment, meaning that a character is evil when he can commit evil deeds without having massive self-doubt and conscience issues afterwards. As soon as Alhandra goes from "Oh Heironeous! What have I done?" to "That bastard had it coming...", she can be considered evil, although her paladinhood will have vanished a long time before that because of the "single evil deed"-clause.
Trebbellar Laeyway 09-10-07, 07:17 PM	This alignment question, and sometimes problem, has made me throw in reputation as well. For example.... Chaotic evil character. Happening upon a town and looking for a place to stay, Mr. evil guy, not liking the price of the inn, decides to hold the innkeeper up by the neck. Anyone around, too scared by the look of Mr. Evil guy to do anything, watch in horror as the innkeeper is thrown after agreeing to reduce the price to something the evil player wants. Later on, Mr. Evil guy is sitting at a table eating and drinking. Suddenly, 5 men enter with swords drawn, screaming for everyone to get down and that this is a robbery. Mr. Evil, not wanting to be bothered, draws his weapons and ends up killing and/or scaring away the robbers. All of a sudden, guards are rushing in, screaming about what's going on. Still terrified of Mr. Evil, but at a moral stoplight for a second due to his actions, the innkeeper says that all is well and that some men just attacked Mr. Evil out of the blue. Thankfully for the inn Mr. Evil was around. What has happened here, is that the evil player has recieved no alignment change, but instead of everyone scared and wanting to silently kill him, he is now someone everyone in the inn is still scared of, but they give him a measure of respect and aren't likely to think anything except an air of caution about him unless he does something to them. I find this can help, as you will have a better basis to discern wether an alignment change is truly valid, as the player will know how his reputation is, and how they use that should correspond with their alignment/character.
Starcloud 09-10-07, 08:27 PM	It is rare that one single act changes someone's alignment. Take Anakin, for example. First he lops off Dooku's head at Palpatine's urging. Then, much later, he betrays the Jedi by assisting in Mace Windu's death. He "pledges himself" to Palpatine then, but to make sure of him, Palpatine tells him to go wipe out the Jedi at the Temple. Then Anakin goes and slaughters children. At the beginning of the movie, Anakin starts out as Lawful Good with NG tendencies, torn between following the Jedi Code and following his own somewhat selfish but still good-natured impulses. By the end of the movie, Anakin has become Lord Vader and is Lawful Evil, obeying the dictates of the Emperor without question, regardless of what they were. The change is rapid, but not instant; indeed the seeds for the change were set down a long time earlier. Now look at Empire Strikes Back... here Vader discovers that he actually has a son. Vader does his best to "put things right" by convincing his son to come to his side, taking the place that Vader always wanted for Padme and his children. Luke refuses, just like Padme refused. This puts a tiny crack into Vader's conviction that he is right in being evil. It starts him questioning again, even if only on a subconcious level. Then in Return of the Jedi, Vader fights Luke and discovers that Luke isn't that willing to fight him. Vader discovers that the Emperor is more than willing to discard him. And Vader sees Luke take a different path, the path that Anakin should have taken some twenty years before... this forces Vader to make a choice, between following the Emperor or overthrowing him and saving his son and daughter. Vader redeems himself, becoming Anakin again, but I'd be hard pressed to say that he's Lawful Good by the end of RotJ, only that he's free of the Dark Side and probably Lawful Neutral... oh, and dead, since he sacrificed himself to end Palpatine's evil.
Witch 09-10-07, 09:16 PM	I disagree. I like the school of thought that says "The way a character acts (and thinks) determines the character's alignment". Unfortunately, that school of thought is rather odd, because it removes the point of alignment altogether, which is an inherent motivational impulse, rather than just a countdown of: "help schoolboy: +1", "steal a lollypop: -2", ... I agree with what Kain Darkwind has to say about this: Actions are determined by alignment, not vice versa. Not dictated, but determined. Mortals have free choice, three mental abilities and a host of other underlying factors that end up influencing their actual actions. How many people can say they have never done something they thought was stupid or wrong? However, one of those underlying factors is your alignment. Alignment basically evaluates the situation as it understands it (limited through one’s mental scores) and determines what the best course of action is going to be. In some cases, this can be the exact same action for the exact same alignment. For instance, a man comes across a horribly wounded person. Most good alignments are going to suggest helping. An evil alignment might also suggest helping however, in hopes of reward, prestige or some other benefit. But this is going to be qualified. A very stupid evil person might only see an easy mark in the situation. A brilliant evil genius might see a new convert to his dark god. The point is, Good and Evil can be suggesting the exact same action to a person. Few actions are specific enough to be aligned in a particular manner regardless of the circumstances. Actions and Alignment Now, a few actions do say something like “one’s alignment immediately changes to X”. This is NOT because the action changed the alignment. Rather, the action could only be completed by someone of the said alignment. It was one of those few actions (or contained a situation specific enough) that was specifically aligned. For instance, let’s go back to the wounded man on the road. Good alignment suggests helping. We have a NG individual of reasonable mental ability walk by, see the wounded man and pick up a rock and start smashing the man’s fingers, ensuring his last moments are filled with horrific pain. That can’t happen. The individual is NE now, not because he tortured a helpless dying man but because he was capable of torturing a helpless dying man for his own personal pleasure. Barring something like enchantment or possession, this individual was Evil previous to the situation, but never had the chance to display it. Metagame, we attached the wrong alignment to the individual in the first place. In character, maybe the guy snapped or was always harboring this attitude. No one but the character knows. Now, I did say reasonable mental ability. How come? Well, someone with 3’s in Int, Wis and Cha might have a very different idea of helping compared to someone with 18’s. It is possible that such an imbecile might kill a wounded man while trying to help him, or his idea of helping might be to put him out of his misery. Or that might be the only possible way to help him. Killing and helping are not absolute antonyms.
Witch 09-10-07, 09:19 PM	Take Anakin, for example. First he lops off Dooku's head at Palpatine's urging. Then, much later, he betrays the Jedi by assisting in Mace Windu's death. He "pledges himself" to Palpatine then, but to make sure of him, Palpatine tells him to go wipe out the Jedi at the Temple. Then Anakin goes and slaughters children. The thing is, Anakin was evil long before he went out to slaughter the children: he would not have been able to do it, if he was not evil. It were the thoughts that allowed him to consider "hey, I'll kill the kids" as a serious possibility that made him evil, not the act. The act has no impact on alignment, but merely on the courage to act on his emotions.
Thubby 09-10-07, 09:30 PM	The thing is, Anakin was evil long before he went out to slaughter the children: he would not have been able to do it, if he was not evil. It were the thoughts that allowed him to consider "hey, I'll kill the kids" as a serious possibility that made him evil, not the act. The act has no impact on alignment, but merely on the courage to act on his emotions. the problem with alignment determining actions is that then alignment couldn't change. because "a XY character wouldn't do that". and it does not remove motivational impulse, "i want to save women and children" which means this person is likely good.
Witch 09-10-07, 09:33 PM	the problem with alignment determining actions is that then alignment couldn't change. because "a XY character wouldn't do that". No, alignment changes on itself and in interaction with the world. Instead of the person's thoughts changing for unknown reasons, you now have the person's alignment changing for unknown reasons. I don't see why it suddenly can't change anymore. and it does not remove motivational impulse, "i want to save women and children" which means this person is likely good. No, the character is good, thus, he may want to save women and children, thus, we put the label "good" on the character sheet.
Thubby 09-10-07, 09:44 PM	No, alignment changes on itself and in interaction with the world. Instead of the person's thoughts changing for unknown reasons, you now have the person's alignment changing for unknown reasons. I don't see why it suddenly can't change anymore. but alignment isn't an entity, it doesn't interact and has no reason to change. a person on the other hand interacts with everything all the time, and their thoughts are influenced constantly by the world around them, and are subject to constant change. if those changes should fall under what is thought of as "evil" then we label it as such. No, the character is good, thus, he may want to save women and children, thus, we put the label "good" on the character sheet. this seems to be a matter of opinion, i was merely pointing out that the motivation is still there.
Salla 09-10-07, 09:49 PM	Actions determine alignment, not the other way around. If an evil character has seen the light, and says that he's changed his ways, it means nothing until he demonstrates such. His alignment remains evil until he actually does good deeds (another good reason to not smite-on-sight), and the DM is the final arbiter of if and when alignment changes happen.
LFK 09-11-07, 12:24 AM	A good illustrative example: I created the character Tyver Clearwood to be a young woodsman who grew up with a sparkle in his eye for doing the right thing the right way for the right reasons. He wanted to be a shining pillar of the community, a lawman, and a patriot. As such started the campaign as a LG Fighter, and quickly progressed to multi-class Fighter/Rogue for the skill points in search, bluff, diplomacy, gather information, forgery, sense motive, and a martial focus on take downs and subduals. He was given a small post, but was soon framed as something he wasn't, deposed from the King's service, and left to clutch at hope in the employ of a woman claiming to work as, essentially, the secret service of the king. To further bruise his honor, most of the missions have involved trying to work with corrupt officials ruling an apathetic population. Attempts to oust the corruption have met with catastrophic failure, and it becomes increasingly obvious to him that the system he grew up loving and idealizing was a lie all along. The King's service means little, and national pride has no place in the real world. The "proper channels" don't exist. The gates to the kingdom were left open for invaders to march, virtually unimpeded, to the capital, and seize the throne. The invaders, actually, seem to care more about proper order and discipline than the rulers he grew up under. As a result he has drifted from LG to NG as bitterness and circumstances have forced him to act outside the law. The system is corrupt, and the only real hope for a structure of trust is the group and the family, so screw the system. The idea has been suggested that (were it not for our two elf companions) we join the "invading force" and work to ease our old homeland's transition (the new people are honestly doing a better job at running the place.) If we did then I would adjust my alignment again to TN (as my moral outlook shifted towards that of the people around me, you do what your friends do kinda thing) and then, either at the same time or shortly after, shift my law alignment back to Lawful as my faith in "the system" is restored.
Cantankerous 09-11-07, 02:13 AM	The D.M.G. is the source for what is official here, not opinions. In it your actions determine your Alignment, as it VERY specifically states, and NOT the other way around. pg: 134; "Actions dictate alignment..." The way you portray the character is in no small part influenced by the alignment you picked, but alignment itself is NOT a bloody straight jacket. It is a guideline to use to help understand what the norm is each type of alignment. Period. Isshia
Witch 09-11-07, 06:52 AM	The D.M.G. is the source for what is official here, not opinions. In it your actions determine your Alignment, as it VERY specifically states, and NOT the other way around. pg: 134; "Actions dictate alignment..." The way you portray the character is in no small part influenced by the alignment you picked, but alignment itself is NOT a bloody straight jacket. It is a guideline to use to help understand what the norm is each type of alignment. Period. Isshia So you would say that a paladin that considers slaughtering little children for fun a viable possibility, but can't find any little children for some time being, is Lawful Good still? You would argue that Anakin wasn't evil until the exact time he actually killed the poor young ones?
LFK 09-11-07, 09:22 AM	So you would say that a paladin that considers slaughtering little children for fun a viable possibility, but can't find any little children for some time being, is Lawful Good still? You would argue that Anakin wasn't evil until the exact time he actually killed the poor young ones? Anakin was portrayed (poorly) as having done evil-leaning things in the past (slaughtering the Tuskan Raiders), had already assisted in the murder of a high-ranking Jedi, and sworn allegiance to the known Sith Lord. his alignment switch was not unprecedented, even if it was slaughtering Younglings that made the DM go "okay, change your alignment." The reason for having alignment follow actions is because saying "my character is having evil thoughts, his alignment changes" is more often an excuse to abuse the system. Most alignment changes come as a result of "you know, I picked the wrong alignment, I haven't been playing LG, I'm actually LN, so I'm just going to make it official" and the DM says "yeah, I agree, you're not LG." Edit: as far as the Paladin that meta-games "why don't we just slaughter the children and take their candy?" I can see some harsher GMs, or GMs with a rowdy, uncooperative, exploitative group imposing a game-world penalty on the basis that Paladins should live to the highest moral code possible. If the Paladin never actually does anything to break his moral code, then there shouldn't be an alignment change. Let's just say that his God is giving him as much time to repent as possible, and he's not stripped of his powers until he does the deed.
Witch 09-11-07, 10:06 AM	Anakin was portrayed (poorly) as having done evil-leaning things in the past (slaughtering the Tuskan Raiders), had already assisted in the murder of a high-ranking Jedi, and sworn allegiance to the known Sith Lord. his alignment switch was not unprecedented, even if it was slaughtering Younglings that made the DM go "okay, change your alignment." The murder of a high-ranked Jedi? He defended who he saw as a man who was to be brought to just trial, not to be slaughtered on the spot without any trial whatsoever. The murder was entirely out of his hands - he was betrayed by his master. He still held justice dearly at that point. His allegiance to the Sith lord did not mean that he was evil - calling all Sith evil by definition is not entirely correct. For example, Darth Traya was likely True Neutral. I'm not aware what he did to the Tuskan Raiders. Or I can't think of it. The reason for having alignment follow actions is because saying "my character is having evil thoughts, his alignment changes" is more often an excuse to abuse the system. Most alignment changes come as a result of "you know, I picked the wrong alignment, I haven't been playing LG, I'm actually LN, so I'm just going to make it official" and the DM says "yeah, I agree, you're not LG." But you're dealing with metagame. In metagame, it is so that people say that "my character isn't really thinking lawful good, nor does he act lawful good - perhaps he's lawful neutral" and the DM agrees, so it's changed on the sheet. However, ingame, alignment is an active force that drives characters. It is what allows them to contemplate given actions as possibilities. Edit: as far as the Paladin that meta-games "why don't we just slaughter the children and take their candy?" I can see some harsher GMs, or GMs with a rowdy, uncooperative, exploitative group imposing a game-world penalty on the basis that Paladins should live to the highest moral code possible. If the Paladin never actually does anything to break his moral code, then there shouldn't be an alignment change. Let's just say that his God is giving him as much time to repent as possible, and he's not stripped of his powers until he does the deed. I disagree. The moment a paladin sees that as a viable possibility, he should be stripped of his powers immediately, because he is clearly evil. But such a thing doesn't happen suddenly. It happens gradually, and hence he's likely fallen even earlier.
Cifer 09-11-07, 11:46 AM	Unfortunately, that school of thought is rather odd, because it removes the point of alignment altogether, which is an inherent motivational impulse, rather than just a countdown of: "help schoolboy: +1", "steal a lollypop: -2", ... Please tell me why this is a bad thing as long as you don't actually deal in points but in tendencies. What do I need alignment for except as an indicator saying what supernatural effects will work on my character? Why would I need it for anything else than saying "This is the outlook that fits my character best - if my character changes, I'll just discard it and pick up another one"? I've played and roleplayed plenty of systems and plenty of characters without any alignment whatsoever - why would I suddenly need an "inherent motivational impulse"?
Witch 09-11-07, 11:48 AM	Because treating it as an indicator makes Alignment into a metagame tool, while the Great Wheel and alignment exemplars sort of direct it into an ingame characteristic. Both Great Wheel and Exemplars don't exist in other game systems, because they are parts of what makes D&D D&D.
Cifer 09-11-07, 11:56 AM	Putting aside that not all campaign worlds have the Great Wheel, I fail to recognize why alignment can't be both. Just because it isn't your motivation but the closest possible approximation to the sum of your actions and thoughts doesn't mean there can't be creatures and planes who recognize you as a like mind or an anathema.
Eric888 09-11-07, 12:02 PM	I think it depends on the situation and the involved player(s). some actions demand a radical shift. some might be more circumstantial and require some 'PR' or rehabilitation IC. there is also some leeway, IMO, based on what might have facilitated said action. Bill the LG Paladin finds out his mother was brutally raped and murdered by some thief. he finds the thief and guts him without a trial or even taking him to jail or whatever legal authority resides in the area. Would you force an alignment change on that, or consider it an opportunity to advance additional RP, etc? Would this one arguably unlawful act permanently taint his heart? Ted the CE Sorcerer gives 1000 gold to a local orphanage. He is Chaotic, so he can do random stuff on occassion, but he is evil... so is he not allowed to ever do an act that others would take as being 'good'? Would the act of giving change his CE heart to anything less ill intentioned permanently? A paladin is a soldier of light recognised by most lawful institutions. So I fail to see why a paladin hunting down and bringing swift justice on a murderer would be any infringment on his alignment or the law. Likewise, like you said, chaotic aligned charceters do random stuff. a CE sorcerer giving 1000 gold away isn't really a good act as it is just a curious whim.
Forgarn 09-11-07, 12:06 PM	Please tell me why this is a bad thing as long as you don't actually deal in points but in tendencies. What do I need alignment for except as an indicator saying what supernatural effects will work on my character? Why would I need it for anything else than saying "This is the outlook that fits my character best - if my character changes, I'll just discard it and pick up another one"? I've played and roleplayed plenty of systems and plenty of characters without any alignment whatsoever - why would I suddenly need an "inherent motivational impulse"? Alignment is an indicator that tells you how your character behaves. It dictates what actions you character would consider doing and it indicates how your character interacts with the surrounding world. It is also a "living" thing in that as your character changes their outlook, the alignment changes as well. The LG character that after 20 years of following rules has a change of heart and decides that all these rules are just too much to handle anymore goes out and breaks a few of them had changed alignment. It is his actions and his outlook both. Just saying that there are too many rules does not make him NG. But that thought process and outlook along with the continued acts of breaking some of the previously followed rules will change their alignment to NG. Those posters that have stated that the DMG states that actions dictate alignment are correct. What you do does have a bearing on your alignment. But it is not the entire deciding factor. If a paladin fails their saving throw against a high level cleric or wizard and they get commanded or taken over by mind affecting magic and forced to commit evil acts, their alignment does not change because it is not really them doing the act. It must be a conscience willingness to commit the said act, and that requires a change in the characters outlook. To the OP, the change of heart is nothing more that words without the actions to back it up. My opinion is that no, a change of heart does not equal an instant alignment change. The backup for that change of heart is the change in actions.
Master_Vega 09-11-07, 12:32 PM	In my groups' games alignment is something for the players to look at and remember, "Oh, right, this guy respects the law" or whatever. It can change, but there needs to be some kind of reason because, while I agree that alignment is not a straight jacket, it doesn't make sense for Alhandra to spontaneously think "Hmm, I wonder what baby tastes like." At the same time, alignment dictating your characters activities entirely doesn't make sense because real people are dynamic. Sure it's not common that people suddenly make an alignment-changing act, but I'd say-as several others have stated- it's usually the summary of a lot of changes within the character. My Neutral Good psion mercenary did not particularly care about the law. If he followed it, no one tried to arrest him and generally his life went on unhindered... until he was conscripted into the region's military on low pay. He befriended his commanders and eventually one -the siege commander- snapped when his friend -the magic commander- was assassinated during a lull in a battle. He broke the rules of engagement and pummeled their forces to dust with a surprise magic attack (magic was off-limits). A long chain of events later and we heard through the grapevine that the aforementioned commander was going to swing for "his crimes", when we saw that the government was really using him as a scapegoat for the campaign's failure in general. We didn't think he deserved to be hanged, so we broke him out of the most high-security prison in the country (the capital prison). For my character, the last straw was when his friend was given a much harder sentence than he deserved because it was convenient for the government to tack every believable bad thing they could onto his reputation... and have it die with him. The day they finalized the prison-break plans was the day my psion became chaotic good.
Puca 09-11-07, 01:16 PM	the problem with alignment determining actions is that then alignment couldn't change. because "a XY character wouldn't do that". and it does not remove motivational impulse, "i want to save women and children" which means this person is likely good. People do things that they wouldnt normally do all the time. Alignment isnt "a XY character wouldnt do that" it is "an XY character believes that to be wrong, and as a result, doesnt want to do it." Actions determine alignment, not the other way around. If an evil character has seen the light, and says that he's changed his ways, it means nothing until he demonstrates such. His alignment remains evil until he actually does good deeds (another good reason to not smite-on-sight), and the DM is the final arbiter of if and when alignment changes happen.This is one way to look at it, like I said before. I dont like it. It results in the need for some sort of rubric: how many evil acts of what degree of heinousness make you evil. How many good acts to what degree of goodness make you now neutral. (Six more non-selfish acts and I become Good! Or, if I commit two acts of self-sacrifice, I become good and get a free coffee mug.) I disagree. The moment a paladin sees that as a viable possibility, he should be stripped of his powers immediately, because he is clearly evil. But such a thing doesn't happen suddenly. It happens gradually, and hence he's likely fallen even earlier.I agree entirely. A person who is willing or desires to commit acts of evil is not good just because he lacks the opportunity. Because treating it as an indicator makes Alignment into a metagame tool, while the Great Wheel and alignment exemplars sort of direct it into an ingame characteristic. Both Great Wheel and Exemplars don't exist in other game systems, because they are parts of what makes D&D D&D.I dont think you and Cifer are that far apart. I think he articulated some things in a confusing way or is possibly (no offense) confused about what he actually believes: I disagree. I like the school of thought that says "The way a character acts (and thinks) determines the character's alignment". While I disagree about acts, I think youd agree that the way a character thinks is indicative of the characters alignment. It is when he goes on that I think he and you are closer: …that a character is evil when he can commit evil deeds without having massive self-doubt and conscience issues afterwards. As soon as Alhandra goes from "Oh Heironeous! What have I done?" to "That bastard had it coming...", she can be considered evil, although her paladinhood will have vanished a long time before that because of the "single evil deed"-clause.In order for you to feel guilt, you have to recognize that your actions were “bad.” To call your actions “bad” you have to evaluate them according to some standard of goodness/badness. (These standards are what I earlier called your "underlying values.") You can only feel guilt over murder if you think murder is wrong. In fact, you have to first have the underlying value that murder is wrong in order to then have the thought that “this murder I committed was wrong.” You cant really have the concept of "guilt" if your thoughts determine your alignment. So, I dont think he really means that the thought determines the alignment, but rather that the thought indicates what the values, i.e. alignment, is.
Cifer 09-11-07, 03:12 PM	@Puca Now I won't comment on whether I'm confused or not (I hate my Will save...), but the main point of my argument is that the answer on "My character does X" should not be "He can't do that! He's LG!" but "Huh, that's interesting. I wouldn't have thought he'd do that - let's talk about whether his LG alignment still fits him, preferably after the session or in the next break." Indeed, I prefer games lacking morality systems, but when one exists, it should be as unobtrusive as possible. I believe in placing responsibility in the hands of a player over limiting it.
Gryllmyre 09-11-07, 03:20 PM	I think under extreme circumstances, a fast alignment change can take place. For example: Someone chooses LG because they are convinced it will keep them resolved and confident about their purpose in life. Then something happens that they never imagined would, and it competely strips their sense of confidence and purpose, rendering their hopes of LG moot. At that point, it would be easy to pick a different alignment, one that represents that character's actual response to the situation, which honestly reflects their true alignment more than the one they rationally chose out of hope. Some characters might recover from the situation and keep their original alignment intact. Others are truly changed by it.
Puca 09-11-07, 04:04 PM	@Puca Now I won't comment on whether I'm confused or not (I hate my Will save...), but the main point of my argument is that the answer on "My character does X" should not be "He can't do that! He's LG!" but "Huh, that's interesting. I wouldn't have thought he'd do that - let's talk about whether his LG alignment still fits him, preferably after the session or in the next break." Indeed, I prefer games lacking morality systems, but when one exists, it should be as unobtrusive as possible. I believe in placing responsibility in the hands of a player over limiting it.Lets just say that I was the confused one. :) I agree that there should not be a hard and fast “You cannot do X because youre Y” in D&D. You can do things that are against your alignment. (Which is another reason why actions cant define alignment. If actions are the sum of your actions, then your actions cant “violate” but only incrementally change it.) As I said before, when you do violate your alignment, it is due (broadly) to either a mistake or moral weakness. So, when a guy with G on his character sheet commits an evil act, I dont think you can say “Stop, you cant do that” but I do think you should say “Wait, why did you do that?” It may be the culmination of a gradual process of alignment change, which mean you need an eraser for your character sheet, or it is an isolated incident, which may be nothing or the beginning of something. (In the case of an isolated incident, the character should feel guilt and remorse. He just did something he believes to be wrong.) In all honesty though, you should ask why because 9 times out of ten, it has nothing to do with the character and is just a difference of opinion between the DM and the Player about what an “evil act” is.
Cantankerous 09-11-07, 04:33 PM	So you would say that a paladin that considers slaughtering little children for fun a viable possibility, but can't find any little children for some time being, is Lawful Good still? You would argue that Anakin wasn't evil until the exact time he actually killed the poor young ones? Witch, you might be a little confused. This is a game. That was a movie. The movie was in no manner based on the game paradigm. In the game, the rules as written are the guidelines for how things work. But to go forth, a Paladin could have committed those very acts. Too stretch our metaphor: up until the time of the slaughter of the children, were we to render this in D&D terms, he had done Evil and afterwards Atoned. At the point he killed Mace Windu (?), wrongly, as he realized fully, for selfish ends, he no longer choose Atonement but gave himself over the pursuit of Evil. He then went into the Temple and slaughtered the innocents and voluntarily became Evil at that point. The act itself was the cement on his voluntary alignment change. It would also be a great apotheosis set up for Blackguard. This is a game folks, not "life" and works by the rules of game logic, not by outraged personal moralities. Isshia
Witch 09-11-07, 04:33 PM	@Puca Now I won't comment on whether I'm confused or not (I hate my Will save...), but the main point of my argument is that the answer on "My character does X" should not be "He can't do that! He's LG!" but "Huh, that's interesting. I wouldn't have thought he'd do that - let's talk about whether his LG alignment still fits him, preferably after the session or in the next break." The thing is, like Puca said, I don't think we're that far apart, but I think you're not understanding what I'm trying to say. Allow me to explain, then, what I would do in the example of your situation. "My character does X" would be "Ah. A LG person can't do that. Perhaps I may have labelled your character as the wrong alignment then - he's got to have switched to another some time ago. Carry on, but change the note on your character sheet to Lawful Neutral".
Khadmus 09-11-07, 04:35 PM	Why does everybody that has opinions that I agree with speak in a way that I dislike? Bravo, Witch. Keep the logic coming.
Witch 09-11-07, 04:37 PM	Witch, you might be a little confused. This is a game. That was a movie. The movie was in no manner based on the game paradigm. But the game paradigm can encompass the movie. But to go forth, a Paladin could have committed those very acts. Too stretch our metaphor: up until the time of the slaughter of the children, were we to render this in D&D terms, he had done Evil and afterwards Atoned. At the point he killed Mace Windu (?), wrongly, as he realized fully, for selfish ends, he no longer choose Atonement but gave himself over the pursuit of Evil. He killed Mace Windu? Ehm... he protected what he thought to be an old man from vigilante justice, and wanted him judged by a legal trial. Then, the old man killed Windu. I don't see the evil in what Anakin did here. The evil was present earlier only in the fact that Anakin was willing to do anything, anything, in order to save his wife. He then went into the Temple and slaughtered the innocents and voluntarily became Evil at that point. The act itself was the cement on his voluntary alignment change. No, the alignment change had to have come earlier, or he would not have been capable of murdering the children. Only evil people are capable of murdering innocent children. Good people just don't do that. It's not that "when good people murder innocent children, they become evil". It's "good people don't murder innocent children, period."
Cantankerous 09-11-07, 04:59 PM	But the game paradigm can encompass the movie. He killed Mace Windu? Ehm... he protected what he thought to be an old man from vigilante justice, and wanted him judged by a legal trial. Then, the old man killed Windu. I don't see the evil in what Anakin did here. The evil was present earlier only in the fact that Anakin was willing to do anything, anything, in order to save his wife. No, the alignment change had to have come earlier, or he would not have been capable of murdering the children. Only evil people are capable of murdering innocent children. Good people just don't do that. It's not that "when good people murder innocent children, they become evil". It's "good people don't murder innocent children, period." Witch, this guy wasn't stupid, or retarded, or drunk or anything else. He KNEW what he was doing. Immediately after he took off Windu's arm his first words were "Ohhh, what have I done?" A Good character can commit Evil acts in D&D because, as the Core Rule books state often, (paraphrased) Alignment is not a straight jacket. Read the DMG especially. It talks a lot about how this works in game, as opposed to what it seems you would like it to say. Clearly stated, by the rules, "Actions dictate alignment..." It is very clearly not the other way around. Isshia
Witch 09-11-07, 05:06 PM	A Good character can commit Evil acts in D&D because, as the Core Rule books state often, (paraphrased) Alignment is not a straight jacket. Do you call the inability of good people to murder innocent children a straightjacket? That's a rather large freedom demanded. But the most likely thing, once again, is that the reason they put in that sentence, is to avoid DMs saying "Hey, no, you can't do that, you're chaotic neutral", or saying that mild contradictions in personality are possible. Not the extremes. Read the DMG especially. It talks a lot about how this works in game, as opposed to what it seems you would like it to say. Clearly stated, by the rules, "Actions dictate alignment..." It is very clearly not the other way around. I'm talking about how it would logically be. It may well be that the DMG says that "actions dictate alignment", yes. And note the word: dictate. The actions of a creature dictate to the DM what the creature's alignment is. The alignment of a creature motivates the creature in his actions.
Starcloud 09-11-07, 05:25 PM	The thing is, Anakin was evil long before he went out to slaughter the children: he would not have been able to do it, if he was not evil. It were the thoughts that allowed him to consider "hey, I'll kill the kids" as a serious possibility that made him evil, not the act. The act has no impact on alignment, but merely on the courage to act on his emotions. I forgot about the slaughter of the Tuskens in Attack of the Clones. That changes his "starting" alignment for Revenge from Lawful Good to Lawful Neutral. Also, it might not have been clear, but I feel that Anakin became evil when he chopped off Mace Windu's hands; if Anakin had simply interposed his saber blade when Mace struck, that would have accomplished his goal of "save Palpatine's life" without committing an evil act. Even so, Anakin wasn't Vader quite yet... it took the attack on the Temple to drive him deep into the Dark Side (which is supernatural evil, as it were) and confirm him as Lord Vader. In any case, there's no doubt in my mind that a single evil act is not sufficient to move a character from being a paragon of Lawful Good to being the foulest example of demonic behavior ever to roam on two legs. Just keep in mind that multiple acts of evil can be commited in a single incident. Imagine, if you will, a righteous paladin who is chasing a necromancer through the narrow winding corridors of an orphanage. The necromancer keeps taking kids hostage and putting them in peril. Eventually, the paladin kills one of the orphans, truly by accident, and loses his powers. Instead of acknowleding this and continuing to act in a lawful good fashion, the ex-paladin starts "justifying". First he ignores one in peril, which is not really an evil act. Then he slaps one aside, again, not evil but starting to become questionable. When the necromancer drops a mass charm on some of the tykes and orders them to impede the ex-paladin, the ex-paladin starts deliberately harming a few of them to 'encourage' them to get out of his way, causing a couple of them to go to negative hit points and eventually die. He justifies this by saying "I'll bandage them up, later." He could have used diplomacy to mitigate the effects of the charm, but he didn't want to take the time... At the end, the necromancer is cornered and has one last hostage. In order to kill the necromancer, the ex-paladin deliberately runs the hostage through in order to impale the necromancer on his blade. At what point did the ex-paladin become evil? Does it matter? Throughout the scene the ex-paladin has shown a frighteningly rapid descent from good to evil, without once really stopping to think about what he's doing. The seeds and tendency toward evil may be long term and rooted in the character's motivations, but the acts are what define the character's actual alignment.
Starcloud 09-11-07, 05:32 PM	Also, keep in mind alignment can change, frequently. The idea behind the "alignment is not a straight-jacket" statement is that the DM cannot override the player character's actions by saying "Your character is (lawful/neutral/good/whatever), he wouldn't do that" and to remind the player that the alignment picked at character generation is not a 'fixed' attribute of the character.
0bs01337 09-11-07, 06:43 PM	While the DMG does state that actions should dictate alignment doesn't the helm of opposite alignment work directly counter to that? It's effect is to alter alignment which in turn leads to the change of actions. If we work under the actions dictate alignment model then the helm either has no function as the action by the player revert him back to his normal alignment or we are left to twist the actions of the player to be evil. Like making that orphanage turn out assassins or something.
Starcloud 09-11-07, 07:37 PM	The Helm of Opposite Alignment does force an alignment change and a change of behavior, but there's nothing saying that the character cannot then work back towards the original alignment. In most cases, it takes a lot of time and repeated effort to change alignment; drifting back is possible even if affected by a Helm of Opposite Alignment. And all the while, the DM is going to be reminding the player of the new way that their character is thinking. Alignment is not a straight-jacket; the DM does not have the right to dictate the character's actions, but does have the right to suggest that the character is thinking differently than the player is. It's the old "Are you sure?" question: "Are you sure you want to open that door?" "Are you sure you want to turn left here?" "Are you sure you want to share this with the party, even though no one was around to see you find it and it would really benefit you?"
pres_man 09-11-07, 09:33 PM	The Helm of Opposite Alignment does force an alignment change and a change of behavior, but there's nothing saying that the character cannot then work back towards the original alignment. Well it does say something like the thought of returning to the old alignment fills them with revulsion.
DMCuindless 09-11-07, 10:41 PM	So you would say that a paladin that considers slaughtering little children for fun a viable possibility, but can't find any little children for some time being, is Lawful Good still? You would argue that Anakin wasn't evil until the exact time he actually killed the poor young ones? In a word, yes. Everyone faces temptation to do evil because evil is so much easier. What stops a good character from doing evil is a strange feeling in the pit of their stomach called "the conscience". While they might think about doing evil, and even consider the implications of it from a practical perspective, when the time came to perform the act, the good character would not because of their conscience. In the case of a paladin tempted by evil thoughts, it is a sign of great holiness and righteousness to overcome evil temptations and do great, heroic deeds. It is when tortured, evil thoughts take control of the character that the shift to neutral and eventually evil actually happens. To take the paladin example a bit further: Say that this paladin grew up being picked on by young children every single day. When she moves to another city and becomes an adventurer, she's pestered constantly by these little kids, there inane questions, their foolish actions and how they constantly get in the way of her fight against evil. Her enemies are always taking children hostage, forcing her to deviate from her plans to come to the rescue, and she starts to think to herself that it would be so much easier to just wade through them to get to her enemy. But then, she looks into that innocent little face and remembers why she became a paladin to begin with, and all those evil thoughts disappear in a flurry of righteous power. She kills the bad guy, saves the children and returns home a hero. On the other side, a CG ranger raised by proper elven parents to hate orcs watches as his village is slaughtered. He flees to the forest and is raised by fey, who further teach him about the ravages of these evil beasts. He thinks deep in his heart, though, that these evil beings can actually be redeemed. Maybe they aren't all bad at heart. So he trains and grows as an adventurer, his head filled with ideas of redemption. One day, in the midst of a woodland adventure, he comes across an orcish village... suddenly all the memories flood back to him. He has visions of his parents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters and village elders burning in the fire. He single-handedly takes down the guards and soldiers, eventually defeating the tribe leader in a duel. Searching the rest of the village, he finds where the orcish children are huddled. He sees their brutish little faces, grinning up at him impishly. In one fell swoop, he descends upon them with hate and bloodlust. Suddenly, all the orcish children are dead, as are his dreams of redemption. That's why evil thoughts don't make an evil character...
Puca 09-11-07, 10:56 PM	In the game, the rules as written are the guidelines for how things work. The D.M.G. is the source for what is official here, not opinions. In it your actions determine your Alignment, as it VERY specifically states, and NOT the other way around. pg: 134; "Actions dictate alignment..."The problem is, it VERY specifically states different things in different places. On page 103 of the PHB, we see: “A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by his alignment.” There is a huge difference between alignment being determined by your actions and alignment being a representation of your morality in general. You cant say, “It’s a game: follow the rules” when the rules are contradictory. The best you can say is, “Pick a rule” and even then, if you want alignment to matter in your games, the DM is going to have to do a lot of work to fill in the gaps in rules that were not written by ethicists. He killed Mace Windu? Ehm... he protected what he thought to be an old man from vigilante justice, and wanted him judged by a legal trial. Then, the old man killed Windu. I don't see the evil in what Anakin did here. He said he wanted the old man to stand trial. But no one watching the movie really thought that was his reason for doing what he did. His actions were consistent with LG, or, at the very least, a LG person could have acted precisely the same way in good conscience. But Aankins motives werent consistent with LG values. So we cant call the action LG. (I think you meant that too.) No, the alignment change had to have come earlier, or he would not have been capable of murdering the children. Only evil people are capable of murdering innocent children. Good people just don't do that. It's not that "when good people murder innocent children, they become evil". It's "good people don't murder innocent children, period."Im with you 99.9%. Anyone who thinks to themselves killing a bunch of kids is an option is an evil prick and no doubt. But, look at the logic: The emperor (Palpatine, or whatever) is doing what is “right” and is therefore good. The Jedi oppose him and are therefore bad. If the Jedi are bad, all Jedi are bad. Destroying bad is good. It is justifiable to destroy all Jedi, including the trainee children. It still reaches a twisted and sick conclusion. But, put it in D&D terms: Our city is filled with innocent (good) people. The orcs are trying to destroy the city, and are therefore bad. If the orcs are bad, all orcs are bad. Destroying bad is good. It is justifiable to destroy all orcs, including the trainee children. Seems less evil. Theyre just orcs. But the logic is the same. Now, in a campaign where such an act is still defined as evil, you probably wouldnt see a G character accept killing the child-orcs. One that did might, as in the case of Anakin, be tumbling headlong down the slope to evil. But, but, I think one can imagine scenarios where a heretofore “Good” person could, through an error in judgment or as the result of his emotions, allow himself to act according to this logic. In some cases, it might be the beginning, as opposed to the end, of that tumble down to Evil. In other cases, it might not. It might truely be an isolated incident that isnt going to happen again and shouldnt have any mechanical effect. (In game RP consequences, sure.) The distinction is going to be in the characters reaction to their behavior: are they going to feel guilty, because they know deep down that what they did was wrong, or are they going to feel their actions were justified “in this special case,” signifying a slight shift in their general attitude from “always wrong” to “almost always wrong.” The Helm of Opposite Alignment does force an alignment change and a change of behavior, but there's nothing saying that the character cannot then work back towards the original alignment.First, I agree with 0bs01337. You cant have magic like a Helm of Alignment Change if actions “dictate” alignment. But Im not fond of the idea that you can put one on, change to CE from LG, and then “work your way back.” Its a powerful curse. Putting it on changes your underlying values. Characters have free will, but this magical effect interrupts that. If you were going to use it at all, which I think is bad, then you cant just let a Player metagame and say, “Well, since I have free will Ill just do good things until my alignment changes back.” I mean, would you let a character break a Charm spell that way? Shrug off Dominate because “I have free will?” Isnt this a bit more powerful than those? The Helm changes the way you see the world. You cant change back because you want to because you dont want to. It would be like Copernicus deciding that he will believe the Earth is the center of the universe again. Characters have free will, but this messes with your will. (And thats why its probably a bad idea to actually use it.)
Starcloud 09-12-07, 12:13 AM	The character that puts on a Helm of Opposite Alignment is going to have some serious psychological problems, there's no doubt about that. Can you imagine the problems you'd have going from, say, CE to LG? If you were CE, you must have commited some pretty horrible acts to get there... and as LG, you'd be looking at your past with horror and disgust. If you were LG and you became CE, you'd be disgusted at how naive and foolish you were. I'm not saying it'll be easy, or that the character is inclined to "work back" to it, just that it is not impossible.
Starcloud 09-12-07, 12:21 AM	"Your actions determine your alignment." "A creature's general moral and ethical attitudes are represented by its alignment." Combining the two: "Your actions determine your alignment, which represents your general moral and ethical attitudes." or "Your actions demonstrate your general moral and ethical attitude, and determines your alignment." There's no contradiction here.
DMCuindless 09-12-07, 12:55 AM	"Your actions determine your alignment." "A creature's general moral and ethical attitudes are represented by its alignment." Combining the two: "Your actions determine your alignment, which represents your general moral and ethical attitudes." or "Your actions demonstrate your general moral and ethical attitude, and determines your alignment." There's no contradiction here. Synthesis in action! Well done, Starcloud.
Vaelan 09-12-07, 01:18 AM	Your actions demonstrate your general moral and ethical attitude, and determines your alignment. The only way for your argument to be true is to take a revisionist approach to attitude. You have trivialized attitudes in favor of actions and thus you have presented an argument that supports one particular side rather than reconciling the two.
DMCuindless 09-12-07, 01:29 AM	The only way for your argument to be true is to take a revisionist approach to attitude. You have trivialized attitudes in favor of actions and thus you have presented an argument that supports one particular side rather than reconciling the two. What about his other statement? "Your actions determine your alignment, which represents your general moral and ethical attitudes." Makes perfect sense to me.
Cantankerous 09-12-07, 02:29 AM	Do you call the inability of good people to murder innocent children a straightjacket? That's a rather large freedom demanded. But the most likely thing, once again, is that the reason they put in that sentence, is to avoid DMs saying "Hey, no, you can't do that, you're chaotic neutral", or saying that mild contradictions in personality are possible. Not the extremes. I'm talking about how it would logically be. It may well be that the DMG says that "actions dictate alignment", yes. And note the word: dictate. The actions of a creature dictate to the DM what the creature's alignment is. The alignment of a creature motivates the creature in his actions. No matter who you murder, when it IS murder, when it is the needless death of a sapient being, it is an Evil act, period. When a Paladin kills the man who murdered his beloved wife and child, for the sake of revenge, the act is Evil, period, the end, if the man surrenders. It is also the fully understandable action of a bereaved husband and father. The situation happened in a campaign of ours where the man who did the killing was border line Evil himself at that time, but by the time the Paladin had caught up with him, wracked by his own remorse, he had changed. His alignment had shifted clearly into Neutral (from border lone NE) and the Paladin in question KNEW it ahead of time. Still this situation was far from poorly role played. Being a Paladin or any other stamp of Good character does not preclude you doing that which you KNOW to be dead wrong. When it does, it is the DM taking undue liberties with his position. The rules were not written to prevent you (as a Player or DM portraying a an NPC) from taking actions. Again and again and again in the Core books they talk about what alignment is and isn't. It NEVER prevents you from taking an action. They are not meant to nor designed to do so. The DMG is crystal clear on this. The section this is found in is headed "You are in Control", speaking to the DM, extolling that he be sure the ACTIONS taken match the alignment, but in the same page, earlier, it states, clearly, that unless it is overwhelming, alignment changes should be RARE and even then, come only slowly. All of this refutes the statements you are making and comes straight from the book, not begging anyone to assume what "the likely reasons" are why it is there. It is clear, concise and straight forward. Alignment does NOT dictate actions, it acts as a guide to what they should be. That is ALL it does and all it was ever meant to do and it is only when you try to make something more out of it that it all falls apart and Vaal and people like him become correct in their statements that Alignment detracts from the game. Isshia
calronmoonflower 09-12-07, 02:31 AM	Well by the rules as written a a change of heart alone can change alignment. From page 134 of the Dungeon Master's Guide Exceptions: There are exceptions to all the rules above. For instance, it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good. That being said only the extreme acts should change your alignment by themselves. The same goes for the "change of heart".
0bs01337 09-12-07, 04:02 AM	I'm not saying it'll be easy, or that the character is inclined to "work back" to it, just that it is not impossible. If a character is "working back" to his previous alignment he doing deeds indicative of previous alignment. However his alignment does not reflect his current nor his former actions. It reflects the act of putting on the wrong hat at the wrong time. This could could perhaps be considered chaotic. There's a 66% chance his alignment won't even reflect that. If that's not enough proof that alignment precede's one's actions, or is at least somewhat independent of them then simply detect alignment on anyone who has put the helm on but has not yet acted. If you're going to argue that actions dictate alignment, the only action I've seen is putting on a hat. Putting on a cursed hat unknowingly would have to be equal to any of the most horrible acts one could imagine in order to justify the alignment switch. Things of that nature tend require premeditation or at the very least harm to some living, much more than putting on a hat. Granted this is a particular case, but it does give some way of handling a change in alignment. I think way that they imagined alignment and the way it actually works itself out are a bit at odds. There's the arguement that helm is a cursed item and is a therefore unique case but that really depends on whether or not one sees magic as simply mucking about with mechanisms that are already in place or as more of a spawning force. Personally I think it's worth ignoring the phrase "actions dictate alignment" just so that alignment is a more cohesive system and doesn't need an exception for the helm.
DMCuindless 09-12-07, 04:37 AM	If a character is "working back" to his previous alignment he doing deeds indicative of previous alignment. However his alignment does not reflect his current nor his former actions. It reflects the act of putting on the wrong hat at the wrong time. This could could perhaps be considered chaotic. There's a 66% chance his alignment won't even reflect that. If that's not enough proof that alignment precede's one's actions, or is at least somewhat independent of them then simply detect alignment on anyone who has put the helm on but has not yet acted. If you're going to argue that actions dictate alignment, the only action I've seen is putting on a hat. Putting on a cursed hat unknowingly would have to be equal to any of the most horrible acts one could imagine in order to justify the alignment switch. Things of that nature tend require premeditation or at the very least harm to some living, much more than putting on a hat. Granted this is a particular case, but it does give some way of handling a change in alignment. I think way that they imagined alignment and the way it actually works itself out are a bit at odds. There's the arguement that helm is a cursed item and is a therefore unique case but that really depends on whether or not one sees magic as simply mucking about with mechanisms that are already in place or as more of a spawning force. Personally I think it's worth ignoring the phrase "actions dictate alignment" just so that alignment is a more cohesive system and doesn't need an exception for the helm. I think that you're forgetting this is magic. By definition, it breaks the rules. The Helm of Opposite Alignment doesn't require actions to dictate the characters alignment because its a magical affect, similar to compulsion or dominate person. That's why a Paladin who accidentally dons a Helm of Opposite Alignment can attone once they get it removed.
Witch 09-12-07, 07:37 AM	The rules were not written to prevent you (as a Player or DM portraying a an NPC) from taking actions. Again and again and again in the Core books they talk about what alignment is and isn't. It NEVER prevents you from taking an action. They are not meant to nor designed to do so. The DMG is crystal clear on this. Have you even read my posts? I said it time and time again: if alignment would prevent you from taking an action the player says his character would take, it is clear that in a metagame fashion, both DM and player were not right in estimating the character's alignment, and they should admit their mistake and change it. The alignment change on paper happens at the exact same moment as it does under your beliefs, except that the alignment change ingame happened earlier. Alignment prevents characters from doing something, not players. If players want their characters to do something that the alignment doesn't allow the character to do... then you assume that the alignment has changed ingame earlier, allowing the player to have his character do that.
Puca 09-12-07, 09:36 AM	"Your actions determine your alignment." "A creature's general moral and ethical attitudes are represented by its alignment." Combining the two: "Your actions determine your alignment, which represents your general moral and ethical attitudes." or "Your actions demonstrate your general moral and ethical attitude, and determines your alignment." There's no contradiction here.There is no synthesis. Your actions are either based on beliefs or descriptive of actions. This is the heart of the argument between Cantankerous and Witch. It cant just be dismissed as “resolved” because it would be easier if there were no contradiction. Your second statement makes sense, and could be true, but it represents the “actions determine” perspective and there is no synthesis with the other, core values or beliefs, perspective. Your first, makes little sense. It is internally contradictory. Either your alignment is a descriptive term, applied to describe what you typically do. Or your alignment describes what you believe and your beliefs then influence (determine is a bit too strong a word) your actions. In this case, your actions may reveal your alignment to all those who lack access internal thoughts and feelings, but reveal is not the same as cause. Turning on the lights doesnt cause the room to exist. It just lets you see what was already there.
Vaelan 09-12-07, 11:32 AM	What about his other statement? "Your actions determine your alignment, which represents your general moral and ethical attitudes." Makes perfect sense to me. They're the same statement. The problem is, actions and attitudes don't always coincide, especially when you have another person interpreting actions with little to no actual knowledge of the character's attitudes. When attitudes and actions differ, you must decide which one matters. Unless you're being wholly inconsistent, this means that you have trivialized whichever one you didn't choose. In this case, your actions may reveal your alignment to all those who lack access internal thoughts and feelings, but reveal is not the same as cause. I think that people lose sight of the fact that the DMG was written to present advice on how to run a game. I am firmly of the belief that the alignment section in the DMG is not descriptive. It is a suggested manner of handling alignments as a DM. The manner in which alignment is handled is pretty much entirely against the very nature of alignment. It is so because handling it in a manner that would resemble competency isn't in keeping with expectations of the DM's role.
StSteven 09-12-07, 11:41 AM	Well by the rules as written a a change of heart alone can change alignment. From page 134 of the Dungeon Master's Guide That being said only the extreme acts should change your alignment by themselves. The same goes for the "change of heart". That pretty much says it all right there. Argue until your heart's content, but the DMG specifically provides an example of when a change of heart can mean a change of alignment. There are other examples in the DMG as well. It states that moving to neutral involves just a change of heart. It doesn't say it in those exact words, but that's what it means. Even the most ardent supporters of the misuse of the quote "actions determine alignment" admit that changing to neutral doesn't require any actions. (At least most of them do). Of course, this whole thread is a bait to get 20 pages of "no you didn't" "yes I did" again. :rolleyes:
Master_Vega 09-12-07, 01:33 PM	That pretty much says it all right there. Argue until your heart's content, but the DMG specifically provides an example of when a change of heart can mean a change of alignment. There are other examples in the DMG as well. It states that moving to neutral involves just a change of heart. It doesn't say it in those exact words, but that's what it means. Even the most ardent supporters of the misuse of the quote "actions determine alignment" admit that changing to neutral doesn't require any actions. (At least most of them do). I actually wasn't aware of that entry when I started the thread. :P Of course, this whole thread is a bait to get 20 pages of "no you didn't" "yes I did" again. :rolleyes: Not exactly, though this is intentionally a debate/discussion thread. So long as people don't start flaming, it's fun to see what everyone has to say. :)
Khadmus 09-12-07, 05:46 PM	[Stuff which Puca argued over, and thus I am not cheering for] "Your actions demonstrate your general moral and ethical attitude, and determines your alignment." There's no contradiction here. That pretty much says it all right there. Argue until your heart's content, but the DMG specifically provides an example of when a change of heart can mean a change of alignment. There are other examples in the DMG as well. It states that moving to neutral involves just a change of heart. It doesn't say it in those exact words, but that's what it means. Even the most ardent supporters of the misuse of the quote "actions determine alignment" admit that changing to neutral doesn't require any actions. (At least most of them do). Of course, this whole thread is a bait to get 20 pages of "no you didn't" "yes I did" again. :rolleyes: Yes. Yes. YES!
Starcloud 09-12-07, 06:14 PM	Another way of putting it: Morals and ethics determine what decisions you make. Your decisions determine what actions you take. Your actions demonstrate what morals and ethics you are holding, but your actions can be at odds with your normally held morals and ethics; this leads to justifications which change your morals and ethics. It's all of one piece, just looking at it from different points in the cycle. Alignment isn't a static object, it's window on a process.
StSteven 09-12-07, 09:14 PM	Another way of putting it: Morals and ethics determine what decisions you make. Your decisions determine what actions you take. Your actions demonstrate what morals and ethics you are holding, but your actions can be at odds with your normally held morals and ethics; this leads to justifications which change your morals and ethics. It's all of one piece, just looking at it from different points in the cycle. Alignment isn't a static object, it's window on a process. That's just perfect.
0bs01337 09-13-07, 01:20 AM	I think that you're forgetting this is magic. By definition, it breaks the rules. The Helm of Opposite Alignment doesn't require actions to dictate the characters alignment because its a magical affect, similar to compulsion or dominate person. That's why a Paladin who accidentally dons a Helm of Opposite Alignment can attone once they get it removed. No I'm not I, I mentioned in my post that it has some openess to interpretation based on one's ideal of magic. You can have magic that breaks the "rules" in the context of how we understand alignment. We should not have magic which breaks the "rules" by which our (imagined) universe runs. One can choose to call the helm an exception. I choose to adopt the model that doesn't need an exception. A quasi-scientific approach to an entirely imagined moral system? This has gotta work.
someonelse812 09-13-07, 03:15 AM	If Mother Theresa suddenly decided to beat and murder a homeless person, her good acts would be overshadowed by the single evil one. Society would start to perceive her as evil. what good acts? Mother Theresa was a sadist dedicated to a death cult. in D&D she would be lawful neutral at best.
xNarrowSoulx 09-13-07, 03:18 AM	Alignment determines actions, actions determine alignment. They are not entities where one rules over the other, they work together to breathe life into the character and make them real. You can't have one without the other, and one can't just simply change [permanently, or at least for the long run, to exclude single acts which don't have an effect on character in the long-term] without affecting the other. If I'm walking down the streets and I decide to pull out a shotgun and blow somebody's head off, that doesn't just mean "I'm evil". It means my character as a whole, past actions and underlying emotion and clockwork, built up to having me perform this action. My character can't just decide to blow somebody's head off. Action has to be made. And that action isn't going to happen (realistically) without some emotion and clockwork behind it, while the emotion and clockwork aren't just going to happen. The actions of myself have built me to where I am. I really hope that was coherent, because it had some merit in my head, but it's 2AM and a bit difficult, and I'm trying to remember an adventure idea for this Tuesday without ruining the life of it by putting it on paper in black and white. Cheers!
Cantankerous 09-13-07, 04:56 AM	Have you even read my posts? I said it time and time again: if alignment would prevent you from taking an action the player says his character would take, it is clear that in a metagame fashion, both DM and player were not right in estimating the character's alignment, and they should admit their mistake and change it. The alignment change on paper happens at the exact same moment as it does under your beliefs, except that the alignment change ingame happened earlier. Alignment prevents characters from doing something, not players. If players want their characters to do something that the alignment doesn't allow the character to do... then you assume that the alignment has changed ingame earlier, allowing the player to have his character do that. But Witch, this is just plain wrong. The DMG lays out that Alignment changes slowly PRECISELY to make it clear that you CAN act in a way that does not dove tail with an Alignment from time to time and still have that Alignment as the correct one. Alignments should not change willy nilly. The DMG is clear on that too, yet this is exactly what you are saying they should do...albeit you want to remove the past, saying they were never that way to begin with. So what then happens when the LG Fighter kills in cold blood, purely for revenge, and then immediately goes back to behaving in an LG manner? Say they were both (the DM and the Player) wrong again and change back? That makes far less sense than admitting that a person, no matter how committed they are to an ideal, CAN lapse and still believe in that ideal. Isshia
Witch 09-13-07, 06:05 AM	Because I never stated that alignment is black and white. I have never made any such claim. I have spoken only of large tendencies, and how extremes affect some things. Murdering innocent children? Vile act, and you need to be evil to do it. Killing someone in cold blood, purely for revenge? Evil, but possible doable by a good person in exceptional cases. The thing is, alignment is still a motivational factor for people, even if sometimes, they lose control.
Cantankerous 09-13-07, 07:29 AM	Sorry, no. How about a killing for general hatred? "It was just an Orc. Orc's killed my brother and uncle. Now I kill theirs, as many of theirs as I can find. It is my long term goal to rid western Cadia of every last motherless one of them." The same character behaves in ALL other fashions as a paragon of Chaotic Good. He is essentially, except for his hatred of orcs, his obsession, the very epitomy of his Alignment. He is free and open and charitable with himself and his time and his resources and has aided, freely, many folk who have lost their homes or possessions in the war simply because it is the right thing to do.. He is merciful and just (if not necessarily law abiding) and a long time foe of slavery and any other type of debasement of the spirit. But... He kills any male orc he can get away with killing without directly violating any laws, and orcs in Cadia don't interact with human society except in extremely aggressive manners, so that means there are no dearth of targets for his hatred. He doesn't kill female orcs, doesn't even like to have to render them unconscious. He tries HARD to avoid them in lairs and in combat situations in which they might become involved. He will even though, without remorse, kill baby orcs in their swaddlings, IF they are male. The problem is that his Evil acts, killing orc babies, as a for instance, are out weighed at least four to one by his EXTREME acts of heroism in the cause of good, and not just for humans, but even ogres and giants have been the recipients of his aid, of his selflessness and tireless zeal, of his optimistic spirit and his humor. Take away that one obsession and he could out CG an Eladrin any day of the week. With Fraedan BloodOath we'd have an alignment change once every couple of sessions with your view of Alignment. Thankfully it is NOT in line with the official one from WotC. Yet it's not a problem of poor role playing, or a lack of understanding of what the alignments state or mean, instead this may be one of the deepest, richest, most WELL ROLE PLAYED characters I've ever had the good fortune to see. Isshia
Khadmus 09-13-07, 07:37 AM	What? I don't quite see how you are interpreting Witch that way. With my interpretation of his ideas (which might not be right), that person is CG. Some of his actions are evilish, but nothing which indicates that the inner soul would have to be CN or CE. Either that or his goodness is a sham.
Cantankerous 09-14-07, 05:22 PM	What? I don't quite see how you are interpreting Witch that way. With my interpretation of his ideas (which might not be right), that person is CG. Some of his actions are evilish, but nothing which indicates that the inner soul would have to be CN or CE. Either that or his goodness is a sham. Where was I getting it from? ...if alignment would prevent you from taking an action the player says his character would take, it is clear that in a metagame fashion, both DM and player were not right in estimating the character's alignment, and they should admit their mistake and change it. underlining mine That was a quote from the Witch's opening salvo on this page. Isshia
StSteven 09-14-07, 06:05 PM	While I don't think that Witch explained it in that post, the general idea I think he was trying to convey there is that there are some actions a good character would not take. To the point that if the character does either the wrong alignment was written down on the sheet or the character changes alignment because of the actions. Vile actions. Actions like eating babies. Not pocketing some loot on the sly, or even outright theft. I think that in this he is right. If a player says that his character is going to sacrifice a virgin to Bane, he is evil. If a vile act like that is performed the character is evil. If he had some lead up to it, or something cathartic happened to him, then the character changes alignment. If there was no lead up with a newer character, then the wrong alignment was written down on the sheet. If this is an act out of character for an established PC without reason, then it's bad role playing but the character is evil. The takeaway here is that some vile actions make a character immediately evil no matter what the reason.
Cantankerous 09-16-07, 10:28 AM	Simply because the action is Evil, or even Vile, does not mean that it can not, or will not ever come up. The Alignment NEVER dictates actions, or restricts you from taking actions...common sense and other factors might, but Alignment in no way DICTATES anything. Isshia
pres_man 09-16-07, 10:53 AM	Simply because the action is Evil, or even Vile, does not mean that it can not, or will not ever come up. The Alignment NEVER dictates actions, or restricts you from taking actions...common sense and other factors might, but Alignment in no way DICTATES anything. Isshia Part of the problem with alignment (or people's problem with it) is it is an in-game and an out-of-game issue. The reason why a player might decide something may be totally different from why the character decides something. For example, let's take a paladin (please ;) ). Now the player of the paladin may use the alignment as a guide to how to act. In the most general sense, alignment => actions. The reason the player does this is because they do not want to lose their deity-granted abilities (yes, I know paladins don't need deities). On the other hand, the paladin character wouldn't think that way most likely. They wouldn't think, "I have to action [X] in order to stay LG so I keep my powers." No, they would think instead, "I will do action [X] because it is the right thing to do." And it would "coincidentally" be the "right" way to act in order to keep his alignment and abilities, actions => alignment. The problem is people mix up these two viewpoints. They say things like, "A paladin decides to do [X] only because he wants to keep his abilities." The kill the innocent baby to save the world is the classic example. The paladin refuses to kill the baby because that would be an evil act, and he would fall. People point to it and say, "See, put his 'abilities' before doing what had to be done." When in fact the player might be thinking that way, but the character would more likely just not be able to fit such an action in his paradigm. Telling a typical paladin they could achieve good by doing evil would make as much sense as telling a typical commoner they could fly by flapping their hands. Such an idea would sound like nonsense to them, because it would go against everything they believed in. So I would say out of game, yes alignment could dicate actions (if the player so chose to do it). In game, actions dicate alignment. As for how "intent" (or whatever word you'd wish to use) figures in, well I personally don't think you can divorce the intent from the action, they are both two sides of the same thing.
StSteven 09-16-07, 04:21 PM	Simply because the action is Evil, or even Vile, does not mean that it can not, or will not ever come up. The Alignment NEVER dictates actions, or restricts you from taking actions...common sense and other factors might, but Alignment in no way DICTATES anything. Isshia I am not saying that. What I am saying is that if one of those vile acts is performed, the character will no longer be good. They can perform the action. Alignment isn't intended to dictate to a player what their character will do. Actions that are performed can dictate the alignment of the character though. The rules don't say that a good character can perform any action and still be good. The DMG section on alignment change indicates that the DM is given the power, even the responsibility, to change the alignment of a character who doesn't act in accordance to the stated alignment. No actions are being prevented, but consequences are being assigned.
Amon_WinterfallIV 09-16-07, 04:37 PM	Well, Vega, I tend to be a believer of 'soft alignments', where you don't have to kill a child in front of their parents to be evil. In such a system, the weakly aligned could probably switch sides with a single, serious act, ie: Jimmy was generally known as a aggressive, thuggish bully. His favorite past time was getting drunk and starting barfights; one occasion, someone died as a result of a bad shot to the head. However, on yesterdays trip to the bar, he passed a burning house; with screams from the inside. Without hesitation, he broke through the door, and ran through the flames. He grabbed a pair of burned Halflings, and jumped through the second story window, breaking a leg on the fall. Jimmy probably just moved from CE to CN in one action; the reverse case is even easier to see. Unfortunately, the more dedicated you were to your former alignment, the harder it is to change your alignment. Darth Vader's killing of Palpatine can not excuse his slaughter of Jedi Younglings. Vader might have crossed over to the light side of the force, but he's still probably evil aligned. If he had atoned for his actions over decades, maybe he'd make it to goodness, but I'd leave Vader as Evil, even as he died. Evil people can still have feelings and show compassion, they just do things that no other alignment can accept. Lastly, an act of surrender is not a alignment changing behavior. If anything, it is a slight move towards lawful.
HamHam 09-16-07, 06:19 PM	If Darth Vader was a dnd character, he would have come back as a Hellborn after dying. It's like the perfect example. On the original question, a single act can change your alignment, even drastically, if coupled with the right circumstances. Essentially, it has to be a "there's no going back" moment.
Cantankerous 09-18-07, 02:57 PM	I am not saying that. What I am saying is that if one of those vile acts is performed, the character will no longer be good. They can perform the action. Alignment isn't intended to dictate to a player what their character will do. Actions that are performed can dictate the alignment of the character though. The rules don't say that a good character can perform any action and still be good. The DMG section on alignment change indicates that the DM is given the power, even the responsibility, to change the alignment of a character who doesn't act in accordance to the stated alignment. No actions are being prevented, but consequences are being assigned. Consequences are entirely the idea, of course, but the thesis that was presented was that a person of Good Alignment "wouldn't" do such a thing in the first place because if they could actively consider doing it, that means they were never Good to begin with and that the Player and DM "made a mistake" by giving the character a "Good" alignment in the first place. THAT is what is being argued. As Pres pointed out, you CAN let your alignment dictate your actions, but that is your own personal choice as a Player, not part of the rule set. Isshia
Laerekh_Jaelre 09-18-07, 04:44 PM	I think it would take some serious circumstances to instantly change alignment like that.
StSteven 09-18-07, 07:05 PM	Consequences are entirely the idea, of course, but the thesis that was presented was that a person of Good Alignment "wouldn't" do such a thing in the first place because if they could actively consider doing it, that means they were never Good to begin with and that the Player and DM "made a mistake" by giving the character a "Good" alignment in the first place. THAT is what is being argued. As Pres pointed out, you CAN let your alignment dictate your actions, but that is your own personal choice as a Player, not part of the rule set. Isshia Well, a good character can't consider doing those vile acts. For it to be an option, then the character is most certainly not good. You can play your game with it OK for good characters to consider doing these acts, but that is just silly. A good person will not ever consider eating a baby. End of story. If they consider it, then they are not good. You can do whatever meta-gaming that you want and say that they change alignment when they commit these actions, or that the player made a mistake, or whatever thing that it is that you need to do to keep to the party line that actions dictate alignment, but that doesn't reflect reality (or even fantasy) very well at all. If you consider eating babies, you are not good. That being said, a bad player of a good character may consider having his character eat babies, but the DM should not allow it unless the alignment is immediately changed to at least neutral and probably evil. This is an example of a bad role player. The good character would never consider the action. The bad player may. The bad player may insist that the good character does the action, but then the character wasn't really good to start with. Either the wrong alignment was written on the sheet, or the character already changed alignments and that change has yet to be manifested in the game or "proven" to the DM. Either way, the character is not good and the good character cannot perform these actions. Witch is just right on this one. Nothing else makes sense. EDIT: To clarify and reconcile this with the alignment change section of the DMG in a totally meta-game fasion: This is the proof to the DM that the character is evil. If the player told the DM that he was changing in alignment to evil, then this is the point at which the alignment is changed. Probably right to evil (we are talking about extremely heinous acts here). If the player didn't make his intentions to change to an evil alignment known either the player was wrong about the alignment, or the character had sudden and dramatic change of heart and then performed an extremely evil action. (Note that those interpretation of the rules are not controversial). The (in-game) alignment change (in a moral outlook kind of way) happens after the sudden and dramatic change of heart, and the (meta-game) proof of that alignment change to the DM is the action. In any case, the alignment on the character sheet changes when this action occurs (meta-game). Also in any case, the character's alignment (in-game) was evil before the evil act occurred. Out of the game (meta-game) the sheet is changed when the act occurs. Without this being an intentional, stated change of alignment by the player or a major anti-epiphany (if there is such a thing) causing the sudden and dramatic change of heart, it's probably bad role playing.
Master_Vega 09-18-07, 08:33 PM	StSteven: By consider, do you mean turn it over in one's head for a long time and actively debate whether or not to do it? Or do you mean giving thought to what might happen, thinking on the possibility but not seriously considering fallowing through with the act? Example (getting away from eating babies. :P) : Is a lawful character who entertains plans of robbing a treasury, only as a mental exercise and not truly an active plan, not lawful anymore? Is the thought, and developing the thought, of stealing enough to determine he is not really lawful? Is a character faced with the sacrifice of a child (here's the baby-eating scenario), or not getting the item critical to his quest automatically not Good for contemplating how he might go about it if the need became serious enough? I've never personally contemplated the latter example, but I can tell you that -as a writer- I have thought up many hypothetical situations and mental exercises of how I would go about certain illegal tasks* (robbing a bank, assassinating a fictional BBEG)... but thinking about them is where I stop. I never plan to actually put these exercises to use, unless you count incorporating them into a story; the mental challenge is simply entertaining to me, like a puzzle, and it is fun to write. If you enjoyed Ocean's Eleven, are you non-lawful? :P * I am by no means condoning any illegal deeds. This is simply a discussion point.
StSteven 09-18-07, 08:58 PM	StSteven: By consider, do you mean turn it over in one's head for a long time and actively debate whether or not to do it? Or do you mean giving thought to what might happen, thinking on the possibility but not seriously considering fallowing through with the act? No, I mean really consider doing it, not thinking of what would happen if you did. When someone says, "I'm going to kill you," they don't mean it...unless they're OJ.:D Example (getting away from eating babies. :P) : Is a lawful character who entertains plans of robbing a treasury, only as a mental exercise and not truly an active plan, not lawful anymore? Is the thought, and developing the thought, of stealing enough to determine he is not really lawful? Those action are not in the realm of what I am talking about. I think that it is possible for a lawful character to rob a treasury to still be lawful. Consider the ever-debated paladin. He would not lose his alignment for robbing the treasury of an LE empire in order to overthrow them. It's not like eating babies or sacrificing virgins. Is a character faced with the sacrifice of a child (here's the baby-eating scenario), or not getting the item critical to his quest automatically not Good for contemplating how he might go about it if the need became serious enough? A good character would not consider the possibility until it became critical for the (much) greater good. They certainly wouldn't play on how to do it before then. A player might (again in a meta-game fashion) but (in-game) a good character would not. That might be an great example of an evil (or on the evil side of neutral) player trying to play a good character. Not really though, I don't mean to imply that thinking of that at the table (where any actions don't really happen and have no real life consequences) makes you evil. I've never personally contemplated the latter example, but I can tell you that -as a writer- I have thought up many hypothetical situations and mental exercises of how I would go about certain illegal tasks* (robbing a bank, assassinating a fictional BBEG)... but thinking about them is where I stop. I never plan to actually put these exercises to use, unless you count incorporating them into a story; the mental challenge is simply entertaining to me, like a puzzle, and it is fun to write. You are only considering how to do something, not whether or not to do it. There is a difference. If you enjoyed Ocean's Eleven, are you non-lawful? :P I liked Ocean's Eleven. I am non-lawful. I don't think the two have anything to do with each other, but I could be wrong. :P * I am by no means condoning any illegal deeds. This is simply a discussion point. Some illegal deeds need condoning, and some points do not need discussion. (Disclaimer to the disclaimer comment: It has nothing to do with anything.)
Vaelan 09-18-07, 11:23 PM	You can play your game with it OK for good characters to consider doing these acts, but that is just silly. Yeah, trying to play characters like actual people rather than simple caricatures that even the most initially one-dimensional storytellling mediums have outgrown is so silly! I would like to direct your attention to a line you must have overlooked in your exhaustive studies of the relevant text... In addition, few people are completely consistent. Hey look, the rules explicitly disagree with you! I almost had to read two whole paragraphs of the PHB's section on alignment to find that section, so I can understand how you could have missed it. :rolleyes:
pres_man 09-19-07, 08:40 AM	I think there is a kind of "classical" character, that of one who is constantly tempt to leave the path of light, but fights against this temptation time and time again. There may even be times where they start to "fall" but pull back at the last moment. So, yes, I think a Good person could seriously contemplate doing evil and still remain as good. Which is the more noble character, the one that is never tempted from the light or the one that turns to light despite being tempted by darkness?
StSteven 09-19-07, 08:53 AM	You are both missing the point. Being inconsistent or fighting to keep from straying from the path have nothing to do with vile acts. Someone who is good most of the time, but then eats babies is evil, just not consistently so. It is stupid to think otherwise. I mean really, you are saying that a good character can eat babies an only be inconsistent. Please. That has got to be the stupidest suggestion that I have read here in a while. Inconsistency is being tempted to steal some gold from the coffer or kill the orc's whole family. You can't take that line to mean that actions don't have consequences on alignment. That's beyond the chaotic stupid justifications. Make a good point and then be sarcastic about it please. Pres-man's point has much more merit, but someone who has to fight to stay on the path by not eating babies is going to be doing non-vile evil acts and is at best neutral. Or crazy. Remember, we are not talking about run of the mill evil actions here. We are talking vile.
pres_man 09-19-07, 09:39 AM	You seem a little hung up on the baby-eating thing. Why is that the "vilest" of acts? Heck look at the description of lizardfolk, who tend to be neutral, they talk about in times of famine they will resort to acts that other species may find intolerable. Might baby-eating fall into that? Perhaps.
StSteven 09-19-07, 09:44 AM	I am hung up on the baby eating because it represents the most vile acts. Virgin sacrifices do it too. I am of the opinion that almost any act, done to survive, is neutral. I didn't want to complicate it though. You could substitute serving a devil if you like. I just mean vile.
wrecan 09-19-07, 12:34 PM	I am hung up on the baby eating because it represents the most vile acts. I might not understand your point, but where is this distinction between evil and vile found in the 3.5 ruleset? Are you saying a good person can contemplate an evil act without risking an alignment shift but not a vile act? How about someone whose actions only barely qualify as good? Can there be someone teetering between CG and CN, who shifts alignment for contemplating an evil (not vile) act? I'm not taking a position on any of this. I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind your distinction between vile and evil, and where you get that from the rules.
Cantankerous 09-19-07, 04:02 PM	Even without the distinction between Evil and Vile, which had bloody well better exist over more than just baby eating anyway, there is still, very clearly stated in the DMG, NOTHING to say that the character wasn't Good in the first place. He might have been played through several levels as a paragon of Good and hey, THAT just plain IS, according to the rule set, the very defintion of the alignment being Good. Then, for whatever reason, example man defiled the temple of Pelor by having his menu du jour include roasted kid in the fane of the holy of holies. Maybe that long drawn out siege he had to endure, watching his own beloved son starve little by little so that when he caught the gripe going around the castle his body was too weak to fight it off, snapped his mind. But it has to work both ways too. So that even an Evil (with a capital E, or maybe, to suit SS here, Vile) bastard who has tortured for fun and murdered gleefully does run in to the burning building when he sees the little boy at the fourth floor window who reminds him of HIS beloved son (as even Evil bastards can love their families) who died in such a fire. Then THAT act, imperiling his own life for another in such a dramatic fashion for only the sake of saving the life, must likewise be able to move an Evil persons alignment. Otherwise, all it's all just a good working definition of hypocracy. People are complex and their reasons and rationals for doing things are more so, but since this is a game the rule set has to be consistent. Isshia
Vaelan 09-19-07, 05:06 PM	Someone who is good most of the time, but then eats babies is evil, just not consistently so. That is your opinion. I could just as easily say that their alignment, which is a representation of their general moral attitudes, reads as Good because, most of the time, they are Good. The baby-eating is the exception. Obviously you disagree because you have assigned a rather ridiculous magnitude to a single tendency. You are well within your rights to, since this is a purely subjective matter. It is stupid to think otherwise. Yeah, I'll let you know when I care about the opinion of a person who denigrates others over that which is purely subjective. I'd say don't hold your breath, but I really wouldn't mind if you were to do so. I mean really, you are saying that a good character can eat babies an only be inconsistent. Please. That has got to be the stupidest suggestion that I have read here in a while. That's nice. Once again, I'll let you know when I care about the opinion of a person who denigrates others over that which is purely subjective. More ranting upon that which is purely subjective. Since you felt that the same inane point beared repeating twice... I'll let you know when I care about the opinion of a person who denigrates others over that which is purely subjective. I might not understand your point, but where is this distinction between evil and vile found in the 3.5 ruleset? There is no such distinction made. The poster in question is just trying to shove his personal beliefs down everyone's throats.
doomblade403x 09-19-07, 06:15 PM	I think alignment is more of a guideline to normal character behavior, than it is the actual rule. Deep down I think even the most good of lawful goods has a little larceny in his heart. Imagine a party capturing several orcs, bu having to move quickly in order to evade an invasion. With prisoners it's impossible. There comes a time when survival and accomplishing mission goals outweighs the alignment. One act to switch and alignment? It would hae to be a dramatically evil act to shift someone from good to evil. Not only that, it would have to be something public, and socially unaccaptable.
StSteven 09-19-07, 06:58 PM	Vaelan: I only condescend after being talked down to. Your post was just as rude as mine. You didn't like it either, did you? Someone would have to be very weak willed to allow a post on the internets to shove an idea down their throats. That, too, is just silly. Wrecan: I only use the term vile because everyone knows what it means. There is no split in the rules between evil and vile. I am using vile to differentiate between the odd evil act that anyone can perform and the vile acts such as human sacrifice, infanticide and the like. Alignment change is at the sole discretion of the DM. Each DM, with the knowledge of his players, makes the call about when an act is evil and when an act is Evil (or vile if you will). It is subjective, but I think that we can all agree that infanticide is vile. You will draw the line where you will. There are very few rules in the core that differentiate between good, evil, and neutral acts. That is subjective as well. What I was trying to do was use the most vile acts that I could think of (without getting offensive) to make the point. That point is that there are some actions that a good character (not the player of a good character) would contemplate doing. If a character would seriously consider infanticide, then they obviously don't have a good general moral outlook. Like I said (in spite of the shoving down throats accusation) you can play like you want, but from a role playing standpoint, having a good character consider vile acts (however you choose to define them) makes no sense. IMO, that is the definition of vile, an act that a good character wouldn't even consider. I realize that it is circular in this instance, but if you use you own moral compass you can figure it out.
wrecan 09-19-07, 07:22 PM	I only use the term vile because everyone knows what it means. I don't know what it means beyond a generic adjective that isn't going to be helpful to me in any way vis-a-vis understanding the rules. In fact, it seems to add an entirely second level of subjective analysis to the already cluttered analysis of what is good and evil. Now I not only have to worry about acts that straddle the fence of good and evil, but acts that straddle the fence of good and exalted and acts that straddle the fence of evil and vile. How is that helpful? I am using vile to differentiate between the odd evil act that anyone can perform and the vile acts such as human sacrifice, infanticide and the like. Alignment change is at the sole discretion of the DM. Each DM, with the knowledge of his players, makes the call about when an act is evil and when an act is Evil (or vile if you will). Well, now it appears your point is merely that the in-game definition of "Evil" need not comport with the DM's out-of-game definition of "evil". With this point, I wholly agree. But then you go on to write: I realize that it is circular in this instance, but if you use you own moral compass you can figure it out. And now it seems like you are saying I should use my own moral compass to determine the difference between Evil and Good. But then I'm applying my real-world beliefs to the in-game system of morality and we just agreed (so I thought) that you need not do that at all. That point is that there are some actions that a good character (not the player of a good character) would contemplate doing. I, personally, could come up with a scenario in which a good character contemplates doing pretty much anything. I'm pretty creative. And, as DM, I'm certainly not going to tell my players of good-aligned characters that they are forbidden from having their characters even contemplate an act (even if they ultimately decide not to act upon it), lest they have an alignment change. To me that smacks of arbitrary and heavy-handed DMing. The party has been told by the high priest of the Good good of divination that a child was born in a village who is in fact the avatar of a demon that almost destroyed the multiverse thirty years ago. It is well-known that at the age of thirteen, the child's soul will be replaced by the demon lord. When last this happened, all efforts to magically stop the transfer were including the use of epic-level magic and an anti-magic field failed. Only the fact that someone killed the child before the transformation is complete stopped the demon from entering. The god of divination has confirmed (several times) that death of the child is the only way to stop the demon. A cult of nihilists is also trying to find the child. Their assassins are skilled and their secretive organization has been nearly impossible to crack. The assassins have been known to slip into even the most well-guarded clerical strongholds, and that is how they stole a copy of the prophecy that would lead to the child. The party is walking to the village, and they know that several children were recently born there. There is no known magical way to discern which child is the demon child. The child is absolutely normal human until the thirteenth birthday. Along the way the party has the following conversation. Cleric: What are we going to do if we cannot figure out which child is the demon child? Wizard: I don't know. Maybe we bring them all back to the church. Rogue: But the assassins are on the way. And they broke into the church before. They could do it again. Fighter: Are you sure there's no way to tell which child is the demon-spawn? Cleric: Absolutely. The child's perfectly normal until he or she turns 13. Maybe we just have to kill them all. Wizard: What? Cleric: I'm just saying, the world was almost destroyed. I don't like it, and maybe we'll find another way, but I think we have to seriously contemplate it. I certainly am. DM: Okay, cleric, you're now an ex-cleric. Cleric: What? DM: Your character was contemplating infanticide and my moral compass says that's a vile act, so you're now non-good and since that sets you two alignment steps from your god, you're an ex-cleric until you atone. Cleric: But I didn't do anything. I was just talking. DM: Doesn't matter. Cleric: Well, my cleric completely changes his mind again. He says he'd never do that! DM: That's too bad. Your cleric is good-aligned again, but the rules say he still needs to atone before he gets his powers back. you can play like you want, but from a role playing standpoint, having a good character consider vile acts (however you choose to define them) makes no sense. It makes sense to me. It's the epitome of a moral struggle. I don't think alignment should change because of a moral struggle alone. I think that's manifestly unfair given that alignment change can have serious mechanical consequences. IMO, that is the definition of vile, an act that a good character wouldn't even consider. I realize that it is circular in this instance, but if you use you own moral compass you can figure it out. I don't even understand why I need to go through this analysis.
StSteven 09-19-07, 08:12 PM	I don't know what it means beyond a generic adjective that isn't going to be helpful to me in any way vis-a-vis understanding the rules. In fact, it seems to add an entirely second level of subjective analysis to the already cluttered analysis of what is good and evil. Now I not only have to worry about acts that straddle the fence of good and evil, but acts that straddle the fence of good and exalted and acts that straddle the fence of evil and vile. How is that helpful? You don't have to worry about it at all. It shouldn't come up. However, if a good character commits an act that will change their alignment, then it has come up and you have to worry about it. It doesn't matter if you thought about it before or not. I think you would agree that there are some actions that change alignment. You must deal with it if it comes up unless you don't enforce alignment. Well, now it appears your point is merely that the in-game definition of "Evil" need not comport with the DM's out-of-game definition of "evil". With this point, I wholly agree. But then you go on to write: I realize that it is circular in this instance, but if you use you own moral compass you can figure it out. And now it seems like you are saying I should use my own moral compass to determine the difference between Evil and Good. But then I'm applying my real-world beliefs to the in-game system of morality and we just agreed (so I thought) that you need not do that at all. I am assuming that one's moral compass can contemplate hypothetical situation in a fantasy setting as well as real life morality. They don't need to be the same to consider them both with the same facilities, so to speak. I, personally, could come up with a scenario in which a good character contemplates doing pretty much anything. I'm pretty creative. And, as DM, I'm certainly not going to tell my players of good-aligned characters that they are forbidden from having their characters even contemplate an act (even if they ultimately decide not to act upon it), lest they have an alignment change. To me that smacks of arbitrary and heavy-handed DMing. The party has been told by the high priest of the Good good of divination that a child was born in a village who is in fact the avatar of a demon that almost destroyed the multiverse thirty years ago. It is well-known that at the age of thirteen, the child's soul will be replaced by the demon lord. When last this happened, all efforts to magically stop the transfer were including the use of epic-level magic and an anti-magic field failed. Only the fact that someone killed the child before the transformation is complete stopped the demon from entering. The god of divination has confirmed (several times) that death of the child is the only way to stop the demon. A cult of nihilists is also trying to find the child. Their assassins are skilled and their secretive organization has been nearly impossible to crack. The assassins have been known to slip into even the most well-guarded clerical strongholds, and that is how they stole a copy of the prophecy that would lead to the child. The party is walking to the village, and they know that several children were recently born there. There is no known magical way to discern which child is the demon child. The child is absolutely normal human until the thirteenth birthday. Along the way the party has the following conversation. Cleric: What are we going to do if we cannot figure out which child is the demon child? Wizard: I don't know. Maybe we bring them all back to the church. Rogue: But the assassins are on the way. And they broke into the church before. They could do it again. Fighter: Are you sure there's no way to tell which child is the demon-spawn? Cleric: Absolutely. The child's perfectly normal until he or she turns 13. Maybe we just have to kill them all. Wizard: What? Cleric: I'm just saying, the world was almost destroyed. I don't like it, and maybe we'll find another way, but I think we have to seriously contemplate it. I certainly am. DM: Okay, cleric, you're now an ex-cleric. Cleric: What? DM: Your character was contemplating infanticide and my moral compass says that's a vile act, so you're now non-good and since that sets you two alignment steps from your god, you're an ex-cleric until you atone. Cleric: But I didn't do anything. I was just talking. DM: Doesn't matter. Cleric: Well, my cleric completely changes his mind again. He says he'd never do that! DM: That's too bad. Your cleric is good-aligned again, but the rules say he still needs to atone before he gets his powers back. I would not consider that a vile act. Sure it's evil, but they aren't paladin's. They could do it without changing alignment probably, and they could definitely think about it. I guess now I know why I was stuck on eating babies and sacrificing virgins, but then, you could come up with a reason to do that too. It makes sense to me. It's the epitome of a moral struggle. I don't think alignment should change because of a moral struggle alone. I think that's manifestly unfair given that alignment change can have serious mechanical consequences. The point is that the moral struggle wouldn't happen. The good character wouldn't consider doing some things, IMO. The player may contemplate it, but they are doing so with meta-game information as someone who is playing the character. They will decide if they want to go in that direction with the role playing of the character with the in-game consequences in mind. When they decide that they don't want to go that way, then the in-game fantasy is that the character was good, not having a anti-epiphany, and not crazy, so they never really considered it. I don't even understand why I need to go through this analysis. If you mean analyzing what a good character can and can't consider doing, you don't. It is a fine point that has no in-game consequences. It is a way of playing characters that makes sense. When the DMG says prove it, it's telling a player to prove that the character has a new alignment. The alignment changes on paper when the DM sees proof of the change in action. The whole way that that is phrased implies that the in-game change has already occurred. If you mean deciding if an action is evil enough to cause an alignment change, you will have to do that when a character does something so against her alignment, without some great mitigating circumstances that a change might be needed.
calronmoonflower 09-20-07, 03:12 AM	Thinking about doing an evil act shouldn't an evil act in and of itself. If it did a Phylactery of Faithfulness would be useless because the moment that you use it to decide not to do an evil act you would have done evil because you thought of doing that act. On the other top if you eat babies, and otherwise act in accordance with the good alignment you should really be evil. Alignment represents your morality or lack there of. In this case you are immoral as you do not respect innocent life and even destroy innocent life for whatever motive that you have. On another note. Why does eating babies repeated come up in in relation to paladins?
wrecan 09-20-07, 08:48 AM	However, if a good character commits an act that will change their alignment, then it has come up and you have to worry about it. Right, but then we're discussing the act, not the contemplation. I am assuming that one's moral compass can contemplate hypothetical situation in a fantasy setting as well as real life morality. Ah, okay. We're using different defitions of "moral compass." No problem. I understand your point now. Sure it's evil, but they aren't paladin's. Well, if you replace "cleric" with "paladin" in my hypothetical, would he fall? The party has been told by the high priest of the Good good of divination that a child was born in a village who is in fact the avatar of a demon that almost destroyed the multiverse thirty years ago. It is well-known that at the age of thirteen, the child's soul will be replaced by the demon lord. When last this happened, all efforts to magically stop the transfer were including the use of epic-level magic and an anti-magic field failed. Only the fact that someone killed the child before the transformation is complete stopped the demon from entering. The god of divination has confirmed (several times) that death of the child is the only way to stop the demon. A cult of nihilists is also trying to find the child. Their assassins are skilled and their secretive organization has been nearly impossible to crack. The assassins have been known to slip into even the most well-guarded clerical strongholds, and that is how they stole a copy of the prophecy that would lead to the child. The party is walking to the village, and they know that several children were recently born there. There is no known magical way to discern which child is the demon child. The child is absolutely normal human until the thirteenth birthday. Along the way the party has the following conversation. Paladin: What are we going to do if we cannot figure out which child is the demon child? Wizard: I don't know. Maybe we bring them all back to the church. Rogue: But the assassins are on the way. And they broke into the church before. They could do it again. Fighter: Are you sure there's no way to tell which child is the demon-spawn? Paladin: Absolutely. The child's perfectly normal until he or she turns 13. Maybe we just have to kill them all. Wizard: What? Paladin: I'm just saying, the world was almost destroyed. I don't like it, and maybe we'll find another way, but I think we have to seriously contemplate it. I certainly am. DM: Okay, paladin, you're now an ex-paladin. Paladin: What? DM: Your character was contemplating infanticide and my moral compass says that's a vile act, so you've now committed an evil act, so you're an ex-paladin until you atone. Paladin: But I didn't do anything. I was just talking. DM: Doesn't matter. Paladin: Well, my paladin completely changes his mind again. He says he'd never do that! DM: That's too bad. The rules say he still needs to atone before he gets his powers back. but then, you could come up with a reason to do that too. Probably. That's why I don't like hard generalization of alignment consequences coming from mere contemplation. The point is that the moral struggle wouldn't happen. Why not? If you mean analyzing what a good character can and can't consider doing, you don't. It is a fine point that has no in-game consequences. That what's the point of this exercise?
StSteven 09-20-07, 01:25 PM	No, I don't think that the cleric would fall, and the purpose is entertainment. As I have said time and time again, I have never had an alignment problem in any game I have played. The only time it comes up is on these boards. I have never taken any of the alignment discussions to any game I have played. It just doesn't come up. So, you could ask, what is the point of any of these alignment discussions? The answer for me is nothing. It is just a fine point of what it is to be good. I just think that a truly good character would not consider some courses of action. And Calimoonflower, I am not saying that thinking of doing an evil act makes you evil. What I am saying is that if you think of doing some acts (vile, baby eating acts) that you really are not good to begin with. I would never force an alignment change on a player because he considered having his character do something vile. Just that, if the character were actually good, the character wouldn't seriously consider doing it.
ravenshrike 09-20-07, 01:43 PM	So you would say that a paladin that considers slaughtering little children for fun a viable possibility, but can't find any little children for some time being, is Lawful Good still? You would argue that Anakin wasn't evil until the exact time he actually killed the poor young ones? Unless, of course, you consider the fact that it most certainly was evil to let mace die, etc.. etc.. It depends, would you consider Ghost to be CE because of his impulses or CG because of his actions? http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/11-UntotheBreachCD/ Download the CD, read the books, and get back to me. @StSteven, same thing.
Cantankerous 09-20-07, 02:37 PM	Hey, is it just me, or is someone missing the point of the word, "act"? For an act to be Evil it has to be, you know, an act on the first place. Thoughts are not actions. This is the rule set we are talking about here, not the splitting of personal theosophical, philosophical or moral hairs. Considering an action that is utterly and totally antithetical to anything the person would do normally can very easily become an automatic for a present or former soldier, or cop, or any other person who has actually ever put their fragile self between harm and that which they love. It's the very nature of the beast. The "Good" comes about in not ACTING on those considerations, even when they do represent what is easier or even just more sure. THAT is the real difference between Good and Evil, the way you act, not what you think. I submit that anyone who is so completely sure of their own moral compass that they can actually assign consideration of an act as being equal to the act itself, has never been in a sufficiently tense situation to make the distinction. Isshia
wrecan 09-20-07, 03:05 PM	Hey, is it just me, or is someone missing the point of the word, "act"? IO totally agree. The problem comes because people take one of the hypotheticals on DMG p.134 to mean that an alignment change can come from a "change of heart" alone. And the example does seem to indicate that a person can go from evil to good just be change of heart. Sort of like when the Grinch hears all the Whos in Whoville singing after he stole their Christmas: And what happened then...? Well...in Who-ville they say That the Grinch's small heart Grew three sizes that day! And the minute his heart didn't feel quite so tight, He whizzed with his load through the bright morning light And he brought back the toys! And the food for the feast! And he... ...HE HIMSELF...! The Grinch carved the roast beast! It certainly appears the Grinch's alignment changed before he took any action. All he did was listen. Of course, the Grinch Who Stole Christmas is not a D&D scenario, but I believe this is the general idea.
Cantankerous 09-20-07, 03:44 PM	There's the thing though...until he acted on it, it was all just mental masturba.tion. Isshia
StSteven 09-20-07, 04:31 PM	There's the thing though...until he acted on it, it was all just mental masturba.tion. Isshia Until he acted on it, it wasn't proven to the DM in Whoville, so the alignment on the sheet didn't change. :P
wrecan 09-20-07, 05:42 PM	Until he acted on it, it wasn't proven to the DM in Whoville, so the alignment on the sheet didn't change. :P Um... so actions are required? Also, on the topic of what people might contemplate, if there's anything that the Grinch would not contemplate, it would be returning the gifts. And yet he did. These are "epiphanies" and they can be good and bad. The paladin who cracks and decides to massacre a village of orc children after seeing orc marauders kill his saintly mother The evil thief who repents when the priest whose home he burgles gives him his only valuables. The lawman who decides to become a vigilante when corrupt officials allow the unrepentant murderer of his only child go free. The anarchist who gets married and settles down for the love of a woman. I really hate the idea that there are ideas a person of any alignment would never contemplate. I think circumstances dictate the actions and actions dictate the alignment.
DMCuindless 09-20-07, 06:58 PM	Um... so actions are required? Also, on the topic of what people might contemplate, if there's anything that the Grinch would not contemplate, it would be returning the gifts. And yet he did. These are "epiphanies" and they can be good and bad. The paladin who cracks and decides to massacre a village of orc children after seeing orc marauders kill his saintly mother The evil thief who repents when the priest whose home he burgles gives him his only valuables. The lawman who decides to become a vigilante when corrupt officials allow the unrepentant murderer of his only child go free. The anarchist who gets married and settles down for the love of a woman. I really hate the idea that there are ideas a person of any alignment would never contemplate. I think circumstances dictate the actions and actions dictate the alignment. Precisely what my much earlier post about the Paladin and the Ranger said. Thoughts don't make alignment because they're just thoughts. They have no affect on the game world in any direction. Only actions really matter.
Thubby 09-20-07, 08:09 PM	Precisely what my much earlier post about the Paladin and the Ranger said. Thoughts don't make alignment because they're just thoughts. They have no affect on the game world in any direction. Only actions really matter. i disagree. thoughts go far beyond the contemplation of action. intent, views on the actions of others, and about a thousand other things make a person who they are. and i think that has a lot to do with alignment.
Callista 09-20-07, 08:58 PM	All those "changes of heart" from Evil to Good... I wouldn't change the alignment right away unless the character actually made the decision to do Good despite great personal sacrifice--Vader is a good example. A simple Good act--saving somebody, for example--is something Evil people can do without changing alignment. But an Exalted Good act could change them permanently. Same goes for Good to Evil. A single Evil act couldn't do it... but a Vile-Evil act could. Torturing an innocent... Corrupting someone to evil... Genocide... mass slaughter... That sort of thing. Chances are, though, that in both cases, there will have been glimmerings of the potential to do something very Good or very Evil. Vader again: He had the example of Obi-Wan and Luke to rely on; both of those people showed him what Good meant. And a Good guy who snaps and murders innocents has probably been fighting against anger and hatred inside himself for a long time before he finally gives in.
Stafir Ortnev 09-20-07, 10:22 PM	And here I am to add in my two cents..I didn't read the whole thread so hopefully I'm not repeating what someone else said completely (though I read some comments that indicated more than a few will at least agree with me). Does a character who has a Change of Heart equal an instant Alignment Change? In order to answer that question you need to understand alignment, how it affects the world, etc. Since things are so..vague..at times it is best if I just put it in. Alignment is a short Black or White look at a characters personality. It is simplified, it allows for very little in the way of greys, and finally it is absolute. The trick is, it is a current look at the character and not a lifetime look at the character. To this end Alignment itself dosn't take actions into count, it takes the character mind, their thoughts, their compulsions, how they feel, etc and then applies a label to that. That is how I've always viewed alignment, under this viewing the answer becomes clear. The moment a character has a true change of heart, and they decide they will be acting this new way, they will turn over their new leaf and not waver from this path, and it is an absolute decision that will not falter. Alignment will immediately say they are their new alignment, as it looks at the characters personality, which has at that point in time radically changed. So yeah that would be my answer, yes it is instant alignment change..except. How are you, as a DM, supposed to know this is true? You can't see into the characters head, and you can't see into their players head. The only thing you have is your players word..which may be good enough, you might trust them. But what if they just got sick of the penalties for being Alignment X, change it long enough to get around it, then go right back to acting normal. And that was the plan all along. You as a DM don't know that, and it would be close to impossible to ever know the truth until after its happened. Because of that DnD uses the idea of gradual shift..prove the change of heart, then it shall be recorded. So that is my answer. Under all rights and the ideal thought on alignment, a change of heart will instantly change alignment. However due to human nature, it is best if a DM requires the character to prove that change of heart (gradual change).
Maerlyn 09-20-07, 10:41 PM	Well it does say something like the thought of returning to the old alignment fills them with revulsion. to be specific it says "only a wish or a miracle can restore the former alignment" So I would base that to mean the character would be straitjacketed by the new alignment until one of the former could be obtained. I forgot about the slaughter of the Tuskens in Attack of the Clones. That changes his "starting" alignment for Revenge from Lawful Good to Lawful Neutral. Also, it might not have been clear, but I feel that Anakin became evil when he chopped off Mace Windu's hands; if Anakin had simply interposed his saber blade when Mace struck, that would have accomplished his goal of "save Palpatine's life" without committing an evil act. Even so, Anakin wasn't Vader quite yet... it took the attack on the Temple to drive him deep into the Dark Side (which is supernatural evil, as it were) and confirm him as Lord Vader. In any case, there's no doubt in my mind that a single evil act is not sufficient to move a character from being a paragon of Lawful Good to being the foulest example of demonic behavior ever to roam on two legs. Just keep in mind that multiple acts of evil can be committed in a single incident. Imagine, if you will, a righteous paladin who is chasing a necromancer through the narrow winding corridors of an orphanage. The necromancer keeps taking kids hostage and putting them in peril. Eventually, the paladin kills one of the orphans, truly by accident, and loses his powers. Instead of acknowledging this and continuing to act in a lawful good fashion, the ex-paladin starts "justifying". First he ignores one in peril, which is not really an evil act. Then he slaps one aside, again, not evil but starting to become questionable. When the necromancer drops a mass charm on some of the tykes and orders them to impede the ex-paladin, the ex-paladin starts deliberately harming a few of them to 'encourage' them to get out of his way, causing a couple of them to go to negative hit points and eventually die. He justifies this by saying "I'll bandage them up, later." He could have used diplomacy to mitigate the effects of the charm, but he didn't want to take the time... At the end, the necromancer is cornered and has one last hostage. In order to kill the necromancer, the ex-paladin deliberately runs the hostage through in order to impale the necromancer on his blade. At what point did the ex-paladin become evil? Does it matter? Throughout the scene the ex-paladin has shown a frighteningly rapid descent from good to evil, without once really stopping to think about what he's doing. The seeds and tendency toward evil may be long term and rooted in the character's motivations, but the acts are what define the character's actual alignment. In that example I, as a DM, would not have dropped the paladin at the point of "The necromancer keeps taking kids hostage and putting them in peril. Eventually, the paladin kills one of the orphans, truly by accident, and loses his powers." because that was not an intentional act. Now if he continued in the rest of the form described then yes he would become an ex paladin.
Cantankerous 09-21-07, 09:21 AM	i disagree. thoughts go far beyond the contemplation of action. intent, views on the actions of others, and about a thousand other things make a person who they are. and i think that has a lot to do with alignment. We're talking about a rule set here. Thoughts do NOT mean squat in a rule set until YOU as the DM actually CAN read the minds of the Players to tell whether or not it goes beyond contemplation to active planning. You simply can not react to thoughts as a DM... unless you're really psychic... or psycho. ;) Isshia
Cantankerous 09-21-07, 09:57 AM	All those "changes of heart" from Evil to Good... I wouldn't change the alignment right away unless the character actually made the decision to do Good despite great personal sacrifice--Vader is a good example. A simple Good act--saving somebody, for example--is something Evil people can do without changing alignment. But an Exalted Good act could change them permanently. Same goes for Good to Evil. A single Evil act couldn't do it... but a Vile-Evil act could. Torturing an innocent... Corrupting someone to evil... Genocide... mass slaughter... That sort of thing. Chances are, though, that in both cases, there will have been glimmerings of the potential to do something very Good or very Evil. Vader again: He had the example of Obi-Wan and Luke to rely on; both of those people showed him what Good meant. And a Good guy who snaps and murders innocents has probably been fighting against anger and hatred inside himself for a long time before he finally gives in. You don't change the alignment from Evil to Good, but to Neutral. There has to be consistency. Saving someone for no gain, at great personal risk of life and limb, is as powerful a Good action as eating babies is an Evil one. Degrading great heroism because it isn't enough to save the universe is silly. Neither is eating a baby a Vile enough act to damn a universe. Consistency MUST be maintained or the rule set is ineffective. Isshia
Thubby 09-21-07, 12:20 PM	We're talking about a rule set here. Thoughts do NOT mean squat in a rule set until YOU as the DM actually CAN read the minds of the Players to tell whether or not it goes beyond contemplation to active planning. You simply can not react to thoughts as a DM... unless you're really psychic... or psycho. ;) Isshia you dont need to read the player's mind, you need to read the character's mind. and thats as easy as asking "why would he do xyz" or "what are you thinking?" directed at the character's player. obviously even that has limitations, but it can be surprisingly helpful.
DMCuindless 09-21-07, 12:43 PM	i disagree. thoughts go far beyond the contemplation of action. intent, views on the actions of others, and about a thousand other things make a person who they are. and i think that has a lot to do with alignment. So, by your mentality, the paladin I sited in the example above isn't good at all because she struggles with dark thoughts, while the ranger is perfectly good in alignment because he has pure intentions in his mind?
Cantankerous 09-21-07, 12:53 PM	you dont need to read the player's mind, you need to read the character's mind. and thats as easy as asking "why would he do xyz" or "what are you thinking?" directed at the character's player. obviously even that has limitations, but it can be surprisingly helpful. No, it's not that easy. Often you'll get the reply, "I'm not really sure, it seemed like a good idea at the time." Of course it did. This is a game after all and anyone who can really honestly say that there is no difference in action between what your characters do and what a "real person" might do in any given situation is rare enough, to say that you understand, completely, the thought processes thereof is ludicrous. And even in that situation it's counter productive, because the rule set is NOT predicated on thoughts, and states it VERY clearly. The following is a direct quote from the 3.5 Dungeon Masters Guide, pg.134 Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players. THAT can not be made any clearer. NOT statements of intent. THEY; those statements, are "not" how alignment is supposed to be judged. Neh? Isshia
DMCuindless 09-21-07, 12:58 PM	Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players. Where did you get this quote?
wrecan 09-21-07, 01:20 PM	Page 134 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. It is, in fact, a direct quote.
DMCuindless 09-21-07, 01:32 PM	Page 134 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. It is, in fact, a direct quote. Excellent. I guess this pretty much nips this whole argument in the proverbial bud (five pages later). It has been stated now that actions dictate alignment and that statements of intent, et cetera, mean nothing. Unless it's a DM house rule, the Core Rules state that this is how alignment works.
StSteven 09-21-07, 01:57 PM	It is a direct quote in a section that only deal with players changing the alignment of their characters. To say that it is the be all and end all of alignment is wrong, especially since it contradicts the primary source for alignment. It is not how the core says alignment work, it is how the core states that the DM should handle players changing alignment. In the same section it states a change of heart can lead to an alignment change. So for the topic of this thread, yes, the DMG explicitly states that a change of heart can be enough for the alignment change. I believe that this was pointed out around page 2.
wrecan 09-21-07, 02:28 PM	Ironically, the "change of heart" anecdote and the statement "actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players" are both found on DMG p.134, both found in the section on players changing alignment. Thank God 4th edition presents an opportunity to finally throw this crap out.
pres_man 09-21-07, 03:00 PM	Also the change of heart is stated under the exception discussion. If it is an exception, than what is it an exception to?
Cantankerous 09-21-07, 03:09 PM	Nice try SS, but no. The change of heart "exception" does in no way state that the actual change is not predicated on an action. Since we have the rule being "action"..."NOT intent", the "immediately becomes Neutral Good" line does not state that this is accomplished without an action that "prove"s it. It merely states that, theoretically, it COULD occur that a truly Neutral Evil villian has a change of heart that immediately changes his alignment to Neutral Good. It does NOT state the converse of the given rule, that all this comes about over ACTIONS. ie: Good ol' Example Man, aka Darth (I'm a self absorbed and murderous cretin except at the very end) Vader Yea gods. I suddenly feel like Rabbi Asher codifying Rabbinic Law. Isshia
trapspringer 09-21-07, 03:38 PM	Actions are an expression of thought (the only measurable expression, really). Anyway... Certain acts are so evil that committing them intentionally makes you evil. Stuff like killing an innocent in some kind of horrible way. Unfortunately the equal-but-opposite action is to die in some horrible way to save an innocent. Most players won't get the opportunity to have their alignment changed, what with the whole "dead" thing goin' on.
Cantankerous 09-21-07, 03:44 PM	Actions are an expression of thought (the only measurable expression, really). Anyway... Certain acts are so evil that committing them intentionally makes you evil. Stuff like killing an innocent in some kind of horrible way. Unfortunately the equal-but-opposite action is to die in some horrible way to save an innocent. Most players won't get the opportunity to have their alignment changed, what with the whole "dead" thing goin' on. Not true. It isn't dying in that way that is equal but opposite. Putting yourself in a position that it is likely to happen, or even just not unlikely to happen, is enough. Otherwise you destroy the possibility of an Evil character ever really changing his alignment and that is plain counter productive to the game. Again GAME. All this is "game mechanics", not Philosophy 101. Here actions are not an expression of thought, they are part of a rule set. Isshia
DMCuindless 09-21-07, 03:52 PM	Actions are an expression of thought (the only measurable expression, really). Anyway... Certain acts are so evil that committing them intentionally makes you evil. Stuff like killing an innocent in some kind of horrible way. Unfortunately the equal-but-opposite action is to die in some horrible way to save an innocent. Most players won't get the opportunity to have their alignment changed, what with the whole "dead" thing goin' on. Also, actions aren't necessarily an expression of thought. Take the two examples I stated above where action and thought weren't representative of one another at all. Also take the idea of addiction and compulsion into account. Heck, take any circumstance in which somebody performs an action without thinking about it. It would be nice if all actions were the logical extent of thoughts, but that just isn't so.
StSteven 09-21-07, 05:33 PM	Nice try, but no. The question in this thread is can a change of heart result in an alignment change. The answer, according to DMG p 134 is unequivocally yes. The NPC is so moved that he repents, casting aside his own evil ways (and his mission). He becomes chaotic neutral, but he is well on to becoming chaotic good. That is an immediate change of alignment from evil to neutral due to an epiphany. It isn't attached to actions. You're in control: You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says, "My neutral good character becomes chaotic good," the appropriate response from you is "Prove it." Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players. This is here in it's entirety so the entire context can be seen, not the misleading snippet. What it says is that you are in charge of alignment changes. The player's can't tell you that they are now evil. You are the one that decides that. As DM, you have two ways to judge your players PC. You can listen to the players tell you what their characters are thinking, and you can judge their actions. Since letting your players tell you their alignment or letting them convince you that their motivation was X for action Y, so their alignment should be Z can lead to abuse by the players, the DM should judge the alignment changes of a character on the actions they perform. Claiming that the snippet "actions dictate alignment" is a general, across the board definition of the whole alignment system ignores the fact that nowhere else in any of the core books is it mentioned that actions dictate alignment. Using that snippet as what determines alignment, exclusively in all situations with no exceptions is clearly over-reaching. It also ignores the fact that the general application of the statement across the board is a direct contradiction with the PHB definition of alignment. By the primary sources rule the PHB is the ruling source for this. Changes in alignment should not be dramatic. Usually, a character changes alignment only on step at a time... Changing alignment usually takes time. Changes of heart are rarely sudden (although they can be). I just quote these passages to point out the use of the words should and usually. Also, the changes of heart statement that basically says that they can be sudden is also clearly relevant to the thread. Exceptions: There are exceptions to all of the above. For instance, it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good. And the granddaddy of them all, the specific example for the exceptions states that it is possible for a change of heart to be sudden and dramatic and immediately result in a drastic change in alignment without any actions being mentioned. So the thread is really easy to answer with lots of back-up in the affirmative. The only bit of text that is used to say that a change of heart cannot result in an alignment change is 3 words taken out of 1 sentence in a paragraph that is only applicable to players changing character's alignment. It is also above the section on exceptions and is clearly intended to be a target of the example for the exceptions by the virtue that the amount of time between the change of heart and the alignment change is defined as immediate, which leaves no time for action. Even if you misinterpret that passage to allow the possibility of an action, the thread question is still answered in the affirmative. Basically, you can ignore any part of this post you don't agree with and still have an answer in the affirmative, unless you throw out all of the core except what you like (which is fine for your game).
lulzapalooza 09-21-07, 05:46 PM	Does anybody else think darth vadors change of heart seemed mechanical and out of character?
Thubby 09-21-07, 06:57 PM	So, by your mentality, the paladin I sited in the example above isn't good at all because she struggles with dark thoughts, while the ranger is perfectly good in alignment because he has pure intentions in his mind? nope, an evil thought isnt "i could kill the village and end the plague" its "i should kill this village and end the plague" (to take an example from warcraft3) and being ok with it. pure intentions aren't pure when you intend to do something evil. to accept evil (conciously or not) is evil. its not having the thought, its accepting it. your paladin rejects the evil ideas conciously, the ranger accepts them subconciously. after all, action is only a product of the mind.
StSteven 09-21-07, 07:38 PM	nope, an evil thought isnt "i could kill the village and end the plague" its "i should kill this village and end the plague" (to take an example from warcraft3) and being ok with it. pure intentions aren't pure when you intend to do something evil. to accept evil (conciously or not) is evil. its not having the thought, its accepting it. your paladin rejects the evil ideas conciously, the ranger accepts them subconciously. after all, action is only a product of the mind. QFT
calronmoonflower 09-22-07, 03:36 PM	And the granddaddy of them all, the specific example for the exceptions states that it is possible for a change of heart to be sudden and dramatic and immediately result in a drastic change in alignment without any actions being mentioned. 1. That passage is too vague to really conclude that actions are or are not part of the change. As mentioned before Darth Vader managed a sudden and dramatic change of heart with an action. 2. As it is a Exception saying that it is the rule is itself contradictory. The premise of this argument contradicts the conclusion. 3. Actions are mentioned else where or the lack of specific affecting alignment. What is more it in in the Player's Handbook. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. So the thread is really easy to answer with lots of back-up in the affirmative. The only bit of text that is used to say that a change of heart cannot result in an alignment change is 3 words taken out of 1 sentence in a paragraph that is only applicable to players changing character's alignment. I have based the same argument on more that just that. most if it was based on the Player's Handbook. It is also above the section on exceptions and is clearly intended to be a target of the example for the exceptions by the virtue that the amount of time between the change of heart and the alignment change is defined as immediate, which leaves no time for action. Where does it say that? This opinion is based on a lack of evidence and thus is not a valid argument. Even if you misinterpret that passage to allow the possibility of an action, You cannot conclude on way or the other from that passage. Either way the argument would be based on lack of evidence and thus be invalid. the thread question is still answered in the affirmative. Yes it has. The passage says "all the above" that does include "Action determine alignment, not statements of intent by players." Basically, you can ignore any part of this post *ignores rest of post* :P I've though on this a bit and decided to try to prove my statement that actions are necessary for a good/evil alignment other as that would prove being good and evil without action wrong. From the SRD People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Compunctions means a pricking of conscience, a slight regret (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/compunction) Doing evil deeds and regretting it is still evil so "a pricking of conscience" is not the definition that we should use. Regret means To feel sorry about some past thing, wishing it had not happened, but something else instead. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regret) As you do not have to be a sociopath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath) to be evil then we can conclude that compunctions is referring to the consequences of being caught instead of how you felt about the act itself. Additional support, from the SRD Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. All these are actions. It defines what it is to be good/evil so if you do not do so you are not good/evil. From the Dungeon Master's Guide, page 134 Action dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players. Is the second part refining the first part or clarifying that players are subject to this as well? I think that it could be either one. But as rules for player normal apply to NPCs as well, it doesn't really matter. I'll try to prove that as well, from the Dungeon Master's Guide page 103 In short , the rest of the world doesn't know that PCs are, in fact, player characters. It treats them no differently from anyone else, giving them no special breaks (or special penalties), and gives them no special attention. Intent is needed as well. From the SRD Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral Because you need to be capable of morality then action alone isn't enough. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies So personality plays a part. This however doesn't mean that action isn't also necessary. To assume because all parts of the alignment section of text do not refer to action then if is not necessary is a Fallacy of composition. Example of a Fallacy of composition Atoms are not visible to the naked eye Humans are made up of atoms Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye Exceptions: A creature with a always alignment is born with the alignment. It requires neither intent or action to make it that way. Magical transformation can cause an alignment shift without either action or intent. The Dungeon Master's Guide states that there are rares exceptions. Because an exception cannot exist without a rule to make an exception to then it shows that actions are needed is a rule even if not explicitly stated. So in conclusion both action and intent are necessary for a good/evil alignment. Each are listed necessary in some part of the text. Because every statement doesn't list both doesn't mean that they are unnecessary. It's important to note that you can become neutral on the good/evil axis just by a "change of heart". Good/Evil still require action even with this.
StSteven 09-22-07, 04:09 PM	Yes it has. The passage says "all the above" that does include "Action determine alignment, not statements of intent by players." So that is a really long argumentative post just to agree with me.:P People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. That passage from the PHB says nothing about actions. It is saying that they have compunctions but lack commitment. Those are thoughts and motivations. They are thoughts and motivations about actions, but it doesn't say that neutral characters will not kill and will not help others. It says that they have compunctions against killing and lack a commitment to help others. Clearly the characters may kill or selflessly help others and still be neutral. We also know that people who sometimes kill selfishly and sometimes selflessly help other are neutral as well according to DMG p.134, so it is obviously true that people who have compunctions against killing others can kill others anyway, and people who lack a commitment to help others can help others anyway. They just feel bad about the killing and indifferent to the altruistic actions. After all, alignment isn't a straight jacket. So again, the phrase actions dictate alignment is only stated once in the core and then in a very specific passage that isn't generally applicable.
calronmoonflower 09-22-07, 05:04 PM	So that is a really long argumentative post just to agree with me. :P I agree with one of your points not all of them. :bigeyes: People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Those are thoughts and motivations. "killing the innocent" = evil action "sacrifices to protect or help others" = good action Motivations do play a big part in alignment, but action do as well. Strange as it seems good "thoughts and motivations" can lead to a evil alignment. This is generally refereed to as Fallen Paladin Syndrome. Example: Helping one person is good, so helping many people must be better. This is called the greater good. Sometimes the needs of one person can conflict with the needs of many. In that case the one is deemed to be less than others. Thus the one is debased in the name of the greater good. Sometimes the existence of one can conflict with the needs of the many. In this case to the greater good is served by ending the existence of the one. Thus kill in one in the name of the greater good. If the one in either case falls under description of "innocent" then you have debased or killed the innocent in the name of the greater good (profit). Thus evil is done in the name of good.
StSteven 09-22-07, 06:07 PM	There was only one point to the post. That a change of heart can lead to a change in alignment. That was the one and only point to the whole post. You can disagree with some of the arguments, I said you could ignore those and the answer to the OP is still yes. You then ignored the whole point of the post an used a bad retread post as a reply. That is just arguing to hear yourself type (or, even worse, copy and paste). Killing is not the same as compunctions against killing. Helping others is not the same as commitment to help others. You guys first take "actions dictate alignment" as 3 words from a sentence as the basis of your arguments, then you start taking 3 words here 1 word there and remove all context to support your arguments. If the whole sentence in context with the paragraph doesn't support your argument, then you shouldn't pick out 1 or 2 or 3 words out of context that support your argument. The sentence that you quoted does not say that someone who doesn't kill anyone and doesn't help anyone is neutral. It also doesn't say that a neutral person doesn't kill anyone and doesn't help anyone. It says that a neutral person feels bad about killing people but doesn't care to help those in need. It says nothing about what actions are taken by neutral people. It talks about how they feel about some actions.
DMCuindless 09-22-07, 10:54 PM	There was only one point to the post. That a change of heart can lead to a change in alignment. That was the one and only point to the whole post. You can disagree with some of the arguments, I said you could ignore those and the answer to the OP is still yes. You then ignored the whole point of the post an used a bad retread post as a reply. That is just arguing to hear yourself type (or, even worse, copy and paste). Killing is not the same as compunctions against killing. Helping others is not the same as commitment to help others. You guys first take "actions dictate alignment" as 3 words from a sentence as the basis of your arguments, then you start taking 3 words here 1 word there and remove all context to support your arguments. If the whole sentence in context with the paragraph doesn't support your argument, then you shouldn't pick out 1 or 2 or 3 words out of context that support your argument. The sentence that you quoted does not say that someone who doesn't kill anyone and doesn't help anyone is neutral. It also doesn't say that a neutral person doesn't kill anyone and doesn't help anyone. It says that a neutral person feels bad about killing people but doesn't care to help those in need. It says nothing about what actions are taken by neutral people. It talks about how they feel about some actions. First, I dislike being lumped into "you guys". Second, did you read my post regarding the LG paladin versus the CG ranger? In that, I think I clearly dictate why thoughts alone should never determine alignment. I think it is very clear that the statement in the DMG wherein it says that a change of heart can equal an alignment change was placed solely so that the attone spell could work on NPCs to convert them to good alignments. When it comes to players, though, a DM should take careful note of their actions and not statements of intent. To give another example. You're DMing a game which has as a primary PC a CE Barbarian who rejoices in the slaughter of innocents simply to feel their blood spray against his face. One day, whilst wading through an abattoir that was once an orphanage, you place a 6 year old girl with whispy blonde hair in his path. The player looks at you and say, "Okay, my character has a change of heart. He's not evil anymore. He's going to adopt this young girl and raise her in the traditions of his people." That's all well and good, but the question remains, does he still slaughter innocent people? In this case, actions are still dictating alignment. Just because he says, "I have a change of heart, I'm not evil anymore," doesn't mean that the character really isn't evil. With NPCs, though, this allows a way out for paladins and, to a lesser extent, clerics with similar restrictions. A paladin cannot associate with evil people. With such a restriction, it becomes very difficult for a paladin to deal on a long term basis with, at the least, a rather large minority of the gaming world. Allowing a change of heart to create an alignment change allows the paladin to persuade otherwise evil NPCs to the cause of good without the DM having to justify the NPC not showing up as evil on the paladin's "radar" anymore. In this case, though, too, actions still dictate alignment to a certain extent. Certainly, this evil merchant, after a particularly rousing feel-good speech by our paladin, has a change of heart and starts handing out candy to infants. If, after a few months, the paladin doesn't come around rewarding him for good behavior, maybe he starts to backslide. A change of heart without a change of ways is pointless. Or, to quote a Christian (St. Paul) "Faith without works is dead faith." Now, I don't necessarily agree with the religion, nor do I wish to start any sort of religious debate, but the essence of the quote rings very true. Without actions, words and thoughts are meaningless.
calronmoonflower 09-23-07, 02:32 AM	There was only one point to the post. That a change of heart can lead to a change in alignment. That was the one and only point to the whole post. By your own argument you then where putting for irrelevant info. You can disagree with some of the arguments, Yep. I said you could ignore those and the answer to the OP is still yes. You then ignored the whole point of the post an used a bad retread post as a reply. That is just arguing to hear yourself type (or, even worse, copy and paste). Or I was refuting bad logic that could be used in other discussions. Just because a position is correct doesn't mean that you got there in the right manner. Those extra arguments should be refuted if they are wrong. Doing so is not ignoring the point of the post. It trims unnecessary and factually incorrect info from the position so it can be better supported. To ignore what I posted as irrelevant to a point made in your post is a bad way to argue. It is up to the person that puts forth a position to support it and refute all relevant challenges. Killing is not the same as compunctions against killing. I put forth a reason that the argument here isn't valid. A serial killer that feels sorry for what he does, but does it for some other reason (like maybe the greater good) wouldn't be evil, because he actually has compunctions for his acts. Helping others is not the same as commitment to help others. So that same serial killer can be good because he wants to help other, but doesn't really do so. You guys first take "actions dictate alignment" as 3 words from a sentence as the basis of your arguments, If you go back and read my post I said that intent and actions play apart in alignment. You just falsely summed up my views on alignment. Also why are you referring to others while addressing me. Guilt by association is not a valid argument. Also some other might actually be offended by being grouped in that same alignment views as me. then you start taking 3 words here 1 word there Except I didn't. I addressed those other words by sighting another rule that says that they would apply to NPCs as well. Again you wrongly summed up my position. I also include most of the alignment definition of both good and evil in my argument. and remove all context to support your arguments. The same could be said of your own views on alignment. Though I'm referring mostly to arguments on other threads. I found some text that better supports you arguments that the other reference that you used before. It is on page 104 of the Player's Handbook. I though I'd tell you as a better argument could be made from such and it would be disingenuous to not to tell you. :teach: Notice that it also contradicts your views on alignment. It says that it is both inherited and shaped by the environment. If the whole sentence in context with the paragraph doesn't support your argument, then you shouldn't pick out 1 or 2 or 3 words out of context that support your argument. I counted over 20 words quoted in my argument. You got to get past just that one part and admit that more is used to support the argument. Then if you refute it your own position will be better supported. The sentence that you quoted does not say that someone who doesn't kill anyone and doesn't help anyone is neutral. It also doesn't say that a neutral person doesn't kill anyone and doesn't help anyone. I also quoted text that says that what good/evil beings do. That happens to be exactly what it says that neutral being tend not to do. It says that a neutral person feels bad about killing people but doesn't care to help those in need. The neutral serial killer raises again. It says nothing about what actions are taken by neutral people. It talks about how they feel about some actions. When looked at alone I can see someone coming to this conclusion. However, when you look at my argument as a whole you will see that good and evil are defined by action in the alignment section.
StSteven 09-23-07, 10:27 AM	Please don't take the following silence as agreement. Just go back and reread my post if you feel a need to read a response. The back and forth is worthless.
calronmoonflower 09-23-07, 09:14 PM	Please don't take the following silence as agreement. Just go back and reread my post if you feel a need to read a response. The back and forth is worthless. Very well. I will not take your lack of response to be an attrition.
LCD2YOU 09-23-07, 10:14 PM	Selecting quoting out of contest again there SS?Nice try, but no. The question in this thread is can a change of heart result in an alignment change. The answer, according to DMG p 134 is unequivocally yes.The NPC is so moved that he repents, casting aside his own evil ways (and his mission). He becomes chaotic neutral, but he is well on to becoming chaotic good.You forgot to put in the entire paragraph where the time frame is much greater than instant.An NPC traveling with the PCs is chaotic evil and is pretending to be otherwise because he was sent to spy on them and foil their plans. He has been evil all of his life, and he has lived among others who acted as he did. As he fights alongside the good-aligned PC adventurers, however, he sees how they work together and help each other. He begins to envy them their comaraderie. Finally, he watches as the Paladin PC gives his life not only to save his friends, but an entire town that was poised on the brink of destruction at the hands of an evil Sorcerer. Everyone is deeply moved, including the evil NPC, and the town celebrates and honors the paladin's self-sacrifice. The NPC is so moved that he repents, casting aside his own evil ways (and his mission). He becomes chaotic neutral, but he is well on his way to becoming chaotic good, particularly if he remains in the company of the PCs. If the PCs had not acted so gallantly, he might not have changed his ways. If they turn on the NPC when they learn of his past, he may turn back to evil.There. You forgot so much of what all transpired to suit your conclusion that you forgot little things like context, time and more importantly, good form. All of us have DMGs so if you are going to quote something, do not selectively quote or leave out things as it will comeback to haunt you, like now. So the evil NPC was in the company of good PCs. That seemed to be for some time. As such, and as it states that he was pretending to be otherwise not evil, he couldn't do any evil acts. To do so would raise suspicion. Also, when one pretends to be something else one at least acts that way for a little while. Perhaps as the flavor text said that the evil NPC was envious of the PCs he may have adopted some of their characteristics. First his helping others (the paragraph did state how gallant the PCs acted) to keep his cover may have been purely mechanical. Then more than likely he began to enjoy seeing the joy and thankfulness of others as he helped them. Eventually he may have started to give of himself as that made him happy. Second, like it or not he started to do good acts. Yes, it was more than likely an act at first but he did it none the less. Eventually his actions to do good started to win over and he did good because it was the correct thing to do. Third he did an action to cement his changing alignment, he gave up his mission. It may not have been much or it may have been more than one knows. It is not often that some BBEG takes kindly to a turncoat. To do so means that any of his former "friends" may kill him on sight and collect a reward. Ergo, dropping his mission was a dangerous thing to do for the right reasons that puts him in peril. So SS, you left out a great deal of the text to suit your own ends. I will call you on it every time.That is an immediate change of alignment from evil to neutral due to an epiphany. It isn't attached to actions.Wrong, the action was to drop his mission. As his mission was to foil the good guys more than likely from some powerful bad guy, he is risking his life. Even though you choose to selectively quote, what you posted doesn't help your position at all.You're in control: You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says, "My neutral good character becomes chaotic good," the appropriate response from you is "Prove it." Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players.This is here in it's entirety so the entire context can be seen, not the misleading snippet. What it says is that you are in charge of alignment changes. The player's can't tell you that they are now evil. You are the one that decides that. As DM, you have two ways to judge your players PC. You can listen to the players tell you what their characters are thinking, and you can judge their actions. Since letting your players tell you their alignment or letting them convince you that their motivation was X for action Y, so their alignment should be Z can lead to abuse by the players, the DM should judge the alignment changes of a character on the actions they perform.And yet it says ACTIONS determine alignment. The part about the DM being in control is that. A player can't say their character is NG when before the were CE. They must act NG. So it isn't a simple change of heart, changing alignments require actions to actually do just that. It usually takes time but the "exceptions" are when the change and action are big enough to warrant such a change. As for "snippets", I will say you have some nerve.Claiming that the snippet "actions dictate alignment" is a general, across the board definition of the whole alignment system ignores the fact that nowhere else in any of the core books is it mentioned that actions dictate alignment. Using that snippet as what determines alignment, exclusively in all situations with no exceptions is clearly over-reaching. It also ignores the fact that the general application of the statement across the board is a direct contradiction with the PHB definition of alignment. By the primary sources rule the PHB is the ruling source for this.And yet you say more of the same, ie nothing and don't quote the PHB. You quote instead the DMG p. 134, again and sayChanges in alignment should not be dramatic. Usually, a character changes alignment only on step at a time... Changing alignment usually takes time. Changes of heart are rarely sudden (although they can be).I just quote these passages to point out the use of the words should and usually. Also, the changes of heart statement that basically says that they can be sudden is also clearly relevant to the thread.But what you posted and what the thread says is that it takes time. Changes of heart are gradual and so to change alignments is a so and step by step process. That is USUALLY the case. So when it states that a change of heart can come suddenly, that is the exception. As with the evil NPC that you tried to foist as the end all, his change of heart came over time.Exceptions: There are exceptions to all of the above. For instance, it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good.And the granddaddy of them all, the specific example for the exceptions states that it is possible for a change of heart to be sudden and dramatic and immediately result in a drastic change in alignment without any actions being mentioned.Which only goes to say about time. It doesn't effect the fact that actions, which are so clearly pointed out everywhere else need to be done as well. You take things out of context to suit your needs. That is so wrong on so many levels.So the thread is really easy to answer with lots of back-up in the affirmative.Not even close. That you want to see it that way is obvious. That the thread actually shows that time and actions are required is obvious to others.The only bit of text that is used to say that a change of heart cannot result in an alignment change is 3 words taken out of 1 sentence in a paragraph that is only applicable to players changing character's alignment. It is also above the section on exceptions and is clearly intended to be a target of the example for the exceptions by the virtue that the amount of time between the change of heart and the alignment change is defined as immediate, which leaves no time for action. Even if you misinterpret that passage to allow the possibility of an action, the thread question is still answered in the affirmative.The one doing the most misrepresentation and twisting of words, selective quoting and plain ignoring what they don't want to see is you.Basically, you can ignore any part of this post you don't agree with and still have an answer in the affirmative, unless you throw out all of the core except what you like (which is fine for your game).They only game that changes the rules is yours. Those who state and use ALL the RAW and CORE clearly are supported by the simple fact that while a character can have a sudden and dramatic change of heart, they proof for alignment change is when they actually take an action to seal their alignment change. Sorry to show you to be incorrect and that you selectively quote.
calronmoonflower 09-24-07, 12:49 AM	From the Book of Exalted Deeds page 5, What is good? Many Characters are happy to rattle off long lists of sins they haven't committed as evidence that they are good. The utter avoidance of evil, however, doesn't make a character good---solidly neutral, perhaps, but not good. Being good requires a certain quality of temperament, the presence of virtues that spur a character, not just to avoid evil or its appearances, but to actively promote good. As expressed in the Player's Handbook, "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." Good is not nice, polite, well mannered, prudish, self-righteous, or naive, though good characters might be some of these things. Goos is the awesome holy energy that from celestial planes and crushed evil. Good is selfless, just, hopeful, benevolent and righteous. :bigeyes: Man that is a long quote, but now I cannot be accused of taking things out of context. This passage says that good is both thought and action. Not one or the other, but both together. From the Book of Vile Darkness page 5 Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are forces that define the cosmos. ---D&D Player's Handbook "Evil" is a word that is probably overused. In the context of the game, and certainly of this book, the word should be reserved for the dark force of destruction and death that tempts souls to wrongdoing and perverts wholesomeness and purity at every turn. Evil is vile, corrupt, and irredeemably dark. It is not naughty or ill-tempered or misunderstood. It is black-hearted, selfish, bloodthirsty, and malevolent The same of this.
CroBob 09-24-07, 04:01 AM	i disagree. thoughts go far beyond the contemplation of action. intent, views on the actions of others, and about a thousand other things make a person who they are. and i think that has a lot to do with alignment. The DMG disagrees. Besides, when did the entirety of a personality become the same thing as alignment? Certainly, much more than contemplation of action is what makes a person who they are, but only action determines their alignment. I'd like to use an example that is myself. I've taken several tests stating I'm Neutral Good, in D&D terms. I think I'm more N, but people call me nice and such, so I guess I might be good. Anyway, I'm not Chaotic Evil. However, I've often considered what might happen if I were to, for example, shove my companion of the bridge we're walking across. I never seriously consider actually doing it, but the knowledge that I could (were I to so choose) leads me to wondering what would happen if I did. I have never done anything of that sort in my entire life, but the thought, brought about by the simple knowledge that an option exists and a thanatotic curiosity, certainly ran through my head for up to, possibly, minutes. Depending on conversation and environmental distractions. Simply having a thought about what would happen if you did do something wrong does not make you a bad person. Indeed, I'd say recognizing that you could do wrong, and choosing not to, is evidence that you're not a bad person. It's not evidence you're a good person, but you're certainly not bad if you consciously choose to not do bad things you're perfectly aware of being able to do. Though, there might be some question as to someone's alignment if they actually make the decision to do something, but simply don't get the chance to. Or if they actually consider truly pushing their friend off a bridge, not merely going through the scenerio in their head for a moment, and simply end up choosing not to. But, then, that wouldn't change their alignment, merely draw question to it.
DMCuindless 09-24-07, 04:20 AM	The DMG disagrees. Besides, when did the entirety of a personality become the same thing as alignment? Certainly, much more than contemplation of action is what makes a person who they are, but only action determines their alignment. I'd like to use an example that is myself. I've taken several tests stating I'm Neutral Good, in D&D terms. I think I'm more N, but people call me nice and such, so I guess I might be good. Anyway, I'm not Chaotic Evil. However, I've often considered what might happen if I were to, for example, shove my companion of the bridge we're walking across. I never seriously consider actually doing it, but the knowledge that I could (were I to so choose) leads me to wondering what would happen if I did. I have never done anything of that sort in my entire life, but the thought, brought about by the simple knowledge that an option exists and a thanatotic curiosity, certainly ran through my head for up to, possibly, minutes. Depending on conversation and environmental distractions. Simply having a thought about what would happen if you did do something wrong does not make you a bad person. Indeed, I'd say recognizing that you could do wrong, and choosing not to, is evidence that you're not a bad person. It's not evidence you're a good person, but you're certainly not bad if you consciously choose to not do bad things you're perfectly aware of being able to do. Though, there might be some question as to someone's alignment if they actually make the decision to do something, but simply don't get the chance to. Or if they actually consider truly pushing their friend off a bridge, not merely going through the scenerio in their head for a moment, and simply end up choosing not to. But, then, that wouldn't change their alignment, merely draw question to it. Now hold on. As someone previously pointed out, casually considering the outcome of an act and actively including it in a plan are completely different things. That being said, I still don't think that thoughts and considerations should determine alignment. Take, once again, the example I presented. The female paladin seriously considered murdering children to accomlish her goal, but was unable to do so when the time came because of her conscience and compassion. Her actions are consistently good, therefore her alignment is good. Just consider the fact that evil thoughts don't cause a paladin to fall. A single evil act on the other hand... In D&D, at least, actions speak louder than words. Thoughts don't speak at all.
CroBob 09-24-07, 04:24 AM	Now hold on. As someone previously pointed out, casually considering the outcome of an act and actively including it in a plan are completely different things. That being said, I still don't think that thoughts and considerations should determine alignment. Take, once again, the example I presented. The female paladin seriously considered murdering children to accomlish her goal, but was unable to do so when the time came because of her conscience and compassion. Her actions are consistently good, therefore her alignment is good. Just consider the fact that evil thoughts don't cause a paladin to fall. A single evil act on the other hand... In D&D, at least, actions speak louder than words. Thoughts don't speak at all. That's exactly my point. What you do matters, not how you came to do it.
StSteven 09-24-07, 08:06 AM	None of your response is valid LCD2YOU. I don't want to waste my time so I will only go into the first bit. The rest is the same. Dropping a mission is not an action, it is stopping an evil action. Also, the time frame for the first change of heart is not a long time. It says he changed alignment after witnessing the paladin's sacrifice. Also, there is nothing to say that he couldn't do evil just because he was pretending to be good. Pretending and being are not the same thing. That is all the time I will waste on this this morning. It is so boring to see other threads brought up to try to argue against something that is specifically allowed by the DMG. It is also amazing to see people try it. Also, I didn't leave out anything from my quotes that had anything to do with the point. You are just being contrary. Anyone can see that what I left out wasn't pertinent. How rude.
wrecan 09-24-07, 08:52 AM	The rest is the same. Dropping a mission is not an action, it is stopping an evil action. I fail to see why "stopping" isn't "an action" in itself. It says he changed alignment after witnessing the paladin's sacrifice. Every alignment change has a "moment" where the change happens. After all, there are only 9 alignments, not a full spectrum of infite alignments along a graph. But the example of the NPC LCD2YOU quoted at length shows a long process leading up to the moment of change, with a gradual softening of the villain's heart.
LCD2YOU 09-24-07, 09:09 AM	In other words, you can't refute any of it so you run off and say, "I won". Sorry but I will not let you off the hook so easily. You selectively quote and take things out of context to suit your own views. That is why you didn't include the whole text to in your "evidence". Nor are you able to refute what I posted.None of your response is valid LCD2YOU.Ah yes, don't attack the message, attack the messenger and declare their message invalid without doing anything save saying so. Typical their StSteven.I don't want to waste my time so I will only go into the first bit. The rest is the same.No. The rest is your inability to refute what was posted. So now you're left with twisting the meaning of words. So it is obvious that when you are called on it you slink away. Yes, I will be on you like glue showing the fallacies of your responses.Dropping a mission is not an action, it is stopping an evil action.No? The lack of any imagination and thought of what can and probably will happen to the evil NPC when caught by his former employer or compatriots will be harsh. Also, though you want to change the meaning of words, again I will call you on it. The formerly evil NPC was supposed to gather intelligence on the good PCs, right? To what purpose? Most likely it is for some nefarious purpose down the road. Sounds like an evil plan to me. As for dropping the mission, sounds like something that he has to do that can bring on consequences. That is an action. Twist it all you want, but again you Also, the time frame for the first change of heart is not a long time. It says he changed alignment after witnessing the paladin's sacrifice. Also, there is nothing to say that he couldn't do evil just because he was pretending to be good. Pretending and being are not the same thing.And you ignored everything in between. Like how he envied the party. Sounds like he never experienced that before. So again you are blowing smoke.That is all the time I will waste on this this morning. It is so boring to see other threads brought up to try to argue against something that is specifically allowed by the DMG. It is also amazing to see people try it.And succeed by showing your argument to be hollow and only possible when one doesn't read the whole thing but takes snippets to support their narrow view on how they think things should be. Yes StSteven we have your MO.Also, I didn't leave out anything from my quotes that had anything to do with the point. You are just being contrary. Anyone can see that what I left out wasn't pertinent. How rude.HAHAHAHAHA! Not pertinent? Wow, such hubris to decide that for all of us. It is even worse when it shows your argument is built on shaky premises that fall down when one actually reads the entire paragraph that you snip things from!
LCD2YOU 09-24-07, 10:06 AM	A "Sudden and Deep Change of Heart" The evil Dread Necromancer sits on his throne of bone and various body parts while his undead minions scurry about keeping things just the way he wants them. Down below, bound ghouls are feasting slowly on a group of humans who dared mock him. He has instructed them to eat the children of the humans first in front of their parents. Slowly and with as much pain as they can inflict along with the shear terror of being eaten alive is what he wants to have the parents see happen to their kids before thy are the main course. He will let a few "escape" later, more but most likely less intact to let others know what happens when you cross him. In other laboratories, inhuman experiments continue on where he is trying to graft living tissue on his undead minions to make them more life like. The screams of pain as parts are ripped off and out of still living but unwilling organ and body part donors echo throughout his empty halls. Pacts with Demon Lords and Devilish nobility have given him more power as he plays each side skillfully off of the other. He has to keep the demons and devils under his command separated so they don't destroy each other. That is unless he feels like enjoy other amusements. Then he hears a scream from a child in one of the chambers. The child's cry echoes throughout the grim keep and hearing it sends shivers of delight down the spines of the demons, devils and intelligent undead. They all wonder who was the lucky one to elicit such a cry from the child. But it strikes deep at the icy heart of the Dread Necromancer. A long forgotten memory of when his village was attacked resurfaces after a long slumber. He remembers such a cry, from a girl playmate he was in love with so long ago. He remember s when she was struck in the back by the spear from the raider. She knew she was about to die but it was going to be painful. He shudders in fear and loathing for what he has become. Yes, he went down this dark path to take revenge on those who slaughtered his village and killed the girl that as a young boy he had a crush on. Some of those same raiders were now bound spirits serving him forever in the rank sewage pools under the keep, still aware of their fate. But the scream of that child was still working its way through his psyche, tearing down walls of hate and bile, reaching out to the boy who lost so much long ago. Then it hits. He will do good. His heart lightens and for the first time in a long time, he smiles with a warm glow. He sits there on his chair of bone and is now NG. Now stop right there. Is this guy NG? Hell no. What has he done? A change of heart? So what? People are still being torn apart under his orders below. Ghouls are still eating their fill on children on his orders. He still has devils and demons in his employ. This Dread Necromancer is going to have to do a lot more. Such is the idea that only a "change of heart" and a belief that one can have an epiphany with no action and suddenly your soul is clear and your heart is pure. This dude has a lot of sludge to push out before he gets to TN from NE. Not until he gets the people out, breaks the pacts with the demons and devils, destroy the undead does he even have a chance at being good. It takes actions AND attitude to change alignment. The examples in the DMG p. 134 show that how an evil NPC has his heart changed over time by the good PCs, their friendship, how they help one another. Too many times, the weak in his former group becomes the next victim. The evil NPC noted that and after a long time in coming, all of the things he's seen including the self-sacrifice of the Paladin convinces him that evil is not the way to go. So he abandons his evil ways, something he had been doing for a while in any event lest he be discovered and becomes good as he does actions that promote good, not just not doing evil. What I showed above is that a change of heart can occur quickly as opposed to the evil NPC in the DMG who took time after seeing how a good party helps one another. For those who think that just a change of heart means that one can change alignment, I'd like to see your scenario. In mine above, if the Dread Necromancer were to have a massive heart attack and die, he's soul would still go to Hades. Even though he's thinking that now he's NG and will be good, it is hard to imagine that being the case while he 's still sitting on his throne of bones from his previous victims. So yes, his soul still makes it to Hades. Although he may have "lightened his heart", he had done nothing to stop the suffering of others or make amends for his past evil. So, in the scenario, have it after the evil guy has a change of heart he dies in a freak accident before he could actually do any action that is good because he wanted to do one for the sake of doing a good action. I await your scenario.
calronmoonflower 09-24-07, 01:53 PM	None of your response is valid LCD2YOU. Nice opinion. It isn't an argument until you back it up with something. Only then could it be truly debated whether or not the response was valid. I don't want to waste my time so I will only go into the first bit. The rest is the same. Dropping a mission is not an action, it is stopping an evil action. An NPC traveling with the PCs is chaotic evil and is pretending to be otherwise because he was sent to spy on them and foil their plans. Unless the guy was a complete waste of space acting non-evil would indeed initial action. If he was indeed a waste of space they would most likely kick him to the curb as extra baggage. Also, the time frame for the first change of heart is not a long time. It says he changed alignment after witnessing the paladin's sacrifice. The change does necessary start at that point. Here's a question. When does hot change to cool? 105 is hot. How about 104, 103, ... Does it suddenly become cool at a specific degree of temperature? No it is a gradual and hard to define change. "The straw that broke the camel's back." Isn't really what caused the camel back to break, it is the straw and all the other weight both together. Also, there is nothing to say that he couldn't do evil just because he was pretending to be good. Pretending and being are not the same thing. This argument isn't valid because it is based on lack of evidence. There is also nothing to say that he wasn't preforming what is considered heroic deeds on a daily bases. You cannot truly argue he was because nothing supports that. That is all the time I will waste on this this morning. It is so boring to see other threads brought up to try to argue against something that is specifically allowed by the DMG. I'm rather against the position that it is a common thing for a change of heart to define good/evil, not that it is impossible. It is also amazing to see people try it. On the opposite side of the coin I'm amazed how some people try to use what is directly called an exception as the rule. I have to go to work to keep my job, except when I'm sick, ... If I tried to use that as a reason that I generally didn't have to go to work then I'd be fired. Also, I didn't leave out anything from my quotes that had anything to do with the point. This is a circular argument. You say they where not relevant to the point because they are not relevant to the point.. You are just being contrary. I believe that LCD2YOU believes his points as I think you do. This is another opinion based on nothing and thus not an argument. It is also addressed to the arguer instead of the argument so it isn't relevant to the point at all. Anyone can see that what I left out wasn't pertinent. Another unsupported opinion pretending to be an argument. Also it is bandwagon thinking. Once upon a time a majority of people believed in spontaneous generation, it wasn't true because the so many people believed it. Also I personally believe it was relevant (but I cannot prove my thoughts to anyone) so it is also factually incorrect, most likely do to hyperbole rather than malice. How rude. :pbbbtt: That is rude a well reasoned argument that I disagree with isn't.
StormKnight 09-24-07, 02:13 PM	Action dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players. To me, it was always clear this was defining not the difference between intent and action by the character, but the different between what the "player" does and what the "character" does. In other words, it is saying that the player saying "My character is good!" does not grant an alignment of good when the character is running around maliciously killing innocent people. It is not saying "your good character has been unwittingly manipulated into evil actions, therefore she is now evil".
StSteven 09-24-07, 03:02 PM	The reason I don't want to debate this with you is that it has nothing to do with the topic and was argued to death in another thread. I have better things to do with my time than rehash a debate about actions and alignment every month. It is a waste of time. As for all the "that's not an argument, it's an opinion." Of course it is an opinion. Where does it say I can't post my opinions. IMO, the only reason some folks joined the thread here is to spew insults in my directions. That is another good reason not to go on beating a dead horse. The only question the OP asked was can a change of heart result in an alignment change. The answer is yes. The book clearly states that it can, although rarely. This other crap has nothing to do with answering that question. Just read the book. That would be the DMG since the PHB has no text whatsoever pertaining to alignment change. I guess that's a good reason not to quote it here, isn't it?
LCD2YOU 09-24-07, 04:33 PM	The reason I don't want to debate this with you is that it has nothing to do with the topic and was argued to death in another thread.Er, wrong. The reason you don't want to continue to debate is you have nothing to debate with. What I and others have been posting has everything to do with what the OP requested. The answer is, "NO, change of heart alone can not change alignment, fast, slow or immediate. This has been shown and your bowing out means you know it. You came in all hot and bothered, using snippets to support your claim. Then when one reads the whole paragraph, such I have done and quoted directly, you slink away. Wasn't it you that posted for a good long time on this thread? Seems as long as nobody questioned your tactics or tenuous facts, you were more than happy to stick around. Now that your so called facts have been called out, a scenario given showing how just an alignment change makes no sense. If you truly believed in what you were saying, I'm sure you would try to make a scenario where it does work.I have better things to do with my time than rehash a debate about actions and alignment every month. It is a waste of time.Then why did you even join in in the first place? The answer is simple. You came in with bombastic sttements and as nobody challenged what you posted, you were completely fine with that. However, as soon as I and others started to poke holes in your As for all the "that's not an argument, it's an opinion." Of course it is an opinion. Where does it say I can't post my opinions.You mean when you claim your opinion is backed by RAW and CORE, post a snippet of some page and then say, "See? My opinion is right?"IMO, the only reason some folks joined the thread here is to spew insults in my directions. That is another good reason not to go on beating a dead horse.When you completely disregard all others threads, and it is not just mine I do remember you, and essentially tell others their opinions are invalid without taking the time to show where, expect not to be well thought of. You've been rather free and loose with your definitions and more. You've directly told others their opinions are invalid without showing why (my answer - you can't) and then claim to be the hurt party. Sorry if I am being harsh but perhaps you should see what you've been doing to others before and seeing things from their vantage point and not just from the your cross that you've hoisted yourself upon.The only question the OP asked was can a change of heart result in an alignment change. The answer is yes.Only when followed up by actions. No? Please post a scenario showing how that is done. I await to read what you post on that subject.The book clearly states that it can, although rarely.Again only when combined with actions. You keep on forgetting that.This other crap has nothing to do with answering that question.It is the question! It shows how it is done. It shows that when one has a change of heart then they act upon it their alignment will change. The thing is as many have said, "One action of good/evil will not change one's alignment to that. It takes many actions." The exception to the rule is when they have such a huge change of heart that and they do something that merits said change, there is no time delay. A person can change their alignment AFTER they have a huge change of heart AND an action that shows their true, new self.Just read the book.I have as have others. Seems the only one who keeps forgetting to read it in its entirety is you.That would be the DMG since the PHB has no text whatsoever pertaining to alignment change.Hey, you mentioned the PHB first. I just asked why you did.I guess that's a good reason not to quote it here, isn't it?Because it doesn't exist and I wonder why you said it in the first place.
StSteven 09-24-07, 05:54 PM	And again: Exceptions: There are exceptions to all of the above. For instance, it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good. Upon reflection I can see that that little snippet does a great job of being an exception to all of the above. It is an exception to actions dictating alignment, alignment changes being gradual, alignment changes taking time, and bad acts following good acts leading to a neutral alignment. It is also the first time I have seen an alignment topic question that can be answered directly from the text without any interpretations needed. It is an unequivocal answer to the OP.
LCD2YOU 09-24-07, 06:59 PM	And again:Exceptions: There are exceptions to all of the above. For instance, it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good.Upon reflection I can see that that little snippet does a great job of being an exception to all of the above. It is an exception to actions dictating alignment, alignment changes being gradual, alignment changes taking time, and bad acts following good acts leading to a neutral alignment. It is also the first time I have seen an alignment topic question that can be answered directly from the text without any interpretations needed. It is an unequivocal answer to the OP.And again everything else points to that it takes time as the evil villains icy heart is slowly melted by being around good. As ever other place it shows actions are need, you take the whole out of context to read what you want it to read. That is the exception, the time element. I see you are unable to come up with a scenario that actually can show that so I'll take that as one big you can't.
StSteven 09-24-07, 07:26 PM	And again: Exceptions: There are exceptions to all of the above. For instance, it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good. Denial of the plain text does not a valid point make. Then again, maybe it is me. Is there some definition for the word 'all' of which I am unaware? Maybe someone can explain to my feeble brain how I am missing that the phrase "all of the above" really means "only the time element."
LCD2YOU 09-24-07, 07:31 PM	And again: Denial of the plain text does not a valid point make. Then again, maybe it is me. Is there some definition for the word 'all' of which I am unaware? Maybe someone can explain to my feeble brain how I am missing that the phrase "all of the above" really means "only the time element."The all is refering to all of the time constraints. It makes no mention of actions being omitted. I'd still like to see how you think that can even work. For those who think only an attitude adjustment is stated on page 134 of the DMG. In each of the examples before the highly vaunted and oft quotedExceptions: There are exceptions to all of the above. For instance, it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good.each and every one has with it two parts: 1: Action is required. 2: There is a time frame. Now the above quote doesn't mention any actions. Are we to assume that means no actions are required? Of course not. Let me ask you this. Do you get laid off from jobs often? Does your boss yell at you for always forgetting something? If you know that to do some installation you need to get safety equipment out so you can install it properly and then configure the device that's what you do, right? Now let's say there's a time crunch and you can forgo the safety devices to get the device in the machine. This time, it is an exception and you can bypass all of that stuff and let's say use a ladder without a helmet and harness. This is instead doing all the stuff like checking the lift out and getting the safety department to turn their head for a little while. Trust me, it happens. So you can now install the device quickly, going around standard practices as this is an "emergency". So you did just that. You put it up there. Did you configure the device? I hope so. Did your boss say "don't configure it"? No. He said get it up quickly to expedite the process. If you're one who gets fired, written up or other such thing and you're the one who does such things like ignoring the other parts, that did not change, I know why you have issues at work. So, the issue of Change of Heart = Instant Alignment Change? s no until they "re-configure their MO" and actually take action. Now StSteven, I don't think you can come up with a scenario nor an analogy for your point that makes any sense or is logical there son. I look forward for you to prove me wrong.
StSteven 09-24-07, 07:54 PM	1. Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players. 2. Changes in alignment should be gradual. 3. Changing in alignment usually takes time. 4. Wishy-washy characters should be neutral. There are exceptions to all of the above. There is only one way to interpret that last sentence. If you like, you can quote the whole 5 paragraphs. I have taken the topic sentence, but I know how that can be taken out of context. Imagine all the text is there (or just go read it again). It makes no difference. The all obviously doesn't apply to just the 3rd statement. The statement "[c]hanging alignment usually takes time" already explicitly states that there are exceptions. Otherwise it would not use the word "usually." If the example and the sentence on exceptions was intended only to apply only to the time restraint, then it would have been in that paragraph. It isn't. I am probably older than you, so please don't refer to me as son.
LCD2YOU 09-24-07, 08:09 PM	1. Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players. 2. Changes in alignment should be gradual. 3. Changing in alignment usually takes time. 4. Wishy-washy characters should be neutral. There are exceptions to all of the above. There is only one way to interpret that last sentence. If you like, you can quote the whole 5 paragraphs. I have taken the topic sentence, but I know how that can be taken out of context. Imagine all the text is there (or just go read it again). It makes no difference. The all obviously doesn't apply to just the 3rd statement. The statement "[c]hanging alignment usually takes time" already explicitly states that there are exceptions. Otherwise it would not use the word "usually." If the example and the sentence on exceptions was intended only to apply only to the time restraint, then it would have been in that paragraph. It isn't.As you like to get into a sentence's structure, there's that little extra phrase, "For Instance". "For instance" and "For example" are completely interchangeable from here http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv21.shtml So it is an example that refers to the time constraint and that things happen gradually. There is a "for instance" in requiring actions for alignment change, such as a Helm of Opposite Alignment. So again you are not reading what is there and you then ignore what is there as it doesn't conform to what you want it to say. Again, the paragraph is short. So what you have there is "for example - instead of taking slow and gradual steps to change alignment, the most horrible NE villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes NG". That they used an economy of words is unfortunate. But what I posted makes more sense. So accuse me of adding words that make sense when read.I am probably older than you, so please don't refer to me as son.Doubt it and that is not an insult. Started playing in high school in the late 70s. So ignore the son part as it was not meant as an insult and prove me wrong my constructing a logical way for a really horrid NE guy to have a total change of heart and become NG without doing any action. Or come up with an analogy that makes sense. I don't think you can. If you can't that means that the logic of your argument is not there and the reading of page 134 I and others have used is far more correct than yours.
StSteven 09-24-07, 08:17 PM	Again, the paragraph is short. So what you have there is "for example - instead of taking slow and gradual steps to change alignment, the most horrible NE villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes NG". For example - instead of actions leading up to an alignment change, the most horrible NE villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart an immediately becomes NG. or For example - instead a gradual alignment change, the most horrible NE villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart an immediately becomes NG. They make just as much sense. But what makes the most sense is that "all" applies to all.
pres_man 09-24-07, 08:22 PM	1. Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players. 2. Changes in alignment should be gradual. 3. Changing in alignment usually takes time. 4. Wishy-washy characters should be neutral. There are exceptions to all of the above. There is only one way to interpret that last sentence. If you like, you can quote the whole 5 paragraphs. I have taken the topic sentence, but I know how that can be taken out of context. Shouldn't (1) be: 1. You control alignment changes, not the players. Following the pattern of the others? Imagine all the text is there (or just go read it again). It makes no difference. The all obviously doesn't apply to just the 3rd statement. The statement "[c]hanging alignment usually takes time" already explicitly states that there are exceptions. Otherwise it would not use the word "usually." If the example and the sentence on exceptions was intended only to apply only to the time restraint, then it would have been in that paragraph. It isn't. Well the example appears to be an exception to both 2 and 3 (happened "immediately and leapt from NE to NG).
StSteven 09-24-07, 08:33 PM	Shouldn't (1) be: 1. You control alignment changes, not the players. Following the pattern of the others? Well the example appears to be an exception to both 2 and 3 (happened "immediately and leapt from NE to NG). Yes. My bad. I was using the goto sentence out of that paragraph. I'm going to come up with a reason that there is an exception to that. It is beside the point here though. The example explicitly states that a change of alignment can result from a change of heart. Football is coming on so I need to think on that one later. The example appears to be an exception to 2, 3 and the sub bullet 1a (actions dictate alignment) as it is still above the word all. Edit: The following has nothing to do with the OP, but Pres_man's observation is interesting, so I thought about it during football anyway. If a character has his alignment magically changed, a cleric PC can cast an atonement spell on him to change his alignment back to what it was. This, by the rules, is not under the control of the DM. In order to buy into that, you have to assume that "[y]ou are in control" isn't just a restatement of rule 0. That makes sense. Since rule 0 isn't restated everywhere, you have to assume that this is not what they are doing here. Also, in context of the paragraph, it is clear that it is specifically talking about alignment change. The DM has no more control over that spell than how much damage a fireball spell does. Of course, the DM (according to rule 0) can rule differently, but it is just like saying that the fireball spell only does 1/2 damage all the time, without some reason.
calronmoonflower 09-25-07, 02:53 AM	The reason I don't want to debate this with you is that it has nothing to do with the topic and was argued to death in another thread. I have better things to do with my time than rehash a debate about actions and alignment every month. It is a waste of time. If you feel there is nothing to be gained in further debate then fell free not to post anymore. As for all the "that's not an argument, it's an opinion." Of course it is an opinion. All arguments are opinions, but not all opinions are arguments. When you put forth an opinion and back it up with something it becomes an argument and there is something that can be replied to. i understand that you cannot back-up every single statement as the chain would go on for every, but if you post something that is not generally excepted you should back it up with something. Where does it say I can't post my opinions. No where in my post did I say that you cannot post opinions. I just what them backed up so I can see where you got that opinion. IMO, the only reason some folks joined the thread here is to spew insults in my directions. That is another good reason not to go on beating a dead horse. If you don't like to beat a dead horse put your club away. The only question the OP asked was can a change of heart result in an alignment change. What happens when an evil person has a Darth Vader-esque change of heart? Did Darth Vader instantly switch from LE to CG with a single decision? What about these poor evil cultists who run around surrendering to adventurers? (that was a joke.) Does their possible change of heart cause them to stop showing up on "Detect Evil"? Nope didn't see that exact question, only these. I'll admit that the question was implicit instead of direct, but it is far from the only one. The others I am attempting to answer. The answer is yes. The book clearly states that it can, although rarely. This other crap has nothing to do with answering that question. Questions not question. And that "crap" does have allot to do with the original questions on the first post. Just read the book. That would be the DMG since the PHB has no text whatsoever pertaining to alignment change. I guess that's a good reason not to quote it here, isn't it? Yes it is. "[y]ou are in control" isn't just a restatement of rule 0. That makes sense. Since rule 0 isn't restated everywhere, you have to assume that this is not what they are doing here. That's a circular argument. The premise for your argument contains the conclusion. If it was a restatement of rule 0 then rule 0 would be restated.
LCD2YOU 09-25-07, 08:24 AM	Exceptions: There are exceptions to all of the above. For instance, it's possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good.I see what StSteven is hanging up on. The part, "There are exceptions to all of the above" is being read by StSteven as "what comes next is an example that overrides everything". That is not the case. What that is saying is that for each and everyone of the steps to change alignment, there are exceptional times when any one or all of them do not have to apply. To paraphrase slightly and make them more in line with what page 134 of the DMG states: 1. Actions, not statements of intent, are true indications of alignment. 2. Changes in alignment are be gradual and take time. 3. Wishy-washy characters should be neutral. For each of those statements, there are exceptions. For instance, here are some exceptions: 1: Helm of opposite alignment changes all immediately (even then there's an action, donning the helm and the magic going off, but those are not usually a wanted action) 2: A "sudden change of heart" means that instead of a slow and gradual change, step 2 can be discarded 3: A "wishy-washy" character who isn't sure about hacking off a limb or gouging out an eye is still evil So, the example in the DMG is one that deals with number 2. Even still, while the game has fantastic parts, a simple scenario showing how such a horrid NE guy can go to NG without any action should be done to show how it works. If it can't then it only shows that the write up deals not with "all" as in steps 1, 2 and 3 are negated by a the example but that each of the above have exceptions. More so, those exceptions must have some logic behind it as a simple DM fiat, "without action and with a simple tear one can go from gutting babies and feeding the entrails to your dretch familiar to NG" means that there are no rules and nothing matters save the DM's whim at the time. So, let's say that my NE Dread Necromancer did go to NG right then and there. What is he supposed to do? Does he sit there? How long does he have to stop what he has started? Can he just leave? Can he have another epiphany just as he's about to leave waste to his domain and say, "Ah, screw it. I'm bad to the bone and I like it!"? When does it stop? Is it one to a customer? Can you do it only once? How long must it be between "heart-felt changes"? On average, how many horrid LE/NE/CE guys and gals can have such an epiphany in a given day? Week? Month? Year? Century? Is it so rare as to be a DM fiat that they introduce once every third campaign? Is it so rare and the chances so minimal as to make it absurd even though by some accounts it is allowed? That's the thing. If one can't produce a viable scenario for the idea that only a heart-felt change can change one's alignment then the point is moot as it can't happen.
StSteven 09-25-07, 08:56 AM	The section is about what it takes to change alignment. You guys are so hung up on your theory that actions are absolutely needed to change alignment that you can't admit that if there were actions needed for the example, then they would have said so. Really listen to what you are saying. You are saying that in a section on what results in alignment change, the example leaves unstated and integral part of the change. That is ridiculous. Also, I am glad you can finally see that I am hung up on the fact that all applies to all. You examples are not a the be all end all of the exceptions. In fact, there is a perfect example of an exception to the general guideline that actions dictate alignment. It is in the example of the NE villain having a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately changing alignment to NG. I kept posting, CMF, because there is a jerk among us who bates and insults. I didn't want anyone to think that his rude and insulting posts were true.
LCD2YOU 09-25-07, 09:29 AM	The section is about what it takes to change alignment. You guys are so hung up on your theory that actions are absolutely needed to change alignment that you can't admit that if there were actions needed for the example, then they would have said so.Other way around. You are hung up on your idea that nothing but a good cry and a warm fuzzy is all that is needed for the "most horrid NE guy", my example, to become NG.Really listen to what you are saying. You are saying that in a section on what results in alignment change, the example leaves unstated and integral part of the change. That is ridiculous.The example talks about "sudden" which is a time constraint. So the example applies to the gradual and time consuming process that is alignment change.Also, I am glad you can finally see that I am hung up on the factThat is not a "fact" despite how much you want it to be. The fact here is that there are exceptions to any of the pre-requisites for changing alignment. The one mentioned goes to the one about how long and how gradual the change is, nothing more.that all applies to all. You examples are not a the be all end all of the exceptions.Then post some.In fact, there is a perfect example of an exception to the general guideline that actions dictate alignment. It is in the example of the NE villain having a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately changing alignment to NG.Which goes to the time element involved.I kept posting, CMF, because there is a jerk among us who bates and insults. I didn't want anyone to think that his rude and insulting posts were true.You are hung up on your idea how it should be, not facts. The fact is that the examples are how all as in any one, not all at the same time, can be thwarted. So you don't post a fact, you posted what your idea of what it thinks it says says. Also, you don't post to refute only to continue to trod out what you want to see and yet you refuse to hear anyone else out. Now, as I am guessing I'm the jerk, if my posts aren't true could you please do us a favor, or me at least. Could you post a scenario where what the OP asked for that can happen. If you can't admit it as such or consider that you've already been pointed out as someone who can't back up their claim. So, I have posted scenarios that show what happens. I've provided analogies that are very relevant. Yet I'm the jerk. I have responded to each and every one of your claims, many times trying to put the animosity behind. And then you come out with more insults. Your choice. As for baiting, read some of your posts again.
LCD2YOU 09-25-07, 10:10 AM	Master_Vega posted about Darth Vader going from LE to CG. Personally, I think it was LE to LG but that's not the issue. Did it happen? Yes. Was it sudden? I don't think so. If you remember when Luke was captured by Imperial forces in the walker and brought to Vader, remember Vader's poise? Even Luke told him that he could "feel" the conflict inside his father. Even when he killed the Emperor, he could have been doing it for selfish reasons. After all the Emperor was killing his son and he was trying to do that just before and maybe he wanted to finish off his brat. Maybe he saw an opportunity to become top Sith. As we see his shade with Obi Wan and Yoda's after, we know it was for a good reason that he killed the Emperor. But let's say there was no conflict in Darth. Let's say Darth "had a sudden change of heart". So did his alignment change before or after he tossed the Emperor down the shaft? If he turned good before he tossed the Emperor, what if he did nothing at all? What if he sat in the corner with his shiny new soul and let's Luke die? Would he still be good? EDIT: The only thing I can see a person turning to good before they do any action is so fast as to preclude anything else. It is a "Chicken or an egg" thing. Which came first, the chicken - the warm fuzzy heart-felt change? Or was it the egg - the action that after they had the compulsion to do goog they did something meaningful and then become good? My money is on the egg (which actually pre-dates the chicken by about 400 million years) which is to say they may have that warm fuzzy but it is only when they take that action do they get to be good. In the case of the chicken coming first, the distinction would be meaningless. The newly good guy would have to do so many things, like my example with the NE now NG Dread Necromancer wiping out the undead, demons and such as to make the idea that he changed alignment first meaningless. After all, even if the idea that a person can change alignment solely on a change of attitude if they don't do anything good, they don't have a good alignment for long. This is especially true when they are knee deep in evil. Also, isn't being good more than just an absence of evil? How long does a new convert to good have, in the case of heart-felt changes, to do a good act?
StSteven 09-25-07, 10:34 AM	Very well. The NE villain, who became NE because someone took his son from him after his wife died giving birth, is hell bent on killing all the children in a village that are his son's age. After all, no one deserved a son more than he, so no one should have one. As he is driving his knife into the heart of a boy that is about the age his son was, he notices a birthmark on the kid's foot that exactly matches his sons. He realizes that it is his son, too late. He is so distraught over his actions and the pain he has caused himself and other parents that he immediately repents and becomes N. He dedicates his life from that moment forward to trying to mitigate the harm that he has caused, in the name of his son. He is well on his way to becoming NG. There, that is an example of a change of heart resulting in a immediate change of alignment. He has intentions only for good acts. He is so horrified by what he has done that he cannot bring himself to do harm to anyone again. He now lacks the capacity to do evil. That is an exception (that makes sense) to actions dictating alignment and the time constraint. I'm sure that that isn't good enough though.
LCD2YOU 09-25-07, 10:50 AM	Very well. The NE villain, who became NE because someone took his son from him after his wife died giving birth, is hell bent on killing all the children in a village that are his son's age. After all, no one deserved a son more than he, so no one should have one. As he is driving his knife into the heart of a boy that is about the age his son was, he notices a birthmark on the kid's foot that exactly matches his sons. He realizes that it is his son, too late. He is so distraught over his actions and the pain he has caused himself and other parents that he immediately repents and becomes N. He dedicates his life from that moment forward to trying to mitigate the harm that he has caused, in the name of his son. He is well on his way to becoming NG. There, that is an example of a change of heart resulting in a immediate change of alignment. He has intentions only for good acts. He is so horrified by what he has done that he cannot bring himself to do harm to anyone again. He now lacks the capacity to do evil. That is an exception (that makes sense) to actions dictating alignment and the time constraint. I'm sure that that isn't good enough though.But in your scenario he repents. That is an action. Granted it is a small action and I'm not sure that is enough by itself to turn him N. As I am saying and have said only after actions are taken does a person turn. Now you did present a very good scenario on a sudden change of heart for a really bad guy. But, and I am being a critic of the story - not against you, you couldn't just stop at his "change of heart" to be good. Later in the story, you spoke of how he went around mitigating the damage he done. Again, more actions taken. That is why it does take action and why I am arguing that the part on page 134 in the DMG is just referring to the time involved, not everything at once.
StSteven 09-25-07, 10:56 AM	But in your scenario he repents. That is an action. Granted it is a small action and I'm not sure that is enough by itself to turn him N. As I am saying and have said only after actions are taken does a person turn. Now you did present a very good scenario on a sudden change of heart for a really bad guy. But, and I am being a critic of the story - not against you, you couldn't just stop at his "change of heart" to be good. Later in the story, you spoke of how he went around mitigating the damage he done. Again, more actions taken. That is why it does take action and why I am arguing that the part on page 134 in the DMG is just referring to the time involved, not everything at once. Repenting is the words I used to mean "change of heart." If you consider repenting an actions, then a change of heart is an action. I don't think that is what is meant by action, but if it works for you that's OK. It still means that a change of heart can result in a change of alignment. He has the change of heart and becomes neutral. I was trying to be less controversial with the change to neutral. In this scenario, he does do good deeds to become good, but not to change alignment (to neutral).
wrecan 09-25-07, 12:23 PM	He is so distraught over his actions and the pain he has caused himself and other parents that he immediately repents and becomes N. For me, this shouldn't be enough to turn neutral. If he turned then to the next boy on his line of victims and unties him, saying "Get out of here before I change my mind," then he's neutral. But the "My God, what have I done?" moment alone isn't sufficient for me to change someone to neutral. (Obviously, you disagree.) He dedicates his life from that moment forward to trying to mitigate the harm that he has caused, in the name of his son. He is well on his way to becoming NG. I don't know what "well on his way" means other than "if he follows through on his desires, he may shift to NG" There, that is an example of a change of heart resulting in a immediate change of alignment. For me, that's simply not enough. He would need to actually act, or intentionally forebear from acting (and I do consider "forebear" to be an action).
StSteven 09-25-07, 12:46 PM	For me, that's simply not enough. He would need to actually act, or intentionally forebear from acting (and I do consider "forebear" to be an action). He forebears from killing the rest of the children. That is not an action in my book. I guess you can define action so broadly that, for all intents and purposes, we agree on what it takes to change alignment. "Well on his way" was intended to mirror the language in the DMG. It is the same type of situation. Someone changes to N, but is well on their way to becoming good.
wrecan 09-25-07, 12:59 PM	He forebears from killing the rest of the children. In your original hypothetical, it is unclear that there were any other children. That is not an action in my book. I guess you can define action so broadly that, for all intents and purposes, we agree on what it takes to change alignment. Or, alternately, you can define "change of heart" so broadly so as to encompass lots of things the rest of us consider to be actions. If it involves an exercise of willpower, that is an action, to me. And anybody who has ever been on a diet or had to overcome an addiction would agree that consciously forbearing from actions involves the exercise of willpower. For me, the netural alignment involves lots of conscious choices to forbear from action. Not to defend someone in need. Not to risk one's life. Not to give in to the temptation to steal or murder. To me, a "thought", a contemplation, even a resolution to do something in the future, is not an action. It is thought. It takes no willpower, no consciousness of body.
heffroncm 09-25-07, 01:12 PM	I think the main sticking point here between StSteven and LCD2YOU is the fact that we don't get snapshots, we have time in motion. At the particular instance of the alignment change detailed in the example of the exception, he does it immediately, took no action to do so, and skipped from Evil to Good. Actions in the future would certainly have to valide this alignment change, however they are not neccessary BEFORE the change. A NE NPC that has a sudden change of heart can immediately take up the Holy sword and start to use it without the penalties an Evil character would have. He'd be immune to Magic Circle against Evil, vulnerable to Magic Circle against Good, and show as NG if someone used Detect Alignment. None of these effect would take any time to come into play. He could easily backslide if he doesn't act according to his new alignment, but for that moment he is as NG as the druid who has been healing sick animals all her life.
LCD2YOU 09-25-07, 01:15 PM	He forebears from killing the rest of the children.What you seem to describe in your story is remorse. I am pretty sure many get it, even a BBEG. Remorse is not enough to change one's alignment. Also, what the guy did by not killing any more kids at that time was not a good act but a neutral one. So he did not kill the rest of the kids then, sounds like a remorseful thing, not really a life changing event. I agree with wrecan, he didn't really do anything worthy of an alignment change. He stopped himself from doing more evil but where's the good?That is not an action in my book. I guess you can define action so broadly that, for all intents and purposes, we agree on what it takes to change alignment.The thing is that what is in question, can an alignment change happen with only a heart-felt change and no actions after it is obvious that is not the case. Even if the guy were to turn N only due to change of heart, he must complete a good action so quickly as to make what happened first completely irrelevant as both things, action to do good and heart-felt change on on top of each other as to seem simultaneous. Again that means that just a dramatic change of heart is not enough to change one's alignment. It is the first step, that's all."Well on his way" was intended to mirror the language in the DMG. It is the same type of situation. Someone changes to N, but is well on their way to becoming good.Your statement mirrors what is in the DMG says but your story is not like the one in the DMG. The evil NPC in the story has been with the party for sometime and saw how they act and help each other. A hero gave his life to save others. So again your explanation mirrors the DMG but the circumstances do not. I still would like to hear your answers to these questions: But let's say there was no conflict in Darth. Let's say Darth "had a sudden change of heart". So did his alignment change before or after he tossed the Emperor down the shaft? If he turned good before he tossed the Emperor, what if he did nothing at all? What if he sat in the corner with his shiny new soul and let's Luke die. Would he still be good? Thanks in advance.
Cantankerous 09-25-07, 01:20 PM	Actually, at the point that he has simply decided to change he is still Evil. Again, nothing breaks the precondition for JUDGING the alignment. If you are a DM dealing with an NPC it is all mental exercise. He ISN'T an Evil scumbag, he merely WAS an Evil scumbag. Net value, zero. No judging, which is the issue at question here, has taken place whatsoever. Now, when you act as DM and adjudge whether or not the Alignment warrants a change, we have our VERY CLEAR injunction to the DM to make the PC "prove it" by their actions. A DMs we sincerely do not care how many angles can dance on the head of any given pin. What you have the NPCs do off stage has no place in the discussion. This forum is dedicated to the idea of DMs helping DMs to understand the rules. Which in this case are crystal clear... actions, make them prove it, not just state it. Isshia
LCD2YOU 09-25-07, 01:33 PM	Actually, at the point that he has simply decided to change he is still Evil. Again, nothing breaks the precondition for JUDGING the alignment. If you are a DM dealing with an NPC it is all mental exercise. He ISN'T an Evil scumbag, he merely WAS an Evil scumbag. Net value, zero. No judging, which is the issue at question here, has taken place whatsoever. Now, when you act as DM and adjudge whether or not the Alignment warrants a change, we have our VERY CLEAR injunction to the DM to make the PC "prove it" by their actions. A DMs we sincerely do not care how many angles can dance on the head of any given pin. What you have the NPCs do off stage has no place in the discussion. This forum is dedicated to the idea of DMs helping DMs to understand the rules. Which in this case are crystal clear... actions, make them prove it, not just state it. IsshiaWho the **** asked you? :D How's it going bud? :cool: Which is my point. I don't care if a PC or a NPC has an epiphany to be good. Until they actually do something they are still the old alignment. Now heffroncm, tell me if I'm wrong, may think that I require action first. Actually I think that intent is required first then action. Up until they do the action, and it must be as spectacular or more than their evil/good was, their intent is not enough to change alignments.
heffroncm 09-25-07, 01:41 PM	A DMs we sincerely do not care how many angles can dance on the head of any given pin. What you have the NPCs do off stage has no place in the discussion. This forum is dedicated to the idea of DMs helping DMs to understand the rules. Which in this case are crystal clear... actions, make them prove it, not just state it. Isshia See, the whole of this last page is dedicated to talking about an NPC. You can use a PC in the same situation. Pinnip, NE Halfling Rogue, has been traveling with a Wizard, Cleric, and Paladin for some time. They take on a job to clean out an Ogre lair. During this time, the everyone but Pinnip is captured. They are going to be eaten tommorrow. His first instinct, and keeping with his alignment, is to sneak out and leave. Inspired by the altruism he has witnessed in his friends, he instead undergoes a radical change of heart. Abandoning his selfish ways, he takes up the paladin's +2 holy longsword and frees his companions. Pinnip had an immediate change of alignment. He took no actions, did no deeds to earn this alignment change. It was not gradual, jumping him straight to Good. Later, he backed it up with actions, but at the time he took up the Holy sword he had not. Plot device? Of course. However, that is the entire point of the exceptions to the rules. It was a spontaneous situation, which the player saw as a great way to include some dramatic storytelling for his character. So, he talked to the DM, and they did it. Now heffroncm, tell me if I'm wrong, may think that I require action first. Actually I think that intent is required first then action. Up until they do the action, and it must be as spectacular or more than their evil/good was, their intent is not enough to change alignments. That is exactly how things normally go. They have to do things to change their alignment. Be it a repentant trying to set things right or a disillusioned paladin sliding towards evil, action precipitates change. You need not have the intent to change, that's the whole idea behind power corrupts and the gradual fall. The exceptions allow for groups to skirt these rules. It shouldn't happen all the time, as it's the excpetion.
StSteven 09-25-07, 01:50 PM	What you seem to describe in your story is remorse. I am pretty sure many get it, even a BBEG. Remorse is not enough to change one's alignment. Not remorse but a fundamental change in the moral outlook. It is more than just remorse. It is a rededication of his life to making up for his evil deeds. He doesn't just feel bad about it. He is horrified by what he has done. Also, what the guy did by not killing any more kids at that time was not a good act but a neutral one. So he did not kill the rest of the kids then, sounds like a remorseful thing, not really a life changing event. That's fine. It isn't a neutral act, it is not an action. He refrains from doing something. Does it take willpower not to do it, yes. This is the reason that he changes alignment without acting. That is actually a perfect way to look at it. By showing the willpower not to do more evil (which isn't an action) he demonstrates his change of heart. I agree with wrecan, he didn't really do anything worthy of an alignment change. He stopped himself from doing more evil but where's the good?The thing is that what is in question, can an alignment change happen with only a heart-felt change and no actions after it is obvious that is not the case. It is not obvious. The spy in the first example turned N after watching the good characters interact (while he was still spying, which was evil) and seeing the paladin sacrifice himself. There is no action taken by the spy to change to N. If you believe that there were good actions taken to change to good, the why does a section that explains how alignments change not mention the most crucial (in your view) requirement. That makes no sense at all to me. You seem to assume that the writers are bad as expressing the most important details. Even if the guy were to turn N only due to change of heart, he must complete a good action so quickly as to make what happened first completely irrelevant as both things, action to do good and heart-felt change on on top of each other as to seem simultaneous. Again that means that just a dramatic change of heart is not enough to change one's alignment. It is the first step, that's all.Your statement mirrors what is in the DMG says but your story is not like the one in the DMG. The evil NPC in the story has been with the party for sometime and saw how they act and help each other. A hero gave his life to save others. So again your explanation mirrors the DMG but the circumstances do not. I think my example does mirror the example exactly. The change of heart is just quicker. The spy started to have a change of heart after seeing the characters work together, and the change happened when he saw the paladin's sacrifice. The guy killing kids had a change of heart all at once because his whole basis for being evil in the first place blew up in his face. I still would like to hear your answers to these questions: But let's say there was no conflict in Darth. Let's say Darth "had a sudden change of heart". So did his alignment change before or after he tossed the Emperor down the shaft? If he turned good before he tossed the Emperor, what if he did nothing at all? What if he sat in the corner with his shiny new soul and let's Luke die. Would he still be good? Thanks in advance. I hate the Vader example because movie characters are not developed enough to make judgments like that. In his case, it is irrelevant when the alignment changed. However, if you go by the PHB definition of alignment, his moral outlook changed before he performed the action. If you look at the DMG guidelines, it isn't clear. Either he changed alignment before the action and the action proved it, or he changed alignment as a result of the action. I tend to believe that the wording "prove it" implies that the alignment changed before the action and the action proved it. Actually, at the point that he has simply decided to change he is still Evil. Again, nothing breaks the precondition for JUDGING the alignment. If you are a DM dealing with an NPC it is all mental exercise. He ISN'T an Evil scumbag, he merely WAS an Evil scumbag. Net value, zero. No judging, which is the issue at question here, has taken place whatsoever. And in the case of an NPC, he immediatly changes alignment to N because there is no one to 'prove it' to. Change of heart = Instant alignment change. Now, when you act as DM and adjudge whether or not the Alignment warrants a change, we have our VERY CLEAR injunction to the DM to make the PC "prove it" by their actions. Except that there are exceptions to all of the above. That is VERY CLEAR. A DMs we sincerely do not care how many angles can dance on the head of any given pin. What you have the NPCs do off stage has no place in the discussion. This forum is dedicated to the idea of DMs helping DMs to understand the rules. Which in this case are crystal clear... actions, make them prove it, not just state it. No, the players must prove their alignment changes to the DM with actions. There are exceptions to that. That is crystal clear. NPC have no such restriction. Is the DM supposed to prove his NPCs are of a different alignment to his players? I think not.
LCD2YOU 09-25-07, 01:56 PM	See, the whole of this last page is dedicated to talking about an NPC. You can use a PC in the same situation. Pinnip, NE Halfling Rogue, has been traveling with a Wizard, Cleric, and Paladin for some time. They take on a job to clean out an Ogre lair. During this time, the everyone but Pinnip is captured. They are going to be eaten tommorrow. His first instinct, and keeping with his alignment, is to sneak out and leave. Inspired by the altruism he has witnessed in his friends, he instead undergoes a radical change of heart. Abandoning his selfish ways, he takes up the paladin's +2 holy longsword and frees his companions. Pinnip had an immediate change of alignment. He took no actions, did no deeds to earn this alignment change. It was not gradual, jumping him straight to Good. Later, he backed it up with actions, but at the time he took up the Holy sword he had not. Plot device? Of course. However, that is the entire point of the exceptions to the rules. It was a spontaneous situation, which the player saw as a great way to include some dramatic storytelling for his character. So, he talked to the DM, and they did it.And I agree. However there were several things that transpired that started him off to being good. 1: Instead of leaving, he stayed but he remembers his friends. 2: He valued his friends' lives over his own. That by itself is a good action. He doesn't know if he'll survive, but he's going to rescue his friends. 3: He fights to save his friends' lives when he could have clearly been killed. See, that is what I'm talking about. The change of heart and action to do good were on top of each other. The "spontaneous" part started when he didn't leave. To me, he would have been still evil up until he committed himself to the fight. When he picked up the Paladin's sword to It all goes back to what I and others have been saying all along. A change of heart is great, but by itself it is not enough to change one's alignment. So to the OP: No, a change of heart by itself is not enough to change one's alignment.
pres_man 09-25-07, 01:57 PM	See, the whole of this last page is dedicated to talking about an NPC. You can use a PC in the same situation. Pinnip, NE Halfling Rogue, has been traveling with a Wizard, Cleric, and Paladin for some time. They take on a job to clean out an Ogre lair. During this time, the everyone but Pinnip is captured. They are going to be eaten tommorrow. His first instinct, and keeping with his alignment, is to sneak out and leave. Inspired by the altruism he has witnessed in his friends, he instead undergoes a radical change of heart. Abandoning his selfish ways, he takes up the paladin's +2 holy longsword and frees his companions. Pinnip had an immediate change of alignment. He took no actions, did no deeds to earn this alignment change. It was not gradual, jumping him straight to Good. Later, he backed it up with actions, but at the time he took up the Holy sword he had not. Plot device? Of course. However, that is the entire point of the exceptions to the rules. It was a spontaneous situation, which the player saw as a great way to include some dramatic storytelling for his character. So, he talked to the DM, and they did it. What if instead, Pinnip started to go back to help his friends (changes to good), then hears the ogre roar and says to himself, "Forget this!" and takes off (changes back to evil)? At this point the character is quickly approaching the "wish-washy" standard.
StSteven 09-25-07, 02:00 PM	And I agree. However there were several things that transpired that started him off to being good. 1: Instead of leaving, he stayed but he remembers his friends. 2: He valued his friends' lives over his own. That by itself is a good action. He doesn't know if he'll survive, but he's going to rescue his friends. 3: He fights to save his friends' lives when he could have clearly been killed. See, that is what I'm talking about. The change of heart and action to do good were on top of each other. The "spontaneous" part started when he didn't leave. To me, he would have been still evil up until he committed himself to the fight. When he picked up the Paladin's sword to It all goes back to what I and others have been saying all along. A change of heart is great, but by itself it is not enough to change one's alignment. So to the OP: No, a change of heart by itself is not enough to change one's alignment. 1: Not leaving is not an action. 2: These are feelings and motivations, not actions. 3: He has already changed alignment. (Thus the holy sword part). His example is a change of heart changing alignment without action. The actions follow the alignment change. As I said before, if you broaden you definition of actions, then anything is enough to 'prove it' and the action requirement becomes even less meaningful than in my interpretation.
heffroncm 09-25-07, 02:34 PM	The problem we seem to be running into isn't when or how someone can change alignment, but a definition of the word "action." Quibbling over minor points, as it were. Action, as taken from the context in the DMG section on changing aligments, would be concrete actions that affect others. A purely mental excersize would not, by the DMG, allow for a normal change in alignment. That thinking is itself an action of a sort is not relevant to alignment change. It all seems to come down to description. Describe one way, Pinnip had a moral epiphany, changed alignment, and from there his actions followed his new alignment. Described another, Pinnip had a moral epihpany, did something entirely out of character, and because of his next few actions along with the extreme circumstances of the epiphany his alignment changes. Same thing, different description. As far as the DMG is concerned, he took no concrete actions that affected others. His actions can just as easily have been described as biding his time for the right moment to escape, and snagging the sword to sell later. A LE monk, sitting in meditation for days, could have a similar epiphany and become LG sometime in the middle. He's taken no real action other than the mental effort of putting 2 and 2 together to get fish, yet his alignment can still change. So, to answer the OP, yes and no :D. Yes, you can change alignment without taking an action that has any affect on anyone else or the game world. No, you cannot change alignment without at least some sort of mental effort. This is why creatures of Animal intelligence have no real alignment, they don't think about it.
LCD2YOU 09-26-07, 08:12 AM	This is interesting enough to warrant some more discussion.1: Not leaving is not an action. 2: These are feelings and motivations, not actions. 3: He has already changed alignment. (Thus the holy sword part). His example is a change of heart changing alignment without action. The actions follow the alignment change. As I said before, if you broaden you definition of actions, then anything is enough to 'prove it' and the action requirement becomes even less meaningful than in my interpretation.Actually you're the one who is having a problem I fear when it comes to "actions". As wrecan pointed out in post #147The rest is the same. Dropping a mission is not an action, it is stopping an evil action.I fail to see why "stopping" isn't "an action" in itself.It says he changed alignment after witnessing the paladin's sacrifice.Every alignment change has a "moment" where the change happens. After all, there are only 9 alignments, not a full spectrum of infite alignments along a graph. But the example of the NPC LCD2YOU quoted at length shows a long process leading up to the moment of change, with a gradual softening of the villain's heart.I don't believe you ever responded to it. 1: His not leaving is an action when he could have run out and saved his own skin. By not leaving and looking for an opportunity to free his friends. 2: His planning to rescue his friends and staying around to do that are actions. 3: His alignment was changed when he picked up the sword and put himself in harm's way. Up until that time he could have been ready to steal the other party members' stuff and leave. It wasn't until he showed why he was there, to rescue his friends and fight even worse evil, that his alignment changed. Again, you have not demonstrated how long a person has to actually do good. You hemmed and hawed about not liking the Star Wars analogy. Ok. So you have a NE evil villain, like the guy I wrote about in the example many posts ago. He has had an epiphany and he's now NG (something I don't agree with but for the sake of "can you change alignment with a heart-felt change). All of that bad stuff is going on around him. How long does he got to actually do something for good for good's sake? If he just leaves and gets as far away from his little keep of horrors, is he still good? In other words, an evil person just had a change of heart yet evil is still in front of them or their evil from previous plans are on going. Can they just sit around and still be their new "good" alignment? If so, how long to they got?
StSteven 09-26-07, 08:20 AM	You are defining actions in such a way as to make the debate meaningless. Under your definition, anything can be an action. You are defining thinking about stuff and not doing things as actions. These are not actions that will have an effect on alignment according to the DMG. I did respond to it, but I will do it one more time. 1. Not leaving is not an action. Sorry, but standing there isn't an action. 2. There was no planning in the example. He grabbed the sword and started swinging. 3. He still hadn't done anything but pick up a sword at that point. The length of time that the person is good is irrelevant. We are talking about someone changing alignment. How long they are good after that is irrelevant. After all, the alignment change is in the past at that point. Unless you can set up weird time loops, future events have no bearing on a past alignment change. The Star Wars analogy is bad because you can't say if Darth Vader changed alignment before of after his action. You say after, I say before and the action was the 'proof' of it. There is no way to know who is right by examining the movie. It is pointless other than as a hypothetical to debate about. It isn't useful in shedding light on the subject any more than my example of heffroncm (who you never responded to). If your NE villain were to run away (this has been said so many times before that it is getting old) he never changed to good in the first place. He may have changed to neutral, but not good. I'll say it again, if they don't do anything about their evil plans or the evil around them, they didn't change to good. If it were a PC, I would have told them to 'prove it' before I believed their alignment change. (Except in a case like pinnip there, where the player expresses a desire to have an epiphany and I trust the player to play it like that). They would not be given any advantage of being good until they proved it. If it is an NPC, the they will act according to the good alignment at the first opportunity.
wrecan 09-26-07, 08:52 AM	You are defining actions in such a way as to make the debate meaningless. No StSteven, in my last post, to which you did not respond, I carefully laid out the distinction between thoughts and actions. Under your definition, anything can be an action. You keep accusing us of misstating your argument. It's pretty hypocritical of you to so obviously misstate mine. You are defining thinking about stuff and not doing things as actions. Actually, I very specifically stated the former is not an action.
LCD2YOU 09-26-07, 09:06 AM	You are defining actions in such a way as to make the debate meaningless. Under your definition, anything can be an action. You are defining thinking about stuff and not doing things as actions. These are not actions that will have an effect on alignment according to the DMG.Ok. You know that you can actually point it out instead of saying so without showing anything other than your own bias. Could you please show me how what I stated isn't an action? While you at it, could you answer the other questions I have asked? See, I have gone through great lengths to respond to everything you said and point out where you said them and then provided a counter. Until you do such a thing, your opinion is noted, but as CMF has stated, your opinions are not an argument. This is not a slam but it is the way it is. You keep on hiding behind the DMG yet you do not show what you mean. You constantly avoid tough questions and when you did post a scenario, I'm sorry, but it really lacked in specifics. If you want to think that all one has to do is to have a deep change of heart and then you're alignment is changed, you need to provide how that is done and how it works such as time constraints, what they have to do and so on.
StSteven 09-26-07, 09:07 AM	Maybe I am missing what you are claiming that I haven't responded to. Perhaps you could both be more specific.
LCD2YOU 09-26-07, 09:27 AM	(snip) already dealt with) The length of time that the person is good is irrelevant.Then how do you know they actually changed? Down below in this very same trhead I am responding to (it changed while I was writing it) your reason for the Star Wars analogy is such:The Star Wars analogy is bad because you can't say if Darth Vader changed alignment before of after his action.So how does one know if the person actually changes alignment until after they had acted? This is in direct opposition to you claiming the rogue from another example had changed BEFORE he drew the sword to vanquish his party's captors. So how is one already good, the rogue from the example, but one doesn't know Vader's change of alignment? Seems to me that is waffling on your side and that's unbecoming.We are talking about someone changing alignment. How long they are good after that is irrelevant.So they don't have to do anything good to change their alignment? Sounds like slignments then have no purpose as one can change them willy nilly and keep being good or evil by merely wanting to be.After all, the alignment change is in the past at that point.But Vader's is in dispute?Unless you can set up weird time loops, future events have no bearing on a past alignment change.But as you said one doesn't know what Vader's alignment is as did it change before or after he took out the Emperor.The Star Wars analogy is bad because you can't say if Darth Vader changed alignment before of after his action. You say after, I say before and the action was the 'proof' of it. There is no way to know who is right by examining the movie. It is pointless other than as a hypothetical to debate about. It isn't useful in shedding light on the subject any more than my example of heffroncm (who you never responded to).That's supposed to deflect all that you haven't responded to? What question did heffroncm ask of me? Don't think we're even in the same boat and cast dispersions against me because there's so much you haven't responded to we're not even in the same ocean, let alone boat. Actually I have been responding to heffroncm. Their last post is what all I haven't actually quoted. But then again he didn't ask me anything did he? So you are sicking even lower. You don't respond for pages and yet you resort to that. As wrecan stated, you are becoming more hypocritical by the moment. I hope you stop and see what you are doing.If your NE villain were to run away (this has been said so many times before that it is getting old) he never changed to good in the first place.But how do you know this?He may have changed to neutral, but not good.How do you know he changed at all? What did he show that he was good? Or even just neutral? Your examples of what is and is not changes of alignment are stretched beyond the breaking point. Each look the same but you classify them differently. How come?I'll say it again, if they don't do anything about their evil plans or the evil around them, they didn't change to good.So in the case of the rogue. Had he stayed around to loot his companions' wealth instead of drawing the sword to fight and save their lives, how would one have known?If it were a PC, I would have told them to 'prove it' before I believed their alignment change. (Except in a case like pinnip there, where the player expresses a desire to have an epiphany and I trust the player to play it like that).Which is also known as metagaming. So is heffroncm a sock puppet of you? Otherwise how do you know this player?They would not be given any advantage of being good until they proved it. If it is an NPC, the they will act according to the good alignment at the first opportunity.So actions do make it good. As you've just stated, they must "prove" it to make an alignment change. No? So until they proved it, would you Up until then they are still their old alignment waiting for that "kicker"? Again, that means "No, one is not able to change their alignment by mere change of heart". According to StSteven, one must prove it.
heffroncm 09-26-07, 09:37 AM	If you want to think that all one has to do is to have a deep change of heart and then you're alignment is changed, you need to provide how that is done and how it works such as time constraints, what they have to do and so on. That's just the point. It's the exception to the rules. There is no time constraint, there is no action recquired, nothing at all has to happen for someone's alignment to change under the exceptions. If someone then fails to act in accordance with their new alignment (assuming we're talking about PC's here, as it's been said that NPC's don't matter,) then you can either make another exception nullifying the alignment change, or you can deal with it through the standard slow, gradual rules. For example, Pinnip the PC Rogue had his little epiphany, worked it all out with the DM to become Neutral Good in an instant and set about saving his friends. He's bested the goaler, has the keys, and now just has to get to the cages and let people out. Action calms down as he's hiding, waiting for his Vigor wand to patch him up, and has some time to think. At this point, he chickens out. He decides that he can't possibly get through to his friends to save them, there's too many ogres in the way. So, he "goes for help," knowing full well that by the time he gets back they will almost certainly be dead. The DM has a couple options here. He can start an alignment shift as if Pinnip were Neutral Good, warning him that he's acted against his alignment and is going to slide towards Neutral and then Evil if he continues his selfish ways. Alternatively, the DM can make another exception (after pulling the player aside and berating him for ruining what was supposed to be a great moment), and drop Pinnip to TN or NE. So, this situation illustrates a few things. It doesn't actually matter if Darth Vader or Pinnip changed alignment before they acted or after, because mechanically it is the same in the end. We're arguing semantics and miniscule timing that have no actual game effect here ;). This all comes down to interpretation, and as you seem to agree on the actual mechanical effects, I fail to see why you feel the need to debate the minutae of specifics that have no actual mechanical effect. It also points out that after the exception, from the discrete point that the character becomes his new alignment, it's played the same way. You can either use the normal alignment rules, or if you as a DM feel it is appropriate, make another exception. You can change your alignment in an instant from a change of heart. For that one instant, the NE Rogue became NG. What happened in the future had no bearing on that instant, and if his alignment changed from NG later that day it does not invalidate that, for a time, the DM said he was NG.
LCD2YOU 09-26-07, 10:03 AM	Do you and StSteven know each other outside of this forum? Just wondering.That's just the point. It's the exception to the rules. There is no time constraint, there is no action recquired, nothing at all has to happen for someone's alignment to change under the exceptions. If someone then fails to act in accordance with their new alignment (assuming we're talking about PC's here, as it's been said that NPC's don't matter,) then you can either make another exception nullifying the alignment change, or you can deal with it through the standard slow, gradual rules. For example, Pinnip the PC Rogue had his little epiphany, worked it all out with the DM to become Neutral Good in an instant and set about saving his friends. He's bested the goaler, has the keys, and now just has to get to the cages and let people out. Action calms down as he's hiding, waiting for his Vigor wand to patch him up, and has some time to think. At this point, he chickens out. He decides that he can't possibly get through to his friends to save them, there's too many ogres in the way. So, he "goes for help," knowing full well that by the time he gets back they will almost certainly be dead. The DM has a couple options here. He can start an alignment shift as if Pinnip were Neutral Good, warning him that he's acted against his alignment and is going to slide towards Neutral and then Evil if he continues his selfish ways. Alternatively, the DM can make another exception (after pulling the player aside and berating him for ruining what was supposed to be a great moment), and drop Pinnip to TN or NE. So, this situation illustrates a few things. It doesn't actually matter if Darth Vader or Pinnip changed alignment before they acted or after, because mechanically it is the same in the end. We're arguing semantics and miniscule timing that have no actual game effect here ;). This all comes down to interpretation, and as you seem to agree on the actual mechanical effects, I fail to see why you feel the need to debate the minutae of specifics that have no actual mechanical effect. It also points out that after the exception, from the discrete point that the character becomes his new alignment, it's played the same way. You can either use the normal alignment rules, or if you as a DM feel it is appropriate, make another exception. You can change your alignment in an instant from a change of heart. For that one instant, the NE Rogue became NG. What happened in the future had no bearing on that instant, and if his alignment changed from NG later that day it does not invalidate that, for a time, the DM said he was NG.Why is that so much like "Schroedinger's Cat"? If a person changes from NE to NG and immediately back to NE, what does that mean? Is that not just a cheapening of the alignment system (not that is needs help) that has no bearing on anything? As for exceptions to the rules, there are. But the one shown on page 134 is an exception to the time rule where alignment change is gradual. So the answer is still, "No." As StSteven has pointed out, there is no way of knowing which way the PC is going to turn. The example you gave with the DM and player is OoG knowledge and not in game. The rogue player told the DM that they were staying to free the other PCs. That is an action out of game that changes the DMs perception. Had the player not said a word, the DM has no idea what is about to transpire. Then it goes back to this: 1: How often can a person have a "change of heart"? 2: Etc. Of course it comes down to this: "No, a change of heart, by RAW and CORE, is not sufficient to change alignment. However house rules are allowed to change that." Which states, only a house rule can make it so, but that is not RAW. To note house rules can say people are evil if they even talk to another person who is evil and Clerics must stand on their head when casting a spell.
wrecan 09-26-07, 10:13 AM	The DM has a couple options here. He can start an alignment shift as if Pinnip were Neutral Good, warning him that he's acted against his alignment and is going to slide towards Neutral and then Evil if he continues his selfish ways. Alternatively, the DM can make another exception (after pulling the player aside and berating him for ruining what was supposed to be a great moment), and drop Pinnip to TN or NE. These kinds of bizarre hypotheticals, in which someone changes alignment twice in a single moment, and without having done anything... NE Pinnip realizes that the right thing to do is to sacrifice yourself to save friends. His epiphany causes him to become NG NG Pinnip then realizes that even if he sacrifices himself here, that his friends are still doomed. He has another epiphany: sacrificing yourself is stupid. The person who matters most of all is yourself. This epiphany makes him TN. TN Pinnip realizes he's been lost in his thoughts and his friends are on the ground and the monster is gone. With some quick math, he realizes there's enough treasure to pay for Raise Dead spells for them all.... or he could buy those Gloves of Dexterity +6 he had is eyes on. Oh, wait. He notices his friends aren't dead, just paralyzed. Well, he decides, a slice across the throat could change that. Suddenly, he is CE. Pinnip hasn't acted. It's all been thoughts. And they're mostly idle thoughts. Heck, he might not even got through with the throat-slitting. And yet Pinnip has not had four alignments without twitching a muscle. The problem is that once the DM decides to allow thoughts alone to change alignment, all he's doing is committing himself to a path of frequent alignment change if his players tend to run off at the mouth. That doesn't seem to me to be a wise interpretation of the rules. In fact, it only makes sense if one presupposes alignment to be a fundamentally silly tool and then tries to come up with rules interpretations to make it look even sillier. A second problem is that the DM is then using thought-based alignment change to influence his players' actions. It becomes a tool of railroading. Here's the dicussions between Pinnip's PC ("PPC") and the DM. DM: Okay. Pinnip sees the monster is tearing through your friends. PPC: All right. This is the moment we discussed. Pinnip realizes he loves his friends and is willing to risk his own life to save them for no reward. DM: Great. Change the alignment on his sheet from NE to NG. PPC: Fantastic. Wait a minute. Did that creature take out all my friends in a surprise round? DM: Well, yeah. But it was a bursta ttack, and the others failed their saves. PPC: Well, from Pinnip's perspective, this thing is way out of his league. Forget it. DM: Well, fine. Now change the alignment to TN. PPC: Aw, C'mon. DM: Hey, that's a pretty serious change in thinking from a guy who wanted to be NG. PPC: Okay, okay.... DM: The monster walks away. PPC: Really? So Pinnip is in the clear. Well, look, I can use the party's treasure to Riase them form the dead. That's something? From where I statnd what do I see? Is there other treasure around? DM: Roll a Spot check. PPC: Natural 20.... Now, the fighter had about 20,000 in loot, and the wizard has 10,000... hmmm... I might be able to afford those Gloves of Dexterity +6 if I don't raise them... DM: You don't see any treasure, but you notice your friends are not dead. They are paralyzed. PPC: Hmmm... paralyzed. I could kill them.... DM: What? All right. Change your alignment to CE. PPC: What? I was just talking. DM: Talking about killing your helpless best friends! I mean, compared to the other "epiphanies" Pinnip had, this is the biggest by far. PPC: Well, I need a new character sheet. This one's worn through. If you allow your players to make idle thoughts and to not change anything until they act, then the players get to actually role-play their characters and think through their actions without DM interference. And since I think that, in general, NPCs and PCs should he held to the same standard, I don't think DMs should be changing NPC alignments due to thoughts alone either. We're arguing semantics and miniscule timing that have no actual game effect here ;). Except I think it does have a game effect. It reflects a gaming philosophy and the degree to which a DM feels it appropriate to influence a player's decision with regard to his character.
heffroncm 09-26-07, 10:22 AM	Do you and StSteven know each other outside of this forum? Just wondering. Nope, never seen him before this thread. Why is that so much like "Schroedinger's Cat"? If a person changes from NE to NG and immediately back to NE, what does that mean? Is that not just a cheapening of the alignment system (not that is needs help) that has no bearing on anything? Yes, it is. It never would have happened had it been an NPC, as he would have played out the scene. The example I was giving was of a player that talked with the DM, worked out a potential solution to the bad place they left the last game (that being the rogue alive and free, the rest going to die unless the rogue saves them), and then not following through on it. As for exceptions to the rules, there are. But the one shown on page 134 is an exception to the time rule where alignment change is gradual. So the answer is still, "No." As StSteven has pointed out, there is no way of knowing which way the PC is going to turn. Just because the example given is only an exception to the time rule does not mean that the only possible exception is of the time rule. The example given in the PHB for Bard is only of a Gnome, even though they stated earlier in the book that any race can be any class. By the same logic, only Gnomes can be bards. The example you gave with the DM and player is OoG knowledge and not in game. The rogue player told the DM that they were staying to free the other PCs. That is an action out of game that changes the DMs perception. Had the player not said a word, the DM has no idea what is about to transpire. Yes, this is precisely correct. This is how alignment changes happen for players, especially intentional ones. You talk to your DM, let them know what you are trying to do, and work it out. This is also how most of the best storytelling scenes happen, as if you try to put them together spontaneously without either party knowing what is going on they tend to fail spectacularly. I'm confused if you are arguing that the player has to take some action to cause an alignment change, or if the character does. I also want to state again that, for all purposes that have any relevance to the way the game is played, it does not make any differance. Mechanically, the way you run it and the way StSteven run it work exactly the same. Then it goes back to this: 1: How often can a person have a "change of heart"? 2: Etc. Of course it comes down to this: "No, a change of heart, by RAW and CORE, is not sufficient to change alignment. However house rules are allowed to change that." Which states, only a house rule can make it so, but that is not RAW. To note house rules can say people are evil if they even talk to another person who is evil and Clerics must stand on their head when casting a spell. There exists, in the RAW Core, a special provision about alignment telling the DM to especially make exceptions to the rules in this area. Even if you do not use any houserules, you are encouraged to allow bending and breaking of rules in the area of alignment to make for better roleplay and a more interesting game. Does the now NG character still have to play to their alignment? Of course. However, the actual mechanical differance between becoming NG, then deciding to use the Holy sword to free his friends, or becoming NG because he wielded the Holy sword to free his friends, is nil. I'm not trying to side with you or StSteven here. I'm trying to say this discussion has no real point. It doesn't matter which flavor you use, the mechanics are the same in the end. The Rogue's alignment changed at near enough the same point in time to make no differance, and the "why" of it is something that the DMG specifically leaves up to each and every DM to decide on thier own. **EDIT Adding a response to what was posted while I was typing*** If you allow your players to make idle thoughts and to not change anything until they act, then the players get to actually role-play their characters and think through their actions without DM interference. I can't say I've dealt with this issue before. When commiting to a course of action for the sake of dramatic storytelling and RP, my players stick it through. This is obviously not something that should happen when the players themselves are NE and only interested in the furthering of their character. If this was something that I felt a player was trying to do to pick up a bunch of extra RP experience, I'd veto it outright. The point is, in this situation, the player has thought it through. He's decided on one course of action. He's going to stick to it. Someone else asked what would happen if he didn't stick to it, so I came up with the hypothetical. Of course the DM is going to be rather annoyed with this player, and most likely not allow them any significant effect on the story or direction of the game in the future. Basically, the exceptions exist. You can use them anyway you like, as an exception can be to any or all of the normal alignment change rules. The only rule that has no exception is "You're in control." If you think a player is trying to manipulate the system, or you don't think he'll follow through on what he's saying in-game, then don't allow the change. If you've got a good rapport with your players, and you can trust them to do what they say they will, then play it out and have fun with it.
StSteven 09-26-07, 10:25 AM	Then how do you know they actually changed? Down below in this very same trhead I am responding to (it changed while I was writing it) your reason for the Star Wars analogy is such:So how does one know if the person actually changes alignment until after they had acted? It was added to in order to attempt to clarify the argument. All edits happened within 10 minutes or so of the post. I have a right to add to a post. Quit acting like I am doing something wrong there. To answer the question, I know that they changed because they are an NPC or I have had a talk about the situation with the player and trust them to act according to the new alignment. This is in direct opposition to you claiming the rogue from another example had changed BEFORE he drew the sword to vanquish his party's captors. So how is one already good, the rogue from the example, but one doesn't know Vader's change of alignment? Seems to me that is waffling on your side and that's unbecoming.So they don't have to do anything good to change their alignment? Sounds like slignments then have no purpose as one can change them willy nilly and keep being good or evil by merely wanting to be.But Vader's is in dispute?But as you said one doesn't know what Vader's alignment is as did it change before or after he took out the Emperor.That's supposed to deflect all that you haven't responded to? What question did heffroncm ask of me? Don't think we're even in the same boat and cast dispersions against me because there's so much you haven't responded to we're not even in the same ocean, let alone boat. It is not I who claim that every alignment change happens the same way. Some are gradual, over time, and require actions. Some are exceptions. It is exactly what is written in the DMG. Actually I have been responding to heffroncm. Their last post is what all I haven't actually quoted. But then again he didn't ask me anything did he? He made valid points that you are ignoring. This isn't a question answer, this is a debate. So you are sicking even lower. You don't respond for pages and yet you resort to that. As wrecan stated, you are becoming more hypocritical by the moment. I hope you stop and see what you are doing.But how do you know this?How do you know he changed at all? What did he show that he was good? Or even just neutral? Because he is an NPC or I have talked it over with the player and ruled that the situation calls for an exception to the guidelines on alignment changes. Your examples of what is and is not changes of alignment are stretched beyond the breaking point. Each look the same but you classify them differently. How come? Sometimes alignment changes are gradual, over time, and require actions, and sometimes there are exceptions. So in the case of the rogue. Had he stayed around to loot his companions' wealth instead of drawing the sword to fight and save their lives, how would one have known? Either he is an NPC or I talked it over with the player. Which is also known as metagaming. Alignment assignments are always metagaming. Just like an intelligence score or HP. So is heffroncm a sock puppet of you? Otherwise how do you know this player? I have never talked to heffroncm before, and that comment is another one that goes way over the line of good debating. I have endeavored to become more civil and sound less arrogant and rude in my posts. I probably haven't always succeeded, but I am trying. I am trying to leave off the comments like that. You should probably do the same. You are not even showing an effort to be civil. So actions do make it good. As you've just stated, they must "prove" it to make an alignment change. No? So until they proved it, would you Up until then they are still their old alignment waiting for that "kicker"? I have not stated that they must prove it. I have stated that some (even most) alignment changes by players need to be proven with actions. There are exceptions and that is what we are discussing. A change of heart leading to an alignment change. It is an exception. I am not painted into a corner because I read the section on exceptions and believe that there are exceptions. Again, that means "No, one is not able to change their alignment by mere change of heart". According to StSteven, one must prove it. According to StSteven (and the DMG) there are exceptions to the guidelines in the section on alignment changes. These exception allow the DM to rule that an alignment change can be instintanious and only the result of a change of heart.
StSteven 09-26-07, 10:43 AM	Wrecan: We are having a fundamental misunderstanding of what I think that a dramatic change of heart is. Evil guy wants to kill people. Evil guy who wants to kill people thinks that he should be good. He starts to exert his willpower to not kill people. He has not had a dramatic change of heart. He still wants to kill people. He has a long road to good with actions in front of him. Evil guy has a dramatic change of heart and doesn't want to kill people anymore. No willpower needed to not kill people anymore. He has had a dramatic change of heart and changes alignment.
wrecan 09-26-07, 10:46 AM	I can't say I've dealt with this issue before. When commiting to a course of action for the sake of dramatic storytelling and RP, my players stick it through. Then why change their alignment before they've actually done any sticking? You agreed that the decision to change the alignment before an action or after is largely arbitrary. So why did you arbitrarily decide to preempt your players? The point is, in this situation, the player has thought it through. He's decided on one course of action. He's going to stick to it. Nobody can say someone is "going" to do something until they do it. I don't see any benefit to preemptively changing someone's character's alignment before the character acts, whereas I do see a small benefit to waitign until after the character acts. Someone else asked what would happen if he didn't stick to it, so I came up with the hypothetical. Of course the DM is going to be rather annoyed with this player, and most likely not allow them any significant effect on the story or direction of the game in the future. Whoa. So now you think the DM should punish a player with less story because the player changed his mind about what his character would do? Maybe the DM should avoid this whole morass by waiting until the player actual has his character act before causing alignment change, rather than engaging in petty plot-twisting to punish a player for acting in a way he doesn't like. Yeesh. The only rule that has no exception is "You're in control." Um... except that's exactly the subsection in which you find the statement "Actions change alignment, not statements of intent by players." If there is no exception to "You're in control" then there shouldn't be an exception to all the rules that are in the "You're in control" subcategory. StSteven's argument (and I had thought it was yours as well) appears to be that there is an exception to all the rules, including the aforementioned. Which is of course extraneous to my argument which is not if the rules permit it. (Rule Zero permits everything.) But rather, is such an exception conducive to good DMing? I don't think it is. I see no reason for actionless alignment change and some reason to not engage in it. If you think a player is trying to manipulate the system, or you don't think he'll follow through on what he's saying in-game, then don't allow the change. I'm not saying the player is manipulating the system. I'm saying the system you describe lets the DM manipulate the player. I'm saying the system itself is evidence of a DM who doesn't trust his players. If you trust your players, let them have their characters act without you preempting the actions with alignment changes.
StSteven 09-26-07, 10:53 AM	StSteven's argument (and I had thought it was yours as well) appears to be that there is an exception to all the rules, including the aforementioned. I thought I provided an exception to that rule. Atonement spells cast by a PC on a PC who had his alignment changed magically. That is no more under the control of the DM than the damage of a fireball spell. I don't think that "you are in control" is a simple restatement of rule 0 because rule 0 isn't restated everywhere else. "You are in control" is meant as a specific reference to alignment changed in this instance.
wrecan 09-26-07, 10:55 AM	We are having a fundamental misunderstanding of what I think that a dramatic change of heart is. No, StSteven. We're not. I understand you think a change of heart is sufficient to change alignment. I think, whether it is permissible or not (a debate I don't care to rehash), it's bad DMing. We are having a side discussion as to whether intentionally not taking an action is itself an action. I think it is because it involves and exercise of will. You think it's not. You also accused me of blurring the distinction between "change of heart" and "action" by saying that willful forbearance is itself an action. And I pointed out that I very specifically clarified the distinction between the two. Evil guy has a dramatic change of heart and doesn't want to kill people anymore. No willpower needed to not kill people anymore. Oy vey. An "exercise of will" is anything that requires conscious effort. I'm not talking about monumental herculean struggle. I'm talking about conscious decision to order a muscle to contract, relax, to not contract or not to relax. Pinnip holds a dagger over a child's heart. His boss says, "Stab the child." Pinnip silently refuses by not stabbing the child. Did Pinnip act? I say, yes, because he chose to tell his muscles not to stab the child. Did Pinnip struggle with the decision? No, it was easy for him to make that decision. It is a decision nevertheless. Pinnip is watching a play in which a child sacrifice is being portrayed (though not for real). Pinnip thinks "I totally wish I could stab a real child in the heart. In fact, I'll do that right after this play is over." Did Pinnip act? No. He hasn't done anything and he hasn't not done anything. He is just thinking. Was it easy to make that decision? Let's say it wasn't. Let's say he mind agonized over the decision to give into his base urges and plan to kill a child after the play ends. Has he acted? No. He hasn't willed a single muscle to contract, relax or to fail to contract or relax in furtherance of his "decision".
wrecan 09-26-07, 10:58 AM	I thought I provided an exception to that rule. Did I say you didn't? (Hint: no.) I was responding to heffroncm's statement that there is no exception to "You're in Control." If your point is that there is an exception, why aren't you talking to him about it? He's the one who stated that there is no such exception.
StSteven 09-26-07, 11:10 AM	Did I say you didn't? (Hint: no.) I was responding to heffroncm's statement that there is no exception to "You're in Control." If your point is that there is an exception, why aren't you talking to him about it? He's the one who stated that there is no such exception. I was typing to anyone reading the thread. I'm sure he saw it.
wrecan 09-26-07, 11:28 AM	I was typing to anyone reading the thread. I'm sure he saw it. Since you apparently didn't notice when he wrote "The only rule that has no exception is 'You're in control.'" until I responded to it, I find this statement dubious, at best.
heffroncm 09-26-07, 11:30 AM	I used hyperbole to try and prove a point. The entire alignment change section is effectively DM Fiat. You decide when someone changes alignment, for any reason or none. Take all together, that is what the rules say. There is a list of the way the average, usual alignment change works, and it comes with it the provision that any of the usual can be altered. The argument over wether a purely mental excersize is an action is moot. You can't have an alignment without thinking and judging the world, else animals would have alignments and not be set on neutral for being too dumb to care. Any change in alignment is essentially a change in viewpoint. If the only argument is that you must take the "action" of deciding you are a different alignment, then that would be a change of heart. Your viewpoint has changed, the way you react to the world has changed, your alignment has changed, and you've done nothing other than sit and think. The attonement spell alows players to fix a magically compeled change in alignment, restoring his true alignment. For any true changes in alignment, the caster has to ask the god's approval. Basically, the DM decides if it is an option. I can't see Hextor allowing Atonement to be cast to change a paladin of Heironious to Evil, not when said paladin has been crusading against Hextor's church. The big question seems to be wether the scene with Pinnip is possible to play out. He underwent a radical alignment change through nothing more than the determination to stop being selfish and help his friends. Noone seems to disagree that this is possible, only the method and flavor descriptions vary.
StSteven 09-26-07, 11:44 AM	Since you apparently didn't notice when he wrote "The only rule that has no exception is 'You're in control.'" until I responded to it, I find this statement dubious, at best. I don't understand why. Everyone that reads the posts is being typed to. Notice I didn't say "Wrecan: I thought I ..."
StSteven 09-26-07, 11:46 AM	The attonement spell alows players to fix a magically compeled change in alignment, restoring his true alignment. For any true changes in alignment, the caster has to ask the god's approval. Basically, the DM decides if it is an option. I can't see Hextor allowing Atonement to be cast to change a paladin of Heironious to Evil, not when said paladin has been crusading against Hextor's church. That is why I used the changing of an alignment back after a magical change. they are all real alignment changed.
wrecan 09-26-07, 12:27 PM	The big question seems to be wether the scene with Pinnip is possible to play out. That sets the bar way too low. Of course it's possible to play it out any way one can imagine it. For me, the question is which of the two options is better DMing. I haven't seen anybody give me a reason not to wait until an action to adjudge an alignment change.
heffroncm 09-26-07, 12:31 PM	That sets the bar way too low. Of course it's possible to play it out any way one can imagine it. For me, the question is which of the two options is better DMing. I haven't seen anybody give me a reason not to wait until an action to adjudge an alignment change. At the point I joined the discussion, we were still talking about the OP's question. Is it possible, by the rules, to play it out this way? Yes. Do you see a reason, in your opinion, to do so? No. I do, but only barely, in that certain game mechanics are based on alignment, and have some small chance of taking effect. I wouldn't want Pinnip to suffer a negative level for attempting to wield the Holy sword against the enemy. If you decide his alignment changes at any time between him not leaving and him wielding the sword, then it is mechanicaly the same as it happening instantly.
StSteven 09-26-07, 12:59 PM	At the point I joined the discussion, we were still talking about the OP's question. Is it possible, by the rules, to play it out this way? Yes. Do you see a reason, in your opinion, to do so? No. I do, but only barely, in that certain game mechanics are based on alignment, and have some small chance of taking effect. I wouldn't want Pinnip to suffer a negative level for attempting to wield the Holy sword against the enemy. If you decide his alignment changes at any time between him not leaving and him wielding the sword, then it is mechanicaly the same as it happening instantly. That is an important difference in time though. If you must wait until he actually saves he friends, then he is penalized for the act of grabbing the sword. That isn't as dramatic of a scene as him having a change of heart/alignment, then grabbing the sword and saving his friends. There is a mechanical difference there.
wrecan 09-26-07, 01:17 PM	I wouldn't want Pinnip to suffer a negative level for attempting to wield the Holy sword against the enemy. I'm sorry, if Pinnup holding the Holy Sword when he has his change of heart? (If so, he was already suffering the negative level.) Isn't grabbing a holy sword an action, by pretty much any definition? (If so, then you still haven't presented a benefit of waiting until Pinnip acts to change his alignment -- in this instance, the act of grabbing the holy sword.) I see a small benefit in waiting -- it reduces the DMs interference in the internal monologue of a player as he decides what his character should do. I don't see any drawback.
wrecan 09-26-07, 01:29 PM	At the point I joined the discussion, we were still talking about the OP's question. I hate it when I have to encapsulate the prior discussion. Yes, when you got involved in the discussion in post #174, it was arguable whether we were discussing what the rules allowed, to which your answer now seems to be "Whatever the DM decides -- he's the boss." (I would argue that the discussion between LCD2YOU and StSteven at that point was over which interpretation made more sense, but that's a quibble.) But the statement I quoted in #205 was from your post #202, where you seemed to speaking in the present tense that "The big question seems to be whether the scene with Pinnip is possible to play out." And I disagreed. The big question at that moment was no longer whether it was "possible" to play out Pionnip's scene with alignment change preceding or succeeding action. By this point, I had already pointed out in #198 that the remaining question was whether choosing one over the other was "bad DMing." And StSteven and LCD2YOU both seemed to accept that it was possible to play either way; they just felt doing so in a way with which they disagreed would require some measure of DM fiat. And that's all I was saying on that point.
LCD2YOU 09-26-07, 02:32 PM	I hate it when I have to encapsulate the prior discussion. Yes, when you got involved in the discussion in post #174, it was arguable whether we were discussing what the rules allowed, to which your answer now seems to be "Whatever the DM decides -- he's the boss." (I would argue that the discussion between LCD2YOU and StSteven at that point was over which interpretation made more sense, but that's a quibble.)Youy're correct in that I got bogged down in definitions from the DMG. I wish I could've put it like you did. If a player or even an NPC (DMs can change their mind too) has a change of heart and they change alignment, I don't see too much good coming out of it. I think it only leads to the yo-yo effect. If a player (or DM who first thought the NPC was going to change and then the DM changed their mind) doesn't follow through, what happens then? As you pointed out in your example with the rogue Pionnip and with the story of the DM taking pre-emptive steps to change a PC's alignment when the player runs off at the mouth. That's what I call wishy-washy DMing. I guess that's why I work with inanimate objects and you must use wording far more carefully.But the statement I quoted in #205 was from your post #202, where you seemed to speaking in the present tense that "The big question seems to be whether the scene with Pinnip is possible to play out." And I disagreed. The big question at that moment was no longer whether it was "possible" to play out Pionnip's scene with alignment change preceding or succeeding action. By this point, I had already pointed out in #198 that the remaining question was whether choosing one over the other was "bad DMing." And StSteven and LCD2YOU both seemed to accept that it was possible to play either way; they just felt doing so in a way with which they disagreed would require some measure of DM fiat.Yes, but I feel on leads to the yo-yo of NE to NG to TN to CE and back to CS (chaotic stupid). So while it is possible to game where unresolved intent, like Pionnip's staying behind (he could have stayed to rob, join forces, get some "long pork" for the road, etc.), I need to see the final action when I DM before I even think what alignment they are. Until their character actually does something, they will remain with their old alignment. Like the old saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"And that's all I was saying on that point.
StSteven 09-26-07, 02:54 PM	Where I would see the bad DM'ing (or bad playing when a player pulls a switcheroo) is when the DM (or player) doesn't follow through with the change. It should be a planed event (in the case of the NPC especially) that has a significant story element to it. It isn't something that should be done without a great storyline reason. The bad DM would be the DM who has this great storyline change of heart for an NPC and then changes his mind. That would not make sense. That is where this gets derailed into the yo-yo wishy-washy alignment changes. It isn't the change. It's not following through with the change.
pres_man 09-26-07, 02:56 PM	Until their character actually does something, they will remain with their old alignment. Like the old saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" I would have thought the adages: "Put your money where your mouth is." "Put up or shut up." Would have been more appropriate.
wrecan 09-26-07, 04:06 PM	Where I would see the bad DM'ing (or bad playing when a player pulls a switcheroo) is when the DM (or player) doesn't follow through with the change. Of course, a rule interpretation that makes it easier to play or DM badly is itself a bad choice for a DM. Since having alignment change follow action rather than precede it eliminates the problem of "not following through", and since it doesn't have any drawbacks, why would a good DM ever choose the inferior rule interpretation?
StSteven 09-26-07, 04:18 PM	Of course, a rule interpretation that makes it easier to play or DM badly is itself a bad choice for a DM. Since having alignment change follow action rather than precede it eliminates the problem of "not following through", and since it doesn't have any drawbacks, why would a good DM ever choose the inferior rule interpretation? It really doesn't matter. A DM could wait for the NPC to perform a great sacrifice and change to good just to have him immediately turn to evil again. They are both equally bad. I see no difference in the two. Also, there are drawbacks. Say Pinnip grabs the holy sword to save his friends as his good act. He isn't good until he actually tries to save them, therefore he suffers negative levels for trying to be heroically good. That is punishing a character for trying to be good.
heffroncm 09-26-07, 04:37 PM	Of course, a rule interpretation that makes it easier to play or DM badly is itself a bad choice for a DM. Since having alignment change follow action rather than precede it eliminates the problem of "not following through", and since it doesn't have any drawbacks, why would a good DM ever choose the inferior rule interpretation? I think the point we're at now is what level of action is recquired for alignment change. That's something each DM has to decide on his own. Is the rogue staying behind, not taking the first opportunity to flee, action enough for an alignment change? What about picking up the sword with intention to use it to save his friends? You don't actually suffer a level loss until you try to wield the sword in combat. Is that the defining moment, when Pinnip decides to use the sword to free his friends? Maybe he knows it hurts him, and knows that it's the only thing that can really hurt the half-fiend cell guard, so he's wiling to take the risk to help his friends. I think at this point we've hit an action that is clearly altruistic, one where most people would be comfortable allowing a dramatic alignment change. So, now we need to decide the precise timing. Is it as he swings the first blow, thereby never actually suffering the negative level? Does he have to finish the first fight, suffering the penalty, to effect the change? Does he have to successfully free his friends from their cages before changing? Does he have to get everyone safely out of the cave, taking the penalties from the Cleric's Magic Circle Against Evil on the way out? The way I would handle this, as a DM, depends greatly on the player. Assuming my play group, the rogue would have talked to me privately, and worked this out ahead of time. He would have stayed to free his friends, taken up the sword, and saw the whole thing through from start to finish. I would have his alignment change before he took any penalties for being Evil. I don't have to worry about having the alignment change take place, and then a player not follow through on the scene. If such a situation did occur, I would see it as betrayal of trust, as such a situation would only occur if I had given the player the go ahead in the first place. So, maybe I'm a bad DM, maybe I'm screwing with my players. We try to make for interesting scenes and everyone has input on the story. Maybe that's the wrong thing to do, and I should do all the writing and not communicate on storyline with my players in any way other than in character. However, I would like to know when, exactly, the rest of you would time the alignment change. If the rogue in this situation does not suffer any penalty for wielding the Holy sword, then I don't see how it is in any way different from an instant change. There is no mechanical differance between a change when he decides to free his friends, and a change as he enters combat before he swings.
pres_man 09-26-07, 04:50 PM	I don't think you have to wait until a successful action occurs, merely an effort. So looking at the rogue grabbing the sword. When is his safety actually in jeopardy, when is he actually taking a very likely risk of being harmed. Maybe when he goes back to try to get the sword (his ranks aren't in hide or move silently), or maybe it is when he faces the guard and reveals himself. Frankly I find the image of the rogue who is weakened by the sword suddenly revealing himself to the guard he all of a sudden he finds himself stronger by taking this noble deed (thought + action = change). It makes the choice to actually follow through with his thoughts of saving his friends more dramatic to have the shift occur when attempts it. I might just point out that saving your friends does not have to be something that a evil individual might not do. Evil being can have friends, friends they value and that are valuable to them in their ongoing desires, thus it might be a totally selfish act to try to rescue them. Not suggesting it is in this case, just that it is not necessarily a good, altruistic act either by default.
wrecan 09-26-07, 05:18 PM	It really doesn't matter. A DM could wait for the NPC to perform a great sacrifice and change to good just to have him immediately turn to evil again. They are both equally bad. I see no difference in the two. Well, the DM would have to have the NPC commit an act of clear evil. And in cases where a character is acting wildly inconsistent, the DMG already tells you to make that person Neutral. Requiring an action places an extra hurdle on alignment change and focuses the problem where it belongs: bad roleplaying. Say Pinnip grabs the holy sword to save his friends as his good act. He isn't good until he actually tries to save them, therefore he suffers negative levels for trying to be heroically good. Isn't "grabbing" the sword an act? If the purpose of the act is to try to save his friends, which the DM has already decided would be sufficient to change his alignment, then why would he suffer a negative level? That is punishing a character for trying to be good. Anyway, what's wrong with suffering before redemption? That's not punishment. It's a consequence of his prior evil. Whenever his actions would merit as shift, the negative level disappears. I don't see why that's a drawback rules-wise.
wrecan 09-26-07, 05:22 PM	I think the point we're at now is what level of action is recquired for alignment change. Not StSteven. His "level of action required" appears to be "zero". Maybe that's the wrong thing to do, and I should do all the writing and not communicate on storyline with my players in any way other than in character. Or maybe you should trust the players enough not to have to plot out the advneture ahead of time and let them improvise. The answer of course is, if you're playing with dice, it's because you don't actually hash everything out with your players ahead of time. If you did, you could just sit around, make up a story and talk it through. There are plenty of diceless role-playing systems out there for you to to do that. But we're talking about a game, not an exercise in communal story-writing.
StSteven 09-26-07, 05:52 PM	Yes wrecan, my position is that the correct interpretation of the DMG section on alignment change is that there are rare situations that do not require actions to change alignment. My position is that "there are exceptions to all of the above" applies to all of the above. Two of the above four paragraphs have exceptions explicitly stated as possible by the use of the word "usually." A third has the exceptions being possible implicitly by the use of the word "should." The last on has exceptions explicitly stated as possible by the last paragraph when it states "there are exceptions to all of the above." When someone can tell my why "there are exceptions to all of the above" applies to every paragraph but the first, I will concede the point. I don't want anymore hypotheticals, because we can hypothetical ourselves to death and make any point seem valid. I want someone to explain how you can interpret "all of the above" to mean "all of the above except actions." Alternately, you can point me to the part of that section that says that all exceptions to "actions dictate alignment" are magical. Neither position is supported by the text. I can't even see why the position is controversial.
Erato 09-26-07, 06:06 PM	Sorry to jump in without having read eight pages, but here's my input: I think a people theoretically change their alignment the moment they change the way they think. Darth Vader became good the moment he repented (assuming he meant it). But if I had to decide as a DM if a player deserved his/her alignment, I would demand proof. Else, I could end up with players murdering innocents as the easiest way to solve a plot, only to 'repent' later to avoid Detect Evil, or having them suddenly become Evil the moment they figure out the BBEG can cast Blasphemy etc. Theory is one things. Making a game work is another :)
wrecan 09-26-07, 06:23 PM	Yes wrecan, my position is that the correct interpretation of the DMG section on alignment change is that there are rare situations that do not require actions to change alignment. No kidding? When someone can tell my why "there are exceptions to all of the above" applies to every paragraph but the first, I will concede the point We're not arguing that point. We're discussing the wisdom of allowing alignment change to precede action, not the permissibility. I can't even see why the position is controversial. Whereas I can't see why you don't understand that this is not the thread we were arguing in months ago.
Voran 09-26-07, 06:49 PM	I'd go with the following: Change of Heart/Epiphany which will shortly result in your death? Sure that's an instant alignment change. Mostly because thats 'plot device'. Otherwise a change of heart or epiphany can signal the change to a different path, but your future actions will largely dictate what alignment you actually end up with. The former gang-banger head honcho that has personally killed, or ordered the deaths of many many people, who now has an epiphany in prison and wants to promote peace does not become LG overnight.
LCD2YOU 09-27-07, 09:45 AM	Yes wrecan, my position is that the correct interpretation of the DMG section on alignment change is that there are rare situations that do not require actions to change alignment. My position is that "there are exceptions to all of the above" applies to all of the above. Two of the above four paragraphs have exceptions explicitly stated as possible by the use of the word "usually." A third has the exceptions being possible implicitly by the use of the word "should." The last on has exceptions explicitly stated as possible by the last paragraph when it states "there are exceptions to all of the above." When someone can tell my why "there are exceptions to all of the above" applies to every paragraph but the first, I will concede the point. I don't want anymore hypotheticals, because we can hypothetical ourselves to death and make any point seem valid. I want someone to explain how you can interpret "all of the above" to mean "all of the above except actions." Alternately, you can point me to the part of that section that says that all exceptions to "actions dictate alignment" are magical. Neither position is supported by the text.Let's be clear. 1: Your interpretation of the DMG leads you to believe that. 2: I and others have come up with a perfectly valid way to read the DMG. 3: You have not come up with a valid scenario on how it is possible to change alignments before an action as a person can always change one's mind. 4: Myself and others, notable wrecan, have shown that by using "intent only" as a way to determine alignment, the "alignment yo-yo" can be rolled out. 5: By using "intent only" it has been shown that is an undesirable thing to have happen to the DM and players.I can't even see why the position is controversial.Then why are you arguing then?
StSteven 09-27-07, 12:33 PM	Your right. There is no point in arguing. I am sure that most can read "all of the above" and understand it to mean exactly that.
LCD2YOU 09-27-07, 01:35 PM	Your right. There is no point in arguing. I am sure that most can read "all of the above" and understand it to mean exactly that.Yup. That means for each part, there is an exception. The one provided in the DMG is for the time constraint. If not, could you finally produce a viable scenario that doesn't require an action only intent to change alignment? See, if it says it can be done, there must be a neat and conclusive way that it can be done. Otherwise it's like saying, "Yes you can go to Alpha Centauri in two days", then not provide where one can get a FTL ship or even how FTL is done means that it is not anything and the term is meaningless.
Cantankerous 09-27-07, 03:20 PM	Also, there are drawbacks. Say Pinnip grabs the holy sword to save his friends as his good act. He isn't good until he actually tries to save them, therefore he suffers negative levels for trying to be heroically good. That is punishing a character for trying to be good. Nope, it's allowing a character to be heroic. Imagine, someone actually having their character behave in a heroic manner in a heroic fantasy genre game! What a concept! Isshia BTW: LSD, ol' hair buddy, "who the hell asked you?" right back at ya. ;) Still clickin' on all eight cylinders Hefe?
StSteven 09-27-07, 03:26 PM	Yup. That means for each part, there is an exception. The one provided in the DMG is for the time constraint. If not, could you finally produce a viable scenario that doesn't require an action only intent to change alignment? See, if it says it can be done, there must be a neat and conclusive way that it can be done. Otherwise it's like saying, "Yes you can go to Alpha Centauri in two days", then not provide where one can get a FTL ship or even how FTL is done means that it is not anything and the term is meaningless. Interestingly enough, you can get to Alpha Centauri in two days without a FTL ship. As you approach the speed of light length compresses, so the distance between Earth and Alpha Centauri shrinks to a distance that is traversable in a shorter time. Of course, that is only from the perspective of the ship. The perspective from the Earth would have the ship not moving as fast, and thus taking longer. If you got going that fast (something we don't have the technology for right now, but there is no physics that say it can't be done) an incredible amount of time would pass on Earth wrt the time that passes on the ship. This is due to time dilation. The pointless is, you can, from the reference point of the ship, get to Alpha Centauri in two days if you had powerful enough engines to propel the ship. The speed of light doesn't need to be broken to achieve that. Anyway, I presented a scenario where alignment changed without action. You won't agree with it because you don't think alignment can change without action. It is a circular argument that is irrelevant. If you don't think alignment can be changed without actions you will say that alignment doesn't change in any scenario without actions. You are asking for an impossible "proof" which isn't a proof at all, just another hypothetical. Also, it is beside the point which requirements the example in the exception section is talking about. The fact is, there are exceptions to all of the above. The example being (as you claim) applicable just to the time and gradual requirements does not have any bearing on the fact that there are exceptions to all of the above.
wrecan 09-27-07, 03:52 PM	The fact is, there are exceptions to all of the above. The example being (as you claim) applicable just to the time and gradual requirements does not have any bearing on the fact that there are exceptions to all of the above. And the fact that there are exceptions to the above has no bearing on whether the specific exception you advocate should be used by a responsible DM.
Cantankerous 09-27-07, 03:56 PM	And the fact that there are exceptions to the above has no bearing on whether the specific exception you advocate should be used by a responsible DM. Or as to whether or not it has any bearing on a DM judging Player character Alignment change at all. Since it states that it does not do so. Isshia
StSteven 09-27-07, 04:39 PM	Or as to whether or not it has any bearing on a DM judging Player character Alignment change at all. Since it states that it does not do so. Isshia That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a change of heart changing alignment. It doesn't have to be about a DM judging a player at all.
heffroncm 09-27-07, 05:15 PM	I honestly love that my last post has been mostly ignored. I offer a solution, in that every single DM is going to pick a different point in that progression of events described to affect the aligment change, based on the campaign and the players. I offer that there is no mechanical differance between chaning alignment from his thinking about the situation and any other time before he uses the sword in combat. Wether or not pure mental effort can be used by a responsible DM is way to situational and opinion based to be solved. I offer a scenario in which it is perfectly responsible and acceptable, and it gets torn down by replacing my player with a dick, berating the playstyle my group uses, and insulting me personally. Honestly, you guys don't want to agree. The rules tell you, in effect, to play it however you want in your own game. How about we leave it at that?
wrecan 09-27-07, 05:18 PM	I honestly love that my last post has been mostly ignored. I offer a solution, in that every single DM is going to pick a different point in that progression of events described to affect the aligment change, based on the campaign and the players.I can't speak for anybody else, but I ignored it because I'm not talking about whether a DM can (clearly, Rule Zero, which you suggested, can apply), but whether a DM should. I didn't see how your post addressed that, but maybe I misread your point.
StSteven 09-27-07, 05:22 PM	I honestly love that my last post has been mostly ignored. I offer a solution, in that every single DM is going to pick a different point in that progression of events described to affect the aligment change, based on the campaign and the players. I offer that there is no mechanical differance between chaning alignment from his thinking about the situation and any other time before he uses the sword in combat. Wether or not pure mental effort can be used by a responsible DM is way to situational and opinion based to be solved. I offer a scenario in which it is perfectly responsible and acceptable, and it gets torn down by replacing my player with a dick, berating the playstyle my group uses, and insulting me personally. Honestly, you guys don't want to agree. The rules tell you, in effect, to play it however you want in your own game. How about we leave it at that? Actually, that post has much merit. If you don't have smite-on-sight paladins running around, then what does it matter what someone's alignment is before they act. The most you would have to fudge is holding off on penalties for being evil (for instance) until the actions are begun. Don't penalize Pinnip for wielding the holy sword. Let it play out a bit and see that, with his actions, he proves that he is serious. That said, although I have never actually changed the alignment of an NPC in the game, I still won't wait for me to prove it to myself.
LCD2YOU 09-27-07, 06:22 PM	Interestingly enough, you can get to Alpha Centauri in two days without a FTL ship. As you approach the speed of light length compresses, so the distance between Earth and Alpha Centauri shrinks to a distance that is traversable in a shorter time. Of course, that is only from the perspective of the ship. The perspective from the Earth would have the ship not moving as fast, and thus taking longer. If you got going that fast (something we don't have the technology for right now, but there is no physics that say it can't be done) an incredible amount of time would pass on Earth wrt the time that passes on the ship. This is due to time dilation. The pointless is, you can, from the reference point of the ship, get to Alpha Centauri in two days if you had powerful enough engines to propel the ship. The speed of light doesn't need to be broken to achieve that.I was talking about time from an Earth bound POV. I guess I will need to be more literal with you. As to your scenario, what about the energy source? As you approach "c", the mass and the energy needed to push it become astronomical. Even the relative time on the ship is a while. Accelerating to 0.9999c at 5G, where for simplification G=10 m/s^2 and 0.9999c=300,000,000m/s it will take a long time to even get there. I don't want to think of the ramifications of 5G stress on a human body for almost 70 days. So again you've failed. If you want to discuss physics with me, go ahead. It's what I have my degree in. Though take it to the private message board.Anyway, I presented a scenario where alignment changed without action. You won't agree with it because you don't think alignment can change without action.I didn't agree with it due to several reasons. 1: One has no way of knowing what he is going to do, just like your complaint with Vader and not knowing if he had turned good or not until he actually moved against the Emperor. 2: As wrecan pointed out and I agree, the guy did nothing! 3: That type of alignment by feeling good/bad leads to yo-yo alignment changes. A DM can impose them at will.It is a circular argument that is irrelevant. If you don't think alignment can be changed without actions you will say that alignment doesn't change in any scenario without actions. You are asking for an impossible "proof" which isn't a proof at all, just another hypothetical.Your the one who made the claim it can be done. So far you've shown nothing that does it. I and others have shown where intent means nothing as a person can change their mind several times in as little as a minute. If I were to give a scenario where you don't know what I'm thinking, how can you know what my alignment is?Also, it is beside the point which requirements the example in the exception section is talking about. The fact is, there are exceptions to all of the above.Nope but thanks for playing.The example being (as you claim) applicable just to the time and gradual requirements does not have any bearing on the fact that there are exceptions to all of the above.No. What it says that each of the above have exceptions. The phrase, "There are exceptions to all of the above" and then it gives an example of how one of the constraints, time can be undone. So the burden of proof is on you. If I were to say, "the Easter Bunny is real and alive", I better have evidence and proof to back it up. As you are saying that that one example says that everything can be done away with, it is up to you to provide evidence how that is done. If you can't then the logical thing is to accept that the wording is that each of the constraints has exceptions. As you can't do that, I consider your argument an opinion and one that requires faulty logic.
StSteven 09-27-07, 08:36 PM	Yes LCD2YOU. You are right about everything. I know nothing. You would have to be an idiot to think that my interpretation of "all of the above" is correct. You win the debate. You logic is irrefutable. I bow down to your genius. Will you quite calling me out on it now. I am so embarrassed that I don't know if I can show my characters around here again. If I do, just tell me how stupid I am again and I will again rave about your genius.
DMCuindless 09-27-07, 10:20 PM	Thus endeth the thread....
wrecan 09-28-07, 08:55 AM	At least he's not leaving bitter. :rolleyes:
StSteven 09-28-07, 10:57 AM	At least he's not leaving bitter. :rolleyes: I'm not bitter, but he has a physics degree. Obviously he is smarter. (Truth is there isn't anything else I could say to get out of this inane debate without being accused of "slinking away.")
LCD2YOU 09-28-07, 11:12 AM	I'm not bitter, but he has a physics degree. Obviously he is smarter. (Truth is there isn't anything else I could say to get out of this inane debate without being accused of "slinking away.")That you took it that way is regrettable. All I was saying is I am aware that we can get to Alpha Centauri even with today's technology. What I don't know is how one can do it in 2 days, objectively from a vantage point on Earth or subjectively being on the ship approaching "c". What I am trying to get at with you is I read the DMG page 134 as stating that each of the "restrictions" on changing alignment has a way to circumvent it. You said that the one example can do it for all. I asked you how one can do it. It is not enough to say it can be done. I am not smart enough to find a way that only has intent changing alignment. My reading of the rules say that "all of the above" have exceptions but that one example is not for all of the "restriction". My opinion is that it can't be done. What my argument is what I've and others have been pasting. The "intent only" way has a very good possibility of a DM starting the "yo-yo" effect of changing alignments based on a player's sigh. The fact that intentions can change suddenly depending on the situation and the brave, "I'm going to do that and save my friends and kick the butt of the bad guy", intent becomes, "Oh, time to run away and let them to their fates, after I pick up a few baubles for my trouble" cowardice. Your reading of the DMG has it that the one example usurps all of the rules. Yes, I know "All of the above have exceptions" is what it says. However the example only works for one, time needed. Your opinion is that it can be done. You have not presented an argument where that is possible. It is up to you to make a case and an argument that it stands on its own. You have not done that. If you have, there would be no question that it is possible. I don't think anyone found the scenario you gave possible. Of course there are ways to circumvent the intent, time AND actions required to change alignment. They are Helm of Opposite Alignment and casting Atonement or its opposite and the person fails their save.
pres_man 09-28-07, 11:15 AM	That you took it that way is regrettable. All I was saying is I am aware that we can get to Alpha Centauri even with today's technology. What I don't know is how one can do it in 2 days, objectively from a vantage point on Earth or subjectively being on the ship approaching "c". Actually you suggested that it could be done, just that the person wouldn't necessarily survive the experience. See now you are just being picky. ;)
StSteven 09-28-07, 11:38 AM	Alrighty then. I will explain your misinterpretations of my arguments below, but you have to promise to let me go then. I don't want to debate this anymore. That you took it that way is regrettable. All I was saying is I am aware that we can get to Alpha Centauri even with today's technology. What I don't know is how one can do it in 2 days, objectively from a vantage point on Earth or subjectively being on the ship approaching "c". What you said is that you needed a FTL ship to get there in 2 days. What I showed was that this isn't what is needed. Yes from the POV of earth, it can never be done. From the POV of the ship, all that is needed is an engine with sufficient power to accelerate to near the speed of light. I even pointed out that we don't have them. I was merely pointing out that the physics of the situation didn't prevent it from happening, and that there was no need for a FTL ship to do it. All of that is, of course, true. I know that you know that all of that is true, because you have a degree in physics. Nothing I stated in my spaceship hypothetical was untrue. You proceeded to call it untrue, even though I know that you know that it wasn't. This caused an extreme loss of respect from my POV and thus the increased desire to end debating with you. What I am trying to get at with you is I read the DMG page 134 as stating that each of the "restrictions" on changing alignment has a way to circumvent it. You said that the one example can do it for all. No, what I said is that the example in the book could be interpreted as an example of an exception to all the conditions. It is a really weak example of the last one really, but it is clearly an example of an exception to 2 of the above and there is strong evidence that it is an example of an exception a third one. I haven't been debating about an example of all of the above at all. What I have been debating is that there are exceptions to all of the above. I never said that I needed to find one exception to all of the above. All I need to find an example to in this case is an exception to the action requirement and the time requirement at the same time. The thread is about a change of heart leading to an instant alignment change. That only requires those two exceptions. It can still be a small change, like from NE to N. It can still not be the whole wishy-washy thing. There is no need to provide one example for all exceptions. I asked you how one can do it. It is not enough to say it can be done. I am not smart enough to find a way that only has intent changing alignment. My opinion is that it can't be done. What my argument is what I've and others have been pasting. The "intent only" way has a very good possibility of a DM starting the "yo-yo" effect of changing alignments based on a player's sigh. The fact that intentions can change suddenly depending on the situation and the brave, "I'm going to do that and save my friends and kick the butt of the bad guy", intent becomes, "Oh, time to run away and let them to their fates, after I pick up a few baubles for my trouble" cowardice. The fact is, you want me to come up with an example of a hypothetical where all exceptions are demonstrated at once. I didn't even know that that was what you were talking about. I was coming up with examples where a change of heart leads to an alignment change. Whether or not you think it is a good idea to DM that way is irrelevant. You keep getting hung up on the whole player thing. That is irrelevant as well. I am using NPCs. Heff brought up one where he thought it would be a good story line to allow a player to do it, after talking it over with a player. You opinion on the wisdom of doing that is not relevant as to if it is allowed or not. It clearly is. Your opinion has it that the one example usurps all of the rules. Yes, I know "All of the above have exceptions" is what it says. However the example only works for one, time needed. Your opinion is that it can be done. You have not presented an argument where that is possible. It is up to you to make a case and an argument that it stands on its own. You have not done that. If you have, there would be no question that it is possible. I don't think anyone found the scenario you gave possible. No, again, my opinion is that the phrase that says there are exceptions to all of the above means just that. I have never written "there are exception to all of the above." I am only saying that each one of the rules can be ignored when the DM wants to. Not is a rule 0 way, but in a changing alignment section way. Coming up with a hypothetical that has one situation where all the exceptions are demonstrated is not relevant. I was never trying to do that. Maybe this is why you posts were so confusing to me. I couldn't even tell where you were going or coming from. Besides that, there are an infinite number of hypotheticals that can be invented. I am sure that one can come up with one that covers all of the exceptions. I am also sure that you would just say that there isn't enough in the hypothetical to justify an alignment change. That is what makes it an impossible task. I am to give you a hypothetical that you don't think is possible, but you are to be the judge if it is valid. There is no way to do that. Of course there are ways to circumvent the intent, time AND actions required to change alignment. They are Helm of Opposite Alignment and casting Atonement or its opposite and the person fails their save. And I think there are plenty of ways that are non-magical to circumvent the time and action requirement. Many have been posted, but if you are the judge to validity, they they will never be valid because you don't think that it is possible.
LCD2YOU 09-28-07, 12:43 PM	(snip) And I think there are plenty of ways that are non-magical to circumvent the time and action requirement. Many have been posted, but if you are the judge to validity, they they will never be valid because you don't think that it is possible.All that and still nothing save you think it can be done. No examples, no scenarios, just you think it can be done. I disagree. If you're going to take the time and trouble to do all of that, you could have used all of it better. So, unless you're going to actually post a scenario that works (just posting a scenario doesn't cut it - you need to have it that that scenario is unambiguous something your previous one wasn't even close) and have it stand on its own. I don't think you can.
StSteven 09-28-07, 01:44 PM	I don't think you can. And I think that I have, thus the impasse.
Cantankerous 09-28-07, 01:52 PM	That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a change of heart changing alignment. It doesn't have to be about a DM judging a player at all. But it does matter even if it is only done with a NPC and not with the PCs, which is so very clearly stated to be a no no anyway. Why? Consistency. If when your NPC Wizard casts a spell in a certain way and it works in such and such a manner, it had DAMNED WELL BETTER work the same way when a PC does likewise. To do otherwise is one of the quickest ways out there to create distrust with your Players. The above was part of answer to why you shouldn't have NPC spell casters effecting other NPCs differently than they do the PCs, or differently than a PC can achieve with the same methods. It's application to the present discussion should be obvious. Isshia
DMCuindless 09-28-07, 04:16 PM	All that and still nothing save you think it can be done. No examples, no scenarios, just you think it can be done. I disagree. If you're going to take the time and trouble to do all of that, you could have used all of it better. So, unless you're going to actually post a scenario that works (just posting a scenario doesn't cut it - you need to have it that that scenario is unambiguous something your previous one wasn't even close) and have it stand on its own. I don't think you can. So the challenge is: Create a scenario wherein the alignment of a character (NPC or PC doesn't matter) changes drastically, suddenly and without any actions on behalf of the character excluding the aforementioned Helm of Opposite Alignment and attonement spell. Is that right?
StSteven 09-28-07, 04:19 PM	So the challenge is: Create a scenario wherein the alignment of a character (NPC or PC doesn't matter) changes drastically, suddenly and without any actions on behalf of the character excluding the aforementioned Helm of Opposite Alignment and attonement spell. Is that right? Actually, it can still be a gradual change, like from NE to N, and it can still happen over time. It just has to be a change of heart causing an alignment change. It just needs to be without action. Actually, and I don't know why I am doing this, but here goes anyway, a LG character is LG all his life. He is then imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit. Locked away, his anger at authority boils. He casts aside his previous affinity for law and order and becomes NG, on his way to CG. No action.
DMCuindless 09-28-07, 04:42 PM	Actually, it can still be a gradual change, like from NE to N, and it can still happen over time. It just has to be a change of heart causing an alignment change. It just needs to be without action. Actually, and I don't know why I am doing this, but here goes anyway, a LG character is LG all his life. He is then imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit. Locked away, his anger at authority boils. He casts aside his previous affinity for law and order and becomes NG, on his way to CG. No action. All that time getting angrier and angrier languishing away in a prison cell for a crime he didn't commit and he never lashes out at a guard or tries to escape? Why not?
LCD2YOU 09-28-07, 05:15 PM	So the challenge is: Create a scenario wherein the alignment of a character (NPC or PC doesn't matter) changes drastically, suddenly and without any actions on behalf of the character excluding the aforementioned Helm of Opposite Alignment and attonement spell. Is that right?Yes. The example is NE to NG in the DMG so the change must be at least as great.
DMCuindless 09-28-07, 05:18 PM	Rod of Seven Parts... Joking. Seriously how about this: A LG Paladin sees a guard strike down his wife and newborn son. In an instant, his mind sets aflame with hatred of all authority, and though he refrains from killing that guard right then and there, he waits and plans... soon he will strike from the shadows. Has his alignment changed, or does it have to wait for the action?
LCD2YOU 09-28-07, 05:21 PM	Actually, it can still be a gradual change, like from NE to N, and it can still happen over time. It just has to be a change of heart causing an alignment change. It just needs to be without action. Actually, and I don't know why I am doing this, but here goes anyway, a LG character is LG all his life. He is then imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit. Locked away, his anger at authority boils. He casts aside his previous affinity for law and order and becomes NG, on his way to CG. No action.Also, his passivity can be seen as him staying LG. Eventually his anger may indeed boil and then things start to happen. But as long as he sits there and stays a model prisoner, he is obeying his lawful side. As a Good person, he knows that the guards in the prison are not the source of his false imprisonment. I see no reason for him to change alignment. That is not because I "can't see it", but for the reasons above. The whole thing took a lot of time in any case. The example was NE to NG in a exceedingly short time with no actions.
StSteven 09-28-07, 07:07 PM	That's exactly my point. You can't see any because he didn't do anything. It doesn't have to be dramatic, we aren't trying to come up with an example like the one in the DMG. We are trying to come up with an example of a change of heart making for a change in alignment. As far as not "lashing out," LCD2YOU is right on. He is still good, so he will not lash out at his guards. His passivity is him not committing evil acts. The fact that you can't see the alignment change is simply because you can't see how he acts when he gets out. When he gets out he will act upon his new chaotic alignment. That change happened in prison though. Edit: Of course, there is nothing keeping an anvil from falling on a character's head leading to split personality disorder, but that is along the lines of magical changes and I won't take the cheep way out...
LCD2YOU 09-28-07, 07:11 PM	Rod of Seven Parts... Joking. Seriously how about this: A LG Paladin sees a guard strike down his wife and newborn son. In an instant, his mind sets aflame with hatred of all authority, and though he refrains from killing that guard right then and there, he waits and plans... soon he will strike from the shadows. Has his alignment changed, or does it have to wait for the action?Well, I'm not even sure that he'll change alignment in any case. Why is he striking from the shadows? Is the guard way to powerful for a toe-to-toe engagement? See I have no problem with Paladins using martial tactics and ambushing someone who is superior as it is a smart move. So he'll get the surprise round to do a Smite and maybe another smite attack in. If that evens the odds, sounds like good plan. Looks like such a scenario will take a lot of in depth character creation as a quick paragraph or two ain't going to do anything. It raises too many questions when there are too many variables.
LCD2YOU 09-28-07, 07:57 PM	That's exactly my point. You can't see any because he didn't do anything. It doesn't have to be dramatic, we aren't trying to come up with an example like the one in the DMG. We are trying to come up with an example of a change of heart making for a change in alignment. As far as not "lashing out," LCD2YOU is right on. He is still good, so he will not lash out at his guards. His passivity is him not committing evil acts. The fact that you can't see the alignment change is simply because you can't see how he acts when he gets out. When he gets out he will act upon his new chaotic alignment. That change happened in prison though. Edit: Of course, there is nothing keeping an anvil from falling on a character's head leading to split personality disorder, but that is along the lines of magical changes and I won't take the cheep way out...Here's something wrecan posted back on page 7 of this threadA second problem is that the DM is then using thought-based alignment change to influence his players' actions. It becomes a tool of railroading. Here's the dicussions between Pinnip's PC ("PPC") and the DM. DM: Okay. Pinnip sees the monster is tearing through your friends. PPC: All right. This is the moment we discussed. Pinnip realizes he loves his friends and is willing to risk his own life to save them for no reward. DM: Great. Change the alignment on his sheet from NE to NG. PPC: Fantastic. Wait a minute. Did that creature take out all my friends in a surprise round? DM: Well, yeah. But it was a bursta ttack, and the others failed their saves. PPC: Well, from Pinnip's perspective, this thing is way out of his league. Forget it. DM: Well, fine. Now change the alignment to TN. PPC: Aw, C'mon. DM: Hey, that's a pretty serious change in thinking from a guy who wanted to be NG. PPC: Okay, okay.... DM: The monster walks away. PPC: Really? So Pinnip is in the clear. Well, look, I can use the party's treasure to Riase them form the dead. That's something? From where I statnd what do I see? Is there other treasure around? DM: Roll a Spot check. PPC: Natural 20.... Now, the fighter had about 20,000 in loot, and the wizard has 10,000... hmmm... I might be able to afford those Gloves of Dexterity +6 if I don't raise them... DM: You don't see any treasure, but you notice your friends are not dead. They are paralyzed. PPC: Hmmm... paralyzed. I could kill them.... DM: What? All right. Change your alignment to CE. PPC: What? I was just talking. DM: Talking about killing your helpless best friends! I mean, compared to the other "epiphanies" Pinnip had, this is the biggest by far. PPC: Well, I need a new character sheet. This one's worn through. If you allow your players to make idle thoughts and to not change anything until they act, then the players get to actually role-play their characters and think through their actions without DM interference. And since I think that, in general, NPCs and PCs should he held to the same standard, I don't think DMs should be changing NPC alignments due to thoughts alone either.Without action one can be anything and everything. Without action or doing anything, one can "be bounded in a nutshell and think himself king of infinite space". Now why is this important? You had a post where you stated that if there are no "smite-on-sight" Paladins, this is not an issue. I disagree with that. If a NE villian has an epiphany and becomes NG, but has not done any actions, it doesn't matter. Anyone who opposes him will still attack him on sight. Why? Rule of thumb, never let a powerful villain get the drop on you. Hit him and hit him hard. If he doesn't show on evil-dar and there is no indication that he has done anything, actions that other PCs and NPCs can actually make note of, they will suspect that he's just trying to mask his presence. If the "reformed through thought alone villain dies at the hand of any good character, even a Paladin, they will not fall. Why? Because they had know idea what is in the head of the DM. Also, a DM who uses such a device to play "gotcha" with good characters can easily decide that the person was still evil and then TPK hey party for "not picking up on the clues". Personally, and this is not RAW nor CORE, I am of the opinion that the action needed, especially on epiphany then big action to quickly change alignments would be of a degree equal to the past evil (or good, lawful or chaotic or whatever combo) deeds they had done. With my story of the NE Dread Necromancer he has a lot to do. A really good start would be the dismantling of everything he created while evil. Next or at the same time the destruction of his undead servants. The banishment or deaths of the demons and devils in his employ would also be required. Sending a "Up yours" to the lords and nobility of Hell and the Abyss would seal the deal. Can he still be in trouble by even really good people with their hearts in the right place? Yes, such are the problems turncoats face. Some will be demanding the now good Necromancer's head on a pig pole for the wrongs he did to <insert name of village/friend/kin/etc of theirs here>. That is the nature of things. Good going to evil has less of that problem but they still have issues. Like the story of Pionnip or whatever his name is. Yeah, he has a -1 level and all the effects from picking up that good sword. Am I being a jerk? No! Changing alignments doesn't come cheap. Yes, as soon as he swings the weapon once and commits himself to doing good, he's neutral as he still has more to show, the negatives go away at the very least. Now, I want you to give me a way that only intent is needed and I want it to be air-tight. I am not smart enough to do that. I may actually like to do that once but I am loathe to without an iron clad reason why it works and doesn't fall into the trap of what wrecan had posted that I reposted above.
StSteven 09-28-07, 08:25 PM	Well, I'll try to come up with a better one for you, but none will be air-tight because it is a judgment call always. The problem with wrecan problem is that a character can act chaotic stupid as well. Do you change him from ne to ng to tn to ce because he acts that way. I'd just call him neutral (like the book says) and go on with it. Tell him if he wants to be an alignment other than wishy-washy neutral he needs to figure out how to roll play it better. Requiring actions isn't going to stop a player from playing CS.
wrecan 09-28-07, 09:25 PM	The problem with wrecan problem is that a character can act chaotic stupid as well. That's more of a problem under your methodology. It's a lot easier being chaotic stupid in thoughts than in actions. My way makes it harder to be chaotic stupid than your way, because with my way, the player actually has to commit to the action rather than muse idly about it. The question is not which method is perfect. Neither is. The questions should be which method makes for a better role-playing experience. I have yet to see any benefit of pre-action alignment change.
StSteven 09-29-07, 12:33 AM	The question is not which method is perfect. Neither is. The questions should be which method makes for a better role-playing experience. I have yet to see any benefit of pre-action alignment change. And I agree that 99.9% of the time you way is better. What I am saying (for a long time now) is that there are opportunities to tell a story, or even have great role playing moments, with the rare alignment change due to no action. I am with you most of the time. But once in a long while, an opportunity for either great story telling or great role playing (with a player you trust to follow through) is presented that requires an exception to the rule "actions dictate alignment." All I am saying is that you should take advantage of it if it presents itself. That is why, I think, they make the exceptions clause (above and beyond the rule 0 statement that governs everything) in the alignment changing section. It isn't a way to play the game; it is a way to take advantage of great moments in the game.
LCD2YOU 09-29-07, 06:34 AM	And I agree that 99.9% of the time you way is better. What I am saying (for a long time now) is that there are opportunities to tell a story, or even have great role playing moments, with the rare alignment change due to no action. I am with you most of the time. But once in a long while, an opportunity for either great story telling or great role playing (with a player you trust to follow through) is presented that requires an exception to the rule "actions dictate alignment." All I am saying is that you should take advantage of it if it presents itself. That is why, I think, they make the exceptions clause (above and beyond the rule 0 statement that governs everything) in the alignment changing section. It isn't a way to play the game; it is a way to take advantage of great moments in the game.Which is all fine if you and your players can deal with it as a house rule. It is not in the DMG or other Core material. Personally if I were a player I'd ask the DM not to use it at all. The possibilities for "gotchas" is just too high. As for role-playing, I think that is more of DM fiat with a little helping of tracks leading to where the DM wants the story to go.
DMCuindless 09-29-07, 07:35 AM	Well, I'm not even sure that he'll change alignment in any case. Why is he striking from the shadows? Is the guard way to powerful for a toe-to-toe engagement? See I have no problem with Paladins using martial tactics and ambushing someone who is superior as it is a smart move. So he'll get the surprise round to do a Smite and maybe another smite attack in. If that evens the odds, sounds like good plan. Looks like such a scenario will take a lot of in depth character creation as a quick paragraph or two ain't going to do anything. It raises too many questions when there are too many variables. I have no problem with paladins using combat tactics and striking from superior positions either, but I also think I wasn't completely clear. I meant he had lost all faith in the governing authorities in general and was planning a wholesale attack against the government, the guard and everyone else he felt was "responsible" for the death of his wife and infant child. From a DM (i.e. objective) stance, he is not doing this because the government is inherently corrupt, nor is he trying to bring this one criminal to justice. This represents a fundamental and sudden shift in his psychology brought about by a traumatic event. You, as the DM, are sure he will make good on his plans. Does the alignment shift happen then, or do you wait until he unlawfully slays his first innocent?
LCD2YOU 09-29-07, 08:09 AM	I have no problem with paladins using combat tactics and striking from superior positions either, but I also think I wasn't completely clear. I meant he had lost all faith in the governing authorities in general and was planning a wholesale attack against the government, the guard and everyone else he felt was "responsible" for the death of his wife and infant child. From a DM (i.e. objective) stance, he is not doing this because the government is inherently corrupt, nor is he trying to bring this one criminal to justice. This represents a fundamental and sudden shift in his psychology brought about by a traumatic event. You, as the DM, are sure he will make good on his plans. Does the alignment shift happen then, or do you wait until he unlawfully slays his first innocent?Is the government still good or was it ever good in the first place? A Lawful Evil government is not one a Paladin would find worthy. It also sounds like the person is sliding into some sort of psychosis and mixing mental health with alignment is not something I want to do.
wrecan 09-29-07, 10:53 AM	there are opportunities to tell a story, or even have great role playing moments, with the rare alignment change due to no action. I haven't seen it work that way. A good story is from a character's out-of-game actions, not from the metagame ramificatoins of it. If Pinnip decides to grab the good sword in a desperate attempt to save his friends, that's a good story, regardless of whether his alignment changes before, after or at all. I just don't see a benefit from a pre-action alignment change, even a storytelling one.
calronmoonflower 09-29-07, 03:43 PM	Alright. "Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players." (premise) "There are exceptions to all the above."(premise) Premise 1 is above premise 2 (premise) There for There is an exception to "Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players." (Conclusion) This is written the deductive format so for the conclusion to be wrong one the the premises must be wrong. 1 and 2 are quotes and 3 is true by the physical format of the page. What specific exceptions exist for "Actions dictate alignment" under the Rules As Written. Atonement Sanctify the Wicked Lycanthopy Helm of Opposite Alignment Ha! Ha! Ha! All those involve magic!!!:cheer: Thank you Obvious Man. :cheer: Rule 0 Can a "change of heart" alone change your alignment? The first example does involves action so what about the second? The example isn't clear whether action is involved either way. To say that the example has or doesn't have action is based off a lack of evidence and there for an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). So that should mean that it is possible, but not proved either way under the Rules As Written. So lets look at the problems of if it is allowed and not allowed. Not allowed: I cannot see any major problems. Rule 0 can be invoked to change for dramatic effect. Allowed: The alignment yo-yo happens if the change is abused and you end up with innocent evil beings that exist to screw over smite-bots. If used responsibly it really has no greater effect that rule 0 being used. What happens if you have an alignment change from a "change of heart"? You're behavior will mediately change to reflect your alignment. In all cases that are practicality impossible the change will be not noticeable. this leads to the chicken and egg question. Was the change of alignment a result in the change of behavior or was the change in behavior a result of the change of alignment? Only the most extreme actions should change you alignment two steps, so it might be likely that the alignment changed first. tale the Darth Vader example. His alignment change would have happened the moment that he committed to saving his son from the Emperor. That change was immediately followed by a change in behavior that back-up his new found alignment. The action based on his personal connections with his son is in line with a neutral alignment.
Cantankerous 09-29-07, 07:25 PM	I haven't seen it work that way. A good story is from a character's out-of-game actions, not from the metagame ramificatoins of it. If Pinnip decides to grab the good sword in a desperate attempt to save his friends, that's a good story, regardless of whether his alignment changes before, after or at all. I just don't see a benefit from a pre-action alignment change, even a storytelling one. Amen, but... All the better for the story if he actually has the metagame effect of the level loss, knows it's going to happen (in game, he knows that it will HURT) and does it anyway. THAT is heroics! Isshia
wrecan 09-30-07, 01:17 PM	Amen, but... All the better for the story if he actually has the metagame effect of the level loss, knows it's going to happen (in game, he knows that it will HURT) and does it anyway. THAT is heroics! Isshia Sure, but if Pinnip is 1st level, if he's still evil when he picks up the holy sword, he would die. In that case alone, I might allow the alignment change before the action, just so the player has the opportunity to be heroic. Of course, why the heck am I putting holy swords in the reach of 1st level characters?
LCD2YOU 09-30-07, 02:00 PM	Sure, but if Pinnip is 1st level, if he's still evil when he picks up the holy sword, he would die. In that case alone, I might allow the alignment change before the action, just so the player has the opportunity to be heroic. Of course, why the heck am I putting holy swords in the reach of 1st level characters?Being a typical 14 year old DM of course. But if 1st level character knew that picking up the sword, a Holy one, could kill them but so it anyway to do a supremely good act, I think we have a winner there. That is the only time I would let a character change alignment before doing an action. Do note that their actions immediately following their intent must be good and I mean they must do it immediately. Only if the action of doing good were to kill them instantly from a good source, the -1 level imposed by the Holy Sword, could they change alignment. So for a 1st level character who is evil who throws themselves into a room where "goodness" extinguishes the flame of evil to get the artifact to save the world can they change alignment based on intent. That doesn't mean if some 15th level NE Dread Necromancer has a few remaining hit points and grabs said Holy Sword, takes it and drops gets away with it. The evil done by the NE Dread guy almost always far outweighs anything a 1st level character ever did. There StSteven, there is a way I think it can be done. The caveats are: 1: The evil person is 1st level 2: They can be killed by the very same good items they need to use to defeat some greater evil 3: They must act immediately, 2 or 3 rounds at most, that confirms their new alignment That is the only way I can see intent coming before action in changing alignment. It would be a very rare event indeed. Edit: Still, one can argue that going for the artifact, holy sword, etc., is itself an action.
wrecan 09-30-07, 02:22 PM	Still, one can argue that going for the artifact, holy sword, etc., is itself an action. Doh! Of course, which invalidates my one exception. I'm back to concluding there is no scenario in which I think pre-action alignment change is superior to post-action alignment change.
StSteven 09-30-07, 02:46 PM	But until they actually perform the act of heroics using the sword they could just be looting. I am perfectly happy with you thinking that it is an extremely rare event. I wouldn't have it any other way. I have never seen one that would justify it in actual play, but the possibility is there. One cannot think of every hypothetical.
wrecan 09-30-07, 02:58 PM	But until they actually perform the act of heroics using the sword they could just be looting. Nobody loots by grabbing a sword that they know will kill them (which is the scenario described).
StSteven 09-30-07, 04:46 PM	Nobody loots by grabbing a sword that they know will kill them (which is the scenario described). My teenager probably would, but that's for another board.
heffroncm 09-30-07, 05:32 PM	Nobody loots by grabbing a sword that they know will kill them (which is the scenario described). For the sake of completeness, holding a Holy sword does not harm an Evil character in any way. You only recieve the Negative Level for wielding it. It mostly helps Wrecan's argument, though, as Pinnip can loot the sword without penalty, but as soon as he tries to use it in battle it'll hurt.
StSteven 09-30-07, 06:07 PM	For the sake of completeness, holding a Holy sword does not harm an Evil character in any way. You only recieve the Negative Level for wielding it. It mostly helps Wrecan's argument, though, as Pinnip can loot the sword without penalty, but as soon as he tries to use it in battle it'll hurt. The thing that hurts the argument is that he almost came up with a hypothetical that he would allow a change of alignment before the action. Now with the endless permutations of events and situations that can arise in game play, to say that there is no situation, after almost finding one, doesn't seem right. In a game of endless possible stories, it just isn't right to say you have thought of everything. Absolutes don't work well in discussions of possible in-game situations.
wrecan 09-30-07, 08:03 PM	In a game of endless possible stories, it just isn't right to say you have thought of everything. StSteven, I was trying to be nice to you, but when you are completely misrepresenting my argument, it gets very difficult. At what point did I speak in abolutes? I never did. I specifically and repeatedly wrote: I just don't see a benefit from a pre-action alignment change, even a storytelling one. Did I make a blanket statement that there is no such scenario? No. I have merely said I have never seen one and nobody has ever been able to provide one. And I've been writing that throughout the thread. Was it really necessary to misrepresent my position? Yes, I almost came up with a scenario that worked. But it didn't. It was the best I could do and I haven't seen anybody do better. And it still fell short. So if you want to talk about what I actually write, I'm more than happy to do so civilly. I look forward to that.
DMCuindless 09-30-07, 09:01 PM	Is the government still good or was it ever good in the first place? A Lawful Evil government is not one a Paladin would find worthy. That actually doesn't matter, as far as I'm concerned. It isn't a matter of whether the paladin finds the government worthy, it's whether the authority in question is legitimate. An adroit example would be in a case where a good and just king has an evil, snivelling son who inherits the crown in accordance with the laws and traditions of that country. Regardless of the paladin's opinions on the prince's worthiness, the prince-turned-king is a legitimate authority and, therefore, needs to be respected according to the LG rules. Regardless, let's say that the government in question is still good and was all along. It also sounds like the person is sliding into some sort of psychosis and mixing mental health with alignment is not something I want to do. What's wrong with mixing alignment with mental health? As far as I'm concerned, anybody who is evil on the level that the PHB talks about probably has a mental illness to begin with. Rapists, murderers, child molesters and tyrants aren't exactly healthy people psychologically speaking. Point of fact, I try to give all of my major D&D villains some sort of psychosis or compulsion. No matter what, you still didn't answer my question, LCD2YOU: Does the situation I presented constitute an alignment change without an action, or would you, as a DM, wait until the paladin in question actually performed an evil or chaotic act before enforcing an alignment change?
StSteven 09-30-07, 09:20 PM	Sorry there wrecan. I don't know where that came from. Sorry if I tweaked you up there. I assure you I wasn't trying to misrepresent anything or even taking a shot at you. All I was saying is that, without knowing every situation, you can't say that one will never come up.
LCD2YOU 10-01-07, 08:09 AM	That actually doesn't matter, as far as I'm concerned. It isn't a matter of whether the paladin finds the government worthy, it's whether the authority in question is legitimate.It matters to me a great deal. A Lawful Evil government is not a legitimate authority to a Paladin.An adroit example would be in a case where a good and just king has an evil, snivelling son who inherits the crown in accordance with the laws and traditions of that country. Regardless of the paladin's opinions on the prince's worthiness, the prince-turned-king is a legitimate authority and, therefore, needs to be respected according to the LG rules.Not even close. If this is a place that has LG laws, how can they accept an evil person? To become evil one has to do some pretty terrible stuff, right? So what did this prince do and how did he get away with it? As for snivelling, that is not evil. It may make him weak but that is not evil in and of itself. So yes DMCuindless, it matters a great deal.Regardless, let's say that the government in question is still good and was all along. What's wrong with mixing alignment with mental health? As far as I'm concerned, anybody who is evil on the level that the PHB talks about probably has a mental illness to begin with. Rapists, murderers, child molesters and tyrants aren't exactly healthy people psychologically speaking. Point of fact, I try to give all of my major D&D villains some sort of psychosis or compulsion.i'm not sure what to say.No matter what, you still didn't answer my question, LCD2YOU:That's because I needed more information. Just because you want a hypothetical answered means you must provide a lot more detail when asked. A tid bit is not enough to make a judgment.Does the situation I presented constitute an alignment change without an action, or would you, as a DM, wait until the paladin in question actually performed an evil or chaotic act before enforcing an alignment change?Short answer. No, he may not change alignment nor lose his Paladinhood even after as there's more too this. The real issue is that you have not provided enough information. Now answer this, why did it happen in the first place? If the government is good, where are the checks and balances? Why has those responsible not been brought to justice? It could be that the Paladin is on to something and may not be doing anything wrong at all. He may be finding out that something is wrong with the government. Hey, something is really amiss if the "good government" has murderers who get away with it in their midst. So you really haven't answered anything. "The government is good", but if they're good where's the force arresting the perpetrators of the dastardly deed? That is the problem with your example. You want me to answer when you have not provided enough of a background.
DMCuindless 10-01-07, 08:57 AM	It matters to me a great deal. A Lawful Evil government is not a legitimate authority to a Paladin.Not even close. If this is a place that has LG laws, how can they accept an evil person? To become evil one has to do some pretty terrible stuff, right? So what did this prince do and how did he get away with it? As for snivelling, that is not evil. It may make him weak but that is not evil in and of itself. So yes DMCuindless, it matters a great deal.i'm not sure what to say.That's because I needed more information. Just because you want a hypothetical answered means you must provide a lot more detail when asked. A tid bit is not enough to make a judgment.Short answer. No, he may not change alignment nor lose his Paladinhood even after as there's more too this. The real issue is that you have not provided enough information. Now answer this, why did it happen in the first place? If the government is good, where are the checks and balances? Why has those responsible not been brought to justice? It could be that the Paladin is on to something and may not be doing anything wrong at all. He may be finding out that something is wrong with the government. Hey, something is really amiss if the "good government" has murderers who get away with it in their midst. So you really haven't answered anything. "The government is good", but if they're good where's the force arresting the perpetrators of the dastardly deed? That is the problem with your example. You want me to answer when you have not provided enough of a background. I think you and I have some fundamental disagreements with regards to alignment. To me, it doesn't matter if the paladin personally doesn't regard a particular authority as legitimate, what matters is the legitimacy of the authority in accordance with it's own internal laws and traditions. A paladin can't simply choose to ignore any societies laws that he doesn't feel are legitimate. That just leads to chaos. In the paladin's mindset, rules exist for a reason. In my opinion, only a neutral or chaotic character would feel they could just ignore the rules he doesn't like. As for a kingdom with LG laws accepting an evil king, if it is a monarchy with a patriarchal line of succession, it doesn't matter who "accepts" the king. In a monarchy, the people don't vote for their king. Once again, this isn't America. The evil prince is now king whether they like it or not. Just because the laws have been written to promote goodness and justice doesn't mean there aren't loopholes which our prince example can exploit. Now to our example. It doesn't matter why this happened in the first place. A guard being evil and overstepping his authority is a good enough reason, I think. As for why the perpetrator of this vile deed isn't arrested, in jail, on trial or executed can be as simple as a not enough evidence, executive authority or a mid-level coverup. Just because the government is primarily LG doesn't mean there won't be evil people in it. It also doesn't mean evil deeds don't happen. For the sake of saving ourselves a long, drawn out argument which may devolve into bad form, I'll just alter the situation to make the government Lawful Neutral. That way the rule of law is absolute. The guard gets away with it because there isn't enough evidence. On a final note, please understand that I'm just playing advocati diaboli here. I'm starting to think that my own example doesn't satisfy the criteria either, but it's food for thought. If he slips into a homicidal, obsessive psychosis, does his alignment shift with his mentality or with his actions? Do we have to wait until he brutally murders the guard in question in some dirty back alley before we change his alignment?
LCD2YOU 10-01-07, 09:19 AM	I think you and I have some fundamental disagreements with regards to alignment. To me, it doesn't matter if the paladin personally doesn't regard a particular authority as legitimate, what matters is the legitimacy of the authority in accordance with it's own internal laws and traditions.And I disagree. A society that values strength and dominion over others in such they oppress, harm and kill at will for whatever reason is not a legitimate authority. Legit authorities in a Paladin's mid set are those that at lest try to promote justice not just "laws".A paladin can't simply choose to ignore any societies laws that he doesn't feel are legitimate. That just leads to chaos.Which is far preferable to evil. As soon as a government losing its credibility with what a Paladin is sworn to uphold, the authority is not long legitimate in the eyes of any Paladin.In the paladin's mindset, rules exist for a reason. In my opinion, only a neutral or chaotic character would feel they could just ignore the rules he doesn't like.And I strongly disagree. If a Paladin goes into a town where if some servant looks at him he's supposed to beat them because it's the "law", will he do it? If when an escaped slave is brought back and they are to be beaten and if they survive maimed so they can't run anyomre, is that a "law" a Paladin will uphold? No. there are "laws" that are rules that promote tyranny, oppression and more. Then there are LAWS that promote justice and common good for all. A Paladin does the latter and cares nothing for and works against the former everytime.As for a kingdom with LG laws accepting an evil king, if it is a monarchy with a patriarchal line of succession, it doesn't matter who "accepts" the king.But this is a LG society right? To get an evil alignment, one has to commit evil acts right? So why wasn't he stopped or caught? What did he do? As being evil means you most likely broke some laws that are pretty bad. If he's still sworn in because it's the "law", sounds way more like a LN society where the law, not always justice, that matters.In a monarchy, the people don't vote for their king. Once again, this isn't America. The evil prince is now king whether they like it or not. Just because the laws have been written to promote goodness and justice doesn't mean there aren't loopholes which our prince example can exploit.All true IRL but this is a place where Evil, Good, Law and Chaos are real forces and not abstract philosophical ideals. I would think that LG societies once the rot is found even a monarchy will have ways to redress the situation. Any good LG society knows that evil at the top affects all the way down society. If they don't and it doesn't matter, again that's a LN society.Now to our example. It doesn't matter why this happened in the first place. A guard being evil and overstepping his authority is a good enough reason, I think. As for why the perpetrator of this vile deed isn't arrested, in jail, on trial or executed can be as simple as a not enough evidence, executive authority or a mid-level coverup.Aiding and abetting evil behaviour is still evil. Sounds like there's a rot in the government. The Paladin as I said may be very well on to something that is rotten in his government. If he takes out the right people, he may still be a Paladin with all of his powers. When a legitimate government drops the ball, Paladins are allowed, no I say ARE REQUIRED to act and bring about justice. If the Paladin does it right, he may just be doing that.Just because the government is primarily LG doesn't mean there won't be evil people in it. It also doesn't mean evil deeds don't happen. For the sake of saving ourselves a long, drawn out argument which may devolve into bad form, I'll just alter the situation to make the government Lawful Neutral. That way the rule of law is absolute. The guard gets away with it because there isn't enough evidence. On a final note, please understand that I'm just playing advocati diaboli here. I'm starting to think that my own example doesn't satisfy the criteria either, but it's food for thought. If he slips into a homicidal, obsessive psychosis, does his alignment shift with his mentality or with his actions? Do we have to wait until he brutally murders the guard in question in some dirty back alley before we change his alignment?I'd say he been possessed rather than mental illness. 1: It takes "RL" out of the picture. 2: It is far more in line with the setting of a DnD game. 3: Makes it so people don't think that DnD says mental illness is evil. So the way it is described then I'd say he's innocent as he's been possessed. Yeah, they'll be a lot he'll have to do but he is the victim of possession.
wrecan 10-01-07, 09:35 AM	To me, it doesn't matter if the paladin personally doesn't regard a particular authority as legitimate, what matters is the legitimacy of the authority in accordance with it's own internal laws and traditions. I've seen this argument a lot and it never makes sense to me. It places paladins in a no-win situation every time a "legitimate" authority (based on the internal consistency concept stated above) orders a paladin to kill an innocent. Scenario: Assume a society (le't scall it "Hypothetica") that has the following rules: 1) Accession to the throne is by strict male inheritance. 2) It is a crime punishable by death to attempt to overthrow the lord 3) It is a crime punishable by death to malign the lord 4) Both crimes are called "sedition" 5) If there is no professional executioner available, it is customary for the lord to order the person most skilled with the blade to execute the prisoner. 6) Failure to comply with a lawful order of a lord is a crime called "Disrespect" Sir Scrood the paladin is traveling through Hypothetica to attend the coronation of a new Count, who we'll call Count Vile. His orders are to be respectful to Count Vile, to obey the laws, and to report on the character of the new Count to the Order. While at the coronation, he detects evil on the new ruler and the new Count Vile is evil. Sir Scrood confirms the detection in several places and even once when the two of them are alone. Sir Scrood discretely tries to find out his background. He discovers that Sir Scrood spent most of his life on the borderlands in which he fought against orc hordes. However, it is a thinly veiled secret that Count Vile would celebrate victories by traveling to a border town, finding the fairest maiden in the town and having his way with her. He would then kill her and her family afterwards and make it look like an orc raid. While Sir Scrood is writing his disappointing report to be delivered by courier to his order, the Count's men summon him. Sir Scrood finds himself in the town square. A young bard, renowned for his wit and charity, has been arrested and convicted for sedition. Sir Scrood knows the bard has been critical of Count Vile, and there are rumors of his involvement in a rebellion against the Count. Count Vile states that the punishment for sedition is death. The Count has not yet had the opportunity to appoint a new headsman. Therefore he is ordering Sir Scrood -- whose skill with a blade is well known -- to conduct the execution of the bard. The bard does not detect as evil. Count Vile and his men all do. Under the law, Count Vile is under no obligation to tell the appointed headsman the basis for the bard's conviction, and, in fact, Scrood knows that it would be considered disrespectful for Scrood to ask the lord the basis for the bard's conviction. There is no hint that the bard's trial violated any laws. What should Sir Scrood do? If he does not execute the bard, isn't he disrespecting the local authority? If he does, might he be killing an innocent? And the problem is that this is going to be a constant dilemma for paladins under your scenario. "Legitimate" LE rulers are always going to be forcing paladins to choose between respecting their legitimate authority and honoring their Code of Conduct. I think the obvious answer is that a paladin does not respect Count Vile's order. And the basis for this is that the order is not legitimate. A paladin can't simply choose to ignore any societies laws that he doesn't feel are legitimate. Not only do I think he can, I think, based on his Code of Conduct, he must. But I note that his decision that an authority is illegitimate is not base don caprice or whimsy. He must see that the law itself violates his Code of Conduct.
DMCuindless 10-01-07, 09:40 AM	And I disagree. A society that values strength and dominion over others in such they oppress, harm and kill at will for whatever reason is not a legitimate authority. Legit authorities in a Paladin's mid set are those that at lest try to promote justice not just "laws".Which is far preferable to evil. As soon as a government losing its credibility with what a Paladin is sworn to uphold, the authority is not long legitimate in the eyes of any Paladin.And I strongly disagree. If a Paladin goes into a town where if some servant looks at him he's supposed to beat them because it's the "law", will he do it? If when an escaped slave is brought back and they are to be beaten and if they survive maimed so they can't run anyomre, is that a "law" a Paladin will uphold? No. there are "laws" that are rules that promote tyranny, oppression and more. Then there are LAWS that promote justice and common good for all. A Paladin does the latter and cares nothing for and works against the former everytime.But this is a LG society right? To get an evil alignment, one has to commit evil acts right? So why wasn't he stopped or caught? What did he do? As being evil means you most likely broke some laws that are pretty bad. If he's still sworn in because it's the "law", sounds way more like a LN society where the law, not always justice, that matters.All true IRL but this is a place where Evil, Good, Law and Chaos are real forces and not abstract philosophical ideals. I would think that LG societies once the rot is found even a monarchy will have ways to redress the situation. Any good LG society knows that evil at the top affects all the way down society. If they don't and it doesn't matter, again that's a LN society.Aiding and abetting evil behaviour is still evil. Sounds like there's a rot in the government. The Paladin as I said may be very well on to something that is rotten in his government. If he takes out the right people, he may still be a Paladin with all of his powers. When a legitimate government drops the ball, Paladins are allowed, no I say ARE REQUIRED to act and bring about justice. If the Paladin does it right, he may just be doing that.I'd say he been possessed rather than mental illness. 1: It takes "RL" out of the picture. 2: It is far more in line with the setting of a DnD game. 3: Makes it so people don't think that DnD says mental illness is evil. So the way it is described then I'd say he's innocent as he's been possessed. Yeah, they'll be a lot he'll have to do but he is the victim of possession. I think that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on what a paladin is required to do. In my opinion, a paladin, by virtue of the class, is required to change the system within the system, not simply break any system he disagrees with. Back to our example: He isn't possessed, he's only sort of insane. I'm not altering the scenario to make him possessed because it's more in keeping with the setting and easier to deal with. I'm saying he is near mad with anger and is planning a whole sale maraud against all government authority. Is this an instance which satisfies the above criteria we agreed upon?
DMCuindless 10-01-07, 09:57 AM	I've seen this argument a lot and it never makes sense to me. It places paladins in a no-win situation every time a "legitimate" authority (based on the internal consistency concept stated above) orders a paladin to kill an innocent. Scenario: Assume a society (le't scall it "Hypothetica") that has the following rules: 1) Accession to the throne is by strict male inheritance. 2) It is a crime punishable by death to attempt to overthrow the lord 3) It is a crime punishable by death to malign the lord 4) Both crimes are called "sedition" 5) If there is no professional executioner available, it is customary for the lord to order the person most skilled with the blade to execute the prisoner. 6) Failure to comply with a lawful order of a lord is a crime called "Disrespect" Sir Scrood the paladin is traveling through Hypothetica to attend the coronation of a new Count, who we'll call Count Vile. His orders are to be respectful to Count Vile, to obey the laws, and to report on the character of the new Count to the Order. While at the coronation, he detects evil on the new ruler and the new Count Vile is evil. Sir Scrood confirms the detection in several places and even once when the two of them are alone. Sir Scrood discretely tries to find out his background. He discovers that Sir Scrood spent most of his life on the borderlands in which he fought against orc hordes. However, it is a thinly veiled secret that Count Vile would celebrate victories by traveling to a border town, finding the fairest maiden in the town and having his way with her. He would then kill her and her family afterwards and make it look like an orc raid. While Sir Scrood is writing his disappointing report to be delivered by courier to his order, the Count's men summon him. Sir Scrood finds himself in the town square. A young bard, renowned for his wit and charity, has been arrested and convicted for sedition. Sir Scrood knows the bard has been critical of Count Vile, and there are rumors of his involvement in a rebellion against the Count. Count Vile states that the punishment for sedition is death. The Count has not yet had the opportunity to appoint a new headsman. Therefore he is ordering Sir Scrood -- whose skill with a blade is well known -- to conduct the execution of the bard. The bard does not detect as evil. Count Vile and his men all do. Under the law, Count Vile is under no obligation to tell the appointed headsman the basis for the bard's conviction, and, in fact, Scrood knows that it would be considered disrespectful for Scrood to ask the lord the basis for the bard's conviction. There is no hint that the bard's trial violated any laws. What should Sir Scrood do? If he does not execute the bard, isn't he disrespecting the local authority? If he does, might he be killing an innocent? And the problem is that this is going to be a constant dilemma for paladins under your scenario. "Legitimate" LE rulers are always going to be forcing paladins to choose between respecting their legitimate authority and honoring their Code of Conduct. I think the obvious answer is that a paladin does not respect Count Vile's order. And the basis for this is that the order is not legitimate. Not only do I think he can, I think, based on his Code of Conduct, he must. But I note that his decision that an authority is illegitimate is not base don caprice or whimsy. He must see that the law itself violates his Code of Conduct. The problem with your example is that it exists within a vaccuum. In any law heavy society, there will be other laws that can be exploited for reverse effect. In other words, the same rules that exploit the paladin can be used to save the kingdom. Your hypothetical, while a fine paladin trap indeed, is simply crappy DMing, in my opinion. I don't put my players in situations like that because it's being an a-hole. Whenever someone chooses to play a paladin in my games, I give them the "third way" speech. Too often a paladin trap appears wherein it looks like there's only two options, in your case kill the "innocent" bard or don't kill the "innocent" bard (though I also think our definition of innocent may differ... he was, after all, breaking the law). The paladin's duty, then, is to find the third way and salvage the most good from the situation while working within the boundaries of the system. A paladin's life isn't easy. It is a hard road, fraught with peril and temptation at every step, and one which many do not succeed on. If all situations were clear cut with a "good" choice and a "bad" choice, much of the tension of being a paladin is lost. The evil but legitimate king scenario is a perfect test of a paladin's committment to finding the best solution. With a good DM, that third way will always exist. It may not be easy to find, but it will be there.
LCD2YOU 10-01-07, 10:00 AM	I think that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on what a paladin is required to do. In my opinion, a paladin, by virtue of the class, is required to change the system within the system, not simply break any system he disagrees with.Which can be a serious problem if the people he has to work with are evil. That really breaks his CoC on associating with evil people.Back to our example: He isn't possessed, he's only sort of insane. I'm not altering the scenario to make him possessed because it's more in keeping with the setting and easier to deal with. I'm saying he is near mad with anger and is planning a whole sale maraud against all government authority. Is this an instance which satisfies the above criteria we agreed upon?No because I don't mix the two. RL psyche problems and DnD really don't mix. But in your world you can do as you wish. So to answer your question, if the act of treachery is big and horrid enough still no the Paladin is not going to change alignment until after the action.
DMCuindless 10-01-07, 10:08 AM	Which can be a serious problem if the people he has to work with are evil. That really breaks his CoC on associating with evil people.No because I don't mix the two. RL psyche problems and DnD really don't mix. But in your world you can do as you wish. So to answer your question, if the act of treachery is big and horrid enough still no the Paladin is not going to change alignment until after the action. I agree. Even this example fails to meet the challenge. Simply put, until he actually performs the evil or chaotic act in question, he can at any moment back out and do something else. His thoughts, no matter how dark, haven't mystically altered his alignment.
wrecan 10-01-07, 10:14 AM	The problem with your example is that it exists within a vaccuum. In any law heavy society, there will be other laws that can be exploited for reverse effect. I don't understand what this means. My hypothetical was not an unusual situation. Evil tyrants using their power to brutally repress dissent is a common trope in fantasy. If the paladin class cannot accommodate such a scenario, then there's a serious problem. Your hypothetical, while a fine paladin trap indeed, is simply crappy DMing, in my opinion. I don't put my players in situations like that because it's being an a-hole. I wouldn't either. but the problem is that if the player is playing by a code of behavior that so obviously requires DM railroading to make workable, it's not an actual workable code of behavior. I personally find it hard ot play a character when it is so obvious that his order should have been wiped out long ago. Any evil tyrant would want to rid himself of those pesky paladins who would be tryign to use lawful means to overthrow him. Any evil tyrant worth his salt will find a Sage with sufficient levels of Knowledge (religion) or Knowledge (nobility) to tell him that he can cause all the paladins to fall by simply ordering them to so something against their Code of Conduct. That's a world in which paladin orders could not exist unless coddled by a LG society. It makes the existence of paladins so fragile as to be unbelievable. The paladin's duty, then, is to find the third way and salvage the most good from the situation while working within the boundaries of the system. What's the paladin's third way in the scenario I described? There he is in the town square. His choice is to respect the lawful lord and execute a bard whose only crime is to criticize a lord who is known to have raped innocent women and murdered their families to cover up his crimes. I mean, if this bard is considered sufficiently non-innocent to allow the paladin to be able to execute him, then you've just turned paladins into lackeys of tyrants. The tyrant who comes to power can simply enact a law drafting the local paladin order to be his personal torturers. If all situations were clear cut with a "good" choice and a "bad" choice, much of the tension of being a paladin is lost. I don't think that to be the case. here's is my distinction between a paladin trap and moral dilemma: A paladin trap is where a paladin must choose between two inconsistent portions of his required code of behavior. A moral dilemma is where a paladin must choose between what his code dictates and what his character wants. A paladin trap exists when a code is interpreted in such a way as to result in inconsistency. Here, it is your interpretation that a paladin is required to respect authority that comes to power lawfully, which then contradicts the requirement that a paladin commit no evil act. The obvious contradiction is when a lawful tyrant lawfully orders the paladin to commit an evil act. That's a paladin trap because there's no way out except for the DM fudging things for him. A moral dilemma is when the paladin is confronted with the man who killed his mother in cold blood, but who surrenders to the paladin. The paladin measures his thirst for vengeance against his order's desire for mercy. That's good role-playing. If the paladin's player decides to slake his thirst for vengeance, then he falls, but he knows he will. With a good DM, that third way will always exist. It may not be easy to find, but it will be there. The Good DMing comes before the trap is even devised. It occurs when the paladin code is being established, such that there is not going to be a paladin trap at all. The Good DM doesn't tell a paladin he must respect an evil tyrant.
DMCuindless 10-01-07, 10:24 AM	Post deleted...
wrecan 10-01-07, 10:30 AM	post deleted in response to DM Cuindless...
DMCuindless 10-01-07, 10:50 AM	I don't understand what this means. My hypothetical was not an unusual situation. Evil tyrants using their power to brutally repress dissent is a common trope in fantasy. If the paladin class cannot accommodate such a scenario, then there's a serious problem. No, it wasn't an unusual situation, but it is one that exists within a vaccuum. You've set up the circumstances as such that only two options exist, when in a real situation multiple options would exist. Anyone can construct such a hypothetical, but the truth is that real situations are a lot more complex. I wouldn't either. but the problem is that if the player is playing by a code of behavior that so obviously requires DM railroading to make workable, it's not an actual workable code of behavior. I personally find it hard ot play a character when it is so obvious that his order should have been wiped out long ago. Any evil tyrant would want to rid himself of those pesky paladins who would be tryign to use lawful means to overthrow him. Any evil tyrant worth his salt will find a Sage with sufficient levels of Knowledge (religion) or Knowledge (nobility) to tell him that he can cause all the paladins to fall by simply ordering them to so something against their Code of Conduct. That's a world in which paladin orders could not exist unless coddled by a LG society. It makes the existence of paladins so fragile as to be unbelievable. What's the paladin's third way in the scenario I described? There he is in the town square. His choice is to respect the lawful lord and execute a bard whose only crime is to criticize a lord who is known to have raped innocent women and murdered their families to cover up his crimes. I mean, if this bard is considered sufficiently non-innocent to allow the paladin to be able to execute him, then you've just turned paladins into lackeys of tyrants. The tyrant who comes to power can simply enact a law drafting the local paladin order to be his personal torturers. As I've said, I don't find your scenario to be realistic in game because it requires a set of contrived circumstances. Even so, there are a few loopholes readily apparent. First, the paladin is not apparently a citizen of this "Hypothetica" because you said he's "traveling through". It could be argued he's not beholden to those laws and can simply refuse. Of course, this could lead to him being arrested and convicted of disrespect, but then his order can send diplomatic envoys or a squad of combatants to rescue him. To most international treaties, taking a foreign dignitary prisoner is an act of aggression. Second, you said "it is customary for the lord to order the person most skilled with the blade to execute the prisoner". A custom isn't a law. As such, the paladin appears to be well within his rights to refuse. Third, the paladin in question isn't being issued a lawful order since this Count is not his liege: He is beholden to his order. Fourth, the lord in question never said "immediately". The paladin is, therefore, well within his rights to say, "Of course, Your Grace, as soon as I confer with my order. I will, of course, take him into custody until such a time as I can perform the duties your require." In this situation, I would take my character's high charisma and maxed out diplomacy to convince the lord that he allow me to take the bard prisoner and back to my order where we can teach him how to "properly respect his superiors". This way, the innocent man is spared, the law is upheld and the order receives it's report. Then we (my order and I) can decide as a group the most effective way to deal with this new threat to goodness and justice. It depends on who the lord answers to, who my order answers to and the other inter-kingdom relationships that exist by custom, treaty and legality. That's all outside of your scenario, though. I don't think that to be the case. here's is my distinction between a paladin trap and moral dilemma: A paladin trap is where a paladin must choose between two inconsistent portions of his required code of behavior. A moral dilemma is where a paladin must choose between what his code dictates and what his character wants. A paladin trap exists when a code is interpreted in such a way as to result in inconsistency. Here, it is your interpretation that a paladin is required to respect authority that comes to power lawfully, which then contradicts the requirement that a paladin commit no evil act. The obvious contradiction is when a lawful tyrant lawfully orders the paladin to commit an evil act. That's a paladin trap because there's no way out except for the DM fudging things for him. A moral dilemma is when the paladin is confronted with the man who killed his mother in cold blood, but who surrenders to the paladin. The paladin measures his thirst for vengeance against his order's desire for mercy. That's good role-playing. If the paladin's player decides to slake his thirst for vengeance, then he falls, but he knows he will. By your definition, then, a moral dilemma is no dilemma at all because the paladin's choice is easy. Slake my thirst for vengeance (bad), or show mercy to a surrendering opponent (good). Here we have clear cut choices. A paladin trap is a moral dilemma with no way out. A smart DM can create thousands of scenarios where a paladin is probably going to fail and fall, even with a liberal definition of the Code of Conduct. Creating that situation and forcing a paladin to fall is bad DMing, in my opinion. The Good DMing comes before the trap is even devised. It occurs when the paladin code is being established, such that there is not going to be a paladin trap at all. The Good DM doesn't tell a paladin he must respect an evil tyrant. No, he doesn't respect the evil tyrant, he respects the rank and he respects the law. In the military we have a saying, "You salute the uniform, not the man." My superior officer can be many things that I disrespect, dislike or even despise, but I have to respect him because that is the society I've chosen. That being said, avenues exist to report him if he breaks the rules ro does something against the law and spirit of the military. There are always avenues and honorable recourse. There's always a third way.
StSteven 10-01-07, 10:51 AM	Just to shock everyone following along, I agree with LCD2YOU and wrecan.
DMCuindless 10-01-07, 10:58 AM	Just to shock everyone following along, I agree with LCD2YOU and wrecan. Any particular reason? Anything to add to the discussion?
wrecan 10-01-07, 11:36 AM	No, it wasn't an unusual situation, but it is one that exists within a vaccuum. You've set up the circumstances as such that only two options exist, when in a real situation multiple options would exist. Anyone can construct such a hypothetical, but the truth is that real situations are a lot more complex. Not always. Sometimes a clever tyrant will force you into a box, but he can only do it if your own moral code creates that box for him. As I've said, I don't find your scenario to be realistic in game because it requires a set of contrived circumstances. What's contrived? The basic facts are a tyrant takes power through lawful means. He decides to take down a paladin using his own moral strictures. He lawfully orders the paladin to execute someone the paladin would deem an innocent. If it's contrived, it's because a smart villain is contriving to take Sir Scrood down. First, the paladin is not apparently a citizen of this "Hypothetica" because you said he's "traveling through". It could be argued he's not beholden to those laws and can simply refuse. In what world is a visitor not beholden to the laws. At any rate, the paladin's order told him to comport with the laws. At the time, they did not know Count Vile was evil, and his predecessor was a good king. Of course, this could lead to him being arrested and convicted of disrespect So he disrespected a legitimate authority, pretty much by definition. He violated his Code of Conduct (necessarily, because his Code of Conduct was inherently contradictory). Second, you said "it is customary for the lord to order the person most skilled with the blade to execute the prisoner". A custom isn't a law. As such, the paladin appears to be well within his rights to refuse. The custom is backed up by the Law of Disrepect, which I set forth in my hypothetical. By "customary" I was merely saying that the lord could pick anybody he liked to be headsman, but he usually picks the most skilled blade, as he did here. However, whomever he picks, the person picked will be disrespecting the lord to refuse. Third, the paladin in question isn't being issued a lawful order since this Count is not his liege: He is beholden to his order. Whoa! You're the one who said a paladin cannot ignore laws that aren't to his liking. At any rate, his liege told him to obey the laws of Hypothetica. Fourth, the lord in question never said "immediately". The paladin is, therefore, well within his rights to say, "Of course, Your Grace, as soon as I confer with my order. If the paladin says that, the Lord simply says, "No, Sir Scrood. I am ordering you to execute him right now or be guilty of disrespecting my legitimate authority." I mean, the whole point is to bring the paladin down. The lord isn't going to postpone the execution for a week. In this situation, I would take my character's high charisma and maxed out diplomacy to convince the lord that he allow me to take the bard prisoner and back to my order where we can teach him how to "properly respect his superiors". Sadly, your paladin's Charisma and Diplomacy is no match for the Lord's own Charisma and Diplomacy check. The clever Count Vile has already had his court bard cast Eagle's Splendor upon him and is also quietly playing his lute to improve Vile's Diplomacy skill check. In addition, all of Count Vile's courtiers and advisers are rolling "Aid Another" checks. It's quite fruitless to try Diplomacy at this point. Plus, your paladin is at a -10 penalty because Vile isn't going to give your paladin a full minute to stall. By your definition, then, a moral dilemma is no dilemma at all because the paladin's choice is easy. Slake my thirst for vengeance (bad), or show mercy to a surrendering opponent (good). Here we have clear cut choices. Exactly. They are role-playing choices. A paladin falls because it is in character, not because he's been tricked by ambiguities established by a thoughtless or malicious DM. A smart DM can create thousands of scenarios where a paladin is probably going to fail and fall, even with a liberal definition of the Code of Conduct. Not if the Code of Conduct is presumed to be written without internal contradictions. Creating that situation and forcing a paladin to fall is bad DMing, in my opinion. The situation is created at the moment the DM decides the paladin's code is inherently contradictory. No, he doesn't respect the evil tyrant, he respects the rank and he respects the law. In the military we have a saying, "You salute the uniform, not the man." My superior officer can be many things that I disrespect, dislike or even despise, but I have to respect him because that is the society I've chosen. That being said, avenues exist to report him if he breaks the rules ro does something against the law and spirit of the military. There are always avenues and honorable recourse. There's always a third way. There is no third way in my scenario. Nor is my scenario particularly unusual. In fact, the evil villain is using his authority and his knowledge of his enemy to his direct advantage. Isn't that what smart villains are supposed to do? In your solution, the villain is going to be an idiot because apparently, nobody, no matter how evil, will ever consider using a paladin's own code against him, because you as a DM wouldn't put the character into this trap. Better by far to not have the paladin possess a code that would trap him in the first place.
DMCuindless 10-01-07, 11:58 AM	Listen, I'm not going to debate this any more. I appreciate your point of view, but I disagree with it. I've never had any problems with how I run paladins. Basically, I consider your argument to be a false construct because it requires a specific set of circumstances I feel would never actually happen. That being said, I have reviewed the Rules as Written along with a pertinent article from Ask the Sage and discovered that you are indeed completely correct. "If a societies laws are evil and corrupt, a paladin is under no obligation to obey them". To me, this flies in the face of the paladin motif, but according to the RAW it's correct. I guess my paladins are all house ruled. Thank you for an interesting discussion Wrecan. I concede that you are correct, though admit I will continue to run my game as I already do.
StSteven 10-01-07, 12:44 PM	Any particular reason? Anything to add to the discussion? Yeah...quite simply a paladin is good before he is lawful. He has no obligation to uphold evil tyrants. He doesn't fall for chaotic acts, he falls for evil ones. If he were to follow the law in Wrecan's case and kill the innocent, he would fall.
DMCuindless 10-01-07, 12:56 PM	Yeah...quite simply a paladin is good before he is lawful. He has no obligation to uphold evil tyrants. He doesn't fall for chaotic acts, he falls for evil ones. If he were to follow the law in Wrecan's case and kill the innocent, he would fall. Apparently in the RAW and CORE you guys are both right and I stand corrected. It's different in my games because, typically, the plots and laws are complex and convoluted, requiring a lot of effort and determination to find the right course of action. Still, I concede the debate. The rules back up Wrecan's point of view.