Post/Author/DateTime

Post

#1 vonklaude Jul 31, 2007 6:19:24

This is a technical definition of alignment arising out of long debate in forums. It was hard negotiated, hard thought-out, hard won. For those reasons it deserves posting in Regdar's. It addresses RAW closely to supply you with a working understanding that attempts to avoid added-meaning or exceptions. It is not a model of real world morality. Not everyone agrees with this definition. Some feel that aligned-action should precede non-Neutral alignment. A posting of their view would be helpful in contrast with this one. ------------------------------- 1) Alignment is an energy that entities have in varying measure. 2) That energy is associated with tendencies, actions, or compulsions, of a certain sort with respect to Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, and Neutrality. 3) The presence of alignment and the things it makes an entity prone to do are objective, not subjective. It doesn't matter how an entitity feels about tendencies bestowed by alignment, nor whether it is capable of acting upon them, nor even how it feels about actions ultimately taken. 4) Despite that, an entity's experience of actions, even those that are accidental or that it does not perform itself, can cause its alignment to change. Rarely, alignment can change as a result of a change of heart after the alignment-specific actions, but typically an alignment change follows a change of heart accompanied by subsequent or simultaneous alignment-specific actions. (Internal events are not deemed actions, in this context.) The implication is that alignment energy can shift polarity, or be replaced by another energy; but the true mechanism remains mysterious. Some mages are able to create machines for changing alignment. 5) Any tendencies induced by alignment are flexible. In expression they can fluctuate without affecting detectable alignment, although if they do so consistently then alignment may alter as noted. An entity can come into conflict with the alignment that typically motivates it, suggesting some separation between alignment and will, but any such dynamic remains inscrutable: A succubus might be able to fight her alignment; a paladin might have lapses that threaten her standing. Individuals vary in their response to alignment energy. 6) Alignment can be detected or warded against, or at times instantly bestowed. These features likely arise out of its workings as an energy. Some entities are so motivated by the energy, or so filled with it, that their alignment can change only on a one-in-a-million chance. No matter what actions they experience. ------------------------------- In closing: Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams, and their forebears might have had something else in mind when they wrote on alignment. What they had in mind might or might not have yielded ruleswise consistency. The above propositions, accurately applied, do yield consistency in RAW. As with many other of Regdar's threads, this is a position given as it is. Please do not post simply to disagree - that can be done elsewhere. An ideal use for this thread will be for posting your refinements of the above six propositions about alignment. -vk