| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1eightbitmageAug 04, 2005 18:53:52 | I propose that alignment is not influenced by actions, and beyond that, the DM has no say (with small exceptions) over what a PCs alignment is past five average game sessions. Now this might seem an odd statement to make and I’m sure that someone is planning a very very vehement rebuttal, I only ask that you read this whole thing before coming up with a response. To start; your alignment is not what you have done, but what you will do. If I am good, then I will go out of my way to do nice things, if I am evil I will do some things that will hurt people to get what I want, if I am neutral I will do some of each, and some actions that fall between, but nobody will be absolute in terms of alignment (that is, albeit debatably, the realm of celestials and infernals). An example; Lets say you are a hard core republican (stay with me, this is a metaphor) you believe in all things republican, and so it is not hard to label you as such. Now what if you are a republican but you oppose the Iraq war? You are a staunch republican in all other ways, but when it comes to Iraq the answer is always no, because you believe there is a moral issue. Now what if the person questioning you only asks you questions about the Iraq war? He may be lead to believe that you are not a republican, and are in fact, a (dirty) liberal. You still believe in all the ideals that are core to a republican, but you do not support one bit of what some believe come with it, in my mind you are still a republican. Now a D&D related extension of that example; a player plays a neutral character, but if anyone attacks his wife, he absolutely flips out and kills them, even if they surrender. The action itself is probably evil (or chaotic depending on the camp you are in) does this mean that an otherwise lawful good (non-paladin) is neutral along in one of the two respects, or even chaotic, or evil? I believe no, especially if he acts within all the other guidelines of law and good. Now you say that I have not convinced you, and beyond that the last paragraph makes my point in that if a player does that he is obviously not lawful or good, which brings me to my next point: If the player had his wife attacked over and over again, and if the player has never had his wife attacked, and yet the DM knows what would happen if she were what is his alignment. Well I say it is whatever it was when he informed the DM of this fact. If the DM thinks it makes him chaotic evil to do this, then if he is willing to do it he is chaotic evil. The only problem is that all of this assumes good role-playing. If a player does an action that is within the realm of what his character would do then his alignment should not change, but if he does an action that is completely out of character it should not be allowed. If a paladin is walking down the street and stabs a baby randomly, beyond losing all his powers, his player should probably be asked a few questions regarding his mental stability. “Then how,” you ask “does alignment change? The blackguard prestige class implies paladins can fall from good to evil, how could this happen if evil actions don’t dictate alignment?” It changes because the player wants it to change. I assume some event has happened in game, or some slow series of events that would cause this, but regardless of how, unless a player decides that his alignment changes from good to evil, or to neutral then evil, that PC will not act evil. On the other hand if the player says “Ok, that last event did it, Alhandra is sick of Heironeous all hail Hextor!” and decides that any time she sees a paladin or cleric of Heironeous she will kill him for no reason, and then that player never again runs into a cleric or paladin of Heironeous, but acts in a totally neutral manner otherwise that player is playing an evil PC. Even if the PC never gets to act out what makes the evil, if they are willing to be evil enough to be considered evil if they did all the things a DM would judge evil then they are evil and gain all benefits and penalties of being so. (We’re almost to the end so stay with me (wow I use a lot of parentheticals)) What happens if the DM and player disagree on what is a good (neutral evil lawful chaotic whatever) PC and a not good (ditto) PC? This is the reason why the title has almost in it. If the DM and player disagree the PC is what the DM says he is based on the character’s back-story, and actions. It doesn’t matter if its because the DM is wrong or the PC is wrong it is the DM’s world. Argue with him all you will, he gets the final say. Now for something every DM should do - nay must do; You have a lawful good PC in your game. The bad guy kills orphan after orphan in front of him. When the lawful good PC is free and is about to kill the bad guy after he surrenders, it is the DM’s moment, this is where he should not drop the ball. The DM should pause the action and ask the player a few questions, “do you want your PC to stay good?” “Will your PC feel sorry for this later?” “Does your PC want to stay good?” “Why is your PC doing this.” and finally either tell them that if they do it, it will represent a change in character, and that a character with the previous world view would not have done it and give him the option of not doing it and remaining good, or doing it and changing alignment, or you say “have at him, but I better see tears later.” (this is of course after taking his current alignment, Intelligence, and Wisdom into account) For those of you who believe alignment is a spiritual scorecard:
|