Static/Scripted Alignment Changes

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:33 pm

Just for fun, I currently count (with some assumptions):

NO! - 8 Posters
YES! - 7 Posters

Yes - BUT! only if the player gets to explain his motivation, thus changing the alignment point shift - 3 posters.

This assumes those who are arguing that motive is irrelevant are "YES!"s, though that hasn't been explicity stated by all.

It also assumes that the "YES!" being voted for is a sensible system where only major actions result in shifts.

My "NO!" vote could happily be shifted to the "Yes - But!" group, and I suspect the same is true for one or two of the other "NO!"s, given the most common stated objection to the idea.

Zelknolf · Post by **Zelknolf** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:22 am

Might get better numbers if someone started a poll once discussion was spent.

Unless we're assuming that all discussion has no impact on anyone's opinions, in which case I ask what we're doing trying?

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:01 am

Zelknolf wrote:Might get better numbers if someone started a poll once discussion was spent.

Unless we're assuming that all discussion has no impact on anyone's opinions, in which case I ask what we're doing trying?

Just passing the time, frankly - as Swift pointed out on page 1, the ALFA community hasn't managed a consensus on alignment in 4 years (heck, the 3.0 D&D community as a whole isn't remotely close to agreement, as evidence by the number of heated alignment debates that crop up on WOTC's boards.

I doubt we are going to change any minds here.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:05 am

Just as an aside, if static alignment changes exist, there ought, surely to be choices that move you towards neutral, giving you "good points" if you are evil, and giving you "evil points" if you are good.

Never seen one, but theoretically it ought to be just as likely as outright good evil quests.

(or Chaos and Law of course, though as a further aside, like a previous poster I agree that we would have saveda lot of grief it it had been described as "order" rather than Law).

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:47 pm

Actually Mayhem, part of the problem with any discussion here is that it gets a little too heated and eventually someone decides to dominate the discussion by posting pretty much the same arguments over and over and over and over again, thus causing those of opposing views to just drop out of the discussion, failing to see the logic in readdressing the same flawed arguments posed by the same flawed arguer.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:57 pm

And sometimes valid arguments also get repeated, due to the oppositions ignoring them despite a total lack of reasoned counter arguments.

Ces't le vie.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:58 pm

Whole thread TL:DR.

But it's really easy to comment on anyway since we've had the discussion a dozen times before. You get to *choose* your alignment at PC creation. Think about that for a moment. That means alignment is a player choice issue. If you then choose to run your PC's story arc in such a way that the alignment changes, a DM should be able to work with you on that.

Any other alignment hit is basically RP punishment. I don't even trust a person to judge my RP accurately, I'm certainly not going to trust a static to do so.

The last time we had this discussion, PsychoLeo nailed it by explaining the difference between alignment and reputation. Basically, your actions that other people are aware of constitute reputation, alignment is internal and much harder to change. He said it even better, but I can't find the post now.