Alignment Shifts and You

[NickD]

I'm not opposed to alignment shifts as long as they are handed out in small increments and with an equal hand. I noticed my LG character in NWN1 got given C and E alignment shifts a lot easier than she got L or G alignment shifts. She was still something like 100/99, but she had to work a lot harder for the L and G shifts than the C and E shifts (not that I actively worked towards them).

Likewise if a barbarian character got 1 lawful point for doing a patrol, I would expect that they should get 1 chaotic point every time they raged as well if you want a fair balance. But I don't see that happening. Rage is just part of the class, after all.

And I agree that it's not a punishment. Neither is a DM changing a character's alignment the same as the DM forcing the character to change their inner belief system. If you keep doing things that warrant you changing from neutral to evil... perhaps your inner belief system is not so innocuous as you think.

I'd rather not see alignment shifts scripted though, or we'd just have Waterdeep all over again, where certain PCs would do something lawful and to compensate would just go and smash a bunch of doors for no real RP reason, just to get their chaotic back.

[Magile]

I'm going to have to start saving my posts on repeat topics so I can just copy and paste.

Haven't seen it in a while, and considering the [majority] of people have been civil these days, I figured we may have a stronger response with a decent result.

[Kest]

I don't believe alignment shifts should be made for petty actions - giving small* shifts for significant ones is alright though.

*no higher than 3-5 pts at a time

[Aitana]

My personal opinon on this is that DMs should talk with the player before handing out Alignment shifts like XP should be handed out.

DMs have a lot of control and they should, but when it comes to the PCS make the players need to be considered. I cant as DM tell a player what there character is feeling emotionally nor should I. I can discuss with a player options, or talk with them as to where I am comming from in the situation.

I have in the past had negative experince with this in alfa. I dont want to be specific but I will give a little example. My Chaotic/Good PC had often talked to a known evil PC. They never did anything to be considered evil. They both even help to find children. So really I cant agree with that DM giving my PC evil points for just talking. Did I complain no... Did I want to hell yeah.

So in the end this needs to be discussed with both Player and DM.

[dob85y]

Alignment points should be given when DM experience is given, without exception. If a character behaves within its alignment then that should also be reinforced.

A Pal should still get good points for helping someone, even because its in his code to doso.

Where problems can occur, is when you get points for acting contrary to your alignment, not with respect to an alignment. The difference may be subtle, but if a lawful character opens a door thats locked by knocking it down, is that chaotic, should a thief chaotic points for picking the lock?

Now what if the door is in a criminal hide out, and the local law enforcment is part of your party?

Perception of actions is what needs to be clarified when giving points that move away from a players alignment, the why of it moreso than the what.

[hollyfant]

I disagree with all statements even mentioning the words "intent", "motivation" or "belief". D&D has a very clear and simple alignment system, based on moral absolutism and moral universalism. If killing a puppy is evil, it is evil under all circumstances and regardless of motive. Every creature, every object and every act has an innate alignment. If you stomp the puppy just because, it's evil. If you stomp the puppy because you're hungry, it's evil. If you stomp the puppy because it'll grow up to become a hell hound and murder an entire village, it's still evil. You can argue with a DM's interpretation of morals, but not with the morals themselves. They're ingrained in the game.

</rant>

[fluffmonster]

what if the puppy is crippled and dying painfully? Is euthanising it evil?

I tend to agree with the moral absolutism perspective, at least insofar as the virtue or vice of an act depends on how a "representative" neutral arbiter would interpret it and not necessarily the intent of the PC. Still, I can see how intent can be relevant if only to avoid wild swings in alignment. My opinion is mostly that it is one of the roles of the DM to be the arbiter and provide the interpretation and split that hair between absolutism and relativism.

[Kest]

I disagree with all statements even mentioning the words "intent", "motivation" or "belief". D&D has a very clear and simple alignment system, based on moral absolutism and moral universalism. You can argue with a DM's interpretation of morals, but not with the morals themselves. They're ingrained in the game.

Agree, although I consider "killing an animal" to be exactly the sort of petty action that is unworthy of a shift. I don't give a damn if it's one puppy or a two dozen puppies, that is some pathetic bullshit.

Another example of petty actions causing an unwarranted shift was the Waterdeep lockpicking. Points for picking a lock is ridiculous - shifts should be reserved for something serious, like jailbreaks or mugging someone!

[Mick]

What if you stomp the puppy because it has a disease and is suffering? (edit: bah, fluff beat me to the example)

I completely disagree that there is no room for discussion between DM and player about intent. Here is an IG example from a prior PC of mine:

My NE rogue who was trying to stay under the radar at first level had a popular Daggerford militia corporal or sergeant PC escort her along the road so she could get where she was going safely. While on the road, the kindly militia member told her to hang behind and he would scout ahead. While doing so, he was attacked by bandits and killed. A bit later, my PC managed to make it to his body and drag it back to Daggerford. She brought him to the guards and told them what had happened. Before doing so, however, she lifted some potions and some of his gold. She turned in all of the rest of his belongings with his body.

The DM that was present wanted to give my PC some good and/or lawful points. I disagreed on the basis that her intent was not to do the right thing in any way. Rather, she was intelligent and knew that the death of this popular PC/militia member would be viewed with suspicion if all of his items ended up in the possession of a newcomer or in a pawn shop somewhere. She did not want that kind of attention, so she took a few untraceable items but turned over all the other, more PC-specific items. The DM heard my argument and agreed no alignment shift was warranted.

Intent can matter. Does it always matter? I think not, but it can. Another thing that should be considered in all of this is separating alignment from reputation. There are probably plenty of Sharrans running around who go out of their way to look like nice folks to their neighbors. I think you would be hard-pressed to push them into the good category just because they help get a little girl's cat out of the tree. Such an action might improve a PC's reputation (which is not well-quanitified in our game), but it would not necessarily change their alignment at all (perhaps they are hoping to convert or use the kid in the future.)

As to DMs always being right, I'd rather not play with one who thinks they always are. Same goes for any player, though. Come to think about it, I don't like being around those folks in RL, either.

[dergon darkhelm]

Although this might turn the discussion off course .........you have to be careful in defining what is "evil" in D&D.

The "Ultimate Evil" book (which I don't own atm) has good examples of what is evil. Consorting with demons, dark rituals for evil gods, murder for magical purposes ....like those.

If someone has that book it might be helpful to post them.......

Anyway---my comments on alignment shifting the same

[johnlewismcleod]

Agree, although I consider "killing an animal" to be exactly the sort of petty action that is unworthy of a shift. I don't give a damn if it's one puppy or a two dozen puppies, that is some pathetic bullshit.

I hope we don't have any PETA people reading the forums

As to DMs always being right, I'd rather not play with one who thinks they always are. Same goes for any player, though. Come to think about it, I don't like being around those folks in RL, either.

It's not about being right or fair, it's about keeping the game in perspective and allowing the DM's to do their difficult job without being bogged down in argument.

Debate is for the forums, not IG, and not by subjecting DM's to multiple PM's. I would say one PM tops to plead a case one feels strongly about, and whatever the response is, that's final. Multiple PM's is harrassment.

And even in the forums it can be counterproductive if posters don't make the effort to choose their words carefully and avoid using expletives and name calling....*cough* Kest *cough*.

[HEEGZ]

If there are any DMs that have trouble with this, the DMG is very helpful (p.134). If you don't own a copy send me a PM and I can supply the info.

[Rotku]

As to DMs always being right...

I'm always right, whether I'm the DM or not. It's just a fact of life

Section 7.8.2 of the ALFA Rulebook.
Rotku is always right.
If the above does not apply, see above.

As for alignments. Alignments are silly. Alignments should be scrapped. As far as sillyness goes, alignments more or less take the cake. But as they're there, I agree with what everyone said above. Reading over Vendrin's post about motives not mattering I'm nodding thinking "yup, that's right". Then reading over Mulu's post about motives mattering I'm nodding thinking "yup, that's right". And then I come to Holly's post, where he disagrees with Mulu, and I agree with him as well. And then finally, Mick disagrees with Holly, and he's right as well. So there we go.

[Mayhem]

I'm not opposed to alignment shifts as long as they are handed out in small increments and with an equal hand. I noticed my LG character in NWN1 got given C and E alignment shifts a lot easier than she got L or G alignment shifts.

Very much THIS.

I remember an instance where we picked up evil points for not stopping to help a random passer by, whilst on an urgent and unrewarding quest to stop a powerful undead beasty killing shedloads of people.

Evil points for not helping random guy, but where were the good points for selflessly risking life and limb (and even soul) whilst taking on a threat to the entire region? Curiously absent...

I disagree with all statements even mentioning the words "intent", "motivation" or "belief". D&D has a very clear and simple alignment system, based on moral absolutism and moral universalism. If killing a puppy is evil, it is evil under all circumstances and regardless of motive.

Unfortunately, however, D&D doesn't come with a definitive list of good or evil actions, so that whilst the intent might be moral absolutism, the actual result is moral relativism based on the DM's own perception of the innate evilness of an action.

[Mulu]

Moral absolutism...