Scripted Alignment Changes

[HEEGZ]

Stay on topic please.

[Mayhem]

I'll vote no, unless a cross server standard on alignment shifts can be agreed before hand, so that the equivalent action on 2 different servers has the same effect on a persons alignment.

I don't hold out much hope for any such standard being agreed, no matter how simple some people say it is.

[Keith Mac]

NO

[Blackwill]

Perhaps some high-end statics could have a AL bump. I'll never say no to that. But lets have DMs change alignment when needed eh.

[Cynon]

I'd say no as a standard but perhaps some statics would just have to have an alignment shift if they are just plain evil or good.

A priest of Shar killing shadow fiends for the temple of lathander gotta have a good shift. Vice versa, a paladin assassinating an innocent man for a thieves guild needs to be clobbered.

Lawful and chaotic shifts are always a no. Lawful and chaotic are due to motivations not nature. They should drive behaviour and not be a result of it.

[White Warlock]

Well, I'm all for encouraging building, but I'm also all for encouraging retention. Static alignment hits are a point of contention that can lead to frustration and playing elsewhere, without any countervailing benefit.

It is not a point of contention sufficient to encourage people to quit. It's barely a point of contention, in that i have rarely heard anyone 'complain' about this issue when it was more prevalent. Retention issues are far more impacting than this.

[psycho_leo]

I said this once and I will say it again. Alignment shifts are very easy to disagree on depending on the point of view and teh motivations behind the action. Scripted quests just can't take that all variables into consideration and therefore are subject to more disagreements.

With that in mind, unless its something blatantaly obvious I vote no.

And for the record, turning in bandits on WD is not obviously lawful. ("Hey! This guy just tried to mug me and the Watch will pay me to drag his arse over there.. hmm.. what should I do? )

[ballonger]

Leo, if you are helping the watch you are being lawful. That you do it for the gold alone makes you tip slightly towards evil, but you're still furthering the goal of the watch. That might warrant a change in the form of an extra dialogue option that in some way gave you evil points as well as lawful points.

I vote yes, because in my opinion you seriously need to read through the dialogue before accepting a quest. If it is anywhere near something that isn't IC for your PC you simply don't do it.

Your PC's motives are irrelevant. They don't count for anything. It's the motives of the person who hired you that are important. If you agree to do a job they offer you you get alignment hits based on their motives. The only exception is if you're "in the dark" or have been tricked into doing something that you wouldn't otherwise do.

[Mulu]

Well, I'm all for encouraging building, but I'm also all for encouraging retention. Static alignment hits are a point of contention that can lead to frustration and playing elsewhere, without any countervailing benefit.

It is not a point of contention sufficient to encourage people to quit. It's barely a point of contention, in that i have rarely heard anyone 'complain' about this issue when it was more prevalent. Retention issues are far more impacting than this.

It's another weight on the scale Whitey. Rarely do people leave ALFA for a single reason (well, exempting DRAMA), it's usually a cumulative effect of many reasons.

[psycho_leo]

Leo, if you are helping the watch you are being lawful. That you do it for the gold alone makes you tip slightly towards evil, but you're still furthering the goal of the watch. That might warrant a change in the form of an extra dialogue option that in some way gave you evil points as well as lawful points.

Bashing down thugs that try to mug you on the street doesn't make you any lawful. The fact that you turn them in for cash since you already beat them senseless doesn't necessarily makes you lawful either. Like I said before alignments have always been a point of disagreement as people tend to have different points of view.

Your PC's motives are irrelevant. They don't count for anything. It's the motives of the person who hired you that are important.

You're talking about something along the lines of reputation here. Alignment is something different and the way I see it, has to do with changing your own self, not changing the way people perceive you.

[Mayhem]

Leo, if you are helping the watch you are being lawful. That you do it for the gold alone makes you tip slightly towards evil, but you're still furthering the goal of the watch.

What, working for pay is evil? Doing something purely to earn gold is a heinous sin?

Utter nonsense.

Your PC's motives are irrelevant. They don't count for anything.

You have just contradicted yourself.

First you said that if you were doing a job for gold, that was evil.

But this second statement says that it doesn't matter why you did it.

**

And explaining *why* a character does something is pretty much the whole reason alignment even exists, to say the motives are thus irrelevant to alignment is ludicrous.

[ballonger]

Leo, if you are helping the watch you are being lawful. That you do it for the gold alone makes you tip slightly towards evil, but you're still furthering the goal of the watch.

What, working for pay is evil? Doing something purely to earn gold is a heinous sin?

No. Which is why I said it might warrant a slight tip towards evil. If any. I'd say none. The focus was meant to be on the lawful hits and wether or not they were warranted. Which they are.

Utter nonsense.

Calm down. I'm fireproof.

Your PC's motives are irrelevant. They don't count for anything.

You have just contradicted yourself.

First you said that if you were doing a job for gold, that was evil.

But this second statement says that it doesn't matter why you did it.

Man. You seriously need to keep things apart. That was two completely different matters. But if you are so cross eyed that the letters float into each other and mix I'll do my best to keep it simple just for you:

If you do a job for someone else your PC's motives aren't relevant. It's the motives of the person who hires you for the job that counts and the cause you further by doing the job.

That was the gist of it.

If you don't agree with the motives of the employer you don't do the job. You work for someone else instead, with whom you agree. Thus no need to correct alignment hits that you think are unwarranted, nor remove them in the first place.

[Rusty]

Alright. This thread has enough flames.

I will bring this issue before the Standards team for consideration. If anyone has comments on the matter that have not been covered in this thread, PM those comments to me and I will integrate them into the discussion. In particular, I would like to hear from any builder designing statics involving alignment shifts.

I suggest that there is little point in continuing to flame each other here.

[White Warlock]

Alright, let me throw it down:

1. There maintains a belief that acting on a character's motive is sufficient to maintain a character's alignment. This is false.

Motive is merely the hand that flips the switch. It does not govern what that switch causes to occur. Knowledge provides insight into what that switch does, but it is very often you do not have all the facts when having to make a decision. Therefore, when you 'flip' the switch, you may inadvertently cause an effect not consistent with your character's intentions.

You may cause to effect, to put in motion, machinations so Machiavellian, so rarely experienced or encountered by any character, the outcome of which would inexorably influence your character's station in this world. All through the flip of a switch, an error in judgement, a trick, deception, a little white lie, or simply acting for short-term satisfaction, dismissing outright the longterm consequences associated with 'any' and 'all' actions you opt for.

2. There maintains an erroneous assumption that a Player decides all facets of their character's development. This is false.

Characters are NOT your avatar. They are artificially defined entities that you can 'physically' manifest and control. You do not, however, control their psyche'. If you stay in-character, you react to the changes presented by the decisions (good or bad) that you make for your character. If your character acts with good intent, but causes an entire city to be destroyed, your character will suffer for it. To dismiss this means you are not keeping your character... in-character. If you do keep in-character, and your character is not emotionally effected by it, it means your character accepts the part they played in the devastation, and thus has 'accepted' the change in their alignment.

3. There maintains a belief that Players are the only ones who decide what happens to a character's psyche'. This is false.

You, as a player, are not entitled to all the plots, and all the influences, that govern your character's development/deterioration. As such, you must accept the 'will' of the DMs, for they are all-knowing in the gameworld before you.

You may not like the decisions posed by DMs, or by the mechanics setup by DMs, but you must abide by said decisions. You have the option to contest, communicate your greivances to a Player Representative, but you do not have the 'right' to dismiss or bypass said decisions.

4. There maintains a belief that alignment is merely a roleplaying utility that, unfortunately, sometimes must be adhered to in order to keep advancing in a particular class. This is false.

In DnD, alignment is not merely a roleplaying utility. It is a gauge for how external influences react to your character. Alignment, in DnD, defines 'where' you are in the scheme of things, what place you stand in the ongoing war between factions of good and evil, law and chaos. It's not where you 'think' you stand, but where you 'actually' stand.

Consider the Christian concept associated with the commission of sins. If you commit a sin by your actions, even if not intended, it is nonetheless a sin, and you must atone (ask forgiveness, sacrifice a lamb, whatever) or go to Hell.

5. There maintains a belief, at least in this community, that players call the shots. This is false.

If this is not yet understood... i cannot help you.