Static/Scripted Alignment Changes

Kest · Post by **Kest** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:32 pm

Killing two bandits is not a serious enough event to warrant a shift.

Zelknolf · Post by **Zelknolf** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:33 pm

Mayhem wrote:I think that "if your character acts in a certain way" implicity includes their motivation.

Kill 2 bandits to protect innocents or kill two bandits, kill two bandits because you were offered gold or kill two bandits because you enjoy slaughter? The same act, three different motives, three different alignments.

No it's not.

Taking payment and saving innocents are actions, which are the source of thre 'different alignments' there.

Kest · Post by **Kest** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:35 pm

Mayhem wrote:
Zelknolf wrote: re: Bounty hunting. Sorry, catching criminals is pretty damn lawful, even if you're a bad guy taking delight in killing other bad guys. If you're really that chaotic and/or evil, 1 point of lawful for bringing down a bad guy will be drowned in the chaos/evil for all of the raping, pillaging, murdering you'll be doing otherwise. If you're not doing chaotic and/or evil stuff often enough to drown that out, you're probably not chaotic and/or evil.
So the members of two street-gangs which are slaughtering each other are both becoming more lawful, since they are killing criminals?

Again, killing thugs is not serious enough to warrant an alignment shift. Getting paid by the authorities to handle an entire group? That's worth a point or two.

Zelknolf · Post by **Zelknolf** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:36 pm

Mayhem wrote:So the members of two street-gangs which are slaughtering each other are both becoming more lawful, since they are killing criminals?

I strongly disagree.

If they're being paid by their government to do so? Sure.

If you're not being hired to do it, you're not really 'catching criminals' anymore, I'd say. You're either being a vigilante (chaotic) or another criminal (also chaotic). But, once again, getting the job and accepting payment are actions, not motivations.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:41 pm

They kill them because they are rivals, then take the heads in cos hey, gold is gold, right?

Didn't kill them to help the law, didn't even kill them for the gold, just takign the gold as a handy bonus.

But all the Static script will see is "killed criminal, brought head, ergo make lawful".

Kest · Post by **Kest** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:45 pm

Mayhem what is with the straw men? Discussing minor shifts for serious actions, and you keep bringing up major shifts for petty actions then shooting them down...

Zelknolf · Post by **Zelknolf** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:46 pm

So? If they're really all that chaotic, the chaos from the crime will prevent an alignment change. Bringing in the bounty heads is still taking a job for curbing crime.

Unless there isn't actually any crime beyond the bounty hunting, in which case they're not criminals anymore; they're mercenaries. Aught to be neutral or lawful in that case.

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:00 pm

Ultimately, Mayhem, you are arguing relativism. This is not applicable to D&D, since D&D's alignment attributes were written specifically to provide a common frame of reference. Evil is evil, good is good.

In examining issues within the gaming medium that is D&D, you have to keep clear the notion that what a person does has consequence in more than merely the societal context. It has consequence in the deitific context. Gods intervene, they meddle, and in so doing, they provide a clear indication of what is right, and what is wrong... but not necessarily allowing one to know 'when' they commit rights or wrongs.

That stated, scripts that influence a character's alignment is quite applicable, because pcs don't always 'know' when they are doing things for the right reasons, even when they think they are.

So... in truth, your arguments are invalid. They are straw man arguments, even if you did not intend them to be such.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:04 pm

O RLY?

Simple question, then. Is killing an evil being always a good act?

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:05 pm

Another point to be presented is that many players really don't comprehend what alignments are, or simply ignore them thinking they are 'roleplay' things that a person can fake their way through (like charisma, intelligence, and wisdom).

Dms and, as well, scripts, help to reassert the constant frame of reference that is presented in D&D.

The measurements are:

good - neutral - evil
lawful - neutral - chaotic

Right and wrong are always going to be a bit ambivalent, based upon the the perceptions of the pcs, but alignments are not. they are clearly defined parameters, a measuring stick for determining 'where' a pc fits within the world of D&D.

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:10 pm

In response to your question... yes, killing an evil person is always a good act... even if it may not be construed as a 'right' act.

In D&D there is a concept of balance. A balance between good and evil. To remove an evil is to change the balance of things, so that more good exists. To kill a good brings the balance the other way. It is a simple concept... truly simple. To complicate it by tossing in relativism defeats the initial purpose the designers had of introducing alignments in the first place.

It may not be a pretty notion, but that's not the point here Mayhem. Good and evil are powers, deitific powers, while the concept of killing falls within the framework of right or wrong. A societal or cultural thing, as opposed to ultimate powers that govern the laws of a D&D world.

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:18 pm

and i'm sure your notion is to then argue about, "what if an evil person kills a lot of evil people?"

The answer to that is, "let's just hope he doesn't tick off any of his gods."

Regardless, an evil person is less likely to become good than a good is to become evil. An evil person can commit many 'good' acts and still succeed in maintaining his evil status. That is why awhile back i recommended good points be presented in fractions, while evil points be presented as whole numbers. I.e., 10-100 good acts may just counter one evil act... maybe.

Seriously, it's tough to stay good. It's tough to change and become good when your whole life you've been a killer and a hater.

Mikayla · Post by **Mikayla** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:21 pm

WW:

In response to your question... yes, killing an evil person is always a good act... even if it may not be construed as a 'right' act.

I strongly disagree. WW's interpretation reduces "good" and "evil" to nothing more than team labels with no morale code attached - at that point, you might as well call them "red" and "blue." Good and evil must act differently and according to canon, they do. Killing someone based strictly on race (even if a traditionally "evil" race) would contradict the description of "Good", which requires people be judged on their actions not their race, religion, etc.

Under WW's theory, it would be "good" for a paladin to murder a greedy shopkeeper who is evil. But of course, that is not a "good" act - good is held to a more stringent morale code - that is what separates good from evil. Good requires fairness, justice, equality and mercy - things like that. Simply killing that described as "evil" might be good, or might not be depending on circumstances. If good can simply kill evil out of hand whenever detected, it ceases to have that which differentiates it from "evil" and, as stated previously, it becomes nothing more than a team-color.

In short, good and evil must act differently, even towards each other (in fact, especially towards each other in the case of how good acts towards evil) otherwise they are superficial labels. And even in D&D, alignment means more than that - it comes with a moral code.

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:29 pm

Mik, always a bad idea to toss in a Paladin in an argument of alignments...

and let me tell you why:

Paladins follow a code of ethics. I.e., a rule of right. They have associated with them a codification of morality associated to their being. Therefore, while they may be lawful good, they also must abide by a set of rules associated with right and wrong.

Your argument is, therefore... based not on good or evil, but on right and wrong.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:39 pm

Kest wrote:Mayhem what is with the straw men? Discussing minor shifts for serious actions, and you keep bringing up major shifts for petty actions then shooting them down...

The action I described was one that you could carry out on a server in ALFA, not just some random thing I made up. So it is not, in any way, a strawman.

But it is quite clear that there are a myriad of reasons why somebody might collect the bounty posted, and many of them have nothing to do with being lawful.

Saying "but their chaotic deeds will cancel out their lawful act" is a cop-out, since they may not be doing it for a lawful reason and it may not even benefit the "side" of law. Its doubly a cop-out since it blithely assumes that there will be as many opportunities to earn "chaos points" as there are to earn law points.

***

As a further aside, any repeatable static that delivers alignment points can easily become a focus for metagaming. "Oops, nearly lost my paladin "good" alignment, better go to the orphanage and rescue, lets see, 7 kidnapped children ought to make me safe for a while."

"Oh, as I'm of good alignment I'd like to help you capture those muggers, but I am too close to losing my chaotic alignment and want to take more levels in barbarian. Sorry mate, can't afford the "law points".