Static/Scripted Alignment Changes

[Mayhem]

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.

Then replace "paladin" with "champion of good" and re-address the argument, rather than avoid addressing it by playing with the semantics.

[Kest]

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.

Then it was poorly thought out, obviously. Just because it existed in NWN1 doesn't mean it was the correct way of doing it.

And any static made repeatable probably shouldn't be serious enough to warrant an alignment shift.

[White Warlock]

Ahh, so let me understand your arguments then Mayhem.

You are not arguing about alignment hits, you are arguing about repeatable scripts...

Am i correct in this?


And Mayhem... champion of good means nothing. You made it up. It's how a person opts to play their character and is in no way related to the ethical codes that are a 'requirement' associated with paladinhood.

It is not an issue of semantics here Mayhem, it's an issue of codified game rules. You cannot arbitrarily paint a picture otherwise. It simply doesn't work that way.

Well, it 'could' work that way, if you decide to write your own game rules, and toss out the ones already presented by WotC. You're entitled to do so, but this project isn't about your game.

I am being a little rough here Mayhem, because your arguments are on a win/lose podium, and not anywhere within the framework of trying to find some solution.

[Mayhem]

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.

Then it was poorly thought out, obviously. Just because it existed in NWN1 doesn't mean it was the correct way of doing it.

So basically, we are agreed that if we are to include statics that give alignment points, they need to be absolutely clear and unambigous with no room for doubt over the motives of the PCs undertaking them?

[Kest]

That would be the simplest method.

[Mayhem]

And Mayhem... champion of good means nothing. You made it up. It's how a person opts to play their character and is in no way related to the ethical codes that are a 'requirement' associated with paladinhood.

Still with the sematics, eh? Evade, evade evade. Any chance of you actually addressing the point made?


The point in question.

You have strongly implied that a person within the D&D world can cheerfully commit murder, as a good act, as long as the victim is evil. No circumstances or motices change the fact that this killing is a good act. Is this a valid interpretation of your position, yes or no?

I am being a little rough here Mayhem, because your arguments are on a win/lose podium, and not anywhere within the framework of trying to find some solution.

My arguments are intended to show that the reasons a character perform an action can be relevant to that act being good, evil, lawful, chaotic or even neutral.

Good and evil may well be tangible forces in the D&D world but an evil being killing another evil being for evil reasons should not find himself becoming more good.

My solution is "Don't give out alignment points for any static unless it is totally, utterly unambiguous and there can be no question with regards to why a character completed the static."

[bartleby]

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.

Then it was poorly thought out, obviously. Just because it existed in NWN1 doesn't mean it was the correct way of doing it.

So basically, we are agreed that if we are to include statics that give alignment points, they need to be absolutely clear and unambigous with no room for doubt over the motives of the PCs undertaking them?

Couldnt we just ask the PC oocly via dialouge options what their characters modivation or background is and then if their actions warrent the IC benifit of an alignment change do so? I dont understand why we cant just trust our players.

[Mayhem]

Couldnt we just ask the PC oocly via dialouge options what their characters modivation or background is and then if their actions warrent the IC benifit of an alignment change do so? I dont understand why we cant just trust our players.

Those who believe motives matter should have no problem with this.

Those who believe motive is irrelevant should not agree with this.

Which brings us right back to my first post - the fact that there is not a consensus, and will not be one (unless the admin agree one and impose it from above, in which case we will all play along with it even if we personally disagree.)

[Mikayla]

WW:

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.

I used Paladin not for his code of ethics (note, nowhere in my post did I even mention the paladin code of ethics) but because (a) he or she is good and (b) he or she can detect evil. The argument works without the paladin - a good person who slays an evil shop keeper out of hand has not (by definition) committed a "good" act. The killing might be a good act, but it depends on circumstances. Good requires adherence to a morale code that includes the concepts of justice, fairness, mercy and equality. A simple "hey, I detect you are evil - slay slay slay" is not within that morale code. Take away the morale code, and good becomes nothing but an empty label.

[Kest]

Couldnt we just ask the PC oocly via dialouge options what their characters modivation or background is and then if their actions warrent the IC benifit of an alignment change do so? I dont understand why we cant just trust our players.

Those who believe motive is irrelevant should not agree with this.

Pretty much. If we're going by the book - and people seem to love that for some reason unknown to me - motive doesn't make a difference.

[White Warlock]

right Mik, your argument is that a person killing an evil person is not good because he killed the evil person, but because he did it in the name of good. So, what's the difference? One's rationale. that's a player character thing, not a game mechanics thing.

I'm trying to make it very clear there are two parts to all this. One is the game's mechanics, and the other is the character's moral relativities.

The game's mechanics maintain the attributes of good/evil law/chaos. These mechanics define a 'character' within the framework of the world they live in. They may be perceived as roleplay definers, but more so, they are positional definers.

Mayhem, as to your argument regarding what a character's motivations are... no. I don't agree. A character could have all the intentions of a saint, but if they perform an act that is not good, even if they didn't realize at the time they committed said act, they should suffer an alignment hit. Motive is irrelevant to the game's mechanics. Motive is a PC choice, it is a player choice... but to say that a PC or player has control over every aspect of their lives is just plain false. We don't even have that in our real lives.

[Mikayla]

WW:

right Mik, your argument is that a person killing an evil person is not good because he killed the evil person, but because he did it in the name of good.

Thats not my argument. I am not even sure what you are trying to say.


In the case of alignment, role-play and game mechanics are intertwined - how your character acts (should) define/influence their alignment. And the alignments proscribe a range of actions and attitudes. According to the PHB 3.5, "Good" "implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make sacrifices to help others." Nothing in that says that a Good character may kill an Evil character or being out of hand without an alignment hit. Circumstances determine whether killing an evil creature/NPC/PC is a good act or evil act or neutral act. And note, "killing others" is an evil action - its right there in the PHB page 104: " 'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing and killing others."

Thus, game mechanics or not, killing an evil sentient being might be good - or it might not be - depending on the circumstances. The line you are attempting to draw does not exist that I can see.

Morale "relatives" come into play in the case of things like evil societies (take the Lolthian drow, my favorite) who think its "good" to betray others to their death, but while they think its good, it is, under the rules of D&D, still evil. Much the same as your argument I think - you may think its a "good" thing to kill any and all evil creatures you encounter, but that is a neutral action at best, and quite possibly evil. Good respects life. Good practices mercy. Good seeks justice. Good does not kill out of hand.

[Mayhem]

Motive is a PC choice, it is a player choice... but to say that a PC or player has control over every aspect of their lives is just plain false. We don't even have that in our real lives.

Motive isn't a PC choice. Bob the fighter doesn't say "hey, I think I'll kill that guy, let me think about why." (Unless he is chaotic, of course , and even then he is probably only thinking about "why" as something to tell other people )

The why comes before the action. A character will have a reason for performing an act, and that reason will dictate his actions, pretty much the opposite of what you are suggesting that I am suggesting.

Alf might kill the evil orcs because he delights in the slaughter of other living beings, dedicating the bloodshed to his dark ad bloodthirsty god.

Betty might kill the evil orcs because there is a bounty on their heads and she really needs the money.

Charlie might kill the evil orcs because his family were killed by orcs, albeit not these orcs, and he has a deep seated hatred of orcs.

Deidre might kill the evil orcs because if her companions get the chance to question them, they will discover that she is the traitor who has been selling military secrets to the orc army.

Eric might kill the evil orcs because he knows that if they are allowed to live, they will harm others.

Fallon might kill the evil orcs because he knows doing so will upset the delicate truce between orcs and men, and plunge the area into a war it can ill afford.

Gertrude might kill the evil orcs because she knows that these particular orcs murdered the farmers in the next valley, and she believes strongly in justice.

Hector might kill the evil orcs because he is loyal and obedient, and his lord has ordered him to.

Ingrid might kill the evil orcs because even though she has a fair amount of gold, she is greedy for more and wants to loot their bodies.

Jacob might kill the evil orcs because his family are starving and he is desperate for whatever meagre coin the orcs might have upon them.

Karen might kill the evil orcs because the dragon said it would eat her if she didn't.

***

Every one of these has a different motive. They did not say "Hey, I wanna kill some orcs, let me think of a reason." . They had their motives before they even encountered the orcs. They did not choose their motive. Their motive, in fact, may even take away their ability to choose.

***

According to you, their motive is totally irrelevant. Alf's actions and Eric's are equally good, as are Jacob and Karens, Fallon and Hectors. I strongly disagree.

[Zelknolf]

The D&D world makes a distinction between an evil being and an evil person.

If the creature's description says "Always Evil" (demons, devils, chromatic dragons) or has evil in the descriptor, then killing them is never an evil act, no matter how or when you do it. It's still killing, and if you want good points for the fun, you need to do some good (kill the dragon and make a stew from its enormous carcass; feed the homeless with it or somethin.). And before anyone brings up the "OMG what about my succubus paladin? Can you kill her?" -- yes. In fact, your cheesefest succubus is still technically supposed to be vulnerable to smite evil, detect evil, protection from evil, holy word, and holy smite, as are all creatures with evil descriptors. (a really crappy deal in a succubus paladin's case, as she registers as all four alignments for the sake of getting her ass kicked.)

If the creature's description is not "Always Evil," circumstances dictate whether or not killing is evil. (before anyone flails and grumps about that, circumstances aren't motivations.) Killing an evil person when capture is feasible and safe, or when said evil person isn't doing anything wrong at the moment (i.e. circumstances where we would identify the killing as murder) is evil. Killing an evil person who's engaged in some kind of threatening evildoing is not evil. (still not good, though)

[JaydeMoon]

Scripted Alignment Hits = Lose