Static/Scripted Alignment Changes

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:18 pm

Swift wrote:
Mayhem wrote:We need a consensus on these opinions before we can agree whether scripted alignment changes are possible.
In all the years of ALFA (at the very least) the camps of each philosophy have not moved an inch closer to a consensus.

I am firmly of the opinion that alignment is how the world views you to be, and, as such, what is generally considered evil is still evil, regardless of the motivation, unless you can prove otherwise.

My particular case in point was the old WD bounty hunting scripts.

If you beat up a thug and dragged him to the watch, you would get a reward, and be shifted towards lawful.

Were you really doing it to support the watch?

Maybe you were only targeting members of rival gangs, allowing your own criminal org to become stronger.

Maybe you were just greedy, and doing it for the gold.

Maybe you were a sick sadist who enjoyed beating the crap out of people, and figured that you might as well pick up some gold for it too.

Maybe you were a chivalric shining example of paladinhood, and were doing it for the benefit of the people - but there was no option to refuse the reward and thus gain "good" points.

Maybe you considered the authorities to be corrupt and evil, and yet were still willing to assist them.

IMO Not all of these motives for bounty-hunting should make you more lawful.

bartleby · Post by **bartleby** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:23 pm

What about giving players the option to gain the alignment change? Add in an ooc dialoug screen that asks the player something like "Did you do this because your character was acting in a Lawful/Good/Chaotic/Evil/what have you manner and would you like your chars alignment to reflect that?".

Can never have too much if you have the option to say no thank you.

Avaz · Post by **Avaz** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:30 pm

bartleby wrote:What about giving players the option to gain the alignment change? Add in an ooc dialoug screen that asks the player something like "Did you do this because your character was acting in a Lawful/Good/Chaotic/Evil/what have you manner and would you like your chars alignment to reflect that?".

Can never have too much if you have the option to say no thank you.

I like this idea. After finishing a quest, you can give 4 options as to which axis (Good/Evil | Lawful/Chaotic) they would like their shift to occur.

hollyfant · Post by **hollyfant** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:50 pm

Hm. D&D-style alignments don't really care about your motivation, though. If you kill one innocent person to save two, it's Evil. Save enough kittens from trees, and your Blackguard will still fall. Even if he does it to cause a cat-plague. Alignment is absolute. Actions are absolute. Motivations and reasoning aren't.

"Yeah, I burnt down the orphanage. But I felt bad about it so it wasn't really evil, you know?"

Post by **ayergo** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:04 pm

Nalo Jade wrote:Too complex to allow an automated process. Leave alignment changes in the hands of DMs.

+1

dergon darkhelm · Post by **dergon darkhelm** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:05 pm

hollyfant wrote:Hm. D&D-style alignments don't really care about your motivation, though. If you kill one innocent person to save two, it's Evil. Save enough kittens from trees, and your Blackguard will still fall. Even if he does it to cause a cat-plague. Alignment is absolute. Actions are absolute. Motivations and reasoning aren't.

I disagree with pretty much the entirety of that statement.

As a DM I would certainly consider motivation in both of the examples before determining to alter a PCs alignment.

Kill one person to save 2....yeah..probably evil....but not if the 2 saved were the twin saviors of New Fanasia, foretold by prophecy to free all the lands from the evil grip of Lord Daarki.

Tough call? Yes. One that will leave the PC psychically tortured and perhaps doubting himself for all his remaininging years? Yes. Wholly evil? No

Zelknolf · Post by **Zelknolf** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:06 pm

I'm with the people saying that alignment shifts for some statics (like patrols) are just plain stupid. Those are monotonous jobs that are nothing but paychecks. If anything, they should pull alignments toward neutral, but that seems pretty dodgy too. (all alignments need money, after all.)

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.

re: "DMs don't do it, so statics shouldn't" -- they should. If you care, ask 'em when they're handing out the XP; I'd bet that 99% of the time, they've just forgotten. Hell, I've known DMs to forget to give XP before, and it's pretty easy to inoffensively ask if there're alignment shifts earned for a quest. If you don't care, then you don't. Move on.

dergon darkhelm · Post by **dergon darkhelm** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:06 pm

ayergo wrote:
Nalo Jade wrote:Too complex to allow an automated process. Leave alignment changes in the hands of DMs.
+1

+1

dergon darkhelm · Post by **dergon darkhelm** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:12 pm

One real problem I would cite is that the vast majority of repeatable statics created have a bias toward law and good. They are mostly working for governmental type organization or NPCs.

I would love to see repeatable petty crime (rob the caravan, steal pelts from the tanner, deal drugs), disruptive chaos (start a bar fight and help yourself to a free pint or two from the keg while the barkeep is busy putting order back together), or evil (just murder the caravan guard and take it all) as equally balanced to patrols, fedexes etc.

Players wind up doing what's available for their PCs to get GP and exp. At least in NWN1 ALFA, that was working for the government in some capacity. A lot of those PCs would be undertaking alternative actiivities if the choices existed.

Zelknolf · Post by **Zelknolf** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:13 pm

dergon darkhelm wrote:Kill one person to save 2....yeah..probably evil....but not if the 2 saved were the twin saviors of New Fanasia, foretold by prophecy to free all the lands from the evil grip of Lord Daarki.

Tough call? Yes. One that will leave the PC psychically tortured and perhaps doubting himself for all his remaininging years? Yes. Wholly evil? No

Eh, killing the one is still evil; saving the two is still good, but probably not good enough to outweigh a murder. Saving the two who save the world is more good than saving two ordinary shmucks, and might be enough to either nullify the evil from a murder or outweigh it. Still completely devoid of motivations, if you ask me.

Zelknolf · Post by **Zelknolf** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:13 pm

dergon darkhelm wrote:I would love to see repeatable petty crime (rob the caravan, steal pelts from the tanner, deal drugs), disruptive chaos (start a bar fight and help yourself to a free pint or two from the keg while the barkeep is busy putting order back together), or evil (just murder the caravan guard and take it all) as equally balanced to patrols, fedexes etc.

Make 'em. I bet DMs use 'em.

Kest · Post by **Kest** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:15 pm

The alignment system in D&D is based on actions, not motives. What a character believes himself to be is not necessarily what he is.

PG.104 of the Player's Handbook wrote:Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character’s alignment has changed to match her actions.

E: someone replied already, ugh. cut/pasting to another post

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:29 pm

Kest wrote:The alignment system in D&D is based on actions, not motives. What a character believes himself to be is not necessarily what he is.

PG.104 of the Player's Handbook wrote:Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character’s alignment has changed to match her actions.

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.

Kest · Post by **Kest** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:31 pm

One top of that, the shifts proposed are small changes for serious events. A character is only going to end up with a full shift after a good number of these.

E: goddammit

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:31 pm

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?

I strongly disagree.