I'd like to toss out an opinion because I am apparently temporarily too stupid to just keep it to myself.
The way I have always understood the alignment system is that it is an objective system. Actions that can bear on a character's alignment should be considered without consideration of the circumstances. What that means as far as the main example used here (and the dispute thread it comes from) is that Good characters chose to act Neutral to avoid more trouble, thus earning a shift in alignment away from Good.
The thing that differentiates a hero from a normal citizen is the willingness to take action. Similarly, the average commoner might be a good person but isn't Good because he lacks the courage to take action and
be Good. Good is the conviction to actively do Good things, and Evil the conviction to actively do Evil things. This is from the 3.0 PHB, with parts bolded by me:
Quote:
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
People who are Neutral with respect to Good and Evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A Neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.
|
So, clearly, being Good or Evil (or Lawful or Chaotic) is about actively being that alignment, not just thinking the thoughts. A character has to
do Good to be Good. Again, in the case mentioned in this thread, the characters did not want to make the sacrifice to help another sentient (and blow their cover), so they acted Neutral. There aren't "Neutral points," no, but if someone acts Neutral rather than Good, should he not move toward Neutral? Maybe it would have been
totally stupid to do the Good thing in that situation, but that doesn't mean the action was somehow still Good despite being objectively not Good. An important thing to remember is that no character is expected to be 100% Good or Chaotic or whatever; every character does things that are not in perfect accord with his alignment letters from time to time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weeblie  The alignment system is based upon that the closer you come to the edges, the more difficult will it be to sway your alignment further in that direction. It comes to a point when "what you did was expected of you".
An easy way to see why it is so? Well... otherwise, everyone would end up as 50/50, 100/0, 100/100, 0/100 or some other similar combo. Those with slight tendencies towards one direction would, after a short time, accumulate enough points to "bottom"/"roof" the axis. |
Now, to the last paragraph there, before I move on to the rest, I say, "Who cares?" What difference do the numbers make? None, because there is no standard for handing out alignment points.
As I said above, the alignment system is objective, not subjective. Good is Good and Evil is Evil. The circumstances - external or internal - shouldn't be considered. Just like it doesn't matter if a person bleeding to death is a dark elf or an old human lady, it also doesn't matter that a character is Good or Evil. If a character performs a Good act, he should earn Good points.
"What was expected" should not enter the equation. I understand the concept, but the system is actually not designed that way; it's designed to have lots of actions averaged together to produce the final number. If
all actions were taken into account and alignment points distributed more commonly, then every Good character, for example, would have more than enough chances to gain Evil points for certain actions, thus helping to balance the numbers so that everyone would not have alignment numbers on the ends of the scales without really, truly striving to play the epitome of whatever alignment.
That is the real problem, that alignment points are handed out rarely rather than commonly. If points were being tossed about more freely, the numbers on the character sheet would then matter because they would more accurately reflect the actual alignment level of the character; until and unless alignment points being handed out becomes a regular thing, the numbers themselves will remain meaningless.
Also, alignment points are a sort of reward (as well as a consequence for certain actions). Players like to be rewarded for good roleplaying, and alignment points are a way to do it. Jennara has been given three Good points during the time I've played her - one for the Rohden relief effort beginning, and two for returning to Highpass Fort to pay for damages inadvertently caused by party actions. I really like having those points because I feel like Jennara really earned them, and that
I earned them for good roleplaying. Should she have never been awarded the points because Good was expected of her? That's weird, and it also removes a very nice (if ultimately pointless) reward for the RP.
There are at least three problems with handing out lots of points. First, there would be more disputes and complaints if people were getting points they didn't think they deserved, so a lot of situations would be getting review. Second, a few people would probably try to take advantage of the system to take a back door to an alignment that would otherwise be restricted to them, so new rules and guidelines and all that mess would have to be put in place, which is just not worth it. Third, for practical reasons, it might only see a lot of action on quests, meaning a lot of actions done between quests and without DM supervision would be ignored, and a lot of alignment stuff happens then. Think of all the Good characters out there slaughtering sentient life they could otherwise avoid...
Right, enough out of me.