Alignment vs Moral values

[feniox]

This thread is mainly about something which has come up a few times now, usually on GM quests rather than every day RP, and the times it has I've never been sure what the best way to handle it was.The most recent being on Muninn's quest earlier when I had my "momentary alignment slip"

so here's the situation: Kurgaz is a Lawful good Dwarven Defender, and in general he acts like a paladin, despite having never taken a "paladin" oath, he does his best to help everyone in need aslong as they have a positive reason, he will not involve himself in anything that is going to harm anybody that he considers law-abiding or innocent. At the same time, he has a strong moral value towards his heritage, he believes that no kin can do any wrong, and that if they do it is likely that they were tricked or forced into doing it, he also has a large amount of respect for the memory of fallen Dwarves (which all ties into his background).

So what happens then, when someone runs down Dwarves in his presence? This happened on the quest earlier, to begin with he just made "grumbling" and "frowning" reactions, but eventually it seemed almost like a constant anti-Dwarf rant, and Kurgaz being Kurgaz, he couldn't simply let this go by. The same happens when people summon undead in his presence, which he doesn't like and will almost always question.

The problem im having, is how to deal with this/similar situations without dropping alignment. As all the times anything like this happens, the person is question has never stopped after his "warning" them about showing more respect. Obviously as a LG he can't threaten them outright, but at the same time it wouldn't be characteristic of him to just let said offences pass without reaction.

Any suggestions much appreciated. Sorry if this turned into a long-winded post

[Wintersheart]

*grins*

I was the GM on said quest and I think you handled it very well. The NPC was an airhead and you did well to control yourself while still showing your emotions during her rant. As it was she was preparing to attack.

To answer your question I think there is a lot more to a character than alignment and many of the more interesting characters have areas in which they don't reflect a very literal reading of their alignment. As I see it alignment should never become a straight-jacket, but remain an overall guideline for your character.

I know you to be both a responsible player and a very good RPer so the second issue with alignment is not something I worry about with you, but alignment is also used to moderate player behaviour. Outside GM supervision we all have a responsibility not to force our fellow players into having to choose between breaking server rules (PvP) or bad roleplay. If people blatantly ignore your signals and warnings and continue to taunt or irritate then I don’t think they are roleplaying very well, but rather lacking in respect for you as a player.

Occasionally I get the impression someone is unsatisfied with the server rules on character and player behaviour, whereupon they decides to create a little monster with whom they try to circumvent server rules under the guise of IC behaviour or roleplay. I personally loathe it as I see responsible player behaviour as a cornerstone of good roleplay.

*grins*
You touched a nerve and got me ranting. For good and mature roleplayers alignment is a guideline to help you roleplay. For immature roleplayers alignment serves to moderate their behaviour.

/Wintersheart

[miltonyorkcastle]

*nods in agreement with Wintersheart* Doing something outside of your alignment once in a blue moon, especially over something like moral conviction, does not really show an entire alignment change. Granted, such things are at a GM's discretion, but it usually takes something extremely drastic, or a series of events betraying your alignment to actually make the change.

For example, Random King A is Lawful Neutral. When it comes to abiding by the law, he is the ultimate voice. One day, however, his son is caught with a peasant woman. The law states that "the bloodline shall not be tainted by less than noble blood." The penalty for such an offense is death for the "less than noble." The king loves his son, the son professes love for the peasant woman, yet the king is obliged to abide by the law, however rediculous it may seem to him at the time. Loving his son, he searches for a loophole, to spare his son the grief of the woman's death. Upon finding none suitable, he decides to throw out that law, and "taint" the bloodline, for the sake of his son.

So, then, is this king now True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral because of that one action? No. He is still very much Lawful Neutral. On a scale, he may have slid a little away from LN, but not far enough to slide into the next alignment. It can also be argued, that while he did not abide by the laws of the land in the end, he sought any possible way to do so before resorting to an outright override.

This is just how I have come to understand things, and, as Wintersheart suggested, alignments are guides, not definitions, for character behavior.

[feniox]

That's fine then. My only real problem was that this has happened a few times and is most likely to come up again and I wanted to know if there was some suitably LG reaction that I was missing, but in light of what you have both said, I shall continue the way I have, because as far as I can tell, this is the only thing that has ever caused Kurgaz to act in a manner which doesn't completely support his alignment anyway.

Thanks for the help, and the compliments from wintersheart, much appreciated

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Hey, I've seen very LG Paladins that were coldhearted psychopaths who went on daily slaughtering runs at the local goblin/kobold/orc/whathaveyou gathering, simply because those paladins saw those creatures as evil, and thought that they were helping the world out by killing the things off.

By the same token, I've seen CE that wouldn't harm a child; the nature of chaos is to be malleable, aye?

My general rule is that a character's alignment is best defined by a combination of thier own opinions of themselves, and the greater public view of themselves. The pallies I mentioned saw them selves as 100% LG. The people around them (with two or three exceptions) saw them the same. So, LG. And, of course, a madman on a killing spree will be CE, no matter how much tenderness he shows to a child (assuming that it's not a mind-consuming madness that has enveloped a previously good person, but that's just too complicated for the purposes of today's discussion).

As for an LG character killing someone who's been badmouthing thier entire belief system... No. I can see that as TL (True Lawful, Lawful Neutral), but not LG. Now, a race-proud LG dwarf who sees people slaughtering dwarves wholesale, no matter how evil those other dwarves might be, definately will have some problems with that. If the LG char can rationalize it, then he or she could let it go... If not, it might be time for a rage-quenching tapdance on people's faces... With a greataxe.