Playing Another Character's Class

[Script Wrecked]

Please be aware (and mindful and considerate) that when subsuming knowledge of another character's class (or race or alignment for that matter), that the other player is being denied the opportunity to play those components of their own character.

Certain things about the different classes/races/alignments are common (character) knowledge, but when their own doctrines/dogmas/creeds/racial outlooks are quoted at them, well, that component of that character has just been rendered superfluous and impotent.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[s0ulz]

Word.

[Nehetsrev]

Well, let me play devil's advocate here a bit, sorta. I don't know exactly what prompted this post, or even who all was involved, but I'll post a general statement that I hope will be helpful for diffusing any bad feelings amongst our players for future encounters.

First off, a character's class in my opinion shouldn't even really be directly brought up in-character, in-game. We should always try to remember that our characters don't see themselves quite as starkly as the 'cookie-cutter-molds' that the class names/labels infer. They see themselves as individuals with certain talents and proficiencies, and their own unique ideas about the world around themselves. For instance, a character who wields a short-sword isn't nescessarilly a fighter, they could be a rogue or any other class (except druid because of their oaths) if they have devoted their time to learning how to wield martial weapons. Our characters remarks to or about other characters in-game then should reflect our observations, but not nescessarilly label outright a character with a class name.

Now, another thing that's likely to come up in-game (as the above post seems to hint at) are questions about how our characters associated with a given faith are viewed. As we play our clerics, paladins, or whatnot, we should keep in mind that the world in general has a certain view of what a typical member of any given faith is like, and some characters are likely to notice when our own vary from that generalization. Some might be very vocal about their opinions, especially if they're negative and/or differ greatly from the distinctions that make our own characters unique.

For an example, I play a cleric/fighter/bard of Xeen who's views on Xeens doctrine are different than the 'common' interpretations of Xeens doctrine as they've been played by other characters following the same goddess. On more than one occasion I've been told by a non-Xeenite (in-character) that I wasn't worshipping Xeen properly and that I'd soon find myself bereft of her blessings. Instead of getting all bent out of shape out-of-character about it, I've chosen instead to respond in-character, firstly by pointing out how my own character's interpretations are not only valid, but are actually the 'true' and 'proper' interpretations of the dogma. Then I also point out that if they weren't I'd already have lost, or never would have had in the first place, Xeen's favor as the other character has suggested would be the case.

The bottom line comes that if you clearly outlined your own character's interpretations of the dogma of their god/goddess in your original character submission, and it was approved by the Team of character approvers, and you're sticking to that outline as you play your character in-game, then no one can really have a leg to stand on in trying to tell you to play your character elsewise in an out-of-character way. The possible exception to that being that the character approvers made a mistake and approved an interpretation of the dogma that wasn't actually in-line enough with the Lore & vision of Layonara's creators, in which case a member of the Layonara DM team will bring that to your attention and under review by the Team, the Loremaster, and Leanthar.

Let other characters try to tell you how to be a proper reflection of your characters faith, and then turn it around and do your best to convince them of how your character's interpretations are actually more valid than what they think is.

PS Edit - It might also be good to note here that any character who is devout enough to have the diety's name in their diety field should be doing almost everything they do in the name of, and for the glory of their god or goddess. Obviously certain worshippers of certain dieties will wish to internalize such attitudes out of nescessity, but those attitudes should still be there and perhaps hinted at, and even probably explained later in one's CDT so that the DM team knows your characters motivations for doing something that might've looked out-of-line with your character's chosen god/goddess while happening in-game.

[Script Wrecked]

Originally Posted by Nehetsrev

For an example, I play a cleric/fighter/bard of Xeen who's views on Xeens doctrine are different than the 'common' interpretations of Xeens doctrine as they've been played by other characters following the same goddess. On more than one occasion I've been told by a non-Xeenite (in-character) that I wasn't worshipping Xeen properly and that I'd soon find myself bereft of her blessings. Instead of getting all bent out of shape out-of-character about it, I've chosen instead to respond in-character, firstly by pointing out how my own character's interpretations are not only valid, but are actually the 'true' and 'proper' interpretations of the dogma. Then I also point out that if they weren't I'd already have lost, or never would have had in the first place, Xeen's favor as the other character has suggested would be the case.

...

Let other characters try to tell you how to be a proper reflection of your characters faith, and then turn it around and do your best to convince them of how your character's interpretations are actually more valid than what they think is.

In my opinion, I believe you are (graciously) handling IG an OOC situation that has been raised IG that shouldn't be, probably to keep the IG experience flowing along nicely for everyone.

This is what I believe happened:

Player X: *thought bubble* "I don't think Nehetsrev is playing a Xeenite cleric properly."

Player X's Character: (paraphrased) "I don't think you're being a proper Xeenite cleric."

My response to that is Player X's character shouldn't care whether your character is being a proper Xeenite cleric or not, unless A) they are a Xeenite cleric, or B) they are a Xeenite follower and your character is their priest.

Just think about the real life situation for a moment. If, as a non-believer or member of a different faith, you came across a member of clergy from another faith who didn't fit the typical view of that clergy, would you go up to them and tell them how they are "supposed" to be?

No, I didn't think so. Neither would your character.

It would be beneficial to remember to place a degree of separation between us and our characters, even when we are playing our character as ourself (personality-wise). This is simply because our characters do not know everything we know. They haven't read LORE, or people's Character Development Journals, or for that matter, been to high school or college, let alone university (but that's another matter...). This separation allows us to ask the question, "Would my character (not me) do this?"

There is alot of OOC information out there that we are privy to that our characters do not know. The only people who know what a "proper" Xeenite cleric is are the Xeenite clerics. They're the ones who attended the seminary for umpteen years (or whatever it is Xeenites do), not your character.

So, essentially, when this statement was made in-game about your character, they were meta-ing. However, in this case, they are probably doing it for all the right reasons, viz, they are concerned about the consistency of someone's roleplay (a good thing).

What would be beneficial to realise is that this is an OOC concern, so it should be raised in a OOC fashion, and not brought in-game. Now, I'm not sure of the OOC path for this sort of thing, but if you are feeling brave, perhaps a tell, something along the lines of, "Can I ask you about how you are roleplaying your cleric?" Be prepared for a "No" response, but I'm guessing, most people would actually be quite pleased to talk about how and why they are roleplaying their characters the way they do.

Remember to ask questions though, and not make judgements, otherwise you are just going to have an argument. Not, "You're not playing your Xeenite cleric properly," or "I don't think you're playing your Xeenite cleric properly," but more along the lines of, "It seems you are playing your Xeenite cleric quite differently to other Xeenite clerics. Would you care to share a bit about this?"

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[Link092]

Plus... can't you use tells to inform others (Out of Character) where they might need to clean up their "act" for better RP? just a thought...

[xiaobeibi]

Originally Posted by Link092

Plus... can't you use tells to inform others (Out of Character) where they might need to clean up their "act" for better RP? just a thought...

In 99.9% of all cases if someone told me I was playing MY character wrong I would find it offensive.

If you stay in character and you behave within the overall guidelines of the server then others really have no business telling you to clean up your act.

How can you know their motivations, background and basic character? I dont think you can...ever.

When we critise the roleplay of others we are critising the player. Again I would argue that in 99,9% of the cases what we are actually doing is presuming our private view on good roleplay is the only way and judging others by that.

If you think others roleplay are lacking instead critising or making "suggestions" via tells spend time with them. Teach by example and be willing to learn from example. In most cases you will end up not having changed their roleplay but appreciating it.

Tolerance of other players go a long way in making a friendly server.

[Lynn1020]

This has seemed to come up again lately and thought this could use a little bump. I agree with everything that xiaobeibi had to say on it and can only add...

No one should be telling others how to play their characters.

Also, to me it is in bad taste to correct others in your emotes.


It ruins the fun for everyone when there is one that is constantly correcting everyone and trying to tell them what they should or should not do. We should just play the game and have fun. Leaving all the correcting players up to the GM.

[Dorax Windsmith]

One of the things that make this server so great is that each player brings thier own unique personality and interpretation on the character or characters they play. Every character is different, and not just the standard differences of class & diety. Everyone should allow and respect other players creativity. The GM team will step in if things start to bend/break server rules or are blatantly wrong (i.e. good clerics performing evil acts).

[xiaobeibi]

Originally Posted by Dorax Windsmith

The GM team will step in if things start to bend/break server rules or are blatantly wrong (i.e. good clerics performing evil acts).

Good clerics can certainly have their reasons to perform an "evil" act. They are not paladins, good-evil isn't the only axis here and motivations for the clergy are often complex. Furthermore what is an evil act?

I dare anyone here give a non-empty definition of evil which is neutral with regards to context, time, culture and philosophic standpoint.


Edit: P.S. I am sorry for quoting out of context, but playing a good cleric this is important to me.

[Script Wrecked]

Perhaps your challenge is worthy of it own thread.

I think Dorax was just providing a simple case of where it would be left to the DMs to address the situation.

By the way, "I dare anyone" is quite provocative, and more along the lines of "do you risk answering", rather than "can this be answered" (which I am presuming was your intent).

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by xiaobeibi

I dare anyone here give a non-empty definition of evil which is neutral with regards to context, time, culture and philosophic standpoint.

Here you go.

[xiaobeibi]

thanks pseud

@Script wrecked: I almost certain you are right about Dorax. And yes I did hijack his comment.

I can only speak from personal experience, but divine characters (clerics, druids, paladins etc) tend to elicit a fair amount of "backseat roleplaying". I won't go as far as calling it grief, but it can be a semi-constant source of irritation, and reason enough, for me, not to make another cleric.

I think Lynn is spot on with "It ruins the fun for everyone when there is one that is constantly correcting everyone and trying to tell them what they should or should not do"

[Link092]

I never saw the response... but yes, I whole-heartedly agree. I was just stating that if you -must- it is better to use tells... >.<' at least then the awkwardness of imposed RP is not there.... 'cause from there, you can just take of and not RP with them anymore...

Originally Posted by xiaobeibi

In 99.9% of all cases if someone told me I was playing MY character wrong I would find it offensive.

If you stay in character and you behave within the overall guidelines of the server then others really have no business telling you to clean up your act.

How can you know their motivations, background and basic character? I dont think you can...ever.

When we critise the roleplay of others we are critising the player. Again I would argue that in 99,9% of the cases what we are actually doing is presuming our private view on good roleplay is the only way and judging others by that.

If you think others roleplay are lacking instead critising or making "suggestions" via tells spend time with them. Teach by example and be willing to learn from example. In most cases you will end up not having changed their roleplay but appreciating it.

Tolerance of other players go a long way in making a friendly server.

[Lynn1020]

The thing is... sending tells correcting people can cross the line into griefing after a while.

[Gulnyr]

Originally Posted by xiaobeibi

Good clerics can certainly have their reasons to perform an "evil" act. They are not paladins, good-evil isn't the only axis here and motivations for the clergy are often complex. Furthermore what is an evil act?

I dare anyone here give a non-empty definition of evil which is neutral with regards to context, time, culture and philosophic standpoint.

In character, that's really hard, just like in real life situations. Mechanics-wise, it's pretty straight forward, though. The rules governing alignment spell out the difference between Good and Evil; you can look in the D&D rulebooks and see exactly what an Evil act is. By the rules, Good and Evil are pretty much black-and-white, so what is considered Evil is neutral to all context.

It's really a pain in the butt trying to keep objective, capitalized, alignment Good and Evil separate from subjective, lower case, in-character good and evil while thinking about this stuff.

Sorry to continue the tangent. I tried to keep it short.

[xiaobeibi]

Originally Posted by Gulnyr

In character, that's really hard, just like in real life situations. Mechanics-wise, it's pretty straight forward, though. The rules governing alignment spell out the difference between Good and Evil; you can look in the D&D rulebooks and see exactly what an Evil act is. By the rules, Good and Evil are pretty much black-and-white, so what is considered Evil is neutral to all context.

It's really a pain in the butt trying to keep objective, capitalized, alignment Good and Evil separate from subjective, lower case, in-character good and evil while thinking about this stuff.

Sorry to continue the tangent. I tried to keep it short.

*grins* with regards to context, but the D&D rules are certainly not neutral with regards to culture or philosophic standpoint. I my opinion they represent one stand; which they have then defined as correct. Defining is what you do when you don't have an argument (The D&D rulebook, not you)

Interesting point though and therefore: to which extend is Layonara still bound by D&D perspectives and rules?

I am not - actually - trying to advocate that anything goes, but rather we should be less judgemental. This isn't about respecting or agreeing with the other character, but respecting the other player. We don't have to agree on all actions, just not presume, judge or start lecturing. We have players in all ages from, more or less, all over the planet; and a little respect for the other players goes a long way in keeping it a friendly place.



Footnote: There are of course actions and situations, which are forbidden on this server as per the server rules.

[Gulnyr]

I agree with your conclusion and understand where we miscommunicated.

Rulebook alignments (Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil) are spelled exactly like other words in English (lawful, chaotic, good, and evil) but actually represent concepts that only exist inside the game system. They are identically spelled homonyms - like ball and ball (one is a sphere you can play with, the other is a party where you dance) - that don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. Though they are likely based on someone's concepts of lawful, chaotic,good and evil, the fact that they are not directly representative of the real world things their spellings mimic means that their definitions in the rulebook establish them as unbiased positions. If players apply their own real world perspectives of, say, evil to the game term Evil, it will indeed be impossible to show that any given in-game action is or is not evil. That's why it's nice that there are the unbiased definitions of Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil to look to when trying to determine if characters have mechanically strayed from their alignments. Mechanics have nothing to do with in-character opinion, of course, which just makes it more confusing, and none of this alignment chatter has very much (and probably nothing) to do with people telling other people how to play.

It would be much easier to talk about alignments if they were called Goldoon, Ert, Blebox, and Squif instead...

[Script Wrecked]

Originally Posted by xiaobeibi

I can only speak from personal experience, but divine characters (clerics, druids, paladins etc) tend to elicit a fair amount of "backseat roleplaying". I won't go as far as calling it grief, but it can be a semi-constant source of irritation, and reason enough, for me, not to make another cleric.

"But you're a cleric|druid|paladin|champion. You must behave like a one-dimensional representation of your character. Its in the rules... *point, point, pointity...*"(1)

My sympathies. (2)




(1) That might be more humorous if people weren't actually getting spammed with it.
(2) I'm guessing "bug off" would be too harsh to send in a tell.

[xiaobeibi]

@ Gulnyr: I understand your point, but it does raise the question to which extend we are still bound by the rules and mechanics of D&D in this transition state before the MMO.

@Script Wrecked: At times it can be rather funny; especially when someone spends an evening insulting your god/goddess only to moan and complain when you won't raise them.

[Script Wrecked]

Originally Posted by xiaobeibi

@Script Wrecked: At times it can be rather funny; especially when someone spends an evening insulting your god/goddess only to moan and complain when you won't raise them.

Hilarious.

Raising/resurrecting is IC, folks. Not to be "expected" OOC just because there is a cleric in the party. And please, please, please remember to have an imprinted Soul Stone in you character's inventory, otherwise it can also be "no Stone, no raise"(1).



(1) Okay, okay, not quite as catchy as "no ring, no write", but you get the point

[Alatriel]

I haven't said anything much on here, but I do play both a paladin and a cleric. What I find funny is that I got a lot more of the "you should play your paladin this way" before Daniella was a champion. I still get it from time to time, but not as much. I can't recall anyone ever telling me I don't play my cleric correctly though. (though I'm sure plenty of people wish she was more of a walking bandaid than she is- they just don't say it )

But the real point is, even if someone reads a character's background and bio and submission, and their public journal, etc., that still doesn't give a person the right to take that OOC information and put it into an IC form of telling your cleric/paladin/etc how they should be acting. Just because YOU the player read something on LORE, or knows someone of that faith IC, doesn't mean that your character actually knows all about everything there is to know about that faith. "Oh, well my brother's cousin's best friend's wife is a Berylite, so therefore I can apply to the priesthood and I know everything there is to know about your religion and I don't think you're polishing enough stones to be correctly following your religion" Or "I slept with a Xeenite once, so I know exactly what Xeenites are like, and you're just not doing a good enough job" (though I could actually see that as a really bad pick up line...)

On the flipside, though, many very good conversations (and arguments) can happen in game by people of the SAME FAITH arguing or discussing the other's faith or convictions or differences. You may have a cleric of Ilsare who tells the follower that they should not give up on love, or the follower of Ca'duz, who can't believe that their cleric just accidentally stepped on a spider and squished it?! The HORROR! (Lance and Daniella have had countless arguments/discussions on the differences of their faith within the same religion- always very entertaining and enlightening both in and ooc)

The point is, yes, keep it in character. But once again, if you're not playing a character of that faith, you most likely 1) would not really truly know how they are supposed to act or believe- you probably shouldn't know a paladin's code unless you are a paladin, were raised to be one, or were raised by one, etc. and 2) why would you care?

As with most things, please treat people as you would like to be treated. No one likes to be told how they should or should not play their character. It's something personal, and that sort of behavior generally makes people not want to play with you if every time you interact you say something offensive or off base. So... just don't do it. Be nice, be respectful, and if you SERIOUSLY think they've ooc made a bad call, then perhaps rather than saying to them in a tell "dude, you just played your character totally wrong" how about saying "umm... I was just curious... why did you do that exactly?" There may just be something you missed. And as far as really punishing them for actions against their faiths... let's just leave that to the gods.

[Gulnyr]

Originally Posted by xiaobeibi

I understand your point, but it does raise the question to which extend we are still bound by the rules and mechanics of D&D in this transition state before the MMO.

I have often found the safest course through a change is to continue on as usual until told otherwise. In this case, since no one has said anything about alignments, they should be treated as they always have been.

[Dorganath]

Originally Posted by Gulnyr

I have often found the safest course through a change is to continue on as usual until told otherwise. In this case, since no one has said anything about alignments, they should be treated as they always have been.

Essentially correct.

We're still bound by a lot of D&D/NWN mechanics, since that's our game platform currently. This includes alignment and anything for which we've not explicitly stated "this is different."

Even though this is quite a hijack, probably the most important thing said regarding alignments is that Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are alignments and they've got some pretty well-defined descriptions. On the other hand, good, evil, law and chaos are concepts and as such are subjective to some degree, even though societal, cultural and personal norms tend to be generally consistent.

It's probably also important to point out that our character alignments are a number from 0 to 100 on each axis (Good-Evil, Law-Chaos). How can we interpret that? Well, consider the starting alignment for a Lawful Good character is 85/85...that's 85% Good and 85% Lawful. That's also 15% Evil and 15% Chaotic.

Now, does that mean a Lawful Good character can commit acts of Evil 15% of the time and still be OK in his or her alignment? Certainly not! But what it does mean is that the potential for these other avenues is still present, or that a Lawful Good character could potentially commit an act of Evil at some point, which may well be in-character but against alignment (with an appropriate penalty). This isn't necessarily "wrong" but it's also something that shouldn't happen frequently.

An any case, and steering this back around to the original topic, alignments speak of motivations as much as deeds, with the latter reflected after-the-fact. As such, another player cannot truly know the motivations or mind of a character that he or she does not play, so it is a dangerous (and often incorrect) thing to make an observation and take it upon oneself to correct the other player.

As has been noted, leave the correction to the GMs, but if you feel compelled to comment, respect the other player when they tell you to keep your opinions to yourself.

[ycleption]

I would add to the discussion that while we should certainly allow others to RP their characters as they see fit, (and I agree wholeheartedly that IC "correction" is inappropriate without an IC reason) we should not be so afraid of intruding on others' RP that we refrain from giving OOC advice or suggestions to new players (or even to old players venturing onto new territory)... I personally have been educated on various aspects of RPing in an on-line world, about DnD generally, and about the Layo setting, by many helpful players who have taken the time to send me a tell. Yes, there is a line between the helpful communication I am speaking of and the behavior that others speak about in this thread; while I have tried to model my behavior on those that have helped me, if I wander too far towards or across that line with anyone, I apologize. Especially when I was a new player though, I would far rather people err on the side of appearing a bit rude or whatever by offering me RP suggestions, rather then not giving me advice at all.

[Dorganath]

Originally Posted by ycleption

I would add to the discussion that while we should certainly allow others to RP their characters as they see fit, (and I agree wholeheartedly that IC "correction" is inappropriate without an IC reason) we should not be so afraid of intruding on others' RP that we refrain from giving OOC advice or suggestions to new players (or even to old players venturing onto new territory)... I personally have been educated on various aspects of RPing in an on-line world, about DnD generally, and about the Layo setting, by many helpful players who have taken the time to send me a tell. Yes, there is a line between the helpful communication I am speaking of and the behavior that others speak about in this thread; while I have tried to model my behavior on those that have helped me, if I wander too far towards or across that line with anyone, I apologize. Especially when I was a new player though, I would far rather people err on the side of appearing a bit rude or whatever by offering me RP suggestions, rather then not giving me advice at all.

Yep! Which is why I said:

Originally Posted by Dorganath

if you feel compelled to comment, respect the other player when they tell you to keep your opinions to yourself.

[Lynn1020]

ycleption, I see nothing wrong with helping people. That is not what I was referring to. When I started playing each of my character's I asked for help. There is still so much I do not know about playing the different classes, spells and deities. I would not be offended at all if you sent me a tell with a suggestion or even a correction on something I had done.

More what I was referring to is someone sending a tell saying something along the lines... "I think you should learn to play a wizard better". There are some that try to be the RP police. It is rude and takes the fun away for others. I personally just avoid anyone that makes me feel that way.

[lonnarin]

It warms my heart when people see Bjornigar holding his fishing pole in his city clothes and assumes he's a dwarven wizard.

Things that irk me are when other players or GMs tell you that you're not RPing your alignment correctly, when you are making an active effort to shift you alignment. "yeah, but you MUST play the alignment you submitted with" essentially equates to "you are forbidden from character development without a lengthy, time consuming process." Do you notice a goodly cleric taking an evil action? Ok, then go ahead and SHIFT them for it. And if they're good and being good, shift them even more good! Not rewarding people for their efforts to be even more good because "they're just playing their alignment" makes the whole shifting process moot. It's like a paladin performing 1000 good acts never gets any more good, but if he performs one evil act, he loses 1-5 pts right away. Then he tries to atone by performing more and more goodly acts, yet he doesn't get shifted back as quickly as he was "already good." For alignment and shifting to work as D&D intended, it must be equally flexible in both directions. That one bad day should not have a greater effect than the decades of good ones.

So as far as people might suggest that a player is not RPing their player properly, I would simply counter that they are not being shifted properly.

Lets look at the shifting process. The most common method to shift alignment is to resubmit the bio with links to the plethora of journal entries for review. This is useful, but it then results in a hidden group discussion on the GM forum which the player in question has no access to. I would much prefer that character development discussions and such be put on the *private character journal* page, initiated by the player in question. This would allow the player a say in his own development, instead of asking a committee to judge him in absentia. That way the player can have a larger part in their own development while the team would have a better understanding of the goals of both the player and the character. Involving the player in all steps along the way also helps them understand better what exactly they need to do in order to fulfill obligations, and feel that the end result is more fair than one who cannot see the entire discussion. I would also suggest use of the private journal page for evil character submissions.

So in the end, while it is useful for GMs to help players understand how to RP an alignment, the initial alignment should not be forced upon the player. Ask them what their goals are for development, and explain to them why you are shifting. Most importantly of all however, shifts need to happen more often. And when they do, they should reflect the nature of the actions performed themselves, not simply as a penalty shift. Shifting should never, under any circumstances be used to penalize the player for RP. The entire purpose of the flexible alignment system is to reward character development, not to dissuade it.

Oh and one last point. There is no such thing as a neutral point. If somebody is good aligned and they decide to perform a neutral action, then they are at the same alignment. The concept of the neutral point shift is unbalanced because later, when the paladin does commit an evil act, the result will be the exact same as performing the neutral one, whereas the nature of both acts is totally different. Think of alignment like an XY grid. X positive and negative is good vs evil. Y positive or negative is Law vs chaos. So when you graph this chart out, each action has a value of positive or negative x or y. Plotting point (85,85), typical Lawful Good, a good action should shift that point to (86,85) upwards on the X axis. The goodness of their action is independant from the pre-established plot on the chart, and thus the action has no less significance in the shift. If a Lawful Good performs a neutral act, then this act has a shift value of 0. So an (85,85) alignment would stay in the exact same spot on that chart. As it is hardcoded in NWN, think of it as "Geometric Morality".

[Script Wrecked]

And now, another twist in direction!

Originally Posted by lonnarin

Oh and one last point. There is no such thing as a neutral point. If somebody is good aligned and they decide to perform a neutral action, then they are at the same alignment. The concept of the neutral point shift is unbalanced because later, when the paladin does commit an evil act, the result will be the exact same as performing the neutral one, whereas the nature of both acts is totally different. Think of alignment like an XY grid. X positive and negative is good vs evil. Y positive or negative is Law vs chaos. So when you graph this chart out, each action has a value of positive or negative x or y. Plotting point (85,85), typical Lawful Good, a good action should shift that point to (86,85) upwards on the X axis. The goodness of their action is independant from the pre-established plot on the chart, and thus the action has no less significance in the shift. If a Lawful Good performs a neutral act, then this act has a shift value of 0. So an (85,85) alignment would stay in the exact same spot on that chart. As it is hardcoded in NWN, think of it as "Geometric Morality".

I would like to respond by saying I disagree with there are no such things as neutral points. There are actions that would move both an evil and good character towards neutrality.

Your points allude to the implementation of alignment by plotting them on the same axis making it harder than it should be. Perhaps there should be a good score, an evil score, and a neutral score. Thus, your good actions wouldn't be counteracted by or neutralize your evil actions; they would all stand in their own right (and stop neutral characters from having to behave in a schizophrenic manner in order to maintain their middle alignment). The activity of each of these scores would determine (one component of) your alignment. It would also allow someone who has high evil and high good to be different from someone with low evil and low good.

Alas, for the moment, we are stuck with a bipolar alignment implementation.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.