Refusing to heal the overtly evil is evil?

[lonnarin]

In reference to the pending case here...

http://forums.layonara.com/disputes-...d-pending.html

I post here seperately as to not interfere with the flow of the debate and logs and documentation from the people who were actually there, though wanted to address the morality behind the situation.

When is it an evil act to kill an evil dark elf who is currently in the process of torturing somebody? This dark elf was actively whipping Iradril's friends he was sworn to protect. Maybe if Iradil had stopped by the body to torture it in return I would see that as evil, but he simply refused to give her aid. Goodly clerics are SUPPOSED to do this when they come across goodly people of other faiths heretical to their gods, Toranites and Lucindites aren't likely to raise eachother or even bless eachother. A Lucindite of good faith is likely to leave a Corathite to bleed to death in a ditch, good riddance. Would a Prunillite really go out of their way to heal a dying Pyrtechite who had a history of setting their barn on fire? Deity opposition and religious oaths aside, and simply a moral measure... would it really be so wrong to not heal somebody who was killed in self defense?

Say you were walking your girlfriend home and a mugger hopped out of the bushes, drew a blade and started threatening to rape and murder her with it. If you or your GF then grabbed the knife from his hand and stabbed him in the neck with it, causing a mortal wound, and you knew that he was a member of a local gang who called this area their turf, who would gladly slaughter you and she both in response were lurking nearby, are you really going to stop and apply first aid? NO! You get the heck out of there and protect the person you love first and foremost! If that guy didnt deserve a knife in his neck, he wouldnt have ben waving it at you in the first place! For a good person, heck for all people, the primary concern is with the ones you love, family and friends.

Now dark elves are at a level of evil above and beyond most serial murderers. This is pounded into our heads again and again, they are eeevil, killed on sight in the goodly city, and we are in a perpetual state of war with them. So when you have the Layonaran equivalent of a Richard Ramirez eater of babies dark elf in the process of trying to torture or kill one of your allies, I have trouble seeing simply not healing them as anything more than a neutral act, possibly good. Does Indiana Jones get evil points when he shoots the nazi who is torturing his father, or grinds up the Kali worshipping slavedriver who was beating Short Round? Do Hempstead guards get evil points when they obey the law that says "kill dark elves on sight, regardless of temperment or reason for being there?" Think about it, Iradril is deemed as acting evil in this case for simply not healing a dark elf which tortured his friends that was nearly killed in self defense. What does this speak for the guards who it is their sworn duty to kill on sight every dark elf they spot? Does that make all Hempsteadians "evil" for not standing up, drawing their weapons and facing down the guards to protect the dark elf? If you do nothing while you see a guard kill somebody on sight who you've seen do nothing wrong, its not considered evil, and yet if you simply dont heal somebody who was just seen by you torturing your friend and who had a city of like-minded dark elves nearby who would kill you and your friends for sheer pleasure, is it really evil just to simply do nothing and let them die?

Furthermore, they were on a somewhat clandenstine operation. In order to save their country and possibly the free world, they need to infiltrate this place. What about the FBI man who wears a wire and witnesses a mob shooting? He could either try to do his job gathering evidence and take down this murdering mob boss and his entire organization so they wont be able to kill again, or he could blow his cover and immediately start performing first aid on the informant they just shot. How long do you think he would live after that? Will he suffer a loss of his soul in simply not getting himself killed for the ill-concieved sake of kneejerk emotional morality? Does this make every protaganist in a John Woo film... evil?

These people were on a mission trying to save lives and potentially the world. An evil evil dark elf who we are told constantly should be killed on sight for all that is good got killed only after showing her obvious foul temperment and intent to cause suffering to perfect strangers. If refusing to heal this dark elf was an evil act, then I would charge much of the same to every Lucindite who refuses to raise or heal a Toranite, and every Voraxian who would refuse to heal a Grandite from near death. The only possible way I could see Iradril as being evil in this instance were if he was unsatisfied with simply letting the evil, vile, abusive dark elf die, and were to heal her back simply to torture her for hours on end, or at least defile her body. If he simply took no action, and didnt even try to finish the job, then he acted in this case with more compassion and mercy than the Hempstead guards or any member of the Mistonian Military would have done. Are the latter two groups then officially... "evil"?

In my opinion, only a VERY diehard fanatic follower of Azatta or Aeriden would see evil here, and they are the absolute extremes of good to the point of martyrdom. When clergy of LG Vorax would gladly "put her out of her misery", a Lucindite would shrug and move on, and Captain Trent, the bastion of goodness with a heart of gold (or so his description says) would do far worse, then I would compare all of these to Iradril and conclude that this was no evil act. It was the act of a person with above a 6 intelligence score who didnt want to blow his whole mission and get his entire party killed out of fanatical moralist protest. Now if there was something in his emote like he laughed coldy or kicked the body as it bled to death, that is evil RP. I didnt see any of that in the logs.

Now I know evil. Gloom would have bound her up, healed her and sold her to Kartharian pleasure slavers or made her join a deep dwarven city's chain gang mining salt for the next 800 years... or if he took it personally would have tortured her until she begged Sulterio for mercy then laughed "Mercy? Sulterio has no mercy!" and killed her anyway with a terrifyied expression on her face. Grovel would have cut off her arms and legs, eaten them, fed the rest back to her so she could taste how yummy dark elves were, and tortured her over the course of several years to teach him elven while she was chained to a wall in some remote cavern, feeding her little more than tube grubs and moldy water for sustainance. THATS evil. Bjorn would have probably just shrugged and let her be, Earl would have probably finished the job and punted her head over the walls to send a message to the rest, Kor would have probably eaten her, but more out of hunger and practicality than out of spite, and Farros would have probably healed her back, but only to ransom her to the highest bidder. Dark elves are evil, pity them not. They seriously are the kinds of people that will slaughter a surfacer's baby in the crib just because their bored, and murder their own parents in order to advance in political stature. If they weren't then their alignments wouldnt be so restricted when making them!

[ycleption]

I'm not expressing any opinion on the incident in question, but just making the comment that "good" and "evil" as alignments are game terms, and they are objectively measured (in other words, the character's perception of their own actions, and motives for acting have nothing to do with it).

It is perfectly possible to do an act that most people would agree is good from an everyday use of the term, but is evil (or at least neutral) in D&D, and vice versa. That's not a contradiction, it's just game mechanics. Call it something other than good and evil if it helps you distinguish.

[darkstorme]

I prefer to distinguish between good (something beneficial) and Good (the alignment) by the judicious use of capitalization, myself.

[Black Cat]

As I understood it, it was not just the "don't blow up the mission" or "Not wanting to heal her" (I was on the quest, though not in that part of the mission). but rather the almost total lack of a single emote from those "Good" characters.

Not a shiver.. or a *averts his eyes from the grisly sight" nothing. No emotions at cold blood murder.

Even if you're FBI agent undercover witness a bloodbath but is unable to do anything or it will blow his cover.. do you really think he will not shivers, have no nightmares, no cold sweat? Even trained soldiers can't always bear the horror of war (and some of them, war I mean, are supposed to be fought for the greater Good).

Sure dark elves are evil and only deserve death. But to take a RL example, even the most fanatical Nazis in WWII, as evil as they were, should/would not be/have been murdered in cold blood... but judged for their crimes... or killed as soldiers on the battlefield. Murdering them in cold blood would just make/have made you as evil as them... or worse for you were or should have been good in the first place. The higher you are... the harder you fall. Hence the fact that those Neutral did not get the evil points.

Just my 2cents...

[Weeblie]

I think you have missed the point of the evaluation of that event altogther, mixed with a misunderstanding of how it unfold. No torture was involved what so ever. And the examples you give are somewhat exaggerated. It is as though I would give an example of:

"A child runs towards you with a food-knife and tries to stab it into your leg. You feel threatened as you sit there while drinking your jar of ale, and lashes out with your longsword at his throat. Unfortunately, you do not kill him directly, but instead he is left bleeding on the ground. You do not as much as give him a second glance, but rather continue your drink while it's still cold."

The alignment system is not rigid and neither is it black or white. Being neutral is also a fundamentally important aspect of it.

Generalising it or to make up rigid guidelines is extraordinary difficult... in fact, I would say it's not even feasible nor desireable, as it would then be far too easy to "walk the line".

So, in the end, it boils down to a judgement call. Only in the most extreme cases can any action truly have a universal agreement on what is good and what is evil.

ps. Yes... using a child in an example is somewhat as a kick under the belt, heh.

[lonnarin]

Well, the anology is somewhat lost because you just substituted the most terrifying race in the world whose cruelty is reknowned thrice-over with an innoculous little kid. The little kid possibly might not be old enough to know right from wrong, the dark elf adult certainly does. People dont tuck in their children at night warning them to avoid angry little kids with knives, they do warn them about dark elves. It's like substituting a baby kitten for Rancor.

The examples given are in no way exaggerated. Dark elves are the epitome of evil. Worse than murderous muggers, worse than nazis. From the log it appears as though she was whipping one of the party members, with a whip, which are for pain and not for effective killing, hence torture. if I walk towards somebody with a whip, the implication isnt that I'm going to give them a cupcake here... especially when I start whipping somebody before anybody else attacked me. Attack somebody and expect to die. This is basic survival instinct, just as intrinsic to good as it is to evil.

But re-reading the log, it appears that at the root of the topic is that there was a assumption as to somebody's intent and moral disposition on no other basis than their facial expression at the time they were being observed by the enemy. This is wholley confusing the *emote* with the *emotion*.

An emote is an expression of freely observable behavior to all in the vicinity, while emotion is the internal psychological reaction itself which is undetectable to all in the vicinity who do not actively have psychic powers.

So what if he didn't sigh or cry? This means absolutely nothing that you can determine by looking. He might have even been purposely forcing the expression just so he wouldnt obviously look like a goody goody who'd get pegged for weakness and slaughtered by other dark elves, as is their way. But we assumed that he felt something based on his expression alone.

This is like assuming that every car dealer is your friend, every politician has your best interests at heart, every CSR and clerk honestly enjoys your company or that every puppy with a droopy face is clinically depressed. One cannot read minds from facial expression alone, one cannot determine intent or disposition from an emote. Indeed, it is told to us again and again that we are not to include our actual thoughts or anything other than what is outright seen immediately by those around us in our emotes. To make a judgement call as to what somebody's internalized emotional reaction was solely because they didn't overtly emote that they were saddened for all to hear is to essentially enforce metagaming as a rule.

The only way one can determine the emotion of a character is *asking the player of the character*. This was actually done in the log. He even expressly stated post-quest in the log that he was actively masking his emotions and did so since an early age to survive in the underdark, explaining that his emote was not his emotion. He was asked what he felt, he explained, and still the subjective, third-party interpretation of the facial emote in the heat of the moment was taken above his explaination of his own character's internalized reaction.

What we have here, with the evil point because he didnt openly show his emotion, was a forced emotion. His character's morality was impacted not because of what he felt, believed or thought, but what others could determine from a glance. That would be stereotyping, by definition. So what if he didn't fall to his knees crying, or healing the dying dark elf? If he did, the dark elves would kill him and his entire group of friends, possibly. But don't immediately assume that you know what's going on in the character's head, especially after when he was asked about it later and he explained that it wasn't. This isn't even about the good vs evil debate, but moreso that this character was being docked for feeling emotions that never existed in the first place. It's just the same as if I walked up to you in Hempstead and went...

A: Hi there, how's it going?
B: oh sorry, I'm in a hurry. I'll talk to you later.
A: *nods to the obviously rude and evil man*
B: hey! I'm not evil! Why'd I get an evil point?
A: well, good people would smile and stay and talk. Now you're more neutral.

Exact same issue. Forcing emotes, forcing emotions, metagaming. Ask the player. If the player says they felt this at so and so time, then unless there is some enchantment spell on them, or that the one ring is tainting their soul, then their explaination stands. If one is to warrant good and evil points, then let it at least be for OPENLY evil and good acts. Stab a baby? evil. Give CPR to a lepor? Good. Try to maintain a poker face while in the heart of the lion's den and trying your hardest not to give away that you're good? A facial expression alone doesn't tell us a thing. Ask.

Is Spock an evil man because he doesn't cry when the redshirt dies by stepping on landmine? Of course not, he is actively hiding his emotions. He is however a pacifist vegetarian who will try to risk his life to save anybody who needs help that he can, even sacrificing his very life to save the entire ship from a warp core meltdown. Even though he tries to suppress his emotions, he still does have them. He is more than just the sum of his facial expressions. He is a complex individual with a character development and a psychology not immediately read int he lines of his face.

Edit: the very fact that this log shows the dark elf woman whipped Alantha no less than 14 times without exploding into a hellball by her hands shows that perhaps she should have gotten good points for her *saintly* restraint. That's obvious torture; she was whipping somebody for obedience. Angela only dealt the mortal blow when the dark elf woman reached for her rapier, they only struck back when it was a matter of self preservation. That is Good, capital G. After this point it is even admitted in the postlog that showing compassion or overt goodness would have definitely caused problems. That's self preservation. Letting her die was the only way to survive without having to fight and kill even more dark elves than they had to. And honestly, after somebody whips one of my friends multiple times, and then attempts to murder them, it does not make me a bad person to simply not openly weep if they die. Most people if this had been your friend or wife, admit it, you would have not minded their deaths in the least. This was beyond thinking "the only good dark elf is a dead dark elf" mentality, or "cold blooded murder". This is seeing somebody who just tortured your friend with a whip and then tried to use a rapier to kill them getting killed in self defense. I wouldn't be crying over their deaths either, or even sighing sadly.

[Weeblie]

Unless you are someone who truly knows all the weak spots of your target (i.e. you are assassin/rogue like), then a dagger in your hands is more to inflict a slow and painful death, and hence by your reasoning torture. If you want someone dead, then you should really only use a "real" weapon. Staffs? Definitely falling into the same category (slowly crushing every bone in your opponents body?). And because of this light definition of torture, you have really dropped a lot of people into the category of evil (torture is with no doubt an evil act).

The dark elf was obviously not "torturing" anyone. She was after killing one of them for the disobidience. As simple as that.

If one is to warrant good and evil points, then let it at least be for OPENLY evil and good acts.

Um... no?

That's as though saying "a PC should never die unless the player wants the PC to die" or "a quest should never fail unless the participants actively request that the quest should fail".

Open acts are okay, but they shouldn't be the sole factor to define a character's alignment, if not for the fact that it would be far too "cheap", then for the fact that many of the LE characters would be auto-turned into good ones. The whole point of many shady characters is that they do not OPENLY perform evil acts.

I see that you are still of the thinking that "if you are not good, then you are evil". But as I said earlier, that's not the case. Nor is it the case that most characters are good. In fact, the majority of the population is neither good nor evil, but rather neutral. Strong signs of self preservation... oh... isn't that one of those clear signs of being of a neutral alignment? Or perhaps even an evil one?

General tendencies for a neutral character seem to be leaning towards good, when it is not a too much danger to be so. Seeing someone trip on the street? Sure, why not give them a hand to come back up? Perhaps someone else in the future would do just the same if the helper was the one tripping? That is how a good society looks like, but a good society does not mean that its inhabitants are an exclusive bunch of a good aligned flower-lovers.

Someone smacks you on the cheek and you walk forth to embrace them? The act of "showing compassion to your enemies"? That's what I would consider an undisputable act of good... stupid and crazy, certainily. But good nonless. Likely not anything that warrants a shift, but then, the situation is so trivial so whatever you do (unless outright killing the offender) would not really warrant shifts of any kind.

The lone act of "defending those you love"? Good action? Erh... no? Defending those that you care about is something that happens all across all the alignments and hence the act itself is really an alignment-free action (note: neutral != alignment-free).

Circumstances is of course what's ultimately deciding for which side has the heavier weight. No risk and you, as a good character, performs some small act of good? That's expected of you. Huge risk and you as a good character performs some act of good? That might even be justifeable to warrant a good point award.

A thief with a knife is rushing towards your family and you happen to have a gun in your hand? That sounds like a circumstance that would not really change your alignment.

A thief with a gun is rushing towards your family and you happen to be unarmed? Hmmm... now we are talking... but because it's your family that's threatened, only a minor shift would be in order, I think. Must really have more info before one can decide.

A thief with a gun is rushing towards some strangers and you happen to be unarmed? Aaah... now, that sounds like a heavily unselfish and strongly good act, if you were to intervene.

Dark elven societies are evil-based ones and it was already clearly said outright that going in might change things. In fact, that's likely why there were so many who choosed to stay behind like Grohin; they recognised the "spiritual danger" they would put themselves into.

More than ample of opportunities were given to change the neutral shift towards a "no shift". From what I saw, there was only two reasons for why things happened as they did (or didn't happen):

1. The affected players did not recognise the alignment danger they were in and therefore did nothing to prevent it.

2. The affected players did recognise the alignment danger they were in but choosed to do nothing to prevent it.

3. Either of the above but also added that they perhaps did not think alignment shifts would ever be handed out for these sort of things.

Once again, in the end, it is a judgement call. In this case, it was simply decided that all the events leading up to this and the reactions afterwards did not warrant a dismissal of not handing out a single point of neutral, as watching someone take minutes or even an hour to bleed to death without any sort of reactions, regardless if the victim is a dark elf or not, is just something not in the spirit of being good.

Not much reaction was needed, and neither did the reactions have to be obvious for the bypassers. Angela's actions were more than enough to "deflect" the alignment shift, but ironically, she was not touched by the neutral shift anyway (due to her already neutral alignment on the good/evil axis).

Edit: Oh, and... another extraordinary important aspect. Alignments are not defined by what others think about you, or what you think of yourself. While being an IC matter, alignments are defined in an OOC fashion. No "you are not my friend, and therefore you are evil" or "because I don't know of all the acrocities you have done, you are evil in my eyes".

[Hellblazer]

Originally Posted by Weeblie

Unless you are someone who truly knows all the weak spots of your target (i.e. you are assassin/rogue like), then a dagger in your hands is more to inflict a slow and painful death, and hence by your reasoning torture.

I have to disagree with this. Any one that has trained with a blade, knows the weak spots. It's not because its a broad sword that it can't be used to slash a throat in a swift pass, to move faster to an other opponent. Even longsword hit on a kidney would leave the opponent bleeding to death slowly. So it's not only assassins and rogues that would know that. The difference in the classes, skills and feats appart, is in the way it will be done. Fighter will go up front unless they need to be silent about it (which would be harder for them as they don't train in that way most of the time. While assassins and rogues will use the shadows and things to hide their approach to attack from the back or in ways that they wouldn't be seen.

[Weeblie]

Originally Posted by Hellblazer

I have to disagree with this. Any one that has trained with a blade, knows the weak spots. It's not because its a broad sword that it can't be used to slash a throat in a swift pass, to move faster to an other opponent. Even longsword hit on a kidney would leave the opponent bleeding to death slowly. So it's not only assassins and rogues that would know that. The difference in the classes, skills and feats appart, is in the way it will be done. Fighter will go up front unless they need to be silent about it (which would be harder for them as they don't train in that way most of the time. While assassins and rogues will use the shadows and things to hide their approach to attack from the back or in ways that they wouldn't be seen.

The ways Sneak Attack and Death Attack are described are based on that they have special "one hit, one kill" training while other normal people do not have the same knowledge.

Closest you can come to that is probably weapon masters, in order to increase the critical threat range which is essentially also to hit "critical areas".

The difference lays in that a crit is really only about striking against a "no-brainer" area. Aim whatever weapon you had against your opponents head? If you hit, of course it will hurt a lot. Practicing that is a good idea to get combat over quickly (and an option to lessen the "torture" of your victim).

But to get training in that "four centimeters from the center of his chest, you will find a small gap between his ribs, easily allowing you to slip in and hit vital organs, in order to implement the said one hit, one kill policy"... that's something, per game definitions, reserved for sneaks.

Training in the use of a weapon and training to use it in an assassination "kill directly" fashion are not the same. Combat is of course almost always about killing your opponent as fast as possible anyway and your arguments about learning about how to easier kill some creatures is also very valid. It's just that there are very few exclusive bunch of classes that are specialized in the "super rapid killing"-method.

But it doesn't matter overly much for this particular discussion, as you mentioned the exact point I wanted to get through with:

Even longsword hit on a kidney would leave the opponent bleeding to death slowly.

Which effectively means that hitting someone else with a weapon, regardless of type of weapon, cannot be the sole grounds to define "torture".

[jrizz]

Originally Posted by Black Cat

Sure dark elves are evil and only deserve death. But to take a RL example, even the most fanatical Nazis in WWII, as evil as they were, should/would not be/have been murdered in cold blood... but judged for their crimes... or killed as soldiers on the battlefield. Murdering them in cold blood would just make/have made you as evil as them... or worse for you were or should have been good in the first place. The higher you are... the harder you fall. Hence the fact that those Neutral did not get the evil points.

The US solders that liberated Dachau summarily executed the SS officers they found there. General Patton pardoned them.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

And evil act for a good reason (killing the Joker in cold blood, for example) is still an evil act... But the good act of saving those lives tends to balance it out.

I think this conversation should steer away from the specific instance mentioned, as, in that instance, it was a clear case of DM's Discretion, and we're ALL familiar with Rule 0.

[Weeblie]

Originally Posted by jrizz

The US solders that liberated Dachau summarily executed the SS officers they found there. General Patton pardoned them.

RL historical events are somewhat tricky to use as examples as it is really the winner that decides what's okay and what is not.

If, for example, the Japanese suddenly had won the war against the US, I'm sure all the commanders for the US fleet of Strategic Bombers would have been trialed and found guilty (likely executed), along with all those who ordered the use of the two nuclear weapons.

Karl Donitz was trialed and found guilty due to the use of unrestricted submarine warfare... which is not much different from what the US used on the pacific side (interestingily even stated so by the famous admiral Nimitz).

In real life wars, everyone tend to lose, and there are no true "good" and "evil" side - everything is instead mixed in different shades of gray.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Zuckerman

And evil act for a good reason (killing the Joker in cold blood, for example) is still an evil act... But the good act of saving those lives tends to balance it out.

Indeed!

But then, you are walking a very, very fine line. Any sort of miss-step and the evil might as well outweight the good.

[lonnarin]

Its not that I don't believe in neutrality, just I dont believe in neutral points. The NWN alignment grid used by our game mechanics is clearly defined as an XY axis. On one axis we have good as the positive and evil as the negative. On the other we have Law as the positive and Chaos as the negative. Everything closest to zero is considered neutral. The total alignment of a character is calculated by the net sum of their weighted actions, with neutral actions not counted. While there is neutrality on the [0,0] of the chart, any deviation from that point, positive or negative in either direction is measured as the degree of law/chaos or good/evil. (note that the chart is on a 1-100 scale, so that geometric [0,0] is actually a [50,50] in terms of how the game stats read out, hope I didnt confuse anyone, the 0,0 is more of the geometry expression when looking at the chart)

Observe a dialogue conversation...

Elderly man: Spare a coin, friend?

dialogue options:
1: Sure old timer, I couldn't turn down a guy in need! (1pt good)
2. Hah! get a job you disgusting urchin! (1pt evil)
3. I would, but begging is a crime here unfortunately (1 pt law)
4. Suuuuure! *hands him 1 coin and picks 10 from his pocket* (1 pt chaos)
5. Sorry, spending it all on hard earned beer... Good luck! (no points!)

As you can see, the choice of responses will result in a shift. So if you insult the man, you get a -1 on the Good/Evil axis, and your little point on the chart shifts downward by 1. If you pick his pocket, it shifts left by 1. If you advise him to stop breaking the law, it shifts right. And if you feel sorry for the poor codger and give him a coin it shifts upward.

But what if you choose the neutral option, simply ingore him or tell him you're broke too? Do you gain a "neutral point"? No, neutral points do not exist. An evil character who looks up at the sky and says something neutral like "hey, looks like it's going to rain" is not going to shift upwards on the chart because he wasn't *actively* being evil at the time. Maybe if he looked up and said something dark like "what a wretched day, surely I shall slaughter the next Mistite I see for this horrid storm", then he might shift downward -1 on the chart towards evil. But morally unweighted acts simply do not count on the chart. I know this chart is somewhat unrealistic, but its what we were given, and it determines fundamental game mechanics like class requirements, spell effects, summons, who you can group with without being hounded about it, etc. Its because of this that alignment becomes such a touchy subject.

When one simply doesnt care about a vile dark elf who was just trying to murder them and their loved ones, who gets struck down in self defense, that is a neutral act. The person has absolutely no moral obligation whatsoever to care for them. If you see that they are no longer a threat, yet finish the job anyway, or spit on them and mock them, then it is a shift downward towards evil. If they decide to heal them or weep for what they have done, then it is a good act. If they heal them only to bind them up and take them to trial, it could be considered lawful, and good to an extent, as one is being both dutiful to the law and merciful to the individual. If instead you kind of smirk and say "I am under no legal obligation to help a murderer", it would be a lawful and possibly evil shift. Doing nothing but walking onwards is decidedly neutral. The only time doing nothing could even possibly be considered evil is if some innocent man or child was about to be harmed, you could have easily saved them and you didn't. The dark elf in the dispute's scenario could not be easily saved without repercussions which would lead to more death. The dark elf also was actively antagonising the party, trying to murder them. Not helping such a wretched fiend after they get their just deserts is a neutral act. This does not shift one in any direction on the chart, because such an act is unweighted.

But wait! This person was GOOD! shouldn't they ALWAYS be good? No, that is not how the alignment XY axis works at all. To actively enforce that one must always choose the goodly act, even when it is incredibly stupid or unwarranted to do so, is unfairly judging the individual. There are no neutral points, only good, evil, law, chaos. Neutrality in terms of this XY axis is only represented in two functions; 1) a neutral act: a non-alignment shifting act. An act which is neither good, nor evil, lawful nor chaotic. Self preservation, brushing your teeth, nodding to somebody who says hi, etc... such acts do not affect the character's position on the XY chart, or 2) a neutral alignment, this is a descriptor for an alignment which, by virtue of the net positive and negative shifts of either X or Y, tends to be closer to the center of the chart, [0,0]. (or 50/50 if you prefer)

Therefore, when the player in question was shifted downwards on the good/evil axis by -1, this would imply that the act he performed was fundamentally evil. But it has been stated that he was "acting neutral", therefore if he has just performed a neutral act, then NO shift would occur and the net sum of his actions would keep his place on the chart. To shift him downwards is the same penalty that one would recieve had they kicked the dark elf or laughed and finished her off. This is why there is an issue in this case. He did NOT do anything overtly evil, and was docked for not being "actively good" in all of his decisions all of the time. This is an unrealistic expectation for any character.

Again, there are no neutral points, only good, evil, law and chaos. If somebody is "acting neutral" then that act has no impact on their overall alignment. If however Iradril began showing signs of malice towards the dark elf, torturing her, kicking her while she was down, feeling happy to watch her die for whatever reason, this would be a downshift. If he had wept or showed sadness or healed her, this would be performing a goodly act which would shift him upwards. The fact that the only basis for claiming that he had faltered was that he did not show obvious emotions of pity for a wretched dark elf who whipped the bejeebus out of Alantha and then tried to draw her rapier so that she could properly murder her in a non torturous way is indication enough that he was under zero moral obligation to show sympathy, ESPECIALLY when doing so would have risked he and his party being caught and executed.

In fact, every person who did show the slightest regret after that death should have in all likelyhood, gained a point of good upwards. The fact that Alantha could have made this evil dark elf's head explode into a gazillion little pieces with less than a snap of the finger with her near godlike sorcerous powers, that she even stood there and let herself be whipped and it was only Angela who stepped in and killed her abuser showed great restraint, in my opinion. Something that not even Obi Wan himself would have been able to muster. (remember, that nice old man chopped off an Aqualan's arm in a bar for threatening a lad! probably True Nuetral Obi, heheh) This is especially the case when the act of blowing up the plucky dark elf would have probably just made all the others in the city watching laugh their heads off... CE dark elves LOVE to see people die, even their own!

This I believe is why the entire dispute arose. Giving an evil shift for a neutral action. There are no Neutral points. This is a very violent world already, so if we used that same standard on any of our characters, even our paladins, there would be no good characters. We routinely go from cave dwelling to cave dwelling slaughtering the indigeounous tribal denizens of each, the orcs and goblins and gnolls and ogres that have lived there for generations, and steal their gold and mine their resources. A Voraxian paladin is LG, and maintains that alignment despite the blood on his hands, for when he does war it is a just war, and he will show mercy when it is asked most of the time. But if mercy is neither asked nor granted by the enemy, and they are intent on murdering you for unjust reasons, then he need not fear shifting to neutral, for he has committed a morally unweighted act. All of the good that he does before and after the fact is what lends to his goodly score, all of the oaths he maintains, and chivalry that he upholds lends to his law score. If he breaks a promise, he shifts chaotic. If an enemy begs for mercy laying down its weapon and he chops its head off anyway, he shifts evil. But if somebody dies while trying to take his life or harm innocents, he is uner no obligation to help said miscreant whatsoever, and may freely leave them to the fateful grave they dug for themselves.

[Weeblie]

Then, by your reasoning, it is completely fine to always do nothing, in order to "save" your alignment in a tricky situation.

Being a good character, you see a gang of people kicking an old lady on the ground? Quite obviously, your alignment do tell you to intervene... but oh... there is an alternative easy solution: I do nothing.

I'm sorry, but I am not bying that.

There are technically nothing as a neutral point, no. And neither would I ever award points for what I consider "alignment free" actions. The "neutral point" in this case is just a matter of saying "everyone above neutral was hit by an evil point, everyone below was left unchanged".

Edit: A short way of saying this is that I consider "doing nothing"/"no action" to also be an action that can be judged on the alignment system.

[lonnarin]

Incorrect, and I had already addressed such a situation above. It can be considered evil if you refuse to help an INNOCENT person who you could easily help with little danger to yourself. Perhaps you could pick up your cell and call the cops if you cant protect the lady directly, or alert others to the situation. You keep substituting wildly different examples for base ones. Old ladies who have done you no harm are NOT dark elves who just beat you with a whip and tried to stab you. This is different on so many different levels.

[Weeblie]

Just because it's a dark elf in this case instead of an old lady does not mean that everything is suddenly changed.

It's a matter of weighting the two factors:

1. Evil Dark Elf being there.
2. No reaction or action at all, neither before nor after, despite someone being unconcious and bleeding to death on the ground.

I am weighting number 2 greater than number 1 and the sum to justify a shift.

The circumstances tells that while it's not necessary to actively aid the helpless person on the ground (which would be an action of good, but at a too great cost), no reaction at all was deemed too severe to be ignored.

[lonnarin]

If everybody above the line were hit with a -1 on the good/evil axis, then so should everybody below that line too. The act itself is good or evil if it has weight, or unweighted if it is a neutral act. Neutrals should shift down for the very same callous acts that good aligned characters commit, regardless of how close to their alignment that act is. An evil character who commits an evil act gets an evil point just as much as the good one who does.

And yes, the situation has totally changed. The old lady was not trying to MURDER you! The old lady is not going to start screaming out "SURFACER! SURFACER!" and get a posse of deadly assassains to MURDER you for helping her. The old lady is not a dark elf intent on ending your life. You have not been raised in a society where every single night your mother tucked you into bed and said "beware the old ladies, for they will rip out your heart, feast of your flesh, and sacrifice your soul on the onyx altar to their demon gods".

[Weeblie]

Once again, I completely disagree.

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.

[lonnarin]

Yes, that is something wrong with the system. Ideally it would span out into infinity. Sadly it is what we are given via the game mechanics. I personally would love to see 600/2000 paladins running around, but alas, hardcoding.

[Weeblie]

Originally Posted by lonnarin

The old lady is not going to start screaming out "SURFACER! SURFACER!" and get a posse of deadly assassains to MURDER you for helping her.

The dark elf would not have been able to scream that (unconcious?). In either case, they were out in the open for everyone to see, so their ensured death would likely have been as a result of other dark elves snooping on the people doing this most strange act of compassion, rather than the dying dark elf herself blowing their cover. Heh, almost the same thing, but not exactly the same sort of severity as you make of it.

As I said earlier, I acknowledge that they could almost impossibly have actually helped the dark elf without things getting messy, but that does not excuse the no reaction at all, before and after.

I didn't consider not helping the dark elf to warrant anything.

But I did consider having no reaction to warrant the shift. This opinion is also shared by many others on the quest.

[lonnarin]

Hey, ultimately it is your quest and your decision and I can respect that, even if I dont agree with it.

But one thing is for certain. Never before has a paltry ONE point of alignment shift been so rigorously debated with so many paragraphs. For that we have attained major nerd pwnage.

*suddenly realizes why he hasn't had a date in 5 years, heheh*

[Weeblie]

Some matters can just be debated so strongly...

Politics... Religion... and now Alignments.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

At least you forum lurkers didn't get my IRC rant. Whew!

[Hellblazer]

Originally Posted by Weeblie

The dark elf would not have been able to scream that (unconcious?).

The only problem in this case is that there was three others dark elf guard, in the same place as we were. So the others could have .

[Weeblie]

Originally Posted by Hellblazer

The only problem in this case is that there was three others dark elf guard, in the same place as we were. So the others could have .

"... so their ensured death would likely have been as a result of other dark elves snooping on the people doing this most strange act of compassion ..."

[Nehetsrev]

Bah I say! A clever group of do-gooders would have done the following:

The one that struck the darkelf woman would have barked out an order to one of the members of the group of the opposite gender, as though ordering an inferior slave, to drag away the body and clean up the mess that was just made. Once out of sight, those posing as 'slaves' would have attempted to heal the dying woman, and also adaquately bound and gagged her, leaving her in a well hidden spot to be found later, or alternatively leaving the darkelf in the care of the other members of the party that had stayed behind. The party of good-hearted adventurers thus can go on with clean conscience and minimal risk of discovery.

Or something like that...

Hehehehe.

[lonnarin]

And the chaotic neutral rogue could quietly doubleback to stab the stabilized dark elf once the party was all feeling good about themselves two blocks away. Win/win situation for all!

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

The only good dark elf is a dead dark elf.

[Link092]

Originally Posted by Stephen_Zuckerman

The only good dark elf is a dead dark elf.

Hear hear! A man of well spoken words!


*Grins*

[Gulnyr]

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:

"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.

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.

[Weeblie]

The alignment system is much more complex than to say Good is Good and Evil is Evil. If the circumstances are not considered (i.e. the different parts of the circumstances are not weighted against each other), then you have some very serious conflicts. For example: "You are killing an innocent child (someone good)." vs "You are killing a dark elf."

If one follows the "usual common sense" about the alignments used in layo itself, then there is a conflict. But strictling following the PHB guidelines, I agree that there are none (in this particular case). Because:

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

As for alignment points beind used as rewards. Yes... well... heh... indeed. I personally find them as an excellent tool to do that too. I'm more than agreeing on that Jennara deserves those points, but being good already, would you be very comfortable of being awarded good points for some vague "generally good behaviour" rather than the two much clearer cases of doing something good? Granted, the events she was awarded for most likely took months instead of minutes, but they were still very specific cases of "because of this, you got that".

I consider the "pattern behaviour" to be expected to follow the "current alignment" of one's character and only use that analysis to do a shift if the "pattern alignment" is found to be greatly different from a character's "current alignment". Otherwise, it is the events that I think should be judge of a shift. It could be a short term event (running forward and killing the kind king)... or a long term one (making a deal with a Corathite high priestess in order to secure some large sum of money for yourself).

[Gulnyr]

Were you not arguing a few posts back that the alignment system should not consider circumstances? And now you are saying circumstances should be considered? That's very confusing.

Also, your examples are vague, and I'm not seeing a conflict. Was the child attacked directly with little explanation, or was it collateral damage during an attack on a town, maybe? What did the dark elf do? Just live? "Killing" alone doesn't carry enough meaning to show the alignment. The PHB even adds more text to show what it means, and if killing, period, were Evil, then there would never, ever be any Good characters in any campaign. Killing to kill is Evil, but killing in true* self defense is alignment-void, meaning it doesn't cause any shift in alignment; the character is just reacting naturally to a threat. This is why I agree with you (just not for your reason) that those of Neutral alignment on the quest should not have been moved toward Evil; the act of killing was apparently defensive, first of all, and Neutral characters aren't obligated to help people they don't know. The Good characters, on the other hand, didn't help a stranger and risk themselves, thus acting Neutral rather than Good.

would you be very comfortable of being awarded good points for some vague "generally good behaviour" rather than the two much clearer cases of doing something good?

No, but neither would I appreciate having an Evil consequence point tacked on randomly when I could not expect a randomly attached Good reward point when the two situations were approximately of equal "value." If it takes X effort to lose a Good point, it should take a similar effort to gain one. If I should earn an Evil point, I want that Evil to be equal in value to the Good of the Good point. A character's position on the alignment scale is irrelevant. Alignment points are handed out rarely (in my experience, anyway, though I know some people have asked for them after quests and had them granted for this action or that because, hey, the numbers don't matter and neither do the points, really), so there is no reason to expect that the next time a similar situation arises that any Good character would be given an Evil point while an NPC bleeds, or that any Good act will be rewarded with a Good point.

I don't know who the dark elf who died on the quest was, important noble or nobody commoner. It doesn't really matter. Objectively, people are people and Good characters should generally act to help them. It doesn't matter who she was because the actions (or lack thereof) of the Good characters were Neutral, and the "Neutral point" seems deserved. But imagine the same Good characters are on another quest and do something actually a little worse and closer to Evil, and then aren't given any Evil points. That's what I mean by "random" above. They could let a nobody commoner die today and get an alignment hit for it, then turn around tomorrow and do something worse to a prominent community leader and suffer no alignment point consequences despite it being both objectively and subjectively "worse."

Think of this from a different angle. We all know that no character is ever 100% toward any alignment. Even though the numbers really don't matter, just for this example let's pretend the 85 on a Good character's sheet is "typical." Then look at it like a crafting roll. 85% of the time, the character does Good things. 15% of the time, the character does things that could be Neutral or Evil. That is what is expected, not absolute and unwavering perfection in adherence to the alignment letters. To "punish" a Good character with an Evil point when she can be expected to do Neutral things from time to time but not "reward" her with a Good point when she does the Good things she is also expected to do seems wrong. I'm just saying it shouldn't be harder to go one way than the other. A Good act is a Good act no matter who does it.

I know the argument about it being easier to fall off the pedestal than stay on it, but I don't buy it. First, it is always stated in just that way, that it's easier to slide into evil than do good. No one ever says it's easier to slide into good than be evil. I'm not even sure that makes sense, so it's good no one says it. Notice that I didn't capitalize the words. That's because this concept is rooted in the real world ideas of good and evil, not game system ideas of Good and Evil. They are different things.

Besides all that, if points are withheld from those whose alignments are similar to the action ("You don't get a Good point because you are already Good, so it was expected."), then it becomes a system of easy punishment distribution with few rewards that are hard to gain. Players should not only have consequences for acting outside their characters' alignments, but should have rewards for acting within them, too, without the need for extra effort. Neither punishments nor rewards should be too easy or too hard to gain. Hand out points, sure, but hand them out as both punishment and reward without bias.

One problem with the "deserve" question ("Does this character deserve a small alignment shift?") is that alignment points have no value. How can you determine that a character deserves one point rather than two or five? More correctly, then, the value is determined on the fly with no guidelines. Of the two situations where Jennara was given Good points, which was "Gooder," helping refugees and survivors on the islands or paying for an inn that burned down? She got one Good point for the first, and two for the second. Was that one really twice as Good? I still like having earned the points, even if the numbers don't add up in my head. Was letting the dark elf bleed to death slowly of the same value on the Good-Evil axis as helping the survivors on Rohden? Both were one-point shifts. Jennara has also gotten a Law point, for bothering a tomb as little as possible and convincing others to follow the rules they set for themselves regarding the bothering of that tomb. Though they are different axes, is that bit of Lawful behavior about as much Lawful as the Good done for the survivors is Good? They were both one point of alignment shift. Maybe different axes aren't comparable, and that's fine. Actions on the same axis should be, and they are, but there isn't any comparing done and no guidelines for how to determine the value. That's a shame, because it would nice if the points did matter, though, again, there would be a lot of complaints, probably.

* I added "true" there because it's possible to manipulate a situation so that someone else throws the first punch and looks like the aggressor, though goading them into attack so they could be killed was the objective.

[Weeblie]

Originally Posted by Gulnyr

Were you not arguing a few posts back that the alignment system should not consider circumstances? And now you are saying circumstances should be considered? That's very confusing.

I'm curious to where you have found me state that circumstances should not be considered? Circumstances should always, in my opinion, be examined before one makes a final verdict. It's just that circumstances cannot excuse all sort of behaviours.

Originally Posted by Gulnyr

Also, your examples are vague, and I'm not seeing a conflict. Was the child attacked directly with little explanation, or was it collateral damage during an attack on a town, maybe? What did the dark elf do? Just live? "Killing" alone doesn't carry enough meaning to show the alignment. The PHB even adds more text to show what it means, and if killing, period, were Evil, then there would never, ever be any Good characters in any campaign. Killing to kill is Evil, but killing in true* self defense is alignment-void, meaning it doesn't cause any shift in alignment; the character is just reacting naturally to a threat. This is why I agree with you (just not for your reason) that those of Neutral alignment on the quest should not have been moved toward Evil; the act of killing was apparently defensive, first of all, and Neutral characters aren't obligated to help people they don't know. The Good characters, on the other hand, didn't help a stranger and risk themselves, thus acting Neutral rather than Good.

Agreed. The examples are somewhat vague, but that was on purpose, to reflect on that the exact circumstances (everything that lead up to the event) do have a strong bearing on the judgement, not merely the action (killing in this case) itself.

Originally Posted by Gulnyr

No, but neither would I appreciate having an Evil consequence point tacked on randomly when I could not expect a randomly attached Good reward point when the two situations were approximately of equal "value." If it takes X effort to lose a Good point, it should take a similar effort to gain one. If I should earn an Evil point, I want that Evil to be equal in value to the Good of the Good point. A character's position on the alignment scale is irrelevant. Alignment points are handed out rarely (in my experience, anyway, though I know some people have asked for them after quests and had them granted for this action or that because, hey, the numbers don't matter and neither do the points, really), so there is no reason to expect that the next time a similar situation arises that any Good character would be given an Evil point while an NPC bleeds, or that any Good act will be rewarded with a Good point.

I'm certain that you realise it's far easier to get evil points than good points, if you just think a little about it. It's really a no brainer to walk around and start killing people. The opposite which is most likely to toss oneself in the line of fire every now and then might work, but probably not for very long to make it really matter (one's character can only die so many times...).

Because of a core disagreement about whether the actual position on the scale mattering or not, a few of the points here is not very much debatable. The "almost equally easy" is very reasonable if the shifting is based on a linear scale, but is not if one accepts the notion of "being more difficult closer to the edges".

Originally Posted by Gulnyr

Think of this from a different angle. We all know that no character is ever 100% toward any alignment. Even though the numbers really don't matter, just for this example let's pretend the 85 on a Good character's sheet is "typical." Then look at it like a crafting roll. 85% of the time, the character does Good things. 15% of the time, the character does things that could be Neutral or Evil. That is what is expected, not absolute and unwavering perfection in adherence to the alignment letters. To "punish" a Good character with an Evil point when she can be expected to do Neutral things from time to time but not "reward" her with a Good point when she does the Good things she is also expected to do seems wrong. I'm just saying it shouldn't be harder to go one way than the other. A Good act is a Good act no matter who does it.

Is a good character still good merely because he spends 85% of his time donating to charity and helping the old and sick, while the rest 15% he uses to kick random beggars he founds on the street? This example is heavily exagerrated but still suitable to forward my thoughts on the matter. Small variations from one's alignment and I won't say a word, even a greater one if it is trivial issues and I will remain quiet. But a non-trivial issue? Hmm...

The absolute and unwavering perfection to the alignment is not required but I am of the very strong belief that something that's too severly outside the alignment of one's character should result in shifts, if not just in order to auto-balance the alignments.

An easy way to see this is:

1. Alice had a neutral alignment 20 years ago, and has acted accordingly to all the points integral to a neutral character for the last 20 years. Alice should therefore have a neutral alignment still.

2. Bob had an evil alignment 20 years ago, but has acted accordingly to all the points integral to a neutral character for the last 20 years (for simplicity, he has acted exactly like Alice for the last 20 years). Because it's equally easy to get from evil to neutral as to get from neutral to good, and Alice has an unchanged alignment, Bob should still remain evil today.

It is of my opinion that Bob's alignment in this case would be wrong. I do not consider the alignment system to be really karma based and hence not necessary for Bob to do good acts in order to "redeem" himself. Instead, prolonged acting against his previous alignment is enough to slowly move him towards a new one.

Originally Posted by Gulnyr

One problem with the "deserve" question ("Does this character deserve a small alignment shift?") is that alignment points have no value. How can you determine that a character deserves one point rather than two or five? More correctly, then, the value is determined on the fly with no guidelines. Of the two situations where Jennara was given Good points, which was "Gooder," helping refugees and survivors on the islands or paying for an inn that burned down? She got one Good point for the first, and two for the second. Was that one really twice as Good? I still like having earned the points, even if the numbers don't add up in my head. Was letting the dark elf bleed to death slowly of the same value on the Good-Evil axis as helping the survivors on Rohden? Both were one-point shifts. Jennara has also gotten a Law point, for bothering a tomb as little as possible and convincing others to follow the rules they set for themselves regarding the bothering of that tomb. Though they are different axes, is that bit of Lawful behavior about as much Lawful as the Good done for the survivors is Good? They were both one point of alignment shift. Maybe different axes aren't comparable, and that's fine. Actions on the same axis should be, and they are, but there isn't any comparing done and no guidelines for how to determine the value. That's a shame, because it would nice if the points did matter, though, again, there would be a lot of complaints, probably.

Alignment points do have a phycological RP value, or this thread would never have existed, would it? +/- 1 point... or even +/-10 points does not change the alignment itself.

But you are very right that the exact "value" of each point is very subjective. You have one thought about it, I have one, and ask someone else, they will have yet another opinion. Direct measurement between different events generating alignment shifts can really only be done if it's the same person handing the points out in both cases (not even always feasible then).

[Gulnyr]

Originally Posted by Weeblie

I'm curious to where you have found me state that circumstances should not be considered? Circumstances should always, in my opinion, be examined before one makes a final verdict. It's just that circumstances cannot excuse all sort of behaviours.

Could be confused memories on my part, or maybe an over-generalization of a specific circumstance that was deemed irrelevant. Sorry.

[ycleption]

I'm also going to add in here, if you feel like your character has been given an undeserved alignment point, you can always ask for a point the other way in the next quest, assuming you have taken some action to justify it. Some DMs run quests with more opportunities for showcasing alignment, but if that 15, 50, or 85 is important to you, you will find a way to get back there. There's a reason DMs hold those little debriefing things, and it can never hurt to ask for an alignment point, if you think it is deserved.

[Gulnyr]

That's actually how I recall it happening - "Can I have a point of Chaotic for doing that thing to the guy, please?" I don't have any problem with that, really. The only issue is whether alignment points matter at all, and whether they should all be of equal value if they do. I think it would be nice if they mattered and if one person's point was given for an equal level of alignment activity as another person's rather than one point counting for a great span of value. If they don't have equal value, it's hard to see how they could really matter, y'know?

[Weeblie]

(added more text to earlier post)

Originally Posted by Gulnyr

That's actually how I recall it happening - "Can I have a point of Chaotic for doing that thing to the guy, please?" I don't have any problem with that, really. The only issue is whether alignment points matter at all, and whether they should all be of equal value if they do. I think it would be nice if they mattered and if one person's point was given for an equal level of alignment activity as another person's rather than one point counting for a great span of value. If they don't have equal value, it's hard to see how they could really matter, y'know?

"They matter for the one handing it out, and they matter for me (if I wish them to matter for me). For others? They shouldn't matter."

Edit: "They" in this case is refering to whether it is +1, +2, +3 or +4...

[Link092]

Just my two cents:

I would imagine that you would had out those few rare alignment points to push the characters alignment towards the alignment acted out. so your not necessarily being pushed towards evil, but to neutral. Another thing to consider is, If a Lawful good character does something neutral (good), give him/her a 1 point push in that direction, but i he/her does something totally opposite (chaotic neutral), that would reward(punishment) maybe 2, because that alignment is 2 steps away. Or maybe a Chaotic Evil character acts totally out of alignment, and does something good, Lawfully. I imagine that he should get 4 points, 2 to good, 2 to lawful. (or more, depending on the severity of the act.) Personally, I would award points dynamically, as actions should be evaluated in both aspects of moral and ethic.

As for True neutral characters, the best I can think of is to give them some points to put them smack center of the grid. like you all said, there aren't any "neutral points". Then again, you could always replace it with XP.

[Gulnyr]

Originally Posted by Weeblie

I'm certain that you realise it's far easier to get evil points than good points, if you just think a little about it. It's really a no brainer to walk around and start killing people. The opposite which is most likely to toss oneself in the line of fire every now and then might work, but probably not for very long to make it really matter (one's character can only die so many times...).

No, I don't realize that. If Eddy Evil starts walking around killing people, will he easily gain Evil points? What if he decides to give 100,000 True to a charity just because and dive in front of poisoned arrows to save strangers? Would he then get only a single Good point, because Good points are harder to gain?

You stated previously that if you are near the edges you shouldn't gain points as easily in that direction. If that holds, and we avoid the exaggeration I just made to demonstrate another point, then everyone necessarily eventually becomes Neutral, since it is easier, by your definition, to gain points in the opposite alignment. This is like saying everyone is True Neutral and actually force themselves to be other alignments, rather than saying some people are naturally inclined to some alignment other than Neutral. I think the latter is truer, though I do think many characters should be Neutral rather than Good or Evil.

Is a good character still good merely because he spends 85% of his time donating to charity and helping the old and sick, while the rest 15% he uses to kick random beggars he founds on the street?

Despite your exaggeration, the basic notion is correct, yes. Since a character's alignment is judged by the overall average of his actions, then a character who does Good things 85% of the time and Neutral or Evil things 15% of the time is still Good. Even Good characters are not Good now and then, and the RP is an important factor.

Small variations from one's alignment and I won't say a word, even a greater one if it is trivial issues and I will remain quiet. But a non-trivial issue? Hmm...

I never suggested otherwise. I still agree that the Evil point to the Good characters on your quest was alright.

The absolute and unwavering perfection to the alignment is not required but I am of the very strong belief that something that's too severly outside the alignment of one's character should result in shifts, if not just in order to auto-balance the alignments.

It's the balance part that gets me. You've said that it's easier to get points in the opposite alignment. The numbers don't matter right now, remember, so NG at 80 is just as Good as a NG at 100 and will lose just as many Good points for a given Neutral or Evil action. If that is the standard, then everyone drifts slowly to Neutral, period. "Everyone is Neutral" is not the right balance.

2. Bob had an evil alignment 20 years ago, but has acted accordingly to all the points integral to a neutral character for the last 20 years (for simplicity, he has acted exactly like Alice for the last 20 years). Because it's equally easy to get from evil to neutral as to get from neutral to good, and Alice has an unchanged alignment, Bob should still remain evil today.

It is of my opinion that Bob's alignment in this case would be wrong. I do not consider the alignment system to be really karma based and hence not necessary for Bob to do good acts in order to "redeem" himself. Instead, prolonged acting against his previous alignment is enough to slowly move him towards a new one.

Agreed. Bob should never have been approved for Evil if he couldn't play Evil, and a correction of his alignment is not a bad thing. We are all expected to play our characters' alignments properly, remember. That really has nothing to do with whether or not there should be rewards as often as punishments, which is my main point. If you want to discuss correcting improper alignments on characters, maybe we should start building a standard.

Alignment points do have a phycological RP value

Yes, exactly. If every alignment point given is a punishment for drifting, and there are few pats-on-the-back reward points, then it becomes a morale problem. And everyone becomes Neutral. And, to tie this into value and Ycleption's point, if some DMs are using them for psychological reinforcement of actions, good or bad, and all a player has to do to recover is a point toss out the tiniest notion of the alignment they want on the next quest with the next DM (because value is subjective), then the points also lose a lot of their psychological value. This is basically the situation now, unfortunately.

I guess the simple summary of my points is that some standard would be nice, even though I know it is highly unlikely, and that rewards are just as important psychologically as punishments and shouldn't be overlooked for vague "edge" reasons on a scale that is already irrelevant because the numbers have no meaning.

[Weeblie]

Originally Posted by Gulnyr

No, I don't realize that. If Eddy Evil starts walking around killing people, will he easily gain Evil points?

How many innocent children can you kill per hour, compared to how many knives you can throw yourself before at the same time? How much money can you donate compared to how much you can steal?

There are strictly "per rule" nothing that makes it easier to get evil points than good points. But in practice, it's far easier to perform an evil act rather than a good one with the same "strength".

Easier to raze a house rather than building one, you know.

ps. Easier or more difficult is here calculated from the point of view of a neutral character.

Originally Posted by Gulnyr

You stated previously that if you are near the edges you shouldn't gain points as easily in that direction. If that holds, and we avoid the exaggeration I just made to demonstrate another point, then everyone necessarily eventually becomes Neutral, since it is easier, by your definition, to gain points in the opposite alignment.

You cannot draw that logical conclusion as it would be very similiar to "it's easier to spend money rather than getting more of it, and therefore everyone is broke".

If we base on a "more difficult on the edges" system, you have:

1. People who acts neutral will eventually end up as neutral.
2. People who shows a general pattern of good will eventually stabilize somewhere on the good part of the axis, exactly where depending on "how good" he or she is.
3. People who shows a general pattern of evil will eventually stabilize somewhere on the evil part of the axis, exactly where depending on "how evil" he or she is.

Why would it end up as relatively stable? Easy... Consider two actions "kill an innocent" and "save an innocent". Assume for now that they are exactly the opposite to each other. For simplicity, weight the actions as following, based on the character's alignment:

Good: "Save" = 1, "Kill" = -5
Neutral: "Save" = 3, "Save" = -3
Evil: "Save" = 5, "Kill" = 1

What does they have to do to ensure that they will not change their alignments?

Good: 5 saves for 1 kill
Neutral: equal split between saves and kills
Evil: 1 save for 5 kills

So... to remain good, you actually have to do a much higher proportions of good deeds.

While this does not address the "85% pure good, 15% pure evil"-weirdness, what it does address is the later "I can remain good by only playing neutral, under a completely linear system".

Originally Posted by Gulnyr

Agreed. Bob should never have been approved for Evil if he couldn't play Evil, and a correction of his alignment is not a bad thing. We are all expected to play our characters' alignments properly, remember. That really has nothing to do with whether or not there should be rewards as often as punishments, which is my main point. If you want to discuss correcting improper alignments on characters, maybe we should start building a standard.

It was merely as an example on why I think a linear "all good actions result in equal shifts, no matter what alignment the character originally had" system has a few too huge flaws. The "you don't have to play good, to stay good"-thing.

Not meant to be applied on PCs in general. If someone was consistently and clearly breaking their alignment, then it will be really handled in an OOC administrative fashion instead.

The threshold tend to be very high anyway, as we do are aware of that DMs do not always have all the info about people's characters, certainily not as clear picture as the players' behind the characters themselves.