Policy questions regarding new alignment rules

[SteveMaurer]

First of all, let me thank the GM team for writing up the new alignment policy rules.  Having them in black and white ensures that there will be no further mix ups.

I do have a few  questions, however, that weren't made clear by your policy...

First -- who is it that makes the determination of whether someone is playing within their stated alignment?   Is this done on an individual GM basis?   Is there a vote?

Second -- What is the criteria used to determine whether someone is acting within their alignment?  I noticed that Hellblazer was using the documentation currently posted on the site (which is the classic AD&D definitions), but I also know that you are moving away from AD&D, and apparently turned him down for adhering to those.   So how do we know what is, or is not, acting outside one's alignment?

Third -- What, specifically, are the sanctions that you apply?  (Beyond restricting alignment change?)

Fourth -- As part of this policy, is there any warning given before the sanctions are applied?    If, for example, a neutral PC has been determined by the Layonaran powers that be, to be simply acting too Good for their approved alignment, do you send them a PM, warning them to start being more Evil, before you launch into your retributions?

Fifth -- For PCs who are determined to play outside their alignment, are you going to have some form of explicit path of atonement to establish that they've come back under your good graces?

Sixth -- What is your grandfathering policy?   Classic AD&D says that alignment changes with behavior: if a PC acts chaotic evil, then they get that alignment assigned to them, whether the player wants it or not.   You have set up a system here where alignment is like a religion, and it requires huge character development (two CDQs), to alter a PCs allegiance to it.   You have every right to do that, but what do you intend to do for players who have been, prior to the rollout of this new policy, playing their PCs using the default AD&D assumptions?

Specifically I want to know if my PC, Rottie, is on your blacklist because he has been trying to follow (what he sees as) the precepts of Az'atta, even though his approved alignment is Chaotic Neutral.    (I would argue that Az'atta herself, who has become  increasingly stringent with her continued definition, is not playing anywhere near her "approved CG" alignment, and really should be reclassified as a Lawful Good deity - which would explain why Rottie is having so much trouble with her rules, rules, rules.)

 Similarly, Hellblazer's Brian (Njord) also seems to have been rejected for an alignment shift - because for at least the last half a year his playing classic AD&D has been in violation of rules that you just rolled out this week.

Any help you can give on these issues would be appreciated.    How to get a PC off your blacklist is the most important one from my perspective.

[lonnarin]

IF Darth Vader witnesses his son being electro-tortured to death by the Emperor, he must complete his A-90 forms, copy them in triplicate and send them to the appropriate Jedi Council for approval, pending a 6-8 week processing period.  By this time Luke is already dead, so Darth Vader's application for a point of good is denied.

[ycleption]

Just to be clear, these are not new rules. At least as long as I have been here, that's been the rules for alignment change. It may not have been laid out as clearly as it could have been, but the rule has always been to RP your alignment.

[SteveMaurer]

It may not have been laid out as clearly as it could have been, but the rule has always been to RP your alignment.

That's the rule in AD&D as well.   If you don't RP your alignment, your alignment gets changed to what you do RP.


Please understand, I'm not attacking anyone here.   This is an interesting, and very much different, type of alignment system.   But until rules are actually published publicly, they're not really rules.

You know how the saying goes: if a tree falls over in a forest, then gets up angry and stomps on the adventurers who rolled badly on the wandering monster table resulting in a TPK, and there was nothing to hear their screams of terror other than other treents looking on in amusement, did it really happen?

[Dorganath]

First of all, let me thank the GM team for writing up the new alignment policy rules.  Having them in black and white ensures that there will be no further mix ups.

Right, as ycleption said, these are not new rules, simply a codification of what already existed.

On to the questions...

First -- who is it that makes the determination of whether someone is playing within their stated alignment?   Is this done on an individual GM basis?   Is there a vote?

The GM team decides this. We reach a consensus and take each instance on a case-by case basis.

Second -- What is the criteria used to determine whether someone is acting within their alignment?  I noticed that Hellblazer was using the documentation currently posted on the site (which is the classic AD&D definitions), but I also know that you are moving away from AD&D, and apparently turned him down for adhering to those.   So how do we know what is, or is not, acting outside one's alignment?

Observation primarily, followed by interpretation, seeing patterns, etc.  We're still sticking with AD&D alignments for as long as we're on NWN.  Beyond that, it's a different system, but that doesn't apply now.  One knows what is and isn't within one's alignment by using the posted alignment guidelines that have been on LORE for a very long time.

Third -- What, specifically, are the sanctions that you apply?  (Beyond restricting alignment change?)

Every case is different.  Typically though, it's not a "sanction" but a "start playing your proper alignment".  In truth, we've had very little instances of chronic alignment violation here, that we've never had to pursue it to its ends. A short-term ban would not be out of the question though if a player patently refused to play according to one's alignment.  This, to my knowledge, has never happened.

Fourth -- As part of this policy, is there any warning given before the sanctions are applied?    If, for example, a neutral PC has been determined by the Layonaran powers that be, to be simply acting too Good for their approved alignment, do you send them a PM, warning them to start being more Evil, before you launch into your retributions?

Except in grievous cases of policy violation (not necessarily alignment rules), the GM team gives proper warnings and attempts to work with the player to correct his/her behavior before taking punitive measures.  Again, every case is different. It's been a rare thing that we've banned someone on the spot for anything, but it has happened and it has been quite deserving, due to the blatant and extreme nature of their violation(s).

The GM Team does not make a practice of making arbitrary decisions against players.  There's always a good and documented reason.

Fifth -- For PCs who are determined to play outside their alignment, are you going to have some form of explicit path of atonement to establish that they've come back under your good graces?

There's really no path.  Either the character is played within its alignment, in which case, we're happy, or it isn't, in which case we will take steps.  Generally, if the playing outside of alignment is part of an intended, but unsubmitted/unapproved, alignment shift, we will require staying in the proper alignment for some period of time (2 RL months generally) before submitting for the shift.

Sixth -- What is your grandfathering policy?   Classic AD&D says that alignment changes with behavior: if a PC acts chaotic evil, then they get that alignment assigned to them, whether the player wants it or not.   You have set up a system here where alignment is like a religion, and it requires huge character development (two CDQs), to alter a PCs allegiance to it.   You have every right to do that, but what do you intend to do for players who have been, prior to the rollout of this new policy, playing their PCs using the default AD&D assumptions?

Again, this is not a new policy.  There's nothing to "grandfather".  This is simply a codification of rules which we have stated for years but which were scattered and not easy to find.

Classic AD&D also used to assign character penalties (loss of levels, stat hits, etc) for unsanctioned alignment shifts, at the GM's discretion.

So while alignment does change with behavior, administratively speaking, we want players to get approval for a change in behavior before doing so.  

Specifically I want to know if my PC, Rottie, is on your blacklist because he has been trying to follow (what he sees as) the precepts of Az'atta, even though his approved alignment is Chaotic Neutral.    (I would argue that Az'atta herself, who has become  increasingly stringent with her continued definition, is not playing anywhere near her "approved CG" alignment, and really should be reclassified as a Lawful Good deity - which would explain why Rottie is having so much trouble with her rules, rules, rules.)

Rottie's case has been commented upon by the CA team and I'll not expand further upon that.  There's no "blacklist" as such. We expect from Rottie the same thing as any other character.  If he was approved as CN, then he needs to be played as CN until such time as you are given the OK to shift toward CG.

Similarly, Hellblazer's Brian (Njord) also seems to have been rejected for an alignment shift - because for at least the last half a year his playing classic AD&D has been in violation of rules that you just rolled out this week.

It's called "house rules".  And in this "house" we have long stated that it is required to play one's alignment until such time as the character is approved to shift.  So Brian is not being denied for violating a "new rule" for the last 6 months but rather for taking it upon himself to play an Evil alignment before ever asking for a shift.  Beyond this, I won't comment, as this is being addressed by the CA Team.

Please understand, because this has come up several times in your questions, that these are not new rules.  They have been around the entire time.

Any help you can give on these issues would be appreciated.    How to get a PC off your blacklist is the most important one from my perspective.

There is no blacklist.  The CA team gives you instructions how to proceed.  My advice is to follow them.

Hope that helps.

[Nehetsrev]

Well, I think what was meant to be said is that it's not been a secret, and in fact was written in the rules somewhere on the forums (likely in the section for new players if I remember rightly) that it's always been the rule that players should have to play the alignment their character was approved for at creation until they submit and request to shift to another alignment. Then, after they've requested an alignment shift and their request has been approved, they are allowed to begin RPing the slow transition to the new alignment (usually over the course of a few weeks to a couple months of Real-time, and often with the requirement of a CDQ or two). I know that's always been clear to me since I started playing here back in 2006 anyway, so I must've read it somewhere. Forgive me if I'm feeling too lazy at the moment to go digging for where it was I read it.. it might've even been on the old forums, since Layonara was using different forums back then, though I'd have thought it would have been migrated over.
 
 Though I might add that I've always felt it a bit much not to allow for more sudden changes in alignment with good reasons, such as spiritual redemption and repentance when a bad guy realizes what he's doing is wrong because someone he actually does care about gets hurt by it, or the good guy who finally breaks from witnessing one tragedy too many that could've been prevented and then goes vigilante.  These would have to be instances handled in CDQ's or on DM run quests though, with good legitimizing support from both the player and the DM(s) involved.

[Dorganath]

Adding another reply here since I want to make sure it's seen

Similarly, Hellblazer's Brian (Njord) also seems to have been rejected for an alignment shift - because for at least the last half a year his playing classic AD&D has been in violation of rules that you just rolled out this week.

I direct you to this page, which has more explicit statements about a shift to an Evil alignment. It was last updated in 2008 and has 4 prior revisions.

LORE: Alignment Rules

A player may request to have their character slowly change alignment to LE or NE via RP if they have meet the nine month community member and at least one of their characters is at least level 14 or higher. This happens via RP and must be tracked in a Character Development Thread and must happen over time. Please be aware that it takes time for a character to change their alignment in game—and it must be done via RP that is approved and is acceptable to the community as a whole. It takes at least six real-life (RL) weeks for an alignment to change a single step via RP, and it usually takes at least two months.

In the example cited, the player began playing Evil before making the request.

[Dorganath]

Incidentally, I'm not trying to call any undue attention to Hellblazer's recent request. I am simply responding to the example and allegations made by the original poster.

[Thunder Pants]

I have a quick question that's fairly related to this because I've never quite understood the system (I see it as a catch 22 but i won't get into that now).

If the DM team has determined that a character has not been playing his alignment does the player get a chance to defend his characters actions, since it's motivations more then anything that determine if an act was good or evil.

In other words, If my Evil character Tim saved a small child from certain death that would be considered a good act, but if he only did it because there was a reward for returning the kid then the act is really not that good any more.

[SteveMaurer]

LORE: Alignment Rules

May I suggest the following edits to bring the Alignment Rules into sync with your clarified policies?  (Add the bold, delete the [strike]strike[/strike].)

A player may request to have their character slowly change alignment [strike]to LE or NE via RP[/strike].  For changes to LE and NE alignments, this will be approved only if they have meet the nine month community member and at least one of their characters is at least level 14 or higher.

[strike]This[/strike] Once approved, any alignment change happens via RP and must be tracked in a Character Development Thread and must happen over time.Please be aware that it takes time for a character to change their alignment in game—and it must be done via RP that is approved and is acceptable to the community as a whole. It takes at least six real-life (RL) weeks for an alignment to change a single step via RP, and it usually takes at least two months.

Until an alignment change is approved, players are not allowed to roleplay outside their approved alignment, and doing so will affect whether the PC is approved for the change.   So do not just start roleplaying the new alignment, as this is not how Layonara works.

I hope this is taken as a constructive suggestion.  It makes it clear that your rules do not apply merely to evil shifts, but to all types of alignment changes.

[Hellblazer]

I just want to add two things here. First well if I had known that progressive change was available, i would have went that way. It must have slipped through what I have read a year ago about the changes in alignments.
 
 Second. Although I appreciate the desire for transparency that steve is trying to get here. I feel compelled to say that I didn't ask in anyway for him to do so.

[Dorganath]

I have a quick question that's fairly related to this because I've never quite understood the system (I see it as a catch 22 but i won't get into that now).

If the DM team has determined that a character has not been playing his alignment does the player get a chance to defend his characters actions, since it's motivations more then anything that determine if an act was good or evil.

In other words, If my Evil character Tim saved a small child from certain death that would be considered a good act, but if he only did it because there was a reward for returning the kid then the act is really not that good any more.

This is an example of why every case is different.  One act does not equate to an alignment shift.  We look at patterns of behavior.

In an instance above, it sounds a lot like a quest situation, and in such a situation it would behoove the player to to communicate with the GM as to your motivations.

Discussion is always welcomed, as is explanation.

[Dorganath]

May I suggest the following edits to bring the Alignment Rules into sync with your clarified policies?  (Add the bold, delete the [strike]strike[/strike].)

I hope this is taken as a constructive suggestion.  It makes it clear that your rules do not apply merely to evil shifts, but to all types of alignment changes.

The appropriate place for this suggestion is down in the LORE subforums. In reality, in light of the recent clarification, that entire post should be worked into LORE.  That page I quoted was specifically for Evil and Chaotic Neutral alignments, and specific subraces, because special requirements apply over and above our normal expectations regarding alignment.  

What's written on the page I linked is perfectly fine for the purpose for which it is intended.  The recent policy posting is a more generalized statement of alignment change rules.  That said, I leave such decisions as to what to change and edit to the capable hands of the LORE team.

[miltonyorkcastle]

May I suggest the following edits to bring the Alignment Rules into sync with your clarified policies?

I'll be updating LORE to reflect the recent update to alignment shift approvals. I have not yet done so first because I was waiting for the update to be given the green-light to be posted in the forums, and second because I'm still debating on how I want to lay out the info with regard to the general player rules as well as the character submissions info and of course the alignment rules themselves.

EDIT: Sheesh, Dorg. I was trying to respond to the LORE bit, but apparently not quite fast enough!

[SteveMaurer]

 Second. Although I appreciate the desire for transpirancy that steve is trying to get here. I feel compeled to say that I didn't ask in anyway for him to do so.

I don't think anyone thinks you put me up to anything, HB.   I have quite the reputation for asking questions already.


But of course, it's all for a good cause.   As much work as I create by getting stuff thought through, clarified, and published, I think that the enlightened Layonara team knows that what I'm doing helps them in the end.    It sets expectations beforehand.

Airing things out is always the best policy.  It keeps people all on the same page, things running smoothly, and reduces any feelings of favoritism that might arise from having unwritten rules on the server.

[twidget658]

Fourth -- As part of this policy, is there any warning given before the sanctions are applied? If, for example, a neutral PC has been determined by the Layonaran powers that be, to be simply acting too Good for their approved alignment, do you send them a PM, warning them to start being more Evil, before you launch into your retributions?

 
 A good indication that you see if a player is acting out of his/her alignment is, after a quest, event or situation, the character receives a slight alignment shift from a GM on the spot. The best example I can provide is the latest one that I have witnessed...a chaotic good character got into an argument with another character. The two characters were going back and forth with just talk and banter. The chaotic good character started making threats, which eventually led into the chaotic good character attacking the other one. The chaotic good character killed the other character and emoted dragging the body to the nearest town's walls. The chaotic good character received an alignment shift towards evil for attacking and killing another character unjustly. In this instance, I went to the scene when I saw the situation developing on my chat window. Also, there were some PVP requests from the chaotic good character. I did not approve the request, but the other character did. Once the PVP widget is used and agreed one, PVP can commence, BUT does not have to. In this case, though, it did.
 
 PM's, tells in game, alignment shifts, etc are all indications that you are not acting within your alignment.

[Dorganath]

Airing things out is always the best policy.  It keeps people all on the same page, things running smoothly, and reduces any feelings of favoritism that might arise from having unwritten rules on the server.

Ah yes, but in that are other hidden perils...

There are some rules and guidelines that are meant to be simple.  Taking the current example of "you must play your approved alignment," this is pretty simple.  Left as stated, we are putting some faith and trust in the community to use their best, common sense to understand what we mean without us having to spell everything out in explicit and minute detail.  Unfortunately, we often enough get people (and not pointing any fingers here...this has happened lots since I started 5 years ago) who do not understand or by way of their actions require us to get more detailed.  There's nothing wrong with concise rules, but at some point, making the rules clear, concise and thorough takes hours upon hours of discussion, writing, review, editing and finally posting (followed often by on-forum clarifications). It's a time drain to the extreme, taking the GM staff away from things like...interacting with players, running quests and enriching the world as a whole, but sadly it has been necessary over the years.

Now unfortunately, what then happens is that our rules become cumbersome as a result.  They're not difficult, but they're long, and people see that, especially new people, and they get turned off in a lot of ways because "we have too many rules."  And yes, this too has been mentioned from time to time.

So at some point there is a balance between extremely explicit and detailed policies and the "KISS" principle.  I personally prefer the latter (even though I have written the former now and then), and as far as keeping the spectre of Favoritism at bay, present all rulings of the less-defined policies in a public and open manner.  This lets us explain why we decided in one way or the other in a way where everyone can read it and ask questions.  This GM Team generally operates on the principle of transparency.  While our discussions amongst the team are not typically visible to the community at large, the results often are, and they are presented openly.  

This is especially true for decisions involving members of one of our various teams, as we know that some in the community watch for signs that we are favoring our own...something we actively try to avoid.

It is very difficult to have something which works for all cases, as most cases are individual and different.

Once more, I am not pointing fingers, but I need to step away from this discussion and further clarification on these points, as I've spent too much time on it already. I think they've been more than clear, but if there is some confusion, I'm sure someone else can answer with equivalent efficacy.

[twidget658]

A general policy or rule leaves people wondering how much they can push the rule, wondering how far they can go to get to the boundaries. By setting clear, concise and explicit rules defines the boundaries for the people that likes to push them. In my opinion, of course.

[ycleption]

I'm just going to throw this out there:

Alignments can be difficult.
Alignments can feel constraining.
Alignments can be the subject of disagreement among reasonable people.

I don't come from a DnD background, and had to learn this alignment stuff on the fly. I have expressed my own frustrations about the alignment system, on the forums and on IRC. I've had difficulties with my own characters, trying to play their alignments properly, but at the same time not let my RP become rigid or pigeonholed.

The good news is that if you have had difficulties with these kinds of issues, I will bet you money someone is having or has had a similar problem. When I've had trouble playing my characters' alignments, I've brought it up on IRC, and gotten a lot of very useful advice. For those who don't like IRC, there's tons of stuff on the forums. One of the best pieces I've read about RPing alignments is here (it's even stickied, so you can find it easily!). The trickier to define/play alignments have a lot written about them, too (for example, see here for a discussion of CN).

My point is, this is a rich community, and whatever you feel about the alignments/rules for shifting alignments/restrictions on alignments, the resources are out there if you have questions about them, or to help you RP, or figure out whatever it is that you have issues with.