Playing Another Character's Class

[Script Wrecked]

What I mean is that a character has values, beliefs, attitudes, experiences, behavior patterns, prejudices, etc... the alignment describes, in a very rough form, all of those other aspects of a character. Except for being helpful to the player in RPing, it should not be something that locks the character into scripted responses that don't don't take into account those factors listed above, that, in my view, define a character.

...

Players should play their characters, and not forget the reasons that their characters are a certain alignment - and sometimes the very reasons for being a particular alignment may cause a character to take a specific action which is opposed to their general outlook or behavior. RP is about playing a character, telling a story, and nine little boxes can never tell you how a person would act in every situation in real life, and shouldn't be expected to in a game either

Absolutely. It would seem the alignment system is very simplistic and does a poor job of capturing the totality of the character's (umm...) character. "Very rough form" is an accurate description.

Again, I can see why some people feel that way, I don't know that I have seen "free" dispensing of contrary adjustments, any more that positive adjustments. I think its unfortunate that that is the perception of some (many? most?), and again, I can only say I think its because alignment shift are rare things that people have that attitude.

Probably the problem comes from the fear that an essential attribute is being adjusted against the intent of the player which has consequences for their mechanical progression. If alignment was purely a roleplaying score, people would (possibly) be less hung up about shifts.

[Gulnyr]

But I also request alignment shifts when I feel that they are warranted.

Awesome.  It's cool that you've found a way to make the points matter to you.  I've never considered that, probably because the numbers really and truly mean absolutely nothing to how I'm going to play Jennara.  She's Lawful Good, not 86/88 or any other set of numbers, and who she is is more than the alignment can show, anyway.

But we also shouldn't be completely against them.

I'm not against alignment point distribution.  I'm against alignment point distribution that has no definition and no standards, that would cause extra work for DMs, that would be exploitable, that would cause any amount of grumbling at any level.  I think meeting those conditions is unlikely, and I'll admit they may be high standards.  Oddly enough, I think a good compromise is giving out alignment points rarely, and only on those occasions when they are clearly deserved, including a post-event discussion of the whys and wherefores; or just because people ask for them and can offer some scrap of a reason since they really don't mean anything.  In other words, the way it's generally done now.

[Aerimor]

You encourage character power growth with XP.

Encourage role play of alignment with alignment points.  

The system you have is what you have, bashing it or wishing for a differant system is a waste of time.  Use what you have, make what you can of it.

We all know if you kill someone for no reason you get evil points.  Why do you not get lawful points for going out of your way to uphold laws?  Inability by DM's to recognise when such is being done, or no previous presidence?

In any case, I agree whole heartedly, use the system you have.  Penalise/reward points based on character action.  I for one feel greatly slighted in never being rewarded a Lawful point with Aerimor, even when he upheld the current accepted system of an unknown person over a person he belives to be honorable and an associate.

I also felt slighted not being rewarded more evil points to my very good character when he did something I thought would give him regretful nightmares.  I asked for more of each in both instances.  The evil points were doubled and rewarded, no lawful points we rewarded.  These are the two easiest instances.  I personally think DM's are hesitant/afraid to pass out points due to player's takign it to the boards and refusing to accept what is.  Even though their are other avenues to replace them.

[lonnarin]

You might not be so in favour of alignment shifts if you did not agree with the reason they were given out.

In the interest of thread necromancy... here is the MARATHON debate that this particular linked event inspired soon thereafter.  This is what happens when Lonn has an incredibly boring job with unlimited access to the computer.

http://forums.layonara.com/roleplaying/202182-refusing-heal-overtly-evil-evil.html

[Dorganath]

*hijacks the thread*

Yes, but what alignment is Robin Hood?  

In all seriousness, this (alignment) is another one of those instances where we have 100 people in a room with 100 opinions. It's worth saying, though, that whatever your interpretation as a player, the end adjudicator is going to be the GM.  This is how it was for me in PnP gaming, and ultimately how it should be here.

On the subject of alignment points being given more often...well...yes and no.  Alignment rewards should be given if someone is, in fact, playing closer to the "ideal" for their alignment, rather than just handing out points for when characters stray from their current alignment some.

In any case, I'd rather not think of hits to someone's alignment as a punishment.  In many cases (and I can think of several such instances), they're warnings.  In other cases, they're a reflection of actions taken. You, as a player, need to reconcile these reflections and how they affect your character present and future.

As for whether alignment defines a character's framework of actions or reflects it...well, both.  It's a "feedback loop" of sorts for the player, as characters are fully unaware of their alignments.

Lastly, the quantification of numbers of "Good" acts vs. "Evil" acts...that's really the wrong metric.  For some types of characters, a single act or evil is significant.  Is it a life-changer? Not necessarily, but a Toranite paladin slaughtering a baby (or allowing it to happen) should be strongly impacted by that on a character level, even if the resulting shift was relatively small.

Alignment is a framework, but it's vague and imprecise.  It should, however, reflect the long-term pattern of behavior, even though a character may occasionally stray from this pattern.  It's when "straying" becomes the norm that it becomes an issue.

[Alatriel]

Robin Hood was CG

[Gulnyr]

I'm not sure this is a good idea, but...

I was thinking of campaign rules for different games for a totally different reason and remembered a rule from somewhere regarding extra experience gain for individual units.  The basic concept is that all surviving units receive experience (or advancement points or whatever they were) as normal, and then each player picks one surviving unit from the opposing team that stood out for whatever reason and that unit gets a bonus.  The way I (halfway) thought this may apply to alignment points is similar, but it's a bit more committee and not at all required.

So, imagine that some DM'd event has completed and it's after-quest chatter time.  If you would like, you can nominate one other character to receive a single point shift in whatever direction seems appropriate and give a reasonably detailed reason you think they deserve it.  If the nominated player feels it's not something their character really deserves, he can offer a counter reason.  The DM would be the final arbiter.  To keep it from getting out of hand with points flying all over the place all the time, the party can vote (one way or another), meaning only one (or maybe two) character(s) get the official nomination.  Or the DM can just limit the number of points given per event to only one or two, choosing the recipients based on the best reasoned nomination and/or his own judgment; this is the literal "one man, one vote" route.

Some pros of this would be increased alignment point distribution, a sense of community appreciation for alignment RP (similar to the kudos thread, but narrowed only to alignment), and (I hate to say it this way) a "sharing of the blame" in the case of points opposed to a character's alignment.

The biggest problem I can see is that people can be sensitive about their characters and their RP and may have strong opinions on alignment, so nominating a character for a point opposing his alignment could be taken personally and cause hard feelings.  That's why I suggested there has to be a reasonably detailed reason when a nomination is made, and why a counter reason is allowed, and why the DM is the final arbiter.  With some discussion about it, maybe everyone can see where the other is coming from and any points awarded would be better taken in stride.  It's also why no one should feel compelled to nominate anyone ever.  If nothing particularly alignmenty happened, don't make a nomination.  Save it for something special so the points have some sort of meaning.

Two other cons are the need for a DM (some people make fewer quests and may feel left out, though the kudos thread is still there, which is for RP overall and not just alignment play, anyway), and the perception bias of extrovert vs. introvert characters and leaders vs. followers.  What I mean there is that some characters stand out in the crowd more (for any number of reasons) and may overshadow more subdued characters in a way, and a character in a leadership position within the party may have more obvious opportunities to make an alignmenty decision than a following character.  So it would be important to consider the words and actions of everyone before making a nomination so as not to always favor the flamboyant, heh.


Yeah, the con list looks so much longer.  It's the scientist in me, always trying to poke holes in my own theories to test their mettle.

[Cinnabar]

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

Wasn't this thread originally about not playing another character's class (race, alignment, etc.)?

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

Somehow turning it into a group decision doesn't seem helpful by way of not rendering the alignment component (as that player chooses to portray it) of a PC superfluous. What happened to the thought of letting the DMs be the only ones to be the "RP police"?

[Gulnyr]

Somehow turning it into a group decision doesn't seem helpful by way of not rendering the alignment component (as that player chooses to portray it) of a PC superfluous. What happened to the thought of letting the DMs be the only ones to be the "RP police"?

If the "it" in the bold part doesn't refer to my suggestion, then this probably won't make any sense.

First, it has nothing to do with RP police.  It has to do with making alignment points more likely to be awarded without making it about RP police at all and without putting all the responsibility and nonsense of it on the DMs.  No DM has offered a reason why she doesn't pass out alignment points more often, but if I were a DM, I'd probably avoid it most of the time given the crazy flak it can cause.  If players and DMs discuss it together, maybe a lot of the flak can be avoided and alignment points will be seen as more than just pats on the back and "punishments" for stepping out of line.  Or not.  I'm cool with things as they are, y'know?

Second, how do you make a character's alignment superfluous by awarding him alignment points he's earned?

[Cinnabar]

@ Gulnyr: My comment wasn't directed at you specifically, though I saw your suggestion as a slippery slope in encouraging the player community to be in the business of judging someone's alignment (or whatever) portryal of their own PCs. I was merely pointing out that I thought the thread had been going (for some time) in the wrong direction.  "Let's have the DMs be the DMs", is all I am saying; there's enough 'helpful' advice from other players about how PCs, not their own, are/should be portrayed, as it is.

Secondly, it's not the points awarded I object to (I've received such and had the occasion explained; hopefully I've learned from the gentle reminder), but the public discussion which would likely require the player to justify (via 'counter reason') his own portrayal to the player community (as opposed to the DM, which would certainly be appropriate). IMO, the whys and wherefores of a PC's actions are not the province of other players (though their PCs may have an interest/question/objection, IC). It's the probable muddling of the IC/OOC line of separation that I see as the problem with your suggestion; there's also enough metagaming as it is.

[Gulnyr]

I did say it might not be a good idea, heh.  I don't disagree with what you're saying, really.  I think there are potentially more downs than ups with the suggestion.  There could be solutions (or semi-solutions) to some of what you've brought up.

The players wouldn't be judging anyone, at least not directly or officially or anymore than they already do behind each others backs, heh.  They would (or should, because they'd look silly if they didn't) only nominate characters for a shift based on a definable event.  It's still up to the DM to judge the validity of the nomination, make the call, and "be the DM."  Any counter by the nominated player wouldn't have to be public, but could be on the DM channel.  That seems perfectly reasonable.  I just think open discussion of why stuff happens the way it happens can help promote good RP, though I understand the problems of metagaming and crossing IC and OOC, and I can see how those problems can outweigh any gain by being public about reasons for actions.

I did just think of another pro, though: if people are going to judgmental anyway, why not put it to use in a positive way?  haha!

Anyway, if you (plural, in general, not anyone specific) are really interested in seeing alignment points passed out more often, try something yourself.  A player initiated idea might go somewhere.  Try this one or not.  I'm easy.