I understand your point, but it does raise the question to which extend we are still bound by the rules and mechanics of D&D in this transition state before the MMO.
I have often found the safest course through a change is to continue on as usual until told otherwise. In this case, since no one has said anything about alignments, they should be treated as they always have been.
I would add to the discussion that while we should certainly allow others to RP their characters as they see fit, (and I agree wholeheartedly that IC "correction" is inappropriate without an IC reason) we should not be so afraid of intruding on others' RP that we refrain from giving OOC advice or suggestions to new players (or even to old players venturing onto new territory)... I personally have been educated on various aspects of RPing in an on-line world, about DnD generally, and about the Layo setting, by many helpful players who have taken the time to send me a tell. Yes, there is a line between the helpful communication I am speaking of and the behavior that others speak about in this thread; while I have tried to model my behavior on those that have helped me, if I wander too far towards or across that line with anyone, I apologize. Especially when I was a new player though, I would far rather people err on the side of appearing a bit rude or whatever by offering me RP suggestions, rather then not giving me advice at all.
if you feel compelled to comment, respect the other player when they tell you to keep your opinions to yourself.
Oh and one last point. There is no such thing as a neutral point. If somebody is good aligned and they decide to perform a neutral action, then they are at the same alignment. The concept of the neutral point shift is unbalanced because later, when the paladin does commit an evil act, the result will be the exact same as performing the neutral one, whereas the nature of both acts is totally different. Think of alignment like an XY grid. X positive and negative is good vs evil. Y positive or negative is Law vs chaos. So when you graph this chart out, each action has a value of positive or negative x or y. Plotting point (85,85), typical Lawful Good, a good action should shift that point to (86,85) upwards on the X axis. The goodness of their action is independant from the pre-established plot on the chart, and thus the action has no less significance in the shift. If a Lawful Good performs a neutral act, then this act has a shift value of 0. So an (85,85) alignment would stay in the exact same spot on that chart. As it is hardcoded in NWN, think of it as "Geometric Morality".
It's like a paladin performing 1000 good acts never gets any more good, but if he performs one evil act, he loses 1-5 pts right away.
If he doesn't, then we are playing numbers by saying, 'oh, he did 1000 good acts, but only 999 evil ones so he should not be punished'.
So, in a way, being given alignment points opposite your character's alignment is a sort of punishment for "playing wrong."
Maybe I'm one of the few who think this, but I think that alignment shift points should be given more often. But I think they should be given in both directions. There is a reason there is a range and degree to the alignments. Playing a lawful good character doesn't mean that that character doesn't or shouldn't undergo times of trial, hardship or moral dilemma. If they are simply static characters, never to have to deal with hard decisions or conflict they are boring and why do we play them? An evil character might actually perform a good act. It actually does happen. A lawful character can act chaotic, and a chaotic person can be steadfast to law. But I will say this: It seems that chaos, good and evil points are awarded, but very very rarely are law points given it seems. Especially if a person is lawful (I have seen it done though) We need to remember that these characters while within their alignment, are not perfect. And while I don't believe that gives anyone the right to blatantly act outside of their alignments without consequences, I do think that when given a point of whatever shift, whether you agree with it or not, one point will not alter your character's alignment (unless it is the final point to many) but what it is saying is that something happened that day that should stay with your character, that it should have affected your character in some way. And in that respect, we should welcome those changes and alterations, and take them for what they are. If the character does not like how the actions of that day made him or her feel, then they should work extra hard to fix that problem within themselves, to atone in some way or another, and to correct what has been done. (CDQ's are actually a great way to do this!)
Hmm, I have to disagree with you Gulnyr; what you say is only true if alignment is something that defines the character, rather than the other way around.
I understand some players may feel that they are being "punished" somehow, but, as I've said elsewhere, I think a better solution is for DMs to give out alignment points more often, so its not an unusual occurrence - and for players to be comfortable saying "I acted lawfully on this quest, can you give me a lawful point?" if they feel their character's number does not accurately reflect that character.
That's just it. It shouldn't be seen as that way. Your alignment is the way that your character sees the world. How he/she views what is the correct behavior for him/herself or for the world...
If anything, (so long as its not a constant pattern) receiving the occasional point that is opposite the character's alignment should be seen as a recognition that a player has created a realistic three-dimensional character who is not entirely defined by one of nine little boxes.
Your alignment is the way that your character sees the world. How he/she views what is the correct behavior for him/herself or for the world. Therefore an alignment shift shouldn't be seen as a DM saying "you're playing wrong so I'm going to punish you by shifting your alignment". It should be that something affected your character to cause the actions to cause a shift in the way that your character does or should see/view the world and his/her place in it.
No one person is the same, so why should we believe that everyone who picks a specific alignment is the same? As I said before, there are degrees of alignment. To what degrees our characters fit within those alignment are not for even a dm to decide.
Because you have a LE character, and you perform an extraordinary act of self sacrifice, you receive a 5 point shift towards good. Are you telling me that that is a DM saying "You're Lawful Evil, you can't be self sacrificing, and therefore I'm punishing you by altering your alignment"? No, but it means that your character did something that warranted that change.
Are you going to instead complain and try to reason out of that shift and stagnate your character's growth because you would instead wish for it to be as you had originally planned? Or will you go with the events that unfold in the game?
If people are unwilling to change their characters based on the interactions of other characters in the game, why do we even bother to play with each other at all? The point is that we want to affect change. We want to make a difference. This isn't a single player game where we can power game our way up to the top and just mow down everything in our path because we drew it up that way. There are things in this game that our beyond our control because it makes it more interesting that way. If our characters remained the same, how could they possibly be any fun to play day after day after day? Yes, I'm sure there are people in this game and others that don't care, and are happy soloing by themselves, racking up the xp and powergaming their way to the top levels, the most valuable and powerful items and other such things. But who wants to play with those sorts of people? Their characters have no flesh to them. They have no personality, no life. This is a world of our own creation. Not because we wrote it up, but because we live in it. So what is so hard about letting that world affect our characters as the real world would affect us?
Due to the mechanics of the game, alignment is a mandatory requirement (definition) for a lot of characters.
This example actually restates the perceived "punishment" nature of alignment shifts; the player shouldn't have to ask for positive adjustments when negative/contrary adjustments are being dispensed freely.
I'm sure you remember the commotion not too long ago caused by characters being shifted toward Neutral because of their inaction on a quest. People have and are going to complain about one-point shifts away from their characters' chosen alignments. It's an established fact, and it's part of where I base my position. It would be nice if it weren't that way. Unless there were some public standard for distributing points, there would be complaints - and probably even then.
Have your characters seemed stagnant? Have you not been involved with events that have caused you to change your characters? Did you need alignment points to make it work? I don't think you are meaning what I am reading, because you cannot possibly be arguing that we need alignment points so our characters come alive