Refusing to heal the overtly evil is evil?

[Weeblie]

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.

A general baseline would be nice.

Like to clarify on what sort of actions are generally considered to be good ones, what sort are evil ones... and much more importantly... which ones that are on the law and chaos scale.

Though, those certainily of course never could be used as a "I did this, now you must hand me my points"-tool (the "too cheap" issue that you also touched on).

Edit: Thoughts just appearing randomly in my head, heh. To ensure a much finer grained "stability"-thing that I mentioned earlier, it's probably necessary to look at the exact numbers, rather than just looking at if someone's "good, neutral or evil".

[Gulnyr]

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.

This is totally beside the point.  When in this thread has anyone been talking about how much could possibly be done in a given time period?  I will agree with what you are saying here as a concept, but it has no bearing at all on whether you as a DM decide it is easier to be Evil than Good and give out more Evil points for that reason.  Either an action is worthy of alignment points or it isn't, and the number of points given to a character should have nothing to do with that character's alignment's proximity to the end of an alignment axis or how much could have potentially been done in some hypothetical universe..

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?

Awesome.  Now apply it.  Have all the other DMs sign on and do this, too, for completeness.  We're going to need to define "innocent" first, though.  Are the creatures guarding CNR innocent?  They were put there on purpose, and the CNR locations are the homes of many, so it seems they would often be innocent by a certain definition and simply defending their homes.  It is not the players' or characters' fault that the creatures are there and act like they do under the AI, after all, so they should not be punished, yet they would be killing innocent creatures and that should be considered.  And does this need to be direct saving and killing or will indirect saving and killing count, too?  Did the few on the finale to kill Bloodstone indirectly save more people or kill more people, and should they have their alignments adjusted accordingly?  Surely saving and killing are not all that matters, so how much should, say, the active members of the Foundation earn by their efforts to directly and indirectly help others?  Where do Neutral acts fit in, like the one on your quest?  If we're going to adjust and balance characters' alignments, we need to hammer this stuff out.  Rules give everyone a basis for understanding; otherwise, it's just you telling me I'm not roleplaying right.

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

I did say previously that people acting Neutral should move toward Neutral... in a perfect world, anyway.  It's a fine thing to want to normalize people's alignments to what they are actually playing, but that really needs a firmly defined system that everyone uses all the time and not a single crusader trying to make it happen.  Gotta start somewhere, sure, and one person can make a difference, but starting by doing in this case probably isn't the best method.

Look, your method and all.  Go for it.  People can complain later if they want to.  But seriously consider handing out reward points as easily as penalty points so you don't just cheese everyone off by acting like some sort of RP police.

[Weeblie]

Look, your method and all.  Go for it.  People can complain later if they want to.  But seriously consider handing out reward points as easily as penalty points so you don't just cheese everyone off by acting like some sort of RP police.

I don't think anyone is really holding back with anything. No cases of "Oh! That's an excellent good deed he did there, perha - wait! He's already good and I shouldn't hand him any points." but rather lots of cases of "Hmmm... donating this large amount of sum to this family who had their house burned down is a good deed. But does it really warrant a shift, or is this perhaps a far too cheap way to literally buy one some more good points? I think I will temporary keep it away on the this-is-noted list and wait to see if something else can be combined with this one for a reasonable point.".

---

In either case, I'm fully of the belief that this whole matter is blown out of proportions. You make it sound like I'm giving shifts right to left, up and down, based utterly on my own whims.

I'm sorry to disappoint, but there are no free jumping around on the alignment axis from me either.

Being a meager attempt to employ alignment shifts for events that deserve it, not merely seeing it being done once per year, but perhaps once per quarter instead. Yes... once per year is about as often as I've seen it happen so far (a single case can affect multiple characters, though).

I guess, as some would say... "epic fail"!

[Weeblie]

This is totally beside the point.  When in this thread has anyone been talking about how much could possibly be done in a given time period? I will agree with what you are saying here as a concept, but it has no bearing at all on whether you as a DM decide it is easier to be Evil than Good and give out more Evil points for that reason.

Agreed. None. Zip. Nada. Time it would take to do such an action has no bearing at all.

But it is a -fact- that it is easier to let one's character do an evil act rather than a good one.

No DM opinion or anything. Merely running the scenarios through one's head.

It's always trivial to do the wrong "evil" things in tricky situations. It's much less obvious of what the "good" choice is (perhaps there is none, and the best choice is to remain alignment-free).

Hence why I consider it to be easier to do something evil than something good.

The "easier" or "harder" have no true value on the discussion, though. It's the actions themselves that are judged and not how tricky they are. Easier or more difficult is at most just some side-comment.

Either an action is worthy of alignment points or it isn't, and the number of points given to a character should have nothing to do with that character's alignment's proximity to the end of an alignment axis or how much could have potentially been done in some hypothetical universe.

In practice, whether points should be given or not is relatively independent on where they stand on the axis. But the amount of points tend to be highly determined by how close they are to the ends.

I've tried to differ between what are opinions and what are outright facts.

It is not a fact that the axis should be handled in a linear fashion. That the same action should generate the exact alignment result, no matter where the character stands on the axis. This is purely an opinion and one way to understand the system.

I have very strong reasons to believe that the system should not be treated in a linear fashion, with arguments for that already being laid out earlier in the thread. And I see no reason to believe that it's not "getting harder the closer you approach the edges" until there is any sort of offical "this is so"-guideline.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Allow me to sum up my feelings on the matter:

You guys stink. Stop bringing the thread back to life! It was old LAST year. (<3)

Alignments are DESCRIPTIONS of GENERAL TRENDS in a character's actions (no matter WHAT descriptions you use, Weeblie! ).

As such, the idea of "points" either way is flawed - alignments aren't totally objective, mechanical things. When you start going into "Oh, you fall one point in this direction for doing that!" you see which way leads madness. We have submissions for alignment change for a REASON. It allows players to change their characters' alignments at times they feel are appropriate. Sure, it allows for a bunch of people to DO IT WRONG, but we ignore them anyway.

[Weeblie]

As such, the idea of "points" either way is flawed - alignments aren't totally objective, mechanical things. When you start going into "Oh, you fall one point in this direction for doing that!" you see which way leads madness.

"Epic fail"?

[Link092]

You have to say it with more gusto... Look.

EPIC FAIL!!

.. See? More effective.

[LynnJuniper]

Alignments do not exist. Instead, everyone is a varying shade of evil waiting to happen. nodnod

Much like this thread.

[Link092]

Alignments do not exist. Instead, everyone is a varying shade of evil waiting to happen. nodnod

Much like this thread.

Or, they could be unknowing agents of Corath, who are randomly afflicted to do things for a healthy portion of Evil points!

[Gulnyr]

I have very strong reasons to believe that the system should not be treated in a linear fashion, with arguments for that already being laid out earlier in the thread. And I see no reason to believe that it's not "getting harder the closer you approach the edges" until there is any sort of offical "this is so"-guideline.

How do you determine that someone is close to the end of an axis?  Or, for that matter, where they are at all on the axis beyond a vague notion because of a particular letter?  I am seriously curious about this.  Also, if the numbers don't matter because there is no real meaning to them, what difference does it make how many points a character gains for an alignment-shifting action?  Your opinion is clearly that closer means less, but when the numbers are irrelevant why is the point value of an action important?  I just don't understand that part.

In either case, I'm fully of the belief that this whole matter is blown out of proportions. You make it sound like I'm giving shifts right to left, up and down, based utterly on my own whims.

That is not how it was intended.  If anything, I think you'd be giving out too few points by not rewarding in-alignment behavior as much as punishing out-of-alignment behavior (though it is always at your whim because there are no standards or guidelines).  If you're willing to punish me when I stray, be just as willing to reward me when I stay.  It's probably clear that I think the numbers are irrelevant and that the points are basically a psychological tool.  Since the numbers don't matter (because there're no standards or guidelines), that's basically all they are and a big reason I don't think the ends of the scale are any different than the middle.  

If I play so that Jennara does something clearly Chaotic or Evil and I get a point for that, okay.  Maybe it'll be a good reminder for me later, and, apparently, I had it coming.  But if I play so that Jennara does Lawful and Good things, why not toss me a point that way now and then?  It's a little, "Nice job."  Not all the time; that would be weird, and it would get old and mean nothing, much like all the "Hey, DM, can I get a point of Chaotic for doing that thing to the guy" points.  Would those "nice job" points mean as much as the ones I've already gotten?  It depends on the situation, but I do know I would feel pretty good about having them.

So, I guess, from that perspective, withholding a Good point because a Good character didn't do something Good enough is somewhat like not appreciating the player's effort to play the alignment.  Unspoken praise is no praise at all.  Why not go ahead and hit the guy donating a lot of money with a Good point and then noting that for later so you don't double up too soon?  It's not any cheaper than begging for one after a quest from a DM, and makes the player feel good because someone bothered to notice.

[Weeblie]

How do you determine that someone is close to the end of an axis?  Or, for that matter, where they are at all on the axis beyond a vague notion because of a particular letter?  I am seriously curious about this.  Also, if the numbers don't matter because there is no real meaning to them, what difference does it make how many points a character gains for an alignment-shifting action?  Your opinion is clearly that closer means less, but when the numbers are irrelevant why is the point value of an action important?  I just don't understand that part.

I do not consider the numbers to be fully irrelevant but merely that the numbers can't really be compared with the numbers of others in order to see "who's gooder" (due to lack of guidelines on how much exactly each point is, as you said).

It's not that I'm trying ot eat the cake while preserving it... but rather that there do exist a few points that serve well as signposts: 85, 50 and 15 - the "default" values for each alignment which can be used for the "finer grained" purpose.

Heh... the "relative values compared to oneself"?

In reality, this does not matter too much. Very few actions are walking the line and those few that do are generally not "worthy" by themselves to be shifting-generating. So, in the end, it just becomes a good old "what is your current alignment?" determing the exact extent of the points (like the example earlier that someone lawful good does some completey whicked and undisputable horrible act of chaotic evil would likely get hit by two points on each axis instead of one).

If I play so that Jennara does something clearly Chaotic or Evil and I get a point for that, okay. Maybe it'll be a good reminder for me later, and, apparently, I had it coming. But if I play so that Jennara does Lawful and Good things, why not toss me a point that way now and then? It's a little, "Nice job." Not all the time; that would be weird, and it would get old and mean nothing, much like all the "Hey, DM, can I get a point of Chaotic for doing that thing to the guy" points. Would those "nice job" points mean as much as the ones I've already gotten? It depends on the situation, but I do know I would feel pretty good about having them.

So, I guess, from that perspective, withholding a Good point because a Good character didn't do something Good enough is somewhat like not appreciating the player's effort to play the alignment. Unspoken praise is no praise at all. Why not go ahead and hit the guy donating a lot of money with a Good point and then noting that for later so you don't double up too soon? It's not any cheaper than begging for one after a quest from a DM, and makes the player feel good because someone bothered to notice.

The donation thing is extraordinary tricky. Technically, it is not the amount that matters, but rather how much of a sacrifice your own character is making which means that if donation alone is used as a reason, there should be a massive amount of small shifts. Donations are relatively alignment free, it's the reasons behind them that tend to give it it's value. Donating in order to get a better standing or just in order to be able to call in a favor later? That doesn't sound the spirit of being good (but not necessary evil either).

That's why I prefer to bundle it together into a bigger deal before doing anything. Perhaps something just as simple as being the really only person who's actively working for donations, rather than just donating? Or someone who's showing a strong pattern of "good-willed" donations.

In either case... your example of people who really should get good points, do get good points is just about what was already done before, is done now, and will be done in the future, unless one simply decides to never mess around with alignments anymore.

[Gulnyr]

*sigh*

Donations are relatively alignment free, it's the reasons behind them that tend to give it it's value. Donating in order to get a better standing or just in order to be able to call in a favor later? That doesn't sound the spirit of being good (but not necessary evil either).

Your own example, which is what I was referring to:

"Hmmm... donating this large amount of sum to this family who had their house burned down is a good deed. But does it really warrant a shift, or is this perhaps a far too cheap way to literally buy one some more good points? I think I will temporary keep it away on the this-is-noted list and wait to see if something else can be combined with this one for a reasonable point."

You already said it was a Good act.  Further philosophizing about the nature of donations is not relevant to the point, though what you are saying is fine.  The point is specifically that giving points for "too little Good" is not any cheaper than getting one essentially free after a quest (I've seen them handed out for almost nothing) and is good for player morale; it is nice to feel appreciated.  Making a note that someone has gotten a point for "too little Good" and waiting longer before giving another point for similar actions is the same in the end as waiting until some arbitrary Good meter is full before giving the point, except that players know sooner that their efforts are appreciated.  

Think about the real world for a minute.  Think of all the things people do that are expected of them without ever getting any acknowledgment (unless they happen to do something wrong).  Even if the effort is expected, it is still nice to have others show appreciation.  Not every day or all the time, but not only once a year, either.  Even if it's only for a brief period, that acknowledgment and appreciation makes people feel better about doing what is expected.  They don't feel like they are taken for granted.  

My impression of what you were saying earlier is that points of the opposite alignment would be easier to get, that it wouldn't take as much to earn one than to earn a point of the character's alignment.  This is much like the real world situation, where people are basically ignored, never getting any "nice job" alignment points, until they eventually do something "wrong" by doing something outside their alignment, when they are then "punished" with an opposite alignment point.

In either case... your example of people who really should get good points, do get good points is just about what was already done before, is done now, and will be done in the future, unless one simply decides to never mess around with alignments anymore.

I never made any example like that or tried to make that point.  I'm pretty sure I don't even believe that.  I think characters who deserve points probably don't get them in most cases because alignment point distribution for actions isn't common among the DMs, at least in my experience.

[Frances]

I'd like to throw my two cents in here, for what it's worth (and that may be about all it's worth).

I think it would be great for DM's to start handing out more Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic points.  If you object to receiving the point, take it as an admonishment to play your character in a different way.  If you receive enough points that it starts to shift your alignment, and you haven't been approved to shift your alignment, your character should be unplayable until you complete a CDQ to redeem them or to shift their alignment officially.  I realize that this may result in some characters becoming unplayable until a CDQ can be arranged and conducted.  This may be difficult for some to accept, but clearly they weren't being played in accordance with their approval.

There's no need to get upset about a 1 point shift.  Your good paladin had a bad day and instead of helping the old lady with her cat in a tree, he shoved her out of the way, jumped on his horse and rode off.  Your chaotic rogue had a fit of civil obedience, and instead of testing every door on a dark street to see which was locked, he nodded politely to the watchman and recommended he talk to someone about getting more patrols on that street and getting some street lamps put up.  The problem only comes in when your paladin routinely doesn't help the old ladies, and your rogue routinely helps the nightwatch do their jobs and doesn't pick their pockets.

I agree with what was said earlier (by I don't remember who, sorry) about it being harder to move to the ends of the spectrums.  A small good act wouldn't necessarily result in a good point for a good person, but a small evil act might result in an evil point.  You might think of the evil point as a feeling of guilt (or a good point as a warm fuzzy feeling of weakness in your black, black heart).

For those neutral characters out there, you could vary between the ends of neutrality (I'm not sure how many points one way or the other takes you out of neutral) if you're one of those who lacks the commitment to either side of the spectrum, or you could actively work to maintain that score of 50, if you're one of those who likes to balance your good/evil and lawful/chaotic acts.

I don't know how hard it is for a DM to view a character's alignment and their approved alignment, so this may be hard to implement.  I also have faith that the DM's as a whole are decent, honest folk who would do this fairly.  Since this is something that takes an extended period of time, I think multiple DM errors/oversights would cancel out in the end.