Roleplaying/Alignment Dilemmas

[Q'alooaith]

Originally posted by LennonCook: Again, I disagree. I see Lawful Good as helping others even at the expense of the self (= good), only where the law does not explicitly disallow it, and especially when the law requires it (= lawful).

Now your just being daft.

I did not say lawful alignments where heartless, as you suggest, I said that they would be more focused on the forces of law and order..

Like all of my alignment statements they are just the bare bones, the basic ideals of a charactor, You could make a True good charactor with no emotional attachments at all, even make them totaly emotionless..

Alignments say nothing about a charactor, not a thing, it's not how the world see them, but rather how they see the world.

Remember, alignments are invisible.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by LennonCook: But, can't this change on a game-by-game basis? Isn't it the DM's decision whether you choose your alignment or not, whether you know your alignment or not, and even whether or not to use this alignment system? I quite like the way Torment does it. You start of as True Neutral, and your alignment changes as you play depending on how you play. In this way, your alignment is a description of you rather than a definition.

No, Lennon, in PnP your alignment does NOT change from game to game, nor is it the DM's decision (unless he/she specifically states that's the way they run their campaign). Since a player would play any given PC of theirs under different DM's in different games, it was up to the player to decide the alignment of their character. And in PnP, alignment WAS a definition of your character. Certain classes (such as Paladin, Ranger & Druid) had specific alignment restrictions defined in the Player's Handbook. If a player violated these alignment restrictions, then he/she WAS violating the very definition of the character class. When that happened, it was the DM's job to determine what happened to the character because of the alignment violation. Sometimes the character would have to do some sort of quest or penance in order to get their alignment back. Other times, they simply had to accept a permanent change of alignment - which meant they also had to change the way they played that character from now on.

Two quick examples.

One of my favorite PnP characters was a ranger that had incredible stats (Str & Con of 18 and straight 17's in everything else). But in one adventure, he ended up putting on a Helm of Opposite Alignment and went from Chaotic Good to Lawful Evil. My roommate was the DM for that game and he eventually came up with a solution. He had created a chamber for another game in which a character would be transported into a room completely naked and would have to face an clone with the same abilities and proficiencies, but who was diametrically opposed to their alignment. My ranger had to face his "evil self" in battle in order to regain his original alignment. If I had lost that battle, my CG ranger would have become a LE fighter from then on.

In a different game, I was playing another ranger. This one found and started using an item that was basically evil. It was a small figurine of a horse and - when activated - turned into a nightmare rather than a regular steed. It was out of the ordinary (to say the least) for a good ranger to be using an evil steed, and the DM assigned a percentage chance that my alignment would be affected every time I used it. The short version is that I eventually used the item one time too many and ended up becoming an evil Stalker. The DM was very generous and allowed me to keep my ranger abilities (a Stalker was basically an evil Ranger), but he could just as easily have stripped me of my ranger abilities and turned my character into an ordinary fighter - which is what the PH said was supposed to happen in this situation.

Originally posted by LennonCook: I agree about this - that a character may be "punished" for straying from their alignment - but for a very different reason. I will, as you did, take as an example the Paladin. Firstly, a disclaimer: I think Paladins should be lawful neutral, rather than lawful good. They follow the doctrines of their god in every situation, regardless of who that benifits or doesn't. Ofcourse, the counter to this that I often consider is that Lawful Neutral could be said to follow the letter of the law, while Lawful Good follows it's spirit (and Lawful Evil bends it, and finds loopholes in it, so the law can justify anything they choose to do). But anyway, Paladins are Lawful, from the perspective of their god (but may be chaotic from the perspective of the government, or to a paladin of another god)... I see their "fall" not as a punishment for straying from their alignment, but as a rejection from their god. In other words, it is a punishment from the god for breaking the law, rather than a punishment by the DM for straying from their alignment. In this regard, I also think that Clerics should be Lawful Neutral from their god's perspective (although again, not necesarily from society's). Infact, I see a Paladin and a Cleric being much the same thing. I see a Paladin as simply being a Cleric with more of a tendancy to fight in their god's name destroying enemies and recruiting followers, while a Cleric will prefer to celebrate their god with existing followers. Infact, I see a Druid as simply being a Cleric of Nature. As such, I don't see the necesity of, or the sense in, seperating these three.

You're partially right. Clerics are the Prime Material representatives of their chosen diety. Because of this, they have to follow thier diety's alignment exactly, so there are very few clerics that would be True Neutral. Paladins do follow the laws of their diety, but they are also the self-appointed protectors of the land, which is why they have to be Lawful Good. They are Lawful because they follow the dictates of their diety AND of the land they are in. They are Good because they put the needs and wellbeing of others ahead of their own desires and safety. Paladins were primarily patterned after the Knights of the Round Table. Worship and obediance to their diety IS important, but obediance to the laws of the land are equally important. So the paladin serves two different masters - their diety and the needs of their land.

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Q'alooaith: I did not say lawful alignments where heartless, as you suggest, I said that they would be more focused on the forces of law and order..

I didn't say they were heartless either. [img]tongue.gif[/img] I dispute that a lawful character follows the laws of the land. I see a lawful character as following a strictly defined doctrine, but not a specific one: that is, a different lawful character could follow a different doctrine and thus different laws, and still be just as lawful.

Like all of my alignment statements they are just the bare bones, the basic ideals of a charactor,

As are mine. I strive to make it explicit that alignments are a high-level description, and that two people who might be described as having the same alignment might behave very differently. Pigeon-holing alignments (as in, "true neutral is concerned about balance") is one very big mistake this game has made...

You could make a True good charactor with no emotional attachments at all, even make them totaly emotionless..

No attachments, no emotion.. to me, that is implicitly no desire. No desire to rise above their social status, no desire to protect the innocent, to speak for the masses, no desire to do anything but simply exist. And that, I describe as "True Neutral".

Alignments say nothing about a character, not a thing, it's not how the world see them, but rather how they see the world.

I agree with "it's not how the world sees them", I don't agree with "it's how they see the world". I see alignment as a summation of actions. It is a tool to determine how other people might see you. But it becomes more complex with Law/Chaos, since there are different laws. Think of the drow. In drow society, it is perfectly lawful, and often required by law, for a female to kill a male. In Amn, this does not appear to be the case. Thus, Viconia feels the she is required by law to kill Keldorn. She is acting lawfully as far as she is concerned, but very much against the law as far as the state of Amn is concerned. Is this behavior "lawful"? It depends on perspective, and on "which law?".

Remember, alignments are invisible.

Detect Evil; Know Alignment...

Cerek, interesting post. [img]smile.gif[/img] I will read, and respond to, it more thoroughly, in the morning when I'm less tired. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-22-2005, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: LennonCook ]

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Q'alooaith: Now your just being daft.

And now you are just violating the TOS of this forum by making a personal attack on another member.

[Q'alooaith]

Cerek, your post is just an attack on part of my statment taken out of context..

Going quite literaly here, you are making a personal attack on me, by way of your cut'n'paste quoting..

Your also making halfway threats on me, enforcing the ToS is Not your job, if you think there's been a breach you use the report post button like everyone else and leave the issue alone..

I take offence that you think your a better forum member because you have more posts, or have been a member longer (can't be bothered to check that part myself).


=================

Now, back to the topic before I got sidetracked.

=================

Lennon, if you think about it, if you see the world as a way to get ahead your action's will flow in a way that making the world see you as selfish..

So, alignments are like glasses, they alter how everything look's and sounds to the person wearing them, and somone watching from outside might notice a small diffrence..

So alignments are more like contact lenses, you can't tell a diffrence by looking at a person with or without (well unless they'd got some realy funky ones in) but they will see everything diffrently..

and So will react diffrently to everything, it might only be a small diffrence, but it will be diffrently motivated in most cases.

[shamrock_uk]

Q'alooaith, relax man [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'm sure Cerek wasn't making a personal attack, simply quoting the part that he wanted to reply to.

Enforcing the ToS is everybody's job - self-moderation is by far the best way of stopping situations from escalating through misunderstandings (which are, after all, so easy to do just reading text with no facial expressions etc to judge by)

Finally, virtually nobody regards post rank as being meaningful, as you can discover by going to the User Polls forum and looking at the recent thread.


If people don't understand the argument you've put forward and subsequently reply to what you think is a distorted version, it isn't done deliberately to annoy you. Mistakes are made, you may be mis-represented in a quote, but at the end of the day we're all here to have fun and its not worth getting angry or frustrated about it [img]smile.gif[/img]

-------


@ Cerek - sounds like you had a really inventive DM! That duel idea was a great one!

@Lennon - Inititally I would agree with your assesment about true-neutral. But is desire a good benchmark to use for measuring alignment? For example, what about a golem created by an evil mage - he might have no desires or ambitions of any sort, but still would be classed as evil if he went round killing innocents.

I have to completely disagree with what you said about "its how the world sees them" and not "how they see the world". Surely it's all about what you are and not what you appear. For example, Drizzt having freshly appeared on the surface is attacked for being evil, yet he is good. Viconia is attacked for appearing evil, yet she is guilty of no crime in this case. Wasn't this the whole point of the virtue mod? To ensure that your alignment is affected by your actions, and not the actions that are witnessed by others? If its how the world sees you, then the issue of alignment becomes as relative as the morality of the place you are in at that time. Surely it must be more permanent than that?

@Q - I agree completely with your glasses analogy. Alignment IMO is a purely 'internal' thing, affecting how the character views the world. Any observations from the 'external world' are based on insufficient information about the character and thus are very likely to be innacurate.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: @ Cerek - sounds like you had a really inventive DM! That duel idea was a great one!

He was a very good DM. He and I were roommates and we learned the game at the same time. A mutual friend of ours taught us how to play and then introduced us to other members on campus that HE had learned the game from. Those guys had been playing for about 3 yrs or more when he taught us (and he was a very good DM also). But my roommate just had a knack for creating challenging games with inventive little twists in them - and giving the party enough treasure to reward their efforts without going overboard. I was a decent DM, but I invariably was too generous with XP and treasure both. I was much better as a player than as a DM. But even the veterens in our group complimented my roommate when he ran his very first game.

The Duel Chamber was an idea he came up with for one of his games. We were sitting in our dorm room and I was actually doing some homework while he worked on the dungeon. Then this idea hit him about creating this duel chamber. It was such a good idea that he just HAD to share it with me, even though I was going to be playing in the game he was planning to run. I promised I wouldn't mention anything about the chamber to the rest of the party, but my roommate was such a good DM, I'll be danged if I wasn't the one that ended up getting caught in the chamber. He changed the appearance of the triggering device. It had originally been concentric circles on the floor (or something similar), but when we actually played the game, we found a jewel-encrusted sword stuck in a stone. Engraved on the stone were the words Grasp the sword and all your wounds will be healed. I was playing a halfling thief and had taken a serious beating fighting the guards and creatures in the courtyard of the keep. So without a second though I grabbed the sword. Well, all my wounds WERE healed, but then I found myself standing buck naked inside this room with a rack of weapons next to me. I just had time to get oriented when an exact clone of my character appeared at the other end of the room (about 30ft away IIRC) with a rack of weapons beside him. That battle went fairly well. I managed to get some good rolls and beat my alter-ego rather easily. But later on when my ranger had to enter the chamber, I came VERY close to losing the battle. My dice went South on me and I got horrible attack rolls. I was down to 8hp and my alter-ego still had over 20hp. One hit would have killed me (due to the Strength and proficiency bonuses I had), so I HAD to get the first attacks and HAD to hit with all 3 (I got 3/2 APR due to weapon specialization). Well my dice FINALLY came through. I did max damage with my first two hits and managed to kill my alter-ego with my last attack. It was one of the most intense battles I ever had in PnP.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Q'alooaith: Cerek, your post is just an attack on part of my statment taken out of context.. Going quite literaly here, you are making a personal attack on me, by way of your cut'n'paste quoting.. Your also making halfway threats on me, enforcing the ToS is Not your job, if you think there's been a breach you use the report post button like everyone else and leave the issue alone.. I take offence that you think your a better forum member because you have more posts, or have been a member longer (can't be bothered to check that part myself).

I am not making an attack on part of your statement. I am pointing out that part of your statement qualifies as a personal attack according to the TOS of IW. Pointing out a part of a post that violates TOS is NOT an attack on that post. As shamrock pointed out, self-moderation is encouraged at IW so that the Mods aren't called in for every little disagreement.

If you feel my comments are over the line, then please feel free to report ME to the Mods and let them decide if a warning or other action is called for.

[Q'alooaith]

I did when I posted my above reply.

Now, back to the topic at hand..


Alignments are all about how you and your group interprets them, if you want to say they are the sole reason for any single action then so be it, but "good" and "evil" carry certain weight in the words themselves, now this can be diffrent for diffrent people but still "evil" is mostly considered selfishness and "good" is mostly considered selfless..

Give nearly any example of charactor type and situation, without much effort you can turn his supposed alignment on it's head..

IE, Thief stealing from a poorbox..
Evil, he's stealing from the poor so must be evil..

Good, the church is not giving anything to the poor, and the thief is going to pass the gold along to people who will use it to help the poor..

Very basic example, but the theory hold's true for most situations that come up, as long as the person explaining the action is in control of the charactor and his internal motives he can change the action to be either good or evil.. Law or chaos..

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Q'alooaith: I did when I posted my above reply.

LOL. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Good for you. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Q'alooaith: Now, back to the topic at hand.. Alignments are all about how you and your group interprets them, if you want to say they are the sole reason for any single action then so be it, but "good" and "evil" carry certain weight in the words themselves, now this can be diffrent for diffrent people but still "evil" is mostly considered selfishness and "good" is mostly considered selfless.. Give nearly any example of charactor type and situation, without much effort you can turn his supposed alignment on it's head.. IE, Thief stealing from a poorbox.. Evil, he's stealing from the poor so must be evil.. Good, the church is not giving anything to the poor, and the thief is going to pass the gold along to people who will use it to help the poor.. Very basic example, but the theory hold's true for most situations that come up, as long as the person explaining the action is in control of the charactor and his internal motives he can change the action to be either good or evil.. Law or chaos..

I'm afraid your example would actually require a bit more information before we can determine if the thief's actions are good are evil. If the thief claims to be of good alignment, does he/she have any proof that the church is not giving the money to the poor? And if he does, does he actually follow through on HIS promise to give the money to the poor? If not, then he is Chaotic Neutral at best and more likely Neutral or Chaotic Evil.

If the church is giving the money to the poor, then even a good thief will have a hard time justifying his actions to the DM. But if the thief is playing CN or any evil-alignment, then there is no problem with him taking the money and keeping it for himself.

In a PnP game, the player can explain his actions any way he wants to, but the DM is the one who decides if the explanation is acceptable (or even believable) and in accordance with the character's chosen alignment. And if the DM doesn't feel the character acted according to his/her professed alignment, then the character will be penalized in some form or fashion.

This is basically the same function that the Virtue Mod attempts to impose on BG2. You can choose whatever alignment you wish for your PC, but the Virtue Mod will adjust your alignment according to your actions in the game, and if a paladin keeps acting in a Chaotic or Evil fashion, he will lose his paladin abilities and become a fighter - just like in PnP.