Debate on Alignment
-
I sometimes wish that the allignment system used completely disconnected names… like having 'Lawful Good' be called instead 'Hamster Cupcake'... as while it might be less obvious it might get rid of some of this confusion.
Alignment in D&D is how the divine system of the universe set up by Ao files and rates your character. It's perfectly fine to disagree with this system! Many characters with the alignment of Evil or Neutral can make strong logical cases why the people with Good alignments are worse than they.
But, alignment is not about what is ultimately 'right' in the end, it is about how the current management of the universe defines and categorizes people and acts. And under their rules some acts (poisoning, etc) always get sorted under Evil regardless of motivations.
Other times its a bit more murky. WRT to the question that started this thread, if you pay a guy gold to slip in and stab an enemy general to death in his sleep, the gods are probably going to view that as assassination. If you command your champion to bring you the head of the enemy general, and he and his boon companions slip through the camp, burst into the tent, and having a fierce duel before slaying him and escaping, the gods are probably going to view that as a heroic mission against the odds. The substance is pretty much the same but the forms are different.
A good rule of thumb:
*If something is described as Evil (spell descriptor, special mention of it like poison, etc) then assume it will get evil points if used.
*If something 'feels' evil, assume you are risking evil points if you do it.
-
i'm very against any automation of alignment points. not sure if this is still the case, but it used to be that you would get them for killing a PC. This was also a time when faction issues were as common as hins at a free picnic.
so, you can imagine… you log in, walk through the Boarshead, every NPC attacks you, you defend yourself (not even willingly, via the AI) and you end up with 10 evil points.
then you have to plead your case when there were no witnesses, etc.
Lets keep it a human decision... adding automation to something like this is just asking for problems.
-
@7ca5c65e6e=rei_jin:
Being good should be HARD. It should be hard to earn a good alignment, and easy to lose.
Agree 100% there. Regardless of different views on the alignment system, I hope this is one that is fundamentally agreed upon.
On the idea of donating gold to the temple for good points, that should never be automated. For evil acts, motivation doesn't matter (or at least matters a whole lot less). For good acts, motivation ALWAYS matters. A Lawful Evil politician would donate gold to the temple to appear pious in order to gain religious votes, perhaps. Further no amount of gold simply counters a truly evil act.
Automated alignment hits, if used at all, should always be of the straying from good alignment, never towards imo. If it's ruled on the server that poison use is evil, let it be auto evil points. I'm not necessarily a proponent of the idea, but I'd be okay with it. Just not the other end, because then all you'd have to do is donate 'x' gold for every time you used poison, or every innocent you killed, etc. to balance the scales.
-
Alignment discussions on the internet can go for hundreds of pages and never be truly resolved, because a fair bit of it is based on opinion, not on solid facts.
There's no evil-o-meter for us to compare actions against.
From what I remember, using Sin Berries previously gave you evil points, but it doesn't anymore. Killing kobold eggs doesn't give you evil points, but it probably should. Giving coin to the temple of the triad doesn't give you good points (from what I've seen, anyway) but it probably should.
The big question is this… is honourable and good the same thing, or are they different? It might not be honourable to use poison, but it's not evil either, unless you subscribe to D&D morality. The main reason it has been considered evil by the game producers is that it is the unseen killer... much in the same way that an assassin is. And if killing someone when they have no idea that you're there is evil, then most of the rogues on the server should be evil. Not to mention many of the spellcasters who use invisibility.
It seems like some things are evil because they are evil, and other things are not for no specific definable reason. And that's not a crack at the DMs, that's a comment on the stupidity of the D&D alignment system.
Being good should be HARD. It should be hard to earn a good alignment, and easy to lose.
I started Marie off as Lawful Neutral, but have been playing her as Lawful Good pretty constantly... so far I've earnt 16 good points and 1 evil point. It's been a hard slog to get as far as I have, and I'm still Lawful Neutral. Maybe one day I'll earn that good alignment.
And as much as the slow transition to that much wanted good alignment is for me, I think it's right that it takes me time to earn. No matter how good a character seems, being a truly good person is a life long commitment made up of struggles and hardship.
-
Just curious - from the dm perspective - what's the ratio of good to evil points that are handed out? And is that a direct result of the above policy combined with the fact that most pc's on Narf are good to begin with ?
I'm betting it's at least 3:1 - evil:good. That's probably low.
-
So if I kick a baby hin do I get more evil points than if I kick a baby drow? Just because one less is stereotypically less evil than the other? Or is it the same?
If I go out and kill all the orcs in the Plains for their gold and armor, is it more evil than running through a town and killing the guards because I think they insulted me? At least for killing the guards I'd have a reason, and pride to defend.. the orcs is a simple act of murder for greed.
-
I would actually prefer the way NWN2 handled the alignment shifts.
If I remember correctly, they had breaking points. That means someone shifting from 100 good to 74 and thus becoming neutral would immediatly be set to 50 points.
Which basically says: They have done enough non-good things that they are for now neutral.
Atonement is then a more sensible matter early on, instead of a 'Oh, I've earned 2 points of evil, let's see, I have to reearn 1 to be good again.'
It's a more lengthy process to restore a previous alignment - it also makes the slippery slope down to evil a lot more slippery…
-
The way it works (the way we apply it on Narfell at the very least, I believe its based on PnP), is that the more at one end of the spectrum you are, the easier it is to earn the opposite kind of points. So, for example, a paladin who kills somebody in cold blood with their back turned to them will gain many more evil points than say a fully evil blackguard committing the same act, conversely a Blackguard who saves a damsel in distress purely to save her, would gain many more good points than a fully good paladin who accomplishes the same feat.
-
you are definitely making sense… but I always have a hard time understanding the scale...
if you repeatedly do something evil, something worth (for example) 1 evil point... you are a repeat offender... but if you do it 50 times you are as evil as they come.
does one evil (or good) according to their point total? Or do their points keep mounting and mounting, despite consistency?
Its a hard question to ask. Another way of asking:
As a DM, do you look at a PC's actions, then look at their evil points, and ask "hmm, according to that kitten they just kicked, they should be at a "75" on the scale, let me give them a few."
or, do you see someone kick a kitten, and say "kicking a kitten is worth 3 evil points." and not be concerned with their current alignment points?
-
The reason this particular rule should probably (in my opinion) be applied is for one main reason; in DnD evil is much more real and less ambiguous than in real life. This is represented in a number of ways. The most obvious example being that there are spells and abilities capable of detecting evil.
My interpretation of why specific acts, regardless of reasons or justifications, are inherrently evil is that, because evil is such a nigh-tangible force in DnD, performing evil acts leaves an impression on your character. This is why evil points exist, IE you are not actually turned evil just for doing one of these things, rather doing one of them makes you more likely to consider such acts again in the future (i.e. a slippery slope sort of scenario), which I think is well represented by the point-scale. Am I making sense?
-
@74111d8ead=MexicanCookie:
Sounds like a grey area to me.
Assaulting the command post to kill or capture the leadership to end the war could be considered good.
Assaulting the command post to kill the leadership because you don't like them could be considered evil.
It's all dependent on PC motivation. If things like this come up for your PC discuss it with the DM team. You can also help by keeping a journal of your PC's thoughts (which I see you've already started
) so the DMs can understand the motivation more clearly if things are complicated.It's not only motivation. Motivation definitely factors in but even still… I played a character once willing to murder and impose his will on others for a perceived greater good. Let a few die to save the many kind of thing. He was easily marching down the evil path, but it doesn't matter that in his mind it was the only way to save the land in the long run. To stand idly by and allow the few to make the wrong decision and doom countless lives was intolerable. Killing one person would save thousands upon thousands later, yet does that make him good? I'd argue due to PC intent it isn't evil, perhaps, but most assuredly not good.
Sometimes the act, no matter how well intentioned, is most assuredly not good, and other times, again no matter how well intentioned, still quite evil. Killing a baby because a prophecy says they will grow up to one day destroy the world or some such would still be quite evil.
DnD alignments are always a pain, because there are so many intepretations. I've always preferred the absolute path and see evil and good as extremes with the vast majority floating neutral, kind of like 4th edition has done. Still, despite all the debates and discussions on the subject, the makers of DnD still have not weighed in with an absolute guide because it will always be impossible to define every possible action, motivation, and outcome.
Not a DM or anything, just my two cents from playing DnD forever... feels old. Ultimately it comes down to DMs and as has been suggested, keeping a log of actions and your motivation is definitely helpful, though it probably will never guarantee a get-out-of-evil-points-free card.
-
@0cce322f97:
In the forgotten realms, it is an inherrently evil act, no matter how terrible the person you are killing may be or what the justification is. Now, you may still be lauded as a hero if you killed some FR version of Hitler via assassination, but you'd still pick up those evil points afterwards.
it seems to me that this is something that we, as a community, should be a bit more flexible with. We surely dont stick to all other D&D rules, as written. Why would we have to stick to this as the absolute rule if we all know there are gray areas?
-
One issue that sometimes irks people about D&D alignment is that it's a very absolute thing in the game. Intention doesn't have to matter, just the action itself.
I know it irks me often…
-
Sounds like a grey area to me.
Assaulting the command post to kill or capture the leadership to end the war could be considered good.
Assaulting the command post to kill the leadership because you don't like them could be considered evil.
It's all dependent on PC motivation. If things like this come up for your PC discuss it with the DM team. You can also help by keeping a journal of your PC's thoughts (which I see you've already started
) so the DMs can understand the motivation more clearly if things are complicated.
-
That's a question that's best answered on a case by case basis really, since individual factors of each case should give a reasonably clear indication of whether something qualifies as assassination or not.
Edit: Additonally, as some folks above have alluded to, real world morality does not always equate with forgotten realms concepts of evil. For instance taking Dwin's example there, if I paid somebody to assassinate Hitler in the real world, swell. In the forgotten realms, it is an inherrently evil act, no matter how terrible the person you are killing may be or what the justification is. Now, you may still be lauded as a hero if you killed some FR version of Hitler via assassination, but you'd still pick up those evil points afterwards.
-
I find its often interesting to look at real world examples.
Abraham Lincoln's Assassination: considered evil by most, right? The Kennedy's, John Lennon, Ghandis…
What about Hitler? If he had been assassinated, would that have been an evil act? Stalin? Both had many attempts on their lives. I think history has painted those acts as benevolent and humanitarian.
So, if someone tried to have the N'Jast General killed because the army had devastated Jiyyd and was on its way to Peltarch (just making this up) would that really be evil? Self-defense?
If Dwin hires someone to find and kill Ostromog (an evil Bugbear that has threatened to sit on the throne of Norwick and drink from Dwin's skull), is that evil? Self preservation?
Is it a question of lawful versus chaotic, because there is no order or "trial" to decide the fate?
Very interesting question and conversation.
I was once given evil points because I ran from foes that were stronger than me. The DM explained that by running, I could have led the monsters to areas where innocents could have been hurt. (Meanwhile, I was running to those areas for help from guards/adventurers). I still disagree with that decision and I wish I had escalated it more at the time.
-
@853de57c04=Kallethen:
I believe the rules of D&D specifically define assassination as a purely evil act. I think the Book of Vile Deeds would be the prime source for such information.
Yes, I understand what you are saying here, but my thought is, if you change assassination to raid where you are using soldiers to assault the command post instead of an assassin, is it still an evil act?
If so, ok, but, if not, how do you differentiate?
Mayhaps the question I am trying to ask is, when is it an assassination and when is it not?
-
@b6d64df531=Chrystoph:
I drop this entire morality question into the furball to help me understand where the limits are drawn.
Ah, I believe a common misconception about alignments is inherent in the way they gave them names. D&D alignments have some things in common with morality, but only some.
In particular, there are spells "Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos"… ever seen a spell that reveals how morally good, bad or how chaotic a person is?
-
I believe the rules of D&D specifically define assassination as a purely evil act. I think the Book of Vile Deeds would be the prime source for such information.
