Quests (/Banners) and Alignment

[Sypthe]

Hi,

So I was thinking - there are a whole bunch of things the do-Gooders, do-Neutrals and do-Evils do that should warrant alignment points. For instance, I could name an instance of a certain young Tymoran dumping thousands of stags into the Arbiter's Alliance coffers, etc. Or the countless of times said Tymoran (and friends!) went to do grand quests and returned to proudly plant a banner in the front yard of the Helmite temple.

These actions, at the moment, don't give alignment points, and that seems odd to me. I won't say a single word about how many alignment points things deserve, that's not what I'm talking about, but just the fact that they should reward some.

This would have some great implications.

1) We could have it where maybe you can deliver banners to some -other- factions than your own, to build some minor rep (and slowly get alignment-changed!). An evil character might want to repent, for instance - and this way, they could do the actions IC, post cool journal articles about how they sneak around to do this, and find their alignment changing).

2) I don't know how it works for the evils, but it would seem odd to me that folks in league with Myrkul would be able to hand in the Necropolis banner, for instance. I'd say: it should still be possible, but heck, let's face it: you're not doing Myrkul any favors! Or maybe they could get the -option- to get either type of alignment points, since it's the player's character, and they'd likely know.

3) You can play around with your own alignment. Let's say someone wanted to play a Fallen paladin going blackguard, they could slowly advance that plot themselves. It would free up time of the DM's.

4) DM's aren't always around to award alignment points, and some actions in-game are just no-brainers that they are of a certain alignment. Even if I'd argue, somehow , that my character is totally evil because they, I don't know, infiltrated the temple of Helm and is now a member of the Triumvirate and to keep up appearances they need to hang up banners -- you'd still be doing the world a favor ridding the Necropolis of undead. If you can do unwitting evil, than you can also do unwitting good.

I don't know - it just seems kind of logical to me. I've not been able to amass the gold yet, but if I'd sink 70 000 goldpieces into the Arbiter Alliance's coffers for reputation points, I'd kind of hope there'd be some alignment points along with it.

Let me know!

- Sypthe

[GodBeastX]

Grinding a sense of self has never sat well with me. Alignment shifting in P&P isn't handled in the mechanics like this so it can become quickly unbalancing. For example, people using it to access classes for the benefits and swap alignments for playstyle.

"But I'm a GOOD Palemaster!"

Not to mention, alignments are dependant upon a lot more than a script can take into account. Donating tons of coin might seem like a good deed until it's found out it's only 1% of your holding or done simply to boast about later, etc.

In the end only DMs can shift alignment and it'll stay that way.

[Sypthe]

Grinding a sense of self has never sat well with me. Alignment shifting in P&P isn't handled in the mechanics like this so it can become quickly unbalancing. For example, people using it to access classes for the benefits and swap alignments for playstyle.

"But I'm a GOOD Palemaster!"

Fair enough - I hadn't considered that. Although that last point, though, is exactly what I mean to point out. I don't know how it works for evils, I genuinely don't, so I was wondering if they -do- get any repurcussions for grinding the Necropolis, for instance?

Not to mention, alignments are dependant upon a lot more than a script can take into account. Donating tons of coin might seem like a good deed until it's found out it's only 1% of your holding or done simply to boast about later, etc.

That's fair enough - but on the other hand, DM's looking at people's actions is equally troublesome, since they don't see most of what a PC does. So that's a massively skewed view as well. I mean, we could start pulling on DM's sleeves all the time to point out the things we do - but I don't know, that feels bad to me.

I don't like sending DM's tells. They're busy enough.

In the end only DMs can shift alignment and it'll stay that way.

Tell me to drop the issue, and I gladly will. It's not a big deal to me - I just thought it was a good suggestion.

[Cornuto]

Its not that its a bad suggestion, but the first day that its implemented we'll have people grinding alignment so they can make ridiculous builds.

[roguethree]

I don't know how it works for evils, I genuinely don't, so I was wondering if they -do- get any repurcussions for grinding the Necropolis, for instance?

Evil destroying evil isn't necessarily a good act. Evil's far more complex than that. That's a discussion for a whole new thread!

Too much more pg'ing could happen with a player-controlled alignment system. Alignments should be more dynamic, yeah. Plenty of neutral pcs that definitely act definitively good or evil, but that's just on the DMs to catch and correct.

[Sypthe]

Ahhh, fair enough.

Okay, I'm convinced - ready for a lock!

[Redjack]

Black Hand members can not grind for xp/gold/banners in the necropolis. Other evil characters would be able to.

[Sypthe]

Black Hand members can not grind for xp/gold/banners in the necropolis. Other evil characters would be able to.

How so? I mean - that was one of my questions in the original post: can't they, mechanics-wise? Or can't they, RP-wise?

[roguethree]

They can't mechanics-wise because of faction associations. The Necropolis undead are assigned to the Myrkulite faction, so Black Hand members can't go stomping through for xpz. Veritas are factioned to Veritas, Cartel to Black Tax, etc.

[Cornuto]

Yup, they aren't hostile to Blackhand PCs.

[Sypthe]

Ahhh, thanks!

Good to know!

[GodBeastX]

The big thing people have trouble separating is actions because your an alignment and actions that MAKE you that alignment.

Good people tend to donate, but is donations what make them good?

Generally a good rule of thumb is this:

* An action that makes you good is done at the detriment of self for others.
* An action that makes you evil is done at the detriment of others for self.

Neutral acts tend to fall somewhere in between.

In P&P there is no alignment points. You pretty much just suddenly are good or evil or what not. And in P&P people RARELY shift. Generally people remain the same alignment throughout a campaign, it's just how people tend to be.

NWN started this whole shifting thing mainly for their story purposes. But a lot of what the story does for shifting wouldn't actually shift people.

People tend to over complicate what good and evil are with thoughts behind it, motivations, or even how the -world- feels about it, but it all boils down to the above.

Most people are neutral in the world as Humans because of the above. It's hard to do something that sacrifices of yourself or of others. Giving someone the finger is a neutral act. Paladins can give people the finger and still be a paladin. They can spit on people, etc. Nobody says a paladin has to be a nice guy.

So let's consider something like donating coins. While games like NWN make it seem that donating coins should shift you it's really not something detrimental to yourself. It's more a result of the good mentality than something that makes someone good. You are a nice guy so you tend to give resources out.

Now if you were to give away your means of life to help someone? If you can't eat tomorrow because you fed someone homeless? That's more something that would make you good.

So players tend to come to us and say "I did this and this and this... can I be shifted?" and it tends to be nothing along the lines of detriment, it tends to be motivators or mundane actions. I tend not to even bother shifting alignment if it isn't something I could definitely say is worth 25 points of shifting because of that.

An example of a good motivation that is an evil act might be you are somehow blessed to destroy the ultimate evil in the land. So during a fight with some underlings you abandon your team to death because if you die the evil in the world will never be slain. You may be thinking about the greater good, but that action itself is evil. Or maybe to destroy the evil you have to sacrifice good to do it.

Think of the end of the Dragon Heart movie. Bowen had to throw his axe into the dragon to kill the evil tyrant king. The outcome is good for everyone but slaying the dragon was an evil act.

This is why many evil people in the world tend not to even know they're evil. They are doing things for the greater good and it unfortunately causes sacrifices along the way. I'm sure we all saw the final fantasy movie. The villainous leader who wanted to zap the ghosts to save all of humanity had the best intentions. They tried to paint him as a jerk, but in the end he was just trying to save the world in his own way.

So taking all that into account I won't make alignment a grinding value and will leave it up to DMs to decide the shifting.

[Lydyn]

I must post a text from Book of Exalted Deeds on the Ends and Means. Whether this fits into real life is matter of perceptive, but in the D&D universe, this seems to be the final ruling;

Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: "I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity." For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to their exalted feats.
Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character's soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to comment an evil act, the effects are larger then the individual character. What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil's favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act that involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable.
Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need.

Sorry if it's a bit off-topic, but I saw the perfect chance to quote my favorite D&D passage.