|
Post by Penguin on Jan 18, 2022 11:08:27 GMT -5
Hah. I wouldn't look to do alignment shifts with neutral summons. primarily because that would just get messy, complicated, and I don't have the time to track every character and every variety of summon they travel with throughout their parties.
|
|
|
Post by DM Flash on Jan 18, 2022 11:14:24 GMT -5
There's also no such thing as Neutral points.
The concepts are Good vs Evil (morality) and Order vs Chaos (ethics), each 0-100pts. Being N in one or more of those concepts is what gives us the 9 alignments.
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Jan 18, 2022 14:23:41 GMT -5
Exactly... to give "Neutral" points you're really giving Good or Evil points, which doesn't make sense for a "Neutral" summoning.
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on Jan 19, 2022 10:43:37 GMT -5
Actually does not make sense in those playing neutrals. With respect neutrals in my opinion need to be given a bit more consideration before getting alignment shifts or if they do less of a hit than good and evil.
|
|
|
Post by iamthecircle on Jan 19, 2022 11:00:15 GMT -5
Its 100% possible to shift someone neutral. You shift them more toward the center. As Flash said, there's a scale of 0-100. 50 would be neutral. If you're in a party and you're evil, then you summon a neutral creature... You'd shift toward 50, getting good points. If you're neutral, no change. If you're good, you shift down, getting evil points. That'd be a neutral alighnment shift. If we're going to give points for a summoning an evil or good creature, we must also give points for summoning neutral creatures. Those points would shift the summoner to the "neutral" part of the alignment scale.
|
|
|
Post by Dakarizon (Shroud) on Jan 19, 2022 12:20:01 GMT -5
Its 100% possible to shift someone neutral. You shift them more toward the center. As Flash said, there's a scale of 0-100. 50 would be neutral. If you're in a party and you're evil, then you summon a neutral creature... You'd shift toward 50, getting good points. If you're neutral, no change. If you're good, you shift down, getting evil points. That'd be a neutral alighnment shift. If we're going to give points for a summoning an evil or good creature, we must also give points for summoning neutral creatures. Those points would shift the summoner to the "neutral" part of the alignment scale. I think when it was mentioned there were no neutral shifts, it was intended to mean you can’t be given “neutral points” as in, if you’re evil and do something neutral it won’t shift you as there’s really no such thing as “neutral” actions beyond inaction- I could be mistaken here though. Do enough good however and you might find yourself in the neutral area. I’ve always viewed alignment changes as simply something the DMs have to do in order to bring your character closer to how you are roleplaying them. I’m confident the team would reach out to someone if their barbarian is constantly acting lawful, ect.
|
|
|
Post by Dakarizon (Shroud) on Jan 19, 2022 12:26:37 GMT -5
Actually does not make sense in those playing neutrals. With respect neutrals in my opinion need to be given a bit more consideration before getting alignment shifts or if they do less of a hit than good and evil. I would think neutrals would be more likely to get an alignment shift since they are “sitting on the fence” or walking a fine line between. I would imagine this would only impact druids the most, but it depends on your starting alignment. I tend to make neutral characters neutral because i accept that they can be swayed by either end of the spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by iamthecircle on Jan 19, 2022 12:32:57 GMT -5
Do enough good however and you might find yourself in the neutral area. I’ve always viewed alignment changes as simply something the DMs have to do in order to bring your character closer to how you are roleplaying them. I’m confident the team would reach out to someone if their barbarian is constantly acting lawful, ect. Sure, but here we're referencing summons. Good summons bring you toward good, evil summons bring you evil, so therefore neutral summons should make you more neutral. I understand there are no neutral shifts, but you can be made neutral. As a side note, I think animayhem's point about neutral characters having a harder time shifting away from being neutral is precisely because they can be swayed either way. A neutral character isn't one end or the other, but rather both. So even if I consistently do good things, I can still be neutral because the next thing I do could be evil (not at random, of course, but following some creed). So, they'd need a stronger force to make them shift good or evil, as their actions embody both at times.
|
|
|
Post by Dakarizon (Shroud) on Jan 19, 2022 13:13:50 GMT -5
Do enough good however and you might find yourself in the neutral area. I’ve always viewed alignment changes as simply something the DMs have to do in order to bring your character closer to how you are roleplaying them. I’m confident the team would reach out to someone if their barbarian is constantly acting lawful, ect. Sure, but here we're referencing summons. Good summons bring you toward good, evil summons bring you evil, so therefore neutral summons should make you more neutral. I understand there are no neutral shifts, but you can be made neutral. As a side note, I think animayhem's point about neutral characters having a harder time shifting away from being neutral is precisely because they can be swayed either way. A neutral character isn't one end or the other, but rather both. So even if I consistently do good things, I can still be neutral because the next thing I do could be evil (not at random, of course, but following some creed). So, they'd need a stronger force to make them shift good or evil, as their actions embody both at times. I don’t think a neutral summon would shift anyone. Animals are true neutral. If you’re summoning a CN or a LN outsider then maybe you move towards the lawful or chaos spectrum if you associate/pact/travel with them since that is their defining trait. I think summoning anything shouldn’t simply shift an alignment depending on why its being summoned. A lawful good wizard should be able to summon a devil in order to get information to save a village. Creating /animating undead isn’t the same as summoning though. The type of undead available to create are always evil and the act of doing so seems to be a pretty clear. That being said I don’t think creating undead, or violating any laws should result in chaotic points. I dont think “lawful” necessarily means “following the laws of cormyr” you could very well be following your own personal code of conduit or have a dedication to order that differs from Cormyr’s. A lawful evil character doesn’t have to be a law-abiding citizen.
|
|
|
Post by iamthecircle on Jan 19, 2022 13:46:11 GMT -5
Sure, but here we're referencing summons. Good summons bring you toward good, evil summons bring you evil, so therefore neutral summons should make you more neutral. I understand there are no neutral shifts, but you can be made neutral. As a side note, I think animayhem's point about neutral characters having a harder time shifting away from being neutral is precisely because they can be swayed either way. A neutral character isn't one end or the other, but rather both. So even if I consistently do good things, I can still be neutral because the next thing I do could be evil (not at random, of course, but following some creed). So, they'd need a stronger force to make them shift good or evil, as their actions embody both at times. I don’t think a neutral summon would shift anyone. Animals are true neutral. If you’re summoning a CN or a LN outsider then maybe you move towards the lawful or chaos spectrum if you associate/pact/travel with them since that is their defining trait. I think summoning anything shouldn’t simply shift an alignment depending on why its being summoned. A lawful good wizard should be able to summon a devil in order to get information to save a village. Creating /animating undead isn’t the same as summoning though. The type of undead available to create are always evil and the act of doing so seems to be a pretty clear. That being said I don’t think creating undead, or violating any laws should result in chaotic points. I dont think “lawful” necessarily means “following the laws of cormyr” you could very well be following your own personal code of conduit or have a dedication to order that differs from Cormyr’s. A lawful evil character doesn’t have to be a law-abiding citizen. I'm 100% on the same page as you there. No summons should shift alignment, its how you use the alignment that affects it. And the creation/summoning of undead requires negative energy. Channeling negative energy is something that shifts you evil, even if only slightly (since you're making contact with the plane of evil) so... yeah. Evil. Not chaotic, unless you use them in a specific way. However, the point here is that DMs HAVE given evil points to players for summoning evil creatures. Locusts are evil on FRC, and when a neutral character in my party summoned locusts and used them to stun enemies, they were given evil points. They complained to the DM who did so, and were actively told that the reason they received evil points is because they summoned an evil creature. So the point of this thread was to clarify the rules on these situations and try to make them more... Regular. If we are to get evil points for summoning an evil creature, we should likewise get good or neutral points for summoning creatures of those respective types. Personally, I don't think DMs on FRC should give alignment points unless its part of a plot and the DM has been following that player for quite some time and has seen them consistently behave in a certain way. (or if a player requests the change and proves that they are playing the alignment somehow). But if we are going to be given points, I think having a per-DM basis on how such things are doled out is an exceptionally poor way to handle it, considering how personally some players take their alignment.
|
|
|
Post by Dakarizon (Shroud) on Jan 19, 2022 14:10:13 GMT -5
This kind of thing is always going to be tricky to manage. I don’t really see the big deal getting points here and there, since points that don’t change your alignment do functionally nothing. A paladin starts out as lawful good, but not 100 points in each. That doesn’t make him 15% evil. Characters don’t necessarily know their alignment, so playing your character the way you want should eventually settle on the alignment you’re portraying them as.
I was mostly just chiming in to agree that you shouldn’t be able to shift “neutral” ever. Neutral is the result of an evil character performing good or a good character performing evil or a neutral character doing both or neither.
To take an extreme example: a paladin sits at a desk in game rp’s writing a journal or arranging his paperwork. There’s nothing good or evil there… its a neutral action. If it was an in- game dialogue box and there were 3 options: “write a letter of donation to a charity” “organize the desk” “steal office supplies and stab the children of the orphanage with the pens you stole” one is clearly good and one is clearly evil… the fact that the paladin organized the desk wouldn’t shift him toward evil. Sure he didn’t donate to the charity so he missed out on gaining good points, but he shouldn’t lose any.
|
|
|
Post by iamthecircle on Jan 19, 2022 14:33:06 GMT -5
I suppose its necessary to define terms now, since we seem to be operating under different definitions. You're using "neutral" in the sense of "inaction". But in D&D, neutrality is a morally grey action, not merely "no action". I agree, not every action is moral, some actions are inherently amoral. But some actions can be morally neutral. Not mundane, day-to-day actions, but actions that have consequences.
For example, an action that is in a state of being between the two due to an evil action done with good intentions. Eco-terrorism comes to mind. A less extreme example could be robin hood. Stealing is evil, but he's doing it with good intentions. Actions that have unintended, but bad consequences are morally neutral. I reach over to grab my cup and knock over a vase, breaking it. I'd say that's neutral. (As a side note, this is why I agree with ani that neutral characters shouldn't be shifted with frivolous intent. A neutral action inherently goes further than skin-deep, which DMs can't see)
I love taking extreme examples, but in your example we have a morally good action, a morally evil action, and an action that isn't moral. Its as moral as my choosing to drink tea or coffee when I'm thirsty.
Especially in D&D, though, neutrality is defined as being a character willing to do both good and evil in equal measure. So yes, shifting neutral can happen. It is a shift toward the median. That doesn't mean you get "neutral" points or something silly like that, it just means you get points towards the other end you're not currently on. If I've got a character who performs good acts as easily as they'll perform evil acts, as their DM I'll throw them in the Neutral bin. Mind you, if they're doing the good stuff to not get pegged as being evil then they're evil. A neutral shift is possible. And frankly, fairly easy. All it takes is the evil player doing unambiguously good acts consistently enough, while still doing evil stuff. Or the Good player peppering in some merciless slaughtering of their foes while doing so for a good cause. When the archer mows down screaming bandits crying for mercy, they're not good or evil. But if they're playing a good character, that'd be a neutral shift (Which means they get evil points, though it was not an evil act)
Ultimately, it is complicated enough that shifting alignments on FRC should be done with great care. Some DMs clearly take that care, but from what I've seen, others are more willing to chuck alignment shifts at players for slight offenses.
|
|
|
Post by Dakarizon (Shroud) on Jan 19, 2022 14:52:11 GMT -5
Yeah it is a bit complicated. I have no problem with alignment points being thrown around willy-nilly. Theoretically every choice you make in character could have an alignment point tacked on. So long as it doesn't actually change your characters alignment. For an actual alignment change, I would hope an OOC conversation would be had.
BTW When I see "Eco-Terrorism" "robin-hood" I don't really see good/evil there but mostly law/chaos. I don't think stealing is evil in a vacuum. It strikes me as chaotic though
Also a point on neutrality. "action that isn't moral. Its as moral as my choosing to drink tea or coffee when I'm thirsty." This defines neutrality to me. Like an animal that drinks because it's thirsty. You didn't drink that tea because it's the last one and I wanted it. Or you didn't offer the tea to me because maybe I was thirsty. You just drank it. Nothing wrong or right about it. On the other spectrum, did you add milk after or before... law vs chaos haha.
|
|
|
Post by iamthecircle on Jan 19, 2022 15:32:11 GMT -5
So then the actions of eco-terrorists and Robin hood are only lawful/chaotic, with no reference to good/evil? That seems strange. Is giving to the needy not a good thing? I think you're ignoring the neutrality of the action. It's neither good nor evil, though both are chaotic. That's why we'd call them chaotic neutral acts. Morally neutral, and therefore deserving of a shift in that direction. Contrast this with what you call the epitome of neutral acts, the choice of tea or coffee. It is a neutral act, I agree, but in a tautological sense. In a "1 is a prime number" sense. I don't care about it, because it's trivially true. So trivial it wouldn't shift an alignment. But some acts are morally neutral, not just neutral. These acts are non-trivial and would shift alignment if done often enough
|
|
|
Post by Dakarizon (Shroud) on Jan 19, 2022 16:16:37 GMT -5
So then the actions of eco-terrorists and Robin hood are only lawful/chaotic, with no reference to good/evil? That seems strange. Is giving to the needy not a good thing? I think you're ignoring the neutrality of the action. It's neither good nor evil, though both are chaotic. That's why we'd call them chaotic neutral acts. Morally neutral, and therefore deserving of a shift in that direction. Contrast this with what you call the epitome of neutral acts, the choice of tea or coffee. It is a neutral act, I agree, but in a tautological sense. In a "1 is a prime number" sense. I don't care about it, because it's trivially true. So trivial it wouldn't shift an alignment. But some acts are morally neutral, not just neutral. These acts are non-trivial and would shift alignment if done often enough I think the action determines if its lawful or chaotic or neither and the reasoning determines if its good or evil or neither. In a general sense. Stealing would be the chaotic act, but depending on which version of robin hood, we can probably place him in CG or CN. All acts aren’t created equal. I tend to view evil as the stronger action for members of the playable races, you’re generally assumed to be good/neutral. Obvious player character can be any alignment, but the average npc is probably good/neutral in this setting. You could spend your whole life in Cormyr doing good deeds, tithing, helping others, saving lives… but once in a while you just need to murder someone for fun. This character would be evil, not neutral. Even if the good deeds far outnumber the evil ones. This is why I don’t have an issue with a good or neutral character getting evil points for summoning evil creatures to torture and slowly kill their enemies. The farther away your action is from your alignment, the greater the adjustment should be. An issue is when a characters actions don’t match what their alignment should portray. Since characters don’t have minds of their own, we rely on our own personal philosophy to justify their actions. Which may or may not align with source or with the opinions of DMs or other players. Always good to talk about it if it happens to you and you disagree with it. Seems easiest to handle on a case by case basis
|
|
|
Post by iamthecircle on Jan 19, 2022 16:34:48 GMT -5
You could spend your whole life in Cormyr doing good deeds, tithing, helping others, saving lives… but once in a while you just need to murder someone for fun. This character would be evil, not neutral. I'll take issue with this. As you say, not all acts are created equal. Sure, that's evil to act good but murder for fun, but that would be because you chose the most extreme example, rather nullifying your point. Neutral would be someone doing all the good stuff, but also serially lying or harming others to save others... Such as robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Murder is an extreme evil and a good way to prove you're evil. Perhaps your house is broken into and you murder them in defense. Less evil, right? Action is evil, intent is good. (I don't know if I'd call this something that'd shift alignment, but still.) Second, it's interesting that you say someone summons an evil creature to kill or torture enemies. Good/neutral summons can be put to the same task, and should get evil points for doing so. But simply summoning something evil does not evil shift make. Also, I can use an evil summon for non-evil purposes. Like I said swarm of bugs is evil, but all they're used for is stunning enemies. Not maliciously torturing them, preventing them from killing the summoner and allies. I guess I'll poke at your first point, too. How can reasoning make something morally neutral? "I figure I'll have coffee" is amoral, not morally neutral. My point remains that by acting like Robin hood, you could get shifted to a neutral alignment. A neutral shift, which you have previously said isn't possible.
|
|
|
Post by Dakarizon (Shroud) on Jan 19, 2022 17:18:24 GMT -5
You could spend your whole life in Cormyr doing good deeds, tithing, helping others, saving lives… but once in a while you just need to murder someone for fun. This character would be evil, not neutral. I'll take issue with this. As you say, not all acts are created equal. Sure, that's evil to act good but murder for fun, but that would be because you chose the most extreme example, rather nullifying your point. Neutral would be someone doing all the good stuff, but also serially lying or harming others to save others... Such as robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Murder is an extreme evil and a good way to prove you're evil. Perhaps your house is broken into and you murder them in defense. Less evil, right? Action is evil, intent is good. (I don't know if I'd call this something that'd shift alignment, but still.) Second, it's interesting that you say someone summons an evil creature to kill or torture enemies. Good/neutral summons can be put to the same task, and should get evil points for doing so. But simply summoning something evil does not evil shift make. Also, I can use an evil summon for non-evil purposes. Like I said swarm of bugs is evil, but all they're used for is stunning enemies. Not maliciously torturing them, preventing them from killing the summoner and allies. I guess I'll poke at your first point, too. How can reasoning make something morally neutral? "I figure I'll have coffee" is amoral, not morally neutral. My point remains that by acting like Robin hood, you could get shifted to a neutral alignment. A neutral shift, which you have previously said isn't possible. Robin hood is one of those characters that has had different depictions over the years where alignments don’t exist. He just is who he is. You can’t say acting like robinhood in frc would shift you into neutral because it is relative to starting alignment and what specific actions you’re taking as robin hood. In terms of the evil locust summoning “all they’re being used for is to stun enemies” well yeah mechanically there’s just a blue circle spinning around their head, but the bugs are doing damage. What exactly is causing that creature to be stunned? Are the locusts flying into their orifices and eating away at them? Are they just shocking the senses of the creatures by overwhelming it with pain? Not 100% sure its pure evil but It would be tough to argue that it isn’t cruel. Not actually sure why they are evil creatures exactly… maybe someone with more lore could comment. Either way, the fact that you or I would give very different alignment points to characters acting the same way sort of proves how complicated it can be to generalize and that its best to simply play your character to what you believe their alignment is and handle any misunderstandings or alignment shifts in private with the person on a case by case basis. Any attempt to globally specify exact situations when alignment can be shifted will just lead to debates and arguments.
|
|
|
Post by PepperWolf on Jan 19, 2022 17:55:48 GMT -5
I don't really understand the idea that locusts are supposed to be evil. I mean they are basically grasshoppers.... What's making them evil? Do they have intelligence? I can't see them anymore aligned than a wolf would be. Heck they can't even really get angry like a wolf can. A wolf can rip and tear and be vicious. How are a bunch of bugs evil. There are golems that seem more evil with healing themselves while harming others and they are not considered evil. If the idea that they are evil is that they are just destructive toward crops.. I mean that doesn't mean they are evil. That is like saying summoning a bunch of bighead carp (invasive fish) is evil. They disappear within minutes anyway. The fish are not evil and neither are the locusts themselves.
Alignment is complicated enough that I don't think summoning alone should be used to change alignment. Undead I feel like may be a special case. It's important to note u are not bringing these things into the world to then release (u don't let the cloud of locusts fly off to cause havoc elsewhere. Nor creating them (u r not creating locusts and making there be more locusts in existence because of your spell. They came from somewhere).
The purpose can matter alot. In adnd 2ed there is a spell called "Mount". It summoned a horse for a number of hours. It really had nothing to do with alignment as summoning a horse was just.. ya know a horse. The issue came when I would use the spell in a dungeon. Summon the horse and smack it's rear to send it running down the halls and let it trigger traps. It would scream and die and then I'd walk along pass where the blades had cut it apart to summon another horse for the next part of the trapped dungeon. That's perhaps a bit evil. Intent. If u r just summoning locusts that stun orcs... Or evil cultists.. eh. Not really evil intent. If u summoned them on the farmers fields in order to destroy the coming crop and cause famine... Sure. But since they disappear right after summoning them u would have to do this over and over and over as u will not destroy all cormyr crops with a single 15 ft radius cloud in 20 mins. Really just comes down to property damage. Like summoning a rhino in the field and letting it stomp around.
|
|
|
Post by iamthecircle on Jan 19, 2022 21:34:35 GMT -5
I'll take issue with this. As you say, not all acts are created equal. Sure, that's evil to act good but murder for fun, but that would be because you chose the most extreme example, rather nullifying your point. Neutral would be someone doing all the good stuff, but also serially lying or harming others to save others... Such as robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Murder is an extreme evil and a good way to prove you're evil. Perhaps your house is broken into and you murder them in defense. Less evil, right? Action is evil, intent is good. (I don't know if I'd call this something that'd shift alignment, but still.) Second, it's interesting that you say someone summons an evil creature to kill or torture enemies. Good/neutral summons can be put to the same task, and should get evil points for doing so. But simply summoning something evil does not evil shift make. Also, I can use an evil summon for non-evil purposes. Like I said swarm of bugs is evil, but all they're used for is stunning enemies. Not maliciously torturing them, preventing them from killing the summoner and allies. I guess I'll poke at your first point, too. How can reasoning make something morally neutral? "I figure I'll have coffee" is amoral, not morally neutral. My point remains that by acting like Robin hood, you could get shifted to a neutral alignment. A neutral shift, which you have previously said isn't possible. Robin hood is one of those characters that has had different depictions over the years where alignments don’t exist. He just is who he is. You can’t say acting like robinhood in frc would shift you into neutral because it is relative to starting alignment and what specific actions you’re taking as robin hood. In terms of the evil locust summoning “all they’re being used for is to stun enemies” well yeah mechanically there’s just a blue circle spinning around their head, but the bugs are doing damage. What exactly is causing that creature to be stunned? Are the locusts flying into their orifices and eating away at them? Are they just shocking the senses of the creatures by overwhelming it with pain? Not 100% sure its pure evil but It would be tough to argue that it isn’t cruel. Not actually sure why they are evil creatures exactly… maybe someone with more lore could comment. Either way, the fact that you or I would give very different alignment points to characters acting the same way sort of proves how complicated it can be to generalize and that its best to simply play your character to what you believe their alignment is and handle any misunderstandings or alignment shifts in private with the person on a case by case basis. Any attempt to globally specify exact situations when alignment can be shifted will just lead to debates and arguments. You yourself said that robin hood would be CN or CG. Therefore, playing him should shift your alignment CN if you're playing that version of him. Sorry, I didn't think I'd need to spell that out so I left it unsaid. As for the locusts... Sorry, I fail to see why bringing locusts to bear on kobolds, gnolls, and orcs (Or even bandits and cultists) is evil. Killing anything is cruel, and though some methods of killing are more cruel than others, causing pain isn't inherently evil. If the summoner were to revel in the pain then that's one thing, but the summoning itself shouldn't be evil just because the summon is evil. And I've never said shifts should be on a case-by-case basis, we do a lot of jurisprudence on FRC case-by-case even if there's an overarching rule governing it. By giving a baseline, you can begin to govern case-by-case, so players can point to the rule for backup if they feel they've been wronged. Saying, "Lets go case-by-case" when there's no rule to say how the DM can act allows DMs to arbitrarily hand out alignment points. Though this can then be argued, there's really no way to say how it'll get handled. Wait, do you think handling it case-by-case won't lead to debates and arguments? Isn't that what we're doing right now, precisely due to the lack of a rule on the matter? If there were an internal rule to keep all DMs consistent across the board, that should reduce future debates because then there's something the DM or player can point to to say, "Look, this line has/hasn't been crossed" then the debate either ends or it refines the line further... Which is how rules work. But debates will happen without the rule to govern it.
|
|
|
Post by Dakarizon (Shroud) on Jan 19, 2022 23:48:03 GMT -5
You yourself said that robin hood would be CN or CG. Therefore, playing him should shift your alignment CN if you're playing that version of him. Sorry, I didn't think I'd need to spell that out so I left it unsaid. As for the locusts... Sorry, I fail to see why bringing locusts to bear on kobolds, gnolls, and orcs (Or even bandits and cultists) is evil. Killing anything is cruel, and though some methods of killing are more cruel than others, causing pain isn't inherently evil. If the summoner were to revel in the pain then that's one thing, but the summoning itself shouldn't be evil just because the summon is evil. And I've never said shifts should be on a case-by-case basis, we do a lot of jurisprudence on FRC case-by-case even if there's an overarching rule governing it. By giving a baseline, you can begin to govern case-by-case, so players can point to the rule for backup if they feel they've been wronged. Saying, "Lets go case-by-case" when there's no rule to say how the DM can act allows DMs to arbitrarily hand out alignment points. Though this can then be argued, there's really no way to say how it'll get handled. Wait, do you think handling it case-by-case won't lead to debates and arguments? Isn't that what we're doing right now, precisely due to the lack of a rule on the matter? If there were an internal rule to keep all DMs consistent across the board, that should reduce future debates because then there's something the DM or player can point to to say, "Look, this line has/hasn't been crossed" then the debate either ends or it refines the line further... Which is how rules work. But debates will happen without the rule to govern it. Yeah ok, I'm not sure I appreciate the bit of attitude about "spelling it out" to me. I understand how alignment shifts work, my point was if you're say a Neutral Good character and playing a version of say Robinhood, the major change you would face would be chaotic primarily. Sure you could also maybe get an evil point if that robin hood starts acting evil, but as I'm mostly familiar with the cartoony one, I don't really see it. My point was the focus on the thievery, which isn't good or evil, so the shift would be on the chaos/lawful plane. I know you didn't say shifts would be on a case-by-case basis.. I think they should. Just my opinion. I'm not aware of the amount of litigation FRC actually does, as I tend to simply follow rules and, more importantly, use common sense. I don't remember ever having been disciplined in any way. I perhaps had 1 talk once years ago about being invisible in a dungeon, but I believe it was to rescue someone and was cleared. One of the rules is to to roll play your character. Do we really need to be railroaded that hard at RPing an alignment when we've been able to do so for 15+ years? Should there be a rule on how many undead you can get away with summoning before you stop becoming a druid? It can go on all day. "Arbitrarily handing out alignment points" seems like it would be exactly a job of a DM to do. Personally, when it comes to alignment, I think judging an action at face value is simpler and more clear cut than knowing all the characters reasonings for behaving in such a way, and likely yields more honest results. Motive isn't always a factor in a world of absolutes and black-and-white alignments. The DMs here are so friendly and easy to talk to, just explain your case if you disagree and why, and then if you still have an issue, take it up with another one? I don't really have any incentive for it to go one way or another... A DM can hand me alignment points all day, and I'm fine with it, I'll just either adjust my roleplay to better match the characters on-paper alignment, or continue playing my character how I want and accept an alignment shift. It's not like it's a punishment, you literally control how your character acts after all. This just seems that we're just salty about an alignment point (Not even a shift) for using an OP summon that has moral consequences for conjuring. I'll bow out of the convo seeing as you need to spell everything out for me. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Asgardian Grey Hawk on Jan 20, 2022 0:49:44 GMT -5
I don't really understand the idea that locusts are supposed to be evil. I mean they are basically grasshoppers.... What's making them evil? Do they have intelligence? I can't see them anymore aligned than a wolf would be. Heck they can't even really get angry like a wolf can. A wolf can rip and tear and be vicious. How are a bunch of bugs evil. There are golems that seem more evil with healing themselves while harming others and they are not considered evil. If the idea that they are evil is that they are just destructive toward crops.. I mean that doesn't mean they are evil. That is like saying summoning a bunch of bighead carp (invasive fish) is evil. They disappear within minutes anyway. The fish are not evil and neither are the locusts themselves. Alignment is complicated enough that I don't think summoning alone should be used to change alignment. Undead I feel like may be a special case. It's important to note u are not bringing these things into the world to then release (u don't let the cloud of locusts fly off to cause havoc elsewhere. Nor creating them (u r not creating locusts and making there be more locusts in existence because of your spell. They came from somewhere). The purpose can matter alot. In adnd 2ed there is a spell called "Mount". It summoned a horse for a number of hours. It really had nothing to do with alignment as summoning a horse was just.. ya know a horse. The issue came when I would use the spell in a dungeon. Summon the horse and smack it's rear to send it running down the halls and let it trigger traps. It would scream and die and then I'd walk along pass where the blades had cut it apart to summon another horse for the next part of the trapped dungeon. That's perhaps a bit evil. Intent. If u r just summoning locusts that stun orcs... Or evil cultists.. eh. Not really evil intent. If u summoned them on the farmers fields in order to destroy the coming crop and cause famine... Sure. But since they disappear right after summoning them u would have to do this over and over and over as u will not destroy all cormyr crops with a single 15 ft radius cloud in 20 mins. Really just comes down to property damage. Like summoning a rhino in the field and letting it stomp around. If I was pinged with evil for locust I would personally dispute the ping. Unless the Swarms are inherently evil IE you use the swarm to take out said farmers crops or something of the line. but to summon them in and of it'sself then I would dispute. Again Vermin are just that vermin. I personally don't see the connection to Vermin and Evil. The vermin summons can be used for evil sure and if they were yes Evil points are warranted. My personal opinion however.
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Jan 20, 2022 0:56:27 GMT -5
I'm not familiar with the locusts, but I seem to recall a thread some time ago talking about a swarm Summons where the description of the swarm specifies that they're Evil (demonic bugs, maybe?). Are these the same thing?
|
|
|
Post by iamthecircle on Jan 20, 2022 1:23:09 GMT -5
You yourself said that robin hood would be CN or CG. Therefore, playing him should shift your alignment CN if you're playing that version of him. Sorry, I didn't think I'd need to spell that out so I left it unsaid. As for the locusts... Sorry, I fail to see why bringing locusts to bear on kobolds, gnolls, and orcs (Or even bandits and cultists) is evil. Killing anything is cruel, and though some methods of killing are more cruel than others, causing pain isn't inherently evil. If the summoner were to revel in the pain then that's one thing, but the summoning itself shouldn't be evil just because the summon is evil. And I've never said shifts should be on a case-by-case basis, we do a lot of jurisprudence on FRC case-by-case even if there's an overarching rule governing it. By giving a baseline, you can begin to govern case-by-case, so players can point to the rule for backup if they feel they've been wronged. Saying, "Lets go case-by-case" when there's no rule to say how the DM can act allows DMs to arbitrarily hand out alignment points. Though this can then be argued, there's really no way to say how it'll get handled. Wait, do you think handling it case-by-case won't lead to debates and arguments? Isn't that what we're doing right now, precisely due to the lack of a rule on the matter? If there were an internal rule to keep all DMs consistent across the board, that should reduce future debates because then there's something the DM or player can point to to say, "Look, this line has/hasn't been crossed" then the debate either ends or it refines the line further... Which is how rules work. But debates will happen without the rule to govern it. Yeah ok, I'm not sure I appreciate the bit of attitude about "spelling it out" to me. I understand how alignment shifts work, my point was if you're say a Neutral Good character and playing a version of say Robinhood, the major change you would face would be chaotic primarily. Sure you could also maybe get an evil point if that robin hood starts acting evil, but as I'm mostly familiar with the cartoony one, I don't really see it. My point was the focus on the thievery, which isn't good or evil, so the shift would be on the chaos/lawful plane. I know you didn't say shifts would be on a case-by-case basis.. I think they should. Just my opinion. I'm not aware of the amount of litigation FRC actually does, as I tend to simply follow rules and, more importantly, use common sense. I don't remember ever having been disciplined in any way. I perhaps had 1 talk once years ago about being invisible in a dungeon, but I believe it was to rescue someone and was cleared. One of the rules is to to roll play your character. Do we really need to be railroaded that hard at RPing an alignment when we've been able to do so for 15+ years? Should there be a rule on how many undead you can get away with summoning before you stop becoming a druid? It can go on all day. "Arbitrarily handing out alignment points" seems like it would be exactly a job of a DM to do. Personally, when it comes to alignment, I think judging an action at face value is simpler and more clear cut than knowing all the characters reasonings for behaving in such a way, and likely yields more honest results. Motive isn't always a factor in a world of absolutes and black-and-white alignments. The DMs here are so friendly and easy to talk to, just explain your case if you disagree and why, and then if you still have an issue, take it up with another one? I don't really have any incentive for it to go one way or another... A DM can hand me alignment points all day, and I'm fine with it, I'll just either adjust my roleplay to better match the characters on-paper alignment, or continue playing my character how I want and accept an alignment shift. It's not like it's a punishment, you literally control how your character acts after all. This just seems that we're just salty about an alignment point (Not even a shift) for using an OP summon that has moral consequences for conjuring. Uh... Sorry for the attitude? It wasn't anything aggressive, you simply seemed to be ignoring the intent of my words and taking them down a different path, so I explained the intent more clearly. If Robin hood can be CN, as you said, then a character can shift to become CN if they play like a CN robin hood. Thievery can be evil or good, just as murder can be evil. Intend does matter, though. Killing and stealing for selfish reasons are evil, right? Not just chaotic. I'm aware you think I don't think alignment shifts shouldn't be handled on a case-by-case basis, but I never said I don't want that. All jurisprudence is handled on a case-by-case basis. But by having a rule we have something we can point at to base the judgement upon, rather than waving our hands and hoping to be right. Then, on a case-by-case basis, we can decide if the alignment shift should stick. Congratulations on never having been disciplined, I'm the same way. Please, note the fact that you seemed to have broken a rule with invisibility, then it was decided on a case-by-case basis that you didn't break the rule in question. Having a rule for that situation didn't generalize the case in any way, it merely expedited the process. Common sense is important, but just because we've done something for 15 years doesn't mean its perfect. While handing out alignment points is something for a DM to do, its is extremely difficult for a DM on FRC to be with a player 100% of the time, the way a pnp DM can. So, they may only see one side of their actions and grant far more evil than good points, thus making a neutral character evil despite them doing an equal amount of the two. Motive isn't always a factor, but it is a factor... DMs are friendly, I agree. But they can be wrong, and don't always listen because they're busy or certain that they're correct. Again, I will re-iterate that DMs handing out alignment points isn't bad. What's bad is that they can't give alignment point every single time you perform an action, which can tip the scales in a way that you're not playing your character. The easiest way to resolve this is to not give out alignment points for anything except exceptional moments, which is precisely what I am advocating for. As for your last comment, I'm glad you think I'm salty over nothing. I guess I'll defend myself, though I'm not sure it matters much since I doubt you'll read this defense any more than you read any of my other comments explaining why I think this change is important. I'm salty because alighments are important to a character. Not just mechanically, but they guide us in our role play. Obviously, its not the be-all, end-all, but unfairly getting a point in a direction you don't think you've been playing your character feels bad for some people Maybe not you, my friend, but there do exist those who don't like getting points in a direction they don't agree with. As for the OP summon, last I checked that wasn't a reason to give someone alignment points. if you're doling out alignment points for an OP summon... Something's wrong. You're punishing players. And I you haven't adequately proven that there should be moral consequences for a neutral character summoning and using an evil creature in morally grey fashion. If causing any suffering to one's foes is evil, then every single character, with the exception of anyone who never fights, is evil. If you feel like bowing out, feel free to. It wasn't my intention to rile you up, it was merely a turn of phrase.
|
|
|
Post by Asgardian Grey Hawk on Jan 20, 2022 1:29:37 GMT -5
I'm not familiar with the locusts, but I seem to recall a thread some time ago talking about a swarm Summons where the description of the swarm specifies that they're Evil (demonic bugs, maybe?). Are these the same thing? not that I'm aware of. nothing in them or even the 9th swarm specifies it as evil just a swarm that devours all in their path. again on that description it is neutral at best. Can be used for evil should be given points if used for evil but having it summoned not so much.
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on Jan 20, 2022 10:48:34 GMT -5
I believe alignment shifts should be done on a case by case. Dm events can be stressful so sometimes they hit all at once, I think the appeal process should be made easier.
It felt like forever before Marister's alignment got straightened out. Even though I had explained why different dm's had different ideas.
I think a short general list of actions that may get your alignment shifted. This benefits the players and dms all on the same page.
Unless a dm(s) have been following a player's character and their actions, on the spot shifts should not be given unless it is blatant.
How many times in real life situations have we acted out of our norm in crisis situations? Dm events and regular travel in game can do that.
You use what you can to escape and survive if you are overwhelmed.
|
|
|
Post by DM Flash on Jan 20, 2022 14:50:28 GMT -5
This is false, please check again. The creature is what its character sheet says it is, so it is an NE swarm of locusts and not a TN duck, or anything else. Please use your radial to examine your creatures, it's a feature that is available to every caster and opens both the Character Sheet and the Description window of the summon:
For Context: There are 9 native summon creatures in NWN available to every caster but a few years back FRC added optional summons to spice things up. Out of the 60+ flavored creatures that were added only 13 of them are not True Neutral. There's 1 on the Staff of Vermin, 3 in the Book of Magical Beasts, and all 9 in the Ancient Folio of Undeath. Nobody is forcing players to use these items and you all have a multitude of options in deciding what to ally yourself with. Non-evil PCs have a great many more options for flavored summons with the Shield Golems and above being suitable optional alternatives in almost every way; many already know this. But the optional evil aligned summons are generally stronger and more durable which is consistent with the level of risk that comes with using them in an LG Kingdom, where a PC's story can be ended by nothing more than a credible survi...witness. This is not the only concession in the setting for evil aligned PCs but that's a different topic.
While alignment is determined by players at character creation, it is henceforth a reflection of your actions. For transparency these weren't TPK scenarios where a summon saved the group, an accidental summon and unsummon, nor were they involved in RP in a research setting. These were players in party or by themselves benefiting from the forces of darkness to clear a dungeon for their personal gain, and is somewhat related to the notion of "trying to have your cake and eat it too". I've had PC's impacted by these alignment shifts that have gone on to adjust themselves back and received other boons to their satisfaction. My comments towards these players at the time of the shift included suggestions and ideas to get back on path but were by no means the gold standard. If you have something more interesting/relatable for your PC to get back on track please share it with myself or your favored DM and we'll collaborate on it. The current DM Team is also not responsible for any shifts that took place prior to the onboarding of the new Team but we will absolutely work with you on it if you like.
The general theme here is that any non-evil aligned PC benefiting from an optional evil summon can get shifted by the bare minimum amount of 1pt out of 100, and continued use and benefit will result in your character slipping towards the alignment of the company they keep. Please do not treat FRC's setting like a video game and pay attention to the items and resources you're using. You have options.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Jan 20, 2022 15:08:38 GMT -5
Even though the system isn't ideal for going evil to good, for my part it hasn't been a major concern.
Were I in the position where further evil points or good points was putting me on a path to an alignment I wasn't willing to accept, I would stop using the summons that can potentially cause a shift. I don't feel that the DM staff is capable of adequately keeping track of each individuals actions in order to keep an exact on their alignment, it's too much focus on a minor part of play. You can appeal a shift in writing to the Team and it will be looked at by the whole team and they'll come to a majority decision on wether it was valid or not. Only some classes require a particular alignment and you sign up for that when you choose that class. It's not beyond player responsibility to keep track of summons alignments, in fact it's 100% your responsibility to do that. The DM Team generally only reacts to your choices on alignment shifts. I am not sure that a better system than "It's up to the observing DM unless disputed, and then theres a talk about it with the team" is even available. As an aside, almost 100% of threads about alignment solve nothing. I recommend that everyone involved bow out now.
|
|
|
Post by iamthecircle on Jan 20, 2022 15:20:38 GMT -5
For Context:
There are 9 native summon creatures in NWN available to every caster but a few years back FRC added optional summons to spice things up. Out of the 60+ flavored creatures that were added only 13 of them are not True Neutral. There's 1 on the Staff of Vermin, 3 in the Book of Magical Beasts, and all 9 in the Ancient Folio of Undeath. Nobody is forcing players to use these items and you all have a multitude of options in deciding what to ally yourself with. Non-evil PCs have a great many more options for flavored summons with the Shield Golems and above being suitable optional alternatives in almost every way; many already know this. But the optional evil aligned summons are generally stronger and more durable which is consistent with the level of risk that comes with using them in an LG Kingdom, where a PC's story can be ended by nothing more than a credible survi...witness. This is not the only concession in the setting for evil aligned PCs but that's a different topic.
While alignment is determined by players at character creation, it is henceforth a reflection of your actions. For transparency these weren't TPK scenarios where a summon saved the group, an accidental summon and unsummon, nor were they involved in RP in a research setting. These were players in party or by themselves benefiting from the forces of darkness to clear a dungeon for their personal gain, and is somewhat related to the notion of "trying to have your cake and eat it too". I've had PC's impacted by these alignment shifts that have gone on to adjust themselves back and received other boons to their satisfaction. My comments towards these players at the time of the shift included suggestions and ideas to get back on path but were by no means the gold standard. If you have something more interesting/relatable for your PC to get back on track please share it with myself or your favored DM and we'll collaborate on it. The current DM Team is also not responsible for any shifts that took place prior to the onboarding of the new Team but we will absolutely work with you on it if you like.
The general theme here is that any non-evil aligned PC benefiting from an optional evil summon can get shifted by the bare minimum amount of 1pt out of 100, and continued use and benefit will result in your character slipping towards the alignment of the company they keep. Please do not treat FRC's setting like a video game and pay attention to the items and resources you're using. You have options.
In that case, good summons should shift an evil character good and neutral summons should pull both good and evil to the center, as I've been arguing. Furthermore, you're punishing players for using a summon in a very strange way... "We claim this summon is evil and more powerful, so using it makes you evil". That's video game logic, not rp logic. Evil points are awarded for how you use the evil swarm, not for its existence. Benefiting from evil doesn't necessarily make you evil, your actions and behavior following the summon make you evil. If you want to say that summoning evil makes you evil, I'm fine with that. If that's the rule, then great. Make it public so people are aware. Standardize it so it happens with good and neutral summons, I'm happy as a peach. Or a carrot. But trying to excuse it by saying "you get evil because you chose to use the more powerful evil summon" seems like a faulty argument, especially when you frame it in the context of "don't treat FRC like a video game".
|
|
|
Post by DM Flash on Jan 20, 2022 15:40:29 GMT -5
If there were any optional summons that were Good you'd have a case to argue, but there aren't any because the rest are TN.
What you're referring to are create undead, planar ally, planar binding, or Gate which players don't have a choice in creature. However players should still RP these creatures appropriately.
If you're opting to use the forces of darkness for personal gain then you're going to feel that creep into your alignment if it's not already there.
|
|
|
Post by iamthecircle on Jan 20, 2022 16:00:39 GMT -5
Fine, we'll stick with neutral. I didn't realize there aren't any good summons (alignment-wise). Aren't we "opting to use the forces of neutrality for personal gain"? That may seem like a silly question, but it does follow from someone saying a different person is using the forces of evil for personal gain. Is it because wanting personal gain is evil? Because I highly contest that. In fact, opting to play with a person not of your alignment is using them for personal gain. Good characters can do loads of stuff for personal gain without it making them not good.
Its a deeply metaphysical question, whether using the forces of evil for personal gain makes you evil. One can make the case that killing of any sort is evil, so all adventurers should be evil save those who choose not to kill at all. And nearly all adventurers, even the good one, are out there for personal gain unless its explicitly stated. This isn't a stance I hold, but I hold it up now to point out that the argument of "evil means leads to an evil alignment" can have strange outcomes.
I guess ultimately my problem with DMs giving out evil points when they see people using non-undead summons (seeing as evil folk are almost certainly going to be the only ones using evil summons) is that even if that person goes on to do good thing, the onus falls upon them to get the DMs to acknowledge that. That may not be an issue, but it is an extra step that I feel is unnecessarily complicated. Why bother forcing people who want to use the evil (Non-undead) summons while remaining neutral contact a DM? Seems odd. Perhaps part of my problem is that I disagree that locusts should be evil. They're bugs. The method in which they're used can be evil, but how can a bug be evil? One needs intellect to be moral.
Actually, as a sidenote, I got way off-point thanks to some comments that dragged me away, but the inciting incident of this post was a shift to chaotic of a LE character who used undead. I thought I'd see if there were any rules governing shifts, which there clearly aren't.
|
|