|
Post by iamthecircle on Jan 22, 2022 17:41:42 GMT -5
So a shift to neutral isn't a shift neutral? That seems unnecessarily specific. You're correct, I didn't consider that, because it seems oddly exclusionary. You can't shift good but you can shift to good. You can't shift evil but you can shift to evil... Its strange. By shifting to neutral you naturally receive neutral points, in the form of evil points. Things can be two things at once even if they're not called as much. I think the idea is that "neutral acts" don't receive alignment points. Only acts associated with Good/ Evil or Law/ Chaos. Eating lunch will not eventually cause a Paladin to fall. We had this out earlier. I tried to point out (And was ignored) that there is a substantive difference between morally neutral acts and amoral acts, which can be called neutral. Tea or coffee isn't neutral, it is amoral. Help both sides of a battle of good/evil because there's a balance that should be maintained is morally neutral.
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Jan 22, 2022 18:08:07 GMT -5
I think the idea is that "neutral acts" don't receive alignment points. Only acts associated with Good/ Evil or Law/ Chaos. Eating lunch will not eventually cause a Paladin to fall. We had this out earlier. I tried to point out (And was ignored) that there is a substantive difference between morally neutral acts and amoral acts, which can be called neutral. Tea or coffee isn't neutral, it is amoral. Help both sides of a battle of good/evil because there's a balance that should be maintained is morally neutral. I understand, and would agree in a tabletop game (the reference to lunch was just a poor excuse at a joke because I haven't eaten since breakfast and am hungry). With NWN's system, though, it's literally just a number value with actions giving plus or minus Good or Lawful points. In that context, I would view helping both sides as probably just giving offsetting points. That's purely a mechanical interpretation on my part, though, and since I'm not a DM it doesn't matter much here.
|
|
|
Post by iamthecircle on Jan 22, 2022 18:13:19 GMT -5
Right, all I'm saying is that things can be two things. Points given with the intent to move a character neutral are "neutral" points, even if the game says they're evil. Saying that's not a shift neutral is an extremely strange stance to take.
|
|
|
Post by Animayhem on Jan 22, 2022 19:29:39 GMT -5
So a shift to neutral isn't a shift neutral? That seems unnecessarily specific. You're correct, I didn't consider that, because it seems oddly exclusionary. You can't shift good but you can shift to good. You can't shift evil but you can shift to evil... Its strange. By shifting to neutral you naturally receive neutral points, in the form of evil points. Things can be two things at once even if they're not called as much. I think the idea is that "neutral acts" don't receive alignment points. Only acts associated with Good/ Evil or Law/ Chaos. Eating lunch will not eventually cause a Paladin to fall. See in Marister's case way back I felt his actions were being neutral and true to his rp. In this mini dm plot there were two actions whic had caused alignment shift The total amount I got and then the century to get most back. My reason back then was thrown out the window.
Am I saying I should not of gotten alignment shift? No but I should not of gotten as much as I did and it should not of taken as long for the correction.
I just hope the new blended crew will be more understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Jan 22, 2022 23:37:17 GMT -5
Saying a thing is possible, or that someone may have drawn on a particular resource isn't a 'claim' in the sense you are implying here. Saying that someone may have done something isn't really a claim, saying they did do something is a claim, although I do agree that is is interesting as a concept that people draw on fictional sources to contribute to this fictional place we enjoy. Insects here in the real world are not evil, but there is nothing that says that an individual author of a monster can't make it's alignment evil. I posit that this general, mythological, and false claim about locusts that exists in the real world in the form of religious and folk mythology, may have been the resource drawn upon for the spirit of this particular summons. I know I should have originally followed my own advice and jumped ship. These discussions go nowhere 100% of the time because alignment is a very abstract concept that means different things to different people, including the DM Team. I think the best we can do at this point is put up a poll on if we care enough about the current state of alignment server wide to force some kind of new system into place on the current team and make them focus more overall on individual peoples alignments than they do now. My vote is obviously NO. I also never claimed these locusts were from another plane, I only pointed out that some spells indicate extraplanar origins for the targeted summons. That doesn't mean the only way you get an evil monster is by an extraplanar summons. I never said that or implied it, just that there are certain spells that are 100% going to summon evil monsters, good monsters, or true neutral(depending on the casters alignment). If this isn't one of those spells, there is an actual argument. Are the locust swarms part of the original pallette, or are they custom monsters made for the staff? If the second is true we can legit track down whoever made the staff and ask them "Hey, why did you make locusts evil", maybe they'll say "LMAO dude I didn't even check their alignments tho I just assigned them 2 th3 staff bro" or maybe they'll say "I intended to make them like an evil summoned swarm of red eyed horrible locusts that routinely eat people alive like from the bible". I also agree we should just delete the locusts, especially if they are just regular insects. Thats so lame. Also, 'the negative energy plane' isn't the only plane associated with evil. There are a plethora of evil aligned planes of existence to choose from. That's exactly what a claim is... "I believe that x is the truth". Whether you hedge with "x may be the truth" or not, its a claim. Maybe you mistyped, because you claimed precisely that. "It's possible that the summons is supposed to be from an evil aligned plane, if it isn't an animal summoning spell, and it's like summon planar ally lesser or greater, they are in fact extraplanar locusts, if it's just summon creature, thats different. Depending on if a monster is created, summoned, or called, can mean many things...so what spell exactly are we talking about? SOme of these spells spell out that it is an extraplanar creature." You claim that it is possible for the for the summon to be from an evil aligned plane, for the sole reason that it is evil. I guess maybe you don't think that's a claim? DM JorteckAs for deleting locusts, I've not seen a wizard use them since I was lvl 15. Most seem to use planar binding or other, more powerful, summons. It seems like a good, mid-level summon to help wizards who have an incredibly hard time solo have a slightly easier time, not some insidious "get out of jail free" card. Its 6th circle and doesn't hit everything so there's still danger. And it doesn't even last at the last second. Wizards are frail, lets give them some tiny ability to solo things, please. I'd like to make a wizard in the future and I rarely find parties when I'm on. And I'm sorry I used the easiest plane with evil as an example. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. It was but an example. Thank you for informing me that there are other evil planes, its quite the revelation. Runa RothgarI'm not suggesting we make an entire system out of it. I think I've stated multiple times I think DMs simply shouldn't give out alignment points unless its an extreme betrayal of the alignment or summoning undead, that'd be the easiest way for everyone to be satisfied. I've always played my characters how I think they would be, and wouldn't change that even if their alignment changed in a way I didn't agree with. But wizards have consequences for shifting alignment, and DMs can't be there to see when the wizard they hit with evil points every day because they rely on the locusts to run dungeons does good acts and hands those over. Therefore, not giving the evil points is the easiest route. Otherwise, the onus falls on the player to deal with reversing the situation, which seems silly. Best to just not have that situation happen in the first place, especially as it does end up causing resentment among some people. It is unfortunate, but not everyone is as level-headed as you are and become hot-blooded when something happens to their character. The key here is that the system would be predicated on the DM approaching the player before awarding the alignment points. It seems some DMs do that already, but making it a general rule would help when players might become disgruntled. Good Lord forgive me for making a statement which gives the scenario in which you are correct within it, yet contains an opposing viewpoint. How dare I.
|
|
|
Post by Dakarizon (Shroud) on Jan 22, 2022 23:44:04 GMT -5
I am of the same opinion of Malclave.... I think neutral is kind of like the vacuum of space between the alignments. You can shift good/evil/lawful/chaotic... as represented by the points DMs can give you. It's not always about a moral choice or an ethical one.
|
|
|
Post by iamthecircle on Jan 23, 2022 1:15:01 GMT -5
I am of the same opinion of Malclave.... I think neutral is kind of like the vacuum of space between the alignments. You can shift good/evil/lawful/chaotic... as represented by the points DMs can give you. It's not always about a moral choice or an ethical one. That is a substantially different reading than what you seemed to have been saying earlier, alright. I still disagree, though. Like I said, things can be two different things. Just because I can't give you neutral points doesn't mean I'm not giving them to you when I give you good points in the interest of shifting you into a neutral place. Though the last point does confuse me. Do you think external systems shift the character's alignment good/evil? Actually, I agree nevermind. A quack doctor is evil because they harms people from their profession. Masterbard Alyster DarkharpHard to believe though it may be for you, I don't take issue with you holding an opposing view. I'm not sure why that's what you got from my statement, though it does rather prove my point that you're not really arguing the points you're just taking offense to the words and pretending to argue. No wonder you don't think these conversations never go anywhere, you don't bother arguing you just pretend you don't hold a position because you don't claim it or that I'm not attacking you're point, I'm attacking you personally because you hold a viewpoint opposite me. If this is your position, then so be it we've very much stalled out.
|
|
|
Post by DM Sauron on Jan 23, 2022 1:40:55 GMT -5
This thread has run its course.
If a player feels that his/her character received points unfairly or for no apparent reason, reach out and ask to the DM why.
If the answer is not satisfactory up to that point, then bring the matter to the Player Advocates and/or the rest of the DMs.
|
|