Panros
Old School
Sneak Attack - Reach out and touch someone.
Posts: 479
|
Post by Panros on Feb 10, 2008 18:09:05 GMT -5
It is not a contradiction. If A affects B. Then B affects A. If all actions (A) affect a character's alignment (B). Then all character's alignment's (B) affect actions (A). One can focus only on actions and not care about alignment but regardless, their alignment is affected. Vice versa. DnD gives players a choice of where they would like to start before they take any actions. "It meant really little in reality, but to you it meant a lot." - It's the feeling of getting the not the in itself. It's the feeling of getting alignment change or maintaining it. It's gratification.
|
|
|
Post by brian333 on Feb 10, 2008 18:39:53 GMT -5
In D&D, and specifically in Faerun, alignment is a tangible thing. It's not a mythos or code or ethic, it's a real force that can and does affect the material world. It's as important as magic. So where can I go pick up a handful of it? If mythos had a game mechanics rule set would it be a tangible thing too? The same place you go to get a cup of vacuum. Electricity is a tangible thing, and so are magnetism and gravity. Unlike mythos, which may have the force of ideas and belief behind it, alignment is a force that exists in FR independent of belief. Your character may believe in many things, but his alignment exists no matter what he thinks. Areas and items can be made without alignment restrictions, but they still have alignment. Natural, non-magical things are neutral. And definitely alignment has an effect on roleplay. Good spellcasters avoid use of certain magics, not because they are not effective, but because of the effect they have on the spellcaster. All characters avoid certain acts for the same reason. In roleplay I don't say, "I'm not killing the villagers because it will shift my alignment to evil," but I may well say, "I'm not killing the villagers because it's an evil thing to do." The game-mechanic of alignment is a tool in roleplay, much as the die-roll is a tool in combat. Your character isn't rolling dice in combat, but the die-roll is representative of the PC's skill in combat. In the same manner, the force that we define as alignment is represented by a 2D graph. The graph isn't a force in and of itself, but it is a representation of the force that we as payers can manipulate the same way we manipulate dice to represent the results of attempts to use skills. Alignment restrictions are not required, they are the result of some action or effect, intentional or not. A +5 Holy Avenger has an alignment restriction because of the nature of the magic it bears, a LG Temple's Inner Sanctum may or may not have an alignment restriction based on the builders' and users' requirements. A field of potatoes is very unlikely to have an alignment restriction unless those are holy potatoes, (or unholy, for that matter.) Several things are going on here at once. 1) The actual shifting of alignment may not occur because the PC may not have been caught in the act by a DM, but a shift on the graph is not necessary for the player to be aware his in game act may be outside of his alignment. 2) Not all shifts are significant enough to show up on the graph. The alignment grid allows fractional shifts, but the NWN alignment grid has only integers. 3) People can justify damn near anything, so even if radical alignment shifts occur the PC may say, "I had no other choice," or some other reasonable sounding excuse for his behavior, but he knows, down inside, that he has done something he normally wouldn't or perhaps shouldn't. It is not a matter of success or failure. That is for the player to decide, but for the player and his character it is two different things: For the player it is a guide to how he should act, (based on the player's choice of alignment,) or react after he has had his character do something outside of his chosen alignment. For the PC it is a summation of how he has acted throughout his life up to that point. Personality is an entirely different matter. Evil characters can be jolly, friendly, gregarious, and pleasant, while good characters can be depressed, mean, solitary, and irascible. An alignment shift need not affect personality at all, though it may. Assume a fallen paladin for an example. The first guy may play his paladin as growing increasingly morose and behaving erratically, while the second player may have his paladin remain exactly as he has always been portrayed. Neither is the 'correct' response, both may be plausible reactions to the situation.
|
|
|
Post by catmage on Feb 10, 2008 20:47:31 GMT -5
In D&D, and specifically in Faerun, alignment is a tangible thing. It's not a mythos or code or ethic, it's a real force that can and does affect the material world. It's as important as magic. So where can I go pick up a handful of it? If mythos had a game mechanics rule set would it be a tangible thing too? You could pick it up on one of the Outer Planes, since nearly all of them have at least minor alignment traits, meaning that on a plane like Baator, which has mild lawful and mild evil alignment traits, any chaotic or good aligned being is going to be at a disadvantage in any Cha based checks. To me, that's a sign that alignment is something very real in game terms. I wish I could find which book had it, but I remember reading the implication that, without an alignment system, there would be no fiends or celestials, because as outsiders, they're composed of the "essence" of evil, or good, or law/chaos. Back in my post, for going in and doing things to alter my own alignment as I see fit, I certainly do that in the cases that I feel really warrant it, rare that they are. No one else sees it, except for DMs, and since I have a very good UMD skill, it has absolutely no effect on my ability to use items, but it's something I do purely for me. There are only a handful of items that'd be effected by my slide around the Law/neutral/chaos ethic shift, since Bioware seemed to feel that ethics aren't as important as morals. I generally ignore when I shift from good/evil, because his actions generally remain evil, and the scripts in the game reflect that(Heart breaking and cold blooded murder tend to get you bad points). But for Law/chaos, there are only two ways I know of to get lawful points, and dozens of ways to get chaos points, which seemed to be based on the idea that Lawfuls never steal or plunder. So, I have to act OOC, either by not doing things that Ailren would do because I know they would give him Chaos points that don't seem warranted, or by doing a quest/donating gold so that I have him where he should be. Ultimately, a pointless task, but then, the game itself has no set goal, so one makes them. As for the reason Ailren isn't chaotic, but neutral, my reasoning is as thus. The three or four laws he refuses to break are all based on his understanding of Tiamatian dogma, such as allowing himself to be killed before he'll fight a chromatic dragon, unless he has some "sign" that Tiamat approves. The other vast assortment of rules are part of his own honor code, determined by what he feels is and is not acceptable behavior, and having no basis in something like doctrine or what his parents raised him to believe. In normal circumstances, he doesn't violate them, but as I said, they aren't tenets he'll die for. This is mainly because of his one big rule, that his life is the property of another being, and thus can only be sacrificed if it means furthering that being's goals, or preventing another force from interfering with those goals. Like I said, Law/chaos is often harder to figure out, and since he's got a long list of self imposed rules that he'll generally follow means he's not chaotic, but the fact that with the exception of the one big rule, he'll violate his own rules and, if need be, the local laws, means he can't be considered Lawful. If he starts following more of those laws steadfastly, or winds up in a position where he has to modify his behavior toward a set routine, he'll be lawful again, and if he severely violates his beliefs or starts running around doing whatever comes to mind, he'll be chaotic again. And that's how I like it. So, the process I used to decide was, what are the values Ailren holds, and where do they generally fit in the terms of the game, and how faithfully does he follow them? His rules pretty much revolve around the belief that it's better to have a goal than to have no reason for doing something(He does quite abit on whim), that it's better to have a some sort of ruler than to have free reign over one's own behavior(Generally follows), and that the individual is not as important as getting the job done(He's risked his life more than once to save someone else during a specific activity). All three of his core values are seen repeatedly in source material as the marks of a Lawful creature or society, but he tends to fall short of them, which is different from opposing or not caring about them. I mean, most Drow are NE, according to source, not because they have a balanced outlook, but because they have a society that makes it so only those at the top of the heap are allowed to act as chaotically as they could wish. Hope at least some of this makes sense to people who aren't me.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Feb 11, 2008 0:25:37 GMT -5
In my extensive research into Alignment: What does it matter, I have stumbled upon two handy gems I like to call 'Master-Graphs'. DM Rich, and everyone else...if these don't answer your questions as to where your character stands, nothing will! Gaze upon the awesomeness of Gary Gygax's 'Master-Graphs' and weep at the simplicity the forefather of D&D makes of our complex alignment issues!
|
|
|
Post by ancientempathy on Feb 11, 2008 0:30:19 GMT -5
lol..
Those are actually interesting, despite their seemingly archaic nature
|
|
z1gg3h
Proven Member
High Lord of Nipples & Questionable Marriages
Posts: 173
|
Post by z1gg3h on Feb 11, 2008 0:35:02 GMT -5
Either I'm reading it wrong, or are Gnolls Lawful Evil?
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Feb 11, 2008 0:36:27 GMT -5
lol.. Those are actually interesting, despite their seemingly archaic nature Well, they prove one thing. There was one person out there who knew exactly where -everything- stood in terms of alignment. Gary Freakin Gygax. After providing the FRC community with this miracle 'Master-Graph', I don't expect to hear any more arguments about alignment. Even Darkharp is represented on this masterpiece of alignment clarification he is clearly a 'hobbit'. My work is done here, this thread can now be considered totally and irrevocably complete!!!
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Feb 11, 2008 3:35:25 GMT -5
Those graphs are nice. They're for Gygax's version of the game though, which means they're not current for creatures listed. (Werebears, at least, are Lawful Good in 3.5e.)
|
|
|
Post by brian333 on Feb 11, 2008 5:30:13 GMT -5
A friend once proposed a 3rd axis on that graph: Fanatic - Casual. He felt the intensity of one's adherance to his alignment wasn't adequately represented because your character may be an extremely strong or extremely weak adherant to his alignment.
Take two paladins: one is a devout worshipper, but doesn't really work to bring others to his faith/code/beliefs, while the other proslytizes and is intolerant of behavior with which he disagrees. Both are Lawful Good, but the later is more intensely Lawful Good than the other.
But the question remains: "What do you do with it?" We could argue forever on the 'right' way to play an alignment, and be neither right nor wrong. It's entirely another matter when players argue that the alignments as written in the sourcebooks are 'wrong' for some reason or other.
By default, I don't assume the alignments as discribed have any real-world comparison: humans are far to complex to pigeonhole that way. Instead, I assume the discriptions reflect an objective game-mechanic and roleplaying tool. They allow us to use them as a guide in roleplay as well as to affect alignment specific things in the game.
They do not prohibit any action the player may wish to take, but offer an opportunity to enhance his roleplay by indicating what the character would consider acceptable or arberrant behavior.
As a specific example, I offer the blackguard who, upon betrayal by his former mates, flees to a sanctuary filled with good people. They care for him, and when they are attacked he defends them. Is his action within his stated alignment? He could claim self-interest, or he could claim that the goodness of the villagers has touched him in some way, prompting a change of heart and a general questioning of his former behavior.
Both are acceptable choices, but both are arberrant behaviors, (based upon his history and professed alignment,) so the player has an opportunity to roleplay the repercussions of this. Does he say it's payment for services rendered? Does he say he's maintaining his cover, trying to avoid exposing his evilness to those folk in case he needs their help again? Does he say he's seen the light and now wishes to persue a life of service to others?
These and many other choices may be 'right' for the character and his player, but the one thing the player cannot do is ignore the affect the events and his response to them have on his character.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 11, 2008 15:06:26 GMT -5
Those charts were neat to see. I don't think many people have a problem with the alignment layout though.
What is needed is a diagram like that showing where each action is located and directions on how much of a shift one gets for any action not superimposed directly over where they are located on the chart.
Something so we could figure out what happens if someone located in the gnome location (on the diagram) were to kill someone in self defense... where would that act be located... and how much would it shift the person?
Or maybe easier would be if he was paid to kill someone. Would that act be located where the assasins are listed? Would it be down there with evil high priests? Would he be shifted halfway between where he was and where the action falls? Or just move along that line some small amount?
DnD has a small section on explaining what a specific alignment stands for. What it lacks is the support material for how to do much with it.
|
|
irene
Proven Member
Posts: 226
|
Post by irene on Feb 11, 2008 17:48:48 GMT -5
What Fred said!
I pick an alignment when I create the character. That reflects how she is when she sets out in the world. I keep it in the back of my head, but I dont use it a s a ruler.
For Reina, being a priestess, an alignmentshift to CG or TN would be very tricky to handle, so I do try to keep to CN. On the other hand, CN is probably one of the easiest alignments to play, and reflects all the qualities most adventurers have.
But I go where the RP takes me, and if that takes Reina to CG one day, well, tough luck. That will -hopefully- present some interesting problems, at least.
|
|
|
Post by brian333 on Feb 11, 2008 18:59:03 GMT -5
...What is needed is a diagram like that showing where each action is located and directions on how much of a shift one gets for any action not superimposed directly over where they are located on the chart... ...DnD has a small section on explaining what a specific alignment stands for. What it lacks is the support material for how to do much with it. You know, I had never considered that, but Richard is right. While I have always assumed concepts such as assassination and self-defense to be fairly obviously associated with a specific alignment, the degree or intensity of the affect they may have on one's alignment is undefined. (The actual acts are undefined as well.) Is assasination a one or ten point shift to evil? Is all self-defense truly neutral? Wouldn't self-defense against lawful prosecution be a chaotic act? Damn you Richard, now I have to go on a research project through mounds of D&D source material, and then probably will have to draw the graphs your post proposes, (and then there will be a host of folks who disagree with my conclusions!) Another question: Does a chaotic evil person get a chaotic evil shift for randomly slaying peasants? Or is such an act neutral for him? Are actions absolute in their effect, or are they relative to the alignment of the PC? For example, consider the Blackguard and the Paladin, both of whom perform the exact same act for the exact same reason. Assume they discover a cure for a plague to save the life of a friend: for the paladin it's just another day in the neighborhood, for the blackguard it's a radical departure from his ordinary portrayal. Does this mean that for the paladin there's no alignment affect while the blackguard earns a ten-point shift to good? Or is it a 5-point shift for both PC's, assuming the act carries the same amount of goodness no matter who committed it? (The latter is the assumption behind most scripted alignment shifts. No matter who you are, donating at this temple always has this effect, while summoning an undead always has that effect, regardless if the act is or is not in accord with one's professed alignment.)
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on Feb 11, 2008 19:22:43 GMT -5
Regarding individual point values for individual acts, I don't think any resource exists because D&D doesn't do alignments on a points-based scale. There are just nine of them and the Neutral ones are really just the gradient step between the others.
Neverwinter Nights is a point-based scale so it's a little different from D&D.
I had a bunch more written but I'm really tired so I'm not sure it made any sense.
|
|
|
Post by Grozer on Feb 11, 2008 20:09:10 GMT -5
...What is needed is a diagram like that showing where each action is located and directions on how much of a shift one gets for any action not superimposed directly over where they are located on the chart... ...DnD has a small section on explaining what a specific alignment stands for. What it lacks is the support material for how to do much with it. You know, I had never considered that, but Richard is right. While I have always assumed concepts such as assassination and self-defense to be fairly obviously associated with a specific alignment, the degree or intensity of the affect they may have on one's alignment is undefined. (The actual acts are undefined as well.) Is assasination a one or ten point shift to evil? Is all self-defense truly neutral? Wouldn't self-defense against lawful prosecution be a chaotic act? Damn you Richard, now I have to go on a research project through mounds of D&D source material, and then probably will have to draw the graphs your post proposes, (and then there will be a host of folks who disagree with my conclusions!) Another question: Does a chaotic evil person get a chaotic evil shift for randomly slaying peasants? Or is such an act neutral for him? Are actions absolute in their effect, or are they relative to the alignment of the PC? For example, consider the Blackguard and the Paladin, both of whom perform the exact same act for the exact same reason. Assume they discover a cure for a plague to save the life of a friend: for the paladin it's just another day in the neighborhood, for the blackguard it's a radical departure from his ordinary portrayal. Does this mean that for the paladin there's no alignment affect while the blackguard earns a ten-point shift to good? Or is it a 5-point shift for both PC's, assuming the act carries the same amount of goodness no matter who committed it? (The latter is the assumption behind most scripted alignment shifts. No matter who you are, donating at this temple always has this effect, while summoning an undead always has that effect, regardless if the act is or is not in accord with one's professed alignment.) I indirectly alluded to the same thing earlier but you stated it more clearly. For me, the act itself taking into account the context should result in an alignment shift of equal values irregardless of who is initiating it. What I am trying to say is, if it was my decision the BG and the Paladin would receive the same alignment shift for that good deed. I guess shift is not the best way to describe it but I really believe even LG characters should get good points for a good act. For me the act itself doesnt change just because a BG or a Paladin did it. In the end the cumulative changes equal a measure of where the character stands at that point in time, i.e. the alignment on his/her character sheet.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 11, 2008 20:18:17 GMT -5
...What is needed is a diagram like that showing where each action is located and directions on how much of a shift one gets for any action not superimposed directly over where they are located on the chart... ...DnD has a small section on explaining what a specific alignment stands for. What it lacks is the support material for how to do much with it. You know, I had never considered that, but Richard is right. While I have always assumed concepts such as assassination and self-defense to be fairly obviously associated with a specific alignment, the degree or intensity of the affect they may have on one's alignment is undefined. (The actual acts are undefined as well.) Is assasination a one or ten point shift to evil? Is all self-defense truly neutral? Wouldn't self-defense against lawful prosecution be a chaotic act? Damn you Richard, now I have to go on a research project through mounds of D&D source material, and then probably will have to draw the graphs your post proposes, (and then there will be a host of folks who disagree with my conclusions!) Another question: Does a chaotic evil person get a chaotic evil shift for randomly slaying peasants? Or is such an act neutral for him? Are actions absolute in their effect, or are they relative to the alignment of the PC? For example, consider the Blackguard and the Paladin, both of whom perform the exact same act for the exact same reason. Assume they discover a cure for a plague to save the life of a friend: for the paladin it's just another day in the neighborhood, for the blackguard it's a radical departure from his ordinary portrayal. Does this mean that for the paladin there's no alignment affect while the blackguard earns a ten-point shift to good? Or is it a 5-point shift for both PC's, assuming the act carries the same amount of goodness no matter who committed it? (The latter is the assumption behind most scripted alignment shifts. No matter who you are, donating at this temple always has this effect, while summoning an undead always has that effect, regardless if the act is or is not in accord with one's professed alignment.) I was going to wait to bring those questions up. I was waiting until someone stated how clear it is where the act of killing someone for pay would fit. *Tips his hat* I applaud your thinking ahead on that one.
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on Feb 11, 2008 20:28:20 GMT -5
shifts should be given from the 50/50 prespective or neutral, it should given if one is an act of good or evil, not if its good or evil to the character. a character can see summoning undead is a good act as it saves the lives of those not already dead. Summoning undead is an evil act. therefore it is seen from an impartial point.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 11, 2008 20:40:07 GMT -5
I indirectly alluded to the same thing earlier but you stated it more clearly. For me, the act itself taking into account the context should result in an alignment shift of equal values irregardless of who is initiating it. What I am trying to say is, if it was my decision the BG and the Paladin would receive the same alignment shift for that good deed. I guess shift is not the best way to describe it but I really believe even LG characters should get good points for a good act. For me the act itself doesnt change just because a BG or a Paladin did it. In the end the cumulative changes equal a measure of where the character stands at that point in time, i.e. the alignment on his/her character sheet. *nods* There are a lot of good responses in this thread. Some I already believed. Some that I disagreed with, I see now as just differences in terminology. I had hoped that by seeing what others believe everyone reading this could see there is more than one way to think of alignments. This is why I played devils advocate against all of them and not say what I believed. Is the journey over yet... wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 11, 2008 20:48:42 GMT -5
shifts should be given from the 50/50 prespective or neutral, it should given if one is an act of good or evil, not if its good or evil to the character. a character can see summoning undead is a good act as it saves the lives of those not already dead. Summoning undead is an evil act. therefore it is seen from an impartial point. So if someone summons an undead to save the lives of their party they would get a good shift and an evil shift right? If both... how evil was summoning an undead from the neutral 50/50 stand point and how good was the saving lives from the 50/50 stand point? Does it balance out to neutral or does it still lean toward one or the other?
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on Feb 11, 2008 21:10:20 GMT -5
if you summon undead your with a party who would condone the summoning of undead to save themselves. I can't see any paladin character going WOW thanks for saving me with that specter! Can easily enough summon other creatures.
thus I would give 0 good points and the standard evil points for summoning the undead and extra for using an excuse to do it. Maybe the latter is chaotic.
|
|
|
Post by Masterbard Alyster Darkharp on Feb 11, 2008 21:42:06 GMT -5
Those charts were neat to see. I don't think many people have a problem with the alignment layout though. What is needed is a diagram like that showing where each action is located and directions on how much of a shift one gets for any action not superimposed directly over where they are located on the chart. Something so we could figure out what happens if someone located in the gnome location (on the diagram) were to kill someone in self defense... where would that act be located... and how much would it shift the person? Or maybe easier would be if he was paid to kill someone. Would that act be located where the assasins are listed? Would it be down there with evil high priests? Would he be shifted halfway between where he was and where the action falls? Or just move along that line some small amount? DnD has a small section on explaining what a specific alignment stands for. What it lacks is the support material for how to do much with it. I actually posted the charts as a joke, I guess you didn't get it....
|
|
|
Post by kasin on Feb 11, 2008 22:21:42 GMT -5
All in all it was a good way to compare and contrast the thoughts of everyone who responded.
Untill you tossed out a few questions, it had never really occured to me just how difficult it was for DM's to adjudicate alignment shifts. I'll chalk it up to another case of the forest blocking the view of the trees. Any one have an axe and some magical fire, I think I can fix that forest part?
Good exercise. So, what's the answer now that we know the question?
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 11, 2008 23:42:58 GMT -5
if you summon undead your with a party who would condone the summoning of undead to save themselves. I can't see any paladin character going WOW thanks for saving me with that specter! Can easily enough summon other creatures. thus I would give 0 good points and the standard evil points for summoning the undead and extra for using an excuse to do it. Maybe the latter is chaotic. It looks to me like you are contradicting yourself. First you say everything should be based from 50/50 neutral point and now you are saying that because people in your party are condoning the summons (which isn't necessarily true) that the act of saving their lives is not a good act (0 points). If the judgment is strictly from a 50/50 neutral point wouldn't the act be the same no matter what the alignment of whoever is in the party? What I'm asking is not what shift would the Paladin get but what shift or shifts would the person creating the undead get? The person casting the spell doesn't need anyones permission nor does he ever have to have cast the spell in their presence before. The act is the same for him if he does it while they are up fighting off an enemy or while they are dieing and he uses it to hold off the enemy while he heals the unconscious and dieing individuals.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 11, 2008 23:45:14 GMT -5
Those charts were neat to see. I don't think many people have a problem with the alignment layout though. What is needed is a diagram like that showing where each action is located and directions on how much of a shift one gets for any action not superimposed directly over where they are located on the chart. Something so we could figure out what happens if someone located in the gnome location (on the diagram) were to kill someone in self defense... where would that act be located... and how much would it shift the person? Or maybe easier would be if he was paid to kill someone. Would that act be located where the assasins are listed? Would it be down there with evil high priests? Would he be shifted halfway between where he was and where the action falls? Or just move along that line some small amount? DnD has a small section on explaining what a specific alignment stands for. What it lacks is the support material for how to do much with it. I actually posted the charts as a joke, I guess you didn't get it.... I thought it was just a bit of ooold DnD nostalgia. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 11, 2008 23:46:16 GMT -5
All in all it was a good way to compare and contrast the thoughts of everyone who responded. Untill you tossed out a few questions, it had never really occured to me just how difficult it was for DM's to adjudicate alignment shifts. I'll chalk it up to another case of the forest blocking the view of the trees. Any one have an axe and some magical fire, I think I can fix that forest part? Good exercise. So, what's the answer now that we know the question? 4
|
|
|
Post by brian333 on Feb 12, 2008 0:03:23 GMT -5
I have to disagree. It is well known that the answer is 42.
|
|
|
Post by EDM Entori on Feb 12, 2008 0:47:11 GMT -5
if you summon undead your with a party who would condone the summoning of undead to save themselves. I can't see any paladin character going WOW thanks for saving me with that specter! Can easily enough summon other creatures. thus I would give 0 good points and the standard evil points for summoning the undead and extra for using an excuse to do it. Maybe the latter is chaotic. It looks to me like you are contradicting yourself. First you say everything should be based from 50/50 neutral point and now you are saying that because people in your party are condoning the summons (which isn't necessarily true) that the act of saving their lives is not a good act (0 points). If the judgment is strictly from a 50/50 neutral point wouldn't the act be the same no matter what the alignment of whoever is in the party? What I'm asking is not what shift would the Paladin get but what shift or shifts would the person creating the undead get? The person casting the spell doesn't need anyones permission nor does he ever have to have cast the spell in their presence before. The act is the same for him if he does it while they are up fighting off an enemy or while they are dieing and he uses it to hold off the enemy while he heals the unconscious and dieing individuals. I never said what the paladin would shift.I was talking of the caster. If anyone travels with a known raiser of undead, well they obviously condone it. I suppose, what it read like, was that saving non goodies is not a good act.. which of course; is wrong I just think the act of summoning undead (which shifts the whole parties alignment) would out weigh the fact that he just saved everyone in doing so. Because its an unspeakable horror (or so I would imagine it would be the Darkest of all things, like torture) and no matter for what purpose the shift should be overall evil. thats from the dead center as I see it, and being the impartial outsider. (which i consider being neutral or 50/50) That no good act would outweigh raising dead. while understanding where you said he gains some good points, and then he looses them thus the caster not shift at all; I think the raising of undead overpowers the good act. not sure exactly, but book of exalted deeds (or its reverse, can't remember now,) may have some information of whether or not how to weigh evil/goodly acts. I'm sure darkharp has a reference LOL... and to refer to your last paragraph. he still summoned an undead, thats been said over and over. Which leads to what I was trying to say earlier. A mage obviously has other options of what to summon. So he picked undead over nice cushy elemental or direbear? hence why its an evil act, because in his casting where he picked disturbing the dead, over calling an "goodly" summon. Thus his evil shift.
|
|
|
Post by catmage on Feb 12, 2008 1:39:21 GMT -5
Fiendish Codex 2: Tyrants of the Nine Hells has a list of actions that are termed "corrupt" and a list of "obeisance", and assign a point value to both that are applied to a character. In this rule set up, any lawful character with nine or more corruption points, or any evil character with a similiar number of obeisance, goes to Baator. It also gives game terms for removing those points. Ignoring the afterlife and redemption part could be used as a guideline for dishing out evil or law points.
The corrupt acts and thier value on the point scale is
Using an evil spell : 1 Humiliating an underling: 1 Engaging in intimidating torture(Basically, threating to torture): 1 Stealing from the needy: 2 Desecrating a good church/temple: 2 Betraying a friend/ally for personal gain: 2 Causing gratuitous injury: 3 Perverting justice for personal gain: 3 Cruel or painful torture(1d6+1 or 1d4 points of damage): 4 Excruciating torture(1d8 +2): 5 Murder: 5 Sadistic torture (2d10 +3): 6 Cold blooded murder: 6 Murder for pleasure: 7 Indescribable torture(2d20 +5): 7
Obeisiant points are earned as follows
Swearing fealty to a leader you know: 1 Swearing fealty to a leader you've never met: 2 Disciplining an underling: 2 Resolving a dispute through lawful means: 2 Quietly accepting a legal judgement against you: 2 Performing a lawful act of corporal punishment: 3 Following a rule you consider stupid: 3 Aiding a superior to your own detriment: 3 Swearing fealty to a devil(Likely could be replaced in non evil ways by any Lawful outsider): 4 Obeying a leader you don't respect: 4 Performing a lawful execution: 5
Granted, it wouldn't be a perfect system, and would require coming up with parallels in good and chaos, but it's food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 12, 2008 8:28:27 GMT -5
I never said what the paladin would shift.I was talking of the caster. If anyone travels with a known raiser of undead, well they obviously condone it. I suppose, what it read like, was that saving non goodies is not a good act.. which of course; is wrong I just think the act of summoning undead (which shifts the whole parties alignment) would out weigh the fact that he just saved everyone in doing so. Because its an unspeakable horror (or so I would imagine it would be the Darkest of all things, like torture) and no matter for what purpose the shift should be overall evil. thats from the dead center as I see it, and being the impartial outsider. (which i consider being neutral or 50/50) That no good act would outweigh raising dead. while understanding where you said he gains some good points, and then he looses them thus the caster not shift at all; I think the raising of undead overpowers the good act. not sure exactly, but book of exalted deeds (or its reverse, can't remember now,) may have some information of whether or not how to weigh evil/goodly acts. I'm sure darkharp has a reference LOL... and to refer to your last paragraph. he still summoned an undead, thats been said over and over. Which leads to what I was trying to say earlier. A mage obviously has other options of what to summon. So he picked undead over nice cushy elemental or direbear? hence why its an evil act, because in his casting where he picked disturbing the dead, over calling an "goodly" summon. Thus his evil shift. Oh I agree that his choice of casting an evil spell grants him an evil shift. I also believe his choice of keeping someone or several someones from dieing grants a good shift. I was wondering how much of a shift each act gets and if that balances out to neutral or not. So if the neutral mage only has a create undead spell left he is better off letting the party live or die under their own power in order to maintain his neutral status? I guess that makes sense in a way. I would have thought just letting someone die when you can possibly prevent it would be an evil act. But things die in nature every day and eventually it is everyones turn to die. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by DM Richard (Retired) on Feb 12, 2008 8:34:19 GMT -5
Fiendish Codex 2: Tyrants of the Nine Hells has a list of actions that are termed "corrupt" and a list of "obeisance", and assign a point value to both that are applied to a character. In this rule set up, any lawful character with nine or more corruption points, or any evil character with a similiar number of obeisance, goes to Baator. It also gives game terms for removing those points. Ignoring the afterlife and redemption part could be used as a guideline for dishing out evil or law points. The corrupt acts and thier value on the point scale is Using an evil spell : 1 Humiliating an underling: 1 Engaging in intimidating torture(Basically, threating to torture): 1 Stealing from the needy: 2 Desecrating a good church/temple: 2 Betraying a friend/ally for personal gain: 2 Causing gratuitous injury: 3 Perverting justice for personal gain: 3 Cruel or painful torture(1d6+1 or 1d4 points of damage): 4 Excruciating torture(1d8 +2): 5 Murder: 5 Sadistic torture (2d10 +3): 6 Cold blooded murder: 6 Murder for pleasure: 7 Indescribable torture(2d20 +5): 7 Obeisiant points are earned as follows Swearing fealty to a leader you know: 1 Swearing fealty to a leader you've never met: 2 Disciplining an underling: 2 Resolving a dispute through lawful means: 2 Quietly accepting a legal judgement against you: 2 Performing a lawful act of corporal punishment: 3 Following a rule you consider stupid: 3 Aiding a superior to your own detriment: 3 Swearing fealty to a devil(Likely could be replaced in non evil ways by any Lawful outsider): 4 Obeying a leader you don't respect: 4 Performing a lawful execution: 5 Granted, it wouldn't be a perfect system, and would require coming up with parallels in good and chaos, but it's food for thought. An evil spell is only worth 1 point here. Going by this rating system I guess we would have part of the answer for the undead and saving lives question. Now how many points toward good is saving lives? And why couldn't they have this type of system worked out in the DM's guide?
|
|
|
Post by ancientempathy on Feb 12, 2008 12:50:15 GMT -5
Probably because they want you to buy their products. So they list that stuff in another source? =\
|
|