PDA

View Full Version : Alignment Debate Settled



Sydonai
2010-03-24, 02:14 AM
Many people beleive that in D&D alignment determines one's action, this is FALSE! Our actions as a PC determine the alignment of the alignment of the PC, this is true.

Of course this is just my view, I want to hear you're views.
Let us now discuss this topic.





P.S. You can scream at and insult the rules, or someone's boneheaded actions, but please don't insult the people themselves.

WarKitty
2010-03-24, 08:41 PM
In the general case: I view your alignment as a sort of shorthand for some aspects of your personality. So acting consistently "out of alignment" without a reason would just be bad roleplaying imo.

Now, there are classes with alignment restrictions. In many cases this seems to be a result of having a patron deity of some sort. It certainly stands to reason that I wouldn't want to tick my deity off if I knew it meant losing my divine abilities...which might induce me to do/not do things I otherwise would.

Prime32
2010-03-24, 08:42 PM
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd54/Prime32_temp/M5HQYMDJN2PKIND2EPTSZTKQLVEQ4EWI.jpg

chiasaur11
2010-03-24, 08:44 PM
Settled? Settled?

HA!

Or, more accurately, hahahahahahaha. And so on.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-24, 08:50 PM
Many people beleive that in D&D alignment determines one's action, this is FALSE! Our actions as a PC determine the alignment of the alignment of the PC, this is true.
This is false.

Your Alignment determines your character's general approach to life.

Your actions as a PC confirms for the DM whether or not the Alignment written on your character sheet is the same as the one you are following. If it is not, he may ask you to erase what you have written and write down your real alignment.


A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment.

Simple proof
If your contention were correct, a Helm of Opposite Alignment would be useless on PCs - the Alignment written on the sheet is irrelevant for guiding the PCs' actions.

Gan The Grey
2010-03-24, 08:56 PM
I feel like alot of people view class alignment restrictions as an 'after the fact' restriction, as in, you become a paladin, and in order to maintain the abilities of your class, you must develop and maintain a lawful good alignment.

In truth, class alignment restrictions are meant to show that only a specific type of personality has what it takes to become a specific class, that a certain mindset is needed in order to set out on the path that leads into said class. Kind of like saying free thinking artsy types aren't meant to be accountants. They just don't really have the right mindsets to really good at that profession and be happy. You can't just become an accountant and try to change your personality to suit the profession. It doesn't work.

That being said, it would almost make more sense to develop a personality for a character long before you choose his class. That way you can support his personality with the proper set of skills and abilities, rather than suddenly finding yourself hogtied by an alignment restriction that doesn't exactly mesh with your intended play style.

My 2 cents.


Your Alignment determines your character's general approach to life.

I think this is backwards. Should not your character's general approach to life determine your alignment? It sounds the same, but it works out different mechanically.

ericgrau
2010-03-24, 08:59 PM
Just because your alignment and actions are equal doesn't mean your alignment needs to cause your actions. Your actions may cause your alignment, even by RAW. This would solve a lot of problems and bad stereotypes if it were practiced more. Or at least remove the excuses given for playing this way.

As it is some people act stupid just because they're lawful/chaotic/good/evil/neutral. Wait, that's every alignment. Something's not right here. It's almost as if people will find an excuse to act stupid no matter what...

Riffington
2010-03-24, 09:04 PM
Being happy makes you smile, and smiling makes you happy.

Seems like alignment can likewise work both ways simultaneously.

drengnikrafe
2010-03-24, 09:07 PM
I have tried, twice, to abolish the alignment system from my game group. It has failed. My PCs tell me "We like it, because it tells us how our characters should generally act, and serve as a simple reminder of what my characters personality is like", or something to that effect. On the other hand, they almost exclusively play CN characters.

That's my personal experience.

Swordgleam
2010-03-24, 09:10 PM
Simple proof
If your contention were correct, a Helm of Opposite Alignment would be useless on PCs - the Alignment written on the sheet is irrelevant for guiding the PCs' actions.

I like this. On the other hand, Paladins can Fall, so your actions must be able to change your alignment.

Gan The Grey
2010-03-24, 09:11 PM
Being happy makes you smile, and smiling makes you happy.

Seems like alignment can likewise work both ways simultaneously.

To a point, yes, this is true. However, I would say (and I would expect many to agree with me, forgive me if this is a fallacy of some sort) that being happy tends to lead to smiling more often than smiling leads to being happy.

The same can be said of alignment. It is much easier to lay out the general personality of your character and apply an alignment tag than to take up a specific alignment and try to design a character around it. Well, easier might not be the right word, but I would have to say one would tend to have a better understand of his character and be happier with the way he plays him if he constructs his personality first. I believe that building a character this way could also help solve the problems of maintaining an alignment restricted class.

Swordgleam
2010-03-24, 09:14 PM
To a point, yes, this is true. However, I would say (and I would expect many to agree with me, forgive me if this is a fallacy of some sort) that being happy tends to lead to smiling more often than smiling leads to being happy.

They actually did a scientific study where they found that smiling does make you happier, even if you are unhappy and force yourself to smile because some guy in a lab coat is telling you to. I can't remember the exact mechanism, but I promise that it sounded legit to me at the time.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-03-24, 09:15 PM
Hmmm... Perhaps this thread should be renamed to Alignment Debate Initiated. :smallbiggrin:

Swordgleam
2010-03-24, 09:18 PM
Hmmm... Perhaps this thread should be renamed to Alignment Debate Initiated. :smallbiggrin:

Don't be silly. No one's bringing up heinous examples of DM/player abuse of the alignment system or talking about how alignment killed their cat yet. Compared to most alignment "debates," we're all in lockstep opinion-wise. :smalltongue:

Touchy
2010-03-24, 09:18 PM
I feel like alot of people view class alignment restrictions as an 'after the fact' restriction, as in, you become a paladin, and in order to maintain the abilities of your class, you must develop and maintain a lawful good alignment.

In truth, class alignment restrictions are meant to show that only a specific type of personality has what it takes to become a specific class, that a certain mindset is needed in order to set out on the path that leads into said class. Kind of like saying free thinking artsy types aren't meant to be accountants. They just don't really have the right mindsets to really good at that profession and be happy. You can't just become an accountant and try to change your personality to suit the profession. It doesn't work.

That being said, it would almost make more sense to develop a personality for a character long before you choose his class. That way you can support his personality with the proper set of skills and abilities, rather than suddenly finding yourself hogtied by an alignment restriction that doesn't exactly mesh with your intended play style.

My 2 cents.



I think this is backwards. Should not your character's general approach to life determine your alignment? It sounds the same, but it works out different mechanically.
Excepts it vigorously enforces that alignment most of the time

TheMadLinguist
2010-03-24, 09:21 PM
Man, I was playing an awakened cat warlock, but my character decided to obey traffic laws so he didn't get run over by a cart. Next thing I know, my character is dead, since cats and warlocks are always chaotic.

Graymayre
2010-03-24, 09:22 PM
Alignment is decided by actions which is decided by alignment which is decided by actions which is decided by alignment...

Gan The Grey
2010-03-24, 09:27 PM
Excepts it vigorously enforces that alignment most of the time

Huh? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.


Man, I was playing an awakened cat warlock, but my character decided to obey traffic laws so he didn't get run over by a cart. Next thing I know, my character is dead, since cats and warlocks are always chaotic.

Yeah, not sure what you are trying to say here either, except that if you view alignment as an always black-white thing, you are going to have major problems playing DnD. Or...if you are saying you decided to play a cat warlock, and then decided to act lawfully, then you probably should have done exactly what I've been saying all along.


They actually did a scientific study where they found that smiling does make you happier, even if you are unhappy and force yourself to smile because some guy in a lab coat is telling you to. I can't remember the exact mechanism, but I promise that it sounded legit to me at the time.

Oh don't get me wrong. I've heard of this too. This is why companies train their employees to smile when they answer the phone. I was just saying that a happy person smiles more often that an unhappy smiling person becomes happy.

Swordgleam
2010-03-24, 09:27 PM
Man, I was playing an awakened cat warlock, but my character decided to obey traffic laws so he didn't get run over by a cart. Next thing I know, my character is dead, since cats and warlocks are always chaotic.

I read that as "awkward cat warlock" the first time. Do we have a new hit sitcom on our hands?

Abd al-Azrad
2010-03-24, 11:14 PM
Well, since we know that Alignment can change based on character actions, and character actions can change based on (or, more appropriately, be guided by) Alignment, it would seem that the two issues of moral categorization and choices of action are more difficultly entwined than any simple black-and-white argument could indicate.

Let's note that D&D is not (gasp!) the Real World (TM) and it is one's Alignment that is pertinent to many, many in-game effects and rulings. Let's also note that Evil characters can (and frequently do) take questionably Good actions, and Good PCs get away with murder on a regular basis. This would seem to indicate that actions are not strictly guided by Alignment, and that Alignment does not reflect actions with 100% accuracy. In other words, the two are related, but not causally related.

Alignment is a real thing in D&D. It reflects a character's outlook and morality. It changes if a character's morality changes. Actions are also reflections of a character's moral choices: will I kill this Neutral king, knowing he will plunge his kingdom into war for stupid (but not Evil) reasons if I do not? Both Alignment, and choices, are guided by morality.

Alignment is a tag that celestial bureaucrats use to simplify morality among mortals, so they can more easily sort the millions of mortals they have to deal with. Your choices are guided not by your Alignment, but by your morality.

Go go gadget confuse the issue!

Math_Mage
2010-03-24, 11:21 PM
Both Alignment, and choices, are guided by morality.

What happened to ethicality? :smalltongue:

The Tygre
2010-03-24, 11:23 PM
.............................Chaos (I do what I want)
...............................................+
...............................................+
Good (For others)<-----------Neutral---------> Evil (For myself)
...............................................+
...............................................+
..............................Law (I do what I must)

Said it once, and I'll say it again. Although I've always liked the concept of alignment points or an alignment score. Kind of like virtues in Exalted, only with the alignment axis.

taltamir
2010-03-24, 11:28 PM
I am going to share some profound truth here...
declaring "the debate is settled because my opinion is right" does not actually settle a debate. If everyone did not think their (differing) opinion was right, there would have been nothing to debate about.

krossbow
2010-03-24, 11:31 PM
.............................Chaos (I do what I want)
...............................................+
...............................................+
Good (For others)<-----------Neutral---------> Evil (For myself)
...............................................+
...............................................+
..............................Law (I do what I must)

Said it once, and I'll say it again. Although I've always liked the concept of alignment points or an alignment score. Kind of like virtues in Exalted, only with the alignment axis.


But what about the ones who are dead?

Dust
2010-03-24, 11:33 PM
Well, there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake.

taltamir
2010-03-24, 11:38 PM
Well, there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake.

and you make a neat gun for the people who are still alive!

krossbow
2010-03-24, 11:41 PM
and you make a neat gun for the people who are still alive!

I'm not Even angry! I'm being so sincere right now!

Swordgleam
2010-03-24, 11:53 PM
I'm not Even angry! I'm being so sincere right now!

Even though you broke my heart and killed me. And tore me to pieces.

Harperfan7
2010-03-25, 12:04 AM
C-c-c-combo Breaker!!!

The Glyphstone
2010-03-25, 12:06 AM
Even though you broke my heart and killed me. And tore me to pieces.

And threw all the pieces into a fire.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-25, 12:18 AM
If alignment dictated actions then alignment would be impossible to change except by magic.

But if actions dictate alignment well then things just make sense.

JaronK
2010-03-25, 01:14 AM
I think the primary problem is that the various designers had different ideas as to what alignment actually means and what it's supposed to do. So the real answer is that there is no one definition that will fit all written material. Make your own definition that you like, make sure it synchs up with the DM's idea, and call it a day.

JaronK

krossbow
2010-03-25, 01:17 AM
Just ask yourself one thing....


What would batman do?

http://www.unbrokenlogic.com/main/data/temp/Batman_Alignment.jpg

Jerthanis
2010-03-25, 01:29 AM
That image shatters all page margins.

I think that in a world where people don't even agree on whether objective morality exists or doesn't, the alignment debate can never be settled.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-25, 07:32 PM
I like this. On the other hand, Paladins can Fall, so your actions must be able to change your alignment.
Paladins are a special case - they Fall for committing Evil acts even if their Alignment does not change.

taltamir
2010-03-25, 08:17 PM
Paladins are a special case - they Fall for committing Evil acts even if their Alignment does not change.

or for committing totally benign acts that their code arbitrarily forbids...

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-25, 08:21 PM
or for committing totally benign acts that their code arbitrarily forbids...
Um, I guess so?

The actual language places the "other acts" as only bringing a Fall if there is a gross violation, while any Evil act causes a Fall.


A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities...

Riffington
2010-03-25, 08:29 PM
or for committing totally benign acts that their code arbitrarily forbids...

Arbitrarily? Those acts cut against the core of what a Paladin is.

Swordgleam
2010-03-25, 10:12 PM
Paladins are a special case - they Fall for committing Evil acts even if their Alignment does not change.

I don't see how that addresses my point. If alignment determines actions, then it is impossible for a paladin to fall because they will never act against their alignment, since it is what determines how they act.

Taelas
2010-03-25, 10:31 PM
This is false.

Your Alignment determines your character's general approach to life.

Your actions as a PC confirms for the DM whether or not the Alignment written on your character sheet is the same as the one you are following. If it is not, he may ask you to erase what you have written and write down your real alignment.



Simple proof
If your contention were correct, a Helm of Opposite Alignment would be useless on PCs - the Alignment written on the sheet is irrelevant for guiding the PCs' actions.

He is completely correct. A Helm of Opposite Alignment is a magical effect which enforces a change in your actions to correspond with a radically different alignment. Let me repeat that: It forcibly changes your actions.

Actions determine alignment. Alignment does not determine actions -- the Helm of Opposite Alignment is a specific exception due to it being a magical effect. Alignment is not a straight-jacket, and you are never prohibited from taking an action due to your alignment.

I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the Alignment section in the Player's Handbook that begins on page 103.

mikej
2010-03-26, 03:38 AM
I thought you said this was settled? You lied to me!

Yora
2010-03-26, 03:53 AM
Many people beleive that in D&D alignment determines one's action, this is FALSE! Our actions as a PC determine the alignment of the alignment of the PC, this is true.
Yes. Now we finaly never have to talk about this again. :smallbiggrin:

2xMachina
2010-03-26, 05:41 AM
I prefer to say that Allignment causes actions. Allignment doesn't match actions? Your allignment changed just as you decide to act that way.

Kushōsaku
2010-03-26, 06:11 AM
I always wondered if those people constantly rambling on about the D&D alignment system making no sense and being a poor concept and such ever have noticed these bits in the rulebooks along the lines of "just being a guideline" and "intended to promote role playing, not limit it" - as the OP pointed it out.
I think that it's easy to take ad absurdum if you want to... TN druids switching sides in the course of a battle and such. But if you actually DO use it as a guideline for roleplaying, I always found it quite helpful, because your "alignment" as a player doesn't necessarily match with the character's... simply because you'd want to roleplay a character with a different upbringing, mindset and morality than yourself once in a while. I always regarded alignment to be like a WWTD wristband, just for your character... WWMCD, so to say :smallwink:
There's no rule that with alignment X you have to behave like Y everytime, all the time. It just gives you a certain frame or reference to justify and rationalize your characters actions and decisions. There are some exceptions, who actually have to fulfill certain standards, but that's not because of the alignment but due to a codex your character has agreed to follow in exchange for other benefits, which is then reflected in his/her alignment (at least in those cases it makes sense :smallwink:). And if you want to play a character not compelled to follow any guidelines, that's what TN is for. People deciding on the spot what course of action might be best for them, in the long run... like most of us RL-folks do. :smallbiggrin:

Kushōsaku
2010-03-26, 06:15 AM
What would batman do?

How about putting that huuuuge picture in a spoiler, for starters? :smallwink:

Kobold-Bard
2010-03-26, 06:33 AM
Krossbow, I'm begging you to spoiler that picture. Frankly it borders on assault of the forum.

I personally like this chart (taken from GalaGalaxia's signature):
http://www.galagalaxia.com/dnd/alignment.png

taltamir
2010-03-26, 08:19 AM
He is completely correct. A Helm of Opposite Alignment is a magical effect which enforces a change in your actions to correspond with a radically different alignment. Let me repeat that: It forcibly changes your actions.

Actions determine alignment. Alignment does not determine actions -- the Helm of Opposite Alignment is a specific exception due to it being a magical effect. Alignment is not a straight-jacket, and you are never prohibited from taking an action due to your alignment.

I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the Alignment section in the Player's Handbook that begins on page 103.

so does turning into a sentient undead or a were-creature of any sorts. And they have different alignments too.. a were-wolf turns you chaotic evil, a were-bear turns you lawful-good. (care bears :P) and you are forced to act "your new alignment"

The rules also say the DM should penalize you for "acting outside your alignment" and in earlier editions you actually lost a predetermined amount of XP if your alignment changed...

it seems like BOTH statements are true...
Your actions determine your alignment.
Your alignment determine your actions.
The two are not mutually exclusive... they are opposing forces, sometimes one prevails, sometimes the other.

hewhosaysfish
2010-03-26, 08:37 AM
The main source of the argument here, I think, is how people are using the word "alignment" ambiguously. Here are the two meanings, as I see them:

1) A character's opinions, priorities, beliefs, values and motivations as conceptualised in the players mind.
2) A character's opinions, priorities, beliefs, values and motivations as summarised by a 2 letter code on the character sheet.

So, does a character's alignment dictate their action? Or is it the other way around? Well...

The player's concept sets the initial value of the code on the sheet. "My guy is a free spirit-rebel, so he should be CN..."
The player's concept dictates the actions. Brain hate elf. Brain make think. Think make arm move. Arm punch elf. Simple.
The actions can result in a change to the code on the sheet. The DM says: "You beat up a defenseless elf! You are now Evil!"
The code on the sheet may influence the player's concept. The player says: "I'm not sure what to do now but my character sheet says I'm CE so I guess I should just randomly murder everyone."
The actions create the experiences. "Everyone hates and fears you now and flees as you approach."
The experiences may (should?) effect the player's concept: "I'm all alone! What did I do to deserve this?!"
The code on the sheet modifies the experiences. "SMITE EVIL!!!" "But I'm trying to repent!"


...There's a lot going on there. Can anyone think of anything I've missed?


With that out of the way, let's look at this quote from Vukodlak:

If alignment dictated actions then alignment would be impossible to change except by magic.

But if actions dictate alignment well then things just make sense.

When I started this post, I thought that he was using the first definition, the player's mental image. His argument sounded wrong to me and I planned to point out all the flaws I saw in it.
I spotted this ambiguity, though, and re-wrote it into this. Now I'm fairly certain he's using the second definition (or possibly using both at different points) and the point he's making is actually one I quite agree with. The gaps I perceived in his argument were there because he wasn't actually trying to make that argument at all.

(What do you say Vukodlad? Am I right? Am I at least close? If I'm not I'm going to look like such a prat...)

Can you imagine what it would be like if I had posted in haste, never suspecting that I might be tilting at a windmill? No matter how well reason my argument might have been, if Vukodlad (or others) made the perfectly natural assumption that I was using the word "alignment" the same way as the post I was responding to, them my words would be translated into complete gibberish for them...

Togo
2010-03-26, 08:40 AM
Alignment is what side you're on.

It's based on a Michael Morcock-style concept of Law, Choas, Evil and Good being grand forces overlooking the world, forces to which people can not help but align themselves.

If you think of it as an allegience, or a side, then it all makes sense. As a person who is lawful (on the side of law) you will tend to do lawful things. You're not forced to do lawful things, and if you start being more chaotic, then eventually you won't be on Law's side any more - no longer lawful. But the forces of chaos will start to take an interest. Similarly, if something forcibly messes with your head, corrupting you with ancient evil, or filling your body with chaotic lycanthropic forces, then you'll change sides.

It's a neat mechanic for cosmic metaphysics, and I've never understood why people dislike it.

The points to bear in mind:

1) It's nothing to do with morality. It's a feature of the game world. Certain actions support certain cosmic forces, drawing their attention and attuning them to you.

2) Beings of pure choas, law, good or evil, generally come across as a**holes.

Taelas
2010-03-26, 12:07 PM
so does turning into a sentient undead or a were-creature of any sorts. And they have different alignments too.. a were-wolf turns you chaotic evil, a were-bear turns you lawful-good. (care bears :P) and you are forced to act "your new alignment"
Your actions are forcibly changed to match the new alignment. Your alignment changes because your actions do. Alignment is a description of your actions.


The rules also say the DM should penalize you for "acting outside your alignment" and in earlier editions you actually lost a predetermined amount of XP if your alignment changed...
The rules also say that no one is completely predictable and that Good people can be greedy, Neutral people can be noble, etc. People are not stereotypes.


it seems like BOTH statements are true...
Your actions determine your alignment.
Your alignment determine your actions.
The two are not mutually exclusive... they are opposing forces, sometimes one prevails, sometimes the other.
Alignment cannot "determine" anything. A DM can decide to enforce something based on alignment, but that is that individual DM's decision, not the rules as written. Actions determine alignment. It cannot happen the other way around. A character's alignment is a broad generalization of your actions.

Togo, that is what the word means -- "alignment" = "aligned with" = "on the side of".

Eldonauran
2010-03-26, 12:41 PM
Another alignment thread? Well, I guess I can post my theory again.

How the characters alignment is determined by his actions.

His actions are determined by his choices.

His choices are determined by his motives and misc stimuli.

Motives lead back to alignment, however this is the direct reflection of how the character operates. What makes him/her work. Motives determine the alignment of whatever action he/she takes. Will he put himself at risk to help another, without thought of consequence or gain for himself? That's good. Is the character willing to help others if the price is right? Most likely neutral. Would the character most likely save himself by sacrificing the person that needs help? Probably evil.

Misc stimuli are basically outside knowledge beyond his motives that might affect his decision. Knowing that sparing an innocent life will lead to more people dying might cause a character to kill that innocent, and by doing so, commit an evil act for the 'greater good' (I hate that expression, its misleading). A paladin would still fall since he commited an evil act but if he felt the choice was worth it, he is free to take that action.

That is basically how alignment works to me and the games that I DM. I feel it is true to the nature of the D&D universe. Every character is capable of good and evil, law and chaos, should they choose to do so, but their gut instinct, the very essence that makes them what they are, is a direct reflection of their alignment. And character alignment can change, but the alignment of their actions can not be justified as anything other than good, evil, lawful or chaotic when you examine their motives.

2xMachina
2010-03-26, 12:55 PM
Saying actions determining alignment is like saying donating makes you generous.

It does not. You can be extremely selfish, and still donate (perhaps to get fame or whatever). But as actions determine value, you're considered generous.

Actions reflect on your alignment, but alignment determines your actions.

DM can't say, "You don't do that, you're LG". But he can say, "You're not LG, but CE if you choose to murder orphans for no reason".

Yuki Akuma
2010-03-26, 01:00 PM
The juxtaposition between the title of this thread and its contents amuses me highly.

Carry on.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-26, 01:00 PM
Just ask yourself one thing....


What would batman do?

http://www.unbrokenlogic.com/main/data/temp/Batman_Alignment.jpg
Put some Bat-Spoilers on massive image. Duh!

Taelas
2010-03-26, 01:11 PM
Saying actions determining alignment is like saying donating makes you generous.

It does not. You can be extremely selfish, and still donate (perhaps to get fame or whatever). But as actions determine value, you're considered generous.

Actions reflect on your alignment, but alignment determines your actions.

DM can't say, "You don't do that, you're LG". But he can say, "You're not LG, but CE if you choose to murder orphans for no reason".

You are not making any sense. If alignment determines your actions, your GM can say "LG people can't do that". He can't say "If you choose to do this, you're CE, not LG" -- because that would indicate that his actions determine his alignment.

2xMachina
2010-03-26, 01:11 PM
It's settled! Placing a large pic in a thread is EVIL!!!

(Next page soon please)

Kobold-Bard
2010-03-26, 01:19 PM
Is PMing a Mod to ask them to put some spoilers in an option? Or will I get in trouble for that?

So it's on topic: What alignment is it to report someone for a mistake that causes a grievance to others?

Starbuck_II
2010-03-26, 01:22 PM
LN act. Unless you are doing to purposely hurt another than LE act.

Eldonauran
2010-03-26, 01:25 PM
So it's on topic: What alignment is it to report someone for a mistake that causes a grievance to others?

There is no alignment there, or if there is its a neutral alignment. Its the motives behind your actions, what prompts you to report this, that truly determines your alignment.

Is there spite or a sense of malice behind your actions? Evil.
Is there a general willingness to help ease the pain of others? Good
Just because? Neutral
Is it just to streamline the board or following the rules? Probably Lawful
Is ..... ahh, screw it. A chaotic act would be not to report it.

Taelas
2010-03-26, 01:31 PM
Non-actions do not have an alignment. Reporting it to someone who is not the authorities would be a Chaotic act. :p

Kobold-Bard
2010-03-26, 01:49 PM
Well I won't report it, because this post should start a new page.

Edit: WOOT!! :smallcool:

2xMachina
2010-03-26, 01:51 PM
lol, spamming to move on.

BTW, reply still is borked. Next one too probably.

Kobold-Bard
2010-03-26, 01:56 PM
lol, spamming to move on.

BTW, reply still is borked. Next one too probably.

It's not spam. According to the last page it's a N/G act of mercy :smalltongue:

Starbuck_II
2010-03-26, 02:33 PM
No, if you had reported it would be LN. I say posting just to get to new page is closer to CN.

Eldonauran
2010-03-26, 02:38 PM
No, if you had reported it would be LN. I say posting just to get to new page is closer to CN.

I agree with this ONLY if there were no motives behind the act other than 'follow the rules' or 'the rules don't matter'.

hewhosaysfish
2010-03-27, 01:40 PM
You are not making any sense. If alignment determines your actions, your GM can say "LG people can't do that". He can't say "If you choose to do this, you're CE, not LG" -- because that would indicate that his actions determine his alignment.

Character's values, formed in player's head determine actions.

Actions determine character's values, summarised on character sheet.

OldTrees
2010-03-27, 02:06 PM
Player determines Character Personality

Character Personality determines how the character Reacts to the Environment

The DM defines what each Alignment will mean.

How the character Reacts is used by the DM to determine which Alignment the character best fits in.

In other words: The DM can say that the manifestation of the character's personality does not fall in the definition of the assumed alignment and thus the assumed alignment was incorrectly assumed by the DM.

taltamir
2010-03-27, 03:10 PM
my biggest problem with alignment is that it forces you to debate morality with your DM... and guess what, people don't agree on what morality means, so pretty soon you are arguing real life politics and saying "this is evil and that is good" "no you are wrong, that is evil and this is good!"... Then you act "good" and your DM puts a "chaotic evil" stamp on your sheet because he disagrees with the moral justifications of the actions your character took.

unlike mere "consequences" or "fake religion" (palor approves of you, kord does not) where this isn't a problem.

krossbow
2010-03-27, 06:14 PM
hah, sorry there; didn't check my post after making it and didn't check the thread for a couple days. A little late, but fixed now :smallfrown:


On that note, Do you believe that ignorance of something and laws/its effects would relate to the good/evil of an act? :smallbiggrin: