@Erg - I like your chart, could you add the Flaming Fist Spawn % to it as well? I've started an Evil play through, which I've never really done before. However I'd like to avoid being hunted by the FF too early. Also I didn't realize before that being a cop killer was worse than killing innocent children in BG!
I'm not entirely sure, because it would require to check several maps and scripts in NI, but I believe that to prevent guards from attacking you, a reputation of 5 or higher is required. In fact the Nashkel's guards are scripted to attack you on sight if your reputation is 4 or below.
I've checked also the FAI map and some of the sectors of BG and it looks like a reputation of 4 (maybe even 3) or higher may be safe there.
what we need is a developers version of VIRTUE MOD.
very simple, reputation behaves as is, and only the outside world reacts to it. parallel to reputation gain/loss you gain/lose virtue and this is the measure for party alignment and reaction.
so in fact reputation represents your calculations and public image, while virtue represents your true motivation. so in a conversation you may save nymph and gain reputation, but by selecting selfish and mercenary options you lose virtue at the same time.
there you go- viable cold calculating neutral evil hero with 18 reputation.
@trinit, I like the idea, but how are you planning on capturing the motivations of the player? And wouldn't it be subject to the exact same meta-gaming that goes on today to manipulate reputation?
Finally, I really have to ask. If an 'Evil' person does good acts over and over again, albeit for "Evil" purposes, eventually will it matter? If I save one innocent to disguise my reputation, that is fine. But if I do a 100 good acts for the same purpose, isn't my fundamental nature changing?
@SirK8 I'm forgotting the fine details, but I do recall that you want to keep the rest of your party well out of sight, and have just one that is invisible, in stealth, or Sanctuary follow Oublek to watch it play out.
Oublek is sort of "recruited" as a party member--and you're having him attack Minsc (who is allied with no one, just loitering about). So the guards are scripted to ally with you (Oublek via Charm) and in this encounter they should treat Minsc as an enemy. You shouldn't lose rep if Minsc (who is an enemy) kills a guard...
@Lemernis - I just realized my mistake. I charmed Minsc not Oublek - doh! Anyway, the rep loss was worth it because I have to take a dip every so often to keep Dorn around I'll do it right next time, and even though it put me pretty low (6) nothing a few hundred gold pieces tossed at a priest can't fix. Overall I netted his purse and the emeralds which I think sold for 1500. Baeloth was quite pleased with himself. Though he did suffer some punishment at the hands of CHARNAME in the form of his slave ring being activated for causing trouble.
@the_spyder if you save them and then threaten or demand payment, then no. your motivation is what gives meaning to your actions and your intentions in this case are not noble or virtuous but rather evil.
(what you ask is a good question but i think discussion starts to bring the whole absolute alignment system of D&D into question- more sense to remove it then. we're just looking for more credible implementation of existing parameters.)
and in that case you are evil guy that conforms to society and realizes there is profit to be had from rescuing people. but you can also kill the peasant, being more chaotic evil i guess.
still, virtue mod actually exists, as a bg2 mod. what i described is actually implemented and in most cases you have option to be a d***head with responses, all while doing "noble" deed, and mod takes that into account. it was not perfect (buggy if i remember correctly) but it made more sense than current reputation system.
LOL. I'd be interested in seeing how that plays out some time.
But I'd really like to explore the concept.
I am an Evil Necromancer. Because I want to foster good will with the neighbors so that they don't attack me and diminish my undead army before I can attack them, I help out with bolstering their borders against other attackers. When the son of a local noble comes knocking at my door because his deceased beloved's corpse now populates the ranks of my army, I spare his life so that the noble doesn't get riled and attack my flank. A local merchant needs funds and financing to expand his trade and thus be able to more readily provide the types of supplies that I need, so I "Invest" in him to help. He also supplies the local orphanage. A dragon attacks the area and, instead of having the dragon decimate my lands as well as my neighbors, I kill it, with the added benefit of being able to plunder it's corpse for my own purposes. Each of these acts have Evil intent, but benefit the greater good. How many of them must I commit before I become "Good"?
Also, A lawful good Paladin can be a right royal "D!@#head" and still be Lawful Good. Just because you are obnoxious by nature, doesn't mean you don't do the right thing. And a Lawful good fighter might still ask, even demand payment for the function of their job because they need to eat and maintain/upgrade their equipment to make them more efficient. A cleric might demand payment because the money goes to the orphanage. Being obnoxious or wanting payment is not "Necessarily" an indication of "Evil". Heck, an "Evil" tyrant may be extremely eloquent and soft spoken and never once ask for a dime and still be rotten to the core and smother babies for pleasure. Just sayin.
most of bg's dialogue is quite clear on evil/good options i think (saying: "yes, whatever now give me the promised reward or else...", or "it was a pleasure, i hope you remain safe" has quite distinct feeling although both are "after the deed" dialogues with same result (reward and rep. increase). i think we can identify good enough with such responses.
and for your necro/tyrant example- i wouldn't trust a person that does great deeds simply because it benefits them, because i know i might expect a knife in my back as soon as the situation changes.meaning that their deeds by themselves do not make them good, because they do not mean it. i think bg is too simple to reflect such complex situations anyway, also the whole d&d universe is a bit questionable in that regard.
i think bg is too simple to reflect such complex situations anyway,
In this we agree. Which was more or less my point about the Virtue Mod. I just don't think the writing in BG1 is robust enough to be able to effectively capture.
@the_spyder: Motives and actions don't always need to be in perfect sync. Good actions can backfire and cause trouble down the line, while evil actions can end up having positive outcomes. What your character believes is all that matters - if you're Chaotic Evil, you really don't care that Sarevok is planning to plunge the Sword Coast into war; if circumstances were different, you might even let him get on with it. The problem is that he wants your head on a pike, because in his mind you're standing between him and divinity whether you want to or not.
By the same token, it doesn't matter how many "heroic" deeds your character is doing if their motivation is entirely self-serving - Evil characters will kill Bassilus because there's an enormous bounty on his head and that money will help keep you alive, but by taking him out you've also saved Beregost. That doesn't mean your alignment changes as a result.
You're kind of assuming that you *know* these individuals are evil. In the necromancer's example, he might just be a bit crazy. In the tyrant, everyone might think he was a genuinely nice guy, provided his baby smothering was kept very, very secret.
@shawne, see, my philosophy is that it actually does matter what the outcome is. Motivation is part of it, but the actions also play a part. You can have the blackest heart and the most evil of motivations in the world, but if every single act you do is good in nature, when do you become good? I'd say every single one of us has evil, dark and selfish reasons for at least some of what we do. But I would by no means call everyone in the world "Evil". It's like Nature vs. Nurture. It is What you do AND why you do it.
and I am equally sure that "Evil" people in the world today don't wake up in the morning and say 'Up, I haven't kicked enough babies today to make my quota of Evil. Better hop to it."
@Eudaemonium, I picked Necromancer because the "Usual" trope is that they are evil. I know that isn't necessary or a given, but just for expedience. And I was saying "I play a Necromancer who's alignment on his character sheet says 'Chaotic Evil'". As for the Tyrant, i was actually thinking about Count Dracula. By all accounts, evil to the core. But he was (portrayed in Bram Stoker's book as being) very cordial and polite most of the time. very well spoken. But there have been other examples. By most accounts, Jack the Ripper was probably a member of the Gentry and was probably well liked. Certainly he was known and respected (as in above reproach) by the constabulary.
The fact remains that being surly and obnoxious is by no means 'Proof' that you are evil. Nor is being nice and well mannered proof that you are good.
i think you cannot mix moral relativism of real world with moral absolutism of d&d setting.
also i guess this is your personal belief, but mine is that motivation would determine the moral value of action, not it's outcome. furthermore most people hardly view themselves evil. mostly it's just a matter of selflessness vs. selfishness with outright sadism or self-righteousness being extremes.
I've just started playing a Lawful Evil Bounty Hunter and I understand the dilemma. On one hand, my character could just as well pretend to be good and suck up to the goodie-twoshoes. But that gets you a high reputation, and a high rep means the game interprets you as "good". I want the evil dreams, etc, so that's a no-no. On the other hand you can't go around killing everyone because that wont work, nor will it be particularly fun. I make my character take actions that he thinks he'll get away with, but doesn't, to reduce reputation. For example I pickpocketed Winthrop until he caught me (RR mod, so instead of turning hostile, I lost 2 rep) and then I killed that guy on the Candlekeep road because my char thought he was a merchant. Here's a recent Journal entry of Neldoc:
Ah, the Friendly Arm Inn, at last. Let's see if I can't track down those "friends" Gorion mentioned. It'd probably be a good idea to stock up on supplies and get some rest, aswell, seeing as how that fat fool, Winthrop, refused to sell anything to me after he caught me stealing! As if I'd pay a dime for his shoddy wares!
Thankfully I now have some gold to spend after murdering that merchant on the road. I'm unsure if anyone saw it, though - I have to remember to be more careful next time!
I'll need to pay attention to my reputation lest I get a bounty on my head. I should probably refrain from stealing for awhile until I've gotten better at it so I don't get caught. I also need to learn to stay my blade when it's not profitable to kill people - paying hundreds of gold to retain my good standing in order to gain a pittance from a murder is just stupid.
You see Self-righteousness as the opposite of sadism? Interesting.
And I may have not worded it right. I wasn't saying that the "ultimate" outcome of the action was to be included (although why not?), but more the action itself. If you put yourself at risk to save another, that would appear to be a good act. if you did it for selfish reasons, that might appear to be a bad act. But the act itself must play in (in my philosophy) somewhere in there. Otherwise nothing we ever do matters and the world is an existential waste of time.
Anyway, enough philosophizing. Thanks for the debate.
Sadly I haven't had the time to read through this thread, yet, so I can't really comment on that. I just felt the urge to share this, in case you found it useful. ^^ I try to play my character like this.
EDIT This thread seems incredibly deep with many well-thoughtout replies. This should be stickied, honestly!/EDIT
If your necromancer killed a child because he thought a small skull would make a nice ashtray, is never charged for this crime (or even caught - let's assume it was an orphean no-one will miss) and then saves the neighbor's wife from bandits, kills the dragon threatening the village and nurses an injured bird back to health... Do the good deeds really make up for taking one life because he needed a new ashtray? Even if he genuinely wanted to help and had no bad intentions in all cases, he still also killed a child for his own amusement. He'll never be "good". If he feels true remorse and wants to redeem himself by doing good, he may climb up to neutral. If he doesn't, he can do all the good he wants, he's still a child murderer.
So I really have to say that there is a difference between if you ever get caught and punished for something and the type of person you are (at least in my book). Because, you are right. A thoroughly evil person might never make up for the sins of their past. But does that make it so that they can never 'Be' (currently) a good person? And if that is the case, what is the marker? Where is the line. Once you commit this act, you can never have 'Good' in your alignment again, and for all time? There is a difference between the damage you do and your acts and intentions (in my view).
Fantasy literature is replete with former villains who are now on the path to redemption. Will none of them ever be considered 'Good'? And then where is the line the other way? A Lawful Good paladin has one single act that ends the life of someone else. Sure, they should fall, but can they NEVER redeem themselves?
@the_spyder: You've rather missed the point - no character can fully control or predict all possible outcomes of their actions. For example, evil characters might choose to kill Firkraag either because he tried to manipulate them or because dragon scales make for great armor. These are legitimate and alignment-consistent motivations. However, a consequence of that action is that Garren Windspear and his child are saved. You didn't set out to save them, and in fact, you don't particularly care about their problems, but that's still an outcome of something you did. And while it raises your reputation - because Windspear will sing your praises to anyone who'll listen - it does not change the fact that you probably would have let Firkraag go about his business if he hadn't interfered with yours.
Or, to use a more central example, you must destroy Irenicus to regain your soul. Evil characters can further justify this as wanting payback for kidnapping and torturing them. But in killing him, you are also saving all of Suldanessellar, even if your character has no desire to do so. You can't separate the two because both are directly caused by your actions. That doesn't mean your Chaotic Evil necromancer is suddenly going to show compassion or renounce his evil ways, it just means he got what he wanted and some other people may have benefited from it.
@shawne, I take your point. But see my counter point above. Forget the wider implications of a given action. Look at the act itself.
As an example of putting yourself in harms way to save someone. Do that and it appears to be a good act. Do it for selfish reasons and it appears to be a bad act. But harming someone is a thoroughly bad act? Unless you are doing it to help someone? See how the act and the motivation NEED to be intertwined?
Sure, if you save a butterfly, you could end the world. But if we looked at that, all acts lead to evil. But the individual events themselves must be examined. And not just from the perspective of what you want to do. But what you did to achieve that goal.
A Paladin saves a child from an intruder in the orphanage and kills the intruder in the process. Good act? What if the intruder was there quite by accidend and outside of his control? Or was actually there attempting to warn and defend the orphanage against some other threat? But this was not able to be communicated to the Paladin before he struck? Is the Paladin's motivations enough? Or are his acts also part of it?
@the_spyder: Why reach for hypothetical scenarios? Take Keldorn to Windspear Hills and see what happens. He doesn't stop being a Lawful Good Paladin because he accidentally killed Ajantis - in his mind, he was doing the right thing for the right reasons. It turned out to be a mistake, but that doesn't change who he is. Meanwhile, Sarevok's alignment can change because you're talking to him, you're giving him different perspectives that can affect the way he thinks and the way he sees himself.
In his mind, Hitler was doing the right thing. Does that make him a Lawful good guy? I hardly think so. Robert Openheimer thought he was doing the right thing right up to the point where the bomb went off.
My point is you can do what you think is the right thing and be horribly wrong. And sometimes "Monsters" are full of good intentions. But their acts MUST be considered as well as their intentions. Hitler didn't do what he did out of greed or a desire to benefit himself. he did it to 'Better' his people and to bring about the recovery of his country. He had noble goals and intentions. Doesn't make him any less of a monster in my book.
So, Should Keldorn have been unseated as a paladin? Personally, I would have written it as such. And am I wrong? or doesn't he eventually become fallen if you don't resolve the issue in a given time limit? Or maybe that was a mod? Anyway.
Edit. If your reputation drops below 5 Keldorn becomes a fallen paladin. If you don't resolve the issue with Firekrag, your reputation takes a HUGE hit. Chances are it is enough for him to fall.
I think the bigger problem with using examples from the game is that the game is not consistent in how it deals with these scenarios. There are only three cases where an alignment can change in an unmodded game, and two of those have nothing to do with actions, only what dialog options you pick. In the meantime, you can order your good party members to slaughter random innocents and they'll do it, and as long as you keep your rep from falling too far, they won't even complain.
I think @the_spyder is fundamentally misunderstanding the alignment system. One's actions do not determine one's alignment, but rather the other way around.
One does not become 'Good' by donating money to the church. One does not become 'Evil' by flooding the Cloakwood mines full of innocents.
The world's perception of your character can be affected by these actions, but not your personal alignment. Rather, one might donate to the church because they are good. They also may do so to dampen the negative effect on public opinion after they slaughter an innocent. An evil character may make the conscious decision to flood the mine full of miners, or simply may not care for their lives since s/he would have to go out of the way to save them. They drown the miners because they are evil, not the other way around.
@Zutti, So, the reputation system in the game is intended to be a barometer for your alignment. If you have a high reputation, you get the 'Good' dreams. if your reputation is low, you get the 'Bad' dreams. Also, if your reputation rises above 18, the 'Evil' party members don't believe you to be 'Evil' enough and leave. Same happens in reverse for the 'Good' party members. And even the neutrals will complain if your reputation is too high or too low. It is beyond doubt that the game developers intended Reputation to equate directly to Good/Evil alignment.
And as has been noted already, there is no real event wherein your Charname can have their alignment changed except by magic. And the instances where alignments can shift, they are not based on actions, but on scripted events and dialogue. Therefore the convention in PnP wherein Actions do dictate alignment shifts is largely absent. A disparity that is sorely felt. But even that is seemingly intended to be implemented because, if your reputation drops below 5, Keldorn' falls (No alignment change, but falling anyway).
But what is being discussed is (was originally) the Virtue system that was proposed. And how effective it could/would be given the choices available in the game. Specifically if you could take the conversation options and effectively use them to determine motive, and then by extension, if motive were enough to 'Judge' the character's alignment.
@Zutti The problem that arises with that conception, though, is how someone's alignment changes. If one's alignment determines one's actions, as you say, then alignment changing is impossible, since acting outside of one's alignment becomes a logical impossibility. This works fine in an essentialist interpretation of the universe, where each person has a fundamental nature (represented in part by their alignment) which is unchangeable, but it becomes untenable once we allow for the possibility of a shift in a person's moral/ethical compass. At that point, we must ask: "What can change the nature of a man?"
i think we should define alignment in the first place. alignment is character's motivation, it is his/her belief and desire, or moral compass in the broadest sense. it is not an outcome of actions or how outside world will judge them.
real life examples are inappropriate for this kind of discussion IMO, because alignment system is not applicable to real life people. alignment exists as a broad and general direction for inner motivations for roleplaying a character. proof for this is the very broad spectrum of characters and behaviors that can be found under any category of good/evil and lawful/chaotic axis.
of course, responsibility for your actions is something else, while a good character will feel remorse if his actions turn sour, evil will not.
another interesting thing- game is full of helpful and courteous demons, devils and monsters that are evil but have some greater agenda behind their help. good characters are much more restricted by their moral code in terms how far can they act in contrast to their alignment before "falling". so while the the main thing for alignment is motivation "absolute value" of their actions also count (especially in the outer planes).
in real life such evaluations are much much much more arbitrary, since there is no provable higher force that would put a meaning behind everything.
in conclusion- in terms of gameplay the virtue mod is quite good mechanic to differentiate and influence alignment (in case of important events, not every snarky reply).
p.s. i do not think sadism and self-righteousness are opposites. they are two examples of multitude of extremes.
@Zutti The problem that arises with that conception, though, is how someone's alignment changes. If one's alignment determines one's actions, as you say, then alignment changing is impossible, since acting outside of one's alignment becomes a logical impossibility. This works fine in an essentialist interpretation of the universe, where each person has a fundamental nature (represented in part by their alignment) which is unchangeable, but it becomes untenable once we allow for the possibility of a shift in a person's moral/ethical compass. At that point, we must ask: "What can change the nature of a man?"
Perhaps I made it seem too black and white.
One's actions are informed by their alignment, but not restricted by it. Your character could potentially do something uncharacteristic for their alignment, when motivations conflict.
The alignment system deals with a lot of generalizations. Most people are too complex to perfectly fit into only one of nine categories. Alignments are supposed to be a general summary of one's motives and outlook on life. Alignment describes thoughts/motivations, which in turn should determine actions. When those thoughts and motivations don't mesh perfectly, actions outside of one's alignment could take place. Too many of these actions don't necessarily result in an alignment shift, but are perhaps a sign of poor RP.
Alignment changes are relatively rare, and usually reflect a change in motivations rather than any particular action.
Take alignment as the "true nature" like other personality traits that simply apply, without anyone having a choice. Some people are introverts, some people are extroverts. To a point, they can pretend to be the other, but they don't become the other by that. They pretend and are percieved by others this way, but deep down, it's simply not who they are.
Keldorn, if presented with all facts, would never kill a fellow paladin. To him, Ajantis appeared evil in that moment - pretended to be evil, though not by choice. Like an introvert forced to hold a public speech for an exam. It doesn't change Keldorn's true nature as a good guy. His true nature regrets the deed, therefore he can and will try to redeem himself because he is aware of his mistake. An evil person in the same situation would not regret the killing of someone who seemed to be something he was not. The evil guy might get angry and seek revenge - but not because he wants to redeem himself, but because he doesn't like being tricked.
Someone who would kill a person, knowing all facts and that it is not a "good" thing to do, but does it regardless, is evil. This is the true nature; he'll never really feel remorse and would only pretend to do so for selfish reasons - like presenting himself in a better light to get gold, fame, whatever. Someone who makes a genuine mistake - due to deception, or losing control for a moment - but regrets those deeds, can redeem himself and still be good. Just like a public speech won't turn an introvert into an extrovert.
@trinit, I have to strongly disagree with your definition of alignment. Because based on that definition, most of the greatest mass murderers of our time have been lawful good. I might have the purest motives in the world, but if I don't act on them, or act incorrectly on them, am I any better than someone evil? Or, to put it another way "The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Your actions HAVE to have an an impact.
And why can't we use real life examples? Seems to me that fiction is nothing more than a mirror of reality and a way to explore and examine real psyches in a controlled setting. All fantasy was written by people in the real world and influenced by real world events and people. So it seems to me that we MUST use reality as a basis for our discussions.
@Zutti, any DM has only the player's actions to base an alignment change on. Even if they ask the player why they did every single action, it is still almost exclusively based on the events rather than the motivations.
@KidCarnival. The person you describe doesn't and can't exist. We, none of us know all of the facts upon which to base our actions. We none of us can say with any clarity where all paths lead or come from.
Keldorn "Might" kill another paladin if he perceived that their actions were wrong and would lead to the deaths of innocents, and he was faced with no other option. An evil person "Might" regret the deaths of an innocent for any number of selfish reasons.
but more importantly, the person with the greatest heart, who fails to act might still be considered evil. And someone with the blackest heart who does act might be seen as good and a savior. Who is to say that those perceptions are wrong?
Comments
I've checked also the FAI map and some of the sectors of BG and it looks like a reputation of 4 (maybe even 3) or higher may be safe there.
very simple, reputation behaves as is, and only the outside world reacts to it. parallel to reputation gain/loss you gain/lose virtue and this is the measure for party alignment and reaction.
so in fact reputation represents your calculations and public image, while virtue represents your true motivation. so in a conversation you may save nymph and gain reputation, but by selecting selfish and mercenary options you lose virtue at the same time.
there you go- viable cold calculating neutral evil hero with 18 reputation.
Finally, I really have to ask. If an 'Evil' person does good acts over and over again, albeit for "Evil" purposes, eventually will it matter? If I save one innocent to disguise my reputation, that is fine. But if I do a 100 good acts for the same purpose, isn't my fundamental nature changing?
Oublek is sort of "recruited" as a party member--and you're having him attack Minsc (who is allied with no one, just loitering about). So the guards are scripted to ally with you (Oublek via Charm) and in this encounter they should treat Minsc as an enemy. You shouldn't lose rep if Minsc (who is an enemy) kills a guard...
(what you ask is a good question but i think discussion starts to bring the whole absolute alignment system of D&D into question- more sense to remove it then. we're just looking for more credible implementation of existing parameters.)
and in that case you are evil guy that conforms to society and realizes there is profit to be had from rescuing people. but you can also kill the peasant, being more chaotic evil i guess.
still, virtue mod actually exists, as a bg2 mod. what i described is actually implemented and in most cases you have option to be a d***head with responses, all while doing "noble" deed, and mod takes that into account. it was not perfect (buggy if i remember correctly) but it made more sense than current reputation system.
But I'd really like to explore the concept.
I am an Evil Necromancer. Because I want to foster good will with the neighbors so that they don't attack me and diminish my undead army before I can attack them, I help out with bolstering their borders against other attackers. When the son of a local noble comes knocking at my door because his deceased beloved's corpse now populates the ranks of my army, I spare his life so that the noble doesn't get riled and attack my flank. A local merchant needs funds and financing to expand his trade and thus be able to more readily provide the types of supplies that I need, so I "Invest" in him to help. He also supplies the local orphanage. A dragon attacks the area and, instead of having the dragon decimate my lands as well as my neighbors, I kill it, with the added benefit of being able to plunder it's corpse for my own purposes. Each of these acts have Evil intent, but benefit the greater good. How many of them must I commit before I become "Good"?
Also, A lawful good Paladin can be a right royal "D!@#head" and still be Lawful Good. Just because you are obnoxious by nature, doesn't mean you don't do the right thing. And a Lawful good fighter might still ask, even demand payment for the function of their job because they need to eat and maintain/upgrade their equipment to make them more efficient. A cleric might demand payment because the money goes to the orphanage. Being obnoxious or wanting payment is not "Necessarily" an indication of "Evil". Heck, an "Evil" tyrant may be extremely eloquent and soft spoken and never once ask for a dime and still be rotten to the core and smother babies for pleasure. Just sayin.
i think we can identify good enough with such responses.
and for your necro/tyrant example- i wouldn't trust a person that does great deeds simply because it benefits them, because i know i might expect a knife in my back as soon as the situation changes.meaning that their deeds by themselves do not make them good, because they do not mean it. i think bg is too simple to reflect such complex situations anyway, also the whole d&d universe is a bit questionable in that regard.
By the same token, it doesn't matter how many "heroic" deeds your character is doing if their motivation is entirely self-serving - Evil characters will kill Bassilus because there's an enormous bounty on his head and that money will help keep you alive, but by taking him out you've also saved Beregost. That doesn't mean your alignment changes as a result.
and I am equally sure that "Evil" people in the world today don't wake up in the morning and say 'Up, I haven't kicked enough babies today to make my quota of Evil. Better hop to it."
@Eudaemonium, I picked Necromancer because the "Usual" trope is that they are evil. I know that isn't necessary or a given, but just for expedience. And I was saying "I play a Necromancer who's alignment on his character sheet says 'Chaotic Evil'". As for the Tyrant, i was actually thinking about Count Dracula. By all accounts, evil to the core. But he was (portrayed in Bram Stoker's book as being) very cordial and polite most of the time. very well spoken. But there have been other examples. By most accounts, Jack the Ripper was probably a member of the Gentry and was probably well liked. Certainly he was known and respected (as in above reproach) by the constabulary.
The fact remains that being surly and obnoxious is by no means 'Proof' that you are evil. Nor is being nice and well mannered proof that you are good.
also i guess this is your personal belief, but mine is that motivation would determine the moral value of action, not it's outcome. furthermore most people hardly view themselves evil. mostly it's just a matter of selflessness vs. selfishness with outright sadism or self-righteousness being extremes.
can't track down those "friends" Gorion
mentioned. It'd probably be a good idea to stock
up on supplies and get some rest, aswell, seeing as
how that fat fool, Winthrop, refused to sell
anything to me after he caught me stealing! As if
I'd pay a dime for his shoddy wares!
Thankfully I now have some gold to spend after
murdering that merchant on the road. I'm unsure
if anyone saw it, though - I have to remember to
be more careful next time!
I'll need to pay attention to my reputation lest I get
a bounty on my head. I should probably refrain
from stealing for awhile until I've gotten better at
it so I don't get caught. I also need to learn to stay
my blade when it's not profitable to kill people -
paying hundreds of gold to retain my good
standing in order to gain a pittance from a murder
is just stupid.
No it's not perfect, but it works for me. :P
And I may have not worded it right. I wasn't saying that the "ultimate" outcome of the action was to be included (although why not?), but more the action itself. If you put yourself at risk to save another, that would appear to be a good act. if you did it for selfish reasons, that might appear to be a bad act. But the act itself must play in (in my philosophy) somewhere in there. Otherwise nothing we ever do matters and the world is an existential waste of time.
Anyway, enough philosophizing. Thanks for the debate.
EDIT
This thread seems incredibly deep with many well-thoughtout replies. This should be stickied, honestly!/EDIT
If your necromancer killed a child because he thought a small skull would make a nice ashtray, is never charged for this crime (or even caught - let's assume it was an orphean no-one will miss) and then saves the neighbor's wife from bandits, kills the dragon threatening the village and nurses an injured bird back to health... Do the good deeds really make up for taking one life because he needed a new ashtray? Even if he genuinely wanted to help and had no bad intentions in all cases, he still also killed a child for his own amusement. He'll never be "good". If he feels true remorse and wants to redeem himself by doing good, he may climb up to neutral. If he doesn't, he can do all the good he wants, he's still a child murderer.
Fantasy literature is replete with former villains who are now on the path to redemption. Will none of them ever be considered 'Good'? And then where is the line the other way? A Lawful Good paladin has one single act that ends the life of someone else. Sure, they should fall, but can they NEVER redeem themselves?
Or, to use a more central example, you must destroy Irenicus to regain your soul. Evil characters can further justify this as wanting payback for kidnapping and torturing them. But in killing him, you are also saving all of Suldanessellar, even if your character has no desire to do so. You can't separate the two because both are directly caused by your actions. That doesn't mean your Chaotic Evil necromancer is suddenly going to show compassion or renounce his evil ways, it just means he got what he wanted and some other people may have benefited from it.
As an example of putting yourself in harms way to save someone. Do that and it appears to be a good act. Do it for selfish reasons and it appears to be a bad act. But harming someone is a thoroughly bad act? Unless you are doing it to help someone? See how the act and the motivation NEED to be intertwined?
Sure, if you save a butterfly, you could end the world. But if we looked at that, all acts lead to evil. But the individual events themselves must be examined. And not just from the perspective of what you want to do. But what you did to achieve that goal.
A Paladin saves a child from an intruder in the orphanage and kills the intruder in the process. Good act? What if the intruder was there quite by accidend and outside of his control? Or was actually there attempting to warn and defend the orphanage against some other threat? But this was not able to be communicated to the Paladin before he struck? Is the Paladin's motivations enough? Or are his acts also part of it?
In his mind, Hitler was doing the right thing. Does that make him a Lawful good guy? I hardly think so. Robert Openheimer thought he was doing the right thing right up to the point where the bomb went off.
My point is you can do what you think is the right thing and be horribly wrong. And sometimes "Monsters" are full of good intentions. But their acts MUST be considered as well as their intentions. Hitler didn't do what he did out of greed or a desire to benefit himself. he did it to 'Better' his people and to bring about the recovery of his country. He had noble goals and intentions. Doesn't make him any less of a monster in my book.
So, Should Keldorn have been unseated as a paladin? Personally, I would have written it as such. And am I wrong? or doesn't he eventually become fallen if you don't resolve the issue in a given time limit? Or maybe that was a mod? Anyway.
Edit. If your reputation drops below 5 Keldorn becomes a fallen paladin. If you don't resolve the issue with Firekrag, your reputation takes a HUGE hit. Chances are it is enough for him to fall.
One does not become 'Good' by donating money to the church.
One does not become 'Evil' by flooding the Cloakwood mines full of innocents.
The world's perception of your character can be affected by these actions, but not your personal alignment. Rather, one might donate to the church because they are good. They also may do so to dampen the negative effect on public opinion after they slaughter an innocent. An evil character may make the conscious decision to flood the mine full of miners, or simply may not care for their lives since s/he would have to go out of the way to save them. They drown the miners because they are evil, not the other way around.
And as has been noted already, there is no real event wherein your Charname can have their alignment changed except by magic. And the instances where alignments can shift, they are not based on actions, but on scripted events and dialogue. Therefore the convention in PnP wherein Actions do dictate alignment shifts is largely absent. A disparity that is sorely felt. But even that is seemingly intended to be implemented because, if your reputation drops below 5, Keldorn' falls (No alignment change, but falling anyway).
But what is being discussed is (was originally) the Virtue system that was proposed. And how effective it could/would be given the choices available in the game. Specifically if you could take the conversation options and effectively use them to determine motive, and then by extension, if motive were enough to 'Judge' the character's alignment.
real life examples are inappropriate for this kind of discussion IMO, because alignment system is not applicable to real life people. alignment exists as a broad and general direction for inner motivations for roleplaying a character. proof for this is the very broad spectrum of characters and behaviors that can be found under any category of good/evil and lawful/chaotic axis.
of course, responsibility for your actions is something else, while a good character will feel remorse if his actions turn sour, evil will not.
another interesting thing- game is full of helpful and courteous demons, devils and monsters that are evil but have some greater agenda behind their help. good characters are much more restricted by their moral code in terms how far can they act in contrast to their alignment before "falling". so while the the main thing for alignment is motivation "absolute value" of their actions also count (especially in the outer planes).
in real life such evaluations are much much much more arbitrary, since there is no provable higher force that would put a meaning behind everything.
in conclusion- in terms of gameplay the virtue mod is quite good mechanic to differentiate and influence alignment (in case of important events, not every snarky reply).
p.s. i do not think sadism and self-righteousness are opposites. they are two examples of multitude of extremes.
One's actions are informed by their alignment, but not restricted by it. Your character could potentially do something uncharacteristic for their alignment, when motivations conflict.
The alignment system deals with a lot of generalizations. Most people are too complex to perfectly fit into only one of nine categories. Alignments are supposed to be a general summary of one's motives and outlook on life. Alignment describes thoughts/motivations, which in turn should determine actions. When those thoughts and motivations don't mesh perfectly, actions outside of one's alignment could take place. Too many of these actions don't necessarily result in an alignment shift, but are perhaps a sign of poor RP.
Alignment changes are relatively rare, and usually reflect a change in motivations rather than any particular action.
Keldorn, if presented with all facts, would never kill a fellow paladin. To him, Ajantis appeared evil in that moment - pretended to be evil, though not by choice. Like an introvert forced to hold a public speech for an exam. It doesn't change Keldorn's true nature as a good guy. His true nature regrets the deed, therefore he can and will try to redeem himself because he is aware of his mistake.
An evil person in the same situation would not regret the killing of someone who seemed to be something he was not. The evil guy might get angry and seek revenge - but not because he wants to redeem himself, but because he doesn't like being tricked.
Someone who would kill a person, knowing all facts and that it is not a "good" thing to do, but does it regardless, is evil. This is the true nature; he'll never really feel remorse and would only pretend to do so for selfish reasons - like presenting himself in a better light to get gold, fame, whatever.
Someone who makes a genuine mistake - due to deception, or losing control for a moment - but regrets those deeds, can redeem himself and still be good. Just like a public speech won't turn an introvert into an extrovert.
And why can't we use real life examples? Seems to me that fiction is nothing more than a mirror of reality and a way to explore and examine real psyches in a controlled setting. All fantasy was written by people in the real world and influenced by real world events and people. So it seems to me that we MUST use reality as a basis for our discussions.
@Zutti, any DM has only the player's actions to base an alignment change on. Even if they ask the player why they did every single action, it is still almost exclusively based on the events rather than the motivations.
@KidCarnival. The person you describe doesn't and can't exist. We, none of us know all of the facts upon which to base our actions. We none of us can say with any clarity where all paths lead or come from.
Keldorn "Might" kill another paladin if he perceived that their actions were wrong and would lead to the deaths of innocents, and he was faced with no other option. An evil person "Might" regret the deaths of an innocent for any number of selfish reasons.
but more importantly, the person with the greatest heart, who fails to act might still be considered evil. And someone with the blackest heart who does act might be seen as good and a savior. Who is to say that those perceptions are wrong?