Goblin Squad Member
|
To me, Neutral on the Good/Evil axis makes me think of the aspect of Buddhism where the most important thing is to refrain from doing Evil, rather than to actively do Good. Not that Buddhists don't believe in Charity or Good Works, so don't think I'm saying Buddhism is Neutral - just this aspect of it.
So, Neutral refrains from doing Evil but is not compelled to do Good either.
Not to contradict, but I would couch it differently. The true neutral seeks to nourish natural balance and harmony. The tendency for True Neutrals to more comfortably fit with Good has more to do with the tendency of the good to conform more to harmony and balance than evil.
Evil tends to either seek dominance or destroy wantonly without regard to harmony and balance. Where Good might try to dominate with fences and extermination of species rather than thinning the herds, then those excesses are as anti-neutral as evil is and would be resisted.
A good woodsman will know that selective harvesting of trees is good for a forest and will increase its yeild over time, where an evil woodsman will tend to clear cut and denude.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think a Neutral-populated hex surrounded by evil settlements would seek to protect its territory from encroachment and strive to remove harvesting/construction sites from natural habitats in their own hex and those neighboring it, which would weaken those other-aligned settlements relying on those resources as a side-effect. Understand that a neutral-populated hex surrounded by Good aligned hexes would behave similarly....
EDIT: I just saw Being's comment on meaning 'balance' not on an individual level, but on a local/region level. Being, for clarification: do you mean to say that a N town bordered by many Evil settlements would do Good acts, and in so doing remain N? And that if the same town were instead bordered by many Good settlements, they would engage in Evil acts, with the same result?
Ah excellent, I see that could be an example of an action that is specifically Neutral.
The only strange thing is when this example is then applied to a Good settlement surrounded by Evil settlements. It would be strange for Good characters to move towards Neutral when destroying nearby Evil harvesting camps.
I think it might be better if such an action simply didn't have any affect on alignment; it doesn't make you 'more good,' 'more evil,' nor 'more neutral.' I think that would be a good argument to make for the case of Neutral characters being able to roleplay their alignment.
I think it's a great idea conceptually that opens up a lot of play (and RP) options and it works really well in a PnP setting, but I have yet to imagine a way that it could be implemented by a computer. I think it's much simpler to go with Neutral as a resting point for alignment. It has some of the same effects as well as some of the benefits I described above.
For example, I imagine that if a Neutral player/town engages in hostilities against another player/town of Evil or Good alignment, their alignment would start shifting. But that alignment change could just be another factor in deciding when 'the balance has been restored' and they could back out of the conflict, giving them time to shift back towards neutrality. Also, as I stated before, I would support the idea that some actions would make a character either less good or less evil but not any more good or evil. This way, the druids could actually engage in activities to bring their alignment back into balance.
When we can let's also balance (haha) our discussion with an eye to how the game will mechanically recognize these actions and be able to shift actions and alignment to where they match.
I'm not an advocate of getting an alignment hit because you sold herbs to a evil character when you didn't know their alignment. But there should be some mechanism to shift your alignment if you repeatedly seek out evil characters to trade with. A difficult problem for game mechanics to spot and account for.
I'm also not in favor of having your alignment listed when you /con (look at) someone. Yet magic can show alignment, detect evil/good, show alignment etc.. But not everyone has access to those spells. So should the town guards (NPCs) be able to just know a approaching characters alignment? I tend to think no. After all it would make spying pretty much impossible. But we have to factor in reputation, which will be known to everyone. This also brings an additional aspect to the table for consideration.
These are difficult things to work out. But they are issues that the devs will have to deal with. So any help we can provide by including the games mechanics in our conversations will only aid them when it comes to programming how the game views and deals with situations in regards to alignment, alignment shifts and player actions that effect alignment.
I hope this makes sense. It does complicate matters I know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Understand that a neutral-populated hex surrounded by Good aligned hexes would behave similarly.So, you're saying that a Neutral Settlement surrounded by Good Settlements would seek to sabotage or weaken the Good Settlements?
That doesn't seem right to me. I would think their self-interest would give them an incentive to, in effect, mooch off the benefits of having nearby Good Settlements.
I think the issue here is that Neutral can mean balance opposites, inaction, or a set of 'neutral' actions that specifically reference preservation/nurture of nature vs. domination.
I think your concern here addresses one of three types of Neutral settlements. One or the other of the other two types might behave in the manner Being describes.
Forgive me if I am mistaken... as you know, I have little to no experience with the alignment system :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not an advocate of getting an alignment hit because you sold herbs to a evil character when you didn't know their alignment. But there should be some mechanism to shift your alignment if you repeatedly seek out evil characters to trade with. A difficult problem for game mechanics to spot and account for.
I see this concern a lot. I always felt that the beauty of the alignment system was that it was an aggregate of multitudes of actions.
If there is a minuscule alignment shift for trading with an Evil player once, what is the issue? If you do it once, you won't notice. If you repeatedly do it, the aggregate will have an effect on your alignment that you must counter-act.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Ah excellent, I see that could be an example of an action that is specifically Neutral.The only strange thing is when this example is then applied to a Good settlement surrounded by Evil settlements. It would be strange for Good characters to move towards Neutral when destroying nearby Evil harvesting camps. ...
I don't think good characters would move toward neutral when they resist evil, but rather they would more firmly align to the good. Neutral, in my view, is not the absense of good and evil but another power in itself. By being in nature, protecting the forest, nurturing the wild the neutral gains greater neutrality.
By feeding the wren I eventually feed the hawk, and that is beneficial to nature.
As I have asserted elsewhere neutrality isn't midway between Good and Evil. Intead of a crosswork grid displaying Lawful, Good, Evil, and Chaos (leaving neutrality a barren and indeterminate grey area, consider True Neutral one apex among five in a five sided equilateral pyramid. There are spectra between chotic evil and true neutral, and between lawful good and true neutral, and between chaotic good and true neutral, and between lawful evil and true neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Ah excellent, I see that could be an example of an action that is specifically Neutral.The only strange thing is when this example is then applied to a Good settlement surrounded by Evil settlements. It would be strange for Good characters to move towards Neutral when destroying nearby Evil harvesting camps. ...
I don't think good characters would move toward neutral when they resist evil, but rather they would more firmly align to the good. Neutral, in my view, is not the absense of good and evil but another power in itself. By being in nature, protecting the forest, nurturing the wild the neutral gains greater neutrality.
By feeding the wren I eventually feed the hawk, and that is beneficial to nature.
As I have asserted elsewhere neutrality isn't midway between Good and Evil. Intead of a crosswork grid displaying Lawful, Good, Evil, and Chaos (leaving neutrality a barren and indeterminate grey area, consider True Neutral one apex among five in a five sided equilateral pyramid. There are spectra between chotic evil and true neutral, and between lawful good and true neutral, and between chaotic good and true neutral, and between lawful evil and true neutral.
I thought of that, but if the game judges actions based on what your current alignment is, how do you achieve a Neutral alignment? If we can describe actions that are Neutral if you are Neutral, Good if you are Good, and Evil if you are Evil, can we describe any that are specifically Neutral? Also, how does one move from Good to Evil? Perhaps we would need to make a new 'middle point' called 'No Alignment?'
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then there may be an unmentioned sixth power. If nature is the power of the neutral, is death, the unnatural power behind necromancy, its antithesis?
At this point, I'm not sure we're still in the Pathfinder universe, so we may just be spinning our wheels. At any rate, as death is a part of nature, I would suggest this third axis be defined by Nature vs. Undeath :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there is a sixth power, then perhaps my pentacle is unnecessarily complicated: perhaps the power behind what we think of as True Neutral is actually Life.
The Good might be Life as interpreted by mortals.
Its opposite is Evil, but beyond evil may lie the power that sources necromancy, fell death itself, antithesis of Life.
<snaps out of it>
But never mind the mutterings of an mad old hermit and leave me to my herbs and crystals...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then there may be an unmentioned sixth power. If nature is the power of the neutral, is death, the unnatural power behind necromancy, its antithesis?At this point, I'm not sure we're still in the Pathfinder universe, so we may just be spinning our wheels. At any rate, as death is a part of nature, I would suggest this third axis be defined by Nature vs. Undeath :)
Oh that IS good. Yes, I quite like that and you are right about death.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there is a sixth power, then perhaps my pentacle is unnecessarily complicated: perhaps the power behind what we think of as True Neutral is actually Life.
The Good might be Life as interpreted by mortals.
Its opposite is Evil, but beyond evil may lie the power that sources necromancy, fell death itself, antithesis of Life.
<snaps out of it>
But never mind the mutterings of an mad old hermit and leave me to my herbs and crystals...
Yeah, pass those herbs over here old man... ;P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I thought of that, but if the game judges actions based on what your current alignment is, how do you achieve a Neutral alignment? If we can describe actions that are Neutral if you are Neutral, Good if you are Good, and Evil if you are Evil, can we describe any that are specifically Neutral? Also, how does one move from Good to Evil? Perhaps we would need to make a new 'middle point' called 'No Alignment?'
Unaligned or 'average' seems it would work pretty well as midway between the three spectra.
I become neutral by being part of the forest, by nurturing and defending it, by communing with the Oak, and by aging my mead of course. If I enter a town I must spend three times the duration of that visit in the wilds before I am cleansed of the alignment of that town. Or i can dismantle an abandoned lumbermill before its untended workers clear cut my forest.
...I thought of that, but if the game judges actions based on what your current alignment is, how do you achieve a Neutral alignment? If we can describe actions that are Neutral if you are Neutral, Good if you are Good, and Evil if you are Evil, can we describe any that are specifically Neutral? Also, how does one move from Good to Evil? Perhaps we would need to make a new 'middle point' called 'No Alignment?'Unaligned or 'average' seems it would work pretty well as midway between the three spectra.
I become neutral by being part of the forest, by nurturing and defending it, by communing with the Oak, and by aging my mead of course. If I enter a town I must spend three times the duration of that visit in the wilds before I am cleansed of the alignment of that town. Or i can dismantle an abandoned lumbermill before its untended workers clear cut my forest.
This might just be me, but Being. Isn't what your describing really the True Neutral that nature, Druids and rangers would follow? I see that as separate from say Switzerland and its neutrality in conflicts. I don't envision settlements or towns as being true neutral so much as just neutral in relation to regional activities.
Does that make sense?
...I thought of that, but if the game judges actions based on what your current alignment is, how do you achieve a Neutral alignment? If we can describe actions that are Neutral if you are Neutral, Good if you are Good, and Evil if you are Evil, can we describe any that are specifically Neutral? Also, how does one move from Good to Evil? Perhaps we would need to make a new 'middle point' called 'No Alignment?'Unaligned or 'average' seems it would work pretty well as midway between the three spectra.
I become neutral by being part of the forest, by nurturing and defending it, by communing with the Oak, and by aging my mead of course. If I enter a town I must spend three times the duration of that visit in the wilds before I am cleansed of the alignment of that town. Or i can dismantle an abandoned lumbermill before its untended workers clear cut my forest.
This might just be me, but Being. Isn't what your describing really the True Neutral that nature, Druids and rangers would follow? I see that as separate from say Switzerland and its neutrality in conflicts. I don't envision settlements or towns as being true neutral so much as just neutral in relation to regional activities.
To take this a step further even. I see settlements as swaying between LN and CN with their actions, where TN seeks to maintain a perfect balance between good and evil.
Does that make sense?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, Val. Yet if nations war nature is wrecked, so Switzerland is not entirely out of the model.
And also I would add another act that should define true neutral alignment, which would be the termination of the undead, for undeath is most unnatural.
kudos to kakafika for the thought.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm going to repeat this because I think this is the issue with most of the discussions about Neutral alignment:
I think the issue here is that Neutral can mean balance opposites, inaction, or a set of 'neutral' actions that specifically reference preservation/nurture of nature vs. domination.
Some actions can be explained on the L-C axis, some on the G-E axis, but many don't fit very well on either, or are entirely subjective and so are judged on a case-by-case basis by the DM.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kafi, that's why I prefer my definition of Neutral as "Self-interested; resists doing Evil; and simply isn't compelled to do Good." I think the same basic definition works well on the Law/Chaos side.
I understand there's this legacy definition of True Neutral actively pursuing a "Balance", but I never really thought it was a very useful definition. I just can't understand a motivation that attempts to keep Good and Evil in Balance that can't be more easily explained by Self-interest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not even to trick Evil people into lowering their guard?No, because "Create Undead" is an evil spell, and nice guys don't cast evil spells.So I CAN be a nice guy while creating undead?
Last time I checked, Ryan apparently said the opposite.
You're thinking of alignment in terms of ethics, where the "why" behind actions is significant. That's one valid way of thinking about alignment, but it's not the road PFO is going down.
They're construing alignment as metaphysical--it's the way the universe is. It doesn't matter how you justify it, what your intentions or ends are: if you act in the ways of evil, you are actively being evil. Casting "Create Undead" puts you in contact with Zon-Kuthon or Urgathoa, tainted and tocuhed by their evil, end of story.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're construing alignment as metaphysical--it's the way the universe is. It doesn't matter how you justify it, what your intentions or ends are: if you act in the ways of evil, you are actively being evil. Casting "Create Undead" puts you in contact with Zon-Kuthon or Urgathoa, tainted and tocuhed by their evil, end of story.
Right now that is the case, and I really see no way of creating an in-game alignment system that responds to the society's ever-changing views of what good, evil, order, chaos, and neutrality are.
Alignments have to be static, not dynamic. They don't get the same luxury our ethics do... otherwise one day a Paladin is lawful good, the next day he may not be lawful at all because of the way society's interpretations have changed.
Part of that is that things have to be evil. Assassinating Hitler is the same as Assassinating Kennedy... assassination is an evil act. I do not agree with this at all, however, knowing the logic behind it has come to help me accept it, inspite of my opinions.
They're construing alignment as metaphysical--it's the way the universe is. It doesn't matter how you justify it, what your intentions or ends are: if you act in the ways of evil, you are actively being evil. Casting "Create Undead" puts you in contact with Zon-Kuthon or Urgathoa, tainted and tocuhed by their evil, end of story.Right now that is the case, and I really see no way of creating an in-game alignment system that responds to the society's ever-changing views of what good, evil, order, chaos, and neutrality are.
Alignments have to be static, not dynamic. They don't get the same luxury our ethics do... otherwise one day a Paladin is lawful good, the next day he may not be lawful at all because of the way society's interpretations have changed.
Part of that is that things have to be evil. Assassinating Hitler is the same as Assassinating Kennedy... assassination is an evil act. I do not agree with this at all, however, knowing the logic behind it has come to help me accept it, inspite of my opinions.
Someone suggested a system where instead of each action causing an alignment shift, each action, depending on severity, would result in a tick of alignment shift. Get enough ticks and your alignment shifts one degree toward however your acting.
Such a system would eliminate the situation your talking about I believe. And be more realistic in terms of how people act.
What do you think?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with Areks. There are far too many variables for a system to quantify. The most we can hope for is that the designers' list of the more "black and white" alignment-shifting triggers are sensible, while preventing two things:
1. Accidental changes (perhaps a warning system indicating that you are about to do something alignment shifting...UO used to have a toggle of sorts that you could turn on so as to be warned before striking an innocent player and being flagged as a criminal).
2. As exploit free as possible.
Hobs
Member of the Empyrean Order
Feel free to visit us at http://theempyrean.org/
1. Accidental changes (perhaps a warning system indicating that you are about to do something alignment shifting...UO used to have a toggle of sorts that you could turn on so as to be warned before striking an innocent player and being flagged as a criminal).
2. As exploit free as possible.
Hobs
Member of the Empyrean Order
Feel free to visit us at http://theempyrean.org/
For sure we need this. A players actions should have a scale. If an action is so bad,or good, that it will shift you away from your current alignment, you should have some kind of notification. Many games have this sort of thing and I don't see any reason PFO shouldn't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assassinating Hitler is the same as Assassinating Kennedy... assassination is an evil act.
I would suggest that killing Hitler should not qualify as "Assassination".
Perhaps part of the reason why "Assassination is Evil" is that "It's only Assassination if the target is not Evil".
Someone suggested a system where instead of each action causing an alignment shift, each action, depending on severity, would result in a tick of alignment shift.
How much is a "shift"? How much is a "tick"? It seems that it's the exact same system if the right scale is used.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assassinating Hitler is the same as Assassinating Kennedy... assassination is an evil act.I would suggest that killing Hitler should not qualify as "Assassination".
Perhaps part of the reason why "Assassination is Evil" is that "It's only Assassination if the target is not Evil".
I would argue that an evil target does not preclude assassination. If Mussolini sent people to kill Hitler so he could take Germany as well, that would still be assassination, and still be evil.
Assassination is evil. It may be done to achieve a greater good, but in Pathfinder, methodology is what's important, not motive.
@Valandur I wasn't under the impression that any single action would change your alignment, but that it would be a gradual, over time process. Or maybe I'm just misreading your post.
Actually I think I misunderstood your post first <grin> sorry.
Someone suggested a system where instead of each action causing an alignment shift, each action, depending on severity, would result in a tick of alignment shift.How much is a "shift"? How much is a "tick"? It seems that it's the exact same system if the right scale is used.
That's what needs to be worked out :) and yes, either method would work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The question I think is whether an assassination can be a just execution.
A leperous necromancer is discovered to be a serial murderer and cannibal who doesn't bathe routinely. He is apprehended in a lawful good city while transporting an unmarked crate filled with unfed and terrified children. When asked about the crate he habitually refers to it as his lunch box.
Should the murderer be set free, imprisoned such that he is consuming food that might have kept a poor innocent alive, or should he be executed by this lawful good city?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assassination is evil. It may be done to achieve a greater good...
Assassination is Evil because of the ways in which it differs from "killing". Not all killing is Assassination. Not all killing is Evil.
I think you're right that Evil characters can be Assassinated... by other Evil characters.
I am arguing that when a Good character kills an Evil character, it is, by definition, not Assassination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Incarceration is not an option, neither, presumably is the enslavement and starvation and consumption of children.
The options are actually just kill them, fine them, or let them go.
With the living in the forest, that means woodsmen and outlaws would all tend towards neutral because they either live outside of cities, or are banned from cities, but by living in the woods and keeping a low profile, you'd mechanically have to become more neutral under that system, which means you'd have access to Any town (depending on your lawful/chaotic axis anyway). And if this does not happen to characters who are not already true neutral, how does one become true neutral.
As for the ticks toward an alignment thing, still have a problem with guilt by association.
You have a tavern keeper with his inn out on a road. He's neutral because he lives in the woods (if we take that approach) and a guild that happens to be evil drops by for some food and a quick meeting to work out where to go next, they all buy food and drink, turning the tavern keeper evil by association. So now when he the paladin order (another guild) comes through the next in game day, they could instead kill the tavern owner for being evil and take his food, because trading with him would tick at their alignment, even though spread over the 20ish people it wouldn't really impact them unless its more significant because of the difference in alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I previously made mention of Good and Evil / Law and Chaos being poles, with Neutrality merely an absence of either. I think it would be good to expand on this further.
First, Kakafika had a very idea in this post about actively maintaining your Alignment. I would suggest renaming this concept Alignment Decay.
Second, where I have approached things mechanically and Being has approached things ideologically they are definitely two distinct and unique concepts that embody their own aims. A mechanically inclined individual who wishes to maintain the state of Neutrality is going to balance their actions against their own actions, not the actions of others. In this way they remain pegged in the middle of each Alignment axis. Now, ideologically we already have great examples from Being. An ideologically TN entity is going to measure their actions against all factors in nature including and especially the actions of others. A state-driven Neutral person will look at whether they themselves have done more of one Alignment than another and seek to maintain a balance in their own actions. An ideologically driven Neutral person will themselves seek to fill any voids that begin to occur in the world at the expense of their own alignment state if necessary. If Good is gaining to much of a foothold, that Neutral person will quickly seek to further the interests of and strengthen the Evil agenda OR they will seek to undermine Good to bring them closer to the influence of Evil. Likewise on the other axis and vice versa in both cases. I think it is safe to say that this is a metagame principle and transcends the concerns of a state driven system.
I believe a line needs to be drawn for the sake of progress moving forward to keep things generally mechanical for a bit.
If each Alignment pole is considered as a goal to be achieved by those inclined to do so, the next step is to decide whether the concept of Alignment Decay should come into play. As it stands now if a player achieved the pinnacle of LG or CE and ceased to contribute in any meaningful fashion to the game. Perhaps they spent the next year logging in to simply chat. Should they still be LG/CE when they resume their meaningful contributions. I am in agreement with Kakafika here, they most certainly should not still be considered as a pinnacle of anything. I believe that in order to maintain these states, they should be actively pursued. On the other hand, one who wishes to remain Neutral in state would have either the option of actively maintaining or inactively maintaining this state. There is certainly precedent of remaining Neutral in a conflict through inaction, and this would fit in nicely with the goal of one who is trying to maintain a Neutral state.
Now, please proceed to poke holes in that wall of text. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the next step is to decide whether the concept of Alignment Decay should come into play.
I am adamantly opposed to anything that would make my Paladin unable to continue being a Paladin if I stopped playing for a year and then came back.
I am generally sympathetic to the idea of having events that occur in the game that frequently test your commitment to your alignment, and cause it to slide if you fail to act according to your alignment. If I pass by a starving child and do nothing to help, I'm fine with my alignment slipping away from Good and towards Neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Someone suggested a system where instead of each action causing an alignment shift, each action, depending on severity, would result in a tick of alignment shift. Get enough ticks and your alignment shifts one degree toward however your acting.
Such a system would eliminate the situation your talking about I believe. And be more realistic in terms of how people act.
What do you think?
I think GW is going with some kind of "warn before losing alignment" system. From the "Respect" Blog thread:
So can we expect the gods to be directly involved in the game world or is it a behind the scenes game mechanic?Unknown.
How are we going to know the alignment of actions in the game?Trial and error.
You will be notified before an action you take has a meaningful alignment consequence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the next step is to decide whether the concept of Alignment Decay should come into play.I am adamantly opposed to anything that would make my Paladin unable to continue being a Paladin if I stopped playing for a year and then came back.
I had that in mind exactly when I used the example of said Paladin using the game as a glorified chat-room for a year without any meaningful contribution to the world at large. Alignment shouldn't slip if you're not even there to take action or choose not to, but in the case that you are present and choose inaction, that would be a course charted to Neutrality. Does that seem more in line with what you would expect?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assassination is evil. It may be done to achieve a greater good...Assassination is Evil because of the ways in which it differs from "killing". Not all killing is Assassination. Not all killing is Evil.
I think you're right that Evil characters can be Assassinated... by other Evil characters.
I am arguing that when a Good character kills an Evil character, it is, by definition, not Assassination.
It's not the alignment of the participants that makes it an assassination, it's how you go about it. If I run into you in the woods and kill you, it's not an assassination. If we're at war and I kill you, it's not assassination. If I sneak into your settlement, break into your home and stab you to death while you're on the can, it's assassination. If I hire an unscrupulous rogue who knows a thing or two about tasteless plants to mix you up a frosty beverage, it's assassination.
I am arguing that when a Good character kills an Evil character, it is, by definition, not Assassination.
Question. Would this killing result in an alignment shift and criminal flagging if the evil char. had not taken any action against the good character?
As for the ticks toward an alignment thing, still have a problem with guilt by association.
You have a tavern keeper with his inn out on a road. He's neutral because he lives in the woods (if we take that approach) and a guild that happens to be evil drops by for some food and a quick meeting to work out where to go next, they all buy food and drink, turning the tavern keeper evil by association. So now when he the paladin order (another guild) comes through the next in game day, they could instead kill the tavern owner for being evil and take his food, because trading with him would tick at their alignment, even though spread over the 20ish people it wouldn't really impact them unless its more significant because of the difference in alignment.
This is where you can tune the alignment tick system to balance things out somewhat. Imagine the potential for griefing if what your saying were how the game was set up. Being as PFO is designed to be a long term game, it would make sense if the ticks were small enough that a group of griefing yayhoos couldn't just ruin someone's alignment in 15 minutes.
Also, I'll pose the same question I posed above.. If the innkeeper had not done anything to the group of paladins, would they take an alignment hit and criminal flagging when they killed the innkeeper?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That depends on whether it is a criminal act to kill an evil character.
But with the innkeeper I'm assuming not a new one, one that on average gets roughly even alignment interaction due to his location. Probably would be slightly good skewed in reality, but the point is that due to the long term effect of lots of ticks from both good and evil, they would not have a strong leaning either way, so if it just happens that on one particular day they have an unusually high number of one alignment in his tavern, it will push him further in one direction than usual.
If the evil then take over the nearby towns and skew it further, the clientele will be more evil in proportion, so by selling to them the innkeeper becomes more evil. Either that or he's forced to abandon his property if he doesn't want the alignment shift. Just because of who buys his food and drink.
I don't agree with that sort of system of association.
That depends on whether it is a criminal act to kill an evil character.
But with the innkeeper I'm assuming not a new one, one that on average gets roughly even alignment interaction due to his location. Probably would be slightly good skewed in reality, but the point is that due to the long term effect of lots of ticks from both good and evil, they would not have a strong leaning either way, so if it just happens that on one particular day they have an unusually high number of one alignment in his tavern, it will push him further in one direction than usual.
If the evil then take over the nearby towns and skew it further, the clientele will be more evil in proportion, so by selling to them the innkeeper becomes more evil. Either that or he's forced to abandon his property if he doesn't want the alignment shift. Just because of who buys his food and drink.
I don't agree with that sort of system of association.
Ok, I can understand that. I would be pissed of my CG innkeeper went LE after paying the money for a tavern! Lol just because some riff raff set up in the next hex over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exactly, that's why I'm trying to ignore ideologies and focus on mechanics.
Ryan has already said he finds discussions of morality boring and pointless in a world where there are gods to make it absolute.
It isn't pointless of course because the gods do not actually exist and won't be there to judge your actions, we are reliant on mechanical flags for the absoluteness of it. Which means we need to know what actions and what interpretations are being used to decide how an action affects alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... in the case that you are present and choose inaction, that would be a course charted to Neutrality. Does that seem more in line with what you would expect?
Not really.
I really think it needs to be the case that your alignment only slips when you are explicitly refusing to do the Good that's right in front of you. Failing to go out and find Good to do shouldn't count.
In essence, I really believe it needs to be based on actions and not just time.
It's not the alignment of the participants that makes it an assassination, it's how you go about it.
With respect to Assassination in PFO, we don't know that yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.
This sums it up for me. If you are not doing Good, how can you continue to claim that you are Good. All you really have is past events, which would mean you are merely resting on your laurels and are probably in retirement. I believe that the process of Alignment Decay would also encourage people to continue to be doing things, which is going to be at the heart of meaningful player interaction, as it's hard to interact meaningfully if you aren't doing anything.
Since the objection seems to be the loss of an absolute Alignment status, perhaps there is a middle ground to be had. Obviously one should not simply become Good the first time they do an act of Good. This should require some dedication, or at the least consistency. This points to the existence of a range between Absolute Zero TN and NG. So perhaps once enough Good has been done and this shift of Alignment occurs, that becomes the new baseline to which your Alignment can Decay down to.
This would mean that those who continue to do Good can eventually cap out on whatever it is that tracks Goodness. Likely at a point where several non-good acts could be performed before Good status is lost. Whereas the Paladin who becomes nothing more than a gossip monger for an entire year still retains his Good status, having not done anything to upset the balance, he loses all of the extra Goodness that would keep him from dropping to Neutral after committing an Evil act.
From a casual observer's perspective the Paladin would have long since ceased to do Good, and then did something decidedly not-Good. The shift to Neutral would make a nice bit of logical sense.
I am generally sympathetic to the idea of having events that occur in the game that frequently test your commitment to your alignment, and cause it to slide if you fail to act according to your alignment. If I pass by a starving child and do nothing to help, I'm fine with my alignment slipping away from Good and towards Neutral.
Let me pose a question based on your above example, because this will happen in the game.
Suppose your paladin was browsing through some shops in town, just to see what's for sale. In between shops someone knocks on your RL door. So you run answer it. It's a bible salesman and it takes you 5 minutes to get rid of them. In that time a evil character came into the area and slew three noobs right beside you, then fled the guards.
The game sees you as standing right there, taking no action. So what happens to your alignment? Would that be enough to move you from LG?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was thinking the same thing, like with the starving child. Wandering through a market and there in the corner is a group of starving children. Do you even notice they're there while shopping? Do you have any food to give them even? What if you're just passing through? Riding for 40 mins through several towns, does the paladin have to walk slowly and carefully through each one to make sure he doesn't miss 10 children on the way and harm his alignment?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Doesn't the autopaladin alignment selection thing feel just a little bit out of whack?
example:
If it is always a good action for a good character to kill any evil character, won't griefers simply select your artificially good alignment so they can kill evil characters with impunity?
If your alignment cannot attrite, do you fail to foresee hordes of murderous Paladins rampaging piously around the countryside?
So if your alignment can change, would it not make sense to make Lawful Good alignment a real achievement, something you have to not only attain, but maintain?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Alignment Decay can handle these ideas, if you pass up the chance to do Good, you're letting your Alignment drop just a little bit by not counteracting the Decay. It won't stop you from being Good when it comes right down to it, but it certainly doesn't help you if your Alignment ever comes into contest with questionable actions.