This thread is, to me, an example of creative justification in role-playing without restrictions.

Alignment is intended for two things in D&D, and thus NWN:

1.) A firm moral definer that allows a clear distinction between the major conceptual morality systems, thus allowing for clearly opposing diety belief systems, as well as clearly defined social interactions.

2.) A framework in which to challenge one to think =differently=, while providing a common set of standards from which to compare one to, so as to gauge accuracy.

I'm seeing more and more the concept of "Role Play Restrictions"... and I think the following stated it best:

"Pike off and don't tell me how to play"

There are rules for a reason, and I don't view them as RP restrictions. I view them as guides to allow me, and those others who play the same game (using the same common elements, so as we are all on the =same page= ) to have a rich and rewarding experience. These are guides that the DM's use to determine if your RP'ing well, and within your characters means, as well as providing a consistant basis of comparison between the DM team as to just what RP'ing in character means.

Myself?

I'm happily trying to figure out how to achieve Frey's next goals within my alignment and within what would be considered consistant and relevent with his established lore, as well as established Lore of the FR. I'm not just throwing up the yellow flag of "RP restriction!" and say "Pike off and don't tell me how to play my character!"

DM's do that all the time, btw. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being serious, and I think you'll see it's a valid point. DC Requests, special requests, all of these, the DM team as a whole evaluates the request, and then determines it's authenticity, based upon current and established RP, and whether that RP is consistant with the established Lore of the realm.

So, regardless of what we =think= about alignment and it's different facets, let's not suggest it's okay to just disregard "alignment" as a definer of your character, not a restrictor.

What's always been needed was a clear, concise definition of each alignment, based upon a concensus from the DM team. You all, as a whole, need to step up and come up with what you, as a group, agree upon as standard definitors of each alignment, then go with that. If the standards are the one classically used in the FR D&D setting, as are used by NWN default, then let's just agree on that and move on.

Philosophy debates can be done on the side, but it needs to be made clear to everyone that those are just that - discussions, not concepts for people to use to "break the rp restrictions, maaaan!".



Regards,

_________________

"Come under the flag of truce, and brook no treason... for mineself is Death, and care not whom knows mine touch."
- Frey Asaid'De Majere

I totally agree with the idea of Role Playing freedom but you also have to watch out those meanies that go with True Neutral to avoid some game play issues such at the Protection Spells and Smiting while RPing some degree of Good or Evil.

Those are few and far between but you can't give people 100% freedom and let the True Neutral roll as a Chaotic Evil.

I hope DMs smite people that do that.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

Lawful Evil; Honor amongst thieves. Survival of the fittest. The Republican Party. Lawful Evil is probably the most commonly RPed 'evil' on Amia, though quite often this is more a case of necessity then desire.

I concur with Frey. Listen to him on this.

_________________
Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips
Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar
Silwe, the elf

I am inclined to agree, although I do like the relative freedom the current circumstance grants.

_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player

يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل

You do not address the issue at all. It is far from a simple phrase. And BoED is one of the most horrible examples of childish pseudo-philosophy there is. Personally, I completely disregard the book and its evil counterpart.


Anyway, I don't disagree very strongly with Frey. He does make good points.

I don't personally care about RP restrictions or whatnot. I'm happy to let my RP be directed by good guidelines. For me, though, the alignment system is a simple system for simple people to play a simple game, and I don't enjoy simplicity. (Ok, that was a bit of a jab!) Instead, it's much more interesting, enjoyable, to weigh matters from the character's perspective, letting things such as his background, culture, religion and career define him. To me, alignment is simply inconsequential, because it doesn't make for very interesting characters. I'm not saying you can't use it to good effect, but I've never felt like I needed to pay much attention to my character's alignment. I've done pretty well so far.

The one thing I will call you out on, though, is how you say characters are defined by their alignment. This may seem like semantics, but I truly believe it signifies a fundamental difference between two mindsets: one in which an alignment sets the boundaries of a character and guides his actions, and the opposite, that character personality and motivations determine his actions and, ultimately, define the character's alignment.

Obviously, I'm a fan of the latter approach. To me, it just seems upside-down to ponder how Chaotic Neutral should act, and then make Kalliniel act accordingly. Instead, I try to understand Kalliniel's motivations and let them lead the way. At the end of the day, I check if his actions and dynamic personality still justify a Chaotic Neutral alignment. If not, the alignment changes, not the actions of the character. To me, alignment is just a (rather inconsequential) label that you tack on a character according to his actions, an approximation of his personality but never a factor that affects his actions.


I do understand DMs tell people how to play their characters, and DMs do have the right to define clear standards for alignments. I was trying to avoid unnecessary banter, so I just skipped noting that. You're right about that. I'm 100% against deciding a common standard for the team to enforce, however. It's already been proven a controversial matter, and I doubt we could come to a thorough conclusion that satisfies everyone. You refer to standards classically used in D&D, but I think this and many similar discussions over the last few decades have proven that the standards are not clear enough, let alone satisfactory. Besides, not many DMs want others to tell them how to DM, I reckon. At least I wouldn't be happy referring to a Rulebook of Right and Wrong when I DM. The unclarity has served us well so far. I don't want to impose my idea of good RP on others if it isn't necessary (see: special races). I doubt you'd want to play by my standards, and I don't want to play by yours. So why not play by our own standards, and everyone's happy?

_________________

well what I meant Iron was that my character isn't lawfull good, but in his own mind he is. He'd do whatever it takes to reach his goals, weather it's good or bad on an alignment level. on the dnd alignments he is Chaotic Neutral, but in his own mind he is a paladin of sorts...pretty much, he views his goals as good and just and worth the sacrifices he must make...even though everyone else might call them evil.

Do DMs ever change people's alignment points based on actions they see? This would then be a clue to DMs in the future, and if the points are already low, maybe a DM woul deven switch someone's alignment eventually? Say if they see a toon has 5 Good (meaning theydid some sketchy stuff in the past), and does something questionable, maybe the DM would bump them to Neutral?

also, are there in game quests or actions to alter alignment? like in the single player?

_________________
"Earnest Hemingway once wrote, 'The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for.' I agree with the second part."

[Kegs] Angry Dwarf
[Akly] Angry Halfling

Yes, we change alignments based on action, but no, there is no way to get your alignment changed in game besides us.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

Pre-emptive response to the inevitably forthcoming, "Well, there should be..." post:

No, there shouldn't be. Imagine that Paladin briefly shifting alignment to get into Tarkuul and wreak havoc before transforming magically back into good again. Or the bastard powerplayer realizing that the "good" kit is far better than the "evil" kit and changing alignment just so he/she can kick your ass in PvP.



In addition, fuck this noise. There's no way you'll get me to agree to forcing players to play each alignment in one strict, interpretive sense when I can imagine perhaps two or three valid interpretations on a given alignment.

It allows the Monk,Bard,RDD which is kind of borked too. Not to mention stacking Paladin +saves with BG +saves. Things just get jumbled.

Correct.

We also do not shift alignments if it'd enable a strange class combo. If you want a specific alignment, such as Lawful bard, you can request such when you are maximum level.

I agree with this and it;'s still my birthday so I'm like, totally correct and so is Yoss.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

I've a feeling that it's the feeling of the majority of the team.

Can you say Jergal. He sanctions undead from time to time, his followers are any neutral. Tough he preferbly works with mummies wich have something to do with positive energy for some reason.