Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Phlebas" data-source="post: 3668067" data-attributes="member: 23810">just for the record, this is based on my campaign - I don't think there is a RAW solution for alignment (and if there was I would probably ignore it)Having said that, IMC, (&amp; IMHO)a) - absolutely, its almost the default definition of neutral. most people who 'look after number one' aren't murderers or thieves. they're just not likely to help out or be altruisitic. I'd put most petty criminals in this category as well.....b) - It'll leave a stain on the soul thats for sure, but wouldn't necessarily fall headlong into evil. Repeated acts would slowly lead to a LE type of alignment (ends justifying the means, might makes right kind of thing)Combat veterans often come across as 'psychologically affected' due to their experiences and thats probably the effect I'd assume for a couple of acts.c) - I quite often play CE as deranged, but thats not what I think you're asking. Maybe a better example would be the perpetrator from above, who may still believe what he is doing is for the 'good' of the kingdom / city / world and would be insulted by being called evil regardless of how accurate a description that would be(IMC only gods / planar beings and priests have declared alignments so a person who drifts into evil would not detect as evil, whereas a neutral person who took service of an evil deity would. solves a lot of the problems of trying to interpret actions and relative morality and leaves it down to the player to come up with a legitimate/consistent rational for their PC's actions. Which is in most cases is much more difficult than just writing two letters on the character sheet .....)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Phlebas, post: 3668067, member: 23810"] just for the record, this is based on my campaign - I don't think there is a RAW solution for alignment (and if there was I would probably ignore it) Having said that, IMC, (& IMHO) a) - absolutely, its almost the default definition of neutral. most people who 'look after number one' aren't murderers or thieves. they're just not likely to help out or be altruisitic. I'd put most petty criminals in this category as well..... b) - It'll leave a stain on the soul thats for sure, but wouldn't necessarily fall headlong into evil. Repeated acts would slowly lead to a LE type of alignment (ends justifying the means, might makes right kind of thing) Combat veterans often come across as 'psychologically affected' due to their experiences and thats probably the effect I'd assume for a couple of acts. c) - I quite often play CE as deranged, but thats not what I think you're asking. Maybe a better example would be the perpetrator from above, who may still believe what he is doing is for the 'good' of the kingdom / city / world and would be insulted by being called evil regardless of how accurate a description that would be (IMC only gods / planar beings and priests have declared alignments so a person who drifts into evil would not detect as evil, whereas a neutral person who took service of an evil deity would. solves a lot of the problems of trying to interpret actions and relative morality and leaves it down to the player to come up with a legitimate/consistent rational for their PC's actions. Which is in most cases is much more difficult than just writing two letters on the character sheet .....) [/QUOTE]

Verification