Tracking Alignment

[DrunkonDuty]

The other day my GM told me that an action of my character's moved me a step closer to Lawful Neutral. Fair enough, after all I lied to a bad guy, promising his freedom if he coughed up information we needed. Then executed him. (He was a dangerous serial killer, my character could not in good conscience let him go so I chose the lesser of 2 evils.) Talking it over later with another player he said something like: 'Yet all the altruistic stuff your character does didn't get mentioned.'

Now this thread isn't about WHAT constitutes a particular alignment's behaviour. Rather:

I'm interested in how it seems (IME) that good deeds are not kept track off while the bad ones are.

I recall the old (many) D6 Star Wars game had a system for getting & losing Dark Side Points. Losing them was WAY harder than getting them.

As a GM I definitely err in this regard. (I hope I won't from here on.)

I suppose a 'Paladin Fall and Redeem' story would have to consider the good deeds but I've never been involved in one.

It's as if the Celestial accounting system only has a column for debits and none for credits. Now I am just talking about my experience here. Which is why I'm interested in hearing other peoples' experiences. Is it always a slow inexorable slide to the dark side? Or is there possibility of redemption?

cheers all,
Glen

 

[ProfessorPain]

First, I don't care for alignment or alignment tracking.

Second, I think bad deeds do outwiegh good deeds when evaluating where someone falls morally. For example, suppose I introduced you to my friend George, and told you he gives to the poor, donates his old clothers to charity, works for a non profit group that promotes world peace, and is a serial killer in his spare time; would you regard him as a good person?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Doesn't neccisarily have to be intentional. Human beings remember bad things people have done more then the good things, unless they purposefully make an effort to do otherwise.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

ProfessorPain wrote: Second, I think bad deeds do outwiegh good deeds when evaluating where someone falls morally. For example, suppose I introduced you to my friend George, and told you he gives to the poor, donates his old clothers to charity, works for a non profit group that promotes world peace, and is a serial killer in his spare time; would you regard him as a good person?

Well, clearly not. But here we have a very definite difference in the DEGREE of the actions. Your argument also strikes me as being a bit Real World. I really want to restrict this thread to IN GAME. And yes, that means a pretty facile treatment of morality.

ProfessorCirno wrote: Doesn't neccisarily have to be intentional. Human beings remember bad things people have done more then the good things, unless they purposefully make an effort to do otherwise.

This is the way I was leaning. People do seem to register 'hits' rather than 'misses.' If someone is expecting to see thing X, they will note it when they see it but along the way may miss all the other letters of the alphabet. Which leads to why: in DND, are we looking for the bad things characters do? Or, more specifically a character's evil deeds are noted. But are the good deeds of evil characters noted as regularly? Do we have more stringent expectations for Lawful Good than we do for Chaotic Evil? Is it (oh how depressing) really the case that we pay attention to bad deeds than good?

 

[Ed_Laprade]

If you'd been Lawful Neutral and he'd ignored all the good things you'd done and only noticed the one bad thing I could see your point. But in the example, you're expected to do all those good things if you've got X Good written on your character sheet.

But yeah, now that you've slid a bit if you keep doing all/most good deeds without doing anything bad as well you ought to slide back.

As for alignment, I'm not a fan. This is one of the reasons why. The other is that I don't accept the concept that morals can be pigeonholed without taking into account the culture that spawned them.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Ed_Laprade wrote: If you'd been Lawful Neutral and he'd ignored all the good things you'd done and only noticed the one bad thing I could see your point. But in the example, you're expected to do all those good things if you've got X Good written on your character sheet.

That's the ideal situation. But I wonder if many GM's out there would worry about the occasional good deed of an anti-paladin, which is why I have asked.

I also wonder if, Lawful Good Character does a few questionable things, do GMs then take note of their subsequent behaviour to see if they can get back on the path of righteousness?

I'm really looking for anecdotes of other's experiences.

BTW: I should say, when I GM I don't pay much attention to alignment. Pretty much only for spell effects that target alignments.

 

[ProfessorPain]

That's the ideal situation. But I wonder if many GM's out there would worry about the occasional good deed of an anti-paladin, which is why I have asked.
.

I think with evil characters, especially evil paladins, the intent of their good deeds matter. For example, a really Paladin may come to the aid of a village in order to win their trust and exploit them later.

 

[starwed]

The other day my GM told me that an action of my character's moved me a step closer to Lawful Neutral. Fair enough, after all I lied to a bad guy, promising his freedom if he coughed up information we needed. Then executed him. (He was a dangerous serial killer, my character could not in good conscience let him go so I chose the lesser of 2 evils.)

Huh, I'd say that should have been a motion towards chaos, not evil. You didn't act out of revenge or even self-preservation but for what you thought was the greater good.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Professor Pain wrote : I think with evil characters, especially evil paladins, the intent of their good deeds matter. For example, a really Paladin may come to the aid of a village in order to win their trust and exploit them later.

Oh good point. I guess GMs should be kept informed of a character's actual motives. WHich can become a bit of a pain (more work is hardly wanted.) Leads me to think that GMs should really leave a PCs alignment up to the player if at all possible.

starwed: I really, really want to avoid a thread about WHAT behaviour is appropriate for an alignment. That just leads to the flame wars. Usually pretty vicious ones. In the particular instance I outlined above I'm quite happy to accept my GM's ruling.

 

[S'mon]

Sounds to me like your action was Neutral Good - you thought the Greater Good more important than telling the truth or keeping your word. That seems Good, but not Lawful.

OTOH I have seen Dirty Harry pegged as LN, which doesn't seem right to me (CG would be closer), but I guess your GM is coming from the same perspective.