Tracking Alignment

[steenan]

I don't think the problem is not tracking good deeds. The problem is that most people tend to underestimate their evil deeds and overestimate good ones. Measure evil in what you take from someone. Measure good in what you sacrifice to help others. Thus, stealing a few coins from a rich person is "very little" evil (and most thieves get away with it without turning evil), easily compensated by using a similarly small portion of own resources to help others. Robbing someone of most of their belongings would require giving away nearly all your wealth (including magic items, of course) to balance. Killing an innocent person won't be balanced by anything short of sacrificing (not only "risking") your own life to save someone else.
On the other hand, it's important to remember that acknowledging ones misdeeds and repenting is of key importance in becoming a better person. It is possible to become evil in little steps, never seeing that this time you go too far. Getting back requires turning back from the evil completely. One, not very big, good deed may save a person determined to change; no amount of helping others would better someone who routinely accepts evil.

Another thing is that, in my opinion, the situation the OP described was misjudged by the DM. The character should move rather from lawful to neutral than from good to neutral. Killing bad guys is something good characters in D&D do all the time, and it wasn't done with unnecessary violence and pain, if I understand correctly. Breaking own word, on the other hand, is definitely not something lawful characters do, no matter who they speak with. Law is about dealing in absolutes.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Hey Steenan. Those are good points you raise. Especially about wanting to be a better person being necessary to making the steps up on the alignment chart. It's about intent again.

I guess this means GMs and players really needing to discuss what a PC's motives are. Possibly even going so far as to discuss where the player would like to see their PC go, alignment- wise across the course of the campaign.

For those who don't like alignment (which sounds like almost everyone!) how do you handle things like a Holy Word or a magic item that only works for certain alignments? Are you happy to let near enough be good enough or do you ignore them entirely?

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I guess this means GMs and players really needing to discuss what a PC's motives are. Possibly even going so far as to discuss where the player would like to see their PC go, alignment- wise across the course of the campaign.

For those who don't like alignment (which sounds like almost everyone!) how do you handle things like a Holy Word or a magic item that only works for certain alignments? Are you happy to let near enough be good enough or do you ignore them entirely?

As you point out above, playing the alignment rules can require a lot more work than they're worth. So yes, near enough is good enough. For me anyway.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Here's a thought.

Johnny is a good boy for many years of his life. He is not a murderer. Johnny murders someone. He is now classified as a murderer.

One action can define someone (fairly or unfairly). It is not a case of balancing things out and I think most DMs adjudicate alignment in a similar way.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Umbran]

Doesn't necessarily 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 does seem to be true, in real life as well as games. It is in part just the way we are wired.

For another thing, some GMs take a sort of Star Wars take on alignment - Good is the more difficult road, and Evil the way to quick and easy power (lack of restraint is flexibility, and flexibilty is a form of power). So, being Good is seen as an exercise in not slipping, while Evil allows you to slip all you want.

This isn't too bad a thing, if there's a payoff - for example, if the Good guys tend to get help and support from the people in the world around them, while the Evil ones are treated as villains by the same populace.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Herremann the Wise wrote:
One action can define someone (fairly or unfairly). It is not a case of balancing things out and I think most DMs adjudicate alignment in a similar way.

Umbran wrote: For another thing, some GMs take a sort of Star Wars take on alignment - Good is the more difficult road, and Evil the way to quick and easy power (lack of restraint is flexibility, and flexibilty is a form of power). So, being Good is seen as an exercise in not slipping, while Evil allows you to slip all you want.

I can't argue with this. I think the nail has been squarely hit here. My PC is clearly going to have to work harder.