Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bensei" data-source="post: 452517" data-attributes="member: 830">If this is already the end of the end of the stroy for you, you cannot be role-playing. A character's alignment is no switch with 9 positions, which changes position, as soon as the character does something which is (from the DM's view) not exactly according to the current position. This is not how the alignment system is though to be like.Especially actions where there is a discussion (like this one), it can clearly not be enough to cause an alignment shift in the sense of the core rules. As an example from the other side, think of a Mephisto (LE) showing Faust all nice things of a commoner's world (a nice thing) for the trade of Faust's soul. Is that good? Is that chaotic? What if he does not take Faust's soul then?Oh no, me Mephisto has done something which someone thinks of being good. I becomes NE. I cannot be the Devil anymore. Noooooooooooooo!Here's the important point: If the characters in the given example did things like this before, it's okay. If, however, before they behaved totally different, then the players did a really bad role-playing. And now it seems as if an alignment shift is the way to punish them. Is an alignment shift a construction to punish players for bad role-playing? IMHO no.And even if you play with alignment shifts in a totally technical way (like the switch), there are other things influenced by actions against alignment, e.g. if a deity grants spells to the cleric. These things may not be affected equally by actions, so it is very important to ask the question: Why do you ask if this action was evil?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bensei, post: 452517, member: 830"] If this is already the end of the end of the stroy for you, you cannot be [B]role[/B]-playing. A character's alignment is no switch with 9 positions, which changes position, as soon as the character does something which is (from the DM's view) not exactly according to the current position. This is not how the alignment system is though to be like. Especially actions where there is a discussion (like this one), it can clearly not be enough to cause an alignment shift in the sense of the core rules. As an example from the other side, think of a Mephisto (LE) showing Faust all nice things of a commoner's world (a nice thing) for the trade of Faust's soul. Is that good? Is that chaotic? What if he does [B]not[/B] take Faust's soul then? [I]Oh no, me Mephisto has done something which someone thinks of being good. I becomes NE. I cannot be the Devil anymore. Noooooooooooooo![/I] Here's the important point: If the characters in the given example did things like this before, it's okay. If, however, before they behaved totally different, then the players did a really bad [B]role-playing[/B]. And now it seems as if an alignment shift is the way to punish them. Is an alignment shift a construction to punish players for bad role-playing? IMHO no. And even if you play with alignment shifts in a totally technical way (like the switch), there are other things influenced by actions against alignment, e.g. if a deity grants spells to the cleric. These things may not be affected equally by actions, so it is [B]very[/B] important to ask the question: [I]Why do you ask if this action was evil?[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification