I've noticed it seems incredibly hard on this server to earn alignment points with out asking for them after the fact.

I keep trying to earn Lawful and Good Points as Matthew but I often find my self too shy to ask or feel that if his actions are good enough a dm would notice and do such. I haven't really found my self doing well enough to get attention to denote any alignment points whoever. And I'm uncertain if its because I'm not trying hard enough or if the concept of alignment points have fallen to the way side or if I should be more vocal in my desires to be awarded them

For reference : https://nwn.fandom.com/wiki/Alignment

I wanted to open up a discussion regarding alignment points and how folks feel about them And weather or not folks think they should offer anything roleplay related in game.

_________________

I don't have much to add to the general theme of the thread, but if you are trying to change the alignment of your character and you know a DM has seen your actions (either by a small event or making obvious moves noted by the DM in a large one, it may be easy to miss your actions in a big event if they're subtle!) then we can see if we want to turn them.

We have an non-specific time gate on changing actions especially with divine-based classes. Fallings are either from catastrophic actions or a continued string of actions that warranted it.

So in short, try not to be shy. Poking a DM about it is better than not. We can change alignments gently on the spot and it's subject to the DM's evaluation of your actions as to whether or not they are adjusted and by how much.

Hope that helps!

_________________

I think DMs should punish (or reward?) actions by the PC more often. When someone goes crazy and goes all Anakin/Arthas on a village and burns it down over something trivial...or well is not even trying to help it. Thats kinda evil. I am not saying that has happended! I just pulled an example but I do not think DMs should hesitate. Punish/Reward alignment for stuff people do. Maybe not overkill it but at times...well I think we deserve some good or evil points And it is not happening very often as far as I seen.

_________________
Plays:
Sylveera : Sun Elven fury packed in an Arcane Archer, not a Drow, promise.
Tetrik : Greed incarnate in a Duergar.
Budly : Has gone to a better place.
Barrililath : Shadowy Drow, probably less Drow than Sylv ever be.

You mean like summoning a DRAGON because of being called an idiot?

I find issue with that if your punished/rewarded for one action without understanding the character better or seeing other actions it is kind of one-way street. Which I think is also why rewarding/punishing alignment points either way has been a rather no no.

To be honest, sometimes DM's don't have a good understanding of a character. Not their fault, could be just because timezones don't normally match but only once in a blue moon. Thus taking a rash decision on one meeting is rather difficult to take.

Though, then there is also the fact of communication. Asking questions if uncertain of motivations behind actions.

_________________
http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/spells.htm

That is what I mean, That Guy. But morely when people, like my other char, sell people to Paush. That probably should render evil points.

I do not think the understanding of the character matters. DnD is a very black and white setting, raising the dead...as zombies, spawning demons to fight a evil dragon, are still evil actions. Those are not good actions, no matter what your character think. They are frowned upon by the gods I imagine, they make you turn to evil in the mechanics. That is how it is.

I morely pointed to those obviously evil deeds, or good deeds. Let us say a band of Banite clerics or Red Wizards and their knights beat up a dragon trying to descend upon a village...and then move on without demanding tribute, is a good deed.

A Drow saving a caravan from Orogs infront of "good doers" might not be a good action if she is a Lolthite undercover trying to gain good favour with the good to be insider agent. But yeah, this is how I read into alignment. If anyone else think I say somethign wrong, do tell me!

_________________
Plays:
Sylveera : Sun Elven fury packed in an Arcane Archer, not a Drow, promise.
Tetrik : Greed incarnate in a Duergar.
Budly : Has gone to a better place.
Barrililath : Shadowy Drow, probably less Drow than Sylv ever be.

Here we're devolving into the age-old debate about alignments. Is an evil person doing good deeds for all the wrong reasons still an evil person? Strictly speaking, undead aren't evil. Or, they don't have to be. Baelnorn are undead, and yet good. Mummies, in quite a few cases, tend more towards lawful neutral than evil. Yet, Pale Masters must be non-good. They don't have to be evil, though... This reminds of the tiny snippets of lore found on the Rider Beyond: He has two "sects", essentially. There's the war-like, open evil, devilish sect of people that worship him. However, he also has, and sponsors, and likes, worshipers that help out the weak. Of course, the background behind it is evil. But helping the weak for no other payment than their thanks sounds pretty good to me. However, then using said "thanks", influence, and good-will in order to gain more power for the Rider Beyond? That's an evil act.

Does this mean that every worshiper of his 'fall' during the first phase, if they help too much, and jump into neutral, or even good from all the points they've gathered while protecting the village from the evil monsters? If anything, that's when they need their powers. And it makes no sense for the setting to strip said 'clerics' (he's only an archdevil, so I'm using the word cleric loosely, in order to keep to the D&D power/deity/cleric system) of all the power they need to protect the village. Then, maybe the people who act like that are 'only' BGs and other people with Faustian Pacts? What sort of devil would sell a pact that, at least in the short run, makes you good? It is absolutely anti-thetical to the core idea of devils.

That said, I always imagined Zhentil Keep, and other Banite-controlled areas to be sort of like medieval Europe-style 'monarchies', except that they're quite a bit more theocratic. However, I doubt Banites, apart from 'forced' church-going, or whatever Banites do, really have that many restrictions making them evil. If you burn down villages for the fun of it, you just lost a village. I presume they mostly require taxes, perhaps some more strict laws. Maybe the 'state' decides what the farmers have to plant, how much they get to keep, and everything, but in the end, the farmers are pawns.
And especially considering the wisdom scores Banite clerics tend to have, (I know, crazy that clerics have high wisdom) at worst, you can consider that farmers and other peasants would be considered mere pawns. That said, ask any person who knows anything about chess how valuable pawns are. Imagine starting a game without them. Yes, your other pieces might have restricted movement, but in the end, they tend to still be rather useful.

I do believe, thus, that in an evil-controlled society, especially a lawful evil one, that even peasants would be protected. If you'd attack the peasants around Zhentil Keep, or in Thay, I'm pretty sure you'd have a bunch of evil Knights, Wizards and Clerics up your ass, trying to stop you from murdering everyone. Now, maybe you can argue the individual is not important. But groups of indiviudals are. Try feeding a keep without farmers. Why would the Red Wizards keep slaves, if you could just as easily murder them? For the same reason as people tend to like their posessions. Not because you love them, or because you directly care about them, but because they have a use to you.


And in that, I would argue, the line between good saving a town, and evil saing a town are blurred. Both are saving a town, and both aren't wont to ask for direct payment afterwards. Of course, both do require taxes, in the long run, but if all the peasants are dead, there's no food, no slaves, no prayers to Bane, and all those things make you directly lose power. However, the same argument can be construed for good. Something makes me doubt Kohlingen didn't collect taxes. I doubt the Silver Dragons were in Wharftown for the fun of it. No matter what good does, you can always put a selfish reasoning behind it. Look at why humans evolved to be, to a certain amount, at least, selfless. It's pretty damn hard to survive on your own. Selfishness is where selflessness comes from.

Just to disagree with Budly, I somewhat railed against his example of Banites versus dragon. For the undead, look above, LN mummies, good baelnorn, etc. The whole system is broken. Which is why I personally am a fan of "RP your character, and fit the alignment to the character", and "if you want to change alignment, ignore points, do it via request. Show why your character is good, and the DMs will agree that he's good. Show why he's evil, and people will understand". Points restrict you in a way that, in my opinion, stifles RP. Imagine a Monk, for some reason gets geas'd into burning down a couple of orphanages. Undoubtedly a chaotic action, yes? So, when he finally recovers from said geas, after the DM (rightly?) slapped on 70 chaotic points (it was a damn long rampage) he's chaotic evil. But... Would he behave differently? Would he, all of a sudden, despite knowing his actions were wrong and chaotic, continue on? Or would he know that, and improve his way back to lawful? Moving to lawful would require him to act against his alignment, though. And if PCs can freely act against their alignment, then what is alingment, other than a label slapped on to characters to show how they feel, and where their actions come from? If a character with an evil labe behaves good, eventually that label will be swapped for a good one. Points, however, don't work in a persistent world setting, where the DMs aren't privy to every single motive behind the character.

One last example, and then I suppose I'm done. A deep cover russian spy who's been living in the US for 50 years, and never actually had to do any spying, despite being willing and ready to. What happens when russia suddenly comes up to him and says "hey, we need you now"? Will he become a russian spy, or was he always one from the beginning?

_________________
Arieme - Condemned Blighter and anti-druid
Khristina - Bounty Hunter, Blessed of Hoar

I don't think there's anything wrong with a few alignment nudges during events, when warranted. Even if it's something the player personally disagrees with, moving a PC 1, 3, 5 points in one direction or another generally isn't a huge deal. It at least keeps them aware of what the DM perceives as Good/Evil/Chaotic/Lawful; and with that small bit of meta-knowledge they can adjust if it really means that much to them. I'm sure most people much prefer getting dinged a few Good Noodle stars to let them know where they stand, rather than an abrupt 30 point shift out of nowhere.

Generally speaking, I think DMs have been loath to use Alignment shifts except when asked for and when they feel absolutely necessary. For fear of hurt feelings, mostly. Just because your Evil character performs a random kind act, it doesn't mean that you plan to shift them in that way, ultimately. And I can see how it would be frustrating for your Paladin to simply be having a tough day, and of course that's the exact 30 seconds a DM happens to be looking your way. Then you're stuck with this (minor)mar on your PC and have to wait for a DM to be around again to correct it.

Like most things, communication is key. D&D may be black and white in many cases, but context does matter. There's nothing stopping a player from telling a DM "Hey, this is what my PC is thinking and why they're performing this action." It may help a DM know where you're coming from and they've always welcomed that additional information in my experience.

_________________

A few points here and there, will not make a big fuss and it can even be a "warning" sign that your paladin is sliding a bit off the narrow corridor it has to walk.

_________________
Plays:
Sylveera : Sun Elven fury packed in an Arcane Archer, not a Drow, promise.
Tetrik : Greed incarnate in a Duergar.
Budly : Has gone to a better place.
Barrililath : Shadowy Drow, probably less Drow than Sylv ever be.

I have to say, though, and it might be just me being lucky, I had a few great moments where I did something, in an event, and boom, alingment points. And it felt hella amazing. It's weird, but to me, it felt better than a DC, in that moment. Having RP'd my character, in a way that the DM felt it was noteworthy enough for them to slap those points on... I was great validation. That said, it's one of those things where the exact line is fine, and a misstep is annoying.

That example, I got some evil points, on a semi-openly evil character. It was basically the DM telling me, from what it seemed, as a "keep on doing this, you're playing evil in a valid interpretation". On the other hand, there are multiple examples, good getting evil points, evil getting good points, or worse, law/chaos-axis, where I feel interpretation can lead to... disappointment. If said semi-openly evil character would have been awarded good points for healing someone, I would feel... Disappointed? Perhaps even lose interest in said character. After all, I'm obviously not doing something right.


Admittedly, I'm rather insecure in my competence roleplaying. I always feel... selfconcious and almost inferior. Awkward. Either I'm hugging the spotlight, or I'm scurrying in the dark, at best writing a snide little remark. So I take both validation and invalidation (?) pretty harshly. so take anything I write with a grain of salt, eh?

You're not a bad roleplayer Robbi, No need to think like that.

_________________
Plays:
Sylveera : Sun Elven fury packed in an Arcane Archer, not a Drow, promise.
Tetrik : Greed incarnate in a Duergar.
Budly : Has gone to a better place.
Barrililath : Shadowy Drow, probably less Drow than Sylv ever be.

Alright, semi-unpopular opinion time.

Honestly, the only issue I've had with getting shifted alignment points is the inconsistency with which they tend to be applied.--And this makes me think that alignment shifting is (or has been) largely just a DM personal preference kind of thing, which (imho) is not good due to inconsistencies. And I say this with no malice, just matter-of-factly.

I'll give an example:


I had one character gain a couple of good points for taking a lost child back to their home.
I also had a strait up alignment shift IG due to a certain set of actions, that (TBH) I thought was very fitting.
I've had a character getting evil points for just talking about potential strategies against another faction.
I've had another character do very obviously ebil things under explicit DM supervision with no shifts.

To me, this again just highlights that it's often down to variable personal preferences for who's watching.--TBF I'm mostly against alignment shifting without talking to the players about it, because we typically pick an alignment based on the character we play. Sometimes that character's alignment changes, but that's something that the player has a right to define and defend too.

_________________
Occasionally seen as [DM] Raua, or playerside as...