I found it somewhat amusing on Saturday that, after last week's ranting about alignments that I posted here, several people started commenting about their alignment, and how it should influence their actions. One asked if he could have a different alignment as regards orcs, while another pondered how his alignment and his upbringing should lead him to react to the practice of slavery.
Here's the key: the alignment on your sheet shouldn't affect how you play your character. If your view of your character states that he has no problem with slavery, then have your character act that way. If your character has an unreasoning and genocidal hatred of orcs, have him act on it. The alignment on your sheet should never change who your character is.
There is a flip side to that argument. If your character's behaviour is consistently at odds with the alignment on the sheet, I'll change the alignment on the sheet. And that is the full extent of my influence over your actions and alignment - I'll keep the one consistent with what I see of the other. Oh, and I won't warn you either - if you act that way, the sheet will simply be changed to reflect that. (And yes, there are some alignment shifts that I am currently considering.)
There is an exception to my "no warning" policy as regards alignments, and that deals with characters who have their abilities tied to alignment. For instance, I won't change a paladin's alignment without comment, since that seriously harms the character. Likewise, I won't change a cleric's alignment to one banned by his god without discussing the matter with the player first.
Of course, I also won't impose an alignment change lightly in any case. As I said, one out-of-alignment action does not make for an alignment change, except perhaps in the most extreme of cases. (For instance, you can point to the murder of Duncan as the time when Macbeth's alignment shifts from neutral to evil.)
Archived comment by Andrew:
ReplyDeleteAs it was me wondering about my PC's thoughts on slavery, I'll explain a bit about my views at that point. Being Neutral Good I felt my character should help out as much as possible these slaves, perhaps by freeing them "violently" or buying them outright. Of course then I thought being in the military I would have been brought up thinking slavery was okay since the army would no doubt use slaves to help around the camp (as well as other duties). So would a Neutral Good character being brought up in this fashion think slavery was okay as long as they were treated well, or would he oppose slavery completely? It might be I was thinking too much about this and should just play the role and see what happens. Maybe it just comes do whether your character would think slavery was right or wrong, depending on what he saw of slavery as his upbringing. If that makes any sense....
Archived comment by me:
ReplyDeleteWhile musing on alignments, it's worth considering that a character's upbringing may influence his attitudes, but it will also correspondingly influence his alignment. Therefore, having been brought up in the empire, Vibius is indeed likely to view slavery as being a fact of life. That doesn't mean that this is a good attitude, or even one compatible with the good alignment.
As I mentioned on Saturday, the institution of slavery is clearly evil. In its most benign form, where the slave earned his position by virtue of some criminal act, and where the slave is not mistreated, it can be considered neutral. (Consider - a criminal in our society who is assigned community service as a punishment fills this latter definition perfectly. This is, by the strictest of definitions, a form of slavery, but it can hardly be considered evil.)
As I've mentioned before, not acting at all is always neutral. Therefore, simply being present at a slave auction and not doing anything at all is neutral, rather than evil. Purchasing a slave and then setting him free is clearly good. Purchasing a slave and keeping him is evil. (Oh, and one thing I hadn't considered until now - there will come a point where Meepo cannot be considered a prisoner, and instead becomes a slave. After all, Tekkis has now refused to release him.)
Now, on balance, I think Vibius qualifies for a good alignment - he hasn't committed any overtly evil acts (well, apart from slaughterig those orcs, but that was as an NPC), and although he has committed several neutral acts, he has also engaged in good acts several times (destroying the ghouls in Deepwell, rescuing the children in Hollis, smashing the temple of Belial). If I were considering an alignment change for Vibius, it would instead be in the direction of lawfulness, which seems more appropriate for a loyal servant of the empire. (And wouldn't that make the Vibius/Tekkis thing interesting?)
There is a similar problem with Artax - he also has engaged in several good acts, and has engaged in only one evil act, again the slaughter of the orcs. The problem with Artax is not his view towards slavery, but rather his unreasoning hatred of all orcs. There's a reason for this in his background, but the attitude is still by no means good.
The thing is that character's are (or should be) more complex than a two-word alignment description can express. Good characters can (and do) have evil attitudes and commit evil actions, provided these are the exception, rather than the norm. And this is a good thing.
But yes, I stand by my two assertions, that alignment changes aren't really something that should be feared (unless your class requires a specific alignment), and that you should just play the character you want, and let the DM worry about those two words on the sheet.