This is simply a small review for people to talk about their views of this important element of roleplay;

A static alignment means; It is an inborn, and therefore it cannot be change, and one should carry his behaviour as close as possible toward his starting alignment.(excluding cataclism event). However, this definition sounds *silly* and is unlikely, but it is often carried out by players as a prerequisite to roleplay server, that your alignment is static, and stick with it.

A dynamic alignment, however, means, that alignment is simply the recollection of the past choices in events that led to the formation of a character, an evil character has acted in an *evil* way (disregarding the needs of others when he had the power to satisfy them, etc.) in the past, and is more likely to act that way again; BUT he might have acted in a *good* way also in some occasions, and he can do it still, and not just to in analystical way to satisfy his own need, however, it is just more unlikely.

A *extremly good, or moderately good* (whichever fits your description) would most likely try to make others, especially evil characters try to become good themselves, and it can happen... the ways of an EVIL character -can- change (unlikely or common, you decide), not only paladins become black guards! 8)

I think it just adds more depth to a character, when you assume he is -capable- of changing. ( it might even a planned change in the case of some roleplayers ;) ).

I believe it is assumed, but we often forget that, and often link change to Cataclysm event like *wife died, etc.*

A good and a evil person can have a friendship, even if the good person knows his friend is evil!!! ((happens all the time in real life ;) ))

Agree, disagree? comments? additions?

I agree. Don't let a Tormite hear you say this, though.

I don't think there is such a thing as a static alignment.

*Laughs*

Well I play a Tormite Priest and he has had good friendships with known evil people - Don't confuse tormite Priests with paladins - Paladins have the restriction on who they associate with not Priests

Basically his outlook is he will judge peopel by their actions - there are "Good" aligned peopel he will not associate with because they are biggots and basically bastards wher as some evil people genuinely want to help the city and to escape their past.

Alignment isn't static its on overall outlook on life that doesn;t necessarily dictate every minute action a character undertakes.

Cheers

Just as good characters can do bad things and evil characters can do good things.

Also, it's largely about WHY the character did it.

A good character may hunt necromancers because they are foul, naughty little boys.

An evil character may hunt necromancers because he loves the way they scream when you remove their intestines and pour salt in the wound.

OR EVEN, the same character hunts necromancers for BOTH reasons! Aha, neutral for the win!

nestek

Well I play a Tormite Priest and he has had good friendships with known evil people - Don't confuse tormite Priests with paladins - Paladins have the restriction on who they associate with not Priests

Before this becomes the inevitable flame-a-palooza about the Tormite dogma, let me reign it back in the direction of the original post. Yeah, the 'static' alignment phenomenon is strange. It prevents people from converting others. It prevents evil characters from -ever- becoming good, or good characters from -ever- becoming evil, despite possible overwhelming situations, or the setting being absolutely tipped in one way or the other.

But then, do actions determine alignment, or does intent? Is a character evil because they have an evil approach to life, or because they have done evil things in the past? Can a character be born evil?

Here's my take on it: It's been said time and again, Evil is a real, actual force in the Realms, much like Good is, too, and even neutrality. There are creatures that are -inherently- evil. Born evil. Undoubtedly evil. Unmitigatingly evil. Well, you get the idea. Of course, there'll be the 1-in-a-million outliers, but we can't judge by the exception. But I digress! What I'm trying to say here, is that you don't need to have done something evil to be evil. You need only be of evil intent. A ten-year-old in the realms who has never done anything remotely life-altering in his existence, and is suddenly confronted with the chance to steal a dying man's purse of coins and then slit his throat with little or no consequence, and -does- that, is evil. He had it in him before the act, however. The act itself proves that he is of evil disposition, but it's the intent, the idea, the -wish- to do it that makes him evil.

Where does this leave us in the static vs. dynamic debate? Well! Quite simple. If you wish a character to convert, to change their alignment, don't look at the actions, look at the intent. If you do this, it'll be impossible, from a roleplay standpoint, for the other character to refuse your advances and efforts, unless there is a very, very good reason for the character to stick with his alignment (and this can be anything from an evil character secretely pretending to be a pious convertee to a fallen Paladin pretending to learn the ways of the evil thieves' guild so that he can smite them all later on and regain his holiness).

To give an example: Character A murders Character B. Character C, a Priest of Ilmater, after a long series of meetings and scenes finally manages to pry it out of Character A the truth about Character B's death. The appropriate approach here isn't, "Don't murder anymore people, for this is evil." The approach is, "Why did you murder him? What was your intention behind it? Was it for gold, for glory, for power?" In understanding the motivations of another character, you can much more effectively change their alignment. I'm a big fan of PC-influenced alignment change. Surely, DM plots and the like can also influence your character greatly, but it's in player interaction that I think the answer to this should lie. There is simply no sense in saying, "Well, my Paladin sold his soul to a devil because he caught a glimpse of the power he could have had, and so fell from grace, but he would have never fallen from grace for questing daily and befrieding the local gang of thugs". One is much huger and bizarre and unique than the other (as all most DM interventions when compared with player initiatives, for obvious reasons), but the second way is just as effective.

If you ask me whether a character should have immobile, static alignment? Well, telling yourself that it is impossible to change your character's alignment is a bit silly, but going back to the point I made about Good and Evil actually existing in FR, we must remember that in FR, too, there are people willing to sacrifice themselves to many, many causes on both sides. If you offer a character the final choice between death and conversion, it depends on the player, rather than the character, to make the decision. Maybe they don't want to play a fallen Paladin. Maybe they think that if the character died, they'd better achieve what they were trying to do with him in the first place, which, say, could be, "Play a Paladin that doesn't give up" or, "Play a fanatical cultist of Cyric".

In the end of the day, it all boils down to the choices of the players, and the rulings of DMs. But letting your character be changed by the environment never hurts. It only enriches the experience and makes them much more interesting to play with. When a character draws a long and interesting arc in the story of a PW server like this, they are remembered for it.

- Kiaring

interesting takes;

I guess the depth of character of players around you, and the depth of your character's fate are deeply ensnared together, Its hard to predict what will happen to your character, how he will evolve, right at the beginning of his journey.

I will simplify the system a bit; cause if philosophical take, or situational take come on it, It can get quite complex, it all boils down to:

Empathy ----> cognitively understanding others's emotions?

Cognition of another's feeling, and that- choice; (a) Sacrificing your need, for the other, (altruism/ Good!) (b) Sacrificing your need, for the other in the event that it will be returned (reciprocal altruism/ a form of selfish altruism, Is that Good or Neutral?) (c) Justify the sacrifice of your need by being sure it will be evenly settled (Neutral) (d)Ignore the need of others (Evil or Neutral?) (e)Take advantage of the need of another for personal gain. (Evil)

Therefore, Not feeling empathy, and not understanding that you are causing another some distress or pain; Is it considerable?

And finally, This is simply a short-term scale, what is the importance of short-term over long-term? Does a lot of small unethical actions justify a greater goal? // and the opposite?

Sorry, i just mentionning this to add depth to our character's actions, which in return brings depth to the characters of others, and much more fun!

anyway, my feel.

Great points by many above regarding the facade vs intent of Good/Evil. Playing and interpreting your alignment is certainly a challenge for us all. But I would like to see a dynamic alignment system put in vs NPC interaction (and given by DMs) to simply allow a Paladin to be FORCED to fall or a Monk to be FORCED to lose his ability to continue because of a loss of the necessary discipline.

I don't have an appropriate model, but I'd like the see the shift in alignment be very gradual (1-3 point change), except for the obvious cold blooded murder (much higher). I also feel that it's easier to sway toward evil and that evil acts will likely have the greatest value swing toward Evil than good acts toward Good. The harder part of the model will be to determine Lawful and Chaotic swings. Some NPCs may need to pose something that will test the player's dedication to conformity or freedom. These changes should be very low (1 point) and (like evil acts) chaotic acts should be easier and have greater point value swings toward Chaotic than lawful acts toward Lawful. This way, being/becoming Lawful Good would be the most challenging shift like it should be. Chaos and Evil would be the easiest to fall into.

Just some thoughts off the top of my noggin.

This topic somehow got me thinking about the rules that used to be-- concerning alignment. Before, if a character changes alignment they lost a big chunk of XP. Now why is that? Better yet, why did that rule get removed in v3.0?

My explanation: Changing alignments is like changing your character. Your outlook is different. You think or attempt to think and view things differently. I think this weakens people. Who would be a more powerful presence: the paladin who followed his dogma AND believed it all his life or the fighter who swings the fence with a constant internal struggle?

What do you think? (sorry if I jumped off topic, started typing what I was thinking about)

It would weaken you if it was sudden but you NEVER suddenly just flip a switch and change your outlook on life.

Alignment shifts are usually gradual things, you slowly but surely slip into them, and these slow changes can result in sudden changes, alignment isn't how your characters acts. Its how he HAS ALREADY acted.

Infact to speak further on it. I'd say your outlook on life sometimes won't change at all. Sometimes its your very outlook at life that made you do something immoral because you felt it was the moral thing to do because of various reasons. Despite the act being good or evil you still did it and thought you were right to do so, thus an alignment shift.

As I said before alignments are usually shifted gradualy.

I'm not gonna read any of the responses.

My two cents.

Alightment shifts are typical. To a degree. If you intend for your character to remain the way he was at creation, then you should avoid certain situations that would contradict that alignment.

Paladins and clerics have to abide by their diety's dogma. They can't associate with followers of a diety that their diety expressly conflicts with nor can they perform an action that goes against that dogma. Doing so will cause an alightment shift and possible loss of powers. (and yes clerics can lose their domain powers and spells from these things as well, if you don't believe me ask the person who used to play Gruff)

Planning a character to have an alignment shift is an IC action and usually is shifted the opposite direction of where you currently are.

The alignment you select for your character upon creation is never static. It merely states how you intent to play your character at the onset of their career. As his or her story unfolds, you may be faced with situations that require you to consider what your character’s views are on certain aspects of life. There are some players that use their character’s alignment as a compass to ensure that their actions in these situations stay true to their original concept. Other players choose to take a more flexible approach and allow their character’s outlook on life to change.

While those players with characters that face consequences in shifting alignment do need to be more careful about making a change in their character’s outlook on life, neither of these approaches are wrong or better than the other.