Political/Religious opinion = Alignment Changes

[Kiaring]

I had this idea earlier,

Basically, there are a lot of NPC convos littered about the server that serve little purpose other than helping us decipher the secrets of the island, and give the setting well-deserved flavor. What if some of those could have 'hidden' conversation options, available once to each character, to change alignment by 1 point? Example:

Wagman the old fellow by the Camp's door talks about how he saw a Nightriser lop the head off a boy once. The current option (iirc) is [End Dialog] after he says his piece. My idea is that after this, there could be like, say, two options:

 1. "Yes, the Nightrisers are a terrible blight."
 2. "I... See."

2. ends the convo normally. 1. would lead you to two other options:

 1. "What we really need is people in charge, who know how to defeat threats such as the 'Risers."
 2. "What I truly like about this island is that here, everyone has to fend for themselves."

A character answering 1. would incur a 1 point Lawful shift. One answering 2. would incur a 1 point Chaos shift. And so forth. These options would only be available to each character a single time, and only if they picked the option which leads to the conversation continuing, not abruptly ending.

This could also be scripted to affect, slightly, ERUFRS numbers.

[DeputyCool]

In general, scripted alignment changes have panned out poorly in practice.

Edit: I should mention I do not mean in terms of actual scripting and or functioning, but more so that they are simply undesireable. It is better for the DMs to hold alignment shifting power solely, and give it out as seen necessary.

[Conan The Conqueror]

I've often wondered how often Align shifts are given out. I've had a few characters get shifts, but mainly that was after some really drastic events. That or someone in the party went all WEEEEE! ANIMATE THE DEAD.

But have been definitely curious if DMs actively observe for that, or spend more time handing out xp rewards based on outcomes.

[Easy]

Intent plays no role in DnD alignment.

Only action.  Thus why most dialogue options wouldn't work.

[Vlaid]

Isn't intent behind your actions the whole POINT of alignment? If a paladin was intending to save a village and inadvertently lead a dragon to it and it was engulfed in flamey death, he wouldn't suddenly become C, E. He made a mistake, thus no alignment shift.
 
Intent is the important part, not action.

[ScottyB]

Choosing an alignment for your character means starting your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, a DM may decide that your character's alignment has changed to match her actions.

Found [thread=341]here[/thread]. Emphasis mine.

When you're rolling up your character, alignment represents your OOC intentions for how the character will be played. If you fail to back up your alignment with action, you may be shifted to a more appropriate alignment. Shifts happen when you act contrary to your current alignment.

[INDENT]If Vlaid's paladin knew ahead of time that his battle with the dragon would possibly reach the village, AND he had time to seek alternatives but didn't bother with that, then he should get an alignment shift.

If he didn't know that his battle with the dragon might endanger the village, then no, he shouldn't get an alignment shift.

If he knew the village might become the battleground, but the dragon was very evil and there was no avoiding a confrontation, then he shouldn't get an alignment shift.[/INDENT]

I believe one of the 3rd edition source books used this example, except instead of fighting a dragon, it was a paladin causing a rock slide in various ways that buried a village. It's one of the rare examples I agreed with WotC on, regarding alignment.

Also, isn't there a saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? We could start a whole new thread about evil characters who mean well but go about it all wrong. ;)

In any case, I can't imagine any dialog that'd be worth an alignment shift that shouldn't already be reflected in the alignment you chose at creation. It sounds to me like someone wants to try playing a Bardadin during one of the low-DM-attention timezones.

[Snoteye]

But have been definitely curious if DMs actively observe for that, or spend more time handing out xp rewards based on outcomes.

It varies, but I'm guessing the latter is generally the case. Drastic actions are easy to respond to appropriately because they're just that: drastic. If somebody makes a random comment ever so slightly out of line with their alignment, well, it really doesn't matter (or we may not perceive it as being out of line), and we're not likely to act on this at all until we've observed similar behaviour many times over. On top of that, I also suspect most players vastly prefer XPz to silly alignment points. Back when I was active in game, though, I did try to pay close attention to alignments regardless of circumstances.

[Letsplayforfun]

I've always thought the alignement points stuff to be limit "not role playing your pcl" points. Your pc needs a damn good reason to go towards alignement shift, and IMO it should be applied for right at character creation if that's your intent, or at least DM supervised when it happens, so as to forbid players going where the wind blows. Thus, it would make scripted alignement points useless.

[Easy]

Barbadin ftw?

That aside, I did not mean to spurn an alignment discussion.  Only that in reading a lot in source booky stuffs, you find that actions generally determins alignment, and intent has an extremely simplified or nonexistent role.  If your paladin accidentally kills a child, it's still an evil act (barring extreme circumstances), no matter what the intentions may have been.  Alignment is entirely tangible in DnD.  This is also a reason many paladins go through processes of falling and atonement, because alignment is not self determined or up for discussion, the gods take a birds eye view on your actions, they don't know what your intent is, and probably don't care.

I do not believe any conversations need alignment shifts, it sounds just like a way for the system to be exploited to shift/recover their desired alignment.