It seems there are some pretty diverse opinions on how alignment is defined among the player base. On this topic, I wanted to open up a more healthy discussion focused on how players define alignment, and not why the Nexus cabal sucks (I like it, personally).

To me alignment is really based on two things that go hand in hand. 1) motivation for action and 2) sense of right and wrong

I see alignment as a sliding scale with good on one side and evil on the other with the primary factors being the two mentioned above.

Good: Has motivations that revolve around the well being of others. They care more for the well being of people around them and less so about themselves. They are willing to make personal sacrifices for the betterment of those around them and/or the greater good. They also have a strong sense of right and wrong.

Evil: Has motivations based on their self. They tend to be selfish and care only for self preservation and advancement. They have little sense of right or wrong, as any action can be justified as proper or necessary if it is a benefit to themselves.

Neutral: Somewhere in between. They do have a general sense of right and wrong but are disinterested in the well being of others and will not regularly go out of their way to help someone just for the sake of doing so. Conversely, they are not so self-absorbed as to be able to infringe upon and justify away their sense of right or wrong for purely selfish reasons. I like to see much of neutral action motivated by the larger purposes, goals and tasks at hand instead of being centered on personal well being or the well being of others. Those actions can swing both ways depending on what is required to accomplish what needs doing.

Other peoples opinion DOES NOT dictate someone's alignment. Personal motivations and sense of right and wrong do. If other people's opinions and/or labels could dictate alignment then everyone would likely be evil because there will always be someone who doesn't agree with what someone is doing.

Motivation is a major factor in alignment, more so than the individual actions themselves. A Scion can be charitable if it serves him a purpose, for example.

This is my personal POV on the subject and is a pretty big generalization. There are exceptions I am sure. Comments?

wgh ghwsn

I think of it as the 98%, but you said it clearer.

The one big thing you are missing is how align is defined by what you kill.

E.g., generally speaking, goods don't kill goods, neutrals must have some non-align reason to kill that does not skew towards killing goods over evils or vice versa, and evils kill whatever they want.

I think "what you kill" is the first, most basic step for any evaluation of someone's role-played alignment. Followed by "who you loot".

You wrote: neutrals must have some non-align reason to kill that does not skew towards killing goods over evils or vice versa

My neutrals rarely rank on Goods. I tend to target things that are evil or if not at least martial such as on the Battlefields. Slaughtering good defensless citizenry seems, to me at least, to weigh more heavily in the direction of Evil, than slaying an army of evil, neutral or even good soldiers.

Stricter definitions of alignment is the wrong direction. I too play my neutrals such that they will likely kill more evil (mobs) than good (mobs).

There is a written piece in the Lyceum that I really like about neutrality. Something to the affect that neutrals are expected to be more "good" than Goods. Or at least, have a better understanding of right and wrong. Something like that.

I hope I'm not violating any rules here, but here is the piece to which you are referring:

Treatise on Neutrality

The true path of neutrality is a matter of understanding. It is NOT that one
will kill anyone with no thought of "good" or "evil". In fact a true neutral
leans more towards the so called good. This is not to say that the good are
better or right as opposed to wrong. But a neutral that is wise will do what
is right, and more often than not, the right is in tune with the good. Now,
the good do not always do what is right, and the evil do not always do what
is wrong. To understand neutrality, one must understand the difference
between right and wrong.

Example: One that is "good" may see say, a dark-elf child being mistreated,
bullied perhaps. Now this same "good" person would not hesitate for a moment
to help a "good" child in the same position. But since a dark-elf is evil,
the "good" will, more often than not, NOT help. In fact they may very well
cheer the oppressors on. A wise neutral will know that hurting a child is
wrong, no matter who they are. A wise neutral will do what is right - that
is, help the child. Likewise, someone who is evil may help another evil they
see fighting a good. Again, a good would not hesitate to help another good
they see being attacked. Why? Because it is the right thing to do, one will
aid their allies. This is right. Therefore, the evil who helps his friend is
in the right! The wise neutral will take the side of the evil.

So being wise is knowing right from wrong, and being neutral is doing what is
right no matter what the politics of who you are helping. This is the first
of what I hope will be many more lessons for those seeking wisdom.

--Penned by Ailon Eveekomtrae, Disciple of the Harvest Moon

Love that piece. Wish he/she had written more.

nt

I'm at a total loss why that meme keeps surfacing.

Red aura = evil

no aura = neutral

Gold aura = good

Anything beyond what the auras show is hard to actually comment on because there is a wide range of good, a range of evil and a range of neutral all of which are acceptable.

And your opinion about how a character acts might make you view their alignment different as a player, but as a character their alignment is exactly what the aura shows.

For goodies, their sense of right and wrong needs to match with what the world outside considers as good and evil deeds. Evils may have warped sense of right and wrong, they don't necessarily lack such sense.

Some thoughts, regarding alignment change:

-Goodies don't kill goodies in general. A goodie that keeps killing other goodies without a VERY good, pressing, acute reason such as defending your cabal, is going to get turned neutral (I'm a rager and he's a mage isn't a good reason for goodie to kill another goodie).

-Neutrals that constantly act evil, for evil reasons, get turned evil. Outlander killing cabal enemies, Battle killing mages, Nexus enforcing balance and Tribunal killing criminals are not evil reasons, even if the victim happens to be a goodie. However, a gnome killing everyone for fun is going to find himself turned evil.

Simply because, as you point out, "Other peoples opinion DOES NOT dictate someone's alignment."

I'd much prefer it if a C/E Scion can behave charitably (for some nefarious purpose, we presume) without The Alignment Police raising hell on the forums because someone posted a log of The Chancellor doing a good deed and "breaking alignment."

In other words, I'm pretty happy with the alignment system as it stands now.

Disclaimer: I've never had a notable non-neutral character, for what that's worth.

A selection of 9 is already far to strict in terms of diversity amongst the ways characters act. Giving concrete definitions of the alignments would be both a difficult task (real-life morality is subjective which makes finding a common ground for fantasy morality difficult) and detrimental to the game's variety of possible roles/stories.

We have general definitions of what the alignments are via help files and the little explanation at the pool or whatever it is in the newbie academy. No more than that is needed.

The distinction that may need to be made is that of cabal vs alignment. While only Good aligned folk can be members of the Fortress, it doesn't mean all Good aligned folk necessarily have to agree with the actions of the Fortress. An Orderly individual may not agree with the way society is policed by the Tribunals. So on and so forth.

I think instead of people complaining that a cabal has this policy or that (based on their immortal/player leadership), they should instead forgo being a member of said cabal and play their character how they want or envision the character acting.

In summary, I think too many people play to cookie cutter roles for the purpose of just having something basic to pk with. Obviously that's fine, just not my ideal image of Carrion Fields. Instead I'd like to see much heavier personal motivations, relationships, and general dealings. Priorities should read like this imo:

personal dogma > alignment dogma > cabal dogma

Instead of what it seems to be:

cabal dogma > alignment dogma > personal dogma

Somewhere along the lines it gets defined by someone, otherwise, my last goodie rager wouldn't have gotten an alignment adjustment. I thought I was RP'ing a good alignment for that particular character in relation to his viewpoints, but, it turns out, I wasn't.

It probably isn't my definition but there are definitions of alignment that oversee this game. And I can tell from the Nexus string that some people do have their own personal definitions else they wouldn't be telling others their views on it are wrong.

Just make sure people ar living within the parameters of their characters race/class/cabal.

People know what a Magistrate is supposed to do, and an Imperial.

I'd say make it an invisible fluid stat.

Alignment IS a semi-invisible, fluid stat.

There are different degrees of evil, good, and neutral.

There are presumably different degrees of the L/N/C spectrum as well, but they rarely ever come up.