Editing Midnight RPG - Alignment Conversations (section)

== Andrew ==

::  ''On the topic of Eranon's alignment shift... <snip> Thoughts?''

Here's what I told Steve when he asked my opinion: I don't think what Eranon did with the dragon (choosing the "good" choice over the "right" choice, or Good over Lawful) would have been enough to force an alignment change if he didn't want one. Since Steve had been making noises about possibly changing alignment for some time, though, I DID feel as though that moment would be a good catalyst for cementing that change. 

::  ''Note #1 - I don't think any other CHARACTER knows he "fixed" the election, correct? He didn't tell anyone, did he? (that's just a reminder not an accusation)''

Nope. None of the other characters knows, or has any reason to suspect.

::  ''Was Zal's action in fixing the election "evil"? I'm not sure. ... <snip> There was a plot point in the new Battlestar Galactica show that had the "good guys" doing this to safeguard the fleet.''

Kevin, if you're referencing that Battlestar Galactica episode in an argument AGAINST the inherent evil-ness of election fixing, I strongly suggest you go back and re-watch the episode. The conclusion drawn by the "heroes" in that episode was that building a brand-new society on a foundation of lies could NEVER be justified, even though they had very good, non-selfish reasons for wanting to ensure their opponent did not win.

::  ''He was doing it for the betterment of First-Hold.''

Where do we get that? It's not as though Zal'Kazzir tallied the votes and realized that the villagers had voted to elect someone who would have had serious detrimental effects on the future of First-Hold. No ... he, Zal, decided who he wanted to win, told the council to vote, pretended their votes were being counted and then proclaimed HIS choice the winner. No, we have no hard evidence (as players) that he did so for his own personal gain. However, if that wasn't his motivation, why did he keep it a secret? Why didn't he discuss it with the other PCs? Why didn't he just publicly APPOINT a leader, instead of pretending to carry out the will of the people while secretly doing whatever he pleased? I doubt anyone would have minded ... he had to explain to them all how democracy worked, remember? So why the deception?

::  ''As a note (for the players) Captain Wilhelm Fogg is NOT under the "employee" of Zal'Kazzir.''

No, he is not. However, Adam made it abundantly clear that he had assured Wilhelm's win because he believed Wilhelm to be a figurehead, an "empty suit" that could be easily controlled by his secret shadow government. This is player knowledge, of course, but it's as a player that I'm arguing this point of view. 

::  ''Anyhow, assuming that Zal is not in "control" of Wilhelm - he did so because Wilhelm was the best most honest choice.''

Sure, OK. As long as we totally disregard everything Adam said about why he was having Zal do this, and as long as we put complete faith in the purity of Zal'Kazzir the character's motives ... then yes, we can come to this conclusion. 

But even if we do those things, the election was still a sham, and Wilhelm was obviously NOT the best most honest choice, or he would have won the election. Hell, maybe he did. We'll never know, because it was rigged.

::  ''Also, I'd note that an alignment shift, more toward evil, DOES seem reasonable based on the past actions of Zal ... <snip> if so, what "brand of Evil"? Chaotic or Neutral Evil?''

I don't see any indication that he's become any less chaotically-inclined than he was. If Zal went evil, he would be chaotic evil.

::  ''As for Adam playing his alignment. I honestly don't think that playing an "Evil" character is as problematic as it might seem at first glance.''

Not inherently, no. As a player, I don't think there's any reason to arbitrarily turn a PC into an NPC just because his alignment switches to evil.

However, Zal'Kazzir is on, like, strike four here as far my PC's tolerance for his "questionable" acts is concerned. I don't need to remind you how many times now I (Andrew) have had to sit down and come up with yet another reason why my character would do nothing to stop someone he would considered to be extremely dangerous, when the only REAL reason was that the dangerous person was a player character. If Zal turns evil -- and, more to the point, starts acting in accordance with his new alignment -- I'm not going to do this any more. Adam has been warned about this. Zal has been warned about this. If he decides to ignore those warnings, any consequences of that decision are his responsibility, not mine, Steve's, yours or Bill's.

::  ''I think its hard to say conclusively that motivation and intention has nothing to do with an act being evil or not. It definately makes it in a GRAY territory, but the old example of "would you kill a baby Hitler" is a great example of intention for good in an evil act.''

How is this relevant? We're not talking about killing a baby Hitler. We're talking about building corruption and deceit into a newly-formed society from its very genesis ... NOT because any particular reason exists to think that calamity would occur otherwise, but simply because a single person decides that he wants it done that way. I agree that there are circumstances under which one could arguably do evil in the service of good, but this totally wasn't one of those.

I mean, unless I'm missing something. Did Zal somehow know that whoever won the election legitimately would turn out to be a genocidal maniac, or lead First-Hold to destruction? Was it sheer coincidence that the people he appointed to his "shadow government" had no qualifications other than the fact that they had apparently pledged loyalty to him?

::  ''So HAS one act, from a "founding father", actually doomed any chance for First-Hold to make a difference? I don't know if that's true. Its definitely a bad start, but then again noone knows that it was a false election... Is that bad?''

You tell me. Historically, how have nations whose governments were established through bogus elections or secretly controlled from behind the scenes turned out?

Are you telling me that if nobody ''knew'' Durgaz killed those three men, or was made to believe they'd died in a boating accident or something, that would have made the killings OK?

::  ''I'd also note that if/when it comes to that, I'd ask/suggest that IF Zal (Adam) tries to talk or offer a new comprise that you at least consider it.''

As a player, absolutely ... having Zal die or leave the group some other way shakes things up in ways that I would not be happy with. HOWEVER, as I said before, I'm very tired of having to come up with more ways that I can justify Durgaz saying "OK, Zal, but next time I'm ''really'' gonna do something." I mean, how many times do your suspicions have to be proven right before you act on them? If I keep doing this, you'll have a genuinely strong case for shifting Durgaz's alignment away from Lawful, simply because he keeps making situational allowances for deviating from his code. I'm serious.

::  ''SO... In the end - do not EVER expect a simple "easy kill" situation no matter how "Evil" the character is/gets. <snip> That's only fair and I'd do it for all of you.''

Agreed. That is only fair.

However, IF it comes down to that, I DO ask that you keep in mind whose choices made things turn out that way. It's not fair for us to kill Adam's character without giving him a chance to defend himself, but it's also not fair to the rest of us if Adam's conscious decision to repeatedly ignore warning after warning ... and our finally getting fed up enough with it to react in a way that the situiation demands ... ends up destroying the campaign for everyone.