No love for Neutral alignments in OOTS

[Reddish Mage]

Alignment is meant to be a tool, not a straitjacket. Two Lawful Good Paladins can have markedly different personalities, because they are from different cultures, different religions, different social classes or one is much older than the other. Durkon and Roy disagree over whether a Lawful Good character needs to respect the laws of the Empire of Blood. Haley and Elan have different notions about respect for property rights; Elan feels bad about stealing, while Haley, to put it nicely, does not.

OOTS aside (which is a good example of alignment being used flexibly this way), I'm not sure what you said earlier about alignment being absolute is compatible with this non-straightjacket.

All we need to say is that there are rules that designate a number of acts as evil (including things like theft or consorting with evil deities/fiends and the like) and simply rule that a non-evil character cannot freely commit any sort of evil actions, then we are left with real limits about the alignment of characters, in ways that are both heavy handed and at odds with OOTS.

[Sir_Leorik]

OOTS aside (which is a good example of alignment being used flexibly this way), I'm not sure what you said earlier about alignment being absolute is compatible with this non-straightjacket.

All we need to say is that there are rules that designate a number of acts as evil (including things like theft or consorting with evil deities/fiends and the like) and simply rule that a non-evil character cannot freely commit any sort of evil actions, then we are left with real limits about the alignment of characters, in ways that are both heavy handed and at odds with OOTS.

Luckily, other than Paladins, Good aligned characters aren't judged that harshly in D&D 3.X. (At least not by RAW; some DMs go beyond the letter of the Alignment rules, and it can be pretty tough to be Players in their games.)

[137beth]

OOTS aside (which is a good example of alignment being used flexibly this way), I'm not sure what you said earlier about alignment being absolute is compatible with this non-straightjacket.

Eye color is absolute, and also isn't a straightjacket.

[Reddish Mage]

Luckily, other than Paladins, Good aligned characters aren't judged that harshly in D&D 3.X. (At least not by RAW; some DMs go beyond the letter of the Alignment rules, and it can be pretty tough to be Players in their games.)

Agreed, I hate this sort of DMing, I want to be in a game with someone like Rich DMing, but, I can't help but wonder where the support is for a lenient treatment of Good-aligned characters. There is nothing in RAW I've seen that says explicitly that we can simply decide that certain evil behaviors are simply a compatible part of a good character's personality.

What I want to say is that the real "evil acts" are limited to serious stuff like murdering innocents, robbing from the poor, terrorizing the weak, or sacrificing allies frivolously. The stuff we've seen in OOTS by the neutral characters, and especially the good ones, just doesn't rise to that level. That's what I want to see in RAW, but I really don't think that's compatible with BOVD/BOED as described.

[hamishspence]

There is nothing in RAW I've seen that says explicitly that we can simply decide that certain evil behaviors are simply a compatible part of a good character's personality.

The PHB does say that good characters can sometimes "commit acts that aren't exactly Good" - though it's left a little unclear as to whether those acts can be Evil.

The DMG says that alignment change is normally gradual- and so- a Good character might be permitted the occasional Evil act without alignment change- if the preponderance of their behaviour is Good.

And Champions of Ruin does say that they can be "driven to Evil acts from time to time".

That said, routinely doing Evil deeds tends to be the mark of an Evil character (or Neutral at best, if those Evil deeds are for Good ends).