PDA

View Full Version : Alignment shift



SethFahad
2010-03-02, 01:05 AM
So there are 9 alignments, 9 morale codes. How do you handle them?
I mean, what is the distance between them?
How much easy or hard is to shift to an oposite or "neigbouring" alignment? How many "steps"?
What does it take to a good person to become evil and vice versa?
Is a single good or evil act enough?
If a lawfull or good character commits a crime, how many "steps" does she shifts towards chaos or evil?
If a CN character kill a beggar-boy, what happens to him? (i mean besides persecuted)

Mystic Muse
2010-03-02, 01:09 AM
So there are 9 alignments, 9 morale codes. How do you handle them?
I mean, what is the distance between them?
How much easy or hard is to shift to an oposite or "neigbouring" alignment? How many "steps"?
What does it take to a good person to become evil and vice versa?
Is a single good or evil act enough?
If a lawfull or good character commits a crime, how many "steps" does she shifts towards chaos or evil?
If a CN character kill a beggar-boy, what happens to him? (i mean besides persecuted)

1. Alignments are guidelins that your Character consistently acts within
2. depends on the severity of the acts
3. usually consistly evil/good acts. Also a few spells
4. Depends on the severity of the act. for example, using the spell "Apocalypse from the sky" would get you sent to evil rather quickly. There aren't many good equivalents.
5. depends on the severity of the crime and what the crime is. Breaking certain laws doesn't actually affect Lawful good characters. In my opinion (and this will vary enough that yes, this is just my opinion) a Lawful good character should believe in the spirit of the law and not the letter. He doesn't have to follow laws that go against his ethics and Bad laws (the poor are taxed 10 GP a year when they only make 9) He is definitely allowed to break.
6. not enough info provided.

Zavrith
2010-03-02, 01:10 AM
When I DM, I generally view alignments as fluid. AD&D said "Alignment is not a straightjacket". A good character does evil things sometimes, but can still be good on the whole. A couple of my players have alignments they have written down, but if I feel that they have been more of one alignment than another, then I make a mental note of that.

Generally speaking though, I think that it takes a fair amount to shift from one alignment to another.

SethFahad
2010-03-02, 01:46 AM
Yes it does depend of the severity of the acts. That's true Kyuubi.

As for the example, say a CN PC kills a beggar-boy, just because a mighty-evil sword that he found, tells him so (if you want me to help you, you must do as I say). The purpose of the sword is to make him evil, to corrupt him and make him a no-mercy-killing-machine (CE). So the PC kills the innocent boy. A horrific act!
CN to CE is neighbouring. What happens?

So Zavrith, as a DM you keep tracking your players behaviour, and in some point (if apropos) you inform them that they shift towards X alignment?

Mystic Muse
2010-03-02, 01:48 AM
Yes it does depend of the severity of the acts. That's true Kyuubi.

As for the example, say a CN PC kills a beggar-boy, just because a mighty-evil sword that he found, tells him so (if you want me to help you, you must do as I say). The purpose of the sword is to make him evil, to corrupt him and make him a no-mercy-killing-machine (CE). So the PC kills the innocent boy. A horrific act!
CN to CE is neighbouring. What happens?


I'd warn the player that They're very close to crossing the line and that one more violation like that will turn them from CN to CE.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 03:42 AM
4. Depends on the severity of the act. for example, using the spell "Apocalypse from the sky" would get you sent to evil rather quickly. There aren't many good equivalents.

Technically all evil spells count as the same level of evil act (minimal) in Fiendish Codex 2. So summoning an imp is as evil as summoning a pit fiend.

However, if lots of people die (as they would, unless you're very careful about where you cast it) each death might be deemed Murder- appropriate for an instant alignment shift.

In 2nd ed "burning down a plague village to contain the disease outbreak" was deemed to be the sort of act that causes an instant alignment shift from Good to Evil, in both PHB and DMG.

3rd ed DMG suggests that mostly, alignment change is gradual, though it also says there are exceptions.

Katana_Geldar
2010-03-02, 03:50 AM
I think you have to examine each act within it's context, killing a beggar boy who has a knife at your throat is one thing, killing the same beggar boy because he was rude to you is something else.

When I have to think about severity of penalising players, I look at who it was done to and if there is any justifable reason for doing so. If it was a good person for no reason, then it's time to crack down.

I cracked down on a player TWICE in the same game, first for using a very injured (read no legs) defenseless person as a shield, secondly for ignoring the pleas for help from a Lawful Good character who was being hunted down, which resulted in the character's death.

First time I bailed her out, second time I let the hammer drop and the player's character sheet wore the consequences.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 03:53 AM
BoVD does suggest context can make the difference between accident, negligence, and "sacrificing others to save yourself"- deemed an evil act.

BoED takes a similar approach. Killing the orc because he's attacking someone- OK. Killing them without good justification- Not OK.

Geiger Counter
2010-03-02, 03:58 AM
secondly for ignoring the pleas for help from a Lawful Good character who was being hunted down, which resulted in the character's death.

I would have to know more, but based on the information. Ignoring pleas for help is not evil, even if they if they come from a LG creature.

sonofzeal
2010-03-02, 04:20 AM
My opinions on this matter are a matter of public record (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7577205#post7577205). :smallcool::smallcool::smallcool:

Personally, I don't think the default system specifies carefully enough, or draws easy boundaries between categories. It conflates a number of ideas into an umbrella term, but then gives no guidance when something matches some of those but not others. I've been trying to work out my own expansion to help resolve that.

Katana_Geldar
2010-03-02, 04:21 AM
I would have to know more, but based on the information. Ignoring pleas for help is not evil, even if they if they come from a LG creature.

This was an NPC, known to all the players who has helped them quite a number of times who was being hunted down by armed troops ordered by Lawful Evil guy who wanted to wipe out his enemies. The only chance he had was with this player, who did not help but pointed out where the LG NPC was hiding and the guy was killed.

You had the opportunity to help an LG person escape from the forces of evil and you chose not to, I asked the player if this was a concious choice and they said yes. That's a violation in my book, it was a concious choice.

Superglucose
2010-03-02, 04:33 AM
So there are 9 alignments, 9 morale codes. How do you handle them?
I mean, what is the distance between them?
There is no distance because morality isn't something you can resolve with numbers.


How much easy or hard is to shift to an oposite or "neigbouring" alignment?
Depends on which direction you're leaning. It represents a shift in personal philosophy, which can happen quickly and easily (being bitter about a divorce) or take a long time (growing up).



How many "steps"?
Morality cannot be reduced to numbers. See point 1.



What does it take to a good person to become evil and vice versa?
See point 2: it's a philosophical shift that's very fundamental. It would be, in essence, someone who's "good" saying "I've had enough of trying to make people happy, screw them, I should be in charge and everyone should serve me." It's jarring, it's a complete 180, but it can happen abruptly or gradually depending on circumstances.



Is a single good or evil act enough?
No, never, regardless of how evil the act is. Seriously. Even ordering genocide.



If a lawfull or good character commits a crime, how many "steps" does she shifts towards chaos or evil?
Again, see point 1. There are no "steps" and in theory a lawful character could never follow a law in his life.



If a CN character kill a beggar-boy, what happens to him? (i mean besides persecuted)
If he's a normal human-being, that is to say, not psycopathic or sociopathic, he probably has a fair amount of mental scarring as a result and is troubled by it for a long time, depending on circumstances. Will he shift alignment? Not from that one action, but if he's making it a consistent disregard for the lives of beggars, yes, he would shift to evil.

Yora
2010-03-02, 04:39 AM
So there are 9 alignments, 9 morale codes. How do you handle them?
1.a.) "So there are 9 alignments". True
1.b.) "9 morale codes". Wrong!

This is the one big mistake I see people doing a lot. The 9 alignments are collective categories for people with a very wide variety of moral codes. They describe a character, they don't define it. And this is how alignment becomes a restriction and not additional detail to flesh a character out.

Personally, I think alignment works best when kept very general and not precisely defined. It works for characters, but very rarely for individual actions that actually happen in actual play.
So regarding the question at hand, I usually decide intuitively. If a character has shown lots of compassion and got out of his way to help others without hoping for compensation, he's most likely good. If he shows a complete disregard for others and does not care if others suffer, as long as he archieves his own goals, he's probably evil.
If he has a strong preference for making complex plans ahead in time, and sticks closely to the rules he has set for himself, or a set up by his society, he's most likely lawful. And if he's very comfortable about dealing with problems when they occur and he's flexible in his approach how to solve them, while acting and deciding by what he thinks is the best course of action in this particular situation, then he's most probably chaotic.

Unless for very severe cases, in which a supposedly good character is harassing people just for the lulz, I have alignment shifts occour only over longer periods of time. If I think a characters actions do not fit his stated alignment, I tell the player that the alignment should either be adjusted accordingly, or he should have his character remembering what his own principles and moral guidelines are.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 05:04 AM
No, never, regardless of how evil the act is. Seriously. Even ordering genocide.

The D&D rulebooks appear to disagree with you.

Yora
2010-03-02, 05:07 AM
The D&D rulebooks usually disagree with each other. And when it comes to alignment, no two writer seem to have exactly the same ideas.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 05:13 AM
not exactly the same- but there is a strong trend.

They all seem to agree on unnecessary killing being evil.

As to the scale of an evil act- it's a long-standing principle that really major acts lead to instant alignment shift, but minor ones result in a slow alignment shift over time- that is- if the person is consistantly behaving in a fashion appropriate for one of the other alignments, theirs should change to fit the way they are behaving.

To say that "No one act will lead to alignment shift- not even genocide" is perhaps something of an overstatement- given that in general, the core books tend to suggest otherwise.

Yora
2010-03-02, 05:17 AM
I'd say it just doesn't make any sense for a character who is not evil, to just perform one really horrible act. Either he allready was rotten to the core all along, or he had a moment of total insanity.
It's rather one of the very few instances of really bad playing, because it's just completely random without any pattern behind it.

Superglucose
2010-03-02, 05:21 AM
The D&D rulebooks appear to disagree with you.
The D&D rulebooks also indicate I can hide my tower shield behind my tower shield and that with readied actions a pig can move an arbitrarily large distance in 6 seconds breaking the speed of light.

So in this case, as with many, I am ok with the rulebooks disagreeing with me.

EDIT: pretty much of the time committing genocide is going to be multiple evil acts. I think a small example of the exception would be V's familicide spell.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 05:22 AM
Or they have an Ozymandias moment- they believe that by committing this evil act, that they are protecting others.

A person destroying a city and everyone in it- because they fear what evil the city dwellers might commit in the future if they are spared.

The Deacon, in book three in David Gemmell's Jerusalem Man trilogy, does this.

And later admits it was an evil act- done out of fear for the future.

aboyd
2010-03-02, 05:23 AM
BoVD does suggest context can make the difference between accident, negligence, and "sacrificing others to save yourself"- deemed an evil act.
I too let context inform my rulings about alignment shifts. I've done many shifts and even enforced some ability losses that aren't even in the books. For example, I had a sorcerer with the dragon feats and a gold dragon as his "sponsor" for the feats. After he turned fully evil, although there was no in-game rule that said the feats would stop working, I stopped 'em anyway. No gold dragon is going to allow his essence to power a chaotic evil murderer.

I've told the players how I view good & evil. Essentially, being good requires vigilance, while being evil merely requires giving in. To remain good, you must not do evil acts -- they corrupt you and even just a few will taint you and start a slide. However, to remain evil requires very little of you. Murder someone once and you'd be able to remain evil for a very long time even if you stop doing explicitly evil acts. You would have to actively become a force for good to redeem yourself, and no backsliding.

So if a good person murders an innocent beggar child, I'd say, "Sorry, with even that one single horrific act, you've defiled your alignment, and shift from good to neutral. Any class ability loss that would occur does so immediately. Also, just a few acts of evil in the near future and you'll be stuck with an evil alignment with no easy way out. Or commit to an exclusively good path and you may slowly rehabilitate yourself."

I do that merely because that's how I think the real world is, and I'm trying to keep my brain in sync. That may not be how the real world is, but it's at least what my perception of it is, so I'm going with it. In the real world, a person murders a kid, and regardless of his background, he's suddenly dangerous and nobody will allow their kids around that person. If a person molests a kid, that person (at least in the USA) is branded a sex offender for life -- one act and branded for life. In addition, I think the public brand usually matches the inner state of being. If a person felt that murder was an option once, that means they felt that murder was an option! That person would have to undergo a profound and visible change to have any trust at all.

Good or bad, in our society, if you are willing to execute a truly evil act once, you've got something broken in you and it'd take a lot of work to un-evil yourself. So I mirror that in my games.

Of course, most people manage to lead a consistently good (or at least non-damaging) life. And they manage to maintain that for their whole lives. So I expect that of good characters in my games too.

aboyd
2010-03-02, 05:25 AM
I'd say it just doesn't make any sense for a character who is not evil, to just perform one really horrible act. Either he allready was rotten to the core all along, or he had a moment of total insanity.
Hmm. You just summarized my long post in 2 sentences.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 05:28 AM
Thats fairly consistant with Fiendish Codex 2- it stresses that there is more to atonement than just the Atonement spell- and that a few evil acts will lock your alignment of a Lawful character to the Lawful Evil afterlife regardless of how much Good is done- until the Evil acts are atoned for.

Its focused on Lawful characters though- its not as clear on how it works for Chaotic ones.

BoED states that "strictly refraining from committing evil acts" is Neutral by default- you have to actively commit Good acts to be deemed Good.

Champions of Ruin has "The Ends Justify The Means" as a common path to evil.


pretty much of the time committing genocide is going to be multiple evil acts. I think a small example of the exception would be V's familicide spell.

Or just giving a single order to other people to commit the acts:

"Wipe them out. All of them"

Hmm- if a person gives a very evil order- like this- and one of their allies promtly knocks them out and countermands this- have they actually done any evil- or only tried, and failed, to?

Superglucose
2010-03-02, 05:34 AM
{scrubbed}

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 05:40 AM
FC2 is less focused on alignment, than on afterlife destination. You do a few Evil acts (and are lawful)- Hell now gets your soul after you die- and just doing Good acts isn't enough to get it back.

Its true that one single evil act doesn't make the paladin evil or neutral- if its not a major evil act.

But if it is- that leads to alignment change.

Champions of Valor takes the approach that the spell Atonement is not necessary- its useful shorthand for the DM and the player, in lieu of roleplaying a long quest for atonement. You can atone without the spell.

Superglucose
2010-03-02, 05:49 AM
But it just strikes me as backwards: alignment is your philosophy, and your actions are based off that philosophy, not the other way around. I feel like the reason they included things like "doing this evil act makes you evil" is because in a roleplaying sense, there needs to be a point where the GM can say, "Ok, you're doing it wrong." Just because I do X doesn't mean I believe in X. If I do work for Honor Society, does that mean I believe in charity? Or do I just care about my college application?

(p.s. it was HARD not using a religious reference there)

magic9mushroom
2010-03-02, 05:58 AM
But it just strikes me as backwards: alignment is your philosophy, and your actions are based off that philosophy, not the other way around.

The idea is that since your character doesn't exist in RL, how that philosophy is nailed down from Schrodinger-land is determined by the actions they take.

Basically, the idea is, "You'd need to be pretty damn evil to Apocalypse from the Sky that province. Therefore, you're assumed to have changed alignment."

bosssmiley
2010-03-02, 06:40 AM
By their deeds shall ye know them (aka "If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck...").

Performing one good/evil act is - Moral Event Horizon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon) circumstances aside - not enough to undo a lifetime's work (exception: Paladins, who choose to follow the proverbial straight and narrow path). Repeatedly, or consistently, acting against your stated alignment is grounds for a shift. Like the Supreme Court judge said (albeit in another context): we know it when we see it...

That said, a lot of what Good characters do (steal, kill, rob tombs, overthrow kings, stab gods in the face) in D&D-land is pretty non-good from our modern ethical standpoint. And a lot of morally ambiguous anti-heroes (Omar Little, Roy Battey, etc.) don't fit the 9-alignment schema easily.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 07:01 AM
It seems like there's two themes to alignment- philosophy and actions.

Good philosophy + Evil actions = Evil
Evil philosophy + Evil actions = Evil

(This is the tack Champions of Ruin takes. BoVD also speaks of evil anti-heroes, as well as villains)

Anti-heroes may fall into Good philosophy + Evil actions- a belief in protecting others, making the world a better place for people as a whole- these aren't enough to make the character Good or Neutral if they routinely commit evil acts, or commit one or two Moral Event Horizon-crossing acts.

The point claimed earlier, seemed to be that there is no such thing as a single Moral Event Horizon-crossing act- that even genocide should not change a character's alignment- unless they do it multiple times.

Which I dispute.


That said, a lot of what Good characters do (steal, kill, rob tombs, overthrow kings, stab gods in the face) in D&D-land is pretty non-good from our modern ethical standpoint.

I think that's what BoED was an attempt to address- to bring modern ethical standpoints, like slavery and torture being evil, into the game- not entirely successfully.

Yora
2010-03-02, 08:43 AM
In my oppinion, alignment is not like a moral track record, but mostly about a characters personal believes what he is allowed to do and obliged to do in relation to other people. A good person would do evil things as an accident or because they firmly believe that any other choice is even worse, while still feeling very bad about it.
If they conciously chose to do evil things and want to do it, they are not good anymore to begin with. So I'd say it doesn't matter if by some hapenstance they never get to carry through with the evil action, or they did not have the opportunity yet. You allready have to be evil to want to do evil things. You don't become evil when pushing the dagger or putting your signature under an order. At that point, you'd have been evil for quite some time allready.

As a side note, I see good not as being kind at some times, but as trying to be good all the time. So if the evil racist overlord orders ethnic cleansing of an area, but then founds an orphanage for the pure-blooded children of his fallen soldiers from his personal wealth, that does still not make him a good man.

For that reason, I really avoid making any judgements about good or evil actions. It's a characters personal compass and motivations that define alignment to me.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 08:51 AM
Agreed on the notion that a few good acts does not change an evil character into a good one.

As to the idea that alignment comes before actions- its an interesting one, but it doen't work well with the game system.

A DM can't tell that a character has conciously embraced "ends justify means" to the point of evilness- until that character commits an action showing it.

It simply works more easily, if a good character becomes non-good, when they commit a very evil act in answer to a moral dilemma.

As to "you have to be evil to want to do evil things"- most anti-heroes don't want to do evil things- they only do them because they believe they are "necessary"

The theory that "a person's acts reflect the alignment they always had" is an interesting one- but it doesn't work well with a system dependant on alignment.

For another example- a good person is being badly wronged. They get angrier and angrier- more and more vengeful- until finally their enemy falls into their grip and they commit evil acts against the enemy.

To say "my character changes from good to evil" before they commit any evil acts- seems a little weird- not very workable with the game.

Volkov
2010-03-02, 10:04 AM
Say that there is a wizard named Joe who has up to now been lawful good. When joe visiits the king he drops his pants and whizzes on the king, paints the first dog he sees orange, pets the tarraque, sprays the cat, and slaps the neutral lich wizard for no reason at all. Is Joe now chaotic?

Androgeus
2010-03-02, 11:06 AM
Say that there is a wizard named Joe who has up to now been lawful good. When joe visiits the king he drops his pants and whizzes on the king, paints the first dog he sees orange, pets the tarraque, sprays the cat, and slaps the neutral lich wizard for no reason at all. Is Joe now chaotic?

no, he's most likely dead =P

Optimystik
2010-03-02, 11:09 AM
Say that there is a wizard named Joe who has up to now been lawful good. When joe visiits the king he drops his pants and whizzes on the king, paints the first dog he sees orange, pets the tarraque, sprays the cat, and slaps the neutral lich wizard for no reason at all. Is Joe now chaotic?

Depends why he did all that. The Confusion spell doesn't change alignment, for instance.

lsfreak
2010-03-02, 11:15 AM
Say that there is a wizard named Joe who has up to now been lawful good. When joe visiits the king he drops his pants and whizzes on the king, paints the first dog he sees orange, pets the tarraque, sprays the cat, and slaps the neutral lich wizard for no reason at all. Is Joe now chaotic?

He wouldn't do that if he were Lawful Good. If you had him pegged as Lawful Good, you were mistaken. He was good at acting. As said before, someone doesn't just suddenly do these things - there was a fundamental change in the philosophy of the person that simply had not yet manifested by actions. The person would have been Chaotic Stupid for some time before the actions actually took place. That or they suffered some kind of sever mental breakdown. If it does just suddenly happen, with no explanation or no warning, the player deserves to be smacked with the DMG.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 11:24 AM
"a fundamental change in the philosophy of the person" doesn't mean anything, unless it's accompanied by actions.

The suggested response in the DMG to "My character is now chaotic good" was "Prove it"- actions matter more than intentions.

Fiendish Codex 2 takes a similar approach with Evil- "thinking bad thoughts" is not enough to be evil- those thoughts have to be backed up by action.

A possible exception is when alignment is magically changed- by the Helm of Opposite Alignment, for example- the person's philosophy has changed, and this is represented in the rules (they detect as the new alignment) but for a short time, they will have done no acts consistant with their alignment.

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-02, 11:30 AM
Alignment is meaningless. At best, it's an okay shorthand for describing your character to the other players, so they can get an idea of what kind of stuff they might be able to expect from your character.

Optimystik
2010-03-02, 11:32 AM
Alignment is meaningless. At best, it's an okay shorthand for describing your character to the other players, so they can get an idea of what kind of stuff they might be able to expect from your character.

It has mechanical impact in several places - detection spells, item/artifact use, feat qualification, Incarnum etc.

Volkov
2010-03-02, 11:33 AM
He wouldn't do that if he were Lawful Good. If you had him pegged as Lawful Good, you were mistaken. He was good at acting. As said before, someone doesn't just suddenly do these things - there was a fundamental change in the philosophy of the person that simply had not yet manifested by actions. The person would have been Chaotic Stupid for some time before the actions actually took place. That or they suffered some kind of sever mental breakdown. If it does just suddenly happen, with no explanation or no warning, the player deserves to be smacked with the DMG.

Let's say Joe had a trip to the far realm. (This is all hypothetical)

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-02, 11:35 AM
It has mechanical impact in several places - detection spells, item/artifact use, feat qualification, Incarnum etc.

It shouldn't do, though. And if I ran a 3.5 or earlier campaign, I'd take it out.

If I was playing in a 3.5 or earlier campaign, I'd leave the section blank and get on with playing my character, leaving such meta-game concerns up to the DM if they are interested.

Luckily, It's not really an issue, as I mainly play 4e and various non-dnd systems that lack the offending 'system'. :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 11:36 AM
Might depend on how the player and DM want to handle it.

If the player thinks The Far Realm should have changed the character's alignment, they should probably suggest it to the DM beforehand, so the DM can represent the changed alignment before the player runs into monsters that specialize in damaging Law-based creatures.

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-02, 11:37 AM
Might depend on how the player and DM want to handle it.

If the player thinks The Far Realm should have changed the character's alignment, they should probably suggest it to the DM beforehand, so the DM can represent the changed alignment before the player runs into monsters that specialize in damaging Law-based creatures.

Well, it's the Far Realm.

It's equally likely that his Alignment is now MADE OF BEES. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 11:39 AM
4E has alignment- it's just a lot less mechanically relevant.

The DM may still wish to track it though.

As to The Far Realm- most natives of it are Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil.

lsfreak
2010-03-02, 11:46 AM
My point is that it should not be sudden. It should be gradual, not someone being stick-up-the-ass Lawful Good, and after a good night's rest they are suddenly Chaotic Neutral/Stupid. Yes, actions matter. But it shouldn't be sudden, except for extreme cases (psychosis, magical interference, or an appropriately-life-changing event).

A trip to the Far Realm is certainly enough to warrant a more sudden change in alignment than normal. Less drastic - perhaps coming in contact with creatures from the Far Realm, or reading up on the matter - would be a more gradual erosion of the person's original beliefs (and alignment) to Chaotic.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 11:51 AM
The DMG does suggest that sudden changes are very much the exception, not the rule.

As did, I think, the 2nd ed one- still, the "life changing event" does occasionally happen.

Manual of the Planes gave an example of the slow change- a CE wizard who wants to change, now resides in Celestia, and

"while he's sincere, he's got a long way to go, and still retains many of the atittudes and instincts of his former lifestyle."

He's even allowed visitors- though "arriving in the waters of the Silver Sea tends to hurt many of them- so they don't stay long"

Ormur
2010-03-02, 11:55 AM
I can see some traumatic event undermining a philosophy one has had for most of his life. A trip to the far realm might suddenly make a lawful person see the pointlessness of customs, values and good sense making him extremely chaotic. Most of the time it probably takes more time but things like wars could drastically change alignments in a rather short time. Of course a change of outlook isn't enough. A good idealist might become a misanthropic cynic but it doesn't mean he becomes evil unless he starts acting evilly.

Riffington
2010-03-02, 01:01 PM
The real question is what he does the next day*. Is he going to keep on being erratic (or at least just rationalize what he did)? Or is he going to be mortified and follow proper protocol for having done such craziness?


*or would have done, had he survived to the next day

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-02, 02:51 PM
As for the example, say a CN PC kills a beggar-boy, just because a mighty-evil sword that he found, tells him so (if you want me to help you, you must do as I say). The purpose of the sword is to make him evil, to corrupt him and make him a no-mercy-killing-machine (CE). So the PC kills the innocent boy. A horrific act!
CN to CE is neighbouring. What happens?
Pretty simple - if he's killing the boy merely to gain power, he's Evil, done and done. If there is a very important reason that he needs to the power now then I'd make a note of it for later. Not for the purpose of creating an "alignment tracker" but so that the sword can remember what sort of buttons to push later to make him do something really Evil.

Of course, if the PC starts killing orphans routinely, he's Evil, even if he has a "very good reason" to do so. Eventually the player will fall into the habit of having his PC kill orphans before every adventure where the sword might be useful; that there shows that the PC no longer has qualms about taking innocent lives.

In short, you need to look for the Big Actions that change alignment; alignment-change-by-neglect is less "dramatic" to a plyaer - but a neglectful player does need to be "reminded" (by another character, not the DM) if he starts slipping over to the Dark Side.

* * *

Generally speaking, I don't bother "tracking" alignments in any WotC D&D game. Alignment really is just another mechanic (IMHO) for WotC, which makes it far less interesting to play with. A player who chooses to play a Paladin or a Ranger knowing that they are classes devoted to Good is one thing; a player who wants to play a Bard or Monk and sees they have to be Non-X is less of a RP choice.

TSR D&D, well, that's another matter entirely :smallamused:

SethFahad
2010-03-03, 12:02 AM
Well thank you very much for the answers guys, excellent thoughts and ideas from many of you.
Special thanks to Oracle_Hunter, lsfreak and Kyuubi.
Ok, now something more.
Is it me or it's way more easy to "step to the dark side"?
... And way more difficult to return to a previous alignment?
And if I'm not wrong, WHY?

Mystic Muse
2010-03-03, 12:14 AM
Because DMs are evil?

In all seriousness, it's sort of just the way the world works. Even if a guy had done a lot of good things after he'd murdered some kid you probably still wouldn't trust him around your own kid would you?

also, because selfishness is more appealing than selflessness. (Selfishness here meaning, caring only about yourself.)

SethFahad
2010-03-03, 12:19 AM
True. True.
How do you manage alignment "tendencies"?

Mystic Muse
2010-03-03, 12:24 AM
Can you clarify a bit?

sonofzeal
2010-03-03, 12:32 AM
True. True.
How do you manage alignment "tendencies"?
I use a five point scale in each direction, instead of a three point, to differentiate between "paragon of law" and "lawful tendencies". Since the gradation is smoother, I'll usually take the player's word if they're wavering between two, since the difference is minimal anyway. If an Evil character starts behaving in a Good manner though, I'd talk it through with the player.

SethFahad
2010-03-03, 12:32 AM
Can you clarify a bit?

You know, if someone is for example NG with chaotic tendency... (because I think you can't be f.e. 100% NG)

Mystic Muse
2010-03-03, 12:51 AM
You know, if someone is for example NG with chaotic tendency... (because I think you can't be f.e. 100% NG)

It would depend on how often the "Chaotic tendency" appeared. go past 70% and I'd say you're full on chaotic.

Superglucose
2010-03-03, 01:09 AM
The idea is that since your character doesn't exist in RL, how that philosophy is nailed down from Schrodinger-land is determined by the actions they take.

Basically, the idea is, "You'd need to be pretty damn evil to Apocalypse from the Sky that province. Therefore, you're assumed to have changed alignment."
Yeah, but my problem with that mindset is then there is no way of saying, "The path to hell is paved by good intentions" because then there are no such thing as good intentions. If you committed an evil act, it's clearly because you were evil and wanted to do evil regardless of what everything else you have ever done in your life indicates.

And imo that's just stupid.

SethFahad
2010-03-03, 01:15 AM
If I may, I would like to share with you 2 examples of the 9 alignments.
I'm posting directly from 2nd editions Players Handbook. Maybe it's a little out of subject but I think it's nice.
Attention! Long post ahead!

Imagine how groups of different alignments might seek to divide a treasure trove. Suppose the adventuring party contains one character of each alignment (a virtually impossible situation, but useful for illustration). Each is then allowed to present his argument:

The lawful good character says, "Before we went on this adventure, we agreed to split the treasure equally, and that's what we're going to do. First, we'll deduct the costs of the adventure and pay for the resurrection of those who have fallen, since we're sharing all this equally. If someone can't be raised, then his share goes to his family."

"Since we agreed to split equally, that's fine," replies the lawful evil character thoughtfully. "But there was nothing in this deal about paying for anyone else's expenses. It's not my fault if you spent a lot on equipment!Furthermore, this deal applies only to the surviving partners; I don't remember anything about dead partners. I'm not setting aside any money to raise that klutz. He's someone else's problem."

Flourishing a sheet of paper, the lawful neutral character breaks in. "It's a good thing for you two that I've got things together, nice and organized. I had the foresight to write down the exact terms of our agreement, and we're all going to follow them."

The neutral good character balances the issues and decides, "I'm in favor of equal shares--that keeps everybody happy. I feel that expenses are each adventurer's own business: If someone spent too much, then he should be more careful next time. But raising fallen comrades seems like a good idea, so I say we set aside money to do that."

After listening to the above arguments, the true neutral character decides not to say anything yet. He's not particularly concerned with any choice. If the issue can be solved without his becoming involved, great. But if it looks like one person is going to get everything, that's when he'll step in and cast his vote for a more balanced distribution.

The neutral evil character died during the adventure, so he doesn't have anything to say. However, if he could make his opinion known, he would gladly argue that the group ought to pay for raising him and set aside a share for him. The neutral evil character would also hope that the group doesn't discover the big gem he secretly pocketed during one of the encounters.

The chaotic good character objects to the whole business. "Look, it's obvious that the original agreement is messed up. I say we scrap it and reward people for what they did. I saw some of you hiding in the background when the rest of us were doing all the real fighting. I don't see why anyone should be rewarded for being a coward! As far as raising dead partners, I say that's a matter of personal choice. I don't mind chipping in for some of them, but I don't think I want everyone back in the group."

Outraged at the totally true but tactless accusation of cowardice, the chaotic evil character snaps back, "Look, I was doing an important job, guarding the rear!Can I help it if nothing tried to sneak up behind us? Now, it seems to me that all of you are pretty beat up--and I'm not. So, I don't think there's going to be too much objection if I take all the jewelry and that wand. And I'll take anything interesting those two dead guys have.
Now, you can either work with me and do what I say or get lost--permanently!"

The chaotic neutral character is also dead (after he tried to charge a gorgon), so he doesn't contribute to the argument. However, if he were alive, he would join forces with whichever side appealed to him the most at the moment. If he couldn't decide he'd flip a coin.

Clearly, widely diverse alignments in a group can make even the simplest task
impossible. It is almost certain that the group in the example would come to blows before they could reach a decision. But dividing cash is not the only instance in which this group would have problems. Consider the battle in which they gained the treasure in the first place.

Upon penetrating the heart of the ruined castle, the party met its foe, a powerful gorgon commanded by a mad warrior. There, chained behind the two, was a helpless peasant kidnapped from a nearby village.

The lawful good character unhesitatingly (but not foolishly) entered the battle; it was the right thing to do. He considered it his duty to protect the villagers. Besides, he could not abandon an innocent hostage to such fiends. He was willing to fight until he won or was dragged off by his friends. He had no intention of fighting to his own death, but he would not give up until he had tried his utmost to defeat the evil creatures.

The lawful evil character also entered the battle willingly. Although he cared nothing for the peasant, he could not allow the two fiends to mock him. Still, there was no reason for him to risk all for one peasant. If forced to retreat, he could return with a stronger force, capture the criminals, and execute them publicly. If the peasant died in the meantime, their punishment would be that much more horrible.

The lawful neutral character was willing to fight, because the villains threatened public order. However, he was not willing to risk his own life. He would have preferred to come back later with reinforcements. If the peasant could be saved, that is good, because he is part of the community. If not, it would be unfortunate but unavoidable.

The neutral good character did not fight the gorgon or the warrior, but he tried to rescue the peasant. Saving the peasant was worthwhile, but there was no need to risk injury and death along the way. Thus, while the enemy was distracted in combat, he tried to slip past and free the peasant.

The true neutral character weighed the situation carefully. Although it looked like the forces working for order would have the upper hand in the battle, he knew there had been a general trend toward chaos and destruction in the region that must be combatted. He tried to help, but if the group failed, he could work to restore the balance of law and chaos elsewhere in the kingdom.

The neutral evil character cared nothing about law, order, or the poor peasant. He figured that there had to be some treasure around somewhere. After all, the villain's lair had once been a powerful temple. He could poke around for cash while the others did the real work. If the group got into real trouble and it looked like the villains would attack him, then he would fight. Unfortunately, a stray magical arrow killed him just after he found a large gem.

The chaotic good character joined the fight for several reasons. Several people in the group were his friends, and he wanted to fight at their sides. Furthermore, the poor, kidnapped peasant deserved to be rescued. Thus, the chaotic good character fought to aid his companions and save the peasant. He didn't care if the villains were killed, captured, or just driven away. Their attacks against the village didn't concern him.

The chaotic neutral character decided to charge, screaming bloodthirsty cries, straight for the gorgon. Who knows? He might have broken its nerve and thrown it off guard. He discovered that his plan was a bad one when the gorgon's breath killed him.

The chaotic evil character saw no point in risking his hide for the villagers, the peasant, or the rest of the party. In fact, he thought of several good reasons not to. If the party was weakened, he might be able to take over. If the villains won, he could probably make a deal with them and join their side. If everyone was killed, he could take everything he wanted and leave. All these sounded a lot better than getting hurt for little or no gain. So he stayed near the back of the battle, watching. If anyone asked, he could say he was watching the rear, making sure no one came to aid the enemy.

hamishspence
2010-03-03, 03:33 AM
Yeah, but my problem with that mindset is then there is no way of saying, "The path to hell is paved by good intentions" because then there are no such thing as good intentions. If you committed an evil act, it's clearly because you were evil and wanted to do evil regardless of what everything else you have ever done in your life indicates.

And imo that's just stupid.

Most of the 3.5 alignment-centric books seem to go with "evil acts with good intentions" actually existing- and tending to lead to an evil alignment.

Champions of Ruin especially.
Savage Species put a lot of emphasis on "evil alignment does not mean they behave badly to everyone"- its quite possible for someone to be kind, altruistic, etc toward members of their in-group- but cruel and vicious toward those of another group- and this person will still have an evil alignment.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-03, 02:19 PM
If I may, I would like to share with you 2 examples of the 9 alignments.
I'm posting directly from 2nd editions Players Handbook. Maybe it's a little out of subject but I think it's nice.
Attention! Long post ahead!
(1) You might want to put those in spoilers just to keep the thread looking neat.
(2) I think the failure of WotC to include this passage in its 3E books is the reason that so many people have trouble with alignment these days. IMHO, of course, but I've yet to find someone weaned on TSR D&D who thought Belkar wasn't Evil :smalltongue:

Now, as to the ease of slipping to the Dark Side and the difficulty of redemption? I think it's an occupational hazard of adventuring.

The quintessence of Evil is the slaying of Innocent creatures. Adventurers kill things every day - it is their bread and butter. The more things you kill, the easier it becomes to decide "more killing" is the answer to any given problem. Eventually you fall off of the "respect for life" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil) bandwagon and become Neutral. Now, falling to Evil is much harder, but how often has a PC wanted to execute a prisoner? That's the kind of thinking that leads to slitting the throat of an innocent witness "because it's easier."

As for redemption? Well, redemption is a rare and special thing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html), it requires the character to acknowledge their past actions were wrong and to seek to make amends. PCs are, by and large, an egotistical lot - they do not often ask for forgiveness, nor reexamine their past actions.

randomhero00
2010-03-03, 04:14 PM
IMO there shouldn't be any alignment shift unless the player wants to role-play such. Except for drastic circumstances like a paladin running around slaying commoners for their money, DMs need to stay away from changing a player's alignment.

While I'm sure its happened (always an exception) I've never played with anyone who has purposefully "cheated" their alignment and not tried to roleplay it properly. So even though it may seem like a player is acting out of character he may really just have a different perspective on what's good and evil. And he shouldn't be punished for that by holier than thou DMs. For goodness' sake, this is a game where we roleplay the destruction of countless beings through extremely violent ends...you can't apply normal moral standards.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-03, 04:19 PM
I've stated my stance on alignments before. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5203.msg174085#msg174085)

aboyd
2010-03-03, 07:00 PM
While I'm sure its happened (always an exception) I've never played with anyone who has purposefully "cheated" their alignment and not tried to roleplay it properly. So even though it may seem like a player is acting out of character he may really just have a different perspective on what's good and evil. And he shouldn't be punished for that by holier than thou DMs.
My players "cheat" their alignment all the time. I never spring changes on them. I currently have a player who is playing a knight, and the knight ordered his tiger to eat a helpless captive, because his knight code wouldn't allow him to do it. I told him that ordering a trained animal to do his work for him would still count against him. His response? He shrugged and said, "All I lose is one knight's challenge." So he did it. He repeatedly violates it. This is a knight who has constantly taken flank bonuses (prohibited), killed the helpless (prohibited), and attacked first (prohibited). He has been told he is violating his code, over and over again.

When I move his alignment, after months of warnings, am I "holier than thou?"

Anyway, my point is merely that I can cite not one, not two, but many many exceptions to your rule. Tons of players will not bother to get anywhere close to their alignment, and they have very sensible reasons for cheating it. If they are allowed to play a good-aligned character that murders everyone and everything, they get both benefits -- namely, they get all the loot and XP, and they get to be treated as a hero by the local populace. If players can kill their way through anything and still come out with their shiny righteous alignment, they enjoy the rewards of everything. Who wouldn't want that?

(I personally wouldn't, but my experience is that more than half of everyone I've ever played with would eagerly take a heroic character and corrupt him if all the benefits could be retained. So it's no surprise to me to see it happen all the time.)

To me, the only solutions are to do away with alignment, or to publish the laws of your land and explain very clearly when someone is doing something out of alignment. I do the latter.

I had a group of players about 6 months ago who claimed they were surprised by my alignment changes, I admit. However, I responded with this: "You took a mission to murder a lawfully appointed leader of a peaceful & prosperous town, and to also overthrow the government of that town and install a puppet regime, and you took this mission from a chaotic evil demon residing in an evil city full of slavery and corruption, and you executed the mission by storming the gates and killing not only every guard that stood in your way, but by also killing dozens of civilians and healers that ran to the aid of their beloved leader. You did this against the advice of your party cleric, who had a Phylactery of Faithfulness that gave massive warnings about alignment conflicts -- so much so that the cleric sat the mission out. You really feel that somehow you are the good guys here?"

At which point they all were like, "Oh, well when you put it like that."

Volkov
2010-03-03, 07:04 PM
IMO there shouldn't be any alignment shift unless the player wants to role-play such. Except for drastic circumstances like a paladin running around slaying commoners for their money, DMs need to stay away from changing a player's alignment.

While I'm sure its happened (always an exception) I've never played with anyone who has purposefully "cheated" their alignment and not tried to roleplay it properly. So even though it may seem like a player is acting out of character he may really just have a different perspective on what's good and evil. And he shouldn't be punished for that by holier than thou DMs. For goodness' sake, this is a game where we roleplay the destruction of countless beings through extremely violent ends...you can't apply normal moral standards.
I'm pretty sure one trip to the far realm (or an layer of the abyss that's choking with Obyriths) will shatter one's sanity enough to change their alignments.

hamishspence
2010-03-04, 03:36 AM
(1) You might want to put those in spoilers just to keep the thread looking neat.
(2) I think the failure of WotC to include this passage in its 3E books is the reason that so many people have trouble with alignment these days. IMHO, of course, but I've yet to find someone weaned on TSR D&D who thought Belkar wasn't Evil :smalltongue:

I figure its also because they changed Chaotic Neutral and Neutral considerably- very few Neutral characters are now that concerned with "The Balance" and very few Chaotic Neutral characters are supposed to be that crazy.

Yora
2010-03-04, 07:17 AM
You know, if someone is for example NG with chaotic tendency... (because I think you can't be f.e. 100% NG)
I'd say, every alignment is merely "tendencies".

Volkov
2010-03-04, 07:19 AM
I'd say, every alignment is merely "tendencies".

Except that in D&D, the alignments are real physical things with real physical effects.

hamishspence
2010-03-04, 07:41 AM
And at the same time, even creatures with alignment subtypes are capable of changing alignment (though the rules will treat them as being of the alignment of the subtype, as well, for the purposes of spells that have effects on specific alignments)

Fallen angels who have not fallen all the way to fiendhood, and cambion fiends (Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) are prime examples.

The "real physical effects" matter- but that doesn't mean a Lawful Good person won't behave other ways- its just that if they do it a lot, they will change.

Math_Mage
2010-03-04, 07:50 AM
While I wholly agree with your actions, I feel like the whole 'no flanking' thing is a little over the top.