Alignment Drift

[BayardSPSR]

I play a system that has no alignments because the D&D labeling style bugs me. I think I'm starting to see the other side of the tradeoff...

In the game I'm running right now, I've had (after six sessions total) one player drift from CG-equivalent to LG-equivalent (which is fine by itself), two from TN-equivalent to CE-equivalent (fine individually), and the fourth is starting to lean from LN-equivalent to LG-equivalent (no problem there by itself). I'm starting to have a rather hard time estimating their possible courses of action. The way I run a game, I have lots of contingency plans, but they're foiling me already. That, and I'm not sure whether the players are just getting used to the characters or just plain unstable (the characters, that is).

I'm not very experienced in running games, and I'm no more experienced in playing them. I've gotten a sense that this kind of thing can happen a lot (based on this forum), but is continuous alignment drift of this kind a common thing? Will it settle down after a few more sessions? I don't know what to expect...

[mucat]

My reaction would depend on the apparent reasons for the alignment drift.

Reason #1: The players didn't really have a clear idea of their characters at first; over the course of the first few sessions, they got more of a sense of how their characters think and behave. Now the characters have "stabilized", though some of them are very different from what the player originally envisioned.

In this case, the on;y real question is whether the characters can work together, now that they've taken shape, and yield a game which everyone (including you, the GM) can enjoy. The fact that it took a few sessions for the characters to gel will soon be forgotten.


Reason #2: The characters were well-defined from the beginning, but they have changed for valid IC reasons.

It's kind of strange that so many characters would change so quickly, but this is what you expect from good roleplayers. Again, don't let anyone make the game less enjoyable for others under the excuse that "it's what my character would do", but the changes themselves are not a problem.


Reason #3: The characters were not well defined at the beginning, are not well-defined now, but the players do whatever seems the most advantageous under the circumstances, with no thought to character consistency.

To me, this one would be a serious problem, but it depends on the gaming group. A pure "beer and pretzels" group might still have great fun while letting their characters mutate according to the whim of the moment. A more "serious" group might want to step back and say "Hey, this isn't the kind of gaming we enjoy in the long run," and spend some time deciding what their characters are really like.

[Shpadoinkle]

It takes a few sessions to get a feel for a character, and circumstances and experience can change their outlook. Or the players could just do whatever seems like a good idea at the time and not give a damn about what their characters might think or do.

[BayardSPSR]

Helpfulness

Thanks!

Great Wall of Text, thus I shall spoiler:

Funny thing is, it looks like a mix of all three in the group as a whole. I've got two (the L-types) who starting undefined, but are defining more and more as time goes on, to the point that one has already cross-classed into Paladin, and the other one's going to in a session or two. So reason 1 for them.

One of the two TN/CE-types started with a concept, TN leaning CG, but over time has progressively gotten more brutal. The character was always self interested, but I don't know whether the brutality was always there or not - it may have been hidden beneath the surface, but he spent half the last (otherwise awesome) session looking for ways to backstab his fellow players when he is nominally their leader. The session before, he stepped between two of them to stop them killing each other. I don't get it, and it's a drastic enough change that I'm thinking of talking to the player just to figure out what's going on in the character's head. The discontinuity might be the result of the player missing a few sessions. It's like a cross between reason 2 and reason 3. His is the problem character.

The last one started TNish leaning CEish, and was always dark and brutal. He's been getting more dark and brutal, but that may be just intra-party conflict plus character holding grudges bringing it out. My instinct here is reason 2.

All that would be fine, if not for the fact that all the intra-party conflict that cropped two sessions ago and has been steadily growing since has left the two TN-CEs have formed a plot to permanently abandon the other two, and I don't really want a party split of that magnitude. What's more, I don't know what's going to happen if their plan proves unfeasible - they won't have a chance to try for a few more sessions, and then they might get caught by either a) dwarves who no longer trust them and (it has been clearly and carefully established) shoot to kill or b) human religious fanatics who trust them even less AND with whom they have a bad reputation already.

Then again, maybe if they get caught by the bad-religion types and sentenced to death at the stake... And the other two come swooping in to rescue them... Maybe that would work. Though as both of the two TN-CEs have proved themselves ungrateful, even that might not be enough to iron things out.

[Shpadoinkle]

You need to have a talk with the guys who seem to be itching to find a reason for their characters to kill or betray the other PCs. That's the kind of thing that derails entire campaigns and often leads to the group splitting up. I know you're thinking "let's wait and see," but this is extremely destructive behavior, and I'm pretty sure the guys planning to become paladins won't appreciate it (to put it mildly.)

Granted I don't know everything, just what you've told me, but from my own experience and seeing this story no less than a hundred times already, if the Chaotic Dumbass PCs betray/backstab other PCs the most likely outcomes are:

1: Betrayed players get pissed and quit in disgust, so you're down to the LOLRANDUMB PCs and the whole thing just goes to hell.

2: Betrayed players get pissed and make new PCs specifically to counter the PCs who killed their last characters and take revenge. The other guys then build new PCs to counter those, and you basically end up with nothing but the players trying to kill each other's characters and nothing else ever gets done. While this is fine in, say, a wargame, you don't want it in D&D unless you're willing to make it pretty much the entire point of the game.

So... yeah, you need to have a talk with the group RIGHT AWAY and hammer out what kind of game you guys want to play.

[BayardSPSR]

Yes. It was fine with three players, but now that there's four they're splitting up into pairs.

I know for certain that everyone wants it RP heavy, the only problem's been where the RP is going. So yes, I will talk to them all to get a sense of where each one wants the campaign to go. Do you think I should ask them separately, or as a group? Or both? My instinct is individually, but that might not solve the problem, but just clarify it...

Oh - and changeable-treacherous-stabbity (as opposed to stable-treacherous-blastity) has openly stated that he wants to recruit an army of ruthless mercenaries. The player, not the character. I doubt he'll have an opportunity, since they will soon be running into the ruthless army of a LN-LGish warlord who will try to recruit them, but if the party splits before then... or if he keeps trying...

But yes, I will ask them ASAP.


Oh, and it's not actually D&D - it's a homebrew rules system that I've found flows rather well in a lower-magic homebrew setting where there is no resurrection. Death means end of character, which is why the escalating treachery is so worrying.

[Vknight]

Also remind the players there the good guys. Or at least are best hope. Give them some plot hooks about working together. Maybe they get captured & sent to slave pits.
The CE ones can each be attached to one of the Lawful ones. This way they got to work together.
As far as inter-party conflict goes it could be much worse.

My players tried to sell the Warforged into Slavery thrice, Tried to have him executed five times, sent him to jail & put him on death row twice. All in a good campaign were the Warforged never figured it out. Even out of character he didn't.
They also regularly fight/abuse each other. The Warforged old wizard was feed to the Ranger's Boar Companion. The Boar Companion was turned into bacon & the ranger sold into Slavery as a 'specialty slave'. This is why I now have strict alignment rules & we are playing an evil campaign.

[BayardSPSR]

Also remind the players there the good guys. Or at least are best hope.

Half of them are. Half of them don't want to be. Therein lies the issue.


In terms of attaching them to each other somehow... That might work. Then again, the bad-two are as ungrateful as hell, so it might not. But I can try. How would you accomplish that mechanically (if mechanically) in a lower-magic campaign?

[Vknight]

Admantium coated cuffs because they are noted as being threats. The adamantium is not worth anything & they are stuck.

It's your campaign your world these are the adventures of heros in a world that needs saving. It is not up to discussion but a matter of fact & failing to go to the call can have side effects. In other words the evil characters have challenges steadily rise against them from other villains & good groups forcing them to in-debt themselves to powerful forces or die. This can be used so they must be saved.

As for not being grateful you can simply solve that by creating a life-debt policy in the government so they are considered always to be in-debt to those which give them life.

Also if they go off make them find themselves working between helping a group of evil slavers or something similar or helping a good magic user. Make is obvious he has gotten by in this low magic world through wit relying on magic as a last aspect give him a few fighter levels or swashbuckler levels & some guards. Helping the mage is good & lets them come back to the town later. Helping the evil guys puts a mage/swashbuckler with guards money & political power at there throats. Don't make this obvious either make sure pro's & con's don't tilt there judgment.

Hope this helps

[BayardSPSR]

Thank you! That helps, particularly about the last part. I'm not going to have a good mage do it, because these guys aren't going to meet one.

I can, however, use the warlord, and more mundane methods.

I'm thinking they're introduced to the warlord and interrogated individually between sessions. This NPC is flat-out brilliant, so he'll figure out what's up even if they don't tell him (it won't be that simple but you get the idea; he has an excellent intelligence network). I was planning on having him issue them papers to allow their free travel in the lands he controls, but based on your idea I can have those papers specify that the two backstabbers be carefully monitored, and further specify that the two future-paladins each be assigned one (respectively) for whom they are responsible.

But I don't want them policing each others actions, which could exacerbate the problem... Hm. Maybe cuffing at the wrist or ankle, but that could do the same thing...

Of course, this warlord will have them executed if they're caught and proved guilty of each other's murder - and executed on the spot, with almost no chance to escape. They will know this, but even that might only make them wait.



I don't want to restrict their choices at all, but I also REALLY want them to stop acting exclusively in their own self-interest. Is there ANY way to do that without just telling them 'no'?

[Vknight]

Don't put in the stipulation of the Paladin being responsible for the evil guys crimes but reverse it. Also make it a cumulative effect.
5years forced labor for one crime & 2years forced labor for another becomes 10years forced labor.
Make it the police doing it rather then players. If there caught the handcuffs can be used or the Warlord tells them he will personally torture them before sending them to work.
Rather they can be given the title 'Inquisitor' they can kill anyone who the Warlord approves or the Paladins approve of.
There they keep there freedom well being ties to the law but not strongly tied to it.

[BayardSPSR]

What about outright recruiting them? It could actually be in their self-interest (power, if under his authority). He'd give them the authority to recruit and lead X number of soldiers in his name, meaning that they'd get some power, but that they'd be responsible to him if they do anything naughty. And while technically good in attitude, he has an abrasive personality and is quick to punish the three crimes he cares most about (treason, murder as above, and rape) with execution on the spot. Trials are inessential to him for such cases.

Think that might do it?

[Oracle_Hunter]

I don't want to restrict their choices at all, but I also REALLY want them to stop acting exclusively in their own self-interest. Is there ANY way to do that without just telling them 'no'?
Yes.

Here's a process to use:
(1) Ask each Player to name three things their character wants to accomplish in the medium term and one thing that the Player wants to accomplish in-game.

At the core, it sounds like either you (the DM) or the Players don't know what the PCs are up to. If it's the former, this will tell you where their minds are. If it's the latter, then at least they will take some time to think about it; often Players start lashing out in-game when they get bored or feel directionless.

(2) Look at these lists, and develop plots which cause the four Players to work together to a goal which all of them want individually.

If Player 1 says "stabbing stuff!" and Player 2 says "phat lewt!" and Player 3 says "to resolve things with my estranged father" then you can set up a plot in which Player 3's estranged father is being held for ransom by badass bandits. All three Players will want to work together to go along on this mission.
Failing that, you have to talk to them if they're acting in a way that is disruptive to your game. It's the only other way to fix out-of-game problems like erratic roleplaying.

Also: Alignment is a tool for character development and a helpful shorthand for describing other characters/institutions. It is not a way to fix erratic roleplay; a "LG" PC whose Player doesn't pay attention to Alignment isn't going to act in a LG fashion. But by making him choose an Alignment at the beginning of the game you might get him to think about the basics of his character's personality during creation - and give him a touchstone for making later decisions.

[Mastikator]

It's not that alignment doesn't serve a purpose, it's that it does a really bad job at it.
Why not go with character traits. Have the players write down the personality and behavior traits their characters have. Are they greedy? Generous? Whimsical? Aggressive? Charming?
What kind of principles do they have and how important are these principles? Is it *NEVER* ok to lie even to save lives? Is honor more important than life? Is other people's lives more important to your own honor? Is violence only ok in self defense?

These are all questions that alignment does a terribly job at answering, but the players should answer them non-the-less. It's good that you removed alignment imo, but the characters should still have personalities.

[Oracle_Hunter]

These are all questions that alignment does a terribly job at answering, but the players should answer them non-the-less. It's good that you removed alignment imo, but the characters should still have personalities.
Interestingly, one of the things Alignment does answer best is "how self-interested am I?" which is exactly the sort of problem the OP says he has :smalltongue:


Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
...
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

It also answers "how do I respond to external authority?"


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
...
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel.
Considering the OP's problems, Alignment might very well have provided the answer - if the OP's Players cared about it :smallamused:

[BayardSPSR]

Spoilered awesomehelp.

This I will do. Thank you.


Interestingly, one of the things Alignment does answer best is "how self-interested am I?" which is exactly the sort of problem the OP says he has :smalltongue:



It also answers "how do I respond to external authority?"


Considering the OP's problems, Alignment might very well have provided the answer - if the OP's Players cared about it :smallamused:

Funny how things like that come back to bite you in the ass, isn't it?

A quick note on progress:
As far as progress goes, I have made the point to the two that if they murdered the two good players, the campaign would be over (which isn't strictly true as the two could re-roll or I could run a group of two, but the players will likely be bitter and such a small group is arguably inefficient).

They have now decided to take them hostage instead, take the river-barge they're traveling on out to sea, and sell the dwarf ambassador they're protecting to the pirates who are trying to hunt them down. I can practically guarantee that this will not happen, as the warlord I talked about before will intercept them while still fairly far inland and take it upon himself to do the negotiating with the ambassador (who is looking for a suitable human authority to open trade negotiations with and heading in the direction of the duke who is nominally the warlord's superior).

While their plan won't fall through regardless, I will talk to them as suggested. I may also point out that the one of them is trying to make friendly with pirates who want him dead, and trying to betray people who aren't trying to turn him in even when there's a reward out for him. Might remind them that a barge is NOT meant for the open sea, too, and that that's something his character would know (being an ex-pirate himself).



But enough of that. I will send them all an email with the questions... now.



Oh, and @Mastikator, they definitely have personalities. Greedy/self-interested/ungrateful/treasonous/mercilessly uninhibited is only the set of facets that are problematic.

[Vknight]

I can just see this now. Be careful though if one of them reads this they may change there plans & split up.

[Hawriel]

If D&D alignment is one of the reasons your not playing D&D, why are you forcing D&D alignment boxes onto your perseption of the players characters?

A persons character is defind by their motives, actions and how they deal with the consiquences of thoughs actions. Also on how a person behaves when no one els is arround. Just go by what the player's PC's do, why they do it and how they behave when no one is around.

Edit.

Mucat first post is a very good one. Ive gone through all three of his points on characters. Some peaple turned out evil bastards, others boy scouts.

[BayardSPSR]

If D&D alignment is one of the reasons your not playing D&D, why are you forcing D&D alignment boxes onto your perseption of the players characters?

A persons character is defind by their motives, actions and how they deal with the consiquences of thoughs actions. Also on how a person behaves when no one els is arround. Just go by what the player's PC's do, why they do it and how they behave when no one is around.

I use the D&D alignment descriptors because they are convenient descriptors that give a general sense of the situation without forcing myself to specify the details of each character's personality. Furthermore, despite the odd Shadowrun or Pathfinder thread, this is basically a D&D forum, so it saves time and confusion to use the D&D language to describe problems. I am not trying to force the 'boxes' onto my perception, especially as when as an exercise I tried to fit them into the boxes, they didn't. At all (for example, one of the paladins is both CG and LG at the same time, and not NG, if we go by my understanding of the alignment chart; the other is arguably both LN and NG but not yet LG). People are much more complex than that, and there are often exceptions to behavior that are completely consistent with a personality. The alignment system is a completely inadequate representation, and fails to acknowledge the subtleties and flexibilities.

The problem isn't that my players aren't staying in their neat little boxes; it's that they're changing in ways that are irrational and unjustified and that could lead to a permanent split in the group.



EDIT: @Vknight: Despite my best efforts, none of those players read this comic. :smallsigh: So no risk there.

[Callista]

Alignment drift is normal. You should expect it to happen. For most characters who experience it, it goes along with character development. It's not a sign of being "unstable" at all.

It can also happen early in the adventure while they are still getting to know their characters. If you have a problem with this, the easy solution is to leave Alignment blank until the second or third session, at which point they should know which alignment their character is.

I don't see how alignment changes "foil" the DM. If you're thrown off by alignment changes, just wait until the PCs decide to unseat the King, start a world-famous tavern chain, or join the vampire BBEG you expected them to fight! DMs have to be flexible. If you can't do it on the fly, there's nothing wrong with stepping out for a few minutes to figure out how your world responds to the curveball they just threw you.

I don't think your issue has anything to do with alignments, really; I think you simply need a houserule that everyone has to create characters that would logically work together.

[hamishspence]

Interestingly, one of the things Alignment does answer best is "how self-interested am I?" which is exactly the sort of problem the OP says he has :smalltongue:

Depends on the writer. "Doing evil things for fun" and "doing evil things for profit" don't actually say much about how self-centred a person is.

A character could torment members of a "despised group" for fun (and because he hates them) and yet be kind and unselfish toward everyone else.

They would still be Evil.

[BayardSPSR]

This I shall define POINT THE FIRST: Alignment drift is normal. You should expect it to happen. For most characters who experience it, it goes along with character development. It's not a sign of being "unstable" at all.

This I shall define POINT THE SECOND: It can also happen early in the adventure while they are still getting to know their characters. If you have a problem with this, the easy solution is to leave Alignment blank until the second or third session, at which point they should know which alignment their character is.

This I shall define POINT THE THIRD: I don't see how alignment changes "foil" the DM. If you're thrown off by alignment changes, just wait until the PCs decide to unseat the King, start a world-famous tavern chain, or join the vampire BBEG you expected them to fight! DMs have to be flexible. If you can't do it on the fly, there's nothing wrong with stepping out for a few minutes to figure out how your world responds to the curveball they just threw you.

This I shall define POINT THE FOURTH: I don't think your issue has anything to do with alignments, really; I think you simply need a houserule that everyone has to create characters that would logically work together.

And so, responses in order:
1. Thank you. That is reassuring. I will not be unduly worried.
2. This system uses no alignments whatsoever. (At all. Ever. The philosophy is that people are people, that each case is unique, and that it's pretty subjective anyway.) Also, these guys have had six sessions now, and the change for Problem Player has been unusually abrupt (the rest have been gradual and understandable; it's just that one guy, mostly...).
3. I have prepared for them to be weird with NPCs. It'd be fine if they were doing it as a group, or just NOT doing it to each other...
4. They DID! :smallfrown: For about four sessions. And now they don't... :smallfrown:


@hamishspence: Would you call 'actively planning how to dump a fellow player over the side of the boat in his sleep (despite a mutual oath not to harm each other) because he beat me in a fair duel that I challenged him to and I don't have many reasons (aside from the oath that he'll most certainly keep) to trust him (and none to mistrust him now that he's agreed not to turn me in when he had the chance to)' evil? And not just alignment-wise, but IRL too? I need a second opinion to see whether mine is justified.

[hamishspence]

I would- it's harm- without much of a justifying reason. Risk of drowning is pretty high.

"Violating the other person's rights (specifically, the right to not to be harmed by you without just cause)" could be a good baseline for "is an evil act" IRL, and in D&D. "Rights-based morality" is pretty simple but logical.
Where it gets complicated- is what a person has a "right" to, and what they don't have a right to.

Still, negative rights- the right to not be harmed, rather than the right to be helped, may be a good starting point.

"Betrayal" is strongly associated with evil in BoVD- and this certainly sounds like a betrayal.

[Sebastrd]

Bayard, it's obvious that you're intentions are good, and you've definitely gotten some good advice in this thread. I've been in your position before, and here's my take on it...

You can't use in-game tools to solve out-of-game problems. Right now you've got two players that sit down every week to play Scrabble, and two playing Monopoly, and that isn't going to work.

It sounds like your one player was happy playing Scrabble with the other two until player 4 arrived. Now they've agreed to play Monopoly while the other two are still playing Scrabble.

As the DM it falls to you to iron out the problem. With great power and all that... You need to sit down together with all of your players and discuss what kind of game you really want to play. If everyone will enjoy a game where the PCs are constantly trying to backstab your world and its poor unfortunate denizens, so be it. But it looks like you've got two players that want to save the world (Scrabble) and two that want to destroy it (Monopoly). Get everyone playing the same game.

One last note: Conflict between characters is more often than not indicative of conflict between players, and it usually isn't healthy. I've never met a genuinely good person who could stomach playing a jerk. I've also never met a jerk that played anything but a jerk. I have a simple rule about gaming groups - If I wouldn't want to have a beer with you outside the game, I won't enjoy your company inside the game. It sometimes means going without gaming for a bit, but in the end it saves a lot of time and heartache.

[BayardSPSR]

Right now you've got two players that sit down every week to play Scrabble, and two playing Monopoly, and that isn't going to work.


Sir, your hammer has made contact with the head of the nail most expertly. Thank you.

I will take your advice and try to iron this out out-of-game.



Something I haven't really brought up before, but I'm partly to blame for the fractiousness. I intentionally prompted some of the conflict (but only a very little) in-game, intending to create a sense of mystery (where each player has access to limited information that combined shows a lot more of the intentions of their yet-unrecognized nemesis). Unfortunately, each character has instead chosen to act based on what little they have, rather than trying to put it all together.

As far as jerk-ness goes... Yes. I see that now. :smallfrown: But I will continue my efforts to make this campaign a good one.

[Sebastrd]

Very glad I could help.

As you get more experience DMing you'll learn what works and what doesn't, and that what works for some players doesn't work for others. The bottom line is to have fun.

Happy DMing!

Note: Regardless of your edition preference, the 4E DMG or 3.5 DMG2 are excellent resources for learning what motivates the different player types at your table.

I don't know how familiar you are with professional team-building, but an oft overlooked aspect of DMing is the role of facilitator. A DM needs to be a little manipulative sometimes, to lead the players and sort of guide them in the right direction but not overtly. Think of it as using the carrot rather than the stick.

That's where the DMGs can help. If you know what a player wants by virtue of his type, you know what carrots to dangle to get him to go where you want. If you do it right, he'll even believe it was his decision all along. By using the right carrots in the right places, you may even get your motley crew working together toward the same goals without them knowing and still provide them with the game experience they're craving. Tread lightly, but it's very satisfying when it works.

[Sebastrd]

Just to give you an example of applying what I said in my last post to your current game, consider this:

It sounds like you have one player on a power trip. He's looking to stroke his own ego by proving he's smarter than everyone else. He wants to "win", but intellectually rather than "physically". Your average mooks in a combat are no real challenge to him, so he's targeting the big fish - the other human players at the table.

You need to get his attention off of them and onto you. He won't want to beat around the bush and go searching for a worthy adversary. You already tried that approach and he just ignored you and went after the most obvious target.

I recommend you confront him with a villian immediately. Your villain needs to appear cunning and devious, so your player will view the villain as a real challenge. Have your villain foil one of the player's plots to make it personal. I guarantee your player will bite like a starving dog on a steak.

As long as you portray the villain as nasty and evil, your wannabe hero players will have no problem taking him down. Throw in a physically intimidating sidekick, or better yet a big, bad entourage. Think Zartan and the Dreadnoks, the Brotherhood from the first X-Men movie, or Sauron and his Nazgul. Give your hero players someone to face off against while the egotistical mastermind focuses on the main villain. Lastly, I think your final player might be a little masochistic. Maybe you just need to give him something to hurt and encourage him to describe the gory details. Perhaps even single him out for a fierce and cruel rivalry with one of the villain's entourage. Meybe even maim the player in some way.

In the end, let your players triumph in spectacular fashion. Let your egomaniac player "win" the battle of wits and defeat the villain. You'll suddenly be the best DM he's ever played with.

As DMs we often like to hide the adventure initially and go for the big reveal when the party finally discovers the plot and the villain. We forget that revealing the villain doesn't mean revealing the plot. For your group, reveal the villain immediately, make it personal, and then start dropping the plot clues. It gives your players a vested interest in uncovering the clues and will motivate them to go looking for them. That's when you get to have your fun. ;)

[BayardSPSR]

Yes. These I can do, and will do. I have a way to make this work, and will commence action immediately.

Thank you so much - you may have just saved my campaign.

[Sebastrd]

Definitely come back and let us know how everything works out. :smallsmile:

[grimbold]

My reaction would depend on the apparent reasons for the alignment drift.

Reason #1: The players didn't really have a clear idea of their characters at first; over the course of the first few sessions, they got more of a sense of how their characters think and behave. Now the characters have "stabilized", though some of them are very different from what the player originally envisioned.

In this case, the on;y real question is whether the characters can work together, now that they've taken shape, and yield a game which everyone (including you, the GM) can enjoy. The fact that it took a few sessions for the characters to gel will soon be forgotten.


Reason #2: The characters were well-defined from the beginning, but they have changed for valid IC reasons.

It's kind of strange that so many characters would change so quickly, but this is what you expect from good roleplayers. Again, don't let anyone make the game less enjoyable for others under the excuse that "it's what my character would do", but the changes themselves are not a problem.


Reason #3: The characters were not well defined at the beginning, are not well-defined now, but the players do whatever seems the most advantageous under the circumstances, with no thought to character consistency.

To me, this one would be a serious problem, but it depends on the gaming group. A pure "beer and pretzels" group might still have great fun while letting their characters mutate according to the whim of the moment. A more "serious" group might want to step back and say "Hey, this isn't the kind of gaming we enjoy in the long run," and spend some time deciding what their characters are really like.

i agree with mucat on this one
however reason 2 is far and away the best reason to have alignment drift and can make for an interesting game
reason 1 is ok because it improves the characters definition
but 3 is not good in a serious gaming group.

[Callista]

Well, it can be difficult if your character has to have some alignment for a class, but you discover his personality forces him to have a different one.

If you're a DM and you encounter this situation, please, please allow your player to rebuild the PC for "free"--uncomfortably squashing him into an alignment category he doesn't fit into will cause inevitable problems.

[Samurai Jill]

It sounds like you have one player on a power trip. He's looking to stroke his own ego by proving he's smarter than everyone else. He wants to "win", but intellectually rather than "physically". Your average mooks in a combat are no real challenge to him, so he's targeting the big fish - the other human players at the table...

I recommend you confront him with a villian immediately...

...As long as you portray the villain as nasty and evil, your wannabe hero players will have no problem taking him down. Throw in a physically intimidating sidekick, or better yet a big, bad entourage.
Unfortunately, there's also a certain category of player for whom situations like this are just as boring as a lack of 'challenge' is for the guy who's turnin' on the other players. Precisely because the BBEG is such a big, obvious, unavoidable target that so clearly needs to be opposed at all costs, players might get the feeling they're being shoved in a particular direction, story-wise, rather than focusing on their characters' inner motives and personal goals.

I'd just chip in with what Callista and others have been saying- 'Alignment Drift' isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I'd add that not being able to predict what characters will do is a largely inevitable side-effect of presenting them with genuine drama. By definition, the more interesting a situation is, the less obvious appropriate reactions to it become, so that players will naturally seize on different solutions- and when their choices genuinely have large-scale, long-term ramifications, any fixed storyline gets shot to hell very quickly. That's not a bad thing, but it does demand a quite different approach from both players and the GM.

[Shpadoinkle]

Anything to report yet?

[BayardSPSR]

Anything to report yet?

... Yes, as a matter of fact. Thank you for reminding me.

Textwall spoilered:
An antagonist's operations are steadily coming to light; it seems to be focusing them. Another player was added, playing a nun (in this system, monks/nuns - who function sorta like D&D monk/clerics - are about as good as they should be). The characters are currently in a convent, completely unarmed, which should keep them peaceful for at least a while.

One of the two bad 'uns (but not the truly problematic 'un) decided to have his character die, and replaced with a new one. I dissuaded him, but he wanted to do it, so I let him - taking him from the most experienced and therefore powerful character in the group to likely the least. I don't know why, but he doesn't seem to be planning on playing this character the same was as the last one.

The good thing about this is that it means that the danger of permanent split is approaching zero (4-1 is a harder split than 2-2), so I'm no longer worried about the group as a whole. Hooray! And I didn't even have to do anything about it...

On the other hand, problematic 'un seems to be settling into his character as is. I didn't discuss it with him as I should have, especially since his crappy CRAPPY anti-optimization became a more immediate problem (I think I mentioned that on another thread). At least he's not a threat to the integrity of the group anymore, which was my problem to begin with. I can afford to lose a player, not a group.

And there is a chance he might end up losing his character. He has a terrible survival instinct. So far, I have dissuaded him from suicide twice, used NPCs to heal him from the brink of death twice, PCs have healed him from the brink of death twice, I've retroactively had an NPC stop him from getting himself killed, and I've tweaked the attitudes of NPCs so that they don't just kill him once. It's getting a bit silly. The next time he reaches the brink of death, he'll have to rely on other players to pull him back (unfortunately likely, since two of them can heal now). This is a character I will no longer try to preserve the life of should it be critically endangered once again.

So... That's what's new. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

[ffone]

Reason #3: The characters were not well defined at the beginning, are not well-defined now, but the players do whatever seems the most advantageous under the circumstances, with no thought to character consistency.



Why is this bad roleplaying? Most people in real life do this - they do whatever is advantageous to themselves in any given situation, limited only by 1. ability 2. reciprocity / reputation / burning bridges 'what they can get away with' 3. for a few, morality.

It just means they probably aren't Good, or haven't been subjected to a situation where a Good character would have to eschew self-interest. But "do whatever seems most advantageous in the circumstances" is fine Neutral or Neutral Evil behavior, depending on what they'll stoop to morally.

If they're metagaming, that's different.

[BayardSPSR]

If they're metagaming, that's different.

This is true, but how would you draw the line/identify/define metagaming? Problem-player may be/have been metagaming; out of the group, he's the experienced D&D player (I say this because the rest don't have the TRPG background to metagame from and know it, meaning that he's the most capable and most likely to do so).

[ffone]

This is true, but how would you draw the line/identify/define metagaming? Problem-player may be/have been metagaming; out of the group, he's the experienced D&D player (I say this because the rest don't have the TRPG background to metagame from and know it, meaning that he's the most capable and most likely to do so).

Metagaming is using knowledge your character doesn't have.

Not having an inchoate character personality. The two are similar b/c they are both bad roleplaying to gain advantage, and often people do them simultaneously "it would be in-character to do X, but since I know the DM loves setting traps that trigger on X..."

Whereas, if your character changes behavior to do what they perceive as being to their advantage, based on in-character information...it's merely either bad roleplaying, or roleplaying an opportunist, depending on how they've portrayed them so far.

[BayardSPSR]

Metagaming is using knowledge your character doesn't have.

Not having an inchoate character personality. The two are similar b/c they are both bad roleplaying to gain advantage, and often people do them simultaneously "it would be in-character to do X, but since I know the DM loves setting traps that trigger on X..."

Whereas, if your character changes behavior to do what they perceive as being to their advantage, based on in-character information...it's merely either bad roleplaying, or roleplaying an opportunist, depending on how they've portrayed them so far.

This is true. The problem in this case is that I'm struggling to determine which of the two it is (being in my head, not his, it's hard to tell).

[ffone]

This is true. The problem in this case is that I'm struggling to determine which of the two it is (being in my head, not his, it's hard to tell).

When I DM, I'll ask the player 'so, why did your player do X?' in as casually and curiously and non-accusingly a way as possible. If their face gets a defensive or dishonest look, and they don't have a good answer, they're probably metagaming.

If they have a good answer based on in-character informations, they're probably not, but players DO tend to combine the two (they can think of a reason their PC *could* choose to do X, but really they are weighing the chance of being the better course of info using meta information.)

The only good soln' I've found is to try to metagame-proof plots by being careful what I real OOC, and trying to avoid certain tropes. I actually sympathize with some metagaming (but that doesn't mean I think they should), b/c players often start to do it when they figure out their DM's tropes. For example, some DMs hate religious or Lawful characters and so any NPC who fits that mold will turn out to be either 1. a 'for the greater good' bad guy' or 2. an incompetent parody.

One breakdown of metagaming I've found is "specific metagaming" vs "statistical metagaming". The former is using things you know about a specific situation, like that the NPC is named after your DM's favorite Hollywood villain and therefore is surely the villain. This is pretty much cheating. "Statistical metagaming" is noticing 'patterns' or 'trends' in the DM's game world that don't match up with your own worldview or what you think of as typical in a normal DnD world. Tropes, really. for example, poor commoners are usually benevolent and rich nobles are usually scheming nasties. Or your DM always makes female NPCs more competent and clever than they first appear (the princess is NEVER a damsel in distress, she's always mary sue, unless she's a succubus in disguise). Or surface drow are always misunderstood CG renegades and never truly evil; instead the shiny-armored human male knights who hunt them are Nazis.

It might be cheating to act on that. OTOH, if your DM always does that, well perhaps the world your PC lives in is like that, and your PC has gotten that sense over their pre-campaign life, and grown up with tales of princesses kicking butt rather than needing to be rescued, or whatever. I sympathize with statistical metagaming b/c it's plausible in-character information (stereotypes they have about their world) and b/c I know it's sooo grating to be on the receiving end of DM tropes and not act on them.

(Although better than trying to metagame it is to politely ask / point it out.)