Alignment saving throws. Fight fate.

[Doomboy911]

So I was reading that anyone who has evil as part of their alignment apparently has to go to the nine rings which came off as odd but unavoidable (I feel there ought to be a sort of division from those who were being evil for the sake of furthering evil and those who are just pricks but that's not what this is about.) The topic I'm proposing is that a character can change his alignment at the last minute. Say for example a paladin gets screwed over law wise and decides to go on a path of destruction and they would be knocked into chaotic evil. (Hypothetical probably happens a lot) But what about the opposite what if a chaotic evil character is just living it up killing and screwing anyone they want and than this evil barbarian finds out he has a daughter and just loves it he honestly cares about something for non evil reasons. Does anyone think this might be grounds for a swap in alignment?

I also wish to discuss alignment as my friend and I differ on opinions. He believes that a chaotic evil character is a rampaging force of doom and destruction that refuses to take logic or common sense in. While I see them as someone who simply cares about himself. He's chaotic as he doesn't care for law and he's evil in that he cares only for himself willing to hurt others if it makes him happy.

What do you think? Can a person swap alignments at the last moment with an act of kindness or evil (or neutrality? I guess) or does it barely matter? And what do you see these alignments as character wise?

[Mystic Muse]

what if a chaotic evil character is just living it up killing and screwing anyone they want and than this evil barbarian finds out he has a daughter and just loves it he honestly cares about something for non evil reasons. Does anyone think this might be grounds for a swap in alignment? No. Evil does not mean incapable of love. If he starts repenting, then it's grounds for an alignment swap.


I also wish to discuss alignment as my friend and I differ on opinions. He believes that a chaotic evil character is a rampaging force of doom and destruction that refuses to take logic or common sense in. While I see them as someone who simply cares about himself. He's chaotic as he doesn't care for law and he's evil in that he cares only for himself willing to hurt others if it makes him happy. The alignments are not defined well enough to say for sure what Chaotic Evil means. There is no specific right way to play a chaotic evil character, so you're both right in a way. Unless either of you are saying "This is the only way to play it" in which case you're wrong.



What do you think? Can a person swap alignments at the last moment with an act of kindness or evil (or neutrality? I guess) or does it barely matter? And what do you see these alignments as character wise?

No. One good act does not undo a lifetime of evil. Only if a character is completely and truly repentant is it grounds for an alignment swap. If a Paladin starts giving them their last rites and the person truly regrets and apologizes for everything they've done, then they might get some form of purgatory before entering heaven, be sent to a neutral afterlife, or be kicked into Hell anyway. It all depends on the DM and their interpretation.

[Little Brother]

No. One good act does not undo a lifetime of evil. Only if a character is completely and truly repentant is it grounds for an alignment swap. If a Paladin starts giving them their last rites and the person truly regrets and apologizes for everything they've done, then they might get some form of purgatory before entering heaven, be sent to a neutral afterlife, or be kicked into Hell anyway. It all depends on the DM and their interpretation.Um, actually... You're allowed to change your alignment whenever you please to whatever you please, whenever you please.

If your DM doesn't like that, there's a convenient little spell called Atonement. Have a contingent Atonement(Or limited wish) for when you die, you become, say, Chaotic Good, then you get to have a Chaotic Good afterlife, regardless. Five hundred XP seems pretty cheap, which also goes to show that melee gets shafted, even in death.

[Duke of URL]

But what about the opposite what if a chaotic evil character is just living it up killing and screwing anyone they want and than this evil barbarian finds out he has a daughter and just loves it he honestly cares about something for non evil reasons. Does anyone think this might be grounds for a swap in alignment?

Absolutely not. Familial relationships have pretty much no bearing on alignment -- it's the attitude toward people outside your immediate circle that really matters. An evil person can love his/her family and still be a total monster to the rest of society.

For someone trying to redeem the evil person, however, it can be leverage to point out that their victims are someone else's family, and how would said evil person feel if someone did to them what he/she is doing to others?

As for the "does CE mean complete psychopath" question, the answer is no. A complete psychopath is CE, but the converse is not necessarily true. A bully who has no use for laws and just does what he/she wants without regard to whether anyone else gets hurt can be CE, just as much as, say, the Heath Ledger version of the Joker is CE. I suppose it's all on the same continuum, but of differing degree.

[Keneth]

Um, actually... You're allowed to change your alignment whenever you please to whatever you please, whenever you please.

If your DM doesn't like that, there's a convenient little spell called Atonement. Have a contingent Atonement(Or limited wish) for when you die, you become, say, Chaotic Good, then you get to have a Chaotic Good afterlife, regardless. Five hundred XP seems pretty cheap, which also goes to show that melee gets shafted, even in death. Actually no, that doesn't work. Atonement only allows you to change someone's alignment to equal the caster's, so casting it on yourself does nothing. You can cast it in order to remove corruption points but the effect is not instantaneous, it requires that you first make amends and give up everything you might have gained for your corrupt actions. Moreover, even if you get someone else to cast atonement on you in order to change your own alignment to good, or if your DM allows you to change it at will, being good does not prevent you from going to the nine hells if you've accumulated enough corruption points in your lifetime.

As a DM, I generally allow my players to choose their starting alignment but after that, it's completely out of their hands. Their alignment is always a reflection of their actions.

[Telonius]

Alignment is a general descriptor. The two axes (Good/Evil and Law/Chaos) are there as a shorthand way of saying, "What sorts of things would this character typically do in any given situation?" It doesn't determine every single action a character will ever do. It is possible for characters of any alignment to commit acts of any other alignment. It's very rare that any single action changes a whole alignment. I think people tend to get the impression that it does, from how often Paladins come up in this kind of argument. Even Fallen Paladins are (usually) still Lawful Good; they've just slipped up and lost their class features for awhile.

An alignment other than neutral is obtained by acting, consistently over time, in ways that favor one of the other alignments. How far out of his way does he go, to do things that are Lawful, or Chaotic, or Good, or Evil? Alignment can change, just as people can. But again, it's really the "consistency over time" aspect that lets you be really sure that a person has actually changed. It's extraordinarily rare that somebody dies just after making that decision to actively affect a change. It would have to be some seriously - and I mean seriously - dramatic and consequential single action for it to change an alignment.

There are a wide range of personalities in each alignment, and a very big range in just how lawful, chaotic, etc., somebody could be. The guy who runs an illegal Awakened Dogfighting ring? Chaotic (against the law) Evil (causing undue suffering). He might even be a very logical person, taking every step he can to make sure he's not caught, maximizing his own profits, and setting the odds in a very methodical manner. Yes, he does occupy the same alignment as the omnicidal maniac; but that doesn't mean he has to be Chaotic Stupid.

[The Glyphstone]

Alignment is a general descriptor. The two axes (Good/Evil and Law/Chaos) are there as a shorthand way of saying, "What sorts of things would this character typically do in any given situation?" It doesn't determine every single action a character will ever do. It is possible for characters of any alignment to commit acts of any other alignment. It's very rare that any single action changes a whole alignment. I think people tend to get the impression that it does, from how often Paladins come up in this kind of argument. Even Fallen Paladins are (usually) still Lawful Good; they've just slipped up and lost their class features for awhile.

An alignment other than neutral is obtained by acting, consistently over time, in ways that favor one of the other alignments. How far out of his way does he go, to do things that are Lawful, or Chaotic, or Good, or Evil? Alignment can change, just as people can. But again, it's really the "consistency over time" aspect that lets you be really sure that a person has actually changed. It's extraordinarily rare that somebody dies just after making that decision to actively affect a change. It would have to be some seriously - and I mean seriously - dramatic and consequential single action for it to change an alignment.

There are a wide range of personalities in each alignment, and a very big range in just how lawful, chaotic, etc., somebody could be. The guy who runs an illegal Awakened Dogfighting ring? Chaotic (against the law) Evil (causing undue suffering). He might even be a very logical person, taking every step he can to make sure he's not caught, maximizing his own profits, and setting the odds in a very methodical manner. Yes, he does occupy the same alignment as the omnicidal maniac; but that doesn't mean he has to be Chaotic Stupid.

Attitude matters as much as actions, though. If he behaves like you said - being careful and methodical, maximizing his profits, calculating the odds - he would just as easily qualify as Neutral Evil, if not Lawful Evil. It's a non-lawful act, but he is committing it in a very Lawful (not lawful) manner.

[Little Brother]

Actually no, that doesn't work. Atonement only allows you to change someone's alignment to equal the caster's, so casting it on yourself does nothing.Oh, huh. Meh. Changing your alignment is still free and at-will by rules.

You can cast it in order to remove corruption points but the effect is not instantaneous, it requires that you first make amends and give up everything you might have gained for your corrupt actions.Uh, no. Reread the spell.

Moreover, even if you get someone else to cast atonement on you in order to change your own alignment to good, or if your DM allows you to change it at will, being good does not prevent you from going to the nine hells if you've accumulated enough corruption points in your lifetime.Good thing Atonement deals with that. Or, alternatively, you could just use all of your spell slots every day for your last, say, week-ish on summoning Celestial Badgers. Problem solved.

As a DM, I generally allow my players to choose their starting alignment but after that, it's completely out of their hands. Their alignment is always a reflection of their actions.So? That's house rules. They don't apply to rules-based discussion.

[Keneth]

Uh, no. Reread the spell.
Uh, yes. Reread Fiendish Codex II. :smalltongue:

You can only cast atonement to remove corruption points after you've made amends, otherwise it does nothing (FCII, p30, Removing Corruption). And even then your alignment must already be non-evil for it to have any effect, plus if you've made any pacts with devils, you might just be flatly denied the opportunity to repent in such a simple manner.


Good thing Atonement deals with that. Or, alternatively, you could just use all of your spell slots every day for your last, say, week-ish on summoning Celestial Badgers. Problem solved.
While casting an [evil] spell always imposes 1 corruption point, casting [good] spells does nothing to remove corruption points.


So? That's house rules. They don't apply to rules-based discussion. Actually there's no hard rules for alignment. Or rather, any rules are house rules based on the suggestions given in within the rulebooks. I was merely stating how I handle alignment in my games, not as a fact.

[Flickerdart]

There are a wide range of personalities in each alignment, and a very big range in just how lawful, chaotic, etc., somebody could be. The guy who runs an illegal Awakened Dogfighting ring? Chaotic (against the law) Evil (causing undue suffering). He might even be a very logical person, taking every step he can to make sure he's not caught, maximizing his own profits, and setting the odds in a very methodical manner. Yes, he does occupy the same alignment as the omnicidal maniac; but that doesn't mean he has to be Chaotic Stupid.
Being lawful has nothing to do with following the law.

[Telonius]

Attitude matters as much as actions, though. If he behaves like you said - being careful and methodical, maximizing his profits, calculating the odds - he would just as easily qualify as Neutral Evil, if not Lawful Evil. It's a non-lawful act, but he is committing it in a very Lawful (not lawful) manner.

I agree that attitude does matter. A Lawful person is more likely to be methodical and plan things carefully, and a Chaotic person is more likely to charge in heedlessly; mainly because of the attitudes that usually result in those alignments. But that doesn't mean that a Chaotic person can't plan, or that a Lawful person has to. Just knowing how to do it, doesn't make you that alignment. (I have frequent dealings with some very Chaotic mathematicians in my day job... )

[Doomboy911]

I agree that attitude does matter. A Lawful person is more likely to be methodical and plan things carefully, and a Chaotic person is more likely to charge in heedlessly; mainly because of the attitudes that usually result in those alignments. But that doesn't mean that a Chaotic person can't plan, or that a Lawful person has to. Just knowing how to do it, doesn't make you that alignment. (I have frequent dealings with some very Chaotic mathematicians in my day job... )

I totally agree my friend he said my one idea for a chaotic evil character would be unbelievable. (This is just a hypothetical not an actual character I want to play). The idea is a chaotic evil character gets sick and tired of lawful paladins stomping him down every time so he goes out and becomes a mercenary (still chaotic since he takes any offer and still evil because he's killing without discretion) he makes an honest days pay until he can afford a house and just live peacfully enjoying some solitude. Maybe he goes out and kills a deer for giggles but other than that he's just alone. My friend said that the chaotic evil character would probably go out of his way to kill his neighbor or something which makes chaotic evil sound like a big dumb killing machine.

[animewatcha]

If it helps any. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

So it isn't 'free' as desired.

[phantomreader42]

Um, actually... You're allowed to change your alignment whenever you please to whatever you please, whenever you please.

If your DM doesn't like that, there's a convenient little spell called Atonement. Have a contingent Atonement(Or limited wish) for when you die, you become, say, Chaotic Good, then you get to have a Chaotic Good afterlife, regardless. Five hundred XP seems pretty cheap, which also goes to show that melee gets shafted, even in death.

This idea amuses me. I don't think Atonement would necessarily work this way, but Limited Wish or Wish might, possibly through duplicating the effect of a Helm of Opposite Alignment. But it would probably only work with CG or CN, if only because anyone in charge of those afterlives (if there is in fact anyone in charge at all, which given the "free spirit" nature there probably isn't) would likely include a "playful trickster" figure who would be amused at such ingenious cheating. If you tried to pull that on the LG gods, they would not be pleased.

[Little Brother]

Uh, yes. Reread Fiendish Codex II. :smalltongue:Ah, sorry. I REALLY hate it when they add new effects in different books.

You can only cast atonement to remove corruption points after you've made amends, otherwise it does nothing (FCII, p30, Removing Corruption). And even then your alignment must already be non-evil for it to have any effect, plus if you've made any pacts with devils, you might just be flatly denied the opportunity to repent in such a simple manner.Okay, this is easy. Kill everyone you've ever wronged, then steal from someone, return what you stole, provide restitution, cast Atonement. There, easy. Salvation through mass murder.

While casting an [evil] spell always imposes 1 corruption point, casting [good] spells does nothing to remove corruption points.Ah, yeah, I totally forgot about that horrible Corruption Point system. Meh, Mass-Murder atonement.

Actually there's no hard rules for alignment. Or rather, any rules are house rules based on the suggestions given in within the rulebooks. I was merely stating how I handle alignment in my games, not as a fact.Read the Atonement spell. Your alignment is always up to you.

This idea amuses me. I don't think Atonement would necessarily work this way, but Limited Wish or Wish might, possibly through duplicating the effect of a Helm of Opposite Alignment.Nope. The Limited Wish was to replicate it. Though, if someone was Good at the start of the game, became evil, then had their alignment change, Atonement would put them back to Good.

But it would probably only work with CG or CN, if only because anyone in charge of those afterlives (if there is in fact anyone in charge at all, which given the "free spirit" nature there probably isn't) would likely include a "playful trickster" figure who would be amused at such ingenious cheating. If you tried to pull that on the LG gods, they would not be pleased.Lawful=Follow rules. They're more likely to allow it, whether they like it or not. Worst comes to worst, you can just Plane Shift out of hell.

So it isn't "free" as desired.Uh, bro?

Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement simply offers a believable way for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively.

[olentu]

As I recall corruption points only matter if your character is lawful.

[Little Brother]

As I recall corruption points only matter if your character is lawful.Nope. That's obiesance points. One page down. Just as stupid as the horrible Corruption Points, which are even worse than Exalted rules, IMO.

[olentu]

Nope. That's obiesance points. One page down. Just as stupid as the horrible Corruption Points, which are even worse than Exalted rules, IMO.

Those are definitely more stupid but that is not what I mean. I mean that the only effect that corruption points actually have on the afterlife you get, that I can recall, is that "Any lawful character who dies with a corruption rating of 9 or higher goes to Baator". So unless I am missing something else corruption points only matter if you are lawful.

[137beth]

Okay, this is easy. Kill everyone you've ever wronged, then steal from someone, return what you stole, provide restitution, cast Atonement. There, easy. Salvation through mass murder.
Killing the people you wronged doesn't count as "making ammends":smallwink:

[Mystic Muse]

Um, actually... You're allowed to change your alignment whenever you please to whatever you please, whenever you please. The text in atonement sates "Normally changing alignment is up to the player." it doesn't say you can change your alignment whenever you please to whatever you please, and if that were true, there would be no point for there to be an atonement spell for the purpose of changing alignment.



If your DM doesn't like that, there's a convenient little spell called Atonement. Have a contingent Atonement(Or limited wish) for when you die, you become, say, Chaotic Good, then you get to have a Chaotic Good afterlife, regardless. Five hundred XP seems pretty cheap, which also goes to show that melee gets shafted, even in death.


The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.

Right in the text of the atonement spell. So, no, if your DM doesn't like it, atonement is not a "Get out of hell free" card by any means.

Also, if you can change your alignment to whatever you want, whenever you want, then melee is no more shafted than casters are, because right as you're dying you can say you're actually Lawful Good and end up going to heaven instead of Hell, Gehenna, the abyss, whatever.

I can't really believe there are DMs that would allow somebody to go through a game playing say, Michael Myers, and then allow the player to say "I'm Lawful Good, I get to go to Heaven." once they died after spending the entire game playing chaotic evil.

[Little Brother]

If I am dying, I will sure as hell be repentant and want to set things right. That's how I get my happy ending. All it says is you have to want those.

And, it says it in Atonement. The alignment change is an RP excuse.

And I don't care if a DM doesn't like it, I am just stating the rules.

And fighters can't use the mass-murder atonement trick, or at least not from their deathbed.

Those are definitely more stupid but that is not what I mean. I mean that the only effect that corruption points actually have on the afterlife you get, that I can recall, is that "Any lawful character who dies with a corruption rating of 9 or higher goes to Baator". So unless I am missing something else corruption points only matter if you are lawful.One would assume chaotic people would go to demonville. I dunno, though. You might just be able to get off with becoming Chaotic Good(The cool afterlife).

Killing the people you wronged doesn't count as "making ammends":smallwink:So? They're no longer alive. You no longer have to make amends to them.

Alternatively, charm/dominate everyone into accepting apologies/forgiving you/whatever is needed.

[Augmental]

So? They're no longer alive. You no longer have to make amends to them.

Ignoring the fact that killing everyone you've wronged in your life would almost definitely get you thrown even farther into the depths of Baator/the Nine Hells from a realistic, non-strict-RAW standpoint, there's still a problem with your plan. How would you find and kill every single sentient being you've ever done something bad to if you're not at least a tier 1 (or highly optimized tier 2) character? And then the friends, family, etc. of those you kill will be saddened, which means you've indirectly wronged them. Now you have to kill them, which saddens their friends and family...

[Flickerdart]

Ignoring the fact that killing everyone you've wronged in your life would almost definitely get you thrown even farther into the depths of Baator/the Nine Hells from a realistic, non-strict-RAW standpoint, there's still a problem with your plan. How would you find and kill every single sentient being you've ever done something bad to if you're not at least a tier 1 (or highly optimized tier 2) character? And then the friends, family, etc. of those you kill will be saddened, which means you've indirectly wronged them. Now you have to kill them, which saddens their friends and family...
Obviously, if you kill everyone before you die, you go to the Seven Heavens.

[olentu]

One would assume chaotic people would go to demonville. I dunno, though. You might just be able to get off with becoming Chaotic Good(The cool afterlife).

Eh considering the whole corruption points thing is made by devils to help them become more powerful, funneling souls to their sworn enemies seems unlikely.

[Little Brother]

Ignoring the fact that killing everyone you've wronged in your life would almost definitely get you thrown even farther into the depths of Baator/the Nine Hells from a realistic, non-strict-RAW standpoint, there's still a problem with your plan. How would you find and kill every single sentient being you've ever done something bad to if you're not at least a tier 1 (or highly optimized tier 2) character? And then the friends, family, etc. of those you kill will be saddened, which means you've indirectly wronged them. Now you have to kill them, which saddens their friends and family...Which is what I was saying about why melee is shafted, even in death.

And simple, kill all of them. Problem solved. Or, order a sentient minion to kill all of the people, you've wronged. There, he wronged their family, not you. Or, you know, you could mindrape the family/friends to forget about them. Nobody harmed. Problem solved.

[Thomasinx]

And, it says it in Atonement. The alignment change is an RP excuse.
Players have full control of their actions, not their alignment. Their actions determine their alignment, but they cant just say "whoops, I'm Lawful Good now!" The text in atonement doesn't say otherwise.

As another proof that players can't just flip alignment as you wish, look at magically induced alignment changes. The players are unable to say "nope!, i switch back to Neutral Good from Neutral Evil" immediately after being cursed. There is a specific line in atonement saying that they have to cast the spell to perform such a switch.


And I don't care if a DM doesn't like it, I am just stating the rules.
I haven't read anything that validates the 'rules' you're stating. You just seem to be stating a specific interpretation of one line in a vague spell. If you want to 'state the rules', then actually state the text of the rules.


Alternatively, charm/dominate everyone into accepting apologies/forgiving you/whatever is needed.
This inherently misses the meaning behind 'making amends'. Making amends is addressing the wrongs you performed, not making more wrongs to cover up the previous ones.

[Aidan305]

If I am dying, I will sure as hell be repentant and want to set things right. That's how I get my happy ending. All it says is you have to want those.
Technically, it says "truly repentant" which means a bit more than "I don't want to go to hell".

It means that you have to realise that you've done wrong, and inflicted suffering. Furthermore, it means that you actually need to regret having done so, not simply because it means you've got a one-way ticket to Hell, but because you've realised how much pain and suffering you've caused…

And I just realised that this argument is circular. My vocabulary doesn't appear to be good today. I suppose the closest thing to it is the Sanctify the Wicked spell from BoED. The person is forced to view their evil deeds over and over again until they realise just what a terrible person they are.

Essentially, what it boils down to is the reason for wanting it. If it's just to escape the Abyss, I don't think that's enough. That's why the spell text suggests that most clergy assign a quest or task to be completed to show that you deserve redemption.

And remember, if the DM doesn't think the character is deserving of it, he can have the intercession with a deity fail.

[Little Brother]

{{scrubbed}}

[Augmental]

Which is what I was saying about why melee is shafted, even in death.

And simple, kill all of them. Problem solved. Or, order a sentient minion to kill all of the people, you've wronged. There, he wronged their family, not you. Or, you know, you could mindrape the family/friends to forget about them. Nobody harmed. Problem solved.

There's still the whole "No sane DM would let you get away with this and it breaks down as soon as you move beyond the realm of pure RAW" thing which I was ignoring for the sake of argument. See also:


Ignoring the fact that killing everyone you've wronged in your life would almost definitely get you thrown even farther into the depths of Baator/the Nine Hells from a realistic, non-strict-RAW standpoint...

[Little Brother]

There's still the whole "No sane DM would let you get away with this and it breaks down as soon as you move beyond the realm of pure RAW" thing which I was ignoring for the sake of argument. See also:So? This is a rules discussion. Here we discuss rules.

Plus, anyways, the XP gain would probably let you take over Baator.

[Doomboy911]

Hmm many valuable points but I have to ask could something such as benevolent love give chance for an alignment swap. Perhaps the chaotic evil barbarian gets a dog that he simply loves he cares for it feeds it good food treats it right and everything. Is that enough to knock him into chaotic neutral or even good? What if he starts to think that if he goes committing crimes they might take his dog from him or take him from his dog. So he stops doing them for the dog, is that enough?

[Fouredged Sword]

Just sit in a church of Pelor for a few hours and willing fail your will save vs conversion (BoED rule). Two failed saves and your alignment shifts from CE to CG.

[daemonaetea]

The one assumption that's being made here is that it's your alignment at death, and only your alignment at death, that matters for determining where a character gets to chill while waiting to be res'd. I honestly don't know the rules for this. Is that the case, or are there considerations beyond that?

[LadyLexi]

Bah, you all seem to have forgotten the easiest thing to do to get out of any sort of afterlife problems is to become immortal. Wish (change yourself into a creature that doesn't die of age), Lichdom, or the hardest deityhood are all wonderful escapes from the ravages of death. Of course you must still contend with being killed, but that's what leadership is for, so that your loving/fearful minions will have you brought back (again, wish).

To paraphrase: screw alignment, I have gold.

[animewatcha]

Something is a fan of CardGamesFTW :)

Isn't it in the DMG that DM has free reign to bring the 'NO' hammer on certain aspects of games like this alignment stuff or whatever rules he/she feels like?

[Doomboy911]

Something is a fan of CardGamesFTW :)

Isn't it in the DMG that DM has free reign to bring the 'NO' hammer on certain aspects of games like this alignment stuff or whatever rules he/she feels like?

Yes but it's a matter of whether it's justified. If the dm sets down a set of rules about how the world works and than says that other than that we run by the book than just because the dm doesn't like it it has to be stopped. DMs have to learn to be fluid if you make the players an adventure and they decide to head off in a different direction because it suits him for his character and the dm thinks it's going to head away from the adventure and just has him hit a wall that he can't get around the player will get mad. What he has to do is build an environment and than put the players in let them play.

[Augmental]

Yes but it's a matter of whether it's justified. If the dm sets down a set of rules about how the world works and than says that other than that we run by the book than just because the dm doesn't like it it has to be stopped. DMs have to learn to be fluid if you make the players an adventure and they decide to head off in a different direction because it suits him for his character and the dm thinks it's going to head away from the adventure and just has him hit a wall that he can't get around the player will get mad. What he has to do is build an environment and than put the players in let them play.

In my opinion, the DM would be perfectly justified in saying "NO" to letting you kill everyone you ever wronged so you don't have to make amends to them, therefore somehow letting you go to heaven.

[Bovine Colonel]

So? They're no longer alive. You no longer have to make amends to them.

Where does it say you no longer have to make amends to someone just because they're dead?

[Little Brother]

Where does it say you no longer have to make amends to someone just because they're dead?Fine. Flesh to Stone, Stone to Mud, Purify Water. There. They no longer exist. Nothing to make amends to. Problem solved.

[Qwertystop]

Fine. Flesh to Stone, Stone to Mud, Purify Water. There. They no longer exist. Nothing to make amends to. Problem solved.

Or, if you're really that dedicated to this, take enough levels in Truenamer to make it so that everybody you have ever wronged ceases to exist entirely and retroactively.

Finally, something Truenamer is good for!

[Little Brother]

Or, if you're really that dedicated to this, take enough levels in Truenamer to make it so that everybody you have ever wronged ceases to exist entirely and retroactively.

Finally, something Truenamer is good for!How does this work? I'm not seeing it.

[Qwertystop]

How does this work? I'm not seeing it.

Isn't there some high-level utterance that Unnames someone?

[Little Brother]

Isn't there some high-level utterance that Unnames someone?Nope. That's a 9th level spell.

Truenamers still get a basically at-will Gate at level 20, though.

[Qwertystop]

Nope. That's a 9th level spell.

Truenamers still get a basically at-will Gate at level 20, though.

So the most powerful thing about truenaming other than the Gate is actually not truenaming?

Wow.

[Little Brother]

So the most powerful thing about truenaming other than the Gate is actually not truenaming?

Wow.Pretty much...

[Flickerdart]

Fine. Flesh to Stone, Stone to Mud, Purify Water. There. They no longer exist. Nothing to make amends to. Problem solved.
I think the reason you're confused is that you think longer being able to make amends means you do not have to do so, which is the exact opposite of how things stand. If you undo someone from existence without making amends, then you can never make said amends. The need for them to ease your karmic debt does not somehow dissipate.

[Little Brother]

I think the thing you are confused about is that no longer being able to make amends means you do not have to do so, which is the exact opposite of how things stand. If you undo someone from existence without making amends, then you can never make said amends. The need for them to ease your karmic debt does not somehow dissipate.No. You still need to make amends. You don't need them to do it, since they no longer exist. I suppose Unname might work better. Or mindrape/dominate their forgiveness, though that's not as fun as mass-murder.

[Hecuba]

It doesn't matter. Covering up the wrongs mean there are no wrongs to make amends for.

No, covering it up would mean getting away with it. Making amends for your wrongs means attempting to right your wrongs to the best of your abilities, even those wrongs you got away with.

And, for example, if your abilities include disolving a petrified person into mud, the best of your abilities probably includes some way of attempting to bring them back-- if nothing else, you can probably find a way to procure some wishes or miracles even if you cannot cast them yourself.

[Flickerdart]

No. You still need to make amends. You don't need them to do it, since they no longer exist. I suppose Unname might work better. Or mindrape/dominate their forgiveness, though that's not as fun as mass-murder.
If you concede that you still have to make amends even if they're destroyed, how does killing them change anything? You still haven't made any amends.

[ryu]

Well technically if they're unnamed they retroactively don't exist and you never harmed them in any way. Like literally not even the gods themselves aware of some theoretical existence don't exist.

[Flickerdart]

Well technically if they're unnamed they retroactively don't exist and you never harmed them in any way. Like literally not even the gods themselves aware of some theoretical existence don't exist.
That is not how unname works. That isn't even close to how it works. All it does is destroy the true name of the target, making them slightly more difficult than normal to resurrect.


You missed my point. The rules say you need to make amends. It never actually specifically states who. If they're dead, or nonexistent, you can't make amends to them, so all you need to do is find something that you do need to make amends for, do it, and you're golden.
That is not how amends work and you will have great difficulty convincing anyone otherwise.

[Little Brother]

If you concede that you still have to make amends even if they're destroyed, how does killing them change anything? You still haven't made any amends.You missed my point. The rules say you need to make amends. It never actually specifically states who. If they're dead, or nonexistent, you can't make amends to them, so all you need to do is find something that you do need to make amends for, do it, and you're golden.

[Doomboy911]

Hmm I wonder what I killed thge people I wronged then dug them their graves and than made them lovely headstones.

[Little Brother]

That is not how unname works. That isn't even close to how it works. All it does is destroy the true name of the target, making them slightly more difficult than normal to resurrect.According to the flavor text, which has no grounds, he is right. The flavor text is rather specific. Though I must say, Necrotic Termination is a better one to use for this.

That is not how amends work and you will have great difficulty convincing anyone otherwise.Pretty sure it does. You only need to make amends. It isn't very specific.

[ryu]

Well jeez... I thought they at least made uname somewhat similar to its flavor text. Then again hey this is 3.5 we're talking about. Cat's have a good chance of winning in one on one combat with a level one wizard out of spells for the day. Any skeptics? Do the math for that creature in the encounter. The results are hilarious.

[Flickerdart]

According to the flavor text, which has no grounds, he is right. The flavor text is rather specific. Though I must say, Necrotic Termination is a better one to use for this.
The flavor text is referring specifically to the completeness of the creature's destruction, referred to in the previous entire paragraph. Very tenuous grounding indeed for claiming that it ought to retroactively eliminate the creature's existence from the timeline.

[ryu]

Wait wasn't tenuous stuff like that the basis of countless rules debates over the years? Haven't we seen positions defended tooth and nail with the same level of grounding?

[Flickerdart]

Wait wasn't tenuous stuff like that the basis of countless rules debates over the years? Haven't we seen positions defended tooth and nail with the same level of grounding?
I challenge you to find a single instance where people have argued that a sentence of fluff, taken out of context, allows you to perform feats of magic beyond salient divine abilities.

[KnightOfV]

Hmm many valuable points but I have to ask could something such as benevolent love give chance for an alignment swap. Perhaps the chaotic evil barbarian gets a dog that he simply loves he cares for it feeds it good food treats it right and everything. Is that enough to knock him into chaotic neutral or even good? What if he starts to think that if he goes committing crimes they might take his dog from him or take him from his dog. So he stops doing them for the dog, is that enough?

No way in hell (bad pun.) Look at Belkar, he loves his cat- even shows some signs of softening a little. Doesn't keep him from being CE at all, just means he has developed a small compassionate side in his psycho killer persona.

I see villains all the time who love people, even are influenced by their loved ones to be slightly less evil. It does not change that at the end of the day, they perform evil actions and those actions have consequences (in this game, alignment/afterlife). Redemption is a long, drawn out process having to live with guilt and day by day making yourself into a different person breaking old habits and finding ways to atone. I do not think deathbed alignment shifts are worth anything, as even by RAW it is acts not intentions that determine alignment. If someone really wanted to atone, they would not be satisfied with their cleric buddy waving his hand, spending some xp and then POOF! Forgiveness! They would have to work for it and have to want it.

Atonement as a story or character arc is awesome. Atonement as a spell is a lame experience tax so Paladins can get class features back when their DM screws them.

[Twilightwyrm]

In theory, but it would need to be a very very good act in order to begin tipping the balance within the current alignment context. See, the problem is that alignment tends to be fluid in the evil direction, but sticky in the good direction (same, but to a significantly lesser extant for chaos and law respectively).
The problem is not actually with the game mechanic itself; if we were cold, emotionless mathematical beings, than it would theoretically be perfectly possible for someone to go from point E (evil) to point G (good) with an act significantly in keeping with the parameters of G. The "problem", so to speak, is with the fact that we are people, I would like to think generally good people, and the thing about people is that we can't help but be judgmental. This isn't about being zealous, uncompromising, or unjustly judgmental, this is more about a sense of, for lack of a better word, fairness. We are willing to judge someone who just started behaving like a prick as acting in an unfair manner, since they are now treating everyone else unfairly. We are loath, however, to treat someone who has been a gigantic prick as now a fair individual, since we don't wish to let them inherit any reward their unfairness might have garnered, and more to the point, are wary of possible exploitation. Hence we tend to judge a fair person who has become unfair, and an unfair person, with the same general indignation, but not the fair person, and the previously unfair person. This is why both "redemption" exists, so that the person has demonstrated, at their own risk, their commitment to acting in a fair manner, and thus so that us generally "fair" people have something to point to both make up for the past unfairness, and guarantee that we will be willing to trust this person as "fair" in the future.

[whibla]

There's some interesting opinions in this thread, and a number of people 'appealing' to the rules. So here's a few quotes from the basic books:

PHB, pg. 104.
If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions.

DMG, pg. 134.
Alignment Change Is Gradual: Changes in alignment should not be drastic. Usually, a character changes alignment only one step at a time...
Time Requirements: Changing alignment usually takes time. Changes of heart are rarely sudden (although they can be)...

PHB, pg. 201.
Atonement: This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant...
...Redemption or Temptation: You may cast this (version of) the spell on a creature of an opposing alignment in order to offer it a chance to change its alignment to match yours...this use of atonement simply offers a believable way for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively.

I sometimes wonder we're all playing the same game, when people suggest things such as Contingency (When a draw my last breath): Atonement, and somehow suggest that will automagically make them Lawful Good for example. Or that loving a dog will move them from Chaotic Evil to Lawful Good. I'm absolutely sure that Ernst Stavro Blofeld loved his white cat, but he sure as hell wasn't Lawful Good, nor even Chaotic Good...

At the end of the day though, most of alignment is a role playing issue. If you try to rules lawyer your way out of whatever hell the DM decides you're going to the chances are you deserve to be there!

[Little Brother]

Rules are rules regardless of whether you like them. "Usually," means nothing if the rules gives you a way around it. I'm sorry if you dislike RAW, but it is RAW.

[whibla]

Rules are rules regardless of whether you like them. "Usually," means nothing if the rules gives you a way around it. I'm sorry if you dislike RAW, but it is RAW.

I'm more than a little amused that you can quote a single word from my post, and use it to dismiss the content of the rest. More so that you can imply from my post that I dislike RAW. Quite the opposite. While I'm happy to powergame occasionally, adopting a snippet from here, a juicy bit from there, liberally interpreting this rule, ignoring that rule, and so on, I actually prefer the 'basic' rules. The imbalances that some of the supplements have created in the game make many sessions and encounters into a farce. Worse, all too often people read or see what they want to see, rather than what is actually written: case in point being your contingency - atonement.

But rules are rules you say? Well then, I shall quote one more for you:

"You are the master of the game - the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately the fun."

Any debate or argument that comes down to "but that's what it says in the rules" is trumped by the one that says "I'm the DM, and this is what I say!" because that's also what it says in the rules.

We all play to have fun, and sure, arguing about the rules can be fun, but only to a certain point. Once that point has been reached the DM's decision should be the final word on the matter.

[Little Brother]

Okay, tell you what: When you find a DM unanimously voted by the playground to be the final arbiter of sense, RAI, and rules, I'll take whatever a DM says seriously in a RAW discussion. Until then, though, keep whatever some DM says at your table, and out of RAW discussions, please.

[whibla]

I haven't mentioned a single house rule, nor referenced any DM decision, personal or otherwise, in anything I have posted so far.

I'm not sure how giving my interpretations on the matter of how alignments can change in-game, or quoting excerpts from the rule books to counter someone else's interpretations on the matter, yours among them, would give you that impression.

I'm sorry if I offended you by disagreeing with some of your suggestions, notably the contingency - atonement, but maybe, instead of disparaging my posts, or suggesting that they do not belong on the forum because not everyone will agree with my interpretation of the rules (as written) you could back up your interpretation of them with quotes and explanations, show me where my lack of understanding lies.

Please?

[Little Brother]

In the above post? Usually. Usually does not mean always. Usually means no rules restrict it. It gives rules that you can change your alignment to whatever whenever. It says this is rare, but that has exactly no relevance to the rules. You can have a "Sudden change of heart" because of a blue spot on a hamburger, or otherwise just 'cuz you feel like it.

Do you dispute this thing clearly state in the text you quoted?

The Atonement at the end of life it to clear corruption points.

[whibla]

You are quite correct, usually does not mean always. It is quite possible for an alignment shift to be abrupt, immediate, and radical.

With regards to the atonement spell though, I still disagree with your interpretation.

Atonement may be cast for one of several purposes, depending on the version selected:
Reverse Magical Alignment Change - not relevant to the situation described
Restore Class - not relevant to the situation described
Restore Cleric or Druid Spell Powers - not relevant to the situation described
Redemption or Temptation - the one I quoted, and the only one relevant to the situation described. You cast the spell, and the creature has the option of changing alignment to match yours. If you're evil and you cast it on yourself, you're not going to change to good. Corruption points or no corruption points evil is evil...

[Little Brother]

Read Fiendish Codex II(Or is it I, I forget). Corruption points. Atonement is the way to get rid of them. Specifically stated there, no interpretation.

[Augmental]

In the above post? Usually. Usually does not mean always. Usually means no rules restrict it. It gives rules that you can change your alignment to whatever whenever. It says this is rare, but that has exactly no relevance to the rules. You can have a "Sudden change of heart" because of a blue spot on a hamburger, or otherwise just 'cuz you feel like it.

I'd love to see how this would go in an actual game.

Evil Player (on deathbed): As I draw my last breath, my Contingent Atonement activates and switches my alignment over to Lawful Good.
DM: Okay, you become Lawful Good just before your death. Before you is Celestia. However, the celestials refuse to let you in because you used a loophole to try and get out of hell. Nice try, though.

[whibla]

Read Fiendish Codex II(Or is it I, I forget). Corruption points. Atonement is the way to get rid of them. Specifically stated there, no interpretation.

It is Fiendish codex II:
"A character with a corruption rating of 4 or higher must employ all the above remedies and also receive an atonement spell to ransom back his soul from Baator"
...the above remedies being...
"Good and neutral characters can remove corruption points by undergoing a program of repentance under the guidance of a qualified spiritual advisor (a cleric, paladin, or druid). A character with a corruption rating of 3 can reduce it to 0 by giving up all benefits gained from the act of corruption, offering a sincere apology to those harmed, and making a donation to the spiritual advisor's church...in addition the spiritual advisor must assign an active gesture of repentance, such as self-scourging, fasting, a period of silent retreat, or a dangerous quest against the forces of evil..."

I guess there's two points I'd make here. Firstly, as the rules clearly state, this applies to good and neutral characters only. Short of finding a clear ruling elsewhere one can only assume that evil characters are still bound for hell when they die, whether they have lost their corruption points, assuming they ever gained any, or not. Secondly, other than that mention of which alignments this rule applies to, there's no mention of any change in alignment in the process of shedding those corruption points.

However, based on what you wrote right at the start, I have thought of a way in which it might be possible. You were basically right, actually, and I'm sorry for disparaging your idea. It goes like this:
Shapechange into an outsider with the Good (better yet Lawful Good, but I can't think of any that have both tbh) subtype, such as an Astral Deva. This does actually change your alignment, as Angels (with the good subtype) can no more be evil than demons with the evil subtype be good. Now cast your Contingency - Atonement...et voila!
As long as you die before the contingency runs out you will have the option, with your last spark of conciousness, to change alignment to one of the flavours of Good, and head to heaven.

So, back to one of the original scenarios, the Barbarian. It would require a few magic items, to make up for the lack of the necessary spell casting capability, but, within the letter of the rules, it can be done...

[Doomboy911]

Well the only rules I really cared about were the standards of alignment and the dm. I'm wondering what justifies a change if an unrelated good act can have an affect on a character. Like say a chaotic evil character goes out of his way to kill a eviler chaotic evil character and becomes celebrated by the townsfolk he chills there taking the food they offer and just retelling the tale of how much he killed that guy. Another evil person comes along and terrorizes the townsfolk and they come to the chaotic evil guy and ask him to save them. He gladly goes and kills the evil guy and becomes their champion. He's doing evil but is celebrated for it alignment change to CN?

[Augmental]

However, based on what you wrote right at the start, I have thought of a way in which it might be possible. You were basically right, actually, and I'm sorry for disparaging your idea. It goes like this:
Shapechange into an outsider with the Good (better yet Lawful Good, but I can't think of any that have both tbh) subtype, such as an Astral Deva. This does actually change your alignment, as Angels (with the good subtype) can no more be evil than demons with the evil subtype be good. Now cast your Contingency - Atonement...et voila!
As long as you die before the contingency runs out you will have the option, with your last spark of conciousness, to change alignment to one of the flavours of Good, and head to heaven.

Why is everyone trying to find loopholes to get out of hell?!

[Little Brother]

It is Fiendish codex II:
"A character with a corruption rating of 4 or higher must employ all the above remedies and also receive an atonement spell to ransom back his soul from Baator"
...the above remedies being...
"Good and neutral characters can remove corruption points by undergoing a program of repentance under the guidance of a qualified spiritual advisor (a cleric, paladin, or druid). A character with a corruption rating of 3 can reduce it to 0 by giving up all benefits gained from the act of corruption, offering a sincere apology to those harmed, and making a donation to the spiritual advisor's church...in addition the spiritual advisor must assign an active gesture of repentance, such as self-scourging, fasting, a period of silent retreat, or a dangerous quest against the forces of evil..."Dominate a cleric. Problem solved.

I guess there's two points I'd make here. Firstly, as the rules clearly state, this applies to good and neutral characters only. Short of finding a clear ruling elsewhere one can only assume that evil characters are still bound for hell when they die, whether they have lost their corruption points, assuming they ever gained any, or not. Secondly, other than that mention of which alignments this rule applies to, there's no mention of any change in alignment in the process of shedding those corruption points.Change alignment first, since it's free.

However, based on what you wrote right at the start, I have thought of a way in which it might be possible. You were basically right, actually, and I'm sorry for disparaging your idea. It goes like this:
Shapechange into an outsider with the Good (better yet Lawful Good, but I can't think of any that have both tbh) subtype, such as an Astral Deva. This does actually change your alignment, as Angels (with the good subtype) can no more be evil than demons with the evil subtype be good. Now cast your Contingency - Atonement...et voila!
As long as you die before the contingency runs out you will have the option, with your last spark of conciousness, to change alignment to one of the flavours of Good, and head to heaven.You still have to deal with corruption points(which, really, every single person in the universe should go to hell following those rules), which is why my way is easier.

So, back to one of the original scenarios, the Barbarian. It would require a few magic items, to make up for the lack of the necessary spell casting capability, but, within the letter of the rules, it can be done...You still need to get the cleric, and offer a sincere apology to bajillions of people. But, mostly, you didn't get to rule the world.

Why is everyone trying to find loopholes to get out of hell?!Because it's easy-ish, and hell doesn't sound very fun, yknow.

[ryu]

Someone challenged me to find an argument which has been made over fluff to determine whether or not such powerful abilities are obtainable? Keep in mind we never said the argument had to run in favor of the fluff proponents when it ended. The ages old kobold true dragon argument. The last thread did actually manage to end unanimously ruling in favor of not true dragons, but it was for the most part a fluff argument over the abilities to take certain templates and defy nature. Satisfied?

[Flickerdart]

Someone challenged me to find an argument which has been made over fluff to determine whether or not such powerful abilities are obtainable? Keep in mind we never said the argument had to run in favor of the fluff proponents when it ended. The ages old kobold true dragon argument. The last thread did actually manage to end unanimously ruling in favor of not true dragons, but it was for the most part a fluff argument over the abilities to take certain templates and defy nature. Satisfied?
Not fluff, not based on a single sentence, not more powerful than the best god-magic. Not satisfied at all.

[ryu]

You never specified single sentence. You also never specified god magic. You specified abilities. Further large portions of that argument were actually based purely on fluff components. More like many individual arguments on a broad subject than one massive one.

Further when I made my first post in this line I never specified intended goals. I merely said arguments fought tooth and nail over fluff. Case in point various threads about mechanical bans or houserules for fluff reasons. Oh and the fluffiest topic that gets the most attention would probably be alignment threads. That's with the stipulation of alignment threads which aren't talking about spells or items that interact with alignment or the mechanical benefits of such things. I'm talking about entire alignment debates over characters who have no mechanical stake on alignment.

[Augmental]

You never specified single sentence. You also never specified god magic. You specified abilities.


I challenge you to find a single instance where people have argued that a sentence of fluff, taken out of context, allows you to perform feats of magic beyond salient divine abilities.

A sentence = single sentence. As for god magic, that's basically what salient divine abilities are.

[ryu]

Okay I concede the single sentence part (misread during a meal), but divine abilities cover a much wider range than magic. Fir example the ability to get entire cultures behind a given cause in a matter of minutes if they so chose. They aren't just magic. There position grants some of the most powerful diplomancy imaginable.

[Flickerdart]

You are so distant from the point that you're going to have to cash out for a trans-continental flight. Your claim was that positions were defended "tooth and nail" in "countless debates" "over the years" based on a similar grounding (a single sentence of fluff, taken out of context). And yet you cannot provide a single instance of such a thing occurring.

[Doomboy911]

Repeat the question flickerdart I feel like I have the answer.

[Flickerdart]

Repeat the question flickerdart I feel like I have the answer.
This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13367096&postcount=58) is the post in question.

[Doomboy911]

Alright homebrewing for starters real world physics to argue rules in dungeons & dragons.

[Flickerdart]

I'm afraid I'm having trouble parsing your sentence. Would you care to be more specific?

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'm afraid I'm having trouble parsing your sentence.

Yes. It sounds like you want us to create real world physics so that they can argue about the rules of D&D. Which doesn't make sense.

[Doomboy911]

Sorry about that. I meant to say people have argued countless times about the physics and how they applied to dungeons and dragons. Also homebrewing from stories that a character is so very powerful that when brought into dnd terms it's beyond divine powers.

[Flickerdart]

Physics are explicitly supported by a rule in the DMG that, where D&D rules have nothing to say, real world physics are used. So that's not the same thing at all.

As for homebrew, it's irrelevant.

[animewatcha]

You are so distant from the point that you're going to have to cash out for a trans-continental flight. Your claim was that positions were defended "tooth and nail" in "countless debates" "over the years" based on a similar grounding (a single sentence of fluff, taken out of context). And yet you cannot provide a single instance of such a thing occurring.

Does monk proficiency in unarmed strikes and/or flurry + TWF + only 'monk-style unarmed strike' count?

[Flickerdart]

No, because it meets none of the parameters provided. The monk got shafted with unclear rules, but it's still purely a rules issue - and at any rate, it doesn't break the game in any way.

[Aidan305]

However, based on what you wrote right at the start, I have thought of a way in which it might be possible. You were basically right, actually, and I'm sorry for disparaging your idea. It goes like this:
Shapechange into an outsider with the Good (better yet Lawful Good, but I can't think of any that have both tbh) subtype, such as an Astral Deva. This does actually change your alignment, as Angels (with the good subtype) can no more be evil than demons with the evil subtype be good. Now cast your Contingency - Atonement...et voila!
I'm fairly certain there's at least one good fiend in 3rd ed canon (One of the Dragon Magazine articles on the Town of Ecstacy has a NG Ultroloth IIRC). Which means that creatures with the evil subtype can be good, rendering your process invalid.

It's an interesting thought exercise though.

[whibla]

I'm fairly certain there's at least one good fiend in 3rd ed canon (One of the Dragon Magazine articles on the Town of Ecstacy has a NG Ultroloth IIRC). Which means that creatures with the evil subtype can be good, rendering your process invalid.

It's an interesting thought exercise though.

I had actually already spotted the flaw in my plan. :smalleek:

The description of the Good alignment subtype reads: ...Most creatures that have this subtype also have good alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype."

So yes, my statement was flat out wrong! Ah well, great fun to be had when you're evil, sucks to be you when you die...


Well the only rules I really cared about were the standards of alignment and the dm. I'm wondering what justifies a change if an unrelated good act can have an affect on a character. Like say a chaotic evil character goes out of his way to kill a eviler chaotic evil character and becomes celebrated by the townsfolk he chills there taking the food they offer and just retelling the tale of how much he killed that guy. Another evil person comes along and terrorizes the townsfolk and they come to the chaotic evil guy and ask him to save them. He gladly goes and kills the evil guy and becomes their champion.

What justifies a change of alignment? Short of the odd cursed magic item, and the Atonement spell, very very little, short of a long(ish) period of time in which the character is acting within the bounds of a different alignment to the one he, nominally, currently is. But, the situation you describe would be a good starting point.


He's doing evil but is celebrated for it alignment change to CN?

{Fluff and opinion}

In what way is he still doing evil? Killing evil guys isn't evil. Heck, in politically realistic campaigns even killing good guys (on the field of battle, honouring the rules of war etc.) isn't evil. Now, if he's still acting like the local bully, terrorising the town's folk, raping the women, helping himself to whatever possessions take his fancy, then, undoubtedly, he's still doing evil, and his alignment should remain so. If, on the other hand, the small kindnesses that the town's folk have shown him have touched his heart, and he starts to show them some consideration in return, starts thinking of other people's wants and desires, and perhaps even putting them on the same level as his own, then yes, he's well on the way to becoming neutral (of one flavour or another). There is a long history of such acts in much of our literature / film etc. Think of the archetype of the gunslinger / bandit type in Westerns who becomes the town Sheriff, and ends up saving the town from certain (if not fiery) doom. Sounds very much like the situation you're describing.

{/Fluff and opinion}