PCs changing alignment

[Myou]

After a series of chaotic acts, coupled with a generally chaotic attitude and personality, today I told a player that his character is moving from NG to CG.

I told him that if he continues to be so chaotic that soon he'll be CG, if he doesn't want that he just needs to be less chaotic. He was fine with that and said CG suited him better anyway.


It got me wondering, how do you handle PCs whose actions run contrary to their alignment? Do you warn them like I did, or spring it on the when you feel they tip the scale? Or do you even tell the at all? Or do you even choose to allow them to just declare their alignment regardless of their actions?

[Zincorium]

Alignment is a declaration of intent by a player. That's it, really.

Sometimes a character, in practice, just doesn't fit a description applied at character creation. They should realize this change, and so should you, and then it's changed. This doesn't mean the DM isn't allowed to be annoyed- it's the same as the player saying they're going to be a fighter and then playing a fighter 1/wizard x. Some irritation is acceptable.

Making alignment actually matter in the game is a bad decision most of the time (the straightjacket is still a straightjacket even if it fits) and worrying about anything but a clear difference between behavior and stated alignment should be reserved for games where some sort of high standard is demanded, as in a BoED-based game.

[Neithan]

Well, I would handle it exactly like you did.

Tell the player that I think another alignment might more accurately describe his characters actions and personalty and either he adjusts his character sheet or rethinks how to play the character, if he wants to keep the alignment, for any reason.

And if he says, "no, I like it this way, just lets correct the entry on the sheet", than do just that. If it happens once or twice in the characters lifetime, I see no problem. But if he jumps from lawful to chaotic or from good to evil every so often, I would probably say the alignment is chaotic neutral (or good or evil), and he just has one of his "good days". But it will pass.

[krossbow]

I'd had a player with a monk who murdered homeless people and orphans to feed their souls to his sentient weapon insist that he was lawful good once based merely on the argument that they were A. a blight on society and B. they were suffering.



Good times, good times.

[Waylor]

I use a point system, like NWN

0-29 Evil/Chaotic
30-70 Neutral/Neutral
71-100 Good/Lawful

Neutrals start at 50
Evil/Chaotic start at 15
Good/Lawful start at 85

Examples:

LG = 85/85
CN = 15/50
NE = 50/15

If the action is "next" to your alignment (NG -> CG) your alignment move 1-5 points.

If the action is 2 steps from your alignment (LG -> LE) your alignment moves 5-15 points.

If the action is more than 2 steps from your alignment (NE -> LG) your alignment moves 15-30 points.

Actions of your own alignment give 1-5 to make it stronger (closer to 0-50-100). A LG paladin wich roles it properly will end with a 100/100, so it will be really hard to him to change to another alignment. In that case the player must tell the dm that he wants the points.

It works great for our group, they just have to write 2 numbers in their sheet next to alignment :P

[VelvetThunder]

Alignment is a declaration of intent by a player. That's it, really.

Bingo! You nailed it.

I've always just used them as a reminder to the player of how they wanted to act. Unless they are going directly against their alignment, like being Lawful good and killing every guard in the town out of spite... Then I don't worry about it too much.

[Cheesegear]

It got me wondering, how do you handle PCs whose actions run contrary to their alignment? Do you warn them like I did, or spring it on the when you feel they tip the scale? Or do you even tell the at all? Or do you even choose to allow them to just declare their alignment regardless of their actions?

Unless the player has a set of abilities/classes, spells or items that specifically function only if the alignment is x (i.e; Paladin's Must be Lawful Good, for the obvious example), then the alignment doesn't matter. Let them play how they like. And, if they're too evil (why players go that direction is beyond me...Well, no it isn't. But, it's a stupid reason), and they're ruining your campaign, you should break out the Warforged Paladin with his Repeater Crossbow (RoboCop), and blast them to bits.

If their erratic behaviour (resulting in an alignment shift) would result in being detrimental to their character's abilities; Then yes, I think it would be Good Form to warn your player. Or, simply allow them to 'happen upon' a Phylactery of Faithfulness.

'Big Actions' should not be preceded/followed by a warning. You should be able to pick situations. Most DMs ask "You sure?" which in most players' minds - or should, at least - means "Maybe that's not such a good idea." Don't tell them what could happen; If they're set on killing babies, they should know that results in an alignment shift.

Point system, like NWN

Problem with that is, a player can change alignments four or five times a day. Depending on how close s/he is to a 'shift' increment.

[Myou]

I'd had a player with a monk who murdered homeless people and orphans to feed their souls to his sentient weapon insist that he was lawful good once based merely on the argument that they were A. a blight on society and B. they were suffering.



Good times, good times.

Priceless. xD

In my game that's what we call 'suicide'.

...

Gosh, you really put a lot of effort into it. :3

[Ellye]

When I DM, my PCs character sheet usually doesn't have any alignment written on them. I know their alignment based on their personality and actions, and that's enough. "Hard-labeling" it just makes it fell like a straightjacket.

[horseboy]

I handle it by not using alignments.

[Tsotha-lanti]

It got me wondering, how do you handle PCs whose actions run contrary to their alignment? Do you warn them like I did, or spring it on the when you feel they tip the scale? Or do you even tell the at all? Or do you even choose to allow them to just declare their alignment regardless of their actions?

Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. The player gets to play their character any way they like, and the DM needs to inform them of alignment changes as appropriate. The responsibility to not create a character that cannot abide by their own alignment restrictions is on the player.

I wouldn't say it's a declaration of intent, as such; it has game-mechanics effects. Choosing your alignment at character creation is a declaration of intent, but after that, it's a descriptor of the character's deeds and attitudes (both actions and their reasons).

[Zincorium]

I handle it by not using alignments.

Same, unless the others insist.

But I do use allegiances, from D20 Modern, which allow the D&D alignments without requiring them for the most part.

[ShadowFighter15]

Gosh, you really put a lot of effort into it. :3

Actually I think that's precisely how it works in the game (not sure about the actual values of each shift though; I'd have to go into the toolset to find that out and I've never liked such tools).

[Farlion]

I only pay attention to those alignments tied to classes. For instance, if a monk starts being too chaotic, I'd warn him, if he continues to be chaotic, well... his problem.

On the other hand, if a paladin willingly commits an evil task, I wouldn't warn him, I'd just tell him, your allignment has changed to evil, you lose your paladin powers.
I'd then offer him a way to regain his alignment doing some task, which I think is a pretty nice adventure hook ;-)


So, yes, I change my PCs alignment if it actually has an impact on their character, but if a true neutral wizard does both evil or good deeds, I wouldn't care changing his alignment, he'd just have to deal with the other consequences of his deeds.

Cheers,
Farlion

[ShadowFighter15]

I only pay attention to those alignments tied to classes. For instance, if a monk starts being too chaotic, I'd warn him, if he continues to be chaotic, well... his problem.

On the other hand, if a paladin willingly commits an evil task, I wouldn't warn him, I'd just tell him, your allignment has changed to evil, you lose your paladin powers.
I'd then offer him a way to regain his alignment doing some task, which I think is a pretty nice adventure hook ;-)


So, yes, I change my PCs alignment if it actually has an impact on their character, but if a true neutral wizard does both evil or good deeds, I wouldn't care changing his alignment, he'd just have to deal with the other consequences of his deeds.

Cheers,
Farlion

The only problem I can see with this is if you introduce enemies with abilities that target alignment components, like opponents armed with Axiomatic weapons.

[Farlion]

The only problem I can see with this is if you introduce enemies with abilities that target alignment components, like opponents armed with Axiomatic weapons.

Absolutelty right, but:

I play at a very low magic state, so this doesn't happen alot to me. On the other hand, I would just define the alignment of the player based on their recent behavior. ;-D

Cheers,
Farlion

[Myou]

It's very interesting to see how widely approaches vary.

But I guess alignment is one of the most controversial elements in D&D, so that's unsurprising.

I handle it by not using alignments.

How do you handle alignment-based spells and items? :o

Actually I think that's precisely how it works in the game (not sure about the actual values of each shift though; I'd have to go into the toolset to find that out and I've never liked such tools).

I was referring to the effort required to track the numbers and hand out points. :3

[Saint Nil]

Personally, I think you handled it quite well. Warning the PC and then changing his alignment if he keeps it up is the same way I handle it. IT just makes it easier in my opinion.

[Dogmantra]

Problem with that is, a player can change alignments four or five times a day. Depending on how close s/he is to a 'shift' increment.

I believe the way it works in NWN, or at least, the way I'd do it, is that when you change alignment, the number "jumps" to the starting number for that axis. e.g. Jeff, the LG Paladin is on 71/100, but commits a slightly chaotic act, bringing him to 69/100. This changes his alignment to NG, so his new "score" is 50/100.

[TheCountAlucard]

On the other hand, if a paladin willingly commits an evil task, I wouldn't warn him, I'd just tell him, your allignment has changed to evil, you lose your paladin powers.

Wow... changing his alignment from ONE evil deed? No offense, but that's a little harsh... now, losing his class features, that's actually a part of the paladin code. Changing his alignment straight from Good to Evil, though? Wow.

[Kylarra]

On the other hand, if a paladin willingly commits an evil task, I wouldn't warn him, I'd just tell him, your allignment has changed to evil, you lose your paladin powers.
I'd then offer him a way to regain his alignment doing some task, which I think is a pretty nice adventure hook ;-)

Seems a bit over the top to force one act to make you do a complete 180 alignment change. With that sort of standard, everyone would be flip-flopping alignments every other day (or be stuck at neutral).

That's not to say I wouldn't make him fall, but turning them evil from one act? Well, not even NWN's engine did that.

[valadil]

I think you handled it perfectly. Let the PC know he's slipping. If he cares he'll straighten up. It's not fair to suddenly spring an alignment change on a player, especially if there are mechanics consequences. I suppose if a player commits a single act so atrocious that it will shift alignments, I'd warn the player of that ahead of time.

I also encourage characters to exist between alignments. Dynamic characters are more interesting than static ones. My last rogue was CN -> NG. He wanted to be a better person and tried really hard, but couldn't always keep up with it. It was way more interesting than just picking one alignment.

[kamikasei]

Wow... changing his alignment from ONE evil deed? No offense, but that's a little harsh... now, losing his class features, that's actually a part of the paladin code. Changing his alignment straight from Good to Evil, though? Wow.

Gotta agree. The whole "I have done evil and fallen! I must atone!" thing doesn't really work if you become evil, only if you fall but remain good and want to be a paladin despite your failing.

[Myou]

Personally, I think you handled it quite well. Warning the PC and then changing his alignment if he keeps it up is the same way I handle it. IT just makes it easier in my opinion.

I think you handled it perfectly. Let the PC know he's slipping. If he cares he'll straighten up. It's not fair to suddenly spring an alignment change on a player, especially if there are mechanics consequences. I suppose if a player commits a single act so atrocious that it will shift alignments, I'd warn the player of that ahead of time.

I also encourage characters to exist between alignments. Dynamic characters are more interesting than static ones. My last rogue was CN -> NG. He wanted to be a better person and tried really hard, but couldn't always keep up with it. It was way more interesting than just picking one alignment.

Thanks guys. ^^

I too like the idea of characters shifting with time. My player started clearly NG, but after falling in with a CG party it's brought out his own CG side.

Wow... changing his alignment from ONE evil deed? No offense, but that's a little harsh... now, losing his class features, that's actually a part of the paladin code. Changing his alignment straight from Good to Evil, though? Wow.

Seems a bit over the top to force one act to make you do a complete 180 alignment change. With that sort of standard, everyone would be flip-flopping alignments every other day (or be stuck at neutral).

That's not to say I wouldn't make him fall, but turning them evil from one act? Well, not even NWN's engine did that.

Gotta agree. The whole "I have done evil and fallen! I must atone!" thing doesn't really work if you become evil, only if you fall but remain good and want to be a paladin despite your failing.

In my opinion it depends on the act.

If, for example, a player planned to kill a shopkeeper and loot his shop, then I would change thier alignment right away to evil. I would warn them that it would make their alignment change to evil before letting them do it though. Springing a change like that on them, even an obvious one, is pretty harsh.

I'd also find a way to offer them an Atonement spell and other means to make amends.

[Kylarra]

I don't think any of us are denying the possibility of "extremely evil" acts forcing one to go into evil territory, but those are generally the exception, not the rule, and thus not worth talking about in a vacuum. People who play paladins generally don't randomly decide to go kick the dog (tropes warning ).

[TheCountAlucard]

(tropes warning ).

Made my saving throw against TVTropes, thanks to you.

Anyway, yeah, an evil act that would actually merit an alignment change would have to be fairly big in nature. Considering how loose the definition of what actually constitutes an "evil act" is (let alone a "lawful" or "chaotic" one!), the list of "evil acts" a PC could do that couldn't be mitigated by various conditions and/or extenuating circumstances is pretty much limited to casting an evil spell... and I don't recall paladins having any on their spell lists.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

How do you handle alignment-based spells and items? :o

Smite Enemy instead of Evil, that sort of thing, at least that's how I've seen it done.

[hamishspence]

ironically you can become evil but still see yourself as a good guy. The witch hunters in Tome of Magic are classic example- the guy is an LE ex-paladin blackguard who, while mystified that his god isn't talking to him, still thinks he's a good guy and doesn't recognize himself as having fallen.

in 2nd ed, burning down a village full of living people to contain a plague outbreak, was considered enough to instantly shift paladin from Good to Evil, even done for altruistic reasons.

[Myou]

I don't think any of us are denying the possibility of "extremely evil" acts forcing one to go into evil territory, but those are generally the exception, not the rule, and thus not worth talking about in a vacuum. People who play paladins generally don't randomly decide to go kick the dog (tropes warning ).

Luckily I have a high TR. Trope Resistance.

I agree totally, lesser acts shouldn't change alignment on their own.

But when the paladin finally snaps and rapes the dog....

Made my saving throw against TVTropes, thanks to you.

Anyway, yeah, an evil act that would actually merit an alignment change would have to be fairly big in nature. Considering how loose the definition of what actually constitutes an "evil act" is (let alone a "lawful" or "chaotic" one!), the list of "evil acts" a PC could do that couldn't be mitigated by various conditions and/or extenuating circumstances is pretty much limited to casting an evil spell... and I don't recall paladins having any on their spell lists.

Like Hamishspence said, some acts are inherently evil, regardless of intent or circumstance.

In my game I rule that the [Evil] descriptor is flavour and not mechanically binding, whereas killing a newborn child is evil no matter why you do it, even if he's 'fated' to destroy the world (any DM who puts his players in that situation deserves the [Evil] descriptor himself).

Of course you can argue than even then things are relative, but D&D rather relies on there being some fixed morality, even if it's all too black-and-white.

Otherwise PCs are paralysed by moral dilemmas and it all turns into an episode of Star Trek TNG.

Of course some players might enjoy that.

Smite Enemy instead of Evil, that sort of thing, at least that's how I've seen it done.

Wow, that makes alignment-based spells and abilities kind of overpowered. Smite anyone you want? Protection from Everything? o.o

[hamishspence]

when its moral dilemmas and you choose the "greater good" and the lesser evil of murder (committing it or keeping it covered up) or some similar act, you're got Star Trek DS9 rather than TNG- In The Pale Moonlight- one of the most controversial DS9 episodes.