Alignment Drops

[The Fury]

Y'know when your character does something heinous and the DM tells you that your character has gone from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil?
Character Alignment hasn't been anything very strictly enforced in most games I've played in. I guess most of the time the moral standards of the player party are never really challenged, that is we rarely have to make difficult decisions
That said, in the Pathfinder game I'm playing in now our characters' moral standards get tested a lot. There have already been a few times where a difficult challenge could be made easier by doing something reprehensible, like necromancy, murder, kidnapping or what have you. So far I think everyone in the party has suffered at least one alignment drop, my character suffered two, (briefly.)
Now, mind I'm not complaining. In fact I think it's really cool that the DM is actually holding our characters to their ethics and we actually get to make these tough decisions. Also, none of us ever suffer alignment drops unless what we do is pretty unambiguously bad.

So how 'bout you, the rest of the Playground? Have you ever played in a game where alignment drops happened? What was your experience like?

[yougi]

I've often threatened my players with alignment drops, and it's always been enough. I've made both a Samurai and a Paladin fall (not the same thing as alignment drop, but related), the first for fleeing and letting another PC to be sacrificed for their sake, and the second for lying to save his life.

As a player, I've been in a few situations where I had to take ethically hard decisions, but I've never received an alignment change for them. However, I tend to take non-optimal decisions quite often if that's what the character would do: for example, my most recent character was a wizard who could not accept for knowledge to be destroyed, and would not let his teammates kill an enemy wizard before we found a way to gain all of his knowledge. Of course the enemy escaped and came back to hurt us, but... It was still preferable to my character for him to escape so the knowledge would not be destroyed.

[Eurus]

I've never been in a game where alignment was a big deal. That's not to say ethics weren't significant, just that it wasn't tied to a metagame label of "lawful good" or "chaotic evil".

But there were external standards, sometimes. One of my DMs made a point of it, mainly with divine-powered characters. It was a feature of the setting that divine magic exclusively came from the gods, not from faith itself or abstract portfolios, and that the gods paid close attention to their chosen. So clerics, druids, and paladins had to be rather careful to follow the proper dogma and philosophies. Several times, characters were hit with warning dreams or visions urging them to "correct" their ways. One cleric character had a personal arc that involved him deciding to forsake his god and falling for a few days, before regaining his powers through alternate sources, so that was cool.

[PersonMan]

As long as there's an understand that alignment is just a label for your actions, I'd have no problem with my alignment flying all over the place because of the system's weird views of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. If I'm with a group that says "hey you're evil now, why aren't you killing that orphan?" I'd probably have problems with it.

I've never really been in a game where alignment has been more than something I've considered after working out my fluff and tossing up on my sheet, to never look at again (I haven't been hit by alignment-dependent stuff anytime recently, so it's not even consulted for that).

[AntiTrust]

I've been a player in a game where the DM used alignments as a way to control the direction the players went. I've always believed that even within the same alignment a range of different choices are possible so that even two LG paladins to the same deity can have legitimate points of difference in ethical and moral discussions. This DM however used the alignments like one might see in a video game where you have the 1 NG choice, the 1 LG choice, the 1 LN choice, etc etc so that if you deviated from whatever that choice was at the moment you risked, if you were a divine character, the loss of class abilities (even for non paladins). The alignment system became a sort of straight jacket, I'm not in the game anymore, but I'm glad I was since it made me really think as a DM how I'd run an ethical/moral dilemma.

[The Fury]

As long as there's an understand that alignment is just a label for your actions, I'd have no problem with my alignment flying all over the place because of the system's weird views of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. If I'm with a group that says "hey you're evil now, why aren't you killing that orphan?" I'd probably have problems with it.

Oh yes, of course. Considering that if a character started out as a good guy they'd probably still have problems with killing orphans, even if they became evil. For my part I still think of my character is still more or less the same person despite any alignment drops, and the DM seems OK with that.

I've been a player in a game where the DM used alignments as a way to control the direction the players went. I've always believed that even within the same alignment a range of different choices are possible so that even two LG paladins to the same deity can have legitimate points of difference in ethical and moral discussions. This DM however used the alignments like one might see in a video game where you have the 1 NG choice, the 1 LG choice, the 1 LN choice, etc etc so that if you deviated from whatever that choice was at the moment you risked, if you were a divine character, the loss of class abilities (even for non paladins). The alignment system became a sort of straight jacket, I'm not in the game anymore, but I'm glad I was since it made me really think as a DM how I'd run an ethical/moral dilemma.

Whoa. Yeah that sounds like a rough way of handling it. I'm glad you were able to get something out of it though. Though I got to wonder, if there was a set of solutions each corresponding to one of the alignments what happens if you come of with a solution that the DM didn't expect? Does that break the game or is it just called CN?

[Joe the Rat]

It helps to know how your GM (DM, most likely) runs alignment. The more restrictive they play it, the more you should favor Neutral alignments.

In the games I've played where it matters, alignment shifts typically come from the player (or are suggested by fellow players) - The way they are playing the character doesn't quite fit the alignment they picked (in their mind), or the other players think he's more X than Y. Getting the label to fit the character, rather than making the character fit the label.

Mind you, I don't end up in a lot of soul searching/ start of darkness/ let's screw with the paladin/ Snape hunt games, so alignment shifts aren't plot-relevant.


Though since we are on the topic, A quick question: If a character has significant impulse control/leap before they look tendencies, would this be justification for a Chaotic alignment tag, or would that be workable as Neutral?

[Jay R]

So how 'bout you, the rest of the Playground? Have you ever played in a game where alignment drops happened? What was your experience like?

Drops? No. But in the game I'm currently in, the DM recently told me that my character (2E elven mage/thief) wasn't True Neutral anymore; he is now Neutral Good.

My private reaction was, "Took you long enough." It's been my goal for some time for my thief to be consistently more honorable than all the Lawful Good nobles, and more selfless than the paladin.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I've made... a Paladin fall... for lying to save his life.

...I think you've become That DM.

[RandomNPC]

...I think you've become That DM.

Depends on the lie and what happened because of it. If his lie sent someone to burn down a hospital he should have let himself die, fall twice. If the lie meant the person was just going to go around looking for him longer, and he just wanted to get backup to keep himself from being steamrolled when he stood up for himself, so be it.

[yougi]

...I think you've become That DM.

Depends on the lie and what happened because of it. If his lie sent someone to burn down a hospital he should have let himself die, fall twice. If the lie meant the person was just going to go around looking for him longer, and he just wanted to get backup to keep himself from being steamrolled when he stood up for himself, so be it.

Well, neither, but he lied while begging for his life. It was a great RP moment, as if the character realized his ideals had a limit, and he wouldn't die for them.

But to be honest, I wouldn't feel bad about making a Paladin fall for lying to save his life. I can't imagine one instance where that would follow the spirit of the paladin code, and as written, paladin code says no lying, and that you're out on the first strike. Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

[LtPowers]

I can't imagine one instance where that would follow the spirit of the paladin code, and as written, paladin code says no lying, and that you're out on the first strike. Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Lying is against the code, but it's not "out on the first strike". From the D&D 3.5 SRD: "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities".

Is lying to save one's life a gross violation of the code? I would say it depends heavily on the context. But it shouldn't be automatic.


Powers &8^]

[Jay R]

Is lying to save one's life a gross violation of the code? I would say it depends heavily on the context. But it shouldn't be automatic.

Lying to save your life is putting your life above your virtue and your honor. It is far more against the code in my eyes than many things other people would make him fall for.

[Slide]

So how 'bout you, the rest of the Playground? Have you ever played in a game where alignment drops happened? What was your experience like?

Chaotic Neutral. Nuked a small country. Cleric looked at me afterwards. Once he recovered from what appeared to be a pain-induced epileptic seizure, he resolved never to Detect Evil with me nearby ever again.

[Loki_42]

I don't really treat alignment as a thing, as in, I don't penalize anyone for changing alignment, but if the game has alignment, I keep track of it. As such, I've had a lot of alignment fluidity, both drops and redemption, if I feel that's what the character is acting like now. But I've always treated alignment as an indicator of how the character is acting, not as guidelines for how the character should act.

[illyrus]

Only time as a player that alignment came up was when my NG druid stepped on a symbol set to temporarily switch the target to Chaotic Evil. Was actually a fun RP moment as my character basically subjugated the entire complex, convincing the evil people inside to surrender and then killed them when they had laid down their weapons.

Cost my druid all his powers even when the symbol wore off but sought an atonement directly thereafter. The GM didn't add any hoops to getting it as he hadn't even planned for it to cause my character any loss in the first place.

[LtPowers]

Lying to save your life is putting your life above your virtue and your honor. It is far more against the code in my eyes than many things other people would make him fall for.

"Tell me where the rebel hideout is, or I will kill you."

Obviously, the paladin can refuse to say anything, and sacrifice her life... but what if she holds the information that is key to defeating the bad guy? Or she knows that the bad guy will just go get someone else to tell him where the rebels are?

Certainly, lying, even in this (slightly contrived) scenario, is bad. It's against her code of honor. It should weigh heavily upon her conscience, but if the lie is in the service of a greater good, it should not result in immediate revocation of her paladinhood.


Powers &8^]

[Sylthia]

I once had a paladin take a -2 Cha penalty for killing an unarmed prisoner who had surrendered as a warning, but didn't make her fall. She did have to work to remove the Cha drop, though. I don't think I've ever changed a PCs alignment against their will yet, but I've had a few change it voluntarily.

[hamishspence]

"Tell me where the rebel hideout is, or I will kill you."

Obviously, the paladin can refuse to say anything, and sacrifice her life... but what if she holds the information that is key to defeating the bad guy? Or she knows that the bad guy will just go get someone else to tell him where the rebels are?

Certainly, lying, even in this (slightly contrived) scenario, is bad. It's against her code of honor. It should weigh heavily upon her conscience, but if the lie is in the service of a greater good, it should not result in immediate revocation of her paladinhood.

A similar one is Leia in A New Hope- "Tell me where the Rebel base is, or I'll kill all your loved ones."

[QuintonBeck]

In a game I ran a player who had chosen to play as the Monk class was behaving repeatedly in a most definitively chaotic way and I had him drop to Chaotic and lose further class progression. Similarly a Lawful fighter who had been following and assisting with many of the Monk's actions got shifted down to Neutral but that didn't affect him.

I like to keep an idea of where a character's accumulated ethical actions fall on the alignment scale and I'm pretty flexible but sometimes an adjustment is needed.

I once played a Chaotic Neutral Barbarian who went out of his way to help people and the party so often I had him shift to Chaotic Good. And I had a rogue, who had started out as a fast talking TN con man take a shift to NE after the Atropal that had been chasing the party turned out to be an illusion and the party fell to theft and murder without a force driving them to unite anyone. (That was a weird campaign.)

[Jay R]

Lying to save your life is putting your life above your virtue and your honor. It is far more against the code in my eyes than many things other people would make him fall for.

"Tell me where the rebel hideout is, or I will kill you."

Obviously, the paladin can refuse to say anything, and sacrifice her life... but what if she holds the information that is key to defeating the bad guy?

That's not lying to save your life; that's lying to save the information that is key to defeating the bad guy - a very different thing.

[Eldan]

Alignment is two words on your sheet that come up once a year when you go to the wrong plane (and your DM enforces that -2 to certain rolls rule) or when you face divine guys. Sure, I've changed alignments. Currently, my entire party wants me to change their alignment to chaotic evil when I'm still think they are chaotic neutral with anger issues.

It really doesn't matter that much.

[Stake A Vamp]

i ama DM, one of my players decided to start contract killing, there was a paladin in the party. there is literally a whole thread discussing the aftermath.

[Amphetryon]

That's not lying to save your life; that's lying to save the information that is key to defeating the bad guy - a very different thing.

Only if the Character (and the Player) perceive those as different ends achieved via the same means. I've known more than one DM who cared not a whit about the justification for the lie in determining the punishment for the Paladin - or the Character in a town where falsehoods were crimes and Detect Lies was a thing.

[Mr Beer]

I've been a player in a game where the DM used alignments as a way to control the direction the players went. I've always believed that even within the same alignment a range of different choices are possible so that even two LG paladins to the same deity can have legitimate points of difference in ethical and moral discussions. This DM however used the alignments like one might see in a video game where you have the 1 NG choice, the 1 LG choice, the 1 LN choice, etc etc so that if you deviated from whatever that choice was at the moment you risked, if you were a divine character, the loss of class abilities (even for non paladins). The alignment system became a sort of straight jacket, I'm not in the game anymore, but I'm glad I was since it made me really think as a DM how I'd run an ethical/moral dilemma.

That's a terrible way to GM alignment. Everyone has to deal with the strangeness of the D&D alignment system in one way or another, he made a poor choice.

[TuggyNE]

Chaotic Neutral. Nuked a small country. Cleric looked at me afterwards. Once he recovered from what appeared to be a pain-induced epileptic seizure, he resolved never to Detect Evil with me nearby ever again.

The simplest way to ensure that resolution is kept, of course, is to kill your CE face into oblivion

[Narren]

Lying to save your life is putting your life above your virtue and your honor. It is far more against the code in my eyes than many things other people would make him fall for.

That depends, I think. What if the paladin is the only one who knows where the kidnapped princess (or whatever) is located. What if he's the only one that can rescue her?

What's more important, that he die with dignity or that he rescue an innocent?

I think the circumstances and motivation should play a large factor.

[Joe the Rat]

I'm still think they are chaotic neutral with anger issues.

We've all seen the "XY with Z tendencies" description (heck, they make Planes for those). I think I'm going to add "with anger issues" as an alignment descriptor.

[Alejandro]

Let's say the paladin has been captured by a reprehensible enemy. Not surrendered; captured, especially with something like Hold Person, etc, where the paladin couldn't do anything about it.

Now, the paladin knows that the other PCs are on the way to rescue him or her. The Enemy says, 'Alright, paladin, tell us the Secret Password to the Church of Goodness and Loot, or we sandpaper your genitals off and kill you.'

The paladin doesn't want to give that password up. Thinking quickly, he says, "I know the password, but it only works when freely spoken by a paladin or cleric of the Church. You'll have to take me there for me to help you."

Now, this is a lie: The Church actually has crappier security than that, because someone spent all the GP on fancier vestments last quarter. It's just a simple password. But the Enemy doesn't know that, and the Enemy also expects a paladin to tell the truth at all times, rescue puppies, and generally glow with Lawful Goodness.

Now, the Enemy can either kill the paladin (gaining nothing) or try to take the paladin to where he can use the password for them, or at least figure out how to do that. The paladin is buying time for his friends to rescue him, and he is not endangering the Church or anyone other than himself by lying. The evil act would be to freely tell the Enemy the password, breaking his vow to defend the Church.

So, in this case? Paladin is following his code by lying. Which goes to show, it's really situation-dependent, not a simple, always-right list of actions. I mean, a hypothetical Christian Paladin that kills someone breaks one of God's commandments, yet there are innumerable ways and times paladins are expected to take up arms, and kill, to defend their followers or nation or cause.

[Jay R]

That depends, I think. What if the paladin is the only one who knows where the kidnapped princess (or whatever) is located. What if he's the only one that can rescue her?

What's more important, that he die with dignity or that he rescue an innocent?

I think the circumstances and motivation should play a large factor.

Of course. You evidently missed the later post in which I said, "That's not lying to save your life; that's lying to save the information that is key to defeating the bad guy - a very different thing."

The crucial point is this: The Paladin must put honor and virtue and innocent lives above his own life. Saving his own life cannot be the primary goal.

But that's the easy question. Here's the hard one:

Consider a Paladin in the situation in which he must lie, and therefore violate his code, to save innocent lives. I as the DM would emphasize the violation of his code, and the threat to his paladin status. If he says some version of, "It doesn't matter what happens to me; I have to save them, " then lies to keep them safe, he will either keep his status, or atone and regain it easily.

But if he decides to preserve either his own life or his paladin code and status at the cost of innocent lives, he will lose his status - permanently.