A change of alignment is not a punishment! [Archive] - Wizards Community

A change of alignment is not a punishment! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
pres_man
08-26-05, 02:32 PM Now, let's start off by acknowledging the fact that some DMs will use changing a PCs alignment to punish the player. Of course this is going to happen from time to time, but that is a problem with the DM, not with changing alignments in general.

Alignment change in general is not a punishment, in fact it is often a reward. It is a reward in that it often occurs because a player roleplayed their character in a consistent fashion of an alignment that is different then the one that they listed on their sheet.

Of course there may be negative consequences for PC class choices and abilities for a change in alignment, but that doesn't mean the alignment change itself is a negative. This often gives the players chances for roleplaying to a greater extent.

Perhaps it is a paladin who has gotten a little too bloodthirsty, and suddenly realizes their whole world view has shifted. No longer LG (as they were raised), but instead they have become LN, with a more jaded view of the world. Perhaps the former paladin, realizes that they need "counciling" or perhaps they believe that their former views were too naive. See, roleplaying fun, not punishment!

Most often these changes occur because a player hasn't really thought through their character's world view. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, it is possible that the character grew up in a very sheltered environment and once they started to adventure, they changed their views as a result of what they experienced. In this case, the DM that changes the alignment on the sheet is often times merely correcting the player's mistaken desired alignment. Again, this is not a punishment.

Of course, there is often the issue as to player knowledge and PC knowledge. A paladin would know what acts are "evil" and would avoid them, but a player might not. In cases where alignment's are important to the class and where a shifted (or correction) could be devasting to a character, the DM should give warnings and advice as to what the character should know about certain actions. These don't have to be extremely detailed or heavy-handed, but the player should have a chance to realize that they are deviating from the "path" before it is too late. D&D isn't a game of "Gotcha", where the DM sets up PCs to see if they will make mistakes, so the DM can take abilities from them.

Some DMs have taken the step of giving all PCs a neutral alignment for a couple of levels, allowing some classes are provisional use of their class (paladins, monks, some clerics). Then at a later date, then inform the players of their PCs alignments based on the actions taken during those first couple of levels. This way the alignments are based on real actions and this hopefully stops the need for further changes (recorrections) at later dates. This option isn't for all DMs or groups. In groups with experienced roleplayers, one would hope that the players could keep their PCs consistent with the idea they had formed at the beginning of the game.
rbrt_Spade
08-26-05, 02:36 PM i think that changing al the few levels is ok because the player is still finding the type of pc they like. but i agree al change is a reward for good roleplay!
look at the pal for ex-they can just take blackguard levels for power bonuses
guys this could turn out to be a good al thread like that paladin binding one! :cool: please dont this into another stupid alignment thread(ive learned to not even read these) :weep:
Solik
08-26-05, 02:43 PM Whether or not it's a punishment depends on the player, not the DM. I had a player who'd envisioned himself a Lawful Good righteous wizard a la Gandalf. Then he went off and killed neutral lizardmen (who were not aggressive towards him) because he wanted something that was theirs (along with other similar activities). Eventually, I docked him to LN. Now, turns out, he was just new and didn't realize that lizardmen were more than just monsters to be killed, but when players want something specific and are denied it because of alignment change, they would consider that "punishment."

I've had several alignment arguments with my players because some seemed to think that Lawful / Good should be able to get away with all sorts of things. Now they're the other way and think that playing anything other than Neutral is limiting / stupid. We have a long way to go, methinks -_-
pres_man
08-26-05, 02:49 PM Exactly my point, he felt like it was some sort of punishment, when it was really just a consequence of his actions. It likes someone saying their character jumps off a cliff and you roll for the damage when they hit the group. "Damage, that's a punishment!" Not at all, it is a consequence. If a player thinks they would rather have the original alignment all they have to do is ask the DM, "I want to be alignment X, I read the PHB, but I'm still confused, could you try to explain to me what you expect from a person with that alignment." Most DMs are quite happy to do that, and to point out why previous actions were not that alignment based on the standards in that game. This can be roleplayed by the character having a conversation with a priest or philosopher or whatever.
rbrt_Spade
08-26-05, 02:53 PM Exactly my point, he felt like it was some sort of punishment, when it was really just a consequence of his actions. It likes someone saying their character jumps off a cliff and you roll for the damage when they hit the group. "Damage, that's a punishment!" Not at all, it is a consequence. If a player thinks they would rather have the original alignment all they have to do is ask the DM, "I want to be alignment X, I read the PHB, but I'm still confused, could you try to explain to me what you expect from a person with that alignment." Most DMs are quite happy to do that, and to point out why previous actions were not that alignment based on the standards in that game. This can be roleplayed by the character having a conversation with a priest or philosopher or whatever.
this is a problem-read the al rants on the boards-each of the dms and players have different views on alignment!

also thier is no punishments( i hope) in dnd :rolleyes: bad/good things happen to pcs based on thier actions. how do you punish a player :confused:
rbrt_Spade
08-26-05, 03:00 PM alignments are evil i have just now learned reading all of these al threads....
does any dm just get rid of them?
Solik
08-26-05, 03:07 PM Getting rid of alignment is probably a bad idea, given that so many mechanics focus on them.

Interpreting them very liberally and giving your players breathing room is probably a good idea, though. If you and your players disagree on what an alignment is, you have two choices. You can lay down the law as DM, or you can reach a compromise somewhere in-between. Either method could potentially lead to a better game.

It's just yet another of the aspects of playing the game.
q'afuu
08-26-05, 03:45 PM Most often these changes occur because a player hasn't really thought through their character's world view. IMX, most often this kind of thing occurs because players simply can't play alignments well. TNs who help out with every disaster that occurs, LGs who'll condone torture (or at least some roughing up during questioning) beause they don't see any other way to advance the adventure, etc. It's not that they haven't thought enough about what an alignment entails, it's just that when their characters get into situations where their alignment gets in the way of getting things done or getting involved in something cool, the player likes to take a 'liberal' view on his character's alignment.

Obviously this is not the case for every player, but in my experience the majority occasionally bends the confinements of alignment a little bit for conveniency's sake.
scott644
08-26-05, 04:32 PM Frankly, alignments are essentially just a case of actions and consequences; evil deeds make for evil characters, and so on. In some cases, where a player really wants their character to have a specific alignment (for whatever reason, be it game mechanic or just personal preference), it becomes an issue of punishment or reward.

It's really the perspective of the player that defines it in the long run too. If they're playing the aforementioned "fallen paladin" they could justifiably see the loss of all their paladin class abilities as a punishment - they've lost all those class abilities, with nothing to replace them! On the other hand, a character who's gradually worked toward and finally achieved a certain desired alignment, may feel it's a reward for a job well done. These players will view the alignment shifts as punishments and rewards, respectively. The most mature player (and DM) will look at alignment as the issue of actions and consequences, plus a challenge for those seeking specific desired alignments - although the reward for a job well done part can still apply.
pres_man
08-26-05, 05:57 PM IMX, most often this kind of thing occurs because players simply can't play alignments well. TNs who help out with every disaster that occurs, LGs who'll condone torture (or at least some roughing up during questioning) beause they don't see any other way to advance the adventure, etc. It's not that they haven't thought enough about what an alignment entails, it's just that when their characters get into situations where their alignment gets in the way of getting things done or getting involved in something cool, the player likes to take a 'liberal' view on his character's alignment.

Obviously this is not the case for every player, but in my experience the majority occasionally bends the confinements of alignment a little bit for conveniency's sake.
Well, lets remember we are not talking about the CG person that does a CE act once. Everyone can act outside of their alignment at any time. The issue is when it becomes a trend. In that case if there is a different alignment that they are acting as on a consistent basis then it is only logical to re-align them. If they are acting in no clear fashion, then that probably means they are TN.

Really the only time acting outside of one's alignment on an individual basis would be a serious issue is for the paladin. But that is because of his code, not his alignment. A LG fighter could do a CE act, they would probably regret it later, but there is no game mechanic problem. Paladins due to their code, makes it harder to act outside of their alignment, hence all of the paladin threads.
q'afuu
08-26-05, 06:45 PM If they are acting in no clear fashion, then that probably means they are TN. It's not really the issue at hand, but I wanted to react to this: TN is a specific alignment, just as much as any of the more extreme ones. It's not what you put characters who just waffle about under. Those simply don't play their character very well.
pres_man
08-26-05, 06:50 PM It's not really the issue at hand, but I wanted to react to this: TN is a specific alignment, just as much as any of the more extreme ones. It's not what you put characters who just waffle about under. Those simply don't play their character very well.
Well, yes and no. TN actually has two forms, those who promote neutrality in all things, and those that just don't give a flip.
Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.
Callista
08-26-05, 08:31 PM Yeah, I wish people would understand that: Alignment change is not a punishment. I have only two characters, out of a dozen or so (so sue me, I'm a 2-year newbie), who haven't changed alignment sometime during their careers. One character even went TN-LN-TN-NE-TN... in the course of three play sessions (and three years game time). The others all changed alignment only once.

this is a problem-read the al rants on the boards-each of the dms and players have different views on alignment! Beyond the PHB definitions, which are the basics, yes, that's true. It defaults to the DM's view of alignments because it's his world; the big problem comes when either the DM won't communicate his opinions, or the players won't accept living in a world that has those definitions of G/E/L/C. Communication solves a multitude of problems.

also thier is no punishments( i hope) in dnd :rolleyes: bad/good things happen to pcs based on thier actions. how do you punish a player :confused:You don't, really. You just allow the natural consequences of, say, bad strategy, to take their course.

Re. Getting rid of alignments:
Yes, it can be done; but it requires a complete overhaul of the game world. A better idea is probably just to remove the Paladin from the game, and have a Cleric automatically switch deities if he switches alignment. That way nobody loses powers, whatever he does.

I personally prefer working with alignments rather than dumping them; but I'm in a rather unique situation, in that I go to a Christian college and my main D&D group currently consists of Christians of various sorts. For us, D&D alignment is rather a refreshing change from the gray morality of the "real world"; and our philosophies are relatively similar. Not all groups are as lucky as we are, though. If you have to remove alignments to have a fun game, by all means go for it!
Lord Ian Stark
08-26-05, 09:42 PM IMO 99% of the reason DM's make characters change there alignment is because the player is playing the way he wants to and not how the character should be played.

A character that is LG, thinks and acts in a LG manner. He may have a tendency (Due to a tramatic experience or just the way he was razed) of another alignment but he is still LG.

All these threads of "My Paladin player in the group slaughtered the town because they made fun of him. Should he change alignment? :bigeyes:

:rolleyes: If your not going to play the characters according to the alignment then just get rid of the alignment system in your game as you and your characters aren't following it in the first place.

The next issue is exactly when does a creature get its alignment? At birth? At adolescence? When? I'm not saying that a characters alignment can't change by RPing him but it definitely doesn't change like the weather. People don't just change their views on life that often. Most people live and die old having the same alignment. As I said, tendencies are fine but overall you’re a certain alignment. Only a great catastrophe or life altering experience can really get you to change. And then it's usually only a temporary thing anyhow which goes back to a tendency.
Boshi
08-26-05, 10:04 PM I used to think that alignments were useless, but I've been loving my Ravenloft DM's take on alignment. All of our characters have started out good but all of them are either neutral something or dead by now by the DM really hitting us over the head with the law of unintended consequences. Basically any time one of our actions could lead to innocent people dying or bad things happening, that's always what seems to happen (for example my character went off my himself to get vengance on a cleric who ripped us off and found out after he was dead that he was planning on using the money to feed orphans or the time when he had a kid following us around and by emulating our actions he ended up becoming CE or the time when our zombie-fighting got out of control and the whole village got torched) and especially in Ravenloft were alignment really means something it keeps us on our toes and makes us be really careful about who we kill and how we do it...
Lord Ian Stark
08-26-05, 10:15 PM Ravenloft were alignment really means something it keeps us on our toes and makes us be really careful about who we kill and how we do it...

Yes sir. One of my favorite gameworlds where powers checks are made on a daily basis for a party acting like mindless Hack-n-Slashers. ;)
Boshi
08-26-05, 10:37 PM Yes sir. One of my favorite gameworlds where powers checks are made on a daily basis for a party acting like mindless Hack-n-Slashers. ;)
That's the beauty of it, makes the alignment system much more concrete and gives it a lot of punch, especially with a DM who enforces Murphey's Law. Gotta love it when a player who didn't even fail any powers checks decides that he'll spend the next adventure concentrating on atoning for his sins.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pres_man 08-26-05, 02:32 PM	Now, let's start off by acknowledging the fact that some DMs will use changing a PCs alignment to punish the player. Of course this is going to happen from time to time, but that is a problem with the DM, not with changing alignments in general. Alignment change in general is not a punishment, in fact it is often a reward. It is a reward in that it often occurs because a player roleplayed their character in a consistent fashion of an alignment that is different then the one that they listed on their sheet. Of course there may be negative consequences for PC class choices and abilities for a change in alignment, but that doesn't mean the alignment change itself is a negative. This often gives the players chances for roleplaying to a greater extent. Perhaps it is a paladin who has gotten a little too bloodthirsty, and suddenly realizes their whole world view has shifted. No longer LG (as they were raised), but instead they have become LN, with a more jaded view of the world. Perhaps the former paladin, realizes that they need "counciling" or perhaps they believe that their former views were too naive. See, roleplaying fun, not punishment! Most often these changes occur because a player hasn't really thought through their character's world view. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, it is possible that the character grew up in a very sheltered environment and once they started to adventure, they changed their views as a result of what they experienced. In this case, the DM that changes the alignment on the sheet is often times merely correcting the player's mistaken desired alignment. Again, this is not a punishment. Of course, there is often the issue as to player knowledge and PC knowledge. A paladin would know what acts are "evil" and would avoid them, but a player might not. In cases where alignment's are important to the class and where a shifted (or correction) could be devasting to a character, the DM should give warnings and advice as to what the character should know about certain actions. These don't have to be extremely detailed or heavy-handed, but the player should have a chance to realize that they are deviating from the "path" before it is too late. D&D isn't a game of "Gotcha", where the DM sets up PCs to see if they will make mistakes, so the DM can take abilities from them. Some DMs have taken the step of giving all PCs a neutral alignment for a couple of levels, allowing some classes are provisional use of their class (paladins, monks, some clerics). Then at a later date, then inform the players of their PCs alignments based on the actions taken during those first couple of levels. This way the alignments are based on real actions and this hopefully stops the need for further changes (recorrections) at later dates. This option isn't for all DMs or groups. In groups with experienced roleplayers, one would hope that the players could keep their PCs consistent with the idea they had formed at the beginning of the game.
rbrt_Spade 08-26-05, 02:36 PM	i think that changing al the few levels is ok because the player is still finding the type of pc they like. but i agree al change is a reward for good roleplay! look at the pal for ex-they can just take blackguard levels for power bonuses guys this could turn out to be a good al thread like that paladin binding one! :cool: please dont this into another stupid alignment thread(ive learned to not even read these) :weep:
Solik 08-26-05, 02:43 PM	Whether or not it's a punishment depends on the player, not the DM. I had a player who'd envisioned himself a Lawful Good righteous wizard a la Gandalf. Then he went off and killed neutral lizardmen (who were not aggressive towards him) because he wanted something that was theirs (along with other similar activities). Eventually, I docked him to LN. Now, turns out, he was just new and didn't realize that lizardmen were more than just monsters to be killed, but when players want something specific and are denied it because of alignment change, they would consider that "punishment." I've had several alignment arguments with my players because some seemed to think that Lawful / Good should be able to get away with all sorts of things. Now they're the other way and think that playing anything other than Neutral is limiting / stupid. We have a long way to go, methinks -_-
pres_man 08-26-05, 02:49 PM	Exactly my point, he felt like it was some sort of punishment, when it was really just a consequence of his actions. It likes someone saying their character jumps off a cliff and you roll for the damage when they hit the group. "Damage, that's a punishment!" Not at all, it is a consequence. If a player thinks they would rather have the original alignment all they have to do is ask the DM, "I want to be alignment X, I read the PHB, but I'm still confused, could you try to explain to me what you expect from a person with that alignment." Most DMs are quite happy to do that, and to point out why previous actions were not that alignment based on the standards in that game. This can be roleplayed by the character having a conversation with a priest or philosopher or whatever.
rbrt_Spade 08-26-05, 02:53 PM	Exactly my point, he felt like it was some sort of punishment, when it was really just a consequence of his actions. It likes someone saying their character jumps off a cliff and you roll for the damage when they hit the group. "Damage, that's a punishment!" Not at all, it is a consequence. If a player thinks they would rather have the original alignment all they have to do is ask the DM, "I want to be alignment X, I read the PHB, but I'm still confused, could you try to explain to me what you expect from a person with that alignment." Most DMs are quite happy to do that, and to point out why previous actions were not that alignment based on the standards in that game. This can be roleplayed by the character having a conversation with a priest or philosopher or whatever. this is a problem-read the al rants on the boards-each of the dms and players have different views on alignment! also thier is no punishments( i hope) in dnd :rolleyes: bad/good things happen to pcs based on thier actions. how do you punish a player :confused:
rbrt_Spade 08-26-05, 03:00 PM	alignments are evil i have just now learned reading all of these al threads.... does any dm just get rid of them?
Solik 08-26-05, 03:07 PM	Getting rid of alignment is probably a bad idea, given that so many mechanics focus on them. Interpreting them very liberally and giving your players breathing room is probably a good idea, though. If you and your players disagree on what an alignment is, you have two choices. You can lay down the law as DM, or you can reach a compromise somewhere in-between. Either method could potentially lead to a better game. It's just yet another of the aspects of playing the game.
q'afuu 08-26-05, 03:45 PM	Most often these changes occur because a player hasn't really thought through their character's world view. IMX, most often this kind of thing occurs because players simply can't play alignments well. TNs who help out with every disaster that occurs, LGs who'll condone torture (or at least some roughing up during questioning) beause they don't see any other way to advance the adventure, etc. It's not that they haven't thought enough about what an alignment entails, it's just that when their characters get into situations where their alignment gets in the way of getting things done or getting involved in something cool, the player likes to take a 'liberal' view on his character's alignment. Obviously this is not the case for every player, but in my experience the majority occasionally bends the confinements of alignment a little bit for conveniency's sake.
scott644 08-26-05, 04:32 PM	Frankly, alignments are essentially just a case of actions and consequences; evil deeds make for evil characters, and so on. In some cases, where a player really wants their character to have a specific alignment (for whatever reason, be it game mechanic or just personal preference), it becomes an issue of punishment or reward. It's really the perspective of the player that defines it in the long run too. If they're playing the aforementioned "fallen paladin" they could justifiably see the loss of all their paladin class abilities as a punishment - they've lost all those class abilities, with nothing to replace them! On the other hand, a character who's gradually worked toward and finally achieved a certain desired alignment, may feel it's a reward for a job well done. These players will view the alignment shifts as punishments and rewards, respectively. The most mature player (and DM) will look at alignment as the issue of actions and consequences, plus a challenge for those seeking specific desired alignments - although the reward for a job well done part can still apply.
pres_man 08-26-05, 05:57 PM	IMX, most often this kind of thing occurs because players simply can't play alignments well. TNs who help out with every disaster that occurs, LGs who'll condone torture (or at least some roughing up during questioning) beause they don't see any other way to advance the adventure, etc. It's not that they haven't thought enough about what an alignment entails, it's just that when their characters get into situations where their alignment gets in the way of getting things done or getting involved in something cool, the player likes to take a 'liberal' view on his character's alignment. Obviously this is not the case for every player, but in my experience the majority occasionally bends the confinements of alignment a little bit for conveniency's sake. Well, lets remember we are not talking about the CG person that does a CE act once. Everyone can act outside of their alignment at any time. The issue is when it becomes a trend. In that case if there is a different alignment that they are acting as on a consistent basis then it is only logical to re-align them. If they are acting in no clear fashion, then that probably means they are TN. Really the only time acting outside of one's alignment on an individual basis would be a serious issue is for the paladin. But that is because of his code, not his alignment. A LG fighter could do a CE act, they would probably regret it later, but there is no game mechanic problem. Paladins due to their code, makes it harder to act outside of their alignment, hence all of the paladin threads.
q'afuu 08-26-05, 06:45 PM	If they are acting in no clear fashion, then that probably means they are TN. It's not really the issue at hand, but I wanted to react to this: TN is a specific alignment, just as much as any of the more extreme ones. It's not what you put characters who just waffle about under. Those simply don't play their character very well.
pres_man 08-26-05, 06:50 PM	It's not really the issue at hand, but I wanted to react to this: TN is a specific alignment, just as much as any of the more extreme ones. It's not what you put characters who just waffle about under. Those simply don't play their character very well. Well, yes and no. TN actually has two forms, those who promote neutrality in all things, and those that just don't give a flip. Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.
Callista 08-26-05, 08:31 PM	Yeah, I wish people would understand that: Alignment change is not a punishment. I have only two characters, out of a dozen or so (so sue me, I'm a 2-year newbie), who haven't changed alignment sometime during their careers. One character even went TN-LN-TN-NE-TN... in the course of three play sessions (and three years game time). The others all changed alignment only once. this is a problem-read the al rants on the boards-each of the dms and players have different views on alignment! Beyond the PHB definitions, which are the basics, yes, that's true. It defaults to the DM's view of alignments because it's his world; the big problem comes when either the DM won't communicate his opinions, or the players won't accept living in a world that has those definitions of G/E/L/C. Communication solves a multitude of problems. also thier is no punishments( i hope) in dnd :rolleyes: bad/good things happen to pcs based on thier actions. how do you punish a player :confused:You don't, really. You just allow the natural consequences of, say, bad strategy, to take their course. Re. Getting rid of alignments: Yes, it can be done; but it requires a complete overhaul of the game world. A better idea is probably just to remove the Paladin from the game, and have a Cleric automatically switch deities if he switches alignment. That way nobody loses powers, whatever he does. I personally prefer working with alignments rather than dumping them; but I'm in a rather unique situation, in that I go to a Christian college and my main D&D group currently consists of Christians of various sorts. For us, D&D alignment is rather a refreshing change from the gray morality of the "real world"; and our philosophies are relatively similar. Not all groups are as lucky as we are, though. If you have to remove alignments to have a fun game, by all means go for it!
Lord Ian Stark 08-26-05, 09:42 PM	IMO 99% of the reason DM's make characters change there alignment is because the player is playing the way he wants to and not how the character should be played. A character that is LG, thinks and acts in a LG manner. He may have a tendency (Due to a tramatic experience or just the way he was razed) of another alignment but he is still LG. All these threads of "My Paladin player in the group slaughtered the town because they made fun of him. Should he change alignment? :bigeyes: :rolleyes: If your not going to play the characters according to the alignment then just get rid of the alignment system in your game as you and your characters aren't following it in the first place. The next issue is exactly when does a creature get its alignment? At birth? At adolescence? When? I'm not saying that a characters alignment can't change by RPing him but it definitely doesn't change like the weather. People don't just change their views on life that often. Most people live and die old having the same alignment. As I said, tendencies are fine but overall you’re a certain alignment. Only a great catastrophe or life altering experience can really get you to change. And then it's usually only a temporary thing anyhow which goes back to a tendency.
Boshi 08-26-05, 10:04 PM	I used to think that alignments were useless, but I've been loving my Ravenloft DM's take on alignment. All of our characters have started out good but all of them are either neutral something or dead by now by the DM really hitting us over the head with the law of unintended consequences. Basically any time one of our actions could lead to innocent people dying or bad things happening, that's always what seems to happen (for example my character went off my himself to get vengance on a cleric who ripped us off and found out after he was dead that he was planning on using the money to feed orphans or the time when he had a kid following us around and by emulating our actions he ended up becoming CE or the time when our zombie-fighting got out of control and the whole village got torched) and especially in Ravenloft were alignment really means something it keeps us on our toes and makes us be really careful about who we kill and how we do it...
Lord Ian Stark 08-26-05, 10:15 PM	Ravenloft were alignment really means something it keeps us on our toes and makes us be really careful about who we kill and how we do it... Yes sir. One of my favorite gameworlds where powers checks are made on a daily basis for a party acting like mindless Hack-n-Slashers. ;)
Boshi 08-26-05, 10:37 PM	Yes sir. One of my favorite gameworlds where powers checks are made on a daily basis for a party acting like mindless Hack-n-Slashers. ;) That's the beauty of it, makes the alignment system much more concrete and gives it a lot of punch, especially with a DM who enforces Murphey's Law. Gotta love it when a player who didn't even fail any powers checks decides that he'll spend the next adventure concentrating on atoning for his sins.