Alignment changes and not rp'ing alignment [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alignment changes and not rp'ing alignment [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
albone
05-26-04, 05:07 PM How do you guys handle PC's switching alignments? My instinct is to allow it, unless they're always changing alignments.

Do you penalize PC's for not rp'ing in alignment? For instance, a LN monk wants to eat his enemies that he slays. its not from any tradition he follows, its his way of getting back at nasty enemies. Its been stated that cannibalism is an evil act on the boards, so should there be a penalty? I always award bonus XP for rp'ing well, so I thought I would dock that. How does that sound to you guys?

Finally, if I can get a ruling on CN, one of my players, a CN Barbarian/fighter wants to go rescue his captured buddy from the Crater Ridge Mines and he also wants to take down the evil temple in the mines. His reasons, are that the captured buddy wouldn't leave him behind, and that the temple is evil so it should be taken down.

I suppose if you rationalize it enough, you can make any alignment work but is there some guidelines we can follow as DM's?
Vaalingrade Ashland
05-26-04, 05:14 PM The current best method (besides ditching Alignment outright) Is to not let the PCs write down thier alignment at all, but to keep track of it yourself based on thier actions.

No matter what, however, you shouldn't penalized them for not following the arbirtrary letters on thier sheets.
PenderGrass
05-26-04, 05:17 PM NEVER TAKE AWAY XP.

It is wrong.

Rather, it is far easier to just NOT award anything - whilst awarding XP for those that do play their alignments well (if that is what you are going to do - me? it is just par for the course for someone to RP their alignment).

The only time XP should be taken away is for Death & Raises, Magic Item Creation, and because no one saved you the last slice of pizza.

Other than that....? no.
MasterofMagic77
05-26-04, 05:36 PM Originally posted by PenderGrass
NEVER TAKE AWAY XP.

It is wrong.

Rather, it is far easier to just NOT award anything - whilst awarding XP for those that do play their alignments well (if that is what you are going to do - me? it is just par for the course for someone to RP their alignment).

The only time XP should be taken away is for Death & Raises, Magic Item Creation, and because no one saved you the last slice of pizza.

Other than that....? no.

Very true, neutral does both evil and good things or lawful and chaotic things depinding on which axis the neutrality is on. So your monk doing an evil act is ok as long as he is not only doing evil acts but also doing good and inbeteween acts. For your barbarian i dont think it is unchaotic like to go save a friend but I also don't see why he would just want to destroy an evil temple just because it is evil when he is neutral unless there is some reason, such as if the evil temple captured his friend.

Also the only time a change a chars alignment is when they consistantly go against their alignment, not just if they do it once.
thalious
05-26-04, 05:55 PM Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland
The current best method (besides ditching Alignment outright) Is to not let the PCs write down thier alignment at all, but to keep track of it yourself based on thier actions.

No matter what, however, you shouldn't penalized them for not following the arbirtrary letters on thier sheets.

Excellent idea. I do the same, while still letting my players to State their intended alignment, while I keep my own tabs. If the two diverge, a change will be coming. Usually in the form of the PC being surprised when the Pally starts glaring at them for some "unseen" reason.
Spongly
05-27-04, 06:19 AM You don't roleplay your alignment. Your alignment is whatever you roleplay.
Critical Mass
05-27-04, 06:23 AM Alignment follows actions. Many people incorrectly think that actions are supposed to follow alignment. Unless there's an alignment conflict with a class, you shouldn't penalize anyone for "not following their alignment." If the fighter keeps extorting people for money and taking whatever he wants by force and thinks Intimidate is the coolest thing on his character sheet even though there's a "CG" written next to his race and class, the problem isn't that he's acting against his alignment, it's that his alignment is just listed wrong on his sheet. You don't detract xp because he's not following an arbitrary set of rules based on what the player wrote down before the session, you simply change his alignment to reflect how he actually acts and play on from there. Alignment isn't supposed to dictate your actions, it's your actions that are supposed to dictate your alignment.
Naeron
05-27-04, 07:05 AM Originally posted by albone
How do you guys handle PC's switching alignments? My instinct is to allow it, unless they're always changing alignments.

Do you penalize PC's for not rp'ing in alignment? For instance, a LN monk wants to eat his enemies that he slays. its not from any tradition he follows, its his way of getting back at nasty enemies. Its been stated that cannibalism is an evil act on the boards, so should there be a penalty? I always award bonus XP for rp'ing well, so I thought I would dock that. How does that sound to you guys?

Cannibalism (the act of eating your own species) is not evil. Killing innocent people to eat them is evil (because you are killing innocent people), eating an enemy who you have killed because a) they need killing and b) they are trying to kill you is not evil in D&D terms, just distasteful.

Originally posted by albone
Finally, if I can get a ruling on CN, one of my players, a CN Barbarian/fighter wants to go rescue his captured buddy from the Crater Ridge Mines and he also wants to take down the evil temple in the mines. His reasons, are that the captured buddy wouldn't leave him behind, and that the temple is evil so it should be taken down.

I suppose if you rationalize it enough, you can make any alignment work but is there some guidelines we can follow as DM's?

It sounds perrfectly chaotic neutral to me, he wants to rescue a friend (SRD: "Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships") which seems ok and he wants to destroy an evil temple because they are evil and he obviously doesn't like them. He is also probably expecting a nice lump of treasure.

His reasons are not revolving around "stopping them before they harm innocents" but are personal.
albone
05-27-04, 10:02 AM Originally posted by Naeron

It sounds perrfectly chaotic neutral to me, he wants to rescue a friend (SRD: "Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships") which seems ok and he wants to destroy an evil temple because they are evil and he obviously doesn't like them. He is also probably expecting a nice lump of treasure.

His reasons are not revolving around "stopping them before they harm innocents" but are personal.

By definition, a CN character is an individualist who values there own freedom and not others freedom.

But again, this is something that can be circumvented if one thinks long enough about it.

Let's take the debate the other way for character classes like Paladins, Monks and Barbarians...if they violate their code (that is, if a barbarian goes lawful, monks become unlawful, and paladins do something evil) and therefore their alignment, how do you enforce something like that, if you don't govern alignment as a whole?

Do items like, Helmet of Alignment Change become obsolete then?
albone
05-27-04, 10:12 AM Originally posted by PenderGrass
NEVER TAKE AWAY XP.

It is wrong.

Rather, it is far easier to just NOT award anything - whilst awarding XP for those that do play their alignments well (if that is what you are going to do - me? it is just par for the course for someone to RP their alignment).

The only time XP should be taken away is for Death & Raises, Magic Item Creation, and because no one saved you the last slice of pizza.

Other than that....? no.

I don't take away XP. I was talking about docking BONUS XP for roleplaying. My feeling is that if you are roleplaying against your alignment you're not role playing well. Your roleplaying convience and therefore are not entitled the bonus rp XP. Bonus XP is a privelage, not a right, as XP from slaying monsters is, at least IMHO.

********Cannibalism (the act of eating your own species) is not evil.***********

Is that to say that cannibalism, other than survival reasons, is a neutral or good trait? If a monk has standard rations in his backpack, but takes the time to skin and cook a Gnoll he killed, I don't consider that to be a neutral motive.

The motive is petty, at least from the character in my campaign that I'm referring to. He's mad that the Gnoll caused him discomfort and his revenge is, after killing the gnoll, he's going to eat him. I've Dm'd this crew for over 7 years, so I have the luxury of empathy and interpertation in this matter.
Dex The King
05-27-04, 02:00 PM Eating a dead enemy out of spite is something I'd condiser evil. Especially if said monk does not normally eat gnoll, or the bodies of other fallen enemies.

Cannibalism is not necessarily evil. It depends on the context, just like everything else.
Kragg Bonemeal
05-27-04, 02:17 PM Saving a buddy... can be chaotic neutral. He is your friend. Even Hitler had friends.

Knocking off the temple... if to save others... pretty nice.... but not an immediate alignment switcher. For the loot? Actually bording an evil reason. Because the SOBs captured his friend and are generally jerks... very neutral.

Eating your dead enemies... for spite = non-lawful... the monk is allowing his emotions to control him... forget evil... unlawful. He should have greater self control if he is a monk. Now, the Native American practice (forget tribe) of eating your dead enemies heart to honor his spirit and harness his prowess for yourself is a neutral and lawful act if done ritualisitcally after honorable combat with a skilled adversary.
Azer Firelord
05-27-04, 02:24 PM As I've noted on the Player Quirks thread, I use a system where I track the alignment, but I don't tell players when they change unless they need to know for some class restriction etc. I award Roleplaying Xps for good roleplaying- sometimes an alignment shifting action actuallly makes a lot of sense in character, and is therefore good roleplaying, IMHO.

I also use the old hackneyed 'dreams' method of warning ethos following characters when they're straying from their ethos. (The old cliche of being chased by giant rolling dice if you're ethos is Lawful...).

As for cannibalism, I guess its partly a cultural thing- but most cultures would be against it which seems to indicate its a bit Chaotic...and it might well get the guy into trouble with the authorities if he's caught. Just a view.
D+1
05-28-04, 05:59 PM Originally posted by albone
How do you guys handle PC's switching alignments? My instinct is to allow it, unless they're always changing alignments.Your instincts are good.
Do you penalize PC's for not rp'ing in alignment?
No. It generally doesn't matter what alignment is being played (or even what alignment anyone THINKS is being played). Much of the purpose of alignment even being there at all is to encourage consistency in a characters behavior. However, characters will often change their behavior gradually over time in any case as a natural reaction to interacting with the world around them. This is called "roleplaying" and it is a GOOD thing.Its been stated that cannibalism is an evil act on the boards, so should there be a penalty?Generally not. Unless the character being played has restrictions on his alignment the only thing called for is a CHANGE of alignment.I always award bonus XP for rp'ing well, so I thought I would dock that. How does that sound to you guys?Like a bad idea and actually contradictory. I do NOT believe that failure to play any particular alignment is a failure of roleplaying. In fact playing a character who changes alignment is more often going to be a sign of GOOD roleplaying skills. But just assume for a moment that not playing your alignment is bad roleplaying. You award bonus xp for good roleplaying, right? But if they are roleplaying badly then you shouldn't be awarding them bonus xp for good roleplaying in the first place so it logically shouldn't be there for you to dock it in the second place. Your suggestion would be classifiable as "negative reinforcement". "Positive reinforcement" is a much better approach because negative reinforcement will have the tendency to discourage ANY roleplaying in order to avoid penalties. Besides which roleplaying is largely its own reward. You roleplay well because it's more FUN when you're roleplaying well. You shouldn't need to FORCE people to have more fun. If they don't thing roleplaying IS fun then you're not helping anyone by trying to force it out of them.
Finally, if I can get a ruling on CN
On the axis of Law-neutrality-Chaos the character is chaotic. That doesn't mean the character himself behaves in bizzare, random, or meaningless ways - it means that the character views the world around him as being bizzare, random and meaningless, nor does he seek to change that.

On the axis of Good-neutrality-Evil he's neutral. That means he's between the two extremes - he doesn't do really bad things but he doesn't generally go out of his way to help others or prevent others from doing bad things.

It might be a little uncharacteristic to take MAJOR risks for his friend, or to wipe out the Evil guy just because he IS Evil, but it's not necessarily AGAINST his alignment to do so. Keep tabs on him though. If he seems to be consistently sacrificing himself, putting himself in danger for others, or fighting evil for the SAKE of fighting evil, then he's moving away from CN and towards LG.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
albone 05-26-04, 05:07 PM	How do you guys handle PC's switching alignments? My instinct is to allow it, unless they're always changing alignments. Do you penalize PC's for not rp'ing in alignment? For instance, a LN monk wants to eat his enemies that he slays. its not from any tradition he follows, its his way of getting back at nasty enemies. Its been stated that cannibalism is an evil act on the boards, so should there be a penalty? I always award bonus XP for rp'ing well, so I thought I would dock that. How does that sound to you guys? Finally, if I can get a ruling on CN, one of my players, a CN Barbarian/fighter wants to go rescue his captured buddy from the Crater Ridge Mines and he also wants to take down the evil temple in the mines. His reasons, are that the captured buddy wouldn't leave him behind, and that the temple is evil so it should be taken down. I suppose if you rationalize it enough, you can make any alignment work but is there some guidelines we can follow as DM's?
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-26-04, 05:14 PM	The current best method (besides ditching Alignment outright) Is to not let the PCs write down thier alignment at all, but to keep track of it yourself based on thier actions. No matter what, however, you shouldn't penalized them for not following the arbirtrary letters on thier sheets.
PenderGrass 05-26-04, 05:17 PM	NEVER TAKE AWAY XP. It is wrong. Rather, it is far easier to just NOT award anything - whilst awarding XP for those that do play their alignments well (if that is what you are going to do - me? it is just par for the course for someone to RP their alignment). The only time XP should be taken away is for Death & Raises, Magic Item Creation, and because no one saved you the last slice of pizza. Other than that....? no.
MasterofMagic77 05-26-04, 05:36 PM	Originally posted by PenderGrass NEVER TAKE AWAY XP. It is wrong. Rather, it is far easier to just NOT award anything - whilst awarding XP for those that do play their alignments well (if that is what you are going to do - me? it is just par for the course for someone to RP their alignment). The only time XP should be taken away is for Death & Raises, Magic Item Creation, and because no one saved you the last slice of pizza. Other than that....? no. Very true, neutral does both evil and good things or lawful and chaotic things depinding on which axis the neutrality is on. So your monk doing an evil act is ok as long as he is not only doing evil acts but also doing good and inbeteween acts. For your barbarian i dont think it is unchaotic like to go save a friend but I also don't see why he would just want to destroy an evil temple just because it is evil when he is neutral unless there is some reason, such as if the evil temple captured his friend. Also the only time a change a chars alignment is when they consistantly go against their alignment, not just if they do it once.
thalious 05-26-04, 05:55 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland The current best method (besides ditching Alignment outright) Is to not let the PCs write down thier alignment at all, but to keep track of it yourself based on thier actions. No matter what, however, you shouldn't penalized them for not following the arbirtrary letters on thier sheets. Excellent idea. I do the same, while still letting my players to State their intended alignment, while I keep my own tabs. If the two diverge, a change will be coming. Usually in the form of the PC being surprised when the Pally starts glaring at them for some "unseen" reason.
Spongly 05-27-04, 06:19 AM	You don't roleplay your alignment. Your alignment is whatever you roleplay.
Critical Mass 05-27-04, 06:23 AM	Alignment follows actions. Many people incorrectly think that actions are supposed to follow alignment. Unless there's an alignment conflict with a class, you shouldn't penalize anyone for "not following their alignment." If the fighter keeps extorting people for money and taking whatever he wants by force and thinks Intimidate is the coolest thing on his character sheet even though there's a "CG" written next to his race and class, the problem isn't that he's acting against his alignment, it's that his alignment is just listed wrong on his sheet. You don't detract xp because he's not following an arbitrary set of rules based on what the player wrote down before the session, you simply change his alignment to reflect how he actually acts and play on from there. Alignment isn't supposed to dictate your actions, it's your actions that are supposed to dictate your alignment.
Naeron 05-27-04, 07:05 AM	Originally posted by albone How do you guys handle PC's switching alignments? My instinct is to allow it, unless they're always changing alignments. Do you penalize PC's for not rp'ing in alignment? For instance, a LN monk wants to eat his enemies that he slays. its not from any tradition he follows, its his way of getting back at nasty enemies. Its been stated that cannibalism is an evil act on the boards, so should there be a penalty? I always award bonus XP for rp'ing well, so I thought I would dock that. How does that sound to you guys? Cannibalism (the act of eating your own species) is not evil. Killing innocent people to eat them is evil (because you are killing innocent people), eating an enemy who you have killed because a) they need killing and b) they are trying to kill you is not evil in D&D terms, just distasteful. Originally posted by albone Finally, if I can get a ruling on CN, one of my players, a CN Barbarian/fighter wants to go rescue his captured buddy from the Crater Ridge Mines and he also wants to take down the evil temple in the mines. His reasons, are that the captured buddy wouldn't leave him behind, and that the temple is evil so it should be taken down. I suppose if you rationalize it enough, you can make any alignment work but is there some guidelines we can follow as DM's? It sounds perrfectly chaotic neutral to me, he wants to rescue a friend (SRD: "Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships") which seems ok and he wants to destroy an evil temple because they are evil and he obviously doesn't like them. He is also probably expecting a nice lump of treasure. His reasons are not revolving around "stopping them before they harm innocents" but are personal.
albone 05-27-04, 10:02 AM	Originally posted by Naeron It sounds perrfectly chaotic neutral to me, he wants to rescue a friend (SRD: "Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships") which seems ok and he wants to destroy an evil temple because they are evil and he obviously doesn't like them. He is also probably expecting a nice lump of treasure. His reasons are not revolving around "stopping them before they harm innocents" but are personal. By definition, a CN character is an individualist who values there own freedom and not others freedom. But again, this is something that can be circumvented if one thinks long enough about it. Let's take the debate the other way for character classes like Paladins, Monks and Barbarians...if they violate their code (that is, if a barbarian goes lawful, monks become unlawful, and paladins do something evil) and therefore their alignment, how do you enforce something like that, if you don't govern alignment as a whole? Do items like, Helmet of Alignment Change become obsolete then?
albone 05-27-04, 10:12 AM	Originally posted by PenderGrass NEVER TAKE AWAY XP. It is wrong. Rather, it is far easier to just NOT award anything - whilst awarding XP for those that do play their alignments well (if that is what you are going to do - me? it is just par for the course for someone to RP their alignment). The only time XP should be taken away is for Death & Raises, Magic Item Creation, and because no one saved you the last slice of pizza. Other than that....? no. I don't take away XP. I was talking about docking BONUS XP for roleplaying. My feeling is that if you are roleplaying against your alignment you're not role playing well. Your roleplaying convience and therefore are not entitled the bonus rp XP. Bonus XP is a privelage, not a right, as XP from slaying monsters is, at least IMHO. ******Cannibalism (the act of eating your own species) is not evil.********* Is that to say that cannibalism, other than survival reasons, is a neutral or good trait? If a monk has standard rations in his backpack, but takes the time to skin and cook a Gnoll he killed, I don't consider that to be a neutral motive. The motive is petty, at least from the character in my campaign that I'm referring to. He's mad that the Gnoll caused him discomfort and his revenge is, after killing the gnoll, he's going to eat him. I've Dm'd this crew for over 7 years, so I have the luxury of empathy and interpertation in this matter.
Dex The King 05-27-04, 02:00 PM	Eating a dead enemy out of spite is something I'd condiser evil. Especially if said monk does not normally eat gnoll, or the bodies of other fallen enemies. Cannibalism is not necessarily evil. It depends on the context, just like everything else.
Kragg Bonemeal 05-27-04, 02:17 PM	Saving a buddy... can be chaotic neutral. He is your friend. Even Hitler had friends. Knocking off the temple... if to save others... pretty nice.... but not an immediate alignment switcher. For the loot? Actually bording an evil reason. Because the SOBs captured his friend and are generally jerks... very neutral. Eating your dead enemies... for spite = non-lawful... the monk is allowing his emotions to control him... forget evil... unlawful. He should have greater self control if he is a monk. Now, the Native American practice (forget tribe) of eating your dead enemies heart to honor his spirit and harness his prowess for yourself is a neutral and lawful act if done ritualisitcally after honorable combat with a skilled adversary.
Azer Firelord 05-27-04, 02:24 PM	As I've noted on the Player Quirks thread, I use a system where I track the alignment, but I don't tell players when they change unless they need to know for some class restriction etc. I award Roleplaying Xps for good roleplaying- sometimes an alignment shifting action actuallly makes a lot of sense in character, and is therefore good roleplaying, IMHO. I also use the old hackneyed 'dreams' method of warning ethos following characters when they're straying from their ethos. (The old cliche of being chased by giant rolling dice if you're ethos is Lawful...). As for cannibalism, I guess its partly a cultural thing- but most cultures would be against it which seems to indicate its a bit Chaotic...and it might well get the guy into trouble with the authorities if he's caught. Just a view.
D+1 05-28-04, 05:59 PM	Originally posted by albone How do you guys handle PC's switching alignments? My instinct is to allow it, unless they're always changing alignments.Your instincts are good. Do you penalize PC's for not rp'ing in alignment? No. It generally doesn't matter what alignment is being played (or even what alignment anyone THINKS is being played). Much of the purpose of alignment even being there at all is to encourage consistency in a characters behavior. However, characters will often change their behavior gradually over time in any case as a natural reaction to interacting with the world around them. This is called "roleplaying" and it is a GOOD thing.Its been stated that cannibalism is an evil act on the boards, so should there be a penalty?Generally not. Unless the character being played has restrictions on his alignment the only thing called for is a CHANGE of alignment.I always award bonus XP for rp'ing well, so I thought I would dock that. How does that sound to you guys?Like a bad idea and actually contradictory. I do NOT believe that failure to play any particular alignment is a failure of roleplaying. In fact playing a character who changes alignment is more often going to be a sign of GOOD roleplaying skills. But just assume for a moment that not playing your alignment is bad roleplaying. You award bonus xp for good roleplaying, right? But if they are roleplaying badly then you shouldn't be awarding them bonus xp for good roleplaying in the first place so it logically shouldn't be there for you to dock it in the second place. Your suggestion would be classifiable as "negative reinforcement". "Positive reinforcement" is a much better approach because negative reinforcement will have the tendency to discourage ANY roleplaying in order to avoid penalties. Besides which roleplaying is largely its own reward. You roleplay well because it's more FUN when you're roleplaying well. You shouldn't need to FORCE people to have more fun. If they don't thing roleplaying IS fun then you're not helping anyone by trying to force it out of them. Finally, if I can get a ruling on CN On the axis of Law-neutrality-Chaos the character is chaotic. That doesn't mean the character himself behaves in bizzare, random, or meaningless ways - it means that the character views the world around him as being bizzare, random and meaningless, nor does he seek to change that. On the axis of Good-neutrality-Evil he's neutral. That means he's between the two extremes - he doesn't do really bad things but he doesn't generally go out of his way to help others or prevent others from doing bad things. It might be a little uncharacteristic to take MAJOR risks for his friend, or to wipe out the Evil guy just because he IS Evil, but it's not necessarily AGAINST his alignment to do so. Keep tabs on him though. If he seems to be consistently sacrificing himself, putting himself in danger for others, or fighting evil for the SAKE of fighting evil, then he's moving away from CN and towards LG.