Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zeorth 08-30-06, 07:45 PM	My characters in my campaign either totally ignore there alignment and the fact that they have one, or do opposite of the alignment. If it happens, such as a lawful good character decides to randomly kill abunch of nice NPC in a tavern - should the DM say something like "A Greater good comes out inside of you, you just can't bring you blade to such carnage" and not allow them to do it? ... or should the DM sit back, watch the carnage, and change the alignment accordingly? If a player picks an alignment, I would THINK they should be made aware of it and act accordingly. If your in a game is it to late to tell them about it? Any help would be appreciated, thanks again.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-30-06, 07:51 PM	No. Don't force your players to act in certain ways. That's railroading and really bad DMing. Change his alignment if he's committing enough acts that defy his current alignment.
DericFeld 08-30-06, 07:54 PM	I would never force a PC to do something, thats what makes a pen and paper game better than a video game IMHO. I would likely warn the PC that if they choose to follow up with said act it would effect them by an alignment change. they can then choose to continue their action or stop. This is a much more important issue for classes with alignment restrictions so it may be that the player doesn't care if they shift. I would also expect other PC's to react to this savagry in character and posibly deside to leave the guy who keeps hacking down villagers if they don't downright turn on him to stop his obviously evil acts.
stargate525 08-30-06, 07:58 PM	I don't force their hand as far as their actions, all I say is that in my campaigns, they need to start good, can become neutral, but any non-plot-or-item-induced-evilness (meaning a general shift over time), makes your character forfeit to me as an NPC. That usually stops them pretty well.
AntiDjinn 08-30-06, 08:07 PM	Your alignment does not restrict your actions, your deeds determine your alignment. A lawful good character can take chaotic evil actions, he just won't be lawful good anymore. If alignment actually controlled the individual then you wouldn't praise a neutral good or damn a neutral evil for his actions because he was forced to act a particular way. If alignment actually controlled and forced the character's actions then by definition there would be no alignment violations.
Wopple 08-30-06, 08:12 PM	Yeah. I am kindof mean, so I just note things I think are off alignment quietly. No warning, no nothing. Then, if someone casts detect alignment on the PC, they detect them as being whatever I have written down, not what they have written down. If a cleric shifts more thna 1 step out of his deity's alignment, his spells stop working. If a pally breaks the CoC or alignment, their abilities stop working. I think someone going to cast "Cure critical wounds" and having it fail with no explanation is a sufficent way to handle this kind of thing.
Piggyfreak6 08-30-06, 08:54 PM	Change his alignment and give him XP penalities, and some big ones!!
Atirakis 08-30-06, 08:56 PM	No. Don't force your players to act in certain ways. That's railroading and really bad DMing. Change his alignment if he's committing enough acts that defy his current alignment. Yep. :D
Mitchell 08-30-06, 10:15 PM	There are two schools of thought here. 1) Alignment as a straightjacket. This is the "You said you were lawful good, and a lawful good character wouldn't do that" approach. It is generally considered to be the inferior style, as your players aren't wholly in charge of their character. 2) Actions speak louder than words. This is the "Well, you were lawful good, until you torched the orphanage in an attempt to smoke out the child you saw steal an apple from a merchant" approach. Let the players do what they want to, and track their alignment drift accordingly. #2 is a little more work, but the players who complain about alignment shifts are just as likely to complain about not being able to do something totally out of their professed alignment's philosophy as well. The upside is that they have no one to truly blame except for themselves for where they end up (barring any unfortunate incidents involving a certain helm or such, but in this case it really does become something of a straight jacket, since they have to act out the new alignment).
(Psi)SeveredHead 08-30-06, 10:48 PM	To the original question, no. But you can force them to change their alignment. That can result in their character being booted from the party, too. That's true even for good clerics, exalted characters or paladins. (Of course, they'll lose their status.)
kelvinaw273 08-30-06, 10:57 PM	Alignment should reflect PC actions, not vice verse. At start of play taking an alignment is lik emaking a declaration of intent - it states how you think you are going to roleplay a character.
ShadowDragon8685 08-30-06, 11:07 PM	Players in my games are free to act as they wish, under the following caveat: Player Characters must be good. I will not DM for villians, I will not DM for mercinaries, I will not DM for people who care only for themselves, or whom otherwise manage to qualify as Neutral on the Good-Evil scale. This means that if your character winds up downshifting in alignment, I hand you 4d6 (or electronic equavilent, since I play online), you hand me your sheet, and I thank you for the brand-spanking-new, pre-made, pre-storied NPC.
DarkNick 08-30-06, 11:12 PM	have a chat with them about what their alignment means to them. It is not too late. Explain what you expect. If you want a good campaign tell players you expect them to be good. I think it is perfectly ok for a DM to specify that they only want good characters (or evil if thats what you want). don't play it too tight. But make sure there are consequences for the players actions. Have the slaughtered NPC's partners turn up with their babies in tow, call the guards, have the players arrested and beheaded for their crimes.
AntiDjinn 08-31-06, 12:56 AM	Since the Helm of Opposite Alignment was mentioned: Do not allow this item in your game unless you use the alignment as moral straight jacket approach. Even then it is a bad idea unless you like having all of morality and ethics reduced to slapstick. Using it in a game where deeds determine alignment means the alignment as straight jacket model is used for that one unfortunate character. Leader: "Good cleric, what is the character of that man's soul?" Cleric: (casts a few Detect's) "He is lawful good." Leader: "Ah, so he has lead a life of virtue and of principle." Cleric: "Yeah, probably. Either that or he may have raped 50 nuns then put on a silly hat. It is hard to say, but functionally the same thing, isn't it?" Leader: "Uhhhh, I suppose."
Pandaemoni 08-31-06, 01:05 AM	No. Don't force your players to act in certain ways. That's railroading and really bad DMing. Change his alignment if he's committing enough acts that defy his current alignment. I agree with that. Change the player's alignment. If there are consequnces to that (loss of paladin status, for example), then so be it. For most classes, there are no harsh effects that come from changing one's alignment. Explain to your players what the alignments mean, and if they keep jumping from one to the other, label them "Chaotic Neutral" for their failure to adhere to anything. For the most part, alignment is a tool that helps guide your player to a more consistent characterization, not a weapon to be used by the DM to force consistency.
KurenaiYami 08-31-06, 01:10 AM	CAN you force them to follow alignment? Depends on if they are bigger than you or not. Should you, though, is another matter altogether. I believe most have agreed the answer is "no."
Ralvuimego 08-31-06, 01:10 AM	What I have wrapped in "Spoiler" below is me speaking my mind about something unrelated to the topic, and you can ignore it if you want. Players in my games are free to act as they wish, under the following caveat: Player Characters must be good. I will not DM for villians, I will not DM for mercinaries, I will not DM for people who care only for themselves, or whom otherwise manage to qualify as Neutral on the Good-Evil scale. This means that if your character winds up downshifting in alignment, I hand you 4d6 (or electronic equavilent, since I play online), you hand me your sheet, and I thank you for the brand-spanking-new, pre-made, pre-storied NPC. Do not mistake what I am about to say as bashing you, as I admire your ability to keep the immatures in line (It's a talent I have yet to pick up), but know that I personally wouldn't like to play with you. Personally, I despise the must-be-good mentality because it is the embodiment of a misunderstood alignment system. My players know that I won't change my world to make burning villages and eating babies any easier to get past the kingdom's justice system, and prisons are nigh impossible to escape from, thus imprisonment is equivilent to character death. They also understand you can be evil without breaking the law, simply by not caring about the moral issues behind your actions (Every DM should be thusly blessed). Evil players in Good parties are for taking care of the dirty business, such as torturing prisoners and Ignoring (Non-party member related) collateral damage (Example: Gunning down the BBEG, even though he has a hostage) that would stop the good party members cold. As for answering the OP's question, if anything you have a question about involves the words "Forcing" and "Players" in the same sentence, it's generally a bad idea. With characters who know that their actions will have dramatic and perminant effects on them, I will allow a Wisdom check (DC 5) for the character to realize that what he's doing will have said bad effects, and ask if he's sure he wants to go through with it.
Solik 08-31-06, 01:13 AM	There's several layers to this, so let's hit them all in order. First, I agree with the chorus -- no, you should not force them to abide by their alignments. Actions make alignments, not vice-versa. You modify alignments over time as appropriate to whatever the character's real alignment appears to be. Second, are the characters consistent? If they're not consistent, you can't even assign them an alignment, except maybe Chaotic Neutral (played in this instance as Chaotic Stupid). If they are consistent, then you can stop here and be satisfied with the solution. Third, if they're not consistent, then it's obvious that your players aren't taking this very seriously. They're there to kick back and have a little fun. Just run with it. Don't put them into moral dilemmas, and try to keep them in dungeons surrounded by pure evil, so that this just never comes up (might wanna actively prevent PvP, though, unless they all want it). If they get bored with that, run an evil campaign and let them go hog wild to get it out of their system.
JulesCARV 08-31-06, 01:35 AM	You can force a PC to follow their alignment, but I happen to be of the opinion, widely shared, that if you do this, you're a bad DM, and personally, I wouldn't be inclined to be one of your players (unless you're a reaaaally great storyteller or something).
GDarius 08-31-06, 01:42 AM	Since the Helm of Opposite Alignment was mentioned: Do not allow this item in your game unless you use the alignment as moral straight jacket approach. Even then it is a bad idea unless you like having all of morality and ethics reduced to slapstick. Using it in a game where deeds determine alignment means the alignment as straight jacket model is used for that one unfortunate character. Leader: "Good cleric, what is the character of that man's soul?" Cleric: (casts a few Detect's) "He is lawful good." Leader: "Ah, so he has lead a life of virtue and of principle." Cleric: "Yeah, probably. Either that or he may have raped 50 nuns then put on a silly hat. It is hard to say, but functionally the same thing, isn't it?" Leader: "Uhhhh, I suppose." :rofl: Off to the board quotes (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=9950747#post9950747) with ye!
lousywithnames 08-31-06, 01:46 AM	I remember when I was younger and newer to the whole roleplaying thing. After being attacked by a seriously overpowering group of bandits, I figured out a way to pretty much horribly kill them all very quickly with a highly detailed plan (the specifics aren't really important), so I got very excited as I described my actions to the DM and they all worked exactly as planned. Every single one of the bandits was dead in a rather horrible way. Then the DM pointed out that I was Lawful Good... :$ Long story short, I was embarassed and since then tried to remember my alignment before getting carried away by exciting ideas and cunning plans. (or I just play high intelligence, low wisdom, chaotic neutral characters and get to do both at once). Getting away from my nostalgia, have you tried just pointing out that they're not playing in accordance with their alignment? Maybe they're getting carried away and forgetting what they wrote on their sheet. Or perhaps you disagree on what the different alignments mean. I suggest discussion with your players. Alignment can be a very complex issue that you might both be seeing differently. Keep the "evil DM box of toolsTM" hidden away until you're sure they're deliberately flounting their alignments.
Always-Late 08-31-06, 01:50 AM	"Yeah, why the hell did you kill all the shopkeepers if you're lawful good?" "You can't restrict what I do! Change my alignment! Or are you going to be one of those 'straitjacket' DMs?" "So, you were lying to me when you told me your character was lawful good." "Well, no. It's a plot thing. I hadn't planned it from the start. I'm allowed to make my character change my mind about being good. I can make him do anything he wants. He's like, fallen from grace now." "Well, I've changed my mind about not imposing arbitrary DM wrath. Rocks fall. You die."
lousywithnames 08-31-06, 02:13 AM	"Yeah, why the hell did you kill all the shopkeepers if you're lawful good?" "You can't restrict what I do! Change my alignment! Or are you going to be one of those 'straitjacket' DMs." "So, you were lying to me when you told me your character was lawful good." "Well, no. It's a plot thing. I hadn't planned it from the start. I'm allowed to make my character change my mind about being good. I can make him do anything he wants. He's like, fallen from grace now." "Well, I've changed my mind about not imposing arbitrary DM wrath. Rocks fall. You die." :rofl:
Cifer 08-31-06, 08:21 AM	First thing, I agree with most of the other posters: Saying "Your character won't do that" is a sign of really bad DMing. You may ask "How does that fit with the alignment of your character? Why does he do that?", but in the same way that a player can't say "No, the NPC doesn't do that!", you can't (or maybe shouldn't) say "No, your character doesn't do that!". Yeah. I am kindof mean, so I just note things I think are off alignment quietly. No warning, no nothing. Then, if someone casts detect alignment on the PC, they detect them as being whatever I have written down, not what they have written down. If a cleric shifts more thna 1 step out of his deity's alignment, his spells stop working. If a pally breaks the CoC or alignment, their abilities stop working. I think someone going to cast "Cure critical wounds" and having it fail with no explanation is a sufficent way to handle this kind of thing. Actually, this is also a method I wouldn't employ. All those alignment threads on the boards have more or less shown that there are widely different opinions on what constitutes good or evil deeds and when alignments should shift. Deciding that without consulting the player doesn't seem fair to me. It basically leads to "Ok, you are now lawful evil"-"Huh? I always acted lawful good!"-"No, you didn't. Remember the scenes A, B, C and D?"-"Well, in scene A, my reasoning was that the alternative would have been worse; scene B didn't strike me as meaningful; in scene C I saw no alternative to acting the way I did and while you are right about scene D, my character has deeply regretted it ever since and still has pangs of guilt about his actions."-"Why didn't you tell me?"-"You never asked..."
razorboy 08-31-06, 08:26 AM	There were only a few times when I forced a player to act according to his alignment, the most recent might've been sleep-deprivation induced: Two players, one is CG, another is NG, their backstory is that they grew up together and stood up for each other time after time. The going gets tough, the CG character bolts for it leaving his NG friend behind at quarter of his hit points; CG character's player tells me that he withdraws from combat and tries to run away. I tell him "No, you're abandoning your lifelong friend, you're supposed to have stuck with him through worse, and on top of it, you're a good character and you're running away and endangering all your friends. Either your character does what he should be doing in this situation, or I'm docking XP." The player sulked but in the end the rest of the party sided with me, he accepted the decision, and they've actually won the fight with no casualties. In my opinion, if the player is not going to bother remembering his own alignment or the background story that HE himself wrote, then he deserves what's coming when he stops playing in character. Even if alignment is only a guideline (and I believe it is), the players should still respect this part of the game, same as they should respect how initiative works, how AC works, and so on.
Brotha_T 08-31-06, 08:56 AM	I don't force their hand as far as their actions, all I say is that in my campaigns, they need to start good, can become neutral, but any non-plot-or-item-induced-evilness (meaning a general shift over time), makes your character forfeit to me as an NPC. That usually stops them pretty well. I think even that is a little too extreme. I understand that evil alignments can sometimes cause problems in games, but I would hate ANY restrictions on what I can and can't do as a PC. As a DM, you don't need to actively prevent your players from taking certain actions (i.e.: alignment restrictions), you just need to adjudicate reasonable consequences to their actions. If they randomly kill people in taverns, they won't get away with it. Guards will come to arrest them, and if they resist they will be killed. Unless your players like drawing up new characters every session, your in-game consequences will have the same effect, and it will be much more enjoyable for everyone. Change his alignment and give him XP penalities, and some big ones!! Why? You should NEVER take XP away, under any circumstances, nor should you reduce it because you don't like the way he is playing his character. That kind of action will just lead to a DM vs player mentality in your games. Players are like dogs; always use positive reinforcement when it comes to XP. There are two schools of thought here. 2) Actions speak louder than words. This is the "Well, you were lawful good, until you torched the orphanage in an attempt to smoke out the child you saw steal an apple from a merchant" approach. Let the players do what they want to, and track their alignment drift accordingly. #2 is a little more work, but the players who complain about alignment shifts are just as likely to complain about not being able to do something totally out of their professed alignment's philosophy as well. The upside is that they have no one to truly blame except for themselves for where they end up (barring any unfortunate incidents involving a certain helm or such, but in this case it really does become something of a straight jacket, since they have to act out the new alignment). Mitchell hit the nail on the head here. It is more work to come up with in-game consequences to actions rather than just telling your players that they can't do something, but it's well worth it.
Millennium 08-31-06, 12:50 PM	Can you? Yes. Should you? No. There might be certain things that you're simply uncomfortable having the PCs doing in your game, and you're well within your bounds to forbid those. The most common example of "Not In My Game" actions is probably rape. But NIMG is not an alignment issue, because it pertains to all characters regardless of alignment. If the characters are consistently acting in accordance with a different alignment then the one written on their character sheet, then there is an error on the character sheet which needs to be corrected. Many people refer to this as changing the character's alignment, but it's really just a formality: the actual change occurred long before, and this last step is just a matter of updating the records. When to tell a player to correct the alignment on his character sheet is one of the most controversial questions discussed here. I phrase this the way that I do -"correcting the alignment on his character sheet"- for a reason: it emphasizes my views on how this should work. Alignment is a pattern, not a data point. It's not possible to discern a character's alignment from a single act, and therefore it's not possible to change it from a single act. Paladins can lose their powers for committing a single act, but this is because it's a violation of the paladins' code, not because their alignment has changed. You should only request a correction when it has been clear for some time that the character's alignment has changed. Among other things, this gives you more things to cite when the player argues (and he will argue: count on that). Don't request a drastic change unless the character really has done something drastic. It takes extremely impressive stuff to go directly from one end of the scale to the other. Most people who go from one end to the other spend some time as Neutral first. Technically, this all means that the character's alignment has been different for a while. During that time, you may have had to make some rulings based on the old alignment that you wouldn't make now. This is not a big enough plot hole to be worth worrying about. You can even explain it away by saying that even when a person changes alignment, it takes a little time for the cosmos to re-establish its metaphysical bond with the person based on his new alignment. When you ask a player to correct his character sheet, "the universe has caught up." When you ask a player to correct his sheet, there will be arguments and debate. This takes time which could better be spent playing. The best way to avoid this is to make these requests outside of the normal gaming sessions. Leave the playtime for playing.
Eightbitmage 08-31-06, 03:35 PM	For me the answer that has worked best (I have mature players) is both yes and no. No, just because a PC has an alignment doesn't mean he cannot take action to change it. There would be no way for a lawful good paladin to fall if this were the case, and on the other side of the coin it would be impossible to repent for being evil and turn neutral or even good. The yes comes in when it comes to consistancy. If your PC really is lawful good, and has been lawful good all his life he would be acting contrary to character by randomly burning down an orphange, so I would not allow it. This isn't because he is acting contrary to his alignment, but because he is being inconsistant. If he really has acted lawful good all his life, there is likely a reason for it such as upbringing, an inherant sense of right and wrong, a personal moral code he developed. Likewise if he begins performing evil actions there should be a reason for it. Maybe he lost his faith in the good gods, or saw too many horrible things happen to good people, or even just plain snapped after he saw his wife killed. As long as you have a justifiable reason for an action you may take it, but just as the DM must be consistant to preserve versimillitude so must the PCs. This may not work for a player who just gets bored in sessions and starts fights with NPCs because he is bored, but if the people at your table give their PCs personalities often that personality is the first thing that will stop them from acting against their alignement, especially if no good reason is given.
UncleAthanas 08-31-06, 03:48 PM	My characters in my campaign either totally ignore there alignment and the fact that they have one, or do opposite of the alignment. If it happens, such as a lawful good character decides to randomly kill abunch of nice NPC in a tavern - should the DM say something like "A Greater good comes out inside of you, you just can't bring you blade to such carnage" and not allow them to do it? ... or should the DM sit back, watch the carnage, and change the alignment accordingly? If a player picks an alignment, I would THINK they should be made aware of it and act accordingly. If your in a game is it to late to tell them about it? Any help would be appreciated, thanks again. Change his alignment and ask him to explain why his character did a 180. If he can't explain it have him die of a brain aneurysm.
Momordi 08-31-06, 04:00 PM	My characters in my campaign either totally ignore there alignment and the fact that they have one, or do opposite of the alignment. If it happens, such as a lawful good character decides to randomly kill abunch of nice NPC in a tavern - should the DM say something like "A Greater good comes out inside of you, you just can't bring you blade to such carnage" and not allow them to do it? ... or should the DM sit back, watch the carnage, and change the alignment accordingly? If a player picks an alignment, I would THINK they should be made aware of it and act accordingly. If your in a game is it to late to tell them about it? Any help would be appreciated, thanks again. If you want to restrict alignment, you could use the ravenloft Powers Checks rules. You would probably need to alter your cosmology a little to make this change though. With Powers Checks, any evil action risks attracting the attention of the dark powers. Each failed powers check changes the character (he gets a gift and a curse). If he stays on this road he becomes an NPC.
UncleHerbie 08-31-06, 04:05 PM	Be careful, many players use those Ravenloft rules to their own advantage.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-31-06, 04:10 PM	Change his alignment and give him XP penalities, and some big ones!! ^ That? Never do that. Also never steal characters because the player isn't being s good little poppet. Both are jerkish actions.
KurenaiYami 08-31-06, 04:17 PM	^ That? Never do that. Also never steal characters because the player isn't being s good little poppet. Both are jerkish actions. "That" meaning the alignment switch, the XP penalty, or both? I for one thought the DMG told you that you were supposed to change the alignment if they act out of their current one. I want to say page 134, but I am not sure. I'd have to look.
Always-Late 08-31-06, 04:39 PM	Okay, you've saw my little story where I instaganked a character because he went psychotic. I'm not even kidding. The game logically progresses to the PCs being captured and executed for mass murder anyway. If you tell me your character is lawful good, I plan a campaign around that fact. We've agreed to run a campaign where things like this don't happen. Don't "surprise" me with some "new character developments" or I'll surprise you with some "interesting plot developments."
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-31-06, 04:55 PM	"That" meaning the alignment switch, the XP penalty, or both? XP penalty.
KurenaiYami 08-31-06, 05:02 PM	XP penalty. Ah. Agreed then.
sicsemperjohn 08-31-06, 06:18 PM	I don't want to prescribe any one way to do anything, but I want to point out that refusing to let characters alignment-shift -- or even simply be evil -- removes two opportunities: first, to play it as an interesting twist in the story, and second, to teach your players something. I recognize that not everyone will recognize stories with evil protagonists to be acceptable, and that's a purely aesthetic choice. However, I think that D&D is an incredibly good opportunity for players to learn about themselves. If you don't draw their own conclusions for them (this is something DMs really seem to like doing), players will find their actions rewarded with consequences. Considering how most players base their in-game activity only on what brings their character the most advantage or excitement, adding just a small dimension of consequentiality or responsibility can suddenly completely change things for a player. I don't tell players that what they are doing is good or evil at any point. I guess I picked that up from creative writing profs in college -- never start a story with an idea, and never try to explain an emotion. It's the same thing with alignment. After a session, if a character has changed in alignment I'll tell the player, and why -- but usually it transpires in a more organic way: one of my players does something completely Anakin and then suddenly looks up and says, "I'm not Good anymore, am I?"
Illithid_Tentacles 08-31-06, 06:35 PM	No, you cannot force players to stick to thier alignment, because alignment is not what determines your actions; your actions determine your alignment. Alignment is a meter, not entirely unlike HP. Your actions affect it. If you made it clear that your game was a "no evil characters" game, and they're drifting that way regardless, have a talk with them out of game and make them aware of your concerns. The ONLY times the players should be punished for an alignment shift is if they have a class that requires a specific alignment, and thier actions cause it to change.
Atirakis 08-31-06, 06:39 PM	^ That? Never do that. Also never steal characters because the player isn't being s good little poppet. Both are jerkish actions. Vaal what are you saying? Allow alignment shifts with no repurcussions? You would have players changing alignments whenever it suited.
trapspringer 08-31-06, 06:55 PM	... and they would end up chaotic neutral. On top of that, they have to actually earn that new alignment. I don't see a problem with banning "evil PCs" or "good PCs." I think we pretty much advocate that when we say "don't allow mixed parties." I see no problems removing a character from a game because his alignment shifts to the opposite end of the spectrum.
Kradlo 08-31-06, 08:19 PM	As a GM, I never force a player to do anything. Player characters are free to act in whatever fashion they choose. But they will have to deal with the consequences of those actions. I had a PC group really surprise me during a game I ran at DunDraCon years ago. I had a simple quest set up, and these guys went on a mad killing spree. The Massacre at Jenkins Ferry became a legend in the campaign, and something of urban legend at DunDraCon for about a decade. At each stage of their actions, I asked them, "Are you sure that's what you want to do?" At each point they answered, "Yes." Watching the carnage unfold, I let events transpire as they did. The outcome of it all was that the party got arrested and tried for mass murder. The lucky ones, who had really good lawyers and gave hefty bribes to the judge, got off with breaking big rocks into little rocks for forty years. The rest were impaled and left for the vultures. So if a PC wants to engage in some random homicide, I won't stop him, but I won't save him from his justly earned fate, either.
Cifer 08-31-06, 08:42 PM	Okay, you've saw my little story where I instaganked a character because he went psychotic. I'm not even kidding. The game logically progresses to the PCs being captured and executed for mass murder anyway. Yeah, but in the same way one could say "Oh, you'll eventually defeat the BBEG. Let's just say a stone fell on him and end the campaign." - the process is the whole point of the game. Anyway, the PCs may well have plans for their escape. Vaal what are you saying? Allow alignment shifts with no repurcussions? You would have players changing alignments whenever it suited. First thing: A player does not shift alignments - he just acts in a certain way which causes the DM to change said alignment. If the pcs acted extremely inconsistently, then this would lead towards CN or CE. The repercussions for this should follow inside the game - the PCs might be regarded as untrustworthy, be persecuted or killed by people they offended. "You did something I don't like, that's why I deduct you XP (= your character loses experiences)" sounds strange to me and reeks of railroading.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-31-06, 08:51 PM	Vaal what are you saying? Allow alignment shifts with no repurcussions? Yes. You don't learn less from experience because your outlook has changed. You would have players changing alignments whenever it suited. Only the DM gets to say when shift occurs and it takes a long time. This won't be a problem.
allencon 08-31-06, 09:32 PM	The short answer is no. Choice of action is one of the key defining aspects of DnD. That said there is nothing stopping you as a DM from making characters experience logical, CR/ECL appropriate consequences for their choices in terms of matters that would affect their alignment. The problem is not slamming down a hammer for minor transgressions, while letting serial killers that had "good intentions" operate in a moral vacuum. Even in a systems were alignment is stripped out completely, there are still consequences for actions and choices. Poor choices sometimes lead to less than desirable results - at least from the PC's perspective. But wether you use an alignment system or not, most actions on the part of the PC's provoke some kind of ramification. Remember too don't ever feel that you have to be a "disciplinarian" or a punisher. Whatever consequences come upon the PCs, approach it from a possition of logic. If the PCs have done x will y happen? Is z more appropriate response from the parties affected by the PCs? As such if a PC decides to murder someone, the "normal" (at least for your setting's perspective needs) consequences would occurr - perhaps an investigation, a trial, banishment, a lynch mob, etc. But such things should offer some means of negotiating the encounter for the PCs, ie three greater deities of LG don't matieralize and smite the rogue who J-walked through the town plaza. Alignment is more like a temperature reading. It is very difficult for the temperature to remain exactly the same outside all the time. So it is true for the PCs. There will always be fluxations in some direction or the other. But when prolonged, and multiple choices are made willingly and knowingly by the PC that takes their sense of ethics in a different direction, or indicates an evolution of world view to significantly different paradigm, then it is appropriate to assess the totality of the character at that point and determine if an alignment shift is needed. PC's and DM's alike tend to sometimes fight as if they "own" their alignment. As it is mostly determined by actions, deeds, words, thoughts, and intents, this is like trying to say you own your body temperature. Alignment is a function of actions. As actions change, so must the alignment descriptor. With that in mind, you as a DM should never force a PC to play their alignment. Remember alignments usually take a long time to change - outside of ridiculously extreme acts such a spree killing perhaps. And even in those casses where the LG fighter decides to toast an orphange of children for entertainment, some else may be going on - ie the PC may feel bored with the character concept, or the campaign, doesn't understand alignment, doesn't have a firm idea of "who" his character is, etc. Keep in mind too that not all consequences of actions have to be "bad" for the PCs. A band of PCs that goes out of its way to be heroic, generous, forgiving, courageous, and trustworthy may find new allies to their cause, inspired by their collective virtue. These new admirers need not be assistant meat shields, but could provide additional sources of adventuring, story color, and making the game experience connect in a meaningful way to the PCs. Hopefully this answers your question.
AntiDjinn 09-01-06, 11:33 AM	I would only impose an XP penalty if the actions that entailed an alignment shift also cause the character to fail to accomplish his goals. A friend had the following occur in his game: The party was hired to enter a dungeon and capture (alive) a specific NPC, recover the item he had stolen, and find out why the denizens of this dungeon were interested in the item. Those were the specific goals they were hired to accomplish, plus the usual party goals of acquire gold and items. The party leader was a paladin. Because he was a smite on sight paladin, he managed to kill the guy they were supposed to capture without ever knowing it. Because he got greedy and was gathering loot, he didn't notice another party member was dying and didn't reach him to lay on hands until after he was at -10. The paladin got a pittance of XP, not because he acted out of alignment but because the mission was an abject failure; none of the goals were accomplished, the party actually lost an item plus the gold it cost to have a character raised.
Atirakis 09-01-06, 11:39 AM	Yes. You don't learn less from experience because your outlook has changed. Actually because you know view the world in a different way everything you thought you knew has to now be relearned. Only the DM gets to say when shift occurs and it takes a long time. This won't be a problem. How long does it take for a Lawful Good character to decide he wants to slaughter the baby orcs? PS Good morning my arch nemesis I hope to have many fun filled spirited debates with you again this fine day, might I suggest something in a metagaming thread?
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-01-06, 11:54 AM	Actually because you know view the world in a different way everything you thought you knew has to now be relearned. Er... magic still works the same, fickle, arbitrary way (We're sorry, your pearl's general market value is now 99gp, your Identify attempt has failed), certainly stabbing people for thier gold hasn't changed -- what's to relearn? How long does it take for a Lawful Good character to decide he wants to slaughter the baby orcs? This isn't an alignment shift, this is a singular action. If you're asking how long it take to become evil, the question doesn't make any sense because being evil doesn't mean you're insane and homicidal, just extremely self centered. And we already know that if that LG is a Paladin, he simply MUST slaughter them because bigotry and mrder is the core of his being, as is writ by the heartless forces tha define 'Good' and 'Evil' as seperate from good and evil.
Atirakis 09-01-06, 12:06 PM	Er... magic still works the same, fickle, arbitrary way (We're sorry, your pearl's general market value is now 99gp, your Identify attempt has failed), certainly stabbing people for thier gold hasn't changed -- what's to relearn? You misunderstood my poor word choice. Its not everything you knew. But you do have to learn to look at things from your new alignments perspective. Granted if you do the gradual shift that could be accounted for... This isn't an alignment shift, this is a singular action. If you're asking how long it take to become evil, the question doesn't make any sense because being evil doesn't mean you're insane and homicidal, just extremely self centered. And we already know that if that LG is a Paladin, he simply MUST slaughter them because bigotry and mrder is the core of his being, as is writ by the heartless forces tha define 'Good' and 'Evil' as seperate from good and evil. Is a Lawful Good character that slaughters the baby orcs still Lawful Good? Paladins are not to be discussed!
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-01-06, 12:22 PM	You misunderstood my poor word choice. Its not everything you knew. But you do have to learn to look at things from your new alignments perspective. Granted if you do the gradual shift that could be accounted for... The gradual shift is what the DMG tells you to use. Is a Lawful Good character that slaughters the baby orcs still Lawful Good? Paladins are not to be discussed! He's LG at the start. Depending on why he's doing it and how many he's killing, he'll more likely than not be evil when he's done, but this is a very unlikely event where a HUGE number of very evil acts are done in a short span of time. Reasons are important, despite what scholock the game tries to sell. IF you cut a deal with demons with the intention of screwing them over with it, its not evil. If you do it for your own gain, then it is.
KurenaiYami 09-01-06, 12:29 PM	You misunderstood my poor word choice. Its not everything you knew. But you do have to learn to look at things from your new alignments perspective. Granted if you do the gradual shift that could be accounted for... If you're taking XP as the abstract instead of what they actually mean, but mechanically it doesn't make much sense. If a Paladin stabs an orc baby, is he really not as good at swinging his sword anymore?
Atirakis 09-01-06, 12:32 PM	Whoa I didnt say negative levels due to XP loss. I meant like maybe 1000 or so...
Vestigial_Thumb 09-01-06, 12:37 PM	Look at it like this: XP = Fun. Take away XP, you take away fun.
Atirakis 09-01-06, 12:42 PM	Look at it like this: XP = Fun. Take away XP, you take away fun. Not having to adjust everything for your new alignment = Fun for the DM. Take that away, you take away my fun.
Vestigial_Thumb 09-01-06, 01:04 PM	Not having to adjust everything for your new alignment = Fun for the DM. You don't have to adjust a thing. The player does that. Take that away, you take away my fun. Take away the player's XP, you take away his fun.
Atirakis 09-01-06, 01:13 PM	You don't have to adjust a thing. The player does that. What about plans for the party? If your now evil I have to redo everything I had planned out. What about magical items that work for specific alignments? Now I have to figure out what happens. Take away the player's XP, you take away his fun. Make the DM do more work than he already has to, you take away his fun. :rolleyes:
Solik 09-01-06, 01:25 PM	What about plans for the party? If your now evil I have to redo everything I had planned out. What about magical items that work for specific alignments? Now I have to figure out what happens. Can you please clarify these comments? This sounds dangerously close to railroading.
Vestigial_Thumb 09-01-06, 01:31 PM	What about plans for the party? If your now evil I have to redo everything I had planned out. Like Solik said, railroading? If not, then the PC doesn't have to become a champion of Evil or anything. Just some prick that fights for the forces of Good (or something). What about magical items that work for specific alignments? Now I have to figure out what happens. They don't work for him now. He decides what to do with them (I'd imagine some sort of exchange for currency).
Atirakis 09-01-06, 01:45 PM	Can you please clarify these comments? This sounds dangerously close to railroading. Rail roading? Me? Never! But I do prepare in adavance several sessions worth of possibilities. These now need to be redone in order to take into account the fact that the fighter I assumed would follow a LG alignment is now clearly CN or worse...
nimrodii 09-01-06, 01:45 PM	That's true even for good clerics, exalted characters or paladins. (Of course, they'll lose their status.) I had a guy play NG Cleric of Pelor in the first game I ran, I could not force him to stick to his alignment, but after extorting money from vampire victims, trying to basicaly making them his slaves, robbing a small farming community's bank(a chest full of some silver and mostly coppers) because and I quote"I need money from my material components", then putting a hidden gylph of warding on said chest that would kill the next commoner who opened it, and finally he was planning on killing an innkeeper and stealing all the beds, so he could have some furniture for the castle of the vampire the party had just killed. Needless to say he had quite a drastic alignment shift rather quickly. He OOC could not understand why. On top of this the party had been recently pulled into Ravenloft, so his actions called for some powers checks, which were failed. On the upside he recived his own small dread realm within the mists, and the player never returned because he was mad about the repercussions. Evil actions usually have consequences, this can be done in game, so there is really no need to dock XP, sure you can get XP for murdering commoners, but there is bound to be some people who don't like these actions, i.e. guards, party member, or maybe a rival adventuring group.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-01-06, 02:53 PM	What about plans for the party? If your now evil I have to redo everything I had planned out. No, you really don't. Unless your campaign is OCD about alignment, it won't matter if they're good or evil. They can be motivated in the same ways: Gold, guts and glory. What about magical items that work for specific alignments? Now I have to figure out what happens. 1) Those items suck. Almost every single one. 2) Almost 100% of the time its simply the opposite effect. Not that hard. Make the DM do more work than he already has to, you take away his fun. :rolleyes: If your plans hinge on them staying in the same little box you put them in, then you were just trying to railroad them anyway.
UncleAthanas 09-01-06, 04:23 PM	Can you please clarify these comments? This sounds dangerously close to railroading. If he wants to railroad, let him railroad. He is not breaking the law.
Cifer 09-01-06, 04:47 PM	Whoa I didnt say negative levels due to XP loss. I meant like maybe 1000 or so... Why? Why does a warrior get less better at bashing in skulls? Surely not because he now has a wider range of targets... Sorry, not buying that. One can certainly negotiate a certain behavious with ones game group before the game begins ("I've got a cool campaign idea, but it would require you to play solidly good characters. Want to do so or shall we think of something else?") but as soon as the game begins, the characters should be allowed to develop.
Atirakis 09-01-06, 06:01 PM	I was wrong. After re reading my DMG I must acquiesce the point that XP penalties are not to be given when a character changes alignment. I must have reverted to 2E thinking there for a moment.