This is a discussion on where each of us as DM's and Players feel the line should be drawn.
When has a player crossed the line? When do you acknowledge that a character has pushed so far out of the bounderies of thier alignment that the fundamental definition of the character must be changed?
I am trying to gather opinions here to help me set down some semi-solid guidelines for my own campaign. Only recently has this become an issue, as several supposidly "good" characters have been straining my definition of "good behavior".
But when do I as the DM step in and say enough is enough?
I'll post some examples from my campaign at a later time to show what has got me into this bind.
-Roth
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
This is what works for me: Design a set of "sins" to use as a guideline (I took this inspiration from the World of Darkness Humanity system). Instead of putting them on a scale of 1-10, though, assign each of them a positive or negative value between 1 and 5. Stealing might be a -1. Giving to charity might be a +1. Premeditated and violent murder would be a -5. Heroic self-sacrifice for a noble cause might be a +5.
Every character sits on a scale ranging from -10 to +10. Anything from -5 to -10 is evil. Anything from +5 to +10 is good. Anything between -5 and +5 is neutral. A character can sway up to 2 points away from their alignment for short periods of time and keep their current alignment (i.e. a character currently at +3 might still be "Good" for awhile if they were previously good but recently committed some morally questionable acts). However, if they remain outside of their range for more than 2 game sessions, their alignment changes. If they manage to sway MORE than 2 points away from their alignment range, they automatically assume the new alignment immediately (a "Good" rogue who is currently a +5 steals something, dropping to +4 and then kills a city guard who tries to stop him, bringing him to +1 and changing his alignment instantly to neutral... assuming the guard was not actually a enemy of some kind).
You can use a similar system for law/chaos, but defining those "sins" becomes a bit more difficult as it is a more obscure moral guideline for most people.
I disapprove of any attempt to quantify alignment.
I'd just talk to the players, explain that their actions have brought them perilously close to an alignment shift, and give them "one last chance" to avoid that result (if they care, which they may not).
I'm with Veg. I've never liked Alignment used as a game mechanic. Everyone has different interpretations, and while there are some things that most can agree on, there are still situational exceptions even to those.
My own group has, as a result of a couple of cases where people they left on the battlefield, or allowed to escape, have come back to haunt them, have taken to trying to run down every opponent they ever face and slitting throats after every battle.
I think they're on a slippery slope toward evil. Personally, I just keep an eye on their behavior and go with my gut. If it doesn't feel right, then they're going to start slipping. And really, it's not going to affect them much unless someone decides to take paladin levels or go for a PrC requiring a good alignment.
At least, their alignments won't. They will start building a rep, though.
When the behavior is consistantly on or crossing that border over a period of time, it's time for a change. Good characters do not kill the wounded and helpless. Maybe once they'll have no option. But not several times. Do speak to them, about this first though. Warn them definately.
I'll chime in as another person not in love with the alignment system. Or alignment in general.
I agree with Veg and Xellan. Just follow your instincts. However if you do want a set of alignment guidelines and a way to quantify what you have to do to be evil than there is a system in the Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells (fantastic book) that could easily be adapted to see if you are changing to chaos of good or used as is.
I started a thread with a similar idea here: Alignment Rules that as far as I can tell most people thought was crap, but it gives you an idea on my viewpoint of what constitutes good/evil behavior. My argument for those who hate alignment mechanics with a violent passion remains: that's fine, but there are existing mechanics that are intricately related to alignment, and not having any kind of alignment mechanics is a little like saying "your alignment and thus your abilities can be changed at my whim when I disagree with how you play it," which is not far of a step away from "I can have your character killed off at any time and there's nothing you can do about it. Tough nuggets."
The WoD system always was a decent way of dealing with it though.
Well first you have to make your ideas of good and evil, chaos and law clear as day. More fights could be avoided if people could all just agree to the terms as defined in the PHB, which really does a bang-up job of removing a lot of the subjectivity from alignment.
Next I'd invite you to have fun with it. Describe the evil stuff so it feels evil, make the good moments sparkle with happy rays of sunshine. You don't have to give players a stern talking to, so much as paint the scene in such a way that they know what they're doing is wrong or right or whatever. A good rule of thumb is that if its something evil enough that its going to shift the character's alignment, it should be evil enough to really -feel- bad.
Swiping a purse should feel dangerous with sweaty hands and thumping heartbeat, feeling like everyone is looking at you, everyone knows what you're doing. Words of compassionate hard working dad in the character's head about how if you care about something, you should care enough to work for it. Guilt, shame, the fear of being caught. The character leaves and a little kid follows him out, tugging on his cloak...
"Hey mister...why'd you take that guy's bag?"
Now what does he do? Does he silence the kid? Does he hand the kid the coin pouch and drag him in to face the "justice" he deserves?
These kinds of things test alignment much better and are more fun then yelling at a "good" character doing evil stuff. I'd say follow the natural consequences of any evil actions, show the suffering they cause, allow the effects to snowball and the character will show his alignment, either by trying to atone for what he's done or by spiraling into evil and self-destruction. Either way makes for great stories.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I take a different tack. I informed my players quite some time ago of how I interpret alignment (the short version is that good places others over self, evil places self over others, law places society over the individual and chaos places the individual over society. Please note that this is an extremely abbreviated version of the whole). From then on, they've been on their own. I don't do warnings or 'last chances' or anything of that sort. If your actions are at odds with the alignment on the sheet, then the sheet will be changed, without fuss or fanfare.
For most characters, I change the alignment listed on the sheet (if appropriate) when the character levels up, as I keep electronic versions of all character sheets, and that's when they get redone. For characters without an alignment restriction, or for characters who remain within their alignment restrictions, this is enough.
If a character has an alignment restriction that they're exceeding, I will typically make the change between sessions, and inform the player by email. Thus far, this hasn't actually come up.
The only exception is the Paladin, which has that "if he ever commits and Evil act" restriction. In this case, the penalty is applied immediately. This, also, has never actually come up.
(IMC alignment changes don't come as a surprise. I take the view that your actions define your alignment, not the other way around. So, if you're acting in a manner at odds with the sheet, the sheet is wrong... but it's no surprise, since you've chosen your actions along the way. Additionally, I don't like the notion that a player should modify his character's behaviour to keep within some alignment - he should play the character as he feels is appropriate, and have the alignment assigned that this happens to match.)
well, I posted this maybe 8 or 9 months ago; but here is a recap
When a pc picks an alignment; say Lawful Good; I give that player 100 lawful and 100 good points and 0 points of each other alignment.
As the game procedes, I award alignments points between playing sessions, usually when i am reading player write ups. Most of the times players rarely do anything that I award a poitn for; if players do then I add a point or two; It is very rare for a person to get more than 3 points in a session; usually they get none. I feel very strongly that some GM's CHEAT their players by aribitrarily changing players alignments when a character does one or two actions that may or maynot violate certain broad guidelines. Try to keep in mind that alignments are all about patterns of behavior for a pc and represent their outlook and response to situations.
Here is a small example of a CG character getting a point of nuetrality; A CG mage in my game watched a blink dog fight a abberant displacer beast; he was full up on spells was 11th level and was not wounded; he watched the entire battle as he was on guard and did not do one thing to help or hinder either in the battle as the Blink dog was adventually killed. As he did nothing to choose he was awarded a point of nuetrality for Law and Chaos; and one for Good and Evil; and the pc's missed out on the information that the Blink dog as a diefic messanger was bringing.
When an character's alignment points starts to get near or equal in totals a differing number from the one chosen at character creation; then I warn them they are in alignment trouble. If their alignment numbers double the points in the starting class; then the character changes alignment.
note also that some items carry with them alignment points as well as certain actions; any spell with the evil descriptor for instance, or actions such as conversing; carousing and whatnot with a demon like a succubus or certain undead.
I have found that this is a clear system that I have enhanced from the first edition rules from the old DMG with my cousin on the cover. My players like it; understand it; and it avoids arguements as players have pleanty of time to learn and discuss and adventually understand the GM's take on alignments.
Does it take some work - sure, but I think it is very worthwhile and shows your characters how much their actions matter.
Hope this helps.
Much of the concept of alignment goes back to the original intent of the games. They’re a means for players to be/do things they could not/would not be/do in real life. Alignment is one of the tools used to help define or express what differences there are.
One of the explanations I usually give to people who don’t play and question me about the games is that it’s like acting. The DM is the director and the players are the actors; there’s just no pre-written script to speak of. The director has an idea for a story, but works on levels of detail dealing with the set design and special effects, etc. He isn’t concerned with the specifics of dialogue. He tells the actors what the setting is and lets them improvise the dialogue and specific action. In a sense, this then puts the players into the “Method” school of acting, having to invent background and personality information for their character on the fly. And…one of the important keys to method acting is consistence of character.
Being/doing something not real-world can be difficult. We each tend to knee-jerk into our own personality patterns under stress…and let’s face it there is stress involved at the table; of various sorts. The challenge comes when a players picks an alignment (personality pattern) for a character that diverges from his/her own. The further the divergence, the more difficult it is to maintain a distinct separation between the two. Natural talent in doing so is always helpful, but not a lot of players have enough to “step out” with just that. It takes time and experience on the player’s part to “get the hang” of it.
Characters that violate “alignment” (personality pattern) are usually signs that table stress and/or inexperience is getting to the player. This is where the DM’s job entails assessing cause rather than judging outcome; at least early on.
As the Dungeon Master, we are God, the Final Authority, The Ultimate Arbiter of Everything. We wear that Ring of Anything I Say Goes and shoulder the responsibility of using it responsibly, for the benefit of the group as a whole. We must use our own experience to determine this cause of stress and then decide how to correct the error of alignment infraction.
Knowledge of the players can be a very important factor in this judgment, but not the most important by any means. If we know a player is, say, inexperienced (young, new to gaming, or whatever) correction can come in many forms. Stopping the game to point out the anomaly in a calm and instructional manner can help. Getting the other players, especially those more game savvy and experienced, can really help. Make it a team effort of character building (in more ways than one) and it can become a really positive experience both for the offending player and for the others as well. As the DM you can reap rewards too, in the form of gaining respect and trust of players both current and future.
Repeated corrections should entail further, more stringent warnings. As I said, as Ultimate Arbiter of Everything your word is final. Arbitrariness is seriously counter-productive so you need a known history to justify your actions (thus the repeated warnings). Then you need the respect and trust of the players to make the decision, when made, to stick …without rancor. Gobs of bookkeeping should be unnecessary. As DM, you should be paying enough attention to what’s going on at the table to know whether or not a player is controlling the character the way he should. Again, be a director assessing an actor’s performance. If it lacks, correct the actor until you prove to yourself that the actor cannot/will not comply. Then you make the command decision to change the character concept to match the player’s expressed abilities At a minimum, it will help with continuity.
After you’ve done it once, you shouldn’t have to do it for a while, unless you make a habit of entertaining inexperienced and/or incompetent players on a regular basis. If that’s the case it’s a hopeless loss until they get the hang of what you, as the director, want from them as performers. Then, they either up their game to match your expectations (trust and respect again) or they walk, all peeved about what a hard case your are. Either way, your game improves. Beyond that, don’t sweat it.
First off I like the alignment system, it's symetric, I like that. Alignment is built into the game mechanics, for this reason I now players who will declare Neutral as their alignment, and thats fine by me. New players, I usually asign as Neutral. As the game progress, I will discuss alignment and how thier character might fit into the whole scheme. I have been perfectly fine with older players having charcters alignment change over time. Some times you find out a different alignment works better for your character. Besides I like this kind of character development.
When a player in our group claims one alignment for a character yet seems to be playing another, usually the whole group is aware and we all call into question the players choice of alignment. After some discussion, the players will change the declared alignemtn to fit the groups consensus.
I have had players who have had characters play very morally and ethically complex characters, i.e. all over the alignment wheel depending on the situation, this I usually catergorize as Neutral.
Any way with concerns with alignment group consensus seems to work with us.
Although I am with Grimcleaver, I think the Players Handbook does a great job of describing how to approach playing each alignment.
Well first you have to make your ideas of good and evil, chaos and law clear as day. More fights could be avoided if people could all just agree to the terms as defined in the PHB, which really does a bang-up job of removing a lot of the subjectivity from alignment.
Next I'd invite you to have fun with it. Describe the evil stuff so it feels evil, make the good moments sparkle with happy rays of sunshine. You don't have to give players a stern talking to, so much as paint the scene in such a way that they know what they're doing is wrong or right or whatever. A good rule of thumb is that if its something evil enough that its going to shift the character's alignment, it should be evil enough to really -feel- bad.
Swiping a purse should feel dangerous with sweaty hands and thumping heartbeat, feeling like everyone is looking at you, everyone knows what you're doing. Words of compassionate hard working dad in the character's head about how if you care about something, you should care enough to work for it. Guilt, shame, the fear of being caught. The character leaves and a little kid follows him out, tugging on his cloak...
"Hey mister...why'd you take that guy's bag?"
Now what does he do? Does he silence the kid? Does he hand the kid the coin pouch and drag him in to face the "justice" he deserves?
These kinds of things test alignment much better and are more fun then yelling at a "good" character doing evil stuff. I'd say follow the natural consequences of any evil actions, show the suffering they cause, allow the effects to snowball and the character will show his alignment, either by trying to atone for what he's done or by spiraling into evil and self-destruction. Either way makes for great stories.
This is the best advise EVER, regarding changing of alignment.
Thank you very much. I can't wait to try it!
Thanks for the input folks. I have given the subject some thought over this past week. Replaying the gaming sessions in my head and listening to some of the players explain their actions to me outside of the group.
The situation that set me off was the following:
The group is deep in the dungeon and stumbles upon a chamber with two huge statues and two huge sets of bronze doors. At the base of the statues is a story that explains the reason everything is there in the chamber. A good aligned Titan is buried behind one of the sets of doors, and his good aligned Storm giant servant is behind the others. The writing on the statues fully explains this, there can be almost no other interpratation of the story. The group makes the decision to pry open one of the sets of doors and find out what is inside. Opening one set of doors they behold a giant stone sarcophagus, the lid carved to resemble the Storm giant. There is nothing else in the room.
Not trusting their eyes, the group moves into the room with the intention of searching for secret doors. The ghost of the storm giant rises from his crypt and rails at the group for attempting to defile his (and his masters) final resting place. The battle that ensues kills two party members before the rest manage to flee with the help of a Ring of One Wish.
Several gaming sessions later the group decides to return to the ghost giants resting place. Much talk is made of putting him in his place and giving just as good as they got. The good aligned characters had a brief disscusion about the giant being of good alignment. They come to the conclusion that "since he attacked us it doesnt matter what his alignment is." The good aligned cleric specifically states "he killed me, so he dies."
This time prepared with many ghost touch weapons and spells the party is victorious and gleefully loots the giants coffin, stripping the body of its treasures. Flush with their victory, they move on to the other set of bronze doors and find the Titans stone coffin in this room. Once again, their is nothing else in the room. Casting magic spells to peer into the coffin, they spot a golden torque around the Titans neck. One of the neutral characters moves to hack the coffin open and the good aligned cleric declares "I go stand outside the room cause I don't want to be a part of it." The sarcophagus is smashed open, and the golden torque taken by the group, who then leave that part of the dungeon.
-----------End of story
I couldn't help but shake my head as all this was going on. It just seemed so out of character for good aligned PC's. The neutral ones I could see pulling something like this with out too much hangup about it, but the good ones?
For the record I did ask once or twice if the players were sure about their actions, and gave one good aligned character a hint early on that he got "an uneasy feeling from this place, as if you don't want to be here." He got this feeling as they were preping their ambush of the good aligned ghost giant.
I think what your faced with is not about role playing but about players trying to overcome a difficult challenge; this seems to be the influence of computer games wheras the players want to overcome a challenge regardless of role playing concerns. Only you know your players, but ask yourself a few questions.
1) What could you have done to emphesis or give humanity to the situation to make it seem more real and build up the idea of what the characters are doing is not good. Obviously, it is a tomb that took a lot of work; having a holy or sanctified aura would be appropriate; I would have no prayer for spells from a good aligned priest be heard and answers; ie; spell failure automatic (now this depends a lot of the dieties in question and a lot of background stuff, but at their level this should already be worked out.) and signs and omens that any priest or paladin would see as being a transgression.
2) Is there another challenge like this that the pc's could have done or were they just boored and intigued by the challenge; if this is the problem; I would take this now broken and desantified crypt; and rebuild an adventure there as the "bad guys" can now move in as the storm giant gaurdian is dispatched; and set up some difficult bad guys doing horrible and possibly appocolyptic things that the pc's will want to stop; make them clean up the mess they started so to speak. This sort of thing will give them the challenge they crave and show that their actions have consequences.
3) If your pc's just want to ignore the whole thing and just look for fights you could have them and their families haunted by good ghosts causing trouble until the pc's repent; a lot of viking stories have things like the ghosts of family members arise and enter you house and drink all your beer and eat your food and wreck stuff and generally drive everyone out; you cant kill them; they just re manifiest (there is a feat for this too for spirits) and they are you family so anyone with that bloodline is powerless against them more or less. You always know that they won't leave until you fix whatever has them upset; maybe the gods are involved; the sagas dont go into it; it just happens and you have to go out and fix what you messed up; its kinda like a curse; also, sometimes you are cursed so it is harder to do than usual as a penalty for making them mad enough to manifest in the first place; other cultures have similar stuff; but the pc's families bugging them and asking them what they did to offend the gods so to speak; should give them a wake up. hehe I could see bad weather following them around too; up to you.
4) If the pc's dont want to make admends; and want to just blow off the whole situation; you may need to think about how much it matters to you and your game and just use it as a plot device a few months down the road or just take it as a lesson that they are more munchkin than role players; the last thing your probably looking for is a big stick in the mud or arguement about this; you want your game to continue and have fun and make things interesting for your pc's; so think about the other challenges you have for them and have this one on the back burner; the more ignored; the more that evil that sets in becomes stronger; perhaps the storm giant gets offered a deal or pact for revenge from a nasty dark god and it twists him into something horrid. Revenge can be a nasty circle and what goes around....
5) lastly, how much have you guys talked about alignments in the past; if it hasnt really come up; it might be kinda new for them; you might need to just have a conversation about how you see alignments to get you all on the same page. Have you used things like omens; strange blind men coming up and telling them they are cursed or are under the wrath of the gods, or have the black shadow of death following them (maybe inciting a riot); see a flock of black birds flying upside down; whatever? Might be a good time to start; religious or nature oriented pc should get the idea something is wrong.
just some things that might help.
Reading it over, I can definitely see where you're coming from. I think there's a couple of things to mention that might help.
First of all is expectation. Players in a dungeon expect to be looting something. You give them two big doors and they want to open them, kill something and loot it. Running through it in my head, I wonder if there was any other solution than to go in and look around, or just leave. But why make a scenario where I'm just supposed to turn around and leave?
Likewise it would have been interesting if the ghost didn't just go agro on the assumption that the players were immediately grave robbers. Assuming some of the characters obviously look like heroic adventurers, perhaps more sugar would have prevented them from spoiling for a fight. At that point it seems like they were just investigating. Maybe the giant is lonely from so long with no good company and is curious about the events of the outside world. Maybe he's concerned about the desecration of the tomb and asks why they're there, warning that desecration of the tomb is something he's gone into eternity to prevent. That he and his Titan lord led noble and virtuous lives and aren't interested in having their holy reliquaries becoming exhibits in the showroom of some rich local collector.
At least they would have had a chance to duck the fight without having their rears handed to them, and hence not feeling humiliated and looking for payback.
So yeah, that's hindsight.
Where to go from here? Well I like a lot of the suggestions already. Some other angles would be to have the characters have to go to obviously evil fences if they want to hawk the stolen grave goods, that perhaps the storekeepers in the jewelry shops in town might recognize the items as being grave goods from the tomb of a much revered kingdom and react at least with horror and outrage, and at most with a call to the local guards. The only guys who will buy it, care about it only for the gold content. They look greasy and slimy and underworldy and mention "melting it down" a lot. They don't offer the full price of the items, because they can't sell them intact so their vast age and artistic value are worthless to them. They just want the gold.
Likewise the clerics, depending on their faith, might find their powers leaving them for having committed the serious sin of robbing the grave of a noble creature. Do they confess their error and seek atonement? If so, likely they must undertake some serious compensation to set right what they have done. How do they respond to the allegations that they have pursued greed and vengence rather than goodness? How do they respond to the demand of their church that they renounce their filthy desecrated treasure--or possibly being asked to "donate" it to -their- church as part of their repentance. Do they go along, or do they rebel? Certainly this could go interesting places.
All in all though, I wouldn't rake them over the coals too hard. They really seemed to be taking on the challenge of a tough encounter in order to salve their bruised egos from having been beaten--and the encounter really did seem stacked to encourage them to do immoral things in the first place. What they did, while out of character, does seem to make some sense from a player perspective. I'd probably give them the impression that what they did was probably not good (temporary loss of good clerical powers, and maybe a sense of distance and displeasure from their god when they pray--and the requirement to associate with unsavory sorts to sell their loot) but I wouldn't hit them with anything lasting.
hehe; and I kinda liked flock of birds flying upside down too; oh well.