I'm interested in hearing all of your thoughts on GMs mandating an alignment shift of a PC based on their actions.
Do you need to see stable, consistent behaviour before you force a shift?
Do you explicitly state the shift at all, or simply converse with the player about how their actions don't fit their alignment and would they like to make a shift?
Can a single incident spark a GM directed alignment shift?
A bit of contextual information:
Recently, in our campaign, the PCs arrived at a city where they were advised to keep their heads down, as some powerful group is out to get them (we're running Jade Regent). To make things interesting, and to see how the party would react to trying not to draw attention to themselves I had them encounter a large group of drunk, unruly men coming home at the end of a long days work. The men insulted the PCs, harassed them a bit, and made lewd comments about a female NPC tagging along with them.
The party attempted a little bit of intimidation to run them off, but that failing, they began attacking these mostly unarmed, unarmored men in the middle of the city. After murdering 5 of them, a few of the PCs realized their error and went into hiding.
Two of the PCs decided they wanted a little more fun and attempted to head down to the local brothel. Various guardsmen attempted to stop them, and were slain. After killing 13 guardsmen, one PC was finally taken down and the other slipped away.
I ruled the captured one was almost immediately executed for his crimes.
Both characters initially started off as having True Neutral alignments.
I dictated that the one that slipped away's alignment shifted to NE based on this event.
Too harsh, too easy? Any thoughts? This was a really odd situation, and not something typicaly for my players at all...and I'm wondering if I handled it fairly.
I don't personally believe one action (short of maybe genocide or similar) should shift alignment. Alignment is supposed to be what your character might normally do. He'll certainly do things outside of it, because (hopefully) he's not entirely one dimensional. As a GM I talk to characters when I start to see consistent behavior that is out of the characters normal alignment, and inform them of the path they are on.
Just my opinion. Gettin my popcorn and flame retardant suit
It seems rather realistic as to how the guards would react to such a situation. As to how fair it was to the players themselves, I'd have to think on it.
As for GMs shifting alignment, I've never done it to another player myself, though there are some times I should have. The one time I had a character who needed an alignment shift I brought her behavior back into line instead. I've recently cut alignment from my games to avoid precisely this issue.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Alignment issues are best addressed at the beginning of the campaign, of course. Once behavior starts veering towards the evil scale, as things go, it's suddenly the wrong time to have the conversation. It it only towards evil that a PC can slip? Can a barbarian become too lawful, or a monk not lawful enough?
for myself, yes, a single action can have alignment consequences.
In the example you bring up, I wouldn't call the first encounter "murder". The drunks were belligerent, wouldn't back off after being threatened / warned, and were menacing if not hostile. Drawing steel and spell in that case is self-defense. (Unarmed? Get four of them grappling you and a fifth one suffocating you or performing a coup de grace with a rock, and see how helples they are.)
Regarding the city guard, it's tougher to say. Who drew first? Was there a clear opportunity to surrender? After injuring one guardsman, did the PCs try to scare the others off? You know better than we do.
As an aside: The captured PC offered a lot of role-playing opportunities. Will the party turn themselves in to save their comrade? Will they try for a prison break, or offer to pay weegild to the guards' families? Does the town have need of a dangerous killer? Is there a lich in town who can use a slave? A lot of those opportunities go away once the PC is executed.
I have been GMing for 8 years now. The primary motivation for me and my players is roleplaying.
As a GM.. I have a little status sheet for all my players.. Normally only 4.. One of the bars is their alignment status.. Which has points.. A normal char starts with 1 point in his current alignment.. If he acts in this alignment.. he gets more points.. And doing things in another direction gives negative points.. If the bar becomes negative.. His alignment will change in the direction of his actions..
If you for example plays a Chaotic good guy.. But a lot of his actions is quite evil. If you just cut through all the problems with your sword and your way to solve things is by killing, without proper proof of your killing is doing good.. Then he might end up being chaotic neutral..
I once had a player.. He solved everything with anger and violence on all enemies.. Also poor henchmen with no choice, but to help the villain..
If the city authorities was a problem - he used threats and intimidating attitude.. That didn't work out well the day he decided to play a monk, as they require lawful alignment..
I think your decision was great.
forget alignment shifts, if my PCs started chopping up townsfolk at random (and guards especially!) they'd be hunted down like dogs.
death is fairly trivialized in alot of games i guess, but murder to me is not a one off 'whoops that was out of character!' certainly i would be asking the player if their character was shifting towards evil.
though ultimately i think the alignment thats written on the character sheet is the players domain, not the DM's. my group has been playing together for decades though, and we often decide things by committee - so someone might get peer pressured into changing their ways, or their alignment i guess. hah!
I highly agree. Doing outlawish things need to be punished in-game too. I have personally sent quite an amount of players to jail, the gallows or give them the opportunity to pay them out of trouble. Depending on the situation of course.
As a GM I have often seen people easily get out of character as soon as battle beings - which often relates to extremely stupid actions.
before they do something that lets their alignment shifts (or that you think will shift it, if repeated), tell them. It shouldn't be a big deal as one doesn't play ones alignment but alignment is what is written on the character sheet after actions.
For example you could have hinted that attacking townsfolk is evil, and when they wanted to attack the guards I would have told them that this will make them evil on the spot.
So in short, give them notice. For the rest, you were fair and it was okay, I have no clue what led to this slaughter (nonlethal damage for those that insulted ladies would have been enough), but an execution was in order, even tough I would have made a quest out of getting them out of jail and thus either they would all have been dead or none of them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends, as has been said. Generally a single event isn't enough to trigger an alignment change, but the sheer scale of it as described here isn't really a single event.
This isn't "I got drunk and killed someone." This is "someone insulted someone I know, so I went on a city-wide killing spree, offing anyone who got in my way."
Each murder is an event. Just because it seems to have played out in one session doesn't change that. The PC went off the deep end and found pretty much the most illegal and most evil thing to do, and did it. Repeatedly. The only things missing are rape and torture, I figure.
Smeg it... Chaotic Evil, enemy of the state, wanted individual, bounties abound. Unleash the dogs.
How about this one? Long story short my witch was trying to get info on a fugitve from a thug whom had been rumored to be seen in his presence. he wasn't talking and my buddie and I both rolled low on intimidate.
My CN witch, not above low-intesity torture, casted Cup of Dust on him promising to return the next morning to see if he was feeling more cooperative. So I did return only to see that he had drowned himself in a horsetrough outside his appartment.
Her reaction was a mix of embarrasment for not for seeing this and frusteration at wasting their only known connetion to the man they were chasing. A reaction which I believe was perfectly in line w/ her alignment.
Our GM however believed this was grounds for an instant alignment change to CE. I was pretty upset, for one this GM is normally a pretty opened minded guy. I tried to explain that committing neglegnet homocide and not taking responsibility for it is a far cry from the bloodthirsty nature of CE. He wasn't hearing it however. It turned into a fight that led to the end of that particular session. We haven't addressed the issue since, at first it was like the pink elephant in the room and then it was forgotten.
I'm curious tho what my character did was negligent, maybe slightly sociapathic. But grounds for an instant alignment change?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment issues would be the least of my players' worries if their party went on a mad murderous rampage in a town.
For what you've describe here, that party would have been hunted down like dogs and executed immediately as a warning to others. Their alignment would shift alright, it would shift all the way to "dead."
As an aside: The captured PC offered a lot of role-playing opportunities. Will the party turn themselves in to save their comrade? Will they try for a prison break, or offer to pay weegild to the guards' families? Does the town have need of a dangerous killer? Is there a lich in town who can use a slave? A lot of those opportunities go away once the PC is executed.
Thanks for the input guys!
Regarding the quoted stuff above:
Thats intially what I thought of too. Some of the PCs did some footwork regarding looking into weregild for this sort of thing (I had them take a look at the actual text in Lands of the Linnorm Kings as well) and found the amount was woefully low compared to the deed. (Based on the individuals CR it was something in the ballpark of 68 gold per individual killed). When the players found this out they were laughing and joking about going and several murderous rampages and paying their way free.
Given the levity, I executed the player. Everyone at the table agreed with that decision (even the guy playing the character) and I kinda got the sense that several of the other guys were a touch upset at the ones antics (despite trying my best to manage equal "face time," they mostly watched from the sidelines as this all played out).
I think we would have gone the route of a daring rescue had he surrendered or made an attempt to escape when confronted with the guards, rather than persist in seeing if he could mow throw them all.
It kinda turned into a "you continue doing that?! Fine, a collosal dragon swoops out of the sky and directs his horrible breath attack at you!"
A touch juvenille, I realize, but nonetheless there it is!
Instead of changing their alignments try “hey guys, I try to run a game for adults. Let’s keep that in mind, OK? None of that @#$%. “ In other words, talk to them like adults, explain that is not the sort of game you want to run.
I'm interested in hearing all of your thoughts on GMs mandating an alignment shift of a PC based on their actions.
Do you need to see stable, consistent behaviour before you force a shift?
Do you explicitly state the shift at all, or simply converse with the player about how their actions don't fit their alignment and would they like to make a shift?
Can a single incident spark a GM directed alignment shift?
A bit of contextual information:
Recently, in our campaign, the PCs arrived at a city where they were advised to keep their heads down, as some powerful group is out to get them (we're running Jade Regent). To make things interesting, and to see how the party would react to trying not to draw attention to themselves I had them encounter a large group of drunk, unruly men coming home at the end of a long days work. The men insulted the PCs, harassed them a bit, and made lewd comments about a female NPC tagging along with them.
The party attempted a little bit of intimidation to run them off, but that failing, they began attacking these mostly unarmed, unarmored men in the middle of the city. After murdering 5 of them, a few of the PCs realized their error and went into hiding.
Two of the PCs decided they wanted a little more fun and attempted to head down to the local brothel. Various guardsmen attempted to stop them, and were slain. After killing 13 guardsmen, one PC was finally taken down and the other slipped away.I ruled the captured one was almost immediately executed for his crimes.
Both characters initially started off as having True Neutral alignments.
I dictated that the one that slipped away's alignment shifted to NE based on this event.Too harsh, too easy? Any thoughts? This was a really odd situation, and not something typicaly for my players at all...and I'm wondering if I handled it fairly.
On topic you weren't harsh at all. Their alignment should have been shifted to public enemy number one.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think the way it's handled in PFS Organized Play is very reasonable and probably mirrors what most GMs who keep alignment in their games would do:
Alignment Infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but the GM must warn the player his character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and make sure that the player understands the warning and what actions initiated the warning. The PC should be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences. However, we believe a deity would forgive a one-time bad choice as long as the action(s) wasn't too egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport, etc...). Hence, the GM can issue a warning to the player through a "feeling" he receives from his deity, a vision he is given, his conscience talking to him, or some other similar roleplaying event. If infractions continue in the course of the scenario or sanctioned module, an alignment change may be in order.
|
A PC's alignment is maybe the one thing on a character sheet both the GM and Player should have shared control over IMO. With all the alignment-based spells and effects like Protections and Chaos Hammers and Smites, I need to know I'm making a valid call when I tell a player his PC is or isn't affected.
I've had two players in my campaign who only have one mode when they play, no matter what character they use. Player A is kind of a lump who wants to play a good guy but really just goes along with whatever the other players tell him is good and the right thing to do. Player B outright refused to write down his alignment and claimed every character he played was good no matter what atrocity he performed. Both of them only ever really play one alignment when it comes to rolling the dice and making their decisions; Player A= basically Neutral, Player B= unrepentantly Evil.
With Player B, I constantly had to tell the guy I was treating him as evil for the effects of spells and other alignment-based things. He didn't care. He just wanted to amass power by killing or lying to anyone (including other PCs) who threatened him, insulted him, had something he wanted, whatever. I felt pretty justified in kicking him down the alignment ladder (and eventually out of the game) every time, often within minutes of him introducing a character.
Player A, on the other hand, really wants to play a good character. He's just bad at it. His motives in-game always come out of his mouth as good for himself or the party, not necessarily good for anyone else. I cut him a little slack because I know he's really trying to play a good character. With his help and permission, I now often "translate" his character's words into what a good guy might say without changing what he wants to do. I would bust him down to neutral if I got the impression he no longer wanted or cared to play good.
Both players basically play their own personality every time they make a character. The difference is that Player A is making an admirable-if-not-always-successful attempt at role-playing someone unlike himself while Player B flew his middle finger in the face of alignment and did what he wanted to do regardless of the in-or-out-of-game consequences.
If I think that the players' actions might be in violation of their alignment, I mention something. I don't stop them. I just let them know that they are on a path that differs from my interpretation. They take this as their conscious speaking. Sometimes they give me more info on why they think it's within their alignment, but usually they know.
For some characters, divine casters or those dependent on alignment, I may be a bit more firm letting them know that this could have consequences beyond changing alignment.
Some things have more weight to the alignment shift than others. Walking up and stabbing someone for no reason will move you quickly to CE. It will certainly have a huge, immediate impact, on some characters. Others will be fast-tracking it.
Alignment is not meant to be a straight-jacket. It's supposed to be a set of guidelines to help people role play their characters. There are actual consequences to changing alignment and it can have a tangible effect for characters, but it isn't supposed to be something that impedes role playing.
The DM didn't force an alignment shift on you. That was dependent on how your character acted.
One action should not justify an alignment shift, in most cases.
If the juvenile twerp at the table cackles madly, when his pyromaniac rouge (because he can't spell rogue) burns down the orphanage, then yes, he's no longer able to ride that "but I'm chaotic neutral" BS bandwagon.
But for the players who get caught up in ego, barfights, etc., and wind up killing a guard/npc simply due to one punch, then that one incident won't make them evil.
Also factor in how they feel after the fact. If they go "oops/aw crap," then they're good/neutral people who did a bad thing.
And who says that only paladins can be required to undertake atonement? :)
I'm quite different in my perspective on alignment from most others. I don't even write an alignment down on my sheet. If someone wants to know my alignment, I say: "You tell me."
But then again I don't like the alignment system at all, so I'm not the best person to listen to on this matter (unless you likewise want to throw off the chains of the alignment system, secret meeting is in the treehouse next Tuesday).
It depends on the incident.
There's been two alignment shifts in my game, both the same character. She started as CG but with CN tendencies. I allow some leniency in alignment because I recognize there is often some overlap between what is LG and what is NG or LN. But then one particular volume of the AP she started going downhill. Tortured a halfling for information using red hot pokers. I went "hmmm..." and gave her a warning.
And then she gave a town to an undead horde. Now, this was a deserted town and the skeletal champions were in fact the bodies of the original owners. So it wasn't precisely EVIL but it was still evil enough that I knocked her down to CN.
I started keeping track of good acts versus evil acts. I figured after some mercy-killings (just trust me, it's preferable to leaving that poor woman as a half-alive husk), stopping battle to bury fallen comrades, and refusing to destroy the souls of innocents when commanded to she'd redeemed herself back up to CG.
But one thing? One evil act? I believe in some leeway in the alignment system. But just because I allow leeway doesn't mean you can't fall flat on your face.
|
@OP: I dont see a problem with your ruling. If it happened on a table I was playing I would be alright with it. Even if I was the guy how was executed.
Having said that, if I was the GM, I would have handle the PC execution in a different way. Its perfectly normal for the guards to kill the guy on the spot, specially after losing 13 comrades! But as it was already said, I think that you lost a good opportunity for roleplay there.
If the guy was taken alive to be judged and executed in a couple of days the party would have to make a choice. Would they break free their friend? Slay the elite squad of Iomendae's paladins who guard the city jail? Let him hang? Try to bribe the authorities? Make amends for their friend's actions so he can walk free...
I would also hold the alignment change a bit, wait for the party's actions and the would-be-evil PC's reactions, than decide on it after that.
Keep in mind that true neutral does not mean neutral good. Real true neutral characters will do evil acts from time to time. When you punish evil acts on the spot you are sending a message that no evil PCs are allowed in the campaign. There is nothing wrong with that as long as everybody is on the same page about it.
I know that in PF, alignment is much more of a "real thing" than it is in the real world; there's so many things that check alignment that there have to be sort of dividing lines. Nevertheless, most groups I've played with (and DM) strongly prefer not making too big of a deal out of alignment.
In general, as a DM, I try not to make alignment shifts feel like punishments. In the case of shifts towards law/chaos/good that I feel might be deserved as the result of long-term patterns of behavior, I tend to bring it up with the player, asking if they'd like to re-identify as the new alignment, and noting that if they shift more strongly towards it, I might decide that that's what they are.
In the case of shifts towards evil or shifts that would reduce the character's effectiveness (by moving them too far from their deities alignment, for example), I try to be more proactive in warning players that their behavior is skewing in the wrong direction. I'm not someone who believes that every character needs to take only a very narrow set of actions all the time, but if "chaotic neutral" is clearly a better description of your character's behavior than "lawful good", I'm going to move you.
In the case of really grievous single acts against alignment (nearly always towards evil), I try to give the players a little warning at the time that they are moving over lines that they don't normally cross, and while single incidents don't typically mean alignment shifts, a few things of that scale might.
In general, I think that the most important thing is to do what you can to keep alignment shifts from feeling like the tilt function on a pinball machine, where players are allowed to push their alignments to a certain point but the hammer just gets totally dropped if they go too far or too hard at once. I want alignment shifts to happen because it's the best way to describe the character now, not as punishments.
I've only ever had one character whose alignment shifted, and that was a deliberate agreement between me and the GM.
As a GM I've never forced anyone to change their alignment, but I have given plenty of hints and a few warnings about the impact of certain actions on things like receiving spells from their god...
Luckily, in my groups, alignment has never really been an issue.
Well I'm pretty sure ninjas are about to assassinate your entire party so I wouldn't worry too much about the alignment.
Well I'm pretty sure ninjas are about to assassinate your entire party so I wouldn't worry too much about the alignment.
Shame on you for reading ahead!
As a new GM myself I have had to tackle this issue only once in game. I have a player who likes to play what I call "Evil on a budget" aka chaotic neutral.
Since I am running a game where evil undead and evil outsiders will be a good majority of the encounters I suggested very heavily to my players to play good aligned characters. I wouldn't normally do this but since non of them wanted to play the cleric, I am NPC-ing one and I didn't want the argument to start when said cleric uses a spell like holy smite and they take damage from her spell.
During the first game this player, who is playing CG, continually picks on one of the other players and tries to kill everything and by everything I include the rabbit that was foraging for food in his backpack. Nothing evil so no switch. He then provokes one of the other party members by marking their forehead with an arcane mark and in-fighting ensues. I warned the player that they were starting down the path of a CN character. He didn't think that he had done anything wrong. The truth is he was right, he had not done anything evil or wrong but he was failing to do good.
Being good and not being evil are different. That is why there is neutral. Neutral is there for people who do not go out of their way to do good but don't do anything evil either. Now I will be the first to admit that I have pretty high expectations for good aligned characters. I like good aligned characters to be heroes. The group that I actually play with, not GM for, has always run games where the good PCs are on their way to becoming great heroes, neutral PCs are slowly brought over to good through peer pressure, and evil characters are not allowed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Change their alignment, but don't tell them. People don't think about how lawful good they are, or really know their own alignments at all for that matter. Simply run it as though it were the case. They detect evil to paladins and clerics, can't enter places warded with protection from evil, and the likes. Let them learn about their new alignment as they would have to IRL.
Like in the episode of Adventure Time when Finn steals from the city of thieves- He was Lawful Good until he took the chest, and was then Chaotic or Neutral Good and couldn't get back through that barrier. He didn't feel like a different, newly chaotic person, he only found out when a spell designed for it interacted with him.
I really hate alignment, I see no point in it at all. What's the purpose? To force a player into making a decision the DM feels is better suited to their alignment? Most folks just see an alignment and decide what you should be doing forever after that, without any thought as to other options within that alignment scope.
I remember telling a party that my Assassin in 2nd/3rd edition went his whole career Lawful Neutral. They all scoffed and guffawed, then there was a himming followed by hawing. Eventually when they were interested in talking they realized that lawful just means you follow *A* code, and the code of the thieves guild was very strict (never shine a guy in his home, never work for free, no kids, never start a war without the consent of the higher ups etc).
To maintain this you are better off having a group of folks who have divorced the concept of good and evil from killing people. I mean an evil guy would be more than willing to kill his boss to assume the position, and this would lead to a loss of stability within the guild structure if it happened too often.
Certainly some folks could be NE, or LE without disrupting things too much, but too many of those guys and the order begins to fall apart.
My point is alignment is so subjective it's lost any form of rigid adherence, has become entirely opinion based and has thus lost its usefulness. I suppose if you wanted to deny a Paladin class abilities because he acted poorly I can kind of see that, but removing an assassins class abilities because he helps his own grandmother cross the street? Rescues a loved one? It all gets a little thin there. I am inclined to believe DMs who nitpick at this level have run out of things to complain about.
...
Can a single incident spark a GM directed alignment shift?
In general, I believe not. A alignment is an adherence to a creed or set of beliefs. You think that an ordered structured society is correct because people thrive with routine. To me it's like a religion. You don't suddenly stop being catholic by saying "God Dammit!" (Thou shalt not take the lords name in vain), but you certainly stop yourself from saying it where possible and feel bad about it afterwards. A paladin can FALL from a single evil act, however they may (probably will) maintain an LG alignment after doing so unless it was less 'fall' and more 'flying leap'.
...The men insulted the PCs, harassed them a bit, and made lewd comments about a female NPC tagging along with them.
The party attempted a little bit of intimidation to run them off, but that failing, they began attacking these mostly unarmed, unarmored men in the middle of the city.
Lowercase chaotic and lowercase evil.
To put different spin on it, these are a bunch of thugs and ruffians that are obviously brimming for violence and breaking the law anyway. Given the comments made to the lady, and how much they are egging for a fight (even against a party of I'm assuming visibly armed and armoured adventurers), who knows what is going to happen to the flower seller 2 blocks back who is unarmed, looks like she has a Str of about 7 and by herself? I'm not saying that thought ever crossed their mind, but without understanding intent, how do you understand the action?
After murdering 5 of them, a few of the PCs realized their error and went into hiding.
Have shown remorse and I would disregard the any alignment shift from above... especially for a bunch of new players who don't realize commoners get bisected with a comical level of ease.
Two of the PCs decided they wanted a little more fun and attempted to head down to the local brothel. Various guardsmen attempted to stop them, and were slain. After killing 13 guardsmen, one PC was finally taken down and the other slipped away.
Define 'fun'. If 'fun' was just 'some fun with the ladies' and they weren't out trying to pick a fight with the guards... Suggests a Lack of discipline which is a minor chaotic bent... but well in acceptable for neutral. 'Fun' as in 'lets see if we can find the guards'.... That's more leaning towards "So epically stupid that you probably need a sign to remind you to breathe". Unfortunately, they left stupid off the color wheel of alignments due to how often it would be used. Going out looking to pick a fight and kill randoms is at the high end of lowercase 'evil' to me.
Killing the guards is where it becomes interesting though. This falls under the category of evil and chaotic (lowercase both) in my books but to what extreme depends on why. Are the PCs of the opinion that the guards are inherently evil themselves? Are they well intentioned or just mooks with a job to do. It also depends on their mission (I don't know jade regent). But EG. if your contracted to make a city fall because it's evil, corrupt and a bunch of devil worshipers, then by default, all the guards in there are probably valid targets without too much alignment damage. If the guards show themselves to be more of the 'bully' persuasion than 'Come along quietly', then even more so.
Both characters initially started off as having True Neutral alignments.
I dictated that the one that slipped away's alignment shifted to NE based on this event.
I would take a different approach and one that was taken in our group once. Read the player the meaning of TN and the NE (or CE) alignments from the rulebook. and ask him if they sounds more like the char he is playing rather than TN. Also pick up your common threads from all the 'evil' alignments and consolidate them also for his reference. If he doesn't want to change alignment, give him a few sessions to sort himself out (player might have had a bad week). If he doesn't reform back to TN, bring it up again, except this time ask him to justify staying TN rather than just asking if the others might fit better.
I really hate alignment, I see no point in it at all. What's the purpose? To force a player into making a decision the DM feels is better suited to their alignment? Most folks just see an alignment and decide what you should be doing forever after that, without any thought as to other options within that alignment scope.
<CHOP>
Alignments are a mechanical artifice designed such that a pally does not have 'Smite Other' ability and that you know that Devils are evil and Angels are good. They also assist in grouping the gods into the major 'Good', 'Evil' and 'Whatever' groups of who co-operates with who.
Well according to the propaganda by the angels anyway. I tell you though, when you were last in a bind, did an angel pop up offering to help you? NO. It was a devil. And all I had to do was murder the screaming baby next door. WIN/WIN Situation. My taxes are paid AND the neighborhood is more quiet.
[Edit]In case that went by a little fast, that's getting about as dark as the humor is on the char that inspired this avatar, and she was almost as evil as they came according to the books. She disagreed though. [/Edit]
Alternate thought is to reverse the approach. Your implying that the alignment should constrain the PC. I'd suggest the opposite. Let the player play what they want and do whatever they want regardless of alignment, but the GM designates (or updates) the alignment for the character based on actions that the PC performs. If he's all over the shop, then it's CN.
|
In the example you bring up, I wouldn't call the first encounter "murder". The drunks were belligerent, wouldn't back off after being threatened / warned, and were menacing if not hostile. Drawing steel and spell in that case is self-defense. (
O_0
Not murder? Then what, pray tell, is the definition of murder?
"Gee, officer, he was yelling at me and insulting me, so I pulled out my knife and stabbed him in the throat. It's not murder because he was mean!"
Seriously?
In the example you bring up, I wouldn't call the first encounter "murder". The drunks were belligerent, wouldn't back off after being threatened / warned, and were menacing if not hostile. Drawing steel and spell in that case is self-defense. (O_0
Not murder? Then what, pray tell, is the definition of murder?
"Gee, officer, he was yelling at me and insulting me, so I pulled out my knife and stabbed him in the throat. It's not murder because he was mean!"
Seriously?
To provide even more clarification, after two of the drunkards dropped, the rest of the individuals bolted, fearing for their lives.
The two PCs in question (one a socially awkward sorcerer, the other an alchemist under the effects of his mutegen (he stated that this was the RP reason for his actions, though later agreed that he might have been playing it a little over the top) proceeded to follow the fleeing civilians and cut them down from behind.
Then they decided to head down to the local brothel, cutting down the local guard who ordered them to stand down, and eventually attempted to take them down through force of arms.
Now that I think about it, I'm toying with the idea of talking to the sorcerer PC's player about perhaps RPing an insanity versus a shift towards an evil alignment.
|
|
I see alignment as a guideline for players about how they've agreed to roleplay their characters. However, the reputation of a character and party is something the GM ultimately controls. Going into a town and murdering 20+ people who more or less did nothing wrong (certainly nothing to warrant death) is sure to give the PCs and perhaps the entire party a VERY poor reputation.
As far as the specifics of hauling the PC off and having him executed, that makes perfect sense. What do you expect to happen when you go on a murderous rampage which included killing over a dozen law enforcement officials?
Well I'm pretty sure ninjas are about to assassinate your entire party so I wouldn't worry too much about the alignment.Shame on you for reading ahead!
I didn't read ahead. It's Jade Regent so I assume ninjas are somehow involved and instead of laying low your party near instantly murdered 18 people in public. So I merely connected some dots and assume that their presence is known by the assumed ninjas.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's Jade Regent so I assume ninjas are somehow involved and instead of laying low your party near instantly murdered 18 people in public. So I merely connected some dots and assume that their presence is known by the assumed ninjas.
Ninjas should be assumed to be planning a TPK whether you're in Jade Regent or not. ;)
I'm interested in hearing all of your thoughts on GMs mandating an alignment shift of a PC based on their actions.
Do you need to see stable, consistent behaviour before you force a shift?
Do you explicitly state the shift at all, or simply converse with the player about how their actions don't fit their alignment and would they like to make a shift?
Can a single incident spark a GM directed alignment shift?
A bit of contextual information:
Recently, in our campaign, the PCs arrived at a city where they were advised to keep their heads down, as some powerful group is out to get them (we're running Jade Regent). To make things interesting, and to see how the party would react to trying not to draw attention to themselves I had them encounter a large group of drunk, unruly men coming home at the end of a long days work. The men insulted the PCs, harassed them a bit, and made lewd comments about a female NPC tagging along with them.
The party attempted a little bit of intimidation to run them off, but that failing, they began attacking these mostly unarmed, unarmored men in the middle of the city. After murdering 5 of them, a few of the PCs realized their error and went into hiding.
Two of the PCs decided they wanted a little more fun and attempted to head down to the local brothel. Various guardsmen attempted to stop them, and were slain. After killing 13 guardsmen, one PC was finally taken down and the other slipped away.I ruled the captured one was almost immediately executed for his crimes.
Both characters initially started off as having True Neutral alignments.
I dictated that the one that slipped away's alignment shifted to NE based on this event.Too harsh, too easy? Any thoughts? This was a really odd situation, and not something typicaly for my players at all...and I'm wondering if I handled it fairly.
I allow five major decisions to shift an alignment.
Necroing an alignment thread is truly obscene.
Necroing an alignment thread is truly obscene.
I usually defend thread resurrection, but I have to agree.
Soo a lot of people forget nature is in many cases evil in our civilized eyes. You can find numerous videos of wild animals eating their prey while it is still living. Sometimes animals even cannibalize their own young.
Characters should be multi faceted as almost all actions irl are a blend on the spectrum of man made morality. If Good and Evil are just light, dark and grey being neutral with no cross over then it makes it all so dull. People are not strictly one or another they are a rich tapestry of all good and evil with all the rich beautiful grey in between. You could expect this strict behavior from outsiders they are made of essence that is joined together and polished by a godling to make a servant. But strict concepts good, law, evil, chaos and neutrality are obsurd. I have ran into many dms that use this as a means to force especially clerics into certain routes. Then if not heeded used as a punishment for going outside what the dm desires. I know several dms that back before the internet basically used the alignment system as a weapon against the players. More importantly when your dm describes any chaotic or antiauthorty as evil as an example shows a lack of understanding and maybe a little bit of brainwashing you saw back in the 1950s in America.
Ohh my ultimate point, if alignment is simplified in such a horrific fashion then really dumb things happen... like the paladin going huh guess it's time to smite it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play with real world morality, you are going to be in a quagmire of confusion for the majority of your time in the game. It is far easier to simply suspend your concepts of real world morality and adopt the game's for the duration, even if it makes you uncomfortable or clashes with how you perceive good/evil or order/chaos.
From a personal perspective, I think people treat 'alignment' way too subjectively and not nearly as objective as they need to. Justifying behavior or offer excuses is simply a way for non-lawful or non-good characters to make themselves feel better (or make others feel less inclined to come after them). Alignment may seem fluid but that is because no person is a perfect standard of one alignment or another. They exist in a world designed to sort them, test them, and process their souls for placement in the afterlife. If your alignment does not fluctuate a little bit (even if it never actually changes categories), your character is not developing.