A Land Far Away

One of the staples of many PCs, although changed in 4e (*cough*paladins*cough*), is the alignment system. It's a touchy situation, as it [essentially] dictates how your PC will commonly react in a given situation. It does not mean your character can never defy the norm that the alignment states, because those flukes and rarities are often few and far between to really make a difference. This is why, like with my "Detect Evil and You" thread, I would like to gather's everyone's opinions on alignment shifts and how you think they should be weighed.

I ask this because of a conversation that has started in #alfa-003. Some DMs are willing to shift alignments as they see fit; however, that is all based on their view of the situation and how they believe the player should have acted in accordance to their alignment. The shift, whether a few points or many points, normally occurs after the scenario has played out, but not necessarily once the session ends. This means that the player, knowing why their PC did what they did, has no say in the matter and can often watch their alignment shift numerous times in a session. An example, if it may help you understand more.

Let's say we have Rob, a Neutral Evil Fighter who basically cares only for himself and does things for his own personal gain. He's walking down the road and encounters a female in distress as bandits assault here. Rob, noticing the female's supple features, figures he would woe the girl into his bed by defeating the bandits -- he doesn't really care for her, he just wants her for the time being. He jumps, kills the bandits and saves the girl. Since the girl is seemingly innocent, some may reward Rob with +Good points for acting heroic and in line, because they do not know his motivation. Some time later, Rob comes across a man who is dying on the road from the same bandits. He checks the man's pockets and leaves him to die -- why does he care? He's not a woman and he has no possessions worth taking. Rob may gain +Evil points for this encounter, which negates the points he received from saving the girl earlier.

This comes across as inefficient for the DM to constantly be doing. Perhaps it would be more efficient for the DM to hold off on shifts until the end of a session, where s/he would then take aside the player and discuss and gain insight on why the PC did what they did, in order to shift accordingly? This would allow the player not to see the DM constantly doing a tug-o-war style of shifts on his alignment throughout the entire session. There are obviously some cases that would warrant immediate shifts, such as a paladin killing an innocent/someone in cold blood, but those are the special cases that are easier to spot and won't reflect too harshly on the DM's judgment.

Any thoughts? Input? I'd really like to see everyone's take on alignment shifts.

I approve of alignment shifts...i just wish DMs did it more often.

I dislike them. In all but the most extreme cases they shouldnt happen at all without consulting the player and making sure of the characters motives.


J

I like alignment changing.....PCs grow and people do change.

A few caveats:


1) Don't script it. PC motivations are just too complex to good a job with an automated system

2) DMs should be very careful about making alignment changes to PCs with whom they have only passing familiarity. Within a single scenario it may be difficult to judge PCs' motivations and divergence from "expected" behavior based on current alignment.

3) DMs who observe PCs time and again (run campaigns with them, etc) should certainly be considering making changes to PCs alignments slowly over time if behavior is appropriate for it. If a PC with an alignment sensitive build (cleric, monk, pally etc) starts shifting away that sould be a wake-up call for the player.

4) Communication is great! If a DM thinks some component of a player's IC behavior is inappropriate to their stated alignment......tell them! The player might respond "Yeah, you're right. IC events have really changed my perspective. Those Helmites have angered me so much that I've started hating authority and want to move away from neutral more toward chaotic." OR they might say "Gosh, I really didn't think I was playing out of my alignement for reasons X,Y and Z". OR they might say "Point taken, Ms. DM. I really do deserve an alignment shift. Thanks! Oh and, by the way can I also have +3 plate?" Either way it all helps in character development.


As a side note, I would have certainly expected some shifting due to my own IC behavior. However, it has happened twice in the last 9 months. In game I received 2pts toward good for risking myself to carry a hin across a burning bridge at personal risk and 5 pts toward Law for some reason I can't now recall, probably "just following orders"

I believe that when a DM sees something they believe warrants an Alignment shift they should speak with the player to find out what the character's motivation was in the action. Understanding such I believe will provide the DM's the insight to better judge what alignment shift is needed, or if one is needed at all.

The DM is always right. I tend to give shifts in increments of 2-5 at a time for significant reasons. It would take a major action to warrant an outright change from say LG to LN.

HEEGZ wrote:The DM is always right.

This is the worst possible thing that can ever, ever, ever be said.

DMs are people, they make mistakes and have bias like anyone else. The ones that would like to assume they are always right should not be DMs


J

When in doubt, the DM is right, sorry. They make mistakes yes, but roll with them.

HEEGZ wrote:When in doubt, the DM is right, sorry.

If the DM was always right we wouldnt need rules and standards for them. ALFA is not anyones personal game, you are not always right unless the game is at your house where the players bring soda and cheetos to bribe you. You have to share this club, even if you are a DM, its not your house.

Even when in doubt, you can be wrong.

I feel alignment shifts are a part of the game...if alignment shifts weren't meant to occur, alignment would have probably been left out of the game. What's the point?

It's all a manner of playing really. Some people play outward, some inward. The outward people have a stone concept that rarely changes and they play the stone concept well. They are done learning/growing before they hit level 1...the level 1 you see will be mostly the same at level 20. They stick to the concept and choose to affect the playing world around them, instead of vice versa. These players I suppose frown upon alignemtn shifts, because they intend to keep playing their character the same way they have been playing them, no matter what.

Inward playing people's PC's tend to fluctuate alot as time passes. Their character is continually learning, continually being shaped and molded by the things happening around them. There level 1 might turn out to be a polar opposite at level 20 depending on what happens in the game environment. These tend to be more open to the shifts, as time and circumstance change, so should the pc.

Neither way of playing is right or wrong, but both ways have different veiws on alignment shifts I would think. If you think you've done something that warrents a bump, ask! Be responsible for your own shifts, and remind the dm.

I have to agree with HEEGZ. The DM is the game master. When a player and a DM disagree, it is the DM that is the arbiter, not the player. These roles are fundamentally ingrained into the nature of the game, and in my experience when the player believes they have equal say, it makes the game unenjoyable for everyone...it is not the DM who should not be DMing in that instance, but rather the player who should not be playing.

Of course bad DMing is possible, and a DM can be guilty of bad judgement. However, it is not sufficient to say a DM is guilty of bad judgement just because the player disagrees with it. A bad DM can definitely ruin a game, but no more so than the bad player that does not respect the roles the game depends on.

For alignment shifts, i think a point or three shift is sufficient in most cases. 10 points is huge and appropriate for only the most extreme behavior.

I understand your point, Mr. D, but got to go with Heegz. It's a game and as with all games following the rules is what makes it possible.

Rule #1 is, and always has been, that DM's are God.

I have seen PnP games fall apart when single players decide they "just have" to argue a point, and I've seen players leave servers for the same reason. It is childish and destructive IMO.

D&D is not a game that is played "to win", it's played "to play". Rolling with the punches and reacting to what is presented, both good and bad, is what makes it fun.

I'm not "sucking-up" to the staff on this, it is just something I came to realize some years ago after I had a DM personally crush one of my PC's to dust in a lonely spot on the server for what IMO was pointless and just plain wrong.

I was really enjoying that PC and complained on up the ladder and argued about it, and insisted I would not stand for it, and when the highest authority sided with the DM I quit the server.

I won't bore anyone with the details of the incident, because what I realized after some months of missing my server community was that it was really quite silly and immature of me to obsess over something so trivial and deprive myself and freinds the enjoyment of the server.

I realize some might think this a "suck-up" post, but I've got to say that while rules are essential to the game, DM's make the rules....period. And it is our responsibility as players to NOT fight with DM's and make their role any more difficult than it already is.

Fair has nothing to do with RP, roll with the swells and have fun, it's easy if you try

P.S: I like alignment shifts. It nice to be given time to explain behaviour incase that would help the DM judge the shift, but they are often quite busy juggling multiple PC's and a plotline so I understand if they haven't time for an extensive consult before a bonk.

Small bumps should be given at a DM's discretion.
Large shifts should be argued, but also petitionable! If I feel my char is shifting towards Lawful and I can demonstrate it, then just hit the guy with an alignment change.

I'm going to have to start saving my posts on repeat topics so I can just copy and paste.

In brief, alignment is basically your inner belief system, whereas reputation is what others think of you. Too often they are confused, and what should be a reputation hit ends up being an alignment shift. A person's inner belief system really shouldn't change except under extreme circumstances, some sort of severe trauma, or only very slowly through a maturation and learning process. Any alignment shift outside of that is really just RP punishment, "you aren't playing your alignment appropriately," but the definitions of alignments are so fuzzy and controversial that reasonable minds may differ as to what is appropriate.

I'm not a big fan of the alignment system, it's clumsy and artificial and leads to a lot of conflict, but it's a game mechanic so we're stuck with it. There are no alignment hits in Traveller. If you feel a need to punish someone's RP as a DM, just withhold the XP and tell them why. That's just as clear a message as an alignment hit, without all the game mechanic worries or confusion.

It's hardly punishment. It's just the consequence of an action. I've probably been the one giving a lot of shifts lately, and I do it on outward actions. If a pc want's to discuss it with me, they are welcome, but more often then not the shift stays. Why? Because I'm always right? Well yes, partly. But also for one major reason, intentions are nothing without the actions that accompany them.

Even an evil person doing good, for evil reasons can become a good person from it. They start off doing good things for purely selfish reasons, but come to appreciate the rewards of doing good, and so it sticks with them. And someone doing evil, for good intentions, well it's still an evil action and it's a slippery slope. Makes the next evil action all the more easier to do.

Alignment shifts are my way of saying, I see what you did there, and if you want to keep your current alignment, you probably shouldn't do similar things over a long length of time. But then again, what's wrong with changing alignments? Sure you can lose class features if you stray to far, but a fall from grace, or rise from darkness can be some of the most dramatic rp around. Hell, I wish a DM was around when I was playing Barid(for xp and actual quests mostly) to give some alignment changes, because he was probably drifting closer to LN then he should have been. But such is life.

Live with it.