Player Hubris

[Kid Charlemagne]

Yeah, my answer is you need better players. I haven't had these issues since the mid-80's, and even though only rarely. I've been lucky to have a higher quality of player, and you can do better, really (I sound like I'm advising someone on their love life).

 

[Aeric]

Deeds, not words.

Here's what I do.

When I see a character being consistently played in a manner contrary to his alignment, I change his alignment. I don't tell the player I changed it, either. He finds out it changed through interaction with items, spells, or spell-like abilities that are based on alignment ("why did I take three dice of damage from that holy sword?"), or through loss of powers and abilities reliant upon a certain alignment. My reasoning for not telling the player of the alignment change is this: unless it was a conscious decision to follow a new philosophy of ethics, he still believes that he is acting within his original alignment. If it was a conscious decision, the player would tell me, "I'm changing my alignment."

As you can imagine, alignments are rather fluid in my game.

 

[francisca]

D'nemy-

In the past when I've had similar issues, I usually explain to the whole party that there are 3 types of alignment in D&D:
1) What is scribbled on your sheet
2) How you really act
3) How those in the game world perceive you

They are not always in agreement.

If the PC's behavior is a problem for you, you either have to change your expectations or do what I have done in some cases: let an NPC or group of NPCs act as they should. Use a Drow as trap bait? Fine. That guy was Prince. Daddy is sending the hit squad. NG thief is stealing too much? Fine. A high level member of the local thieve's guild observes the act, and acts accordingly.

However, almost all of this sort of *fertilizer* can be nipped in the bud by having a sit-down with the players at the inception of the campaign. Discuss what they want as well as your vision for the campaign. Set expections. Expect the players, and yourself, to adhere to them.

 

[Herobizkit]

I see it like this:

You want a game that depends largely on character/NPC interaction, morality/judgement issues, and how the players affect the world at large.

The players want a "beer n' pretzels" game where they can kick down the doors, do and take what they want, then get away with it because "it's only a game".

I find that the 2nd way of playing is very common in new players and players who are just out to play a game. Some people really enjoy this kind of playing because it's almost like a comic book or over-the-top movie where the heroes can do whatever they want because they're heroes. Fella from the Die Hard series could be considered a hero. So was John Wayne. They weren't your shiny GOOD heroes, but then again, neither are the PCs.

the 1st way of playing is more common among seasoned players and DMs who are bored of "kill things and take their stuff" and are more interested in the submersive story-telling aspect of role-playing games.

Now, if you want one and the players want the other, I'd either work with the players to find a happy medium, throw out alignment altogether, or find a different group/run a different type of game. Could be the players didn't know what you expected of them in regards to alignment, could be you didn't expect to run a game of shady heroes. Either way, I thought using kobolds and Drow to set off traps was hilarious.

 

[Hussar]

Something I've noticed is that there are far more neutral PC's out there than good. Good is HARD. Particularly for an adventurer. I would hunt around the web for a couple of decent alignment discussions, and then show them to your players. That way it isn't just your opinion vs theirs. Show them that this IS an issue for most gamers.

Of course, once a player gives me an ultimatum, they'd be politely and firmly shown the door. Sorry, I'll bend over backwards to be accomodating, but, well, I can always get new players.

 

[Ravenknight]

Of course, once a player gives me an ultimatum, they'd be politely and firmly shown the door. Sorry, I'll bend over backwards to be accomodating, but, well, I can always get new players.

Well, there You have it. Nothing more to add really.

 

[Beale Knight]

The first is practical... What do you do as DM's to deal with this kind of behavior?

The second question is more philosophical.... Does this kind of activity, all in the name of GOOD, shine a stark light on a decaying or completely dead moral/ethical framework on those players who indulge in it? QUOTE]

Since I've picked up DMing again (10 sessions in a row now! Woo-hoo!) this hasn't come up, but it has in my older games and I've devised a way to address should it come up in this one.

Whenever it looks like my group is going to do something like kobold torture or drow = trap bait, I'm going to present one of them with this memory, and do it before the whole group. It'll be modified for the particular character, whomever that may be, but basicly:

"You suddenly remember an incident from your childhood. Your dad the sherrif caught one of a ring of theives, but that one wouldn't give up the names of the other theives. While the captured theif was duely punished you asked your dad, 'Dad, why didn't you torture that thief for the information? He's evil anyway, and doing that you could have captured the whole gang and stopped the evil they'll do while on the loose. You could have done some good with that torture.' Your dad replied, 'Son. Torture is evil, we're good. Good using evil against evil to do good doesn't make the evil good, it makes the good evil.' "

Whether that would work or not will hopefully remain unknown for a long time, but I think that would make it clear that I as DM have already ruled that Good people doing Evil actions against Evil people in order to accomplish Good things is an Evil act. It should also make it clear to the players that I consider whatever they're about to do as one of those Evil actions.

With that all made clear, I'd let them do what they decide to and make a note about the alignment infraction. One incident won't make for an alignment change so far as I'm concerned, but several will do. And like Aeric said, I wouldn't tell them until it came to a game mechanics point.

 

[silentspace]

First question: "Good" and "Evil" are defined by you, the DM. If you say its evil, then its evil. In-game consequences result.

Second question: "Good" and "Evil" are defined by consensus. What was "Good" in 100 BC Rome is not the same as what is "Good" in 21st century America!

 

[genshou]

Second question: "Good" and "Evil" are defined by consensus. What was "Good" in 100 BC Rome is not the same as what is "Good" in 21st century America!

Only in moral relativism.

 

[silentspace]

I stand corrected. The moral/ethical framework is apparently consistent throughout times, cultures and belief systems!