When PCs go "Swiss"

[MerakSpielman]

You don't have to tell the PC that his character is CE. Just treat him rules-wise like he is. Have him inexplicably be unable to enter a (properly Hallowed) good temple. Have paladins detect him. Stuff like that.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

From personal experience, this is a potential Pandora's Box. I had some players who resisted alignments; they wanted to play self-interested characters with no accounatbility. They used the "CN equals crazy/unnacountable" to create characters they thought were outside the alignment system. In other words, they could do anything, and their CN alignment would prevent any alignment shifts.

Thus why I said "Can of WYRMS" as opposed to "Can of WORMS". And in my expereince (similar to yours), I propably should have said "Endless Extradimensional Space of Infinite Cranky, Chronically Constipated, Chromatic Great Wyrms".

Yeah, the CN as Insane (as it pertains to PC's) can lead to things the make you consider looking up the FBI's most wanted list & see if you recognize anybody.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Actually, I'm wondering why you are playing with the players

Well I'm not anymore (this was years ago), but its because I'm always the DM for my main group, and they won't let me play--ever. They absolutely refuse to DM, and so that has left me with some pretty awful experiences as a player. In all my years of playing D&D, I have never found a group in which I could be a player, rather than a DM, except for a few that I played for a tad but had serious problems (like that one). Its really a sad fate, but my players all insist that I'm too much of a better DM than they are for them to DM...its flattering, but I try to tell them they won't improve unless they try (I think they're just lasy).

 

[Talvisota]

This is a player problem, and I would approach it as such. Often times player John just doesn't like ceding control of a game to Joe-behind-the-cardboard, and James has deep-seeded problems with Carl and Mike's percieved lack of respect for him. Then there is Kristin, who just wants to be different for different's sake. What happens? Many of the scenarios listed above. And, (no disrespect to anyone here) this happens more with less sufficiently grounded people.

Many of the solutions listed above would work great, but I would try to think beyond that into the real world and try to see how this person fits into your circle of players/classmates/friends/co-workers.

 

[scourger]

No player likes to be in the alignment straightjacket. A DM tried it one time with me because he thought my cleric wasn't Chaotic Good enough. So, I sent him a lengthy message about what the alignment description actually says and compared it to what my character actually did, and they matched. He then tried to maintain that the motives of my character matter and not the actions of my character, which was BS. The real bottom line was that he didn't like the way I played the character and was trying to shoe horn me into his mode of play. He made it plain that he didn't like the character even after the PC died.

So, my next (current) PC was (is) very, very Neutral and very, very careful. I hit upon the idea of doing what feels right at the moment, just like it says in the alignement description. That style of play just meshes with that DM's style of play, which is the way he DMs. We all DM the way we play. Power gamers are power DMs. Storytelling players are storytelling DMs. Tacticians remain tacticians as do character actors.

Anyway, it sounds as if you have some issue with this player's play. I think what you need to do is decide what kind of game you want to run and put the players on notice. I've done this with my current game. I made it plain that I want to run a game for a bunch of good guys--heroes. When asked if a certain bad/evil option is available, I reply, "Sure, just not in this game." I believe the problems noted above with my other DM with me and other players arose when we played in ways that he didn't want us to play; but he didn't give any such guidance until after-the fact (in one instance he stopped the game because 2 PCs were threatening ("terrorizing" I think the DM said) some villagers that the players thought were holding out information on them). So, outline the expected conduct of the PCs and then game on. Everyone has more fun that way.

 

[Voadam]

Murdering children,

In game when this happens, simply say that this is a dramatic enough action that his character's alignment has turned to evil.

However it partially depends on how you are running alignments. If alignments are simply mechanical and are chosen alignments with cosmic forces and not really tied to morality, then allowing neutral or even good characters who are "aligned" with the forces of good do evil actions is no problem and can be an interesting world to play in with evil members of a good church, or villains who are OK guys. The default however is that alignment reflects a being's core values and extreme actions such as randomly murdering children can change a mechanically neutral to a mechanically evil character.

And extreme good is much harder to do, particularly casually. Donating large sums to an orphanage wouldn't necessarily buy a cancellation of the evil. But that is your call as a DM.

 

[tarchon]

He's not playing CE so he won't have any restrictions on his actions. I guess it depends on the motivations of his crimes. If he just kills people for the heck of it, he's CE, whether or not he occasionally drops a silver piece in a beggar's cup. On the other hand, if he kills people for some advantage to himself, he could be chaotic neutral. He's clearly chaotic in any event though. I'd say change him to CN with CE tendencies and if he keeps up the random mayhem, a trip to CEville is in order.

 

[GM_Brad]

Reading through this thread, I see all the reasons why I've ditched the whole alignment systems in the vast majority of the games I run. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as I can tell, it's never been missed.

When I play in games that require an alignment, I tend to pull the "I'm neutral" trick myself; not because I want to get away with commiting evil acts, but because often there are serious misunderstandings amongst the group as a whole, and particularly between the GM and the PCs, as to what the various alignments mean and require. I've been in games where players are genuinely doing what they believe is good, but are punished (I can't think of any other word that fits) by the GM because he has a different view. Usually, this difference rests on a technicality or slight semantical twist. How frustrating. Someone used the word "straightjacket" to describe the in-game effect, and they are dead on. Playing neutral characters, when I'd rather be playing "good" ones, is a defense mechanism for me, brought on by too many bad experiences in the past.

In the case of the player in the original post, by the alignment system, he has definitely left true neutral behind...far, far behind. If it's getting in the way of the game, I'd have a conversation with him, however non-productive that might be. After that, when you've made your position clear, feel free to attack the problem in-game. At least you've given him a head's up that things are about to change. If you did this without a warning, it'd be like you were ambushing him, since he's been playing this way for some time and all had seemed well up to that point.

Good luck!

 

[Aust Diamondew]

In my game I dictate the PC's alignment based on their actions and their input. Actions should dictate alignment not the other way around.

 

[tarchon]

In my game I dictate the PC's alignment based on their actions and their input. Actions should dictate alignment not the other way around.

I tend to agree. It might be fun to every once in a while have players vote on each other's alignment by secret ballot. Could be a reasonably effective way to judge a character's nature as played.