Alignment changes

[Varis]

From what I can tell, 4e is silent about the consequences (if any) from alignment change.

To provide some context, my PC's are getting rather fond of torturing (in this case, an orc) for information,..to the point where they removed his thumbs and seared out his eyes with a red hot dagger (but hey, the orc was unconscious first, thats a 'good' thing, right?)

I read on the definitions of 'unaligned' and 'evil' and found that either definition could apply (they are unaligned at the moment).

Currently, I'm thinking they have gone too far, and strayed into the alignment of 'evil'.

The question is,...so what?

From what I can tell, it has no impact aside from roleplaying perspective.

Should I consider this alignment change to be a bad thing (there is one good aligned character in the party, the rest are unaligned/evil).

If I decide they are evil, should I even tell the players?

I'm actually tempted to throw in a few evil quests and see if they go for it? So long as they don't start back stabbing each other, do you foresee any issues?

Hmmm,..evil quests,...'could' be fun

('looks internally' I'm becomming evil! Run for the hills,..aaaaagh)

 

[delericho]

From what I can tell, 4e is silent about the consequences (if any) from alignment change.

You really have to discuss this with your group. Depending on how you read the 4e rules, it may well be that the DM does not have any authority to insist on an alignment-change, and that it is something for the player to (optionally) choose.

Also, again depending on how you read the 4e rules, the behaviours you describe might not be out of bounds for a Good or Lawful Good character. 4e alignment can be read as being nothing more than a sort of "metaphysical team-shirt", and as being neither descriptive nor proscriptive as far as PC actions are concerned. In other words, read strictly, a Lawful Good Paladin of the god of orphans can spend his off-hours indulging his hobby of burning down orphanages, and provided he remains willing and available to commit genocide on passing tribes of orcs at a moment's notice, he can remain Lawful Good, a paladin, and a chosen follower of his god.

Of course, much more sane interpretations of the rules are possible (and, frankly, more likely to be the designer's intent). And so, I come back to where I started: you really have to discuss this with your group.

As for consequences of changing alignment: clerics and paladins may have to choose new patron deities. And there are a couple of powers that specifically affect creatures of one alignment more than others (IIRC, one of the Cleric Paragon Paths has such a power). Other than that, there aren't really any rules-borne consequences. And in-world, there aren't any direct consequences of "becoming Evil" either, since there's no actual way to know. And, in a Points of Light setting, I doubt many people will object terribly strongly to a character who engages in the torture of Orcs.

YMMV, of course.

 

[Jack99]

You really have to discuss this with your group. Depending on how you read the 4e rules, it may well be that the DM does not have any authority to insist on an alignment-change, and that it is something for the player to (optionally) choose.

Also, again depending on how you read the 4e rules, the behaviours you describe might not be out of bounds for a Good or Lawful Good character. 4e alignment can be read as being nothing more than a sort of "metaphysical team-shirt", and as being neither descriptive nor proscriptive as far as PC actions are concerned. In other words, read strictly, a Lawful Good Paladin of the god of orphans can spend his off-hours indulging his hobby of burning down orphanages, and provided he remains willing and available to commit genocide on passing tribes of orcs at a moment's notice, he can remain Lawful Good, a paladin, and a chosen follower of his god.

Did you get a defect shipment of PHB's sent to Scotland or what? How on earth did you get to that conclusion?

 

[xechnao]

From what I can tell, 4e is silent about the consequences (if any) from alignment change.

To provide some context, my PC's are getting rather fond of torturing (in this case, an orc) for information,..to the point where they removed his thumbs and seared out his eyes with a red hot dagger (but hey, the orc was unconscious first, thats a 'good' thing, right?)

I read on the definitions of 'unaligned' and 'evil' and found that either definition could apply (they are unaligned at the moment).

Currently, I'm thinking they have gone too far, and strayed into the alignment of 'evil'.

The question is,...so what?

From what I can tell, it has no impact aside from roleplaying perspective.

Should I consider this alignment change to be a bad thing (there is one good aligned character in the party, the rest are unaligned/evil).

If I decide they are evil, should I even tell the players?

I'm actually tempted to throw in a few evil quests and see if they go for it? So long as they don't start back stabbing each other, do you foresee any issues?

Hmmm,..evil quests,...'could' be fun

('looks internally' I'm becomming evil! Run for the hills,..aaaaagh)

What your players did is not an act of evil. It is an offense to nature itself. Are the gods active? Perhaps they get involved. Also, when the PCs visit societies they should suffer from a kind of social stress. To react to this they should run amok or something. If the gods are not directly involved they must seek advice from some temple or some powerful druid or a wizard on how to heal themselves. Healing must be about some mission or quest with the goal to learn what they must give of themselves to get healed. This, in the end will be the paragon path or epic destiny to follow-depending on what lever are you.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

IMO that's evil.

Players usually do that when they're frustrated about not knowing what to do. Perhaps you need to hand out more information in the adventures.

 

[Rechan]

IMO that's evil.

Players usually do that when they're frustrated about not knowing what to do.

There are multiple reasons a player would do it.

To be disruptive. To be "Edgy". To test boudaries. To "play his character".

Abusing captives comes up in almost every game I've played in.

 

[delericho]

Actually, never mind.

 

[Kzach]

Have you tried cutting the thumbs off and poking the eyes out of the players?

Just sayin'...

 

[Mallus]

From what I can tell, 4e is silent about the consequences (if any) from alignment change.

I think 4e's rather clear in this area. There is no mechanical effect for alignment change.

To provide some context, my PC's are getting rather fond of torturing (in this case, an orc) for information,..to the point where they removed his thumbs and seared out his eyes with a red hot dagger (but hey, the orc was unconscious first, thats a 'good' thing, right?)

Amateurs .

The question is,...so what?

That's a question to ask yourself, and then discuss w/your group. Obviously you shouldn't run a campaign whose tone you don't enjoy.

From what I can tell, it has no impact aside from roleplaying perspective.

Yes. And that impact is as big or small as you decide. But if you agree to let them play villains, they need a sporting chance. No predetermining that their sins will lead to an inevitable doom.

Should I consider this alignment change to be a bad thing (there is one good aligned character in the party, the rest are unaligned/evil).

Why would you, unless you simply don't want to run that sort of campaign?

So long as they don't start back stabbing each other, do you foresee any issues?

I'd be very clear about this upfront: no lethal intra-party conflicts.

 

[Jack99]

Actually, never mind.

I hope you didn't take my comment the wrong way. I honestly do not understand how you got what you said from what is written about alignment in 4e, and was merely hoping you could explain what drew you to your conclusion.