Alignment violations and how to deal with them

[PlainSimpleGarak]

I admit, this issue makes me feel like a rank newbie DM. I'm trying to teach a bunch of new-to-roleplaying gamers (and a few helpful veterans) how to play, by running a story-based low level campaign. We discussed alignment and how it related to their characters, and had them choose deities appropriate to their character concepts. However I don't know of any good way to moderate it in game when they do something that violates their alignment without making them feel like I'm punishing them.

To be more specific: I haven't DMed since the late 90's. I spent the majority of the last decade playing and GMing/STing different systems (mostly Storyteller systems) which had clear book-mechanics for ethos violation. However my new players were interested in playing a simple, classic game. They had heard of DnD, and wanted to try DnD, so I dusted off my books and found some solid modules and started up a game.

However I'm a bit rusty... you might even say lost... at what to do when my group of neutral and chaotic good characters cook up evil schemes or make thoughtless decisions that get innocent people killed. DnD - at least all the editions I have played - doesn't have a rule for what to do in case of an alignment violation that isn't an arbitrary decision of the DM. (I have no paladins in the group, and the cleric is a veteran who plays strictly to her alignment, so my worries are for the newbies who are playing other classes)

So... advice or anecdotes? Do you guys punish players for alignment violations in some way? Divine intercession? Loss of abilities?

I'm working with newbies so I'm trying to make things focused on in-game consequences rather than out of game consequences. Kid gloves, if you will, so I can get some good players when all is said and done

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The following has always worked for me:

1. Ignore alignment restrictions other than the cleric's "Stay within one step of your deity's alignment." The rest are arbitrary, and get in the way of good role play.

2. If a PC is about to do something that clearly violates their alignment, give them a "This is your conscience..." warning or a dream warning from their deity. If they go ahead and do it anyway, I may actually shift their alignment if I feel that it's part of an emerging behavioral pattern -- or if the action is just that extreme.

3. If the PC would actually be affected by this alignment shift, I inform the player of this fact, and tell them what they can do about it. In the case of a cleric or paladin or whatever, they lose their powers until they either seek redemption or find a more suitable divine patron. Oh, and smite evil may become smite chaos/good/law/extremist.

Or if I'm DMing 4e, alignment doesn't matter, so I don't care whether reckless murderers call themselves good guys. Happens in real life all the time, so I'll simply work out the in-game consequences of such behavior.

 

[delericho]

Firstly: which edition? Because, as noted, alignment has become less of an issue as the editions have gone on.

Anyway, for me, and from a 3e-perspective:

1) I would start by giving them a quick overview of the alignments. Mine is below, but I certainly don't claim it's definitive:

Lawful: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That is, people are better as an organised view, and you should aim for the best outcome for the most people even if that means compromising the preferences of a minority.

Chaotic: The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. That is, people are best as individuals, and nobody has the right to impose themselves on another.

Good: You first, me second. That is, an altruistic approach - the Good character will sacrifice himself for the benefit of others.

Evil:{/i] Me first, you second. The reverse - the Evil character is interested in his own benefit and his own pleasure, and will sacrifice others for it.

Neutral: This one's a bit tricky. It can either be a 'weak' Neutral, which is basically either apathy or inaction, or a 'strong' Neutral where the character is concerned to strike a balance between the two extremes.

And then, of course, you combine two or more elements to generate a 'complete' alignment.

(Incidentally, on the face of it it looks like Lawful Evil is inherently contradictory by the definitions above. This is somewhat true. But, in general, the LE character will try to build a strong, efficient, and heirarchical society... that just happens to put himself right on the top.)

2) I would then proceed to almost completely ignore alignment for any character that doesn't have an alignment restriction. If need be, I would quietly change their alignment to match their observed behaviour, but don't make an issue of it.

3) For classes who do have alignment restrictions, if I saw the player drifting to an illegal alignment, I would have a quiet word with him/her after the first session in which it happens... then again a couple of sessions later... and if they persist after that then change the alignment and apply the appropriate rules for the character. After all, they've chosen that alignment by their actions, so it's done.

All that said...

I'm now leaning towards getting rid of alignment restrictions altogether, in which case every character would fall under #2.

The exception to this would be the Paladin, who wouldn't have an alignment restriction as such, but would be required to declare an oath. This would have to be phrased as a handful (4-8) relatively general clauses about who he is and what he's about. My sample oath comes from "Dragonheart":

i) A knight is sworn to valour
ii) His heart knows only virtue
iii) His blade defends the helpless
iv) His might upholds the weak
v) His word speaks only truth
vi) His wrath undoes the wicked.

Thereafter, the character would be expected to hold to his code. However, being human, it's likely he won't do so perfectly. Therefore:

- If the character grossly violates any one aspect of his code, such as by deliberately attacking a helpless innocent, then the character immediately falls, and must seek atonement just as if he'd deliberately changed alignment.

- If the character commits a minor infraction against any aspect of the code, even if it was done involuntarily (that is, it includes if he is dominated into doing so!), then I would put a mark by that clause of the code. But for now, there are no ill effects. (And if the clause is already marked, then there is no other effect.)

However, if the paladin ever gets to the point where he has a mark against all six clauses, then he again falls, and must seek out atonement to regain his status as a paladin.

(One other thing: I wouldn't allow the paladin to seek atonement to remove the marks for minor infractions until he has fallen. My gut feeling is that allowing this would make it just a bit too easy for the paladin.)

I think this should work reasonably well. The character is still recognisably within the "knight in shining armour" archetype of the Paladin (and, indeed, by adjusting the oath the DM can create some very different types of Paladin), and also has a clear guide as to what he should and should not be doing. Plus, because the oath is broken into sub-clauses, the Paladin gets a pretty clear warning if he starts to sail close to the edge.

But... I do have to note that I haven't tried this last one out in an actual game, so it's possible it might not work at all!

 

[frankthedm]

Start by saying this...

"Hi, apparently we don't know each other enough. Since I'm the GM for this game of heroic fantasy, I expect the player characters to be heroic, or at least non villainous. If you want instead a game of Scumbags and Sociopaths, you'll have to head home and chose your favorite Psycho in a Sandbox video game."

 

[steenan]

You can't force anybody to respect their alignment. There is no way to make your players behave as they should without ruining the fun of the game for everybody involved. Punishing them won't change anything, other than possibly ruining some friendships.

But for some reason the players chose the character concepts and alignments they did. Why did they do it and why they violate the alignments now?

I think the best way is to ask them.

Maybe they never really thought about it. Selecting an alignment was just a part of the paperwork necessary to start playing (and if you helped in choosing alignments and deities, it wasn't even their paperwork). It didn't matter then and it doesn't matter now. In this case, ignoring alignments is the best course of action - and it may be good to switch deities to whatever best fits the PCs now.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding between you and your players about what each alignment means. If so, just discussing the topic may help your players act in a way that fits their alignments.

Maybe your players want to focus on fall and redemption? After all, it's a very powerful theme and it's really fun to play. This means that you should definitely use in-character consequences of what they do, up to and including loss of powers, angry deities and fiends offering an employment change.

And maybe (although it's the least probable option) the players just want to piss you off. In this case, show them the door and find a better group.

In other words: talk with them about what you find problematic (but without judging them as players), ask them why they do what they do and decide based on what you learn.


If there are other factors that matter, make sure to mention them in such conversation. For example, if you want heroic characters because running for an evil party is not fun for you, make it clear - and make it clear that what matters is how they behave, not what is written as "alignment" on character sheets.

 

[Celebrim]

I generally deal with alignment by letting the players determine their real alignment in play. Most players that are problematic are generally inclined to choose alignments that are pretty flexible in interpretation - neutral, chaotic neutral, even chaotic evil.

The main things are:

a) Clearly explain what alignments mean in your game. Question why the player has chosen a particular alignment for their character. Make sure that players of characters who are restricted by alignment - clerics, champions, etc. - clearly understand the basic code they are expected to follow. You may need to explain whether in the moral system of your world basic concepts like whether fornication is chaotic or evil, or whether slavery is lawful or evil, or whether charity is lawful or good. If you get some argument and you are still certain about it, explain that this is a fantasy world and may not be perfectly congruent to our own and that having the player champion an outlook like chaotic neutral or lawful evil within this world as the one that is good and right is in fact perfectly good role playing and interesting and good for the campaign. Be a neutral arbiter.
b) Freely allow a player to revise their own assessment of an alignment for their player.
c) Warn a player when a particular act if repeated may cause you to reassess the alignment of the player. Keep in mind that alignment is not personality and that foibles in a mortals character as well as occasional minor trespasses are expected.
d) Warn a player intending to commit an act that will force you to reassess their morality of the consequences (prompting of their conscious). Allow them to explain why they think the action is within their alignment.
e) Keep in game punishments to a minimum. Provide outlets for players who change their alignment to remain effective characters and try to create in game justifications for that. Essentially, a character that is changing their alignment is effectively rewriting their character. As long as this is down thoughtfully, go with it.

 

[billd91]

If it ever comes up as an issue (and it rarely does for the games I run) I generally just keep in mind what I, the GM, consider the PC's alignment to be and adjudicate any alignment-based effects accordingly. I don't believe I've ever really had to go to significant lengths over the issue, even with paladin characters.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I admit, this issue makes me feel like a rank newbie DM. I'm trying to teach a bunch of new-to-roleplaying gamers (and a few helpful veterans) how to play, by running a story-based low level campaign. We discussed alignment and how it related to their characters, and had them choose deities appropriate to their character concepts. However I don't know of any good way to moderate it in game when they do something that violates their alignment without making them feel like I'm punishing them.

To be more specific: I haven't DMed since the late 90's. I spent the majority of the last decade playing and GMing/STing different systems (mostly Storyteller systems) which had clear book-mechanics for ethos violation. However my new players were interested in playing a simple, classic game. They had heard of DnD, and wanted to try DnD, so I dusted off my books and found some solid modules and started up a game.

However I'm a bit rusty... you might even say lost... at what to do when my group of neutral and chaotic good characters cook up evil schemes or make thoughtless decisions that get innocent people killed. DnD - at least all the editions I have played - doesn't have a rule for what to do in case of an alignment violation that isn't an arbitrary decision of the DM. (I have no paladins in the group, and the cleric is a veteran who plays strictly to her alignment, so my worries are for the newbies who are playing other classes)

So... advice or anecdotes? Do you guys punish players for alignment violations in some way? Divine intercession? Loss of abilities?

I'm working with newbies so I'm trying to make things focused on in-game consequences rather than out of game consequences. Kid gloves, if you will, so I can get some good players when all is said and done

If PCs get "punished", it should be for foolish or unheroic behavior. Admittedly this tends to punish chaotic stupid PCs more than good-aligned PCs, but being heroic and stupid leads to being Ned Starked.

Punishment simply means facing consequences. Outright evil actions will probably result in being hunted by paladins. Foolishly (but not deliberately) getting people killed tends to upset their families and local governments, who might send police or hire mercenaries. Desecrating a church will likely get you hunted down by CoDzillas (clerics), paladins and angels. These encounters need not be balanced in the CR system.

Attempting to hide crimes will likely fail due to various divinations, and the general difficulty in killing all witnesses. Very good descriptions (a requirement in a world where many NPCs are barely literate, if at all) can get passed around by birds, possibly magical pigeons.

I don't think any edition of D&D has written alignments properly. It's always vague, and while there's changes, they're minimal. Maybe 4e alignments are better; I run 4e but I have hardly looked at the "rules". I instead write up a document before a campaign starts letting players know what I'm expecting.

Palladium, a system whose rules I can't stand, has far better alignment rules than D&D IMO. You can find a link here, and note that the alignments correspond to D&D alignments. (Aberrant, for instance, is lawful evil.) Link: http://therpgtable.proboards.com/thread/40

One of the things I like about that alignment system, beyond the clarity, is you can say "you only need to follow 9 or 10 of those 11 or 12 rules". In other words, if you're lawful good (called principled in Palladium), you can drop the rule about never lying without suffering from an "alignment infraction". A lawful good dwarf can still be greedy, as that's a flaw, and having issues with telling the truth is okay too.

TVTropes, a wiki, also has better alignment rules than D&D. You can find each of the alignments off of this link: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment

On another note, I don't like the idea of "alignment infraction". If a player shifts their alignment or doesn't match what's on the sheet, there could be a miscommunication or disagreement. There's probably one definition of each alignment per player anyway, so you will disagree. Even getting together and trying to make sense of alignments (at least if it's D&D's unclear alignments) doesn't work, as we haven't developed a telepathy technology yet.

If someone says they're neutral good, but you think they're lawful good, ignore what's on their sheet and treat them as if they're lawful good. A change in behavior could mean character development, or someone is just having a bad day. That probably won't have much impact on the game though. I don't think there's any need to cut XP and so forth. Maybe someone will be surprised that they can no longer summon celestial creatures (if their XP shifted from neutral to evil) or they can now be harmed by Order's Wrath (because they shifted from lawful to neutral) but that's not a big part of the game.

I also think a lot of alignment restrictions are silly. I don't have a problem with a chaotic monk or a lawful barbarian. Alignments aren't really a part of the rules, and I'd rather avoid that kind of conflict if possible.

 

[tomBitonti]

A problem that can rise up is casting spells with an alignment descriptor. In 3E, Create Undead has the Evil descriptor. Does a LN player become LE because of repeat casting of Create Undead? If a player creates undead and uses them to help build a levee to prevent a town from being flooded, how is this action to be adjudicated?

Similarly, Summon Monster summons monsters with alignments. Are the creatures just stat bags, or do they carry an alignment taint?

Similarly, Poison use is usually defined as evil. I have a goblin alchemist whom I play as NG, but who uses poison. Does that make him evil?

There can often be a problem of characters in a civilized area. Many typical adventurer actions are not lawful. This can be hard for players to get into mode for, as a lot of games are a series of linked encounters, with obvious foes, and with the action starting with a request for initiative. At that level, the game is more like chess than a role playing game, and alignment considerations are almost entirely absent. That is, the players are trained to not consider alignment for their actions.

Thx!

TomB

 

[airwalkrr]

If a player takes one action outside the confines of his character's alignment, I will warn the player that such actions may eventually result in change of alignment. If a player consistently acts outside the confines of his character's alignment, I will change that character's alignment to something more suitable. It only has repercussions in-game if the character's class has alignment restrictions. If a rogue's alignment changes from Neutral to Chaotic Neutral there really isn't any mechanical effect.