Alignment changes in backstory.

[xigbar]

In the DM guide, it advises a DM to not let a player change alignment at the drop of a hat to qualify for a class or wield a cool item. But what if your group starts at a later level, and two class with clashing alignment requirements are present, but the change is explained in the backstory? If it's good enough of an explanation, I would allow it. Thoughts?

 

[Sekhmet]

I think people take alignment change a little to simply.
Changes to a person's alignment are dramatic, highly personal, highly traumatic events.
I don't like when people build (for instance) a Paladin so that they can later become a Blackguard. That is not something any Paladin would ever consider when being initiated into their order.

With all of this said; a good enough backstory is reason enough to allow for most things, alignment shifting is one of those things.
If a person was captured, tortured, and forced to kill his son with a spoon to survive, he would most certainly lose his Lawful Good alignment, regardless that it was against his will or not.

I should point out that losing the prerequisite feature for entering a class prevents you from gaining levels in that class.

 

[anest1s]

Well...I can't see how I can keep a paladin from not becoming evil, because he wants to become a blackguard. I may allow him to kill 4-5 orphans, but at some point I will have to admit he is evil.

Likewise, I can't really do something about that girl that got trained for two levels as a monk at the monastery, then she started wanting freedom, and got herself kicked out to become a paladin of freedom.

I mean, yeah, I may or may not feel it is good background. But if the player wants to, he will. If he wont be a level 2 monk/level 2 paladin of freedom, he will be a 4 monk/2 paladin of freedom later...so better be the cool DM who lets him have fun, than the bad DM who says ''it makes no sense''.

 

[Greenfield]

I've always played alignments a bit more casual than that. It's not a club you join or a cause you swear allegiance to, it's a description of the character's personality.

Paladins swear allegiance to a deity or cause, and bind themselves to that moral philosophy, but not all Lawful Good types do that.

As a DM I usually advise players when their actions are starting to reflect a change in their personality, and hence a potential change in alignment. One evil act won't make an LG character turn Evil, or even Neutral (though it can certainly ruin a Paladin's career). By the same token, one kind act doesn't make a Neutral or Evil character suddenly become Good. Alignment is a description of their over all personality, not a moment by moment barometer of their moral standing.

So in my games someone might slip in and out of any given alignment, one step at a time, as the game flows on and the character develops. Drastic changes, of course, reflect drastic events in a PC's life, so suddenly falling from LG to CE should be prompted by outside events, not someone suddenly deciding to turn Blackguard.

 

[xigbar]

Thanks for the feedback, I think you guys are right, and as I said, I agree, but it becomes sort of silly when it's obvious the player just wants to screw the system.