Alignment changes

[Umbran]

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

Well, given that 4e is also pretty much silent on the consequences of alignment itself, this should not be surprising. There's no real mechanical impact - alignment is really a guide for DMs who need to know the bent of a monster. So, who cares what alignment they are?

 

[nightwyrm]

In 4e, alignment is descriptive rather than perscriptive. It describes what the characters are instead of making rules for them to follow. This change started when 3e came out and removed the XP penalties for alignment change. In 3e, unless you were in one of the classes that has a alignment prereq, changing alignment has little to no effect on your character either.

 

[Logan_Bonner]

Is torturing the orc an evil act? Almost certainly.

Are the PCs now evil? Probably not.

Being "evil aligned" requires more of a commitment to doing evil deeds and working for the cause of evil. The PCs might be pushing toward evil, but based on this one example, they probably haven't turned all the way. Now, you'll know better if they've done other things in the campaign that could push them further toward or into the evil camp. Your idea of giving them some optional evil quests is a good way to find out how they really want the game to go. Still, you'll want to give them some warning if they start accepting those kinds of missions. Don't surprise them by saying "Change your alignment to evil" one evening, because they should be more informed than that.

 

[ppaladin123]

Rather than worrying about how to categorize them into camps, focus on the immediate consequences of their behavior.

Will stories of their methods reach the local villages? Will children run from them in terror? Will they be approached by seedy characters with offers for more fitting work? Will a particularly zealous faction of the church of Pelor invite them to join up? Will a particularly kind/merciful faction of the church of Bahamut refuse to work with them?

You have a lot of role-playing and plot wiggle room without having to determine the final destination of their eternal souls.

 

[Varis]

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.

Just to clarify, they defeated the orc hero in combat, but thefinal blow whas used to knock it unconscious.

Whilst unconscious, they cut off its thumbs, and poked out its eyes witha searing hot dagger.

The player(s) had historical reasons for hating this tribe of orcs btw.

 

[Nightson]

What they do has consequences because everything has consequences. It's simply that the laws of the universe don't punish people anymore.

People should react to them based on how the NPCs would feel about. Some would be horrified, some would cheer them on.

 

[Nivenus]

Still evil. And really, kind of pointlessly stupidly evil. Obviously it was a "crime of passion" (based on what you've said). But seriously, did they actually think it was non-evil or even intelligent. I mean, torture itself has problems as a tool of interrogation but doing the torture when the victim can't even feel it? What did they roll on their wisdom .

 

[Kichwas]

Renditioning an Orc and using enhanced interrogation on him... well, that's a prety good case for evil.

I'd just slide their alignments over and then be silent about it, but at some point have an alignment based effect come into the game in a very vibrant way that indicates to them that 'the gods' have decided they're working for a different side now.

 

[Nivenus]

While I agree the torture is definitely evil, I'd say their neutral or unaligned now. As Logan pointed out and as the DMG 3e says, alignment shifts are gradual. Except in such cases as major acts of evil/good or law/chaos, alignment doesn't shift suddenly to its opposite. A lawful good character doesn't suddenly become chaotic evil or even lawful evil without sliding through at least one or two other alignments.

Actually, having come primarily to P&P from CRPGs, I use a point system that I write down in a notebook. When a character commits an act that seems contrary to their alignment, I take note of it and add a certain number of points to the law/chaos or good/evil axes that denote a value of how much it was of a certain alignment. If they ever reach a certain number I switch their alignment to something else.

That might be overly complicated for most DMs, but it's one way of doing it. I'd also recommend being forthcoming about it with your players. Most of my players are familiar with my source material, so it's not really a problem in my case.

 

[delericho]

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.

Not at all.

I was having a really bad day yesterday, and coupled with my utter disdain for the 4e alignment system (IMO, the absolute worst part of 4e - I wish they'd just dropped it entirely), I went for the most extreme and ridiculous interpretation of the RAW that I could go for. It wasn't until just after making my second post that I thought to myself, "hang on delericho, you're being an idiot."

I think the interpretation I went for is just about supportable within the RAW, but you really have to stretch to get there. Basically, it's built on the complete absence of anything about changing alignments in the rules, or any explicitly-stated requirement that characters should follow their alignments (or change alignment if they do not). Couple that with the statement in the Paladin class description that states that once a Paladin is made, he is a Paladin forever, and there it is.

But, as I said, it is an extreme and ridiculous interpretation.