Are D&D rulebooks stuck in the 70's?

[Desdichado]

Although neither hong nor Tsyr said they wanted to be able to change their alignment "like socks", someone else did, someone who seems to be in support of hong's and Tsyr's view. And that view is: Players should have the freedom -- nay, the right -- to change their alignments whenever they want, as often as they want, without any penalty.

Arguing a composite opinion is probably a poor choice -- I don't know that you're actually debating with anyone, in that case, just airing your own views. The position that Tsyr is taking, which I also take and support 100% (us Michiganders need to stick together anyway) is that players have the freedom to do what they want, as often as they want, without penalty other than in-game consequences that would happen. Alignment shouldn't be used as a DM tool to restrict that, and in fact, the PHB states this very specifically (quotes graciously provided by Henry.) If this is what you're arguing against, which it seems to be, although you don't address this directly because you consistently want to present our position as something other than what it really is, then you have the rulebook against you. You can do what you want in your game, of course, but to come here and tell us we're all playing "wrong" is completely off base.

No, sounds to me like the way I handle player characters changing alignments is quite different from the way Tsyr handles it. For one, I penalize the player characters for it. (Albeit, the penalty is relatively mild, IMHO, especially when compared to old rules where a character lost an entire level for changing alignments.)

I'm not sure exactly what you do anymore. You talk about alignment as if it should be a chastity belt, never to be opened or removed, and yet it seems as if you have more alignment changes in your group than Tsyr does, from the accounts I've gleaned out of the thread so far. Maybe you do need to institute some kind of DM control, but if so, that clearly supports barsoomcore's implication that your players aren't very good.

 

[Azlan]

Wait a minute, then what's the problem? I thought you were explaining why you needed to have strict rules, especially as regards to alignment. I understood that your reason for having strict controls on why players were restricted in changing their alignments was because otherwise they would just run rampant, ignoring character development... So I thought you implemented alignment penalties in order to inhibit crappy role-playing. Obviously I've misunderstood you. Can you explain your reasoning to me?

Here's why I place restrictions and penalties on alignment changes...

I've been DM'ing for 20 years now, and I've had dozens of campaigns and scores of players; players from their mid teens to their mid 40s, all of various levels of maturity and mental capacities (which wasn't always related to their physical ages); players from all walks of life, with various religions and philosophies, morals and ethics; and players who themselves had previously played under different DMs, each with his/her own style and handling of the rules.

And through all this, I learned that players interpret the meanings, boundaries, and importance of alignments differently.

So, to avoid confusion and heated debates in the game, I've come up with some hard and fast (yet, IMHO, not heavy-handed) rules for keeping player characters in check when it comes to changing alignments.

This is important to me because, as DM, I often present my player characters with moral dilemmas. It is up to the players to solve these dilemmas while roleplaying their respective alignments and staying within them -- that is the dilemma, the challenge. If alignments are defined too broadly or too loosely, or if player characters are allowed to wantonly switch from one alignment to another, without penalty, then where is the challenge, what is the dilemma... ?

So, with my rules, there is a further incentive for players to roleplay the alignments of their characters, keeping within their boundaries. I'll reiterate my rules...

A player character is allowed to make only one alignment shift in a single game session. (Note: This is not the same as saying a player character is allowed to make one alignment shift per game session.) Thus, a character could go from chaotic good to chaotic neutral in a single game session, but not from chaotic good to chaotic evil.

Furthermore, a player character who voluntarily shifts alignments gets no XPs for that game session. If the alignment shift "makes sense" in both the character's concept and the campaign's storyline, then the DM might give the player character up to half XPs for that game session, but no more than that. But this exception is only for a player character's first alignment shift in his lifetime. Any alignment shifts after the first, and the player character will get no XPs for that game session, no matter how much it "makes sense".

 

[barsoomcore]

Thanks, Azlan. Your post was very clear. It seems to me, however, that you are in fact using your alignment rule changes in order to inhibit bad role-playing, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Here's why I place restrictions and penalties on alignment changes...

(snip)

I often present my player characters with moral dilemmas.

(snip)

If alignments are defined too broadly or too loosely, or if player characters are allowed to wantonly switch from one alignment to another, without penalty, then where is the challenge, what is the dilemma... ?

(snip)

So, with my rules, there is a further incentive for players to roleplay the alignments of their characters, keeping within their boundaries.

Let me restate to ensure I understand:

• Moral dilemmas are exciting when characters do not have easy solutions to them.
• A character who can switch alignment without penalty has an easy solution to any moral dilemma.
  
• Therefore, alignment switching must be discouraged in order to keep players from using it as an easy solution, and thus degrading the excitement value of moral dilemmas.

Isn't this, however, just what I said it was -- using alignment-switching penalties as a tool to inhibit bad role-playing? That is, a player who has their character switch alignments just so they can get an easy solution to a moral dilemma isn't doing much of a job of role-playing. I don't think anyone in this debate would argue that.

Except hong, but nobody listens to him anyway.

What I'm saying is that the fact you feel the need to implement such a system in order to encourage good role-playing says to me that you're not playing with good role-players. My players agonize over the moral dilemmas I set for them, I assure you, and have often gotten very emotional about the decisions their characters are forced to make, despite the fact that Barsoom has no alignment whatsoever.

 

[Tsyr]

If... ...player characters are allowed to wantonly switch from one alignment to another, without penalty, then where is the challenge, what is the dilemma... ?

As I (and others) have tried to say several times, if the only reason your players avoid switching alignments is because you hit them with XP penalties, then it might be an issue deeper than just what the rules say that you're having problems with.

To again restate my view (despite you telling me not to):

If a meta-game penalty is the only thing preventing the character from switching alignments to do something, that is not role-playing, good or bad. That's rollplaying, basicly, though I guess no actual roll was involved...

Nor is it a moral dilemma. It's just an obstacle. Same as fiendish trap, or a riddle from a sphynx.

 

[Desdichado]

I find that moral dilemmas are only exciting if they are based on something more concrete than alignment and an XP penalty. As Tsyr said, that degrades the moral dilemma into something more meta-gamish. I like moral dilemmas, and I find I use them much more frequently and successfully in games where there isn't any alignment at all. If you are simply using alignment as a means to make moral dilemmas difficult to solve by restricting your players from shifting alignments, I'm not sure what that accomplishes. First off, it ceases to become a moral dilemma and instead becomes an exercise in finding a way around the alignment. Second of all, one moral dilemma does not an alignment change make, no matter what choice the PC makes. You also don't necessarily know the PC's reasoning, and since alignment is a very subjective thing, it's hard to make an absolute ruling on whether or not the player actually stepped outside of his alignment.

You seem to be implying that any action that doesn't fit your definition of the character's alignment is an alignment shift, which isn't true either. Alignment is a generalization, not a rigid code of honor.

And finally, you justify your position based on prior bad experiences and prior editions of the game. Neither of these contribute to a conclusion that alignment restrictions like you use really leads to better roleplaying, IMO. Nor does it convince me in the least that you don't just have poor players who are causing you trouble because they don't play their characters, not because they don't play their alignment.

 

[Azlan]

It seems to me, however, that you are in fact using your alignment rule changes in order to inhibit bad role-playing, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Sigh. Yes, my rules do inhibit (or, as I prefer to think of it, "discourage") bad role-playing. However, that's not the all of it, i.e. my rules do not exist for that sole purpose.

As I've already stated, my rules also serve to support my view that an alignment change should be an ordeal, much like being raised from the dead is an ordeal, and so both incur penalties. (Albeit, an alignment change is less of an ordeal, and so incurs a lesser penalty.) An alignment change should never be taken lightly; it can cause some characters to suffer such mental and emotional stress, it could possibly bring them close to a nervous breakdown.

Anyway... !

While I love a good debate, this one has pretty much run its course, as far as I'm concerned. I'd like to move on...