Changing alignment

[Jon_Dahl]

Everything began when one of the PCs joined Knights of Dispatch in my Greyhawk game. The organization is strongly NG or LG and the PC is N. NPC responsible for his recruitment made the nature of the organization very clear from the beginning.

To advance in the ranks the PC should change alignment and it should've happened already, but the problem is that the player is very very very passive. When you simply follow everyone, do the minimum to help the group and say nothing, I'm lost to say whether you're NE, N or LG.

I feel that I'm at a crossroad whether alignment is a joke or not in my games. I see the following options:
a. Talk to the player. Tailor a solution. Give certain tasks and explain certain behaviour that are needed for the alignment change. "Look, you need to donate at least 1000 gp to orphans so that your PC becomes good!" This seems really artificial...
b. The ball is in her court. She needs to prove me that her PC is good, just like it says at DMG page 134. Actions dictate alignment, not intentions. Advancing in the knightly ranks isn't necessary for the game so I don't need to pull that PC through some loopholes.
c. In-game solution: Not wanting to waste a good talent, knights offer to cast Atonement: Redemption. PC needs to pay for it, nothing more.

How would you handle this?

 

[Wepwawet]

b.

Have the knights put her in a test without her knowing.
Her actions will dictate her alignment and her worthiness of joining the order.
If she is so passive create a situation where she'll have to make decisions. It is important that she doesn't know she is being tested. Probably she should undego this alone, that way she won't have the chance to follow anyone.

The other options are, well, possible. But too dumb and metagamey. (Honestly, having those options is what makes the alignment system silly. IMHO. Just had to spill it out )

 

[delericho]

Ignore the alignment. Do the character's actions warrant promotion within the knighthood?

If so, have the knights promote her. If not, have the character be overlooked for promotion.

If the player queries this, simply state that the elder knights felt her conduct did not meet the standards that they were looking for. If the character wants the promotion, then she'll need to meet a higher standard.

(Of course, meeting the higher standard will also result in an alignment shift. But that's fine, because it all works 'organically' - the character changes her in-game behaviour due to in-game stimulus; it's just that this is matched by a game-rule change also.)

 

[Mallus]

How would you handle this?

Don't make a problem where none exists. The player isn't being disruptive and her character isn't being outright evil, correct? Then you don't have a problem. Unless, of course, as Malcolm Reynolds would say, you decide to be meddlesome.

Like delricho said, ignore alignment. Try drawing her character out/getting to engage more fully with the game using positive methods. Don't tell her she's playing wrong and than charge her PC gold for the privilege of making the character right in your eyes.

How about sending her PC on a quest with a mentor knight where she'll have plenty of opportunities to do good, and some in-game guidance as to what that entails. Whatever you do --and I really think 'nothing' is the correct answer-- don't make this a guessing game for the player.

 

[the Jester]

B. Unless the character earns it, leave them at apprentice status in their knightly organization. If they ask why they aren't advancing, inform them that "we promote heroes, not tea drinkers" or something like that.

 

[howandwhy99]

To me it sounds like you have not been tracking alignment. Do you have rules for this? If not, I would not begin enforcing them in the middle of a game. Of your options, A or C seem the most transparent solutions for the player. As others have said, either don't use alignment or don't make it a problem for you. If you're going to use it, then know why you are including it in the game. And if all of this is irrelevant, if you have been tracking alignment all along, then choose B, but I don't see why you would ask your question then.

EDIT: In my games, it is always possible for the player to declare their PC as changing alignment. Simple enough. Declare your allegiance to the forces of Order, Neutrality, or Chaos.. though they all know up front Chaos is an NPC only alignment. So, character loss.

EDIT 2: You know, that first edit may not be clear on why I do this. Think of this as a cooperative boardgame, Arkham Horror or the new WotC ones. The player can work in concert with the other players to achieve ends in the game (lawful), do his or her own thing (neutral), or actively attempt to disrupt the party (chaotic). I don't judge them, if they want to declare they are working with the group again or not. Their actions are up to them and the rest of the players may do as they choose. Declaring their alignment is easy and, ultimately, an act of trust, an allegiance or not to others. Their actions after that are still tracked on the alignment scale, but with the appropriate change taken into account.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Other...

In the absence of very strong evidence to the contrary, the character's alignment is what is written on his character sheet. If the character wants to belong to an organization that only promotes good characters, he should have "good" written in there.