"straight" rolls in D&D

[Umbran]

If your character replacement rules are generous, feel free to make the risk large. If character replacement is problematic, you need to make the risk smaller and/or demonstrate that fixing the alignment change is a possible avenue to get the players to jump on the item and take on the risk.

If you can fix the alignment change, it isn't really a risk, though. Or, it is only as risky as the fix is...

 

[Hriston]

The items on the altar in the Chapel of Evil Chaos from B2 come to mind:

For each character who picks up one of these objects, the DM should have the character roll a saving throw vs. Magic at -2. Any who save successfully will get a “feeling of great evil” about the object, and he or she may voluntarily put it down. If the save fails, the character will rapidly fall under the influence of a demonic spell and within 6 days become a servant of chaos and evil, returning to this chapel to replace the relics, and then staying as a guard forever after. <snip> If the character who has taken them has a dispel magic and then a bless spell cast upon him or her, there is a 60% chance of removing the evil on the first day, 50% on the 2nd, 40% on the 3rd, 30% on the 4th. 20% on the 5th, and 10% on the 6th. Otherwise, nothing will be able to save the character!)​

This isn't class-neutral, as some classes are better at saves vs. magic than others in the editions for which this module was written, but I think the way in which there is a gradually diminishing chance of reversing the effect might have some application.

 

[TwoSix]

If you can fix the alignment change, it isn't really a risk, though. Or, it is only as risky as the fix is...

Depends on if diverting the narrative and/or expending party resources would be considered a negative in CapnZapp's game. From the overall tenor of his posts, I think it might be, but of course I can't know for sure.

 

[Oofta]

If you have a sub-plot of removing the alignment change aspect, consider an alternative. Make it an incredibly difficult task. Make it a quadruple deadly encounter if you have to. If the party fails, it's not a TPK, the only long term result is that they missed their one shot to "fix" the item. They can't even destroy it if they wanted to.

At that point they have a dilemma. Continue to use the item risking becoming evil NPCs or never use it again, but that risks the item calling out to a more amenable party. Let them know ahead of time what's going to happen. There's a McGuffin that can be used to destroy the item once they know what's happening but it might, maybe, just possibly be able to change it as well.

As far as LE being allowed in the party, I agree with [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]. Just because a person is lawful doesn't mean they won't (or shouldn't) sooner or later kill off other PCs. It's just that when they do it they'll let you know that "it's nothing personal".

 

[CapnZapp]

For completeness, there's the option of nerfing the item to the point where having a risk of losing your character is no longer called for to balance it.

The completionist in me thanks you!

Or, change the penalty to something that isn't all-or-nothing for the PC.

Maybe I should detail exactly what the original thingamagog says:

1 Ancient Green Dragon Heart: If a humanoid creature’s heart is removed or damaged in some way, the dragon’s heart can be placed in the wound. This saves the creature’s life, and confers the following benefits: The creature’s Strength, Constitution, and Charisma increase by 2, to a maximum of 22. The creature gains one use of the Legendary Resistance trait (once per day, if the creature fails a saving throw, it may choose to succeed instead). The creature gains immunity to poison damage, a flying speed equal to their walking speed, and darkvision out to 120 feet. Additionally, the creature’s alignment becomes Lawful Evil if it wasn’t already, and they may become an NPC under the DM’s control.​

http://medievalmelodies.blogspot.com/2017/07/creature-loot-d-is-for-dragons-and-few.html
Pretty phat lewt wouldn't you agree...

When I read the first line aloud to the players, it was the first time I read it myself as well. Thinking it was a bit strange and unpractical (isn't a dragon heart larger than the entire torso?), I ruled on the fly it meant the target was subject to a Revivify spell.

Since I'm responding to a completionist , I should probably add that this particular ancient green had lived for its entire lifespan inside the prison-ziggurat of Mauratal, and gotten the Shadow Dragon template as a result. (In short: the immunity is to necrotic, not poison).

I also reserved the right to not make the alignment change automatic (since I disallowed LE heroes years ago and don't wish to back-pedal that decision just for this). Which leads us to: this thread!

 

[Tormyr]

I think the wish mechanic works well here: a percentage chance that it turns the character lawful evil. Whether that follows the 33% of the wish spell or some other percentage, each time it is used carries a risk. This means that it cannot be mitigated by other class features.

Another way to do this: as a magical item, it fits into the chest cavity of the creature the same way other magic items can resize. Once in the creature, it functions as a sentient item, tempting the PC toward the lawful evil path. Any time the PC uses the legendary resistance, roll a d20. Also roll a d20 with disadvantage if they ever give in to the lawful evil suggestions of the sentient heart. They turn lawful evil on a 1.

 

[CapnZapp]

Depends on if diverting the narrative and/or expending party resources would be considered a negative in CapnZapp's game. From the overall tenor of his posts, I think it might be, but of course I can't know for sure.

A bit too many double negatives there for me to follow, but I think I should say: yes

Diverting the narrative isn't a cost that makes my players avoid power-ups. My players are generally fine with the story taking whatever path, as long as it gives them opportunities to excel in combat.

The sure-fire way to make my players avoid something, on the other hand, is if it represents personal failure on some level, with the ultimate cost being permanent penalties (fewer hit points, lower attack bonuses, etc).

Even "your character is dead/retired" is preferable to having to keep playing a character below maximum efficiency. There is a reason players dreaded "level drain"...

So a "cost" of "as penance you must slay three dragons" is considered a straight reward.

A cost that says "this item carries a 15% risk of permanent, non-removable, -1 proficiency bonus" would be avoided like the plague.

Since I know this, I don't want to offer narrative costs, and I don't want to slap permanent penalties onto characters either. Losing the character seems like cutting directly to the case and offering a compromise.

Before we ended the session it seems there were three players interested: the barbarian, monk and rogue. The paladin abstained because that character is so clearly anti darkness/evil/undeath. The druid abstained simply because none of the three ability scores were among his desired trio (Dex, Int, Wis) and because he already got flight. The sorcerer was on the edge (or gave an unclear answer).

 

[CapnZapp]

If you have a sub-plot of removing the alignment change aspect, consider an alternative. Make it an incredibly difficult task. Make it a quadruple deadly encounter if you have to. If the party fails, it's not a TPK, the only long term result is that they missed their one shot to "fix" the item. They can't even destroy it if they wanted to.

At that point they have a dilemma. Continue to use the item risking becoming evil NPCs or never use it again, but that risks the item calling out to a more amenable party. Let them know ahead of time what's going to happen. There's a McGuffin that can be used to destroy the item once they know what's happening but it might, maybe, just possibly be able to change it as well.

That is a definite path. Only I am repeatedly accused for making combat very deadly as is so I will probably not choose this one here...

As far as LE being allowed in the party, I agree with [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]. Just because a person is lawful doesn't mean they won't (or shouldn't) sooner or later kill off other PCs. It's just that when they do it they'll let you know that "it's nothing personal".

To be clear: I don't mind any other DM allowing LE characters.

I would probably not create a LE character myself, seeing that everything I would want to do with a selfish or immoral or cold character I can do equally well with a Neutral character. That I am not "legally evil" is not a problem since I would never act against my team anyway. If a curse etc forced my alignment to LE (and the DM was cool with that) I would keep on playing, assuming the DM either a) doesn't care, b) allows my alignment to drift back out of evil or c) at the very least doesn't try to force me to take actions against my team to confirm my new alignment. If the character was compelled to act against his team in ways I could not (or was not allowed to) prevent I would simply ask the DM to make him or her a NPC and roll up a new character voluntarily.

Characters betraying their parties "for reasons" is not how our particular group like to spend our limited play time, so that was not a concern. My reason was simply selfish - to avoid having to deal with "edgy" characters.

 

[77IM]

I treat alignment as purely descriptive, not prescriptive: your alignment is based on your actions, it doesn't determine your actions. You can write whatever you want on your character sheet, but if you do a lot of lawful evil things, at some point the cosmos is going to treat you as Lawful Evil. In this approach, you also can't become Lawful Evil unless you do a lot of lawful evil things.

So at my table, the item wouldn't make a character Lawful Evil, it would force the character to commit specific lawful evil acts. If they keep it, and keep doing lawful evil things, they'll eventually turn Lawful Evil. Just like any other character would, whether they are cursed by an item or not.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the wish mechanic works well here: a percentage chance that it turns the character lawful evil. Whether that follows the 33% of the wish spell or some other percentage, each time it is used carries a risk. This means that it cannot be mitigated by other class features.

I obviously think this is well said

Another way to do this: as a magical item, it fits into the chest cavity of the creature the same way other magic items can resize. Once in the creature, it functions as a sentient item, tempting the PC toward the lawful evil path. Any time the PC uses the legendary resistance, roll a d20. Also roll a d20 with disadvantage if they ever give in to the lawful evil suggestions of the sentient heart. They turn lawful evil on a 1.

Something like this is straight-up better, offering better story potential.

But.

The campaign is on its last legs. Once they defeat/circumvent Lord Quomec they will level up to 17.

So I will probably save this "over time" mechanism for an item that happens at level 2 or 5.

PS. Please note that if you tie it to the legendary save, one pragmatic way of looking at it is: congrats you've just created an awesome item that just happens to not offer any legendary save What I mean by that is the times a character absolutely positively must succeed at a save are relatively rare. It's not like for a monster, where it happens all the time.