Tracking Alignment

[Markn]

Try again

Well it's lunch at work and I guess I will retype my post that I lost earlier....

Aesmael, there is truth in your statement about establishing the characters values at the beginning but at the same time just as a novel develops as the author writes it so too does a character as a campaign progresses. In fact it's the process of developing the character that affects his alignment and his views on the world. Not only that, but some characters/players are blind to how their character sees things. The end never justifies the means. For example in my current campaign I have a cleric that views all the 'civilized' races (humans, elves, half elves, dwarves, halflings and gnomes) as being equal. He does not view half orcs or half drow with the same rights and priveleges. He tends to treat those races poorly and thus has developed a character trait. Is this neccesarily good or evil? Not really, but the actions from this trait tend to form a pattern. If it is only a minor part of his character then all the good acts he performs outwieghs the several minor things he does or doesn't do in regards to these people. However, if it becomes more and more often then this is now a significant portion of his character and thus could see a change in his alignment. It's interesting to see the development as the campaign goes on.

When I record the deeds I typically write a short sentence about it just so that it will job my memory if he ever wonders why his alignment was changed in the future.

In terms of penalties they are really non existent. I see three things that can happen with an alignment change. First, the most minor of the three, is that spells such as pro good/evil, etc may now affect the character whereas they may not have before. This actually has the added bonus of letting the player know his alignment since once the campaign starts they are never told what it is. Second, it does have a roleplaying consequence. Contacts or people they have worked with will see that characters attitudes change over time and if it is now further from the NPC alignment then the NPC may be less willing to help them out. There are many ways to play this one out. Lastly, the harshest of alignment changes, comes from clerics and paladins who must not stray from their path lest they lose abilities and spells.

All in all it can be fun and the system that I use works very well over the course of a campaign. It gets rid of quick alignment changes, it makes alignment a little more abstract and removes the DM from saying 'That isn't what your character would do', because now if the character does, and does it again and again after that then you can see he really isn't the alignment he thinks it is and the alignment will self correct itself.

 

[RillianPA]

I think that the most basic issue with this system is the intensely subjective nature of Alignment. While D&D makes some passing effort to explain what Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, Neutrality and their combinations might mean, it in no way even begins to fully explore and explain. Whole books can (and have) been written about these subjects.

In addition, large numbers of actions must be defined based on the character performing them. For example, for one character breaking a law might be a Lawful act (maybe the character has a Code of Conduct that requires the act), while for another it is a Chaotic act (he just doesnt care about the law).

Also, the DM's understanding of what each alignment means, probably differs from each player's understanding. At the very least, a system like this should be accompanied by a large document covering not only the basics of the DM's opinions on the subject, but also a fairly large number of examples of actions that would be scored for each alignment. For example, while overtly Chaotic acts seem fairly easy to think of, what would an overtly Lawful act be? Would simply refraining from doing Chaotic things be a Lawful act? Is killing an evil creature a Good act? Is killing an evil baby an Evil act?

I would suggest that a careful noting of the event earning the alignment tally is necessary. To begin with, this is the only realistic method for communicating to the players which acts are of which alignment, and helps to avoid arguments (DM: You now detect as Evil, Jake. Jake: I do?? But I've done nothing but Good all campaign!?? You must have miscounted...or given me someone else's tallies!). More, it seems that players should have the chance to lobby for alignment checks, because the DM may just miss them.

 

[Wonko the Sane]

Here's a chart I whipped up in CC2 for my game.

The "X Neutral" and "Neutral X" alignments have a little more room to move in them, but I think that's about right. YMMV.

Enjoy

Edited to change the file to a .pdf - the color jpeg was too big :/

 

[Markn]

Alignment

RillianPA, much of your statements make sense. However, as every character is unique, so too is the alignment adjustments you make for that character. With the system I use, I find that some characters adjust 1 or 2 boxes in a session while others don't adjust at all. Then the next session those same characters go back in the other direction and in the grand scheme have not moved at all.

I think much of the subjectivity of alignment views are thus nullified as you not only take into account things that go against alignment but you reward them with acts within their alignment which helps keep them where they think they are. Again, long term data should support that it is less and less subjective because really it takes a LOT of actions (or several major actions) to switch an alignment. By no means do I think this system is for everyone. Player - DM trust is important and although our alignment views differ from player to player and in some cases there is a massive difference in opinion, our group has accepted the current system. In fact, most cases when alignment changes have occured the rest of the group have noticed the transgressions and can pretty much guess that it happened. I suppose a case could be made that if it is just the DM that sees it then there needs to be a discussion between the group and the players.

The other thing to mention is that alignment in 3.5 is the most abstract it has ever been. There are no penalties in the rules for changing alignment (other than clerics and paladins and the like). It forces a player to actually roleplay an alignment change if they want one...they actively have to work towards it. There is no 'I decided I want to be Chaotic Good instead of being Lawful Good'. This change isn't instantaneous in the game (or at least shouldn't be) nor is it in real life. Think about your views now as opposed to 2 years ago on what is right and wrong, things you did then vs. things you do now or even the reasons you did things vs. those reasons now. Peoples perceptions of things change and it is a result of things you have done in the past or things that have been done to you. The same premise appllies to a character and it is the long term that counts. Not the basis of 1 or 2 things. Ultimately, your alignment is really how others percieve you and not how you percieve yourself. Some may disagree with this statement and thats ok. Just be aware that those 2 perceptions are very different. The best you can do as a player is explain your motivations to the DM and from there the DM decides if it is out of alignment or not.

Having said all this it really is up to every group to decide how they will adjudicate alignment actions. Maybe a DM should tell the player that he is on the verge of changing alignment. Maybe he shouldn't. That really is for everyone to decide.

 

[Jdvn1]

Hm, I had a GM who just kept tallies. Once you acrued 3 "evil points," your alignment shifted one towards evil. If it was ever questionable, we'd discuss it.

 

[Wonko the Sane]

Granted, there aren't any "rules" penalizing alignment change, but this is the House Rules forum

The way I handle it is the same as in 1e/2e - making the next level costs 2x the XP.

 

[DarQuing]

*nods* I like Markn's way. I'd probably start the players off as True Nuetral (except for classes that require a certain alignment such as Paladins, Clerics, etc) and then, depending on how they act, I'd mark the box in that direction and note how they earned that tick.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Not too different I played around with a product quadrant format, if you ever deal with different software vendors and profiling you know what I mean, I define the values of good and evil in my game giving them a weight (some good and some evil are greater than others), the players are asked questions, basicly for or against, their answers are scored and the result places them in a quadrant, upper right Lawful good, upper left Chaotic good, lower are your evils and neutral in the middle, looked like a cross hair and target.

 

[Aesmael]

Everyone seems to be pretty much on the same page here. Like DarQuing I am inclined to start characters off Neutral (but then, by the system I described they MUST be neutral anyway, unless they have actions in their backstory that can be attributed to their tally).

 

[D+1]

What is the purpose of having alignment in the game? It isn't to allow the DM to control your PC, telling you how you now have to play your character because he's been keeping track of things and his charts and graphs have determined that your character will now behave this way or that way.

Alignment, as of 3rd Edition, is purely a descriptor. That's really what it should have been through all the previous editions but for various reasons power was repeatedly left to the DM to control, punish, and enforce aspects of PC alignment and behavior. You, as the player who controls your character are not obliged in ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM to have your character do a freakin' thing the way the DM thinks you ought to, or the way your alignment suggests you should. You, the player, have control over what your character does and says, and WHY he does and says it. Alignment remains as a means to gauge that behavior. Players then can use alignment as a means to better roleplay their character should they want or need to rely on that description rather than their own ideas. DM's can use alignment as a fast, easy means of determining actions and reactions without having to fully develop PC-quality background information like religious outlook, philosophy and attitude - just use the easy alignment reference and flesh it out from there.

IMO then, detailed tracking of alignment has only one purpose - allowing the DM to continue to exert control over what player characters do by micromanaging the moral/ethical values of everything that character does - and DOESN'T do. The information is largely pointless otherwise.

The exception is those characters who have classes, abilities, skills, etc that rely upon a specific alignment. But you don't need to micromanage an alignment "score" or "position" to keep things in line. You can if you like, but it's definitely unnecessary for any character that DOESN'T have alignment restrictions. If communication is open between DM and player - and more importantly each knows how the other feels about alignment restrictions WELL AHEAD OF TIME (knowing what behaviors are allowed or disallowed before there is opportunity for an argument about "violations" of alignment) - then there's no need to burden yourself with charts. Unless, of course, for some reason you WANT that control over the players characters.

When a DM feels that a character is getting close to changing alignments or that an action would change alignments then he should mention it immediately to the player. Then, because they have intelligently worked out their "philosophical" differences about alignments ahead of time , they can have a brief discussion if needed about the change and its ramifications, and then just change the alignment as appropriate and proceed with play. That is ALL that is needed and eliminates the impossible job of attempting to be coldly analytical about things which are HIGHLY subjective.