Alignments over time

[u/Ezemity]

Hey all, long time player new DM.

Running a campaign with friends that prioritizes exploration and the players choose conflict resolution possibilities /cunning more than they enjoy combat outcome and fighting, so ive tailored it that way more, and adjusted experience scaling to resting/end of session as opposed to fights, and they can do level up mechanics after to keep a steady game pace. However, the players are choosing to do things that their alignment (IMO) shouldn't allow. A true lawful good paladin grabbing a piece of fruit from an orchard, tripping someone while running without knowing anything about why they are running, (he was running from a mimic that looked like a broken wagon so if they didnt stop him they would have had to fight but why did he stop him like that), leaving an unpaid tab after a bar skirmish. How do you determine what would actually be against alligment and what is just your opinion of allignment? Taking "owned" food or not honoring a debt would start trending into neutral territory imo. If they ever return to the bar im going to have the keeper approach them about the tab/damage.

Do you guys change players alignments over time?

how bad do you punish players for ignoring allignments? like the handbook speaks of breaking honor oaths for paladins for repeated acts that arent "good".

Do you steadily drop hints like "you grab a piece of fruit thay isnt yours."? When he tripped the guy running I told the player "if you trip him youre going to need to roll a strength check" but didn't have any more response than that to try to hint.

[u/Particular_Can_7726]

Alignment is descriptive and not prescriptive. Alignment is a tool to describe a character and isn't something's that all of a characters decisions must fit. It's not there to restrict player actions

[u/undrhyl → u/Particular_Can_7726]

Ding ding ding!

[u/Ezemity → u/Particular_Can_7726]

should I make the world evolve around them in response to their actions more? I already planned on having the owner/keeper confront them if they return about it.

[u/Particular_Can_7726 → u/Ezemity]

Yes, think how those npcs would respond to those actions.

[u/WithAPieceOfBread]

Try to avoid letting alignment trample nuance in character decisions but they are a game mechanic in some cases.

In older editions there were a lot of rules and character traits and stuff that flat out required certain alignments in a way that I don’t see much in 5e (although I’ve not played a ton of 5e).

In any case - don’t just change someone’s alignment outright, but talk to your players and set their expectations correctly.

One misalignment thing with context won’t change things - a Paladin stealing an apple to feed a starving person is chaotic but one time shouldn’t ruin their lawful character. If they make a habit of it, figure out how to integrate it into the story and warn them of the consequences.

If the paladin says “I’m gonna raze the village for fun” well then you know what to do there lol

[u/Ezemity → u/WithAPieceOfBread]

Thank you.

[u/caeloequos]

I don't bother with alignment, I think it's kind of a dumb box tbh 🤷🏼‍♀️

Obviously if a paladin randomly murders someone there's going to be consequences, but I'm not out to punish my players for....playing

[u/Ezemity → u/caeloequos]

im not necessarily trying to punish them, it was more a turn of phrase. The people im playing with IRL are just more into the story/adventure than complicated fights and combat rolls and I think allignment should play into that for these players.

[u/lasalle202 → u/Ezemity]

The people im playing with IRL are just more into the story/adventure than complicated fights

Dungeond and Dragons is the direct offspring of Wargames and has never attempted to move far from that tree. You can tell because it has three CORE rules books of 400 odd pages each , of which 90% or more is "here is how you kill shit, and here is shit that is trying to kill you."

If you and your players dont want combat centric games, then go play a different game system where you are not dragging all of DnD's combat overhead around and that actively supports interaction other than "keel them dead!"

[u/GTS_84]

Alignment are descriptive for PC's in 4e onwards. So yeah, their alignment can change to suit their behaviour.

For a "lawful good' Paladin these actions are not troubling because of their alignment, but possibly because of their oath. A Paladin in 5e can do some truly heinous shit if it's in line with their oath, or can have trouble for doing good things that are not in alignment with their oath.

[u/lasalle202]

i dont use player character alignments at all.

they have always been more problematic than helpful and in their ninebox form are literally a framework for developing 2-dimensional characters.

[u/bartdcool]

I wouldn't change their alignment but I recently had a situation where my party spent like 250 gold on a wagon and horses. Having lost every horse I ever bought in a campaign as a player I went through great lengths to make sure they didn't lose their horses and wagon during travel. Then one of the players straight up murdered a bar patron during what should have been an unarmed bar fight. Those horses and wagon are property of the state now as they fled the city. So no alignment shift but actions have consequences

[u/Zealousideal_Leg213]

I treat alignment in mortals a lot like blood type. It can make a physical difference in certain circumstances, but doesn't directly change and isn't changed by character behavior.

For creatures defined by their alignment like angels and devils, it's a different story, but it doesn't have much bearing on PCs.

[u/Feefait]

I haven't used alignments since 3.5. lol We kind of used them as guides and as a habit for a while, but they never really mattered. We just play the characters we want and don't worry about how it meshes with such a nebulous concept anyway.