Just started a new campaign (new to D&D as well) recently with a Homebrewed Jedi Monk, starting with a true neutral alignment. Last session during a fight club event my monk used a force repulse, the effect of the spell being a pulse of force that goes out in a 15 ft spherical radius, any objects not anchored down are knocked 10 ft back and deals 2d8 force damage (strength check applies to monsters). During the use of the spell two wagons being used as stands were sent back and tipped, crushing approx. fifteen people, killing them. My question is would this switch my alignment up any as this affected my character very, very negatively. (mental breakdown, sobbing and screams of horror, etc. Monk is a 16 yr old pc if this would help affect outcome.
the use and application of alignment is somewhere up to you and the DM to work out. that is, there are no solid rules in the same sense that combat had rules in this area.
Having said that, carelessness usually does not make someone evil.
I would agree with JCAUDM. This wouldn't trigger an alignment switch in my game. It would be a great RP element to add as a DM though! Love moments to trigger great RP elements. May take some time for your character to accept what they did, perhaps a few nightmares, maybe some nights of not benefitting from a long rest or, a little less cruel, just waking up with exhaustion. Just until you fully recover from your actions. Also, depending on what the setting is like, you could go on trial based on the killing of 15 civilians regardless of whether it was intentional or not.
I think the popular trend for 5th edition is to ignore "alignment" all together, most people who say this, that the way 5E is structured, there really no limits to what you ca do in 5E as opposed to limits previous editions had, and alignment is just a hold over relic.
Personally I don't think the act in and of itself should warrant an alignment change. However, what they do afterwards might. If they go "meh" and move on, that could be a step on the path to evil. However, should they do everything in their power to make amends and to make it right, it could lead towards good. If they try to live with what they did, and make sure it doesn't happen again, but their ways are further unchanged, it would not change the character as much.
You could discuss with your DM how they feel it could improve the story of your character without bogging down the narrative they're trying to weave.
Now, I am of the same mind frame as the rest of the group, you didn't do anything that warrants an alignment change.
The fun part here is you could still impose one, but you'd have to really understand the psychology behind this. You are speaking of a young man, one who hasn't been in around such traumatic experiences. There could be a psychological trigger here that could "flip a switch" and cause the character to go through a major change which could manifest in a myriad of ways. One of those ways is to become tempered by this and his entire goal focuses on the idea that he must stop any senseless killing, a savior of the hapless accidents and decisions that cause preventable deaths. A different change could shut down parts of morality and he could find himself completely devoid of emotional connection to killing and death. Both of those shifts are easily going to affect his alignment as it progresses.
Alignment is supposed to represent the characters world view and how they interact with the world. World events don't shape the alignment of the character unless those events cause the character to re-evaluate how they interact with the world.
In your example, killing the people was a tragic accident. The character was presumably fighting someone for some good reason and wasn't just carelessly knocking over carts for fun If they had been knocking over the carts for fun and did not care that someone might get hurt then that type of action might be an indication of an evil alignment since they don't care about hurting folks ... but in that case the action might be a bit out of character for a true neutral alignment.
Anyway, alignment is a guide to the types of actions your character might likely take ... it is not an indicator of the types of actions your character has taken.
In the current situation, a tragic accident happened, the character feels remorse, neither of these are inconsistent with the existing alignment so no change would be required.
On the other hand, if seeing how easy it was to kill so many people with just a wave of a hand caused the character to reconsider that perhaps these lives are cheap and don't actually matter in the grand scheme and then they carried this attitude into future actions where they intentionally put innocents at risk or ignored the side effects when trying to attain their goals ... then you could change the alignment because the character decided to change how they interact with the world based on the consequences of their actions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just started a new campaign (new to D&D as well) recently with a Homebrewed Jedi Monk, starting with a true neutral alignment. Last session during a fight club event my monk used a force repulse, the effect of the spell being a pulse of force that goes out in a 15 ft spherical radius, any objects not anchored down are knocked 10 ft back and deals 2d8 force damage (strength check applies to monsters). During the use of the spell two wagons being used as stands were sent back and tipped, crushing approx. fifteen people, killing them. My question is would this switch my alignment up any as this affected my character very, very negatively. (mental breakdown, sobbing and screams of horror, etc. Monk is a 16 yr old pc if this would help affect outcome.
the use and application of alignment is somewhere up to you and the DM to work out. that is, there are no solid rules in the same sense that combat had rules in this area.
Having said that, carelessness usually does not make someone evil.
I would agree with JCAUDM. This wouldn't trigger an alignment switch in my game. It would be a great RP element to add as a DM though! Love moments to trigger great RP elements. May take some time for your character to accept what they did, perhaps a few nightmares, maybe some nights of not benefitting from a long rest or, a little less cruel, just waking up with exhaustion. Just until you fully recover from your actions. Also, depending on what the setting is like, you could go on trial based on the killing of 15 civilians regardless of whether it was intentional or not.
Hope that helps!
I think the popular trend for 5th edition is to ignore "alignment" all together, most people who say this, that the way 5E is structured, there really no limits to what you ca do in 5E as opposed to limits previous editions had, and alignment is just a hold over relic.
Personally I don't think the act in and of itself should warrant an alignment change. However, what they do afterwards might. If they go "meh" and move on, that could be a step on the path to evil. However, should they do everything in their power to make amends and to make it right, it could lead towards good. If they try to live with what they did, and make sure it doesn't happen again, but their ways are further unchanged, it would not change the character as much.
You could discuss with your DM how they feel it could improve the story of your character without bogging down the narrative they're trying to weave.
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
Now, I am of the same mind frame as the rest of the group, you didn't do anything that warrants an alignment change.
The fun part here is you could still impose one, but you'd have to really understand the psychology behind this. You are speaking of a young man, one who hasn't been in around such traumatic experiences. There could be a psychological trigger here that could "flip a switch" and cause the character to go through a major change which could manifest in a myriad of ways. One of those ways is to become tempered by this and his entire goal focuses on the idea that he must stop any senseless killing, a savior of the hapless accidents and decisions that cause preventable deaths. A different change could shut down parts of morality and he could find himself completely devoid of emotional connection to killing and death. Both of those shifts are easily going to affect his alignment as it progresses.
Alignment is supposed to represent the characters world view and how they interact with the world. World events don't shape the alignment of the character unless those events cause the character to re-evaluate how they interact with the world.
In your example, killing the people was a tragic accident. The character was presumably fighting someone for some good reason and wasn't just carelessly knocking over carts for fun If they had been knocking over the carts for fun and did not care that someone might get hurt then that type of action might be an indication of an evil alignment since they don't care about hurting folks ... but in that case the action might be a bit out of character for a true neutral alignment.
Anyway, alignment is a guide to the types of actions your character might likely take ... it is not an indicator of the types of actions your character has taken.
In the current situation, a tragic accident happened, the character feels remorse, neither of these are inconsistent with the existing alignment so no change would be required.
On the other hand, if seeing how easy it was to kill so many people with just a wave of a hand caused the character to reconsider that perhaps these lives are cheap and don't actually matter in the grand scheme and then they carried this attitude into future actions where they intentionally put innocents at risk or ignored the side effects when trying to attain their goals ... then you could change the alignment because the character decided to change how they interact with the world based on the consequences of their actions.