Can a PC change their alignment at will, are they stuck with their original alignment, or is it more at the DM's discretion? I've heard that acting in a way vastly different from your alignment may cause the DM to have you shift your alignment, but I've found nothing in the books that addresses that. Does anyone know if that is actually written down somewhere and I just missed it?
Alignment is just a description, and the DM is the describer. If you’re behaving in a neutral evil way, the DM can and should say “you’re neutral evil now.”
What the DM should NOT do, and what is the subject of many D&D horror stories, is say “you can’t do that because you wrote down lawful good on your character sheet.” If a player wants their character to consistently behave contrary to “lawful good,” all that means is that the character isn’t lawful good.
Alignment is a descriptive; not a prescriptive. Alignment is based-off how your character has handled moral dilemmas in the past, and it is a tool you can look to if you need help on how your character might handle a moral situation in the future. Because this is the nature of alignment, the DM has every right to change it at will to better reflect who your character is. This is not a punishment whatsoever.
And you can change your alignment yourself as your character grows, though you should probably talk it over with your DM first to get their approval. If you are worried about alignment, then just tell that to your DM and ask for further clarification on how the alignment system works if you want it. Alignment is not an essential part of the game, and most DM's would just let you not use it if you so choose.
And 1 action that doesn't match alignment should not mean their alignment changes. Alignment attempts to take complicated individual motives and condense it into a simplified 9 category system.
Characters can change alignments, but it should be gradual and based on multiple of their recent decisions.
Overall, alignment doesn't really do anything mechanically. There are some creatures (angels and fiends for example) that can sense alignment or have special effects based on it. But mostly it is just there to help the player/DM roleplay that character like bonds, flaws, etc do. WotC has been phasing it out for all of 5e and may not even mention it in one D&D.
Alignments should be descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes what the character's general behavior. It doesn't mean the character can't act outside of that alignment sometimes, because that's part of being a living being with free will.
Typically speaking, a change of alignment should be a significant narrative event that has a profound impact on a character. Characters may violate their alignments under extenuating circumstances without actually changing their general code/personality, which means their alignment didn't actually change. An alignment change happens when the character's personality or values significantly shifts to the point where the current alignment is no longer descriptive of the character.
For example:
Woody in Toy Story is generally LG, but he performs a neutral or evil act by trying to knock Buzz off of the table so Andy only finds Woody and takes him with him, and later Woody has Sid's toys break some rules to free them from Sid's tyranny, which is a definitively chaotic act, but generally, Woody remains LG in alignment.
Lots O' Huggin' Bear from Toy Story 3 starts out with a Good alignment, but when he's left behind and replaced, he gives up on his previous values and becomes definitively Evil, which defines his choices thereafter.
Regardless of if the DM or player proposes shifting the character's alignment, first, there should be a discussion so that they both understand the meaning of the alignments and how it relates to the characters.
This got pointed out to me via private message, but I confused the words descriptive and prescriptive in my above post. I thought prescriptive meant that it served as a rough parameter to determine your characters actions, but when I looked it up, it said that prescriptive is a rigid must as opposed to a guideline. So my bad for my lack of understanding about what the words I thought I knew meant, and sorry for confusing anyone because that minor error completely contradicted the rest of my post and made my statement unclear. Apologies for the mistake, I have edited the post in question and added the correct definition of prescriptive to my internal dictionary. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Honestly, I am not a huge fan of alignment (especially for PCs), I enjoy morally ambiguous scenarios and hardly anyone is always perfectly good (or evil) 100% of the time, but having everyone neutral is not a solution. I try to use NPCs to give consequences to player actions, but I do not need alignment for that.
So yeah, alignment can change, but is it the alignment itself that affects your game, or is it the fact that the character is very selfish or ignored the law too many times?
Alignment is a model of a creature's moral code, putting their choices and beliefs and motivations into one of nine boxes. Your moral code is defined by your actions, so a D&D character's actions defines their alignment.
If a character has consistently acted in a neutral evil fashion then they are neutral evil, regardless of what the player wrote on their character sheet in the box marked 'Alignment".
Alignment is just a description, and the DM is the describer. If you’re behaving in a neutral evil way, the DM can and should say “you’re neutral evil now.”
What the DM should NOT do, and what is the subject of many D&D horror stories, is say “you can’t do that because you wrote down lawful good on your character sheet.” If a player wants their character to consistently behave contrary to “lawful good,” all that means is that the character isn’t lawful good.
Correct, the DM should not tell the player how to play the character.
However, the DM should determine whether the player WANTS to play a lawful good character and just doesn't realize that from the DMs perspective their actions don't actually fall into that alignment OR whether the player actually wants to play a character with a different philosophy in which case the DM and player together can adjust the character's alignment to fit the way that the player wants the character to be.
If a player says that they want the character to be lawful good then it is up to the DM to point out when (in their opinion) the character strays significantly from the path since that is what the player wants to do (e.g. "You realize that torturing the prisoner for revenge may not be something that fits with a lawful good philosophy?" - though the player may still have a role play reason to justify such behavior anyway).
In my opinion, the DM should not say "Ha, gotcha, your alignment is now neutral evil because that is the way you have been playing them" without first chatting to the player about what they wanted to do vs what they are doing and then adjust the alignment or how the player plays the character to match what the player is looking for.
TL;DR - Neither saying "you are neutral evil now" or "you can't do that you are lawful good" are the correct approaches to how a player decides to play their character.
I think discussions about alignment usually just lead to overly long debates into the semantics of the meaning of each part of the nine squared chart that's really only used for attunement to sentient magic items these days. I'd say, it's a conversation that's up to the players and DM to be had since it's so subjective. Let's not forget that in a certain official adventure, a town leader who fed her citizens to monsters was classified as lawful good.
Today the alignment is purely aesthetic. So if a player wants to change it, I don't see the problem. In other editions, changing your alignment did have an impact, since it was a cosmic alignment and it even affected you physically. Then it became a moral compass. And today it is nothing more than a brushstroke of color. A vestige of past editions.
Alignment is a descriptor, not a mandate. It changes based on your character's actions, typically in the collective (as in, over time) except possibly in extreme circumstances (for example, a lawful good PC that steals once isn't going to "change" alignments. A lawful good PC that steals constantly might though, and A lawful good PC that murders a child once might change due to that action alone.
Ultimately, there are very few game mechanics that are impacted by alignment, so a "change" of alignment doesn't have to be noticeable or an "event" in and of itself, nor does it have to be announced by a DM, but it would be interesting for the child-murdering or kleptomaniac PC's player who thinks they are good enough to grab the talisman of pure good solely because they wrote Lawful Good on their character sheet to suddenly and painfully learn otherwise.
It's different for outer planar creatures whose beings are dependent on their alignment; if their alignment changes (which is possible in canon, but very rare), so does their form and creature type, which would be 1) highly noticeable and 2) certainly an "event". It would also be very, very difficult to achieve, particularly for powerful planar creatures. But hey, could make for a great campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can a PC change their alignment at will, are they stuck with their original alignment, or is it more at the DM's discretion? I've heard that acting in a way vastly different from your alignment may cause the DM to have you shift your alignment, but I've found nothing in the books that addresses that. Does anyone know if that is actually written down somewhere and I just missed it?
Alignment is just a description, and the DM is the describer. If you’re behaving in a neutral evil way, the DM can and should say “you’re neutral evil now.”
What the DM should NOT do, and what is the subject of many D&D horror stories, is say “you can’t do that because you wrote down lawful good on your character sheet.” If a player wants their character to consistently behave contrary to “lawful good,” all that means is that the character isn’t lawful good.
Alignment is a descriptive; not a prescriptive. Alignment is based-off how your character has handled moral dilemmas in the past, and it is a tool you can look to if you need help on how your character might handle a moral situation in the future. Because this is the nature of alignment, the DM has every right to change it at will to better reflect who your character is. This is not a punishment whatsoever.
And you can change your alignment yourself as your character grows, though you should probably talk it over with your DM first to get their approval. If you are worried about alignment, then just tell that to your DM and ask for further clarification on how the alignment system works if you want it. Alignment is not an essential part of the game, and most DM's would just let you not use it if you so choose.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.And 1 action that doesn't match alignment should not mean their alignment changes. Alignment attempts to take complicated individual motives and condense it into a simplified 9 category system.
Characters can change alignments, but it should be gradual and based on multiple of their recent decisions.
Overall, alignment doesn't really do anything mechanically. There are some creatures (angels and fiends for example) that can sense alignment or have special effects based on it. But mostly it is just there to help the player/DM roleplay that character like bonds, flaws, etc do. WotC has been phasing it out for all of 5e and may not even mention it in one D&D.
Alignments should be descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes what the character's general behavior. It doesn't mean the character can't act outside of that alignment sometimes, because that's part of being a living being with free will.
Typically speaking, a change of alignment should be a significant narrative event that has a profound impact on a character. Characters may violate their alignments under extenuating circumstances without actually changing their general code/personality, which means their alignment didn't actually change. An alignment change happens when the character's personality or values significantly shifts to the point where the current alignment is no longer descriptive of the character.
For example:
Woody in Toy Story is generally LG, but he performs a neutral or evil act by trying to knock Buzz off of the table so Andy only finds Woody and takes him with him, and later Woody has Sid's toys break some rules to free them from Sid's tyranny, which is a definitively chaotic act, but generally, Woody remains LG in alignment.
Lots O' Huggin' Bear from Toy Story 3 starts out with a Good alignment, but when he's left behind and replaced, he gives up on his previous values and becomes definitively Evil, which defines his choices thereafter.
Regardless of if the DM or player proposes shifting the character's alignment, first, there should be a discussion so that they both understand the meaning of the alignments and how it relates to the characters.
This got pointed out to me via private message, but I confused the words descriptive and prescriptive in my above post. I thought prescriptive meant that it served as a rough parameter to determine your characters actions, but when I looked it up, it said that prescriptive is a rigid must as opposed to a guideline. So my bad for my lack of understanding about what the words I thought I knew meant, and sorry for confusing anyone because that minor error completely contradicted the rest of my post and made my statement unclear. Apologies for the mistake, I have edited the post in question and added the correct definition of prescriptive to my internal dictionary. :)
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Honestly, I am not a huge fan of alignment (especially for PCs), I enjoy morally ambiguous scenarios and hardly anyone is always perfectly good (or evil) 100% of the time, but having everyone neutral is not a solution. I try to use NPCs to give consequences to player actions, but I do not need alignment for that.
So yeah, alignment can change, but is it the alignment itself that affects your game, or is it the fact that the character is very selfish or ignored the law too many times?
Alignment is a model of a creature's moral code, putting their choices and beliefs and motivations into one of nine boxes. Your moral code is defined by your actions, so a D&D character's actions defines their alignment.
If a character has consistently acted in a neutral evil fashion then they are neutral evil, regardless of what the player wrote on their character sheet in the box marked 'Alignment".
Correct, the DM should not tell the player how to play the character.
However, the DM should determine whether the player WANTS to play a lawful good character and just doesn't realize that from the DMs perspective their actions don't actually fall into that alignment OR whether the player actually wants to play a character with a different philosophy in which case the DM and player together can adjust the character's alignment to fit the way that the player wants the character to be.
If a player says that they want the character to be lawful good then it is up to the DM to point out when (in their opinion) the character strays significantly from the path since that is what the player wants to do (e.g. "You realize that torturing the prisoner for revenge may not be something that fits with a lawful good philosophy?" - though the player may still have a role play reason to justify such behavior anyway).
In my opinion, the DM should not say "Ha, gotcha, your alignment is now neutral evil because that is the way you have been playing them" without first chatting to the player about what they wanted to do vs what they are doing and then adjust the alignment or how the player plays the character to match what the player is looking for.
TL;DR - Neither saying "you are neutral evil now" or "you can't do that you are lawful good" are the correct approaches to how a player decides to play their character.
I think discussions about alignment usually just lead to overly long debates into the semantics of the meaning of each part of the nine squared chart that's really only used for attunement to sentient magic items these days. I'd say, it's a conversation that's up to the players and DM to be had since it's so subjective. Let's not forget that in a certain official adventure, a town leader who fed her citizens to monsters was classified as lawful good.
Today the alignment is purely aesthetic. So if a player wants to change it, I don't see the problem.
In other editions, changing your alignment did have an impact, since it was a cosmic alignment and it even affected you physically. Then it became a moral compass. And today it is nothing more than a brushstroke of color. A vestige of past editions.
Alignment is a descriptor, not a mandate. It changes based on your character's actions, typically in the collective (as in, over time) except possibly in extreme circumstances (for example, a lawful good PC that steals once isn't going to "change" alignments. A lawful good PC that steals constantly might though, and A lawful good PC that murders a child once might change due to that action alone.
Ultimately, there are very few game mechanics that are impacted by alignment, so a "change" of alignment doesn't have to be noticeable or an "event" in and of itself, nor does it have to be announced by a DM, but it would be interesting for the child-murdering or kleptomaniac PC's player who thinks they are good enough to grab the talisman of pure good solely because they wrote Lawful Good on their character sheet to suddenly and painfully learn otherwise.
It's different for outer planar creatures whose beings are dependent on their alignment; if their alignment changes (which is possible in canon, but very rare), so does their form and creature type, which would be 1) highly noticeable and 2) certainly an "event". It would also be very, very difficult to achieve, particularly for powerful planar creatures. But hey, could make for a great campaign.