How tempermental is your alignment?

[SangoProduction]

No, not talking about cars.

Instead, there is a thread going around about evil and swords. Think what you want about that thread, in that thread. But it spawned a different point:

How temporary is your alignment?

Obviously, if your character's "alignment" is constantly switching back and forth, that's clearly a sign that something's off. Something's not calibrated right, or your character's literally insane... and thus not calibrated right. But that's also not the core of the question.

Instead: Is your alignment a running total of your good boy vs bad boy points, or is it a descriptor that can reasonably predict your actions in the immediate future, and the past literally doesn't matter?

There are definite benefits and drawbacks to both ends of the spectrum. True redemption, for example, presumably requires a greater amount of Good being done than your past Evils. It also tells a more complete tale, by not forgetting the past. In the mean time, if a character truly had a change of heart, and is actively working towards the Good, with little to no temptation towards Evil... even if he was totally Evil in the past, that's not currently a good descriptor of the character.

But before I talk your ear off in this totally silent, poorly formatted post... I'd want to see what your opinions are?

[Tzardok]

I think that alignment is able to change, but not easily.

In my opinion alignment is more ... personality based than action based. If you are someone who believes in justice and doing right by your fellow man and all that stuff, you are Lawful Good. Actions are how you express those beliefs, but they don't necessarily inform them. Sometimes a character does something that contradicts his alignment (or is even forced to do so), but wether that changes the alignment depends on the character's reaction. To give a stupid example, a straightlaced lawful character is tempted to a night of drunken deabuchery. If in the morning after he rationalizes it away or is repulsed by it, he doesn't change. But if he's got a taste of freedom from it and wants to repeat it, maybe even share this freedom with other, then he's on the way to changing his beliefs to neutral or even chaotic.

To go back to your example of redemption, I see this the same way. An evil character changes to good when adopting belief in good concepts. He doesn't need to do anything, but the change of heart comes (if genuine) with a desire to do good from now on, to atone and make amends for earlier deeds, and with a sense of guilt if he can't do so (and probably even if he can). If those are present, the soul will go to a good afterlife IMO, even if the character spends the rest of his life in a cell with no way out and no way to actually do good deeds.

[MonochromeTiger]

How temporary is your alignment?

Obviously, if your character's "alignment" is constantly switching back and forth, that's clearly a sign that something's off. Something's not calibrated right, or your character's literally insane... and thus not calibrated right. But that's also not the core of the question.

Instead: Is your alignment a running total of your good boy vs bad boy points, or is it a descriptor that can reasonably predict your actions in the immediate future, and the past literally doesn't matter?

There are definite benefits and drawbacks to both ends of the spectrum. True redemption, for example, presumably requires a greater amount of Good being done than your past Evils. It also tells a more complete tale, by not forgetting the past. In the mean time, if a character truly had a change of heart, and is actively working towards the Good, with little to no temptation towards Evil... even if he was totally Evil in the past, that's not currently a good descriptor of the character.

I see you're opening up with one of the more contentious points in alignment debate. The simple answer is there's no good or simple answer, like the alignment system in general the idea gets messy quickly and even in cases of general agreement most people have different ideas when you get to the specifics.

If it's all actions in a character's past then suddenly good vs evil and law vs chaos come down to how much weight a DM/GM puts on individual acts and keeping a running tally. Not only is that quite a bit of work that many GMs/DMs aren't all that interested in, and thus something that often gets ignored until a character does something really big that doesn't feel like it can be ignored, but even if they did do the work individual tables would still have variation in how good/bad/lawful/chaotic each thing is considered and where the line actually is for an alignment switch. Conversely, as you mention, it may actually work better for the concept of redemption stories because it would require someone to actually work for redemption instead of just being considered good because they had a sudden case of introspection or died in a way that could be considered helpful to the "good guys."

If it's all intent in the moment and plans for the future then you've still got the issue of different tables having different views of an act. You may run into strange situations like the evil overlord being Good because they opened an orphanage for puppies, after all the DM loves puppies so it's clearly a good act, ignore that all the dogs there later become war hounds specifically trained to brutally maul peasants. Intent should be important obviously but there's a saying about how good intentions pave certain morally dubious roads for a reason and the issue with plans for the future are that those plans tend to change as the future gets closer and the results of those plans start to come into play. You risk situations where something could come down to any alignment depending on how far ahead people are thinking, you also risk situations where alignment changes constantly because people are people and any random thing they do in the moment could be considered too selfish or too mean resulting in an alignment shift for a bit where a cumulative view on alignment would allow for some time to course correct. Conversely a GM/DM gets an easy way of pacifying anyone who plays by an "Evil is kill on sight" mindset.

Personally? The flaws in both outweigh any benefits too much for me to have a preference for either. When possible I just do what I can to houserule over all the mechanical points touching alignment so it can be tossed out entirely. Alignment systems breed pointless and heated arguments and flawed ideas that anyone can truly be pure Good or pure Evil. With how much one individual's views on the alignments can differ from another's it's too easy to have all possible sides disagree with me for entirely different reasons, trying to nail down a "right" way to determine alignment on top of that feels like tap dancing through a minefield wearing shoes made of rusty nails and used syringes; it's possible, might even reach the end in one piece, but it's not going to be a pleasant experience and the judges are still going to compare it unfavorably to personal interpretations of whatever source they favor.

[Gnaeus]

Garl Glittergold is LG and pro Kobold Genocide. At best alignment suggests a broad outlook on life. It shouldn't be a predictor of individual acts. An organized crime leader can absolutely be supportive of the well being of his low income community, and foster healthcare, education etc, while at the same time being willing to ruthlessly torture a disloyal subordinate. Those positions are radically different in alignment, but not inconsistent with each other. Certainly not indicative of insanity.

[RedMage125]

So...this is a topic I am intimately familiar with, to include the RAW citations for it.

Spoiler: PHB, page 10

Show

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. (See Table 6–1: Creature, Race, and Class Alignments, on the next page, for examples of which creatures, races, and classes favor which alignments.) Choose an alignment for your character, using his or her race and class as a guide. Most player characters are good or neutral rather than evil. In general, evil alignments are for villains and monsters.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if that’s not lawful or good behavior. People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on.

Spoiler: DMG, page 134

Show

A character can have a change of heart that leads to the adoption of a different alignment. Alignments aren’t commitments, except in specific cases (such as for paladins and clerics). Player charac-ters have free will, and their actions often dictate a change of alignment. Here are two examples of how a change of alignment can be handled.

• A player creates a new character, a rogue named Garrett. The player decides he wants Garrett to be neutral good and writes that on Garrett’s character sheet. By the second playing session of Garrett’s career, however, it’s clear that the player isn’t playing Garrett as a good-aligned character at all. Garrett likes to steal minor valuables from others (although not his friends) and does not care about helping people or stopping evil. Garrett is a neutral character, and the player made a mistake when declaring Garrett’s alignment because he hadn’t yet really decided how he wanted to play him. The DM tells the player to erase “good” on Garrett’s character sheet, making his alignment simply “neutral.” No big deal.
• An NPC traveling with the PCs is chaotic evil and is pretending to be otherwise because he was sent to spy on them and foil their plans. He has been evil all his life, and he has lived among others who acted as he did. As he fights alongside the good-aligned PC adventurers, however, he sees how they work together and help each other. He begins to envy the camaraderie. Finally, he watches as the paladin PC gives his life to save not only his friends, but an entire town that was poised on the brink of destruction at the hands of an evil sorcerer.
  Everyone is deeply moved, including the evil NPC, and the town celebrates and honors the paladin’s self-sacrifice. The townfolk hail the adventurers as heroes. The NPC is so moved that he repents, casting aside his own evil ways (and his mission). He becomes chaotic neutral, but he is well on his way to becoming chaotic good, particularly if he remains in the company of the PCs. If the PCs had not acted so gallantly, he might not have changed his ways. If they turn on the NPC when they learn of his past, he may turn back to evil.

Most characters incur no game penalty for changing alignment, but you should keep a few points in mind.
[B[You’re in Control:[/b] You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says, “My neutral good character becomes chaotic good,” the appropriate response from you is “Prove it.”
Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players.
Alignment Change Is Gradual: Changes in alignment should not be drastic. Usually, a character changes alignment only one step at a time—from lawful evil to lawful neutral, for example, and not directly to neutral good. A character on her way to adopt-ing another alignment might have other alignments during the transition to the final alignment.
Time Requirements: Changing alignment usually takes time. Changes of heart are rarely sudden (although they can be). What you want to avoid is a player changing her character’s alignment to evil to use an evil artifact properly and then changing it right back when she’s done. Alignments aren’t garments you can take off and put on casually. Require an interval of at least a week of game time between alignment changes.
Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality: Wishy-washy characters should just be neutral. If a character changes alignment over and over again during a campaign, what’s really happened is that the character hasn’t made a choice, and thus she is neutral.
Exceptions: There are exceptions to all of the above. For in-stance, it’s possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and im-mediately becomes neutral good.

So, we can see that some of the other responses here were on the right track. Alignment IS a general overview of one's attitudes and outlook. But actions can change alignment. They should be actions that are more consistent with a different alignment over a period of time (to be no less than one week of in-game time). Alignment also (usually) only changes one "step" at a time.

And, to one of the things brought up by the OP, "Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality". A character who has changed alignment multiple times is most likely Neutral (at least on that "axis").

If one is interested in more RAW about what "Good" and "Evil" mean by RAW, the Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds are great supplemental resources. While the feats, Prestige classes, and other "crunchy" bits of those books are of questionable quality and value, the treatises on the nature of Evil/Good are excellent. One of the important things to take from those books is that Intent and Context matter when determining the alignment weight of an action. They have an example with a paladin who is trying to escape some owlbears and, by complete accident, triggers a rockslide that crushes a hut and kills some peasants. Not an evil act, but, as a LG individual, that paladin is likely consumed with guilt. If his friend warns him of the danger and he climbs the rocks anyway...then it's an evil act, because he knowingly cost innocent lives to save himself. Intent and Context matter.

I think the big thing about changing alignment because of action is when those actions clearly demonstrate a change in outlook. One example I like to cite (because most people are familiar with it) is the Star Wars prequel trilogy (movies only, ignoring the cartoons). We must assume D&D alignment rules are a factor for this exercise. At the start of Episode 2, Anakin is Chaotic Good. He believes in doing good, but is kind of a loose cannon, and does things his own way. Slaughtering the Sand People who killed his mother is an Evil Act, to be sure. But had he shown remorse for doing that, he would not have shifted alignment. But he didn't. He justified it ("they're animals, and I slaughtered them like animals"), demonstrating that his outlook was changing. This change also led to him recklessly attacking Dooku, losing his arm. And then he married Padme in defiance of the Jedi oaths. He became more selfish, and his alignment by the start of Episode 3 was Chaotic Neutral. He kills Dooku when the latter is at his mercy. He becomes increasingly obstinate and defiant to the council over their refusal to give him the titls of Master. And obviously, the slaughter of so many Jedi (especially the younglings) is one of those exceptional major acts (really a series of them) that definitely predicates an alignment shift. He's Chaotic Evil by the end of Episode 3. As an aside, I would argue against the conventional option that OT Vader is LE. I say NE. He's a part of an oppressive, structured regime, sure. But he does so for his own purposes. He murders his underlings when they irritate him, and he's been plotting the overthrow the emperor and take power for himself for decades.

So the answer, ultimately, to the OP's question is that it's a general summary of one's current outlooks, attitudes, and beliefs as demonstrated by their actions, especially recent trends, but the whole picture can be especially relevant if the person is changing a lot. But true redemption IS possible.

[Tzardok]

As an aside, I would argue against the conventional option that OT Vader is LE. I say NE. He's a part of an oppressive, structured regime, sure. But he does so for his own purposes. He murders his underlings when they irritate him, and he's been plotting the overthrow the emperor and take power for himself for decades.

I mean, that describes Mephistopheles and Baalzebul to a T, and they are lawful.

[Ramza00]

to get into the gender of everything

some of us are more fixed line stone, and others one of us is more like quicksilver, mercury, and water

=====

so let me play with gender, and resist the naming magic of others and being the protean character I was born to be.

=====

there is a story out there, that I am removing details due to board rules, a mythological story of a man doing the names but because he does not understand how things work yet, it was the women who had to understand and complete the cycle

let me say that again, the name occurred prior to whether it was “a good” label, this is the “truth” of the world it’s revelation, the world is both ugly and it is “lovely and beautiful” ^{someone will get why those words are in quotes, or they will not}

[Crake]

At my table, I run two kinds of alignment: the sum of your actions, and your current moral and ethical outlook.

The sum of your actions dictates where you will go when you die, and also how you ping on a detect ability. I say ability, because detect alignment spells are removed from my campaign, but creatures with an innate detect alignment sla gain a “scent” ability that lets them sniff out that alignment. Its not literally tied to scent, but just functions identically.

Meanwhile, your current moral/ethical outlook is what determines how you interact with alignment based effects like holy word or chaos hammer.

Both of these are determined by the DM, not the player, the players dont even write an alignment on their character sheet.

USUALLY the two line up, but in the case of a radical alignment shift, they can become disconnected.

Atonement spells lift the burdens of your past, but as always, those require a show of commitment, which generally means that the target’s moral/ethical outlook has already shifted, they just want to, well, atone for their past actions.

[RedMage125]

At my table, I run two kinds of alignment: the sum of your actions, and your current moral and ethical outlook.

This is an interesting take, and I have some questions.

The sum of your actions dictates where you will go when you die, and also how you ping on a detect ability. I say ability, because detect alignment spells are removed from my campaign, but creatures with an innate detect alignment sla gain a “scent” ability that lets them sniff out that alignment. Its not literally tied to scent, but just functions identically.

I like this, because I'm actually a proponent of alignment mechanics having useful/constructive effects, and the trope of "lingering taint of evil" is one of the examples I often cite of classic tropes of fantasy.

Meanwhile, your current moral/ethical outlook is what determines how you interact with alignment based effects like holy word or chaos hammer.

Do holy/unholy/etc weapons also fall into this category? From what you've said, it seems so.

Both of these are determined by the DM, not the player, the players dont even write an alignment on their character sheet.

That tracks. Even by RAW, the DM "is in control" of alignment changes. This degree of separation, I imagine, leads to more genuine roleplaying from your players, as they are not aware if their alignment has begun to shift (and thus will not metagame and change their behavior just to avoid shifting alignment).

USUALLY the two line up, but in the case of a radical alignment shift, they can become disconnected.

3 questions:
-What would constitute a "radical alignment shift"? (Outside of the obvious Helm of Opposite Alignment)
-Is there any kind of effect of the dissonance between the two? Like, if my Wizard's moral/ethical outlook is Neutral Good, but the sum of his actions is Lawful Neutral, is there any kind of effect?
-Which of the two alignments are class-based restrictions based off of? Or does that vary by class? Like, Paladins need to maintain both as LG, Monks need their behavior to stay Lawful, but druids only need to maintain a moral/ethical outlook that is some kind of Neutral?

Atonement spells lift the burdens of your past, but as always, those require a show of commitment, which generally means that the target’s moral/ethical outlook has already shifted, they just want to, well, atone for their past actions.

Another question: Assume, for a moment, that a character (let's use Regdar) has sought out an atonement spell, and has successfully demonstrated whatever show of commitment the NPC cleric deemed necessary, and the NPC casts the spell. Does this bring Regdar's two alignments back into harmony?

My final question is in relation to an example I often use in alignment threads (usually when people insist that using alignment means nuanced ideas about evil or shades of gray aren't possible). And I'm curious how this hypothetical would play out with your rule.
There is an individual, I'll call him Jeff. Jeff finds out about a prophecy that states that "an orphan in their second decade of life will bring Demogorgon to the Prime Material Plane during the next convergence of the moons". Now, this convergence is 7 years away. Jeff wanders the world, killing every orphan between the ages of 3 and 13, to prevent this from coming to pass, "for the greater good". Jeff views himself as being on a mission to save the world. He may think that he's Neutral, or even Good. But the repeated, and above all -unrepentant- murder of so many innocent children means that his alignment (by default RAW) would be Evil.
In your system, what would Jeff's "moral/ethical" outlook be? I think it's obvious his "sum of actions" would be Evil. And don't worry, I don't spring "gotchas" for alignment questions. Assume everything in the example is true at face value (for example, the orphan killing will stop once the convergence is past). Would his outlook be Evil because he views this method as acceptable? Or would it not be, since his overall goal is to prevent the Prince of Demons from entering the Prime?

In case I was not clear, I overall like the dichotomy. I'm sincerely curious for more detail.

[Crake]

Do holy/unholy/etc weapons also fall into this category? From what you've said, it seems so.

Yup

-What would constitute a "radical alignment shift"? (Outside of the obvious Helm of Opposite Alignment)

Usually it's character development moments, falling in love, witnessing a selfless act that shatters their pessimistic world view, or the opposite could be a good character having their faith shattered by great despair, or falling to temptation.

-Is there any kind of effect of the dissonance between the two? Like, if my Wizard's moral/ethical outlook is Neutral Good, but the sum of his actions is Lawful Neutral, is there any kind of effect?

No direct effect beyond the fact that they might not like where they're headed upon death, and might seek to reconcile the sum of their actions with their current world view.

-Which of the two alignments are class-based restrictions based off of? Or does that vary by class? Like, Paladins need to maintain both as LG, Monks need their behavior to stay Lawful, but druids only need to maintain a moral/ethical outlook that is some kind of Neutral?

For the most part, I remove alignment restrictions from classes. Druids lean more toward chaos than neutrality (as in my setting, nature is associated with chaos and freedom), but that's not a hard rule, I adapted the paladin class to have individual rules based on which greater power they follow, rather than specific alignments, adapting the rules from paladins of slaughter, tyrrany and freedom, and adding a few new ones where necessary. They, along with clerics, just need to stay in the good graces of the higher power they serve, so alignment doesn't play that much of a role, its more about obedience and adherence.

Other classes, like bard, barbarian, warlock, monk and the like, generally just have their alignment restrictions wholesale removed.

Another question: Assume, for a moment, that a character (let's use Regdar) has sought out an atonement spell, and has successfully demonstrated whatever show of commitment the NPC cleric deemed necessary, and the NPC casts the spell. Does this bring Regdar's two alignments back into harmony?

Yes, generally, since a character must be willing to be atoned, their outlook will match their desired sum of actions, so when receiving an atonement spell, their slate will in essence, be wiped clean, and they will be set on the path to their new destination upon death.

My final question is in relation to an example I often use in alignment threads (usually when people insist that using alignment means nuanced ideas about evil or shades of gray aren't possible). And I'm curious how this hypothetical would play out with your rule.
There is an individual, I'll call him Jeff. Jeff finds out about a prophecy that states that "an orphan in their second decade of life will bring Demogorgon to the Prime Material Plane during the next convergence of the moons". Now, this convergence is 7 years away. Jeff wanders the world, killing every orphan between the ages of 3 and 13, to prevent this from coming to pass, "for the greater good". Jeff views himself as being on a mission to save the world. He may think that he's Neutral, or even Good. But the repeated, and above all -unrepentant- murder of so many innocent children means that his alignment (by default RAW) would be Evil.
In your system, what would Jeff's "moral/ethical" outlook be? I think it's obvious his "sum of actions" would be Evil. And don't worry, I don't spring "gotchas" for alignment questions. Assume everything in the example is true at face value (for example, the orphan killing will stop once the convergence is past). Would his outlook be Evil because he views this method as acceptable? Or would it not be, since his overall goal is to prevent the Prince of Demons from entering the Prime?

Current moral/ethical outlook is less about "I think I'm good" or "I think I'm evil", but rather "These are the lines I draw for my actions". Those lines are then compared to the objective morals and ethics of the game world (determined by my own subjective view as DM, subject to discussion with players if necessary). Thus, if your outlook is "murdering children is acceptable for the greater good", but the objective morals of the game dictate that to be evil, even if for the greater good, then the outlook (and the subsequent action) is still evil, even if the character erroneously thinks it to be good.

Generally speaking, my players know my stance that "the ends do not justify the means", so if they do evil acts, they know the consequences.

So to summarize, both his outlook and the sum of his actions would be evil, even if he doesn't see it that way.

In case I was not clear, I overall like the dichotomy. I'm sincerely curious for more detail.

I appreciate it, and happy to answer any questions on the matter.

[Duke of Urrel]

Is your alignment a running total of your good boy vs bad boy points, or is it a descriptor that can reasonably predict your actions in the immediate future, and the past literally doesn't matter?

Here is how I understand it. Your alignment is the current sum of all your past actions until the moment that you make a serious decision to change. Then your alignment becomes the sum of all your intended future actions. Why does this shift occur? It occurs because all the world's clerics want characters of opposite alignment to convert to their own, so much that your friendly neighborhood cleric may even be willing to overlook your sinful past if you promise to leave that past behind. However, not even the friendliest, most willing cleric can make the Atonement spell work unless your intention is sincere. The Atonement spell doesn't work unless you really and truly want to leave your old alignment behind you and really and truly want to embrace a new way of living, permanently.

The Atonement spell does not and should not work for a life-long villain who takes it in his head to become Good for one weekend, so that he can wield a Holy sword and rescue a crowd of orphans and puppies from a horde of demons on Sunday, just before returning to his old Evil habits on Monday.

A sincere change from one alignment to its opposite is permanent, which means that it can only happen once in your lifetime (unless mischievous magic, such as a Helm of Opposite Alignment, intervenes). The proper way to change your alignment is to change from what you always thought you were to what you truly are – and probably were all along, because the potential was always there, though you were never aware of it.

In contrast, if you flip back and forth, switching out one alignment for its opposite whenever it's convenient, you're probably not sincere, and your dungeon master is a fool for allowing you to manipulate the alignment system to your own advantage. The purpose of the alignment system is to create variety among creatures, which it does by reserving differing powers for creatures of differing alignments. The purpose of the alignment system is not for opportunistic players to maximize their optimization by taking an unrealistically flexible attitude toward moral and ethical commitments. In my opinion, this kind of behavior actually makes characters less interesting, because it makes them less plausible from a role-playing standpoint.

Of course, if you don't want to commit to one alignment or another, it's perfectly okay to be morally or ethically Neutral. This enables you, as a player, to be morally or ethically flexible, but not so flexible as to be implausible – and ultimately uninteresting – as a character.

Post-Script: Here is another thing, concerning Neutrals. The following passage appears on page 164 of the Player's Handbook.

A character can’t run for an extended period of time. Attempts to run and rest in cycles effectively work out to a hustle.

In my opinion, ethical and moral Neutrals are like this with respect to alignment. If you try to be Good, then Evil, then Good again; or if you try to be Lawful, then Chaotic, then Lawful again; then congratulations, you're Neutral! There's nothing really wrong with you. In fact, you belong to the single largest alignment group among human beings, and among halflings as well. This group of beings can be called (if you'll pardon the expression) "hustlers."

[RedMage125]

In my opinion, ethical and moral Neutrals are like this with respect to alignment. If you try to be Good, then Evil, then Good again; or if you try to be Lawful, then Chaotic, then Lawful again; then congratulations, you're Neutral! There's nothing really wrong with you. In fact, you belong to the single largest alignment group among human beings, and among halflings as well. This group of beings can be called (if you'll pardon the expression) "hustlers."

If it helps, that's not just your opinion, it's supported by the Rules. Check my post above, I cited the RAW in the DMG (page 134). It explicitly says "Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality".

[icefractal]

A sincere change from one alignment to its opposite is permanent, which means that it can only happen once in your lifetime (unless mischievous magic, such as a Helm of Opposite Alignment, intervenes). The proper way to change your alignment is to change from what you always thought you were to what you truly are – and probably were all along, because the potential was always there, though you were never aware of it.

I think "once" is over-strict. There's a fair number of characters who could be described as: "started out as a good person, fell into evil (either suddenly or gradually), then eventually repented and became good again (often immediately followed by sacrificing themselves)" - Darth Vader, for example.

And while I'd agree that if a character is flipping back and forth on a frequent basis it's probably more accurate to call them neutral, I don't really understand / agree with the "manipulating the system for advantage" take on that.

IDK, maybe it's different pre-3E, but in 3.x:
1) Most of the really powerful stuff isn't alignment-based
2) Of the powerful stuff that is alignment-based, most of it rewards sticking strongly to that alignment. And if anything, a player who's operating in "pure gamist" mode would have an easier time sticking to that alignment.

And then in 4E and 5E, alignment has less mechanical tie-ins; IDK there's any case where shifting alignment would be giving an advantage there.

TL;DR - IME, any possible cheese from alignment-switching is about 10x less likely to impact a campaign than aggravation resulting from different views of alignment is, so IMO, "coming to an amicable player/GM consensus on alignment" is a way higher priority than "guarding against frivolous alignment-switching".

[MonochromeTiger]

I think "once" is over-strict. There's a fair number of characters who could be described as: "started out as a good person, fell into evil (either suddenly or gradually), then eventually repented and became good again (often immediately followed by sacrificing themselves)" - Darth Vader, for example.

Agreed until your choice of alignment switch argument and example. I have, and always will, object to death = redemption cases like Darth Vader and he's actually a great example of why.

First his choice could be argued as selfish or not good since it was betraying his boss who had already made it clear Vader would be replaced as soon as it became an option, so he could kill his own Son (I am not a fan of the idea that Evil is incapable of love or personal bonds, having some loyalty to your family or even being willing to sacrifice for them doesn't automatically move you out of Evil in my mind) and wait for his boss to find a replacement and kill him or just kill him since he's no longer useful or he can toss the guy he already hates down a bottomless pit.

Second his last minute sacrifice doesn't magically erase the many many people he killed including largely defenseless children but it was taken as a redemption so all the characters whose opinions we're supposed to care about act as though it fixed everything and he died a paragon of all things good. It's cheap and easy in a setting with a confirmed afterlife (force ghosts), he's already accepted by the people who are aware of the things he's done and conveniently will never have to even acknowledge the vast majority of his past victims let alone deal with the consequences because "well he died to kill his boss who is even more Evil, that means he's redeemed now." In an RPG where resurrection is a possibility it's even worse because not only does death = redemption mean they got a fast track to a Good or at least Neutral afterlife but they can then come back when maybe a handful of the people they killed even had a chance to and enjoy being treated like they're heroes by people who conveniently forgive everything before their death.

Their motives are rarely if ever looked at too closely as long as they don't scream about how they always hated their boss for not letting them kick more puppies before they die, they don't have to work to actually earn redemption aside from fight people they usually already had plenty of reasons to fight, and then the setting basically says that they're objectively not a bad person which kicks the legs out from under anyone justifiably upset with them still thus bypassing any real need to seek forgiveness.

And while I'd agree that if a character is flipping back and forth on a frequent basis it's probably more accurate to call them neutral, I don't really understand / agree with the "manipulating the system for advantage" take on that.

IDK, maybe it's different pre-3E, but in 3.x:
1) Most of the really powerful stuff isn't alignment-based
2) Of the powerful stuff that is alignment-based, most of it rewards sticking strongly to that alignment. And if anything, a player who's operating in "pure gamist" mode would have an easier time sticking to that alignment.

And then in 4E and 5E, alignment has less mechanical tie-ins; IDK there's any case where shifting alignment would be giving an advantage there.

TL;DR - IME, any possible cheese from alignment-switching is about 10x less likely to impact a campaign than aggravation resulting from different views of alignment is, so IMO, "coming to an amicable player/GM consensus on alignment" is a way higher priority than "guarding against frivolous alignment-switching".

And back to agreeing on the rest. Unless a game is running with some artifacts that are just clearly really powerful but alignment restricted or they're playing a class that relies on being a set alignment it's just too minor a thing to try locking out gaming it because it's not even worth doing so. The arguments over alignment that come up from a DM/GM and their players disagreeing on something are far more dangerous to a game than someone sitting in their room theorycrafting ways they can use a holy sword for a single fight without penalties.

Issue is that's a communication problem more than it is a game problem. Sure there are fixes that lean on the mechanics side like my stance of axing alignment in general but "we didn't talk about what we expect out of the game and work out any big issues over conflicting views of alignment before we started" is usually down to people not thinking anyone will disagree more than anything.

[Satinavian]

What you want about that thread, in that thread. But it spawned a different point:

How temporary is your alignment?

Obviously, if your character's "alignment" is constantly switching back and forth, that's clearly a sign that something's off. Something's not calibrated right, or your character's literally insane... and thus not calibrated right. But that's also not the core of the question.

Instead: Is your alignment a running total of your good boy vs bad boy points, or is it a descriptor that can reasonably predict your actions in the immediate future, and the past literally doesn't matter?

More the latter than the former. Deeds make alignment, not outlook. But there is some more weight given to recent action than past ones, which means alignment can change after some time of consistent behavior even if not everything of the long old life has been balanced out equally. But even then, i would usually require way more than a single week.

Alignment change is also separate from redemption, atoning etc. Just because your alignment changed does not mean that made up for all those past deeds as far as everyone else is concerned. For that you really have to balance everything out. But that is more roleplaying stuff without rule interactions.



Now there are exceptions that come from various rule silliness. The atonement spell which can switch alignments instantly and the helm of opposite alignment. I treat both of them as known in game shortcuts that could be abused. People could seek them out to get e.g. benefits of artifacts or otherwise go around alignment restrictions without putting in the effort, but those come with the risk of forcibly changing the outlook and behavior of the character as well.

[RedMage125]

Agreed until your choice of alignment switch argument and example. I have, and always will, object to death = redemption cases like Darth Vader and he's actually a great example of why.

First his choice could be argued as selfish or not good since it was betraying his boss who had already made it clear Vader would be replaced as soon as it became an option, so he could kill his own Son (I am not a fan of the idea that Evil is incapable of love or personal bonds, having some loyalty to your family or even being willing to sacrifice for them doesn't automatically move you out of Evil in my mind) and wait for his boss to find a replacement and kill him or just kill him since he's no longer useful or he can toss the guy he already hates down a bottomless pit.

Second his last minute sacrifice doesn't magically erase the many many people he killed including largely defenseless children but it was taken as a redemption so all the characters whose opinions we're supposed to care about act as though it fixed everything and he died a paragon of all things good. It's cheap and easy in a setting with a confirmed afterlife (force ghosts), he's already accepted by the people who are aware of the things he's done and conveniently will never have to even acknowledge the vast majority of his past victims let alone deal with the consequences because "well he died to kill his boss who is even more Evil, that means he's redeemed now." In an RPG where resurrection is a possibility it's even worse because not only does death = redemption mean they got a fast track to a Good or at least Neutral afterlife but they can then come back when maybe a handful of the people they killed even had a chance to and enjoy being treated like they're heroes by people who conveniently forgive everything before their death.

Their motives are rarely if ever looked at too closely as long as they don't scream about how they always hated their boss for not letting them kick more puppies before they die, they don't have to work to actually earn redemption aside from fight people they usually already had plenty of reasons to fight, and then the setting basically says that they're objectively not a bad person which kicks the legs out from under anyone justifiably upset with them still thus bypassing any real need to seek forgiveness.

Using non-D&D examples to make points about alignment, especially changing alignment, is tricky. Mainly because one has to assume D&D alignment mores (like cosmic, objective forces of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos) are present in the hypothetical.

The big things to remember about using Vader is that the drastic alignment shift was still only one step. He didn't die "Good", he died "Neutral" (but then, the Jedi ideal was more Lawful Neutral than Good). And, more importantly, Intent and Context matter. Vader didn't kill his boss for selfish reasons (although there were potential selfish reasons for him to do so). He threw away all of his potential future gains to save his son's life and end the threat of the Dark Side's power and influence forever. The Dark Side in SW is a very real, concrete force that affects the minds and hearts of those in its grip, making it harder to BE selfless, or be anything but a selfish hate monster. He overcame that and freed himself from its grip. It was shucking the oppressive, controlling grip the Dark Side had on his soul that engenders the drastic alignment shift. And the fact that he did it at the cost of his own life only adds to that. He gave up everything selfish that he had done all those horrible deeds for.

[Jay R]

You have to recognize that alignment, like hit points, is a D&D construct that does not correctly simulate any real-world behavior.

Yes, alignment can change. Because people can change. Yes it's a (poor) measure of what characters have done in the past. Yes, it should have some effect one what they do in the future.

But all attempts to interpret alignment must fail, just as all attempts to interpret hit points fail. It is a grossly simplistic model for game purposes intended to model an extremely complex human quality.