And we're not talking 'oh, you had to kill someone to finish the quest, no more lawful good.'
One of my players ended up in debt to a vampire. She was unable to feed and called in the debt, asking for five people to feed on. She wanted two of them to be virgins.
The player, rather than arguing, went off to the nearest village and dominated person on five children from ages 8 to 18. All of them were good aligned (rolled randomly). She then brought all of them to vampire.
She's a Neutral Good Gnome Illusionist who follows a Lawful Good God (Garl Glittergold), and her rationale for taking them was "I'm nobility, I hate peasants". Now, I don't want to be That DM, but that REALLY doesn't seem to justify abducting children for a vampire to feed on.
And yes, it was clear that these people were good. She stayed the night in one of their homes after disguising herself as a survivor who had been displaced by the civil war ravaging the lands and the NPCs were nothing but kind to her.
Do I punish her character personally, or just have realistic consequences? Also, general alignment thread.
>>46813067
If alignment really is that important to you, the character should probably shift down to LN at least. Any other kinds of punishment depend on the situation, and you know more than any of us in that regard.
>>46813067
The nobility argument is useable, but not for any of the 'good' alligned characters.
Realistic consequences and she should think about her characters' actual allignments.
-
Lawful neutral and evil allignments are top tier ones for the human masterrace. Fuck everyone else.
Played a good character who ended up basically enslaved to an evil character, and had to do evil stuff to stay alive.
Not sure how that would work alignment.
>>46813135
Yeah, I was definitely contemplating an alignment shift. I don't want to make alignment a bigger deal than it should be, but she spends so much time claiming she's a force of good I feel she deserves some consequence.
>>46813157
Story?
>>46813067
Debt was also the wrong word. The played needed a favor from the vampire, and the vampire said she would do it if the PC fed her.
>>46813067
>using alignment
>in [current year]
>>46813204
vampires are always evil IIRC, feeding people to them is another evil act, a good character should have tried to cheat the vampire, if not kill that beast outright.
So you could have a NPC Paladin slay the vamp and have him hunt down the aides (party) of him.
If that is too much, make the mage come near anything holy (holy water, travelling cleric...) who comments on them bearing a stench of evil and that they should change their ways, otherwise they travel the dark path.
Your characters have done something that competely fly's in the face of their writen alignments, it's time to change them. But don't tell them, only you know their current alignment. This way you can make it all the more surprising when they get rebuked from a temple, the gnomes God refuses to answer, and the clerics spells refuse to fire.
This also makes it into a plot point for the players.
>>46813067
That's an evil act. Shift her Alignment down to True Neutral.
>in b4 Morality arguments
That's not how Alignments work.
>>46813067
Nope, time for alignment shift.
"I hate peasants, becuz muh noble" is not good enough. That shit's evil. If she was like "well fuck, I really hate doing this, but I made a promise" arguments could have been had.
But no, good ol' class warfare happened.
>>46813189
Ended up in the forced service to a mindflayer disguising herself as a human noble to wreak havoc topside. My guy... well let's just say he found out in a way, and she spared him horrific death to be her busybody, and had him doing evil things to further her plans.
So between a magic leash as well as physical and social intimidation, he wasn't really able to say no and in character was too afraid to do so anyway. His alignment was Chaotic Good, not sure how it should have effected it since the DM didn't make an effort to force me to change it. I'm still curious though as per the alignment system, what should have happened.
>>46813067
Your player didn't seem to even think about the morality of their characters actions or realistically imagine how their character would justify their own actions. That shows lazy roleplaying to me, but even without bringing player punishment into it, I think their god would not take kindly to evil acts like that.
I think realistic consequences are the best way to go about it, especially since players in general love it when their decisions affect the game.
>>46813429
>I hate peasants, becuz muh noble
> That shit's evil
Spoken like the republican troublemaker you are. Kindly remove this Girondin fool from my sight.
>>46814158
You can look down on peasantry all you want but treating them as expendable us an evil act.
>>46813067
Don't use alignment. Even better, stop playing D&D.
>>46813067
> "I'm nobility, I hate peasants"
Don't you think, that this rationale is already proof on non-Good alignment?Granted, this makes almost all nobles non-Good.
>>46813067
>"I'm nobility, I hate peasants"
Well, I don't play any game with alignements, but isn't that completely incompatible with being good? I mean, it could be good from the perspective of the character, but normally this kind of systems use an "objective" definition of good right?
>>46813067
Also, you should not punish the character (unless you consider the alignment change the punishment), but there should be consequences. I mean, I don't know how she managed to abduct five kids and feed them to a vampire without being noticed as you don't explain it, but the parents are gonna miss their children. I don't know her level, maybe it's not big busines for her, but all the town is her enemy if she's discovered.
>>46813577
Man, sounds rough dude. Sounds like you were just making the best of a rough situation, I don't think I'd have shifted your alignment.
>>46813910
>>46816040
Yeah, there will be definite repercussions in campaign. The problem is, the PC party is currently running one side of the civil war and are working with the Vampire as a kind of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Unfortunately, I don't think the soldiers who saw the PC bring all the children to the vampire are going to feel that way. I was more wondering if I should have additional negative effects for RPing out of alignment so much. I think I'll just have her God stonewall her for sometime. Thanks for the advice.
Do you guys ever think there's an appropriate time to have alignment effect character stats/ etc? And I'm not just talking about clerics losing favor or Paladins falling, more just flavor wise.
>>46816040
She charmed the parents and disguised herself as a child to 'play' with her friends. She's a level 16 illusionist dealing with 0 level NPCs, so it wasn't hard for her to 'convince' them she was in the right.
>>46815925
Yeah, or at least that's what I feel
>>46813223
>Not helping new players come up with archetypes to play within
>Not slowly phasing alignments out when those new players become adept at RPing their characters
>Not using it like the tool it is
>>46813067
Adjust alignment, since that doesn't appear as neutral good.
Seriously, alignment is reflection of the character's ethics and morals, rather than vice-versa.
As for punishment? Parents of the children find out.
>>46813067
There is literally nothing good about this player's actions. Alignment should have been shifted, and this is not a case of DM hairsplitting fuckery.
>>46816621
Thanks, I didn't think so. I feel bad, because the player just came off of playing an evil character that betrayed the party, but I honestly don't see how he thought this was a good idea
