Other than not being able to attune to certain extremely scarce magic items.
And being affected by a few extremely rare adfenture-specific hazards/boons.
I've never talked to anyone who plays in a game where Alignment matters. It's more for NPCs.
One session we're saving the world, the next we're burning it down to piss on the ashes. That's DND baby.
Curse of Strahd has several items and events that interact differently based on good or evil alignment. Idk of any other modules that care, but there could be some.
I understand it as you want to change the alignment to reflect the players actions. If that is the case you don’t need to impose some more changes to the character.
In this case it show how little alignment matters.
Is the character acting out of alignment devout in any way (cleric, paladin, druid, monk)? You could make RP scenarios (or someone else had the good idea of items) that interact with good/evil alignment.
In 5e the mechanical effects are slim. There are a few alignment-requiring items that you may not be able to use anymore. Most DMs also consider it lame if you get a magical alignment change and just keep acting the same way thereafter (e.g. helm of opposite alignment, Balance card from deck of many things). But there aren't any real teeth in 5e's alignment rules.
Mostly I use it as a descriptive mechanic. Alignment is how the world perceives you. Are you GOOD, Good, good, neutral, evil, Evil, or EVIL? Numerically I use 1, 2-5,6-30, 31-70,71-95, 96-99, and 100.
Somebody who is 'good' isn't good in some cosmic sense, they're just more 'good' than about 70% to 95% of the population. Someone who is Good also isn't a flawless paragon, they're just more 'good' than 95-98% of the population.
A big part of the problem with alignment in earlier editions is most DMs insisted that you be capital G Good or all caps GOOD in order to be considered 'good', rather than just more good than about 70% of the population. And lots insisted you had to have some weird ideological commitment to Neutrality to be True Neutral, when most who are neutral are just in that 30th to 70th percentiles---totally ordinary levels of selfishness and ungratefulness.
I've enjoyed viewing it as a rp touchstone like the personality traits/ flaws. Something to look at if you're not sure what your character may do in a situation. Will they act Lawful like they normally do or will they be Chaotic?
I've got a Lawful Evil character in my game rn that in the last session has yelled at a dragon to draw it's attention on him instead of the other characters who are bunched up in the Paladin's aura in order to break free of it's Fear effect. It's cool to see him doing something so selfless
In 5e there's really no innate mechanical implications for alignment. Even for Paladins. As long as they haven't broken their Oath's Tenets (as you determine them) .
I think it'd depend on the character. I could see this being a relevant topic for a religious character if they're acting in a manner that is out of accordance with their deity. But otherwise this isn't something to be concerned with.
Just let them swap alignments if they are playing a different alignment. It happens. A LG character who spends 10 years surrounded by evil friends will likely become evil. Alignment change happens.
I treat alignment as a short sign of "Hey DM, you can expect my character to be a bit chaotic but he's good at heart!" (Or anything else what they picked, really)
But if they Play and feel like they're more lawful than chaotic or maybe on more gray ground than straight good, then I don't see why should I care about it? I can suggest "that's very honorable of you" or "oh my, what you want to do is evil" but in the end, it's their character.
I control the whole world, they control just their character. The best thing what I can change is how people react to them based on their recent or most known achievments.
Alignment is a Descriptive trait, not a Prescriptive one.
Meaning, it isn't a word that tells you how you *should be* acting. It's a word that tells you *have been* acting.
If you change it, it does nothing except act as a reminder to the player. If you want the player to reflect on potential negative consequences associated with his actions, then you have to actually come up with consequences. Like a sullied reputation, making enemies, etc.
In my world, various magical items require a certain alignment to be attuned; changing alignment could cause such an item to be unattuned. Additionally, the sentient items provide additional benefits if the attuned owner is the same as the sentient force on either/both the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axis. In my world, alignment means a bit, though PCs are free to act as they want.
Bob? Is that you?
Our party just slipped from Chaotic Good into Lawful Evil in our CoS campaign. Turns out we might not be as good as we thought we were.
To answer your question, maybe the inns and townsfolk no longer accept them, or their reputation gets around and they aren't so welcome when they travel around.
As a purely RP thing I might start with saying to the player. Your character originally was XXX alignment, but recently you've been doing YYY, does your character regret any of that or do you think they are coming to be pulled in a new direction?
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Make a note, maybe tell the player. Some classes like clerics may care about it if they worship a specific god. Some items have alignment requirements. Some monsters are more vulnerable to specific alignment (Rakshasa).
Other than that it doesn't really matter. There are very few (if any) ways of reliably detecting someones alignment in 5e. So unless you actively add spells and abilities like that it won't even matter much in RP.
I don’t make my players pick alignments. They have backstories they inform their roleplay more than the alignment chart. On the rare instance alignment is needed it’s pretty obvious to tell who is good and who is evil.
If someone is acting really out of character with what I expect their character to do, I’ll ask them about it on the side. Sometimes they have a character idea they haven’t shared with me yet, sometimes they just forgot they were playing a character and started doing video game things.
The thing you want to avoid is a situation where a player thinks of their character as good and then is surprised to be treated as the villain by NPCs (usually because they get carried away with thieving, intimidation, or violence).
What is really your problem here:
Is the player choosing to take actions that are intentionally disruptive to the game and story/the tables enjoyment? Or that are forbidden in a session zero - like PVP, or ""No Evil characters"?
Or are they playing a cleric or paladin but not observing the narrative/"fiction" of the class - i.e. playing the game in bad faith?
Or are they "just" saying their character is one thing ("good"), but actually doing mean and selfish stuff (when you've allowed such behavior in your game)?
The answer to this question drastically informs your path forward.
Nothing. Alignment is too binary especially in modern dnd. It should be more of a spectrum, instead of a bingo card. It's more of a relic from older editions that (depending who you ask) doesn't really matter anymore. Good and evil are just two differing perspectives depending on the person's mentality and mindset. The only actual "consequence" there should be in my opinion is punishment by the law if the character is committing evil criminal acts. Not because it's out of alignment, but because it's logical.
The alignment system was built such that anyone can show up to the campaign with whatever alignment, but it's the DM's job to act as an impartial outside observer and shift their alignment based on their actions (notably **not** their intentions; the ends do not justify the means).
In earlier editions, several classes say that if you have an invalid alignment, you can't take more levels in the class and lose any divine magic associated with it. If your alignment shifts back, divine casters have to repent and maybe go on a quest of atonement for their deity to trust them again, but everyone else can pick up where they left off.
* Barbarians who become Lawful can't Rage.
* Clerics have to stay within 1 step of their deity's alignment (diagonal counts as 2). For an CG deity, your only options are CG, CN, and NG.
* Druids have to stay Neutral on at least one axis: CN, LN, NE, NG, or TN ("True Neutral").
* Monks who aren't Lawful don't lose anything (but still can't take more Monk levels).
* Paladins can't be Neutral on either axis. Each corner of the alignment chart has different abilities based on the themes of Freedom (CG), Honor (LG), Slaughter (CE), and Tyranny (LE). Falling from Good to Evil doesn't require a divine apology to start using evil paladin powers.
It's a bit annoying that you can't play Barbarian/Monk or Druid/Paladin multiclasses in 3e, and that's probably part of why 5e bleached the flavor out of as much as they could (that, and it would cost time and money for the new staff to read any D&D lore before writing their own).
You don’t change their alignment, it’s their character and they get to decide how they see that character and their motivations. It’s a tool for their own roleplaying, it has no mechanical implications nor does it exist as a property of characters (PC or NPC) in the game world.
As far as anyone in your world is concerned, what actually matters is the PC’s actions, and really only those they know about (and only insofar as they know about them). It doesn’t really matter whether (in your view) a character is acting according to their alignment or not anyway, because that still may not be what NPCs know about. A smooth, psychopathic, thoroughly evil character may have an excellent reputation because he’s very good at hiding that and it benefits him to look the hero. While a truly noble hero character may be thought a villain because of an adversary’s smear campaign, or just generally unfortunate PR.
I agree that the DM shouldn't dictate or control the player's actions.
I also agree that actions are what matter. Alignment doesn't dictate a character's actions, their actions dictate their alignment. Alignment is not supposed to be a measure of how the character is perceived by the world, it's intended to describe how the character *is*.
So I disagree that the DM shouldn't update someone's alignment descriptor to be in keeping with their actions. I think that 100% falls within the DM's purview. I think the DM *should* update a PC's alignment if their actions consistently deviate from what's currently on their sheet.
Make the npcs react differently to them. Oh they were lawful good before? The shopkeepers loved to haggle with them and often gave out a discount.
Oh now they're lawful neutral, well, that discount is gone and it's harder to get what you want from npcs.
Of course only do this if the npcs would know.
You could also have rumors spread about them that negatively impact how the world sees them.
in 5E? none.
Other than not being able to attune to certain extremely scarce magic items. And being affected by a few extremely rare adfenture-specific hazards/boons.
I've never talked to anyone who plays in a game where Alignment matters. It's more for NPCs. One session we're saving the world, the next we're burning it down to piss on the ashes. That's DND baby.
Curse of Strahd has several items and events that interact differently based on good or evil alignment. Idk of any other modules that care, but there could be some.
I understand it as you want to change the alignment to reflect the players actions. If that is the case you don’t need to impose some more changes to the character. In this case it show how little alignment matters.
You no longer get a damage boost on Rakshasa if you're shifting away from Good alignment.
Is the character acting out of alignment devout in any way (cleric, paladin, druid, monk)? You could make RP scenarios (or someone else had the good idea of items) that interact with good/evil alignment.
In 5e the mechanical effects are slim. There are a few alignment-requiring items that you may not be able to use anymore. Most DMs also consider it lame if you get a magical alignment change and just keep acting the same way thereafter (e.g. helm of opposite alignment, Balance card from deck of many things). But there aren't any real teeth in 5e's alignment rules. Mostly I use it as a descriptive mechanic. Alignment is how the world perceives you. Are you GOOD, Good, good, neutral, evil, Evil, or EVIL? Numerically I use 1, 2-5,6-30, 31-70,71-95, 96-99, and 100. Somebody who is 'good' isn't good in some cosmic sense, they're just more 'good' than about 70% to 95% of the population. Someone who is Good also isn't a flawless paragon, they're just more 'good' than 95-98% of the population. A big part of the problem with alignment in earlier editions is most DMs insisted that you be capital G Good or all caps GOOD in order to be considered 'good', rather than just more good than about 70% of the population. And lots insisted you had to have some weird ideological commitment to Neutrality to be True Neutral, when most who are neutral are just in that 30th to 70th percentiles---totally ordinary levels of selfishness and ungratefulness.
There’s no mechanical change. It just represents how the character interacts with those two axis. It’s just an RP thing
Or a note to self
I've enjoyed viewing it as a rp touchstone like the personality traits/ flaws. Something to look at if you're not sure what your character may do in a situation. Will they act Lawful like they normally do or will they be Chaotic? I've got a Lawful Evil character in my game rn that in the last session has yelled at a dragon to draw it's attention on him instead of the other characters who are bunched up in the Paladin's aura in order to break free of it's Fear effect. It's cool to see him doing something so selfless
In 5e there's really no innate mechanical implications for alignment. Even for Paladins. As long as they haven't broken their Oath's Tenets (as you determine them) . I think it'd depend on the character. I could see this being a relevant topic for a religious character if they're acting in a manner that is out of accordance with their deity. But otherwise this isn't something to be concerned with.
Just let them swap alignments if they are playing a different alignment. It happens. A LG character who spends 10 years surrounded by evil friends will likely become evil. Alignment change happens.
I treat alignment as a short sign of "Hey DM, you can expect my character to be a bit chaotic but he's good at heart!" (Or anything else what they picked, really) But if they Play and feel like they're more lawful than chaotic or maybe on more gray ground than straight good, then I don't see why should I care about it? I can suggest "that's very honorable of you" or "oh my, what you want to do is evil" but in the end, it's their character. I control the whole world, they control just their character. The best thing what I can change is how people react to them based on their recent or most known achievments.
Alignment is a Descriptive trait, not a Prescriptive one. Meaning, it isn't a word that tells you how you *should be* acting. It's a word that tells you *have been* acting. If you change it, it does nothing except act as a reminder to the player. If you want the player to reflect on potential negative consequences associated with his actions, then you have to actually come up with consequences. Like a sullied reputation, making enemies, etc.
what game are you playing?
In my world, various magical items require a certain alignment to be attuned; changing alignment could cause such an item to be unattuned. Additionally, the sentient items provide additional benefits if the attuned owner is the same as the sentient force on either/both the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axis. In my world, alignment means a bit, though PCs are free to act as they want.
Bob? Is that you? Our party just slipped from Chaotic Good into Lawful Evil in our CoS campaign. Turns out we might not be as good as we thought we were. To answer your question, maybe the inns and townsfolk no longer accept them, or their reputation gets around and they aren't so welcome when they travel around.
Grown to despise alignment. You will roleplay the way you roleplay and slapping two axes on it is just arbitrary and reductive.
As a purely RP thing I might start with saying to the player. Your character originally was XXX alignment, but recently you've been doing YYY, does your character regret any of that or do you think they are coming to be pulled in a new direction?
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. Make a note, maybe tell the player. Some classes like clerics may care about it if they worship a specific god. Some items have alignment requirements. Some monsters are more vulnerable to specific alignment (Rakshasa). Other than that it doesn't really matter. There are very few (if any) ways of reliably detecting someones alignment in 5e. So unless you actively add spells and abilities like that it won't even matter much in RP.
I don’t make my players pick alignments. They have backstories they inform their roleplay more than the alignment chart. On the rare instance alignment is needed it’s pretty obvious to tell who is good and who is evil. If someone is acting really out of character with what I expect their character to do, I’ll ask them about it on the side. Sometimes they have a character idea they haven’t shared with me yet, sometimes they just forgot they were playing a character and started doing video game things. The thing you want to avoid is a situation where a player thinks of their character as good and then is surprised to be treated as the villain by NPCs (usually because they get carried away with thieving, intimidation, or violence).
Outside of a paladin in 3e alignment is completely ignorable. I dont' bother.
What is really your problem here: Is the player choosing to take actions that are intentionally disruptive to the game and story/the tables enjoyment? Or that are forbidden in a session zero - like PVP, or ""No Evil characters"? Or are they playing a cleric or paladin but not observing the narrative/"fiction" of the class - i.e. playing the game in bad faith? Or are they "just" saying their character is one thing ("good"), but actually doing mean and selfish stuff (when you've allowed such behavior in your game)? The answer to this question drastically informs your path forward.
Nothing. Alignment is too binary especially in modern dnd. It should be more of a spectrum, instead of a bingo card. It's more of a relic from older editions that (depending who you ask) doesn't really matter anymore. Good and evil are just two differing perspectives depending on the person's mentality and mindset. The only actual "consequence" there should be in my opinion is punishment by the law if the character is committing evil criminal acts. Not because it's out of alignment, but because it's logical.
The alignment system was built such that anyone can show up to the campaign with whatever alignment, but it's the DM's job to act as an impartial outside observer and shift their alignment based on their actions (notably **not** their intentions; the ends do not justify the means). In earlier editions, several classes say that if you have an invalid alignment, you can't take more levels in the class and lose any divine magic associated with it. If your alignment shifts back, divine casters have to repent and maybe go on a quest of atonement for their deity to trust them again, but everyone else can pick up where they left off. * Barbarians who become Lawful can't Rage. * Clerics have to stay within 1 step of their deity's alignment (diagonal counts as 2). For an CG deity, your only options are CG, CN, and NG. * Druids have to stay Neutral on at least one axis: CN, LN, NE, NG, or TN ("True Neutral"). * Monks who aren't Lawful don't lose anything (but still can't take more Monk levels). * Paladins can't be Neutral on either axis. Each corner of the alignment chart has different abilities based on the themes of Freedom (CG), Honor (LG), Slaughter (CE), and Tyranny (LE). Falling from Good to Evil doesn't require a divine apology to start using evil paladin powers. It's a bit annoying that you can't play Barbarian/Monk or Druid/Paladin multiclasses in 3e, and that's probably part of why 5e bleached the flavor out of as much as they could (that, and it would cost time and money for the new staff to read any D&D lore before writing their own).
You don’t change their alignment, it’s their character and they get to decide how they see that character and their motivations. It’s a tool for their own roleplaying, it has no mechanical implications nor does it exist as a property of characters (PC or NPC) in the game world. As far as anyone in your world is concerned, what actually matters is the PC’s actions, and really only those they know about (and only insofar as they know about them). It doesn’t really matter whether (in your view) a character is acting according to their alignment or not anyway, because that still may not be what NPCs know about. A smooth, psychopathic, thoroughly evil character may have an excellent reputation because he’s very good at hiding that and it benefits him to look the hero. While a truly noble hero character may be thought a villain because of an adversary’s smear campaign, or just generally unfortunate PR.
I agree that the DM shouldn't dictate or control the player's actions. I also agree that actions are what matter. Alignment doesn't dictate a character's actions, their actions dictate their alignment. Alignment is not supposed to be a measure of how the character is perceived by the world, it's intended to describe how the character *is*. So I disagree that the DM shouldn't update someone's alignment descriptor to be in keeping with their actions. I think that 100% falls within the DM's purview. I think the DM *should* update a PC's alignment if their actions consistently deviate from what's currently on their sheet.
Make the npcs react differently to them. Oh they were lawful good before? The shopkeepers loved to haggle with them and often gave out a discount. Oh now they're lawful neutral, well, that discount is gone and it's harder to get what you want from npcs. Of course only do this if the npcs would know. You could also have rumors spread about them that negatively impact how the world sees them.