Evil...hmmm... ok. but it will cost you! :P

[Scott Gibbons]

It's a really interesting approach with a lot of merit, especially the way you've logically explained it. In fact, I may have to try this out in one of my games some time if you don't mind me stealing the idea. I say try it out if you like, but FIRST discuss it with your players. I repeat: FIRST DISCUSS IT WITH YOUR PLAYERS! This would not be a good thing to spring on them as a surprise, especially since they've been getting away with it in the past. Discuss the idea with them first so they know the consequence for their actions BEFORE they walk off that cliff.

Might I also suggest a few other tools you might try? One is peer pressure inside the game. It's a proven fact that in real life people tend to act more honestly when they're with others than when they are alone. Why shouldn't it be the same for the characters inside the game? If a player says they're going to do something against their alignment when others are around, let him know the "Yes, you can, but everyone around you is going to think you are a jerk/thief/liar/murderer/scum/etc. They won't like it, and they may abandon you, attack you or not come to your rescue later when you need it." Really play this up, and tell the other players that you expect them to play their characters according to how they would really react if they were real people. Honestly, most people are disgusted and/or outraged when they find out someone they know or work with has done something evil. This can and should happen with the characters in the game as well. Like Kevin Siembieda says, actions always have consequences, so give the player bad consequence in the game for what the character does.

Another tool you can use is to point out to your player group as a whole that people who are evil rarely work well in teams, and that if everyone insists on dropping their alignments, then they need to play that way - you know, lots of back stabbing, selfish behavior and not working well together. This is often deadly to characters, especially in a game as lethal as Dead Reign where everyone needs to work together to stay alive. I've found that most players get tired pretty quick of the evil alignments because they can never get things accomplished, and they start begging to be allowed to go back to a good alignment. But that's just my experience.

Hope this helps! There should be some more good suggestions from others on here soon too.

[Rallan]

I don't like it. Palladium alignments are very limited in scope, not good for much except portraying two-fisted adventure characters, and have virtually no impact on gameplay. The alignment system is an undernourished appendix of a rule, and I don't see the point in punishing players who ignore it. Plus it's a very artificial way of encouraging people to play within their alignment, and it would just encourage people to make anarchist, miscreant, or diabolical characters so they're less likely to be punished. And worst of all, this could end up with players being punished for playing a realistic or dramatic change in their character's personality, and encourage them to play unchanging caricatures who never learn or grow emotionally from their experiences.

Plus I really don't see why characters should be punished just for changing their view of the world. Becoming a less nice person doesn't make you less competent.

[Johnathan]

Oh heeeey, Peer Pressure! Yeah! That's the ticket!

No... seriously... it is. If you have a group of predominately good-aligned characters and one of them is just like "I'm gonna murder this defenseless kid for the greater good..." Then somebody else (if not one, multiple) will undoubtedly pipe up over the situation. Let's take the previous scenario into a little more detail, shall we?

Let's say you have four PCs: Cyber-Knight, Dragon Hatchling, Shifter and Ley Line Walker. Predominantly good aligned, except for the Shifter who is unprincipled with anarchist leanings. Now, your group is presented with the same scenario. A villian is about to be overthrown by your group, defeated. Beaten completely. He manages to grab an innocent, defenseless nine year old girl with pig-tails and puts a gun to her head, "Let me go or the child dies."

Your group now has one of the classic moral dilemnas put forth before them. Try to take the villian out before he can blow this poor girls brains out, which runs it's own set of risks and problems. OR! Allow him to run away in exchange for the childs life.

Now, I would like to believe the majority of this group would let the villian make with a quick get away in the hopes that they will be able to track him down later and finish the job... in exchange for this innocents life. The Shifter on the other hand... thinks otherwise. He is the opinion that this little girls life is inconsequential in exchange for killing off this bad guy and cashing in on the fame and fortune of having taken him out.

The Shifter goes to make a move, but is stopped... by his own companions. Why? Because THEY will not allow him to risk this girls life... pure and simple. It goes against their own personal morals and codes of conduct, even if it doesn't go against his. The villian runs away laughing. And the group either lectures the Shifter NOW or LATER about just what the heck he was thinking for endangering the childs life.



Here's the part most people seem to miss out on. The big picture. Sure, the bad guy got away. So the group didn't succeed in capturing/killing him... However, the villian is now on the run, has probably lost his base of power and must start all over before the heroes can catch up to him and finish him off. The small wilderness town that beseached your group to help them welcomes them back from their misadventures as heroes...

And chances are, the Shifter has been given a SERIOUS guilt trip, if not a downright stern talking to and reprimandation for having tried to go to such lengths. The group is now leary of him and concerned about his motives and more than a little distrustful at this point. An excellent adventure, almost ruined, because somebody believed that cold blooded murder, for the greater good, was acceptable.

Chances are, if the Shifter had succeeded in his attempt, the girl would have died and the bad guy would've been caught. In exchange, the Shifter's alignment would have immediately dropped to Aberrant, if not Miscreant...

[Noon]

I looked at that as WOW!!! that an easy out.

Your trying to punish them into roleplaying. This does not work.

A. Some people just do not give a darn about roleplaying a character. You cease inviting them, if your really keen on roleplay. If you think you can't stop inviting them, but can somehow punish them in game into roleplaying, you are only fooling yourself.

B. Some people are interested in portraying a character and will play a character with a morality which is good to the character, but bad to you. Expand your philosophical horizons and realise what you think is definately good is another mans definite evil. In this case, your not correcting 'easy' roleplay, your just showing how your blindly certain your own notions are good ARE the universal good.

Not so long ago women didn't have the vote and slavery was considered normal practice - it was all considered 'good'. The idea of 'good' is in flux, not a set thing. Or you'll have more fun gaming if you atleast pretend it's like that.

[Johnathan]

Johnathan

I like the way you explained that and i do understand what you mean.

With this house rule i would try to accomplish both the character in game and the player himself what you do not just affects the character but you also outside the game.
is it worth it to change?

Let me clarify myself,
I would not be a alignment police every time someone steps over their alignment boundaries thats not the kind of GM im trying to be.
"as a GM i belive the more open the game and the more choices to the players makes things more fun for the players and the GM."

i would only intervine if the situation mattered, in fact i may see how far they would go before i would explaine to them if they do this this could change your alignment and the way the world could view you.
its a working process rule

I really did like the way you expained your reply to me it was entertaining

The Architector.

As the GM, it is your responsibility to remind your PC's that there are certain actions and inactions that will affect their characters in an adverse way. A Cyber-Knight will NOT stand by and let a town be slaughtered defenselessly by a horde of monsters, even if he honestly believes there is NOTHING he can do on his own to stop it from happening.

On that same note I will pull the Shifter from my previous example as an alternative side to this. A character who is of a selfish alignment is not likely to do ANY sort of deed (good, bad or other), unless it somehow serves THEIR interests, or somehow helps THEM out personally.

Then there is of course the "innocent child held hostage" scenario I laid out prior. Even an Anarchist aligned character would probably get squeemish over this one and would probably not try to take out the bad guy unless they could justify the lose in their own head. An evil aligned character (potentially even Aberrant), would probably not bat an eyelash over the lose except to use it as an excuse to "avenge the fallen" (Aberrant).

Case in point, you as the GM should remind your characters if they are about to do something that RADICALLY goes against their alignments. There will be exceptions to all rules and extenuating circumstances a plenty. It's your Game Master Right to test your characters alignments and see how far they will go before saying "enough... my character won't do that."

However, this should not be an excuse for the Principled Cyber Knight to justify cold blooded murder. No CK that holds to the Code of Chivalry would do it (Fallen Knights don't count... most of them don't follow the Code. Or follow a curtain part of to such an extreme it's warped and twisted into something evil). If your PCs want to create an evil character, then more power to them. But they should not DELUDE THEMSELVES if they decide to try and create a good aligned character that commits evil acts.

That's not playing in character at all. They want someone who PERCIEVES themselves as "good" men/women who are "forced" to commit evil acts... they should play an Aberrant character. Otherwise they're not utilizing the character proper.

...And I approve this message.

[Rallan]

NOON
Thanx for the reply ,

its not about punishing, please read my replies to (Rallan and Johnathan)
it explains that im not trying to punish anyone.

The Architector.

How are you not trying to punish anyone? You're proposing that anyone who does a bad enough job of playing in-alignment that their alignment changes should lose an experience level, and the GM shouldn't give back the lost experience until he's convinced that they're really trying hard to play within their new alignment. That's punishment plain and simple, with the "reward" being the restoration of stuff that you'd confiscated earlier.

Turning around and saying "it's not about punishing" doesn't change the fact that it is all about enforcing a certain style of play by punishing players who don't play the way you want them to. It's like confiscating your kid's Gameboy when he's naughty and saying that it's not punishment because you'll give it back in a week if he behaves himself.

[Jorel]

I don't like it. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. I agree with Rallan and MT-NME. There are plenty of other tools to deter players who don't stay in their chosen alignment. Even if a character questions their own morality, or acts out of line with their chosen alignment, losing XP doesn't make sense. If anything they are gaining in life experiences not losing them.
Why not just take away that players chips n soda. That makes more sense to me. Or make them wear a silly pointy hat that says "I choose not to roleplay my alignment properly". If my GM pulled that on me (taking an entire XP level away), then I'd be less likely to keep playing with them, and maybe even blame the system if I am new and unfamiliar with the rules. Not every player knows which rules are house rules, and which are RAW.
It should be about fun, not propriety (I think that's the word). I do agree with giving out more XP to people who play properly, and less to people who don't. Rarely would I give a player no XP and and still give some to the others. I would only take away XP in a situation if it was like Star Trek: 3 and you were a reborn Spock, or you had some kind of major memory loss. That's just my take. Every GM has their own style.

[Jorel]

So its ok to reduce skills and bonuses like what siembieda says in life changing experinces but not reducing a level.....

Where are you getting this? Page reference please. If anything I think the M.A. wold be affected. As far as Vader goes he is still growing as a person and would gain a million XP for that alignment shifting action. Then he's dead so...he get's to be a super-powerful Jedi ghost. So far as I can tell the only thing he can do at that point is talk to people, and maybe scare them.

[Damian Magecraft]

I looked at that as WOW!!! that an easy out.

Your trying to punish them into roleplaying. This does not work.

A. Some people just do not give a darn about roleplaying a character. You cease inviting them, if your really keen on roleplay. If you think you can't stop inviting them, but can somehow punish them in game into roleplaying, you are only fooling yourself.

while I agree the HR sounding more like a ham handed punishment.
I find I disagree with your assessment that so called Roll-players cannot be "trained" to become Role-players. They merely need to be shown the way.

[Rallan]

I looked at that as WOW!!! that an easy out.

Your trying to punish them into roleplaying. This does not work.

A. Some people just do not give a darn about roleplaying a character. You cease inviting them, if your really keen on roleplay. If you think you can't stop inviting them, but can somehow punish them in game into roleplaying, you are only fooling yourself.

while I agree the HR sounding more like a ham handed punishment.
I find I disagree with your assessment that so called Roll-players cannot be "trained" to become Role-players. They merely need to be shown the way.

Showing them the way is generally something that works best if you encourage them, not punish them. Reward them for being creative or getting in-character, create situations (preferably situations that the players are interested in) where getting engaged in the setting is the best way to get stuff done, go the extra mile to make NPCs and locations come alive, that sort of thing. Generally if you try and change the way combat wombats play by hitting them with XP penalties or throwing more and more baddies at them, it just encourages them to find rules-based or combat-based solutions to what they see as a rules-based or combat-based problem.

[Killer Cyborg]

Plus I really don't see why characters should be punished just for changing their view of the world.

They shouldn't be.

Players, on the other hand, will sometime play a character one way on a day they're in a good mood, then show up in a bad mood and want to shoot every NPC they sees.

[Rallan]

Plus I really don't see why characters should be punished just for changing their view of the world.

They shouldn't be.

Players, on the other hand, will sometime play a character one way on a day they're in a good mood, then show up in a bad mood and want to shoot every NPC they sees.

In any setting that's not being GMed by an idiot, there are already going to be in-game consequences for mass murdering psychopaths. Y'know, like being a wanted fugitive who the cops have orders to shoot on sight, and who's reviled and feared by every NPC the game as a disgusting unstable lunatic.

[Killer Cyborg]

Plus I really don't see why characters should be punished just for changing their view of the world.

They shouldn't be.

Players, on the other hand, will sometime play a character one way on a day they're in a good mood, then show up in a bad mood and want to shoot every NPC they sees.

In any setting that's not being GMed by an idiot, there are already going to be in-game consequences for mass murdering psychopaths. Y'know, like being a wanted fugitive who the cops have orders to shoot on sight, and who's reviled and feared by every NPC the game as a disgusting unstable lunatic.

Link

[Spinachcat]

AD&D had the "change alignment, lose a level" It was one of least enjoyed / used rules.

As a GM, you have to determine what tone you want in your campaign and you MUST discuss it with your players before the campaign starts. Is it "Good Guys vs. Evil"? If so, then PCs will not take "evil" actions without becoming NPCs.

The most powerful and useful word in the GM's arsenal is "No", but it only works if you lay down the rules beforehand.

RPGs don't have to be games of "lets play psychopaths" - but if you are going limit moral actions in your game, then you have talk about that with the players at the start.

But in your situation, I would use the carrot instead of the stick. Instead of docking XP, give an XP bonus to players whose character take actions that exemplify their alignment. Count it as an extra roleplaying bonus.

Punishing players just entices them to find another GM or stop RPGing.

[BillionSix]

You could just abandon the alignment system. It doesn't really do anything, unless you are using things like rune weapons that sense the user's alignment.
Just erase the whole alignment thing from off their sheet, and let them play how they want?

Of course, that doesn't stop you from having in-game ramifications to their actions. If a PC is selfless and helps people because it's the right thing to do, then he should gain a reputation for it. People would like and trust him. If another PC kills and eats a dozen babies because some NPC told him it would give him a +1 on to hit rolls, then he should be feared and reviled as the monster he is.

Brian

[Noon]

This house rule would also stop people from alignment jumping back in forth when the feel they need to without thinking what could be the consenqences "not as a punishment by as a choice"
do i feel that im better being a differnt alignment then its a sacrifice thats worth taking,
sure i will be down a level but i will gain who i really AM!!!

For someone who cares about portraying a character, it already is a choice.

For someone who doesn't care, a level drop wont make them care.

Honestly, you've be better off giving XP for alignment breach.

"Oh noes, but they willz abusez itz!"

Your thinking of the 12 year olds you/we all used to be. The only people who would abuse it are those who don't give a crud about making real in character choices.

Think about it, instead of letting your Gygax reflex get the better of you. Imagine the character says who they really are and...they gain points. Wow, that's like some sort of game that actually encourages the thing your excited about, ie "who i really AM!!!". Wow, roleplaying with support from system, instead of roleplaying despite system...crazy stuff!

[Rallan]

Plus I really don't see why characters should be punished just for changing their view of the world.

They shouldn't be.

Players, on the other hand, will sometime play a character one way on a day they're in a good mood, then show up in a bad mood and want to shoot every NPC they sees.

In any setting that's not being GMed by an idiot, there are already going to be in-game consequences for mass murdering psychopaths. Y'know, like being a wanted fugitive who the cops have orders to shoot on sight, and who's reviled and feared by every NPC the game as a disgusting unstable lunatic.

Link

Saying that players in a bad mood run their characters as psychopaths isn't hyperbole though