Haha! It's my birthday today, and I was just about to sit down to write a post on mortality...not because I'm feeling grim, mind you, but because I've been deep-diving reflections on the cycles of life the last couple days (probably because I'm getting old..).
However, I just saw that Cornelius dropped me a "Dear JB" query...what a nice little birthday gift! Since everyone knows it's better to give than receive, I'm going to spend my birthday blogging time giving him an answer. You're welcome!
; )
[truthfully, I was just thinking about doing a "Dear JB" letter...um, yesterday? I think...but all the Reddit stuff was SO DEPRESSING. Mainly because it's the same old stupid over and over again, all caused by people not knowing how to play D&D or even how to interact with each other in a human fashion anymore. Seriously. One of these days, I'm going to have to finish writing that book....]
SO, yeah. Let's see what we've got (I actually haven't read his question yet, I got so excited...):
Dear JB:Recently, a player left my game because I ruled that his thief would change alignment from chaotic neutral to chaotic evil because he tried to murder the party's patron in order to conceal a theft, even though he already had a different plan to non violently trick him ready to put into action which he abandoned for no apparent reason. I floated the idea of allowing him to regain his former level after atoning, like if he were magically compelled into an alignment change, but apparently that wasn't acceptable. He also expressed dissatisfaction with how his PC was taking up so much game time, which he said was not fair to the other players. Did I make the right call, and what should be my response to this?Cornelius Featherjaw
Dear Cornelius:
There are two parts to three parts to this question and I will try to address each part in turn.
With regard to the forced alignment change: man, it has been a LOOOONG time since I used AD&D's alignment system. I haven't played with alignment since returning to AD&D in 2020, and before that (when running OD&D or B/X) I only had to deal with the basic three cut-n-dry alignments of Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic...all of which are fairly easy to parse.
However, back in the days of my youth (i.e. through the 1990ish) my AD&D games featured the Big Nine and all its limitations and stringent edicts. Hoo-boy. Players generally chose alignments based on how they intended to play, as limited by class...as such, we found almost NO "lawful" characters (no paladins or monks, for instance) and damn few chaotic goods. Most tended to be in the "chaotic neutral" category, giving the full range of "murder hobo" to "weird hippy flower child" (or something). Maximum freedom/agency was probably what the players were looking for...and "evil" was usually only chosen if necessary for an assassin type, or because the PC worshipped Ares or something.
Did we have forced alignment changes? Yes, on occasion. Although usually (if not always) the DM would say something like "you know, if you decide to take this particular action, I'm going to force you to change your alignment." Usually. And sometimes the player would still go through with it ("I'm sick of being neutral good!") and sometimes they wouldn't.
I wasn't in your "DM shoes," so I can only go off the context you've provided when it comes to my judgment on the incident. Certainly a chaotic neutral would consider murder to conceal theft justifiable (as would be any action necessary to retain their freedom of action); likewise, they might see themselves as some random agent of chaos/change whose purpose in the universe is sowing mischief. But murdering a longtime patron and benefactor with whom the character has broken bread and/or given their word or from whom they've received aid in the past? Just for the sake of expedience (since there was another possible plan)? Yeah...that probably falls into the chaotic evil category of behavior.
Floating the atonement option was actually a bit of a cop out on your part: if you check the 4th paragraph of DMG p.25 you'll note that players who "knowingly or unknowingly change alignment through forethought or actions permanently lose the experience points and level due to disfavor." While I will stand by my belief that it falls in the 'best practice' category to WARN a player before they make such a choice (i.e. so they "knowingly" choose their action) it is NOT strictly necessary to do so (hence the "unknowingly" bit in the text) and the only way to make up for the x.p. loss is continuing to adventure. At least, as a chaotic evil character, they would have a little more freedom to run rampant over their friends and neighbors...assuming such was okay with their fellow party members.
[back in the day when I used...and enforced...alignment in AD&D, I also allowed PvP conflict at my table, and "street justice" often became the after effect of such incidents]
So I'm fine with all your choices regarding the mechanical issue of alignment change (i.e. sounds like you were pretty much "by the book" here). With regard to the player "expressing dissatisfaction with how his PC was taking up so much game time" and this not being "fair" to the other players: um...huh?
I'm going to speculate that this is a young-ish player who's coming to the game with some earlier RPG experience under their belt and some sort of assumptions about "spotlight time" and whatnot. Fact of the matter is: you are taking up EXACTLY as much time is needed with regard to this particular player and their actions and (presumably) you would spend the SAME amount of time with any other player who took the same actions. As a DM, that's your job to rule and adjudicate these instance as they come up in play. They're not hogging the spotlight: they made a choice, it required a ruling, you made the ruling, play continues. If the other players aren't complaining, why is this person even bringing it up? Sounds a tad disingenuous to me.
With regard to how you should respond:
You have said the person has left your game, which I take to mean they have decided to no longer play D&D at your table. You should allow them to walk, if that is their choice...there is no point in trying to compel a person to play a game that they don't want to play (what fun is that for them? Or for you?). Just as no one forces you to be a Dungeon Master, no one forces a player to play.
That being said, given what you have written, it seems like the player was kind of sick of their character, if not sick of the game itself. Acting against the plans of the group just for shits & giggles, being offered an out and turning it down because "they're taking up too much time," sounds to me like someone looking for an excuse to exit a game, wanting to "save face" with the group, rather than just owning up to their feelings and saying "I don't want to make playing at this table a priority anymore." Which would be, you know, the mature way of handling things...but we all have our bouts of passive-aggressiveness. I know I have.
If I were in your shoes, here's what I'd do:
- I'd carry on with my game.
- I'd leave the door open for the player to return (assuming you like have the person at your table).
- I'd communicate to the person that they're still welcome AND that they don't need to play the same character (if they find their thief burdensome)...just retire the character and make a new one.
- I'd communicate to my players...if they ask...what happened. Don't make the player the bad guy; there are LOTS of reasons a person might choose to leave a game. It's okay!
- I'd carry on with my game.
Hope this is helpful/useful to you, CJ.
Sincerely,
JB
