Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Tempting Choices.
Message-ID: <1016@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 13:00:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1016
Posted: Thu Jul 18 13:00:12 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 02:53:28 EDT
References: <438@busch.UUCP> <1453@shark.UUCP> <2145@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <15790@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 25

> In the campaigns I've run whenever an alignment change was forced
> (lycanthropy, curse, etc.) the characters tend to act out of their NEW
> character in trying to get corrective measures performed and get their
> level(s) back (either this or commit Hari Kari in a unique way).  So all 
> this alignment change did was cause a hassle for the players and DM.  
> 
     I've seen this problem before too, and the cause is rather simple.  
Characters whose alignments have been changed (and DMs apparently, too) 
sometimes seem to think that their character still wants to be of the old
alignment, and that the alignment 'change' which they have undergone is
merely cosmetic.  Not so!  If some powerful magic item or curse truly
changed their alignment, then the character should be quite happy in their
new alignment, truly resisting the well-intentioned efforts of their
former compatriots to change them back.  If a player is unsuited to
play a character of the new alignment, or if the character can no longer
fit into the party with the new alignment, then the DM has made a serious
mistake in forcing the change.  Under no circumstances, however, should
the DM allow the newly evil character, for example, to rush into a good
church to try and switch back.   
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
   "Well I've been burned before, and I know the score,
    so you won't hear me complain.
    Are you willing to risk it all, or is your love in vain?"-Dylan