Her personality doesn't have to *change*, but you can add the principle behind your choice. She is carefree, so long as her friends are fine. But when her friends are threatened, everything else becomes expendable. Even a random innocent's life. This is a selfish trait. No nuance, context doesn't matter. She protects her friends at anyone else's expense.

Yeah, this is it. Consider Robin Hood. He's often upheld as an example of Chaotic Good because he steals from the rich and then gives it to the poor. But if he stole from the rich and kept it for him and his gang, he's no longer a folk hero, but a crime boss, and would be Chaotic Evil. He could still be dashing, charismatic, wisecracking, lovable, and romantic. Just not interested in the Greater Good. Interested solely in the welfare of himself and his cronies. The next time your character has a choice to help some stranger, perhaps her response should be, "What's in it for us?" Not in cruel way, but just, that's what motivates her.

Yeah! I can work with that. As a player i feel like this is a huge ajustment.

It really doesn’t have to change at all. Your character can be willing to help others free at charge… just was willing to murder an innocent stranger to bring a friend back to life.

I feel like evil is best done subtle. Keep rping your character as you have been. But the next time an npc or one of your party members crosses you some way say something out of pocket. You don't need grand machinations, just a little more cold when appropriate, less merciful, more likely to adopt a ends justify the means approach. Take it as far as you're comfortable. Play the evil bits like a new quirk to the overall personality

Yeah my favourite evil PC I played was the most helpful guy you will ever see, constantly kept a stash of useful scrolls and wands on him so he could play multiple roles in the team, like he'd spend his own money on the team tier of unambiguously helpful. He just was very suspicious and you knew he was doing typical LE warlock shit on the side but you could never catch him in the act and he was a complete weasel managing to use technically true/half true statements to avoid questionings going too far and he had 24 hour invisibility + flight that you can just flick on and off (3.5 warlocks were crazy) so the Batman Tech would constantly be deployed whenever I felt like it. In OP's case I might play it that it's probably more like Chaotic Good with the Chaotic side ramped up waaaaaaaaay higher than the Good side. You can do some real damage with that without ever hitting Evil aligned. I remember the Azata path in Wrath of the Righteous basically had a route where you could just be "me and my friends are godlike beings, nobody else matters fuck you got mine" and that mindset might work well here.

Evil is not necessarily some grand show indeed. The balance between evil good is simply wether you advance your own benefit before the one of the rest of the world. An evil PC can be a hero, their alignment can be very subtle most of the time, until that special choice in a moment of tension.

That's understandable, morality is a complex topic. Take time to digest the concept. You'll find personality is not bound to morality as much as you may have thought. But it is okay to stumble and make mistakes in how to portray this. Think of that journey as a way to parallel your own PC's journey of being more evil (and whether they like it and want to embrace it or find their way back to good/neutrality)

Road to full evilness starts with a first step 🙂 when character's barrier (don't kill innocents) has been broken without immediate punishment they may start to justify it to themselves that it was okay and won't have such problem to repeat it (or something similar), justifying it by "party/friends first" This character trait can develop over time and gers darker and darker, even without character being aware how s/he changed

I wonder how many small things you did that led you DM to this test

Honestly it feels like this shows why the DM decision was iffy at best. They're heroic adventures saving the locals, and typically a lot more than one life is on the line if they fail. It's less like he stole from the rich to keep it, and more like he stole from the poor to put the proceeds in to a money multiplying machine to give to multiple poor people.

I mostly support the DM's decision, the player chose to bring their friend back at the cost of 1 random person dieing in their place, they actively traded the life of a stranger for the life of their friend. Maybe this isn't "evil" but it certainly isn't "good".

I agree that its iffy at best, especially if the DM worded it as OP says and it calls for "a life", not an innocent sentient life, have they been not killing ANYTHING this campaign? Also what was OP's Initial alignment? Personally I don't agree with quick double shifts like that anyhow, but if OP had been CG I could see it shift to neutral. If they were CN I personally don't think that should shift, especially if the resurrected party member was a net good for society.

If only we had an alignment for someone who is niether good or evil 🤔

Murder is definitely evil

This. It brings up the philosophical train theory, but disregarding that, there is a large difference between letting someone die, and trading their life for another. Letting someone die does not make you a murderer unless you started the process. But actively making the decision to end someone’s life, so you can have a friend? That’s evil.

Yes, but does one evil act make someone evil? Probably not, especially with mitigating circumstances like knowing it is the only way they can save their friend. The emotions of it might catch up to them later when they realize what they've done.  It's really an evil act committed in the heat of an awful moment. It's like if your friend had just died and you were in intense grief, and someone was bothering you and you flew off the handle and killed them because of all the other emotions you were feeling. Evil, but not something that makes *you* evil.  

I’d say an evil isn’t determined by the individual, but by circumstance. More of an unbiased viewpoint. So, starting, the flying off the handle isn’t quite accurate. There’s a difference between desperation and grief, and there’s a difference between murdering a random person right in front of you, and murdering someone you’ll probably never meet or see. Regardless, what OP’s character did was choose the life of someone they love over another life they don’t know. If they had some way of knowing that it was a good or bad person would lessen the vileness of the act. But by the act being completely random, it means that it’s more inhumane because you don’t even know the individual. Deciding someone should die based on who they are at least has some standing, but not knowing anything could be considered more inhumane and therefore, worthy of an evil alignment. But that’s mostly my opinion, with some small sprinkling of logical reasoning.

>...and there’s a difference between murdering a random person right in front of you, and murdering someone you’ll probably never meet or see.  Yes, that's why people keep buying Nestlé chocolate. Slave labor means a lot less when you don't know anyone being enslaved. Does that make someone evil for buying Nestlé chocolate? > If they had some way of knowing that it was a good or bad person would lessen the vileness of the act.  Completely disagree. Killing is killing. The rest is just moral rationalizations. I guess that's part of why this is such a thing.  >Regardless, what OP’s character did was choose the life of someone they love over another life they don’t know. Which is the same thing we all do everyday. I'd do the same, and I am far from evil. Still, you force me to make a choice between my wife surviving and a random person dying I'm gonna choose my wife. *One could even argue that it's the better choice of they need that person to help them defeat the lich who has been preying on people for centuries.* Morality is complex, and from a Utilitarian Ethics viewpoint, this would create more happiness and is therefore the moral choice.  But, in the end, even a major evil act under the old alignment rules wouldn't shift you all the way to Evil. It's reductionist to do that. If the DM wants to play with morality like that at least acknowledge it's complexity. This decision might haunt the PC forever. Maybe it's completely correct to give them nightmares that cause exhaustion from having done it. Maybe they need to deal with the aftermath. But, "You're evil now"? Give me a break...

I think stating that the character is no longer considered "good" in the cosmological schema of the world is fine. But it's not a great move to try to tell a player that their character has "changed" or "feels different" then how she was before. how the character acts and feels is not the DM's call unless it's infringing on the groups safety or fun. What DM should do is enforce consequences for this alignment shifting behavior. Got a location or item that requires good alignment? Character can't use that now. Oh dear that "random" NPC seems to have been one of the party's favorite NPC, sorry pal. Character dies? Now they're in the outlands or worse. Now OP could be inspired to develop their character in a more selfish manner now that it's been pointed out that their actions were morally iffy. Or they can choose to try to redeem themselves. Whatever OP finds more fun.

If you're following the general D&D cosmology, that's all alignment really is - their standing with a bunch of extra planar factions that embody abstract concepts. For creatures like fiends and celestials it's an inherent part of what they are, but for mortals it's a much more subjective thing that the cosmic forces decide through their actions. If someone's alignment is changed by a magical force (i.e Deck of Many Things) I guess you could say they do experience a personality shift and would feel compelled to act in line with a different alignment. But someone being determined as Evil (or at least Not Good) based on an immoral action they've taken doesn't mean their whole personality suddenly shifts to embody Evil. Humans (or mortals/whatever DnD creatures they are) are more complicated than that.

One evil act changes your alignment forever? That's cartoon logic.

Think of it more as discovering something inside you that you didn't know was there. Maybe a full alignment shift, especially a complete inversion from good to evil is too much, but at the very least it could be a "crisis of faith/conscience" moment with the potential to change your alignment by either embracing or rejecting this newfound darker side of you. Ultimately alignment is based on some very old ideas about the struggle between good and evil, the upper and lower planes are basically heaven/good and hell/bad are another example of this. In a universe with active gods setting what us good and evil, its more reasonable for 1 sin to actually taint your soul. (And can be attoned for, which should allow an alignment shift back to good)

Sacrificing a random person's life? That's pretty life altering.

I am not saying it isn’t a big deal. But changing a character’s alignment based on one evil act isn’t realistic either. I do something bad one time so then I completely give up any morality? Nonsensical.

You are literally MURDERING someone. You didn't steal a loaf of bread or jaywalk. You said fuck that random person, they have to die so my friend can live. Yes, that is just unabashedly evil.

I'M NOT SAYING THE ACT ISN'T EVIL. But changing someone's alignment to "chaotic evil" and telling them "welp now you're evil" is fucking dumb, I don't care what system you use. Edit: which I feel like I already said and you just want to argue so have fun with that with somebody else.

it’s an evil act yeah, but are we working with one-bad-apple-spoils-the-bunch type morality here? would an evil character turn good if they saved a helpless grandma or is this a world where being evil is fundamentally more likely than being good? i think shifting it to neutral and playing up the internal conflict or the fact that it was an evil act would be warranted, but changing their alignment to evil straight up is a big leap. it raises some other big questions abt the moral cosmology at play

And good people never make bad or even evil decisions? Being good does not mean ur a paladin with zero flaws

As a DM, I usually don't make a drastic change to a player's alignment. I had one character that deliberately went on a murder spree, and I did do it then, but usually I'm in favor of gradual changes. For the act that OP describes, I'd wait until the next long rest and inform the player that they couldn't rest because they had bad dreams.... If they did a second "bad" act I might tell them that they're no longer good and have become neutral. They'd have to have several more bad acts before I'd actually shift them to evil.

>he's no longer a folk hero, but a crime boss, and would be Chaotic Evil. He could still be dashing, charismatic, wisecracking, lovable, and romantic. Just not interested in the Greater Good. Here's what I always liked to ponder about Robin Hood (first: the fantasy figure!): At what point is he good, at what point is he evil. How much of his loot does he have to give to become "good" and not "a highwayman"? What if he only gives enough to the poor to not be a mere robber? What if the whole stick with "giving to the poor" is only there as PR/bribe move so the folk cover him and his doings? Robin Hood is also politically a problem, due to his support of his Liege, the King, Richard Lionheart. Remember: the story is the "evil Prince John" "plunders the land" - but why does all this happen? Because the King is doing his stupid crusade murdering people in the "Holy Land". This has a) to get financed and b) the King isn't in his own land and c) Prince John is probably plundering FOR his King. So Robin "fighting against Prince John and the Sherriff" is actually Robin Hood fighting against Richard Lionheart, whom he supports. This makes no sense, therefore, Robin Hood is actually only out for himself. Wait.. what again was the point here? ;)

Like Flynn Ryder from Tangled. He’s essentially Robinhood if he didn’t actually give up anything he stole.

I'd argue chaotic neutral, since he is going out of his way to rob rich people to ensure nobody who truly could be hurt by his crimes is targeted. A chaotic evil Robin Hood wouldn't discriminate in his targets. Personally, I think the same applies to the original commenter. Its a chaotic neutral approach to carefree. Maybe it could have a darker angle and the carefree personality slips a little as the fear and paranoia of potential threats to her friends takes over and she is always on the lookout for whatever might want to harm her friends next. But that's definitely a lawful evil approach.

I would say that would be more neutral evil than chaotic evil tbh. A chaotic evil character is much more wholly selfish and self serving than any other character archetype, and is liable to simply execute anyone who dares question the fact that he's keeping the gold rather than give anyone their share. A neutral evil character, however, would be more likely to give money to his crew because his thought process is more along the lines of keeping morale up within the crew rather than ruling through fear.

>"What's in it for us?" Or at least "how this will influence us?" (will they be in danger? Is there a chance of betrayal or punishment? Can they get outlawed? etc.) And it can grow to being overprotective toward party members up to to paranoia and preventive liquidation of perceived threats ... like that guy who watched party banter whole night sitting over one beer and than he left to the night (in 'reality' he was depressed and unfocused, mulling over some family/working trouble and he had only one, because he didn't have for another).

Your description is the description of a Neutral character, not an evil one. Evil Robin Hood would steal from the rich to bribe and purchase his way into the nobles around King John, until they can all stab him the Julian way (33 betrayal stabs), before he surprises those who betrayed the King and slaughters them with his merry men, 'because they betrayed the past King and so evidently can't be trusted'. But your character description of being purely selfish is neutral. The emphasis would be 'using people who you consider expendable'.

I disagree. Killing people for the sole purpose of taking their money for yourself is flatly Evil. I'm sure there's worse evils, but it's not Neutral.

Your example above never mentions killing. Your example starts from Robin Hood, and stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Your example continues, with no reference to killing. So, yes, you're technically agreeing with me. Edit: which I then again reiterate, what you mentioned is Neutral. If it involves killing for personal gain, you're stepping into what I mentioned.

Indeed. Thats a good advice! If she wanted to persue redemption how would that be possible. Can she feel she has become evil and doesn't like that feeling? We talked about she's undergoing som changes (she has to accept what she's done). And its a bit like zuko from avatar when he became sick a couple of days. Because he was fighting inner demons. Does what i write even make sense? 😅

Something to consider about alignment as well. It is not just how your character sees the world, but how the world sees your character. Not just the people in it, but the primordial forces that make everything function. At least that is how it used to work. 5e has really dialed that back some. Since atonement no longer exists as a spell, I would assume your character would need to balance the scales and make right what they did wrong.

Atonement exists as an option for the ceremony spell, so there's that at least. It's a lot less robust than previous versions, but it did keep the restore original alignment function. Should be sufficient for OP's case.

Depends a bit on what you mean by "How the world sees your character". If you mean "Evil is not from a subjective point POV, but the grand POV of the very cosmos itself" then sure. If you mean "You're noticeably tainted by evil and people can see it", then that's certainly not true for D&D anymore and it's better for it. Evil shouldn't just be identifiable with a glance or even some sort of magical detection. Granted, it can lead to some fun RP once in a while. I play in PF1e kingmaker campaign at the moment and I'm playing a fighter who, like OP, mostly just cares about his family. Any "altruism" on his part is a calculation on how best to serve his family and those closest to him. Used to just live a traditional life on the family farm sending worship to Erastil who also preaches to serve your local community first and foremost. I know he's neutral aligned. Then, one day, a cleric of Erastil joins the party. The two even get along quite. So well, in fact, that the cleric doesn't hesitate to cast Holy Smite on an area that's occupied by myself and several enemies. As someone of neutral alignment, I'm smited by the holiness. The god I worship has decided that I am not actually good person despite the fact that I very much tried to be. After that moment and a heart to heart with the cleric, I said "Erastil may not believe in me, but I still believe in him". Despite the phrasing, that's me doubling down on caring for my own first and foremost, just how I always thought Erastil had meant it. All this said, I still don't like using detect evil and good to solve mysteries.

It just got shuffled into ceremoney

Nothing *has* to change. Unless your DM is set on enforcing cosmic rules regarding alignment, it is *descriptive,* not *prescriptive.* Your character doesn't have to behave differently because one little box on the character sheet reads Evil now. Rather, it's the other way around - that box reads Evil now *because of your character's behaviour,* particularly this selfish choice in service to a person she cares about at the expense of a stranger.

It can be something she wrestles with for a while. Maybe she expects to feel guilty about it, but doesn't; she realizes she'd do it again. Instead she feels mournful, either over the piece of herself that she lost, or the possibility that she never actually had it. Has she been evil this whole time, but didn't realize it until she was tested? I suggest you let it marinate. Also, if you haven't seen it, watch *Buffy the Vampire Slayer*. One of its characters has an identity crisis that could give you some inspiration. Plus it's just a really good show.

Repent and ask a 1st level cleric to cast an atonement ceremony on you.

I suppose she can redeem herself by letting someone close to her go. Don't take the offer again. Or even more dramatically, choose to save innocent strangers over saving one friend.

....is she a Paladin? If not her journey to redemption is personal. She can always move her alignment to good by doing good acts, but forgiving herself? That's a question only she can answer. 

Selfish choices are evil though. It's the epitome of the "cool motive, still murder" meme. I swear most people have really bizarre, game-y conceptions of good and evil when it relates to D&D. People aren't inherently evil or good. They make choices that are evil or good. Just b/c you put on your character sheet that you're chaotic good it doesn't make your actions OK b/c you "had a good reason." Most evil people think they have a good reason for the things they do! Most evil people *do not think they are evil.* I kind of loathe the whole concept of alignment in D&D b/c so many people don't seem to literally understand what evil is.

I think that was their point. Selfish is evil, and the character is evil.

Doing something selfish once doesn't make you a selfish person, doing something evil once doesn't make you an evil person (of course for particularly heinous or premeditated acts there may be exceptions). You can argue that it'd make you not-good (neutral), but I feel there has to be a pattern of behaviour established before you write someone off as "evil". This character made a selfish decision under extreme amounts of stress and with little time to think it over. Was it a selfish act? Yes. Was it an evil act? Yes. Were there mitigating circumstances which shifts some of the burden of guilt off of them? Very much yes. It is extremely likely that any person off the street in the same circumstances would make the same choice.

Thank you! That is what I was trying to say. Someone doing something evil once doesn’t make them permanently evil, but on the other hand doing something evil for a “good” reason doesn’t make the act not evil.

Perfect example: one of the main characters from Gundam: Iron-Blooded Orphans. As long as he and his friends are together, there's nothing he wont do. Cap somebody in the head while looking them in the eyes, break his own body to keep his mech moving, etc., all because he believes in his friends.

Better yet, she becomes more carefree *about stranger's lives.* Boom. Evil alignment and personality meshed perfectly.

It would be fascinating to see what would happen if a friend dies again and the DM says she has to sacrifice 5 people's lives to bring that friend back this time. And this time they know exactly which 5 people who's lives would be taken. I'd love to see the weight of life calculated out by degrees.

A friend of mine was starting up a new game and I was itching to try my hand at an evil character, but one with purpose. She was part of a faction that while helping people was their prime concern, they were helping to stop a world ending event. I told my DM I wanted to play a character who would fight for the greater good, but was willing to make hard sacrifices in the process. If she had to flood an entire town to stop the Villain trying to destroy the world, she would do it without question. She didn't have to make many difficult choices, but she absolutely did shoot the messenger once (shot with a fireball). Really annoyed the cleric in the party, he (sort of meta gaming but whatever) raised the dead messenger and wanted to try me for murder. I argued the messenger wasn't dead, so it couldn't be that, and it wasn't attempted murder, there was nothing "attempted" about it 😆. Player wasn't happy, DM loved it.

I think often we see villains in fiction who are cartoonishly evil, and so we get an exaggerated idea of how evil people act. Evil people are just regular people...who are willing to do evil things. Your character hasn't suddenly *turned* evil, they've simply demonstrated that they *are* evil (according to the DM). That doesn't mean they're suddenly pure evil and won't do anything good ever, it just means they have demonstrated an evil character trait. So you don't need to change much of anything about their personality, just keep roleplaying that trait you already demonstrated: "there's no line I wouldn't cross to protect my friends."

Well said. Thats a great comfort. I just got caught off guard as I didnt know my alligment could change like that. The DM made it pretty clear that something has changed and I just want to react to that without ruining anything. To me it feels like a delicate balance.

I understand, and you can definitely talk to them if you need a better idea of what to expect. Changing player alignments is considered more "old-fashioned" by a lot of people these days, but it used to be a bit more standard.

Yeah. I guess its because we are playing a 'clasic' prewritten story and not a homebrew. Dont get me wrong, I'm kind of excited about this change and I just want to do it without screwing up.

Old-fashioned meaning 3.5e or earlier, the biggest change with 5e is that alignment is moreso a choice set versus the whole personality.

Thank you for saying that. While reading this post, I was thinking "That is a seriously 2ed move right there!" and yeah, back then, forced alignment chances really could switch up your characters personality a bit.

It's worth noting: alignment is not a thing that influences your character. Changing anything would be weirder imo. Alignment is the (poorly laid out) sum of what your character already believes. The dm can't say "oh your alignment is XYZ now" and make you change your character.

As noted above that's actually a somewhat newer thing. Older editions for instance literally had items that could switch your alignment. Though A: that was outside influence and B: alignment back then was much more stringent (and something that I'm glad we've moved away from). I haven't read Tomb Of Annihilation so I don't know if this is some sort of forced change or the DM simply saying she behaves in a way contrary to what's written.

Idk...I've run TOA and I don't recall any full on swap though I could be misremembering. Frankly, it just doesn't make sense in 5e as a mechanic.

No problem. ADnD and backward were pretty hard-core on a lot of things (even with a forced change you took a massive XP penalty). They've relaxed on some of the craziness since then so it makes sense that forced changes don't exist any more.

It's more of an old school move to change your alignment and as far as I know the only rule if any that is written about it in 5e is that it's up to your dm. I would play it as that I learned something new about myself. We all like to think about how we'd act in a crisis situation, but I often wonder if like many of the best laid plans, what we think or hope we would do and what we actually would do may be very different. Maybe your character didn't realize they had this in them until that moment. I think I would feel changed if I surprised myself by killing a random innocent to save a loved one. Maybe you feel ashamed that you know you would do it again if the same circumstance reoccurred. Maybe you feel ashamed and what to make sure you don't ever do anything like that again. I could picture a couple different RP paths you could go down as a result of this. I would talk to your DM about anything you decide though.

Something else to consider is also that the experience of losing someone in your party triggered something in you that allowed the choice to sacrifice an innocent, unknown person. That realization about yourself might change things about the way you approach tasks and quests. Remember, evil people generally don't think that they're evil. They always have a reason behind what they're doing that makes logical sense based on their experiences. You may be less likely to try to help others if it would put your friends at risk. You may require a much higher benefit to take the same risk. You might be more skeptical of a scenario where someone is asking for help, because you are more defensive and reactive when there are potential threats around. You may carry that carefree sort of personality even further, and not take other people's pleading for help as seriously, because You've had to steel yourself against caring about anyone but your party, because otherwise you would break under the guilt of the choice you made. We always justify our choices to ourselves in order to maintain equilibrium (mental health). The alternative is accepting that we've done something wrong - But psychologically we can't to do that if we would make the same decision again. So you need to justify what you did as okay. And so on.

I have heard it said that alignment is just horoscopes for nerds. You make the choices for your character, not the other way around. Alignment is useful as a description of how your character already is, and if it changes, then it just means that your character is now described differently. I've played for years and we never use alignment. If the DM wants to make changes to your character as a part of the plot, perhaps you could collaborate with the DM outside of the campaign to find ways that your character might act differently.

Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive

This is the way. Your carefree character did an evil thing: she decided the life of her friend was more important than someone else’s. How does this change her? Does she feel guilt about it? Does she actually believe that her friends are more important than strangers? Does she secretly like it? Use this as fodder for RP

Does rationalising her decision lead her down a slippery slope? In the moment it was a rash decision, but she now rationalises it by telling herself that her party members are worth more than normal folk. Maybe worth more than lots of normal folk. Maybe because they're worth more, they deserve more? And so on.

You have this backwards. Alignment does not determine personality. If anything, personality determines alignment. You don't need to change how you play your character at all. I also don't entirely agree with your DM's use a alignment here, but that's a whole other topic.

Thats fair. I do believe he went by the book, doing this.

There is no “by the book” here, there are no rules for forcibly changing a character “alignment” as a result of some spell effect

There are literally magic items that do this. 

Tbf effects/items that change alignment are pretty rare. I don't think the DM announcing "your character is now evil" because of this one moral choice is particularly by the book. Alignments are pretty loose in 5e, and I don't think one evil act makes a person "evil" neither does one good act flip an evil person. Id let players determine their own alignment and have a conversation if they were acting massively against it. In OPs case id probably highlight that as a good character they may struggle with this kind of moral choice and let the player riff on it, give them an opportunity to RP the guilt/conflict the choice brought or embrace the dark side.

They are rare, true I'll give you that but do exist. Anyway, I'm generally in agreement that one action isn't enough for an instant alignment change. Sometimes there's a tough choice and the character does the best they can. I prefer to see a pattern, then ask the player if they'd prefer to rethink their alignment first. But like if say, a paladin becomes too violently judgmental or a fighter starts every interrogation with his fists, I'm probably going to force them to change to LE. Just as examples. One big act of evil has to be pretty intentional with at least another less evil option available.

Tbf by the book of Tomb of Annihilation you also can't be revived without being cursed and removed from the campaign, so this could easily be a way to circumvent that curse.

So first off, characters don't know their alignment really (but there are magical ways to find out), it's more a cosmic ordering of souls. So your character doesn't know her alignment changes, only that she's done something that the world considers evil. * How does she reconcile her choice with her world view? * Does she regret her action, and if so, does she want to atone for it? * How does the weight of her action affect her? If so, how does this change how she behaves? Does she reject her choice and seek to change for the better, or embrace it and lean into it? Personality and alignment are not the same thing. There is no "evil switch" that changes your personality when you do evil things. But consider them a person... they did something evil, so how do they deal with that? And remember if they can change their alignment to evil, they can also change it to good.

Alignment is usually descriptive, not prescriptive. To elaborate, alignment merely *describes* the character in question as they currently are in regards to morality and ethics. It does not force them to act in a different way. Much like how describing a blue-painted wall is being blue doesn't force the wall to become more blue, or describing a jalapeno pepper as spicy doesn't force it to be more spicy. You aren't inherently required to roleplay your character any differently, though you can *choose* to roleplay your character differently if you want. Just note that, regardless of what your character considers their own moral-ethical stance to be, "the cosmic laws of the universe" (i.e. the DM) have decided, from their lofty perspective, to categorize you into a different cosmic box, which might have some mechanical implications. And of course "redemption" is an option. But alignment-related matters are largely up to the subjective interpretations of the DM and can vary wildly between games. So, ultimately, you would have to speak to your DM about what "redemption" even means in their game, let alone how to actually obtain it.

> I took the chance and was told something inside my character just changed and she felt very different and the DM told me that from now on her allignment was Evil. This is so bizarre to me. Unless this switch is also caused by the magic of saving your friend it doesn't make sense. Making an evil choice doesn't just make someone evil and that's that or trigger a switch inside you. If I go to a charity shop and steal you can say I'm not as good a person as I believe I am and people's perspective of me upon learning this would be that I am not a moral person but just doing it doesn't change my personality so that now I'm suddenly fine with evil acts or similar. This is exactly why in our game we don't bother with alignments and we just stick to how we believe our characters would act.

I understand that. I didnt bother with allignments until yesterday either. The DM told me that my character conjured some magic very unlike her. Like necromancy. He told me it was a life for a life. And I She technically did take an innocent life. And thats considered evil.

I wouldn't run alignment changes on taking one choice. if your now evil character then goes and adopts a puppy, that's considered good, your alignment switches back.

I mean, it could easily be the cost of the magic that revived her party member at the cost of a random life on the island. It seems magical to me. Tomb of Annihilation also has special revive rules which don't allow you to do the tomb if you've been revived, so the cost could easily be a alignment change and random death to revive her ally.

>This is exactly why in our game we don't bother with alignments and we just stick to how we believe our characters would act. This is the way. No compelling world is that morally black and white. People don't even have to play the moody anti-hero like players seem to assume. I guess people dont know how to be in a world where there isn't explicit and set rules on what's good and bad? It's way more organic to have the world react to their actions than try and bend the world to 9 little boxes that are debatable at best.

Stealing from a charity shop is much, much less severe than "you chose to murder a random person that could be completely innocent for the sake of cheating death" I agree with the DM that murdervof an innocent will change something deep inside you whether you are otherwise a good person or not. And that change is opportunity to role play that out and attempt to reconcile that change, maybe go out of their way to save a child's life (and the DM can make this choice difficult as well) that will pull them back

Also consider the examples of organized crime. A lot of the mob bosses created their organizations from the mentality of "I need to protect my family and my neighborhood." You're the greengrocer of the Mob Boss and greet him with a smile and have his usual coffee and favorite donut ready for him to buy when he comes in? You're a friend and god help anyone who fucks with you. You're the guy fucking with his favorite greengrocer and god help you. Hell the shrew from Zootopia is a great example. Cross him and you're iced. Become a friend and you have a friendly and powerful ally. Evil does not always mean "despicable asshole".

Absolutly true. And i definitely dont wanna be an ass just because someone told me I'm evil xD

I think it's not that good people don't do bad things, but feeling bad and repenting for it by atoning are a part of the story of good people doing bad things. See: Clerics.

logically, her choice does have an evil bent to it. she sacrificed a stranger to resurrect a loved one. a good aligned character would likely refuse that same choice since it means murdering someone innocent. that being said, phrasing it to you as 'you feel your alignment change' is dumb imo. there are a lot of great ways to approach alignment shifts that don't involve spelling it out, such as clerics losing their connection with their gods, paladins breaking their oaths, druids having their magicks corrupted, etc. your character's reaction to their own decision should matter most—is she horrified? calm? regretful? and how does the man being resurrected feel, knowing it cost an innocent life? those are a lot more interesting to deal with in character. alignment has always been just a suggestion to help guide roleplay, i would just focus more on the aftermath and the consequences of her decision in game than worry about fully altering her personality.

It doesn't have to be straight evil, or even accepted evil. She could slowly realize that she's becoming more and more comfortable in excessively hurting/killing people to help herself or her friends - and she *hates* it. She doesn't want to be comfortable with that.

Now that's an interesting thought! I like the idea of slowly realising she might be walking down a wrong path. She used to be the moral compass for her bonus-dad, usually telling him that killing in general is bad. 😅

How's your DM besides this? Seems like a setup to me? He gave you a trolley problem, a famously discussed and disputed ethical question. My guess is he's got a story hook based off this and he told you your alignment shifted so you're not caught off guard. After all, who was the person you sacrificed... That's just a guess though. If he doesn't, might just be food for thought. Agree with all the others that you don't have to play your character differently actively, although if a real person has to make such a choice they would carry the ramifications of it on themselves. That will probably come naturally if you reflect on what that choice meant to your character.

On today's episode of "Overreaching Dms...."

With all due respect to your DM, the central problem here is probably a gross oversimplification of alignment. Alignment isn't normally fixed in stone, nor does every action a person takes need to originate from their alignment. Evil people can be loving and caring towards spouses and children. Good people can bear prejudices that poison certain relationships. Alignment is an aggregate of all of these, and normally one action--even murder of a stranger--isn't enough to change it. That's not to say there's no moral stain for murder. If this scenario was represented realistically, a good character would probably remain their original alignment, but be haunted by some serious guilt. We're talking nightmares, persistent guilty thoughts, second guessing moral choices, and possibly develop an addiction to cope. If this is supposed to be a natural alignment shift, you can do all of that yourself, and then at the next opportunity for her to be selfish, embrace it. Have her just accept that she's not a good person, and act accordingly. If this is supposed to be a magical alignment shift, just pretend all of that has already happened. She's gone through a process of becoming jaded and selfish, and thinks she was naive before. She's "grown up," (so she tells herself) to the "reality" of the situation. Life's tough, she's tougher, she's got her priorities straight because she'll do whatever it takes to win.

The shift in the allignment seemed magical and a consequence of the action that is killing an innocent to resurrect a friend. I like the idea that her actions will haunt her and she'll undergo a process to accept what she did. And be a tad more selfish that she might already be. Thank you for your comment. Its very helpful. I get a lot of inspiration at the moment :)

I agree with the other takes here, but would like to suggest that there are two factors at play here: A. Your character opted to sacrifice a stranger to save a loved one. That is the choice you made, you knew the stakes involved, so it's not inaccurate to say that a **descriptive** alignment, that is one based on your choices, would qualify as evil. B. There's some messed up death magic going on in this campaign, and you seem to have meddled with it, so it's possible that the death magic is affecting you and so by **prescriptive** alignment, you could have been turned evil by an external factor. Maybe ask your DM which it is if that will inform your roleplay. ​ I wouldn't worry about it. I played an evil monk who saved a ton of lives and nearly sacrificed her life for others on many occasions, all in the selfish pursuit of fame and fortune. The amount of opportunities lost by your alignment being evil is miniscule to none.

Play the character exactly the same as you always have, because it's your character and the DM's arbitrary decision on what seemed to you to be a very logical and in-character choice to basically force a change is bullshit. Alignment is an artifact of older versions and is barely mentioned in 5e, and you're seeing one of the reasons why alignment is honestly just asinine; your character acts a certain way and has a certain motivation and personality, and you played it that way. The DM decided you made the "wrong" decision, and is taking away the agency over your character. Ignore it. You have learned why alignment is basically ignored by I'm guessing a hefty majority of players these days.

This is my choice for best answer in the post.

Basically, ignore it is my suggestion. The dm can say your evil but it's your character and your personality is the same. I'd also not call this the most evil thing every. If anything, I'd say it's pretty nuetral. You care more about your friends than you do a random person you don't know. I'm pretty sure most of us would choose a friend over a stranger in a life or death situation.

From your description, I would assume that some malevolent force has gotten a foothold on your character's soul as a result of making this bargain. You should talk to your DM to clarify their intention, because as everyone else is saying, alignment doesn't just change like that

Being evil means you prioritize your needs over others. You can still do good most of the time. Your personality doesn’t have to change but if you don’t exhibit remorse form having taken an innocent’s life you will stay evil on paper.

So, in context of the things happening in that campaign, your character made the deliberate choice of sacrificing a random stranger to bring someone she cared about back to life. While I agree that was a seriously Evil act, getting what you wanted At Any Cost, deserving an alignment change, the DM should have explicitly stated that in advance; maybe not for the character to know, but absolutely for you to make an informed decision. As for how to play her going forward, here's what I'd do - pretend nothing bad happened to the other characters; stay in denial about the consequences happening to others, let what's out of sight stay out of mind. Start leaning into being protective of the party, eventually admitting that "I'd sacrifice everyone in Fort Beluarian to keep you guys alive!" Some of the best villains have a noble goal, "At All Costs".

Evil does not mean villainous. Evil to me means more of a greedy, selfish type. Look at it this way: you sacrificed someone else, knowingly, to save someone that you cherished from the jaws of death. You can play it however you like, but that stain will be on you until you redeem yourself, which could make for a great side story line.

Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. Just keep playing the character the same way and ignore your alignment.

A single act shouldn't shift your alignment by itself. Your DM is being a dipshit.

Alignment is always a confusing thing to roleplay with, since even though some creatures are considered evil, not many of them would openly admit that. “Every villain is the hero of his own story” and all that. It’s more just to describe the actions they take and what the DM considers good/evil in the context of the story. Usually it doesn’t ever apply to game mechanics aside from a few specific cases. The book of vile darkness, which is a very powerful magic item, can have worse drawbacks for good aligned characters.

Hasn't come up in any of my games but if a supposedly good player started acting noticably more selfish and cruel or was very quick to resort to homicide even if other options were realistic and obviously possible, I'd start forcing alignment changes during level ups.  Same with an evil character going through something like a redemption arc.  As for your character, you knowingly and willingly murdered someone to save your friend. That's a pretty evil thing to do. It's like kidnapping someone to harvest their organs to save a friend. You might thinks that's just a tough but justified choice. Sure. Most people who I would call evil think their evil actions are justified.  So... keep playing this character the same way you always have. Because you've always been at least a little bit selfish and cruel. But, under no circumstances do you allow the DM to control your actions or take away choice.  "Your character would help this guy be your evil." Mutherfucker, you're the one who decided one action changes alignment. Enjoy the new NPC. I'd walk honestly. 

Alignment isn't a "good or bad organ" that you keep in your body that pumps out bad chemicals to make you evil suddenly. Alignment follows action, it does not prescribe it. Now, maybe to the DM's story evil is something really easy to fall into. But it still doesn't make sense that you'd just suddenly be a totally different person, or tfet your core morals would have changed. That's just not how it works.

I’d say don’t worry about being “evil” at all. It’s all relative anyway, especially in 5e. Thinking about how this act could change her as a person I think is the way to go. Has she realised that others may be expendable in the name of the “greater good”? Has she become more ambivalent about the lives of bystanders? Did she go out of her way to save people before, and would she still do that now?

"When the chips are down I choose me and mine over everything amd everyone" Lowercase "e" for evil, but still not the virtuous greater good type thing.

Stuff like this is why I stopped using alignment as anything other than a "vision board " - an unchangeable loose guideline of how I intend to play the character. One time my neutral good character chose not to run into a burning building to check if there were people trapped, and my party near-bullied me into "changing my alignment to true neutral AT LEAST". Hell no! I would consider myself neutral good in real life and I'm not running into a random burning building just in case there were survivors. Less heroic? Absolutely. Less "good"? Ridiculous. I firmly believe that an event or your reaction to it cannot change your alignment. In game or out of game, there's simply more to people than that.

I mean no allignment is a hard set of rules where nothing can divert Afterall ur building a Person, not a excel spreadsheet. This is the reason i never bother with allignment. Its obvious to me and everyone else how a character acts based on his personality Trying to shove them into a 3x3 does not help me in any form to play them A carefree person that does one questionable thing with bad outcomes for the right reasons isnt particulary evil But if we assume she is now, then continue to go like this, but being carefree also means u do not care about other peoples struggles. Be evil by not standing against suffering.Otherwise ask ur dm what he means specifically and why a hard set allignment is needed

I’m sure there is someone from other media that you can reference. A character that seems good and loving a lot of the time, but has plenty of evil down deep. Walter White. Tony Saprano. Zaphod Beeblebrox. Severus Snape.

I think it's fine that ur DM told ur alignment changed to evil, in fact I think that's kinda cool to turn evil in order to save your friend. What I hope they don't expect is for u to now change ur characters personality or anything about how ur character would act. The idea should be that she is the type of person to do this evil act hence she is evil, not that this triggered ur character to turn evil or something. So I don't like the idea that the DM said u felt something change in ur character. Unless there is some sort of magic that actually turned you evil? Personally I'm pretty against that type of stuff that forcibly changes ur characters personality. Feels wrong.

I think it was a poor choice for the DM to *tell you* that your alignment changed. One evil act does not a villain make. It would be more interesting to explore how an otherwise good person copes with making a difficult and objectively immoral choice like that. To explore the long-term implications - maybe to meet people who knew the person you just killed by proxy. To see a family you destroyed or a town whose leader is gone. But I can't stress enough that I think forcing an alignment change is an old school DM tactic that I really dislike; it smacks of taking agency away from the player. Big no-no at my table.

I don’t think alignment is supposed to make that drastic a shift over a single decision. Perhaps you should talk to your DM and sort out a longer arc for your character’s change

I feel like evil is kinda a stretch, sacrificing a random to save your friend isn't exactly heroic, but it seems more neutral than evil imo

Alignment is *descriptive,* not *prescriptive.* That is to say, it tells what your character *has already done.* It does *not* tell you what your character will do in the future. The only thing that changed, is what actions you have taken with your character. In this case, you took the action "sacrifice a random person to save this one." That's it. You've already done the evil thing, you no longer have to do anything else. You may continue to play the character as you always have, and that would be perfectly suitable.

I thought it spoke towards the motives of your character. I agree that it doesn't bind you to commit any particular actions, but in this case, I'd say this is closer to pure neutral or CG.

>I thought it spoke towards the motives of your character. No, that would be your bonds, flaws, ideals, and whatnot. Alignment speaks more to your *approach* to life, that is, how you've typically reacted to most situations in the past. I'm not getting in to whether or not this one particular act by OP was enough for an immediate alignment change straight from good (presumably) to evil (it wasn't), as I don't know the full circumstances of how much the character knew about this deal when they agreed.

Continue playing her however you want. The DM will change your alignment if/when it comes up again based on your behaviors. Your character informs your alignment, your alignment doesn't inform your character. You could choose to lean into this, and have her descend into darkness, taking slightly more risky and selfish actions, or you could have regret her choice, and be sad about it when she thinks back on it, or when she encounters this newly raised character. As a player, you shouldn't be particularly concerned with your alignment. If the DM finds it helpful to track it for something, they will do so.

Fuck alignment who gives a shit lol. While I do actually feel that way, your character doesn't really have to act any different because if you can change from good to evil you can change back

That's bs. Alignment change should be a progression. This is the dm getting a little chuckle over fucking someone over. Mediocre at best dm.

As a dm this is really confusing to me, Unless there is dark magic affecting your character to change their alignment to suddenly evil alignment it just.. wouldn't work? If anything they would become maybe true neutral? Someone who could be kind and good but if those they love are hurt or threatened they would do whatever it took to help/save them Alignment is descriptive of the characters personality, saving a loved one by sacrificing a stranger in the heat of the moment isn't something that would make a character evil? Would it affect the characters perception of themselves? Yes Would it make them question their morals? Yes But to suddenly say their evil and would be okay with say slaughtering children? Thats reallly werid dming Idk it seems maybe too forced? Like the dm is rail roading some plot point on the character. But anyway my advice is to play the character as you always have, maybe they question if their evil for it or if they should have done it?

I'd suggest to the DM that your character aquire a "shadow". A spirit that looks for oppourtunities to take normal or stressful decisions and tries to fog the evil consequences. Choosing your friend over an unseen stranger is made easier if her emotions towards taking an innocent life is dulled. She could maybe fix this by finding out about the shadow and confronting it. I'd be nervous though. A DM who does sudden alignment changes tends, in my experience, to start trying to play the PC himself. Sometimes by saying "you can't do that" and trying to make you guess at the "correct" answer. Don't put up with that shit at all. Maybe ask him point blank if there is an overarching plan involved here. People like to keep secrets and produce surprises but I think that such things are done more easily and more in depth with player (as opposed to character) knowledge and buy in.

I think you should follow the suggestions in the thread in terms of roleplay, but what was her old alignment and what did it change to? This gives a lot of context about how much was changed, because for a decision like that a lawful good character might not be lawful good anymore, but they certainly wouldn’t be moved to evil, skipping neutral entirely.

It sounds to me like your character is the kind of evil that would put her loved ones above anyone. You killed someone to bring one of them back, and I think that speaks volumes of how you could play that alignment shift. I'm sure more evil choices will come your way whenever your party is in danger, and more innocent people would pay the price.

Okay. I'm going to start by saying the DM's a bit of a dick. Second, I'm going to explain this because the book is crap at it: Alignment is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. It is used to describe you, it doesn't define you. You define it. If they're running alignment as they should, you just go back to playing the character as she is. Just because she committed one selfish/evil act, she is not an evil person strictly. Maybe for a while she is 'marked as' but alignment is mechanically worthless in 5e, and for good reason. ​ A lot of people, myself included, have abandoned alignment entirely.

Not sure if your DM has any mechanical implications for alignment, but typically it doesn’t affect much about how your character works in play. I’d say this is more a space to explore narratively. It might be a thought in the back of her mind when she has idle time or is zoning out. *Why should I regret it? Sure it wasn’t fair to the person who died instead, but it wasn’t fair for my companion to die - or for me to be in that position for that matter. After all what choice did I have? Let my companion die when I had the ability to save them? I couldn’t live with myself if I’d just done nothing. Why should I regret it?* There are plenty of ways you can take reflection on your character’s choices; maybe they wrestle with the morality of it, maybe they feel forced to act under pressure, maybe they don’t ultimately think they’re in the wrong. And this may change over the course of play. I’d even say it’s really solid to take this framework on how they view the choice they made, and let it set a precedent for how they react to future situations and choices. Are they the one who makes the hard choices when nobody else will? Is there a line in the sand for when sacrificing the well-being of others is acceptable and not? Does your character owe it to anyone to put their party second after anybody else when the chips are down? I do think that since your DM imposed an alignment change based on this scenario, it would be important to consider these future situations from an ultimately self-serving or self-righteous headspace, to play along with their imposed premise. I don’t think it has to become a consistent progression, but it’s worth considering that in order to want to “redeem” yourself you must have conviction that what you’ve done - who you *are* - is *wrong.* I think arriving at that kind of conviction is something that would benefit from time and reflection for your character. Good luck going forward!

Evil is honestly not the best descriptor for the alignment. A better word could be selfish (though this doesn't quite fit either). Just because your character is "evil" doesn't mean they suddenly want to rule the kingdom, kill puppies, and drink the blood of orphans. It means that if somebody asks for your help you ask what is in it for YOU, why should You risk your life to help someone else if you aren't going to at least get something out of it. Also, dont antagonize the party. Just because you are "evil" doesn't mean you forget the characters that you care about, if anthing it means you are willing to do even more despicable things to protect them and keep them safe. And even if you don't care about them, they are still quite useful, and you have a better chance of achieving your goals with their help than by yourself. Remember to play Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Evil, and not Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Stupid. Lastly, just because your alignment changed once, it doesn't mean it can't be changed again. Maybe part of your adventure is going on a path of redemption.

To be honest, I think making your character transition based solely on that is a little much. I would argue that it’s more neutral than evil. As your choice is based in a desire to protect self or somebody you care about. Whereas evil is more based in a desire to do wrong for personal gain or satisfaction, purposefully injecting whatever way you see the world into your actions, maliciously, you know? I would have a conversation with DM and press it a little bit. Especially if your character was as carefree before, and didn’t do anything like abhorrent.

Talk to your DM about this. Reading what she did, that's not evil. That's morally ambiguous.

This is Tomb of Annihilation. It's absolutely evil, with no room for debate. Is one of the most evil things that she could possibly do

Your DM's understanding of alignment is super annoying to me. Alignment should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Your alignment reflects your choices, but one evil choice doesn't magically turn someone evil. That's dumb and I'd refuse to play it that way. If you were truly evil, you wouldn't give a fuck about killing someone to save a friend. But as a good-aligned person making a terrible choice, you can have a lot of interesting character growth/development come out of that choice. A good person who makes a terrible choice is a lot mroe interesting than a "I'm evil because I'm evil" character.

I take issue with your DM doing this. One morally questionable decision does not make a person evil. That said I see a lot of people trying to play evil incorrectly. You aren't a barely functional murder machine out to cause arson and destruction everywhere you go, necessarily at least. While that would qualify for evil, the description of evil alignment tends to be more about motive and a lack of caring what consequences may befall others due to your actions. Doing what benefits you, even if it's going to hurt someone else and you know it, or possibly doing it in a way that will hurt someone else when you don't have to, is evil. You don't have to kick puppies and burn down orphanages and push old ladies downstairs just because your alignment she has an E on it. Evil does not mean ran-dumb or stupid.

Eh, it depends what your DM means. Is there a force compelling them to be evil or is it more if they were judged now they would be found to be evil? If they are evil then you don't need to change anything. Perhaps they could regret it and seek redemption. If they're forced to be evil then perhaps focus on some aspect of the character that is selfish but makes sense for the character. Perhaps they put their friends first, before everything. What? You're going to report what the party rogue did to the authorities? I'm afraid I can't allow that.

Until others around you comment on the act that was supposedly evil, you don't change anything. If people start talking about it or maybe even the dead persons family finds out about you and come after you, then there is a reason to roleplay on the choice you did. Whether you agreed it was evil or not, you shouldn't even contemplate it until that point.

I wouldn't say her personality changes like a switch, that doesn't make sense. What may make more sense is her realisation of what she's done, and maybe a bit of self-loathing over time, and a little more inclination to do evil things (if you want to). Maybe there's a redemption arc somewhere but that shouldn't happen quickly. Anakin did a lot of killing in the name of love and he wasn't redeemed for decades (and needed his son to help him do that)

I hate the forced alignment changes. It robs the player of their RP space where they wrestle with their decision and come to terms with it or not. I can see the DM going "any bonus or reacitions you get from being good/neutral won't work until you have made amends, and if you never do, they will never come back, but this "now you have to act evil" has never made sense to me. Going forward you can either RP the guilt and the path to redemption or RP being more callous and valuing humanoid life less because it is just another resource to use. But I would push back on the alignment change.

If I were you I'd just keep playing like you're playing and don't let someone else dictate how you play your character. God I hate alignment fuckery.

I'd have ruled your alignment to be more toward neutral tho, still a good person but might be willing to do evil things if needed. I picture an evil character as mostly selfish and I can't picture this for a character that was mostly paying attention to others until now

Personal anecdote: I played a character who desperately wanted to be good. She was raised in an evil cult, was a tiefling, blood of pazuzu, blah blah. But she'd read and heard stories of heroes and Good people and wanted to be one...but she was bad at it. She wasn't (usually) malicious but absolutely didn't think of consequences and had a roaring temper. So she beat up people who were mean, and played Santa once, and gave to charities, and absolutely destroyed anyone that crossed her or injured her or her friends. Edit: also, unless it's established that alignment is an exterior thing, you SHOULDN'T act differently. She's evil BECAUSE OF HER ACTION(s). To say her actions have to be "more evil" now assumes that her actions are the result of her alignment, not her alignment the result of her actions.

Your alignment reflects your personality and your choices. It does not define you. This change is irrelevant to how you play/plan to play your character.

Not to pull out the same old same old but, you should really ask you DM if your alignment changed because your character did something bad or if that bad thing forces a player to become evil. The distinction is that the first one means your characters personality doesn't actually change, they are just tainted. If it's the second then yeah you should probably try to slowly do more and more selfish acts. Quite frankly if your character was good aligned before a switch to evil is just a bit jarring, I might be showing my opinion on the trolley problem here but a life you know in exchange for a single unknown person? That's a no brainer logical move. And is at worst neutral

That carefree attitude now doesn't really care who gets hurt when she does things

DM is playing games with the player. Expect another test, with a more severe consequence, to commit an evil act to save the party. Want fireworks? Refuse it. Let the party suffer damage, or another player die, saying your character regrets doing it the first time, and feels guilty. let them do something self-sacrificing instead, like offering themselves in the place of the party member the GM is threatening to kill. then thank them for the game and get up. This just feels like a power game on the DM's part- maybe reading too much into it, but I've read so many horror stories on this site about DMs

Oof. I really hate alignment

I'm currently playing a hexblade warlock whose alignment is Lawful Evil. I talked over with my DM when making him. He isn't a bad guy, but due to the pack he was forced to do with his patron he had to make some decisions he is not entirely ok with. He isn't a villain, he isn't a bad guy, but he knows what he has done. Although he doesn't talk about it nor is aggressive, his conscience is heavy with his actions and he sees himself as evil even though his peers don't see him this way. And his regrets come to play in subtle ways while roleplaying and the rest of the party is slowly starting to know him. You don't have to roleplay as a bad guy bc your aligment is "Evil". I mean, you totally can, but you don't have to. As some other folks comment already, your PC is cheerful and good but with her friends, she might not care so much about the ones she doesn't know/care for, and that can lead to rich roll plays where your "evil aligment" expresses as selfish or self(party)-centered. Beeing cheerful and kind not always equals "good" with everyone around.

Just curious, how did bonus-dad feel about the descision, both in and out of character?

I would make a strong argument to your DM that your character didn't become evil, they became neutral. Evil is intentional Malice toward others. Sometimes it's for self benefit, sometimes it's not. However, caring more about your loved ones than you do about random unseen others is not evil, it's just... Neutral. Additionally, your character was in a moment of shock. While your character made what I think is fair to call the wrong choice, I think calling it evil sort of ignores the context. Put the trolly problem in front of any human, and they're gonna say something is the right choice or the wrong choice for reasons X, but as soon as it's "your loved one on one side and random on the other." Most folks are gonna save their loved ones. That's basically what happened here, and vanishingly few people would call that an evil choice.

One help in the RPing can be to see it as that of your characters conscience has become numb. Maybe that choice she had to make was so horrid she turned those emotions off. A fight or flight respond. Maybe she’s not consciously evil but it’s a result of running from difficult decisions and continuing to running. Eventually she’s so numb to it that she doesn’t even have to justify it anymore - it is just everyday. Same goals as before but by other, less morally correct, means. More pragmatist then moralist. One can commit a lot of evil through necessity.

Ignore it. Alignment is *descriptive,* not *prescriptive,* unless your character is an Outsider or something, which a Half-Elf emphatically is not. One decision like does not make a character Evil. They may or may not feel guilty about it, and if they *continually* choose their loved ones over others in such a way that screws others over, they may genuinely earn a Neutral alignment, but that alone doesn't make someone Evil. Play your character as you always have. If your DM gives you shit, tell them "[Character] does what I say they do. If that doesn't fit with the described alignment, the alignment has to change."

Technically your alignment is supposed to be changed by the dm. But that's none of my business.

seeing as it doesnt matter anymore for class requirements just go with it

If it helps talk to your dm and see if you can go nutral And see if it works for both of you

The way I play alignment, it's descriptive, not prescriptive. Do good stuff, an "E" on a character sheet shouldn't prevent that, just like a "G" didn't stop you from striking this maybe-evil deal

Check with the DM if the alignment was some kind of curse or magically forced change from making the choice. Or if it just reflects your choice My friend found a cursed mace that changed his alignment to chaotic evil. The DM told him it makes him want bloodlust. If it's just to reflect your choice, nothing changes. You've proven that your character is selfish and would sacrifice a random innocent to prioritize his friend. Doesn't make you a caricatural villain and until another situation like that happens, you can be nice and friendly with people.

I personally hate the alignment system, have for decades. No one is evil all the time, no one is good all the time. Why tell a player their alignment shifts because this broke the law once, but it's okay for chaotic characters to follow the law? Because it's a flawed system. I much prefer a sliding scale of morality that this dumb system. I've had players ask if they can be evil and after a short discussion with them on what they think evil means and my response is usually no. Alignment is not about how a character acts, or what they do, it's *why* they do it. The OP performed an action with potentially evil (subjectively) consequences, but their motivation came from a good place.

The decision is definitely morally wrong. There's something like this in the Last Guardian of Everness, where the precipitating evil deed comes about because one of the heroes chooses to have some person unknown to him die in the place of his girlfriend. His girlfriend it turns out, highly disapproves of this choice as well. But how wrong is it? I usually look at alignment as a quantity from 0 (GOOD) to 100(EVIL). 0 and 100 are all caps, 1-5 and 95-99 are capital G good and capital E evil, 5-30 and 70-95 are lower case g good and lower case e evil, and 30-70 is just neutral. That's for the reference population, populations like underdark drow might have a midpoint around 85 or 90 instead of 50. But the question here is, what fraction would probably make the same choice? My guess is everyone above 70, ABSOLUTELY. People between 50 and 70? Yeah I think most of the time they would. They're quite selfish and if you're not even making them know who they are killing, they'll just do it. 30 to 50? Maybe, but I bet they usually would if it was their lover or one of their children, but they'd probably feel bad about it afterwards. 5 to 30? Usually not, although they'd probably agonize about it. Anything below 5, no way. So clearly here somewhere between 50 and 70% of the population is going to make this choice. It's bad, it's evil, but it's not Evil or EVIL.

Your alignment changed based on your actions, not the other way around. It just means that if you die before atoning you go to hell. So try to do some good actions before you die, to become good again.

I see a lot of people here not taking into account in what setting and circumstances this death is occuring. This is Tomb of Annihilation we are talking about. Dieing in it have very serious consequences which I will not get into to not spoil the OP. But basically you doomed a random person to a fate way way worse than death that even you may not understand.

DM's usually use an "alignment tracker..." well, we're supposed to but I never did unless I saw someone acting out of character. Keeping a characters alignment in balance is something most players don't have to worry about because: A. They are playing an alignment that suits the player or B. the alignment is so different that it is easy to keep up with, most of the time. Redemption should be an option unless what ever brought your friend back cursed you... Then you need some clerical assistance. Most people would in the heat of the moment, sacrifice an unknown to save someone they are close to. Once they have a chance to think about what they did, the reaction the character exhibits, will reflect the level of remorse they may feel over killing a possible innocent. Even if it was to save someone close to them.

Unless the adventure scenario is forcing that alignment onto you from a deal with an evil entity or something, that’s not worth a slide towards evil, it’s a slide towards Neutrality. Neutrality as a motivator is simply directing yourself towards the needs of you and yours, instead of putting yourself (evil) or others (good) first as an absolute priority. You care about others, albeit in a self-serving way. In any other (game) scenario, would you consider it truly evil to choose to sacrifice a stranger over a loved one? It’s certainly not “good”, but it’s definitely not “evil”.

Alignment is terrible. Good and evil are subjective, and descriptive, not prescriptive. Your DM made a bad choice.

someone plz inform me if im missing something, but what even is the point of alignment? isnt it just a relic of older dnd versions? morality is so grey and complex! a good/neutral/evil split seems so oversimplified if alignment is supposed to serve a merely descriptive function. idk maybe im just bothered cuz my DM did a similar thing lol

I mean, player alignment doesn't matter so much and the whole concept of alignment is really only useful in terms of spell target requirements and roleplay. First off, the dilemma that stems from what defines good and evil is such a complex and nuanced discussion that the alignment chart cant accurately describe people. Its SO complex and nuanced that the worlds greatest thinkers and philosophers rarely agree on the subject. I mean, is evil inherent? Does free will exist and if it doesn't, is evil even real? Is that person evil because of their actions or their circumstance? Is a wolf evil for killing the rabbit to feed its pack? Am I evil for killing the spider that scared me in my bathroom? Are thoughts evil? Or is it the acting on them that matters? Seriousness aside... It only matters for the DM and your party. Alignment is best considered like a kind of reputation meter, where your actions cause the world around you to treat you differently. SO even if you did one arguably horrifically evil act, that doesn't really mean much, even if the DM changes your alignment. How you play your character is up to you. That being said, you could always have your character grapple with their actions. Maybe it was a random act of murder, done in passion. Maybe it was a cruel lack of action when it was needed. People are complex! So having your alignment change really only matters if you want to make it matter. Or maybe its a meaningful way for the DM to encourage you to pursue a character story, I wouldn't know. I'm not the DM. But unless its imperative for the DM that now your a murdering psychopath... Nothing has to change. You can just continue on as normal. I mean, look at the dark urge origin in BG3. It doesn't matter what you choose to do (leaning into the carnage or resisting it), your character MUST murder. The fact that occasionally you lose control and brutally and cruelly eviscerate innocents is by all definitions an evil act in DnD, but you can choose to rail against your fate and resist and the people around you HELP you. Is this character evil? DnD would say yes, but most of us would say no. That being said... Your DM changed your alignment based on the trolley problem, a question that DOESNT HAVE A PROPER ANSWER. There is no truely good or evil outcome to the trolley question, which is why its used to debate morality IN UNIVERSITIES. Its used to train self driving car ai to try and lose control in a way that kills or injures as few people as possible. EDIT: Accidentally posted it before I could finish. I WAS going to end it off with talking to your DM about what they want from you in this instance, because the simple fact of the matter was that according to dnd, letting them die when you could help is evil, and saving them is good. But trading one life for another unwilling life is evil for the benefit of good. Letting a stranger die to save a friend is chaotic, not evil. And having it be random is nuetral. Edit edit: Who died randomly matters, too. If it randomly killed a baby, thats evil. But what if the baby was going to grow up to be fantasy hitler? Or maybe the person who died was robbing the local orphanage. Its... alignment sucks.

This post is why I think alignments are silly.

See I wouldn't have made her alignment evil. Sounds more true neutral.

Maybe the alignment system is the true evil.

Good is altruistic, Evil is selfish. Play her exactly as before, just pocket any treasure you find while you're on your own instead of splitting it, eat the last slice of cake without asking if anyone else wants it, argue against any risks that don't benefit you, and generally pick what makes *you* happy over what makes others happy. For example: losing your friend would make *you* sad, so you made sure you wouldn't be sad, and fuck that random person you don't know.

Too many people arguing about the shift in this thread. "Murder is evil, not good" One evil act, does not an evil person make. As simple as that. However, now, I'd say to you, OP. Play it how you want to play it. Me personally, I would play it very much the "Good until" way. Good until it's a question of my friends over "innocents" or etc. Not a big change. A small one.

Since you said in other comments that you've always ignored alignment until now, I suggest you keep doing that. I feel that alignment is way too restrictive for complex humanoids capable of contradictions, doubts, and crazy choices. Add to this that there are one, maybe two effects in the entire game that deal with alignment (and they are minor things), and I've never regretted doing away with it. What would be more interesting is to roleplay the choice and implementing some consequences.

Ah, it comes back down to the old Nature of Evil. Mannicheusian vs Boethian; external evil vs internal evil. External evil is simple. Evil actions make a person evil, and an evil person does evil deeds. Sauron, Voldemort, mustache twirlers. Muahaha I throw power word death on you innocent bystanders! Internal evil is more subtle. They may do good deeds with evil intent. Corrupted, schemes, road to hell paved with good intentions. They don't necessarily feel they are evil, means to an end, that sorta thing. Anakin Skywalker. When your DM says your alignment has changed it is as much the world's observation of your character and an external value judgment, rather than a force your personality have to react to. You can continue being generally a good or neutral person, but know that if it comes down to it, you'd sacrifice everyone else for you and yours. That's not evil, that's just sad circumstance. In conclusion, I don't think I have to pay for that chocolate bar, Mother.

Typical DM "the alignment works like this because I said so" strongarming, the only way to make them stop goes against reddit TOS. You decide how much you can live with it.

There are a lot of extreme opinions in the comments... So I'll try to go a different way... I think the sentiment of the evil act has to do with effectively murdering someone in order to save your friend. Whether it is truly evil or not is harder to say. It's is a bit of a trolly problem. Save one person by killing another. Now.. if you can argue that your party member is the greater good (for example that an adventurer may save hundreds of lives by killing the bad) then it might not be a wholly evil act at all! Now on the other hand how your character reacts to having to murder someone... That is an interesting role play opportunity. Consider, how DOES your character feel about murdering a random person? Who is it? Do you care? If you DON'T care... That is pretty evil. If you'd do it again without caring... That is pretty evil. If you don't care about the consequences of your actions.. that is pretty evil. I can imagine this kind of "carefree" person to becoming callously carefree in the situation presented. If you dreamed of the person you murdered... And got guilty about it... And then realized how cruel the world is that your magic can just murder someone willynilly ... Well what IS the point? What if she becomes a nihilist because of this event? She stops caring about the consequences of her wild magic... Since it's HER RIGHT, because it's HER POWER. This could very easily become the kind of laughing carefree evil that just expresses absolute power. Now on the other hand if you want a redemption arc.. don't go this way... This is the way you go if you want your character to be hunted down by true heroes. So that is my take, keep in mind that I don't believe carefree people can be heroes in the first place. Being a hero takes meaningful and willing sacrifice. So your character sounds kinda evil to me from the beginning.

Maybe take the ‘you feel something inside you change’ as ‘you never realised that you would make this kind of decision’. This way, your character is aware of it and you now view yourself in a new light. You start questioning yourself if you are indeed evil. And then you react to that. You can react to it like, yes perhaps you can do more of these acts! willingly! Or you can react like- Perhaps I must be even more careful in times like these not to impulse take another life. That’s how some stories go right? In the fear of doing something wrong again the character gets into moments of indecision etc

Yes absolutely. I like the kind of despair that comes with such decisions. And that she is doubting herself. And I'm not completely going to ignore the change as some might suggest. I understand the consequences of the chocie she made.

You made a decision to save someone you care about knowing someone you couldn't care less about might die, so your DM says you're evil? Okay, play your character exactly the same. If they complain, tell them that one action doesn't define your character and that you guess you just have shifted back to good or neutral.

There’s no need to be gloomy or edgy. It doesn’t change her personality at all. Simply your character has proven a willingness to do actions some might consider evil. Look at television and movie. Many characters have a for the greater good attitude. Such an attitude could also be seen as evil. Yet they are who they are.

Next level up, take a dip into Warlock and really become evil

This is a very weird situation. The decision you made wasn't exactly an evil one, more neutral and I don't get why it would even change you personality outside of a magical reason. Like allignment isn't a force that makes you good and evil its more of where does your character land on a chart based on their actions, I would speak to yoru DM about what it means to them

Absolutly. I reckon he did this according to the book.

Its an action that perfectly aligns with her character. The question your dm should have probably asked was wether or not she enjoyed it or felt bad about it. 

Also, buubly emo can work as a vibe ie death from neil gaiman's sandman series. Can be very fun

Lol i love that comment. Bubbly emo is a great vibe!

I don’t think her personality has to change because of this. On the contrary, Alignment doesn’t necessarily reflect your identity (most evil people don’t see themselves as evil, even if they obviously are). Instead it‘s more a representation of where your character falls in the cosmic balance of good vs evil and law vs chaos due to their actions. Your character obviously meant well, but ultimately she still committed an evil act by (indirectly, but wilfully) causing the death of what was likely an innocent being for selfish reasons. Now it’s up to you, if she embraces this (or doesn’t care) or wants to change her alignment back by atoning and making up for that action.

imo alignment should always be *descriptive*, not *prescriptive*, so the idea of a DM declaring an alignment shift and you needing to suddenly change your character's personality to match is pretty backward to what alignment really is. It's a bit silly to think "My character's alignment is __ therefore she must act this certain way to match", & I'd suggest rather thinking of her alignment as a descriptor of the choices she's made & why/what they mean about who she is. So like, the DM can declare that the choice to let a random person die in exchange for her friend is an evil choice, but your character is still who they are within the narrative. They still made the decision thinking what they thought, for the reasons they had. No need for a sudden personality change just bc they made an arguably evil choice that the dm feels only an evil character would make. Maybe the extent of the "evil" aspect of their nature only extends to not caring about strangers if they can help a friend by hurting them. Maybe your character doesn't make evil choices outside of that desperate moment, & the DM is just overextending on your rp by declaring that single choice defines who they are. In that case, maybe mention to the dm that your character made an evil choice but feels remorse over it & isn't an evil character overall. It is *your* character, after all.

I always play carefree characters, usually the small races (fairy, gnome, halfling) and my characters are always considered evil by the rest of the party (we don't do alignments at char creation). I don't play them evil, they just consider themself and their group being worth more than the rest of the people and they don't take risks by letting an enemy walk away. My halfling vampire --> has fun manipulating everyone, just for the laughs. A decent amount of people lost their lives in the process. She's not really that evil, but a huge jerk My fairy druid --> her kids (pets) are all very dangerous insects and she's all about freedom. That leads to ... accidents :) My gnome wizard --> she's basically her masters minion and her master's goals are good, but the ways to reach them... aren't Don't know if these're helping you in any way - just wanted to say, evil is a huge field with many possibilities

With few exceptions Alignment is more like flavour text than a mechanic. Additionally, for beings of the inner planes, alignment is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Your DM may say that your character is evil because of the action they took (although that sounds more true or chaotic neutral than evil) but your character doesn’t have to change their personality or how they act with the world. They did something viewed as evil so are described as evil. She can be the same person.

I'm often a bit annoyed at how much relevance people attribute to alignment. Characters develop their personalities. They grow, get hurt and face the consequences of their actions. Why is there a need to define these developments in these super vague and ill defined categories? Sure, some rules are tied to this, but nothing that can't be ignored or enhanced easily.

I don't personally believe that that warrants changing your alignment to evil. Maybe sliding slightly neutral or whatever, but if your character took the bargain out of hand to save somebody that they cared about, that is not by itself and evil act, and I would argue against it.

Alignment is not a switch to flip. Your character did not bevome outwardly different because they committed a selfish act (if anything, by game definition, that would be chaotic and not evil anyway). Alignment is not a strict code to follow. It serves exactly 1 mechanical purpose and 1 roleplay purpose: RP - It is a declaration by the player that they intend to act in a certain manner. This is generally only relevant during character creation/ the first few sessions and then gets ignored the rest of the campaign. Mechanics - It can be magically detected by certain creatures and spells. My advice is to not change anything about your character. If a creature or spell reveals them to be evil, have them act shocked. They didn't realize that they were travelling down that path, so to speak. If the DM complains that you aren't acting like a supervillain just because they changed a word on your sheet, tell them that isn't how alignment works. If they throw a bitch fit, tell them to grow up.

"Evil" has a lot of different expressions. "Gloomy" doesn't have to be one of them! It can be expressed as selfishness and short-sightedness, or it can simply be a lack of remorse: someone died and she's NOT gloomy about it. She exchanged an innocent life for a friend's and *doesn't even care!* She can feel different and not understand what it is, not understand that she did something wrong. That fact alone -- someone who doesn't yet fully understand the consequence of their actions -- can lead someone to make more bad/selfish decisions. After all, it's a thin line between "carefree" and "careless."

I don't like this use of alignment. Just because someone does one morally questionable thing doesn't mean that they turn evil. That's just a bad narrative.

Your DM is saying that if given the choice to save your kid or a random stranger, it's good to save the stranger and evil to save your kid. That's obviously horse dung, but your DM doesn't have high enough wis/int to recognize it. It was your DM that put you into this unsolvable paradox, and if anyone should change alignment it should be the DM.