Tell me more ×
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Related to my other question, my PCs who have become were-rats don't want to become Chaotic Evil, but do want to remain uncured. They're up for struggles and such, and aren't looking for it to necessarily be as useful as being natural lycanthropes. But the big hurdle is that the DC to avoid permanently changing alignment is "15 + number of times he has been in animal form."

I suppose an Atonement spell might be an option. Or maybe an item based on it. This is new territory for me, and I'm wondering if y'all know of any good solutions for afflicted were-rat PCs who want to remain non-evil.

share|improve this question
What KRyan said. If Will save vs changing alignment is still desired, it should be based on actions in animal form, not on number of times the form is changed to animal. – Jeor Mattan Jan 10 at 7:46
@Jeor, just make clear that this is the opposite of what the RAW states..u can go against RAW if u want but be aware u are doing it though..that said I agree it should be for actions commited, not automatic alignment change...to incorporate both just make the failed save compell them to do something that earns that alignment change. (Although id go with a modified roll rule, using below answers as guides, instead of the books – Ben-Jamin Jan 10 at 17:08
Was under impression that KRyan made that exact point in the first place. Yes, he explicitly advices houseruling a part of RAW away, and I can only agree this time. – Jeor Mattan Jan 10 at 17:19
I think they should be slowly become chaotic evil if they choose to stay wererats. That's the point. It's a curse! – okeefe Jan 10 at 17:38
1  
The counterpoint is that they should slowly become chaotic evil via roleplaying, as opposed to a natural 1 on a will save. – Jeor Mattan Jan 10 at 17:45
show 2 more comments

2 Answers

up vote 10 down vote accepted

Just eliminate it entirely as a really poor design decision in the first place. It’s totally not necessary.

The effects of the template should be role-played. So the character should have to struggle with primal urges and the like, and the player should try to make this interesting and part of his character’s story. But his alignment should not arbitrarily just change. The alignment change should be treated as a thing that happens to the weak-willed, perhaps, or to commoners unprepared for the magical assault on their bodies, minds, and souls (as adventurers, even low-level ones, might be). It might be a thing that could happen to a player, if he indulged those urges. But not automatic.

I don’t particularly like the idea of Will saves vs. compulsion to enact said urges. A good roleplayer shouldn’t need to be forced, and ultimately the effects of a few bad rolls in a row could be very problematic for keeping the player’s character as the character he wants to play. This kind of mechanic could be done well, but ultimately I’d rather just make it a plot-device that the player can play with. And if the player isn’t interested in doing so, then I really don’t think making him roll Will saves is a good idea: it is a game, after all. Forcing the player to “play” a game he doesn’t enjoy doesn’t make much sense, and strikes me as rude.

share|improve this answer
+1 for bringing up that good roleplayers want this kind of conflict in their characters, and don't need mechanical sticks to prevent them from abusing it. Just because the system is set up to regulate munchkins doesn't mean good players should suffer. – lisardggY Jan 10 at 22:30

I'd look at using a system where the were-players have to regularly save to avoid giving in to urges, but if they fail, it's the equivalent of magical compulsion in terms of alignment change - they will probably not be changed if they resist it.

Something like full moons, good food and drink, and so forth might be triggers, and unless the PCs can make a Will save against a DC of (10 + half their save modifier + situation + resistance), where resistance (modifier of -5 for detestable actions to +10 for something they have no problem with) is how much their characters would defy it on a personal level and situation (modifier of -10 for horrible targets to +10 for an ideal subject) is based on how the well the target suits the compulsion, they have to react.

Examples:

A were-PC (Will +16) is alone in a dungeon and is hungry. He wants to eat, but there isn't any food left. However, he finds some human prisoners. Cue an urge to eat one, the plumpest of the lot (+5 situation), which fills the character with horror (-5 resistance).

DC (10 + 16/2 + 5 + -5) = 10 + 8 = 18, a fairly easy save for this character as cannibalism is definitely not something most PCs would even contemplate. The player rolls 12. The character feels the urge but can keep it in check.

However, he later finds some spoiled meat. It might make him ill, but his were-rat self wants it. His save gets a +2 situation modifier as the meat doesn't look/smell too bad, and a +6 resistance modifier as he is now much hungrier than earlier.

DC (10 + 12/2 + 2 + 6) = 10 + 6 + 2 + 6 = 24, a slightly harder save. With a 6, the player fails. His character tears into the meat, ripping at it with his hands.

Of course, a player can decide not to resist an urge. This system is intended to make players more aware of the potential dangers of lycanthropy rather than take control of their characters completely. If they are constantly making forced actions, I'd suggest changing the modifiers slightly.

share|improve this answer
Please explain downvotes – Dakeyras Jan 9 at 23:08
2  
Adding their bonus on Will saves (even if it is halved) to the DC of their Will save makes no sense. Why would being better at Will saves make the save harder? Ignoring that, if you must know, I will downvote any answer that recommends turning alignment into a mechanical trap. I think that is always a bad idea. – KRyan Jan 9 at 23:08
1  
Ah, well, that's a point; I misread. Still, I don't like control of player characters away from players like this. But it is thematic and in keeping with the original rule, so I accept that. The Will thing, though, I still disagree on strongly. – KRyan Jan 9 at 23:31
1  
I honestly wouldn't suggest this approach just because it's really fiddly and adds annoying amounts of rolling to the game. I don't think it's bad in concept, just that it could be streamlined to function a bit better. – Lord_Gareth Jan 10 at 4:08
1  
@Ben-Jamin The addition of half the will save bonus has the same effect as halving the will save bonus the player can use for this roll. The main purpose is to make it hard even for players with high saves, yet allow people with low saves to have a chance at succeeding. – Dakeyras Jan 10 at 15:59
show 2 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.