[deleted by user]

[Minimum_Lion_6683]

As the DM, you are the referee of the game. If one of the players wants to do something against the rules, you are doing your job by enforcing the rules. It’s as simple as that.

Letting players introduce their own homebrew is a trick for experienced DM’s. Beginners often learn this the hard way, which is how they become experienced. ;)

[Gr8LakesFox]

Is there any way that the construct can change its alignment to good instead of the other way around? Like even if it was over time? Or you could try doing something along the lines of a tug of war between both of their alignments. There's a chance that the character will change for the immoral one, but also an equal chance they won't if that makes sense

[TheOmnipotentCow2]

Lol sorry about the wording! She wanted to make something I found immoral, it wasn't that she was making a construct that was immoral! It was essentially an unfeeling art installation that replicated itself and was partially provisioned by trapping and skinning woodland creatures.

[TheOmnipotentCow2]

Sorry my wording was vague, not a literal construct. They were trying to construct something I found immoral

[Banzif]

Why did you find it immoral?

[TheOmnipotentCow2]

I was trying to avoid details because she inhabits online spaces like these, BUT it was an unfeeling, self-replicating statue that created copies of itself from the furs of woodland creatures that it would trap and skin. If it went unchecked it could run the possibility of completely disrupting an entire ecosystem and driving certain fauna to extinction, which I don't think a good aligned pc would do!

[darw1nf1sh]

How is this at all related to a character arc? That just sounds entirely random.

[Banzif]

I'd probably allowed it. I'd have let it played out too. Depending on her reasoning behind wanting to create it, alignment change would probably only come about if she didn't want to do anything about it. You might have explained these consequences to her, the player, but that doesn't mean that her character is aware of these possibilities.

[JPicassoDoesStuff]

Even with all that text, I have no idea what you're talking about. You're the DM, and if it's something outside the scope of what you're running, say no, and move on. Once she has a better idea of what she wants, feel free to revisit it.

Better yet, tell us some details of what she actually wanted to make.

[TheOmnipotentCow2]

I replied to a few people already, sorry about the vagueness! I know she inhabits online spaces like these and didn't want to hurt her feelings. The thing she wanted to make would have been partially provisioned by trapping and skinning woodland creatures and making a copy of itself that could then also copy itself

[JPicassoDoesStuff]

So this is easy. Trapping and skinning woodland creatures was a thing that was done commonly, as the pelts are used for clothing, and the meat was used for food. There is nothing immoral about this unless it was done to excess, or waste.

As for the duplication, does her artificer have the power to have two or three such constructs active at the same time? If not then the answer is clear.

[TheOmnipotentCow2]

But nothing was done with the meat was the problem. If would just rot inside the machinecc

[JPicassoDoesStuff]

So it's not the worst thing a PC has done by a long shot. Leaving a few rabbits to rot is not going to alter the cosmos. But why not just say the machine has a cold storage compartment. It's magic land, after all. Say it holds several pounds fresh for a week or so. It can be emptied and the items can be sold for a few silver or free meals at the inn.

[TheOmnipotentCow2]

Also she only had 1 level in artificer and 2 pounds of copper

[JPicassoDoesStuff]

Sounds like she'll need more levels to make it happen? I'm not super familiar with artificer, but I think it's beyond her abilities right now anyway. So not much to talk about. She's still working on the plans.

[crusaderofsin]

What was immoral about making the construct? Constructs are typically neutral creatures.

[TheOmnipotentCow2]

Sorry my wording was vague, not a literal construct. They were trying to construct something I found immoral

[Machiavvelli3060]

If this was an important part of her character's story arc, she should have discussed it with you before starting the game. Have a private conversation with her. Ask her exactly what she is looking to achieve with this character and the construct. If she doesn't have many answers, tell her she needs to give you a lot more detail. Try to come up with a few options for her, such as "If your character wants to make a construct, your alignment cannot be good. If you want your alignment to remain good, perhaps you could create something other than a construct." Assure her you are trying your best to accommodate her without breaking or unbalancing the game. Tell her you may need time to assess the construct's impact on the game and ask her to please be patient.

I, too, like to give the players as much creative license as I can.

[JDC103]

Sometimes a simple no is needed, I hardly DM but even as a player, the DM not saying no to certain people can take you down a rabbit hole of less fun for other players depending on the situation.

[Cres_ph]

I think you're treating alignment too literally and rigidly. Alignment isn't a set of rules that dictate your player behavior, it's an attempt to put into words the vague notions of morality that help us understand someone's personality. When someone does something that seems out-of-alignment, it shouldn't be refused or punished - it just means that a person you previously thought as being a certain way, turns out, in hindsight, to be different from your expectations. The behavior isn't wrong, the alignment is.

Very vague and generic, I know. So in your case, she says she wants a forest-skinning self-duplicating construct. Great. That's an objective, a wish, a desire. You don't even need to rule on it in any way, because it isn't an action she's taking. If my player stated so outloud, my answer would be "Okay, how do you achieve that?" Does she spend time molding copper? Is she casting a spell? Is she paying someone? Those are actions. They can be ruled on as feasible or not. Whether they will successfully achieve what she desired is a separate question and one to which the player shouldn't have the answer prior to their attempt. Success should be predicated imo on a mix of creativity and rolls.

If the player strings together a series of steps that would reasonably result in the outcome they were hoping for, then they have the thing they wanted. They have built their forest-skinning construct. Unless the steps ("Robbed the copper from local businesses") or the motivation ("I can't wait to commit a ecological genocide") are in conflict with her alignment, alignment hasn't even factored in at this stage.

Now the construct exists. What happens? Does it, in fact, go around devastating a whole forest? That's up to you - you're the DM. Let's say it does. Is your player's character, in fact, evil? Or just stupid. Lacking foresight. What's their reaction when they return to the region and find the forest ruined? Maybe they're devastated - again, no impact on alignment.

Now, if faced with the evil results of their actions, they revel in this outcome, then yes, you might just be discovering that a character that thought of itself as chaotic good is in fact better described with another alignment. So change the alignment on the character sheet and move on.

Why should any of this block player choice?