Me, the DM: Are you taking this opportunity to attune to the weapon?
Player: Yeah, I’ll do that now.
Me: Cool. What’s your alignment?
P: What? You tell me!
Me: Would you say you’re evil? Because if not, you’re about to be.
@EmpyClaw With the understanding that 9point alignment is about Big Fucking Heroes, I think alignment is about intention, with known side effects being pulled into the intent. Attuning to an evil sword doesn't inherently make you evil, doing the things that makes the sword evil would. The sword might have an ego that tells you to do evil things, and it might even compel you to do those evil things, and I think the shift in alignment would come afterwards, when the character doesn't unattune.
@RethinkJeff I don’t disagree. Perfectly valid method.
In this case, the item has a Wisdom save on attunement and then their alignment shifts on a fail.
From a purely game mechanics standpoint, I think that’s fine. “This weapon does something to you that affects your character. Adjust your play accordingly.” Akin to saves against madness and its affects.
I do love from a roleplay aspect the idea of the slow shift, the voice from the blade, the changing actions until they succumb to Evil.
@RethinkJeff I think it depends on the player and the GM. Some people prefer well-defined boundaries, especially with things that impact how they play the character, and time to adjust. Others thrive with the nebulousness and drama from the other approach.
Funny enough, his character was already Evil at the time (on paper, less so in practice if we thought about it).
I think it creates an interesting moment where the game rules create drama. How it plays out from here is up to the player.
@EmpyClaw I mostly have problems with altering character behavior, character consequences are great! I like to be in charge of the behavior that drives those consequences though. Agree with it depending on player/gm/group though.