D&D 5E How do you measure, and enforce, alignment?

[goatmeal]

The nice thing about 5e is that alignment isn't as connected to the mechanics as it was in previous editions.

An idea I had on using the alignment system was to think of it like a heatmap (as in the baseball strike zone). What conditions result in LG behavior and what conditions result in LE behavior for example. I never used this idea, because ultimately the alignment system never seemed quite that important. But feel free to try it out if you feel otherwise.

 

[clearstream]

No. They're not. Alignments are where your character sits (on average) as far as morals and ethics go. That's not the same thing as motivations. A motivation is something like getting revenge for your murdered family, and that can apply to all characters regardless of alignment.

Hmm, it appears we diverge fundamentally on how we use them. And maybe that's why they work for me. "I want revenge and am lawful good" drives the character to act one way, whereas "I want revenge and am chaotic evil" drives them to act a different way. Indeed, the kinds of detailed motives a character might adopt depend on their alignment. "My family was murdered and I expect justice" for a lawful character, versus "My family was murdered and it is up to me to avenge them" for a chaotic. Or even "My family was murdered and my focus is to rob my sister of her inheritance" for an evil one. In all these cases, alignment plays a valuable role in shaping and driving our narrative.

 

[Ratskinner]

On the contrary, the mechanic works best when there's consensus between DM and players about what it means. And, contrary to the table-fight horror stories that make their way to online alignment threads, consensus really is the norm. It's seldom contentious that the monsters trying to destroy the town are evil and the heroes trying to protect the town are good. We should keep it in perspective that hard corner-cases are the exception rather than the rule in this game. Personally, I've been playing for nearly two decades with a variety of different groups, and I've never had a serious disagreement over alignment in actual play. Ever. Seriously.

Thank the gods we have your vast and universally applicable experience to guide us and tell me how wrong I am about all the alignment arguments I've witnessed and been a part of since I started playing about 1980. Certainly you and your groups must represent the entirety of anyone's possible experience with D&D and I bow to your wisdom...

Oh wait, I don't. Look, alignment doesn't work best with consensus about what it means...it only works with consensus about what it means. Otherwise, we end up with the "orc baby" scenario or any of a hundred others that come up virtually every single time a DM tries to "enforce" alignment. Every. Single. Time. At least in my experience.

You don't want to reward characters for specific behaviors. That potentially leads to degenerate incentive structures -- e.g., "I get XP for donating valuable treasure to my church, so I should acquire as much valuable treasure as possible by any means necessary!" That doesn't seem like what you were going for, does it? Where alignment is concerned, general is better. If you want a character to be an honorable-knight sort of guy, you should have him behave with overall honorable-knight-style conduct, rather than picking out some particular actions you associate with honorable knights.

I can't agree that general does anything to prevent degenerate behavior. I've witnessed far too much "Lawful Stupid" and other less-than-polite euphemisms for degenerate behavior, especially when Paladins or other morality-centric characters are concerned. I've also played other games that operate on similar premises, and they work fine.

But really, you don't want to reward characters for conduct at all. What if this character stops putting himself at risk to defend the innocent, and instead starts putting the innocent at risk to profit himself? Is that worse? Well, morally, yes, of course it is, but from the perspective of gameplay and narrative it seems like a perfectly valid character development. And it's not really fair that the character would keep reaping XP/inspiration awards for staying an honorable knight but must forgo them by changing conduct this way. Incentivizing LG/honorable-knight conduct (or whatever conduct matches the alignment/alignment-surrogate selected at character creation) inhibits natural character growth and evolution. Alignment is a tool for describing character conduct, not prescribing it. Acting the honorable knight? Wonderful: call 'em "LG", no penalty or reward except those that come from in-universe alignment-based effects. Acting the sanctimonious hypocrite? Just as wonderful: call 'em "LE", no penalty or reward except those that come from in-universe alignment-based effects.

Firstly, I was responding to the premise of the thread which is, in part, about "enforcement". That sorta requires prescribing behavior. Secondly, most of the games and alignment-replacement systems that actually carry out the sort of system I'm talking about allow or provide for changes in the selected behaviors (D&D is the system that didn't). In a D&D context, I've seen this opportunity provided at level changes and at a character's rejection of his alignment keys (See the Sweet 20 Experience System). Thirdly, this kind of thing is already in 5e as the Inspiration mechanic deriving from the Ideals, Bonds, and Traits of a character's background. It is merely a very mild version. It doesn't seem to be destroying anyone's game. Fourthly, back in the day, you couldn't avoid this, because several classes had alignment/behavior restrictions that inherently enforced such restrictions and explicitly prescribed the results of losing your status as a paladin or whatever. So the question of "is it evil to kill a goblin baby"? could take on dire consequences for some characters and players.

 

[Caliban]

I don't have to enforce alignment, my player's do that to each other.

Yes, I started doing this as well after I found that keeping track of alignment infractions was distracting me from running the game.

Once I gave each player a remote that can activate other players shock collars, they were able to handle alignment enforcement for me.

Also, they are much more polite towards each other now.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I use a one-axis alignment system. Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic. These are not shorthand for your personality type, but speak to how you are aligned with the powers of the Cosmos. You're either an agent of the forces of Law, or the forces of Chaos, or you're just a normal person going about their business (Neutral). Most people are Neutral.

You can be a right bastard (murdering, thieving, even torturing) and still be Neutral, as long as you're doing it for earthly, material reasons. People "just following orders" from an insane dictator are "Neutral".

Being Chaotic means a deeper commitment to destroying the universe as it's intended by Law. Demons, Devils, Undead, and Fey are all Chaotic, although the exact form of the destruction they seek varies. Devils seek to enslave, Demons seek to corrupt, Undead seek to destroy life itself, and Fey seek to destroy free will.

Because alignment isn't about personality, there aren't many roleplaying restrictions. "Enforcement" is more about magic; like "This sword will shock anyone who tries to wield it that isn't Chaotic" or "The angelic guardians to door will not let anyone who isn't Lawful enter".

 

[smbakeresq]

Go read Dragon Magazine #60, there is an excellent article about Alignment by John Lees. Its available online. ITs a great treatise

 

[Ilbranteloth]

This is kind of where the entire weakness of the system comes in: it doesn't distinguish between actions and thought. In this case, a character is evil because he thinks evil thoughts.

By this metric, ANY character who is struggling against their inner beast is evil, even if they win each and every time.

So a wizard setting his glyph says "it targets evil people" and then it blows up his paladin of devotion friend, who despite sticking to his vows and never stepping out of line internally struggles with thoughts of wielding his power to force goodness and light on a world of moral decrepitude.

And in this case a character is not good even when he thinks good thoughts. How many good actions does it take to make him good? How many evil actions does it take to make him evil? Does he become evil by performing evil actions but not enjoying them?

I don't think that either character fits within the alignment system neatly, and I don't think any of the outcomes of applying the alignment system make sense to building a story. And therefore I ask myself "If the alignment system cannot handle complex characters in a way that makes a good story, what value does it have?"

Which is why in my campaign, something that targets evil creatures is only triggered by fiends and very evil people. That is evil is a force that can corrupt (a la Star Wars, among other sources), and it takes a lot of evil actions to actually tread down that path. And there are other risks involved along the way (such as attracting the attention of true evil creatures like demons and devils, for one, it's also directly dangerous to your health).

Alignment is a role-playing tool, just like ideals and bonds, in my campaign, whereas good and evil are also cosmic energies that can be acted upon in extraplanar and some other creatures.

Class abilities aren't tied to alignment in my campaign, but if you commit evil acts, you may become corrupted and start moving down a path that can be hard to reverse. A certain amount of corruption is enough to register as "evil" in relation to spells, etc.

The 5e Adventures in Middle Earth has a Shadow system that's similar to what I do. They have a list of acts that might impose a Shadow point, which is measured against your Wisdom. They have a very cool system of bad stuff that happens as you continue down that path, and I'll probably be using some of their ideas in my campaign too.

 

[Lylandra]

We neither measure, nor enforce alignment in our current group. Because we don't have to and as said previously, alignment in general is more of an average point of view. Real people are far more complex than what can be measured and displayed in a 3x3 matrix.

Thought and ethics vs. behaviour have already been discussed. We've had evil characters who thought they were actually doing good and good characters who had to choose between the devil and Lucifer.

"Lawful" characters can have different basises for their lawfulness. Some abide the local law, others respect traditions or their family values. Some would respect the law of every country they visit while others think the law of their own home is the ultimate best so they'd be less faithful to foreign ones.

In a world with complex characters, you can even have two "lawful good" characters get on each other's throats because they might have very different traditions or values. Some lawful good characters could even get along very well with lawful evil ones, as long as their interests don't contradict each other. Same thing with chaotic characters. They might want to abide to some laws which they think are cool, but ignore others.

To me, choice is important. I also often cut out societal alignments for humanoid races (and dragons as well), because "forced" alignment should be something reserved for outsiders. And even then I fondly remember an encounter with a very old Balor who became "too old for that big planar game" and simply wanted to chill.