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

[Xeviat]

I explain alignment to my players as what your character feels good about doing and what makes them feel bad. Without specific examples, a Good aligned character gets the "warm fuzzies" from acts of good, and they feel incredible guilt from acts of evil. A lawful person feels good following the rules, while a chaotic person feels like they're being constrained by them. An evil person forced to do good deeds feels cheated.

I'd love to have rules to reward and penalize behavior, but I mostly stick to inspiration awards. But I consider alignment to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. If your good character is forced to do evil consistently enough, and they no longer feel guilt (like they start justifying it), then we switch them to Neutral.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thethain]

Lawful-Chaotic : Lawful means you have some set of rules or code you follow, could be the actual law, thieves code, warrior honor, or it could be the Rules of Acquisition. Chaotic means you do not adhere to any particular ruleset. It doesn't mean you are an anarchist, or that you actively defy the laws just that you consider them very low on your priority list when making a decision. So you could have a character who breaks laws quite frequently still be considered lawful, as he is following his own rules of honor.

Good-Evil : Honestly, I frame this generally as selfless/selfish. If your character only acts when there is a direct tangible benefit to the character, they are in some ways evil. A good character tries to help others, even at personal risk. Keep in mind that good/evil have little to do with nice/mean, evil characters can be perfectly pleasant as it may suit them to be so. Stealing from people with a smile usually easier. Similarly a dwarf who would stand between an army of undead and the town might not be willing to give any of the townsfolk 2 words afterwards.


If your character doesn't fall at the extreme of either situation, then they are neutral in that aspect. However, I find that when you setup lawful axis as PERSONAL laws rather that legal laws, then many many more characters fall into the lawful side.

 

[jaelis]

If a character did something that seemed contrary to their alignment, I would probably point that out. If they had a reason to justify doing it, or just didn't care, I wouldn't enforce anything.

I guess that if a character continually did things that contradicted their stated alignment, I would probably suggest they change it. But I would not make a fuss about it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

after 4e introduced "unaligned" I quickly just gave up... 3 campaigns into 5e and my alignment rule stands as "Write what ever you want down, I don't care...but you can't use it as an excuse, so don't be a jerk"

back in 3e though I had a hard coded view of it (an evolved version of my take on 2e that I think may have been a bit cartoony)

Lawful is BOTH organized, and some sense of honor compaired to chaotic that is disorganized and more likely to make up the rules as they go...neutral is somewhat between.
Good is selfless and evil is selfish with neutral somewhat between...

So Lawful Good is organized, honorable, and selfless
so Chaotic Good is disorganized, makes things up as they go, but still selfless

Lawful Evil is organized, follows there own code, but is still selfish and out for themselves...


One of the problems my group always had with evil was it is so often played dumb...

I had an evil cleric of Vecna once, I healed the party and worked with everyone... when asked why I would side with them I explained "I want to win, I want to be the best. I want to kill my enemies and raise an undead empire. All of those things go easier if NG Ranger boy is helping me, so I help him to help me..."

 

[Oofta]

By and large I don't I don't enforce alignment other my no evil PC policy. Alignment is just one more descriptor amongst many that help define a character.

Where I use it is in determining how NPCs and monsters respond, how they see the world. This is based on the psychology 101 class from long ago. The theory is that everyone views the world through frameworks and preconceptions. Two people can look at exactly the same situation and have vastly different opinions on what is going on. One person may see a beggar on the street and have empathy for someone down on their luck while another may see someone who is lazy or unwilling to work. Yet another person would see someone that could be abducted and killed and no one would notice.

As another example, a lawful person may look at how a kingdom is being ruled and see a tyranny where title, not worth determines a person's value. Another may look at the same kingdom and see an organized structure that works for the people by giving them a sense of tradition and a proper place.

There's a lot of leeway in this concept, they are just general guidelines. There may often be conflict - a Chaotic Good character may not like the tight control a king has over his kingdom, but may realize that the option is worse. A Lawful Evil person may work to throw a kingdom into chaos so that in the long term a new regime may rise from the ashes.

In addition, people aren't always 100% consistent. Personal experience may soften the heart of a chaotic evil serial killer for very specific individuals. A lawful good paladin may have a blind spot and not realize the harm they are doing to innocents.

Lawful: views the world as a clockwork mechanism. Everything works according to a grand plan, even if we don't understand that plan. When things are in proper order, the whole system works smoothly. If a title is honorable, the person holding the title should be given the respect the title deserves.

Chaotic: there is no grand plan. The only organization is that which makes sense for the people involved. If the old order needs to be replaced so that people can be free to pursue their own goals, so be it. Perceived organization comes out of individuals choosing to cooperate for themselves or their community. Individuals should be judged by their worth or power, not by title or station.

Good: this is complex, but essentially it comes down to empathy (the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes), and not wanting to harm others. This doesn't mean you don't fight or kill, but that you will fight and kill because you need to protect others. You may do things for your own personal gain as long as you are not harming innocents.

Evil: in general evil people view others as objects with no inherent value. They may love someone, but in many cases love them as a possession, something they own. If the object of their affection doesn't reciprocate they may not care. They may kill or cause pain in others simply because they enjoy it. Your personal gain is all that matters, other people's goals do not unless they hold power over you or you can use their goals to manipulate them.

 

[jaelis]

That is a good point, alignment is a quite handy tool for characterizing npcs. In that context, I'd say

lawful = inclined to work within existing power structures and rule systems. But if a particular goal can't be achieved that way, then they will work outside them.

chaotic = happiest working alone or in a small group (especially one they dominate). Will follow rules and laws when that is most convenient, but would rather be in a situation where they don't have to.

good = does not enjoy harming others, but will if needed.

evil = enjoys harming others in and of itself.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Back in 4e, I mostly found unaligned to be the main choice for murderhobos and people that aren’t really into the whole role-playing their character thing. Drove me up a wall, and I was heartily glad when it went away.


I will generally remind people of their alignment if they’re going to do something outside its bounds. If the behavior continues, I’ll tell them “do X again and your alignment is going to change.” Other than that, no real penalties apply.

after 4e introduced "unaligned" I quickly just gave up... 3 campaigns into 5e and my alignment rule stands as "Write what ever you want down, I don't care...but you can't use it as an excuse, so don't be a jerk"

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I include it, but I don't enforce it; if a player doesn't get on well with the alignment system, I'm not going to push it. I do generally disallow evil characters though, as they're often just to much a a PITA at the table, and it's not worth the hassle.

I do this too, but I generally enforce a character's alignment if a player is trying to do something majorly opposite of it, especially if they receive powers from a divine source. I also am very picky as to who gets to play a Chaotic Neutral character, since so many players who choose that one, do it just as an excuse to be totally random, or a jerk, or Evil without the alignment saying so, or all three at once.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Alignment choices, and what they tell of the players who play them:

Chaotic evil: selfish jerk who takes pleasure in screwing their fellow players
Chaotic neutral: selfish jerk who gets off ruining everything for everyone else. Leroy Jenkins!
Chaotic good: selective jerk, picking and choosing when to be a jerk (I take and keep that uber item without telling the other PCs who don't know about it yet)
Neutral evil: I'm a jerk, but not all in your face when I'm being a jerk
Neutral good: uncommitted jerk who wants to enforce the rules when it's convenient, and wants to ignore the rules when convenient.
True Neutral: nihilistic jerk
Lawful evil: rules lawyer jerk
Lawful neutral: I'm gonna hide behind the rules as an excuse to be a jerk. "Just following orders!"
Lawful good: I'm better than all you putz's jerk

We're all just jerks.

 

[cbwjm]

Alignment in my games is pretty minor. I would ask that my players not pick an evil alignment as I want them to be playing heroes. Otherwise, apart from a player looking at his sheet and deciding that as a lawful good character, he doesn't think he would kill captives in cold blood, alignment hasn't really come up. People just play their PCs the way they want to play which is generally heroic.