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

I tend to use alignment for NPC's. Players can use it aspirationally (my PC desires to be as LG as he can be), and I will try to set up circumstances to test/move forward with that goal. Other than that, the world reacts to the PC's as they act (or as NPC's paint their actions). I have no problem having a bunch of angels attack the murderhoboes calling them "vile fiends in human form" if that is how they act (and likewise have demons tell them "I have heard great things about you, keep up the good work.") That is the limit of my enforcement.

As for definition, I tend to go with law="respectability is more important than renown" and chaos="renown is more important than respectability" for simplicity's sake. Good and evil is a little more nebulous, although if pressed it tends to go something along the lines of evil="enjoys hurting others", where killing quickly doesn't count as enjoying hurting others, N="would enjoy it if exceptionally provoked (if someone killed your family)", and good="wouldn't enjoy hurting others even if provoked." [Part of the reason fiends do bad things is if you start to enjoy hurting them, the slippery slope begins.....] I also tend to use LN with good tendencies, NE with lawful tendencies, NE with chaotic tendencies, etc., based on the notion that everyone has a primary motivation that isn't likely to change, and a secondary one that could more easily change.

MechaTarrasque said:

I tend to go with law="respectability is more important than renown" and chaos="renown is more important than respectability" for simplicity's sake.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're saying here. What do you mean by "respectability" versus "renown"? The two words are pretty close to synonymous in my mind.

ehren37 said:

You can tell those stories without an alignment mechanic to bog down table time with needless bickering over if Bob's NG character should use poison or what not. Because Lawful, Good, etc mean something different to everyone at the table.

So why are these pointless and arbitrary labels kept around?

Click to expand...

You're gonna have to clarify what you mean by "an alignment mechanic". Because here it seems like you're rejecting the whole concept of ethical labels, like you don't want "good" or "evil" showing up in the narrative at all. And that's going to make it challenging to explain why only a few people could see the Grail, or what Dr. Jekyll was trying to accomplish. So I suppose what I'm asking is: how would you tell these stories? Don't just say you can; show us.

TheCosmicKid said:

I don't understand what you're saying here. What do you mean by "respectability" versus "renown"? The two words are pretty close to synonymous in my mind.

Click to expand...

As far as I know renown is just fame or notoriety. You could be renown for being a complete scumbag, and unreliable to boot.

TheCosmicKid said:

I don't understand what you're saying here. What do you mean by "respectability" versus "renown"? The two words are pretty close to synonymous in my mind.

Click to expand...

I admit that there is some overlap, but I think [MENTION=6802553]BookBarbarian[/MENTION] pretty well describes it. Fame may be a better word than renown.

I think of it is like being a good singer from a traditional background. If you are willing to sing racy stuff on the path to fame (renown), then you are chaotic. If you aren't willing to do so (because "what would my mother think?" [respectability]), then you are lawful. Neither position is intrinsically good ("Proper society" might strongly believe that dwarves have to stay "in their place" after all...). You can want both respect and renown, but if you regularly choose one over the other, you get the alignment. Of course it is possible to not be particularly motivated by either renown or respect (including "I would prefer people didn't think of me at all"), which cover neutrality.

For fiends, a devil wouldn't do anything that would make people think devils didn't live up to their contracts, even if that meant not personally benefiting from it, but a demon wants infamy (if a village fears Blarg the Dretch, Blarg might get promoted when he gets back to the Abyss). [I have used the idea that red dragons always make sure there is a survivor from their rampages {who knows the name the of the dragon} to make sure word gets out, and, they secretly {or not so secretly in younger ones} make sure the witness makes it to an audience in my games.]

This doesn't completely match up with D&D alignment, as for example, orcs as shown in Volo's are actually pretty lawful, and a fair amount of dwarves in the Hobbit are chaotic, but such is life.

I often use the listed alignment as more "guidelines" for a player to aspire to follow or a guide for the character if they are absent and I have to rub them. I by no means prevent a player from taking any action, however I will on ocassion give them a heads up if they are abot to commit an act that is drastically different from their alignment. Additionally, I factor in their previous actions and conversations. This is particularly useful for newer players who may not be aware of the full consequence of their actions.

I also go out of my way to make sure to describe some actions as how I interpret them to players, so they are aware of it ahead of time (i.e. necromancy spells, theft, etc.). For example, I have always described the good vs evil spectrum as one thing: the amount one values life. A good character will try and accomplish their goals, but will typically try to avoid bloodshed or loss of life doing so. Typically if they have to take a life it is after they have exhausted all other options, or it is a sort of inherently "evil" opponent like fiend or undead. Crusader type characters can still smite their enemies, but a true test of "goodness" for these sorts of characters tends to be the moments that *aren't* black and white. For example, do they kill the demon running an orphanage with no ulterior motive other than to help the children just because he's a demon? What about the necromancer who brought back his wife because she couldn't bare to live without her? He may be guilty, but is she? Or should Batman kill the Joker because we know he'll just get out of jail again? It is this hesitation to kill that *makes* someone good as opposed to neutral or evil.

A neutral character tends to kill only if someone is in the way of their goals or it is the easiest option, and they tend to try and justify their killing, whether for legal reasons or personal (i.e. so they aren't viewed as a monster).

An evil character tends to view living beings as pawns or disposable. This does NOT mean they don't have good goals, mind you, just that they don't value the individual. A great example of this is Light Yagami from Death Note, or The Punisher. They tend to have god complexes, be jaded, or believe their way is the only one.

Well start off with certain obvious choices. A lawful evil charecters won't just kill someone it broad day light, he'll have someone else do it for him hiding his involment.

Similar to a chaotic good charecters bowing and following the laws all the time.

Just have to possibly set some laws down before you play setting up everything as to how alignment works with your group. It's hard but maybe use examples like comic book charecters and such

Sent from my Z963VL using EN World mobile app

Oofta said:

So we can't use examples from popular culture and fiction to discuss a game mechanic?

Click to expand...

I would actually advise against it in most cases and to tread lightly when you do. Its far too easy to cast fiction in the light of multiple mechanics.

Even within D&D there are multiple interpretatations of what levels and classes various famous characters are. (I've seen Merlin as wizard, druid, various multiclasses. Aragorn as anything from Ranger to Paladin to multiclass wreck.)

The best you can hope for with a typical rpg is a mild emulation of the tropes and trappings in genre. Authors have too much advantage over game designers and GMs when it comes to things like good and evil or the nature and function of magic.

In the example cited in this thread, a character in a story can be "good" simply because the author says so. Its a bit circular, but the since the author gets to say what the grail does AND what the character does, the author gets to define "good" through literary device. That's not really comparable to using a "mechanic" like we do in rpgs. (Unless you're trying to use your game to beat up on your players' contrary views of morality.)

Generally, this is where alignment tends to fail as a mechanic because things like "lawful" are so poorly-defined and things like "good" are so subjective that its next to meaningless.

If I wanted to somehow enforce or measure player morality, I'd want something more specific than alignment. Enforcement would probably come in the form of XP, taking the place of the current system or possibly Inspiration depending on how much I'd want to encourage it.

So, rather than "LG", I might have a player pick three defining ethics like "Gain XP/Inspiration whenever you put yourself at risk to defend the innocent." and "Gain XP/Inspiration whenever you endure suffering because of your religious convictions." and "Gain XP/Inspiration whenever you donate a magic item or treasure worth at least 500gp/your level to the church." That would give me a far clearer picture of what this character is about.

Just my two cents.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using EN World mobile app

Morrus said:

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.

Click to expand...

I use that (disallow evil characters) to communicate to my players the kind of campaign I like to run. Foremost, the PCs are the good guys and their goals are good goals. Fairness, redemption, justice, preservation etc. Also that it is not my goal to referee griefing between the players. (Rivalry and thorny disagreements are fine.) For me, the PC that plays to their alignment is the more interesting character to DM because they will engage consistently with grey areas and complex moral choices.

Ratskinner said:

I would actually advise against it in most cases and to tread lightly when you do. Its far too easy to cast fiction in the light of multiple mechanics.

Even within D&D there are multiple interpretatations of what levels and classes various famous characters are. (I've seen Merlin as wizard, druid, various multiclasses. Aragorn as anything from Ranger to Paladin to multiclass wreck.)

The best you can hope for with a typical rpg is a mild emulation of the tropes and trappings in genre. Authors have too much advantage over game designers and GMs when it comes to things like good and evil or the nature and function of magic.

In the example cited in this thread, a character in a story can be "good" simply because the author says so. Its a bit circular, but the since the author gets to say what the grail does AND what the character does, the author gets to define "good" through literary device. That's not really comparable to using a "mechanic" like we do in rpgs. (Unless you're trying to use your game to beat up on your players' contrary views of morality.)

Generally, this is where alignment tends to fail as a mechanic because things like "lawful" are so poorly-defined and things like "good" are so subjective that its next to meaningless.

If I wanted to somehow enforce or measure player morality, I'd want something more specific than alignment. Enforcement would probably come in the form of XP, taking the place of the current system or possibly Inspiration depending on how much I'd want to encourage it.

So, rather than "LG", I might have a player pick three defining ethics like "Gain XP/Inspiration whenever you put yourself at risk to defend the innocent." and "Gain XP/Inspiration whenever you endure suffering because of your religious convictions." and "Gain XP/Inspiration whenever you donate a magic item or treasure worth at least 500gp/your level to the church." That would give me a far clearer picture of what this character is about.

Just my two cents.

Sent from my LG-TP450 using EN World mobile app

Click to expand...

All I can say is that I completely disagree, and I've found alignment and concepts of good and evil to be foundational to the game. To each his own.