D&D 5E Evil Vs. Neutral - help me explain?

[Sword of Spirit]

Running a Dragonlance game...

You said it. You are running the game, not the player. Take command of the situation (politely). Straight up tell him that he can believe whatever he wants, and his character can believe whatever he wants, but it's your world, and you decide how alignment works. When he dies he can make his case to the Gods of Evil that he doesn't belong in their neck of the planes.

If he can't handle that, then that's his problem. Alignment in D&D is not something that can be up for debate as far as running the game goes, anymore than the weather. A player can argue that there shouldn't be a storm at that time of the year based on his understanding of the climate you described or whatever. But as DM, if you say there is a storm, there is a storm.

I'm not saying don't take player input. On the contrary, I generally make notes when players have suggestions or disagreements, and then consider it. More than half of the time I end up agreeing with them. But you can't let them take the game hostage.

If, on the other hand, I got the wrong impression from your post and this is just a friendly D&D philosophical debate, I'm sure there is plenty of good advice in the thread (I didn't read past the OP).

 

[Herobizkit]

Aside: one of Dragonlance's big themes was persons of radically opposed alignments working together in order to accomplish some great and necessary deed.

Aside 2: Lawful Evil Knights of Takhisis were the bomb.

Aside 3: I've found this siteto be the most complete collection of alignment information.

To the OP: Why is your player so concerned with being tagged with the Evil descriptor? Does he (the player) genuinely believe his actions aren't Evil, or is he really playing up the RP side if it?

If he's a contact killer and he "could" do good, he's Neutral Evil. He'll do whatever is necessary to fulfill his contract, be it working within a code or completely ignoring one, but ultimately the goal is murder and that's generally working against the Good guys.

That said, alignment's just an in-game tool. D&D is traditionally designed with a Black and White Morality but with the turn of 2010 or so, the media has gripped hard on the grim/gritty hero train and you get a Black and Grey Morality situation....

But even in the above case, he's capital-E Evil.

 

[pemerton]

If you're going to use 9-point alignment, I think the 1st ed AD&D descriptions of good and evil (supplemented by the generally compatible 3E) descriptions work OK.

Good means upholds the rights, dignity and welfare of others. Respect for beauty is also often thought to be an aspect of goodness.

Evil means that purpose is the determinant - ie the character does not treat others, and the welfare of others, as any sort of constraint on the pursuit of desire. Nor does s/he regard beauty as any sort of constraint.

Extreme cases of goodness will be those who make substantial sacrifices in pursuit of the welfare of others. But someone who does not make substantial sacrifices, but nevertheless respects and upholds the wellbeing of others, is good.

Extreme cases of evil will be those who go out of their way to oppress or destroy other people (eg gnolls, demons, mustache-twirling villains). But someone who is not actively vicious, but who nevertheless pursues his/her own interests without regard for others, is evil.

When it comes to neutrality, I tend to prefer the Gygaxian approach. Lawful neutrals fetishise order even when it conflicts with the wellbeing of others; chaotic neutrals fetishise choice, and freedom from constraint, even when it does not further the wellbeing of others. True neutrals are relatively unusual, and committed to natural and cosmic harmony.

The latter-day idea of neutrality as a sort of border-zone between good and evil I don't find very coherent. For instance, a person who thinks that social order is the best way to realise widespread welfare, but who occasionally cheats on his/her taxes, is still LG. S/he's just not as admirable as a paladin who never cheats on taxes. And if, despite those convictions, s/he always cheats on taxes, always finds a reason to tell the beggars to go elsewhere for alms, always evicts squatters relying on the thought that it's "someone else's" job to find them somewhere to live - then s/he's probably LE but moderately self-deluded.

In otherwords, LN isn't about being a little-bit LG and a little-bit LE; it's its own thing, a type of fetishisation of order. Mutatis mutandis for CN.

 

[Umbran]

Straight up tell him that he can believe whatever he wants, and his character can believe whatever he wants, but it's your world, and you decide how alignment works. When he dies he can make his case to the Gods of Evil that he doesn't belong in their neck of the planes.

The world of fiction (and the real world) is pretty full of villains who *claim* they are doing things for right and good reasons, after all....

If he can't handle that, then that's his problem.

I'm not sure that is the most constructive attitude to take in approaching a discussion with a player.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Simple question, does he have a "code"? If he is taking a job and will finish it to the end; that is a code, that is a lawful action. Evil is what you define it as and if the DM says cold blooded murder is, then it is.

It does not sound to me that the character is acting in a chaotic manner. Now if he take the money and does not do the job, does not pay anyone back, that would be chaotic.

Evil, I say the DM should define it and most games, cold blooded murder is an evil act. Some of the exceptions I look at are vendetta, the use of Were-Guilds and feuds, those that worship evil gods, orcs, and such. This way my players know what evil is.

 

[Hussar]

I ran into this some years ago with a player and it sounds similar. He came to me with his character and it was CN. I didn't know the player very well, and little alarm bells started ringing in my head because I'd run into Chaotic Stupid a few times in the past. But, I let it through with the caveat that we'd have a conversation about alignment in a few levels/sessions.

So, later on down the line I asked him what alignment he thought he was. "CN!" he replied. He was adamant about it and was very vocal about the idea that he wanted his character to be able to do anything he, the player, wanted. I pointed out that his character was totally dependable, never actually acted without pre-planning and was really about as far from chaotic as you could get. The player dug in his heels and insisted that his character was CN.

I realised that the issue wasn't really about alignment, but about control over the character. CN, in the player's mind, meant that I, the DM, would not be able to hold alignment elements over his head and force him to take actions. Not that I wanted to do that, but, I'm pretty sure he had previous DM's who would. We talked a little longer and I backed off. I let the player keep the CN alignment, to the point where spells and whatnot would affect him that way, and just never let it be an issue.

It could be the same thing here. The player isn't insisting on CN because he's enamoured to that particular alignment but because he wants to make sure that the DM won't start forcing him to do things.

 

[PnPgamer]

Alignments are always a touchy subject, as EVERYONE has different interpretations about them. You should note though that players can have any kind of view, but the only one that matters is the dm's

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Alignment

 

[the Jester]

Running a Dragonlance game and a certain player is decidedly evil. If the job is to assassinate someone, he will assassinate them. If it is to save a kitten then he'll save the kitten. This is all done for the right price. The problem is he stands by the fact he is chaotic neutral and can do whatever he feels like because he "could" do something good any time he wants to.

Everyone in the group agrees that contract killing is an evil thing amd the his excessive motivation by greed is evil as well.. This player however thinks it isn't and all but flips out.

That's fine. He can be in denial. Nonetheless, if the DM decides that he's evil- following the "alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive" philosophy- then the pc is evil, and evil-specific stuff will specifically whatever him. If he flips out, he has the option of, you know, changing his behavior. Act CN instead of CE and you'll be treated accordingly.

OTOH, if he flips out in a way that detracts from the group's enjoyment- well, personally, I have very little tolerance for people that throw fits at the table. I'd treat him like any other disruptive player.

 

[steeldragons]

You are running the game, not the player. Take command of the situation (politely). Straight up tell him that he can believe whatever he wants, and his character can believe whatever he wants, but it's your world, and you decide how alignment works. When he dies he can make his case to the Gods of Evil that he doesn't belong in their neck of the planes.

If he can't handle that, then that's his problem. Alignment in D&D is not something that can be up for debate as far as running the game goes, anymore than the weather. A player can argue that there shouldn't be a storm at that time of the year based on his understanding of the climate you described or whatever. But as DM, if you say there is a storm, there is a storm.

I'm not saying don't take player input. On the contrary, I generally make notes when players have suggestions or disagreements, and then consider it. More than half of the time I end up agreeing with them. But you can't let them take the game hostage.

Alignments are always a touchy subject, as EVERYONE has different interpretations about them. You should note though that players can have any kind of view, but the only one that matters is the dm's

(emphases mine)

Both of these posts require repeating, "quoting for truth" (QFT), reinforcing and stamped on the forehead of disruptive [due to alignment] players...ok, I'll accept sewing it onto their clothing.