D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Sunseeker]

[1]I consider it punishment as it means I didn't play the character as I intended him to be.

Maybe, but that sounds more like a mistake. 2-dimensional characters are obnoxious and boring because they're impossible. So if your character acts out of alignment for *reasons*, that's completely reasonable, because real people and good 3-dimensional characters DO THAT. A paladin who is always holy and always just with no flaws whatsoever is boring, just as much as chaotic baby-killing warlock is boring. Make up a reason for it: passion overrode your senses. Your anger with the shopkeep got the better of you and heck, maybe you just didn't take 5 minutes to sit down and rationally think it out. That's GOOD, because that's REAL.

It may affect your character in the long run if you make a habit of it, and that may warrant an alignment change. But a single out-of-alignment moment, even a few is not the same as an out-of-character moment, not by a longshot.

There's a great quote from Colossus in the new Deadpool movie I feel is relevant to this:

Four or five moments - that's all it takes to become a hero. Everyone thinks it's a full-time job. Wake up a hero. Brush your teeth a hero. Go to work a hero. Not true. Over a lifetime there are only four or five moments that really matter. Moments when you're offered a choice to make a sacrifice, conquer a flaw, save a friend - spare an enemy.

Honestly, stealing back the goods that you feel were swindled from you is probably not even one of these moments, but the general rule applies: Outside of that "one moment" being "murdering a thousand babies in the most horrible manner possible for no other reason than boredom", one moment out of many is not going to shift your alignment.

Even lawful evil character wouldn't smuggle, but he would use anything in his power to get people to sell at low prices - as long as it is within the law.

I disagree, but I think we're trending more info what you think each alignment is than some kind of universal answer. Which there isn't one. This is why so many people abhor alignment systems (especially in D&D) because it just turns into a morality fight.

As I said, I would consider it for drastic enough action(s) - but even if the alignment doesn't change, hints would be dropping left and right and right in their faces.

Hints about alignment change?

Here's the thing though: what does alignment even do? Allow people who pick the right color to detect them? Unless you're making people play to their alignment, then changing it is meaningless. Outside of DM fiat "vibes" an NPC might pick up from you or a Detect Alignment spell, nobody's going to know what your alignment is anyway.

 

[Neurotic]

But, what's the point of telling them to change alignment? They write down Evil because you say so, and then...? They feel bad because you judge them silently behind the DM screen? I can understand if they constantly kill civilians, maybe they should admit that they're evil, but they stole that one thing one time from that blacksmith who cheated them? That's a strange place to have the "Hey, maybe your character is actually not what you think he is" conversation. What if they disagree? Then what?

No lawful smuggler? What about a British privateer loyally serving his queen by taking East India Trading Company goods into Spanish lands without paying proper tariffs and fighting back the Spanish fleet should they try to interfere? Whether you follow the "law" is just a matter perspective and whose rules you think are the right ones to abide by.

Now getting into why the alignment system isn't perfect The point of the change is that in D&D good, evil, law and chaos are measurable and known quantities. It affects how priests cast, how various cultists / paladins / leaders etc react to you. It affects your abilities and templates (if any)...it is mechanical as much as RP change. Most groups ignore the alignment, but if used "by the book" it can be good adventure hook.

 

[Neurotic]

Maybe, but that sounds more like a mistake. 2-dimensional characters are obnoxious and boring because they're impossible. So if your character acts out of alignment for *reasons*, that's completely reasonable, because real people and good 3-dimensional characters DO THAT. A paladin who is always holy and always just with no flaws whatsoever is boring, just as much as chaotic baby-killing warlock is boring. Make up a reason for it: passion overrode your senses. Your anger with the shopkeep got the better of you and heck, maybe you just didn't take 5 minutes to sit down and rationally think it out. That's GOOD, because that's REAL.

It may affect your character in the long run if you make a habit of it, and that may warrant an alignment change. But a single out-of-alignment moment, even a few is not the same as an out-of-character moment, not by a longshot.

Agreed. But the trend starts somewhere. How about this (situation that one group found itself in):
- the village, doomed to be destroyed due to some demon pact they reneged on.
- the child, mortally sick (it will die within days)
- the demon, coming for the village, but talks the PCs, offering to spare the village for the soul of the innocent
- the players, good party (ALL good, no neutral or evil) - talk to the demon, consider saving the village by killing it, but deemed too weak (think 3rd level vs 10HD demon)
- they could leave the village to their doom they brought upon themselves
- they could kill the child (evil act), but they save it from hell (it dies innocent outside of the pact reaping) (good act)
- or they could accept demon offer and give the child to it of their own free will

They did the last and got demons support for the next several levels. Single act, single decision. Most evil of all evils they could commit. (admittedly, there really was no good way out of this, but only one was instant alignment change) - even good priest went with child sacrifice.

Honestly, stealing back the goods that you feel were swindled from you is probably not even one of these moments, but the general rule applies: Outside of that "one moment" being "murdering a thousand babies in the most horrible manner possible for no other reason than boredom", one moment out of many is not going to shift your alignment.

They were "honestly" swindled by inattention. If they want it back, they could do good thing and negotiate. Stealing it back, no problem. Getting found out, still no problem. Resisting arrest ... border line unlawful...killing the innocents...evil. And you cannot pull, I got blinded by rage argument on planned heist.

I disagree, but I think we're trending more info what you think each alignment is than some kind of universal answer. Which there isn't one. This is why so many people abhor alignment systems (especially in D&D) because it just turns into a morality fight.

That is why I prefer GURPS But if I play D&D I think long and hard about alignment and use it as a guideline for all actions - guideline, I know to step over the line in the interest of party cohesion, more interesting RP etc...Yes, of course, each discussion on this boards is personal opinion.

Hints about alignment change?
Here's the thing though: what does alignment even do? Allow people who pick the right color to detect them? Unless you're making people play to their alignment, then changing it is meaningless. Outside of DM fiat "vibes" an NPC might pick up from you or a Detect Alignment spell, nobody's going to know what your alignment is anyway.

Now we're getting into why the alignment system isn't perfect The point of the change is that in D&D good, evil, law and chaos are measurable and known quantities. It affects how priests cast, how various cultists / paladins / leaders etc react to you - yes, that is perfectly legal "fiat" vibe. It affects your abilities and templates (if any)...it is mechanical as much as RP change. Most groups ignore the alignment, but if used "by the book" it can be good adventure hook.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In the end, it's just a fun wrinkle. There's a million hilarious ways for them to get their stuff back and it's a nice springboard for hijinks.

Ah, be careful trotting out that word. A DM that pulled this on me? Would not be creating a 'fun wrinkle.' He'd be getting a piece of my mind. What is a "nice springboard" to you--even if it played exactly as you envision it--is, to me, almost an insult. "Ha ha, you had a momentary lapse of memory, I got you so bad!"

 

[Byakugan]

I am curious if the DM forces the PCs to always appraise every item they intend to sell? The baseline assumption should be that when the PCs sell their crap, they get the correct price.

Having armor/weapons match each other stylistically is a purely cosmetic distinction. The armor was adamantine, but the gauntlets/ring should not be normally. Punishing players with a cosmetic description is pretty IMO.

The situation would be a quick moment of 'oh , cant believe I did that'. But as soon as they went back, there are a ton of ways they should have been able to fix the problem. There is persuasion or intimidation to start. There is the fact that by definition they were not paid a fair price(ie he cheated them). Reputable businesses do not cheat their customers.

Its like if the PC said he wants to go sell his treasure...and the npc merchant only actually had 100gold pieces, but the DM is the only one who knows this..the DM says 'you want to sell all your treasure?' And the PC is like 'yeah'. So the DM says 'OK you sell all the treasure from that dungeon for 100gold!' Gotchca! Sorry no takesey-backsey!

I would never sit at the table of such an adversarial DM. In this small community that sort of event would get talked about a lot, and not in a good way.

 

[Maxperson]

The point of the change is that in D&D good, evil, law and chaos are measurable and known quantities.

Then you'll be able to answer the following question with proof of how you got there. How many acts of vandalism does it take to equal a murder? If evil is measurable and in known quantities, that should be an easy question to answer.

Personally, in D&D I think those things are not remotely measurable or in known quantities, but since you seem to know the answer...

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, be careful trotting out that word. A DM that pulled this on me? Would not be creating a 'fun wrinkle.' He'd be getting a piece of my mind. What is a "nice springboard" to you--even if it played exactly as you envision it--is, to me, almost an insult. "Ha ha, you had a momentary lapse of memory, I got you so bad!"

Except that isn't what happened. The DM didn't pull a gotcha. Rather, he just roleplayed out the consequences of forgetfulness. If you don't want that to happen to you, don't forget things. It's not the DM's job to be your memory.

 

[Neurotic]

Then you'll be able to answer the following question with proof of how you got there. How many acts of vandalism does it take to equal a murder? If evil is measurable and in known quantities, that should be an easy question to answer.

Personally, in D&D I think those things are not remotely measurable or in known quantities, but since you seem to know the answer...

I meant measurable as in detectable and graded. But for exact "quantities" you need to speak with your group to set up some guidelines. There is no quanta of evil or good as far as I know
You could always set something like:
angels -> saints -> paladin -> good char -> neutral -> human lawyer -> human cruel warlord -> evil races -> demons

And go from there

 

[Halivar]

Then you'll be able to answer the following question with proof of how you got there. How many acts of vandalism does it take to equal a murder? If evil is measurable and in known quantities, that should be an easy question to answer.

Personally, in D&D I think those things are not remotely measurable or in known quantities, but since you seem to know the answer...

On the evil axis, vandalism doesn't really register, or only registers in so far as it is malicious. No amount of vandalism can be as evil as a murder. On the chaos axis, vandalism approaches its diminishing returns too quickly to ever equal a murder (really, the difference between vandalizing a 50 buildings and a hundred has negligible impact on your alignment).

If someone tried to play a chaotic evil character in my game on the basis that they were a mad vandal, I might suggest chaotic-ish neutral was probably more their speed.

 

[Sunseeker]

Agreed. But the trend starts somewhere. How about this (situation that one group found itself in):
- the village, doomed to be destroyed due to some demon pact they reneged on.
- the child, mortally sick (it will die within days)
- the demon, coming for the village, but talks the PCs, offering to spare the village for the soul of the innocent
- the players, good party (ALL good, no neutral or evil) - talk to the demon, consider saving the village by killing it, but deemed too weak (think 3rd level vs 10HD demon)
- they could leave the village to their doom they brought upon themselves
- they could kill the child (evil act), but they save it from hell (it dies innocent outside of the pact reaping) (good act)
- or they could accept demon offer and give the child to it of their own free will

They did the last and got demons support for the next several levels. Single act, single decision. Most evil of all evils they could commit. (admittedly, there really was no good way out of this, but only one was instant alignment change) - even good priest went with child sacrifice.

Not really one moment though, since your first point mentions they made a demonic pact to begin with. So really, they made a deal with the devil (evil), broke a contract (unlawful) then made another deal with the devil (evil) sacrificed a human to it (evil) and got demonic assistance because of it (more evil).

So your "one act" is really already a trend of acts.

They were "honestly" swindled by inattention. If they want it back, they could do good thing and negotiate. Stealing it back, no problem. Getting found out, still no problem. Resisting arrest ... border line unlawful...killing the innocents...evil. And you cannot pull, I got blinded by rage argument on planned heist.

Eh, I don't play this game with my players. If you're (collective you) not paying attention at the table as a player I'm not going to treat your character like your character isn't also paying attention. Typically I will exclude you from participating until you get your nose out of whatever else it is you're doing. But that was the DM's real fault to begin with: not telling the player to put the phone down.

That is why I prefer GURPS But if I play D&D I think long and hard about alignment and use it as a guideline for all actions - guideline, I know to step over the line in the interest of party cohesion, more interesting RP etc...Yes, of course, each discussion on this boards is personal opinion.

Sure, but that's the alignment YOU chose. Imagine if the DM just randomly assigned you a new one.

Now we're getting into why the alignment system isn't perfect The point of the change is that in D&D good, evil, law and chaos are measurable and known quantities. It affects how priests cast, how various cultists / paladins / leaders etc react to you - yes, that is perfectly legal "fiat" vibe. It affects your abilities and templates (if any)...it is mechanical as much as RP change. Most groups ignore the alignment, but if used "by the book" it can be good adventure hook.

I disagree that good/evil is as "concrete" in D&D as you portray it as. Perhaps for casters who communicate with their gods, perhaps for the most absolute of evil or the most truly good, yes, but for everyone else? And I disagree that alignment "by the book" makes for a good adventure hook, I think it's worse by the book because by RAW its one of the worst designed systems. It needs some creative retooling to become useful and even then alignment should be, as I quoted from Colossus, used for those "moments" and very little else. Placing people in sticky situations that force alignment changes (IE: the only options are to act out of alignment), are why I stopped playing paladins until 4E and 5E. I'm not interested in playing through the DM's moral quandaries; when I come to situations like that(which are rare, since I avoid alignment-utilizing games), my character literally sits down and I stop playing until the scenario is over. Nobody likes to be forced to pick between a bad choice that will cost you your class and a bad choice that will cost you your class for no reason beyond the DM gets his kicks from enforcing his moralism at the table.***

***Yes, I have a bad history with the alignment system.