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

[TheCosmicKid]

If you’re still awake after these ramblings: In none of these did I need the players to have an alignment of "lawful good" written down or predefined, it was up to them how they roleplayed their character and what choices they made when confronted with choices.
Even if your game *does have* an objective morality, I don't think defining whether someone is good or evil is useful until they actually act.

Do you really think I just look at "predefined" alignments without taking into account the PCs' decisions and actions? Give me, and the core rules, a little more credit than that. Of course decisions and actions matter. The nine alignments are defined in the PHB solely on that basis: nowhere does it say "Good creatures are good just because". As far as I can tell, you are using alignment exactly the way I do. Everything you've said so far about the shortcomings of the alignment system has been just tilting at a strawman.

So, to me the nine alignments and any mechanics from them aren't needed, these stories have been told long before these concepts were used.

I'm pretty sure the Grail story was told with the concepts of good and evil in mind.

 

[Saeviomagy]

How are these scenarios any different? Why do you need to ask the player that question when the character sheet has already asked the player precisely the same question?

No, of course not. I don't think Stevenson was particularly subtle in hammering home the point: in spite of appearances, Jekyll is a bad man.

Right, so Dr Jekyll's sheet would have chaotic evil written on it, even prior to him commencing work on his serum?

Would a pillaging, murdering orc raider have lawful good written down if he secretly dreamed of helping orphans?

 

[iserith]

Those would be fine. I might consider that more selfish than evil. I welcome character flaws and they could lead to some difficult situations. But I think the main difference is that when people play an evil alignment, they take that as allowing them to do what they want, including actions that disrupt the party.

Under the right circumstances, with the right group, I'll consider evil characters. Even an all evil campaign. In my experience, though, most players who have wanted to play evil characters in my campaigns don't have the skills to play them well. They just want to kill or steal things, and usually from their party because they want to "play evil."

If I allow it, I have to find ways to put boundaries on them. A modern example would be the mafia. There's a lot of structure and more powerful people than you. So you might actually have a purpose against your party members, but you can't directly kill or steal from them without possible repercussions. As the game goes on, though those become less effective once players think their characters can beat that aspect because they have enough allies in the organization.

In other words, looking for ways to direct the evil actions outside the party. In realty, an evil person in a party usually won't upset that anyway, if there's a benefit for them. You need to have a player that can play that well, though, and the table as a whole has to be onboard with the idea that if evil characters are allowed, that at some point they might turn against one or more in the party up to and including theft, having them captured or enslaved, or killed, even by their own hand. And you have to have plans for handling that. Once the PC turns against the party do they become an NPC? Or perhaps there's a common enemy so great that they are forced to work together again?

It's really is a question of what's evil and what's selfish, self-centered, callous, or morally questionable. The Nazis were evil, but not all the soldiers were. Likewise, against enemies like the Nazis allied soldiers sometimes performed evil acts. That's why alignment isn't a thing in my campaign for most mortals, although you can perform enough evil acts to become evil where it matters. Kind of like how Anakin was not evil (maybe annoying) but became evil, although not irredeemably so. Where Palpatine was irredeemably evil, and without Luke Vader probably was too.

But usually the main issue I run into with playing evil characters is that players tend to equate that with betraying their party. And if they can't work together it's tough to have a game.[/url]

It seems to me that it's more clear and effective to say "Don't mess with your own party" as a table rule than implement a house rule of "No evil alignments." The latter doesn't really communicate what it is you want the players to do or not do other than not choose a particular mechanic. Nobody needs an evil alignment to mess with the party, which appears to be the thing you want to avoid.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It seems to me that it's more clear and effective to say "Don't mess with your own party" as a table rule than implement a house rule of "No evil alignments." The latter doesn't really communicate what it is you want the players to do or not do other than not choose a particular mechanic. Nobody needs an evil alignment to mess with the party, which appears to be the thing you want to avoid.

Unless the group can deal with intraparty strife, yes I tend to prefer to avoid it. I've just found, at least in the players I've had who join and want to play an evil character, that's usually where we end up. Whether it's stealing from another PC, or callous torture and murder that the other characters are uncomfortable with and want the character that is acting evil out of the party. So most of the time it just keeps it simple.

So both generally apply. Everything is up for discussion at my table, though. So with the right group of people it can be very interesting. But that's a decision made at the table.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Right, so Dr Jekyll's sheet would have chaotic evil written on it, even prior to him commencing work on his serum?

Probably lawful evil. That's the real difference between him and Hyde. But it's downplayed: the point of the tale isn't to explore the two characters' differences, but to expose their similarities.

Would a pillaging, murdering orc raider have lawful good written down if he secretly dreamed of helping orphans?

Your tone implies you don't think so. And neither do I. So no. Easy question, easy answer. Again: why make assumptions that set the system up for failure when you don't have to?

 

[iserith]

It's these sorts of debates that led to my longstanding house rule:

You can be any alignment you want, as long as it's the same as Batman's.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Probably lawful evil. That's the real difference between him and Hyde. But it's downplayed: the point of the tale isn't to explore the two characters' differences, but to expose their similarities.

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.

Your tone implies you don't think so. And neither do I. So no. Easy question, easy answer. Again: why make assumptions that set the system up for failure when you don't have to?

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?"

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

Um... no. You are yet again setting up an artificially absurd version of the system when you presumably know full well that no sane DM would run it that way.

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?"

The alignment system can handle these characters. Easily. You are choosing not to let it.

 

[Illithidbix]

Do you really think I just look at "predefined" alignments without taking into account the PCs' decisions and actions? Give me, and the core rules, a little more credit than that. Of course decisions and actions matter. The nine alignments are defined in the PHB solely on that basis: nowhere does it say "Good creatures are good just because". As far as I can tell, you are using alignment exactly the way I do. Everything you've said so far about the shortcomings of the alignment system has been just tilting at a strawman.

Yep, I'm sure with appropriate DM adjudication and players who buy into it, a game with alignment works just fine, but I've played an game of Scion that was fun with appropriate Storyteller Adjudication (the rulebook was not quite thrown out of the window).

I'm pretty sure the Grail story was told with the concepts of good and evil in mind.

Sure but I am also pretty sure that at no point was Arthur asked if he was Lawful Good or Neutral Good.
I personally don't equate morality (by whatever standard it uses to define this) being relevant in a game or story to be equivalent to D&D's alignment system.

Unfortunately I have read *plenty* of questions that ask how characters should behave pretty solely upon their alignment and also conflicts between DM’s with players whom “they didn’t believe they were playing their alignment right”

I've also read plenty of pretty borked rules and definitions regarding alignment that were in core rules, which turns it from something that helpfully.

What you say as “absurd strawman” is what the system has been in the core rules.

I am admittedly thinking the 2E AD&D DMG here with it’s rules for XP penalties for voluntarily changing alignment “The instant a character voluntarily changes alignment, the experience point cost to gain the next level (or levels in the case of multi-class characters) is doubled.” and where it dubiously advices that Chaotic Neutral characters literally made decisions based upon a roll of a dice and that True Neutral characters would likely switch sides in a conflict to support the new underdogs.
Now that is from a book 28 years old and 3 editions back, but it obviously philosophically scarred the poor teenage me who read it at the time.

(For sanity’s sake I won’t quote touch anything from the 1E AD&D DMG on Alignment...)

3E had a far more sensible definitions of alignment, far clearer that it is a guideline rather than straightjacket, fewer penalties for changing alignment and it’s use from 1E and 2E.
However 3E even more so 3.5E had many, many mechanical implications for alignment, esp. in spells and magic items, and even the damage reduction system (in 3.5E).
I can understand a “Order’s Hammer” spell causing extra damage to a demon or slaad, but not really to a person who happens to believe in individuality and distrusts governments.
Here alignment interpretation could literally be the difference between character death and not from a relatively common spell
And then the released the Book of Exalted Deeds with such gems as ravages... which are pretty much identical to poisons but only work on evil creatures, and hence are... good...
(I am perfectly happy with the idea of the cosmic forces of good using stigmata, bad omens etc to encourage redemption, but I sorta break at the idea of "using poison is evil... except when it only works on evil people")

4E redefined alignments into 5 categories and made most people unaligned, had almost no mechanical implication (damnit Astral Whirlwind!) and made a focus on the tenets of the faith of the gods and (IMO) seemed to suffer nothing from this slaughtering of such sacred cows.

And now 5E, defines alignment (back to nine) in deliberately broad strokes and has relatively few mechanical effects for alignment, if somewhat more than 4E and mostly defining mechanical effects of Good and Evil as celestials, fiends and undead.
(At my last count in the core rules: 11 spells, 9 monster powers, Bringing Back the Dead, Loyalty rules for NPC Party members, 5 magic items and fairly length bits in sentient magic items and artefacts and of course the planes but it’s intrinsic to their cosmology)

But from these comparisons, it seems alignment works the best for most people when it is as light as possible, and I fail to see what benefits it actually brings in being a system that is at all enforced, has mechanical implications, and I think there are better guidelines for players considering their character's behaviour.

“Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die.”
...
“To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. “

 

[Saeviomagy]

Um... no. You are yet again setting up an artificially absurd version of the system when you presumably know full well that no sane DM would run it that way.

Explain how he would set it up then? You just keep asserting that a sane DM wouldn't run things the way I describe them, without actually describing how they would be run or how the alignment system helps.

The alignment system can handle these characters. Easily. You are choosing not to let it.

So far it seems like the alignment system would handle these characters by labelling everyone other than the purest good character as evil. Evil in thought alone? Evil. Evil in deed alone? Evil. Robs people at swordpoint and takes 1/3rd of their wealth for himself? Good.