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

[cbwjm]

I quite like the idea of shifting alignment. I think the original Dragonlance adventures had a chart so you might be good but commit an evil act so you move closer to that axis but don't suddenly become evil.

It's somewhat similar to the old star wars games where different acts would draw you towards the light or dark side.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

You have asserted this a number of times, apparently based on the Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde example. However wasn't it you who pointed out that Dr Jekyll used the serum for the purpose of "indulging his evil urges and getting away with it".
Wouldn't you agree that the creation and use of that serum is not an evil thought, it is an evil act.

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.

Nope, but by your and TheCosmicKid's reasoning, it would blow up the Paladin if he had given in to the struggle - for example by embracing torture and coercion as acceptable tools for his purpose. - Represented in D&D parlance by a shift to an evil alignment.

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?

Generally a DM's call. A single evil act with mitigating circumstances is unlikely to change someone's alignment to Evil. When the character is able to justify evil acts as acceptable and commit them regularly would be an indicator that they had turned however - even if they didn't enjoy said acts.

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 orc would be considered evil because they are willing to continue pillaging and murdering in spite of their dreams. Even if they help orphans while pillaging and murdering others, they would still be regarded as evil - just with a quirk. At the point which they stop pillaging and murdering and cease to regard it as acceptable would be the point at which their alignment may change I believe.

 

[Oofta]

Like much of the rules for any RPG it's impossible to boil down morality into a simple chart. People are complex and often have conflicting beliefs and viewpoints that, as much as we might like to think to the contrary, don't always fit into neat little categories.

So like other aspects of the game (i.e. hit points) we have to accept that when alignment is used, it's best used as a general guideline and a descriptor, not the entirety of the definition of a person's moral compass. When accepted as a general descriptor instead of a straight jacket, I think it can be a useful tool.

I think throwing out alignment altogether because past editions over-emphasized it (especially 3.5) is a mistake. Alignment is one of the reasons D&D has been successful over the years. It's an easy to grasp concept, a simple tool to quickly determine behavioral patterns. It's not appropriate for everyone or every game which is why it's great that it's there as a foundation but one that gets out of the way if you don't need it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Explain how he would set it up then?

What? It's not complicated. You described a DM who in a fit of sophistry decides that an observant paladin who has never given into temptation is actually evil on the inside. A sensible DM just... wouldn't do that.

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.

"The alignment system" is not assigning the labels this way. You are. If you don't think it makes sense to call a character evil based on the circumstances, then don't do it. Call them something else. You're the one making the call, not the rulebook. If you deliberately make a call that you yourself think is absurd, then you're just shooting yourself in the foot for no reason.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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”

A reasonable person shouldn't judge the effectiveness of a tool based on the least competent users of the tool. If you did, you could take a quick stroll through DeviantArt and come to the conclusion that Adobe Photoshop is a terrible program. Do you get what I'm saying?

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.

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.

Sure, 2E had some very strange ideas about a lot of different things. But we're in the era of 5E now, on a 5E message board, presumably talking about 5E.

 

[iserith]

As with any mechanic, I have to ask myself: What is this doing for the play experience?

With alignment, I have to say "Not much." Which argues for paying it no mind.

At most tables I've seen, I'd have to say "More harm than good..." Which argues for the same.

Unless it's given some kind of mechanical teeth that speaks to the campaign setting and an incentive - carrot, not stick - to play to it, I'd say let it alone in general. Because it's probably not adding anything to your play experience other than armchair philosophy debates that distracts from being bold adventurers confronting deadly perils. I mean, if you like that kind of thing, that's cool, but for me, no thank you.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Hmm, a billionaire super genius who, when given the opportunity to help society, instead chooses to pursue a selfish career of vengeance against the mentally ill.

Chaotic evil it is!

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

A reasonable person shouldn't judge the effectiveness of a tool based on the least competent users of the tool. If you did, you could take a quick stroll through DeviantArt and come to the conclusion that Adobe Photoshop is a terrible program. Do you get what I'm saying?

It adds nothing in the best case scenario... seriously your Jekyll and Hyde example was literally done without the author assigning alignments, proving how utterly useless they are. It isn't like other games don't have heroes, villains, pure of heart, etc, all without the baggage and headache of arbitrating alignment. Alignment creates arguments and bad feelings, particularly when you have a person in a position of authority telling one of their friends they find something evil the other person doesn't.

When a tool adds next to nothing, and creates tons of pitfalls among many users, why NOT judge it accordingly?

Traits, bonds, ideals and flaws are a much more useful system, and tell me a hell of a lot more than "LG", for which we cant even reach a consensus on if poison should be allowed...

 

[Caliban]

Hmm, a billionaire super genius who, when given the opportunity to help society, instead chooses to pursue a selfish career of vengeance against the mentally ill.

Chaotic evil it is!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It adds nothing in the best case scenario... seriously your Jekyll and Hyde example was literally done without the author assigning alignments, proving how utterly useless they are.

Stevenson didn't assign ability scores or hit points or character classes, either. Heck, he didn't even assign bonds, ideals, or flaws per se. So your "proof" seems like it might be a bit... overactive.