D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[Manbearcat]

This thread has devolved into Chaotic Predictable.

 

[Oofta]

Many choose Good alignments, because they want to see themselves as a heroic protagonist.

They then start torturing and murdering people, relying on 'justifications' as to why this is 'morally good' (justifications that make sense in their own minds).

The DM then (rightly) tells them that those actions make them Evil, which the player takes as a critique of their own personal moral code, and the discussion rapidly turns into a screaming match.

If any disagreement about rulings devolves into a screaming match, there are bigger issues at the table than alignment.

 

[payn]

In the good vs evil conflict, though, it's obvious who's morally correct. Those who repudiate good have chosen to abandon moral conduct (for whatever reason). So what's the point of that aspect of alignment, besides being a stick for GMs to beat players with? (See eg @Flamestrike's posts not far upthread - I share @doctorbadwolf's dislike for that sort of GMing.)

So if alignment is going to do anything useful, it seems that law vs chaos is where the action is.

Folks might want to explore the evil aspect of a character. The assassin that only kills bad guys, the fallen paladin, the con man trickster, the unrelenting government operative, etc. Roleplaying is all about exploring outside yourself and telling stories. Evil alignments are an interesting way to examine characters.

Also, you can beat characters with the good stick pretty damn hard as well.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah the “your alignment is wrong” part isn’t the problem. The thing that every player I know would not tolerate is you just deciding what their alignment is, without any discussion.

You want to talk to me about my characters actions and their alignment, fine. You don’t get to tell me what my character is, ever.

All I can say is that I have a "no evil" rule*. If someone says they're going to cross the line I let them know and if they continue their PC will immediately become an NPC.

If that bothers you then I'm not the right DM for you.

*EDIT: which I make clear in the invite and reinforce in my session 0 that it's pretty much a zero tolerance policy.

 

[pemerton]

Who says 'good' is morally correct?

It's the meaning of the word. Googling "define good" gives me this salient definition: that which is morally right; righteousness.

There's nothing magic about that particular definition, but it conveys the point clearly enough. And conversely, if something is not morally right then it's not good.

 

[pemerton]

Alignments are subjectives both in views and in applications and they depend entirerly on the DM and the campaign.

I've played D&D with alignments - 4e, to be precise - and they didn't depend entirely on the GM. Pages 33 and 34 of the 5e Basic PDF talk about alignment, and don't say anything about the GM having some special role in respect of it.

If a player of vengeful mass murderer who routinely tortures his enemies to death gets upset that he cant use a Talisman of Pure Good because despite his characters repeated evil actions, he has 'LG' written on his character sheet, then I frankly don't care.

Presumably the issue you describe is going to come up only in contexts where the player doesn't agree that his/her PC is a mass murderer.

If you routinely have players in your games whose PCs torture their enemies to death, I wonder what is going on.

 

[Helldritch]

I've played D&D with alignments - 4e, to be precise - and they didn't depend entirely on the GM. Pages 33 and 34 of the 5e Basic PDF talk about alignment, and don't say anything about the GM having some special role in respect of it.

Presumably the issue you describe is going to come up only in contexts where the player doesn't agree that his/her PC is a mass murderer.

If you routinely have players in your games whose PCs torture their enemies to death, I wonder what is going on.

Up to a certain point any and all aspect of the games are dependant on the DM's view. But alignments are not that well defined on purpose. It gives a leeway for interpretation and adjudication for the DM.

As for Flamestrike, he never said or implied that what you describe happens at his table but that if it did, it would mean that the player would face the consequences of his acts. On this, I fully agree with Flamestrike's position.

 

[pemerton]

Folks might want to explore the evil aspect of a character. The assassin that only kills bad guys, the fallen paladin, the con man trickster, the unrelenting government operative, etc. Roleplaying is all about exploring outside yourself and telling stories. Evil alignments are an interesting way to examine characters.

What does using the evil alignment label add to any of these characters?

 

[pemerton]

Up to a certain point any and all aspect of the games are dependant on the DM's view. But alignments are not that well defined on purpose. It gives a leeway for interpretation and adjudication for the DM.

Why not by the player whose character it is?

As for Flamestrike, he never said or implied that what you describe happens at his table

If it's a purely imaginary problem then why worry about it?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, a character's alignment is shown forth by its actions.

Hm, sounds LN (or E).

CE?

Why not LE?

Well, I didn't say a chaotic character can't have a higher Charisma than a lawful character!

But that is your entire premise. That Lawful character's should get a charisma boost because they are lawful. But we've shown you dozens and dozens of examples of chaotic characters who are far more charismatic than their lawful counterparts. Your premise is based on a rationale that seems to make sense, but in practice falls apart at the seams.

Heck, look at what classes use Charisma as their casting stat. Sorcerer, Bard, Warlock and Paladin. And only one of those really lends themselves to an archetype of law, the other three are far closer to Chaos.


Also, since I'm guessing you've never seen Disney's Aladdin, Aladdin would be CG, he stole a loaf of bread, then gave most of it away to some hungrier, younger orphans. He's a classic "thief with a heart of Gold". And Jafar can't be LE because he doesn't respect law and order in any way. He just wants power and will basically do anything to get it. NE at best?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Says you. The Devils disagree. They have a strict caste system, are bound to contracts, a rigid system of promotion and demotion and so forth.

It might not resemble a mortal family, but that's what it was, with very strict rules attached.

Which is a very LE thing to do.

It may be an LE thing to do, but it isn't an HONORABLE thing to do. And you said they care about Honor. "Yes, I'll twist like an oil-slicked eel to get out of any contract I write, which has plenty of interpretations and loopholes, but I'll hold to the word of it" isn't honorable behavior. It is lawful though, hence why I'm rejecting your assertion that Lawful = Honor

And, no, again, family is not a rigid system of promotions and demotions. That is a job, like working in a company. You don't get born into a family as the son of Steve and then get promoted to being the Son of Dave. that doesn't work. What you are doing here is like holding up a glass ball and saying "this is made of lead". No, it isn't. What you are describing is in no way a family.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How common is the phenomenon of players asserting that torture is good?

And given that we're talking about game play and not just dinner table debate, what sorts of situations are arising in games that even put this onto the table?

The Biggest thing I've seen put torture on the table is the enemy being unwilling to tell the players any information. See, in a book or a show, you can lock them up and spend the next season slowly whittling away their resolve, turning them to see the error of their ways, ect. But DnD really doesn't have that kind of time, and the player's captured this guy to give them information NOW. So, it becomes torture and threats because the players are looking at the clock and not wanting to spend an hour of game time playing 20 questions with faceless mook #4 instead of continuing to play the game.

It is a problem, but one I don't think has a terribly satisfying resolution for any side involved, story wise.