D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

And that, I’ve no problem with.

To change a characters alignment without their knowledge is both absurd and just plain weird behavior. As a DM I’d never even consider it as an option, and as a player I’d have no tolerance whatsoever for it.

 

[Oofta]

And that, I’ve no problem with.

To change a characters alignment without their knowledge is both absurd and just plain weird behavior. As a DM I’d never even consider it as an option, and as a player I’d have no tolerance whatsoever for it.

Yeah, I'm glad that the alignment shift/XP penalty is dead and buried.

Truth be told, I don't even know the alignments of my player's PCs and don't really care. I try to pay attention to the other descriptors for motivation for plot and story, but I never enforce anything.

For my PCs I enjoy trying to put myself into someone else's shoes and trying to see the world through their eyes with their bonds, traits, flaws and, yes, alignment. But alignment is just one descriptor of many.

As far as evil, let's just say I've had bad experiences with people that got into it way too much for my taste so it's best to simply not go there.

 

[Helldritch]

Not all DMs do much of that, though. For instance, I'm more interested in my players giving their PCs detailed personalities, than what two letters are on their sheet. A human in the real world rarely falls within a single alignment with their behavior, and will often have narrow aspects that even fall into opposing alignments. Take a serial killer driven through some psychological flaw to kill certain people. Outside of that one horrific aspect, he might be a fine upstanding person. That's an extreme example, but most people have many such lesser examples riddled throughout their personalities.

I have the world at large respond to the PC's actions and I really don't care what letters they have down for alignment. If they come across one of the rare artifacts where alignment matters, I'll have to make a judgment about their general behavior to see if it matches up, but outside of those rare instances, the players are the ones that decide what their PCs do.

Alignment in my game is primarily a tool for me. I have too many monsters and NPCs for me to give all or even most of them detailed personalities. I'll do it for the few important ones, but for the rest it's alignment only or alignment plus a quirk or two.

A fine post. I too do not delve too much on alignment but the two letters matter. They are a guideline as much for monsters as it is one for the players. I expect a player to follow his alignment as much as possible but I do allow leeways and an occasional slip exactly because of the reasons you gave on your post.

At the same time, if a character never acts in accordance with his alignment, the player will get a warning. If the warning is ignored and the player keeps ignoring his alignment, I will ask him to change his alignment one step toward whatever he is currently playing. At some point, when a character becomes evil, it joins the ranks of evil NPCs. But this is rarely instantly (if it e er has happened, I do not remember) This is a matter of recurring behaviors that will lead to such a change.

 

[Hriston]

But that is your entire premise.

I'll define my own premise thank you!

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.

I don't know why you're using the royal we, but you (all) haven't shown that those pairs of characters have the same Charisma score, nor is there any agreement about what their alignments would be were they characters in my game. Mostly, as I've said, I have no idea who those characters are.

Your premise is based on a rationale that seems to make sense, but in practice falls apart at the seams.

That's because you seem to have very little grasp of what my premise actually is, but are rushing to judgment anyway.

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.

Says you.

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?

Actually, I saw it on opening night, but that was a long time ago, and I was asking you what your rationale was for assigning various alignments to the characters. I think I disagree with your emphasis on being literally law-abiding as a component of lawful alignment. The definition I use puts more emphasis on identifying with and working within a group. The act of stealing isn't necessarily chaotic, and I'd say that doing it for the benefit of his fellow street urchins makes Aladdin more lawful (and good). I also disagree with your assessment of Jafar. He seems to want his power legitimated through the structures of government and by marrying Princess Jasmine. He didn't just find himself in the position of Grand Vizier. Presumably, he worked to get there. The fact that he uses deception and subterfuge doesn't make him chaotic, just evil. At the height of his power, upon obtaining the lamp, his first wish is to make himself Sultan, and he then proposes marriage to the princess in a further attempt to legitimate his rule, even though he has no need to do so that is presented within the narrative. Only at the end is he seen grasping at power beyond what he can gain through the social structures of government, when Aladdin successfully appeals to his Evil lust for power and tricks him into wishing himself a genie. I'd say this constitutes a dramatic shift from LE, which Jafar has exhibited up until this moment, to NE, but it's also his undoing.

 

[Flamestrike]

Player: "You're wrong about that fictional character's alignment."

DM: I dont care. Thats how it is in this game world that I'm running. When you DM you can do it differently if you choose. End of discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I missed this earlier, but you're off base with that statement. Sorcerers have inherent/instinctive magic. That's it. Nothing in their write-up implies a chaotic personality. They are as likely to be lawful as chaotic as neutral. Warlocks make and keep pacts/contracts with entities, as well as follow those patron's instructions. That's a very lawful behavior. There are probably more lawful Warlocks than chaotic ones. Paladins are the one you noted. Bards with their jack-of-all trades, wandering lifestyle are probably more chaotic than lawful.

So we have 2 that would more likely be lawful(Warlock and Paladin), 1 that would more likely be chaotic(bard), and one that has no preference built into the class(sorcerer).

 

[Flamestrike]

If Good isn't morally upright and correct it is meaningless noise.

That's your opinion.

In the game world Evil people see it totally differently. They're correct, and the Good guys are wrong.

And if you are going to declare other player's interpretations of Good as subjective, while gleefully declaring your own as objective and noting how they will go to Hell for their actions, then what is the point of Alignment?

That is the point of alignment.

And as DM I get to determine objective reality of the game world. If I tell the Players that a rock falls from the sky, a rock falls from the sky.

The PCs on the other hand are stuck in Cartesian doubt.

And we can get into very precise things where this falls apart. Say for example you sneak up on a cult of demon worshippers and the wizard casts Cloudkill to try and take them out before they can turn and retaliate. CloudKill does poison damage, does poisoning unsuspecting people count as a good act or an evil act?

Depends. Was the act reasonably necessary to protect innocent people from being killed, and was the act proportionate in the circumstances.

That's the only relevant question.

Do you have the bad guys spill the beans on their plans if the players capture them?

Depends on the bad guys.

Do you have prisoners attempt to kill the players in their sleep?

Depends on the prisoners.

Do you make it more and more difficult for them to do the Good thing?

Not intentionally, but doing the Good thing is often hard.

Sure, "being good shouldn't be easy" but we are playing a game. And if being good means getting the snot kicked out of you every time you face an enemy who surrenders, then the players are going to get real sick of it real fast.

If you're a DM that has enemies surrender, just to attempt to murder the PCs in any sort of regularity, you don't deserve to be DMing.

They might try and escape captivity of course. But why on earth would they surrender (to a more powerful force) allow themselves to be disarmed (putting them at an even greater disadvantage) and then attack the same powefull creatures that spared them all over again.

Presumably they've formed the view that the PCs outmatch them when they surrendered. Desiring to survive, most creatures flee when given the opportunity to do so.

A few even remember being saved, and might even pop up later on to return the favor and help the PCs.

You know; like normal living creatures.

And then we are going to get into potential issues of "what is evil"

I covered that in session zero remember.

Evil = harming a creature unless reasonably needed to protect innocent life from harm or in self defence from an imminent threat, when no other option is reasonably open to you.

Dude goes for a weapon; you shoot him dead.

Can I use the suggestion or Dominate Person spells, or is magically robbing a sentient creature of free will Evil?

It's a form of (non lethal) harm. On the lower end. If a creature poses you harm, and you dominate person them to stop them from killing someone, that is in no way an evil act.

If you dominate person a harmless creature, and order it to murder its friends (who also pose no-one any harm) that's an evil act.

Again, see the definition of evil above.

There is so much grey area, it ends up being fairly arbitrary.

Lucky we have a DM isnt it?

If you want to maintain a good alignment, you refrain from harming others unless that harm is in self defence, or the defence of others, is proportionate to the threat, and no other option reasonably presents itself.

If you go around murdering people, raping them or torturing them, you're evil.

 

[Flamestrike]

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

Not according to your code of honor. According to theirs.

Devils have a very convoluted and rigid code of conduct they adhere to (religiously). Castes, tithes, contracts etc etc.

And, no, again, family is not a rigid system of promotions and demotions.

No, again you're applying a human-centric anthropomorphic definition of the word 'family'.

A thri-kreen or Mind Flayers conception of family is very different indeed from a humans.

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.

It does for Devils.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.

Generally its pretty obvious when a player has strayed agreed.

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

It's sadly not uncommon. Ditto murder.

I've had LG PC that tortured and then tried to kill a lone pitiful Kobold sentry to a dungeon entrance they clearly outmatched and could have simply let go.

Directly after session zero when I expressly stated this precise thing was evil, and told them as much before they did the act. Couldnt have been clearer. It was (by player consensus) a Good aligned/ Heroic party with no Evil PCs allowed.

Player in question was new to the group, and tried to argue 'the ends justify the means' for several minutes to the stunned silence of the other players (and the other Good aligned PCs who were horrified).

I sacked him from the group then and there, and retconned the scene much to the cheers of the other players.

I dont tolerate alignment arguments in game by disruptive fools like that. There is always an easy solution.

The door.

 

[Flamestrike]

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

And evil people by definition, disagree with that definition.

They're correct, and the do gooders are weaklings leading the world into corruption and decadence, and only (the Sith empire, Thanos, House Bolton, the Black Network, the Brotherhood of Mutants, Drow race, Nazi Germany etc etc) can save the world from such perversion and weakness.

They see their moral code as correct, and the good guys being incorrect.