D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[tetrasodium]

None of that is relevant. I expect (at my table at least) players to play the alignment, traits and bonds of their character.

If that means accepting surrender so be it. If that means resorting to torture (i.e. they're evil aligned) so be it.

Play your damn characters.

The GM plays a very strong role in that last point that makes it relevant. If you as the GM back the players into a corner & snub them when they take steps in search of a lifeline the GM shouldn't be surprised if they as players look for whatever tenuous excuse their character needs in order to forge themselves a lifeline

 

[Maxperson]

I have about tje same experience as you. I never had any problems with alignment play save for one paladin and one cleric. One for an evil thing he had done. The cleric for an act of mercy she had shown (one of my very very rare evil campaign).

Unless the act of mercy went against her god's tenets, I wouldn't have had an issue with that. The prisons are full of evil people who showed mercy to a child, woman or someone else and ended up paying the price for it. If you've read the Dresden Files, John Marcone is a right evil bastard, who has a one person whom he would do anything to help. An evil person showing a rare act of mercy is pretty common in movies, shows, books and plays.

 

[Helldritch]

Unless the act of mercy went against her god's tenets, I wouldn't have had an issue with that. The prisons are full of evil people who showed mercy to a child, woman or someone else and ended up paying the price for it. If you've read the Dresden Files, John Marcone is a right evil bastard, who has a one person whom he would do anything to help. An evil person showing a rare act of mercy is pretty common in movies, shows, books and plays.

Priestess of Orcus that refused to kill an enemy of her religion because she was too young (a young princess). It was that same player that asked for an evil campaign. She was pestwring me with it as good was tiresome. She saw what an evil campaign could lead to and when it ended with her sacriificing a whole continent because all other life on it was extinguished. We had that game world slip into the abyss and it was a fitting end. Never did an other "evil" campaign after that.

 

[Maxperson]

Priestess of Orcus that refused to kill an enemy of her religion because he was too young (a young princess). It was that same player that asked for an evil campaign. She was pestwring me with it as good was tiresome. She saw what an evil campaign could lead to and when it ended with her sacriificing a whole continent because all other life on it was extinguished. We had that game world slip into the abyss and it was a fitting end. Never did an other "evil" campaign after that.

Okay, so not so much an alignment issue as a religious issue. I've had a number of those over the years as well. I think the only reason paladins went so badly in 1e and 2e, was that generally by the time the difference of opinion on what was or was not an evil act came to light, it was too late. The act had already been done and the DM was lowing the boom on the PC.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

None of that is relevant. I expect (at my table at least) players to play the alignment, traits and bonds of their character.

If that means accepting surrender so be it. If that means resorting to torture (i.e. they're evil aligned) so be it.

Play your damn characters.

The play session grinding to a halt because you refuse provide the players any hooks to advance is on you, not the players.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I'm talking about actual justice. The good kind, which was crystal clear from the context of the discussion that I've been having. European history is irrelevant.

There are several ethical arguments that the death penalty - or any form of taking human life, including the death penalty - is flat out injust, period; and other arguments that killing somebody who has wronged your community, while not inherently wrong, constitutes an abuse and overreach of state power when enshrined into law in the form of the death penalty, and thus injust. "Lawful executions in the name of justice" are nowhere near as universally lauded as you seem to be claiming. And by law and justice, whose law and whose justice do you refer to?

 

[Helldritch]

There are several ethical arguments that the death penalty - or any form of taking human life, including the death penalty - is flat out injust, period; and other arguments that killing somebody who has wronged your community, while not inherently wrong, constitutes an abuse and overreach of state power when enshrined into law in the form of the death penalty, and thus injust. "Lawful executions in the name of justice" are nowhere near as universally lauded as you seem to be claiming. And by law and justice, whose law and whose justice do you refer to?

You know that this was not so in ancient times do you? The concept of innocent until proven guilty is relatively new. It was more guilty until proven otherwise and the punishments for a crime was first on the victims (or their closest relatives) to decide wjich punishment to be enacted and how. Or it was to the lord (who would decide based on the wishes of the victim(s) and the tradition) to decide.

Here I must stress that I am not for the death penalty and I do strongly believe in social reinsertion (I am Canadian afterall) but I also understand the logic behind the death penalty. I do not have to agree with something to understand its view point/reason to exist. I am quite happy with our legal system where you can hope to see a criminal redeemed and be a part of our society. At the same time, when I play in a fantasy medieval time, I can endorse their system because it is not reality. This said.

In a fantasy setting what we perceive as evil might well be perceived as good and vice versa. Showing mercy to a small crime such as stealing a bread would be applauded in such a world but showing mercy to a heartless murderer would be perceived as evil to the core because it would be ignoring his/her victim(s). A lord that would not do the maximum to bring a killer to the galloes pole would be seen either as incompetent or as evil as the criminal. Thus, the famous:" Wanted dead or alive posters". Be it a person or a monster, a lord can not let things go unpunished. And as distasteful as it is, the death penalty was a common occurrence in those dark times. It was even preceded by torture to exact both vengeance and admitting of one's guilt.

So you are right that in modern time, it is not a good thing. But in a fantasy medieval time, it was the good thing to do.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That’s exactly correct. Alignment (as constructed in classic D&D) has no place in it.

Edited the post above for clarity:

PC/protagonist (Alastor) - darkbard’s Paladin

NPC (Covington’s) family - The murdered father and his children, killed while attempting to secure a second loan to save his ranch/farm.

NPC - Widow Covington

NPC Turned Follower - Rose Covington (daughter)

NPC Antagonist - Rancher-lender Clemente Shaw (owned the very late, very interest accrued loan on the Covington ranch).

I really want to play a character like Rose, at some point. The element of being taken in by a Paladin is even better.

Add in some elements of the Young Guns movies, and like...some kind of fantasy Dust Bowl, and that’s a hell of a character. Especially if the Paladin is also a PC.

Anyway, I don’t think the actions described in your session are all that hard to parse by alignment, though Rose’s alignment isn’t clear yet. Nothing especially evil or good about her taking justice for her father in a world (presumably) where there is no real justice to be found in a court or from the local political powers, for the powerless.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You know that this was not so in ancient times do you? The concept of innocent until proven guilty is relatively new. It was more guilty until proven otherwise and the punishments for a crime was first on the victims (or their closest relatives) to decide wjich punishment to be enacted and how. Or it was to the lord (who would decide based on the wishes of the victim(s) and the tradition) to decide.

Here I must stress that I am not for the death penalty and I do strongly believe in social reinsertion (I am Canadian afterall) but I also understand the logic behind the death penalty. I do not have to agree with something to understand its view point/reason to exist. I am quite happy with our legal system where you can hope to see a criminal redeemed and be a part of our society. At the same time, when I play in a fantasy medieval time, I can endorse their system because it is not reality. This said.

In a fantasy setting what we perceive as evil might well be perceived as good and vice versa. Showing mercy to a small crime such as stealing a bread would be applauded in such a world but showing mercy to a heartless murderer would be perceived as evil to the core because it would be ignoring his/her victim(s). A lord that would not do the maximum to bring a killer to the galloes pole would be seen either as incompetent or as evil as the criminal. Thus, the famous:" Wanted dead or alive posters". Be it a person or a monster, a lord can not let things go unpunished. And as distasteful as it is, the death penalty was a common occurrence in those dark times. It was even preceded by torture to exact both vengeance and admitting of one's guilt.

So you are right that in modern time, it is not a good thing. But in a fantasy medieval time, it was the good thing to do.

I mean, people can be wrong, even when it’s the overwhelming majority of people.

 

[Maxperson]

The play session grinding to a halt because you refuse provide the players any hooks to advance is on you, not the players.

Yes and no. Yes if you are not playing a sandbox where the players are proactive and expected to let you know what they want to do. No if you are playing that kind of sandbox. There are games where the DM is expected to react to what the players tell the DM that they are doing.