D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[pemerton]

Okay, so no one can touch their hoard. They're possessive. Doesn't really tell me much about how they go about doing that, what they will do if someone does touch their hoard. Have the perpetrators thrown in jail? Eat them? Force them into a contract of service to pay for their sins? What if their hoard is safely tucked away and unthreatened. A group of people come along and ask for aid? How are they likely to react?

Devastate the countryside? What if you have a legion of faithful followers? What do you eat if the countryside is devastated? What's the reasoning behind it?

For the imp, if they aren't harvesting souls (or if there is no option to do so) what are they doing? When harvesting souls do they use trickery or a contract with fine print? How do they interact with other imps or those more powerful than they are?

I don't see how this is any different from alignment. The Sherriff of Nottingham is (presumably) LE and locks people up. Sahuagin are LE and sacrifice people to their diabolic deity.

If an imp isn't harvesting souls then what are they doing? I don't know - other than they're not doing their job - but I don't see how being told they're LE would help answer that question. I also don't see the contrast between trickery and fine print - the latter just seems like a particular case of the former. How do they interact with imps more powerful? Maybe they trade them souls, maybe they suck up to them, maybe they try to backstab them - wouldn't it vary from imp to imp and occasion to occasion?

 

[pemerton]

Topics.
(1) Can alignment be applied to fictional characters.
(2) Is alignment a useful framework for applying to fictional characters.

I was debating (1).
You are debating (2). I'm not interested in your flawed strawman debate.

I take applied to imply meaningfully or usefully. As opposed to pointlessly, arbitrarily or uselessly.

 

[pemerton]

I have regretted any game where I didn’t say to players No Evil

Interesting. I once GMed a game where one of the central PCs kept a bath of acid in his basement for the purposes of torture and/or body disposal, and he betrayed his city to an invader in exchange for the promise of a magistracy.

In a campaign that used alignment it would be inconceivable that this character would not have the "evil" label. In a campaign that didn't use alignment, though, he was one of the more memorable and engaging characters I've seen in a game.

I also don't see how you can enforce "no evil" if @Maxperson is correct and the GM isn't allowed to declare the alignment of a PC based on conduct. Because if that's true, then the player can just write Good on their sheet but play their PC doing evil things.

 

[TheSword]

Interesting. I once GMed a game where one of the central PCs kept a bath of acid in his basement for the purposes of torture and/or body disposal, and he betrayed his city to an invader in exchange for the promise of a magistracy.

In a game where the rest of the party are defending the city, this wouldn’t work for us.

In a campaign that used alignment it would be inconceivable that this character would not have the "evil" label. In a campaign that didn't use alignment, though, he was one of the more memorable and engaging characters I've seen in a game.

I also don't see how you can enforce "no evil" if @Maxperson is correct and the GM isn't allowed to declare the alignment of a PC based on conduct. Because if that's true, then the player can just write Good on their sheet but play their PC doing evil things.

I think you do see. You’re a smart guy.

You tell the players not to play evil alignment characters. If players start to do evil acts, you tell them that their alignment is moving towards evil (depending on the severity). You give them fair warnings. If the character continues with evil acts you notify the player of the alignment change and the character is retired as an NPC.

Alignment for a player is a reflection of what they do. It isn’t a straight jacket... it doesn’t stop them acting. However a campaign may have consequences for these behaviours.

The reason No Evil is so prevalent, is that in a game where some characters are Good, Evil characters almost always lead to disruptive behaviour.

 

[pemerton]

You tell the players not to play evil alignment characters. If players start to do evil acts, you tell them that their alignment is moving towards evil (depending on the severity). You give them fair warnings. If the character continues with evil acts you notify the player of the alignment change and the character is retired as an NPC.

Upthread, when I posted that one reason I don't like alignment is because it requires the GM to make precisely these sorts of moral judgements about actions declared for their characters by other participants, @Maxperson replied:

This hasn't been true since 3e, though. I'm not obliged to use alignment about anything the players declare for their PCs, because alignment isn't used like that anymore.

Which of you is giving me the correct account of how alignment works in 5e D&D?

 

[Aldarc]

Topics.
(1) Can alignment be applied to fictional characters.
(2) Is alignment a useful framework for applying to fictional characters.

I was debating (1).
You are debating (2). I'm not interested in your flawed strawman debate.

I take applied to imply meaningfully or usefully. As opposed to pointlessly, arbitrarily or uselessly.

Yeah, the debate "Can lipstick be applied to a pig?" does not seem like a useful or meaningful conversation. Obviously it can, but why are we bothering with such a pointless debate?

 

[TheSword]

Upthread, when I posted that one reason I don't like alignment is because it requires the GM to make precisely these sorts of moral judgements about actions declared for their characters by other participants, @Maxperson replied:

Which of you is giving me the correct account of how alignment works in 5e D&D?

Maxerson is entitled to his view. People who like alignment don’t get made in a factory using a .329 stainless steel die.

However, I believe what Maxperson is referring to, is that the rules don’t enforce the kind of distinction I’m suggesting. In 5e Holy Smite isn’t going to treat player Y differently because he killed babies last week.

I on the other hand am talking about a social contract agreement not to play an evil character because it’s disruptive to party cohesion. Because player A is put in an uncomfortable and annoying position where they have to bite their tongue about actions that would otherwise have them storming the player’s evil sanctum. I have no problem making broad moral judgements about characters behaviour in those circumstances. I’m the referee. That’s a table convention not a game rule. It just uses D&Ds convenient alignment distinctions to set its boundaries.

 

[Aldarc]

I on the other hand am talking about a social contract agreement not to play an evil character because it’s disruptive to party cohesion. Because player A is put in an uncomfortable and annoying position where they have to bite their tongue about actions that would otherwise have them storming the player’s evil sanctum. I have no problem making broad moral judgements about characters behaviour in those circumstances. I’m the referee. That’s a table convention not a game rule. It just uses D&Ds convenient alignment distinctions to set its boundaries.

I think that one reason why "no evil" is even necessary in the first place is because 'evil' even exists as a possible choice for character alignment. This is fundamentally about trying to fix a self-created problem. This is a conversation that is generally not required in other games that lack alignment but establish clear genre, setting, and play expectations. You will be playing heroes opposed to the shadow of Sauron in The One Ring. You will be playing crooks in Blades in the Dark. You will be playing noble, adventuring member's of The Queen's Finest in Blue Rose. Furthermore, many of these games don't require alignment because certain actions are linked to mechanics that risk corruption, insanity, despair, etc. These are things that don't often require the GM's questionable moral judgment to adjudicate.

 

[TheSword]

I think that one reason why "no evil" is even necessary in the first place is because 'evil' even exists as a possible choice for character alignment. This is fundamentally about trying to fix a self-created problem. This is a conversation that is generally not required in other games that lack alignment but establish clear genre, setting, and play expectations. You will be playing heroes opposed to the shadow of Sauron in The One Ring. You will be playing crooks in Blades in the Dark. You will be playing noble, adventuring member's of The Queen's Finest in Blue Rose. Furthermore, many of these games don't require alignment because certain actions are linked to mechanics that risk corruption, insanity, despair, etc. These are things that don't often require the GM's questionable moral judgment to adjudicate.

Those are very narrow groupings, and not very nuanced. Not all evil in middle earth originated with Sauron. There’s a big difference between a crook with a twisted sense of honour, and a crook who sets anyone he dislikes on fire. Nobility is not a guarantee of goodness.

You think the reason players want to do evil things is because alignment exists? I think they do evil things because it’s convenient and some people enjoy playing that character. Plus the fact that D&D doesn’t tell you what to be as a ruleset.

There has to be a half way house between saying anyone can be anything and everyone has to be one of the three muskateers.

The corruption systems in most games I’ve seen absolutely do require some adjudication. Unless they are tied to specific actions which again is limiting.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yeah, the debate "Can lipstick be applied to a pig?" does not seem like a useful or meaningful conversation. Obviously it can, but why are we bothering with such a pointless debate?

Well upthread a poster said one cannot apply alignment to fictional characters (because they are not D&D). I disagreed and pointed to the poster's own post as well as the numerous alignment memes which exist for the fictional characters of comics, literature and film. Thus people can and do utilise alignment to describe non-D&D characters. The argument that one cannot is false.

But perhaps you can tell us why you have inserted yourself so prominently in such a pointless debate.

EDITED.