D&D General So how about alignment, eh?

[Lorithen]

In the main campaign I'm currently playing in (heavily modified 1e homebrew), the DM wants people to focus on "playing personalities" rather than "playing alignments." At the same time, our equivalent of the Players Handbook, which we call the Blue Book as it's in a blue binder), does cover alignment ("Alignment is a simplistic, short-hand label used to describe a character’s or creature’s set of general moral and personal beliefs and attitudes") and it shows up in the campaign in different ways (e.g. the party might find an evil weapon).

The Blue Book describes the nine alignments, but also that they're not nine discrete categories, that alignments can change over time, and that alignment isn't a strict box that a character fits in 100% of the time, e.g.:

"These labels can be useful at times but should not be considered a complete summary of any being. Life on Dafan is not as simple as 'good vs. evil' or 'law vs. chaos' -- there are many shades of grey and much complexity. A person might be lawful and good in most respects, but chaotic under certain circumstances -- thus they would be classified as LG(NG). Politics and personalities often have a much greater influence on whom potential allies or enemies might be. Just as in any world with a long history of wars and politics, a character might find allies ... or enemies ... where they least expect them (for example, the nominal ruler of one prosperous and peaceful nation also just happens to be a Lich). You cannot boil down an entire personality to one point on the diagram. At best the point is an “average” of their beliefs and attitudes."

Plus on this campaign world (the predomininant Human culture where most adventuring happens is based on pre-classical Mycenaean Greece) there is some cultural relativism.

"There are many different cultures on Dafan, and all of them have different attitudes towards social issues which other cultures might differ on. There is no absolute rule, for example, that slavery is automatically evil. Similarly with assassins’ guilds -- in some cultures they operate 'underground,' while in other cultures they function as a respected branch of government, providing national security services and personal protection. Cultures with slavery or civil servants who are licensed-to-kill are not necessarily 'evil.' For example, a goodly person might belong to a culture where slavery is part of life; it is how you treat your slaves that is important, such that a goodly person would treat them with kindness and respect (essentially like servants on contract), while an evil person would treat them cruelly. "

Again though, our DM wants the emphasis to be on developing and playing a character's personality, and people in the 'real world' seldom fit into neat little boxes 100% of the time, so he doesn't expect characters to do so either.

Attached is the "alignment chart" from our "Blue Book," in case anyone's interested:

 

[Maxperson]

I figure we could use a palate cleanser. So, how about alignment? Do you prefer the classic nine, the 4e five, or something else? What about Chaotic Neutral – 1e/2e's random wackiness or 3e/5e's anarchist?

I much prefer the classic 9, but as an RP aid only. I don't want mechanical teeth attached to alignment. It should be a tool, not a bludgeon.

 

[Clint_L]

Not to make everything about Critical Role, but at one point of Campaign 1 Matt Mercer forced an alignment change on Laura Bailey's character Vex'alia, moving her from chaotic good to chaotic neutral. This was in reaction to a number of things, but primarily Vex stealing a coveted magic item, a flying broom, from a trusting ally. Laura Bailey was not best pleased by this, or so it seemed, and the event definitely spurred some conversations about the role of the DM in "policing" alignment. Mercer is a bit of an old-school DM, but I don't think we would see him handle the situation the same way today.

What do folks who use alignment think about the DM stepping in like this? I tend to think it was justified, given that they were playing a campaign with alignments more strictly built into the setting.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Not to make everything about Critical Role, but at one point of Campaign 1 Matt Mercer forced an alignment change on Laura Bailey's character Vex'alia, moving her from chaotic good to chaotic neutral. This was in reaction to a number of things, but primarily Vex stealing a coveted magic item, a flying broom, from a trusting ally. Laura Bailey was not best pleased by this, or so it seemed, and the event definitely spurred some conversations about the role of the DM in "policing" alignment. Mercer is a bit of an old-school DM, but I don't think we would see him handle the situation the same way today.

What do folks who use alignment think about the DM stepping in like this? I tend to think it was justified, given that they were playing a campaign with alignments more strictly built into the setting.

i don't watch CR but i think it's important to have an outside perspective on character behaviour as seeing things only from your own justifications can bring a bit of bias with it but maybe give players a heads up to their drifting alignment and give them a chance to course correct rather than a 'this is happening now'.

but if there's no mechanical consequences for swapping alignment then i think it#s mostly that people get offended that you've deigned to judge their actions and found the results don't match their headcanon of their OC, and if there are mechanical consequences most players aren't going to be inclined to fess up on having crossed that line into a new alignment.

 

[Oofta]

Note that a ton of RPGs don't have anything like an alignment system and it isn't really missed. I don't use it in D&D and it isn't missed. Even my extra-planar entities are not "lawful good" or "chaotic neutral" or whatever.

I see it as a very contrived way to get players to think about morality at a superficial level, and to create factions for gaming purposes. I think the former was never particularly effective or necessary, but the latter can be kind of a fun contrivance, as long as you don't mind accepting someone else's assumptions about "good," "evil," etc., at least while playing a fantasy game.

Ultimately, I'm not too fussed about alignments.

One of the reasons I prefer 5E's take is that alignment is optional, something you use if it's helpful or ignored if not.

Other games, such as Vampire the Masquerade clans, are not only more restrictive but also make a lot of campaign world assumptions. Personally, I don't think that's better. If you have a game that doesn't use anything akin to alignment, all you've done is take away a potential tool that can be handy occasionally or completely ignored depending on preference.

 

[BRayne]

Not to make everything about Critical Role, but at one point of Campaign 1 Matt Mercer forced an alignment change on Laura Bailey's character Vex'alia, moving her from chaotic good to chaotic neutral. This was in reaction to a number of things, but primarily Vex stealing a coveted magic item, a flying broom, from a trusting ally. Laura Bailey was not best pleased by this, or so it seemed, and the event definitely spurred some conversations about the role of the DM in "policing" alignment. Mercer is a bit of an old-school DM, but I don't think we would see him handle the situation the same way today.

What do folks who use alignment think about the DM stepping in like this? I tend to think it was justified, given that they were playing a campaign with alignments more strictly built into the setting.

I'm inclined to think Mercer sort of caved to pressure from people to "punish" Laura for breaking the unwritten rule of not stealing from another player character. To provide context I would note that the character, Gern, that she stole from wasn't really a "trusted ally", they had first met them the same day she stole the item. In fact if he wasn't a guest player character I'd think they would have likely fought since Gern was a necromancer with a group of zombie bodyguards at least partially made up of the corpses of Keyleth's people. Vex also was neutral good originally and it jumped her over to chaotic neutral. But I think most notably Percy was also stated to be neutral good and as far as we know managed to maintain that status throughout the entire campaign despite, among other things, torturing a number of people.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm inclined to think Mercer sort of caved to pressure from people to "punish" Laura for breaking the unwritten rule of not stealing from another player character. To provide context I would note that the character, Gern, that she stole from wasn't really a "trusted ally", they had first met them the same day she stole the item. In fact if he wasn't a guest player character I'd think they would have likely fought since Gern was a necromancer with a group of zombie bodyguards at least partially made up of the corpses of Keyleth's people. Vex also was neutral good originally and it jumped her over to chaotic neutral.

Worth noting that they introduced the broom in the cartoon in a completely different way, sidestepping all of this entirely.

 

[Staffan]

Not to make everything about Critical Role, but at one point of Campaign 1 Matt Mercer forced an alignment change on Laura Bailey's character Vex'alia, moving her from chaotic good to chaotic neutral. This was in reaction to a number of things, but primarily Vex stealing a coveted magic item, a flying broom, from a trusting ally. Laura Bailey was not best pleased by this, or so it seemed, and the event definitely spurred some conversations about the role of the DM in "policing" alignment. Mercer is a bit of an old-school DM, but I don't think we would see him handle the situation the same way today.

What do folks who use alignment think about the DM stepping in like this? I tend to think it was justified, given that they were playing a campaign with alignments more strictly built into the setting.

That was perfectly justified. As I recall, it wasn't the first time Vex had put her own desires before the needs and wants of others, which is antithetical to Good.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That was perfectly justified. As I recall, it wasn't the first time Vex had put her own desires before the needs and wants of others, which is antithetical to Good.

Modern players tend to believe more that they are fully in charge of their characters. See any discussion about warlocks and their patrons.

 

[Staffan]

Modern players tend to believe more that they are fully in charge of their characters. See any discussion about warlocks and their patrons.

No-one prevented Vex from stealing stuff. Laura had full control over her character. There was just a consequence in the world from doing so. And it's not like the change affected anything mechanically (although it might have done so down the line, when they started getting involved with divine stuff).

Warlocks and patrons are a bit different. The fluff says warlocks get power from their patron, but the rules never say what happens if there's a falling-out between them. The same thing goes for clerics – 5e has no "ex-clerics". A DM might rule that they have problems with spells and abilities that call on their deity's direct attention (e.g. Divine Intervention), but other than that there really aren't any consequences.