D&D 5E [5E] The few mechanical implications of Alignment

[iserith]

I wasn't trying to argue that the PC must always act in accordance with his alignment - after all, he's only human (or dwarven, elven, etc....), just that he shouldn't get away with consistently behaving in amanner that is clearly contrary to his stated alignment and not get called on it. Yes, actions dictate alignment (and help reveal it), but alignment also dictates and restricts actions, not in the sense that (say) a Lawful Good PC COULD NOT murder a helpless old man and steal his money, but rather in the sense that a genuinely Lawful Good PC WOULD NOT WANT to do so, and if he does, he's lying to himself about his true nature. Certainly such a character is possible - but the player shouldn't continue to insist that "Oh, he's totally Lawful Good - really!" while the PC goes about skinning baby kittens and burning down orphanages. (The deluded PC might think so, but his player surely should know better!) And of course, said PC would receive none of the few game-mechanical benefits of being Lawful Good, and would be considered Evil for such effects ("What do you mean, the Book of Exalted Deeds won't accept me? I'm Lawful Good... see, says so right here on my sheet!")

That said, there are certainly going to be times where it isn't 100% clear whether an action "fits" with a particular alignment (people disagree on moral issues, for instance), and in such a case the DM should cut the players some slack. Sometimes, a PC might be stuck in a situation where no matter what choice he makes, he has to violate his alignment (i.e a LG Paladin promises his friend that he will go immediately and rescue his friend's wife, who has been kidnapped by orcs. After making the promise, the Paladin's superior officer appears and orders him to go on a different mission right away to save a village under attack by trolls. The poor Paladin can't be in two places at once, so must either break his word to his friend or disobey his superior... a no-win situation.)

I think in a game based on imagination where alignment really has no teeth and where a player is entirely in charge of how his or her character thinks, acts, and what he or she says, thinking about things in terms of what a character would or should do is folly. A character does whatever a player says he or she does and given the practically limitless options to that end, I think it's better to think about what a character might or could do and being okay with whatever that turns out to be, provided the player is pursuing the goals of play in good faith.

If for some (good) reason you want a character's actions to be in line with the alignment listed on the character sheet, Inspiration is a good reward to encourage that.

 

[Fralex]

I try to avoid anything involving alignment; I even encourage my players not to put one down when I DM. I dunno, I guess it just bugs me because having a neat little chart for this sort of thing ends up implying that these nine combinations of letters cover every possible stance someone could take. I'd rather my players arrive at a character's moral views more organically. I've toyed with the idea of replacing alignment with the four personality temperaments in behavioral psychology, but I've never tried it out.