D&D 5E A different take on Alignment

[doctorbadwolf]

Common enough. Same with slaughtering captured prisoners, murder and similar.

They write down Good, and then start acting very Evil. When called out on it, they provide a ton of justifications.

Personally, I dont tolerate that crap. I'll explain my take on alignments, how they're viewed by the 'Gods' and that's that. I'll indicate to a new player if I think he's stepping outside his alignment and eventually I'll note the PC's actual alignment on my own records, and if there is a game effect that triggers on alignment (a unicorns lair, a talisman of ultimate evil etc) then it works off the alignment they've been playing, not what is written on their character sheet.

Your players put up with that crap!?

 

[Helldritch]

No, but it does prove the rule is wrong.

Nope, it shows that the rule is flexible enough to be bend as needed by the narrative. This is a big difference. You can bend it if you need to. You are not obliged to. This is a big difference.

 

[Flamestrike]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems unlikely to me that very many D&D players are actually psycho- or sociopaths. It seems more likely that there is something about the game setup that creates distorting incentives.

Its both actually.

Re sociopathy, it's hard to feel genuine empathy for a fictional NPC. It's one thing to to murder/ torture a fictional NPC, actually doing it IRL is a different story.

Also the game rewards murder. If you got double XP for non violent resolution of conflict, you'd see very different actions taken by tons of players at many tables.

 

[Flamestrike]

Your players put up with that crap!?

Its called adjudicating the rules. It's the DM's job.

I'm not having a PC who rapes, murders and tortures being able to pick up and use a Talisman of Good simply because he has 'LG' written on his character sheet.

He's evil, whether he accepts that fact or not.

They can play their PCs how they want; it's just not their call how the mechanics work (or how they get judged by Kelemvor on death).

 

[Flamestrike]

Nope, it shows that the rule is flexible enough to be bend as needed by the narrative.

Exactly.

So the rule is actually not 'All Mind flayers are evil, and lack free will to be good'.

The rule is 'Most mind flayers are evil; they have free will and can choose to be good'.

Don't get me wrong, you treat Mind Flayers with extreme prejudice, fully expecting them to mind blast you and try to enslave you or eat your brain, listening to their entreaties with due caution.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Its called adjudicating the rules. It's the DM's job.

I'm not having a PC who rapes, murders and tortures being able to pick up and use a Talisman of Good simply because he has 'LG' written on his character sheet.

He's evil, whether he accepts that fact or not.

They can play their PCs how they want; it's just not their call how the mechanics work (or how they get judged by Kelemvor on death).

Yeah the “your alignment is wrong” part isn’t the problem. The thing that every player I know would not tolerate is you just deciding what their alignment is, without any discussion.

You want to talk to me about my characters actions and their alignment, fine. You don’t get to tell me what my character is, ever.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yeah the “your alignment is wrong” part isn’t the problem. The thing that every player I know would not tolerate is you just deciding what their alignment is, without any discussion.

I said I have that discussion. In session zero. I clearly outline the alignments, what they mean, and how I rule it.

I also put people on notice when they're acting outside their alignment.

'Bob, you're LG. Murdering the mayor in his sleep is an evil act. Full stop.'

They can play their characters how they want (unless it's a 'no evil PC' campaign). I'm not going to stop them. Just remind them that (in the view of the Gods) the PC is not the alignment the player wrote down on the sheet.

You want to talk to me about my characters actions and their alignment, fine. You don’t get to tell me what my character is, ever.

Im not telling you what you are. Your actions decide that. Im not getting in the way of your agency (again, unless it's a 'no evil PC' campaign by group consensus).

In this case, you're a person who thinks they're lawful and good, but in reality is anything but.

 

[Flamestrike]

I have the discussion in session zero to ensure players pick the appropriate alignment for the character they want to run, knowing that if they stray too far from that alignment, I'll note down what their 'true' alignment is.

It's generally nothing more than to help them roleplay, but occasionally there are mechanical effects from alignment where it's important to make a ruling.

Im not having 'Jeoffrey the Bold' the 'Lawful Good' Fighter, who routinely murders and tortures humanoids, seeks to resolve every conflict with violence (unless in self defence or the defence of others) while lying, acting like a lone wolf, railing against tradition and order, and acting like a dishonorable murder-hobo benefitting from a Talisman of Pure Good, or a Unicorns Lair or anything else of that nature.

The player can play Jeoffrey that way. Maybe even Jeoffery sincerely believes himself to be a lawful and good man.

Jeoffery is in for a rude shock on death when he winds up in the Abyss however.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah the “your alignment is wrong” part isn’t the problem. The thing that every player I know would not tolerate is you just deciding what their alignment is, without any discussion.

You want to talk to me about my characters actions and their alignment, fine. You don’t get to tell me what my character is, ever.

Er, the lion just bit your character's head off. He IS dead.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm taking it as a given that, in D&D, there is conflict between law and chaos. And also that it is possible to participate in this conflict and yet not be evil.

The only place where really conflict between Law and Chaos really seems to have any significance in the D&D Multiverse is the Blood War. The rest of the multiverse, for the most part, don't seem to care.