Alignment issues

[Cake Mage]

My group has been having a lot of issues with alignment lately. You see, a while ago one of the PCs used torture to obtain information from a captured foe. I'm talking about breaking the fingers type of torture. So I ruled that his alignment would change from LN to LE. The scene itself was very intense. There were some of the PCs shouting that no we shouldn't do that, others trying to question the NPC, and still others standing idly by. The player didn't agree with me, but decided to accept it. Some of the other players agreed, others didn't.

Ever since then, however, alignment has come up in discussion at least once every 2-3 games. Sometimes its a simple discussion, other times its a heated debate on whether or not a certain action is considered evil, or unlawful or both, or whatever. i try as a DM to tell the players in advance whether an action is considered evil in my book, but whenever I do, an arguement seems to always break out. The best I can do, it seems, is tell them what I consider is good or evil ahead of time, so that they know whats up. But, it always gets tension.

So I guess my question is, what do I do?

 

[Scribble]

Well, technically as the DM you're the final word on it... But in the interest of group dynamics, maybe come up together with a system of what you consider good/evil and law/chaos...

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

Alignment, IMO, is the most difficult section of D&D as the game stands, because it is a variable that cannot be removed from the game without affecting certain parts of the rules, spells, and classes, yet has no quantifiable, hard coded method of determining what "alignment" a given action, character, or entity truly is.

The simple fact is, that, because alignment is a question and issue of morality, and peoples perceptions on issues of morality differ greatly, there is no true resolution to the issues that arise from it. Even having a long, thought out discussion on the matter will do little other than illuminate the differences of opinion people have on certain facets of the alignment system.

Good and Evil are difficult enough to resolve, but when you add in the ill defined terms of Law and Chaos, the situation begins to devolve into a giant maze of interrelated questions and definitions of what any particular action may or may not be.

Because of this, I myself have removed alignment from my game where at all possible, and particularly in regards to PCs themselves. I've actually found that this has a positive effect on the actions taken by players, as they tend to take actions based more upon their perception of their characters motivations, rather than their characters alignment.

In the end, I think that the alignment system will have a detrimental effect on the game, until the developers take the time and effort to fully integrate and codify it as a mechanic of the D&D system.

 

[AnonymousOne]

Alignment, IMO, is the most difficult section of D&D as the game stands, because it is a variable that cannot be removed from the game without affecting certain parts of the rules, spells, and classes, yet has no quantifiable, hard coded method of determining what "alignment" a given action, character, or entity truly is.

/cosign

I'm playing a character in my next campaign who is very VERY against government/Totalitarian rulers/and the gov't controlling people's lives. However, He believes in the protection of private property and the freedom of individuals.

I asked my DM what he wanted to do about alignment. Is he CN because he values freedom free from tyranny? Is he LN because he has a personal code of conduct? We decided that a lose form of LN would be the starting alignment. (BTW he's a Swashbuckler/rogue so we'll see how Unlawful I can get and stay "LN".

 

[gizmo33]

So I guess my question is, what do I do?

I think it's pretty easy to find an example from the real world (oh, say torture for instance ) where people can't even decide what's good and what's not when it really really matters. The alignment system was designed, apparently, under the assumption that such questions of "what is good/evil" were settled issues. This ignores the entire history of human thought.

So, as someone else pointed out, I think you need to just decide as a DM what's good/evil/lawful/chaotic and deal with it. Tell people upfront, don't expect people to share your definitions. Tell someone before they do something evil that it's evil - because their character would know if he lives in a world with absolute standards. The player won't know because IMO he doesn't live in such a world. Otherwise it leads to frustration because the player is doing something he thinks is good and you're telling him he's not.

Or, plan B (and the one I went with) is to drop the alignment system as written. I actually posted by new system some time back, and someone said it reminded them of the allegiances of d20 Modern, if that gives you an idea.

 

[Cake Mage]

I've wanted to do away with it because I knew it causes problems, but I couldn't figrue out what to do with some of the mechanics. I'll look at the d20 modern book and see what this allegencies is. I'm not familiar with it.

Some of the problem is I say hey I think thats an evil act. And another player will say, no thats more nuetral.

How do you act nuetral? what the heck is that all about?

 

[AnonymousOne]

I view neutral as being capable of either extreme. and in fact could participate in both extremes.

Just as you have a Neutral character torture an Evildoer they are questioning (seeing it as a method of obtaining information AND as an issue of just turnabout for an evildoer). You could also have a Neutral character rush into a burning orphanage to save children because they believe it to be the right thing to do. I would say that a neutral character is more concerned with efficiency and expediency than good or evil. Same goes for the Law/Neutral/Chaos dynamic. A neutral character will follow the law when it suits his ends/goals or will disregard it when it impedes him.

 

[Arkhandus]

The PCs who stood idly by were being either Neutral or Evil. The ones who just joined in the questioning but not the torture were being Neutral or Evil. The ones who were arguing it shouldn't be done were being Good, but only a little, because they would have been actively stopping the torture rather than just arguing against it if they were truly Good.

Also, alignment shouldn't be changed from just one event. Unless it's a really drastic event, like destroying an orphanage, or betraying one's evil master to save the world from his maniacal plot, or......um, whatever Lawful or Chaotic acts would be appropriately significant as to change a character's alignment suddenly.

Most alignment changes should be the result of a few moderately significant events/actions or numerous minor events/actions. A PC who tortures someone once is close to an alignment change towards Evil (or Neutral if they're Good-aligned beforehand), but it's not likely to take him over the edge unless he's behaved similarly cruelly or vindictively over a longer period of time, or he's done such a thing a second time. It depends.

A prolonged event would probably change alignment, but one day or one hour wouldn't likely be enough to do so unless, again, it was something drastic. Probably also depends on if the PC was repentant or remorseful afterwards. Though even repentance wouldn't likely save them from an alignment shift after the second or third infraction.

 

[gizmo33]

I've wanted to do away with it because I knew it causes problems, but I couldn't figrue out what to do with some of the mechanics.

Well, the place to start is to figure out what mechanics your talking about. I didn't personally find it necessary to have alignment in order to control player behavior - players just did what they felt like doing whether they had alignments or not - all that happened was that we argued less about whether such and such an act was good because it didn't matter. It was a lot easier to say "Thor doesn't condone torture" than "torture is evil" because the first statement is about a character of the DMs, and that's my character, so I (and only I) say what he likes and doesn't like. Paladins in my campaign follow a deity's well defined ethos - rather than some vaguely defined concept.

As far as the other mechanical issues, it's a lot to get into here, but basically you can start by removing alignment. Then spells and effects are self-expalantory - a sword that is +2d6 damage against evil doesn't do anything because no one is evil. "But it's a fantasy world! Certainly evil exists in some form!" you may say. And so did I - which is the line of reasoning that eventually led to my house rules. I'm thinking I should publish my notes - although folks who are good at searching ENWorld could probably find my notes already because I already posted them as a thread.

 

[Trickstergod]

One other observation is that you could just make things easier by only really being stringent about alignment extremes; chaos, good, evil, law.

I would like to think most players understand that any sort of alignment extreme, particularly when it's linked to a class, has the potential to fall.

But I'd be rightly pissed if a Lawful Neutral character of mine used torture and immediately went to an evil alignment. Particularly for just one act.

Neutrality should be a middle ground and if you can't perform evil acts while neutral, then why the heck is it neutral to begin with? It might as well be good at that point.