Alignment violations and how to deal with them

[Celebrim]

That might have been self serving bias: One player liked to play a mage and didn't want to be restricted as far as what creatures he could summon. (Side question: What happens if a player summons all alignments of creatures?)

I believe that in D&D terms most people IRL are 'Neutral'. They don't really care about issues like 'philosophy', 'ethics', 'morality', or 'spirituality'. None of those things seem to impact their daily lives. They believe that they are basically 'good people' and want to be basically 'good people', but also believe that sometimes 'doing what is right' means making compromises. They believe that morality is basically relative and situational and some things you'd never contemplate otherwise can be the right thing to do circumstantially. They believe that vices are really only vices if you take them to an extreme, and that anything taken to an extreme can be a vice. In short, the 'neutrals' are convinced (like almost everyone else) that they are 'good'.

Obviously, if the player doesn't care about the morality of what he is doing and he's only taking care not to be too extreme or go too far, he's probably neutral. If a wizard has 'neutral' written on his character sheet, and he's selecting creatures to summon solely on the basis of their situational utility, then I think he's in character.

I agree with all of this. However, I have found substantial disagreement from various players, to the extent of complete disagreement and unwillingness to consider the ideas as possibly valid.

I find that about 90% of players are unable, for whatever reasons, to play an alignment other than the one that they hold IRL. Lawful players IRL find they are unable to play anything but lawful characters, because dishonorable behavior (even imagined) disgusts them or seems incomprehensible to them (my most lawful player in my current group is always telling me after sessions when we discuss what happens, "I would have never thought of that..."). This goes around the wheel. Chaotics find themselves unable to abide by rules for long. I've had players completely unable to play anything but an evil character no matter how much they tried, which made me glad that there IRL self only expressed their disposition in generally petty ways and they weren't being asked to make life or death decisions IRL.

I don't pay too much mind to this, but it becomes a problem with a player insists that a certain outlook is 'good' even when it contrasts with the definitions you've provided for the alignments or when a player wants to be the 'hero' and to think of himself in that role but doesn't want to pay the price of being the hero. Additionally, the fact that underneath all of this it is a game tends to favor having the 'Neutral' outlook within the game unless the player explicitly considers exploring morality, philosophy, and spirituality as more important than 'winning' the game (acquiring XP, power, and keeping your character alive). Neutral is above all as pragmatic. So, in general if I believe the player is going to play his character pragmatically, I strongly encourage them to take 'neutral' as the character's alignment to avoid any possible argument. (Then again, you have the player that wants to play evil who also wants to use 'neutral' as emotional cover.)

In general, you should try to avoid the need to strongly disagree over this. If the character wants to insist his pragmatic outlook and lack of willingness to sacrifice immediate interests is 'good', there is little need to argue about it. Except for a few classes, there is no direct punishment for alignment drift. Instead, simply consider the outcomes of what he is doing and communicate the outcome to the character. At that point, it turns from an argument about IRL concepts, into an argument over what happens in your imagined world. And if the player still wants to insist that what you have chosen as the reasonable outcome isn't reasonable and isn't what should happen, then the fundamental problem is that the player wants to be in the game and running it too. He's trying to tell you what NPC's think and how the world should behave, and that should be the point you make to him. Maybe he is being unreasonably persecuted or blamed when he uses necromancy to save the village. Maybe the gods that call themselves 'good' aren't in fact good, and are just a bunch of jerks. Maybe he is the most noble character around, and the foolish village cleric is vain and envious. Maybe the bad things that are happening really aren't his fault. But his character should take up that issue in game, and not make it a point of contention out of game. Your basic defense is, "I told you this is the way my imagined world works all along; this is the way it working."

Just take care to not be letting your emotions about interfere with your judgment. Remember that being righteous, noble, and pure in your deeds generally doesn't lead to everyone liking you and no one disparaging you. Remember most characters in the world are probably neutral too and also believe that they are 'basically good people'. Remember not every failing has a consequence. But conversely, don't let a player behave in a way that doesn't have consequences if you want to have a world that feels real and is worth exploring philosophically. If the player plays a hedonist, there will be consequences. If the player makes no consideration for morality, there will be consequences. It's not a judgment against those actions; it's just the way the world works. After all, it could be the reasonable price for being good is they decide to kill you. Happens a lot. Everything has a cause and effect.

Where you really get into trouble, or where I've seen DMs really get into trouble, is if you don't take the time to make this all clear ahead of time so that it comes up as a complete surprise in the middle of play. Often this happens because the DM has never clearly worked out in his own mind what he means by 'law', 'chaos', 'good', 'evil' and 'neutral' or why summoning undead is evil or if he can't clearly elucidate why it is that way in his world, and just is working with the vague and often contradictory explanations in the text. That can be a show stopper.

 

[Celebrim]

Let's put it this way, if a player asks, "Why is summoning undead evil?", I may well respond to the query IC.

Me: "Make a knowledge (arcane) check to see how much you know about the metaphysics of necromancy?"
PC: "Err... 27."
Me: "Wow, you know a lot! Well, there are a lot of reasons both small and great but one of the chief ones that comes to your mind is that it upsets the balance of the universe. If too many wizards were to work necromancy, it would cause the world to become negatively aligned. Eventually this would break the Orichalcum thread upon which the crystal globe of the world is suspended, and everyone would find themselves on a one way trip down the Great Cascade into the matter destroying life eating negative energy plane. And that's why, long before things got to that point, some god's Paladin would be seeking you out to put an end to your evil doing. Likewise, long before things got to that point, you'd make a mess of the local environment, to say nothing of the all the cheese holes you'd be eating in your own soul."
PC: "But surely one animate dead spell wouldn't hurt anything?"
DM: "Well, assuming that the Orichalcum thread isn't right at the snapping point because of what some lich you've never heard of is doing on the other side of the planet, probably not a lot particularly if you were doing it for a noble cause, right? But, what I hear you saying when you saying that while it may be true that a lot of necromancy isn't bad, one time isn't, is that you must strike a balance? Sounds neutral to me."

 

[tomBitonti]

Let's put it this way, if a player asks, "Why is summoning undead evil?", I may well respond to the query IC.

...

PC: "But surely one animate dead spell wouldn't hurt anything?"
DM: "Well, assuming that the Orichalcum thread isn't right at the snapping point because of what some lich you've never heard of is doing on the other side of the planet, probably not a lot particularly if you were doing it for a noble cause, right? But, what I hear you saying when you saying that while it may be true that a lot of necromancy isn't bad, one time isn't, is that you must strike a balance? Sounds neutral to me."

DM (Continuing): Unless, of course, there is a strong local imbalance. Then the Orichalcum fiber associated with the local subdomain may become overstretched, leading to a partial fraying of the local fabric of continua, with an ensuing involvement of agents who would attempt to restore the continua to a stable state. You would notice a fraying by more frequent spontaneous raising of undead, perhaps with a slight chance of tears leading to the negative elemental plane. Of course, the agents would seek out any responsible for the local fraying. Perhaps you should consult with the local spiritual leaders to determine if their graveyards and other spiritual cites are experiencing any warning signs ... unquiet dreams, worrisome shifting of mortal remains, and the like?

Thx!

TomB

 

[am181d]

Let the players decide on their characters' personalities and choose alignments to fit. Generally, characters' personalities will stay fairly consistent, and there actions will match their alignment. And if they don't? Periodically reassess: "Jim, I've noticed that you're playing your character a little more chaotic good than lawful good. Do you mind if we switch it over?"

For classes like Barbarian/Monk/Bard/Druid, I generally ignore alignment restrictions.

The only place where it really makes a difference is Paladins/Clerics who are theoretically supposed to align to specific deities or codes. Here, I would give players general lattitude but provide a gentle warning of "This action is outside the bounds of your alignment." Let them decide to do it or not, but keep track, and if you get to 3+ of these, start a subplot where the PC is "warned" against deviating from the faith (via dream, messenger, an inopportune spell failure, etc.). If the PC continues to deviate, escalate, but give the PC multiple options. (Maybe a rival god entreats the PC to serve him instead?)

The bottom line is: Alignment should not be used as a cudgel to make the players fall in line with a DMs views of right and wrong. It should be used very sparingly as a flavor element around specific beings/powers.

 

[Celebrim]

DM (Continuing): Unless, of course, there is a strong local imbalance. Then the Orichalcum fiber associated with the local subdomain may become overstretched, leading to a partial fraying of the local fabric of continua, with an ensuing involvement of agents who would attempt to restore the continua to a stable state. You would notice a fraying by more frequent spontaneous raising of undead, perhaps with a slight chance of tears leading to the negative elemental plane. Of course, the agents would seek out any responsible for the local fraying. Perhaps you should consult with the local spiritual leaders to determine if their graveyards and other spiritual cites are experiencing any warning signs ... unquiet dreams, worrisome shifting of mortal remains, and the like?

Thx!

No problem. The point is that you have this worked out. In my case, the exact details of you extended explanation doesn't make sense for my homebrew world, because in that world there is just one Orichalcum thread - and you can go and physically inspect it if you have the requisite magical technology and you can sweet talk the Astral Devas that guard it.

But, your world is your world. Maybe in your world necromancy isn't evil, or it's evil for different reasons. But you shouldn't think that just because it has an 'Evil' descriptor on a spell that your work as DM is done and you just have to point at that and say, "See." If you can't think of a good reason for it to be evil, you shouldn't have it evil (which means accepting that there will be perfectly good and moral societies that routinely employ zombie labor). Personally, I can think of lots of reasons why you wouldn't want to employ necromancy that are fully satisfying and interesting to me, and so in my game it's definitely Evil.

But really, 'Animate Dead' isn't even likely to be where you have the conflict. The real show stoppers are going to be when it matters whether some hot bottom real life behavior often considered a vice is aligned in some fashion according to your world's definitions.

Questions:
a) Is adultery chaotic, evil, both, or neither?
b) Is fornication chaotic, evil, both, or neither?
c) Is slavery lawful, evil, both, or neither?
d) Is abortion chaotic, evil, both, or neither?
e) Is being sexist/racist (or other socially repulsive behavior or belief) evil, or is it just being a jerk, or is it just being a jerk if you are insensitive about your beliefs? And for that matter, is being a jerk evil or is 'jerkiness' all in the eye of the beholder?
f) Is drunkenness/intoxication chaotic, evil, both, or neither?
g) Is gambling lawful, chaotic, evil, some, or none?

You provoke those questions and similar ones in game at your own risk, and should take care about the beliefs of the group and possible sensitivities. Theory crafting is all well and good, but sometimes you just need to leave the subject alone for the peace of the table.

 

[Celebrim]

Let the players decide on their characters' personalities and choose alignments to fit.

I going to quibble and say that personality and alignment have only a very tenuous connection.

I can easily imagine a neutral good sarcastic, greedy, miserly, jerk. I can easily imagine a generous, sociable, friendly neutral evil person. Good people can be cowardly. Evil people can be brave.

Alignment for me is really something that is rarely expressed in a person. It's not something about a person you immediately notice and rarely have proof of. It's a deep underlying motivation. It's what a person does when the chips are down, when he's under stress, and what a person does about it.

Take the example of the good greedy miser. Everyone in town knows he's stingy. He haggles unrelentingly. He weighs every everything down to the grain and never charges for anything a penny less than what he can get for it. What's the difference between the good greedy miser and the evil greedy miser? Well, the good one is probably honest in the conduct of his business for one thing. He'd never cheat anyone. He'd never steal. If the good miser finds a purse along the side of the road, he's greatly tempted to say nothing and keep the contents - but he doesn't, even if it involves great cost to himself. That's one big difference. If the town burns down, the greedy miser overcharges everyone for everything to recoup his losses or to gain greater control over the town. The good miser on the other hand realizes that he's been a skin flint his whole life for this moment, and the purpose of his saving, scrimping, and grasping has been to help the town. He heroically gives everything he has away, not because he doesn't love his money and it doesn't cost him anything to do so, but because he is good and the proof of that is how much it costs him to give.

To make an example, consider the question of 'George Bailey' from 'It's a Wonderful Life'. George wants, really sincerely wants, to live his whole life for himself. To get out of Bedford Falls, to see the world and do what would make George Bailey happy. He's sincerely envious and ungrateful and regretful and sometimes even angry because he can't get what he wants. He lives in the continual temptation to live only for himself. But... every time that the chips are down and he has to actually make a choice between himself and loving someone else, he always choose the later. He does this not without cost because he's just such a naturally generous person who doesn't value himself or his money, but because he is sincerely a good person.

The really interesting character designs for me are the ones that play in that tension between personality and alignment, where the alignment and the personality are both well realized. I think one of the really big differences in playing a good and an evil character isn't so much personality but that the good character experience a great deal of anguish at his own insufficiency and (at least potential) wrongness. (The complete lack of this introspection and tension is my strongest evidence that the characters in The Authority are evil, above and beyond how carelessly murderous that they are with their near unlimited power. Contrast Superman's portrayal in 'Red Son'.) The good character tries to make things right. The evil character doesn't usually care, and has no interest in making things right.

(Although Rich does a wonderful job playing against this type by having Belkar internally anguished because of the conflict between his personality and perceived insufficient evilness. Belkar's resolution of this, the realization that he's evil to advance his own interests and not only for evil's sake, is likewise brilliant.)

The bottom line is: Alignment should not be used as a cudgel to make the players fall in line with a DMs views of right and wrong. It should be used very sparingly as a flavor element around specific beings/powers.

Again, I'm going to quibble around this and say that the real purpose here is to provide a very simple framework around the exploration of otherwise very complex topics in a way that is useful to heroic narratives. I'm not happy with the word 'cudgel', but do think that players need to accept that for the purposes of the game, 'good' and 'evil' and so forth have specific definitions. What doesn't follow from this that 'Neutral Good' is more right than 'Lawful Evil', and in fact it may be central to the philosophical space being explored by the narrative that it is not obvious that 'Neutral Good' is right and 'Lawful Evil' is wrong. I can making compelling arguments on behalf of each alignment in my game. If I couldn't, it wouldn't be believable that anyone would believe in any of the alignments in the game. Frequently, even most of the time, even 'Team Evil' believes that they are in the right, that 'Evil' is good and 'Good' is evil (or at least just plain wrong). I don't ask that the player believe exactly what I believe (which is in some cases different than the way the game world works anyway). I just ask for the sake of consistency that you drop a particular belief in the fantasy bucket designated to contain those beliefs. You can then go about trying to prove through your play that Communism or Objectivism or Pacifism or Fascism or whatever is in 'the right' as you like, or that the whole thing is just made up and arbitrary, or ignore the whole construct as meaningless, or whatever. The NPCs within the world certainly have these arguments. It's not considered obvious that 'Good' is right, and in fact most of the time far from it.

 

[MJS]

Let the players have fun being evil, it can be a real blast. And just have them change their listed alignment. I don't think a penalty is necessary.

 

[PlainSimpleGarak]

It's not so much that my newbie players want their characters to be evil. If they did I would have a much easier time mediating this - I would advise them to shift alignments and deities accordingly.

The problem is the players in question have created character they intended to be good characters. So much that they have goals that say 'when I grow up (level up) I want to be a part of a good organization that fights against evil!'

But, being newbies, they don't think things through before getting into the thick of the action. And when things go wrong, they freak out and do things that violate their chosen alignment.

Example:
The last game session featured the players sneaking onto a large sailing ship, to get back goods stolen from a merchant prince. It was made very clear to the PCs that these goods were stolen as part of a political subplot between various merchant princes, rather than piracy or direct thievery. Through their investigations they found that it was a personal vendetta between the Captain of the merchant vessel and the rival merchant prince - aka the vast majority of the crew is not in on this and is just a guy doing his job.

The rest of the party sneaks on board. The fighter/mage had been assisting them by creating a diversion, finds himself stuck onshore without the rest of his party. It is safe onshore, but when he sees bad stuff happening to his friends, he decides he needs to get on the boat, now. He can't swim. He has low dex and charisma, and doesn't think he'll make it past the sailors guarding the plank. So he asks 'if I dress as a sailor, can I just pick up some cargo and walk on' and the answer is 'yes, that is likely. There are a lot of sailors loading cargo.'

So he decides he's going to knock out a sailor and steal their clothing. But he doesn't think the plan through. He calls one sailor off, lying about some damaged cargo, and then he tries to cold-cock the guy. Except he doesn't have any particular skill at hand to hand so when he rolls, he ends up just starting a fistfight and punching the guy. And the sailor, getting a fist in the face, punches him back. They skirmish for a round or two, doing about 4 points of (we were counting as non-lethal) damage each. I narrate that the fight is becoming loud and starting to draw attention. My player panics, and uses shocking grasp on the sailor. Which kills the man, instantly.

[reference: PC has 21 HP / Sailor has 6HP / Shocking Grasp: 1d8+6]

To which one of my veteran players turns around, shocked and asks 'did you just kill that guy? That's evil...'

The newbie returns 'It was self defense!'

Veteran player replies 'you lied to a guy who was just doing his job, lure him into an alleyway, punch him - and then you get surprised when this crusty sailor type hits you back? And use a lethal spell on him?'

The newbie replies 'Well, the last bad guy we fought didn't go down so easily, I didn't realize sailors were so easy to kill...'

Which started the discussion of alignment and what to do with said player. And to find ways to describe to the play what it meant to be neutral good, and how to prepare your fights better if you're trying to not seriously injure someone.

It's a learning process. They are newbies. I'm just trying to find ways to communicate what they need to learn to them better

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6750381]PlainSimpleGarak[/MENTION]
This isn't an alignment issue at all; the title of the thread is misleading.

This is a new player expectation issue. The way the player said "I didn't know sailors were so easy to kill" implies that (a) they have differing expectations of what constitutes lethal vs non-lethal damage (maybe they only intended to knock out or stun the sailor like in the movies), and/or (b) they were thinking of it as a calculated risk with low risk of actually killing the sailor, perhaps coming from a video game standpoint where "sailor" is an enemy class with a certain number of HP...and their only context for enemy HP values was higher from a past encounter.

I would get clear with the player on those two points before calling an alignment foul (whatever that means).

 

[ppaladin123]

Yeah...especially if they are coming from a video game-shaped conception of fantasy, the players may assume that anything they meet is "their level," and thus a worthy opponent who can take and dish out damage appropriate for the players' abilities. In a sandbox style game you can find yourself facing opponents of far greater or lesser power....sometimes you should run away and sometimes you should pull your punches.

4e, by the way, had a simply kludge for this: if you reduce an opponent to 0/negative hit points with an attack you can decide if that attack simply knocked them out/subdued them or actually killed them. 3e let you switch certain attacks to nn-lethal damage but then you had to keep track of separate damage pools. Anyway the player didn't seem have intended the death.

Once they understand the game better I'd treat alignment in this way: you have a self-conception of yourself as "good" or "justified" and you have ideas about what behavior counts as "good" or "justified." Everyone has different ideas and they may disagree. A player may act in a way she feels is morally right or she may act in a way that disappoints herself and feel the need to atone. Regardless, other people (PCs and NPCs alike) will have opinions about her behavior and will respond accordingly. Don't worry about whether team good or team evil or the platonic form of law approves of her behavior...just make sure that her behavior has consequences (beneficial or harmful) appropriate to the situation. And remember that players may have a reason to be together but their PCs might not...an adventuring band needs more than just plot shackles to keep it together.