D&D General Do you use Alignment in your D&D games?

[Maxperson]

Early on we are warned in the 3.5 PhB that:
View attachment 151156

And so, for example:
View attachment 151157
(see also Barbarians, Clerics, Paladins, etc...)

So, anyway, we do have the previously quoted "not a straight jacket"
View attachment 151158

But the very next paragraph seems relevant to @Vaalingrade 's experience.
View attachment 151159

The "not a straightjacket" seems to mean that one shouldn't nit-pick and rules lawyer behavior. It doesn't say the DM shouldn't enforce the rules so that the rules for paladins, and detect evil, and... don't function. In fact it explicitly says "the DM may decide that your character's alignment has changed" because of the characters actions.

Reading that way (in conjunction with the time requirement in the DMG) makes one of the atonement spell options make more sense. It feels like it doesn't make sense at all to me if the characters can willy-nilly change alignment.
View attachment 151160


Moving on to the DMG we get more of where it feels like @Vaalingrade 's DM might have been getting things. (Granted this is 3.5 not 3):

View attachment 151161
View attachment 151162
The "you" in "you are in control" is the DM. And while they aren't a straightjacket (as per the PhB), they also "aren't garments you can take off and put on casually" (above).

While Alignment is a tool in 3.5 to help players, it also seems that the rules have it serving as a DM moderated tag that can have a variety of implications.

The alignment section is very clear in stating that people do not function entirely within one alignment. If the DM is changing a NG PC with a personal code to LN based on that one instance of being outside of NG, he is abusing his authority and the system.

So yes, if a PC is consistently behaving in ways outside of the alignment on his sheet and not also behaving consistently in the alignment written down, he's justified in changing that alignment. That isn't what @Vaalingrade described, though. He described DM abuse of authority and acts outside of RAW.

 

[Burnside]

I've found myself quickly flipping through the DMG pages looking for creature type sometimes, and alignment others. The various search engines for PF were particularly nice for skipping the physical flipping part.

But if we're not flipping anymore, then having 20 or 30 common tags would work too. (And so now I want to see what would end up in that kind of list).

DNDBeyond has this. You can search by Monster Type, CR, Size, Environment, Alignment, Armor Class (range), Average HP (range), Senses, Save Proficiency, Skill Proficiency, Legendary (Y/N), Mythic (Y/N), Has Lair (Y/N), Resistance type, Damage Immunity type, Condition Immunity type, Vulnerability type, Languages, Movement Type, Monster Tags, Source, and Monster Sub-Type.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So you're saying you have no restrictions?

I'm saying you wouldn't enjoy our games. We've got no alignment, fighters punching boulders into plaster powder, all sort of stuff we've disagreed on.

 

[payn]

Sure, if there are game rules that care what alignment a creature is, that completely changes the conversation. Now the label has utility, because it affects the game in tangible ways. This is not the case in D&D 5e though.

General D&D thread. I'll just plug another hope for alignment module in 5.5.

I would too. Alignment is the generic description in every single submission that I would rather not have, in favor of specific, unique descriptions.

See, I like that alignment does all the generic lifting in two letters. Guess that's where we vary.

 

[Oofta]

In 3.5 it does let the DM say they can't consistently behave in some ways if they want to still be a Bard or Barbarian or Cleric or Monk or Paladin though, right?

(Which is why many like alignment in 5e better).

Other than paladins, I never saw it come up over decades of play and even that was a one time thing. In my game you can have your PC do evil things, and I'll remind you that I don't allow evil PCs. You are then free to do whatever your PC wants to do, they just become an NPC. But it's always a player's choice on what their PC does, there may be consequences to what the player decides.

The important thing to me is that the player has autonomy over what their PC thinks and does outside of rare magic such as domination. It's also in line with my reading of the rules.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That isn't what @Vaalingrade described, though. He described DM abuse of authority and acts outside of RAW.

I described a DM pointing out RAW in character creation as characters that the game does not permit and in one case each, an optimal build and an artifact changing a character's alignment.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Other than paladins, I never saw it come up over decades of play and even that was a one time thing. In my game you can have your PC do evil things, and I'll remind you that I don't allow evil PCs. You are then free to do whatever your PC wants to do, they just become an NPC. But it's always a player's choice on what their PC does, there may be consequences to what the player decides.

The important thing to me is that the player has autonomy over what their PC thinks and does outside of rare magic such as domination. It's also in line with my reading of the rules.

They don't have autonomy though. You take their character away if you don't like how they're acting.

Call it 'consequences' all you want, but it's removing autonomy.

And if we stop and observe what D&D considers evil and not evil*, then the in-game consequences are wild. Dominate minds all the time? Coolio. Steal some bread to feed some orphans one too many times? Gimmie that sheet!

*you don't go by that? Okay then, so you're not actually using the system.

 

[Oofta]

Again. General. Thread.

This thread has a ton of DMs in it saying they're specifically using it as a stick to enforce behavior. 'No Evil', 'preventing murder hobos', 'making them reflect on their actions'.

No evil has nothing to do with alignment. Are you saying there is nothing a player at your table could say or do that you would not object to? Portray a PC in a way that makes other people at the table feel is insulting or incredibly offensive is perfectly okay?

 

[Maxperson]

I described a DM pointing out RAW in character creation as characters that the game does not permit and in one case each, an optimal build and an artifact changing a character's alignment.

The lack of permissions, though were irrelevant, since you could by game permission make an eco terrorist druid and a bard with a personal code. The optimal build isn't one you had to take. And the artifact alignment change wasn't really relevant since you are allowed to act outside of your alignment, so it isn't as if you could be forced to always act LN. Alignments are just the box you fit in most of the time. So as long as you were playing LN 51% of the time, you could play anything else the remaining 49% of the time and still be acting according to LN. Hell, if you were willing to lose a level you could just change alignments to whatever you want.

I'm also curious what the alignment of the PC was before the alignment change.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No evil has nothing to do with alignment.

??

Are you saying there is nothing a player at your table could say or do that you would not object to? Portray a PC in a way that makes other people at the table feel is insulting or incredibly offensive is perfectly okay?

Why do you keep asking this weird, leading question? We have table agreements, but we don't have or need alignment to beat that into anyone or apply in-game 'consequences'.

 

[Maxperson]

They don't have autonomy though. You take their character away if you don't like how they're acting.

Call it 'consequences' all you want, but it's removing autonomy.

But it only comes into play if your constantly acting in another alignment and failing to act within the one selected. If the DM is changing alignment just because you step outside of the one written, that's an abuse of authority, not adhering to RAW which allows you to step out of your alignment.

 

[Lyxen]

3.5 says it's fine and expected that players will deviate some from the claimed alignment, but if they do so regularly the DM should change their alignment. By 3.5 RAW, you explicitly can't play someone fairly consistently as a different alignment than what is written on the sheet without the DM stepping in.

That's normal, you can't play a character with 12 strength as if he had 18 strength.

 

[Cadence]

The lack of permissions, though were irrelevant, since you could by game permission make an eco terrorist druid and a bard with a personal code. The optimal build isn't one you had to take. And the artifact alignment change wasn't really relevant since you are allowed to act outside of your alignment, so it isn't as if you could be forced to always act LN. Alignments are just the box you fit in most of the time. So as long as you were playing LN 51% of the time, you could play anything else the remaining 49% of the time and still be acting according to LN. Hell, if you were willing to lose a level you could just change alignments to whatever you want.

I'm also curious what the alignment of the PC was before the alignment change.

If 51% LN and 49% CE is LN, and 49% LN and 51% CE is CE, then the system sure seems useless and inane.

Edit: Now, if they were adjacent alignments, that would feel different. 51% LN/49%LG. But even then wouldn't LN with Good tendencies be a common phrasing? And LN with G tendencies doesn't seem that different from LG with LN tendencies.

 

[Lyxen]

Again. General. Thread.

This thread has a ton of DMs in it saying they're specifically using it as a stick to enforce behavior. 'No Evil', 'preventing murder hobos', 'making them reflect on their actions'.

No, we are using table rules and session 0 to make sure that people are on the same line. The "no evil PC" is just a table rule, and people have told you that this exists in games where there is no alignment.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The lack of permissions, though were irrelevant, since you could by game permission make an eco terrorist druid and a bard with a personal code.

Technically the game allows a CN druid, but tell people here they are bad DMs for disallowing an alignment. I dare you.

And the bard was LN in the DM's eyes. Full stop. If they entered play, I could theoretically play them as non-boring, but I'd be an Ex-Bard until the change happens per RAW.

The optimal build isn't one you had to take.

Have you seen the 3e Fighter and Unarmed fighting rules?

And the artifact alignment change wasn't really relevant since you are allowed to act outside of your alignment, so it isn't as if you could be forced to always act LN.

The Balance card says you have to play the new alignment.

Alignments are just the box you fit in most of the time. So as long as you were playing LN 51% of the time, you could play anything else the remaining 49% of the time and still be acting according to LN. Hell, if you were willing to lose a level you could just change alignments to whatever you want.

1) level loss is not a rule in 3e for alignment.
2) Level 1 loses a level. Okay.

I'm also curious what the alignment of the PC was before the alignment change.

Like I said in the post, CG because it was one of only 3 I had any interest to play from CG, NG, and CN. The book itself you shouldn't play evil without saying you can't play evil.

 

[Oofta]

??

Why do you keep asking this weird, leading question? We have table agreements, but we don't have or need alignment to beat that into anyone or apply in-game 'consequences'.

I keep asking because you refuse to answer a simple question. It sounds like we both draw lines, we just draw them differently.

No evil isn't about alignment. It's something I tell people when I invite them to the game, I would have the same restriction in any TTRPG. I don't want to play a game where the protagonists thugs or anti-heroes.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No, we are using table rules and session 0 to make sure that people are on the same line. The "no evil PC" is just a table rule, and people have told you that this exists in games where there is no alignment.

You mean the people who expressly say they use alignment for this purpose? They're not using alignment?

 

[Oofta]

You mean the people who expressly say they use alignment for this purpose? They're not using alignment?

People know what I mean when I say no evil. It would apply to any TTRPG I was game master for.

 

[Cadence]

You mean the people who expressly say they use alignment for this purpose? They're not using alignment?

Evil also has a "plain English" dictionary definition outside of the game. Presumably when people describe a genocidal monster in the news as evil they aren't generally conjuring up D&D alignment rules in their heads.

That being said, it does feel like in a D&D thread that assuming one means D&D alignment isn't a stretch.

 

[Vaalingrade]

People know what I mean when I say no evil. It would apply to any TTRPG I was game master for.

You're not the only respondent to the thread who has said this.

There are people who have said 'I use alignment to..", leaving no ambiguity.