D&D 5E How do you measure, and enforce, alignment?

[Corpsetaker]

I don't have to enforce alignment, my player's do that to each other.

 

[MechaPilot]

"do that to each other," not "do that for each other."

Makes alignment sound like such a pleasant thing, doesn't it?

 

[Corpsetaker]

"do that to each other," not "do that for each other." Makes alignment sound like such a pleasant thing, doesn't it?

All the players know each other's alignments and if they go outside that on a regular basis then they are called out on it.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Mainly remove cleric spell and take smites away. Don't let them use alignment based magic items if they aren't playing that type of character. It's been no big deal to me. Alignment is pretty cut and dry and easy to adjudicate.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

In the example cited in this thread, a character in a story can be "good" simply because the author says so. Its a bit circular, but the since the author gets to say what the grail does AND what the character does, the author gets to define "good" through literary device. That's not really comparable to using a "mechanic" like we do in rpgs. (Unless you're trying to use your game to beat up on your players' contrary views of morality.)

On the contrary, the mechanic works best when there's consensus between DM and players about what it means. And, contrary to the table-fight horror stories that make their way to online alignment threads, consensus really is the norm. It's seldom contentious that the monsters trying to destroy the town are evil and the heroes trying to protect the town are good. We should keep it in perspective that hard corner-cases are the exception rather than the rule in this game. Personally, I've been playing for nearly two decades with a variety of different groups, and I've never had a serious disagreement over alignment in actual play. Ever. Seriously.

So, rather than "LG", I might have a player pick three defining ethics like "Gain XP/Inspiration whenever you put yourself at risk to defend the innocent." and "Gain XP/Inspiration whenever you endure suffering because of your religious convictions." and "Gain XP/Inspiration whenever you donate a magic item or treasure worth at least 500gp/your level to the church." That would give me a far clearer picture of what this character is about.

You don't want to reward characters for specific behaviors. That potentially leads to degenerate incentive structures -- e.g., "I get XP for donating valuable treasure to my church, so I should acquire as much valuable treasure as possible by any means necessary!" That doesn't seem like what you were going for, does it? Where alignment is concerned, general is better. If you want a character to be an honorable-knight sort of guy, you should have him behave with overall honorable-knight-style conduct, rather than picking out some particular actions you associate with honorable knights.

But really, you don't want to reward characters for conduct at all. What if this character stops putting himself at risk to defend the innocent, and instead starts putting the innocent at risk to profit himself? Is that worse? Well, morally, yes, of course it is, but from the perspective of gameplay and narrative it seems like a perfectly valid character development. And it's not really fair that the character would keep reaping XP/inspiration awards for staying an honorable knight but must forgo them by changing conduct this way. Incentivizing LG/honorable-knight conduct (or whatever conduct matches the alignment/alignment-surrogate selected at character creation) inhibits natural character growth and evolution. Alignment is a tool for describing character conduct, not prescribing it. Acting the honorable knight? Wonderful: call 'em "LG", no penalty or reward except those that come from in-universe alignment-based effects. Acting the sanctimonious hypocrite? Just as wonderful: call 'em "LE", no penalty or reward except those that come from in-universe alignment-based effects.

 

[Imaculata]

All the players know each other's alignments and if they go outside that on a regular basis then they are called out on it.

My players never discuss alignments. They discuss their character's motivations.

 

[clearstream]

My players never discuss alignments. They discuss their character's motivations.

Alignments are motivations. They're a useful tool.

 

[MechaPilot]

Alignments are motivations.

No. They're not. Alignments are where your character sits (on average) as far as morals and ethics go. That's not the same thing as motivations. A motivation is something like getting revenge for your murdered family, and that can apply to all characters regardless of alignment.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

No. They're not. Alignments are where your character sits (on average) as far as morals and ethics go. That's not the same thing as motivations. A motivation is something like getting revenge for your murdered family, and that can apply to all characters regardless of alignment.

Well, they can be motivations. "I want to be good" is a plausible motivation (albeit kind of bland). But characters can be good without having that motivation, and characters can have that motivation without actually being good.

 

[Seramus]

My players write alignment down on their sheet, and then promptly forget about it.
Once in a while, I change their alignment if I think their long-term behavior merits it.
They don't care. The alignment follows them, not the other way around.