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

[transtemporal]

For example, in GOT, I would consider The Hound as "good"

Didn't he kill a defenceless boy in the first season? How is that "good"? Or does he get a pass because he was "just following Joffrey's orders"?

 

[Yunru]

I don't. My players don't decide their alignments.

They all start true neutral, and then their actions decide how that shifts.

 

[Azurewraith]

Typically I completely ignore alignment I don't like the idea of labeling it and prefer it to be a RP thing.

 

[Hillsy7]

Interesting stuff so far.....

It seems there's 3 rather broad brush approaches:

Static Start: A decent fraction of people see character alignment as something of a starting point that doesn't really mean much. You make a character, you define alignment (a broad underlying value system), but generally speaking it does little except stop you hobo-killing (too much), or act as a flag for jerks.

In the Bin: A large chunk see alignment as superfluous to character entirely - their historical choices mean nothing to the future choices of the game. You only fill in the box because you don't like empty boxes.

Crash Barriers: A smaller group who see alignment as a road the players have been travelling, and have barriers set up to warn of the consequences of deviations from that. Player's are free to take turnings, but that'll make it a different road.


Fascinating stuff.....I'd be interested to see if there's correlation between how people view alignment, and their preferred game type.....

 

[Azurewraith]

Interesting stuff so far.....

It seems there's 3 rather broad brush approaches:

Static Start: A decent fraction of people see character alignment as something of a starting point that doesn't really mean much. You make a character, you define alignment (a broad underlying value system), but generally speaking it does little except stop you hobo-killing (too much), or act as a flag for jerks.

In the Bin: A large chunk see alignment as superfluous to character entirely - their historical choices mean nothing to the future choices of the game. You only fill in the box because you don't like empty boxes.

Crash Barriers: A smaller group who see alignment as a road the players have been travelling, and have barriers set up to warn of the consequences of deviations from that. Player's are free to take turnings, but that'll make it a different road.


Fascinating stuff.....I'd be interested to see if there's correlation between how people view alignment, and their preferred game type.....

Well seen as you didn't ask! I bin alignments and I like dark and gritty low magic games where negotiating is much preferred to combat as such politics tend to feature fairly heavily and the simple goblins attacking caravans is a life threatening mission.

 

[schnee]

Fascinating stuff.....I'd be interested to see if there's correlation between how people view alignment, and their preferred game type.....

My bias comes from 'a decade or more of seeing DMs set Paladins up to fail and then punish them in unfair ways'.

Or, 'party scans group with alignment spell, sees evil, murders them all, cries "but they were EVIL"'.

Or, 'I stab the Paladin (it's always the Paladin) in the back because I'm chaotic lol!'

Is my left eye twitching again? It does that when I recall...those days.

--

In D&D source literature, they were interesting thematic backgrounds, (like the Elric series Law/Chaos axis which was written as an explicit middle finger to typical pulp heroics), but I think they're too loaded as terms, and they create a really unfortunate dynamic at the table.

I'd rather see people role-play motivations and backstories, rather than role-play living by abstract philosophical stances. The first one usually results in people that I can relate to. The other seems to often create caricatures who engage in baffling behaviors.

I'm glad they've been shunted off a bit, and only 'intrinsically evil' gets a mechanical effect.

 

[guachi]

As DM I told my players that they couldn't be evil because I'd be a bad DM for evil players. And I also banned chaotic neutral as it's generally an excuse to act like a griefing jerk. I've only met one player who could run a chaotic neutral person well and he was basically running an NPC who was there to screw the players.

Once those four alignments (Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Evil, Chaotic Neutral) are gone I don't really care what your alignment is unless there is something in your background that would ensure you have a more rigid ethical code.

 

[Imaro]

In my next game I plan on using alignment as a way to track one's status/renown with specific cosmological forces. You can choose a starting alignment and when you do you are in effect aligning yourself with the faction that represents that force of Law/Chaos and/or Good/Evil. However from that point going forward your actions can support, not support or even oppose different cosmological forces... with your alignment being in line with the one you have supported the most.

Basically alignment is represented by cosmological factions with goals, missions, conflicts, etc. that would be tracked for each player using the renown/piety rules from the DMG. I would then use the renown system to color the reactions of NPC's, monsters, spells, magic items, etc. to the PC's depending on what cosmological forces they are aligned with at the time... determined by the faction/factions they have the most renown/piety in.

I'm currently debating how to bring back alignment languages perhaps as pseudo-religious tongues of magic that one can only gain understanding of by reaching (and maintaining) a certain level of piety/renown in the appropriate faction. Still thinking through this one though...

 

[iserith]

Interesting stuff so far.....

It seems there's 3 rather broad brush approaches:

Static Start: A decent fraction of people see character alignment as something of a starting point that doesn't really mean much. You make a character, you define alignment (a broad underlying value system), but generally speaking it does little except stop you hobo-killing (too much), or act as a flag for jerks.

In the Bin: A large chunk see alignment as superfluous to character entirely - their historical choices mean nothing to the future choices of the game. You only fill in the box because you don't like empty boxes.

Crash Barriers: A smaller group who see alignment as a road the players have been travelling, and have barriers set up to warn of the consequences of deviations from that. Player's are free to take turnings, but that'll make it a different road.

Fascinating stuff.....I'd be interested to see if there's correlation between how people view alignment, and their preferred game type.....

Unless there is a mechanical aspect to it, it seems alignment doesn't really matter. Which is why I only care about it when I actually make it matter such as in a Planescape game where alignment is ostensibly important. That's when I'd make it worth Inspiration and maybe add some environmental effects and social interaction challenges where alignment really matters e.g. if your alignment is opposed to the plane you're on, it works against you and you get disadvantage on some checks or saves or you get disadvantage when dealing when trying to improve the attitude of creatures with opposed alignments. In an Eberron game, for example, or perhaps most stock fantasy, alignment can fade away to the background.

Otherwise, I think as a "flag for jerks," it doesn't work out so great since jerks are gonna be jerks no matter what. I think a better rule than "No chaotic neutral or evil" is "Hey, don't be a jerk at my table..." then actually spelling out what that means.

 

[Oofta]

As DM I told my players that they couldn't be evil because I'd be a bad DM for evil players. And I also banned chaotic neutral as it's generally an excuse to act like a griefing jerk. I've only met one player who could run a chaotic neutral person well and he was basically running an NPC who was there to screw the players.
...

I have a document I have people read before they join my game. Some of it is just a summary of campaign background, gods and what-not. But I start the whole thing off with "don't play an evil character" and "don't play a jerk". I don't want PVP in my games and while your character doesn't have to be friends with everyone in the group, there is a line of antagonizing other PCs that shouldn't be crossed.

Basically, this is a cooperative game. If you want to grief other players, find a different game. Want to play an anti-social ass who hates everyone? Play a different game. It's one thing to have differing opinions, goals and beliefs. In character disagreements are fine. But don't be the guy to refuses to be part of a team.

That may not work for everyone which is fine. At the end of the day, it's my job to stab the paladin in the back, not a player's.