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

[Ilbranteloth]

For those who are against players taking characters with evil alignments, what is your stance on the ideals with the (Evil) descriptor in Backgrounds, e.g. "Might. If I become strong, I can take what I want - what I deserve. (Evil)?"

Are those banned too? If they're not, can a player earn Inspiration by playing to that Ideal? If so, is this different from alignment in your view and why?

Those would be fine. I might consider that more selfish than evil. I welcome character flaws and they could lead to some difficult situations. But I think the main difference is that when people play an evil alignment, they take that as allowing them to do what they want, including actions that disrupt the party.

Under the right circumstances, with the right group, I'll consider evil characters. Even an all evil campaign. In my experience, though, most players who have wanted to play evil characters in my campaigns don't have the skills to play them well. They just want to kill or steal things, and usually from their party because they want to "play evil."

If I allow it, I have to find ways to put boundaries on them. A modern example would be the mafia. There's a lot of structure and more powerful people than you. So you might actually have a purpose against your party members, but you can't directly kill or steal from them without possible repercussions. As the game goes on, though those become less effective once players think their characters can beat that aspect because they have enough allies in the organization.

In other words, looking for ways to direct the evil actions outside the party. In realty, an evil person in a party usually won't upset that anyway, if there's a benefit for them. You need to have a player that can play that well, though, and the table as a whole has to be onboard with the idea that if evil characters are allowed, that at some point they might turn against one or more in the party up to and including theft, having them captured or enslaved, or killed, even by their own hand. And you have to have plans for handling that. Once the PC turns against the party do they become an NPC? Or perhaps there's a common enemy so great that they are forced to work together again?

It's really is a question of what's evil and what's selfish, self-centered, callous, or morally questionable. The Nazis were evil, but not all the soldiers were. Likewise, against enemies like the Nazis allied soldiers sometimes performed evil acts. That's why alignment isn't a thing in my campaign for most mortals, although you can perform enough evil acts to become evil where it matters. Kind of like how Anakin was not evil (maybe annoying) but became evil, although not irredeemably so. Where Palpatine was irredeemably evil, and without Luke Vader probably was too.

But usually the main issue I run into with playing evil characters is that players tend to equate that with betraying their party. And if they can't work together it's tough to have a game.




Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Illithidbix]

If you find this very hard, while other people (like me) find it pretty easy, have you considered that perhaps the problem lies in your application of the system rather than being intrinsic to the system? If we both look at Robin Hood, and you say "I can't tell what alignment this guy is supposed to be" but I say "Oh, he's clearly CG", we're obviously doing something different with the alignment system. Whatever you're doing with the system is making it break, and whatever I'm doing with the system is making it work, so doesn't it seem reasonable to try to figure out what it is I'm doing? At the very least, for fairness' sake, shouldn't we evaluate the system in its most functional state? When we take a car for a test drive, shouldn't we make sure its tires are pressurized and there's gas in the tank?

I feel this might be derailing the thread a little, but yes, even with *apparently* immediately obvious alignments for fictional characters, I have found very open to debate upon analysis.

Exactly what is meant by "Lawful" in particular appears to be a vast umbrella of semi connected or unconnected beliefs. I've seen it variously defined as:

Self-discipline and emotional control.
Personal honour.
Adherence to society's written laws.
Respect of society's unwritten social contract, expectations and traditions.
The valuing of the community above the individual.
Beliefs in cosmic order and predetermination.


Now Robin Hood is a bit tricky because he's actually had a number of portrayals, legends and subtly different backgrounds.

However whilst he often opposes Prince John (who becomes King John) and the corrupt Barons, this is often done because Prince John is abusing his position to get wealthy, oppress the kingdom whilst scheming against the legitimate authority: King Richard I.

Thus it could be made a strong argument that Robin Hood (or some interpretations) is actually pretty lawful, because he is protecting the community from those those who have corrupted the laws of the land.

So... if Robin Hood is motivated by supporting King Richard I (the brave and rightful if dubiously competent King/bloodthirsty loon), is he playing Chaotic Good *wrong*?

However this might be better as a separate thread of "Is Alignment Pigeonholing? - And what Alignment is Robin Hood anyway?"

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I feel this might be derailing the thread a little, but yes, even with *apparently* immediately obvious alignments for fictional characters, I have found very open to debate upon analysis.

Just because something is debatable doesn't mean you have to stand paralyzed with indecision. After all, anything is debatable if you really set your mind to it. So weigh the options, then come to a reasonable conclusion based on your best judgment, just like you'd do with anything else. If something is "*apparently* immediately obvious", then great! Go with that! Why not? It's not like the Alignment Police are going to kick down your door and break up your game if you get it "wrong".

 

[Saeviomagy]

Just because something is debatable doesn't mean you have to stand paralyzed with indecision. After all, anything is debatable if you really set your mind to it. So weigh the options, then come to a reasonable conclusion based on your best judgment, just like you'd do with anything else. If something is "*apparently* immediately obvious", then great! Go with that! Why not? It's not like the Alignment Police are going to kick down your door and break up your game if you get it "wrong".

Which is why he goes the whole hog: an individual's alignment is almost never clear except from specific points of view and within specific frames of reference, so what value does it actually have except to trigger alignment arguments?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Which is why he goes the whole hog: an individual's alignment is almost never clear except from specific points of view and within specific frames of reference, so what value does it actually have except to trigger alignment arguments?

It lets you run all sorts of plots, from the Grail Quest to Jekyll & Hyde.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It lets you run all sorts of plots, from the Grail Quest to Jekyll & Hyde.

In what way are you prevented from running them without alignment?

In fact, in what way does alignment help with Jekyll and Hyde at all? The story is about a man who is repressing his evil urges, and therefore seems like a good man to all. But eventually he creates a serum with the express purpose of indulging his evil urges and getting away with it. Eventually when faced with losing his original identity, he kills himself rather than let Hyde exist.

Was he good to start? Was he evil? Does having either one written on his sheet accurately reflect who the character is? Would having good written down lead to him creating the serum? Would evil lead to him suppressing his unseemly urges?

Alignment doesn't actually help here.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

In what way are you prevented from running them without alignment?

The Grail can only be seen by those who are pure of heart. In deciding who qualifies, you're making an alignment call. Hyde is (spoiler alert) the distillation of all Jekyll's wickedness. In deciding what that entails, you're making an alignment call. Running these plots, you can if you so desire avoid using the classic terminology of "good" and "evil", but that's just superficial. You are using the concepts regardless.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The Grail can only be seen by those who are pure of heart. In deciding who qualifies, you're making an alignment call.

How is "if a character has good written on their character sheet under alignment" any better than you, the DM, simply deciding that character is pure of heart? Or better yet simply asking the player "is your character good of heart?" Would Mr Jekyll see the grail, bearing in mind that Dr Hyde was within him all along?

Hyde is (spoiler alert) the distillation of all Jekyll's wickedness.

So how does the alignment system detail Dr Jekyll? Given that he's obviously packed full of evil while also being considered a good man. Would he have been a good alignment had he not created the serum? What if he attempted to create it and failed, instead continuing to hold his urges in check? If the only reason you don't go on a murderous rampage is that you fear being caught, are you good at all?

In deciding what that entails, you're making an alignment call. Running these plots, you can if you so desire avoid using the classic terminology of "good" and "evil", but that's just superficial. You are using the concepts regardless.

I think you'll find that distilling things down to a label is pretty much the definition of superficial.

As is assuming that using the words "good" and "evil" mean that someone is using alignment as the rules present it, or even describing things that the alignment system can cover.

 

[Illithidbix]

The Grail can only be seen by those who are pure of heart. In deciding who qualifies, you're making an alignment call. Hyde is (spoiler alert) the distillation of all Jekyll's wickedness. In deciding what that entails, you're making an alignment call. Running these plots, you can if you so desire avoid using the classic terminology of "good" and "evil", but that's just superficial. You are using the concepts regardless.

I love themes of moral quandaries and religious faith in roleplay, which is pretty much the core reason the nine alignments and their related mechanics frustrate me so much.

So curiously enough I literally finished running a local Authurian LARP a month ago, with the Quest for the Grail and the Reclaiming of Excalibur being quests for the end of it. This is roughly how it worked:

The Grail Quest.
1) Firstly confronted by a Christian Knight who asks them "Who is the Ruler of Heaven?" - the answer is God - the Knight then asks "What is the nature of the Divine?"
- The key answer here is "love" (the Priest player got this pretty quick)

2) Confronted by a figure in a cloaked figure who asks "What is the nature of the Morrígan?"
- The answer here is that in the setting the Morrígan is the old god of the cycle of life; and this involved the necessity of death for there to be life, in contrast to the Christian faith of everlasting life.

The pagan priest explained it well so the champion of the Morrígan then said: "Show me" - a player had to agree to be killed, and to not resist, if they did this without a fight, then they were then healed and passed the test.

3) Then Sir Kay guarding the wounded Arthur who asked them to kneel and pledge allegiance to the true king of Albion.
This was as simple as kneeling and pledging allegiance to Arthur.


The idea for the Grail itself was that if you drank from it then you received a vision of your most hated rival/nemesis/enemy, and shown what they had and will do.
It then stated that you would be granted the power to hunt them down and stop them, and no power on earth can deny you a confrontation.
Or you could forgive them.

If you chose the former, you failed the test and both of you became imbued with super powers. (As a cunning twist on the question, the reason nothing on earth could stop the confrontation is that both became almost unstoppable until you met). It was through this that Arthur failed the test and empowered Mordred, which was the basis of the game.

- The Grail didn't simply work or not because someone was predefined as "lawful good", it tested the players (perhaps with obviously easy and right choices to fit the format of the game).


The Reclaiming of Excalibur was based around the idea that Excalibur could only be wielded by a Knight who had let true love enter there heart.
Two players (a Knight and a Priest) had entered play with a background of a forbidden love between them (The knight was betrothed to the priest’s sister), and wanted to play on this throughout the game.
So in the final quest, guided by a wounded Lancelot, to be able to wield Excalibur the Knight had to boldly confess their love aloud, despite the scandal and disgrace it would cause them.



Likewise in my last tabletop game, a key quest was the Paladin seeking an Oath having to choose "What is Good?" before 4 angels which championed four points of view:
- Honour, Honesty, Duty, - The Oath of Devotion.
- Beauty, Joy, Mercy - The Oath of the Ancients.
- Unrestrained Justice, Restitution - The Oath of Vengeance.
- There is no Good beyond what we define ourselves - Oathbreaker

Whilst you could attempt to tie the Oaths to "Lawful Good" "Neutral Good" and "Chaotic Good" I don't feel they cleanly fit in, with "Lawful Good" easily interpreted by Oath of Devotion or Oath of Vengeance.

If you’re still awake after these ramblings: In none of these did I need the players to have an alignment of "lawful good" written down or predefined, it was up to them how they roleplayed their character and what choices they made when confronted with choices.
Even if your game *does have* an objective morality, I don't think defining whether someone is good or evil is useful until they actually act.

So, to me the nine alignments and any mechanics from them aren't needed, these stories have been told long before these concepts were used. There are simply better tools for guiding players to think about the beliefs, morals and ideals of their characters, and I find asking "how should a lawful good character act?" to be somewhat frustrating, because it misses instead asking what beliefs and behaviours define that specific character, which I think is actually the relevant answer to the question.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

How is "if a character has good written on their character sheet under alignment" any better than you, the DM, simply deciding that character is pure of heart? Or better yet simply asking the player "is your character good of heart?"

How are these scenarios any different? Why do you need to ask the player that question when the character sheet has already asked the player precisely the same question?

Would Mr Jekyll see the grail, bearing in mind that Dr Hyde was within him all along?

So how does the alignment system detail Dr Jekyll? Given that he's obviously packed full of evil while also being considered a good man. Would he have been a good alignment had he not created the serum? What if he attempted to create it and failed, instead continuing to hold his urges in check? If the only reason you don't go on a murderous rampage is that you fear being caught, are you good at all?

No, of course not. I don't think Stevenson was particularly subtle in hammering home the point: in spite of appearances, Jekyll is a bad man.

I think you'll find that distilling things down to a label is pretty much the definition of superficial.

No, distilling things down to labels is called language, and it's humanity's greatest invention. Superficiality comes when you attach importance to the labels while disregarding the things.

As is assuming that using the words "good" and "evil" mean that someone is using alignment as the rules present it, or even describing things that the alignment system can cover.

It would be difficult for alignment as the rules present it to be any more open-ended. What about your interpretation of the system makes you think that it is using the words differently than you are, or that it can't cover what you want to describe? Why would you evaluate the system based on a narrow and dysfunctional interpretation of it which is set up for failure, rather than a broad and flexible interpretation of it which actually works?