D&D 5E Players voting on each other's alignments?

[BookTenTiger]

Here's a fun idea:

When a campaign first starts, players can choose an alignment for their character, but they keep it secret from the other players. After 3 - 5 sessions, the players vote on what they think the alignment of each character is. Then, each player would either commit to that alignment, or adjust their roleplaying to better fit their original choice.

This is based off a real experience of mine. I was playing an exiled dwarf wizard who was very much a DIY academic and didn't like the politics of established institutions of magic or knowledge. I had him as Neutral Good because I saw him as a "man of the people," helping out small towns that didn't have access to libraries or magic users. After a month or so of playing, the other players said that my wizard seemed much more Chaotic Good, in that he was actively willing to ignore or break the rules or conventions in order to benefit others. I agreed, and changed his alignment, and started playing more into his Chaotic side than I had originally intended.

Would you enjoy this in a campaign?


Alternate, crazy idea:

After a few sessions, everyone agrees on two moral traits that describe each character (Loyal Peacemaker, Devious Trickster, Vengeful Protector, etc). These then form the alignment scale of the entire campaign, so that every NPC fits somewhere on that spectrum. It would make the campaign world reflective of the morality of the characters. I have no idea how this would play out, but it sure would be interesting!

 

[Dausuul]

What does "commit to that alignment" mean? In other words: If my PC is voted Chaotic Good, and then two months later people say the character's behavior now seems Neutral Good, what happens?

Personally, I quit caring about alignment long ago. I think it actively hinders roleplaying. So I don't care if people vote on my alignment... unless this process forces me to engage with the alignment system.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

Since alignment has no connection to any abilities, skills, etc., a change in alignment has no practical implications. So, mostly we don't care about alignment.

But we already do this in a much less formal way. Players declare an ambition to play a certain alignment and get commented on by others if they do something radically different (especially towards the chaotic and evil side).

I notice that players tend to feed off each other in terms of alignment. If the majority is chaotic, then the more lawful players may either compensate and become more lawful, or join the crazies and become more chaotic. Alignment should not be static in a roleplaying game where characters develop.

 

[payn]

Here's a fun idea:

When a campaign first starts, players can choose an alignment for their character, but they keep it secret from the other players. After 3 - 5 sessions, the players vote on what they think the alignment of each character is. Then, each player would either commit to that alignment, or adjust their roleplaying to better fit their original choice.

This is based off a real experience of mine. I was playing an exiled dwarf wizard who was very much a DIY academic and didn't like the politics of established institutions of magic or knowledge. I had him as Neutral Good because I saw him as a "man of the people," helping out small towns that didn't have access to libraries or magic users. After a month or so of playing, the other players said that my wizard seemed much more Chaotic Good, in that he was actively willing to ignore or break the rules or conventions in order to benefit others. I agreed, and changed his alignment, and started playing more into his Chaotic side than I had originally intended.

Would you enjoy this in a campaign?


Alternate, crazy idea:

After a few sessions, everyone agrees on two moral traits that describe each character (Loyal Peacemaker, Devious Trickster, Vengeful Protector, etc). These then form the alignment scale of the entire campaign, so that every NPC fits somewhere on that spectrum. It would make the campaign world reflective of the morality of the characters. I have no idea how this would play out, but it sure would be interesting!

I really enjoy alignment in my games and this sounds fun, with one exception. I don't like the idea of being "forced" to conform to the groups expectations if they don't feel the RP is adequate. I prefer to leave that to the player and GM. Its pretty rare I find that someone seems acting out of alignment. For example, a good character who resorts to wanton murder and never cares about anybody in the fallout is not going to remain good. I do enjoy the discussions very much at the table about characters and NPCs though.

 

[Ixal]

That would be a contender of the fastest way to destroy a campaign.
As you can see on this board discussions about alignment never go well.

 

[Gimby]

I actually had something like this in a recent campaign, but more a "vote on what you think everyone else's alignment was at the start/end of the campaign" as we hadn't made a big deal of it at character generation

Bard started at CN, ended at NG
Rogue started as CN, ended at CG
Druid started and ended as NG

The Bard and Rogue both credited the Paladin for their shifts by being a shining beacon of righteousness.

The Paladin then revealed they'd been NE all along - they were manipulating everyone in an effort to be recognised that they'd had the "redemption" from past sins that they'd "earned"

 

[CreamCloud0]

I think it’s an interesting experiment to see how your character is seen from the outside but actually having to try adjusting your character off of that to match those observations isn’t going to achieve anything of much value, play your character as your character, but be aware of all of your character and not just your own preconceived perspective of who you think your character is

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When a campaign first starts, players can choose an alignment for their character, but they keep it secret from the other players. After 3 - 5 sessions, the players vote on what they think the alignment of each character is. Then, each player would either commit to that alignment, or adjust their roleplaying to better fit their original choice.

I think this is a fundamentally bad and unfun idea solely because of the last sentence.

The idea of say, keeping alignments secret and then having other players vote on what they THINK the PC's alignment is is absolutely solid and could be a whole lot of fun, especially if the vote was at the end of a campaign as @Gimby's example shows.

But where you go wrong is to do the vote pretty early (3-5 sessions? That's could be as little as like 6-10 hours, and in a party with like 4-5 party members, some PCs are barely even going to have had a chance to shine, let alone lay out their morals - especially if the campaign has been really adventure-centric or dungeon-centric, rather than featuring heavy RP), and so then want to try and force the player to stick to an alignment. You don't explain why that would ever be a legitimate goal, rather than alignment being informed by RP.

Indeed you say "adjust their roleplaying to better fit their original choice". Whilst that may be occasionally true, that's a fundamentally flawed assumption of a fairly serious kind on your part. You're assuming that because other people interpreted their alignment to be something it wasn't, their RP was bad. That's obviously not necessarily true, and my feeling is it's outright less likely to be true than other factors. Other, frankly more likely reasons for the mismatch could be:

1) The players voting either don't have a good grasp on the specific alignment being played (common with anything but NG and LN, in my experience, those seem to be the only two alignments almost everyone gets).

2) The player has an interesting "take" on their alignment, which may be completely reasonable.

3) The PC is de facto hiding their alignment in some way (as with the NE example from @Gimby).

4) The PC simply hasn't been presented with choices that allow them to highlight their alignment. This is extremely likely after 3-5 sessions. And this is on the DM, nine times in ten. If you just keep presenting the party with situations where to be Evil would be stupid or suicidal (as many DMs do), then the guy playing LE is going to look like someone playing LN or even LG very easily.

The alternate idea also seems flawed to me, because it put the cart ahead of the horse. You may start a campaign as a "Loyal Peacemaker", but will you finish the campaign that way? In my experience a lot of PCs undergo a fair amount of change and that can be vastly more compelling than "I decided on an archetype before the game started and then stuck with it ruthlessly!".

 

[toucanbuzz]

If you think the idea would be fun and your fellow gamers agree, go for it. It's not unprecedented. AD&D Dragonlance had an alignment track where the DM could gradually shift a character towards the alignment they were playing versus declared.

However, it'd be a better idea to treat this like a debrief (here's what we're noticing) versus a requirement (you must change this).

 

[Li Shenron]

I like the idea! Maybe even make it a recurring check every 5 or 10 sessions.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I really enjoy alignment in my games and this sounds fun, with one exception. I don't like the idea of being "forced" to conform to the groups expectations if they don't feel the RP is adequate. I prefer to leave that to the player and GM. Its pretty rare I find that someone seems acting out of alignment. For example, a good character who resorts to wanton murder and never cares about anybody in the fallout is not going to remain good. I do enjoy the discussions very much at the table about characters and NPCs though.

Thanks for the constructive reply!

Yeah, I see this as more an opportunity for a roleplaying challenge, or a collaborative approach towards alignment rather than a straightjacket. For example, if a player has in mind a Lawful Good paladin, but the other players see him as more Lawful Neutral, it could provide an interesting opportunity to lean in more towards that Neutrality, or to look for more chances to show the Good side.

Ultimately, I think the best way to go about this would be to not have an alignment in mind, and just play your character how you want. The voting would just be an interesting assessment of how others see your character!

 

[BookTenTiger]

If you think the idea would be fun and your fellow gamers agree, go for it. It's not unprecedented. AD&D Dragonlance had an alignment track where the DM could gradually shift a character towards the alignment they were playing versus declared.

However, it'd be a better idea to treat this like a debrief (here's what we're noticing) versus a requirement (you must change this).

I'm not sure where folks are getting the idea of this as a requirement or straightjacket...

I agree that this would be a neat thing to fold into a regular debrief throughout the campaign. A lot of the time I give players an opportunity to describe how their characters are changing over time. But it would be interesting to have other players describe how your character has changed!

A neat challenge for the table would be to give the other players options for what change they see as appropriate for your character after a period of time. Maybe they could vote on "change of alignment" or "new ideal" or "new bond" or something. Of course it would take a group of players who are willing to take on those roleplaying challenges! I know I would have fun with it personally.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I am not a fan of the implied moral judgement of alignment. I'm way less of a fan of active moral judgement at the table, especially combined with any idea of making the player follow that moral judgement as it applies to their character.

 

[toucanbuzz]

I'm not sure where folks are getting the idea of this as a requirement or straightjacket...

I think it was the language of your original post (even if not your intent) of:

Then, each player would either commit to that alignment, or adjust their roleplaying to better fit their original choice.

It may have sounded like players would be forced to go with the group vote.

 

[payn]

Thanks for the constructive reply!

Yeah, I see this as more an opportunity for a roleplaying challenge, or a collaborative approach towards alignment rather than a straightjacket. For example, if a player has in mind a Lawful Good paladin, but the other players see him as more Lawful Neutral, it could provide an interesting opportunity to lean in more towards that Neutrality, or to look for more chances to show the Good side.

Ultimately, I think the best way to go about this would be to not have an alignment in mind, and just play your character how you want. The voting would just be an interesting assessment of how others see your character!

Yeap, I always pick an alignment when I begin a campaign (whether GM uses it or not). I do assume the character will organically form through play so its not something I hardcode into behavior. So, I would love make a group activity out of this process and encourage table talk. I think a sound session zero would be a good idea for setting it up.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Yeap, I always pick an alignment when I begin a campaign (whether GM uses it or not). I do assume the character will organically form through play so its not something I hardcode into behavior. So, I would love make a group activity out of this process and encourage table talk. I think a sound session zero would be a good idea for setting it up.

I was recently in a couple of campaigns in which I was very surprised by the chosen alignments of the characters. When I found out one character was Chaotic Neutral and one character was Neutral Evil, it didn't seem to match the choices the players were making.

Now that's not actually a problem at all, and it's fine for players to make whatever kinds of choices they want.

But... doing something bold like voting on the perceived alignment of each character could provide interesting opportunities for those players to lean into their alignments.

If the CN character is voted Chaotic Good or Lawful Neutral, they may realize they aren't taking the opportunities to be more chaotic. If the NE character is voted Neutral or LN, they may enjoy the chance to play more evil. Or they may accept that their initial concept of the character has changed and go with the group decision!

Ultimately I would see this kind of voting as more a group communication strategy and roleplaying challenge than anything else.

 

[MNblockhead]

That would be a contender of the fastest way to destroy a campaign.
As you can see on this board discussions about alignment never go well.

Internet discussion board debates do not necessarily correlate to individual groups. I've never had an argument in my group.

But that may be because I'm a Lawful Evil DM and they wouldn't dare challenge my adherence to the traditional alignment system in my games.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm not sure where folks are getting the idea of this as a requirement or straightjacket...

Then, each player would either commit to that alignment, or adjust their roleplaying to better fit their original choice.

So that second sentence, the one from your original post, is why people think that.

 

[Umbran]

Here's a fun idea:

When a campaign first starts, players can choose an alignment for their character, but they keep it secret from the other players. After 3 - 5 sessions, the players vote on what they think the alignment of each character is. Then, each player would either commit to that alignment, or adjust their roleplaying to better fit their original choice.

Given that alignment isn't a "commitment", and in 5e has no mechanical impact to speak of, I don't think this exercise has much value.

Here's an alternative: Everyone plays their character for 3-5 sessions. Then, everyone goes and chooses one or two songs or musical pieces that seem to thematically match each character. Make a playlist for the campaign. Have fun trying to guess which song is for which character.

 

[BookTenTiger]

So that second sentence, the one from your original post, is why people think that.

Interesting... I specifically included that sentence to show it wasn't a forced decision. To me it would go something like:

Group votes on Chaotic Good.

Me: Huh, I had originally thought of my wizard as Neutral Good.

Group: He seems very anti-establisment.

Me: You're right, I think I want to play more into that. (Changes alignment to Chaotic Good.)

OR

Me: I think I'm going to lighten up on that and focus on his altruism. (Keeps alignment as Neutral Good.)