D&D 5E Players voting on each other's alignments?
- Thread starter BookTenTiger
- Start date
Alignment is antiquated. I don't care about it and don't use it anymore as a DM. It has no bearing on the game as it did in early editions up until 3E. ICR but I don't think 3E even had rules about breaking your alignment and if Paladins and Druids had the strict alignment prerequisites of editions prior. Looking back on it now it's actually a pretty ridiculous concept as most people IRL aren't that rigid in their beliefs and actions. I would not be surprised if at the very least alignment is made an optional rule for players in 1D&D, and will be used only as a guideline in the MM moving forward as it already is. So to answer the question of the OP, this is not something I would do as a DM and would probably push back if I was playing in a game that the other players/DM wanted to do this.
This does not sound that fun.
Alignment is just too abstract for most players to "get". After all the typical player read alignment in a book once and sort of remembers sort of what was written there...maybe. Though worse are the players that went online and found something that said "alignment", read it, and now take that to be everything about the topic.
Worse a typical adventure might not highlight alignments enough....unless the DM railroads or "linear paths" the alignment into the fabric of the game. And that puts a lot on the DM.
And even worse is most alignment actions are extreme....but you don't "have" to do them. A Chaotic Evil does not "have" to slaughter innocent prisoners....they might just choose to leave them and move on with life. A Lawful Good person helps those in need, but they don't need to abandon the adventure and game to get EVERY stray NPC home safe.
The end result is just endless arguments. Is that fun?
Alignment is just too abstract for most players to "get". After all the typical player read alignment in a book once and sort of remembers sort of what was written there...maybe. Though worse are the players that went online and found something that said "alignment", read it, and now take that to be everything about the topic.
Worse a typical adventure might not highlight alignments enough....unless the DM railroads or "linear paths" the alignment into the fabric of the game. And that puts a lot on the DM.
And even worse is most alignment actions are extreme....but you don't "have" to do them. A Chaotic Evil does not "have" to slaughter innocent prisoners....they might just choose to leave them and move on with life. A Lawful Good person helps those in need, but they don't need to abandon the adventure and game to get EVERY stray NPC home safe.
The end result is just endless arguments. Is that fun?
CreamCloud0
One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
There’s a difference between your alignment dictating what actions your character should take, forcing you to do things and the decision to actively lean into a certain character mindset
Oofta
Legend
Isn't being LE a requirement for being a DM? Or was that only Gygax's law?
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Yeah I think this is a "phrasing" issue.
Words like "commit to" and "adjust their roleplaying" in this context make it sound like people are being forced to do that, especially as you only gave apparently negative examples/wording.
It's like, from this quoted post it looks more like you just want people to give others "notes" like this was an improv class (which is riskier than you might think lol, especially around a topic like alignment!), but the wording made it seem more like "The tribe has spoken. You have failed to portray NG correctly. Now hand me your torch... Er I mean, decide on whether you will rejoin the NG tribe and not screw up again, or journey to CG beach!".
I particularly personally question the entire notion of "committing to an alignment" though. You commit to a character when acting/doing improv (which is what RP is, essentially). Their alignment should be informed by their character, not vice-versa, imho. With some people it'll be really obvious, others less so. D&D has actually used this idea for a long time - the Complete Book of Villains, for example, was very much "character-first".
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Sure, but it's still questionable. Why lean into an alignment, specifically, which historically have been poorly-defined and not entirely believable, when you could lean into a character and let their personality inform the alignment? I feel like that's a real question which needs to be answered. If your game is somehow "about" alignment it might make more sense, but in the general context of D&D it doesn't make a whole lot, on first glance anyway.
Vaalingrade
Legend
Here's the scenario I foresee (because I've seen it happen):
"Hey Bob, I think your character is evil."
"How do you figure that?"
"He does X. X is evil."
"I have him do X because X is Good."
"Nope. X is evil."
"My family does X. That is literally our family business. X is a deeply and reverently held tradition for us. Also, you do realize most people do X. The DM did X right before we started the game. Gary is doing X right now!"
"Welp... I'll just let that accusation hang in the air. Hope everyone isn't feeling attacked or uncomfortable right now and the game isn't poisoned by this knowledge of how I see all of you hanging over our heads."
"Hey Bob, I think your character is evil."
"How do you figure that?"
"He does X. X is evil."
"I have him do X because X is Good."
"Nope. X is evil."
"My family does X. That is literally our family business. X is a deeply and reverently held tradition for us. Also, you do realize most people do X. The DM did X right before we started the game. Gary is doing X right now!"
"Welp... I'll just let that accusation hang in the air. Hope everyone isn't feeling attacked or uncomfortable right now and the game isn't poisoned by this knowledge of how I see all of you hanging over our heads."
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Alignment isn't a box, though. There isn't a "Play original or adjust to new" choice here. Someone who is CG is just mostly in that box, but can be significantly outside of it with various behaviors. Say someone is 55% CG, 25% NG and 20% LN(has a personal code), that person would be CG, but with significant amounts of his personality that fall outside of CG.
If someone is playing 100% of his character inside a single box, that isn't a very realistic depiction of a person. It's pretty cartoonish, really. People just don't work that way. They are complex beings with behaviors that are all over the map, even if most of their behaviors can be boxed into one category.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
I am desperate to know what X was in the context of the example, but I suspect most of it won't be stuff like this, but rather people getting into really circular/pointless arguments about the L/N/C alignments or trying to argue the toss about whether something is actually "Good" or not.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I've seen that, but it's very rare and I haven't seen it since 1e/2e.
Back in 3E we had a player who was playing a paladin that was becoming dissatisfied, and asked everyone in secret what we felt his alignment was, as he was considering different prestige classes. It was unanimous as LN, but the player just couldn't accept that, claiming he thought he was LE. Sadly, in reality he just really just wanted to be a Blackguard and was looking for an excuse.
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I once played with a DM who didn't have the monsters stab downed (0 HP) characters!
What's next, give everyone a +3 lollipop of healing ‽
CreamCloud0
One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
Probably something to the effect of
“I can’t believe you murdered those men in cold blood”
“They were thieves and criminals, it was an act of justice”
“They had surrendered to us willingly, it was our duty to deliver them to the guards safely”
“Their crimes were too numerous, to let them live would be a crime in itself”
“You’re just a bloodthirsty thug”
“Lies and slander, I am a noble warrior of what is right and good”
and so on and so forth...
Vaalingrade
Legend
It's been over way more innocuous things than the Punisher's status as Actual Villain.
It's usually over lying, poison, or promiscuousness.
When you get to call someone's actions good or evil everyone's weird moral hangups come online.
My thought is that "X" in the post should be changed to "#2"
I see lots of problems with players pointing fingers and making judgments.
I don't often see the way of a player thinks they are role playing Neutral Good and then have the other players have some sort of sound, reasonable case to say the character is Chaotic Good, and then the player would say "oh, thanks fellow players I will change my character's alignment."
As far too many players role play "chaotic evil stupid", but what to hide behind "perfect good saint" just by default. They want to do whatever they want to on a whim...and it's always pure evil...like slaughtering helpless innocents....and THEN they want everyone to react and treat them like they are the Perfect Good Hero.
And then you want the players to judge each other? "Dude you slaughtered every innocent creature in the kingdom...your Lawful Good!"
I don't often see the way of a player thinks they are role playing Neutral Good and then have the other players have some sort of sound, reasonable case to say the character is Chaotic Good, and then the player would say "oh, thanks fellow players I will change my character's alignment."
As far too many players role play "chaotic evil stupid", but what to hide behind "perfect good saint" just by default. They want to do whatever they want to on a whim...and it's always pure evil...like slaughtering helpless innocents....and THEN they want everyone to react and treat them like they are the Perfect Good Hero.
And then you want the players to judge each other? "Dude you slaughtered every innocent creature in the kingdom...your Lawful Good!"
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Having or not having alignment doesn't alter this in the least. Good and evil are in the real world and people understand(or have a good idea) which is which. You can get rid of alignment and if someone walks up to a little old lady crossing the street and hack her down, my PC is going to call him an evil bastard and that statement will have 0 to do with alignment. Same with me as a player saying that what the player's PC did was evil. Still nothing to do with alignment.
Mad_Jack
Hero
Here's the thing about alignment, though - it's always been just a vague shorthand to describe the general ethical traits of a character...
It's even more subjective and open to differences in individual perception than assigning characters a place on the "short/tall" and "thin/fat" axis.
Not all interactions are as "clearly" labeled as "Good" vs "Evil" as saving an orphanage full of kids, which in itself is fraught with complications because of the character's reasons why they did it - some because it was "The Right Thing To Do", some out of compassion, some out of the thrill of being in a dangerous situation, and others because the reward/risk ratio was sufficient...
I once played a Chaotic Neutral character who ended up becoming the moral compass of a mostly Lawful Good party simply because he enjoyed playing head games with others and his outsider's more objective point of view of their principles gave him the opportunity to point out their occasional hypocrisy and subtlely (or otherwise) nudge/nettle them towards acting more in accordance with them.
It's even more subjective and open to differences in individual perception than assigning characters a place on the "short/tall" and "thin/fat" axis.
Not all interactions are as "clearly" labeled as "Good" vs "Evil" as saving an orphanage full of kids, which in itself is fraught with complications because of the character's reasons why they did it - some because it was "The Right Thing To Do", some out of compassion, some out of the thrill of being in a dangerous situation, and others because the reward/risk ratio was sufficient...
I once played a Chaotic Neutral character who ended up becoming the moral compass of a mostly Lawful Good party simply because he enjoyed playing head games with others and his outsider's more objective point of view of their principles gave him the opportunity to point out their occasional hypocrisy and subtlely (or otherwise) nudge/nettle them towards acting more in accordance with them.
Vaalingrade
Legend
Except this thread has nothing to do with having or not having an alignment, and everything to do with expressly encouraging other players to judge the actions of other people's characters as Good or Evil in an open forum for all of their roleplay, not just extremes people like to use to justify 'real' alignment.
Yes, we can appeal to people's visceral emotion talking bout murdering little old ladies, but that ignores the 'evils' some people see in things like drinking, diet, sexuality, language, lifestyle, or, say, being judgmental of other people's behavior when it's none of their business.
Similar Threads
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
