D&D General So how about alignment, eh?

[Aldarc]

Yet it seems there's some (many? I am not one of them) here who are ready and willing to have that conversation any time a player has a character turn Evil: "No Evil PCs here - you're playing it wrong."

Can't have it both ways.

I disagree that they can't have it both ways, because I don't see the contradiction that you are implying here. Often when people talk about "no evil PCs," it's really about the social contract of play: The Will Wheaton Rule, i.e., "don't be a dick." It's less about alignment and more often about disruptive players who ruin the fun of others or wanting to preserve the heroic tone of the game rather than the alignment itself. Even the whole "that's what my character would do," regardless of that player character's alignment, should not be an excuse for the player's "Wang Rod" behavior that negatively affects the fun for other players at the table. I would never use alignment as a rod to tell players how their play is affecting others or disrupting the game. That's a conversation that I would have with the player as an individual rather than try to enforce through alignment. I think that it's useful to recognize the open, respectful conversations that should happen between individuals.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I disagree that they can't have it both ways, because I don't see the contradiction that you are implying here. Often when people talk about "no evil PCs," it's really about the social contract of play: The Will Wheaton Rule, i.e., "don't be a dick." It's less about alignment and more often about disruptive players who ruin the fun of others or wanting to preserve the heroic tone of the game rather than the alignment itself. Even the whole "that's what my character would do," regardless of that player character's alignment, should not be an excuse for the player's "Wang Rod" behavior that negatively affects the fun for other players at the table. I would never use alignment as a rod to tell players how their play is affecting others or disrupting the game. That's a conversation that I would have with the player as an individual rather than try to enforce through alignment. I think that it's useful to recognize the open, respectful conversations that should happen between individuals.

it's entirely possible to have pleasant to play with and is-genuinely-part-of-the-team 'evil' characters but DMs feel it's easier to just blanket ban playing evil characters wholesale rather than deal with the potential hassle of players constanlty pushing the moral boundries to new lows and taking evil as to mean 'vicious twisted soulless psychopath' rather than merely 'priorities gain of self before others wellbeing'.

 

[Maxperson]

Not to make everything about Critical Role, but at one point of Campaign 1 Matt Mercer forced an alignment change on Laura Bailey's character Vex'alia, moving her from chaotic good to chaotic neutral.

And what was the mechanical consequence of this change? That's the thing with 5e. The DM can "forcibly" change my PCs alignment to whatever he wants and it won't alter my RP of my character one iota. Forced alignment change is meaningless.

 

[Lanefan]

I disagree that they can't have it both ways, because I don't see the contradiction that you are implying here. Often when people talk about "no evil PCs," it's really about the social contract of play: The Will Wheaton Rule, i.e., "don't be a dick."

There's examples even in this thread of DMs not willing to run anti-heroes or murderhoboes, neither of which has anything to do with being a dick at the table.

That, and to me "do what the character would do" is rule one (put another way, "be true to the character you're playing"). Rule two is "what happens in character stays in character and doesn't escalate to the table". Violation of rule 2 is where things go sideways and the discussions you refer to below need to happen; and note this is all based on the assumption that the people at the table are friends in real life.

Put those two rules together and it allows a non-jerk player to play the most horrible of characters in full knowledge that character might not last very long, and also allows the other characters to deal with it accordingly (or to go along with it, whichever).

It's less about alignment and more often about disruptive players who ruin the fun of others or wanting to preserve the heroic tone of the game rather than the alignment itself. Even the whole "that's what my character would do," regardless of that player character's alignment, should not be an excuse for the player's "Wang Rod" behavior that negatively affects the fun for other players at the table. I would never use alignment as a rod to tell players how their play is affecting others or disrupting the game. That's a conversation that I would have with the player as an individual rather than try to enforce through alignment. I think that it's useful to recognize the open, respectful conversations that should happen between individuals.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but they're not in charge of how other characters - or the universe in general - perceive them. And that's where alignment matters: in how other people and things perceive you. What do people get from you when they cast Know Alignment? Does the evil-consecrated ground bother you or not? Does the Good-aligned sword accept you or reject you or bite you? And so on.

5e doesn't have Know Alignment, or even Detect Evil for that matter. Oh, it has a spell called Detect Evil, but evil is not actually what the spell detects, which bugs the hell out of me.

That said, I agree with what you say above, but disagree that alignment is necessary for it. I find alignment invaluable on the DM side of things since I play so many different NPCs and monsters. It's not feasible for me to give detailed personalities to more than a fraction of them. On the player side of things I couldn't give a fig whether they even write an alignment down. How the rest of the world perceives the PC will be based on the actions of that PC.

 

[Lanefan]

it's entirely possible to have pleasant to play with and is-genuinely-part-of-the-team 'evil' characters but DMs feel it's easier to just blanket ban playing evil characters wholesale rather than deal with players constanlty pushing the moral boundries to new lows and taking evil as to mean 'vicious twisted soulless psychopath' rather than 'priorities gain of self before others wellbeing'.

If I were to go Biblical for a moment and define Evil as repeated violation of any of the seven deadly sins, and then ban Evil characters, there very likely wouldn't be any characters left in the game. And my game has a lot of characters in it!

Greed would strip out most of them right away. Lust would catch a few of the remainder. Gluttony might pick off a couple more (all of them Hobbits!), as would Wrath.

The only one that wouldn't be a problem is Sloth - by nature, adventurers are a pretty non-slothful group of people.

So, no evil characters, you say? Never gonna happen.

 

[Lanefan]

5e doesn't have Know Alignment, or even Detect Evil for that matter.

To its deteriment, IMO; and as this is a General thread examples from other editions fit in.

That said, I agree with what you say above, but disagree that alignment is necessary for it. I find alignment invaluable on the DM side of things since I play so many different NPCs and monsters. It's not feasible for me to give detailed personalities to more than a fraction of them. On the player side of things I couldn't give a fig whether they even write an alignment down. How the rest of the world perceives the PC will be based on the actions of that PC.

OK, then, if the party wanders into an old temple that still maintains its Evil consecration, how do you determine which characters feel icky while there and which don't? Or if the party accidentally find themselves in the Elysium Fields, which ones will be welcomed and which will be cast out?

 

[Maxperson]

To its deteriment, IMO; and as this is a General thread examples from other editions fit in.

OK, then, if the party wanders into an old temple that still maintains its Evil consecration, how do you determine which characters feel icky while there and which don't?

I'll look at how they played their characters. If someone has been playing a "Bad Man" kind of PC, he will feel at home. Someone who has been playing an altruistic PC who risks his life for people he doesn't know, he will feel the willies or may even have to make a save to enter. Someone in-between might not feel anything one way or the other.

There's no alignment per se, but actions do have consequences.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'll look at how they played their characters. If someone has been playing a "Bad Man" kind of PC, he will feel at home. Someone who has been playing an altruistic PC who risks his life for people he doesn't know, he will feel the willies or may even have to make a save to enter. Someone in-between might not feel anything one way or the other.

There's no alignment per se, but actions do have consequences.

i think the point being made there is even if you 'don't officially have alignment per se' in your game your choices in these sorts of situations are either 'nothing happens' or 'the alignment i've judged them to be in my head', just not written down on their sheets.

 

[Maxperson]

i think the point being made there is even if you 'don't officially have alignment per se' your choices are either 'nothing happens' or 'the alignment i've judged them to be in my head', just not written down on their sheets.

It's not alignment, though. First off, @Lanefan's example of evil consecration isn't quite accurate. It will be consecrated to Bhaal, the god of murder, not evil. Those most affected will be those most opposed to what the god stands for, not good/evil. This is important if the temple is say dedicated to an "evil" god of thieves. Someone can be "good" and have no problem with theft. Someone can be "neutral" or even "evil" and have a strong opposition to theft.