What would you have done?

[gizmo33]

But this bit that I've quoted strikes me as a bit off. Of course nobody expects you to have known the future. And the bit about making a list of "do's and don'ts" is not something that I do literally. But what I DO do when we are sitting down to tuck in to a new campaign idea is have a brief metagame discussion about the themes, genre and tenor of the upcoming game. One aspect of this is to determine how "grim and gritty" the game will be and what sorts of things are going to fly and what aren't in terms of alignment.

I second the spirit of this. I brought up the idea of making a list but it was never my intention that the list was to be comprehensive (an impossible request), or even shared with the players. It's primary purpose was to help the DM organize his thoughts about what he wanted in his campaign, so that he wasn't bushwacked. Frankly, the issue of whether or not it's evil to kill captives is something that will inevitably come up with enough DMing. I remember it being discussed as far back as the '80s in a Dragon mag article (reprinted in a Best of - the article was about Paladins, but it's not hard to extrapolate). It's not hard to prepare for likely scenarios:

use of poison
summoning demons to kill other evil creatures
killing captives
stealing from the rich to give to the poor
associating with evil characters in a friendly way
turning your back and pretending not to notice someone else doing something evil

I suppose experienced DMs could help me with this list (and most of them probably have a story for each of these), and IMO it would behoove everyone who runs a game with alignment to be prepared, because it's hard to rule on anything on the fly that you have no experience with, especially if it's the first time in your game that a good character has tried to use poison. Why wait to figure out how you feel about that until it happens?

That being said, there will always be situations that fall outside the scope of your list. You can mitigate this by:
1. using the closest matching item on the list
2. taking away players incentives to play an alignment poorly (ie. don't favor paladins over fighters of other alignments)
3. simplify things by choosing whether to define alignment in terms of *actions* or *results* (ie. summoning a demon is evil regardless of it's intended purpose vs. summoning a demon is ok as long as it doesn't do anything evil)

And finally: realize that you must make a decision, it's your game, and simply remind players of that fact when they try to tell you how you should decide. For your part, respect that they have a right to their own moral compass (if you can) and confine your comments to the game characters only.

 

[gizmo33]

Actually, I disagree. First, the nine country theory supposed that none of those countries would care about what goes on in the other nine countries and that it would be trivially easy for each country to maintain a population of only one alignment. I don't really think alignment makes things all that simple.

Maybe not trivial, but very easy IMO. But I make a few assumptions that I don't think are all that radical for DnD:
1. alignments are detectable
2. people know the basic definitions of each alignment and pretty much know what their own alignment is
3. a persons alignment is relatively static over their lifetime
4. alignments have existed as long as humans, and the definitions have remained unchanged

Second, I think something like the Crusades can happen in D&D, though perhaps not in the way a moral relativist might interpret the Crusades. And of course nothing in the D&D alignment system excludes infighting between people of the same alignment.

I don't think it's being a moral relativist to say that neither side understood the other's values, and that neither side understood it's own values. People in the crusades often did things diametrically opposed to their own value system, which confused/enraged the other side and reinforced the misunderstanding. The events of the crusades IMO would not be possible if the ability to instantly detect alignment (on yourself, your allies, and your enemy) were available to even .01% of the participants.

And one could say that the conditions that caused the crusades are, in fact, very common *throughout* history. One wonders what a thousand years of such conditions would have done to the political history of the world. Given the communication capabilities in a world with magic, I think nine countries, or at least nine alliances, would be formed.

Atilla the Hun: "Hey guys, after our last campaign I just did a check and found out that we're all Chaotic Evil."
(Apologies to anyone of Hunnish descent.)

 

[twofalls]

But this bit that I've quoted strikes me as a bit off. Of course nobody expects you to have known the future. And the bit about making a list of "do's and don'ts" is not something that I do literally. But what I DO do when we are sitting down to tuck in to a new campaign idea is have a brief metagame discussion about the themes, genre and tenor of the upcoming game. One aspect of this is to determine how "grim and gritty" the game will be and what sorts of things are going to fly and what aren't in terms of alignment.

When we have this chat, it isn't just me flapping my gums. I encourage and in some cases insist that the players give me feedback about these things. We get an understanding of each other expectations and have a collective agreement that we'll run the game in that general way.

First Rel, let me thank you for your kinds words, you probably don't know how much I appreciate them. I was flamed for the first time ever in a thread about Mongoose's rep and though I refused to fight back it bothered me none the less, so thank you.

I sit down with my players individually once we decide together what game WORLD we want to play in. The individual sit down sessions are to discuss character concepts, background material, and choices about class and alignment. All my players know I refuse to run evil characters so the alignment bit is more to make sure the characters can find some compatibility amoung each other. Since I require background stories (doesn't have to be a twenty page biography but at least a lhalf page of typed info to make the character seem real) I try to give them some idea of the community they are from and some names to go on. I do this individually so that no one ends up choosing a class based on what everyone else is playing, instead they play what they really want to play and if a class is missing its easy enough to adjust the campaign around (healing potions if a cleric is missing, toned down traps if there is no rouge, etc). I ask my players not to discuss their characters with each other at all until everyone has finished and assembled to play. I've not really ever considered disucssing themes, tone, and mood and I find this to be a very interesting idea. I'm about a year away from ending our current game (the one this all happened in) and I will be borrrowing your idea's here for that next game.

There are some very specific reasons why I want to have an objective alignment system but also model real life morals. They have to do with the way my regular group approaches characters, settings, and campaigns. No, I don't expect what I come up with to work for everyone but I do expect it to help deal with some issues that come up with my regular group. If I write it up and it works for other people, that's a bonus.

Okay, I can see that. In fact I believe you have mentioned this before earlier on. I didn't want to go back searching through all this to find it, but your saying so now strikes a memory chord. You must run a very sophisticated game and play with some rather interesting players to be so concerned about this topic.

I think it's quite possible to find insight into what goes on in your own group by talking to people outside of it. I've done quite a bit of that, actually. Haven't you gotten any insight into what happened from this thread?

Yes I have, and I've listed them a few times so I concede the point. It has been a useful thread and not only accompished my goal of finding out if there were others out there who thought like I did, but made me change my mind on some long standing procedures I've used in my games. Like XP penalties for alignment infringements.

And finally: realize that you must make a decision, it's your game, and simply remind players of that fact when they try to tell you how you should decide. For your part, respect that they have a right to their own moral compass (if you can) and confine your comments to the game characters only.

Yep, this wasn't my only mistake in the scenario, but it was my largest. :\

 

[John Morrow]

Maybe not trivial, but very easy IMO. But I make a few assumptions that I don't think are all that radical for DnD:
1. alignments are detectable
2. people know the basic definitions of each alignment and pretty much know what their own alignment is
3. a persons alignment is relatively static over their lifetime
4. alignments have existed as long as humans, and the definitions have remained unchanged

Oh, I agree with your assumptions. I simply don't agree that they would cause people to cluster into like-minded groups any more than people always do in the real world. And don't forget that alignment detection can be effectively evaded and not everyone can do it casually.

I don't think it's being a moral relativist to say that neither side understood the other's values, and that neither side understood it's own values. People in the crusades often did things diametrically opposed to their own value system, which confused/enraged the other side and reinforced the misunderstanding. The events of the crusades IMO would not be possible if the ability to instantly detect alignment (on yourself, your allies, and your enemy) were available to even .01% of the participants.

I took a bit of Crusades history in college and I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing it. Given how many Crusades their were and the substantial differences between them, some specific examples of what you have in mind would help.

And one could say that the conditions that caused the crusades are, in fact, very common *throughout* history. One wonders what a thousand years of such conditions would have done to the political history of the world. Given the communication capabilities in a world with magic, I think nine countries, or at least nine alliances, would be formed.

I think you assume that people naturally prefer the company of like minded people. I disagree. For example, I think those with Evil alignments would have plenty of reasons to surround themselves with other people who are not Evil. I think Neutral people would have plenty of reasons to want to live under a Good ruler or work with Evil people toward certain ends. And so on.

Despite having some fairly clearly defined sides, the Cold War created some strange bedfellows and despite the lack of Detect Alignment spells, I think most people had a pretty good idea of what they were dealing with most of the time.

And if a person Neutral and lives in a poor land suffering from a famine, why wouldn't they try to migrate to a Good land with food where they might get some help and why wouldn't they get helpe, so long as I follow their rules, even if the Neutral person does think that the Good land is hopelessly naive and not ruthless enough?

Atilla the Hun: "Hey guys, after our last campaign I just did a check and found out that we're all Chaotic Evil."
(Apologies to anyone of Hunnish descent.)

Why wouldn't people of different alignments go along for the ride and why wouldn't Atilla let them?

 

[Ds Da Man]

Once again, I too have been lured back (moral arguements are the best!)

The problem I have with the whole thing is that TwoFalls was "disusted" by the players actions, and allowed this to become a problem after the game! As you can see on this thread, no one's morals or visions of good and evil are exactlly the same, and had I been in a game with TwoFalls, and he implied his moral vision was the right way, mine the wrong way, I too would have argued and probably gotten mad. Just because you see it your way, doesn't mean I'll see it your way.
Of course, had TwoFalls told me in advance of his version, and he wouldn't have to list evrything, just a basis of some of his views on Good, we would never have had this problem.

 

[John Morrow]

The problem I have with the whole thing is that TwoFalls was "disusted" by the players actions, and allowed this to become a problem after the game!

Suppose you were running a group of players who had their characters drag the elf maiden they rescued as part of the adventure behind a barn to rape her. They are all playing Neutral characters and claim the act is Neutral rather than Evil. In fact, when challenged, they go further and claim that, if the could get away with it, they'd do the exact same thing in the same situation in real life, as would any red-blooded man. Are you saying you'd simply ignore that and not think about those players any differently than you did before the game? And would you really think that you needed to tell your players that you consider raping innocent elf maidens to be an Evil act or would you expect your players to know that?

 

[D+1]

Now regarding the part of this thread on sitting down and laying out the law in a list format about what can or can't be done by members of a certain alignment... give me break. How many GM's can, with any shred of honesty, tell me that they give each of their players a list of do's and don'ts before a campaign is started based on that characters choice of alignments?

Not a list of Do's and Don'ts - that's actually at cross-purposes for having alignment in the game. Alignment is not there to dictate actions of PC's it's there to act as a guide for when players make decisions FOR their PC's - it's a reference for helping play a character that is reasonably consistent in behavior. I DO include a couple of pages of exposition on how _I_ interpret alignments and what that is going to mean for characters (paladins in particular) that are tightly alignment restricted. It goes along with listing all the other house rules I might have.

As a rule the point is not to even begin to dictate how a player will run a character (do's and dont's) but to put all participants on the same page. It's about making them aware of consequences based on MY interpretations of alignment. They might disagree with how I interpret alignments but they can't disagree with having had things noted in general terms up front. For specific instances in-game, well that's why I warn them more than once as soon as I find alignment becoming an issue. I don't want to argue with my players about what's the right/wrong thing for their character to do because it's THEIR choice. My job is to just lay out the consequences so that they are fully aware of all the fallout of their choices.

However, telling me that what I should have done is to give a do and don't list to my players before the game started is tantamount to telling our current administration that they screwed up for not mounting anti air defense missiles upon the top of the world trade centers. Who has a freaking crystal ball to foretell these events?

I don't thing that's a good analogy, but I can reiterate that the point of making players aware of YOUR approach to alignment issues right from the start is to prevent game/friendship-ending disasters such as you ran into.

One of the unwritten pitfalls of roleplaying games is that you WILL be dealing with real-world people-related issues right there at the gaming table. A DM needs to not only get better at running the game with experience but to get better at handling people IRL too. It may show up in the form of religious or political hot-buttons of certain players, or in that once you spend a lot of time with some people you find that they are simply not what you may have first thought about them. You may find players that you initally don't think much of but come to find are just outstanding human beings (even if you never are much impressed with their ability to roleplay). You may find players that over time you just come to dislike because of their RL attitude, opinions, and conduct.

Now that you are more aware of the particular pitfall of alignment-related game and meta-game issues it's easiest to prevent anything like a repeat by simply communicating early and often with players on the subject. Give 'em a bit of your wisdom up front and then when it rears its ugly head start talking to them again about it - find out THEIR perspective as well as communicating your own. You don't have to ACCEPT their perspective, but the sooner you find out that your two perspectives are going to clash the better off you all are because you can prevent it from becoming "an issue" before it starts.

 

[Rel]

I sit down with my players individually once we decide together what game WORLD we want to play in...I do this individually so that no one ends up choosing a class based on what everyone else is playing, instead they play what they really want to play and if a class is missing its easy enough to adjust the campaign around (healing potions if a cleric is missing, toned down traps if there is no rouge, etc). I ask my players not to discuss their characters with each other at all until everyone has finished and assembled to play. I've not really ever considered disucssing themes, tone, and mood and I find this to be a very interesting idea. I'm about a year away from ending our current game (the one this all happened in) and I will be borrrowing your idea's here for that next game.

Well I'm definately moving away from the "morality/alignment" issue and into "metagame planning" but I find your approach very interesting in how different it is from the one our group employs. During the campaign planning phase we sit around the table and toss character ideas back and forth very freely. What typically happens is that there are one or two players who have fairly firm idea of the PC's they want to play and one or two more have a general idea (Fighter Type, Wizard Type, Rogue Type, etc.). The other one or two guys usually wait to see what others settle on and then start to form character ideas for themselves.

We're still very clear on the point that nobody is being pressured to fill a certain role in the party. Nobody "Has to play the Cleric" or anything like that. We can always find workarounds. But I do find that they tend to adopt roles that cover most of the necessary "essentials" for the sort of adventuring that the campaign is likely to contain. I think that's just natural because they want their character to be unique and interesting. I've seen situations before where two or more PC's share an area of expertise and when those situations come up they're sometimes tripping all over each other to try and be the one to handle it. So while there is plenty of overlap in some areas (particularly things like efficacy in melee combat for example) they tend to specialize in some areas and avoid overlap there. Does that ever become a problem in your group where the PC's are being made without sharing info?

As to the point about discussin the themes, flavor and tenor of the campaign, I find this to be completely indespensible. My current campaign is an Eberron game set in the city of Sharn. I told them at the outset that the game might stray outside the city on occasion but that I wanted Sharn to be the primary focus of the game. So when they made characters they avoided the Druid and Ranger types who thrive in the wilderness and focused on PC's that are a bit more streetwise and politically savvy.

Unfortunately I did not initially get into the issue of the flavor and pace of the campaign that I was shooting for and I've had to go back and address this during our last session (the 8th of the campaign). Our group has gotten larger of late (we're up to 6 players now) and because of that and the fact that Eberron is well suited to the genre, I was really shooting for more of a "pulp action" feel than I've done in the past. Previously most of my games have been the sort where things are grim and gritty and players who blunder about and don't plan things well get in over their heads.

This time around I wanted to make them a bit less paranoid and a bit more willing to jump in with both feet. But because I failed to adequately explain this they were still tiptoeing trying to make sure not to upset the applecart when I wanted them to be dashing through the streets in high adventure chases, knocking over three applecarts at a time. Thanks to some frank discussions last session I think they've got a better sense that they can act a bit less cautiously and not get burned every time.

Anyway, I'll quit rambling but these kinds of discussions are why I come to ENWorld (aside from all the nice people I've met). I thing I was a decent GM before I became a member here but my skills and level of communication with the players have really increased thanks to the tips I've picked up from others here.

 

[Ds Da Man]

Suppose you were running a group of players who had their characters drag the elf maiden they rescued as part of the adventure behind a barn to rape her. They are all playing Neutral characters and claim the act is Neutral rather than Evil. In fact, when challenged, they go further and claim that, if the could get away with it, they'd do the exact same thing in the same situation in real life, as would any red-blooded man. Are you saying you'd simply ignore that and not think about those players any differently than you did before the game? And would you really think that you needed to tell your players that you consider raping innocent elf maidens to be an Evil act or would you expect your players to know that?

Of course, we're talking about Zhents not elf maidens, and I would just say, "you wouldn't rape the elf maiden." Then we would go about playing the GAME! Should my DM try to tell me he's disgusted at ME because of a game, I'd probably respond with, "@#%* you!"

 

[twofalls]

I've seen situations before where two or more PC's share an area of expertise and when those situations come up they're sometimes tripping all over each other to try and be the one to handle it. So while there is plenty of overlap in some areas (particularly things like efficacy in melee combat for example) they tend to specialize in some areas and avoid overlap there. Does that ever become a problem in your group where the PC's are being made without sharing info?

This style of starting a game has been an evolutionary process. Please keep in mind that I've been gaming with these fellows for a long time, 25 years in two instances. The most recent player just was voted in last game session. The next most recent has been playing for 6 years. My style of GMing has become very organic, and I will try to explain that here.

In my Dreams of Glory campaign (DoG), the one this whole thread has been discussing, I now have four fighters, two priests, and an elven mage. Only two characters are non-human (Dwarven Warmain from Monte Cook’s AU) and the Mage. There hasn’t ever been a rouge in the party. So this group is high on healing magic and can recover from battle quickly, has average magical artillery support, and awesome frontline firepower. I adjust the game to suit that mix. I can worry them by tossing in just a few traps, but avoid anything truly dangerous in that area because they just can’t deal with it. In most encounters I give the fighters plenty of tough opponents to vanquish, and there are many opportunities for the spell casters to support the front lines (or mix it up as they wish).

I no longer plan grand campaigns. I used to sit down and write out ideas for plots, subplots, and concepts. I’d think about what theme’s I wanted to explore and take notes on what to research in order to get a clear idea about them, like slavery, or Nordic traditions, or once I did a college paper on the role of monotheism in Gaul and used that as the basis of a campaign idea. I don’t do that anymore, I’ve become lazy and my games have improved for it. For example the DoG game started off with the group assembling individually in Shadowdale with this idea that they wanted to look into the Harpers Organization, and the first session was role playing them meeting each other and getting to know one another. I always do that as it gives a solid start to the game and a foundation for the characters future relationships. They then discover that some girls are kidnapped and go after them. I didn’t have a plan as to where the game was going and just ran a small web module I’d downloaded. From there I played off the cue of my players and the game evolved from there. I grab a module when there is no clear direction the players are traveling and use it as an outline and then just ad hock off the players. This is a lazy way to run a game, but it’s led to the most intense role playing experiences of my career.

The only background planning that is done comes from the players themselves. I require that they turn in backgrounds on their characters, and I use these backgrounds in the game. For example, my Elven wizard is from an old Eldath Family who fled the scourge of Myth Drannor and traveled to Evermeet. He is the talented youngest member of that family who left a promising career as a scholar to return to Faerun and shocked his family to shame by consorting with all types of lower base races. Now that the Drow are infiltrating Cormanthor and returning to the surface, his elder family members have expectations of him, and he has spent half the game dodging their messengers so he could continue to adventure with his friends. That’s just one sample of many in the game.

\\\\Spoiler Alert for Players of ANY of My Games////

It’s interesting the way things work out. I might put a puzzle, or conceive of a twisted plan in my head of what the bad guys are up to and drop clues. The players then speculate about what is going on and try to figure it out and sometimes one of them comes up with a brilliant idea that I hadn’t thought of and I decide to adopt it on the spot. They then feel so clever when they discover that they had figured it all out on their own, when in fact they had conceived it in the first place!

////End of Alert\\\\

In this fashion the game grows and I keep after session notes on everything that transpires. I can then use that info later to make the game appear to have great depth and intricate twisted plots when in fact its all so easy and effortless that its laughable.

So that’s what I meant by organic.