When the DMs interpretation of alignment differs from the players

[dreaded_beast]

I'm starting to discover that my interpretation of how a particular alignments acts is a bit different from that of my players. On one hand I want the players to have fun and I don't want alignment to be a "straight-jacket". On the other hand, I don't want to ignore what I believe in my opinion is an infraction in alignment. However, when my players argue their case, I can see how they came up to why what they did falls within their alignment. I believe the problem is that we all have differing views of alignment.

IMO, alignment interpretations vary a bit. I don't want to enforce my vision of what good/neutral/evil is.

What do you do?

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

This is one of the biggest sticking points for me. First, I kind of thing alignment is one of the goofiest things about AD&D. Honestly, I allow great breadth with my interpretation. I allow great breadth with what I allow my players to do, too. I mean there are so many different interpretations of 'lawful' and 'good' and 'chaotic' and 'evil' that for me it is not worth splitting hairs over unless behavior is obscenely out of whack.

 

[delericho]

Should be the DM's call

I'm usually the DM for my group. What I usually do is make my position on alignment quite clear early on, and then enforce that. This tends to cut down on arguments (since the interpretation in use has been spelled out), and also means I don't have to try to adjudicate a position on alignment that isn't my own.

That said, I also take the view that alignment is (mostly) irrelevant for characters who don't have alignment restrictions. So, if a PCs Ranger acts in a Neutral Good manner, the next time his character sheet is updated I'll change the 'alignment box' to match, regardless of what the box previously said. Some characters do tend to change alignment quite often, as they are borderline cases, and PCs in my games find it rather difficult to hang on to a Good alignment (Neutral suits most of them better).

When faced with a character who does have an alignment restriction, I proceed a bit more cautiously. Firstly, I have never mandated an alignment changed based on a single action (there are some cases where I might, but these haven't ever come up). If a character's behaviour is consistently out of sync with his alignment restrictions, I will speak to the player, generally in email, and explain that this is the case. The player then gets to decide whether to adjust his character's behaviour, or whether to take the alignment change.

Ultimately, alignment is a tool for running the game. A character's alignment should never constrain his behaviour, and a DM who says "you can't do that - you're lawful good" is not a DM I want to play with (barring magical compulsion to stay in alignment, of course). Under normal circumstances, a PC in my games is permitted to take whatever action he wishes, although I will query significant alignment (or personality) breaches. The flip side of that is true as well - a PC will take the consequences of his actions in my games, and if that is an alignment switch, and a possible loss of class features, then so be it.

Hope that helps.

 

[Threedub]

My alignment definitions also differ with parts of what is described in the PH, and it has led to "discussions" . . . but in the end do it how you see it, let the players know how you see it, and then rule on it consistently.

We've thrown out the basic alignment system in our game. Humans, demi-humans, humanoids, animals do not have an alignment to start the game and it can't be detected, only traces or faint hints of how their life has been lived. However, you can earn your alignment over time through real deeds.

Outsiders, on the other hand, will detect like fire gives off light.

 

[Sammael]

Spend an hour discussing alignments with your players. Tell them how you feel, and listen to their arguments. If they make sense, I suggest adjusting your views, even if it's only for this particular campaign.

For future campaigns, make sure you do this in advance. I know it's helped me a lot. Even now, I sometimes get a gut feeling that a player is not playing a certain alignment "right" (like there is a "right" way to play an alignment... but I digress). If that's the case, I'll let the player know if the feeling persists for longer than one or two sessions, quoting his actions as much as possible (and letting him explain why he reacted in the way he did). If it still seems he is playing the wrong alignment, I'll tell the player that he may want to switch alignment to the more appropriate one (I never penalize alignment changes unless they have rule-related attachments, and even then I try to work it out in the best possible way for the player).

I personally find the NG, N, and CN alignments most difficult to adjudicate.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

Spend an hour discussing alignments with your players. Tell them how you feel, and listen to their arguments. If they make sense, I suggest adjusting your views, even if it's only for this particular campaign.

For future campaigns, make sure you do this in advance. I know it's helped me a lot. Even now, I sometimes get a gut feeling that a player is not playing a certain alignment "right" (like there is a "right" way to play an alignment... but I digress). If that's the case, I'll let the player know if the feeling persists for longer than one or two sessions, quoting his actions as much as possible (and letting him explain why he reacted in the way he did). If it still seems he is playing the wrong alignment, I'll tell the player that he may want to switch alignment to the more appropriate one (I never penalize alignment changes unless they have rule-related attachments, and even then I try to work it out in the best possible way for the player).

I personally find the NG, N, and CN alignments most difficult to adjudicate.

Actually, this may be the best approach, honestly. But my dislike of alignmnt has been a gradually evolving thing - an opinion I have been forming for a few years now.

 

[Gizzard]

I highly encourage my players to pick out a god rather than an alignment; that way they can obey that god's mandates rather than the more abstract mandates of the alignment.

For instance, you can be LG and worship Illmater (God of Martyrs and Sacrifice) or Tyr (God of Justice) in totally different ways.

This also makes it easier for the players to get a handle on what's in their alignment and it makes it easier for the DM to judge whether they are being faithful to their gods. Illmater: "You slew a captured prisoner after a mock trial. I excommunicate you!" Tyr: "You executed a criminal after weighing him in judgement. Good job!"

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

On the other hand, I don't want to ignore what I believe in my opinion is an infraction in alignment.

What is an alignment infraction? Sounds like choosing an alignment is not fun in some campaigns.

This isn't 2e. Characters don't lose XP for violating hard-to-define "rules". The only class in the PH that gets that kind of baggage is the paladin.

 

[Mythtify]

Dump the alignments all together. D20 Modern dosen't use them, neither does Arcana Unearthed. I find that dumping the alignments make for more interesting campaings. When you have to judge if a character is good or evil based on the actions of that character instead of casting a detect evil/good spell, you get characters that seem more real. Morality can be more of a factor in a campaign with out alignment than with alignment.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Even now, I sometimes get a gut feeling that a player is not playing a certain alignment "right" (like there is a "right" way to play an alignment... but I digress). If that's the case, I'll let the player know if the feeling persists for longer than one or two sessions, quoting his actions as much as possible (and letting him explain why he reacted in the way he did). If it still seems he is playing the wrong alignment, I'll tell the player that he may want to switch alignment to the more appropriate one (I never penalize alignment changes unless they have rule-related attachments, and even then I try to work it out in the best possible way for the player).

Heh. I recently ran a three-session one-shot. Partway through the second session, two of the players looked at each other, looked at the "CN" on their sheets, and considered the way they'd been acting.

"Nah," they both decided, crossed out the "CN", and replaced it with "CE".

Definitely a better fit

-Hyp.