When the DMs interpretation of alignment differs from the players

[dead]

I think one of the major problems that a DM has such difficulty in adjudicating a situation where his player has a differing view of alignment is becaues WotC authors don't even agree@!!!!!

In fact, the *same* author can, ofttimes, not be consistant.

Look at you Draconomican as an example. Look at the example dragons in the back. Now, you'll notice that with each grouping of sample dragons, the alignment for a particular type will follow what is "typical" for its kind. For example, all the sample blue dragons are LE in their stat blocks (LE is the typical alignment for blue dragons). Nevertheless, when you read the decriptions of these dragons, their personalities sometimes struggle to be explained within the bounds of the alignment they are given. This is particularly true of the sample good dragons. Indeed, some good dragons sound more neutral, or even mildly malign, but they are still given the "good" alignment.

I think to eliviate the whole alignment debate, WotC should come up with a *stricter* definition on what the various alignments exactly mean. Perhaps they could develop 5 or 6 *archetypes* for each alignment that pretty much cover most personality types. Then not only will WotC game designers be more consistant, but us DMs will have an easier time adjudicating . . . and if a player *still* argues, we can rub their noses in one of the archetypes that matches their character personality.

 

[Silveras]

First, I think this is more of a problem for long-time players who played 1st and 2nd Edition, where alignment was much more of an issue. So, remember that you are not playing those versions anymore, and re-read the Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide on the subject: try to note where you may be carrying old rules forward.

Second, for those who advocate dumping alignment, that is one solution. However, it is only a solution that works for some campaigns. If a campaign is about the "shades of grey" moral uncertainties, dropping (or reducing the impact of) alignment is appropriate. However, for a campaign about Heroes vs. Villains, alignment can be (and is for me) a valuable tool.

So.. that brings us to what I do. First, I posted my take on alignments in my world on a web page for my players to have access to. I also include the information in my "House Rules" document. I am pleased to say that the current SRD take is pretty close to what I have used since late in 2nd Edition.

The problem is that people see alignment as a confining box that limits your options. That is not what alignment should be. The alignment restrictions on classes, for example, are not meant to say "You must behave this way to be this class." They should be viewed as "Only people who believe and act this way are suited to this class, and so others would not want to become a member." It is like the "You must be this tall to go on this ride sign" at amusement parks; it is meant to screen out people who should not be there, as opposed to implying that someone must be stretched on a rack before they can go on the ride.

What follows is a very "geeky"/"nerdy" approach ... feel free to skip:

To illustrate this for my players, I have them think about their character's personality and history as step 1 of character creation. For personality, they pick 2 to 5 Ethical (Law/Chaos) and 2 to 5 Moral (Good/Evil) traits, and rate them from -15 to +15. Negative numbers represent a tendency toward the Lawful or Evil side of the trait; positive numbers represent a tendency toward the Chaotic or Good side. I then have them total each set of numbers and divide by 3. The result determines what alignment the character starts with. -3 to +3 on either "axis" is Neutral. -3.01 or lower is Lawful or Evil; +3.01 or higher is Chaotic or Good.
Why not just average them ? Because everyone winds up Neutral that way. It is hard not to be Neutral if you only pick 2 traits; people who want to be really Good or Lawful or Chaotic need to pick a few traits to get there. Also, a character can have a couple of slightly "negative" traits mixed in with his/her "positive" ones, which adds depth to the character.

So, what are the good points of this system ?

1. The player understands how I view the character's personality and alignment
2. The player gets to create the personality s/he likes, and knows how it will fit into the campaign, up front
3. The character can have a few flaws as well as strengths, which adds depth to the character

What are the bad points ?

1. People who are math-challenged need help to do it.
2. It is a bit more complicated than saying "I'm Neutral Good"

In the end, as DM, it is your job to communicate how important you expect alignments to be in the campaign, and how you view each one. If you and you players are not "on the same page", you need to get there quickly to avoid arguments later.

For those who are curious, my long-winded take on alignments can be found on the site linked in my sig.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Unless the difference in opinion falls on character's that depend on their alignment for abilities (paladins and some PrCs), there shouldn't be a problem...

If they happen to act contrary to their alignment all it takes is a pencil and eraser to fix that problem.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

Tell the players to suck it up and deal with it. You're running the game, it's your job to interpret the rules. Do you interrupt in the middle of a game and say "Todd, your character wouldn't say that! And I think Toddric should have more of a Welsh accent. You're doing it all wrong." I'm assuming you don't. Then why do you put up with it when players try to take over your part in the game?

Let the players play the game, and let the GM master it. It's what the Gods intended when they forged the first d20...

 

[Ukyo the undead]

I tell to my players how I see the alignments. And ask them to use my guidelines to classify their caracters. But I dont enforce an alignment 100%choerency(sp?) and dont keed track of the PCs actions. Since I only use it as a general idea of the Pcs behaviors, only the most absurds discrepancies between PCs actions and alignments bleeps on my radar.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Then don't. Alignments are broad. If a player can argue out why their particular action is good or whatever, then let them. The thing that matters is they put thought into it

Unless their violating basic tenets of their alignment for no good reason, leave them be. If they are, change their alignment.

 

[Alloran]

Interesting question. Here's my two cents. The guy who used to DM for me wanted to play, so I took over a game. He made himself a lawful evil character named Usa who worshipped Pelor. Yes, Pelor. His character thought it was his duty to find the Paladins of Pelor and test them, to see if they were strong enough to serve Pelor's might. If they were strong enough, Usa would be vanquished. If they wern't, then the wern't good enough to be servents of Pelor. Now, silliness aside, the Character thought he was being Lawful good and doing what he thought Pelor told him to. :alofting a Holy Symbol:: the love of Pelor! It burns with righteousness!)

So. Meandering aside, to the point. The DM has to adjucate (sp) what they think is the best way to do it. Alignment should be in the hands of the DM and not the player. The Player says "I'm Lawful Good!" and the DM should say "Show me." If the Paladin is becoming evil, give him warnings and take his stuff away if it gets to be bad. Same with a Monk or a Cleric. Be fair to the player, but when all is said and done, it's in the hands of the DM.

 

[Li Shenron]

A possibility to get away with it is to make it clear that the DM is not using his own real-life believes to adjudicate what's good or evil, but he's trying to roleplay the character's patron deities (or whoever is watching over the fantasy world).

The whole issue normally has an in-game consequence only when something religious is involved, for example when characters get divine powers. I think it really helps to tell the players it's not you (the DM) deciding if an act is inappropriate for an alignment. This happens now and then when someone is playing a Paladin: players have different views on how to be just and good at the same time (even the Bible contradicts itself!) and so do DMs, but as a DM you could try NOT to follow your own ideas, instead interpret the fantasy deity's ones. Two different paladin's deities may have very different ideas, and if the player doesn't like it, you can suggest him to roleplay a switch from one deity to the other.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

In my experience, the most profound differences among players (and DMs) has to do with the "Good-Evil" axis of alignment. It's my view that being Good is hard and that it's not enough that the deeds you perform have good effects, if you're performing them primarily for your own benefit or even for the benefit of your friends and family. The test of a Good character's actions is whether he or she would perform them even without such personal benefit.

I've had several players who disagree, who argue that being Good is much easier than I make it in D&D, but I feel very strongly about the issue. In my view, the majority of normal humans in the D&D-standard universe are some form of Neutral. They're not (necessarily) bad people, and often they're even decent people -- maybe even lower-case "good" people -- but they're not Good. It takes behavior above-and-beyond normal decency to be upper-case Good.

 

[S'mon]

I say that Alignment 'is' whatever the bulk of people in the campaign area think it is - since there are more NPCs than PCs, their definition trumps.
I've grown to hate Alignment as An Absolute - 1e AD&D Gygaxian Alignment definitionss (midwest lapsed Catholicism) are different from 3e D&D Alignment definitions (Seattle new-age treehugger) anyway, and of course both differ from my own (British-utilitarian-atheist) ideas of what 'Neutral Good' or whatever might be. So I use the idea that belief determines Alignment, not vice versa; the Nine Hells and other planes-of-alignment are a product of human (etc) belief shaping the multiverse, rather than a priori determinants of what constitutes Lawful Evil. I find this approach much more satisfactory and it avoids a lot of the problems of trying to pigeonhole beings who don't easily fit the classic definitions. like a rebellious Satan-figure who works in a methodical way to overthrow the Divine Order and can be classed as LE NE CE or CN depending on how you look at him.