When the DMs interpretation of alignment differs from the players

[Fingol]

Still working out the details with some people I game with but we might be drifting towards an alignment mulitvoting system.

Basically if the question of a character's alignment comes up, and the maybe only if the controlling player's and DM disagree, all players and the DM write down their perception off all characters around the table.

The DM 'averages' the alignment of each character in the group and reads out the summary results.

The maths probably is important and we figured that the DMs opinion might count for more than that of an individual player this might be represented with some sort of weighted point system.

The result might well be something like:
2 Good; 4 Lawful or -9 Evil; -6 Chaotic
using negatives for evil and chaos and using a scale of something like -10 to +10.

Maybe anyone that scores close to zero ie within 2 points might well be neutral on that scale.

The results might stand until the next disagreement. It will require some trust between the players; and maybe the DM reserves the right to delete any way out score for any character.

 

[Buttercup]

The simple solution is to disregard alignment. Paladins have a code of honor they have to follow, which is agreed upon by player and DM at character creation. Other than that, don't sweat it.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The simple solution is to disregard alignment.

You really think that's "simple"?

Who takes the 2d6 extra damage from holy swords?

Who does the forbiddance keep out?

What does a paladin detect?

There are scores -- possibly hundreds -- of changes to the D&D rules that would have to follow discarding the alignment system.

Maybe the "simple solution" is to also discard all of the rules that depend upon alignment, but (1) it really would be a substantial chunk of the game, and (2) I actually like many of those rules, despite having no great love for the alignment system.

No, no "simple solution" here.

 

[WayneLigon]

It sounds like you need to have a talk with the players about what is what. Create a sheet for your campaign that gives a bit more detail to your vision of the alignment system, even it's it's just listing ten things you consider 'Good', ten things you consider 'Lawful', etc. You might also want to look at the alignment variant in Monte Cook's Book of Hallowed Might. It gives a scale of 1-10 for each axis, with examples of where things fit. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving sister is a 2 or so on the Good scale and probably about a 4 on the Chaotic scale. Selling her skin to the tanners is an 10 on the Evil scale, etc.

 

[iblis]

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?

Personally, I allow players to choose whether they want their characters to 'have an alignment' in the written down kind of way.

If they do, fine. It can still change, either according to me, or to them.

And if they don't, then whenever the question may arise in terms of mechanics, I rule their character's alignment to be whatever seems to have been the most consistent fit, most recently, for the longest time.

In either case, I'm more than willing to discuss, debate, murder - well OK no, but it seems to work anyhow. Luckily the players that get themselves into these campaigns are quite reasonable about these issues.

IME, alignment interpretations vary a LOT. And that's OK. But at the end of the day, I guess the Supreme Commander DM's word is law.

So I suppose I'm advocating flexibility...no. Actually, I'm just saying it works round here. YMMV.

That probably didn't help, I know. Still, best of luck.

 

[Wombat]

I have always assumed that most True Alignments are "hard". Most folks are a grand vague wash of Neutral (not Radical Neutral, just Uncaring or Unmotivated enough to really press hard to one side of the scale or the other).

I also believe that most governments in both fantasy and non-fantasy games would be Lawful Neutral -- governments survive off of laws and all governments end up doing things they are proud of and things they wish to sweep under the carpet.

The problem with alignment in D&D is that it is neither Absolute nor Generalized. The definitions shift at various points in the main books. Characters can shift alignment, apparently, rather easily, yet monsters are set along a given path. Even such matters as Smite, Detect X, and the like are under a question mark -- do you Detect EVIL (aboslute) or evil-at-the-moment; if it is the latter, are there set criteria or is the smiting only based on actions taken at a given moment? Is killing an Evil character a Good act? Is it a Lawful act? If it is a Good act and yet not a Lawful act, how does this affect a paladin?

My problem with alignment is this vagueness, this swashing back and forth from a Generazlied and an Absolute definition of alignment within the books themselves. In the end, I feel that alignment causes more problems than it solves; it is easier to remove the alignment bases for skills, spells, and the like and ultimately get rid of alignment than to try and define what alignment IS in game terms. And, no, I don't think this leads to a game without a moral compass -- characters will be judged by their actions rather than by they taglines.

Rambling thoughts prior to my first cup of tea...

 

[DMScott]

What I do nowadays is make it clear that the two-letter code on their character sheet is not an all-encompassing personality guide, but rather a measure of which (if any) divine rules they're closest to following. In effect, there's a divide between the subjective nature of mortals and the dictates of the deities; the latter are what determines how alignment-based game effects apply. Alignment then is relatively restricted, measuring only behaviour in an area important to the gods. Those who can't achieve the sort of consistency the gods prefer (which is most of humanity, at least) are considered Neutral in the eyes of the divine - that doesn't mean they're not a good person in many ways, just that they can't or won't live up to the relatively strict behavioural guidelines set down by the higher powers. Someone who acts in a completely Lawful Good manner has a lot of trouble coexisting in normal human society.

For characters that aren't dedicated to a particular religion or philosophy, it's normal for alignment to wander a bit in response to their recent actions, and every few sessions I let everybody know where they stand. For those who have levels in classes with alignment restrictions, I try to let them know ahead of time what rules they have to live by in order to keep their status. I'm also thinking of changing the alignment names to get away from everyday descriptions - it's quite possible for someone to be considered a good person without living up to the Good alignment. Even more likely in many cases, since a person who's Good must abide by some restrictions on their behaviour that (paradoxically enough) make it hard for them to act in some situations. They must trust in the gods that these restrictions are just, and take solace in the fact that mortal existence is transient while their spiritual behaviour has presumably eternal consequences.

So human society is generally neutral. Non-human societies are sometimes aligned - for example, Dwarves are still generally Lawful Good and Elves are generally Chaotic Good. This means that their respective societies are very alien to humans, and much less pragmatic. That's one of the reasons humans are the dominant culture in the mortal world - they may not be as in-tune to the will of particular deities, but that also means they don't have as many restrictions on their behaviour. For example, one aspect of being Good is that the only intelligent creatures you may kill are the Evil ones. So Elves and Dwarves do not make war on humans (or each other), but human nations are not so constrained. The prevailing alignment of the Dwarves and Elves is a big part of the reason they have largely withdrawn to lands considered inhospitable to humans.

 

[Arnwyn]

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

What do you do?

I enforce my vision. It's my campaign, my world design, and my time spent designing it. It's up to me to detail and explain how the campaign world works - and that includes the interpretation of alignments.

Aside:
Now, that doesn't mean I'm unmoving and it has absolutely nothing to do with alignment "straightjackets". I'm pleased whenever my players want to provide their input into the campaign world. Really, all I ask for is a justification for their interpretation and character actions. And, after more than 10+ years, I've discovered that 99.99% of the time, any differences in opinion turn out to simply be a miscommunication. (Generally, we never have any alignment arguments. The rules seem to be pretty clear to us... *shrug*)

(Disclaimer: This is what we do and works for our particular group. I make no claim that it would work for other groups.)

 

[Umbran]

One thing to recall is that alignment is a long-term average of motivations and behavior, not a short-term one. You speak of an "alignment infraction", but really it is just one data point. Such things are generally not an issue unless they are extremely momentous, or become a habit.

If you think of it as an infraction, then you are thinking of the straightjacket - they are somehow "not allowed" to do certain things. Instead, think of it as if they can always do whatever they want. The character's alignment can change if their actions support that overall.

For a few, there will be some consequences. But in those cases, you'll probably find that the minor disparities between player and DM aren't an issue. While on any particular act, you may disagree on where it falls. You'll probably disagree far less often on the overall bent of the character.

 

[Wraith Form]

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.

Well put. I be feelin' you, yo.