D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[pemerton]

But that wasn't what was said.

What was said was that the GM decides what your alignment is. Which is a significant step beyond merely "the player's roleplaying".

the GM ultimately decides a character's alignment based on how a given player roleplays them, not based on what the player jots down on their character sheet.

I agree with @EzekielRaiden: there is a big difference between alignment is a consequence of how the player plays their PC and alignment is decided by the GM on the basis of how the player plays their PC.

 

[kermit4karate]

I agree with @EzekielRaiden: there is a big difference between alignment is a consequence of how the player plays their PC and alignment is decided by the GM on the basis of how the player plays their PC.

Maybe in terms of how you choose to interpret the comments, but when I typed the actual words, in agreement with others on this same thread, I intended the same thing -- GM arbitrates based on player actions.

Feel free, though, to continue telling me what I actually meant.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe in terms of how you choose to interpret the comments, but when I typed the actual words, in agreement with others on this same thread, I intended the same thing -- GM arbitrates based on player actions.

Feel free, though, to continue telling me what I actually meant.

I'm not telling you what you meant.

I'm saying that there is a difference between player actions determine alignment and GM arbitrates alignment based on player actions.

For instance, the player could determine their PC's alignment based on their actions. Or they could ask the opinion of the other players. Or there could be a check-list. Or some other process for working out an alignment based on actions.

 

[kermit4karate]

I'm not telling you what you meant.

I'm saying that there is a difference between player actions determine alignment and GM arbitrates alignment based on player actions.

For instance, the player could determine their PC's alignment based on their actions. Or they could ask the opinion of the other players. Or there could be a check-list. Or some other process for working out an alignment based on actions.

OK, that helps clarify, thank you. So, now I can simply just say that I disagree with you, now that I think I have a better idea of what you meant.

I would never, not in any of my games, ever allow the players at the table to determine another player's alignment based on a vote or collective rule. That's not how I operate. As the GM, I would listen and observe, take opinions under advisement, but the table isn't a democracy in my world. Sometimes a few players may agree with each other and say, "Ooh! Yeah, that sounds great. We decide that Grog is now chaotic neutral."

Yeah, no, sorry, haha. That's funny but I don't. Grog remains chaotic good. Now, everyone, roll initiative.

 

[GobHag]

Why? ALignment is based on character right? And PC's have primacy control over their character no?

 

[kermit4karate]

Why? ALignment is based on character right? And PC's have primacy control over their character no?

I'm guessing this was meant for me? If not I apologize.

Because what a PC says and how the PC plays aren't necessarily in alignment (haha, couldn't resist). If the PC is clearly roleplaying Jorgund as a chaotic good ranger, just straight down the line according to the definition, just because Jorgund's PC and his pals around the table like the sound of "chaotic neutral" doesn't mean they're playing Jorgund that way.

If alignment is going to matter, it has to actually mean something, and ultimately what it means is up to the GM at each table to determine.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Strange. At least for myself, I am quite the other way around. Being merely nice to someone doesn't make you good. To quote a certain carpenter's son, "And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that." Token acts of assistance, especially if you're already being paid, are...literally just being ordinary.

you may have misinterpreted my meaning, i agree with what you say here, that being merely nice doesn't make you Good, but i think alot of people want to think that it does because they want to think of their characters as 'heroes' and heroes are 'good people' so they look for reasons to justify thinking that, and part of that is lowering the bar of what needs to qualify as good.

That doesn't mean you have to be slavishly sacrificing everything you have every time forever; that's a caricature and makes Good into an impossible standard that drives people away from actually doing true good. But you do need to be willing to stand up for what is right even if it costs you, at least some of the time. You need to be willing to part with resources, even if that means being comfortable with the idea that the only reward is the knowledge that you helped someone. You need to truly reach out, to show true empathy, compassion, and courage in the face of danger. It is a high standard to meet, but it is possible for people to meet it--and heroic adventurers are especially well-positioned to do so, given their resilience and abilities.

again, i agree more or less, being Good shouldn't be an impossible standard but i do think that it ought to be something someone needs to work towards being rather than just being something that you can fall into unintentionally by going about your day.

Evil, on the other hand, is incredibly easy. Just be unnecessarily cruel to other beings, or callous and selfish. Most of the monsters of human history have been otherwise ordinary folks who were cruel, callous, and selfish in the moments when it really mattered.

Is this really that widespread? I mean I know it's a thing in fiction, sure, but are players really acting like that? If so, no wonder people have such issues...

talking about both these points at once, evil is easy, but not in the way i mean, it's a gaming psychology thing i think, people tend not to consider the real consequences when they go about killing and stealing in games, video or tabletop, in real life you don't go into people's houses, rummage through their cupboards and take their stuff home with you, you don't try to strongarm shopkeepers for deals, you don't murder muggers in cold blood on the street if they try to take your stuff, but people overlook these acts because they are playing a game and it is expected of the genre, they don't tally these acts on their moral scales and can be pretty bad people without even beginning to consider themselves 'evil'

 

[EzekielRaiden]

you may have misinterpreted my meaning, i agree with what you say here, that being merely nice doesn't make you Good, but i think alot of people want to think that it does because they want to think of their characters as 'heroes' and heroes are 'good people' so they look for reasons to justify thinking that, and part of that is lowering the bar of what needs to qualify as good.

Oh, no I understood what you meant (I think, anyway). I was just expressing my position, because it seemed so at odds with the position you were describing (which isn't yours, I was already clear on that point).

again, i agree more or less, being Good shouldn't be an impossible standard but i do think that it ought to be something someone needs to work towards being rather than just being something that you can fall into unintentionally by going about your day.

Yeah, if anyone thinks real Good can happen purely by happenstance...I have a bridge to sell that person.

talking about both these points at once, evil is easy, but not in the way i mean, it's a gaming psychology thing i think, people tend not to consider the real consequences when they go about killing and stealing in games, video or tabletop, in real life you don't go into people's houses, rummage through their cupboards and take their stuff home with you, you don't try to strongarm shopkeepers for deals, you don't murder muggers in cold blood on the street if they try to take your stuff, but people overlook these acts because they are playing a game and it is expected of the genre, they don't tally these acts on their moral scales and can be pretty bad people without even beginning to consider themselves 'evil'

Yeah uh...I just...don't do any of those things in games. Doing so makes me feel like a terrible person. My characters always try to avoid killing unless there's genuinely no other option, or we're clearly dealing with very bad people. I don't invade homes, though I might invade legit monster dens. Certainly wouldn't be rummaging through cupboards! Strong-arming shopkeepers is likewise completely out the window--but I'm quite happy to offer my services to help a shopkeeper solve a problem in exchange for a discount or special access to wares. Etc. I try to think very hard about the moral implications of what my characters do.

Anyone who starts from "I have to be a Hero, so the stuff I do can't actually be Evil" has already taken one of the most important steps toward evil: justifying whatever deeds you committed after you did them.

This is one of the reasons why I so thoroughly hate the claim "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission"--because whether or not it is easier, it is most certainly not better, ever.

 

[Eric V]

If one plays with bad faith players, then I suppose you can't trust them to interpret their character correctly, especially their alignment, so then I guess it's up to the DM...who I assume is never acting in bad faith and has some measure of infallibility.