Should players know their own alignments?

[Mystify]

Obviously, the player would have their character's morals in mind when playing a character, but is it necessary for them to know where they actually register on the cosmic scales? The DM can pay attention to their actual actions, and judge them based on that. If a player makes a choice that is evil, you don't tell them they just made an evil act, you just make note of it. They don't get to argue the point. That they think its worth arguing means that they considered the action justified, but you don't get to self-judge your actions.
They only get to learn of their alignment if it actually matters. Say, if someone uses holy word or a similar spell. Paladins would have to be careful not to fall. You can smite the guy who thinks he's chaotic neutral, but has really be acting distinctly evil the entire game.
Basically, have your alignment and associated effects be purely a result of your actions, not which letters you write on your sheet. If you role play your alignment properly, then you will be that alignment.
Of course, you still have the issues with the alignments being annoyingly vague, but at least you have a consistent arbitrator for it. It also lets you play a character who is legitimately misguided. That goblin slaying ranger who hates them with a passion and actively hunts them may actually be evil, as they are hunting innocent goblins. This would mainly apply if they hunt out a village and kill every on in it, not if they are waging a war or fighting goblins that attack them. In a war situation, committing atrocities would have an impact.
But in real life, you don't have the DM saying "Hey, you are sliding towards evil." You have your conscience, but so should the players. There are a variety of spells to help guide you if its unclear and its important to you. A character with a stronger divine connection, such as a cleric or paladin, my sense a wavering connection to their deity as a warning that they are slipping too far, and need to straighten themselves out.

[Shadowknight12]

That is an approach fraught with potential problems. If your group agrees with that, go for it, a lot of people will find it exciting. If you spring it on an unsuspecting group without their input, there will most likely be a lot of problems and a lot of arguing if a paladin's Smite Evil damages them when (according to them) they've been acting in accordance to a non-evil alignment all the campaign.

The main problem you will encounter is that no two people will ever agree entirely on alignment. So instead of you saying "if you act Chaotic Good, you'll be fine" what you're really saying is "if you act the way I view Chaotic Good, you'll be fine." Players who do not realise this will feel (rightly) upset when they tell you they've been acting Chaotic Good all throughout the campaign and you say "no, you haven't! otherwise I wouldn't have shifted you to Chaotic Neutral!". Players who do realise this might either be okay with it or resent you for basically forcing them to conform to your own views on alignment and completely overriding theirs. I know I would very much resent you if I had to please your views to remain Chaotic Good.

So, basically, this is not a good idea unless your group is wholeheartedly behind it.

EDIT: Also, there's the fact that you're removing choice from the player. It may not be a big deal to you, but for a lot of people, everything in their character sheets is sacred and they won't like it if you suddenly remove their ability to decide their own character's alignments. They won't care if it's more "realistic" (whatever that means in a world with objective morality) or whatever other reasoning you have, they will resent being stripped of choice. I mean, if you go down that route, why let them choose race, gender, class, age, ability scores and so on? People IRL don't get to choose which race or gender they're born as, nor what their ability scores are, and most of them don't have a lot of options when it comes to the classes they can access. If their family can't afford a magic academy or a tutor, they can't be a wizard. That might be fine with a lot of people, but others will very much hate that sort of thing.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

I like this. Actually, the DMG states that managing alignment is up to the DM, not the players. This can't hurt and is probably more realistic.

That said, if I was a DnD character, I would probably want to periodically check my alignment through spells.

[Mystify]

That is an approach fraught with potential problems. If your group agrees with that, go for it, a lot of people will find it exciting. If you spring it on an unsuspecting group without their input, there will most likely be a lot of problems and a lot of arguing if a paladin's Smite Evil damages them when (according to them) they've been acting in accordance to a non-evil alignment all the campaign.

The main problem you will encounter is that no two people will ever agree entirely on alignment. So instead of you saying "if you act Chaotic Good, you'll be fine" what you're really saying is "if you act the way I view Chaotic Good, you'll be fine." Players who do not realise this will feel (rightly) upset when they tell you they've been acting Chaotic Good all throughout the campaign and you say "no, you haven't! otherwise I wouldn't have shifted you to Chaotic Neutral!". Players who do realise this might either be okay with it or resent you for basically forcing them to conform to your own views on alignment and completely overriding theirs. I know I would very much resent you if I had to please your views to remain Chaotic Good.

So, basically, this is not a good idea unless your group is wholeheartedly behind it.
OH, you would definitely want to establish this ahead of time and make sure everyone was fine with it. You would also need to clearly have the expectation that the DM is the sole arbitrator of alignment, and you can't argue it unless you are in a place where it makes RP sense, such as a literal cosmic judge deciding your fate. Your personal code of ethics, or your characters, is irrelevant to the code of ethics dictated in this world. Part of the point is to eliminate the ethical debate over every questionable action.



That said, if I was a DnD character, I would probably want to periodically check my alignment through spells.
Fair enough. If you care enough about your alignment to monitor it, you should be able to have a clearer time keeping your life on track.

[gomipile]

If I was playing a druid, and my way of playing neutral made the DM shift my character's alignment to one of the four prohibited alignments, I'd be very angry even if "hidden alignment" had been agreed to beforehand. I'm talking "DM destroyed my wizards spellbook for no reason other than that his girlfriend's character is annoyed with mine" angry, here.

Basically, it's okay as long as it has no effect on how playable my character is. However, as soon as it robs me of my ability to contribute mechanically unless I play alignment a way I don't think is right for my character, it becomes a no-go.

[Rubik]

Alignment is very much a mechanical and very real force in most D&D worlds, due to so many effects that read, influence, and base their mechanics off of them.

Everyone with Knowledge (The Planes) or Knowledge (Religion) should know that G/E/C/L are cosmic forces, and anyone with 0 level spells should have access to Detect G/E/C/L.

If you were to have a campaign like the one described in the OP, you'd have to shut down most (if not all) of the mechanics based on alignment, if only to maintain some semblance of verisimilitude, not to mention not PO'ing the players. It'd be reasonable to do this if you axed all of the alignment requirements for classes/feats/etc and made alignment into a "which of these spells affect you" thing instead.

Otherwise you almost assuredly WILL tick someone off if they're using one of the aforementioned classes/feats/etc. Otherwise, maybe not quite so much.

[ahenobarbi]

Well I'd mind this. I d&d is good for heroic butchery of evil dudes. It's not a good system for "realistic" morality.

[Mystify]

If I was playing a druid, and my way of playing neutral made the DM shift my character's alignment to one of the four prohibited alignments, I'd be very angry even if "hidden alignment" had been agreed to beforehand. I'm talking "DM destroyed my wizards spellbook for no reason other than that his girlfriend's character is annoyed with mine" angry, here.

Basically, it's okay as long as it has no effect on how playable my character is. However, as soon as it robs me of my ability to contribute mechanically unless I play alignment a way I don't think is right for my character, it becomes a no-go.
Druids would also get the warning about a wavering alignment. But the issues with playing an alignment incompatible with a class exist whether or not your alignment is being told to you or not. And depending on the case, your actions may warrant a shift in alignment, but not a lose of class features. The DM can decide that you are acting like a chaotic good druid, but are still sufficiently druidy that its not a problem.

Alignment is very much a mechanical and very real force in most D&D worlds, due to so many effects that read, influence, and base their mechanics off of them.

Everyone with Knowledge (The Planes) or Knowledge (Religion) should know that G/E/C/L are cosmic forces, and anyone with 0 level spells should have access to Detect G/E/C/L.

If you were to have a campaign like the one described in the OP, you'd have to shut down most (if not all) of the mechanics based on alignment, if only to maintain some semblance of verisimilitude, not to mention not PO'ing the players. It'd be reasonable to do this if you axed all of the alignment requirements for classes/feats/etc and made alignment into a "which of these spells affect you" thing instead.

Otherwise you almost assuredly WILL tick someone off if they're using one of the aforementioned classes/feats/etc. Otherwise, maybe not quite so much.
I was thinking of alignment more of the "which spells affect you" than "restricting what you can do". Most alignment restrictions should be loosened. It doesn't make sense for a monk to stop progressing as a monk due to their actions, though a paladin or cleric still should be upholding the proper alignment. I'd turn classes like barbarian and monk into "suggested alignments", and have the more intrinsically aligned classes have more of a warning on their alignment.

[Mystify]

Well I'd mind this. I d&d is good for heroic butchery of evil dudes. It's not a good system for "realistic" morality.
What do you gain from the DM telling you "You just became neutral" other than an argument? The DM determines your alignment either way.

[gomipile]

An example of what I'd mind is this, to be clear:
1.) I am playing my druid in a way which fits my character concept, and which I believe is "neutral good."
2.) The DM believes the way I play is "chaotic good."
3.) The DM changes my alignment, and revokes all druid class features.
4.) The only way to atone requires me to play my character the way the DM believes neutral good to be, invalidating my character concept.

It is the "I have to play my character the way someone other than me believes I should" feeling which I object to.

[Shadowknight12]

What do you gain from the DM telling you "You just became neutral" other than an argument? The DM determines your alignment either way.

Not in all games, no. I wouldn't play in any game where the DM felt they had the right to tell me what my own character's alignment is. Not because I might lose class features, but as a matter of principle. If they don't feel like I'm acting very Paladin-like or Lawful Goodly, they can talk to me about it and I will listen to their concerns and make an attempt to change for the better. Telling me "you just became Neutral" only makes me spiteful.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

I wouldn't play in any game where the DM felt they had the right to tell me what my own character's alignment is.
Actually, by the rules, this is how standard D&D is supposed to be

[Mystify]

An example of what I'd mind is this, to be clear:
1.) I am playing my druid in a way which fits my character concept, and which I believe is "neutral good."
2.) The DM believes the way I play is "chaotic good."
3.) The DM changes my alignment, and revokes all druid class features.
4.) The only way to atone requires me to play my character the way the DM believes neutral good to be, invalidating my character concept.

It is the "I have to play my character the way someone other than me believes I should" feeling which I object to.
And even if the DM is telling you your alignment, he can still think you are playing it chaotic good and revoke your druid class features. I don't see how this changes things. If your DM is going to do that, he can do that whether or not he is actively telling you your alignment.

Not in all games, no. I wouldn't play in any game where the DM felt they had the right to tell me what my own character's alignment is. Not because I might lose class features, but as a matter of principle. If they don't feel like I'm acting very Paladin-like or Lawful Goodly, they can talk to me about it and I will listen to their concerns and make an attempt to change for the better. Telling me "you just became Neutral" only makes me spiteful.
Thats how RAW works. Dm always has the right to tell you your alignment. It just tends to result in huge arguements whenever they try. If you say "I'm lawful good", then go an d burn down orphanges, the DM can, and should, change your alignment. You can say "I consider orphanages to be evil because my character grew up in one and it was an awful place", but you are still performing evil acts. Your character is free to consider themselves lawful good, but hte rest of the universe gets to disagree.

[Rubik]

Not in all games, no. I wouldn't play in any game where the DM felt they had the right to tell me what my own character's alignment is. Not because I might lose class features, but as a matter of principle. If they don't feel like I'm acting very Paladin-like or Lawful Goodly, they can talk to me about it and I will listen to their concerns and make an attempt to change for the better. Telling me "you just became Neutral" only makes me spiteful.I had a DM gang-rape my baby gold dragon with a clan of ogres because he didn't think I was playing LG the way he thought it should be played, when I explicitly had CG written on my character sheet (because I'd read the Dragon article that said that baby dragons often acted much more chaotically than adults).

I rather would've preferred it had he talked to me about it, instead.

[ahenobarbi]

What do you gain from the DM telling you "You just became neutral" other than an argument? The DM determines your alignment either way.

Nah. I mean most d&d characters are evil by real world standards. You don't get to kill someone "because [s]he obviously is evil" here and be a good person. In d&d you can massacre evil-aligned humanoids and be LG.

[TuggyNE]

What do you gain from the DM telling you "You just became neutral" other than an argument? The DM determines your alignment either way.

Ideally, you get a discussion, rather than an argument.

As I see it, this is a much smaller* version of the idea in courts that you should always know who's accusing you of a crime, so that you can respond appropriately. If you don't get the chance to disagree and attempt to work out a compromise, it messes things up. In particular, the objection most players would have is that the DM might consider their behaviors slowly sliding toward a particular (class-incompatible) alignment, while the player believes they're doing just fine; if the only warning they get is seven sessions after the DM took notice, when they abruptly need an atonement spell to keep functioning, that's not a good thing.

Alignment is sufficiently subjective and sufficiently important that making its evaluation completely one-sided and silent is a bad idea.

Now, because the DM is supposed to be the arbitrator of the world (among other more important functions), it's reasonable to give them the final word on a given character's alignment, but that doesn't mean gagging the player and not accepting any input from them, either.


*Seriously, don't read too much into this; I'm not trying to say "YOU BAD EVIL PERSON YOU", just pointing out a possible parallel.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

I had a DM gang-rape my baby gold dragon with a clan of ogres because he didn't think I was playing LG the way he thought it should be played
He was just an immature and very bad DM. Some people think that DMing means you are entitled to judge the other guys at the table for the sake of your own ego and use your in-game powers to spread punishment or rewards (often for entirely personal reasons) as a teacher would do with kids, and they believe this is what they are supposed to do.
True story.

These guys should not be allowed to change your alignment. They shouldn't be allowed to be the GM, either.

[Yuki Akuma]

I had a DM gang-rape my baby gold dragon with a clan of ogres because he didn't think I was playing LG the way he thought it should be played, when I explicitly had CG written on my character sheet (because I'd read the Dragon article that said that baby dragons often acted much more chaotically than adults).

I rather would've preferred it had he talked to me about it, instead.

I... I really hope this post is not a literal depiction of in-game events, because if so...

You need a new DM.

[Rubik]

I... I really hope this post is not a literal depiction of in-game events, because if so...

You need a new DM.It was.

And I did.

And I left shortly thereafter.

[Vortling]

I'd be fine with this sort of alignment system, but I wouldn't chance playing any class that has alignment qualifications under this alignment system. There's still plenty of classes that have non-alignment dependent class features out there. However I would ask the DM why they felt the need for an alignment system like this before we started playing.

[Mystify]

Nah. I mean most d&d characters are evil by real world standards. You don't get to kill someone "because [s]he obviously is evil" here and be a good person. In d&d you can massacre evil-aligned humanoids and be LG.
I didn't say you wouldn't still use D&D morality.

Ideally, you get a discussion, rather than an argument.

As I see it, this is a much smaller* version of the idea in courts that you should always know who's accusing you of a crime, so that you can respond appropriately. If you don't get the chance to disagree and attempt to work out a compromise, it messes things up. In particular, the objection most players would have is that the DM might consider their behaviors slowly sliding toward a particular (class-incompatible) alignment, while the player believes they're doing just fine; if the only warning they get is seven sessions after the DM took notice, when they abruptly need an atonement spell to keep functioning, that's not a good thing.

Alignment is sufficiently subjective and sufficiently important that making its evaluation completely one-sided and silent is a bad idea.

Now, because the DM is supposed to be the arbitrator of the world (among other more important functions), it's reasonable to give them the final word on a given character's alignment, but that doesn't mean gagging the player and not accepting any input from them, either.


*Seriously, don't read too much into this; I'm not trying to say "YOU BAD EVIL PERSON YOU", just pointing out a possible parallel.
Unless it actually interferes with class, it shouldn't be a big deal what your alignment is. And I did say that most alignments shouldn't slackened to make it a non-issue, and those that remain would allow you to get warnings if you are drifting. If you abruptly need an atonement, it should only occur if you do something majorly wrong and contrary to your alignment, in which case it should be obvious to the player that was a big no-no.

[Crasical]

It was.

And I did.

And I left shortly thereafter.

Wow. Randy gay ogre rapists, how very FATAL. :smallyuk:

[Vortling]

Wow. Randy gay ogre rapists, how very FATAL. :smallyuk:

The game horror story threads have lots of incidents of people who were clearly playing FATAL without using any of the actual FATAL rules.

[Shadowknight12]

Actually, by the rules, this is how standard D&D is supposed to be

Page and quote, please.


Thats how RAW works. Dm always has the right to tell you your alignment. It just tends to result in huge arguements whenever they try. If you say "I'm lawful good", then go an d burn down orphanges, the DM can, and should, change your alignment. You can say "I consider orphanages to be evil because my character grew up in one and it was an awful place", but you are still performing evil acts. Your character is free to consider themselves lawful good, but hte rest of the universe gets to disagree.

Page and quote please.


I had a DM gang-rape my baby gold dragon with a clan of ogres because he didn't think I was playing LG the way he thought it should be played, when I explicitly had CG written on my character sheet (because I'd read the Dragon article that said that baby dragons often acted much more chaotically than adults).

I rather would've preferred it had he talked to me about it, instead.

Precisely. Thank you for the blunt yet eloquent example.

[deuxhero]

Fatal has rules?

[Mystify]

Page and quote, please.



Page and quote please.



Precisely. Thank you for the blunt yet eloquent example.

DMG, page 134
"You’re[The DM] in Control: You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says, “My neutral good character becomes chaotic good,” the appropriate response from you is “Prove it.” Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players."

[Namfuak]

In order to make something like this work, there would need to be a slight lessening of the way some rules work. For example, if a rogue who was normally CN had a small kleptomaniac streak and turned evil, the Paladin shouldn't then be forced to kill him next time he happens to use detect evil. The Paladin (presuming he is the regular LG paladin) could warn him about doing it again and maybe make him do some sort of penance (assuming the rogue can't give back the stolen items), but not immediately have to kill him or fall.

In the same vein, any character who has an alignment either because they are particularly religious should get ample warning when they are moving toward another alignment. For example, if a NG cleric of Pelor happens to do something that is more chaotic and neutral, Pelor could give him a nightmare that somehow conveys that He is displeased with that action. If the same cleric gets to the cusp of getting out of alignment (ha) with Pelor, Pelor might send an Archon to warn him and possibly give him a penance. However, if the Archon does give him a penance, the DM should be prepared for the player to say "What have I done wrong?" The DM does not have to pull out a huge file on the player and list everything, but he should be expected to list at least 2-3 big things that shifted the player's alignment. If the player responds with a reasonable, lucid, well-roleplayed counter-argument that what he did was actually inline with Pelor's alignment (if you don't like it being that literal, you could say code of ethics), maybe Pelor himself speaks to the cleric and they have a civilized conversation about what the cleric should and should not do in the future. Suddenly, a situation that could become grounds for an OOC argument becomes an interested IC roleplay (although it may be better to do it alone with the player, since others may not be so interested in talking about alignment for 15 minutes).

Point being, even without this rule, DMs should be prepared to deal with the players not wanting their alignment to shift for no reason.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Precisely. Thank you for the blunt yet eloquent example.In my opinion that quote does not prove any point. An incompetent Dm will just screw everything; this is not a good reason to reduce the amount of control a competent DM is supposed to have.
I had a GM who ruled insanely high DCs for trivial actions just because he didn't plan them to happen, but i would never use it as an argument to prove that DMs shouldn't decide the DCs

[Shadowknight12]

DMG, page 134
"You’re[The DM] in Control: You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says, “My neutral good character becomes chaotic good,” the appropriate response from you is “Prove it.” Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players."

From the same page:

"There are exceptions to all of the above." That is, including the bit where you're in control. So no, the DMG does not force DMs to be in control unless that's the way the entire group agrees to run things. To be completely honest, I wouldn't game or associate myself with anyone who agrees with that view.


In my opinion that quote does not prove any point. An incompetent Dm will just screw everything; this is not a good reason to reduce the amount of control a competent DM is supposed to have.

A DM is supposed to have as much control over a character as the player is willing to hand over. If the player was not willing to hand over that much control to the DM, there was no way of handling such a situation in-game correctly. That situation should've been resolved exclusively OOCly.

[prufock]

"Hey Cleric, old buddy. Mind casting Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos on me?"
"Sure thing, Fighter. Hm, says here you are Lawful Neutral."
"Thanks, man."

That's why this won't work.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

A DM is supposed to have as much control over a character as the player is willing to hand over
I am sorry but I do not agree with the above statement.
let's say I play The Joker: I only want to see the world burn.
In an ideal game, should I be allowed to advance as a paladin because I say i am lawful good?
I'm sorry if it seems pretentious, but it's the truth.
A DM is supposed to have more control than the amount you said was appropriate.

Although I agree that the situation should have been resolved off game, but for different reasons.

[Shadowknight12]

I am sorry but I do not agree with the above statement.
let's say I play The Joker: I only want to see the world burn.
In an ideal game, should I be allowed to advance as a paladin because I say i am lawful good?
I'm sorry if it seems pretentious, but it's the truth.
A DM is supposed to have more control than the amount you said was appropriate.

Although I agree that the situation should have been resolved off game, but for different reasons.

Let's put it like this: if you say that a DM who gangrapes a LG dragon for acting CG is a bad DM, then by your own reasoning, a player who plays the Joker while advancing as a paladin is a bad player. Now your reasoning is not mine and I wouldn't call either of those a bad DM/player because I have a different measuring standard than you, but let's just use yours for the time being.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that a DM is bad for gangraping a PC and then use a strawman argument like that, because I will simply use your own reasoning against you.

Secondly, the entire point of the game is for everyone to have fun. A lot of people stop having fun when control/choice is ripped away from them. A DM who does this because they are not having fun is not being fair, they are simply making the player as miserable as they are. Instead, if they have a problem with the way the PC is acting (and they absolutely cannot put up with it), the proper way of solving it is having a civilised out of game talk. This is a perfectly viable solution that does not require anyone giving up more control than they feel like.

[Mystify]

From the same page:

"There are exceptions to all of the above." That is, including the bit where you're in control. So no, the DMG does not force DMs to be in control unless that's the way the entire group agrees to run things. To be completely honest, I wouldn't game or associate myself with anyone who agrees with that view.



A DM is supposed to have as much control over a character as the player is willing to hand over. If the player was not willing to hand over that much control to the DM, there was no way of handling such a situation in-game correctly. That situation should've been resolved exclusively OOCly.
But control over the the alignment of the character is not control over the character. It is a measurement of the character. He is not saying "you must act in a certain manner", he is saying "The manner in which you act means this". If you are a paladin, and you go into the town square and start butchering random people, then the DM should be well within his rights to knock your aligment down and make you fall. Even if you aren't a paladin, I don't care if you wrote LG on your character sheet, you are not lawful good anymore.

[navar100]

Why should players know their characters' hit points? How do they know how close to death they are? Why should players know their saving throws? How do they know how hard it is to resistance a bad guy's spells? Why should players know their AC? How do they know how easy a monster can hit them, to know their attack bonus? Why should clerics and druids pick their spells? They are gifts from the gods. The gods know best as what spells to give. Why should Sorcerers pick their spells known? Their magic is spontaneous in their blood. They get their magic just because. The DM should choose their spells.

Why should players know anything? It's the DM's game. He creates everything. He runs everything. He knows everything. The players are nothing but pawns there to exist in whatever the DM desires to manifest. Only the DM is allowed to know stuff.

[Shadowknight12]

But control over the the alignment of the character is not control over the character. It is a measurement of the character. He is not saying "you must act in a certain manner", he is saying "The manner in which you act means this". If you are a paladin, and you go into the town square and start butchering random people, then the DM should be well within his rights to knock your aligment down and make you fall. Even if you aren't a paladin, I don't care if you wrote LG on your character sheet, you are not lawful good anymore.

I am sorry, and I don't mean any antagonism, but you're just contradicting yourself. Firstly you say "he is not saying you must act in a certain manner" and then you go and say "the DM should be well within his rights to knock your alignment down and make you fall." A DM penalising you for acting in a certain way IS telling you that you must act in a certain manner.

And also, if you don't care what's written on the sheet, you cannot expect the player to care what you think his character's alignment should be. Gaming, like all forms of social interaction, is a two-way street. You can't expect them to bend over backwards to fit your idea of alignment, an idea they will certainly not agree with in its entirety (see: my previous point about no two people having the same take on alignment), much less if you don't even care about what they want/think at all.

EDIT: Also, I sound like a broken record, but if it upsets you that your paladin walks into a town and starts butchering people, talk to him about that outside the game. Seriously, the more I hear about these convoluted ways to subjugate players to the DM's will, the more I realise most people are pathologically afraid of even the slightest confrontation.



Why should players know their characters' hit points? How do they know how close to death they are? Why should players know their saving throws? How do they know how hard it is to resistance a bad guy's spells? Why should players know their AC? How do they know how easy a monster can hit them, to know their attack bonus? Why should clerics and druids pick their spells? They are gifts from the gods. The gods know best as what spells to give. Why should Sorcerers pick their spells known? Their magic is spontaneous in their blood. They get their magic just because. The DM should choose their spells.

Why should players know anything? It's the DM's game. He creates everything. He runs everything. He knows everything. The players are nothing but pawns there to exist in whatever the DM desires to manifest. Only the DM is allowed to know stuff.

You get six cookies, two wins and an internet.

[Mystify]

I am sorry, and I don't mean any antagonism, but you're just contradicting yourself. Firstly you say "he is not saying you must act in a certain manner" and then you go and say "the DM should be well within his rights to knock your alignment down and make you fall." A DM penalising you for acting in a certain way IS telling you that you must act in a certain manner.

And also, if you don't care what's written on the sheet, you cannot expect the player to care what you think his character's alignment should be. Gaming, like all forms of social interaction, is a two-way street. You can't expect them to bend over backwards to fit your idea of alignment, an idea they will certainly not agree with in its entirety (see: my previous point about no two people having the same take on alignment), much less if you don't even care about what they want/think at all.

EDIT: Also, I sound like a broken record, but if it upsets you that your paladin walks into a town and starts butchering people, talk to him about that outside the game. Seriously, the more I hear about these convoluted ways to subjugate players to the DM's will, the more I realise most people are pathologically afraid of even the slightest confrontation.

I universe, you do not determine your alignment. The gods do. The DM plays the gods, and so his word is their word, and he determines your alignment. If you are not acting according to your alignment, then that is not your alignment. This has nothing to so with subjugating players. The examples I use are extreme, because that is the most obvious example of where your reasoning breaks down. I don't see how changing your alignment is a punishment. If you care about your alignment that much, you shouldn't have a problem role playing it.
Its not like I'm saying "You are now evil, act like it!". I'm saying "You have been acting in a consistently evil manner, your alignment is shifting." That is precisely how the system is intended to work. You can't walk around commiting atrocities, but say "I decided I was good, see, I wrote it on my sheet, you can't smite me!". You can't say "oh, but by my definition of good, mass murder is like prayer, and its a good thing!", nor can you say "I can do that thing and it shouldn't shift my alignment because I am chaotic!" Being chaotic doesn't excuse raping the convey of nuns you come across. No, not even if you donate money to the next one.
Your alignment is not some thing you arbitrarily decide, it is the measurement of your actions. Picking your alignment gives you a starting point when you have no actions to judge by, and can be considered a statement of your intent for the character, but if you are not following that alignment, it can and should change, whether you as a player think it should.
Next you are going to be claiming the dm is subjugating you because the police are trying to arrest you for murdering somebody, or because the church of Palor is hunting your vampire.

[Belril Duskwalk]

I am sorry, and I don't mean any antagonism, but you're just contradicting yourself. Firstly you say "he is not saying you must act in a certain manner" and then you go and say "the DM should be well within his rights to knock your alignment down and make you fall." A DM penalising you for acting in a certain way IS telling you that you must act in a certain manner.

Except, it isn't (necessarily) the DM penalizing the paladin. It is the DM adjudicating how the world reacts to the paladin's actions. For a similar concept, if a thief walks into a guarded shop and starts swiping everything that's not nailed down, eventually a guard is probably going to notice the thief doing it. That guard, being a guard, is going to try and stop the thief and probably try and apprehend him besides. This isn't (necessarily) happening because the DM is punishing the thief for stealing, it's happening because that is the reasonable reaction of the Guard NPC in that situation.

To swing back to the paladin, if the paladin goes on a wantonly cruel killing spree then whatever Powers That Be that grant him his holy might are liable to withdraw said might. This happens because the Powers That Be expected him to hold himself to a certain set of standards when they granted that might. Had the paladin chosen to act in accordance with his oaths, he could have kept his powers. By abandoning those oaths and acting like some blood-mad maniac he chose to toss aside the powers that came with them.

I have played in a game or two where the DM ran the game with alignments 'hidden'. It mostly is a non-issue, except for one player who consistently manages to casually do evil things then acts surprised that those evil things made it into his 'permanent record' so to speak. For the most part... I'd have to say that it might be more trouble than it's worth. People's ideas of how alignments work never seem to line up very well. And if you have a group who does view alignments in the same light, then it doesn't matter it it's hidden. If you know what the DM thinks Alignment X should look like, and you know your character's actions fall inside the description of X, then you know your alignment, even though you don't know.

[Shadowknight12]

I universe, you do not determine your alignment. The gods do.

Quote and page, please.


The DM plays the gods, and so his word is their word, and he determines your alignment.

We've determined that even the most hard-core rules that support such an option have clearly-labelled exceptions whenever it is deemed fit.


If you are not acting according to your alignment, then that is not your alignment. This has nothing to so with subjugating players. The examples I use are extreme, because that is the most obvious example of where your reasoning breaks down. I don't see how changing your alignment is a punishment.

Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Healer, Warlock, Favoured Soul, Incarnate, uncountable PrCs, purchased magic items, need I continue?

If you eliminated all punishments for shifting aligment, we'd be speaking of a different matter, but if we're discussing this issue, we must discuss its implications as well. And believe you me, its implications are ugly. "Behave as I please or you lose all your class features" is very much a way of subjugating a player.


If you care about your alignment that much, you shouldn't have a problem role playing it.

I don't care two diddlysquats about alignment. I select whichever alignment I'm supposed to have for the mechanics I seek to obtain.


Its not like I'm saying "You are now evil, act like it!". I'm saying "You have been acting in a consistently evil manner, your alignment is shifting." That is precisely how the system is intended to work. You can't walk around commiting atrocities, but say "I decided I was good, see, I wrote it on my sheet, you can't smite me!". You can't say "oh, but by my definition of good, mass murder is like prayer, and its a good thing!", nor can you say "I can do that thing and it shouldn't shift my alignment because I am chaotic!" Being chaotic doesn't excuse raping the convey of nuns you come across. No, not even if you donate money to the next one.

It seems I must continue my personification of a broken record: If you have problems with the player doing such deeds, talk to him about it outside the game. Punishing a player because they fail to conform to your subjective and arbitrary definition of alignment is impolite at best.


Your alignment is not some thing you arbitrarily decide, it is the measurement of your actions.

As I have proven mere posts before, that is not a rule without clearly stated exceptions. Repeating that over and over again does not make it true, I'm afraid. Your interpretation of "what alignment is" really is just as valid as anyone else's. We all DM differently and your take on it is no less valid than mine.


Picking your alignment gives you a starting point when you have no actions to judge by, and can be considered a statement of your intent for the character, but if you are not following that alignment, it can and should change, whether you as a player think it should.

Congratulations, you've officially removed control and choice of their character from a player. Have a free muffin. They're fat-free.


Next you are going to be claiming the dm is subjugating you because the police are trying to arrest you for murdering somebody, or because the church of Palor is hunting your vampire.

None of those things removes choice from my character, unless I am utterly unable to defend myself (in which case, it's merely an elaborate form of "Rocks Fall, Your Character Dies"). Unless you are using the Church of Pelor as your Invincible Fist of DM Punishment, it's merely a level-appropriate encounter for me.


Except, it isn't (necessarily) the DM penalizing the paladin. It is the DM adjudicating how the world reacts to the paladin's actions. For a similar concept, if a thief walks into a guarded shop and starts swiping everything that's not nailed down, eventually a guard is probably going to notice the thief doing it. That guard, being a guard, is going to try and stop the thief and probably try and apprehend him besides. This isn't (necessarily) happening because the DM is punishing the thief for stealing, it's happening because that is the reasonable reaction of the Guard NPC in that situation.

Again, see my previous point about level-equivalent encounter. If the DM plays the encounter fairly and allows the player freedom of choice, it's not any different than a random encounter with 1d5 dire werewombats right outside the shop.


To swing back to the paladin, if the paladin goes on a wantonly cruel killing spree then whatever Powers That Be that grant him his holy might are liable to withdraw said might. This happens because the Powers That Be expected him to hold himself to a certain set of standards when they granted that might. Had the paladin chosen to act in accordance with his oaths, he could have kept his powers. By abandoning those oaths and acting like some blood-mad maniac he chose to toss aside the powers that came with them.

No, not really. That's just a flimsy excuse the DM is using to conceal their true motives, which is punishing the player. The gods may be uncaring or actively in favour of said butchering (See: the Start of Darkness book for a good example). Again, if the DM has a problem with such actions, the best course of action is to address it maturely outside the game.

[Belril Duskwalk]

No, not really. That's just a flimsy excuse the DM is using to conceal their true motives, which is punishing the player. The gods may be uncaring or actively in favour of said butchering (See: the Start of Darkness book for a good example). Again, if the DM has a problem with such actions, the best course of action is to address it maturely outside the game.

I do of course agree that a mature discussion of events is always in order for sorting out any potential sticking points. Just to abbreviate things a bit: In your view, should there be a way that a paladin loses his holy power that does not involve either the paladin or the player thereof admitting that he did something that is worth losing said power?

[Mystify]

We've determined that even the most hard-core rules that support such an option have clearly-labelled exceptions whenever it is deemed fit.

Yes, exceptions. Meaning they hold nearly all of the time, except in a few edge cases. That does not make "The DM determines your alignment" to be a rule that never functions. It means there may be cases where the player gets to choose their alignment. That does not mean you get to choose yoru alignment all of the time.


Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Healer, Warlock, Favoured Soul, Incarnate, uncountable PrCs, purchased magic items, need I continue?

If you eliminated all punishments for shifting aligment, we'd be speaking of a different matter, but if we're discussing this issue, we must discuss its implications as well. And believe you me, its implications are ugly. "Behave as I please or you lose all your class features" is very much a way of subjugating a player.

Have you not been paying attention? I already said that most of those would have extremely relaxed restrictions, and the others are divine centric where your deity is giving you power. In which case its less about acting with an alignment and more about behaving like your deity expects, which happens to be the same thing for the most part. And in those cases, you would still get warning if you are behaving improperly, since you have a divine connection to yell at the player through. This is not "Oh, your barbarian followed through on a deal, thats lawful, you can't rage anymore lol".


I don't care two diddlysquats about alignment. I select whichever alignment I'm supposed to have for the mechanics I seek to obtain.

Then your issue should be alignment based restrictions, not having your alignment changed.


It seems I must continue my personification of a broken record: If you have problems with the player doing such deeds, talk to him about it outside the game. Punishing a player because they fail to conform to your subjective and arbitrary definition of alignment is impolite at best.

Again, its not a punishment, its a response of the world. If it is a alignment restriction issue, there would be warning in-game. I hate solving in-game issues out of game. I prefer to have all my checks and balanced occur in game. If the rogue tries to rob from the bank, he should fail because the guards are capable of stopping him, not because I tell him no.


As I have proven mere posts before, that is not a rule without clearly stated exceptions. Repeating that over and over again does not make it true, I'm afraid. Your interpretation of "what alignment is" really is just as valid as anyone else's. We all DM differently and your take on it is no less valid than mine.

And those exceptions are exceptions, not the rule. You are saying that there are exceptions, so the rule is invalid. I say that there are exceptions, so they cover more unusual circumstances. Say, if you are turned into a vampire, you are instantly turned evil, as an exception to the gradual and time consuming requirements. Exceptions should exist for a reason, not because you dislike the rule.
But when you are DM, your interpretation of what alignment is does mean its more valid, because you are the DM. The world works that way because you said so. If you decide in your world that every single demon is evil, no exceptions, then that is true. If your decide your setting has several prominent good-aligned demons who overcame their nature, then that is the case.


Congratulations, you've officially removed control and choice of their character from a player. Have a free muffin. They're fat-free.

I have not! Following an alignment is a very broad guideline. You should be picking an alignment that describes how you want to play the character. If you want to be all over the place, then be neutral and fall under the "wishy washy" clause. If you have a class with an alignment, then that is because the class expects you to behave in a certain way. If you don't like that, then your beef is with alignment restrictions.
Also, keep in mind you generally have to be acting pretty blatantly in opposition to your alignment to get a DM to bother messing with it.


None of those things removes choice from my character, unless I am utterly unable to defend myself (in which case, it's merely an elaborate form of "Rocks Fall, Your Character Dies"). Unless you are using the Church of Pelor as your Invincible Fist of DM Punishment, it's merely a level-appropriate encounter for me.

Nothing guarantees you won't run into guards you can't handle. IF you charge into the level 20 wizards tower, getting disintegrated is not DM subjugation. Its the player being idiotic. If you are trying to rob the bank, and you are not an appropriately high level, it is perfectly reasonable to run into guards too high a CR. It would be like a punk who breaks into trailer homes to steal TVs suddenly trying to crack the Louvre, when it should be an Ocean's eleven crack team of experts. If you are playing a vampire in such a way that you moon the pope of Palor, you should expect high level divine types to be hunting you. It becomes a case of "Don't be an idiot, run away and go into hiding".
Players have freedom. That does not mean their are no consequences.


Again, see my previous point about level-equivalent encounter. If the DM plays the encounter fairly and allows the player freedom of choice, it's not any different than a random encounter with 1d5 dire werewombats right outside the shop.

You are saying there should be no real consequences for the players actions. It does not have to be a level appropriate encounter if it does nto make sense. If you run into the middle of a military barracks and start screaming revolutionary propaganda, you have no right to complain when the encounter wit ha battalion of trained troops is above your CR.


No, not really. That's just a flimsy excuse the DM is using to conceal their true motives, which is punishing the player. The gods may be uncaring or actively in favour of said butchering (See: the Start of Darkness book for a good example). Again, if the DM has a problem with such actions, the best course of action is to address it maturely outside the game.
If the player's god was in favor of the butchery, that would be an exception to the rule. And that would be something the DM should be fully aware of and take into account. The actions should not instantly make you fall, unless they are so blatantly wrong that the player should know better(which would be one of the exceptions to the rule). In most cases, it is a gradual shift, as per the rules, and hence an in-game warning of "straighten yourself out" in 100% appropriate. You should not need to deal with a character's actions outside of the game. Only the player's actions, and that would be cases where they are being disruptive to the actual players, so the issue exists outside of the game. In-game issues should be handled in-game, out of game issues should be handled out of game.

[Shadowknight12]

I do of course agree that a mature discussion of events is always in order for sorting out any potential sticking points. Just to abbreviate things a bit: In your view, should there be a way that a paladin loses his holy power that does not involve either the paladin or the player thereof admitting that he did something that is worth losing said power?

No, there shouldn't be. You may find it incredible to hear, but some players do like the whole Fall mechanic and the Atonement spell because they make for good character development. The paladin may not admit they did anything wrong at first, but if the player is okay with such an event, then it's fair game. If the player is not, in fact, okay with that in the slightest, then odds are high he won't be having fun anymore.

Some players like playing paladins who go around slaughtering children and cackling madly about it. Some like playing paladins who do evil for the greater good. Some people like to do things with the paladin class (to name an example) that spit in the face of what other people think is the entire point of the paladin class. That's not bad. That's not wrong. That's just a different way of playing. So if that playstyle bothers you as a DM, the best solution is to deal with it outside the game, not punish the player because they hold different views from you. This is just as bad as the DM who says "you are capturing the orcs instead of killing them! you're allowing evil to exist in the world! that's an evil act! you lose all your powers and Fall from grace!" or the DM who says "you are killing unarmed, surrendering orcs instead of capturing them! you are committing an evil act! you lose all your powers and Fall from grace!". Both DMs are imposing their views on the player without their input or a proper, civil OOC conversation about it.

[Siosilvar]

Why should players know their characters' hit points? How do they know how close to death they are? Why should players know their saving throws? How do they know how hard it is to resistance a bad guy's spells? Why should players know their AC? How do they know how easy a monster can hit them, to know their attack bonus? Why should clerics and druids pick their spells? They are gifts from the gods. The gods know best as what spells to give. Why should Sorcerers pick their spells known? Their magic is spontaneous in their blood. They get their magic just because. The DM should choose their spells.

Why should players know anything? It's the DM's game. He creates everything. He runs everything. He knows everything. The players are nothing but pawns there to exist in whatever the DM desires to manifest. Only the DM is allowed to know stuff.

There are a couple of exceedingly good games that work off of these exact principles. Paranoia is one. D&D wouldn't be terrible using them, either. It certainly wouldn't be the same, but none of those is objectively bad.

[Mystify]

No, there shouldn't be. You may find it incredible to hear, but some players do like the whole Fall mechanic and the Atonement spell because they make for good character development. The paladin may not admit they did anything wrong at first, but if the player is okay with such an event, then it's fair game. If the player is not, in fact, okay with that in the slightest, then odds are high he won't be having fun anymore.

Some players like playing paladins who go around slaughtering children and cackling madly about it. Some like playing paladins who do evil for the greater good. Some people like to do things with the paladin class (to name an example) that spit in the face of what other people think is the entire point of the paladin class. That's not bad. That's not wrong. That's just a different way of playing. So if that playstyle bothers you as a DM, the best solution is to deal with it outside the game, not punish the player because they hold different views from you. This is just as bad as the DM who says "you are capturing the orcs instead of killing them! you're allowing evil to exist in the world! that's an evil act! you lose all your powers and Fall from grace!" or the DM who says "you are killing unarmed, surrendering orcs instead of capturing them! you are committing an evil act! you lose all your powers and Fall from grace!". Both DMs are imposing their views on the player without their input or a proper, civil OOC conversation about it.
If the players want to do something so blatantly in conflict with the rules, they should clear it with the DM beforehand, not complain that the DM enforcing the rules. In fact, that sounds like playing a paladin of slaughter, in which case you would have the actual CE alignment you are playing. But that is not a case of interpreting the rules oddly, it is a case of blatantly ignoring the rules.
And if the actions are merely questionable and the interpretation is vague, then its not going to make you instantly fall. It may get a warning. If you do fall instantly, it should be because you are blatantly in contradiction with the rules, and there should be 0 vagueness in interpreting them. "Oh, I didn't realize murdering a dozen innocent civilians was evil" is not a valid excuse. The issue should only come up in morally grey areas, in which case you won;t instantly fall.

[Shadowknight12]

Yes, exceptions. Meaning they hold nearly all of the time, except in a few edge cases. That does not make "The DM determines your alignment" to be a rule that never functions. It means there may be cases where the player gets to choose their alignment. That does not mean you get to choose yoru alignment all of the time.

Exceptions do not always imply rare frequency. An exception is, strictly speaking, merely a situation where the rule does not apply. Neither you nor I have any authority to decide which of the two interpretations thus far is the more frequent, so we might as well let it drop.


Have you not been paying attention? I already said that most of those would have extremely relaxed restrictions, and the others are divine centric where your deity is giving you power. In which case its less about acting with an alignment and more about behaving like your deity expects, which happens to be the same thing for the most part. And in those cases, you would still get warning if you are behaving improperly, since you have a divine connection to yell at the player through. This is not "Oh, your barbarian followed through on a deal, thats lawful, you can't rage anymore lol".

That is exactly what it sounds like, though. It sounds like you just want to be able to keep your players on a tight leash out of fear of actually, gasp, talking to them to address what apparently bothers you so much about the way they act.

Also forcing clerics to act in accordance to what your interpretation of the deity is instead of theirs is really just as bad. You are, again, punishing players for not behaving the way you want them to.


Then your issue should be alignment based restrictions, not having your alignment changed.

In 4e, this would not be an issue because alignment is very incidental there. In D&D, it has very tangible consequences and handwaving it with a "oh they will be relaxed!" assuages none of my concerns about it. In fact, it tells me you might not really understand how far-reaching alignment is when it comes to mechanical consequences.


Again, its not a punishment, its a response of the world. If it is a alignment restriction issue, there would be warning in-game. I hate solving in-game issues out of game. I prefer to have all my checks and balanced occur in game. If the rogue tries to rob from the bank, he should fail because the guards are capable of stopping him, not because I tell him no.

That is called "conflict aversion." Your players shouldn't really have to suffer your own personal issues, in my personal opinion, just like you shouldn't suffer a paranoid player's constant distrust or a hystrionic player's constant attention-grabbing or a sociopathic player's constant graphic descriptions of how he viciously disembowels random NPCs. We should all strive to reign in the parts of ourselves that may harm the game.


And those exceptions are exceptions, not the rule. You are saying that there are exceptions, so the rule is invalid. I say that there are exceptions, so they cover more unusual circumstances. Say, if you are turned into a vampire, you are instantly turned evil, as an exception to the gradual and time consuming requirements. Exceptions should exist for a reason, not because you dislike the rule.

See above what I said about you assuming that exception conveys frequency. It doesn't. Stop hedging out my playstyle as "abnormal". It's just as valid as yours.


But when you are DM, your interpretation of what alignment is does mean its more valid, because you are the DM. The world works that way because you said so. If you decide in your world that every single demon is evil, no exceptions, then that is true. If your decide your setting has several prominent good-aligned demons who overcame their nature, then that is the case.

Hahahahahaha no. No. We have such a hilariously different conception of what a DM is we can't even speak on even ground. You may decide what happens in the rest of the world, but the only person that can give you the right to change something in the player's character sheet is the player himself.


I have not! Following an alignment is a very broad guideline. You should be picking an alignment that describes how you want to play the character. If you want to be all over the place, then be neutral and fall under the "wishy washy" clause. If you have a class with an alignment, then that is because the class expects you to behave in a certain way. If you don't like that, then your beef is with alignment restrictions.
Also, keep in mind you generally have to be acting pretty blatantly in opposition to your alignment to get a DM to bother messing with it.

That's your interpretation of the alignment system. I'd advise you remember more often that it's purely subjective and is in no way any more right than anyone else's.


Nothing guarantees you won't run into guards you can't handle. IF you charge into the level 20 wizards tower, getting disintegrated is not DM subjugation. Its the player being idiotic. If you are trying to rob the bank, and you are not an appropriately high level, it is perfectly reasonable to run into guards too high a CR. It would be like a punk who breaks into trailer homes to steal TVs suddenly trying to crack the Louvre, when it should be an Ocean's eleven crack team of experts. If you are playing a vampire in such a way that you moon the pope of Palor, you should expect high level divine types to be hunting you. It becomes a case of "Don't be an idiot, run away and go into hiding".
Players have freedom. That does not mean their are no consequences.

If you send an unbeatable, inescapable, unfoilable attack at a player, you are punishing them for their actions. Restricting them from any chance of hiding, escape or victory is merely an elaborate way of saying "you are struct by lightning and die." If you send an encounter after them that the player cannot defeat but can escape from, it doesn't really count as an encounter at all.


You are saying there should be no real consequences for the players actions. It does not have to be a level appropriate encounter if it does nto make sense. If you run into the middle of a military barracks and start screaming revolutionary propaganda, you have no right to complain when the encounter wit ha battalion of trained troops is above your CR.

If the player can escape, there's nothing wrong with it. If the player can't, guess what? It's punishment for the player's gall of doing something the DM dislikes.


If the player's god was in favor of the butchery, that would be an exception to the rule. And that would be something the DM should be fully aware of and take into account. The actions should not instantly make you fall, unless they are so blatantly wrong that the player should know better(which would be one of the exceptions to the rule). In most cases, it is a gradual shift, as per the rules, and hence an in-game warning of "straighten yourself out" in 100% appropriate. You should not need to deal with a character's actions outside of the game. Only the player's actions, and that would be cases where they are being disruptive to the actual players, so the issue exists outside of the game. In-game issues should be handled in-game, out of game issues should be handled out of game.

Again, your interpretation of the alignment system. It's not the only one. In fact, there's one for every person playing the game. Telling the players what your interpretation of the alignment system is and letting them know beforehand the way you're going to run the game is basic game ethics.

As for the latter, that's again conflict aversion. Not a very good way to run things. Every significant problem between the players or between the players and the DM should be solved OOCly first, and then rationalised ICly. Otherwise you end up with a lot of unspoken bad blood.


If the players want to do something so blatantly in conflict with the rules, they should clear it with the DM beforehand, not complain that the DM enforcing the rules. In fact, that sounds like playing a paladin of slaughter, in which case you would have the actual CE alignment you are playing. But that is not a case of interpreting the rules oddly, it is a case of blatantly ignoring the rules.
And if the actions are merely questionable and the interpretation is vague, then its not going to make you instantly fall. It may get a warning. If you do fall instantly, it should be because you are blatantly in contradiction with the rules, and there should be 0 vagueness in interpreting them. "Oh, I didn't realize murdering a dozen innocent civilians was evil" is not a valid excuse. The issue should only come up in morally grey areas, in which case you won;t instantly fall.

I would like to point out the fact that, again, you are enforcing your views on everyone else's and completely missing the point of what I meant. They are not exceptions. They are not invalid ways to play a paladin. It is severely impolite to continuously pass judgement over the way other people play as you are doing. If you wouldn't allow that at your table, that's fine, but saying "you're playing a paladin wrong! That's not LG! That's CE!" is just frankly being judgemental. It's not what you'd like to see at your table, we get it. But those people aren't "blatantly ignoring the rules" because they interpret them different or have different priorities/views than you.

Quite honestly, it seems like you're not getting what I'm saying so I'll just bail out before it turns ugly.

[Misery Esquire]

~Entitlement~

If a player ever argued with me that they get to stay Lawful Good Paladin after murdering everyone they meet, because otherwise they'll take mechanical loss, and refuse to back down about it, I'd tell them to man up, or get the hell out.

Seriously, if the mechanics mean that much to you, and you're just going to write anything you want on your character sheet, and expect it to never change no matter your actions... Well. Find an alternative that works with your actions, or don't play that character.

And that's not judgemental, that's how it works. If you randomly killed people in real life, I'd call you a murderer. It doesn't matter if you argue that you're a pacifist despite the fact that you just clubbed a grandfather to death with his own arm, you're still a (probably psychopathic) murderer. And in the context of a D&D game, the DM is in the authorative spot to tell you what he thinks of your character. Should he immediately declare you Chaotic Evil Because He Said So, no. Should he tell you that you're now CE, or moving toward CE, because you keep stabbing random civilians for no appearnt reason? Yeah. That's how it works.

[navar100]

There are a couple of exceedingly good games that work off of these exact principles. Paranoia is one. D&D wouldn't be terrible using them, either. It certainly wouldn't be the same, but none of those is objectively bad.

Ergo I don't play Paranoia. D&D is not Paranoia. Yes, D&D would be terrible playing like it.

[Mystify]

I am saying that your interpretation of the game is in clear contradiction of the rules. You are saying the DM can't do things the rules specifically allow, and that players should be able to do things the rules specifically disallow.

"Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). "

The alignment rules also state " good and evil are objective states,not just opinions."

If your paladin is commiting evil acts, then they fall. Its not a matter of whether the player thinks they did something evil or not. Your arguement is as valid as "I don't like how fighters work, so I give them a feat every level. I find that is funner to play that way." You could do that and have fun playing that way, but that is not how the rules say things work. You can't then complain about a DM enforcing that you play the fighter as it is printed in the book. The fighter's feat progression is a written rule, as is the paladin's code of conduct.

The players should have complete freedom to act within the world. But those actions should have appropriate consequences.

[Shadowknight12]

If a player ever argued with me that they get to stay Lawful Good Paladin after murdering everyone they meet, because otherwise they'll take mechanical loss, and refuse to back down about it, I'd tell them to man up, or get the hell out.

So you'd be okay to be told to man up or get the hell out if you change a character's alignment? Because it goes both ways, you know.


Seriously, if the mechanics mean that much to you, and you're just going to write anything you want on your character sheet, and expect it to never change no matter your actions... Well. Find an alternative that works with your actions, or don't play that character.

Oooooooooor the DM can stop making a big deal out of it. Or calmly tell me outside the game that they don't like my behaviour and if I would be so kind to adjust it to make the game more fun for him.


And that's not judgemental, that's how it works. If you randomly killed people in real life, I'd call you a murderer. It doesn't matter if you argue that you're a pacifist despite the fact that you just clubbed a grandfather to death with his own arm, you're still a (probably psychopathic) murderer. And in the context of a D&D game, the DM is in the authorative spot to tell you what he thinks of your character. Should he immediately declare you Chaotic Evil Because He Said So, no. Should he tell you that you're now CE, or moving toward CE, because you keep stabbing random civilians for no appearnt reason? Yeah. That's how it works.

Hah! That's funny. Because the entire reason anything is CE is Because He Said So.

You know, because alignment is the most hotly-debated aspect of 3.5e and there's no such thing as certainty in the rules whatsoever.



I am saying that your interpretation of the game is in clear contradiction of the rules. You are saying the DM can't do things the rules specifically allow, and that players should be able to do things the rules specifically disallow.

"Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). "

The alignment rules also state " good and evil are objective states,not just opinions."

If your paladin is commiting evil acts, then they fall. Its not a matter of whether the player thinks they did something evil or not. Your arguement is as valid as "I don't like how fighters work, so I give them a feat every level. I find that is funner to play that way." You could do that and have fun playing that way, but that is not how the rules say things work. You can't then complain about a DM enforcing that you play the fighter as it is printed in the book. The fighter's feat progression is a written rule, as is the paladin's code of conduct.

The players should have complete freedom to act within the world. But those actions should have appropriate consequences.

What you seem to be failing to get is that those "consequences" are entirely of your own fabrication as a DM, therefore subjective and arbitrary by nature and design.

Oh, I am sure you believe what you're saying about them being "in the rules" and you consider yourself to be utterly blameless, but the cold hard reality is that you're simply wrong. You may spew quotes left and right, but when it comes down to it, you are not doing strictly what the rules say. You can never do as the rules say, because you're not a machine, you are a human being. You are acting as you interpret them, and so is everyone else. And interpretation is a subjective action, different for everyone. None of us know the One True Way of gaming, and we can all justify our decisions to be in accordance to the rules in a way that makes sense to us, even if they don't make sense to others.

Your interpretation is inherently subjective and fallible, just like ours, so being all holier-than-thou about it and thinking you have it all figured out just makes you look judgemental.

[Coidzor]

Yes, players should. Characters shouldn't really except in nebulous terms.

[Mystify]

Your interpretation is inherently subjective and fallible, just like ours, so being all holier-than-thou about it and thinking you have it all figured out just makes you look judgemental.
You are saying that a character can eat babies and slaughter millions of innocnet people, but if they say they want to be lawful good, then they are lawful good. I cannot wrap my mind around how you think that is ok.

[Misery Esquire]

Your interpretation is inherently subjective and fallible, just like ours, so being all holier-than-thou about it and thinking you have it all figured out just makes you look judgemental.

{Scrubbed}

[Mystic Muse]

Yes, players should know their own alignments. Yes, players should get to argue with you when you think they did something contrary to their alignment. Players should be allowed to justify what they did if it's going to have negative consequences for their characters.


No, in real life you don't have a DM telling you which actions are good and which aren't, but the example is flawed. See, in real life, you'd be the character. The DM doesn't interact with the characters (except in certain rare circumstances) he interacts with the players. So, he'd be interacting with whoever is playing you.

Even if players agree to something like this, it'd still suck to lose your class features because your DM interprets something differently than you do. For example, I remember this one horror story about a DM who was DMing for a Paladin. It went something like this.

DM: A man approaches you and gives you a gold coin.
Player: Alright, I thank him and take it.
DM: Alright, you fall.
Player: WHAT?!
DM: He was evil. You knowingly associated with him, ergo, you fall.

I'm not saying you're going to do anything like that, but it shows how easy it is to interpret things differently. The DM interpreted the code a different way than most people would. This is not necessarily the wrong way to interpret the code, but it clearly wasn't what the player was expecting.

If you're going to do something like this, and a player has character mechanics relying on their alignment, then be very clear at the start of the game what playing that alignment means so that the player isn't suddenly taken off guard by you suddenly changing their alignment. Unexpectedly losing your class features isn't fun.

Personally, I would not play in a game where the DM was going to use a system like that.

[Lord_Gareth]

Alright people, why don't we all calm down a bit while I try to sort this out:

Shadowknight12: Believes it's basic game ethics to talk to your group about how you're going to handle alignment before the game starts and to open a dialogue about it both then, and at conflict points in the game where the DM sees an action one way and the player sees an action another way. He further believes that in all situations of conflict, a PC should have a reasonable chance of victory (which implies, incidentally, a reasonable chance of defeat, for those of us who are not paying attention).

Mystify: Believes it is the DMs inalienable right to determine and judge all cases of alignment. He believes that it's more important to preserve pre-written parts of the setting (the presence of high-level mages or military regiments, for example) than it is to necessarily offer the player a potential 'out', even if it's a risky one.

Is this right? I hope so, because I had to read through this entire thread to come to those conclusions and I swear on the unhallowed earth of Baator that it caused me physical pain to do so.

Okay, so, Shadowknight12 had another essential point - that any playstyle is just as valid as any other. Guess what? This is completely true. You paid money to play this game, you can play it however the hell you want to. There's no disputing this point, so we shall move on to another:

Shadowknight isn't saying that if a player wants to eat babies and be LG they can be, though the case did get brought up since everyone here is dealing with massive hyperbole. What he's saying is that most of these cases are actually going to be much more murky and it isn't fair to simply have the DM drop the hammer on a player because they interpret something one way and the DM interprets it another. If a paladin tells a major lie to his liege lord (a gross breach of his code of conduct; he is required to comport himself with honor) in order to prevent the kingdom from going to war and endangering the innocent as a result, should he Fall? If he makes a habit of this kind of realpolitik in the name of his nation, should he cease being Lawful, or is it more Lawful than he was acting, since it considers the needs of the nation/citizens before personal honor? These are questions without easy answers, and four different players will give you six different answers on them.

Especially in cases where alignment shift would affect a character's powers, I have to agree with ShadowKnight12; a player should always have the chance to argue their case before the DM about why they chose to act in that fashion and the motivations behind it. The DM is ultimately the judge, yes, but no players = no game, and being an ass about alignment is a fast way to lose players. On top of that, many players (myself included) take long,, hard looks at their characters' thoughts, personality and actions and then choose their alignment accordingly, and get confused, frustrated or angry when they are then told that it wasn't right and they need to be this other alignment. It's very deeply a personal thing and since gaming is a social venue a certain amount of respect must be given to that.

And, incidentally, you guys are all coming across as holier-than-thou. Cool your jets, hey?

[Misery Esquire]

Shadowknight isn't saying that if a player wants to eat babies and be LG they can be...

Actually, that is what he's argued. Thus my statement.

Players can discuss with the DM why they should stay thier alignment. If they are acting entirely off of thier alignment, it's within the DM's rights to make the alteration.



The DM is ultimately the judge, yes, but no players = no game, and being an ass about alignment is a fast way to lose players.


This also works in reverse, though. If a player is an ass about thier alignment, then the DM might decide to go. And there's less people willing or able to put in the 1-4 hours of prep time each session that the DM is doing than there are people willing to play out there. Even moreso, by accepting the DM to DM in the first place, you're showing a willingness to accept the authority they'll have in the game.

I'm not saying that a DM can, or should, tyrannize a session, merely that they're the one put in charge of the whole shindig and should be given the respect and authority involved, rather than demanding that your baby-eating paladin stay LG no matter what your actions may indicate, because that's what you wrote on your character sheet.

[Mystic Muse]

Ultimately, the best thing to do would be "Whatever works for the group in question, and whatever is the most fun for that group."

If it works for your group, that's just grand. I just know it wouldn't work for me, and I wouldn't like it. To me, Alignment is one of three things depending on how I feel.

1. Really important because my character has to remain a specific alignment to retain class features.
2. Kind of important, but only important in a fluff sense, not to any mechanical aspect of my character.
3. Completely irrelevant.

Next game I DM, I'm considering just saying "Alignment doesn't exist, and neither do restrictions except in the cases of weapons or creatures literally made of Evil or Good." naturally, I'd expand some features, change them, or get rid of them depending on what they were. Smite evil would become just generic "Smite" Detect Evil would probably change to detect truth and lies or something, and Holy Word and such would probably just be gotten rid of entirely.

[MukkTB]

The DM is in control of player alignment. Its pretty clear in the books. Players get to choose starting alignment, DM gets to yank alignment around. If I play a L/G paladin and then I go slaughter a village I don't have the right to declare that I'm still L/G. The DM gets to decide what new alignment my actions warrant. Do you guys seriously think I get to be L/G as long as I hold a straight face when I say I am as I pour babies into the maw of hell?

Whether the DM tells me to my face or not doesn't matter. I think the DM should tell players. Making the players cast detect alignment on themselves from time to time is just a pain that doesn't really add to game play.

I tend to avoid alignment restricted classes because having the DM peering over your shoulder and critiquing your play is a pain.

[Mystify]

Mystify: Believes it is the DMs inalienable right to determine and judge all cases of alignment. He believes that it's more important to preserve pre-written parts of the setting (the presence of high-level mages or military regiments, for example) than it is to necessarily offer the player a potential 'out', even if it's a risky one.

Not quite.
There are a few things I'd like to clarify:
1. This is not meant, in any way, shape, or form, to be a way to trick paladins into falling or otherwise render the character mechanically at a disadvantage. Since it is mechanically important for those characters to keep the right alignment, they still get all the normal warnings, and hence gets a chance to appeal if they feel the ruling it truly unfair. However, the DM is still the final judge, as in all matters of dispute in D&D.
It is meant for the other characters whose alignment is less determinate to be less clear about their standing. I've heard the saying "A chaotic neutral character is just an evil character that is smart enough to be immune to smiting", which I thought was complete BS. If they are evil, they are evil, and writing CN on your character sheet does not change that.

2. Its not about preserving pre-written parts of the campaign. To some degree, yes, you need the high level characters around so they are present for the party to interact with later in the campaign. But that is not the issue. The issue is that a player's actions have consequences, good or bad. If those consequences are always "And a level appropriate encounter happens", then its not a consequence. The player needs to be smart enough not to bring about consequences they are not prepared to deal with.
It also acts as a risk/reward system. The bank has 100,000gp in it. Hence, the total security on it is about a CR 20-21. Realistically, this is divided up into several smaller challenges, traps, decoys, etc, making it more like a challenge for a group of level 11-12s that will level them by the end, but unless 100,000gp is reasonable for your to acquire for WBL, you are not really an appropriate level to attempt the heist. Attempting the heist beforehand is ill advised, and will likely go poorly. Though the rewards will be more meaningful at a lower level if you can pull it off. Scouting out such a choice should be a part of the job which will tell you what you are up against, and hence allow you to decide whether you want to attempt it.
But even if the players do something idiotic like attempt the heist at level 2, with money signs in their eyes clouding all judgement, that does not mean I don't leave them an out. When I had a party of level 12ish vampires(and just to be sure we are clear, NONE of the vampires abilities allows them to stand up against on-level magic, much less above level magic, and the party was aware of them) assault the level 20 wizards tower, knowing full well that it was a level 20 wizard who lived there, I did not feel bad bringing him to bear. However, they still had opportunity to leave and try to escape. They chose to stand and face the black blade of disaster that was one-shoting them systematically, instead of leaping out the window and escaping.

3. I am getting accused of doing things to unfairly boost the DM. Most of my DM philosophy stems from what I want as a player. I like a world that I am free to operate in, and have to consider the in-game ramifications of my actions. If I want to rob a bank, I want to see appropriate defenses dissuading me, not a DM saying "No, you can't". Likewise, I don't like a ME style alignment, where I go and do an action that is morally grey, and the DM foes "Ding! you are moving towards evil now!". If there is a morally grey action you are doing, you don't automatically resolve which side of the alignment it falls on as soon as you make the choice. You sit there, think about your decision, make it, then wonder if you did the right thing. Later, a cleric comes by and uses holy word, and you cringe becasue you are unsure if you did the right thing. You get to the gate of the afterlife, and its not "Ok, you wrote down LG on your sheet, welcome to heaven", but an analysis of how you conducted yourself through the trials. Or alternatively, you are going along, doing whatever suits you, and suddenly a paladin is smiting you, and you think "Wow, I've been a real jerk. Maybe I shouldn't have scammed all those people."

[TroubleBrewing]

What I'm getting from Mystify is that all in-game decisions should have consequences in-game. I agree, but only if the players are warned ahead of time.

Which Mystify stated at the beginning was his intention.

If a player tries to rob a heavily guarded bank, he should get stopped by the security, unless that player is sufficiently high-level/clever to actually defeat said security.

If said robber is also a Paladin, he should expect to incur an alignment shift, however mild.

The main suggestion is simply that the Paladin will not personally be aware of this shifting until it becomes bad enough to attract the notice of whatever divine energy is granting him that power. (Because that is, after all, how most of the alignment-based classes operate.)

It's a choice I've actually made a DM before. It worked beautifully. Anecdotal evidence is useless, but this is something I've enjoyed using as a DM and as a player.

[Kalmageddon]

Should player know their own hit points?

In all seriousness, the idea of the OP is good for some particular kind of games, but I don't think it would work as a general rule. Players want to have control over their character and that includes the alignment. What if the way a players plays, say, a paladin is more on the L/N side of things for the DM?
Usually it wouldn't be a big deal because to change his alignment the DM would have to talk to the player, argue maybe, and until a paladin does something obviously evil there isn't such a huge difference between a L/N and a L/G.
But if the DM is the only one to know the alignment he could just change the alignment of characters and they couldn't say a thing about it.

D&D is not made for moral ambiguity, alignment are a necessary game mechanic and I can't see why so many people try to change the way they work...

[Keneth]

I'm actually curious about whether or not Shadowknight12 ever gets to play D&D as a player. I'm pretty sure no experienced GM would want to put up with his entitled ideas of the player's power.

As for the matter at hand, alignment is a reflection of the choices made in a world where both morality and ethics are dictated by the GM. I think the players should be aware of their characters' alignment (and they would be either way with detect [alignment]) because there's no real reason why they wouldn't be, it's an aspect of their characters which bears consequences. If you don't see your alignment, it's like you're jumping across a chasm and you have no idea what your jump skill modifier is. It's important and it's what you base your decisions on when making choices. It may seem counterproductive from a roleplaying standpoint, but such a degree of metagaming is expected in any game where your next decision could ruin your character.

There should never be a situation, however, where the GM goes "your alignment is now chaotic" out of the blue, the players should always be notified beforehand about the changes their actions are bringing them to. I consider input from the GM in the form of "such an action would push you considerably towards evil" or "you are coming dangerously close to becoming chaotic" appropriate and even necessary in games where alignment has a large impact on the characters.

[Shadowknight12]

You are saying that a character can eat babies and slaughter millions of innocnet people, but if they say they want to be lawful good, then they are lawful good. I cannot wrap my mind around how you think that is ok.

If that's the way they want to play the game, then yes. The letter of the rules doesn't matter. The spirit of the rules doesn't matter. The rules themselves don't matter. What matters is that the group has fun. If the group has fun with a player playing a LG paladin that slaughters innocent people, let them have their fun. If it won't be fun for you, that's perfectly fine, nobody's forcing you to play with them. Just respect their playstyles as valid and don't go around pointing fingers and saying it's not the Proper Way to play.

As a counter point, I could argue that in this very stick figure comic, such an event has happened and was the entire reason Redcloak is a villain. If there was a player behind the paladin and everyone had fun ("I'm helping create the tragic backstory for a future villain, whee!"), then seriously, what's the problem?


{scrubbed}.

I am so tempted to sig this, for anti-rep value.



Alright people, why don't we all calm down a bit while I try to sort this out:

Shadowknight12: Believes it's basic game ethics to talk to your group about how you're going to handle alignment before the game starts and to open a dialogue about it both then, and at conflict points in the game where the DM sees an action one way and the player sees an action another way. He further believes that in all situations of conflict, a PC should have a reasonable chance of victory (which implies, incidentally, a reasonable chance of defeat, for those of us who are not paying attention).

Completely correct. I mean, sure, I don't expect a DM to go easy on me if I've done something they disapprove of, but all I deserve and all I expect is a fair chance to make it out alive. Whether I seize it or not is entirely up to me, and I'm cool with that.


Is this right? I hope so, because I had to read through this entire thread to come to those conclusions and I swear on the unhallowed earth of Baator that it caused me physical pain to do so.

Get yourself a beverage of choice, you earned it.


Shadowknight isn't saying that if a player wants to eat babies and be LG they can be,

Minor correction: I'm saying that if the entire table is okay with that, then yes, that can happen. There are a million plot ideas why a paladin would want to eat a baby. If the group wants to tell that story, let them.


though the case did get brought up since everyone here is dealing with massive hyperbole. What he's saying is that most of these cases are actually going to be much more murky and it isn't fair to simply have the DM drop the hammer on a player because they interpret something one way and the DM interprets it another. If a paladin tells a major lie to his liege lord (a gross breach of his code of conduct; he is required to comport himself with honor) in order to prevent the kingdom from going to war and endangering the innocent as a result, should he Fall? If he makes a habit of this kind of realpolitik in the name of his nation, should he cease being Lawful, or is it more Lawful than he was acting, since it considers the needs of the nation/citizens before personal honor? These are questions without easy answers, and four different players will give you six different answers on them.

But also yes, in most circumstances, what you're saying is entirely correct.


Especially in cases where alignment shift would affect a character's powers, I have to agree with ShadowKnight12; a player should always have the chance to argue their case before the DM about why they chose to act in that fashion and the motivations behind it. The DM is ultimately the judge, yes, but no players = no game, and being an ass about alignment is a fast way to lose players. On top of that, many players (myself included) take long,, hard looks at their characters' thoughts, personality and actions and then choose their alignment accordingly, and get confused, frustrated or angry when they are then told that it wasn't right and they need to be this other alignment. It's very deeply a personal thing and since gaming is a social venue a certain amount of respect must be given to that.

Yes, that's precisely what I was getting at. Especially the bolded parts. You can't treat your players like they're pawns for your amusement. You have to respect them as human beings with their own worldviews and preferences. If what they're doing does not strike you as LG and that's a huge issue for you, take it outside the table and talk to them about it. Saying "You're NG now, say goodbye to your class features" is completely dismissing them as not worth even listening to.


And, incidentally, you guys are all coming across as holier-than-thou. Cool your jets, hey?

Will do.


I'm actually curious about whether or not Shadowknight12 ever gets to play D&D as a player. I'm pretty sure no experienced GM would want to put up with his entitled ideas of the player's power.

Funny story, I actually get asked by DMs to play in their games every so often. Apparently I'm a decent player because I strive to make sure the DM has fun, thereby already knowing what they like/dislike to see at the table, being extremely approachable and circumventing this entire issue. Who'd have thunk it?

[Edenbeast]

Alignment is good food for heated discussions. Every person has his own interpretation on the matter. The best way so far I've seen this matter dealt with was this:

Every five sesions the GM asked the players to write down the alignment of the other players' characters. There were five players, so for every character he had four opinions on a character's alignment. The DM would then calculate the alignment, and give back the result to the player (usually by email), what would be his alignment for the next five sessions.
What I like about this method is that the better (consistent) you roleplay your character, the more the others will agree on the perceived alignment. For example: even if three write down NG and one writes CG, you'll still be NG. However, if two write CG and one writes NG and another CN, it would mean you shift to CG.

[MiniMan]

I've never found alignment to be that determining in play outside of mechanics unless a good character was maliciously killing an NPC or other characters. Generally players in my games know how to play their alignments. I think getting too detailed on alignment would detract from the fun of the game.

[eclipsic]

I ran a session where I did something along these lines, although I was the only one who submitted an evaluation of the characters' alignments. To be fair, when I started the campaign, I told my players to "play an alignment, not pick an alignment".

I actually got some pretty good plot hooks out of it, for instance, by having the dwarven cleric of the god of debauchery receive visions about how his god thought he was being a stick in the mud (behaving too lawfully), or a crusader's vestige (a vanquished goddess of adventure and heroism; in my campaign, crusaders receive their divine power from vestiges, but the mechanic reminds unchanged) letting him know how unheroic he was being when he let chances to vanquish evil pass him by.

Of course, none of our players ever lost abilities because of any alignment shift, mainly because they paid attention to the omens and brought their behavior back in line with the guidelines by which they chose to play (in the cases above, choosing a god/vestige's dogma to which to adhere).

Whenever I shared my interpretations of their actions with them, which I usually did as a group, I usually got one of three reactions:
1.) Cool, the DM agrees that I'm playing my character the way I intended to.
2.) Oh wow, he's right, I've totally been ignoring the way I intended to play my character; I'm glad he let me know so I can get back to my original plan.
3.) I disagree, and here's why. Usually, when they made their case, it was because I had forgotten or misinterpreted some of their actions, and the two times this happened, I admitted my mistake and corrected my evaluation.

My group is on hiatus now, but they've made it to level 12 with this rule with no complaints.






Alignment is good food for heated discussions. Every person has his own interpretation on the matter. The best way so far I've seen this matter dealt with was this:

Every five sesions the GM asked the players to write down the alignment of the other players' characters. There were five players, so for every character he had four opinions on a character's alignment. The DM would then calculate the alignment, and give back the result to the player (usually by email), what would be his alignment for the next five sessions.
What I like about this method is that the better (consistent) you roleplay your character, the more the others will agree on the perceived alignment. For example: even if three write down NG and one writes CG, you'll still be NG. However, if two write CG and one writes NG and another CN, it would mean you shift to CG.

[Mystify]

Shadowknight, with all due respect, that is not D&D anymore. You are putting forth things that are so far outside of the rules that it has no bearing on a discussion about a typical D&D group. It would be like claiming that magic and mundane are perfectly balanced because you added 20 house rules to limit the power of mages. That may be how you play, but that is not how D&D is expected or intended to work, and it has pretty much no bearing on a discussion of how a change will impact a typical group. If you are going to ignore something as core to the game as the alignment system, then what won't you change on a whim?
Its one thing to waive alignment restrictions on classes, its another thing entirely to remove alignment shifts. Oddly enough, you still seem to want to enforce alignment restrictions, but have those alignments carry 0 relevance for roleplaying.
In fact, your view diverges so strongly from what is typical or expected, that I cannot see how it has any bearing on this discussion.

[Shadowknight12]

Shadowknight, with all due respect, that is not D&D anymore. You are putting forth things that are so far outside of the rules that it has no bearing on a discussion about a typical D&D group. It would be like claiming that magic and mundane are perfectly balanced because you added 20 house rules to limit the power of mages. That may be how you play, but that is not how D&D is expected or intended to work, and it has pretty much no bearing on a discussion of how a change will impact a typical group. If you are going to ignore something as core to the game as the alignment system, then what won't you change on a whim?
Its one thing to waive alignment restrictions on classes, its another thing entirely to remove alignment shifts. Oddly enough, you still seem to want to enforce alignment restrictions, but have those alignments carry 0 relevance for roleplaying.
In fact, your view diverges so strongly from what is typical or expected, that I cannot see how it has any bearing on this discussion.

I am going to leave the thread now. People who believe there's such a thing as "intended to be played", "typical" or "expected" are typically (see? I can use that word too) quite literally unable to conceive anything that does not fit in their rigid, inflexible worldview and therefore attempts to communicate with them can only end in failure, as this entire thread soundly proves.

[Dr.Epic]

I think they should. Obviously it is a little meta and in real life you may not even know this, but in real life do we know our various ability scores for sure, our BAB, our BLS, how many ranks we have in each skill? D&D is in part a little meta and I don't see why the PCs shouldn't. It really makes the difference when taking feats and entering a PrC.

[Mystify]

I am going to leave the thread now. People who believe there's such a thing as "intended to be played", "typical" or "expected" are typically (see? I can use that word too) quite literally unable to conceive anything that does not fit in their rigid, inflexible worldview and therefore attempts to communicate with them can only end in failure, as this entire thread soundly proves.
I can see how somebody might conceivably play like that. I don't think its a common enough occurrence to be a consideration in how this system works. This is an alteration of the base rules, and you are arguing that some people throw out those rules. It would be like me saying "I want to try these house rules for magic,what do you think." and you reply "Well, I ban magic in my campaigns". Ok, but that doesn't really matter with regards to the question being asked.

[Coidzor]

There are a couple of exceedingly good games that work off of these exact principles. Paranoia is one. D&D wouldn't be terrible using them, either. It certainly wouldn't be the same, but none of those is objectively bad.

If you want to play Paranoia, play paranoia. Don't play D&D instead, the player expectations and culture for approaching the games are entirely different. :smallannoyed:

[dextercorvia]

Alignments are like ********, everybody has one. However, if you spend too much time thinking about other peoples', you are probably being overly anal.

[TheGeckoKing]

My thoughts on alignment are that while a player has every right to choose his alignment at the start of the campaign, every right to play and act in a manner of an alignment that won't make him clash with other players*, and that the DM certainly should warn a player about falling/not meeting alignment prerequisites before the actual fall happens, I think it is outright unfair to expect the DM to bend the rules on alignment just so the game can accommodate your wacky character if he's not comfortable with it, especially if it's something so downright contradictory as a CE Paladin that isn't of the Slaughter variety.

Also, the players should know their own alignments, simply because it just saves both players and DM time on going through multiple castings of Detect X.

*Make the paladin fall clash, not annoy the pendantic LN Cleric clash.

[Siosilvar]

If you want to play Paranoia, play paranoia. Don't play D&D instead, the player expectations and culture for approaching the games are entirely different. :smallannoyed:

Why not? As far as I'm concerned, anything goes, so long as everyone knows what's up before the game starts. "Hide ALL the information!" isn't appropriate in some games groups groups playing some games, but it works fine in others. Paranoia is merely an example of a ruleset that takes it to heart. I imagine there's a wide variety of games where the idea could work, and I would certainly call all of them that use the D&D rules "D&D". :smallwink:

[NineThePuma]

I don't tell the DM my alignment.

I don't write it down on my sheet.

I don't take classes that have alignment restrictions.

My party doesn't have a clue that I'm Lawful Evil, and am completely and utterly willing to back that decision up.

[Lord_Gareth]

Shadowknight, with all due respect, that is not D&D anymore.

Really, because it seems to be D&D in Eberron just fine. Again and again you ignore ShadowKnight's points, which do not actually revolve around the paladin slaughtering babies but rather whether or not it works for the group doing it. You continue to haughtily make judgement upon how other groups play, or might play, and his objections are to that. There's no 'wrong' way to play D&D, no matter how wrong it might seem that you have an entire party of monks using shovels or wizards that ban conjuration.


In fact, your view diverges so strongly from what is typical or expected, that I cannot see how it has any bearing on this discussion.

Hint: Trying to casually dismiss the other side's argument as irrelevant doesn't make you seem like you're rationally discussing anything.

[Mystify]

Really, because it seems to be D&D in Eberron just fine. Again and again you ignore ShadowKnight's points, which do not actually revolve around the paladin slaughtering babies but rather whether or not it works for the group doing it. You continue to haughtily make judgement upon how other groups play, or might play, and his objections are to that. There's no 'wrong' way to play D&D, no matter how wrong it might seem that you have an entire party of monks using shovels or wizards that ban conjuration.



Hint: Trying to casually dismiss the other side's argument as irrelevant doesn't make you seem like you're rationally discussing anything.

His objection to this system is based on playing the game in a manner that is highly divergent from RAW. I don't see how that is a relevant basis for discussing the validity of the change. Whatever groups are allowing you to use whatever alignment you feel like are obviously not the groups that would be implementing this system. Its completely irrelevant. I'm not saying its wrong to play it that way, I'm just saying it does not have a place in discussing this mechanic.