ideas for alignment control

[blelliot]

I've had paladins, monks and other alignment restricted classes in many games I have run/ played and I've noticed that it can be quite a handful if the player in questionwants to be difficult and say an action is totally within his alignment parameters, when someone else disagrees. Does anyone have any ideas to help out? I've looked and haven't been able to find anything I like. Id appreciate any help.:smallbiggrin:

[Man on Fire]

Controlling alignment is quite simple
1) Before the game talk with each player to make sure you're all on the same page on what specific alignment means.
2) When players does something that you see as alignment violation ask the guy to explain how it's not.
3) If you are convinced by his explanation, let him go through, if you aren't, treat it s alignment violation
4) Never say "your character wouldn't do that", there is ntohing else than somebody telling people how to play their characters.
5) Punish people who tell other players how to play their characters
6) One action against the alignment doesn't mean auto-fall, it's reserved for somethign really big.

[Clistenes]

Monte Cook uses a gradation for Evil/Good and Chaos/Law:

Level of Good
1 Doesn’t like to see bad things happen to others
2 Helps others occasionally, particularly friends
3 Willing to help strangers on occasion
5 Gives of himself to help others, whether it be time, money, possessions, or something else
7 Takes concepts like purity, innocence, and other higher principles very seriously
8 Would sacrifice anything, even his life, for others in a heartbeat
9 Refuses to harm anything or anyone, even if it brings misfortune or death on himself

Level of Evil
-1 Finds joy in the misfortune of others, but usually wouldn’t act to hurt others
-2 Willing to cause others pain or misfortune to better himself
-3 Actively enjoys lying, stealing, and inflicting pain on others
-4 Willing to cause harm even to friends to get ahead
-5 Willing to kill to better himself
-7 Will kill for the sheer pleasure of bringing pain and death to others
-9 Hates life, goodness, and light and does everything in his power to destroy them

Level of Law
1 Generally tries to keep his promises and, when in doubt, follows the rules
2 Has a set of guidelines he generally lives by
3 Genuinely respects authority figures for their positions
4 Willing to see one person killed or hurt if it helps large numbers of people
5 Willing to follow a code or a strict set of principles even if it brings misfortune on himself
8 Would be willing to see many people harmed or killed if it helped society as a whole
9 Follows a set path in such an orderly manner that it risks blind self-destruction. Despises and fears individuality.

Level of Chaos
-1 A bit of a nonconformist or free spirit
-2 Will lie if it suits him, hates to be ordered around
-3 Disorganized but extremely easygoing
-5 Rejects the idea of majority rule
-6 Would prefer anarchy to any other form of organization
-7 Occasionally destroys things in reckless abandon
-9 Hates structure and order so much that destruction for its own sake becomes desirable

An individual needs a level of at least 2 or -2 to be considered Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic. Somebody with a level 1 of Good or Law or a level -1 of Evil or Chaos registers as Neutral to all alignment-detecting spells and effects.


Your average paladin is Lawful 5 Good 5. People above 5 or below -5 are abnormal: saints, martyrs, fanatics, lunatics or sociopaths.

[ArcturusV]

Generally I just draft out what Alignments actually mean, sticking as close to RAW as I can without drifting into the insanity that RAW sometimes has about alignments.

I tell players I'll keep score of their actions in game. As alignment matters for different things. And if they massively drift off into another part? Yes, their alignment will change.

Which is nowhere near as drastically bad as it used to be (Changing alignments in earlier editions were basically XP taxes). But it does matter.

By defining it early though and being open about what's what? It allows players to kinda keep track on their own. Our "Scores" might be different. Just how it goes. But rarely do I tell someone they "Fall" or change alignments without it being at least somewhat expected.

Unless it's a socially deranged person, like my one Paladin Player who did things like cut down hostages and civilians because they "were in my way" and "gonna die anyway".

The one thing I do go into that's a step further than the normal alignment systems is define the "Grey" areas for people.

What does a Lawful Neutral, leaning towards Lawful Evil look like? What does a Lawful Evil, leaning towards Lawful Neutral look like?

[Yora]

Option A: Do not use alignment.
Option B: Do not use alignment restricted classes in the campaign.

[PlusSixPelican]

Protip: If the Paladin ever does something like, say, refusing to go on a slave-freeing sidequest, they've shifted into Lawful Neutral territory.

[Eldan]

Unless they have a reason. LIke stopping an even greater evil.

Honestly, I think for me most problems are solved by letting the players be whatever they want their alignment to be, unless there's an obvious, gross, brutal Violation. And even that can only really be done for the good alignment.

[Raineh Daze]

Also refrain from considering Chaotic to be Evil Lite. It's not. This goes for both Chaotic characters (if they're not supposed to be Evil) and telling someone they're doing their alignment wrong if they don't do something pointlessly destructive and are Chaotic. Or any other scenario this comes up. :smallsigh:

[Man on Fire]

Alignment really is fun on theory, when you want to put characters in charts, in game it's pointlessly restrictive and limiting roleplaying potential.

[PlusSixPelican]

Unless they have a reason. LIke stopping an even greater evil.

In the situation in particular, one would think the Paladin would at least call it unjust. Instead I (Neutral Good Cleric in this game.) got an earful about logistics and being rude (for bringing it up) in a foreign nation.

[Miranius]

Controlling alignment is quite simple
1) Before the game talk with each player to make sure you're all on the same page on what specific alignment means.
2) When players does something that you see as alignment violation ask the guy to explain how it's not.
3) If you are convinced by his explanation, let him go through, if you aren't, treat it s alignment violation
4) Never say "your character wouldn't do that", there is ntohing else than somebody telling people how to play their characters.
5) Punish people who tell other players how to play their characters
6) One action against the alignment doesn't mean auto-fall, it's reserved for somethign really big.

+1
If all are in accord that alignement is used, play it with consequences just as anything else.

[Seharvepernfan]

I've had paladins, monks and other alignment restricted classes in many games I have run/ played and I've noticed that it can be quite a handful if the player in questionwants to be difficult and say an action is totally within his alignment parameters, when someone else disagrees. Does anyone have any ideas to help out? I've looked and haven't been able to find anything I like. Id appreciate any help.:smallbiggrin:

It's your decision. Do they continue to do things that are against the restrictions of the class? Make them "fall". That's what those restrictions are there for. If they're going to do things like this, they probably shouldn't be playing those classes. Suggest something similar that doesn't have those restrictions if the players get personally upset (like cleric or fighter or cleric/fighter for the paladin, or unarmed rogue for the monk).

[Amphetryon]

Protip: If the Paladin ever does something like, say, refusing to go on a slave-freeing sidequest, they've shifted into Lawful Neutral territory.

Some D&D settings default to "slavery is legal within the borders of [country]." There's nothing that says that a fantasy setting's slavers and slaves have to be in an abusive, antagonistic relationship that damages either of their rights.

[Raineh Daze]

Dude, slavery by its very nature is a one sided coercive relationship that destroys the rights of the enslaved by removing the enslaveds right to make their own choices in all aspects of their life. If you change that, then you've essentially changed how people act and react which sends you into the territory of Xenofiction - which isn't a comfortable place for a sword and sorcery setting. Would really just be going against verisimilitude, which is a key concept in making a believable fantasy setting.

Wasn't it sometimes used as a means of debt collection that's more humane than shunting someone out onto the streets to try and scrape by?

[Seharvepernfan]

Wasn't it sometimes used as a means of debt collection that's more humane than shunting someone out onto the streets to try and scrape by?

Like indentured servitude? That's not quite slavery though.

[Raineh Daze]

Sort of. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonded_labor)

[Seharvepernfan]

Sort of. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonded_labor)

Indentured servitude is bonded labor. That's what is was called in the american colonies.

[Raineh Daze]

I was thinking of classically, where it's... sort of is and isn't depending on exact place, time, and luck. It's a sort of 'legally speaking, you're not, be practically, you are' sort of thing. De jure freedom, de facto slavery. Confusing.

[ArcturusV]

Well that and the "Company Store" type of "Slavery".

"Oh... no... you're free... you're free... but you owe us more money than you actually make and we won't let you leave until you pay us up."

Comes in a lot of forms. And usually it's a matter of perspective. I've had players in game call things slavery that I didn't consider myself. For example, one Kingdom who punished crime with hard labor. Thus say, a thief who got caught stealing some someone might be sentenced to 5 years hard labor in the marble quarries. I didn't think too much of it when I was whipping up the setting, however when my party found out about it they were all fired up to "Free the slaves".

[big teej]

I, for one, have rather drawn out conversations with anyone playing a class that has an alignment restriction of some sort.

these conversations are always ended with something to the effect of, if not verbatim: "look, I'm not out to get you, I'm not going to be constantly watching you waiting for you to screw up. you've gotta do something so jarring, so out there that it makes me stop and take notice while I'm busy running a game for x amount of people."

why do I feel like I've been contributing the same statement to so many threads lately?

[Amphetryon]

Dude, slavery by its very nature is a one sided coercive relationship that destroys the rights of the enslaved by removing the enslaveds right to make their own choices in all aspects of their life. If you change that, then you've essentially changed how people act and react which sends you into the territory of Xenofiction - which isn't a comfortable place for a sword and sorcery setting. Would really just be going against verisimilitude, which is a key concept in making a believable fantasy setting.

Arguing against this point would run right up against the forum rules about Real World politics/religion. I'm not going there.

[CaladanMoonblad]

We use a system similar to what Monte Cook uses (ours is called the Tick-Tock System).

We assign a 2 dimensional grid of X and Y coordinates, with numbers from 1 to 15.

Law-Chaos Gradient
1-5 is Lawful, 6-10 Neutral, 11-15 is Chaotic

Evil-Good Gradient
1-5 is Evil, 6-10 Neutral, 11-15 is Good

This is based on the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) test and theory.

I will award Ticks (+1) for actions that are Chaotic or Good, and Tocks (-1) for actions that are Lawful or Evil.

Example; The heroes decide to overthrow a tyrant who abuses the local people and presses them into slave labor. The act of unseating the Tyrant is both Chaotic and Good, so a Tick for each gradient.

This way it takes a few actions for a player to lose their current alignment, and get shifted.

On our character sheets, a paladin might look like this at 1st level....

Sendrak the Pure - Lawful (3) Good (12)

Sendrak the Pure could certainly do more actions to become more Lawful or More Good. Especially heinous actions, like burning down an orphanage at night and sending 50-some waifs to a fiery death would be both Chaotic (possibly +3) and Evil (possibly -5 or -10). The GM decides how many ticks or tocks something is valued.

This way, at least players contemplate and "feel guilt" after their actions as indicated by their Tick Tock numbers on the grid.

The problem with RPG is of course, Players are not really their characters. Thus, many players do not actually role-play their characters as real people, with consciences, possible PTSD, emotional problems and guilt. In real life, violence is emotionally destabilizing; it warps the psyche, and quality of life diminishes greatly.

[Raineh Daze]

... sounds like the Paladin is screwed if unseating an evil tyrant will slide them to Chaotic. Oppressive evil is very common.

[PlusSixPelican]

... sounds like the Paladin is screwed if unseating an evil tyrant will slide them to Chaotic. Oppressive evil is very common.

The Paladins I've seen tend to need a little more convincing that Tyranny is bad than other PCs. That being said, overthrowing tyrants isn't necessarily Chaotic, but is always good.

[ArcturusV]

I'd say overthrowing tyrants and replacing them with a state of anarchy would be Chaotic. Overthrowing a tyrant in order to instill a "proper" authority of some sort would be fine as a Neutral Act or a Lawful Act.

[Raineh Daze]

I'd say overthrowing tyrants and replacing them with a state of anarchy would be Chaotic. Overthrowing a tyrant in order to instill a "proper" authority of some sort would be fine as a Neutral Act or a Lawful Act.

But if overthrowing a tyrant because allowing a tyrant to continue ruling is Evil, and overthrowing a tyrant without a replacement is Chaotic, this means that a Paladin would have to keep a bunch of nobles around in case they're needed.

Or hold up everyone else and take the reins for long enough to find an adequate ruler. :smallsigh:

Not really fair on them, though.

[Rob Roy]

I'd say overthrowing tyrants and replacing them with a state of anarchy would be Chaotic. Overthrowing a tyrant in order to instill a "proper" authority of some sort would be fine as a Neutral Act or a Lawful Act.

Not to mention overthrowing a tyrant in favor of another tyrant, which depending on how bad he or she is could be a neutral or evil act.

[ArcturusV]

Shouldn't be too hard. Find the local cleric of Goodness, tell him "Hey, you're king now". Or just give the people some guidelines for how they should govern themselves. Chances are if you're tearing down a tyrant, you had to build a rebellion organization. So there's a natural group to take over governance.

Unless you're going for sheer anarchy by just killing off everyone in power or that could assume power.

[Raineh Daze]

Does place an extra burden on the player, which is hardly fair. "Great, you saved the kingdom! Now think of the realistic consequences and deal with them, or that's another step towards losing your alignment. :|"

[Rob Roy]

Yeah. Rewriting the entire system to use words less ambiguous than good/evil/law/chaos would probably be more productive than trying to find a universal definition for all of those that satisfies everyone who plays the game reasonably well. I remember seeing a pretty interesting MTG alignment system posted on here a while back, and that would probably work far better than the Law/Chaos axis and the Good/Evil axis.

[Maginomicon]

Yeah. Rewriting the entire system to use words less ambiguous than good/evil/law/chaos would probably be more productive than trying to find a universal definition for all of those that satisfies everyone who plays the game reasonably well.I've done exactly that (sorta), with "Real Alignments" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341). Yes the ambiguous words are still there, but they're reduced to being a kind of shorthand instead of a pejorative.

[Rob Roy]

Thank you for that. I also thank you for linking the article that inspired you - that would be very useful in a Planescape Campaign.

[Maginomicon]

Thank you for that. I also thank you for linking the article that inspired you - that would be very useful in a Planescape Campaign.To be clear, I don't run my games in Planescape and Real Alignments don't require Planescape either. Planescape's just one of the things that inspired the article that inspired my implementation.