How do you deal with alignment?

[DarthMarasmus]

Howdy folks,

I was wondering if anyone has suggestions on dealing with alignment. Specifically, I'm wondering about some of the choices that good-aligned characters may be forced to make that go against their alignment. We'd probably all agree that murdering an innocent man is evil, it would still be considered an evil act to kill him to keep a violent gang from murdering other innocents, but perhaps it would be the only choice the characters can make; kill this innocent to save hundreds of innocents.

From a strictly mechanical perspective, would it be too harsh to impose morale penalties to their rolls to represent the soul-searching they are going through as they cope with what they've been forced to do? I'm just wondering about that last part, perhaps as a means of equally affecting the non-roleplayers and the roleplayers.

[Forrestfire]

Yes, I think it's overly harsh to impose morale penalties on a PC for "breaking" their alignment.

Alignment is not something that decides how PCs act. How the PC acts is what informs you of their alignment. If the player wants to RP that soul-searching and trauma after acts out of what their character's characterization would consider normal, then the thing to do is let them. If the player does not, then that's another facet of their character - they aren't affected by that as much.

Overall, alignment does not, and should not, matter mechanically beyond if you're affected by effects that care about alignment. Once you start imposing penalties on people for acting outside your view of what an alignment is, you're one step towards forcing them to play their character a specific way, which is terrible DMing.

[Venger]

Howdy folks,

I was wondering if anyone has suggestions on dealing with alignment. Specifically, I'm wondering about some of the choices that good-aligned characters may be forced to make that go against their alignment. We'd probably all agree that murdering an innocent man is evil, it would still be considered an evil act to kill him to keep a violent gang from murdering other innocents, but perhaps it would be the only choice the characters can make; kill this innocent to save hundreds of innocents.

From a strictly mechanical perspective, would it be too harsh to impose morale penalties to their rolls to represent the soul-searching they are going through as they cope with what they've been forced to do? I'm just wondering about that last part, perhaps as a means of equally affecting the non-roleplayers and the roleplayers.

welcome!

oh boy, an alignment thread. yes, we all have suggestions about how to deal with alignment. what you're describing is a classic "paladin always falls" type scenario. it's a specific mask of gotcha gaming forcing your Good-aligned player to choose between two (and only two) Evil options.

don't do this.

the game, being (at best) hypocritical and inconsistent when it comes to alignment is obviously against utilitarianism, so would say that players getting their spock on and putting the needs of the many above the needs of the few or the one is evil, but it'd say that about the opposite as well, so they're screwed either way.

it would absolutely be too harsh and a terrible idea to impose mechanical penalties for fluff-based choices your players make.

you can't force someone to share your preferred playstyle, no matter what kind of sticks and carrots you're using. if someone is a rollplayer, you can't force him to care about his guy's tortured soul or whatever by giving him a strength penalty. all that will do is cause him to resent you for penalizing him from enjoying the game in a different way than you do. it's the same thing as if you said the party face played by a shy or reserved player couldn't do anything if he didn't deliver the speech to the king exactly as his character would, or if the brute's player couldn't actually move a heavy door out of the way.

what this basically comes down to is railroading, forcing your players along a specific line. if they have two "options" that will put them in the same place, then they aren't really options. taking agency away from your players is always a bad thing (outside of charm/dominate/actual game effects) the point of a tabletop RPG is interactivity. if they don't get to be in charge of the decisions their characters make, then what's the point?

a better tactic would be to talk to this rollplayer whose style you dislike and asking him what sorts of things you could incorporate into the story to get the player more invested. if you've been doing dungeoncrawls and he is more interested in intrigue, that might be something useful to know. if you're hellbent on puzzles and he would rather make some jokes with npcs, that also might be a better way to get him active in the fluff part of the game. if he doesn't care about moral arithmetic, penalties won't change that.

[GreatDane]

Overall, alignment does not, and should not, matter mechanically beyond if you're affected by effects that care about alignment.
Quoted for truth. The mechanical penalties for acting out of alignment are already built into the game ("I'm evil, so holy word hurts!").

Honestly, my group doesn't play with player-decided alignments. The players can have their characters strive for a particular alignment, but the DM estimates their alignment based on their actions within the campaign.

To answer your specific questions:

I'm wondering about some of the choices that good-aligned characters may be forced to make that go against their alignment. Alignment is a function of a character's decisions. If a character is forced to make a certain decision, it doesn't affect their alignment.
Would it be too harsh to impose morale penalties to their rolls to represent the soul-searching they are going through as they cope with what they've been forced to do? Yes to the tenth degree. There are no rules in the game that mention this kind of thing; unless the players knew before character creation that acting out of alignment (which a forced decision wouldn't be anyway) would create this kind of penalty, it's pretty unfair to slam them with it.

[Venger]

Quoted for truth. The mechanical penalties for acting out of alignment are already built into the game ("I'm evil, so holy word hurts!").

this is literally all alignment should do in a game. see what detect x you ping on, and see what version of blasphemy hurts your feelings.


Honestly, my group doesn't play with player-decided alignments. The players can have their characters strive for a particular alignment, but the DM estimates their alignment based on their actions within the campaign.
you had me, and then you lost me with this.

I agree that actions should shape alignment, but since you admit that alignment's just there for holy word and other junk like that, why on oerth would you not let your players have the agency of picking what letters go on their guy's sheet?

if you control alignment yourself, I sincerely hope you eliminated all alignment-based prereqs and similar effects. as a player speccing for alignment specific ingredient A which required alignment 1, I'd be pretty steamed if you revealed to me that I was "actually" alignment B the whole time.


To answer your specific questions:I'm wondering about some of the choices that good-aligned characters may be forced to make that go against their alignment. Alignment is a function of a character's decisions. If a character is forced to make a certain decision, it doesn't affect their alignment.

^this.

this is literally part of the actual RAW, by the way. it's the whole reason we have spells like atonement. if your guy is forced either through railroading, blackmail, or mind control spells or similar to do naughty things (or nice things if you roll that way,) then it doesn't really count and he can make it better by apologizing to someone important.


Would it be too harsh to impose morale penalties to their rolls to represent the soul-searching they are going through as they cope with what they've been forced to do? Yes to the tenth degree. There are no rules in the game that mention this kind of thing; unless the players knew before character creation that acting out of alignment (which a forced decision wouldn't be anyway) would create this kind of penalty, it's pretty unfair to slam them with it.

it's unfair to slam them with it even if you say it first. being frank about a flaw or bad decision doesn't excuse it.

[Terazul]

I typically don't if given an option, and always play Neutral or Evil, since if I go anywhere near Good, I inevitably end up at something like this:


https://40.media.tumblr.com/b84c25295ed638d41985d6772354f2bd/tumblr_nnwnzi6r5h1utdqc0o1_540.jpg
Since yeah, the alignment rules are incredibly contradicting depending on what book you're looking in. Alignment at best should be a very general and vague descriptor of your character's methods (Law/Chaos) and morals (Good/Evil), but it shouldn't be a cage that one constantly has to worry about being knocked around in. It determines what things you ping on, what spells you get hit by, and that's pretty much it. More often than not I do see alignment used as a carrot/stick to get PCs to act the way someone wants them to; "Would a Lawful character really go against this?", "Are you sure your Good character would kill this guy who just tried to kill you and burn seven orphanages? I mean you're Good., and killing is Evil!" It's absurd.

It's the most annoying thing if you're playing a Good character, and you're forced either by the nature of the situation, the possible consequences, or some other unforseen force to make a decision your character isn't happy with, and to still be penalized with the "Ahah! Having performed such a vile deed your character is in danger of shifting to Neutral/Evil!" No. The fact that the character is troubled by it at all is a good indicator that their current moral stance is very much intact. Furthermore, a single action shouldn't undo what consists of years of worldview. I see way too much "Ah, they performed an impulsive act! Shift them towards Chaotic", which is crazy to me. Consistent, unrepentant action can do that, but that's the character's overall outlook changing, which is in fact the definition of alignment shift. </rant>

So yeah. No, don't inflict penalties on your players for acting out of alignment if they didn't really have viable alternatives (or even if they did, and acted out in a fit of emotion). All this does is encourage people not to play characters, but just constantly think "well how would I stay Good in this situation" instead of how their character feels about it. People make mistakes, and if it was grave enough, they'll feel bad about it already.

[OldTrees1]

From a strictly mechanical perspective, would it be too harsh to impose morale penalties to their rolls to represent the soul-searching they are going through as they cope with what they've been forced to do? I'm just wondering about that last part, perhaps as a means of equally affecting the non-roleplayers and the roleplayers.

Yes it would be too harsh. The roleplayers would already be affected and the non-roleplayers are not intending on playing that way.

How I handle alignment:
1) I do not read the alignments players write on their character sheets.
2) I watch how their characters act (remember behavior is never defined by a single action).
3) When I need to deal with a character's alignment, I determine what alignment best fits their behavior (remember behavior -> alignment not vice versa).

Now there will be cases where the obvious/easy/reasonable/rational options are all bad options. This is a moment for characters to decide if they want to roleplay the idealist(one that will find the obscure/hard good option even if it kills them) or the pragmatist(one that will occasionally compromise their ideals in order to be able to serve their ideals more/longer in the future). Neither option needs an artificial penalty for both are demonstrating the strength that is also their weakness.

[Venger]

I typically don't if given an option, and always play Neutral or Evil, since if I go anywhere near Good, I inevitably end up at something like this:


https://40.media.tumblr.com/b84c25295ed638d41985d6772354f2bd/tumblr_nnwnzi6r5h1utdqc0o1_540.jpg
Since yeah, the alignment rules are incredibly contradicting depending on what book you're looking in. Alignment at best should be a very general and vague descriptor of your character's methods (Law/Chaos) and morals (Good/Evil), but it shouldn't be a cage that one constantly has to worry about being knocked around in. It determines what things you ping on, what spells you get hit by, and that's pretty much it. More often than not I do see alignment used as a carrot/stick to get PCs to act the way someone wants them to; "Would a Lawful character really go against this?", "Are you sure your Good character would kill this guy who just tried to kill you and burn seven orphanages? I mean you're Good., and killing is Evil!" It's absurd.

It's the most annoying thing if you're playing a Good character, and you're forced either by the nature of the situation, the possible consequences, or some other unforseen force to make a decision your character isn't happy with, and to still be penalized with the "Ahah! Having performed such a vile deed your character is in danger of shifting to Neutral/Evil!" No. The fact that the character is troubled by it at all is a good indicator that their current moral stance is very much intact. Furthermore, a single action shouldn't undo what consists of years of worldview. I see way too much "Ah, they performed an impulsive act! Shift them towards Chaotic", which is crazy to me. Consistent, unrepentant action can do that, but that's the character's overall outlook changing, which is in fact the definition of alignment shift. </rant>

So yeah. No, don't inflict penalties on your players for acting out of alignment if they didn't really have viable alternatives (or even if they did, and acted out in a fit of emotion). All this does is encourage people not to play characters, but just constantly think "well how would I stay Good in this situation" instead of how their character feels about it. People make mistakes, and if it was grave enough, they'll feel bad about it already.

or just avoiding all this nonsense and rolling Neutral or Evil to start. DMs don't seem to have quite the same zeal to make those characters fall from saving too many puppy orphanages, so you can actually roleplay how you like without worrying about morton's forks all the time. it's awfully nice actually being able to roleplay your character how you want to.

[Crake]

Yes it would be too harsh. The roleplayers would already be affected and the non-roleplayers are not intending on playing that way.

How I handle alignment:
1) I do not read the alignments players write on their character sheets.
2) I watch how their characters act (remember behavior is never defined by a single action).
3) When I need to deal with a character's alignment, I determine what alignment best fits their behavior (remember behavior -> alignment not vice versa).

Now there will be cases where the obvious/easy/reasonable/rational options are all bad options. This is a moment for characters to decide if they want to roleplay the idealist(one that will find the obscure/hard good option even if it kills them) or the pragmatist(one that will occasionally compromise their ideals in order to be able to serve their ideals more/longer in the future). Neither option needs an artificial penalty for both are demonstrating the strength that is also their weakness.

This is exactly how I handle it as well. For the most part I don't get players playing a "moral" class, like a paladin, so i just tell the players to play their characters as they think they would act, and when (or more precisely if, since so far in all my time DMing it's never actually come up) an alignment based effect arises, I'll think back on the player's actions and decide what their alignment should be.

It's also partly for this reason that I always start players at level 1 and don't let them have overly elaborate backstories. When they get to my table, they have yet to do anything of significance, and as such, I can judge their alignment entirely based on their actual decisions, not some hypothetical perfect scenario in their backstory.

[lsfreak]

Alignments are descriptive, not prescriptive. You play a character. Alignment describes how they react to things. You shouldn't be playing a Lawful Good character, you should be playing a character that happens to match Lawful Good. If they do something against this, it just means the information you used to classify them as Lawful Good was incomplete, not that they violated their alignment.

Now, they may have done something they feel is wrong, but that's nothing to do with alignment. Maybe they are traumatized by what they did and so they roleplay that. Maybe they have a shifting perspective. Maybe they let the mask off for a second and everyone saw what they're really like. But no mechanical penalties for violating something that can't even be violated, because alignment does not dictate actions, it's dictated by actions.

[DarthMarasmus]

Okay, truth be told, I wasn't especially keen on the idea of mechanically penalizing them myself, I wanted confirmation that it was a rotten idea before I scrapped it entirely though.

Also, since I've been out of the loop for quite a while, I forgot how much of a can of worms alignment is.

I generally tend to agree that one or two slip-ups by the paladin shouldn't cause him to fall (need an atonement, maybe, but not fall. A consistent pattern of evil behavior? Yeah.

On a side note, I just imagined a couple of hound archons running around like the "Vegan Police" from Scott Pilgrim, "You didn't tithe ten percent last week and you let the rogue steal from that shopkeeper! You're on thin ice, boy! Keep your nose clean or we're gonna de-pally your butt so fast your head's gonna spin!"

[Venger]

Okay, truth be told, I wasn't especially keen on the idea of mechanically penalizing them myself, I wanted confirmation that it was a rotten idea before I scrapped it entirely though.
glad we're all on the same page.


Also, since I've been out of the loop for quite a while, I forgot how much of a can of worms alignment is.
yeah, when you argue on the internet over basic moral concepts of good and evil, it tends to get peoples' dander up. funny, huh? :smalltongue:


I generally tend to agree that one or two slip-ups by the paladin shouldn't cause him to fall (need an atonement, maybe, but not fall. A consistent pattern of evil behavior? Yeah.
I feel like we can all agree on that


On a side note, I just imagined a couple of hound archons running around like the "Vegan Police" from Scott Pilgrim, "You didn't tithe ten percent last week and you let the rogue steal from that shopkeeper! You're on thin ice, boy! Keep your nose clean or we're gonna de-pally your butt so fast your head's gonna spin!"

that's... what personifications of the alignment types literally do though. for their absolute king, check out Obligatum VII from elder evils, a headcase kolaryut who wants to liberate Pandorym because of Reasons.

[General Sajaru]

The main issue with any alignment-based classes is that all of a sudden, alignment changes from descriptive to prescriptive. When I have a player who wants to play a member of one of those classes, I tend to more outline some behaviors that are and aren't part of what being a member of that class does rather than try to define everything by alignment (since two LG characters can look completely different). For instance, if I have a player who wants to play a paladin, I'd tell them that stealing from their party would cause them to fall. Similarly, the Ur-Priest probably should be stealing from people. Or at least burning down some churches or something.

[ShaneMRoth]

I recommend giving players every benefit that can come with doubt on a selected alignment. Even if the character class is alignment dependent. Even if the alignment hangs on the character like a rented tux.

The alignment dependent classes tend to facilitate the process. Playing a Chaotic Monk would actually take some effort. Playing a Lawful Bard would actually take some effort.

Does the 'good' character act like a pure sociopath? Does the Evil character only consider killing as a last resort, and the rest of the party have to talk him into it? Doe the Lawful character base important decisions on a coin-toss, even when the two choices are not at all comparable? Does the Chaotic character insist that there is only one correct way to do things?

Unless the DM is convinced that a different alignment makes for a clearly better fit for a character... it's best to just leave a character's alignment in tact...

[Karl Aegis]

Does the 'good' character act like a pure sociopath? Does the Evil character only consider killing as a last resort, and the rest of the party have to talk him into it? Does the Lawful character base important decisions on a coin-toss, even when the two choices are not at all comparable? Does the Chaotic character insist that there is only one correct way to do things?

H-how do you know all my characters? That's exactly how my characters are.

[OldTrees1]

H-how do you know all my characters? That's exactly how my characters are.

O.o? #2 seems self evident and #1 is common(even if not actually good at some tables), but would you explain #3 and #4?

[Crake]

Doe the Lawful character base important decisions on a coin-toss, even when the two choices are not at all comparable? Does the Chaotic character insist that there is only one correct way to do things?

I feel like you're confusing lawful and chaotic with order and discord. There's nothing stopping a lawful character from deciding on a course of action with a coin toss, and likewise, a chaotic character certainly can feel that there's only one way to achieve a goal. People really need to stop relating law and chaos to order and discord, because they are not what what the two things represent.

[torrasque666]

that's... what personifications of the alignment types literally do though. for their absolute king, check out Obligatum VII from elder evils, a headcase kolaryut who wants to liberate Pandorym because of Reasons.
Hey man, all he's doing is his job, making sure that the deal is completed. Those nutty wizards shouldn't have summoned Pandorym in the first place, and now we gotta deal with it.

[OldTrees1]

I feel like you're confusing lawful and chaotic with order and discord. There's nothing stopping a lawful character from deciding on a course of action with a coin toss, and likewise, a chaotic character certainly can feel that there's only one way to achieve a goal. People really need to stop relating law and chaos to order and discord, because they are not what what the two things represent.

Technically order-disorder(one valid interpretation of L-C) makes a perfectly workable 2nd axis and works better for tales of cosmic forces than law-chaos. However the rules-freedom(another valid interpretation) axis also works although it is better tuned to different stories that the order-disorder one.

In short: Order-Disorder is valid but it is not the only valid law-chaos axis.

[Crake]

Technically order-disorder(one valid interpretation of L-C) makes a perfectly workable 2nd axis and works better for tales of cosmic forces than law-chaos. However the rules-freedom(another valid interpretation) axis also works although it is better tuned to different stories that the order-disorder one.

In short: Order-Disorder is valid but it is not the only valid law-chaos axis.

As a cosmic ideal, yeah, I can agree, but for characters (player or otherwise) it makes no sense. Nobody short of comic book characters actually have ideals like that, it's on par with the moustache twirling villain.

[Shackel]

If you're going to go with mechanical maluses for betraying your alignment, I'd recommend two things:

1. Have it only when they have a choice+it was their choice to make(to show that when you didn't have a choice at all, it's easier to cope)
2. Have a mechanical bonus for if they made a choice that would justify their alignment... if there was another option, of course. If you have a Lawful Good character, emphasis on the Lawful, a choice between Chaos and Law might give them that bonus.

And maybe a third: a willful switch gives a bonus. If Pally wants to go down the antipaladin path? Fully realizing his evil gives him a bonus for a while. Evil on the way to Good? Hey, now his original zeal gives him a bonus for a little while. Full neutrality? Your mind is cleared from all that black and white nonsense, your enlightenment gives you a bonus. Generally you'd want to keep them small, like a +1(like what happens when a PF Pally at least loses his divine bond, but in reverse).

Of course you might have people who try to abuse it, but that goes for all mechanics. Other things could be:

Maybe maluses start kind of high, like at -3, but then slowly go to 0 as the character gets used to it, then go up at the same rate to bonuses as they get joy from their to-be new alignment.
Or maybe particularly hardset ones might get a bonus, first, like that initial rush of freedom, then swings to maluses as it starts to make them unsure of themselves.
Maybe your characters choose where they start, who knows.

[Terazul]

As a cosmic ideal, yeah, I can agree, but for characters (player or otherwise) it makes no sense. Nobody short of comic book characters actually have ideals like that, it's on par with the moustache twirling villain.

Yeah, I dunno why people keep thinking that, because that is not what Lawful and Chaotic mean. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a) You could have a Lawful character that absolutely decides things based on coin flips; Two-Face, for example, is incredibly Lawful despite, y'know, being a criminal. He always follows the result of a coin flip even if it's not in his favor, and very much sticks to his duality pattern/obsession very consistently. Though the result of a coin flip itself is not consistent, his actions are, and the act of throwing the coin follows a form of precedent and methodology that he himself views as orderly. It works.

Likewise, A Chaotic character can easily accept that there is only one way to do things; as they typically value freedom over everything else, it could simply be "My Way or the Highway", or "we do it the way <person being helped> wants", with the particular method varying based on situation, regardless of the logic or any past choices they made. Alternatively, a Chaotic character could always choose "whatever grants people the most personal freedom". But isn't this Lawful? Not necessarily:


As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before.
Turns out, motivations and reasoning behind actions matter just as much as the outcome. Alignment is actually incredibly broad, people just seem to view it way too simply with too many constraints.

[SowZ]

Lately, I've come to label all characters TN because the world-view and way to act doesn't really work well with any alignment because people don't fit neatly into nine categories. The DM is free to change my alignment to whatever as long as he understands my alignment isn't actually shifting, my character has always been this, I just didn't know how to label it. And as long as the DM knows that if they shift my alignment, I will not change how I rp the character one iota to better match the new alignment.

[Karl Aegis]

O.o? #2 seems self evident and #1 is common(even if not actually good at some tables), but would you explain #3 and #4?

#3 has already been explained, but #4 is full on chaotic stupid. Mostly as a satire on the divine mind class, if presented with a situation (any situation) the character would respond with its ectopic ally alternate class feature in the shape of a giant frog. It would be truly baffled if giant frog was not the answer to the problem because the only thing it could do was giant frog. It was truly unthinkable that giant frog would every be inappropriate. Having only one response to for every situation is where true chaotic stupid is. I think "kill it" is how murderhobos respond to everything, even if inappropriate.

[Geddy2112]

Overall, alignment does not, and should not, matter mechanically beyond if you're affected by effects that care about alignment. Once you start imposing penalties on people for acting outside your view of what an alignment is, you're one step towards forcing them to play their character a specific way, which is terrible DMing.

Once again, QFT. And were done with alignment.

For the "fallible" classes they don't fall based on alignment, they all fall based on action. When I say fall on action, I do not mean actions caused by duress, coercion, or mind control.

Clerics worship deities and get their powers from their deities. If your actions go against what your deity believes, you lose your powers.

Monks are disciplined, focused and orderly. If you are no longer these things, you can no longer gain monk levels until you are.

Druids worship nature. If you commit an unspeakably awful crime against nature, lose your powers.

Paladins have a code(I encourage players to write their own, the standard code is bollocks). Break it, and lose your powers.

I have never had a player come even close to falling by these standards.



Playing a Lawful Bard would actually take some effort.

I find it strange that people hold that bards (and rogues)must always be chaotic. What about the storyteller who keeps the knowledge and lore of their village and feels deeply tied to community and tradition? The dirge bard mortician who ensures the dead are buried with respect and honor? The court diplomat who minds every P and Q and works to preserve the long standing systems in the world? All of those could make great lawful bards.

[NichG]

The morale thing is interesting, but I'd do it in something like the following fashion (maybe tied to a Feat):

- A player may choose to declare that their character is suffering from internal conflict due to a particular decision or situation. They should very briefly summarize the particular dilemma that has their character in conflict (for example: 'Killing in order to save lives', 'My duty versus what is right', 'Profit or revenge?', etc). This becomes their 'current dilemma'. When they do so, the character suffers a Morale penalty of -CLv/3 on all proactive rolls (when the player provokes the roll, as opposed to things like saving throws) relating to this situation. In any round in which this comes up in a relevant action (e.g. related to the dilemma), the character adds 1 Resolve point to their pool, which cannot ever exceed 1/3 their level. Future events associated with this dilemma can allow the character to add to the pool, but changing dilemmas causes the pool to be zeroed out.

- A character may use Resolve points in two ways. Whenever they are being compelled to act in a particular fashion specifically with regards to the question of their 'current dilemma', they may spend one Resolve point to suppress that compulsion for a single round and instead lose their Standard and Move actions that round. Secondly, at any point the player may declare that their character has resolved the dilemma and may spend all of their accumulated Resolve points to add to a roll of their choice. This may be done after the die has been rolled.

[OldTrees1]

As a cosmic ideal, yeah, I can agree, but for characters (player or otherwise) it makes no sense. Nobody short of comic book characters actually have ideals like that, it's on par with the moustache twirling villain.

I'll have to disagree with you on that. Sure you would not get the Exalted/Vile equivalanet without going into what would appear as Blue/Orange morality for those of us dominated by the Good/Evil axis, but I have seen players with strong preferences for/aversions against Order and likewise have seen several non comicbook characters have tendencies on the Order-Disorder axis without tendencies on the Rules-Freedom axis.

But as I said, different axes work better for different stories. So it is perfectly ok to run with Rules/Freedom or with Order/Disorder.

Sidenote: The mustache twirling villain is an unrealistic character on the Good/Evil axis not on the Order/Disorder axis.

[MyrPsychologist]

Unless an individual is playing a character that MUST maintain a specific alignment for their class, I tend to only worry about it DM side. I prefer to have players that follow what their characters would actually do instead of focusing purely on what the alignment system says they should do or think. I still keep track of it for purposes of detect and other spells that interact with their alignment, but I don't really bring it up and just keep it on my sheet of notes for the party.

[TheIronGolem]

From a strictly mechanical perspective, would it be too harsh to impose morale penalties to their rolls to represent the soul-searching they are going through as they cope with what they've been forced to do? I'm just wondering about that last part, perhaps as a means of equally affecting the non-roleplayers and the roleplayers.

As you've noted further downthread, this is indeed a bad idea. However, it's not a bad idea on the grounds that it's "harsh". It's a bad idea because it means you'd be telling your players how their characters feel about the situation, which is something that is their decision to make, not yours.

[Crake]

Sidenote: The mustache twirling villain is an unrealistic character on the Good/Evil axis not on the Order/Disorder axis.

Yeah, I was equating the two as cartoonish caricatures of their respective alignment axes. I personally have yet to see someone play a order/disorder character of any degree (short of constructs run on the order side, though even then) that didn't come out as silly in some kind of way. I guess I have just yet to come across someone who knows what they're doing. I play with 40 year old dnd veterans who think that CN means you do random stuff for the sake of doing random stuff, and that TN characters are insane and pick a random alignment every day.

[Venger]

Yeah, I was equating the two as cartoonish caricatures of their respective alignment axes. I personally have yet to see someone play a order/disorder character of any degree (short of constructs run on the order side, though even then) that didn't come out as silly in some kind of way. I guess I have just yet to come across someone who knows what they're doing. I play with 40 year old dnd veterans who think that CN means you do random stuff for the sake of doing random stuff, and that TN characters are insane and pick a random alignment every day.

yeah, grognardiness is pretty difficult to deal with when it comes to alignment.

though to be fair, even newer roleplayers default to cheesemonkey/fishmalk when playing CN. I frequently see CN banned for this reason, because if you aren't constantly quoting dank memes in character, then you're going to be burning down puppy orphanages and saying "I have an N on my sheet, I can do whatever I want, GM. umad? if I am it means i'm playing my alignment right."

as far as TN goes, from my understanding, back in 1e/2e, characters who were TN (like druids, who had to be TN) were about "balance," which meant acting like two-face, committing evil deeds one day and good deeds the next, especially since the tendency in 3.x was codified into the actual rules (law was good and chaos wa evil) so it'd really be only a good/evil axis and good people had to be lawful while evil ones had to be chaotic. it was about something like "balancing out the good/evil in the cosmos" like those terrible characters that appear every now and again in space-themed crossover comic books.

basically, if "playing your alignment" ever comes up, you're probably doing it wrong.

[OldTrees1]

Yeah, I was equating the two as cartoonish caricatures of their respective alignment axes. I personally have yet to see someone play a order/disorder character of any degree (short of constructs run on the order side, though even then) that didn't come out as silly in some kind of way. I guess I have just yet to come across someone who knows what they're doing. I play with 40 year old dnd veterans who think that CN means you do random stuff for the sake of doing random stuff, and that TN characters are insane and pick a random alignment every day.

No wonder. :smalleek: Those are cartoonish depictions.

A short description of 2 examples:
1) "A place for everything and everything in its place." "There is a right way to do everything." I have met 1-2 of these in real life.

2) I had made a universe where the planes all fit together in a very orderly manner(the cosmic forces of order were in control at creation). This constant and ubiquitous order rubbed one of the PCs the wrong way. Over time this made the character go crazy(colloquial meaning, not insanity) and rebellious. Eventually the character got powerful enough that they threw a wrench in the planar gears. The player had a similar streak and got a big kick out of breaking the pattern.

[Andreaz]

Yes, I think it's overly harsh to impose morale penalties on a PC for "breaking" their alignment.

Alignment is not something that decides how PCs act. How the PC acts is what informs you of their alignment. If the player wants to RP that soul-searching and trauma after acts out of what their character's characterization would consider normal, then the thing to do is let them. If the player does not, then that's another facet of their character - they aren't affected by that as much.

Overall, alignment does not, and should not, matter mechanically beyond if you're affected by effects that care about alignment. Once you start imposing penalties on people for acting outside your view of what an alignment is, you're one step towards forcing them to play their character a specific way, which is terrible DMing.Which means, of course, that the alignments simply change over time.
Good Character consistently commits some evil? he eventually switches to evil. Chaotic character insists on organizing everything and keeps tabs on everything? He eventually goes lawful.

Anything else, any pilgrimage, soul searching, inner conflict and the like is in the hands of the player.

[Darth Ultron]

f We'd probably all agree that murdering an innocent man is evil, it would still be considered an evil act to kill him to keep a violent gang from murdering other innocents, but perhaps it would be the only choice the characters can make; kill this innocent to save hundreds of innocents.

Guess it depends:

1.Do you think that murdering a guilty man is evil or good?
2.Who gets to decide who is guilty or not guilty?
3.Who gets to decide if someone is even ''innocent''?
4.Is it evil or good to kill a man if it is not murder?
5.Do numbers matter to good and evil? Are three lives more important then one?

Note there is always more then one choice too.

[Crake]

No wonder. :smalleek: Those are cartoonish depictions.

A short description of 2 examples:
1) "A place for everything and everything in its place." "There is a right way to do everything." I have met 1-2 of these in real life.

2) I had made a universe where the planes all fit together in a very orderly manner(the cosmic forces of order were in control at creation). This constant and ubiquitous order rubbed one of the PCs the wrong way. Over time this made the character go crazy(colloquial meaning, not insanity) and rebellious. Eventually the character got powerful enough that they threw a wrench in the planar gears. The player had a similar streak and got a big kick out of breaking the pattern.

I guess maybe my biggest gripe is that there's no dependence on order/disorder to have anything to do with rules/freedom, so they're almost completely separate scales, meaning you'd almost need an entirely separate axis to depict the two, since as you pointed out, you can easily have an ordered-freedom character, or a disordered-rules character. As a DM, i default to rules/freedom as my lawful/chaotic axis, simply because order/disorder feels more like compulsions rather than ethics.

[Telonius]

I take the line that alignment generally doesn't matter to classes that aren't divine casters. The only mechanical effects would be how the character interacts with particular spells and items (can the character pick up that Unholy Mace without penalty; will Dictum bother you; that sort of thing).

For Divine spellcasters, it makes sense to me that a deity would want his or her representative to generally have a compatible worldview before granting them spells. I don't mind enforcing that; it makes sense both mechanically and fluff-wise. There is a bit of wiggle room; a single action is almost never going to be enough to flip an entire alignment, unless it's completely egregious. (A Cleric of Heironeous assassinating a child, or a Cleric of Kurtulmak going out of their way to save a Gnomish village, for example). Even if they do, or if they're forced into an awful no-win choice, that's what Atonement is for. Most temples are willing to give a cut rate on Phylacteries of Faithfulness to their Clerics. All temples have a story about an acolyte who applied a coating of Sovereign Glue to their forehead before putting one on.

The only time single actions really start to matter is when it's an oath-based characters like Paladins, or people who have taken some of the Vows in Book of Exalted Deeds. Personally I think the Paladin Code (as presented in the PHB) is one of the must frustratingly silly parts of the game. I houserule it (and the Paladin class) heavily. Paladins in my games must take the alignment of their deity or cause, and act as a shining example of that deity or cause in their daily life. (A cause's alignment is worked out between me and the player beforehand). We work together to develop a reasonable code of conduct for each Paladin. The "can't ever associate with Evil characters" clause is never included.

[OldTrees1]

I guess maybe my biggest gripe is that there's no dependence on order/disorder to have anything to do with rules/freedom, so they're almost completely separate scales, meaning you'd almost need an entirely separate axis to depict the two, since as you pointed out, you can easily have an ordered-freedom character, or a disordered-rules character. As a DM, i default to rules/freedom as my lawful/chaotic axis, simply because order/disorder feels more like compulsions rather than ethics.

So your biggest gripe is that they are 2 independent axes? I am not sure I understand the gripe. There are at least 4 axes I can name(g/e, r/f, o/d, funky/square), several others that have been defined, and many more that exist. This is all a result of alignment being descriptive rather than prescriptive(well that and the Human brain's love of pattern matching :) ). Every DM chooses how many and which axes to use in their game. There is no need for the rules/freedom axis in an ordered/disordered game nor vice versa. Even I switch between the two depending on the campaign idea I am going to run.

Personally I think the good/evil + rules/freedom is a good default but I do consider the order/disorder to be valid.

[atemu1234]

I find it angering when people tell other people how to roleplay. A Good character CAN do evil. It isn't up to the DM or anyone to tell him what he CAN do. But once he does it, that's the fun.

[Crake]

So your biggest gripe is that they are 2 independent axes? I am not sure I understand the gripe. There are at least 4 axes I can name(g/e, r/f, o/d, funky/square), several others that have been defined, and many more that exist. This is all a result of alignment being descriptive rather than prescriptive(well that and the Human brain's love of pattern matching :) ). Every DM chooses how many and which axes to use in their game. There is no need for the rules/freedom axis in an ordered/disordered game nor vice versa. Even I switch between the two depending on the campaign idea I am going to run.

Personally I think the good/evil + rules/freedom is a good default but I do consider the order/disorder to be valid.

Well it's more a minor annoyance, because it can become hard to differentiate what people mean when they say lawful/chaotic right off the bat :smalltongue: