PDA

View Full Version : How do you DM Alignment?



Person_Man
2007-04-26, 12:53 PM
As a DM, how do you use and enforce alignment rules?

1) Use and Enforce: You use the alignment rules as written, and you make your players roleplay their chosen alignments (or change alignments to fit their actions).

2) Use, Enforce Somewhat: You use the alignment rules as written, but only seriously enforce them on characters with specific alignment restrictions (Paladin, Monk, Blackguard, etc) or when a PC blatantly acts contrary to their alignment for petty reasons.

3) Modified Use: You use alignment, but have re-defined what Good, Neutral, Evil, Lawful, and/or Chaotic mean. It's still the intuitive 9 types, but now it fits your "better definitions." You enforce alignment rules when you think it makes sense given your definitions.

4) Heavily Modified: You're still playing D&D, but you have so heavily modified the alignment system that someone outside your gaming group has to have it explained to them at length in order to play with you.

5) Ignore: You basically ignore the alignment rules and don't use them in your campaigns.


In my opinion, the alignment rules are designed so that intelligent 12 year olds have rules handy to help them build a character concept. I like them. They're helpful, especially when I teach new players. But they're so simplistic that the classifications basically fall apart after any serious debate or scrutiny.

Most gamers I know just use them as rough guidelines, but only enforce them on characters that have a specific alignment component. But I was wondering how others use them, or if people have suggestions about ways to use them to facilitate better roleplaying.

jameswilliamogle
2007-04-26, 12:59 PM
In my opinion, the alignment rules are designed so that intelligent 12 year olds have rules handy to help them build a character concept. I like them. They're helpful, especially when I teach new players. But they're so simplistic that the classifications basically fall apart after any serious debate or scrutiny.I agree completely. This is how every group I've played with has handled them. Basically, if the character doesn't have any drawbacks from switching alignments, then nobody worries about it.

I like the idea of a "code of conduct" much better than alignment.

Galathir
2007-04-26, 01:01 PM
I make some use of the alignment system, largely because D&D magic requires it. I am pretty flexible on alignment as it relates to classes though. For example, if you really want to play a neutral good paladin, I don't have a problem with it. The alignment written on a character sheet is a guide more than anything and I don't penalize players for playing a little differently that I might. I am also DMing for a group of mostly brand new players, so they still find a structure for assisting role-playing helpful.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-26, 01:08 PM
I make gut calls based on my ideals of all four, though I've never been known to restrict a player unless they were a particular alignment-based class. What would that be?

Person_Man
2007-04-26, 01:31 PM
I make gut calls based on my ideals of all four, though I've never been known to restrict a player unless they were a particular alignment-based class. What would that be?

I think that would qualify as Use, Enforce Somewhat, or Modified Use, depending upon how far you redefine the 9 categories.

darkzucchini
2007-04-26, 01:32 PM
After playing DnD under the core alignment system for a long time, and after having a few too many arguements on morality, I switched to the alignment system described in Monte Cook's Book of Hallowed Might. This system plots Good, Evil, Chaotic, and Lawful out on a 9 point scale, with 1 being the least extreme (actually counting as neutral) and 9 being the most extreme (would be pretty hard to be an adventurer with a 9 in one alignment). This tends to give a much larger scope of the alignments, especially for new players. A Good 2, Lawful 2 paladin would be very different from a Good 7, Lawful 7 paladin, with a Good 9, Lawful 9 paladin pretty much being a pacifist Nazi.

Diggorian
2007-04-26, 01:43 PM
Alignments are genral enough to allow alot of diversity within the nine categories IMHO. If a character doesnt consistently play within their chosen category, obviously they're actually another. So it gets changed, no big deal.

I see it in game as a way the gods keep track on who's winning the plane.

Teloric
2007-04-26, 01:54 PM
I tend to play games without alignment, placing the emphasis on the players to stay "in character" rather than true to some idealistic and unrealistic alignment system. If you want to run a Paladin in my game, you'll have to define his moral and ethical limitations yourself, not simply say "Lawful Good" and expect my interpretation of that alignment to be the same as yours.

So, suffice to say, I pretty much ignore the alignment system.

Gamebird
2007-04-26, 02:11 PM
I base alignment on how characters act. I don't tell players their character has to act a certain way based on their alignment. For alignment-restricted classes, I try to give them some warning when their actions are going to soon deny them class abilities or the ability to progress in that class.

I am mystified by people who base their character actions on their alignment, rather than the other way around.

I would prefer a system without alignment, but doing so is a fundemental change in D&D. Plus it annoys some players who want to be able to detect if someone else has done something "wrong" or become a bad guy.

Khantalas
2007-04-26, 02:15 PM
Use and enforce. A lack of clear alignment must be in every game. D&D should follow the example M&M has set.

...what? We're talking about D&D alignment system? Ah, see, I completely misunderstood the question!

Last_resort_33
2007-04-26, 02:34 PM
It's just something nice to put down on the character sheet to give you a general guide to your character. Paladins should not be chaotic neutral, assassins probably shouldn't be chaotic good. If a chaotic character obeys the big city guard standing there saying "Don't kill anyone" then they should not be told that they are now lawful.

But yeah... unless this is the first time that you've ever played a role playing game, then you think "who is my character" and then choose an alignment

blacksabre
2007-04-26, 02:36 PM
Modified..

I actually don't have the players choose alignments, they basically start out as neutral..there actions through out their career determines the alignment

Alignment specific Classes
These classes have 3 levels to make the alignment and are allowed a free retool of of the character (ie change a level 3 fighter to a level 3 pally)If by level 4 they have not made LG, they can not retool, but they must multiclass

Clerics choose the diety in which they want to follow and are on probation. They have 2 levels to make the alignment. If by level three they have not made the alignment, they gain 10%-40% less XP (depends on how far off they are from target Align.) If by level 4 they have not made the alignement, they are no longer a cleric

Rock Roller
2007-04-26, 02:38 PM
Alignment is a thorny issue in our games sometimes. The big problem is that it has a mechanical effect (spells, holy/unholy weapons, 6 of 11 core classes in the PHB have alignment restrictions), but it's poorly defined at best. We set out some specific guidelines that would probably cause argument at other tables. For example, it isn't enough to just kill baddies to be good. You have to demonstrably sacrifice, regularly, to help others. Being well organized isn't enough to define a character as lawful. Lawful, for us, means valuing the collective good over individual free well, and you have to live a life that regularly shows that. Most of the NPCs and characters in our games are some flavor of neutral. They do what they can to get by. They don't sacrifice, but they generally don't want to hurt others to get ahead (striving to win in competition isn't defined as harming others).

Given all of that, the one cardinal rule for our GM's is that they don't say, "Your character wouldn't do that, he's [insert alignment here]." We also view alignment as reflective of motive generally, not actions. An evil character who heals his companions isn't performing a good act. He's saving his own skin.

Roderick_BR
2007-04-26, 03:14 PM
Modified. My group mostly play by ear. We set the starting alignments, and change it as we play. It's like, we decide the alignment by the way we play. They are more the final result of the role playing than the other way around.

Person_Man
2007-04-26, 04:02 PM
I am mystified by people who base their character actions on their alignment, rather than the other way around.


I certainly appreciate your point, and in general, that's how I roleplay as well.

But lots of people have codified beliefs (often religion) and base their actions on that code. It works as a cognitive shortcut, so that they don't have to think through the meaning and implications of everything that happens in the world, they just have to compare it to their set beliefs and act accordingly. Without it, people just couldn't function, because there's just too much information to process. (Though its worth noting that most racism, bigotry, etc. all work off of this psychological mechanism as well).

Alignment is a diluted, over-simplified code of conduct. Most players think through their character, but don't put in the time to create an elaborate history, personality, faith, list of important friends who have effected their lives, etc. Because honestly, other players usually won't know or care about the details of your backstory, even if the game is very roleplaying heavy. D&D tends to focus on accomplishing tasks, not discussing your character's childhood or moral philosophy. So it makes sense to just pick an alignment that suits the general idea of your character, and then act according to that alignment, rather then using method acting to channel what someone with your character's personality would do in that situation.

Isomenes
2007-04-26, 04:05 PM
Use, Enforce somewhat

The main reason we use the alignment system is because it is mechanically inseparable without serious overhaul. The DM has the option to do whatever he likes, but for a group more interested in playing than in homebrewing, it's easiest just to stick with what's there. The best example of this is an encounter with a Night Hag--a Chaotic character got bad dreams (and the -1 Con) thanks to her special ability.

It does mean that extreme actions get a "DM warning." E.g., the LG ranger who was pondering slitting a helpless enemy's throat because he intended great harm and would try to bring that about if we just left him there. However, it's also pretty malleable above and beyond that--a CN character can still evince loyalty, because it's justifiable on terms of intense personal bonds with the NPC object of loyalty.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-04-26, 04:06 PM
Ignore. They cause some (occasionally major) problems and don't really provide any tangible benefit. Removing them from the game doesn't complicate anything that I'm concerned with in the slightest, and so they get booted. Players are encouraged to write "Lawful Neutral" on their sheets if that's somehow beneficial for them to stay in character, but it has no game effect at all.

Jayabalard
2007-04-26, 04:25 PM
none of those really match. Alignment is a reflection of the character, not a control. If someone doesn't act in a manner consistent with their alignment, the alignment changes. Abilities and spells that "force" alignment changes don't, they just act like a magical compulsion.

Saph
2007-04-26, 05:02 PM
Use and enforce. Starting alignment is determined by the player; in-game alignment is determined by how the player acts. If the PC doesn't act according to his alignment, I change it.

Nearly always, the changes are from good to neutral. The ranger has discovered that he doesn't really want to make sacrifices to help others, and only wants to do good when he feels like it; his alignment changes from chaotic good to chaotic neutral (or more accurately, it was always chaotic neutral, the player just made a mistake when he wrote CG on his character sheet). The game goes on as before. No big deal.

- Saph

Everyman
2007-04-26, 05:45 PM
I think my alignment standards fall somewhere between "Use Somewhat" and "Modified".

Generally, I try not to hold alignments to the ideals listed in the PHB, because (as stated) they are far too limiting and simplified. Rather, I try to follow broader definitions:

Good/Evil: Measurement of how willing you are to harm others.
Good characters are unwilling to harm people unless there really is no other choice. Evil characters have no moral qualms about it. Neutral characters try to live their life without harming people, but will occasionally due so if they need to.

Law/Chaos: Measurement of how ordered you are in your life.
Lawful characters tend to follow predictable patterns or routines (which can include a respect for authority). Chaotic character tend to allow their emotions and whims rule their actions. Neutral characters follow some standards, but are willing to let them go or beef them up as the occasion dicates.

My campaign tends to encourage a higher frequency of Neutral characters, as it takes a bit of determination to follow a paticular axis. However, I'm willing to bend my definitions, as my campaigns also encourage a certain amount of moral ambiguity.

Talya
2007-04-26, 05:51 PM
There are always penalties for switching alignments, regardless of the class you play. And bonuses.

For example. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html)

The alignments demonstrated by the players affect how many spells and abilities will interact with them. So you really want to track them properly...

Tengu
2007-04-26, 06:07 PM
Ignore.

Alignments are not, never were, and never will be, a part of my games' mechanics. Instead, all players must write a description of their character's personality (apart from the usual appearance, history, et cetera).

Hey, it is nowhere written that this topic is only about DND!

Darkxarth
2007-04-26, 06:11 PM
I use and enforce the alignment rules. Now, they may not be definitely aren't perfect, but they fit fairly well without being super complicated. Sure, you could work out a LG with NG tendencies, or L-LG (like south-southwest on a compass) or some such system, but WotC's current system works well enough as long as you've got a halfway competent DM/GM and reasonable players.

The only problems I've ever had with it are the discrepancies between players with CN on their sheets playing CE characters. But its nothing a talk with the player can't fix.

PaladinBoy
2007-04-26, 06:30 PM
Use and enforce.

I spent the money on the BoED and the BoVD for a reason. I like playing the hero of light and good, and in the last campaign I DM'ed the players were basically soldiers in the War of Light and Darkness, due to one of them being a devout cleric of Selune.

In short, good vs. evil is a central feature of most of my games. I need something to say which side is right and which side is wrong. The D&D alignment system gives me that something.

The D&D alignment system also appeals to me as a way to say, with absolute certainty, where someone stands when it comes to good and evil. I like that a lot, particularly because it's a refreshing change from the real world where you have to debate for hours just to figure out what's right and wrong.

I also think that many complaints against the system (e.g. it's unspecific, it's limiting) can be countered with my two alignment books and using alignments as a guideline or general summary.

Tengu
2007-04-26, 06:36 PM
Use and enforce.

I spent the money on the BoED and the BoVD for a reason. I like playing the hero of light and good, and in the last campaign I DM'ed the players were basically soldiers in the War of Light and Darkness, due to one of them being a devout cleric of Selune.

In short, good vs. evil is a central feature of most of my games. I need something to say which side is right and which side is wrong. The D&D alignment system gives me that something.

The D&D alignment system also appeals to me as a way to say, with absolute certainty, where someone stands when it comes to good and evil. I like that a lot, particularly because it's a refreshing change from the real world where you have to debate for hours just to figure out what's right and wrong.

I also think that many complaints against the system (e.g. it's unspecific, it's limiting) can be countered with my two alignment books and using alignments as a guideline or general summary.

I must say that I like your approach. Certainly much more than all the bunches of spineless antiheroes you see these days.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-04-26, 07:31 PM
I also think that many complaints against the system (e.g. it's unspecific, it's limiting) can be countered with my two alignment books and using alignments as a guideline or general summary.This is absolutely the first time I've ever heard of the BoED or BoVD resolving an alignment dispute. More often than not they're the causes themselves. (See also: Ravages vs. Poison, ends justifying means, and so forth.)

johhny-turbo
2007-04-26, 07:46 PM
Modified, instead of just flat definitions everything has a score on a scale of 1-100, with chaos and evil being lower scores and higher ones good and lawful, 45-55 is neutral and a 50 usually means they're philosophically neutral. Also Detect Evil/Good only works for scores below/above 35 and 65 and "auras" can be masked with a simple DC13 will save except for "Improved Detect Good/Evil" which is the same as the normal one except that it's Cleric7 and the caster must pass a wisdom saving throw if they want to detect masked alignment and will give the exact score of the target.

As for the allingments themselves, I just treat them like Light Side/Dark Side from Star Wars sometimes just use those as synonyms.

PnP Fan
2007-04-27, 12:34 AM
With my group, we mostly play fast an loose with alignment, it's a tool, not a straight-jacket. GM's will warn folks if they start crossing the line, but mostly we police ourselves when it comes to alignment changes. Sometimes, during RP, character personalities change. For the most part it's irrelevant unless the character is a member of a class for which alignment is vital. Even then, we tend to play heroic good guy campaigns, so having a paladin around isn't really that big of a problem.

Kiero
2007-04-27, 03:27 AM
Ignore. I prefer that magical effects like detect good/evil and protection from evil/good instead show/ward connections to the Positive Material Plane and Negative Material Plane and outsiders.

Thus someone possessed by some outsider entity would show up on detect evil, but a serial killer would not. Basically ordinary beings are beyond it's scope.

Gamebird
2007-04-27, 08:51 AM
But lots of people have codified beliefs (often religion) and base their actions on that code. It works as a cognitive shortcut, so that they don't have to think through the meaning and implications of everything that happens in the world, they just have to compare it to their set beliefs and act accordingly.

That's what mystifies me. Right and wrong are really important things. To base them off of anything other than personal experience is bizarre to me. Now, if some divine being visits you personally and reveals the cosmic truth, then that's personal experience. But the vast majority of people are relying on, at best, second-hand information. Would you marry someone based on second-hand information? Why do people let someone else tell them what's right and wrong when they won't let someone else tell them where to work or what brand of toothpaste to use? People constantly question the judgement of others for the most trivial of things, yet swallow unthinkingly in regards to the most spiritually important matters.

I find it mysterious.

Citizen Joe
2007-04-27, 08:54 AM
I tend to rely more on reputations than actual alignment. Sure, players can declare that they are one alignment or the other from the start. But these would only be a faint representation of their personality. As adventurers do things, people hear about it and act accordingly. Likewise, these actions can shift their alignment around. It really only has a game mechanic when dealing with characters with alignment restrictions. If it is detrimental, I'll start throwing in some dreams/nightmares about the direction they are heading. If they keep it up then the dreams start coming true.

This actually has some interesting aspects and roles for bards. They can act as a PR person for the group (or individual) putting a good spin on their actions. So, for example, a horribly evil hafling could have a reputation that makes people think he isn't so evil, so long as he hangs out with other adventurers that go on good quests and has a happy go lucky bard to put a nice spin on things.

Leush
2007-04-27, 09:24 AM
It's because it's tried and tested: When you think you can make a mistake. But if a prophet or an alleged son of a god did it then it must be fine. Things that are of fundamental importance affect survival whilst brand of toothbrush doesn't. I must say that I too find it rather alien that people, of all creatures endowed with the greatest capacity for thought decide not to use it.

As for allignment: I use it- maybe I play rather loosely with it, but I still use it. But I view it more of a mechanic for "What sort of extra damage do you want to take?" than for guiding behaviour- as any alignment can find a reason to act that way.

Lord Tataraus
2007-04-27, 09:37 AM
I don't use alignment (except in a few games). My players are usually on the neutral/evil side and play that way. The characters will do what they do and alignment just reflects that, but doesn't change it. No one ever plays paladins except in one case, but he played it right. Any spell or ability that detects or effects alignment I base off of the last couple actions the PC or NPC did. And clerics just get warnings at first then lose spell casting and turn/rebuke undead if they continue "bad" behavior.

Penguinsushi
2007-04-27, 09:47 AM
I'm somewhere between the first and second options. As I've mentioned in other threads, I think alignment is somewhat odd as a mechanic. In my mind, it's really just a description of the kinds of things the character normally does. Which means the alignment I consider you to be and the one on your character sheet are not necessarily the same.

Really though, it's only an issue of a character does something that would contradict some sort of supernatural pact (like a paladin's code or a cleric's deity's wishes) - but even then, it's not really the alignment that's the issue, but the action.

I suppose the one exception to that is things like the Helm of Opposite Alignment.

~PS

Matthew
2007-04-28, 10:30 AM
Use and enforce. Starting alignment is determined by the player; in-game alignment is determined by how the player acts. If the PC doesn't act according to his alignment, I change it.

Nearly always, the changes are from good to neutral. The ranger has discovered that he doesn't really want to make sacrifices to help others, and only wants to do good when he feels like it; his alignment changes from chaotic good to chaotic neutral (or more accurately, it was always chaotic neutral, the player just made a mistake when he wrote CG on his character sheet). The game goes on as before. No big deal.

- Saph
I do almost exactly the same, except now I don't even have Player's determine their Character's Alignment even from the beginning. They describe the Character and I assign them an Alignment (though they may suggest one they would prefer).

That's what mystifies me. Right and wrong are really important things. To base them off of anything other than personal experience is bizarre to me. Now, if some divine being visits you personally and reveals the cosmic truth, then that's personal experience. But the vast majority of people are relying on, at best, second-hand information. Would you marry someone based on second-hand information? Why do people let someone else tell them what's right and wrong when they won't let someone else tell them where to work or what brand of toothpaste to use? People constantly question the judgement of others for the most trivial of things, yet swallow unthinkingly in regards to the most spiritually important matters.

I find it mysterious.
Indeed.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-28, 02:24 PM
Since I'm not running D&D at the moment, and don't really intend to in the near future, I suppose I should really say "not applicable."

In D&D, though, my attitude to Alignment is squarely "none of the above" or possibly "modified" depending on how you want to look at it.

I take the Alignment descriptions as written, but then I take the PCs actions as statements by the players about how a person with that alignment would act. A PC can only "violate alignment" if the player thinks his Paladin is sliding towards evil, it's up to him to tell me. Otherwise it's just not my job to pass moral judgments on the actions of the PCs.

Matthew
2007-04-29, 11:47 AM
Interesting, but how do you decide what Alignment is suitable for NPCs or do you just allow Alignment to be inconsistant?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-29, 03:45 PM
Interesting, but how do you decide what Alignment is suitable for NPCs or do you just allow Alignment to be inconsistant?

I don't think inconsistent is the right word for it, more that I think Alignment is about what goes on inside your head more than anything else.

To put it another way, I don't think there's a right answer to an alignment-based question.

So Good-Aligned NPCs don't have to act the same as Good-Aligned PCs, because there's more than one way to be Good.

Threeshades
2007-04-29, 03:51 PM
The way i use them comes pretty close to the second option. I also remind players who are acting against their alignment a little too much (for example a lawful character acting randomly) even if they aren Paladins or Monks or whatsoever.

Matthew
2007-04-29, 08:16 PM
I don't think inconsistent is the right word for it, more that I think Alignment is about what goes on inside your head more than anything else.

To put it another way, I don't think there's a right answer to an alignment-based question.

So Good-Aligned NPCs don't have to act the same as Good-Aligned PCs, because there's more than one way to be Good.
Sure, but if you have a Player Character claiming his Character is Chaotic Good, but he behaves the same way as your NPC who you know to be Neutral Good, there's an inconsistancy. I can see this approach working, but I think it rather relies on unspoken agreements between Players and Dungeon Master as to what X and Y broadly are (like most elements of RPGs).

Person_Man
2007-04-29, 08:58 PM
That's what mystifies me. Right and wrong are really important things. To base them off of anything other than personal experience is bizarre to me. Now, if some divine being visits you personally and reveals the cosmic truth, then that's personal experience. But the vast majority of people are relying on, at best, second-hand information. Would you marry someone based on second-hand information? Why do people let someone else tell them what's right and wrong when they won't let someone else tell them where to work or what brand of toothpaste to use? People constantly question the judgement of others for the most trivial of things, yet swallow unthinkingly in regards to the most spiritually important matters.

I find it mysterious.

Well, you won't get much of an argument against Empiricism out of me. But I have observed that most people do not base their actions on verifiable evidence, and more importantly, that telling most people about evidence that contradicts a belief they have does not change their belief is most cases.

Instead, I try and figure out what specific action or behavior I want a person to take, and then I work backwards on a decision tree to try and figure out what I need to say and do in order to elicit that response or conduct, usually by coaching my language in terms of their belief in a positive fashion. This approach almost always works for me, and it makes the person I'm talking to feel as if they're right about something important to them, rather then feeling disproven or challenged about something they took for granted. This method helps a lot when DMing.

Also, I'd argue that there is both a good and utilitarian role for religion, honor, and morality in our society. But that's not a discussion for this board.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-30, 06:56 AM
Sure, but if you have a Player Character claiming his Character is Chaotic Good, but he behaves the same way as your NPC who you know to be Neutral Good, there's an inconsistancy. I can see this approach working, but I think it rather relies on unspoken agreements between Players and Dungeon Master as to what X and Y broadly are (like most elements of RPGs).

It's not inconsistent, it just accepts that Alignments are broad. Two characters can have the same alignment but behave differently, or have different alignment but behave similarly.

Quietus
2007-04-30, 07:20 AM
Dan - in that case, it seems less like you base Alignment off of actions, and more intent, which (in my opinion) brings it much closer to the real world. Not a bad way of doing things, just different.

I put down "Use, Enforce somewhat" - I have players pick their alignment, and outside of those classes for whom it matters (Anything based off of a deity, basically, because I remove alignment restrictions on classes if the player can provide a good fluff reason for it), it's used less as a tool of anything and more as a way of deciding when certain spells will work or not work. After that, their actions determine their alignment, and I'll speak with them outside of the game if I think that they deserve a different alignment, such as when the LN sorceror began doing things like coloring random people's clothing with Prestidigitation, and making a "hit list" of people who had slighted him (That guard didn't do what I said, despite my knowing full well that they're trained to follow procedures? Oohhhhh, he's SO dead!), I spoke to him outside of the game, and pointed these things out. Complete randomness, with his only reason being "Yeah, but it's awesome/funny!" screams Chaotic to me, and his general way of acting is just evil all over. The player was a bit confused at first, but after a couple minutes, agreed. Most of my players are like that, too - they know I'm not going to enforce them playing a certain alignment, though I'll warn them (particularly clerics/paladins) when I think actions could risk a change in alignment, and give them a chance to describe their reasoning.

Matthew
2007-04-30, 07:25 AM
It's not inconsistent, it just accepts that Alignments are broad. Two characters can have the same alignment but behave differently, or have different alignment but behave similarly.
It may not be in practice inconsistant, but it sounds theoretically odd to me. The point is not that Characters who act similarly can have different Alignments, but rather that two Characters who act identically have the potential to have different Alignments in this system.

i.e.

Player Characters Y and X behave identically and have exactly the same morality, intents and beliefs, but one claims to be Chaotic Evil and the other to be Lawful Good.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-30, 01:02 PM
It may not be in practice inconsistant, but it sounds theoretically odd to me. The point is not that Characters who act similarly can have different Alignments, but rather that two Characters who act identically have the potential to have different Alignments in this system.

Yes, because I view Alignment as a statement by the player (or GM) about how *they* view their character.


i.e.

Player Characters Y and X behave identically and have exactly the same morality, intents and beliefs, but one claims to be Chaotic Evil and the other to be Lawful Good.

Yes, in theory. In practice it would never work like that if everybody was playing in good faith.

If it did, though, then player Y would be saying "I consider these traits to be evil" and player X would be saying "I consider these traits to be good."

Matthew
2007-04-30, 01:28 PM
Yes indeed, which is what I was saying. This view of Alignments can only work in a group where the meaning of the various Alignments is already broadly agreed, in which case it seems kind of pointless to have Players make decisions about what qualifies as an Alignment shift.

Instead of Evil and Good being arbitrary, they are entirely relative and therefore mutable if a Player Character suddenly decides that his actions were not Lawful Good after all then he shists Alignment without his actions, intents or anything changing beyond what the Player's perspective of their meaning.

I can understand how such a system might work, but it doesn't make much consistant sense to me as a system. It seems more like a psychological ploy to encourage players to police themselves, which seems needless when they already agree broadly on what constitutes Alignment.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-04-30, 01:39 PM
Yes indeed, which is what I was saying. This view of Alignments can only work in a group where the meaning of the various Alignments is already broadly agreed, in which case it seems kind of pointless to have Players make decisions about what qualifies as an Alignment shift.

Instead of Evil and Good being arbitrary, they are entirely relative and therefore mutable if a Player Character suddenly decides that his actions were not Lawful Good after all then he shists Alignment without his actions, intents or anything changing beyond what the Player's perspective of their meaning.

I can understand how such a system might work, but it doesn't make much consistant sense to me as a system. It seems more like a psychological ploy to encourage players to police themselves, which seems needless when they already agree broadly on what constitutes Alignment.


Actually, the whole point is that they *don't* need to agree on what constitutes Alignment. My Paladin can do things which would cause your Paladin to fall, because I'm interested in demonstrating the way in which seemingly evil acts serve a higher good, and you're interested in demonstrating the way in which seemingly good acts can serve evil purposes.

Matthew
2007-04-30, 01:53 PM
Agreeing broadly isn't the same thing as being agreed. The mechanic behind 'falling' is already ambiguous enough without needing to adopt this approach. Still, if it works for you, there's not much else to be said.

El Jaspero, the Pirate King
2007-04-30, 01:58 PM
I voted "Heavily Modified" because I'm presently DMing, and in fact prefer, an alignment-free system (Arcana Evolved, to be specific). Just the absurd number of "what alignment is {blah*}?" discussions on various gaming boards says more than I possibly could about the inadequacy of the D&D alignment system.

*- clearly the default is "Batman" but really anything can go here.

Diggorian
2007-04-30, 02:11 PM
Being a Use and Enforcer, I've found it helpful to use other alignments to define each other. A Lawful good character is more regimented than a Neutral Good guy but more charitable than a Lawful neutral type.

Had a paladin that routinely denigrated peasants, though he wasnt landed -- therefore a peasant himself. Mainly this came from his OOC friction with a Chaotic good cleric/fighter player, didnt help that his own god was Lawful neutral either. One day he got a warning in the form that his armor and axe wouldnt shine like they used to despite lots of polishing or a Prestidigitation spell.

Same campaign had a True neutral wizard that decided to try to kill a captured enemy cause it was the most "expediant" way of dealing with him. This is clearly a trait of neutral evil so he got a warning, though there was debate.

From those I learned to make it explicit that alignments dont represent what a character values as it's represents what they are.