Is Alignment a balancing act or a trapdoor?

[BestPlayer]

What I mean by this question is whether a character's alignment is made up of everything they do, therefore their alignment should be an average of everything they do, some "evil" things might be done, but on the whole the "good" they do outweighs it. Or is alignment a list of things you must not do and if you do one of them you are no longer of that alignment?

[Scots Dragon]

It's kind of both, in that it's a tightrope over a trap door.

You can do the balancing act thing where the good you do outweighs the occasional nasty thing you do, but certain things like engaging in violence of various types against the defenceless and innocent would pretty much shove you into the pit of Evil.

Also as a rule it's a lot easier to fall than it is to rise.

[GlenSmash!]

In 5th edition alignment is two sentences that should be taken into account along with Personality Traits, Ideals, Bods, and Flaws to help a player roleplay their character, and help a DM know when to award inspiration to that character.

I'm sure other posters will have differing opinions than mine however.

[Sigreid]

That's a DM and table question. On these forums you will find people who see alignment as long term trends that can take some scuff marks. You will also see people who will damn a character to the lower plains for a minor misstep.

[Unoriginal]

What I mean by this question is whether a character's alignment is made up of everything they do, therefore their alignment should be an average of everything they do, some "evil" things might be done, but on the whole the "good" they do outweighs it. Or is alignment a list of things you must not do and if you do one of them you are no longer of that alignment?

Alignment is a way to describe what you do in general/usually, and your typical tendencies at a given moment. A character who spends the first half of the campaign being benevolent, kind and self-sacrificing, and then the second half killing innocents and hurting others for the evulz isn't going to be neutral (aside maybe a brief time before the change is clear to be their new paradigm instead of a short period of breakdown), they're going to be good in the first half, and then evil in the second.

So it's really neither a balancing act or a trapdoor. You are of an alignment if you act mostly like an alignment. If you occasionally do stuff that'd fit another alignment, then it doesn't change your alignment as long as you don't make an habit of it and handle your "slip-up" like someone of your alignment would.

For exemple, nothing stop a lawful good character from cheating at a card game. It's not going to be what they do usually, certainly, and their philosophy makes it unlikely they'd ressort to that, but if they really have to win they'd do it.

Another exemple: a chaotic evil person could very well act generous or respectfully leave when a guard tell them to stop bothering others.

Even a devil can selflessly sacrifice themselves for the benefit of another.


What's important it that most of the time, those people won't do it. If they start doing it until it's what they do most of the time, it'll change their alignments.

[Arkhios]

I'm a firm believer that alignment is the mirror of your actions. Thus, when you choose your alignment, you should have a clear picture of how the character would behave.

However, I also find hard-written alignment system a bit restrictive and sort of a stumbling block which players sometimes seem to stare at too much. If I ever get to restart a campaign I've been working on, I'll just eschew the whole alignment system. Meaning, that there are none. PC's are who they are, and behave how they will. And the NPC's will respond accordingly.

[Unoriginal]

An important thing that needs to be clear is: alignment describes how you act, it doesn't decide how you act.

[BestPlayer]

An important thing that needs to be clear is: alignment describes how you act, it doesn't decide how you act.

That part went right over my head.

[DivisibleByZero]

Depends. Are you asking about perception, or reality?

For reality, I think an average works.
A good and kind person occasionally does bad things, but it's out of the norm.
The more common it becomes, the more into neutral and then into evil he goes.

For perception, it's quite a bit different.
I don't remember where I heard/read this concept, but basically it works like this:
Good acts are plentiful, and commonplace, but it doesn't take much to turn that on its head and fall.
Evil acts may be more rare, and less common, but it takes a ridiculous amount of time and/or work to rise above it.
Jimmy is a good guy. He regularly helps anyone in the village fix their leaky roof whenever asked, and is kind to all.
He's known as Jimmy the helpful thatcher.
If Jimmy ever eats even one single person, it doesn't matter how may roofs he helps fix, he'll forever be known as Jimmy the cannibal.

[BestPlayer]

I don't believe other people's perceptions of you effect your alignment, it might effect their view of you, but not your alignment, that's personal.

[jas61292]

Depends. Are you asking about perception, or reality?

For reality, I think an average works.
A good and kind person occasionally does bad things, but it's out of the norm.
The more common it becomes, the more into neutral and then into evil he goes.

For perception, it's quite a bit different.
I don't remember where I heard/read this concept, but basically it works like this:
Good acts are plentiful, and commonplace, but it doesn't take much to turn that on its head and fall.
Evil acts may be more rare, and less common, but it takes a ridiculous amount of time and/or work to rise above it.
Jimmy is a good guy. He regularly helps anyone in the village fix their leaky roof whenever asked, and is kind to all.
He's known as Jimmy the helpful thatcher.
If Jimmy ever eats even one single person, it doesn't matter how may roofs he helps fix, he'll forever be known as Jimmy the cannibal.

I think this has less to do with evil acts being more impactful, and more to do with the general sense that "evil" and "good" are broad categories, and not all acts within them are equal. Someone who champions the weak, fights evil monsters without thought of reward, gives the treasure they find to charity, volunteers in their community on their days off, and occasionally shoplifts is not gong to be seen as evil because of that last act, because shoplifting is only a minor thing, compared to all the other things they do. In many settings, on the other hand, cannibalism would be considered a major evil, so in your example, it easily counters the minor good of fixing roofs

[hamishspence]

I don't remember where I heard/read this concept, but basically it works like this:
Good acts are plentiful, and commonplace, but it doesn't take much to turn that on its head and fall.
Evil acts may be more rare, and less common, but it takes a ridiculous amount of time and/or work to rise above it.
Jimmy is a good guy. He regularly helps anyone in the village fix their leaky roof whenever asked, and is kind to all.
He's known as Jimmy the helpful thatcher.
If Jimmy ever eats even one single person, it doesn't matter how may roofs he helps fix, he'll forever be known as Jimmy the cannibal.

I believe you're thinking of Tome of Fiends, on D&D Wiki:

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Fiends_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Morality_and_Fiends

[DireSickFish]

Alignment is like a metaphor. Useful in explaining something, but in making the idea clearer the nuances are lost.

[Waterdeep Merch]

The older I get, the more problematic I find alignments on players. It's useful on flat, one-dimensional NPC's and monsters when I don't really care about going into any detail on their personality.

If players bring up their alignment in a game, at all, it's to do something arbitrary and stupid. I've never encountered a situation where this wasn't true.

In my most recent game, I told my players not to write down an alignment, never to bring it up, and to never utilize it in whole or in part, even in their head. Likewise, the NPC's they run into are generally better fleshed out, having goals, flaws, a working outlook on life, exceptions to everything, etc.

You know: people.

[UnwiseAlistair]

The way I interpret alignment is that your actions determine your alignment, but that your alignment should not influence your actions.

[KorvinStarmast]

An important thing that needs to be clear is: alignment describes how you act, it doesn't decide how you act. I am keeping that.

[Lord Torath]

An important thing that needs to be clear is: alignment describes how you act, it doesn't decide how you act.

That part went right over my head.Unoriginal means that your Alignment is like checking your temperature. It is a measure of where the actions you have performed generally fit on the alignment axes. It's not a list of things you can't do or must do, but a reflection of things you have done.

[Sigreid]

Unoriginal means that your Alignment is like checking your temperature. It is a measure of where the actions you have performed generally fit on the alignment axes. It's not a list of things you can't do or must do, but a reflection of things you have done.

This is especially true since you don't get punished for a shift the way you used to.

I would caceat that a forced alignment change should change the character's behavior

[Tanarii]

Neither. Alignment is a single sentence description of typical, but not required, behavior that a player uses along with 4-5 other personality traits (1-2 Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw) to help with in-character decision making. Also known as 'roleplaying'.

Edit: To be clear, that's what it means in 5e specifically. The 'in-character decision making' = roleplaying is my own interpretation. But the other parts are how alignment is defined in 5e.

[Unoriginal]

Unoriginal means that your Alignment is like checking your temperature. It is a measure of where the actions you have performed generally fit on the alignment axes. It's not a list of things you can't do or must do, but a reflection of things you have done.

Well put. Thanks.



I would caceat that a forced alignment change should change the character's behavior

It's more that your change in behavior is represented by a change in alignment.

For exemple, embracing the werewolf curse means that you fully accept becoming a savage killer bent on making others suffer. Unsurprisingly, your alignment is then evil.

[Squiddish]

It's a push-pull relation between what you do and your alignment. When you write that alignment on your character sheet, you're telling yourself, "this is how I will play this character". Say a month or two goes by and you start to disagree with your past self. Your character gets... nastier. Or, on the other side of things, kinder. The DM tells you, "your sheet says X, the way you act says Y, so I'm changing what's on you sheet so it says Y." That's fine, there's no penalty to alignment change. Now, generally, you're still trying to act that alignment, unless another trait clashes with it. Now, if you get cursed by a mysterious amulet from the attic, and it gives you a compulsion to kill, or follow all rules, or act randomly, or distribute hugs and humanitarian aid, the DM will tell you "this changes your alignment to X, try to start acting that way". And so you do, same as getting a flaw from insanity.

TL;DR alignment is (just) a personality trait, like a personality trait it can change in response to your behavior but should also influence your character's behavior.

[Snails]

The older I get, the more problematic I find alignments on players. It's useful on flat, one-dimensional NPC's and monsters when I don't really care about going into any detail on their personality.

If players bring up their alignment in a game, at all, it's to do something arbitrary and stupid. I've never encountered a situation where this wasn't true.

In my most recent game, I told my players not to write down an alignment, never to bring it up, and to never utilize it in whole or in part, even in their head. Likewise, the NPC's they run into are generally better fleshed out, having goals, flaws, a working outlook on life, exceptions to everything, etc.

You know: people.

There is really no logical necessity for there to be an alignment system at all. Many gaming groups found it useful for telling certain kinds of stories -- that is all. But very similar stories can be told by other means.

[Sigreid]

Well put. Thanks.



It's more that your change in behavior is represented by a change in alignment.

For exemple, embracing the werewolf curse means that you fully accept becoming a savage killer bent on making others suffer. Unsurprisingly, your alignment is then evil.

I was thinking more in terms of ye old Helmet of Opposite Alignment or spending enough time in the twin paradises that your alignment is forced to shift.

Werewolf is different since your alignment changes when you decide to run with it and not before.

[Tanarii]

An important thing that needs to be clear is: alignment describes how you act, it doesn't decide how you act.


The older I get, the more problematic I find alignments on players. It's useful on flat, one-dimensional NPC's and monsters when I don't really care about going into any detail on their personality.


The way I interpret alignment is that your actions determine your alignment, but that your alignment should not influence your actions.


Unoriginal means that your Alignment is like checking your temperature. It is a measure of where the actions you have performed generally fit on the alignment axes. It's not a list of things you can't do or must do, but a reflection of things you have done.


There is really no logical necessity for there to be an alignment system at all. Many gaming groups found it useful for telling certain kinds of stories -- that is all. But very similar stories can be told by other means.

All of these are examples of not understanding what 5e Alignment is for, how it's intended to be used.

5e Alignment:
Alignment Behavior + Personality Traits --> PC Personality --> motivations kept in mind by player --> actions declared, possibly based on motivations --> action resolved

5e Alignment doesn't determine actions. 5e alignment definitely isn't determined by actions. 5e Personality (not just Alignment) give broad motivations that might help inform player choices about PC actions.

That makes it an extremely powerful roleplaying tool. Far more powerful than backstory ever will be. Because players, even experienced ones, absolutely suck at clearly outlining and understanding their brand new PC's motivations.

[Unoriginal]

All of these are examples of not understanding what 5e Alignment is for, how it's intended to be used.

5e Alignment:
Alignment Behavior + Personality Traits --> PC Personality --> motivations kept in mind by player --> actions declared, possibly based on motivations --> action resolved

5e Alignment doesn't determine actions. 5e alignment definitely isn't determined by actions. 5e Personality (not just Alignment) give broad motivations that might help inform player choices about PC actions.

That makes it an extremely powerful roleplaying tool. Far more powerful than backstory ever will be. Because players, even experienced ones, absolutely suck at clearly outlining and understanding their brand new PC's motivations.


I'm sorry, what?

You can't claim that alignment is a behavior and then that is isn't determined by your actions.

Sir Good McGoodwell the Puppy Saver doesn't do good deeds because his alignment is good, it's his alignment that is good because he does good deeds.

Alignment is a roleplay tool in the sense that it's a shorthand to describe how your character usually tend to act.

A vicious brute who most of the time would kill an innocent if they're not payed is evil. A kind person who'd usually risk their life to save a stranger who just threatened them is good.

So yes, alignment absolutely describe the character's behavior, along with other thing such as bonds and personality trait. Writing "lawful neutral" on your character sheet isn't different than writing "grumpy", "is afraid of reptiles" or "is mistrustful of strangers".

[Tanarii]

I'm sorry, what?

You can't claim that alignment is a behavior and then that is isn't determined by your actions.Alignment is not a behavior. It's associated with a typical, but not required nor consistent, behavior.

Alignment is a motivation. It is not determined by PC actions. The associated behavior assists, but does not require, the player in determining how to have their PC behave.

You've got 5e Alignment back to front. Which is fairly common. It isn't determined by your actions nor by your behavior. It helps inform your choices as a player about your PCs behavior.

Edit: It seems like you're thinking of Alignment as some kind of inherent character 'attribute'. As opposed to a system tool for the player's use.

[Socratov]

The way I see it is like a circle:


alignment sets the standard for your actions and acts as a base for decision making
as you take actions and make decisions you suffer consequences (regardless of wether they cause suffering or not)
those consequences and experiences accumulated contribute to your decision making and amend to your alignment
goto -> 1


Now, if you keep relatively close to your basic nature (i.e. alignment), stel 3 won't matter much. However, stray further and you might see step 3 have some more influence. And as the basis moves it's easier to move that way again. And that's how you land on that slippery slope.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Alignment is not a behavior. It's associated with a typical, but not required nor consistent, behavior.

Alignment is a motivation. It is not determined by PC actions. The associated behavior assists, but does not require, the player in determining how to have their PC behave.

You've got 5e Alignment back to front. Which is fairly common. It isn't determined by your actions nor by your behavior. It helps inform your choices as a player about your PCs behavior.

Edit: It seems like you're thinking of Alignment as some kind of inherent character 'attribute'. As opposed to a system tool for the player's use.

That's exactly my problem with it. Players never, ever determine their actions via alignment except in terrible ways, because they use it as the core motivation for their actions. Like it's a rulebook that declares what they can and can't do, or worse, must do.

It's what the player that decides they can't help the party because they're lawful and they're committing a crime says, even though the character knows the stakes. Or the one that won't stop stealing from the party, because they're chaotic. Or why the evil alignment is practically unplayable, because they'll use it as an excuse to do terrible things and then for why they aren't motivated to do anything remotely benevolent, even as an afterthought. Or why paladin players were insufferable in 3.x.

This is silly, nonsensical, and only ever seems to come up in bad ways. The best uses of the alignment system I see are ones that deliberately defy it, in whole or in part. I would much rather players make choices because their character has reasoned that it makes the most sense to do those things in light of the situation.

[Tanarii]

That's exactly my problem with it. Players never, ever determine their actions via alignment except in terrible ways, because they use it as the core motivation for their actions. Like it's a rulebook that declares what they can and can't do, or worse, must do.Fair enough. That sounds like a problem to me. (I read the whole thing but quoting only the first bit for space.) But you're not talking about what I'm talking about. You're talking about someone using Alignment the old edition way, not the 5e way. Which is why I said that's not understanding 5e Alignment in response.

I agree if someone uses Alignment as the sole motivation, or an excuse, or a determining factor for single actions, it's a problem.

That's why I say about 5e:
1) 5e Alignment is not about specific actions. Not using it directly to determine them. And definitely not determining it from individual actions.
2) 5e alignment comes with an associated general behavior, but even that's not expected to be the entirety of a characters behavior at all times. It is neither required, nor required to be constant and consistent. The PHB says this. That means Alignment, at most, influences general behavior of the PC.
2) Alignment isn't the only part of a character's personality. It's not the only thing modifying behavior. There are 4-5 other motivations (1-2 personality, 1 ideal, 1 bond, 1 flaw). Even those don't determine specific actions, although they may inform (or if you prefer, influence) them.

The entirety of a 5e PC's personality & motivations are complex, and Alignment behavior is generally the least powerful and least specific. Any player that uses Alignment as one motivational factor and uses it to determine specific actions as justified by their alignment (or the behavior description) doesn't understand 5e Alignment.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Fair enough. That sounds like a problem to me. (I read the whole thing but quoting only the first bit for space.) But you're not talking about what I'm talking about. You're talking about someone using Alignment the old edition way, not the 5e way. Which is why I said that's not understanding 5e Alignment in response.

I agree if someone uses Alignment as the sole motivation, or an excuse, or a determining factor for single actions, it's a problem.

That's why I say about 5e:
1) 5e Alignment is not about specific actions. Not using it directly to determine them. And definitely not determining it from individual actions.
2) 5e alignment comes with an associated general behavior, but even that's not expected to be the entirety of a characters behavior at all times. It is neither required, nor required to be constant and consistent. The PHB says this. That means Alignment, at most, influences general behavior of the PC.
2) Alignment isn't the only part of a character's personality. It's not the only thing modifying behavior. There are 4-5 other motivations (1-2 personality, 1 ideal, 1 bond, 1 flaw). Even those don't determine specific actions, although they may inform (or if you prefer, influence) them.

The entirety of a 5e PC's personality & motivations are complex, and Alignment behavior is generally the least powerful and least specific. Any player that uses Alignment as one motivational factor and uses it to determine specific actions as justified by their alignment (or the behavior description) doesn't understand 5e Alignment.

I can agree with its intended purpose. I use it a lot as a DM to configure one-off NPC's quickly. And I still fill in the alignment space when I'm a player, giving careful thought to where there head's at and where they want to go, morally. I'm just getting to a point in my games where the abuse of the alignment system isn't worth having it in the first place.

[Tanarii]

I can agree with its intended purpose. I use it a lot as a DM to configure one-off NPC's quickly. And I still fill in the alignment space when I'm a player, giving careful thought to where there head's at and where they want to go, morally. I'm just getting to a point in my games where the abuse of the alignment system isn't worth having it in the first place.
Fair enough. If players can't wrap their heads around it, I agree it's probably better to eliminate it. After all, the Ideal personality trait covers much of the same head-space.

I don't disagree with statements like 'Alignment isn't necessary'. That's correct. I think having space for overall moral & social attitudes is a helpful motivation to know. But I don't think it's a required category of motivation.

OTOH I do think having several different categories of diverse motivations / personality that are clearly articulated in a sentence or two each, like the 5e PHB does is extremely helpful, even if those specific categories are not used. Backstory is all very well, but clearly articulated motivations are key.