Alignments: A house rule for GM's and Players who are frustrated

[ShneekeyTheLost]

First off, what I am proposing is a house rule, a variant and a change from the current rule system, although perhaps not a major step. Feel free to agree or disagree with this as you see fit. So no, this is not how it currently is, merely how I feel it 'should be'.

Now, with that out of the way, let's talk about Alignment, and how I feel we should change it to be something meaningful without being a hamstring on roleplay.

Alignment, as I propose, should not be behavioral so much as a celestial or deictic alignment, which is to say, an allegiance to a specific cosmic trait which has been pledged voluntarily. As such, unless you plan on petitioning those deities or cosmic energies, a character should not normally start off with an alignment, because frankly the matter is moot. Thus a Rogue could be as chaotic or as good as he wants to be, but that does not necessarily imply that he is Chaotic or Good in nature. And even in the cases of clergy, they don't necessarily have to have any particular alignment unless they have aligned themselves to a particular cosmic entity. If you are a cleric of a particular belief system, that does not necessarily carry with it an alignment, but it could.

As a result, relatively few things have an inherent alignment, including few players. The only characters might possibly start out with some sort of Alignment would be Clerics, and possibly Paladins assuming said Paladin is sworn to some deity rather than some cause or belief.

Extraplanar creatures which come from a plane which has an alignment aspect would have that alignment. For example, a Deva might have a Good alignment, a devil would have an Evil and a Lawful alignment, because they are creatures which are alignment-focused by definition.

By that same token, if you make that investment, if you pledge your loyalty to a cosmic alignment, above and beyond mere mortal actions or preferences, that's a Big Deal(tm), and could potentially have actual mechanical consequences. For example, if someone has gone to the length of committing himself to a Lawful alignment, then something like a Slaad, which is a being of pure Chaos, would particularly want to attack that individual, because he is a champion for a cause that being is definitively opposed to. But to get to that state, that character would need to actively pledge themselves to the cause of Law, not just in word and deed, but going beyond that to some sort of ritual of pledging themselves to the concept of and ideals of Law itself.

So while someone making that pledge might be held to certain patterns of behavior, that sort of pledge shouldn't be a result of behavior patterns.

With that in mind, here's the mechanical rules to back this up:

* Characters are not required to fill out an 'alignment' on their character sheet, and in fact are actively discouraged from filling one out unless they are willing to make that level of commitment to that cause (predominantly Clerics, Paladins or Warlocks with an alignment-focused Patron).

* Gaining an alignment is going to take significant effort on the character's part, and will likely require intervention from an Outsider aligned to the alignment desired, or at least a group which has that alignment affiliation, and a pledge or other ritual undergone. However, this must be done voluntarily and of their own decision, meaning that individual cannot be coerced, Charmed, Dominated, manipulated with Persuasion checks, or otherwise influenced for it to work.

* The Paladin ability 'Divine Sense' will be able to identify the Alignment of any creature or object in the area of effect, in addition to being able to identify if the creature a Celestial, Fiend, or Undead. The Paladin will also be able to identify any Lawful or Chaotic alignments as well as Good or Evil.

* Some cults or organizations may require a pledge or oath to a given alignment, and may be the source of such, and may react negatively to those who have made an opposing pledge or oath.

* Detect Evil and Good becomes 'Detect Alignment', and in addition to its effects, can determine any Alignment the creature or object might possess.

* Protection from Good and Evil becomes "Protection from Alignment Influence", but otherwise mechanically remains unchanged.

* A creature or player with an alignment affinity may make an active Wisdom (Insight) check of scaling DC to determine if someone is of their alignment or the opposing alignment. This can be opposed with a Charisma (Deception) check. This does not tell anything else about them, merely if they have an alignment of similar or opposing value, as a binary result.

[Unoriginal]

...I'm confused. How is making the alignments more significant, more of an investment and requiring more management going to make it less frustrating for DMs or players than the current system, which is "this is a shorthand to describe your character's usual behavior, meaning you're not forced to behave like that all the time"?

Like, no offense, but it's like trying to solve a problem by making it bigger and harder to handle.

[SiCK_Boy]

And, to add on to Unoriginal's question, but what's in it, really, for a player?

Did I miss some significant benefit somewhere in your description to go along with all the hurdles and difficulties you want to put in front of the player simply for him or her to gain an alignment in the first place? Is this just an additional prerequisite for clerics, paladins, and warlocks, or is this mandatory for the functioning of your game world?

There is nothing in the game right now that cues based on alignment. There is no mechanical incidence to alignment. (I'm sure someone will point out the one magic object, somewhere, that still cares about alignment).

It is a purely optional feature, whether people realize it or not, no more different than your character height (does it matter in any game whether you measure 5'9" or 5'10"), and other descriptive we come up with to describe our characters.

Why would you want to create a whole system around this? You seem to start from a position stating "I need alignment to be relevant somehow", without ever explaining why, and then you come up with these rules which, even in that context, seem to fall short of bringing much of benefit in the game.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

...I'm confused. How is making the alignments more significant, more of an investment and requiring more management going to make it less frustrating for DMs or players than the current system, which is "this is a shorthand to describe your character's usual behavior, meaning you're not forced to behave like that all the time"?

Like, no offense, but it's like trying to solve a problem by making it bigger and harder to handle.

Because all too often the phrase "No, you are Lawful Good on your character sheet, so you cannot take part in this plan, or risk changing your alignment". Which is effectively the GM trying to tell players how to play their own character.

THAT is what I'm aiming to end. 90%+ of characters simply won't HAVE an alignment, so the point becomes moot.

[Naanomi]

Note there more than a few mechanical alignment effects you will have to figure out in this new system... (not updated with recent supplements)

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically

[Contrast]

Because all too often the phrase "No, you are Lawful Good on your character sheet, so you cannot take part in this plan, or risk changing your alignment". Which is effectively the GM trying to tell players how to play their own character.

THAT is what I'm aiming to end. 90%+ of characters simply won't HAVE an alignment, so the point becomes moot.

I mean, a GM considering using these house rules could instead just...not do that?

[SiCK_Boy]

Because all too often the phrase "No, you are Lawful Good on your character sheet, so you cannot take part in this plan, or risk changing your alignment". Which is effectively the GM trying to tell players how to play their own character.

THAT is what I'm aiming to end. 90%+ of characters simply won't HAVE an alignment, so the point becomes moot.

Thanks for clarifying what your goal was.

It's been so long for me to play in a game with a DM trying to use alignment to justify / imposing actions / consequences on a player that I had forgotten it existed.

In fact, I even had to argue with one of my player groups about the fact that I would NOT enforce alignment upon their characters (some of those players were new to 5th edition and probably still had mindset coming from 2nd edition or so).

I think the solution is, as you said, to just declare that characters don't have alignment and stop it there. Leave alignment for extraplanar creatures (even then, maybe not, because you have tiefling and aasimar and other races that would be impacted), and just don't bother with rules for "gaining" an alignment.

If you want to create rules to allow "gaining" an alignment, there should be some consequence other than "now you'll be detectable by a detect alignment spell" or "now you'll be a target for creatures of opposed alignments". Either give tangible benefits, or just ignore this whole thing.

Whether or not you use alignment, however, should not preclude the world (as controlled by the DM) to react to character behavior. The fact that you are not "evil" or "chaotic" does not mean that you can murder people in the street and nobody will notice. People will still be afraid of the murderer that came into their midst, for example.

[Rynjin]

Because all too often the phrase "No, you are Lawful Good on your character sheet, so you cannot take part in this plan, or risk changing your alignment". Which is effectively the GM trying to tell players how to play their own character.

THAT is what I'm aiming to end. 90%+ of characters simply won't HAVE an alignment, so the point becomes moot.

That's just bad GMing, the solution is to get a better GM (either by finding a new one or improving your current one).

The house rule I use that fixes alignment is just ignoring all the ****ty objective alignment mechanics for non-Outsiders and aligned Divine casters and letting the players play as they will. I may assign them an alignment based on how they act, but it's never used to prevent someone from doing a thing.

There, alignment fixed.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Note there more than a few mechanical alignment effects you will have to figure out in this new system... (not updated with recent supplements)

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically

Actually, most of those effects just feed into this houserule. For example

* Glyph of Warding can be triggered by alignment. This makes the system outlined even more valuable, because most people won't have an alignment and so won't necessarily trigger the Glyph. For example, the Evil Necromancer would want a Glyph of Warding set to activate against Good alignment, because anyone who has taken a vow to Goodness would, by necessity, be opposed to his values. However, it wouldn't necessarily trigger in most cases, meaning it's only going to trigger when you have 100% certainty that the person isn't going to get along with you. This makes a very good initial defense, because those who aren't necessarily as opposed to you aren't going to be affected by it.

* This carries over to most of the other alignment effects. First off, it makes sense for it to actually trigger on an alignment, and second off, it prevents a party from getting screwed over just because someone penned 'good' on their character sheet just because he didn't feel like being a jerk. So this actually makes virtually all alignment-based effects in that list have far more verisimilitude than it would otherwise have. Because it is something you have to take non-trivial effort to have, it is something that can then be detected, fooled, or triggered by. Otherwise, if alignment is fairly arbitrary, these sorts of effects would also be arbitrary in nature, and much less impactful.

[Naanomi]

But that does have some things to say about Undead, Lycanthropes, and Dragons cosmologically

[Unoriginal]

Because all too often the phrase "No, you are Lawful Good on your character sheet, so you cannot take part in this plan, or risk changing your alignment". Which is effectively the GM trying to tell players how to play their own character.

There is no rule in the books about changing your alignment, so your houserule doesn't address any issue with alignment this edition.


That being said, I don't see what's the problem with a DM informing you that your character's alignment doesn't correspond to the behavior it describes if, for example, your supposedly lawful good character regularly and consistently kill hirelings to not have to pay them, or if your supposedly neutral evil character spends all their downtime volunteering to the local charities out of selfless generosity without doing anything mean otherwise.

In 5e, alignment is *descriptive*. Telling you that your alignment doesn't fit your behavior isn't telling you how to play, it's the same thing as pointing out your character sheet says that your character is a redhead when you described them as platinium blonde during a session.

Now, if a DM says "your character can't do that, it's against their alignment", then they're a) probably a bad DM b) haven't understood the 5e alignments. If they tell you "you should write a different alignment on your character sheet", then they're just telling you your regular actions don't fit what you've described on your sheet.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

But that does have some things to say about Undead, Lycanthropes, and Dragons cosmologically

True. However, that's also not necessarily a problem either.

If you want Undead to be an inherently Evil thing, as in capital-E Evil, as in aligned to the Evil planes, then this also dovetails nicely with the house rule.

Dragons, again, may well have already pledged to a particular alignment. The big one is the Gold Dragon's ability to hinder Evil and benefit Good, which again, dovetails into 'good and evil aren't just something you put on your character sheet, but a pledge you align yourself with'.

The only hitch is Lycanthropy, as being a means of involuntarily getting an Alignment. The simple solution is just to prevent the ability to spread Lycanthropy involuntarily. This also prevents situations in which a given character becomes significantly more powerful because he got bitten by a Werewolf or something.


In 5e, alignment is *descriptive*. Telling you that your alignment doesn't fit your behavior isn't telling you how to play, it's the same thing as pointing out your character sheet says that your character is a redhead when you described them as platinium blonde during a session.

Now, if a DM says "your character can't do that, it's against their alignment", then they're a) probably a bad DM b) haven't understood the 5e alignments. If they tell you "you should write a different alignment on your character sheet", then they're just telling you your regular actions don't fit what you've described on your sheet.And as was linked previously, there are *mechanical* issues with alignment, that are more than just roleplaying. A Glyph of Warding triggering when a good-aligned creature walks through can be triggered by a person who doesn't really have much of an opinion either way, but doesn't want to be a jerk and so puts down 'good' on their character sheet is just silly. I feel that if something like that is going to trigger, it needs to be something worthy of triggering it.

[Naanomi]

Making Lycanthrope voluntary goes against most of the classic themes of lycanthrope (and there are a few other forced alignment changes out there)

[Unoriginal]

A Glyph of Warding triggering when a good-aligned creature walks through can be triggered by a person who doesn't really have much of an opinion either way, but doesn't want to be a jerk and so puts down 'good' on their character sheet is just silly. I feel that if something like that is going to trigger, it needs to be something worthy of triggering it.

That's the thing, someone who wants a character who doesn't really have much of an opinion either way but doesn't want to be a jerk should have put "neutral" on their character sheet.

The Glyph of Warding *should* trigger for something worth triggering it, but the rules can't be blamed if the player control the character a certain way.

Same way that if there is a Glyph of Warding set to trigger when someone who's drunk is in range and that the player wrote "Flaw: drink heavily in stressful situations", you'd think it would be worth triggering it... but the player didn't roleplay that flaw (maybe they forgot, maybe their character concept changed, etc) and the character is completely sober, well, what could be an interesting moment where a PC's characterization has consequences will end up as a dud.

Same way that if the Glyph is set to trigger when a redhead shows up, and it's written "redhead" on the character sheet, but the player consistently described the PC as platinium blonde, it's worth pointing out to the player the hair color doesn't match their description.

[sophontteks]

If alignment is hamstringing roleplay you're probably doing it wrong. Alignment is a generalization and everyone has specific quirks that run against it, its not set in stone, and its more about your feelings towards things.

Look at the second part. Good vs. evil. Many think that "killing is evil." As if good people aren't routinely murdering all the time in d&d. Two nations go to war? Thats a whole lot of good and neutral people murdering each other.
Kill things and enjoy it- evil
Kill things and not care- neutral
Kill things and feel bad- good
Thats really all it means.

Then lawful and chaos.
You steal because you like stealing- chaotic
You steal because you need said item- neutral
You steal and feel wrecked with guilt- lawful

No hamstring here.

[Anymage]

This ties into an idea I've been kicking around for a while now, "narrow neutral" (where being noticeably nice or jerkish can get you a G or an E on your character sheet, and maintaining a neutral alignment requires a 2e inspired balancing act), and "wide neutral" (where the vast majority of people you see in day-to-day life are neutral, and it takes something truly extraordinary to get some other alignment letter). Making monsters extreme and requiring an active act of allegiance for PCs to get that alignment letter is not necessarily a bad move.

It also doesn't fix the problem by itself. The sort of DM who holds good characters to the loftiest of standards and docks alignment points as punishment would be even more encouraged by the system, causing players to throw up their hands and stop bothering trying to be Good. If you really want to make this a thing, say that the sort of patrons who will back your signing on to team Good will ask some very specific things of you, which the player and the DM can then work out. One of those stipulations should prohibit any over the top, capital-E-<i>Evil</i> behavior, but doesn't make you fall if you fail to be a boy scout. Basically, the player and the DM hammer out clear and explicit guidelines for what they want instead of winging it.

I get the appeal of trying to involve a universal set of mechanics. But sitting down and discussing exactly what sort of character you want to bring into the campaign seems more effective to me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've simply removed all mechanical alignment (for everything, outsiders too). You can write whatever you want, but it's only for you. It's working well, and encourages people to talk to everyone and try peaceful solutions.

My table rules prohibit disruptive characters (basically don't be a jerk as a player or as a character, with a few examples including a wide definition of PvP). They don't prohibit evil acts.

[Tanarii]

I'm a fan of using 5e Alignment as a roleplaying too, per the discussion linked in my sig.

But I don't see a problem with removing it for all except cosmologically binding ties, so to speak. If that works for you and your players, do it. Although IMO it'd work best if its the main focus of the campaign.

[JackPhoenix]

Actually, most of those effects just feed into this houserule. For example

* Glyph of Warding can be triggered by alignment. This makes the system outlined even more valuable, because most people won't have an alignment and so won't necessarily trigger the Glyph. For example, the Evil Necromancer would want a Glyph of Warding set to activate against Good alignment, because anyone who has taken a vow to Goodness would, by necessity, be opposed to his values. However, it wouldn't necessarily trigger in most cases, meaning it's only going to trigger when you have 100% certainty that the person isn't going to get along with you. This makes a very good initial defense, because those who aren't necessarily as opposed to you aren't going to be affected by it.

In that case, the evil necromancer is stupid, because why would he set a trigger that won't react to most of his opponents? It makes for a horrible defense, because most people won't be opposed to him just because they have different alignment (because they most likely won't have alignment at all), but because he's digging up the corpses of their relatives to make them walk around and attack people, because he's got shiny stuff, and because he's just kind of a richard. The necromancer won't be any less dead if the adventurers invade his lair for his gold, his research notes, or to take over instead of because they have Good instead of Evil on their sheet. If he wants good defence, he should set up a password or other means of identification for people who are allowed to be inside.

Or do you also rule that people, including Evil people, get along just because they aren't pledged to opposite cosmic forces?

[Kane0]

So how about we rename it to 'Allegiance' then?

[DarkKnightJin]

I've skimmed the thread, so apologies if what I am about to say has been said before.

I've noticed with a lot of people that they have a warped idea of the scales of Lawful and Chaotic, and Good vs. Evil.
Lawful means the character follows a certain code. Usually, the general code of society, the law.
Chaotic means they don't really live by any code but their own.
Good pretty much implies that the character is selfless, and will try to help others. This does not mean they will volunteer their services for free, though. They might wanna help, doesn't mean they don't have bills that need paying.
Evil, on the other hand, is selfish. They're in it for their own benefit. If that means working with the town guard, or that obnoxiously cheerful Paladin that spends half of their money buying food and clothes for the kids at the orphanage.. So be it.

The Lawful Good Paladin and the Chaotic Evil Rogue can be best buds. It just might be that the Rogue is pulling a fast one on the Paladin with what they find for loot. Or where they found it.
Hell, they might steal the food and clothes for giggles, and then sell it along for a cheap price to the Paladin, under the guise of friendship, and wanting to help out.

Point in case: My Lawful Evil Fighter, and the Chaotic Good Warlock are the closest thing each of them has to a 'best friend' among the party as it is right now.
Sure, it started with my Fighter selling the Warlock some highly addictive drugs, so he could study the effects a bit, and make sure he wouldn't end up addicted himself.
He's made the Warlock a potion to kick his habit since then. And even supplied him with diluted hits to keep the urges from taking over, while also not adding to the addiction.

[LudicSavant]

If you don't want alignments, then 5e makes it easier than ever before to simply remove them from the game as if they never existed in the first place. Which is a pretty good solution, I think. It is hard to a think of a good example of a (non-satirical) story that would have suffered much for the removal of alignments.

[Tanarii]

So how about we rename it to 'Allegiance' then?
What the OP is describing is basically the entire reason it was called 'Alignment'. It described if you were a Chainmail army fighting for the forces of Law, Chaos, or could be either. Which side were you aligned with.

[Kane0]

What the OP is describing is basically the entire reason it was called 'Alignment'. It described if you were a Chainmail army fighting for the forces of Law, Chaos, or could be either. Which side were you aligned with.

Problem being, that original concept/definition/mechanic has changed quite a bit over the editions since so it might be easier to just drop the name and the baggage it brings with it.

[MrStabby]

I kind of like the idea of the OP, it makes sense but I would possibly take it further. If it is essentially a planar alignment why not make it reflect which plane a character aligns with. For some it may be good or evil, for others an elemental plane, some may be shadowfell and so on.

This can be useful if you want to give magic items to specific players - put an alignment restriction on atunement.

I also like custom themed spells so i could see access to some "reward" spells being conditional upon a particular alignment.

[Gryndle]

Because all too often the phrase "No, you are Lawful Good on your character sheet, so you cannot take part in this plan, or risk changing your alignment". Which is effectively the GM trying to tell players how to play their own character.

THAT is what I'm aiming to end. 90%+ of characters simply won't HAVE an alignment, so the point becomes moot.

Your problem then, is not with alignments; it is with people (players and or DMs) that either don't understand alignments or don't care. Because as the system currently exists alignment has no meaningful mechanical impact or value really unless your table chooses to apply your own preconceived notions to it. alignment is a very generalized and abstract descriptor that gives hints, or suggestions of behavior. but nothing more.

that aside, I wonder how many people really hear the "your character wouldn't do because he/she is xx alignment." I have heard it on occasion, but I've been playing since the late 70-s/early 80s and have gamed with a lot of different people, in every version of the game (and quite a few non-D&D systems). Generally when I have experienced a dm or player say something like that, it has been a reliable warning that this person is not to be played with for long, as in my experience is that this is a clue the individual is either going to be hyper-controlling or a drama-queen. Your mileage may vary, ofcourse

[War_lord]

Because all too often the phrase "No, you are Lawful Good on your character sheet, so you cannot take part in this plan, or risk changing your alignment". Which is effectively the GM trying to tell players how to play their own character.

That's not telling you how to play your character. That's telling you that if your does a bunch of self serving and selfish things, they're no longer considering "good" cosmically. It never stops baffling me that people want to do bad things in game, and then rebel at the slightest hint of the implications. If you don't want your alignment to shift, act in accordance with your alignment. If the way you want to play that character constantly clashes with their alignment, clearly you've marked their sheet incorrectly.


Your problem then, is not with alignments; it is with people (players and or DMs) that either don't understand alignments or don't care. Because as the system currently exists alignment has no meaningful mechanical impact or value really unless your table chooses to apply your own preconceived notions to it.

If alignment doesn't matter, why do the people who have so much against it care if their DM tells them their alignment has shifted? Seems like on some level it does matter.

[Rynjin]

If alignment doesn't matter, why do the people who have so much against it care if their DM tells them their alignment has shifted? Seems like on some level it does matter.

Because a lot of DMs also have houserules like "evil characters are NPCs" so if they alignment shift you to Evil your character is effectively dead.

This becomes an issue when your DM has vastly different ideas of what an evil character is like than you or how fast a good character can fall.

[Tanarii]

Because a lot of DMs also have houserules like "evil characters are NPCs" so if they alignment shift you to Evil your character is effectively dead.

This becomes an issue when your DM has vastly different ideas of what an evil character is like than you or how fast a good character can fall.
Not to mention that many DMs think alignment is about single actions. Especially Evil. They are Fall from Grace believes, where a single evil action damns you to an Evil alignment. That kind of thinking doesn't fit 5e Alignment, which is about overall typical behaviors.

Or they'll try to tell a player they're not acting in alignment for a single specific action, instead of overall behavior. Which of course any player is going to (quite rightly) disagree with. Especially if the single given action is driven by a defined personality that is more specific to the situation than their overall general behavior.

[2D8HP]

What the OP is describing is basically the entire reason it was called 'Alignment'. It described if you were a Chainmail army fighting for the forces of Law, Chaos, or could be either. Which side were you aligned with.


For more info check out the:

D&D Alignment, a history (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559645-D-amp-D-Alignment-a-history)

thread.

Anyway, the OP"s proposal reminds me of how the old Stormbringer game handled Alignment.

I really have a hard time in reading them, but here's a
Quick start Magic World PDF (https://www.chaosium.com/content/FreePDFs/Magic%20World/Magic%20World%20Quickstart.pdf)

the rules of which I'm told are based on Stormbringer.

Here is the most complete (NSFW language warning) review of Stormbringer (http://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/traveller/stormbringer-5th-edition--elric/) that I've been able to find, some of which I've copied below

"A minimum of 16 POW is needed to cast magic, and if you want your adventurer to be a caster but don't have the points to do so you can trade two points from other stats into a single bonus POW point. A successful Luck check is necessary every time this is done (once the Luck check is failed, no more attempts can be made), and it adds a Chaos point every time this is done. More on this later.*

Characters that don't get spells may choose to start following the Law (20% bonus to 1-3 skills, +1 Law point per bonus) or the Balance (+1-3 bonus to their lowest stat, +1 Balance point per bonus) Finally, characters get 600 bronzes specifically to purchase armor (though they can pocket that money), and they start with a horse, a saddle and every weapon whose skill they give at least 20 points. They also get a memento from their family worth 1d20-1 bronzes. Finally, the character picks their homeland, which is kind of weird as the description for each nation and kingdom comes with favored skills, weapons and traits. You'd think this step would be taken early on, but that's how Stormbringer rolls. There's also a table to roll for, but players should ask their GM for permission if they want their characters to be from Melniboné or Pan Tang.*

So what's with these Chaos and Law and Balance points, anyway? They are part of the*Allegiance system. From their choices during chargen, each character starts with a tendency towards one of the three cosmic forces. The greater the number of points of one flavor, the greater the loyalty of the character to that force. However, most people don't act in the same manner all the time, and it's perfectly possible to have points not just in one force, but two or even all three. When a character has 20 more points in their highest allegiance than the next higher, they're considered to be*allies*of that force. Allegiance points are gained by*allegiance checks*done after an adventure: the GM asks for a d100 roll, and if the character gets less than their allegiance score they gain 1d8 points (Chaos) or 1d6 points (Balance, Law.) Some actions can gain points directly: for instance, knowing or casting spells is always a Chaotic act. Points can be lost if the GM considers a character is going against their allegiance (same check as gaining allegiance points, only the 1d8 or 1d6 bonus is a reduction) or by outright reducing them without a roll. This is more or less safe unless the characters have scores of one hundred or more, in which case they really should consider going against their cause.*

A character that is allied to Chaos can, if they run out of Magic Points, pray to Chaos and gain 1/10 of their current Chaos score in MP. This can be done up to three times per session of game, and only after the third time does the character fall unconscious (normally, a character that hits 0 MP is knocked out) The character must succeed at an allegiance check at the end of the adventure, and they may try calling on a specific Chaos Lord with 1% chances of success. A character that is allied to Balance can, once a session, restore 1/5 of their Balance points in HP. They must pass an allegiance check at the end of the session. Allies of Law can pray to the White Lords to add their full Law score to a skill. This must be done before a roll, and can be done up to three times per session. These rolls don't get an experience check. Like their Chaos counterparts, they have 1% of chances of having their call to a Lawful god heard.*

Characters with 100 points or more in one of the three forces get a powerful vision asking them if they want to undergo*Apotheosis*and become a champion of that force. Scores in the other forces don't matter. The character must prove that they are worthy of such an honor and they must also want it. If they reject it, their scores continue increasing as normal until they die or retire. Law and Chaos attempt to persuade, tempt and charm the character into accepting apotheosis; Balance doesn't force the issue but every few sessions an APP x 2 roll (later APP x 4, APP x 6, etc.) is made for the character to find their true love. The Balance loves love, after all, and there's always the chance of protecting said love in Tanelorn.*

A Champion of Chaos can, if they die, roll under (POW x 1d8) and if they succeed they vanish in a stinking cloud reform at the place of their apotheosis eight days later, losing a single APP point in the process due to the horrible pain involved. If this roll fails, they ascend to some superior plane to become a loyal pet of their patron.**Their MP are doubled, and they must choose a Lord of Chaos as a patron. They get POW x 3 chances of their Lord hearing their call if their need is great, but that doesn't mean their patron will do anything to help them (Elric got ditched by Arioch many, many times) A Champion of Balance becomes worthy of seeking Tanelorn, which involves a long quest that reveals the character's place in the world. If they succeed, they win the cosmic game and escape the fate of the Young Kingdoms. Their HP are now straight CON + SIZ, no averaging. A Champion of Law can go to the World's Edge and shape new lands from the formless Chaos there. 1d100 + 160 square kilometers, full of animals and plants as the Champion wishes, and even a small populace to rule. Three skills get their scores doubled, and like the Champions of Chaos they must choose a patron to call on in times of need, with the same POW x 3 chances. And just like Chaos, the Lawful gods may just proceed to ignore said need.**

just awful. Sometimes characters may end up opposing each other just using their stats: to use the old RPG example, two characters engaged in arm wrestling. In this case a*Resistance*roll is made of (50% + Active Stat x 5 - Passive Stat x 5), though there's a table that you can reference straight away instead of adding and subtracting numbers.*Experience*checks are indicated by the GM as the adventure proceeds for skills used in play: roll a d100 for them at the end of the session, and if the roll goes*over*the skill then it gains 1d10 points. For skills over 100-INT, they have to make an INT x 1 regular roll instead. Characters may also train under masters: this takes time, money, and can only increase a skill up to 80%. Stats can be increased by resistance checks against enemies that have a greater score in the stat. They can go up to 21 points for humans, except INT and POW which are uncapped. STR, CON and APP can also be increased by training. Yes, APP, you ****ing goons. You can learn to shave your neckbeard.*

*
Magic, as mentioned earlier, requires a minimum of 16 POW to be used. Magic takes Magic Points to be used, and some special magic needs the sacrifice of actual POW points. Characters with POW 15 or less can't cast spells, but they still can have beneficial magic effects cast on them and they still have their MP. Magic comes in the form ofspells*,*calls*,*summons*and*enchantmens. The latter is GM-only, and a single character can keep up to their INT in the first three. They can have a*grimoire*to store magic rituals for later. Learning magic can happen due to research, finding someone else's grimoire and reverse engineering it, getting a teacher or as a gift from a deity (with some heavy strings attached, usually.) First, there's spells.*These are very low-key powers that don't require calling on any outside forces, though every use of a spell is a Chaotic act. There are three Lawful spells that can only be used by a character that is allied with Law, but even those are Chaotic to use (a Lawful character should only resort to these as a last-ditch resource). Spells only take MP to use, normally no rolls are involved, and in combat they take a full round to cast from Magic phase to Magic phase (INT order instead of DEX to determine what spells go off first); any hit hard enough to make a caster lose 1HP loses them the spell. The spells themselves aren't really caster supremacy or anything: mostly they're buffs and utility spells. There's one spell per stat that buffs them temporarily (Beauty of Arioch for APP, Soul of Chardros for POW, etc.) with the risk of the buff becoming permanent at the expense of other stats if the spell is used at max power and a percentile roll of 00 is made. There are a number of spells that buff armor and weapons, though interestingly enough they buff their*minimum*rolls instead of being a straight bonus - so if a heavy Lormyrian axe deals 3d6 damage and a three-MP Hell Blade spell is cast on it, the weapon deals 6-18 damage. There's one spell for each element, a number of "thief" spells named for Cran Liret that buff skills like Climb or Hide, assorted utility spells, and ver*y few offensive spells that are more in the way of debuffs than Magic Missile.*

*But Stormbringer is notorious for stories about sorcerers holding their entire 'fellow' party under their thumb or wiping them out easily, so what gives? This is where*summoning*comes into play. The spell Summon Demon lets a caster, well, summon demons. It's a very complex procedure, and can probably grind a session to a halt if the GM is not ready for it. Basically, demons are created by the caster, who sacrifices enough MP to give them stats (which are rolled just like PC stats, only with d8s instead of d6s), skills and*demonic powers.*Powers is where the real ultimate power is as far as Stormbringer magic is concerned, since they allow stuff like scorching or freezing a target, smash them with tentacles, outright sap their MP or POW, the works. There's also a number of utility powers which come very handy. To compensate, summoning demons is very intensive in terms of MP - probably more than the average caster possesses personally, though there are certain spells like Brazier of Power or Chain of Beings that allow the caster to save MP or use the MP of others. It also takes a lot of in-game time, at least 1d8 hours of preparing a summoning octagon, burning the appropriate**, mumbling nonsense and so on. And then there's a Luck roll to be made, otherwise the demon just plain doesn't show up (woe betide the caster if they fumble this roll: there's a table... and one of the possible results is "caster turns inside out - they can live and function normally but their APP is zero**). Once it's summoned, the demon can be*bargained*with: this requires skills like Persuade or Fast Talk, but is generally free to do. Bargaining requires a single defined task of the demon in exchange for something else, usually fulfilling their*Demonic Need*: a compulsion that demons have, from chatting with them about philosophy to eating small animals and so on. Generally the bigger and meaner the demon, the harder the need. If the caster wants a more permanent arrangement, the demon can be*bound.*This requires sacrificing one POW point and engaging the demon in a POW vs POW resistance roll - the caster did use the Witch Sight spell to look at the demon's POW first, right? - but if the demon loses it gives up its True Name and can be summoned or dismissed at will. An*Eternal Binding*ties the demon to a place or object, and costs three POW points but has the advantage that it cannot be undone short of destroying the place or object, while regular bindings can be undone by killing the demon, the binder, or getting the demon's True Name and binding it again. The book says that bound demons that don't have their Need sated can't do anything about it but are generally surly and unhappy, and if truly desperate they can try giving up info on their master or even straight up surrender their True Name in hopes that their master's enemy is nicer to them. There are some*demon races*defined: the game admits this isn't strictly part of the saga, but it's useful. Basically a demon race's stats are relatively well known by summoners, including the MP necessary and their Needs, so they're a good way to getting a demon that you know is good for the job if you don't have any True Names handy and don't want to risk the randomness of regular summoning. The game includes bal'boosts (83-MP combat monsters that eat one goat or bigger a day), dhzutines (tiny nimble demons usually bound to gloves to help with complex somatic components), hoojgnurps (slime monsters, basically) errant demons (whose main schtick is that they can pass for humans) and servant demons (generic minions that just need a cup of tea leaves to eat per day)**

The alternative to demons is*elementals.*Summoning an elemental requires the Summon Elemental spell and the elemental spell related to the summon (so Bounty of Straasha for undines). It only takes 1d6 rounds, no Luck roll is needed, and they can be modified by adding extra MP to the summon. The least summonable elementals cost 28 MP. The available elementals are*gnomes*of Earth,*undines*of Water,*salamanders*of Fire and*sylphs*of Air. Like demons, elementals can be bargained with, but they're generally more amenable to it as long as the summoner isn't asking stuff that is self-destructive or contrary to their interests. A gnome would be glad to dam up a stream of water, but wouldn't be as happy to break up earth to increase the stream's flow. Elementals can be bound, but this kills their usual joy to do stuff: they can perform a number of "simple tasks" (simple being "what seven humans working non-stop can do in seven days and nights") up to their CON before dying, and the action*costs*one Balance point. Also, good going, you're going on an Elemental Lord's bad book.**Only an Elemental Lord can teach an elemental's True Name. Aside from gnomes, all elementals are immune to physical attacks.*

Beast and Plant Lords*can be summoned with the appropriate spell, but the name of the Lord must be known and they must have a reason to show up. The summon takes a full day to complete and the base chance is 0%, increased by actions taken on behalf of the Lord's chosen beast or plant. Elemental, Chaos and Law Lords can be*called*on as we saw in the Allegiance portion, but this is essentially GM fiat aside from the base chances that allies and Champions get. One annoying thing with this chapter is that there's a lot of "Elric can do this with ease/had a chance to pull it, but YOU are not Elric so gg" bits, and like, okay, PCs aren't likely to have a direct line of descent from a family that made ancient pacts with Straasha and Arioch but come on. There's also a section of rumors on magic and artifacts: some are true, or not, and some reference stuff from the books like the Ship That Sails Through Earth and Sea or the Shield of Chaos."[/QUOTE]
Anyway, the problems with Alignment that the OP describes I've never seen in play (though I have read peoples complaints about it happening).

What I do see is DM's saying "no evil" is to written on PC's Character Record Sheets, but they typically don't verbally object when "Chaotic Neutral" PC's commit evil acts (instead they just don't show up for anymore sessions, and cancel games at their houses because "busy").

[Tanarii]

There are no evil acts in 5e. Only typical but not required overall behavior associated with evil alignments. Specific actions don't carry Alignment weight, with one exception.

There is a "not a good" act, that only evil casters will do frequently: using necromancy spells to create undead. That's the only time a single "act" is associated with Alignment in 5e. And even then, it's still really focused on overall behavior.

[Naanomi]

There are no evil acts in 5e. Only typical but not required overall behavior associated with evil alignments. Specific actions don't carry Alignment weight, with one exception.

There is a "not a good" act, that only evil casters will do frequently: using necromancy spells to create undead. That's the only time a single "act" is associated with Alignment in 5e. And even then, it's still really focused on overall behavior.
Well... and becoming an Oathbreaker

[Tanarii]

Well... and becoming an OathbreakerQuestionable if that's a single action. Although the act of breaking the Oath certainly could be. But yeah, Paladins still have "Fall from Grace" thinking baked into their class. It's just tied to Tenets instead of Alignment.

But accepting the curse of lycanthropy for an evil type of lycanthrope certainly could be. Although I'd see that more as giving in to the nature of the beast, and it taking over and giving a new personality motivation moving forward.

[BurgerBeast]

I think it’s a neat system, particularly for groups in which players have varying opinions about the significance of alignment.

The default position is that alignment has no mechanical influence (or, as ninjaprawn points out, relatively minimal significance). But for a player who enjoys the idea of significant alignments that are of metaphysical significance, alignments can enter into the game.

It probably has some unforeseen complications, but with consistency and some patience, groups could iron out the kinks. It would be neat to try.

[Malifice]

Pick an alignment for your character. That's how your character (and you) view yourself and your actions. Subjectively.

That's not necessarily what your alignment actually objectively is however.

You might genuinely think you're a good (or evil) person. You might not actually be good or evil though. That latter question is an objective one, not a subjective one.

[Davrix]

I'm really confused by this post, also i don't think you really realize that alignments in both 4th and 5th ed changed dramatically from older editions.

Paladins don't even draw power from gods anymore but rather their oaths. So alignments are less pivotal in derision making. Its more on does your action violate the oath you have sworn rather than asking yourself, am I evil for saving the box of kittens and not the box of puppies floating down the river. Clerics draw power from the domains of their gods as well.

They really made it (Smartly if you ask me) Alignments a general idea of what your character can and would do normally but allowing for occasional moments where that might shift based on events or a stressful situation but overall your alignment doesn't change unless your actively making the same choice over and over again. And again when it comes to actual class stuff, it doesn't really effect you like it use to. This just seems to make it.... worse, far far worse while writing a blank check to anyone going do what you want lol. (which many do anyway but why encourage it)

[Malifice]

There are no evil acts in 5e.


Cool. Child murder, genocide and baby torture here I come!

[War_lord]

I know this is a really really hard think for some people on this forum to grasp but:

Alignments not being mechanically enforced doesn't =/= alignment don't matter. If your DM decides alignment is important at the table, it's important at the table. I continue to be bemused by the people who claim alignment doesn't matter, who are then the same people who make rage threads about the DM who wrote "evil" on the player's sheet after the second orphanage burned tot he ground "for the greater good". Much like certain real world socially unacceptable behavior, the perpetrator seems to be angrier at their behavior being identified then any honest belief that the identification is actually unjust.

I don't really understand it, so you want to play a selfish murdering so-and-so who leaves a trail of misery in their wake... but you want to have good on your sheet?


Because a lot of DMs also have houserules like "evil characters are NPCs" so if they alignment shift you to Evil your character is effectively dead.

This becomes an issue when your DM has vastly different ideas of what an evil character is like than you or how fast a good character can fall.

That's why you have a session zero where you talk to your DM about things what their expectations for alignment are. Particularly if they use that kind of rule.

[DarkKnightJin]

I know this is a really really hard think for some people on this forum to grasp but:

Alignments not being mechanically enforced doesn't =/= alignment don't matter. If your DM decides alignment is important at the table, it's important at the table. I continue to be bemused by the people who claim alignment doesn't matter, who are then the same people who make rage threads about the DM who wrote "evil" on the player's sheet after the second orphanage burned tot he ground "for the greater good". Much like certain real world socially unacceptable behavior, the perpetrator seems to be angrier at their behavior being identified then any honest belief that the identification is actually unjust.

I don't really understand it, so you want to play a selfish murdering so-and-so who leaves a trail of misery in their wake... but you want to have good on your sheet?

That does seem to be the case for most.
My LE Fighter doesn't do 'evil' things. He just doesn't particularly care about doing something because it's "the right thing to do". He'll be asking what the pay is, and maybe why the quest giver in question is handing it out to a group of people they know hardly anything about.

[War_lord]

That does seem to be the case for most.
My LE Fighter doesn't do 'evil' things. He just doesn't particularly care about doing something because it's "the right thing to do". He'll be asking what the pay is, and maybe why the quest giver in question is handing it out to a group of people they know hardly anything about.

That doesn't sound like Evil, that sounds Neutral.

Which leads us to the opposite problem, people who put "Evil" on their sheet in games where that's permitted, and don't really follow through on it, they just like the idea of it.

[Pelle]

Because a lot of DMs also have houserules like "evil characters are NPCs" so if they alignment shift you to Evil your character is effectively dead.

This becomes an issue when your DM has vastly different ideas of what an evil character is like than you or how fast a good character can fall.

Then it doesn't matter. If the DM has said evil characters are NPCs, that's because the DM don't enjoy that running games with that type of behaviour. If you are playing in a way that makes the DM change your alignment, you are basically playing in a way that reduces the fun of the DM. Whether that is 'objectively' evil or not doesn't matter, it's still unacceptable behaviour for that game.

[Rynjin]

Which brings you back around to the second half of my post: differing ideas of where the lines are (both what constitutes evil and when a character becomes Evil).

For an easy example, take ritual cannibalism. I personally don't see it as evil; it harms no one. If I want to make a character that participates in this I have no issue calling them Good.

A GM may disagree, as is their right.

Apply as needed for every conceivable act you could ever take. Some see poison as evil. Ambush attacks (I played a PF game where Paladin's would fall for not announcing themselves before attacking), breaking laws, lying, gambling, etc., etc.

Hashing it out beforehand becomes increasingly hard the further apart opinions lie.

The alignment rules are terribly useless at delineating where that line of "your actions impinge on the fun of the GM", so why even bother with them at all?

[Pelle]

Sure. If I as a person will not enjoy a game where the characters acts as cannibals, whether that is considered evil or good in-game doesn't matter. Having different ideas of where the line goes is ok, but one should respect each others preferences.

Defining something as evil and then using that to force a character into becoming an npc is kind of a passive-agressive way to let people know you don't enjoy their behaviour. It's still probably the underlying reason for the alignment enforcing.

Personally I use "no evil characters" in my character creation guidelines, but that is just shorthand for "don't play sociopath murderers". In-game I don't bother with alignment, and don't mind when the character has to do a little murder for the greater good as long as they have a moral dilemma and is somewhat conflicted about it. I find no enjoyment in evil for evil's sake, though.

[Tanarii]

Personally I use "no evil characters" in my character creation guidelines, but that is just shorthand for "don't play sociopath murderers". I use: No evil characters. Don't play characters that consistently behave like one of the 5e typical behaviors for the evil alignments. As decided by me.

But I also have a "rule" of: don't be a donkey-bottom.
That's what I tell players that want to have their PCs do seriously disruptive things. (Edit: apparent forum guidelines are even stricter than my mother about cussing.)

Between the two, this generally keeps away players that like to play psychopaths or seriously disruptive troublemakers.

[Pelle]

But I also have a "rule" of: don't be a donkey-bottom.


Yeah, this is the most important rule. Arguing about the fine points of the alignment rules is pointless when the issue is out of character. Most players understand the implicit intention of "no evil characters", though.

[2D8HP]

Cool. Child murder, genocide and baby torture here I come!


Then write "Chaotic Neutral" on your character record sheet, but don't be suprised if the DM bails.

Unless the DM is running an "Evil Campaign' in which case just expect to be bored.


...That's why you have a session zero where you talk to your DM about things what their expectations for alignment are. Particularly if they use that kind of rule.


I've haven't seen any of these legendary "session zero's" you speak of, when I invited others to play with me as DM I said about 'Alignment':
"Steal, but not from other PC's, Fight but not other PC's. No torture, and don't squick me out!"
I didn't get any takers.


Yeah, this is the most important rule. Arguing about the fine points of the alignment rules is pointless when the issue is out of character. Most players understand the implicit intention of "no evil characters", though.


Yet they still bring their "Chaotic Neutral" clerics of an evil death god PC's to the table (one even actually put quotation marks around CN!).

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Ultimately, my goal for this is:

* I don't want Alignment to be a roleplaying crutch. I don't want it to be used either as an excuse for poor decisions or as punitive actions against a player, either way. I agree that 'don't be a donkey-bottom' should be Rule 0 at any table, but this also goes beyond that and encompasses a lot of shady areas which, perhaps aren't up to 'donkey-butt' status, are nonetheless annoying or otherwise detracting from the game's enjoyment by the players and/or GM.

* Quite frankly? Most characters I've seen RP'd over the past three or so decades don't strongly portray their alignment anyway. It's more like "Eh, I guess this is my alignment because it's what my class needs", but could go one of several ways. They don't feel particularly strongly about their alignment, it isn't a major aspect of their character. There are exceptions, most Paladins are played 'Stick up their Pigu' as an example, which is also part of the problem, because those who don't ignore the alignment tend to go over the top trying to cater to it, which can be equally problematic.

* I want your alignment choice to actually matter, which means making it an actual choice, which also means having the choice to decline. And yea, this goes all the way back to Chainmail, which is something I was wanting to kind of bring back, but also do so in an interesting manner. And make Alignment a choice with both benefits and drawbacks.

* I am all for giving small benefits and drawbacks to having sworn to an Alignment, however the scope of these would almost have to be personalized based on the class/concept, as each class could express that devotion differently. A Life Cleric devoting themselves to Good might get an extra spell slot per long rest which may only be used on healing. Once the character is capable of casting 5th level Cleric spells, he becomes able to use Hallow as a Ritual (even if he cannot normally perform Rituals). However, this doesn't sound like the sort of thing a Good aligned Dragon-Blooded Sorcerer might do. Say he has Gold Dragon lineage, and pledges himself to Bahaumut and Good. He might get access to a new Metamagic which can be applied to any Fire spell so that half of the damage is Radiant rather than Fire damage. Of course, they would ping as 'Good' (Capital G) to anyone using any sort of Detect Alignment skills, traits, or abilities, and might take additional penalties in areas which are steeped in Evil (Capital E), plus being the primary target of any Evil creatures, and there might be other drawbacks. They might also occasionally receive marching orders from the beings associated with that Alignment. So for example "Hey, there's this cult of necromancers raising dead, sacrificing babies, and having fully committed themselves to Evil. As a Good person, go forth and stop their actions". And it would be extremely difficult to decline that and retain your Alignment bonuses. Because when you pledge yourself to a Cause, that Cause will occasionally call on you to perform your duties.

* And because of these mechanical advantages, the GM would be fully justified in pointing out "Hey, before you commit to this action, you have a moment of clarity and know that this act is directly contrary to the alignment you have sworn to, and as such, you may lose all benefits and privileges of that alignment if you commit this act". Because it's not just a line on a character sheet, it's an in-game choice and decision the character made. However, having made such a vow in the first place, it is highly doubtful it would ever come up in the first place unless the player is little more than a munchkin, in which case he probably wouldn't last long in most gaming groups anyway. Because of the non-triviality of the alignment, the player is far more likely to take it seriously.

[Rynjin]

Unless the DM is running an "Evil Campaign' in which case just expect to be bored.

I dunno what your beef with evil campaigns is, but this hurts my feelings. =(

My players are enjoying my Saturday Pathfinder game, or so they tell me. You just have to make sure the characters have a REASON to be evil instead of just "I'm EVUL". In this case, they all have a backstory of "sold their souls" (with a range of motivations from the already evil "Make me the heir of my family's name when I'm like 12th in line" to "Save my mom from this illness") and have been given the slim hope of regaining their souls if they survive a year and a day of service to the Contract Devil that currently holds their contracts.

[Naanomi]

Most Darksun campaigns end up as evil campaigns out of necessity, and are great fun

[2D8HP]

with a range of motivations from the already evil "Make me the heir of my family's name when I'm like 12th in line" to....


Thanks for the Kind Hearts and Coronets reference :smile:


Most Darksun campaigns end up as evil campaigns out of necessity, and are great fun


I'll have to take your word for it as when I've played an "Evil Campaign" (pretty much because of a lack of other options at the time), it just didn't work for me.

I suppose I'd divide typical campaigns into


Good "Save the World"

Evil "Take over the World"

and

Neutral "Get rich or die trying"

Neutral campaigns used to be the default, and I miss them (typically the PC's have a tough time of it, and I enjoy the suspense),while both "Saving the World" and "Taking over the World", mostly just seem a conga-line of cakewalk combats.

If your campaigns are different, then please be my DM!

[JoeJ]

For DMs who do want alignment to mean something, rewarding via the Inspiration mechanic is likely to go down better with most players than punishing. Especially if you're already using that mechanic, as recommended, to encourage players to roleplay their character's personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws.

[cerin616]

I feel like most of the people, even is this thread, are missing that reason alignment even exists.

Alignments are not shackles - They do not necessarily dictate your behavior, nor are they necessarily dictated by your behavior.
Changing alignment is not a punishment - It is just a representation of your characters beliefs changing.

Alignment is more or less, a representation on what your character thinks. Its a guide on his personal morals and ethics. It is a tool to gauge how your character thinks or feels about particular situations or decisions. It is a guide to help you create consistent character behavior when roll playing.

When I DM, and I say "You are lawful good, you probably dont agree with burning down the orphanage" its more or less just a reminder that this is atypical of your character. Either complain about it happening, refuse the participate, feel remorse about it being necessary for some reason, or come to terms with the fact that your character may not hold onto the same ideals he did when he first started adventuring.

which is fine. If your alignment changes, it means your character grew. His experience means he may not be as nieve, may not be as optimistic as he wants was. Maybe he learned the value of balance, or he fell from grace.

TL;DR; There is nothing wrong with alignment because its fluff to help you decide how to roleplay a situation.

[Millstone85]

I only browsed the discussion, but I still see alignment as coming in three main flavors:
* What the player wants to play: a hero, an antihero, a villain, a law abider, a rebel...
* How the character sees themself: usually but not necessarily the same as the player's view of them.
* The DM's, hence cosmic, judgment: how sprites, (un)holy items, and so forth, react to the character.

The second one can survive the third. Surely this sprite is a lying liar who lies. Maybe the gods aren't actually infaillible.

The first against the third, now, is one of the ways you can lose D&D. The DM is telling you that you failed to portray the character you intended.

[Tanarii]

You just have to make sure the characters have a REASON to be evil instead of just "I'm EVUL".
.
I always wanted to run a campaign where the players were working for the Zhentarim.

Then WotC decided to nerf them into wussies for 5e. /sigh

[Naanomi]

I'll have to take your word for it as when I've played an "Evil Campaign" (pretty much because of a lack of other options at the time), it just didn't work for me.
Darksun (and many other ‘evil campaigns’) are more about Evil VS Evil... “sure I’m an assassin for hire who’d slit my own mother’s throat for the right price; but when a sorcerer king is rising up and stealing the souls of everyone you kind of have to try and stop that pro bono”

[Tanarii]

Darksun (and many other ‘evil campaigns’) are more about Evil VS Evil... “sure I’m an assassin for hire who’d slit my own mother’s throat for the right price; but when a sorcerer king is rising up and stealing the souls of everyone you kind of have to try and stop that pro bono”
I prefer to call it: rational evil that Good Guys can sometimes work with VS Crazy Evil that threatens us all

If you prefer, Anti-Hero vs Villains.

[War_lord]

For DMs who do want alignment to mean something, rewarding via the Inspiration mechanic is likely to go down better with most players than punishing. Especially if you're already using that mechanic, as recommended, to encourage players to roleplay their character's personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws.

Inspiration is a terrible mechanic.

If someone doesn't act with their stated alignment, I change their alignment. If they didn't want their alignment to be "dingus" they shouldn't have acted like a dingus. A concentrated effort on their character's part to not dingus and atone for past dingus will shift their alignment back. Any whining is actually made less just in 5e because unless they're an oathbreaker, that change isn't suddenly changing anything mechanically, so they should just deal with it.

[KorvinStarmast]

TL;DR; There is nothing wrong with alignment because its fluff to help you decide how to roleplay a situation. There is something wrong with calling it fluff, however. There are a few mechanical effects (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21762106&postcount=1); beyond that the "fluff" descriptive is dismissive of a variety of play styles.

[JoeJ]

Inspiration is a terrible mechanic.

If someone doesn't act with their stated alignment, I change their alignment. If they didn't want their alignment to be "dingus" they shouldn't have acted like a dingus. A concentrated effort on their character's part to not dingus and atone for past dingus will shift their alignment back. Any whining is actually made less just in 5e because unless they're an oathbreaker, that change isn't suddenly changing anything mechanically, so they should just deal with it.

What do you find terrible about it?

Here's the thing. Lady Justina the paladin finally has a chance to confront her nemesis Lord Evilpants. From a purely tactical POV the best way to take care of him is to shoot him in the back from cover, but Lady Juntina considers that to be dishonorable. You could rule that she either confronts Lord Evilpants face to face or risks a change of alignment, which from the player's POV is a choice between two bad options. Either way, the player is punished for choosing to play an honorable character. You could rule that ambushing Lord Evilpants doesn't risk turning Lady Justina into an oathbreaker, which makes that the unambiguous best choice. That's still punishing the player for choosing to play a character with honor.

Alternatively, you could rule that if Lady Justina confronts Lord Evilpants openly she gains inspiration, which she can then use to help defeat him. This gives a positive to an option that otherwise is only negative and makes the player feel certainly less punished and possibly even rewarded (especially if spending that inspiration made a difference in the battle) for roleplaying their character.

[2D8HP]

Darksun (and many other ‘evil campaigns’) are more about Evil VS Evil... “sure I’m an assassin for hire who’d slit my own mother’s throat for the right price; but when a sorcerer king is rising up and stealing the souls of everyone you kind of have to try and stop that pro bono”


I prefer to call it: rational evil that Good Guys can sometimes work with VS Crazy Evil that threatens us all

If you prefer, Anti-Hero vs Villains.


Those descriptions fit the Howard and Leiber stories that inspired D&D, as well as the fiction that one of the D&D co-creators wrote himself (www.bookgasm.com/reviews/fantasy/infernal-sorceress/), and the "shot first" version of Han Solo, so a definite genre fiction archetype, but I just don't see those types of adventures being played.

Occasionally I see exploration based adventures, but mostly I see unending cake-walk combat, the difference of the "evil campaigns" from the "good" one's is the PC's act more like Jack Bauer of 24 and torture NPC's (which squicks me out, when it doesn't bore me).

There's enough D&D being played that someone somewhere must have something other than site-based exploring, and combat conga-line adventures but right now I can't remember seeing any in action, so between the two I champion explorin' and lootin' campaigns, which I think of as "Neutral" rather than the kill everything green-skinned "Good" campaigns, and the kill and/or torture most things that aren't PC's 'evil' campaigns.

I'm not disputing that an alternative to those three styles exists but, except for some very dim memories that I'm starting to doubt, I haven't seen them.

[War_lord]

What do you find terrible about it?

http://theangrygm.com/take-the-suck-out-of-inspiration/


Here's the thing. Lady Justina the paladin finally has a chance to confront her nemesis Lord Evilpants. From a purely tactical POV the best way to take care of him is to shoot him in the back from cover, but Lady Juntina considers that to be dishonorable.

That has nothing to do with alignment, that's a character moment, and quite probably a flaw.


You could rule that she either confronts Lord Evilpants face to face or risks a change of alignment, which from the player's POV is a choice between two bad options.

That's not how alignment works in 5th edition. Lawful Good does not mean "dumb". And alignment changes as a result of a consistent change of behavior, you'd have to do something pretty horrible for me to consider a single action a shift.


Either way, the player is punished for choosing to play an honorable character. You could rule that ambushing Lord Evilpants doesn't risk turning Lady Justina into an oathbreaker, which makes that the unambiguous best choice. That's still punishing the player for choosing to play a character with honor.

Which 5th edition Paladin oath is she breaking by not being an idiot? Your view of how this works is two whole editions out of date.


Alternatively, you could rule that if Lady Justina confronts Lord Evilpants openly she gains inspiration, which she can then use to help defeat him. This gives a positive to an option that otherwise is only negative and makes the player feel certainly less punished and possibly even rewarded (especially if spending that inspiration made a difference in the battle) for roleplaying their character.

Three things, because of the way inspiration works, she can then use that inspiration to let the Rogue sneak attack innocent children, yes that's an absurd thing, but it's RAW. Second thing, I'm not a school teacher and I shouldn't have to positively reinforce basic elements of the game in the way you'd herd 30 ten year olds. Third thing, if you're really going to argue the implementation of alignment with me, at least use an example that's valid for this edition, not 3.5. Also, aside from that you're also conflating Paladin oaths (who are meant to hold to a higher standard then everyone else) with simple alignment, and they just not the same thing.

[JoeJ]

http://theangrygm.com/take-the-suck-out-of-inspiration/

That's kind of long. I'll read it when I get a chance.


That has nothing to do with alignment, that's a character moment, and quite probably a flaw.


That's not how alignment works in 5th edition. Lawful Good does not mean "dumb". And alignment changes as a result of a consistent change of behavior, you'd have to do something pretty horrible for me to consider a single action a shift.

Which 5th edition Paladin oath is she breaking by not being an idiot? Your view of how this works is two whole editions out of date.

Three things, because of the way inspiration works, she can then use that inspiration to let the Rogue sneak attack innocent children, yes that's an absurd thing, but it's RAW. Second thing, I'm not a school teacher and I shouldn't have to positively reinforce basic elements of the game in the way you'd herd 30 ten year olds. Third thing, if you're really going to argue the implementation of alignment with me, at least use an example that's valid for this edition, not 3.5. Also, aside from that you're also conflating Paladin oaths (who are meant to hold to a higher standard then everyone else) with simple alignment, and they just not the same thing.


By RAW:



Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.

TENETS OF DEVOTION
...Honor. Treat others with fairness and let your honorable deeds be an example to them.


This particular paladin lives in a society where shooting people in the back is considered dishonorable. So now it is a matter of alignment, as well as being required by her oath of devotion. And you're missing the point, because it could be any situation where acting in character is not optimal in a purely mechanical sense - including, but not limited to, following one's alignment.

And no, I'm not addressing this to teachers but to DMs. People play D&D because it's fun. Being told you can play a certain character but then being punished for playing that character is, for most people, not very fun.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

By RAW:



This particular paladin lives in a society where shooting people in the back is considered dishonorable. So now it is a matter of alignment, as well as being required by her oath of devotion. And you're missing the point, because it could be any situation where acting in character is not optimal in a purely mechanical sense - including, but not limited to, following one's alignment.

And no, I'm not addressing this to teachers but to DMs. People play D&D because it's fun. Being told you can play a certain character but then being punished for playing that character is, for most people, not very fun.

And here we see the violence silliness inherent in the system.

Define 'honor'. Now, two bucks says I could go find a dozen definitions that not only contradict your definition, but each other as well. So which one do we go with? The definitions in the PhB and DMG are pretty vague. And now over half of your class abilities are riding on the interpretation.

In my system, people can act good, act evil, act selfish, act chaotic... whatever. That doesn't make you a being of Good or Evil or Chaos, that just makes you a mortal making largely inconsequential mortal choices. A Holy Sword shouldn't burn someone just because they've made some poor life choices. It should, however, burn the heck out of you if you have actively devoted yourself to Evil. Just as an Unholy blade should burn the heck out of a Cleric devoted to Good.

[DarkKnightJin]

That doesn't sound like Evil, that sounds Neutral.

Which leads us to the opposite problem, people who put "Evil" on their sheet in games where that's permitted, and don't really follow through on it, they just like the idea of it.

Well, he's also the son of a weapon's manufacturing mogul, who has pretty much a monopoly on the weapons for the ruling regime.
So, he grew up with people that did what he said, and gave him what he wanted, for fear of his father.

But, I did keep in mind that he'd be leaning more toward LN than LE. He's a bit of a selfish A-hole.
The whole reason he's traveling is to show everybody that he can do things without his dad paying and/or scaring people into being yes-men to him. It just so happens that takes him in the same direction as the rest of the party.
Plus, having some flunkies friends traveling along with you is much safer.

[War_lord]

TThis particular paladin lives in a society where shooting people in the back is considered dishonorable. So now it is a matter of alignment,

That's not how it works. Good and Evil in D&D are not a matter of opinion. There are creatures on the planes who are literal manifestations of the concept of absolute Lawful Good and of absolute Chaotic evil. A relativist perspective is untenable within the game's internal logic.


as well as being required by her oath of devotion.

Honesty: Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Courage: Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion: Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
Honor: Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty: Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.

What part of that says "rush into a duel with an evildoer who outmatches you physically and won't play fair anyway?". If anything the Oath is specifically formulated to avoid lawful stupid. It urges caution, wisdom, avoiding causing harm in your quest for good and obeying those who have just authority over you.


And you're missing the point, because it could be any situation where acting in character is not optimal in a purely mechanical sense - including, but not limited to, following one's alignment.

Alignment is part of your character. Alignment does not define how your character chooses to behave, alignment is the out come of that behavior. A fallen Paladin can believe their actions are for the "greater good", but they're still Lawful Evil on the cosmic level.


And no, I'm not addressing this to teachers but to DMs. People play D&D because it's fun. Being told you can play a certain character but then being punished for playing that character is, for most people, not very fun.

You're not being punished for playing a character. Your view of what alignment is and how it actually functions in the game has led you to internalize this idea that an alignment shift is "punishing" you, but nothing about the reality matches that situation.


In my system, people can act good, act evil, act selfish, act chaotic... whatever. That doesn't make you a being of Good or Evil or Chaos, that just makes you a mortal making largely inconsequential mortal choices. A Holy Sword shouldn't burn someone just because they've made some poor life choices. It should, however, burn the heck out of you if you have actively devoted yourself to Evil. Just as an Unholy blade should burn the heck out of a Cleric devoted to Good.

No, that's why your system is just stupid. Good and Evil, Chaos and Law in D&D are not political factions, or teams, or opinions, or abstract labels. They're literal forces that act upon the world. There are physical manifestations of them. If you go to the Abyss and converse with a Demon, you're not talking to a being that someone has pejoratively labeled "Chaotic Evil", you're talking to an embodiment of the concept. "Law" is not an opinion either, Primus is the literal embodiment of perfect and absolute law. Slaad are not labelled "Chaotic", they are literally beings of Chaos. "You are evil" is not an opinion in D&D anymore the "you are burning" is an opinion in the real world. Evil is an actually tangible force in the planes, just like fire.

A moral relativist D&D character is either deluded or insane, just as in the real world we'd regard someone saying that the fire consuming their body being dangerous is relative as either deluded or insane. And yes, if a warrior who has convinced themselves that the atrocities they've carried out were done for the relativist greater good and that cosmic good is just a petty faction tries to pick up the sword of heroes that burns evil, they're going to get burned no matter what their relative opinion is.

[Rynjin]

And that absolutist morality leads to most of the frustrating and childish things about any D&D game. There's no nuance, no hard choices to make, just absolute certainties.

It's incredibly boring.

[War_lord]

And that absolutist morality leads to most of the frustrating and childish things about any D&D game. There's no nuance, no hard choices to make, just absolute certainties.

It's incredibly boring.

If you want to embrace your inner psychopath, there's plenty of RPGs for that. I've never seen a great deal of nuance from the abolish alignment crowd. Just a desire to tenuously justify evil acts. If I wanted to expose myself to that I'd do philosophy.

[JoeJ]

That's not how it works. Good and Evil in D&D are not a matter of opinion. There are creatures on the planes who are literal manifestations of the concept of absolute Lawful Good and of absolute Chaotic evil. A relativist perspective is untenable within the game's internal logic.

Wow, did you ever flip! In your very last post you claimed I didn't understand alignments in this version. Yet I quote the PHB and you reject that as not fitting your idea of what lawful good should be. In 5e lawful good characters do the right thing "as expected by society." That's RAW.


Honor: Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.

And shooting somebody from ambush counts as fair to you? Because it sure doesn't in a lot of societies, which means that a character from one of those societies who typically does such a thing would not be lawful good.


What part of that says "rush into a duel with an evildoer who outmatches you physically and won't play fair anyway?". If anything the Oath is specifically formulated to avoid lawful stupid. It urges caution, wisdom, avoiding causing harm in your quest for good and obeying those who have just authority over you.

Who said that Lord Evilpants physically outmatches Lady Justina? My example said nothing about their relative prowess. Shooting Lord Evilpants from ambush, although dishonorable, is mechanically the better choice regardless of how powerful he is.


You're not being punished for playing a character. Your view of what alignment is and how it actually functions in the game has led you to internalize this idea that an alignment shift is "punishing" you, but nothing about the reality matches that situation.

That's simply false. Lady Justina's player can only act in character by giving up a mechanical advantage. If this is the normal result of acting honorably, then that's a world in which honor is for chumps. That's great if the players know it ahead of time. It's not a lot of fun to discover during play that the character you thought would be Sir Galahad can actually only be Don Quixote.

[War_lord]

Wow, did you ever flip! In your very last post you claimed I didn't understand alignments in this version. Yet I quote the PHB and you reject that as not fitting your idea of what lawful good should be. In 5e lawful good characters do the right thing "as expected by society." That's RAW.

Which society in the PHB considers that dishonorable? I'll wait.


And shooting somebody from ambush counts as fair to you? Because it sure doesn't in a lot of societies, which means that a character from one of those societies who typically does such a thing would not be lawful good.

Which society, what page of the PHB?


Who said that Lord Evilpants physically outmatches Lady Justina? My example said nothing about their relative prowess. Shooting Lord Evilpants from ambush, although dishonorable, is mechanically the better choice regardless of how powerful he is.

Dishonorable according to who? Or are you admitting to the strawman construct here?


That's simply false. Lady Justina's player can only act in character by giving up a mechanical advantage. If this is the normal result of acting honorably, then that's a world in which honor is for chumps. That's great if the players know it ahead of time. It's not a lot of fun to discover during play that the character you thought would be Sir Galahad can actually only be Don Quixote.

Did you speak to this imaginary DM when deciding to play a Lawful Good character? To ask them things like whether in their game it's reasonably expected that a good knight with charge into battle foolishly? Did you choose to play a character from a culture with such a strange view of things ? I mean if the DM says that in this world, lawful good characters charge into battle foolishly, and you decide to play a lawful good character, you have no right to complain that your character is not lawful good when you act in a manner inconsistent with that. You chose to play that character.

The reality, of course is that you don't want to play a consistent character. You want to just do whatever is mechanically expedient while still calling your character "good". That's not roleplaying. Theoretically, if you're in a homebrew setting where it's honorable to charge foolishly into battle. And your character is fanatically and truly devoted to honor. They shouldn't hesitate to act in accordance with that expectation. The "mechanical disadvantage" is beyond the point, because the whole point of such a (homebrew) creed would be that you shouldn't seek advantage by such means.

So really we come back to the idea of wanting to play a good character, but wanting to BS your way out of actually committing to it in any meaningful way.

As for "as expected by society", that doesn't mean "the tribe that they're part of", it's on a much larger scale. That interpretation can be easily be debunked by the existence of Evil societies within D&D. They aren't good just because they think it so.

[Unoriginal]

then that's a world in which honor is for chumps.

...yes, it's honor. The whole point is restraining you from pragmatic actions that society disapprove of because they're donkey hole-ish.

Honorable people succeed despite doing the right thing, not because they're doing the right thing.




It's not a lot of fun to discover during play that the character you thought would be Sir Galahad can actually only be Don Quixote.

Even in Arthurian legends, honor is "for chumps". Most of the characters get in massive troubles and silly because of questions of honor.

Sir Galahad was just strong enough to win anyway.

[JoeJ]

Which society, what page of the PHB?

It's on the page just before the one that has a society where ambushing is honorable.


Dishonorable according to who? Or are you admitting to the strawman construct here?

What do you think is the strawman here?


Did you speak to this imaginary DM when deciding to play a Lawful Good character?

That "imaginary DM" would be me, so yes. I almost always post from a DM's perspective, and this thread is no exception.


To ask them things like whether in their game it's reasonably expected that a good knight with charge into battle foolishly? Did you choose to play a character from a culture with such a strange view of things ? I mean if the DM says that in this world, lawful good characters charge into battle foolishly, and you decide to play a lawful good character, you have no right to complain that your character is not lawful good when you act in a manner inconsistent with that. You chose to play that character.

The reality, of course is that you don't want to play a consistent character. You want to just do whatever is mechanically expedient while still calling your character "good". That's not roleplaying. Theoretically, if you're in a homebrew setting where it's honorable to charge foolishly into battle. And your character is fanatically and truly devoted to honor. They shouldn't hesitate to act in accordance with that expectation. The "mechanical disadvantage" is beyond the point, because the whole point of such a (homebrew) creed would be that you shouldn't seek advantage by such means.

So really we come back to the idea of wanting to play a good character, but wanting to BS your way out of actually committing to it in any meaningful way.

As for "as expected by society", that doesn't mean "the tribe that they're part of", it's on a much larger scale. That interpretation can be easily be debunked by the existence of Evil societies within D&D. They aren't good just because they think it so.

You seem very committed to the idea that confronting an enemy openly instead of ambushing them is strange and foolish, despite the fact that in a great deal of fantasy all good and decent characters behave that way. If all you ever want to play is Black Company, you should just ignore what I suggested about inspiration. (And there's nothing wrong with that if you do; I enjoy Black Company too.) I was making that suggestion for people who, at least some of the time, also want to play Excalibur.


Even in Arthurian legends, honor is "for chumps". Most of the characters get in massive troubles and silly because of questions of honor.

Sir Galahad was just strong enough to win anyway.

Which sounds to me like exactly the sort of situation that is best handled in 5e by granting inspiration for doing the right thing instead of the most practical thing.

[2D8HP]

And that absolutist morality leads to most of the frustrating and childish things about any D&D game. There's no nuance, no hard choices to make, just absolute certainties.

It's incredibly boring.


The Alignment system does that?

Really?

For me what makes D&D boring (when it's boring) is an endless conga-line of cakewalk combat, and what would bring back the feeling of Adventure! is:

NPC's who talk more than a few words.

Descriptions of the environment besides "Duchess and Duke blah-di-blah say go fight some what's-it for inadequately-explained reasons that the PC's will just do because heroes", or captured, or who-knows-why, and "You see the what's-its, and they attack".

What happened to caves that you could turn left or right? What happened to the map making aspect of adventures?

Challenges other than combat, maybe walls to climb? Traps to avoid? People to find? A chase?

Combat that's quick and that's deadly for the PC's as well as the antagonists, so it's something that you try to avoid, or use tactics, not "powers" to survive, cause except for one 5e DM, all the others make combat take too long without anyone dropping, NPC or PC, and only once have I had the suspense of wondering if my PC would die.

I don't want to go back to PC survival for three sessions being rare, but the feeling of some risk would again be nice.


What makes D&D exciting is having choices and dice rolls that I perceive have consequences, and I don't see Alignment having much to do with that.

As far as "having permission" to "explore moral grey areas", um that's real life and I don't need D&D for that, and except for what's written on the character record sheet most DM's don't police ethics and morality at all, it might be cool if they did, who knows?

And by Crom I miss NPC's that have personalities beyond "that way lie the what's-its" and "we are the what's-its, now we shall fight and be killed"?

Maybe if they had Alignments it would help?

Maybe if they didn't?

Maybe no different?

Yeah I'm gonna go with no different, 'cause I just don't see Alignment used.

[JoeJ]

...why?

Inspiration rewards interesting roleplay, sure, but why are you ignoring the fact that the Arthurian characters did *not* get rewarded for doing the right thing instead of the practical thing?

Why do you say that? The ones who were protagonists, at least, almost always won.

[Unoriginal]

Which sounds to me like exactly the sort of situation that is best handled in 5e by granting inspiration for doing the right thing instead of the most practical thing.

...why?

Inspiration rewards interesting roleplay, sure, but why are you ignoring the fact that the Arthurian characters did *not* get rewarded for doing the right thing instead of the practical thing?

If anything I would award inspiration once the encounter is over.


The Alignment system does that?

Really?

For me what makes D&D boring (when it's boring) is an endless conga-line of cakewalk combat, and what would bring back the feeling of Adventure! is:

NPC's who talk more than a few words.

Descriptions of the environment besides "Duchess and Duke blah-di-blah say go fight some what's-it for inadequately-explained reasons that the PC's will just do because heroes", or captured, or who-knows-why, and "You see the what's-its, and they attack".

What happened to caves that you could turn left or right? What happened to the map making aspect of adventures?

Challenges other than combat, maybe walls to climb? Traps to avoid? People to find? A chase?

Combat that's quick and that's deadly for the PC's as well as the antagonists, so it's something that you try to avoid, or use tactics, not "powers" to survive, cause except for one 5e DM, all the others make combat take too long without anyone dropping, NPC or PC, and only once have I had the suspense of wondering if my PC would die.

I don't want to go back to PC survival for three sessions being rare, but the feeling of some risk would again be nice.


What makes D&D exciting is having choices and dice rolls that I perceive have consequences, and I don't see Alignment having much to do with that.

As far as "having permission" to "explore moral grey areas", um that's real life and I don't need D&D for that, and except for what's written on the character record sheet most DM's don't police ethics and morality at all, it might be cool if they did, who knows?

And by Crom I miss NPC's that have personalities beyond "that way lie the what's-its" and "we are the what's-its, now we shall fight and be killed"?

Maybe if they had Alignments it would help?

Maybe if they didn't?

Maybe no different?

Yeah I'm gonna go with no different, 'cause I just don't see Alignment used.

You know, 2D8HP, I think I would enjoy having you as a player in a campaign I DM.




Why do you say that? The ones who were protagonists, at least, almost always won.

They won because they were strong, not because they were honorable.

Honor actively cause problems, in the Arthurian legend. It doesn't give you an advantage.

[War_lord]

It's on the page just before the one that has a society where ambushing is honorable.

There's nothing even vaguely like that on page 121.



What do you think is the strawman here?

D&D 5e expecting Lawful Stupid behavior, the idea that DMs not only conceive of Lawful Good but also immediately shift someone to evil for one alignment violation, the idea that being self serving is evil in 5e (it's neutral in the absence of malice). All three of those are false.


That "imaginary DM" would be me, so yes. I almost always post from a DM's perspective, and this thread is no exception.

So really you're just calling yourself a bad DM. So I can't disagree.


You seem very committed to the idea that confronting an enemy openly instead of ambushing them is strange and foolish, despite the fact that in a great deal of fantasy all good and decent characters behave that way.

Yes, they behave that way in either fairytales, or stories that emphasize the element of self sacrifice. I don't run fairy stories, I run serious worlds. And in those worlds the honorable thing to do in war is to use the strategy that minimizes bloodshed and ensures the defeat of evil. And if that means ambushes and poising water supplies, so be it. If a warrior in my game is the "fair fight" kind of honorable, they do that despite the risk and challenges, and that's what makes it heroic. But it's not heroic if they're dragging people (the party) into that kind of fight for their own vanity.


If all you ever want to play is Black Company, you should just ignore what I suggested about inspiration. (And there's nothing wrong with that if you do; I enjoy Black Company too.) I was making that suggestion for people who, at least some of the time, also want to play Excalibur.

Except you're not playing Excalibur. The whole point of those stories is that the knights do what's honorable despite the fact that it exposes them to greater danger, and that they triumph despite the added difficulties. That theme doesn't work when, the minute they actually act like Galahad in game, you just give them the same advantage they would have had if they acted dishonorably. That AngryDM article goes over this sort of thing as part of why inspiration sucks.

[Astofel]

Did you speak to this imaginary DM when deciding to play a Lawful Good character? To ask them things like whether in their game it's reasonably expected that a good knight with charge into battle foolishly?


There's a distinct difference between charging into battle foolishly, facing someone head-on with appropriate preparation, and shooting someone in the back. An 'honourable' character, according to the conventional definition of honour, would much prefer the second option over the third, but only a stupid character would consider the first. We both know there's no definition of honour in the PHB, so we just have to rely on regular old English here, just like the designers expect. So in this case, in order to roleplay Justina 'correctly' you would have to make the mechanically suboptimal choice of fighting Lord Evilpants head-on. That's cool, that's exactly what Inspiration is intended for.

As for my views on alignment specifically, it's not very important in games I run. My players will tell me 'my character is x alignment,' to which I reply 'okay.' Sometimes I say to a player 'your character isn't really acting like x alignment any more, so I'm going to ask you to change it to y alignment,' to which they reply 'okay.' To me alignment is less important than the character traits that give rise to it.

[War_lord]

There's a distinct difference between charging into battle foolishly, facing someone head-on with appropriate preparation, and shooting someone in the back. An 'honourable' character, according to the conventional definition of honour, would much prefer the second option over the third, but only a stupid character would consider the first. We both know there's no definition of honour in the PHB, so we just have to rely on regular old English here, just like the designers expect. So in this case, in order to roleplay Justina 'correctly' you would have to make the mechanically suboptimal choice of fighting Lord Evilpants head-on.

No, that's only one possible definition of honorable. Honorable in any game is determined by the DM. Nowhere in the book does it say "Honor means following the western chivalric fairy tale". Older editions had that, and the Paladin in those earlier editions was a notorious problem causer.


That's cool, that's exactly what Inspiration is intended for.

Except that it's terrible at it because Inspiration is totally divorced from the behavior that grants it. A functioning incentive mechanic would actually reflect the behavior that grants it.

[2D8HP]

You know, 2D8HP, I think I would enjoy having you as a player in a campaign I DM


Really?

Cool thanks!

But I have to warn you that when my INT 8 PC forgets stuff, well...

...that's not role-playing, that's my bad memory.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

That's not how it works. Good and Evil in D&D are not a matter of opinion. There are creatures on the planes who are literal manifestations of the concept of absolute Lawful Good and of absolute Chaotic evil. A relativist perspective is untenable within the game's internal logic. Yes, there absolutely are creatures on the planes who are, in fact, literal manifestations of the concept of absolute alignments...

And you aren't one of them

YOU, are simply a petty moral, and largely beneath their notice, whose actions are trivial in the larger scheme.[/quote]




No, that's why your system is just stupid. Good and Evil, Chaos and Law in D&D are not political factions, or teams, or opinions, or abstract labels. They're literal forces that act upon the world. There are physical manifestations of them. If you go to the Abyss and converse with a Demon, you're not talking to a being that someone has pejoratively labeled "Chaotic Evil", you're talking to an embodiment of the concept. "Law" is not an opinion either, Primus is the literal embodiment of perfect and absolute law. Slaad are not labelled "Chaotic", they are literally beings of Chaos. "You are evil" is not an opinion in D&D anymore the "you are burning" is an opinion in the real world. Evil is an actually tangible force in the planes, just like fire.
Ad Hominem attacks aside, they aren't political factions, but yet they still have physical manifestations with their own goals? Sounds like a faction to me. And that's exactly what they are. See also: the Sin War, and the constant clash between Good and Evil that is in every single D&D worldbook, from Krynn to Eberon, to Faerun.

So yes, they absolutely are political factions and teams.

You just aren't on their level. You're a mortal. And funny thing about mortals is that they have true free will. They can make a choice about which side they want to root for. Or they can make no choice. If you make a choice, if you step up, there's advantages and disadvantages to that decision. Or you can simply go on about your adventuring career steadfastly dodging the clashes going on.

But there's a HUGE difference between Evil, capital E, like a Balor, and evil, little e, like some petty assassin killing people for cash. Kinda like you pointed out in your own argument. Because Mortals? Can change their minds, can change their beliefs, can become reformed. But the creatures of these planes? Can't. That's literally what they are. And that's the difference.


A moral relativist D&D character is either deluded or insane, just as in the real world we'd regard someone saying that the fire consuming their body being dangerous is relative as either deluded or insane. And yes, if a warrior who has convinced themselves that the atrocities they've carried out were done for the relativist greater good and that cosmic good is just a petty faction tries to pick up the sword of heroes that burns evil, they're going to get burned no matter what their relative opinion is.It's not a matter of moral relativism, it's simply your mortal insignificance not amounting to a hill of beans as far as any cosmic entity is concerned. You have to do more than torch a few orphanages or slit a few throats for money to play with the Big Boys. Sure, that's evil, but it's not Evil, as in sacrificing someone to try and summon a Demon. There's a big difference.

[Astofel]

No, that's only one possible definition of honorable. Honorable in any game is determined by the DM. Nowhere in the book does it say "Honor means following the western chivalric fairy tale". Older editions had that, and the Paladin in those earlier editions was a notorious problem causer.
It doesn't say it in the book sure, but most people would agree on what is honourable. I agree that a DM should be able to say what is honourable or not for any cultures in their campaign, but they should never be able to decide what Justina thinks is honourable, because the DM is not the PCs. If somehow in the campaign there exists no culture that shares Justina's beliefs on honour, the DM should have brought that up during character creation.


Except that it's terrible at it because Inspiration is totally divorced from the behavior that grants it. A functioning incentive mechanic would actually reflect the behavior that grants it.
Yeah, I can agree that Inspiration in 5e could have been handled a lot better. Most of the time I forget to use it, and so do most other people from what I hear. Doesn't mean that Justina's situation isn't exactly what Inspiration was intended to handle, and if I were a DM who used it regularly I'd probably award it there.

[War_lord]

It doesn't say it in the book sure, but most people would agree on what is honourable. I agree that a DM should be able to say what is honourable or not for any cultures in their campaign, but they should never be able to decide what Justina thinks is honourable, because the DM is not the PCs.

It doesn't matter what Justina thinks is honorable . What matters is what the gods (who give societies their sense of good) think is honorable. If Justina deludes herself that she knows better then the gods she serves, she'll fall eventually. Like I said, in D&D a character who asserts that good and evil are matters of opinion is demonstrably wrong. Justina the character might think she's Lawful Good, that has no baring on what her sheet says.

[Naanomi]

It doesn't matter what Justina thinks is honorable . What matters is what the gods (who give societies their sense of good) think is honorable. If Justina deludes herself that she knows better then the gods she serves, she'll fall eventually. Like I said, in D&D a character who asserts that good and evil are matters of opinion is demonstrably wrong. Justina the character might think she's Lawful Good, that has no baring on what her sheet says.
The Gods are way below the level of beings that choose what Good and Evil means in DnD Cosmology for what it matters... the Alignments are much more fundamental to reality than the Gods are (and predate the appearance of the Gods by quite a bit, though were not present at the very beginnings of the Cosmos)

[War_lord]

The Gods are way below the level of beings that choose what Good and Evil means in DnD Cosmology for what it matters... the Alignments are much more fundamental to reality than the Gods are (and predate the appearance of the Gods by quite a bit, though were not present at the very beginnings of the Cosmos)

I'm mainly just asserting the point that the actual defining of what good is goes way beyond one obstinate PC trying to play relativist.

[Naanomi]

I'm mainly just asserting the point that the actual defining of what good is goes way beyond one obstinate PC trying to play relativist.
I understand, but I think it is important to note that Good and Evil isn’t just the whims of certain groups of Gods... nor even the Examplar races that represent the Alignments... but rather is deeper and more fundamental than any of that in the Cosmological scale. When Gods started interfering with the War of Law and Chaos, existence itself (or some being indistinguishable from it) shut them down, that fight was beyond them

[Tanarii]

Occasionally I see exploration based adventures, but mostly I see unending cake-walk combat, the difference of the "evil campaigns" from the "good" one's is the PC's act more like Jack Bauer of 24 and torture NPC's (which squicks me out, when it doesn't bore me).I run a site based exploration game, that is also usually pretty heavy in combat, with a large number of players. But that's exactly why I have a no evil characters rule. And a don't be a donkeybottom "rule". I don't want to deal with players who can't tell the difference between anti-heroes that can work with a group against villains and villains themselves.

The don't be a donkeybottom "rule" I mostly had to bust out early on with players that tried to play chaotic neutral stupid or lawful good stupid in a thoroughly anti-party way.

[JoeJ]

There's nothing even vaguely like that on page 121.

Of course not. Just as there are nothing on p. 122 about a society that considers it honorable to ambush enemies.


D&D 5e expecting Lawful Stupid behavior, the idea that DMs not only conceive of Lawful Good but also immediately shift someone to evil for one alignment violation, the idea that being self serving is evil in 5e (it's neutral in the absence of malice). All three of those are false.

So you deny that there are any DMs who will cause a paladin to fall for one dishonorable act? Any at all? I didn't assert any of the other things you list, but that one I'm pretty sure is real.


So really you're just calling yourself a bad DM. So I can't disagree.

Rudeness does not help your argument. The kind of D&D game you enjoy is not the One True Way.


Yes, they behave that way in either fairytales, or stories that emphasize the element of self sacrifice. I don't run fairy stories, I run serious worlds. And in those worlds the honorable thing to do in war is to use the strategy that minimizes bloodshed and ensures the defeat of evil. And if that means ambushes and poising water supplies, so be it. If a warrior in my game is the "fair fight" kind of honorable, they do that despite the risk and challenges, and that's what makes it heroic. But it's not heroic if they're dragging people (the party) into that kind of fight for their own vanity.

Good for you. You have my permission to not grant inspiration to paladins who confront their enemies face to face if you don't want to.


Except you're not playing Excalibur. The whole point of those stories is that the knights do what's honorable despite the fact that it exposes them to greater danger, and that they triumph despite the added difficulties. That theme doesn't work when, the minute they actually act like Galahad in game, you just give them the same advantage they would have had if they acted dishonorably. That AngryDM article goes over this sort of thing as part of why inspiration sucks.

Granting inspiration is not the same advantage they would have gotten by acting dishonorably. It's not even as great an advantage, since a successful ambush results in surprise, which is a very powerful thing.

Inspiration is simply a mechanic that allows PCs a greater chance of success when it's dramatically appropriate (as determined by the player). It helps the game conform to the tropes of the genre, including the trope about heroic knights defeating foul cowards, if that's the kind of game you're playing. Good ultimately triumphs over evil because that's how the universe works in those kinds of stories, even though not all of the characters in the story necessarily believe it. Galahad's strength is as the strength of ten, not because he works out a lot, but because his heart is pure. You're not required to enjoy those stories or want to roleplay them, but some people do.

In case you missed it, my point is simply that if a DM wants alignment to matter in their game, they would do well to remember that rewards are more likely than punishments to be well received by the players. Granting inspiration is one reasonable way to reward players who roleplay their alignment well.