Not letting players pick their alignment: a theoretical.

[GreyBlack]

A preface:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ANzMWd4xI&t=0s

Now that you've all fallen in love with JoCat, I want to draw your attention to something he says at the end:

"Also, never let your players pick their own alignment, because when they do it tends to look more like this: "But that's totally because I'm such a Gemini [...]"

So, I'm not curious about this as an alignment set up. You let your characters pick their backstory and whatever, but as the DM, you tell your players up front, "We're running an X game," and all of the characters will be of that alignment. This kinda harkens back to the old system (i.e. OD&D alignment) where your alignment was more which miniature army your hero would be fighting on.

So. Opinions on not letting players pick their own alignments?

[ArtIzon]

None of my characters have alignments at all. Instead I use MTG color identities. My current character is WBR.

I've always felt alignments were a worthless mechanic -- well, not completely worthless. They might make it easier for players new to RP to figure out how their character might behave.

In all other circumstances, I find them restrictive unless everyone at the table understands that they're supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive -- which is a rare sight IME.

So I guess I answered your question with another question. Why bother using alignment at all? What does it add to the game? If it can just change whenever and has no effects (I think there's maybe 1 time it matters RAW in all of 5e), what's the point of it existing at all?

[Zhorn]

I treat alignments as a track record of actions and intentions.
A character doesn't have a set alignment, they have goals, inclinations, and motivations. THOSE have an alignment bent to them, but even that is perspective dependent.

A character can be perceived as evil for being ruthless, but they could still be active for the greater good, or vice-versa.

[Sigreid]

I don't really pay any attention to alignment at all. In the rare occasions where a magic item only works for or punishes and alignment I make a judgement call based on how they've played.

[MaxWilson]

I don't really pay any attention to alignment at all. In the rare occasions where a magic item only works for or punishes and alignment I make a judgement call based on how they've played.

This exactly.

[NecessaryWeevil]

So...running a game where everyone is required to be, say, Lawful Neutral and to act like they're Lawful Neutral? Seems a bit odd, and not everyone likes playing a certain alignment. So I'm not sure what that adds to the game...?

[WaroftheCrans]

Yeah, I'm running a LE cleric, but the cleric doesn't view himself as being evil. Its gonna be awkward when Spirit Guardians summons a ton of fiends around him.
He's a faction agent of a autocratic govt, which is a theocracy around the greek gods. It seems like there might be genocide in the future of this campaign, but thus far the PC hasn't done anything overtly evil.
It's annoying how his alignment might prevent metallic dragons from liking him, or certain effects from working. I can't think of any actual mechanical benefits to being evil in 5e.

[Lavaeolus]

My 5e games tend to be pretty alignment-blind: most NPCs don't really have any awareness of whether you're "Good" or "Lawful" on your sheet, so they mostly act based on what they know of the party and their actions. With that in mind, I'm usually content to just leave alignment as something a player will briefly think on when first jotting down their character, rather than stepping in to debate what it is to be Chaotic Good. I might bring it up if I'm aware of some alignment impacts coming up and/or their behaviour is incredibly incongruous (e.g. a Good character running around massacring the innocent).

As to picking alignments in advance for a campaign -- maybe. I do often set up some conditions on who the players are. "In this campaign, you'll be a group of bounty hunters." "You'll be knights of the Kingly Kingdom, on a holy quest." Etc.

As to alignment specifically? I'd have to have a concept that, basically, depends on alignment at its core. Maybe something planar related. Something that demands the players be Good, not just in the moral sense, but as D&D specifically categorises it. Which might happen; I'm sure there's a lot you can do with devils and celestials, as an example.

More generally? Alignment is pretty secondary in how I like to define characters, and in how I expect players to define characters. Alignments can be a jumping board, but I usually expect them to be a little murky. If I explicitly force, let's say Lawful Good as an alignment, partly I'd be concerned about players just awkwardly bending characters to fit the alignment, rather than it being a properly cohesive thing to base a campaign/character-motivations around.

[Veldrenor]

Alignment is useful the same way personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws are useful: it gives the player a general guideline for how their character behaves. When first starting, not everyone fully knows who their character is and it's only through play that they uncover the character's intricacies. Having some initial guide is helpful until a better understanding is attained.

I do like the idea of not letting your players choose their alignments, though, assuming that you use alignment at all. D&D settings tend to have concrete definitions of law and chaos, good and evil. There are specific places in the afterlife your character goes to depending on where they fall on those axes. Those lines are drawn by the gods, who are controlled by the DM. People can argue about the meaning of the alignments all they like, but at the end of the day the DM's perspective is the one to which the world is shaped. Using alignment as a barometer for how the DM views your character rather than how you view your character seems like it could be a useful reality check.

[Anymage]

I don't really pay any attention to alignment at all. In the rare occasions where a magic item only works for or punishes and alignment I make a judgement call based on how they've played.

Thirded. D&D alignment is really only there for history and memes, and trying to fix it is just extra hassle when ignoring it works just as well.

[Yakmala]

I'm an old school RPG'er so that might factor into this but I still insist on players picking an alignment when they make their characters.

To me, it serves the following useful purposes.

1: It helps provide players, especially less experienced ones, with a touchstone by which to measure their responses in various roleplay situations. This is even more useful in cases where they haven't really thought their backstory through. It helps the player keep their character consistent.

2: As a DM, it lets me know when a character is acting in a way that is outside of how others perceive them, which can matter in how NPC's react to their words and actions.

3: In cases where alignment actually matters, such as when they have a God or Patron of a particular alignment, or are a member of an order that has a credo that works similar to an alignment, repeated actions in violation of their previously established beliefs can lead to consequences.

[Rynjin]

I don't really pay any attention to alignment at all. In the rare occasions where a magic item only works for or punishes and alignment I make a judgement call based on how they've played.

This is pretty much how I run it to. I let people pick alignments, but generally don't bring it up. I will inform a player if they do something that seems evil, to make sure they actually want to follow through, and if they do I'll make a note that their character is morally flexible, and likely to be affected by Holy Smite more than their peers.

I've always been of the camp that alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. Your alignment is determined by your thoughts and actions, not the other way around.

[Tanarii]

Interesting idea. Although I'd go with all characters must be lawful or all must be chaotic, as part of a greater group theme. Lawful mercenaries or chaotic rebels or something.

Another twist, especially if you don't otherwise use alignment, would be to say everyone must pick an Ideal from their background that typically matches a specific alignment bent. That'd probably be a good way to get an Evil campaign of the ground effectively, especially if you then required a customized Bond that also helped them avoid playing as alignment of stupid. Those Evil Ideals give some good hints on how to play Evil without being a caricature psychotic backstabber in the deep end of the Evil pool.

[Amdy_vill]

so that way i do alignment is the players choose their starting alignment and based off of their choices over time I change it, Not like writing it down on their sheets, more a note on my side with how the world views each players and how gods view each players. this give each player 4 Alignments, the one hey have on their sheet, the one I have that i think is their true alignment, one for NPCs, and one for Gods. this makes more senses to me as alignments are both a subjective and Cosmic law in DND. My alignment, the players listed alignment and the NPCs alignment are all subjective. the Gods are Cosmic law. I don't treat Cosmic law as true, IE. in the USA Prostitution is illegal but that does not mean it is wrong, just that this one arbitrary set of laws says it is.

Edit: IE Comic Laws says someone is lawful if they fallow the laws of the gods, no taraforming deserts, not killing gods, no becoming a lich, no sealing your soul. Neutral is not caring about those laws. chaos is actively breaking them. Good is a only if you fight evil. Evil is only if you actively hurt other without cause.

[GreyBlack]

Interesting idea. Although I'd go with all characters must be lawful or all must be chaotic, as part of a greater group theme. Lawful mercenaries or chaotic rebels or something.

Another twist, especially if you don't otherwise use alignment, would be to say everyone must pick an Ideal from their background that typically matches a specific alignment bent. That'd probably be a good way to get an Evil campaign of the ground effectively, especially if you then required a customized Bond that also helped them avoid playing as alignment of stupid. Those Evil Ideals give some good hints on how to play Evil without being a caricature psychotic backstabber in the deep end of the Evil pool.

That does kinda touch on one of the bases of the Alignment System; originally, you could pick Law, Neutrality, and Chaos as your alignment, no Good or Evil axis. A compromise might be to say that everyone has to be aligned on one axis (Law, Chaos, Good, Evil, or Neutral), which harkens back again to that idea.

[Yora]

I've read the story by Dave Arneson that they introduced alignment in an attempt to stop players from backstabbing other party members. And those players just said "I am chaotic then, har har!" It was recognized as a failure immediately, but for some reason it stuck around and even got expanded.

My campaigns never use alignment. But I recently noted that the players in my current group have written alignments on their character sheets. From how I understand 5th edition, it makes no difference if they do or not.

[elyktsorb]

I pick alignments for my characters, but I also change them as the character changes. Playing a Neutral Good Tortle who has since shifted to just Neutral as he's less about helping other people and more about just making sure he doesn't die.

[CapnWildefyr]

I'm an old school RPG'er so that might factor into this but I still insist on players picking an alignment when they make their characters.

To me, it serves the following useful purposes.

1: It helps provide players, especially less experienced ones, with a touchstone by which to measure their responses in various roleplay situations. This is even more useful in cases where they haven't really thought their backstory through. It helps the player keep their character consistent.

2: As a DM, it lets me know when a character is acting in a way that is outside of how others perceive them, which can matter in how NPC's react to their words and actions.

3: In cases where alignment actually matters, such as when they have a God or Patron of a particular alignment, or are a member of an order that has a credo that works similar to an alignment, repeated actions in violation of their previously established beliefs can lead to consequences.

I'm old school too. I agree. Its a tool both for the player to keep playing the kind of character you want to play, and a tool for the DM to measure roleplaying "drift."

How do you as a player keep a paladin or druid on track? How does a DM say "Now wait a minute, your god no longer is sending you spells" if you don't have a yardstick to measure by, however loosely? I am not talking PC micromanagement here, just consequences for behavior.

IME some players always play the same thing. Others play the same thing, only using different classes and alignments (translation: poor roleplaying). Other truly play different characters differently. Alignment is a way to help that along.

I would, however, ignore most of what's written as alignment descriptions for 5e and instead use 2e's descriptions if you can find them. They are more "actionable" by the players.

It's also useful, if, like me, you don't like PvP. Good characters don't backstab their companions. Evils MUST. You can't be evil alignment without eventually betraying and killing those around you. (Emphasis on 'eventually.') </rant>

[NorthernPhoenix]

In 5th Edition, Alignment primarily exists for the player to tell the DM (and other players) broadly what kind of character they've made, similar to bonds, flaws, ideals and so on. It's essentially descriptive.

[Joe the Rat]

5e alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. If you are honorable, but still selfish or cruel, value rule of law and don't care about (or enjoy) watching people ground to dust in the gears of the bureaucracy, or are a vicious little monster that keeps his word, appreciates leadership, and is generally inclined to being a team player, yeah, Lawful Evil. Intention doesn't matter here. There are no secret codes of the Cosmic Teams any more. But if you are a nasty piece of work and a creature or artifact has the ability to sense the nature of your soul, there can be consequences.

This lack of consequence also means that it is fluid - changing alignment no longer bars you from certain classes, or costs you 50,000xp as you renounce your values and shift allegiances. It means you choose to act differently. When the time comes where you have the choice of a truly evil act, that is an opportunity to stop and decide if this is really what you think the character should do - or does he want to rethink his approach to things.

Right now I have a LE Kobold Celestial Warlock, bound to one of Bahamut's servitors. He has totally drunk the Kool-Aid on how awesome being Good is - for one thing, your gods actually let you keep your stuff! And there's fewer floggings. He just needs to be less cruel and vindictive, and attend to the concerns of his teammates when determining which creatures are edible(he's narrowed it down to "not one of the species on the team"), and a host of other really difficult responsibilities. He wants to be Good, he's just really bad at it. His character arc may eventually include an alignment shift, as he really starts to put the welfare of others over his own interests.


I've read the story by Dave Arneson that they introduced alignment in an attempt to stop players from backstabbing other party members. And those players just said "I am chaotic then, har har!" It was recognized as a failure immediately, but for some reason it stuck around and even got expanded.

My campaigns never use alignment. But I recently noted that the players in my current group have written alignments on their character sheets. From how I understand 5th edition, it makes no difference if they do or not.
Moorcock. It stuck around because Moorcock. Honorable and Civil vs. Pragmatic and Cruel vs Ambivalence, without the G and E words, framed as a cosmological leaning. Putting greater powers in without defining greater powers. The real rub comes when you want to have someone leaning toward "Cruel Totalitarian" which doesn't fit the "these are the good guys" image of Lawful.



Yeah, I'm running a LE cleric, but the cleric doesn't view himself as being evil. Its gonna be awkward when Spirit Guardians summons a ton of fiends around him.
He's a faction agent of a autocratic govt, which is a theocracy around the greek gods. It seems like there might be genocide in the future of this campaign, but thus far the PC hasn't done anything overtly evil.
It's annoying how his alignment might prevent metallic dragons from liking him, or certain effects from working. I can't think of any actual mechanical benefits to being evil in 5e.Your outsiders actually put out? But on a more practical side, describe your guardians as spectres of fallen warriors - it fits the milieu of the Greek theocracy (Classical isn't an angels and demons culture). Maybe they don't look as "heroic" as if you were north of Acheron, but really the only difference should be in the damage type.

[stoutstien]

Players can write whatever they want in their alignment slot. Their actions and choices are what's important.

I don't even think they serve a purpose for NPCs.

[Tanarii]

I would, however, ignore most of what's written as alignment descriptions for 5e and instead use 2e's descriptions if you can find them. They are more "actionable" by the players.
I'd recommend against that. They don't make good motivations because they are far too broad and detailed. That's a bad combination for what is supposed to be one motivation out of many, and how you end up with one dimensional (morality) caricature characters.

Far better to use the 5e system as intended: neither prescriptive (must behave this way) not descriptive (determined based on action) but rather motivational (player considers along with 4 other personality traits). And for that you need it to remain braid but not overly detailed or too complex. That makes it truly useful in considering as part of the decision making, aka Roleplaying.

[stoutstien]

IME some players always play the same thing. Others play the same thing, only using different classes and alignments (translation: poor roleplaying). Other truly play different characters differently. Alignment is a way to help that along.
if someone wants to play a similar charterer that is just reincarnated as a different class i don't think anyone has the right to label them as being a poor role player. let alone that statement is poor form in all forms.


It's also useful, if, like me, you don't like PvP. Good characters don't backstab their companions. Evils MUST. You can't be evil alignment without eventually betraying and killing those around you. (Emphasis on 'eventually.') </rant>
evil and murderous tendencies are not synonymous. a evil being could even follow all the rules and still be the hardcore evil. in the same regard a super goody two shoes could rationalize murder.

[Contrast]

I'm playing in a game atm. The DM asked people for ideally LG characters, CG acceptable and any evil alignments would require a discussion beforehand. We had one player approach the DM to play an evil character and another who says they're CG but in play has clearly behaved at best CN and leaning towards CE.

I play in a game a while ago where the plot was that we were going into be in charge of a fortress recently reclaimed from the brutal and repressive ownership of the drow, with the drow as the main antagonists and extremely hated by all the locals we would be rallying in defence of the remaining drow forces. Two of the four players immediately asked if they could play as drow.


Which is to say, I feel alignment can even be problematic when used as a framing device to try and shape the kind of game and characters you want in that game. Some people just like pushing at boundaries and alignment has sufficiently nebulous boundaries that they might think there's a lot more push than the DM does. Also, trying to use rules to enforce roleplaying a certain morality after the fact is always going to be problematic. I think its far better to just have a clear discussion about expectations and behaviour rather than try and shortcut that using alignment which different people may interpret differently.

tl;dr - Alignment restrictions can be used as a shortcut for discussion with your players, but probably shouldn't.


It's also useful, if, like me, you don't like PvP. Good characters don't backstab their companions. Evils MUST. You can't be evil alignment without eventually betraying and killing those around you. (Emphasis on 'eventually.') </rant>

I mean if that's your opinion I would suggest you never play an evil character but I note that good people are perfectly capable of betraying a trust (imagine a cop finding out his partner/best friend was dirty and agreeing to get evidence of his corruption) and that evil people are perfectly capable of just... not stabbing people they've known for too long? Imagine an intelligent LE type - as long as you're still useful to them as an ally, why would they betray you? And a high level PC is very useful as an ally. They might betray you but there's certainly no unavoidable inevitability about it. Not all evil people are killers, let alone apparently barely restrained serial killers.

[Tanarii]

I mean if that's your opinion I would suggest you never play an evil character but I note that good people are perfectly capable of betraying a trust (imagine a cop finding out his partner/best friend was dirty and agreeing to get evidence of his corruption) and that evil people are perfectly capable of just... not stabbing people they've known for too long? Imagine an intelligent LE type - as long as you're still useful to them as an ally, why would they betray you? And a high level PC is very useful as an ally. They might betray you but there's certainly no unavoidable inevitability about it. Not all evil people are killers, let alone apparently barely restrained serial killers.
(Edit: removed real world analogy. It's probably against forums rules, real world doesn't have good or evil, and it was sure to start a fight.)

For that matter, the vast majority of D&D thieves guilds should be evil. Neutral would be normal guilds.

[CapnWildefyr]

I'd recommend against that. They don't make good motivations because they are far too broad and detailed. That's a bad combination for what is supposed to be one motivation out of many, and how you end up with one dimensional (morality) caricature characters.

Far better to use the 5e system as intended: neither prescriptive (must behave this way) not descriptive (determined based on action) but rather motivational (player considers along with 4 other personality traits). And for that you need it to remain braid but not overly detailed or too complex. That makes it truly useful in considering as part of the decision making, aka Roleplaying.

I just think the descriptions are better and help you roleplay better. In 5e chaos is 'do whatever' whereas philosophically it used to be more about no blind obedience to law and more emphasis on self-reliance.

In a way I think we are trying to get to the same place, we just prefer different maps.

[Tanarii]

I just think the descriptions are better and help you roleplay better. In 5e chaos is 'do whatever' whereas philosophically it used to be more about no blind obedience to law and more emphasis on self-reliance.

In a way I think we are trying to get to the same place, we just prefer different maps.
In 5e it's follow your whims and value personal freedom.

One person might interpret that to mean their PC is whimsical and random without much though. Another that they don't plan ahead, but still think before acting. Another that they say "don't tell me what to do!" to others a lot. Or the gub-ment.

Being somewhat vague and loose allows for a variety of interpretations and interplay with other personality traits. It may be not so hot for those players that want to be told what to do in detail, but why are they playing a chaotic character anyway..

Jokes aside I do see there is value to having detailed stereotypes on how to be something you aren't in real life. C.f. racial stereotypes. And also I can totally see where someone would read the 5e chaotic neutral alignment behavior and arrive at lol-random.

[D.U.P.A.]

The problem is that usually new players (and some not so new) view alignment as: Good -> work with party; Evil -> work against party. And Lawful and chaotic also quickly degenerates to: Lawful -> Good, Chaotic -> Evil, so it reduces basically to two alignments.

I think this is a better alternative for 'this is what my character would do' players who cannot player alignments properly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3vdkjQfU3A

[CapnWildefyr]

if someone wants to play a similar charterer that is just reincarnated as a different class i don't think anyone has the right to label them as being a poor role player. let alone that statement is poor form in all forms.

evil and murderous tendencies are not synonymous. a evil being could even follow all the rules and still be the hardcore evil. in the same regard a super goody two shoes could rationalize murder.

I am referring to players who always play the same thing even though THEY have stated it is not the same thing. No matter what they claim to be personality-wise and class-wise, they always act the same. It's all good if everyone has fun, mind you. Not everyone can play devious snake today and uptight upright jerk tomorrow and wizened genial old man the day after.

As for evil--and this is way way off thread-- eventually if you Embrace evil you will have to look out for number one. In DnD this usually in games I've played gets someone killed or at least really hosed. No matter how you cut it, truly self centered people who do not have a regard for other peoples lives except with respect towards self gain have to inflict pain on the party whether directly or by inaction--if they roleplay accurately. I could write a dissertation but it's not worth it because we all play differently, and if we all have fun, OK. If something works for your group, cool, just stating why I think alignment matters.

An exception-- someone above mentioned a kobald who tries to be good but fails. The difference is in the tryIng. Someone who embraces evil is what I mean.

[stoutstien]

I am referring to players who always play the same thing even though THEY have stated it is not the same thing. No matter what they claim to be personality-wise and class-wise, they always act the same. It's all good if everyone has fun, mind you. Not everyone can play devious snake today and uptight upright jerk tomorrow and wizened genial old man the day after.

As for evil--and this is way way off thread-- eventually if you Embrace evil you will have to look out for number one. In DnD this usually in games I've played gets someone killed or at least really hosed. No matter how you cut it, truly self centered people who do not have a regard for other peoples lives except with respect towards self gain have to inflict pain on the party whether directly or by inaction--if they roleplay accurately. I could write a dissertation but it's not worth it because we all play differently, and if we all have fun, OK. If something works for your group, cool, just stating why I think alignment matters.

An exception-- someone above mentioned a kobald who tries to be good but fails. The difference is in the tryIng. Someone who embraces evil is what I mean.

This reminds me of a very famous Calvin and Hobbes strip. Does Santa bring gifts to children that are good or act good?

[TigerT20]

The problem is that usually new players (and some not so new) view alignment as: Good -> work with party; Evil -> work against party. And Lawful and chaotic also quickly degenerates to: Lawful -> Good, Chaotic -> Evil, so it reduces basically to two alignments.

I think this is a better alternative for 'this is what my character would do' players who cannot player alignments properly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3vdkjQfU3A

I find it's more Lawful -> Boring and Chaotic -> Funny

[GreyBlack]

So something I'm seeing a lot of is people saying "just drop it entirely" and others saying "It's descriptive, not prescriptive."

To the "just drop it entirely" crowd, nothing will ever be said to change their minds, so I'll ignore them.

To the "It's descriptive, not prescriptive" crowd, I'd argue that this is the apotheosis of that. Your character describes who they are and what they do, and then after describing what they do, they have an alignment given by the DM. I'm more curious as to what people's reactions to this is, instead of allowing players to choose their alignment, the DM dictates their alignment.

[Segev]

"You all must be XY alignment" is fine if you can't trust your players to figure out how to make things work together, but my preference is, "You all need to be motivated towards X. Figure out why your characters care about X, and make sure you talk to each other about your goals and methods so that you don't have a party that splits up or tries to kill each other."

[N810]

Just because you start out as Lawful good at level one, doesn't mean you wont end up being chaotic neutral by level five. Alignment is a reflection of your actions and role playing not an unmalleable governing rule.

[truemane]

I always find this debate perplexing, as it always seems to endlessly circle a small number of outputs without examining the fundamental assumptions (fighting over the THEN without talking about the IF).

1. Alignment is not Morality. It can't be morality. In any way. We, as humans, despite thousands of years of trying really, really hard, have come to zero consensus on what is moral, what actions are moral, what PART of the action contains the morality (Act? Intent? Consequence?) or even whether morality is absolute or relative or somewhere in between. Every attempt to systematize morality has failed. And so the Alignment system, as a means of systematizing morality, must also collapse under the weight of exceptions and provisos and personal interpretations, and overall is about as useful a quiz in Cosmo that asks 20 questions and then tells you what kind of cat your inner diva is (mine's an ocelot).

2. Players are people. Wherever there's a system of labels, there are those who make us of the system to describe what they are already doing, and there are those who insist that what is done match the system. For every person who looks at, say, the wide variety of labels for human sexual orientation, and decides that their actual lived experience is such that labels A and/or B fit them best, there's someone who says, "If you're an A or B person, you must feel this or that." Often these are the very same people in different circumstances. This is pretty much universal in human activities, but for role-playing it means that some people wish to place importance on the 'role-playing' aspect of the activity and make use of the tools to do so. Others will take those same tools, and use them to rubber-stamp what they are/were going to do anyway. So the alignment system is no better or worse a tool for guiding player actions than any others. Because people will make use of a system for their own ends. And the people see this, blame the system (or the players), make a new one, and wash-rinse-repeat.

3. As always (and with almost everything else), the way to make Alignment work in a given game or story is to decide how it works and then tell your players. If Alignment (as opposed to morality - see above) is important, explain that, so everyone can buy into (or not) the same set of conventions. If this is a heroic story, tell players we're telling a heroic story, and that you expect them to act in a manner that conforms to the conventions of a heroic narrative. So long as they do, what does it matter if Player 1 is a Lawful Good Paladin living their truth and Player 2 is a Chaotic Evil Rogue constantly doing good things against their better judgement? It doesn't matter. So long as the players are acting in a way that they've all agreed is appropriate for this game, this group, this story, the words on the sheet only matter insofar as they interact with the Magic System. Trying to force a heroic story, without discussion, by saying 'everyone has to be Lawful Good' is confusing cause with effect.

So, whether the player or the DM decides alignment is beside the point. In the absence of some manner of universally accepted ratio of act to alignment, it doesn't matter. A player can spend all their time 'acting' Lawful Good but if you and the DM have a different view of what constitutes Law and Good you're just going to have the same argument, but with extra steps.

[Morty]

How do you as a player keep a paladin or druid on track? How does a DM say "Now wait a minute, your god no longer is sending you spells" if you don't have a yardstick to measure by, however loosely? I am not talking PC micromanagement here, just consequences for behavior.

Presumably, the god in question has some kind of description that includes their commandments and requirements towards their followers and representatives. Thus giving the GM a good idea of what their clerics/paladins shouldn't do. Likewise with druids, except for them it's a general "serve nature" thing. Not terribly specific, but then still more so than alignment.

[truemane]

I'm old school too. I agree. Its a tool both for the player to keep playing the kind of character you want to play, and a tool for the DM to measure roleplaying "drift."

How do you as a player keep a paladin or druid on track? How does a DM say "Now wait a minute, your god no longer is sending you spells" if you don't have a yardstick to measure by, however loosely? I am not talking PC micromanagement here, just consequences for behavior.

IME some players always play the same thing. Others play the same thing, only using different classes and alignments (translation: poor roleplaying). Other truly play different characters differently. Alignment is a way to help that along.

I would, however, ignore most of what's written as alignment descriptions for 5e and instead use 2e's descriptions if you can find them. They are more "actionable" by the players.

It's also useful, if, like me, you don't like PvP. Good characters don't backstab their companions. Evils MUST. You can't be evil alignment without eventually betraying and killing those around you. (Emphasis on 'eventually.') </rant>
For me, all this stuff should be decided outside the game, as a meta-conversation about what kind of game we're all playing. If someone wants to play a Druid, you have a quick talk about what you think Druids are, or aren't, and how they move through the game world. Same with Paladins. Same with anything. If you don't want players stabbing other players in the back, just tell the players not to, and to make characters who will find reasons not to.

Trying to use the rules to enforce meta-narrative conventions is both more adversarial and less effective than just saying it out loud.

[KorvinStarmast]

I treat alignments as a track record of actions and intentions.
A character doesn't have a set alignment, they have goals, inclinations, and motivations. THOSE have an alignment bent to them, but even that is perspective dependent. I have been doing this since the early 80's. I played with a few DM's who played a never ending series of "gotscha's" with players of good alignments. (particularly Paladins). And it rubbed me the wrong way. So I began to let players declare any alignment, and if they were drifting on the two axis graph, I'd given them "in world" alerts, and sometimes have OOC discussions, on "your alignment is moving in this direction, and here is why."

This gave the player a chance to correct the drift, or, to let it go and embrace a new alignment if they so chose.

I do this with our current group and it is so far working very well.

[Anymage]

To the "It's descriptive, not prescriptive" crowd, I'd argue that this is the apotheosis of that. Your character describes who they are and what they do, and then after describing what they do, they have an alignment given by the DM. I'm more curious as to what people's reactions to this is, instead of allowing players to choose their alignment, the DM dictates their alignment.

Realistically speaking this happens in most games where they care to remember alignment. You might list whatever you like in your sheet based on how you envision the character you just rolled up. The DM, if he cares to track it at all, will update that based on how you've been playing. (Which may not be - and in fact often isn't - exactly what you pictured at chargen.) What you're proposing is the same thing except the DM gives their thoughts on your initial description as well.

[Contrast]

To the "It's descriptive, not prescriptive" crowd, I'd argue that this is the apotheosis of that. Your character describes who they are and what they do, and then after describing what they do, they have an alignment given by the DM. I'm more curious as to what people's reactions to this is, instead of allowing players to choose their alignment, the DM dictates their alignment.

A lot depends on how and why the DM dictates the alignment.

Clearly if it has no impact in game there's a degree of wasted time in 'tracking' it in the first place - I don't care what alignment the DM mentally thinks my character is if it doesn't have any impact on the actual game.

If I trust that the DM has in character entities who hold set opinions on alignment (which varies between individuals and cultures) and is consistent in their application such that the game world makes sense and I enjoy playing in that setting? Probably not a problem.

If I don't enjoy playing in the game world with the morality system the DM has constructed or if I feel like the DM is just using their authority as DM to tell me I'm wrong in my personal assessment of right and wrong and choosing to impose their own instead...I'm probably not going to be enjoying what the use of alignment is bringing to the table.

Its a very fine line to walk and personally I've never really understood what people feel like they're gaining thats worth the potential arguments but *shrugs*

[NorthernPhoenix]

I find tracking characters alignment to be moderately amusing for the purposes of determining where players characters ends up when/if they die, but that's about it as far as consequences go, in 5e at least.

[SociopathFriend]

In my experience alignment has been one of two things:

1) Neutral in some manner to allow the player to do what they want without guilt (typically Chaotic Neutral)

2) Evil in some manner to allow the player to be a **** because, "It's my character"

[Kereea]

I don't really pay any attention to alignment at all. In the rare occasions where a magic item only works for or punishes and alignment I make a judgement call based on how they've played.

Yep. A magic book zapped me for my chaotic goodness. We think it was the Chaotic as a party that did it. While my character actions hadn't been super chaotic, my lifestyle is (I travel with performers and have the lowest honor score--which I chose to have due to perception of traveling actors in semi-feudal world). I did not up the chaos until a couple sessions later, out of rage at Historical Site Desecration (my Kenku is a history nerd)

However, not letting the player pick alignment seems rude. Like, okay, if they're not playing the alignment they picked then sure, but like, initially at least they may have a reason. Plus you'll know to keep an eye on whoever picks Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil as potential issues, since those are the main alignments for "I want to screw with the party".

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Alignment is fluff, opinion, say whatever you want but others within the world will see you as they see you.

Side note, I play Lawful Evil rather well. Perhaps why I love Tarquin so much is that Rich gets that evil doesn't have to mean LOL-EVIL STABBY STABBY.

My characters forms bonds with their allies and while some moral issues may come up, at the end of the day if you hurt my friends my character will exact vengeance with extreme prejudice. Double so if you break the law too hurt them.

My Lawful Evil Druid helped the party build an orphanage because that was his nephew's goal (one of the other PCs). When someone stole from said orphanage, my druid took things into his own hands and made sure the theif never did it again (the town let the party decide his fate). Side note, I'm not sure if it counts as being a cannibal if you are in animal form when you eat a member of your original race alive.

I know I'm evil, the players know I'm evil, the characters just think I'm Lawful Neutral with the whole "survival of the fittest" stuff going on. The town thinks I'm somewhere on the good side of things.

[Sigreid]

So, thinking about your original post, it seems like maybe what you're really after is more of a narrowing of personality/motivation? If so, alignment or no, it's totally fair to say "I want to run X kind of game so your characters need to be loyal to x organization that stands for y principals. If you agree, I expect you to be all in."

[greenstone]

Your character describes who they are and what they do, and then after describing what they do, they have an alignment given by the DM. I'm more curious as to what people's reactions to this is, instead of allowing players to choose their alignment, the DM dictates their alignment.
That is exactly how I run it.

A player can write whatever they want on their character sheet in the 'Alignment" box. Their actual alignment is based on their actions.

In my games, good and evil are an objective reality, in exactly the same way termperature is. Good actions make an area more "good"; evil actions do the reverse. Some creatures can sense the alignment of an area, exactly how creatures can sense temperature.

[Tanarii]

That is exactly how I run it.

A player can write whatever they want on their character sheet in the 'Alignment" box. Their actual alignment is based on their actions.

Despite there still being some mechanical effects for alignment, that makes it more or less useless.

What matters is what the player wrote down for their alignment, and how they use it to help determine what actions to take. Not what the DM thinks the alignment should be based on actions. As a RP motivational tool, not a yardstick of morality.