PDA

View Full Version : Would you change a "chaotic neutral" murderhobo's alignment? Do you allow them?



MonkeySage
2021-03-18, 01:48 PM
Whether or not you allow evil pcs in your campaigns, if someone created a murderhobo and assigned them any alignment other than evil, would you change their alignment during the campaign?

I currently do not allow evil PCs- I think it takes a very experienced and skilled player, and more importantly one that I trust to play it well... If a player turned murderhobo, I would change their alignment and ask for their character sheet- because their murderhobo character is now an evil NPC.

Realistically, though, I have a rule: No murderhobos. If someone interprets "Chaotic Neutral" as the "I can do whatever I want" alignment, I don't even allow them at my table. I wouldn't even allow this type of character in an explicitly evil campaign, lol.

OldTrees1
2021-03-18, 01:59 PM
Alignment describes how the character has been and who they are now. As a GM I have observed how the character has been and I can ask the Player about who the character is now. If the label _____ fits, then I reserve the authority to apply that label to the character.

However you will notice that talking to the player was an important step there? Communication is powerful.

Xervous
2021-03-18, 02:07 PM
If someone is mistaking chaotic evil for chaotic neutral there’s a bunch of points in time where they’ll get corrected. That could be session 0 when I nix or mandate the concept be adjusted. It could be session 1 when it turns out they lied / were incoherent in session 0. It could be in session 2 when the party lynches them like you’d remove a gangrenous limb.

If the party is all on board for murderhobo that’s great! If they want to do something overly stupid the world demonstrates their error. It’s when players get in the way of each other’s fun that problems occur. If a player’s fun wrecks everything else going on that’s a GM veto coming down.

Satinavian
2021-03-18, 04:42 PM
I do allow evil PCs. There are lots of interesting group friendly evil concepts for most campaigns

I would change the alignment of a murderhobo to evil. If the game has alignment that is when you use it.

But I don't allow murderhobos as PCs anyway. I have better things to do than DMing other peoples murderfantasies.

Quertus
2021-03-18, 07:24 PM
I would keep careful watch over how many good vs how many evil beings they kill. If they are literally killing *everyone*, based on 3e alignment distribution, Chaotic Neutral seems the most likely best fit.

If they go out adventuring, killing evil monsters too much, I may warn them that they're getting dangerously close to Chaotic Good.

False God
2021-03-18, 09:14 PM
I allow you to declare your character to be whatever alignment you want at the start of the game, provided you don't give me a backstory where you steal and murder a thousand puppies for funsies and then claim you're lawful good. What you do during the game is really what determines your alignment, so by "allow any alignment" what I really mean is "ignore whatever you wrote in the alignment box and watch what your character does."

What I don't allow is party-facing problem behaviour. Players 1-4 want to talk to an NPC. Player 5 stabs the NPC because raisins. Players 1-4 want to buy some gear. Player 5 robs the gear store. Players 1-4 want to divvy up the loot. Player 5 tries to steal and kill the party to get more loot. This is unacceptable.

Players 1-4 want to get into the town but the guard captain is being a jerk/racist/sexist/general wad. Player 5 kills the guard captain. This is fine. Sometimes you need a character who's willing to "do the stuff" the rest of the party can't or won't. Because ultimately this moves the party's goals forward (getting into the town).

---
On evil: I agree that it requires a certain special sort of player to pull off well-done evil. Anyone who marks ?E on their sheet gets a firm, pre-game warning that I've got my eye on them and reserve the right to revoke their character's existence at the slightest sign of them being a general anti-party jerk.

That said, with some of the more skilled people I play with I've had loads of success with evil characters. Mostly in the Lex Luthor vein who maintain the outlook of "I have goals to accomplish and the party is useful to me in that regard." LE characters abuse the law to their advantage. NE characters take the law or leave it as it benefits them. CE ignores the law more often than not in pursuit of pleasure/riches.
--Remember: Not breaking the law is not the same as following the law.

Since you didn't ask, on good: Likewise, I let anyone who marks LG on their character sheet know that the law is a fairly strict thing and being good is hard. Honestly being "evil" is fairly easy. Especially if they are a divine character of some sort. I've had more trouble with LG "crusader" sorts than CE rapscallions.

Duff
2021-03-18, 09:28 PM
If you don't allow muderhobos, why are we having the conversation?
Hit 'em with the banhammer and move on.

As to alignment - it depends on how (and how much) you use alignment. If it's a core part of your game, and you feel the declared alignment and the character's actions don't match talk to the player about which will change.

If a character becomes evil due to this change, don't ban them due to that.
But feel free to end a character that isn't working in the game, whether they're outside the rules or not.

Calthropstu
2021-03-18, 09:51 PM
Whether or not you allow evil pcs in your campaigns, if someone created a murderhobo and assigned them any alignment other than evil, would you change their alignment during the campaign?

I currently do not allow evil PCs- I think it takes a very experienced and skilled player, and more importantly one that I trust to play it well... If a player turned murderhobo, I would change their alignment and ask for their character sheet- because their murderhobo character is now an evil NPC.

Realistically, though, I have a rule: No murderhobos. If someone interprets "Chaotic Neutral" as the "I can do whatever I want" alignment, I don't even allow them at my table. I wouldn't even allow this type of character in an explicitly evil campaign, lol.

Chaotic Neutral can not be murder hobos as far as I am concrrned.

As far as killing goes, I have to look at why killing is done.

"He attacked me and I killed him. Outside of that, I'd never kill anyone." That is generally the good outlook.

"Hey, I feel bad they're dead, but there's not enough food for both our tribes. Wiping them out was the only way our tribe makes it through winter." That's the kind of thing a neutral person would do.

"He had something I wanted, so I killeded him dead. Isn't this necklace pretty?" Yeah, that's evil.

False God
2021-03-18, 10:07 PM
"Hey, I feel bad they're dead, but there's not enough food for both our tribes. Wiping them out was the only way our tribe makes it through winter." That's the kind of thing a neutral person would do.

If a good person would presumably help both tribes survive.
And a neutral person would kill the other tribe.
What the heck would an evil person do? Kill both and have a lot of food they'll never use?

MonkeySage
2021-03-18, 10:22 PM
If a good person would presumably help both tribes survive.
And a neutral person would kill the other tribe.
What the heck would an evil person do? Kill both and have a lot of food they'll never use?

Personally, I'd argue that killing the other tribe would still be an evil act. Saying sorry or that you feel bad afterwards certainly won't make your victims feel any better about having been murdered.

hamishspence
2021-03-18, 11:02 PM
"Hey, I feel bad they're dead, but there's not enough food for both our tribes. Wiping them out was the only way our tribe makes it through winter." That's the kind of thing a neutral person would do.

BoVD:


In a world of black-and-white distinctions between good and evil, killing innocents to save yourself is an evil act. Sacrificing yourself for the good of others is a good act. It's a high standard, but that's the way it is.


"Murder to survive" as opposed to "self-defence" is evil. Presumably that's true whether you're an individual or a whole tribe.

Mastikator
2021-03-19, 03:56 AM
I'd start with their PC's personality traits, goals, motivations and backstory and work from there to transform their murderhobo into something that I can work with.

Weasel of Doom
2021-03-19, 05:13 AM
If someone created a murderhobo and assigned them any alignment other than evil, would you change their alignment during the campaign?
How are you defining murderhobo? I think we all have a general idea of what you mean but for a discussion like this it's probably worth nailing down the specifics.


Evil act

Evil act
I agree with both of you that killing a tribe of innocents to feed your own is an evil act BUT I also think Calthropstu was exactly right in saying it was the sort of act a neutral person might do. Neutral (or even good) people can do terrible things under desperate conditions and that by no means makes them an evil person.

Calthropstu
2021-03-19, 09:27 AM
BoVD:


In a world of black-and-white distinctions between good and evil, killing innocents to save yourself is an evil act. Sacrificing yourself for the good of others is a good act. It's a high standard, but that's the way it is.


"Murder to survive" as opposed to "self-defence" is evil. Presumably that's true whether you're an individual or a whole tribe.

In that case, every hunter is evil. Yeah, not buying it.

If both tribes live, both tribes die. Dooming both tribes over morality is suicidally stupid. Sorry, survival is not evil. Just as a wolf taking a baby is not evil.

hamishspence
2021-03-19, 10:18 AM
In that case, every hunter is evil.
Murder in a D&D context is the unjustified killing of a sapient being by another sapient being. Usually with a "nefarious motive" (BoVD) but "survival" can be a nefarious motive in this context.


Dooming both tribes over morality is suicidally stupid. Sorry, survival is not evil. Just as a wolf taking a baby is not evil.

Survival involving attacking other sapients without provocation, is.

Wolves aren't intelligent enough to be "murderers" in this context. And killing someone, without provocation, for the sake of "survival cannibalism" has been deemed "murder", historically speaking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens


BoVD didn't deem "sacrificing others to save yourself" evil for no reason - they did so because there is precedent for doing so.

MoiMagnus
2021-03-19, 01:18 PM
With a definition of "Neutral" large enough (e.g. "anything that isn't literally infused with evil energy or good energy is neutral"), a murderhobo can be neutral.

One could also argue that a murderhobo character being purely one-dimensional, is not really capable of moral decisions (their player don't care enough) and should be unaligned like animals up until it gains a personality.

KineticDiplomat
2021-03-19, 01:19 PM
I agree with the above poster who is asking for a better definition of murderhobo. To my understanding, murderhobo-ing is not an alignment, it’s a specific playstyle - one where your character is classically completely unattached to the world, to the point of not bothering to wonder where they sleep, any relations, etc even after becoming obscenely wealthy (That’s the hobo part) and entirely focused on their ability to kill goblins or whatever in escalating dungeon crawls. (Thats the murder).

As it relates to the morality discussion - leaving aside the tired fact that all morality is subjective - neutral covers a great array of acts that are ostensibly possibly “evil” when the intent is not hamfisted cackling lulz.

False God
2021-03-19, 02:44 PM
If both tribes live, both tribes die. Dooming both tribes over morality is suicidally stupid. Sorry, survival is not evil. Just as a wolf taking a baby is not evil.

But...how does the "neutral" person know this? How do they know this situation is absolute? Have they attempted finding more resources? Have they attempted consolidating the tribes to better utilize their resources? Have they tried working to reduce their resource usage to better stretch Tribe A's food supply?

Because logically, if Tribe A and Tribe B both need 1 Unit of food to survive the winter, then at worst both tribes are at .5 Units. (because 1 is the survival cutoff, and eliminating Tribe B must raise Tribe A's food units to a minimum of 1).

But being at half your necessary food is not an insurmountable problem, at least not one that requires tribal extermination.

Of course I suspect "all the other options" have been exhausted. Okay, there is no more food to be found. There are no more resource-stretching measures to be taken. There are no more alliances to be found.

Why would the supposed Neutral person kill only the other tribe? Why wouldn't they kill their own tribe? Half of each tribe? 2/3rds of one tribe and 1/3rd of another? Why resort to killing at all? Why not just abandon both tribes? Reasonably speaking, if each tribe only has .5 Food Units, then a neutral person could do nothing and 1/2 of each tribe would survive. Frankly, doing nothing sounds more neutral than resorting to slaughter, regardless of reason.

I guess I'm taking issue because this sounds more like a setup than actual choice a neutral person would make.

Alcore
2021-03-19, 02:48 PM
Fun fact; i get accepted to more games with an evil alignment than i do Chaotic Neutral. Muder Hobos ruin games and it's telling when a DM will take honest Chaotic Evil over stand-in "Chaotic Neutral" Evil.

And this is why my CE character fly;

However you will notice that talking to the player was an important step there? Communication is powerful.

See... the character is not the problem. It is inert as a gun. It is a people thing...

Though honestly putting evil on the tin is no where near as a red flag as CN. My CE character didn't actually need an interview process...



As a DM i just don't change alignment. It seems pointless except for spells. Leave changes to the afterlife review like with Roy in the comic

denthor
2021-03-19, 07:47 PM
There 3 options

1 remove the character not a good option.

2 inform the player chaotic neutral does good deeds more often then they do evil deeds.

3 if that does not work then allow evil characters and have something more powerful come along and really take advantage of the character. Take advantage show up take gold magic items, show them what evil is.

Bugbear
2021-03-19, 10:18 PM
Change a characters alignment? Sure, all the time at the roll of a dice.


Allow Muderhobos? I guess your talking about the character that just randomly kills things in the game and mostly tries to ruin the game and ruin everyone's fun?

Yes. Though I never let a player ruin, disrupt or otherwise negatively effect a game. Kill the character at the roll of a dice, yes.....often.

Wizard_Lizard
2021-03-19, 10:24 PM
Tbh alignment in 5e is meaningless anyway, no point in changing it, but if people were being murderhobos and the rest of the party was cool with it and/or murderhobos I'd change the game to suit murderhoboing more, say by moving it to idk the abyss where you can go kill things without really being morally reprehensible. If people were having a problem with the murderhobo, I'd talk to the player ooc and maybe suggest they change their pc or change how their pc acts by toning it down a little.

Saint-Just
2021-03-22, 10:21 AM
But...how does the "neutral" person know this? How do they know this situation is absolute? Have they attempted finding more resources? Have they attempted consolidating the tribes to better utilize their resources? Have they tried working to reduce their resource usage to better stretch Tribe A's food supply?

Because logically, if Tribe A and Tribe B both need 1 Unit of food to survive the winter, then at worst both tribes are at .5 Units. (because 1 is the survival cutoff, and eliminating Tribe B must raise Tribe A's food units to a minimum of 1).

But being at half your necessary food is not an insurmountable problem, at least not one that requires tribal extermination.

Of course I suspect "all the other options" have been exhausted. Okay, there is no more food to be found. There are no more resource-stretching measures to be taken. There are no more alliances to be found.

Why would the supposed Neutral person kill only the other tribe? Why wouldn't they kill their own tribe? Half of each tribe? 2/3rds of one tribe and 1/3rd of another? Why resort to killing at all? Why not just abandon both tribes? Reasonably speaking, if each tribe only has .5 Food Units, then a neutral person could do nothing and 1/2 of each tribe would survive. Frankly, doing nothing sounds more neutral than resorting to slaughter, regardless of reason.

I guess I'm taking issue because this sounds more like a setup than actual choice a neutral person would make.

Hm, I will just for fun try answering this point-for-point, because in general situation is definitely something that people have faced regularly, and absolutely not an artificial setup (you may well have the opinion that such situations and making decisions specifically is inappropriate in TTRPG, that is an entirely separate question)

Neutral person knows it as well as person of any other alignment. They usually do not know that the situation is absolute (you can imagine situation where but that is more artificial), nevertheless even a risk that you and your whole community will die often pushes people to do whatever necessary regardless; alternatively the uncertainty is in the other direction ("Maybe if everything goes well no one will starve this winter, but it doesn't look like that; of course we will not share with strangers"). There is very little that can be done to better utilize food with twofold increase in numbers; neither specialization nor economies of scale will do in most situations. Reducing resources usage... requires very precise plans unfeasible before modernity, or is done already. People living on the edge of survival are not stupid. Some of those points can be pertinent to, say, large city dwellers suddenly forced out in the wild by some disaster but if we are talking about "tribes" it's usually all done and accounted for.

A Neutral person will kill only the other tribe because, well, Neutral alignment is not presented as absolutely detached from worldly matters and killing everyone equally, if there is life to be bought at a price of murder than Neutral person would rather murder Others than parents/brothers/friends/obnoxious cousin; nonviolence (even to the point of not resisting people murdering you) is compatible with Neutrality, but so is violence. The next few questions somehow presume that a Neutral person is somehow powerful enough to singlehandedly decide who lives and who dies, which is not a reasonable assumption. Killing half of your tribe by the agreement of the tribe is practically impossible; doubly so if there is a possible enemy nearby when even those who will survive will be afraid that the others will attack now-weakened tribe. Finally walking away from the tribes seems like especially weird proposition. I can see someone trying avert the bloodshed regardless of the fact that your community is in danger, but walking away? Oh, and even the most generous tribe is unlikely to afford you more than your fair half-ration, which means you are even less likely to survive than those who stay. Unless you are still presuming some 20lvl Paladin of Neutrality in which case they should start by slaughtering the high horse they rode in.

Finally: in any remotely realistic circumstance any coherent group with 1/2 of necessary food will not see 50% death toll by the end of the winter. Barring cannibalism (in which case you'd need to eat about 1/2 of the group every 90 days) there will be only few survivors if any. You see, the first day everyone will eat. And the second and a third. If the group is constructed out of abstracted identical clones they will all eat, lose weight, weaken, and die at the same hour. With differences in body weight, metabolism, health etc. some will die significantly earlier than the others and their remaining supply being stolen or redistributed, but this is not a way which can results in 50% survival. The only way it could happen is 50% of the group straight up murders or at least robs the other of everything the first day. Why there were some socially sanctioned options of killing the extra mouths in history it never was something that can take out 50% of the population; infants - yes, old people - sometimes, but not much more. So as a first approximation "If both tribes live, both tribes die" is an incredibly likely result.

Calthropstu
2021-03-22, 10:43 AM
Hm, I will just for fun try answering this point-for-point, because in general situation is definitely something that people have faced regularly, and absolutely not an artificial setup (you may well have the opinion that such situations and making decisions specifically is inappropriate in TTRPG, that is an entirely separate question)

Neutral person knows it as well as person of any other alignment. They usually do not know that the situation is absolute (you can imagine situation where but that is more artificial), nevertheless even a risk that you and your whole community will die often pushes people to do whatever necessary regardless; alternatively the uncertainty is in the other direction ("Maybe if everything goes well no one will starve this winter, but it doesn't look like that; of course we will not share with strangers"). There is very little that can be done to better utilize food with twofold increase in numbers; neither specialization nor economies of scale will do in most situations. Reducing resources usage... requires very precise plans unfeasible before modernity, or is done already. People living on the edge of survival are not stupid. Some of those points can be pertinent to, say, large city dwellers suddenly forced out in the wild by some disaster but if we are talking about "tribes" it's usually all done and accounted for.

A Neutral person will kill only the other tribe because, well, Neutral alignment is not presented as absolutely detached from worldly matters and killing everyone equally, if there is life to be bought at a price of murder than Neutral person would rather murder Others than parents/brothers/friends/obnoxious cousin; nonviolence (even to the point of not resisting people murdering you) is compatible with Neutrality, but so is violence. The next few questions somehow presume that a Neutral person is somehow powerful enough to singlehandedly decide who lives and who dies, which is not a reasonable assumption. Killing half of your tribe by the agreement of the tribe is practically impossible; doubly so if there is a possible enemy nearby when even those who will survive will be afraid that the others will attack now-weakened tribe. Finally walking away from the tribes seems like especially weird proposition. I can see someone trying avert the bloodshed regardless of the fact that your community is in danger, but walking away? Oh, and even the most generous tribe is unlikely to afford you more than your fair half-ration, which means you are even less likely to survive than those who stay. Unless you are still presuming some 20lvl Paladin of Neutrality in which case they should start by slaughtering the high horse they rode in.

Finally: in any remotely realistic circumstance any coherent group with 1/2 of necessary food will not see 50% death toll by the end of the winter. Barring cannibalism (in which case you'd need to eat about 1/2 of the group every 90 days) there will be only few survivors if any. You see, the first day everyone will eat. And the second and a third. If the group is constructed out of abstracted identical clones they will all eat, lose weight, weaken, and die at the same hour. With differences in body weight, metabolism, health etc. some will die significantly earlier than the others and their remaining supply being stolen or redistributed, but this is not a way which can results in 50% survival. The only way it could happen is 50% of the group straight up murders or at least robs the other of everything the first day. Why there were some socially sanctioned options of killing the extra mouths in history it never was something that can take out 50% of the population; infants - yes, old people - sometimes, but not much more. So as a first approximation "If both tribes live, both tribes die" is an incredibly likely result.

Yes. But most have missed the point. A neutral person is not going to randomly murder. Barring extreme circumstances, the average person avoids killing.

Chaotic neutral values personal freedom. Chaotic neutral is fleeing an arranged marriage despite the fact it may harm your family. It's taking apples from the fruit stand when no one is looking. It's running naked through town square during a speech.

It's not killing people because lulz.

MoiMagnus
2021-03-22, 10:52 AM
(1) While passivity is often neutral, neutrality doesn't necessarily means passivity. Extreme behaviours that are not clearly good or evil can also be neutral.
(2) Neutral doesn't mean rational, it also doesn't mean right either. A neutral person can wrongly assume that this is a life and death situation, and act accordingly not noticing the other solutions available.
(3) High stress situations will probably push a lot of peoples outside of their alignment. And I'm not even talking about changing of personality of having character growth. I'm saying that their thinking patterns that made them took Neutral decisions in normal situations might push them toward extremely Good actions or extremely Evil actions in dire situations. (For them to go back to Neutral behaviour latter, possibly with one of more trauma from the experience).

KineticDiplomat
2021-03-22, 11:50 AM
Interesting on how opinions here on “evil vs neutral in the face of resource shortage” differ. We do know that resource shortages cause violence, increased rates of personal (as opposed to organizational-institutional) crime and so forth. That part is pretty inviolable established by social sciences and anthropology.
And we also know that for a good bit of history, humanity lives pretty close to the biological poverty line in terms of calories.

Now what’s interesting here is that if you decide going to war with the other tribe to survive is evil, then not only was humanity probably “evil” for most of its history, but it then leads to a natural new statement: people/societies become morally superior as they get richer, because they are less prone to such “evil” acts. And say what you will about tax fraud or sub-prime lending on falsified credit ratings, but they don’t involve deciding to murder the other guy for food.

And I don’t think that’s actually a statement anyone who is calling the tribal conflict “evil” wants to get on board with. At least in theory; I dare say they do in practice, as we might cheer Aladdin in the movie for his plucky street kid ways as he steals from a stall , but our real world selves would not like it if homeless people started robbing the next door deli.

MoiMagnus
2021-03-22, 12:43 PM
Now what’s interesting here is that if you decide going to war with the other tribe to survive is evil, then not only was humanity probably “evil” for most of its history, but it then leads to a natural new statement: people/societies become morally superior as they get richer, because they are less prone to such “evil” acts.

There is an interesting opposition with animals. Animals as unaligned / neutral is mostly a cop out. Most peoples don't want to deal with the moral implication of putting a morality to the natural order. (Is it a moral obligation to prevent an animal from viciously hunting its preys? Etc)

Depending on how you justify the neutrality of animals, primitive human societies are either neutral for the same reasons ("self-preservation choices are never evil"), or evil because they don't get the animalistic exception ("sentience comes with the burden of morality").



And say what you will about tax fraud or sub-prime lending on falsified credit ratings, but they don’t involve deciding to murder the other guy for food.

Advanced societies are more likely to have large scale exploitation of worker or slavery than tribes.
How do you account for the broken starving families and suicides from the economic situation that the tax fraud contributed to create? Should you average those evil so that every individual has a minor part of responsibility for them, or should everyone not actively fighting against them get the full penalty for being complicit? In the latter, modern societies are quite Evil too.

Wizard_Lizard
2021-03-22, 02:45 PM
I'd just like to say... going to war with the other tribe is the last thing you want to do. Think of the loss of life on your side at least! They won't go down without a fight and the warriors will likely be the ones who are best at say... hunting and gathering food and all that. Invading the other tribe could well end up with both tribes decimated.

Mr Beer
2021-03-23, 04:33 AM
To me a "murderhobo" is merely a dungeon clearer of no fixed abode who tends to eschew the RP aspect of the game in favour of more mechanical slaying and looting. I take no great issue with this.

I do have a problem with people who are disruptive to the party's overall goals or generally go around being edgelords, engaging in sadistic fantasies with helpless NPCs and the like. But I don't try to make it an alignment prohibition. You can be a good player with an evil character at my table. Just don't be a jerkface player.

neceros
2021-03-27, 01:38 AM
In D&D murder is always evil. That doesn't mean the character is evil, but if one does it enough the alignment shou8ld change. Honestly this is why I don't use alignment -- who cares? Trying to classify7 millions of years of humanity psyche into 9 categories.

So if he keeps killing then yes he will turn evil. To be neutral one must remain neutral.

Tanarii
2021-03-27, 11:27 AM
In D&D murder is always evil.Killing isn't always evil. Breaking the law isn't always evil (and isn't even always chaotic). And yet an unlawful premeditated killing is somehow always evil.

Must be the combination of things.

Btw your statement about murder always being evil is wrong in 5e. The only alignment that has a typical but not required associated behavior that mentions violence (not killing) is Chaotic Evil, which is arbritrary violence fueled by greed, bloodlust or anger. The other Evils focus on a broad taking/doing what you want. Also, with one exception, morality isn't about specific actions and if those actions are evil or good or lawful or chaotic. It is about moral and social attitudes that can influence or result in typical but not required associated behaviors. Certainly murder can be something an evil person would be more likely to do under it, it just isn't automatically "murder is always evil".

Calthropstu
2021-03-27, 11:38 AM
Killing isn't always evil. Breaking the law isn't always evil (and isn't even always chaotic). And yet an unlawful premeditated killing is somehow always evil.

Must be the combination of things.

Btw your statement about murder always being evil is wrong in 5e. The only alignment that has a typical but not required associated behavior that mentions violence (not killing) is Chaotic Evil, which is arbritrary violence fueled by greed, bloodlust or anger. The other Evils focus on a broad taking/doing what you want. Also, with one exception, morality isn't about specific actions and if those actions are evil or good or lawful or chaotic. It is about moral and social attitudes that can influence or result in typical but not required associated behaviors. Certainly murder can be something an evil person would be more likely to do under it, it just isn't automatically "murder is always evil".

Murder is always evil. Killing is not. It's a fairly large distinction.

Tanarii
2021-03-27, 11:40 AM
Murder is always evil. Killing is not. It's a fairly large distinction.
It's also not one in the current edition of 5e.

As I understand it, it wasn't in 3e PHB either, but I'd have to go check. It wasn't until later on in the evil darkness and brilliant good or whatever series that it got extrapolated and defined. Edit: My understanding is wrong, 3e PHB has lots to say on killing and when it's something evil creatures do.

Slipjig
2021-03-27, 05:46 PM
I would keep careful watch over how many good vs how many evil beings they kill. If they are literally killing *everyone*, based on 3e alignment distribution, Chaotic Neutral seems the most likely best fit.

If they go out adventuring, killing evil monsters too much, I may warn them that they're getting dangerously close to Chaotic Good.
That... seems completely incorrect. Evil fights Evil all the time,, and killing evil things is not automatically a Good action. The WHY matters just as much as the WHO. Let's put it this way: if killing things of a particular alignment moved you toward the opposite alignment, every entity in the Blood War would have turned Good eons ago.

A murder hobo who kills indiscriminately is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Evil.

I do think that there can be room for Evil PCs, but it depends a s heavily on the flavor of Evil. Extremely greedy or manipulative PCs may find a home with a group of Neutral or Good PCs (especially if they are willing to "go along to get along" while the Good characters are watching), but a character that twists the heads off kittens for the lulz almost certainly will not.

OldTrees1
2021-03-27, 06:02 PM
Murder is always evil. Killing is not. It's a fairly large distinction.


Killing isn't always evil. Breaking the law isn't always evil (and isn't even always chaotic). And yet an unlawful premeditated killing is somehow always evil.

Sometimes the term "immoral killing" is given the name "murder". Like many words, "murder" is not limited to only one definition.

Even the definition you were using is a shortened version of a more nuanced definition

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.
Here you can see the law attempting to invoke morality via "justification", "valid excuse", or "malice afterthought". So even when murder is "unlawful killing" it is of a particular kind where the law tries to scope down to just what that lawmakers viewed as "immoral killing" as a way to merge the two usages.

So I humbly suggest, you two might be using different meanings of the word "murder".



Personally I don't see a connection between "muderhobo" and "murder". Plenty of times people have used "murderhobo" to describe characters that kill in either moral xor legal manners. It seems to me "murderhobo" is more closely related to "hobo that frequently kills more than <the speaker> expects makes sense".

Tanarii
2021-03-27, 06:35 PM
Sometimes the term "immoral killing" is given the name "murder". Like many words, "murder" is not limited to only one definition.Doesn't that make "murder is always evil" a circular statement? Or possibly the term is tautology?


Even the definition you were using is a shortened version of a more nuanced definitionIt definitely is, because what is and what is not murder is (generally) heavily defined by the legal codes of a specific entity.

OldTrees1
2021-03-27, 06:52 PM
Doesn't that make "murder is always evil" a circular statement? Or possibly the term is tautology?

You will find many tautologies in philosophy (doubly so in the Ethics branch) when a term is being established for later discussion seeking its definition.

The term being a tautology can be useful.
1) For example if a "murderhobo" is doing "immoral killing" then that adds context to that usage of the word "murderhobo". This in contrast to the usage of "murderhobo" as doing "unlawful killing" which has a significantly different content to that different usage of the word "murderhobo".
2) Using a term like "immoral killing" can be used to sidestep arguments about what makes immoral killing immoral. Like establishing agreed upon premises, this allows the participants to jump to the conversation at hand instead of repeating the previous conversation again.


I guess I should also explain that these tautological terms when used for practical applications have 2 simultaneous definitions. For example Kant might say murder is the term for immoral killing and murder is defined as one person intentionally killing another because that is what makes killing immoral. (At least I think Kant would be that broad. I know Kant would say it in at least 2 hard to understand fashions)


It definitely is, because what is and what is not murder is (generally) heavily defined by the legal codes of a specific entity.

Indeed. The legal definition of murder is an attempt to codify a definition of a particular kind of unlawful killing. Usually that particular kind of unlawful killing is being defined in an attempt to capture the same meaning as immoral killing (in spite of ongoing debate as to what killing is immoral). A hopeless objective, but they try anyways.

Tanarii
2021-03-27, 07:48 PM
Regardless, all the definitions I've ever seen (which admittedly isn't a ton, but I did check just before posting up thread) are about legality, not morality.

Edit: also this is all a sidebar based on a joke I was making. The important thing is that in the current edition of D&D, D&D being where the term murderhobo is being used in relation to in this thread, murder or even just killing isn't directly part alignment. Indirectly, sure, but not directly as in "murder is always evil".

OldTrees1
2021-03-27, 08:47 PM
Regardless, all the definitions I've ever seen (which admittedly isn't a ton, but I did check just before posting up thread) are about legality, not morality.

I noticed. Hence why I clarified the situation by mentioning the definition you had not seen. Hopefully clarifying the context of posts #32 and #33.


Edit: also this is all a sidebar based on a joke I was making. The important thing is that in the current edition of D&D, D&D being where the term murderhobo is being used in relation to in this thread, murder or even just killing isn't directly part alignment. Indirectly, sure, but not directly as in "murder is always evil".

Posts #31 and #33 were jokes? Your comedy career might want to make the jokes easier to identify. That "joke" looked a lot like 2 people disagreeing because they were using different definitions for the same word.

Also this is the Roleplaying Games forum. We don't presume 5E is the final verdict.


If I misread a joke as an actual post, then the worst case is I provided some unsolicited information. Oh well. Sorry for missing the joke.

Quertus
2021-03-27, 08:52 PM
That... seems completely incorrect. Evil fights Evil all the time,, and killing evil things is not automatically a Good action. The WHY matters just as much as the WHO. Let's put it this way: if killing things of a particular alignment moved you toward the opposite alignment, every entity in the Blood War would have turned Good eons ago.

A murder hobo who kills indiscriminately is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Evil.

I do think that there can be room for Evil PCs, but it depends a s heavily on the flavor of Evil. Extremely greedy or manipulative PCs may find a home with a group of Neutral or Good PCs (especially if they are willing to "go along to get along" while the Good characters are watching), but a character that twists the heads off kittens for the lulz almost certainly will not.

By Playground convention, blue text is for humor / sarcasm.

The more serious point being, the answer to the question depends both on how you define "murderhobo", and how alignment works. The answer I gave is perfectly valid for one set of definitions, which may or may not match those used by any particular table or system.

But, most of all, the question was "would *you*…?". And, if *I* were using alignment, you can bet it would be something about as coherent and humorous as "which team are you killing for". :smallwink:

OldTrees1
2021-03-27, 08:55 PM
But, most of all, the question was "would *you*…?". And, if *I* were using alignment, you can bet it would be something about as coherent and humorous as "which team are you killing for". :smallwink:

If *you* were using alignment, *I* might be rolling sanity checks. :smallwink:

Edit: Although, kidding aside, the "which team" allegiance system is used by some groups. So that is a decent answer even if taken seriously.

Tanarii
2021-03-27, 09:04 PM
Posts #31 and #33 were jokes? #31 was, which is why there was blue text. I got dragged down the rabbit hole. :smallamused:



Also this is the Roleplaying Games forum. We don't presume 5E is the final verdict.It's the current edition for six years now, so it's important to note.

OldTrees1
2021-03-27, 09:23 PM
#31 was, which is why there was blue text. I got dragged down the rabbit hole. :smallamused:

Ah, it is always hard to tell if a post with blue text is a joke, or if just the blue text is a joke.

Sorry for helping dig that rabbit hole. :smallredface:

Quertus
2021-03-27, 10:02 PM
If *you* were using alignment, *I* might be rolling sanity checks. :smallwink:

Edit: Although, kidding aside, the "which team" allegiance system is used by some groups. So that is a decent answer even if taken seriously.

Thanks for the laugh! Even if it did come at a rather inappropriate moment - I should learn not to read forum posts unless I'm prepared for the consequences of bursting out laughing.

I kinda figured team allegiance wouldn't be a *completely* unknown usage.

Kelb_Panthera
2021-03-28, 03:17 AM
Alignment is a function of a character's behavioral patterns in the long-term. You decide what your character's alignment is at char-gen, after that it's in the GM's hands based on what you -do- with the character, even before you mix in alignment shifting magics and effects. So, yes, I would change a character's alignment if what's on the sheet doesn't match their in-game behavior, regardless of which direction is appropriate for it to shift. Wouldn't even bat an eye at doing so unless it was going to have a profound impact on the character mechanically like a paladin falling or the like. Even then, the PC's player would be getting a "heads up" that he's headed in that direction and should decide whether or not to change course.

On the particular case of murder hobos, it's a matter of exactly what you mean. If the character is just particularly mercenary and callous, that's not really an issue. If they're regularly derailing the game, hurting everyone else's good time for their own amusement, they get a firm warning that such is not tolerated once I've determined it -is- deliberate. The player will be told to shape up or be shown the door.

While it's commonly going to be a chaotic "neutral" character that causes this issue, it can just as easily be a character that's of any alignment taken to an absurd, caricatured extreme. The "lawful" character that -never- breaks the law or allows anyone around him to do so without turning them in immediately or the "chaotic good" character that insists on "lol, I'm so random" nonsense that isn't actually evil but is super annoying are also examples. The problem is problematic behavior at the table, not the alignment and "it's what my character would do" they use as a thin veil for their nonsense.

My current character in our weekly games is a chaotic neutral character and a particularly mercenary one. He believes quite firmly that absolute freedom is the ideal state of being. Authority is only respected in so far as it has power he cannot resist and is usually signing the proverbial check. Even then he will quickly and firmly resist any plainly illegitimate action by an authority figure. As someone conscious of alignment and dedicated to his own, he will not tolerate lawful outsiders on the prime material unless it's beyond his power to reasonably do anything about it. This attitude has caused intraparty conflict more than once but never actually caused a problem at the table. Everybody took the butting of in-character heads in stride. It's also gotten him killed once (yay, ress magic). He occasionally does something evil when he's very angry or frustrated with a situation if it will resolve things quickly and then endeavors to make up for it with good deeds later. I think "murder hobo" is probably a pretty apt description but it's not a problem at our table.

Calthropstu
2021-03-28, 04:55 AM
Murderhobo is not always evil. I have quest. Kill stuff, take stuff, sell stuff to get better stuff to kill better stuff to take better stuff...

Someone just doing an endless array of kill quests with no character attachment to the world is a murderhobo. Take the gang from OOTS. At first, most of the gang was portrayed as murderhobos hired by Roy. As the comic progressed, only Belkar kept his murderhobo status until deep into the comic.

But only Belkar really did anything *evil* but they were all kinda murderhobos.

MoiMagnus
2021-03-28, 05:22 AM
Murderhobo is not always evil. I have quest. Kill stuff, take stuff, sell stuff to get better stuff to kill better stuff to take better stuff...

Someone just doing an endless array of kill quests with no character attachment to the world is a murderhobo. Take the gang from OOTS. At first, most of the gang was portrayed as murderhobos hired by Roy. As the comic progressed, only Belkar kept his murderhobo status until deep into the comic.

But only Belkar really did anything *evil* but they were all kinda murderhobos.

I think there is a difference to make between a Murderhobo by circumstance, and an absolute Murderhobo.
If you teleport the first one into a civilised city, they will stop murdering and stealing up until he join back their killing quest. If you teleport the second one into a civilised city, they will start killing and taking stuff away from every citizen they meet.

The first category are enabled by the GM, as if no perpetual good-aligned quest to kill for stuff is available, the character will stop behaving like a murderhobo (or fall into the second category).

Tanarii
2021-03-28, 10:43 AM
It does make me wonder which was the original murder hobo:
- the character that had nothing to them other than rolling dungeons killing monsters and taking loot.
- the character that murdered NPCs in town for lols

I strongly suspect it was the former.

Also I like the term murder-hero for the former, when they're killing dangerous monsters threatening the safety of others. Even if they're also hobo-like. I should probably use hero-hobo but it doesn't have the same snap to it. :smallamused:

Edit: unfortunately all I'm seeing several sources link back to a Reddit that claims a rpg,net 2007 source. Which I know is not the case, the term was definitely in use long before then, including common use in during TSR era. I can remember using it with a specific group of friends in the late 90s.

icefractal
2021-03-28, 03:18 PM
I don't think "murderhobo" always means chaotic, or even an excessive amount of murder beyond what other "non-murderhobo" characters do.

My impression from the usage I've seen is that it describes a character who:
* Puts all resources into the growth of their personal power, caring not for luxuries, social status, or charity. Camps outside town instead of paying 1 gp for an inn, while carrying 20k gp they're saving for a better weapon, for instance.
* Considers violence to always be an option. Not necessarily bloodthirsty, but if - say - the local militia tries to arrest them? Or a noble is threatening to make trouble for them? Roll initiative.
* Doesn't tend to have or cultivate relationships, other than the rest of the party.

And it's not necessarily bad, it just limits what type of games they're suitable for. Explore an ancient, deadly ruin? Murderhobo works just fine. Be guild-masters in a thriving but troubled port city, trying to navigate tricky politics? Not so much.

noob
2021-03-28, 04:16 PM
I don't think "murderhobo" always means chaotic, or even an excessive amount of murder beyond what other "non-murderhobo" characters do.

My impression from the usage I've seen is that it describes a character who:
* Puts all resources into the growth of their personal power, caring not for luxuries, social status, or charity. Camps outside town instead of paying 1 gp for an inn, while carrying 20k gp they're saving for a better weapon, for instance.
* Considers violence to always be an option. Not necessarily bloodthirsty, but if - say - the local militia tries to arrest them? Or a noble is threatening to make trouble for them? Roll initiative.
* Doesn't tend to have or cultivate relationships, other than the rest of the party.

And it's not necessarily bad, it just limits what type of games they're suitable for. Explore an ancient, deadly ruin? Murderhobo works just fine. Be guild-masters in a thriving but troubled port city, trying to navigate tricky politics? Not so much.

The main ways to solve tricky politics with violence is with either vast amounts of it or the ability to selectively apply it to the high placed people who opposes you.

icefractal
2021-03-28, 08:01 PM
The main ways to solve tricky politics with violence is with either vast amounts of it or the ability to selectively apply it to the high placed people who opposes you.Sure, it works in some cases, but in a political context it's being a one trick pony to a deleterious extent.

Like playing an Enchanter who only took enemy-targeting enchantment spells, leaving them completely unarmed against anything immune to mind-affecting. Not a good choice in most dungeon crawls.

Altheus
2021-03-29, 08:04 AM
The alignment written on the character sheet is what the pc thinks they are.

If I notice a player deviating too far from the tenets of their alignment as I understand it I'll keep track of their actions and record what their alignment actually is.

I have a neutral good (allegedly) pc who's coming across as displaying distinct neutral-stabby tendencies

Anything that looks for good alignment may not work for him.

Tanarii
2021-03-29, 09:36 AM
The alignment written on the character sheet is what the pc thinks they are.Which is the primary use of Alignment in the current edition of 5e. There's very little mechanical effects. Which makes 5e the most useful version of alignment to date.


If I notice a player deviating too far from the tenets of their alignment as I understand it I'll keep track of their actions and record what their alignment actually is.IMO that's generally better than force changing it when the player disagrees, but if you're playing an edition that has common mechanical effects tied to alignment, that's likely to eventually make them angry the same way fudging rolls or quantum ogres will. It'll seem sneaky when it finally comes out in the open.

Best yet is to have a discussion with them if you care. And even then it's best to establish the rules in advance. (E.g. you have a campaign rule "no evil PCs, by which I mean not regularly acting within the typical behavior described in the PHB in my judgement.")

MoiMagnus
2021-03-29, 10:17 AM
IMO that's generally better than force changing it when the player disagrees, but if you're playing an edition that has common mechanical effects tied to alignment, that's likely to eventually make them angry the same way fudging rolls or quantum ogres will. It'll seem sneaky when it finally comes out in the open.

Best yet is to have a discussion with them if you care.

Yes. Having a character be convinced of being good while he isn't is fine. Having a player be convinced that he understood the alignment system while he didn't, in systems in which alignments are core mechanics and not just ribbons, is some OOC argument waiting to happen, and the earlier misunderstanding are cleared the better.

That does not mean the player must know with certainty the alignment of their characters. But IMO they must know with certainty whether or not they know it with certainty. Both "what is on your sheet is correct" and "what is on your sheet should be correct, but might not in some corner cases" are fine, be the ambiguity between the two is not.

(Same is true for other part of the character sheet. Do you notice your players that an object from their inventory is stolen immediately or only when the player says he wants to use the object? Both are fine to me as long as there is no misunderstanding about whether or not the character sheet is always truthful or only represent character knowledge.)

Tanarii
2021-03-29, 01:50 PM
in systems in which alignments are core mechanics and not just ribbons,
5e alignment is the least "ribbon" of any D&D alignment to date, since it actually ties into roleplaying effectively, instead of hampering it by being proscriptive or descriptive.

What it doesn't have is a whole bunch of other mechanics that hook into it. (It has some though.) Which is a good thing, if it's designed to be a roleplaying tool.

It also makes handling of Chaotic Neutral Murderhobos less of a silly argument about what alignment the character falls into and who gets to describe. That's a distraction from the actual issue at hand.

Duff
2021-03-29, 07:04 PM
That's a distraction from the actual issue at hand.
Wishes for a "like" button.

What alignment are murder hoboes? - Fascinating theoretical discussion of what each of the terms means, alone and in combination and how subjective the alignment system really is
Should we allow evil characters? Pros and cons of which alignments are problematic at the table

What's really important - are the player or the character a problem at the table?

HouseRules
2021-03-31, 07:51 PM
moral killing = "good"
immoral killing = evil
justified killing = lawful
unjustified killing = not lawful

ethics = lawful-chaotic axis (state)
morale = good-evil axis (church)

Yes, a murderhobo is not good and not lawful, so they have 4 possible alignments.

Yes, allowing all alignments, but always a pressure towards cooperative play, whatever the alignment has to be.

FrogInATopHat
2021-04-07, 07:29 AM
...instead of hampering it by being proscriptive or descriptive...

How does descriptive alignment hamper roleplay?

Unless you mean that players try to avoid RP that would otherwise be in character just to avoid an alignment label?

HouseRules
2021-04-07, 09:38 AM
How does descriptive alignment hamper roleplay?

Unless you mean that players try to avoid RP that would otherwise be in character just to avoid an alignment label?

No, it is when players play one of Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Good, Stupid Evil, or Stupid Neutral.

The description of Neutral leads to Stupid Neutral because on the morale side, its example shows alternating good and evil deeds is considered neutral; and on the ethics side, its example shows alternating lawful and chaotic deeds is considered neutral.

Vietnamese Proverb: It takes less than 3 days to ruin a reputation, and it takes more than 3 years to build a reputation.

If we take it as 2 days to ruin a reputation and 4 years to build a reputation, that is a ratio of 2 years to one day, or 730:1 ratio. In other words, doing deeds on the evil or chaotic side should contribute 730 times to karma than good or lawful deeds.

Tanarii
2021-04-07, 11:30 AM
How does descriptive alignment hamper roleplay?

Unless you mean that players try to avoid RP that would otherwise be in character just to avoid an alignment label?
DM: I'm the final judge of Alignment, and based on your past actions you're all now Neutral Evil.

Player1: Cool, I'll start actually roleplaying with Neutral Evil moving forward. I wasn't before. This'll be a lark. *campaign goes down in flames*

Player2: That's BS. I wasn't roleplaying Neutral Evil. You're wrong. It's my Roleplay, how dare you tell me I'm doing it wrong! *campaign goes down in flames*

There is no win for descriptive alignment for PCs, with the a person other than the player (the DM) as the final judge of what description is correct. It's lose (for the DM) or lose (for the DM and the Player).

Even Player3 is upset: Curse you, you've uncovered my dastardly plot to sneak by a Neutral Evil murder-hobo. Foiled again!

Zombimode
2021-04-07, 11:48 AM
Realistically, though, I have a rule: No murderhobos. If someone interprets "Chaotic Neutral" as the "I can do whatever I want" alignment, I don't even allow them at my table. I wouldn't even allow this type of character in an explicitly evil campaign, lol.

Now this is something that I don't understand in alignment discussions. Player characters can always "do whatever" they want, regardless of alignment. Alignment is a emergent property, not a first principle.

MoiMagnus
2021-04-07, 12:17 PM
Now this is something that I don't understand in alignment discussions. Player characters can always "do whatever" they want, regardless of alignment. Alignment is a emergent property, not a first principle.

That's because you're missing the implicit part of "I can do whatever I want".

When peoples say "I can do whatever I want", they can mean:
(1) "I can do whatever I want with my character without the other players at the table judging me for doing it. Since that's an alignment which is allowed at this table, that means that all the behaviours that match this alignment are socially acceptable at this table, so stop giving me weird looks when I'm doing something I should be allowed to do!"
(2) "I can do whatever I want with my character, but since I am chaotic NEUTRAL that means no good-aligned NPC is allowed to hate me or act against me because only evil characters are hated by good-aligned NPCs, and if the GM play the good-aligned NPCs as hostile to me then he is unfair."
[Or both]

FrogInATopHat
2021-04-07, 12:26 PM
No, it is when players play one of Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Good, Stupid Evil, or Stupid Neutral.

The description of Neutral leads to Stupid Neutral because on the morale side, its example shows alternating good and evil deeds is considered neutral; and on the ethics side, its example shows alternating lawful and chaotic deeds is considered neutral.

Vietnamese Proverb: It takes less than 3 days to ruin a reputation, and it takes more than 3 years to build a reputation.

If we take it as 2 days to ruin a reputation and 4 years to build a reputation, that is a ratio of 2 years to one day, or 730:1 ratio. In other words, doing deeds on the evil or chaotic side should contribute 730 times to karma than good or lawful deeds.

You don't seem to know what 'descriptive alignment' means.

FrogInATopHat
2021-04-07, 12:29 PM
DM: I'm the final judge of Alignment, and based on your past actions you're all now Neutral Evil.

Player1: Cool, I'll start actually roleplaying with Neutral Evil moving forward. I wasn't before. This'll be a lark. *campaign goes down in flames*

Player2: That's BS. I wasn't roleplaying Neutral Evil. You're wrong. It's my Roleplay, how dare you tell me I'm doing it wrong! *campaign goes down in flames*

There is no win for descriptive alignment for PCs, with the a person other than the player (the DM) as the final judge of what description is correct. It's lose (for the DM) or lose (for the DM and the Player).

Even Player3 is upset: Curse you, you've uncovered my dastardly plot to sneak by a Neutral Evil murder-hobo. Foiled again!

All of the above seem to operate on the assumption that alignment discussion is a single line discussion, with an automatic assumption that the DM decision is correct in all cases, that takes place once a fortnight or similar and don't seem to be fixed by 5e, where alignment only affects RP and not mechanics in any case.

I'm not sure that's a descriptive alignment issue rather than a playstyle and communication issue.

If your table is that toxic to begin with, find another table.

Batcathat
2021-04-07, 12:31 PM
DM: I'm the final judge of Alignment, and based on your past actions you're all now Neutral Evil.

Player1: Cool, I'll start actually roleplaying with Neutral Evil moving forward. I wasn't before. This'll be a lark. *campaign goes down in flames*

Player2: That's BS. I wasn't roleplaying Neutral Evil. You're wrong. It's my Roleplay, how dare you tell me I'm doing it wrong! *campaign goes down in flames*

There is no win for descriptive alignment for PCs, with the a person other than the player (the DM) as the final judge of what description is correct. It's lose (for the DM) or lose (for the DM and the Player).

Even Player3 is upset: Curse you, you've uncovered my dastardly plot to sneak by a Neutral Evil murder-hobo. Foiled again!

I can see your point but I'm not sure what the alternative is. The character acts Neutral Evil but the player insists they are Lawful Good so... what happens exactly?

OldTrees1
2021-04-07, 01:24 PM
No, it is when players play one of Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Good, Stupid Evil, or Stupid Neutral.

The description of Neutral leads to Stupid Neutral because on the morale side, its example shows alternating good and evil deeds is considered neutral; and on the ethics side, its example shows alternating lawful and chaotic deeds is considered neutral.

That is not descriptive alignment. Here is a better example:
Is Loki chaotic? Loki has a complex view of morality, a nuanced understanding on principles and freedom, several releveant personality strengths and flaws. Loki has a history where they did many things. If you were to describe their alignment, would you describe it as Chaotic, Orderly, or in between?

That is descriptive alignment. You might notice it has no impact on how the character thinks/behaves, because it is just a description of how they chose to think/behave.


What you were describing is closer to Prescriptive alignment (or someone struggling with Tanarii's motivational alignment)



DM: I'm the final judge of Alignment, and based on your past actions you're all now Neutral Evil.

Player1: Cool, I'll start actually roleplaying with Neutral Evil moving forward. I wasn't before. This'll be a lark. *campaign goes down in flames*

Player2: That's BS. I wasn't roleplaying Neutral Evil. You're wrong. It's my Roleplay, how dare you tell me I'm doing it wrong! *campaign goes down in flames*

There is no win for descriptive alignment for PCs, with the a person other than the player (the DM) as the final judge of what description is correct. It's lose (for the DM) or lose (for the DM and the Player).

Even Player3 is upset: Curse you, you've uncovered my dastardly plot to sneak by a Neutral Evil murder-hobo. Foiled again!

Player 1: Cool, since that is just descriptive alignment it means no changes to how I have been role playing. I will continue playing Jane Smith as I have been.

Player 2: I disagree, lets talk about it so you can get more details about my character that you are not privvy to since you are not a mind reader.
DM: Sure, I recognize I am not a mind reader and characters are complicated.
*discussion*
DM (if the discussion does not change opinions): After that discussion I think I still rule that as ___ in this campaign world but your disagreement with the campaign world on these topics is perfectly valid. Just because something is XYZ in this campaign does not mean it would be IRL.
Player 2: Thank you for hearing me out. From out discussion it is clear you are not saying I am roleplaying wrong, you are only saying the campaign world labels it differently than I would label it. I will continue to play Jane Smith as I have been and appreciate that you paid attention to their characterization.

Player 3: Curse you, you've uncovered my dastardly plot ...
DM: Oh sorry. I apologize for revealing something you wanted to keep secret from the other players. Assuming those kind of secrets are accepted at this table, you have my apologies for ruining the surprise. I will try to be more aware in the future.

Player 4: Sure. That does not change my character's characterization.


Alignment is best used when players (including the DM) can be reasonable and respectful to each other. This even goes for your "motivational alignment".


I can see your point but I'm not sure what the alternative is. The character acts Neutral Evil but the player insists they are Lawful Good so... what happens exactly?
Well under Descriptive alignment:
Player 2: I disagree, lets talk about it so you can get more details about my character that you are not privvy to since you are not a mind reader.
DM: Sure, I recognize I am not a mind reader and characters are complicated.
*discussion*
DM (if the discussion does not change opinions): After that discussion I think I still rule that as ___ in this campaign world but your disagreement with the campaign world on these topics is perfectly valid. Just because something is XYZ in this campaign does not mean it would be IRL.
Player 2: Thank you for hearing me out. From out discussion it is clear you are not saying I am roleplaying wrong, you are only saying the campaign world labels it differently than I would label it. I will continue to play Jane Smith as I have been and appreciate that you paid attention to their characterization.

Tanarii
2021-04-07, 01:43 PM
All of the above seem to operate on the assumption that alignment discussion is a single line discussion, with an automatic assumption that the DM decision is correct in all cases, that takes place once a fortnight or similar and don't seem to be fixed by 5e, where alignment only affects RP and not mechanics in any case.

I'm not sure that's a descriptive alignment issue rather than a playstyle and communication issue.

If your table is that toxic to begin with, find another table.Descriptive Alignment requires a final Arbiter. In D&D that means the DM. It breeds play style and communication issues, and toxic tables. It is not a result of them. It creates an irrelevant side issue argument about what alignment the character is, instead of addressing the problem, which is the PC behavior.


I can see your point but I'm not sure what the alternative is. The character acts Neutral Evil but the player insists they are Lawful Good so... what happens exactly?The player can do whatever they want if it's an RP tool. But if it's an RP tool you address the resulting behavior instead of the DM judging the Descriptive Alignment then arguing about what alignment they really are. You sidestep the side issue.

FrogInATopHat
2021-04-09, 05:39 AM
Descriptive Alignment requires a final Arbiter. In D&D that means the DM. It breeds play style and communication issues, and toxic tables. It is not a result of them. It creates an irrelevant side issue argument about what alignment the character is, instead of addressing the problem, which is the PC behavior.

I disagree entirely and think you have reversed the cause/effect chain here, with the sole exception of the idea that the DM is definitely the final arbiter (caveat: see OldTrees1's post re: actual meaningful communication).

Alignment angst is the result of communication issues and toxic behaviour (from DM or player) not the cause of it.

Again, if your tables are that antagonistic that you (plural) can't discuss these things without it descending into argument, that's table issue. If you're the common denominator in all of these tables, you (singular) might need to look at your own approach.

In (from what I've seen of your post history) a similar length and breadth of gaming experience, I have literally never had the issues you claim are an inevitable result of alignment itself having mechanical implications. Less than a month ago, I discussed it outright with two players whose actions didn't match stated alignment and it was resolved without issue.


The player can do whatever they want if it's an RP tool. But if it's an RP tool you address the resulting behavior instead of the DM judging the Descriptive Alignment then arguing about what alignment they really are. You sidestep the side issue.

Even here, the description should still be agreed at the table. Regardless of if alignment is just an RP tool. Consistency is why we have all these rulebooks.

Satinavian
2021-04-09, 05:52 AM
Descriptive Alignment requires a final Arbiter. In D&D that means the DM. It breeds play style and communication issues, and toxic tables. It is not a result of them. It creates an irrelevant side issue argument about what alignment the character is, instead of addressing the problem, which is the PC behavior.Prescriptive is not better. The DM is till finally arbiter and instead of

"Your behavior does not match your alignment, I change your alignemt to X"

you get

"Your behavior does not match your alignment, roleplay your character differently/you can't this action, you instead do Y"

Alignment itself is toxic, whether prescriptive or descriptive. But imho descriptive is slightly more tolerable.

Tanarii
2021-04-09, 08:47 AM
Prescriptive is not better.Agreed. Luckily Proscriptive and Descriptive are not the only options.


Alignment itself is toxic, whether prescriptive or descriptive. But imho descriptive is slightly more tolerable.
It is certainly potentially toxic if you treat those as the only two options.

(Descriptive and proscriptive are neither automatically going to generate toxic results. They just have a strong potential to do so.)

Quertus
2021-04-09, 10:09 AM
My general response to alignment is, if you feel the need to label my character a Watsonian Utilitarian Capitalist, or a verbose academic rationalist, or an egocentric stable genius, or an amoral pedantic sociopath, have fun with that, but keep it to yourself - I'll not have your silly boxes influence my roleplay.

If *the universe* actively acts on these boxes, and *my character* deems them wrong, or even right but insulting, expect my character to attempt to burn the universe down, and rebuild something more acceptable out of the ashes.

noob
2021-04-09, 10:32 AM
My general response to alignment is, if you feel the need to label my character a Watsonian Utilitarian Capitalist, or a verbose academic rationalist, or an egocentric stable genius, or an amoral pedantic sociopath, have fun with that, but keep it to yourself - I'll not have your silly boxes influence my roleplay.

If *the universe* actively acts on these boxes, and *my character* deems them wrong, or even right but insulting, expect my character to attempt to burn the universe down, and rebuild something more acceptable out of the ashes.

I assumed that alignment was invented by some devils in order to encourage murder and wars.
Alignment detection is set up in such a way it encourages wars by doing things like labelling ugly creatures such as orcs evil and other similar things.
Holy word and the like also have been created by the same devils then eventually other outsiders not aware of who created the system started learning how to use alignment to pick smite targets and the paladin class is also a creation of those devils.
So in this case it is not the fault of the universe that you shine red when targeted by the detect evil spell: it is the workings of a specific sect of devils that made the spell in order to encourage bad behaviour.

Batcathat
2021-04-09, 11:38 AM
My general response to alignment is, if you feel the need to label my character a Watsonian Utilitarian Capitalist, or a verbose academic rationalist, or an egocentric stable genius, or an amoral pedantic sociopath, have fun with that, but keep it to yourself - I'll not have your silly boxes influence my roleplay.

I know you're ranting, but I honestly think I would be less opposed to alignments if they had descriptions like that. The silly boxes would be a little less silly if they didn't purport to describe objective "good" and "evil".

OldTrees1
2021-04-09, 12:01 PM
Prescriptive is not better.


Even here, the description should still be agreed at the table. Regardless of if alignment is just an RP tool. Consistency is why we have all these rulebooks.


Agreed. Luckily Proscriptive and Descriptive are not the only options.

Apologies Tanarii if I butcher the explanation:

Tanarii has been promoting the idea of "motivational alignment". I have noticed some relevant details you two might have overlooked.

The basic idea is very similar but not exactly the same as a player using prescriptive alignment BUT only for their character and only in their mind.

The player choses some alignment they aspire for the character to be. Then they play their character as the character but taking cues from the description they have for the alignment they want the character to be. They might even evaluate whether their character has been acting as they expected.

1) This only involves that player and only happens in that player's mind. There is no need for a group consensus because only the single player is involved.
2) While it has many of the same trappings as prescriptive alignment, the character takes precedent over the roleplaying cues. The player wants the character to be alignment X, but if the character disagrees then the issue will not be forced. Plus, once again, this all happens only in the single player's mind.

Personally I see this as taking

The least unhealthy stuff from prescriptive: The definitions of the 'motivational alignments' can be quite rigid based on listening to Tanarii and does somewhat prescribe characterization.
The healthiest stuff from descriptive: When push comes to shove, the characterization is not prescribed by alignment.
Large aspects of the no alignment systems: If Tanarii's character has motivational alignment nobody else would ever know.




(Descriptive and proscriptive are neither automatically going to generate toxic results. They just have a strong potential to do so.)

Having used Descriptive for a long time and having been exposed to lots of Prescriptive online, I think you overstate the danger for Descriptive. However you are comparing it to something that is "perfectly safe". Prescriptive elements can cause issues between mature reasonable people. Descriptive has much less risk. Ignoring alignment entirely has no risk. Practically ignoring alignment is "perfectly safe".



My general response to alignment is, if you feel the need to label my character a Watsonian Utilitarian Capitalist, or a verbose academic rationalist, or an egocentric stable genius, or an amoral pedantic sociopath, have fun with that, but keep it to yourself - I'll not have your silly boxes influence my roleplay.

If *the universe* actively acts on these boxes, and *my character* deems them wrong, or even right but insulting, expect my character to attempt to burn the universe down, and rebuild something more acceptable out of the ashes.

Yup.
1) We need to remember that alignment is not for everyone.
2) Characters will act in character.

Batcathat
2021-04-09, 01:34 PM
1) This only involves that player and only happens in that player's mind. There is no need for a group consensus because only the single player is involved.
2) While it has many of the same trappings as prescriptive alignment, the character takes precedent over the roleplaying cues. The player wants the character to be alignment X, but if the character disagrees then the issue will not be forced. Plus, once again, this all happens only in the single player's mind.

This does seem like it would sidestep most problems with alignments but I don't really see the difference between this and just screwing alignment completely and just role playing a character without it. I suppose it could be used for inspiration, of course, but considering most definitions of the different alignments tend to be either vague or confining, I don't really see much of a point to it. If a player spend thirty seconds to write a sentence describing their character, I'd say that'd help role playing more than picking an alignment.

Tanarii
2021-04-09, 01:51 PM
My general response to alignment is, if you feel the need to label my character a Watsonian Utilitarian Capitalist, or a verbose academic rationalist, or an egocentric stable genius, or an amoral pedantic sociopath, have fun with that, but keep it to yourself - I'll not have your silly boxes influence my roleplay.I'd be interested in seeing a multiversal planar geography and resulting denizens based on this. :smallamused:


This does seem like it would sidestep most problems with alignments but I don't really see the difference between this and just screwing alignment completely and just role playing a character without it. I suppose it could be used for inspiration, of course, but considering most definitions of the different alignments tend to be either vague or confining, I don't really see much of a point to it. If a player spend thirty seconds to write a sentence describing their character, I'd say that'd help role playing more than picking an alignment.It's mostly useful for new players, or experienced players that have difficulty clearly stating character motivations in simple terms. The latter are often but not always those that get bogged down in the "history" aspect of long backstories IMX.

And 5e does have multiple categories of single sentence 'motivations'. Alignment, personality trait, ideal, bond and flaw. There's a lot of overlap in the alignment / ideal though.

IMO a broad typical behavior that typically but doesn't always result from social & moral attitudes is a useful RPG 'motivations' tool category. But YMMV.

But insofar as this thread goes, I feel that arguing about what Alignment a purported murder-hobo (or murder-hero, or hero-hobo) actually is, is a distraction from the issue that the DM feels that the character's behavior is disrupting the table experience, and is asking the player to choose to have the character act differently.

arimareiji
2021-04-10, 04:36 AM
Would it be fair to say that "a player doing whatever they want, regardless of professed alignment and/or effect on group enjoyment" is a subset of "a player doing a terrible job of roleplaying"?

If it's a campaign where roleplay XP is an important part, tossing out an idea that might make the blunt instrument of compulsion unnecessary: Factor such behavior into experience gained, the same way a player who stays true to their character in tough situations can be given a story award.

OldTrees1
2021-04-10, 06:26 AM
Would it be fair to say that "a player doing whatever they want, regardless of professed alignment and/or effect on group enjoyment" is a subset of "a player doing a terrible job of roleplaying"?

Possibly no.

1) They are not considering the group enjoyment. That is a different problem unrelated to roleplaying competence.
1) They are not considering the group enjoyment. That is a different problem unrelated to roleplaying competence. (worth repeating)
2) If they don't care about alignment, they might be ignoring the technically professed alignment while they roleplay their character. Descriptive Alignment actively encourages this because the alignment should describe the character, not prescribe the character.


If it's a campaign where roleplay XP is an important part, tossing out an idea that might make the blunt instrument of compulsion unnecessary: Factor such behavior into experience gained, the same way a player who stays true to their character in tough situations can be given a story award.
I strongly recommend against this.
1) Solve out of character problems out of character. If you think one player is ignoring or failing to consider their impact on the group enjoyment, then talk to them about it.
2) I would strongly discourage prescriptive alignment. I suggest basing roleplay rewards based on their roleplaying rather than on if they stick to whatever alignment presumptions you prescribe.
3) However I do encourage rewarding roleplaying. I just don't suggest typecasting the character based on alignment.

If their behavior is a problem out of character, talk about it out of character.

Quertus
2021-04-10, 07:37 AM
Would it be fair to say that "a player doing whatever they want, regardless of professed alignment and/or effect on group enjoyment" is a subset of "a player doing a terrible job of roleplaying"?

If it's a campaign where roleplay XP is an important part, tossing out an idea that might make the blunt instrument of compulsion unnecessary: Factor such behavior into experience gained, the same way a player who stays true to their character in tough situations can be given a story award.

Wow. No.

I am *so* glad a much saner poster replied first - thank you @OldTrees1.

"They are not considering the group enjoyment. That is a different problem unrelated to roleplaying competence" is indeed worth repeating.

Speaking of "what is role-playing 101", do note that there are RPGs that *don't* have alignment. Gasp!

Now, let's say that you make a mistake. And I decide to label your character "incompetent". Is it now bad role-playing for you to do something right?

Lastly, I'll point out that I've found that things like "RP rewards" work best as *group* rewards, where the *group* talks about what they enjoyed (which is often "acting" more than role-playing, and includes several other things, like humor and amazing dice rolls, but still), and the GM awards *the group* bonus XP for these cool moments.

Putting the focus on group enjoyment might help with that "effect on group enjoyment" that's lacking, too.

Tanarii
2021-04-10, 10:31 AM
If I'm going to get XP for roleplaying my character the way he's described, I'm going to describe my modern D&D character as "prefers action to talking, and is fairly tactically competent."

That way when the session is heavy on combat and I make decisions based on rules interactions, which IMX is most games of D&D, I'll get more XP. :smallamused:

arimareiji
2021-04-10, 01:49 PM
Possibly no.

1) They are not considering the group enjoyment. That is a different problem unrelated to roleplaying competence.
1) They are not considering the group enjoyment. That is a different problem unrelated to roleplaying competence. (worth repeating)
2) If they don't care about alignment, they might be ignoring the technically professed alignment while they roleplay their character. Descriptive Alignment actively encourages this because the alignment should describe the character, not prescribe the character.

Is "alignment" a good system for measuring whether someone is making the world a better place, whether being a murderhobo toward them is fine and dandy, and other issues? That's an excellent question. Personally, I find the idea of "If someone detects as Evil, killing them out of hand is a Good act" (expressed elsewhere in the thread) utterly horrific.

Is "alignment" not intended to be an easy (which worthwhile things rarely are) shorthand for multiple personality traits, and thus whether someone is acting "in character"? Regardless of how well/poorly it serves that function, it exists. If we're not going to utterly ignore it out of hand*, that's as good a function as any.
* - I don't feel qualified to address that question, but I don't think it's needed since doing that would completely moot the point of "how to deal with alignment as something that exists".

If I'm supposedly a loyal retainer of the king, and reap the rewards from it, is it inconsistent for me to betray him for a lollipop? Yes. Is inconsistency human? Heck yes. But is he going to inflict repercussions if I do it right in front of his face? Yes.

In a system where characters reap XP benefits from acting "in-character", is it inconsistent for them to act "out-of-character" (such as by being a murderhobo when they've been reaping the benefits of being "Good")? Yes. Is inconsistency human, and therefore a valid roleplaying choice? Yes. But if it turns into a pattern of "I can do whatever benefits me at any given moment", is it intrinsically wrong for the DM to penalize acting wildly "out-of-character" in the same way that she might reward acting "in-character"? I guess so. So be it.


Now, let's say that you make a mistake. And I decide to label your character "incompetent". Is it now bad role-playing for you to do something right?

If I'm going to get XP for roleplaying my character the way he's described, I'm going to describe my modern D&D character as "prefers action to talking, and is fairly tactically competent."

That way when the session is heavy on combat and I make decisions based on rules interactions, which IMX is most games of D&D, I'll get more XP. :smallamused:
And heck, while we're at it -- in a response to a question intended as food for thought, about whether alignment is an element of roleplay, let's just mock the whole idea of whether acting in-character and roleplaying are even relevant. Cool, so be it.

icefractal
2021-04-10, 02:07 PM
And heck, while we're at it -- in a response to a question intended as food for thought, about whether alignment is an element of roleplay, let's just mock the whole idea of whether acting in-character and roleplaying are even relevant. Cool, so be it.I don't see that as mocking, I see it as simply holding the POV that:
"The player is always the final authority on what is 'in character' for their character, not the GM."

Because when you say that the GM decides on XP for 'staying in character', then you're saying that the GM is a better judge of that than the person who made the character and has been playing them. Frankly alignment (as typically used, with the GM assigning it) has a similar problem - the GM is just another person sitting around the table, it's pretty silly to say they would inherently have a better grasp of philosophy or ethics than any other player does. But if it's purely descriptive, then at least you can view it as just "how the world thinks of you" with the GM playing "the world".

arimareiji
2021-04-10, 02:13 PM
I don't see that as mocking, I see it as simply holding the POV that:
"The player is always the final authority on what is 'in character' for their character, not the GM."

Because when you say that the GM decides on XP for 'staying in character', then you're saying that the GM is a better judge of that than the person who made the character and has been playing them. Frankly alignment (as typically used, with the GM assigning it) has a similar problem - the GM is just another person sitting around the table, it's pretty silly to say they would inherently have a better grasp of philosophy or ethics than any other player does. But if it's purely descriptive, then at least you can view it as just "how the world thinks of you" with the GM playing "the world".

As I said, inconsistency is human. Yes, the player should be the final judge of individual actions -- e.g. yes, it would be "pretty silly" for a GM to overrule a player on whether they would have betrayed the king despite being his loyal servant for years.

But patterns of behavior belie professed intent, and not many people are going to believe someone who has betrayed every king they work for when they describe themselves as a loyal servant. Similarly, it would be "pretty silly" to say that a GM has no business saying that a consistent pattern of Evil behavior is inconsistent with being Good.

OldTrees1
2021-04-10, 03:28 PM
Is "alignment" a good system for measuring whether someone is making the world a better place, whether being a murderhobo toward them is fine and dandy, and other issues? That's an excellent question. Personally, I find the idea of "If someone detects as Evil, killing them out of hand is a Good act" (expressed elsewhere in the thread) utterly horrific.
Interesting question. I know my answer, but I feel the question is off topic.


Is "alignment" not intended to be an easy (which worthwhile things rarely are) shorthand for multiple personality traits, and thus whether someone is acting "in character"? Regardless of how well/poorly it serves that function, it exists. If we're not going to utterly ignore it out of hand*, that's as good a function as any.
* - I don't feel qualified to address that question, but I don't think it's needed since doing that would completely moot the point of "how to deal with alignment as something that exists".

If I'm supposedly a loyal retainer of the king, and reap the rewards from it, is it inconsistent for me to betray him for a lollipop? Yes. Is inconsistency human? Heck yes. But is he going to inflict repercussions if I do it right in front of his face? Yes.
I suggest using Descriptive instead of Prescriptive alignment. Rather than the alignment dictating how your character can act / be, it describes how your character has acted / are being. That still makes it a shorthand description but it has the characterization cause the alignment rather than the alignment cause the characterization. That helps a ton if you are not going to ignore alignment.

If there is a loyal retainer to the king, they have been or currently are loyal. If that pattern of behavior or state of being changes then their description changes. Character changing as circumstances change can be consistent even if it breaks a pattern of behavior. This is especially true for shorthand labels. The underlying characterization might have remained perfectly consistent despite an abrupt heel turn in the shorthand label.



In a system where characters reap XP benefits from acting "in-character", is it inconsistent for them to act "out-of-character" (such as by being a murderhobo when they've been reaping the benefits of being "Good")? Yes. Is inconsistency human, and therefore a valid roleplaying choice? Yes. But if it turns into a pattern of "I can do whatever benefits me at any given moment", is it intrinsically wrong for the DM to penalize acting wildly "out-of-character" in the same way that she might reward acting "in-character"? I guess so. So be it.
1) In a system where characters reap XP benefits from acting "in-character" I suggest using Descriptive alignment rather than Prescriptive alignment. This means you will never reap XP benefits for alignment, but you avoid incentivizing some of the greatest traps of Prescriptive alignment.

2) If the DM has an out of character problem with a player. I suggest they address it out of character. If a DM has a problem with the player's 'pattern of "I can do whatever benefits me at any given moment"' then that is an out of character problem. Please address it respectfully out of character for the best results.

Tanarii
2021-04-10, 04:43 PM
And heck, while we're at it -- in a response to a question intended as food for thought, about whether alignment is an element of roleplay, let's just mock the whole idea of whether acting in-character and roleplaying are even relevant. Cool, so be it.
I'm responding to the idea we're ditching alignment, the player freely choosing one or several short descriptions, then tying advancement or other game 'currency' for behaving within the chosen descriptions.

In that case, it behooves the player to choose at least some personality descriptions that come up every session, so they can act in character. Several games have such a concept, IIRC and off the top of my head Torchbearer, Dungeon World, and Forbidden Lands. And some of them thats the explicit recommendation, make sure you choose something that's going to come up in play.

I am taking it to an extreme to illustrate the point though. :smallamused:

Quertus
2021-04-10, 07:47 PM
[
And heck, while we're at it -- in a response to a question intended as food for thought, about whether alignment is an element of roleplay, let's just mock the whole idea of whether acting in-character and roleplaying are even relevant. Cool, so be it.


I don't see that as mocking, I see it as simply holding the POV that:
"The player is always the final authority on what is 'in character' for their character, not the GM."

Because when you say that the GM decides on XP for 'staying in character', then you're saying that the GM is a better judge of that than the person who made the character and has been playing them. Frankly alignment (as typically used, with the GM assigning it) has a similar problem - the GM is just another person sitting around the table, it's pretty silly to say they would inherently have a better grasp of philosophy or ethics than any other player does. But if it's purely descriptive, then at least you can view it as just "how the world thinks of you" with the GM playing "the world".


I'm responding to the idea we're ditching alignment, the player freely choosing one or several short descriptions, then tying advancement or other game 'currency' for behaving within the chosen descriptions.

In that case, it behooves the player to choose at least some personality descriptions that come up every session, so they can act in character. Several games have such a concept, IIRC and off the top of my head Torchbearer, Dungeon World, and Forbidden Lands. And some of them thats the explicit recommendation, make sure you choose something that's going to come up in play.

I am taking it to an extreme to illustrate the point though. :smallamused:

@arimareiji

Suppose, as GM, I decided to secretly use my own RP system, that measures your characters with certain metrics.

I'll choose ones I, personally, don't know what they mean, so nothing is intended by my (possibly contradictory) choices.

Suppose, after a few sessions, I find that your character more often leans "Tori" than "Wig". So I label them a "Tori", and your character only earns XP when I think you've roleplayed as a Tori.

But it's not just one axis. I also find that you're more often role-playing them as a Gemini, and as Earth. So you only earn XP if I think that, this session, you haven't deviated from a Tori Gemini Earth.

Now, why am I doing this in secret? To parallel the fact that there is not agreement on what the D&D alignments mean.

Why am I choosing such obscure / odd metrics? To parallel how little "alignment" has to do with personality.

I'm kinda the Playground patron saint of role-playing. I was trained in a "role-playing is [good]" environment that would have considered "my guy" grounds for sainthood. So the idea that I would "mock the whole idea of whether acting in-character and roleplaying are even relevant" is… pretty ludicrous.

So, since I wasn't mocking role-playing, what *was* I doing?

Well, many things, but let's start with one for now: questioning whether the GM as arbiter of whether the player has roleplayed consistently is a good idea.

I mean, you couldn't even see what several others were saying / where they were going with their comments, should we expect that you'll understand our roleplay? No. No, we shouldn't. And you shouldn't, either. Nor should Tanarii and icefractal and I expect that we'll perfectly understand each other, or each other's roleplay.

It's a dance, a conversation. Approaching it with a "the GM is right" mindset guarantees that you cannot dance, that you are wrong.

Best group for my roleplay growth? They asked questions of the form, "the version of your character who lives in my head wouldn't have done X - they would have done Y instead. Can you tell me how to update the version of your character in my head to more closely match your actual character?" (Once the point was made, often shortened to, "why did you do that?).

Curiously, "because my alignment is X" was never an answer given to that question.

If you look at the various, "what alignment would this character be" threads, I should hope that you will see a lot of consistent characters with seemingly inconsistent alignment descriptions. Acting consistently to alignment is not a prerequisite for (and, I personally would claim, is anathema to) a good, consistent personality.

I hope that this clarification serves as "food for thought" for you, and that your next response isn't quite so far afield of where we were aiming.

quinron
2021-04-11, 01:08 AM
DM: I'm the final judge of Alignment, and based on your past actions you're all now Neutral Evil.

Player1: Cool, I'll start actually roleplaying with Neutral Evil moving forward. I wasn't before. This'll be a lark. *campaign goes down in flames*

Player2: That's BS. I wasn't roleplaying Neutral Evil. You're wrong. It's my Roleplay, how dare you tell me I'm doing it wrong! *campaign goes down in flames*

There is no win for descriptive alignment for PCs, with the a person other than the player (the DM) as the final judge of what description is correct. It's lose (for the DM) or lose (for the DM and the Player).

Even Player3 is upset: Curse you, you've uncovered my dastardly plot to sneak by a Neutral Evil murder-hobo. Foiled again!

{Scrubbed} The DM's statement here implies to me that there was never a point where he said, "the action you guys are discussing right now is Evil; if you take it, you're definitely going to shift to Neutral, and if you keep doing stuff like it, you're eventually going to be Evil." In this scenario, I'd agree that the DM having arbitrative power is bad, but that doesn't prove descriptive alignment is inherently bad; it just proves that DMs who pull screwjobs on their players are inherently bad.

If a player isn't aware of how their character's actions affect their alignment, then alignment is meaningless to players - it's literally only a tool for DM screwjobs such as this scenario. If there's ongoing communication between players and DM about how action and alignment interact, then descriptive alignment can be interesting and useful for roleplay - players can decide to take actions that might negatively impact their alignment because they feel they need to take them, or they can have characters try to overcome bad habits in a conscious effort to become more Good.

That said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I tend not to do anything with alignment in my games beyond letting players write it down on their sheets, and in answer to the OP, I wouldn't even bother with alignment; murderhobos don't fit the tone of the games I run, so they're not allowed regardless of alignment.

MoiMagnus
2021-04-11, 04:11 AM
I'd agree that the DM having arbitrative power is bad, but that doesn't prove descriptive alignment is inherently bad; it just proves that DMs who pull screwjobs on their players are inherently bad.

In general, "the GM is always right" is only a temporary fix to avoid breaking the pacing of the session.
But IMO, past this "immediate dictatorship", a campaign should never continue unless every single person around the table agrees/consents with the decisions that are taken. This includes alignment talks, unanimity around the table is the way to go.

Tanarii
2021-04-11, 11:23 AM
If you look at the various, "what alignment would this character be" threads, I should hope that you will see a lot of consistent characters with seemingly inconsistent alignment descriptions.
At the minimum, it demonstrates the problems Descriptive alignment quite clearly. Certainly for DM-arbitrated, which is the usual version of descriptive.


Acting consistently to alignment is not a prerequisite for (and, I personally would claim, is anathema to) a good, consistent personality.But having something that summarizes social & moral attitudes may be a very useful aspect of personality. Depending on the game goals.

For D&D and it's default focus on heroic PC vs villainous Monsters (which included NPCs in the original terminology) and IRL moral concepts held by the author (which we can't discuss), it's totally unsurprising Good vs Evil got added to the original Law vs Chaos "teams" aspect of Alignment. And from there, it's unsurprising it eventually evolved into personality affecting, since many if not most people believe any moral beliefs held affects personality.

quinron
2021-04-12, 02:21 PM
For D&D and it's default focus on heroic PC vs villainous Monsters (which included NPCs in the original terminology) and IRL moral concepts held by the author (which we can't discuss), it's totally unsurprising Good vs Evil got added to the original Law vs Chaos "teams" aspect of Alignment. And from there, it's unsurprising it eventually evolved into personality affecting, since many if not most people believe any moral beliefs held affects personality.

I think this hits the nail on the head. It seems conflicts over alignment generally occur in groups where there's a differing level of investment in roleplaying and/or different definitions of what "roleplayong" means - as Quertus has mentioned, a lot of people equate roleplaying with playacting, which can be a part of roleplaying but isn't its totality.

So a character being a good person but behaving suspiciously and secretively because they're paranoid and distrustful might be fine at one table, but another table will have a problem with them because "distrustful and suspicious" doesn't work with the group and reads as being Evil or at least too Chaotic to fit in.

Ultimately, I think the problem is too much focus on playacting and not enough on actually making game decisions based on character.