Would you change a "chaotic neutral" murderhobo's alignment? Do you allow them?

[Zombimode]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[arimareiji]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Quertus]

[

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.

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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.