I Love Alignments

[Satinavian]

Actually, along those lines, 'no evil characters' does serve as an at least somewhat accurate shorthand regarding the sorts of behaviors of the GM wishes to ban at any given table.

I am not agreeing about this one. While there is some overlap between "evil" and "disruptive", it is not that big. Alignment is not a good measure for sorting acceptable PCs. Giving guidelines for appropriate PC behavior is way better done without it.

[Tectorman]

OK, that counts as a use. I am not really sure how effective that is as i have understood alignment never as such a disclaimer, but if it gives you more peace of mind, sure.

Does that count as a use for alignment, though? I ask because it's sounding a lot like a placebo here, and while yes, the placebo effect is well-documented, that's really more a testament for our capacity for self-deception, rather than the thing (a sugar pill, alignment) being used as a vehicle for that self-deception.

I mean, if I wear an aluminum foil cap because I think it makes me safe from government agencies controlling my mind, does Reynolds get credit?

[OldTrees1]

Yes. But that would need to actually happen, not just remain a theoretical possibility. Players changing their characters alignment as a method to make statements about the characters or GM giving regular alignment based feedback for the characters actions and actually shifting them around. And it has to be seen as something positive by most of the table.

OK, that counts as a use. I am not really sure how effective that is as I have understood alignment never as such a disclaimer, but if it gives you more peace of mind, sure.

With the additional restriction on the 1st use case, my group only sometimes qualifies when we use alignment. The alignment shift in a GM described alignment system is theoretical until it occurs. Once it occurs, then it satisfies Satinavian's criteria. Lux (a paladin being corrupted by lovecraftian insanity) would meet this criteria. My current Mindflayer character might or might not (foresight is not 20/20).

The 2nd use case works quite well for me and happens for roughly half of my aligned characters.

Therefore, there exist groups where alignment is valued, working, enjoyed (primary use case), and even indirectly useful (Satinavian's criteria).

Although it would be good to reiterate that: Just because it can reliably work for some groups, does not mean it is going to work for an arbitrary group. I suggest defaulting to not using alignment unless you have good reason to expect it to work and be valued by the group.

I am not agreeing about this one. While there is some overlap between "evil" and "disruptive", it is not that big. Alignment is not a good measure for sorting acceptable PCs. Giving guidelines for appropriate PC behavior is way better done without it.

Does that count as a use for alignment, though? I ask because it's sounding a lot like a placebo here, and while yes, the placebo effect is well-documented, that's really more a testament for our capacity for self-deception, rather than the thing (a sugar pill, alignment) being used as a vehicle for that self-deception.

I mean, if I wear an aluminum foil cap because I think it makes me safe from government agencies controlling my mind, does Reynolds get credit?

I agree the overlap between "evil" and "disruptive" is not that big. However the groups using "no evil characters" often are the groups that experience high correlation between "evil characters in their group" and "disruptive characters in their group" due to those group having some underlying cause* resulting in a high correlation between "evil" and "disruptive". Their reasoning behind "no evil characters" does not extend to other groups, but its conclusion of "reduced disruptive characters for their group" does hold.

* Sidenote Tectorman: This is not really a placebo if there is some underlying cause resulting in the high correlation for their group. Either the underlying cause of the correlation is treated, or treating one symptom will correlate with treating the other symptom.

Is "no evil characters" generally useful for sorting acceptable PCs? NO.
Is "no evil characters" useful for sorting acceptable PCs for specific groups? Yes, due to those group's having some underlying cause resulting in a high correlation between "evil" and "disruptive".

So "no evil characters" to filter for "disruptive characters" for these groups, is a valid working use case. For everyone else, since alignment is not a good metric for "disruptive" in our groups, I advise we don't use it as a filter for "disruptive".

[Keltest]

With the additional restriction on the 1st use case, my group only sometimes qualifies when we use alignment. The alignment shift in a GM described alignment system is theoretical until it occurs. Once it occurs, then it satisfies Satinavian's criteria. Lux (a paladin being corrupted by lovecraftian insanity) would meet this criteria. My current Mindflayer character might or might not (foresight is not 20/20).

The 2nd use case works quite well for me and happens for roughly half of my aligned characters.

Therefore, there exist groups where alignment is valued, working, enjoyed (primary use case), and even indirectly useful (Satinavian's criteria).

Although it would be good to reiterate that: Just because it can reliably work for some groups, does not mean it is going to work for an arbitrary group. I suggest defaulting to not using alignment unless you have good reason to expect it to work and be valued by the group.





I agree the overlap between "evil" and "disruptive" is not that big. However the groups using "no evil characters" often are the groups that experience high correlation between "evil characters in their group" and "disruptive characters in their group" due to those group having some underlying cause* resulting in a high correlation between "evil" and "disruptive". Their reasoning behind "no evil characters" does not extend to other groups, but its conclusion of "reduced disruptive characters for their group" does hold.

* Sidenote Tectorman: This is not really a placebo if there is some underlying cause resulting in the high correlation for their group. Either the underlying cause of the correlation is treated, or treating one symptom will correlate with treating the other symptom.

Is "no evil characters" generally useful for sorting acceptable PCs? NO.
Is "no evil characters" useful for sorting acceptable PCs for specific groups? Yes, due to those group's having some underlying cause resulting in a high correlation between "evil" and "disruptive".

So "no evil characters" to filter for "disruptive characters" for these groups, is a valid working use case. For everyone else, since alignment is not a good metric for "disruptive" in our groups, I advise we don't use it as a filter for "disruptive".

This was a remarkably wordy post to say "it works except when it doesnt."

[Satinavian]

I agree the overlap between "evil" and "disruptive" is not that big. However the groups using "no evil characters" often are the groups that experience high correlation between "evil characters in their group" and "disruptive characters in their group" due to those group having some underlying cause* resulting in a high correlation between "evil" and "disruptive". Their reasoning behind "no evil characters" does not extend to other groups, but its conclusion of "reduced disruptive characters for their group" does hold.

Why would that be the case ? What makes groups that ban evil characters suddenly shift the meaning of evil or disruptive in a way that they suddenly overlap ?

I am pretty sure that doesn't actually happen. And that the groups that ban evil characters were better off without alignment and just addressing/banning disruptive behavior.

[Keltest]

Why would that be the case ? What makes groups that ban evil characters suddenly shift the meaning of evil or disruptive in a way that they suddenly overlap ?

I am pretty sure that doesn't actually happen. And that the groups that ban evil characters were better off without alignment and just addressing/banning disruptive behavior.

There are a lot of reasons to ban evil characters besides disruptive behavior though, unless you're using "disruptive" in the circular sense of being associated with behavior that gets banned.

[Lord Raziere]

Actually, along those lines, 'no evil characters' does serve as an at least somewhat accurate shorthand regarding the sorts of behaviors of the GM wishes to ban at any given table.

"No evil? So like wot, don't wear black or cackle evilly? Ah, Thats easy. Now lets go kill that shopkeeper and steal his stuff."

[Mechalich]

"No evil? So like wot, don't wear black or cackle evilly? Ah, Thats easy. Now lets go kill that shopkeeper and steal his stuff."

A player who acts in this way, even in a far less exaggerated fashion, has just held up a giant, blinking, sign saying 'kick me from the group now.' That's actually a highly useful second order effect.

[Lord Raziere]

A player who acts in this way, even in a far less exaggerated fashion, has just held up a giant, blinking, sign saying 'kick me from the group now.' That's actually a highly useful second order effect.

Ah but this very paranoia about bad players leads to not trusting any players. you prevent worse roleplaying but don't allow for anything better than something narrow, mediocre and one note. we shouldn't restrict our hobby with something that lessens the potential of it that can be achieved.

[Keltest]

Ah but this very paranoia about bad players leads to not trusting any players. you prevent worse roleplaying but don't allow for anything better than something narrow, mediocre and one note. we shouldn't restrict our hobby with something that lessens the potential of it that can be achieved.

Why not? Its a hobby, not some sort of philosophical construct. I'm fully prepared to kick somebody from the group who insists on behaving in a way incompatible with the rest of the group in the name of "roleplaying."

[OldTrees1]

This was a remarkably wordy post to say "it works except when it doesnt."

Yes. Or more accurately "There exist cases when it works. There exist cases when it doesn't work.". The thread has pages scrutinizing the first half.

Why would that be the case ? What makes groups that ban evil characters suddenly shift the meaning of evil or disruptive in a way that they suddenly overlap ?

I am pretty sure that doesn't actually happen. And that the groups that ban evil characters were better off without alignment and just addressing/banning disruptive behavior.

Groups that can make non disruptive evil characters are not likely to want to ban evil characters as a means of banning disruptive characters (they can see the lack of correlation and thus the ban is illogical to them). Therefore groups that ban evil characters as a means of banning disruptive characters are not likely to be able to make non disruptive evil characters.

The same logic applies for any characteristic that does not normally correlate with being disruptive. The characteristic is usually only banned as a proxy for disruptive characters in groups that struggle to make non disruptive characters that have that characteristic.


I do agree that addressing/banning disruptive behavior is a better system. However sometimes strongly correlated proxies are good enough approximations to do some of the conversation.

[Tevo77777]

Wouldn't some groups ban all evil characters, while others ban all good characters?

If the party doesn't want to kill shopkeepers, killing them is annoying and gets in the party's way. Vice versa is also likely true.

Looking back, I sorta wish I used alignment more, so I could could easily screen people who ended up causing war crimes and getting the party in trouble. It also would give me a reason to ban people without it being personal or political.

[Anymage]

Wouldn't some groups ban all evil characters, while others ban all good characters?

If the party doesn't want to kill shopkeepers, killing them is annoying and gets in the party's way. Vice versa is also likely true.

Looking back, I sorta wish I used alignment more, so I could could easily screen people who ended up causing war crimes and getting the party in trouble. It also would give me a reason to ban people without it being personal or political.

It boils down to if the issue is a problem concept or a problem player.

"No evil characters" can be used by people who don't have a full vocabulary to communicate that they want to have a heroic and cooperative party. Which is fair, especially because characters in the morally gray (and possibly dark gray) spectrum are a common way to explore more roleplaying depth after first forays into standard heroic adventurer types. If someone wants to try emulating the sort of panache that villains often have, a reminder to play someone who works well with the rest of the party can be useful. Cooperative evils are possible, although a bit of an advanced topic so I understand the rest of the group not wanting to manage that if they're all new too.

If the issue is a player prone to behaving badly, I've seen far too many people try to dodge a "no evil" rule by using CM as the "I do whatever I want but I don't ping Evil" alignment. And "whatever they want" tends to be pretty dark. If someone is going to be problematic no matter what's written on their character sheet, I don't know that alignments can fix anything. If it's what they choose to put on their character sheet they'll put whatever they think they can get away with, if alignments are enforced through DM fiat it seems like extra steps to just call someone out for being disruptive.

(Tangentially, I was reminded recently about how games can have traits that are used to justify bad behavior as "it's what my character would do". Which are bad in their own right, but usually a lot more specific traits like "greedy" or "bloodthirsty" than just a letter E somewhere on your sheet.)

[OldTrees1]

Wouldn't some groups ban all evil characters, while others ban all good characters?

If the party doesn't want to kill shopkeepers, killing them is annoying and gets in the party's way. Vice versa is also likely true.

Looking back, I sorta wish I used alignment more, so I could could easily screen people who ended up causing war crimes and getting the party in trouble. It also would give me a reason to ban people without it being personal or political.

There is a campaign style sometimes known as a villain campaign where the players play as villain protagonists rather than hero/antihero protagonists. While it is possible to have a good villain, some groups ban good (or even neutral) characters for such campaigns. If I understand correctly (I have not experienced one yet myself) the goal is to customize potential PC vs PC conflicts to just the desired conflicts. I think this matches the hypothetical you were wondering about.

However this is probably less common than the inverse, due to obvious cultural influences.

[Lord Raziere]

Why not? Its a hobby, not some sort of philosophical construct. I'm fully prepared to kick somebody from the group who insists on behaving in a way incompatible with the rest of the group in the name of "roleplaying."

And if a roleplaying game isn't better served by having alignment within it, what then? (Keep in mind this is roleplaying general, not any specific edition of DnD forum, so any response along the lines of "I don't have to care" doesn't work when its a thread about all roleplaying games by definition of where this thread has been posted and thus includes all roleplaying games in its discussion.)

[Satinavian]

Wouldn't some groups ban all evil characters, while others ban all good characters?

If the party doesn't want to kill shopkeepers, killing them is annoying and gets in the party's way. Vice versa is also likely true.

Alignment is not really symmetric like that. Even in a pure villain group there is usually no backlash for "good" characters or even evil characters doing good stuff occassionally as long as it doesn't get in the way of the other party members or the overarching goal. The only difficulty is that the good character has to tolerate the stuff the other party members do and that is mostly a problem for the player of the good character. But then again, the evil characters have to tolerate each others evils as well and that can be just as difficult.

I mean, the world is big, there are probably groups somewhere who ban good characters. Haven't seen any, not even among those doing explicitely grey or villainous campaigns.

Furthermore, disruptive "I kill the shopkeeper for the lulz" PCs are usually not a good fit for evil campaign either. It is those that tend to get banned in villainous campaigns, not the good PCs.


Not that a group that decides "we do a villain campaign" tend to put forward that many good characters in the first place. But then again, a group that decides "we do a heroic campaign" would probably also only get rather heroic entries ranging from aspiring to reluctant hero at best.

[Batcathat]

I really don't understand how banning evil characters is in any way easier than simply saying that the party needs to be able to work together without major issues, if that is the intended goal. Yes, having Belkar in an actual party could easily cause issues, but so would having Miko in an actual party. So why not have a rule that prevents both while also allowing non-disruptive Evil characters?

[Tanarii]

It boils down to if the issue is a problem concept or a problem player.

No it doesn't. It boils down to the associated typical behavior of evil alignments being disruptive to many tables, as well as repulsive to many folks trying to sit down and enjoy a relaxing game of entertainment.

(Not really directed at you Anymage, your comment here was just perfectly worded for me to make a pithy response to the idea being bandied around in this thread that evil associated behaviors and disruptive behavior don't have a causal relationship or even necessarily correlate.)

[Tevo77777]

I really don't understand how banning evil characters is in any way easier than simply saying that the party needs to be able to work together without major issues, if that is the intended goal. Yes, having Belkar in an actual party could easily cause issues, but so would having Miko in an actual party. So why not have a rule that prevents both while also allowing non-disruptive Evil characters?

I mean its assumed that everyone knows that you shouldn't be a d*** when you play RPGs, but so many "players"/"GMs" are.

I have a full document about expectations, dos and don'ts, and its done very little to weed out bad actors. I had three people who read and quoted everything, but still brought an insane chainsaw god homebrew barbarian. It was like they saw everything and understood nothing.

Miko violated her alignment and lost her powers.

[Mechalich]

I really don't understand how banning evil characters is in any way easier than simply saying that the party needs to be able to work together without major issues, if that is the intended goal. Yes, having Belkar in an actual party could easily cause issues, but so would having Miko in an actual party. So why not have a rule that prevents both while also allowing non-disruptive Evil characters?

Miko is a deliberate representation of playing a Paladin in the worst possible way. Examples of this nature do occur, but they can be corrected by having the player improve their role-playing. Belkar, by contrast, is a violent sociopath. Many of the highly disruptive aspects of his character and his actions result from his character being played correctly.

Now, in D&D alignment terms this gets to the law/chaos divide. Lawful Evil characters tend to be massively more manageable than neutral evil or especially chaotic evil characters. Violent sociopaths tend to be disruptive even if they, somehow, have a heart of gold. Schlock Mercenary very notably stars exactly such a character (Schlock is literally told by Petey that he's a violent sociopath) and he is disruptive as it comes and would be an absolute nightmare to have in a party.

[Tevo77777]

Miko is a deliberate representation of playing a Paladin in the worst possible way. Examples of this nature do occur, but they can be corrected by having the player improve their role-playing. Belkar, by contrast, is a violent sociopath. Many of the highly disruptive aspects of his character and his actions result from his character being played correctly.

Now, in D&D alignment terms this gets to the law/chaos divide. Lawful Evil characters tend to be massively more manageable than neutral evil or especially chaotic evil characters. Violent sociopaths tend to be disruptive even if they, somehow, have a heart of gold. Schlock Mercenary very notably stars exactly such a character (Schlock is literally told by Petey that he's a violent sociopath) and he is disruptive as it comes and would be an absolute nightmare to have in a party.

Based, Schlock mercenary fan. Were you introduced by Atomic Rockets as well?

Has anyone run into the issue of Lawful Good characters doing stuff that Gygax would consider Lawful good, but we would consider Lawful Evil?

[Batcathat]

Miko violated her alignment and lost her powers.

Sure, but even before that moment she would probably have been a very disruptive presence in an actual party.

Miko is a deliberate representation of playing a Paladin in the worst possible way. Examples of this nature do occur, but they can be corrected by having the player improve their role-playing. Belkar, by contrast, is a violent sociopath. Many of the highly disruptive aspects of his character and his actions result from his character being played correctly.

While it's (thankfully) not the way most people play Lawful Good, the incredibly vague nature of alignment makes it tricky to say whether it's outright an "incorrect" way, I think.

In any case, let's not get bogged down by the specific example. My point was that since there are non-Evil characters that can be disruptive and Evil characters that may not be disruptive, banning Evil characters to avoid disruptive characters seems like a less than ideal plan.

[Satinavian]

Now, in D&D alignment terms this gets to the law/chaos divide. Lawful Evil characters tend to be massively more manageable than neutral evil or especially chaotic evil characters. Violent sociopaths tend to be disruptive even if they, somehow, have a heart of gold. Schlock Mercenary very notably stars exactly such a character (Schlock is literally told by Petey that he's a violent sociopath) and he is disruptive as it comes and would be an absolute nightmare to have in a party.

Now if want to say, that "banning chaotic characters" does a better job at getting rid of disruptive behavior than "banning evil characters", that... is quite possible. But that is not exactly high of a hurdle. It is still pretty bad at it and there are many nondisruptive chaotic characters and many nonchaotic disruptive characters.

[Keltest]

Sure, but even before that moment she would probably have been a very disruptive presence in an actual party.

How do you figure? Most of her disruptive behavior was in service to the railroad plot. She was vaguely annoying beforehand, but most of that was from the various members of the Order basically choosing to pick a fight with her.

[Coeruleum]

For instance, you mention Batman... From what I gather, Batman's "alignment" is one of the most controversial of any character in all media, and he's been pegged as being pretty much every position on the chart at some point or other.

That's because of all the different versions of Batman. I tend to see alignments as being rather like political compass. You just put your ideology and actions somewhere on the alignment compass and if you're a huge hypocrite that's an alignment too, then you can either get divine spells and powers by believing in that or otherwise qualify for and interact with various supernatural, magical, and psionic spells and abilities based on what you are aligned with. Even if you aren't evil, often something like casting an evil spell, being under an evil effect (even unwillingly,) or lying might make you ping as evil temporarily and in many games that's explicitly called out, so even if you're normally good, if you're dominated and start killing your good teammates maybe you'll start pinging as evil temporarily, and if you become super evil and don't want to be, that's what Atonement and similar effects are for.

[Draconi Redfir]

My D&D group has a ban on evil characters. It's primarily because our group started as part of a public meetup group who met in a public place and was accessible to children, i myself was a highschooler when i first joined. And because the Evil alignment could theoretically include things like butchering innocents, torturing, kidnapping, abuse, and other heinous crimes, the alignment was banned to make sure that the group was relatively PG.


It was also about making sure everyone was able to work together in the general direction of the group's goals. Yes it sucked that we never had a "Paladin working with a lawful evil warlock" dynamic in the party, but it's not all bad. a lot of campaigns are designed with good or neutral characters in mind anyways.

[Keltest]

It was also about making sure everyone was able to work together in the general direction of the group's goals. Yes it sucked that we never had a "Paladin working with a lawful evil warlock" dynamic in the party, but it's not all bad. a lot of campaigns are designed with good or neutral characters in mind anyways.

Im not convinced this is a useful or good dynamic anyway. Invariably you end up with the paladin losing patience with the warlock and confronting him, or the warlock losing patience with the group and wanting to leave, or people artificially cutting out those parts of the arc because they both have the PC tag over their heads so obviously they have to get over it and work together.

[Satinavian]

And still i have seen it work out well nearly every time people tried.

[Keltest]

And still i have seen it work out well nearly every time people tried.

What does "well" mean though? That the warlock's evil alignment doesnt actually matter? That the paladin decided to compromise his ideals? That you were in a dungeon crawl so it was never relevant? Or that the warlock had his fun then got kicked out of the party and/or killed and the player rolled up a new character?

[Satinavian]

What does "well" mean though? That the warlock's evil alignment doesnt actually matter? That the paladin decided to compromise his ideals? That you were in a dungeon crawl so it was never relevant? Or that the warlock had his fun then got kicked out of the party and/or killed and the player rolled up a new character?

First of all, it usually is not about the good and evil characters in a vacuum, both are part of the whole party and have reasons to be in that party. Which means their goals and the party goals overlap well enough.
Then the evil character usually has no real problem "doing good" if it keeps his allies happy, as long as it doesn't cost him resources or hurts his real goals. In cases it does, he usually can get recompensation or other concessions. The good character is likewise is usually more interested to have the party succeed or to get it to tackle the problems he cares about than in trying to impose his morality on his companions.
Additionally there are all the other regular interactions and relationships. Becoming friends is extremely common for long term adventurers, starting off as family gives additional reasons to stick together, help each other and overlook each others problems. And "lovers" fills several genres. Sometimes it is society that forces them to work together, they might be in the same organization being ordered to to so.

Evil characters generally don't do evil for evils sake. They do it because it is beneficial for them or advances their goals. Which also means they don't tend to do it when everything they get from it is hostility and lost allies. There is a time and place for this stuff.


There are also the options of "greater Evil" or of the evil character doing their thing in secret or of the good character trying to reform the evil one, but all three of those are just not my personal taste. But others like them and they can work as well.

Generally, most stuff that happens in a campaign is not particularly focused on alignments or even morality. If both characters are group compatible, their personal differences don't take center stage all that often. And when it happens, they can still talk it out like adults.



As for the a Paladin specifically, it obviously doesn't work in editions with "can't associate with evil" in the code of conduct. Except when the paladin never realizes that their companions are evil which i have seen once as well, but only once. But in other editions you can do it with paladins as well.


And obviously with "it worked" i don't count cases of characters being thrown out of the party or killing each other. I have seen such occasions sometimes as well, but this has never been about alignment. Ok, the first one i witnessed could probably framed as a law and chaos conflict, not that it happened in a system that had these.