# Alignment violations and how to deal with them



## PlainSimpleGarak (Sep 26, 2013)

I admit, this issue makes me feel like a rank newbie DM.  I'm trying to teach a bunch of new-to-roleplaying gamers (and a few helpful veterans) how to play, by running a story-based low level campaign.  We discussed alignment and how it related to their characters, and had them choose deities appropriate to their character concepts.  However I don't know of any good way to moderate it in game when they do something that violates their alignment without making them feel like I'm _punishing _them.

To be more specific: I haven't DMed since the late 90's.  I spent the majority of the last decade playing and GMing/STing different systems (mostly Storyteller systems) which had clear book-mechanics for ethos violation.  However my new players were interested in playing a simple, classic game.  They had heard of DnD, and wanted to try DnD, so I dusted off my books and found some solid modules and started up a game.

However I'm a bit rusty... you might even say lost... at what to do when my group of neutral and chaotic good characters cook up evil schemes or make thoughtless decisions that get innocent people killed.  DnD - at least all the editions I have played - doesn't have a rule for what to do in case of an alignment violation that isn't an arbitrary decision of the DM.  (I have no paladins in the group, and the cleric is a veteran who plays strictly to her alignment, so my worries are for the newbies who are playing other classes)

So... advice or anecdotes?  Do you guys punish players for alignment violations in some way?   Divine intercession?  Loss of abilities?  

I'm working with newbies so I'm trying to make things focused on in-game consequences rather than out of game consequences.  Kid gloves, if you will, so I can get some good players when all is said and done


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Sep 26, 2013)

The following has always worked for me:

1. Ignore alignment restrictions other than the cleric's "Stay within one step of your deity's alignment." The rest are arbitrary, and get in the way of good role play.

2. If a PC is about to do something that clearly violates their alignment, give them a "This is your conscience..." warning or a dream warning from their deity. If they go ahead and do it anyway, I may actually shift their alignment if I feel that it's part of an emerging behavioral pattern -- or if the action is just _that_ extreme.

3. If the PC would actually be affected by this alignment shift, I inform the player of this fact, and tell them what they can do about it. In the case of a cleric or paladin or whatever, they lose their powers until they either seek redemption or find a more suitable divine patron. Oh, and _smite evil_ may become _smite chaos/good/law/extremist_.

Or if I'm DMing 4e, alignment doesn't matter, so I don't care whether reckless murderers call themselves good guys. Happens in real life all the time, so I'll simply work out the in-game consequences of such behavior.


----------



## delericho (Sep 26, 2013)

Firstly: which edition? Because, as noted, alignment has become less of an issue as the editions have gone on.

Anyway, for me, and from a 3e-perspective:

1) I would start by giving them a quick overview of the alignments. Mine is below, but I certainly don't claim it's definitive:

_Lawful:_ The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That is, people are better as an organised view, and you should aim for the best outcome for the most people even if that means compromising the preferences of a minority.

_Chaotic:_ The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. That is, people are best as individuals, and nobody has the right to impose themselves on another.

_Good:_ You first, me second. That is, an altruistic approach - the Good character will sacrifice himself for the benefit of others.

_Evil:{/i] Me first, you second. The reverse - the Evil character is interested in his own benefit and his own pleasure, and will sacrifice others for it.

Neutral: This one's a bit tricky. It can either be a 'weak' Neutral, which is basically either apathy or inaction, or a 'strong' Neutral where the character is concerned to strike a balance between the two extremes.

And then, of course, you combine two or more elements to generate a 'complete' alignment.

(Incidentally, on the face of it it looks like Lawful Evil is inherently contradictory by the definitions above. This is somewhat true. But, in general, the LE character will try to build a strong, efficient, and heirarchical society... that just happens to put himself right on the top.)

2) I would then proceed to almost completely ignore alignment for any character that doesn't have an alignment restriction. If need be, I would quietly change their alignment to match their observed behaviour, but don't make an issue of it.

3) For classes who do have alignment restrictions, if I saw the player drifting to an illegal alignment, I would have a quiet word with him/her after the first session in which it happens... then again a couple of sessions later... and if they persist after that then change the alignment and apply the appropriate rules for the character. After all, they've chosen that alignment by their actions, so it's done.

*All that said...*

I'm now leaning towards getting rid of alignment restrictions altogether, in which case every character would fall under #2.

The exception to this would be the Paladin, who wouldn't have an alignment restriction as such, but would be required to declare an oath. This would have to be phrased as a handful (4-8) relatively general clauses about who he is and what he's about. My sample oath comes from "Dragonheart":

i) A knight is sworn to valour
ii) His heart knows only virtue
iii) His blade defends the helpless
iv) His might upholds the weak
v) His word speaks only truth
vi) His wrath undoes the wicked.

Thereafter, the character would be expected to hold to his code. However, being human, it's likely he won't do so perfectly. Therefore:

- If the character grossly violates any one aspect of his code, such as by deliberately attacking a helpless innocent, then the character immediately falls, and must seek atonement just as if he'd deliberately changed alignment.

- If the character commits a minor infraction against any aspect of the code, even if it was done involuntarily (that is, it includes if he is dominated into doing so!), then I would put a mark by that clause of the code. But for now, there are no ill effects. (And if the clause is already marked, then there is no other effect.)

However, if the paladin ever gets to the point where he has a mark against all six clauses, then he again falls, and must seek out atonement to regain his status as a paladin.

(One other thing: I wouldn't allow the paladin to seek atonement to remove the marks for minor infractions until he has fallen. My gut feeling is that allowing this would make it just a bit too easy for the paladin.)

I think this should work reasonably well. The character is still recognisably within the "knight in shining armour" archetype of the Paladin (and, indeed, by adjusting the oath the DM can create some very different types of Paladin), and also has a clear guide as to what he should and should not be doing. Plus, because the oath is broken into sub-clauses, the Paladin gets a pretty clear warning if he starts to sail close to the edge.

But... I do have to note that I haven't tried this last one out in an actual game, so it's possible it might not work at all!_


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 26, 2013)

Start by saying this...







> "Hi, apparently we don't know each other enough. Since I'm the GM for this game of heroic fantasy, I expect the player characters to be heroic, or at least non villainous. If you want instead a game of _*Scumbags and Sociopaths*_, you'll have to head home and chose your favorite _*Psycho in a Sandbox*_ video game."


----------



## steenan (Sep 26, 2013)

You can't force anybody to respect their alignment. There is no way to make your players behave as they should without ruining the fun of the game for everybody involved. Punishing them won't change anything, other than possibly ruining some friendships.

But for some reason the players chose the character concepts and alignments they did. Why did they do it and why they violate the alignments now?

I think the best way is to ask them.

Maybe they never really thought about it. Selecting an alignment was just a part of the paperwork necessary to start playing (and if you helped in choosing alignments and deities, it wasn't even their paperwork). It didn't matter then and it doesn't matter now. In this case, ignoring alignments is the best course of action - and it may be good to switch deities to whatever best fits the PCs now.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding between you and your players about what each alignment means. If so, just discussing the topic may help your players act in a way that fits their alignments.

Maybe your players want to focus on fall and redemption? After all, it's a very powerful theme and it's really fun to play. This means that you should definitely use in-character consequences of what they do, up to and including loss of powers, angry deities and fiends offering an employment change. 

And maybe (although it's the least probable option) the players just want to piss you off. In this case, show them the door and find a better group.

In other words: talk with them about what you find problematic (but without judging them as players), ask them why they do what they do and decide based on what you learn.


If there are other factors that matter, make sure to mention them in such conversation. For example, if you want heroic characters because running for an evil party is not fun for you, make it clear - and make it clear that what matters is how they behave, not what is written as "alignment" on character sheets.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 26, 2013)

I generally deal with alignment by letting the players determine their real alignment in play.   Most players that are problematic are generally inclined to choose alignments that are pretty flexible in interpretation - neutral, chaotic neutral, even chaotic evil.   

The main things are:

a) Clearly explain what alignments mean in your game.   Question why the player has chosen a particular alignment for their character.   Make sure that players of characters who are restricted by alignment - clerics, champions, etc. - clearly understand the basic code they are expected to follow.   You may need to explain whether in the moral system of your world basic concepts like whether fornication is chaotic or evil, or whether slavery is lawful or evil, or whether charity is lawful or good.   If you get some argument and you are still certain about it, explain that this is a fantasy world and may not be perfectly congruent to our own and that having the player champion an outlook like chaotic neutral or lawful evil within this world as the one that is good and right is in fact perfectly good role playing and interesting and good for the campaign.   Be a neutral arbiter.  
b) Freely allow a player to revise their own assessment of an alignment for their player.
c) Warn a player when a particular act if repeated may cause you to reassess the alignment of the player.   Keep in mind that alignment is not personality and that foibles in a mortals character as well as occasional minor trespasses are expected.  
d) Warn a player intending to commit an act that will force you to reassess their morality of the consequences (prompting of their conscious).   Allow them to explain why they think the action is within their alignment.  
e) Keep in game punishments to a minimum.   Provide outlets for players who change their alignment to remain effective characters and try to create in game justifications for that.   Essentially, a character that is changing their alignment is effectively rewriting their character.  As long as this is down thoughtfully, go with it.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 26, 2013)

If it ever comes up as an issue (and it rarely does for the games I run) I generally just keep in mind what *I*, the GM, consider the PC's alignment to be and adjudicate any alignment-based effects accordingly. I don't believe I've ever really had to go to significant lengths over the issue, even with paladin characters.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 26, 2013)

PlainSimpleGarak said:


> I admit, this issue makes me feel like a rank newbie DM.  I'm trying to teach a bunch of new-to-roleplaying gamers (and a few helpful veterans) how to play, by running a story-based low level campaign.  We discussed alignment and how it related to their characters, and had them choose deities appropriate to their character concepts.  However I don't know of any good way to moderate it in game when they do something that violates their alignment without making them feel like I'm _punishing _them.
> 
> To be more specific: I haven't DMed since the late 90's.  I spent the majority of the last decade playing and GMing/STing different systems (mostly Storyteller systems) which had clear book-mechanics for ethos violation.  However my new players were interested in playing a simple, classic game.  They had heard of DnD, and wanted to try DnD, so I dusted off my books and found some solid modules and started up a game.
> 
> ...




If PCs get "punished", it should be for foolish or unheroic behavior. Admittedly this tends to punish chaotic stupid PCs more than good-aligned PCs, but being heroic and stupid leads to being Ned Starked.

Punishment simply means facing consequences. Outright evil actions will probably result in being hunted by paladins. Foolishly (but not deliberately) getting people killed tends to upset their families and local governments, who might send police or hire mercenaries. Desecrating a church will likely get you hunted down by CoDzillas (clerics), paladins and angels. These encounters need not be balanced in the CR system.

Attempting to hide crimes will likely fail due to various divinations, and the general difficulty in killing all witnesses. Very good descriptions (a requirement in a world where many NPCs are barely literate, if at all) can get passed around by birds, possibly magical pigeons.

I don't think any edition of D&D has written alignments properly. It's always vague, and while there's changes, they're minimal. Maybe 4e alignments are better; I run 4e but I have hardly looked at the "rules". I instead write up a document before a campaign starts letting players know what I'm expecting.

Palladium, a system whose rules I can't stand, has far better alignment rules than D&D IMO. You can find a link here, and note that the alignments correspond to D&D alignments. (Aberrant, for instance, is lawful evil.) Link: http://therpgtable.proboards.com/thread/40

One of the things I like about that alignment system, beyond the clarity, is you can say "you only need to follow 9 or 10 of those 11 or 12 rules". In other words, if you're lawful good (called principled in Palladium), you can drop the rule about never lying without suffering from an "alignment infraction". A lawful good dwarf can still be greedy, as that's a flaw, and having issues with telling the truth is okay too.

TVTropes, a wiki, also has better alignment rules than D&D. You can find each of the alignments off of this link: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment

On another note, I don't like the idea of "alignment infraction". If a player shifts their alignment or doesn't match what's on the sheet, there could be a miscommunication or disagreement. There's probably one definition of each alignment per player anyway, so you *will* disagree. Even getting together and trying to make sense of alignments (at least if it's D&D's unclear alignments) doesn't work, as we haven't developed a telepathy technology yet.

If someone says they're neutral good, but you think they're lawful good, ignore what's on their sheet and treat them as if they're lawful good. A change in behavior could mean character development, or someone is just having a bad day. That probably won't have much impact on the game though. I don't think there's any need to cut XP and so forth. Maybe someone will be surprised that they can no longer summon celestial creatures (if their XP shifted from neutral to evil) or they can now be harmed by Order's Wrath (because they shifted from lawful to neutral) but that's not a big part of the game.

I also think a lot of alignment restrictions are silly. I don't have a problem with a chaotic monk or a lawful barbarian. Alignments aren't really a part of the rules, and I'd rather avoid that kind of conflict if possible.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 26, 2013)

A problem that can rise up is casting spells with an alignment descriptor.  In 3E, *Create Undead* has the *Evil* descriptor.  Does a LN player become LE because of repeat casting of Create Undead?  If a player creates undead and uses them to help build a levee to prevent a town from being flooded, how is this action to be adjudicated?

Similarly, *Summon Monster* summons monsters with alignments.  Are the creatures just stat bags, or do they carry an alignment taint?

Similarly, Poison use is usually defined as evil.  I have a goblin alchemist whom I play as NG, but who uses poison.  Does that make him evil?

There can often be a problem of characters in a civilized area.  Many typical adventurer actions are *not* lawful.  This can be hard for players to get into mode for, as a lot of games are a series of linked encounters, with obvious foes, and with the action starting with a request for initiative.  At that level, the game is more like chess than a role playing game, and alignment considerations are almost entirely absent.  That is, the players are trained to *not* consider alignment for their actions.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## airwalkrr (Sep 26, 2013)

If a player takes one action outside the confines of his character's alignment, I will warn the player that such actions may eventually result in change of alignment. If a player consistently acts outside the confines of his character's alignment, I will change that character's alignment to something more suitable. It only has repercussions in-game if the character's class has alignment restrictions. If a rogue's alignment changes from Neutral to Chaotic Neutral there really isn't any mechanical effect.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 26, 2013)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> I don't think any edition of D&D has written alignments properly.




That's been the biggest problem with alignment since the beginning.  The initial descriptions were very vague and even Gygax has some biases that negatively influenced how the alignments were perceived (you can see this come to its laughable fruition in the 4e alignment system).  Worse, different writers have had entirely different takes on what the system describes or means, including some that are down right contradictory.  All this inconsistency has increased the natural inconsistency you'd expect to see when people define the terms.  



> Palladium, a system whose rules I can't stand, has far better alignment rules than D&D IMO.




I don't know that they are better, but they are at least described and an attempt to be consistent in the description is made.  I have some quibbles with how they define 'neutrality'* and they like many others seem to have trouble grasping neutral evil's essential nature**, but on the whole, that is indeed a better job than D&D has managed in any of its official works.

*(So many writer's describing alignment get stuck on 'selfish'.  Insane is another concept that causes many writers fits.)
**(Simplified, LE: I'm destructive for the sake of my society.  CE: I'm destructive for the sake of myself.  NE: Who needs a reason to be destructive?)



> I also think a lot of alignment restrictions are silly. I don't have a problem with a chaotic monk or a lawful barbarian. Alignments aren't really a part of the rules, and I'd rather avoid that kind of conflict if possible.




Most alignment restrictions end up coming from a 'alignment defines personality' mindset that I deplore, or else mistake the 'law vs. chaos' conflict for being 'man vs. nature' or 'civilization vs. barbarism' which is silly.  I get rid of all alignment restrictions pretty much in my home brew, though some classes - notably Cleric and Champion have alignment dependent powers are must 'fix' their alignment to begin with based on their character building choices.   This is because Cleric and Champion derive their power from championing a particular philosophical cause.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 26, 2013)

*Dealing With Alignment Issues*
[sblock]
So, your noble group of world-saving, evil-destroying heroes just burned down an orphanage, punched an old lady, and kicked a sack of puppies. No, the puppies weren't evil. They've done something clearly outside the bounds of "Heroic" fantasy, and are toying with a greyer morality than the alignment system implies. What's a DM to do?

The first thing to understand is that one-offs don't necessarily mean an alignment change. Kicking one sack of puppies isn't going to turn your noble Lawful Good paladin Chaotic Evil. Alignment describes a _pattern_ of behavior, so before you even contemplate an alignment change, make sure that this kind of thing happens over multiple sessions. You may want to tell a player explicitly when you think they're doing something that might violate their alignment, but make it clear that it also requires a pattern: "Make a habit of kicking puppies, and that might mean re-evaluating your alignment." 

The next thing is that this might just be a miscommunication or misunderstanding. Maybe the player WANTED to play Lawful Good, but found themselves instead playing closer to Chaotic Neutral. In most cases, this won't be a problem: simply change their alignment to match their current behavior, and call it a day. It might also be the case that the player has a different interpretation of "Lawful Good" than you do. While the meanings of the alignments are pretty clear, there's a lot of nuance that -- intentionally -- isn't captured. If the player has a different understanding than you do as the DM, talk it over with them. If you agree, great, they keep their alignment. If you disagree, that's fine, their alignment changes. You're the DM, so you do have the final say over what the alignments mean at your table, but it's often constructive to have a dialogue rather than just laying down the law, so consider if you can say "yes." If you can, it's usually better to do that. 





_
"My paladin order believes that cats rule and dogs drool, so this is actually not an evil act for us."_​
An alignment change by itself isn't a punishment or a restriction. Alignment is just a tool to describe the kind of character you're playing, so if you're finding that a different alignment is a better fit for a given character, it's usually not a big deal just to cross out one pair of words, and write in another. No muss, no fuss. If the disagreement threatens to de-rail the game, don't be too afraid to pull the "I'm the DM" card to get things back on track. When the disagreeing player is the DM, they can define alignments however they want, but for now, they're signing up to your definition. 

In some games, or with certain classes or spells or abilities, it can matter a bit more. If you're playing a game where Paladins Must Be Lawful Good, and you and your player disagree about what makes a Lawful Good character, you want to be very clear about the kind of character the player is intending on playing. In these cases, the responsibility is yours as a DM to make sure that the players are at least aware of the consequences of their actions. If your Chaotic Neutral priest of Freedom risks offending their god because they paid their local taxes (or whatever), you should make it very clear to the player that this is a consequence for their action, _before the action happens_. It's not fun to come to a game where you suddenly have a useless character just because you and the DM disagreed on whether or not you could tell a lie. And remember the first point, above: a one-off doesn't mean you change alignments. So you should have plenty of time to let a player know the consequences of their actions well in advance of them actually triggering any mechanical effect. Conflicted knights and divine retribution can make really interesting stories, but if that's not what the player is interested in playing, you don't need to force them down that path. 

Ultimately, it may be worth considering if alignment is adding much of anything to your games, if you find yourself getting caught up in issues of definition. Alignment is intended to enable heroic fantasy by pointing out who the Good Guys and who the Bad Guys (and who the Blue Guys and who the Orange Guys) are in bright lights, as a way to enforce those mythic conflicts between good and evil and law and chaos. It's not required for that, though, and many games benefit greatly from a system with more shades of gray and less strict "teams." There's scads of alternate alignment systems out there, and you can drop it without affecting mechanical balance or control at all. If you use rules that hinge off of alignment, it's easy to remove that joint and just allow the rule to any character that can access it. If your table has a Priest of Freedom who pays their taxes, maybe they have a reason, or maybe they hide their sin or maybe they're conflicted between supporting their local schools and fighting against the pointless government that builds them or maybe they see cosmic freedom as served better with local laws. Or whatever. Without alignment, it really doesn't matter: you can let the player make up their own version of what is right or wrong with their character. This might make the "teams" less clear, so if your game is about cosmic conflict and Heroes vs. Villains, it's worth considering how else to get at those teams, but if your game is more about one group of mercenaries or just personal, character-driven missions for the PC's, alignment might distract more than it enhances.
[/sblock]

In the end, the call is yours. Just remember that alignment is a pattern, it is open to some interpretation (and it is your interpretation as DM that matters ultimately), and when a change in alignment has some effect other than the words on the sheet, it's a good idea to make sure that the change is _voluntary_. The player should never be surprised by a change in alignment that suddenly renders their character significantly less useful (even if the character may be). 

Hope that helps!


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 26, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> A problem that can rise up is casting spells with an alignment descriptor.  In 3E, *Create Undead* has the *Evil* descriptor.  Does a LN player become LE because of repeat casting of Create Undead?  If a player creates undead and uses them to help build a levee to prevent a town from being flooded, how is this action to be adjudicated?




It's really up to the DM.  Some considerations I might make:

a) Is the character ignorant or misguided?  If the character doesn't know the spell is evil and legitimately believes that creating undead serves a good purpose, that would be a strong mitigating factor in how I'd assess the action.
b) If the character does know what he's doing is evil, is he legitimately distraught and repentant about the action and prepared to accept the consequences?  If the character believes he is simply being pragmatic, that is to say - if you commit an evil for worthy ends it's ok - this implies a shift from Good to Neutrality.  Good and evil aren't being considered ends unto themselves, but tools for achieving something the character wants.  The less altruistic the use, the less weal is involved in the use, the faster I'd make this shift.  
c) How prolonged is the activity?  I'm more interested in doing the same thing on 10 days, than 10 times on one day.  I'd treat the later as a single action, since there hasn't been time to learn from or evaluate the action.  

In general, I'd try to convey subtly why creating undead was evil if my players tried to do so for some noble and pragmatic reason:

a) If you summon up enough undead to usefully help build a levy, chances are you are eventually going to exceed your ability to command and control that much undead.  Ooopps.  Now your undead are attacking the villagers you tried to save.

b) If you have fresh bodies on hand, chances are these are the bodies of the relatives of the people you are trying to save.  This creates all sorts of emotional awkwardness - ranging from anger at the violation against the person's body, to attempts to relate to the body as if it was still the living person (daddy?  hug me daddy!?!?!), to fear and anger (the person in question use to abuse one of the still living persons).

c) You've just increased the amount of latent evil in the world.  If you cast detect evil, it will be clear that the 'pollution' as a side effect of your spell will linger and spread over time.  Likely it will be diluted and swallowed up among the prevailing miasma, but in the particular case of a PC repeatedly casting an evil spell, because that player is a Destined character (having destiny points) there is a 100% chance universe will take notice.   Your levy now becomes a minor nexus of evil.  It remembers the event that occurred.  Evil spirits move in and haunt the area.  Minor curses occur to those that linger there.  Bodies buried in the area have a small chance of rising as zombies.  Any violence that now occurs there will certainly be recorded at least in the form of phantasms and haunts.   Anyone that dies there now has an increased chance of becoming a ghost because the immediate environs in the spirit world are now less welcoming and more confusing and painful to anyone that finds themselves in them; it's easier to get lost and not move on, and of course if you are evil the spirits of the place will welcome you and encourage you to not move on.  You now have a mess to clean up similar to if you'd poured toxic chemicals all over the place.

d) It's worth noting that my world uses Fear/Horror/Madness rules, and all undead have a fear aura by default.  While a zombie lacks the charisma or HD for a strong fear aura, it's still enough to terrify many commoners which in and of itself could have problems.  Some of the weak willed and cowardly could potentially drown themselves trying to avoid contact with the zombies.  Add to that circumstantial modifiers (it's the body of a recently hanged rapist) or phobias (fear of dead things), and you have a potential mess.

e) I will try to convey to the character that the private experience of casting the spell repeatedly has left a latent taint in themselves, and (particularly if the character has a high wisdom score) that they are noting a persistent change in their own feelings and emotions.  They notice themselves looking at the bodies of the living and at the living themselves as mere objects.  They notice a hunger for casting the spell again.  They notice suppressing of their positive emotions - less joy in meals, companionship, or things that used to cause them pleasure.  They notice conversely stronger feelings of disgust and dislike, and perhaps passing moments where they are no longer distinguishing between the living and the dead and find the living revolting decaying corpses.

f) Exposure to the undead could trigger latent necrophile tendencies in the weak willed or susceptible.  That neutral kid who was leaning evil but reluctant or fearing to go down that path, seeing the players do this awesome thing with the undead, might now be provoked into seeking necromantic power.  That mildly sociopathic person whose evil lay as dormant potential, as yet unacted on, might become obsessed.  I'd probably only go this route if I'd prior created NPC's who might logically act in that manner, but if I had them at hand their evil meters might crank up a notch - and ironically the more the PC's tried to cover up the horror of the thing - the more likely I'd consider this a fair non-metagamey outcome.



> Similarly, *Summon Monster* summons monsters with alignments.  Are the creatures just stat bags, or do they carry an alignment taint?




In my game?  Yeah, they definitely carry alignment taint and they are definitely not just stat bags.   Summoning up evil beings is evil, regardless of the purpose you put them too.  Spell or no spell, you can't get a Celestial templated creature to knowingly kill or injure a good and innocent being.  If you did manage it, woe be unto you.



> Similarly, Poison use is usually defined as evil.  I have a goblin alchemist whom I play as NG, but who uses poison.  Does that make him evil?




See above description of using evil spells.   Personally, I see poison as not being inherently evil and more of a moral grey area.   Good people avoid poisons because they encourage treachery, prevent mercy, and have a tendency to accidentally effect people you don't intend them to effect.  On the other hand, poisoning a rampaging dragon or a nest of giant ants could be morally justified.  Executing a murderer by poisoning him with a fast acting painless toxin rather than by some more painful means as an act of mercy could be morally justified.  If killing itself can be morally justified, the means don't matter so much.



> There can often be a problem of characters in a civilized area.  Many typical adventurer actions are *not* lawful.




Depends on the group.  However, in general, if you play with normal Americans you will not get a lot of well described and well played lawful character concepts.   Lawfulness doesn't come easy to most Americans IMO (Mormons and a few other groups being exceptions.)  So lawful mindedness can be something that they struggle with, particularly if the DM has a similar anti-authoritarian inclination and tends to have all NPCs in authority be self-serving jerks who exclude and alienate the PCs right from the start.



> At that level, the game is more like chess than a role playing game, and alignment considerations are almost entirely absent.  That is, the players are trained to *not* consider alignment for their actions.




If they are so trained, it is the fault of the DM.   Players that want to approach the whole game as a tactical combat game are best advised to play a neutral character, since in practice that is what they will do anyway.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Sep 26, 2013)

_deleted_


----------



## PlainSimpleGarak (Sep 27, 2013)

> Firstly: which edition? Because, as noted, alignment has become less of an issue as the editions have gone on.




We're playing 2nd.  Because it's what I have and know.  I don't think there are too many changes beyond some more lenient alignment restrictions for certain classes.

I think I might need to walk the newbies through the alignments again.  Thank you for some very cohesive description of each axis!

The problem isn't that the character in question has a restricted alignment (he's a fighter/mage) - but that he wants to work towards gaining prestige in a church dedicated to a neutral good goddess.  So he wants to be / thinks he is a neutral good character.  Yet he often goes for 'overkill' (literally) in trying to subdue anyone who isn't his immediate ally.

Maybe the problem in question here isn't he doesn't understand his own alignment, but that he doesn't get the different between a villain and 'that guy who isn't on your side'

Hmm, you have given me some very good food for thought.


----------



## PlainSimpleGarak (Sep 27, 2013)

I have never read anything about Palladium, thanks for the tip!

And I'm starting to love TV tropes.


----------



## delericho (Sep 27, 2013)

PlainSimpleGarak said:


> We're playing 2nd.




Cool. It's been a very long time since I played 2nd, but I had a huge amount of fun doing so back in the day.

I think I would be inclined tomake two changes to 2nd Ed's handling of alignments:

- I would be inclined to drop the bit from the DMG about characters losing XP, or advancing at a much slower rate, if they change alignment. But that's just my preference - I prefer "personality defines alignment", rather than the converse, and that rule impedes that, IMO.

- I would also make sure my players knew to ignore the "CN is basically insane" stuff from the PHB. That little nugget caused me way too much hassle over the years. 



> The problem isn't that the character in question has a restricted alignment (he's a fighter/mage) - but that he wants to work towards gaining prestige in a church dedicated to a neutral good goddess.  So he wants to be / thinks he is a neutral good character.  Yet he often goes for 'overkill' (literally) in trying to subdue anyone who isn't his immediate ally.




Aha! You're actually in a lucky position here - it's not so much that the player is concerned about alignment infractions, but rather that he _wants_ to uphold a particular alignment for in-game reasons. And that gives you a nice in-game way to handle things...

Basically, have the other NPCs in the church of the goddess react to the character differently, depending on how he acts. If he exemplifies the goddess' ethos, including alignment, then he should have a high standing, and be well-regarded generally. If he becomes too bloodthirsty, have his kindly mentor in the church have a quiet word... "We admire your zeal, but have you considered that not all who oppose us are truly evil at heart?" and so forth.

IOW, I don't think you have a _game-rules_ problem here, but more an _in-game_ opportunity.

Just a thought...


----------



## N'raac (Sep 27, 2013)

PlainSimpleGarak said:


> The problem isn't that the character in question has a restricted alignment (he's a fighter/mage) - but that he wants to work towards gaining prestige in a church dedicated to a neutral good goddess. So he wants to be / thinks he is a neutral good character. Yet he often goes for 'overkill' (literally) in trying to subdue anyone who isn't his immediate ally.






delericho said:


> Aha! You're actually in a lucky position here - it's not so much that the player is concerned about alignment infractions, but rather that he _wants_ to uphold a particular alignment for in-game reasons. And that gives you a nice in-game way to handle things...
> 
> Basically, have the other NPCs in the church of the goddess react to the character differently, depending on how he acts. If he exemplifies the goddess' ethos, including alignment, then he should have a high standing, and be well-regarded generally. If he becomes too bloodthirsty, have his kindly mentor in the church have a quiet word... "We admire your zeal, but have you considered that not all who oppose us are truly evil at heart?" and so forth.




Agreed.  It doesn't really matter if the Church is the exact definition of NG alignment, a borderline case focusing on only a small aspect, or isn't NG at all.  The tenets of the Church can be defined separate and apart from any argument over what the alignment represents. Defining these to exactly match the book tenets of NG, maybe expanding on some (like "this means violence is a last resort method of dispute resolution" or, if we need to dumb it down "sucker punching the guy ahead of you in line or beating an answer out of a passerby is not Good even if you are in a hurry").


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 27, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> It's really up to the DM.  Some considerations I might make:




Remaining text omitted.  (Nice write up.)

I agree with all of this.  However, I have found substantial disagreement from various players, to the extent of complete disagreement and unwillingness to consider the ideas as possibly valid.

That might have been self serving bias: One player liked to play a mage and didn't want to be restricted as far as what creatures he could summon.  (Side question: What happens if a player summons all alignments of creatures?)

Thx!

TomB


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 27, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> *Dealing With Alignment Issues*
> [sblock]
> So, your noble group of world-saving, evil-destroying heroes just burned down an orphanage, punched an old lady, and kicked a sack of puppies. No, the puppies weren't evil. They've done something clearly outside the bounds of "Heroic" fantasy, and are toying with a greyer morality than the alignment system implies. What's a DM to do?




I'm finding the quoted text to be amusing.  I would consider a paladin who kicked a sack of puppies to have violated their code and to immediately lose their powers.  Intentionally causing harm to a helpless innocent is a strong violation!  A person doesn't need to have a string of bank robberies to go to jail.  Just one is sufficient.  (More means a stronger punishment, not none at all.)

What should happen if a paladin, after a very stressful discussion with a city official, turned and struck a servant out of rage?  More interesting would be if the paladin unfairly scolded the servant, or failed to leave a customary tip.

Generally, I've found players to be strongly opposed to any sorts of restrictions.  The quoted text is an example, where the tone diminishes the extent of consequence, and generally allowing singular or infrequent deviations.  The opposition seems quite strong.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2013)

> That might have been self serving bias: One player liked to play a mage and didn't want to be restricted as far as what creatures he could summon.  (Side question: What happens if a player summons all alignments of creatures?)




I believe that in D&D terms most people IRL are 'Neutral'.  They don't really care about issues like 'philosophy', 'ethics', 'morality', or 'spirituality'.   None of those things seem to impact their daily lives.  They believe that they are basically 'good people' and want to be basically 'good people', but also believe that sometimes 'doing what is right' means making compromises.   They believe that morality is basically relative and situational and some things you'd never contemplate otherwise can be the right thing to do circumstantially.  They believe that vices are really only vices if you take them to an extreme, and that anything taken to an extreme can be a vice.   In short, the 'neutrals' are convinced (like almost everyone else) that they are 'good'.  

Obviously, if the player doesn't care about the morality of what he is doing and he's only taking care not to be too extreme or go too far, he's probably neutral.  If a wizard has 'neutral' written on his character sheet, and he's selecting creatures to summon solely on the basis of their situational utility, then I think he's in character.



> I agree with all of this.  However, I have found substantial disagreement from various players, to the extent of complete disagreement and unwillingness to consider the ideas as possibly valid.




I find that about 90% of players are unable, for whatever reasons, to play an alignment other than the one that they hold IRL.   Lawful players IRL find they are unable to play anything but lawful characters, because dishonorable behavior (even imagined) disgusts them or seems incomprehensible to them (my most lawful player in my current group is always telling me after sessions when we discuss what happens, "I would have never thought of that...").   This goes around the wheel.  Chaotics find themselves unable to abide by rules for long.  I've had players completely unable to play anything but an evil character no matter how much they tried, which made me glad that there IRL self only expressed their disposition in generally petty ways and they weren't being asked to make life or death decisions IRL.

I don't pay too much mind to this, but it becomes a problem with a player insists that a certain outlook is 'good' even when it contrasts with the definitions you've provided for the alignments or when a player wants to be the 'hero' and to think of himself in that role but doesn't want to pay the price of being the hero.   Additionally, the fact that underneath all of this it is a game tends to favor having the 'Neutral' outlook within the game unless the player explicitly considers exploring morality, philosophy, and spirituality as more important than 'winning' the game (acquiring XP, power, and keeping your character alive).  Neutral is above all as pragmatic.   So, in general if I believe the player is going to play his character pragmatically, I strongly encourage them to take 'neutral' as the character's alignment to avoid any possible argument.  (Then again, you have the player that wants to play evil who also wants to use 'neutral' as emotional cover.)

In general, you should try to avoid the need to strongly disagree over this.  If the character wants to insist his pragmatic outlook and lack of willingness to sacrifice immediate interests is 'good', there is little need to argue about it.   Except for a few classes, there is no direct punishment for alignment drift.  Instead, simply consider the outcomes of what he is doing and communicate the outcome to the character.   At that point, it turns from an argument about IRL concepts, into an argument over what happens in your imagined world.  And if the player still wants to insist that what you have chosen as the reasonable outcome isn't reasonable and isn't what should happen, then the fundamental problem is that the player wants to be in the game and running it too.    He's trying to tell you what NPC's think and how the world should behave, and that should be the point you make to him.   Maybe he is being unreasonably persecuted or blamed when he uses necromancy to save the village.   Maybe the gods that call themselves 'good' aren't in fact good, and are just a bunch of jerks.  Maybe he is the most noble character around, and the foolish village cleric is vain and envious.   Maybe the bad things that are happening really aren't his fault.  But his character should take up that issue in game, and not make it a point of contention out of game.   Your basic defense is, "I told you this is the way my imagined world works all along; this is the way it working."

Just take care to not be letting your emotions about interfere with your judgment.   Remember that being righteous, noble, and pure in your deeds generally doesn't lead to everyone liking you and no one disparaging you.   Remember most characters in the world are probably neutral too and also believe that they are 'basically good people'.   Remember not every failing has a consequence.   But conversely, don't let a player behave in a way that doesn't have consequences if you want to have a world that feels real and is worth exploring philosophically.  If the player plays a hedonist, there will be consequences.   If the player makes no consideration for morality, there will be consequences.   It's not a judgment against those actions; it's just the way the world works.   After all, it could be the reasonable price for being good is they decide to kill you.   Happens a lot.   Everything has a cause and effect.  

Where you really get into trouble, or where I've seen DMs really get into trouble, is if you don't take the time to make this all clear ahead of time so that it comes up as a complete surprise in the middle of play.  Often this happens because the DM has never clearly worked out in his own mind what he means by 'law', 'chaos', 'good', 'evil' and 'neutral' or why summoning undead is evil or if he can't clearly elucidate why it is that way in his world, and just is working with the vague and often contradictory explanations in the text.   That can be a show stopper.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2013)

Let's put it this way, if a player asks, "Why is summoning undead evil?", I may well respond to the query IC.

Me: "Make a knowledge (arcane) check to see how much you know about the metaphysics of necromancy?"
PC: "Err... 27."
Me: "Wow, you know a lot!  Well, there are a lot of reasons both small and great but one of the chief ones that comes to your mind is that it upsets the balance of the universe.  If too many wizards were to work necromancy, it would cause the world to become negatively aligned.  Eventually this would break the Orichalcum thread upon which the crystal globe of the world is suspended, and everyone would find themselves on a one way trip down the Great Cascade into the matter destroying life eating negative energy plane.  And that's why, long before things got to that point, some god's Paladin would be seeking you out to put an end to your evil doing.  Likewise, long before things got to that point, you'd make a mess of the local environment, to say nothing of the all the cheese holes you'd be eating in your own soul."
PC: "But surely one animate dead spell wouldn't hurt anything?"
DM: "Well, assuming that the Orichalcum thread isn't right at the snapping point because of what some lich you've never heard of is doing on the other side of the planet, probably not a lot particularly if you were doing it for a noble cause, right?  But, what I hear you saying when you saying that while it may be true that a lot of necromancy isn't bad, one time isn't, is that you must strike a balance?  Sounds neutral to me."


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 27, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> Let's put it this way, if a player asks, "Why is summoning undead evil?", I may well respond to the query IC.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




DM (Continuing): Unless, of course, there is a strong _local_ imbalance.  Then the Orichalcum fiber associated with the local subdomain may become overstretched, leading to a partial fraying of the local fabric of continua, with an ensuing involvement of agents who would attempt to restore the continua to a stable state.  You would notice a fraying by more frequent spontaneous raising of undead, perhaps with a slight chance of tears leading to the negative elemental plane.  Of course, the agents would seek out any responsible for the local fraying.  Perhaps you should consult with the local spiritual leaders to determine if their graveyards and other spiritual cites are experiencing any warning signs ... unquiet dreams, worrisome shifting of mortal remains, and the like?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## am181d (Sep 27, 2013)

Let the players decide on their characters' personalities and choose alignments to fit. Generally, characters' personalities will stay fairly consistent, and there actions will match their alignment. And if they don't? Periodically reassess: "Jim, I've noticed that you're playing your character a little more chaotic good than lawful good. Do you mind if we switch it over?"

For classes like Barbarian/Monk/Bard/Druid, I generally ignore alignment restrictions.

The only place where it really makes a difference is Paladins/Clerics who are theoretically supposed to align to specific deities or codes. Here, I would give players general lattitude but provide a gentle warning of "This action is outside the bounds of your alignment." Let them decide to do it or not, but keep track, and if you get to 3+ of these, start a subplot where the PC is "warned" against deviating from the faith (via dream, messenger, an inopportune spell failure, etc.). If the PC continues to deviate, escalate, but give the PC multiple options. (Maybe a rival god entreats the PC to serve him instead?)

The bottom line is: Alignment should not be used as a cudgel to make the players fall in line with a DMs views of right and wrong. It should be used very sparingly as a flavor element around specific beings/powers.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> DM (Continuing): Unless, of course, there is a strong _local_ imbalance.  Then the Orichalcum fiber associated with the local subdomain may become overstretched, leading to a partial fraying of the local fabric of continua, with an ensuing involvement of agents who would attempt to restore the continua to a stable state.  You would notice a fraying by more frequent spontaneous raising of undead, perhaps with a slight chance of tears leading to the negative elemental plane.  Of course, the agents would seek out any responsible for the local fraying.  Perhaps you should consult with the local spiritual leaders to determine if their graveyards and other spiritual cites are experiencing any warning signs ... unquiet dreams, worrisome shifting of mortal remains, and the like?
> 
> Thx!




No problem.  The point is that you have this worked out.   In my case, the exact details of you extended explanation doesn't make sense for my homebrew world, because in that world there is just one Orichalcum thread - and you can go and physically inspect it if you have the requisite magical technology and you can sweet talk the Astral Devas that guard it.   

But, your world is your world.   Maybe in your world necromancy isn't evil, or it's evil for different reasons.  But you shouldn't think that just because it has an 'Evil' descriptor on a spell that your work as DM is done and you just have to point at that and say, "See."  If you can't think of a good reason for it to be evil, you shouldn't have it evil (which means accepting that there will be perfectly good and moral societies that routinely employ zombie labor).   Personally, I can think of lots of reasons why you wouldn't want to employ necromancy that are fully satisfying and interesting to me, and so in my game it's definitely Evil.

But really, 'Animate Dead' isn't even likely to be where you have the conflict.  The real show stoppers are going to be when it matters whether some hot bottom real life behavior often considered a vice is aligned in some fashion according to your world's definitions.

Questions:
a) Is adultery chaotic, evil, both, or neither?
b) Is fornication chaotic, evil, both, or neither?
c) Is slavery lawful, evil, both, or neither?  
d) Is abortion chaotic, evil, both, or neither?
e) Is being sexist/racist (or other socially repulsive behavior or belief) evil, or is it just being a jerk, or is it just being a jerk if you are insensitive about your beliefs?  And for that matter, is being a jerk evil or is 'jerkiness' all in the eye of the beholder?
f) Is drunkenness/intoxication chaotic, evil, both, or neither?
g) Is gambling lawful, chaotic, evil, some, or none?

You provoke those questions and similar ones in game at your own risk, and should take care about the beliefs of the group and possible sensitivities.  Theory crafting is all well and good, but sometimes you just need to leave the subject alone for the peace of the table.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2013)

am181d said:


> Let the players decide on their characters' personalities and choose alignments to fit.




I going to quibble and say that personality and alignment have only a very tenuous connection.

I can easily imagine a neutral good sarcastic, greedy, miserly, jerk.   I can easily imagine a generous, sociable, friendly neutral evil person.  Good people can be cowardly.  Evil people can be brave.

Alignment for me is really something that is rarely expressed in a person.  It's not something about a person you immediately notice and rarely have proof of.   It's a deep underlying motivation.  It's what a person does when the chips are down, when he's under stress, and what a person does about it.

Take the example of the good greedy miser.   Everyone in town knows he's stingy.  He haggles unrelentingly.  He weighs every everything down to the grain and never charges for anything a penny less than what he can get for it.  What's the difference between the good greedy miser and the evil greedy miser?  Well, the good one is probably honest in the conduct of his business for one thing.  He'd never cheat anyone.  He'd never steal.   If the good miser finds a purse along the side of the road, he's greatly tempted to say nothing and keep the contents - but he doesn't, even if it involves great cost to himself.   That's one big difference.   If the town burns down, the greedy miser overcharges everyone for everything to recoup his losses or to gain greater control over the town.   The good miser on the other hand realizes that he's been a skin flint his whole life for this moment, and the purpose of his saving, scrimping, and grasping has been to help the town.  He heroically gives everything he has away, not because he doesn't love his money and it doesn't cost him anything to do so, but because he is good and the proof of that is how much it costs him to give.

To make an example, consider the question of 'George Bailey' from 'It's a Wonderful Life'.  George wants, really sincerely wants, to live his whole life for himself.  To get out of Bedford Falls, to see the world and do what would make George Bailey happy.  He's sincerely envious and ungrateful and regretful and sometimes even angry because he can't get what he wants.   He lives in the continual temptation to live only for himself.  But... every time that the chips are down and he has to actually make a choice between himself and loving someone else, he always choose the later.   He does this not without cost because he's just such a naturally generous person who doesn't value himself or his money, but because he is sincerely a good person.  

The really interesting character designs for me are the ones that play in that tension between personality and alignment, where the alignment and the personality are both well realized.  I think one of the really big differences in playing a good and an evil character isn't so much personality but that the good character experience a great deal of anguish at his own insufficiency and (at least potential) wrongness.  (The complete lack of this introspection and tension is my strongest evidence that the characters in The Authority are evil, above and beyond how carelessly murderous that they are with their near unlimited power.  Contrast Superman's portrayal in 'Red Son'.)  The good character tries to make things right.  The evil character doesn't usually care, and has no interest in making things right.  

(Although Rich does a wonderful job playing against this type by having Belkar internally anguished because of the conflict between his personality and perceived insufficient evilness.  Belkar's resolution of this, the realization that he's evil to advance his own interests and not only for evil's sake, is likewise brilliant.)  



> The bottom line is: Alignment should not be used as a cudgel to make the players fall in line with a DMs views of right and wrong. It should be used very sparingly as a flavor element around specific beings/powers.




Again, I'm going to quibble around this and say that the real purpose here is to provide a very simple framework around the exploration of otherwise very complex topics in a way that is useful to heroic narratives.  I'm not happy with the word 'cudgel', but do think that players need to accept that for the purposes of the game, 'good' and 'evil' and so forth have specific definitions.   What doesn't follow from this that 'Neutral Good' is more right than 'Lawful Evil', and in fact it may be central to the philosophical space being explored by the narrative that it is not obvious that 'Neutral Good' is right and 'Lawful Evil' is wrong.  I can making compelling arguments on behalf of each alignment in my game.  If I couldn't, it wouldn't be believable that anyone would believe in any of the alignments in the game.   Frequently, even most of the time, even 'Team Evil' believes that they are in the right, that 'Evil' is good and 'Good' is evil (or at least just plain wrong).  I don't ask that the player believe exactly what I believe (which is in some cases different than the way the game world works anyway).   I just ask for the sake of consistency that you drop a particular belief in the fantasy bucket designated to contain those beliefs.  You can then go about trying to prove through your play that Communism or Objectivism or Pacifism or Fascism or whatever is in 'the right' as you like, or that the whole thing is just made up and arbitrary, or ignore the whole construct as meaningless, or whatever.   The NPCs within the world certainly have these arguments.  It's not considered obvious that 'Good' is right, and in fact most of the time far from it.


----------



## MJS (Sep 27, 2013)

Let the players have fun being evil, it can be a real blast. And just have them change their listed alignment. I don't think a penalty is necessary.


----------



## PlainSimpleGarak (Sep 27, 2013)

It's not so much that my newbie players want their characters to be evil.  If they did I would have a much easier time mediating this - I would advise them to shift alignments and deities accordingly.

The problem is the players in question have created character they intended to be good characters.  So much that they have goals that say 'when I grow up (level up) I want to be a part of a good organization that fights against evil!'

But, being newbies, they don't think things through before getting into the thick of the action.  And when things go wrong, they freak out and do things that violate their chosen alignment.

Example:
The last game session featured the players sneaking onto a large sailing ship, to get back goods stolen from a merchant prince.  It was made very clear to the PCs that these goods were stolen as part of a political subplot between various merchant princes, rather than piracy or direct thievery.  Through their investigations they found that it was a personal vendetta between the Captain of the merchant vessel and the rival merchant prince - aka the vast majority of the crew is not in on this and is just a guy doing his job.

The rest of the party sneaks on board.  The fighter/mage had been assisting them by creating a diversion, finds himself stuck onshore without the rest of his party.  It is safe onshore, but when he sees bad stuff happening to his friends, he decides he needs to get on the boat, now.  He can't swim.  He has low dex and charisma, and doesn't think he'll make it past the sailors guarding the plank.  So he asks 'if I dress as a sailor, can I just pick up some cargo and walk on' and the answer is 'yes, that is likely.  There are a lot of sailors loading cargo.'

So he decides he's going to knock out a sailor and steal their clothing.  But he doesn't think the plan through.  He calls one sailor off, lying about some damaged cargo, and then he tries to cold-cock the guy.  Except he doesn't have any particular skill at hand to hand so when he rolls, he ends up just starting a fistfight and punching the guy.  And the sailor, getting a fist in the face, punches him back.  They skirmish for a round or two, doing about 4 points of (we were counting as non-lethal) damage each.  I narrate that the fight is becoming loud and starting to draw attention.  My player panics, and uses _shocking grasp_ on the sailor.  Which kills the man, instantly.  

[reference: PC has 21 HP / Sailor has 6HP / Shocking Grasp: 1d8+6]

To which one of my veteran players turns around, shocked and asks 'did you just kill that guy?  That's evil...'

The newbie returns 'It was self defense!'

Veteran player replies 'you lied to a guy who was just doing his job, lure him into an alleyway, punch him - and then you get surprised when this crusty sailor type hits you back?  And use a lethal spell on him?'

The newbie replies 'Well, the last bad guy we fought didn't go down so easily, I didn't realize sailors were so easy to kill...'

Which started the discussion of alignment and what to do with said player.   And to find ways to describe to the play what it meant to be neutral good, and how to prepare your fights better if you're trying to not seriously injure someone. 

It's a learning process.  They are newbies.  I'm just trying to find ways to communicate what they need to learn to them better


----------



## Quickleaf (Sep 27, 2013)

[MENTION=6750381]PlainSimpleGarak[/MENTION] 
This isn't an alignment issue at all; the title of the thread is misleading.

This is a new player expectation issue. The way the player said "I didn't know sailors were so easy to kill" implies that (a) they have differing expectations of what constitutes lethal vs non-lethal damage (maybe they only intended to knock out or stun the sailor like in the movies), and/or (b) they were thinking of it as a calculated risk with low risk of actually killing the sailor, perhaps coming from a video game standpoint where "sailor" is an enemy class with a certain number of HP...and their only context for enemy HP values was higher from a past encounter.

I would get clear with the player on those two points before calling an alignment foul (whatever that means).


----------



## ppaladin123 (Sep 27, 2013)

Yeah...especially if they are coming from a video game-shaped conception of fantasy, the players may assume that anything they meet is "their level," and thus a worthy opponent who can take and dish out damage appropriate for the players' abilities. In a sandbox style game you can find yourself facing opponents of far greater or lesser power....sometimes you should run away and sometimes you should pull your punches.

4e, by the way, had a simply kludge for this: if you reduce an opponent to 0/negative hit points with an attack you can decide if that attack simply knocked them out/subdued them or actually killed them. 3e let you switch certain attacks to nn-lethal damage but then you had to keep track of separate damage pools. Anyway the player didn't seem have intended the death.

Once they understand the game better I'd treat alignment in this way: you have a self-conception of yourself as "good" or "justified" and you have ideas about what behavior counts as "good" or "justified." Everyone has different ideas and they may disagree. A player may act in a way she feels is morally right or she may act in a way that disappoints herself and feel the need to atone. Regardless, other people (PCs and NPCs alike) will have opinions about her behavior and will respond accordingly. Don't worry about whether team good or team evil or the platonic form of law approves of her behavior...just make sure that her behavior has consequences (beneficial or harmful) appropriate to the situation. And remember that players may have a reason to be together but their PCs might not...an adventuring band needs more than just plot shackles to keep it together.


----------



## PlainSimpleGarak (Sep 27, 2013)

well, the information is the thread is valuable for both me and the new player.  But yes, there are many issues with the players at hand.

But said player noted he didn't understand that killing an unarmed civilian would violate a good alignment.  Before I could point him at certain examples, he thought that it was ok to kill anyone opposing him (as opposed to killing things that are evil) without violating the ethos of his NG diety.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 28, 2013)

PlainSimpleGarak said:


> It's not so much that my newbie players want their characters to be evil.  If they did I would have a much easier time mediating this - I would advise them to shift alignments and deities accordingly.
> 
> The problem is the players in question have created character they intended to be good characters.  So much that they have goals that say 'when I grow up (level up) I want to be a part of a good organization that fights against evil!'
> 
> ...




Heh, I've seen that sort of example too.  We had an interrogation, and my character rolled very high on his interrogation check, which we role played as really freaking out the NPC.  We got the information we needed, but the NPC was scared out of his wits.

A moment later, we got into a PC discussion about what to do.  Actually, a bit of an argument.  No-one said they were watching the prisoner; the GM had him bolt, which we all thought was entirely reasonable.

Spot checks all around.  The Druid makes hers, and sic's her panther animal companion on the poor fleeing prisoner.  Without thinking at all of the likely consequences.  One round later, the prisoner was slashed to death.

I find such cases hard to judge.  The action was harmful, but clear intent is missing.  Legally, the person in either case would be guilty of some degree of murder.  Alignment wise, if they realize what they did and have their character be remorseful, I'm not sure what that means.

Partly, there is a problem of the game sometimes getting in the way of empathizing with one's character.  The game is played to have fun, and has a greater or lesser degree of abstraction, and a lot of folks often don't want to be bothered with these sorts of details.  I suppose the sort of game you are playing will say how to handle this issue.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 28, 2013)

PlainSimpleGarak said:


> It's not so much that my newbie players want their characters to be evil.  If they did I would have a much easier time mediating this - I would advise them to shift alignments and deities accordingly...But, being newbies, they don't think things through before getting into the thick of the action.  And when things go wrong, they freak out and do things that violate their chosen alignment.




This is a pretty common problem.  I've had to deal with in my own campaign early on.  The party is technically guilty of murder on several occasions, or being a party or accomplice to a murder, or standing by and allowing murder to occur.   A party member stabbed to death a mortally wounded cultist.  Granted, the cultist was a mass murderer and the blow might be considered a mercy stroke or a sort of justice, but it was on the line.   Then the party joined forces with a gang of opium smugglers to fight a rival gang that had been involved in a theft related to the parties quest.  But then they stood by and allowed the head thug to torture and then poison the prisoners.   That was over the line.  Then the party captured a grave robber, who tried to escape because one of the party members favored just killing him, and the party shot him in the back as he fled.  Again, the guy was not nice and he was 'resisting' but it seemed over the line to me.   I had to tell the religious types that they could sense their respective deities were getting displeased with the example they were setting.  

Here the problem was we had two players who basically wanted to play evil characters trying to interact in a party that was supposed to be good.

You've got a slightly different problem.  

From the description, if the guy hadn't really expected the sailor to die, I would have made the character roll a Horror check as a way of communicating to the player that his character should be horrified by what he just did.   It was definitely evil.  He definitely needs to perform penance.   He definitely needs to understand what happened.  

But if it was accidental and ignorant and well, stupid, I'm not sure it qualifies as alignment drift.   What it might constitute is poor role-playing if the character in question has a high WIS score, because high wisdom characters are suppose to understand the consequences of their actions better.  

Partly it might also be your fault.  The entire sequence, lie, assaulting, and ultimately murdering a by-stander is something you might should have - acting as the player's consciousness - intervened in to explain that the PC had the feeling this might be wrong or a bad idea.   A wisdom check is sometimes appropriate as a mechanism for providing to the player clues about the morality of actions.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Sep 28, 2013)

I've only had this come up a very few times over my many year playing, but my general approach is if I see a pattern of inconsistent behavior then I'll let the player know.  One action does not an alignment change.  If the continue with the inconsistent behavior over a period of time, then the alignment changes.  This generally has little effect, just a few in relation to some spells and special abilities.  For PCs with an alignment dependent class, such as paladins or clerics, this can be a bigger deal with penalties spelled out by the rules.  Generally changing back, if the PC wants it, follows the same process and takes just as long.  For paladins, clerics, etc there's usually some process to atone for their behavior.

It's really important in the cases where alignment makes a difference to have the players and the DM on the same page.  Before starting a paladin, for example, the player should get together and decide what the paladin's code will be.  Most of the arguments over paladin behavior I've seen online (a perennial favorite topic of discussion) could have been avoided just by doing this.

Oh, just remembered.  I think the 1E rules had an experience point penalty penalty for alignment change, and I think I used it just once as a DM.  Nowadays I probably wouldn't bother, even if it were in the current rules.


----------



## n00bdragon (Sep 28, 2013)

You have two options:

1. Get a sharpie marker and boldly draw an "X" over the rules for alignment in the book for whatever edition you are playing. For characters that are given divine inspiration (including paladins) take a few minutes to read their god's description carefully. When the character does something the god wouldn't approve of react appropriately. If the paladin of the god of mercy gleefully beheads surrendering or fleeing forces you can do something, though considering it's a god of mercy he'll probably give the paladin at least another chance.

2. Secretly make a list of actions that fall under various alignments and which do not fall under others. Any time a player takes an action that doesn't fit their alignment they lose a level. Arguments cause further level loss or the arrival of Conan The Barbarian to squash their character into paste, or both. Neutral Evil character is shopping at the store peacefully? Level drain! Good aligned characters kill something you've determined is good even though it acts like a villain? _Level drain!_ Neutral characters picking sides in a conflict? *LEVEL DRAIN!*


----------



## N'raac (Sep 28, 2013)

Biggest single issue: TALK to the players. Many issues, hardly limited to alignment, come from "gotcha!" play. "HAHA you just changed alignment - lose a level heeheehee"  "Oh you forgot to say you were using Selective - you heal the Bad Guy too!  HAHA!"

I expect the players not to use out of character knowledge.  I also don't expect them to have all the knowledge their characters would take for granted.  That sometimes means reminding them of abilities they typically use, discussing the mechanics of their proposed action, etc. 

This is even more important for new players.  We forget how many rules and game conventions we just take for granted. The player clearly didn't know Shocking Grasp would kill a typical sailor.  So maybe someone else should have asked "Are you sure?  That will probably kill a typical sailor!"  Maybe someone should also have noted that "It's pretty unlikely you'll KO the sailor with a single punch - the rules for unarmed combat don't generally result in a fight ending that fast."  And there's nothing wrong, when it becomes clear a rules misunderstanding resulted in an action the player would not have taken had they understood how the rules work, with saying "OK, since Character would know his Shocking Grasp is lethal, we'll back that up - what do you want to do instead?"

It is possible to fall somewhere between the extremes of "no alignments - tear those pages out" and "any deviation costs you a level".

Or we can keep playing "beat up the newbies", and wonder why it's so hard to find new players, the hobby keeps shrinking and good game publications get less and less common.  Too often, the newbie is there, seemingly, to be mocked for his poor knowledge of the extensive rules as he learns the game. Then we wonder why they don't come back after a few sessions.

I like the idea of another player helping a newbie out in an experienced group (the GM has too much on his plate already) to help the player enjoy our favoured hobby from the outset, and maybe sells it to his own friends, rather than turn him into one of "those guys" who leaves the hobby with a bad taste in his mouth, and thinks of the gaming community as a bunch of unwashed ill mannered socially maladjusted nerds - a view he also shares with anyone who cares to ask.

OK, I'll get off my soapbox now!


----------



## PlainSimpleGarak (Sep 28, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> Partly it might also be your fault.  The entire sequence, lie, assaulting, and ultimately murdering a by-stander is something you might should have - acting as the player's consciousness - intervened in to explain that the PC had the feeling this might be wrong or a bad idea.   A wisdom check is sometimes appropriate as a mechanism for providing to the player clues about the morality of actions.




This is true.  It's a learning experience for me, as a ~DM~ as well as the players.

I am an experience ST for the storyteller system games - used to a bunch of experienced WW players.  And in those games, half the job of the ST is to bait characters into making morally unsound decisions, because the games have clear mechanics for morality.  It becomes a morality game of cat and mouse.

In DnD the adventure is far more straightforward.  We expect heroes to go fight monsters and gain rewards.  Being a DM who is fairly unschooled in, well, DMing I run a far more 'sandbox' game, which becomes difficult to moderate when new players are confused.

That said, a horror check sounds like a fantastic idea, and something I have heard of in different systems.  The player is open to the idea of penance (which is good, makes my job easier!) so I think we'll sally forth with that idea.

Thank you for the ideas!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Sep 28, 2013)

There are no alignment violations. Only alignment changes.


----------



## Starfox (Sep 29, 2013)

There is a relationship between PC alignment and table rules. A GM who wants a heroic game might say "no evil", and really mean that "play nice in my games, as that's what I am comfortable with". In this kind of game, PC alignments matter more than in many others. I guess this is why the standard advice is not to allow evil alignments.

The way to handle this is the same a any situation when events in the game start to bother anyone. Talk about it out of character.

There is also another reason to play nice - and that is that heroism is a good source of inspiration, which in turn makes the game heroic and fun. But this is generally secondary - first you chose to play good, then you get a kick out of doing heroic stuff.


----------



## N'raac (Sep 29, 2013)

While true, you don't need alignment to set guidance for characters.  "Hard-bitten mercenaries", "Heroic boy scouts" and "ruthless powermongers" don't need alignment guidance to make it clear what is expected.


----------



## am181d (Sep 29, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> I going to quibble and say that personality and alignment have only a very tenuous connection.
> 
> I can easily imagine a neutral good sarcastic, greedy, miserly, jerk.   I can easily imagine a generous, sociable, friendly neutral evil person.  Good people can be cowardly.  Evil people can be brave.
> 
> Alignment for me is really something that is rarely expressed in a person.  It's not something about a person you immediately notice and rarely have proof of.   It's a deep underlying motivation.  It's what a person does when the chips are down, when he's under stress, and what a person does about it.




To me, it sounds like you're still talking about the character's personality. You're just saying some aspects of the personality aren't expressed unless "the chips are down." But for a D&D character, when are the chips up?



Celebrim said:


> Again, I'm going to quibble around this and say that the real purpose here is to provide a very simple framework around the exploration of otherwise very complex topics in a way that is useful to heroic narratives.  I'm not happy with the word 'cudgel', but do think that players need to accept that for the purposes of the game, 'good' and 'evil' and so forth have specific definitions.




I think they have definitions. I don't think those definitions are particularly specific. (Nor should they be.) If a player says "I thought it was a lawful act because of X/Y/Z," I'd be inclined to nod my head and move on.


----------



## N'raac (Sep 29, 2013)

am181d said:


> To me, it sounds like you're still talking about the character's personality. You're just saying some aspects of the personality aren't expressed unless "the chips are down." But for a D&D character, when are the chips up?




My experience is often the reverse, that the personality disappears when tactical choices are made.  "well, sure he hates goblins, but the human cleric is the better tactical choice, so of course he will attack the human cleric first"; "yes, he's afraid of water, but he'll still go on the boat - he's not SO afraid that he'd travel through the more dangerous and lengthy wilderness journey first!"

No different than "Yes, he's Lawful Good, but he doesn't put up with lip from the barman - now drink from the spittoon!"; "Sure, he's Lawful Good - the greatest good will come from quickly locating the evil priest's lair, so Torch to the Groin again for the best interrogation modifier".

One of my key alignment tenets is similar to your "I thought it was lawful because...", though perhaps a bit less lenient.  That is that if there is no right answer, there can be no wrong answer.  That is, if the Paladin is put in the moral quandary (eg. "kill one innocent or let five die"), since neither approach is the "good, respectful of innocent life" answer, he loses nothing for either choice.  If you want players to play "Lawful Good", then there must be another choice for the Paladin to take which preserves all six innocent lives.  

If the GM structures the game so "good" becomes "lawful stupid" or "character suicide", he has no right to complain when the players stop playing Good characters, whether by name or by actions.  If we want characters played as Good, Righteous and Valorous, then that type of play must reap rewards, not be clearly seen as less effective than ruthlessness or evil.  If the PC's succeed by ruithlessness and fail by righteousness, why would we be surprised that they stop making Good characters?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Sep 29, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> I going to quibble and say that personality and alignment have only a very tenuous connection.
> 
> I can easily imagine a neutral good sarcastic, greedy, miserly, jerk.   I can easily imagine a generous, sociable, friendly neutral evil person.  Good people can be cowardly.  Evil people can be brave.



And so on and so forth. I agree.



> It's not considered obvious that 'Good' is right, and in fact most of the time far from it.



My conception of D&D "good" has always been that it is puritanical zealotry. Intolerant, uncompromising, and ultimately hypocritical. I would never want to live with a paladin.


----------



## N'raac (Sep 29, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> My conception of D&D "good" has always been that it is puritanical zealotry. Intolerant, uncompromising, and ultimately hypocritical.




To me, that sounds a lot more like Lawful Neutral.  Lawful Good must balance the tenets of Law with the precepts of Good, leading to such concepts as "Let the punishment fit the crime" ruling over "The penalty for thievery is loss of a hand - it matters not whether the theft was to enrich the thief or feed a starving child.  The Law is the Law."


----------



## Starfox (Sep 29, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> However, in general, if you play with normal Americans you will not get a lot of well described and well played lawful character concepts.   Lawfulness doesn't come easy to most Americans IMO (Mormons and a few other groups being exceptions.)  So lawful mindedness can be something that they struggle with, particularly if the DM has a similar anti-authoritarian inclination and tends to have all NPCs in authority be self-serving jerks who exclude and alienate the PCs right from the start.




This rings a bell with me. Being a European, I notice that scenario design often expect PC actions that are alien to my group - often in an individualistic/anti-establishment pattern. A concrete example was the start of the Skull & Shackles adventure path, where half the group wanted to remain loyal to the captain, despite the "friendly hazing" they all got. Clearly the scenario expected a much fiercer rebellion from the characters.

I also notice that I tend to disagree with Americans on who is "lawful" when discussing real life people/organizations/nations.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Sep 29, 2013)

N'raac said:


> To me, that sounds a lot more like Lawful Neutral.  Lawful Good must balance the tenets of Law with the precepts of Good, leading to such concepts as "Let the punishment fit the crime" ruling over "The penalty for thievery is loss of a hand - it matters not whether the theft was to enrich the thief or feed a starving child.  The Law is the Law."



True; however Good is still quite extreme if based on a literal reading of the rules.


> Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.
> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.



For example, a contemporary example of Good would be PETA. Another contemporary example would be the ongoing debate in psychology on the rationale for, and even the very existence of, the concept of altruism. Conversely, virtually no D&D adventurer could be Good, because most adventurers kill quite a few sentient beings, often for very little reason.


----------



## N'raac (Sep 29, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Conversely, virtually no D&D adventurer could be Good, because most adventurers kill quite a few sentient beings, often for very little reason.




This is a matter of campaign style, although I'm always amazed at how infrequently any position between "Staunch friend and ally" and "KILL HIM ON SIGHT!!!" ever occurs to a typical PC group.

It is certainly possible for PC's to refrain from killing anyone they take a dislike to, or who possesses something they would like to have for themselves.  They can negotiate and bargain.  But the crux of a lot of fantasy fiction is that, ultimately, the enemy must be defeated in combat or Good shall pass from the face of the earth.  Can we play each alignment as extremists only?  Sure - but let's re-draw that alignment square to have a huge middle of Neutral and some skinny fringes of other alignments, instead of a diagram implying about equal numbers of each of the nine, so it represents that these are extremes.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Sep 29, 2013)

N'raac said:


> Can we play each alignment as extremists only?  Sure - but let's re-draw that alignment square to have a huge middle of Neutral and some skinny fringes of other alignments, instead of a diagram implying about equal numbers of each of the nine, so it represents that these are extremes.



That's how I do it. Literally, I did draw a point for absolute neutrality, four points for the absolutes of alignment, a circle through those four to indicate the limits of how far from neutral one can be, and a square centered on neutral with sides equal to half the diameter of the circle (indicating that someone who is more than halfway to absolute Good is Good, etc.). A few more straight lines extended from the square delineate the different alignments.

According to my high school's geometry software, this made roughly 33% of people neutral, 13% of each NG, NE, LN, and CN, and 3% of the other four alignments. Those are my default assumptions for any D&D world.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 29, 2013)

am181d said:


> To me, it sounds like you're still talking about the character's personality.




Well, I guess now we need a specific definition of personality.   What do you and I mean by saying 'a character's personality'?



> You're just saying some aspects of the personality aren't expressed unless "the chips are down." But for a D&D character, when are the chips up?




In my experience, at most tables, very rarely.   For a D&D character, very rarely are there ever any serious conflicts between the players metagoals and the end game story.  In general, the fundamental story of D&D assumes that what is good for the player character is also good for the world.   PC's are rarely called on to make sacrifices or to sincerely choose between 'being good' and doing what makes the PC (or player) happy in the short term.   And, if the PC's fail to be truly good on occasion, or even many occasions, then surely that is mitigated by the fact that they are saving the world, right?   What's that to the occasional murder along the way?  D&D stories rarely ask these questions, and the players seldom wrestle with them as important.  



> I think they have definitions. I don't think those definitions are particularly specific.




I'm not going to quibble with whether they are specific or not in the real world.   For the purposes of the game, the definitions are specific.   If they are not specific, then there is no point in having them.  



> If a player says "I thought it was a lawful act because of X/Y/Z," I'd be inclined to nod my head and move on.




Why?  Fundamentally, those actions make a statement about what you believe.  If the truth is that all truth is relative to the person, and there is no specific answers - just your own answers, then you've sided with a particular alignment view point.   Essentially you are telling your players, "Forget this malarkey about nine alignments.  There is one fundamental truth, and that truth is that there is no truth."   If that is the case, when could ever the chips be down?   When could it ever matter what the character was doing, if at best the player is the only judge of his own actions?


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 29, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> My conception of D&D "good" has always been that it is puritanical zealotry. Intolerant, uncompromising, and ultimately hypocritical. I would never want to live with a paladin.




Then, wouldn't 'good' by definition not be 'good'. 

And incidentally, this is also an aligned stance.  Surely you don't believe 'good' sees itself in this way or justifies itself in this way.   So this is an outside perspective on good.  I personally prefer to let each alignment attempt to justify itself.   If you let each alignment describe the other alignments, you get some very interesting insight into how the alignment thinks about the world, but you don't really learn much about any other alignment.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Sep 29, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> Surely you don't believe 'good' sees itself in this way or justifies itself in this way.   So this is an outside perspective on good.



Certainly not. As a DM, I do have an outside perspective on it. As do we all really, since we're all outside the game. I'm sure good wants to do the right. I just think it often doesn't.

After all, the real-world anti-D&D crusaders probably fit the D&D definition of Good. (How's that for irony).


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2013)

Starfox said:


> This rings a bell with me. Being a European...




Having been friends with many Europeans and having lived outside the United States, the cultural differences are often sharper than are sometimes recognized.   I'm not sure that I believe in 'American Exceptionalism' in the sense of 'America is better', but I very much believe in 'American Exceptionalism' in the sense of 'There is a distinctive and different American culture'.   However, I wouldn't necessarily expect to find a lot of 'lawful' mindset among Europeans relative to some cultures.

I worked for a while in a research laboratory.  One of the undergrads was Korean, and I was talking with her one day and she said that she wanted to return home to get married.  And so I said, "Oh, is there some special boy waiting for you back in Korea?" (or something of the sort), and she said, "No.  I just would like to tell my parents that I would like to get married so that they can pick a boy for me to marry."  

This is a different (lawful, under my game's conception) mindset.   Her own choice in the matter was unimportant to her.   What the larger group that she belonged to wanted was important, and she trusted that larger group explicitly and implicitly.   

That's a mindset common in many cultures, but relatively lacking in the modern West on either side of the pond.  The Western mind, and the American mind particularly, immediately treats this as a form of subjugation and violence.   A certain segment would want to condemn that feature of the culture as evil.   If a player where to encounter this culture in game, and condemn it as 'evil', I would have to explain to them that while I'm taking no stance on whether or not it is 'wrong', as I've labeled the buckets it is 'lawful' and not evil.   But it could be, for the sake of debate and from the viewpoint of a character within the story, that the thing that is most wrong of all is what is labeled 'pure lawful' and that in fact 'pure chaos' is right minded, virtuous, and correct behavior.

Having had a lot of American players, I'd say that the average American gravitates toward (what is in my game) somewhere between CN and CG.  There are of course exceptions.  I've got one player that is strongly LG in his natural inclinations, so much so that he can't play anything else.


----------



## Starfox (Sep 30, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> If the truth is that all truth is relative to the person, and there is no specific answers - just your own answers, then you've sided with a particular alignment view point.   Essentially you are telling your players, "Forget this malarkey about nine alignments.  There is one fundamental truth, and that truth is that there is no truth."   If that is the case, when could ever the chips be down?   When could it ever matter what the character was doing, if at best the player is the only judge of his own actions?




If you tell a player you feel his character is breaking alignment, and he gainsays you and has a reasonable argument, then this is not a lack of truth - it is a debate on ethics. We humans have had those since the beginning of literature, and happily there is no end in sight. If we ever stopped disusing ethics, then I think we'd have fallen very low.

The question is not if ethics exist, it is whether I believe so much in my interpretation that I am willing to overrule someone else's opinion.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I'm sure good wants to do the right. I just think it often doesn't.




As I conceive things, this is an attribute of Wisdom.   High wisdom characters correctly understand the requirements of their beliefs.   Low wisdom characters are frequently misguided and fail to accomplish what they intend.  The lack introspection and often in practice incorrectly label their own beliefs or incorrectly describe to themselves and others what adherence to their belief requires.



> After all, the real-world anti-D&D crusaders probably fit the D&D definition of Good. (How's that for irony).




I'm not sure that they do.

a) If they do, then they can only have low Wisdoms.
b) Are you sure that they are really motivated to do good, or are they simply zealously adhering to a moral/social code without reflection on the purpose and meaning of the code?  This would be lawful.
c) In some cases, the beliefs of some of the crusaders are far outside that of the cultural group they supposedly belong too, to the extent that they would be considered heretical claims by the mainstream of that group.  In this case, they may be extolling a moral code that is essentially private to themselves and unreviewable to any recognizable external authority.  This insistence that you hold private wisdom that the larger group doesn't have is often chaotic.
d) In some cases, there is good documented evidence that person in question has been deliberately deceptive in order to advance their claims and agenda.  This behavior would be normally associated with evil.

So, how can we know for sure?   I would argue that we can't really, but that the best estimate would be made by examining other facts about their life to find out if they are sincerely but misguided 'good', pharisaical zealots adhering to the letter of the law but failing to understand or adhere to the spirit, or egotistical fiends enlarging their own importance and creating social turmoil by inventing and promoting stories they themselves know to be falsehoods.  

Sometimes it's not easy to judge.  People tend to keep their innermost thoughts quite secret.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2013)

Starfox said:


> If you tell a player you feel his character is breaking alignment, and he gainsays you and has a reasonable argument, then this is not a lack of truth - it is a debate on ethics.




No, it's not.  There is not in the categorization of motives, deeds, and so forth into buckets labeled 'law', 'chaos', 'good', or 'evil' any real debate over ethics - any more than if we were shuffling them into 'blue', 'red', 'green' and 'yellow'.  If we were having a serious debate over ethics, I might argue that several of those labels have no real value - or at least no real ethical value.  Remember, I have from the start insisted that despite the superficial labeling, I'm making no normative judgment in favor or against any belief or mode of behavior.   It may be that the NPC espousing the NE ethical code, briefly and oversimplifying, "The world is evil.  Good is an illusion.  If were it not an illusion, it's nothing that actually exists in this world.  Good is as bad as evil, or worse.  There is no salvation for this world.  If a person does well by opposing evil, then one would do best by opposing the world, life, and existence."   Whether you believe that or not, there is a disputable argument involved as to whether that is correct.   However, it is not disputable that that code is in the bucket NE, because as DM I'm the one that has decided what each bucket contains. 



> The question is not if ethics exist, it is whether I believe so much in my interpretation that I am willing to overrule someone else's opinion.




I have no intention of overruling someone else's opinion as to whether something is right or wrong.  But for the purposes of a game, the player must accept what bucket contains what beliefs.  In their own game if it seems fitting to them, they may arrange things differently and I wouldn't be able to gainsay them.


----------



## Starfox (Sep 30, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> No, it's not.  There is not in the categorization of motives, deeds, and so forth into buckets labeled 'law', 'chaos', 'good', or 'evil' any real debate over ethics - any more than if we were shuffling them into 'blue', 'red', 'green' and 'yellow'.  If we were having a serious debate over ethics, I might argue that several of those labels have no real value - or at least no real ethical value.




I still think this is a discourse on ethics. It might be kindergarten level discourse, or just plain bad discourse.

And yes, in most role-playing games the buck stops with the GM. But different GMs and different groups do this differently.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2013)

Starfox said:


> I still think this is a discourse on ethics. It might be kindergarten level discourse, or just plain bad discourse.




Yep, you've just nailed it.  That's what I'm striving for in a game - a bad discourse on ethics given for kindergarteners. 

I think we can reasonably distinguish between a framework for discussing ethics in the context of heroic fantasy and the actual exploration of ethics themselves.   The framework consists of things like asserting that there exist beings that are incarnate evil or incarnate law, a polytheistic pantheon of gods having a certain character, a world with a particular history, and ideologies that exist as palpable and detectable things, and so for.   The later - the actual discussion - involves asking, within in this context, how ought one to behave?   What is right and what is wrong?  Ought one to obey the gods of good unquestioningly?   Are those things which are labeled good, truly right?   When one adopts a particular alignment, what is one like and what is the range of character possible within this stricture? 

Is this a proper framework for discussing ethics generally?   Perhaps not.   I'd certainly not bring up D&D in the context of any one's serious questions about their life.  But it seems to me to be a suitable one for discussing ethics in the context of heroic fantasy, which I think though interesting has only some tenuous connection to reality.   That tenuous connection is part of the attraction for me.  If it was really connected to reality, then the format would be too flippant and too frivolous for exploring anything of such weight and importance.  



> And yes, in most role-playing games the buck stops with the GM. But different GMs and different groups do this differently.




I'm not sure what you mean about that.   Ultimately, as DM I'm responsible for being able to translate any given behavior into one of the nine provided alignment buckets.   If I can't do that, then I should drop the alignment buckets completely.  Many of course do.   

However, in my personal experience, those that trumpet how far they've gotten past kindergarten level discourse are seldom or well never as deep and thoughtful on this issue as all that.  Those groups that drop the bad framework in favor of no framework, seldom to me turn out to be actually interested in asking any questions at all.

All out on the table and honest, 100% of the time I've seen an alignment framework dropped from a game, one or both of the following was true:

a) They ran evil PC's exclusively or almost exclusively.
b) They preferred to use the PC as a gaming piece rather than treating it as an  imagined real life flesh and blood person.

It's left me with a great distaste for dropping alignment systems and calling your game 'grown-up', 'mature', etc.   I think I'll take being judged as kindergarten stuff.


----------



## Starfox (Sep 30, 2013)

What I meant was just that the GM has to be the final arbiter - basically what everyone has been saying.

Thinking on rl alignment discussions, there seems to be two kinds, depening on the player.

A Interested Parties
Discussing alignment among people interested in ethics, which generally is a discussion of trifles and flavors - which is the greater good/lesser evil, killing the dragon or driving it away?

Most of the people doing this ought to have characters of good alignment, but don't always think so themselves. They will shy away from the good-only classes because they fear they will not live up to their own standards.

B Gamists
Hey! Who says I cannot be a paladin just because I cost-optimized my gear over a 10-level span and was behind on the plan? That orphanage was over-funded and hosting potential rogues anyway!

Most of these guys should be neutral or even evil, but may make a fuzz if they are told they cannot get the special bennies for being good.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Thinking on rl alignment discussions, there seems to be two kinds, depending on the player.




I generally agree with your description, though I'd add a third (probably rarer) care, the (for lack of a better name) Pyschological Explorer.

c) Psychological Explorer:  A variation on the Method Actor, the Pyschological Explorer is interested in RPGs strongly for the experience of being someone he is not.   To the Psychological Explorer, having a map of mentalities is just as interesting and thought provoking as a map of a dungeon or a world is to the traditional explorer.   The Explorer wants to know, "What is it like to be X?"   The Explorer isn't for example, being evil or chaotic as a form of escapism.   An evil escapist character usually is one that chews up the scenery and exists for its own sake.   Rather, to take a modern reference, the Psychological Explorer is like, "Why are their people who believe in this?  How did this person come to believe what he does?  What does he feel like?  Why does he persist in it?  Can I make this person interesting and sympathetic, even if it most observers his beliefs would seem tragic or deeply misguided?  The Explorer creates a framework for his character, and instead of evaluating what he the player feels about the situation, tries to imagine what his character would feel about the situation.   Those vicarious emotions, the thespianism that results from that exploration, and the mental exploration imagining the mind space of his character are part of the reasons he returns to RPGs.  

Debate over ethics isn't the goal of this style of play, but it can arise as a result of it - often through interparty conflict.  One of the reasons that it is rare is that a lot of players seeking to play an escapist character use this motivation as an excuse for playing like a real jerk.  In my experience though, the last thing that an Explorer wants to play is a to type jerk - Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, Good Stupid, Evil Jerk, etc.   If they want to play a Paladin, the last thing they want is a paladin that no one can believe is motivated by anything but his own jerky need to be a control freak.   If they want to play an evil character, the last thing that they want is to play a character that people don't try to justify and excuse away their behavior because the character is just so unlikable and unattractive.  That's been done and there isn't much to explore there anyway.   Another reason it is rare is that this sort of play often comes in conflict with the two more common types you cite - it's hard to play with Interested Parties if you aren't good and hard to play with Gamists if you aren't neutral or evil.  It requires a pretty mature and understanding group to integrate that and allow everyone to keep play (think about the party dynamics of Rich's Order of the Stick, where I think Rich is showing a lot of signs of being this sort of gamer in his narrative).


----------



## Starfox (Sep 30, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> c) Psychological Explorer:




I agree with all of this, and wish I'd written it.  I'd classify myself as a psychological explorer at heart, tough I tend to tune it down because it seems to annoy people, just as you say. I do it a bit more as a GM than as a player, but even then I restrain myself. Sometimes villains need to be stupid evil, not interesting evil.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2013)

Starfox said:


> I agree with all of this, and wish I'd written it.




Ty.

Speaking of things I wish I'd written, I'd been meaning to tell you that your Action RPG is brilliant.  I never paid attention to it because most people's homebrews are less than stellar, but one of your player's bragged about it on the board and I checked it out.  Great stuff.


----------



## Starfox (Oct 1, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> Ty.
> 
> Speaking of things I wish I'd written, I'd been meaning to tell you that your Action RPG is brilliant.  I never paid attention to it because most people's homebrews are less than stellar, but one of your player's bragged about it on the board and I checked it out.  Great stuff.




* Does happy dance
* Edits sig


----------

