Is it REALLY evil???

[kyoryu]

I wonder this too. if a player wanted to make this character, and I said "wow that's Evil" and they said "I know, it will be really different for me to paly" I'd roll with it.

But if I said "wow that's Evil" and they said "No it's Not! That's all he knows so that makes it neutral!" I'd really be questioning whether or not I wanted to play with that player. I wouldn't want to deal with the sociopathy of the character (and possibly player).

Yes, this.

The backstory seems to be more of an excuse to be, basically, chaotic nuts and bypass a restriction on evil characters than anything.

If you don't want characters in your game that rip little girls in half, just say so directly.

[Temperjoke]

He has reskinned a Gnoll. You are letting a player play a Gnoll. Gnolls are chaotic evil monsters. Don’t let players play Gnolls.

I agree. Time to take Lennie down to the river, and tell him about the bunnies as you put him down.

This player is doing this deliberately to create problems, and it's telling if the rest of your group is not having problems with this character.

I was forced to admit it would have been much *easier* to just kill him. Maybe that's the true lure of evil, how easy it it.

The path to murderhobo-ism is usually faster and easier than other options, assuming the DM doesn't change things to react to it.

[GlenSmash!]

The path to murderhobo-ism is usually faster and easier than other options, assuming the DM doesn't change things to react to it.

To clarify, i don't mean easier for the characters, I meant easier/quicker for the people at the Table. It's just easier in the Metagame.

[Temperjoke]

To clarify, i don't mean easier for the characters, I meant easier/quicker for the people at the Table. It's just easier in the Metagame.

I know, that's what I was referring to!

[Tanarii]

Yeah.

Dealing with Gygaxian Naturalism, encumberance, logistics (rations, torches, ammunition), lack of consequences for in-game actions ... these are the ways that lead to combat-as-sport murderhobo-ism. Be wary newcomer, for your first forays into RPGs have almost certainly been shaped by video game designers or DMs who hand you instant gratification on a plate, and you already have your feet on the first steps of that dark path ...

Something something GROG NARD

[2D8HP]

...Something something GROG NARD

Well I, for one, would not have used bluetext!

[Tanarii]

Well I, for one, would not have used bluetext!

Eh, some comments in the past aside, I don't really judge others for not playing a combat as war logistics campaign. So the blue text is poking fun at myself. It's just easy to get on your high horse about a style of play when it's what you're really excited about. Or really used to.

Like 5e Alignment being all about being a player roleplaying tool, and not a scorekeeping system for the DM to tell you what his judgement of your actions are.

[ZorroGames]

Recently I’ve brought a group of new players into the D&D world and have, as of last week, made the official jump into the fifth edition. One of my new players is a full blooded Orc Barbarian who was pulled from a parallel universe into our own. His name is Feast and before his unintentional dimensional travel he lived a simple life of hunting and foraging in the woods he called home. He killed and ate whatever he could in order to survive and has never known any sort of community as his village was destroyed when he was very young.
I pose the title question: “Is it REALLY evil?” because I have recently confronted a mental hurdle that I’m unsure how to approach. You see, Feast kills indiscriminately as he sees fit in order to obtain food. The Orc is 8 feet tall and has quite a gut so is often hungry. His favorite food? Raw meat. He has killed several civilians and even ripped a little girl in half in order to obtain the food he desires (the latter situation has more variables that make it a somewhat confusing argument. I have details if they are desired).
Now, normally it would be NO QUESTION if those actions were “evil” because of the heartlessness a person would have to possess in order to conceive of that in the first place. However, because of his 100% feral background can these actions be considered evil enough to change Feast’s alignment from Chaotic Neutral to some form of Evil? Some in my group say yes, but Feast’s player insists that Feast is only doing what he has done his entire life. Feast isn’t preforming these actions out of malice or spite or any form of negative emotion. He merely is VERY dumb and a total savage who has never know another sentient creature.
So, I pose the question to the D&D community: should Feast be forced to change his alignment to some level of Evil? Or is his otherworldly ignorance enough to keep him within the grey area of Chaotic neutrality?
Talk it up, argue if you must, I want to hear literally everything that anyone has to say on his matter. My group and I are very curious to hear more experienced opinions.


P.S.
This is not my first time DMing, but his is my first time that I’ve ever been faced with this quandary.

One word answer to your op title.

Yes!

Two words.

Hell Yes!

The NPC powers that should be hiring adventurers (hint, hint) to bring in the “monster’s head” for reward. Or sending high level professionals to sanction him.

[Ronnocius]

Recently I’ve brought a group of new players into the D&D world and have, as of last week, made the official jump into the fifth edition. One of my new players is a full blooded Orc Barbarian who was pulled from a parallel universe into our own. His name is Feast and before his unintentional dimensional travel he lived a simple life of hunting and foraging in the woods he called home. He killed and ate whatever he could in order to survive and has never known any sort of community as his village was destroyed when he was very young.
I pose the title question: “Is it REALLY evil?” because I have recently confronted a mental hurdle that I’m unsure how to approach. You see, Feast kills indiscriminately as he sees fit in order to obtain food. The Orc is 8 feet tall and has quite a gut so is often hungry. His favorite food? Raw meat. He has killed several civilians and even ripped a little girl in half in order to obtain the food he desires (the latter situation has more variables that make it a somewhat confusing argument. I have details if they are desired).
Now, normally it would be NO QUESTION if those actions were “evil” because of the heartlessness a person would have to possess in order to conceive of that in the first place. However, because of his 100% feral background can these actions be considered evil enough to change Feast’s alignment from Chaotic Neutral to some form of Evil? Some in my group say yes, but Feast’s player insists that Feast is only doing what he has done his entire life. Feast isn’t preforming these actions out of malice or spite or any form of negative emotion. He merely is VERY dumb and a total savage who has never know another sentient creature.
So, I pose the question to the D&D community: should Feast be forced to change his alignment to some level of Evil? Or is his otherworldly ignorance enough to keep him within the grey area of Chaotic neutrality?
Talk it up, argue if you must, I want to hear literally everything that anyone has to say on his matter. My group and I are very curious to hear more experienced opinions.


P.S.
This is not my first time DMing, but his is my first time that I’ve ever been faced with this quandary.

Yes, Feast is evil. It is an evil act to kill intelligent sentient beings who have done no harm, even if it is for food. Since he has done this multiple times, he should obviously change his alignment. If his character is only based on the hunt for food, he is probably unaligned.

[Dr.Samurai]

If a DM is designing traps like that in 5e, he's not understood the purpose of Alignment.

I think you're overstating your case here, if I'm understanding your implication correctly.

Yes, alignment is one motivation of several that you can use when making PC choices. But it's not only that. We know this because there are mechanics in the game that interact with you based on your alignment.

So no, I don't think the trap is a misunderstanding.

My take is it doesn't matter. Why do the other players and DM care if the PC is evil or not evil in the player mind and on paper. What matters is their characters, and NPcs, reactions to the PCs actions. Action are what matters, not the PCs alignment.

Because the game itself cares what your alignment is. Why write down an alignment if it doesn't fit the character? There are items in the game that care. There are spells in the game that care (see Curse of Strahd). So yes, of course people might care that the alignment on the sheet matches the alignment being played.

Actions do matter. So does the alignment.

No. There is a difference between doing things that have consequences (ie in game actions), the Pcs in game beliefs, and the player using an evil alignment as one of five motivations to roleplay the character they want to play.

"Evil" actions is a concept that needs to be tossed in the trash heap of bad interpretations of Alignment with the 5e approach. Alignment is about overall moral social attitude, which tends to result in typical behaviors. Individual actions do not carry Alignment-level morality.

I don't agree with you, but I also don't think you're really disagreeing with my point. At least, not with these two statements. So, even if I pretend we're not talking about D&D and avoid using the term "evil action", my point still stands.

Yes he is, unless he defines it more specifically. That's why I did. I agree with you in the Dm's likely intent however, because ...

The actions stem from the motivations being used to roleplay. The DM is attempting to cut them off with an appeal to the root, at the character motivations level.

You keep arguing that point...

Tanarii, the actions are not stemming from the motivations in the OP's example. They usually aren't in these threads. I feel like I'm arguing about how games go down at an actual table, and you're arguing from a theoretical parallel universe where everyone plays exactly as they are supposed to play according to the PHB.

The neverending alignment threads that spring up on this forum should indicate to you that there are many tables out there where actions do not align with the "motivations" written on the character sheet. When a DM says "no evil", the DM is referring to actions. Because players will find any way to justify all sorts of evil stuff in the game. He's saying "don't even think about doing x,y,z" as opposed to saying "please make sure your intentions are pure of heart".

When a DM says "you can be evil, but no PVP" or "... but no chaotic stupid" they are clamping down on actions, not motivations. They are avoiding disruptive actions, not preventing in-game thought crimes.

The player 'puts it down' for the same reason he 'puts down' Personality traits, Ideal, a Bond and Flaw. So he can reference it as needed before playing a session, to get back into that particular character. If you're only playing one PC and play several times a week, you might be able to keep it all memorized. But with multiple PCs or time in between sessions, a refresher is always nice.

I understand that part of it. How is it a refresher if you don't abide by it? And if it doesn't matter whether you abide by it or not, and you don't, why put it down?

I will tell you the reason you put down "lawful good" on your character sheet. It's because you are coming to the table with a character that will act in a lawful good way. Not always. Not 90% of the time. But in general. But if you don't... then you have put that alignment down for no reason. If you're CN, but you're slaughtering any townsfolk you see when you're hungry, even though you know better, then it doesn't matter that you wrote CN on your sheet, because you're simply not checking that part of your "motivation". But then when you come across a Talisman, well then it does matter, but now we have to come up against the fact that your alignment on the sheet is one thing, but in your actions it's another.

Thats because they tried to tell the player what his Alignment is. They made a mistake. They objected to the player's motivations for the PC.

It's not a mistake. It's objective observation. "Hey, you say you're motivated by X but your actions align with Y."

If I claim to be Lawful Good, and then I play a sociopath with no regard for order, stability, law, human life and dignity, etc... I can't take umbrage if someone calls me out on it, because I'd be getting offended that other people know what words mean and don't like people misusing them.

Yes, those are the player's decision. They should have objected to the results. Who cares if the Player thinks the character is CN when the table thinks it's CE. What matters is the actions at the table. Are they disruptive? Does this character's actions or likely actions raise objections or even hostile action from the other PCs and or players? Is it not going to fit campaign tone of 'heroes', 'murderheroes', 'murderhobos', 'villains' etc.

That's the problem. What the player thinks his alignment is isn't a problem at all. Trying to 'correct' a player on their alignment is a mistake, plain and simple.

There is more than one problem here. The actions are the major problem.

The discrepancy in alignment and actions is another. They are different problems, but they are not exclusive to each other.

(Edit: But also yes, the DM can set table rules for allowable player motivations at his table, to stop likely resulting actions. But if you object to it as 'that action is evil' you're going to cause an argument, because you're trying to tell them how to play their character. Explain the problem is the actions, and why, not the alignment itself. If you ban alignments, define what you mean by that.)

You're too hung up on alignment as motivation that now you're arguing we can't argue that ripping a girl in half to eat her is evil. That's not trying to tell someone how to play they're character.

Let's just assume that the OP tells Feast "Hey, it's fine that you go around eating whoever you want without a care in the world. No problem there. However, your alignment is Evil."

That's not telling him how to play his character. That's reflecting how he is already playing his character. You'll say that it is telling him how to play, because you are deciding his "motivation" by changing his alignment. Except, he wasn't motivated by his alignment anyway when he was tearing people apart to eat them. As the thread demonstrates, many here are skeptical that the character is animal enough to be blameless, while also being an adventurer.

Feast is clearly, to me, evil. The solution to the problem is to get rid of the "character" completely. Changing the alignment on the sheet will do nothing to solve the problem at the table.

However, in another situation where the character was not completely disruptive and can be salvaged, yes, the alignment should match the character. Why shouldn't it? Where else do you get to write down an aspect of your character on your sheet and then play against that aspect in-game?

"My sheet says I have 40hp but I really have 65hp."
"According to my sheet I have Disadvantage on Stealth checks but in-game I don't."
"Yeah, my sheet says I'm a Good person but, it'd be much easier if I just kill this kid in cold blood so..."

[Tanarii]

It doesn't matter what the sheet says if the player is playing with a different motivation / behavior consistently in the first place. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to try and force them to change what it says on paper.

Look, there's really a few ways this can go down:

1) player is using the typical alignment behavior as they interpret it when it applies, and nobody else has a problem with it.

2) player intentionally changes alignment as part of their character development, and starts using the new behavior going forward.

3) player is using the typical alignment behavior as they interpret it when it applies, DM tells them they need to change it because in-game thing X has changed it (optional planar environment rules, lycanthropy), player agrees because awesome role player willing to work with what's happening to their character, and starts using the behavior.

4) DM explains what kind of behavior is acceptable for characters in the game in session 0, and possibly excludes regularly behaving as per typical behavior in line with certain alignments. Ie bans an alignment but explains its regularly acting in line with one of the typical behaviors that is the issue.

5) DM and other players have a problem with how the character is behaving in game, and talk to the player about it, and request they stop. Alignment is irrelevent, the problem is the behavior.

6) DM bans an alignment, but doesn't explain what he means by that.

7) DM and other players suggests to the player they are not acting in accordance with their alignment, but understand that alignment is the players choice. Player either agrees and amends behavior, agrees and changes alignment, disagrees and nothing changes.

8) DM tells player they are not acting in accordance with their alignment, and they must change their alignment. Player either agrees and changes alignment, or disagrees and argument ensues.

6 is bad, because it sets up the last two in the future. 7 isn't great, but at least it's not a dictate. Of course, if there's also a game problem with the actions, they've not addressed the problem unless the player agrees and amends their PC's behavior to be more in line with what everyone else feels is appropriate to their alignment.

The last one can only be a problem if the goal is not to have problem actions occur in the game. Specifically in the case of characters acting Evil being an issue, the player now playing an evil character if they agree. If they disagree, the DM and player are arguing about if X is Evil behavior. Or more commonly if X is an Evil action, even though Alignment is supposed to be about overall behavior, not individual actions. They've completely failed to address preventing problem behavior or actions, specifically ones in line with an Evil Alignment.

Edit: interestingly, I once was part of an Evil party game where Alignment arguments ensued because some players and the DM felt another player's PC was acting out of Alignment being too Good too often.

[Malifice]

It doesn't matter what the sheet says if the player is playing with a different motivation / behavior consistently in the first place. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to try and force them to change what it says on paper.

Yes there is.

And if it doesnt matter what it says on the character sheet, why do you care so much what it says on the character sheet? Why does it matter what if the DM points out your mistake (you're not actually good) and tells you to fix it?

I assure you, if your 'LG Paladin' was murdering and eating children, I'd ask you to change what you had in the Alignment section of your character sheet. Obviously you've made a mistake.

I'm not prepared to mess with player agency. Eat those babies if you want.

Same deal if your 'Paladin' started casting wizard spells instead of paladin spells. I don't care if they're written on your character sheet; you've obviously done so in error. Rub them out and put the correct spells on your sheet please.

You dont have to rub them out, but when you try and cast those wizard spells, they fail and nothing happens. Just like you dont have to rub out your alignment, But when your 'LG' Paladin picks up a talisman of ultimate good, his hand gets very badly burnt for a ton of necrotic damage, and when he casts a healing spell near a unicorns lair, they dont get maximized. And so forth.

He's evil. I dont care what you say. Your actions speak louder than the words written on your character sheet.

[lebefrei]

It doesn't matter what the sheet says if the player is playing with a different

Are you a DM? It matters. It matters if you have any interest in a realistic world, that has consequences for actions. It matter what the sheet says and how that correlates to roleplaying. When I have a player that dumps their int and then has a brilliant tactical solution to every problem I tell them that their character is over in a corner staring at something shiny. If they don't like it, don't dump int. If they want to murder and eat random children then put chaotic evil on their sheet, and still expect to get hunted down by bounty hunters if the town can afford to deal with the problem. If not, expect to deal with issues from the party. If not, guess what, in a moral world you other players are complicit in the crime and better all drop your alignment, too. If it doesn't matter, then WotC can drop it from the PHB. Until then, it's part of the game and counts for something.

[Coidzor]

Most people would know enough from being told not to make an evil character to get the broad strokes, even without exhaustive elaboration, and wouldn't deliberately set out to be "cute" and make an edge case or try to get around it or troll.

[Malifice]

Im just sick to death of this same bloody thread every week.

Seriously; we've had:

My PC is a monster who stalks the woods and eats children...
My PC is a genocidal sociopath who slaughters captured noncombatants for her village...
My PC is a sado-masochistic poison master who gets his kicks from merciless torture...
My PC murders babies for the greater good...
My PC slaughters people for minor sins against his faith...

Or variations thereof this past few months.

Yes you're evil. You're more evil than Charles Manson or the Son of Sam. Deal with it. If you're asking any of these questions and its not immediately apparent to you what the answer is, seek professional help.

[Unoriginal]

If a player writes "Flaw: is an hardcore penny-pinching miser" on their PC's shee then keep having them spend all their money on various thing without complaining, would you say that it's appropriate to tell the player to take a different Flaw?

[Malifice]

If a player writes "Flaw: is an hardcore penny-pinching miser" on their PC's shee then keep having them spend all their money on various thing without complaining, would you say that it's appropriate to tell the player to take a different Flaw?

Id certainly raise it with the player. I suggest they take a different flaw because I was never going toward them inspiration.

But that's the only mechanical effect that flaws have. Alignment is an entirely different kettle of fish, including where you go when you die.

[Dr.Samurai]

It doesn't matter what the sheet says if the player is playing with a different motivation / behavior consistently in the first place. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to try and force them to change what it says on paper.

The motivation is not the only interaction that alignment has in the game, so this doesn't follow.

If they disagree, the DM and player are arguing about if X is Evil behavior. Or more commonly if X is an Evil action, even though Alignment is supposed to be about overall behavior, not individual actions.

The OP is describing behavior, not an individual action. In another thread where a guy said he murdered all the people that came after his Evil serial killer friend, including paladins, he was describing behavior, not an action.

They've completely failed to address preventing problem behavior or actions, specifically ones in line with an Evil Alignment.

That's because they're dealing with the other problem. You stop the actions by either banning them beforehand, and having consequences occur that either prevent the actions in the future or give a strong enough incentive to not do them again.

Also, change the alignment so that it matches the behavior, or change the behavior so that it matches the sheet. Words mean things. The alignments mean things. Actions have meaning. Etc.

Edit: interestingly, I once was part of an Evil party game where Alignment arguments ensued because some players and the DM felt another player's PC was acting out of Alignment being too Good too often.

Precisely why I do not apply to Evil-only games on PBP. Because I know I won't be able to roleplay it well. I'll end up playing a good guy that, for whatever reason, is hanging out with sadistic sociopaths. Exploring that nonsense is not for me. I don't slap Evil on my sheet and then go ahead and play a saint and pretend everything is okay though. I know I can't play evil very well as a PC.

Im just sick to death of this same bloody thread every week.

QFT.

My PC is a monster who stalks the woods and eats children...
My PC is a genocidal sociopath who slaughters captured noncombatants for her village...
My PC is a sado-masochistic poison master who gets his kicks from merciless torture...
My PC murders babies for the greater good...
My PC slaughters people for minor sins against his faith...

Yes you're evil.

Yeah but... they're motivated by good and neutral ideals though...

If a player writes "Flaw: is an hardcore penny-pinching miser" on their PC's shee then keep having them spend all their money on various thing without complaining, would you say that it's appropriate to tell the player to take a different Flaw?

If the game cares what your Flaw is, then yes.

Let's say you come to a celestial layer in Heaven, and the gate only opens for those that are not greedy and do not hoard their wealth. Should the gate open for you? You are a miser literally only on paper. Your actions suggest otherwise. Does the gate open or not?

If it does open for you, your flaw, as written, is meaningless. If it does not open for you, then your flaw, as written, overrides your actual actions/behavior in game.

Why shouldn't there be some consistency between the two?

[Tanarii]

I'm not prepared to mess with player agency. Eat those babies if you want.

He's evil. I dont care what you say. Your actions speak louder than the words written on your character sheet.

If actions speak louder than words, and you're not prepared to mess with player agency, hen why are you trying to tell them to change their RP aid that the player uses to make choices about their character actions, instead of having appropriate consequences for in game actions?

Are you a DM? It matters. It matters if you have any interest in a realistic world, that has consequences for actions. It matter what the sheet says and how that correlates to roleplaying.

I am a DM and a palyer, but more often a DM.

It matters what alignment it says on the character sheet to the player, provided they decide to use it as a roleplaying aid. If they ignore it, it doesn't matter at all.

It does not matter to the DM at all. Alignment is completely unnecessary for any reason to a DM. Instead, there should be realistic consequences for actions. That does not require a player's RP aid tool being used 'properly' in the DM's eyes.

When I have a player that dumps their int and then has a brilliant tactical solution to every problem I tell them that their character is over in a corner staring at something shiny

I find that an appalling robbing of player agency, both as a DM and a player. Call for Int checks for stuff where here's a chance of failure even handedly from all players, which results naturally in lower Int characters failing more often? Sure. Singling out low Int players for more checks? Not so hot. Telling a player what their character does because of a Int 8 (which in 5e is a dumped stat)? Total garbage.

Most people would know enough from being told not to make an evil character to get the broad strokes, even without exhaustive elaboration, and wouldn't deliberately set out to be "cute" and make an edge case or try to get around it or troll.

You'd think, right? Sadly not the case. I mean, it's not common.

Far more common is DMs & players not bothering to read the Alignment behavior descriptions, or understand that Alignment is about behavior and not individual actions, and bringing old edition thinking to the table ... and then jumping on someone else's case about based on their assumptions about how failing to play their Alignment. Or for DMs taking one evil action. Because we all know one evil action damns you forever to be evil, right?

Those same assumptions hold in Alignment forum threads, but the difference is we regularly have clear trolls posting extreme and obviously silly "real table situations" to rile up the next weeks multi-page threads. I tune out that aspect of the alignment debates, because they're clearly not real examples of alignment gone wrong.

The motivation is not the only interaction that alignment has in the game, so this doesn't follow.

Its the only important one, and only one likely to come up in the vast majority of games.

The OP is describing behavior, not an individual action. In another thread where a guy said he murdered all the people that came after his Evil serial killer friend, including paladins, he was describing behavior, not an action.

The exxagerated specifics of troll posts designed to start alignment debates are irrelevent. There's no point in trying to treat them like they're a real table situation.

Here's a real table situation I ran into: 2nd level Party is in a seek and destroy mission against bandits, that raid caravans and kill people in the process. Neutral Good Life Cleric grapples the last bandit alive, and demands their surrender. Bandits falls to his knees and starts blubbering about "don't kills me please!" Bandit spills the beans in about where sir leader is. Chaotic Good Vengeance Pally tells me he stabs Bandit in the back, and I say "okay, he's dead". Life cleric and rest of table is stunned for a second.

Next session, I started by asking the pally what alignment he was, which was a mistake. When told it was CG, I asked about he bandit, and got {justification}. That was a mistake on my part.

So I told them okay that doesn't matter. " Take into account if this becomes a game where you guys regularly kill interrogated prisoners, and it becomes known, they can't expect any mercy in return. And I'd also prefer this game not go down the path to brutality. And that if they want, the two characters (life cleric and vengeance pally) can have a huge in-game shouting match about it. But please don't make it an OoC argument. And we moved on.

That's because they're dealing with the other problem. You stop the actions by either banning them beforehand, and having consequences occur that either prevent the actions in the future or give a strong enough incentive to not do them again.

In game consequences have nothing to do with changing the characters alignment. They should always happen.

(Edit: for example, the pally stabbed a interrogated man, and only the party knows about it. In game Consequences: one dead bandit, and two PCs have a rip-roar shouting match about it. Out of game consequences: I let them know actions have consequences and give an example, Ask them to consider the tone of the game.)

Also, change the alignment so that it matches the behavior, or change the behavior so that it matches the sheet. Words mean things. The alignments mean things. Actions have meaning. Etc.

Im guessing this means you read all my situations, and don't agree that this will either result in an evil character (which may be what's trying to be avoided) or a table argument. Or you're being stubborn because this is the right way for alignment to be used, so by golly it should be done right?

I understand how Alignment should be used, and I agree that a player ignoring it and acting in a obviously opposite way isn't using Alignment correctly. I don't care about the right way for Alignment to be used if it's going to cause table problems. I care about fixing the problem at the table. Forcing the player to change the alignment on their character doesn't fix any table problems, and likely causes them instead, even if it feels like 'fixing' things so they're being done right"

[Dr.Samurai]

It does not matter to the DM at all. Alignment is completely unnecessary for any reason to a DM.

We keep saying this isn't true and you're not really responding to that part of the conversation. How do you deal with mechanics that check for PC alignments?

Instead, there should be realistic consequences for actions. That does not require a player's RP aid tool being used 'properly' in the DM's eyes.

You can do both.

I find that an appalling robbing of player agency, both as a DM and a player. Call for Int checks for stuff where here's a chance of failure even handedly from all players, which results naturally in lower Int characters failing more often? Sure. Singling out low Int players for more checks? Not so hot. Telling a player what their character does because of a Int 8 (which in 5e is a dumped stat)? Total garbage.

Interesting. I routinely avoid playing characters with a dump stat for precisely this reason. If I roll for a PbP game and I get an 8 or a 9, chances are I won't finish a character and apply unless I'm playing a small creature and can easily justify an 8 or 9 strength.

Otherwise, I feel like playing an 8 or 9 Int/Wis/Cha character limits what I can bring to the table in situations relevant to those scores. I want the freedom to contribute in social conversations, or tactics without feeling like I'm not being true to what's on my sheet.

Because we all know one evil action damns you forever to be evil, right?

I think you're the only one saying this...

Its the only important one, and only one likely to come up in the vast majority of games.

I'm just not sure how you're saying this. I don't recall if I already mentioned the PbP game I'm in where the butterflies had to escort our LE tiefling through a celestial forest. That's one example. My friend is DMing SKT and has included a sentient helmet that interacts with the party differently based on alignment.

Good and Evil are things in D&D and DM's use them. I fully admit that you've educated me on the way Alignment is used for roleplaying in 5th edition, but I wouldn't say that that is it's exclusive role in 5th edition.

The exxagerated specifics of troll posts designed to start alignment debates are irrelevent. There's no point in trying to treat them like they're a real table situation.

Here's a real table situation I ran into: 2nd level Party is in a seek and destroy mission against bandits, that raid caravans and kill people in the process. Neutral Good Life Cleric grapples the last bandit alive, and demands their surrender. Bandits falls to his knees and starts blubbering about "don't kills me please!" Bandit spills the beans in about where sir leader is. Chaotic Good Vengeance Pally tells me he stabs Bandit in the back, and I say "okay, he's dead". Life cleric and rest of table is stunned for a second.

Next session, I started by asking the pally what alignment he was, which was a mistake. When told it was CG, I asked about he bandit, and got {justification}. That was a mistake on my part.

So I told them okay that doesn't matter. " Take into account if this becomes a game where you guys regularly kill interrogated prisoners, and it becomes known, they can't expect any mercy in return. And I'd also prefer this game not go down the path to brutality. And that if they want, the two characters (life cleric and vengeance pally) can have a huge in-game shouting match about it. But please don't make it an OoC argument. And we moved on.

I don't agree at all that it was a mistake to understand why the paladin thought killing the bandit was in line with his principles/oaths/ideals/etc. Why is that conversation off the table?

I think you handled it great. You nipped it before it could go anywhere. But if the conversation didn't happen and the paladin continues to execute people that have surrendered to him... well, we already know we'd disagree lol.

In game consequences have nothing to do with changing the characters alignment. They should always happen.

Agreed. No one is arguing that.

(Edit: for example, the pally stabbed a interrogated man, and only the party knows about it. In game Consequences: one dead bandit, and two PCs have a rip-roar shouting match about it. Out of game consequences: I let them know actions have consequences and give an example, Ask them to consider the tone of the game.)

Right. For others, down the line is another consequence --> your alignment has shifted to match your behavior.

Im guessing this means you read all my situations, and don't agree that this will either result in an evil character (which may be what's trying to be avoided) or a table argument. Or you're being stubborn because this is the right way for alignment to be used, so by golly it should be done right?

I think you're not appreciating that having a dip**** at the table trying to pass his character off as a normal person while he's playing a sociopath will result in an argument either way. I'm not concerned with an argument at the table. If it happens, it happens. I can assure you it won't be the first or last argument to happen at the table. It's not a good enough reason for me. And in actuality, I don't see the character changing his alignment to Evil. I see the character realizing that he can't get away with his actions, and adjusting the behavior accordingly. It's just a different way to have the conversation.

[2D8HP]

. ...I routinely avoid playing characters with a dump stat for precisely this reason.....
.....Otherwise, I feel like playing an 8 or 9 Int/Wis/Cha character limits what I can bring to the table in situations relevant to those scores. I want the freedom to contribute in social conversations, or tactics without feeling like I'm not being true to what's on my sheet.....

Yeah about that, if INT and WIS need to match how PC's are actually played (or their players real-life intelligence and wisdom), then it would be extremely rare for any PC to have an INT or WIS above 11.

I usually "dump" INT, both because I'm just not very smart in RL and because I seldom play Wizards.

I often have PCs with high Wisdom because I want to play characters that are good at Perception and Survival, but there is no way that I can Role-play wise, because I'm me not my PC!

If PC's "Mental"/"Social" stats have to match their players real-life charisma, intelligence, and wisdom than 9/10th's (or more) of PC's would have those stats be between 8 and 12, BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ARE PRETTY AVERAGE and if it based on how they're usually played? Mostly 7 or less, as chasing after Red Dragons instead of running away is neither smart or wise.

Also I think you are discounting how clever someone with the equivalent of an 8 INT in RL actually is, I'd be very surprised if I had an IQ above 90, but I'm able to do my job better than most people could for example.

See the
Mapping real world IQ to D&D INT stat?
.thread for some speculations on this.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah about that, if INT and WIS need to match how PC's are actually played (or their players real-life intelligence and wisdom), then it would be extremely rare for any PC to have an INT or WIS above 11.

I'm not saying they have to match "real world" scores.

I usually "dump" INT, both because I'm just not very smart in RL and because I seldom play Wizards.

Can you explain why your first sentence is complaining about matching real life intelligence to your game intelligence, and your second sentence is admitting that you dump intelligence because of your perceived real life score.

I often have PCs with high Wisdom because I want to play characters that are good at Perception and Survival, but there is no way that I can Role-play wise, because I'm me not my PC!

This has always been a matter of contention with skills and mental stats. Do you just roll a Persuasion check and beat the DC, or do you roll and then try to come up with a persuasive line of reasoning to actually roleplay the interaction?

I try to play my characters as clever and cunning if I'm playing someone with positive mods in those scores. Likewise, I try to play charismatic characters if my charisma score is high.

It's not to say that I have any of those qualities. But I try to roleplay it. If I have an 8 or 9 in those scores, I don't bother. Because my scores reflect that I'm below average in reasoning/mental acuity, perceptiveness/intuition, and/or confidence/eloquence.

If PC's "Mental"/"Social" stats have to match their players real-life charisma, intelligence, and wisdom than 9/10th's (or more) of PC's would have those stats be between 8 and 12, BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ARE PRETTY AVERAGE and if it based on how they're usually played? Mostly 7 or less, as chasing after Red Dragons instead of running away is neither smart or wise.

No one is suggesting they have to match real life scores. Adventurers are daring, not necessarily stupid.

There is a gray area between what requires ability checks, and what doesn't. I typically wouldn't require a check for the PCs to huddle and come up with a plan of attack if they're going to attack a dragon or something. But I wouldn't expect the player, in-game, with an 8 intelligence to be the one leading the conversation on tactics, strategy, etc.

There is point-buy for a reason. You decide what traits you excel in naturally. Then you choose skill proficiencies. Maybe you grab Expertise in something, so maybe even though you're something a dunce, you're very knowledgeable about nature and animals and stuff. But you're still below average intelligence.

Also I think you are discounting how clever someone with the equivalent of an 8 INT in RL actually is, I'd be very surprised if I had an IQ above 90, but I'm able to do my job better than most people could for example.

You've never struck me as stupid 2D8HP, so I think you're just being needlessly modest, for no reason, unnecessarily, to be humble or something. Regardless, the rules are pretty clear on what the individual ability scores represent, and that 10 or 11 is average, and stats below that are below average with negative modifiers.

[Contrast]

We keep saying this isn't true and you're not really responding to that part of the conversation. How do you deal with mechanics that check for PC alignments?

How do I deal with it in my games? By not including/reframing how things which mechanically key off alignment work.

It is really that much of an issue that instead of sensing 'chaotic good who just murdered an innocent person so the DM forced them to bump down to chaotic neutral' the sentient sword or sprite will instead sense 'a swirling light with a recent dark wound'? It seems likely that's how you would already be describing it in game anyway. That said - things which key off alignment are purposefully few and far between in 5E. Literally never encountered one in any game I've played yet.

I'm not saying there's zero value in having the sheet and actions match up. I'm saying I don't think its really worth the hassle of the DM keeping track of when they have more important things to be doing. I've played in other systems and never felt the loss when alignment wasn't one of the things written on my character sheet.

To me alignment is like filling in the player name on your character sheet. Probably helpful in the first session when you're still getting used to the characters but after that everyone should know who everyone is and it doesn't really matter.

[Tanarii]

Yeah about that, if INT and WIS need to match how PC's are actually played (or their players real-life intelligence and wisdom), then it would be extremely rare for any PC to have an INT or WIS above 11.

hahahhaa #Truth and that includes me too

But it's not the player's choice on roleplaying a minorly low ability score as a slight hinderance that made me cry foul. It is the DM telling the player how their character acts in-game in the first place. Then in the second, having it be like they are mentally or physically disabled, because of an 8 'dump' stat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

hahahhaa #Truth and that includes me too

But it's not the player's choice on roleplaying a minorly low ability score as a slight hinderance that made me cry foul. It is the DM telling the player how their character acts in-game in the first place. Then in the second, having it be like they are mentally or physically disabled, because of an 8 'dump' stat.

Agreed. A stat of 8 is still near the top of the bell curve. It's within normal variation. 8 STR is not a weakling, 8 DEX is not incurably clumsy, 8 CON is not an invalid (although it might not make a good character), 8 INT is not a drooling moron, 8 WIS is not a cloud-kookolander, 8 CHA is not repulsive. It's just slightly lower than average.

A score of 6 is going to noticeably impact behavior. 4 is almost unplayable. 2 is unplayable (animal level intelligence, for instance). 8 or 9? That's within the bounds of normal variation. Of course, don't play it as if it's a 20 (super-genius), but certainly not drooling moron/illiterate bumpkin status.

[Tanarii]

We keep saying this isn't true and you're not really responding to that part of the conversation. How do you deal with mechanics that check for PC alignments?

I don't. They exist on paper, but I've never ever seen them happen in a 5e game. That I run or that others have run.

If DMs are running games with their own mechanical effects added in based around Alignment, that's on them for causing their own problems.

You can do both.

DMs enforcing players properly using RP aids isn't my schtick. Inspiration is a good carrot to encourage that already. If players don't want free advantage handed out like candy, that's on them.

(As a side note: It blows my mind when players forget they've got inspiration. They're aware it's a huge bonus. They see it change a miss into a hit all the time. I hand inspiration out like candy when it has been used.

I've taken to giving a poker chip along with it each time. I even let inspiration be used after the fact when they miss. And still some players forget they have it. I can see it sitting right in front of them, I will have handed out a chip to another player not 5 minutes before combat, and they still forget it. /smh )

I think you're the only one saying this...

Not really. Lots of posters and players and DM think not only that individual actions carry morality, but that they have some kind of scale of moral weight, that generally "evil" actions > "good" actions, and that "evil" actions damn you more than "good" actions redeem you. It is evident in their treatment of the matter. They are Fall-from-Grace thinkers.

It's hardly surprising though. The vast majority of IRL moral beliefs, especially ones stemming from IRL religions, either hold this view, or are commonly misinterpreted by people to hold this view.

I don't agree at all that it was a mistake to understand why the paladin thought killing the bandit was in line with his principles/oaths/ideals/etc. Why is that conversation off the table?

I didn't need to motivation. That's not my business as a DM. As a DM, I need to know declared action, Approach and Intented Result for it, and determine Outcomes and Consequences. I don't care about their reasoning, outside of intended result and approach.

(Also a 2nd level Paladin doesn't have Tenets or an Oath. So technically he's not yet a vengeance pally.)

I think you handled it great. You nipped it before it could go anywhere. But if the conversation didn't happen and the paladin continues to execute people that have surrendered to him... well, we already know we'd disagree lol.

It went great because I dropped Alignment from the issue.

Another situation came up in my current game: The Wizard stepped around the corner and Fireballed a cave full of Gnolls. He knew they were waiting with bows. He lost initiative, survived three arrows, and BOOM dead Gnolls. Unfortunately he forgot to check about whelps. Three dead. The two previous times they had an encounter with them, they let the whelps flee / walk out first. The Life Cleric is upset and morose, the two mercs with him took the pov that war has casualties.

No reason to touch Alignments here IMO. But I've seen tons of DMs who would be all like, that's a Evil action, you're Evil now. Murderers of children! (Both in games, and on these boards.)

(Next session I'm going to tell the group I'm done with this whelps BS and they won't have to deal with it in the future. I was running the module as is, it added an interesting element, but it's not something they're going to have to deal with regularly, because that's just not fun for them. I can tell. They're a eat-popcorn-throw-dice-kill-orcs group of players, not an explore-moral-quandaries group.)

I think you're not appreciating that having a dip**** at the table trying to pass his character off as a normal person while he's playing a sociopath will result in an argument either way. I'm not concerned with an argument at the table.

Why would I appreciate that? First, I've only ever seen in once in thirty years. Player was kicked from the table. Second, a player like that will indeed cause an argument either way. Can't disagree on that.

But why invite arguments for other players NOT* doing that by judging their roleplaying? Because that's what a DM telling them they have to change their alignment is doing. Acting like the final arbiter of morality-based roleplaying. And this I've seen many times in thirty years of TRPGs.

[Dr.Samurai]

How do I deal with it in my games? By not including/reframing how things which mechanically key off alignment work.

If you're not including it, that's fine. Your choice. But they exist in the game. The point is that if your argument is "RAW, alignment works this way, so all the stuff you're talking about literally doesn't matter", then you're wrong, because the game uses alignment in other ways as well.

It is really that much of an issue that instead of sensing 'chaotic good who just murdered an innocent person so the DM forced them to bump down to chaotic neutral' the sentient sword or sprite will instead sense 'a swirling light with a recent dark wound'? It seems likely that's how you would already be describing it in game anyway.

I don't think you go evil after one time, depending on circumstances. I haven't argued that. I've consistently been talking about people who have one alignment written down, but routinely ignore it and engage in overall behavior contrary to the alignment.

That said - things which key off alignment are purposefully few and far between in 5E.

I don't know this to be true, despite you and Tanarii claiming it.

I'm not saying there's zero value in having the sheet and actions match up. I'm saying I don't think its really worth the hassle of the DM keeping track of when they have more important things to be doing. I've played in other systems and never felt the loss when alignment wasn't one of the things written on my character sheet.

I'm not sure what kind of hassle it really is, but perhaps for some that's the case. I've played characters without an alignment written down as well. It works fine. But no one is making the claim that you *must* have an alignment on your sheet.

8 or 9? That's within the bounds of normal variation. Of course, don't play it as if it's a 20 (super-genius), but certainly not drooling moron/illiterate bumpkin status.

Yeah. Don't play it as a 20, for sure. Or a 19, or a 18, or a 17, or a 16, etc. Don't play it as anything except for what it is; below average. You're not as smart as *most people*. Or as intuitive or perceptive, or confident, etc. If you want to be, put a higher score there.

[Contrast]

I don't think you go evil after one time, depending on circumstances. I haven't argued that. I've consistently been talking about people who have one alignment written down, but routinely ignore it and engage in overall behavior contrary to the alignment.

I'm going to argue that actually weakens your argument. By forcing the change on a player you're making an artificial tipping point. Yesterday the sprite would have read their alignment as chaotic good but today it reads as chaotic neutral even though nothing much has changed its just been a general shift. If you accept alignment is a nebulous things which is difficult to pin down on a day to day basis, why does the sprite get to ignore that?

I don't know this to be true, despite you and Tanarii claiming it.

Off the top of my head there are sprites which can detect alignment. One of the potential purposes for a sentient magic item is to hunt down opposed alignments. I think there are one or two magic items which require a specific alignment. Some of the werecreatures set your alignment differently.

That's it as far as I'm aware.

I'm not sure what kind of hassle it really is, but perhaps for some that's the case. I've played characters without an alignment written down as well. It works fine. But no one is making the claim that you *must* have an alignment on your sheet.

If you're not arguing that a character must have an alignment written down, why are you arguing that its worth a DMs time to force a character to change what is written down If you told a player to change their alignment and they just rubbed it out and left it blank, how is that different from not bothering to tell them to change it at all?

I'm not saying players and DMs shouldn't discuss their characters thoughts and actions, what I'm saying is its pointless for a DM to force an unwilling player to change the alignment on their sheet. That approach isn't going to do anything to alter their roleplaying. As a DM it is within your prerogative to have an item which dislikes chaotic people dislike my neutral character if you feel I have been particularly chaotic of late. If the player is amenable then you can probably just agree with them what their alignment is when it comes up (which, per the above, is basically never in 5E) - if they're not amenable you're just getting into an argument for no reason.

With regard to the hassle - you have to keep track of all players alignments, keep in mind when they're acting in a way that you perceive is against that alignment and how often they're doing it and to what extent and then potentially get into a debate with your player if they don't feel that your personal moral assessments are correct. The return on that investment is...what exactly? What improvement to play experience is gained?

[MadBear]

I'm going to argue that actually weakens your argument. By forcing the change on a player you're making an artificial tipping point. Yesterday the sprite would have read their alignment as chaotic good but today it reads as chaotic neutral even though nothing much has changed its just been a general shift. If you accept alignment is a nebulous things which is difficult to pin down on a day to day basis, why does the sprite get to ignore that?



Off the top of my head there are sprites which can detect alignment. One of the potential purposes for a sentient magic item is to hunt down opposed alignments. I think there are one or two magic items which require a specific alignment. Some of the werecreatures set your alignment differently.

That's it as far as I'm aware.



If you're not arguing that a character must have an alignment written down, why are you arguing that its worth a DMs time to force a character to change what is written down If you told a player to change their alignment and they just rubbed it out and left it blank, how is that different from not bothering to tell them to change it at all?

I'm not saying players and DMs shouldn't discuss their characters thoughts and actions, what I'm saying is its pointless for a DM to force an unwilling player to change the alignment on their sheet. That approach isn't going to do anything to alter their roleplaying. As a DM it is within your prerogative to have an item which dislikes chaotic people dislike my neutral character if you feel I have been particularly chaotic of late. If the player is amenable then you can probably just agree with them what their alignment is when it comes up (which, per the above, is basically never in 5E) - if they're not amenable you're just getting into an argument for no reason.

With regard to the hassle - you have to keep track of all players alignments, keep in mind when they're acting in a way that you perceive is against that alignment and how often they're doing it and to what extent and then potentially get into a debate with your player if they don't feel that your personal moral assessments are correct. The return on that investment is...what exactly? What improvement to play experience is gained?

I'd say that at least to me, that i'd prefer them to write down the alignment that best matches where they're at, so that when the LG paladin who routinely murders children and eats them for fun, tries to wield the blade that only good characters can wield, he isn't surprised when it burns him every time he touches it.

To me, it's the same reason that someone can erase the 8 strength and write a 20 on their strength score, but when they roll an attack, they still don't get a +5 even though that's what they wrote.

Alignment wouldn't come up nearly as often, so the analogy isn't perfect, but that's the main reason why.

Then again, my group has a more rigid and coherent definition of alignment and we agree to how it's used before hand, so there's never any surprise.

[Tanarii]

I'd say that at least to me, that i'd prefer them to write down the alignment that best matches where they're at, so that when the LG paladin who routinely murders children and eats them for fun, tries to wield the blade that only good characters can wield, he isn't surprised when it burns him every time he touches it.

Outside of trolling forum posts and straw man arguments and the like, this has happened in exactly how many games you've played in?

Like ... it's not even a real issue as far as I'm concerned. The real issue is DMs (and sometimes other players) that have a stringent personal definition of Good and Evil in real life, and try to port that into the game, and then apply it to other player's decisions on how to play their character.

That's why I argue that taking the attitude of forcing alignment change can only ever be a bad thing. Because in actual table play situations that arise, the vast majority of the time the person causing the problem is the person insisting that a player isn't playing their alignment correctly. Occasionally the problem is the in-game actions are disruptive, killing NPCs or captured prisoners out of hand, starting PvP, etc. But it's almost never a problem with a player intentionally misrepresenting their alignment motivation to get a psychopath past the DM-Alignment-radar.