Is it REALLY evil???

[2D8HP]

.....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 can Role-play dumber than I am, but more intelligent? I guess maybe if I'm allowed more time to consider events (and take notes) then the PC has, otherwise it's not happening!

The only 5e character that I've played that had a higher INT than 10 (because I rolled stats) was a moron because I as a player made some dumb mistakes

...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....

That's cool, except 8 and 9 are not that dumb!

Check it out:

A "Commoner" (common human) on page 345 of the Monster Manual has a ten in all stats, so that's average. We may infer that it's derived from the most likely result of rolling 3d6 for "stats" (as in the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons volume 1, Men & Magic).
The nearly actual odds for rolling each and every 3d6 sum, from 3 to 18 (rounded numbers) are:

3: 0.5% (actually 0.46, or 1 in 216, but rounded off for this table)
4: 1.4%
5: 2.8%
6: 4.6%
7: 6.9%
8: 9.7%
9: 11.6%
10: 12.5%
11: 12.5%
12: 11.6%
13: 9.7%
14: 6.9%
15: 4.6%
16: 2.8%
17: 1.4%
18: 0.5% (as 3’s note above)

So someone with a 10 INT is at least as smart as about 49.96% of humans.
Someone with a 9 is as at least as smart as about 37.46% of people.
And someone with an INT of 8 is at least as smart as 25.86% of folks.

Not too shabby!

...But I wouldn't expect the player, in-game, with an 8 intelligence to be the one leading the conversation on tactics, strategy, etc...

Why not if they're experienced in that area?

Besides dumb folks bloviate, and pontificate all the time (like what I'm doing now)!

....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...

By definition half of all people are below "average intelligence", I just don't buy that "Adventurers" are mostly in the "smart" half.

Besides this "Adventurers are exceptional" claptrap has gone too far!

How can you "go from zero to hero" if you don't start as a zero?!

From page 19 of 1974's Dungeons & Dragons Book 1 "Men & Magic" - "Normal men equal 1st-level fighters"



(They were slightly better than commoners, not "exceptional" dagnabbit!)

...You've never struck me as stupid 2D8HP, so I think you're just being needlessly modest....

That's very kind but I'm well aware that I simply don't have the "Mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill" that I had in my youth, and since most people who are now living are younger than me, it's easy to conclude that I'm below average, especially when I try to remember where I left my dang-blast reading glasses!

Also my wife reminds me weekly how poor my "Awareness, intuition, and insight" are.

...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....

Yeah, they're being bogus or they're delusional. I wouldn't press it though, arguments over ethics get heated without anyone changing their minds (see Forum banned topics for examples)

...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.

Good, I prefer the @AnonymousWizard/LotFP way of dealing with Alignment, otherwise use it for Ideals.

...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.

I've never seen people playing smarter than their stat, quite the reverse. If at best average people pretend to play genius Wizards, why not allow the reverse?

Or do we take away all player agency, and just do endless dice rolls to see how the PC's act (there actually is a good game like that Pendragon which has both more "role" and "roll" playing than D&D, but I don't think that's what most people playing D&D have signed up for).

[MadBear]

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.

My example is an exaggeration to make the point clear.

And while that may be your experience, I've never had an issue with talking to a PC about changing their alignment to more closely match what they're playing.

[alchahest]

outside of the in-game consequences of obviously evil actions, we don't tend to see enforcement of alignment, background, flaws, ideals, bonds, etc.

these items, however, are the main place characters earn inspiration from. If you act to character (or, have a legitimate reason for acting against character) in a meaningful way you'll often be awarded with inspiration.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm going to argue that actually weakens your argument. By forcing the change on a player you're making an artificial tipping point.

To be clear, the change is on the sheet. The player is already roleplaying the character however they have been.

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.

I think the way you described it is fine. But the "one action and you're evil" point is arguing a point I'm not making.

However, I don't think it's true that "nothing much has changed", even if it's been gradual and over time.

So, if we're talking about someone that is *actually* shifting alignments, over time their motivations and the things that matter to them are changing, so that they are willing and more likely to take actions they wouldn't have before.

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 that it's so difficult to pin down. Your description was fine, as it makes note of the overall leaning, with a bit of something else in there.

If that matches, great. If it doesn't, I think that's a problem.

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.

Right. When you say "purposefully", the implication is that they are trying to avoid using alignment in some way other than as a motivational tool. I don't know that to be the case.

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?

That's a different argument, or point to make. Here's the thing... you and Tanarii are arguing that it doesn't matter if the alignment on the sheet matches the behavior in the game. So my response is that then the alignment written on the sheet doesn't matter.

Then you and Tanarii respond that the alignment not mattering also doesn't matter. So we're all just kind of throwing our hands in the air.

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.

Right. As I've said before, changing it on the sheet does absolutely nothing to correct the behavior (unless the conversation itself ends up with a new understanding or something).

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.

Why is the argument for no reason though? I just saw Tanarii's response to me (sorry Tanarii, I think you posted right before I did and I missed it). He seems to have a problem with the DM being a moral arbiter. But... the DM roleplays *everyone else* in the game. So now everyone and everything in the game has to treat you as Good just because you say you're Good, even though your actions say otherwise? I think it's grounds for a conversation. I don't think it's pointless at all, and I'm fine with the DM being the arbiter on that, because the DM is literally roleplaying the entire rest of the world that the PC is playing in.

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 don't think it's as much a hassle as you think it is to "keep track" of actions that are evil, let's say (since that's usually what we're talking about).

Again, I get that you think it doesn't matter. But, I think it does, lol.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

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.

Really? Not even a single casting of Spirit Guardians?

[Tanarii]

Really? Not even a single casting of Spirit Guardians?

Not in a game where there was any doubt about alignment. No.

Like, you have your way for someone else's role-playing of alignment behavior to become a mechanical issue.

[Contrast]

To be clear, the change is on the sheet. The player is already roleplaying the character however they have been.

So for clarity, if you think someones alignment has changed but you either haven't had a chance to discuss it with the character or they are resistant you will DM as if their alignment was different to that on their sheet?

Right. When you say "purposefully", the implication is that they are trying to avoid using alignment in some way other than as a motivational tool. I don't know that to be the case.

...so they accidentally made alignment a lot less mechanically important and also introduced backgrounds, motivations, bonds and ideals to flesh out characters? That's an odd stance to take but ok.

That's a different argument, or point to make. Here's the thing... you and Tanarii are arguing that it doesn't matter if the alignment on the sheet matches the behavior in the game. So my response is that then the alignment written on the sheet doesn't matter.

Then you and Tanarii respond that the alignment not mattering also doesn't matter. So we're all just kind of throwing our hands in the air.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. My stance is that alignment is as useful as me writing a hand written not to myself 'gets angry easily' to remind me my character gets angry easily. If I resolve my anger issues should my DM care that I forgot to rub out my note? Sure theoretically I should but...

Why is the argument for no reason though? I just saw Tanarii's response to me (sorry Tanarii, I think you posted right before I did and I missed it). He seems to have a problem with the DM being a moral arbiter. But... the DM roleplays *everyone else* in the game. So now everyone and everything in the game has to treat you as Good just because you say you're Good, even though your actions say otherwise? I think it's grounds for a conversation. I don't think it's pointless at all, and I'm fine with the DM being the arbiter on that, because the DM is literally roleplaying the entire rest of the world that the PC is playing in.

I'm here to play games not argue philosophy with the DM. Also if a DM has everyone in the world use their own moral compass then they should probably be looking at their own roleplaying, not the players. Edit - and for clarity, NPCs have no idea whats written on your character sheet - they react to what they know of your actions, nothing else.

I don't think it's as much a hassle as you think it is to "keep track" of actions that are evil, let's say (since that's usually what we're talking about).

This is another issue. Someone mentioned above about playing in an evil party and being told they were being too good but I'm willing to bed 99% of the time a DM has forced an alignment change on someone its towards the evil end of the spectrum (and likely someone playing a cleric or paladin). No-one cares if your chaotic character acts lawful but if your good character acts evil you better bet the DM will be all up in your grill

Again, I get that you think it doesn't matter. But, I think it does, lol.

Cool - as I said, why does it matter? What are the benefits you're getting in your game I'm not getting in mine. If there's an upside I might change my mind

[Dr.Samurai]

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.

This is bizarrely dismissive and contrary to reality...

DMs enforcing players properly using RP aids isn't my schtick.

In this case, the DM isn't forcing the player to abide by his written alignment.

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.

If you purposefully avoid mechanics in game that check for alignment, then this is fine. The statement "that's not my business as a DM" is true enough in that case.

It went great because I dropped Alignment from the issue.

No you didn't. I really feel like we're just playing word games at this point. You said "don't be evil" without saying it, and without calling their actions evil. But that's the exact thing that you're getting at.

What prompted the conversation? Killing a surrendered enemy in cold blood. What don't you want to happen anymore? More senseless killing. So what do you say? "And I'd also prefer this game not go down the path to brutality."

You think you're taking alignment out of it but you're not. You're still telling them "I don't want you to play an evil character", you're just not using the word "evil".

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 agree with both your call, and your choice to avoid the whelp nonsense. We expect to storm caves and kill monsters, and adding children to the mix makes it a different type of game.

Really? Not even a single casting of Spirit Guardians?

Any DM that uses this spell as written clearly has no idea how Alignment is supposed to work in 5E .

[War_lord]

If you've got Lawful Good on your sheet, but you're playing your character as a murderous Psychopath, why do you care about a "forced" alignment change? Good and Evil and Law and Chaos in D&D are not abstract concepts derived from subjective moral positions, they're cosmic forces that have actual avatars representing them. If you take issue with that, you're playing the wrong system. If anything dropping alignment from your game makes things more about the DM's subjective opinions on certain issues then keeping it.

[Dr.Samurai]

So for clarity, if you think someones alignment has changed but you either haven't had a chance to discuss it with the character or they are resistant you will DM as if their alignment was different to that on their sheet?

I'd always speak with the player even beforehand so that we're on the same page. But in theory, yes, if for some reason the player was in the dark I'd treat the alignment they way I, as the DM, believe it actually is.

...so they accidentally made alignment a lot less mechanically important and also introduced backgrounds, motivations, bonds and ideals to flesh out characters? That's an odd stance to take but ok.

Not sure what's so odd. Tanarii (and you? maybe) are treating Alignment as strictly a guide to roleplaying, and blaming DMs for utilizing it in a mechanical way. And to do this, you imply that 5th edition is purposefully phasing Alignment out.

But... we know there are mechanical uses of Alignment in the game. A simple one was just brought up, Spiritual Guardians.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. My stance is that alignment is as useful as me writing a hand written not to myself 'gets angry easily' to remind me my character gets angry easily. If I resolve my anger issues should my DM care that I forgot to rub out my note? Sure theoretically I should but...

.... but it doesn't matter. Yes, that's my point. It doesn't matter. You're just shrugging. "Sure, it doesn't match but... it doesn't matter."

In other words, to use your analogy:

You: It doesn't matter if I resolved my anger issues but my sheet says I have anger management problems.
Me: But then it doesn't matter that your sheet says you have anger management problems. Why write it there?
You: It doesn't matter that it doesn't matter that my sheet says anger management problems even though I don't.

I'm here to play games not argue philosophy with the DM.

If you're implying that a discussion about alignment is a matter of philosphy, and you're not interested in that, I'm not sure why you care what your alignment is in the first place. We've already established that you don't care if it even matches your in-game behavior or not, and now you're not even interested in talking about it. So... accept the alignment shift .

Also if a DM has everyone in the world use their own moral compass then they should probably be looking at their own roleplaying, not the players.

That's not required for the point to stand. Good and evil are objective in the game. Someone has to make that call in the case of a dispute.

This is another issue. Someone mentioned above about playing in an evil party and being told they were being too good but I'm willing to bed 99% of the time a DM has forced an alignment change on someone its towards the evil end of the spectrum (and likely someone playing a cleric or paladin). No-one cares if your chaotic character acts lawful but if your good character acts evil you better bet the DM will be all up in your grill

Usually because evil characters are super disruptive to the game.

Cool - as I said, why does it matter?

Right. Why does it matter? Why write it down if it has no bearing? Why include it on the character sheet?

[2D8HP]

....Why include it on the character sheet?

Good question!

Honestly it's tradition, and writing "good" on the sheet is often the only plausible reason I think of for my PC to follow the adventure "hook" ("Why are we risking our necks to save the villagers from the Hobgoblin again? Gorobei Katayama expected to at least be paid!")

[Honest Tiefling]

Right. Why does it matter? Why write it down if it has no bearing? Why include it on the character sheet?

Tradition is probably the right answer, but I use alignment to get everyone on the same page for making characters. Not all Chaotic/Neutral Goods are going to get along enough to make a coherent choice, but it's going to work a whole heck of a lot better then a Chaotic Good/Lawful Evil spread.

[Tanarii]

If you purposefully avoid mechanics in game that check for alignment, then this is fine. The statement "that's not my business as a DM" is true enough in that case.

okay, that's fair enough. My position is the mechanics that require alignment are so far and few between as to have little to no chance to arise in the standard game. But that's definitely a YMMV, so I can see where you would take issue with it.

No you didn't. I really feel like we're just playing word games at this point. You said "don't be evil" without saying it, and without calling their actions evil. But that's the exact thing that you're getting at.

What prompted the conversation? Killing a surrendered enemy in cold blood. What don't you want to happen anymore? More senseless killing. So what do you say? "And I'd also prefer this game not go down the path to brutality."

You think you're taking alignment out of it but you're not. You're still telling them "I don't want you to play an evil character", you're just not using the word "evil".

No. I absolutely don't think it was an "evil" action, nor an evil character. In my personal judgement, if I needed to be some kind of moral arbiter. And that's the problem right there. Apparently you DO consider it an evil action, or you wouldn't make that claim. I consider what he did merciless. Not good, but not evil.

If I was going to argue for an Alignment change, I would have told the player they probably should consider a Neutral character, not an evil one. And I'm fine with merciless, but it comes with consequences. Often players don't think about that, and these ones are so warned. And there is a danger of going from merciless to outright brutality, and that's something I don't want.

But if I start in with that conversation, now the table is trying to define what is Good and Neutral and Evil, and I'm not here to play "philosophy of Alignments" at the table. That's not the point. It doesn't matter what our philosophical disagreements are, or how we define alignments, or whatever. What matters in the game is the facts of the action and consequences. And by removing Alignment from the discussion, I focused on making clear what I'm talking about, with no chance of disagreement on what I meant.

I agree with both your call, and your choice to avoid the whelp nonsense. We expect to storm caves and kill monsters, and adding children to the mix makes it a different type of game.

Pretty much.

[Contrast]

Not sure what's so odd. Tanarii (and you? maybe) are treating Alignment as strictly a guide to roleplaying, and blaming DMs for utilizing it in a mechanical way. And to do this, you imply that 5th edition is purposefully phasing Alignment out.

I would say blaming is the wrong word. I am suggesting alignment is not worth the hassle associated with it and a DM who spends their time worrying about alignment (edit - more specifically, worrying if players have crossed some arbitrary line between arbitrary categories of alignment) could be more profitably spending that time thinking about other things.

.... but it doesn't matter. Yes, that's my point. It doesn't matter. You're just shrugging. "Sure, it doesn't match but... it doesn't matter."

In other words, to use your analogy:

You: It doesn't matter if I resolved my anger issues but my sheet says I have anger management problems.
Me: But then it doesn't matter that your sheet says you have anger management problems. Why write it there?
You: It doesn't matter that it doesn't matter that my sheet says anger management problems even though I don't.

I see it more like this:

DM: Hey, I notice you still have that 'gets angry' note on your character sheet.
Player: Yeah?
DM: Well you haven't been roleplaying that since Y - you should probably change it to 'doesn't get angry'.
Player: Oh sure, I've got a better handle on it but I still get angry.
DM: What about that time X and Z when you didn't get angry?
Player: What do you mean? I totally got angry at X and Z shouldn't have made me angry anyway.
DM: I don't think the way you roleplayed showed that you were angry though and Z should have made you angry.
Player: I disagree.
DM: Look I'm the DM and you didn't seem angry to me. Change it on your character sheet.
Player: ...

If you're implying that a discussion about alignment is a matter of philosphy, and you're not interested in that, I'm not sure why you care what your alignment is in the first place. We've already established that you don't care if it even matches your in-game behavior or not, and now you're not even interested in talking about it. So... accept the alignment shift .

In what way isn't alignment a matter of philosophy? I don't mind discussing such things with my friends - I also don't really mind characters getting into debates about philosophy and the relative merits of certain actions (as long as the players are sensible and remember the RL/IG split).

I think its a terrible idea to try and impose philosophy (an area where definitive answers or even just consistent opinions are...elusive at best) mechanically in the game.

That's not required for the point to stand. Good and evil are objective in the game. Someone has to make that call in the case of a dispute.

Good and evil can certainly be definitive in the context of the game - objective though? Lets take the Faerun setting. Ao doesn't care to define good and evil. A load of the gods do but how do you weigh the opinion of one god over another?

Right. Why does it matter? Why write it down if it has no bearing? Why include it on the character sheet?

I answered this question - somewhat useful (like bonds and motivations, etc) when you're settling in to the character, afterwards can be ignored as by that point the question should always be 'what does my specific character think' not 'what would a generic chaotic good character think' (hence my argument that getting people to change it is a waste of time and effort).

[Anonymouswizard]

Good, I prefer the @AnonymousWizard/LotFP way of dealing with Alignment, otherwise use it for Ideals.

Heh, I've completely switched from 5e to LotFP for GMing. Alignment in my world is specifically if you're a piece of the angels (and by association the gods) or the Gribbly Demon Things* (who caused the sapients to arise), which is just standard for Lamentations. Learning to cast magic-user spells literally involves summoning a demon and bargaining for the knowledge (elves are half demon, which is why magic is so natural to them).

Note that this is a world split in a divine conflict between very strict Law and rather carefree Chaos, it's just neither wants to destroy the world because it's binding the various planes of existence together.

Because if I want I can add in Ideals and Bonds and such easily, what 5e doesn't give me is a small number of classes that fit 90% of character concepts. There's no real need for a rules difference between a wizard and a warlock, just change what spells they get (if you can really care). Plus I'll never miss Fireball. Making a 1st level 5e character still takes me the better part of an hour, LotFP is just ten minutes (roll stats, pick class, jot down alignment, roll hp, roll sp and buy equipment, roll three spells for MUs or assign four skill points for specialists). I like 5e's personality traits, they just make traditional alignment redundant.

* Look like Lovecraftian horrors, act more like traditional demons with bargains and everything.

[Tanarii]

Making a 1st level 5e character still takes me the better part of an hour,

More like 15 minutes, including adding up the weight of your gear and writing down Personality Traits. Unless your a newcomer. I know from personal and recent experience it takes about an hour with me working with 4 players who have never played before, all making characters at the same time.

[2D8HP]

...Making a 1st level 5e character still takes me the better part of an hour, LotFP is just ten minutes (roll stats, pick class, jot down alignment, roll hp, roll sp and buy equipment, roll three spells for MUs or assign four skill points for specialists).....

More like 15 minutes, including adding up the weight of your gear and writing down Personality Traits....

Wow, you guys are both faster than me in both games!

Allocating and calculating stats using point buy in 5e takes me some time, but mostly it's just all the "I dotting" (filling in all the entries).

For LotFP (and Labyrinth Lord, and TSR D&D) it selecting and budgeting equipment that is the real time suck.

Both take me less time than HERO or GURPS.

[Tanarii]

Wow, you guys are both faster than me in both games!

Pretty sure at this point I could create any PHB character from memory, especially if it's standard array. Fairly sure I've got all the racials, level 1 class features & starting gear, and background features/skills/tolls/languages memorized. Not personality traits though, I'd have to make those up on the fly.

Help enough newcomers create characters for your games, and it kinda sticks.

[Anonymouswizard]

More like 15 minutes, including adding up the weight of your gear and writing down Personality Traits. Unless your a newcomer. I know from personal and recent experience it takes about an hour with me working with 4 players who have never played before, all making characters at the same time.

Yeah, it varies quite a bit, I did once make one in like five minutes. But because of so many classes and races it takes me a while to go through them. Literally doing one now, it's taken five minutes to assign my stats and pick vHuman, but that's because I've been trying to avoid people.

It's not as bad as 3.5 or GURPS, but it's not as easy as Lamentations of the Flame Princess. The one I'm generating now has taken over half an hour for level 10, and I haven't completed backgrounds (so for level 1 it would have been ten minutes so far).

Wow, you guys are both faster than me in both games!

Allocating and calculating stats using point buy in 5e takes me some time, but mostly it's just all the "I dotting" (filling in all the entries).

For LotFP (and Labyrinth Lord, and TSR D&D) it selecting and budgeting equipment that is the real time suck.

Both take me less time than HERO or GURPS.

Yeah, equipment can be a time sink

[Dr.Samurai]

That's cool, except 8 and 9 are not that dumb!

And they're not that bright either!

We have scores for people that are smarter than average. Those are 12-20.

Why not if they're experienced in that area?

Yes, when we add conditions things change.

Besides dumb folks bloviate, and pontificate all the time (like what I'm doing now)!

Clearly not what we're talking about...

By definition half of all people are below "average intelligence", I just don't buy that "Adventurers" are mostly in the "smart" half.

They're not, unless they are. What does it mean if your intelligence is below average? It means your mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and ability to reason are below the average person's. That's not me saying that, that's the books saying that.

Besides this "Adventurers are exceptional" claptrap has gone too far!

How can you "go from zero to hero" if you don't start as a zero?!

I take "zero" to mean "unknown" or "not a hero". As opposed to "he had a strength of 10 but then he fought some goblins and suddenly he could crush boulders". That doesn't make sense to me.

Yeah, they're being bogus or they're delusional. I wouldn't press it though, arguments over ethics get heated without anyone changing their minds (see Forum banned topics for examples)

Oh I don't know about how heated they get. I mean... Tanarii still talks to me .

I've never seen people playing smarter than their stat, quite the reverse. If at best average people pretend to play genius Wizards, why not allow the reverse?

Again, it's not about the actual person. It's about the character. If your character is below average intelligence, it stands to reason he would be portrayed that way. What that entails will differ between people, obviously. But if you don't think the actual score means anything other than mechanically (ability checks), then it's sort of a moot point to begin with.

No. I absolutely don't think it was an "evil" action, nor an evil character. In my personal judgement, if I needed to be some kind of moral arbiter. And that's the problem right there. Apparently you DO consider it an evil action, or you wouldn't make that claim. I consider what he did merciless. Not good, but not evil.

Rereading the situation, that's fair. Certainly non-good. I think, based on your next paragraph, it's worth mentioning that I don't think only evil actions matter, or that evil actions turn the character evil. I see it as a gradient. I think we may have gone over this before. So even if killing the bandit is not necessarily evil ((since the bandit is a killer and I agree with you, he's essentially at the group's mercy), it's not good, as you say, and continued behavior like this can result in an alignment shift that isn't necessarily Good->Evil.

But if I start in with that conversation, now the table is trying to define what is Good and Neutral and Evil, and I'm not here to play "philosophy of Alignments" at the table. That's not the point. It doesn't matter what our philosophical disagreements are, or how we define alignments, or whatever. What matters in the game is the facts of the action and consequences. And by removing Alignment from the discussion, I focused on making clear what I'm talking about, with no chance of disagreement on what I meant.

Sorry, but it is the point if you have Alignment written down on your sheet. Because you're already determining what that alignment means to you, and, supposedly, it's going to influence your behavior and motivate you to some degree. So the philosophy/discussion/conversation has already happened in some sense. And if there isn't an agreement on what those alignments mean, and it manifests in-game, you're having that discussion one way or another.

Honestly, all I can gather from your posts, and Contrast's, and 2D8HP's and Honest Tiefling's is that Alignment just simply doesn't matter. Which is a fine position to hold.

I would say blaming is the wrong word. I am suggesting alignment is not worth the hassle associated with it and a DM who spends their time worrying about alignment (edit - more specifically, worrying if players have crossed some arbitrary line between arbitrary categories of alignment) could be more profitably spending that time thinking about other things.

I really think your experiences have been different to mine. I don't understand why it's now a hassle for the DM to simply be cognizant of the actions his players have taken in the game. Like, I don't think Tanarii is going to forget that his player was merciless with that bandit. If the player keeps being brutal, Tanarii will take notice. He's already taken measures to prevent that, so if it's happening he'll be aware.

I don't know, I don't see it as a big deal to be honest.

I see it more like this:

DM: Hey, I notice you still have that 'gets angry' note on your character sheet.
Player: Yeah?
DM: Well you haven't been roleplaying that since Y - you should probably change it to 'doesn't get angry'.
Player: Oh sure, I've got a better handle on it but I still get angry.
DM: What about that time X and Z when you didn't get angry?
Player: What do you mean? I totally got angry at X and Z shouldn't have made me angry anyway.
DM: I don't think the way you roleplayed showed that you were angry though and Z should have made you angry.
Player: I disagree.
DM: Look I'm the DM and you didn't seem angry to me. Change it on your character sheet.
Player: ...

Correct. That is the scenario that you and Tanarii are concerned about avoiding, yes. The perspective you've taken to avoid that situation is "it doesn't matter what alignment is on your sheet".

I think its a terrible idea to try and impose philosophy (an area where definitive answers or even just consistent opinions are...elusive at best) mechanically in the game.

I don't think you do, since you like Ideals. Philosophy is in the game, mechanically. You can play your games in such a way as to avoid it, and that's fine as well.

Good and evil can certainly be definitive in the context of the game - objective though? Lets take the Faerun setting. Ao doesn't care to define good and evil. A load of the gods do but how do you weigh the opinion of one god over another?

Contrast, all you're saying here is that, as the DM, you play your games so that there isn't a Good or Evil, but just... lots of opinions on the matter. That's fine. But given that the game has alignment-based mechanics, at some point you'll have to decide what is actually good and what is actually evil. If for you that determination is made simply be reading what's on a character sheet, that's fine. That probably works most of the time.

[Tanarii]

Oh I don't know about how heated they get. I mean... Tanarii still talks to me .

You're one of the most reasonable people to ever tell me I'm wrong.

Honestly though, I respect your stubborn willingness to try and hammer my thick skull long enough for me to see what you're talking about, with just the right combination of willingness to strongly disagree without crossing the line into being rude yourself, or pushing my buttons to make me go super-invested-in-my-argument rude on my side. That's a skill, especially in extended forum discussions. I wish I had it.

Rereading the situation, that's fair. Certainly non-good. I think, based on your next paragraph, it's worth mentioning that I don't think only evil actions matter, or that evil actions turn the character evil. I see it as a gradient. I think we may have gone over this before. So even if killing the bandit is not necessarily evil ((since the bandit is a killer and I agree with you, he's essentially at the group's mercy), it's not good, as you say, and continued behavior like this can result in an alignment shift that isn't necessarily Good->Evil.

Yeah, but the impression I got was what you're thinking of is closer to a point system tracking it than how I look at it. I think overall it's fair to say, assuming Alignment and player roleplaying of the character are in sync, we actually look at Alignment behavior and it shifting very similarly.

We just disagree on if the DM (or other players) has any significant need to ever give the player direct feedback and/or forced change in regards to Alignment. I think the DM only has cause to focus on actions and resulting consequences in general, and overall behavior if it's disruptive to the table or campaign tone. And none of that requires Aligment, and making it about Alignment carries the danger of moral and ethical disagreement with it.

That's precisely why 5e put Alignment in the hands of the player as a roleplaying aid in the first place, and is worded with broad strokes so that players can interpret it how it makes sense to them personally. A DM or other players putting their foot in with regards to Alignment is reversing that entire concept back to the bad old days of Alignment as a moral scorecard, and hurting its intended purpose.

Sorry, but it is the point if you have Alignment written down on your sheet. Because you're already determining what that alignment means to you, and, supposedly, it's going to influence your behavior and motivate you to some degree. So the philosophy/discussion/conversation has already happened in some sense. And if there isn't an agreement on what those alignments mean, and it manifests in-game, you're having that discussion one way or another.

It matters a lot to the player. It shouldn't matter at all to the DM unless it's disruptive at the table or to the campaign tone.

Honestly, all I can gather from your posts, and Contrast's, and 2D8HP's and Honest Tiefling's is that Alignment just simply doesn't matter. Which is a fine position to hold.

my position is: Alignment matters more in 5e than it ever has in any previous edition of 5e. It's primary purpose is very clear now: a roleplaying aid. It's secondary purpose remains: to divide the DnD universe into us vs them*.

And if DMs or other players try to tell a player how they need to use it to roleplay, or force alignment changes, they risk destroying the usefulness of Alignment, and put us back in the bad old days of older editions, where it was a useless moral scorecard thats primary purpose was to cause philosophy arguments. That's why I object to that happening.

*If you want to, you can easily just use Personality traits for the primary purpose, and for the secondary purpose make Alignment choices: Hero, Muderhero, Murderhobo, Villain.

[KorvinStarmast]

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...

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.

Straight talk is not always welcome at gaming tables. (But I like it).

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.

it's a bit of a carrot, when people finally begin to see what a second roll can do for them . . .

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.

I guess we'll part company there. It is my positin that alignment, to be useful in play, needs to be something that DM and player have a dialogue about. It's not purely mechanical by any means. It has the potential to help make a character more 3 dimensional, when handled well by both player and DM. And it can be an arglebargled mess.

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

See above.

Instead, there should be realistic consequences for actions.

Yeah.

outside of the in-game consequences of obviously evil actions, we don't tend to see enforcement of alignment, background, flaws, ideals, bonds, etc. these items, however, are the main place characters earn inspiration from. If you act to character (or, have a legitimate reason for acting against character) in a meaningful way you'll often be awarded with inspiration.

It's a nice carrot.

If you've got Lawful Good on your sheet, but you're playing your character as a murderous Psychopath, why do you care about a "forced" alignment change?

Obviously, it goes a bit deeper than that. DM's will get the kind of behavior from players that they put up with. Without a dialogue, and a bit of effort to be on the same page, dysfunction can occur. Seen it.

Good question!

Honestly it's tradition, and writing "good" on the sheet is often the only plausible reason I think of for my PC to follow the adventure "hook" ("Why are we risking our necks to save the villagers from the Hobgoblin again? Gorobei Katayama expected to at least be paid!")

We applaud your Seven Samurai reference.

[Contrast]

I don't think you do, since you like Ideals. Philosophy is in the game, mechanically. You can play your games in such a way as to avoid it, and that's fine as well.

I'm inclined to say I prefer ideals and the like because they get you to flesh out your character in a way that integrates them into the world. That said, I would also be very bemused if my DM forced me to change an ideal again my assessment because they thought I wasn't living up to it and I would argue that was wasting a DMs time as well

Sure a DM could keep tracks of everyones ideals and traits etc and update them as the game goes on but...what are we achieving here?

Keep in mind here I'm not saying DMs shouldn't discuss their players characters thoughts etc - I'm saying in a case where a DM and player have a disagreement about a characters motivations its pointless for the DM to 'force' a player to change them against their will because in reality all you've done is changed some words on a page. You haven't changed anything in the players head and that's where the character really is.

Contrast, all you're saying here is that, as the DM, you play your games so that there isn't a Good or Evil, but just... lots of opinions on the matter. That's fine. But given that the game has alignment-based mechanics, at some point you'll have to decide what is actually good and what is actually evil. If for you that determination is made simply be reading what's on a character sheet, that's fine. That probably works most of the time.

I would argue everyone plays in a game where there are just opinions on the matter. Even if there's an all powerful creator god, theirs is still really just an opinion even if its a really well informed one

If you think I'm suggesting whats written on someones character sheet is the be all and end all then I've clearly been explaining myself incredibly poorly as that's basically the opposite of the argument I've been trying to make See my initial post on the topic.

If the game forces you to mechanically rule on alignment, DM should make a call and game should move on. I think its a mistake for the game to force you to mechanically rule on alignment (and it very rarely does so) and the best solution available to resolve that is to spend as little time focusing on it as possible as I don't see it adding anything much constructive to the game outside of character creation. I don't think it'll intrinsically make your game worse spending time on it but I'm of the opinion it will increase the chance of arguments about alignment and draw the DMs attention away from more useful things like how the surrounding world actually reacts to what they know of their actions.

[Vogonjeltz]

Tigers aren't moral entities in D&D alignment, so they're irrelevant.

I think they were making the point that, if the subject in question is incapable of comprehending moral choices, aka an animal (and, yes, I know animals have demonstably shown the capacity to judge unfairness, but for D&D's alignment purposes we have to pretend that research doesn't exist).

Basically the question is: Does Feast now know what he's doing is wrong?

Unless Feast is entirely incapable of communication (in which case there's no plausible basis for having them be anything but an NPC), there's little doubt that Feast knows what they are doing is wrong. Ergo, Feast is Chaotic Evil (killing based purely on his, literal, blood lust).

If, on the other hand, the claim is being made that Feast simply can't comprehend any of this, he should be turned into an NPC accordingly and have the alignment set to Unaligned, as with the Shark/Tiger, whatever, examples, because at that point no claim to sapience can be made.

I have to admit, I'm (morbidly) curious as to these "extenuating circumstances" that the OP was talking about that didn't instantly label Feast as CE.

Honestly, if he's made no effort to change after the first time that the party (presumably) flipped out, then yeah, it's his choice to remain that way and he's definitely Chaotic Evil in my books. If he's making the effort, then he MIGHT be able to cling to Chaotic Neutral.

EDIT: 95% of these situations, if you have to ask, you already know the answer and you're just trying to justify thinking that she/he/it isn't evil.

Unless the entire party is made up of Chaotic Evil characters, I literally can not imagine another character not attempting to kill him there and then. That behavior is so transgressive, so beyond the pale, it almost certainly would force an alignment change on the part of anyone who condoned it through inaction upon learning of it.

'Forcing' someone to change their alignment like OP suggests does nothing. You need to convince them to change their behaviour out of game if its problematic out of game. If the behaviour isn't problematic - again, why do you care whats written on their character sheet - the occupants of the world don't know what their character sheet says so they should just react based on what they've seen.

A very few effects in the game actually depend on alignment. So, although I'm entirely sympathetic to your idea of not worrying about alignment as a term, in practice it actually does matter, sometimes.

And, failing to act based on alignment is just bad roleplay anyway. Especially when your alignment gets changed from external factors, which necessarily indicate a shift in personality/behavior going forward.

Absolutely not.
Confer PHB: "Most creatures that lack the capacity for rational thought do not have alignments - they are unaligned."
AND: "Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutraI), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)."
Otherwise said, having alignment requires to be able to understand the concept of morality and the consequences of actions.

If Feast is presented as a creature that, although humanoid, never lived in any other way than a beast, and has no education that could help it gain superior self-awareness and rationale, it cannot be considered as "an Evil creature".

Feast demonstrably has the capacity for rational thought, he can make choices. That those choices are demonstrably evil is an indicator of what the correct alignment choice should be. None of this really matters though, the player chose the wrong alignment in the first instance, and the correction would be to write the appropriate alignment down instead (in this case, Chaotic Evil fits the character by definition).

There's no harm in that at all. The real question is: Why have the other players not killed him already? If unwilling to control his impulses then he's no better than any other dangerous monster. If the party isn't made up of people willing to reform every creature they encounter that would attempt to slaughter their young, why would they tolerate the existence of Feast? That presents a super-sized double standard, and it simply doesn't track.

I don't think its "Evil" It's just morally wrong. It's neutral because he's doing it for his own good not to be evil.

The word "evil" means "morally bad or wrong; wicked."

Also, if we look to the various alignment descriptions in the PHB, he is Chaotic Evil.

[Malifice]

Unless the entire party is made up of Chaotic Evil characters, I literally can not imagine another character not attempting to kill him there and then.

Plently of CE characters would find a character that kills and eats children reprehensible.

For mine they would actually be the most likely to kill the Orc there and then (remember: Chaotic evil PCs are actually the most likley to react with arbitrary violence to something they dont like).

There are many shades of CE. Titus Pullo, Rick Sanchez, Ramsay Bolton and Darth Vader are all examples of people who consider themselves above the law, are entirely capricious, self centred, unconventional and unpredictable, and act with arbitrary violence (rape, murder, torture, genocide) frequently.

Of course you also have your 'psychopath' CE who go around killing people for next to no reason, and when not in their own best intrests. You generally see a lot of this with new or inexperienced players when given the opportunity to play evil PCs.

[Malifice]

My LG Paladin encountered a Devil the other day, and he told me that unless I killed an orphanage full of babies, the world was going to be destroyed at midnight.

I wasnt sure if he was lying or not, so I cast Zone of Truth. Turns out he was telling the truth.

Accordingly, I duly followed his directions and headed directly to the orphanage. Once there I stalked from room to room, hatcheting those orphans to death. Sadly the nuns guarding the orphanage tried to stop me, so I had to kill them as well. I didnt want to, and I got no pleasure out of it, but it had to be done.

One of the nuns had hidden the last orphan. With little time remaining, and her stubbornly refusing to tell me where the child was, I was left with no option but to torture her till she told me. She was stubborn Torm bless her, so I really had to get medieval and go full Dexter on her. Eventually she caved, and I found the baby, and stabbed it to death in the nick of time. I then killed the nun, as a mercy killing as she was in pretty bad shape and begging for death.

The Devil thanked me for the slaughter and innocent souls I provided him, and told me that thanks to my actions, the world was duly saved.

Now the DM is telling me that my Spirit Guardians spell deals necrotic damage for some reason.

What gives?

[oxybe]

My LG Paladin encountered a Devil the other day, and he told me that unless I killed an orphanage full of babies, the world was going to be destroyed at midnight.

I wasnt sure if he was lying or not, so I cast Zone of Truth. Turns out he was telling the truth.

Accordingly, I duly followed his directions and headed directly to the orphanage. Once there I stalked from room to room, hatcheting those orphans to death. Sadly the nuns guarding the orphanage tried to stop me, so I had to kill them as well. I didnt want to, and I got no pleasure out of it, but it had to be done.

One of the nuns had hidden the last orphan. With little time remaining, and her stubbornly refusing to tell me where the child was, I was left with no option but to torture her till she told me. She was stubborn Torm bless her, so I really had to get medieval and go full Dexter on her. Eventually she caved, and I found the baby, and stabbed it to death in the nick of time. I then killed the nun, as a mercy killing as she was in pretty bad shape and begging for death.

The Devil thanked me for the slaughter and innocent souls I provided him, and told me that thanks to my actions, the world was duly saved.

Now the DM is telling me that my Spirit Guardians spell deals necrotic damage for some reason.

What gives?

Obviously someone is tampering with your Spirit Guardian and so that you may continue to bring divine justice instead of necrotic kind, you need to go find the culprit.

I heard the Pope of the Religion of Puppies & Kittens in Adorable Sweaters is currently amassing divine power for non-puppy or kitten ends. Likely he's the one draining your Spoopy Buddy. Go avengin'.

Preferably in the gizzard, with a sword, on an altar, at midnight, this summer solstice.

Or so I hear.

[Tanarii]

What gives?

The DM set up a strawman situation.

[Malifice]

The DM set up a strawman situation.

Or I'm a ****ing idiot, and just did what the devil told me to do.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Or I'm a ****ing idiot, and just did what the devil told me to do.

You saved the world. In a parallel universe, the paladin who didn't save the world is a hapless petitioner along with everyone else who died when the world ended. But his player's DM assures him that if he could still cast Spiritial Guardians, it would show sparkly bunnies, so there's that.