although its important to remember that actions dictate alignment alignment should not dictate actions

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819083How do you handle situations where the player does something and thinks its within alignment but the DM disagrees?

You have to have it in writing beforehand. See the excerpt below. Also, if you are powerful enough for alignment to matter, there is usually some authority figure or entity who will instruct or correct you.

I have alignments as a means of achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. There may be more than one right answer, and they are inherently broad in scope, and there are no "gotchas". I have no grudges against paladins or assassins.

Quote from: tuypo1;819086although its important to remember that actions dictate alignment alignment should not dictate actions

I disagree with this (maybe). The characters (and players) certainly have free will, and what their character does is in their purview. I certainly won't tell them how their character acts. But, I will tell them when their actions are running contrary to the beings they have bargained with and they begin to feel tension in their spirit.

The Way of Ambition
Followers of the Fane seek the perfection of the Self and the advancement of the Ego. They desire omnipotence, the power to fully control their destinies. "Survival of the fittest" is their creed. They take what is needed or desired, hesitating only when someone stronger could stop them.

The Ambitious don't pass judgments on their own actions or those of anyone else. They don't recognize the value of morals or ethics; the true follower is amoral. It is important to note that they are not immoral. They don't seek to disrupt society or violate morality; those values just hold no value to them. This does not preclude being law-abiding or showing kindness. Simply, an action or behavior is valuable if it benefits the person and has minimal or no consequences. The difference between making friends and robbing strangers is merely one of utility.

The Way of Instinct
The followers of Instinct seek to join with the patterns and flows of the natural world. "To everything a season" is their creed. The ideal they strive towards is an existence without thought or passion; to be able to act in accord to need without the distraction of ego or vice.

The natural world is their guide and advisor. The Instinctual have seen the primacy of life: life breaks through all barriers. All things have their place in life as well. To hunt, kill, mate, grow – these are all activities that are part of the cycle of life. Cycles of life and death, growth and decay are their guide to proper living. By observing predation, symbiosis and the cycle of seasons do the Instinctive discover a source of wisdom. Adopting these lessons is a source of strength.

The Way of Logic
The Logical desires nothing less than omniscience; the acquisition of all knowledge and the most efficient means of its application.  Information is everything to them, and when they aren't learning they plan and scheme to discover more lore. Not all bright people have this alignment, nor is it a prerequisite, it's just that Logoicals are preoccupied with learning above all else.

This hunger for knowledge can be a detriment, however. Studying a problem from every angle can be time consuming; those that follow logic's rules can be slow to a fault. This puts them at a disadvantage when haste is needed.

The Way of Order
The creed of the followers of Order is "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." This is the ideal that the groups is stronger and worthier that the individual; by contributing to the group the individual reaps benefits that would be impossible otherwise.

Orderly tend to have a cut-and-dried, black-or-white vision of the world. The have a strong sense of honor as well as being committed to the success of the group over that of the individual. It is easy to see this as the "good" alignment, but that isn't necessarily true. The will of the group is paramount, and if individual sacrifice is required it can be compelled if necessary. Fascism is a very orderly system. Even with that caveat, this alignment does tend to look out for their fellows more than others.

The Way of Passion
   "Life is the journey, not the destination." Such is the creed for the Passionate. Those that have Passion as their ideal seek to experience all that life has to offer; none are as caring in love or as deadly in fury.

Freedom is the underlying principle in their philosophy. As long as they are able to act as they will when they will they care little for other concerns. They also believe that freedom must be extended to all so they don't actively interfere in the concerns of others. The Passionate don't set long term goals like those who follow other ideals. It's not that they can't; their objectives tend to be in the short term and involved plans are executed haphazardly.

oh yeah you should always tell players when they are acting against your alignment

Quote from: LordVreeg;819074I literally drew up the grid years ago, gave the players a starting place based on their stated align, and plotted after every session.

fascinating, actually.

I'm way too lazy to implement something like that, but yes, that actually sounds like an interesting take on the issue.

Quote from: tuypo1;819085more then prehapes any other point this is the one where the dms word goes im willing to discus any other things with my players but my word is law on alignments.

In my experience, the GM as the ultimate authority works a lot better when the matter at hand is more about falling from a building and less about falling from grace. There is a certain dilemma of having an objective moral system with clear definitions of good and evil, solely interpreted by the subjective opinion of one guy.
Honestly, the alignment system is normally not much of a problem if you don't play with utterly dogmatic or stupid people; non-dogmatic and non-stupid people should usually enjoy the benefit of doubt when it comes to interpret the behaviour of their characters, which makes this sort of GM supervision mostly pointless. If you are actually playing with dogmatic and/or stupid people (and if you do, why are you doing that to yourself?), the system will eventually cause dogmatic and/or stupid arguments (and while those can be entertaining, they are usually also very much not roleplaying, which automatically makes them a bad choice for a roleplaying game argument).
To summarize: If you don't trust your players to play their alignments, don't play with alignments (or those players). They usually add very, very little to the game.

I don't track alignment.

I didn't back in the day because I started with a modified OD&D, didn't really do alignment at first, then got to AD&D and looked at the alignment tracking suggestions and thought "No way am I going to do all that."

I don't now partly because, like Spinachcat, I went back to a single axis, but mostly because I stripped my interpretation down to literal alignment. When a player writes "Lawful" on their sheet, it means their character swore allegiance to Law, either privately to their god or themselves, or publicly at some church or social function. It's not personality. It's not a system-level roleplaying requirement. It's literal in-game relationship to the forces of Law.

What matters is not what the player's intentions are or what they think Law means, or how their list of sins balances against their list of good deeds. What matters is their last action that people have heard about. If you killed all the priests in the Monastery of Light and people know about that, they are going to react to you as if you've betrayed the side of Law. It doesn't matter that you found out they were really demons in disguise working to undermine the community, although maybe you could convince everyone, or even prove it. It might matter to supernatural minions of Law, who might have inside information and know the truth.

Magic items aligned with Law or Chaos likewise don't care about your past actions. They do care about what you are doing right now, so your Holy Sword might blast you with magic energy if you do something Chaotic. Make atonement, though, and it's like it never happened, as far as the sword is concerned.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819083How do you handle situations where the player does something and thinks its within alignment but the DM disagrees?

Knifefight!!!

I have an easier time because I use Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic and I explain my general view of the alignments pre-game. Usually, at least one player will ask a hypothetical question pre-game to see where the borders are.

AKA, can Lawful PCs slay orc babies? I ask them, is slaying all orcs the law of the land? What's the opinion of your god, temple or lord? In general, I view Lawful as "pro-civilization" so if orcs are the bane of the civilization, then its chop chop time for the babies. Of course, that's where you get interesting roleplay between two Lawful PCs. One PC may be fine with the female orcs being driven away with their babies in tow. Another PC may demand total slaughter so those babies don't show up in 10 years to slay the families on the empire's frontier. FOR ME, that's interesting stuff at the table.

Or are Chaotics always untrustworthy? I ask them, if the party is taking actions that benefit the Chaotic, why would the Chaotic betray them, as long as their goals are being advanced?  Also, can a Chaotic PC decide to divide treasure fairly? There is no reason a Chaotic could not plan long term and be mellow about minor fairness, as long as their own long term goals are paramount.

Quote from: tuypo1;819086although its important to remember that actions dictate alignment alignment should not dictate actions

I disagree. If the player picks an alignment for their character, its reasonable for the GM to expect the player to play the PC according to that alignment. Alignment isn't forced on the player. If a player wants more leeway of action, then pick Neutral. If they want to take a stance, then pick Lawful of Chaotic.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819019Do you use alignment in your D&D games? How do you track a player's movement along the spectrum?

We use alignment, but we generally don't bother with tracking unless someone's character behaves in a way obviously not in line with the one s/he's chosen. Most of the time alignments are treated more like guidelines than actual rules; those of us so inclined will pick one at chargen that lines up with a sort of general philosophy and go from there, those not so inclined just mark Neutral (or leave it blank).

In either case, once the characters' boots are on the ground we try to get everyone to just act in-character without much regard for alignment, and if the DM feels it necessary she'll tell us to change it. Play the character, not the stats/alignment/what-have-you, after all. It probably bears stating that changing alignment in her setting isn't usually a big deal, it's usually just a clerical update to better reflect the character's apparent mentality. The only time an alignment shift actually precipitates a change in character behavior is when a character actively and deliberately enters into the service of a god or other divine entity as a mortal agent of their will, with all the pursuant drama that entails.

The other aspect of tracking alignment is, how much does a single action count against an alignment?

In real life, people don't act the exact same way, especially when they are stressed.

The example that came up in my game was a Lawful Neutral cleric interrogating somebody leaking information from his church to bad guys. He promised him that he'd let him go if he talked; after the guy gave up his info, the cleric slit his throat and then pillaged his room.

I thought this warranted an alignment change to Neutral or Chaotic Neutral at the very least, but he argued that it was actually Lawful because he was defending the church and acting in their name.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819133The other aspect of tracking alignment is, how much does a single action count against an alignment?

For me, single actions are all important. We don't roleplay every moment of a PC's life, just the highlights. Thus, the actions taken at crucial moments become the defining moments.

RPGs campaigns are episodic, like TV shows. If a main character does something deeply out of character on an episode, it isn't just swept under the rug (on a good show), but instead becomes a defining moment that leads to something.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819133In real life, people don't act the exact same way, especially when they are stressed.

In real life, there's also a distinct lack of magic spells and orcs. Alignment is just an in-game concept, like 30 foot movement and range increments. Tracking game concepts to real life doesn't work out great.

Quote from: Beagle;819106I'm way too lazy to implement something like that, but yes, that actually sounds like an interesting take on the issue.



In my experience, the GM as the ultimate authority works a lot better when the matter at hand is more about falling from a building and less about falling from grace. There is a certain dilemma of having an objective moral system with clear definitions of good and evil, solely interpreted by the subjective opinion of one guy.
Honestly, the alignment system is normally not much of a problem if you don't play with utterly dogmatic or stupid people; non-dogmatic and non-stupid people should usually enjoy the benefit of doubt when it comes to interpret the behaviour of their characters, which makes this sort of GM supervision mostly pointless. If you are actually playing with dogmatic and/or stupid people (and if you do, why are you doing that to yourself?), the system will eventually cause dogmatic and/or stupid arguments (and while those can be entertaining, they are usually also very much not roleplaying, which automatically makes them a bad choice for a roleplaying game argument).
To summarize: If you don't trust your players to play their alignments, don't play with alignments (or those players). They usually add very, very little to the game.

you still seem to be having trouble with the concept of actions dictate alignment

its not about trusting your players to play there alignment players dont need to play there alignment if they are acting outside alignment change there alignment

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;819133The other aspect of tracking alignment is, how much does a single action count against an alignment?

In real life, people don't act the exact same way, especially when they are stressed.

The example that came up in my game was a Lawful Neutral cleric interrogating somebody leaking information from his church to bad guys. He promised him that he'd let him go if he talked; after the guy gave up his info, the cleric slit his throat and then pillaged his room.

I thought this warranted an alignment change to Neutral or Chaotic Neutral at the very least, but he argued that it was actually Lawful because he was defending the church and acting in their name.

i think thats enough for an instant change to evil

but yeah even if you dont consider that evil it sure as hell aint lawful its not about who you do it for its about what you do

Quote from: talysman;819109I don't track alignment.

I didn't back in the day because I started with a modified OD&D, didn't really do alignment at first, then got to AD&D and looked at the alignment tracking suggestions and thought "No way am I going to do all that."

I don't now partly because, like Spinachcat, I went back to a single axis, but mostly because I stripped my interpretation down to literal alignment. When a player writes "Lawful" on their sheet, it means their character swore allegiance to Law, either privately to their god or themselves, or publicly at some church or social function. It's not personality. It's not a system-level roleplaying requirement. It's literal in-game relationship to the forces of Law.

What matters is not what the player's intentions are or what they think Law means, or how their list of sins balances against their list of good deeds. What matters is their last action that people have heard about. If you killed all the priests in the Monastery of Light and people know about that, they are going to react to you as if you've betrayed the side of Law. It doesn't matter that you found out they were really demons in disguise working to undermine the community, although maybe you could convince everyone, or even prove it. It might matter to supernatural minions of Law, who might have inside information and know the truth.

Magic items aligned with Law or Chaos likewise don't care about your past actions. They do care about what you are doing right now, so your Holy Sword might blast you with magic energy if you do something Chaotic. Make atonement, though, and it's like it never happened, as far as the sword is concerned.

that just seems silly but at the same time it could be interesting

Alignments in D&D are teams; the whole thing went to utter shit when people started injecting morality into it. "If I'm Lawful Good, how can I possibly slaughter baby orcs!?!?" Yeah, that sort of crap has nothing to do with the game and is best left to philosophical discussions. It's like getting into arguments about fair housing laws when you're playing Monopoly.

there only teams on the outer planes for the most part.

and there simple morals.

but of course for monopoly it goes to shit the moment you start the game. Also orc baby argument is simple really and the arguments are fun

Quote from: Brad;819153Alignments in D&D are teams; the whole thing went to utter shit when people started injecting morality into it. "If I'm Lawful Good, how can I possibly slaughter baby orcs!?!?" Yeah, that sort of crap has nothing to do with the game and is best left to philosophical discussions. It's like getting into arguments about fair housing laws when you're playing Monopoly.

Some of us treat RPGs as a bit more sophisticated games than Monopoly.

Cue bitching about how I support badwrongfun.