I'm having trouble getting my group of new players to grasp the "R" part of RPG. I'm sure part of that is due to the fact that in addition to them being new players, I'm also a new DM (started LMoP earlier this summer). I've tried a few times to get them out of the metagaming habit and to try out some RP, if only just to see if they like it. Anyway, it seems one of the RP things I'm having a hard time getting them to keep in mind is their character's alignment. The party is basically a mix of the Good alignments, with one player who *really* wanted to be true neutral. I allowed it, but boy am I regretting it. Anyway, the group often drifts away from their alignments (with the exception of the N player, it's become his excuse to basically behave like a psychopath). I find myself frequently reminding them to play their alignment.
So now that I've gotten the complaining out of the way, would you guys say that forcing new players to play their alignment more strictly is a good idea, or should I allow them to do other things, with a mind to them maybe seeing that in the future they should pick different alignments?
If they are still at the beginning of the adventure, let them leave the box "Alignment" blank. Do not make write anything in it. Then, after some sessions, based on their actions in the game, you "suggest" the proper alignment to write in it.
Understanding alignment - what it does mean, and what it doesn't - is one of the most difficult parts of the D&D game (at least, it seems so, considering how often misunderstandings happen and misconceptions get perpetuated).
Which is why the best course of action to repair any issues that are occurring with alignment is to sit the whole group down and have a conversation - not about who's right and who's wrong, but about finding a shared understanding of what alignment is going to mean for your group and how your group are going to use it going forward (even, or perhaps especially, if the result of that conversation is finding out that your group of players don't want anything to do with your particular ideas of what alignment is/should be).
Don't forget to reward them for roleplaying their ideals, traits, bonds, flaws with Inspiration. Put them in situations where you will have the opportunity to do so.
If they are still at the beginning of the adventure, let them leave the box "Alignment" blank. Do not make write anything in it. Then, after some sessions, based on their actions in the game, you "suggest" the proper alignment to write in it.
Unfortunately, we are most of the way through. I think we all learned a lot though. I think most of them will want to make new characters, as they just kind of chose classes without really knowing much about them. Just kind of a "hey, a wizard sounds cool" kind of situation, which then turned into "holy crap, a wizard is 10 times more complicated to play than a non-magic user!" kind of situation.
Which is why the best course of action to repair any issues that are occurring with alignment is to sit the whole group down and have a conversation - not about who's right and who's wrong, but about finding a shared understanding of what alignment is going to mean for your group and how your group are going to use it going forward (even, or perhaps especially, if the result of that conversation is finding out that your group of players don't want anything to do with your particular ideas of what alignment is/should be).
This is a good idea. I've been thinking of maybe putting together a list of popular characters from movies and TV and organizing them like that. Superheroes may be good too, like Superman, Wonder Woman and Capt. America are LG, Black Widow and maybe Dr. Strange are CG, Punisher is CN etc. The only issue with this is that I'm afraid that suggesting a character may make the player try to make their character BE that example, you know? Like, by saying something like "Cool character X is CG" that may lead to a player trying to make his character behave too closely to the way Cool Character X would. Something to think about anyway.
Edit: of course Geek and Sundry already made a list. I'll just leave this here. I'm sure there are many more lists like this. Luke Skywalker as Neutral Good seems weird to me, but I can't really make a case for him being Lawful or Chaotic, so I suppose Neutral is just as good a choice.
Don't forget to reward them for roleplaying their ideals, traits, bonds, flaws with Inspiration. Put them in situations where you will have the opportunity to do so.
I do forget to do this. I'll have to put a huge note on my DM screen that reminds me to do it. And, combining this with Aaron's suggestion above, I might just lay it out there, that if they do a good job of RP, they'll get inspiration.
Thanks for all the feedback everyone, this has been helpful.
This is a good idea. I've been thinking of maybe putting together a list of popular characters from movies and TV and organizing them like that. Superheroes may be good too, like Superman, Wonder Woman and Capt. America are LG, Black Widow and maybe Dr. Strange are CG, Punisher is CN etc. The only issue with this is that I'm afraid that suggesting a character may make the player try to make their character BE that example, you know? Like, by saying something like "Cool character X is CG" that may lead to a player trying to make his character behave too closely to the way Cool Character X would. Something to think about anyway.
Edit: of course Geek and Sundry already made a list. I'll just leave this here. I'm sure there are many more lists like this. Luke Skywalker as Neutral Good seems weird to me, but I can't really make a case for him being Lawful or Chaotic, so I suppose Neutral is just as good a choice.
Lists/charts like that are not really all that helpful, in my opinion, because the characters put into them are wide open for interpretation - especially the comic-book ones, since each of those has a bunch of different "this is how this person is" variants over all the years they've been around and all the different authors that have written them. You can basically fit any fictional character from a book, film, or comic, into any of the D&D alignments if you put your mind to it.
So I think it's better to just talk about the alignments themselves and what they mean, and once your group are able to find the meaning of alignments that they can agree upon, they'll have their own ideas of which characters fit where.
For an example of how rough it can be to use established characters as examples before coming to agreement on what alignment means: The Punisher is Chaotic Good - he does things his own way and according to his own sense of right and wrong and doesn't care what anyone thinks about him for it, but he's not doing it for himself, he's saving the world from (other) criminals one murder spree at a time.
This is a good idea. I've been thinking of maybe putting together a list of popular characters from movies and TV and organizing them like that. Superheroes may be good too, like Superman, Wonder Woman and Capt. America are LG, Black Widow and maybe Dr. Strange are CG, Punisher is CN etc. The only issue with this is that I'm afraid that suggesting a character may make the player try to make their character BE that example, you know? Like, by saying something like "Cool character X is CG" that may lead to a player trying to make his character behave too closely to the way Cool Character X would. Something to think about anyway.
Edit: of course Geek and Sundry already made a list. I'll just leave this here. I'm sure there are many more lists like this. Luke Skywalker as Neutral Good seems weird to me, but I can't really make a case for him being Lawful or Chaotic, so I suppose Neutral is just as good a choice.
Lists/charts like that are not really all that helpful, in my opinion, because the characters put into them are wide open for interpretation - especially the comic-book ones, since each of those has a bunch of different "this is how this person is" variants over all the years they've been around and all the different authors that have written them. You can basically fit any fictional character from a book, film, or comic, into any of the D&D alignments if you put your mind to it.
So I think it's better to just talk about the alignments themselves and what they mean, and once your group are able to find the meaning of alignments that they can agree upon, they'll have their own ideas of which characters fit where.
For an example of how rough it can be to use established characters as examples before coming to agreement on what alignment means: The Punisher is Chaotic Good - he does things his own way and according to his own sense of right and wrong and doesn't care what anyone thinks about him for it, but he's not doing it for himself, he's saving the world from (other) criminals one murder spree at a time.
That's a good point. I could see where people would be like, “No, the punisher is doing it for revenge!” and then there’s an argument about the alignment of a comic book character lol. That’s a headache I do NOT need. I guess I’m just trying to find a good, relatable way to talk them about alignment and what it means to RP a character.
This is a good idea. I've been thinking of maybe putting together a list of popular characters from movies and TV and organizing them like that. Superheroes may be good too, like Superman, Wonder Woman and Capt. America are LG, Black Widow and maybe Dr. Strange are CG, Punisher is CN etc. The only issue with this is that I'm afraid that suggesting a character may make the player try to make their character BE that example, you know? Like, by saying something like "Cool character X is CG" that may lead to a player trying to make his character behave too closely to the way Cool Character X would. Something to think about anyway.
Edit: of course Geek and Sundry already made a list. I'll just leave this here. I'm sure there are many more lists like this. Luke Skywalker as Neutral Good seems weird to me, but I can't really make a case for him being Lawful or Chaotic, so I suppose Neutral is just as good a choice.
Lists/charts like that are not really all that helpful, in my opinion, because the characters put into them are wide open for interpretation - especially the comic-book ones, since each of those has a bunch of different "this is how this person is" variants over all the years they've been around and all the different authors that have written them. You can basically fit any fictional character from a book, film, or comic, into any of the D&D alignments if you put your mind to it.
So I think it's better to just talk about the alignments themselves and what they mean, and once your group are able to find the meaning of alignments that they can agree upon, they'll have their own ideas of which characters fit where.
For an example of how rough it can be to use established characters as examples before coming to agreement on what alignment means: The Punisher is Chaotic Good - he does things his own way and according to his own sense of right and wrong and doesn't care what anyone thinks about him for it, but he's not doing it for himself, he's saving the world from (other) criminals one murder spree at a time.
That's a good point. I could see where people would be like, “No, the punisher is doing it for revenge!” and then there’s an argument about the alignment of a comic book character lol. That’s a headache I do NOT need. I guess I’m just trying to find a good, relatable way to talk them about alignment and what it means to RP a character.
First, that would make him Lawful Neutral.
Second, have you tried page 122 of the PHB?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
This is a good idea. I've been thinking of maybe putting together a list of popular characters from movies and TV and organizing them like that. Superheroes may be good too, like Superman, Wonder Woman and Capt. America are LG, Black Widow and maybe Dr. Strange are CG, Punisher is CN etc. The only issue with this is that I'm afraid that suggesting a character may make the player try to make their character BE that example, you know? Like, by saying something like "Cool character X is CG" that may lead to a player trying to make his character behave too closely to the way Cool Character X would. Something to think about anyway.
Edit: of course Geek and Sundry already made a list. I'll just leave this here. I'm sure there are many more lists like this. Luke Skywalker as Neutral Good seems weird to me, but I can't really make a case for him being Lawful or Chaotic, so I suppose Neutral is just as good a choice.
Lists/charts like that are not really all that helpful, in my opinion, because the characters put into them are wide open for interpretation - especially the comic-book ones, since each of those has a bunch of different "this is how this person is" variants over all the years they've been around and all the different authors that have written them. You can basically fit any fictional character from a book, film, or comic, into any of the D&D alignments if you put your mind to it.
So I think it's better to just talk about the alignments themselves and what they mean, and once your group are able to find the meaning of alignments that they can agree upon, they'll have their own ideas of which characters fit where.
For an example of how rough it can be to use established characters as examples before coming to agreement on what alignment means: The Punisher is Chaotic Good - he does things his own way and according to his own sense of right and wrong and doesn't care what anyone thinks about him for it, but he's not doing it for himself, he's saving the world from (other) criminals one murder spree at a time.
That's a good point. I could see where people would be like, “No, the punisher is doing it for revenge!” and then there’s an argument about the alignment of a comic book character lol. That’s a headache I do NOT need. I guess I’m just trying to find a good, relatable way to talk them about alignment and what it means to RP a character.
First, that would make him Lawful Neutral.
Second, have you tried page 122 of the PHB?
Yeah, I’ve read that, and I had them all read that when they created their characters. I was looking to supplement it because they don’t seem to be able to extrapolate it to their PCs.
Regarding Punisher, the debate over his alignment makes the point that trying to use characters like that is fuzzy at best. You could make a case for several alignments, even without getting into different universe storylines.
Also, after re-reading page 122, I think I need to go talk to my player with the N character. He’s really playing him more CE than anything else.
I'm not what I would call strict but I will tell players to change alignment if they don't play their character in a fitting way. I switch off Dming with guy in the group and TWICE once in each of our campaigns we have had to change my brothers characters alignment from CG to CN and once it nearly went a step further going from CN to CE. Its not about forcing them to play a certain way they can play a character however they want but if they play a certain way they have to understand it changes how their character is perceived.
If someone is LG and just starts killing people or stealing then give them consequences, if a Cleric kills someone, maybe their god looks down on them and judges them - give them bad luck, so they have disadvantage on certain rolls until they make good to their deity.
A Paladin / Warlock etc same kind of deal. Harder for other classes but am sure people get the idea.
The locals/town/city know they murdered someone so then they are wanted by the city guard and have a bounty to repay.
As someone mentioned their alignment affects how people see them, if they go doing bad stuff why would they repay them or reward them at the end of a quest, maybe its a reduced amount. The DM doesnt need to tell them they are getting less than they would of, etc.
If they are RP'ing alignment to me is a guide on how they should be acting. My cleric accidentally killed an innocent, my DM didnt punish me like the above but I knew that the character would be devastated so over the next few in game days/week he was less likely to attack in case he hurt someone innocent etc.
I always say that a player should be playing a character and not an alignment.
I agree with you here. I'm trying to use alignment as a tool to help this group of new players understand their characters, and as a means of helping them understand how their characters react in a given situation. The only exposure to RP these guys have is basically Skyrim-style video games, where the repercussions for misbehaving are relatively minor and don't impact the game that much. So when they come into the village in our game, they start to behave the way they do in the video game, which is usually pretty antisocial lol. So, I feel like first of all, I need to help them see that no reasonably-stable person behaves that way. You don't walk into Best Buy and expect that you can grab some merch, punch the clerks in the face, and run away without any real repercussions. So basically I want to break some bad habits, and I feel like alignment is one way to do it. And if you want to choose an alignment that "allows" you to be a psychopath, NPCs will react to them the same way real people react to psychopaths; by avoiding them at all costs.
If someone is LG and just starts killing people or stealing then give them consequences, if a Cleric kills someone, maybe their god looks down on them and judges them - give them bad luck, so they have disadvantage on certain rolls until they make good to their deity.
A Paladin / Warlock etc same kind of deal. Harder for other classes but am sure people get the idea.
The locals/town/city know they murdered someone so then they are wanted by the city guard and have a bounty to repay.
As someone mentioned their alignment affects how people see them, if they go doing bad stuff why would they repay them or reward them at the end of a quest, maybe its a reduced amount. The DM doesnt need to tell them they are getting less than they would of, etc.
If they are RP'ing alignment to me is a guide on how they should be acting. My cleric accidentally killed an innocent, my DM didnt punish me like the above but I knew that the character would be devastated so over the next few in game days/week he was less likely to attack in case he hurt someone innocent etc.
I've been thinking about this, and I think one option I may take is that when they come back to town maybe the owner of the general store (who they've been... unkind to) has the town watch there to make sure there's no trouble, and doesn't let the worst offenders in. It won't keep them from being able to continue in the story, but at least there's a deterrent there. I don't know, I'm still mulling it over.
I like the idea of filling in alignment after a few sessions, after your players actually figure out how they want to play (especially being new players). My first time as a player I had this idea that I wanted to run with, then when it came time to actually play I found myself doing other things that didn't fit, and realized that seemed way more fun, so my alignment didn't fit. That idea fixes that issue.
As far as being the DM and enforcing alignment, I will never stop a player and be like "You can't do that because you're good" -- good people sometimes make "evil" choices if they seem justified. I might give a warning if it seems super out of place, or like a "are you sure you want to do that?" statement, but allow it if it is what they want to do. Also, evil characters might truly believe they are the good guy (look at Vader, he's really just trying to save everyone he cares about). However, actions have consequences, so while a player might consider themselves LG, if they are breaking laws and killing innocents they world will react to that. In a particularly lawful good town, rumors might spread about the "evil" group passing through town, and subsequently shop prices might rise, or some vendors might not be willing to speak with the group at all. In a town with much less order and heavy in dark dealings, the group might get approached and gain opportunities from it, and who knows they could eventually find themselves working for a beholder under Waterdeep, unbeknownst to them.
Also as mentioned, in the case of a cleric/paladin/warlock that kind of depends on an alignment/deity/pact, if they act out of that bond consistently, there could be repercussions for those actions. Maybe it starts with something like a negative added to their die rolls (i.e. all heals now have a -1d4 or are done with disadvantage). If things get really bad and out of alignment maybe their deity abandons them, and perhaps even another deity approaches them because of it (offering them the chance to change their path).
I like the idea of filling in alignment after a few sessions, after your players actually figure out how they want to play (especially being new players). My first time as a player I had this idea that I wanted to run with, then when it came time to actually play I found myself doing other things that didn't fit, and realized that seemed way more fun, so my alignment didn't fit. That idea fixes that issue.
As far as being the DM and enforcing alignment, I will never stop a player and be like "You can't do that because you're good" -- good people sometimes make "evil" choices if they seem justified. I might give a warning if it seems super out of place, or like a "are you sure you want to do that?" statement, but allow it if it is what they want to do. Also, evil characters might truly believe they are the good guy (look at Vader, he's really just trying to save everyone he cares about). However, actions have consequences, so while a player might consider themselves LG, if they are breaking laws and killing innocents they world will react to that. In a particularly lawful good town, rumors might spread about the "evil" group passing through town, and subsequently shop prices might rise, or some vendors might not be willing to speak with the group at all. In a town with much less order and heavy in dark dealings, the group might get approached and gain opportunities from it, and who knows they could eventually find themselves working for a beholder under Waterdeep, unbeknownst to them.
Also as mentioned, in the case of a cleric/paladin/warlock that kind of depends on an alignment/deity/pact, if they act out of that bond consistently, there could be repercussions for those actions. Maybe it starts with something like a negative added to their die rolls (i.e. all heals now have a -1d4 or are done with disadvantage). If things get really bad and out of alignment maybe their deity abandons them, and perhaps even another deity approaches them because of it (offering them the chance to change their path).
I'm definitely open to allowing the players to change things about their characters. Without going too far into details, now that they've got a bunch of sessions under their belts and understand the game a bit more, several of them have made backup characters that are different classes from their original decision, because they initially made choices about race and class just based on a very vague understanding. So I'm totally down if someone wants to switch from LG to maybe CG or whatever. What I'm more focused on is getting them to a point where they have put some thought and time into the nature of their character, so that they are able to RP the character in a way that's fun and interesting. It's hard to RP when all you have to go on is "high elf wizard" and you don't have anything to go on beyond what the PHB describes about high elves, wizards, and whatever background options you chose. Since that's hard to do, it ends up not being fun, and the result is no one wants to RP beyond the most basic types of interactions.
In terms of the in-game consequences, I'm not looking for a hammer to beat them with when they get out of line, so much as looking for ways that demonstrate the in-game results of behavior, and giving a guideline for how a character would behave.
I let them pick, and give them a reminder once in a while if they're going way off their chosen path. However, if they are consistently diverging from their alignment, I'll tell them to change it on their paper. As a group that's blossoming with their roleplaying, they see it as interesting character progression and trust me to be fair about it. In time, hopefully they'll start telling me when their alignment shifts due to change or turmoil in the campaign.
The only thing I ever say about alignment is don't be evil because I'm not running an evil campaign.
Alignment should be what people describe you as because of your actions. Alignment SHOULD NOT, I repeat, SHOULD NOT determine what actions you will be taking. Never let alignment say well you're lawful good so you HAVE to follow the law and give all your money to the poor. You're described as lawful good because you WANT to be an upstanding citizen that doesn't break the law and donates to the poor.
I'm having trouble getting my group of new players to grasp the "R" part of RPG. I'm sure part of that is due to the fact that in addition to them being new players, I'm also a new DM (started LMoP earlier this summer). I've tried a few times to get them out of the metagaming habit and to try out some RP, if only just to see if they like it. Anyway, it seems one of the RP things I'm having a hard time getting them to keep in mind is their character's alignment. The party is basically a mix of the Good alignments, with one player who *really* wanted to be true neutral. I allowed it, but boy am I regretting it. Anyway, the group often drifts away from their alignments (with the exception of the N player, it's become his excuse to basically behave like a psychopath). I find myself frequently reminding them to play their alignment.
So now that I've gotten the complaining out of the way, would you guys say that forcing new players to play their alignment more strictly is a good idea, or should I allow them to do other things, with a mind to them maybe seeing that in the future they should pick different alignments?
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
The N/N PC should probably be C/N. Other than that little detail, I would suggest making sure they know what their alignment means.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
If I may suggest this:
If they are still at the beginning of the adventure, let them leave the box "Alignment" blank. Do not make write anything in it. Then, after some sessions, based on their actions in the game, you "suggest" the proper alignment to write in it.
Understanding alignment - what it does mean, and what it doesn't - is one of the most difficult parts of the D&D game (at least, it seems so, considering how often misunderstandings happen and misconceptions get perpetuated).
Which is why the best course of action to repair any issues that are occurring with alignment is to sit the whole group down and have a conversation - not about who's right and who's wrong, but about finding a shared understanding of what alignment is going to mean for your group and how your group are going to use it going forward (even, or perhaps especially, if the result of that conversation is finding out that your group of players don't want anything to do with your particular ideas of what alignment is/should be).
Don't forget to reward them for roleplaying their ideals, traits, bonds, flaws with Inspiration. Put them in situations where you will have the opportunity to do so.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
Lists/charts like that are not really all that helpful, in my opinion, because the characters put into them are wide open for interpretation - especially the comic-book ones, since each of those has a bunch of different "this is how this person is" variants over all the years they've been around and all the different authors that have written them. You can basically fit any fictional character from a book, film, or comic, into any of the D&D alignments if you put your mind to it.
So I think it's better to just talk about the alignments themselves and what they mean, and once your group are able to find the meaning of alignments that they can agree upon, they'll have their own ideas of which characters fit where.
For an example of how rough it can be to use established characters as examples before coming to agreement on what alignment means: The Punisher is Chaotic Good - he does things his own way and according to his own sense of right and wrong and doesn't care what anyone thinks about him for it, but he's not doing it for himself, he's saving the world from (other) criminals one murder spree at a time.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
I'm not what I would call strict but I will tell players to change alignment if they don't play their character in a fitting way. I switch off Dming with guy in the group and TWICE once in each of our campaigns we have had to change my brothers characters alignment from CG to CN and once it nearly went a step further going from CN to CE. Its not about forcing them to play a certain way they can play a character however they want but if they play a certain way they have to understand it changes how their character is perceived.
I always say that a player should be playing a character and not an alignment.
Raymond E. Walter
boons & consequences!
If someone is LG and just starts killing people or stealing then give them consequences, if a Cleric kills someone, maybe their god looks down on them and judges them - give them bad luck, so they have disadvantage on certain rolls until they make good to their deity.
A Paladin / Warlock etc same kind of deal. Harder for other classes but am sure people get the idea.
The locals/town/city know they murdered someone so then they are wanted by the city guard and have a bounty to repay.
As someone mentioned their alignment affects how people see them, if they go doing bad stuff why would they repay them or reward them at the end of a quest, maybe its a reduced amount. The DM doesnt need to tell them they are getting less than they would of, etc.
If they are RP'ing alignment to me is a guide on how they should be acting. My cleric accidentally killed an innocent, my DM didnt punish me like the above but I knew that the character would be devastated so over the next few in game days/week he was less likely to attack in case he hurt someone innocent etc.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
I like the idea of filling in alignment after a few sessions, after your players actually figure out how they want to play (especially being new players). My first time as a player I had this idea that I wanted to run with, then when it came time to actually play I found myself doing other things that didn't fit, and realized that seemed way more fun, so my alignment didn't fit. That idea fixes that issue.
As far as being the DM and enforcing alignment, I will never stop a player and be like "You can't do that because you're good" -- good people sometimes make "evil" choices if they seem justified. I might give a warning if it seems super out of place, or like a "are you sure you want to do that?" statement, but allow it if it is what they want to do. Also, evil characters might truly believe they are the good guy (look at Vader, he's really just trying to save everyone he cares about). However, actions have consequences, so while a player might consider themselves LG, if they are breaking laws and killing innocents they world will react to that. In a particularly lawful good town, rumors might spread about the "evil" group passing through town, and subsequently shop prices might rise, or some vendors might not be willing to speak with the group at all. In a town with much less order and heavy in dark dealings, the group might get approached and gain opportunities from it, and who knows they could eventually find themselves working for a beholder under Waterdeep, unbeknownst to them.
Also as mentioned, in the case of a cleric/paladin/warlock that kind of depends on an alignment/deity/pact, if they act out of that bond consistently, there could be repercussions for those actions. Maybe it starts with something like a negative added to their die rolls (i.e. all heals now have a -1d4 or are done with disadvantage). If things get really bad and out of alignment maybe their deity abandons them, and perhaps even another deity approaches them because of it (offering them the chance to change their path).
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
I let them pick, and give them a reminder once in a while if they're going way off their chosen path. However, if they are consistently diverging from their alignment, I'll tell them to change it on their paper. As a group that's blossoming with their roleplaying, they see it as interesting character progression and trust me to be fair about it. In time, hopefully they'll start telling me when their alignment shifts due to change or turmoil in the campaign.
#OpenDnD. #DnDBegone
The only thing I ever say about alignment is don't be evil because I'm not running an evil campaign.
Alignment should be what people describe you as because of your actions. Alignment SHOULD NOT, I repeat, SHOULD NOT determine what actions you will be taking. Never let alignment say well you're lawful good so you HAVE to follow the law and give all your money to the poor. You're described as lawful good because you WANT to be an upstanding citizen that doesn't break the law and donates to the poor.
I've thrown out alignment completely and have regularly used the space on the character sheet to crack jokes