So we've been playing a game with our gm for a bit now, and the "party" as usual consists of a ragtag group of nitwits, I play an astral fist monk trying to be basically a stand-user from jojo, then we have a druid (tainted by an obsession with gold and booze) ad cavalier fighter who is obsessed with getting people to join his "fight club" so he can beat them up, an alchemist who regularly sets things on fire and specializes in making explosives, and a bard who does little but stand their and regret his decisions.

But then there is this other guy who is really into roleplay and I like that. The dm explains he's been living in the town we've been working in for ten years and operates a kind of bonesetters clinic near a dwarven mine. The clinic is kinda ramshackle and made from whatever the miners left behind and the player is often clearly impoverished spending his gold on fluff things for roleplay like medicine kits and ether for his patients. Turns out though he was a necromancer but was using his magic to better understand the human body so he could help people better, his assistant was actually a skeleton in disguise. He's been hiding his magic because the town doesn't tolerate necromancy and considerers it evil and a taboo crime.

His character has interacted with us many times but he's not friendly, mostly it happens when the dm has the fighters character deliberately injure someone who is then "enthusiastically" recommended to the players business which they seem aggravated by. He has so far provided support but hasn't been very helpful as an adventurer, focused more on their business.

At one point, however, the dm tried for force the player to help the party by blackmailing the player into working on a known criminal as a way to reveal to the party he was a necromancer (which happened because of forced combat last week)[players knew/characters didn't kind of thing]. He ended up heling the crminal without a second though or even asking for pay, when the fighter and druid couldn't get him materials for a splint fast enough he broke his own quarterstaff (his only weapon) and made a split out of it. This stunned the dm, especially when he made the comment that he had taken the "hypocratic oath".

Despite his actions, last week when his necromancy was revealed to the party the fighter (who hates undead and necromancy) started shit with the necromancer who made a comment about how  "at last I'm trying to be lawful good, you keep hurting people because you can't or won't control your own strength!"

The dm made a comment about how the necromancer wasn't acting "lawful good" and in fact hadn't been acting good at all and the player disagreed, citing his action thus far, the dm instead made a comment about him cherry picking details and said it was the dms final decision what alignment a character is.

I feel he was at least acting the most good out of all of us, but the dm says that because he is running a business and asks for money for his services his helping people is lawful neutral. But he only seemed to be adamant about money when the dm forced the fighter to hurt someone (accidentally). What's your opinions.

Without hearing or seeing more. I’d guess N for sure as he is fine going either way, bringing back dead with necromancy magic, but trying to help people. Not sure if possibly L/N. Has his own code but drifts both sides of the line. 

I question Lawful Goodness when the character is willing to take actions knowing how others feel about such actions, going as far as to hide such taboo things - a willful deception.

The intent to do Good at all costs without deception is more Lawful to me. Add deception and that moves the needle quite a bit for me.

Yet... I despise the 2-axis, this-or-that alignment method. I welcome players to put people into such boxes, though, including each other. I would not interfere in the judgments of character between players' character, but I would also consider direct 5e Alignment discussions to be metaknowledge. Someone claiming to be Lawful Good would be OOC to me.

He needs money to be able to continue his practice, unless he’s independently wealthy (definitely not the case, going by your description). Good would be charging no more than necessary and letting the poor slide on their bills. Evil would be overcharging, and helping patients just enough that they will have to come back for more treatment (or even not really treating them at all). Neutral would be charging enough to earn a fair wages and treating all patients equally regardless of their financial means. As far as I can tell with the info provided, the character is at least trying to be good, rather than merely neutral.

Not that it really matters a whole lot in 5E. Alignment isn’t all that strict in this edition and only a few mechanics even impose limitations on how characters act.

it was the dms final decision what alignment a character is.

People can and will argue about what actions constitute which alignment until the end of time, but this line is absolutely wrong. The DM does not have control over player characters. The player absolutely decides what their alignment is. If the DM wishes to change their alignment due to their actions, that needs to be put up front - "I don't feel that this action matches your alignment, if you go through with this you will need to change to X alignment because your actions have Y consequences."

But this isn't going to work if you can't get on the same page about alignment in the first place. Many tables deal with this by just not using alignment. The game works fine without it - you can still have consequences for actions and point out when a character is acting against their stated principles without saying something like "you're not being lawful good right now."

On another note, the DM shouldn't need to force the player to work with the party. If he wants to run his business instead of adventuring, he can play Business Simulator by himself and not waste everyone else's time. D&D requires some understandings amongst the players, and one of them is that it is a team game and they need to figure out a reason to work together. 

He's been hiding his magic because the town doesn't tolerate necromancy and considerers it evil and a taboo crime.

This is not Lawful. A Lawful character would not secretly break the taboos, laws, and mores of a local area just because he or she doesn't like them. Stand up in front of them and say "you are wrong and here is why" and take his lumps, yes. Hide it from everyone because he thinks he knows better than the town's law-giver or what have you, no. Using AD&D DMG (which does a better job of defining alignment than most published work since), lawfulness supports group over individual. Hiding what you're doing to break the rules is not supporting the group over the individual. Even the act of setting bones/healing using a "taboo" practice -- this is helping an individual, over the will of the group. That is listed, in the AD&D DMG, as Chaotic. At best, I would say Neutral on the L/C axis, certainly not lawful. I'd probably personally define this as Chaotic behavior.

He ended up heling the crminal without a second though or even asking for pay, when the fighter and druid couldn't get him materials for a splint fast enough he broke his own quarterstaff (his only weapon) and made a split out of it. This stunned the dm, especially when he made the comment that he had taken the "hypocratic oath".

This action appears good to me, though I am not 100% clear on the exact details of the story. Your account is a little confusing. Some of the other actions seem more Neutral-ish.

I would probably vote like Hale, true N or I might even go CG or CN for this character, but not LG, if I had to write down what alignment your story telegraphs to me.

the dm instead made a comment about him cherry picking details and said it was the dms final decision what alignment a character is

Old school D&D, the DM is 100% correct. The AD&D DMG clearly states that the DM is to track character actions, even suggesting to graph them on a chart, from whatever the starting alignment is, and the DM is to inform the player when the character has shifted into a different alignment. Present-day 5e DMG doesn't even have the world alignment in it, as far as I could find (it's not in the index of the HC version, at least), and the 5e PHB gives only a fleeting mention of them -- and never discusses how they should be assigned, if they can change, or under what circumstances alignment should be determined when in dispute.

Since 5e does not address the situation (as far as I know) of what happens when a DM disagrees with a player about what alignment a character's behavior fits, and the original source says the DM determines it, I'm gonna go with the DM on this and say that the DM has the right to say that as he/she interprets it, the alignment is LN (though I do not agree with that interpretation -- I still recognize the DM's authority to make it).

Dm's can't choose the characters alignment, only players can. Besides the alignment system is shoddy and should be thrown out, or put less importance on. 9 options shouldn't be able to define a character.

Quote from ThalaiDawncaller >>

Dm's can't choose the characters alignment, only players can. 

Where in the rules does it say that? In 5e, as far as I can find, DMG is mute on the subject and PHB says only this (other than defining, often poorly, the 9 alignments). QUOTE:

A typical creature in the game world has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations.

These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.

That is it, in RAW, that I could find. It says a typical creature has an alignment. It says alignment combines two factors (axes). It says there are nine combos. It says that individuals of a given alignment may vary.

Where in the text of the alignment rules does it say the DM can't determine alignment, and only players can? I don't see that anywhere. For instance, just above that on the same section, it says, quote, "You choose your character’s age and the color of his or her hair, eyes, and skin." It does not say "you choose your character's alignment." It most especially does not say, "And the DM has no say in it one way or the other."

There are no rules at all, that I can find, in terms of RAW, one way or the other regarding who has a say in what alignment the character is. By tradition, most tables either ignore alignment, or have the player choose, but that is not a requirement. Also by tradition, a DM has always had the authority to overrule what a player says. Players have never been considered free to put down "lawful good" as an alignment and then have the character act clearly and overtly chaotic evil, and not face any commentary (and usually way more) from the DM and other players.

Matt Colville even has a story about a player who had an alignment of, I think, either N or CN, and the player did so many evil things, Colville actually took his paper character sheet away from him, erased the "neutral" part and wrote "evil."  When the player started to object, Colville said 2 things, according to him: (1) your character is clearly evil, not neutral, and (2) as a DM, I have the final say in how alignment is interpreted in my game.

By tradition, the DM has always had the responsibility to track PC behavior relative to alignment, and the authority to impose an alignment change on the character sheet, if the PC's behavior warranted it. Since the 5e rules say nothing one way or the other about this, I submit that tradition gives any DM who wants it, the right to declare the PC's alignment as being different from what the player says it is. 

Another way to think about this is: the DM is everything in the world except the PCs. The DM is the arbiter of how the universe sees your character. If the DM sees your guy as LE, then that means that the gods, the cosmic forces, the universe, magic items that can only be attuned by non-evil PCs, etc., see your PC that way. The player only declares how he wants the PC to be seen. If he doesn't act the way he says he wants to be seen, the DM is not under any obligation to have the universe see the PC that way.

Quote from BioWizard >>

Quote from ThalaiDawncaller >>

Dm's can't choose the characters alignment, only players can. 

 

Where in the rules does it say that? In 5e, as far as I can find, DMG is mute on the subject and PHB says only this (other than defining, often poorly, the 9 alignments). QUOTE:

A typical creature in the game world has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations.

These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.

That is it, in RAW, that I could find. It says a typical creature has an alignment. It says alignment combines two factors (axes). It says there are nine combos. It says that individuals of a given alignment may vary.

Where in the text of the alignment rules does it say the DM can't determine alignment, and only players can? I don't see that anywhere. For instance, just above that on the same section, it says, quote, "You choose your character’s age and the color of his or her hair, eyes, and skin." It does not say "you choose your character's alignment." It most especially does not say, "And the DM has no say in it one way or the other."

There are no rules at all, that I can find, in terms of RAW, one way or the other regarding who has a say in what alignment the character is. By tradition, most tables either ignore alignment, or have the player choose, but that is not a requirement. Also by tradition, a DM has always had the authority to overrule what a player says. Players have never been considered free to put down "lawful good" as an alignment and then have the character act clearly and overtly chaotic evil, and not face any commentary (and usually way more) from the DM and other players.

Matt Colville even has a story about a player who had an alignment of, I think, either N or CN, and the player did so many evil things, Colville actually took his paper character sheet away from him, erased the "neutral" part and wrote "evil."  When the player started to object, Colville said 2 things, according to him: (1) your character is clearly evil, not neutral, and (2) as a DM, I have the final say in how alignment is interpreted in my game.

By tradition, the DM has always had the responsibility to track PC behavior relative to alignment, and the authority to impose an alignment change on the character sheet, if the PC's behavior warranted it. Since the 5e rules say nothing one way or the other about this, I submit that tradition gives any DM who wants it, the right to declare the PC's alignment as being different from what the player says it is. 

Another way to think about this is: the DM is everything in the world except the PCs. The DM is the arbiter of how the universe sees your character. If the DM sees your guy as LE, then that means that the gods, the cosmic forces, the universe, magic items that can only be attuned by non-evil PCs, etc., see your PC that way. The player only declares how he wants the PC to be seen. If he doesn't act the way he says he wants to be seen, the DM is not under any obligation to have the universe see the PC that way.

 Huh, sorry, I have no idea where I got it into my head but I guess I have no idea what I'm talking about. Thanks!

I never knew that a DM could assign alignment essentially. I always thought it was the choice of the player upon creation, but the DM could enforce a change of alignment if the PC's behavior calls for it. 

Always learning! :D

The DM can tell you that you are not acting according to alignment and can state that your alignment has changed based on your actions.  Although I guess that is the same as "assigning" alignment, it is not meant to be an arbitrary power. The DM is essentially evaluating your PC actions.

According to the 1st edition AD&D DMG, the player sets the initial alignment but after that, the DM is supposed to keep a record of all PC behaviors related to alignment and then assess/respond. From pg. 25 of the original AD&D DMG (bold emphasis mine):  

It is of importance to keep track of player character behavior with respect to their professed alignment. Actions do speak far more eloquently than professions, and each activity of a player character should reflect his or her alignment. If a professed lawful evil character is consistently seeking to be helpful and is respecting the lesser creatures, he or she is certainly tending towards good, while if he or she ignores regulations and consistent behavior the trend is towards chaotic alignment... Such drift should be noted by you (the DM), and when it takes the individual into a new alignment area, you should then inform the player that his or her character has changed alignment.

This clearly gives full power to the DM to adjudicate alignment. I know it is not 5e, but as the 5e rules say nothing one way or the other about how behavior vs. professed alignment should be handled, precedent says that the DM is in charge of this. Again, the DM decides how the universe views PC actions, so if the DM says you are acting evil, then the universe will consider you evil, and act accordingly (e.g., a lawful good artifact or relic may fail to submit to your control).

I'm partially concerned by some of the answers here. The necromancer is by far the best roleplayer of the six of us and was quite bothered by being told his work in helping people wasn't considered good. Granted the rest of us typically make grade A fools of ourselves wherever we go (chaotic stupid in  way) but his character was genuinely trying to do good I think. He was often irritated when the dm would have the fighter "accidentally" crush a mans hand or break a mans leg just to send him to the necromancer.

When he was revealed to be a necromancer and the fighter did make a spiel of it, it seemed like the necromancer had anticipated it at least because he kind of had a bit of a monologue prepared which was really cool, something about it being just as evil to burn a man alive with a fireball, or control their will with enchantment magic, or poison them with gas bombs, or break an innocents mans leg, but that because he knew necromancy he was just a criminal hands down because people are afraid of magic. He made some really cool points. (which was all in character, he's okay with being ousted as a necromancer I think, just not we being told he's not acting good)

To be fair the campaign we are working with is kind of slap-dashed together (the dm is not very experienced) and seems to feature more plot hooks for the druid and the fighter than the rest of us who are kind of just along for the ride. There were no real reasons for my monk, the bard, the artificer or the necromancer to even go on any of the quests but we went because we just followed the dms prompts.

 The necromancer is by far the best roleplayer of the six of us and was quite bothered by being told his work in helping people wasn't considered good. 

Was he told that? Your OP says the DM claimed he was "cherry picking details" (your words). Was he?

Helping people is good, yes. It is hard to tell from your description of things, which was rather disorganized to be blunt, whether the necromancer was doing that all the time or was sometimes doing that and sometimes doing other things.

However, I would say that the necromancer is clearly not lawful. NG or CG maybe. LG, no. A lawful character would not do all this stuff "under the table" by definition.

Quote from scatterbraind >>

People can and will argue about what actions constitute which alignment until the end of time, but this line is absolutely wrong. The DM does not have control over player characters. The player absolutely decides what their alignment is.

I disagree.

Players have control over their characters' actions (discounting magical compulsion and the like).

However, if the actions of a character broadly add up to an alignment different to what the player has written on the character sheet then the GM can (and should) treat the character as their real alignment.

In short, if your character has a pattern of acting evil (a pattern - not just one or two isolated events) then your character is evil. 

Or to put it another way, it doesn't matter what you have written at the top of your character sheet. Actions determine alignment.

It's more of an experience with the guy, he stays in character, writes backstories and the whole nine yards. I've played with him for a few years. In comparison the druid just plays the same character every campaign (most of the time a ranger, sometimes a druid or similar archetype like a green paladin) but doesn't really stay in character or work on backstory except for when we played 4e, and the dm has a habit of "building" characters for players instead of letting them make their own which has made it hard to roleplay since some of the players have little decision in how the character backgrounds are built or written. The exceptions are myself and the neromancer.

In general while the necromancers character hasn't exactly been friendly nothing he has done has been especially malicious the game through so far. I don't feel he has been cherry picking details at all. He didn't build his character for combat and he has basically just spent the entire time helping people who get hurt in the mine. He hasn't really even used magic in the presence of other unless the dm has tried to force his hand. Keep in mind Spare the Dying is necromancy despite it's positive benefits and applications, and he hasn't even used that, opting instead for mostly using medicine kits and the like to heal people.

He hasn't hurt a single person (except the one time when he had to rebreak a bone to set it right) and he hasn't made use of any malicious magic for his own benefit, I think he's going for a secret outcast with forbidden knowledge kind of archetype, where he knows things he should but doesn't use that knowledge because the community would not approve of it.

Also, in my understanding of Lawful (predominantly from 4e) it was understood that lawful characters did not necessarily consider the law of the land to be most sacred or important but that they needed to have a rigid and clearly defined code of ethics or the like that they would follow (i.e. a paladins code or a monks teachings)

I would say it depends greatly on the setting.  By default, necromancy (as in animate dead) is undeniably evil, you're channeling negative energy to create a foul mockery of life that will attempt to kill anyone it can.  Now if you're a "necromancer" that simply specializes in that school of magic rather than the common connotation of the word, it is entirely reasonable for you to be good.  Alternately, if the world is one where necromancy isn't inherently evil, it would also be reasonable to be a good necromancer.

As for law v chaos, do you tend to plan ahead or react to circumstances?

Lawful characters make an effort to follow laws.  But they're not mindless constructs that are compelled to do so all the time even to their own detriment.  In a kingdom where necromancy is a crime that's automatically punishable by death or indefinite incarceration, a lawful good necromancer is not compelled to simply turn themselves in.  They can even lie to authorities and claim that they're not necromancers.  Lawful good is not lawful stupid.

Quote from MrPC0X >>

So we've been playing a game with our gm for a bit now, and the "party" as usual consists of a ragtag group of nitwits, I play an astral fist monk trying to be basically a stand-user from jojo, then we have a druid (tainted by an obsession with gold and booze) ad cavalier fighter who is obsessed with getting people to join his "fight club" so he can beat them up, an alchemist who regularly sets things on fire and specializes in making explosives, and a bard who does little but stand their and regret his decisions.

But then there is this other guy who is really into roleplay and I like that. The dm explains he's been living in the town we've been working in for ten years and operates a kind of bonesetters clinic near a dwarven mine. The clinic is kinda ramshackle and made from whatever the miners left behind and the player is often clearly impoverished spending his gold on fluff things for roleplay like medicine kits and ether for his patients. Turns out though he was a necromancer but was using his magic to better understand the human body so he could help people better, his assistant was actually a skeleton in disguise. He's been hiding his magic because the town doesn't tolerate necromancy and considerers it evil and a taboo crime.

His character has interacted with us many times but he's not friendly, mostly it happens when the dm has the fighters character deliberately injure someone who is then "enthusiastically" recommended to the players business which they seem aggravated by. He has so far provided support but hasn't been very helpful as an adventurer, focused more on their business.

At one point, however, the dm tried for force the player to help the party by blackmailing the player into working on a known criminal as a way to reveal to the party he was a necromancer (which happened because of forced combat last week)[players knew/characters didn't kind of thing]. He ended up heling the crminal without a second though or even asking for pay, when the fighter and druid couldn't get him materials for a splint fast enough he broke his own quarterstaff (his only weapon) and made a split out of it. This stunned the dm, especially when he made the comment that he had taken the "hypocratic oath".

Despite his actions, last week when his necromancy was revealed to the party the fighter (who hates undead and necromancy) started shit with the necromancer who made a comment about how  "at last I'm trying to be lawful good, you keep hurting people because you can't or won't control your own strength!"

The dm made a comment about how the necromancer wasn't acting "lawful good" and in fact hadn't been acting good at all and the player disagreed, citing his action thus far, the dm instead made a comment about him cherry picking details and said it was the dms final decision what alignment a character is.

I feel he was at least acting the most good out of all of us, but the dm says that because he is running a business and asks for money for his services his helping people is lawful neutral. But he only seemed to be adamant about money when the dm forced the fighter to hurt someone (accidentally). What's your opinions.

Taking money for your services isn't a neutral act. That's ridiculous.  He sounds like he was being well in rounds of good. The DM sounds a bit like a jerk, to be honest. Yeah, I suppose he does have final say on alignments, but it sounds like he's trying to pick a fight. If he was like...poisoning villagers so they'd pay him more? Sure, alignment shift. If he's ... trying to keep his business profitable and feed himself? Oh no, that couldn't possibly be good. It's not like operating a clinic costs money or anything.

Quote from Lunali >>

I would say it depends greatly on the setting.  By default, necromancy (as in animate dead) is undeniably evil, you're channeling negative energy to create a foul mockery of life that will attempt to kill anyone it can.  Now if you're a "necromancer" that simply specializes in that school of magic rather than the common connotation of the word, it is entirely reasonable for you to be good.  Alternately, if the world is one where necromancy isn't inherently evil, it would also be reasonable to be a good necromancer.

As for law v chaos, do you tend to plan ahead or react to circumstances?

 Necromancy is a school of magic. It's neither evil nor good. It's does things. Revivify, Raise Dead, Resurrection and True Resurrection are all necromantic. Are they evil acts as well? So many spells exist only to kill and would likely cause immense suffering and pain. Are they too not evil by default? How is evokation not a morally dubious school of magic? What's the rule for which spells are evil and which are good? And if you can't draw a line that can be rationally applied to spells as a metric of innate goodness or evilness, are you pronouncements of good and evil purely arbitrary?

I know of a DM whose told the players to just ignore alignment on their sheets so the players won't feel tied down to act a certain way. I know of another DM who told the players not to put anything in alignment.

In either setting, optional planar rules aren't going to be used and Alignment-aligned artifacts don't exist in those settings.

For one of those settings, it's impossible to have Alignment at all since the world and the player characters are based on a fictional MMORPG, but the DM has made it known that their actions are being tracked for reputation purposes. The other setting I mentioned is also significantly affected by reputation.

Alignment will be as important as the group decides it to be.

I like the reputation systems mentioned above to be so much better than maintaining Alignments. The DMG has some optional rules regarding reputation with NPC minions of the party, but that's not quite the same thing in the above campaign settings.

(In both settings I mentioned, the parties' reputations are poor. In the MMO setting, they've been framed by a powerful political NPC in the realm. In the other, they try to do good, bless their hearts, but they're terrible at it. They're known for causing more problems than they solve. It's awesome to see.)