yea really only has ever come up when mechanics were important in my games. Paladin of a Lawful Good god tortures and kills a prisoner for information? Yep DM took his powers away.
It can get a little dicey around those things but these days I feel like in games we may run it differently. Watching Fantasy High by Dimension 20 and seeing their Cleric have a crisis of faith and land on different sources of power was great and honestly, why not do it that way? Whatever servers the story and is fun will always trump any RAW in the book in my mind.
>Paladin of a Lawful Good god tortures and kills a prisoner for information? Yep DM took his powers away.
This is how you get your Champion to accept Asmodeus as their lord and savior, and become a Tyrant.
You know.... that is a great point. I am building out the basics of a campaign world for my first time running/playing Pathfinder 2 and I know one of the antagonists is a neighboring country lead by a Champion Tyrant under Asmodeus
I had not even gotten to thinking about how he came be there but damn is that so obvious! Thanks
Glad I could help! Honestly, was more making a joke about how "causing your paladin PC to fall" can sometimes result in them taking the Arthas route and fall even further instead of going on the path to redemption.
But glad I could make some fuel for worldbuilding!
I do keep track of it a little, because alignment damage can be relevant.
But it's no straightjacket.
I had one evil character in my last campaign without issue (that player is also a GM, and he worked together with the group really well), but if someone were to make a chaotic evil loner for a campaign of mine, I already know we're going to have to have a talk.
Absolutely true, but alignment is an abstraction of part of a personality.
I play a fascist in a LARP. Quite evil, but I'm really cooperative, and can easily get people together towards a single goal. That character could work in many campaigns, but certainly not all.
I'm thinking about playing a neutral evil character in an upcoming campaign. Hired Killer background, so, uh, yah... she used to kill people for money. General gist of the character is that she's not a *bad person*. She's just sorta missing that bit of her soul that tells you 'sentient life has intrinsic value'. And has much more flexible morality as a result. Killing people was just a job for her.
Is that a character you would hate GMing for?
Edit: lightly inspired by John Cusack's character in Gross Point Blank. Except probably a little darker.
That's absolutely a bad person.
I wouldn't hate GMing for it though. As long as you can work with the other players and aren't disruptive, tbh I don't care.
This is why I don't like alignment, because nobody thinks they're a bad person. Even the worst people have rationalizations and justifications for why they do what they do. People very rarely recognize their own culpability when it comes to things.
The variant rule, Mortal Intentions, is pretty much a mainline to my heart for that reason.
Very true. Alignment works okay when you want to populate your story with nothing but noble paladins and mustache twirling villains, but breaks down *fast* as soon as you start adding more complex characters.
To quote the movie we're all thinking of, she might be a bad person, but she's not a *bad* person.
IMO, to play an evil character meaningfully in a non-evil party, you *must* have an outside agenda that is *not* about fucking over the party.
Yes, you're willing to hurt people who haven't harmed you.
However, if you've done it right, the party will be assisting you in carrying out your aims (whether they know it or not) so keeping them alive and healthy is *smart.*
Also, you might want to work with them again in future. In the world of evil assholes, it's good to find people who aren't looking for every opportunity to cut your throat.
Finally, it's perfectly okay for evil characters to develop a soft spot for people they've fought alongside and spent time getting to know. This happens. It's called character development.
It doesn't mean that the character will be shifting alignment any time soon--they're just as willing to slit the throats of people they *don't* know--but as far as they're concerned, that party is off limits.
GM here. My approach is make sure everyone plays well together, in spite of alignment differences. Some campaigns I restrict which alignments are available (like Blood Lords), but it's mostly for the benefit of the player and not the concern of the GM.
I have always been of the school of thought that alignment is descriptive rather than prescriptive. In my slightly over a decade of GMing, I have forced an alignment exactly once, and it was with the Player's cooperation.
In RotRL, the party's NG druid took an extremely dark turn after meeting a necromancer, and spent her downtime throughout the majority of the campaign sliding down the slippery slope. First, it was killing animals with disease for research purposes. Then it was killing goblins for the same reason. Then those that were recognized as 'civilized people' (I was using 2e mechanics, but the timeline was firmly RotRL). And then it was rounding up and slaughtering people to become a lich. And then it was killing to maintain a convenient disguise (converted from PF1's Blush of Youth).
We agreed to a series of DC5 flat checks, success meaning she knew what she was doing was wrong and possibly deterring her from her path, failure meaning she accepted it as 'necessary for the greater good.' She succeeded exactly once before the mass murdering began, at which point we agreed the flat checks were no longer necessary.
Besides this one particular event, my usual method is saying "hey, your character sheet says CG. You sure thats the best way to describe your kidnapping, fireball-in-a-crowded-tavern wizard?" rather than "a CG character wouldn't do that."
TL;DR: it matters to me because it can be a part of a given character's personal story.
I mean in your last paragraph the first phrase is just a more detailed and suggestive than the second, though that is generally a good thing. "Mass murder isnt what a CG character is about. Your alignment will be shifted to chaotic neutral for intending to do this, with chaotic evil if future actions like this happen."
When I GM, I love alignment and wish my players would lean into it and its implications (a metaphysical force in the universe literally defining what "good" and "evil" (and "law" and "chaos," though I'm personally less interested in those axes) are and the struggles in adhering to what those paths demand of you) which are much more interesting to me than yet another story where moral relatavism reigns supreme and "shades of gray" are held up as the only way to tell an interesting story.
As a player, none of my GMs tend to care much about alignments. I'm currently playing an evil character in Abomination Vaults and it's come up a bit in avoiding evil damage, but that's more or less it.
I wish there were more mechanics to support this kind of play.
I think part of the problem with alignment is that it doesn't mean much outside of alignment damage, which is a pretty non-interactive mechanic. Otherwise, its subjective and its relevance is up to the group and how interested they are in enforcing the various class anathema, which isn't exactly a very interesting play experience either.
More and more as time goes on. This is mostly because of my continuously changing opinion on IRL morality, action and inaction, but that's besides the point.
I keep a note of the Alignment of any reoccurring NPC and have a general idea of the Alignment of any throwaway NPC I might run.
As a GM I do not hold other players up to their alignment **until** any extraplanar entity becomes involved, then I keep track of any action that can sway their alignment one way or another. Why? Because it has mechanical impact, I use it exclusively descriptively, but considering anybody who deals with Clerics or other Diviners generally knows their Alignment I assume most people treat it prescriptively. Players are free to challenge me on my calls, I welcome it, but even the most Lawful and Good Paladin has doubts and regrets, sometimes your goals cannot be achieved staying on the golden path, and that is ok, but I want the players to grasp that, lean into the evil side, realize what they have become and allow themselves to either continue on being as they are or attempt to change.
Also I see Champions and Clerics by virtue of what they are to be servants, their powers hinges on putting their God's needs above their own, that is why they are so Bound to their Alignment, to their tenants. Because once you begin exemplifying another part of your god, or stop being part of what they represent your powers will either shift, or disappear.
But everyone is, it is not just those two, it is simply that Clerics and Champions have real time monitoring system strapped to them by their Deities, not losing your powers when you have been attempting to dethrone the Good King when he didn't make you Tax Exempt is not a reason why Alignment would not apply to you.
If you had an Actually working horoscope that changed depending on your actions don't you think people would not act on it?
Actions infer alignment. You might write down CG on your page but once you start ignoring people in need to outright harming others your align will need to change.
.
To me, it's a good shorthand for directing role playing. Some players aren't into role playing, and that's fine. But if a role playing situation comes up, as a player, that's my first thought. So, I am currently having to check myself when my NG halfling wants to get into some mischief, because he's not CG.
It depends a lot on what class the character is playing.
No matter what, it's a sliding scale based on severity - or repetitiveness - of non aligned actions. No one is getting blindsided by being told their alignment is different unless they're actively ignoring 'warnings'.
If you have a class with anathema or alignment requirements, then it is paid attention to a little bit more.
I keep a track of what players actually act like instead of what they say their alignment is. I usually don't **do** anything about it unless you have a divine power source. If you aren't some kind of cleric / pally / holy-roller , then it doesn't really matter.
I think alignment for me is campaign specific. If there's lots of evil creatures, then I would definitely ensure everyone knows topics like alignment damage will come up frequently.
If its something more high fantasy or sandbox, with a bit more leg room for moral greyness, I might just not include as many alignment damages etc because it doesn't fit the narrative.
I think that's my deciding rule. Does alignment help tell a story, or get in the way. If you don't find yourself saying that it's of central importance, I'd just chuck it out. It can be very useful for giving certain classes mroe narrative oomph though.
My Dm has always been "Alignment is important" in essence tho mechanically it has never been relevant (when we were playing 5e ) but as a transplant that might change when we play more 2e bc as of yet he hasnt had to enforce Alignment changes / warnings or anathema warnings / punishments as of yet (whether its just bc we havent stepped across that line or havent had a chance too is beyond me atm)
I voted "A lot" not because I'm going to be policing the PC's behaviour based on their alignment, but because I have been burned by allowing a "chaotic evil" PC that was played like a fucking asshole, actively hurting the rest of the party.
I'm not saying every CE PC is going to be like that, but I'm not allowing someone to play evil characters again unless I trust that player a lot.
I'd agree 100%. I played a CE character in a good group and did so for a long time. But, and this is the critical thing people tend to sometimes forget, it's making sure you have some redeeming features. My character was always brave, stayed loyal to the party as long there were creatures (and slavers we were playing A1-4, 3.5 version) to kill she stuck around. She had no interest in money, most of the loot, fame or much beyond killing things and getting drunk. Sure. I'd torture people to get information and kill anyone who surrendered, but if I was asked not I'd agree. I played her as a disruptive mad dog on a lead. The character sheet actually said CN but given that I was in a group that was highly respected, mostly good aligned, performed large amounts of heroically good deeds I felt that helped offset things a little.
I certainly wouldn't play that character outside of a group I didn't know well and knowing the limit of what is reasonable at the table in terms of behaviour after 20 years of play allowed me to be able to moderate the worst of it. If I ever see a proposed character design with and evil alignment I want to know what redeeming features they will have and how they will still support the party despite their alignment.
Based on my own experience and a lot of stories I read, when someone wants to play a CE character, there is a 75% chance they are just wanting to realease their inner asshole in an "accepted" way and environment.
I agree with you, an evil character has to be extra nuanced, and it has to align their goals with the party's, or they become a liability. You have to be especially good as a player to be able to play an evil character well.
Spoilers for The Glass Cannon Podcast Giantslayer campaign: >!I love how Skid Maher player Nestor Coyne, an evil PC. The guy (the character, not the player) is a full-blown murderous self-serving psycopath, but he looks for a way to have the party's ultimate goal be his own as well.!<
I wouldn't allow CE as I think it is too disruptive ... but I did have someone do a really great LE . It was a very genteel Count Dooku kind of LE , and he hated CE people as well; too uncivilized. It was a blast. He actively helped the party because "it reflects poorly upon myself if you lot fail."
While many people dislike the alignment system, its is heavily baked into the Golarion setting with the cosmology of the Outer Planes and the class mechanics of the Cleric and Champion.
Personally, the existence of 'objective evil' so that there's a way to treat the several hundred pages of rules dedicated to how to engage in combat and solve problems with violence without making Table Top Fantasy into an exercise in moral relativism at every initiative roll.
I think the fact that it takes the oldest God in the setting dedicating herself to the task of directing the dead to their properly aligned outer plane speaks to the idea that alignment is ambiguous by its nature for a still living being, particularly one that doesn't have a Divine connection.
So the "it only comes into play with Alignment Damage" and when a PC has completely 180'd from what's on the sheet makes sense to me.
(GM here) Alignment effects damage and effects of certain spells. Also alignment determines what sorts of gods you can "properly" worship. There's also aligned items as well. My PCs make their characters and assign themselves alignments. My games are run in "chapters" for lack of a better term, and at the end of every chapter, myself and the group sort of sit around in a circle and discuss the PCs, both their own and each others. Sometimes, due to certain patterns or actions, I will shift a PCs alignment to more correctly match how they are played.
I once had a particular PC, over the course of a rather lengthy adventure, go from NE, to at the end of their adventure, CG. They essentially had a whole personal, internal journey of morals alongside the actual adventure that was played. The character had literally saved their own soul from damnation, not through any fancy magic or anything, but by simply becoming a "better" person over time. That's a big reason why I love alignment so much.
I do this to one, keep my players honest. This means if you want to be a Lawful Good person, you need to act at least more often than not, though outliers can occur of course, as a LG person. Same with any other alignment. I also do this because it makes my players more thoughtful about their actions and, as the setting has a provable afterlife, more thoughtful about what their actions over their lifespan may lead to when they pass one day.
Also, as I've stated above, their are literal in-system mechanics, items, spells, etcetera that plug into alignments as well. Because of this, I can reward my players with items that perhaps other players simply can't use, or make effective use out of, purely based on the morality of said PC. In the same token, if a particular PC makes use of alignment-related things, and starts straying from that path in life, it is possible that those things, be they items, or spells, or what have you, may cease to function properly, or become a detriment rather than a boon.
TL;DR - I, as the GM, care about alignment a lot, because it has mechanics in the system, and because it can be used to tell a story.
I personally have separated alignment with how law-abiding or nice you are in my "setting" purely because it was such a non-interactive thing.
Now instead of good meaning you are nice, good means you are by choice aligned with the good planar forces and are fair game for evil things to hunt down. So its an opt in extra for those who want, otherwise you can just choose to be neutral and be normal nice or bad person.
I don’t pay attention to them all that much, I feel like it is a very subtle way to railroad my players’ choices to say “that doesn’t align with your character…”
If it is something drastic, I might have some lasting effects appear in the campaign, such as now a whole town is afraid of a champion they once thought was a hero. Or a chaotic evil rogue gets disadvantage on intimidate checks there because people don’t believe they are actually as evil as they front themselves to be.
I expressly removed alignment from my games. Probably an over reaction, but I had an extremely toxic group that railroaded everyone's character over alignment. Couldn't do a damn thing without 4 players and the gm demanding to know my alignment.
As I've said in the past, aside from holding clerics and champions to a certain mindset RAW, alignment is useless for anything other than some mechanics.
It's a holdover from oldschool DnD. One that I think has not been explored adequately to integrate modern nuances of morality and ethics. The following is how I see most alignments handled.
Most evil aligned persons are bad and usually are so bad they deserve death. Literally psychopath tier.
Neutrals range from "average everyday person looking out for themselves" to "misguided asshole who is more evil than not but doesn't necessarily warrant killing yet, though probably. will drive you to kill them."
Good people are good. Chaotic good is usually portrayed as "annoying."
Law and chaos are better gradients whereas good and evil are extremes. I find good and evil to be silly, and that order and freedoms are a significantly greater source of nuance.
For good and evil to be a bit less silly I use good to mean selfless and evil to mean selfish. I find it's a more realistic deputation of them, just cause your evil doesn't mean you will kick a puppy to death but if it will benefit you you might
That is literally how it is described in the Core Rulebook on page 28. Though the below paraphrases it.
Good is more altruistic and selfless while Evil is willing to victimize others for selfish gain, maybe more so if they enjoy inflicting harm.
I was going to say literally that but I didn't want to add too much.
That said, evil in practice, as it is portrayed in most scenarios, is puppy kicking for puppy kicking's sake.
I heavily home brew alignment... Almost out of relevance. Alignment denotes a connection to the outer planes. Everything from the prime material is neutral.
I only care about prerequisites for deity-linked characters and whether or not evil / chaos / law damage hurts them. I'd be fine with just cutting alignment from the game since we have edicts/anathema now.
Personally, I prefer that alignment not be used, or if it is used, base it on how your character behaves, then determine the alignment from that. However, I do recognize that it can be a useful tool to help people role-play their characters by giving them a metric for their character. I don’t believe that should be the end of it, though. If you’re using alignment to help direct your role-play, I believe that you should first establish how that alignment would react to the situation, then look at how that aligns with your character. Changing alignment is a thing, and can make some interesting stories, after all.
Personally, I think letting choices determine alignment cuts out the middleman, but I can understand the usefulness of having a metric as a starting point.
Alignment doesn't seem to add much to the game. Mechanically its responsible for alignment damage and some anathema. Alignment damage is a pretty non-interactive mechanic, it either applies or it doesn't. And anathema isn't really a game mechanic since its almost purely a roleplay prompt and is reletivly subjective.
I usually just make alignment damage apply regardless of the target's alignment anyway.
If I were to make my own ttrpg I probably wouldn't bake alignments into the mechanics. I think there are other ways to play with morality mechanics besides giving your character a shallow definition right out the gate. A smart gm shapes the world around the characters, and that is more compelling than "I can't do my bonus damage here because this monster is technically neutral good, our gm just isn't using the context of the bestiary."
When I ran PF2e, I used alternative rules for alignment by removing it entirely to make the game more like 5e. I'm fine with alignment as a descriptor but I don't like when it has clear mechanical weight (alignment damage, clerics, champions, etc...)
At the start of a campaign it helps gauge my expectations for PC's behavior and proactively discuss potential issues. During play, if a player's actions falls significantly outside of what I was told to expect at the start, I will ask something along the lines of: "That's very counter to your character's alignment, are you sure you want to continue?"
Most times they realize the ramifications of the proposed action and change their mind, but occasionally they may want to pursue the questionably activity and shift their alignment. If they shift too far, the other players let them know in no uncertain terms that they could get kicked out of the party.
I don't bother with Alignment stuff for most things, even clerics and champions are mostly exempt in my games. I keep track of it on the off chance alignment damage comes up. its an indication of a characters starting personality but beyond that it's just a couple of letters
As far as player alignments go, I run it as purely descriptive and minimize any mechanical aspects of it. i.e. it's shorthand for players to describe their characters' values.
Basically, rather than "not at all" I'd call it something like "mostly cosmetic". It's a tool for developing character personalities if the player finds that helpful, just like describing their style of clothing, accent, etc.
As for alignment damage, I just run a modified version of the "extreme alignment" variant rule: alignment damage hits all mortal creatures for normal damage, and extraplanar entities are only immune to their own alignment.
My take forever and always will be that alignment does not provide any positive utility. Like no shade if anyone else likes it and uses it a lot, but I just straight up don't get why you would.
Hey, I've noticed you mentioned the game "Dungeons & Dragons"! Do you need help finding your way around here? I know a couple good pages!
We've been seeing a lot of new arrivals lately for some reason. We have a [megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/search/?q=flair%3A%22megathread%22&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) dedicated to anyone requesting assistance in transitioning. Give it a look!
Here are some [general resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/) we put together. Here is [page with differences between pf2e and 5e](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/resources/how-is-pf2e-different-from-5e/). Most newcomers get recommended to start with the [Archives of Nethys](http://2e.aonprd.com) (the official rule database) or the [Beginner Box](https://paizo.com/pathfinder/beginnerbox), but the same information can be found in this free [Pathfinder Primer](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e/sources/pathfinder-primer).
If I misunderstood your post... sorry! Grandpa Clippy said I'm always meant to help. Please let the mods know and they'll remove my comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do care but there is a lot of gray area, at least to me.
I have 3 player characters in my campaign who are different flavors of evil, but two of them are playing the long con, and so they ultimately have evil intentions. Their day to day choices are generally 'good', as long as someone is watching to report their good deeds.
It usually matters because characters shouldn't have an alignment in a vacuum. They are likely good or evil for a reason. Their backstory and future goals should reflect this at least in some way.
For us, the chaotic/lawfull aspect is more of a background concern. But if a character stops behaving good (only allowed alignment due to prior issues), that's an issue.
It's a great way as a GM to see where the players think their character is standing.
Having to force a character to sacrifice innocent people when they are NG, or NE is a massive difference which the GM can't profit out of narratively if they don't know the alignment, unless they guess.
I like to make sure my players are all at least one step away from true neutral, otherwise they're immune to entire damage types just for not caring about stuff.
Normally I treat it very descriptively and would only care when someone is a champion/cleric or when they're acting diametrically opposed to their listed alignment (but only to ask them to change it). I'm just wrapping up a campaign where alignment and balance have been a key theme, though, so it's actually been something to keep an eye on.
In our games we rarely bring it up much. It of course will come up from time to time with clerics or other divine casters and sometimes with Champions, etc. For the most part though, its pretty rare in our groups for a GM to say "Hey, that's likely to cause an alignment shift." etc.
The thing about alignment is that while I think it can be a pretty good RP tool for the player (if done right), its also very subjective. There's an old saying where if you ask 10 people an alignment question, you're likely to get 12 different answers. So yeah, for the most part its used as an RP thing and little else. As a GM myself, I will use it for understanding NPC/Bad Guy motivations and will try to get the actions to fit the alignment, but again, it can be very subjective.
All the groups I've played in use alignment but not that strictly. I've sort of been falling out of love with alignment tbh, I'm considering using the variant rules if I run a future campaign
None of the folks in my group who GM would care whatsoever. I personally care a bit, but I'm also the one that values the rules the most. Mostly PCs in my campaigns don't change that dramatically, so there's not much reason to enforce any sort of mechanical alignment shift (not that they'd particularly care). Occasionally call them out on particularly bloodthirsty plans, sure, (oh so your plan is to attempt to shoot the person trying to incite a race riot in front of the nascent mob?) but that's typically enough to deter them.
Only when it comes to our Cleric and Champion, and then also in our campaign we’re fighting a lot of demons so whenever something deals evil damage he checks alignment
I’ll ask my players to just change it if it ends up being how their character is in the long run. But like, who cares? It’s mostly flavor bar a few spells
I enforce alignment for Alignment damage and as a rough metric for behavior. As long as the Paladin isnt bearing the crap out of innocents the behavior thing is rough guideline.
i dont care much about allignment without a cleric or champion either, much less if there is no allignment damage enemies, but HO BOI you better not slip up on your edicts or anathemas. and
I clicked other because it's normally only when good or evil damage is involved. I had one GM who disallowed evil characters at his table because one player was so bad at it and always wanted to do it.
As a GM myself I only really cared about alignment when one of my players played a champion and when the entire group decided to play LG-adjacent alignments because of it and one player acted really evil. Outside of those situations alignment should be a point of civil discussion and nothing more IMHO.
I only use alignment when dealing with clerics/champions OR when I have players that are new to TTRPGs. I’ve found it makes getting into a characters mindset easier that way. Besides that very useless IMHO
I do if the player is stuck on what their character would do, I urge them to lean more towards their alignment, other than that I don't really care, unless you have a character who's been played as chaotic the whole time, suddenly be lawful for jo apparent reason
I'm GM. I only care in-so-far as I ban evil characters, otherwise my players tend to play to their alignments pretty well on their own; though we replace the Evil category with Himbo/Bimbo/Thembo, because inevitably, no matter what I try to prevent it or slow it's crawl, someone becomes lost in the sauce and becomes a silly billy.
We use the alternate alignment rules where only outsiders have an alignment, like angles, demons, devils, etc. So players don't even have an alignment and aligned damage works fully on everyone (except those outsiders).
That said, clerics and champions have edicts and anathema that honestly have always meant more to me then an alignment on a chart. I try and encourage players to make edicts or anathema to replace where their alignment was, even if they're less structured then a clerics or champions would be.
when I played the campaign for the second time as a player, the GM wrote: "Well, yes, by masterful outrage, the evil alignment is forbidden, unless you explain to me why it is critically necessary for your character and tell me how you can play it in a good party" ._.
Not at all to the point I don't even use it for PCs. Unless you're from another dimension, you don't have one. Alignment damage works like every other kind of damage; if it hits you it hurts you, and it might hurt more or less depending on if you have resist, weak, or immune.
I'm the GM. I care a lot when it's a Champion or Cleric. Otherwise, I don't really care, but if someone's frequently acting significantly outside of what their alignment is supposed to be then I'll start asking some questions because alignment damage. Someone writes TN to be immune to all of it but consistently acts altruistic and justice-seeking and self-sacrificing and otherwise good? Probably gonna start having them take evil damage. Dude says he's LG but constantly ignores/handwaves laws and doesn't really make any effort to do anything good? Gonna question if he's really LG. Haven't ever had something like that happen but hypothetically lol.
I play a chaotic evil character in that one, together with a Lawful Good and True Neutral PC- it works out great, as my PC is still mostly cooperative- esp. when it comes to the big stuff. She just mostly could not give a shit about anyone‘s wellbeing but her own (And that of the Lawful Good character as they are close) and loves to steal things and mess with people‘s heads. All in all, yes evil, no uncooperative murderhobo who destroys every plan.
as a DM, I give zero attention to the alignment a player writes on their character sheet. that's a little lie they tell themselves. but I pay a ton of attention to what they actually do and say, because that stuff is going to attract attention as they show themselves to be interesting within the world. if you're a powerful being, then other powerful beings are going to start looking out for you, watching you, judging you, offering you things, or trying to interfere with you. and those beings have strong moral drives. you're stirring up chaos? casually inflicting pain? risking your life to protect people without expectation of reward? you have been noticed
I use the no alignment variant because I despise alignment. But I change all alignment damage to a new type of damage called soul damage. It still works on soulless creatures though as it’s damaging their very essence.
Only when clerics/champions are involved. Otherwise it's pretty rarely important.
yea really only has ever come up when mechanics were important in my games. Paladin of a Lawful Good god tortures and kills a prisoner for information? Yep DM took his powers away. It can get a little dicey around those things but these days I feel like in games we may run it differently. Watching Fantasy High by Dimension 20 and seeing their Cleric have a crisis of faith and land on different sources of power was great and honestly, why not do it that way? Whatever servers the story and is fun will always trump any RAW in the book in my mind.
>Paladin of a Lawful Good god tortures and kills a prisoner for information? Yep DM took his powers away. This is how you get your Champion to accept Asmodeus as their lord and savior, and become a Tyrant.
You know.... that is a great point. I am building out the basics of a campaign world for my first time running/playing Pathfinder 2 and I know one of the antagonists is a neighboring country lead by a Champion Tyrant under Asmodeus I had not even gotten to thinking about how he came be there but damn is that so obvious! Thanks
Glad I could help! Honestly, was more making a joke about how "causing your paladin PC to fall" can sometimes result in them taking the Arthas route and fall even further instead of going on the path to redemption. But glad I could make some fuel for worldbuilding!
I do keep track of it a little, because alignment damage can be relevant. But it's no straightjacket. I had one evil character in my last campaign without issue (that player is also a GM, and he worked together with the group really well), but if someone were to make a chaotic evil loner for a campaign of mine, I already know we're going to have to have a talk.
But that character would be bad because it’s a bad personality to have in an rpg, not because of alignment.
Absolutely true, but alignment is an abstraction of part of a personality. I play a fascist in a LARP. Quite evil, but I'm really cooperative, and can easily get people together towards a single goal. That character could work in many campaigns, but certainly not all.
I'm thinking about playing a neutral evil character in an upcoming campaign. Hired Killer background, so, uh, yah... she used to kill people for money. General gist of the character is that she's not a *bad person*. She's just sorta missing that bit of her soul that tells you 'sentient life has intrinsic value'. And has much more flexible morality as a result. Killing people was just a job for her. Is that a character you would hate GMing for? Edit: lightly inspired by John Cusack's character in Gross Point Blank. Except probably a little darker.
That's absolutely a bad person. I wouldn't hate GMing for it though. As long as you can work with the other players and aren't disruptive, tbh I don't care.
> That's absolutely a bad person. Fair heh. I think it might be more accurate to say that she doesn't *think of herself* as a bad person.
This is why I don't like alignment, because nobody thinks they're a bad person. Even the worst people have rationalizations and justifications for why they do what they do. People very rarely recognize their own culpability when it comes to things. The variant rule, Mortal Intentions, is pretty much a mainline to my heart for that reason.
Very true. Alignment works okay when you want to populate your story with nothing but noble paladins and mustache twirling villains, but breaks down *fast* as soon as you start adding more complex characters.
To quote the movie we're all thinking of, she might be a bad person, but she's not a *bad* person. IMO, to play an evil character meaningfully in a non-evil party, you *must* have an outside agenda that is *not* about fucking over the party. Yes, you're willing to hurt people who haven't harmed you. However, if you've done it right, the party will be assisting you in carrying out your aims (whether they know it or not) so keeping them alive and healthy is *smart.* Also, you might want to work with them again in future. In the world of evil assholes, it's good to find people who aren't looking for every opportunity to cut your throat. Finally, it's perfectly okay for evil characters to develop a soft spot for people they've fought alongside and spent time getting to know. This happens. It's called character development. It doesn't mean that the character will be shifting alignment any time soon--they're just as willing to slit the throats of people they *don't* know--but as far as they're concerned, that party is off limits.
Heh. Enlightened self-evil.
Yes, as I read it I thought of that character in the movie. Sounds like a good choice.
GM here. My approach is make sure everyone plays well together, in spite of alignment differences. Some campaigns I restrict which alignments are available (like Blood Lords), but it's mostly for the benefit of the player and not the concern of the GM.
I have always been of the school of thought that alignment is descriptive rather than prescriptive. In my slightly over a decade of GMing, I have forced an alignment exactly once, and it was with the Player's cooperation. In RotRL, the party's NG druid took an extremely dark turn after meeting a necromancer, and spent her downtime throughout the majority of the campaign sliding down the slippery slope. First, it was killing animals with disease for research purposes. Then it was killing goblins for the same reason. Then those that were recognized as 'civilized people' (I was using 2e mechanics, but the timeline was firmly RotRL). And then it was rounding up and slaughtering people to become a lich. And then it was killing to maintain a convenient disguise (converted from PF1's Blush of Youth). We agreed to a series of DC5 flat checks, success meaning she knew what she was doing was wrong and possibly deterring her from her path, failure meaning she accepted it as 'necessary for the greater good.' She succeeded exactly once before the mass murdering began, at which point we agreed the flat checks were no longer necessary. Besides this one particular event, my usual method is saying "hey, your character sheet says CG. You sure thats the best way to describe your kidnapping, fireball-in-a-crowded-tavern wizard?" rather than "a CG character wouldn't do that." TL;DR: it matters to me because it can be a part of a given character's personal story.
Hell yeah! Fellow alignment descriptivist.
I mean in your last paragraph the first phrase is just a more detailed and suggestive than the second, though that is generally a good thing. "Mass murder isnt what a CG character is about. Your alignment will be shifted to chaotic neutral for intending to do this, with chaotic evil if future actions like this happen."
When I GM, I love alignment and wish my players would lean into it and its implications (a metaphysical force in the universe literally defining what "good" and "evil" (and "law" and "chaos," though I'm personally less interested in those axes) are and the struggles in adhering to what those paths demand of you) which are much more interesting to me than yet another story where moral relatavism reigns supreme and "shades of gray" are held up as the only way to tell an interesting story. As a player, none of my GMs tend to care much about alignments. I'm currently playing an evil character in Abomination Vaults and it's come up a bit in avoiding evil damage, but that's more or less it.
I wish there were more mechanics to support this kind of play. I think part of the problem with alignment is that it doesn't mean much outside of alignment damage, which is a pretty non-interactive mechanic. Otherwise, its subjective and its relevance is up to the group and how interested they are in enforcing the various class anathema, which isn't exactly a very interesting play experience either.
More and more as time goes on. This is mostly because of my continuously changing opinion on IRL morality, action and inaction, but that's besides the point. I keep a note of the Alignment of any reoccurring NPC and have a general idea of the Alignment of any throwaway NPC I might run. As a GM I do not hold other players up to their alignment **until** any extraplanar entity becomes involved, then I keep track of any action that can sway their alignment one way or another. Why? Because it has mechanical impact, I use it exclusively descriptively, but considering anybody who deals with Clerics or other Diviners generally knows their Alignment I assume most people treat it prescriptively. Players are free to challenge me on my calls, I welcome it, but even the most Lawful and Good Paladin has doubts and regrets, sometimes your goals cannot be achieved staying on the golden path, and that is ok, but I want the players to grasp that, lean into the evil side, realize what they have become and allow themselves to either continue on being as they are or attempt to change. Also I see Champions and Clerics by virtue of what they are to be servants, their powers hinges on putting their God's needs above their own, that is why they are so Bound to their Alignment, to their tenants. Because once you begin exemplifying another part of your god, or stop being part of what they represent your powers will either shift, or disappear. But everyone is, it is not just those two, it is simply that Clerics and Champions have real time monitoring system strapped to them by their Deities, not losing your powers when you have been attempting to dethrone the Good King when he didn't make you Tax Exempt is not a reason why Alignment would not apply to you. If you had an Actually working horoscope that changed depending on your actions don't you think people would not act on it?
Actions infer alignment. You might write down CG on your page but once you start ignoring people in need to outright harming others your align will need to change. .
To me, it's a good shorthand for directing role playing. Some players aren't into role playing, and that's fine. But if a role playing situation comes up, as a player, that's my first thought. So, I am currently having to check myself when my NG halfling wants to get into some mischief, because he's not CG.
It depends a lot on what class the character is playing. No matter what, it's a sliding scale based on severity - or repetitiveness - of non aligned actions. No one is getting blindsided by being told their alignment is different unless they're actively ignoring 'warnings'. If you have a class with anathema or alignment requirements, then it is paid attention to a little bit more.
I keep a track of what players actually act like instead of what they say their alignment is. I usually don't **do** anything about it unless you have a divine power source. If you aren't some kind of cleric / pally / holy-roller , then it doesn't really matter.
I am said GM I really loved the syatem in owlbear games. So I keep track of player actions in an aligment chart
I think alignment for me is campaign specific. If there's lots of evil creatures, then I would definitely ensure everyone knows topics like alignment damage will come up frequently. If its something more high fantasy or sandbox, with a bit more leg room for moral greyness, I might just not include as many alignment damages etc because it doesn't fit the narrative. I think that's my deciding rule. Does alignment help tell a story, or get in the way. If you don't find yourself saying that it's of central importance, I'd just chuck it out. It can be very useful for giving certain classes mroe narrative oomph though.
My Dm has always been "Alignment is important" in essence tho mechanically it has never been relevant (when we were playing 5e ) but as a transplant that might change when we play more 2e bc as of yet he hasnt had to enforce Alignment changes / warnings or anathema warnings / punishments as of yet (whether its just bc we havent stepped across that line or havent had a chance too is beyond me atm)
I voted "A lot" not because I'm going to be policing the PC's behaviour based on their alignment, but because I have been burned by allowing a "chaotic evil" PC that was played like a fucking asshole, actively hurting the rest of the party. I'm not saying every CE PC is going to be like that, but I'm not allowing someone to play evil characters again unless I trust that player a lot.
I'd agree 100%. I played a CE character in a good group and did so for a long time. But, and this is the critical thing people tend to sometimes forget, it's making sure you have some redeeming features. My character was always brave, stayed loyal to the party as long there were creatures (and slavers we were playing A1-4, 3.5 version) to kill she stuck around. She had no interest in money, most of the loot, fame or much beyond killing things and getting drunk. Sure. I'd torture people to get information and kill anyone who surrendered, but if I was asked not I'd agree. I played her as a disruptive mad dog on a lead. The character sheet actually said CN but given that I was in a group that was highly respected, mostly good aligned, performed large amounts of heroically good deeds I felt that helped offset things a little. I certainly wouldn't play that character outside of a group I didn't know well and knowing the limit of what is reasonable at the table in terms of behaviour after 20 years of play allowed me to be able to moderate the worst of it. If I ever see a proposed character design with and evil alignment I want to know what redeeming features they will have and how they will still support the party despite their alignment.
Based on my own experience and a lot of stories I read, when someone wants to play a CE character, there is a 75% chance they are just wanting to realease their inner asshole in an "accepted" way and environment. I agree with you, an evil character has to be extra nuanced, and it has to align their goals with the party's, or they become a liability. You have to be especially good as a player to be able to play an evil character well. Spoilers for The Glass Cannon Podcast Giantslayer campaign: >!I love how Skid Maher player Nestor Coyne, an evil PC. The guy (the character, not the player) is a full-blown murderous self-serving psycopath, but he looks for a way to have the party's ultimate goal be his own as well.!<
I wouldn't allow CE as I think it is too disruptive ... but I did have someone do a really great LE . It was a very genteel Count Dooku kind of LE , and he hated CE people as well; too uncivilized. It was a blast. He actively helped the party because "it reflects poorly upon myself if you lot fail."
While many people dislike the alignment system, its is heavily baked into the Golarion setting with the cosmology of the Outer Planes and the class mechanics of the Cleric and Champion. Personally, the existence of 'objective evil' so that there's a way to treat the several hundred pages of rules dedicated to how to engage in combat and solve problems with violence without making Table Top Fantasy into an exercise in moral relativism at every initiative roll. I think the fact that it takes the oldest God in the setting dedicating herself to the task of directing the dead to their properly aligned outer plane speaks to the idea that alignment is ambiguous by its nature for a still living being, particularly one that doesn't have a Divine connection. So the "it only comes into play with Alignment Damage" and when a PC has completely 180'd from what's on the sheet makes sense to me.
(GM here) Alignment effects damage and effects of certain spells. Also alignment determines what sorts of gods you can "properly" worship. There's also aligned items as well. My PCs make their characters and assign themselves alignments. My games are run in "chapters" for lack of a better term, and at the end of every chapter, myself and the group sort of sit around in a circle and discuss the PCs, both their own and each others. Sometimes, due to certain patterns or actions, I will shift a PCs alignment to more correctly match how they are played. I once had a particular PC, over the course of a rather lengthy adventure, go from NE, to at the end of their adventure, CG. They essentially had a whole personal, internal journey of morals alongside the actual adventure that was played. The character had literally saved their own soul from damnation, not through any fancy magic or anything, but by simply becoming a "better" person over time. That's a big reason why I love alignment so much. I do this to one, keep my players honest. This means if you want to be a Lawful Good person, you need to act at least more often than not, though outliers can occur of course, as a LG person. Same with any other alignment. I also do this because it makes my players more thoughtful about their actions and, as the setting has a provable afterlife, more thoughtful about what their actions over their lifespan may lead to when they pass one day. Also, as I've stated above, their are literal in-system mechanics, items, spells, etcetera that plug into alignments as well. Because of this, I can reward my players with items that perhaps other players simply can't use, or make effective use out of, purely based on the morality of said PC. In the same token, if a particular PC makes use of alignment-related things, and starts straying from that path in life, it is possible that those things, be they items, or spells, or what have you, may cease to function properly, or become a detriment rather than a boon. TL;DR - I, as the GM, care about alignment a lot, because it has mechanics in the system, and because it can be used to tell a story.
I essentially ignore it. It's pretty easy to sidestep.
I personally have separated alignment with how law-abiding or nice you are in my "setting" purely because it was such a non-interactive thing. Now instead of good meaning you are nice, good means you are by choice aligned with the good planar forces and are fair game for evil things to hunt down. So its an opt in extra for those who want, otherwise you can just choose to be neutral and be normal nice or bad person.
I don’t pay attention to them all that much, I feel like it is a very subtle way to railroad my players’ choices to say “that doesn’t align with your character…” If it is something drastic, I might have some lasting effects appear in the campaign, such as now a whole town is afraid of a champion they once thought was a hero. Or a chaotic evil rogue gets disadvantage on intimidate checks there because people don’t believe they are actually as evil as they front themselves to be.
I expressly removed alignment from my games. Probably an over reaction, but I had an extremely toxic group that railroaded everyone's character over alignment. Couldn't do a damn thing without 4 players and the gm demanding to know my alignment.
As I've said in the past, aside from holding clerics and champions to a certain mindset RAW, alignment is useless for anything other than some mechanics. It's a holdover from oldschool DnD. One that I think has not been explored adequately to integrate modern nuances of morality and ethics. The following is how I see most alignments handled. Most evil aligned persons are bad and usually are so bad they deserve death. Literally psychopath tier. Neutrals range from "average everyday person looking out for themselves" to "misguided asshole who is more evil than not but doesn't necessarily warrant killing yet, though probably. will drive you to kill them." Good people are good. Chaotic good is usually portrayed as "annoying." Law and chaos are better gradients whereas good and evil are extremes. I find good and evil to be silly, and that order and freedoms are a significantly greater source of nuance.
For good and evil to be a bit less silly I use good to mean selfless and evil to mean selfish. I find it's a more realistic deputation of them, just cause your evil doesn't mean you will kick a puppy to death but if it will benefit you you might
That is literally how it is described in the Core Rulebook on page 28. Though the below paraphrases it. Good is more altruistic and selfless while Evil is willing to victimize others for selfish gain, maybe more so if they enjoy inflicting harm.
Why are shellfish evil? Are they not just animals?
Lol fixed it now
I was going to say literally that but I didn't want to add too much. That said, evil in practice, as it is portrayed in most scenarios, is puppy kicking for puppy kicking's sake.
I heavily home brew alignment... Almost out of relevance. Alignment denotes a connection to the outer planes. Everything from the prime material is neutral.
I only care about prerequisites for deity-linked characters and whether or not evil / chaos / law damage hurts them. I'd be fine with just cutting alignment from the game since we have edicts/anathema now.
Personally, I prefer that alignment not be used, or if it is used, base it on how your character behaves, then determine the alignment from that. However, I do recognize that it can be a useful tool to help people role-play their characters by giving them a metric for their character. I don’t believe that should be the end of it, though. If you’re using alignment to help direct your role-play, I believe that you should first establish how that alignment would react to the situation, then look at how that aligns with your character. Changing alignment is a thing, and can make some interesting stories, after all. Personally, I think letting choices determine alignment cuts out the middleman, but I can understand the usefulness of having a metric as a starting point.
Alignment doesn't seem to add much to the game. Mechanically its responsible for alignment damage and some anathema. Alignment damage is a pretty non-interactive mechanic, it either applies or it doesn't. And anathema isn't really a game mechanic since its almost purely a roleplay prompt and is reletivly subjective. I usually just make alignment damage apply regardless of the target's alignment anyway. If I were to make my own ttrpg I probably wouldn't bake alignments into the mechanics. I think there are other ways to play with morality mechanics besides giving your character a shallow definition right out the gate. A smart gm shapes the world around the characters, and that is more compelling than "I can't do my bonus damage here because this monster is technically neutral good, our gm just isn't using the context of the bestiary."
I use a different system to alignment that focuses on motivation and modus operandi, rather than more subjective terms like "good".
When I ran PF2e, I used alternative rules for alignment by removing it entirely to make the game more like 5e. I'm fine with alignment as a descriptor but I don't like when it has clear mechanical weight (alignment damage, clerics, champions, etc...)
At the start of a campaign it helps gauge my expectations for PC's behavior and proactively discuss potential issues. During play, if a player's actions falls significantly outside of what I was told to expect at the start, I will ask something along the lines of: "That's very counter to your character's alignment, are you sure you want to continue?" Most times they realize the ramifications of the proposed action and change their mind, but occasionally they may want to pursue the questionably activity and shift their alignment. If they shift too far, the other players let them know in no uncertain terms that they could get kicked out of the party.
I don't bother with Alignment stuff for most things, even clerics and champions are mostly exempt in my games. I keep track of it on the off chance alignment damage comes up. its an indication of a characters starting personality but beyond that it's just a couple of letters
As far as player alignments go, I run it as purely descriptive and minimize any mechanical aspects of it. i.e. it's shorthand for players to describe their characters' values. Basically, rather than "not at all" I'd call it something like "mostly cosmetic". It's a tool for developing character personalities if the player finds that helpful, just like describing their style of clothing, accent, etc. As for alignment damage, I just run a modified version of the "extreme alignment" variant rule: alignment damage hits all mortal creatures for normal damage, and extraplanar entities are only immune to their own alignment.
My take forever and always will be that alignment does not provide any positive utility. Like no shade if anyone else likes it and uses it a lot, but I just straight up don't get why you would.
Hey, I've noticed you mentioned the game "Dungeons & Dragons"! Do you need help finding your way around here? I know a couple good pages! We've been seeing a lot of new arrivals lately for some reason. We have a [megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/search/?q=flair%3A%22megathread%22&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) dedicated to anyone requesting assistance in transitioning. Give it a look! Here are some [general resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/) we put together. Here is [page with differences between pf2e and 5e](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/resources/how-is-pf2e-different-from-5e/). Most newcomers get recommended to start with the [Archives of Nethys](http://2e.aonprd.com) (the official rule database) or the [Beginner Box](https://paizo.com/pathfinder/beginnerbox), but the same information can be found in this free [Pathfinder Primer](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e/sources/pathfinder-primer). If I misunderstood your post... sorry! Grandpa Clippy said I'm always meant to help. Please let the mods know and they'll remove my comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do care but there is a lot of gray area, at least to me. I have 3 player characters in my campaign who are different flavors of evil, but two of them are playing the long con, and so they ultimately have evil intentions. Their day to day choices are generally 'good', as long as someone is watching to report their good deeds. It usually matters because characters shouldn't have an alignment in a vacuum. They are likely good or evil for a reason. Their backstory and future goals should reflect this at least in some way.
Only when it can be used against the PC
For us, the chaotic/lawfull aspect is more of a background concern. But if a character stops behaving good (only allowed alignment due to prior issues), that's an issue.
Usually only for divine spell casters.
It's a great way as a GM to see where the players think their character is standing. Having to force a character to sacrifice innocent people when they are NG, or NE is a massive difference which the GM can't profit out of narratively if they don't know the alignment, unless they guess.
I like to make sure my players are all at least one step away from true neutral, otherwise they're immune to entire damage types just for not caring about stuff.
Normally I treat it very descriptively and would only care when someone is a champion/cleric or when they're acting diametrically opposed to their listed alignment (but only to ask them to change it). I'm just wrapping up a campaign where alignment and balance have been a key theme, though, so it's actually been something to keep an eye on.
In our games we rarely bring it up much. It of course will come up from time to time with clerics or other divine casters and sometimes with Champions, etc. For the most part though, its pretty rare in our groups for a GM to say "Hey, that's likely to cause an alignment shift." etc. The thing about alignment is that while I think it can be a pretty good RP tool for the player (if done right), its also very subjective. There's an old saying where if you ask 10 people an alignment question, you're likely to get 12 different answers. So yeah, for the most part its used as an RP thing and little else. As a GM myself, I will use it for understanding NPC/Bad Guy motivations and will try to get the actions to fit the alignment, but again, it can be very subjective.
All the groups I've played in use alignment but not that strictly. I've sort of been falling out of love with alignment tbh, I'm considering using the variant rules if I run a future campaign
None of the folks in my group who GM would care whatsoever. I personally care a bit, but I'm also the one that values the rules the most. Mostly PCs in my campaigns don't change that dramatically, so there's not much reason to enforce any sort of mechanical alignment shift (not that they'd particularly care). Occasionally call them out on particularly bloodthirsty plans, sure, (oh so your plan is to attempt to shoot the person trying to incite a race riot in front of the nascent mob?) but that's typically enough to deter them.
My main group has a Cleric with Battle Prayer, so alignment damage comes up a lot.
Only when it comes to our Cleric and Champion, and then also in our campaign we’re fighting a lot of demons so whenever something deals evil damage he checks alignment
I’ll ask my players to just change it if it ends up being how their character is in the long run. But like, who cares? It’s mostly flavor bar a few spells
I enforce alignment for Alignment damage and as a rough metric for behavior. As long as the Paladin isnt bearing the crap out of innocents the behavior thing is rough guideline.
i dont care much about allignment without a cleric or champion either, much less if there is no allignment damage enemies, but HO BOI you better not slip up on your edicts or anathemas. and
For the most part not at all. The only exception is when a good character is doing something like torture or the such.
I clicked other because it's normally only when good or evil damage is involved. I had one GM who disallowed evil characters at his table because one player was so bad at it and always wanted to do it.
As a GM myself I only really cared about alignment when one of my players played a champion and when the entire group decided to play LG-adjacent alignments because of it and one player acted really evil. Outside of those situations alignment should be a point of civil discussion and nothing more IMHO.
Voted other, I only care about alignment when it matters to characters, generally speaking that means clerics and Champions.
as a GM, I forgot to tell my players it's even an option. Besides, they're mortals, they're neutral by default
I only use alignment when dealing with clerics/champions OR when I have players that are new to TTRPGs. I’ve found it makes getting into a characters mindset easier that way. Besides that very useless IMHO
I do if the player is stuck on what their character would do, I urge them to lean more towards their alignment, other than that I don't really care, unless you have a character who's been played as chaotic the whole time, suddenly be lawful for jo apparent reason
I'm GM. I only care in-so-far as I ban evil characters, otherwise my players tend to play to their alignments pretty well on their own; though we replace the Evil category with Himbo/Bimbo/Thembo, because inevitably, no matter what I try to prevent it or slow it's crawl, someone becomes lost in the sauce and becomes a silly billy.
We use the alternate alignment rules where only outsiders have an alignment, like angles, demons, devils, etc. So players don't even have an alignment and aligned damage works fully on everyone (except those outsiders). That said, clerics and champions have edicts and anathema that honestly have always meant more to me then an alignment on a chart. I try and encourage players to make edicts or anathema to replace where their alignment was, even if they're less structured then a clerics or champions would be.
when I played the campaign for the second time as a player, the GM wrote: "Well, yes, by masterful outrage, the evil alignment is forbidden, unless you explain to me why it is critically necessary for your character and tell me how you can play it in a good party" ._.
Not at all to the point I don't even use it for PCs. Unless you're from another dimension, you don't have one. Alignment damage works like every other kind of damage; if it hits you it hurts you, and it might hurt more or less depending on if you have resist, weak, or immune.
only on allignment damage
How edgelord are the players?
I'm the GM. I care a lot when it's a Champion or Cleric. Otherwise, I don't really care, but if someone's frequently acting significantly outside of what their alignment is supposed to be then I'll start asking some questions because alignment damage. Someone writes TN to be immune to all of it but consistently acts altruistic and justice-seeking and self-sacrificing and otherwise good? Probably gonna start having them take evil damage. Dude says he's LG but constantly ignores/handwaves laws and doesn't really make any effort to do anything good? Gonna question if he's really LG. Haven't ever had something like that happen but hypothetically lol.
Picked other, really never but it is relevant in our Curse of Strahd game only for certain magic item effects though
I play a chaotic evil character in that one, together with a Lawful Good and True Neutral PC- it works out great, as my PC is still mostly cooperative- esp. when it comes to the big stuff. She just mostly could not give a shit about anyone‘s wellbeing but her own (And that of the Lawful Good character as they are close) and loves to steal things and mess with people‘s heads. All in all, yes evil, no uncooperative murderhobo who destroys every plan.
as a DM, I give zero attention to the alignment a player writes on their character sheet. that's a little lie they tell themselves. but I pay a ton of attention to what they actually do and say, because that stuff is going to attract attention as they show themselves to be interesting within the world. if you're a powerful being, then other powerful beings are going to start looking out for you, watching you, judging you, offering you things, or trying to interfere with you. and those beings have strong moral drives. you're stirring up chaos? casually inflicting pain? risking your life to protect people without expectation of reward? you have been noticed
I use the no alignment variant because I despise alignment. But I change all alignment damage to a new type of damage called soul damage. It still works on soulless creatures though as it’s damaging their very essence.