So, you've picked you alignment, you've set off on your great adventure with your party, but then you quickly hit a wall. The realization hits you like a ton of bricks that you actually have to play within your alignment.
It was easy at the start, since everyone was first meeting each other and figuring out their characters. But now, there's side quests, pivotal choices, combat sessions, stealth missions, the list goes on and on. And through it all, you have to stay in character.
It's not hard if your character is a self-insert, but more often than not, this isn't your lucky day. You're probably playing a character that acts nothing like you, and you're not a trained voice actor.
So...how are you supposed to keep within the bounds of your alignment?
That's a critical question, and of course, there's no straightforward answer, but we've got the next best thing.
Below, we've compiled all the useful tidbits, tips, tricks, and wild anecdotes to help you adjust to your new alignment. In the crazy world of D&D, there's a thousand ways to do something right, and yet another thousand ways to do something wrong, but we'll guide you to the right answer before the end! Read on, brave adventurer!
Should each race have a general character alignment tied to it?
Alright, you really want to know the answer?
NO!
It sounds nice, being able to tie each race into a general alignment or two. It would definitely make our lives easier. We wouldn't have to jump through hoops just to figure out how our character would react to a bad joke from an orc or an insult from a bard.
But guess what this opens the door to?
Yep. You probably guessed it.
Fantasy racism.
Racism is a hard no both in real life and in fantasy gameplay. If we give all races general alignments, we're automatically discriminating against the races with chaotic and/or evil alignments. Each race will see another race as a product of their general alignment which, in-world, would be a massive stereotyped view of the other race.
Besides racism, categorizing each race into nice, neat alignment boxes makes players feel railroaded. How can you have creative freedom when your race determines your characters' personality? It just doesn't allow for the soul of the game to shine as brightly, dousing the imagination of the players.
In real life, people don't have personality traits and motives as a product of their race, so why should it be any different in D&D?
In addition, allowing characters to grow into their personality traits and develop new characterization through gameplay allows for character growth. An interesting character is one that transcends the bounds of their given race, hometown, and bloodline through the course of the campaign.
Allowing players to choose their own alignments is a seriously powerful plot device for the story that the DM cannot ignore. Those who have alignments that don't necessarily line up with the rest of their class makes for a very interesting character.
Good storytelling happens when characters face the unknown and surprise even themselves with their actions. Let things be as the players determine them to be, and you'll be in for a fun campaign!
At what point do characters shift alignments?
This is a hard question, and there are two schools of thoughts that determine this:
1. Action mismatches
2. Intention mismatches
We tend to like the school of thought where intentions matter more than actions as it gives a sense of realism to the character.
Regardless of which mismatch the character is presenting, you should only have this conversation when you feel as though a great majority of the decisions do not line up, and it should be a conversation about changing it, not an order from the supreme overlord (sorry, DM).
What constitutes breaking character alignment?
Breaking alignment constitutes any time where a character does not act according to what they believe to be right. For many characters, this can look on the outside as though every action has to be good or evil in conjunction with their alignment.
Yeah, we don't think the world is nearly that black and white.
At Dungeon Inspiration, we fall into the school of thought where good and evil are two sides of the same coin. Just because a character does something good doesn't mean their intentions aren't downright demonic. And just because a character may be lawful good doesn't mean their sense of right and wrong won't lead to an evil task carried out in the name of justice.
As long as you have a reason as to why your character would do whatever it is they're doing, it's fine! People are too complicated to put in nice, neat little alignment boxes.
If you feel your character needs to break alignment, you may be itching for a character arc. We recommend talking to your DM, and if you both feel as though the character no longer fits the alignment they were given at the beginning of the game, you can slowly change it over time to match character growth. This is just another part of great storytelling that will add an alluring sense of realism to your game.
Where does true neutral fall?
True neutral is something many believe achievable within gameplay, but I'll remind you of one simple truth:
Being human means you can't succeed in playing true neutral.
By that, We mean true neutral isn't possible if you have even an ounce of emotion during gameplay. Your decisions cannot be swayed by emotions, personal connections, opinions, or biases. The only example of a true neutral is an uncaring omnipotent god that watches the game from afar.
Sounds like a boring character, huh?
With the point of D&D being to have fun using your imagination with friends, it's hard to get anything out of playing a true neutral. They realistically shouldn't be involved with a party in the first place because of the required impassiveness of a true neutral alignment.
Most who go for "true" neutral end up being chaotic neutral instead. To be honest, this is one of the most fun alignments you can play! Chaotic neutral and lawful neutral are interesting and spontaneous companions that will keep the party on its toes.
Ranging from "I do what I want whenever I want" to "I'll help the party because it pleases me," the other two neutral alignments are a much more enticing option for complex gameplay.
What is the best way to play chaotic evil?
Ah, yes, chaotic evil, the mastermind of deception and naughtiness of all kinds—all in good fun, of course. A character bearing this alignment might as well wave a flag declaring "I'm the problem!" wherever they may go.
There are a few routes to take when playing chaotic evil: the prankster, the plotter, or the thief. The most entertaining by far is the prankster.
Within a party dynamic, chaotic evil pranksters will do anything and everything they can to mess with the party at any cost, including landing them right in the lap of trouble, just to cackle hysterically in the background while they watch the chaos unfold. It can be a great time for you, but it runs the risk of sparking hatred toward you among your party members. Be cautious if this is the option you choose.
The plotter, on the other hand, has no regard whatsoever for the party's opinion of them. Should the party turn against them, they may jump for joy instead of grieve. The plotter is privately developing a plan to either manipulate their party to its full potential for personal gain or finding the fastest route within the party's adventure to their individual goals. We would call the plotter the true evil of the three chaotic evil routes.
The thief is the ...? (Bard that is MR. Steal Yo Girl just cuz (AKA the Frat boy))
Do "murder hobos" need to be chaotic evil?
This is something a LOT of DMs discuss, especially when talking about how to avoid getting these characters into their game.
This may be a hot take, but we don't think murder hobos are even a majority chaotic evil.
Often, new players toss chaotic evil onto any character they want to play whose goal is just killing whatever they see, but to us, that screams neutral, not chaotic evil. Chaotic evil has a goal in mind, an unwavering set of personal values, and a stubborn streak. Only an uncaring neutral alignment can carelessly slaughter others, which is why we believe that the alignment for murder hobos should be chaotic neutral.
Very few characters kill just to kill. Senseless killing is an impassive act that involves no emotion whatsoever. If there is any emotional motivation in killing another character whatsoever, then the player cannot be neutral.
In many characters that are chaotic evil, their goal is to create suffering, but not with their own hands. They almost always manipulate others to ensure they keep their hands clean, for example, causing one of the party members to go on a rampage.
Regardless, we still recommend keeping a tight leash on a chaotic evil to prevent them from having a villain arc and devolving into a murder hobo for the sake of your party. This can often lead to one player being forced out of the game and a lot of interpersonal drama that isn't productive to the story.
If you have a player who is truly focused on creating a character who goes berserk or kills anything in sight, this is a time where I would have a conversation with the whole party to reconcile potential problems before you begin the campaign.
Do lawful characters always have to follow their laws?
They should most of the time, but they are still people, and people have free will. Having a set of personal laws and values to follow isn't set in stone. They can change throughout the story as the character grows, matures, and processes new experiences. They may even dig their heels in on their laws even further then when they started as they adventure through the campaign.
Additionally, it can be fun to intentionally make a lawful character slip up or create an exemption to rules. It adds a level of complexity to the character, as well as creates room for them to grow as they question what they believe in and reinforce or change their values in accordance with their new experiences.
Should holy casters have to tie their character alignment into their God?
When answering this question, we often find ourselves asking more questions that guide our final decision, the first of which being: which has more flavor?
If you're a DM that prioritizes story and flavor over combat or other such methods, we'd say that this is a conversation that has to be had with your player before the game starts because it directly affects how they will play the game.
Would the god actually bestow power to the player if they are going against their wishes? This is probably our favorite question to ask players, and sometimes we even suggest negative repercussions for using a god's power against their will, but this is a conversation that you must have with your players so they don't feel as though they are being undermined mid-game.
No matter how you iron out the details of godly powers and wills, there is so much potential in the idea of holy casters balancing their own alignment with the wishes of their god. One of our favorite things to do with this is a wild magic surge, as it can add a lot of flavor to a action.
Are there repercussions for breaking alignment with your associated God?
While we think this could be a really fun idea, we could see the implementation of this being something that many players may not be a fan of.
Honestly, one of our favorite ideas that you could suggest to your player is that if they use the god's powers for something that they do not agree with, they get hit with a wild magic surge. This allows fate to decide the punishment of the gods. It can be a fun way that you can incorporate a cleric or warlock that is disobeying the entity they worship.