Do you use alignment actively, mostly ignore it, or remove it from the game?

[Roxxy]

I usually remove it from my game if I GM, but I use it when I theorycraft character backstories in case I use the character under a different GM. I have several reasons. I touch up against issues that are major political arguments IRL, and I don't want to start throwing up alignments to those involved in those issues. In the setting backstory, humans and various allies killed all the gods but one, and that god is a horrid creature, so alignment isn't being enforced from above and humans are free to define their own moral compass. We don't have a cosmic or absolute ruling on what good and evil are. Finally, the setting revolves around government agents who keep the biggest threats in the monster population under control and deal with rogue mages, both of which are extremely dangerous jobs. This slants the game towards Law and towards Good heavily enough that I find it better to just have people be people instead of tagging them with an alignment when the game itself is heavily biased towards certain parts of the spectrum.

So, what about you guys?

[Auron3991]

I tend to mostly ignore it, save for if the players wish to use it. The more egregious cases (the truely sociopathic killer) I may make use of it, but those are rare.

[Blackhawk748]

Its there, but it serves as more of a basic gauge than a straight jacket, so ya we're pretty lax on Alignment.

As an example ive seen 4 or 5 different paladins in our group and each of them had a different view on what LG meant, same goes with CN (which is probably one of our most over used Alignments)

[ZamielVanWeber]

I use it, but it isn't anything special outside of things that mandate a certain alignment. A token effort to follow your alignment is appreciated.

[Venger]

I ignore it entirely and use it only for the adjudication of blasphemy and similar effects. It improves roleplaying and prevents players from thinking "I have to do X because my alignment is [thing]"

[Troacctid]

I mostly just use Good and Evil. They're excellent storytelling tools. I don't like Lawful and Chaotic much because they're unintuitive. And Neutral is really more an absence of alignment than an alignment in itself.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I do track alignment regardless of its importance to the campaign but if it's not important then I usually don't say anything to the players and avoid using anything keyed off of it.

When I do highlight alignment I do so after talking it over with the players. A few key points that are very important; alignment is by the book. The game rules structure surrounding alignment doesn't necessarily match up with your or my ideas of morality. I don't want to argue RL morality, I want to explore the, rather interesting IMO, nuances of an aspect of a fantasy setting.

To that end, we give the by the book descriptions of good and evil a once over. I remind them that lawful is about social structure not necessarily the on-the-books law of the land and that chaotic is about personal freedom not utter randomness.

We also discuss how opposing alignments might affect intraparty interactions if it looks like it'll be relevant and discuss with any paladin types whether they'd like to be questioning their beliefs or not; shining armor vs tarnished if you catch my meaning.

Finally, and probably most importantly, I make damn sure they know that actions dictate alignment, not vice-versa.

The most important thing about highlighting alignment is making sure everybody's on the same page.

[Jeff the Green]

It depends on the character. For some (Incarnates come to mind) it's important because the whole point is that they're as close to the exemplar outsiders as a mortal can come. For most it's largely irrelevant and just a descriptor that affects how they interact with magic much as elves have special immunities to sleep and the ghast's paralyzing touch.

As a DM, I actually like to play up the how D&D's morality is weird, making even consensual S&M and responsible drug use Evil and complete abstention from sex and mind-altering substances Good, and having outsiders' behavior be bizarre and terrifying to mortals regardless of what alignment they are. People familiar with the planes, therefore, tend to distinguish between Good and right and between Evil and wrong. I also expand it so you have an alignment on the Fire/Water, Air/Earth, and Positive/Negative scales too, though relatively few pay attention to it because it's very rare for a mortal to be anything but neutral on these scales; you basically have to be a pyromaniac, a healer, a necromancer, or a servant of some elemental creature to have any sort of elemental aura.

[JoshuaZ]

Last campaign removed alignment completely. Alignment really isn't useful if one wants to have anything like real-like morality or any degree of substantial ambiguity.

[Telonius]

Alignment is one of those things where (in my games) it doesn't matter, unless it does. I throw out most alignment restrictions on most non-divine classes (Chaotic monks, Lawful barbarians, and Lawful bards are fine by me). It matters more for Divine-casting characters, both for what spells the characters have access to, whether they turn or rebuke undead, and for the sorts of conduct that a deity would tolerate before revoking the power of its official agent. I alter the Paladin class to take the alignment of the character's deity or cause, but that gets a little more complicated.

I change some of the stupider applications of the [Evil] tag for spells (like Deathwatch for example). Alignment still matters for effects like overcoming DR/(alignment), Blasphemy spells, and so on, too.

[atemu1234]

I use it, as a baseline for roleplaying, but it's a guide, not a chain.

[Curmudgeon]

I use it. I keep a tally of actions which have consequences (on either G-E or L-C axes) for each character. If I get enough to shift alignment I'll ask for the character sheet, update the alignment, and hand it back. Freaked out the Paladin player enormously when he discovered he'd become NG and Atonement doesn't help with that axis.

[JusticeZero]

If I am allowing classes where there is substantial interaction with interaction, such as any of the divine spellcasting classes and some arcane spellcasters (both of which I often already ban), I include alignment, and it is important.
However, it is also arbitrary and mechanistic; it has high reliability but poor validity. The kindly old man who tends the graveyard and comforts people when their loved ones die, for instance, is always very Evil no matter how he actually behaves. The healer is always brilliantly Good, regardless of the fact that they might be a sadistic torturer in league with a crime boss. There are things people do that move their alignment, some of which are pretty arbitrary, and incongruous alignment change is a job hazard of some careers.

[Thy Dungeonman]

I find a great many players I've had tend to run characters as creepy and vicious - functionally neutral evil - in games that do not use alignment. If I had players like that in a game with an alignment system, I'd love to use it as a cudgel on them. In the more realistic unaligned games, the only restriction I have is consequences.

Srsly these people are immune to hints that what their characters are doing is nasty and unlikeable. Example:


Them: (scares some people, wanting to beat them up for fun & blood drinkies)

Me: The lady wheeled around to run and fell down, visibly breaking her ankle as she went. Her skinny legs lost some skin, letting a light weak blood smell into the air. Lance hesitated, then when he tried to run he tripped over the lady and flew three feet before crashing into a fire hydrant, dislocating his shoulder. As he flailed away from that, almost passing out from the pain, he ripped open his sleeve and the side of his face a bit, adding to the blood on the sidewalk.
Before the crew got another two steps closer, the 90 pound hipsters were twisted, useless, and prostrate with agony.

Jerk 1: "See what I mean? Flighty wimps."

Jerk 2: "Are you f***in' kiddin' me? F***ing pricks!"

Me: As Jerk 2 came up, he towered above the injured people on the sidewalk. From his point of view, they looked frail and small like kittens. The man groaned in agony, barely conscious, but the woman was startled to awareness by his "f***ing pricks" line, and started thrashing in panic again.

Lady: "*ugh* GOD! Don't k-ki-kill us! AIEE! *ugh*"

Jerk 1: "Yeeeeeah, let's just knock this girl out."

Jerk 2: My guy stepped on the woman's abdomen with enough pressure to barely break her. He looked down at her and spoke,
"You better stop all that noise or I swear I'll kill you." He added slightly more pressure.

Me: Jerk 2's threat had the opposite of the intended effect. Her mind shut down completely and her voice got a lot louder, almost like the step on the abdomen actually gave it a boost.

Lady: "AAAAAIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!"

There was movement from more than one of the houses nearby.

Voice from house 1: "What the hell was that?"

Other voice from house 1: "I'm calling..!"

Jerk 2: "..." He kicked her in the stomach then on the head. Enough force to knock her out, not to kill her. Though, its possible that he did some internal damage. "Detta är skitsnack!" With that, he left for the party.

Jerk 1: "C'mon, let's get out of here before the cops come."

Me: She went silent and her eyes went glassy like something vital had ruptured within her, but the emergency services could probably fix that. The creepily violent giant &/or buff gun & knife-toting strangers went on their merry way.

Witness: "Crack is whack, ya jumped-up freakwads."

And these same jerks act like their characters are nice and cool, under different circumstances. Yuck!

[Roxxy]

Yea, that is a case where it would probably become clear pretty quickly that higher ups don't like it when civilians get attacked by their protectors, and do actually give a damn about police brutality. Wooden shampoo is not a favored cleaning product here.

[Thy Dungeonman]

Roxxy-

Not sure I understood your reply - were u talkin to me? In the scenario described, it was modern day vampires, that sort of thing doesn't apply. There are authority figures who could crack down on them (olda vamps), but the characters become unbearably self-pitying weenies whenever reminded of their status as slaves to the masta vampires. Easier to let them get away with that for now.

But I do take opportunities like that to paint them as unfavorably as I view them. I think any 3rd party coming in and reading that RP thread would be wondering what was wrong with those bozos, and that's gratifying. Especially since their characters are oh-so-beautiful and well-loved (as written) pooky angel types.

BTW, ur avatar is adorbs. :smallsmile:

[Thy Dungeonman]

Oh, Jeff the Green - I like the idea of elemental alignments too! I did a planescape campaign where there was a magic pool that was supposed to purify someone's alignment. Unknown to the guy who used it, it did so by splitting you into different aligned selves spread across the appropriate outer planes. Later in the campaign, someone neutral used it on the prime material and found themselves cloned out to elemental aligned versions.

It's interesting to think of what would constitute elemental morality. Yes, this stuff is all very unrealistic, but it's got a weird appeal for me.

[Blackhawk748]

Roxxy-

Not sure I understood your reply - were u talkin to me? In the scenario described, it was modern day vampires, that sort of thing doesn't apply. There are authority figures who could crack down on them (olda vamps), but the characters become unbearably self-pitying weenies whenever reminded of their status as slaves to the masta vampires. Easier to let them get away with that for now.

But I do take opportunities like that to paint them as unfavorably as I view them. I think any 3rd party coming in and reading that RP thread would be wondering what was wrong with those bozos, and that's gratifying. Especially since their characters are oh-so-beautiful and well-loved (as written) pooky angel types.

BTW, ur avatar is adorbs. :smallsmile:

They sound like a couple of crazed street thugs or Sabat, and my Hunter would love taking them down :smallamused:

[Sith_Happens]

Every campaign I've played in so far has used the system as-is, it just hasn't come up much in play.


Freaked out the Paladin player enormously when he discovered he'd become NG and Atonement doesn't help with that axis.

I don't see why not, the "Redemption or Temptation" bit definitely works and the "Restore Class" bit probably does too thanks to


Though the spell description refers to evil acts, atonement can also be used on any creature that has performed acts against its alignment, whether those acts are evil, good, chaotic, or lawful.

[Crake]

I use it. I keep a tally of actions which have consequences (on either G-E or L-C axes) for each character. If I get enough to shift alignment I'll ask for the character sheet, update the alignment, and hand it back. Freaked out the Paladin player enormously when he discovered he'd become NG and Atonement doesn't help with that axis.

to be fair, atonement from a LG cleric (which i'm assuming he'd have access to) could be used to turn him LG again, simply by virtue of the spell's ability to convert targets to the same as that of the caster.

[Zanos]

I use it to adjudicate mechanical effects, but I've always treated alignment as being something your character has because of their actions, not something that constrains their future actions. So it could be in character for a LE character to help someone out of actual altruism, because "a LE person wouldn't do that" is something I wouldn't ever say.

Characters are people, not alignments.

[ThisIsZen]

In my campaigns, unless I have a really good reason, I blot the alignment rules from the game utterly. I still use alignment in my notes because it's a convenient shorthand and I know what my own interpretations are (and if any of my stuff gets expanded or shared it's convenient for those who do use alignment) but I think that a world without an absolute moral compass is more interesting. Furthermore, a lot of the alignment rules are kludgy or irritating, to me at least.

Plus, I've been in at least one game where a player consistently referenced the book's description of his alignment as a sort of divining rod for his own actions, which was missing the point by such a huge margin that it just crystallized my dislike of alignment as a whole.

[GreyBlack]

I usually remove it from my game if I GM, but I use it when I theorycraft character backstories in case I use the character under a different GM. I have several reasons. I touch up against issues that are major political arguments IRL, and I don't want to start throwing up alignments to those involved in those issues. In the setting backstory, humans and various allies killed all the gods but one, and that god is a horrid creature, so alignment isn't being enforced from above and humans are free to define their own moral compass. We don't have a cosmic or absolute ruling on what good and evil are. Finally, the setting revolves around government agents who keep the biggest threats in the monster population under control and deal with rogue mages, both of which are extremely dangerous jobs. This slants the game towards Law and towards Good heavily enough that I find it better to just have people be people instead of tagging them with an alignment when the game itself is heavily biased towards certain parts of the spectrum.

So, what about you guys?

Contrary to most posters, I actively use alignment in my game. However, I use it mostly because the world I usually run in (homebrew setting) was intentionally designed to push and question the boundaries of each alignment and see where each border should be. For example, is it just to follow through with your destiny if your destiny says you are killed meaninglessly? Is it better to kill a man who turns into a werewolf than to let him attack and kill others? When an NPC says that the world, "Is out of balance," what, exactly, does that mean?

SO yes, I use it, but more as a gauge and a debate tool. My players absolutely love the setting and accept the moral quandaries as part of it.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't see why not, the "Redemption or Temptation" bit definitely works and the "Restore Class" bit probably does too thanks to

Though the spell description refers to evil acts, atonement can also be used on any creature that has performed acts against its alignment, whether those acts are evil, good, chaotic, or lawful. A Paladin who has acted in a Neutral fashion on the L-C axis, and been confirmed (by me as DM) to be NG hasn't performed any acts against its alignment. It's performed acts perfectly in harmony with that NG alignment; they just happen to be acts against its class requirement.
Restore Class
A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell. There's no remedy for committing a Neutral act (on either axis).

[Sith_Happens]

That still leaves the "become the caster's alignment" option.

[OldTrees1]

1) I use the concept of alignment to help describe the difference between belief and reality. This helps in the creation of realistic evil.

2) I use the existence of alignments as a means to create situations that inspire some thought on what is or is not the right thing to do. The example of an innocent evil ogre is a cliche example but a fitting example.

I do not use WotC's frequently bizarre classification of alignment.

[Curmudgeon]

That still leaves the "become the caster's alignment" option.
No, I don't think so.

Redemption or Temptation
You may cast this spell upon a creature of an opposing alignment in order to offer it a chance to change its alignment to match yours. NG isn't an opposing alignment to LG.

[ThisIsZen]

So I'm curious why you decided to throw a paladin into NG territory then, given that the lines between NG and LG are fairly blurry anyway. This seems like a no-win situation for the player - an NG paladin has no class features and cannot seek atonement in order to repent being... too good, I guess? Not lawful enough? Even though Paladins are supposed to be paragons. Therefore, he has to make do as a fighter without bonus feats until he somehow accrues enough morality credits to bounce back into being a Paladin.

Being honest, I'd just scrap the character at that point and move on to something that can't be GM fiated to uselessness that easily.

Disclaimer: I despise the Paladin Fall rules and would almost never implement them without player input. My bias is immense. Feel free to just agree to disagree - your fun/your player's fun isn't my fun, but this is fine, no fun is wrong fun, etc.

[Duke of Urrel]

I use it. I keep a tally of actions which have consequences (on either G-E or L-C axes) for each character. If I get enough to shift alignment I'll ask for the character sheet, update the alignment, and hand it back. Freaked out the Paladin player enormously when he discovered he'd become NG and Atonement doesn't help with that axis.

If a paladin's transgression isn't serious enough to make Atonement possible, then I doubt very much it can be serious enough to make the paladin fall.

I also don't see the sense in interpreting the rules so that the only way an ex-paladin can become a candidate for Atonement is by committing a more grievous transgression.

***

For my part, I have always played with the nine alignments. Then again, as a dungeon master, I've always been very traditional. I've played with Good or morally Neutral players and threatened them with various kinds of Evil. Law and Chaos are mostly there for flavor and haven't played much of a role outside of diplomatic challenges – which are usually quickly set aside when serious Evil rears its ugly head. I haven't dealt with many of the problems that I often hear people complain about in these threads, for example those that arise when players' alignments are completely incompatible with each other.

The dungeon master has to do some work to make the alignment system work. If you simply let "Good" mean that "Good" characters wage genocidal campaigns against "Evil" ones for the sake of treasure alone, then the alignments really do become only labels that have no more meaning than the names of football teams. There has to be a real moral difference between Good and Evil to make them interesting.

The same goes for the ethical difference between Law and Chaos. I usually interpret the conflict between Law and Chaos as the conflict between modern, organized society (that is, intensively agricultural with some urbanization and multi-layered feudal or absolutist government and written laws) and primitive, more free-wheeling society (that is, nomadic or only sparsely agricultural with more decentralized, tribal or clannish, often more participatory government and rule by informal custom). Modern is Lawful in my world, and primitive is Chaotic.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't make these rules; I just try to follow them. To qualify for Atonement, the Paladin needed to commit some Evil act. To comply with the class restrictions, the Paladin needed to stay strictly LG. So the Paladin kicked a puppy, went for Atonement, and then paid more attention to staying Lawful.

[P.F.]

There are lots of game mechanics which use alignment, how can you remove it from the game entirely? Paladins, monks, healing, summons, outsiders, detects, and circles of protection...the list goes on and on....

Alignment ambiguity is a staple of my characters. I played a Neutral Good cleric once who subscribed to the heresy of Strict Utilitarianism: his sole intention was to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This position can be used to justify all manner of things. Eventually, the party rebelled.

I played a paladin once who was assigned by his liege lord to serve as "extra muscle" for an evil party working in the service of the greater good. His central conflict was between his inability to ignore the actions of his associates and his obligation to obey his superior. Either way, he was a tragic hero, doomed to either kill the party and thereby violate his Paladin's Oath, or descend into ever-deepening depravity and acquire the ex-paladin template by associative alignment.

Honestly the only time this becomes an issue is when we have the perennial debate about whether a party member can be a "good" necromancer. As all the spells creating undead are [evil], my opinion on this one is, no, no matter how much wheedling and justifying you do, the spell itself is evil. Not hypothetical, moral-relativistic-debatable evil, but real concrete actual elemental evil.

So there is room for moral ambiguity within the rules, but there are also rules which spell it out. Summoning demons is evil, whether you consider yourself a nice guy or not. Maybe you're a good character who sometimes does evil things, maybe you're an evil character who pretends to be good most of the time. Where to draw the line is the DM's job, even if it isn't always clear.


The kindly old man who tends the graveyard and comforts people when their loved ones die, for instance, is always very Evil no matter how he actually behaves. The healer is always brilliantly Good

Nonsense! No such thing. Working in a graveyard has no evil connotation. Cure spells do not have the [good] descriptor and casting them doesn't make someone a good person. Conversely, inflict spells do not have the [evil] descriptor and do not make you evil for employing them. The circumstances under which they are used, however, might.

[The Insanity]

Alignment really isn't useful if one wants to have anything like real-like morality or any degree of substantial ambiguity.
Personally I play fantasy games like D&D to escape from "real-like" stuff and thus D&D alignment doesn't botter me. YMMV tho.

I use alignment descriptively, unless it matters for mechanics.

[Roxxy]

There are lots of game mechanics which use alignment, how can you remove it from the game entirely? Paladins, monks, healing, summons, outsiders, detects, and circles of protection...the list goes on and on....Here you go. (https://alzrius.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/removing-alignment-from-pathfinder-part-one-classes/)

[Squirrel_Dude]

I use alignment to describe a character's morality/beliefs. I more expect characters to stick to those beliefs and their moral standing than to their alignment. I try use changes in alignments/mechanically relevant things as interesting moments for a character to roleplay. E.G. A NG character falling to Neutral because he made a bad choice is a chance for a nice redemption story.

[Roxxy]

Roxxy-

Not sure I understood your reply - were u talkin to me? In the scenario described, it was modern day vampires, that sort of thing doesn't apply. There are authority figures who could crack down on them (olda vamps), but the characters become unbearably self-pitying weenies whenever reminded of their status as slaves to the masta vampires. Easier to let them get away with that for now.

But I do take opportunities like that to paint them as unfavorably as I view them. I think any 3rd party coming in and reading that RP thread would be wondering what was wrong with those bozos, and that's gratifying. Especially since their characters are oh-so-beautiful and well-loved (as written) pooky angel types.I was responding to your issue of players acting like they are such good people while behaving like violent thugs towards civilians by saying how my setting would counter that sort of thing among the PCs (who are in government service). Essentially, the PCs can generally decide for themselves how they want to approach a mission and deal with the monster without interference from higher ups, but if they start abusing civilians (wooden shampoo is a euphemism for a cop beating somebody about the head with a wooden baton), they are going to run into some serious trouble with their superiors.


BTW, ur avatar is adorbs. :smallsmile:Thanks!

[Thy Dungeonman]

I see. Well, your campaign sounds coo. Kill all ze gods, yo. I think mine should have been more carefully constructed or something, but I'm still blaming the players. :smallwink:

[Sith_Happens]

I don't make these rules; I just try to follow them. To qualify for Atonement, the Paladin needed to commit some Evil act. To comply with the class restrictions, the Paladin needed to stay strictly LG. So the Paladin kicked a puppy, went for Atonement, and then paid more attention to staying Lawful.

Wait, wait, I got this. The Paladin went from LG to NG by behaving Chaotically too often, yes? Chaotic acts are still "against" (or at least not in harmony with) a NG alignment, and therefore can still be atoned for. Since "Though the spell description refers to evil acts..." basically indicates a find-and-replace, you then end up with


A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing a chaotic act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.

It was due to committing a Chaotic act that the Paladin's alignment changed, therefore it was due to that act that his Paladinhood was lost.

QED:smallcool:

[Faily]

Have always played with Alignments in D&D and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Sometimes it's fun to play a game where the universe has labeled what is Good, Evil, Chaotic and Lawful... even though there is always at least one player going for the "I'm Chaotic Neutral, which means it's totally ok for me to murder, steal, rob, etc".

I've never felt restricted by alignment, even after having played "strict" character types like Exalted Good characters and Paladins.

I personally feel that removing alignments from D&D is a bit like removing a part of the game, but YMMV.

[hamishspence]

even though there is always at least one player going for the "I'm Chaotic Neutral, which means it's totally ok for me to murder, steal, rob, etc".


And those that say "I'm LG, which means it's totally ok for me to murder, steal, rob, orcs, goblins and other monsters, because they're not people"

[Curmudgeon]

Wait, wait, I got this. The Paladin went from LG to NG by behaving Chaotically too often, yes?
Nope. Simply a consistent pattern of Neutral Good acts. Those are in the direction of Chaos on the L-C axis, but there were no explicitly Chaotic acts. Basically, the Paladin's player paid attention to the G-E axis, but not the other one.

[Faily]

And those that say "I'm LG, which means it's totally ok for me to murder, steal, rob, orcs, goblins and other monsters, because they're not people"

Have had very little trouble with those going that route, as a majority of those who tend to play the Lawful Good alignments usually try to sort things out with Diplomacy ("hey, we want to know why you've been attacking the villagers over there, and what we can do to sort things out between you guys") or give a chance of surrender, because even if they're not humans they are still sentient and intelligent beings.

But again, I think all groups might have one of those "I can do whatever I want regardless of what my alignment says". Chaotic Neutral just tend to be the biggest sinner. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

Fair enough.


Nope. Simply a consistent pattern of Neutral Good acts. Those are in the direction of Chaos on the L-C axis, but there were no explicitly Chaotic acts. Basically, the Paladin's player paid attention to the G-E axis, but not the other one.

The "drift from LG to NG" thing seems a bit arbitrary -

if the character knows their powers have stopped working - then acting more lawful should allow them to change alignment back - and that should get them their powers back - that is, if they do so before they've accumulated enough experience to get the next level up.

Atonement for being "unacceptably non-lawful" I'd say as as valid as for being "unacceptably chaotic".

And were there any "Lawful Good" options when the character took their "Neutral Good" acts?

[Curmudgeon]

if the character knows their powers have stopped working - then acting more lawful should allow them to change alignment back - and that should get them their powers back ...
That's not what the Paladin class description says.
Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate. According to this rule, an Atonement spell is required; better behavior alone isn't enough to regain Paladin abilities.

[hamishspence]

And whatever "violation" was involved in Ceasing To Be Lawful Good - they can atone for that.

"I violated my code by simply not being Lawful enough."

Champions of Valor points out that the Atonement spell exists for those times when the players simply aren't prepared to role-play out real atonement. There's nothing special about a cleric with the spell - if the PCs want, they can have characters atone through roleplaying and regain their powers that way.

[CGNefarious]

So what you're saying is you're screwing over you paladin by making him lose his abilities because you didn't think he was acting lawful enough, and even if he starts acting lawful enough to change his alignment back to lawful, you're ruling that it wouldn't give him his powers back because it's not the atonement spell? And on top of that you won't let the atonement spell apply anyway because he didn't venture on the good/evil access? Are you providing him with a reasonable way to get his powers back? Because from here, where I know little about your game or the circumstances, it kind of sounds like you're screwing your player over just because.


As far as alignment goes in game I keep it and use it for things such as spell effects and what not, but like other's have said I generally take a more grey approach where your actions/motivations determine what your alignment should be, and then your alignment is your predisposition towards certain actions. Bad people do good things sometimes and good people do bad things sometimes. I prefer my DnD experiences to emulate that. Unless you're a class that focuses heavily on alignment, I see it more as a roleplaying tool than a mechanic, one that helps you fluff you and your character's decisions.

[Curmudgeon]

So what you're saying is you're screwing over you paladin by making him lose his abilities because you didn't think he was acting lawful enough, and even if he starts acting lawful enough to change his alignment back to lawful, you're ruling that it wouldn't give him his powers back because it's not the atonement spell?
That's what the RAW says, yes.

[Blackhawk748]

@CGNefarious: Im not sure if you know this or not but Curmudgeon takes an almost legalistic view of RAW, even stricter than most of our RAW debaters, so his stance on this isn't very surprising.

[atemu1234]

So what you're saying is you're screwing over you paladin by making him lose his abilities because you didn't think he was acting lawful enough, and even if he starts acting lawful enough to change his alignment back to lawful, you're ruling that it wouldn't give him his powers back because it's not the atonement spell? And on top of that you won't let the atonement spell apply anyway because he didn't venture on the good/evil access? Are you providing him with a reasonable way to get his powers back? Because from here, where I know little about your game or the circumstances, it kind of sounds like you're screwing your player over just because.


As far as alignment goes in game I keep it and use it for things such as spell effects and what not, but like other's have said I generally take a more grey approach where your actions/motivations determine what your alignment should be, and then your alignment is your predisposition towards certain actions. Bad people do good things sometimes and good people do bad things sometimes. I prefer my DnD experiences to emulate that. Unless you're a class that focuses heavily on alignment, I see it more as a roleplaying tool than a mechanic, one that helps you fluff you and your character's decisions.

That's what the RAW says, yes.

@CGNefarious: Im not sure if you know this or not but Curmudgeon takes an almost legalistic view of RAW, even stricter than most of our RAW debaters, so his stance on this isn't very surprising.

To be fair, I kind of agree with Curmudgeon on this. If you commit an overly chaotic act (it doesn't have to be evil) as a Paladin of Honor, you're supposed to fall. And you aren't supposed to un-fall (rise? ascend?) until you atone, with the spell in question.

[RedMage125]

I mostly DM more than I play, and I use alignment. And more to the point, I use it the way it's supposed to be used. Alignment is NOT supposed to be a straitjacket to restrict character action. It is not some kind of absolute measuring stick that tells you who wants what. My stance on alignment can be summed up as the following:
Alignment is NOT an absolute barometer of Action nor Affiliation.

Alignment, quite simply, is an overexaggerated, distorted simplification of character's overall values, beliefs, and outlooks as expressed through their actions. People argue on forums all the time about how Good & Evil are a matter of perspective. Well, by the RAW they are not. In the default rules of the D&D setting, Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are objective forces that define the cosmos. Those same forces are present, in smaller amounts, within sentient beings. You might have an individual that believes that those who grow up in orphanages will grow to be evil monstrous people because they lacked family love and structure, and that he is serving the Good of the future by killing orphans and burning those places down. He may genuinely believe that he is a good guy, and may, in all other respects, act like a normal person. But his actions are judged objectively by the multiverse, and a campaign of repeated slaughter of innocents will make one's alignment Evil.

Most of the problems I see people have with alignment stem from anecdotes they tell about what this player or that DM did. And in 100% of the cases I have EVER heard, the case involved deviating from RAW. When a DM uses his or her own personal opinion of what constitutes Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic, instead of adhering to the guidelines laid out in the RAW, and then uses the RAW's mechanics to enforce a homebrew opinion, it is unfair to the players. Players should ALWAYS be informed of any deviations or houserules in effect at the game they are playing. Players have a RIGHT to know what they can draw from the rules and what to expect rules-wise.

My personal views on what is Good and Evil don't coincide perfectly with the RAW, but when I am a DM, I have a responsibility to my players to be as fair and objective as possible. So when I DM, I set my own personal views aside and go by what the RAW says. That way, my players can have an expectation of how I am going to judge their actions in the event of an alignment change or an act of Good/Evil, etc. Because they have access to the same books I do, where the RAW are written down in black and white. The Book of Vile Darkness, for example, while filled with mediocre rules-crunchy material (at best), has some GREAT treatises on the Nature of Evil. The Book of Exalted Deeds has some good stuff on Good, too (although the crunchy bits are just as bad if not worse).

A lot of people complain about "alignment doesn't let me do x", which is also mostly bull****. Monks, for example. A non-lawful monk may be a rich character concept, and perhaps your character could be very cool, fun to play, and great for a story. Alignment mechanics are not the barrier there. Class design is. The 3e devs saw the monk in only one way. The monk was meant to represent the classic fantasy archetype of the wuxia martial artist, who sits in peaceful meditation when she is not doing katas or other exercises. The level 3 ability Still Mind even explicitly states that it is granted due to the long hours spent in practiced meditation. I think if one wanted a Chaotic Monk, one should talk to one's DM and see if you can't work out a special exception, or look for variants (Dragon Magazine, back when it was in print had a Chaotic Monk variant, with a few alternate class abilities). That would be better than complaining that "alignment doesn't LET me". Barbarians are another one. People claim all the time about how historic tribal peoples had tribal laws that they adhered to. Again, Law/Chaos in alignment means nothing in regard to that. A Chaotic character can follow laws, be a part of governing body of a village, city or nation, or even be king and write those laws. Barbarian Rage was viewed by the developers as being a special kind of battle frenzy that requires one to "surrender" in a sense, giving in to primal savagery. This is very physically taxing on the barbarian, hence the limit on times per day. They felt this was something incompatible with the kind of person who is also methodical and disciplined, because people like that (to the devs) don't like giving up that kind of control over themselves. On a personal note there, I would call myself Lawful neutral if I was to be said to have an alignment, and I CERTAINLY hate losing control of myself when I do get really emotional or angry. However, the barrier here is again class design. To the people who complain about non-Lawful Barbarians, I ask "why do you not also complain about illiterate ones?". The devs ONLY saw the barbarian as being a tribal savage who taps into and gives into, baser instincts. But what about a character who was a well-trained and well-educated warrior who could cause himself to go into a "battle-trance", wherein his strikes were more effective (the increase to STR), he was able to ignore pain a little better (CON increase), but his focus on offense left a few openings in his defense (the lowered AC). Such a character could work as a Lawful Barbarian, yes? Again, alignment is not the hindrance to such a character, because there's also now issues with why such a character would be illiterate, or have Survival as a class skill. More minor tweaks would be in order for the base class to make that character work. A few changes to skill list, remove illiteracy, etc.

The only VALID indictment of the alignment system I have ever seen is the complaint about how Detecting Evil/Good/Law/Chaos can completely ruin otherwise more investigative plotlines. I agree. And while a Ring of Mind Shielding works as a great foil, it becomes trite if it has to be used all the time. However, removing it entirely may not be the perfect solution, because you can lose out on classic fantasy tropes. Such as "As the party enters the ancient temple of the demon cult, [Party Paladin's name], you can immediately sense the Evil here. It lingers like a foul smell, and it is an assault on your mind".

I am absolutely against telling other people how to run their game. If taking out alignment works for you and makes your game more fun for you and your group, great. But don't come here and make claims about how horrible alignment is, and pretend that you are privy to some great Truth that alignment is, objectively, a bad system. I will argue for weeks on end about what alignment is and is not by RAW. What people do in their home games is their business. If you alter the system, it's your prerogative, it's not "BadWrongFun". But people opinions about alignment being bad doesn't make the system bad. Plenty of people use it just fine without problems, whether or not they stick to RAW. And the reason I am so firm about RAW is because this is a discussion about a fantasy game. Once again...A. FANTASY. GAME. This means that, as a construct of fantasy, the devs were under no obligation to adhere to real-world ideas about anything when they made the game, and what they say in the RAW is true, is true for the default setting. If they say "creating an undead creature, whether mindless or not, is an act of evil because of these reasons...", then making an undead creature is an Evil act, period. So many people argue "but I'm just making mindless automatons under my control who only do what I tell them, an Enchanter uses Dominate Person to take away someone's free will and that's not evil, whaahhhhh!". Tough, deal with it. them's the rules of the multiverse as spelled out by RAW. And since D&D is a game all about customization and permitting people to alter the rules however they wish in their home games, there are limitless variations and deviations possible from RAW. And since not all deviations can be accounted for in a discussion about the rules (like alignment), RAW is the only valid subject matter. We can all look to the same books that say the same things, and only what RAW says to be factual is factual.


Nope. Simply a consistent pattern of Neutral Good acts. Those are in the direction of Chaos on the L-C axis, but there were no explicitly Chaotic acts. Basically, the Paladin's player paid attention to the G-E axis, but not the other one.
Now, like I said, I don't want to tell you how to run your game, but someone said you were someone who takes a "legalistic" view of RAW, and you claim your ruling here to be in keeping with RAW, so I feel that I should say something.
This is terrible. So he was CONSISTENTLY doing Good, right? Isn't consistency a hallmark of Lawful behavior? Lawful alignment does not necessarily have ANYTHING to do with civil laws, but can be entirely adherence to a particular code.

Paladins do NOT lose their powers for committing Chaotic acts, read your PHB. They lose their powers for INTENTIONALLY committing an Evil act, yes. And if their alignment ceases to be Lawful Good. but if someone shows a dedication towards Good, and consistently behaves in that regard, without a series of Chaotic acts that show a deviation from the paladin's code, how can you say that the acts were Neutral Good in a manner incompatible with Lawful alignment? I mean, if an act is Good without being Chaotic or Lawful, isn't it just a Good act?

Cite what kind of action is both Good and distinctly non-Lawful. Mind you, "non-Lawful" in the instance of a paladin also has to mean that it was not a behavior endorsed by the paladin's Code of Conduct, which DOES specify that the paladin needs to uphold JUST laws. So a paladin working outside the law when the law is unjust or unfair is NOT a violation of the paladin's CoC.

Paladin's don't even lose their powers for committing a morally Neutral act, even. And even when an Evil act causes them to lose their powers, they don't cease to be Lawful Good right away. most paladins who commit that one Evil act don't change alignment. Miko Miyazaki died a Lawful Good ex-paladin*. If they show a consistent trend of behavior not in keeping with Lawful Good, then they may suffer an alignment change, but to punish a paladin's player because he or she was, in fact, consistently (Lawfully) behaving in a Good manner seems to me to be a heavy-handed DM tactic to punish a player for some other slight or to exercise one's own DM power for the sake of bringing another individual down.

*Proof of that is that Soon told her that she would see Windstriker in the afterlife, indicating that she was still going to go to the Lawful Good afterlife. She also expected her paladin powers back, which would have required her to be LG. However, she did not atone, or even admit she was wrong. But her outlooks and beliefs never changed, thus her alignment never did.

Paladins are held to a higher standard than most. But being Lawful Good and upholding a Code of Conduct doesn't mean you can ONLY take actions that are both Lawful and Good. There exist actions without ethical (Law/Chaos) or moral (Good/Evil) impact, such as acquiring food. If a paladin is on a long journey, and spends 2 or 3 weeks in the wilderness, hunting food and travelling, are you going to change his alignment because he spent 2 or 3 weeks committing True Neutral acts? He committed no act that was a violation of his Code of Conduct, but neither was he ever presented with a choice to do so. He simply hunted and gathered as he travelled.

The main problem I have with your ruling here is that while Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are very real, objective forces in the D&D multiverse, Neutrality is not. Neutrality is the empty space between those forces. That's why in D&D one cannot argue that "evil is the absence of good", because that's not true. The absence of Good is Neutrality, Evil is a separate force. An act that is "Neutral Good" as you call it, is, by definition, neither Lawful nor Chaotic, it is simply Good. There is no force of Neutrality. It would take a consistent demonstration of Chaotic acts (many acts, over a period of time to be no less than an in-game week, according to the DMG, page 134) for a paladin's alignment to change to Neutral Good. They wouldn't even have to be Chaotic Good acts. Even a morally Neutral act that was ethically Chaotic would suffice, since, according to the DMG, you can only shift alignments one step, along one axis, at a time (DMG, page 134). So, Neutral Good acts are just acts that are Good, and you claim to have RAW support for taking away a paladin's powers for committing Good acts?

Please explain. You have already emphatically stated that the acts were not Chaotic. Justify this, and back up your claims with RAW. Because the way I see it, you have either misinterpreted how alignment works, how alignment shifting is supposed to work, or you thought that Paladins were not allowed to commit Chaotic acts (spoiler alert: they are allowed to, so long as they don't keep it up so long they cease to be Lawful).

[Curmudgeon]

Cite what kind of action is both Good and distinctly non-Lawful.
Helping a drunk home rather than finding a representative of the guard/militia to report their public intoxication. Holding up traffic without authority (being part of the organized militia or town guard) to give a group of children priority to cross the road.

[Jeff the Green]

Helping a drunk home rather than finding a representative of the guard/militia to report their public intoxication. Holding up traffic without authority (being part of the organized militia or town guard) to give a group of children priority to cross the road.

Neither of those is non-lawful. To paraphrase... just about everyone who's written about alignment, actually, Law is not about laws; it's about having a code. If my code is "the police are untrustworthy so I have to do what's right" those actions are entirely LG.

[Troacctid]

See, that's why I don't usually bother with the Lawful-Chaotic axis at all. It's so nebulous and rarely useful. I like the 4th edition alignments much better. (Yeah, I said it.)

[Red Fel]

Neither of those is non-lawful. To paraphrase... just about everyone who's written about alignment, actually, Law is not about laws; it's about having a code. If my code is "the police are untrustworthy so I have to do what's right" those actions are entirely LG.

How about entering into a contract (an honorable agreement) to acquire a shipment of goods (either acting as a courier or stealing it outright) and deliver it to your client, then upon discovering what the shipment actually is (medicines for sick villagers, weapons to be delivered to criminals, whatever) going back on your agreement?

Honoring your bargains isn't exclusively a Lawful trait, but breaking contracts is decidedly non-Lawful. Doing it for the right reasons makes it Good (you're keeping weapons out of the hands of evil people, or delivering medicine to the sick), but it's still non-Lawful.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Helping a drunk home rather than finding a representative of the guard/militia to report their public intoxication. Holding up traffic without authority (being part of the organized militia or town guard) to give a group of children priority to cross the road.

Really?

These actions aren't even well defined enough to attach an ethical alignment to them. A lawful alignment requires an organized system to which the character in question is dedicated. If the character's chosen system is the tenets of his faith, rather than the laws of his homeland (which he may not even be in), then these could be entirely lawful good actions. They're pretty clearly good but their ethical position is wildly unclear.

[Jeff the Green]

How about entering into a contract (an honorable agreement) to acquire a shipment of goods (either acting as a courier or stealing it outright) and deliver it to your client, then upon discovering what the shipment actually is (medicines for sick villagers, weapons to be delivered to criminals, whatever) going back on your agreement?

Honoring your bargains isn't exclusively a Lawful trait, but breaking contracts is decidedly non-Lawful. Doing it for the right reasons makes it Good (you're keeping weapons out of the hands of evil people, or delivering medicine to the sick), but it's still non-Lawful.

In this case, not going back on the deal is dishonorable. "Honor" is about keeping your promises, but only when made to someone who isn't deceiving you. Also, any paladin who doesn't tack on "and if it turns out you're asking me to do something wrong or dishonorable the agreement is void and I will come back to smite your ass" to every contract is a moron. And anyone who makes a contract with a paladin and doesn't assume that's an implicit part of the deal is also a moron.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Since it's been brought up, it's probably important to point out that honor, like ethics and morality, is culturally subjective. It is very much -not- exclusive to any particular alignment though it does lean toward lawful just a bit.

[Curmudgeon]

Neither of those is non-lawful. ... Law is not about laws; it's about having a code. If my code is "the police are untrustworthy so I have to do what's right" those actions are entirely LG.
That wasn't the case at all. The player simply prioritized Good acts, and largely ignored consideration of where those acts were on the Lawful-Chaotic axis. The town guard weren't at all untrustworthy. The Paladin would have been acting Lawfully to respect authority; however, the player chose to act whenever a possibility of doing a Good act arose, pretty much always. Sometimes those Good acts were also Lawful, but mostly they were minor insults to local authority. The Paladin could have asked the wagon drivers to wait for the children to cross the road; instead, he got in the middle of the road and called his mount to block passage, forcing the wagons to stop (or collide). There wasn't any particular law against tying up traffic in this manner, but it did disregard order. In the case of the drunk, not reporting public intoxication was punishable by a fine; but in practice that only happened if their drunkenness had otherwise drawn the attention of the guard or militia (which it might have, as the happy drunk was serenading the town).

[Kelb_Panthera]

That wasn't the case at all. The player simply prioritized Good acts, and largely ignored consideration of where those acts were on the Lawful-Chaotic axis. The town guard weren't at all untrustworthy. The Paladin would have been acting Lawfully to respect authority; however, the player chose to act whenever a possibility of doing a Good act arose, pretty much always. Sometimes those Good acts were also Lawful, but mostly they were minor insults to local authority. The Paladin could have asked the wagon drivers to wait for the children to cross the road; instead, he got in the middle of the road and called his mount to block passage, forcing the wagons to stop (or collide). There wasn't any particular law against tying up traffic in this manner, but it did disregard order. In the case of the drunk, not reporting public intoxication was punishable by a fine; but in practice that only happened if their drunkenness had otherwise drawn the attention of the guard or militia (which it might have, as the happy drunk was serenading the town).

I -did- say they weren't well enough defined as you presented them. Obviously you know more about the situation than we do but this clarification -still- doesn't change that for the drunk. Even the disruption of order in the traffic jam is still defensible under the right circumstances. The paladin's code requirement to respect legitimate authority is -not- a defining characteristic of all lawful behavior. Helping the drunk was a very minor violation of the paladin's code but it still wasn't necessarily non-lawful. Disrespecting whatever organized structure he's dedicated himself to, I'm guessing the dogma of his LG patron deity, in order to follow the local laws would be much more non-lawful than what he actually did. Same goes for the traffic jam. If his deity demands that children be treated with, forgive the pun, kid gloves then his actions may have been warranted.

Now I'm not saying that the alignment change was unwarranted, just that these aren't necessarily good examples. Your particular interpretation of the atonement spell is, however, kinda douchey. You -really- can't spin your understanding of what it means to act "against alignment" to fit his previous behavior? Even then, I -know- you're not actually saying that you wouldn't let an atonement work if he managed to manually change his alignment back to LG through behavior?

[sonofzeal]

Neither of those is non-lawful. To paraphrase... just about everyone who's written about alignment, actually, Law is not about laws; it's about having a code. If my code is "the police are untrustworthy so I have to do what's right" those actions are entirely LG.

"Lawful" can generally be described as the conflux of three traits (hence the nebulousness, since a character can lack one of those traits and still be "lawful):

- Rationality. There's a very strong correlation between characters being perceived as "lawful" and acting based on reason, and characters being perceived as "chaotic" and acting based on emotion.

- Consistency. Whether through an explicit Code or simply through habit, lawful characters tend to be more change-averse than chaotic ones. Lawful characters are much more likely to find routine and familiarty comforting, and may develope an explicit Code to lean on when in doubt, while chaotic characters tend to chafe under such "restrictions" and prefer to try new things.

- Respect for Authority. The nature of that authority can vary, but "Laws" is certainly a common manifestation, or "Tribal Elders", or "Ancestors", or "Military Commander". Sometimes different authorities conflict, and following a particular local law may not coincide with the authority the character respects, but lawful characters are generally inclined to respect an authority simply because it's an authority, and local governments usually qualify unless there's extenuating circumstances.

[Faily]

Cool stuff in a wall of text

Best post in this thread, imo. :smalltongue:

It made me wish the forum had a Like-button.

[Draco_Lord]

Personally I find the whole thing constricting, but interesting to include. As a DM I do like having players pick an alignment, as it forces a little thought into the type of person they want to be, rather then just instantly jumping straight to the roving band of thugs they want to be. That said, I think that the nature of each one is up to a lot of interpretation. So rather then having them stick to a type f action, I prefer to have them justify their actions.

For instance. They are attacked by an evil powerful monster on the way to save the world from a lich who plans to coat the world in death. A player stays behind to fight the monster, intentionally or because he might have just been closest and grab as they tried to free. Should a good character try to save them? On the one hand you are leaving a friend to day, or at least to fight a creature all by himself. On the other, this might be too powerful, and your quest to save the world is worth more. Even among the different levels of lawful to chaos I think this is still debatable. A paladin sworn to defeat the lich, he breaks his oath if he dies here. A chaotic character who that greater good is a better option.

Or Chaotic Evil. I think that is a spectrum of choices. A person who only wants what is best for themselves, and doesn't care who they hurt along the way. Not so much might is right, but that they are right. They don't care about others, they don't go out of their way to hurt people, but if it happens to make their lives easier, then they do. Or if they just can't be bothered to step to the side to help someone. Things like that.

[BWR]

I play with alignments. They are fundemental aspects of the multiverse and an integral part of the game. They are objective not just personal preferences. People may quibble about the details but the objective reality of the game (RAW as interpreted and adjusted by the DM) is pretty clear on the subject. Also, whatever feelings you have on the subject IRL is pretty irrelevant. The only thing that is important is what is considered Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic in the game. There will be a lot of overlapping in most cases but just because you believe X is good/evil/laeful/chaotic IRL doesn't mean that's the case in the game, and we go by what's in the game. Most of these alignment aspects are pretty broad and can include quite a lot of stuff.

Alignment isn't a straightjacket. The alignment on your sheet is a roleplaying aid and a reflection of your action. If you consistently act in a manner at odds with what's on the sheet, the sheet changes to reflect the actions. Most classes with alignment restrictions have those removed. You can be a lawful barbie or bard, or a chaotic monk in my games. The paladin is different mostly because I love the classic LG paladin.

[Red Fel]

In this case, not going back on the deal is dishonorable. "Honor" is about keeping your promises, but only when made to someone who isn't deceiving you. Also, any paladin who doesn't tack on "and if it turns out you're asking me to do something wrong or dishonorable the agreement is void and I will come back to smite your ass" to every contract is a moron. And anyone who makes a contract with a paladin and doesn't assume that's an implicit part of the deal is also a moron.

That assumes deceit. It could be as simple as "I need this shipment, and I need discretion; what I don't need are questions." And frankly, I find the Paladin's attitude worrisome, preferring retroactive smiting to proactive investigation. But let's try a hypothetical with some teeth.

Mr. Johnson wants the PCs to receive, protect, and deliver a shipment of crates on his behalf. There are five small crates, each containing twenty units of medicine. The PCs are to deliver the medicine to Rich-Opolis, where it can be purchased at the leisure of the wealthy inhabitants. Rich-Opolis has an advanced medical system, so even if they are short on medicine, they can easily make up the difference; nobody will be endangered if the medicine is late.

The PCs, delivering the medicine, pass through a village afflicted with the plague. The medicine would save lives. But it is not the PCs' medicine to give; it belongs to Mr. Johnson.

If the PCs give the medicine to the peasants, they are doing a good deed. However, they are violating their contract - a non-Lawful thing to do. Even if they offer to repay Mr. Johnson the value of the medicine, they have violated their agreement. There was no deceit, no secret agenda, nothing objectionable to the PCs. They simply prioritized one good over another. They did Good, but not Lawfully.

And someone who puts a Paladin in that position is thoroughly asking for it. But that's my baggage.

[RedMage125]

That wasn't the case at all. The player simply prioritized Good acts, and largely ignored consideration of where those acts were on the Lawful-Chaotic axis. The town guard weren't at all untrustworthy. The Paladin would have been acting Lawfully to respect authority; however, the player chose to act whenever a possibility of doing a Good act arose, pretty much always. Sometimes those Good acts were also Lawful, but mostly they were minor insults to local authority. The Paladin could have asked the wagon drivers to wait for the children to cross the road; instead, he got in the middle of the road and called his mount to block passage, forcing the wagons to stop (or collide). There wasn't any particular law against tying up traffic in this manner, but it did disregard order. In the case of the drunk, not reporting public intoxication was punishable by a fine; but in practice that only happened if their drunkenness had otherwise drawn the attention of the guard or militia (which it might have, as the happy drunk was serenading the town).

As Jeff the Green said, nothing about that is non-Lawful in an alignment sense. Is it flying in the face of order around them? To a small extent, yes. But Paladins don't fall for Chaotic acts, only Evil ones. You can double check your PHB if you doubt me.

Lawful in alignment does not necessitate ANYTHING to do with civil laws of a town, city, or nation. Unless his specific paladin code of conduct included clauses of "thou shalt not obstruct traffic" or "thou shalt not interfere with the practice of commerce", those acts were not violations of his CoC.

Look, like I said before, there are no "Neutral Good" actions. An action can only be Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic. It can be more than one of those at once, or it could be lacking those qualities. An action that is none of those things does not move a character's alignment towards True Neutral. If a Chaotic Evil character spends 3 weeks in the wilderness doing nothing but surviving by hunting and gathering (acts which have no moral or ethical weight), he does not become less Chaotic or less Evil.

Neutrality is not one of the cosmic forces in the multiverse. You cannot detect Neutrality. You can detect Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. Subjecting a non-Mind-Blanked individual to all 4 of these and getting negative on all of them is the only way to tell if someone is True Neutral. There are no spells that only target Neutral individuals. To the contrary, one of the 3.5e splatbooks had a Holy Smite-like spell (or maybe it was Holy Word-like) that targeted the alignment extremes (LG, CG, LE, CE) instead of only one alignment trait.

An act that is NOT Chaotic cannot move a character's alignment towards Chaotic. One does not stop being Lawful because one committed acts that were not Lawful. And the acts you described had nothing to do with Lawful in alignment. To the contrary, the paladin exhibited a dedication to the good of people over that of money. Paladins are not police officers, they're not charged with keeping drunks off the streets or that traffic flows orderly. Paladins are dedicated to righteousness. They are holy warriors, expected to hold up the highest ideals of Good. Stopping a monster or horde of goblins from ravaging the countryside is what they care about. Many paladin code emphasize compassion; indeed one of the tenents of Good in the PHB is "concern for the dignity of sentient beings". So, he compassionately helped some drunk get home without him being publically humiliated and forced to endure a heavy fine over a poor decision (to drink to excess). Sounds like the only weight of that act was Good. Same with the traffic thing. His concern was not for the inconvenience he caused a few wealthy merchants, but for the safe passage of innocent children across a street filled with people obviously more interested in getting somewhere to make money than they are in the possible hazard to children. Yup, sounds like an act of Good with no concern for petty material matters, nor the minutiae of enforcing a minor fine for a harmless mistake.

It sounds to me like your paladin player was roleplaying his character very well, and did everything he could to play a good paladin to the letter. Nothing he did warranted an alignment change. Not by RAW, anyway. You're the DM, you can rule what you like. I'm not telling you to change what you do. I'm just telling you that you have, in fact, deviated from RAW. That is how you run your game, and it is your prerogative as DM to do so. But please, do me a favor and don't go trying to tell other people that such was a ruling in keeping with RAW, because it was not.

[NichG]

Generally what I do is to remove it from all prerequisites for mechanical abilities and mostly ignore it. However, spells which want an alignment to interact with to determine their effects use how the PC has been behaving from the point of view of the entity granting that spell, rather than whatever they have on the sheet. So e.g. if you've sunk a lot of merchant ships lately, you'll show up as 'evil' to a Detect Evil cast by a priest of the god of sailing and trade even if simultaneously you might show up as 'good' to a priest of a god of charity (because you gave 20% of your take to orphans and beggars).

I think this tends to make it less about self-reflection or judgement by someone external to the game in the form of the DM (e.g. 'my self image demands I be called Good and I will be upset if the DM disagrees') and more about 'entities with these spells have a way to get a glimpse of your past behavior, at least along one axis, and judge for themselves'.

[Curmudgeon]

But Paladins don't fall for Chaotic acts, only Evil ones. You can double check your PHB if you doubt me.
Firstly, there were no Chaotic acts, just consistently Neutral ones. And I've checked the rules, of course.
Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities ... Any change from LG alignment means the Paladin loses all their class abilities. Evil is only one way to lose. Failing to be Lawful is another.

[GreatDane]

In my D&D group, we use alignment for two purposes:
Roleplaying guideline
Adjudicating spells and supernatural effects that are alignment-dependent
If people start bickering about whether or not a certain action matches an alignment, I remind them that the alignment written on the character sheet has only the two purposes listed above, and isn't really worth halting session for.


The game rules structure surrounding alignment doesn't necessarily match up with your or my ideas of morality. I don't want to argue RL morality, I want to explore the, rather interesting IMO, nuances of an aspect of a fantasy setting.
Also this.

[Sith_Happens]

Nope. Simply a consistent pattern of Neutral Good acts. Those are in the direction of Chaos on the L-C axis, but there were no explicitly Chaotic acts. Basically, the Paladin's player paid attention to the G-E axis, but not the other one.


Sometimes those Good acts were also Lawful, but mostly they were minor insults to local authority. The Paladin could have asked the wagon drivers to wait for the children to cross the road; instead, he got in the middle of the road and called his mount to block passage, forcing the wagons to stop (or collide). There wasn't any particular law against tying up traffic in this manner, but it did disregard order. In the case of the drunk, not reporting public intoxication was punishable by a fine; but in practice that only happened if their drunkenness had otherwise drawn the attention of the guard or militia (which it might have, as the happy drunk was serenading the town).

I'm really not sure what description of Chaos you're reading that directly causing needless social disorder doesn't qualify for.:smallconfused:

As for how that relates back to Atonement-legalese, though, I'll admit that "Forgive me Father, for I have been grossly neglectful of my duty to promote harmony and order" is much less amusing than "Forgive me Father, for I have been grossly neglectful of my duty to promote harmony and order, and then kicked a puppy just so I could properly atone for the negligence bit.":smallwink:

[Graypairofsocks]

Summoning demons is evil, whether you consider yourself a nice guy or not.
Actually the Malconvoker PrC (found in Complete Scoundrel, and neutral or good alignment needed) can summon demons/devils/whatever without turning evil or commiting an evil act.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm really not sure what description of Chaos you're reading that directly causing needless social disorder doesn't qualify for.:smallconfused:
I doubt "social disorder" is the proper way to describe wagons briefly stopping in the road, then continuing on their way. It was presumptuous, but not Chaotic, behavior on the part of the Paladin.

[Coidzor]

Mostly ignore it beyond a rough guideline for whatever alignment you've picked, except for the classes that depend upon it mechanically in some way, like Incarnates and Paladins. I've made some efforts to do some houserules to move Paladins away from being dependent on alignment and looked around for good homebrew alternatives, but, eh, if I go into that a whole lot I'll have ended up just completely replacing the base classes anyway.

Bad Guys are bad guys. Potential Allies are potential allies. Insert Pointy End of Sword Here. And so on.

I have axed the alignment components of spells in a lot of cases, because I disagree with the mindset that lbelieves being able to tell if someone is in need of healing and telling if undead are hiding amongst corpses is EVIL.

[SiuiS]

Oddly enough, as much as I talk about it, it goes largely ignored. Players don't use detections or protections except where they are stupid-obvious. Protection against evil for demons. Detect chaos for hiding priests. Etc.

Because really, when evil people do evil things, it's obvious they're evil. The alignment system may as well not exist for a lot of these interactions. When it does, it's interesting, but that's not a guaranteed thing.

So I guess in general I only use it as a mental starting point for prereqs, but that's just as much "how would a person who does this behave" as "how to play a X/Y alignment".


I do track alignment regardless of its importance to the campaign but if it's not important then I usually don't say anything to the players and avoid using anything keyed off of it.

When I do highlight alignment I do so after talking it over with the players. A few key points that are very important; alignment is by the book. The game rules structure surrounding alignment doesn't necessarily match up with your or my ideas of morality. I don't want to argue RL morality, I want to explore the, rather interesting IMO, nuances of an aspect of a fantasy setting.

To that end, we give the by the book descriptions of good and evil a once over. I remind them that lawful is about social structure not necessarily the on-the-books law of the land and that chaotic is about personal freedom not utter randomness.

We also discuss how opposing alignments might affect intraparty interactions if it looks like it'll be relevant and discuss with any paladin types whether they'd like to be questioning their beliefs or not; shining armor vs tarnished if you catch my meaning.

Finally, and probably most importantly, I make damn sure they know that actions dictate alignment, not vice-versa.

The most important thing about highlighting alignment is making sure everybody's on the same page.

All this. Especially the law chaos bit. If a town is run by a criminal organization, they're the law, not the "government".


It depends on the character. For some (Incarnates come to mind) it's important because the whole point is that they're as close to the exemplar outsiders as a mortal can come.

That was good fun. Tiefling incarnate who was Judge Dredd for Law for the last three hundred years? Best starting character concept.


As a DM, I actually like to play up the how D&D's morality is weird, making even consensual S&M and responsible drug use Evil and complete abstention from sex and mind-altering substances Good, and having outsiders' behavior be bizarre and terrifying to mortals regardless of what alignment they are. People familiar with the planes, therefore, tend to distinguish between Good and right and between Evil and wrong. I also expand it so you have an alignment on the Fire/Water, Air/Earth, and Positive/Negative scales too, though relatively few pay attention to it because it's very rare for a mortal to be anything but neutral on these scales; you basically have to be a pyromaniac, a healer, a necromancer, or a servant of some elemental creature to have any sort of elemental aura.

This is intriguing. Could you send me notes on how you run this?

[BWR]

Actually the Malconvoker PrC (found in Complete Scoundrel, and neutral or good alignment needed) can summon demons/devils/whatever without turning evil or commiting an evil act.

It's a stupid class and should never have been created. Being able to commit evil acts and not have it be evil sets a very bad precedence for the game.

[Yahzi]

I use alignment more as team affiliation. If you want clerics and outsiders and such to think you're on their team, you have to maintain your alignment.

Restrictions on behavior are not there to stop the player from doing something; they are there to force the player to role-play why they are doing that thing.

[Jeff the Green]

This is intriguing. Could you send me notes on how you run this?



First off, I use sonofzeal's minimum intervention balance fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?211407-Minimal-Intervention-balance-fix-%28PEACH%29) for tier 2 and nerf tier 1 into oblivion (Artificers are an NPC class because it's illegal for them to leave a certain area, Clerics can't cast outside of hallowed ground, Druids and StP Erudites don't exist, and Archivists and Wizards take at least 10 minutes to cast a spell). That's not necessary but it explains some of the following.
Some outsiders* gain an elemental or positive or negative subtype.
Detect <element/energy> spells are added to basically everyone's list at level 1. It works just like detect evil, but can also detect elementals of the correct subtype.
Sorcerers have patrons, usually elementals but sometimes outsiders, who give them a fragment of their power in exchange for service, and they're beholden to the patron, its servants, and any creature of the same type with at least one subtype in common. They gain auras of their patron's subtypes as a Cleric. In exchange for this (and losing their Charisma SADness) they gain an appropriate bloodline feat as a bonus feat and the metamagic specialist ACF without giving up their familiar.
Certain other classes (e.g. pyromancer) also gain an element/energy aura, as well as Favored Souls and Clerics of a deity strongly tied to an element or energy. For example, a cleric of Pelor (though I don't use Greyhawk deities) would ping on detect good, detect fire, and detect positive energy.


Or do you mean the whacked out alignment thing? Basically I just emphasize the alienness of outsiders (an archon is literally incapable of performing an Evil or Chaotic act, but Good is not always good or even comprehensible, and in the right circumstances it could be a vigilante as easily as a judge), ignore some of the text of the BoVD and BoED that explain that S&M isn't Evil in se nor abstention Good, they're just associated with such, and assign/reassign alignment based on the weirdness. Like a NE incarnate who deliberately and consistently refuses drugs may eventually be at risk of losing his class features. (I give warnings well ahead of time and try hard not to lay traps since it's not like normal D&D. I haven't gotten to do it all that much because I'm not up to running another PbP and my real-life group meets infrequently and does more of a beer-and-pretzels sort of game, so unfortunately I can't say definitively how well it works or give any good examples off the top of my head.

Oh, though I do change Law and Chaos a bit. Basically, they're about how you make decisions: Do you follow a code? You're Lawful. Do you obey your whims? You're chaotic. At one extreme, we have the modrons who, if you do something not covered by their programming will just ignore it (much more likely with the simple ones; basically doesn't happen with Primus) because they don't have a routine saying how to react. At the other we have the slaadi, who are as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Also just as likely to try to mate with it, eat it, or compose an epic about it in amphibrachic septameter. The only reason Chaotic characters shouldn't fall into Chaotic Stupid is that even though they might follow their whims, some pattern creates those whims; slaadi don't have a pattern and so their whims and behavior are utterly random.

*Well, outsiders in default D&D. I move things like the energons over to elemental; only things made of alignment stuff are outsiders. Things that are a mix, like most genies, stay put.


It's a stupid class and should never have been created. Being able to commit evil acts and not have it be evil sets a very bad precedence for the game.

It doesn't change that. The text is very clear that Malconvokers have two waivers: They're not prevented from casting [Evil] summons based on their alignment (so a NG Cleric can summon a devil or demon) and they're not put on the slippery slope and don't risk alignment shift solely for casting [Evil] summons. A Cleric/Prestige Paladin/Malconvoker still falls for summoning a fiend. Basically, they've learned to do this one evil thing without worrying that they'll start twirling their mustache.

[P.F.]

Malconvokers have two waivers: They're not prevented from casting [Evil] summons based on their alignment (so a NG Cleric can summon a devil or demon) and they're not put on the slippery slope and don't risk alignment shift solely for casting [Evil] summons. A Cleric/Prestige Paladin/Malconvoker still falls for summoning a fiend. Basically, they've learned to do this one evil thing without worrying that they'll start twirling their mustache.

I agree that a Paladin/Malconvoker would still gain the Ex-Paladin template for summoning evil outsiders, as the class ability only removes the "may not cast" restriction and prevents the wholesale change of alignment due to regular use of such spells. Casting the permitted [evil] spells, however, is still an evil act for the purposes of a paladin's Code.

While summoning evil outsiders cannot change the character's alignment, a Malconvoker is at constant risk of abusing his powers. Turning demons against non-evil opponents who happen to be in the way, or handing NPC's over to a summoned demon to be tortured, are evil acts regardless of how the demon was summoned.

[RedMage125]

Firstly, there were no Chaotic acts, just consistently Neutral ones. And I've checked the rules, of course. Any change from LG alignment means the Paladin loses all their class abilities. Evil is only one way to lose. Failing to be Lawful is another.

Yes, if their alignment changes. But, as I said, a Neutral action is not ACTIVELY Neutral, it just lacks Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic elements. He was consistent in the manner of behavior in which he promoted Good. How is that consistency not an example of Lawful alignment?

The DMG page 134 covers the RAW on how to change a player's alignment. If you deviated from those guidelines, you have deviated from RAW.

The PHB explicitly states that people do not ALWAYS act within their alignment, and are not 100% consistent from day to day. So he acted in Lawful ways, and acted in ways that are neither Lawful nor Chaotic. That doesn't mean he has become less Lawful. It's unreasonable to assume that EVERY action he takes MUST be Lawful. How does one sleep in a Lawful manner?

It's like the examples of someone travelling so long that for weeks the only actions they took were sustenance related (Neutral). You don't suddenly change alignment because you didn't commit acts of Law/Chaos/Good/Evil.

I'm sorry, Curmudgeon, but you're deviating from RAW. Run your game how you like, I'm not telling you "you're doing it wrong", because DMs reserve the right to deviate from RAW.

[Curmudgeon]

The DMG page 134 covers the RAW on how to change a player's alignment. If you deviated from those guidelines, you have deviated from RAW.
As usual, I followed the RAW:

The character was consistent in trying to perform Good acts, but without regard to whether they were Lawful or not. That is, the actions largely did not match up with the alignment written on the character sheet. In particular, the Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality guideline applied for the C-L axis. The Paladin was never actively Lawful; I just gave the player the benefit of the doubt until I'd tabulated enough actions that consistently disregarded established order/traditions/laws. Pretty much always the Paladin favored giving someone another chance rather than holding them accountable for their transgressions.
The change was a single alignment step, following the Alignment Change Is Gradual guideline. Even though the Paladin was never actively Lawful, I didn't force the issue until level 5.
Finally, the You’re in Control guideline establishes that the DM decides the actual alignment.


I'm sorry, Curmudgeon, but you're deviating from RAW. Nonsense. See above.

[hamishspence]

Paladins are Good first, Lawful second- that's why they have an Aura of Good and Detect Evil (instead of an Aura of Law and Detect Chaos).

[Venger]

Paladins are Good first, Lawful second- that's why they have an Aura of Good and Detect Evil (instead of an Aura of Law and Detect Chaos).

Paladins of honor are Lawful Good, so clearly they are Lawful first, Good second

[Nibbens]

I have a question for Curmudgeon with regard to how this situation was handled. Was the player given warnings or alerts like "You feel like you're not quite upholding the pally code" etc etc. weather in game or out game. And was the character aware of his gradual shift? Or did you do the opposite and make him not aware of his slow fall and hit him with it suddenly?

[Curmudgeon]

Before the game began I warned the player that the rules for Paladin conduct were quite strict, and the class was "high maintenance". I told everyone initially, and again each time I was awarding enough XP for a level increase, that alignment was the result of PC actions rather than just player say-so, and if they wanted to change to a different alignment they had to start behaving accordingly. I said I was keeping track of actions which would affect alignment; if they didn't care I'd just tell them when their character's behavior had resulted in a shift.

I didn't provide any divine visions of impending alignment shift for the Paladin or any other PC. Alignment is an in-game reality in D&D, not a metagame concept.

[Nibbens]

Is it just me or is


... I said I was keeping track of actions which would affect alignment; if they didn't care I'd just tell them when their character's behavior had resulted in a shift... (emphasis mine)

and


I didn't provide any divine visions of impending alignment shift for the Paladin or any other PC.

contradictory statements? You will tell them about alignment leanings every level, but won't tell them about alignment leanings...

help me understand you here, please.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Is it just me or is

(emphasis mine)

and



contradictory statements? You will tell them about alignment leanings every level, but won't tell them about alignment leanings...

help me understand you here, please.

He's saying, I believe, that he would warn them of alignment shifting activity when they leveled unless they chose to opt out of such warnings; something the paladin, hopefully, wouldn't have done.

[Duke of Urrel]

Before the game began I warned the player that the rules for Paladin conduct were quite strict, and the class was "high maintenance". I told everyone initially, and again each time I was awarding enough XP for a level increase, that alignment was the result of PC actions rather than just player say-so, and if they wanted to change to a different alignment they had to start behaving accordingly. I said I was keeping track of actions which would affect alignment; if they didn't care I'd just tell them when their character's behavior had resulted in a shift.

I didn't provide any divine visions of impending alignment shift for the Paladin or any other PC. Alignment is an in-game reality in D&D, not a metagame concept.

This is a good and thorough presentation of your game management – and a fair warning. If I were a paladin in your game, I would most certainly invest in a Phylactery of Faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) at the very next opportunity.

[Nibbens]

He's saying, I believe, that he would warn them of alignment shifting activity when they leveled unless they chose to opt out of such warnings; something the paladin, hopefully, wouldn't have done.

Which is closer to my point. If this is true, then the pally has no one to blame but himself. Nevertheless, regardless of which it is, it still contradicts


I didn't provide any divine visions of impending alignment shift for the Paladin or any other PC. Alignment is an in-game reality in D&D, not a metagame concept.

Warning them of alignment leaning (not shifts) is a metagame action. Never the less, I'm curious about Curmudgeons take on the scenario. (Keep in mind, I'm not attacking him/her - I'm just really curious as to his/her definitions of metagaming and RAW interpretations.) Either it's a metagame concept or it's not, it can't be both... unless the DM wills it. lol. :)


This is a good and thorough presentation of your game management – and a fair warning. If I were a paladin in your game, I would most certainly invest in a Phylactery of Faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) at the very next opportunity.

Word. lol.

[Curmudgeon]

contradictory statements? You will tell them about alignment leanings every level, but won't tell them about alignment leanings...
Not quite right. I explained the alignment mechanics again, and gave each player the option to get some idea of how their behavior was affecting alignment, each time they were ready for a new level. No player took me up on that offer, and I didn't force any character-level divine warnings upon the PCs. The Paladin player stated, "I'm good." That was either an expression of confidence in their alignment management, or a statement of alignment intent, or both. :smallconfused: One other PC (the Rogue) had an alignment shift (from NG to N); when I announced this change the player just said, "Whatever." The Paladin player wasn't as surprised by their alignment change as much as with the difficulty of qualifying for Atonement.

[Coidzor]

Someone mentioned having minor alignmental shifts along the elemental/energy axes, and I rather found that interesting. WIll go back and quote who that was in a bit.


It depends on the character. For some (Incarnates come to mind) it's important because the whole point is that they're as close to the exemplar outsiders as a mortal can come. For most it's largely irrelevant and just a descriptor that affects how they interact with magic much as elves have special immunities to sleep and the ghast's paralyzing touch.

As a DM, I actually like to play up the how D&D's morality is weird, making even consensual S&M and responsible drug use Evil and complete abstention from sex and mind-altering substances Good, and having outsiders' behavior be bizarre and terrifying to mortals regardless of what alignment they are. People familiar with the planes, therefore, tend to distinguish between Good and right and between Evil and wrong. I also expand it so you have an alignment on the Fire/Water, Air/Earth, and Positive/Negative scales too, though relatively few pay attention to it because it's very rare for a mortal to be anything but neutral on these scales; you basically have to be a pyromaniac, a healer, a necromancer, or a servant of some elemental creature to have any sort of elemental aura.

Yeah, this. Interesting thought.

But all this talk of Paladins has reminded me of something. I've been toying around with a change to Paladins that instead of requiring them to be LG or CG or LE or CE or whatever, alignmental extremes with only one possible alignment, instead having them have to conform to a more sane, less stupid version of being Exalted Good, regardless of the ethical axis for Paladins and a less mouth-frothingly, baby-eatingly stupid version of Vile for Anti-Paladins.

So, there's still some of that pressure to be a card-carrying hero or villain without greyness but at least it prevents all of the derailments over the ethical axis which I find to be ultimately trivial, distracting, and unimportant to the core idea of such creatures as Paladins are made of unless one subscribes to the trap that many of the designers fell into that "LAWFUL GOOD IS BEST GOOD" and "CHAOTIC EVIL IS WORST EVIL." And those ideas are just....

Tiresome.

[Thy Dungeonman]

I'm gonna make a new thread for elemental alignments. Thought that was fun too.

[NeoPhoenix0]

first, didn't read most of the posts, so there may be/probably are people out there with similar opinions.

I completely ignore alignment. I create a character i find interesting and then struggle to pin down exactly which alignment it is. Which usually happens to be somewhere in the area of neutral, chaotic neutral, or chaotic good because my own character tends to bleed into my characters. (Rules lawyering is not just for lawful types.) Unless i'm going for some specific character.

On the other side sometimes i need an alignment for a build. in that case i build up the character's character around the alignment, then throw the alignment out the window and ignore it.

generally i view that particular space on the character sheet as a meddlesome 2 dimensional label that is necessary for game mechanics and occasionally needs to be reference to stay in character (though acting out of alignment can be within character) or possibly need to be changed.

[Nibbens]

Not quite right. I explained the alignment mechanics again, and gave each player the option to get some idea of how their behavior was affecting alignment, each time they were ready for a new level. No player took me up on that offer, and I didn't force any character-level divine warnings upon the PCs. The Paladin player stated, "I'm good." That was either an expression of confidence in their alignment management, or a statement of alignment intent, or both. :smallconfused: One other PC (the Rogue) had an alignment shift (from NG to N); when I announced this change the player just said, "Whatever." The Paladin player wasn't as surprised by their alignment change as much as with the difficulty of qualifying for Atonement.

That explains it entirely. The pally knew the stakes and was accepting of the fact as well as opted out of the warnings he would have received... really shortsighted move on his part, imo. lol.

Sucks about the interpretation of atonement though... Are you going to give the pally a chance to atone in game (instead of using the spell) via role-play?

[Curmudgeon]

Sucks about the interpretation of atonement though... Are you going to give the pally a chance to atone in game (instead of using the spell) via role-play?
Oh, this was a game years ago. I've already explained the solution: the Paladin committed an Evil act (kicked a puppy), and then qualified for Atonement. With no training in Improved Unarmed Strike the damage was 1d3 nonlethal, and this was after the Wizard zapped him with Chill Touch repeatedly to knock his STR down to 8 (-1 modifier).

[Nibbens]

Oh, this was a game years ago. I've already explained the solution: the Paladin committed an Evil act (kicked a puppy), and then qualified for Atonement. With no training in Improved Unarmed Strike the damage was 1d3 nonlethal, and this was after the Wizard zapped him with Chill Touch repeatedly to knock his STR down to 8 (-1 modifier).

Oh! My bad. LMAO! That's awesome tho... er, not really. Bad evil act... but... yeah. Creative solution and all that... :/

[RedMage125]

That seems to me to be adhering to mechanics in a way that they no longer follow thematics.

And Curmugeon...you are still failing to understand that an act that is neither Lawful nor Chaotic doesn't move one towards Chaos in alignment. The 4 forces are Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil. There is no force of Neutrality, that is simply the absence of the others. A "Neutral Good" act as you call it, is simply an act of Good, without Lawful or Chaotic elements.

Sometimes Lawful people engage in non-lawful acts. Would you, in fact, do as I was asking earlier and change someone's alignment if they spent a month in the wilderness just hunting and gathering? Because those would be "True Neutral" acts, according to how you've been ruling it.

The bottom line is that actions without moral or ethical weight do not affect one's outlooks. And only actions that have moral and/or ethical weight should affect alignment. A Good act that is neither Lawful nor Chaotic is simply a Good act, and leave it at that. He was not acting in a non-Lawful manner at all, so I don't see how you can justify claiming adherence to RAW, because in no way was he "behaving in a manner more in keeping with an alignment other than his own" (DMG, pg 134).

Lawful alignment has nothing, I repeat NOTHING to do with civil laws, so how can you even claim that his acts were "non-Lawful"? Unless his paladin CoC EXPLICITLY covers that it's his duty to be a traffic cop and vice squad, neither the drunk nor the merchant wagon incidents were in any way non-Lawful behavior. Even if the city's laws said one thing, he was upholding the values of compassion and righteousness.

[Curmudgeon]

And Curmugeon...you are still failing to understand that an act that is neither Lawful nor Chaotic doesn't move one towards Chaos in alignment. The 4 forces are Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil. There is no force of Neutrality, that is simply the absence of the others.
The rules disagree with you.

A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Failing to maintain Lawful behavior is enough to change alignment.

[Jeff the Green]

The rules disagree with you.
Failing to maintain Lawful behavior is enough to change alignment.

While this is true, this does not mean that he has to punish law-breakers himself (that would be vigilantism, which is often proscribed by lawful codes) nor does he have to help punish people who are guilty according to the law but not according to the code.

[RedMage125]

The rules disagree with you.
Failing to maintain Lawful behavior is enough to change alignment.
Nothing about the rules your posted disputes the text of mine that you quoted. You have provided no proof that Neutrality is one of the cosmic forces like Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, which it would have to be for you to dispute what I was saying.

Nothing in the rules says that a Lawful person can ONLY do Lawful things or change alignment. In fact, the first page of Chapter 6 of the PHB explicitly says that people do not ALWAYS act in accordance with their alignment, and that in addition, few people are consistent from day to day.

The PHB also says that a tenant of Good is "concern for the dignity of sentient beings", and helping the drunk home instead of hitting him with a fine is showing compassion for a man who had a few too many, sparing him the indignity of public humiliation and financial loss over one night's poor choices.

I've also posited that NOTHING in what you presented of the paladin's behavior was "failing to maintain Lawful behavior". To the contrary, he was Lawfully sticking to his ideals of Righteousness, Charity, and Compassion over the petty minutiae of "enforcing a fine for public drunkenness" or traffic violations. Since "Lawful behavior" doesn't mean squat regarding civil laws, you have no real support to the claim that his behavior was "non-lawful".

You also keep refusing to answer my question regarding a LG or CE individual that spends a month travelling in the wild, living off the land doing nothing but Neutral actions related to subsistence for a month. I'm not strawmanning your stance here, it's a genuine question. Do you believe that such a character would start changing alignment towards True Neutral?

[thematgreen]

I have people pick what they think their alingments are on character creation but track it behind the screen. If the lawful good fighter is a murderhobo and driven by treasure then I quietly move his alingment away from LG to whatever is appropriate.

When something happens regarding alingment, such as a special weapon, or encounter with a being who considers alignment important, or somthing else, that fighter may be shocked that he can't weild the weapon, or the good demi god isn't impressed with him or whatever.

It's caused some conflict, but I point out that for someone who is lawful good he sure does steal and murder a lot.

Actually had it kill a character. He was a NG fighter who refused surrender from opponents, stole anything he could, actually ignored a burning orphanage to chase the bad guy, and ended up murdering two semi important NPCs that were irritating him because they refused to fight against the BBEG, instead offering to help those that were wounded.

So, they end up facing the BBEGs second in command and the LG cleric of something or other summons some angel or something (It's been awhile) to get blessings and advice. At this point the "NG" fighter is solidly in "NE" territory. He ends up offending the summoned being by just being around. The angel asks that he leave, since even though he is evil he is still working towards the greater good. The figther is shocked that he is considered evil, and takes it OOC. So I show him "The List" which I keep for each character to track reputation and alignment, and other actions, and point out he is a psychopath and is in no way good. So he goes back in character, refuses to leave and calls the angel out on being a liar, and then is killed in a short combat.

[Nibbens]

That seems to me to be adhering to mechanics in a way that they no longer follow thematics.

I think this one was directed toward me in reference to


Quote Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
Oh, this was a game years ago. I've already explained the solution: the Paladin committed an Evil act (kicked a puppy), and then qualified for Atonement. With no training in Improved Unarmed Strike the damage was 1d3 nonlethal, and this was after the Wizard zapped him with Chill Touch repeatedly to knock his STR down to 8 (-1 modifier)

so I'll answer. Yes, Curmudgeon is adhering strictly to RAW interpretations without regard for RAI. So yes, he's unabashedly following the mechanics in such a way that they no longer follow thematics. It's not the way I'd do things, but it's his. If his players are cool with this and have fun at his table, then well... yeah. lol.

[Curmudgeon]

Nothing about the rules your posted disputes the text of mine that you quoted. You have provided no proof that Neutrality is one of the cosmic forces like Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, which it would have to be for you to dispute what I was saying.
I don't have any idea what you're going on about. There are 9 alignment choices in the D&D game, not just 4 "cosmic forces". Here's the essential rule (Player's Handbook, page 104):
If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character’s alignment has changed to match her actions. There is no requirement for those actions to have any extreme alignment component; they simply have to better match an alignment different from the one written on the character sheet.

[JusticeZero]

I'm not complaining. I generally consider alignment to be physics, and I tend to be on the "cold equations" side on physics questions. I would have allowed Atonement to work in that case though.

[cerin616]

I always find alignments important, not as a straight jacket, but to keep players aware of how they are perceived, be it by mortals or gods. Any time I feel like someone is acting wildly out of alignment, I give them a chance (usually outside the game) to discuss with me what they are thinking and what I think about it, because DnD good and evil are tough to nail down. Its a blend of multiple ethical systems, which most people never formally learned.

Classes with alignment requirements/penalties get the main light here.
I won't make a paladin fall without giving him a chance to justify what he has done, and without explaining why he has fallen, for example, but he is expected to at least try to live lawful good, and to have good reasons for acting in the grey zones of his alignment.

Other than that, alignment can say whatever you want on your character sheet, but your actions determine how people treat you. If you claim to be neutral good, but constantly slaughter babies "for the greater good" then people might be put a little on edge about you. They might have dark stories being told behind your back, if your acting badly enough a cleric may see his "good" spells getting weaker. He might have his miracle declined if his god is Elhonna and he is asking that the woodlands burst into flame to ruin the enemies food supply.

That being said, I also play that if a cleric has a patron deity, its that deity that he is requesting a miracle from, and that he asks his power from. He can say "screw Elhonna, I'm changing deities" and maybe his new deity doesnt mind burning down the woodlands, but until he does his power is subject to that deities whims.

[RedMage125]

I don't have any idea what you're going on about. There are 9 alignment choices in the D&D game, not just 4 "cosmic forces". Here's the essential rule (Player's Handbook, page 104): There is no requirement for those actions to have any extreme alignment component; they simply have to better match an alignment different from the one written on the character sheet.

And to that point, I'm going to repeat what I said earlier:
I've also posited that NOTHING in what you presented of the paladin's behavior was "failing to maintain Lawful behavior". To the contrary, he was Lawfully sticking to his ideals of Righteousness, Charity, and Compassion over the petty minutiae of "enforcing a fine for public drunkenness" or traffic violations. Since "Lawful behavior" doesn't mean squat regarding civil laws, you have no real support to the claim that his behavior was "non-lawful".

Here's the clincher, repeated one more time:
Lawful in alignment =/= Civil laws.

You also keep refusing to answer my question regarding a LG or CE individual that spends a month travelling in the wild, living off the land doing nothing but Neutral actions related to subsistence for a month. I'm not strawmanning your stance here, it's a genuine question. Do you believe that such a character would start changing alignment towards True Neutral? Since, you know, he spent a month taking only True neutral actions?

[mashlagoo1982]

And to that point, I'm going to repeat what I said earlier:
I've also posited that NOTHING in what you presented of the paladin's behavior was "failing to maintain Lawful behavior". To the contrary, he was Lawfully sticking to his ideals of Righteousness, Charity, and Compassion over the petty minutiae of "enforcing a fine for public drunkenness" or traffic violations. Since "Lawful behavior" doesn't mean squat regarding civil laws, you have no real support to the claim that his behavior was "non-lawful".

Here's the clincher, repeated one more time:
Lawful in alignment =/= Civil laws.

You also keep refusing to answer my question regarding a LG or CE individual that spends a month travelling in the wild, living off the land doing nothing but Neutral actions related to subsistence for a month. I'm not strawmanning your stance here, it's a genuine question. Do you believe that such a character would start changing alignment towards True Neutral? Since, you know, he spent a month taking only True neutral actions?

I must admit, this thread has got me thinking deeper about alignment.

Personally, the answer to this question really depends on what the individual is trying to accomplish and what alignment choices were available.

Simply traveling from one location to another (hopefully to pursue some goal), with no other significant alignment choices being present (no real opportunity to perform Lawful, Chaotic, Good, or Evil), there would be no shift.

However, if there were options to perform alignment appropriate deeds, there maybe an impact (from simple notation to actual alignment shift depending on past actions).

Additionally, if the character is not traveling from one location to another and isn't actively pursuing some appropriate quest/mission, an alignment shift (eventually) maybe in order. Why? To me this is the equivalent of putting ones hands over their eyes and humming loudly. A player cannot remain at a specific alignment without pursuing goals that reflect the alignment.

This thread has convinced me to implement a house rule where paladins (and maybe other strict Lawful alignment classes) must develop some code to help govern their actions. For instance, a simple template could be as follows.

We of the ______ will...
forever seek out ______ to _______
hold ______ above all else
never give into ______

[Curmudgeon]

And to that point, I'm going to repeat what I said earlier
You're not making any headway by repeating things, even if you use really big text. :smallwink:

I've cited the basic alignment rule from Player's Handbook. You haven't listed any rule which I violated.

[Coidzor]

You're not making any headway by repeating things, even if you use really big text. :smallwink:

I've cited the basic alignment rule from Player's Handbook. You haven't listed any rule which I violated.

Within the rules? Sure, probably. I certainly don't care to do enough digging to contest things further than this thread-eating tangent or subject-change already has.

A good idea, though? Doesn't seem like it from how you've presented it. But, to be fair, I suppose you weren't really trying to persuade us about that, and were solely concerned about its basis in RAW and showing such.

Still, reading over the exchanges you've had here, it seems like a whole lot of time spent away from the actually interesting parts of the game with no actual payoff for anyone involved, not even you as the DM.

[Denver]

One can make the argument for Neutral being as compelling a force as Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic when one considers the True Neutral Druid who wishes to balance Law with Chaos and Good with Evil in his domain, or the City Captain who is Lawful Neutral and cares only that a law is broken, and not any reason for it.

Under the idea that a player can uniquely justify their position, one can argue that Neutral is as compelling a force as Good and Evil, and Law and Chaos. (If anyone has played the second Knights of the Republic game, I believe Kreia would also serve as another example of a way in which "Neutral" can be actively "championed," and not just exist as the middle ground between Evil acts and Good ones, of Lawful acts and Chaotic ones.)

Of course, Neutral is also just neutral, so it would likely depend on the character and how they role-play to articulate such a minor - though important - distinction as between just being uncommitted to any alignment, or being of the opinion that moral and civil balance is important, or simply a commitment that any extreme is worse than the middle ground. One could be a neutral character by balancing Good acts with Evil acts, or by repeatedly choosing acts which deliberately and actively seek the Neutral desire.


I frankly enjoy the inclusion of alignment into games. I don't think it is as important in one of the games in which I participate, but the other game appears to have a much heavier weight placed on alignment (at least on the idea that it is being tracked and actions are being recorded) and that gives it the feel that my actions and the actions of the party matter a bit more. Also, there are so many items or spells or circumstances that ask for a character's alignment, and I think removing or reducing the constant tracking of alignment without consideration of those items, spells, and circumstances *can* allow for the party or player to have the best of both worlds; to be able to commit murder without much moral relativism and also be able to use that wand that requires a Good aligned user, or somesuch similar situation.

[Thy Dungeonman]

thematgreen - I'd love to do that with some of my PbP weirdos. It isn't D&D, so those particular options are off the table. But I might rewrite their character sheets some time to reflect how they are played as opposed to how they were written. These guys love to put **** like, "Is basically cool guy with heart of gold" and then ruin human lives and injure people without a glance back. Someday they will wake up with a character sheet that says, "Is a callous violent creep who will ruin someone's life on a whim, can't be trusted by anyone living or dead, generally unlikable." Stuff like that.

[Coidzor]

thematgreen - I'd love to do that with some of my PbP weirdos. It isn't D&D, so those particular options are off the table. But I might rewrite their character sheets some time to reflect how they are played as opposed to how they were written. These guys love to put **** like, "Is basically cool guy with heart of gold" and then ruin human lives and injure people without a glance back. Someday they will wake up with a character sheet that says, "Is a callous violent creep who will ruin someone's life on a whim, can't be trusted by anyone living or dead, generally unlikable." Stuff like that.

Are you talking Fate? Because I'm pretty sure you're supposed to do that in Fate too if they alter their tags like that in game.

[thematgreen]

thematgreen - I'd love to do that with some of my PbP weirdos. It isn't D&D, so those particular options are off the table. But I might rewrite their character sheets some time to reflect how they are played as opposed to how they were written. These guys love to put **** like, "Is basically cool guy with heart of gold" and then ruin human lives and injure people without a glance back. Someday they will wake up with a character sheet that says, "Is a callous violent creep who will ruin someone's life on a whim, can't be trusted by anyone living or dead, generally unlikable." Stuff like that.

You can still do it without giving them a new character sheet.

For example:

Bobby the LG Figther has murdered every single enemy, even when they surrender. He has stolen anything he can get his hands on and has no compunction about believing "An orc is an orc" regardless of that races actions. He has murdered shopkeepers for "sassing" back to him, loitered, and once was almost arrested for lollygagging.

He is LG. His character sheet says so.

Bobby later comes into a town of mixed races, a peaceful medely of human, elf, dwarf, orc, goblin, etc. (The main city all my campaigns are based out of has almost all races represented) and he cannot find anyone to talk to him, prices at the inn are way too high, supplies are not available to him, information is not available to him...and the guards seem to be following him around.

Bobby is, of course, angry about this. He is a paragon of lawful good, his character sheet says so. He questions me about why he is having a hard time and I reply that stories of his exploits as a murderhobo have gotten around. He's lucky he wasn't turned away at the city gates, but nobody wants to deal with a monster.

[RedMage125]

You're not making any headway by repeating things, even if you use really big text. :smallwink:

I've cited the basic alignment rule from Player's Handbook. You haven't listed any rule which I violated.

You, know, except for the core point of "Nothing about helping a drunk home instead of paying a fine or stopping traffic to help children is exclusively Neutral Good as opposed to Lawful Good".

This because of the point that Lawful alignment means diddly squat with respect to civil laws. A Chaotic character can be a law-abiding citizen, and a Lawful one can be a criminal.

Look, I'm not telling you the way you ruled it is "wrong", because as long as your players have fun that's more important than adherence to any particular set of guidelines. What I am telling you is that said decision is NOT in keeping with RAW. There was nothing explicitly non-Lawful about those actions, so it can't be said that he was behaving "more in accordance with an alignment other than his own" to paraphrase the DMG, page 134, wherein it covers the DM's guidelines on when it is and is not okay to change a PC's alignment and how it should be done.

[Thy Dungeonman]

@thematgreen - My pbp is modern vampire stuff in a big metropolis, so most people won't have advance knowledge of the murderhobo character. (There's a few crappy guys, one in particular who I'll focus on re: violence.) I feel like the character sheet thing could be a good way to go, because in-game consequences do nothing to deter this player from having their guy be a total creep. And whatever, he can't really derail the campaign or anything that bad by being like that. He just ends up being a gross jerk who is always hanging around. I don't like it, but it isn't a hassle... I just feel like it was false advertising to pretend this character ever had an ounce of human decency thru his backstory. I'd like to rectify that.

To put it in D&D terms, I'm not one of the people who is OK with players having alignment on the sheet just say whatever they want. I prefer my evil properly labelled.

Broadening things a bit, I'm active on atheist fora and a blogger on one took issue with my use of the term evil. She said it's best not to use the terms of the religious when working against that sort of thought. For my purposes, I've always had a secular understanding of the term and feel comfortable in its use.

For me, evil is cruelty and harm, especially in excess of what is necessary to survive. Nature produces nice things, but it also produces evil, because it's an amoral process & if something nasty has reproductive success, we're just stuck with it. Carnivorans cannibalizing the young of their species (wolverines and large felids come to mind, I've heard of others), myriad horrors of the insect-scale world, and of course, the evil that humans do. Most of that is unnecessary to raw survival, but - at least in more primitive species & us in primitive times - conferred some slight survival edge.

But it's still nasty and horrible and the kind of thing people rightly abhor. So why not use the term evil for that? (IRL arguments can be made, less relevant here.) In an RPG especially, I'm OK with using those terms.

Now the game I'm presently running is IRL-esque, so there's no metaphysical element to morality, no need for the terms. But just from a PoV of a writer, I object to characters being written as if their peachy angels and played as if they are demons, while the original document is left intact. It's bad writing, like when a writer expects readers to give a crap about a character who is a total jerk, never giving any justification.

Anti-heroes or even villains-as-protagonists is fine, if it's presented that way. But bland selfish impulsively violent jerkwads are neither of those things, especially if written like they'd ever been anything else.

^this feels like it was poorly thought out and written, take it or leave it. :smalltongue:

[thematgreen]

@thematgreen - My pbp is modern vampire stuff in a big metropolis, so most people won't have advance knowledge of the murderhobo character. (There's a few crappy guys, one in particular who I'll focus on re: violence.) I feel like the character sheet thing could be a good way to go, because in-game consequences do nothing to deter this player from having their guy be a total creep.

My world is ongoing and much of the RP interaction runs on a reputation scale, so if people start acting a certain way as they adventure word will get around. Example: My last campaign the group decided to help protect a group of citizens from a zombie attack, rather than running off to look for the BBEG. They ended up with no cost at the inn to stay and no need for diplomacy or anything to gather information in that part of the city. Later they turned in a thief, who only stole to afford medicine for his daughter. While there wasn't any overt hostility they noticed that the DC to gather information was very high and the nearly empty inn had no rooms available.


To put it in D&D terms, I'm not one of the people who is OK with players having alignment on the sheet just say whatever they want. I prefer my evil properly labelled.

When it comes to the RP flavor of the character I feel that the players can write whatever they way, because I go by the players actions, not what is written on their sheet. I've had Paladins cause their own fall, I've had people lose power, or even gain power based on their actions. In my example above with Bobby, that was an actual character who over a long period of time proved that even though a paper said LG his actions said NE and he was impacted by that.


Discussion about how you view evil

The word and use is in the book, people can suck it if they want you to use other words because of out of game stuff.


Now the game I'm presently running is IRL-esque, so there's no metaphysical element to morality, no need for the terms. But just from a PoV of a writer, I object to characters being written as if their peachy angels and played as if they are demons, while the original document is left intact. It's bad writing, like when a writer expects readers to give a crap about a character who is a total jerk, never giving any justification.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. My point is that a character can be misguided and feel that he is a paragon of good, or evil, but his actions in game may be different. If Olaf the Baby Eater spends his time donating to orphanages and saving baby ducks, and no time eating babies, he is going to be viewed in my game as a nice guy, regardless of what he thinks he is.

I'm not writing a book, I created a world for my players and I have that world react to their actions. If a player doesn't like being responsible for his actions that is his issue, his character can learn from it, or he can deal with the constant concequences or being a jerkass, or he can not play. I give my players the freedom of choice in campaigns and then more realistic concequences. Why would a village welcome a known murdurer or thief, why wouldn't a village celebrate a hero who has saved them? I've been accused of sandbagging players who want to be evil, I tell them that, like in real life, there are concequences and that they should hide their characters crazy better.

I agree with you when a book has such poorly writted characters, but that has nothing to do with my campaigns.

[BluesEclipse]

I don't make these rules; I just try to follow them. To qualify for Atonement, the Paladin needed to commit some Evil act. To comply with the class restrictions, the Paladin needed to stay strictly LG. So the Paladin kicked a puppy, went for Atonement, and then paid more attention to staying Lawful.

All other considerations aside... I'd rule that committing an Evil act to qualify for Atonement prevents you from qualifying for it - one of the reqs is to be genuinely repentant for the act, and I would say you wouldn't really be repentant if you're just saying "Well, that's the puppy kicked - now fix my alignment."

[Thy Dungeonman]

I'm not writing a book, I created a world for my players and I have that world react to their actions...I agree with you when a book has such poorly writted characters, but that has nothing to do with my campaigns.

I like ur style. :smallsmile: This is another way in which we differ. I think of RP - particularly PbP where there's a running record - as a kind of collaborative writing. As with round robin stories, there will be whack-ass elements you can't do anything about, but everything is elevated by people doing a decent job of it & dragged down by the reverse.

[SiuiS]

First off, I use sonofzeal's minimum intervention balance fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?211407-Minimal-Intervention-balance-fix-%28PEACH%29) for tier 2 and nerf tier 1 into oblivion (Artificers are an NPC class because it's illegal for them to leave a certain area, Clerics can't cast outside of hallowed ground, Druids and StP Erudites don't exist, and Archivists and Wizards take at least 10 minutes to cast a spell). That's not necessary but it explains some of the following.
Some outsiders* gain an elemental or positive or negative subtype.
Detect <element/energy> spells are added to basically everyone's list at level 1. It works just like detect evil, but can also detect elementals of the correct subtype.
Sorcerers have patrons, usually elementals but sometimes outsiders, who give them a fragment of their power in exchange for service, and they're beholden to the patron, its servants, and any creature of the same type with at least one subtype in common. They gain auras of their patron's subtypes as a Cleric. In exchange for this (and losing their Charisma SADness) they gain an appropriate bloodline feat as a bonus feat and the metamagic specialist ACF without giving up their familiar.
Certain other classes (e.g. pyromancer) also gain an element/energy aura, as well as Favored Souls and Clerics of a deity strongly tied to an element or energy. For example, a cleric of Pelor (though I don't use Greyhawk deities) would ping on detect good, detect fire, and detect positive energy.


Or do you mean the whacked out alignment thing? Basically I just emphasize the alienness of outsiders (an archon is literally incapable of performing an Evil or Chaotic act, but Good is not always good or even comprehensible, and in the right circumstances it could be a vigilante as easily as a judge), ignore some of the text of the BoVD and BoED that explain that S&M isn't Evil in se nor abstention Good, they're just associated with such, and assign/reassign alignment based on the weirdness. Like a NE incarnate who deliberately and consistently refuses drugs may eventually be at risk of losing his class features. (I give warnings well ahead of time and try hard not to lay traps since it's not like normal D&D. I haven't gotten to do it all that much because I'm not up to running another PbP and my real-life group meets infrequently and does more of a beer-and-pretzels sort of game, so unfortunately I can't say definitively how well it works or give any good examples off the top of my head.

Oh, though I do change Law and Chaos a bit. Basically, they're about how you make decisions: Do you follow a code? You're Lawful. Do you obey your whims? You're chaotic. At one extreme, we have the modrons who, if you do something not covered by their programming will just ignore it (much more likely with the simple ones; basically doesn't happen with Primus) because they don't have a routine saying how to react. At the other we have the slaadi, who are as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Also just as likely to try to mate with it, eat it, or compose an epic about it in amphibrachic septameter. The only reason Chaotic characters shouldn't fall into Chaotic Stupid is that even though they might follow their whims, some pattern creates those whims; slaadi don't have a pattern and so their whims and behavior are utterly random.

*Well, outsiders in default D&D. I move things like the energons over to elemental; only things made of alignment stuff are outsiders. Things that are a mix, like most genies, stay put.

Ah, okay. I thought you meant you had an alignment scale for elements, and that a person could perform [water] actions and become enemies with [fire] creatures thereby, like alignment.

Of course, typing that out shows me how silly the alignment mechanics are. There's literally no difference between good/evil/chaos/law and your system except one conveniently maps to morality just enough to get a pass.


Paladins of honor are Lawful Good, so clearly they are Lawful first, Good second

There are no non-lawful non-good paladins. There are lawful good paladins, and three knock-off pretenders who missed the memo that paladin is a specific, not a generic, term for a knight who abides by the holiness of his station as a paragon.

I default to the implied idea from the 3.0 DMG, often. Humans have paladins, dwarves have defenders elves have arcane archers or blade singers, depending. Each one is a racially specific class choice designed to emphasize their race's views on moral correctness. They are the different paths to holiness of their kind.

That's much more interesting, I find, than a divine armored smiting toolkit.

[atemu1234]

There are no non-lawful non-good paladins.

*ahem*paladin-of-tyranny*cough*paladin-of-slaughter*snort*other-drag-mag-variants*ahem*

Also, just because they are supposed to be paragons of both doesn't mean that one doesn't take precedent. As DM, I'd allow a chaotic act to be good better than an evil act to remain lawful.

[hamishspence]

*ahem*paladin-of-tyranny*cough*paladin-of-slaughter*snort*other-drag-mag-variants*ahem*

Those were already mentioned:


There are lawful good paladins, and three knock-off pretenders who missed the memo that paladin is a specific, not a generic, term for a knight who abides by the holiness of his station as a paragon.

[atemu1234]

Those were already mentioned:

Holiness is relative, and quite frankly, there are more than three. There were other alignment variants from other sources. Also, you are meant to be a paragon of your deity's ideals, and quite frankly, you can be a paladin of an evil deity. That's its archetype. Not being a perpetually falling object.

[hamishspence]

I think the idea is that the default paladin serves Law and Good first, and any deity only second if at all.

[atemu1234]

I think the idea is that the default paladin serves Law and Good first, and any deity only second if at all.

But it isn't. That's kind of the point of the "knock-off" variants; paladins serve a deity's ideals.

[hamishspence]

I thought the idea was that they served the "cosmic forces" (with some paladins serving deities as well - especially in Forgotten Realms.)

So - you could have a Paladin of Tyranny serving the Forces of Law and Evil - and in the Realms, most of those would also serve the God of Tyranny, Bane- and in Greyhawk, many would serve the closest things to Gods of Tyranny - Tiamat, or Hextor, or Asmodeus.

[atemu1234]

I thought the idea was that they served the "cosmic forces" (with some paladins serving deities as well - especially in Forgotten Realms.)

So - you could have a Paladin of Tyranny serving the Forces of Law and Evil - and in the Realms, most of those would also serve the God of Tyranny, Bane- and in Greyhawk, many would serve the closest things to Gods of Tyranny - Tiamat, or Hextor, or Asmodeus.

Interesting. I've always interpreted it as the reverse; serving deity and then the cosmic forces of their extreme alignment.

Then what would the true neutral paladin from drag mag serve? We've always referred to him as the paladin of meh.

[hamishspence]

He'd serve The Outlands - receiving missions and guidance from the Rilmani in the same way that a LG paladin might receive missions and guidance from the archons.

That would be the "base version" - but there'd be some true neutral paladins of the appropriate deities as well. Boccob and Obad-Hai in Greyhawk, Gond and Silvanus in Forgotten Realms, etc.

[Sith_Happens]

But it's still nasty and horrible and the kind of thing people rightly abhor. So why not use the term evil for that? (IRL arguments can be made, less relevant here.)

Mainly because most moral and ethical systems require sapience of the subject in order to be applicable. Under that requirement, there are plenty of things that other animals do that resemble evil, but are only actually evil when done by humans because we're the only species expected to know better.


All other considerations aside... I'd rule that committing an Evil act to qualify for Atonement prevents you from qualifying for it - one of the reqs is to be genuinely repentant for the act, and I would say you wouldn't really be repentant if you're just saying "Well, that's the puppy kicked - now fix my alignment."

Who says he can't be repentant of it? "I didn't want to kick that puppy, but it was the only way I could think of to regain my powers. Whatever idiot designed the Atonement spell owes me for pain and suffering."

[Milodiah]

I've always wondered about the alignment-based combat spells, they kind of put up a barrier to me accepting the system with Protection from Law and whatnot. I mean, it's one thing to have paladins running around dropping Detect Evil, that can be sorta understood. But what's the logic behind a spell that exclusively provides protection from every Lawful being? I'd much prefer to see them broken down by types like Favored Enemies...Protection against Demons/Monstrous Humanoids/Aberrations etc.

[Coidzor]

Interesting. I've always interpreted it as the reverse; serving deity and then the cosmic forces of their extreme alignment.

Then what would the true neutral paladin from drag mag serve? We've always referred to him as the paladin of meh.

If that were the case then they'd be deity dependent and it'd be an adaptation to make them fit in deity-free settings to have them empowered by Cosmic Good and/or Law and/or Evil and/or Chaos and/or Balance.

A lot of people think it's that way around though, so it has an inertia all of its own, especially with how popular Forgotten Realms is/was.

[Jeff the Green]

Ah, okay. I thought you meant you had an alignment scale for elements, and that a person could perform [water] actions and become enemies with [fire] creatures thereby, like alignment.

Well, I mean you can. It's just weird for a humanoid to do it. If you're a serial arsonist or a mad mage trying to make a bunch of volcanoes to erupt or a chef that really likes making bananas Foster you might have a hit squad of water elementals come after you, and the bane of undead is likely to have cool reactions from xeg-yi but it's otherwise hard to get an elemental alignment other than neutral.

For the most part, though, elementals don't like humans in general because they get these disgusting notions about right and wrong that don't involve setting the world on fire or drowning it in ooze.

[NichG]

For elemental alignments, if you actually want it to feel like a philosophy rather than just 'teams' I think its a good idea to think about it not in terms of state ('fire aligned beings want the world to burn') but in terms of methodology ('fire aligned beings act as fire does when resolving a situation').

E.g. most Good aligned people aren't going to approach a situation thinking 'how can I best make sure that team Good wins the cosmic war?', they're thinking 'I shouldn't do X because its bad; I should strive to do Y because its good'. E.g. they don't have a birds-eye view of the whole conflict, they have some set of strictures or philosophy that they use heuristically when deciding how to act. The nuances of those heuristics end up creating the 'feel' of good or evil more than the overall goals.

So an ooze elemental shouldn't necessarily be all about 'we've gotta cover the world in ooze!'. Instead, it should try to live its life in a way that is consistent with the deep truths within the ooze, whatever those might be. Maybe its something like 'Individuality is transient but life is forever. Everything around me is alive, and all life can be mixed and blended together in new ways at any time. It is the transience of existence and the blending of life which are the most important things.' So e.g. an ooze-aligned human might not be able to literally fuse with someone else, but perhaps they'd be very mentally fluid - joining cults, organizations, etc and blending in immediately, easily able to subsume their own ego in order to function in a variety of environments, and very difficult to pin down in terms of what they actually deeply believe.

A fire elemental wouldn't be 'we've gotta burn the world!', but maybe instead it's: "Existence is consumption. All things are ever-ending, but the miracle of fire is that even in a universe where everything is always ending, the flame can live on - ever ending but also ever expanding. Burning is the path that transforms a chain of isolated beginnings and endings into eternity - an ever-shifting eternity that lives constantly on the edge of its own extinction. In living, I will consume each moment and turn its death into my future." A fire-aligned human might act as though each moment of their life could be their last, and furthermore that time cannot be just 'passed' - every moment of their life must be filled with activity - for a moment in which nothing happens is a moment in which the fire goes out. For example, they might hold the belief that when you go to sleep you die and a new person wakes up in your stead - the fire can't light itself again once it has gone out; if there's a new flame it must be a new life.

[Jeff the Green]

For elemental alignments, if you actually want it to feel like a philosophy rather than just 'teams' I think its a good idea to think about it not in terms of state ('fire aligned beings want the world to burn') but in terms of methodology ('fire aligned beings act as fire does when resolving a situation').

E.g. most Good aligned people aren't going to approach a situation thinking 'how can I best make sure that team Good wins the cosmic war?', they're thinking 'I shouldn't do X because its bad; I should strive to do Y because its good'. E.g. they don't have a birds-eye view of the whole conflict, they have some set of strictures or philosophy that they use heuristically when deciding how to act. The nuances of those heuristics end up creating the 'feel' of good or evil more than the overall goals.

So an ooze elemental shouldn't necessarily be all about 'we've gotta cover the world in ooze!'. Instead, it should try to live its life in a way that is consistent with the deep truths within the ooze, whatever those might be. Maybe its something like 'Individuality is transient but life is forever. Everything around me is alive, and all life can be mixed and blended together in new ways at any time. It is the transience of existence and the blending of life which are the most important things.' So e.g. an ooze-aligned human might not be able to literally fuse with someone else, but perhaps they'd be very mentally fluid - joining cults, organizations, etc and blending in immediately, easily able to subsume their own ego in order to function in a variety of environments, and very difficult to pin down in terms of what they actually deeply believe.

A fire elemental wouldn't be 'we've gotta burn the world!', but maybe instead it's: "Existence is consumption. All things are ever-ending, but the miracle of fire is that even in a universe where everything is always ending, the flame can live on - ever ending but also ever expanding. Burning is the path that transforms a chain of isolated beginnings and endings into eternity - an ever-shifting eternity that lives constantly on the edge of its own extinction. In living, I will consume each moment and turn its death into my future." A fire-aligned human might act as though each moment of their life could be their last, and furthermore that time cannot be just 'passed' - every moment of their life must be filled with activity - for a moment in which nothing happens is a moment in which the fire goes out. For example, they might hold the belief that when you go to sleep you die and a new person wakes up in your stead - the fire can't light itself again once it has gone out; if there's a new flame it must be a new life.

It comes down to the nature of elements and metaphysical alignment. Elements are solid and material. Alignment is more nebulous and while it does condense into the form of exemplars it isn't its natural state. Because of this, humans (and other non-outsider non-elemental corporeal beings) have bodies made of the elements and spirits made of the alignments (plus positive or negative energy bridging the two).

It's easy for humans to increase the amount of Good or Evil in the world because symbolic actions have power, as does the effect their actions have on other humans' spirits. It's not easy for them to increase the amount of fire, water, earth, or air, because they have to take concrete action—burning down a building, flooding a valley, living underground. Plus, because they're made of all the elements and an imbalance in their bodies is bad for them in the way that an imbalance in their spirit isn't, such actions aren't very natural to them.

So while a fire elemental might approve of someone living like fire as you suggest, it would be in a sort of "he gets the way the world works" sort of way, not a "he's a good person and living the way he ought and I should encourage him" way.

Plus, there are no deep truths about ooze. Ooze is a substance, not a state of being or a mindset. Archons would say the same thing about Good and Law, but because of how they interact with the human spirit the case is different.

[NichG]

It comes down to the nature of elements and metaphysical alignment. Elements are solid and material. Alignment is more nebulous and while it does condense into the form of exemplars it isn't its natural state. Because of this, humans (and other non-outsider non-elemental corporeal beings) have bodies made of the elements and spirits made of the alignments (plus positive or negative energy bridging the two).

It's easy for humans to increase the amount of Good or Evil in the world because symbolic actions have power, as does the effect their actions have on other humans' spirits. It's not easy for them to increase the amount of fire, water, earth, or air, because they have to take concrete action—burning down a building, flooding a valley, living underground. Plus, because they're made of all the elements and an imbalance in their bodies is bad for them in the way that an imbalance in their spirit isn't, such actions aren't very natural to them.

So while a fire elemental might approve of someone living like fire as you suggest, it would be in a sort of "he gets the way the world works" sort of way, not a "he's a good person and living the way he ought and I should encourage him" way.

Plus, there are no deep truths about ooze. Ooze is a substance, not a state of being or a mindset. Archons would say the same thing about Good and Law, but because of how they interact with the human spirit the case is different.

I guess the thing for me is, what's the point of 'alignment' as a concept if everything is a physical substance? The thing that makes alignment relevant for mortals is that they aren't made of Good or Evil or Fire or Earth, but at the same time they don't have to be in order to behave in a way consistent with those things.

That's sort of what's special - mortals wield philosophy to blur the boundary between certain things only belonging to absolute origins, and those things being able to spread. Without mortals to form a bridge between 'literally made of Good' or 'literally made of Evil' and 'a good person' or 'an evil person', then there's no actual territory to fight over in planar wars between those forces. Without that kind of transformative power, if e.g. the celestials colonized Baator they'd become Evil rather than the plane becoming Good, because it would simply be a matter of 'you are what you eat' or rather 'you are the energies of the plane that sustains you'.

So e.g. even in the context of your headcanon I'd say that a truly fire-aligned mortal would specifically be a person who was able to live in a way that renders Fire into an abstract thing. Their existence would basically promote Fire to something that could e.g. exist and vie among the forces of the Outer Planes - just like an Evil-aligned mortal could make Evil matter on the Inner Planes where normally only material things hold sway - because as a being made of parts belonging to both places they're providing a connection able to transform the concrete into the abstract and back.

[Fatal Rose]

I take it out but leave it up to the players if they want it on the character sheet.

I honestly don't like alignments and think it disrupts honest roleplaying/characterization. That's why I use Game Of Thrones, Thieves World, and Black Company class/character building methods for my campaigns.

If you play a Paladin you know how one should behave in certain situations. You don't need an alignment restriction to tell you. Also if you're so treasure/item/money hungry while playing and it gets n the way of role playing your paladin then maybe you should have picked a different class. Besides a good DM would recognize someone playing a Paladin properly and award them accordingly.

I don't think GMs should ever tell a player how to RP his character.

Me and players are playing in an entirely home brewed gritty fantasy world. We try to make it as role play/character driven as possible. Not so heavy on the hack n slash.

[Angelalex242]

I once had an aasimar clr 1/Pal 6/Fist of Raziel 10 with the Saint Template. (All RP enforced)

He wore a phylactery of faithfulness.

"Why do you wear that?" he was asked one day by a squire. "Surely someone as good as you doesn't need that thing."

"The one who believes he needs no such things is in fact most in need of it" he said. "You should invest in one yourself. You won't regret it."

The real reason I had it, of course, is that I the player am only human and I sometimes can't meet my own character's absurdly high standards. The phylactery is actually there to keep me on track, not the character.

[bigerxman]

Most games I run Alignment really doesnt matter, and my characters are either CN or NE and nobody can ever guess what is going on. When i have run, i always take note of such things to temp characters into traps or rewards but it obviously isnt 100% going to matter unless it is a paladin losing their powers.

[Duke of Urrel]

I once had an aasimar clr 1/Pal 6/Fist of Raziel 10 with the Saint Template. (All RP enforced)

He wore a phylactery of faithfulness.

"Why do you wear that?" he was asked one day by a squire. "Surely someone as good as you doesn't need that thing."

"The one who believes he needs no such things is in fact most in need of it" he said. "You should invest in one yourself. You won't regret it."

The real reason I had it, of course, is that I the player am only human and I sometimes can't meet my own character's absurdly high standards. The phylactery is actually there to keep me on track, not the character.

May I be the first to compliment you both on your meta-game thinking and on your role-playing! Well done!

[P.F.]

It used to be that a Paladin was just better than other classes. Maybe not better enough to beat a mage, but good enough that if you had the scores to qualify, you probably wanted to be one. The balance for having all these class abilities was that you had to adhere to the Paladin's code. Nowadays the Paladin class is so watered down, it's hardly worth the bother.

The reason a Paladin has to be lawful good is a game balance reason. It's not much of a reason anymore, but it is still a reason. The game is balanced more subtly now, but still balanced for a moral trade-off: necromancy, for example, is a quick and dirty path to great power, and it comes with a set of weaknesses, one of which is becoming evil. Paladins epitomize the other end of the spectrum, the power of good balanced by a strict moral code.

Now I know this has been reduced to little more than "fluff" by successive iterations of dumbed-down Paladins and dumbed-down alignments, but the whole undead/outsiders/dragons/paladins framework is a broad-based game-balance mechanism. Making Paladins into a "whatever you want" class undermines that framework, and the end result is that we just ignore the alignment system entirely, because, if it isn't an important part of game balance anymore, why even bother having it?

[SiuiS]

*ahem*paladin-of-tyranny*cough*paladin-of-slaughter*snort*other-drag-mag-variants*ahem*

Like I said;


There are lawful good paladins, and three knock-off pretenders who missed the memo that paladin is a specific, not a generic, term for a knight who abides by the holiness of his station as a paragon.

Consider it phrased this way; paladin is not a class. It is the name of the Divine Knight class when that class is lawful good and human.


Those were already mentioned:

Thanks. :smallsmile:


Holiness is relative, and quite frankly, there are more than three.

No, actually! And that's always been a neat design choice on their part.

Consecrate and desecrate: evil deities are not holy. They are always unholy. You cannot consecrate a shrine to an evil deity! If holiness was relative, this would not be the case. Hallow and unhallow are easier to justify, but it's very direct that only Good is ever holy, Evil is always Unholy, etc., and it's a core conceit of the 3e ruleset.

If I want moral weight to be based on the fact that holy means divine, not good, I alter consecrate and desecrate and switch up alignment based spell lists, personally.


Interesting. I've always interpreted it as the reverse; serving deity and then the cosmic forces of their extreme alignment.

Then what would the true neutral paladin from drag mag serve? We've always referred to him as the paladin of meh.

Paladins have never served gods as a necessity, they have always served gods in the way that an American soldier would respect the prowess of a British general and consider themselves on the same side, if not the same literal team.

Paladins represent lawfulness and goodness in human culture (and later just in general; I feel this is a loss). Paramanders then represent balance as a cosmic force rather than the balance any deity wants.

[hamishspence]

Can't see why paladins would have to be human in this day and age, though. A great many D&D novels have moved away from that, after all.

[SiuiS]

Can't see why paladins would have to be human in this day and age, though. A great many D&D novels have moved away from that, after all.

Paladin would be human the same way a US marine is an american, or the SAS is british, I feel.

Elves have their paladin variants - those who represent the purest forms of good their people strive for. They're called blade singers (or arcane archers if we are going book-standard optimization for some ungodly reason!). Dwarven defenders represent that awe inspiring level of badass and perfect reflection of racial dieals for dwarves. Paladin and ranger were that for humans.

Does it have to be this way? No. Paladin as the buzzword for the offensive smitey divine knight toolkit is fine. But do I feel like we lose something in that translation? Absolutely. D&D has begun to rightfully move away from an implied setting, and also stopped declaring canon setting details at all. Given that D&D is supposed to be a fantasy RPG toolkit system, that's good. But situations like this, where people tend to not even put thought to what a thing means before dismissing it? THat hurts. That is a lot of lovely detail that enriches the setting and history, gone because it was written in a weird font or similar.

Then again, I also feel, nowadays, that instead of "wizard, and maybe pick a specailty?" we should have only dread necromancer, warmage, beguiler, duskblade and similar. Giving the patriotic paragon niche a different feel based on which species you're being patriotic to, on a deeper level than feats and maybe a synergy with a PrC down the road kinda? would be really neat. ACFs almost fill that role, but I can never find a human ACF. Duskblades, the definitive elven wizard warrior, exists. But humans don't have their own version while elves have their specific paladin and ranger versions? Weird.

[Coidzor]

I can see it now, Venerable Zarusian Paladins. "Back in my day, we didn't accept all these namby-pamby demihumans or any of these degenerate wannabe civilized monsters! It was humans and the occasional half-elf with rounded ears that could pass as human with their helmet on!"

[Angelalex242]

I've always wanted to bring the base Paladin's power up to the point where they're so overwhelmingly badass that the alignment stuff functions as a counterbalance. Infinite Smite Evils make a good start to that, all of Pathfinder's stuff amped up a notch helps too.

But that is a topic for Homebrew forum.

[Roxxy]

SiuiS - Where do you get that Paladins need be human? I think 3e, 3.5, and PF are all quite clear that no core class has a race restriction.

[Kelb_Panthera]

SiuiS - Where do you get that Paladins need be human? I think 3e, 3.5, and PF are all quite clear that no core class has a race restriction.

It's a holdover from 1e or 2e. The original incarnation of the paladin, a fighter toolkit I think(?), was only available to humans.

[Vhaidara]

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned, but I use the Color Wheel (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?157001-Alignment-Replacement-The-Color-Wheel-3-5-PEACH) from Magic: The Gathering. And while the explanation of using it in DnD is homebrew, the Color Wheel itself is technically first party (WotC published) :smalltongue:

I feel that it is better for determining motivations, and gives a more rounded view. Even characters with the same color set can end up working better with other colors than each other.

[SiuiS]

SiuiS - Where do you get that Paladins need be human? I think 3e, 3.5, and PF are all quite clear that no core class has a race restriction.

I don't think paladin needs to be human. I guess I'm explaining my point poorly. I'm also saying many different but related things without clearly delineating them.

• Paladin should be a specific title, not a generic one. Divine knight (or just "knight") covers the Role.
• Paladin should have specific strictures as a specific title.
• Paladin comes from a historical piece, and the anachronistic morals of the era are (and should be) part of the paladin.
• Alternate class features exist to cover nonhuman specifications. That's racist and should change.
• the paladin class' roots are rich enough to be preserved
• preserving the paladin class' roots would take no more effort than renaming things that aren't rightly paladins to a broader class name.

Rather than open the paladin class to being a specific-seeming title with generic mechanics that they then, perversely, attached a set of optional choices to make it specific again, paladin should have been either an ACF/racial variant of a more generic class, or a prestige class. These were not options when the game was released because of legacy, and that continues to add inertia to the "paladin is just a holy dude and not a fully armored peer of the realm of Charles Magnus the holy emperor" thing that is detrimental to the class.

Ideally, third edition would have had the Exemplar class, which looked more like the knight from PHB 2, with a human paladin acf, a dwarven defender acf, an elven arcane archer acf, an anti undead/evil acf, a mounted warrior acf, a blackguard acf and a sorcerer Gish acf.

That way, you have a toolkit class that you can mix and match to have the old school charm or the new school utility and everybody wins. I think arcane casters should be like that too, with specializations all being alternate class features that are vaguely exclusive to prevent magic abuse cherry picking.

Or the alternate of make each acf it's own unique class, but that solves very little.