PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying My good is your evil. Lawful good/Evil Alignment disccusion.



Davrix
2018-01-03, 07:39 PM
Edit: As there has been some confusion later in the thread, let me point out this is in 5th ed Dnd. I corrected myself in a later post but not everyone reads the whole thread sometimes :)

So I've been working on a character for awhile now. He's been apart of one group that I help host from my own home for quite some time now and the players there have never had an issue.

I recently got invited to a new table and I thought it be nice not to always play host for once and the DM running it really liked the idea of my character and asked if I could port him over to his world with some tweaks. He's probably the longest running character I have in DND and a backstory to match some small novels. (I only mention this as a point that I've put a lot of thought into this idea)

So the whole premise of this Paladin character and what I found fun was that he is based on the idea that he comes from a time period and society where the law had a much more hard stance against actual evil. Petty theft and other minor things were still treated as simple crimes but punishment could be harsh. A finger lost for thieving, that sort of deal. Sacrificing, torture, demon worship, yea know the bad sort of corruption or hurting the innocent for pleasure kind of evil however was met swiftly by the sword in a very Judge Dredd style of justice. So he gets lost to time and space and comes out in the current time period of the setting and find his empire and the laws of it are nothing but myth and legends. He's a walking fairy tale basically.

So to sum up, his own religious order has changed to something more akin to our own, its doctrine now is nothing like he remembers. This has been great fun in my own home hosted game and the DM in this one wanted to augment that kind of play-style a bit more and we both agreed that I shouldn't be shy or cautions in my play-style of it. That was the plan at least. Que the first session and another person (also playing a paladin) at the table took... well lets just say they took offense and call that the nice way of putting it. Calling my idea nothing but an excuse for evil behavior and calling it good and trying to get away with it. He went on and stated that i should simply be labeled lawful evil or an oath-breaker and basically said if i continue to play like this paladin that way, his own paladin would straight up arrest me for evil deeds and heresy against my own religion. (my counter really should of been ok so I declare myself evil and your going to do that anyway but he was already a little red face at this point)

Now I am not calling into question the other players motivations. He is entitled to see what my character does as evil acts, though I do wish he could have been a bit for tactful and less... lets just it nerd rage on the matter. Not going to argue that because that was the point of the character. He comes from a time where what he does was seen as good and fell under the law of the land. It was what society said was the norm and excepted. His empire prospered under such rules. What i take issue with however is being told that I'm simply using excuse to be evil and wave the innocent flag in doing so and commanded that I label myself under an alignment that i justly feel that the character does not fall under.

So I am just a little curios as to what other people think of the perception of what is right and wrong and how it changes between societies and time periods. What really is good or evil in this case? Am i simply just making up a pretty excuse to justify cruel acts against people as good? Personally I don't think so. The character has a very very strong moral code. He doesn't simply murder any thief or rapist, though he might put the fear of god into them and not be gentle about it. He only truly goes straight wraith of god on people that are very clearly trying to do harm to others for their own gain. Cultists sacrificing people, bandits rapeing and killing villages and caravans in the area, that sort of thing. For them there is no mercy, no quarter. His gods judgment will be the final thing they see before leaving this world basically. I would also point out that he makes note of the law of the area and tries to at least respect it as he can. He truly feels his own laws and code of justice is far superber but neither will he blatantly violate it without extreme save the world or innocent lives coming into the equation. The best example i can give of this is slavery, he utterly detests it but there was a time at my own table where we were in a country that it was legal to own slaves and traffic in them. He made his distaste very clear and never talked nicely to anyone who owned one. But it was the law and he excepted that he could not change it nor simply free every slave he came across. But he would take just a bit of divine justice in being a little more brutal to someone he caught violating a law and happened to own slaves. To him this person simply was profiting off the misery of others on top of violating the law. While one was not legal and the other was, morally he felt justified in making them regret ever making such life choices.

Now I know this can fall under the statement, all truly evil people think they are doing the right thing. But I just don't feel like this statement is a fair comparison to judge a character by. Its to general and easy to lump things together when actions vs motivations and perception should be weighed on a character by character basis. But I'd like to hear other peopl's thoughts on the matter. i may simply avoid this table for now or re-roll a different character so this person doesn't have issue because its not worth causing a huge table fight over something like this. But I do think the topic might be a fun one to discuss.

Tinkerer
2018-01-03, 08:20 PM
Depends on how alignment is viewed in the game world. In my (rare) worlds which use alignments it is a law of physics like gravity as ordained by the gods when they created the world. Makes it real simple to handle alignment disputes.

Anymage
2018-01-03, 09:03 PM
In your average D&D world, the gods don't usually have a problem speaking for themselves. While the gods themselves are probably too busy to explain things to every priest, and the exact nature of outsiders like archons is a question for church sages, the practical upshot is that divine emissaries exist who can explain when and why the god had a change of heart.

A character from a starker, harsher era trying to make sense of our own does sound like a cool character. And if everybody is on board, can lead to an interesting interparty dynamic. But alignment debates have a history of getting heated. Your story shows that another player was getting actively frustrated by character actions. The system really isn't designed for much more than letting your unambiguously good guys beat up unambiguously bad guys, and trying to delve much deeper than that runs the risk of getting real world morality discussions involved.

SirBellias
2018-01-03, 09:30 PM
I applaud your solution to your situation.

Like others have said, it depends on the interpretation everyone at the table agrees on/the setting has of it. In most of my games, good and evil are not clear cut at all; your character would have been just fine (and probably start a splinter faction of Old World Idealists or something nasty when word got around). In some of my friends games, those actions would have been viewed as evil and another paladin would have every right to arrest you.

If (as official content suggests) Good and Evil are objective forces of reality (or at least objective on a mortal scale), then I'd say your character was good in their own time, but in this place in time the gods and the nature of good has changed to a milder form. Though they may remind said god of times past, and if said god is the kind to get nostalgic they may endorse the new paladin's way of thinking. (Or maybe that's what the demons want you to think....)

It seems that your new comrade was running off of different assumptions about the nature of the beast.

Mechalich
2018-01-03, 09:40 PM
So I am just a little curios as to what other people think of the perception of what is right and wrong and how it changes between societies and time periods. What really is good or evil in this case?

In D&D - which is pretty much the only game system of consequence that uses 'alignment' - right and wrong are not determined by perception. There is a cosmic objective morality that simply is, and it is immutable. The alignment of an individual god might chance, but the alignments themselves do not (which is why the various planar exemplar races are eternal). Classically, a god whose alignment changed sufficiently to preclude lawful good followers would simply stop having paladins.

Paladins are obviously forced to make various compromises to deal with the laws of societies they find themselves within - so long as they view that society as a force for good overall and not something that needs to be replaced - but their internal moral codes should remain pretty darn constant.

So while this is an interesting experiment with the contextual nature of morality it is an extremely bad system to use for it.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-01-03, 10:06 PM
D&D doesn't really do this sort of nuanace. Things are objectively good or objectively evil (or unaligned) and that's all there is to it.

Personally I think I'd lean towards maiming as punishment falling on the evil side of things but summary executions for unforgivable crimes being a-ok. But it doesn't matter what I think on the subject, that's a discussion for your group. Your DM needs to make an objective ruling on if anything you're doing is evil or not in the setting (because you're a paladin and will fall if you are). If it does end up being non-evil then it's an in-character argument on preferences for how to approach one's duties, which is "fine".

Guy sounds OOCly upset over this from your description, though, so that's probably not sufficient. It's probably going to come down to you changing your behaviour or him rage quitting the group. And again I can't tell you how much value to put on his continued participation. Personally, I can't stand that sort of player so I'd be pretty okay with him leaving, but it's your call.

RazorChain
2018-01-03, 10:17 PM
I'm running a game which is not include classes or alignment. The players do not like priests or "paladins", because they only get their divine power through fanaticism.


And this is how I play my Paladins in D&D and always have, as religous fanatics. With 5e. I can go all out Frank Castle on evil in the name of moral superiority, and that's cool as hell (double contradiction there)

2D8HP
2018-01-03, 10:19 PM
:annoyed:

@Davrix,

Bah!

The table problems you described of another player grinding you 'bout your character is why I'm increasingly feeling that adding good and evil to what was originally a Law vs. Chaos alignment "system (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) was a mistake.

That other player should play his own character.

Perhaps you should give him Elvish blessings such as:

G't'b'nt'y'u'be'rded'f'tso,

B'te'me'f't'b'y,

or

So'is'y'r'mom'a

(The first two are in Tolkien's Quenya language, while the last is in Sindarin, BTW)

:wink:

Oh, as is traditional:
So, the "rules" on alignment and everything else are up to each individual table:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "..The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play...."


AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."


D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "...As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual..."



A History of "Alignment" in Dungeons & Dragons

Part One: The War between Law & Chaos

For the Dungeons & Dragons game, Arneson and Gygax got Law vs. Chaos from stories by Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock.
Okay, in the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict in the Elric and Corum novels, and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

Now in the 1961 novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/pulp-fantasy-gallery-three-hearts-and.html), we have this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."

.which suggests that Law vs. Chaos is about "teams" in a cosmic struggle rather than personal ethics/morality, which is how the terms are used in the old Stormbringer RPG, and would be my usual preference.

Before D&D, Gygax & Perren had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

Dave Arneson wrote that he added "alignment" to the game he made up because of one PC backstabbing another (http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html)

"We began without the multitude of character classes and three alignments that exists today. I felt that as a team working towards common goals there would be it was all pretty straight forward. Wrong!

"Give me my sword back!" "Nah your old character is dead, it's mine now!"

Well I couldn't really make him give it to the new character. But then came the treasure question. The Thieves question. Finally there were the two new guys. One decided that there was no reason to share the goodies. Since there was no one else around and a +3 for rear attacks . . .. well . . Of course everyone actually KNEW what had happened, especially the target.

After a great deal of discussion . . . yes let us call it "discussion" the culprit promised to make amends. He, and his associate did. The next time the orcs attacked the two opened the door and let the Orcs in. They shared the loot and fled North to the lands of the EGG OF COOT. (Sigh)

We now had alignment. Spells to detect alignment, and rules forbidding actions not allowed by ones alignment. Actually not as much fun as not knowing. Chuck and John had a great time being the 'official' evil players.
They would draw up adventures to trap the others (under my supervision) and otherwise make trouble"

And here's in 1974's Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons: Book1, Men & Magic

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MlEVGRiLVK0/T_xGEnCu73I/AAAAAAAAFL4/jalyY-BOFgM/s280/oddalign.jpg

(Orcs can be Neutral as well as Chaos, as can Elves, Dwarves/Gnomes as well as Law, and Men may be any)

And "Law, Chaos, and Neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively. One can attempt to communicate through the common tongue, language particular to a creature class, or one of the divisional languages (law, etc.). While not understanding the language, creatures who speak a divisionsl tongue will recognize a hostile one and attack."

Easy "detect alignment"!

Originally there were three classes; "Cleric", "Fighting-Men", and "Magic-User" (as in "wake up the user, it's time to cast the daily spell"). Clerics didn't have any spells at first level, but they could "turn" some undead (a bit like a 5e Paladin really), and other than hints that "Law" Clerics, and "Chaos" Clerics were in conflict, there wasn't much info on what was meant until the Paladin class was introduced in La Chanson de Roland the 1975 "Greyhawk" supplement (which also introduced Thieves hmm... what a coincidence funny that). From "Greyhawk":
Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for the character. If such fighters elect to they can become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained. The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good......".
(Ok this is the fun part the special powers which include......PSYCH! Back to the restrictions)
"Paladins will never be allowed to possess more than four magically items, excluding the armor, shield and up to four weapons they normally use. They will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is neccesary to maintain themselves, their men and a modest castle. Gifts must be to the poor or to charitable or religious institutions , i.e.not tho some other character played in the game. A paladin's stronghold cannot be above 200,000 gold pieces in total cost, and no more than 200 men can be retained to guard it. Paladins normally prefer to dwell with lawful princess of patriarchs, but circumstances may prevent this. They will associate only with lawful characters"
Huh? What's lawful? What's chaotic? What's associate? And what is this charitable? I don't believe PC's know this word. :smallwink:
Well...helpfully there are some clues:
" Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that - chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederate in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place".
OK Paladins are "continual seeking for good", "All thieves are either neutral or chaotic - although lawful characters may hire them on a one-time basis for missions which are basically lawful" "Patriarchs" (high level Clerics) "stance" is "Law", and "Evil High Priests" "stance" is "Chaos". So we can infer that Law = Good, and Chaos = Evil in early D&D, which fits how the terms were used in novels Gygax cited as "inspiration", first in Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions", and than later in Moorcock's "Stormbringer" (though Moorcock eventually in his novels show that too much "Law" is anti-human as well, which is probably why Gygax added the separate Good-Evil axis so you could have "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Good" alignmemts later).

I'm gonna stress that I didn't know Anderson's novel when I first played D&D in the very late 1970's, and I'd bet that most other players didn't either, but knowledge of Moorcock's Elric was far more common then, from comic books!:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76VaPmTHxI/AAAAAAAAB90/jp_QEn8jKSg/s320/conanelric1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76i4WQ-17I/AAAAAAAAB-E/xdEuV-lr0as/s320/conanelric2-1.jpg

If you've read the "Elric" series, from which D&D "borrowed" much of this, you may remember that Elric visits a "world" (plane/dimension/alternate reality) of "Chaos" and finds a whirling cloud, in-which creatures and objects sometimes flash in and out of existence. He also visits a "world of Law" which is nothing but a grey mist.

Invisible Library [/I] series, in which different worlds (alternate realities) have more or less "Chaos" or "Law".

Heavy Chaos worlds are ruled by the Fey, who are the main antagonists, Law world's are ruled by (often hidden) Dragons, and we are told that while too much Chaos is worse, with too much Law humans are controlled by Dragons and not free.].

Part Two: Enter Good & Evil

1976's Eldrich Wizardry supplement added the Mind Flayers which were the first monters that were explicitly both "lawful" and "evil", and it could be a coincidence but Michael Moorcock in A Quest for Tanelorn wrote:

"Chaos is not wholly evil, surely?" said the child. "And neither is Law wholly good. They are primitive divisions, at best-- they represent only temperamental differences in individual men and women. There are other elements..."
"
..which was published in 1975 in the UK, and 1976 in the USA, and '76 was when Gygax added "good" and "evil" to D&D Alignment in an article that I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TSvlWfi0wuI/AAAAAAAAC5E/kwE-DYf3GtU/s1600/alignmentchart.jpg

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)






Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-orkrl_JCxGo/VKMvSEOdLCI/AAAAAAAAC30/BVIa-CwK4Gg/s1600/531001_400433280025300_1590190270_n.jpg

"As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"

- Gary Gygax

http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gygax-futurama.jpg


So the article added the "good and evil axis", but made clear in this graph:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

..that creatures don't just exist on one of nine points of ethics/morality, there's a range:

Also in the article (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) Gygax states:

"Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity....

....Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things."


So in general "Law" was the side of humanity, and "Chaos" was on the side of the supernatural in Anderson and early Moorcock, and very early D&D, but 'Good" and "Evil" complicate matters.

Per Gygax, I infer from that "Alignment" didn't control the PC's actions, PC actions are a guide to what "Alignment" the DM rules a character is for game effects.

So leave the entry blank, and let the DM deal with the alignment claptrap (frankly as a player I'd rather keep a character possessions inventory sheet and foist the "stats" on the DM anyway)!

But oD&D was just "guidelines", nothing was "official" until Advanced Dungeons & Dragons [b]which was a completely different game!
"No royalties for you Arneson! Mine all Mine! Bwahahaha!
Wait, what's that Blume?"
:biggrin:

Part Three: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

Fitting as a "bridge" between oD&D, and AD&D, the 1977 "Basic Set" had a "5 point Alignment system" (Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, and Neutral), but the 1978 Players Handbook had the full "nine-points" that we know today.

So...


ALIGNMENT

After generating the abilities of your character, selecting his or her race, and deciding upon a class, it is necessary to determine the alignment of the character. It is possible that the selection of the class your character will profess has predetermined alignment: a druid is neutral, a paladin is lawful good, a thief can be neutral or evil, an assassin is always evil. Yet, except for druids and paladins, such restrictions still leave latitude - the thief can be lawful neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, chaotic evil, chaotic neutral, neutral, or even neutral good; and the assassin has nearly as many choices. The alignments possible for characters are described below.

Chaotic Evil: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims.

Chaotic Good: While creatures of this alignment view freedom and the randomness of action as ultimate truths, they likewise place value on life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is also great.
By promoting the gods of chaotic good, characters of this alignment seek to spread their values throughout the world.

Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder.
Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer.

Lawful Evil: Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned.
By adhering to stringent discipline, those of
lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.

Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.

Lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world -and the whole of the universe - is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.

Neutral Evil: The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary
considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are
disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world.

Neutral Good: Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral evil) in
alignment, creatures of neutral good believe that there must be some regulation in combination with freedoms if the best is to be brought to the world - the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.

True Neutral: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets
of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even
then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as
human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.

Naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment. The descriptions are generalizations only. A character can be basically good in its "true" neutrality, or tend towards evil. It is probable
that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift.of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other.

Anyway, the '79 DMG recommended graphing a PC's Alignment, and if they slipped into a new one they'd lose one level of experience, "If the alignment change is involuntary (such as caused by a powerful magic, a curse etc.), then the character can regain all of the losses (level, hit die, etc.) upon returning to his or her former alignment as soon as possible and after making atonement through a cleric of the same alignment - and sacrificing treasure which has a value of not less than 10,000 g.p. per level of experience of the character."

That'll teach those pesky PC's not to stray!

:amused:

Oh and "Until the character has again achieved his or her former level of experience held prior to change of alignment, he or she will not be able to converse in the former alignment's tongue nor will anything but the rudest signalling be possible in the new alignment language."


1e AD&D DM's were always supplied with pizza with the correct toppings!

:wink:

(Not really, I have no memory of those rules ever being used).

After 1980 THERE WERE NO NEW RULES OF ANY NOTE, NOPE NONE AT ALL!!! Until 2014 and 5e (unless someone else has something to add?).

Happy New Year!

Satinavian
2018-01-04, 02:43 AM
So I am just a little curios as to what other people think of the perception of what is right and wrong and how it changes between societies and time periods. What really is good or evil in this case? Am i simply just making up a pretty excuse to justify cruel acts against people as good? Those kind of questions are better explored in systems without alignment rules and objective good and evil. Otherwise the answer is "look up in the rulebook if that counts as good or evil and no, neither your common sense nor your timeline/society have anything to do wiuth the answer".

It is even worse that you choose to explore the theme of diverging cultural norms regarding good/evil not only in a system with objective morality but with a character which is mechanically bound to this stuff. So yes, this disagreement is basically your and your DMs fault.

Of course without alignment rules disagreements between PCs about what is right still happen. But then they are disagreements between persons and there is no universal truth about who is right which the DM must decide outgame which will piss off at least one player.



:annoyed:

@Davrix,

Bah!

The table problems you described of another player grinding you 'bout your character is why I'm increasingly feeling that adding good and evil to what was originally a Law vs. Chaos alignment "system (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) was a mistake.
I strongly disgagree.

Not adding good and evil was wrong. That was an attempt to fix a broken system to be able to do what players actually used it for.

It was a mistake to include such a system in the first place. Why did they even add Law and Chaos for PCs ? They did to stop players from having their PCs kill and loot each other in extreme murderhobo fashion. Dit it work ? No, not at all. It just introduced even more reasons for PCs to kill each other, now also for different alignment and because "but my alignment says i can't let you do that/but my alignment says i do stuff like that". And yes, they took some inspiration from Fantasy stories they liked and the conflict therein, so initially Law and Chaos, not Good and Evil. But nearly all other Fantasy is about good and evil, players wanted to play good vs. evil and started conflating law with good and chaos with evil. So eventually the game writers realized that not only did their alignment system not work at all at preventing intraparty fighting, players also rejected the overall Law/Chaos conflict. But instead of giving up on alignment they tried to fix it with a second axis.

But there is a reason basically no other RPG which is not a direct descendent uses the D&D alignment system (and even many direct descendants got rid of it as one of their first changes)

jojo
2018-01-04, 04:56 AM
He went on and stated that i should simply be labeled lawful evil or an oath-breaker and basically said if i continue to play like this paladin that way, his own paladin would straight up arrest me for evil deeds and heresy against my own religion. (my counter really should of been ok so I declare myself evil and your going to do that anyway but he was already a little red face at this point

"Label me however you want, as long as you do it quietly." That would be a fairly appropriate in-game response as it sounds like you're dealing with a "Lawful Stupid" perspective.

Am I correct in assuming from the Oath-Breaker part that this Paladin is being played in DnD 5e? If that's the case then it's a pretty easy resolution:

Write up a few key components of the Oath you took hundreds or thousands of years ago. You're still alive, your god is still alive. Therefore your Oath remains unchanged.

"Holding to an Oath is easy when a whole society supports its principles. Try it in a world where all have wandered astray into weakness, surrounded by pouting children who dislike being spanked when they misbehave, children with safe warm beds and full bellies so ill-disciplined as to think themselves justified in challenging the man who labored to provide them their ease! Your weak little world is built on a foundation of skulls that I helped to stack high and firm for your safety Boy so don't presume to know my Oath or to speak on behalf of our GOD!"

That would be an appropriate escalation in my mind if this dude decides to push the issue. If he keeps using his character as an excuse to moralize and be distracting it sounds like it would be perfectly in-line with your character's morals to eventually just kill him in-game.


D&D doesn't really do this sort of nuanace. Things are objectively good or objectively evil (or unaligned) and that's all there is to it.

Personally I think I'd lean towards maiming as punishment falling on the evil side of things but summary executions for unforgivable crimes being a-ok.

I'd argue that maiming as a punishment for petty crime seems more Lawful Neutral than anything else... but I don't want to flame the thread... :smallwink:

gkathellar
2018-01-04, 07:27 AM
The most functional, recognizable way to approach these sorts of questions is to remember that good is not a set of guidelines as much as a vague concept of benevolence drawn from how people live and operate in the world. Good characters are entirely capable of being shortsighted, prejudiced, or foolish, and two parties with good alignments can end up at each other's throats under the right circumstances. Good, like all things, is imperfect.

People get stuck on the objectivity of alignment, but it really doesn't preclude nuance so much as place it in a certain broadly mythic context. While alignment is "objective," so to speak, it is also highly contextual and takes place in the space between motive, action, and circumstance. Good is about benevolence, but people's interests are often genuinely divergent, and so benevolence is not necessarily clear-cut. This is why so few acts are truly intrinsically evil, and those that are tend to be such for high-fallutin' cosmic reasons (i.e. creating undead, which is generally hostile to the continued existence of living things). Otherwise, answers tend to be more complex.

My favorite example of all this is Planescape's Rowan Darkwood, former Factol of the Fated, Chaotic Good priest of Heimdall, and one of the most self-important, arrogant pricks in the cosmos. Darkwood is good, sure - he's trying to make the world a better place and genuinely cares about other people. But on the other hand, he gives not a damn about your opinion.

RazorChain
2018-01-04, 07:36 AM
But there is a reason basically no other RPG which is not a direct descendent uses the D&D alignment system (and even many direct descendants got rid of it as one of their first changes)

Maybe the developers of other system had some trust in that the players could make out the difference between good and evil. And being law abiding or not....and for love of Zeuss it's order and chaos!!!

Darth Ultron
2018-01-04, 07:59 AM
In D&D right and wrong are not determined by perception. There is a cosmic objective morality that simply is, and it is immutable, as said. Though in game play this mostly means the DM can decide what is good and evil.

Even without time travel there are different ways to view Good. Classic Good is the violent way, Modern Good is the happy hugs way. One good simply kills evil, the other good..um..defends evil and makes evil better then good. And Good covers them all. One good law system cuts off the hand of a criminal, the other throws money at the criminal and asks them to be good.

Davrix
2018-01-04, 02:57 PM
So many replies, so little time but I will try to reply as I can because are there some very good points to go over so far.


It is even worse that you choose to explore the theme of diverging cultural norms regarding good/evil not only in a system with objective morality but with a character which is mechanically bound to this stuff. So yes, this disagreement is basically your and your DMs fault.

This in particular I want to go over first because I strongly disagree. I realize now I forgot to mention this was a 5th ed setting and for that I apologize. But in this edition paladins derive their power not just from the gods but from their own beliefs. I would argue the oaths sworn are far more important than the god you serve. Something else I'm not sure if it was very clear in my original post was that his religion condoned such acts because his god was much more vengeful back then. The PH states lawful good is simply something society expects the player to do the right thing. To him and his society at the time he is doing just that, the one currently around him doesn't see it that way. By trying to change his views he would break his original oaths to his god which leads me into my second point. Sense a paladin in this edition doesn't derive its power just from a god, it can even be simply an ideal. Then it has full condoned under the rules to be perfectly fine. And you cannot tell me that even good gods cannot become vengeful and wrathful in the face of certain situations. Gods are a tangible force in the DnD world but that doesn't mean every paladin or cleric must be a carbon copy of the cookie cutter beliefs at that point in time. The point of any religion is to express ones faith in a higher cause / belief. This characters own set of morals just happens to be much different then what is the normal. As I stated in my OP the player IC it is perfectly within his rights to label me as he wishes and even try to arrest me, I will not argued that fact. That's his belief in his faith and then their are my beliefs. The issue I took was him was demanding I change my character sheet based on his views and that his actions about arresting me IC wasn't based on his IC motivations but his OOC ones. Which leads me into the next reply I wish to give.


"Label me however you want, as long as you do it quietly." That would be a fairly appropriate in-game response as it sounds like you're dealing with a "Lawful Stupid" perspective.

Am I correct in assuming from the Oath-Breaker part that this Paladin is being played in DnD 5e? If that's the case then it's a pretty easy resolution:

Write up a few key components of the Oath you took hundreds or thousands of years ago. You're still alive, your god is still alive. Therefore your Oath remains unchanged.

"Holding to an Oath is easy when a whole society supports its principles. Try it in a world where all have wandered astray into weakness, surrounded by pouting children who dislike being spanked when they misbehave, children with safe warm beds and full bellies so ill-disciplined as to think themselves justified in challenging the man who labored to provide them their ease! Your weak little world is built on a foundation of skulls that I helped to stack high and firm for your safety Boy so don't presume to know my Oath or to speak on behalf of our GOD!"

This is exactly the stance I've taken at my other table and it was well received. I didn't word it exactly as you have (And I like your version better than my own) But this is exactly how it should be which is why I went with the conquest option from the new book.


Like others have said, it depends on the interpretation everyone at the table agrees on/the setting has of it. In most of my games, good and evil are not clear cut at all; your character would have been just fine (and probably start a splinter faction of Old World Idealists or something nasty when word got around). In some of my friends games, those actions would have been viewed as evil and another paladin would have every right to arrest you.

If (as official content suggests) Good and Evil are objective forces of reality (or at least objective on a mortal scale), then I'd say your character was good in their own time, but in this place in time the gods and the nature of good has changed to a milder form. Though they may remind said god of times past, and if said god is the kind to get nostalgic they may endorse the new paladin's way of thinking. (Or maybe that's what the demons want you to think....)

Actually that's happened at my other table. His views and ideals have splintered the church and sense I do have an awesome DM it came to light this was particularly because the head temple had been hiding away old documents that proved the teachings had changed over the years. I've had to deal with more than one inquisition so far and its lead to some great dramatic moments for the party. As for the official content suggests about G&E I feel its a very simple matter of like any god you are free to interpret his or her teaching as you wish and your actions will be judged and weighted in the heavens when you stand before them. And yes I realize gods are a tangible force and that they have voices in their own religions and such, how they would react to such a character would be up to the DM IMO and I would enjoy the interaction of such.


In D&D - which is pretty much the only game system of consequence that uses 'alignment' - right and wrong are not determined by perception. There is a cosmic objective morality that simply is, and it is immutable. The alignment of an individual god might chance, but the alignments themselves do not (which is why the various planar exemplar races are eternal). Classically, a god whose alignment changed sufficiently to preclude lawful good followers would simply stop having paladins.

I disagree with this view on some points and agree with it on others. Gods can change, their views and needs can be influenced by their followers and the way the world works. Even if the fundamental forces of law, order, chaos and evil are something that cannot be changed. But sense in 5th a paladins power is derived not just from a godly source but an internal one and sense I keep bringing up this point allow me to quote the PH on page 82 "Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, a paladins power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god." Also this quote on the same page. "Whether sworn before a god's alter and the witness of a priest, in a scared glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin's oath is a powerful bond. It is the source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion." So in 5th ed case the source of your power is specifically stated, are your oaths, not your god per say though it can be that as well. The point is choice here and perception does come into account because your deriving power from words spoken, a commitment to your own personal ideal and how you interrupt those meanings and follow them. The fundamental forces may be immutable but we most certainly our along with our views.


The most functional, recognizable way to approach these sorts of questions is to remember that good is not a set of guidelines as much as a vague concept of benevolence drawn from how people live and operate in the world. Good characters are entirely capable of being shortsighted, prejudiced, or foolish, and two parties with good alignments can end up at each other's throats under the right circumstances. Good, like all things, is imperfect.

People get stuck on the objectivity of alignment, but it really doesn't preclude nuance so much as place it in a certain broadly mythic context. While alignment is "objective," so to speak, it is also highly contextual and takes place in the space between motive, action, and circumstance. Good is about benevolence, but people's interests are often genuinely divergent, and so benevolence is not necessarily clear-cut. This is why so few acts are truly intrinsically evil, and those that are tend to be such for high-fallutin' cosmic reasons (i.e. creating undead, which is generally hostile to the continued existence of living things). Otherwise, answers tend to be more complex.

My favorite example of all this is Planescape's Rowan Darkwood, former Factol of the Fated, Chaotic Good priest of Heimdall, and one of the most self-important, arrogant pricks in the cosmos. Darkwood is good, sure - he's trying to make the world a better place and genuinely cares about other people. But on the other hand, he gives not a damn about your opinion.

Like all of this... I really have nothing to say other than I agree with all this and yes Rowan is awesome.

In conclusion I just don't feel like 5th ed cant support this way of thought. To those of you that disagree you are entitled to your opinion but I don't agree with it. Fifth ed specifically feels more open to such playstyle then previous editions but i would argue even older ones are open to the idea. But this also depends on the table and DM. It seems I've run across a person that doesn't agree that such a playstyle can exist and I lament the fact he cant be more adult about it in his way of handling it. I do realize my concept is not for everyone and that its a topic for debate but personally I feel those kinds of character ideas make the best characters at a table. That all being said I've simply rolled a Bard and as a slight act of revenge he is going to be composing silly songs of our parties paladin and his deeds brave sir robin style. And if he takes issue with this well... Some people just have no sense of humor I suppose :)

Arbane
2018-01-04, 11:02 PM
2D8HP, thanks for the history lesson!

(I don't have anything useful to add, I think the alignment system is kinda borked.)

2D8HP
2018-01-05, 02:16 AM
2D8HP, thanks for the history lesson!
:smile:

You're very welcome!


(I don't have anything useful to add, I think the alignment system is kinda borked.).
No disagreement there!

I think that the best result of the alignment "system" is maybe the "Ideals", "Flaws", etc.in 5e D&D, and those amusing "Alignment Charts" one sees:

https://img00.deviantart.net/20a0/i/2011/023/2/e/alignment_chart_by_4thehorde-d37w8l2.jpg

But real life people are largely too complex to always fit in any place on the grid.

Satinavian
2018-01-05, 02:27 AM
This in particular I want to go over first because I strongly disagree. I realize now I forgot to mention this was a 5th ed setting and for that I apologize. But in this edition paladins derive their power not just from the gods but from their own beliefs. I would argue the oaths sworn are far more important than the god you serve. Something else I'm not sure if it was very clear in my original post was that his religion condoned such acts because his god was much more vengeful back then. The PH states lawful good is simply something society expects the player to do the right thing. To him and his society at the time he is doing just that, the one currently around him doesn't see it that way. By trying to change his views he would break his original oaths to his god which leads me into my second point. Sense a paladin in this edition doesn't derive its power just from a god, it can even be simply an ideal. Then it has full condoned under the rules to be perfectly fine. And you cannot tell me that even good gods cannot become vengeful and wrathful in the face of certain situations. Gods are a tangible force in the DnD world but that doesn't mean every paladin or cleric must be a carbon copy of the cookie cutter beliefs at that point in time. The point of any religion is to express ones faith in a higher cause / belief. This characters own set of morals just happens to be much different then what is the normal. As I stated in my OP the player IC it is perfectly within his rights to label me as he wishes and even try to arrest me, I will not argued that fact. That's his belief in his faith and then their are my beliefs. The issue I took was him was demanding I change my character sheet based on his views and that his actions about arresting me IC wasn't based on his IC motivations but his OOC ones. Which leads me into the next reply I wish to give.Ok, so in 5E you don't loose your Paladin powers if your paladin changes alignments, only if he breaks his oath. Fine, that makes it better.

But it is still a game of objective alignment and if another player sees your character do evil things regularly, he is in his full right to challange the word "good" on your character sheet. It doesn't matter that your oath allows it. If your oath demands evil things, it just becomes an evil oath. The ambiguity you want does not exist in D&D because your character has a distinct mechanical alignment, not one that flips based of point of view. And there probably even are ways to determine that ingame. As far as i heard it is a bit harder in 5E but there are still rule elements that use alignment and thus can be used to trace what alignment someone is.

Yes, it is not the other players call what is good and evil, it is not your call what is good and evil, the DM has to decide. But because you use D&D for such a conflict, one of your characters is objectively wrong and the other one is objectively right. The DM has to decide, he can't leave it simply open as it would be able in other systems.


This is exactly the stance I've taken at my other table and it was well received. I didn't word it exactly as you have (And I like your version better than my own) But this is exactly how it should be which is why I went with the conquest option from the new book. And the obvious answer should be :"Of course i label you like i want, and i label your deeds evil. As for doing it quietly : Not speaking up against the injustices, crimes and wrongs of the world and just keeping quiet is how you think a paladin should behave ? Seems like we have another disagreement.

That you claim you revere our God when you follow such a vile oath is a bit insulting, but i am willing to let that one slide as i know there were once some heresies inclined to do such things. Even if i would prefer you kept quiet about it as to not sully the name of our God.

But the thing i can't overlook is that your 'vigilant action' are not only against our laws but consist mostly of assaulting and mutilating our citicens for minor wrongdoings. Not only is what you do illegal, the crimes that you perform are far more severe that the things you intend to punish. You are not just a criminal but a major danger to the people i am sworn to protect. So yes, i have to arrest you. But be assured, as a principled and civilized being i would not want to kill you for that. You will get a fair trial, a fitting, non-capital punishment and maybe a therapy and some theology lessons. Surrender now please."

Now all of that would be totally fine. drama about cultural shifts is what your games seem to be about. But unfortunately in D&D there remains the question if your character is actually good or if he is not. He can't be good in his past and evil now while doing the very same things. Maybe even gods can change their opinion (and their alignment) but the principles of good/evil are eternal unmutable rule elements that can't any change more over ingame centuries than how multiclassing works.


Fifth ed specifically feels more open to such playstyle then previous editions but i would argue even older ones are open to the idea. But this also depends on the table and DM. It seems I've run across a person that doesn't agree that such a playstyle can exist and I lament the fact he cant be more adult about it in his way of handling it.Oh i would not disagree that 5E is probably better at this than previous editions, but D&D as a whole is rubbish at doing moral ambiguity and exploration of moral dilemmata. This objective alignment that forces DMs to make valid binding rulings about this stuff always gets in the way. And the habit of declaring certain things good or evil rulewise doesn't help either.

Davrix
2018-01-05, 04:45 AM
And the obvious answer should be :"Of course i label you like i want, and i label your deeds evil. As for doing it quietly : Not speaking up against the injustices, crimes and wrongs of the world and just keeping quiet is how you think a paladin should behave ? Seems like we have another disagreement.

That you claim you revere our God when you follow such a vile oath is a bit insulting, but i am willing to let that one slide as i know there were once some heresies inclined to do such things. Even if i would prefer you kept quiet about it as to not sully the name of our God.

But the thing i can't overlook is that your 'vigilant action' are not only against our laws but consist mostly of assaulting and mutilating our citicens for minor wrongdoings. Not only is what you do illegal, the crimes that you perform are far more severe that the things you intend to punish. You are not just a criminal but a major danger to the people i am sworn to protect. So yes, i have to arrest you. But be assured, as a principled and civilized being i would not want to kill you for that. You will get a fair trial, a fitting, non-capital punishment and maybe a therapy and some theology lessons. Surrender now please."

Now all of that would be totally fine. drama about cultural shifts is what your games seem to be about. But unfortunately in D&D there remains the question if your character is actually good or if he is not. He can't be good in his past and evil now while doing the very same things. Maybe even gods can change their opinion (and their alignment) but the principles of good/evil are eternal unmutable rule elements that can't any change more over ingame centuries than how multiclassing works.

If we are simply talking IC at the table I would easily respond to this reaction by stating, perhaps you are right or maybe I am right. We do not see eye to eye on this but I can respect your own views as well as my own. If you wish I would propose a truce between us. I will abide by your ruling of the law as you see it but I will present my views when and if I feel your ways are lacking and the only time I will dispense my full wraith in a manner I feel that follows the true spirit of our god is in the face of a truly cruel act. (innocent being ritual sacrificed you know something along those lines) However the player in question doesn't feel like trying any of this and I think you need to understand, the moment he raised a problem I simply said no problem man. I understand i you don't get it. I tired for a few minutes to pose a discussion with him but it was very clear he didn't want to talk about it so I said. Dont worry I will simply play something else not a big deal. If anything it was a ten minute argument and he seemed to settle down because I'm sure in his head he won out but to me I really didn't care, i was there to have fun not ruin it. The rest of the night went very well. This whole topic came up because I was curious to debate the idea. My own table had never had an issue this was the first time I've come across someone with it and I was curious. I started in 4th ed so I never really touched anything older before that.

Also one thing I wish to add because I'm not sure if it was fully clear, the character itself doesn't maim or deal out such punishment on a whim to anything minor, he does suggest these punishments to the city watch however when dropping them off. He catches a thief or a crook and he puts the fear of god into them but sends them only a little bruised. Comes across a rapist or an abuser well maybe an arm gets broken and he suggests castration when turned in. The only time he truly dispense with the full on terror stick of holy wrath is against people doing true harm. Murderers, crime lords that maim, kill and extort entire communities and cultist sacrificing people to dark gods things like that. I got the impression people felt like he is chopping off fingers of every thief he finds. Which was the normal in his time and one he truly-feels brings about a more permanent change and he is vocal on this stance but he respects the law enough to abide by them mostly but refuses to back down when innocent people are being harmed by those who delight in their misery or death. (now there were times where he caught repeat offenders in the Game, as i said awesome DM for fun. And he carried out his own view of justice when the law of the land failed to uphold its promise to its citizens and this had its own set of consequences) This is at least how I play him at my other table and it seems to work itself out most times with some fun drama bits every so often.

I think you and me are in agreement in some area's and on very different sides on others. But i think the sticking point between us is that you feel that what is good/ evil is set in stone in DND and that those forces cannot change but I would argue that depends on the world and setting. I might agree that its very much that and in others not at all but once again I'm going back to perception. Someone be it god, human or the cosmic maguffin dictates what is right and what is wrong. Its still dictated by something and that dictation is based on somethings view and I could be real meta and argue that the rule book and everything in general is influence by our own culture and way of thought at the time of writing. So I would argue the only reason things may be constant and unchangeable is because someone with a perception of what is right and wrong said so. But I don't entirely disagree with you really but I think we may be at the respectfully agree to disagree point.

dps
2018-01-06, 03:20 PM
In D&D right and wrong are not determined by perception. There is a cosmic objective morality that simply is, and it is immutable, as said. Though in game play this mostly means the DM can decide what is good and evil.


I don't disagree, but I don't think this is just an in-game issue. It sounds more like a meta-gaming problem to me. Davrix and his DM thought that adding his character to the campaign would be interesting (and I agree), but obviously at least one of the other players doesn't agree. And yes, it the other player, not the other PC that has a problem with the situation, or else the player wouldn't be red in the face about it.

While I find the idea extremely interesting, I think it's simply not going to work in this game with this other player. Some in-game disagreement would be find, even desirable, in this scenario IMO, but the other player getting upset OOC isn't a good thing at all.

Arbane
2018-01-06, 10:41 PM
This sort of thing is why I say that all Paladins have 'cause two hour argument on ethics' as an at-will.

Davrix
2018-01-07, 12:53 AM
This sort of thing is why I say that all Paladins have 'cause two hour argument on ethics' as an at-will.

This is going on my character sheet lol I love it.


I don't disagree, but I don't think this is just an in-game issue. It sounds more like a meta-gaming problem to me. Davrix and his DM thought that adding his character to the campaign would be interesting (and I agree), but obviously at least one of the other players doesn't agree. And yes, it the other player, not the other PC that has a problem with the situation, or else the player wouldn't be red in the face about it.

While I find the idea extremely interesting, I think it's simply not going to work in this game with this other player. Some in-game disagreement would be find, even desirable, in this scenario IMO, but the other player getting upset OOC isn't a good thing at all.

Which is why I only tried for a few minutes to try to talk to him OOC, realized it wasn't going to be productive and re-rolled A brave sir robin bard that only slightly makes fun of the other paladin every so often, so far he hasn't seemed to mind.

Satinavian
2018-01-07, 01:10 AM
I am glad you have now found a way to play that works in that group as well. I hope you do enjoy the bard as well.

jojo
2018-01-07, 04:56 AM
But it is still a game of objective alignment and if another player sees your character do evil things regularly, he is in his full right to challange the word "good" on your character sheet. It doesn't matter that your oath allows it. If your oath demands evil things, it just becomes an evil oath. The ambiguity you want does not exist in D&D because your character has a distinct mechanical alignment, not one that flips based of point of view. And there probably even are ways to determine that ingame. As far as i heard it is a bit harder in 5E but there are still rule elements that use alignment and thus can be used to trace what alignment someone is.

DnD is not a game of objective alignment. There are 9 alignments written in the PHB accompanied by about a paragraph each of flavor text. Later on there are a bunch of tables that list which gods have what alignment. That's it. Nowhere in the books is there a table listing a variety of actions cross-referenced to the alignment they represent.

Even if there were it would still be subjective because situations that were not anticipated would quickly arise, ultimately leaving it to the DM to attempt to adjudicate whether or not the player/PCs intent supports their alignment given a particular outcome.

Some judgement calls will be easier than others, but that doesn't imply objectivity.

Which is why moralizing and ethics always lead to flame wars and trolling, usually in the wake of someone pointing and shouting "Hey look, a Paladin!"


Oh i would not disagree that 5E is probably better at this than previous editions, but D&D as a whole is rubbish at doing moral ambiguity and exploration of moral dilemmata. This objective alignment that forces DMs to make valid binding rulings about this stuff always gets in the way. And the habit of declaring certain things good or evil rulewise doesn't help either.

Yes, 5E, by removing a bunch of longstanding nonsensical restrictions, is much better at handling morality than all previous editions. You say that last part like it's a bad thing though. It's not really productive to say that DnD is "rubbish" at exploring moral dilemmas and handling moral ambiguity because they entire system is built to avoid both of those outcomes.

Example 1:

PC 1: "Hey look! An ugly green guy standing over a body with a blood-stained Axe!"

PC 2: "Maybe he was defending himself, let's not jump to conclusions."

PC 1: "I cast Detect Evil."

DM (Looks at the MM): "The Orc is Evil, the dying man at his feet is Good."

PC 1: "Cool, I kill the Orc."

Example 2:

PC 2: "Well the Orc's dead. What should we do now?"

PC 1: "Bury him respectfully?"

ALL: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

DM: "Ok, seriously though. What do you do?"

BOTH: "We loot the body."

DM: "Isn't that contradictory to your alignments?"

PC 1: "Nope. I will make a "good faith effort" to return this gold to it's rightful owner. When that fails I will put it back into circulation within the economy at large, because I am a NG Cleric."

PC 2: "Nope. I will ensure that his "good faith effort" is not undermined entirely by failure through taking an equal share, which I will then tithe at least 10% of to the church - or more if I'm getting a bit too well off - because I am a 2E LG Paladin."

DM: "Good enough for me."

Most people who play DnD are not sociology, anthropology or political science/public policy students and as such are not particularly interested in sitting around debating ethics for three hours. Thus the Alignments provide a framework to avoid that and enable players who might otherwise be reluctant to do so a justification for fantasizing about being a bunch of Murder-Hobos. As I said above, what it's not meant to do is provide a convenient set of talking points for brain-dead college freshmen to expound on the revelations of their mal-formed proto-SJW nonsense at the expense of their friends just because literally no-one else wants to hear them retread hundred year old social-sciences theories like they're some sort of profound revelations.

Satinavian
2018-01-07, 06:34 AM
Even if there were it would still be subjective because situations that were not anticipated would quickly arise, ultimately leaving it to the DM to attempt to adjudicate whether or not the player/PCs intent supports their alignment given a particular outcome.Sure, outgame it is the DM who decides and is obviously subjective. But his decision then becomes an objective truth in game. His words convey the cosmic ingame powers of good and evil which by definition can't be wrong about what is good and what is evil.

And yes, that is bad. Instead of argueing about philosophy and ethics it becomes "let's ask the DM about it". That hurts any attempt at exploring such things.


Yes, 5E, by removing a bunch of longstanding nonsensical restrictions, is much better at handling morality than all previous editions. You say that last part like it's a bad thing though. It's not really productive to say that DnD is "rubbish" at exploring moral dilemmas and handling moral ambiguity because they entire system is built to avoid both of those outcomes.It is bad because it didn't get far enough. Every single other RPG i have played and can remember now is better at handling morality than all editions of D&D.

Lacuna Caster
2018-01-07, 09:11 AM
Oh, as is traditional:
...

...After 1980 THERE WERE NO NEW RULES OF ANY NOTE, NOPE NONE AT ALL!!! Until 2014 and 5e (unless someone else has something to add?).
Well, there are something resembling usable rules for alignment in Dungeon World. Does that count?

Jeez, though, did you really have to quote all that?
.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-01-07, 09:26 AM
Dungeon World and Torchbearer both have alignment. But it's specifically in those games because they're tributes to D&D.

Davrix
2018-01-07, 12:18 PM
Sure, outgame it is the DM who decides and is obviously subjective. But his decision then becomes an objective truth in game. His words convey the cosmic ingame powers of good and evil which by definition can't be wrong about what is good and what is evil.

And yes, that is bad. Instead of argueing about philosophy and ethics it becomes "let's ask the DM about it". That hurts any attempt at exploring such things.

It is bad because it didn't get far enough. Every single other RPG i have played and can remember now is better at handling morality than all editions of D&D.

And we circle back to my original point. SOMEONE has to decide what is right or wrong at the table, be it the book, player or Dm its all open to ones interpretation and perception of such things. Most of us have a very narrow concept of what is good and evil based on our current time period. Things that were accepted in the past such as oh a political marriage of a 13 year old girl to a 40 or 50 year old man was perfectly legit and good and by the law in some places. (might be in some places of the world still) We take a Dm of that time or a Dm say from the deep south from the time of slavery and we would get a much different view of what is right or wrong to those people.

So in all honestly your statement that its objective doesn't define the situation well. Its to broad in its views. I think we are better off stating that its objective in each world based on the perception of that worlds DM and the players within it. Under this statement it becomes less about what ed your playing or even what game and the mentality of the players. Maybe it wasn't as open in older editions, I didn't play them nor do I plan to. I felt 4th was pretty open as well on it but 5th is specifically so with offering up whole pantheon charts of gods from our own history and religions. So i think having a challenging PC such as my paladin fits very well into 5th or other systems. But it does depend on the players and at my own table its a smashing success at another it was not.

I think the crux of the matter in the end is this. Some people want to go by the letter of the book. And that's fine but I would honestly argue no one ever sticks to the book verbatim. Somewhere along the line someone will re-fluff something or ask the Dm if they can change something minor to accommodate an idea. Which brings me to people like me who see the book as a guideline to use as a general direction and building block for the characters we want to play with a basic structure and rules so that its simply not us acting out parts on a stage.

Florian
2018-01-09, 02:44 PM
@Davrix:

We're talking about a game system that uses "objective morality". That is unchangeable and set in stone, so to speak. What is "Good" is Good, what is "Lawful" is Lawful, and so on.
You try to make a point that perception of things changes, so the thing itself changed, but that doesn't work out.

dps
2018-01-09, 07:23 PM
@Davrix:

We're talking about a game system that uses "objective morality". That is unchangeable and set in stone, so to speak. What is "Good" is Good, what is "Lawful" is Lawful, and so on.
You try to make a point that perception of things changes, so the thing itself changed, but that doesn't work out.

All well and good, but the problem is (which is a big part of what causes problems with and argument over alignment in DnD) that the rulebooks can't cover every situation and action that might happen in-game, leaving it up to the DM or someone to decide what that "objective morality" means in-game. Also, organizations, nations, and other groups (including yes, religions), might have codes that impose additional restrictions/obligations on members, above and beyond what the rulebooks say about alignment.

Davrix
2018-01-10, 12:48 AM
@Davrix:

We're talking about a game system that uses "objective morality". That is unchangeable and set in stone, so to speak. What is "Good" is Good, what is "Lawful" is Lawful, and so on.
You try to make a point that perception of things changes, so the thing itself changed, but that doesn't work out.

I'm sorry but I just don't see it that way. Maybe in a specific world / setting this is more the case but the whole POINT of DND is to make use of your imagination and creativity. And as someone has said in another topic. Alignment is descriptive not prescriptive. Your alignment doesn't define your actions. Rather your actions, motivations and how you define them are what make up your alignment. Also lets look at 5th ed's definition of Lawful good. Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.

There is no definitive answer of what is good. It simply states what society thinks is good. And that can vary from time period and culture. What does society perceive as good. This is very telling and makes a lot of sense to me because gods are worshiped by mortals. They are defined by the belief system and the doctrine. Sure they have mouth peaces and I'm sure they influence it but it can go both ways. A society can see a good god as something who is also vengeful and very smity the wicked ways where others would view the same god as peaceful and filled with love for his people? You don't simply wave your hand and go its all this way always. It doesn't work that way unless you specifically wish it to and if that's what you want for your world. Fine sure more power to you but that is not how the system is run now. There is no absolute line / definite of what is good or evil. its probably still not perfect but 5th made huge strides it making alignment much more organic and logical.

Satinavian
2018-01-10, 12:51 AM
And we circle back to my original point. SOMEONE has to decide what is right or wrong at the table, be it the book, player or Dm its all open to ones interpretation and perception of such things.No. If your game is not D&D, NO ONE has to decide what is right or wrong. Players can have opinions about it, the GM can, the characters can, but all of those are just opinions and stay that way.

And this is better for play with morality dilemmas. I don't know why you would want to pick one of those many existing opinions (whih will exist if the dilemma deserves to be called that) and declare it to be the cosmic backed up right on in game.

jojo
2018-01-10, 01:50 AM
Sure, outgame it is the DM who decides and is obviously subjective. But his decision then becomes an objective truth in game. His words convey the cosmic ingame powers of good and evil which by definition can't be wrong about what is good and what is evil.

And yes, that is bad. Instead of argueing about philosophy and ethics it becomes "let's ask the DM about it". That hurts any attempt at exploring such things.

It is bad because it didn't get far enough. Every single other RPG i have played and can remember now is better at handling morality than all editions of D&D.

I thought my point was quite clear, however I'll quote myself with added bolding.


It's not really productive to say that DnD is "rubbish" at exploring moral dilemmas and handling moral ambiguity because the entire system is built to avoid both of those outcomes.

Dungeons and Dragons was not designed to explore ethical conflicts and moral dilemmas. The alignment system was included to actively discourage players from moralizing. Gary Gygax as well as Dave Arneson and other original members of TSR have made comments to that effect in some cases explicitly stating this to be fact in interviews.

That being the case, it's disingenuous to hold out a broken or reductive "morality/alignment" system as being a "flaw" especially compared to other systems which have to one degree or another been designed to handle those moral dilemmas and such instead of actively seeking to prevent them.


@Davrix:

We're talking about a game system that uses "objective morality". That is unchangeable and set in stone, so to speak. What is "Good" is Good, what is "Lawful" is Lawful, and so on.
You try to make a point that perception of things changes, so the thing itself changed, but that doesn't work out.

I was going to respond to this but the quote below is on point.


All well and good, but the problem is (which is a big part of what causes problems with and argument over alignment in DnD) that the rulebooks can't cover every situation and action that might happen in-game, leaving it up to the DM or someone to decide what that "objective morality" means in-game. Also, organizations, nations, and other groups (including yes, religions), might have codes that impose additional restrictions/obligations on members, above and beyond what the rulebooks say about alignment.

For example:

A Fighter can be Lawful Good. A Paladin must be Lawful Good. Setting aside the italicized terms, a Lawful Good Paladin will be held to a much more stringent code of conduct than a Lawful Good Fighter will be regardless of the Edition in Play. Further the Paladin will be punished mechanically for transgression against their alignment, whereas the Fighter typically will not be.


No. If your game is not D&D, NO ONE has to decide what is right or wrong. Players can have opinions about it, the GM can, the characters can, but all of those are just opinions and stay that way.

And this is better for play with morality dilemmas. I don't know why you would want to pick one of those many existing opinions (whih will exist if the dilemma deserves to be called that) and declare it to be the cosmic backed up right on in game.

@Satinavian,

You keep bringing up "play with morality dilemmas" and your arguments seem largely predicated on a desire to use role-playing games as an alternative Philosophical Methodology.
As I continue to point out, very clearly, there are systems designed to support this and there are systems designed to prevent this. DnD is and historically has been one of the latter types. Criticizing the system as a result does not represent a "strong" or even "coherent" argument.

This is particularly true as the mechanical effects of a PC transgressing against their alignment are extremely limited in 5E.

Frozen_Feet
2018-01-10, 02:55 AM
The two-axis alignment grid isn't even bad at dealing with shades of grey (how people keep missing four different flavours of morally neutral is beyond me), nor is it bad for playing out moral dilemmas.

The reason why it's not bad for moral dilemmas is because 1) most characters are not in fact demanded to be Good and 2) most characters do not in fact have complete knowledge of in-setting morality.

So you can have, for example, a Lawful Good character and Chaotic Good character arguing for merits of deontological versus consequentalist approach to a situation, with a Neutral Good character caught in-between and facing the dilemma. Or a Neutral or Evil character facing a dilemma between doing what's good and their selfish inclinations. Choosing what's objectively good is only a no-brainer when you're playing an objectively good role. (Shocking, I know.)

A lot of the complaints about the alignment system are actually based on unwillingness to accept that in D&D, a game master exist and is supposed to deliver the final verdict and tell players to shut up about it. (Not exactly the same argument as jojo's, but pretty close.) And a lot of those complaints are based on player distaste towards how game definitions of Good and Evil differ from their personal definitions of good and evil. (Which is a good argument for changing details of those definitions for their table or setting, but a very bad argument for the alignment system being bad or broken.)

I am increasingly convinced that 90% of people who complain about alignment have either not read or not understood the rules. It doesn't help that apparently d20 developers either didn't read or didn't understand them either, because d20 seems to omit several clarifying passages which were in 1st Ed AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide. (The moral panic towards RPGs, and TSR's response to it during the 2nd edition of AD&D, may have had something to do with this.)

Satinavian
2018-01-10, 03:26 AM
Dungeons and Dragons was not designed to explore ethical conflicts and moral dilemmas. The alignment system was included to actively discourage players from moralizing. Gary Gygax as well as Dave Arneson and other original members of TSR have made comments to that effect in some cases explicitly stating this to be fact in interviews.

That being the case, it's disingenuous to hold out a broken or reductive "morality/alignment" system as being a "flaw" especially compared to other systems which have to one degree or another been designed to handle those moral dilemmas and such instead of actively seeking to prevent them.So "It's a feature, not a bug" ? Well, maybe to some.

But you are still wrong. It was not introduced to discourage moralizing. It was introduced to reduce intraparty backstabbing according to those interviews. And it pretty much failed to do so.

And it really doesn't discourage moralizing. Instead it provides opportunities for new argueing about morals because now it has to be decided if a character really has alignment X or if action Y should result in alignment shifts or a fall or whatever.

@Satinavian,

You keep bringing up "play with morality dilemmas" and your arguments seem largely predicated on a desire to use role-playing games as an alternative Philosophical Methodology.
As I continue to point out, very clearly, there are systems designed to support this and there are systems designed to prevent this. DnD is and historically has been one of the latter types. Criticizing the system as a result does not represent a "strong" or even "coherent" argument.

This is particularly true as the mechanical effects of a PC transgressing against their alignment are extremely limited in 5E.But the OP does want to play out exactly such things : conflicts based on different notions of right and wrong and how society influences that.

And D&D is rubbish at that. The alignment only gets in the way. So you seem to actually agree with me here.

Florian
2018-01-10, 04:33 AM
All well and good, but the problem is (which is a big part of what causes problems with and argument over alignment in DnD) that the rulebooks can't cover every situation and action that might happen in-game, leaving it up to the DM or someone to decide what that "objective morality" means in-game. Also, organizations, nations, and other groups (including yes, religions), might have codes that impose additional restrictions/obligations on members, above and beyond what the rulebooks say about alignment.

But that's not what alignment is and how you use it. You compare it to a set of rules that you have to follow, weighting each and every action, which leads us to the stupidity of the BoED/BoVD or endless discussion about slaughtering baby orcs.

Instead it´s a "moral core" that's pretty broad and has a lot of overlap with "neighboring cores", making it easy to find out where something is positioned and what it´s "aligned to", making it easy to figure out the mechanical side of it.


I'm sorry but I just don't see it that way. Maybe in a specific world / setting this is more the case but the whole POINT of DND is to make use of your imagination and creativity. And as someone has said in another topic. Alignment is descriptive not prescriptive. Your alignment doesn't define your actions. Rather your actions, motivations and how you define them are what make up your alignment. Also lets look at 5th ed's definition of Lawful good. Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.

There is no definitive answer of what is good. It simply states what society thinks is good. And that can vary from time period and culture. What does society perceive as good. This is very telling and makes a lot of sense to me because gods are worshiped by mortals. They are defined by the belief system and the doctrine. Sure they have mouth peaces and I'm sure they influence it but it can go both ways. A society can see a good god as something who is also vengeful and very smity the wicked ways where others would view the same god as peaceful and filled with love for his people? You don't simply wave your hand and go its all this way always. It doesn't work that way unless you specifically wish it to and if that's what you want for your world. Fine sure more power to you but that is not how the system is run now. There is no absolute line / definite of what is good or evil. its probably still not perfect but 5th made huge strides it making alignment much more organic and logical.

You're making the same mistake. Alignment is a core function of D&D and is heavily included in the game mechanics, that's why a Protection from Evil spell works, a Holy enhancement is triggered or a good deity not granting certain alignment-tagged spells.

Alignment is both, prescriptive and descriptive. The "Good" axis defines what is "Good" and a "Good people" or "Good society" will automatically lean towards those moral value and be "in alignment" with them, while a Paladin will have to check himself to "stay aligned".

Overall, I think you're confusing "Good" with "good". A society works when its overall alignment and the alignment of its members or citizens matches. LE folks in an LE kingdom is "good" because their moral outlook and the rules of society match, making it work for them (but that does not make them "Good").

The thing is, "Good" and "Law" are eternal concepts and don't ever change, but they're also very broad fields. If you want, go on any PF SRD site and check out the 30 or so different Paladin codes that highlight different aspects of it, good stuff there with some even the source for conflict between different Paladins, Cavaliers or Orders.

"LG" does support Dredd-Style Paladins very well, it´s just a tightrope-walk to not switch over to LN. Both, Dredd and Captain America are very powerful Paladin archetypes that showcase what this class is about and personally, I abhor the Holier-Than-You-Stick-Up-The-Butt types.

Were you a player at my table, we wouldn't have this discussion at all. Your character would be a Paladin of Aroden and a proto-Hellknight, the other on a Paladin of Iomedae (The Inheritor..) and you could duke out your differences.

Edit and afterthought: It´s also worth mentioning that we're talking about some extremes when it comes to alignments. "Gutmensch" (literally: A Good Human) has become a swear word used for people that work on a higher moral standard and are willing to pull through with it, as they can be both, inconvenient and frighteningly brutal at what they do.

Frozen_Feet
2018-01-10, 09:35 AM
A lot of the time when "Gutmensch" and equivalents are used as swear words, they're used ironically, with the connotation that the person so labeled is hypocritical, ineffectual busybody or otherwise not actually good except in their own little mind.

Not always, as you say, someone who walks the walk as much as they talk the talk can be pretty horrifying (especially when their morals differ from you). Triggering that feeling is usually the point when I do something similar to the original poster. (Of course, the irony of ironies is that a lot of people are so used to conflating two different uses of the term that they cannot distinquish between a hypocrite and a genuine zealot.)

wumpus
2018-01-10, 10:58 AM
:annoyed:

[from spoiler]
After 1980 THERE WERE NO NEW RULES OF ANY NOTE, NOPE NONE AT ALL!!! Until 2014 and 5e (unless someone else has something to add?).

Happy New Year!

I see you've purged 4e from your mind. Or you could argue that since the removed alignments didn't have any rules attached to them, they could be removed without consequence.



There is no definitive answer of what is good. It simply states what society thinks is good. And that can vary from time period and culture. What does society perceive as good. This is very telling and makes a lot of sense to me because gods are worshiped by mortals. They are defined by the belief system and the doctrine. Sure they have mouth peaces and I'm sure they influence it but it can go both ways.

Except that "detect evil/good" doesn't care what society thinks, it checks the aura/character sheet of the object/person and reflects that (of course, those spells can fail with dealing with redeemed demons and fallen angels). There isn't anything subjective about the goodness of a holy sword, it simply is goodness attached to a lump of metal.

Depending on the setting, it is entirely possible (and presumably recommended by RAW) that the gods themselves can't effect the forces of good/evil. We see that in the stickverse, where the gods appear to declare that it is a good (or at least neutral) act to slay greenskins (specifically only for xp) only to have the raw forces of good/evil declare otherwise. "Society" (even a society of paladins) thought that massacring a goblin village was fine, while the forces of good/evil declared it objectively evil. RAW appears to support this, but much of these arguments date before 3e when the whole concept of RAW was laughable.

While alignment obviously relies on the DM and the setting, it should be equally obvious that the players need to agree to this. The real problem occurs when it takes longer to agree to the setting's morality and ethics than to play the game. Most settings will be black and white (and often include some "fairy tale morality" that won't fly anywhere in the modern world) and others might go for gritty realism (I'd recommend chucking the alignment rules in this case), but you need to agree on the setting. But "objective morality" appears to be RAW and requires houseruling to remove (although pretty much any setting requires a ton of small and large adjustments to RAW).



Dave Arneson wrote that he added "alignment" to the game he made up because of one PC backstabbing another


That's odd. I've always assumed that "alignment" was copied over from chainmail to represent the two sides of the wargaming table. It looks like it still was, but with a significant delay and for different reasons than "we've always had this" (which appears to be the reason that D&D keeps this broken system).

dps
2018-01-10, 11:06 AM
No. If your game is not D&D, NO ONE has to decide what is right or wrong. Players can have opinions about it, the GM can, the characters can, but all of those are just opinions and stay that way.


That's overly broad--there are systems other than DnD that use alignment, and even systems that don't use alignment may have rules that function similarly to alignment rules.

And since your post was in response to my comments which were about DnD, it's not relevant anyway.

sabernoir
2018-01-10, 11:20 AM
Aren't strong punishments enacted to discourage evil? Let's say they're TOO strong. The worst it could be is Lawful Neutral. Evil is harming the innocent.

redwizard007
2018-01-10, 12:01 PM
Alignments are not open to interpretation. They are cosmic truths. Mortal understanding of those truths, however, is going to be flawed, even with divine or planar guidance. This is how we get orthodox and progressive elements within many churches. It can be an incredibly enjoyable playing experience to explore those rifts.

Of more immediate importance: Is your Paladin Lawful and Good? No he is not. Does he believe that he is Lawful and Good? Sure. So did Hitler. End of discussion.

HOWEVER, this is a bloody game. At your table, he was fun and well received. So well received that your buddy went out of his way to invite you to bring him into another existing game. Obviously, alignment interpretation was less important than depth of character at your table. For table two, or at least with this specific player, alignment was a much bigger deal. These kind of disagreements are usually handled best OOC and occasionally, a compromise can be found. Usually the problem resolves with someone making a new character, but not always.

The move to a Bard is probably a good thing. Not only does it resolve the conflict, it allows you to role-play a whole different personality from what you do at your own table. Variety is the spice of life... Though, maybe not so much for Lawful archtypes.

Florian
2018-01-10, 03:40 PM
Aren't strong punishments enacted to discourage evil? Let's say they're TOO strong. The worst it could be is Lawful Neutral. Evil is harming the innocent.

This could get us into a rather lengthy discussion... What you hint at is a pronounced moral difference between people and the society they exist in, with laws and institutions that formed at one point, reflecting a general consensus where "to go".

IMHO, this is what you get when upholding a "C" Alignment as the best personal case, but don't accept the outcome and rather have an overall "L" society - the difference can only be settled by the use of force.

Florian
2018-01-10, 04:16 PM
Of more immediate importance: Is your Paladin Lawful and Good? No he is not. Does he believe that he is Lawful and Good? Sure. So did Hitler. End of discussion.

This. The core argument for objective morality is that personal believe and perception don't matter.

Davrix
2018-01-10, 04:55 PM
Alignments are not open to interpretation. They are cosmic truths. Mortal understanding of those truths, however, is going to be flawed, even with divine or planar guidance. This is how we get orthodox and progressive elements within many churches. It can be an incredibly enjoyable playing experience to explore those rifts.

Of more immediate importance: Is your Paladin Lawful and Good? No he is not. Does he believe that he is Lawful and Good? Sure. So did Hitler. End of discussion.

HOWEVER, this is a bloody game. At your table, he was fun and well received. So well received that your buddy went out of his way to invite you to bring him into another existing game. Obviously, alignment interpretation was less important than depth of character at your table. For table two, or at least with this specific player, alignment was a much bigger deal. These kind of disagreements are usually handled best OOC and occasionally, a compromise can be found. Usually the problem resolves with someone making a new character, but not always.

The move to a Bard is probably a good thing. Not only does it resolve the conflict, it allows you to role-play a whole different personality from what you do at your own table. Variety is the spice of life... Though, maybe not so much for Lawful archtypes.

Pretty much I agree with this and yes, I did re-roll and I am having fun. Variety is good. I might be a little to in love with my paladin character but to me it wasn't a big deal and as i said I follow the player around and make up silly songs of his brave and noble deeds or poke holes in his logic when i see them. It gets a laugh out of the player so he seems to be taking it well. maybe he realized he was being sort of a jerk, I don't know. Sometimes these topics are best left as is and not brought up again if everyone is having a good time. Though while your Hitler analogy is extreme if we go by the lawful good definition in his society at the time many thought that was the right thing to do otherwise why would he have been put in power but that's a huge other discussion and best left alone and out of this thread.

Also I think some people have the wrong impression and keep quoting around different ed and that's ok for this discussion but DO KEEP IN MIND that I am talking mostly of 5th ed here right now which unlike the other ed of the game has a much less strict view of the alignment system.

I don't need to re-quote the lawful good definition but lets look at the detect good and evil spell shall we.


For the duration, you know if there is an aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of you, as well as where the creature is located. Similarly, you know if there is a place or object within 30 feet of you that has been magically consecrated or desecrated.

The spell only brings up creature type and if a area has been blessed or corrupted by magical or divine means. There is nothing that says when I cast this spell I know if something is evil. I simply know, oh that person is a demon in disguise. Is he probably up to no good? Yea and under 5th ed rules creatures of divine or demonic nature like the gods or demons and celestials do fall into the strict alignment system. however this is where i think things have gone a bit off because its trying to be both more open and holding to the cosmic scale of good vs evil / order vs chaos.

Now I have my own personal view of things which has been made very clear I think in this thread so far so lets take it from a different angle sense everyone seems to be focused on what the rules by RAW are trying to define in 5th ed at least because if we try to play ed war's this topic is going to get more then a little hard to follow.

Lets use the definition given by the book of lawful good again as our example. It dictates that a lawful good character will do what is right by society. So if we take this as the definitive definition of LG does that mean a lawful good god changes by what a society thinks of as good or does he simply look down from heaven and go, boy these people have got it twisted?

Satinavian
2018-01-11, 02:38 AM
The spell only brings up creature type and if a area has been blessed or corrupted by magical or divine means. There is nothing that says when I cast this spell I know if something is evil. I simply know, oh that person is a demon in disguise. Is he probably up to no good? Yea and under 5th ed rules creatures of divine or demonic nature like the gods or demons and celestials do fall into the strict alignment system. however this is where i think things have gone a bit off because its trying to be both more open and holding to the cosmic scale of good vs evil / order vs chaos. How about the rest of the system ?

Are there items only good or evil people can use ? Are there barriers which keep people of certain alignment out ? Are there spells which do damage/heling/other effects based on alignment ? Are there class abilities depending on alignment of owner or target ?

If nothing of that exist, then indeed the objective alignment does not really get in the way and people can have different ideas about what is good or evil. But if those things do exist, they can be used to detect alignment and everything that changed is that you now have to jump through more hoops to do so.

Frozen_Feet
2018-01-11, 05:58 AM
Those magical effects and their causal link with morality is not wholly obvious, though. A plausible in-universe argument can be made that it is only correlation and in absence of complete knowledge of in-setting morality and in the presence of detection-fooling events, it is possible to contest reasons of such correlation.

Never, ever mistake "objective information exists" with "objective information is easy" or "objective information is uncontestable and people will always agree on its interpretation".

Davrix
2018-01-12, 02:23 AM
How about the rest of the system ?

Are there items only good or evil people can use ? Are there barriers which keep people of certain alignment out ? Are there spells which do damage/heling/other effects based on alignment ? Are there class abilities depending on alignment of owner or target ?

If nothing of that exist, then indeed the objective alignment does not really get in the way and people can have different ideas about what is good or evil. But if those things do exist, they can be used to detect alignment and everything that changed is that you now have to jump through more hoops to do so.

Very few in fact actually exist in the core 5th ed books atm.

The swords of awakening have an alignment but that's specifically in grayhawk lore and the talismans of ultimate evil and good but they simply state any good or evil alignment. Heck even the holy avenger simply says paladin as a requirement. The only weapons aside from the SOA from grayhawk are the legendary artifacts that have sentience build it so there is a living entity deciding if you morally fit their view of what they wish to accomplish.

As for spells both detect G/E and Protection from G/E just list creature type, the same goes with Magicl circle. it asks you to name a specific creature rather than naming an alignment.

So yea they really are trying to have it both ways. So many things are left more open now to different moral views however the one section that lists gods and creatures such as celestial and demons are bound by the cosmic constant of good and evil. They are what they are and nothing "changes" it (big air quotes)

So yea it basically feels like 80 percent of the book wants to be more open about it and then 20 percent gets stuck in past ed of the game.

Florian
2018-01-12, 03:50 AM
That's sad, because the alignment system is a good tool if you understand how to use it properly, but it more often than not got either misused or misunderstood.

Davrix
2018-01-12, 03:54 PM
That's sad, because the alignment system is a good tool if you understand how to use it properly, but it more often than not got either misused or misunderstood.

I think it has a lot to do with personal views and how it has been written in past editions. Some take it by RAW and will not change one word to make it more flexible. (Though they will happily tweak anything else when it comes to feats or powers most times. Seriously I had player like that once)

Personally if you make up your own world you should be allowed to have alignment anyway you wish. Your world your rules. Using an established world that's published? Maybe adhere more to it but I am still of the opinion that its all based on the tables views. And I happen to enjoy playing in the aspect of what is right and what is wrong.

Twizzly513
2018-01-14, 11:12 AM
Well, as was said by others, alignment is not decided by what a character thinks their alignment would be in the game. It's far more objective. The guideline that I found is that good will sacrifice their own [something] for the good of others ("I will work to protect the innocent, or die trying!"). Neutral will sacrifice others for the good of others (The end justifies the means, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette). And evil sacrifices others for the good of themselves ("If I kill you, I get your money!"). I'm not sure who originally came up with this, but obviously there are different points along the spectrum that alignment attempts to label. In this land with these laws, I would objectively say your character is Lawful Neutral. They follow a code and try to help people, but others see the actions to get to peace as overkill. Your character sees it as the end justifies the means, because that's the culture they grew up with. Of course, with this alignment (at least in 5e), you still cannot become an oathbreaker, and it does not affect the way you follow your tenets in any way, assuming you are not playing an edition where you must specifically be Good to be your oath.

This character sounds exceptionally badass BTW. :smallbiggrin:

Davrix
2018-01-14, 04:14 PM
Well, as was said by others, alignment is not decided by what a character thinks their alignment would be in the game. It's far more objective. The guideline that I found is that good will sacrifice their own [something] for the good of others ("I will work to protect the innocent, or die trying!"). Neutral will sacrifice others for the good of others (The end justifies the means, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette). And evil sacrifices others for the good of themselves ("If I kill you, I get your money!"). I'm not sure who originally came up with this, but obviously there are different points along the spectrum that alignment attempts to label. In this land with these laws, I would objectively say your character is Lawful Neutral. They follow a code and try to help people, but others see the actions to get to peace as overkill. Your character sees it as the end justifies the means, because that's the culture they grew up with. Of course, with this alignment (at least in 5e), you still cannot become an oathbreaker, and it does not affect the way you follow your tenets in any way, assuming you are not playing an edition where you must specifically be Good to be your oath.

This character sounds exceptionally badass BTW. :smallbiggrin:

Thank you for the compliment and yes he is a TON of fun to play at my other table. And yes this is in 5th, also I'm not even sure 4th required an alignment anymore either but i forget now. And yea he follows his oaths to the letter but I also dont play him lawful stupid either. But long story short he puts the fear of god into anyone who would do harm to innocent people. And will generally outright take the head off of the really nasty types ones.

Kish
2018-01-14, 04:32 PM
Also lets look at 5th ed's definition of Lawful good. Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.
Shoud have spelled out that this is a 5ed game to begin with. Clearly you're doing nothing wrong, as such, even if your paladin is evil, in an edition where paladins don't have to be Lawful Good. He sounds like he's still going on earlier-edition expectations, including "paladin+evil act according to objective morality as interpreted by the DM=ex-paladin."

My advice is to tell him, "Yes, there are entirely valid perspectives which would state my character is evil*, but paladins are allowed to be evil in this edition, so it doesn't matter mechanically."

Then your group can deal with the results of your moral disagreement, which may well still be irreconcilable, but at least you'll be on the same page with regard to what you're disagreeing on--and it's entirely possible that his objection is only to someone in the group acting evil while wearing what he considers an "I'm definitionally one of the Good Guys" badge.

*Or "Yes, my character is evil" will be more likely to defuse the conflict, if that's something you're willing to say.

2D8HP
2018-01-14, 05:38 PM
I see you've purged 4e from your mind. Or you could argue that since the removed alignments didn't have any rules attached to them, they could be removed without consequence..
Unfortunately I stopped playing games in 1993 and didn't start again until a couple of years ago, so I never played 4th edition, but I did glance at it and note that 4e was back to a 5-point of Alignment sort-of likeCHARACTER ALIGNMENT

Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic (good or evil). Lawful characters always act according to a highly regulated code of behavior, whether for good or evil. Chaotic characters are quite
unpredictable and can not be depended upon to do anything except the unexpected -- they are often, but not always, evil. Neutral characters, such as all thieves, are motivated by self interest and may steal from their companions or betray them if it is in their own best interest. Players may choose any alignment they want and need not reveal it to others. Note that the code of lawful good characters insures that they would tell everyone that they are lawful. There are some magical items that can be used only by one alignment of characters. If the Dungeon Master feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment he may rule that he or she has changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of experience points. An example of such behavior would be a "good" character who kills or tortures a prisoner.
https://retrorpg.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-10-at-4-43-37-pm.png


That's odd. I've always assumed that "alignment" was copied over from chainmail to represent the two sides of the wargaming table. It looks like it still was, but with a significant delay and for different reasons than "we've always had this" (which appears to be the reason that D&D keeps this broken system).

Yeah, except for Arneson's words I'd have assumed that as well.

While I suppose it waa inevitably when Greyhawk added Paladins that were "continual seeking for good" but I think that adding "Good" and "Evil" to "Alignment" was a mistake, and it was better the way the predecessor of D&D, Chainmail had it as:

"GENERAL LINE-UP:
It is impossible to draw a distanct line between "good" and "evil" fantastic
figures. Three categories are listed below as a general guide for the wargamer
designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:

LAW
Hobbits
Dwarves
Gnomes
Heroes
Super Heroes
Wizards*
Ents
Magic Weapons

NEUTRAL
Sprites
Pixies
Elves
Fairies
Lycanthropes *
Giants*
Rocs
(Elementals)
Chimerea


CHAOS
Goblins
Kobolds
Orcs
Anti-heroes
Wizards *
Wraiths
Wights
Lycanthropes*
Ogres
True Trolls
Balrogs
Giants *
Dragons
Basilisks

* Indicates the figure appears in two lists.
Underlined Neutral figures have a slight pre-disposition for LAW. Neutral
figures can be diced for to determine on which side they will fight, with ties
meaning they remain neutral."


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

Clear that it's sides in a wargame, not an ethics debate.

Wisely the 1981 "Basic rules" went back to Law/Neutral/Chaos, which was retained in the Alignment
An alignment is a code of behavior or way of
life which guides the actions and thoughts of characters and monsters. There are three alignments in the D&D® game: Law, Chaos, and Neutrality. Players may choose the alignments they feel will best fit their characters. A player does not have to tell other players what alignment he or she has picked, but must tell the Dungeon Master. Most Lawful characters will reveal their align-ments if asked. When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics. A Chaotic character does not work well with other PCs.
Alignments give characters guidelines,to live by. They are not absolute rules: characters will try to follow their alignment guidelines, but may not always be successful. To better understand the philosophies behind them, let's define the three alignments.
Law (or Lawful)
Law is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws that are fair, keep promises, and care for all living things.
If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good
Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as "good" behavior.
Chaos (or Chaotic)
Chaos is the opposite of Law. It is the belief
that life is random and that chance and luck rule the world. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful.
To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the
most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They have strong belief in the power of luck. They cannot always be trusted. Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "evil." Each individual player must decide if his Chaotic character is closer to a mean, selfish "evil" personality or merely a happy-go-lucky, unpredictable personality.
Neutrality (or Neutral)
Neutrality is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither side get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together.
A Neutral character is most interested in per-
sonal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it. Neutral behavior may be considered "good" or "evil" (or neither).
Alignment Behavior
Take this situation as an example: A group of player characters is attacked by a large number of monsters. Escape is not possible unless the monsters are slowed down.
A Lawful character will fight to protect the
group, regardless of the danger. The character will not run away unless the whole group does so or is otherwise safe.
A Neutral character will fight to protect the
group as long as it is reasonably safe to do so. If the danger is too great, the character will try to save himself, even at the expense of the rest of the party.
A Chaotic character might fight the monsters or he might run away immediately—Chaotics are, as always, unpredictable. The character may not even care what happened to the rest of the party.
Playing an alignment does not mean a character must do stupid things. A character should always act as intelligently as the Intelligence score indicates, unless there is a reason to act otherwise (such as a magical curse).
Alignment Languages
Each alignment has a secret language of passwords, hand signals, and other body motions.
Player characters and intelligent monsters always know their alignment languages. They will also recognize when another alignment language is being spoken, but will not understand it. Alignment languages have no written form. A character may not learn a different alignment language unless he changes alignments. In such a case, the character forgets the old alignment language and starts using the new one immediately....

Unfortunately 'Law' was "usually "Good"', and 'Chaos' was "usually Evil", but "not always".

I still see the point of Alignments in the Monster Manual, but now that D&D has dropped ""Alignment Languages", I'm not sure what the point is of players writing them in on their character record sheets.

War_lord
2018-01-14, 05:44 PM
Shoud have spelled out that this is a 5ed game to begin with. Clearly you're doing nothing wrong, as such, even if your paladin is evil, in an edition where paladins don't have to be Lawful Good. He sounds like he's still going on earlier-edition expectations, including "paladin+evil act according to objective morality as interpreted by the DM=ex-paladin."

Paladins have Oaths, while it's perfectly possible RAW to have a Lawful Evil Ancients Paladin, the nature of that oath is going to make difficult unless the DM is looking the other way to enable the edgelord.


My advice is to tell him, "Yes, there are entirely valid perspectives which would state my character is evil*, but paladins are allowed to be evil in this edition, so it doesn't matter mechanically."

It does matter if the other player has been in the group longer, is also playing a Paladin, and is playing a Paladin who can't/won't look the other way while the newly introduced psychopath Paladin goes around chopping people's hands off and murdering unbelievers. Mechanically that's an issue, interpersonally that's an issue.


Then your group can deal with the results of your moral disagreement, which may well still be irreconcilable, but at least you'll be on the same page with regard to what you're disagreeing on--and it's entirely possible that his objection is only to someone in the group acting evil while wearing what he considers an "I'm definitionally one of the Good Guys" badge.

*Or "Yes, my character is evil" will be more likely to defuse the conflict, if that's something you're willing to say.

That's not defusing the situation. If the DM wanted to introduce such a character to the game at session zero, whatever, it's their game. The problem comes when it's an ongoing game that already has a certain tone and moral compass built up over however many sessions, and you already have a Paladin in the group who exists within the established norms of the setting. And then all of a sudden the DM wants to introduce a new character, who was quite literally designed for a different world and just drops them in without asking the group beforehand. That's a problem, because it's changing the game.

Davrix
2018-01-15, 03:27 PM
Shoud have spelled out that this is a 5ed game to begin with. Clearly you're doing nothing wrong, as such, even if your paladin is evil, in an edition where paladins don't have to be Lawful Good. He sounds like he's still going on earlier-edition expectations, including "paladin+evil act according to objective morality as interpreted by the DM=ex-paladin."

My advice is to tell him, "Yes, there are entirely valid perspectives which would state my character is evil*, but paladins are allowed to be evil in this edition, so it doesn't matter mechanically."

Then your group can deal with the results of your moral disagreement, which may well still be irreconcilable, but at least you'll be on the same page with regard to what you're disagreeing on--and it's entirely possible that his objection is only to someone in the group acting evil while wearing what he considers an "I'm definitionally one of the Good Guys" badge.

*Or "Yes, my character is evil" will be more likely to defuse the conflict, if that's something you're willing to say.

I posted later that it was meant to be in 5th and apologized for that, i guess I should edit the OP


Paladins have Oaths, while it's perfectly possible RAW to have a Lawful Evil Ancients Paladin, the nature of that oath is going to make difficult unless the DM is looking the other way to enable the edgelord.

It does matter if the other player has been in the group longer, is also playing a Paladin, and is playing a Paladin who can't/won't look the other way while the newly introduced psychopath Paladin goes around chopping people's hands off and murdering unbelievers. Mechanically that's an issue, interpersonally that's an issue.

That's not defusing the situation. If the DM wanted to introduce such a character to the game at session zero, whatever, it's their game. The problem comes when it's an ongoing game that already has a certain tone and moral compass built up over however many sessions, and you already have a Paladin in the group who exists within the established norms of the setting. And then all of a sudden the DM wants to introduce a new character, who was quite literally designed for a different world and just drops them in without asking the group beforehand. That's a problem, because it's changing the game.

Also i think there is a part your missing. His alignment is Lawful good the idea though was that he is from a time where the way of life was much much different. From his point of view those who prey upon the innocent for pleasure or green deserve very little mercy. I also agree with your point about the other player but there also was no point in trying to argue with someone and changing characters fixed the problem.

Which was I simply rolled a new character but I would point out it wasn't an established game it was a new one and I will also state he doesn't chop peoples heads off unless their literally like sacrificing people or some such.

redwizard007
2018-01-16, 08:41 PM
His alignment is Lawful good the idea though was that he is from a time where the way of life was much much different. From his point of view...

I wasn't sure if we were doing a bad job explaining this, or if you were deliberately missing the point, but 5th edition actually states "as expected by society."

Until now, D&D alignment hasn't been about what society says is good. It wasn't about what a character says is good. It's about what IS good as determined by Gary and his boys. Within any other edition, your Paladin was LN. In 5th, you can make a weak case that "ancient society" is just as relevant as "society" and at some (most) tables that would fly, because it's a fun idea to role-play, but truly, it's a pretty big stretch. I think you understand that, and that's why you switched characters and came online for venting/validation.

Sinewmire
2018-01-17, 06:50 AM
Generally speaking, if someone claims there is no such thing as good or evil, or tries to blur the lines, they are evil.

"Good and evil are only points of view, Anakin." - Darth Sidious
"There is no good, no evil, only power and those too weak to seek it." - Voldemort

In fantasy land. In real life, those who call others evil are usually up to something bad. Also, nobody thinks that they are evil.

I'd love to see an Evil Overlord be detected as Evil by a paladin or whatever, and be horrified. "What? How? How can I be evil? Everything I've done has been for my people!"

hamishspence
2018-01-17, 07:47 AM
In real life, those who call others evil are usually up to something bad.

I don't know - it's very common for newspaper headlines to call committers of exceptionally atrocious crimes "evil". And at least in these cases, they tend to be more interested in drumming up public outrage at the possibility of the committer being let out early on parole, or being inadequately supervised.

There's an element of "good intentions" that tend to be in play here.

Seto
2018-01-17, 08:11 AM
(Having read only the OP): what would you argue makes your character Good? Personally, I'm seeing Lawful Neutral here. I think you nail the idea of "legal enforcer-knight", but for a Paladin, Good is supposed to be more important than Law, so redemption if possible should be privileged over execution. This paragraph seems harsh:
The character has a very very strong moral code. He doesn't simply murder any thief or rapist, though he might put the fear of god into them and not be gentle about it. He only truly goes straight wraith of god on people that are very clearly trying to do harm to others for their own gain. Cultists sacrificing people, bandits rapeing and killing villages and caravans in the area, that sort of thing. For them there is no mercy, no quarter. His gods judgment will be the final thing they see before leaving this world basically. Now a Paladin is righteous, they can embody divine wrath, but their primary allegiance is to Good, above and over Law and any particular deity. Fighting against Evil is not enough to be Good - you have to have positive Good qualities. I certainly wouldn't call him Evil unless he tortures criminals or something, or unless he starts dishing out brutal punishment in response to petty or perceived crimes, but it sounds like he's careful not to.

I'd argue that unless your character has strong Good traits that you have not mentioned (willingness to sacrifice himself for others, altruism, putting effort into helping others without a reward, etc.), you have an interesting Lawful Neutral character. A good test is to ask yourself: if he comes across an Evil law, does he uphold it or rebel against it? Your slavery example makes me think he'd respect it, albeit grudgingly.

As for the question: do right and wrong change according to societies and times? In real life it's a very difficult question, thankfully in D&D it's simple. (At least, the theory is simple). Good and Evil are objective and eternal. Slavery is Evil, murder is Evil, full stop. A Paladin has a duty to oppose Evil wherever it may be found (that doesn't mean he has to be stupid and get himself killed, but doing nothing is not an option).
What is perceived as "good" or "evil", lowercase, changes according to society, but not Good and Evil. If, as it appears, your character was LN then, so is he now.

Florian
2018-01-17, 10:12 AM
I'd love to see an Evil Overlord be detected as Evil by a paladin or whatever, and be horrified. "What? How? How can I be evil? Everything I've done has been for my people!"

That's a common L5R trope. The noble Samurai that accepts Shadowlands taint to kill the Shadowlands even more effectively. Turns out that the execution squads don't care about that.

Davrix
2018-01-18, 04:58 PM
(Having read only the OP): what would you argue makes your character Good? Personally, I'm seeing Lawful Neutral here. I think you nail the idea of "legal enforcer-knight", but for a Paladin, Good is supposed to be more important than Law, so redemption if possible should be privileged over execution. This paragraph seems harsh: Now a Paladin is righteous, they can embody divine wrath, but their primary allegiance is to Good, above and over Law and any particular deity. Fighting against Evil is not enough to be Good - you have to have positive Good qualities. I certainly wouldn't call him Evil unless he tortures criminals or something, or unless he starts dishing out brutal punishment in response to petty or perceived crimes, but it sounds like he's careful not to.

I'd argue that unless your character has strong Good traits that you have not mentioned (willingness to sacrifice himself for others, altruism, putting effort into helping others without a reward, etc.), you have an interesting Lawful Neutral character. A good test is to ask yourself: if he comes across an Evil law, does he uphold it or rebel against it? Your slavery example makes me think he'd respect it, albeit grudgingly.

As for the question: do right and wrong change according to societies and times? In real life it's a very difficult question, thankfully in D&D it's simple. (At least, the theory is simple). Good and Evil are objective and eternal. Slavery is Evil, murder is Evil, full stop. A Paladin has a duty to oppose Evil wherever it may be found (that doesn't mean he has to be stupid and get himself killed, but doing nothing is not an option).
What is perceived as "good" or "evil", lowercase, changes according to society, but not Good and Evil. If, as it appears, your character was LN then, so is he now.

The first part I can answer rather easily and yes he has some very strong good traits. i make it a personal note to have him stop and heal the sick or hand out a few coins whenever he can. His time period was very much centered around the idea of for the people and protecting the innocent. Crime simply had very strict punishments in place and paladins at the time acted as judge jury and if needed executioner. In more recent parts of the game the party has set up a stronghold and his part was setting up a soup kitchen of sorts and offering work to those without any.

Though I would argue that there is no such thing as an EVIL law. Once again I must stress what we say is evil is simply our perception of it based on our own views and upbringing. If we were raised in a society where slavery is legal and had been for centuries and nothing taught us to the contrary we would simply take it as the norm and not something to be weighed as good or evil. I think laws are very much something to be gauged as neutral. But to answer your question if he is in a town or city with a law he strongly disagree's with he will respect it to a point. Slavery to him is something that is evil so while he may not go around freeing slaves he may just be a bit to busy looking at a shop window if one is escaping to do anything about it.

As for the last part of your post its not as simple as it once was in 5th ed. They are trying to have their cake and eat it to in this case. On one side it says gods, celestial and demons are objectively good and evil and the laws of such is eternal. But in everything else its left open to perception of society and the player itself. Paladins no longer have to derive power from gods, their oaths bind and give them power if they wish. detection spells no longer tell you anything but creature type and aside from sentient items almost no magic item has an alignment requirement save for 3 in the DMG. So 5th is in this weird place of being sort of both so now it does become complicated if your looking at the raw. My simple solution has been its your game world. Dictate how you wish it works.

Mr Beer
2018-01-18, 09:17 PM
"Is good relative?" is the question. Philosophically I think that's still up for debate, in game it's really up to the DM as to how your god feels about that. Which incidentally should be a good framework for the premise "my character has to attack you because alignment".

Also the other player sounds a bit crazy, Harsh Justice Paladin is a perfectly viable interpretation, just as is Carebear Equity For All Paladin.