What kind of stupid class?

[Zenzis]

I was rereading a bit today, and I stumbled on a panel that confused me.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html

What kind of stupid class is Roy referring to in panel 6, that relies on other peoples behavior to keep its powers? I looked up Monk, Paladin, and even Samurai (Even though Miko isn't one) but couldn't find out exactly what he was referring to with this, as they all seem to rely on your own actions to lose class features. What class features is Miko in danger of losing if they don't listen?

[Rockphed]

I was rereading a bit today, and I stumbled on a panel that confused me.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html

What kind of stupid class is Roy referring to in panel 6, that relies on other peoples behavior to keep its powers? I looked up Monk, Paladin, and even Samurai (Even though Miko isn't one) but couldn't find out exactly what he was referring to with this, as they all seem to rely on your own actions to lose class features. What class features is Miko in danger of losing if they don't listen?

One of the original ways for a paladin to fall was by "associating with evil characters."

[Kish]

Paladins can become ex-paladins by associating with evil people. Or anyone who consistently offends their moral code. Do a find on this page (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm) for "Associates."

(In my opinion, it comes down to whether you think Roy's first excuse for keeping Belkar around--that he wasn't Belkar and bore no responsibility for the number of innocent people Belkar killed--should have been enough to make the deva drop the subject. I'm very well aware I don't agree with Rich on the subject of Roy's, the rest of the Order's, or the comic's attitude toward pre-Blood Runs In the Family Belkar.)

[Rogar Demonblud]

Way back, paladins could also fall for associating with Chaotic characters, a detail that got dropped fairly early on (because elves).

[martianmister]

This is part of Rich Burlew's point of view about Paladins. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)


Personally, I blame the paladin for this. The original paladin class created the precedent for one player thinking he has the right to dictate the morality of other players. That drives me nuts. Ever since, players who select a Lawful Good character automatically assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party, and too often, the rest of the party lets them. As far as I'm concerned, no player has the right to tell another player how to act. Lawful Good is not the "right" way to be, and it is unacceptable to push your character's ideals on other players whether they want them or not.

[woweedd]

Paladins can become ex-paladins by associating with evil people. Or anyone who consistently offends their moral code. Do a find on this page (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm) for "Associates."

(In my opinion, it comes down to whether you think Roy's first excuse for keeping Belkar around--that he wasn't Belkar and bore no responsibility for the number of innocent people Belkar killed--should have been enough to make the deva drop the subject. I'm very well aware I don't agree with Rich on the subject of Roy's, the rest of the Order's, or the comic's attitude toward pre-Blood Runs In the Family Belkar.)
I think that's Rich's two hats - Namely, author and gamer/game designer - coming into conflict. If you're playing a game with someone, it's generally not a good idea to police their behavior unless they either seriously cross a line or are making the game un-fun for others. And, even if they are, it's generally considered the GM's job to deal with that sort of thing and tell the player to knock it off. From what i've heard, Belkar's behavior wouldn't get him kicked out of most gaming groups, as long as his player was a nice dude and didn't go full Jared Leto. In a story, a leader is supposed to police their subordinates. In a game, having players police each other almost always leads to hurt feelings. That's why one of the GM's many jobs is as a referee. It's just that, back then, Rich was till writing mainly ABOUT D&D and how it's played, as he still does to an extent. He was also still writing, mainly a comedy. Miko's pretty much the point where the comic takes a hard turn to drama, and, thus, Belkar goes from an amusing joke to a problem. It's no coincidence that, around the same point, he gets the Mark of Justice, forcing him to show some restraint.

[Kish]

While it doesn't directly relate, the description of a campaign here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15924763&postcount=71) doesn't sound like one that would have worked with one of the PCs acting like Belkar. Nor can I think of any, DMd by Rich or not, that has anyone acting anything like that that I've ever heard stories about...unless the point of the story is either how the campaign disintegrated with acrimony, or how dysfunctional the PCs were.

[woweedd]

While it doesn't directly relate, the description of a campaign here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15924763&postcount=71) doesn't sound like one that would have worked with one of the PCs acting like Belkar. Nor can I think of any, DMd by Rich or not, that has anyone acting anything like that that I've ever heard stories about...unless the point of the story is either how the campaign disintegrated with acrimony, or how dysfunctional the PCs were.
Eh. Fair, Again, I gel like Belkar's an extreme example, but the point still stands: In a game, players generally don't police each other's behavior. That's, as mentioned, the GM's job. Otherwise, things get...tense.

[Resileaf]

I would argue concerning the paladin thing that the paladin is just not intended to be played in a group of people of such varied alignments. The paladin is there to be the classic knight in shining armor, fighting evil wherever it is, and his companions are just as chivalrous (or at least have the same idea of what good is) as he is but not as showy because they don't have the full plate and the big sword and the charisma to be the face of the group and then some. The paladin becomes a problem when you start wanting your games to be more than 'door, monster, treasure' kind of thing, unless you're able to roleplay the alignement differences well without letting that be a problem out of game.
So I imagine that poor experiences with paladin players tend to stick because it wouldn't happen with other classes (except maybe in very rare cases, clerics).

[KorvinStarmast]

Ever since, players who select a Lawful Good character automatically assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party I guess Rich played with a lot of idiots. I have never seen the extreme version of "paladin versus rest of party" that so many of you have. Was it the generation of players who grew up with later versions of D&D that did this? I have certainly seen inter party tension arise with Paladins when some of the party are particularly murder hobo sorts ... but it was NEVER "assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party" since we as players made a lot of room for each other. Then again, I mostly played with college aged to adult players, if we take my entire time playing D&D as the experience base.

The problem comes in trying to put together a party where the Players aren't on the same page in the first place. (A fair point was made regarding "in a dungeon crawl, it rarely makes as much difference" which I think was a decent observation). if I have an assassin and a paladin in the same party, there are (except in rare cases with mature gamers) some problems already with the party in terms of team building before the first encounter is rolled.

[woweedd]

I would argue concerning the paladin thing that the paladin is just not intended to be played in a group of people of such varied alignments. The paladin is there to be the classic knight in shining armor, fighting evil wherever it is, and his companions are just as chivalrous (or at least have the same idea of what good is) as he is but not as showy because they don't have the full plate and the big sword and the charisma to be the face of the group and then some. The paladin becomes a problem when you start wanting your games to be more than 'door, monster, treasure' kind of thing, unless you're able to roleplay the alignement differences well without letting that be a problem out of game.
So I imagine that poor experiences with paladin players tend to stick because it wouldn't happen with other classes (except maybe in very rare cases, clerics).
Yeah...exactly. Even in "No Evil" campaigns,there's always that one guy trying to see how far Chaotic Neutral will get him. I'll note: Rich has shown the other side of the spectrum from Miko: Namely, in OOTOPCS, there's a Paladin in Roy's first party who is basically a complete ******* who gets away with meekly objecting to his companion's f-ed up actions without doing anything about them.


I guess Rich played with a lot of idiots. I have never seen the extreme version of "paladin versus rest of party" that so many of you have. Was it the generation of players who grew up with later versions of D&D that did this? I have certainly seen inter party tension arise with Paladins when some of the party are particularly murder hobo sorts ... but it was NEVER "assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party" since we as players made a lot of room for each other. Then again, I mostly played with college aged to adult players, if we take my entire time playing D&D as the experience base.

The problem comes in trying to put together a party where the Players aren't on the same page in the first place. (A fair point was made regarding "in a dungeon crawl, it rarely makes as much difference" which I think was a decent observation). if I have an assassin and a paladin in the same party, there are (except in rare cases with mature gamers) some problems already with the party in terms of team building before the first encounter is rolled.
Remember the old saying: No matter how good the rules, they can't fix someone being a jerk. That's the referee's job, or, in D&D, the DM.

[Resileaf]

I guess Rich played with a lot of idiots. I have never seen the extreme version of "paladin versus rest of party" that so many of you have. Was it the generation of players who grew up with later versions of D&D that did this? I have certainly seen inter party tension arise with Paladins when some of the party are particularly murder hobo sorts ... but it was NEVER "assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party" since we as players made a lot of room for each other. Then again, I mostly played with college aged to adult players, if we take my entire time playing D&D as the experience base.

The problem comes in trying to put together a party where the Players aren't on the same page in the first place. (A fair point was made regarding "in a dungeon crawl, it rarely makes as much difference" which I think was a decent observation). if I have an assassin and a paladin in the same party, there are (except in rare cases with mature gamers) some problems already with the party in terms of team building before the first encounter is rolled.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but in the games I've been in, we've tended to discuss on the group dynamic early in the game, or even before to make sure we'd have an understanding of what to expect.

[KorvinStarmast]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but in the games I've been in, we've tended to discuss on the group dynamic early in the game, or even before to make sure we'd have an understanding of what to expect. I guess that varies from group to group.

[factotum]

Let's face it, you don't have to be a member of a specific class to mess up a roleplaying session. Once had one where a member of the group (I can't even remember what class he was, but it definitely wasn't a Paladin) refused to follow everyone else at the start of the adventure because "My character wouldn't do that". Completely killed the entire session because this guy was insistent on doing his own thing and could not be persuaded otherwise--I have no idea what he thought he was achieving by avoiding the GM's carefully laid-out scenario, but them's the breaks. (Needless to say, that guy wasn't invited back the next week).

[woweedd]

Let's face it, you don't have to be a member of a specific class to mess up a roleplaying session. Once had one where a member of the group (I can't even remember what class he was, but it definitely wasn't a Paladin) refused to follow everyone else at the start of the adventure because "My character wouldn't do that". Completely killed the entire session because this guy was insistent on doing his own thing and could not be persuaded otherwise--I have no idea what he thought he was achieving by avoiding the GM's carefully laid-out scenario, but them's the breaks. (Needless to say, that guy wasn't invited back the next week).
Well, yeah, but Paladins seem prone to it. As does any class or game which actively ENCOURAGES players to conflict. Ask Wraith: The Oblivion.

[KorvinStarmast]

(Needless to say, that guy wasn't invited back the next week). Seen that too, and we did the same. "Bye, find others who will put up with you" is a sad, but sometimes necessary, farewell. :(

As to the paladin, I am going to put a bit of the blame on Gary G for the "and will never associate with X" as a hard requirement. And for his style of "players versus DM" philosophy.

I only saw problems with Paladins from DM's who loved to play gotcha with Paladins, and who rather than soothing disagreements between players egged them on in order to play "gotcha" with Paladins.

But when we look at a group of half a dozen players and a DM, you also get involved in "who has the most powerful personality" regardless of PC class ... and you also get people who can't get their noses out of a rule book long enough to get a clue.

All of this factored into the mess that the Paladin class arrived at over the years in the hands of perhaps too many players and DMs. As we have all discussed elsewhere, this is tied directly to the mechanical mess that is alignment in the 3x3 box model.

Sad, it is a neat idea for a role to play ... with some clunky implementation. From an engineering perspective, the theory of "graceful failure modes" was badly needed for a paladin. yes, you can fall, but it isn't necessarily a step function. Also, far more effort needs to be put into atonement (interestingly, 1e AD&D had atonement rules too ... )

(The five alignment model from BECMI was a partial remedy ... sort of).

[Rogar Demonblud]

It isn't just paladins. Pretty much anyone (self)appointed as 'team leader' can go the same way.

Plus, there's a certain set of players who just feed on griefing everyone around them.

edit:
As we have all discussed elsewhere, this is tied directly to the mechanical mess that is alignment in the 3x3 box model.

Actually, the alignment thing goes back to OD&D and the L-N-C arrangement, where Lawful people are Good and Chaotic is Evil by default.

[KorvinStarmast]

Actually, the alignment thing goes back to OD&D and the L-N-C arrangement, where Lawful people are Good and Chaotic is Evil by default. Not really. It wasn't that crystalized, though it certainly pointed that way for the cleric class, and the "lawful" restriction for paladins. There were no neutral Clerics until Druids arrived in Eldritch Wizardry.

Alignment was Less of a Mess when it was just L/N/C. That was my experience, anyway.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Alignment worked fine in our games. The DM just declared everyone to be starting at N, and we'd shift if we acted more Lawful/Chaotic. Since most people aren't very consistent in how they play the character, we tended to stay N.

I've used that in most of my games, with the same result, even with the added axis. But then I banned paladins back in 1E after a few too many jerk players (see also kender, fishmalks, etc).

[KorvinStarmast]

Alignment worked fine in our games. The DM just declared everyone to be starting at N, and we'd shift if we acted more Lawful/Chaotic. Since most people aren't very consistent in how they play the character, we tended to stay N. Similar experiences ... and yeah, N was an easy default to start with if you didn't have an idea in your head about why you wanted to be lawful. To this day, I start most characters neutral unless I have a compelling reason to choose otherwise.

But then I banned paladins back in 1E after a few too many jerk players (see also kender, fishmalks, etc). Quite understandable. (They were hard to qualify for in the first place ...)

[Morty]

Every class or option can become a problem if the player is problematic. However, only one class actively helps and encourages this kind of behavior, and that is the 3e-era paladin. The alignment system in general is amazing at giving problem players rules-sanctioned ways to be disruptive.

[Resileaf]

Every class or option can become a problem if the player is problematic. However, only one class actively helps and encourages this kind of behavior, and that is the 3e-era paladin. The alignment system in general is amazing at giving problem players rules-sanctioned ways to be disruptive.

Problem players gonna problem play.

[Worldsong]

I was rereading a bit today, and I stumbled on a panel that confused me.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html

What kind of stupid class is Roy referring to in panel 6, that relies on other peoples behavior to keep its powers? I looked up Monk, Paladin, and even Samurai (Even though Miko isn't one) but couldn't find out exactly what he was referring to with this, as they all seem to rely on your own actions to lose class features. What class features is Miko in danger of losing if they don't listen?

As others have already pointed out the Paladin class was notorious for being very demanding when it came to your behaviour and that of your allies (even if your entire party is Good the Paladin would still cause trouble because the Rogue refuses to stop stealing from the rich). As time has progressed the rules (and most people) have loosened up a little but the Paladin class is still known as the 'stick in the mud' class which can make interaction problematic both for other players and the Paladin player themselves.

That said:


Every class or option can become a problem if the player is problematic. However, only one class actively helps and encourages this kind of behavior, and that is the 3e-era paladin. The alignment system in general is amazing at giving problem players rules-sanctioned ways to be disruptive.

Barbarian: "ATTACK EVERYTHING!"
Bard: "SEDUCE THE QUEEN!"
Cleric: "My god says I can't do that."
Druid: "NO HURTING THE DIREBADGER."
Fighter: "HONOUR DEMANDS IT!"
Monk: "Balance tells me to kill someone now."
Paladin: "I AM THE LAW!"
Ranger: "..."
Rogue: "STEAL EVERYTHING!"
Sorcerer: "Must... Show off... AWESOMENESS."
Wizard: "Everyone else is inferior and/or stupid."

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ranger: "..."

Ranger: "My name is ZZ'drae'zt, I'm a dark elf outcast, I'm not a thinly disguised character from a book, I'm awesome and me and my dual-wielded scimitars don't need any of you"

(In my experience, anyway)

Grey Wolf

[Rogar Demonblud]

Mine involves justifying getting everyone else neck deep in alligators and piranha through the use of Favored Enemy.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ranger: "..." Corrected version is
Ranger: the arrow splits the apple, again, and he rides off on his mount, a tiger.

[Morty]

Problem players gonna problem play.

That is both undeniably true and doesn't really change the elements of the paladin class and alignment system that encourage and enable them.

[woweedd]

That is both undeniably true and doesn't really change the elements of the paladin class and alignment system that encourage and enable them.
Granted, I feel like most GMs don't enforce it too badly. On the other hand...Well, to use another old phrase, "You can't include a great DM in the box."

[Chronos]

Most of the games I've been in with a paladin (or paladin-like character), the paladin has tried to police the rest of the party, and the rest of the party has tried to get one over on the paladin, and everyone's had fun with it. You've got to keep it civil enough for everyone to keep adventuring together, of course, but the clash of personalities is part of what roleplaying is about.

[Lacuna Caster]

Way back, paladins could also fall for associating with Chaotic characters, a detail that got dropped fairly early on (because elves).
Well, originally there were only 3 alignments- Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic.


Well, yeah, but Paladins seem prone to it. As does any class or game which actively ENCOURAGES players to conflict. Ask Wraith: The Oblivion.
I've played in games that were either primed for blood opera (http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/14599/blood-opera-rpgs) or developed that way, and it works just fine as long as you're mentally prepped for it going in. D&D isn't really set up for it, but there's no inherent reason why an RPG should require all the PCs to just get along.

My stance is that to the extent that good/evil and law/chaos are ostensibly (A) diametrically opposed, and (B) impact goals and motivations, it is entirely expectable that persons from opposites sides of the alignment aisle would not get along. If you want throw an LG paladin into the same party with a CN assassin, you need to either (A) have awfully compelling reasons from them to work as temporary allies of convenience, (B) resort to a lot of metagame rationalisations for the paladin looking the other way, or (C) be prepared for PvP action.

The basic problem here is that D&D is in conception a small-scale tactical-team wargame with an inherently divisive moral framework and role-playing expectations grafted on top. The demands of combat effectiveness require that everyone pull together. The demands of role-play often suggest the opposite. I don't think there's ever been a particularly good way to square that circle. And for a paladin, the role-playing is both mandatory and fairly stringently defined- because from an in-universe perspective, policing morality is exactly what they are supposed to do.

[brian 333]

I have never allowed a player to police another player in my games.

I have encouraged inter-character conflict in my games.

There is a difference. I think that difference is critical to the topic.

A paladin can lose his status as a paladin by associating with Evil. Association with Chaos does not, and has not since 1st ed., cause a paladin to fall, but may require Atonement.

So, does a paladin fall when he captures a murderer and drags him off to jail? No.
Does a paladin fall because he fights to achieve a goal an Evil character also wants to achieve? No.
What if the paladin discovers a party member performing Evil? Again, no.

Association means the paladin acknowledges and tolerates the Evil. At this point a paladin falls. If Joe Fighter kills a room full of defenseless younglings and the paladin never knows about it, associating with Joe does not affect the paladin. If the same act occurs with the Paladin watching, the paladin's response is critical to determining if he falls. Note that willful ignorance is the same as acknowledgement and tolerance.

Because an important part of being an avatar of Good is attempting to redeem Evil, the paladin who witnesses Joe's act does not need to kill Joe to avoid falling. He could thereafter instruct Joe on correct behavior, monitor his behavior to insure his Evil is not repeated, and be on hand to prevent reoccurrance.

This kind of in-character policing is very important. It indicates that the paladin is not being a hypocrit, benefitting from Evil while espousing Good. It shows the paladin fighting Evil using tools of persuasion and good example. It also alliws players to directly compete without, "I draw my sword and stab him in the eye."

Now, if Joe continues to perform Evil acts, the paladin needs to reconsider his association with Joe. If his actions are not mitigating the Evil of Joe and the paladin continues to hang around voluntarily, the paladin will, sooner or later, fall.

But simply being forced into a cooperative situation with people who are Evil is not sufficient to cause a paladin to fall. If that were the case, Evil kings could simply imprison every paladin that shows up and watch them fall, either through the murder of fellow prisoners or through not murdering them.

Note: I have never had a case of a paladin falling from grace due to the acts of other characters. My players have never set out to make a paladin fall. My Seven Quests paladin campaign ran for over three years under 1st. ed rules, and was revived under 3rd ed. rules for an eighth quest.

[martianmister]

From the same article, this conflict between the monk and the bard is call to mind of Miko and Celia's conflicts with the Order.


Here's another example: In a campaign I DM'd, the party's bard lifted a magical sword behind the back of the party's Lawful Good monk. The monk had basically decided that the bodies of several fallen knights would be buried without looting, and rather than argue, the bard just grabbed the sword. The bad news was, the sword was cursed; it was the blade that had belonged to a ghost that roamed the castle, and whenever the bard drew it, the ghost materialized and attacked him (and only him). Eventually, the bard 'fessed up that he had stolen the sword. The monk (and the monk's player) became furious, and declared that he could no longer travel with the bard. Either the bard had to leave, or he would. It became a huge argument between characters and players, and it was entirely unnecessary. The monk did not have to react with an ultimatum; the monk did not even have to be angry, no matter what his alignment was. The bard had already suffered the misfortune of having his Charisma drained by the ghost repeatedly; the monk could have chosen (for example) to lecture the bard on how his theft had brought him nothing but misery. He chose to create player conflict when it was just as easy to not.

[Lacuna Caster]

Association means the paladin acknowledges and tolerates the Evil. At this point a paladin falls. If Joe Fighter kills a room full of defenseless younglings... ...the paladin who witnesses Joe's act does not need to kill Joe to avoid falling. He could thereafter instruct Joe on correct behavior, monitor his behavior to insure his Evil is not repeated, and be on hand to prevent reoccurrance.
I guess he could... after Lawfully arresting Joe Fighter for committing a series of unspeakable crimes and handing him over to the proper authorities for trial and sentencing. If he's feeling remarkably generous, I suppose he could put in a good word with the judge. Enjoy your life in prison, Joe.


From the same article, this conflict between the monk and the bard is call to mind of Miko and Celia's conflicts with the Order.
Counterpoint:

Don't get me wrong, Miko is a horrible way to PLAY a paladin at the table. This is because, in that case, Belkar is just a friend trying to unwind from his stressful job/courses/relationships with an Evil persona and it's not a big deal, because both the PCs and NPCs are entirely fictitious. More than one gaming session has been ruined by Miko-type paladins.

However, in the context of a world where NPCs ARE flesh and blood characters, where letting an evildoer slip through your fingers could very likely put others at risk of death and suffering, where Belkar IS just a malicious little psychopath and Miko isn't just a character controlled by someone who has a rewarding Systems Analyst job to go to once this gaming session is offer, Miko was a defensible way to actually BE a paladin. Not the only way, or the best way, but not an antithesis to all that is truly Good or someone who deserves to be assaulted/killed/damned-to-the-pits-of-hell.
(Also, to be fair, Miko's initial reaction to the OOTS' shenanigans was just to lecture them on how this had brought them nothing but misery.)
Part of the problem here is simply that D&D doesn't have particularly robust mechanics for resolving inter-PC disagreements. If you were playing Burning Wheel, you'd set up a Duel of Wits to resolve the disagreement point-by-point, which tends to defuse some of the tension.

[Shashakiro]

Nor can I think of any, DMd by Rich or not, that has anyone acting anything like that that I've ever heard stories about...unless the point of the story is either how the campaign disintegrated with acrimony, or how dysfunctional the PCs were.

What "like that" do you mean? I would agree that trying to kill Elan and actually killing the Oracle were both incompatible with party cohesion, but it's obviously not the case that Belkar has caused the whole party to become dysfunctional.

If you want something from fiction generally, Dragon Age: Origins has the clearly CE Morrigan and the clearly LG Wynne in the same party, and while they very much detest each other, it doesn't prevent them from working with the PC to save the world. Of course, Morrigan never "acts out" in a way that would start a fight with Wynne, but she definitely has Belkar's traits of enjoying the suffering of others and advocating for needless violence.

From tabletop roleplaying, I once played a campaign with two very Evil party members who, for example, randomly murdered an innocent NPC woman "to avoid witnesses", which was pretty horrible and also didn't make any sense, but they managed to hide it from the rest of us non-Evil folk (and we didn't break character to "know" what they did without having seen it), and there were no other nonhostile NPCs until the end of the session for them to be awful to, so it worked out fine.

[Resileaf]

What "like that" do you mean? I would agree that trying to kill Elan and actually killing the Oracle were both incompatible with party cohesion, but it's obviously not the case that Belkar has caused the whole party to become dysfunctional.

If you want something from fiction generally, Dragon Age: Origins has the clearly CE Morrigan and the clearly LG Wynne in the same party, and while they very much detest each other, it doesn't prevent them from working with the PC to save the world. Of course, Morrigan never "acts out" in a way that would start a fight with Wynne, but she definitely has Belkar's traits of enjoying the suffering of others and advocating for needless violence.

From tabletop roleplaying, I once played a campaign with two very Evil party members who, for example, randomly murdered an innocent NPC woman "to avoid witnesses", which was pretty horrible and also didn't make any sense, but they managed to hide it from the rest of us non-Evil folk (and we didn't break character to "know" what they did without having seen it), and there were no other nonhostile NPCs until the end of the session for them to be awful to, so it worked out fine.

A minor nitpick, but I would argue that Morrigan is far closer to CN than she is to CE. She advocates violence because she's kind of too lazy to work out more peaceful solutions (and also because she's been raised with a very Darwinistic outlook), but she doesn't particularly go out of her way to make violence happen either.
Chaotic immature rather than chaotic evil, if that makes sense?

[Shashakiro]

A minor nitpick, but I would argue that Morrigan is far closer to CN than she is to CE. She advocates violence because she's kind of too lazy to work out more peaceful solutions (and also because she's been raised with a very Darwinistic outlook), but she doesn't particularly go out of her way to make violence happen either.
Chaotic immature rather than chaotic evil, if that makes sense?

If you try to help the Circle mages and she’s in the party, she tries to persuade you to murder them instead, not because they’re dangerous, but because “they allow themselves to be imprisoned”. The fact that some of them are children apparently doesn’t matter to her. That’s definitely waaaaay Evil.

When Kaitlyn begs you for help in Redcliffe, telling her to “go snivel somewhere else” results in Morrigan approving and (I think) chuckling. That’s not the reaction of a morally Neutral character.

Those are off the top of my head, but there’s more. It’s practically a meme in Dragon Age that you know you did the right thing in a quest whenever Morrigan disapproves.

I’ll grant you she’s more Chaotic than Evil, but I’d be pretty shocked if she wasn’t meant to be CE.

[Keltest]

If you try to help the Circle mages and she’s in the party, she tries to persuade you to murder them instead, not because they’re dangerous, but because “they allow themselves to be imprisoned”. The fact that some of them are children apparently doesn’t matter to her. That’s definitely waaaaay Evil.

When Kaitlyn begs you for help in Redcliffe, telling her to “go snivel somewhere else” results in Morrigan approving and (I think) chuckling. That’s not the reaction of a morally Neutral character.

Those are off the top of my head, but there’s more. It’s practically a meme in Dragon Age that you know you did the right thing in a quest whenever Morrigan disapproves.

I’ll grant you she’s more Chaotic than Evil, but I’d be pretty shocked if she wasn’t meant to be CE.

One could argue that she's neutral in the same way that animals are neutral. She was raised in the wilderness by a crazy old murderous witch, where civilization and people were things to avoid because they invited trouble. Its hardly her fault she wasn't allowed to develop a moral center.

[Shashakiro]

One could argue that she's neutral in the same way that animals are neutral. She was raised in the wilderness by a crazy old murderous witch, where civilization and people were things to avoid because they invited trouble. Its hardly her fault she wasn't allowed to develop a moral center.

Nah, I don’t think that works because animal TN alignment is a function of them being nonsapient. It’s implied that Nale turned out Evil due to being raised by the Evil Tarquin, but that doesn’t make Nale himself any less Evil.

[factotum]

Um, so everyone's ignoring the whole "I'll have sex with the main character purely in order to conceive a baby who'll absorb the soul of the Archdemon and become some sort of demigod" thing when assessing Morrigan's alignment? She's totally evil, no question about it.

[Keltest]

Um, so everyone's ignoring the whole "I'll have sex with the main character purely in order to conceive a baby who'll absorb the soul of the Archdemon and become some sort of demigod" thing when assessing Morrigan's alignment? She's totally evil, no question about it.

Unless youre implying that the act of sex itself is whats evil about that, I don't see anything actually malevolent about that. We don't know what the kid would have grown up to be, and Morrigan seems to have a flimsy understanding at best.

[Shashakiro]

At least my assessment of Wynne’s alignment seems to have gone unchallenged :)

To tie this in a bit to the original topic, I’ve always read the “can’t associate with Evil” clause to really mean “can’t associate with someone while they repeatedly or unrepentantly perform Evil acts”. Even the OotS quote in question seems to implicitly acknowledge this by mentioning acts, rather than outlook.

So I don’t think a hypothetical Paladin Wynne would necessarily fall simply for having Morrigan in the party (because Morrigan has enough restraint not to act on her evil-aligned desires without the party leader’s OK) but would fall if she remained in the party after the PC committed a major Evil act.

[hamishspence]

To tie this in a bit to the original topic, I’ve always read the “can’t associate with Evil” clause to really mean “can’t associate with someone while they repeatedly or unrepentantly perform Evil acts”.

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.



So - a non-evil person who is "offending against the paladin's moral code" by committing Evil acts, is covered by the latter.

An Evil-aligned person is covered by the former. As written, this means that if the paladin happens to cast Detect Evil on a party member, and they ping, even if they haven't done anything yet, a paladin is obliged to leave the party, or get the Evil character expelled from the party.

However - BoED suggests that temporarily cooperating with Evil characters against a greater threat, is permissible - but risky. The possibility of redeeming the evil character, is a factor. And the Good characters may not turn a blind eye to evil acts.

Dragon Magazine's Paladin Guide also said that paladins may associate with evil characters on a limited basis, as long as the goal is to redeem them.

[factotum]

Unless youre implying that the act of sex itself is whats evil about that, I don't see anything actually malevolent about that. We don't know what the kid would have grown up to be, and Morrigan seems to have a flimsy understanding at best.

Getting your baby to absorb the soul of an evil being--and we're clear that the Archdemon, at least, is evil, right?--is, to my mind, evil regardless of whether you know what the outcome will be or not. I would say the same if her plan was to subject her (perfectly healthy) baby to some untested medical procedure for no other reason than to see what happens.

[Riftwolf]

Ranger: "..."


Fighter: Please wait twenty minutes while I calculate my bonuses to damage. This will go uo to half an hour if I crit.
Ranger: 'If you're one of my Favoured Enemies I'll fight you, regardless of the situation, because Gnomes burnt down my childhood village and ate my dad'

[Knaight]

Problem players gonna problem play.

You know the phrase "locks are there to keep honest people honest"? It's a pretty common dynamic, where there's some small group where it doesn't matter one way or the other, and a much larger group that can potentially go outside the bounds of acceptable behavior but are easily steered away from that.

The paladin code and things like it are the mirror image of that dynamic, where instead of keeping people within the bounds of acceptable behavior it takes an obnoxious behavior and incentivizes it just enough that people who don't normally engage in it start doing so. The dedicated problem players are a people problem, but that second group that gets pulled into problem play when it wouldn't otherwise be an issue? That's on the system.

[Keltest]

Getting your baby to absorb the soul of an evil being--and we're clear that the Archdemon, at least, is evil, right?--is, to my mind, evil regardless of whether you know what the outcome will be or not. I would say the same if her plan was to subject her (perfectly healthy) baby to some untested medical procedure for no other reason than to see what happens.

The Archdemon is evil because of the Blight. Morrigan specifically calls out that this would remove the taint from the soul and allow it to become something new. And as far as we see in inquisition, she's right.

[Shashakiro]

Associates
An Evil-aligned person is covered by the former. As written, this means that if the paladin happens to cast Detect Evil on a party member, and they ping, even if they haven't done anything yet, a paladin is obliged to leave the party, or get the Evil character expelled from the party.

However - BoED suggests that[I] temporarily cooperating with Evil characters against a greater threat, is permissible - but risky. The possibility of redeeming the evil character, is a factor. And the Good characters may not turn a blind eye to evil acts.

Dragon Magazine's Paladin Guide also said that paladins may associate with evil characters on a limited basis, as long as the goal is to redeem them.

Yeah, I’d say the RAW for ‘associates’ is too strict, and the later published exceptions demonstrate that it maybe wasn’t too well thought out from the start—then again, it can be avoided by just not using magical alignment detection (which it seems like Paladins aren’t obligated to actually use); after all, that’s the only way to know for 100% sure, right?

(Though that seems a bit silly; I’m actually curious if there’s any sourcebook literature on how sure you have to be to trigger the former clause—for example, Alistair directly refers to Morrigan as “evil”, would that be enough to Fall him for continuing association even though it’s a small “e”?)

[hroþila]

I think it's fair to say that Morrigan is Evil in Origins. Personally I would also add that with proper socialization she gets better and I'd probably put her as Neutral by Inquisition if not by the end of Origins/Witch Hunt.

[Keltest]

Yeah, I’d say the RAW for ‘associates’ is too strict, and the later published exceptions demonstrate that it maybe wasn’t too well thought out from the start—then again, it can be avoided by just not using magical alignment detection (which it seems like Paladins aren’t obligated to actually use); after all, that’s the only way to know for 100% sure, right?

(Though that seems a bit silly; I’m actually curious if there’s any sourcebook literature on how sure you have to be to trigger the former clause—for example, Alistair directly refers to Morrigan as “evil”, would that be enough to Fall him for continuing association even though it’s a small “e”?)

In general he tries to avoid associating with her, such as he can, so I doubt it. While there is a lot of room for a bad DM to screw with a paladin, anybody with a lick of sense recognizes that a paladin cant always choose their traveling companions, and has to play the hand theyre given, not the one they want.

Having said that, of course the paladin is going to be the moral police if you bring an evil character to a good party, or a chaotic character that keeps looking for trouble. That's not a problem with the paladin class, you just shouldn't be playing somebody who's morals and ethics are so different from the rest of the party's. All of the other intelligent good aligned characters should be doing the same thing.

[Resileaf]

I think it's fair to say that Morrigan is Evil in Origins. Personally I would also add that with proper socialization she gets better and I'd probably put her as Neutral by Inquisition if not by the end of Origins/Witch Hunt.

I can agree with that. She has heavy evil leanings, but is not that difficult to change once you have enough conversations with her.


In general he tries to avoid associating with her, such as he can, so I doubt it. While there is a lot of room for a bad DM to screw with a paladin, anybody with a lick of sense recognizes that a paladin cant always choose their traveling companions, and has to play the hand theyre given, not the one they want.

The rules do state that a paladin can work with an evil companion due to circumstances out of their control, as long as they do not do evil acts themselves and distance themselves from the evil character as much as possible.

[Lacuna Caster]

An Evil-aligned person is covered by the former. As written, this means that if the paladin happens to cast Detect Evil on a party member, and they ping, even if they haven't done anything yet, a paladin is obliged to leave the party, or get the Evil character expelled from the party.
If they're genuinely evil-aligned, they more-or-less by definition did something to earn it. Only question is what.

Redemption is a fine and lofty goal and all, but what I look askance at is the notion that Evil PCs should be given an extraordinary degree of special treatment in this respect, when both the paladin themselves and the party at large often carve up other evil creatures en masse on less evidence of specific past wrongdoing. That looks less like compassion and more like nepotism.


Having said that, of course the paladin is going to be the moral police if you bring an evil character to a good party, or a chaotic character that keeps looking for trouble. That's not a problem with the paladin class, you just shouldn't be playing somebody who's morals and ethics are so different from the rest of the party's. All of the other intelligent good aligned characters should be doing the same thing.
Precisely.


To be clear, I do think there are any number of interesting/dramatic situations where a reasonable argument can be made for bending a particular tenet of the code in service to some other tenet. To quote a certain knight-at-arms:

"So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other."

Tricky to handle mechanically, though.

[Shashakiro]

I can agree with that. She has heavy evil leanings, but is not that difficult to change once you have enough conversations with her.


Not commenting on her portrayal in Inquisition (since I haven't played it) but I've dialogue-hunted quite hard in DAO and I can't think of a single time Morrigan ever demonstrates, say, "compunctions against killing the innocent"; all other party members besides Shale do so in some cases. (Shale is arguably Evil too, for just that reason, though it's less clear to me that she's "supposed" to be Evil as I think Morrigan is--she doesn't, say, disapprove nearly every time you defend the innocent or give to the poor as Morrigan does).

I could certainly see Morrigan as changeable to morally Neutral without too much difficulty, especially since her Evil-ness seems to be more a matter of "outlook" than of "pattern of deeds", but I'd dispute that it can actually be done in the confines of DAO.


EDIT:


If they're genuinely evil-aligned, they more-or-less by definition did something to earn it. Only question is what.

Not always. For example, Durkula was Evil the moment he came into existence, because the way vampirism works in OotS (by Word of Giant) is that the appropriate deity (Hel in this case) creates an Evil spirit to inhabit the new vampire body. Doesn't mean he has to stay that way forever, but a sentient being can certainly come into existence with an Evil alignment, in both OotS and D&D generally.

[Resileaf]

Not commenting on her portrayal in Inquisition (since I haven't played it) but I've dialogue-hunted quite hard in DAO and I can't think of a single time Morrigan ever demonstrates, say, "compunctions against killing the innocent"; all other party members besides Shale do so in some cases. (Shale is arguably Evil too, for just that reason, though it's less clear to me that she's "supposed" to be Evil as I think Morrigan is--she doesn't, say, disapprove nearly every time you defend the innocent or give to the poor as Morrigan does).

I could certainly see Morrigan as changeable to morally Neutral without too much difficulty, especially since her Evil-ness seems to be more a matter of "outlook" than of "pattern of deeds", but I'd dispute that it can actually be done in the confines of DAO.

Have you done the 'Witch hunt' DLC (it takes place after every other DLCs)? If she was in a relationship with the male warden, she is definitely softer in her outlook and could definitely be considered neutral.
Although I would personally argue that her thing is less "Let's kill the innocents" and more "Let's stop putting ourselves at risk for the innocents". Shale is also quite the jerkass herself, although it's a bit understandable considered what happened to her and why it made her like she is. And much like Morrigan, Shale can change and be softened (most notable in her conversations with Wynne), and eventually even turned back to a dwarf.
At the very least, the evil motivations of the characters in your party are very much nuanced and not black and white, so I'll give that game credit for it.

[Keltest]

Not commenting on her portrayal in Inquisition (since I haven't played it) but I've dialogue-hunted quite hard in DAO and I can't think of a single time Morrigan ever demonstrates, say, "compunctions against killing the innocent"; all other party members besides Shale do so in some cases. (Shale is arguably Evil too, for just that reason, though it's less clear to me that she's "supposed" to be Evil as I think Morrigan is--she doesn't, say, disapprove nearly every time you defend the innocent or give to the poor as Morrigan does).

I could certainly see Morrigan as changeable to morally Neutral without too much difficulty, especially since her Evil-ness seems to be more a matter of "outlook" than of "pattern of deeds", but I'd dispute that it can actually be done in the confines of DAO.

Morrigan generally tends to believe that you aren't doing people any favors when you intervene to help the weak. She occasionally comments that youre depriving them of the ability to become strong, and that it is the natural order for those who are unable to strengthen themselves to pass away. So from her perspective, youre banging your head against a brick wall instead of fighting the Blight. Ditto with Sten, although he at least can be straight up told that just because he doesn't understand doesn't make it the wrong decision, and generally accepts that.

[Resileaf]

Morrigan generally tends to believe that you aren't doing people any favors when you intervene to help the weak. She occasionally comments that youre depriving them of the ability to become strong, and that it is the natural order for those who are unable to strengthen themselves to pass away. So from her perspective, youre banging your head against a brick wall instead of fighting the Blight. Ditto with Sten, although he at least can be straight up told that just because he doesn't understand doesn't make it the wrong decision, and generally accepts that.

In fact, he approves when you stand up by your decisions. He respects when the Warden is absolutely certain of what he's doing more than he respects his personal misgivings.

[Keltest]

In fact, he approves when you stand up by your decisions. He respects when the Warden is absolutely certain of what he's doing more than he respects his personal misgivings.

In Inquisition, its mentioned that Qunari choose leaders from people willing to make decisions and live with the consequences, not necessarily the smartest or strongest.

[Resileaf]

In Inquisition, its mentioned that Qunari choose leaders from people willing to make decisions and live with the consequences, not necessarily the smartest or strongest.

I believe it's a large part of Dragon age 2 as well, since there's a huge sub-plot concerning the Qunari stuck in the city, as they explain what the Qun is about.

[Shashakiro]

Have you done the 'Witch hunt' DLC (it takes place after every other DLCs)? If she was in a relationship with the male warden, she is definitely softer in her outlook and could definitely be considered neutral.

I did, but IMO there's very little there that has any relevance to moral alignment, in large part because you don't really talk to her about other people, and moral alignment is basically all about how you treat other people (especially people you aren't in a romantic relationship with.) If the only portrayal of her was Witch Hunt, I'd call her CN, but I don't think there's much there to counterbalance the CE tendencies she shows in the main campaign.

As for Sten, I'd peg him as strongly LN, i.e. "There's only one right path (the Qun)"; I also think there's a pretty fundamental difference between "not wanting to make sacrifices to protect the innocent (Sten)" and "not having compunctions against killing the innocent (Morrigan)." The former is Neutral, the latter Evil. Sten did kill innocents, but it's clear he feels shame for having done so, which is consistent with Neutral.

(Boy, you try to give one example of an Evil party member from other fiction and it turns into an alignment debate, heh. I never knew there were so many fellow DA fans around these parts.)

[hamishspence]

then again, it can be avoided by just not using magical alignment detection (which it seems like Paladins aren’t obligated to actually use); after all, that’s the only way to know for 100% sure, right?

Yup. Not to mention that there are ways of triggering it without actually being evil (OOTS had "wearing Xykon's crown" - D&D has a number of other ways) - so a paladin might want to be cautious and accept the possibility of false positives.

In the third party book Quintessential Paladin II, it asks questions like

"Do paladins cats detect evil on everyone they meet - or do they have to be authorised first - the equivalent of "getting a warrant"?

"Is it considered a grave insult to cast detect evil on anybody"?

and so forth.

[Resileaf]

(Boy, you try to give one example of an Evil party member from other fiction and it turns into an alignment debate, heh. I never knew there were so many fellow DA fans around these parts.)

At the risk of sounding like a certain villain, alignment isn't everything. XD
Growth and change is something that is very important to consider, further than what an alignment system can really tell you about a person. Aside from the Darkspawn, Origins was extremely careful to give just about everyone in the setting good and evil traits to make them human. There are only few characters outside of the always chaotic evil apocalypse monsters that you can look at and call "Pure evil" or "irredeemable".

[Shashakiro]

At the risk of sounding like a certain villain, alignment isn't everything. XD
Growth and change is something that is very important to consider, further than what an alignment system can really tell you about a person. Aside from the Darkspawn, Origins was extremely careful to give just about everyone in the setting good and evil traits to make them human. There are only few characters outside of the always chaotic evil apocalypse monsters that you can look at and call "Pure evil" or "irredeemable".

Oh, definitely; I think Morrigan's characterization is great and very believable, especially given her own upbringing, and as I agreed earlier, she's definitely "redeemable"--I just don't see it as something that actually happens in the events of DAO. I thought she was a fairly clear "D&D Evil" PC, but apparently not so clear to some. Ah well.

Also: Dragon Age doesn't even have alignment, of course it's not that important! Just fun to consider anyway, the same way we call Darth Vader LE even though Star Wars obviously doesn't have the D&D alignment system. Though I do have a sneaking suspicion that Bioware may have had actual D&D alignments in mind for the DAO party characters, given that they also developed official D&D products, and at least for me many of them seem to fit fairly neatly into certain alignment boxes, especially the ethical ones (which are often the hardest to pin down). Contrast with DA2, where most of the party characters are various shades of grey that don't fit much at all with D&D alignment. The only easy one in DA2 is Aveline = LG, IMO, and maybe Isabella = CN.

[Keltest]

Oh, definitely; I think Morrigan's characterization is great and very believable, especially given her own upbringing, and as I agreed earlier, she's definitely "redeemable"--I just don't see it as something that actually happens in the events of DAO. I thought she was a fairly clear "D&D Evil" PC, but apparently not so clear to some. Ah well.

Also: Dragon Age doesn't even have alignment, of course it's not that important! Just fun to consider anyway, the same way we call Darth Vader LE even though Star Wars obviously doesn't have the D&D alignment system. Though I do have a sneaking suspicion that Bioware may have had actual D&D alignments in mind for the DAO party characters, given that they also developed official D&D products, and at least for me many of them seem to fit fairly neatly into certain alignment boxes, especially the ethical ones (which are often the hardest to pin down). Contrast with DA2, where most of the party characters are various shades of grey that don't fit much at all with D&D alignment. The only easy one in DA2 is Aveline = LG, IMO, and maybe Isabella = CN.

Varric is pretty solidly CG as well.

[hroþila]

Aveline as LG, Varric as CG and Isabella as CN make sense to me. Merrill is tricky, but I'm guessing TN? As long as we don't discuss Anders's alignment, we should be fine.

[Keltest]

Aveline as LG, Varric as CG and Isabella as CN make sense to me. Merrill is tricky, but I'm guessing TN? As long as we don't discuss Anders's alignment, we should be fine.

Merril is basically a decent person, but reckless and foolish. I'd say she bounces between chaotic good and chaotic neutral depending on how she is treated. Given that he lacks free will, i'd say that Anders cant really have an alignment.

[Resileaf]

Aveline as LG, Varric as CG and Isabella as CN make sense to me. Merrill is tricky, but I'm guessing TN? As long as we don't discuss Anders's alignment, we should be fine.

Merill toes the line between neutral and good, as she seems extremely good-natured, but her obsession with the mirror makes her veer into dark things. She never risks anyone else than herself though, so I would say she's closer to good than neutral.
I would say that Anders starts firmly into CG, but goes through a sharp decline that sends him rocketing out of the alignment system.
Bethany is solid NG, unless she becomes a warden, in which case she turns TN.
Carver, I believe would be close to LN, but most of his characterization is compared to Hawke, so his personal beliefs are not explored a lot.
Fenris is an anti-slavery vigilante, so something of a CG, with occasional CN moments, particularly where mages are concerned.
Sebastian is lawful boring.

[Shashakiro]

Varric is pretty solidly CG as well.

I tend to agree, but I'm sure some would dispute the G on the basis of him being a bit too eager to hunt down and kill his brother for betraying him, as revenge-killing is pretty decidedly non-Good. CN could be argued, I think.

The other six are much murkier, though, IMO, on both scales, though Sebastian is almost definitely Lawful.

EDIT: Attempting again to bridge back to the thread topic (I feel a little guilty for starting all this, fun as it is), I do think we see shades of the proper (i.e. satisfying and non-annoying) version of the Paladin "can't associate" mentality in Wynne's reaction to learning that the PC defiled the sacred ashes:

"You are not the person I thought...I hoped you were. I was sadly mistaken, and I regret ever fighting for your cause. I hope the darkspawn take you. You are no better than them. permanently leaves the party."

I think that's the kind of thing they had in mind with the "can't associate" rule--not so much that a Paladin can't team up--at least temporarily--with those that have an "Evil" outlook, but that a Paladin simply can't stand there and tolerate people who commit heinous Evil acts, even if doing so would serve a greater Good. But that's different from insisting that everyone have the "correct" outlook or that everyone in the party act consistently with the Paladin code. Unfortunately, it's too easy for players to read the extreme categorical statements in RAW and think the latter is how Paladins are "supposed" to be as a result.

[Kish]

Aveline as LG, Varric as CG and Isabella as CN make sense to me. Merrill is tricky, but I'm guessing TN? As long as we don't discuss Anders's alignment, we should be fine.
Varric prides himself on not caring about anything. Neutral.

Aveline cares about order, and unless swayed to another perspective by someone she's emotionally invested in, that's it. Confronted with Meredith going Final Solution on all the mages in Kirkwall, not the mage who did something but completely innocent mages locked up in the Gallows, Aveline wants to help her by default, and can only be convinced to stand against her if Friendship or Rivalry-locked. LN. At best.

All your companions (except Sebastian) can wind up better people at the climax of the game than they are through most of the game, depending on what you do.

[Resileaf]

I tend to agree, but I'm sure some would dispute the G on the basis of him being a bit too eager to hunt down and kill his brother for betraying him, as revenge-killing is pretty decidedly non-Good. CN could be argued, I think.

The other six are much murkier, though, IMO, on both scales, though Sebastian is almost definitely Lawful.

Remember that the story is told entirely from Varric's point of view, and that his feelings concerning his brother are extremely complicated following the betrayal. His loyalty quest shows just how torn up he really is about the situation.
He really hates his brother for betraying him and leaving him for dead, but he still knows it's his brother. To try not to think about it, he's been constantly reaffirming "I want to kill him", and he obviously hesitates when the time comes to do it, and needs Hawke to tell him what to do. In the end, he's in a much better state of mind if he doesn't kill his brother.

[TuringTest]

I guess Rich played with a lot of idiots. I have never seen the extreme version of "paladin versus rest of party" that so many of you have. Was it the generation of players who grew up with later versions of D&D that did this? I have certainly seen inter party tension arise with Paladins when some of the party are particularly murder hobo sorts ... but it was NEVER "assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party" since we as players made a lot of room for each other. Then again, I mostly played with college aged to adult players, if we take my entire time playing D&D as the experience base.

The problem comes in trying to put together a party where the Players aren't on the same page in the first place. (A fair point was made regarding "in a dungeon crawl, it rarely makes as much difference" which I think was a decent observation). if I have an assassin and a paladin in the same party, there are (except in rare cases with mature gamers) some problems already with the party in terms of team building before the first encounter is rolled.


We're currently playing a campaign with a paladin, and the rest of the players (which are mostly non-good or non-legal) need to police the paladin to keep him from burning everything. It's a Ravenloft setting, so maybe something like that was expected.:smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

[Shashakiro]

Confronted with Meredith going Final Solution on all the mages in Kirkwall, not the mage who did something but completely innocent mages locked up in the Gallows, Aveline wants to help her by default, and can only be convinced to stand against her if Friendship or Rivalry-locked.


This is not remotely true; only by failing her companion quests and causing her to resign as captain can she become so jaded that she'll support Meredith over Hawke. In that one instance I agree that she loses LG status in favor of LN, but it's hardly the "default". Even then, unlike the other companions who can leave, she does not fight you, but simply walks away. IMO it's more a case of "Good person falls due to stress" than "proof that a person was never Good".

[wumpus]

Paladins can become ex-paladins by associating with evil people. Or anyone who consistently offends their moral code. Do a find on this page (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm) for "Associates."

(In my opinion, it comes down to whether you think Roy's first excuse for keeping Belkar around--that he wasn't Belkar and bore no responsibility for the number of innocent people Belkar killed--should have been enough to make the deva drop the subject. I'm very well aware I don't agree with Rich on the subject of Roy's, the rest of the Order's, or the comic's attitude toward pre-Blood Runs In the Family Belkar.)

Paladins can be screwed up three ways:

* If the player wants to become the "party cop" they pretty much can (the DM should pretty much step in an lay down the law to prevent this. But in 3e the idea seems to be that the rules are more important than the DM, so things have gotten worse)
* You can have an "old school DM" that considers his (while legend says there were female 1e players, I don't remember any) job to defeat the party, and holding Paladins beyond the code is effective.
* You can have other players willing to be evil or neutrals willing to do evil acts as often as heroic ones. Paladins are incompatible with such parties.

To make matters worse in the AD&D days, the 1e Unearthed Arcana introduced more "stupid classes". Both the Barbarian and Chevalier (and to make matters worse the Paladin became a subclass of chevalier, thus getting *even worse*). The barbarian was designed to be hostile to magic, having a second level class feature be 'allowed to associate with clerics' and always hostile to wizards (then called magic users). The chevalier had a requirement of being totally unwilling to engage in party tactics and had to go "Leroy Jenkins" in every fight, attacking the most glorious opponent in turn.

[there was also the thief acrobat. But while that might not have "played well with others", it seems designed to play well in solo play].

While 1e players had no concept of "rules as written" (I remain convinced that Gary Gygax wrote 1000 pages of AD&D rules, and then cut things down to fit based on the "coolness" of each rule. Play testing was kinda/sorta done, but never with any attempt to play with any set of "all the rules" at once), a certain matter of balance would be removed once you eliminated these restrictions and players would scream just as much then as now if you balanced the rest of the class in any way.

PS: Chevalier was designed as a trap for DMs who didn't purchase the book (or the Dragon magazine it was originally published). A DM might not think that an 18(73) strength is all that overpowering in a first level character and let slip a fairly hefty constitution and other stats as 18(73) isn't "that overpowering" (it wasn't, at least for fairly cheaty character creation). The real danger is that chevalier was unique in having an ability to raise stats, and that strength score would be 19 by level 3, and 19 strength *is* overpowering in AD&D, especially at level 3. All in all I found 1e Unearthed Arcana the worst RPG purchase I have ever made.

[Keltest]

Varric prides himself on not caring about anything. Neutral.

Varric is a compulsive liar and tries to present himself as far more aloof than he actually is. Friendship with him is mostly gained by helping people, though he likes it better when you then ask for a reward.

[Resileaf]

Varric is a compulsive liar and tries to present himself as far more aloof than he actually is. Friendship with him is mostly gained by helping people, though he likes it better when you then ask for a reward.

He also appreciates quick wit and jokes, as long as you're not a jerkass about it. Furthermore, he's the closest to a true companion you ever get in the game, someone who will always have your back and the back of all your other companions.
He's like everyone's cool uncle.

[Lacuna Caster]

Not always. For example, Durkula was Evil the moment he came into existence, because the way vampirism works in OotS (by Word of Giant) is that the appropriate deity (Hel in this case) creates an Evil spirit to inhabit the new vampire body. Doesn't mean he has to stay that way forever, but a sentient being can certainly come into existence with an Evil alignment, in both OotS and D&D generally.
Yeah, but we're talking about someone in a regular adventuring party pinging as DE, not an obviously-evil creature like a succubus or spectre. (And the argument there is that these creatures are so intrinsically hell-bent on teh evulz that, again, you can't really consider them 'innocent' in the but-they-didn't-do-anything-yet sense of the word. I'm not personally fond of this interpretation and prefer my demons and undead to be souls/spirits of the fallen and damned, but there you are.)

[Kish]

This is not remotely true; only by failing her companion quests and causing her to resign as captain can she become so jaded that she'll support Meredith over Hawke. In that one instance I agree that she loses LG status in favor of LN, but it's hardly the "default". Even then, unlike the other companions who can leave, she does not fight you, but simply walks away. IMO it's more a case of "Good person falls due to stress" than "proof that a person was never Good".
Um...okay, well, we seem to be at an "each of us considers to be making flatly inaccurate claims about what happens in the game."

I'm curious, though. You reached the endgame, sided against Meredith, and Aveline was not Friendship or Rival-locked with you at that point? You did test this, not just assume it, correct?

(Even if you were right and she would always go along with what Hawke decided at the end, the fact that she prefers supporting Meredith to fighting against her disqualifies her from being any definition of "good" I'd ever agree to.)

[Shashakiro]

Um...okay, well, we seem to be at an "each of us considers to be making flatly inaccurate claims about what happens in the game."

I'm curious, though. You reached the endgame, sided against Meredith, and Aveline was not Friendship or Rival-locked with you at that point? You did test this, not just assume it, correct?

In my third playthrough I ignored her almost entirely, never including her in the party once unless forced, and she still didn't defect to Meredith in The Last Straw when I sided with the mages.

From the wikia:


Aveline
In most cases Aveline will immediately agree to help Hawke who sided with the mages. However, if the following conditions are met simultaneously, she will leave the party:

-Fenris is a 100% friend or rival and his Act 3 Questioning Beliefs quest was completed.
-Aveline's Act 2 Companion Quest The Long Road was not completed and during Favor and Fault you chose ("Kill the traitors, Aveline") dialogue option resulting in her resigning.
-Aveline's Act 3 Questioning Beliefs quest was not completed.

[Kish]

That's different enough from my experience that I wonder if they changed her behavior in a patch at some point.

Regardless, the fact that she prefers supporting Meredith to fighting against her disqualifies her from being any definition of "good" I'd ever agree to. "I'll follow heroic orders from my group leader, though I'd rather I was getting monstrous ones" is stretching it as a definition of Lawful Neutral, much less Good.

[Shashakiro]

That's different enough from my experience that I wonder if they changed her behavior in a patch at some point.


Quite possible; I got the game through Origin only a couple years ago, and they fixed a lot of bugs in the meantime.

(Incidentally, I assume you of all people at least agree with me about Morrigan being clearly CE in DAO? My response to you was what started all this DA talk, after all)

[Kish]

Evil, yes. Chaotic, I'm not sure. Anything like what I was describing that you responded to, absolutely not; she may (and in fact does) complain if you don't have innocent elves sacrificed to give yourself a Constitution bonus, but she doesn't blast them herself without consulting you.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Evil, yes. Chaotic, I'm not sure. Anything like what I was describing that you responded to, absolutely not; she may (and in fact does) complain if you don't have innocent elves sacrificed to give yourself a Constitution bonus, but she doesn't blast them herself without consulting you.

Where do you get the option to sacrifice elves to give yourself a constitution boost? Is that in DAO? Closest I can think of is siding with the werewolves, but that doesn't quite fit (but it's been a while since I last played, so my recollection is at best vague)

Grey Wolf

[Shashakiro]

Chaotic, I'm not sure.

She talks lots and lots about personal freedom being an overriding concern, and shows open contempt for the very concept of being bound by the rules or laws of society. Seems clearly Chaotic to me.

And yes, I'll readily agree that party members who act out regularly do mess things up for everyone--didn't know if that's the aspect of Belkar you were talking about, since given the topic (Paladins falling for others' behavior) you could have meant Evil party members generally.


Where do you get the option to sacrifice elves to give yourself a constitution boost? Is that in DAO?

In exchange for sparing his life, the slaver Caladrius offers you a ritual that will sacrifice the lives all elf slaves present to give you +1 CON. Doing so gives Morrigan approval +4. I don't remember her or anyone complaining if you refuse it, but I can believe it happening (maybe if you spare him anyway, something I've never done).

[Morquard]

I heard this story a long time ago. It didn't happen to me, and I have no idea if it really happened like this, but I think it shows how some people misunderstand the Paladin code and how it works:

It's the first session, the PCs are doing their usual "We meet in a tavern" thing.
Paladin is sitting at a table, drinks a beer. Some guy comes up to him, sits down uninvited opposite of him and says "Hey". Paladin replies the greeting. Other guy drops a few copper pieces on the table and leaves again.
GM: "Paladin, you fall"
Paladin "WTF?"
GM: "That guy you just associated with was evil."

Yes, I'd have thrown my book at the GM and left at that point...

[Rogar Demonblud]

There's been a few like that, yes. Some DMs are jerks.

[Kardwill]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but in the games I've been in, we've tended to discuss on the group dynamic early in the game, or even before to make sure we'd have an understanding of what to expect.

Yeah, I've had far less groups exploding in petty bickering and hurt feelings since we've started to do "zero sessions" where we create characters together, discuss expectations and group dynamics

"So for our supernatural avengers game, I thought about playing a retired soldier doing hit jobs for the vampire crime-boss of the city.
- Ah. I wanted to play a monster-hunting cop. Might be a problem.
- You could be my childhood friend, who covers for my crimes when he comes across them, even if he doesn't approve?
- I don't feel like playing a corrupt cop. I was thinking more about a "last honest policeman in a den of thieves" kind of character. But I could drop it and play a private detective instead, so you can play your hitman.
- Nah, no need. We can keep the "old friend" thing, but my character is always very careful to keep his real job a secret. You just think I'm a retired soldier doing some bodyguard jobs.
- And I don't approve of you working for these people, but I understand a man has to eat. Yeah, as long as my character doesn't know you're murdering people for an undead monstrosity, that could work. And I won't try to discover this stuff on purpose. But imagine I had to investigate one of your crime, or your boss?
- Well, things will get interesting, I imagine, just like they would be if my boss decides you're too irritating to live. But the "best friends" angle means we won't kill each other on sight, at least, and we might be willing to discuss it when it will happen. Maybe you'll convince me to betray the vampire, or I'll convince you to look the other way. Unless we both really, as players, want to let this stuff blow and have one of our characters killed or exiled from the campaign at that moment.
- Works for me.
- Cool. And since the GM is grinning and taking notes, I think he's okay about it too. Hey, GM, try not to blow up my secret too soon, please. I'd like to enjoy my life of deception for at least a few games, okay?"

Conflict between characters can be fun for everyone as long as the players (GM included) agree about it and find a way to play that conflict without blowing up the group. When playing with reasonable adults you trust, it's suprisingly easy. With strangers, it can be messy

[Resileaf]

Yeah, I've had far less groups exploding in petty bickering and hurt feelings since we've started to do "zero sessions" where we create characters together, discuss expectations and group dynamics

"So for our supernatural avengers game, I thought about playing a retired soldier doing hit jobs for the vampire crime-boss of the city.
- Ah. I wanted to play a monster-hunting cop. Might be a problem.
- You could be my childhood friend, who covers for my crimes when he comes across them, even if he doesn't approve?
- I don't feel like playing a corrupt cop. I was thinking more about a "last honest policeman in a den of thieves" kind of character. But I could drop it and play a private detective instead, so you can play your hitman.
- Nah, no need. We can keep the "old friend" thing, but my character is always very careful to keep his real job a secret. You just think I'm a retired soldier doing some bodyguard jobs.
- And I don't approve of you working for these people, but I understand a man has to eat. Yeah, as long as my character doesn't know you're murdering people for an undead monstrosity, that could work. And I won't try to discover this stuff on purpose. But imagine I had to investigate one of your crime, or your boss?
- Well, things will get interesting, I imagine, just like they would be if my boss decides you're too irritating to live. But the "best friends" angle means we won't kill each other on sight, at least, and we might be willing to discuss it when it will happen. Maybe you'll convince me to betray the vampire, or I'll convince you to look the other way. Unless we both really, as players, want to let this stuff blow and have one of our characters killed or exiled from the campaign at that moment.
- Works for me.
- Cool. And since the GM is grinning and taking notes, I think he's okay about it too. Hey, GM, try not to blow up my secret too soon, please. I'd like to enjoy my life of deception for at least a few games, okay?"

Conflict between characters can be fun for everyone as long as the players (GM included) agree about it and find a way to play that conflict without blowing up the group. When playing with reasonable adults you trust, it's suprisingly easy. With strangers, it can be messy

Reminds me of a Warhammer Fantasy game I played. We were going to have four groups, and one of them would have as a theme 'unexpected heroes', so we rolled our classes randomly (twice, we chose which of the two we wanted), and we'd start as servants in a nobleman's castle. Two of the players roll and choose soldiers, the third decides to play a grave robber, and I have the choice between a charlatan or a court mage. If we had made our characters separately, I'd have been a court mage to give our group spellcasting abilities, but then the grave robber player said "Dude, if you play a charlatan, you can sell the stuff I've been stealing from the castle's graveyard".
This led to the most hillarious first session I've ever had in any game, and I so terribly wish we had recorded it.

[Kish]

She talks lots and lots about personal freedom being an overriding concern, and shows open contempt for the very concept of being bound by the rules or laws of society.
And if you take her at her word and start a relationship with Zevran as well as her, she makes it clear she actually expected monogamous commitment from you even while explicitly stating otherwise. She obeys you as leader, is entirely consistent and predictable, and everything she does is part of a long-term plan.


In exchange for sparing his life, the slaver Caladrius offers you a ritual that will sacrifice the lives all elf slaves present to give you +1 CON. Doing so gives Morrigan approval +4. I don't remember her or anyone complaining if you refuse it, but I can believe it happening (maybe if you spare him anyway, something I've never done).
Morrigan loses approval if you don't accept his offer, whether you kill him or not.

[Shashakiro]

And if you take her at her word and start a relationship with Zevran as well as her, she makes it clear she actually expected monogamous commitment from you even while explicitly stating otherwise.

Funny, I would say that's actively Chaotic due to the inconsistency between her words and actions. IMO monogamous commitment doesn't place on the law/chaos scale (OotS appears to agree; Elan/Haley seem no less committed than Roy/Celia) though marriage/divorce/adultery might (i.e. Tarquin). I can see someone interpreting it differently, though.


She obeys you as leader, is entirely consistent and predictable, and everything she does is part of a long-term plan.

She obeys you in order to carry out the plan; reject the Ritual and she's gone then and there. Long-term plans are in no way inconsistent with a Chaotic alignment; see Xykon (or hell, Elan and Haley). As for being consistent and predictable, I don't think consistently advocating for Evil actions or predictably insulting teammates is in any way non-Chaotic.

[Kish]

Okay, you appear to be blurring Evil and Chaotic together now. I will never join you there, and I'm not sure what you do consider Chaotic--in terms of actions, rather than words.

[Lacuna Caster]

Yeah, I've had far less groups exploding in petty bickering and hurt feelings since we've started to do "zero sessions" where we create characters together, discuss expectations and group dynamics...
Oh yeah, absolutely. Character-generation should generally be done as a group, for reasons of versimilitude as much as anything else.

[wumpus]

Funny, I would say that's actively Chaotic due to the inconsistency between her words and actions. IMO monogamous commitment doesn't place on the law/chaos scale (OotS appears to agree; Elan/Haley seem no less committed than Roy/Celia) though marriage/divorce/adultery might (i.e. Tarquin). I can see someone interpreting it differently, though.

Consider the difference between Durkon and Hilgya, compared to Haley and Elan. Haley and Elan are committed to each other out of loyalty to each other. Durkon expected Hilgya to be loyal to her husband because of the marriage (lawful status). Hilgya (quite chaotically) considered the marriage a sham and had zero loyalty to her husband from day one.

Elan and Haley are loyal to people. Durkon expected loyalty to institutions and laws (to dictate loyalty to people). Hilgya is so far only loyal to Hilgya and Kudzu, but we don't know if other openings are possible (if not, it is due to Hilgya, not her alignment).

Tarquin is lawful evil, and appears to be overly fond of the idea of "till death do you part" and arranging such partings when wives outlives his plans for them.

[Shashakiro]

Okay, you appear to be blurring Evil and Chaotic together now. I will never join you there, and I'm not sure what you do consider Chaotic--in terms of actions, rather than words.

In the DAO party members context, that’s tough for anyone since party members rarely take unilateral action; though I think “being a free non-Dalish mage in Ferelden” works, because the default in Ferelden is that mages are put in the Circle; to reject this is to reject the law, which is Chaotic.

In any event, I think words (especially arguments earnestly made) matter quite a bit for determining alignment of fictional characters, so if you think otherwise, we must agree to disagree. IMO, a character who repeatedly verbally rejects the concept of being bound by established rules can be called Chaotic on that basis alone, unless they also do or say Lawful stuff too (in which case they’re Neutral).

[Kish]

Indeed, I disagree with everything you said in that post, so there we are.

[The MunchKING]

I heard this story a long time ago. It didn't happen to me, and I have no idea if it really happened like this, but I think it shows how some people misunderstand the Paladin code and how it works:

It's the first session, the PCs are doing their usual "We meet in a tavern" thing.
Paladin is sitting at a table, drinks a beer. Some guy comes up to him, sits down uninvited opposite of him and says "Hey". Paladin replies the greeting. Other guy drops a few copper pieces on the table and leaves again.
GM: "Paladin, you fall"
Paladin "WTF?"
GM: "That guy you just associated with was evil."

Yes, I'd have thrown my book at the GM and left at that point...

Best that you find that out at level 1 before you have any actual time or effort invested in the Paladin. :smallannoyed:

And losing your paladin powers doesn't actually cost you TOO much in terms of powers.

[Knaight]

Best that you find that out at level 1 before you have any actual time or effort invested in the Paladin. :smallannoyed:

And losing your paladin powers doesn't actually cost you TOO much in terms of powers.

Sure, but the main thing you learn there is that the GM is terrible, and playing with a terrible GM costs entirely too much in time spent having not-fun.

[factotum]

Best that you find that out at level 1 before you have any actual time or effort invested in the Paladin. :smallannoyed:

And losing your paladin powers doesn't actually cost you TOO much in terms of powers.

Thing is, I'm pretty sure the Paladin Code specifically says you fall for *knowingly* associating with evil people. That GM was either a bad one who didn't understand the rules, or one who understood them fine and chose to twist them in order to mess with his players--either way, he's not someone I would choose to play a game with.

[The MunchKING]

Oh I totally agree, but I'll say it's good that you find that out right away before you get invested. Get out while you can and all that.

[Morquard]

Oh I totally agree, but I'll say it's good that you find that out right away before you get invested. Get out while you can and all that.

Totally agree with that, but your second sentance seemed like a "Well at least you only lose 1 level worth of powers, so its not that bad"

[KorvinStarmast]

But in 3e the idea seems to be that the rules are more important than the DM, so things have gotten worse) That is a core problem with 3.x. But it happened for a reason. A few too many 'power trip' DM's had happened in the preceding quarter century.
* You can have other players willing to be evil or neutrals willing to do evil acts as often as heroic ones. Paladins are incompatible with such parties. My 1e thief once backstabbed a PC who was pulling shennanigans on our paladin one time too many. As I saw it, being a dyed-in-the wool CN, I found the Paladin useful. Him falling would have been for me very inconvenient. (That lay on hands had saved my ass more than once). The cleric finished the job, with his mace. (I could have had the kill but I decided not to poison my blade as that would have pissed off the paladin).
The point was taken. We had an out of character conversation about "what character are you going to roll up; cleric is not raising you" that ended up being fairly productive. A grief player needs to be told "shape up or ship out" ... or all you get is more grief.
All in all I found 1e Unearthed Arcana the worst RPG purchase I have ever made.It was bloat. IIRC, from a business perspective, it was released well ahead of its time due to some corporate shennanigans going on, and some serious problems with the bottom line at TSR. And that was about the time frame of EGG being in California, getting a TV show up and running, and nose candy.

[The MunchKING]

Totally agree with that, but your second sentance seemed like a "Well at least you only lose 1 level worth of powers, so its not that bad"

Well, if you have to stick around, like for example if that's the only game in town, then the loss of one level is a valuable learning experience.

[Knaight]

Well, if you have to stick around, like for example if that's the only game in town, then the loss of one level is a valuable learning experience.

The phrase "no gaming is better than bad gaming" gets thrown around a lot here, and it fits this situation perfectly. If that's the only game in town either get a group together and GM it yourself, find an online group, or stop playing RPGs at all.

[Morquard]

The ONLY reason I could see myself sticking around is if those are my RL friends and these game sessions are primarily for hanging out and socializing. And even then I would have been pissed.

[hroþila]

Is it weird that we've done the alignment of DA2 characters and Morrigan, but stopped there and didn't go on to DAO and DAI? DA2 is not exactly the most popular game in the franchise.