PDA

View Full Version : Kill On Sight



Callos_DeTerran
2007-10-24, 09:54 PM
I have a feeling this problem will be coming up in the near future for my IRL game. Now to be ABUDANTLY CLEAR, this is in the terms of D&D alignment system and not real-life morality. I'm leaving open evil as a character option, but my one player wishes to play a paladin. Badly. So when I mention it may not be possible (Not because they can't disassociate with evil, I don't use that rule) but because they'd most likely do evil things and he'd then be the source of inter-party conflict.

His solution was to simply detect evil when the group met, then make with the 'Holy smiting of Evil' so they'd make at least neutral ones. Now, my thoughts on this is that not only this an evil act, its one that'd make the paladin fall too. He saw them commit no evil, they did no evil to him, he just has his detect evil to go off of. It's like.....killing someone you know is vile but hasn't done anything, but because they might do something evil in the future. But I think he'll argue this fact with me.


...So....what do the other playgrounders think? This isn't a theoretical situation with hidden implecations or anything. This is defining if this one act is strictly by the D*D alignment system an Evil and evil act.

Mewtarthio
2007-10-24, 09:56 PM
Wait, so you're saying that a single player wants to slaughter the entire party so that they'll play like he wants? :smalleek:

Sucrose
2007-10-24, 10:08 PM
This is an iffy one, and (I think) ultimately your call.

I'd factor into this just what being evil means in your campaign. Does it mean that you're just mostly out for yourself, or do you need to slaughter orphans to gain the power to burn love to kill people to earn the moniker?

Now, it might not be an evil act in-game, if they qualify for the latter, but out-of-game, it's a bastard move, since you, as DM, have already explicitly allowed evil PCs, so they're within their rights, and he's trying to force them to play a certain way for the sake of his character.

Unless you're okay with PVP, I strongly recommend you to tell him that that sort of garbage won't fly in your game, and if he tries it, either say that he arbitrarily fails, or kick him out. Such actions, when going against DM intent, are extremely disruptive, and uncalled for.

Idea Man
2007-10-24, 10:10 PM
You need to nip this in the bud before it becomes a problem. I assume, since you are allowing evil characters, that there is some interest, and, therefore, somebody wants to play that alignment-axis. Find out, ahead of time, what the others want to play. Make it an open discussion, lay it all on the table. If you wait until the party is in the full swing of an adventure, you'll need a small miracle to keep the paladin from smiting fellow party members.

Another route would be to deny access to the paladin class. If he needs a class that can smite, he can always play a cleric. If he just wants to be righteous, you migt want to figure out what kind of group the others were planning to play.

Of course, if he won't let it go, then you've really got a problem.

Lord Tataraus
2007-10-24, 10:16 PM
Personally, I would not allow that kind of thing to go unpunished. You have warned him (I hope) of the consequences of his actions, but if he goes through with it, I'd make him drop to LN and have guards arrest him, followed most likely by an execution, depending on how the trail goes and what sort of town they are in. Of course before hand I would try my best to persuade him not to be a paladin.

Chronos
2007-10-24, 10:23 PM
It's quite possible to be evil without being deserving of death, and it's possible for someone who's not evil at all to appear to be so, due to various magical effects. Therefore, killing someone for no other reason than that they show up on Detect Evil is murder, an evil act. If this player is so eager to play a character that behaves that way, then he doesn't actually want to play a paladin.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-24, 10:30 PM
Paladins have to uphold a lawful alignment as well as a good one. Killing someone for detecting as evil, and for no other reason, will cause a paladin to lose his powers for violating his alignment.

Lemur
2007-10-24, 10:45 PM
Key guideline for alignment: if you have to justify you're actions, you probably did something wrong. What's good and evil should be intuitively apparent most of the time, barring real moral dilemmas. There aren't any good arguments for paladins going around killing everyone who detects as evil just because they detect as evil, especially if those people are PCs. Such an action would earn him a one-way ticket to fallsville, and in my opinion, seriously risks getting the player a ticket to kickedoutofthecampaignopolis.

If he even tries to argue the ruling, I'd tell him he's already walking on thin ice, and either abides by the decision, or leaves the campaign for being disruptive.

Darkantra
2007-10-24, 11:05 PM
If he wants to be a slaughter-hungry paladin then let him. If he tries to smite the other party members then have him tossed in jail by the constabulantry. Or you could let him succeed, become Fallen and then having a mob of people in a bar beat him to unconciousness.

Mewtarthio
2007-10-24, 11:19 PM
Of course before hand I would try my best to persuade him not to be a paladin.

"Persuade"? The OP's the DM. He doesn't have to "persuade" anything. He can just outright say "No paladins. Also, no killing your fellow party members unless you feel like turning in your character sheet." Of course, the more important thing to say is, "This isn't your game. You're playing with a large group of people who also want to have fun." Remember, this guy's basically saying that, rather than change his character concept, he wants everyone else to change theirs.

Anteros
2007-10-25, 01:24 AM
You guys realize that this is exactly what detect evil is for right?

If something detects as evil, then the paladin kills it. People wont detect as evil if they are say...not paying their taxes on time, or running out on a bar tab. They detect as evil if they are actually evil and perpetually commit evil acts. Thus, smitage.

Outside of that fact, couldnt you just create some motivation for him to go along with the party? You already said that he wont fall for associating with evil characters, so theres no good reason a paladin couldnt associate with evil in order to ultimately do good. Although if your people are planning to be the "lolz I stabs her cause it's funny" type of evil this obviously won't work, and someone is going to have to give up the character that they want to play.

Rad
2007-10-25, 02:05 AM
OK, here is my advice; I have a strong opinion in this matters so I'm sorry if it comes a bit harsh :smallredface:

Talk. About. It. With. Everybody.

No, seriously, the palyers should choose what kind of party they want to have o have fun and then stick to it. Team good is OK, Team evil is OK and some also like the mixed-alignments-and-then-kill-each-other thing; but in all cases all the people involved should agree to it beforehand.

D&D is like playing lego; if someone builds a castle and the other one makes his side of the building a starship they're going to complain that the other guy is killing their game. Playing D&D can be very different things and you have to agree on that before.

Also, interplayer conflicts are bad but having an in game fight decide of them is worse. It doesn't matter if the Paladin can take the other party members without falling, what matters is if the Paladin player and the evil-character player, and the DM whose story is falling behind and the other players who might want to just get on are having fun while it happens. After you know whether this is enjoyable to everybody or not just act accordingly.

Investing one session without playing but just agreeing on what kind of game you want saves countless hours of arguments in the future... I highly recommend it.

Hope this helps

Temp
2007-10-25, 02:09 AM
You could just drop Detect Evil. If he isn't positive another player's Evil, he's not going to whack them, right?

I swapped a Sense Motive bonus in for it in my games just because I can't stand the absolute alignment system. I haven't had any problems yet (I also switched the Soulknife special attack thing in for Smite so accidentally hitting a neutral baddy with it wouldn't be such a big deal. Still only works against evil-doers, though.)

Blanks
2007-10-25, 02:10 AM
You need to nip this in the bud before it becomes a problem. I assume, since you are allowing evil characters, that there is some interest, and, therefore, somebody wants to play that alignment-axis. Find out, ahead of time, what the others want to play. Make it an open discussion, lay it all on the table.
This is always the way to go if you ask me.
One player clearly shouldn't be allowed to dictate the others alignment.

If they cannot work it out and he just leans back ie. he thinks the others will comply due to his threats, here is how i would work it:

The hardliner:
Make a level 20 evil character. Have him sit in the bar along with the other members of the party. Do not say who are party members and who isn't!
He will clearly detect as the most evil, so the paladin will attack him. Problem solved.

Poetic justice:
The paladin attacks the group. He kills one of the others, promptly gets arrested and executed. The dead party member is then ressurected by the church of the paladin because they are deeply ashamed of the public trial.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-25, 02:38 AM
You guys realize that this is exactly what detect evil is for right?

If something detects as evil, then the paladin kills it. People wont detect as evil if they are say...not paying their taxes on time, or running out on a bar tab. They detect as evil if they are actually evil and perpetually commit evil acts. Thus, smitage.

Yes, but there are evil acts that don't involve murder. Some of them are committed by corporate bigwigs every day ... you know, use the little people to get what you want?

Of course, evil is still evil and despicable after all, and a paladin's hardly going to be sympathetic to the wealthy capitalist (merchant, perhaps) who profits by knowingly exploiting others. However, paladins are also lawful, which implies either a respect for the law of the land or a very strict personal code of honor, neither of which are likely to allow him or her to just draw steel and lay into a person who blinks red on the detect evil radar.

Likelier courses of action would involve one of the following:

1. Paladin initiates a line of questioning with the person, seeking to uncover the nature of the evil. If clever, the paladin perhaps feigns haplessness or otherwise plays at being innocuous (this isn't directly lying, engaging in underhanded sabatoge, or anything of that nature -- it's just an intelligent way to go about it) ... think Columbo

2. Paladin keeps an eye on the individual ... a close eye

3. Paladin actively tries to guide the individual to a better path

4. Paladin tries to by some other means to determine what crimes that individual has committed, if any, with the hope of bringing him to justice

5. Paladin openly challenges the individual, informs him of being fully aware of his evil nature, and demands that he explain himself in the name of (insert deity of justice and etc. or somesuch here)

But just abruptly whipping out a sword and making with the smiting? That's more vigilante and honorless ... more ... chaotic, actually.

Irreverent Fool
2007-10-25, 02:45 AM
There was a paladin who suspected over the course of an entire campaign that my chaotic good beguiler/mindbender was evil due to his 'ends justify the means' attitude. He constantly admonished him, shut down his more questionable suggestions, and always tried to lead by example. He never aimed a detect evil at the party and over the course of the game began to sway the mindbender closer to his way of thinking.

'Knowingly associating' with evil is kind of a gray area and who is better at lying to themselves than a paladin? Heck, the complete scoundrel even tells us any class can be a scoundrel.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-25, 02:46 AM
Can you be a good-aligned mindbender?

Jarlax
2007-10-25, 02:49 AM
his god will drop him like a bad smell the moment he begins this course of action.

he is lawful good and dropping either alignment feature makes him an ex-paladin. not only is murder an evil act but choosing to attack the party members without provocation based solely on the fact they are evil is a non-lawful act.

there are laws that govern the world and paladins detect-evil is not a licence to kill, even if he watched the party murder an inn full of people he MUST hand them over to the city gaurd, not execute them on sight. the paladin code requires all members of that class to respect legitimate authority an nonevil city law definatly counts.

finally a paladin cannot accociate with evil people and since he cannot slay them it is the paladin who has to go, not the rest of the party.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-25, 02:55 AM
even if he watched the party murder an inn full of people he MUST hand them over to the city gaurd, not execute them on sight.

If he just watched, he has more problems that whether or not he turns them over to the gaurd.

Moral Wiz
2007-10-25, 02:56 AM
You guys realize that this is exactly what detect evil is for right?

If something detects as evil, then the paladin kills it. People wont detect as evil if they are say...not paying their taxes on time, or running out on a bar tab. They detect as evil if they are actually evil and perpetually commit evil acts. Thus, smitage.

No. They detect evil if, under the alignment system, they count as evil. I've played as evil characters who seldom, if ever, commit outright evil acts. One or two were pillars of society, at least one was a major force against necromancy. Characters who register as evil tend to be more fun to RP, and I'd reccomend them... and they still get killed on sight by people like the OP describes.:smallfurious:

In responce to the OP; it depends. Look at the evil applicants to start with. Do any of them look like game breaking psychos? if not, just give them a free gift. Cloak of Undetectable Alignment. That's fair. No alignment detection effect works.

If any of them seem like they'd be as bad as the Pally... well, still don't let him smite them. But take those players asside too, when you explain to them how bad it is to become extremists(ala Miko/Belkar), and how the rest of the party won't like it.

Nebo_
2007-10-25, 03:30 AM
Has anyone actually read the Detect Evil spell description?

You can't detect if someone has an evil alignment with it. It detects evil undead, evil outsiders and the auras of evil clerics.

Temp
2007-10-25, 04:06 AM
Has anyone actually read the Detect Evil spell description?
Yup. Evil creatures have Faint Evil Auras until 11 HD, Moderate until 26, Strong until 51 and Overpowering onward. So Paladins can detect it in Non-Clerics.

Zincorium
2007-10-25, 04:14 AM
Has anyone actually read the Detect Evil spell description?

You can't detect if someone has an evil alignment with it. It detects evil undead, evil outsiders and the auras of evil clerics.

The table Temp is talking about is on page 219 of the players handbook. The three you listed are out of four on there, the very first column is any creature, and even a faint evil aura can be detected one to six rounds after you've left a particular area.

Jarlax
2007-10-25, 04:39 AM
If he just watched, he has more problems that whether or not he turns them over to the gaurd.

this is merely an example where the paladin could find justification to kill the party and assumes that they wont try to kill the paladin in the process and that he somehow could not intervene. if they attacked him then he WOULD have justification to kill them (out of self defense).

hewhosaysfish
2007-10-25, 04:42 AM
First off: Smiting
Not sure how/if I can do a table... here's some ASCII:
I fail at table.

OK, I'll summarise...

If, in your campaign, only depraved lunatics like Murder "Stabby" McPuppy-Eater are actually Evil* then the paladin will be a hero if he kills evildoers on sight/detection and will fall (for negligence/dereliction of duty) if he doesn't.

If, in your campaign, guys who don't leave the toilet seat down pick up an Evil alignment for the inconsiderateness* then the paladin will be a mass-murderer if he smites on sight and can avoid falling by simply walking on by.

(*Hewhosaysfish is not responsible for any misunderstanding caused by his overuse of hyperbole.)

From this, I hope it should be clear that if that paladin player doesn't know how his DM is handling Evil alignments in the game, then he has a 50/50 chance of falling no matter how he chooses to act!
So be sure to tell him.

In general though, paladins and evil character do not mix well. At all. Ban one or the other. If you don't like swinging the banstick, expect things to reach their own equilibrium: either the paladin will kill of the evil party members and the players will have to come up with new (non-evil) characters, effectively banning evil, or the rest of the group will decide they don't want this one player calling the shots, all build evil chars and gang up on him, effectively banning paladins.

Blanks
2007-10-25, 05:24 AM
@ hewhosaysfish
The DM tells me any alignment goes:
So I prepare my character for 3 months, research family trees, specific crest and so on, just to be killed after 3 minutes of play and the DM tells me:
"just build an evil character and gang up on him..."

Am i the only one who feels this is the DM letting the players down?
Metagaming like this should never be the solution.

Liked the rest of your post though :)

Riffington
2007-10-25, 05:35 AM
You guys realize that this is exactly what detect evil is for right?

If something detects as evil, then the paladin kills it. People wont detect as evil if they are say...not paying their taxes on time, or running out on a bar tab.

Neither of those will cut it, true.
But let's say I go to little bars all the time, with the plan to run out on the tab. Then I might be evil (and deserve jail, not death).
Or what if I gossip all the time about my coworkers, and take malicious pleasure when it's hurtful gossip. That'd definitely make me evil (and deserve ostracism, not jail or death).

Unless in your campaign, evil means "mass murderer". Which is fine, if that's the kind of game you want to play.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-25, 05:36 AM
His solution was to simply detect evil when the group met, then make with the 'Holy smiting of Evil' so they'd make at least neutral ones.

Well, rather obviously you can't feasibly have a party where one player wants to make a paladin and others want to make evil characters. It's such an obvious mismatch, it's unlikely that this difference in play styles will make for a fun campaign.

Now strictly speaking, killing something because it's evil :miko: does not cause a paladin to fall, but that does not mean that every single paladin :hinjo: has to behave like that. But whether the paladin can or cannot do this is really not the problem you're having here, only the symptom.

Mad Mask
2007-10-25, 05:49 AM
One of the options could be to make a Lawful Neutral Paladin or a Paladin of Tyranny so the guy could be still a "paladin" and travel with the group.

And something I don't understand: if you are evil for cheating on poker and insulting people because they are ugly, why it is so hard to be good ?

Riffington
2007-10-25, 06:16 AM
And something I don't understand: if you are evil for cheating on poker and insulting people because they are ugly, why it is so hard to be good ?

A few evil acts do not make an otherwise-good person evil, any more than a few good acts make an otherwise-evil person good. All people are sinners, and all people do benevolent things as well. Just, some more than others.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-25, 06:24 AM
One of the options could be to make a Lawful Neutral Paladin or a Paladin of Tyranny so the guy could be still a "paladin" and travel with the group.

And something I don't understand: if you are evil for cheating on poker and insulting people because they are ugly, why it is so hard to be good ?

It's hard to be good because you have to make sacrifices, even for people you aren't personally close to.

It's easy to be neutral, though (and that's what I'd say most people are). :smalltongue:

Fixer
2007-10-25, 06:29 AM
His solution was to simply detect evil when the group met, then make with the 'Holy smiting of Evil' so they'd make at least neutral ones. Now, my thoughts on this is that not only this an evil act, its one that'd make the paladin fall too. He saw them commit no evil, they did no evil to him, he just has his detect evil to go off of. It's like.....killing someone you know is vile but hasn't done anything, but because they might do something evil in the future. But I think he'll argue this fact with me.
If Mr. Paladin is using the rule of, "If it is evil, I kill it," there had damned well better be a law that supports their actions or they WILL be violating their alignment. Unless actually BEING evil is against the law, they are committing a chaotic act by simply scanning random passersby and attacking anyone who is evil.

Their action, however, is not necessarily evil. It all really depends on the god the paladin serves. If the god has a no-evil policy, then the god won't have a problem with their paladin keeping the evildoers away from the rest of society but the act of initiating an attack on them without them being involved in some evil act is cause for atonement (which is basically the paladin getting his god on the phone and going "my bad") due to the chaotic act. If the evil beings seemed unredeemable, then their death could be warranted but that would take time and not be a random decision on the part of the paladin.

Saph
2007-10-25, 07:07 AM
I'd say that killing anything that detects as evil is neither lawful nor good, and is definitely enough to make a paladin fall.

However, this assumes you run alignment in the standard way, where you can qualify as Evil without being a psychopathic serial killer. Some people play a variant of alignment where only the bottom 1% or so of humans count as Evil, in which case you have to do some really heinous stuff to ping on the detection spell. In this case I doubt anyone's going to care much if the paladin smites them.

None of this will really solve your problem, though, which is that (as Fish said), evil characters and paladins do not mix. If the players are experienced and make an effort to get on with each other, they can make it work, but judging from the OP's post I doubt that's going to happen. So:

Solution 1: Ban either evil characters or paladins.
Solution 2: Introduce them to each other in an arena, and let the paladin do his detect. After the dust settles, have the dead players roll up new characters and repeat. Eventually the party will reach equilibrium. It's probably best to warn the players in advance if you take this option.

- Saph

Haruspex
2007-10-25, 07:35 AM
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.
Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.


Since he's harming innocents, the paladin will be duty bound to punish himself. :smallredface:

Seriously though, I think that you should talk about it with the others as well. If they really, really, don't have a problem being non-evil then this will pass like a spring shower. But if they are entertaining the idea of evil, well, either the paladin or the evil will have to go.

If he presses the matter you could finagle it under the "act with honor" clause. Smiting strangers on sight doesn't seem very honorable. Especially when they are in a civilized and law-abiding area.

P.S. He could counter you by saying that nobody is truly innocent. If that happens, I wish you all the best.

CrazedGoblin
2007-10-25, 07:38 AM
One of our party previously killed a caged gnome on sight, poor soul was on his way to the orphanage to deleiver socks to the little children *sniff* :smalltongue:

lets just say his deeds did not go unpunished :smallbiggrin:

KillianHawkeye
2007-10-25, 07:59 AM
If necessary, tell him about the Succubus Paladin (from the Wizards site). Despite miraculously becoming a Lawful Good paladin, she still detected as Evil due to retaining the Evil subtype.

Not everything is always as it seems. :smallwink:

Raolin_Fenix
2007-10-25, 08:32 AM
To agree with Fixer and Saph in general, the paladin's act is neither Lawful nor Good. I don't think attacking evil on sight qualifies as evil in itself, directly, but it's decidedly neutral, if not enough of itselfto make him fall. However, it does definitely qualify as Chaotic. The Paladin is exacting a code of vigilante justice, obliterating a citizen who, as far as he knows, has never broken a law in his life. One of the reasons Lawful Evil people are so insidious is their ability to dodge or use the law.

Killing an evil guy on sight, when he hasn't been witnessed committing any crimes, will not only cause the Paladin to fall, but will end with him being locked up himself -- if not executed -- for murder. If the Paladin detects this guy as Evil, he's licensed to hate, loathe, and despise -- not to kill. If he wants to kill, he'd better catch the guy in the lawbreaking act. If the dude's not committing any lawbreaking acts, the Paladin can still remove him from power by legitimate, and complicated, means.

kemmotar
2007-10-25, 08:39 AM
Well...there are ways you can have fun without MAKING the paladin drop his class and start a new char. The drop detect evil was a really good idea but there's one thing the DM can do that can actually be quite fun(if the player can take jokes that is...).

What happens when the paladin detects evil and smites a fellow*EEVVVIIILLL* party member is simple...

The paladin raises his swords, light engulfs him and a white flame surrounds his sword. As he prepares to hit the target and swings his sword the flame is extinguished and a wave of nausea engulfs him. He falls to the ground clutching his stomach. The symbol on his chest*or wherever it is*begins to burn his flesh until he takes it off.

The paladin is now a paladin of slaughter but he doesn't know it...Apparently he can't use his abilities but when he tries to something else happens...When he tries to use the aura of courage it doesn't work but everyone around him starts to flee(aura of fear or whatever the paladin has)...It should be a really fun game and make him get the point...He wants to play something that would make the game just plain annoying...therefore...DM retribution...

That way you don't force him to make any changes and what he has done is slaughter just because he detects evil...Thus you can rule that unconsciously he loves slaughter and the good paladin is just a front for killing *lawfully*...Thus its nothing but a result of his actions so he can't complain...

If he wants to he can play this character or roll another...It will then be his choice and a DM shouldn't force the players to do his will so they won't disrupt the game...When a player is forced to make a choice after the DM ordered him he will be unhappy...If he thinks he made the choice then he will be at least*moderately*happy...Just like riding in the back of an ogre...make him think he wanted it:smalltongue:

kamikasei
2007-10-25, 08:43 AM
Well...there are ways you can have fun without MAKING the paladin drop his class and start a new char. The drop detect evil was a really good idea but there's one thing the DM can do that can actually be quite fun(if the player can take jokes that is...).

Uhm.

In-game forcing him from one alignment-restricted class to another one of the opposite alignment, without his knowledge, and with harsh penalties for the switch, seems like rather more of an imposition than just talking, out of game, about the problem or even outright forbidding him to play a paladin - which at least he would know going in.

Jayabalard
2007-10-25, 08:44 AM
From your description, this is, at it's root, an out of game problem. You need to deal with it out of game, not in game. Talk to the players and have them come to a consensus on whether they are going to have evil characters in the group or not; if they are, disallow paladins.

Duke of URL
2007-10-25, 08:45 AM
He saw them commit no evil, they did no evil to him, he just has his detect evil to go off of.

Alignment auras can be faked/altered -- I would consider a paladin who acts only on that basis to be violating his code.

kemmotar
2007-10-25, 08:57 AM
In-game forcing him from one alignment-restricted class to another one of the opposite alignment, without his knowledge, and with harsh penalties for the switch, seems like rather more of an imposition than just talking, out of game, about the problem or even outright forbidding him to play a paladin - which at least he would know going in.

Well the thing is you're not really forcing him to make a choice, as a DM you make a choice of what happens when he does something that violates the paladin code so blatantly...Plus i wouldn't think there are harsh penalties for the alignment change...

Besides, making him evil(with good reason) will actually benefit the game in a way if its an evil party and he's the one good member and a paladin at that!If he sees it as punishment then that's fine too, he was disrupting the game...It's one thing to turn on your party and another to force the game down the avenue you want(but nobody else) to play thus taking away the enjoyment for the other players...

Jayabalard
2007-10-25, 09:02 AM
Well the thing is you're not really forcing him to make a choice, as a DM you make a choice of what happens when he does something that violates the paladin code so blatantly...Plus i wouldn't think there are harsh penalties for the alignment change...No, really, you are forcing that on him...

It's an out of game problem, so you should use out of game resolution for that problem... imposing penalties in game won't solve anything.

kamikasei
2007-10-25, 09:06 AM
Well the thing is you're not really forcing him to make a choice, as a DM you make a choice of what happens when he does something that violates the paladin code so blatantly...Plus i wouldn't think there are harsh penalties for the alignment change...

Besides, making him evil(with good reason) will actually benefit the game in a way if its an evil party and he's the one good member and a paladin at that!If he sees it as punishment then that's fine too, he was disrupting the game...It's one thing to turn on your party and another to force the game down the avenue you want(but nobody else) to play thus taking away the enjoyment for the other players...

If someone tells you before the game that he intends to behave in a disruptive way, what is the point in starting the game, letting him do so, and then punishing him and destroying his fun for the session? Why not just talk to him when it first comes up and say "that won't fly in my game, you'll have to try something else"? Of course it's a punishment to invert a paladin's alignment, even if you switch him to a "mirror" paladin class - it's shredding the player's character concept and handing him a new one. It's like dealing with an overpowered wizard by causing his next polymorph to turn him into a fighter, lose all spellcasting, and essentially just take away his character sheet and hand him a new one.

Out of game issues - in this case, differing playstyles and attitudes toward alignment - should not be dealt with in game. That just needlessly wastes everyone's time. As a DM you can cause anything to happen in the game world you feel like; punishing people arbitrarily is no exercise of skill. Resolving disputes person-to-person in the real world is.

Please, explain to me how the solution you propose is in any way better, or even just not worse, than talking to the player first and saying "look, as I run a game killing someone just for detecting with an evil alignment is an evil act and a paladin will fall for it. Plus, a paladin would be a pretty poor fit for the party anyway, since several of the others have expressed interest in playing evil characters. It would be better for everyone if you came up with a concept that works with the group"? No one wants to show up to a game and have their character completely invalidated five minutes in.

Blanks
2007-10-25, 09:40 AM
Please, explain to me how the solution you propose is in any way better, or even just not worse, than talking to the player first and saying "look, as I run a game killing someone just for detecting with an evil alignment is an evil act and a paladin will fall for it. Plus, a paladin would be a pretty poor fit for the party anyway, since several of the others have expressed interest in playing evil characters. It would be better for everyone if you came up with a concept that works with the group"? No one wants to show up to a game and have their character completely invalidated five minutes in.
Handling of game problems of game is always best. Except when you can't find a solution.
A player who threatens to attack his own party in order to force them to play an alignment he chooses seems to me to be so much of a jerk that he needs... a firmer hand?
(ie you tell him - find a solution or the first thing you scan for evil will be me...)

kamikasei
2007-10-25, 09:51 AM
Handling of game problems of game is always best. Except when you can't find a solution.
A player who threatens to attack his own party in order to force them to play an alignment he chooses seems to me to be so much of a jerk that he needs... a firmer hand?
(ie you tell him - find a solution or the first thing you scan for evil will be me...)

Well, if the player's that much of an intransigent jerk, just tell him he's not welcome.

I'm a little unclear, though, rereading the OP, whether this "smite them into rolling neutral" idea was just proposed as a way for the paladin to work in the party, or was it actually enacted in-game?

sapphail
2007-10-25, 09:54 AM
As far as I can see, the issue is one of player stubbornness than a game dilemma. As has been stated before, killing random (and not so random) people because their alignment detects as evil for whatever reason is both a breach of alignment and of the paladin code. Secondly, this is going to cause problems with the other players, who will - quite rightly - resent that this guy's preferences have superseded theirs.

It's up to you how you want to deal with this, but if I was DM I'd never allow it. I don't know about you, but I don't want to sit there watching my players roll up new character sheets before the game's even got started, while trying to break up an argument and justify my ruling at the same time. I think a flat out 'no' is probably in order.

blacksabre
2007-10-25, 10:55 AM
This is the reason I put restrictions on detect evil.way to powerful as is and is always used as the easy button..

To many times its side tracked the story line..

For instance, an all role play session level 1-3 party, in which they go to a high ball at the palace to use diplomacy and investigation to get to the bottom of who is behind the evil goings on...first 5 minutes, level 1 pally detect evil, identifies 3 out of 100 people who are evil...bah...

I rule detect evil works when a person is intent on (planning, thinking) on immediate evil acts. or out right doing an evil act...truelly evil creatures will always show up (ala undead)..but when dealing with PC clasees, or NPC character classes, it has limitations

The chaotic evil rogue assasin sitting in the tavern sipping his brew, playing dice and working on getting laid won't show up on radar..

But the same rogue, in the same inn, trailing a target for assasination will

Riffington
2007-10-25, 11:03 AM
This is the reason I put restrictions on detect evil.way to powerful as is and is always used as the easy button..
...
The chaotic evil rogue assasin sitting in the tavern sipping his brew, playing dice and working on getting laid won't show up on radar..

But the same rogue, in the same inn, trailing a target for assasination will

That weakens the spell on your campaign: 3 people in a palace detect as evil. In a campaign where the number would be 30/100 evil (or perhaps 70/100 since palaces attract more evil people), detect evil intent would be a more powerful spell. In this case, it'd derail the campaign significantly: the paladin would then be justified in stepping in whenever he saw the party planning something evil.

PsyBlade
2007-10-25, 11:04 AM
Warn him that that tactic won't fly in your game.

If he tries it in game, use Rule Zero: Screw the Rules, [I'm DM/It's MY Story.]

You could:
a) Have someone in the bar call the Town Guard or be a member of the Town Guard. Have all members of the Town Guard 5 levels above the moron, and be really quick to crime scenes (as in Teleport quick).

b) His god decides they will be needed, and thus will never register as evil until the god deems otherwise.

c) A cleric of his god sees him, and is 10+ levels above him. Hilarity (to the other players) ensues.

Criz Reborn
2007-10-25, 11:07 AM
Am I the only one who is thinking maybe he could just play the Paladin of Tyranny if the whole party wants to be evil?

slexlollar89
2007-10-25, 11:18 AM
The palladin would fall and be LN at best, LE at worst: he has no reason to harm an evil baing who has (as far as we know) commited no evil at all, or even ever. The evil dude could even be trying to reform or be using a magic item to apear evil (I did this and got smote by my own order!). "Detect evil: evil target assessed" is not a just cause for the dishing out of smitings, nor is it an excuse to to run the lives of ither players. This stuation is yourcall, but the pally has stepped on the perverbial toes of what it means to be LG (mainly the bit about JUSTICE).

Tekraen
2007-10-25, 11:23 AM
Can someone refresh my memory on this:

I thought a Paladin (LG variety) wasn't allowed to party with evil characters unless they absolutely had to or kill without just cause, as well as stay within the laws of the area they're in, uphold the ones they're from.

Is that correct? If it is, then the Paladin's not going to last in the game anyway. He'd have no reason to join the party.

blacksabre
2007-10-25, 12:05 PM
That weakens the spell on your campaign: 3 people in a palace detect as evil. In a campaign where the number would be 30/100 evil (or perhaps 70/100 since palaces attract more evil people), detect evil intent would be a more powerful spell. In this case, it'd derail the campaign significantly: the paladin would then be justified in stepping in whenever he saw the party planning something evil.


The campaign took place in a "good" kingdom, where the high council and court we're being infiltrated by organized crime by imposters, agents.. So it was pretty easy to pick them out of a crowd with a simple detect evil..

The point being I don't feel a first level spell (that can be used at will) should have the ability to thwart a skills and spells of higher level

A 15lvl rogue assasin who specializes in impersonation , uses disguise self scroll, has skills out the wazzu for bluff, disguise can be outed with a level one spell??

"Hey, your glowing all red around you!! I thought you said you where the Bishop of Canterbury!"

Even higher level spells like polymorph won't work against detect evil..Polymorph gains characteristics, but doesn't loose them..
"Hey why is that lap dog glowing evil? Isn't it the family pet?"

Even if an illusion could not be pentrated on detect evil, the presence of evil leaves an aura, which as soon as an illusioned evil character walked away, the spot they were just standing in has an aura of evil.

The detect evil spell is so powerful like that, why wouldn't a cleric and pally detect evil every where they go? Everytime? Why wouldn't every good city have all level 1 pallys required to server 2 years in the city watch , detecting evil of everyone who enters its cities gates? Or just random scanning of crowds?

Yes, the way I run detect is more powerful, but it is situational...its only going to detect truelly evil undead, or those planing , intending evil acts...just "being evil" won't show up...

This prevents a cleric/pally of non stop detecting, and requireing a good reason (ala suspect there is evil acts a foot)to detect

PnP Fan
2007-10-25, 12:37 PM
Okay, the paladin player is being a jerk, admittedly. I agree, there are lots of alternatives to kill on sight, especially when you are dealing with PC races (which seem to have more free will than villainous races).

But has it occured to anyone that when you say "allow all alignments", and there is no pre-existing ban on any class, that this is interparty conflict is pretty much inevitable? As soon as you say "allow all alignments", you are pretty much inviting people to do whatever they normally can't get away with(which usually manifests as a bunch of evil characters killing each other off slowly).

It also occurs to me that the paladin is just as valid a character choice as the evil character. Why should the guy wanting to play a paladin be forced to do something different just because someone wants to play evil? Unless you are playing in an "evil" campaign, that hardly seems fair either.

I think your best option would be to have not gone down this road at all. Too late for that. Your next best option is to address the possibility of inter-party conflict with your group, and whether it's "okay" or "not okay" for the party members to attack each other. If it's not okay, then your evil players and your paladin player need to sit down before hand and figure out some in game reason why they wouldn't try to do each other in. If they can't work it out, then you need to change something about the situation (boot one party or the other, or maybe change your campaign premise).

You may also want to consider how serious your paladin player is about his claims and talk to him directly about how un-cool it is to ruin other people's fun.

Good luck.

Squee_nabob
2007-10-25, 12:55 PM
Many people have addressed the issue of bad behavior on the part of the player, so I don't need to go into that.

On the other hand, ask if this is how he believes paladins are supposed to act? How are they supposed to act in your world? I'm about to start a game where society knows about alignments and acts on them (ie your evil alignment can be used against you in a trial). However we are using the "intent based morality" from this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57770) thread.

Think about the roles of paladins, are they supposed to just cleanse all evil? or turn it over to local authorities? What do they do when they don't recognize the authority as legit?

This is of course giving your player the benefit of the doubt and assuming he doesn't know the place of paladins in your world.

kemmotar
2007-10-25, 12:56 PM
The reason its not worse is because i specified that it should only be done if the player can take a joke and would roll with the idea. If my DM did that to me i wouldn't mind that much...would be fun playing the paladin that suddenly turns evil and doesn't know what the hell is happening...Of course if its not that kind of party then it would be far worse. Doing what i said was a good idea in terms of how the game might turn out...

It all depends on the players imo. So its not arbitrary punishment and talking to the player would be imperative. Explaining beforehand that if he does disrupt the game there would be sanctions would come first. Then let him play and see how it goes...However from what i'm guessing the player seems the kind of person who would not take kindly to such an action...

Also its not like making the wizard a fighter...a variant paladin of slaughter/tyranny(whichever is lawful, i don;t remember) still has the same power as a normal good paladin...Plus such a change if played well would turn out to be some really good RP with many benefits...

Personally i wouldn't mind if my DM did that...he actually changed my race and gave me the ability to change into it 2/day, I also discovered that what i knew according to my background was lies...Soul searching, trying to find the truth etc can be very interesting if the player likes it...was quite fun actually!So with this in mind, it can be a quite good solution...in this case you are both punishing the player for disrupting the game while allowing him to play a character close to what he wanted. Characters evolve through the game, why not in this case too? Plus you're giving him a second chance with the character...He could play the atonement game trying to get back his original powers etc...RP RP RP:smallbiggrin:

SoD
2007-10-25, 01:45 PM
Can someone refresh my memory on this:

I thought a Paladin (LG variety) wasn't allowed to party with evil characters unless they absolutely had to or kill without just cause, as well as stay within the laws of the area they're in, uphold the ones they're from.

Is that correct? If it is, then the Paladin's not going to last in the game anyway. He'd have no reason to join the party.

Very true. Did you read the original post though? He's done away with that rule.

But a meet detect smite kill senario...bad move, they can be faked, or altered (as previously mentioned) and also, an evil aura can be shown due to evil thoughts, which may or may not be acted upon. So, unless there is a law 'thou shalt not, for any reason, have an evil aura, intentional or not, punishable by immediant death, without trial' or something similar...we're looking at Fallsville, pop. 2.

Captain van der Decken
2007-10-25, 02:03 PM
It kinda seems unfair on the player to rule his class abilities don't work. Just ask the player not to play a paladin, or have the players who want to be evil to work around it.

Assuming he doesn't decide to just arbitrarily smite them, that is. Thinking of that, just tell him that he shouldn't do that without actually knowing they've done anything wrong, and you'd probably be fine.

Chronos
2007-10-25, 02:09 PM
Of course it's a punishment to invert a paladin's alignment, even if you switch him to a "mirror" paladin class - it's shredding the player's character concept and handing him a new one.Except that a DM who turns such a paladin into a Paladin of Tyranny isn't shredding the player's character concept. Quite the opposite: He's enabling the player to play the character concept he wants to play. The player wants to play a character who kills everyone and everything for which he can come up with some shred of justification. That character is a Paladin of Tyranny, or something similar (I might replace Detect/Smite Evil with Detect/Smite Chaos, though).

Everyone's saying that it causes friction when you have a paladin in the same party as evil characters. This is true, but it misses the elephant in the closet in this situation: The paladin is, himself, an evil character. That's going to cause major problems no matter what the rest of the party does.

kamikasei
2007-10-25, 03:23 PM
But has it occured to anyone that when you say "allow all alignments", and there is no pre-existing ban on any class, that this is interparty conflict is pretty much inevitable? As soon as you say "allow all alignments", you are pretty much inviting people to do whatever they normally can't get away with(which usually manifests as a bunch of evil characters killing each other off slowly).

It also occurs to me that the paladin is just as valid a character choice as the evil character. Why should the guy wanting to play a paladin be forced to do something different just because someone wants to play evil? Unless you are playing in an "evil" campaign, that hardly seems fair either.

If the DM says "any alignment" there's an implied "but your character should be capable of existing in a party with the others, who may be of any alignment". Making a paladin - as opposed to any other LG character - is making a character who specifically can't play nicely in a group with others of opposed alignments. Making a Chaotic Evil serial killer who insisted on spending every turn eating babies would also be obnoxious, for much the same reason, but without the presumption that the player had the moral high ground to beat on the others.


Also its not like making the wizard a fighter...a variant paladin of slaughter/tyranny(whichever is lawful, i don;t remember) still has the same power as a normal good paladin...Plus such a change if played well would turn out to be some really good RP with many benefits...

Eh, I should have picked a better example, but I imagine you get my point. Imagining a hypothetical world where wizards and fighters are equally powerful, nonetheless forcing a character who comes to the table with one to play the other is not a very worthwhile exercise. If it's being done as a laugh it's not so bad, but it doesn't sound like the OP's situation would respond well to humor.


Except that a DM who turns such a paladin into a Paladin of Tyranny isn't shredding the player's character concept. Quite the opposite: He's enabling the player to play the character concept he wants to play. The player wants to play a character who kills everyone and everything for which he can come up with some shred of justification. That character is a Paladin of Tyranny, or something similar (I might replace Detect/Smite Evil with Detect/Smite Chaos, though).

Everyone's saying that it causes friction when you have a paladin in the same party as evil characters. This is true, but it misses the elephant in the closet in this situation: The paladin is, himself, an evil character. That's going to cause major problems no matter what the rest of the party does.

If the player wants to play a paladin he presumably wants to play a Lawful Good character. Obviously his opinion of what constitutes acceptable behavior for a Lawful Good paladin doesn't mesh with ours, but it doesn't sound like he wants to play a Chaotic Evil psycho of Erythnul either. I doubt he would take it as a favor to tell him his character isn't who he thinks he is, and I think essentially wasting his time by having him show up to a game and have his character gutted before play really begins is a pretty poor way to make a point.

kemmotar
2007-10-25, 03:55 PM
Well...he is pretty much acting as a chaotic evil psycho of erynthul in the first place...making him a paladin of slaughter/tyranny is pretty much like an accelerated fallen paladin->blackguard procedure...which is definitely within the DM's power and outside of player complaints...if he does play like a chaotic evil psycho of erynthul he will become one...That's why the initial proposition was explain to him that that is not the way lawful works...or good for that matter and then let him play...if he plays along well then problem solved...if he tries to kill anything with an evil aura because it's evil then he is a chaotic evil psycho of erynthul...

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-25, 04:05 PM
Alignment auras can be faked/altered -- I would consider a paladin who acts only on that basis to be violating his code.

QFT.

And it should be said again that anyone who believes in the value of structure and controlled action -- as a lawful character naturally does -- is not the type of person to act wildly, without thought, in response to the slightest thing, especially when that reaction could undermine legitimate authority for no good reason.

A well-meaning but reckless chaotic good character who didn't think the point about auras being faked through might just do this "attack on sight" thing (if chaotic good characters could detect evil at will), but a paladin should not.

Aquillion
2007-10-25, 06:44 PM
A lot of this comes down to the way your group likes to play, in several ways.

First, does your group like intra-party conflict and fighting? If it doesn't, you should make that clear to him. It'll be important eventually anyway.

Second, is your group a character and role-playing based group, or more of a kick-down-the-door-and-grab-the-loot group? The latter sort of group tends to take a more "relaxed" approach to the Paladin's code; if that's how you play, you can probably just tell him "I won't make a big deal about your code if you don't, as long as you don't personally do anything horribly evil and remain generally lawful good." It's pointless to worry about alignment when all the rest of the party cares about is booting down doors and grabbing treasure.

Even if your group more than a little roleplay-intensive, you can still houserule him in with a slightly-modified code if he's willing to go with it (I noticed you already houseruled out the "can't associate" bit.) D&D's alignment system is, well, stupid, and the Paladin code as written is pretty stupid, too; it certainly isn't necessary to balance paladins, so the only problem is making sure he still manages to be generally Paladin-ish. Tell him that as long as he comes off as a good and lawful person overall, and doesn't personally do or actively endorse any excessively evil things he's fine.

In that case, though, you should discuss it over with the whole group, so people know what they're in for. Make sure he understands that he shouldn't be constantly making trouble in the group, and that your laxness with the paladin code means that he has to be equally lax when dealing with his party members. If the party decides to do something he disapproves of, he should let them know that he disapproves of it; he shouldn't, say, insist that they all turn themselves in for breaking the law, though he might float the option and try and convince people a bit. But in the end, you can say that the virtue of his loyalty to his friends allows him to get away with going along (under protest) with non-excessive evil or chaotic acts.

Some intra-party arguments over morality are not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the players are mature enough to keep it from getting out of hand, and committed enough to keep the game going forward eventually somehow.

Neon Knight
2007-10-25, 07:11 PM
QFT.

And it should be said again that anyone who believes in the value of structure and controlled action -- as a lawful character naturally does -- is not the type of person to act wildly, without thought, in response to the slightest thing, especially when that reaction could undermine legitimate authority for no good reason.

A well-meaning but reckless chaotic good character who didn't think the point about auras being faked through might just do this "attack on sight" thing (if chaotic good characters could detect evil at will), but a paladin should not.

One man's reckless action is another man's meticulously planned action.

Also, most people seem to assume that alignments can be faked/hidden is common knowledge in the game world. What if it isn't?

kemmotar
2007-10-25, 07:27 PM
Also, most people seem to assume that alignments can be faked/hidden is common knowledge in the game world. What if it isn't?

well for one thing, if you are a character with moderate intelligence and an alignment you would want to hide(such as any evil character in a good empire) then you better have looked into it before...even if you don't really know about magic(fighters for example) you can ask around, preferably in the underworld/slums part of a city where you can find a neutral or evil wizard to do something about it. Preferably one that doesn't care what you want as long as you pay for it...

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-25, 07:31 PM
One man's reckless action is another man's meticulously planned action.

Also, most people seem to assume that alignments can be faked/hidden is common knowledge in the game world. What if it isn't?

Well, taking someone's life is a very significant act. A lawful good paladin will want to be very sure of the necessity and rightness of that act before doing it.

Oh, he doesn't care about being very sure? "Significant act," blah blah blah, gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, ends justify the means? Okay, you're chaotic good. You can't be a paladin.

Squee_nabob
2007-10-25, 07:35 PM
if you were wrong, res them and say you're sorry?

kemmotar
2007-10-25, 08:19 PM
if you were wrong, res them and say you're sorry?

quite an expensive apology...especially if you kill evertone with an evil aura that you find...

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-25, 08:21 PM
*giggles*

I can picture it now:

[18:13] Eludecia says, "need rez ;_;"
[18:14] Pwnj00 says, "lol succubus pallies sux"
[18:14] Pallyguy says, "wtf i thought demons couldtn be pallies?"

I've played MMOs too much, clearly. :smalltongue:

Squee_nabob
2007-10-25, 08:29 PM
hopefully you can res that succbus, I think you normally can't res outsiders.

I'd love to play a pally who smote first, asked questions later, and resed them third. Get expensive, but might be worth it for the laughs.

Callos_DeTerran
2007-10-25, 08:55 PM
Well, taking someone's life is a very significant act. A lawful good paladin will want to be very sure of the necessity and rightness of that act before doing it.

Oh, he doesn't care about being very sure? "Significant act," blah blah blah, gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, ends justify the means? Okay, you're chaotic good. You can't be a paladin.


Ahem, for the point of discussion, I'm making it known that he isn't playing a lawful good paladin but a chaotic good one. (A paladin of freedom) A bit houseruled but it wasn't exactly much effort for me so I did most of the work. I didn't ask if it was a lawful or chaotic, that part is (pretty much) moot to me. I was asking if anyone else thought it was evil.

As for talking to the player out of game about, I don't honestly think it'd be a problem in the game among the players if the paladin decided to attack the party members (We're very laid back in general, and at one time the group demanded a PVP bout just to beat the crap out of each other.). I personally hate PC conflict without a damn good reason though.

This is very much more about whither he'd fall from his actions.

Squee_nabob
2007-10-25, 09:03 PM
technically, as soon as he kills the first "not evil enough" character, he'd fall I believe (for commiting an evil act)

kemmotar
2007-10-25, 09:18 PM
Well considering the fact that he's a CG pally then "just because he's evil" kinda registers as a good enough reason...maybe depending on how evil the person is...If its a CE lich then obviously its worth killing without trying to ascertain whether it actually did something evil...same with outsiders...when it comes to players and "common" people its quite different...

Maybe a variant of detect evil, instead of showing just the alignment it would show how evil his acts have been. Someone who doesn't pay taxes, stole someone's wife or uses the law for his own purposes(although probably LE) doesn't mean he killed anyone or did a sufficiently evil act to deserve smiting. Thus the redder the target registers the more evil deeds he's done, with murder being at the top of the list...or something like that...that way if he sees someone with a blood red aura*free smiting for everyone* if its more like a pink aura then its not justified at all->fallen paladin...etc

However if you're really relaxed about PCs killing each other then its fine...if he goes overboard everybody else just ganks him and that's the end of the problem...circumstances might be quite fun too.

Pally:OMG you're EEEVVVVIIIILLLLL, OMFG you're all EEEEVVVVIIIILLL!!DIE
Rest of the party:oh god...there he goes again.
fighter to rogue:what do we do this time?
rogue to fighter:win the initiative...*evil grin*
DM:pally roll a new char plz...

Hawriel
2007-10-25, 11:39 PM
this is why paladins are broken and I hate the alignment system.

Smite evil is a good ability and works great in D&D, detect evil in theory (on paiper :smallwink: ) really blows things for any game that isnt traditional black/white slay the dragon.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-26, 12:14 AM
I hope by broken you mean 'doesn't work' as opposed to the more common gamer use of the word.

Chronos
2007-10-26, 12:34 AM
Also, most people seem to assume that alignments can be faked/hidden is common knowledge in the game world. What if it isn't?It may or may not be common knowledge. But Undetectable Alignment is on the paladin's spell list. A paladin really has no excuse for not knowing that alignments can be faked, since he can friggin' do it himself.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-26, 01:01 AM
Ahem, for the point of discussion, I'm making it known that he isn't playing a lawful good paladin but a chaotic good one. (A paladin of freedom) A bit houseruled but it wasn't exactly much effort for me so I did most of the work. I didn't ask if it was a lawful or chaotic, that part is (pretty much) moot to me. I was asking if anyone else thought it was evil.

As for talking to the player out of game about, I don't honestly think it'd be a problem in the game among the players if the paladin decided to attack the party members (We're very laid back in general, and at one time the group demanded a PVP bout just to beat the crap out of each other.). I personally hate PC conflict without a damn good reason though.

This is very much more about whither he'd fall from his actions.

Oh, he's playing that chaotic good variant paladin?

Nevermind, he's golden. Chaotic good couldn't care less about honor and crap like that. Of course, as justice is essentially the opposite of mercy (the more mercy you grant, the less people are getting exactly what they deserve, which is the essence of justice), you can play a chaotic good character as a very merciful champion of good who's always willing to give that bad guy "a break" on his past deeds if only he's ready to reform now.

But you can also play chaotic good as "the dark vigilante who makes his own rules." He's out to make it right, by any means necessary, honor and the law be damned. So yes, I could see one like that killing every "evil" blip he sees on his paladar. After all, even undetectable alignment doesn't make you show a false positive for evil, it just hides your alignment altogether from detection. So instances of false positives, while theoretically possible, are going to be statistically insignificant on the whole, which makes it easy for the chaotic good variant paladin to say, "Even if I, by horrible misfortune, accidentally off one good person who somehow popped up falsely evil, I also save countless innocent lives by killing the many evil people I killed, and I could not have saved those lives any other way than by doing what I did."

Net result? Ends justify the means. That's not good enough for lawful good, which argues that the ends do not automatically justify the means. But for chaotic good, it works just fine.

kamikasei
2007-10-26, 05:32 AM
technically, as soon as he kills the first "not evil enough" character, he'd fall I believe (for commiting an evil act)

Actually I'd say he'd fall the first time he killed someone solely because they pinged on Detect Evil, regardless of how evil they actually are. It doesn't matter if the victim was actually a baby-eating serial murderer or just kind of a jerk, what matters and what makes the act fall-worthy is that the paladin doesn't and can't know and acts anyway.

Neon Knight
2007-10-26, 06:22 AM
Net result? Ends justify the means. That's not good enough for lawful good, which argues that the ends do not automatically justify the means. But for chaotic good, it works just fine.

What if the Lawful Good character's Oath and code was "The end justifies the means?" What if he came from a species or culture whose law was "The end justifies the means?"

Moral Wiz
2007-10-26, 07:08 AM
End justifies the means is ... well, a bit of a point of debate. I'd say it's plain evil, neutral if there's a line you won't cross. People dissagree with that, so it's going to have to be down to indervidual belief. But id I made that choice, the PC would fall. Hard.

CG is ignoring the law. Not morality. And it is immoral to kill people based soley on detect evil. Player does that, I'd say show him he's due for an express trip to CN.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-26, 08:51 AM
What if the Lawful Good character's Oath and code was "The end justifies the means?" What if he came from a species or culture whose law was "The end justifies the means?"

What if up were down, white were black, wet were dry, and the moon were made of green cheese?

There's no such thing as a personal code that says "don't adhere to a personal code." Or there is, but it's called "being chaotic."

Telonius
2007-10-26, 09:23 AM
If a DM fails to smite a Lawful Stupid Paladin, they Fall.

Moral Wiz
2007-10-26, 09:28 AM
What if the Lawful Good character's Oath and code was "The end justifies the means?" What if he came from a species or culture whose law was "The end justifies the means?"

That would go down under "Just person, unjust society" (Though I can't see how it could be a law.) General recomendation in this instance, is to try and change the system from within, work with it, but work to change it.

If it was a personal code, then you fall. End justifies the Means is NOT a LG ideal.

Neon Knight
2007-10-26, 03:57 PM
There's no such thing as a personal code that says "don't adhere to a personal code." Or there is, but it's called "being chaotic."

I don't view "The Ends Justify the Means" as saying have no personal code. It says... a lot of things.

"The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few, or the one."

"Whether an action is good or evil depends on the outcome, and the intent."

"Do good whenever possible, and at any cost. Personal damnation is worth the salvation of others."

"Black deeds done in the name of good can balance out."

"The most hideous of crimes can be justified if done for a righteous cause."

"Extremism in the protection of good is no vice."

"When gardening, one will find oneself getting dirty. So it is with justice and the eradication of evil. In order to purge blackness, one must do terrible deeds."

Whether the above is good is debatable, but I see no chaos. A Lawful character must merely submit to an authority, or obey some code. If a person follows the above statements as a code, how can he be chaotic?

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-26, 05:01 PM
I don't view "The Ends Justify the Means" as saying have no personal code. It says... a lot of things.

"The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few, or the one."

"Whether an action is good or evil depends on the outcome, and the intent."

"Do good whenever possible, and at any cost. Personal damnation is worth the salvation of others."

"Black deeds done in the name of good can balance out."

"The most hideous of crimes can be justified if done for a righteous cause."

"Extremism in the protection of good is no vice."

"When gardening, one will find oneself getting dirty. So it is with justice and the eradication of evil. In order to purge blackness, one must do terrible deeds."

Whether the above is good is debatable, but I see no chaos. A Lawful character must merely submit to an authority, or obey some code. If a person follows the above statements as a code, how can he be chaotic?

All of those are just rationalizations for doing things the easy way, frankly, shortcutting around "trivial" concerns of honor and process to "get 'er done."

That said, there is an argument that "shortcutting" those things in the name of good is the right thing to do. It happens to be the argument a chaotic good character would make.

If it makes it easier for you, you can think of chaotic good people as being people who have a code that says "don't adhere to a code -- stay flexible and make it up as need determines." I think it's an unnecessarily redundant way of thinking about it, but it does nicely answer the question you're asking about what it would mean to have a code that says you shouldn't adhere to codes.

Neon Knight
2007-10-26, 05:11 PM
All of those are just rationalizations for doing things the easy way, frankly, shortcutting around "trivial" concerns of honor and process to "get 'er done."

That said, there is an argument that "shortcutting" those things in the name of good is the right thing to do. It happens to be argument a chaotic good character would make.

Firstly,

Lawful =/= Honor.

Secondly,

Even if Lawful = Honor (which it doesn't), then you have to define what it is. Chivalry? Bushido? Honor is a word with a thousand meanings.

Thirdly,

Cannot "get 'er done" be a code as well?

Fourthly,

Why is it the "easy way"? Perhaps the adherent to the code does these things reluctantly, with great anguish in his heart. Doesn't sound particularly easy.

I'm not sure the ideology of evil as the easy path is built into DnD, or if it's even true. Murder and theft can be surprisingly difficult, and being outwardly evil often means you have few friends. A large majority of society would revile you and deny you aid and service (particularly if we're talking a mostly neutral world.)

Riffington
2007-10-26, 05:38 PM
"The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few, or the one."

Lawful; Neutral.



"Whether an action is good or evil depends on the outcome, and the intent."
Neutral; Good.



"Do good whenever possible, and at any cost. Personal damnation is worth the salvation of others."
Chaotic; Good.



"Black deeds done in the name of good can balance out."
Neutral; Evil.



"The most hideous of crimes can be justified if done for a righteous cause."
Neutral; Evil.



"Extremism in the protection of good is no vice."
Neutral; Good.




"When gardening, one will find oneself getting dirty. So it is with justice and the eradication of evil. In order to purge blackness, one must do terrible deeds."
Neutral; Evil.


Some of those statements are mutually contradictory (human beliefs often are, so that's fine.) If you follow all that you're probably neutral evil. A Code tends to be lawful, but need not be.

Murderous Hobo
2007-10-26, 05:40 PM
End justifies the means is ... well, a bit of a point of debate. I'd say it's plain evil, neutral if there's a line you won't cross. People dissagree with that, so it's going to have to be down to indervidual belief. But id I made that choice, the PC would fall. Hard.


The original idea behind "ends justify the means" was somewhere along the lines of: "you look at what you have to do and then by that you pick the means that have the best outcome".
It never meant that the end justifies any means to reach that end because some means are better then others.

So a Paladins following this philosophy would be viable, but they'll have to try and convert before they capture and capture before they kill whenever possible.

Neon Knight
2007-10-26, 05:42 PM
How are any of those statements anything but lawful?

How is "Do Good Whenever Possible" chaotic?

Isn't any codified belief lawful so long as it is adhered to?

Chaotic characters are defined by non-consistency. They hold no (pure chaos, never found in mortals) to few (mortals) consistent beliefs. A Chaotic character would grant mercy to a foe on a whim, while a lawful character would either possess a codified system to determine worthiness for mercy or just always or never grant mercy.

EDIT:

If it makes it easier for you, you can think of chaotic good people as being people who have a code that says "don't adhere to a code -- stay flexible and make it up as need determines." I think it's an unnecessarily redundant way of thinking about it, but it does nicely answer the question you're asking about what it would mean to have a code that says you shouldn't adhere to codes.

This person is lawful. They consistently adhere to something. Chaotic characters are sometimes rigidly uncompromising, sometimes extremly flexible.

Riffington
2007-10-26, 05:53 PM
The original idea behind "ends justify the means" was somewhere along the lines of: "you look at what you have to do and then by that you pick the means that have the best consequences". It never means, the end justifies any means to reach that end because some means are better then others.

So a Paladins following this philosophy would be viable, but they'll have to try and convert before they kill whenever possible.

You have to put in a lot of hand-waving to make it Paladin-compatible.
For example: I know that Farmer Jim is fervently anti-tax, and refuses to pay any. Which of the following is the best solution?
1. Send men with longbows to take his taxes. When he fires his bow at them to defend his property, have them fire back. Result: death of farmer, small risk to longbowmen.
2. Skip his taxes. When he tells everyone about his victory, receive fewer and fewer taxes.
3. Send men with long range weapons to kill him from afar. Result: death of farmer, no risk to police.

A Paladin ruler would have to order option 1. It does not have the best consequences, however.

Riffington
2007-10-26, 06:07 PM
How are any of those statements anything but lawful?

How is "Do Good Whenever Possible" chaotic?

Isn't any codified belief lawful so long as it is adhered to?

Chaotic characters are defined by non-consistency. They hold no (pure chaos, never found in mortals) to few (mortals) consistent beliefs. A Chaotic character would grant mercy to a foe on a whim, while a lawful character would either possess a codified system to determine worthiness for mercy or just always or never grant mercy.

Fix your last sentence and it answers your first: A Chaotic (good) character would grant mercy to a foe if he sees a chance to do some good with it. A Lawful character would have some kind of system.

This works even better if we're talking about things other than mercy. Let's say I'm getting off work as a customs official, and (on my way out) see a man who'll clearly be waved through once he gets to the front of the line. Unfortunately the ten guys ahead of him have wagons and will take hours to search. If I'm lawful, I'll continue on home - I'm off duty now and he's number 11 in line. If I'm chaotic good, I'll wave him through - it's a chance to do some good without hurting anyone, even if it violates policy.

As to "chaotic = no consistency" and "codified beliefs = lawful" - well only sometimes. A chaotic person believes that special occasions trump general rules. This can sometimes make them inconsistent, but not always. A code that involves lots of personal impromptu decisions is chaotic rather than lawful. Similarly a code that says "others should do X, but I should do Y" is less likely to be lawful.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-26, 06:20 PM
This person is lawful. They consistently adhere to something. Chaotic characters are sometimes rigidly uncompromising, sometimes extremly flexible.

That's a logical fallacy. Being more or less consistently inconsistent doesn't make you consistent. Nor does adhering to an ideal that ideals are dumb and you should do whatever seems best at the time, no matter the rules, make you someone who adheres to ideals.

It's like saying an anarchist believes strongly in the value of government because anarchy could be called a type (or at least a state) of government.

Neon Knight
2007-10-26, 06:26 PM
As to "chaotic = no consistency" and "codified beliefs = lawful" - well only sometimes. A chaotic person believes that special occasions trump general rules. This can sometimes make them inconsistent, but not always. A code that involves lots of personal impromptu decisions is chaotic rather than lawful. Similarly a code that says "others should do X, but I should do Y" is less likely to be lawful.

Um, no?

There is no way in hell any character can account for every possible occurrence and every possible decision he would have to make. Potentially a being of pure law, such as an inevitable, could do this, but no mortal being has the foresight and processing power to complete this task.

Thus, the extent of the lawful's code is defined both by experience and the time spent to adding onto the code.

As such, Lawful characters make personal impromptu decisions all the time. They just make up their mind once and only alter their decision for a dire reason. Their decision is added tot heir code. They would make the exact same choice if put in the exact same situation. A chaotic wouldn't.

Chaos is not special occasions can trump the rules. that is lawful. Adhere to the rules unless it is absolutely apparent the situation calls for either an alteration of the rules or the establishment of new ones to cover the situation.

Chaos is doing things randomly, with little to no reason or rhyme to your decision.

Secondly, spreading or keeping your code is purely neutral. Whether you keep it to yourself or attempt to spread it around has no effect on your lawfulness or chaoticness.

EDIT:

That's a logical fallacy. Being more or less consistently inconsistent doesn't make you consistent. Nor does adhering to an ideal that ideals are dumb and you should do whatever seems best at the time, no matter the rules, make you someone who adheres to ideals.

It's like saying an anarchist believes strongly in the value of government because anarchy could be called a type (or at least a state) of government.

Firstly, can't "Do whatever is best at the time" a rule?

Secondly, why isn't being consistent about being inconsistent being consistent? Isn't consistency about repeating patterns? If your response or the result or a situation cannot be predetermined and varies from instance to instance, can't it be said to be consistently inconsistent?

It's not a fallacy; it's a paradox.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-26, 06:33 PM
Chaos is doing things randomly, with little to no reason or rhyme to your decision.

You should let WoTC know. They think chaos means "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility," or "on the downside ... recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility."

Don't seize onto "arbitrary actions" and think that's your lifeline here. The very first definition we find for arbitrary at Dictionary.com is "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion." That's perfectly consistent with what we've been saying about chaotic behavior: it's contingent solely on your own discretion in the moment, not on a codified set of rules.

What you're describing ("doing things randomly, with little to no reason or rhyme to your decision") is not an alignment at all. It's what a character does under the influence of the spell Confusion.


It's not a fallacy; it's a paradox.

Only insofar as the statement "never adhering to a code is adhering to a code" is a self-contradictory and (obviously) false statement.

FoeHammer
2007-10-26, 06:40 PM
You have to put in a lot of hand-waving to make it Paladin-compatible.
For example: I know that Farmer Jim is fervently anti-tax, and refuses to pay any. Which of the following is the best solution?
1. Send men with longbows to take his taxes. When he fires his bow at them to defend his property, have them fire back. Result: death of farmer, small risk to longbowmen.
2. Skip his taxes. When he tells everyone about his victory, receive fewer and fewer taxes.
3. Send men with long range weapons to kill him from afar. Result: death of farmer, no risk to police.

A Paladin ruler would have to order option 1. It does not have the best consequences, however.

None of these are LG:

1. LN

2. CG

3. LE

A LG option would be to send men to get his taxes and (if necessary) arrest him for a long time. LG is about following the law with the least harm done to good, law-abiding people.

Neon Knight
2007-10-26, 06:55 PM
You should let WoTC know. They think chaos means "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility," or "on the downside ... recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility."

Don't seize onto "arbitrary actions" and think that's your lifeline here. The very first definition we find for arbitrary at Dictionary.com is "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion." That's perfectly consistent with what we've been saying about chaotic behavior: it's contingent solely on your own discretion in the moment, not on a codified set of rules.

What you're describing ("doing things randomly, with little to no reason or rhyme to your decision") is not an alignment at all. It's what a character does under the influence of the spell Confusion.


And American Heritage Dictionary's first definition is: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

We can do dictionary wars if you want, but I don't think that will accomplish anything.



Only insofar as the statement "never adhering to a code is adhering to a code" is a self-contradictory and (obviously) false statement.

It is self contradictory, but false? If the statement "I will never adhere to a code" can be classified itself as a code, and one adheres to it, then one is adhering to a code about never adhering to a code. This statement is a paradox.

Code might be the wrong word, as it implies a set of beliefs, no a single one. Oath might be a better word.

Adhering to an oath about not adhering to oaths is adhering to an oath, is it not? I love paradoxes.

EDIT: On the other hand, it could just make the oath taker/code adherer a liar.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-26, 07:08 PM
And American Heritage Dictionary's first definition is: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

Okay, and that still is not the same thing as behaving randomly. Acting on whim or impulse is not random, because even your whims and impulses are guided by you -- by your desires, beliefs and experiences -- in some fashion. There are things you simply will not do on impulse, but randomness encompasses all possible actions and assigns equal probability to each.

If I suddenly decide to cross a bridge in order to enjoy the view, that's an impulse. If I suddenly throw myself off of the bridge for no apparent reason, despite never having been the least suicidal, that's random.

Huge difference.


It is self contradictory, but false?

Yes. And obviously.

Neon Knight
2007-10-26, 07:28 PM
Okay, and that still is not the same thing as behaving randomly. Acting on whim or impulse is not random, because even your whims and impulses are guided by you -- by your desires, beliefs and experiences -- in some fashion. There are things you simply will not do on impulse, but randomness encompasses all possible actions and assigns equal probability to each.

If I suddenly decide to cross a bridge in order to enjoy the view, that's an impulse. If I suddenly throw myself off of the bridge for no apparent reason, despite never having had suicidal impulses, that's random.

Huge difference.


I see you left out chance. Since you like dictionaries:


On Chance:

Dictionary.com:

1. the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency

On Whim:

Dictionary.com:

1. an odd or capricious notion or desire; a sudden or freakish fancy:

American Heritage Dictionary:

1. A sudden or capricious idea; a fancy.
2. Arbitrary thought or impulse: governed by whim.

On Impulse:

Dictionary.com:

1. the influence of a particular feeling, mental state, etc.: to act under a generous impulse; to strike out at someone from an angry impulse.
2. sudden, involuntary inclination prompting to action: to be swayed by impulse.

American Heritage Dictionary:

2. A sudden wish or urge that prompts an unpremeditated act or feeling; an abrupt inclination: had an impulse to run away; an impulse of regret that made me hesitate; bought a hat on impulse.
3. A motivating force or tendency: "Respect for the liberty of others is not a natural impulse in most men" (Bertrand Russell).

We already have arbitrary.

Impulse is merely acting on feelings or notions, which can be argued to have some consistency to them: Someone who loves puppies will most probably feel the impulse to save one from harm.

I think one who made an oath to "Always follow my gut instinct, my impulse," and adhered to it would be lawful, but a person who just did it without formally codifying it could be neutral or chaotic.

So, you are correct: Being chaotic isn't a complete lack of reason or consistency, but it is about being more inconsistent than you are consistent.

The other two back me up on this.

However, the thing I was getting at was "acting without (not by) necessity, principle, or reason."

An oath or code can be defined as a principle or a reason. "Do good whenever possible." can be classified as a code. Therefore, acting to "Do good whenever possible," can be classified as acting on principle or reason, and thus non-arbitrary, and thus non-chaotic.


Yes. And obviously.

Explain why. I've explained my logic to you; where is the flaw? All you've said is that it is stupid. I never claimed paradoxes were non-stupid.

Being consistent in your inconsistency shows consistency, and thus is a paradox, as inconsistency is a lack of consistency, yet consistency can be displayed. Either you have a paradox or you really aren't inconsistent. Which means that some chaotic characters aren't really chaotic, because consistently acting without consistency still shows consistency.

mostlyharmful
2007-10-26, 07:37 PM
we're now getting firmly embedded into the Chaos/Law debate that other threads are geared up for, the OP was essentially asking about a Good/Evil conundrum and then backed that up by saying they're running a paladin of freedom.

For the record, if Chaos truely means unpreditable for any given value of predictable then it equates to insanity and all the rigmoral over what is and isn't chaotic/lawful can be argued either way on any definition short of this arbitrarily high value of chaotic. the long and the short of it is that Chaos and Law are completely meaningless subsets of particular behaviour patterns analysed in a specific manner. They ought to be dropped like the sack of male bovine excrement that they are.

The_Snark
2007-10-26, 07:39 PM
It is self contradictory, but false? If the statement "I will never adhere to a code" can be classified itself as a code, and one adheres to it, then one is adhering to a code about never adhering to a code. This statement is a paradox.

Code might be the wrong word, as it implies a set of beliefs, no a single one. Oath might be a better word.

Adhering to an oath about not adhering to oaths is adhering to an oath, is it not? I love paradoxes.

EDIT: On the other hand, it could just make the oath taker/code adherer a liar.

A vow that you will never adhere to a code is a paradox (and/or lie), yes. However, chaotic characters don't take strict oaths to not follow a specific code, precisely because that's a paradox.

They follow codes when they feel like it, or when they think it's right, depending on their moral alignment. If not, they don't bother. Chaos is being unrestrained by strict codes. Attempting to flout every single aspect of a strict code is letting it restrain you in reverse.

Mewtarthio
2007-10-26, 08:18 PM
]the long and the short of it is that Chaos and Law are completely meaningless subsets of particular behaviour patterns analysed in a specific manner. They ought to be dropped like the sack of male bovine excrement that they are.

I think it's simpler than that. Just rename "Law" to be "Order." Now we have "Order vs Chaos," which implies the conflict between those who believe people must be governed firmly lest the world descend into anarchy and those who believe controlling others stifles change and freedom; a conflict that I would argue is even more important than Good vs Evil. None of this nonsense about mindless, preprogrammed automatons and mindless, coin-flipping madmen. Now we have a system in which Lawful/Orderly people are similar to each other and likely to get along well, while people on the opposite ends of the ethical spectrum are likely to dislike and oppose each other, making the once-worthless Law/Chaos axis actually mean something on par with Good/Evil.

Note that I'm not arguing this is what Wizards intended, because quite frankly the definitions of Law and Chaos they give us are uselessly vague. I'm merely arguing that these definitions make the Law/Chaos conflict meaningful.

Now that we've got that definition out of the way, let's move on to your Paladin of Freedom. These guys are tricky, because they don't necessarily hold to the local laws. For a regular LG Paladin, it's simple enough: He'd attempt to arrest the individual and take him to the proper authorities (unless you use that other definition of "Law," in which case he can just slit his throat in a dark alley and eat the corpse to prevent resurrection if that's part of his "personal code").

A Paladin of Freedom, on the other hand, won't follow the proper procedure. He'll actively avoid the authorities if he believes they won't mete out a proper punishment, and even if he does think justice will be dispensed in this particular case, he'll consider the system broken overall (or maybe he'll flip a coin to see if he does detect-and-smite or buys the guy flowers and takes him to Disneyland to convert by example). This gives him a little more, well, freedom. He could perform vigilante justice if he thinks the authorities will let the bad guy off, or he could resort to diplomacy if he thinks the authorities will be unnecessarily harsh (for this reason, incidentally, I think you should nix the part about "associations with Evil" for Paladins of Freedom: If they think that life under a certain regime promotes Evil, they could very well help smuggle Evil people out and lead them to better places in hopes that they'll better themselves). The only question, then, is about the morality, not the ethics, of detect-and-smite.

The trouble is that it's quite possible to make an argument for D&S being a non-Evil, or even a Good, action. Sure, you've done a lot of harm to the person you've slain, but you've also alleviated everyone who would have dealt with him of his Evil. You don't know if he's done anything particular bad, but you know he's got the potential. On the other hand, you're killing people who could very well be mostly innocent. It would be tantamount to taking a gun to an elementary school, taking note of anyone extorting lunch money, and then putting a bullet in the head of every playground bully when their parents come to pick them up. Yes, the other children won't get picked on anymore, but they've just witness an atrocity. They're living in fear now, afraid of you. If you were a member of an organization dedicating to ending playground bullying, the children, their parents, the faculty of the school, and everyone who sees a news article on your actions will want that organization taken down. A Paladin of Freedom with a penchant for D&S gives all other Paladins of Freedom a bad name. Not only that, he also gives the cause of Good itself a reputation for killing anyone that doesn't adhere to its tenants. Thus, I'd make that Paladin fall like a sack of lead.

Besides, do you really want to encourage D&S?

Neon Knight
2007-10-26, 08:33 PM
I think it's simpler than that. Just rename "Law" to be "Order." Now we have "Order vs Chaos," which implies the conflict between those who believe people must be governed firmly lest the world descend into anarchy and those who believe controlling others stifles change and freedom; a conflict that I would argue is even more important than Good vs Evil. None of this nonsense about mindless, preprogrammed automatons and mindless, coin-flipping madmen. Now we have a system in which Lawful/Orderly people are similar to each other and likely to get along well, while people on the opposite ends of the ethical spectrum are likely to dislike and oppose each other, making the once-worthless Law/Chaos axis actually mean something on par with Good/Evil.

Besides, do you really want to encourage D&S?

Ugh. I don't like to turn Chaos into anarchism/libertarianism and Law/order into fascism/authoritarianism/communitarianism. Many games don't involve politics. Many characters don't concern themselves one iota with politics.

As for encouraging D&S... I don't want to encourage it, but I don't want to discourage it either. It is a cornerstone of beer and pretzel gaming, and if people want to beer and pretzel game, they should be able too.

Riffington
2007-10-27, 05:51 AM
I think one who made an oath to "Always follow my gut instinct, my impulse," and adhered to it would be lawful, but a person who just did it without formally codifying it could be neutral or chaotic.



Then your definition is bizarre. A lawful person can take an oath to be nonlawful, and then behave nonlawfully according to those words, thus remaining lawful?

And - importantly - the OP's Paladin has a Code. He is CG. Now, the G part is what's being questioned in this debate. It is reasonable (and correct) to suggest that this code is a non-good code. But it is unreasonable to suggest he can't have a code compatible with being chaotic.

A judge who adjudicates each case according to the law and the facts is lawful. A judge who adjudicates each case according to what makes most sense for the people involved is chaotic. A lawful judge would never take an oath to adjudicate each case according to "what makes sense for the people involved", and if she got drunk and took such an oath, she'd get herself absolved of it. If she kept with it, she'd become chaotic. Because this is a chaotic code - and a very powerful one.

Having a code tends to be lawful. Particular codes may be lawful, chaotic, or neither. How much one code affects your lawfulness/chaoticness depends on how big a deal it is. A vow to never drink alcohol is basically lawful, but a chaotic character could certainly make/keep such a vow and still be chaotic. A vow to always follow correct procedure... too powerful to stay chaotic.

Neon Knight
2007-10-27, 07:03 AM
Then your definition is bizarre. A lawful person can take an oath to be nonlawful, and then behave nonlawfully according to those words, thus remaining lawful?

And - importantly - the OP's Paladin has a Code. He is CG. Now, the G part is what's being questioned in this debate. It is reasonable (and correct) to suggest that this code is a non-good code. But it is unreasonable to suggest he can't have a code compatible with being chaotic.

A judge who adjudicates each case according to the law and the facts is lawful. A judge who adjudicates each case according to what makes most sense for the people involved is chaotic. A lawful judge would never take an oath to adjudicate each case according to "what makes sense for the people involved", and if she got drunk and took such an oath, she'd get herself absolved of it. If she kept with it, she'd become chaotic. Because this is a chaotic code - and a very powerful one.

Having a code tends to be lawful. Particular codes may be lawful, chaotic, or neither. How much one code affects your lawfulness/chaoticness depends on how big a deal it is. A vow to never drink alcohol is basically lawful, but a chaotic character could certainly make/keep such a vow and still be chaotic. A vow to always follow correct procedure... too powerful to stay chaotic.

How on earth can a code be chaotic? Chaotic people don't have codes. They don't organize their thoughts and beliefs in this manner. They just go with their gut feelings, their impulses. We've already explained that adhering to a code or rule, even if that code or rule says "Don't follow codes or rules" is still a rule and a code. A chaotic person doesn't say to themselves, "I swear never to follow a code, and use only my own judgment!" They just do it without formally codifying, perhaps without ever thinking and consciously deciding that.

Lawful people are not mindless automatons that must follow the rules all the times. It is not unreasonable for the lawful person to have a rule in his code that says , "Sometimes the rules will be wrong. Sometimes the rules won't be able to tell you what to do in those situations. Whenever possible, apply the rules. Create new ones to cover new situations. But using your own judgment is not a sin." Lawful people can deviate from procedure if the need is dire.

They can have rules that say: "The situations you will find yourself in are so variable and subjective that it will be impossible to truly cover them in any set of rules. At times, one must use their own judgment. This, in fact, may be quite frequent. Always try to stay true to the spirit of the code, if not the letter."

The problem you have is that you seem to think certain actions are always lawful, and others are always nonlawful. This isn't true. Good and Evil work on objective morality in DnD, but law and chaos are subjective. Otherwise a paladin would be forced to uphold the legitimate authority of a cruel and unjust ruler.

Riffington
2007-10-27, 07:27 AM
How on earth can a code be chaotic? Chaotic people don't have codes.

Because there are shades of grey. 30% of people are chaotic. Many of them have codes, and those codes are not necessarily chaotic. Plenty of chaotic people take oaths to never drink; this is a lawful act. Plenty of lawful people cheat on their husbands (contrary to their oaths); this is a chaotic act. Nevertheless, a few acts here and there don't make you lawful/chaotic. (Paladins are special cases)

Now: law is about your relation with your community and rules. A lawful person basically believes in procedures, and in staying within your role in the community. A chaotic person basically believes in doing what is right/pleasurable/etc, and if the community or procedure says otherwise then do what's right anyway.

So if you go about taking oaths that flout the law or appropriate procedures or community roles, you're going to be more likely to be acting chaotically (depending). An oath that contradicts your duties/community role is not a lawful thing. For example, a judge doing what's right regardless of the law. Or a soldier granting mercy contrary to his CO's orders. Or a couple allowing "a little on the side" in a society that forbids this. These are basically chaotic oaths, and tip you towards chaotic. The judge example is much more strongly chaotic than the other two, of course.



Lawful people are not mindless automatons that must follow the rules all the times.

Clearly. Nor are chaotic people mindless whirlwinds that cannot appreciate or follow rules.




The problem you have is that you seem to think certain actions are always lawful, and others are always nonlawful. This isn't true. Good and Evil work on objective morality in DnD, but law and chaos are subjective. Otherwise a paladin would be forced to uphold the legitimate authority of a cruel and unjust ruler.

You misunderstand: certain tendencies are always lawful and others are always nonlawful. (Others are neither). "Upholding the law as written" is a lawful tendency. A lawful person may sometimes rebel, but that doesn't change the fact that one of their basic impulses is to uphold the authority of a ruler. If the law is sufficiently unjust/cruel, their other tendencies may outweigh that one. But if it's just a tiny bit unjust/cruel (a 1sp/year halfling tax that goes to support the police), then a Paladin will uphold it while lobbying for change.

Neon Knight
2007-10-27, 08:25 AM
Because there are shades of grey. 30% of people are chaotic. Many of them have codes, and those codes are not necessarily chaotic. Plenty of chaotic people take oaths to never drink; this is a lawful act. Plenty of lawful people cheat on their husbands (contrary to their oaths); this is a chaotic act. Nevertheless, a few acts here and there don't make you lawful/chaotic. (Paladins are special cases)

Firstly,

30% of people are not chaotic. I can't even imagine how you could conceive of this. The exact number or percentage of people who are any alignment is highly variable from DM to DM. Some people have alignments so difficult to earn that only 5% of the population is any given alignment.



Now: law is about your relation with your community and rules. A lawful person basically believes in procedures, and in staying within your role in the community. A chaotic person basically believes in doing what is right/pleasurable/etc, and if the community or procedure says otherwise then do what's right anyway.

No, no, no! Lawful has nothing to do with community! You cannot define lawful as adhering to a community, because communities aren't wholly consistent entities! Communities are formed of multiple individuals working off of multiple different codes and working towards different ends. Communities and governments are formed from different agencies and interest groups with profoundly different goals.




So if you go about taking oaths that flout the law or appropriate procedures or community roles, you're going to be more likely to be acting chaotically (depending). An oath that contradicts your duties/community role is not a lawful thing. For example, a judge doing what's right regardless of the law. Or a soldier granting mercy contrary to his CO's orders. Or a couple allowing "a little on the side" in a society that forbids this. These are basically chaotic oaths, and tip you towards chaotic. The judge example is much more strongly chaotic than the other two, of course.

I can make the first two lawful.

1. The Judge: A judge's purpose is not only to determine the guilt of an individual; the judicial branch's other purpose is to determine the justness of the laws. Was the Supreme Court chaotic when it overturned the Texas statue limiting and/or banning abortion? If he has the appropriate power, a judge can decide for the good of the community and overturn an unjust law.

2. The Soldier: Most soldiers take oath to obey the orders of their commanding officers. However, many armed services do not accept "I was just following orders," as a valid response. Some armed forces incorporate oath that if an order violates the principles of the army in question, the soldiers are duty bound to disobey that order. Thus, if this soldier's oath included such a statue, he would be honor bound to not execute the man without proper procedure.

But this is beside the point. Lawful people are not born slaves to whatever community they are born into.

You know the difference between a man and a slave? A man chooses; a slave obeys. A lawful chooses his code, his oath, his creed. He selects what he will adhere to and he adhere to it. Law and Chaos cannot exist only in the context of a community. The "community" is not a constant element. The "community" is not a sentient entity with a consistent goal. Law and Chaos must be like Good and Evil, able to exist with just one person.



You misunderstand: certain tendencies are always lawful and others are always nonlawful. (Others are neither). "Upholding the law as written" is a lawful tendency. A lawful person may sometimes rebel, but that doesn't change the fact that one of their basic impulses is to uphold the authority of a ruler. If the law is sufficiently unjust/cruel, their other tendencies may outweigh that one. But if it's just a tiny bit unjust/cruel (a 1sp/year halfling tax that goes to support the police), then a Paladin will uphold it while lobbying for change.

A lawful person can be just as beholden to upholding the spirit of the law as the letter. Lawful people are not beholden to rulers; they are beholden to rules, and they select those rules and stick with them. If that makes them the enemy of every ruler on the planet, then so be it.

Interestingly enough, the paladin code warns against chaotic ends, not means. Thus it appear even in your narrow definition, a paladin can overthrow authority so long as his ultimate end is a lawful one.

Certain tendencies are never lawful or chaotic. Adherence, not the tendencies themselves, determine lawful or chaotic.

Riffington
2007-10-27, 09:07 AM
No, no, no! Lawful has nothing to do with community! You cannot define lawful as adhering to a community,

Way to try to make my arguments into strawmen.
Valuing relationship with != adhering to. Clearly communities are not unified entities. Nevertheless each person fits into it in some way. This has to do with relationships, respect for tradition, laws, customs, etc. A lawful person places a much higher value on that fit than a chaotic person, who is more individualistic.

Outside a Supreme Court [I am going to avoid the "current politics" bait], a judge's role is to uphold the law as written/interpreted by higher courts. A lawful judge will fill that role (his place in society) more tightly, while a chaotic one will fill it more loosely. He'll see his personal values (he may want good outcomes, bribes, etc) as higher than his role as judge.

A good soldier cannot obey an abhorrent order, but "capture all surrendering enemy" is not an abhorrent order if captured soldiers are not tortured. If you instead allow him to return home to his family, you've committed a chaotic good act. If a paladin is a soldier in an army, he must follow orders unless they are abhorrent.

And yes, different campaigns are different in terms of alignment distributions. If you have 98% neutral, 1% lawful, 1% chaotic, then lawful or chaotic are straitjackets. If you have 10% neutral, 45% lawful, 45% chaotic, then slightly lawful people and slightly chaotic people can be pretty hard to tell apart. I prefer 40% neutral, 30% lawful, 30% chaotic - its a pretty good balance.

Neon Knight
2007-10-27, 09:26 AM
Way to try to make my arguments into strawmen.
Valuing relationship with != adhering to. Clearly communities are not unified entities. Nevertheless each person fits into it in some way. This has to do with relationships, respect for tradition, laws, customs, etc. A lawful person places a much higher value on that fit than a chaotic person, who is more individualistic.

Outside a Supreme Court [I am going to avoid the "current politics" bait], a judge's role is to uphold the law as written/interpreted by higher courts. A lawful judge will fill that role (his place in society) more tightly, while a chaotic one will fill it more loosely. He'll see his personal values (he may want good outcomes, bribes, etc) as higher than his role as judge.

A good soldier cannot obey an abhorrent order, but "capture all surrendering enemy" is not an abhorrent order if captured soldiers are not tortured. If you instead allow him to return home to his family, you've committed a chaotic good act. If a paladin is a soldier in an army, he must follow orders unless they are abhorrent.

And yes, different campaigns are different in terms of alignment distributions. If you have 98% neutral, 1% lawful, 1% chaotic, then lawful or chaotic are straitjackets. If you have 10% neutral, 45% lawful, 45% chaotic, then slightly lawful people and slightly chaotic people can be pretty hard to tell apart. I prefer 40% neutral, 30% lawful, 30% chaotic - its a pretty good balance.

All of your earlier arguments indicated adherence and conformity, not just respect. Also, usually valuing relationship with means you adhere to conform to its wishes.

Furthermore, lawful does not even indicate respect for traditions, laws, or customs. All laws, traditions, and customs were at one point invented. When does an act become a custom or tradition? Cannot a lawful person seek to forge new customs and new traditions? All law and society has a starting point. Cannot a lawful person seek to be that staring point, seek to be change?

Thirdly, individuality has nothing to do with either law or chaos.

Riffington
2007-10-27, 09:40 AM
Kasrkin, re-read the PHB. And then, regarding "new traditions", read Miss Manners. She has a superb explanation as to why this is an oxymoron. I can summarize if you like, but it's rather off-topic.

To avoid getting too badly derailed: just accept that the OP has a Paladin of Freedom, who has a Code and follows it. That this part is fully consistent with being chaotic. And that the real issues are:
1, whether he'd Fall because his code might be evil
and
2, how to fit both him and the other players into a game.

I would argue that the problem could be resolved in game, but that it would be easier and nicer to fix it up front. And that the best way to do that is to tell the Paladin player that his method of conflict resolution won't work very well in the game that the OP has in mind.

Neon Knight
2007-10-27, 10:40 AM
Kasrkin, re-read the PHB. And then, regarding "new traditions", read Miss Manners. She has a superb explanation as to why this is an oxymoron. I can summarize if you like, but it's rather off-topic.


I'm not really arguing according to the PHB. The PHB's definition is widely regarded as being... poor. Not universally,but I'm willing to bet most people don't define law and chaos entirely per RAW.

As to this Miss Manners business... she's an advice columnist. Widely printed, but hardly the ultimate authority. Please summarize what she has to say on "new traditions."

Citizen Joe
2007-10-27, 10:52 AM
This sort of set up makes me want to play a fighter that has a holy symbol. Then just squint at people and use their 'evilness' as a justification for attacking. And shout "Smite Evil" when you power attack.

Then, when someone in the party says something about you 'falling' start to squint at them menacingly.:smallamused:

MCerberus
2007-10-27, 12:25 PM
My take on the whole Law vs Chaos thing is how people enjoy living their lives.

Lawful people like structure. They are more likely to have routines. When someone states precedent for why they should do something wrong or they don't want to, they are more likely going to do it than non-lawfuls. Lawful characters also place more value in a hierarchy. This does not mean they run around going "bzzt obey the laws" like robots.

Chaotic people simply go with their gut. In college these were the people that skipped classes that weren't important to go toss a frisbee in the quad. They can sometimes feel that tried-and-true ideas aren't applicable because they have a better one. Like the PhB says, they are more likely to walk over the bridge than swim around it.

Sooooooooooooo

LG - Laws are there to protect people and you should not only obey the crazy ones that slipped by.
LN - Order is the foundation of society. There are good laws and bad laws but no laws means horrible things.
LE - Laws and castes are fun to oppress people!
NG - Some laws are bad, but if people had total liberty there would be murders and thefts everywhere. The best way to make life better is to just be a good person, supporting good laws and the ability for people to make good choices
TN - I like laws, but I also like some chaos.
NE - Laws protect people from jerks like me, but you can't just go around forcing people to give you money/power can you? Sometimes you have to be underhanded but you can still hide behind the system if you need to.
CG - Power corrupts... etc. Governments don't know what people really need, the people do. If you allow and help people to be good then you don't need edicts to bring others down.
CN - I value the ability to do what I think I should very highly. Some people see me as reckless but it's just their perception. While I try not to stomp on other people's freedom I'm not going to go far out of my way to protect them.
CE - If I have more money, I'll bully the peasants into getting me more money. If I'm stronger, I'll muscle my way to more power. Survival of the fittest jerks.

I also have a view that the alignments are circular (so that LG is less L than LN) and that paladins are closer to NG than LN.

Mewtarthio
2007-10-27, 12:38 PM
LG - Laws are there to protect people and you should only obey the crazy ones that slipped by.
LN - Order is the foundation of society. There are good laws and bad laws but no laws means horrible things.
LE - Laws and castes are fun to oppress people!
NG - Some laws are bad, but if people had total liberty there would be murders and thefts everywhere. The best way to make life better is to just be a good person, supporting good laws and the ability for people to make good choices
TN - I like laws, but I also like some chaos.
NE - Laws protect people from jerks like me, but you can't just go around forcing people to give you money/power can you? Sometimes you have to be underhanded but you can still hide behind the system if you need to.
CG - Power corrupts... etc. Governments don't know what people really need, the people do. If you allow and help people to be good then you don't need edicts to bring others down.
CN - I value the ability to do what I think I should very highly. Some people see me as reckless but it's just their perception. While I try not to stomp on other people's freedom I'm not going to go far out of my way to protect them.
CE - If I have more money, I'll bully the peasants into getting me more money. If I'm stronger, I'll muscle my way to more power. Survival of the fittest jerks.

I like this definition.

Riffington
2007-10-27, 01:43 PM
This sort of set up makes me want to play a fighter that has a holy symbol. Then just squint at people and use their 'evilness' as a justification for attacking. And shout "Smite Evil" when you power attack.

Then, when someone in the party says something about you 'falling' start to squint at them menacingly.:smallamused:

That is win.

Riffington
2007-10-27, 02:00 PM
Miss Manners is more than a columnist, she is a brilliant thinker who understands traditions and human nature in a way that few ever can.

At any rate, her claim is this: People who say they are inventing a new tradition are doing nothing of the sort. They are in fact "doing whatever they please" while hoping in vain that others will copy their example. Instead, they find that others do copy one part of their example: the part where they break with tradition. People who invent a new procedure go through all the work and confusion of having no tradition, and then are inexplicably surprised when their future generations invent a new one.

Real traditions arise organically: people who respect and follow existing traditions may find that there is some small change they must make because of new circumstances. Usually the change is reversed as circumstances change, but occasionally it passes on. The notion that one can predict which changes will actually become part of tradition is hubris.
Sometimes a leader's idiosyncratic behavior becomes a tradition via his followers. Unless you are George Washington or Miss Manners, do not presume that you are such a leader.

Neon Knight
2007-10-27, 03:40 PM
Miss Manners is more than a columnist, she is a brilliant thinker who understands traditions and human nature in a way that few ever can.

At any rate, her claim is this: People who say they are inventing a new tradition are doing nothing of the sort. They are in fact "doing whatever they please" while hoping in vain that others will copy their example. Instead, they find that others do copy one part of their example: the part where they break with tradition. People who invent a new procedure go through all the work and confusion of having no tradition, and then are inexplicably surprised when their future generations invent a new one.

Real traditions arise organically: people who respect and follow existing traditions may find that there is some small change they must make because of new circumstances. Usually the change is reversed as circumstances change, but occasionally it passes on. The notion that one can predict which changes will actually become part of tradition is hubris.
Sometimes a leader's idiosyncratic behavior becomes a tradition via his followers. Unless you are George Washington or Miss Manners, do not presume that you are such a leader.

People have deliberately created traditions or following thousands of times throughout history. Jesus. Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Marx. David Koresh. L. Ron Hubbard. Muhammad. Charlemagne.

Each of these men forged a new path, a new way, a new ideology, a new creed, a new kind of order. They did so deliberately, purposefully, and successfully.

Traditions need not be formed organically, they merely require a great moving force, a great motivator that causes people to adapt them. Each of these men had charisma, unique ideas, and the will to stand up and say, "Follow me."

And lo and behold, people did follow.

Miss Manners may be wise and intelligent, but she does not understand human nature. No one does. Thousands of scholars and academics have devoted their lives to understanding human nature. Plato. Aristotle. Freud. Marx (again). Machiavelli.

Human nature not only varies from culture to culture, it varies from individual to individual. It is inherently variable and unknowable.

Crow
2007-10-27, 03:56 PM
One of the best things for a DM to do with regard to Paladins is determine how the law would deal with those dudes that show up evil on the scan.

Paladins aren't just required to be good. Lawful good.

Would it be lawful where the Paladin comes from to kill on sight, or do people get a trial? If the Paladin's church says it is ok to smite on sight, then so be it. If it isn't and you have to give them a trial, aquire sufficient proof to try them. You may still get to kill them if they resist arrest!

DM's, determine what the laws of the land are in your campaign worlds. When the Paladin is in civilized lands, he obeys and enforces the law. When he is in the wilds, he enforces the law of his land, like the lawbringers in Judge Dredd (poor example, yes).

Seriously, it isn't worth trying to decipher human nature and morality. The law is what it is. Fellow law enforcement officers say it all the time, "My job is to enforce the letter of the law. Interpriting the spirit of the law is somebody else's job."

Jothki
2007-10-27, 04:06 PM
Wouldn't refusing to use spare Detect Evils on allies constitute a possible breach of code? Willful ignorance doesn't seem like a very good defense against the association clause.

Riffington
2007-10-27, 04:21 PM
People have deliberately created traditions or following thousands of times throughout history. Jesus. Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Marx. David Koresh. L. Ron Hubbard. Muhammad. Charlemagne.

And of those, how many actually got people to follow their traditions?

Muhammad did. Charlemagne to a lesser extent.

The traditions that invoke Jesus' name have little in common with his practices. Similarly, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Marx influenced our politics greatly. Yet none founded actual traditions - look how large a break their followers took from the "traditions" those guys tried to create.

Koresh and Hubbard didn't even come close.

So yeah: with great leaders we've got 2 for 9. If you think your innovations will become traditions you are deluding yourself.

Neon Knight
2007-10-27, 04:32 PM
I can name more. Napoleon. Oliver Cromwell. Gautama Buddha. Gandhi. Theodore Roosevelt.

However, that is not the point. A tradition can be forged through force of will. Given the fact that after you die, it is entirely up to the world whether the tradition lives on or not, I'd say that creating a new way is highly unlikely. A one in a million.

That doesn't matter an iota. If you believe your way is right, then you will follow and advance it, regardless of your chances of success. Idealism has never been accused of being pragmatic. Come to think of it, neither has the lawful alignment.

mostlyharmful
2007-10-27, 04:41 PM
And of those, how many actually got people to follow their traditions?

Muhammad did. Charlemagne to a lesser extent.

The traditions that invoke Jesus' name have little in common with his practices. Similarly, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Marx influenced our politics greatly. Yet none founded actual traditions - look how large a break their followers took from the "traditions" those guys tried to create.

Koresh and Hubbard didn't even come close.

So yeah: with great leaders we've got 2 for 9. If you think your innovations will become traditions you are deluding yourself.

No. Just No. some of the sects, philospphies, schools of thought of some of these strays away from what they meant. Undeniably. However they all 1.) Inspired the schools of of thought that dominate various parts of our small planet, 2.) radically influence the thought process of the next generation of leaders and scientists. certainly Jesus, Hitler and Stalin all have Idealogues who believe in them.

However None of this matters in game, as the real question over what it takes to create a new school of thought in YOUR campaign world is something enourmously more important than being right, they have to have you agree with them. In a DnD universe all manner of things can start a meme rolling, and religion (since it is based on the number and ardency of the believers rather than the abstract truth of the belief) is just one of them.

Citizen Joe
2007-10-27, 05:14 PM
This is simple... grab a pen and paper... write the following

My Code:
Detect and Smite is a good thing.
-God

Show that to the DM during character creation. If anyone questions you falling just hold up the paper and say "I have a note from my diety."

Riffington
2007-10-27, 06:19 PM
A philosophy is different from a tradition. Philosophies and laws can certainly be invented. Traditions are harder.

Neon Knight
2007-10-27, 06:29 PM
From Dictionary.com:

Tradition

1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice: a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.
2. something that is handed down: the traditions of the Eskimos.
3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting: The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition.

Note the inclusion of beliefs, statements, information, and ways of thinking.

Riffington
2007-10-27, 09:01 PM
Kasrkin, I don't want to play stupid word games with you.
I told you why you can't create a "new tradition" where by tradition I mean a custom that has been passed down through the ages. I never said that a person can't create new ideas and laws. This is why fields such as science, philosophy, and politics exist.

Now I guess you'll find me a dictionary definition of custom that means a tax, and show me that you can create new taxes?

Neon Knight
2007-10-27, 09:43 PM
The word tradition has a lot of connotations to it. One can say that the Shinto religion is part of the Japanese tradition, as Taoism is part of the Chinese tradition. In these debates one desires as precise terminology as possible so that no misunderstandings about meaning occur.

As to customs... I'm not sure it's all that difficult. Muslim have the custom of greeting one another by saying the words "Assalaam Alaikum." Why do they do this? Because this is how the prophet instructed them to greet their brethren.

I'm not saying it's easy, I'm just saying it's possible.

the_tick_rules
2007-10-28, 12:40 AM
an evil act for a paladin to smite evil, not really, a total douche bag manuver for the player yes.

Riffington
2007-10-28, 06:18 AM
Yes, Muhammed succeeded in creating traditions.
The point I'm making is that if you are not Muhammed or the like, and you think you are crafting a tradition, chances are that you are fooling yourself.
That is, if you tell people that it will be less confusing if we just call someone whose gender we don't know "e" instead of he, he/she, or they... actually you'll just confuse people more... and won't start a new institution. Or if you design a "better" format for wedding invitations... same thing. If you are an Emperor, you might have a 25% chance of succeeding. If you're a mere mortal, don't bother.

Incidentally, crafting a tradition, a law, or a philosophical ideal may or may not be a lawful act, depending what you're trying to achieve. If the King says "I am weary of fish, let us have a bean feast"... he may be acting chaotically, while those who obey him may be acting lawfully.

Neon Knight
2007-10-28, 06:38 AM
As I said earlier, I never claimed creating a new tradition was likely, rational, plausible, or achievable for the everyday man. It takes great charisma to pull that kind of stuff off.

I agree with your second point. The act of creating something on impulse without any principle or reason is pretty darn chaotic.

It makes me wonder, though... do one's personal tastes and feelings count as reasons or as impulses?

Riffington
2007-10-28, 06:49 AM
It makes me wonder, though... do one's personal tastes and feelings count as reasons or as impulses?

They inspire both.