alignment absurdities

[vasilidor]

Some people think that if you are lawful, you must obey the laws that you are in. If you are good that you should never be evil.
With this in mind, I, as an evil ruler, make a law that at the end of each day a person must commit a minor act of evil. like torturing a small animal or some such. they must also do so immediately upon entering the country, no matter the means of entry.
And in doing so I have now made it impossible for those pesky paladins to travel my kingdom and remain paladins.

[Ashiel]

Some people think that if you are lawful, you must obey the laws that you are in. If you are good that you should never be evil.
With this in mind, I, as an evil ruler, make a law that at the end of each day a person must commit a minor act of evil. like torturing a small animal or some such. they must also do so immediately upon entering the country, no matter the means of entry.
And in doing so I have now made it impossible for those pesky paladins to travel my kingdom and remain paladins.

I believe the term is "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes". :smalltongue:

[Venger]

The commonly invoked "lawful stupid."

[Conradine]

Great way to screw up with paladins :)

[hamishspence]

Paladins are Good first, Lawful second. They fall for "any Evil act." They do not automatically fall for any Chaotic act.

[Zombimode]

Also, the notion that "being lawful (the alignemt)" means "has to follow laws of state" is a semantic fallacy.

Lawful is concerned about order and structure, and the value and usefulness of that. Laws on the other hand can be about anything as long as they are formulated as an imperative and brought into a context where they have the power to influence behaviour.

For instance: "You shall not kill!" uttered be a beggar on the street is an imperative, but it is no law since the beggars opinion has not the power to influence the behaviour of others.
"You shall not kill" as a religious credo on the other hand is a law since being a follower of a religion entails acceptence of its credos.

Many of the (social) institutions that provide imperative sentences their power are lawful things. But laws themselves can be about anything including unlawful things. And I don't mean that in some abstract antinomical sense (the law: "Don't follow laws!"). Laws that result in the weakening of the societies structure would be very unlawful to follow.

[Seto]

Some people think that if you are lawful, you must obey the laws that you are in.
Those people are wrong.

If you are good that you should never be evil. Never commit an Evil act, you mean? Right in the case of Paladins, only half-right in the case of other characters.

With this in mind, I, as an evil ruler, make a law that at the end of each day a person must commit a minor act of evil. like torturing a small animal or some such. they must also do so immediately upon entering the country, no matter the means of entry.
And in doing so I have now made it impossible for those pesky paladins to travel my kingdom and remain paladins.

You're mixing up players around the table and characters in-universe. "I, as an evil ruler" is a character in the game. They probably have a very vague concept of what alignment is and how Paladins work. They certainly won't have any such metagame-aware idea as "some people think that if you are lawful, you must obey the laws you are in". If they think that applies to Paladins, they're in for a surprise when Paladins come, ignore their law and Smites their face.
If on the other hand, you say "as a player/GM, I think alignment works like that, and I'm gonna have my evil ruler character/NPC institute such a law, and I expect it to actually cause Paladins to fall because that's the rules"... Well, if everyone involved (I mean the GM and players, not PCs and NPCs) subscribes to the premises you posted, sure, it'll work. But in all other cases, it's not that easy. Remember, "some people think that..." does not translate to "the game works that way".

[KillianHawkeye]

Paladins, in fact, are supposed to oppose obviously evil and/or unjust laws.

[Feldar]

Some people think that if you are lawful, you must obey the laws that you are in. If you are good that you should never be evil.
With this in mind, I, as an evil ruler, make a law that at the end of each day a person must commit a minor act of evil. like torturing a small animal or some such. they must also do so immediately upon entering the country, no matter the means of entry.
And in doing so I have now made it impossible for those pesky paladins to travel my kingdom and remain paladins.

This isn't the way it works. Paladins are not bound to follow unjust laws or laws that require them to commit evil acts. Your evil dictator has not achieved his objective; he is causing outrage among good-aligned churches in neighboring realms who will openly oppose his rule, preach the subversion of his rule to their followers, and give aid and succor to his enemies.

[Gruftzwerg]

The question that the paladin should be asking here is: Is that authority legit?


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.

If it is the righteous rules of that nation he would just avoid that country unless the higher ups decide a crusade maybe.

But if it is a illegitimate ruler, things change and she doesn't need to be afraid of not following their laws. But that doesn't lessen her own countries believes and that she may not commit an evil act. She is still bound to a code of conduct. The paladin would still follow the laws where it is possible of that evil rulers country and so on..

[vasilidor]

In this scenario, the guy making the law *is the legitimate authority*. So there. yes I get the scenario I posted is absurd, I made it to make a point about what I think about certain mindsets about paladins and hopefully promote discussion and help people realize that disobeying some laws do not automatically count as an unlawful act.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Some people think that if you are lawful, you must obey the laws that you are in. If you are good that you should never be evil.
It's worth showing the absurdity in this. Also kind of an amusing example, in my opinion. "Yes, kids, the king has provided for us. It's rabbit-torturing time!" *major screams of excitement*

[InvisibleBison]

In this scenario, the guy making the law *is the legitimate authority*. So there. yes I get the scenario I posted is absurd, I made it to make a point about what I think about certain mindsets about paladins and hopefully promote discussion and help people realize that disobeying some laws do not automatically count as an unlawful act.

So what if he's the legitimate authority? Lawful characters don't have to follow the law of the land; they have to follow whatever code they're committed to following. Moreover, this law would do nothing to keep out paladins, because no paladin considers an evil ruler to be legitimate.

[Darg]

In this scenario, the guy making the law *is the legitimate authority*. So there. yes I get the scenario I posted is absurd, I made it to make a point about what I think about certain mindsets about paladins and hopefully promote discussion and help people realize that disobeying some laws do not automatically count as an unlawful act.

The key word is "respect" legitimate authority. The paladin can respectfully disobey authority that runs counter to their CoC. That said, normal people wouldn't follow this law not for being appalled by it, but there not being a necessary reason for it. All in all you are creating an unenforceable law that takes time and energy away from your citizens without reason to their detriment. Just so you can keep away an abstract concept. With this law your subjects would start questioning the legitimacy of your authority.

[False God]

In this scenario, the guy making the law *is the legitimate authority*. So there. yes I get the scenario I posted is absurd, I made it to make a point about what I think about certain mindsets about paladins and hopefully promote discussion and help people realize that disobeying some laws do not automatically count as an unlawful act.

A clever Paladin could suggest that all oppressive, cruel and evil authorities are illegitimate and that without the One True Authority (probably the Paladin's god) or an agent thereof appearing before the Paladin to confirm that Evil Tyrant is indeed legitimate, the Paladin could carry on ignoring evil laws because doing evil simply because the guy in charge said so is dumb.

Ultimately, what these discussions reveal is that the rules have odd restrictions on some classes and characters and not on others for vague reasons that have been officially dropped in subsequent editions because much like obeying evil laws to do evil simply because the evil king is the King, it's kinda dumb.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Guys, you're all making valid points, but you're all taking this a mite seriously. Keep in mind that Vasilidor is poking fun at the concept of Law that you're attacking. He doesn't need to be convinced of anything. We're all in agreement here. I'd post a follow-up joke, but I'm not coming up with anything right now.

[Yogibear41]

The 3.5 paladin codes are stupid. They should just be played as holy/unholy warriors of their respective faiths. A paladin should be role played pretty much the same as a multiclass fighter/cleric of the same religion.

[Gruftzwerg]

In this scenario, the guy making the law *is the legitimate authority*. So there. yes I get the scenario I posted is absurd, I made it to make a point about what I think about certain mindsets about paladins and hopefully promote discussion and help people realize that disobeying some laws do not automatically count as an unlawful act.

It doesn't have to be absurd. There is no rule that prevents evil psychopathic persons from becoming rulers.

The question is, what is a legit ruler in the view of the paladin/his order/his religion. And this imho boils down to his religious and political beliefs. A evil necromancer who has conquered a country via military strength "might" count as legit or not. Someone else who has become a ruler by intrigues within the law is still a legit ruler. It's not as black and white as one might think..

and further there is always the option of divine order to go on a crusade/war = you try to push back the boarder where the enemies laws start to count.

[Melcar]

In this scenario, the guy making the law *is the legitimate authority*. So there. yes I get the scenario I posted is absurd, I made it to make a point about what I think about certain mindsets about paladins and hopefully promote discussion and help people realize that disobeying some laws do not automatically count as an unlawful act.

Legitimate is in the eye of the paladin as per the paladins code of conduct! If you believe that your god/highest authority of your church to be the legitimate (like some real world religions) no other ruler’s laws are legitimate and you can ignore any rule not set down by your church...

[Sam K]

I think the REAL question is why anyone smart enough to become an evil ruler in the first place would WANT to cause invading paladins to auto-fall? If you're going to be attacked by adventurers, wouldn't it be better to be attacked by the kind who can't fight dirty? Fill your evil keep with starving orphans and suddenly all kinds of tactics become impossible for the paladins.

:miko: "We cannot use siege weapons, I will not allow a single innocent child to be endangered in this struggle!"

Where as say a wizard could use far more creative tactics.

:vaarsuvius: "I did the maths, dropping a mountain on the evil keep will cause 0.01% of the number of innocent deaths that would be caused by a drawn out war... and the mountain option is very swift, unlike the options. Let's rock!"

And the wizards powers would still work afterwards. Depending on the CR of starving orphans, there may even be a level-up.

I'm just saying, if I were an evil ruler, I would try to set up a system that encouraged monks and paladins to challenge me, while keeping druids and wizards away!

[stack]

Forget paladins, the evil ruler that legally requires small animal torture will run afoul (a-fowl?) of the local druids. A bunch of angry druids could mess a kingdom up.

[Darg]

I think the REAL question is why anyone smart enough to become an evil ruler in the first place would WANT to cause invading paladins to auto-fall? If you're going to be attacked by adventurers, wouldn't it be better to be attacked by the kind who can't fight dirty? Fill your evil keep with starving orphans and suddenly all kinds of tactics become impossible for the paladins.

:miko: "We cannot use siege weapons, I will not allow a single innocent child to be endangered in this struggle!"

Where as say a wizard could use far more creative tactics.

:vaarsuvius: "I did the maths, dropping a mountain on the evil keep will cause 0.01% of the number of innocent deaths that would be caused by a drawn out war... and the mountain option is very swift, unlike the options. Let's rock!"

And the wizards powers would still work afterwards. Depending on the CR of starving orphans, there may even be a level-up.

I'm just saying, if I were an evil ruler, I would try to set up a system that encouraged monks and paladins to challenge me, while keeping druids and wizards away!

A paladin wouldn't condone any type of siege warfare. This is simply not the style of combat a paladin would be party to. Instead, paladins would probably try to infiltrate the castle before the siege and challenge the evil lord (read assassinate). To act honorably, they just have to not kill the lord in their sleep.

[Asmotherion]

I'm just goint to leave this here. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24829032&postcount=56)

[ShurikVch]

The 3.5 paladin codes are stupid. They should just be played as holy/unholy warriors of their respective faiths. A paladin should be role played pretty much the same as a multiclass fighter/cleric of the same religion.
Note: not all Paladins are religious; they can just serve to the Good (or whatever their chosen "Code alignment") without having a slightest idea of who grants their spells; some settings demand to choose a patron for any divine spellcaster, but it isn't "default assumption"

[vasilidor]

Guys, you're all making valid points, but you're all taking this a mite seriously. Keep in mind that Vasilidor is poking fun at the concept of Law that you're attacking. He doesn't need to be convinced of anything. We're all in agreement here. I'd post a follow-up joke, but I'm not coming up with anything right now.

you get me.

[Jay R]

The absurdity stems from an absurd premise -- that making law is entirely arbitrary. In no culture is that believed.

If there are two identical nations, except that one forbids theft and one requires it, they are not equal under any concept of natural law.

In the same way, a statutory law that each person must commit a minor act of evil each day is not "lawful" for any entity that actually believes in any sort of power above that of government.

In my world, a paladin would consider it his duty to overthrow that evil and unlawful ruler.

[Similarly, a paladin can work with the underground in a conquered nation, help escaped slaves, or defend a doctor who will not commit murder at the ruler's whim.]

[Vaern]

According to BoED, if a paladin finds himself where being good would be an unlawful act and being lawful would be an evil act, he must prioritize good and act to remove corruption from the governing body that is abusing the law to spread evil. Even if doing so would result in the paladin being punished by local law or cast out of the organization that they serve they would retain their paladinhood for having prioritized good rather than blindly following unjust orders.

[KillianHawkeye]

I find that alignment only becomes absurd when people take it 100% literally and seriously instead of understanding that it's flexible and mutable, that it stems from one's actions rather than deciding them, and that it's at most a set of guidelines to follow. I've never once seen an easy-going approach to alignment lead to problems.

[Morty_Jhones]

lovley law,

but it falls down HARD.

see cuss of this little thing called..... THE GREATER GOOD.


this little fath based get out of jail card actualy ALLOWS a paladin to do EVIL if he can substanstivly prove that by doing so he prevents EVIL from triumphing.

so murdering all thos little sarving orphans is perfictly allowable beucus by doing so he prevents that evil doer from rasing them to psico killers and prevent it/him/her from Slaghtering and harming more.

[hamishspence]

Motive matters, but only to a degree.

Murdering the innocent "for the greater good" is still murder, still evil, and will still cause a Paladin to Fall.

[vasilidor]

now, DnD neutral is the alignment of the insane. You helped the good guys win the war? and you are a neutral druid? no no no no no, you are supposed to switch sides ad nauseum whenever one side gets the advantage, keeping the conflict going for eternity. Or until one side gets sick of you and offs you.

[hamishspence]

In 2e, yes.

Not in other editions, which make it "average person alignment".

[gijoemike]

The 3.5 paladin codes are stupid. They should just be played as holy/unholy warriors of their respective faiths. A paladin should be role played pretty much the same as a multiclass fighter/cleric of the same religion.

Paladins don't have to have anything to do with religion. Go look at the class description. They adhere to the concept of good and righteousness. Faith or worship in a deity is not required. This is true in both 3.5 and PF. Many Good and orderly faiths have paladins among their ranks but it is a paladin that is fearless enough to stand up and question the tenants of said faith if they even slightly shift from LG.

A paladin should be played quite differently than a cleric or a fighter. They must approach every problem with goodness in their heart even if it is tactically stupid to do so.

[gijoemike]

The OP understands the underlying cause of all the confusion and has demonstrated it quite nicely.


Law as in the Lawful and Chaotic axis in D&D has nothing to do with Law of legal processes. That's right NOTHING. Lawful really means orderly and measured. Strictly following learned patterns, having a code of conduct or adhering to personal honor at all costs. Respecting those in power is showing restraint and respect to your elder, councilman, opposing king even though you hate their guts and know they need to be taken down a notch. Respect your enemy falls along the same lines.

Many people will play a barbarian with a code of honor. Sticking closely to the code is actually a lawful trait. But if they only follow it when it suits them or they forget half the time then its chaotic. Following predictable behaviors, being timely are traits of an orderly person.

Robin Hood is a thief hiding the woods fighting the legitimate authority of the sheriff and king. But he always comes in to save his captured people, he robs only from the rich and then gives most of it to the poor and oppressed. He saves gold for what he believes is the true king. He fights for the honor of the maid Merrian. These behaviors seem very orderly. I would actually place Robin Hoods alignment in LG or NG. I argue against CG.

I wish 40 years ago they instead used Order vs Chaos and Good vs Evil. Paladins can potentially steal from the greedy, overthrow dictators, break and enter into houses, and speak against the leader in a room if they feel it is the right thing to do. Notice i said potentially. Paladins are still the hardest class to roleplay because they must strive for goodness in a world of catch 22s.

[vasilidor]

Inn Keeper: "you aint one of those palidins is ya?, I aint servin those arses."
Paladin: SMITE TIME!

Many things within DnD assume an even spread for alignments, with varying excuses for each. the Inn keeper, who has harmed no one, is evil because he is motivated by greed and the lizardman who eats elves because they tasty is somehow neutral. I do not get this.

[hamishspence]

"Almost even" spread of alignments has been a thing for a while - with Eberron in particular showcasing it.

But it also comes with "Paladins may not kill people just because they detect as evil".

[vasilidor]

"Almost even" spread of alignments has been a thing for a while - with Eberron in particular showcasing it.

But it also comes with "Paladins may not kill people just because they detect as evil".

Unfortunately that varies by DM.

[hamishspence]

Yup.

Given that, as you mentioned, there are plenty of Neutral creatures that the party are "justified in attacking to protect the innocent" and plenty of Evil creatures that aren't,

Detect Evil exists, not to "determine who to attack" but to "determine who to spend your daily Smite Evil efforts on so they are not wasted".


If you (or innocents) are being attacked by a mixed party of Neutral and Evil creatures - you Smite the evil creatures and use regular attacks on the non-evil ones.

[Vaern]

Paladins don't have to have anything to do with religion. Go look at the class description. They adhere to the concept of good and righteousness. Faith or worship in a deity is not required. This is true in both 3.5 and PF. Many Good and orderly faiths have paladins among their ranks but it is a paladin that is fearless enough to stand up and question the tenants of said faith if they even slightly shift from LG.

A paladin should be played quite differently than a cleric or a fighter. They must approach every problem with goodness in their heart even if it is tactically stupid to do so.
Exactly. Paladins aren't just lawful good characters. They're paragons of their alignment. They are so Lawful Good that they are able to tap into the very essence of their alignment to channel supernatural powers with which to combat evil. They are the human[oid] embodiment of righteousness. That's why it's so much worse for a paladin to commit an evil act than a good cleric.
The cleric's deity can see that he's doing the best with what he's given, forgive him due being put in a situation where choosing the lesser of two evils is the only option available, and continue granting the cleric divine powers.
The paladin, however, is not beholden to any higher power who can choose to overlook an unsavory act. The stain of an evil act on his soul means he is no longer pure Good, and thus can no longer function as a conduit of righteous power.

[Saint-Just]

Exactly. Paladins aren't just lawful good characters. They're paragons of their alignment. They are so Lawful Good that they are able to tap into the very essence of their alignment to channel supernatural powers with which to combat evil. They are the human[oid] embodiment of righteousness. That's why it's so much worse for a paladin to commit an evil act than a good cleric.
The cleric's deity can see that he's doing the best with what he's given, forgive him due being put in a situation where choosing the lesser of two evils is the only option available, and continue granting the cleric divine powers.
The paladin, however, is not beholden to any higher power who can choose to overlook an unsavory act. The stain of an evil act on his soul means he is no longer pure Good, and thus can no longer function as a conduit of righteous power.

That's going too far. In the neighboring thread I am arguing that paladins should fall in situations where cleric should not, but a "stain of evil" is unsubstantiated. For example in Forgotten Realms (as I was recently informed) you cannot be or at least not supposed to be able to be a paladin of an idea/a philosophy/goodness in general. The only way to be a paladin is to worship, or at least pay obeisance to a god; it is a god who empowers you not goodness in general (not even goodness through the god). That does not mean that in FR paladins are not held to a higher standard than clerics.

Now, it is fun to spin such explanations (one other which I do not quite buy myself but do find interesting is "paladin is someone who will not want to do evil, so if they do evil something went wrong - maybe they are mind-controlled, maybe they have changed so much that the person who made the paladin vows would not be able to recognize themselves in the "future them" - so the power cuts off not as a punishment but as a safety measure"). But it's a good operating procedure to distinguish canon from headcanon.

[Kish]

In this scenario, the guy making the law *is the legitimate authority*.
Soo...you're taking back the part about him being evil then? 'Cause if he's that, no paladin is going to agree with what you just said.

The 3.5 paladin codes are stupid. They should just be played as holy/unholy warriors of their respective faiths. A paladin should be role played pretty much the same as a multiclass fighter/cleric of the same religion.
Then there's no reason for the paladin class to exist. Y'want fighter/clerics, those are called "fighter/clerics."

[vasilidor]

I am not taking back what I said about him being evil, but rather by long established divine law set by the gods, this divine law has horribly backfired and allowed for an evil man to take the throne with full legitimacy. awww the wonderful drawbacks of hereditary rulership.

[Kish]

Yes, if the DM says "Paladins are screwed!" then paladins are screwed. This is not a new observation. Nor is it a rules dysfunction.

[Jay R]

We will never achieve agreement of what "Lawful" and "Good" mean in D&D, since they are clearly inconsistent with the common English concepts "lawful" and "good". So you need to ask the DM.

In my universe, a superior paladin would protest the law, loudly and publicly refuse to commit an evil act, and accept the jail sentence.

[Darg]

Good and Evil were given the designation of being objective and the subjective version being a variant. Lawful and chaotic however were never defined in such a way so it's subjective because being objective means you would have to follow all laws at all times regardless of place, time, or origin to be lawful.

[Jay R]

Good and Evil were given the designation of being objective and the subjective version being a variant.

Correct. The mere fact that they were given a designation at all is proof of the point I was making -- they are not consistent with what "good" and "evil" mean in our world.


Lawful and chaotic however were never defined in such a way so it's subjective because being objective means you would have to follow all laws at all times regardless of place, time, or origin to be lawful.

This represents one of many approaches to what "Lawful" means in D&D. Another approach is that a Lawful Character must always follow what law, tradition, or a specific personal or cultural code demands.

A Lawful character who believed all evil laws and rulers should be fought and destroyed would be alignment-bound not to obey an unjust or evil law. He might be required to join the underground and work against the government. He could lose his Lawful alignment if he compromised with that ruler and obeyed the bad law.

[vasilidor]

here is the thing, by this same logic, chaotic good characters should be unable to follow any laws. the ones that need to be chaotic good, like the paladins of freedom and chaotic good clerics, anyway. but people do not hold them to this same standard, which strikes me as... weird and hypocritical. and then when you consider the power of paladins in various forms of DnD, what the evil overlord who is the rightful ruler needs to worry about is the chaotic good cleric. so how can we construct a scenario that uses these bizarre alignment rules to screw the CG cleric? because the EOWITRR is worried about this.

[Saint-Just]

here is the thing, by this same logic, chaotic good characters should be unable to follow any laws. the ones that need to be chaotic good, like the paladins of freedom and chaotic good clerics, anyway. but people do not hold them to this same standard, which strikes me as... weird and hypocritical. and then when you consider the power of paladins in various forms of DnD, what the evil overlord who is the rightful ruler needs to worry about is the chaotic good cleric. so how can we construct a scenario that uses these bizarre alignment rules to screw the CG cleric? because the EOWITRR is worried about this.

-1. Because core classes are incredibly more popular, has more spells, ACFs, developed examples etc. than non-core classes in general, and because Unearthed Arcana specifically is seen with a little more suspicion than a "normal" splatbook, you would probably see less than 10% of all "variant" paladins put together than core paladins.
0. Chaotic alignment was never about not being able to follow any laws. Even in it's purest CN incarnation it's about ignoring the laws, if you end up following them - nice, if you end up breaking them - sweet.
1. People almost never hold the LG clerics to the same standards as paladins. Some see it as hypocrisy, others (including me) see at as application of rules as the are written and as they were intended (ignoring for the moment whether it was a good intention). "Fall for a single evil act" is a pretty good indication of incredibly strict requirements. Even when no one is breaking code of conduct a LG cleric of a LG deity can little by little drift to LN or NG and remain empowered by their god, paladin will fall.
2. Paladin of Freedom code of conduct says "respect individual liberty" instead of the core Paladin's "respect legitimate authority, act with honor". I have no doubt it can be twisted into something making a PoF fall but it is not about breaking the laws on purpose.
3. In general it can be seen that both good paladins are expected to be no more Lawful than a Monk or Chaotic than a Jester, i.e. enough to retain Chaotic or Lawful component in alignment, but both must be 100% Good, again "Fall for a single evil act", but not for a single Chaotic or Lawful act.

[vasilidor]

You know, I can actually see reasons and behaviors that can render cannibalism neutral. like making it a part of a funeral practice to eat a part of grandpa after he dies of old age, or eating those who were condemned for crimes against your people (such as those ******** who raid your settlement for slaves), but not for hunting down groups of people just passing by to eat them. this is why I do not buy into the descriptions of lizard folk for being neutral. and i know of some DM's who still hold to the old school version of neutral and chaotic. mind they started in ADnD or sooner. grey neckbeards, if you will.