OOTS #918 - The Discussion Thread

[Scurvy Cur]

I'd even go so far as to say that one little casual line in the PHB that says "a paladin may never knowingly associate with an evil individual or risk falling" has done probably more harm to party dynamics, the understanding of the LG alignment, the Paladin class, and the overall quality of alignment RP than any other sentence printed in any core book. It doesn't get house ruled out in campaigns I DM. It gets publicly torn down with an explanation to the players that I expect a PC paladin to act like a champion of virtue who makes the world a better place, rather than a SmiteBot 3000.

I mean, what sort of crap champion of all that is good looks at a criminal infested slum where people are suffering and says "Eh, better not help there. I might interact with people I know are evil, because killing all of them doesn't practically solve the problem. And since that's forbidden, the best option is to let the innocents in that hellhole wallow. Off to find a problem I can fix with violence".

[Jay R]

I'd even go so far as to say that one little casual line in the PHB that says "a paladin may never knowingly associate with an evil individual or risk falling" has done probably more harm to party dynamics, the understanding of the LG alignment, the Paladin class, and the overall quality of alignment RP than any other sentence printed in any core book.

Not quite. That line merely continued the damage already done. When Paladins were introduced, in Greyhawk in 1975, it said, "They will associate only with lawful characters". ("Lawful" meant "Good", then.)

[hamishspence]

Not quite. That line merely continued the damage already done. When Paladins were introduced, in Greyhawk in 1975, it said, "They will associate only with lawful characters". ("Lawful" meant "Good", then.)

It bounced around a bit- the 1977 Basic set had 5 alignments (LG, LE, N, CG, CE), the 1978 AD&D book had 9 alignments- then later "Basic D&D" was revised back to 3 alignments, and expanded to go all the way from 1st level to 30th level.

That revised version did acknowledge good and evil, but not as Monster Alignments.

For example, in the description of Elementals, it said that while most are Neutral, some are Lawful (rulers) some Chaotic (renegades) and some may even be good or evil.

And that while Chaotic usually means evil- there are exceptions- some are merely happy-go-lucky and unpredictable.

[Reddish Mage]

It bounced around a bit- the 1977 Basic set had 5 alignments (LG, LE, N, CG, CE), the 1978 AD&D book had 9 alignments- then later "Basic D&D" was revised back to 3 alignments, and expanded to go all the way from 1st level to 30th level.

That revised version did acknowledge good and evil, but not as Monster Alignments.

For example, in the description of Elementals, it said that while most are Neutral, some are Lawful (rulers) some Chaotic (renegades) and some may even be good or evil.

And that while Chaotic usually means evil- there are exceptions- some are merely happy-go-lucky and unpredictable.

I recall that, and the explicit (but only relative) association of law with good and chaos with evil means that Basic D&D has a fundamentally different view about morality than AD&D and third edition. It's interesting that the fundamental components of universal morality and the place of law in it, is so easy to change every edition.

[137beth]

I'd even go so far as to say that one little casual line in the PHB that says "a paladin may never knowingly associate with an evil individual or risk falling" has done probably more harm to party dynamics, the understanding of the LG alignment, the Paladin class, and the overall quality of alignment RP than any other sentence printed in any core book.

Fixed that for you!

I recall that, and the explicit (but only relative) association of law with good and chaos with evil means that Basic D&D has a fundamentally different view about morality than AD&D and third edition. It's interesting that the fundamental components of universal morality and the place of law in it, is so easy to change every edition.

Honestly, I feel like some people (I'm looking at you, James Jacobs) have trouble keeping Evil and Chaos separate in their heads. Read through the descriptions of daemons in the Bestiary 2, and they sound very, very chaotic.
I don't know how much basic/OD&D can be blamed for people's evil vs chaos confusion, but it is definitely still around.