Alignments... Actions or Moral Code?

[Cryopyre]

I just had an idea on developing a paladin, but a paladin that didn't really enjoy being Lawful Good. He still acted that way, on an oath he took to his father, but he didn't want to be a Paladin. He stands up for what he thinks is good, but once his oath is completed (slaying some villain or another) he will willingly leave the pursuit of paladin-hood.


Now, the question that is brought up in this, is as follows: Is your alignment determined by actions or moral code? If you're strict in following an oath, but don't personally care for the moral code, what does that make you?

[Winged One]

Is your alignment determined by actions or moral code?

Yes.

If you're strict in following an oath, but don't personally care for the moral code, what does that make you?

That's a sterotype of Lawful Neutral, although it depends on circumstance.

[CasESenSITItiVE]

if he stands up for what he thinks is good (depending on what he thinks is good) i would say he would be lawful good, not every lawful good character likes being a paladin

[TheOOB]

There is fairly heavy evidence to prove that alignment is objective and not subjective, which would mean that alignment is objectively judged by your actions, rather then based on a subjective moral code.

They key thing to remember is that from a game play standpoint the four alignments (law, chaos, good, and evil) are binary qualities that determine how magic affects you. You can either be good, be evil, or be neither(same for the law chaos axis), and depending on which you are different spells effect you in different ways. A detect good spell won't tag you if you are evil, but a holy smite spell will have it's full effect on you. Considering that a player cannot simply change their alignment in order to receive a reduced effect from a spell, one is lead to believe that alignment is (as stated above) an objective quality based on their actions that is beyond their direct control. This is supported by the fact that some creatures (most notable outsiders) can have the qualities of one alignment without actually being the alignment, e.g. an evil angel can still be damaged fully by an unholy blight spell.

[NullAshton]

I'm thinking that it's moral code. The instant your paladin just started doing good for the sake that he still 'has' to be a paladin, he loses his powers and is no longer lawful good.

As an example, say there's a BBEG. Said BBEG wants to get closer to the PCs, and does this by being an honest to good adventurer. He kills the 'bad guys', acts as virtuous as possible, even when he thinks noone is looking since someone might be scrying on him. Is he still evil? Yes, because he doesn't enjoy any of it and would much rather be off pillaging villages, but he needs to get trusted by the PCs.

[ZeroNumerous]

Alignment: I've always thought of alignment like this.. It's the stamp on your forehead that the Gods give you. It doesn't matter what you feel is good, neutral, or evil. It matters what they feel is good, neutral, or evil.

[TheOOB]

Alignment: I've always thought of alignment like this.. It's the stamp on your forehead that the Gods give you. It doesn't matter what you feel is good, neutral, or evil. It matters what they feel is good, neutral, or evil.

Thats pretty much my view on things, though in the core (greyhawk) setting it seems the gods also have this stamp on their head. They don't define the alignments so much as they exemplify them.

[ZeroNumerous]

Heironous: Ok, I'll take all these guys who act in accordance to their personal codes. Oh, and they're sorta good to boot!

Hextor: Fine you jerk, I'll take all these guys who are selfish and mean-spirited, but still restrained by personal codes.

[SadisticFishing]

Alignment is the way you act, not what you think. Someone who believes in goodness but is forced to do evil acts is evil.

But, more importantly, you can't be forced into being a paladin - it's a higher calling. Read the PHB for more info :P

[Xuincherguixe]

If it's "A higher calling" and "it's your destiny" I would say that a lot of Paladin's may not get a choice about it.

Some god: "You're my servant. Go fight evil for me."
Some guy: "Uh, but I could die?"
Some god: "Of course you're going to die. That's the whole damn point."
Some guy: "I really don't want to do this."
Some god sends his church to force the guy into Paladinship, under pain of torture.

The gods can be jerks.

[TheOOB]

Well, being a paladin requires absolute devotion, the kind that can't be forced upon you.

That said, paladins should never be brought into alignment discussions, they are the exception to every alignment rule in the book.

[Diggorian]

I just had an idea on developing a paladin, but a paladin that didn't really enjoy being Lawful Good. He still acted that way, on an oath he took to his father, but he didn't want to be a Paladin.

I played a very similar idea some years back with an Aasimar character that started out a NG cleric but was divinely "chosen" to become a paladin.

The lawfulness he adopted was a reaction of humility to the greater expectations asked of him. Theme: "Great men do not seek power. They have power thrust upon them." -- Kahless the Unforgetable, First Klingon Emperor [/geek]

I agree that alignment is not an idea. It is composed of general moral beliefs that are defined by action. BBEG that would like to wantonly slaughter but doesnt is default neutral, BBNG. Paladins can want to summarily execute undesirables but their lawful restraint keeps them from doing so, as their selfless acts to protect the innocent make them good.

[Bosh]

how about
Alignments: annoying impediment to good RP.

[Hallavast]

Alignment can't simply be defined by the actions one takes. It must be detailed with intent and belief.

For example: Imagine two scenarios involving a peasant child being abducted by bandits for ransom.

In the first instance, an adventurer sets out to rescue the child, and in the conflict that ensues she slays both bandits in battle and rescues the child.

In the second instance, another adventurer sets out to kill the bandits (who happen to owe him some money and have refused to pay up). The adventurer finds the bandits and kills them in battle. After realizing that they dont have any money, he frees the peasant child in the hopes for a reward.

The two physical acts were the same, but only the first adventurer acted with good intent. Thus, the first adventurer is most likely good, and the second is most likely not. In many cases, it is the why that matters in addition to the action taken.

[new1965]

I just had an idea on developing a paladin, but a paladin that didn't really enjoy being Lawful Good. He still acted that way, on an oath he took to his father, but he didn't want to be a Paladin. He stands up for what he thinks is good, but once his oath is completed (slaying some villain or another) he will willingly leave the pursuit of paladin-hood.


Now, the question that is brought up in this, is as follows: Is your alignment determined by actions or moral code? If you're strict in following an oath, but don't personally care for the moral code, what does that make you?

Heres a thought.. your characters moral code does not have to totally in sync with the characters internal logic. For instance.. the character could be CERTAIN that a fight could be the end of him, but his conscious wont let him walk away because its the RIGHT thing to do.
He might be internally driven to do that right thing no matter what the cost, but that doesnt mean he has to like it.

[Tallis]

I would say alignment is based on the combination of action and intent. In this case the result would be lawful neutral. The actions are good, but the intent is simply to keep an oath which is neutral.
What would the character be doing if not bound by the oath? Depending on the answer to that question his ability to qualify for paladinhood might be in question.

[Stephen_E]

Alignment is both intent, actions and beleifs (the latter mainly in how it turns intent into actions).

This doesn't stop your Paladin been LG.
He does "Good" actions because that's the rules for been a paladin.
He isn't accidentally doing those good acts, they're intentional. The fact that he feels forced into doing them doesn't stop them been "good", although it probably makes them "less good".

Pre-fall Miko is a good example for this.

Stephen

[Roderick_BR]

In D&D, it's a moral code. You may think you are being fair and nice, but you may very well be acting as a villain.
Take Doctor Doom from DC Comics, for example. He believes that he is right, and even good hearted, given some circumstances, but if you read his comics, he's clearly Lawful Evil.
So, a "roguish" paladin would still be viable, with DM permission. He can be Lawful Good, although he likes to stretch the rules sometimes.
A paladin that prefers to put good over law all the time, acts without pre-defined plans, that can be see as a "lazy bum" by others knightly paladins, can still be a paladin, as long he doesn't fall completely from LG guideline.
Amphimir's expanded alignment system is interesting if you want to keep track of a more flexible alignment system: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35746

[Peregrine]

Put it this way. It's a characteristic of a Good (or Lawful or Evil or Chaotic) alignment that you perform Good (or whatever) actions. It's also a characteristic of that alignment that you believe in the value of doing such actions. And it's a characteristic of a Good (or whatever) alignment that you harbour Good (or whatever) feelings and intentions.

No person displays all characteristics of their alignment at all times. A character who does a Good deed out of compulsion or coincidence has still done a Good deed, but their overall outlook isn't likely to shift noticeably because of it. (It tends to be a fact of D&D worlds -- and, one could conceivably argue, the real world -- that acting out of alignment is habit-forming. If you're being forced to do Good deeds, or Evil deeds, over time it will shift your alignment towards Good, or Evil.)

[ArmorArmadillo]

I just had an idea on developing a paladin, but a paladin that didn't really enjoy being Lawful Good. He still acted that way, on an oath he took to his father, but he didn't want to be a Paladin. He stands up for what he thinks is good, but once his oath is completed (slaying some villain or another) he will willingly leave the pursuit of paladin-hood.


Now, the question that is brought up in this, is as follows: Is your alignment determined by actions or moral code? If you're strict in following an oath, but don't personally care for the moral code, what does that make you?

I'd say he's lawful good, because he is a well-intentioned person who values commitments.
However, he loses paladinhood. Not as a fall for bad actions, but because he isn't commiting himself to the obligations of paladinhood. You can't really "rent" paladin powers, it's a lifelong commitment.


However, this is only my interpretation, and it isn't a big leap or anything. Depending on how alignment is in your game, I think it would make sense.
If a player asked me to do this in my game, I'd probably accept it on caveat that he's prepared to lose his paladin powers as soon as he successfully kills the villain.

[Devils_Advocate]

The instant your paladin just started doing good for the sake that he still 'has' to be a paladin, he loses his powers and is no longer lawful good.

So... Acting purely out of duty is somehow incompatible with being a paladin? Man, WHAT?!

Personally, I think that you may be attributing a nonsensical counterfactual to the paladin in question. He would no more say to himself "I wish I could be a paladin without being Lawful Good" any more than he would say "I wish I could get married and stay a bachelor." It's like wishing one had a square circle, or that one plus one equalled three. Sane individuals do not wish for contradictions to become true; they laugh at the absurdity of the suggestion that they could.

Personally, I'd much rather have paladins who won't poison anyone because they've taken an oath not to poison anyone than paladins who think that poisoning people is always wrong, but stabbing folks with swords or setting them on fire can be just fine. I feel that the former sort of paladin is far more reasonable than the latter.

That said, paladins should never be brought into alignment discussions, they are the exception to every alignment rule in the book.

Eh? How so?

[Tokiko Mima]

I just had an idea on developing a paladin, but a paladin that didn't really enjoy being Lawful Good. He still acted that way, on an oath he took to his father, but he didn't want to be a Paladin. He stands up for what he thinks is good, but once his oath is completed (slaying some villain or another) he will willingly leave the pursuit of paladin-hood.


Now, the question that is brought up in this, is as follows: Is your alignment determined by actions or moral code? If you're strict in following an oath, but don't personally care for the moral code, what does that make you?

You realize that being a paladin is as much of a permanent commitment as your character could make, right? If you stop following the Paladin Code of Conduct for any reason, you lose your class features and you don't get them back unless you atone and resume being a paladin. So if your character is going to quit being a Paladin later he'll have a whole lot of dead levels where all he gained was full base attack advancement and d10 hit dice.

As far as your question, alignment can be argued back and forth and often is. I look at it as the good/evil axis is objective and the lawful/chaotic portion is subjective. An Evil action would for example be murder, and it's evil no matter how you look at it and for what reasons it was commited. It doesn't become 'Good' because of any excellent reason you might have had, how many people you saved, or how much you thought you had to do it.

Lawful/Chaotic actions have more to do with subjective intention. Breaking down a door and charging inside is trespassing and that is generally illegal. So it seems like it's Chaotic, but if you were doing it to catch criminals in the act, or had sworn an oath to find someone no matter where they hide then it would be a lawful action. So the exact same action might be lawful, neutral or chaotic if done by two different people with a different motivation.

So a short answer to your question is that, in my opinion, your actions define you on the Good/Evil axis and your moral code (intentions) define you as far as Law/Chaos.

[dr.cello]

It could be like Granny Weatherwax from Discworld. Or a number of Discworld characters, really. Granny is only good because she has to be. Vimes is good, but he doesn't particularly want to be the champion of good so much as he doesn't trust anyone but himself to do it. (Admittedly neither of them would be considered lawful good.) It's more realistic to be good but not especially want to do good--and more resonant with the archetypal hero.

[Jarawara]

how about
Alignments: annoying impediment to good RP.

There's a first for everything, and so for the first time ever, I am 'Quoting for Truth' the above. Bosh got it right!


As for the original question, I find the question somewhat irrelevant. I don't mean to say the question isn't thought-provoking, nor is it unimportant, but I do know that if a player came to me with an idea as original as a Paladin who wishes to complete an oath-task then drop his Paladinhood... I would decry all questions of qualifications as irrelevant, and let him have his character.

I want my players to be able to play the characters they want, and moreso, I want my players to have original characters. A Paladin who got pulled into the whole Paladin-lifestyle solely as a promise to fullfill an oath? That's storywriting Gold right there. Definately you can have him! Does he need mere actions, or true intent in his heart? I don't care either way. He's got character and story, that's all that's important to me.

Think of the possibilities for roleplay. A man, struggling to stick to the 'code', long enough to fulfill his mission, feeling he must act a certain way because his father acted that way, fighting against his own impulses all the way. That's pure gold for story!

Later, when he fulfills his quest, he might have slowly developed into the man he was struggling to emulate, and thus find he keeps his paladinhood, even as he voluntary leaves the Order of Paladins (or whatever knightly organization he belongs to). Further adventures might be of him learning how he's a Paladin by action and honor, not by oath and self-imposed committment.

Or, he loses his Paladinhood, but then learns to adapt to his chosen life. Faces challenges with his 'lesser' moral code. Deals with moral situations, and either fully accepts that he's less of a person than he was as a Paladin, or perhaps he realizes he was happier, more complete, when he was strong of will and moral fortitude. That deep down, he's still a Paladin at heart, if only he would accept it in his day-to-day life. Once he does, then presto, he regains his Paladinhood.

Or, heck, I'd even be willing to find some other way of rewarding a player for years of good roleplay, and let him de-Paladinize himself while not becoming defanged, underpowered, and totally irrelevant. One good way is to retire the character, then bring him back out into another group that's lower level then him. A 10th level former Paladin is not equal to any other 10th level character, but fits just fine into a party of 8th level people (or whatever is appropriate).

Anything, to allow the player to play an original and interesting character concept!

[TSGames]

Now, the question that is brought up in this, is as follows: Is your alignment determined by actions or moral code? If you're strict in following an oath, but don't personally care for the moral code, what does that make you?

Both. The moral code of a character is what the character intends to do, and the actions of the character are what the character actually does. The fact of the matter is, that actions will always speak louder than words, and thusly, actions will always hold more bear on alignment than intent. Despite this, the intent of the character is always to be taken into account, and a change in the intent of the character can often warrant as much of an alignment change as a change in the actions of the character ever could. To claim that the DnD alignment system is based solely on one or the other is to ignore either the RP aspect or the mechanical aspect of the game, and just as both these parts make up the game, each in their own proportion in every different campaign, so to do intentions and actions make up the alignment system.

[dr.cello]

I should note something. Though people often say that murder is always an evil act, 'murder' practically has 'with malicious intent' written into its definition. The intent of an action can definitely dictate whether it's good or evil in D&D.

Let's imagine that there exists for the sake of analogy an old man who bears a curse through no fault of his own that will ultimately doom Exampletown, killing all of its inhabitants. There is no way to evacuate them; the only way to end the curse is to kill the old man.

The first question of intent comes into play early on: if someone randomly mugs and kills him without knowing the city would be saved by doing so, it's an evil act. No question.

The second is a little trickier. If you kill him because you need to save all those people, it's probably a good act. You've tried everything you could. Maybe you've even talked to him about it and explained your situation, gotten him to consent.

If you kill him because your girlfriend lives in Exampletown and you don't want her to die, that's probably neutral, if leaning on the good side.

If you kill him because your cultist minions are in Exampletown and you need them for your plan to slaughter puppies and kittens across the globe, it's evil. Intent matters.

But I don't know if that's quite your question. You're basically asking if someone does good things but would rather not, if it's still good. I think whether or not you want to do something isn't so much relevant. Indeed, many good acts are things you'd rather not do. (Showing mercy to a hated nemesis who begs for it sincerely, for instance.) The question isn't so much 'do you want to do it?' as 'why do you do it?'

I've known a few good people who have said that if they knew their actions would be entirely consequence-free (for them, anyway), they would do some truly heinous things. Not all champions for good necessarily enjoy it. Some people do it out of a sense of duty. Some might do it because they know that if they don't do it, no one else will. Some might do it because if they don't do it, someone else who's incompetent will. Following an oath seems as good a reason as any.

Actually, your character sounds like he'd be a perfect candidate for the Grey Guard prestige class in Complete Scoundrel. It's paladins with a little less shine, who've recognized that sometimes you have to break the rules in order to best serve good.

[Citizen Joe]

First there is a distinction between murder and killing. That isn't much consolation to the victim, but it does help the psyche of the killer.

Given that paladin is a fighting class, and fighting implies killing, there has to be an exception to killing = evil or the class simply can't work.

That leads us to the three part acid test for good. Belief, intent, effect.

BELIEF: When you do something you must reasonably believe that what you attempt will result in making the world a better place. Part of this involves what you believe to be good and evil. Part of this involves a reasonable hope that your actions will result in the effect you're looking for. Thus, no pushing the 'big red button' that destroys the world and then saying "Whoops, I thought that would have made the BBEG's head explode."

INTENT: You must also intend to do good. Stopping bandits because they are pillaging innocent is good intent. Stopping bandits because they are juicy xp and have gold is not of good intent.

EFFECT: You do actually have to be competent to get 'good points'. So, if you attempt to smite the BBEG but instead penetrate the illusion and strike a baby, that is not a 'good effect'.

This same sort of acid test can be applied to Evilness, however doing this test for every action someone takes will quickly bog down the alignment system. Thus you need to sublimate the system so it happens naturally.

[Stephen_E]

You realize that being a paladin is as much of a permanent commitment as your character could make, right? If you stop following the Paladin Code of Conduct for any reason, you lose your class features and you don't get them back unless you atone and resume being a paladin. So if your character is going to quit being a Paladin later he'll have a whole lot of dead levels where all he gained was full base attack advancement and d10 hit dice.

You're mistaken regarding atoneing after a fall.
If a Paladin falls he must atone to recover his class abilities.
He doesn't have to become a Paladin again.
Technically he can change alignment, lose his paladin abilities, atone and regain his paladin abilities, without regaining his LG alignment.

Atoning is an apology. It can involve restitution, but it doesn't require going back to where you were!

Stephen

[ArmorArmadillo]

There's a first for everything, and so for the first time ever, I am 'Quoting for Truth' the above. Bosh got it right!


As for the original question, I find the question somewhat irrelevant. I don't mean to say the question isn't thought-provoking, nor is it unimportant, but I do know that if a player came to me with an idea as original as a Paladin who wishes to complete an oath-task then drop his Paladinhood... I would decry all questions of qualifications as irrelevant, and let him have his character.

I want my players to be able to play the characters they want, and moreso, I want my players to have original characters. A Paladin who got pulled into the whole Paladin-lifestyle solely as a promise to fullfill an oath? That's storywriting Gold right there. Definately you can have him! Does he need mere actions, or true intent in his heart? I don't care either way. He's got character and story, that's all that's important to me.

Think of the possibilities for roleplay. A man, struggling to stick to the 'code', long enough to fulfill his mission, feeling he must act a certain way because his father acted that way, fighting against his own impulses all the way. That's pure gold for story!

Later, when he fulfills his quest, he might have slowly developed into the man he was struggling to emulate, and thus find he keeps his paladinhood, even as he voluntary leaves the Order of Paladins (or whatever knightly organization he belongs to). Further adventures might be of him learning how he's a Paladin by action and honor, not by oath and self-imposed committment.

Or, he loses his Paladinhood, but then learns to adapt to his chosen life. Faces challenges with his 'lesser' moral code. Deals with moral situations, and either fully accepts that he's less of a person than he was as a Paladin, or perhaps he realizes he was happier, more complete, when he was strong of will and moral fortitude. That deep down, he's still a Paladin at heart, if only he would accept it in his day-to-day life. Once he does, then presto, he regains his Paladinhood.

Or, heck, I'd even be willing to find some other way of rewarding a player for years of good roleplay, and let him de-Paladinize himself while not becoming defanged, underpowered, and totally irrelevant. One good way is to retire the character, then bring him back out into another group that's lower level then him. A 10th level former Paladin is not equal to any other 10th level character, but fits just fine into a party of 8th level people (or whatever is appropriate).

Anything, to allow the player to play an original and interesting character concept!

1. You are not the first person to QFT this statement, not even the fiftieth. It is shared by almost everyone who sees someone grossly misplay an alignment and then blames bad roleplaying on the restrictive alignment system.

2. Alignment isn't an impediment to RP unless people purposefully make it so. No alignment police are going to bust down your door if your character doesn't "act his alignment" any more than if a rogue refused to steal something.

The alignment system has worked really well across D&D history and can be interpreted as loosely or tightly as you want. I guarantee that anyone who RPs badly because of alignment won't become a better RPer once alignment is gone.

[Neon Knight]

But does alignment improve RP in any way, shape, or form? For some people, it does nothing and serves no useful function, and thus they dislike it.