Do you concider this to go against a Paladin code?

[Oryan77]

Here is a scenario:

An evil woman pretends to be a helpless peasant girl. She convinces a group of 10 men that the PCs were discriminating her because she worships a particular deity other than their own and they robbed her of her coin purse and threatened to beat her if she speaks a word of it to anyone. Trying to be local good samaritans, they took it upon themselves to find the PCs, retrieve the purse, and teach the adventurers a lesson.

The men approach with weapons drawn just to make more of an intimidating presence. They confront the PCs, demand the purse back, and since the PCs respond with attitude and intimidation instead of trying to explain their mistake, one of the locals swings at a PC attempting to deal nonlethal damage. The PCs respond in full force and kill half of the men until the rest finally surrender.

This happens in a big city with laws just like any civilized city would have. The PCs were obviously more powerful than these men and one of the PCs is a Paladin. They knew these men made a mistake and were of no threat, but rather than doing what they could to explain their way out of a fight, or try to apprehend the men so that the authorities could sort things out, they killed them. The paladin can detect evil at will and never did. In fact, the paladin isn't even remorseful. As far as he's concerned, they started it and they got what they deserved.

That doesn't sound very lawful to me. I'd hate to penalize the Paladin, but this is pretty much his attitude towards every situation and it might be time to make him deal with the consequences if this is something that warrants it. He knows how to play a paladin (it's his favorite class to play), so a warning isn't going to remind him of anything he doesn't already know. What do you think?

[Kaptin Keen]

Being indiscriminate (not using detect evil) is never lawful. Killing innocents is never good.

There isn't really any discussion to be had here. Well, not according to me =)

[RFLS]

Yeah, that's...pretty far into evil.

[inexorabletruth]

Since we're talking about a pattern of behavior here, coupled with an unrepentant behavior, I think the obvious course is to take his pally powers.

The whole group in fact should suffer a certain amount of consequence. It stands to reason that they would be wanted for murder, since this happened within the confines of the city.

It may be time to start rolling up some soldiery. Maybe some lawyers and a judge. It would probably be a good idea to roll up some bounty hunters to give them chase should they decide to flea the town.

[Katrina]

Resorting to intimidation before diplomacy is in general a non-good action. It isn't evil per se, but it is not what I expect from a good character not dealing with a situation like "orcs only understand strength."

Striking for Lethal when your opponent is specifically pulling their blows to not seriously injure you is dishonorable, criminal and evil.

Slaying people you know are hapless dupes instead of trying to end the conflict without blood is a non-good action at least. It is also a chaotic act.

Never forget that the Paladin is not just Lawful Good, he is better than lawful good. He is an example. This character's lack of respect for life and the rules of engagement combined with his lack of discipline in checking alignments and lack of remorse would have resulted in his downgrade to a class feature-less fighter.

If his behavior continued thusly, I would shift him to Lawful Neutral.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If the men weren't a threat and the PC's knew it or should have known it from how blindingly obvious it was then no, this player should probably not have picked paladin as his class.

I don't like the falling mechanic as a way to keep players on the rails, so I wouldn't outright take his power, but you could take him aside, discus this and maybe plan a cool storyline that transitions him into a different class or something, like say have him fall, be angry at the gods for judging him unjust, going for a badass training montage and getting fighter or ranger levels for the paladin levels he lost. Or he could sell his soul to any entity promising him back his power and transition into warlock. Or maybe he just plays the class for the combination of features and really wants to keep them, and if the group likes that maybe in this world there simply are paladins of vengeance and all sorts of flavor in between, and the paragon of truth, justice and the American way angle is played down or absent. The world of an RPG is kind of about the PC's after all, it can twist itself a bit to fit their adventures when needed.

All of this is separate from the issue the city might take with their behavior as a group. You can let the paladin thing slide but still have them be visited in the night by the mayors personal high level assassin who says they can avoid all justice by doing this one favor they need doing over in the next city. Or whatever plot hook has your fancy.

[Florian]

They knew these men made a mistake and were of no threat, but rather than doing what they could to explain their way out of a fight, or try to apprehend the men so that the authorities could sort things out, they killed them. What do you think?

One question first: Do you, as gm, normally use very clear-cut black/white scenarios that can be solved by simple hack and slash, or do you more often go into the moral gray area that requires more complex decision making?
Other factors are how they (and you) handled similar situations in the past and whit what consequences, if any. What you also leave out is what type of "evil" the woman is - depending on the setting, helping certain persons, especially worshippers, automatically make you a direct accessory to crime and straight up guilty by proxy (example: Anything to do with Rovagug or Lamashtu in Golarion).

[Lorsa]

I have a question.

Did the paladin PC ever identify themselves as a paladin, or is it in any way obvious?

I mean, any random men encountering a paladin in that situation would probably question if the woman was telling the truth or not.

What is most logical, a paladin being a thief & bully or a random peasant girl lying? The obvious answer should be the latter.

[Glorthindel]

I would bear in mind that there is a significant amount of meta knowledge that is being used to judge their actions here. Firstly, the party were significantly outnumbered by armed opponents. Sure, you know it was no challenge, but the characters would have no realistic way of knowing that (sure, they would be aware that normal peasants are well below them, but what if there was a retired adventurer or two in the group, and what if they were some other group pretending to be peasants). Secondly, "subdual damage" is a very game-rule thing, and in a fight, with real weapons, it would be hard to be sure that the attacker wasn't aiming to kill, and that a weak blow was not just a badly struck one. And even if you knew the opponents were only seeking to render you unconscious, you can't truly be aware of the attackers motives, and anyone has a very real reason to be concerned about the chance to be left unconscious at an unknown assailants mercy.

That said, I do actually stand on the side of falling the Paladin over this. Paladins are supposed to be "better than everyone else", so should have been seeking to end the conflict in the most peaceful way, regardless of the points I made above.

But that is between the Paladin and his god, and on a legal standpoint, I feel the party did nothing wrong - they were attacked, with weapons, by a larger group, with no evidence of wrongdoing. The party is well within their rights to defend themselves with maximum force. The party even ceased their attacks when the attackers surrendered, Now, had they chosen to just execute the surrendered attackers, then this would have been crossing a line, but stabbing someone who is trying to stab you is not.

[GrayDeath]

Prior question: How long has the player been playing a Paladin, and how did he do it so far? is this a pattern, or something completely out of the blue?

Also, what Level is the group? if they jsut more or less started out, they might not see everything as clear as you do (or, if they are new enough, not even really know subdual damage is a thing).

Unless the above provides an explanation though, I agree. This is not the behaviour of ANY Paladin, and there wasnt even the usual "Fall or fall harder"! setup.

He should bear the consequences.

[Pleh]

Go against? Not explicitly. Skirt the line? Very much.

I'd say fall the paladin, but keep atonement light and accessible. You're giving the player consequences, not punishments (punishments given to characters should never feel like punishments given to the players, who should be receiving a natural consequence to their actions, not animosity from their referee).

Have the party summoned to a local court to account for their crimes. Don't tell them that defending themselves was wrong, but have them face the families of their attackers to show them that failing to seek nonviolence with duped innocence was wrong. Violence wasn't the crime, thoughtless violence was.

A key point to make here is that they allowed the evil woman to dupe the heroes into employing excessive force. She wins this round because they played into her hand.

Use the paladin fall to back that up and have a higher cleric/paladin on call to immediately instruct the paladin on how to atone. Questing to raise funds and materials necessary to resurrect each man killed seems fair, especially if taken from monster hoards around the community, pulling double duty of returning the able bodied men and helping maintain the regional security.

[Cespenar]

What they did is almost the definition of those murderhobo PCs that are often caricaturized in webcomics and whatnot. If we can use the alignment grid to illustrate this kind of behavior, it would be the area below the LE - CN line (taking into account different reasonings).

I think not only penalize the paladin, but also downgrade every "good" character in that party to neutral, just to make a point.

[Sneak Dog]

So a group of ten men approaches the party, vastly outnumbering them and threatening to kill them by having their weapons out, demand gold, start attacking when their demands aren't met, and you are surprised they kill them like they would kill ten goblins? The paladin just removed ten murderers from the city in self-defence. Each of them could've been a rogue of equal level capable of beating him two on one. Good on them.

Had the ten men had good intentions, they would've come forth with at least the spokesperson having his weapons sheathed and threatening to call down the guard on them. Responding to a murder attempt in kind seems perfectly reasonable to me in a civilization where bandits stalk the alleys, assasssins the roofs, evil wizards the mountains and shape-shifting evil whatever-their-original-form-is the woods. A civilization where any man you see could be a level 1 peasant or level 16 rogue and you wouldn't know until he hits you with that deadly sneak attack.

A paladin should be an example of goodness and lawfulness. An exemplar to anyone aspiring to be good, with gifts given to them by gods or the very plane of goodness itself or some nonsense. Also, their life is valuable, no reason to just waste it because those ten random bandits might be redeemable even though they just demanded your coin or your life. There's orphanages to be donated to and true villains to be redeemed!

[Zombimode]

This happens in a big city with laws just like any civilized city would have. The PCs were obviously more powerful than these men and one of the PCs is a Paladin. They knew these men made a mistake and were of no threat, but rather than doing what they could to explain their way out of a fight, or try to apprehend the men so that the authorities could sort things out, they killed them. The paladin can detect evil at will and never did. In fact, the paladin isn't even remorseful. As far as he's concerned, they started it and they got what they deserved.

That doesn't sound very lawful to me. I'd hate to penalize the Paladin, but this is pretty much his attitude towards every situation and it might be time to make him deal with the consequences if this is something that warrants it. He knows how to play a paladin (it's his favorite class to play), so a warning isn't going to remind him of anything he doesn't already know. What do you think?

Your question "does this go against the Paladin Code" aims to solve this issue with in-game methods: the Code is part of the world and any consequences of going against it are also part of the Setting.

But this is a Problem best solved out of game. The Players seems to have an idea what it means to be a Paladin that is probably different from your idea. This mismatch should not tried to be solved by using some form of in-game consequences. From the Players persepective those consequences might seem as unwaranted punishment because they have done nothing wrong (in their view!).

You should talk to the Player, aks what they think what it means to be a Paladin to get their perspective, but also present your point of view. Explain why your view is important for this particular campaign.
Or, if it ISN'T, maybe you should just step back an let the Player do their thing. That doesn't mean that there are no consequences for this incident. Just don't make it a Paladin Problem, make it a General Mudderhobbo Problem.

[gijoemike]

Did those 10 NPC's clearly state something along these lines?

"Ms. Jenny told us what you bandits did to her. Beating up and robbing an old helpless woman like that, your mothers should have raised you better! We have come here to take back what you stole and teach you a lesson, As up standing citizens we will not take any of your other belongings or your lives. We'll just rough you up a bit and call it even. Leave town and never come back!"

Were the weapons the group had saps and man catchers? If they attacked with daggers and swords they were armed to kill the PCs.


If they didn't, the PC's saw a 2 to 1 sized group of armed men confront them. The group demanded gold and the PC's responded as PCs. They matched how the group approached them. Large intimidating group approached, we draw weapons, don't attack, and show the group we are better at this than they are. The OP clearly states that the group of 10 men escalate the confrontation to violence.

And there are 0 consequences. The PC's were in 100% lawful right to defend themselves and stopped the violence when the group of 10 men surrendered.


Also, This is not Murderhobo-ness. NPCs started a fight after being warned not to.

I vote no fall, or warning, or law enforcement. 1 PC in a zone of truth states the approaching mob clearly stated the fight and no charges will be pressed.

[Lord Torath]

Does it go against a Paladin Code? There is almost certainly a Paladin Code somewhere that these actions would violate. Does it go against this Specific Paladin's Code? Depends on what's in this Specific Paladin's Code. We need more information.

From what I do know about the situation, I'm pretty much in agreement with GIJoeMike.

Self-Defense is against no Paladin Code that I am aware of, even self-defense against Good attackers. The Paladin and his group did not initiate the conflict. They accepted the surrender of their opponents when offered. This is honorable and presumably legal behavior.

Were there actions they could have taken that could have avoided the bloodshed? Certainly. Could they have responded with non-lethal force? Obviously. And the paladin's religious leader should probably give him a serious talking to about that. But they have done nothing evil, and the paladin should not Fall here.

Does the Paladin's player know what code his actions are bound by? As in, the player has explicitly been given access to a document that explicitly spells out the Paladin's Code of Conduct? If yes, carefully peruse that code to determine if his actions violate it. If not, the Paladin should be in the clear.

Talk to the paladin's player out of the game as Zombiemode suggests to discuss what they understand their Code to mean, and what actions are allowed by it, and which violate it. Ask if they are interested in exploring the morality of these actions. If they are interested, maybe a Fall is appropriate. But I feel that any Falling on the part of a paladin should be done only with the full knowledge and support of that paladin's player (explicit warnings that such-and-such action being considered will lead to falling). Otherwise it feels like the DM is playing "Gotcha!"

[dps]

Did those 10 NPC's clearly state something along these lines?

"Ms. Jenny told us what you bandits did to her. Beating up and robbing an old helpless woman like that, your mothers should have raised you better! We have come here to take back what you stole and teach you a lesson, As up standing citizens we will not take any of your other belongings or your lives. We'll just rough you up a bit and call it even. Leave town and never come back!"

I think this is a key question. I assume that the NPCs did state something along these lines given the statement that it's stated that the PCs "knew these men made a mistake". If so, the PCs actions were Evil and the Paladin should fall. If it wasn't so clear that the NPCs were acting in error, though, then I'd say that the PCs actions weren't Evil, so no falling.

BTW, I would disagree with the assertion of some posters that the PCs actions were Chaotic. IMO, if the PCs did truly know that the men had made a mistake, their actions were Lawful Evil. Just because you're in a "big city with laws" doesn't mean you give up the right to defend yourself if attacked, and taking advantage of someone's mistake to provoke him to attack you first so you can fight back in self-defense is textbook LE behavior. OTOH, if the PCs didn't truly know that the men had made a mistake, then they were still lawfully defending themselves from an attack--Lawful Stupid in that case, I suppose, but there's nothing in the standard Paladin code that says you have to be smart.

[Grek]

Detect Evil is not Detect Bad Guy. It detects supernatural evil, which is useless in this situation. It detects Evil Outsiders (none present), Undead (none present), Evil Clerics (none present) and Evil Magic (both dark blessings AND cursed people; neither of which is present). Not bothering with detect evil on humanoids isn't a sign that a paladin is going bad.

The paladin code says nothing about not killing people who attack you. it says not to kill innocents which people trying to stab you are distinctly not. No fall and no more trying to bait the paladin into falling.

[Oryan77]

I think of it like this:
Ten college students accuse a marine veteran of robbing an old woman and demand that he give them her purse back, when he doesn't, one of them hits him with a 2x4 so the marine kills half of them. He explains to the court that they are "murderers" and he was just defending himself. I don't really think that is going to help his cause. Nor do I think society would be on his side. Killing them is a lot different than beating the crap out of them.

They also never demanded that they hand over their own valuables or their own coin purses. They just demanded that they hand over the woman's coin purse. They also did this in the middle of an open busy street. That's not exactly what I would call a "mugging".

It was obvious to the PCs that these guys were no threat to their level (9th). The PCs were not scared of being outnumbered. They reacted with violence because they were cocky and knew these guys posed no threat. They didn't "defend" themselves because they were worried about being killed. They just used "being outnumbered" as an excuse to kill them. The players also know about nonlethal damage and I was clear when the NPC made a nonlethal attack with the blunt end of his weapon.

I considered if these guys knew he was a paladin, but he crafts his own armor and his choice of attire doesn't make it clear that he's a paladin. He could be mistaken for a cleric, a knight, or just any random soldier. Even so, the fact that the men tried to intimidate them into handing over the purse and the paladin responded back with intimidation and threats rather than diplomacy wouldn't help identify him as a paladin. I determined that nothing about him at the moment made these men feel that they were in the presence of a respected and morally just man any more than they thought they were being themselves. They were honestly trying to help a young woman. Think of the NPCs as bikers at the bar that step outside and see some guys pushing around a helpless girl so they go to her defense and will beat the guy up if necessary. FYI, this was a scenario created for the adventure. I was in no way using this as a test to the paladin code. I wasn't even thinking about it until after the encounter.

I understand PCs are prone to killing anyone that looks at them funny and coming up with any reason to defend the action. Even though the other PCs probably committed murder here, in game context, it could still be a tragic mistake on their part as far as I'm concerned. They are used to being betrayed, fighting evil, fighting neutral monsters, and even fighting CN people from time to time. It was an unexpected situation and it could be looked at as a rash decision on their part in the heat of the moment. I have some legal courtroom drama planned for them just for fun, but I don't think I'll change their alignment for this. The paladin on the other hand is a different matter since he in no way even tried to uphold the city laws or his own moral laws here. He just Judge Dredd'd them. Asking for someone's money back is not exactly breaking any laws.

Thanks for all of the very well thought out responses. I just wanted confirmation that I had a logical and fair reason to deal with the paladin's actions and it looks like I do. I'm not trying to be a vindictive DM and removing his paladin abilities will actually be a burden on my DMing since it screws with the CR of some upcoming tough encounters. I do however want players to uphold the flavor of their class or play something else if they are not willing to do that. Hopefully I can make this an interesting scenario for him to play out so he doesn't feel like I'm simply just trying to screw him over. He killed the NPCs, not me.

[Oryan77]

Detect Evil is not Detect Bad Guy. It detects supernatural evil, which is useless in this situation. It detects Evil Outsiders (none present), Undead (none present), Evil Clerics (none present) and Evil Magic (both dark blessings AND cursed people; neither of which is present). Not bothering with detect evil on humanoids isn't a sign that a paladin is going bad.

The paladin code says nothing about not killing people who attack you. it says not to kill innocents which people trying to stab you are distinctly not. No fall and no more trying to bait the paladin into falling.

This is a 3.5/PF game. Detect Evil is not restricted to any of the above. I also never said that not detecting evil is a sign of him going bad. I also specifically said that they attempted to deal nonlethal damage, not stab. I also never claimed to be baiting him into falling.

How about "no more trolling" or "no more baiting me into an argument"?

[Mordar]

I agree with gijoemike and Sneak Dog based on nothing but the description you have provided. You are right in your impulse to hate the idea of punishing the Paladin.

10 armed men approached with weapons drawn and demanded a specific action. They were not in uniform that suggested authority (City Watch, soldiery of the realm, etc). One of their number launched the initial attack.

Angry men with clubs, blades or pitchforks attacked a smaller number of people. The fact that the smaller number of people was more capable does not change the crime that was committed (by the 10 men). Assuming "normal" fantasy RPG laws, fighting back and killing attackers was not unlawful. Clubbing someone in a modern game would be ADW, even if it was only meant to KO the target. So the Paladin did not violate the law.

The "Good" side of the spectrum is a bit tougher to judge. If he stabbed one of the attackers when they were down or fleeing, maybe you'd have something. But from the description, it doesn't sound that way. Heck, the Paladin may have just been defending his allies, a classic Good move.

Trying to mark the players down for responding to an armed mob with "attitude and intimidation" is a big mistake, I think. Picture any action movie ever. 10 armed guys push up on the heroes, acting tough. There's only going to be one of two responses - attitude and intimidation or ignoring them and walking on. The mob wasn't about to allow the ignoring to happen, so there was only one reasonable expectation of response for that group. Had the mob approached as a group of concerned citizens, weapons sheathed and opened with a more diplomatic presentation things might have been very different. They are the actors, the characters are the respondents.

Now, was it well handled? Nope. Not by the mob and secondarily (and perhaps less so) by the PCs. The mob was mislead, sure...but they were the aggressors and they picked the fight. The PCs could possibly have de-escalated it, but the opening salvo from the mob was "Do what we want or we're going to beat you". Any of the characters, Paladin included, *could* have tried to talk it down, but I think it is a stretch to say that any of them were required to try.

Frankly, I'm a bit concerned this was all set up as a Paladin Trap (tm). Dupe the Paladin into fighting/killing "innocents" to make the Paladin fall. Problems abound, not least of all that the mob acted in a non-lawful fashion (initiating the intimidation and assault instead of going to the City Watch, for instance), and were specifically not "innocent" (they came to fight and literally started the fight). Detect Evil doesn't read as "Learn everything you need to know about the situation and motivations of the target". A group of Chaotic Neutrals (or True Neutral or any other non-evil alignment) can kill you just as dead as an Evil alignment. The actions of the mob directly resulted in the consequence. Any kind of fall for the Paladin here (based exclusively on what you have provided) really comes off to me as an intentional metagame decision by the GM and is, in my opinion, a horrible decision.

Now, there are some questions that could change this around:

• In your campaign, specifically this city, would the characters have been brought up on charges for defending themselves against 10 thieves looking to mug them, including specifically killing them?
• Is the Paladin a follower of a specific god that includes something along the lines of diplomacy, knowledge or contemplation?
• Assuming the party is level 5 or so...certainly at least level 3...what would be your expectation if the group was attacked by a band of 10 goblins that wanted to capture the party alive? Are they to be expected to talk their way out of the fight or go along with the goblins to see what they want?
• Did the Paladin character lead the group in the "attitude and intimidation", initiate the killing, do specific acts of malice or savagery, chase down and kill fleeing members of the mob or similar depravity?

If it is known that any fatal violence, even in self-defense is prohibited, the resolution may have been different.

If the Paladin is supposed to be following a peaceful god that promotes understanding and diplomacy over violence, then there is a problem. If it is a standard issue LG god of war, nature, weather...basically anything else up to and including Law/Justice ("by the book" type Law), then I believe there is no alignment, code or deity issue for the Paladin to fall. In fact, for a lot of gods I can think of, his response is perfect. No remorse as they chose their path and the Paladin and party acted within the law. Now if the party specifically learns the whole story, the Paladin should almost certainly want to hunt down the woman for proper justice as well.

The goblin question is about the expectations your game has set up - is it okay to kill one group over the other because despite equal threat they are a non-PC race, or a generally "evil" alignment? Or is it a problem to wipe out 10 creatures that don't represent a real threat to the party? Is combat an acceptable default position when approached and threatened by armed creatures?

If the Paladin reveled in the opportunity to carve up the mob or took advantage of the opportunity to slaughter defenseless (disarmed, down...not just "not good enough to be a threat") people, then there is a problem.

Remember that a Paladin doesn't have to be Superman in their level of "boy scoutiness". Particularly when Superman really isn't threatened by 10 guys with clubs. Even a 5th level paladin *is* at risk. Again, I am assuming a level range of 1-6 or so...if we're talking level 8+, the story might be different. If we're talking level 10+, depending on edition, the story is definitely different. The god or order they follow matters. Do not pigeon-hole the Paladin, and don't be the GM that is always looking for a chance to make them fall. Hold them to the rules and don't allow abuse, but don't be the abuser.

Again, I am not saying the party handled the situation especially well. But they did handle it in a reasonable and defensible fashion for any run-of-the-mill fantasy RPG kingdom. If you have players that default to "beat down the obstacle" you might want to try to work away from throwing up another group of aggressive armed adversaries...because that sure looks like a nail to any hammer.

If you want more nuance, the situation has to be framed differently...and more subtlety. Maybe a little palace intrigue storyline, or an investigation where they can't beat the information out of people. Something that presents layers of interaction and gives a chance for different reasonable responses.

- M

I think of it like this:
Ten college students accuse a marine veteran of robbing an old woman and demand that he give them her purse back, when he doesn't, one of them hits him with a 2x4 so the marine kills half of them. He explains to the court that they are "murderers" and he was just defending himself. I don't really think that is going to help his cause. Nor do I think society would be on his side. Killing them is a lot different than beating the crap out of them.

They also never demanded that they hand over their own valuables or their own coin purses. They just demanded that they hand over the woman's coin purse. They also did this in the middle of an open busy street. That's not exactly what I would call a "mugging".

It was obvious to the PCs that these guys were no threat to their level (9th). The PCs were not scared of being outnumbered. They reacted with violence because they were cocky and knew these guys posed no threat. They didn't "defend" themselves because they were worried about being killed. They just used "being outnumbered" as an excuse to kill them. The players also know about nonlethal damage and I was clear when the NPC made a nonlethal attack with the blunt end of his weapon.

...

Thanks for all of the very well thought out responses. I just wanted confirmation that I had a logical and fair reason to deal with the paladin's actions and it looks like I do. I'm not trying to be a vindictive DM and removing his paladin abilities will actually be a burden on my DMing since it screws with the CR of some upcoming tough encounters. I do however want players to uphold the flavor of their class or play something else if they are not willing to do that. Hopefully I can make this an interesting scenario for him to play out so he doesn't feel like I'm simply just trying to screw him over. He killed the NPCs, not me.

I have to disagree very strongly. 10 adult men, at least one swinging a 2x4 attack one guy (or 5) and in the process of defending himself kills five of them. As long as he didn't leave the scene and come back hours later with a weapon to do it, or shoot four of them in the back as they ran away, he's absolutely going to walk and he is going to be lauded by a number of people. Calling them murderers wouldn't be accurate, but he is facing clear and present danger, and in most states would be allowed to defend himself with lethal force. Change the situation to elementary school kids and a whiffle ball bat and you have an argument.

The middle of an open busy street further complicates matters...but not in a way that is helpful to your initial position.

Like I said above, level 8+ and I have more of a problem. The party should probably suffer some serious reputation issues for what they did...particularly if any of the slain men had good standing...and that could be used very interestingly in the story. But I still don't see a fall here without the other circumstances. Being pistol whipped is still ADW, even without a shot being fired. The mob needed to go no weapons for the situation to be where you seem to want it.

Find a penalty other than stripping the Paladin powers. Particularly a penalty that directly impacts *all* of the characters. Otherwise is looks like you're singling out the Paladin on a stretch play.

This is a 3.5/PF game. Detect Evil is not restricted to any of the above. I also never said that not detecting evil is a sign of him going bad. I also specifically said that they attempted to deal nonlethal damage, not stab. I also never claimed to be baiting him into falling.

How about "no more trolling" or "no more baiting me into an argument"?

I know you didn't claim to be setting a Paladin Trap (tm), but it kind of seems that you have. Don't pull the trigger.

[Oryan77]

Did those 10 NPC's clearly state something along these lines?

"Ms. Jenny told us what you bandits did to her. Beating up and robbing an old helpless woman like that, your mothers should have raised you better! We have come here to take back what you stole and teach you a lesson, As up standing citizens we will not take any of your other belongings or your lives. We'll just rough you up a bit and call it even. Leave town and never come back!"

Were the weapons the group had saps and man catchers? If they attacked with daggers and swords they were armed to kill the PCs.

Unfortunately, it wasn't a convenient enough situation for the men to come at them with saps and man catchers. This was a spurt of the moment event, the PCs saw the woman talking to the men and point in their direction. The PCs watched the men approach them from the other side of a busy street.

Basically, the men confronted them similar to your dialogue. Not as well thought out and detailed as that in order to perfectly identify their social standing. I don't think any of us would be that eloquent and clear in this situation. But yes, you're pretty close other than the fact that they brandished weapons in an attempt to intimidate the PCs into just handing over the woman's purse.

[FreddyNoNose]

What matters is what the DM says in this situation. It is his game and he is the judge. He is not bound by anything anyone here suggests or claims.

[Mordar]

What matters is what the DM says in this situation. It is his game and he is the judge. He is not bound by anything anyone here suggests or claims.

You do get it is the DM that was asking for advice and suggestions, right? Without even stepping into the mess of it being the "DM's game" and no one elses' (which I mostly agree with from the perspective of judging the implementation of a rule).

Of course Oryan77 isn't required to do anything anyone here suggests. But he did ask.

- M

[Berenger]

How much do the laws of your fantasy world reflect the ridiculous power of player characters compared to low-level NPC? In other word: is "These ten armed men that tried to knock your lights out were no threat!" a sentence a sane inhabitant of that universe would utter?

[Oryan77]

[*]In your campaign, specifically this city, would the characters have been brought up on charges for defending themselves against 10 thieves looking to mug them, including specifically killing them?[*]Is the Paladin a follower of a specific god that includes something along the lines of diplomacy, knowledge or contemplation?[*]Assuming the party is level 5 or so...certainly at least level 3...what would be your expectation if the group was attacked by a band of 10 goblins that wanted to capture the party alive? Are they to be expected to talk their way out of the fight or go along with the goblins to see what they want?[*]Did the Paladin character lead the group in the "attitude and intimidation", initiate the killing, do specific acts of malice or savagery, chase down and kill fleeing members of the mob or similar depravity?

[*]The PCs would be questioned about the event and if it was determined that they acted in self defense due to a mugging, sure, they would not be found guilty of murder. Imagine telling a cop, "Well they asked me to hand over an old ladies purse that they accused me of stealing. I kept telling them I didn't take her purse but they wouldn't believe me. So when one of these teenagers swung at me with a baseball bat and missed, I shot and killed half of them until the rest finally gave up."
[*]I did take his god into consideration because he worships Clangeddin and so responding with violence is not unheard of. My concern was less so with it being an evil act and more with it being a lawful/unlawful act. Beating them to unconsciousness and walking away could make perfect sense. I don't expect him to be a goody-2-shoes paladin. Nothing in this scenario though comes off as lawful in his response. Even trying to justify it as a lawful act in regards to his own moral code is hard when you then try to add the "good" descriptor to the lawful alignment. I could see a lawful neutral guy thinking he was being lawful to his own standards, but not LG.
[*]Goblins (99% of the time known to be evil) trying to capture you (who knows what they'll do to you later) is hardly the same as a group of men in a city accusing you of stealing money and demanding that you give it back. I understand why you would ask this but I don't really think it's a fair comparison. I'd say the PCs would attack and kill the goblins 100% of the time and I'd see no reason to question that.
[*]Yes the paladin acts as the group leader and was dishing the attitude right back. I don't have a problem with him using intimidate in an attempt to just scare them off so he can continue on his way. I do however question his paladin status when intimidation isn't working and you don't even bother to try diplomacy to help them understand their mistake. Using your Superman analogy; I agree that he doesn't need to be a boy scout. However, Superman could be confronted by 50 humans with sticks and stones, all of them are demanding that he return the money to the bank (which he didn't take), maybe some of them even throw rocks at him, and he's still not going to fry 25 of them with his eye beams until the rest of them surrender. The PCs were not threatened by being outnumbered. They knew they would overpower them, which is why they responded with intimidation, cockiness, and were ready for a fight.

[Grek]

This is a 3.5/PF game. Detect Evil is not restricted to any of the above.

It is. Normal evil humanoids need 10+ HD to register on detect evil, and even then the spell doesn't distinguish between "evil serial killer", "LG peasant cursed with boils by an [Evil] spell" and "LG peasant holding flask of unholy water". Read the spell text.

[FreddyNoNose]

You do get it is the DM that was asking for advice and suggestions, right? Without even stepping into the mess of it being the "DM's game" and no one elses' (which I mostly agree with from the perspective of judging the implementation of a rule).

Of course Oryan77 isn't required to do anything anyone here suggests. But he did ask.

- M

Yes, and what I wrote it still true. Any DM really needs to know what he is doing with his game. What my world would allow is different from his. Plus, you people around here are so sensitive when I suggest my old ways you get upset or report me.

Does he want a Role Playing game or are they doing a lowly we are making a story here type of game. If the latter, talk it with the players about how you are writing the stupid story. If RP, if a Paladin doesn't have to live by any codes and the DM doesn't enforce them, you aren't doing much more than playing a bunch of stats and skills are you? If you want it to be meaningful, it has to have meaning.

What options? Are you teaching the player or punishing the character? If you had been doing it well from the start, there would be learning along the way. Paladins could be warned about their actions at first if they aren't too bad. A cleric of his faith can put a quest spell on him to teach them a lesson. A smart DM would make the quest something appropriate to the lesson being learn and it should take effort. An angry god can take away powers temporarily and give them back when he learns a lesson. The god can remove paladinhood from him, making him a fighter and perhaps shunned/outcast/whatever.

Don't something stupid like make him an anti-paladin. An anti-paladin would be the evil equivalent of a paladin that people are raised and trained to become. That would rewarding the player in some players minds and it would feel like some kind of cheap darth vader ripoff. Oh, if you are running a making a story style then ok, that is just the sort of thing I would expect to see in this style of play.

To the DMs out there. Do you have clarity in what your paladins should do? If you like to have lots of gray areas, you might not want to be too quick to remove paladinhood when you test them.

[Pleh]

the PCs saw the woman talking to the men and point in their direction. The PCs watched the men approach them from the other side of a busy street.

This feels like a bit more info on the scenario. If they knew she was evil and they saw all this going down, why didn't they cross the street and intervene?

Why do the heroes watch themselves get set up, do nothing to combat the misinformation before things got hostile, participate in the escalation of hostilities, then think that their "self-defense" is justified?

Even Self-Defense can be criminal when "excessive force" is employed. This violence was so unbelievably preventable that defense of these "heroes" is really debatable at best.

From here, it almost seems like they just wanted an excuse to kill random strangers.

Heck, the Paladin may have just been defending his allies, a classic Good move.

Classic "Neutral" move, actually. If you defend your ally from attacks while they busy themselves eating babies alive and prevent good people from stopping the crime, that is hardly a "good" action.

There is nothing inherently "good" about defending your professional partners. "Good" defense falls under defending those who cannot defend themselves (which these murderhoboes clearly COULD).

Helping them was just as much in the Paladin's own interest as it could possibly be charitable. No Good Points scored there.

[2D8HP]

Here is a scenario....

How about more context, such as what Paladin code?

In RPG's the Paladin class was introduced in La Chanson de Roland the 1975 Dungeons & Dragons "Greyhawk" supplement (which also introduced Thieves hmm... what a coincidence funny that). From "Greyhawk":
Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for the character. If such fighters elect to they can become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained. The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good......"

So from that, if a Paladin didn't "always perform lawful deeds", they were playing the class wrong,

Spoiler: So you need to know what "lawful" means

Show

So, the "rules" on alignment and everything else are up to each individual table:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "..The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play...."

AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "...As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual..."

A History of "Alignment" in Dungeons & Dragons

Part One: The War between Law & Chaos

For the Dungeons & Dragons game, Arneson and Gygax got Law vs. Chaos from stories by Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock.

Poul Anderson invented Law vs. Chaos in '53 for Three Hearts and Three Lions (which had a Dwarf on the side of Law, and Elves on the side of Chaos, Anderson's Elves were not Tolkien's Elves, though they drew from the same well. The "Ranger" is from Tolkien, the "Paladin" is from Anderson).

Anderson had Law on the side of most of humanity, and "the hosts of Faerie" on the side of Chaos. When Chaos was ascendant latent Lycanthrope became expressed for example.

Michael Moorcock adopted Law vs. Chaos for his Elric stories, and it was his works that were far more known by those of us who played D&D in the 1970's and '80's.

While Moorcock's 1965 novel Stormbringer had the triumph of Chaos being humanity's doom, by '75 he was clear that humanity would suffer under extreme Law as well, and "The Balance" was to be sought.

Okay, in the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson,

which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict in the Elric and Corum novels, and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

Now in the 1961 novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions, we have this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."

.which suggests that Law vs. Chaos is about "teams" in a cosmic struggle rather than personal ethics/morality, which is how the terms are used in the old Stormbringer RPG, and would be my usual preference.

Before D&D, Gygax & Perren had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame:I suppose it waa inevitably when Greyhawk added Paladins that were "continual seeking for good" but I think that adding "Good" and "Evil" to "Alignment" was a mistake, and it was better the way the predecessor of D&D, Chainmail had it as:

"GENERAL LINE-UP:
It is impossible to draw a distanct line between "good" and "evil" fantastic
figures. Three categories are listed below as a general guide for the wargamer
designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:

LAW
Hobbits
Dwarves
Gnomes
Heroes
Super Heroes
Wizards*
Ents
Magic Weapons

NEUTRAL
Sprites
Pixies
Elves
Fairies
Lycanthropes *
Giants*
Rocs
(Elementals)
Chimerea


CHAOS
Goblins
Kobolds
Orcs
Anti-heroes
Wizards *
Wraiths
Wights
Lycanthropes*
Ogres
True Trolls
Balrogs
Giants *
Dragons
Basilisks

* Indicates the figure appears in two lists.
Underlined Neutral figures have a slight pre-disposition for LAW. Neutral
figures can be diced for to determine on which side they will fight, with ties
meaning they remain neutral."




So it was clear that it's sides in a wargame, not an ethics debate.

But the turning of a heavily house ruled Chainmail into what we now call a "role-playing game", brought character behavior in the mix:

Dave Arneson wrote that he added "alignment" to the game he made up because of one PC backstabbing another

"We began without the multitude of character classes and three alignments that exists today. I felt that as a team working towards common goals there would be it was all pretty straight forward. Wrong!

"Give me my sword back!" "Nah your old character is dead, it's mine now!"

Well I couldn't really make him give it to the new character. But then came the treasure question. The Thieves question. Finally there were the two new guys. One decided that there was no reason to share the goodies. Since there was no one else around and a +3 for rear attacks . . .. well . . Of course everyone actually KNEW what had happened, especially the target.

After a great deal of discussion . . . yes let us call it "discussion" the culprit promised to make amends. He, and his associate did. The next time the orcs attacked the two opened the door and let the Orcs in. They shared the loot and fled North to the lands of the EGG OF COOT. (Sigh)

We now had alignment. Spells to detect alignment, and rules forbidding actions not allowed by ones alignment. Actually not as much fun as not knowing. Chuck and John had a great time being the 'official' evil players.
They would draw up adventures to trap the others (under my supervision) and otherwise make trouble"

And here's in 1974's Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons: Book1, Men & Magic



(Orcs can be Neutral as well as Chaos, as can Elves, Dwarves/Gnomes as well as Law, and Men may be any)

And "Law, Chaos, and Neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively. One can attempt to communicate through the common tongue, language particular to a creature class, or one of the divisional languages (law, etc.). While not understanding the language, creatures who speak a divisionsl tongue will recognize a hostile one and attack."

Easy "detect alignment"!

Originally there were three classes; "Cleric", "Fighting-Men", and "Magic-User" (as in "wake up the user, it's time to cast the daily spell"). Clerics didn't have any spells at first level, but they could "turn" some undead (a bit like a 5e Paladin really), and other than hints that "Law" Clerics, and "Chaos" Clerics were in conflict, there wasn't much info on what was meant until the Paladin class was introduced in La Chanson de Roland the 1975 "Greyhawk" supplement (which also introduced Thieves hmm... what a coincidence funny that). From "Greyhawk":
Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for the character. If such fighters elect to they can become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained. The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good......".
(Ok this is the fun part the special powers which include......PSYCH! Back to the restrictions)
"Paladins will never be allowed to possess more than four magically items, excluding the armor, shield and up to four weapons they normally use. They will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is neccesary to maintain themselves, their men and a modest castle. Gifts must be to the poor or to charitable or religious institutions , i.e.not tho some other character played in the game. A paladin's stronghold cannot be above 200,000 gold pieces in total cost, and no more than 200 men can be retained to guard it. Paladins normally prefer to dwell with lawful princess of patriarchs, but circumstances may prevent this. They will associate only with lawful characters"
Huh? What's lawful? What's chaotic? What's associate? And what is this charitable? I don't believe PC's know this word.
Well...helpfully there are some clues:
" Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that - chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederate in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place".
OK Paladins are "continual seeking for good", "All thieves are either neutral or chaotic - although lawful characters may hire them on a one-time basis for missions which are basically lawful" "Patriarchs" (high level Clerics) "stance" is "Law", and "Evil High Priests" "stance" is "Chaos". So we can infer that Law = Good, and Chaos = Evil in early D&D, which fits how the terms were used in novels Gygax cited as "inspiration", first in Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions", and than later in Moorcock's "Stormbringer" (though Moorcock eventually in his novels show that too much "Law" is anti-human as well, which is probably why Gygax added the separate Good-Evil axis so you could have "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Good" alignmemts later).

I'm gonna stress that I didn't know Anderson's novel when I first played D&D in the very late 1970's, and I'd bet that most other players didn't either, but knowledge of Moorcock's Elric was far more common then, from comic books!:





If you've read the "Elric" series, from which D&D "borrowed" much of this, you may remember that Elric visits a "world" (plane/dimension/alternate reality) of "Chaos" and finds a whirling cloud, in-which creatures and objects sometimes flash in and out of existence. He also visits a "world of Law" which is nothing but a grey mist.

[BTW, a nice 21st century use of the Law vs. Chaos trope is in Genevieve Cogman's Invisible Library series, in which different worlds (alternate realities) have more or less "Chaos" or "Law".

Heavy Chaos worlds are ruled by the Fey, who are the main antagonists, Law world's are ruled by (often hidden) Dragons, and we are told that while too much Chaos is worse, with too much Law humans are controlled by Dragons and not free.].

Part Two: Enter Good & Evil

1976's Eldrich Wizardry supplement added the Mind Flayers which were the first monters that were explicitly both "lawful" and "evil", and it could be a coincidence but Michael Moorcock in A Quest for Tanelorn wrote:

"Chaos is not wholly evil, surely?" said the child. "And neither is Law wholly good. They are primitive divisions, at best-- they represent only temperamental differences in individual men and women. There are other elements..."
"
..which was published in 1975 in the UK, and 1976 in the USA, and '76 was when Gygax added "good" and "evil" to D&D Alignment in an article that I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976

Spoiler: illustrations

Show

illustration

illustration

illustration

illustration

illustration


illustration


illustration


illustration

Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.



"As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"

- Gary Gygax

So the article added the "good and evil axis", but made clear in this graph:


..that creatures don't just exist on one of nine points of ethics/morality, there's a range:

Also in the article Gygax states:

"Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity....

....Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things."


So in general "Law" was the side of humanity, and "Chaos" was on the side of the supernatural in Anderson and early Moorcock, and very early D&D, but 'Good" and "Evil" complicate matters.

Per Gygax, I infer from that "Alignment" didn't control the PC's actions, PC actions are a guide to what "Alignment" the DM rules a character is for game effects.

So leave the entry blank, and let the DM deal with the alignment claptrap (frankly as a player I'd rather keep a character possessions inventory sheet and foist the "stats" on the DM anyway)!

But oD&D was just "guidelines", nothing was "official" until Advanced Dungeons & Dragons which was a completely different game!

"No royalties for you Arneson! Mine all Mine! Bwahahaha!
Wait, what's that Blume?"

Part Three: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

Fitting as a "bridge" between oD&D, and AD&D, the 1977 "Basic Set" had a "5 point Alignment system" (Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, and Neutral), but the 1978 Players Handbook had the full "nine-points" that we know today.

Spoiler: the 5-point system of the 1977 "bluebook".

Show

CHARACTER ALIGNMENT

Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic (good or evil). Lawful characters always act according to a highly regulated code of behavior, whether for good or evil. Chaotic characters are quite
unpredictable and can not be depended upon to do anything except the unexpected -- they are often, but not always, evil. Neutral characters, such as all thieves, are motivated by self interest and may steal from their companions or betray them if it is in their own best interest. Players may choose any alignment they want and need not reveal it to others. Note that the code of lawful good characters insures that they would tell everyone that they are lawful. There are some magical items that can be used only by one alignment of characters. If the Dungeon Master feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment he may rule that he or she has changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of experience points. An example of such behavior would be a "good" character who kills or tortures a prisoner.

So...

ALIGNMENT

After generating the abilities of your character, selecting his or her race, and deciding upon a class, it is necessary to determine the alignment of the character. It is possible that the selection of the class your character will profess has predetermined alignment: a druid is neutral, a paladin is lawful good, a thief can be neutral or evil, an assassin is always evil. Yet, except for druids and paladins, such restrictions still leave latitude - the thief can be lawful neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, chaotic evil, chaotic neutral, neutral, or even neutral good; and the assassin has nearly as many choices. The alignments possible for characters are described below.

Chaotic Evil: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims.

Chaotic Good: While creatures of this alignment view freedom and the randomness of action as ultimate truths, they likewise place value on life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is also great.
By promoting the gods of chaotic good, characters of this alignment seek to spread their values throughout the world.

Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder.
Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer.

Lawful Evil: Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned.
By adhering to stringent discipline, those of
lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.

Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.

Lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world -and the whole of the universe - is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.

Neutral Evil: The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary
considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are
disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world.

Neutral Good: Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral evil) in
alignment, creatures of neutral good believe that there must be some regulation in combination with freedoms if the best is to be brought to the world - the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.

True Neutral: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets
of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even
then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as
human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.

Naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment. The descriptions are generalizations only. A character can be basically good in its "true" neutrality, or tend towards evil. It is probable
that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift.of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other.

Anyway, the '79 DMG recommended graphing a PC's Alignment, and if they slipped into a new one they'd lose one level of experience, "If the alignment change is involuntary (such as caused by a powerful magic, a curse etc.), then the character can regain all of the losses (level, hit die, etc.) upon returning to his or her former alignment as soon as possible and after making atonement through a cleric of the same alignment - and sacrificing treasure which has a value of not less than 10,000 g.p. per level of experience of the character."

That'll teach those pesky PC's not to stray!



Oh and "Until the character has again achieved his or her former level of experience held prior to change of alignment, he or she will not be able to converse in the former alignment's tongue nor will anything but the rudest signalling be possible in the new alignment language."


1e AD&D DM's were always supplied with pizza with the correct toppings!



(Not really, I have no memory of those rules ever being used).

Wisely the 1981 "Basic rules" went back to Law/Neutral/Chaos, which was retained in the

Spoiler: 1991 "Rules Cyclopedia"

Show

Alignment
An alignment is a code of behavior or way of
life which guides the actions and thoughts of characters and monsters. There are three alignments in the D&D® game: Law, Chaos, and Neutrality. Players may choose the alignments they feel will best fit their characters. A player does not have to tell other players what alignment he or she has picked, but must tell the Dungeon Master. Most Lawful characters will reveal their align-ments if asked. When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics. A Chaotic character does not work well with other PCs.
Alignments give characters guidelines,to live by. They are not absolute rules: characters will try to follow their alignment guidelines, but may not always be successful. To better understand the philosophies behind them, let's define the three alignments.
Law (or Lawful)
Law is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws that are fair, keep promises, and care for all living things.
If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good
Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as "good" behavior.
Chaos (or Chaotic)
Chaos is the opposite of Law. It is the belief
that life is random and that chance and luck rule the world. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful.
To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the
most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They have strong belief in the power of luck. They cannot always be trusted. Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "evil." Each individual player must decide if his Chaotic character is closer to a mean, selfish "evil" personality or merely a happy-go-lucky, unpredictable personality.
Neutrality (or Neutral)
Neutrality is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither side get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together.
A Neutral character is most interested in per-
sonal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it. Neutral behavior may be considered "good" or "evil" (or neither).
Alignment Behavior
Take this situation as an example: A group of player characters is attacked by a large number of monsters. Escape is not possible unless the monsters are slowed down.
A Lawful character will fight to protect the
group, regardless of the danger. The character will not run away unless the whole group does so or is otherwise safe.
A Neutral character will fight to protect the
group as long as it is reasonably safe to do so. If the danger is too great, the character will try to save himself, even at the expense of the rest of the party.
A Chaotic character might fight the monsters or he might run away immediately—Chaotics are, as always, unpredictable. The character may not even care what happened to the rest of the party.
Playing an alignment does not mean a character must do stupid things. A character should always act as intelligently as the Intelligence score indicates, unless there is a reason to act otherwise (such as a magical curse).
Alignment Languages
Each alignment has a secret language of passwords, hand signals, and other body motions.
Player characters and intelligent monsters always know their alignment languages. They will also recognize when another alignment language is being spoken, but will not understand it. Alignment languages have no written form. A character may not learn a different alignment language unless he changes alignments. In such a case, the character forgets the old alignment language and starts using the new one immediately....

Unfortunately 'Law' was "usually "Good"', and 'Chaos' was "usually Evil", but "not always".

Because my 2e to 4e books are on a higher shelf than my 0e/1e/5e books, I'll just give you this link for info on those editions Alignment systems.

For 5e I still see the point of Alignments in the Monster Manual, but now that D&D has dropped ""Alignment Languages", I'm not sure what the point is of players writing one on their character record sheets, as "Ideals", "Flaws", "Bonds", etc. seem to replace "Alignment" as a role-playing aide.

But if your playing some game that has a different meaning of "Paladin Code" than D&D in 1975, it would be helpful to post what it is.