Yousef The Chosen
Human/Doppelganger Cleric Lvl 5
Deity: Taiia The Destroyer
Just roleplay your character. Alignment is bull anyway.
You should express to your DM that allignments aren't a straight jacket, especially to non allignment dependant classes (such as the Paladin in 3.5) That being said if you are acting too lawful the DM could insist upon a change.
On the otherhand, if your allignment doesn't actually effect your classes dynamic, then it really doesn't matter how it's labled, Act your character how you want him to act and if the DM decides you are true NN or LN then la-de-da.
If you're playing 3.5, you're best bet is to talk with your DM about what you and him think Chaotic Neutral means, or should mean, and get on the same page. Primarily because your class abilities depend on you maintaining your alignment in the eyes of your DM, whether or not you think you're probably roleplaying Chaotic Neutral.
If you're 4e, you have nothing to worry about. You can't lose your powers if your alignment changes, there are nearly zero mechanics that reference alignment, and none of those currently matter to you. So you can just continue to roleplay your character as you feel is appropriate.
Just roleplay your character. Alignment is bull anyway.
I am in total agreement with this.
In fact, in my games, I don't even bother with alignment. I just ask players to write up a brief summary of the character's moral code. This is part of why I've begun favoring 4e: Dropping from nine alignments to five gave a lot more 'wiggle room' in them. At least, that's the change I've noticed relative to the really alignment-focused individuals I've played with.
Ask 10 different people this question, and you'll get 12 different answers. D&D alignments are pretty vague, and therefore alignment is very much dependent on the subjective interpretation of the reader. And what you're experiencing is a common issue - where two or more interpretations of an alignment are competing with a player's character on the line.
If you're playing 3.5, you're best bet is to talk with your DM about what you and him think Chaotic Neutral means, or should mean, and get on the same page. Primarily because your class abilities depend on you maintaining your alignment in the eyes of your DM, whether or not you think you're probably roleplaying Chaotic Neutral.
Idk im pretty sure the fact that i play a madman fit the bill, and i haven't done anything evil necessarily. My character usually gambles for ridiculous things like peoples clothes and other garbage. i'm just trying to think of a way to act more chaotic.
What about converting followers, does that do me any good?
Just roleplay your character. Alignment is bull anyway.
This is part of why I've begun favoring 4e: Dropping from nine alignments to five gave a lot more 'wiggle room' in them. At least, that's the change I've noticed relative to the really alignment-focused individuals I've played with.
4e *painfull cringe*
In short, ask your DM what he thinks a Chaotic character would do or act like.
Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.
I DO care about being Chaotic, i hate being lawful and i think thered be alot of party conflict of i were evil. CN is a perfect fit my my character with his penchant for mischief. i think the first day i went to a shithole tavern and challenged the bar tender to armwrestle (Big guy, no way i would win) so i used my read mind ability(doppelganger ability at 5ft distance, makes it much easier to shape change into someone) and then shape changed into him (the DM DOES allow me to gain the abilities of my acquired form if i make a successful DC on a d20) the bartender almost **** himself and just gave me the money and told me to NEVER do that in the city again (apparrently in Faerun, "changelings" aren't very well respected, especially in the Dales).
And anyone's whose been here on these boards long enough has seen dozens of innocent alignment threads like this one explode into long, drawn out debates about morally, ethics, and everything in-between. Threads that go on for dozens or, on occasion, hundreds of pages on premises as simple as yours.
That is all.
Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. Just roleplay your character how you always have, and ignore the ridiculous, archaic, nonsensical, contradictory, subjective pile of garbage that is alignment.
Just roleplay your character how you always have, and ignore the ridiculous, archaic, nonsensical, contradictory, subjective pile of garbage that is alignment.
Just to head off the inevitable arguments: I recognize that some individuals or groups put weight into alignment systems, enjoying them. I can speculate as to why, but I genuinely don't know, because I do not enjoy alignment systems.
I still respect their right to enjoy them, however.
So anybody ready to throw down the gauntlet for a long and fruitless debate: Let's all agree to disagree...
You're doing it wrong.
Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. Just roleplay your character how you always have, and ignore the ridiculous, archaic, nonsensical, contradictory, subjective pile of garbage that is alignment.
Gonna second this.
Don't ask yourself what CN means. It means NOTHING. As yourself what your character would do in a given situation then, if you must, work out what that means in alignment terms. Conversely, work out what CN means to you (and your DM), work out what the things are that you like about it, and role play those. Talk about it between you, then play the role that you feel most appropriate.
But whenever you wind up in this situation of saying 'I'm CN therefore I must' something's gone awry.
Trying to fit the breadth of human experince into 9 (already highly suspect) categories is an effort in futility.
i figured as much about needing to talk to the DM.
I DO care about being Chaotic
Hah. That's the funny thing. Caring about being Chaotic is doing Chaotic wrong. Chaotic character's don't care about how Chaotic they are, as worrying about your alignment is a Lawful endeavour.
I'm serious. Well, somewhat serious, at least. Do you really think Chaotic characters wake up in the morning and think "Hmm. My personality requires that I do something bizarre today."
Well, you've just imposed a law upon yourself, then! Having rules for your behaviour, even if the rules are intentionally impractical, only lessens your Chaos. You can't try to be chaotic. You just are.
So how do you, as a player, play Chaos? Easy. It is the easiest alignment ever. You just do what you want to. You don't need a reason to do things, though you can have one if it suits you, and you probably do have one when it comes down to it. You don't have to act like a madman, lots of Chaotic characters are sane, although you can be mad if you find it fun. You don't really have to do anything. Just play. That's how Chaotic works.
What if your DM changes your alignment? Unless you picked that alignment in order to interface or defend against certain spells or items, that can't itself change the way you play your character, and afterward both you and the DM are on the same page regarding the interpretation of alignment. (Not that it matters.) Just let him change it. You'll know what alignment you really are.
DM: "That's not how your character would act. You're LG. Now get with the railroad, pal."
or
Other Player: "You're not 'roleplaying' correctly, which is to say, in a way that I don't like. Therefore, that's not what NG means at all."
DM "Thats it, your alignment is now TN"
You "OK."*continues to play the character the exact same way.*
If the DM changes your alignment how much does it really change anything?
But I like it for RP purposes only, not mechanics. In other words, (in my opinion) your character's alignment is between you and your character; the DM and the rulebooks should not be involved.
Further, there are degrees. Chaotic? Can be anywhere from "if there are two equally practical and useful things I could do, I'll go for the one that is less legal/predictable - but I won't take the second-best approach just for the sake of chaos" to "I must spread confusion and disrupt the forces of law at every opportunity". (The latter is often referred to as "chaotic stupid"; don't do that in-game.) So you decide just how chaotic you are.
And why. If you're going to RP alignment, it's helpful to understand from your character's perspective why your character has that alignment.
One of my characters rebelled from and rejected the Lawful Evil society he was raised in. It was a specific clearly evil (but totally legal) act that triggered this rejection, so he's trying to be Good (he doesn't necessarily know how). Then in the next place he went, he found that the forces of Law were protecting acts that were both illegal and evil. So he has no respect for or faith in Law, and expects it to routinely be used for evil. Still, he's not going to go out of his way to make trouble for himself by interfering with Law or doing something illegal when it doesn't advance any of his goals. The catch is that some of his goals relate to the event that caused him to leave his homeland, and if they have any connection with the party's goals it's by pure coincidence (aka the DM read the character's backstory and spotted a good plot-hook).
But I like it for RP purposes only, not mechanics. In other words, (in my opinion) your character's alignment is between you and your character; the DM and the rulebooks should not be involved.
I could get behind that sentiment. Alignment itself isn't what bothers me, but how people treat it. That, and the existance of spells such as Protection From Evil/Good/Law/Chaos just plain don't work with a subjective system like alignment.
In fact, in games I've played in where the DM forced me to take an alignment, I pretty much always opted for Unaligned. Why? Unaligned is described as choosing to be outside the normal alignment system, which is exactly the sort of stance nearly every character I make would take. "What society views as good or evil doesn't matter. The only person I have to justify my actions to is myself." Then I would look at every choice presented to the character not as choosing good or evil, law or chaos, but instead as a choice of "Would my character consider this action right or wrong?" The only standard to consider was the character's own moral code, which is something I try to have a solid grasp on.
The one time I actually played a Good character (Because I reasoned that the character, being a member of the army, would be concerned about the society's moral stance as much as her own) I got called out - in and out of character - for a few actions. The party, while tracking down a group of orcs, came upon a group of dwarves that had been massacred. The rest of the party felt that we should stop to burn and bury the dead. My character objected, insisting that they had to continue: Their goal was to stop the orcs, preferably before they had time to kill anyone else.
The other characters (and a few of the players) insisted that the Good thing to do was to give them a proper burial. My justification for my character's actions was that it was still Good... Because she was thinking in the long term. Yes, it would be good in the eyes of society to grant the dwarves a proper burial. But every wasted minute was another minute the orcs would be getting further away. The greater good would be to stop them before they caused the death of more innocents.
...Which is why I don't bother putting Good on my character sheet anymore. It's just easier to justify my actions with "My character feels this is the better course of action. Oh, look, I'm unaligned." Rather than get into a long debate over whether or not my character's actions are Good.
DM "Thats it, your alignment is now TN"You "OK."*continues to play the character the exact same way.*
If the DM changes your alignment how much does it really change anything?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm with on this alignment thing right up until you said the DM changes my alignment to Tennessee. Nobody does that to me. Nobody.
But I like it for RP purposes only, not mechanics. In other words, (in my opinion) your character's alignment is between you and your character; the DM and the rulebooks should not be involved.
I could get behind that sentiment. Alignment itself isn't what bothers me, but how people treat it. That, and the existance of spells such as Protection From Evil/Good/Law/Chaos just plain don't work with a subjective system like alignment.
In fact, in games I've played in where the DM forced me to take an alignment, I pretty much always opted for Unaligned. Why? Unaligned is described as choosing to be outside the normal alignment system, which is exactly the sort of stance nearly every character I make would take. "What society views as good or evil doesn't matter. The only person I have to justify my actions to is myself." Then I would look at every choice presented to the character not as choosing good or evil, law or chaos, but instead as a choice of "Would my character consider this action right or wrong?" The only standard to consider was the character's own moral code, which is something I try to have a solid grasp on.
The one time I actually played a Good character (Because I reasoned that the character, being a member of the army, would be concerned about the society's moral stance as much as her own) I got called out - in and out of character - for a few actions. The party, while tracking down a group of orcs, came upon a group of dwarves that had been massacred. The rest of the party felt that we should stop to burn and bury the dead. My character objected, insisting that they had to continue: Their goal was to stop the orcs, preferably before they had time to kill anyone else.
The other characters (and a few of the players) insisted that the Good thing to do was to give them a proper burial. My justification for my character's actions was that it was still Good... Because she was thinking in the long term. Yes, it would be good in the eyes of society to grant the dwarves a proper burial. But every wasted minute was another minute the orcs would be getting further away. The greater good would be to stop them before they caused the death of more innocents.
...Which is why I don't bother putting Good on my character sheet anymore. It's just easier to justify my actions with "My character feels this is the better course of action. Oh, look, I'm unaligned." Rather than get into a long debate over whether or not my character's actions are Good.
I don't even put any alignment down. If the DM asks me what my alignment is, I say 'You tell me, 'cause I don't care'.
I don't even put any alignment down. If the DM asks me what my alignment is, I say 'You tell me, 'cause I don't care'.
I'm compelled to fill in every section on the character sheet. In games where alignment doesn't matter, I'll use a txt or rtf file for the sheet and remove the Alignment entry entirely.
Seriously, when I'm filling in a form, I have to put something down. Usually a question mark, if I'm planning on going back and filling it out later.
No, I have no idea why.
DM "Thats it, your alignment is now TN"
You "OK."*continues to play the character the exact same way.*
If the DM changes your alignment how much does it really change anything?
Mechanical penalties. Loss of XP, including levels, depending on edition. Affected differently by different spells and magical effects. Gain/lose the ability to use various magical items. Prevented from gaining levels in a class, or forced to change classes, or lose class features.
There's a good reason why mechanical effects from Alignment is a bad rule and only bad systems use it, but if you're playing in a bad system then yes, it can matter.
Pick two words you feel best describe your character, from the whole of language, and write those in your alignment box instead ;)
My favorite PC, a wizard: Moderately psychotic.
Not in the traditional 'chaotic stupid' method, but in the sense of has genuine mental problems. She had an easier time related to a lich than (relatively) normal people of her own species, after all.
The last PC I played before the wizard: Frequent defenestrator.
That was (almost) the character's entire (mechanical) function: Grab things, throw them out windows.
But in actuality, I think "describe them in two words" is horribly simplifying their personalities. There were layers involved. Even if some of those layers were "Still finds the concept of cities fascinating."
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm with on this alignment thing right up until you said the DM changes my alignment to Tennessee. Nobody does that to me. Nobody.
Well, the alternative is naming the alignment Neutral Neutral, but then everyone would mistake it for an N2 mine, and that just leads to more problems then it's worth.
...I felt I should add that, because the reference may put some of my above comments in context.
But in actuality, I think "describe them in two words" is horribly simplifying their personalities. There were layers involved. Even if some of those layers were "Still finds the concept of cities fascinating."
Which just goes to illustrate the problems with alignment as a system ;)
I only suggested two words because it've a very small box. Realistically, I tend to write and play from character descriptions, histories and motivations. How my characters react and interact is flexible and situational.
Mechanical penalties. Loss of XP, including levels, depending on edition. Affected differently by different spells and magical effects. Gain/lose the ability to use various magical items. Prevented from gaining levels in a class, or forced to change classes, or lose class features.There's a good reason why mechanical effects from Alignment is a bad rule and only bad systems use it, but if you're playing in a bad system then yes, it can matter.
I always forget people don't house rule this BS out.
If none of these circumstances apply to you, let the DM change it and who cares. If they do, argue endlessly with your DM, call them names, and then storm out in a fit.
Mechanical penalties. Loss of XP, including levels, depending on edition. Affected differently by different spells and magical effects. Gain/lose the ability to use various magical items. Prevented from gaining levels in a class, or forced to change classes, or lose class features.There's a good reason why mechanical effects from Alignment is a bad rule and only bad systems use it, but if you're playing in a bad system then yes, it can matter.
I always forget people don't house rule this BS out.
Many people do. However, we've established in advance, here, that this DM *does* care about the alignment on your sheet, which by definition means he's got mechanics hanging off it.
If none of these circumstances apply to you, let the DM change it and who cares. If they do, argue endlessly with your DM, call them names, and then storm out in a fit.
Or just quit and play a game that isn't terrible, BEFORE drama.
I don't even put any alignment down. If the DM asks me what my alignment is, I say 'You tell me, 'cause I don't care'.
This is ok if your character concept isn't allignment dependent, like say 3.5's Paladin which has to be Lawful Good, or if your character isn't Evil, then you would probably be best to jusy mark Neutral on your sheet and be done with it. Most people should probably be Neutral unless they decide to really commit one way or the other,
However I would say to those opposed to the allignment system, as well as to those who over define it, that allignment was never intended to be a straightjacket or to represent extreme behaviors and ideals. There is however a legit mechanical benifit from allignment in a game that is Hero's vs Evil at it's core. Good vs Evil is not a subjective value when there are literally Evil Monsters/Undead running about with Heros literally blessed and powered by holy dieties fighting them and the allignment axis reflect this.
The Lawful Good Paladin using Detect Evil to locate and then Smite Evil upon the Chaotic Evil undead vampire is a perfect example of why the allignment system works, the Paladin is in fact Good and the Vampire is in fact Evil. There are beings that are good, beings that are evil and beings that are pure chaos as well as Law
I don't even put any alignment down. If the DM asks me what my alignment is, I say 'You tell me, 'cause I don't care'.
This is ok if your character concept isn't allignment dependent, like say 3.5's Paladin which has to be Lawful Good, or if your character isn't Evil, then you would probably be best to jusy mark Neutral on your sheet and be done with it. Most people should probably be Neutral unless they decide to really commit one way or the other,
However I would say to those opposed to the allignment system, as well as to those who over define it, that allignment was never intended to be a straightjacket or to represent extreme behaviors and ideals. There is however a legit mechanical benifit from allignment in a game that is Hero's vs Evil at it's core. Good vs Evil is not a subjective value when there are literally Evil Monsters/Undead running about with Heros literally blessed and powered by holy dieties fighting them and the allignment axis reflect this.
The Lawful Good Paladin using Detect Evil to locate and then Smite Evil upon the Chaotic Evil undead vampire is a perfect example of why the allignment system works, the Paladin is in fact Good and the Vampire is in fact Evil. There are beings that are good, beings that are evil and beings that are pure chaos as well as Law
Would the Vampire believe it was evil and the paladin was good? Unlikely.
Would the Vampire believe it was evil and the paladin was good? Unlikely.
The vampire, as an inteligent being, would more then likely realize exactly what it is, and even if it doesn't (many evil beings being perhaps not that rational) it would be a very delusional evil creature to not recognize a Paladin as exactly what it is. In D&D this is reinforced with the mythos and magic of the world, (spells such as detect allignment, smite good/law/chaos, protection from alignment etc makes it hard to say "well from my point of view I am not evil..."
However, regardless of the perception, delusion, or any amount of rationalization, D&D's allignment system makes the issue largely black and white when it comes to these extremes. So, for example, Hitler could believe he is Good and that the Nazi's are a bunch of Lawful Good jolly blokes ridding the world of evil creatures, but the fact of the matter is he would be an Evil murderous villain, regardless of his personal perception.
What this black and white definition does is prevent "rationalized Evil" being masqueraded as Good, and prevents the contrary and impossible character concepts, such as the Chaotic Good Elf, who loves nature and all things good, and ruthlessly and cruely MURDERS ALL HUMANS! because he believes them "as being no different then rabid dogs" even if his only expereince with them has been local farmers who's only crime is to keep rabbits out of their vegitable gardens.
Yes that is why he skinned them alive, it's what any Chaotic Good Elf would do....."It puts the lotion on or it gets the Create Water spell cast again..."
That isn't to say that being Good is a straight jacket, the CG elf could be a callous jerk who despises humans and would as soon chase them off their farms then tolorate them for a second, and should they dare to murder one of his tree friends they will pay dearly. But there is a line where you start labeling the elf as the evil being it is.
I'm well aware that alignments are codified into the rules in older editions. I'm saying that's a terrible idea, because it dramatically limits the stories that can be told in the game, without ignoring, or at the very least, heavily handwaving, alignment.
I prefer, FAR prefer, stories where the good guys and the bad guys aren't objectively good and bad, they're opposed to one another, and good and bad are subjective. And that just doesn;t work in a codified alignment system. Which is why such a system is terribad.
My DM has basically told me that my character needs to act more chaotic to retain my CN alignment. What can i do that's chaotic but yet neutral? i would prefer my character not slip to chaotic evil...
Yousef The Chosen
Human/Doppelganger Cleric Lvl 5
Deity: Taiia The Destroyer
Here is why the allignment system works and what it is intended for. If you are a murderous/criminal/sociopath then you will be labeled as Evil. If your idea of "Chaotic Neutral" is to light random buildings, such as orphanages, on fire to cook your food, then you are really Chaotic Evil, if your idea of "Chaotic Neutral" is to flip a coind, Heads you give the person all your gold, Tails you murder them and eat their heart, then you are really Chaotic Evil.
The problem arrises when someone takes Chatic evil to mean...
Chaotic: I act like a Madman (sociopath)
Neutral: I really couldn't care less. (sociopath)
Which you get a Sociopath, aka Chaotic Evil
When Chaotic means, I drink, I gamble and I cheat on my taxes, and on weekends picket to "Save the whales" I might be an unemployed hippy, free love, free speach, shoplifting and smoke some pot.
And Neutral means: I'm not a registered voter, and sure I care, but what's a guy to do? And perhaps be the person who lives commonlaw with his girlfriend and never gets around to proposing because, "hey commitment"
Although these aren't perhaps the bestest examples, they illustrate that allignments really don't represent the extreme "Chaotic" doesn't mean deranged madman a Chaotic Neutral person might spend their money frivolously, gamble, commit a couple of petty crimes (pickpocket) and be generally unconcerned about a small towns nearby goblin problem unless he is being paid to "care"
What Chaotic Neutral is NOT, is a madman who opens the back gate to let the goblins sneak in (it's all fun) and then shrugs his shoulders at the ensuing slaughter of the innocent villagers because "hey, I'm neutral, why would I care?" that would be Chaotic Evil.
If your worry is slipping into True Neutral or Nuetral Good, then it's just the DM correcting your allignment so you don't get hurt by a protection from Chaos effect or the like. If your worry is the DM is threatening you with CE, then it is because you need to start playing somewhat more maturely.
Here is why the allignment system works and what it is intended for. If you are a murderous/criminal/sociopath then you will be labeled as Evil. If your idea of "Chaotic Neutral" is to light random buildings, such as orphanages, on fire to cook your food, then you are really Chaotic Evil, if your idea of "Chaotic Neutral" is to flip a coind, Heads you give the person all your gold, Tails you murder them and eat their heart, then you are really Chaotic Evil.
The problem arrises when someone takes Chatic evil to mean...
Chaotic: I act like a Madman (sociopath)
Neutral: I really couldn't care less. (sociopath)
Which you get a Sociopath, aka Chaotic Evil
When Chaotic means, I drink, I gamble and I cheat on my taxes, and on weekends picket to "Save the whales" I might be an unemployed hippy, free love, free speach, shoplifting and smoke some pot.
And Neutral means: I'm not a registered voter, and sure I care, but what's a guy to do? And perhaps be the person who lives commonlaw with his girlfriend and never gets around to proposing because, "hey commitment"
Although these aren't perhaps the bestest examples, they illustrate that allignments really don't represent the extreme "Chaotic" doesn't mean deranged madman a Chaotic Neutral person might spend their money frivolously, gamble, commit a couple of petty crimes (pickpocket) and be generally unconcerned about a small towns nearby goblin problem unless he is being paid to "care"
What Chaotic Neutral is NOT, is a madman who opens the back gate to let the goblins sneak in (it's all fun) and then shrugs his shoulders at the ensuing slaughter of the innocent villagers because "hey, I'm neutral, why would I care?" that would be Chaotic Evil.
If your worry is slipping into True Neutral or Nuetral Good, then it's just the DM correcting your allignment so you don't get hurt by a protection from Chaos effect or the like. If your worry is the DM is threatening you with CE, then it is because you need to start playing somewhat more maturely.
"I disagree with your intepretation - let's argue about it for a while. Preferrably in the middle of the game."
That's why alignment doesn't work. Dump it.
So, in that world, it's utterly impossible that there could be a good vampire defending himself from an evil paladin?
In 3.5, the Paladin was absolutely required to be a paragon of Lawful Good, So it would be impossible for him to be anything but Good. If he wasn't then he would loose his powers.
If the Paladin even unknowingly smote down a Good person, then he would loose his powers and have to atone.
A Vampire could possibly be Good (such as the atonement spell, depending on the rules for vampires) In which case he would likely try to communicate that with the Paladin
I'm well aware that alignments are codified into the rules in older editions. I'm saying that's a terrible idea, because it dramatically limits the stories that can be told in the game, without ignoring, or at the very least, heavily handwaving, alignment.
I prefer, FAR prefer, stories where the good guys and the bad guys aren't objectively good and bad, they're opposed to one another, and good and bad are subjective. And that just doesn;t work in a codified alignment system. Which is why such a system is terribad.
It doesn't limit it at all. In this case you are refering to 2 examples of the extreme ends of the allignment, an utterly souless unholy undead vampire vs the absolute paragon of all that is Lawful Good in the mortal world. Two extremes.
While a Paladin is perhaps the Extreme of Lawful Good, there are many examples of lawful good characters who aren't so bound by it. You see a Lawful Good King might break the law and conspire "for the greater good" and he might even be abit corrupt or greedy. A lawful Good guard might accept a bribe from the thieves to "look the other way" when they smuggle goods down at the docks without paying customs because "it's not going to hurt anyone"
lawful Good for most means they "try and be good" and "believe in the law" but it by no means straight jackets them. Whereas a Paladin has additional restrictions on top of the allignment. If a Paladin even once accepted a bribe to look the otherway he would loose his powers, whereas a normal LG guard could do this for years before his allignment even changed, because in general he is lawful good.
So outside of the extremes, Devils, demons, Undead and Paladins, the rest of the world is all grey as you describe.
The Paladin rules apply to the standard 3.5 game, however a group can make house rules to give him more leeway, or in the case of playing a game in the grey area, a Paladin might not be a suitable PC. This is best handled before the game starts with the DM saying "Paladins aren't really suitable to be played in this game, so we will either house rule some changes or disalow them entirely" The allignment system isn't a straight jacket, but there are extremes as well as grey areas.
"I disagree with your intepretation - let's argue about it for a while. Preferrably in the middle of the game."
That's why alignment doesn't work. Dump it.
No that is why a certain player (or DM) doesn't work and someone should be dumped from the game. There are thousands or stickler rules that same people could argue about in the middle of a game, from the use of an ability while prone to how certain abilities stack.
Most allignment issues can be resolved by the DM communicating with the players during character creation. "hey a CN rogue, I hope you don't think that CN means you you can get away with murder and being a jerk, right? There are serious consequences to your actions in this game and thieves tend to get their hand chopped off and murderers hung for their crimes." or "A Paladin, we should discuss what is expected by Lawful Good, not Lawful Stupid, there are grey areas in the game and some of the good guys might be what one would consider evil, so you will have to be more politic then Smite on Sight..."
And how many hours of arguing over what stacks with what?
That's why AC doesn't work. Dump it.
No that is why a certain player (or DM) doesn't work and someone should be dumped from the game. There are thousands or stickler rules that same people could argue about in the middle of a game, from the use of an ability while prone to how certain abilities stack.
And how many hours of arguing over what stacks with what?
Many of those issues aren't open to interpretation because that are codified by the rules. Alignment isn't one of those issues - it's abstract and therefore easy to disagree about.
Most allignment issues can be resolved by the DM communicating with the players during character creation.
All alignment issues can be resolved by getting rid of alignment.
And yes to be more on topic I agree that alignment is only a problem for most tables. DM's using alignment to punish players is just stupidity. Players using alignment to justify actions are doing it wrong. Saying "I'm evil in alignment and because of that I stab your PC in the back" is just nonsense, the player is choosing to make that kind of decision, it has nothing to do with alignment.
If you want to use alignment use it like a small insignificant spec of information that no one should ever use against you. If you don't use alignment, well, there's no problem
oh iserith, if only you could see the raging debates that occur in the character optimization forum over the rules ! War of words over how the words like "or" and "if" affect powers and "proper english language structures". You wouldn't believe it.
Good lord. I'm glad I don't visit that forum then. I'd have to take a shower afterward.
"I disagree with your intepretation - let's argue about it for a while. Preferrably in the middle of the game."
That's why alignment doesn't work. Dump it.
"I disagree with your interpretation... wait, what is it again?"
"Well, I explained it 10 years ago... actually I never DID tell anyboby at the table..."
That's why alignment doesn't work.
Alignment is subject to interpretation. If the DM did not inform the players of his initial interpretations regarding alignments then the player cannot be held accountable for using his own. Even if the player and DM are coming from different interpretations, if the character's behavior isn't a PROBLEM then why is the DM making it an issue? If alignment of the PC doesn't affect his character (as alignment restrictions) then, again, why is the DM making it an issue?
Or just quit and play a game that isn't terrible, BEFORE drama.
... didn't catch the sarcasm in that? I will use tags for you.
However I would say to those opposed to the allignment system, as well as to those who over define it, that allignment was never intended to be a straightjacket or to represent extreme behaviors and ideals.
That's actually EXACTLY why alignment was created. To straightjacket other players from being a detrimen to the party.
Hell, in earlier editions, you got wrecked for breaking alignment. One example is getting attacked by a monster that has the exact same stats as you(with regen), and no matter what happens you're screwed. If you lost, you died and could never be ressurected. If you won, you were removed from the game to be some diety's personal assistant.
Many of those issues aren't open to interpretation because that are codified by the rules. Alignment isn't one of those issues - it's abstract and therefore easy to disagree about.
Very well codified, yes, but that doesn't stop people from arguing over them, and codified or not that doesn't stop people from misunderstanding or misapplying them, and then there is arguements of core rules vs splat books, class balance, meta gaming,DM railroading, rules lawyering, house rules, Dm doesn't believe in magic items, DM bans Complete Warrior or if you can wish for more wishes with a ring of wishes or cheating dice.
My point is that these debates occur, right or wrong, but are no indication by themselves that these rules must be broken. Allignment debates that interupt the game are more then likely the fault or player and/or DM then due to the ruleset itself.
Allalignment issues can be resolved by getting rid of alignment.
All AC Stacking issues can be resolved by getting rid of armor and magic items, that doesn't mean it is the best solution. It also isn't the best solution to simply drop allignment. Especially as you will need to retool some classes and abilities. Get rid of allignment entirely and what will you give the Paladin to compensate for his reduction in special abilities and purpose in the game? You do remember he looses Detect Evil )or has it's benifits reduced) as well as Smite Evil?
These Protect from Allignment and Detect allignment spells, as well as other mechanical uses (magic weapons/armor/items that can be only be used effectively by certain allignments for example) are all tools that tie in with allignment based creatures. So if you drop allignment you suddenly have Evil beings able to wield holy swords as an example, While cripling the tools the PCs have.
Now you can easily work around these, for example simply not having the evil being use the holy sword, but what you are really doing is using DM fiat to sometimes apply allignment and sometimes not apply it on your particular whim.
And have you accomplished your purpose of ridding yourself of allignment issues?
No! and why not? Because those issues had less to do with allignment and more to do with the Player or Dm abusing the system. The player abusing CN is still acting like a jerk, and the DM railroading the Paladin with LG is still a railroading DM. The issue was never allignment but immature player or railroading DM.
I have played for nearly 30 years, Dmed for 25 of them, and wow do I feel old, and I have never had allignment issues in 2nd or 3rd eddition or any of paladium games. Now I have had issues with immature players (very rare because they don't last at my tables) who have abused Chaotic Neutral, (really Chaotic Evil) but again this had more to do with their immaturity then the allignment itself. And one case of a Lawful Stupid Paladin
My Advice? Deal with the real Issue, the immature player, the railroading DM, etc, because the real problem isn't the allignment system.
My Advice? Deal with the real Issue, the immature player, the railroading DM, etc, because the real problem isn't the allignment system.
Maybe not in this case, but alignment is a problem. Ideas and descriptions by perfectly mature players can be blocked by other perfectly mature players merely on the basis of alignment. Yes, the same thing can happen with other aspects of the rules, but alignment is much more difficult to resolve and much easier to do away with entirely than, say, armor class.
"I disagree with your intepretation - let's argue about it for a while. Preferrably in the middle of the game." That's why alignment doesn't work. Dump it.
"I disagree with your interpretation... wait, what is it again?" "Well, I explained it 10 years ago... actually I never DID tell anyboby at the table..." That's why alignment doesn't work. Alignment is subject to interpretation. If the DM did not inform the players of his initial interpretations regarding alignments then the player cannot be held accountable for using his own. Even if the player and DM are coming from different interpretations, if the character's behavior isn't a PROBLEM then why is the DM making it an issue? If alignment of the PC doesn't affect his character (as alignment restrictions) then, again, why is the DM making it an issue?
You are blaming allignment then when the real issue is the "PROBLEM" behavious of the player or the railroading of the DM. For example,
-DM "you can't do that, as a Paladin you are LAWFUL Good, you HAVE to accept the Vampire's surrender! If you just smite him where he stands or allow the rest of the party to kill him you will become Chaotic Good and loose your powers...."
Is this an issue of allignment or is it an issue of a DM railroading because his story demands that the Vampire be taken prisoner? I say the issue is the DM railroads and this is probably no the only way he does it either.
-Second example, the PCs are helping a town fight against Goblins, the CN Rogue in the party all of a sudden switches sides and joins the goblins in attacking the villagers, justifying this by saying he is Chaotic Neutral. "See because I am Neutral I am really on neither side, Evil Goblins and Good Humans are one and the same, each are equally right because I am Neutral, And I switched sides at random because I am Chaotic, and now I am going to go light that Orphanage on fire because it is too dark and it will help with the fight if people can see what they are doing and because CHAOTIC!, lol!"
Again this is not the alignment that is the issue, but rather it is that the player is a complete ****.
The only time Allignment is subject to interpretation is when it is used to the absolute extreme, used to railroad or else twisted to be abused (such as in the examples above) It is not allignment that is the real issue, it is the Dm and or players.
The only time Allignment is subject to interpretation is when it is used to the absolute extreme, used to railroad or else twisted to be abused (such as in the examples above) It is not allignment that is the real issue, it is the Dm and or players.
And that's why alignment is a different beast than AC: there's very little basis for using AC to modify, drive, or excuse behavior. Sure, someone might say "I dive into the fray because I have a huge AC" or "You know, you're AC is high enough that you shouldn't be worried," but even an extreme AC can't dictate behavior, and there's no automatic penalty for a character doing things that would make more sense for someone with a different AC.
The only time Allignment is subject to interpretation is when it is used to the absolute extreme, used to railroad or else twisted to be abused (such as in the examples above) It is not allignment that is the real issue, it is the Dm and or players.
And that's why alignment is a different beast than AC: there's very little basis for using AC to modify, drive, or excuse behavior. Sure, someone might say "I dive into the fray because I have a huge AC" or "You know, you're AC is high enough that you shouldn't be worried," but even an extreme AC can't dictate behavior, and there's no automatic penalty for a character doing things that would make more sense for someone with a different AC.
Yep. My AC is high, because I'm well-trained, but deep down... I'm skeered.
Or.. Yes, of course my AC is high. I have the best equipment as befitting an important member of a noble blood line. Send in the peasants to wear the enemy down. Only then will We risk Our Royal Person.
Demons and the like would set it off.
An evil magician who was in the process of summoning a demon might or might not set it off.
An evil magician who was in the process of Fireballing the orphanage might or might not set it off - but do you need it?
An evil magician sitting there drinking a mug of ale would definitely not set it off.
The butcher selling meat, with his thumb on the scale, would definitely not set it off, and neither would the old lady with her finger under the scale.
That evil housecat (some cats really are evil) sleeping on the roof would definitely not set it off.
If someone really wants Detect Evil to detect ordinary evil, one answer is to let it happen... and remember that ordinary evil is, well, ordinary. The butcher and the old lady are both trying to commit an evil deed. There's an evil being on the barn roof. It's a pretty good bet that at least one of the kids in the orphanage is a bully, therefore evil.
However I would say to those opposed to the allignment system, as well as to those who over define it, that allignment was never intended to be a straightjacket or to represent extreme behaviors and ideals.
That's actually EXACTLY why alignment was created. To straightjacket other players from being a detrimen to the party.
Hell, in earlier editions, you got wrecked for breaking alignment. One example is getting attacked by a monster that has the exact same stats as you(with regen), and no matter what happens you're screwed. If you lost, you died and could never be ressurected. If you won, you were removed from the game to be some diety's personal assistant.
As MrCustomer said... not a straightjacket. That's pretty much verbatim what it says in some of the earliest editions of the DMG.
Most alignment issues I've seen were essentially players inconsistently playing their characters. Some inconsistency in human nature is expected, but only the most psychotic people are not kind, benevolent, friendly and generous one day and cruel, evil, hateful cut-throat thieves the next unless something has happened to change their point of view.
That doesn't mean a cruel person can't ACT kind... which is only an insidious means of luring in a victim.
Problem is, some players play erratically and call it 'being creative'.
Alignment can't be eliminated. Two people looking at a painting may disagree on color choice... but the artist would have a hard time getting rid of color. People are going to make choices. Those choices can be described. Those descriptions are alignment.
A single light of goodness at the end of a dark tunnel will be noticed. A splotch of bloody red on a snow white field will likely be noticed as well.
Alignment can't be eliminated. Two people looking at a painting may disagree on color choice... but the artist would have a hard time getting rid of color. People are going to make choices. Those choices can be described. Those descriptions are alignment.
They can be described, but they don't need to be. I know a color is beautiful or not, whether or not I know the name of it. And whether or not you or I find it beautiful or ugly does not depend on the two of us agreeing on the name of the color.
People totally paint in black and white.
Don't be that guy, lol.
Alignment can't be eliminated. Two people looking at a painting may disagree on color choice... but the artist would have a hard time getting rid of color. People are going to make choices. Those choices can be described. Those descriptions are alignment.
They can be described, but they don't need to be. I know a color is beautiful or not, whether or not I know the name of it. And whether or not you or I find it beautiful or ugly does not depend on the two of us agreeing on the name of the color.
How, without alignment, do you make a call about something like... a protection from evil spell? Or... only a maiden of purest heart may ride Mr. Unicorn. Is there a good any way to make that call without looking at the choices that Miss Maiden has made?
How, without alignment, do you make a call about something like... a protection from evil spell?
Detect/protection from/dispel evil... Have it work on "villains" or sources of supernatural evil aka "bad guys," not everyone. There's nothing worse than a paladin slaying every butcher who puts his thumb on the scale.
Or... only a maiden of purest heart may ride Mr. Unicorn. Is there a good any way to make that call without looking at the choices that Miss Maiden has made?
Great time for collaborative storytelling. Rather than a possible argument over two imperfect words on a page.
How, without alignment, do you make a call about something like... a protection from evil spell?
Why, without alignment, would alignment-based spells exist?
Or... only a maiden of purest heart may ride Mr. Unicorn. Is there a good any way to make that call without looking at the choices that Miss Maiden has made?
If her choices are what matter then look at her choices. She makes those whether or not there are words to describe their nature.
Not using alignment doesn't mean that people wouldn't have personalities or typical behaviors. It means that no one else can point to you and tell you you're not roleplaying your personality "correctly." And it means that no one can be a disruptive jerk and shield themselves by saying they're playing "correctly."
Alignment can't be eliminated. Two people looking at a painting may disagree on color choice... but the artist would have a hard time getting rid of color. People are going to make choices. Those choices can be described. Those descriptions are alignment.
They can be described, but they don't need to be. I know a color is beautiful or not, whether or not I know the name of it. And whether or not you or I find it beautiful or ugly does not depend on the two of us agreeing on the name of the color.
How, without alignment, do you make a call about something like... a protection from evil spell?
That's an easy one. It doesn't exist.
Or... only a maiden of purest heart may ride Mr. Unicorn. Is there a good any way to make that call without looking at the choices that Miss Maiden has made?
that, in no way, requires two subjective, nigh-meaningless words on Miss Maiden's character sheet.
Who decides what makes an individual evil? If they got in a fist fight with somebody and happened to kill them, would that be evil? If they intentionally killed them, would that be evil? What if the other guy swung first and it was a matter of self defense? Does one evil act make someone evil? Could you use Protection from Evil to determine who a murderer is?
Is there some higher power making an objective list of "This is good, this is evil"? And I don't mean the DM. The DM is the fascilitator of the game world, but the game world should be considered an entity in its own right.
The fact remains: Good and Evil cannot be determined objectively. This is an observable fact of the world we live in. If good and evil can be objectively determined within a setting, then the setting is no longer a believable one.
That's not even getting to the old ruling that a schizophrenic man that poisons his town's water supply is evil because the voices told him to, while a sane man deceived by a demon to perform the same act wasn't considered evil. I cannot recall exactly where that was, but it remains: That kind of thing is why rigid Alignments do not work.
Because, as this thread demenstrates: You will be hard pressed to find two people that have the same, exact view of each alignment as each other.
I'm pretty much always that guy.
But in games without alignment all those spells, items and class features don't exist. In my games its just "Smite" and works on anything.
In my games its just "Smite" and works on anything.
I would play a Paladin and call out "Smite X!" every time. In a hammy voice. With X replaced with whatever I'm attacking.
"Smite Undead!"
"Smite Goblin!"
"Smite Metrosexual Prettyboy Swordsman!"
"Smite Oversexed Drow Rogue With Hormonal Player!"
Would be fun times, I think.
Though, really, that brings to mind another issue: Try having the Paladin justify why the monster counts as 'evil.' My bet is on the argument being hilarious and sad.
"Those kobolds HAVE to be evil! They even attacked us first!"
"Yeah, it's not like you killed the guards in front of their cave and cut a bloody swath through their home, all because a local farmer said they stole some pigs."
How, without alignment, do you make a call about something like... a protection from evil spell?
That's an easy one. It doesn't exist.
Well that sucks for many character concepts, such as the Paladin class, that these allignment based abilities are part of their defining feature. Even if you give "alternative rules" that is replace perfectly functioning rules with some cobbled together houserule, you have pretty well watered down what made that class distinct, my reaction as a player would be "hmm, ok, that so, well let me tear up this sheet and I will reroll a fighter that you don't have a hate-on against..."
And moreso from a DM perspective, why would you wish to get rid of allignment, when it is a simple and effective manner of balancing encounters and abilities. The DM labels things accordingly to allow or disallow abilities and chooses creatures appropriate to the allignment of the villains. Here are a couple of ways that it works as a mechanical function:
-Players encounter a group of evil goblins who are murdering a small farming town. They vanquish them, Goblins are Evil, the farmers are Neutral or good, so there is little moral issues here about killing the goblins.
In this case allignment is used to justify the Player's actions, Goblins are Evil and need to be killed to save the innocent humans..
-Players are sent to deal with "Murderous" bandits in the forest, they encoutner a group of them and a fight ensues, the Paladin charges one with a Smite EVIL! and ---Nothing Happens---- the bandits aren't evil. The Paladin checks the other bandits (detect evil) and nothing pings, he calls for a parley to figure out why murderous bandits aren't evil, after the talk they find out the Bandits are really freedom fighters opposing a corrupt (and evil) king, all robin hood style, they turn out to actually be Chaotic Good, the paladin decides to help their cause.
In this case Allignment is used to provide the plot twist, without allignment based abilities the party may well have slughtered all the bandits without ever knowing they weren't the villians.
-Returning from the first adventure of protecting villagers from Evil Goblins above, the party is back in the city, they are suprised when they see a couple of goblins running a shop in the city. While most Goblins might be evil, not all of them are, and these ones have been civilized and are actually Neutral.
Here Allignment is used in interactions with NPCs to explain why Goblins (who are normally evil) are able to live peacefully in a Human city. It allows creatures to be used for roles outside of their typical invironment. In the same way it can be used to confirm a creature's real intent, trust worthiness or how dangerous they are.
the players were in a city that had Evil Goblins running a shop, then this would indicate that the goverment of the city is likely corrupt, that there is a high crime rate etc etc, (government is proably LE) Again the allignment is used to characterize the people and population/
-Same as the first example, the players encounter a small farming village that is being attacked and harrassed by wild animals (Neutral) where and who are sending them. on investigating they find the animals are being sent by elfs that live in the forest (Neutral) who's lands the farmers (neutral) are encouching on. The Paladin can't go slaughtering elfs who are in the right of it, nor can he abandon the human farmers, so must find another solution.
Here is a moral debate for the players on what to do , since neither side is Evil, they are caught in the middle ground. The plot might continue with the farmers being forced to clear more land to pay for tax increases by the local Noble who is raising an army, it turns out the Noble is evil and wants to expand his kingdom. Or it could be a case where the players have to figure out how to stop a war, or be forced to choose a side.
See those two words aren't subjective and meaningless, they are there to define what might otherwise be vague. This is how alingment is suposed to be used, if it is vague/subjective, it is only because the DM is deliberately making it vague/subjective.
Well that sucks for many character concepts, such as the Paladin class, that these allignment based abilities are part of their defining feature. Even if you give "alternative rules" that is replace perfectly functioning rules with some cobbled together houserule, you have pretty well watered down what made that class distinct, my reaction as a player would be "hmm, ok, that so, well let me tear up this sheet and I will reroll a fighter that you don't have a hate-on against..."
There's nothing wrong with the noble knight archetype, but it doesn't need its own class if the only thing that makes it special is its alignment.
And moreso from a DM perspective, why would you wish to get rid of allignment, when it is a simple and effective manner of balancing encounters and abilities. The DM labels things accordingly to allow or disallow abilities and chooses creatures appropriate to the allignment of the villains. Here are a couple of ways that it works as a mechanical function:
So, if I do have a "hate-on" for paladins, all I have to do is pit the party against non-evil creatures. That is simple.
I can choose creatures appropriate to the personality of the villains without guidewords. In fact, I then have much more freedom, if I don't have to keep myself from making a cool pairing out of evil and neutral creatures.
-Players encounter a group of evil goblins who are murdering a small farming town. They vanquish them, Goblins are Evil, the farmers are Neutral or good, so there is little moral issues here about killing the goblins.
Or we could say "The PCs don't know much about goblins but they are are shown feasting on captured farmers, so there is little moral issue here about killing the goblins."
Or we could say "The goblins are evil and the PCs kill them while celebrating a marriage between two of their tribesmen, so there's are some more issues here about killing the goblins."
Even if there are moral issues, the only one it needs to affect is the Paladin.
In this case allignment is used to justify the Player's actions, Goblins are Evil and need to be killed to save the innocent humans..
There are other ways to justify the players' actions. But it's not like the players' actions really need that much justification.
-Players are sent to deal with "Murderous" bandits in the forest, they encoutner a group of them and a fight ensues, the Paladin charges one with a Smite EVIL! and ---Nothing Happens---- the bandits aren't evil. The Paladin checks the other bandits (detect evil) and nothing pings, he calls for a parley to figure out why murderous bandits aren't evil, after the talk they find out the Bandits are really freedom fighters opposing a corrupt (and evil) king, all robin hood style, they turn out to actually be Chaotic Good, the paladin decides to help their cause.
Setting aside the fact that any reasonable player not only would have used Detect Evil on the targets first, and the people who sent them on the mission, what about the fact that non-evil creatures can be murderous? They might still be breaking the law, and the PCs would still be "justified" in killing them.
In this case Allignment is used to provide the plot twist, without allignment based abilities the party may well have slughtered all the bandits without ever knowing they weren't the villians.
There are other ways to provide plot twists, and a DM should never bank on his players not just killing everything - nor seek to punish them if they do.
-Returning from the first adventure of protecting villagers from Evil Goblins above, the party is back in the city, they are suprised when they see a couple of goblins running a shop in the city. While most Goblins might be evil, not all of them are, and these ones have been civilized and are actually Neutral.
Here Allignment is used in interactions with NPCs to explain why Goblins (who are normally evil) are able to live peacefully in a Human city. It allows creatures to be used for roles outside of their typical invironment. In the same way it can be used to confirm a creature's real intent, trust worthiness or how dangerous they are.
Alignment isn't solving a problem here, it's potentially creating one. Without alignment (or with an alignment system more like Eberron's), no one needs to bat an eye at goblins working in town, or an angel running a gang, or a demon running a fair business.
the players were in a city that had Evil Goblins running a shop, then this would indicate that the goverment of the city is likely corrupt, that there is a high crime rate etc etc, (government is proably LE) Again the allignment is used to characterize the people and population/
That's all a plausible set up, but it's more than anyone can be expected to assume from the fact of evil goblins in a town, and the meaning of "lawful" and "evil."
-Same as the first example, the players encounter a small farming village that is being attacked and harrassed by wild animals (Neutral) where and who are sending them. on investigating they find the animals are being sent by elfs that live in the forest (Neutral) who's lands the farmers (neutral) are encouching on. The Paladin can't go slaughtering elfs who are in the right of it, nor can he abandon the human farmers, so must find another solution.
Here is a moral debate for the players on what to do , since neither side is Evil, they are caught in the middle ground. The plot might continue with the farmers being forced to clear more land to pay for tax increases by the local Noble who is raising an army, it turns out the Noble is evil and wants to expand his kingdom. Or it could be a case where the players have to figure out how to stop a war, or be forced to choose a side.
Tough for the paladin, but everyone else can just do a little moral calculus and decide which side has more of a right. This could be an interesting situation, but it doesn't require alignment, and alignment won't guarantee that another solution will be attempted.
Besides which, if it isn't attempted, and the paladin does take out the elves, then what? For not jumping through the DM's carefully plotted hoop, he's punished. The others might have their alignments changed, but they'll shrug and move on.
See those two words aren't subjective and meaningless, they are there to define what might otherwise be vague. This is how alingment is suposed to be used, if it is vague/subjective, it is only because the DM is deliberately making it vague/subjective.
No, they're vague and subjective out of the box. If they're not vauge and subjective, then it's because the DM is working hard and has complete player buy in (or because the group collaborated on the kind of game and scenarios they want). All fine and good, but without that effort and that buy in alignments are at best pointless and at worst harmful to enjoyable play. Even with the effort, all the group has is a few slightly different ways to accomplish things they could do without alignment.
And if, somehow, alignment are well-defined, this does not remove the central problem of alignment: that what it's primarily used for is to control other players' characters, to tell them what they can't or must do. That's why "chaotic neutral" is so popular, because people see it as the one alignment that allows them to do anything, as it suits them. Imagine wanting to do anything you want in a roleplaying game that, instead of offering a couple of possible reactions, is all about doing anything you want.
Imagine wanting to do anything you want in a roleplaying game that, instead of offering a couple of possible reactions, is all about doing anything you want.
But... but... how can I make the PCs take my plot hooks if I can't point at their alignment and say, "You're LG. It say so right there. So anyway, like I said you're helping the church and..."?
Also, if I don't have those two words on the piece of paper, what's to stop every character from just burning down the whole town and killing the mayor?
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Well that sucks for many character concepts, such as the Paladin class, that these allignment based abilities are part of their defining feature..
That's why I threw out the 3e Paladin, too.
But... but... how can I make the PCs take my plot hooks if I can't point at their alignment and say, "You're LG. It say so right there. So anyway, like I said you're helping the church and..."?
Easy, just replace the first two sentences with a blank look.
Also, if I don't have those two words on the piece of paper, what's to stop every character from just burning down the whole town and killing the mayor?
You've got me there.
Imagine wanting to do anything you want in a roleplaying game that, instead of offering a couple of possible reactions, is all about doing anything you want.
But... but... how can I make the PCs take my plot hooks if I can't point at their alignment and say, "You're LG. It say so right there. So anyway, like I said you're helping the church and..."?
Also, if I don't have those two words on the piece of paper, what's to stop every character from just burning down the whole town and killing the mayor?
"I see that you wrote on your sheet here that you're pious and charitable. The church really needs your help..."
"So, you wrote down that your character is an upstanding citizen. What, then, could possibly drive you to murder?"
This is why I like my "Three or four lines describing your morale code" system. It doesn't work for everyone, but I like it.
This is why I like my "Three or four lines describing your morale code" system. It doesn't work for everyone, but I like it.
Sounds good to me, but why even do that? What if the fiction actually drives that character to do something "against" that moral code? Do they not get to do it?
Don't get me wrong, I see the good of alignment for someone who has bought into it, and can just use a reminder on how to act like someone they're not, but there's still no reason to get into someone else's running of their character, which is what alignment is too often used for.
This is why I like my "Three or four lines describing your morale code" system. It doesn't work for everyone, but I like it.
Sounds good to me, but why even do that? What if the fiction actually drives that character to do something "against" that moral code? Do they not get to do it?
Don't get me wrong, I see the good of alignment for someone who has bought into it, and can just use a reminder on how to act like someone they're not, but there's still no reason to get into someone else's running of their character, which is what alignment is too often used for.
Oh, the brief summary is more to benefit the DM and other players. They can glance over it and get a general sense of how the character will act. It helps plan future quests.
And there's nothing wrong with erasing a line if the character develops away from some part of it. Or write in a new line, if they really want to. The point of it is that a few lines of description convey much more information than just two easily misinterpretted words.
Of course, I HAVE met players who would completely ignore their character's established personality if it meant getting more treasure. Some DMs, such as myself, do not like that letting that behavior fly. While I'm easy going about a lot of things, I'd still expect the player to have some justifiable reason for their previously pious character going around town trashing temples.*
That and I have an absolutely terrible memory.
*Far as I can tell from all the discussion going on, when Alignment comes up it's either 1. Someone insisting the character CAN'T do something because it's against their alignment or 2. Someone threatening to change the character's alignment for doing something supposedly outside of it.
As I said, I prefer a method of "This is what the character views as right" with any exceptions being case-by-case events. Just so long as the justification for breaking the character's moral code fits in character and isn't just the player metagaming "I just want to do this, so I'm not going to roleplay", then I let them do it. "Normally, I wouldn't steal even if I were starving. But these peasant children starving... That I cannot allow!"
Of course, there's also the old standby of a character that breaks their moral code knowing it's for selfish reasons, then coming to regret doing so. After all, that's what a moral code is: Things you'd feel bad for doing/not doing.
Of course, I HAVE met players who would completely ignore their character's established personality if it meant getting more treasure. Some DMs, such as myself, do not like that letting that behavior fly. While I'm easy going about a lot of things, I'd still expect the player to have some justifiable reason for their previously pious character going around town trashing temples.
Right, and that right there is a problem, because it too easily devolves into a simple "No," a block to the character's behavior, unless the player can pass whatever threshhold of "justification" the DM or other players have. Savvy players will recognize this, and simply write in a personality that "justifies" anything they want. If what they want is to go along with the game, they'll write that something that encourages that. If they don't, they'll write the equivalent of "Chaotic Neutral."
Of course, I HAVE met players who would completely ignore their character's established personality if it meant getting more treasure. Some DMs, such as myself, do not like that letting that behavior fly. While I'm easy going about a lot of things, I'd still expect the player to have some justifiable reason for their previously pious character going around town trashing temples.
Right, and that right there is a problem, because it too easily devolves into a simple "No," a block to the character's behavior, unless the player can pass whatever threshhold of "justification" the DM or other players have. Savvy players will recognize this, and simply write in a personality that "justifies" anything they want. If what they want is to go along with the game, they'll write that something that encourages that. If they don't, they'll write the equivalent of "Chaotic Neutral."
"My character does absolutely anything they want, when the whim strikes."
"And you've managed to become a seasoned adventure and skilled in a profession that takes years to master... how? That's quite the long lasting whim."
I believe every individual has a motivation and every individual has boundaries. They may be very vague or broad, but they exist. At least, I've yet to meet someone who didn't have a reason behind their actions, even if they weren't aware of it.
"My character does absolutely anything they want, when the whim strikes."
"And you've managed to become a seasoned adventure and skilled in a profession that takes years to master... how? That's quite the long lasting whim."
"Pure luck. Which I will continue to press at this time. I burn down the inn."
"My character does absolutely anything they want, when the whim strikes."
"And you've managed to become a seasoned adventure and skilled in a profession that takes years to master... how? That's quite the long lasting whim."
Or maybe they're just a natural. Or maybe I word it differently. Again, it's taking the DM's preconceived notions for something and using it as a blunt tool for making people conform to something. It's only going to work if people are happy to conform... but if they're happy to confrom then there was no need to make them.
Alignment and other "personality" guidelines have their good uses, but for use as leverage to make people act a certain way is not one of them. If it necessary to change a player's choices and behavior, that needs to take place outside of game mechanics.
I've seen far too many players that justify their actions with "I'm just roleplaying!" and then expect no to have any comeuppance for their actions. Rob everyone blind? Perfectly acceptable. Complain to the DM when the PCs cut off your PC's hand? Not acceptable. And yes, I have seen many individuals that really think "But I'm in character!" will excuse their character of any crime they commit.
"I'm playing a thief, so I should be allowed to steal from the party!"
"Oh, you can. You absolutely can. But you're traveling with a well armed group that likely won't be happy if their hard earned gold goes missing. They're allowed to punish you as they see fit if they catch you."
I'm not saying my method if inherently better, I just find it fits my preferences much better than the default system. Sure, people can game it to get justify wildly irrational behavior for personal gain. But at least they'll have to put a little more effort into it than "Chaotic Neutral, can do whatever I want." Because that 'justification' has never sat well with me.
PVP issues can be entirely solved by allowing the target of the PVP "attack" to state the results of the attempt, no rolls.
I suppose that wasn't a very good example. The idea is that, yes, you can play a character that does whatever they feel like it. You just better have the courtesy to put some effort into why (this is a roleplaying game, after all) and you should also be willing to accept consequences.
Do you find that this approach makes people behave willingly, or is there some pushback? I have just so rarely seen much good from shutting down player behavior via in-game methods. In my experience, they just continue using the system to justify their actions, or avoid consequences. Only by handling this kind of thing out-of-game is anything likely to change in a way everyone can live with.
Was it solely PVP issues that led you to adopt this method?
PVP issues can be entirely solved by allowing the target of the PVP "attack" to state the results of the attempt, no rolls.
I'm no longer quite convinced of this, because an "attack" can be completely passive, such as withholding healing or not coming to someone's aid. There's no real way to enforce that.
I'm no longer quite convinced of this, because an "attack" can be completely passive, such as withholding healing or not coming to someone's aid. There's no real way to enforce that.
Fair point and good observation. I guess I would see this as not necessarily a PVP thing since it could easily be something as simple as positioning that manifests that outcome, regardless of intent. I suppose there are cases where it would be obvious though.
Fair point and good observation. I guess I would see this as not necessarily a PVP thing since it could easily be something as simple as positioning that manifests that outcome, regardless of intent. I suppose there are cases where it would be obvious though.
Right, and over enough time even an expert at passive neglect would become obvious.
I suppose that wasn't a very good example. The idea is that, yes, you can play a character that does whatever they feel like it. You just better have the courtesy to put some effort into why (this is a roleplaying game, after all) and you should also be willing to accept consequences.
Do you find that this approach makes people behave willingly, or is there some pushback? I have just so rarely seen much good from shutting down player behavior via in-game methods. In my experience, they just continue using the system to justify their actions, or avoid consequences. Only by handling this kind of thing out-of-game is anything likely to change in a way everyone can live with.
To be honest, I haven't had a chance to really test it with non-roleplaying-centric players. My current group are faster to sit down for tea than go over the crunchy mechanics. Of course, all the players also fail to see the point in alignment as-is, so any of them showing interest in a different method is a huge step up. Then again, it's hard to feel it's an accomplishment compared to "Meh, whatever" alignment.
Last "roll playing over role playing" player I had threw a massive hissy fit in my last campaign and insisted I let him have his way... In response to the player in question actively and purposefully picking a fight with another player. I told him to get out, because I don't tolerate that crap.
But anyway, I ran the idea past someone big into number crunching. She insists it's great for seasoned roleplayers, but that it 'is kind of pointless, since they already do that.' And insisted that to get it to coax people into roleplaying their character through temptation it would require some sort of mechanical bonus... That's neglecting the fact that the system is a GUIDELINE, and meant more for the DM to have an easier time grasping the character (because keeping track of a few dozen individuals is HARD!) and to give the player a nudge about their in-character justifications on occasion.
Frankly, giving mechanical benefits wouldn't work. It defeat the purpose of good roleplaying being its own reward. Yeah, a pat on the back or congratulations for something emotionally moving just doesn't compare to bonus XP! Ugh. Use the method with mechanical benefits and you get players expecting to be paid to stay in character.
The point is that it's supposed to serve as a GUIDELINE. The same way Alignment is a guideline and shoud keep its nose out of mechanics: It's for roleplaying, character interaction and plotline planning. It is not a mechanical feature, merely a quick reference guide...
Given, said friend also chewed me out for "Being against character development"... Immediately after I stated that a character's moral code can change. And that a DM should not TELL a player to change their moral code, but bring up the PC's recent actions and suggest that, given their actions over the adventure, maybe they should reevaluate the character's moral code.
Yes, I am frustrated and upset at that accusation. Very, very frustrated.
Frankly, giving mechanical benefits wouldn't work. It defeat the purpose of good roleplaying being its own reward. Yeah, a pat on the back or congratulations for something emotionally moving just doesn't compare to bonus XP! Ugh. Use the method with mechanical benefits and you get players expecting to be paid to stay in character.
If one's alignment is putting the character in a bad position, then a player is justified in expecting to be "paid" for being put in that position.
Some games recognize this, and use it to encourage even optimizers to walk into those bad positions. Spirit of the Century doesn't have alignment, but it has "Aspects," one-line descriptions of some part of the character's background, personality or style. Every character has at least 10. If an Aspect seems to have bearing on a task at hand ("Nose in a book," say, when it comes to uncovering knowledge) then a player can spend a point at that time to get a bonus to that task. If an Aspect seems as though it would complicate a situation ("Nose in a book," say, when on guard duty) then a player can gain a point if he or she automatically fails at that situation, or otherwise walks into a complication. Or, if the player would rather not get into that complication, he or she can spend a point not to.
So, the character has words describing the character, and incentives based on those incentives, for getting their characters into bad positions based on those descriptions - which is the whole point behind alignment, even for good roleplayers: moral conundrums.
I'd really like to see Aspects, or the like in D&D, along with the benefits for following them. Until then, there's no point in using Alignment, and if I want to see my players in a situation that will strain their ability to make in-character choices, I'll work with them to set up something we'd all find interesting.
(I'm mostly a DM, so this is getting into "What's a DM to Do?" territory. In terms of "What's a Player to Do?," well, talk to your DM, get on the same page with them, and try not to be disruptive.)
I suppose that wasn't a very good example. The idea is that, yes, you can play a character that does whatever they feel like it. You just better have the courtesy to put some effort into why (this is a roleplaying game, after all) and you should also be willing to accept consequences.
I've seen far too many players that justify their actions with "I'm just roleplaying!" and then expect no to have any comeuppance for their actions. Rob everyone blind? Perfectly acceptable. Complain to the DM when the PCs cut off your PC's hand? Not acceptable. And yes, I have seen many individuals that really think "But I'm in character!" will excuse their character of any crime they commit.
"I'm playing a thief, so I should be allowed to steal from the party!"
"Oh, you can. You absolutely can. But you're traveling with a well armed group that likely won't be happy if their hard earned gold goes missing. They're allowed to punish you as they see fit if they catch you."
I'm not saying my method if inherently better, I just find it fits my preferences much better than the default system. Sure, people can game it to get justify wildly irrational behavior for personal gain. But at least they'll have to put a little more effort into it than "Chaotic Neutral, can do whatever I want." Because that 'justification' has never sat well with me.
This is one of my points, that these issues happen regardless of the allignment system, so it's an irrelevant arguement. Allignment has a purely mechanical function, that is more useful for the DM then the players.
That's why I threw out the 3e Paladin, too.
So not having alignment is better because you want to limit the player's choices? I am a little puzzled on how this could be seen a a good solution.
In a world of magic, and deities, allignment allows one to define their characters roleplaying mechanically. So when we are talking about Heros, we can see an actual physical benifit to roleplaying Good because of the allignment's interaction with Evil, the same with Law and Chaos. To me the allignment system encourages roleplaying. Being Good or Lawful phsyically means something, even being Chaotic can mean something, characters can have Ideals that go beyond just being something they scribbled when they made their character.
Unless you want to call restricting an entire core class, "encouraging roleplaying." Why you can roleplay anything, well except for......
Removing alignment so far, from what I've read in this thread, gives players more options and less restrictions. Not the other way around.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />So not having alignment is better because you want to limit the player's choices? I am a little puzzled on how this could be seen a a good solution.
Not having alignment is better because it's stupid. I threw out alignment, so I had to throw out the classes inextricably linked to this cumbersome, arbitrary, subjective, outdated, archaic, anti-roleplaying mechanic.
In a world of magic, and deities, allignment allows one to define their characters roleplaying mechanically.
Roleplaying doesn't need mechanics, and my game world has no dieties.
So when we are talking about Heros, we can see an actual physical benifit to roleplaying Good because of the allignment's interaction with Evil, the same with Law and Chaos. To me the allignment system encourages roleplaying. Being Good or Lawful phsyically means something, even being Chaotic can mean something, characters can have Ideals that go beyond just being something they scribbled when they made their character.
And characters can have those ideals without alignment as well.
Unless you want to call restricting an entire core class, "encouraging roleplaying." Why you can roleplay anything, well except for......
It does encourage roleplay, because the Paladin was the lamest thing around. Not only did it labor under ridiculous restrictions, it restricted the rest of the party because of the limits of people he could hang around with. It was a stupid class with stupid design and stupid limitations, and I threw it out because it had no reason to exist.
And if someone wants to play a 'holy warrior', the cleric is sitting right there, and he does it better than the Paladin could ever hope to.
There's nothing wrong with the noble knight archetype, but it doesn't need its own class if the only thing that makes it special is its alignment.
There are knight characters. It is not the allignment that makes a Paladin special, because Lawful Good isn't restrictive at all unless you decide to be lawful stupid. Frankly I see no issue with a house ruled Chaotic Good Free Knight.
I am refering to unique abilities that rely upon allignment. Detect Evil and Smite Evil as well as a considerable number of spells are examples of core abilities that are class defining. And if you drop allignment entirely, including the mechanical parts of it (ie Demons and devils being tagged as evil, etc) then you have just snipped away a large portion of this classes ability.
It is now broken, so in this case allignment is a strong mechanical balance issue.
So, if I do have a "hate-on" for paladins, all I have to do is pit the party against non-evil creatures. That is simple.
This happens all the time, not everything is evil. But if you are regularly or nearly always going to have non-evil encounters, then in this case the Paladin might not be a suitable class for a particular style of game. In a low magic game a Wizard might not be suitable. But I am speaking in general, not to a specific group.
I can choose creatures appropriate to the personality of the villains without guidewords. In fact, I then have much more freedom, if I don't have to keep myself from making a cool pairing out of evil and neutral creatures.
Well one it makes it conveneint for the DM, but as I have noted, it can also be used to explain (since the PCs may not know the full back story of a brief encounter) why a particular combination is paired. Just because the standard creature is ussually a particular allignment, doesn't mean that is always the case.
Or we could say "The PCs don't know much about goblins but they are are shown feasting on captured farmers, so there is little moral issue here about killing the goblins."
Or we could say "The goblins are evil and the PCs kill them while celebrating a marriage between two of their tribesmen, so there's are some more issues here about killing the goblins."
Even if there are moral issues, the only one it needs to affect is the Paladin.
Well how about if the goblins aren't in the village when they get there and are only told, "we keep getting attacked by goblins"? Or the party simply discovers Goblins massing an armed group near the village, getting ready to attack it? Or any combination of possibilities. You miss my point, and that is that allignment serves to resolve moral issues when there is little to no other evidence. Since this is an adventure game when players meet goblins, the goblins die 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the time.
Because the goblins are tagged as Evil, this makes it acceptable practice. If the Dm wanted to toss in moral uncertainty he could tage a group of goblins as neutral, and see how the players reacted.
There are other ways to provide plot twists, and a DM should never bank on his players not just killing everything - nor seek to punish them if they do.
Read my post carefully. The Paladin used Smite evil on a bandit and nothing happened. That is how the plot twist was discovered. It occured because the bandits were CG and SMite Evil is an allignment based spell, yes, but it wasn't banking on the players not killing everything, since the Paladin was attacking the bandits to discover this. This is a simple allignment based mechanic that leads tot he encounter being roleplayed, rather then faught out.
The paladin here didn't get punished for Attacking the CG Bandit btw
Alignment isn't solving a problem here, it's potentially creating one. Without alignment (or with an alignment system more like Eberron's), no one needs to bat an eye at goblins working in town, or an angel running a gang, or a demon running a fair business.
It's not a problem that needs to be solved, it is simply a working mechanic for the DM to have goblins in the city, or to mix creatures that are normally of different allignments and provide a rationalization of it without having to write a whole story for the players. The goblins are simply not evil in this case, that is easy.
Or if there was a good deal of corruption and evil interests in a city, perhaps goblins could be evil and live there, So Evil Goblins living in a city would be a big indicator to the players that they should be careful, this is a dangerous city.
That's all a plausible set up, but it's more than anyone can be expected to assume from the fact of evil goblins in a town, and the meaning of "lawful" and "evil."
As above i should say it is a reasonable assumption that the city is a dangerous place, and a Lawful Evil human city would undoubtably have evil beings living in it.
Tough for the paladin, but everyone else can just do a little moral calculus and decide which side has more of a right. This could be an interesting situation, but it doesn't require alignment, and alignment won't guarantee that another solution will be attempted.
Besides which, if it isn't attempted, and the paladin does take out the elves, then what? For not jumping through the DM's carefully plotted hoop, he's punished. The others might have their alignments changed, but they'll shrug and move on.
That depends on how he takes out the elfs. The Paladin may be duty bound to protect the innocent people of the farm and forced to defend them should the elfs outright invade the town. You fell for an allignment trap and assumed the Paladin was restricted by his Lawful Good allignment, he isn't. Also it is the Paladin Code of Conduct that restricts the Paladin and not his allignment.
But you miss my point. My point was for those who like dealing with the grey area, the villains aren't always evil and the good guys aren't always right. The allignment system does have extremes, which have been characterized earlier in an example of a LG Paladin vs a CE Vampire, but there is plenty of room in between for moral ambiguity if desired. Allignment doesn't have to restrict the game.
And if, somehow, alignment are well-defined, this does not remove the central problem of alignment: that what it's primarily used for is to control other players' characters, to tell them what they can't or must do. That's why "chaotic neutral" is so popular, because people see it as the one alignment that allows them to do anything, as it suits them. Imagine wanting to do anything you want in a roleplaying game that, instead of offering a couple of possible reactions, is all about doing anything you want.
First most people, most regular people in D&D, the average person, is likely Neutral and thus unrestricted. To be otherwise is because the person makes a deliberate decision to Not be neutral, they have drawn a line. So allignment doesn't control a Player Character because the player WANTED their character that way. They made a Moral decision to be Good, Lawful, Chaotic or Evil for their character.
As for limiting a character's action, the worse that can happen is that repeated breaks from allignment will lead to a change in allignment. This is not a limit, the Player wants to act that way and is allowed, the allignment change has little effect on his character for the most part. Again the player is choosing his allignment with his actions, so he isn't being restricted.
For a player that chooses a class that is set to a specific allignment, they choose to be a Paladin, with all it entails. They could have been simply a Noble Fighter, but they choose a Paladin, they choose a Lawful Good Allignment, so keeping it is not forcing their actions, it is what they wanted to be.
DM-"Hey you can't do that you are lawful Good"
Player-"well maybe I am not as good as you think I am"
DM-"keep acting that way and you will become CN, because you clearly aren't LG if you are stealing from poor orphans"
Player-"fair enough, my character has gotten more and more corrupt, it seems the Paladin has been a bad influence on me"
Player 2-"Hey I attoned for killing those gnomes! Besides they had it coming"
There are knight characters. It is not the allignment that makes a Paladin special, because Lawful Good isn't restrictive at all unless you decide to be lawful stupid. Frankly I see no issue with a house ruled Chaotic Good Free Knight.
Lawful Good is extremely restrictive under a very reasonable and common reading of the alignment.
I am refering to unique abilities that rely upon allignment. Detect Evil and Smite Evil as well as a considerable number of spells are examples of core abilities that are class defining. And if you drop allignment entirely, including the mechanical parts of it (ie Demons and devils being tagged as evil, etc) then you have just snipped away a large portion of this classes ability.
It is now broken, so in this case allignment is a strong mechanical balance issue.
It's a mechanical balance issue that it caused by itself. Remove it and everything that depends on it, and the game still works.
Well one it makes it conveneint for the DM, but as I have noted, it can also be used to explain (since the PCs may not know the full back story of a brief encounter) why a particular combination is paired. Just because the standard creature is ussually a particular allignment, doesn't mean that is always the case.
What's to explain? If two beings are working together, and they're both committing evil acts, then what does alignment matter? The PCs might be shocked that a typically non-evil creature is working with a typically evil creature, but there's no need to explain it. And, if alignment didn't exist in the first place, there would be no such thing as creatures who were "typically good" or "typically evil."
Because the goblins are tagged as Evil, this makes it acceptable practice. If the Dm wanted to toss in moral uncertainty he could tage a group of goblins as neutral, and see how the players reacted.
None of which matters, because unless there's a paladin present I've never heard of players running an alignment scan on a group before deciding whether or not to kill them. I have however heard of players scouting or watching a group to determine their intentions, which may or may not be tied to their alignment.
Read my post carefully. The Paladin used Smite evil on a bandit and nothing happened. That is how the plot twist was discovered.
Great, but there are other ways for plot twists to be revealed. Alignment is not required, or even all that useful, for this. If a DM was in the habit of setups like this, then the PCs would just run alignment scans on everyone they met.
It's not a problem that needs to be solved, it is simply a working mechanic for the DM to have goblins in the city, or to mix creatures that are normally of different allignments and provide a rationalization of it without having to write a whole story for the players. The goblins are simply not evil in this case, that is easy.
Listen to yourself: you're saying that alignment is a mechanic for the DM to mix creatures that are normally of different... alignments. Alignment is solving (though not very well) a problem that only exists in the presence of... alignment.
As above i should say it is a reasonable assumption that the city is a dangerous place, and a Lawful Evil human city would undoubtably have evil beings living in it.
So would a Lawful Good human city.
That depends on how he takes out the elfs. The Paladin may be duty bound to protect the innocent people of the farm and forced to defend them should the elfs outright invade the town. You fell for an allignment trap and assumed the Paladin was restricted by his Lawful Good allignment, he isn't. Also it is the Paladin Code of Conduct that restricts the Paladin and not his allignment.
And it is the Paladin Code of Conduct that says a Paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment. To most people, this means that if a Paladin's alignment changes, then he's no longer a Paladin.
I'm willing to concede that this means that the Paladin must simply be Lawful Good, and that this just defines how he interacts with certain spells and items. To my knowledge at the moment, there are no rules that cover changing alignment due to behavior. In in case of the Paladin, "willingly commiting an evil act" (whatever that means) means that the Paladin loses all class abilities, not necessarily that the Paladin's alignment changes. I can accept that reading. It's just not typically handled that way.
Allignment doesn't have to restrict the game.
But it often does, in a way that no other mechanic of the game does.
First most people, most regular people in D&D, the average person, is likely Neutral and thus unrestricted. To be otherwise is because the person makes a deliberate decision to Not be neutral, they have drawn a line. So allignment doesn't control a Player Character because the player WANTED their character that way. They made a Moral decision to be Good, Lawful, Chaotic or Evil for their character.
Not necessarily. Maybe they just like the Paladin's class features.
As for limiting a character's action, the worse that can happen is that repeated breaks from allignment will lead to a change in allignment. This is not a limit, the Player wants to act that way and is allowed, the allignment change has little effect on his character for the most part. Again the player is choosing his allignment with his actions, so he isn't being restricted.
It has an effect on a Paladin, Barbarian, Monk, Bard, Samurai, Assassin, or any other class that "must be" a certain alignment. The rules are silent over what it means to be the wrong alignment in a class with a restriction, and in fact I believe they're silent on the subject of changing alignment at all, at least via behavior.
For a player that chooses a class that is set to a specific allignment, they choose to be a Paladin, with all it entails. They could have been simply a Noble Fighter, but they choose a Paladin, they choose a Lawful Good Allignment, so keeping it is not forcing their actions, it is what they wanted to be.
Only if that's 100% clear up front, which it isn't, which is why alignment fails.
DM-"Hey you can't do that you are lawful Good"
You don't see why this, or anything like it, is a horrible thing to say to a player?
I've rarely had DnD players want to stray from their alignment, regardless, but as long as we can roleplay in some reasonable story elements, and the character commits to roleplaying the shifted alignment, then I don't see any need to prevent them from doing something.
I wouldn't reject a lawful good characters choice to smash a baby, for example, as long as the player were willing to continue down that path and accept any of the consequences that came with it. If they were forever flip-flopping on alignment issues, I would ask them to write Chaotic Neutral or even True Neutral on the sheet, and we'd go from there.
I actually like alignment, especially with people who are less experienced with pen and paper games, since it gives them an obvious guideline about what kind of behavior a certain character would follow. As players get more experienced, alignment seems to have less value, but by then they are better at playing within an alignment anyhow, and much of the debate about it goes away.
Listen to yourself: you're saying that alignment is a mechanic for the DM to mix creatures that are normally of different... alignments. Alignment is solving (though not very well) a problem that only exists in the presence of... alignment.
I have got to make room in my sig for this.
I wouldn't reject a lawful good characters choice to smash a baby, for example, as long as the player were willing to continue down that path and accept any of the consequences that came with it. If they were forever flip-flopping on alignment issues, I would ask them to write Chaotic Neutral or even True Neutral on the sheet, and we'd go from there.
Please check me on this: are there any guidelines, in any edition, for the DM changing a character's alignment, and what that means? I know there are items and maybe spells that do it, but where did this idea of changing alignment come from?
I'm really liking the idea that one's alignment never changes, and doesn't even need to influence or be influenced by one's behavior. It's just something set within a person, and they can choose what it means. They can embrace it, or reject it, but it's who they are. Therefore, you can have a ruler who is a kind and good ruler, but who registers as starkly chaotic evil for some reason. Maybe one of his ancestors dallied with a demoness, tainting his bloodline. Maybe he was born during an unfortunate astrological event. Whatever. Maybe he doesn't even know and is as surprised as anyone when it comes to light. Then what? In a world with alignment scanning magic, he's in trouble. He reads like a mass murderer, even though he's as good as they come. He can't get protection from paladins even if they like him personally, he can't get certain blessings, he can't cross into certain places. He might become an outcast and have to turn to crime and debauchery just to survive, thus apparently fulfilling a destiny. Or he might rise above it, and make a name for himself that forces people to ignore how he reads.
Man, I think I'd really dig that. Alignment spells are no longer mystery solvers. One character might behave like an undisciplined lout, and another is calm and bookish, yet the former is the Chosen One, who will become a monk of great renown, and the latter is the Bard King. Wow, yeah. If I ever have to run 3.5 again, this is exactly how I'm going to handle it: alignment is strictly mechanical, and only influences your behavior if you want it to. Some NPCs will make a big deal out of it, but others won't care.
Involuntary change of alignment is also explained, with a character earning NO xp until they regain their original alignment. If the player likes the new alignment, they DO earn xp but the doubled requirment is in effect.
I could probably dig up a page reference, but if you have access to the DM guide, AD&D edition, there was a whole chapter on alignment.
If one's alignment is putting the character in a bad position, then a player is justified in expecting to be "paid" for being put in that position.
Some games recognize this, and use it to encourage even optimizers to walk into those bad positions. Spirit of the Century doesn't have alignment, but it has "Aspects," one-line descriptions of some part of the character's background, personality or style. Every character has at least 10. If an Aspect seems to have bearing on a task at hand ("Nose in a book," say, when it comes to uncovering knowledge) then a player can spend a point at that time to get a bonus to that task. If an Aspect seems as though it would complicate a situation ("Nose in a book," say, when on guard duty) then a player can gain a point if he or she automatically fails at that situation, or otherwise walks into a complication. Or, if the player would rather not get into that complication, he or she can spend a point not to.
So, the character has words describing the character, and incentives based on those incentives, for getting their characters into bad positions based on those descriptions - which is the whole point behind alignment, even for good roleplayers: moral conundrums.
But the problem there is that it just leads the players out to game the system into gaming it in a different way. Rather than just playing the character, they'll go out looking for these situations to gain a benefit from it.
I just don't like it. I mean, a pat on the back and being told "That was amazing, and I'm impressed that you held true to your character despite not having anything to gain from it" isn't enough? Maybe I'm too optimistic, but an inherent, immediate mechanical reward clashes with my preferred way of running and playing the game.
Now, a good DM will have all those times the player held true to their character, despite not gaining anything from it, pay off eventually. But there's a difference between "stick to it and you'll see results" and "immediate gratification." Example: The thieves guild offers a character a hefty sum of gold for helping to break into a warehouse and rob the place. The character is usually quite upstanding and doesn't break the law for personal gain.
So the player can come up with "Well, that is a very large amount of gold. Everyone is tempted on occasion..." and do it. They get paid, life goes on, but the thieves guild will be expecting them to help out in the future due to precedent.
Or the player can decide that their character resists the temptation, possibly angering the thieves guild, but holding true to their beliefs. And a good DM can have this pay off in a number of ways down the line: Say someone gets murdered and robbed, and the PC is a suspect. There's clear evidence that proves they resist greed, which could help clear their name. Or word gets around about turning the guild down and the city guard offers the PC a quest later on because they know the PC is a lawful and trustworthy citizen, so the PC gets paid while holding true to their principles later.
I'd really like to see Aspects, or the like in D&D, along with the benefits for following them. Until then, there's no point in using Alignment, and if I want to see my players in a situation that will strain their ability to make in-character choices, I'll work with them to set up something we'd all find interesting.
(I'm mostly a DM, so this is getting into "What's a DM to Do?" territory. In terms of "What's a Player to Do?," well, talk to your DM, get on the same page with them, and try not to be disruptive.)
Yes, this is starting to lean too much towards What's a DM to Do... Sorry about that.
That's why I threw out the 3e Paladin, too.So not having alignment is better because you want to limit the player's choices? I am a little puzzled on how this could be seen a a good solution.
Can you name a character concept that can't be built without the paladin class?
Holy Warrior - Cleric. Maybe multiclassed fighter.
Honerable Knight - Fighter.
Mounted Combat Guy - Druid, cleric, or fighter can all do this. Cleric and fighter need to buy a horse.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">Can you name a character concept that can't be built without the paladin class?
Holy warrior with magical summonable horse and the ability to detect evil at will and some magic bonus damage against evil creatures who can cure diseases and is immune to diseases and stuff and loses all his powers when the DM asks him a question and is prepared to twist absolutely any answer into being wrong. That's my concept. Oh, and "not a primary spellcaster".
Build THAT without the Paladin class.
Didn't think of that, did you.
Holy warrior with magical summonable horse and the ability to detect evil at will and some magic bonus damage against evil creatures who can cure diseases and is immune to diseases and stuff and loses all his powers when the DM asks him a question and is prepared to twist absolutely any answer into being wrong. That's my concept. Oh, and "not a primary spellcaster".
Magic items can fill in the summonable horse (as can a ritual) as well as the bonus damage against certain creatures. You want immunity to disease? Train Endurance, grab some Endurance boosting items and you'll likely never get sick.
Take Fighter for fighting style. Possibly Warlord. Spend a feat for platemail if that's your preference.
Detect Evil is a ridiculous ability, which is either game breaking or useless, with little in between. Either the DM makes the BBEG immune to it some how or else you'll never be in a situation where you need it. You want it so bad? Train Insight and raise your Wisdom. Congratulations, you can detect evil intentions without a God's help.
As for losing your powers because the DM is a jerk, you don't need to be a Paladin for that. Anti-magic fields (in several flavors, whether they want to just take out Arcane or any of the other non-Martial power sources) and any number of environmental effects to gimp the character. Or, if they are an EXCEEDLY bad DM, just flat out telling you your powers won't work. Really, who wants a built in "The DM completely subverts your character's abilities" button? Only masochists, in my experience.
Oh, and anyone can fight in the name of a god. They don't even need to be Divine to do it. Humans have been fighting in the name of some diety or another for thousands of years, after all, and I've yet to see any of them use Smite Evil.
Build THAT without the Paladin class.
Didn't think of that, did you.
Wow. You may want to rephrase that, because you come off sounding quite childish.
Holy warrior with magical summonable horse and the ability to detect evil at will and some magic bonus damage against evil creatures who can cure diseases and is immune to diseases and stuff and loses all his powers when the DM asks him a question and is prepared to twist absolutely any answer into being wrong. That's my concept. Oh, and "not a primary spellcaster".
Magic items can fill in the summonable horse (as can a ritual) as well as the bonus damage against certain creatures.
Won't happen at level 1, and can be taken away from me. That just ruins my character concept, man.
You want immunity to disease? Train Endurance, grab some Endurance boosting items and you'll likely never get sick.
"Likely" is not "immunity". And it also isn't "cure disease 1/week as an inherent ability"
Take Fighter for fighting style. Possibly Warlord. Spend a feat for platemail if that's your preference.
There's no warlord class in D20, and D20 Fighters can wear heavy plate without a Feat. There's a reason "Paladin" is traditionally referred to as "Fighter without bonus feats" as soon as they annoy the DM.
Train Insight and raise your Wisdom. Congratulations, you can detect evil intentions without a God's help.
But I want it to be a magical ability, granted by the gods, and not subject to a bad roll causing a failure.
As for losing your powers because the DM is a jerk, you don't need to be a Paladin for that.
But it helps!
Anti-magic fields (in several flavors, whether they want to just take out Arcane or any of the other non-Martial power sources) and any number of environmental effects to gimp the character. Or, if they are an EXCEEDLY bad DM, just flat out telling you your powers won't work. Really, who wants a built in "The DM completely subverts your character's abilities" button? Only masochists, in my experience.
Wow, it's almost as if I knew that and was making a point.
Build THAT without the Paladin class.
Didn't think of that, did you.
Wow. You may want to rephrase that, because you come off sounding quite childish.
That would, in fact be the point.
I'd like to apologise - my previous post (and most of this one!) was meant to come across as absurd and sarcastic, and text is really not a great medium for that.
I'd like to apologise - my previous post (and most of this one!) was meant to come across as absurd and sarcastic, and text is really not a great medium for that.
Yeah. It sounds less 'sarcastic' and more 'whiny jerk that's acting like a brat.'
You want to know why I took your post seriously? Because I've honestly met people stupid enough to make those arguments. "But it's just not exactly the same!" "Did you ever consider the 'exact' version was removed because it's a problem? Settle for second best or play something else."
Given, I've also known people dumb enough that, when directly told that they can reflavor powers and change damage types as long as they mention it ahead of time, they will... Complain about not being able to reflavor powers. "I don't want the power to work this way, but it says it works this way right in the flavor text!"
So I've taken to assuming every stupid comment is genuinely stupid and not an attempt at humor.
If alignment doesn't matter, then who cares what his gm says? Why correct the gm at all? If you truely thought it was pointless, then don't keep it going.
So I've taken to assuming every stupid comment is genuinely stupid and not an attempt at humor.
The internet: Blurring the line between real and artificial stupidity better than anything else ever.
Why are you guys completely derailing his thread? He wants alignment, and he wants to stay chaotic. He's looking for a chaotic way to keep his alignment, not good vs evil.
"Alignment is a disease" is a perfectly sensible response to complaints about it, regardless of good/evil or law/chaos being the current problem.
If alignment doesn't matter, then who cares what his gm says? Why correct the gm at all? If you truely thought it was pointless, then don't keep it going.
Alignment sucks, and doesn't matter *unless you're using a crappy system*. OP is using a crappy system, and his alignment matters.
"Alignment is a disease" is a perfectly sensible response to complaints about it, regardless of good/evil or law/chaos being the current problem.
You are wrong. He's asking what actions he can take to keep his alignment. And 90% of the posts here are weither about how bad alignment is, or what the concept of good vs evil is. He didn't ask about good vs evil. He didn't ask about how bad alignment is. He just wants a suggestion on possible actions.
Because alignment is a terrible system in which the goalposts for what each one means, differ depending on the person, what one person suggests as keeping chaotic, or lawful, or good, or neutral, or whatever, will be useless to another, because the latter will view it totally differently. If alignment were actually a system in which you could nail down an answer, and it would always be right, then it would be a fine question (and alignment would be less of a terrible system).
But it isn't. And there's no answer to the OP's question. So instead, there's an argument.
Alignment causes these problems.
"Alignment is a disease" is a perfectly sensible response to complaints about it, regardless of good/evil or law/chaos being the current problem.
You are wrong.
No, I'm dead right: The existence of the alignment system is the problem. His complaint is merely a symptom.
He's asking what actions he can take to keep his alignment.
And he got his answer immediately: "None, because Alignment is crap and what your DM says goes, outright."
And 90% of the posts here are weither about how bad alignment is, or what the concept of good vs evil is. He didn't ask about good vs evil. He didn't ask about how bad alignment is. He just wants a suggestion on possible actions.
"Don't play bad games" is a perfectly good suggestion of a possible action.
No, I'm dead right: The existence of the alignment system is the problem. His complaint is merely a symptom.
Big +1.
And offering a stopgap measure (if there is one) for a foundational problem is doing a disservice to the person seeking advice, specificity of the thread topic be damned. (Though I figure any complaints as to "going off-topic" is merely just someone who wants to see ideas they don't agree with shut down.)
The real problem with the question (assuming you accept the premise of a game with alignment) is that *there is no answer which will always work*.
(snip)
And there's no answer to the OP's question.
There are a great many answers. And there is no way to determine which ones are right except to ask HIS dm.
Alignment causes these problems.
That is why I don't want alignment to have ANY mechanical effect.
I often, not always, use alignment in both world-building and character-building.
But I don't like it AT ALL in mechanics.
not necessarily, but if you want to be closed minded about it you can.
Here's what i've been doing to remain chaotic and the DM is now on the same page as i am about chaos. Last game session i shape shifted into one of our party members (a half dragon) and woke another party member and started talking to him telling him a bunch of random stuff that made no sense. I did this and let him go back to sleep thinking our other party member had done this, then in town i assume someones personage and start fights with other common folk, get away and revert to my original form. so problem solved. as long as i remain doing things not for a moral reason but just to do them, the more the dm says im chaotic.
This is not so much uan example of Chaotic, as it is "disruptive" and indeed this is an allignment extreme, one which could quickly borderline on becoming evil. All it takes is for a few of these pranks to result in someone's death. For example you start fights with other common folks and that innocent person you are impersonating gets stabbed to death in a back alley for an alleged affront.
This is a problem if you allow allignment to define a character rather and too literally at that.
Chaotic means "implies freedom, adaptability and flexibility.On the downside Chaos can include recklessness, resentment towards ligitimate authority, arbitrary actions and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benifit from the potential that it's individuals have within them."
Nowhere does it say "completely insane madman, bent on creating absolute confusion and tearing society apart."
Within that Chaos allignment are three divisions,
Good "Altruism, respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings"
Evil "Impies hurting, oppressing and killing others....simply have no compassion for others"
Neutral, have compuctions against evil but lack the commitment to sacrifice.
So if your Chaotic actions are hurting others, not respecting their dignity (and impersonating them to destroy their reputation and get them into fights is hurtful and disrespectful) then you are on the verge of Chaotic Evil and a basically an "accidental" death away from it. You immitate Bob and insult Frank, Frank gets angry and later kills Bob in the ensuing fight, Bob's friend, Bill, attacks Frank and also gets killed. The Guards capture Frank and have him Hung. You have just murdered Bob, Bill and Frank, congrats you are Chaotic Evil.
A Chaotic Neutral person is just someone that values personal freedom and isn't committed to good or evil but beleives in a balanced outlook.
On the other hand, you have just described a character that a mob of villages goes after with pitchforks and torches, probably because they figured out why Bob, Bill and Frank are dead.
Within each allignment is a spread from the normal to the exteme, and sometimes they overlap (Chaotc Neutral's most extreme overlaps with Chaotic Evil's tame side) Neutral overlaps quite abit with good, most neutral people are basically good, just lack the commitment to self sacrifice. It is only when the allignments are taken to their utmost extreme, where they sometimes overlap, that it becomes an issue.
Lawful Good is extremely restrictive under a very reasonable and common reading of the alignment.
Really?
lawful Good is the best allignment because it combines Honor with Compassion?
I have a character that believes in Honor, tradition, respects the life and personal dignity of others, respects rightful authority and will self sacrifice to protect the innocent.
That doesn't sound extremely restrictive to me at all.
Especially if that is my character concept, the Chivalrous Knight in Shining armor.
Also any restriction here is self imposed (and thus not a restriction) as I could have chosen to be a LG Cleric or a TN Fighter and acted pretty muc the exact same
It's a mechanical balance issue that it caused by itself. Remove it and everything that depends on it, and the game still works.
If the game still works, that implies that it worked with the allignment system, so why rewrite the game when it is already working?
What's to explain? If two beings are working together, and they're both committing evil acts, then what does alignment matter? The PCs might be shocked that a typically non-evil creature is working with a typically evil creature, but there's no need to explain it. And, if alignment didn't exist in the first place, there would be no such thing as creatures who were "typically good" or "typically evil."
It explains it in the sense that mechanical functions of abilities and spells will work on creatures that would typically be uneffected by them. When a Paladin's Detect Evil fails to detect a Goblin, or when Protection from Evil also works on the Humans, so above when you said remove it and the game still works, that isn't quite true, because large sections of the game will need to be rewritten and adjusted accordingly.
And why? Because I fail to see how tagging a goblin as "evil" or "Neutral" is a issue, or is inherently broken. It is a simple mechanical tool used by the Dm that says "these humans can be smited or effected by Protection from Evil" or "This Goblin isn't evil" There is no issue, or failure, or anything it is a working system.
Really? My post got removed for saying THAT?
Was gonna post something similar to yours, but saw you had it covered.
OP- Those actions your DM is forcing/requesting you perform are actions we regulalrly see DMs coming in and asking for advice on how to to STOP players from performing. The fact that your DM demands you perform them is frankly a little unbelieveable to me. Its the sort of thing I would have a chat with a player about after the session, explaining that I'd appreciate if they stopped. Potentially saying something like "You don't fit with our group don't come back, have fun elsewhere" depending on how often this happened.
The way I have always understood a CN character, on a more personal level, was almost a me me mine mine character. All actions taken were to that characters amusement or madness. A CN character could help out a lawful cause for whatever reason, but just merely go his or her own way with it.
As you stated earlier (shape shifting and seeding dissent or chaos in the group, these actions are almost like sheogorath from the elderscroll games and if you played oblivion, he was truly mad) is one way to act chaotic. But if your character is inclined, studying or looking into forbidden techniques is one way to go. Wild magic (if you live in a structured and studied magic world) is one example. You know it is dangerous. You do it anyway. You may even be trying to help with the results. But using such a deadly force could cause harm to others....which doesnt matter if you are CN just the end result. I am sure there are forces like that available in your world that your DM may be willing to explore with you.
with chaotic nuetral just remember, the end justifies the means.
Lawful Good is extremely restrictive under a very reasonable and common reading of the alignment.
Really?
lawful Good is the best allignment because it combines Honor with Compassion?
I have a character that believes in Honor, tradition, respects the life and personal dignity of others, respects rightful authority and will self sacrifice to protect the innocent.
That doesn't sound extremely restrictive to me at all.
Especially if that is my character concept, the Chivalrous Knight in Shining armor.
All fine and good, unless the DM has a slightly different reading and ties the knight's hands. Can't sneak, can't ambush, can't mislead, can't intimidate, and worse can't allow others in the party to do any of that, or even use key class abilities like thievery skills, poison, or certain spells. Even if one personally doesn't feel restricted because that was what they signed up for, it can be very troublesome for the rest of the party.
Also any restriction here is self imposed (and thus not a restriction) as I could have chosen to be a LG Cleric or a TN Fighter and acted pretty muc the exact same
You can be any alignment and act pretty much exactly the same.
But what happens in many games is that the restrictions of alignment are not self-imposed. If they were, there'd be no need for alignment at all. But since it exists, people think they get to use it as a roadblock for other players' choices.
It's a mechanical balance issue that it caused by itself. Remove it and everything that depends on it, and the game still works.
If the game still works, that implies that it worked with the allignment system, so why rewrite the game when it is already working?
You're addressing only a very literal reading of a single, out-fo-context sentence of my post. This whole thread clearly indicates that alignment can be a source for (or at best an excuse for) problems in the game. If it worked there might still be questions about it here, as there are for any rule, but it wouldn't go on for pages.
What's to explain? If two beings are working together, and they're both committing evil acts, then what does alignment matter? The PCs might be shocked that a typically non-evil creature is working with a typically evil creature, but there's no need to explain it. And, if alignment didn't exist in the first place, there would be no such thing as creatures who were "typically good" or "typically evil."
It explains it in the sense that mechanical functions of abilities and spells will work on creatures that would typically be uneffected by them. When a Paladin's Detect Evil fails to detect a Goblin, or when Protection from Evil also works on the Humans, so above when you said remove it and the game still works, that isn't quite true, because large sections of the game will need to be rewritten and adjusted accordingly.
I said "remove it and anything that depends on it."
And why? Because I fail to see how tagging a goblin as "evil" or "Neutral" is a issue, or is inherently broken. It is a simple mechanical tool used by the Dm that says "these humans can be smited or effected by Protection from Evil" or "This Goblin isn't evil" There is no issue, or failure, or anything it is a working system.
Because that's not what it's used for in reality. I already said that if alignment was purely mechanical I might actually like it, and if might actually be interesting. Having "evil" on one's sheet would tell us nothing about how the creature or character behaves, only how it interacts with certain effects, and perhaps how others view it apart from its deeds.
Just roleplay your character. Alignment is bull anyway.
I think what causes most problems is the misunderstandings of allignment definitions that come from pre-conceived notions as to the meaning of the words that takes it to the extreme.
Chaos in particular is unfortunate in that people see this word and assume it means "absolute randomness, unpredictable, crazy pandemonium, insanity, havoc" and this taints the rest of the definition to suit. As a result you get the CN character that is running havoc over the game. When in fact Chaos really means, in this context "personal freedom, liberty.
Replace the word "Chaotic" in the allignment with something less extreme sounding, such as "Freedom loving" or "Unbound" and the definition becomes less extreme.
example, a reporter who believes that Freedom of Speech outweighs state censorship, is Chaotic. Not a madman journalist wearing a tinfoil hat who believes space aliens control the president. (although on the extreme end the madman is likely chaotic)
On the extreme end of the allignment they orverlap to a degree. The extreme of CN is very close to CE, so close that all it might take is an evil act or mistake to tip the scale. As mentioned above, a changling's mischief in impersonating people and causing fights could easily go very wrong
Most Neutral people are basically good, they simply lack the commitment to self sacrifice, so there is alot of overlap with Good. Conversely there are those who are antisocial, even greedy and criminals who don't have the nerve to cross into evil (the rogue theif is an example, theft, burglery etc, but hasn't crossed the line into evil with murder etc yet)
Ignoring the extremes, which naturally exist because there are beings that are extreme examples, (a Madman who is CN is a good example) most people and characters are in the normal balanced range.
A good example is the Chaotic Bard and the Lawful Good Paladin. The Chaotic Bard sings songs exposing the King's corrupt activities, despite this being unlawful (it's allegal to perform Acts of Descension) Guards arrive to arrest the Bard, however the Lawful Good Paladin stops them and sends them on their way.
The Lawful Good Paladin protects the Bard and allows his unlawful acts because his lawful nature believes in accountability. The Bard is telling the Truth and the king's corruption is also in violation of the laws and traditions. The Paladin also balances law and good and realizes the difference between respecting legitimate authority and being lawful stupid. Legitimate authority is laws that do Good, not laws that protect the corrupt and unlawful.
So while there is a miriad of possible solutions, the paladin isn't restricted by his Lawful Good allignment by any means. In this example we see that a Chaotic character and a Lawful Good character can work harmoniously together.
While on the extreme ends the allignments oppose each other, however if you look at it as a chart, starting from the centre (Neutral) and spreading outwards, you can place someone anywhere along the path from the balanced to the very extreme. Example a normal person who respects the law and is charitable might be on the low end of Lawful Good, and on the extreme end could be an angel of a LG Deity. A Rogue who picks pockets and other petty crimes is on the lower end of CN and a Pixy Prankster or a Storm Elemental could be on the extreme end.
Step away from the extreme, that is the purview of NPCs and Monsters. The Insane shapeshifter impersonating people and starting fights is a great NPC for running the players in wild circles, but is a disruptive as a PC. Use a broader, balanced definition of allignment.
I think what causes most problems is the misunderstandings of allignment definitions that come from pre-conceived notions as to the meaning of the words that takes it to the extreme.
If the game itself had even put even half as much thought into alignment as you have, it might, just possibly work.
But they didn't, and while your ideas sound good to me, they amount to houserules, just as do my interpretations of hit points, or anything else that a reasonable person can make perfectly realistic, and troublemakers use to make trouble: good for a table, for a certain group, but so against the grain (even though they conform to stated rules) that they're not likely to gain traction.
The biggest issue is that people feel like alignment is supposed to have a meaning and effect by itself. So, they create one, and what's usually created is a problem.
All fine and good, unless the DM has a slightly different reading and ties the knight's hands. Can't sneak, can't ambush, can't mislead, can't intimidate, and worse can't allow others in the party to do any of that, or even use key class abilities like thievery skills, poison, or certain spells. Even if one personally doesn't feel restricted because that was what they signed up for, it can be very troublesome for the rest of the party.
Again that is not an issue with the working mechanics of allignment but with being a lousy DM, or using his own definition that IS NOT in the rules. The DM here is using a house ruled allingment
A house rule made by a poor DM is not a legitimate, or even relevant arguement. DMs have made all sorts of "house rules" from restricting magic items, non-core books, alternate magic systems, railroading players, having godlike DM PC characters, Dms that just "decide" how things happen without giving the players saving throws, DMs that virtually control the PC actions or just plain poor DMs, none of these are relevant to how the rules actually work and your arguement has passed the point of confirmation bias.
The arguement that allignment is broken because there are lousy DMs is irrelvant because regardless of what system you use, the lousy DM will still be lousy.
All fine and good, unless the DM has a slightly different reading and ties the knight's hands. Can't sneak, can't ambush, can't mislead, can't intimidate, and worse can't allow others in the party to do any of that, or even use key class abilities like thievery skills, poison, or certain spells. Even if one personally doesn't feel restricted because that was what they signed up for, it can be very troublesome for the rest of the party.
Again that is not an issue with the working mechanics of allignment but with being a lousy DM, or using his own definition that IS NOT in the rules. The DM here is using a house ruled allingment
There are no "working mechanics" for the behavioral side of alignment, and there's no clear, agreed upon definition. Oh, there are words in a book, but no examples, no clarification, and plenty of room for multiple, valid interpretations. Your interpretation, though it's one I wouldn't mind playing by, is just as much of a houserule.
So why encourage lousy DMing with a lousy system that does nothing else?
Exactly. You're just asking for problems by using alignment in the way it's been designed in D&D in the past. Even in groups where it "works" I question why it needs to be there in the first place.
Does anyone know when alignment appeared as a concept and why? (Originally I mean and this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm legitimately curious.)
Does anyone know when alignment appeared as a concept and why? (Originally I mean and this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm legitimately curious.)
I think it was introduced very early in the game's life, but I couldn't tell you the reason for it.
I think it's interesting that not all editions of the game had a "good/evil" axis, at least not as a player choice. In the original "Red Box," creatures were only Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. I'm told (though I don't recall this mysefl) that in that version, "evil" just meant someone of a different alignment than oneself, so anyone could cast Protection from Evil and potentially get some use out of it.
(Even still, I seem to recall that most of the "classic" enemies were Neutral, though I think undead were often Neutral.)
So why encourage lousy DMing with a lousy system that does nothing else?
Exactly. You're just asking for problems by using alignment in the way it's been designed in D&D in the past. Even in groups where it "works" I question why it needs to be there in the first place.
Does anyone know when alignment appeared as a concept and why? (Originally I mean and this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm legitimately curious.)
It's in the original game, and it's there because Gary Gygax couldn't imagine something without inventing mechanics to cover it.
My DM has basically told me that my character needs to act more chaotic to retain my CN alignment. What can i do that's chaotic but yet neutral? i would prefer my character not slip to chaotic evil...
Yousef The Chosen
Human/Doppelganger Cleric Lvl 5
Deity: Taiia The Destroyer
There are two parts to your alignment: Chaotic and Neutral. If you aren't acting "chaotic" enough logic dictates your DM should shift your alignment to true neutral or lawful neutral. You shouldnt slip to evil, because you aren't doing evil.
That said, agree with everyone else who says alignment is dumb.
So why encourage lousy DMing with a lousy system that does nothing else?
Exactly. You're just asking for problems by using alignment in the way it's been designed in D&D in the past. Even in groups where it "works" I question why it needs to be there in the first place.
Does anyone know when alignment appeared as a concept and why? (Originally I mean and this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm legitimately curious.)
Probably relates to the game's wargaming roots, and you saw something similar in the D&D minis game, where, if you had a LG warband, you couldn't have anybody who wasn't LG in it. "This is a side, this is a side ... no overlap."
It's in the original game, and it's there because Gary Gygax couldn't imagine something without inventing mechanics to cover it.
Interesting notion and it does hint at the divide between the two styles of play to which many of these discussions boil down.
The Dungeon Masters Guide from AD&D has rules defined for voluntary, gradual change for the better of the game (where everyone simply agrees that it makes more sense for the character to be a different alignment, usually with a player that is inexperienced and didn't understand their choice fully at character creation)
Interesting. Does it go into what problems might arise if someone plays an alignment different than the one on their sheet?
and a second type of voluntary change where a case cannot be made that the change would be better for the game. In the second case a penalty is laid out as doubling the XP requirment to gain the characters NEXT level.
Surprising. I'd ask whether the character's level (or progress toward next level) readjusts if the player reverts to proper behavior, but that's exactly the sort of thing the old rules completely failed to consider.
Involuntary change of alignment is also explained, with a character earning NO xp until they regain their original alignment. If the player likes the new alignment, they DO earn xp but the doubled requirment is in effect.
Sounds like a pretty strong incentive just to say "Yeah, sure whatever." And I'm pretty sure anyone could just do that, apart from the paladin or maybe the assassin, who even then had alignment restrictions. I don't think the druid came along until later, though the monk might have been in there already.
Thanks for the history lesson.
Interesting. Does it go into what problems might arise if someone plays an alignment different than the one on their sheet?
The DM will inform you that your alignment has changed, with the associated XP penalties.
Surprising. I'd ask whether the character's level (or progress toward next level) readjusts if the player reverts to proper behavior, but that's exactly the sort of thing the old rules completely failed to consider.
Hahahahano, they address that in detail. Old D&D rulebooks are like a stream of consciousness from Gary Gygax, they go into INCREDIBLE detail about the most mundane things and continue adding rules for situations long after you've reached the "but that would never happen" stage because he always played this weird kind of "okay, but what if THIS happened?" game with himself.
And: When your alignment changes, you lose all XP towards your next level and/or need double XP to reach your next level. The exact penalty depends on edition. If you then decide you like your old alignment BACK, that's another alignment change, so you you lose all XP towards your next level and/or need double XP to reach your next level.
Involuntary change of alignment is also explained, with a character earning NO xp until they regain their original alignment. If the player likes the new alignment, they DO earn xp but the doubled requirment is in effect.
Sounds like a pretty strong incentive just to say "Yeah, sure whatever."
By "involuntary" he doesn't mean "DM says your alignment has changed", he means "you put on a Helm Of Opposite Alignment" or "a devil's curse has made you Evil now" or the like. INVOLUNTARY alignment change, like by a magical effect that changes it.
So why encourage lousy DMing with a lousy system that does nothing else?
Why encourage lousy DMing with any complex system? There are board games out there after all, or better yet a book club.
The thing of it is that it does do something else. As it has been said, allignment can be used to add flavour (Good vs Evil) Moral certainty/uncertainty and working mechanics. Protection against Undead would be a nice spell, so would Protection from Devils etc etc but the allignment factor, Protection against Good/Law/Evil/Chaos gives these spells more utility then just special case (if we get attacked by a Zombie) to a wider spread of targets that it can effect.
It allows a mechanic to catagorize creatures beyond simply creature type, ie animal/monsterous/humanoid and Undead/Outsider/etc and Good/Evil/Chaotic/Neutral which allows for very specific abilties, such as Bane Goblins, to a broader, Detect Good.
It also gives clear and easy way for determining how some abilities work vs certain targets. Is it ok for a Paladin to smite a good person? The current mechanic says that such a divine ability is limited to Evil Targets, which can be clearly defined and assigned by the DM. Most monsters are Evil by default (although the DM can change it for indivdual creatures, such as Goblins living in a human city) And a DM can apply it to creatures who normally aren't evil, such as Humans or Dwarves or Halflings. This is an easy way for a Dm and player to determine the effect of a particular spell or ability, Protection from Evil can effect any number of creatures.
It is a working mechanic.
It is a working mechanic.
Until a player or DM uses another player's character's alignment to manipulate their behavior.
It is a working mechanic.
Until a player or DM uses another player's character's alignment to manipulate their behavior.
That, again, is circular and irrelevant logic. First off a Dm or other player could manipulate a player's character's behavior in any roleplaying system based upon their character description, stereotype or personality or any other information listed on their character sheet. "You are a Gamorian, Gamorians hate droids so you must attack it in a frenzy!", "Your Tremere would never talk to someone like that!", "your Elf hate hims, he's a dwarf!", "she is the most beautiful woman you've ever seen, there is no way you would arrest her!" etc etc etc
Again Bad DMing and poor playing is not the fault of the mechanic and would likely occur anyways. The problem of a bad DM or Player has nothing to do with the ruleset. The issue is that the DM or other player is trying to manipulate the player's character, PERIOD!
And in my decades of expereince these allignment "issues" have never occurred in any game that i was a part of.
I am playing a rogue (3.5e) and I have a rather long background (at least in comparison to the rest of the party) about how I procured my skills. None of which was done doing things that a thief would do--however, I have been told that I am supposed to be a thief.
Not any kind of thief, but the kind that joins the Thieves' Guild and ascends the ranks. Does anyone have any advice on how to handle this? I feel my character's personality is just being obliterated by this and I don't see how to resolve it.
If I had been told that this was what was going to happen for playing a rogue, I would've gone with my original choice (of wizard). The group requested I make a rogue, so I did just that (but he was an honorable rogue who only used his skills if it helped pursue justice) and now I'm getting railroaded into being a boring, stereotypical thief. Does anyone have any advice at all?
This is the orriginal quote from the thread dirrectly below us. Notice how the Rogue's allignment is completely a non-issue, yet his character is being manipulated and railroaded by the DM and other players based only on their limited perspective that: Rogues are Thieves
Allignment has nothing whatsoever to do with poor DMs and players. This character is liklely being manipulated despite of his allignment.
It is a working mechanic.
Until a player or DM uses another player's character's alignment to manipulate their behavior.
That, again, is circular and irrelevant logic. First off a Dm or other player could manipulate a player's character's behavior in any roleplaying system based upon their character description, stereotype or personality or any other information listed on their character sheet. "You are a Gamorian, Gamorians hate droids so you must attack it in a frenzy!", "Your Tremere would never talk to someone like that!", "your Elf hate hims, he's a dwarf!", "she is the most beautiful woman you've ever seen, there is no way you would arrest her!" etc etc etc
None of those things are encoded in the rules.
(That said, there are games that use aspects or flaws along those lines, but they generally have at least some kind of well-defined function, and come with a benefit in return for giving up control.)
Again Bad DMing and poor playing is not the fault of the mechanic and would likely occur anyways. The problem of a bad DM or Player has nothing to do with the ruleset. The issue is that the DM or other player is trying to manipulate the player's character, PERIOD!
Right, and being handled what any reasonable person would likely see as a tool for doing exactly that.
And in my decades of expereince these allignment "issues" have never occurred in any game that i was a part of.
How anecdotal for you.
I am playing a rogue (3.5e) and I have a rather long background (at least in comparison to the rest of the party) about how I procured my skills. None of which was done doing things that a thief would do--however, I have been told that I am supposed to be a thief.
Not any kind of thief, but the kind that joins the Thieves' Guild and ascends the ranks. Does anyone have any advice on how to handle this? I feel my character's personality is just being obliterated by this and I don't see how to resolve it.
If I had been told that this was what was going to happen for playing a rogue, I would've gone with my original choice (of wizard). The group requested I make a rogue, so I did just that (but he was an honorable rogue who only used his skills if it helped pursue justice) and now I'm getting railroaded into being a boring, stereotypical thief. Does anyone have any advice at all?
This is the orriginal quote from the thread dirrectly below us. Notice how the Rogue's allignment is completely a non-issue, yet his character is being manipulated and railroaded by the DM and other players based only on their limited perspective that: Rogues are Thieves
Allignment has nothing whatsoever to do with poor DMs and players. This character is liklely being manipulated despite of his allignment.
I don't see what that has to do with alignment at all. Alignment in general, is of very limited value and causes more grief then it does good.
lol ?
wait... so someone elses thread that has nothing to do with alignment proves that there's nothing wrong with alignment because the posters problem does not involve alignment.
lol ?
Yes Noctaem, it was a response to the arguement that alignment are bad because of lousy DMs, my response is that the orriginal poster of this thread and the orriginal poster of the other thread had the exact same issue, their character being railroaded by a bad DM.
A lousy DM can say "your Paladin must do such and such because alignment" or he can say "your rogue must be a thief and join the thieve's guild, because!" both issues are the same, Bad DM. None of these problems are really cause by alignments, they are cause by the DM or players.
A lousy DM can say "your Paladin must do such and such because alignment" or he can say "your rogue must be a thief and join the thieve's guild, because!" both issues are the same, Bad DM. None of these problems are really cause by alignments, they are cause by the DM or players.
The former is backed up by rules (albeit cruddy ones), the latter only by fluff and preconceptions. The latter is therefore much easier to deal with.
Alignment doesn't enable questionable moral situation, it removes them. "Who's the bad guy? Cast a spell and find out."
And that's a major strike against it, in my book.
I'm starting to really like you, Salla.
Alignment doesn't enable questionable moral situation, it removes them. "Who's the bad guy? Cast a spell and find out."
Yes and no.
For one, yes it does, on the extreme of the "ethical debate" the party is generally sent against clearly evil monsters anyways. Goblins, Red Dragons, Vampires, and at it's heart D&D is very much about the "heros" vanquishing Evil, so most of the defacto enemies are evil. Even so most of these creatures would be the enemies anyways by merit of them being monsterous and dangerous and D&D is really a combat orriented game.
For example, it would be hard to swallow a game in which the Players had to get the next of kin to sign off on "ending the life support" for zombies and the ensuing debate on what qualifies as "life" after all zombies do physically have brains unlike skeletons.....
Point is, "Who's the bad guy?" is pretty obvious when it is a red dragon burning the peasant's crops, or a vampire king with a zombie horde, even if they aren't evil, they are very clearly the enemy.
But not every enemy is as obvious as a red dragon or a zombie horde. As stated there is a great deal of overlap at the extreme ends of allignment. There are Neutral enemies who simply have conflicting interests, A King could be secretly controled and manipulated by an Evil advisor, so his soldiers (mostly neutral) could be acting upon evil orders without being evil themselves.
Example the Evil advisor convinces the Neutral King that the Lawful Good order of Heronious in the city are plotting against him, and he should arrest the group's leader and send soldiers to deal with the rest of them. Neutral Soldiers are sent with orders to "execute the traitorous criminals of Heronious" Those soldiers might even be led by a LG captain of the guards, and since it was only the leader who was actually LG and he is in prison, out of sight and mind, they would be facing Neutral followers of Heronious.
All the PCs would encounter would be a group of Neutral Soldiers, being led by a LG Captain fighting against Neutral "Cultists" and it would be hard to determine who really is the good guys here. That they might themselves take the LG captain's bounty to "Hunt down the cultists who fled to the caves" and you suddenly have a Paladin working for the Evil advisor because the moral issue is made all the more questionable because of alignment.
And who is the real villain? unless and until the PC identify the evil advisor and actually mark him as being evil (which might be hard to do if they don't get within 60 feet, or if he disguises his alignment) and even then, what exactly are they going to do about it?
Because while some zealous Paladins and some fanatics might be ok with prosecuting someone simply for being evil, and while few give any consideration for Monstersous creatures and foriegn evils. Most humans are Nuetral and the advisor is breaking no law, heck he could give some story of "Back in the veit-goblin wars we had to get our hands dirty, I still can't sleep at night, I've seen things that no man should be forced to see..." and the people are going to be looking at the Paladin saying "You want to arrest him because he has ghosts in his closet? He's a freeking Hero!"
Smite on Sight is easy in a dungeon, but not so easy inside a city or a king's court.
The Good can be manipulated, the lawful good even moreso (as laws may not be good laws) they can also make mistakes, or be going on a path of their undoing, corruption takes time and starts from somewhere, so there is a very real posibility that the villain could be Lawful Good going down the wrong path, or conversly the villian could be the anti-hero, the evil conqueror who's real goal is to unite the warring factions to build a peaceful empire. Whiel they might have started with those allignments, in the end they may have completely changed them as they continued down their path.
And for more moral uncertainty, allignments do change, so don't always represent what the person really is. A person who commited evil in the past might have paid for their crime and is in the process of atonement, so while they flag as evil, they could be on the cusp of changing to Neutral or even Good, and a Lawful Good person could be in the process of changing to Neutral or even Evil and also be on the cusp.
So consider the Lawful Good person who is secretly plotting, he has gotten more and more corrput and is on the verge of changing allignments. He discovers that this other person has an evil past, and although conforming, would make a good patsy to blame the crime on. He frames the "evil" person for the murder and investigators, aka the PCs, detect evil and he pings. And this isn't even including spells that disguise or mislead detection spells. So the moral issue can be even more clouded with alignment.
But not every enemy is as obvious as a red dragon or a zombie horde.
Conversely, not every enemy is going to be a nigh untouchable, crazily prepared magnificent bastard with good PR thanks to a expertly crafted scenario specifically designed to obfuscate alignment divinations and related tactics.
It's a sliding scale.
Much more likely, PCs will be dealing with something closer to the middle. Quite often, the PCs will interact directly the "bad guy(s)" or with mooks of similar morals. The villain's machinations will moderately complex at best. And resolution with the villain can be expected to be achieved in a few adventures or by the end of a single arc.
And the further your villains are from Lex Luthor and David Xanatos, the more easily and likely Alignment Detection can used to either spoil a plot, throw a sizable monkey wrench into the plot, or force you to deliberately plan around or ban those abilities to keep the reveal from being spoiled too early. Or at the very least, toss up giant, lightsaber-red signs that say "I kick puppies for profit".
Does anyone know when alignment appeared as a concept and why? (Originally I mean and this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm legitimately curious.)
As I recall, the two-axis alignment system was 1E or 2E AD&D.
1E D&D had the Good-Evil axis only, I think. (4E copied this but added even-more-good and even-more-evil.)
Before that, I don't know.
And in my decades of expereince these allignment "issues" have never occurred in any game that i was a part of.
I'd venture a guess they have occured in every single campaign session I have ever played in, and 75% of the ones I DM. Keep in mind I don't use alignment, and tell players "It doesn't matter, who cares, we aren't using alignment, don't bring it up again" before every game and every time these discussions come up.
I have played in realistically about 10 wholely different groups, but probably under dozens of DMs.
You're telling me you've never had a player say "Aren't you supposed to be [alignment]?"
----
I always assumed alignment was brought in and made a focal point of the game to counter DND=Satan.
Does anyone know when alignment appeared as a concept and why? (Originally I mean and this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm legitimately curious.)
As I recall, the two-axis alignment system was 1E or 2E AD&D.
1E D&D had the Good-Evil axis only, I think. (4E copied this but added even-more-good and even-more-evil.)
Before that, I don't know.
I think alignment first appeared as a concept when men and women were first sitting around a fire and Og the Neanderthal ate the last chunk of meat.
Ug says to Og: Og bad!
Does anyone know when alignment appeared as a concept and why? (Originally I mean and this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm legitimately curious.)
As I recall, the two-axis alignment system was 1E or 2E AD&D.
1E D&D had the Good-Evil axis only, I think.
No, it was Lawful/Chaotic only. And it wasn't "1E", it was just D&D, as opposed to AD&D. AD&D was "1E" because there was a 2 and a 3 and a 4.... but it wasn't a successor to D&D. It was a different product, with parallel releases.
Imagine if WotC had kept releasing D20 supplements during the first few years of 4E, while still labelling them all D&D - that's basically what it was like.
(4E copied this but added even-more-good and even-more-evil.)
Not exactly. They just eliminated the confusing/redundant alignments and consolidated the very-similar CG/NG and LE/NE pairs into single alignments.
(I sometimes, rarely, miss LN as a descriptor, but it was never really all that useful for PCs. CN, I miss only because it was such a useful filtering tool: If a player chose CN as their character's alignment, you knew that player was not worth playing with.)
(4E copied this but added even-more-good and even-more-evil.)
Not exactly. They just eliminated the confusing/redundant alignments and consolidated the very-similar CG/NG and LE/NE pairs into single alignments.
Sorry, but I've never had any trouble distinguishing (except at the edges) between lawful good, neutral good, and chaotic good. Or between lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil.
For that matter, the 4E D&D description of "Good" clearly respects, trusts, and prefers Law - although not necessarily the authorities assigned to create and enforce law - which by some people's standards means that Good is a subset of Lawful Good. There is no room in this alignment system for systematically evil law, or for good people who've had so much exposure to systematically evil law that they reflexively distrust Law, even though systematically evil law has been the norm through most of human history.
(4E copied this but added even-more-good and even-more-evil.)
Not exactly. They just eliminated the confusing/redundant alignments and consolidated the very-similar CG/NG and LE/NE pairs into single alignments.
Sorry, but I've never had any trouble distinguishing (except at the edges) between lawful good, neutral good, and chaotic good. Or between lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil.
For that matter, the 4E D&D description of "Good" clearly respects, trusts, and prefers Law - although not necessarily the authorities assigned to create and enforce law - which by some people's standards means that Good is a subset of Lawful Good. There is no room in this alignment system for systematically evil law, or for good people who've had so much exposure to systematically evil law that they reflexively distrust Law, even though systematically evil law has been the norm through most of human history.
That would be ... any alignment. Not every personality trait is governed by alignment.
(4E copied this but added even-more-good and even-more-evil.)
Not exactly. They just eliminated the confusing/redundant alignments and consolidated the very-similar CG/NG and LE/NE pairs into single alignments.
Sorry, but I've never had any trouble distinguishing (except at the edges) between lawful good, neutral good, and chaotic good. Or between lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil.
And by adding in "lawful good" and "chaotic evil" you've created the distinction again. In the mean time, "chatoic good" versus "neutral good" is far less clear, which is what I said.
For that matter, the 4E D&D description of "Good" clearly respects, trusts, and prefers Law - although not necessarily the authorities assigned to create and enforce law - which by some people's standards means that Good is a subset of Lawful Good.
"Some people" are self-evidently wrong. This is not news.
There is no room in this alignment system for systematically evil law, or for good people who've had so much exposure to systematically evil law that they reflexively distrust Law, even though systematically evil law has been the norm through most of human history.
Uh, yes, there is. Those are "Evil" and "Good", respectively, with the distinction-without-difference alignment pairs removed because personality traits are not appropriate markers for alignment.
(4E copied this but added even-more-good and even-more-evil.)
Not exactly. They just eliminated the confusing/redundant alignments and consolidated the very-similar CG/NG and LE/NE pairs into single alignments.
Sorry, but I've never had any trouble distinguishing (except at the edges) between lawful good, neutral good, and chaotic good. Or between lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil.
For that matter, the 4E D&D description of "Good" clearly respects, trusts, and prefers Law - although not necessarily the authorities assigned to create and enforce law - which by some people's standards means that Good is a subset of Lawful Good. There is no room in this alignment system for systematically evil law, or for good people who've had so much exposure to systematically evil law that they reflexively distrust Law, even though systematically evil law has been the norm through most of human history.
Obviously it's possible for a character to still conform to or advocate "evil law" along with any other form of governance. I don't think any alignment system has ever intended to prevent that, even if it doesn't have terms for a particular world-view. I can still act "Chaotic Good" in 4th Edition, even if my alignment is only "Good." Heck, I can act "Chaotic Good" in 4th Edition no matter what my alignment is. And that's as it should be.
for 4e I just pick unaligned and play my character however I wish.
I like to think that was the intention. They'd've gotten less anger from the community if they'd kept they old 9 Alignments design, but then put Unaligned next to it, but oh well.
And by adding in "lawful good" and "chaotic evil" you've created the distinction again. In the mean time, "chatoic good" versus "neutral good" is far less clear, which is what I said.
There is overlap on the allignments, particularly on the extreme ends. On the extreme end the CG person might be a total anarchist, protesting openly in the streets etc, Has Sworn a vow of Poverty, etc while the NG person is likely more moderate.
On the other end of CG, the more moderate CG person might be virtually indistinguishable from a NG person. The difference might be that a Chaotic Good being more adventurous and having short term goals, whereas the NG person plays it safe and has long term goals. It really just depends on how far down the sacel they are, are they influenced by Chaos just enough to tip them over, are they moderately having a tendency to that behavior, or are they a Paragon of that allignment?
I stopped taking alignment seriously when someone on...D&DNext General Discussion I think(was a few months back) called the same character two mutually exclusive alignments(Chaotic Good and Lawful Neutral IIRC) when given two near identical descriptions of him(the only change was moving the first sentence to the end)
This is generally due to overlap on the allignments, Neutral can overlap with Good alot, where the only difference between the two is a willingness to self sacrifice. (to the same degree it can also overlap with evil) In the same way there is a natural overlap between Good and Law, since Laws, such as "Thou Shalt not Murder" are perceived as Good. It is very easy for the two seperate people to have the same goals, and even similair solutions.
So if you have a character that is on the border of those allignments they can be seen on the other end of it. Neutral could be a greedy, arrogant, uncarring tyrant, such a low life scum that you are suprised that they aren't evil (simply lacks the amoral will to hurt/murder that would make him evil) Or they could be Friendly, charitable, honest, kind and peaceful (just lacking the will to self sacrifice that woudl make him good) When placed on the ends of their spectrum they can appear to cross over into the next one.
Also, changing the position of the first sentance ca dramatically change the description, especially if the first sentence is a thesis statement. If I start a paragraph with the first sentence "Reckless, Adventurous..." You have flavoured the rest for Chaotic. However if you put that in the final sentence and instead start it with "Thoughtful, plans ahead...." then you are setting him up entirely different.
It enables bad DMs and bad players to be bad, without offering anything in return.
4E should have just scrapped the alignment system, it's more trouble than its worth.
It enables bad DMs and bad players to be bad, without offering anything in return.
Indeed. Fortunately, it means nothing mechanically, so you can simply not use it without having to re-write half the system (*cough3Ecough*).
for 4e I just pick unaligned and play my character however I wish.
How did you wish to play your character? Was he a good guy? Evil? Something in between? Law-abiding citizen? Renegade outlaw? Something in between?
4E should have just scrapped the alignment system, it's more trouble than its worth.
It enables bad DMs and bad players to be bad, without offering anything in return.
Indeed. Fortunately, it means nothing mechanically, so you can simply not use it without having to re-write half the system (*cough3Ecough*).
Bad? Would that be bad as in evil?
Bad as in 'poor quality'.
You're being obnoxiously pedantic again. Please stop it.
Bad as in 'poor quality'.
"poor quality" as in Chaotic Neutral?
You're being obnoxiously pedantic again. Please stop it.
Bad as in 'poor quality'.
"poor quality" as in Chaotic Neutral?
You're being obnoxious. Not pedantic, just obnoxious.
You know what? I'm done with both of you.
You're being obnoxiously pedantic again. Please stop it.
Bad as in 'poor quality'.
Good job on your new vocabulary word. What you define as poor quality, some consider as consistency.
But if you wish to hurl insults, then I will respond by calmly pointing out what exactly I find "obnoxious"
The player, and this is a "What's a Player to Do?" section of the forum, has a problem with th DM's interpretation of alignment and "Alignment sucks! Scrap Alignment!" is obnoxious because while that bit of advice would be suitable to a DM it is useless and obnoxious to suggest to a player who has little to no say on retooling his DM's entire game and plot line. It doesn't help him.
It's advice that is the same as "If you don't like your job then quit" ignoring that the person has a family to feed and it's a bad economy. Obnoxious!
Alignment is in the books, they have been printed and published and people have to deal with it, and saying "it sucks, get rid of it" is useless, obnoxious advice to give to a player who Has to deal with it.
"Scrap Alignment" does nothing to help the player deal with a DM that is railroading him. It is obnoxious and doesn't solve the issue. Instead of giving the player advice on how to use alignment and how to explain to his DM that alignment shouldn't be used to straight jacket/railroad his character, advice he Can use to deal with his DM, instead lets give him obnoxious advice that is just a hairs width away from "if you don't like it quit the game and stop hanging out with your friends"
Another bit of obnoxious advice given below?
Because "alignment sucks!" isn't obnoxious enough, when it was pointed out that as a working mechanic scrapping it would have a detrimental effect on some classes core abilities, for example the Paladin's Smite Evil, Detect Evil and a considerable number of spells and magic items that would be suitable to that class, the answer was "Paladins should be banned!"
This advise is basically summed up to "You are having problems with your DM straight jacketing you with allignment? Well count yourself lucky, because there are even worse DMs out there! Count yourself lucky he even let you play that class!"
Good Job! Ban an entire core class because "alignment" And because denoting Man Eating monsters, undead abominations, red dragons and Demons from the pits of Hades as "Evil" is oh so very vague and complex and using an alignment based ability to Smite Evil, is a broken mechanic, because again "alignment" and because Magic Circle against Evil is like rocket science or something, and geeze imagine all that hard work of going over the back story of every single goblin and zombie and deciding what alignment they are? Can the Paladin Smite it? Who has the time? Who has the Time? Sorry I was getting penantic there, anyways "alignment"
edited cause two Ls in alignment looks silly even to me
For Pete's sake: there's only one L in "alignment." It's not related to the word "ally."
It's Lawfully AlLigned?
Here, lemme do it in a few seconds:
Detect Evil: Detects abyssal outsiders, anyone with fiend blood, and undead.
Smite Evil: Does extra damage to abyssal outsiders, anyone with fiend blood, and undead.
etc. Reverse this for anti-good abilities.
There we go, now it's based on something that's easy to define and categorize.
There's no way to fix the system. The player should do his best to ignore the bad system and make a character who is interesting and varied without the system. And if the DM says "this action would go against your alignment" tell them "but it suits my personality, so I guess you have to change my alignment." And then if they do it again say "well it still fits my personality, so change my alignment again."
Because it makes perfect sense that there could be someone who distrusts externally applied authority and all authority structures (chaotic) and yet believes strongly in a code of conduct and personal morals (lawful). And any attempt to apply the alignment system to this character will result in a stupid ping-pong dance. Since the system actively impedes roleplaying, the best thing a player can do is ignore it, and if the DM pushes them explain why you're ignoring it, then continue ignoring it.
There's no way to fix the system. The player should do his best to ignore the bad system and make a character who is interesting and varied without the system. And if the DM says "this action would go against your alignment" tell them "but it suits my personality, so I guess you have to change my alignment." And then if they do it again say "well it still fits my personality, so change my alignment again."
Right. This has come up several times, and I suppose we'll never get an answer: so what if the DM changes your alignment? That's not going to change your behavior.
If a player was silly enough to take a particular alignment just for a particular class or spell or item, then the threat of changed alignment might carry a smidgen of weight. Otherwise, who cares?
There's no way to fix the system. The player should do his best to ignore the bad system and make a character who is interesting and varied without the system. And if the DM says "this action would go against your alignment" tell them "but it suits my personality, so I guess you have to change my alignment." And then if they do it again say "well it still fits my personality, so change my alignment again."
Right. This has come up several times, and I suppose we'll never get an answer: so what if the DM changes your alignment? That's not going to change your behavior.
No, but pre-4E alignment change carried mechanical penalties. So "You lose XP" or "You take penalties" or "X spell now works {better} on you" could matter.
Ifa player was silly enough to take a particular alignment just for a particular class or spell or item, then the threat of changed alignment might carry a smidgen of weight. Otherwise, who cares?
In 4E, nobody. Pre-4E, mechanical penalties for alignment change meant alignment change mattered
If the DM seriously tried to penalize me XP and give me mechanical penalties because I was "not playing to a system where ethics, morality, and social norms can be fit into 9 discrete boxes" I would just give him the flattest of flat stares.
Such a DM should not, and indeed COULD NOT be taken seriously.
If a player was silly enough to take a particular alignment just for a particular class or spell or item, then the threat of changed alignment might carry a smidgen of weight. Otherwise, who cares?
How is that silly?
If a player was silly enough to take a particular alignment just for a particular class or spell or item, then the threat of changed alignment might carry a smidgen of weight. Otherwise, who cares?
How is that silly?
Because apparently a player has no control over what his or her alignment is. The DM can change it at will if there's a disagreement, rendering the player's class, feats, spells, and items worse than useless.
The DM Changing alignment is silly, or the player wanting to use an ability that requires an alignment so he picked that one?
I can see one and not the other.
Because alignment is silly.
The DM Changing alignment is silly, or the player wanting to use an ability that requires an alignment so he picked that one?I can see one and not the other.
As long as the former can happen, the latter is silly.
Edit: Picking a particular race in order to take options tied to that race is not silly, because a character's race is typically immutable, even if one is judged to be doing a bad job playing that race. If the DM could say, "Unless you get drunk at the next town, I'm just going to make you into a human," and negate all the dwarf options you'd picked, then you have to be pretty silly to bother picking "dwarf" just to get those options.
Just roleplay your character. Alignment is bull anyway.
I am in total agreement with this.
In fact, in my games, I don't even bother with alignment. I just ask players to write up a brief summary of the character's moral code. This is part of why I've begun favoring 4e: Dropping from nine alignments to five gave a lot more 'wiggle room' in them. At least, that's the change I've noticed relative to the really alignment-focused individuals I've played with.
Is writing a brief summary of a moral code the intention of alignment?
I'm not saying the moral codes as defined by the alignment system are perfect, but they are a quick way to sum up that moral code (in a general way at least).
So if you said, "Sum up your character's moral code" I could say:
I try to be an honest upstanding member of society and respectful of the kings's authority. I don't feel it's my place to judge the king on any moral grounds. If he gives an order, I'm going to follow it. If I can follow his orders without causing others undue harm, then I will, but I'm not going to disobey a direct order from the king under most circumstances because any guilt is on his head. He gives the orders. Mine is not to question why, mine is but to do or die.
or I could say. Lawful Neutral. And then play the character as described above.
or I could say. Lawful Neutral. And then play the character as described above.
The issue is not with how people want to describe their own characters. The issue is with others then taking that description, finding what they believe to be contradictions between the player's choices and that description, and punishing that player.
or I could say. Lawful Neutral. And then play the character as described above.
The issue is not with how people want to describe their own characters. The issue is with others then taking that description, finding what they believe to be contradictions between the player's choices and that description, and punishing that player.
Ahh.
I can see that happening, or being perceived to be happening.
Would you say a DM who decides that there is a Sword of Righteous Fire that can only be held by good people is punishing the following player when he tells the player that the character's hand is burned when he touches the sword?
The player claims to be "a saint, truly a saint", but has done the following things: 1) systematically tortured an innocent man because he mistook him for somebody else, then killed him to cover up the crime 2) murdered a guard because he didn't have money for a toll 3) stole the gold from the poor orphan's fund so he could afford better armor for his horse because it was just sitting there 4) put out a man's eye "for looking at him".
If a player was silly enough to take a particular alignment just for a particular class or spell or item, then the threat of changed alignment might carry a smidgen of weight. Otherwise, who cares?
How is that silly?
Because apparently a player has no control over what his or her alignment is. The DM can change it at will if there's a disagreement, rendering the player's class, feats, spells, and items worse than useless.
I think that's the misconception here. The PLAYER's actions are what is changing the alignment; the DM is just recognizing that fact.
I've only had this come up as an issue very rarely. A player was playing a particularly craven paladin who left the rest of the party to die on several occasions (so much so that they had taken to insultingly calling him Sir Arnold the Cautious). After each battle he would come back in time to apportion any treasure, abusing the authority the local church had invested in him as the leader of the expedition and the vows the rest of the party had taken for the particular quest by giving himself all the choice items. He felt that he was the epitome of lawful good and a shining example of the chivalric code that they espouse. He threatened the high priest of his order when the priest told him that "perhaps the dangers of this mission might serve a more martial leader, like the halfling bard", drawing his blade and saying "You insult my honor".
Rather than argue with him things, I from then on would say things such as "very strange but your warhorse does not arrive when you call" or "normally you feel that your gods are on your side, but it frightens you to realize that their presence is suspiciously absent; make your will save against the dragon's fear effect which you are normally immune to, but this... this...knowledge that the gods have abandoned you is too much."
He played for several sessions before he ever figured out what was going on. He was chastising one of the characters for cowardice, of all things, so the other players told him what they figured was going on.
or I could say. Lawful Neutral. And then play the character as described above.
The issue is not with how people want to describe their own characters. The issue is with others then taking that description, finding what they believe to be contradictions between the player's choices and that description, and punishing that player.
Would you say a DM who decides that there is a Sword of Righteous Fire that can only be held by good people is punishing the following player when he tells the player that the character's hand is burned when he touches the sword?
Yes.
"Punishing" was an unsubtle way for me to put it. What I mean is that the player is coerced into behaving in a certain way. This can be for a variety of reasons, but when it's when the DM or someone else dislikes the players actions, then alignment is being used as a control on that player. In-game behavior modification has a sad, disfunctional history, in which the word "alignment" rings loudly. It's okay to ask a player to act a certain way, or not act a certain way. Punishing them in-game for it is not only unlikely to work, but is extremely likely to cause further issues.
But the "sword of righteousness" is a fun trope, so it should be possible. It's easily accomplished by setting up three tasks or conditions or something, which may fit traditional definitions of "good." Take a look at 4e artifacts. Anyone can use them, but they are more powerful (and less detrimental) when those who use them develop a concordance with the item, which can relate to alignment, but usually has a lot more to do with performing (or not performing) specific actions.
If a player was silly enough to take a particular alignment just for a particular class or spell or item, then the threat of changed alignment might carry a smidgen of weight. Otherwise, who cares?
How is that silly?
Because apparently a player has no control over what his or her alignment is. The DM can change it at will if there's a disagreement, rendering the player's class, feats, spells, and items worse than useless.
I think that's the misconception here. The PLAYER's actions are what is changing the alignment; the DM is just recognizing that fact.
That's not the case, because there is no mechanical link between actions and alignment. A player's actions can cause hit points to change, somewhat (though not entirely) independently of DM intent, because there's a link between action (or inaction) and HP. But if a character's alignment is changing it is because someone (and it's usually the DM) said it is.
He played for several sessions before he ever figured out what was going on. He was chastising one of the characters for cowardice, of all things, so the other players told him what they figured was going on.
Did he change his behavior at that point? Was there an argument or bad feelings at that point? Could you have handled it out of game, and agreed with him about the cutbacks on his abilities, rather than just punishing him for several sessions? Were his abilities so overpowered or his actions so atrocious that it was necessary to do what you did in order to balance the power level? Did you just not like what he was doing and feel the need to control his behavior in this roundabout way?
This was on top of the basic problem of differences in interpretation of alignments, with the DM having the final say on whether the paladin's actions were good or not.
Apparently in the days of AD&D there was a problem with paladins (I was never interested in playing an AD&D paladin and neither was anyone I played with, so we never encountered it, but it was frequently mentioned in letters and articles in Dragon). The problem was that some DMs thought it would be fun to set up damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situations to force paladins to fall and lose all their class abilities.
This was on top of the basic problem of differences in interpretation of alignments, with the DM having the final say on whether the paladin's actions were good or not.
There were entire MODULES that would result in a Paladin falling. "Die Vecna Die!" was probably the most notorious, to complete it you HAD to cut off some part of your body and replace it with a part of one of the most evil beings ever to live - an act that would break the Paladin code 100%. The consequences of failure was the death of everything on every plane.
That said, I think that the DM hadled the cituation with "Sir Arnold the Cautious" quite well. I'd not want to have a player like that in my group, and if I were a fellow player, I'd have called him on it in a not-so-subtle way. The guy certainly wasnt acting very "paladinly" unless somehow he was a champion of cowardice and averice.
Apparently in the days of AD&D there was a problem with paladins (I was never interested in playing an AD&D paladin and neither was anyone I played with, so we never encountered it, but it was frequently mentioned in letters and articles in Dragon). The problem was that some DMs thought it would be fun to set up damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situations to force paladins to fall and lose all their class abilities.
This was on top of the basic problem of differences in interpretation of alignments, with the DM having the final say on whether the paladin's actions were good or not.
There were entire MODULES that would result in a Paladin falling. "Die Vecna Die!" was probably the most notorious, to complete it you HAD to cut off some part of your body and replace it with a part of one of the most evil beings ever to live - an act that would break the Paladin code 100%. The consequences of failure was the death of everything on every plane.
The irony, of course, being that any god that would prefer that outcome (death to everything) occur rather than have one of their paladins make a decision that is 100% selfless is, without a doubt, evil themselves.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I can see that happening, or being perceived to be happening.
By which you mean "happening, or I am bad at imagining", I assume? Because people aren't making these "a crap DM said X" examples up.
Would you say a DM who decides that there is a Sword of Righteous Fire that can only be held by good people is punishing the following player when he tells the player that the character's hand is burned when he touches the sword?
No, but.
The player claims to be "a saint, truly a saint", but has done the following things: 1) systematically tortured an innocent man because he mistook him for somebody else, then killed him to cover up the crime 2) murdered a guard because he didn't have money for a toll 3) stole the gold from the poor orphan's fund so he could afford better armor for his horse because it was just sitting there 4) put out a man's eye "for looking at him".
Imagine an LG Paladin who: Killed an innocent in genuine error and then atoned, bypassed without killing a toll-taker and then returned to pay the toll with interest and penalties later, took the critical money and then returned it a hundred fold, and didn't do that because that's ****ing stupid and seriously, what the ****.
That Paladin still hasn't violated his alignment, except if the GM says he has. In which case, "Fighter Without Bonus Feats", unless you're in a non-crap system.
Of course, if you're IN a non-crap system, you can point out "none of those things are good and you're an ass, but NONE of those make your class features not work. They just make the rest of the world hate you, like they would a Rogue who did the same things" and then follow up.
Frankly, I don't know what I was doing "wrong" as I played my character the same way regardless as when he had told me I was the best CG player he'd come across. So, he changed me to CN, and....bye bye ranger. He didn't even know that the rules stated that once you lose your ranger status you can't regain it, and I was stuck as a figher from then on....for a violation I didn't understand /or/ agree with.
So, yeah, I can say I agree with the fact that alignment restrictions are silly and arbitrary. Alignment should be a tool that you use to help determine how your character would act in certain situations. A guide, but not something influencing the mechanics or playability of someone's character. A DM should never be able to "reclass" someone's character because the player and DM have a different understanding of what the alignment should be.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I can see that happening, or being perceived to be happening.
By which you mean "happening, or I am bad at imagining", I assume? Because people aren't making these "a crap DM said X" examples up.Would you say a DM who decides that there is a Sword of Righteous Fire that can only be held by good people is punishing the following player when he tells the player that the character's hand is burned when he touches the sword?
No, but.The player claims to be "a saint, truly a saint", but has done the following things: 1) systematically tortured an innocent man because he mistook him for somebody else, then killed him to cover up the crime 2) murdered a guard because he didn't have money for a toll 3) stole the gold from the poor orphan's fund so he could afford better armor for his horse because it was just sitting there 4) put out a man's eye "for looking at him".
Imagine an LG Paladin who: Killed an innocent in genuine error and then atoned, bypassed without killing a toll-taker and then returned to pay the toll with interest and penalties later, took the critical money and then returned it a hundred fold, and didn't do that because that's ****ing stupid and seriously, what the ****.
That Paladin still hasn't violated his alignment, except if the GM says he has. In which case, "Fighter Without Bonus Feats", unless you're in a non-crap system.
Of course, if you're IN a non-crap system, you can point out "none of those things are good and you're an ass, but NONE of those make your class features not work. They just make the rest of the world hate you, like they would a Rogue who did the same things" and then follow up.
1. Rogue ≠ Paladin
2. Evil character ≠ Paladin
3. I was consciously trying to avoid talking about Paladins specifically. Only pointing out that a player of ANY character class can say how good his character is until he is blue in the face. But if he plays the character as evil, then the DM should go by the actions, not the word.
4. Paladin ≠ Evil Character.
5. A paladin who turns evil is an EX-Paladin. Paladins do not lose class features. Ex-paladins do.
6. Paladin ≠ Evil Character
7. Evil Character ≠ Paladin
8. I take it you've never heard Folsom Prison Blues. "Shot a man in Reno. Just to watch him die". I don't think he was singing about a Paladin. He may have been singing about an EX-Paladin.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I can see that happening, or being perceived to be happening.
By which you mean "happening, or I am bad at imagining", I assume? Because people aren't making these "a crap DM said X" examples up.Would you say a DM who decides that there is a Sword of Righteous Fire that can only be held by good people is punishing the following player when he tells the player that the character's hand is burned when he touches the sword?
No, but.The player claims to be "a saint, truly a saint", but has done the following things: 1) systematically tortured an innocent man because he mistook him for somebody else, then killed him to cover up the crime 2) murdered a guard because he didn't have money for a toll 3) stole the gold from the poor orphan's fund so he could afford better armor for his horse because it was just sitting there 4) put out a man's eye "for looking at him".
Imagine an LG Paladin who: Killed an innocent in genuine error and then atoned, bypassed without killing a toll-taker and then returned to pay the toll with interest and penalties later, took the critical money and then returned it a hundred fold, and didn't do that because that's ****ing stupid and seriously, what the ****.
That Paladin still hasn't violated his alignment, except if the GM says he has. In which case, "Fighter Without Bonus Feats", unless you're in a non-crap system.
Of course, if you're IN a non-crap system, you can point out "none of those things are good and you're an ass, but NONE of those make your class features not work. They just make the rest of the world hate you, like they would a Rogue who did the same things" and then follow up.
By which I mean both scenarios are possible: the DM could be misinformed (and/or misanthropic) or the player could be self-deluded, using poor logic.
Superman is a badass good guy. My character singlehandedly killed everyone in the town with his barehands, even the city guards in front of the building with all the orphans. My character is badass. My character must be Superman. Which makes him a good guy. A badass good guy.
Apparently in the days of AD&D there was a problem with paladins (I was never interested in playing an AD&D paladin and neither was anyone I played with, so we never encountered it, but it was frequently mentioned in letters and articles in Dragon). The problem was that some DMs thought it would be fun to set up damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situations to force paladins to fall and lose all their class abilities.
This was on top of the basic problem of differences in interpretation of alignments, with the DM having the final say on whether the paladin's actions were good or not.
Moral dilemmas are what makes playing a Paladin interesting. There are no intractable situations. Even the Die Vecna Die module mentioned by GreyICE could be resolved without losing paladinhood. That was a high-level campaign, so it wouldn't be easy, perhaps. But the difficult road is the one Paladins do not fear to tread.
A paladin who has never faced a moral dilemma is just a fighter with some nifty class features.
However, I don't know if there is a solution to players and DMs disagreeing about what is good and evil. There are tenets of moral behavior that define good and evil that are consistent across all cultures and all times that can be used as a guideline to the definition of what is good and what is evil.
If a player wants to play a paladin, I let them know before-hand that I expect a paladin to be paladinly. I expect them to exemplify virtue, honor, courage and all that good stuff. The rewards for the effort are great... the 'church' in my world has a powerful presence and the nobility see the good sense in having a paladin champion their cause, from political stand-point. But the price for failure is a couple of wasted feats (we play 3.5)...precious, precious feats. I try to talk them out of playing a paladin, in other words, by letting them know I expect a paladin role-play as a paladin, not as a fighter with class features, not as a fighter with a holy symbol on his shield, but as a paladin.
If I am DMing and have an issue with a player's alignment, I tell them where I have issue on the first discrepancy, remind them that they are about to become an ex-paladin the second time the character has slipped and on the third discrepancy, I don't say any more about it. I merely describe how their abilities fail as they try to use them. If they figure it out, but think my interpretation is incorrect... I will hear them out. Sometimes it clarifies their motivation. Sometimes it's plain they're just bull-shanking me. In the latter case, I hand them a dictionary with three post-it notes... one points to the 'good' entry. The second points to the 'evil' entry. The third is on the 'paladin' entry, with the parts about honor, valor, holiness, etc. highlighted. Most players can figure it out.
Some however will whine or moan or move their argument to something more vague, such as problems with the alignment descriptions, which are indeed vague (I only use them as a guideline, anyway). Or pretty much indicate that they just wanted to play a fighter with class features, after all. Some will even want to call this fighter a paladin... even though he clearly isn't paladinly.
--- I joined this alignment debate hoping and intentionally trying to avoid discussing the paladin. Mission impossible. Some people like paladins more for their class features than for role-playing.
Removing a part of your body and replacing it with a part of a lich-god who is PURE EVIL is defined as an evil act. And it's also exactly the sort of act that makes a 2E paladin fall. The code had no room for "the greater good."
And there was no other way through the plot shield that was strong enough to keep out the LADY OF PAIN.
Yes, it was a highly stupid module.
1 Did he change his behavior at that point?
2 Was there an argument or bad feelings at that point?
3 Could you have handled it out of game, and agreed with him about the cutbacks on his abilities, rather than just punishing him for several sessions?
4 Were his abilities so overpowered or his actions so atrocious that it was necessary to do what you did in order to balance the power level?
5 Did you just not like what he was doing and feel the need to control his behavior in this roundabout way?
1 He chose to continue playing his character as a coward.
2 There was a discussion, argument if you prefer. No bad feelings, we still play regularly. He admitted he only wanted to play a paladin because the paladin's features were particularly suited to the campaign, a fighter who can also turn undead and has good saving throws? Mechanical reasons, not because a paladin is heroic and a paragon of virtue or because of the interesting moral dilemmas that playing a paladin can offer.
3 I tried on several occasions before he chose to play a paladin and also between sessions to let him know my expectations. While he was playing the other players were asking... shouldn't a paladin be braver? Should a paladin abandon his party in the middle of a fight when he is only one with the weapon that can hurt the enemy? I wasn't punishing him personally. He made the paladin's choices, fully aware of the consequences. I told him the expectations where high. His character's actions had a consequence. There were no great evils or random chaotic acts, but he had not kept his vows of honor and duty and his self-serving behavior resulted in his alignment being more true neutral than lawful good.
He actually had his character atone, but as soon as that was done, abandoned his friends and the great quest once again losing them, (this time for good). Even though the result of failing meant an entire city destroyed by fire and 13 gates to hell being opened in various locations throughout the land. The result of success would have been of course glory, great renown, and a deed well done, deeds that would inspire future paladins for years to come.
4 This wasn't a power balance issue. I am actually lenient with the power since I tend to throw difficult encounters at the party. More guts = more glory. In this campaign, they had the church backing for such an important quest and were well-equipped for the task. His actions were atrociously cowardly. He left a halfling bard to hold off the enemy while he summoned his horse and escaped (showing tremendous and legendary riding skill, admittedly. He leaped a series of 30 foot chasms across a roaring river. The enemy was an demon-possessed bridge. halfling bard. demon-possessed bridge. halfling bard. the paladin's awesome riding only added to the ridicule. when the bard managed to survive the encounter, he wrote a song about Atheron's Ride, which he sings to inspire courage.)
5 I didn't particularly like it, but never controlled his behavior. I didn't want to take away the abilities, specifically because I didn't want to have bad feelings between the player and myself over the situation (it's just a game. it's just a game.) if he took it personal. At first he did take it personal, at one point saying.. what is a paladin supposed to do when there is a powerful enemy that might kill the character?... fight it?.. even if it means the character dies? My simple answer was "Yes. If he wants to keep his vows. No if he would rather live, even at the cost of breaking his vows." As a DM, I don't control behavior. I only determine the consequences of the behavior. If a player has his character eat a live porcupine, he probably gets hurt. If he says he's a paladin and doesn't act accordingly, he loses his paladin abilities. If eating live porcupines don't hurt then the choice to do so is meaningless. And if rendering player's choices meaningless isn't controlling behavior, what is?
Moral dilemmas are what makes playing a Paladin interesting. There are no intractable situations.
A paladin who has never faced a moral dilemma is just a fighter with some nifty class features.
If they're not intractable, then doesn't there mean there's an answer? And if so, what's the point? Just do whatever the answer is. Even if it's really hard, at least it won't rob you of your class features.
If a player wants to play a paladin, I let them know before-hand that I expect a paladin to be paladinly. I expect them to exemplify virtue, honor, courage and all that good stuff.
You expect this. Why? What if they don't exemplify these things, but interestingly and compelling exemplify other things?
I can understand how it would be unpleasant to have a player play any character as the diametric opposite of a paladin, but there are shades in between that are still quite noble and heroic, despite doing pretty bad things from time to time.
The rewards for the effort are great... the 'church' in my world has a powerful presence and the nobility see the good sense in having a paladin champion their cause, from political stand-point.
Real-world religious insititutions have, at various times, also seen the "good sense" in either willingly employing pretty awful people, or turning a blind eye to their actions. Point being that just because they employ certain kinds of paladins doesn't mean they don't or wouldn't employ other kinds.
But the price for failure is a couple of wasted feats (we play 3.5)...precious, precious feats.
And the support of that powerful presence, right?
I try to talk them out of playing a paladin, in other words, by letting them know I expect a paladin role-play as a paladin, not as a fighter with class features, not as a fighter with a holy symbol on his shield, but as a paladin.
I'm confident that you mean well, but this has the ring of "please don't make me hurt you."
If I am DMing and have an issue with a player's alignment,
The core of this discussion is "Why do you have an issue with their alignment, or - more to the point - the way they're playing their character?" If it's making the game uncomfortable for people that's one thing, but it's really no longer an in-game issue. But if it's just that something isn't quite in line with what the DM imagined, but is still reasonable and understandable, and doesn't break the game, why should the DM have an issue with it? What's the cost? Because the cost of having an issue and making a big deal out of it to the player can be sizeable
I tell them where I have issue on the first discrepancy, remind them that they are about to become an ex-paladin the second time the character has slipped and on the third discrepancy, I don't say any more about it. I merely describe how their abilities fail as they try to use them. If they figure it out, but think my interpretation is incorrect... I will hear them out. Sometimes it clarifies their motivation. Sometimes it's plain they're just bull-shanking me. In the latter case, I hand them a dictionary with three post-it notes... one points to the 'good' entry. The second points to the 'evil' entry. The third is on the 'paladin' entry, with the parts about honor, valor, holiness, etc. highlighted. Most players can figure it out.
Why don't you just point to the rules? Answer: because the rules don't cover this, because it's not how DMs need to handle this kind of thing.
Some however will whine or moan or move their argument to something more vague, such as problems with the alignment descriptions, which are indeed vague (I only use them as a guideline, anyway). Or pretty much indicate that they just wanted to play a fighter with class features, after all. Some will even want to call this fighter a paladin... even though he clearly isn't paladinly.
What's wrong with wanting the class features? Are they so powerful that there need to be restrictions on them? If so, why are the restrictions things that require appeals to out-of-game authorities like a dictionary, or leave themselves open to interpretation?
--- I joined this alignment debate hoping and intentionally trying to avoid discussing the paladin. Mission impossible. Some people like paladins more for their class features than for role-playing.
And some DMs like alignment more for controlling players than for role-playing. People who like mechanics over roleplaying are somewhat boring, but the game can handle them. DMs who use alignment as a cattleprod are a scourge on the hobby.
@Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe: No, it couldn't. The only way a Paladin could retain their powers after completing Die Vecna Die! was pure DM Fiat. Nothing else. The DM simply had to say "it's stupid that this module would make you fall to complete it, keep your powers."
Removing a part of your body and replacing it with a part of a lich-god who is PURE EVIL is defined as an evil act. And it's also exactly the sort of act that makes a 2E paladin fall. The code had no room for "the greater good."
And there was no other way through the plot shield that was strong enough to keep out the LADY OF PAIN.
Yes, it was a highly stupid module.
One way would be to not have the paladin remove a part of his body and replace it with the lich-god's parts. Maybe it was too obvious? I mean in the sense that all the details of powerful death-gods and multi-planar intrigue and powerful artifacts might overshadow the simple fact that the desire to prevent a catastrophe might lead the paladin to overlook the means to do so and tempt him to try something he otherwise would not do...
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I'm not sure if I have a copy of that module at home. I would hate to throw out any specific spoiler, even if I did. I am absolutely without a doubt 100 percent certain I could find a way to accomplish what I needed to do - barring the character dying somewhere along the way, but even then I could die as valiantly and honorably as I wanted to. Might have to think outside the cage.
Just going from the review of the module, one thought is that the 3 main evils are not the best of friends. A clever paladin might use that to his advantage. I wish I had the module. It may be as stupid as you say (if you mean stupid rail-roading). However, I can't help but wonder if keeping the LADY OF PAIN out, might not be the wrong way to look at the objective. They call Sigil THE CAGE, after all. Perhaps the clever paladin could have found a way to lock her in?
But... maybe DVD (lol) was nothing but a particularly stupid rail-roading module after all. The background sounds interesting enough, but as a vehicle for a game it may be as dumb as you say.
In which case: it never happened, never, never , la la la la fa la la, never never, never
1 He chose to continue playing his character as a coward.
This seems to be a real issue for you, and I'm not clear why. Why can't he play the character how he wants? I understand that it reflects on a larger organization or deity in your game, but he's just one paladin among many, many others, isn't he?
2 There was a discussion, argument if you prefer. No bad feelings, we still play regularly. He admitted he only wanted to play a paladin because the paladin's features were particularly suited to the campaign, a fighter who can also turn undead and has good saving throws? Mechanical reasons, not because a paladin is heroic and a paragon of virtue or because of the interesting moral dilemmas that playing a paladin can offer.
And why is that a problem for you. Any other class is allowed to be played purely for its mechanical reasons, so why not a paladin?
There were no great evils or random chaotic acts, but he had not kept his vows of honor and duty and his self-serving behavior resulted in his alignment being more true neutral than lawful good.
Ok, but I don't see why that matters. The rules say:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
The paladin, according to you had not committed any evil acts. You say that his behavior is true neutral, but what's on the sheet is Lawful Good. I'm not aware of any provisions in the rules for changing a character's alignment, outside of magic, so no matter what the paladin did his alignment would still be Lawful Good. Or, more to the point, there's nothing but DM fiat to dictate when an alignment should, could, or would change.
Even then, that sentence isn't clear on what happens if the paladin's alignment changes. One plausible reading of that is that "loses all class abilities" occurs only if the paladin commits an evil act.
He actually had his character atone, but as soon as that was done, abandoned his friends and the great quest once again losing them, (this time for good). Even though the result of failing meant an entire city destroyed by fire and 13 gates to hell being opened in various locations throughout the land. The result of success would have been of course glory, great renown, and a deed well done, deeds that would inspire future paladins for years to come.
Those must not have mattered as much to him as it did to you. This keeps coming back to what you want for the character, not what the player wants. That has nothing to do with alignment, just the perception of the paladin class, but alignment is the stick used to enforce what the DM wants, or otherwise deal with what the DM sees as a discrepancy.
4 This wasn't a power balance issue.
If it's not a power balance issue, then why are the powers what's taken away?
As a DM, I don't control behavior. I only determine the consequences of the behavior. If a player has his character eat a live porcupine, he probably gets hurt. If he says he's a paladin and doesn't act accordingly, he loses his paladin abilities. If eating live porcupines don't hurt then the choice to do so is meaningless. And if rendering player's choices meaningless isn't controlling behavior, what is?
Threatening punishment is very clearly controlling, by any reasonably understanding. Just because it didn't have the desired effect of bringing about certain behavior, doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt at control.
@Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe: No, it couldn't. The only way a Paladin could retain their powers after completing Die Vecna Die! was pure DM Fiat. Nothing else. The DM simply had to say "it's stupid that this module would make you fall to complete it, keep your powers."
Removing a part of your body and replacing it with a part of a lich-god who is PURE EVIL is defined as an evil act. And it's also exactly the sort of act that makes a 2E paladin fall. The code had no room for "the greater good."
And there was no other way through the plot shield that was strong enough to keep out the LADY OF PAIN.
Yes, it was a highly stupid module.
One way would be to not have the paladin remove a part of his body and replace it with the lich-god's parts. Maybe it was too obvious? I mean in the sense that all the details of powerful death-gods and multi-planar intrigue and powerful artifacts might overshadow the simple fact that the desire to prevent a catastrophe might lead the paladin to overlook the means to do so and tempt him to try something he otherwise would not do...
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I'm not sure if I have a copy of that module at home. I would hate to throw out any specific spoiler, even if I did. I am absolutely without a doubt 100 percent certain I could find a way to accomplish what I needed to do - barring the character dying somewhere along the way, but even then I could die as valiantly and honorably as I wanted to. Might have to think outside the cage.
Just going from the review of the module, one thought is that the 3 main evils are not the best of friends. A clever paladin might use that to his advantage. I wish I had the module. It may be as stupid as you say (if you mean stupid rail-roading). However, I can't help but wonder if keeping the LADY OF PAIN out, might not be the wrong way to look at the objective. They call Sigil THE CAGE, after all. Perhaps the clever paladin could have found a way to lock her in?
But... maybe DVD (lol) was nothing but a particularly stupid rail-roading module after all. The background sounds interesting enough, but as a vehicle for a game it may be as dumb as you say.
In which case: it never happened, never, never , la la la la fa la la, never never, never
YES! There is an answer. The point is to find the answer. The answer that you prefer. Because there are multiple solutions to each problem.
If you prefer to play a Paladin, choose the path of honor, courage, virtue. If you would prefer to play an EX-paladin, choose dishonor, cowardice, etc. The paladin's role is the former. The ex-paladin's role is the latter. Don't make it appear as if the DM is out to get you when you are responsible for the choice the character makes. Especially in something like this where there's no surprises... if you make a paladin but don't play a paladin, you become an ex-paladin. That's a pretty good rule. Without it... the paladin is a fighter with nifty feats. If that's your playstyle, go for it.
Why do I expect paladins to be 'paladiny'?... for the same reason that I expect a wizard to be interested in magic, that is, a wizard, I expect a paladin to be interested in the virtues of ... ummm... I can't believe how simple this sounds... a Paladin. I know. I know. Pretty unfair of me. Next thing you know, I'm going to want druids to be interested in nature.
There's nothing wrong with wanting the class features. I don't even give a rat about the class features except that they seem to imply that the character is a paladin. And since he's not, maybe he could trade them in for some feats and be a fighter. And the DM should pretend that instead of ever spending time trying to be a paladin he was actually practicing his trample-the-innocent techniques that he used during his last campaign, when he was still a paladin. And the druid can be a champion of industry. It's just a class feature, after all.
YES and the loss of the support of the NPCs who support Paladins.
Yes, I mean well when I let them know beforehand that I will follow the rule of paladins required to be paladins in order to keep the class features of paladins. I do the same for monks. They are defined by their discipline. Lose the discipline, no longer advance as monk. To some DMs the class features are just mechanics. That's a preference. I prefer a style in which mechanics help define the character. I'm not trying to hurt a player's feelings, but is it too much to ask that the player be mature about it, given the fact that they knew the consequences beforehand? Is it fair to have one player play a paladin AS a paladin and another take the easy way out time and again and then give them the same results? Isn't that railroading and plot control?
Yes, I understand there are shades of gray (the contemporary novel aside). I don't just strip the abilities at first opportunity. However, if the player isn't playing a paladin, he no longer gets the abilities. I'm actually more surprised at why this would hard to grasp.
Yes, to use alignment as a cattleprod by not allowing the paladin to do make un-paladiny choices would be a travesty. To say, NO.. you CAN'T do that... you're a Paladin is wrong. I'm not advocating that. I'm only saying if the player wants his character to be a Paladin, then play a paladin, not an ex-paladin.
Why resort to a dictionary?
Because simply saying "If you want to play a paladin, then play one" apparently isn't sufficient, as your objections here indicate sufficiently. If having a definition of Good, Evil, and Paladin in the rules helps clarify, then perhaps they could add those words to the glossary. Certainly, these words are common enough that it might be fair to expect that the player already knows them. One could even go farther and ask "What part of good do you not understand?" Or you could not waste your time any further and simply take away a character's abilities with no explanation. Even with sufficient explanation coupled with self-evident reasons... such as a Paladin (class) gets his abilities from being a (you guessed it) paladin (defined as a paragon of chivalry, connotatively a good guy) a player who can't understand that concept is going to be troublesome anyway and contribute little to the enjoyment of a game in which a Paladin is (lo and behold) expected to be (thinking, thinking) a paladin.
As far as the implication that having an expectation that a character who is defined by dedication to a code is controlling the player who chose to play a character who is defined by dedication to a code, by the way, is an interesting assessment.
I don't feel I'm a cattleprod, as you imply. I give the player choices. They choose them. Some start as paladin and stick with it. I allow that choice. Some start as paladin and don't stick with it. I allow that choice as well.
If there has been anything that has been a 'scourge' on the industry, it's the video-game mentality that the mechanics are all that matters. The game has its roots in literature and story-telling and the appeal of the game is to define a character's role and then play that role. The Paladin is one such role. The 'scourge' would be for a DM to make that role (or any other) meaningless. I don't think that's your intention. And I'm not such a doomsayer to say the whole industry is going to collapse if you are a DM and don't require that Paladins be paladins. It does seem defeatist to say "the players should be able to do anything they want and still be Paladin as a class" IF you want the roles they play to be meaningful.
If you just want a pit-fight, that has its merits as well. The whole crux of my argument here is that D&D as a role-playing game first is my preference. Alignment is a way to define the roles. The Paladin, by virtue of being a paladin has his role defined by his moral code. If he doesn't stick to it, then you can choose not to let that matter, but that will render the player's choices for his character meaningless. I don't think that is a good thing.
If you prefer to play a Paladin, choose the path of honor, courage, virtue. If you would prefer to play an EX-paladin, choose dishonor, cowardice, etc. The paladin's role is the former. The ex-paladin's role is the latter. Don't make it appear as if the DM is out to get you when you are responsible for the choice the character makes. Especially in something like this where there's no surprises... if you make a paladin but don't play a paladin, you become an ex-paladin. That's a pretty good rule. Without it... the paladin is a fighter with nifty feats. If that's your playstyle, go for it.
If you play a wizard but don't "play" a wizard, you don't become an ex-wizard. I mean, sure a wizard could dump Int, swing a sword, wear armor and wade into combat, and become an ex-character, but the same would happen to a paladin who dumped strength, wore a robe and relied on all the arcane spells he could cast.
Without the rule, such as it is, for "ex-paladins" a paladin would just be a warrior with smite and spells. He'd be better than a regular fighter, but so is every other class. There's no general advantage to playing a paladin, so there needs to be no general penalty for playing one however one wants.
Why do I expect paladins to be 'paladiny'?... for the same reason that I expect a wizard to be interested in magic, that is, a wizard, I expect a paladin to be interested in the virtues of ... ummm... I can't believe how simple this sounds... a Paladin. I know. I know. Pretty unfair of me. Next thing you know, I'm going to want druids to be interested in nature.
But we don't have conversations about wizards having their powers taken away for not following an easily misinterpreted rule.
There's nothing wrong with wanting the class features. I don't even give a rat about the class features except that they seem to imply that the character is a paladin. And since he's not, maybe he could trade them in for some feats and be a fighter. And the DM should pretend that instead of ever spending time trying to be a paladin he was actually practicing his trample-the-innocent techniques that he used during his last campaign, when he was still a paladin. And the druid can be a champion of industry. It's just a class feature, after all.
Is it still sarcasm if I agree with it?
YES and the loss of the support of the NPCs who support Paladins.
So? No other PC has that support, or should expect it. Rogues certainly wouldn't, but they do okay for themselves.
but is it too much to ask that the player be mature about it, given the fact that they knew the consequences beforehand?
It's not necessarily an issue of maturity, but of reasonable interpretation of terms, and what certain actions mean.
Is it fair to have one player play a paladin AS a paladin and another take the easy way out time and again and then give them the same results? Isn't that railroading and plot control?
Not at all. It's allowing player choice. Since the class features are not overly powerful, they're not a reward for "the hard way," so requiring the hard way in order to have the powers in non-sensical. Besides which, many DMs never force a paladin to take the hard way. Why should they? There's nothing that requires or even recommends that. 90% of the garbage surrounding paladins and alignment is completely fabricated.
Yes, I understand there are shades of gray (the contemporary novel aside). I don't just strip the abilities at first opportunity. However, if the player isn't playing a paladin, he no longer gets the abilities. I'm actually more surprised at why this would hard to grasp.
I grasp that. What I don't grasp is why anyone things "playing a paladin" is a defined, agreed upon, or useful concept.
Yes, to use alignment as a cattleprod by not allowing the paladin to do make un-paladiny choices would be a travesty. To say, NO.. you CAN'T do that... you're a Paladin is wrong. I'm not advocating that. I'm only saying if the player wants his character to be a Paladin, then play a paladin, not an ex-paladin.
That is highly manipulative language, that fails to acknowledge the DM's role in this situation as arbiter. The player isn't changing the alignment, because the DM is having to announce it. Mechanics aren't changing the alignment, because there are none for that. The DM is making a decision, based on their judgment.
a player who can't understand that concept is going to be troublesome anyway and contribute little to the enjoyment of a game in which a Paladin is (lo and behold) expected to be (thinking, thinking) a paladin.
Exactly. This is why using alignment this way, or even planning to, is pointless. If the player has a reason for his actions, then the DM is just being narrowminded. If the player doesn't have a reason for his actions, he's just being a jerk. Fiddling with alignment isn't going to fix either of these issues.
As far as the implication that having an expectation that a character who is defined by dedication to a code is controlling the player who chose to play a character who is defined by dedication to a code, by the way, is an interesting assessment.
The expectation isn't the controlling part. The punishment is the controlling part.
I don't feel I'm a cattleprod, as you imply. I give the player choices. They choose them. Some start as paladin and stick with it. I allow that choice. Some start as paladin and don't stick with it. I allow that choice as well.
You are the one deciding what qualifies for "sticking with it." The player isn't making the choice to change the alignment, you are.
It does seem defeatist to say "the players should be able to do anything they want and still be Paladin as a class" IF you want the roles they play to be meaningful.
What's not meaningful about letting players play what they want to play.
No more of this, "if he wanted to play a paladin, he would have." That's like saying that if a child didn't want to be spanked, he would have eaten his dinner. The controller is making the judgment and the punishment.
If you just want a pit-fight, that has its merits as well.
That's not the opposite of having inflexible ideas about classes and alignment.
The whole crux of my argument here is that D&D as a role-playing game first is my preference. Alignment is a way to define the roles.
As just a definition, it's fine. I've said that. As a piece of mechanics, used to mete out consequences, it's horrible.
The Paladin, by virtue of being a paladin has his role defined by his moral code. If he doesn't stick to it, then you can choose not to let that matter, but that will render the player's choices for his character meaningless.
No, it won't. And punishing those choices doesn't give them meaning either. It just enforces one's inflexible perspectives on class, alignment, and roleplaying.
The actions you describe sound like those of a pretty big jerk. I can understand having issues with that, and wanting some getbacks. I can understand wanting to be passive about it. But believing alignment is a useful way to do that is everything that's wrong with alignment. By itself, as the simple mechanical interaction it is, it's fine. Once people load it up with tons of excess "meaning" and use it to deal with issues better handled with entirely out-of-game discussion about behavior, then it's a problem.
1 He chose to continue playing his character as a coward.
This seems to be a real issue for you, and I'm not clear why. Why can't he play the character how he wants? I understand that it reflects on a larger organization or deity in your game, but he's just one paladin among many, many others, isn't he?2 There was a discussion, argument if you prefer. No bad feelings, we still play regularly. He admitted he only wanted to play a paladin because the paladin's features were particularly suited to the campaign, a fighter who can also turn undead and has good saving throws? Mechanical reasons, not because a paladin is heroic and a paragon of virtue or because of the interesting moral dilemmas that playing a paladin can offer.
And why is that a problem for you. Any other class is allowed to be played purely for its mechanical reasons, so why not a paladin?There were no great evils or random chaotic acts, but he had not kept his vows of honor and duty and his self-serving behavior resulted in his alignment being more true neutral than lawful good.
Ok, but I don't see why that matters. The rules say:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
The paladin, according to you had not committed any evil acts. You say that his behavior is true neutral, but what's on the sheet is Lawful Good. I'm not aware of any provisions in the rules for changing a character's alignment, outside of magic, so no matter what the paladin did his alignment would still be Lawful Good. Or, more to the point, there's nothing but DM fiat to dictate when an alignment should, could, or would change.
Even then, that sentence isn't clear on what happens if the paladin's alignment changes. One plausible reading of that is that "loses all class abilities" occurs only if the paladin commits an evil act.He actually had his character atone, but as soon as that was done, abandoned his friends and the great quest once again losing them, (this time for good). Even though the result of failing meant an entire city destroyed by fire and 13 gates to hell being opened in various locations throughout the land. The result of success would have been of course glory, great renown, and a deed well done, deeds that would inspire future paladins for years to come.
Those must not have mattered as much to him as it did to you. This keeps coming back to what you want for the character, not what the player wants. That has nothing to do with alignment, just the perception of the paladin class, but alignment is the stick used to enforce what the DM wants, or otherwise deal with what the DM sees as a discrepancy.4 This wasn't a power balance issue.
If it's not a power balance issue, then why are the powers what's taken away?As a DM, I don't control behavior. I only determine the consequences of the behavior. If a player has his character eat a live porcupine, he probably gets hurt. If he says he's a paladin and doesn't act accordingly, he loses his paladin abilities. If eating live porcupines don't hurt then the choice to do so is meaningless. And if rendering player's choices meaningless isn't controlling behavior, what is?
Threatening punishment is very clearly controlling, by any reasonably understanding. Just because it didn't have the desired effect of bringing about certain behavior, doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt at control.
1. It was particularly important because of the Order that this Paladin chose to speak his vows to. He had 14 choices. He chose the order of the Warrior, whose main virtues were Courage, Duty, Honor. We were playing 3.5e. The paladin's code of honor was mentioned in there. His character had made vows to uphold those vows. His actions were not very Paladin-like. Not merely cautious in a way to insure victory, but comically cowardly. Especially as he leaves the fate of his own realm to the halfling who was only here to write songs of "courage and valor and derring-do". The story ended up great. The halfling ended up writing all his songs about himself.
2. No class is purely mechanical. Some classes the mechanics and flavor are practically one-in-the-same (Paladin). A priest of a good god who does wicked things can lose his abilities as well... or they might go from turn undead to control undead as the priest is actually serving another god's purposes and get similar powers from elsewhere. However, the mechanics of the Paladins class are specifically flavored toward the character being a paladin.
3 The alignment changed, not because DM fiat, but by player's choice. He chose to break his vows and abandon the party rather than fulfill his duty. When he left, he had the only means to easily defeat the enemy, making things much tougher on the other folks in the party.
4 Why were they taken away?
So the player's actions still mattered. Action = reaction.
5.I didn't threaten punishment, I just figured (knowing him to be a number-cruncher more than a role-player) that he might want to know beforehand what the results of his choices would be, since his character would know the results as well. No skin off my teeth, as they say. You know... if he tells me his character buys a torch and I take 1cp away. Is that punishment? He might even get his money back for the torch if he hasn't burned it already.
I suppose I could make all torches in my world fire-proof.
I made no attempt at control. Clearly, I let him run (he ran). I allowed him to make a ride check to clear the river by horse. He made it. He ran away. Escaped. The other players remained behind. One had his favorite horse stepped on by a demon-possessed bridge. The other had his character die fighting valiantly for the cause. He made his way back to the party's camp and filled his sack with their treasure because he figured they were all going to die anyway. Punished. Please.
Dude, just tell everyone you're a simulationist and then everyone will understand that you have an inexplicable need for mechanics/rules and fluff to be inseparable. Wait for the eye-rolling to be done, then the discussion is over.
nice post.. really.. like if anything in it actually even deserved to be posted.
Dude, just tell everyone you're a simulationist and then everyone will understand that you have an inexplicable need for mechanics/rules and fluff to be inseparable. Wait for the eye-rolling to be done, then the discussion is over.
I'm not really discussing fluff, though. I'm discussing what I thought would be a simple concept: a Paladin is a paladin. Maybe if I used upper case both times? Or lower case? Either way...
Paladin = Paladin
paladin = paladin
Paladin = paladin
paladin = Paladin
I'm not sure any amount of discussion is going to get that point across, if that doesn't work. I honestly don't see the confusion.
Yes.. if being a simulationist is the one where a player picks a role and actually plays it and the DM isn't demonized every time something doesn't go the player's way. I'll take that one.
Please don't give me the 'one-trick pony' speeches that imply that I am trying to pigeonhole character classes into straight-jackets with class and alignment stereotypes, either. My neutral cake-baking barbarian halfling will become angry. Very angry.
Please don't give me the 'one-trick pony' speeches that imply that I am trying to pigeonhole character classes into straight-jackets with class and alignment stereotypes, either.
Just paladins then?
Please don't give me the 'one-trick pony' speeches that imply that I am trying to pigeonhole character classes into straight-jackets with class and alignment stereotypes, either.
Just paladins then?
Paladin = Paladin
paladin = paladin
Paladin = paladin
paladin = Paladin
By definition, a paladin is ........ a paladin. I can't help that. I suppose we could design a world where good is evil and evil is good. Some sort of goofy twilight zone thing. I would encourage people trying to play paladin as a class to ask themselves why they have to pick paladin to get their character concept. I'm truly open to character ideas that defy the concept of a paladin being a paladin (multi-classing aside).
I've seen rough and rugged cowboy paladins. Soft-spoken joan of arc paladins. paladins who love to joust. paladins who championed people in trials by combat. paladins who were such hardliners that they turned people off. self-righteous prick paladins. overly humble paladins who only fought for others. martyr paladins. paladins with martyr complex. I'm not even married to the idea of human only paladins. I've had one half orc paladin. a gnome paladin who rode a big bug. But i've never seen an evil paladin. The good thing is... I never will. No one has ever played one. They may have played an evil guy.. a very unbelievable evil guy... with paladin powers mechanically identical to a paladin.
If the character wants to play a pet rock (it's happened. I'm serious), I'll let him. I like it when a character plays WHAT HE WANTS TO PLAY. If he wants to play evil paladin... that's like saying he wants to play an evil good guy. I can say go for it, but he's going to at best be playing an inconsistent mad man, which is a pain in the ass to bear witness too, much less DM for. Like a bad movie. Or an emergency appendectomy. As a simulationist, I can't shut off my brain long enough to like it. But I can pretend to, to give the player a chance to do his thing.
But, if that same player chooses to no longer be a pet ... how is that the DM putting a straight jacket on his character? Also... if he didn't want to play the Pet class, why did he choose it in the first place?
To put a straight-jacket on the DM? I think it's working.
I'm not even married to the idea of human only paladins.
Now you're just being ridiculous. A non-human paladin? Impossible.
I'm not even married to the idea of human only paladins.
Now you're just being ridiculous. A non-human paladin? Impossible.
I'm only saying that because that was once the rule. This rule served no game purpose, served no logical purpose and implied that only human cultures could create noble warriors. A feeling of racism was evoked by the "only the human race" rule as well, which I found somewhat offensive and others found extremely offensive.
By your tone, and previous statements you imply that I am being inexplicably (your word) rigid when it comes to the rules. I was attempting to provide an example proving otherwise. I'll suffice it to say that I'm not inexplicably rigid and you can believe as you will as regards to that.
Last night I sat down to see what an evil paladin might look like. I gave him standard stats and all the other mechanical aspects. Then I began to look at class abilities. The very first one was Aura of Good. But I didn't give up... He could be a devil in human form... the worst evils disguised. Call it Aura of Deception (since he's not actually good). It's an illusion. Detect Evil? They know their own kind. Smite Evil? This evil warrior must keep his minions in line, I suppose. The turn undead could just as easily be control undead.
Anything with the good descriptor could be changed to evil. He's charismatic... a natural leader. His supernatural abilities and martial prowess brook no argument. To your face he is all charm and honor. Behind your back he is a cunning manipulator and a cruel and honorless horrible creature whose ambitions are unchecked by moral consideration.
Pretty cool concept. I can see this working as a character that would be fun to play.
Didn't have to change much using paladin as a base to make a totally new class.
He isn't a Paladin, even if he calls himself a paladin. He's nobody's Pal. He's a Villain. Or an anti-paladin. Or a tuna sandwich. Anything but Paladin.
If you prefer to play a Paladin, choose the path of honor, courage, virtue. If you would prefer to play an EX-paladin, choose dishonor, cowardice, etc. The paladin's role is the former. The ex-paladin's role is the latter. Don't make it appear as if the DM is out to get you when you are responsible for the choice the character makes. Especially in something like this where there's no surprises... if you make a paladin but don't play a paladin, you become an ex-paladin. That's a pretty good rule. Without it... the paladin is a fighter with nifty feats. If that's your playstyle, go for it.
If you play a wizard but don't "play" a wizard, you don't become an ex-wizard. I mean, sure a wizard could dump Int, swing a sword, wear armor and wade into combat, and become an ex-character, but the same would happen to a paladin who dumped strength, wore a robe and relied on all the arcane spells he could cast.
Without the rule, such as it is, for "ex-paladins" a paladin would just be a warrior with smite and spells. He'd be better than a regular fighter, but so is every other class. There's no general advantage to playing a paladin, so there needs to be no general penalty for playing one however one wants.Why do I expect paladins to be 'paladiny'?... for the same reason that I expect a wizard to be interested in magic, that is, a wizard, I expect a paladin to be interested in the virtues of ... ummm... I can't believe how simple this sounds... a Paladin. I know. I know. Pretty unfair of me. Next thing you know, I'm going to want druids to be interested in nature.
But we don't have conversations about wizards having their powers taken away for not following an easily misinterpreted rule.There's nothing wrong with wanting the class features. I don't even give a rat about the class features except that they seem to imply that the character is a paladin. And since he's not, maybe he could trade them in for some feats and be a fighter. And the DM should pretend that instead of ever spending time trying to be a paladin he was actually practicing his trample-the-innocent techniques that he used during his last campaign, when he was still a paladin. And the druid can be a champion of industry. It's just a class feature, after all.
Is it still sarcasm if I agree with it?YES and the loss of the support of the NPCs who support Paladins.
So? No other PC has that support, or should expect it. Rogues certainly wouldn't, but they do okay for themselves.but is it too much to ask that the player be mature about it, given the fact that they knew the consequences beforehand?
It's not necessarily an issue of maturity, but of reasonable interpretation of terms, and what certain actions mean.Is it fair to have one player play a paladin AS a paladin and another take the easy way out time and again and then give them the same results? Isn't that railroading and plot control?
Not at all. It's allowing player choice. Since the class features are not overly powerful, they're not a reward for "the hard way," so requiring the hard way in order to have the powers in non-sensical. Besides which, many DMs never force a paladin to take the hard way. Why should they? There's nothing that requires or even recommends that. 90% of the garbage surrounding paladins and alignment is completely fabricated.Yes, I understand there are shades of gray (the contemporary novel aside). I don't just strip the abilities at first opportunity. However, if the player isn't playing a paladin, he no longer gets the abilities. I'm actually more surprised at why this would hard to grasp.
I grasp that. What I don't grasp is why anyone things "playing a paladin" is a defined, agreed upon, or useful concept.Yes, to use alignment as a cattleprod by not allowing the paladin to do make un-paladiny choices would be a travesty. To say, NO.. you CAN'T do that... you're a Paladin is wrong. I'm not advocating that. I'm only saying if the player wants his character to be a Paladin, then play a paladin, not an ex-paladin.
That is highly manipulative language, that fails to acknowledge the DM's role in this situation as arbiter. The player isn't changing the alignment, because the DM is having to announce it. Mechanics aren't changing the alignment, because there are none for that. The DM is making a decision, based on their judgment.a player who can't understand that concept is going to be troublesome anyway and contribute little to the enjoyment of a game in which a Paladin is (lo and behold) expected to be (thinking, thinking) a paladin.
Exactly. This is why using alignment this way, or even planning to, is pointless. If the player has a reason for his actions, then the DM is just being narrowminded. If the player doesn't have a reason for his actions, he's just being a jerk. Fiddling with alignment isn't going to fix either of these issues.As far as the implication that having an expectation that a character who is defined by dedication to a code is controlling the player who chose to play a character who is defined by dedication to a code, by the way, is an interesting assessment.
The expectation isn't the controlling part. The punishment is the controlling part.I don't feel I'm a cattleprod, as you imply. I give the player choices. They choose them. Some start as paladin and stick with it. I allow that choice. Some start as paladin and don't stick with it. I allow that choice as well.
You are the one deciding what qualifies for "sticking with it." The player isn't making the choice to change the alignment, you are.It does seem defeatist to say "the players should be able to do anything they want and still be Paladin as a class" IF you want the roles they play to be meaningful.
What's not meaningful about letting players play what they want to play.
I'm not advocating NOT letting players play what they want to play. What I'm saying is... the player obviously doesn't want to play a paladin if he is playing an evil character. The player obviously wants to play something other than a paladin.
No more of this, "if he wanted to play a paladin, he would have." That's like saying that if a child didn't want to be spanked, he would have eaten his dinner. The controller is making the judgment and the punishment.
But if the child wanted to eat the dinner, he would have... so that's an invalid argument. The parent here isn't advocating NOT eating the dinner. The metaphor isn't quite the same except in terms of the judgment (you can look on the plate and see the food, so you can rightly assume it wasn't eaten. The child can see that as well. It may be a bit more intangible, but you can review the actions of a character and determine when they are evil, which BY DEFINITION are not the actions of a paladin. I am still trying to figure this out. If he wants to play a good guy, why is he playing an evil guy? If the child WANTS to eat the dinner, why NOT eat the dinner? OK.. let's say I concede the point that the DM is making a judgment. Let's also concede that the consequences are a punishment (I don't perceive it the same way, any more than I see losing hit points in a combat as a punishment, but I'll go with it and call it a punishment). I don't think it is POSSIBLE to escape the fact that the player is claiming to want to play a paladin but isn't playing a paladin. A Paladin is a good character. To play an evil character is to NOT play a paladin. The punishment you are referring to only occurs when the player's stated goal (to play a paladin) is failed (when the player does not play a paladin). The punishment does not go into effect if the player is playing a fighter who meets the ideals of a paladin. Good is its own reward, I guess. The punishment only occurs when the player chooses for it to happen. The player is stating to the DM that he wants to play a paladin. Yet he plays something other than a paladin. And the consequences of doing so are that the DM inflicts the 'punishment' of not forcing the player to continue to play a paladin.
In the case above, the child has told the parent "I want you to make me dinner. I understand that if I don't eat the dinner the punishment is a spanking. Thank you for the dinner. I'm not hungry." The parent isn't forcing the child to eat the dinner. The parent may as you say attempt to control the behavior of the child through the use of rewards (mmm.. dinner) and punishments (spanking), but the child is being a bit childish to keep wasting his food by having the parent cook dinner that he doesn't plan to eat. Even without the spanking, the punishment would simply still be "If you don't eat your dinner you will be hungry later". Is it the parent's fault if the dinner is placed before the child and the child becomes hungry later when he does not eat? I am of course assuming that the food met the child's expectations.
My definition of Paladin the class implies noble, honorable, good. The class features are explicit in being the same thing. Aura of Good, for instance... The character's goodness is so good he has an aura of good. In another thread I tried to think of ways that an evil CHARACTER might have an aura of good yet be evil. Not an impossibility. But the character ended up being ignoble, dishonorable, evil. And evil is not paladinly; at least not by the commonly understood definition, particularly in the connotative sense of the word, but also in most definitions of the word. The class is not only flavored toward a specific alignment, but the features are dependent on the alignment being the case IF meaning is to be attached to players choices.
If P = Is a paladin and N = Not a Paladin, then the following statments are TRUE:
P = P
P ≠ N
And the folowing statement is NOT TRUE:
P = {P, N}
I can't escape that logic.If you just want a pit-fight, that has its merits as well.
That's not the opposite of having inflexible ideas about classes and alignment.The whole crux of my argument here is that D&D as a role-playing game first is my preference. Alignment is a way to define the roles.
As just a definition, it's fine. I've said that. As a piece of mechanics, used to mete out consequences, it's horrible.The Paladin, by virtue of being a paladin has his role defined by his moral code. If he doesn't stick to it, then you can choose not to let that matter, but that will render the player's choices for his character meaningless.
No, it won't. And punishing those choices doesn't give them meaning either. It just enforces one's inflexible perspectives on class, alignment, and roleplaying.
The actions you describe sound like those of a pretty big jerk. I can understand having issues with that, and wanting some getbacks. I can understand wanting to be passive about it. But believing alignment is a useful way to do that is everything that's wrong with alignment. By itself, as the simple mechanical interaction it is, it's fine. Once people load it up with tons of excess "meaning" and use it to deal with issues better handled with entirely out-of-game discussion about behavior, then it's a problem.
You said: There's no general advantage to playing a paladin, so there needs to be no general penalty for playing one however one wants.
My response: As long as you play them as a Paladin... which is a good character.
The crux of my whole deal is this:
Evil paladin is an oxymoron.
Do you need to quote everything ever said remotely relavent to the conversation?
The fact that this argument is still ongoing, with no end in sight, with neither side even remotely able to come to any consensus (as all alignment arguments do) demonstrates why alignment is a horrible idea.
Or further proof of how good an idea it is and how much more discussion is needed to make sure it can be used without so much confusion.
But you do make one point. There seems to be no end in sight here, so I'm going to bow out.
Indeed, good ideas have a tendency to inspire agreement. And, let's face it, less trolling.
Whole wars have been caused by good ideas.
Democracy is a good idea and every 4 years or so we argue like crazy because of it.
Allignment is a good idea. However there are those who either don't read the alignment rules or simply ignore them or don't fully understand them, but that can be said of any rule.
Some have blamed allignment, or rather the missuse of allignment on a broken system, but that ignores that the real problem was the DM, Players or both. The allignment system doesn't encourage railroading and straightjacketing players, nor should it, and it would occur with the same frequency with or without the allignment system because the problem isn't the rules, it's the people.
I've seen, since this thread came up other threads where people's character was railroaded and straightjackets because their class was stereotyped, because of skills like Diplomacy/Bluff being used to force their actions. Because the Dm bans rules or makes house rules that cripple a class. etc
Problem when you look at all those is not the allignment. It's not a broken ruleset, it's broken people.
Democracy is a good idea and every 4 years or so we argue like crazy because of it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WOW and yeah, no. Not "4", not "democracy", not "we", and all other kinds of "not".
("Not good" is left as a relative judgement for the individual user.)
Indeed, good ideas have a tendency to inspire agreement. And, let's face it, less trolling.
Whole wars have been caused by good ideas.
Democracy is a good idea and every 4 years or so we argue like crazy because of it.
Allignment is a good idea. However there are those who either don't read the alignment rules or simply ignore them or don't fully understand them, but that can be said of any rule.
Some have blamed allignment, or rather the missuse of allignment on a broken system, but that ignores that the real problem was the DM, Players or both. The allignment system doesn't encourage railroading and straightjacketing players, nor should it, and it would occur with the same frequency with or without the allignment system because the problem isn't the rules, it's the people.
I've seen, since this thread came up other threads where people's character was railroaded and straightjackets because their class was stereotyped, because of skills like Diplomacy/Bluff being used to force their actions. Because the Dm bans rules or makes house rules that cripple a class. etc
Problem when you look at all those is not the allignment. It's not a broken ruleset, it's broken people.
Alignment is un-necessary, and therefore any problems caused by it are also un-necessary.
Indeed, good ideas have a tendency to inspire agreement. And, let's face it, less trolling.
Whole wars have been caused by good ideas.
Democracy is a good idea and every 4 years or so we argue like crazy because of it.
Allignment is a good idea. However there are those who either don't read the alignment rules or simply ignore them or don't fully understand them, but that can be said of any rule.
Some have blamed allignment, or rather the missuse of allignment on a broken system, but that ignores that the real problem was the DM, Players or both. The allignment system doesn't encourage railroading and straightjacketing players, nor should it, and it would occur with the same frequency with or without the allignment system because the problem isn't the rules, it's the people.
I've seen, since this thread came up other threads where people's character was railroaded and straightjackets because their class was stereotyped, because of skills like Diplomacy/Bluff being used to force their actions. Because the Dm bans rules or makes house rules that cripple a class. etc
Problem when you look at all those is not the allignment. It's not a broken ruleset, it's broken people.
True.
Indeed, good ideas have a tendency to inspire agreement. And, let's face it, less trolling.
Whole wars have been caused by good ideas.
Democracy is a good idea and every 4 years or so we argue like crazy because of it.
Allignment is a good idea. However there are those who either don't read the alignment rules or simply ignore them or don't fully understand them, but that can be said of any rule.
Some have blamed allignment, or rather the missuse of allignment on a broken system, but that ignores that the real problem was the DM, Players or both. The allignment system doesn't encourage railroading and straightjacketing players, nor should it, and it would occur with the same frequency with or without the allignment system because the problem isn't the rules, it's the people.
I've seen, since this thread came up other threads where people's character was railroaded and straightjackets because their class was stereotyped, because of skills like Diplomacy/Bluff being used to force their actions. Because the Dm bans rules or makes house rules that cripple a class. etc
Problem when you look at all those is not the allignment. It's not a broken ruleset, it's broken people.
Alignment is un-necessary, and therefore any problems caused by it are also un-necessary.
Eliminating the ability of characters to make choices is one way to eliminate alignment. I'm not advocating it, but that would be one way to eliminate it. Like... a whole world in temporal stasis or maybe even void of sentient life.
As soon as you have sentient creatures interacting, morality and philosophy will rear its ugly head and personalities begin to develop. They may, for the sake of mutual benefit, try to share resources... oh no! Alignments! Or one may attempt to lord over the other with force... oh no! Alignments! Or one may decide to draw a line and live-and-let-live until the other crosses... oh no! Alignments!
Of course, it is totally un-necessary for them to do anything. They could avoid having choices altogether if they were non-sentient objects. One player could be a stick, maybe. One could be a pebble. Another could be a river. Again... I'm not advocating that, but it's ONE way to eliminate alignment. Perhaps there are others? This one doesn't sound like it fits my style of play. But I'm learning there are many styles of play that are different from what I'm accustomed to.
My hyperbolic sarcasm button (the one with the strawman on it) is stuck today. It's friday, huzzah!
As soon as you have sentient creatures interacting, morality and philosophy will rear its ugly head and personalities begin to develop. They may, for the sake of mutual benefit, try to share resources... oh no! Alignments! Or one may attempt to lord over the other with force... oh no! Alignments! Or one may decide to draw a line and live-and-let-live until the other crosses... oh no! Alignments!
One can still have creatures with personalities, preferences, goals, and ethics without having alignment as a game rule. The issue is not and has never been with how players describe their characters, but how others block and limit a player based on that some initial choice or description, often in an attempt to control that player's behavior without actually confronting them.
Edit: Yes, this is a problem with the people more than the rules, but the rules are so hosed up an unclear than even very reasonable people might not agree on their interpretations and implications. Other systems have well-thought out rules that describe character personalities and the benefits and consequences these raise, but none I've seen depend on GM fiat to interpret when something has be violated or and decide what the consequence is. D&D's alignment rules have never worked, and only been beneficial to those who didn't need them anyway.
You said: There's no general advantage to playing a paladin, so there needs to be no general penalty for playing one however one wants.
My response: As long as you play them as a Paladin... which is a good character.
The crux of my whole deal is this:
Evil paladin is an oxymoron.
Really? Because the Blackguard is a classic, classic trope, who has shown up again and again in both D&D and fiction. The antithesis of the Paladin, serving dark gods with all the devotion and vigor that a Paladin serves the light.
Would it help if we just said "evil paladins are called Blackguards?"
Because creating an entire mirror class just for a simple deity issue is just begging for problems. It's like insisting on having a separate cleric class for every specific deity a cleric can worship.
Maybe we could even give the Paladin class kits:
Servant of the Light: Smite, Lay on Hands
Paragon of Justice: Smite, some balance-flavored ability
Protector of the Meek: Lay on Hands, Some shield ability
Champion of Darkness: Dark Smite, Gains damage against bloodied targets
Blackguard: Gains powers whenever he kills someone, can offload damage onto nearby "allies."
One can still have creatures with personalities, preferences, goals, and ethics without having alignment as a game rule.
This, this, so much this.
You said: There's no general advantage to playing a paladin, so there needs to be no general penalty for playing one however one wants.
My response: As long as you play them as a Paladin... which is a good character.
The crux of my whole deal is this:
Evil paladin is an oxymoron.
Really? Because the Blackguard is a classic, classic trope, who has shown up again and again in both D&D and fiction. The antithesis of the Paladin, serving dark gods with all the devotion and vigor that a Paladin serves the light.
Would it help if we just said "evil paladins are called Blackguards?"
Because creating an entire mirror class just for a simple deity issue is just begging for problems. It's like insisting on having a separate cleric class for every specific deity a cleric can worship.
Maybe we could even give the Paladin class kits:
Servant of the Light: Smite, Lay on Hands
Paragon of Justice: Smite, some balance-flavored ability
Protector of the Meek: Lay on Hands, Some shield ability
Champion of Darkness: Dark Smite, Gains damage against bloodied targets
Blackguard: Gains powers whenever he kills someone, can offload damage onto nearby "allies."
Yes, really.
I like the kits, though. I think I'm just arguing semantics is what it boils down to.
In 3.5e, there were domain powers that distinguished the priests of various dieties and the powers assosiated (turn undead) had distinctions based on alignment, when applicable. I'd guess 4e had a similar mechanic (can't remember).
In earlier editions the Paladin needed to be a class unto itself, but the relatively newer concepts of feats and backgrounds and kits and such make it quite possible that a player wanting to play a 'paladin' could do so by picking the right background, skills, etc... (I know, I know.. Skills and Powers and such have been around, but they were clunkier systems in the day and much more option than core.)
Just semantics. And I'd argue with a sign post. But it's Friday. Huzzah.
One can still have creatures with personalities, preferences, goals, and ethics without having alignment as a game rule.
This, this, so much this.
Probably.
The DM can just wing it when a situation comes up where the moral and ethical choices of a character become an issue. In a hack-and-slash, kick-in-the-door that's not much of a big deal. But with some playing styles and campaigns having an alignment rule defined is helpful.
Some of the spell names and descriptions could be reduced to their bare mechanic. Protection from Evil, for instance. Protection from Whatever. The player and DM could role-play that out. As experienced players, we're not losing anything there. I think new players could be losing some 'something' by the further genericization of the game, though. Do you agree, disagree?
Is it the alignment system as a concept or some more specific thing about the rules that you think is the problem?
How do you make a determination about what happens when, for example...
a +3 Holy Sword of Glowing When a Good Person Wields It is picked up by a character who is straight-up evil, but the player and DM disagree about his... goodness or evilness.
If you were DM and you thought the character was evil, would the sword glow?
Some of the spell names and descriptions could be reduced to their bare mechanic. Protection from Evil, for instance. Protection from Whatever. The player and DM could role-play that out. As experienced players, we're not losing anything there. I think new players could be losing some 'something' by the further genericization of the game, though. Do you agree, disagree?
Is it the alignment system as a concept or some more specific thing about the rules that you think is the problem?
As a concept, it's superfluous (at least as implemented in D&D). In the wrong hands, it goes from superfluous to stupid and disruptive.
I give my players a Scroll of Protection from Alignment at all my games. They can cast it even if their class doesn't allow them to use scrolls.
How do you make a determination about what happens when, for example...
a +3 Holy Sword of Glowing When a Good Person Wields It is picked up by a character who is straight-up evil, but the player and DM disagree about his... goodness or evilness.
If you were DM and you thought the character was evil, would the sword glow?
Don't include the sword and there is no problem. Just like alignment.
It is hinted from some of his novels that good and evil were elemental energy types as well. "But when Melnibone learned to marry the power of chaos to the power of evil..." What I really like is that this elemental chaos and elemental law has made a comeback in gaming. In Dark Souls, there is a set of "chaos fire" spells that are just so fun to use. In Warcraft 3, the power of chaos was the only thing that could kill divine beings, much as it was in Moorcock's setting. In both settings, elemental chaos was the power of the demon lords, and could be married to evil (the power of death) for some truly terrifying results. In D&D, your alignment is a readout of your character's connection to these primal energy forces.
When a character's being is linked to one of these powers, it is shown through behavior, or even physical traits, depending on the degree of strength of the link to the archetypal powers. That is how we get things like tieflings and asimars. A character who is linked to the energies of chaos, will manifest this in the form of chaotic behavior. What is chaotic behavior? The PHB is pretty cut and dry about this. But interestingly, your actions can alter your alignment (that isn't a picky DM thing, that is a default rules thing) and can change the nature of your connection to the powers of the ages. For example, one could shift and begin to align more closely with the powers of elemental good (the power of life and creation) and move away from evil.
This is actually a pretty common storytelling device that has been in use for thousands of years. Ever since 600 B. C. and the stories of Ahura Mazda and Angru Manyu it has become incredibly popular. More recently, this idea is seen in Star Wars, with the dark side being the power of elemental chaos and evil. Behaviors are things that flow naturally based on the degree of alignment. People don't act good because of personal moral codes, they act good because their closeness to elemental good influences (not controlls) their actions. An evil character in D&D, no matter how you slice it, is a living fount of death and destruction, a messenger of entropy. The paladin's job is to promote health and life, and in that sense, the paladin is a gardener. The paladin pulls up weeds so that other plants aren't choked out. Now, this sounds incredibly harsh and callous at first, but any time anyone kills someone else to save someone else's life, they have made what is known as "the gardener's choice." Does the D&D alignment system conform to traditional ideas of morality? Kind of.
There are a coupld of basic real-world philosophies that closely match behaviors and motivations demonstrated by the alignments. Good is classic virtue-based ethics mixed with altruism. Law is pretty much embodied by deontology. Chaos is quite similar to existentialism. the evil alignments are a little trickier. The basic evil alignment is kind of like a warped match-up of a few different ideas, egoism, cynicism, ultra-nationalism, and hedonism. Not to say any of those philosophies by themselves are bad or good, but the evil alignment takes the worst of all of them and shoves them together. By the way, I will not answer any queries or statements made about any of these real-world philosophies here, as I refuse to get into an ethical discussion and derail the thread. I will be happy to expound on those in a pm if anyone has further questions.
The point is, that as they are, alignments are completely divorced from any kind of moral and ethical philosophy, and even people who have alignments don't have to follow them, though consistent and notable behavior contrary to one's alignment is grounds for an alignment change. Not because anyone is being punished, or railroaded, or controlled, or stifled, but because that character's metaphysical place in the powers of the universe is shifting. That is why those spells that deal with alignment exist, because they are expressions of those powers. No different than a resist fire spell. When taking away alignments, you take away those powers and those energies, in the name of fixing a problem that doesn't actually exist in the first place. People get into arguments about morality and alignment in D&D because they can't separate their personal real-world perspective from their character, and they take it as a personal attack on their views when someone else tries to tell them something about alignment.
Don't include the sword and there is no problem. Just like alignment.
Bingo. You're attempting to quantify the unquantifiable, which is, y'know, impossible. So don't try.
This will be a long post, and no tl;dr. I am not expecting or asking anyone to read it, but I'm not going to waste effort in pandering to low attention spans.
It's not "pandering to low attention spans" to include a summary to explain why other people might actually want to read the details.
(In traditional media, it would be "the opening paragraph". The standard essay format taught to second-graders is "explain what you're about to say, say it, then summarise" FOR A REASON)
tl;dr: If you don't explain in the first paragraph why I should read your massive post, your massive post is not worth reading. QED.
This will be a long post, and no tl;dr. I am not expecting or asking anyone to read it, but I'm not going to waste effort in pandering to low attention spans.
It's not "pandering to low attention spans" to include a summary to explain why other people might actually want to read the details.
(In traditional media, it would be "the opening paragraph". The standard essay format taught to second-graders is "explain what you're about to say, say it, then summarise" FOR A REASON)
tl;dr: If you don't explain in the first paragraph why I should read your massive post, your massive post is not worth reading. QED.
It's totally pandering. I wrote that specifically because I didn't want to try to convince anyone to read it. It was there to read if people wanted to. If they didn't, I wasn't going to try and persuade anyone to read it. This isn't an academic setting, I don't have to go with a traditionally structured essay. In fact, I am using a non-traditional essay form that is based on inductive reasoning that slides into deductive reasoning at the end, a format taught in college, which is a little higher than second grade. Using an inductive strucute, the thesis claim is actually the last thing that gets presented.
Funny thing, right after that first sentence, there is a reason to keep reading, I bring up something relevant to the discussion that no one else has mentioned, and its an important preface to the system everyone has been discussing. I didn't write that with a target audience in mind of people who aren't willing to take the time to read a document to its conclusion without relying on a summary. If you have a problem with who I select as my target audience, well, I don't know what to tell you. Tl;drs are also not part of any traditional academically structured essay, at least not how they are commonly presented in an internet discussion forum. If you want to keep discussing my writing habits, send me a pm. I don't want to derail anyone's thread.
Edit: Now discussing this in pm.
The DM can just wing it when a situation comes up where the moral and ethical choices of a character become an issue. In a hack-and-slash, kick-in-the-door that's not much of a big deal. But with some playing styles and campaigns having an alignment rule defined is helpful.
I'm all for things that help a player play their character, guideposts that help them do things that they themselves would tend not to do. Skills do this, by allowing one to be a diplomat or a pickpocket without having to know how to do either. Alignment can do this by offering reminders about the sorts of things a chaotic neutral character, or whatever, might do - on the off chance there are no literary or cinematic examples to borrow from.
In other games, I like Aspects and Milestones and other things that give lots of positive reinforcement for acting a particular way.
Alignment offers a little bit of help for running one's character, but it offers a lot of potential for abuse, so much that it's not worth even trying to use. Players should still refer to it, if they find it helpful, but DMs should never use it to control or discourage player behavior.
Some of the spell names and descriptions could be reduced to their bare mechanic. Protection from Evil, for instance. Protection from Whatever. The player and DM could role-play that out. As experienced players, we're not losing anything there. I think new players could be losing some 'something' by the further genericization of the game, though. Do you agree, disagree?
They're not losing anything. Protection spells are classic and can still be made to work in classic ways, even without alignment.
Is it the alignment system as a concept or some more specific thing about the rules that you think is the problem?
I don't know what the original rules and intent were, but it's clear that in later editions people bring a lot of baggage to the alignment rules, usually in the form of what are actually house rules, particularly around the changing of alignment. It is used as a whip and a wrench to try to make players act a certain way, and that's a problem. It is vague to the point of uselessness, causing even well-meaning DMs to punish players who think they're doing the right thing.
How do you make a determination about what happens when, for example...
a +3 Holy Sword of Glowing When a Good Person Wields It is picked up by a character who is straight-up evil, but the player and DM disagree about his... goodness or evilness.
This doesn't require alignment. If the player agrees about it, then the player would agree that the sword should react appropriately to that. If alignment was being used, the player would probably agree that the character's alignment should be what he and the DM agree on. I have no issue with things players and DMs agree on.
If you were DM and you thought the character was evil, would the sword glow?
If doesn't really matter what I think. If the player doesn't agree that his character is evil, I'm not sure how the DM gets to say he is.
This is a classic situation in fantasy, but it doesn't require alignment. Why make it vague? There doesn't need to be a universal, absolute good in order for this situation to arise. The sword could look for specific deeds the character had performed or not performed, and make the determination of how to react.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Funny thing, right after that first sentence, there is a reason to keep reading
Amazingly, in response to a "no, there should be a reason to read first" post, you start arguing about your reason to be read *in paragraph two*.
Many, even MOST, things on the internet are not worth the time required to read them. Filtering is vital. And the problem with your "inductive" format is that it looks *just like* the demented ramblings of a YouTube commenter unless someone reads to the end, and there's no admission standard to the WotC forums to suggest that any given random noob has anything more to say than a YouTube commenter.
(Nor anything to say that someone with a large post count has anything useful to say, either - but with regulars, it's easy to make a list of people who are worth reading despite their rambling, and who should be ignored outright.)
(PS: If you weren't expecting anyone to read it, why did you bother writing it in the first place? Writing in public that you expect nobody to read is just graffiti.)
The fact that alignment is vague, combined with alignment *mechanics*, causes problems.
And even that potentially could be fixed.
Let's take the standard example, the Paladin. In a system with class restrictions on alignment, and a dictat that a Paladin must be and remain Lawful Good, obviously when a Paladin shifts away from that alignment...
... the powers of Chaos and/or Evil will be pleased.
Would they not reward him, in hopes of tempting him further over to their side?
Or if they cannot directly tempt him, might they seek to mislead him? They could replace the Paladin powers he lost with powers that *he* can't tell aren't the same, so he does not realize that he has "fallen". Perhaps even greater powers, so he believes he has advanced.
The point is, every shift in alignment that carries a penalty should also carry a reward.
But they don't. The Paladin who shifts from Lawful Good to Neutral Good gains nothing. The Ranger who becomes Lawful gains nothing. And so on.
The trouble is... writing all that up? Enforcing it?
Far easier, and less troublesome once done, to just deep-six the alignment restrictions.
- Lloth wants to conquer the surface world and render herself (and by extension, the Drow) ascendant. Why does she care if a paladin falls, except as it concerns the fight for the surface world
- Tiamet cares about putting down metallic dragons, and making hers ascendant.
- Vecna seeks personal power for Vecna alone.
- Orcus is more concerned with smiting his fellow demonlords than doing anything to anyone else half the time. He's likely to help a pure lawful good paladin if it puts down Demogorgon
The point where you realize that Orcus could very easily have his minions take out assassins who are trying to kill a Paladin because the Paladin is seeking to do damage to Demogorgon is when you realize that alignment is so very limited and so very restricting, even in D&D chronology. A Lawful Good paladin is having his life saved by a being of pure evil, because that being of pure evil... wants the Paladin to succeed.
Nice alignment system. Very good at showing where conflicts are going to crop up.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Let's take the standard example, the Paladin. In a system with class restrictions on alignment, and a dictat that a Paladin must be and remain Lawful Good, obviously when a Paladin shifts away from that alignment...
Why should a paladin have to be or remain lawful good? A paladin is a champion of their chosen god. It stands to reason that as such, the paladin's moral code and behavior should closely mimic the creed of their god.
An example would be, a paladin of Torm would be expected to be LG, but what about a Paladin of Shar? LG probably isn't a good fit there. Or is she not /allowed/ to pick a champion of her faith and grant them paladin powers because she's evil? She certainly isn't going to have some goody two shoes representing her.
Alignment wouldn't be so bad if there were not mechanics to go along with it. It's too arbitrary and grey where a player and DM might disagree, with no true way to determine right from wrong. Alignment in 4e doesn't make a mechanical difference, it's there to give the player a guide as to what his character's moral code is, should the player want to have that guide. Your DM can't screw your character over if he thinks you're "doing it wrong" which is entirely subjective. I can't speak for 3e because I never played it much, but I know it /could/ happen in 2e because it happened to me. Having your ranger converted to a weak fighter because the DM disagreed on certain behaviors that were potentially morally grey...totally sucks.
I am not expecting or asking anyone to read it
Yes, you are. Or else you wouldn't have posted this on a public discussion forum. Typing "out loud" to no one is what myspace is for.
But interestingly, your actions can alter your alignment (that isn't a picky DM thing, that is a default rules thing)
The fact that your actions can change your alignment is not the "picky DM thing." And no one is disputing that your alignment can be changed by the DM.
The fact the the only recourse for this happening is the whim of the DM's subjective, and therefore biased and imperfect, judgement filtered though their own interpretation of a vague and incomplete guideline? And that since each DM is a unique, sentient being, the alignment rules will be applied differently at every game table. Often with little variance, but just as often with a lot of variance, but never consistently. That's the "picky DM part". Though to be fair, that true not only of players and DMs, but the writers and designers as well.
The point is, that as they are, alignments are completely divorced from any kind of moral and ethical philosophy
Except that they're not. Which is a big part of the problem Perhaps that was true in the original source material and the earliest editions of the game, as you so meticulously pointed out, but that's certainly not the case now. Alignments are currently linked inseparably from morality and ethics, and have been for at least the duration of 3rd edition (when I started playing the game), and most likely sooner.
Your alignment, under the 3x3 grid model, is supposed to be a reflection of your morality and ethics. And your alignment only changes when your morality and ethics change. The ambient elemental cosmic powers of the universe have absolutely nothing to do with a PC's current or changing alignment.
People get into arguments about morality and alignment in D&D because they can't separate their personal real-world perspective from their character, and they take it as a personal attack on their views when someone else tries to tell them something about alignment.
There is truth to this. But its not that simple.
It is very hard for many, and I would assume most, people to completely let go of their own values and experience and accept hypothetical ones. Especially one that is so similar, yet completely alien, ethical value system that is at the same time intimately part of completely foreign set of physical laws which have no real world equivalent. All of us filter our interpretations of the world though our current selves, which includes are experiences and values. And it is nigh impossible for our real world morality and ethical standards to not creep into our fictional works, or color our experience of said works.
However, as I said above, alignments as they are popularly used and refereed to today, are not completely divorced from real world ethics and morality. The guidelines are too brief, sparse, incomplete, and self-conflicting to provide the objective standard necessary to ensure that alignment mechanics are handled uniformly and constantly. People have no choice but to fill in the blanks themselves with their own interpretations, experiences, and judgements. And unfortunately(?), everyone brings their own crayons to fill the blanks with, and no one has the same box of colors. So clashes about real world ethics and morality are bound to happen.
By the way, I will not answer any queries or statements made about any of these real-world philosophies here, as I refuse to get into an ethical discussion and derail the thread. I will be happy to expound on those in a pm if anyone has further questions.
Oh, the irony! I lol'ed!
I am not expecting or asking anyone to read it
Yes, you are. Or else you wouldn't have posted this on a public discussion forum. Typing "out loud" to no one is what myspace is for.
You misunderstand, and I will cop to that being my fault. I'm not using the primary definition of expect. I meant that I wasn't making a de facto statement that I am entitled to people reading my posts. I was simply pointing out that I am aware that if people do not wish to read my post, they do not have to, and that I am perfectly okay if people do not wish to read my post, for any reason at all, but was specifically dealing with lack of tl;dr as a reason. I was stating that I was not trying to directly, indirectly, or otherwise place an imperative on anyone to read my post.
But interestingly, your actions can alter your alignment (that isn't a picky DM thing, that is a default rules thing)
The fact that your actions can change your alignment is not the "picky DM thing." And no one is disputing that your alignment can be changed by the DM.
The fact the the only recourse for this happening is the whim of the DM's subjective, and therefore biased and imperfect, judgement filtered though their own interpretation of a vague and incomplete guideline? And that since each DM is a unique, sentient being, the alignment rules will be applied differently at every game table. Often with little variance, but just as often with a lot of variance, but never consistently. That's the "picky DM part". Though to be fair, that true not only of players and DMs, but the writers and designers as well.
Maybe its just because I am unconcerned with anything but obvious gross behavior contrary to a character's alignment, but those guidelines have always been more than enough for me, and in over twelve years I have never had a single player that had a problem with how I handled alignment, or if they did, they did a really good job of hiding it, and I ran things straight from the books, including alignment restrictions.
The point is, that as they are, alignments are completely divorced from any kind of moral and ethical philosophy
Except that they're not. Which is a big part of the problem Perhaps that was true in the original source material and the earliest editions of the game, as you so meticulously pointed out, but that's certainly not the case now. Alignments are currently linked inseparably from morality and ethics, and have been for at least the duration of 3rd edition (when I started playing the game), and most likely sooner.
Your alignment, under the 3x3 grid model, is supposed to be a reflection of your morality and ethics. And your alignment only changes when your morality and ethics change. The ambient elemental cosmic powers of the universe have absolutely nothing to do with a PC's current or changing alignment.
If alignments were inseparably linked to morality, there would not be mutually contradictive argumentative statements about the alignments at the end of each one's description. If they were linked to morality, then there would either be no value judgments given in the books, or there would be value judgments that did not place all of them as, "the best alignment you can be." The only difference in those statements are the evil alignments, but even then those are all three, "the worst alignment you can be."
Alignment isn't a reflection of a character's morality and ethics (which was a poor choice of Wizards, using those words. Attaching one to one axis and the other to the other just created a whole whack of confusion.) any more than fire is a reflection of a person's temperment. But then again, we do see characters linked with fire, and they are characterized as being of a tempermental nature. Alignment is always reflective of a person's metaphysical place in the universe, with behaviors simply being a manifestation of that connection. In that way, yes, they are linked, but like it says in the PHB, good people do bad things sometimes, that doesn't mean they aren't good-aligned. The way behavior changes alignment is it increases the presence of that particular force in the world. Going back to my Star Wars example, that is why killing someone is always a dark side act, period, because it creates somethign borne of the dark, death, and this act increases the dark in them. There is no inherent moral quality to this, whether right or wrong. It isn't and different for good and evil in D&D. People get too caught up in moral philosophies when they think about alignments, to the point that they forget "alignment good" is the good energy type, not a moral quality. Think new-agey type energy, if that helps.
People get into arguments about morality and alignment in D&D because they can't separate their personal real-world perspective from their character, and they take it as a personal attack on their views when someone else tries to tell them something about alignment.
There is truth to this. But its not that simple.
It is very hard for many, and I would assume most, people to completely let go of their own values and experience and accept hypothetical ones. Especially one that is so similar, yet completely alien, ethical value system that is at the same time intimately part of completely foreign set of physical laws which have no real world equivalent. All of us filter our interpretations of the world though our current selves, which includes are experiences and values. And it is nigh impossible for our real world morality and ethical standards to not creep into our fictional works, or color our experience of said works.
However, as I said above, alignments as they are popularly used and refereed to today, are not completely divorced from real world ethics and morality. The guidelines are too brief, sparse, incomplete, and self-conflicting to provide the objective standard necessary to ensure that alignment mechanics are handled uniformly and constantly. People have no choice but to fill in the blanks themselves with their own interpretations, experiences, and judgements. And unfortunately(?), everyone brings their own crayons to fill the blanks with, and no one has the same box of colors. So clashes about real world ethics and morality are bound to happen.
The alignment descriptions are so small because they allow for an incredibly broad range of behavior that can fall within that alignment.
Good: Implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Evil: "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Law: "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
I have never really understood all the contention alignments have created with cut-and-dry descriptions like that.
By the way, I will not answer any queries or statements made about any of these real-world philosophies here, as I refuse to get into an ethical discussion and derail the thread. I will be happy to expound on those in a pm if anyone has further questions.
Oh, the irony! I lol'ed!
I guess the thread is getting a bit derailed. But we haven't reached the point of discussing real-life ethical philosophies yet. Maybe we should just stop before it gets to that point. I would like to apologize if I have contributed to derailing the thread, and will now attempt to do something constructive. OP, I will agree with several others and advise talking to your DM. Ask him if he is running alignment straight up by the book or flavoring it with something else, to start with. Describe your idea of chaotic, ask him to describe his idea of chaotic, and compare both defnitions to how the rules call it, and then that is when you ask how closely he wants to follow those rules.
Oct 19, 2012 -- 9:25PM, Sir-Zalphon wrote:
The alignment system therefore, by definition, at every point since the good-evil axis was introduced (it used to be law-chaos alone) has made subjective value judgments on morality and ethics. You cannot deny this, it's literally in the name. Good is GOOD. Evil is EVIL. These are subjective moral value judgments.
As I said before, I can have a character who believes in complete personal freedom, and yet follows an extremely strong personal moral code (which is why that character believes in complete personal freedom - their moral code only gets impeded by outside laws, which they see as heavy-handed and onorous attempts to regulate morality).
Is this character lawful or chaotic? Your alignment system can't tell.
Nevermind someone like Arthus, who slaughtered an entire village to prevent the spread of a plague that would have wiped out a continent.
Alignment is simplistic and childish, "babies first roleplay" style, and it needs to get booted in favor of a more varied and complex system that we will call "motivations," "goals," "personal moral code," and "desires."
As a general rule, good ideas don't inspire so much arguing.
You need a history lesson. For a quick one, let's just looks back at the last 200 or so years of just American history.
Was independecne from Britain, with Democracy and a Bill of Rights a good idea? Caused a war.
Was ending slavery and keeping our country united (which had far-reaching foreign policy ramifications) a good idea? Caused the bloodiest war in American history.
How about stopping the Nazis and the Japanese (who were just as bad as the Germans, look up "The **** of Nanking" if you have doubt) from trying to conquer the world during WW2? War.
Civil Rights movements in the 60s and 70s? Race riots, lots of innocent people were injured or killed.
But you think for something to be a "good idea" it must be widely accepted with few to no detractors? Then the internet isn't a good idea. Fantasy novels are not a good idea. Dungeons and Dragons, the very game we all play, is, by that definition, a VERY bad idea.
Indeed, good ideas have a tendency to inspire agreement. And, let's face it, less trolling.
Whole wars have been caused by good ideas.
Democracy is a good idea and every 4 years or so we argue like crazy because of it.
Allignment is a good idea. However there are those who either don't read the alignment rules or simply ignore them or don't fully understand them, but that can be said of any rule.
Some have blamed allignment, or rather the missuse of allignment on a broken system, but that ignores that the real problem was the DM, Players or both. The allignment system doesn't encourage railroading and straightjacketing players, nor should it, and it would occur with the same frequency with or without the allignment system because the problem isn't the rules, it's the people.
I've seen, since this thread came up other threads where people's character was railroaded and straightjackets because their class was stereotyped, because of skills like Diplomacy/Bluff being used to force their actions. Because the Dm bans rules or makes house rules that cripple a class. etc
Problem when you look at all those is not the allignment. It's not a broken ruleset, it's broken people.
+10 to everything you've said here.
Alignment is un-necessary, and therefore any problems caused by it are also un-necessary.
That's an asinine statement, because one could also say that dice are unnecessary, because of problems with "lucky" or unlucky", or "cheater" dice. The DM and players could just sit around and resolve everything with narrative.
How do you make a determination about what happens when, for example...
a +3 Holy Sword of Glowing When a Good Person Wields It is picked up by a character who is straight-up evil, but the player and DM disagree about his... goodness or evilness.
If you were DM and you thought the character was evil, would the sword glow?
Don't include the sword and there is no problem. Just like alignment.
So...because YOU hate alignment, classic fantasy tropes like holy swords sho0uld just be thrown out? That's your solution? He asked an honest question that was not a trap and asked for your non-alignment system solution. You chose to punk out.
:applause: well done. Way to defend your points.
I think part of the problem is that "the power of evil" doing things "for t3h Evulz" is terrible and should be abolished.
- Lloth wants to conquer the surface world and render herself (and by extension, the Drow) ascendant. Why does she care if a paladin falls, except as it concerns the fight for the surface world
- Tiamet cares about putting down metallic dragons, and making hers ascendant.
- Vecna seeks personal power for Vecna alone.
- Orcus is more concerned with smiting his fellow demonlords than doing anything to anyone else half the time. He's likely to help a pure lawful good paladin if it puts down Demogorgon
The point where you realize that Orcus could very easily have his minions take out assassins who are trying to kill a Paladin because the Paladin is seeking to do damage to Demogorgon is when you realize that alignment is so very limited and so very restricting, even in D&D chronology. A Lawful Good paladin is having his life saved by a being of pure evil, because that being of pure evil... wants the Paladin to succeed.
Nice alignment system. Very good at showing where conflicts are going to crop up.
This here illustrates one of the problems with PEOPLE, not with ALIGNMENT. Nothing about your scenario is a problem with alignment. Ironically, the scenario you illustrated above is a great example of why alignment is NOT restrictive and limited. You have chosen the most simple view of alignment, and when you found a conflict, instead of expanding your understanding of alignment, you decided it was limiting.
Here's the big point, you ready?
[u]ALIGNMENT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE BAROMETER OF ACTION NOR AFFILIATION[/u]
What that means is that not everyone who's "Good" is on the same side, neither is everyone who is "Evil". When you have a story where SOME of the forces of Evil are trying to aid you, you create a more complex moral and ethical landscape, because suddenly, the heroes enter thei own moral quandries, as it raises the question of just how right what they are doing is; as well as whether or not to accept the aid of said entities, even if it means helping complete a good end. Just because someone is Lawful Good, for example, doesn't mean that everything they do is Lawful and Good. A LG person could be greedy, or short-tempered, and so on.
Look at Eberron. You have paladins who fought and killed each other during the Last War. You have a NG queen who wants to restart the wear, believing that she alone is qualified to unite the Kingdom of Galifar and usher in a new Golden Age, and a LE king who wants the war to be over because the Throne of Galifar is a lost cause, and his nation is suffering and needs to recover.
Alignment is a gross distortion of a person's OVERALL outlooks and attitudes. It stems FROM personality and action, not the other way around. Yes, alignment can change, but the rules explicitly state that a single action doesn't change them. A constant trend, however, reflects a change in the way a character thinks and feels, even if it starts out being justified, this is called a slippery slope. When someone of Good alignment starts doing shady things and justifying them because of intent, he may gradually find more and more reprehensible things acceptable. A great example is in Season 2 of the show The Walking Dead.
Shane and Rick, from the begining, are both pretty much Lawful Good. In their own way, they are even modern-day paladins. Rick does everything he can to uphold his ideals, and remains LG, even though he sometimes has to make harsh decisions. I would maintain that Rick remains LG. You know why? Because he's TRYING. Even when he loses his temper, or allows himself to be talked into a decision he's uncomfortable with, or has to do something to protect his people, he TRIES to stay true to his old ideals.
Shane, on the other hand, definetely falls. I would even maintain that he is an example of the RARE instance when a single action changes someone's alignment, but ONLY because it was so traumatic to him that it radically altered his outlook.
Show
When Shane shot the guy(I forget his name) and left him to be eaten alive by zombies, so that he could escape, that was definetely an Evil Act, and were he a paladin, would have caused him to fall from grace. But after that, his entire outlook changed. It was as if he felt that act damned him, and he could not ever be as good again, and that was reflected in his actions. He was pretty much Lawful Neutral after that, right up until the last few episodes, when he sets up their prisoner to "escape" and murders him in cold blood, all to set up a scenario where he can kill Rick and take his place, both as leader and with Rick's family. At that point, the shift to Lawful Evil is pretty much complete.
So...because YOU hate alignment, classic fantasy tropes like holy swords sho0uld just be thrown out? That's your solution? He asked an honest question that was not a trap and asked for your non-alignment system solution. You chose to punk out.
:applause: well done. Way to defend your points.
Yes. If alignment is a problem (and it is for many reasons already stated), then alignment-related tropes including holy swords are outta here. I can run a perfectly great game without them.
There really is no good argument for keeping alignment in D&D. I'm surprised people rise to its defense.
@Zaramon: Of course alignment has to do with morality and ethics. It's literally impossible for it to be otherwise. "Good" and "Evil" are subjective morality judgments that the alignment system uses.
The alignment system therefore, by definition, at every point since the good-evil axis was introduced (it used to be law-chaos alone) has made subjective value judgments on morality and ethics. You cannot deny this, it's literally in the name. Good is GOOD. Evil is EVIL. These are subjective moral value judgments.
I pointed out a few pages ago how alignment that is completely separated from morality and is simply an ingrained property like eye color or blood type could make for some interesting situations. Imagine someone who reads as chaotic evil, and so is banned from the ranks of the paladins that every member of their family has served, but who, in striving to prove himself surpasses in deed every paladin who has ever lived? Or someone who reads Lawful Good, but was unjustly punished and became an outcast who had to resort to assassin work to survive. Or one particular paladin, who is lauded for his Lawful Good soul, but who is nearly diabolical in his behavior. That would make an interesting PC for a mature player, but it would be a fantastic villain. Other paladins come to his aid, because of how they value that innate nature, and the PCs must set aside their alignment-based tactics in order to deal with them.
I mentioned eye-color and blood-type, but this makes alignment like race. In fact, it makes it a lot like the skin-color aspect of race, assuming wide availability of alignment detection devices. There would be widespread prejudice about various alignments (as there really already is, out-of-game) but anyone you might meet might be any alignment. Ooh, and alignment based spells would tend to push people toward those of their own "kind," even if they had nothing else in common. Heck, bring back alignment languages, as some sort of innate ability, to further drive wedges between people.
Their alignment would never change outside of specific mechanical effects like spells and items (which might be in high demand, like elective surgery, or like souls in the Buffy-verse) and as good as you might be, if you read as evil, you'll react to anti-evil devices. Paladins would still have to be Lawful Good, but part of that would be prejudice and part of that would be sheer practicality because no one else would be able to go into their restricted areas and use their primary equipment. (Ooh, ooh, but one of their main jobs would be sequestering unbreakable chaotic evil artifacts - some of which are normal looking teddy bears - and so there might be special dispensations for non-lawful-good people who can handle those objects more safely.)
So...because YOU hate alignment, classic fantasy tropes like holy swords sho0uld just be thrown out? That's your solution? He asked an honest question that was not a trap and asked for your non-alignment system solution. You chose to punk out.
:applause: well done. Way to defend your points.
Yes. If alignment is a problem (and it is for many reasons already stated), then alignment-related tropes including holy swords are outta here. I can run a perfectly great game without them.
But as I've pointed out several times in this thread, one can have the trope without alignment. 4e does this with artifacts that gain or lose concordance due to specific deeds, not alignment (though I believe alignment is a factor with some of them). Or, just have a quest item that can only be obtained if one has accomplished certain goals. Suddenly, you have the main bad guy trying to kill an arch-demon, save a town, and consecrate a church, just so he can obtain the MacGuffin long enough to destroy it. Can the PCs do meet the requirements first? (Obviously not, how boring would that be? But you get the idea.)
There really is no good argument for keeping alignment in D&D. I'm surprised people rise to its defense.
Don't be. Alignment is so vague and so broken that people have had to devote a lot of time and effort to figuring out and justifying its use. Tossing alignment means disrespecting all that work they put in.
In the worst cases, people have gone through horrible arguments with their fellow players about what alignment means and how it works, and if they admit that alignment itself was the issue then they had that fight for nothing. That's not something the human brain likes to consider.
Yes. If alignment is a problem (and it is for many reasons already stated), then alignment-related tropes including holy swords are outta here. I can run a perfectly great game without them.
There really is no good argument for keeping alignment in D&D. I'm surprised people rise to its defense.
This.
Why should a paladin have to be or remain lawful good? A paladin is a champion of their chosen god. It stands to reason that as such, the paladin's moral code and behavior should closely mimic the creed of their god.
An example would be, a paladin of Torm would be expected to be LG, but what about a Paladin of Shar? LG probably isn't a good fit there. Or is she not /allowed/ to pick a champion of her faith and grant them paladin powers because she's evil? She certainly isn't going to have some goody two shoes representing her.
I once (briefly, the campaign died) played a lawful good paladin of a chaotic good deity. Don't blame me, the DM built the character. I was working on the space around the question of why the CG deity would want an LG paladin, and why the LG holy order that trained him would be willing to do so...
(Fun thing: he also had severe social anxiety. Which I roleplayed as him being unable to speak when he was aware that two or more people could see him.)
Alignment wouldn't be so bad if there were not mechanics to go along with it.
That's my view, solidly. Actually, I *like* alignment, and frequently use it. Alignment mechanics, though, are useless at best and usually manage to be something other than at best.
But interestingly, your actions can alter your alignment (that isn't a picky DM thing, that is a default rules thing)
The fact that your actions can change your alignment is not the "picky DM thing." And no one is disputing that your alignment can be changed by the DM.
The fact the the only recourse for this happening is the whim of the DM's subjective, and therefore biased and imperfect, judgement filtered though their own interpretation of a vague and incomplete guideline? And that since each DM is a unique, sentient being, the alignment rules will be applied differently at every game table. Often with little variance, but just as often with a lot of variance, but never consistently. That's the "picky DM part". Though to be fair, that true not only of players and DMs, but the writers and designers as well.
Except that, what a lot of people fail to notice, is that there actually IS a guideline (in 3rd edition, anyway) for how to "do it right", and most examples cited by alignment detractors of bad situations of a DM changing a PC's alignment did NOT follow that, and were therefore a deviation of RAW. The guideline, btw, is on page 134 of the 3.5e DMG.
You have called the guideline "vague". Alignment, and DM judgement calls of alignment and such scenarios are so varied and widespread, that I could fill an entire book the size of the DMG with just examples and scenarios, and how to judge them fairly, because each scenario would have caveats left, right, and centre. There are so many variables to consider, especially when the behavior of the actualy PLAYER is a part of the problem. The rules have to be general in order to cover the wide range that is the subject matter.
However, the guidelines are pretty specific as far as several points. Like alignment change being gradual, which is a big one I see violated by DMs in alignment horror stories. Your claim of how different the alignment interpretations get with each DM only goes so far, because a great deal of them vary so much that they actually DEVIATE from those guidelines, at which point, it is no longer a fair indictment of the alignment rules, as a fair indictment of alignment rules can only be made when the rules are being used RAW.
The point is, that as they are, alignments are completely divorced from any kind of moral and ethical philosophy
Except that they're not. Which is a big part of the problem Perhaps that was true in the original source material and the earliest editions of the game, as you so meticulously pointed out, but that's certainly not the case now. Alignments are currently linked inseparably from morality and ethics, and have been for at least the duration of 3rd edition (when I started playing the game), and most likely sooner.
Your alignment, under the 3x3 grid model, is supposed to be a reflection of your morality and ethics. And your alignment only changes when your morality and ethics change. The ambient elemental cosmic powers of the universe have absolutely nothing to do with a PC's current or changing alignment.
Agreed.
People get into arguments about morality and alignment in D&D because they can't separate their personal real-world perspective from their character, and they take it as a personal attack on their views when someone else tries to tell them something about alignment.
There is truth to this. But its not that simple.
It is very hard for many, and I would assume most, people to completely let go of their own values and experience and accept hypothetical ones. Especially one that is so similar, yet completely alien, ethical value system that is at the same time intimately part of completely foreign set of physical laws which have no real world equivalent. All of us filter our interpretations of the world though our current selves, which includes are experiences and values. And it is nigh impossible for our real world morality and ethical standards to not creep into our fictional works, or color our experience of said works.
However, as I said above, alignments as they are popularly used and refereed to today, are not completely divorced from real world ethics and morality. The guidelines are too brief, sparse, incomplete, and self-conflicting to provide the objective standard necessary to ensure that alignment mechanics are handled uniformly and constantly. People have no choice but to fill in the blanks themselves with their own interpretations, experiences, and judgements. And unfortunately(?), everyone brings their own crayons to fill the blanks with, and no one has the same box of colors. So clashes about real world ethics and morality are bound to happen.
Again, agreed, but I also have something to add to build on that point.
Part of the problem with people divorcing their own ideas is the concept of objective morality and ethics. Someone earlier quoted the 3e PHB "Good and Evil in the D&D world are not differing philisophical concepts, they are the forces that shape the cosmos". In the real world, morality and ethics are subjective. This is simply a fact that can be objectively supported by evidence.
But in D&D, Good and Evil are objective forces which (to be clear, I am only discussing pre-4e) can be objectively measured and quantified. This is possible because it's FANTASY. And some people simply cannot grasp that, or, worse yet, they deny that it's the case (which would have to be a houserule, because the RAW expressly state that it is the case). I, personally, don't see why people can't accept objective morality in D&D, when they can accept magic, dragons, psionics, etc. It's just another element of fantasy, a world where pure and absolute evil CAN, in fact, exist.
Important to note, though, that with "normal" humanoids (such as PHB races), evil might be like a point of view TO THAT INDIVIDUAL, but the fact remains that their actions have objective weight on the good/evil scale, even if they believe themself to be justified in what they do.
The point is, that as they are, alignments are completely divorced from any kind of moral and ethical philosophy
Except that they're not. Which is a big part of the problem Perhaps that was true in the original source material and the earliest editions of the game, as you so meticulously pointed out, but that's certainly not the case now. Alignments are currently linked inseparably from morality and ethics, and have been for at least the duration of 3rd edition (when I started playing the game), and most likely sooner.
Your alignment, under the 3x3 grid model, is supposed to be a reflection of your morality and ethics. And your alignment only changes when your morality and ethics change. The ambient elemental cosmic powers of the universe have absolutely nothing to do with a PC's current or changing alignment.
If alignments were inseparably linked to morality, there would not be mutually contradictive argumentative statements about the alignments at the end of each one's description. If they were linked to morality, then there would either be no value judgments given in the books, or there would be value judgments that did not place all of them as, "the best alignment you can be." The only difference in those statements are the evil alignments, but even then those are all three, "the worst alignment you can be."
Alignment isn't a reflection of a character's morality and ethics (which was a poor choice of Wizards, using those words. Attaching one to one axis and the other to the other just created a whole whack of confusion.) any more than fire is a reflection of a person's temperment. But then again, we do see characters linked with fire, and they are characterized as being of a tempermental nature. Alignment is always reflective of a person's metaphysical place in the universe, with behaviors simply being a manifestation of that connection. In that way, yes, they are linked, but like it says in the PHB, good people do bad things sometimes, that doesn't mean they aren't good-aligned. The way behavior changes alignment is it increases the presence of that particular force in the world. Going back to my Star Wars example, that is why killing someone is always a dark side act, period, because it creates somethign borne of the dark, death, and this act increases the dark in them. There is no inherent moral quality to this, whether right or wrong. It isn't and different for good and evil in D&D. People get too caught up in moral philosophies when they think about alignments, to the point that they forget "alignment good" is the good energy type, not a moral quality. Think new-agey type energy, if that helps.
You're off here, because you have the opposite problem from many of the alignment detractors. You fail to see that it is both what you are talking about, with the "good energy" type, and also a morality issue. The forces of Good and Evil are cosmic forces in D&D, forces with real effect, forces which sometimes have physical form (outsiders with the chaos and evil subtypes are literally physically comprised of chaos and evil, for example). But this "energy", if you will (quotations used because it's not an actual energy inside mortal races) is reflected in the moral and ethical character of all things. To a detect evil spell, the non-spellcasting evil assassin or torturer radiated the exact same kind of evil as a demon. The demon's aura being stronger, of course, but it's the SAME KIND of evil, nonetheless. It's fantasy, and that's why such is possible. Good can be detected just as easily as evil, and the good in a paladin is the same as the good in a celestial. The moral and ethical framework is the same. The fact that there are physical energies out there with an effect does not diminish or alter the moral and ethical fabric of the same name.
The alignment descriptions are so small because they allow for an incredibly broad range of behavior that can fall within that alignment.
Good: Implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Evil: "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Law: "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
I have never really understood all the contention alignments have created with cut-and-dry descriptions like that.
The contention arises from some people's inability to accept any leeway inthose definitions, or understand how generalized of a description an alignment really is. Some people cannot fathom a chaotic character who obeys laws. There have been vitriolic discussions about how barbarians should be allowed to be lawful because RL-tribal "barbarian" societies often had tribal laws that everyone followed. Others use Conan as an example and say crap like "He's a king, how can he be chaotic?" and think that that supports their argument. It doesn't.
Chaotic people are not driven to arbitraily violate laws just because they're chaotic. Lawful people don't necessarily follow all laws. A revolutionary trying to overthrow the current tyrannical government might be lawful. And some people just cannot understand that.
As I said before, I can have a character who believes in complete personal freedom, and yet follows an extremely strong personal moral code (which is why that character believes in complete personal freedom - their moral code only gets impeded by outside laws, which they see as heavy-handed and onorous attempts to regulate morality).
Is this character lawful or chaotic? Your alignment system can't tell.
Examples such as this are flawed from the beginning. Your example is flawed because I don't know everything about this character. I can make a judgement call and tell you what alignment I think he is, and you can bring up some heretofore-unmentioned facet of his personality that is VERY important that I didn't know about and claim that the alignment system fails, or that your character is obviously "too complex to have an alignment" which is bullhonkey.
I have seen examples liek this all the time. Someone says "here's something about this character, what alignment is he?". And you get 4 different answers from 6 different people, and, inevitably, the OP comes back with some MORE information about said character that he didn't mention before that sheds some more light into aspects of said character.
Alignment is a gross oversimplification of a character's overall outlook and attitudes. We know NOTHING about this guy's personality. What he would do (or has done) in certain situations, and so on. In short, your little challenge...is a trap. You are trying to get someone to put an alignment tag on this guy, and you will then respond and contest that, and claim that alignment doesn't work.
Nevermind someone like Arthus, who slaughtered an entire village to prevent the spread of a plague that would have wiped out a continent.
Did you read Arthas? He was never really Lawful Good. He became a paladin because he wanted to be an action hero, and wanted excitement, and was a spolied, petulant child who didn't get what he wanted, and thought he had the right to treat people however he liked. The little brat who tried to pull rank on the paladin training him never grew out of that. He was a pompous, arrogant child all his life, which quickly developed into him becomiong a sociopath.
The Purge of Stratholme was just another reflection of his belief in his own self-righteousness. And everythign that happened in Northrend was because Mal'Ganis had the gall to insult his ego.
Alignment is simplistic and childish, "babies first roleplay" style, and it needs to get booted in favor of a more varied and complex system that we will call "motivations," "goals," "personal moral code," and "desires."
Only to you, because YOU have a simplistic and childishe view of alignment. Your understanding of alignment did not grow and mature when you did, because you put no effort into understanding it more. Ergo, you see it as childish.
So...because YOU hate alignment, classic fantasy tropes like holy swords sho0uld just be thrown out? That's your solution? He asked an honest question that was not a trap and asked for your non-alignment system solution. You chose to punk out.
:applause: well done. Way to defend your points.
Yes. If alignment is a problem (and it is for many reasons already stated), then alignment-related tropes including holy swords are outta here. I can run a perfectly great game without them.
So not only do you admit to being so arrogant that your opions hold some kind of objective weight in truth, but you also cop to being so blindly arrogant that just because you can run a game without said tropes that alignment rules should be removed from the game for everyone?
That's what you just said.
There really is no good argument for keeping alignment in D&D. I'm surprised people rise to its defense.
How do you feel if the table were turned? What if I said:
Alignment is an integral and necedssary part of the game, and the only people who hate it and want it removed are people who are too stupid to understand how to use it effectively. I'm frankly surprised that anyone actually admits to wanting it gone.
Now, I don't actually feel that way, but it illustrates my point. You spew blind, vitriolic hate about alignment, and make blanket, unporvable statements like "there's no good argument for keeping alignment". You cannot objectively prove that. You don't like alignment. Fine, we get that. But where YOU need to draw the line is to understand that your opinions are simply that, YOUR OPINIONS. Your opinions are not some universal and objective truth.
If you don't like alignment, don't use it. I'm not here to try and tell you that you should. What I am here for is when people make grossly untrue statements about what alignment is or is not, and how it works, I step in to point out what RAW really says about alignment.
The only thing it would be impossible to do if alignment were taken out of the game completely would be to attempt to control player behavior via alignment.
I'm pro-alignment and I think that's a bad point. I don't think that "controlling player behavior" is a goal of alignment at all. Alignment is a tool for both players and DMs, it's not the reins that the DM holds his players by.
If a DM has a problem with a disruptive player who does things and justifies it with "I'm just playing my alignment!", I guarantee that same person will also be disruptive and a dick in a game without alignment. The player is the problem. Railroad DMs who use alignment as a hammer or as a means of control over their players, will find a way to railroad or control people without alignment. Those DMs are the problem.
Just because people like that use alignment as a means to their ends doesn't mean alignment itself is the problem. If I kill a dozen people in a drive-by shooting, is my car the cause? No, of course not.
That's what you just said.
It's what you heard, certainly. Because you wanted to.
But where YOU need to draw the line is to understand that your opinions are simply that, YOUR OPINIONS. Your opinions are not some universal and objective truth.
First time visiting the internet? Of course it's my opinion.
@Zaramon: Of course alignment has to do with morality and ethics. It's literally impossible for it to be otherwise. "Good" and "Evil" are subjective morality judgments that the alignment system uses.
You're half-right. That is certainly one way that people use those words, both in the real world and in multiple fantasy settings. However, in the mechanics, "alignment good," is simply a term that is used to denote the life-promoting creative energies of the cosmos. "Alignment evil" is a term used to denote the life destroying and entropic energies of the cosmos. Note that there are subjective morality judgments made in and out of setting about the alignments. A chaotic character in the setting can place higher moral value on personal freedom, vs. acts of altruism. I will say it again. Alignment good and alignment evil are not philosophical concepts, but energy forces that define the cosmos.
The alignment system therefore, by definition, at every point since the good-evil axis was introduced (it used to be law-chaos alone) has made subjective value judgments on morality and ethics. You cannot deny this, it's literally in the name. Good is GOOD. Evil is EVIL. These are subjective moral value judgments.
I am aware that they used to be just law and chaos, it comes from Moorcock's Multiverse setting. However, Law back in 1e was a lot like what we know today as lawful good, it just didn't call it good. Chaos wasn't just chaos, but it was a lot like what we know today as chaotic evil. This again comes from Moorcock's Multiverse, where Melnibone discovered how "to marry the power of chaos to the power of evil." People think the game designers are making subjective moral value judgments when they see terms like good and evil because they aren't paying attention to the source material, and the context in which those words are used in the alignment descriptions.
Good does not always mean moral good, and evil does not always mean moral evil. That is why people have developed qualifiers, like "good for you," when talking about something that is healthy. Now, there is no moral value judgment placed on the quality of one's health there. It is just an observation about whether or not something is beneficial to one's body. Alignment in D&D is much the same.
As I said before, I can have a character who believes in complete personal freedom, and yet follows an extremely strong personal moral code (which is why that character believes in complete personal freedom - their moral code only gets impeded by outside laws, which they see as heavy-handed and onorous attempts to regulate morality).
Is this character lawful or chaotic? Your alignment system can't tell.
You just perfectly described a chaotic neutral character, practically straight from the book. Chaotic characters place personal freedom at the top of the "moral hierarchy." It even says in the alignment, "Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal." Furthermore, a character thinks and behaves that way because the power of chaos is strong in them.
Nevermind someone like Arthus, who slaughtered an entire village to prevent the spread of a plague that would have wiped out a continent.
Aside from the fact that that could be attributed to a psychotic breakdown, that was simply the story of Arthus' fall. The events of WC3 were pretty much a greek tragedy, meant to provoke and emotional response to the end that one would experience catharsis. I suppose one could argue that he was operating from a utilitarian perspective, but let's examine what Arthus does using the alignment system, without making any moral judgments.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Arthus didn't really show much respect for life, or concern for anyone's dignity when he purged stratholme. He was also pretty blatantly self-focused throughout most of the events of the human campaign, which Uther scolds him for. It was pretty convenient to kill those people, and didn't seem to care much about the people he was killing. He didn't show much compunction agianst killing people who weren't really involved in the conflict one way or the other. So far on the good-evil axis, this looks like an evil act. Again, good and evil in this case meaning the elemental forces of good and evil, not using these words in a moral sense.
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Arthas had a pretty strong disrespect for Uther in that scene before strathholme, and he didn't display much, if any behavior that was lawful. There is enough evidence to say that his act at stratholme is aligned with the powers of evil and chaos. What does that mean for morality? Absolutely nothing. There are a truckload of moral codes out there thatwould either praise or condemn what Arthas did at stratholme, but that doesn't change the fact that his act, rather than being one of stasis and creation, was one of change and entropy. Again, they are elemental powers, just like fire or water.
Alignment is simplistic and childish, "babies first roleplay" style, and it needs to get booted in favor of a more varied and complex system that we will call "motivations," "goals," "personal moral code," and "desires."
Alignment has nothing to do with any of that. Nothing. All of that, every bit of it, is the player's responsibility to decide upon and create. Anyone who has been using alignment to create a classic good guys vs. bad guys situation has not been using it properly. It's not the fault of the system that people don't read what alignment is and just see the words "good and evil" and don't bother to examine the context in which they are used.
You're off here, because you have the opposite problem from many of the alignment detractors. You fail to see that it is both what you are talking about, with the "good energy" type, and also a morality issue. The forces of Good and Evil are cosmic forces in D&D, forces with real effect, forces which sometimes have physical form (outsiders with the chaos and evil subtypes are literally physically comprised of chaos and evil, for example). But this "energy", if you will (quotations used because it's not an actual energy inside mortal races) is reflected in the moral and ethical character of all things. To a detect evil spell, the non-spellcasting evil assassin or torturer radiated the exact same kind of evil as a demon. The demon's aura being stronger, of course, but it's the SAME KIND of evil, nonetheless. It's fantasy, and that's why such is possible. Good can be detected just as easily as evil, and the good in a paladin is the same as the good in a celestial. The moral and ethical framework is the same. The fact that there are physical energies out there with an effect does not diminish or alter the moral and ethical fabric of the same name.
No, I'm not off, because its not both. D&D, concerning moral judgments, makes the same kind of subjective judgments about things that people make all the time in the real world. Chaotic characters see chaotic behavior as morally good. Lawful characters see lawful behavior as morally good. Now, if you want to take about the nature of subjective vs. objective morality, we should keep it to pm, but I will say this here. If there is such a thing as morality, if it does exist, then it has an objective nature. If it is just a purely mental construct, just some made up thing, then there is no such thing as morality and all moral codes everywhere are likewise pretend. This is the same argument I see people use in star wars forums about the light and dark sides of The Force. "Since its fantasy, we can do things like objective good and evil." No. In fact, I am going to go as far as to say that Star Wars, every bit of it, is 100% real.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esf59wk1yFQ
Now, note what Stover says about fantasy in general.
www.sfsite.com/04a/mws101.htm. Quoted for your convenience.
"Your Caine books aren't easily classified; there is fantasy, science fiction, even touches of horror and 'conspiracy theory'. Though a good third of it is set on a future Earth, Heroes Die is subtitled "A Fantasy Novel". How do you describe your work? Would you consider yourself a "fantasy writer"?
I tell people I'm a fantasy writer -- but then, every novelist is a fantasy writer. All fiction is a subset of fantasy.
Think about it this way: what we now consider "fantasy" is the original whole from which all literature is distilled, starting with the Epic of Gilgamesh, running through the Iliad, and Odyssey, the Bible, Beowulf, the Bhagavad-Ghita -- the list is infinite. Examples are found in every culture. Every other genre (I should say: every sub-genre) is defined by eliminating fantastic elements[emphasis mine]: by carving away the gods, fate, magic, whatever. "Fantasy" is what we call a novel that partakes of the whole of the human literary heritage.
So, yeah. I'm a fantasy writer. It was good enough for Homer, and it's good enough for me."
Note what Stover says about the Force, the dark side, and Anakin's behavior. I figured it would be appropriate to bring up Anakin since we are on the subject of Arthas and the two are remarkably similar. This is why Star Wars is real. This is why the story of Elric is real. All of those fantastical ideas are just metaphors for real-world ideas. If you want some really interesting reading on this stuff, I highly recommend checking out Carl Jung's ideas about archetypes, and Joseph Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces.
The fact is, you have conceptual ideas of entropy, change, stasis, and creation, in the form of the alignments. Now, just like in the real world, people make their own moral decisions, about what those forces mean. "X is the best alignment you can be for Y reason." The fact is, you have to look at those ideas, and what those metaphors mean, what those symbols are pointing to, because I promise you, D&D is not the first to do this, this exact kind of thing has been going on for thousands of years, and moral judgemnts didn't really start to get popular until 600 B. C., so people were looking at the concepts of good and evil in something other than a moral sense for a long time, even in the real world.
You misunderstand, and I will cop to that being my fault. I'm not using the primary definition of expect. I meant that I wasn't making a de facto statement that I am entitled to people reading my posts.
Fair 'nuff.
Maybe its just because I am unconcerned with anything but obvious gross behavior contrary to a character's alignment, but those guidelines have always been more than enough for me, and in over twelve years I have never had a single player that had a problem with how I handled alignment, or if they did, they did a really good job of hiding it, and I ran things straight from the books, including alignment restrictions.
The fact that you are only concerned with "gross behavior contrary to a character's alignment" only supports my point. By your own admission, you didn't apply the alignment rules as written, because they do not specify the degree or quantity of contrary behavior necessary to affect alignment. You used your own interpretations those vague guidelines and your own judgements to fill in the blanks and figure out your own way to make alignment rules work for your group.
And while it great that you were successful, a significant amount of the player base has not been so fortunate with getting alignment rules to play well.
If alignments were inseparably linked to morality, there would not be mutually contradictive argumentative statements about the alignments at the end of each one's description.
Or, the alignment descriptions could simply be poorly written. The intention is that alignment are linked to morality. And the rules of the alignment system support this notion. It just doesn't work very well.
If they were linked to morality, then there would either be no value judgments given in the books, or there would be value judgments that did not place all of them as, "the best alignment you can be." The only difference in those statements are the evil alignments, but even then those are all three, "the worst alignment you can be."
Most game designers are human. As I said before, " it is nigh impossible for our real world morality and ethical standards to not creep into our fictional works, or color our experience of said works". More so if you don't have complete control on the creative direction of the work. Most people value good morals, ethics, and actions over evil ones, or at least will not openly admit to preferring the opposite. And those biases are going to seep into the game.
Additionally, D&D is both advertised and most commonly played as a game of heroic fantasy. Partly because that's what the audience wants, and partly to help distance itself from the still smoldering bad press of the stupid ages. In general, people prefer emulating heroic heroes and seeing bad guys get their comeuppance.
So it should be no surprised that the books are biased towards promoting good alignments and denouncing evil ones.
In that way, yes, they are linked, but like it says in the PHB, good people do bad things sometimes, that doesn't mean they aren't good-aligned. The way behavior changes alignment is it increases the presence of that particular force in the world. Going back to my Star Wars example...
Which doesn't tell us how to adjudicate alignment mechanics.
Think new-agey type energy, if that helps.
I already understood that. And that's interesting fluff. But it's completely irrelevant because it doesn't tell us how to adjudicate alignment mechanics.
The alignment descriptions are so small because they allow for an incredibly broad range of behavior that can fall within that alignment.
Which doesn't tell us how to adjudicate alignment mechanics.
I have never really understood all the contention alignments have created with cut-and-dry descriptions like that.
The contentions happen when you get into the non-cut-and-dry grey areas.
For an extremely simplified example, is a well intentioned extremist good, evil, or neither? And what at what point(s) would he cross the line? At what points is "the greater good" no longer a good enough excuse? And what if the government he opposes is the legitimate authority, but he's fighting out of loyalty to the authority that it replaced. Is the well intentioned extremist lawful, chaotic, or neither?
I guess the thread is getting a bit derailed.
Actually, I was referring to the fact that refusing to into an ethical discussion in an alignment thread is an oxymoron. That's basically what alignment threads are about. And if they're not, it's what they will be about by page 3. Everytime. Like clockwork.
The fact that you are only concerned with "gross behavior contrary to a character's alignment" only supports my point. By your own admission, you didn't apply the alignment rules as written, because they do not specify the degree or quantity of contrary behavior necessary to affect alignment. You used your own interpretations those vague guidelines and your own judgements to fill in the blanks and figure out your own way to make alignment rules work for your group.
And while it great that you were successful, a significant amount of the player base has not been so fortunate with getting alignment rules to play well.
If the alignment rules don't invariably cause arguments, and do bring about success sometimes, then maybe it isn't the alignment rules that are the problem, but rather how the majority of the community uses them. Or rather misuses them.
Or, the alignment descriptions could simply be poorly written. The intention is that alignment are linked to morality. And the rules of the alignment system support this notion. It just doesn't work very well.
Actually, I have evidence that that isn't the case, at least in 3e. I have heard that 4e was actually different, and I can see that given that alignment restrictions aren't as prominent in 4e.
From page 103 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook, "Good and Evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." Before that statement, they give examples of those elemental forces in action. Again, in Moorcock's Multiverse, the major competing powers are Law and Chaos, and they have many of the same effects we see in D&D, and there are many characters that use the powes of Chaos that most people today would, if not consider good, would likely not consider them evil. See, those statements at the end of each alignment is an example of someone making a moral judgment about said alignment. This is how it is possible to have two good characters at each others' throats.
Most game designers are human. As I said before, " it is nigh impossible for our real world morality and ethical standards to not creep into our fictional works, or color our experience of said works". More so if you don't have complete control on the creative direction of the work. Most people value good morals, ethics, and actions over evil ones, or at least will not openly admit to preferring the opposite. And those biases are going to seep into the game.
Additionally, D&D is both advertised and most commonly played as a game of heroic fantasy. Partly because that's what the audience wants, and partly to help distance itself from the still smoldering bad press of the stupid ages. In general, people prefer emulating heroic heroes and seeing bad guys get their comeuppance.
So it should be no surprised that the books are biased towards promoting good alignments and denouncing evil ones.
See, I don't see as much concrete evidence for that position as I do my own. The original D&D concept for alignment comes from Moorcock's Multiverse, we see it repeated in D&D, and later in Star Wars. But even then, we get to see, if not outright, then at least hints of moral judgments about those alignments. It would be pretty hard to argue with someone if they said Luke Skywalker was a morally good individual, but try telling that to the people he starts bi-secting in Return of the Jedi. While we don't get to hear them tell their sides of the story, the actions they take show that they place some kind of value on their own life, to a greater degree than what Luke does. Their actions demonstrate value judgments, but Luke still is linked, connected, to the force of life and creation, the Light side of The Living Force. Like I said in my previous post, these are ideas that stretch back much further than D&D.
Which doesn't tell us how to adjudicate alignment mechanics.
I already understood that. And that's interesting fluff. But it's completely irrelevant because it doesn't tell us how to adjudicate alignment mechanics.
Which doesn't tell us how to adjudicate alignment mechanics.
If that was all you wanted to know, you could have just asked.
From page 135 of the Dungeon Master's Guide.To summarize, if a player is consistently exhibiting behavior that is contrary to their alignment, and this continues for at least a week of in-game time, an alignment change is in order. Now, the baseline is a week of in-game time, but there is room for flexiblity and modulation (just like everything else in D&D pretty much) and you could have a DM thatw as more lenient than the standard rules and wait longer. they even provide exceptions. I said I was only concerned with gross behavior contrary to alignment because no one ever made moderate but consistent actions against their alignments when I DMed.
CHANGING ALIGNMENT
A character can have a change of heart that leads to the adoption
of a different alignment. Alignments aren’t commitments, except
in specific cases (such as for paladins and clerics). Player characters
have free will, and their actions often dictate a change of
alignment. Here are two examples of how a change of alignment
can be handled.
• A player creates a new character, a rogue named Garrett. The
player decides he wants Garrett to be neutral good and writes
that on Garrett’s character sheet. By the second playing session
of Garrett’s career, however, it’s clear that the player isn’t playing
Garrett as a good-aligned character at all. Garrett likes to steal
minor valuables from others (although not his friends) and does
not care about helping people or stopping evil. Garrett is a
neutral character, and the player made a mistake when declaring
Garrett’s alignment because he hadn’t yet really decided how he
wanted to play him. The DM tells the player to erase “good” on
Garrett’s character sheet, making his alignment simply “neutral.”
No big deal.
• An NPC traveling with the PCs is chaotic evil and is pretending
to be otherwise because he was sent to spy on them and foil
their plans. He has been evil all his life, and he has lived among
others who acted as he did. As he fights alongside the goodaligned
PC adventurers, however, he sees how they work
together and help each other. He begins to envy them their
camaraderie. Finally, he watches as the paladin PC gives his life
to save not only his friends, but an entire town that was poised
on the brink of destruction at the hands of an evil sorcerer.
Everyone is deeply moved, including the evil NPC, and the
town celebrates and honors the paladin’s self-sacrifice. The
townfolk hail the adventurers as heroes. The NPC is so moved
that he repents, casting aside his own evil ways (and his
mission). He becomes chaotic neutral, but he is well on his way
to becoming chaotic good, particularly if he remains in the
company of the PCs. If the PCs had not acted so gallantly, he
might not have changed his ways. If they turn on the NPC
when they learn of his past, he may turn back to evil.
Most characters incur no game penalty for changing alignment,
but you should keep a few points in mind.
You’re in Control: You control alignment changes, not the
players. If a player says, “My neutral good character becomes
chaotic good,” the appropriate response from you is “Prove it.”
Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players.
Alignment Change Is Gradual: Changes in alignment should
not be drastic. Usually, a character changes alignment only one
step at a time—from lawful evil to lawful neutral, for example,
and not directly to neutral good. A character on her way to adopting
another alignment might have other alignments during the
transition to the final alignment.
Time Requirements: Changing alignment usually takes time.
Changes of heart are rarely sudden (although they can be). What
you want to avoid is a player changing her character’s alignment to
evil to use an evil artifact properly and then changing it right back
when she’s done. Alignments aren’t garments you can take off and
put on casually. Require an interval of at least a week of game time
between alignment changes.
Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality: Wishy-washy characters
should just be neutral. If a character changes alignment over
and over again during a campaign, what’s really happened is that
the character hasn’t made a choice, and thus she is neutral.
Exceptions: There are exceptions to all of the above. For instance,
it’s possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral
evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately
becomes neutral good.
I have never really understood all the contention alignments have created with cut-and-dry descriptions like that.
The contentions happen when you get into the non-cut-and-dry grey areas.
For an extremely simplified example, is a well intentioned extremist good, evil, or neither? And what at what point(s) would he cross the line? At what points is "the greater good" no longer a good enough excuse? And what if the government he opposes is the legitimate authority, but he's fighting out of loyalty to the authority that it replaced. Is the well intentioned extremist lawful, chaotic, or neither?
I'm probably going to catch flak for this and I welcome disagreement, but there is no such thing as a gray area. I don't believe in moral dilemmas, because morality either doesn't exist, or it has objective qualities that render subjective judgments impotent. If something actually exists, then it has objective qualities. A basic example of this is fire. Fire burns things.
That is an objective fact. Someone could have a nerve-dead hand and stick it into the fire and not feel pain, but that doesn't mean they aren't getting burned. Now, no matter how much someone believes this is possible, they cannot make a subjective judgment about fire and say, "In my opinion, fire doesn't burn," and stick their hand in, and come out unscathed. If there is such a real thing as morality, then it has objective qualities. If morality is a made up thing, then, well, it's a made up thing. I will get back to you when we figure out how to measure and quantify morality.
As for the well-intentioned extremist, I make the personal moral judgment that they are generally monsters. In fact, I think well-intentioned extremists are pretty much the worst people on the planet. Now, if I want to look at a well intentioned extremist and see whether or not they identify with creation or entropy more closely, or stasis or change more closely, that generally depends on the extremist. Most popular examples of well-intentioned extremists fall either into the neutral or evil (read: entropic/change) categories. Remember, alignment in D&D doesn't bother with intentions, at least not nearly as much as action.
The extremist you describe, the one fighting for the displaced or defeated government, is definitely lawful. You can easily have two lawful characters at each others' throats. That isn't a case of contrary alignment, but a case of opposed countries. Generally, most regulated militaries would be aligned with the power of law/stasis, according to the description given in the PHB. As for the greater good, that is a value judgment. Good/creation in D&D is very simple, personal risk to help others, respect for life and sentient dignity. Concerning real world moral philosophy, that all counts under utilitarianism, altruism, and nicomachean virtue. Regardless of where one places value judgments, both can easily be good aligned, and 100% opposed to each other.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />From page 103 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook, "Good and Evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." Before that statement, they give examples of those elemental forces in action. Again, in Moorcock's Multiverse, the major competing powers are Law and Chaos,
This does nothing to make the very concept not-stupid. You can't quantify the unquantifiable, you can't make an abstract, subjective concept like 'good' and 'evil' concrete and objective. It's a fool's errand to even try.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />From page 103 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook, "Good and Evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." Before that statement, they give examples of those elemental forces in action. Again, in Moorcock's Multiverse, the major competing powers are Law and Chaos,
This does nothing to make the very concept not-stupid. You can't quantify the unquantifiable, you can't make an abstract, subjective concept like 'good' and 'evil' concrete and objective. It's a fool's errand to even try.
What are you talking about? Entropy and creation aren't subjective at all. Oh wait, you're still attaching moral significance to alignment, aren't you? Really, just think of them as different energy types, because that is exactly what they are. Energy types. Any value judgments you make about those energy types are your's to make.
Concerning quantifying morality, I basically say the exact same thing you just did in my previous post when I said to Fire, "I will get back to you when we can measure and quantify morality."
The only thing it would be impossible to do if alignment were taken out of the game completely would be to attempt to control player behavior via alignment.
I'm pro-alignment and I think that's a bad point. I don't think that "controlling player behavior" is a goal of alignment at all. Alignment is a tool for both players and DMs, it's not the reins that the DM holds his players by.
But it so often is. Every one who has ever played under alignment as had someone look askance at a choice they made and say "Wait, what's your alignment?" Then the player has to justify their choice to that person, or back of the idea, or be threatened with alignment change.
There are other ways for players and DMs to accomplish anything alignment does for them now, without anyone being able to say, effectively, "No, you're playing that character wrong."
If a DM has a problem with a disruptive player who does things and justifies it with "I'm just playing my alignment!", I guarantee that same person will also be disruptive and a dick in a game without alignment. The player is the problem. Railroad DMs who use alignment as a hammer or as a means of control over their players, will find a way to railroad or control people without alignment. Those DMs are the problem.
Just because people like that use alignment as a means to their ends doesn't mean alignment itself is the problem. If I kill a dozen people in a drive-by shooting, is my car the cause? No, of course not.
They're not necessarily being jerks. In trying to follow and enforce the rules, they run into these problems. The fights ensue because the rules are so vague that what it comes down to is personal preference, and when people believe their preferences are being questioned they push back.
A reasonable person can conclude that alignment means you can tell other people how to play their characters. Telling other people how to play their characters is jerk behavior, but the rules appear to allow and encourage that. If the rules for alignment simple said "Don't tell people how to play their character," we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The only thing it would be impossible to do if alignment were taken out of the game completely would be to attempt to control player behavior via alignment.
I'm pro-alignment and I think that's a bad point. I don't think that "controlling player behavior" is a goal of alignment at all. Alignment is a tool for both players and DMs, it's not the reins that the DM holds his players by.
But it so often is. Every one who has ever played under alignment as had someone look askance at a choice they made and say "Wait, what's your alignment?" Then the player has to justify their choice to that person, or back of the idea, or be threatened with alignment change.
There are other ways for players and DMs to accomplish anything alignment does for them now, without anyone being able to say, effectively, "No, you're playing that character wrong."If a DM has a problem with a disruptive player who does things and justifies it with "I'm just playing my alignment!", I guarantee that same person will also be disruptive and a dick in a game without alignment. The player is the problem. Railroad DMs who use alignment as a hammer or as a means of control over their players, will find a way to railroad or control people without alignment. Those DMs are the problem.
Just because people like that use alignment as a means to their ends doesn't mean alignment itself is the problem. If I kill a dozen people in a drive-by shooting, is my car the cause? No, of course not.
They're not necessarily being jerks. In trying to follow and enforce the rules, they run into these problems. The fights ensue because the rules are so vague that what it comes down to is personal preference, and when people believe their preferences are being questioned they push back.
A reasonable person can conclude that alignment means you can tell other people how to play their characters. Telling other people how to play their characters is jerk behavior, but the rules appear to allow and encourage that. If the rules for alignment simple said "Don't tell people how to play their character," we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The descriptions for what constitutes an alignment aren't vague, nor are the rules that deal with changing alignments. I am utterly convinced that people either forget them or just don't read them.
I should also mention that I have played with quite a few DMs, and have never had my alignment questioned even once, and they were definitely running alignment.
Your argument reminds of people who drink and drive then say 'I've never had an accident while driving drunk, so all those commercials must be wrong'.
How? I'm not saying "I've never had a problem with alignment, so all alignment problems must be wrong"
What I'm saying is: In EVERY specific case of alignment problems I have ever seen or heard of (yes, even all the ones on the forums), there is a clear case of deviation from RAW regarding alignment or its rules and mechanics. Thus, the citing those examples is an invalid indictment of alignment as a "bad mechanic", because actual alignment rules were not used properly. One cannot make a valid value judgement of a mechanic when the only criticisms of said mechanic were actually criticisms of a houserule of that mechanic.
That's what you just said.
It's what you heard, certainly. Because you wanted to.But where YOU need to draw the line is to understand that your opinions are simply that, YOUR OPINIONS. Your opinions are not some universal and objective truth.
First time visiting the internet? Of course it's my opinion.
You have been trying to make a point about alignment. Your statements have been baseless, blanket statements, delivered as if they were fact.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />From page 103 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook, "Good and Evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." Before that statement, they give examples of those elemental forces in action. Again, in Moorcock's Multiverse, the major competing powers are Law and Chaos,
This does nothing to make the very concept not-stupid. You can't quantify the unquantifiable, you can't make an abstract, subjective concept like 'good' and 'evil' concrete and objective. It's a fool's errand to even try.
What? If we're talking about any pre-4e edition of D&D, Good and Evil are absolutely quantifiable. The 3e Detect Evil spell even had specific degrees of evil, faint, moderate, strong and overwhelming. Obviously good, chaos and law had identical counterparts.
And we've been over this before, Salla. While I agree that in real life, 'good' and 'evil' are abstract, subjective concepts, the RAW of D&D say that in the fantasy world of D&D they are objective, concrete forces. Since the RAW expressly state this, it is an objective fact that according to the RAW of D&D, it is so. Anything to the contrary would have to be a houserule. If you prefer to employ said houserule, more power to you. But it's a houserule.
If a DM has a problem with a disruptive player who does things and justifies it with "I'm just playing my alignment!", I guarantee that same person will also be disruptive and a dick in a game without alignment. The player is the problem. Railroad DMs who use alignment as a hammer or as a means of control over their players, will find a way to railroad or control people without alignment. Those DMs are the problem.
Just because people like that use alignment as a means to their ends doesn't mean alignment itself is the problem. If I kill a dozen people in a drive-by shooting, is my car the cause? No, of course not.
They're not necessarily being jerks. In trying to follow and enforce the rules, they run into these problems. The fights ensue because the rules are so vague that what it comes down to is personal preference, and when people believe their preferences are being questioned they push back.
That wasn't what I meant. I'm not talking about enforcing rules, at least not RAW; I was refering to players stealing from their allies, or stabbing them in the back, or whatnot, and justifying it by being like "What? I'm Chaotic Neutral" or whatever. And it's not just CN, sometimes people with LG characters are overbearing ****es and justify it with their alignment. I was also refering to the DMs who tell players that a Lawful character CAN NOT break a law, or some such nonsense, without facing an alignment change on the spot, or immeditely have a group of higher-level NPCs come put the beatdown on them, because the DM wants them to only play their character the way the DM sees him/her.
A reasonable person can conclude that alignment means you can tell other people how to play their characters. Telling other people how to play their characters is jerk behavior, but the rules appear to allow and encourage that. If the rules for alignment simple said "Don't tell people how to play their character," we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Even that reasonable person would be wrong, however. The RAW don't say that alignment allows you to do that, and it's Munchkin Fallacy to say that because the rules don't expressly forbid it, that it's okay.
The fact that you are only concerned with "gross behavior contrary to a character's alignment" only supports my point. By your own admission, you didn't apply the alignment rules as written, because they do not specify the degree or quantity of contrary behavior necessary to affect alignment. You used your own interpretations those vague guidelines and your own judgements to fill in the blanks and figure out your own way to make alignment rules work for your group.
And while it great that you were successful, a significant amount of the player base has not been so fortunate with getting alignment rules to play well.
If the alignment rules don't invariably cause arguments, and do bring about success sometimes, then maybe it isn't the alignment rules that are the problem, but rather how the majority of the community uses them. Or rather misuses them.
Except that the alignment rules do invariably cause arguments and, again, by your own admission, you didn't apply the alignment rules as written. If you must houserule a rule to make it work, there is something wrong with the rule.
Or, the alignment descriptions could simply be poorly written. The intention is that alignment are linked to morality. And the rules of the alignment system support this notion. It just doesn't work very well.
Actually, I have evidence that that isn't the case, at least in 3e. I have heard that 4e was actually different, and I can see that given that alignment restrictions aren't as prominent in 4e.
From page 103 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook, "Good and Evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos."
And then they turn right around and say that your actions determine your alignment, but with no clear, definitive on how to quantify and adjudicate alignment changes. The flavor text is pretty interesting, but it's the mechanics that people have issue with.
I'm probably going to catch flak for this and I welcome disagreement, but there is no such thing as a gray area. I don't believe in moral dilemmas, because morality either doesn't exist, or it has objective qualities that render subjective judgments impotent. If something actually exists, then it has objective qualities.
This explains a lot about your position on alignment.
However, that does not change the fact that we must place actions into one of the grid positions. And many actions will not fit into one of those squares without at least making judgement about their context.
Take, for example, the act of killing. Where would killing fall on the alignment grid. Can you actually answer that question without context? If so, then you that would mean that killing is does not fit on the alignment grid at all and is always alignment neutral, or that the act of killing will always bias every adventurer's alignment to one extreme.
However, if judging the act of killing does require context, you have already entered the grey area of moral dilemmas. Now you have to define and identify the when the alignment has a particular alignment weight, how much, as well as the exceptions to those rules you define. And thus, the alignment thread cycle begins anew.
As for the well-intentioned extremist, I make the personal moral judgment that they are generally monsters. In fact, I think well-intentioned extremists are pretty much the worst people on the planet.
Even if they're actions ultimately better the world? As may very well be the case in a crapsack world, or any setting deep on the cynicism side of the scale.
Remember, alignment in D&D doesn't bother with intentions, at least not nearly as much as action.
And I would argue that that's a bad thing.
The extremist you describe, the one fighting for the displaced or defeated government, is definitely lawful. You can easily have two lawful characters at each others' throats. That isn't a case of contrary alignment, but a case of opposed countries.
So the guy that resents the current legitimate authority, and fights for freedom against it in a reckless and irresponsible manner is definitely lawful? Not even a little bit of doubt?
Because you recently quoted:
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
You have been trying to make a point about alignment. Your statements have been baseless, blanket statements, delivered as if they were fact.
I'm pretty sure it was declared as fact some time ago that alignment is pointless and irrelevant in D&D, harmful even. Anyone defending the concept must have come here in a time-travelling phone booth. Here in the future (2012), we know better. Also, be excellent to each other.
Your argument reminds of people who drink and drive then say 'I've never had an accident while driving drunk, so all those commercials must be wrong'.
How? I'm not saying "I've never had a problem with alignment, so all alignment problems must be wrong"
What I'm saying is: In EVERY specific case of alignment problems I have ever seen or heard of (yes, even all the ones on the forums), there is a clear case of deviation from RAW regarding alignment or its rules and mechanics. Thus, the citing those examples is an invalid indictment of alignment as a "bad mechanic", because actual alignment rules were not used properly. One cannot make a valid value judgement of a mechanic when the only criticisms of said mechanic were actually criticisms of a houserule of that mechanic.
This.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />From page 103 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook, "Good and Evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." Before that statement, they give examples of those elemental forces in action. Again, in Moorcock's Multiverse, the major competing powers are Law and Chaos,
This does nothing to make the very concept not-stupid. You can't quantify the unquantifiable, you can't make an abstract, subjective concept like 'good' and 'evil' concrete and objective. It's a fool's errand to even try.
What? If we're talking about any pre-4e edition of D&D, Good and Evil are absolutely quantifiable. The 3e Detect Evil spell even had specific degrees of evil, faint, moderate, strong and overwhelming. Obviously good, chaos and law had identical counterparts.
The ideas of creation and destruction are easily quantifiable, you mean, in D&D. This is also true for the real world. Moral good and moral evil are just as unquantifiable in D&D as they are in the real world.
And we've been over this before, Salla. While I agree that in real life, 'good' and 'evil' are abstract, subjective concepts, the RAW of D&D say that in the fantasy world of D&D they are objective, concrete forces. Since the RAW expressly state this, it is an objective fact that according to the RAW of D&D, it is so. Anything to the contrary would have to be a houserule. If you prefer to employ said houserule, more power to you. But it's a houserule.
Again, I would still argue that alignment good has little if anything to do with moral judgments. This is the same argument I have seen in Star Wars, and Lucas himself along with other authors, refuted it in the same manner. In Palpatine's eyes, he was genuinely the good guy, and no one could convince him otherwise, because they didn't have a method of measuring morality, just like we don't. Alignments are metaphors for the real-world concepts of creation and entropy and how they are expressed.
The fact that you are only concerned with "gross behavior contrary to a character's alignment" only supports my point. By your own admission, you didn't apply the alignment rules as written, because they do not specify the degree or quantity of contrary behavior necessary to affect alignment. You used your own interpretations those vague guidelines and your own judgements to fill in the blanks and figure out your own way to make alignment rules work for your group.
And while it great that you were successful, a significant amount of the player base has not been so fortunate with getting alignment rules to play well.
Except that the alignment rules do invariably cause arguments and, again, by your own admission, you didn't apply the alignment rules as written. If you must houserule a rule to make it work, there is something wrong with the rule.
I never houseruled a thing, and I never gave any indication to say that I did. I said I only ever concerned myself with behavior that went grossly contrary to a player's alignment. That wasn't because I valued that as the only important behavior regarding alignment, but that was the only time the idea of alignment change ever came up. At all other times, people played according to their alignment. No houseruling involved.
And then they turn right around and say that your actions determine your alignment, but with no clear, definitive on how to quantify and adjudicate alignment changes. The flavor text is pretty interesting, but it's the mechanics that people have issue with.
What are you talking about? As I said, the DMG is really clear on this. Regular contrary behavior that lasts for a week or more, should result in a ste-by-step change, until the behavior normalizes within the alignment that the actions demonstrate. Actions that are significant enough could result in a much more rapid and extreme change. That is a summary of the DMG alignment rules, and it is accurate. At that point all you need to know is what behavior constitutes which alignment, and the PHB is again, very clear about that. People really make this waaaay more complex than it is.
However, that does not change the fact that we must place actions into one of the grid positions. And many actions will not fit into one of those squares without at least making judgement about their context.
I bet that what you think you know about my position on alignment is all wrong. If you would like to tell me what you think you know about my position on alignment, fire away. As for you saying that many actions don't fit into the alignments without context, that is a false assumption. You're assuming that the alignment descriptions don't account for context, when they do. People place themselves in danger all the time, but placing yourself in danger for the benefit and health of others, good act. Placing yourself in danger because you want something and have started a war to get it, evil act. Placing yourself in danger because you want something, without putting other people in danger, neutral act. Seriously, the alignments account for context.
Take, for example, the act of killing. Where would killing fall on the alignment grid. Can you actually answer that question without context? If so, then you that would mean that killing is does not fit on the alignment grid at all and is always alignment neutral, or that the act of killing will always bias every adventurer's alignment to one extreme.
However, if judging the act of killing does require context, you have already entered the grey area of moral dilemmas. Now you have to define and identify the when the alignment has a particular alignment weight, how much, as well as the exceptions to those rules you define. And thus, the alignment thread cycle begins anew.
The alignment descriptions already either imply or directly state what kinds of actions under which kinds of contexts constitute according behavior. if you think this is untrue, re-read the descriptions. If you still think this is untrue after that, set aside the concept of morality and re-read the descriptions again.
As for the well-intentioned extremist, I make the personal moral judgment that they are generally monsters. In fact, I think well-intentioned extremists are pretty much the worst people on the planet.
Even if they're actions ultimately better the world? As may very well be the case in a crapsack world, or any setting deep on the cynicism side of the scale.
I don't give a rat's rear if their actions literally brought heaven down to earth, and I won't try to defend my position either, because it would be like trying to defend why I like the taste of a certain kind of food. In fact, I would consider negative consequences more morally praiseworthy in some cases. Yes, you read that right, sometimes I think it is the morally upright thing to do to make the world worse. There are times where I place the highest moral value on chaotic evil actions. That doesn't mean those actions aren't aligned with the energies of change and entropy though. Also, define what you mean by "better world." Because I bet my definition of a better world, and your definition of a better world, are two completely different things.
Remember, alignment in D&D doesn't bother with intentions, at least not nearly as much as action.
And I would argue that that's a bad thing.
Why?
The extremist you describe, the one fighting for the displaced or defeated government, is definitely lawful. You can easily have two lawful characters at each others' throats. That isn't a case of contrary alignment, but a case of opposed countries.
So the guy that resents the current legitimate authority, and fights for freedom against it in a reckless and irresponsible manner is definitely lawful? Not even a little bit of doubt?
See, every bit of info you gave me pointed to lawful. Now you are changing qualities, which of course changes my answer, which is what you were going for in the first place. You said initially that this guy was fighting out of loyalty to the former government, which counts as lawful. If that was not the case, and he was instead fighting for freedom, you should have been honest with me about that earlier. As for recklessness and irresponsibility, a lot of lawful characters take reckless actions. A lot of lawful characters risk life and limb frequently. That comes with being an adventurer. You would have to define what you mean by irresponsiblity, as of right now it has no concrete value. You could mean almost anything, because irresponsibility is just another kind of value judgment.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
What I'm saying is: In EVERY specific case of alignment problems I have ever seen or heard of (yes, even all the ones on the forums), there is a clear case of deviation from RAW regarding alignment or its rules and mechanics. Thus, the citing those examples is an invalid indictment of alignment as a "bad mechanic", because actual alignment rules were not used properly. One cannot make a valid value judgement of a mechanic when the only criticisms of said mechanic were actually criticisms of a houserule of that mechanic.
I'll disagree and say it's a bad mechanic, but for a somewhat different reason:
A law or rule that hardly anyone can follow, is a bad law or rule.
What I'm saying is: In EVERY specific case of alignment problems I have ever seen or heard of (yes, even all the ones on the forums), there is a clear case of deviation from RAW regarding alignment or its rules and mechanics. Thus, the citing those examples is an invalid indictment of alignment as a "bad mechanic", because actual alignment rules were not used properly. One cannot make a valid value judgement of a mechanic when the only criticisms of said mechanic were actually criticisms of a houserule of that mechanic.
I'll disagree and say it's a bad mechanic, but for a somewhat different reason:
A law or rule that hardly anyone can follow, is a bad law or rule.
Well, that is your value judgment. Personally, I don't think something is bad or good based on the number of people it is made for. I mean, Mt. Midoryama is completable by very few people, does that mean it is a poorly designed obstacle course? The universality of a thing doesn't determine quality, at least not in my eyes. I like it because it is a pretty nice aid in examining heroic arcehtypes.
Personally, I don't think something is bad or good based on the number of people it is made for. I mean, Mt. Midoryama is completable by very few people, does that mean it is a poorly designed obstacle course? The universality of a thing doesn't determine quality, at least not in my eyes. I like it because it is a pretty nice aid in examining heroic arcehtypes.
An obstacle course is supposed to be an obstacle course.
A set of RPG rules, normally, is not.
Now I haven't said anything about exactly how alignment mechanics are bad. Maybe they could be fixed by replacing "Good" and "Evil" with less value-laden terms.
However, simply scrapping the mechanics also seems to work pretty well, and is easily understood.
An obstacle course is supposed to be an obstacle course.
A set of RPG rules, normally, is not.
It's not a false comparison if that is what you're trying to say. Not everyone is comfortable, or even capable exploring certain themes and ideas, and I don't think any less of anyone for that reason. I just don't think something is a bad thing just because it doesn't function for people that it wasn't designed to function for. I do think that Wizards was probably a bit shocked to learn that it wouldn't function for so many people though. I think they expected more people to read the rules instead of freak out.
Now I haven't said anything about exactly how alignment mechanics are bad. Maybe they could be fixed by replacing "Good" and "Evil" with less value-laden terms.
However, simply scrapping the mechanics also seems to work pretty well, and is easily understood.
Yeah, they could, and the system wouldn't be any different. The terms are probably just hold-overs from the by-gone age. But this does kind of bring up an interesting point. The guy I quoted a while back, Stover, wrote a book called Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor, and it examines a lot of what it really means to be a Jedi, and the real nature of The Force as ti is laid out in the setting, (and what it really means for those of us in the real world) and why the terms, "Light" and "Dark" are the most appropriate. Really, if you just look at the primary/basic definitions of the words good and evil, and forget about the imaginary stuff people have attached to them over the years, there isn't much trouble. Like others, I have only heard of alignment problems arising when people don't use the rules correctly.
I suppose you could scrap the system, but that fundamentally changes the way the game works. There is a reason that good clerics channel positive energy, evil clerics channel negative energy, and neutral clerics still have to choose. Its no different than charge polarities for electricity, and a lot of spells work off that mechanic. Scrap it, and you have to replace it with something more clunky. Suddenly instead of four simple "protection" or "detect" spells, you have a whole bunch more of each one. Alignment-based casting is a core mechanic of the cleric class, if that is something you think should be changed, just keep that in mind as you go about it.
I never houseruled a thing, and I never gave any indication to say that I did. I said I only ever concerned myself with behavior that went grossly contrary to a player's alignment. That wasn't because I valued that as the only important behavior regarding alignment, but that was the only time the idea of alignment change ever came up. At all other times, people played according to their alignment. No houseruling involved.
Then you misrepresented yourself. You said that you were only concerned with gross alignment changes, which strictly speaking, is not RAW. Arguably RAI. But not RAW. You did not say that gross alignment changes were the only instances to occur in your game. That's an entirely different scenario.
And then they turn right around and say that your actions determine your alignment, but with no clear, definitive on how to quantify and adjudicate alignment changes. The flavor text is pretty interesting, but it's the mechanics that people have issue with.
What are you talking about? As I said, the DMG is really clear on this. Regular contrary behavior that lasts for a week or more, should result in a ste-by-step change, until the behavior normalizes within the alignment that the actions demonstrate. Actions that are significant enough could result in a much more rapid and extreme change. That is a summary of the DMG alignment rules, and it is accurate. At that point all you need to know is what behavior constitutes which alignment, and the PHB is again, very clear about that.
Quantify "regularly". Quantify "normalize". Quantify "significant enough". I'm not talking about definitions. How do you measure these things. For the PHB to be so "really clear" on the matter, it says next to nothing about how to determine these thresholds. Let alone how to determine them objectively.
Except for evil. Everyone knows evil is measured in kilonazis.
People really make this waaaay more complex than it is.
On this point, I counldn't agree more. Personally, I think we could solve most aligment issues by simplifying the system even more.
But then we would have no reason to engage in these fun arguments.
I bet that what you think you know about my position on alignment is all wrong. If you would like to tell me what you think you know about my position on alignment, fire away.
I'm sensing some hostility here, but since you requested so nicely...
I think you believe the the alignments as presented in the 3.5 PHB are clear cut, self-contained guideline as presented. Alignments can, and should, be adjucated completely independently of any realworld moral or ethic system because they simply do not apply. And people who have problems with applying the alignment system or simply disagree with it are just Doing It Wrongtm.
Or something like that. You're right. I'm probably way off. So if you feel compelled to set the record straight, feel free.
As for you saying that many actions don't fit into the alignments without context, that is a false assumption.
You're assuming that the alignment descriptions don't account for context, when they do.
I've made no such assumption. Of course the alignments account for context.
However, I what I do assume that the alignments do not inherently cover all context. And it seems to me that you hold the opposite view, that alignments do inherently cover all context.
The alignment descriptions already either imply or directly state what kinds of actions under which kinds of contexts constitute according behavior.
But not all actions and not contexts. No moral-ethical system to date has been able to do that.
Also, it's funny that you use the word "imply". Because consistent rules do not "imply", they "state". If something is implied, we have to make assumptions about its true meaning. And there's always the chance that information can be miscommunication or lost in the translation.
As for the well-intentioned extremist, I make the personal moral judgment that they are generally monsters. In fact, I think well-intentioned extremists are pretty much the worst people on the planet.
And in terms of alignment?
Even if they're actions ultimately better the world? As may very well be the case in a crapsack world, or any setting deep on the cynicism side of the scale.
I don't give a rat's rear if their actions literally brought heaven down to earth, and I won't try to defend my position either, because it would be like trying to defend why I like the taste of a certain kind of food.
Defending your food preferences sounds like an entirely reasonable and possible thing to do. It would probably be an entertaining endeavor, if only mildly so. So I can't agree with your analogy. But I digress.
In fact, I would consider negative consequences more morally praiseworthy in some cases. Yes, you read that right, sometimes I think it is the morally upright thing to do to make the world worse.
You seem to be implying that I would find this position daft or nonsensical. Because I would actually agree with this. Yes, you read that right.
There are times where I place the highest moral value on chaotic evil actions. That doesn't mean those actions aren't aligned with the energies of change and entropy though.
It's that fluff again.
Also, define what you mean by "better world." Because I bet my definition of a better world, and your definition of a better world, are two completely different things.
That's a good question. I intentionally left that very open, but for the sake of augment, let's assume that "better world" moving the world in the direction of the most ideal utopia "you" can imagine for all people. Where "you" is the recipient of the hypothetical question.
And while, yes, that would strongly bias the question towards the answer's subjective definition of utopia, for this particular question, I think it works.
Also, and this is an important detail, I specifically mentioned crapsack settings in that hypothetical because they are, by definition, as bad as a world can get while still somehow being functional. In such a setting, things typically can't get much worse short of an apocalypse. So the actions that an well intentioned extremist may go to may very well be business as usual for everyone.
Remember, alignment in D&D doesn't bother with intentions, at least not nearly as much as action.
And I would argue that that's a bad thing.
Why?
Because I do not think neither the morality or the alignment of an action can be entirely deduced from the act itself. Motive and intent are also important contexts to consider.
For example, say that you have a button. And the act in question was to press the button. What does that tell us about the act? Nothing much.
Now what if I said that pressing the button, say, blew up an orphanage full of orphans? Orphans with diseases. And dreams. And, yes, this is an hyperbolic example to illustrate my point. Now what does the act suggest about the presser's morality? Something? Nothing? That he's a complete monster and needs to be brought to justice, perhaps?
Now what if I went further and revealed that the presser did it knowing full well that the button would kill all those orphans, and only regrets not getting their little dog too. Now what does the act suggest about the presser's morality? Probably that's he's an evil, pure and simple.
Now what if instead I revealed that presser did not know that he was pressing the orphanage self-destruct button. But was instead told that the button was suppose to turn on the new interactive Christmas wonderland and free present for the very first time? Same act, same consequences, different motive. Can we still judge this act in the same way as the paragraph above? Should we still judge this act in the same? I would say "no".
TL;DR: I'm not a big fan of consequentialism.
The extremist you describe, the one fighting for the displaced or defeated government, is definitely lawful. You can easily have two lawful characters at each others' throats. That isn't a case of contrary alignment, but a case of opposed countries.
So the guy that resents the current legitimate authority, and fights for freedom against it in a reckless and irresponsible manner is definitely lawful? Not even a little bit of doubt?
See, every bit of info you gave me pointed to lawful. Now you are changing qualities, which of course changes my answer, which is what you were going for in the first place.
I did no such thing. I said the guy was a well intentioned extremist, and I meant that in the most broad and general sense. It's a very common character trope, though you may not be too familiar with it. Which is why I even provided a link that explains the trope in more detail.
You said initially that this guy was fighting out of loyalty to the former government, which counts as lawful.
I did say that, yes.
If that was not the case, and he was instead fighting for freedom,
He fighting's an authority to (re)establish a different one. Of course that would mean that he wants freedom from the authority he's fighting. That's kinda an inherent thing about revolutions, is it not?
Also, why do you say "instead"? You mean you can't fight for both loyalty to a former government and freedom from the current government at the same time? I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but I'm pretty sure you can.
you should have been honest with me about that earlier.
I hid nothing. Like I said, I provided a link that explains the trope in more detail. And I did state that it was a simplified example, and I was only looking for likewise general answers. If we wanted to examine this moral quandary more thoroughly, we would have to further define to a more specific hypothetical.
As for recklessness and irresponsibility, a lot of lawful characters take reckless actions. A lot of lawful characters risk life and limb frequently. That comes with being an adventurer. You would have to define what you mean by irresponsiblity, as of right now it has no concrete value. You could mean almost anything, because irresponsibility is just another kind of value judgment.
You're absolutely right. "Irresponsbility" could mean almost anything, has no concrete, and is just another kind of judgement value. And you're right that lawful characters frequently act recklessly. However, 'dems the rules. Because "chaos", and not me, says it implies recklessness and irresponsibility.
I could try to define I what I could mean by "irresponsible" and "reckless", but that won't amount to much because what we are concerned with here is what the rules say on the matter.
So how do the rules define "irresponsible" and "reckless". Well...they don't.
They also don't say to what extent you can be "irresponsible" and "reckless" while still being lawful. Which we can only assume that some threshold must exist because, as you just said,
As for recklessness and irresponsibility, a lot of lawful characters take reckless actions. A lot of lawful characters risk life and limb frequently. That comes with being an adventurer.
Which goes right back to what I said early that there are no rules for quantifying these things.
Then you misrepresented yourself. You said that you were only concerned with gross alignment changes, which strictly speaking, is not RAW. Arguably RAI. But not RAW. You did not say that gross alignment changes were the only instances to occur in your game. That's an entirely different scenario.
I was trying to make the point that I have never had to quibble about alignment in any of the games I have DMed. If there was misunderstanding, I apologize.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Quantify "regularly". Quantify "normalize". Quantify "significant enough". I'm not talking about definitions. How do you measure these things. For the PHB to be so "really clear" on the matter, it says next to nothing about how to determine these thresholds. Let alone how to determine them objectively.
And people wonder why I am against summarizing. Read the DMG, page 135, for the full version. If that doesn't answer any and all questions about the process of alignment change, we are at an impass.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I'm sensing some hostility here, but since you requested so nicely...
I think you believe the the alignments as presented in the 3.5 PHB are clear cut, self-contained guideline as presented. Alignments can, and should, be adjucated completely independently of any realworld moral or ethic system because they simply do not apply. And people who have problems with applying the alignment system or simply disagree with it are just Doing It Wrongtm.
Or something like that. You're right. I'm probably way off. So if you feel compelled to set the record straight, feel free.
If I'm gneuinely hostile toward you, it's a safe bet that you will see it long before you sense it. That said there is no way you could have known that about me before now, so I'm putting it out there now. And actually, that's it in a nutshell. Technically, every alignment problem I have seen, as someone else has said earlier, has been because someone wasn't actually running alignment. Now, that thing about disageeing with the system, thta's a little harder. Some people don't like the idea of quantifying how destructive or creative someone is, or how prone to change they are. That's their business, but that really takes some of the heroic fantasy out of heroic fantasy. Then again not everyone is after heroic fantasy. Some people want grounded, or even low-fantasy where character and human nature are just glossed over in favor action and intrigue, and that is fine. It's not the standard model, and I wouldn't personally want to do that, but it isn't like it is an incorrect way to play.
I've made no such assumption. Of course the alignments account for context.
However, I what I do assume that the alignments do not inherently cover all context. And it seems to me that you hold the opposite view, that alignments do inherently cover all context.
I do have the opposite view, because they do. We know timeframe, and action requirements. Moderately helping others at risk to yourself (that covers a whole boatload of contexts right there) over the course of a week or more, one-step alignment change in the direction of good. If you're going to ask me what moderate means, in this context, look at it like this. Moderate is in-between the extreme of least possible with capability, and greatest possible with capability. Now you're going to ask me where it says this in the rules. It doesn't. Why did I come up with this? Am I houseruling? Is it my opinion? No. I am using something known as inductive reasoning. I am using the general meaning of the word moderate in the context provided, the actions of the character who is changing alignment. That is not house-ruling, that is called context reading. Does it technically count as an interpretation of the rules? Yes. But that is how all reading works.
When a word has multiple definitions, and multiple potential meanings, you look at the word, in context, to discern meanings. So moderate, means moderate, in relation to the two physically possible extremes of the character's behavior. So yes, all contexts are covered, by default, because the rules are general enough to do just that. If you make a general enough statement, you can cover enough contexts. For example, boats go in water. If someone asks me if boats go in the Atlantic Ocean, I am going to refer them back to my previous statement. If they ask me in what context, I am going to refer them back to my previous statement. Due to the general wording of the alignment change rules on page 135 of the DMG, all contexts are covered. In fact, I bet you could give me any context and it could reliably be classified as moderate or extreme. There are even examples there to help give us ideas what the devs had in mind when they used those concepts.
But not all actions and not contexts. No moral-ethical system to date has been able to do that
Also, it's funny that you use the word "imply". Because consistent rules do not "imply", they "state". If something is implied, we have to make assumptions about its true meaning. And there's always the chance that information can be miscommunication or lost in the translation.
I thought we dealt with this. The alignment system is not a moral or ethical system. It is a polarity system that people have assigned moral value to (even some people in-setting do this, but not everyone. Some people assign higher moral value to elemental evil. (These are generally evil aligned characters) And there are quite a few moral and ethical systems that do manage to do that, within their own rules. The problem is, people don't always agree with the value judgments those moral and ethical systems assign, even if they are the correct judgments according to those systems. What this means is that people disagree with the system itself. As for the second bit here, you are delving into what is known as philosophical skepticism. In a simplified nutshell, philosophical skepticism states that it is impossible to prove anything, because all reasoning has an inductive starting point. Therefore, you cannot technically deductively prove to yourself that you exist.
I can do this too, watch. Prove that wizards cast spells. I'm going to enjoy this.
And in terms of alignment?
The alignment system doesn't measure philosophical concepts, and barely touches intentions. It only measures specific varieties of moderate or major actions in specific timeframes. Give me an action and a timeframe and I will cite the rules and walk you through it step by step.
Defending your food preferences sounds like an entirely reasonable and possible thing to do. It would probably be an entertaining endeavor, if only mildly so. So I can't agree with your analogy. But I digress.
My taste in food is an entirely subjective thing with zero empirical evidence and is therefore impossible to defend, and also impossible to attack, at least in a manner that makes a lick of sense. Its a complete waste of time, and there are more fun things to do than defend my tastes in food.
You seem to be implying that I would find this position daft or nonsensical. Because I would actually agree with this. Yes, you read that right.
Legal Disclaimer: I would never, ever, ever do the following, and strongly discourage anyone who might be consider doing the following, as it is against the law and general moral sense. Children are our future, they should be protected and nurtured, and helped to grow into their roles as the next generation of leaders, scholars, soldiers, and fry cooks.
Let me get more clear. There are some cases where I would call it morally praiseworthy to molotov cocktail an entire building full of kids, knowing they are in there, with the express purpose and intent of frying every single one of them to a crisp, for no other reason than the individual doing so was angry and wanted to make a point.
To take things away from the hypothetical and into the real world, when I found out a group of kids was beat to death with baseball bats for cheating in an online game and then taunting the people they cheated, I said the assailants should have all been given medals.
It's that fluff again.
All that talk about ethics and morality is fluff. The real point and meat of alignments is the game mechanics, like the spells and such. I was again trying to make the point that moral value judgments are divorced from alignments, meaning an alignment is not a moral value judgment. If that point has been accepted I am ready to move on and let it drop.
That's a good question. I intentionally left that very open, but for the sake of augment, let's assume that "better world" moving the world in the direction of the most ideal utopia "you" can imagine for all people. Where "you" is the recipient of the hypothetical question.
And while, yes, that would strongly bias the question towards the answer's subjective definition of utopia, for this particular question, I think it works.
My idea of a decent world does not meet any of the definitions of utopia. In fact, I would probably be one of the ones that destroyed the utopia. To give you an idea, if you're familiar with the story of "Those Who Walk Away From the Omelas," I would stay, but not to enjoy the utopia. I would let the kid out, and revel in the looks of horror on everyones' faces when I showed them what I did. In my ideal world, I am God and I don't much concern myself with anything else but my own power. Inb4 accusations of sociopathy.
Also, and this is an important detail, I specifically mentioned crapsack settings in that hypothetical because they are, by definition, as bad as a world can get while still somehow being functional. In such a setting, things typically can't get much worse short of an apocalypse. So the actions that an well intentioned extremist may go to may very well be business as usual for everyone.
Alignments function the same regardless of who does what, or where they do it.
And I would argue that that's a bad thing.
Because I do not think neither the morality or the alignment of an action can be entirely deduced from the act itself. Motive and intent are also important contexts to consider.
See, this is where we are at a giant impass. I really do believe the road to hell is paved with good intentions. See, nobody ever tries to be evil. Everyone has good intentions, all the time, every time. Intentions don't mean anything, because they never manifest in the real world. The only thing that does is actions.
For example, say that you have a button. And the act in question was to press the button. What does that tell us about the act? Nothing much.
Now what if I said that pressing the button, say, blew up an orphanage full of orphans? Orphans with diseases. And dreams. And, yes, this is an hyperbolic example to illustrate my point. Now what does the act suggest about the presser's morality? Something? Nothing? That he's a complete monster and needs to be brought to justice, perhaps?
Now what if I went further and revealed that the presser did it knowing full well that the button would kill all those orphans, and only regrets not getting their little dog too. Now what does the act suggest about the presser's morality? Probably that's he's an evil, pure and simple.
Now what if instead I revealed that presser did not know that he was pressing the orphanage self-destruct button. But was instead told that the button was suppose to turn on the new interactive Christmas wonderland and free present for the very first time? Same act, same consequences, different motive. Can we still judge this act in the same way as the paragraph above? Should we still judge this act in the same? I would say "no".
What you are talking about is a concept people pick up in humanities 104. It's called diminished culpability, and again, I make the personal judgment that its complete bs. Wow, that sounds harsh doesn't it? You say you aren't a big fan of consequintialism, but that is actually where the most leniency would be found for this guy, because in consequentialist ethics, "you have to be content with probability." If you wanted to talk duty-based ethics, there is still some there, because it still takes intent into account, but this guy would be blasted for not making sure he knew what the button did, and the fact would remain that he killed a whole bunch of kids. That isn't a consequence, that was an act, in and of itself. I hate hypothetical more dilemmas because they are always, invariably, a false dichotomy and not true to life.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I did no such thing. I said the guy was a well intentioned extremist, and I meant that in the most broad and general sense. It's a very common character trope, though you may not be too familiar with it. Which is why I even provided a link that explains the trope in more detail.
I know the trope. I knew about well intentioned extremists long before I knew tv tropes was a thing.
He fighting's an authority to (re)establish a different one. Of course that would mean that he wants freedom from the authority he's fighting. That's kinda an inherent thing about revolutions, is it not?
Revolutionaries generally don't care very much about establishing an authority, and they generally take strong action agianst the authority they are taking out.
Also, why do you say "instead"? You mean you can't fight for both loyalty to a former government and freedom from the current government at the same time? I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but I'm pretty sure you can.
If he is fighting for freedom, and he believes that government he is fighting for will bring freedom, then the overriding principle is still freedom. If he is fighting for freedom to re-establish that government, that means he is fighting to re-establish the government. Yes you can fight for both at the same time but one is always subordinate to the other. In the case of being forced to choose between general freedom for people, and the displaced government, which would he choose? I initially thought he would choose the displaced government, but if he would choose freedom over them, then he is indeed chaotic. If the values are equal, and he tries to live as free as he can within the displaced government, he is neutral. You may not have been purposefully trying to obfuscate anything from me, but this individual's values and choices were quite unclear.
I hid nothing. Like I said, I provided a link that explains the trope in more detail. And I did state that it was a simplified example, and I was only looking for likewise general answers. If we wanted to examine this moral quandary more thoroughly, we would have to further define to a more specific hypothetical.
It's not a moral quandry, but a question of the character's alignment. Alignment has no inherent objective moral value, in or out of setting. If you're talking about how I personally feel about this character, I know almost nothing about him. I don't have enough information to make a value judgment. Note that I will not even claim my own value judgment is a morally correct one, I will just speak to my tastes.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />So how do the rules define "irresponsible" and "reckless". Well...they don't.
They also don't say to what extent you can be "irresponsible" and "reckless" while still being lawful. Which we can only assume that some threshold must exist because, as you just said
All actions are either self-sacrificing, done out of duty, free-spirited, or uncaring self-interest. Every action anyone takes in D&D can be classifed into one of those, sometimes both. Anything that doesn't fall into one of those extremes, is, get this, neutral.
If its not a lawful act, a chaotic act, a good act, or an evil act, what else is there? Neutrality. But again, you will find a lot of actions fall somewhere close to those extremes. They don't need to deal with every type and sub-type of action because they already list four broad categories of action-type and say if it isn't one of these four its neutral. Then again actions generally have enough qualities to fit somewhere other than neutral. See, that is the beauty of axes, they establish a range of behavior. You can always ask, "how chaotic is this act?" And you can answer that by looking at the descriptions of law and chaos in the PHB...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />The descriptions for what constitutes an alignment aren't vague, nor are the rules that deal with changing alignments. I am utterly convinced that people either forget them or just don't read them.
Says the person who has evidently never run into one of the usbjective points or contradictions in the rules.
I should also mention that I have played with quite a few DMs, and have never had my alignment questioned even once, and they were definitely running alignment.
Says the person who has evidently never run a complex character, or who has only played under GMs who ignored the rules in favour of non-crap gaming.
Your argument reminds of people who drink and drive then say 'I've never had an accident while driving drunk, so all those commercials must be wrong'.
How? I'm not saying "I've never had a problem with alignment, so all alignment problems must be wrong"
The other person on your side in this argument *is* arguing exactly that.
Your argument reminds of people who drink and drive then say 'I've never had an accident while driving drunk, so all those commercials must be wrong'.
How? I'm not saying "I've never had a problem with alignment, so all alignment problems must be wrong"
The other person on your side in this argument *is* arguing exactly that.
If that is the impression I gave, that is my mistake. I figured that my Caveat of, "Or rather, their misuse," would have been enough to indicate that I have never seen alignment problems that weren't caused by the mishandling of the rules. My apologies. I should have been more clear. That is a mistake I make sometimes, over-explaining other things while not giving enough attention to areas that need it.
Your argument reminds of people who drink and drive then say 'I've never had an accident while driving drunk, so all those commercials must be wrong'.
How? I'm not saying "I've never had a problem with alignment, so all alignment problems must be wrong"
The other person on your side in this argument *is* arguing exactly that.
If that is the impression I gave, that is my mistake. I figured that my Caveat of, "Or rather, their misuse," would have been enough to indicate that I have never seen alignment problems that weren't caused by the mishandling of the rules. My apologies. I should have been more clear. That is a mistake I make sometimes, over-explaining other things while not giving enough attention to areas that need it.
You added "any problems you THINK you see are produced by the GM also doing it wrong" to your explanations why all aligment problems are wrong, but his statement is still a fair summary of your position.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />The descriptions for what constitutes an alignment aren't vague, nor are the rules that deal with changing alignments. I am utterly convinced that people either forget them or just don't read them.
Says the person who has evidently never run into one of the usbjective points or contradictions in the rules.
You see contradictions, I see exceptions. Also, the core rulebooks veto in the case of any actual contradiction.
I should also mention that I have played with quite a few DMs, and have never had my alignment questioned even once, and they were definitely running alignment.
Says the person who has evidently never run a complex character, or who has only played under GMs who ignored the rules in favour of non-crap gaming.
I once ran a necromancer who was born connected to dark energies. His general outlook on life could have been described as, "existential meta-egoism." He saw death as the ultimate equalizer and valued arcane magic because it was a power that one wasn't beholden to anyone but oneself to use. He genuinely did not understand why people revered the gods, because he couldn't see any evidence that they were anything more than incredibly powerful individuals, and did not see what made power in and of itself worthy of reverence. He saw clerics, who relied on other beings for their power, as irresponsible, because at any time they could lose their power when people they cared about might need them to be strong. He saw death as the ultimate equalizer, and his motto was, "The one thing that genuinely makes me happy is that no matter what, everyone dies eventually."
As someone who was born of the grave and therefore healed by negative energy rather than positive energy, he had to really struggle to come to terms with that, but eventually he did, though he was still judged by that. Hehe, imagine the scene when he had to inform the party cleric, "Hey, uh, please don't try to heal me with your usual healing magics. They...well they kind of hurt me." Eventually he came to accept clerics due to a friendship that started out uneasily, though he had a magic-phobe who hounded him until the end of his days. He was also a cook, as before his adventuring career he served as a travelling chef. He was chaotic neutral. I could go on and on and on about this one character, but I think you get the idea. You don't need to change which kind of energy your character is aligned to to have a round character. That is a dirty myth that I am happy to dispel right now.
Your argument reminds of people who drink and drive then say 'I've never had an accident while driving drunk, so all those commercials must be wrong'.
How? I'm not saying "I've never had a problem with alignment, so all alignment problems must be wrong"
The other person on your side in this argument *is* arguing exactly that.
If that is the impression I gave, that is my mistake. I figured that my Caveat of, "Or rather, their misuse," would have been enough to indicate that I have never seen alignment problems that weren't caused by the mishandling of the rules. My apologies. I should have been more clear. That is a mistake I make sometimes, over-explaining other things while not giving enough attention to areas that need it.
You added "any problems you THINK you see are produced by the GM also doing it wrong" to your explanations why all aligment problems are wrong, but his statement is still a fair summary of your position.
Like I said, it was my mistake. I figured, "the misuse of the rules," would have been enough. But then again, if I have only ever seen alignment problems that have been caused by misuse of the rules, what's the difference?
Quantify "regularly". Quantify "normalize". Quantify "significant enough". I'm not talking about definitions. How do you measure these things. For the PHB to be so "really clear" on the matter, it says next to nothing about how to determine these thresholds. Let alone how to determine them objectively.
And people wonder why I am against summarizing. Read the DMG, page 135, for the full version. If that doesn't answer any and all questions about the process of alignment change, we are at an impass.
Then we are at an impass because, again, the rules do not state how to quantify alignment change. The closest that it goes is that "You're In Control." Which basically means "just wing it". But if how to quantify alignment rules is there, please, please quote the passage. Because you would be the first one ever to quote that passage. It would be like finding El Dorado. But with fewer government taxes.
Some people don't like the idea of quantifying how destructive or creative someone is, or how prone to change they are. That's their business, but that really takes some of the heroic fantasy out of heroic fantasy.
Quantifying destructiveness and stubbornness increases the heroic fantasy aspects of the game? I'm pretty sure that's not a universal truth. More likely, quantifying those aspects are something you enjoy in your heroic fantasy since you are such a big fan of the alignment system.
Then again not everyone is after heroic fantasy. Some people want grounded, or even low-fantasy where character and human nature are just glossed over in favor action and intrigue, and that is fine. It's not the standard model, and I wouldn't personally want to do that, but it isn't like it is an incorrect way to play.
You talk as if alignment is superior and mutually exclusive from action and intrigue.
I've made no such assumption. Of course the alignments account for context.
However, I what I do assume that the alignments do not inherently cover all context. And it seems to me that you hold the opposite view, that alignments do inherently cover all context.
I do have the opposite view, because they do. We know timeframe, and action requirements. Moderately helping others at risk to yourself (that covers a whole boatload of contexts right there) over the course of a week or more, one-step alignment change in the direction of good. If you're going to ask me what moderate means, in this context, look at it like this. Moderate is in-between the extreme of least possible with capability, and greatest possible with capability. Now you're going to ask me where it says this in the rules.
Actually, I would ask you to define "least possible with capability", "greatest possible with capability", and explain how you can objectively confirm something is of "least possible with capability", of "least possible with capability", and that something is "moderate".
Or to put it another way, please define your variables.
It doesn't.
Exactly!
Why did I come up with this? Am I houseruling? Is it my opinion? No.
But definitionally, yes. You are using rulings that are not part of the RAW. That's not me making a judgement call. Houserules aren't an inherently bad thing. But that doesn't change the fact that when you start using rulings outside of the RAW, you are dealing with houserules. Your houserules, however minor they are, are not D&D's alignment rules (unless you can convince the 5e designers to make your houserules into the next game's RAW, but I digress).
I am using something known as inductive reasoning. I am using the general meaning of the word moderate in the context provided, the actions of the character who is changing alignment. That is not house-ruling, that is called context reading. Does it technically count as an interpretation of the rules? Yes. But that is how all reading works.
That's called trying to decipher out the RAI. And then houseruling changes to make the rules match the RAI. Which is fine, noble endeavor. But it doesn't change the fact that the RAW, the stuff that actually in the books, are inadequate. And if you're going to defend the idea that the alignment system works, you should defend the actual alignment system, not your houseruled version there of.
So moderate, means moderate, in relation to the two physically possible extremes of the character's behavior.
See above.
So yes, all contexts are covered, by default, because the rules are general enough to do just that. If you make a general enough statement, you can cover enough contexts. For example, boats go in water. If someone asks me if boats go in the Atlantic Ocean, I am going to refer them back to my previous statement. If they ask me in what context, I am going to refer them back to my previous statement.
Strictly speaking, boats go on water. It's shipwrecks usually go in water. More seriously, boats can go on a number of different mediums, so long as the medium is strong enough to support's the boat's mass. And in a fantasy setting, boats can even travel on and in just about any medium with the proper application of magic, including, but not limited to, the air and the aether between dimensions.
Your general statement about boats and water already failed to cover all context.
Due to the general wording of the alignment change rules on page 135 of the DMG, all contexts are covered. In fact, I bet you could give me any context and it could reliably be classified as moderate or extreme.
That's great! Let's sk to the part where you explain how the DMG cover this thought process Or, better yet, quote where in the book it breaks down this thought process.
There are even examples there to help give us ideas what the devs had in mind when they used those concepts.
Examples that illuminated how then intended for it to work (RAI). Now if only they wrote the rules to match (RAW).
But not all actions and not contexts. No moral-ethical system to date has been able to do that
Also, it's funny that you use the word "imply". Because consistent rules do not "imply", they "state". If something is implied, we have to make assumptions about its true meaning. And there's always the chance that information can be miscommunication or lost in the translation.
I thought we dealt with this.
Apparently not.
The alignment system is not a moral or ethical system. It is a polarity system that people have assigned moral value to (even some people in-setting do this, but not everyone.
If it's not a morality system, then why is it so dependent on morality? Why do changes in your morals and ethics change your alignment.
In a simplified nutshell, philosophical skepticism states that it is impossible to prove anything, because all reasoning has an inductive starting point. Therefore, you cannot technically deductively prove to yourself that you exist.
I can do this too, watch. Prove that wizards cast spells. I'm going to enjoy this.
Do you mean in the context of D&D? Because if it's the former, 3.5 PH, Page 41, under Spells, "A wizard casts arcane spells...". Which pretty much settles that.
Defending your food preferences sounds like an entirely reasonable and possible thing to do. It would probably be an entertaining endeavor, if only mildly so. So I can't agree with your analogy. But I digress.
My taste in food is an entirely subjective thing with zero empirical evidence
You would be wrong. We could discuss in depth the biological mechanisms involved in taste and hunger drive (for example, some people are far more sensitive to the taste of bitter compounds which are often found in certain vegetables). We could discuss the evolution of the sense of taste, its advantages and disadvantages, and its role in our evolution (such as a preference for sweets and proteins aiding the evolution of our relatively large and complex brains). We could delve into the subject of nutritional anthropology to discuss tends in history, trade, and culture have had on forming diets, including yours. As well as social-economics to discuss the effects of income brackets on food trends within a populace. That would be a fine start.
and is therefore impossible to defend
See above.
, and also impossible to attack, at least in a manner that makes a lick of sense.
Not, at least, without knowing more about your tastes in foods and other relevant factoids.
Its a complete waste of time, and there are more fun things to do than defend my tastes in food.
Like this thread! Wait, no. That can't be right...
You seem to be implying that I would find this position daft or nonsensical. Because I would actually agree with this. Yes, you read that right.
Legal Disclaimer: I would never, ever, ever do the following, and strongly discourage anyone who might be consider doing the following, as it is against the law and general moral sense. Children are our future, they should be protected and nurtured, and helped to grow into their roles as the next generation of leaders, scholars, soldiers, and fry cooks.
Let me get more clear. There are some cases where I would call it morally praiseworthy to molotov cocktail an entire building full of kids, knowing they are in there, with the express purpose and intent of frying every single one of them to a crisp, for no other reason than the individual doing so was angry and wanted to make a point.
To take things away from the hypothetical and into the real world, when I found out a group of kids was beat to death with baseball bats for cheating in an online game and then taunting the people they cheated, I said the assailants should have all been given medals.
So are some extremes that I can't agree with. I still agree with your initial statement though. Just not your conclusions.
It's that fluff again.
All that talk about ethics and morality is fluff. The real point and meat of alignments is the game mechanics, like the spells and such. I was again trying to make the point that moral value judgments are divorced from alignments, meaning an alignment is not a moral value judgment. If that point has been accepted I am ready to move on and let it drop.
It hasn't. Ethics and morality are fluff, yes. Unfortunately, the alignment system attempts to saddle mechanics to them. You continue to hold the position that the alignment system has nothing to do with ethics and morality, but to me at least, you haven't adequately explained how a system that is dependent on the ethics and morality of a character is not related to the ethics and morality of the character.
That's a good question. I intentionally left that very open, but for the sake of augment, let's assume that "better world" moving the world in the direction of the most ideal utopia "you" can imagine for all people. Where "you" is the recipient of the hypothetical question.
And while, yes, that would strongly bias the question towards the answer's subjective definition of utopia, for this particular question, I think it works.
My idea of a decent world does not meet any of the definitions of utopia. In fact, I would probably be one of the ones that destroyed the utopia. To give you an idea, if you're familiar with the story of "Those Who Walk Away From the Omelas," I would stay, but not to enjoy the utopia. I would let the kid out, and revel in the looks of horror on everyones' faces when I showed them what I did. In my ideal world, I am God and I don't much concern myself with anything else but my own power. Inb4 accusations of sociopathy.
*coughkefkacough*
I hate hypothetical more dilemmas because they are always, invariably, a false dichotomy and not true to life.
A bit ironic, considering we are talking about D&D.
He fighting's an authority to (re)establish a different one. Of course that would mean that he wants freedom from the authority he's fighting. That's kinda an inherent thing about revolutions, is it not?
Revolutionaries generally don't care very much about establishing an authority, and they generally take strong action agianst the authority they are taking out.
Also, why do you say "instead"? You mean you can't fight for both loyalty to a former government and freedom from the current government at the same time? I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but I'm pretty sure you can.
If he is fighting for freedom, and he believes that government he is fighting for will bring freedom, then the overriding principle is still freedom. If he is fighting for freedom to re-establish that government, that means he is fighting to re-establish the government. Yes you can fight for both at the same time but one is always subordinate to the other.
Why? And how?
Especially since you immediately contradict this.
In the case of being forced to choose between general freedom for people, and the displaced government, which would he choose? I initially thought he would choose the displaced government, but if he would choose freedom over them, then he is indeed chaotic. If the values are equal, and he tries to live as free as he can within the displaced government, he is neutral.
But you just said one is always subordinate to the other?
.So how do the rules define "irresponsible" and "reckless". Well...they don't.
They also don't say to what extent you can be "irresponsible" and "reckless" while still being lawful. Which we can only assume that some threshold must exist because, as you just said
All actions are either self-sacrificing, done out of duty, free-spirited, or uncaring self-interest. Every action anyone takes in D&D can be classifed into one of those, sometimes both. Anything that doesn't fall into one of those extremes, is, get this, neutral.
And your redefinitions of the alignments are pretty good. Too bad its not RAW, because this would be pretty good RAW. Or at least, more consistent than the current RAW.
Though it still doesn't explain how to quantify alignment changes, nor define the thresholds that alignment changes.
You can always ask, "how chaotic is this act?" And you can answer that by looking at the descriptions of law and chaos in the PHB.
Deja vu.
Then we are at an impass because, again, the rules do not state how to quantify alignment change. The closest that it goes is that "You're In Control." Which basically means "just wing it". But if how to quantify alignment rules is there, please, please quote the passage. Because you would be the first one ever to quote that passage. It would be like finding El Dorado. But with fewer government taxes.
Oh Jesus, this is getting entirely out of hand.
Quantifying destructiveness and stubbornness increases the heroic fantasy aspects of the game?
That has been part of heroic fantasy since before the British Empire was a thing. D&D just used game rules to simulate the concept. Heroes are always linked to the powers of the cosmos in some fashion or another.
More likely, quantifying those aspects are something you enjoy in your heroic fantasy since you are such a big fan of the alignment system.
I'm a big fan of the ideas and concepts that the alignment rules represent. I'm not so big a fan of the system in and of itself that I am using it in the RPG that I'm working on though. I use a completely different system.
You talk as if alignment is superior and mutually exclusive from action and intrigue.
Without examining character and human nature, mindless action and intrigue is just that. Sure, popcorn fiction can be enjoyable, but I personally am after something different. If I sound like I think that is superior, its because I prefer that to something else. Do I think that popcorn fiction (popcorn role-playing?) is inferior to my prefered tastes? Not really. As one of my favorite authors once said about something very similar, "They're just plowing a different part of the field."
Actually, I would ask you to define "least possible with capability", "greatest possible with capability", and explain how you can objectively confirm something is of "least possible with capability", of "least possible with capability", and that something is "moderate".
Or to put it another way, please define your variables.
They aren't my variables. They are the books' variables, and I don't need to explain anything. The books already do it for me. If you want to read all of this again, alignment rules in the phb start on page 103, and the other stuff in the DMG is page 135.
But definitionally, yes. You are using rulings that are not part of the RAW. That's not me making a judgement call. Houserules aren't an inherently bad thing. But that doesn't change the fact that when you start using rulings outside of the RAW, you are dealing with houserules. Your houserules, however minor they are, are not D&D's alignment rules (unless you can convince the 5e designers to make your houserules into the next game's RAW, but I digress).
I haven't houseruled a thing. Paraphrasing rules is not houseruling. All I have been doing the whole time is finding different ways to paraphrase what is in the books. I can 100% accurately paraphrase all of the rules in the books (once I read them) and it doesn't mean I am houseruling them.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Your general statement about boats and water already failed to cover all context.
Stop trying to be cute, I don't appreciate it. You and I both know damn well boats are seagoing vessels.
That's great! Let's sk to the part where you explain how the DMG cover this thought process Or, better yet, quote where in the book it breaks down this thought process.
I already explained it.
Examples that illuminated how then intended for it to work (RAI). Now if only they wrote the rules to match (RAW).
They did, the rules are included before the examples, and are general enough to cover all situations. I'm sorry that you don't see that, but that is the truth.
If it's not a morality system, then why is it so dependent on morality? Why do changes in your morals and ethics change your alignment.
As I keep saying, it isn't. If it did, then there wouldn't be subjective value judgments made about each alignment. If you wanted to get really technical, you could say that archetypally, each alignment is representative of a specific ethical philosophies, but that is explicitly stated in the rules to not be the case. You'll probably ask me where that is too.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I can do this too, watch. Prove that wizards cast spells. I'm going to enjoy this.
Do you mean in the context of D&D? Because if it's the former, 3.5 PH, Page 41, under Spells, "A wizard casts arcane spells...". Which pretty much settles that.
How can you prove that you are accurately interpreting it though? A better question, how can you prove that your eyes are relaying accurate information?
Like this thread! Wait, no. That can't be right...
If I really believed this was a waste of time, I wouldn't be posting here. That said you are completely ignoring hard evidence, and trying to quibble over word-meanings that are quite clear in context. Just look at the words in the context they are used, I swear this isn't that hard. I'm not the only one who figured these rules out. I am not some great sage who has the secret key to interpreting the grimoire.
I still agree with your initial statement though. Just not your conclusions.
My conclusion flows directly from my premise, like all good logic.
*coughkefkacough*
The difference between Kefka and I is that I am not out to make up for some deep-seeded failure that I occasionally flashback to by punishing the whole world. If anything, I function much more like Rorschach from Watchmen. Except instead of morals being my reasons for what I do, I value my own personal growth above all else, and my world-view wasn't shaped by truamatic experiences. I got there just by being around people.
A bit ironic, considering we are talking about D&D.
What gives you the impression that D&D isn't true to life? Don't tell me you think all that stuff about magic and demons is made up? There is, after all, a gigantic difference between make-believe and fantasy.
Also, why do you say "instead"? You mean you can't fight for both loyalty to a former government and freedom from the current government at the same time? I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but I'm pretty sure you can.
If he is fighting for freedom, and he believes that government he is fighting for will bring freedom, then the overriding principle is still freedom. If he is fighting for freedom to re-establish that government, that means he is fighting to re-establish the government. Yes you can fight for both at the same time but one is always subordinate to the other.
Why? And how?
Especially since you immediately contradict this.
In the case of being forced to choose between general freedom for people, and the displaced government, which would he choose? I initially thought he would choose the displaced government, but if he would choose freedom over them, then he is indeed chaotic. If the values are equal, and he tries to live as free as he can within the displaced government, he is neutral.
But you just said one is always subordinate to the other?
Or instead of contradicting myself I'm coming back to the thought and allowing for the possiblilty of neutrality. But knowing you, you will read something into my response that isn't there and accuse me of backpedaling after being caught in a contradiction. Well, accuse away.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
And your redefinitions of the alignments are pretty good. Too bad its not RAW, because this would be pretty good RAW. Or at least, more consistent than the current RAW.
Though it still doesn't explain how to quantify alignment changes, nor define the thresholds that alignment changes.
There is no re-definition. Seriously, I am half-quoting the DMG, and the other half paraphrasing the PHB. Maybe it would help if you read the PHB alignment section and the DMG alignment section alongside each other? consistent non-extreme uncaring destructive behavior, if lasts for a week or more, necessitates one step toward the evil alignment.
Here, let me break it down:
"Good" implies altruism(Neutral), respect for life(Chaotic), and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings(Lawful)[Annotations Mine]. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient(Neutral). Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport(Chaotic) or out of duty to some evil deity or master(Lawful)[Annotations Mine].
So, the behavior of the evil alignment has been established.
Changes in alignment should
not be drastic. Usually, a character changes alignment only one
step at a time—from lawful evil to lawful neutral, for example,
and not directly to neutral good.
Require an interval of at least a week of game time
between alignment changes.
So, unless in extreme cases, alignment changes one step at a time, and takes a minimum of week. There is me paraphrasing again but you're probably going to call that house-ruling too. If the listed behavior occurs consistently, for a week or more, alignment change. Those are the rules. Here is an example that demonstrates those rules in action. If you tell me you still don't understand after this, then you're trolling. I wouldn't be surprised if you disagreed with me, and that would be okay. But this is so absurdly simple that having to explain this is bottling my mind. I even use the same font mods to illustrate related text, which supplies context.
The
player decides he wants Garrett to be neutral good and writes
that on Garrett’s character sheet. By the second playing session
of Garrett’s career, however, it’s clear that the player isn’t playing
Garrett as a good-aligned character at all. Garrett likes to steal
minor valuables from others (although not his friends) and does
not care about helping people or stopping evil. Garrett is a
neutral character.
If you ask me to explain my position again, I'm just going to quote myself for ease of use. Also, this helps me cut down on post length which is getting ridiculous.
For completion's sake I will break down the other two and how they relate to the other axis.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability(Good). On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability(Evil)[Annotations Mine]. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility(Good). On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility(Evil)[Annotations Mine]. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Then we are at an impass because, again, the rules do not state how to quantify alignment change. The closest that it goes is that "You're In Control." Which basically means "just wing it". But if how to quantify alignment rules is there, please, please quote the passage. Because you would be the first one ever to quote that passage. It would be like finding El Dorado. But with fewer government taxes.
Oh Jesus, this is getting entirely out of hand.
I know, I always go into seizures when I need to actually prove my points too.
Then we are at an impass because, again, the rules do not state how to quantify alignment change. The closest that it goes is that "You're In Control." Which basically means "just wing it". But if how to quantify alignment rules is there, please, please quote the passage. Because you would be the first one ever to quote that passage. It would be like finding El Dorado. But with fewer government taxes.
Oh Jesus, this is getting entirely out of hand.
I know, I always go into seizures when I need to actually prove my points too.
I was refering to the sheer number of consecutive mega-posts. That said I have provided an overwhelming amount of concrete evidence for my position, or rather the same concrete evidence just repeatedly stated. I am hoping this last post gets it. If not then I am seriously tempted to just drop the issue. I cannot point to a pond and go "that's a pond," if a person has no idea what a pond is. Then I suppose I could explain the traits of a pond, but if someone doesn't associate the description to the thing, then its pointless.
In fact, I would go so far as to say it really feels like this guy and I are using two completely different languages. No, scrap that, two completely different mediums. Like he is trying to communicate through motion and I am trying to communicate through smells, and there isn't an available analog or translation. I can only keep that up for so long before I start to think that I really am wasting my time.
They're not necessarily being jerks. In trying to follow and enforce the rules, they run into these problems. The fights ensue because the rules are so vague that what it comes down to is personal preference, and when people believe their preferences are being questioned they push back.
That wasn't what I meant. I'm not talking about enforcing rules, at least not RAW; I was refering to players stealing from their allies, or stabbing them in the back, or whatnot, and justifying it by being like "What? I'm Chaotic Neutral" or whatever. And it's not just CN, sometimes people with LG characters are overbearing ****es and justify it with their alignment. I was also refering to the DMs who tell players that a Lawful character CAN NOT break a law, or some such nonsense, without facing an alignment change on the spot, or immeditely have a group of higher-level NPCs come put the beatdown on them, because the DM wants them to only play their character the way the DM sees him/her..
And I'm saying that those people aren't necessarily being jerks. They might legitimately think they're playing by the rules, and are doing what they're doing because they assume that following the rules to (what they see as) the letter, will lead to an enjoyable game, as if the game were an engine that's being assembled per the instructions. They might even acknowledge that what they're doing is not fun, but not want to risk not doing it, in case they break the tenets of the game and make things even worse.
I've also seen players concerned about a "damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario," who don't necessarily want to block the rogue from doing rogue things, but who is afraid of then not being able to do paladin or monk things. They might think the rogue is being a jerk because the rogue's actions put the paladin or other Lawful characters in a bind, in which they can either punish the rogue, or be punished themselves.
It's a reasonable conclusion to reach.
A reasonable person can conclude that alignment means you can tell other people how to play their characters. Telling other people how to play their characters is jerk behavior, but the rules appear to allow and encourage that. If the rules for alignment simple said "Don't tell people how to play their character," we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Even that reasonable person would be wrong, however. The RAW don't say that alignment allows you to do that, and it's Munchkin Fallacy to say that because the rules don't expressly forbid it, that it's okay.
The point is, the alignment rules can cause problems even when reasonable people interpret them in reasonable ways. At best it's not a robust system, because it can fail easily and under the best intentions. D&D as a whole is like that, which is why "What's a Player to Do?" and "What's a DM to Do?" exist, but alignment is the worst aspect of this kind of thing.
Alignment is un-necessary, and therefore any problems caused by it are also un-necessary.
It is functionally necessary for the miriad of other rulesets in 3.5 D&D. In any Heroic setting, and D&D at it's heart is a game of Heros, Good vs Evil is an ingrained theme that saturates all aspects of a roleplaying world.
-Monsters, are not just animals or wicked humans, so Evil has a physical manifestation, as does Good. These elements, Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are real natural forces, just as papable and real as Earth, Fire, Water and Air.
It is not subjective morality, man doesn't decide what is right or wrong on whim, Deities and the forces of nature decree what is Good or Evil. Paladins don't just train to be Paladins, they are called by the Forces of Good, they are such righteous people that the universe grants them the power to Smite Evil.
And it is supposed to be, it plays on the Heroic themes of fantasy and fairy tales of old. King Authur pulling Excalibur from the Stone is very literally an allignment restriction. People being tried by walking on hot coals, miricles by holy men and saints. Pure hearted virgin maidens riding unicrons Etc are all allignment related
Also D&D's morality reflects the concepts of religion and legends in ancient times. Watering it down and ditching allignment simply because it in "unnecessary" is Not the same game, It changes the dynamics significantly. Understand that allignment Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos is a dynamic part of the theme, it is a core concept to the story. Alot of things can be called "unnecessary" such as PC names, or roleplaying. D&D could be made into a simplified Board game which while solving alot of issues would still suck.
When people start bringing up "subjective morality" and other weak modern day philosophies that don't really fit into the theme, they might as well start arguing the areodynamics of Dragons and why they can't fly, and the physics of magic and why a Wizard would die of cancer from his spell's radiation and how the energy from a fireball would be equal to 12 Cat scans.....
Fantasy game, Good vs Evil mechanics are not "unnecessary"
Quantifying destructiveness and stubbornness increases the heroic fantasy aspects of the game?
That has been part of heroic fantasy since before the British Empire was a thing. D&D just used game rules to simulate the concept. Heroes are always linked to the powers of the cosmos in some fashion or another.
You do realize that "quantify" means "to determine, indicate, or express the quantity of". Having "heroes linked to the power of the cosmos" is not the same as "making a quantity explicit". They are two different concepts. The fomer is characterization, the latter is math. And you argued that the latter, the math of measuring the explicit quantities destructiveness and stubbornness, makes heroic fantasy more heroic. This suggests to me that you're not quite understanding what I have been asking for.
Perhaps you thought I meant "qualify"? That would make a little more sense, at least. Unless you're a big DBZ fan. In which case, I would be obligated to agree with you.
In fact, I would go so far as to say it really feels like this guy and I are using two completely different languages.
Since it seems that we're not even using the same definition of "quantify", this seems likely. It's probably best if we agree to disagree and move on.
So I take it you're not going to quote the passage he's asking you to?
Honestly, I would settle for just this. If nothing else, learning where this fabled and illusive passage is would, for me at least, make this thread a huge success.
-----
All this back and forth about whether alignment works, or doesn't works, or that alignment is inherently flawed, or people are just Doing It WrongTM, I've come to an conclusion.
The alignment rules, if they are going to continue to exist in the game, are in dire need of rewriting. Even if one holds the position that the alignment system works absolutely fine and is 100% crystal clear in its definitions and applications, I don't think anyone would deny that these rules should not be interpreted so radically differently from table to table and cause so my arguments and disputes.
That's not to saying that alignment mechanics would need be dropped (I would unceremoniously kick them to the curb, but that's besides the point). They need to be revised, clarified, and made more accessible in both content and presentation. They need to be better written so that they are as clear and easy to apply as, say, attack rolls and multiclassing rules.
Fantasy game, Good vs Evil mechanics are not "unnecessary"
Sure, and as far as the mechanics go, alignment works fine. If your AC is 10, then a 10 or better hits you. If your alignment is Good then Protection from Good causes you problems. Easy. Classic. Cool. Also easily handled in other ways, but whatever.
The issue is that there are lots of "implied" mechanics, and a lot of probably unintended consequences that stem from the alignment rules as a whole. Reasonable people conclude that they must behave in ways that are socially unacceptable, or they're cheating at worst and houseruling at best. Not that there's anything wrong with houseruling, but it's usually a sign that the rules are causing undesired results.
Paladins don't just train to be Paladins, they are called by the Forces of Good, they are such righteous people that the universe grants them the power to Smite Evil.
In 4e they explicitley do just train to be paladins. In fact, the rules text for how 4e paladins abide by their alignments strongly imply that people fake their way through training, just to have powers granted, only to turn out to be not quite so holy.
---
You can totally have "Evil wizards" and "Swords in the Stone" in DND games without alignment. The evil wizard is a jerk, and people refer to him as evil. Just as they call evil real world people evil. The Sword in the Stone that only the worthy can pull? Well only those who have demonstrated worth can pull it. Thats much more engaging and "storytelling" than simply pointing at your sheet and saying "It says LG I can use the sword".
A sword that only the Just can wield? Totally do-able. You declare the sword is only usable by the just, and whenever a just person wields it, they unlock its true power.
Alignment mechanics help that in 0 ways. Since they hurt it in [any] ways they are by default bad.
A sword that only the Just can wield? Totally do-able. You declare the sword is only usable by the just, and whenever a just person wields it, they unlock its true power.
WHich gets fun at times when you do the "Only pure of heart can wield this blade." "Well, I'm pure evil." "....Damn"
A sword that only the Just can wield? Totally do-able. You declare the sword is only usable by the just, and whenever a just person wields it, they unlock its true power.
WHich gets fun at times when you do the "Only pure of heart can wield this blade." "Well, I'm pure evil." "....Damn"
The one thing the forgers of that sword couldn't stand was wishy-washiness.
So I take it you're not going to quote the passage he's asking you to?
Don't try and be forum police, you wouldn't be very good at it. That out of the way I quoted, highlighted, and annotaed everything that was important and asked for. Don't be a ****. If you have something meaningful to contribute, then fire away. Otherwise please keep your railings and snarky comments in class balance and 5mwd threads. I didn't do anything to you, so leave me alone. Unless you have a reasonable disagreement. If all you're going to do is try and call me out on the ethos carpet, I don't really care to hear it.
uote] Honestly, I would settle for just this. If nothing else, learning where this fabled and illusive passage is would, for me at least, make this thread a huge success.
Here, let me break it down: Note that the same font mods indicate related text. This was done for cross-reference purposes so you could have an easier time figuring out the context. Understand that nothing is paraphrased, and this is all straight from the books. Emphasis through font mods and annotations, are all mine.
"Good" implies altruism(Neutral), respect for life(Chaotic), and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings(Lawful)[Annotations Mine]. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient(Neutral). Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport(Chaotic) or out of duty to some evil deity or master(Lawful)[Annotations Mine].
So, the behavior of the evil alignment has been established.
Changes in alignment should
not be drastic. Usually, a character changes alignment only one
step at a time—from lawful evil to lawful neutral, for example,
and not directly to neutral good.
Require an interval of at least a week of game time
between alignment changes.
So, unless in extreme cases, alignment changes one step at a time, and takes a minimum of week. There is me paraphrasing again but you're probably going to call that house-ruling too. If the listed behavior occurs consistently, for a week or more, alignment change. Those are the rules. Here is an example that demonstrates those rules in action. If you tell me you still don't understand after this, then you're trolling. I wouldn't be surprised if you disagreed with me, and that would be okay. But this is so absurdly simple that having to explain this is bottling my mind. I even use the same font mods to illustrate related text, which supplies context.
The
player decides he wants Garrett to be neutral good and writes
that on Garrett’s character sheet. By the second playing session
of Garrett’s career, however, it’s clear that the player isn’t playing
Garrett as a good-aligned character at all. Garrett likes to steal
minor valuables from others (although not his friends) and does
not care about helping people or stopping evil. Garrett is a
neutral character.
These are alignment rules. See how cut-and-dry, and simple they are?
No, because there's not a single objective bit in there.
That is only true if philosophical skepticism is true, in which case nothing is objective, and you cannot prove to yourself that you exist. They give clear criteria, and an example of those criteria in action. If this makes it easier to understand, it is the same kind of system in KotOR, instead of "good and evil" behavior, its "light and dark" behavior. I'm sorry if you don't agree with what's in the DMG and the PHB, but that is how alignment works. Seriously, how is a week not objective? How is clear behavior criteria not objective? I genuinely do not understand the disconnect here.
The player decides he wants Garrett to be neutral good and writes that on Garrett’s character sheet. By the second playing session of Garrett’s career, however, it’s clear that the player isn’t playing Garrett as a good-aligned character at all. Garrett likes to steal minor valuables from others (although not his friends) and does not care about helping people or stopping evil. Garrett is a neutral character.
These are alignment rules. See how cut-and-dry, and simple they are?
There are a couple of things I'm not clear on.
Who determines Garret does not care about helping people or stopping evil? That's a pretty broad statement. Maybe he just hasn't encountered the right circumstances.
What would be the in-game issues caused if, say, everyone drops the ball and never "corrects" Garrett's alignment? Are those issues worth the potential argument caused when a player is opposed to an alignment change because of a different understanding of alignment?
There are a couple of things I'm not clear on.
Who determines Garret does not care about helping people or stopping evil? That's a pretty broad statement. Maybe he just hasn't encountered the right circumstances.
...
You serious? You're really questioning whether or not the DMG's description of the example character is accurate or not? No, we don't know who it would have been amongst the group who came up with that description of the character, but it doesn't matter. The character in the example doesn't care about helping people, or stopping evil. We don't need to know how the DMG came to that conclusion because we induce that that is the current state of the character, because that is a conditional that is specified. Does that sound like an appeal to authority fallacy? Probably, but the thing is, that is all we know about the character. How do we know? Because the only source of information we have, has proved to be a reliable one, and is our eyes and ears.
In an epistomological sense, it is the author of the text that is informing us, "hey, this is what this dude is like." I promise you, when the author wrote that example out, he was not writing it with the intent in mind that it be questioned. The narrator is not an unreliable narrator, ergo, we have no reason to distrust the information. That is like when third-person omniscient narrative perspective says, "X character is scared," and someone reading the text says, "Well, how can we be sure?" If you want to engage in that level of skepticism, then every single example in the DMG is now called into question. "How do we know this character is male?" Just because the DMG says it doesn't make it true, right? See the problem there? At some point in any and all reasoning, you have to make an inductive assumption, again, otherwise, you can't prove to yourself that you exist.
Upon further reflection, I have realized something. You're not questioning the text, are you? You're looking at any real-life situation where something like this could happen, and asking, "what's the metric for determining player character value?" Aren't you? Well that one's easy. Its been in the PHB the whole time. Who determines anything about a given player character? Likes, dislikes, hopes, dreams, desires, values, personality? The player is always the one who comes up with that stuff, and the PHB is very clear about this.
What would be the in-game issues caused if, say, everyone drops the ball and never "corrects" Garrett's alignment? Are those issues worth the potential argument caused when a player is opposed to an alignment change because of a different understanding of alignment?
I am so happy I could cry right now. I feel like I made the breakthrough of breakthroughs This is a proper disagreement. Instead of questioning the very clear and demonstratably reliable text, you are disagreeing with the quality of the system in and of itself, which is a much stronger and more logical argument. Thank you sir, thank you, you have won my respect.
At that point, from a meta-game perspective, you have to decide which elements are worth arguing about and which aren't, because alignment is far from the only element of rules that cause disagreements. In fact, there are entirely different approaches to gaming that different members in the same groups will have. Personally, I run alignment by the books, just like I run most everything else by the books. My own games are the most vanilla and un-altered games I have ever experienced, and I like it that way. I like using the original systems as they read. If the other player doesn't understand alignment, then I think enlightening the player is worth an argument.
I think I have kind of demonstrated that already in fact. Then again, a lot of other people don't think it's worth it. That is a judgment call. If standard alignment is being ran, that means the character's behavior is aligned with neutrality, which is to say, not strongly aligned with the power of good or evil, and the mechanics should reflect that. When he kisses the book, he should get a mild shock, but not be knocked on his butt. In a game where alignment is being ran non-standard, or not at all, not changing his alignment may or may not cause any issue at all. Really, it depends on the system and the group.
No, we don't know who it would have been amongst the group who came up with that description of the character, but it doesn't matter.
Yes, it does, because if we're going to follow that example, we need to know how one arrives at the point of determining that alignment change is necessary.
What would be the in-game issues caused if, say, everyone drops the ball and never "corrects" Garrett's alignment? Are those issues worth the potential argument caused when a player is opposed to an alignment change because of a different understanding of alignment?
At that point, from a meta-game perspective, you have to decide which elements are worth arguing about and which aren't, because alignment is far from the only element of rules that cause disagreements.
No, but alignment arguments are of a special breed. Accidentally misreading a spell to my advantage, and then being told it doesn't work that way is very different from my character taking a course of action and then being told either that he wouldn't do that, or that by doing that I'm cheating or something unless I change my alignment.
In fact, there are entirely different approaches to gaming that different members in the same groups will have. Personally, I run alignment by the books, just like I run most everything else by the books. My own games are the most vanilla and un-altered games I have ever experienced, and I like it that way. I like using the original systems as they read. If the other player doesn't understand alignment, then I think enlightening the player is worth an argument.
That's what I don't get. I like following the mechanics of a game carefully, because I'm not sure what I might throw out of whack if I don't. I trust (perhaps more than I should) that the designers know what they're doing, and I disregard some element of their rules at my peril. Is that why people hew so closely to alignment? Fear that if they don't there will be problems with their game?
I think I have kind of demonstrated that already in fact. Then again, a lot of other people don't think it's worth it. That is a judgment call. If standard alignment is being ran, that means the character's behavior is aligned with neutrality, which is to say, not strongly aligned with the power of good or evil, and the mechanics should reflect that. When he kisses the book, he should get a mild shock, but not be knocked on his butt.
Rules get forgotten and overlooked all the time, even by people who want to run a "standard" game. Encumbrance. Illumination. The grapple rules. Nothing much goes awry if too little attention is paid to these, and some people dispense with them entirely, replacing them, handwaving them, or avoiding them.
Other rules, such as how armor class is determined, how hits are determined, and how HP are calculated, lost, and gained, tend not to be forgotten, because they're central to the rules and extremely important. If these are forgotten, or even just slightly misplayed some very odd situations might arise.
Above, you describe what happens if the alignment rules are remembered, and a character's alignment is changed when deemd appropriate. What I want to know is what happens if those rules are forgotten? What if the character acts like alignment A but has alignment B listed, and no one ever thinks to change what's on the sheet? What happens to the game?
Yes, it does, because if we're going to follow that example, we need to know how one arrives at the point of determining that alignment change is necessary.
Earlier I figured out what you were asking me, and as I said in my edit, it is always the player that decides what the player character values, everything from likes, dislikes, desires, dreams, personality, values, all of that stuff is worked out by the player of that character. That is all quite clearly covered in the PHB. While the DM can certainly help a player decide what he wants his character to be like, it is ultimately the player that determines who their character is.
No, but alignment arguments are of a special breed. Accidentally misreading a spell to my advantage, and then being told it doesn't work that way is very different from my character taking a course of action and then being told either that he wouldn't do that, or that by doing that I'm cheating or something unless I change my alignment.
Other rules, such as how armor class is determined, how hits are determined, and how HP are calculated, lost, and gained, tend not to be forgotten, because they're central to the rules and extremely important. If these are forgotten, or even just slightly misplayed some very odd situations might arise.
Above, you describe what happens if the alignment rules are remembered, and a character's alignment is changed when deemd appropriate. What I want to know is what happens if those rules are forgotten? What if the character acts like alignment A but has alignment B listed, and no one ever thinks to change what's on the sheet? What happens to the game?
I disagree about alignment arguments being a special breed, simply because I see them all as game rules arguments, and all game rules arguments have the same solution, which is to read the directions. If someone is determined to misunderstand, then write Wizards or something. I miss the sage column from Dragon Magazine. Interestingly enough such close-reading on the part of the players have caused discoveries of truly unintended inconsistencies and contradictions within the rules. But those are still incredibly rare.
To answer your question, I am unsure, because that has never happened to me before. In-setting, I suppose you would get a character who demonstrates "good" behavior to the world, but instead has none of the power that good offers, assuming he is neutral. To take it a step further, if a character was listed as evil aligned, but for all intents and purposes functioned as the stuanchest of good characters, I would imagine it would present some setting and mechanical problems. For starters, that character would have problems when wielding a holy weapon, which is a huge boon in the fight against evil entities. That is just off the top of my head. This gets even more serious of the character ever acquires the outsider type and native subtype, as things like magic cirlce against evil, which would normally be boons for the group, could be really problematic for the evil character.
An evil player character who just behaved like a good character would also be in for a really rude shock when the group's cleric decided to deploy holy smite. Those are mechanical problems that I could see happening. In-setting, I imagine a lot of characters would be wondering why the hell holy smite hurts this nice guy so bad, and why he registers as evil, but when we zone of truth him and asks if he is a spy or in the process of commiting evil, he says no, and that he loves good, does good, and zone of truth doesn't ring in the ears of the caster at any of that, it calls into question the metaphysics of the setting in a major way. Again, I am unsure about this because this has never happened to me before, as I always kept track of everything.
Either that, or the character is truly functionally good and they just forgot to change the character sheet, I suppose. But then they are still using the alignment system and still treating him as the alignment that he is demonstrating, his character sheet just doesn't reflect it because they forgot to change it.
Does that mean I'm "doing it better" than someone else that IS having issues? (Here comes the answer that's gonna get people angry) Yes, unequivocally it means just that. Does it take a strong understanding of heroics, heroic motivations, player motivation and character development? Yup. Could the game do a lot better to explain all this? Yes. Why doesn't it? Probably because people would whine and cry and throw tantrums about it. I'd argue that shouldn't stop them but, sadly, not everyone has the teeth to tell players "This is how this is done properly". Sad but true.
Simply put, Zaramon is right. The problem is in interpretation and understanding. Is the text perfect in communicating its point? No, of course not. However, I can say I've more than understood it well enough to avoid ANY alignment issues in 15+ years of DMing. Why? I understand heroes. I understand fantasy. And I understand how to communicate to players what sort of game they're sitting down to play.
It basically boils down to the fact that a system is neither good nor bad based on how well a given DM is able to rule on it. Shogi is a difficult game to master...that does not make it a bad game.
uote] Honestly, I would settle for just this. If nothing else, learning where this fabled and illusive passage is would, for me at least, make this thread a huge success.
Here, let me break it down: Note that the same font mods indicate related text. This was done for cross-reference purposes so you could have an easier time figuring out the context. Understand that nothing is paraphrased, and this is all straight from the books. Emphasis through font mods and annotations, are all mine.
I don't need context. I have the context already. I'm quite familiar with the alignment sections of the 3.5 books. I dug out my books just to engage in this conversation with you, and I have the link to the d20srd in my browser's toolbar. I've read it all before. I've seen it argued all before. I don't need you to requote what you've already quoted time and time again because you think the answers are so self evident.
What I do need quoted is something you haven't quoted already. What I do need quoted are the objective bits. What I do need quoted is the answer to my one question.
Where is the section that explains how to quantify and track alignment change? Where is the math? The charts? The formulas? The anything, really? Because without such an objective measure, there simply is no way to consistently apply alignment mechanics.
Which is my whole point.
Rules that can't applied consistently are going to cause issues. Rules that can't be applied consistently do cause issues. Alignments rules can't be applied consistently, which is why alignment causes problems.
If the answer is so "cut-and-dry, and simple", why can't you find it? And if the answer is there, why haven't you quoted it, since you've pretty much quoted everything else.
Simple. Because it does not exist. It's not in the book, the srd, or the rules of the game articles. This is a treacherous hole that the alignment rules as written do not even touch upon aside from saying that "You (the DM) are in control". Which means that tracking alignment is entirely subjective. And as I said already, without such an objective measure, there simply is no way to consistently apply alignment mechanics.
And that's terrible.
What I do need quoted is something you haven't quoted already. What I do need quoted are the objective bits. What I do need quoted is the answer to my question.
Where is the section that explains how to quantify and track alignment change? Where is the math? The charts? The formulas? The anything, really? Because without such an objective measure, there simply is no way to consistently apply alignment mechanics.
It is objective. The text objectively states everything. That thing I quoted on page 135 of the DMG does say how to quantify and track alignment change. "When player characters do x for y period of time, that =alignment change." There, I just re-stated the same equation that they use, where x is contrary behavior, and the period of time is a week or more. You know what evil aligned behavior is because the PHB tells you. You know what good aligned behavior is, because the PHB tells you. So the behavior part of the equation is figured out. We know the period of time is a week or more, because the DMG tells you. There is your formula, the same formula I have been presenting to you this whole time, the same forumla that is in the books. They don't give you charts because they expect a bit of text to be enough, and it is. That isn't subjective or arguable at all, that is hard, grounded, concrete rules. You're just trying to be difficult on purpose, to what end though, I have no idea.
"When player characters do x for y period of time, that =alignment change."
Define X and Y in concrete, immutable terms.
Yes, it does, because if we're going to follow that example, we need to know how one arrives at the point of determining that alignment change is necessary.
Earlier I figured out what you were asking me, and as I said in my edit, it is always the player that decides what the player character values, everything from likes, dislikes, desires, dreams, personality, values, all of that stuff is worked out by the player of that character. That is all quite clearly covered in the PHB. While the DM can certainly help a player decide what he wants his character to be like, it is ultimately the player that determines who their character is.
That's not what I'm asking.
The player decides how to play the character, yes. Who decides that the player isn't playing the characters alignment correctly and how do they make that determination? The rules, particularly the section you quoted, gloss right over the most important aspect of how the system is supposed to work.
I feel like we're veering toward the "The DM doesn't change the character's alignment, the player changes the character's alignment," so I want to nip that in the bud. A player can elect to change a character's alignment, but that's not really what's at issue in the original post or in general. Even though a player might agree and go along with it, the DM is the one who usually decides someone's not playing an alignment correctly, and then we get into the realm of the DM not "helping a player decide what he wants his character to be like," but threatening to change the character if the player doesn't conform.
I disagree about alignment arguments being a special breed, simply because I see them all as game rules arguments, and all game rules arguments have the same solution, which is to read the directions.
These directions are incredibly unclear and open to interpretation, and gloss over key aspects of the functionality.
In-setting, I suppose you would get a character who demonstrates "good" behavior to the world, but instead has none of the power that good offers, assuming he is neutral.
No alignment offers any "power" as far as I've ever been able to tell.
To take it a step further, if a character was listed as evil aligned, but for all intents and purposes functioned as the stuanchest of good characters, I would imagine it would present some setting and mechanical problems.
An evil player character who just behaved like a good character would also be in for a really rude shock when the group's cleric decided to deploy holy smite. Those are mechanical problems that I could see happening
Those aren't mechanical problems, those are still examples of alignment working properly. Those situations are odd and inconvenient, but there's no actual problem with the rules not being followed, as there would be if someone wasn't tracking HP properly (intentionally or not).
In-setting, I imagine a lot of characters would be wondering why the hell holy smite hurts this nice guy so bad, and why he registers as evil, but when we zone of truth him and asks if he is a spy or in the process of commiting evil, he says no, and that he loves good, does good, and zone of truth doesn't ring in the ears of the caster at any of that, it calls into question the metaphysics of the setting in a major way.
The last bit is the closest I could see as a problem, of all the examples you've given. But even then, if there are cool answers to those questions, it's not a problem at all.
One thing you didn't address is what happens when the party faces a group with anti-good spells and this character strides right through them. I think that's where the rubber meets the road for a lot of people, since that character is gaining an advantage, and doesn't necessarily ever suffer the consequences of friendly fire. But over all, this is just an oddity, not really a brokenness of the rules.
I always kept track of everything.
Sure you do.
Your examples all seem to do with a character listed as some form of evil acting as if he's good. What if you have a character listed as some form of good, acting as non-good? This seems like the big bugbear for people, particularly because of paladins. Being Lawful Good is seen as a restriction, as a price paid for getting the powers of a paladin, and so when people don't live up to what the DM expects of Lawful Good, the hammer comes down to change the alignment and take away those powers, as if the player were somehow really dominating the game with such a character, when there's probably a wizard in the group with even more power and no alignment restrictions (except being kicked out by the paladin if he ever crosses into evil - another prime source of strife caused by alignment.)
All in all, though, the there appear to me to be know issues of game balance or workability caused if alignment changes never happen, and potentially some pretty interesting situations. As the OP demonstrates, changing a player's alignment can cause a great deal of strife, so I see no reason to risk it. Other players might object to a character having one alignment and acting like another, but players should not concern themselves with what others are doing, if there's no breakage of the game.
Define X and Y in concrete, immutable terms.
There, I just re-stated the same equation that they use, where x is contrary behavior, and y is a week or more.
Read my post better please.
Simple. Because it does not exist. It's not in the book, the srd, or the rules of the game articles. This is a treacherous hole that the alignment rules as written do not even touch upon aside from saying that "You (the DM) are in control". Which means that tracking alignment is entirely subjective. And as I said already, without such an objective measure, there simply is no way to consistently apply alignment mechanics.
And that's terrible.
Here's your answer...but you probably won't like it (for that I apologize, but it is what it is): The first bolded part means the second bolded part does not need to be subjective. The DM in question merely has to be consisent in THEIR OWN application, and the issue is resolved. In other words...the DM is in control.
Define X and Y in concrete, immutable terms.There, I just re-stated the same equation that they use, where x is contrary behavior, and y is a week or more.
Read my post better please.
"Contrary behavior" is not an immutable term.
Simple. Because it does not exist. It's not in the book, the srd, or the rules of the game articles. This is a treacherous hole that the alignment rules as written do not even touch upon aside from saying that "You (the DM) are in control". Which means that tracking alignment is entirely subjective. And as I said already, without such an objective measure, there simply is no way to consistently apply alignment mechanics.
And that's terrible.
Here's your answer...but you probably won't like it (for that I apologize, but it is what it is): The first bolded part means the second bolded part does not need to be subjective. The DM in question merely has to be consisent in THEIR OWN application, and the issue is resolved. In other words...the DM is in control.
Which, as I said, is the problem.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Simple. Because it does not exist. It's not in the book, the srd, or the rules of the game articles. This is a treacherous hole that the alignment rules as written do not even touch upon aside from saying that "You (the DM) are in control". Which means that tracking alignment is entirely subjective. And as I said already, without such an objective measure, there simply is no way to consistently apply alignment mechanics.
And that's terrible.
Here's your answer...but you probably won't like it (for that I apologize, but it is what it is): The first bolded part means the second bolded part does not need to be subjective. The DM in question merely has to be consisent in THEIR OWN application, and the issue is resolved. In other words...the DM is in control.
Which, as I said, is the problem.
No no. It is potentially A problem. However, the weight of that problem rests on the shoulders of the DM in question. Not with the system.
I believe entire CHAPTERS of the DMG should be devoted entirely to alignment and that it should be heavy reading. It should be unambiguous. It should be clear. I also believe that it would not rectify many problems because people that have not read/seen the appropriate material to give them an understanding of Law/Chaos & Good/Evil in a fantasy setting probably won't read those chapters if they existed. That or they'll read them and go "That's stupid!" and proceed to have the same problems they've always had.
People are simply becoming worse at understanding unambiguous morality as applied to a fantasy system like Alignment. While also generally asking for more "heroic" (usually simply translating to "powerful") characters.
That is a problem.
That's not what I'm asking.
You asked me who decides what the player cares about. That answer is easily found in the PHB. If you meant to ask me something else, I understand.
The player decides how to play the character, yes. Who decides that the player isn't playing the characters alignment correctly and how do they make that determination? The rules, particularly the section you quoted, gloss right over the most important aspect of how the system is supposed to work.
No one "decides" if the player is playing the alignment correctly. In fact, "playing alignment correctly" is a giant misnomer. There is no wrong or right way to play alignment. If your character's alignment is listed as good, and the character isn't being played like the alignment is good, that doesn't mean he is playing his alignment incorrectly. That means his alignment is going to shift soon. There really isn't a such thing as playing an alignment "correctly." Only a correct way to use the rules.
I feel like we're veering toward the "The DM doesn't change the character's alignment, the player changes the character's alignment," so I want to nip that in the bud. A player can elect to change a character's alignment, but that's not really what's at issue in the original post or in general. Even though a player might agree and go along with it, the DM is the one who usually decides someone's not playing an alignment correctly, and then we get into the realm of the DM not "helping a player decide what he wants his character to be like," but threatening to change the character if the player doesn't conform.
The DM doesn't get to "decide" anything, at least not in the way you're talking about. The only thing the DM does concerning alignment is monitor the character's behavior and if it ever meets the requirements for alignment change, the DM informs the player, "hey, you're alignment's shifting." Much in the same way that the DM doesn't decide if a character dies or not when he gets to -10 hp, he is just dead.
These directions are incredibly unclear and open to interpretation, and gloss over key aspects of the functionality.
People have been claiming that a lot, but haven't really offered any evidence for that that actually comes from the text. I have offered solid evidence from the text and people say it doesn't mean anything, when its quite clear. I think the only problem is that half the alignment rules are in one book while the other half is in the other, and that is where the disconnect is coming from.
From page 103 of the PHB, "Alignments are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." Also, clerics cannot cast spells of an opposed alignment, and while there are plenty alignment-based spells that have mirrors, there are plenty that don't. Speaking from 3e here of course. One example of an evil aligned cleric spell that has no mirror is Consumptive Field. Alignments give you power, at least some classes. Also some magic items will only work for you if you are of a certain alignment,
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />The last bit is the closest I could see as a problem, of all the examples you've given. But even then, if there are cool answers to those questions, it's not a problem at all.
Barring "cool answers" its defnitely a problem, but if there are "cool answers" (I've no idea what your thought process is there) then that means there is either a non-standard alignment system being ran, or no alignment system being ran.
One thing you didn't address is what happens when the party faces a group with anti-good spells and this character strides right through them. I think that's where the rubber meets the road for a lot of people, since that character is gaining an advantage, and doesn't necessarily ever suffer the consequences of friendly fire. But over all, this is just an oddity, not really a brokenness of the rules.
The point is that it mucks with the established mechanics in ways that weren't intended which can throw an already tenous balance. There are also plenty of good aligned spells that this guy wouldn't be able to cast if he was a cleric, or spells that he wouldn't benefit from if he wasn't good.
Your examples all seem to do with a character listed as some form of evil acting as if he's good. What if you have a character listed as some form of good, acting as non-good? This seems like the big bugbear for people, particularly because of paladins. Being Lawful Good is seen as a restriction, as a price paid for getting the powers of a paladin, and so when people don't live up to what the DM expects of Lawful Good, the hammer comes down to change the alignment and take away those powers, as if the player were somehow really dominating the game with such a character, when there's probably a wizard in the group with even more power and no alignment restrictions (except being kicked out by the paladin if he ever crosses into evil - another prime source of strife caused by alignment.)
People who think the idea of all paladins have to be lawful good as restrictive aren't coming at this from the right frame of mind. If you're picking a paladin, you're out to play a holy knight, a staunch opponent against the forces of darkness, a warrior who does more than just fights, but brings the light into the dark places of the multiverse. They are lawful good because the energy forces of law and good so completely infuse their being and it is from those energies that they draw their powers.
Paladins take care to nurture and promote those energies so they can maintain their power and keep fighting the good fight. It takes dedication and it isn't meant to be easy. It is the exact same thing for playing Jedi in the Star Wars RPG. Everything about the game and the characters is dealt with through stats. That kind of system warrants alignments. Like polarities of energy. If players have a problem with role-playing that then they are looking at the wrong class, and if DMs don't understand the alignment system and abuse it in such a way, then they don't have any business DMing, or at least using the alignment system.
Not trying to get all Freudian on you, but it sounds to me like you have had some bad experiences with the mishandling of alignment and munchkiny players, and have had your perceptions colored by those experiences.
Define X and Y in concrete, immutable terms.There, I just re-stated the same equation that they use, where x is contrary behavior, and y is a week or more.
Read my post better please.
"Contrary behavior" is not an immutable term.
Stop with the intellectual dishonesty. You know what contrary behavior is. For good alignment, it is evil aligned behavior, and for evil alignment, it is good aligned behavior.
You have been trying to make a point about alignment. Your statements have been baseless, blanket statements, delivered as if they were fact.
I'm pretty sure it was declared as fact some time ago that alignment is pointless and irrelevant in D&D, harmful even. Anyone defending the concept must have come here in a time-travelling phone booth. Here in the future (2012), we know better. Also, be excellent to each other.
Do have a different understanding of the word "fact" than everyone else? If someone stated that as a "fact", and you believed them, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Facts can be proven. That asinine statement cannot.
What I'm saying is: In EVERY specific case of alignment problems I have ever seen or heard of (yes, even all the ones on the forums), there is a clear case of deviation from RAW regarding alignment or its rules and mechanics. Thus, the citing those examples is an invalid indictment of alignment as a "bad mechanic", because actual alignment rules were not used properly. One cannot make a valid value judgement of a mechanic when the only criticisms of said mechanic were actually criticisms of a houserule of that mechanic.
I'll disagree and say it's a bad mechanic, but for a somewhat different reason:
A law or rule that hardly anyone can follow, is a bad law or rule.
"hardly anyone can follow" is a subjective judgement. You cannot prove that people who cannot follow the alignment rules are the majority. That's because there is no way to objectively poll all D&D payers everywhere, and the fact is that the forums do not represent an accurate cross-section of the D&D playing population. In 15 years of playing D&D, accross 4 states, multiple private gaming groups, and conventions, including being and RPGA judge at GenCon Indy and Origins, I have never come accross one other person who even logs in to the forums. Even if the forums were a good cross-section, you couldn't even accurately state if the majority of forum-users have problems with alignment. You see a lot of people on the forums complain about alignment, but the real fact of the matter is, that not all D&D gamers even use the forums, and of those that do, most come when they have an issue or a problem, and want to complain. Most of the people who have no problems with the rules, don't go looking for threads like this to defend them. This is why alignment detractors often think that they are in the majority, but the fact is, there is no way to prove whether they are or not.
I should also mention that I have played with quite a few DMs, and have never had my alignment questioned even once, and they were definitely running alignment.
Says the person who has evidently never run a complex character, or who has only played under GMs who ignored the rules in favour of non-crap gaming.
You make a value judgement here, that just because he likes alignment that he has "never run a complex character", or that GMs who use the Rules As Written are "crap gaming".
Congratulations, you are just as judgemental and closed-minded as the people who made you hate alignment. You're no better than them.
*old points snipped to start saving space*
And I'm saying that those people aren't necessarily being jerks. They might legitimately think they're playing by the rules, and are doing what they're doing because they assume that following the rules to (what they see as) the letter, will lead to an enjoyable game, as if the game were an engine that's being assembled per the instructions. They might even acknowledge that what they're doing is not fun, but not want to risk not doing it, in case they break the tenets of the game and make things even worse.
Look, my point is, that Disruptive Players who are jerks to their fellow players at the table, are going to be Disruptive Jerks, even without alignment to use as an excuse. Railroading and Overly Controlling DMs are going to find ways to be so without alignment.
Alignment is NOT what causes these things. It's juts the vehicle that those people use to do it, and they think it excuses their behavior. It doesn't, and neither is it a fair indictment of alignment as a system. If I kill a dozen people in a drive-by shooting, can you honestly say that cars are the problem?
I have NEVER found alignment to be an issue when it is approached from the perspective of heroic fantasy and absolute good vs absolute evil. Good and evil are physical, metaphysical and literal FORCES in a Dungeons and Dragons game. In fact, in my campaign, good and evil trump even the gods themselves in terms of absolute power. Not even a GOD could cast a good-only spell if they were not good.
Does that mean I'm "doing it better" than someone else that IS having issues? (Here comes the answer that's gonna get people angry) Yes, unequivocally it means just that. Does it take a strong understanding of heroics, heroic motivations, player motivation and character development? Yup. Could the game do a lot better to explain all this? Yes. Why doesn't it? Probably because people would whine and cry and throw tantrums about it. I'd argue that shouldn't stop them but, sadly, not everyone has the teeth to tell players "This is how this is done properly". Sad but true.
Ugh, I hate to contradict you, because obviously we are on the same side of the alignment fence here, but making value judgements like that is incendiary, and does not at all serve to further the points that level-headed people on our side of the fence are trying to make. In fact, it is further fuel to the alignment detractors to tell them that you are "playing it better" than they are. Perhaps not making it so incendiary?
Do I use alignment in my games? Yes. Does that make my games better? It is MY OPINION that yes, FOR ME and my players, it is better.
Does that have any relevence to the value of a game where alignment is not used? Of course not. I may like the way I play more, but there is no objective way to judge "better". Unless one could quantify the fun players have over the course of a campaign. Fun, of course, would have to be measured in kilojoys.
My point is that you cannot objectively quantify your game as "bettter" because you use alignment. Is it "more correct" (where "correct" is defined as lack of deviation from RAW)? Yes, using THAT defintion. But saying "better" is incendiary, which weakens your own points, because when you incense your opposition, they're less inclined to read your post with a level head and an open mind.
Simply put, Zaramon is right. The problem is in interpretation and understanding. Is the text perfect in communicating its point? No, of course not. However, I can say I've more than understood it well enough to avoid ANY alignment issues in 15+ years of DMing. Why? I understand heroes. I understand fantasy. And I understand how to communicate to players what sort of game they're sitting down to play.
It basically boils down to the fact that a system is neither good nor bad based on how well a given DM is able to rule on it. Shogi is a difficult game to master...that does not make it a bad game.
This here (especially the last part), is a Very Good Point. And it's one that some of the alignment detractors are not going to read with an open mind when you make incendiary statements like the one above.
Edit: Had a response to Salla, but someone else covered it.
A sword that only the Just can wield? Totally do-able. You declare the sword is only usable by the just, and whenever a just person wields it, they unlock its true power.
WHich gets fun at times when you do the "Only pure of heart can wield this blade." "Well, I'm pure evil." "....Damn"
I read that recently somewhere. Can't remember where though, unfortunately. It was one of the few aspects of the story that I thought actually worked pretty well.
So I take it you're not going to quote the passage he's asking you to?
Don't try and be forum police, you wouldn't be very good at it. That out of the way I quoted, highlighted, and annotaed everything that was important and asked for. Don't be a ****. If you have something meaningful to contribute, then fire away. Otherwise please keep your railings and snarky comments in class balance and 5mwd threads. I didn't do anything to you, so leave me alone. Unless you have a reasonable disagreement. If all you're going to do is try and call me out on the ethos carpet, I don't really care to hear it.
Unfortunately, you're barking up the wrong tree with that particular poster. I would drop it, and let him bark away.
Stop with the intellectual dishonesty. You know what contrary behavior is. For good alignment, it is evil aligned behavior, and for evil alignment, it is good aligned behavior.
By whose definition of good and evil? It's completely subjective.
Define X and Y in concrete, immutable terms.There, I just re-stated the same equation that they use, where x is contrary behavior, and y is a week or more.
Read my post better please.
"Contrary behavior" is not an immutable term.
Stop with the intellectual dishonesty. You know what contrary behavior is. For good alignment, it is evil aligned behavior, and for evil alignment, it is good aligned behavior.
Ok, intellectual dishonesty aside, what he's trying to say is to put the burden of proof on YOU (or someone else on your side of the fence), to define "contrary behavior" in immutable terms. However, as someone who does not accept Objective Morality in a D&D world, he's not likely to accept the best defintion given, but I'll try and field this one for you.
Fireclave:
In the abvove definition, "contrary behavior" is defined as any behavior that is consistently more in keeping with a different alignment on the "grid" than one's own.
So I take it you're not going to quote the passage he's asking you to?
Don't try and be forum police, you wouldn't be very good at it. That out of the way I quoted, highlighted, and annotaed everything that was important and asked for. Don't be a ****. If you have something meaningful to contribute, then fire away. Otherwise please keep your railings and snarky comments in class balance and 5mwd threads. I didn't do anything to you, so leave me alone. Unless you have a reasonable disagreement. If all you're going to do is try and call me out on the ethos carpet, I don't really care to hear it.
Unfortunately, you're barking up the wrong tree with that particular poster. I would drop it, and let him bark away.
You don't know me very well. Some people believe in picking battles. I believe in forcing battles where there doesn't always need to be one, just to give people an occasional reminder that I don't liked to be screwed with. I probably come off as an internet tough guy, (I'm in the body-builders guild and we are coming for you Saint Viscious!) but that is how I have been wired from day one. I regularly get accused of being anti-social, narcissistic, and possible afflicted by asperger's (I really don't think I am but I have never actually been checked out for that) but at least I own myself, which is a lot more than I can say for most people I know. Ah Nietzsche, you always knew just what to say. That said, I am grateful for the warning.
Stop with the intellectual dishonesty. You know what contrary behavior is. For good alignment, it is evil aligned behavior, and for evil alignment, it is good aligned behavior.
By whose definition of good and evil? It's completely subjective.
How about by the RAW definition? That should be good enough for everyone, and it's the only VALID basis we have for comparison because it's written down in black and white, and it's the core rules we all use for the game.
Define X and Y in concrete, immutable terms.There, I just re-stated the same equation that they use, where x is contrary behavior, and y is a week or more.
Read my post better please.
"Contrary behavior" is not an immutable term.
Stop with the intellectual dishonesty. You know what contrary behavior is. For good alignment, it is evil aligned behavior, and for evil alignment, it is good aligned behavior.
Salla ask for immutable terms. You provided a mutable term. And you call me out for intellectual dishonesty because I pointed out that your answer is non-applicable to the query. And the basis for your accusation is, basically "you know what I meant".
Reguardless of whether or not I know what you meant but "contrary behavior", you still answered the question wrong by giving an answer that didn't apply to the question. And I will also add that "good" or "evil" and not not immutable terms either. So you have still left the question unanswered. And I'm being academically dishonest?
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Simple. Because it does not exist. It's not in the book, the srd, or the rules of the game articles. This is a treacherous hole that the alignment rules as written do not even touch upon aside from saying that "You (the DM) are in control". Which means that tracking alignment is entirely subjective. And as I said already, without such an objective measure, there simply is no way to consistently apply alignment mechanics.
And that's terrible.
Here's your answer...but you probably won't like it (for that I apologize, but it is what it is): The first bolded part means the second bolded part does not need to be subjective. The DM in question merely has to be consisent in THEIR OWN application, and the issue is resolved. In other words...the DM is in control.
Which, as I said, is the problem.
No no. It is potentially A problem. However, the weight of that problem rests on the shoulders of the DM in question. Not with the system.
When the system provides inconsistant and incomplete rules, that is a significant problem. The rules should provide a consistent, universal basis for understanding and playing the game.
You don't build half a bridge and say, "good luck!" And you don't build half a subsystem, especially one that's so intergrated with the rest of the system.
I believe entire CHAPTERS of the DMG should be devoted entirely to alignment and that it should be heavy reading. It should be unambiguous. It should be clear. I also believe that it would not rectify many problems because people that have not read/seen the appropriate material to give them an understanding of Law/Chaos & Good/Evil in a fantasy setting probably won't read those chapters if they existed. That or they'll read them and go "That's stupid!" and proceed to have the same problems they've always had.
Yeah, we could do that. Or, we could do what 4e did and, with very few niche exceptions, remove alignment from the mechanics. Alignment was still there if you wanted to use it, and you could interpret and use it, or not use, however you wanted and the game still functions exactly and intended at every table in spite of it.
The only issue 4e really had with alignment was that they tweaked the basic alignment and merged some into others, so people wagnst that their favorite alignment was "missing", even though the current alignment systemed covered everything the 3x3 grid and that they could still play their characters exactly the same way. Which was still perfectly fine because, when alignment not being intregal to the game's functioning, you could use whatever the heck alignment system you want, and the game still functions exactly and intended at every table in spite of it.
It worked so well, I actually started to miss the bi-daily alignment megathreads a little. They were quite entertaining as long as you didn't take them too seriously.
People are simply becoming worse at understanding unambiguous morality as applied to a fantasy system like Alignment. While also generally asking for more "heroic" (usually simply translating to "powerful") characters.
That is a problem.
Then the 3x3 alignment grid is part of that problem since its anything but unambigous. I'd post the batman motivator, but we've all seen it.
Define X and Y in concrete, immutable terms.There, I just re-stated the same equation that they use, where x is contrary behavior, and y is a week or more.
Read my post better please.
"Contrary behavior" is not an immutable term.
Stop with the intellectual dishonesty. You know what contrary behavior is. For good alignment, it is evil aligned behavior, and for evil alignment, it is good aligned behavior.
Ok, intellectual dishonesty aside, what he's trying to say is to put the burden of proof on YOU (or someone else on your side of the fence), to define "contrary behavior" in immutable terms. However, as someone who does not accept Objective Morality in a D&D world, he's not likely to accept the best defintion given, but I'll try and field this one for you.
Fireclave:
In the abvove definition, "contrary behavior" is defined as any behavior that is consistently more in keeping with a different alignment on the "grid" than one's own.
I know he's trying to put the burden of proof on me, and in an ordinary academic setting, I would be respectful of that, but he is trying to use burden of proof as a dirty tactic to put me on tilt. In other words, I operate under proper debate rules when people have an open mind. That doesn't mean I expect them to be easily persuadable. In fact I approach things as though I am dealing with people who want to challenge every claim I make.
But in this case I have already fielded the same definition repeatedly. He has seen the proof and definition already, a few times, and isi just asking for it again. He has dispensed with honest intellectualism. It's rude to ask people to provide what they have already provided, and he has done that several times already, and I feel like I have kept up rather well in the face of his contempt. But again, thank you for the assistance. I really am grateful to you and Yagami both. I would hate to be the only one here arguing for this.
Ugh, I hate to contradict you, because obviously we are on the same side of the alignment fence here, but making value judgements like that is incendiary, and does not at all serve to further the points that level-headed people on our side of the fence are trying to make. In fact, it is further fuel to the alignment detractors to tell them that you are "playing it better" than they are. Perhaps not making it so incendiary?
Playing better? No. Understanding better? Yes.
I will readily concede you have put the point forth far better than I did, however. Especially the "vehicle" part about jerks.
Also, never hate to contradict me...especially when you put a better a spin on things. You're right.
Do I use alignment in my games? Yes. Does that make my games better? It is MY OPINION that yes, FOR ME and my players, it is better.
Does that have any relevence to the value of a game where alignment is not used? Of course not. I may like the way I play more, but there is no objective way to judge "better". Unless one could quantify the fun players have over the course of a campaign. Fun, of course, would have to be measured in kilojoys.
My point is that you cannot objectively quantify your game as "bettter" because you use alignment. Is it "more correct" (where "correct" is defined as lack of deviation from RAW)? Yes, using THAT defintion. But saying "better" is incendiary, which weakens your own points, because when you incense your opposition, they're less inclined to read your post with a level head and an open mind.
You misunderstand...that is potentially my fault. I am merely stating that, since I am not running into problems, I have a better understanding of alignment and how it applies. That is all. If someone is not using it, that is well and good and I hope that works for them. Sincerely.
However, as I have not run into the issues in 15 years that others claim are hard-coded into alignment as a system (apparently), I can only state then that that is because I have a far better understanding of how alignment is to be applied.
This here (especially the last part), is a Very Good Point. And it's one that some of the alignment detractors are not going to read with an open mind when you make incendiary statements like the one above.
Don't worry. How your point is framed typically has little impact on how people are going to read it 'round these parts. They'll read into it whatever they want. ^_~ Thank you for your compliment though.
By whose definition of good and evil? It's completely subjective.
This here? This is why you have an issue with alignment. Good & evil are not subjective in fantasy heroics. They're fundamental forces about as opposite of "subjective" as possible.
How about by the RAW definition?
If I ever have a kid, I'm naming it after you. But don't expect this to be accepted. I have already fielded this one numerous times and it has been rejected.
Then the 3x3 alignment grid is part of that problem since its anything but unambigous. I'd post the batman motivator, but we've all seen it.
Minor point here, but using D&D alignments, there's actually an official WotC source that uses Batman as an example and defines his alignment.
It's in the Complete Scoundrel, under the section discussing "scoundrels" (which is a judgement of a given character's tactics, methods, etc.) of various alignments. Batman's Lawful Good.
According to official WotC definition.
If I ever have a kid, I'm naming it after you.
Awww...^_^. Squee.
Salla ask for immutable terms. You provided a mutable term. And you call me out for intellectual dishonesty because I pointed out that your answer is non-applicable to the query. And the basis for your accusation is, basically "you know what I meant".
Reguardless of whether or not I know what you meant but "contrary behavior", you still answered the question wrong by giving an answer that didn't apply to the question. And I will also add that "good" or "evil" and not not immutable terms either. So you have still left the question unanswered. And I'm being academically dishonest?
Stop trying to misconstrue my answer. Just because you are demanding perfect ethos, because you don't give a crap about logos, here goes. X is defined as per page 103 of the v3.5 PHB, Under the alignment articeles "Good" and "Evil." For reference, here is another breakdown.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
When the bolded section is displayed from an evil aligned character, that is "X" or, "contrary behavior."
When the underlined section is displayed from a good aligned character, that is "X" or, "contrary behavior."
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />When the system provides inconsistant and incomplete rules, that is a significant problem. The rules should provide a consistent, universal basis for understanding and playing the game.
You don't build half a bridge and say, "good luck!" And you don't build half a subsystem, especially one that's so intergrated with the rest of the system.
The issue is not that only half the bridge is built...it's that half is in the book and half is in everything ever written about heroic fantasy. It is about understanding something that does not fit neatly into rules.
Yeah, we could do that. Or, we could do what 4e did and, with very few niche exceptions, remove alignment from the mechanics. Alignment was still there if you wanted to use it, and you could interpret and use it, or not use, however you wanted and the game still functions exactly and intended at every table in spite of it.
That is a vast assumption. Many tables would be changed by it. Mine would. I have items dependent on alignment.
Also, I find that "I don't understand how to make it work! REMOVE IT!" to be a poor process by which to improve anything.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Then the 3x3 alignment grid is part of that problem since its anything but unambigous. I'd post the batman motivator, but we've all seen it.
Pretty positive the Batman motivational is tongue in cheek...and if it's serious, it's idiotic because it is just using quotes out of context.
Batman would NEVER qualify as Evil or Neutral in ANY way. Anyone that places him there, again, doesn't understand A) Batman or B) alignment.
Just clarifying that that Batman is assuming Batman as he exists in common DC continuity, not universes where he is explicitly evil like Owlman or whatever..."typical" Batman.
Then the 3x3 alignment grid is part of that problem since its anything but unambigous. I'd post the batman motivator, but we've all seen it.
Minor point here, but using D&D alignments, there's actually an official WotC source that uses Batman as an example and defines his alignment.
It's in the Complete Scoundrel, under the section discussing "scoundrels" (which is a judgement of a given character's tactics, methods, etc.) of various alignments. Batman's Lawful Good.
According to official WotC definition.
Just wanted to repost this.
Batman is 100% Lawful Good as-written in typical continuity. WoTC was spot on with this...so the designers (at least in this regard) understand alignment.
That's not what I'm asking.
You asked me who decides what the player cares about. That answer is easily found in the PHB. If you meant to ask me something else, I understand.
In the example given it is said the character "does not care about helping people or stopping evil." This is what the text tells us, so we can believe it, but it doesn't tell us how to arrive at that kind of conclusion in our own games.
By way of helping the player understand the alignment he's chosen, the DM might say "your character cares about helping other people or stopping evil." All fine and good, but does that mean helping anyone? Stopping all evil? What if helping someone means letting evil persist? What if helping someone or stopping some evil is too impractical or too dangerous? What if he's helping some people and some other people ask for his help, and he can only help some of them? What if he can stop one evil, but not another? Even a well-meaning DM might put something in the character's path which the player didn't realize was a way to help other people, or which the character can't neither act on or not act on without being threatened with alignment change, and there's no clear rule for how many violations and of what magnitude (even if one could objectively measure their magnitude) one can commit before one's alignment is changed.
No one "decides" if the player is playing the alignment correctly. In fact, "playing alignment correctly" is a giant misnomer. There is no wrong or right way to play alignment. If your character's alignment is listed as good, and the character isn't being played like the alignment is good, that doesn't mean he is playing his alignment incorrectly. That means his alignment is going to shift soon. There really isn't a such thing as playing an alignment "correctly." Only a correct way to use the rules.
How a character acts can't be played "incorrectly"; however the character is played is what the character is. But if the alignment on the sheet doesn't match the alignment being played then, as you say, his alignment shifts.
But you avoided my question. Let me rephrase it:
Who decides that the player's alignment is going to shift soon, and how do they make that determination? The rules don't do it automatically, or even as mechanically as HP tracking. Someone must interpret the alignment instructions, see the disconnect between actions and alignments, and decide that the shift is called for.
The DM doesn't get to "decide" anything, at least not in the way you're talking about. The only thing the DM does concerning alignment is monitor the character's behavior and if it ever meets the requirements for alignment change, the DM informs the player, "hey, you're alignment's shifting." Much in the same way that the DM doesn't decide if a character dies or not when he gets to -10 hp, he is just dead.
The DM decides "if it ever meets the requirements for alignment change." That must be the case, because there's nothing as close to clear cut as with HP. There's no way to chart the behavior, the way one can chart damage. It all comes down to preference and opinion, which leaves it open to tremendous differences of opinion.
These directions are incredibly unclear and open to interpretation, and gloss over key aspects of the functionality.
People have been claiming that a lot, but haven't really offered any evidence for that that actually comes from the text. I have offered solid evidence from the text and people say it doesn't mean anything, when its quite clear.
Of course it's clear to any given individual. It's when the way one individual interprets something is forced on someone else that issues aries.
No alignment offers any "power" as far as I've ever been able to tell.
From page 103 of the PHB, "Alignments are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos."
Meaningless.
Also, clerics cannot cast spells of an opposed alignment, and while there are plenty alignment-based spells that have mirrors, there are plenty that don't.
And this diminishes the power of clerics not a whit.
Speaking from 3e here of course. One example of an evil aligned cleric spell that has no mirror is Consumptive Field. Alignments give you power, at least some classes. Also some magic items will only work for you if you are of a certain alignment,
None of this is power that comes from alignment. Alignment is just the arbitrary gatekeeper.
The last bit is the closest I could see as a problem, of all the examples you've given. But even then, if there are cool answers to those questions, it's not a problem at all.
Barring "cool answers" its defnitely a problem, but if there are "cool answers" (I've no idea what your thought process is there) then that means there is either a non-standard alignment system being ran, or no alignment system being ran.
A "good" character who reads as evil is very cool to me. It becomes a way to discuss and play out characters rising above their circumstances, without getting into race or gender concepts (though those work equally well in D&D). That doesn't require a non-standard alignment system being run, because it's entirely possible for a character to act good no matter what alignment is written, and even without that alignment ever changing.
Compare HP again. One can't use the HP system at even the most basic level without understanding the general kinds of things that cause HP loss and what happens when a certain level is reached. Alignment lacks this entirely, and is at the whim of the DM. Not a problem with a trustworthy DM, but very much a problem otherwise.
One thing you didn't address is what happens when the party faces a group with anti-good spells and this character strides right through them. I think that's where the rubber meets the road for a lot of people, since that character is gaining an advantage, and doesn't necessarily ever suffer the consequences of friendly fire. But over all, this is just an oddity, not really a brokenness of the rules.
The point is that it mucks with the established mechanics in ways that weren't intended which can throw an already tenous balance.
Ah, so it is about fear that a disconnect will cause issues. I assure you that it will not, at least not on the scale of many of the other issues intrinsic to 3rd Edition.
There are also plenty of good aligned spells that this guy wouldn't be able to cast if he was a cleric, or spells that he wouldn't benefit from if he wasn't good.
Not an issue.
People who think the idea of all paladins have to be lawful good as restrictive aren't coming at this from the right frame of mind. If you're picking a paladin, you're out to play a holy knight, a staunch opponent against the forces of darkness, a warrior who does more than just fights, but brings the light into the dark places of the multiverse.
Not necessarily. Someone might just want to hack up a dungeon, and get in some smites. Nothing wrong with that. Even if the player DOES want to play what you describe, there's every chance that the game the DM runs will just be about hacking up a dungeon and delivering smites. Nothing wrong with that, either.
They are lawful good because the energy forces of law and good so completely infuse their being and it is from those energies that they draw their powers. Paladins take care to nurture and promote those energies so they can maintain their power and keep fighting the good fight.
I'm not sure where you're coming up with this.
Everything about the game and the characters is dealt with through stats. That kind of system warrants alignments. Like polarities of energy.
That does not follow logically, but it's also unnecessary to your argument. I understand the use (though not the subjective need) for magical alignment "energies."
If players have a problem with role-playing that then they are looking at the wrong class,
Why is roleplaying the "cost" for the class? It's not particularly powerful. Wizards are far more powerful, and don't have roleplaying restrictions.
And as you're making up from whole-cloth the bit about "infusing their being" and "nurturing and promoting" someone who DOES want to roleplay might have an entirely different, and perfectly valid take on why the paladin is Lawful Good, and how and why it is maintained. If they sat at your table, they'd face a very strong possibility of getting their alignment shifted, and losing their abilities, based entirely on subjection.
and if DMs don't understand the alignment system and abuse it in such a way, then they don't have any business DMing, or at least using the alignment system.
So, only bad DMs have problems with alignment? I love it. How convenient for you.
Bottom line, the game mechanics might not be optimized for it, but there's no breakage if a character is played like alignment A and has alignment Z on paper.
Oh, and the "RAW definitions" of alignment are too subjective. They're clear enough to any one person, but no two people are going to agree on all but the most obvious aspects of them. The moment any kind of subtlety creeps in, so do the arguments. Or not that subtle: An evil character might make a personal sacrifice to a greater cause. A good character will certainly kill.
By way of helping the player understand the alignment he's chosen, the DM might say "your character cares about helping other people or stopping evil." All fine and good, but does that mean helping anyone? Stopping all evil? What if helping someone means letting evil persist? What if helping someone or stopping some evil is too impractical or too dangerous? What if he's helping some people and some other people ask for his help, and he can only help some of them? What if he can stop one evil, but not another? Even a well-meaning DM might put something in the character's path which the player didn't realize was a way to help other people, or which the character can't neither act on or not act on without being threatened with alignment change, and there's no clear rule for how many violations and of what magnitude (even if one could objectively measure their magnitude) one can commit before one's alignment is changed.
You are conflating caring about with acting upon. I have numerous NPCs in my world that are of various Good alignments...they are good people and they help people WHEN THEY CAN but generally they have little ability to stop evil...though they very much care about it being stopped...they just have little control over it. That's what heroes are for.
Not acting on an alignment is not a violation...acting AGAINST an alignment however is. It is our actions that DEFINE us. Not our inaction. So consistent actions against an alignment are what shift it. I have no problem telling my player "So you know, that's an evil act"...I do not say "Your character wouldn't do that BECAUSE it's an evil act"...I merely let them know what is or is not evil. The choice is up to them in how they react to that knowledge. After all, D&D is nothing if not a game of very interesting choices.
Who decides that the player's alignment is going to shift soon, and how do they make that determination? The rules don't do it automatically, or even as mechanically as HP tracking. Someone must interpret the alignment instructions, see the disconnect between actions and alignments, and decide that the shift is called for.
For me, it's consistency & magnitude. Do I have a system for it? Yup. Is it "visible" to the players? No. Like morale of NPCs it is a hidden system at my table. Is that sort of system necessary for DMs to have? No, but it goes a long way to create consistency so I recommend it.
The DM decides "if it ever meets the requirements for alignment change." That must be the case, because there's nothing as close to clear cut as with HP. There's no way to chart the behavior, the way one can chart damage. It all comes down to preference and opinion, which leaves it open to tremendous differences of opinion.
We agree. So long as that preference is clear and consistent, I see no problem with that though. There are many things in my game that are up to my preference as a DM...but I have put in the effort to build consistency into those things. Alignment is no different.
None of this is power that comes from alignment. Alignment is just the arbitrary gatekeeper.
If it were arbitrary, sometimes people of the other alignment would be able to use it. Since they cannot then it is no more arbitrary than an item that can only be used by someone of an appropriate class or possessed of a certain feat or skill rank.
A "good" character who reads as evil is very cool to me. It becomes a way to discuss and play out characters rising above their circumstances, without getting into race or gender concepts (though those work equally well in D&D). That doesn't require a non-standard alignment system being run, because it's entirely possible for a character to act good no matter what alignment is written, and even without that alignment ever changing.
A good character is Good an evil character is Evil. I am not sure what you are saying here. Not being snarky, I am just not sure what you mean.
Compare HP again. One can't use the HP system at even the most basic level without understanding the general kinds of things that cause HP loss and what happens when a certain level is reached. Alignment lacks this entirely, and is at the whim of the DM. Not a problem with a trustworthy DM, but very much a problem otherwise.
And therefore alignment should be explained better. This will require a lot of reading. I prefer that to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
There are also plenty of good aligned spells that this guy wouldn't be able to cast if he was a cleric, or spells that he wouldn't benefit from if he wasn't good.
Not an issue.
It's a helluva issue if the cleric in question WANTS to cast those spells.
Not necessarily. Someone might just want to hack up a dungeon, and get in some smites. Nothing wrong with that. Even if the player DOES want to play what you describe, there's every chance that the game the DM runs will just be about hacking up a dungeon and delivering smites. Nothing wrong with that, either.
Then excise that part of the rules and the fluff...just do not say "You can totally play a paladin without acting Lawful Good and have it make sense!" or whatever...because you aren't playing a paladin. You're playing a fighter with smites.
I'm not sure where you're coming up with this.
Pretty sure he's just stating the concept of paladins in D&D. It's a fair summation.
If players have a problem with role-playing that then they are looking at the wrong class,
Why is roleplaying the "cost" for the class? It's not particularly powerful. Wizards are far more powerful, and don't have roleplaying restrictions.
It is not a matter of the hobgoblin of balance, but rather the role the class fulfills. It is not a "cost" it is a facet.
And as you're making up from whole-cloth the bit about "infusing their being" and "nurturing and promoting" someone who DOES want to roleplay might have an entirely different, and perfectly valid take on why the paladin is Lawful Good, and how and why it is maintained. If they sat at your table, they'd face a very strong possibility of getting their alignment shifted, and losing their abilities, based entirely on subjection.
If it involves that person promoting Evil then well they aren't a paladin as described in D&D. Simple as that.
So, only bad DMs have problems with alignment? I love it. How convenient for you.
DMs that have problems understanding and working with alignment have problems with alignment. If alignment is such a major problem, why have I never had an issue with it in 15 years of gaming?
Oh, and the "RAW definitions" of alignment are too subjective. They're clear enough to any one person, but no two people are going to agree on all but the most obvious aspects of them. The moment any kind of subtlety creeps in, so do the arguments. Or not that subtle: An evil character might make a personal sacrifice to a greater cause. A good character will certainly kill.
Many evil men made great personal sacrifices towards a greater cause than them...many times it was an evil cause...and killing is not necessarily evil. I don't see the argument there.
By way of helping the player understand the alignment he's chosen, the DM might say "your character cares about helping other people or stopping evil." All fine and good, but does that mean helping anyone? Stopping all evil? What if helping someone means letting evil persist? What if helping someone or stopping some evil is too impractical or too dangerous? What if he's helping some people and some other people ask for his help, and he can only help some of them? What if he can stop one evil, but not another? Even a well-meaning DM might put something in the character's path which the player didn't realize was a way to help other people, or which the character can't neither act on or not act on without being threatened with alignment change, and there's no clear rule for how many violations and of what magnitude (even if one could objectively measure their magnitude) one can commit before one's alignment is changed.
You are conflating caring about with acting upon. I have numerous NPCs in my world that are of various Good alignments...they are good people and they help people WHEN THEY CAN but generally they have little ability to stop evil...though they very much care about it being stopped...they just have little control over it. That's what heroes are for.
Not acting on an alignment is not a violation...acting AGAINST an alignment however is. It is our actions that DEFINE us. Not our inaction. So consistent actions against an alignment are what shift it. I have no problem telling my player "So you know, that's an evil act"...I do not say "Your character wouldn't do that BECAUSE it's an evil act"...I merely let them know what is or is not evil. The choice is up to them in how they react to that knowledge. After all, D&D is nothing if not a game of very interesting choices.
Very Good, again. Unfortunately, there are some Bad DMs who will say "your character would not do that because it is an evil act" and forbid that player choice. Alignment detractors use this as ammunition for their case that alignment limits player choice and character action. What they do not see is that the RAW supports the way you handle it, and that those Bad DMs are acting outside RAW. Nothing about alignment empowers a DM to force character action.
Some alignment detractors here favor removing alignment in favor of "detailed character personality and background" feeling that it better suits them. Which is fine for them, let them play how they want. But what they FAIL, utterly, to acknowledge, is the following possible scenario:
Bob makes a character in a game without alignment. His character, Sir Reginald, is an upstanding knight who believes in protecting the innocent, and upholding the causes of freedom, justice, and vanquishing the powers of darkness. But one day, they meet a lone merchant with lots of magical wares on the road, travelling alone. Bob decides that his character will just up and murder this innocent merchant in cold blood, because Bob wants the magic items for his character, but doesn't have the cash to buy all of them.
This kind of scenario can (and will) happen in games without alignment, just as it happens in games with alignment, because PLAYERS like Bob are the problem, not alignment, nor its mechanics.
None of this is power that comes from alignment. Alignment is just the arbitrary gatekeeper.
If it were arbitrary, sometimes people of the other alignment would be able to use it. Since they cannot then it is no more arbitrary than an item that can only be used by someone of an appropriate class or possessed of a certain feat or skill rank.
I do like your points. Well Done.
A "good" character who reads as evil is very cool to me. It becomes a way to discuss and play out characters rising above their circumstances, without getting into race or gender concepts (though those work equally well in D&D). That doesn't require a non-standard alignment system being run, because it's entirely possible for a character to act good no matter what alignment is written, and even without that alignment ever changing.
A good character is Good an evil character is Evil. I am not sure what you are saying here. Not being snarky, I am just not sure what you mean.
I think he meant a "non-antagonist" whose alignment is, technically speaking, evil. I have some of those in my games. NPCs who are evil because of their personality, but, because of their position or motivations, may end up on the same side as Good or Neutral PCs. Example: One of my cities in my world is ruled by a Council of Dukes (5 of them), and one of the positions on the council is always held by the High Priest of Bridenal (My Lawful Evil deity of Rulership, Fear, and Nobility - who, incidentally, is the only deity of evil alignment who is openly worshipped in large temples in cities). Is the high priest evil? Yes, certainly. But he's also one of the rulers of the city, and will take measures to protect his city from threats, internal and external. If the Council of Dukes hires some PCs to root out the Thieve's Guild, or stop an Army of The Dead from attacking the city, be assured that said Evil high Priest, is one of the "quest givers", and will aid PCs like any of the others would in defending his city.
That's what I think he means. If so, I agree with him. If not, I have no idea. Incidentally, I'm also a fan of NPCs of Good alignments who become antagonists because they become tyrants "for the good of others", but tyrants nonetheless.
There are also plenty of good aligned spells that this guy wouldn't be able to cast if he was a cleric, or spells that he wouldn't benefit from if he wasn't good.
Not an issue.
It's a helluva issue if the cleric in question WANTS to cast those spells.
Agreed, such as a cleric who wants to cast the spell Shroud of Undeath (Spell Compendium). It temporarily grants the target undead qualities, which is IMMENSELY useful as a buff spell, granting all kinds of immunities (such as immunity to energy/ability drain, necromantic effects, anything that requires a Fort save, and so on) as well as healing them with negative energy and causing positive energy to harm them. This would be very useful in FIGHTING undead, espeacially ones with energy drain attacks. But a good cleric cannot cast it, as it has the evil descriptor.
So it can be an issue. I have a player in my 3.5 game right now who's playing a cleric, and he's not the most experienced player, and sometimes he sees a cool spell and I have to remind him that he can't cast spells with the evil or chaos descriptors (he's LG).
Not necessarily. Someone might just want to hack up a dungeon, and get in some smites. Nothing wrong with that. Even if the player DOES want to play what you describe, there's every chance that the game the DM runs will just be about hacking up a dungeon and delivering smites. Nothing wrong with that, either.
Then excise that part of the rules and the fluff...just do not say "You can totally play a paladin without acting Lawful Good and have it make sense!" or whatever...because you aren't playing a paladin. You're playing a fighter with smites.
But to him, by saying "that's not a paladin", you are demeaning his choices, even if you are not prohibiting them. You are telling him that his paladin "isn't as much of a paladin" as yours. That's why he doesn't go with your suggestion.
I get where you are coming from. To people like you and I, we see the word "paladin", and know that it comes with certain baggage. Indeed, the word "paladin" implies a certain amount of nobility and righteousness that is typically associated with Lawful Good. To us, an evil "holy knight" isn't a paladin because he doesn't live up to paladian ideals, which is where the word comes from.
But D&D has come to associate "paladin" as "knight of a given faith", to which some people argue that there should be "evil paladins" because evil deities should have similar champions that good ones do. "Paladin" is thus used as shorthand to identify these individuals. Seems like a fine distinction, but it's an important one.
And as you're making up from whole-cloth the bit about "infusing their being" and "nurturing and promoting" someone who DOES want to roleplay might have an entirely different, and perfectly valid take on why the paladin is Lawful Good, and how and why it is maintained. If they sat at your table, they'd face a very strong possibility of getting their alignment shifted, and losing their abilities, based entirely on subjection.
If it involves that person promoting Evil then well they aren't a paladin as described in D&D. Simple as that.
Same point as above. You, like me, seem to know that the word "paladin" carries with it certain connotations. Just understand that D&D has (especially with 4e), taken it to mean something else in context of D&D.
So, only bad DMs have problems with alignment? I love it. How convenient for you.
DMs that have problems understanding and working with alignment have problems with alignment. If alignment is such a major problem, why have I never had an issue with it in 15 years of gaming?
To be fair, try and understand that some people who are not Bad DMs just don't like alignment. IS it because they misunderstand alignment? Maybe, maybe not. Their choices being different than yours or mine does not give us the right to impose a value judgement upon them. Diffferent is not necessarily wrong.
Oh, and the "RAW definitions" of alignment are too subjective. They're clear enough to any one person, but no two people are going to agree on all but the most obvious aspects of them. The moment any kind of subtlety creeps in, so do the arguments. Or not that subtle: An evil character might make a personal sacrifice to a greater cause. A good character will certainly kill.
Many evil men made great personal sacrifices towards a greater cause than them...many times it was an evil cause...and killing is not necessarily evil. I don't see the argument there.
Centauri:
What you fail to see is the point written in the RAW that alignments encompass a gamut of personality types. Just because an evil person has loved ones, or a family, or a willingness to sacrifice themselves for a greater cause, does not invalidate their "evil-ness". Likewise, a Good-aligned person who is greedy, or willing to kill, does not alter his outlooks, personality, and beliefs that make him "good". The "subtleties" are still accounted for in the rules.
However, as someone who does not accept Objective Morality in a D&D world, he's not likely to accept the best defintion given, but I'll try and field this one for you.
Wait. Are you saying that I don't accept accept objective morality in a D&D world? Because that would be 100% false.
From an in-game perspective, I can completely buy into the idea that morality in a setting is completely objective.
My issue with with game system consistency. As currently written, the alignment system is largely dependent on the user's subjective interpretations and values, and therefore cannot be consistently applied to all games.
So while, in-game, the morality of the world may be objective and immutable from the characters' perspectives, the ultimate authority of a setting's morality is not the alignment system, but the DM's subjective interpretations and values, however, are not objective. So each and every game will have a different internally-objective morality system. Each will have a different standard, with different tolerances and exceptions. Sometimes those differences will be small, and sometimes they will be huge. So ultimately, one can make zero assumptions on how alignment will actually be applied in play, and by extension, the same goes for anything that references the alignment rules.
Imagine if this was true of, say, BaB or feats. People would plotz.
Fireclave:
In the abvove definition, "contrary behavior" is defined as any behavior that is consistently more in keeping with a different alignment on the "grid" than one's own.
I understand his answer, and I find it lacking. The alignments being referenced by "contrary behavior" are subjective and mutable. So "contrary behavior" inherits the traits traits of being subjective and mutable Therefore, "contrary behavior" cannot be the objective and immutable standard being asked for.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />When the system provides inconsistant and incomplete rules, that is a significant problem. The rules should provide a consistent, universal basis for understanding and playing the game.
You don't build half a bridge and say, "good luck!" And you don't build half a subsystem, especially one that's so integrated with the rest of the system.
The issue is not that only half the bridge is built...it's that half is in the book and half is in everything ever written about heroic fantasy. It is about understanding something that does not fit neatly into rules.
Then why try to codify it into the rules if its so hard to do so so. Or, alternatively, why not write the rules in a way that does allow that something to fit into them.
Yeah, we could do that. Or, we could do what 4e did and, with very few niche exceptions, remove alignment from the mechanics. Alignment was still there if you wanted to use it, and you could interpret and use it, or not use, however you wanted and the game still functions exactly and intended at every table in spite of it.
That is a vast assumption. Many tables would be changed by it. Mine would. I have items dependent on alignment.
Then at your table you can continue to have items dependent on alignment. You can import any alignment system whole sale, including the 3x3 grid, and game still functions exactly and intended at every table in spite of it.
Also, I find that "I don't understand how to make it work! REMOVE IT!" to be a poor process by which to improve anything.
When the process of removing something improves it, then its a pretty good process to improve something. Especially when it has been shown to work.
At the very least, I think that it would be more effective than your suggestion to devote chapters of DMG space to alignment that, as you said, people won't read. I think there is better ways to use the available page count. Such as devoting it to stuff that people will read.
Of course there are other methods too. I like said quite some post back, the alignment mechanics could be rewritten to be more assessable, consistent, and easier to apply. It would take work, but it would not be an impossible. Alignment mechanics could be clarified and steamlined to work consistently, or at least relatively consistently, at every game table. I'd be okay with this too. I might even take a crack at it someday if I think of an innovative way to do it.
Whatever the solution, I would just want it to work without me having to finished the half-built bridge. If I wanted to build a bridge, I would do that on my own initiative.
Then the 3x3 alignment grid is part of that problem since its anything but unambigous. I'd post the batman motivator, but we've all seen it.
Pretty positive the Batman motivational is tongue in cheek...and if it's serious, it's idiotic because it is just using quotes out of context.
A little of column A, a little of column B.
Batman would NEVER qualify as Evil or Neutral in ANY way. Anyone that places him there, again, doesn't understand A) Batman or B) alignment.
Just clarifying that that Batman is assuming Batman as he exists in common DC continuity, not universes where he is explicitly evil like Owlman or whatever..."typical" Batman.
Most people would agree with you that he's not evil. It's much more debatable where he would fall on the L/C alignment. However, people would still make the arguments though. And depending only exactly how you interpret the definitions of the alignments as well as Batman's actions and motives, he could potentially fit in multiple squares at once. And, more imporantly, from the perspective D&D alignment.
Though this phenomon is not limited to Batman. It can apply to many fictional characters. Batman's just the most recognized meme. I recall several threads on this forum where the OP would ask "what alignment is this character/action", and rarely is only one alignment given.
If D&D alignment was as consistant as proponents claimed it to be, such arguments would be (largely) squashed before they happen. But it's not that consistent.
That's not what I'm asking.
You asked me who decides what the player cares about. That answer is easily found in the PHB. If you meant to ask me something else, I understand.
In the example given it is said the character "does not care about helping people or stopping evil." This is what the text tells us, so we can believe it, but it doesn't tell us how to arrive at that kind of conclusion in our own games.
What part about the player deciding what the player character cares about is unclear? How does that not tell us how to decide what the player character cares about? It emphatically does.
By way of helping the player understand the alignment he's chosen, the DM might say "your character cares about helping other people or stopping evil." All fine and good, but does that mean helping anyone? Stopping all evil? What if helping someone means letting evil persist? What if helping someone or stopping some evil is too impractical or too dangerous? What if he's helping some people and some other people ask for his help, and he can only help some of them? What if he can stop one evil, but not another?
I'm not even going to bother with questions like that because they aren't clear specific examples of actual gameplay. Because they are nebulous and abstract you can create any conditions that you want, and withold as much information as you want. I'm not stepping into that. Let's stick to the rules and what's written in the books.
Even a well-meaning DM might put something in the character's path which the player didn't realize was a way to help other people, or which the character can't neither act on or not act on without being threatened with alignment change, and there's no clear rule for how many violations and of what magnitude (even if one could objectively measure their magnitude) one can commit before one's alignment is changed.
All that is required is persistent behavior for a week. The fact that it doesn't specify means it is all inclusive, because the one time they make an exception, they give an example for, in the case of extreme shifts. If an act isn't extreme enough to warran an immediate shift in alignment, then it must be the other kind, the persistent moderate kind. Yay inductive reasoning. By not being clear in every point, it becomes all inclusive.
Who decides that the player's alignment is going to shift soon, and how do they make that determination? The rules don't do it automatically, or even as mechanically as HP tracking. Someone must interpret the alignment instructions, see the disconnect between actions and alignments, and decide that the shift is called for.
I didn't avoid your question. You just misunderstood. No one decides, no one makes that determination. Its all determined by the rules. Just like measuring hp. When someone loses enough hp (negative 10) they die. When someone displays consistent contrary behavior that isn't extreme for a long enough time (a week minimum) then there is a one-step alignment shift. Its literally the same exact concept as hp. One is just tracked through an abstract number, the other through game time. Someone has to interpret the hp system too. Someone has to interpret spells. The "disconnect between actions" is obvious because the alignment behavior descriptions are clear.
The DM decides "if it ever meets the requirements for alignment change."
According to RAW, no he doesn't. You can't "decide" if something's hp drops to negative 10. It either does or it doesn't. Alignment behaviors were clearly described and then contrasted, in the PHB, and the DMG is clear for how long said behavior must be demonstrated. The DM doesn't get to decide if an alignment shift should occur for a good character after said good character goes on hurting, oppressing, and killing others for a week minimum. It just shifts.
These directions are incredibly unclear and open to interpretation, and gloss over key aspects of the functionality.
People have been claiming that a lot, but haven't really offered any evidence for that that actually comes from the text. I have offered solid evidence from the text and people say it doesn't mean anything, when its quite clear.
Of course it's clear to any given individual. It's when the way one individual interprets something is forced on someone else that issues aries
I think that every school of literary criticism in the entire world universally and categorically disagrees with this. That aside, no one is forcing anything on anyone. What even prompted you to bring this up? What is that even about?
Meaningless.
That's what happens when you treat and introductory preamble as genuine evidence. That was the claim, the claim presented by the PHB no less. Its backed up in the mechanics, one example of mechanics that back that up is alignment based spells. I also felt like I should throw that out there again in case people start feeling like bringing up the morality argument again because I bet that's where this is headed.
Also, clerics cannot cast spells of an opposed alignment, and while there are plenty alignment-based spells that have mirrors, there are plenty that don't.
And this diminishes the power of clerics not a whit.
What? Are you serious? Do you know how powerful some of those evil aligned spells are? Some of them are quite ridiculous. Oh, I would also like to point out that the PHB, in the section on magic, confirms that casting evil aligned spells is an evil act. Losing access to some of the alignment based spells hurts. Don't take my word for this, go look at some of them from the Spell Compendium and the Complete books.
None of this is power that comes from alignment. Alignment is just the arbitrary gatekeeper.
I think you're trying to say the same thing that I am, just applying a negative connotation. That's like saying that a gun is an arbitrary gate-keeper to firing bullets. You need a gun to fire bullets. In the sense that not having the alignment bars you from certain spells and abilities, this is true. But it is just as true that aligning yourself to one of the powers gives you access to those powers. If to denote that, you're using the phrase, "arbitrary gate-keeper," that's fine with me. Another better example, would be money. Money allows you to purchase things. If you have money, you can buy things. If you don't have money, you can't buy things.
There is a word for playing with language like that, its called chiasmus, and its fun little literary device. Also, about your use of the word arbitrary. In the "Default setting" of D&D, that is how their metaphysical powers and world functions. Alignment was the system that gave voice to that function. Ever since then, D&D as a whole has assumed that any time alignment was being used, it was because that system was in place. So in a way, yes, you are right, that is arbitrary. Not every setting will work that way. If your setting doesn't work that way, then that's fine. But using those rules certainly takes a great deal of work out of designing a new setting, or preping an existing one.
A "good" character who reads as evil is very cool to me. It becomes a way to discuss and play out characters rising above their circumstances, without getting into race or gender concepts (though those work equally well in D&D).
What are you talking about? Elric stays Lawful Good throughout his whole life, and he totally rises above his circumstances. Another amazing example of this was Drizzt, who was chaotic good since his inception. Caine Black Knife was chaotic evil throughout his whole life and he didn't just rise above his circumstances, he rose above them, got taken down again, rose back up, and recreated the world, after destroying all his enemies. Kratos never had an alignment shift. You don't need a shift in alignment to examine human nature. In fact, hte pursuit and casting of evil-aligned spells from a good character is a great way to explore the concept of the temptation of the forbidden. That doesn't mean his alignment ever need shift, or read in a wierd way. Again, found in the PHB, sometimes good characters do bad things. The idea of a good character who reads as evil just sounds to me like a childish and pretentious affirmative statement of non-conformity. Well, I have news for you. Non-conformists are conformists too.
That doesn't require a non-standard alignment system being run, because it's entirely possible for a character to act good no matter what alignment is written, and even without that alignment ever changing.
But in the metaphyscial setting those actions determine what powers they are aligned with, and therefore in what way they affect the world. What you're talking about is in fact a break in the alignment rules as they are laid out in the DMG, and therefore non-standard.
Compare HP again. One can't use the HP system at even the most basic level without understanding the general kinds of things that cause HP loss and what happens when a certain level is reached. Alignment lacks this entirely, and is at the whim of the DM. Not a problem with a trustworthy DM, but very much a problem otherwise.
Ah, so it is about fear that a disconnect will cause issues. I assure you that it will not, at least not on the scale of many of the other issues intrinsic to 3rd Edition.
And it destroys the metaphysicial verisimilitude of the setting, if the metaphysical structure was built on a standard alignment system. If not, then go for it. But you're gonna have to figure out what to do with all of those unique alignment based spells, like consumptive field and light of venya. I suppose you could just remove them all, and that could certainly work, if no one in your game gave a crap about those spells. Personally I am a big fan of consumptive field, it is one of the coolest I have ever seen. Same for light of venya. I suppose you could make it to where anyone can use them, but then they lose some of their significance. They become less unqiue and interesting. There is a word for that. Its called homogenization, and that is never, ever, ever good for a game.
Not necessarily. Someone might just want to hack up a dungeon, and get in some smites. Nothing wrong with that. Even if the player DOES want to play what you describe, there's every chance that the game the DM runs will just be about hacking up a dungeon and delivering smites. Nothing wrong with that, either.
Back to that fun fallacy I see. I really should post that essay from Mirrors. If someone is only interested in the mechanical aspects of the paladin, then fine, those are the mechanical aspects of the paladin. If someone says they want to play a paladin, then that is what they want to play. If they want to change things about the paladin, and then play that, then they want something other than the paladin, because that is a part of the paladin's identity, in-setting as well as mechanically. Now, if a player wants something, and the DM is delivering something other than what the player wants, either the DM needs to make accomadations for that player, or the player needs to find a group that will. There is nothing worse than a situation in which a player just interested in wargaming, who has a DM that runs a story that is a cheap knock-off of A Song of Ice and Fire. The inverse is also true. There is nothing worse than a situation in which a player interested in a compelling dramatic story just gets a cheap imitation of an MMO dungeon run. To take things a step further, I would argue that D&D that boils down to an MMO dungeon run is hardly real D&D. Sure, it might be fun for some people, but is that what D&D really is?
I'm not sure where you're coming up with this.
I know you're not, you didn't have to come out and say it. Since I wasn't using that as an argumentative claim, I'm not going to defend it either. If you genuinely cared enough about that idea, you would know where it comes from. If you are interested in looking into the idea, to start with I will direct you to complete divine and complete champion, check out the sections on the paladin. Of course there are more books than that, but that will be more than enough to start you off. Also, Defenders of the Faith, the guidebook to clerics and paladins has good info as well. Some of those really dig into the idea of the dedication it requires to cultivate the mind-set and energy required to be a paladin.
I understand the use (though not the subjective need) for magical alignment "energies."
You don't understand the need? Its just as much a part of sword and sorcery as the sage, the magic sword, the hero, the trickster, and the princess. Technically there isn't much of a "need" for any of it, at least in the sense you're talking about. I suppose if you wanted to take that part of the identity of the thing away, you could, but you could take away the magic sword, the wise sage, or anything else that you didn't want. All in the name of making it fun. But fun isn't the point of D&D. Fun isn't the point of D&D, powergaming is good, and the dichotomy between role-playing encounters and combat encounters is false. Why did I mention those other two things? I figured since I was pointing out that major myth, I might as well point out the other two major myths while I was at it.
Why is roleplaying the "cost" for the class? It's not particularly powerful. Wizards are far more powerful, and don't have roleplaying restrictions.
I wasn't aware there was a cost. Has someone lied to you and told you there was a cost to playing a paladin? Geez, some people...
someone who DOES want to roleplay might have an entirely different, and perfectly valid take on why the paladin is Lawful Good, and how and why it is maintained.
Aye someone might. But I have yet to see one that is as strongly based in the text as mine is. That is the beauty of literary criticism. While there is technically no right or wrong answers, there are answers that are more or less supported by evidence in the text. My answer comes from a lot of text that I'm not even going to bother to cite in this thread. I may at some point make another thread if I feel like presenting the claim as a persuasive one. But just holding an opinion does not automatically make it valid, or even rational. I don't care what anyone says, opinions are not sacred.
If they sat at your table, they'd face a very strong possibility of getting their alignment shifted, and losing their abilities, based entirely on subjection.
And yet the only two times in my twelve years of DMing, I have only seen two alignment changes from my players, both asking me if they could, and if I was okay with the change, and changing their alignments through one extreme and difinitive act. I told them which sections in the books to read, and they said, "So if I do X I can change my alignment to Y?" And I said, "Yep."
So, only bad DMs have problems with alignment? I love it. How convenient for you.
You were the one who mentioned DMs railroading players into different alignments, not me. It's low quality DMing to railroad players. Also, I never said that only bad DMs have problems with alignments. I said that DMs who don't understand the system shouldn't use it. I just made a value judgment in that statement, that judgment being that DMs who don't understand the alignment system, and don't use it on that basis, are exercising good DMing. It's generally a bad idea for a DM to work with a system that they don't get. Hell, I once had a player come to me saying they wanted to use a variant rule out of Unearthed Arcana. I looked at it, and didn't get it. So I didn't use it. And I told the player why we weren't using it. Eventually I understood it but by then it was kind of a non-issue as the game was over. Don't read things into my words that aren't there. But is railroading a player into an alignment they don't want bad DMing? Hell yes it is, in fact its downright insulting to the player, and if I was in that player's position, things might get violent before I managed to calm down. That's not a DM who has a problem with alignment, that's a DM with control issues, and I won't play with those.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Oh, and the "RAW definitions" of alignment are too subjective.
So there is a time where stealing isn't stealing? A time where oppressing isn't oppressing? A time where helping another at risk to yourself isn't helping another at risk to yourself? They are clear, I just think you don't want them to be.
They're clear enough to any one person, but no two people are going to agree on all but the most obvious aspects of them. The moment any kind of subtlety creeps in, so do the arguments. Or not that subtle: An evil character might make a personal sacrifice to a greater cause. A good character will certainly kill.
Sometimes good characters do bad things, and bad characters do good things. That is from the PHB section on alignment. Its when that behavior is consistently seen over the course of a week minimum that there is an alignment shift. Then again, it is always possible that character is genuinely changing their ways and an extreme contrary action will likewise yield an extreme shift.
Very Good, again. Unfortunately, there are some Bad DMs who will say "your character would not do that because it is an evil act" and forbid that player choice. Alignment detractors use this as ammunition for their case that alignment limits player choice and character action. What they do not see is that the RAW supports the way you handle it, and that those Bad DMs are acting outside RAW. Nothing about alignment empowers a DM to force character action.
Some alignment detractors here favor removing alignment in favor of "detailed character personality and background" feeling that it better suits them. Which is fine for them, let them play how they want. But what they FAIL, utterly, to acknowledge, is the following possible scenario:
Bob makes a character in a game without alignment. His character, Sir Reginald, is an upstanding knight who believes in protecting the innocent, and upholding the causes of freedom, justice, and vanquishing the powers of darkness. But one day, they meet a lone merchant with lots of magical wares on the road, travelling alone. Bob decides that his character will just up and murder this innocent merchant in cold blood, because Bob wants the magic items for his character, but doesn't have the cash to buy all of them.
This kind of scenario can (and will) happen in games without alignment, just as it happens in games with alignment, because PLAYERS like Bob are the problem, not alignment, nor its mechanics.
Indeed and it is this sort of "logic" I have the most problem with. Telling someone to take off their shoe because of a painful abrasion on a toe does not actually address the injury.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
I think he meant a "non-antagonist" whose alignment is, technically speaking, evil. I have some of those in my games. NPCs who are evil because of their personality, but, because of their position or motivations, may end up on the same side as Good or Neutral PCs. Example: One of my cities in my world is ruled by a Council of Dukes (5 of them), and one of the positions on the council is always held by the High Priest of Bridenal (My Lawful Evil deity of Rulership, Fear, and Nobility - who, incidentally, is the only deity of evil alignment who is openly worshipped in large temples in cities). Is the high priest evil? Yes, certainly. But he's also one of the rulers of the city, and will take measures to protect his city from threats, internal and external. If the Council of Dukes hires some PCs to root out the Thieve's Guild, or stop an Army of The Dead from attacking the city, be assured that said Evil high Priest, is one of the "quest givers", and will aid PCs like any of the others would in defending his city.
That's what I think he means. If so, I agree with him. If not, I have no idea. Incidentally, I'm also a fan of NPCs of Good alignments who become antagonists because they become tyrants "for the good of others", but tyrants nonetheless.
If that is indeed the point then this is a misunderstanding of both alignment AND human nature.
Right now my players (all "Good" aligned characters) are pal-ing around with a Neutral Evil dwarf assassin (he's actually a multiclass monk/rogue who murders with his bare hands...but...whatever) that is helping them. He is helping them to find his former employer...a very powerful, evil orc witch doctor...and the players very much want to put an end to that orcs evil. The dwarf assassin, Coaldust, may very well help them do this. Because it gets him out of being burned at the stake for 2 counts of attempted murder, 1 count of murder of a city official, 3 counts of breaking & entering and sundry other charges. Is he accomplishing good by helping the group? Absolutely. Does he CARE about accomplishing that good? Not at all. In fact, if he could, he would crush the heads of every party member into bone shards & brain matter and be on his way...and they know this...but they have mitigated his ability to do so and he, wisely, does not like his odds against all of them. So he assists them for now.
There is NOTHING in any of that that threatens the dwarf's NE alignment because he does not care about why he is doing something. His reasons are selfish. His purpose is self-serving. And on top of all that, he's a miserable, pessimistic cuss. Of course, that's not tied into his alignment...it's just the cherry on top of that short bundle of evil.
In this same way, a good person could find themselves at odds with other good people (just like in real life) even though they both care about "Good"...sometimes "Good" comes at odds. What is good for one people might not be good for another..it might be neutral for them...or even bad (keeping "bad" seperate from Evil, mind you)...doing a neutral act in the name of good while caring for the good of others is not an evil act. It is neutral AT BEST...and is Good in some situations. However, doing EVIL in the name of Good...is Evil. The rejection of Good in favor of Evil is an Evil act...now, of course that person might be sacrificing for the "greater good" by taking on such a weighty responsibility but "heavy is the head that wears the crown" and power corrupts for a reason. Do enough Evil in the name of Good and you are, in fact, Evil. Even if you DEARLY want to justify it.
That is actually where Evil and Good diverge and it is easy to point to. Doing Good while Evil is not enough for it to be Good...you must care about doing the Good. Good must be your intent. Even if Coaldust was forced into situations for the rest of his life where he had to help do good, if he did not care he would never stop being Evil. He'd actually have to change. Evil though, as always, is far more insidious. Doing Evil while Good IS enough for it to be Evil...because the Good act would be to find another way. Or, if impossible, to do nothing and let things proceed. Letting things proceed would not be an Evil act (it's not an act at all) but it wouldn't be Good either.
This is the classic "Gotcha" Paladin scenario. And it's stupid. It's a stupid trope paraded out by a bad DM that doesn't understand what Good and Evil mean when they are invoked in fantasy. For instance, a paladin that knowingly performs a chaotic act, knowing full well it could or will strip them of their abilities but STILL doing it to preserve life and serve Good should never be stripped of their abilities if that was the only option they had...because in fact they were performing a selfless act...they were sacrificing for the greater good. Any Lawful Good god deserving of that alignment would see that. After all, the god would be tacitly supporting the emergence of Evil if they expected their paladin to act otherwise.
This is rambling and railing against poor DMing however. I think the point is made.
Agreed, such as a cleric who wants to cast the spell Shroud of Undeath (Spell Compendium). It temporarily grants the target undead qualities, which is IMMENSELY useful as a buff spell, granting all kinds of immunities (such as immunity to energy/ability drain, necromantic effects, anything that requires a Fort save, and so on) as well as healing them with negative energy and causing positive energy to harm them. This would be very useful in FIGHTING undead, espeacially ones with energy drain attacks. But a good cleric cannot cast it, as it has the evil descriptor.
So it can be an issue. I have a player in my 3.5 game right now who's playing a cleric, and he's not the most experienced player, and sometimes he sees a cool spell and I have to remind him that he can't cast spells with the evil or chaos descriptors (he's LG).
Heh. Sometimes the bad guys get the nicest toys. Such is the path of moderation and selflessness.
But to him, by saying "that's not a paladin", you are demeaning his choices, even if you are not prohibiting them. You are telling him that his paladin "isn't as much of a paladin" as yours. That's why he doesn't go with your suggestion.
I get where you are coming from. To people like you and I, we see the word "paladin", and know that it comes with certain baggage. Indeed, the word "paladin" implies a certain amount of nobility and righteousness that is typically associated with Lawful Good. To us, an evil "holy knight" isn't a paladin because he doesn't live up to paladian ideals, which is where the word comes from.
But D&D has come to associate "paladin" as "knight of a given faith", to which some people argue that there should be "evil paladins" because evil deities should have similar champions that good ones do. "Paladin" is thus used as shorthand to identify these individuals. Seems like a fine distinction, but it's an important one.
My fault. I should clarify. I also support the existence of evil paladins...Lawful Evil has its ardent supporters in my world just as Lawful Good does...and some are evil paladins. What I meant was that when someone takes on the class at the point of creation they are agreeing to the terms of that class. Part of a paladins terms are "They are adherents of a given standard"...be that Lawful Good or Lawful Evil or Defender of Squirrels...to deviate from that, when it should be understood at creation, should bring with it the logical outcome. It is no different from picking a fighter and 3 game sessions later getting upset when you try to cast a spell and the DM says that you can't. It's your class. Deal with it.
To be fair, try and understand that some people who are not Bad DMs just don't like alignment. IS it because they misunderstand alignment? Maybe, maybe not. Their choices being different than yours or mine does not give us the right to impose a value judgement upon them. Diffferent is not necessarily wrong.
Oh no I have no problem with that. There are some perfectly awesome DMs that don't like alignment. My contention is merely that if someone is having a problem WITH alignment then it is from lack of understanding of alignment...not some inherent problem with the system. Has the system not been explained to them well enough? Possibly. It's not a value judgement...and not bad or good. It is like riding a bike...if someone keeps falling over, perhaps biking is not for them...but as someone that has been biking for quite some time I can say without a doubt that I know how to ride without error. Could some just no longer bike and roller blade instead? heck yeah, more power to you. I just don't give allowances for someone saying "Bikes are inherently broken!"...that flag don't wave. It is no different with alignment.
Centauri:
What you fail to see is the point written in the RAW that alignments encompass a gamut of personality types. Just because an evil person has loved ones, or a family, or a willingness to sacrifice themselves for a greater cause, does not invalidate their "evil-ness". Likewise, a Good-aligned person who is greedy, or willing to kill, does not alter his outlooks, personality, and beliefs that make him "good". The "subtleties" are still accounted for in the rules.
This.
Then why try to codify it into the rules if its so hard to do so so. Or, alternatively, why not write the rules in a way that does allow that something to fit into them.
Why do anything if it is difficult? I find this logic very faulty.
Then at your table you can continue to have items dependent on alignment. You can import any alignment system whole sale, including the 3x3 grid, and game still functions exactly and intended at every table in spite of it.
And you can easily remove any alignment system. Why is removing better than keeping? Because it is your preference?
When the process of removing something improves it, then its a pretty good process to improve something. Especially when it has been shown to work.
So if something is hard to understand it should be removed to improve what it is a part of? A great deal of mathematics works just fine without linear algebra. So why have it if it's difficult to understand and the curriculum would be improved by removing it?
"Improve" is a useless word in this way. What defines "improve"?
At the very least, I think that it would be more effective than your suggestion to devote chapters of DMG space to alignment that, as you said, people won't read. I think there is better ways to use the available page count. Such as devoting it to stuff that people will read.
A good DM should read voraciously. If there is something I do not want in my game, I do not read in-depth upon it...however, I do not request that it be removed from existence. And no, there isn't much better to devote to page count...the designers are already AWFUL at devoting page count to things that are ACTUALLY useful to DMs. The DMG would be IMPROVED by elaborating on alignment because the concept of it is very important to fantasy gaming. Not understanding it is detrimental to play. Understanding it is beneficial to play. Is it necessary? No. But linear algebra isn't necessary to be good at "math" either...but knowing it will make you better at "math" in general.
Of course there are other methods too. I like said quite some post back, the alignment mechanics could be rewritten to be more assessable, consistent, and easier to apply. It would take work, but it would not be an impossible. Alignment mechanics could be clarified and steamlined to work consistently, or at least relatively consistently, at every game table. I'd be okay with this too. I might even take a crack at it someday if I think of an innovative way to do it.
By all means, go ahead. And I mean that. I'm always open to better systems. Just not removing a system without a replacement. It reeks of laziness and a desire to tear down what others use without an issue (again for 15+ years).
The proof is in the pudding...I am willing to wager I could start an "All alignment issues answered here" thread in the Whats A DM To Do area and all it would garner me would be attacks on my character rather than anyone actually looking for answers. Why? Because they aren't interested in answers. They're interested in attacking something they have struggled with...it is the equivalent of throwing a controller against the floor because one is bad at a video game. In fact...maybe I WILL start that thread...it might help someone so it'd be worth it. I've endured attacks before and will again, I'm sure so its not a big issue.
Whatever the solution, I would just want it to work without me having to finished the half-built bridge. If I wanted to build a bridge, I would do that on my own initiative.
The bridge can never be built for you. Understanding is the other half. I can show you math equations all day...until you UNDERSTAND them it will not matter. I might just further confuse you. Should the book seek to rectify that lack of understanding? Yes, as I've said that would be great. It requires the person READ tho and I've found that most that have major issues with alignment are not interested in that...they are interested in TELLING not understanding. Note, I am not saying this about you directly...you seem an affable fellow.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Most people would agree with you that he's not evil. It's much more debatable where he would fall on the L/C alignment. However, people would still make the arguments though. And depending only exactly how you interpret the definitions of the alignments as well as Batman's actions and motives, he could potentially fit in multiple squares at once. And, more imporantly, from the perspective D&D alignment.
Many people that argue things do so without understanding what they're talking about. Human nature. In this situation it's double-hard because someone would have to fully understand alignment AND the character in question. Good luck with that one...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
But fun isn't the point of D&D.
Thanks for saying this, so that I know it's not worth discussing anything else with you.
But fun isn't the point of D&D.
Thanks for saying this, so that I know it's not worth discussing anything else with you.
Seriously, look at it like this. If fun is the point of D&D, then so long as you are having fun playing D&D, does it matter how you play D&D? No, it doesn't. You could make playing D&D into anything you want. You could do donuts in someone's backyard for D&D, and so long as you're having fun, you're fulfilling the point of D&D, right? The point of D&D is to play a character that experiences a variety of progression, progression in wealth, progression in level, progression in fame, progression in a character arc, progression in gear...these are the kinds of things that people enjoy about D&D. People play D&D because those elements are fun. There is an awesome designer essay in World of Darkness: Mirrors on this very subject, I think I am going to quote it. D&D is a narrative and progression-based interactive simulation of heroic fantasy. Whether or not you find that fun depends entirely upon you. You could change the nature of D&D to make it fun, but then you're playing a different game. It is the simulation of heroic fantasy that is fun, not just, "playing D&D."
Authenticity: A
Fire in the Heart
of the Game
By Malcolm Sheppard
I’m going to lead off with some contentious statements
to get you thinking. Here they are:
• You can play a game the wrong way, even if
you’re having fun.
• Sometimes fun actually means you’re doing it
wrong.
• Sometimes the Storyteller should just say
“No.”
• The popular notion that a good game session
runs smoothly, with a kind of consistent pleasantry
and not one whit of disputation about character motives,
the system, background, or situation, is wrong,
wrong, wrong.
Don’t worry — I’m indulging in a little bit of rhetoric.
It’s okay to love everything I just damned. This
is play, not heart surgery. But “play” shouldn’t evoke
some soft-focused, sentimental, selectively remembered
childhood experience. Play is where you skin your knee.
Play is where you cry. Play is learning, exploration that
narrows in on a certain, specific template for our experiences.
The exact destination depends on the activity.
I personally believe that as a medium, tabletop roleplaying’s
distinctive, best destination is the authentic
experience of fiction.
My friend Jenny once said something that I now
carry with me into every game and writing project. I’ve
never gamed with her, but when we drank into the
second and third pint at our local bar’s big, graffiti-laden
back table, she told me she played. She talked about
surviving the winter in a game, trekking across a blasted
post-apocalyptic landscape, where the weather mixed
snow, nuclear ash, and traceries of magical energy.
She said, “I have all of these real memories that
never happened to me.”
I instantly knew that this is why I was roleplaying,
and that this makes the form so fantastic. I’m tempted
to say, “That’s what makes it an art,” but people give
that word a privileged context, and **** that. Lots of
things are art. Most things are bad art.
Let’s just say that this is what I think roleplaying
does better than everything else. So when I talk about
all the things You’re Doing Wrong in the first paragraph,
I’m talking about dogma that can bar the way to what
I feel is the most profound part of roleplaying — the
fire in its heart, or just “good art.”
That is not the entirity of the piece, and it would be too large I think to quote here without stretching the boundaries of good taste, but this is one of the major guys for White Wolf Inc., creators of some of the most successful RPGs out there. They also have other good essays in that book, like How to Min/Max and Not Feel Ashamed.
Then why try to codify it into the rules if its so hard to do so so. Or, alternatively, why not write the rules in a way that does allow that something to fit into them.
Why do anything if it is difficult? I find this logic very faulty.
Did you read the second sentence you just quoted? "Or, alternatively, why not write the rules in a way that does allow that something to fit into them."
Basically, if you're going to do something, why not do it well instead of just half-assing it.
Then at your table you can continue to have items dependent on alignment. You can import any alignment system whole sale, including the 3x3 grid, and game still functions exactly and intended at every table in spite of it.
And you can easily remove any alignment system. Why is removing better than keeping? Because it is your preference?
I say didn't removing alignment was better. Not once. I said that removing alignment mechanics would be my prefered solution, but never said that it would be a better solution. I also said removing alignment mechanics has worked. And it has. I've also said that the 3x3 is a major source of arguments and disagreements. And it is.
And let me clarify. I said to remove alignment mechanics. Not the entire system.
Removing alignment mechanics is just one possible solution*. And mostly, I mentioned it because it opposite dichotomy the idea you propose of devoting multiple chapters to the subject with the expectation that people, in your words, not mine, "won't read those chapters if they existed". Which, and this is my mistake, I assumed you said partially in jest. Because devoting sections of a book to that won't be read would benefit no one. And then doubled my mistake by suggesting the 4e approach, also partially in jest. I forget that humor, brevity, and subtlety doesn't translate very over the interwebs. I apologize for that.
Unfortunately, you've become fixated on the fact that I said this that you are ignored the rest of my posts (particularly the parts where I said I was open to other solutions as well) and, most importantly, their intent.
So allow me to make that intent clear by paraphrasing one of my earlier posts from this thread.
The game rules should provide a clear basis and common ground for the player base to engage the game. It's one of the primary purposes of a game system. And the alignment rules, and any game rule for that matter, should not be interpreted so radically differently from table to table and cause so my arguments and disputes. So something needs to be done. And if the alignment rules are going to continue to exist in the game, then they need to be revised, clarified, and made more accessible in both content and presentation so that they are as clear and easy to apply as, say, attack rolls and multiclassing rules.
And ultimately, I would be satisfied with a clear, consistent, more (not necessarily entirely) objective solution that would reduce alignment-related rules disputes.
* Another solution I'm a fan of is replacing the mechanics with the concordance system, or remodelling alignment mechanics to be more like them.
When the process of removing something improves it, then its a pretty good process to improve something. Especially when it has been shown to work.
So if something is hard to understand it should be removed to improve what it is a part of?
If the removal does actually improve what it's being removed from, then yes.
That is how progress is made. When something doesn't work, you fix it. When something could be better, you improve it. And when something no longer serves a useful purpose or becomes detrimental, you shelve it or abandon it.
Do you think the computer you're using to post to this thread would work as well as it does if it was choked with every piece of functional code from every edition of your preferred operating system? No. No it wouldn't.
A great deal of mathematics works just fine without linear algebra. So why have it if it's difficult to understand and the curriculum would be improved by removing it?
Depends on the goals of the curriculum. Linear algebra probably won't help a law student all that much. An art student with a focus on traditional mediums would get limited use as well, though one focused on computer-aided methods might. The topic would probably be too much for early elementary school children.
"Improve" is a useless word in this way. What defines "improve"?
Good question. Since I was responding to your use of the word improve, I'll let you decide.
At the very least, I think that it would be more effective than your suggestion to devote chapters of DMG space to alignment that, as you said, people won't read. I think there is better ways to use the available page count. Such as devoting it to stuff that people will read.
A good DM should read voraciously.
D&D. You must be this |--------------------------------------| well read to ride.
If there is something I do not want in my game, I do not read in-depth upon it
But if it's deeply integrated with the game's core mechanics, you will have no choice. And unless you have at least a modicrum of design skills, you'll likely have trouble removing said something from the game without unforeseen consequences. And, ironically, the latter would require you to be more well-read in how that something works than the typical gamer because you would need to understand the implications of the mechanical changes you invoke.
The DMG would be IMPROVED by elaborating on alignment because the concept of it is very important to fantasy gaming. Not understanding it is detrimental to play. Understanding it is beneficial to play. Is it necessary? No. But linear algebra isn't necessary to be good at "math" either...but knowing it will make you better at "math" in general.
Depends on your preferred brand of fantasy. Relatively little fantasy outside of D&D-related material is dependent D&D's specific brand of alignment. And the D&D system is versatile enough to tell just about any type of fantasy story you want, with or without D&D-brand alignment.
That said, I partially agree with you. Though I think the DMG would be even more improved by elaborating on a variety of fantastic metaphysical and moral/ethical systems, not just the traditional 3x3 alignment grid. More inspiration is always good. Though I don't alignment mechanics are strictly necessary to derive benefit from additional elaboration.
Of course there are other methods too. I like said quite some post back, the alignment mechanics could be rewritten to be more assessable, consistent, and easier to apply. It would take work, but it would not be an impossible. Alignment mechanics could be clarified and steamlined to work consistently, or at least relatively consistently, at every game table. I'd be okay with this too. I might even take a crack at it someday if I think of an innovative way to do it.
By all means, go ahead. And I mean that. I'm always open to better systems. Just not removing a system without a replacement. It reeks of laziness and a desire to tear down what others use without an issue (again for 15+ years).
Well, since you hold that you have such a superior and well-read insight of how alignment works, why don't you give it a try. It reeks of laziness to force the perpetuation of a dysfunctional and incomplete system that regularly causes issues for others. Yay ironic echos!
Whatever the solution, I would just want it to work without me having to finished the half-built bridge. If I wanted to build a bridge, I would do that on my own initiative.
The bridge can never be built for you. Understanding is the other half. I can show you math equations all day
Equations all day? I'd settle for one equation and a couple seconds. At least then I could extrapolate the equation to apply the rest of the alignments.
...until you UNDERSTAND them it will not matter. I might just further confuse you.
Why do you assume I'm confused. I understand alignment. I don't even entirely disagree with how it's presented as is. It's a pretty fun idea. It has merit. And for the most part, it works as long as to don't try to examine it too closely (which is true of any game mechanic, really). I just disagree that it's mechanical aspects are as consistent and complete of a system that it should be, and I think that most of the alignment disputes that erupt ultimately originate from the aspects of the alignment mechanics are deficient in.
But mostly, my biggest issue is that it doesn't tell you how quantify alignment and alignment changes, while having mechanics that reference and rely on alignment changes to happen. Honestly, this isn't a big deal for me. No, really. I can come up with a reasonable metric myself. But sense this is something the rules depend on, this is something the rules really should cover. And I think that would solve a lot of the issues people have with the alignment system.
Or to put it another way, my issue is not that I'm confused by alignment. My issue is alignment, as written, is bad game design.
Should the book seek to rectify that lack of understanding? Yes, as I've said that would be great.
What a coincidence. I said that too.
Most people would agree with you that he's not evil. It's much more debatable where he would fall on the L/C alignment. However, people would still make the arguments though. And depending only exactly how you interpret the definitions of the alignments as well as Batman's actions and motives, he could potentially fit in multiple squares at once. And, more imporantly, from the perspective D&D alignment.
Many people that argue things do so without understanding what they're talking about. Human nature. In this situation it's double-hard because someone would have to fully understand alignment AND the character in question. Good luck with that one....
That's a lot of abstracts to have to understand. And by the logic you seem to be presenting here, unless you "fully" understand human nature, alignment, and the character in question, you won't know that you don't understand those concepts, and would therefore be trapped in Doing It WrongTM until acquire the necessary knowledge. Which would be hard to do because you won't know that you lack the knowledge to begin with, and therefore won't know that you need to seek them out, let alone be able to recognize when someone is Doing It RightTM.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with the alignment system?
But fun isn't the point of D&D.
Thanks for saying this, so that I know it's not worth discussing anything else with you.
Seriously, look at it like this....
I think the point Zaramon is trying to make is that the point of D&D is not to have fun. The point of playing D&D however, is. Fun is not an inherent quality of the game system itself. Fun is an emergant phenomenon of interacting with the game system.
But I'm kinda half-guessing, and may be reading too much of my own biases and interpretations into Zaramon's statements. So I'm pretty sure I'm off the mark.
But fun isn't the point of D&D.
Thanks for saying this, so that I know it's not worth discussing anything else with you.
Seriously, look at it like this....
I think the point Zaramon is trying to make is that the point of D&D is not to have fun. The point of playing D&D however, is. Fun is not an inherent quality of the game system itself. Fun is an emergant phenomenon of interacting with the game system.
But I'm kinda half-guessing, and may be reading too much of my own biases and interpretations into Zaramon's statements. So I'm pretty sure I'm off the mark.
No, you figured it out. In a nutshell, people play D&D for x reasons, because those are things they enjoy. D&D is, in a nutshell, a narrative heroic fantasy simulator, not a fun machine. I would think people engage in said simulation because they enjoy heroic fantasy.
Oct 23, 2012 -- 2:20AM, Fireclave wrote:
Fantasy game, Good vs Evil mechanics are not "unnecessary"
Sure, and as far as the mechanics go, alignment works fine. If your AC is 10, then a 10 or better hits you. If your alignment is Good then Protection from Good causes you problems. Easy. Classic. Cool. Also easily handled in other ways, but whatever.
The issue is that there are lots of "implied" mechanics, and a lot of probably unintended consequences that stem from the alignment rules as a whole. Reasonable people conclude that they must behave in ways that are socially unacceptable, or they're cheating at worst and houseruling at best. Not that there's anything wrong with houseruling, but it's usually a sign that the rules are causing undesired results.
I would strike that usage of the phrase "Reasonable people" a reasonable person would read, not just the heading, or a snipit of a sentence under the heading of a particular allignment, and run with it, but would read the entire rules in context and would then choose an allignment that didn't make them behave in socially unacceptable ways. ie someone glancing at the word "Chaotic" and then playing a character that is a complete disruptive mad-man lunitic, flipping a coin and being heroic one moment and murdering people the other, then they aren't being "Reasonable"
A reasonable person sees that an allignment covers a wide range of behaviour, with large overlaps into each other. If you imagined allignments as large circles to graph their axis, a reasonable person would see that Lawful Good, Neutral good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, Neutral and Chaotic Neutral all overlaped by half or more. In otherwords there are characters that could easily be placed within any one of those 5 allignments.
That is why if you describe the same character to 6 different people you could get 6 different answers to what allignment they are. Alignment is something a player can use to define their character. Making a character Lawful, Chaotic or Good is a way of making a stand. But it doesn't straight jacket them, they really don't stand out form each other unless they go to the further end of their allignment.
A Paladin, using a classic example, stands out due to his Code of Conduct.
It is Unreasonable people who create these issues.
Since this thread started there has been a half dozen other threads about unreasonable DMs/players controlling other PCs, with House rules, Class stereotypes, Skills such as diplomacy/bluff and other ways. The problem in all these cases were not with the rules, but with people being unreasonable. Changing the ruleset will do nothing to solve the underlying issue.
Most people would agree with you that he's not evil. It's much more debatable where he would fall on the L/C alignment. However, people would still make the arguments though. And depending only exactly how you interpret the definitions of the alignments as well as Batman's actions and motives, he could potentially fit in multiple squares at once. And, more imporantly, from the perspective D&D alignment.
Though this phenomon is not limited to Batman. It can apply to many fictional characters. Batman's just the most recognized meme. I recall several threads on this forum where the OP would ask "what alignment is this character/action", and rarely is only one alignment given.
If D&D alignment was as consistant as proponents claimed it to be, such arguments would be (largely) squashed before they happen. But it's not that consistent.
That there is overlap is the allignments is a good indication of how allignment works while Not straightjacketing a character. Batman works with Gotham police to uphold the law, supporting and even following Commisioner Gordon (bat signal is on the police roof after all) in that way Batman recognizes lawful authority, he isn't working against the police or the justice system, nor a critic of the system.
He does though recognize that the level of crime in Gotham and the nature of it's criminals require action that goes above and beyond regular law enforcement and that the police are not equiped to deal with the problems, as well as the amount of corruption (read unlawful, criminal) is in the police and justice system. As well as his initial motivation being vengence for his parents death. In this way his actions appear Chaotic. He will do what he needs to in order to accomplish his goal.
This example of Batman shows how the allignments can overlap, depending on where on either end of the extremes of the allignment the person is. Escpecially if Batman is more concerned with Good vs Evil. On the mellow end of the scale, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic are subtle differences at best. Batman by being a particular allignment isn't straight jacketing or limiting his actions regardless of if he wants a lawful society or a free society his actions are born of necessity.
But I would point out that as the Hero, his arch enemies are designed to reflect his opposite, The Joker, The Riddler, 2-Face etc all very Chaotic people, Gotham is seen to be falling apart into bedlam, chaos. His villains are sent to an asylum, a mental hospital, again Chaos. It is against these elements that Batman fights against, So Batman is clearly Lawful Good, even if in being a vigilanty he seems chaotic in appearance. That is why the Joker is Batman's most recognized enemy as he represents exactly the Chaotic forces that Batman is fighting against.
It is Unreasonable people who create these issues.
Since this thread started there has been a half dozen other threads about unreasonable DMs/players controlling other PCs, with House rules, Class stereotypes, Skills such as diplomacy/bluff and other ways. The problem in all these cases were not with the rules, but with people being unreasonable. Changing the ruleset will do nothing to solve the underlying issue.
This...well this pretty much sums it up.
Since this thread started there has been a half dozen other threads about unreasonable DMs/players controlling other PCs, with House rules, Class stereotypes, Skills such as diplomacy/bluff and other ways. The problem in all these cases were not with the rules, but with people being unreasonable. Changing the ruleset will do nothing to solve the underlying issue.
It did exactly that in 4th Edition. Whatever people might think the cost of such a change is, there is no basis for alignment arguments in 4th Edition, and the frequency of alignment questions has dropped off since the edition was introduced. Yes, there are still unreasonable people, but they no longer have the enormous, officially-sanctioned sledge-hammer that they used to use to wreck games.
Did you read the second sentence you just quoted? "Or, alternatively, why not write the rules in a way that does allow that something to fit into them."
Basically, if you're going to do something, why not do it well instead of just half-assing it.
No we're in complete agreement. If it's worth doing it, it's worth doing it well.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I say didn't removing alignment was better. Not once. I said that removing alignment mechanics would be my prefered solution, but never said that it would be a better solution. I also said removing alignment mechanics has worked. And it has. I've also said that the 3x3 is a major source of arguments and disagreements. And it is.
And let me clarify. I said to remove alignment mechanics. Not the entire system.
Judaism is a large source of arguments and disagreements as well, I don't think arguing to remove it will go very far though.
That's a pretty huge example though but it was for levity (as you said, humor doesn't always carry so I'll make sure to point out the humor).
You contend that keeping it is your prefered solution but not necessarily a better one. That is fair enough. I contend that keeping it is my prefered solution AND a better one. That is based on my years of using alignment without a problem and having the system and its derived mechanics work quite well.
Removing alignment mechanics is just one possible solution*. And mostly, I mentioned it because it opposite dichotomy the idea you propose of devoting multiple chapters to the subject with the expectation that people, in your words, not mine, "won't read those chapters if they existed". Which, and this is my mistake, I assumed you said partially in jest. Because devoting sections of a book to that won't be read would benefit no one. And then doubled my mistake by suggesting the 4e approach, also partially in jest. I forget that humor, brevity, and subtlety doesn't translate very over the interwebs. I apologize for that.
I'm sorry but I think I was being unclear. The whole "won't read those chapters if they existed" part is not a knock against alignment...it's against many of its detractors. Without reading, some of which will be pretty deep (but not ridiculously so), people won't understand alignment. I don't have much faith in those people to read the solution to their own problems because I don't honestly believe they're looking for a solution otherwise. As I eluded to before, they seem more akin to a person throwing their video game controller...they want to break something or make it no longer exist. Not understand it. Also, I've put up that Alignment Answers thread I mentioned. I honestly want to see where it goes.
Unfortunately, you've become fixated on the fact that I said this that you are ignored the rest of my posts (particularly the parts where I said I was open to other solutions as well) and, most importantly, their intent.
For that I apologize and thank you for rephrasing.
So allow me to make that intent clear by paraphrasing one of my earlier posts from this thread.
The game rules should provide a clear basis and common ground for the player base to engage the game. It's one of the primary purposes of a game system. And the alignment rules, and any game rule for that matter, should not be interpreted so radically differently from table to table and cause so my arguments and disputes. So something needs to be done. And if the alignment rules are going to continue to exist in the game, then they need to be revised, clarified, and made more accessible in both content and presentation so that they are as clear and easy to apply as, say, attack rolls and multiclassing rules.
I agree entirely. Clarification is never bad. I 100% believe that they should be expanded on and explained far more thoroughly...as I said before, I want CHAPTERS on this stuff. The onus would just be on the DMs to actually read it...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />If the removal does actually improve what it's being removed from, then yes.
That is how progress is made. When something doesn't work, you fix it. When something could be better, you improve it. And when something no longer serves a useful purpose or becomes detrimental, you shelve it or abandon it.
Do you think the computer you're using to post to this thread would work as well as it does if it was choked with every piece of functional code from every edition of your preferred operating system? No. No it wouldn't.
No, but it WOULD be worse off if I was missing a bunch of command systems because people that didn't understand them accidentally wiped their hard-drives using them then insisted they be removed.
Good question. Since I was responding to your use of the word improve, I'll let you decide.
If I've never had a problem with a system and have drawn great benefit from it, I would rather see the understanding of that system become improved...not the system itself. By improve, I, of course, mean more wide-spread in this regard.
D&D. You must be this |--------------------------------------| well read to ride.
I said "Good" and I said "DM". Players don't really need to be well read at all. Will it help them? Of course, reading helps in all facets of life.
However, for a DM it is the equivalent of an artist studying technique or a composer listening to other music. It is required for improvement.
A DM doesn't improve in a vacuum. I will revise my statement..."Any DM that wants to improve needs to read as much as possible". That is a bit better. It's pretty much the same though. A DM is never "good" in my opinion in less they're constantly improving...if they aren't moving further and further towards perfection they've settled for mediocrity. It is no different than nature...animals keep evolving, science keeps expanding...DMs should seek to keep improving. The whole "You're great and so am I" attitude is highly detrimental. Participation trophies are insipid. I do not support the mentality behind them.
But if it's deeply integrated with the game's core mechanics, you will have no choice. And unless you have at least a modicrum of design skills, you'll likely have trouble removing said something from the game without unforeseen consequences. And, ironically, the latter would require you to be more well-read in how that something works than the typical gamer because you would need to understand the implications of the mechanical changes you invoke.
I'm the DM...I have plenty of choice. Thankfully I have at least a fair amount of design skill...far above average at any rate, and I am more than willing to learn more...in fact, I eagerly do whenever possible.
However you make my point for me...it is actually easier for most people to understand alignment than it is for them to rip it out wholesale. Yet they still do the latter and then rail when things go awry. And it all went wrong when they tried alignment and it went awry in the first place. Because they didn't understand. In both cases, however, they keep blaming alignment or the mechanics...instead of looking inward. This is the real problem. Many have a "scrub mentality" with games...they cannot look at themselves critically and say "What am I doing wrong?"...no, they immediately jump to "This system is broken!". Believe me, I have played countless games...some competitive and some cooperative, and the #1 complaint of players unwilling to learn is "X is totally broken! This game/X sucks!"...when in reality what they are complaining about is in no way broken at all. Their understanding is.
If you want a great example of the mentality at work, go back to an arcade during the hey-day of games like Street Fighter II...find someone (preferably an adult...so probably around college age) and throw them until they die. Just throw. If this works and they die, something like 95% of those people will attribute their loss to how "unfair" throws are. Because it couldn't possibly be something with them.
Depends on your preferred brand of fantasy. Relatively little fantasy outside of D&D-related material is dependent D&D's specific brand of alignment. And the D&D system is versatile enough to tell just about any type of fantasy story you want, with or without D&D-brand alignment.
Heroic fantasy. The kind that D&D supports in design.
That said, I partially agree with you. Though I think the DMG would be even more improved by elaborating on a variety of fantastic metaphysical and moral/ethical systems, not just the traditional 3x3 alignment grid. More inspiration is always good. Though I don't alignment mechanics are strictly necessary to derive benefit from additional elaboration.
We are 100% in agreement with this. The DMG should have 20% crunch and 80% "how to" & "why". The fact that it doesn't just points to how players are being failed by the designers...but, then again, this is a cyclical process because many of those players would probably dismiss a book like that because it "tells them how to play"...then they'd go rail about how something is broken because they don't understand how to play it.
Well, since you hold that you have such a superior and well-read insight of how alignment works, why don't you give it a try. It reeks of laziness to force the perpetuation of a dysfunctional and incomplete system that regularly causes issues for others. Yay ironic echos!
Thank you for recognizing my insight. I appreciate it. However, I have no need to give a try to making or improving the system as I am able to use it just fine. If I were compensated for my time, or perhaps even believed that it would be well received instead of me being attacked, however, I might consider doing so.
Equations all day? I'd settle for one equation and a couple seconds. At least then I could extrapolate the equation to apply the rest of the alignments.
Head over to my other thread then and I will show you any equation you want. That is serious by the way...if you have issues, I will seek to help you.
But mostly, my biggest issue is that it doesn't tell you how quantify alignment and alignment changes, while having mechanics that reference and rely on alignment changes to happen. Honestly, this isn't a big deal for me. No, really. I can come up with a reasonable metric myself. But sense this is something the rules depend on, this is something the rules really should cover. And I think that would solve a lot of the issues people have with the alignment system.
Or to put it another way, my issue is not that I'm confused by alignment. My issue is alignment, as written, is bad game design.
We mostly agree except for your last part. Alignment is not bad game design...it is poorly understood game design. They can OFTEN look like the same exact thing.
However, I a lot of the issues with alignment stem from people simultaneously shouting for people to stop "telling them what is right/wrong" because they can't bear criticism or self-evaluation while simultaneously demanding something VERY objective be explained to them. They have to get rid of the latter attitude before the former would ever be possible to attempt.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />That's a lot of abstracts to have to understand. And by the logic you seem to be presenting here, unless you "fully" understand human nature, alignment, and the character in question, you won't know that you don't understand those concepts, and would therefore be trapped in Doing It WrongTM until acquire the necessary knowledge. Which would be hard to do because you won't know that you lack the knowledge to begin with, and therefore won't know that you need to seek them out, let alone be able to recognize when someone is Doing It RightTM.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with the alignment system?
One need only understands the context of heroic fantasy that alignment systematize.
The cycle you describe comes to a grinding halt when the person "Doing it Wrong" takes time to reflect on what is happening and they seek help...either through talking to someone else or going to our old friend reading. Many people stay stuck in endless loops of denouncing things or misunderstanding them without ever reaching a simple answer only because they never turned their criticisms inward. They never consider they could be the one that is wrong.
Since this thread started there has been a half dozen other threads about unreasonable DMs/players controlling other PCs, with House rules, Class stereotypes, Skills such as diplomacy/bluff and other ways. The problem in all these cases were not with the rules, but with people being unreasonable. Changing the ruleset will do nothing to solve the underlying issue.
It did exactly that in 4th Edition. Whatever people might think the cost of such a change is, there is no basis for alignment arguments in 4th Edition, and the frequency of alignment questions has dropped off since the edition was introduced. Yes, there are still unreasonable people, but they no longer have the enormous, officially-sanctioned sledge-hammer that they used to use to wreck games.
However are there any worthwhile discussions on alignment that have REPLACED those argument threads? The lack of bad does not imply good. It is merely absence.
In other words, at best, our Alignment Alignment has shifted from Evil to Neutral. Neutral, however, is not Good.
But fun isn't the point of D&D.
Thanks for saying this, so that I know it's not worth discussing anything else with you.
Seriously, look at it like this....
I think the point Zaramon is trying to make is that the point of D&D is not to have fun. The point of playing D&D however, is. Fun is not an inherent quality of the game system itself. Fun is an emergant phenomenon of interacting with the game system.
But I'm kinda half-guessing, and may be reading too much of my own biases and interpretations into Zaramon's statements. So I'm pretty sure I'm off the mark.
No, you figured it out. In a nutshell, people play D&D for x reasons, because those are things they enjoy. D&D is, in a nutshell, a narrative heroic fantasy simulator, not a fun machine. I would think people engage in said simulation because they enjoy heroic fantasy.
They do. When most people use to refer to D&D as a verb, "play" is usually implied to be in there somewhere since that's the context it's almost always used it. And that assumption usually holds unless a different qualifying verb explictly taking precedence (such designing, bashing, houseruling, etc). So when you say "the point of D&D is not to have fun", most people will read that as "the point of playing D&D is not to have fun".
The subtle distinction you're making is not an inutitive one. It requires one to recognize the maker of the distiction has stop using conversational venacular and stop using it themselves, and instead scrutinize each word in only the most broadest, conceptual, academic sense from the perspective of a game designer. And most people aren't game designers.
Or to put it another way, you're throwing technical jargon and concepts at people and assuming that everyone will understand your meaning and intent. That's bad conveyance. And you probably don't even realize you doing it because the jargon and concepts you're using are second nature to you. This is the same problem many professionals have when they try to teach or write textbooks and end up teaching boring, dry classes and writing boring, dry books that only other people in their field would want to read.
And you wonder why some people have a problem with the alignment system?Given that I and everyone I know didn't have too much trouble doing exactly that, yeah, kind of. I do get why people have problems with alignment, but I still don't understand how it is that the why happens, and I highly doubt I ever will.
Your experiences with alignment are not universal and your understanding of alignment is not universally shared. Many people have drawn very different, rational conclusion from the same system. And when you realize that, the issue will become clearer. Most likely not crystal clear, but clearer.
That's basically what it boils down to.
It is Unreasonable people who create these issues.
Since this thread started there has been a half dozen other threads about unreasonable DMs/players controlling other PCs, with House rules, Class stereotypes, Skills such as diplomacy/bluff and other ways. The problem in all these cases were not with the rules, but with people being unreasonable. Changing the ruleset will do nothing to solve the underlying issue.
But a lot can be done to address the underlying issue. While we may not be able to change people, we can change the content and how we present information to make it more accessible and intuitive, and lead people away from mistakes.
This is why your electronics come with manuals, and why the clean, graphical, glossy manuals are usually more useful that the cruddy diagram written in some language that's not English. It's why your computer uses a graphical user interface instead of requiring you to use the command line. It's why fire extinguishers are a bright, shiny red. It's why Megaman X's intro stage is pretty frickin' awesome.
This is what usability testing is for. This is what usability is all about.
Nothing can ever be completely dummy proofed. But a more usable system will cause fewer arguments and disagreements.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />They do. When most people use to refer to D&D as a verb, "play" is usually implied to be in there somewhere since that's the context it's almost always used it. And that assumption usually holds unless a different qualifying verb explictly taking precedence (such designing, bashing, houseruling, etc). So when you say "the point of D&D is not to have fun", most people will read that as "the point of playing D&D is not to have fun".
The subtle distinction you're making is not an inutitive one. It requires one to recognize the maker of the distiction has stop using conversational venacular and stop using it themselves, and instead scrutinize each word in only the most broadest, conceptual, academic sense from the perspective of a game designer. And most people aren't game designers.
Or to put it another way, you're throwing technical jargon and concepts at people and assuming that everyone will understand your meaning and intent. That's bad conveyance. And you probably don't even realize you doing it because the jargon and concepts you're using are second nature to you. This is the same problem many professionals have when they try to teach or write textbooks and end up teaching boring, dry classes and writing boring, dry books that only other people in their field would want to read.
If you want to use this board as a litmus test, then no, the majority of people do not understand the concept even when explained. However, they will READILY argue the point while not understanding it or attempting to understand it. The difference of course is that the "the point of D&D as a game" and the "point of playing the game of D&D"...however, even when that is explicitly outlined, the majority of the board (or at least those vocal) make no attempt to understand the difference. Most made no attempt to actually understand it at all...or even really to read it.
That's the problem being contended with on a lot of levels.
Since this thread started there has been a half dozen other threads about unreasonable DMs/players controlling other PCs, with House rules, Class stereotypes, Skills such as diplomacy/bluff and other ways. The problem in all these cases were not with the rules, but with people being unreasonable. Changing the ruleset will do nothing to solve the underlying issue.
It did exactly that in 4th Edition. Whatever people might think the cost of such a change is, there is no basis for alignment arguments in 4th Edition, and the frequency of alignment questions has dropped off since the edition was introduced. Yes, there are still unreasonable people, but they no longer have the enormous, officially-sanctioned sledge-hammer that they used to use to wreck games.
I agree entirely with 4th edition, however...
4th edition is a different game then 3rd edition, with an entirely different ruleset. Using 3.5's allignment system in 4th edition would be a horid mistake. 4th edition uses completely different rules, different combat rules, different spells, different monster stats and so one. They are essentially 2 different games in many respects.
3.5 has a different ruleset with it's allignment system being heavily integrated within it's system, even class balance from Paladins to Druids, Wizards, Clerics and Assasins and Spells are balanced by this allignment system.
Good Clerics can't cast Evil spells, however They do get to spontaneously cast Heal spells, turn Undead etc. This is a class balancing tool.
In a completely different game, with different classes, different abilities, feats, spells, skills, combat rules, creatures, they don't have 3.5's allignment. Well no duh, neither does Chess or Monopoly.
But a lot can be done to address the underlying issue. While we may not be able to change people, we can change the content and how we present information to make it more accessible and intuitive, and lead people away from mistakes.
This is why your electronics come with manuals, and why the clean, graphical, glossy manuals are usually more useful that the cruddy diagram written in some language that's not English. It's why your computer uses a graphical user interface instead of requiring you to use the command line. It's why fire extinguishers are a bright, shiny red. It's why Megaman X's intro stage is pretty frickin' awesome.
This is what usability testing is for. This is what usability is all about.
Nothing can ever be completely dummy proofed. But a more usable system will cause fewer arguments and disagreements.
Allignment abuse, aka CN PC who is a wanton, murderous immature player will do so in any system, under any ruleset, because he is immature. He will do so in any game, any system. The lack or existance of an allignment system is completely irrelevant. His Knight will hump your Queen when he captures it in chess.
3.5 D&D comes with Hard cover, glossy manual, written in fluent english (and i persume in other languages as well) When reading the Allignment entry, read from beginning to end in context, it is fluent, concise and clearly defined. I've played countless games with dozens of groups since third eddition was released, and Have never had any trouble defining and using allignment.
Maybe that's because I've actually read the glossy manuals?
In a completely different game, with different classes, different abilities, feats, spells, skills, combat rules, creatures, they don't have 3.5's allignment. Well no duh, neither does Chess or Monopoly.
The point is that none of those games have arguments about alignment either. Well, 4th Edition still probably does, for some people, but apparently not to the degree that 3.5 did, if the dearth of questions about it on the boards is an indication. So, while it's true that people can be jerks no matter what the system is, alignment itself seems to add fuel to the fire.
But a lot can be done to address the underlying issue. While we may not be able to change people, we can change the content and how we present information to make it more accessible and intuitive, and lead people away from mistakes.
This is why your electronics come with manuals, and why the clean, graphical, glossy manuals are usually more useful that the cruddy diagram written in some language that's not English. It's why your computer uses a graphical user interface instead of requiring you to use the command line. It's why fire extinguishers are a bright, shiny red. It's why Megaman X's intro stage is pretty frickin' awesome.
This is what usability testing is for. This is what usability is all about.
Nothing can ever be completely dummy proofed. But a more usable system will cause fewer arguments and disagreements.
Allignment abuse, aka CN PC who is a wanton, murderous immature player will do so in any system, under any ruleset, because he is immature. He will do so in any game, any system. The lack or existance of an allignment system is completely irrelevant. His Knight will hump your Queen when he captures it in chess.
Because the only people who have issues with alignment are queen-humping, alignment abusing jerks. No one would benefit from the rules being more usable, right?
Usability does not make something jerk proof, and no one is suggesting that. But it does help when people honestly attempt to use the system and come to an impasse.
Because, apparently, not everyone is "blessed" with a perfect understanding of alignment. So why would you be resistant to making that understanding more accessible.
Maybe that's because I've actually read the glossy manuals?
So everyone who has issues with alignment's usability hasn't read the books? It simply can't be for any other possible reason except for maybe being queen-humping, alignment abusing jerks.
In a completely different game, with different classes, different abilities, feats, spells, skills, combat rules, creatures, they don't have 3.5's allignment. Well no duh, neither does Chess or Monopoly.
The point is that none of those games have arguments about alignment either. Well, 4th Edition still probably does, for some people, but apparently not to the degree that 3.5 did, if the dearth of questions about it on the boards is an indication. So, while it's true that people can be jerks no matter what the system is, alignment itself seems to add fuel to the fire.
3.5 D&D doesn't have arguements over En passant, so moot point really. My point is that these are different games, and as such how they work doesn't apply.
Since allingment is incorperated deeply into 3.5, from core classes, spells, feats, creatures, comparing it to how allignment works in other systems or how other systems don't have allignment basically boils down to saying we should dump 3.5 entirely
If your answer to "how can I improve my batting average?" is "baseball sucks, real men play tennis" then that's not rellevant to advice on how to hold a bat properly.
3.5 D&D doesn't have arguements over En passant, so moot point really.
No one argues over En passant because it's a clear rule and not subject to interpretation or jerky behavior.
My point is that these are different games, and as such how they work doesn't apply.
One of those games has a key aspect that provokes is the focus of major arguments. Ok, Monoply probably does too, but the fact that they're different games is irrelevant. If a game has something that adds fuel to arguments, that's a problem.
Your point seemed to be that changing the way alignment works would not prevent jerky behavior. 4th Edition changed the way alignment works, and while there is still jerky behavior, it's not fueled by alignment disagreements. Clearly, changing the role of alignment CAN put a damper on the problems it causes for the game as a whole.
Since allingment is incorperated deeply into 3.5, from core classes, spells, feats, creatures, comparing it to how allignment works in other systems or how other systems don't have allignment basically boils down to saying we should dump 3.5 entirely
I didn't say anything about how alignment works in either system. Obviously, it would work in accordance with each system. The point is, in one system it's fuel for arguments, and in another system where it is still present, it is not. It's clearly possible to have alignment without the arguments.
If your answer to "how can I improve my batting average?" is "baseball sucks, real men play tennis" then that's not rellevant to advice on how to hold a bat properly.
That's a horrible analogy, as I'm sure you can see. Argument by analogy is the last refuge of the beaten.
Fantasy game, Good vs Evil mechanics are not "unnecessary"
Sure, and as far as the mechanics go, alignment works fine. If your AC is 10, then a 10 or better hits you. If your alignment is Good then Protection from Good causes you problems. Easy. Classic. Cool. Also easily handled in other ways, but whatever.
The issue is that there are lots of "implied" mechanics, and a lot of probably unintended consequences that stem from the alignment rules as a whole. Reasonable people conclude that they must behave in ways that are socially unacceptable, or they're cheating at worst and houseruling at best. Not that there's anything wrong with houseruling, but it's usually a sign that the rules are causing undesired results.
I would strike that usage of the phrase "Reasonable people" a reasonable person would read, not just the heading, or a snipit of a sentence under the heading of a particular allignment, and run with it, but would read the entire rules in context and would then choose an allignment that didn't make them behave in socially unacceptable ways. ie someone glancing at the word "Chaotic" and then playing a character that is a complete disruptive mad-man lunitic, flipping a coin and being heroic one moment and murdering people the other, then they aren't being "Reasonable"
A reasonable person sees that an allignment covers a wide range of behaviour, with large overlaps into each other. If you imagined allignments as large circles to graph their axis, a reasonable person would see that Lawful Good, Neutral good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, Neutral and Chaotic Neutral all overlaped by half or more. In otherwords there are characters that could easily be placed within any one of those 5 allignments.
That is why if you describe the same character to 6 different people you could get 6 different answers to what allignment they are. Alignment is something a player can use to define their character. Making a character Lawful, Chaotic or Good is a way of making a stand. But it doesn't straight jacket them, they really don't stand out form each other unless they go to the further end of their allignment.
A Paladin, using a classic example, stands out due to his Code of Conduct.
It is Unreasonable people who create these issues.
Since this thread started there has been a half dozen other threads about unreasonable DMs/players controlling other PCs, with House rules, Class stereotypes, Skills such as diplomacy/bluff and other ways. The problem in all these cases were not with the rules, but with people being unreasonable. Changing the ruleset will do nothing to solve the underlying issue.
Just want to throw my support behind this post. Thank you Mr Customer.
Zaramon. You are a player in my game running a character trying to be LG. You go to rescue the princess from some goblins, and slaughter the majority of them because they refused surrender. You come across the nursrey in the back of the caves. Its full of children and the elderly caring for them. What does your PC do?
If alignment is objective and has specifically universially defined terms you should be able to answer that question correctly with the information provided.
Zaramon. You are a player in my game running a character trying to be LG. You go to rescue the princess from some goblins, and slaughter the majority of them because they refused surrender. You come across the nursrey in the back of the caves. Its full of children and the elderly caring for them. What does your PC do?
If alignment is objective and has specifically universially defined terms you should be able to answer that question correctly with the information provided.
What alignment are the baby goblins and elderly? Are they evil? Is only one evil and not the other?
More info and I'll give you a perfect answer.
I'll also add that the LG character can simply leave the nursery and continue onward to save the princess and not deal with that at all.
Your point seemed to be that changing the way alignment works would not prevent jerky behavior. 4th Edition changed the way alignment works, and while there is still jerky behavior, it's not fueled by alignment disagreements. Clearly, changing the role of alignment CAN put a damper on the problems it causes for the game as a whole.
Or all that actually means is that naturally contentious people found something else to fight over. Some people just need a reason, it doesn't matter how dumb it is. Put two contentious enough people together and they will argue ad nauseum over how to breathe properly.
The point is, in one system it's fuel for arguments, and in another system where it is still present, it is not. It's clearly possible to have alignment without the arguments.
Just because it is a launching platform for arguments or disagreements doesn't mean it is bad, or that it is a problem. Again, people will use anything. I am going to use a semi-controvesial example here, but look at the Crusades. A lot of people like to blame religion for those, but all of the tenets of both of those religions actually categorically condemned that kind of crap, but it didn't stop a truckload of people from using those teachings as excuses to go butcher a bunch of people anyway. One could also argue that those were just faux reasons and the real reason they did that was social clout amongst that part of the world which is even more contrary to their teachings than starting wars, but that is a different rant entirely. Hell, people literally kill each other over the fact that they root for rival sports teams. Does that mean we shouldn't have sports teams?
I don't want to give the impression that I am missing or ignoring your point about having alignments in a way that prevents them from being used as ammunition in a verbal clash, I just don't think that particularly matters when it shouldn't be that in any case. Alignment railroading isn't the result of bad rules, but control-freak DMs. Players who want to Mary Sue their alignments isn't the result of a bad alignment rule, but of players who need to be kicked in the junk. Again, genuine clashes only occur when there isn't adherence to RAW, for whatever reason that may be. Argument-proofing alignment (if that is even truly possible) just seems to me like asking peolpe who are determined to disagree/control/munchkin another way to do exactly those things. Will taking steps toward doing that help genuine disagreements? I think so, yeah. I could see that, and I'm definitely not opposed to rule clarifications from developers. The sage section Skip did in Dragon was one of my all-time favorite things, after all.
Oct 23, 2012 -- 1:55PM, Krusk wrote:
I get where you are coming from. To people like you and I, we see the word "paladin", and know that it comes with certain baggage. Indeed, the word "paladin" implies a certain amount of nobility and righteousness that is typically associated with Lawful Good. To us, an evil "holy knight" isn't a paladin because he doesn't live up to paladian ideals, which is where the word comes from.
But D&D has come to associate "paladin" as "knight of a given faith", to which some people argue that there should be "evil paladins" because evil deities should have similar champions that good ones do. "Paladin" is thus used as shorthand to identify these individuals. Seems like a fine distinction, but it's an important one.
Actually, the original (real-world) paladins were knights of a given faith. Aside from being of the faith that certain religious and political figures decreed was Good and opposed to the faith that certain other religious and political figures said was Good, there was nothing particularly Good about them. And aside from having sworn fealty to a particular law-maker, there was nothing particularly Lawful about them either. They'd kill innocent unarmed farmers for following the wrong religion, or for possessing supplies that the knights wanted and not handing them over rapidly enough.
Of course, that's real world. Not necessarily D&D.
I get where you are coming from. To people like you and I, we see the word "paladin", and know that it comes with certain baggage. Indeed, the word "paladin" implies a certain amount of nobility and righteousness that is typically associated with Lawful Good. To us, an evil "holy knight" isn't a paladin because he doesn't live up to paladian ideals, which is where the word comes from.
But D&D has come to associate "paladin" as "knight of a given faith", to which some people argue that there should be "evil paladins" because evil deities should have similar champions that good ones do. "Paladin" is thus used as shorthand to identify these individuals. Seems like a fine distinction, but it's an important one.
Actually, the original (real-world) paladins were knights of a given faith. Aside from being of the faith that certain religious and political figures decreed was Good and opposed to the faith that certain other religious and political figures said was Good, there was nothing particularly Good about them. And aside from having sworn fealty to a particular law-maker, there was nothing particularly Lawful about them either. They'd kill innocent unarmed farmers for following the wrong religion, or for possessing supplies that the knights wanted and not handing them over rapidly enough.
Of course, that's real world. Not necessarily D&D.
Yes just like how druids were actually religious whackadoos doing all sortsa weird stuff in Europe (MASSIVE generalization...whatever, they didn't turn into bears lol). Doesn't have any baring on what is done in D&D, otherwise Wizards would JUST be frail old men and their magic wouldn't do anything.
You bring up an interesting point. There is now a value judgment. Say they aren't evil, I now have two mutually exclusive ways to demonstrate altruistic behavior. I can decide instead to watch over the goblin babies and help the clan nurture and rear them, or go save the princess. Both acts are technically good (in the case of the goblins not being evil-aligned) but which one should I do? I would go save the princess because that is the good that I commited to perform when I went out on the mission, hence lawful good.
This just goes along with the fact that in HEROIC FANTASY there is no moral gray area or no-win situations. Heroes in Heroic Fantasy do the right thing and succeed by virtue of their heroism. Trying to set up realistic "morally ambiguous" situations is completely against the tone of the material...and against the concept of Alignment.
My answer to the question is...if the baby goblins and elderly are EEEVIL I destroy them. Now, in my setting, races aren't born evil...so a baby would be Neutral for any monster that isn't LITERALLY evil incarnate (like a demon)...so the babies could be redeemed. In which case I'd slay their evil elders then make a mental note to return after saving the princess and rescue the Neutral little whelps.
If they're already evil however? Sorry, later...though I'd give the DM across the table a distinctly raised brow along with an "Evil babies? Really. H'okay, whatever gives you your jollies. I euthanize them"
This just goes along with the fact that in HEROIC FANTASY there is no moral gray area or no-win situations. Heroes in Heroic Fantasy do the right thing and succeed by virtue of their heroism. Trying to set up realistic "morally ambiguous" situations is completely against the tone of the material...and against the concept of Alignment.
I will add to this that this is poor DMing to spring such a moral trap. The PCs went adventuring with the expectations of facing monsters and the DM has thrust babies in their face. Was there any build up to this point to establish that Goblins were more-then-monsters? No in all these scenerios the PCs burst into the lair and find women and children.
To play off the Monsters and Goblins aren't always Evil, it shouldn't be sprung on the PLayers like this, it should be established ahead of time. For example What if we stormed a Human string hold and found women and children? This is the same question posed above, except we have established that Humans may or may not be evil, while all the PCs have is "Goblins are Monsters"
The Word Monster means "Villain, Evil Doer, Dangerous creature" If that is all the DM has established about Goblins, then this moral trap is inexcusable. Again this comes down to an issue of the people at the table rather then the allignment issue.
Here as some examples of establishing that Goblins aren't always Monsters
-The PCs see "monsterous" races in human settlements, a Goblin chopping firewood behind an inn, a kobolt merchant, Orc mercenaries at a bar. A couple of goblin children playing with human and elf children in the park. Whatever, here it is established that Goblins can be civilized. The might be more savage and prone to evil (especially in uncivilized lands) but not always.
-A nearby Goblin settlement, including farms and a small village, a mostly Neutral community and generally peaceful and legally recognized by nearby kingdoms.
Context like that establishes that Evil monsterous humanoids are little different from human Bandits, makign mosters "savage humanoids" instead.
Second thing I have issue with is, Who brings women and children along on raiding parties? or into active military zones? My point being that if the adult goblins are evil and dangerous and very much militant (raiding nearby settlements, guarding a stronghold) then they will likely house the women and children seperately.
Allignment also solves this moral issue. If the babies are evil, then they are monsters. Evil means the intent to harm, kill etc, therefore evil goblin baby is on level with a rabies infected rodent.
Hey people, Evil isn't a casual hobby, an amoral outlook, or even just being mean, or a "point of view" it is crossing a line, most "bad" people, criminals, they are neutral, just in a bad place, made a mistake. Even murderers had a reason to kill, gun went off, drunken moment of rage, robbery went bad. Evil, evil is tangible, it's your true sociopath, remorseless, blood thristy killer.
So an evil goblin baby should send a shiver down your spine, your blood should curdle as you look at the nightmarish monster, The Paladin, who's faced off Red dragons, in the group that used detect evil should be staggering back, pale and horrified at the twisted abominations. It's hungry and IT DOESN'T WANT A BOTTLE, IT WANTS YOUR FLESH!!!
That's what Evil is, that's what a Monster is!
So in my view, these DMs have made 2 seperate mistakes. One they have given little to no context of goblins not being anything but monsters, just Bam! Babies! and probably in the same room that the Big Bad is in. And then the second mistake of a watered down Evil really being Neutral and debate on the moralities of killing an evil creature. If it wasn't realy evil then it should be tagged Neutral.
Now if the DM has established context, (goblins can be civilized and there are places to take the babies) and then made the babies Neutral, then all he has done is given the PCs an annoying, inconveneint burden, gotta carry them back down, put them in a box, make a sign "free goblin babies", really this is boring for adventurers, BORING! And Diapers, I didn't role up a Paladin in Shining armor to chaneg Diapers! The there is deal with the immature player that wan't to masacre them, which is revolting. Or else Make the babies evil and since they are 0 XP, you've only succeded in making the game rather vulgar with unneeded gore. Your game is going to unpleasant places and the DM is paving the way.
-Smacks the DM's hand- "No! Bad DM, Bad! Go to your room!"
This just goes along with the fact that in HEROIC FANTASY there is no moral gray area or no-win situations. Heroes in Heroic Fantasy do the right thing and succeed by virtue of their heroism. Trying to set up realistic "morally ambiguous" situations is completely against the tone of the material...and against the concept of Alignment.
I will add to this that this is poor DMing to spring such a moral trap. The PCs went adventuring with the expectations of facing monsters and the DM has thrust babies in their face. Was there any build up to this point to establish that Goblins were more-then-monsters? No in all these scenerios the PCs burst into the lair and find women and children.
To play off the Monsters and Goblins aren't always Evil, it shouldn't be sprung on the PLayers like this, it should be established ahead of time. For example What if we stormed a Human string hold and found women and children? This is the same question posed above, except we have established that Humans may or may not be evil, while all the PCs have is "Goblins are Monsters"
The Word Monster means "Villain, Evil Doer, Dangerous creature" If that is all the DM has established about Goblins, then this moral trap is inexcusable. Again this comes down to an issue of the people at the table rather then the allignment issue.
Here as some examples of establishing that Goblins aren't always Monsters
-The PCs see "monsterous" races in human settlements, a Goblin chopping firewood behind an inn, a kobolt merchant, Orc mercenaries at a bar. A couple of goblin children playing with human and elf children in the park. Whatever, here it is established that Goblins can be civilized. The might be more savage and prone to evil (especially in uncivilized lands) but not always.
-A nearby Goblin settlement, including farms and a small village, a mostly Neutral community and generally peaceful and legally recognized by nearby kingdoms.
Context like that establishes that Evil monsterous humanoids are little different from human Bandits, makign mosters "savage humanoids" instead.
Second thing I have issue with is, Who brings women and children along on raiding parties? or into active military zones? My point being that if the adult goblins are evil and dangerous and very much militant (raiding nearby settlements, guarding a stronghold) then they will likely house the women and children seperately.
Allignment also solves this moral issue. If the babies are evil, then they are monsters. Evil means the intent to harm, kill etc, therefore evil goblin baby is on level with a rabies infected rodent.
Hey people, Evil isn't a casual hobby, an amoral outlook, or even just being mean, or a "point of view" it is crossing a line, most "bad" people, criminals, they are neutral, just in a bad place, made a mistake. Even murderers had a reason to kill, gun went off, drunken moment of rage, robbery went bad. Evil, evil is tangible, it's your true sociopath, remorseless, blood thristy killer.
So an evil goblin baby should send a shiver down your spine, your blood should curdle as you look at the nightmarish monster, The Paladin, who's faced off Red dragons, in the group that used detect evil should be staggering back, pale and horrified at the twisted abominations. It's hungry and IT DOESN'T WANT A BOTTLE, IT WANTS YOUR FLESH!!!
That's what Evil is, that's what a Monster is!
So in my view, these DMs have made 2 seperate mistakes. One they have given little to no context of goblins not being anything but monsters, just Bam! Babies! and probably in the same room that the Big Bad is in. And then the second mistake of a watered down Evil really being Neutral and debate on the moralities of killing an evil creature. If it wasn't realy evil then it should be tagged Neutral.
Now if the DM has established context, (goblins can be civilized and there are places to take the babies) and then made the babies Neutral, then all he has done is given the PCs an annoying, inconveneint burden, gotta carry them back down, put them in a box, make a sign "free goblin babies", really this is boring for adventurers, BORING! And Diapers, I didn't role up a Paladin in Shining armor to chaneg Diapers! The there is deal with the immature player that wan't to masacre them, which is revolting. Or else Make the babies evil and since they are 0 XP, you've only succeded in making the game rather vulgar with unneeded gore. Your game is going to unpleasant places and the DM is paving the way.
-Smacks the DM's hand- "No! Bad DM, Bad! Go to your room!"
Mr. Customer...you're awesome and need to post more.
...also, never trust a sign that says "Free goblin babies". It's pretty much always a trap!
You shouldn't need any more information than was provided to answer the question if alignment is as straight forward as you say.
I did not say you are a paladin, and so you won't have access to detect evil. Go ahead and pretend commoner 1 if you need a class.
Also assume you are trying to stay LG and not change alignment.
You shouldn't need any more information than was provided to answer the question if alignment is as straight forward as you say.
I did not say you are a paladin, and so you won't have access to detect evil. Go ahead and pretend commoner 1 if you need a class.
Also assume you are trying to stay LG and not change alignment.
If any of them try to attack me I kill them...the elders especially since they are probably rotten to the core. Otherwise I secure them in the room by whatever means is handy and then continue on my quest.
Which is actually a reposting of the answer already given...
"I'll also add that the LG character can simply leave the nursery and continue onward to save the princess and not deal with that at all. "
This just goes along with the fact that in HEROIC FANTASY there is no moral gray area or no-win situations. Heroes in Heroic Fantasy do the right thing and succeed by virtue of their heroism. Trying to set up realistic "morally ambiguous" situations is completely against the tone of the material...and against the concept of Alignment.
I will add to this that this is poor DMing to spring such a moral trap. The PCs went adventuring with the expectations of facing monsters and the DM has thrust babies in their face. Was there any build up to this point to establish that Goblins were more-then-monsters? No in all these scenerios the PCs burst into the lair and find women and children.
To play off the Monsters and Goblins aren't always Evil, it shouldn't be sprung on the PLayers like this, it should be established ahead of time. For example What if we stormed a Human string hold and found women and children? This is the same question posed above, except we have established that Humans may or may not be evil, while all the PCs have is "Goblins are Monsters"
The Word Monster means "Villain, Evil Doer, Dangerous creature" If that is all the DM has established about Goblins, then this moral trap is inexcusable. Again this comes down to an issue of the people at the table rather then the allignment issue.
Here as some examples of establishing that Goblins aren't always Monsters
-The PCs see "monsterous" races in human settlements, a Goblin chopping firewood behind an inn, a kobolt merchant, Orc mercenaries at a bar. A couple of goblin children playing with human and elf children in the park. Whatever, here it is established that Goblins can be civilized. The might be more savage and prone to evil (especially in uncivilized lands) but not always.
-A nearby Goblin settlement, including farms and a small village, a mostly Neutral community and generally peaceful and legally recognized by nearby kingdoms.
Context like that establishes that Evil monsterous humanoids are little different from human Bandits, makign mosters "savage humanoids" instead.
Second thing I have issue with is, Who brings women and children along on raiding parties? or into active military zones? My point being that if the adult goblins are evil and dangerous and very much militant (raiding nearby settlements, guarding a stronghold) then they will likely house the women and children seperately.
Allignment also solves this moral issue. If the babies are evil, then they are monsters. Evil means the intent to harm, kill etc, therefore evil goblin baby is on level with a rabies infected rodent.
Hey people, Evil isn't a casual hobby, an amoral outlook, or even just being mean, or a "point of view" it is crossing a line, most "bad" people, criminals, they are neutral, just in a bad place, made a mistake. Even murderers had a reason to kill, gun went off, drunken moment of rage, robbery went bad. Evil, evil is tangible, it's your true sociopath, remorseless, blood thristy killer.
So an evil goblin baby should send a shiver down your spine, your blood should curdle as you look at the nightmarish monster, The Paladin, who's faced off Red dragons, in the group that used detect evil should be staggering back, pale and horrified at the twisted abominations. It's hungry and IT DOESN'T WANT A BOTTLE, IT WANTS YOUR FLESH!!!
That's what Evil is, that's what a Monster is!
So in my view, these DMs have made 2 seperate mistakes. One they have given little to no context of goblins not being anything but monsters, just Bam! Babies! and probably in the same room that the Big Bad is in. And then the second mistake of a watered down Evil really being Neutral and debate on the moralities of killing an evil creature. If it wasn't realy evil then it should be tagged Neutral.
Now if the DM has established context, (goblins can be civilized and there are places to take the babies) and then made the babies Neutral, then all he has done is given the PCs an annoying, inconveneint burden, gotta carry them back down, put them in a box, make a sign "free goblin babies", really this is boring for adventurers, BORING! And Diapers, I didn't role up a Paladin in Shining armor to chaneg Diapers! The there is deal with the immature player that wan't to masacre them, which is revolting. Or else Make the babies evil and since they are 0 XP, you've only succeded in making the game rather vulgar with unneeded gore. Your game is going to unpleasant places and the DM is paving the way.
-Smacks the DM's hand- "No! Bad DM, Bad! Go to your room!"
Mr. Customer...you're awesome and need to post more.
...also, never trust a sign that says "Free goblin babies". It's pretty much always a trap!
Creating adventures in which the characters must make difficult choices is bad DMing? Ohhh. Learning so much.
Creating adventures in which the characters must make difficult choices is bad DMing? Ohhh. Learning so much.
No. Read again.
Creating adventures where the only choices result in "Haha you're screwed!" is bad DMing. In a setting where Good and Evil are actual forces, and forces which some characters LITERALLY draw power from, setting up a situation where you giggle to yourself as the Paladin (or whoever) is set in a no-win situation is bad DMing. It's also jerkish.
Remember, there is a difference between tough/challenging situations and no-win situations...the same as there's a difference between a situation being morally ambiguous and a situation ONLY having morally ambiguous solutions.
If you go back a bit, you can see me answer two great "Haha gotcha!" situations with Lawful Good actions that are not only alignment appropriate, but also narratively awesome...
Really I wish they'd been asked over in my thread where I specifically answer alignment questions, but people ran into that and started spraying diarrhea everywhere instead of leaving it open & available for people to, y'know, get help with problems.
You shouldn't need any more information than was provided to answer the question if alignment is as straight forward as you say.
I did not say you are a paladin, and so you won't have access to detect evil. Go ahead and pretend commoner 1 if you need a class.
Also assume you are trying to stay LG and not change alignment.
Well, what I am there for? I go do my quest. Whatever tries to keep me from rescuing the hostage is probaby going to have a bad day. Since the goblin babies aren't really getting in my way, chances are I'll just ignore them, and go rescue the princess. You know, that whole bit about taking risks to help others and performing the oath that I agreed to. Lawful good and all.
...also, never trust a sign that says "Free goblin babies". It's pretty much always a trap!
Creating adventures in which the characters must make difficult choices is bad DMing? Ohhh. Learning so much.
Yeah, I had to anguish over this important moral choice for a whole .1 seconds.
Seriously, if that's your example of a difficult choice then you've had an awesome life. No, a hard choice doesn't have anything to do with morals, a hard choice is when you have two conflicting personal desires that are both strong and overriding. For example, say both my brother and sister whom I love very much are drowning off the coast of a beach and I'm the only one around. I'm not even going to pose the question of which one to save. or impose a false dichotomy by saying you can only save one. Hell maybe you have your phone on you and you call 911. It wouldn't save them both right away, and you still have the option of sitting there doing nothing until help shows up, or you can go out and try to save one or both. But hell, if you could only save one, that would be rough. Just think about being in that situation for a second, and compare that to finding goblin babies that are currently being looked after as you make your way to the objective of a hostage rescue.
No, a much better example of a tough choice is when the party was a small elite squad attatched to a larger group of soldiers who went to go secure some illegal, dangerous and valuable resources from a much weaker community that was nearby. Well, both sides ran into each other, drew weapons, but managed to hold off hostilities until the PC paladin managed to start negotiating. Well, things were going pretty good, and I was really happy about this. What they didn't know was that one of the npc members from their detachment was really green, and starting to lose it, becoming more paranoid by the second. Well, he was also one of the several that had taken up position behind trees and targeted on someone with his bow. I rolled to see how long he would last, and if he would snap.
Well, he snapped and shot the speaker for the other side in the head. All hell broke loose, and now the party (I didn't prompt them to make any decisions, and I did not paint either side as the bad guys, and one of the PCs got a spot roll to see the nervous and shaking guy snap) had to make a choice. The party was literally divided 50/50, and one of the PCs actually tried to take the captain of the detachment alive and arrest him. The paladin PC was yelling at the top of his lungs trying to get people to stop fighting, but to no avail. Even his detection, no one showed up as evil. When they were done, they actually asked me what side they were supposed to be fighting for. I asked them who told them they had to fight at all? I told them that like always, you're the PCs and get to make your own decisions. They thought I was trying to set up some kind of dichotomy, but I wasn't. I just wanted them to do whatever it was they were going to do, just like always.
Really I wish they'd been asked over in my thread where I specifically answer alignment questions, but people ran into that and started spraying diarrhea everywhere instead of leaving it open & available for people to, y'know, get help with problems.
An appropriate analogy.
As to the discussion that's resulted, I personally feel that the alignment system of editions prior to 4e are pretty much a miserable attempt at interpreting character motivation, mentality, code of conduct, etc. And there is very little sense or detailed mechanics as to how precisely it is to be gauged that an alignment "needs" to be changed. There is no clinical, factual rhyme or reason to it, but rather is all left up to the interpretation of the DM and the players. It does a square peg in a round hole job of addressing the concept, particularly in comparison to other systems. It's just too loose a set of concepts, which it only defines in the broadest of strokes, and lacks a true mechanical system to define precisely what constitutes the point at which a shift in alignment is required.
Compare it to Taint in Legend of the Five Rings: Taint has specific things that result in it, and builds with a point system. At a specific point, the PC becomes too tainted by the power of the Shadowlands, and there have to be certain mechanical changes as a result. It's defined in the rules with specific numbers, not a "The GM can choose to have the PC become a Shadowlands character if they feel they have become too tainted." Or the Dark Side rules in Star Wars SAGA: there are specific actions that will cause a PC to accumulate a Dark Side Point, and there is a scale that defines when a character falls to the Dark Side. It is not "If the GM feels the PC's actions define a fall to the Dark Side, they can tell the player that their character has fallen." Even nWoD's Vice/Virtue system is more clearly defined, if only because the seven classic virtues and seven deadly vices are more coherent and detailed than the relatively loose confines of "good/evil," and "law/chaos". There's more defined uses for them, as well. A PC behaves according to either their vice or virtue and regains a specific amount of willpower at the end of a scene or a chapter. Or all the variations on how in-control/"human" your supernatural nWoD PC is, such as Humanity or Wyrd.
All of these have definite mechanics and more clearly defined points of changeover, where the GM and the players can look at the rules and say "Yes, my character should gain Taint/acquire a Dark Side point/lose a point of Humanity," with very little argument. By comparison, alignment is very often an "I feel you're not acting in accordance with your alignment. You're now a different one, and if you needed to be that specific alignment to be your class, you're now officially boned. Sorry if you don't agree, but I'm the DM," situation. It is always a subjective ruling, regardless of the fact that the forces of good-evil-law-chaos are supposed to be objective forces of the setting. Just because these forces are supposed to be objective, it doesn't mean that the DM or the players are going to be capable of being anything but subjective in how they interpret it. That's the nature of people interpreting things like good and evil, after all; it's not something easily agreed on when viewed in close detail.
The only time it gives indication that it might, is in some of the least-monitored books that have had the most off-kilter character development in the whole setting. I'm looking at you, Legacy of the Force series. But no, people have always chosen the dark side because it offers them power, and they wanted that power in response to a need. Like Exar Kun, when he was terrified because he was about to be eaten. He made a full blown conscious choice to embrace the dark, because he wanted to live. The dark side is not an addictive drug, and it does not tempt. That is just one example, I can pull up a lot more. D&D alignment is actually a lot closer to the Force than the system that the SWRPG uses, which I find hilarious.
Also, alignment wasn't any of what you describe. In 3e, alignments are cosmic forces, and the system of alignment is just a marker for which one you are most closely aligned with. The fact is, is that when the displayed behavior is demonstrated on page 103 of the 3.5 PHB, for one week minimum, alignment changes one step closer to match the behavior, whatever that behavior and alignment is. If they are behaving according to their current alignment there is no change. That is what the 3.5 DMG says. Those are pretty hard and fast rules.
There are also certain caveats within other parts of the rules, for example, casting an evil spell counts as an evil act, and offering to/worshiping a good aligned deity counts as a good act. Alignment is actually the system that offers the most player choice, since with dark side points, becoming "good" again is a pain in the ass, and you can't just decide you are done with evil. Taint is even worse because that is a full-blown sickness. The rules are so clear on alignment, that if you teach them to players, they can keep track of their own alignment. I have had players in the past want to change their alignment, and come to me first and ask if it was okay if they took their character in that directtion. I told the guy it was his character and to do what he wants with it. So he changed his alignment via RAW.
People really need to realize that when alignments say good and evil, what they mean is the energies of creation and entropy. That is why good clerics channel positive energy, and evil clerics channel negative energy.
Well because you didn't destroy the evil goblin babies, I the DM will be forcibly changing your alignment. The goblins eventually go on to do evil stuff and you totally could have prevented it.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
You shouldn't need any more information than was provided to answer the question if alignment is as straight forward as you say.
I did not say you are a paladin, and so you won't have access to detect evil. Go ahead and pretend commoner 1 if you need a class.
Also assume you are trying to stay LG and not change alignment.
Well, what I am there for? I go do my quest. Whatever tries to keep me from rescuing the hostage is probaby going to have a bad day. Since the goblin babies aren't really getting in my way, chances are I'll just ignore them, and go rescue the princess. You know, that whole bit about taking risks to help others and performing the oath that I agreed to. Lawful good and all....also, never trust a sign that says "Free goblin babies". It's pretty much always a trap!
Creating adventures in which the characters must make difficult choices is bad DMing? Ohhh. Learning so much.
Yeah, I had to anguish over this important moral choice for a whole .1 seconds.
Seriously, if that's your example of a difficult choice then you've had an awesome life. No, a hard choice doesn't have anything to do with morals, a hard choice is when you have two conflicting personal desires that are both strong and overriding. For example, say both my brother and sister whom I love very much are drowning off the coast of a beach and I'm the only one around. I'm not even going to pose the question of which one to save. or impose a false dichotomy by saying you can only save one. Hell maybe you have your phone on you and you call 911. It wouldn't save them both right away, and you still have the option of sitting there doing nothing until help shows up, or you can go out and try to save one or both. But hell, if you could only save one, that would be rough. Just think about being in that situation for a second, and compare that to finding goblin babies that are currently being looked after as you make your way to the objective of a hostage rescue.
No, a much better example of a tough choice is when the party was a small elite squad attatched to a larger group of soldiers who went to go secure some illegal, dangerous and valuable resources from a much weaker community that was nearby. Well, both sides ran into each other, drew weapons, but managed to hold off hostilities until the PC paladin managed to start negotiating. Well, things were going pretty good, and I was really happy about this. What they didn't know was that one of the npc members from their detachment was really green, and starting to lose it, becoming more paranoid by the second. Well, he was also one of the several that had taken up position behind trees and targeted on someone with his bow. I rolled to see how long he would last, and if he would snap.
Well, he snapped and shot the speaker for the other side in the head. All hell broke loose, and now the party (I didn't prompt them to make any decisions, and I did not paint either side as the bad guys, and one of the PCs got a spot roll to see the nervous and shaking guy snap) had to make a choice. The party was literally divided 50/50, and one of the PCs actually tried to take the captain of the detachment alive and arrest him. The paladin PC was yelling at the top of his lungs trying to get people to stop fighting, but to no avail. Even his detection, no one showed up as evil. When they were done, they actually asked me what side they were supposed to be fighting for. I asked them who told them they had to fight at all? I told them that like always, you're the PCs and get to make your own decisions. They thought I was trying to set up some kind of dichotomy, but I wasn't. I just wanted them to do whatever it was they were going to do, just like always.
Really I wish they'd been asked over in my thread where I specifically answer alignment questions, but people ran into that and started spraying diarrhea everywhere instead of leaving it open & available for people to, y'know, get help with problems.
An appropriate analogy.
First of all, sorry about my snarkiness earlier, but I believe I will side-step the psychoanalysis. I'm not sure this would be an appropriate forum for me to respond to blanket assumptions about the difficulties of my personal life. They might seriously disrupt this thread, as well as reveal personal information that I'd rather not discuss in an open forum. Or at the least would come off sounding like whining. I would prefer to count my blessings and not dwell on negatives.
What I was getting at is that the players here obviously think the choice is difficult to make. It seems to be the difficulty of the choice presented that is at issue.
There are pros and cons to the representation of alignment as either bringing about morally ambiguous choices (in general, the example given being but one possible situation) and epic good/epic evil campaigns where the good and bad guys are easily and clearly defined. To handle the story-telling of morally ambiguous choices and also such truly difficult choices as the examples you gave require a certain level of maturity of the DM. That was the main point I was trying to convey.
The examples you gave would also be difficult of course. I might have brought similar choices up myself, but I was trying to 1) use the example at hand 2) keep on track with the thread being Alignment Troubles.
The choices you represent would go better in a thread for My Terrible DM is giving me Catch-22 problems - should I take my dice and go home?
Well because you didn't destroy the evil goblin babies, I the DM will be forcibly changing your alignment.
Even if you were going to try and invoke the "extreme act=dramatic shift" clause in the alignment rules, there is nothing in RAW about the DM changing player alignment. That's also hardly an extreme act one way or the other. See, not doing something doesn't necessarily always count. The primary thing in any alignment description is the choices you make, as per RAW, and I chose to help someone at personal risk to myself, and to fulfill an oath by doing so. That is as lawful good as it gets. What you're trying to create here is a completely false dichotomy, because it works both ways. Oh, helped the goblins, didn't go help the princess, so you're evil now. When both choices are good, it doesn't matter so long as you pick one good choice. We know this from the RAW, because the RAW only deals with what choices you do make, not the ones that you don't. Its very clear, personal risk to help another. Good. And the DM doesn't get a say.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
*My polite and reasoned response.* That's actually a sweeping generalization fallacy. Plenty of games I have been a part of have used alignment and never had that problem. I have also spoken with other people who use alignment that don't have that issue.
*My angry misanthropic ad hominem response drawn up from me by your insipidness.* Its hyper-biased close-minded garbage like that that prevents intelligent discussion and lessens my already waning faith in my race. You and others like you are my reason for a positive value judgment on the evil alignment. Given what my race is and is becoming, it could be nothing less than the highest and ultimate good but to subject each and every one of us to a slow and agonizing death by cutting open our skin and placing clucthes of jungle wasps on the exposed flesh, and then sutchering the skin. You really need to get over whoever it was that hurt your precious feelings by misusing the rules, because not everyone who likes alignment is a control-freak DM or a yes-man player, and to treat people who aren't like that, as if they were, makes you not a nice person. You really don't do your cause (do you have a cause?) any good by spouting extremist-position crap like that.
First of all, sorry about my snarkiness earlier,
You know what, don't mention it. We're human and we have disagreements, and disagreements, believe it or not, are a good thing. I am well aware that its easy to get fired up, and forget that to enter into the heat of debate, we need to keep our thoughts on ice. It happens, no harm no foul.
but I believe I will side-step the psychoanalysis. I'm not sure this would be an appropriate forum for me to respond to blanket assumptions about the difficulties of my personal life. They might seriously disrupt this thread, as well as reveal personal information that I'd rather not discuss in an open forum. Or at the least would come off sounding like whining. I would prefer to count my blessings and not dwell on negatives.
Fair enough.
What I was getting at is that the players here obviously think the choice is difficult to make. It seems to be the difficulty of the choice presented that is at issue.
There are pros and cons to the representation of alignment as either bringing about morally ambiguous choices (in general, the example given being but one possible situation) and epic good/epic evil campaigns where the good and bad guys are easily and clearly defined. To handle the story-telling of morally ambiguous choices and also such truly difficult choices as the examples you gave require a certain level of maturity of the DM. That was the main point I was trying to convey.
Point taken. This isn't something I can really argue against, though I will say I am tired of morality playing such a strong role in story-telling in general, be at ambiguous or didactic.
The examples you gave would also be difficult of course. I might have brought similar choices up myself, but I was trying to 1) use the example at hand 2) keep on track with the thread being Alignment Troubles.
The choices you represent would go better in a thread for My Terrible DM is giving me Catch-22 problems - should I take my dice and go home?
Haha, ouch. That stings a little.
Okay, I see why you went with the choice you did. It makes sense. I prefer stories and situations that examine human nature and existence, but to the end that the ones having the experience are in a position to make their own value judgments, but again I see why you went with your example.Well because you didn't destroy the evil goblin babies, I the DM will be forcibly changing your alignment. The goblins eventually go on to do evil stuff and you totally could have prevented it.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
I think the ultimate goal was to prevent the evil goblin babies from doing their evil. Destroying them is only one method, and not necessarily the best one. That would depend on whether the campaign handled monsters as inherently evil or culturally evil, whether evil by nature or evil by nurture. Whether redemption is possible or if goblins are merely the physical manifestation of evil itself, in which case the sole purpose of creating the goblins in the FORM of the helpless, of babies, of the infirm (the very forms that chivalric players would be sworn to protect), would be to cause an anguish in the players and a feeling of despair and questioning whether they did the right thing. The doubt, the lack of certainty... this could be the very thing that causes the players, step-by-painful-step to eventually reach a point where such choices become easy, or even appear to not matter at all. Knowing that their enemy is willing to resort to such vile tactics could further strengthen their resolve, however. Someone must stand against the wretched evil that would do such a thing.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
Well because you didn't destroy the evil goblin babies, I the DM will be forcibly changing your alignment. The goblins eventually go on to do evil stuff and you totally could have prevented it.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
I think the ultimate goal was to prevent the evil goblin babies from doing their evil. Destroying them is only one method, and not necessarily the best one. That would depend on whether the campaign handled monsters as inherently evil or culturally evil, whether evil by nature or evil by nurture. Whether redemption is possible or if goblins are merely the physical manifestation of evil itself, in which case the sole purpose of creating the goblins in the FORM of the helpless, of babies, of the infirm (the very forms that chivalric players would be sworn to protect), would be to cause an anguish in the players and a feeling of despair and questioning whether they did the right thing. The doubt, the lack of certainty... this could be the very thing that causes the players, step-by-painful-step to eventually reach a point where such choices become easy, or even appear to not matter at all. Knowing that their enemy is willing to resort to such vile tactics could further strengthen their resolve, however. Someone must stand against the wretched evil that would do such a thing.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
You're a lot nicer than I am.
Well because you didn't destroy the evil goblin babies, I the DM will be forcibly changing your alignment. The goblins eventually go on to do evil stuff and you totally could have prevented it.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
Ah that's how you interpret alignment. Ah I get it. You're a bad DM. Sorry, you should have told me upfront when you crafted the example.
There's a sword in front of you.
Do you pick it up?
Haha you're cursed now. Welcome to playing a game that uses magic.
Oh wait you didn't pick it up?
Haha it's the only thing that can harm the next monster I throw at you. welcome to playing a game that uses damage reduction.
...nope, welcome to playing a game with an awful DM.
You shouldn't need any more information than was provided to answer the question if alignment is as straight forward as you say.
I did not say you are a paladin, and so you won't have access to detect evil. Go ahead and pretend commoner 1 if you need a class.
Also assume you are trying to stay LG and not change alignment.
If I don't need any more information then provide and have no way of knowing their allignment, then you are asking a Non-allignment related question.
Might as well ask me about the price of ale in a goblin inn, it's about as relevant.
Context is required. I can only determine if they are monsters by either context or allignment or both. And Players can always make Knowledge rolls to determine the world about them so they should know some context.
If the only context the player has is "Goblins are dangerous evil monsters" then their assumption should be to treat them little different then burning out a nest of diseased rodents. If you aren't going to use allignment, then this isn't an allignment based question.
In either way this is not an issue of "does allignment work of not work" because this scenero can happen in any game system and be debated about with equal ferver.
But No context? wow, did you start the game with the PCs in a room with the goblins, they don't even know their own names or background, they just know they are in a room with goblins?
Well because you didn't destroy the evil goblin babies, I the DM will be forcibly changing your alignment. The goblins eventually go on to do evil stuff and you totally could have prevented it.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
What? No welcome to a really bad DM. In West End Starwars I would have earned a Darkside point for not being a murderous jerk apparently. No this is a case of a bad DM, not an allignment issue.
Bad DM is a bad DM in any system.
In any case, RAW, Goblins aren't Evil Beings, the rules only represent the average Goblin, a Goblin baby would be Neutral. The Goblins could eventually go on to do good stuff, and live in a civilized, LG city, don't know. I would never find out because long before this point I am pretty sure I would already have gotten up and left the game in search for a Good DM.
Besides I am unaware of any rules in RAW that say you can change player's allignment because they aren't scrying the long term consequences of their actions over the course of decades.
I would point out however that after my character "didn't kill the goblins" and turned evil, that by burning down the forest that my character should become Lawful Good aligned, because I prevented Bandits from hiding in the forest in the future to ambush, rob and murder travelers. No, No you will thank me in 50 years when these roads have a low crime rate.
Well because you didn't destroy the evil goblin babies, I the DM will be forcibly changing your alignment. The goblins eventually go on to do evil stuff and you totally could have prevented it.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
I think the ultimate goal was to prevent the evil goblin babies from doing their evil. Destroying them is only one method, and not necessarily the best one. That would depend on whether the campaign handled monsters as inherently evil or culturally evil, whether evil by nature or evil by nurture. Whether redemption is possible or if goblins are merely the physical manifestation of evil itself, in which case the sole purpose of creating the goblins in the FORM of the helpless, of babies, of the infirm (the very forms that chivalric players would be sworn to protect), would be to cause an anguish in the players and a feeling of despair and questioning whether they did the right thing. The doubt, the lack of certainty... this could be the very thing that causes the players, step-by-painful-step to eventually reach a point where such choices become easy, or even appear to not matter at all. Knowing that their enemy is willing to resort to such vile tactics could further strengthen their resolve, however. Someone must stand against the wretched evil that would do such a thing.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
You're a lot nicer than I am.
Ya catch more flies with honey... and maggots, too!
I've taken the low road enough times to learn that intentionally intellectually eviscerating someone I don't agree with gets tiresome.
Accidentally doing so even more so.
I've found that some people are just... are so.... sensitive. (Advanced apologies to anyone who feels the previous statement is a value-judgment applicable to them, for the pain and suffering that it may have caused them to endure, for the mental anguish and long-term effects. Please do not construe the statement as bullying or heavy-handedness on my part. Please take my advice to 'suck it up' as only one possible solution, given in the good spirit of my benevolent intentions with full knowledge that 'sucking it up' is only one solution to the problem. Nor take any statement I may have made or may make in the future as regarding my personal experience as applicable to you or your own experience and neither meant as condescension nor assault.)
And despite my belief that attempts at being 'politically correct' both eliminates the possibility of open debate and demeans both speaker and listener, I figure if you can't beat them... strawman!.
Ya catch more flies with honey... and maggots, too!
So people keep telling me. But they're nasty though, and I'm not particularly interested in catching flies, but rather, in killing them.
Legal Disclaimer: While that previous statement may be interpreted as ironic allegory about the slaying of people I disagree with due to the fact that I dislike them, it is not, and it is not an attempt, direct, indirect, or otherwise to either inflame attitudes or threaten individuals with anything more severe than playful jests. As a general rule I am against murder save as a last self-defense resort, and in no way do I advocate the acceptance or carrying out of any illegal activity, as that would be just plain dumb.
I've taken the low road enough times to learn that intentionally intellectually eviscerating someone I don't agree with gets tiresome.
On a serious note, yes, actually. Yes it really does get quite exhausting, and sometimes I hate the fact that I am so stubborn because I am one of those people who just can't let things go. Like a compulsion. I'm like that with general tasks too. I feel like I'm leaving something incomplete.
I've found that some people are just... are so.... sensitive. (Advanced apologies to anyone who feels the previous statement is a value-judgment applicable to them, for the pain and suffering that it may have caused them to endure, for the mental anguish and long-term effects. Please do not construe the statement as bullying or heavy-handedness on my part. Please take my advice to 'suck it up' as only one possible solution, given in the good spirit of my benevolent intentions with full knowledge that 'sucking it up' is only one solution to the problem. Nor take any statement I may have made or may make in the future as regarding my personal experience as applicable to you or your own experience and neither meant as condescension nor assault.)
And despite my belief that attempts at being 'politically correct' both eliminates the possibility of open debate and demeans both speaker and listener, I figure if you can't beat them... strawman!.
Wait one while I build me a scarecrow of Krusk and smack it around. Okay, I'm done, I feel better. That out of the way, I find it incredibly rare when someone on the internet other than me calls out the "stop QQ" fallacy (I know its not a technicaly category of fallacy in its own but it really should be) so it is refreshing to see someone else do it. I hate it when people accuse other people of QQ, even when the person really is just whining. It annoys me to death to see that accusation tossed around in favor of an examination of the points or ideas of a persuasive claim.
I have read some really well-done essays with cited sources and clear logical thought, the kind that could earn easy As in high level college courses, and people respond by saying, "QQ suck it up and deal this is how the system works, you stupid whiner!" Even when that argument is technically true (which is incredibly rare) it doesn't do anything to serve as a communication breakdown. If someone genuinely is whining, the best thing to do is provide a clear logical answer as to why they need to take a second look at what they are talking about. If someone is lashing out out of hurt, then the QQ response is only going to hurt them more, and make them lash out more. When it actually isn't true, ir provokes me to rage so intense that I shake and have red-outs. A slight exageration but you get the idea.
Well because you didn't destroy the evil goblin babies, I the DM will be forcibly changing your alignment. The goblins eventually go on to do evil stuff and you totally could have prevented it.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
Krusk, you have faithfully recited the blind dogma of most alignment detractors, and illustrated my biggest point.
Salla, I hope you read this, because it is EXACTLY what I am always on about.
Krusk, you clearly fail to understand alignment RAW. If you did such a thing in a game, you are not adhering to RAW regarding alignment change. If you, as a player, had a DM do this to you, then you need to blame the DM, and NOT alignment rules, because the rules do not support what he did. If you, as the DM did this, then at worst, you are a Bad DM, and at best, you have been houseruling alignment rules, and I would at least hope that your players were aware of said houserule before you sprung something like this on them.
Even if those goblin babies grow up to be evil raiders and marauders, they have not done so YET. Letting them live is not even an evil act. Even a paladin, the class held to the highest standard of LG, would not lose his power for letting them live, because, as per the rules, he did not "willfully and intentionally commit an evil act". It's even an arguable point that killing them WOULD be, but even so, committing one such act does not immediately preclude a change in alignment.
Well because you didn't destroy the evil goblin babies, I the DM will be forcibly changing your alignment. The goblins eventually go on to do evil stuff and you totally could have prevented it.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
I think the ultimate goal was to prevent the evil goblin babies from doing their evil. Destroying them is only one method, and not necessarily the best one. That would depend on whether the campaign handled monsters as inherently evil or culturally evil, whether evil by nature or evil by nurture. Whether redemption is possible or if goblins are merely the physical manifestation of evil itself, in which case the sole purpose of creating the goblins in the FORM of the helpless, of babies, of the infirm (the very forms that chivalric players would be sworn to protect), would be to cause an anguish in the players and a feeling of despair and questioning whether they did the right thing. The doubt, the lack of certainty... this could be the very thing that causes the players, step-by-painful-step to eventually reach a point where such choices become easy, or even appear to not matter at all. Knowing that their enemy is willing to resort to such vile tactics could further strengthen their resolve, however. Someone must stand against the wretched evil that would do such a thing.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
Nice. That's a good point about how such choices create a "slippery slope" that leads to an EVENTUAL alignment change. But even so, it's entirely possible that the PCs bounce back from that experience, either by truly believing in the justness of their act and forgetting about it, or because they eventually find something to redeem themselves for it.
Well because you didn't destroy the evil goblin babies, I the DM will be forcibly changing your alignment.
Even if you were going to try and invoke the "extreme act=dramatic shift" clause in the alignment rules, there is nothing in RAW about the DM changing player alignment.
Umm...yes there is, you even quoted it yourself earlier in the thread. He is, however, incorrect about changing it in this example.
That's also hardly an extreme act one way or the other. See, not doing something doesn't necessarily always count. The primary thing in any alignment description is the choices you make, as per RAW, and I chose to help someone at personal risk to myself, and to fulfill an oath by doing so. That is as lawful good as it gets. What you're trying to create here is a completely false dichotomy, because it works both ways. Oh, helped the goblins, didn't go help the princess, so you're evil now. When both choices are good, it doesn't matter so long as you pick one good choice. We know this from the RAW, because the RAW only deals with what choices you do make, not the ones that you don't. Its very clear, personal risk to help another. Good. And the DM doesn't get a say.
Very Good. His example is much like the alignment trap people often cite of a paladin delivering a scroll to save a town from an imminent meteor, and sees a drowning orphan on the way. It's a "gotcha" scenario, posed by someone FALSELY trying to demonstrate "flaws in alignment" by using the worst kind of DM tactics (which invariably require deviation from the RAW).
Well because you didn't destroy the evil goblin babies, I the DM will be forcibly changing your alignment. The goblins eventually go on to do evil stuff and you totally could have prevented it.
Welcome to playing a game that uses alignment.
Ah that's how you interpret alignment. Ah I get it. You're a bad DM. Sorry, you should have told me upfront when you crafted the example.
There's a sword in front of you.
Do you pick it up?
Haha you're cursed now. Welcome to playing a game that uses magic.
Oh wait you didn't pick it up?
Haha it's the only thing that can harm the next monster I throw at you. welcome to playing a game that uses damage reduction.
...nope, welcome to playing a game with an awful DM.
I do enjoy reading your posts.
Umm...yes there is, you even quoted it yourself earlier in the thread.
I what now? Are you sure? Is there really something in the RAW about DMs changing the alignment of players? I can see that happening with a cursed item or something, but I know I didn't mention that so you're definitely talking about something else. Just the page number and book title should be enough for me to find it.
Umm...yes there is, you even quoted it yourself earlier in the thread.
I what now? Are you sure? Is there really something in the RAW about DMs changing the alignment of players? I can see that happening with a cursed item or something, but I know I didn't mention that so you're definitely talking about something else. Just the page number and book title should be enough for me to find it.
3.5 DMG page 134. You are correct that it requires the actions of the player over the course of a week or more, but it's still the DM enforcing the change.
Umm...yes there is, you even quoted it yourself earlier in the thread.
I what now? Are you sure? Is there really something in the RAW about DMs changing the alignment of players? I can see that happening with a cursed item or something, but I know I didn't mention that so you're definitely talking about something else. Just the page number and book title should be enough for me to find it.
3.5 DMG page 134. You are correct that it requires the actions of the player over the course of a week or more, but it's still the DM enforcing the change.
Okay, I just got done checking it, and basically, you're right. It says that the DM should require a week.... which means that the DM is still technically responsible for establishing the specific conditions, and then there is the caveat, "you're in control." But still, that's all just saying that the DM is ultimately responsible for establishing the rules, and I guess it goes without saying that the DM arbitrates every rule. But that doesn't change the fact that players are still in fact in control of their alignment according to RAW, which is what I think is the major contention point, or at least one of the major contention points.
I would add that even if the babies are Evil, as a technicality of their species, that slaughtering them would likely be a violation of the Paladin Code of Conduct to "Act with Honor" So it really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't trap.
Painless execution is not an honorless act. It can be considered an act of mercy actually.
I do enjoy reading your posts.
Hah thanks. I do enjoy writing them.
I would add that even if the babies are Evil, as a technicality of their species, that slaughtering them would likely be a violation of the Paladin Code of Conduct to "Act with Honor" So it really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't trap.
Painless execution is not an honorless act. It can be considered an act of mercy actually.
He's right, it's kind of a trap for a paladin. If killing the goblin young is not an evil act, then he's in the clear for doing it; but if he does not, feeling it is an act of good (or at least mercy) to spare them, then he may feel responsible for any murders they commit later in life. HOWEVER, even if he is morally in the right to kill them, he does NOT lose hia paladin abilities if he does not, since the refusal to kill younglings does not constitute a "willing and intentional evil act", and it's only a violation of his CoC if his CoC explicitly requires the slaying of all goblinoids of any age (and let's face it, if his CoC actually states that, then it's a moot point and he'll kill them anyway).
DMs who intentionally place paladin PCs in scenarios like this should be shot. In the face. With a hammer.
Btw, by "scenarios like this" I mean a scenario in which a good player who is honestly roleplaying his LG paladin and staying in character and trying his level best to always do the right thing getting punished because he literally only had 2 optioins, both of which strip him of his paladinhood. THAT kind of thing should call for immediate removal of the DM.
I would add that even if the babies are Evil, as a technicality of their species, that slaughtering them would likely be a violation of the Paladin Code of Conduct to "Act with Honor" So it really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't trap.
Painless execution is not an honorless act. It can be considered an act of mercy actually.
He's right, it's kind of a trap for a paladin. If killing the goblin young is not an evil act, then he's in the clear for doing it; but if he does not, feeling it is an act of good (or at least mercy) to spare them, then he may feel responsible for any murders they commit later in life. HOWEVER, even if he is morally in the right to kill them, he does NOT lose hia paladin abilities if he does not, since the refusal to kill younglings does not constitute a "willing and intentional evil act", and it's only a violation of his CoC if his CoC explicitly requires the slaying of all goblinoids of any age (and let's face it, if his CoC actually states that, then it's a moot point and he'll kill them anyway).
DMs who intentionally place paladin PCs in scenarios like this should be shot. In the face. With a hammer.
Btw, by "scenarios like this" I mean a scenario in which a good player who is honestly roleplaying his LG paladin and staying in character and trying his level best to always do the right thing getting punished because he literally only had 2 optioins, both of which strip him of his paladinhood. THAT kind of thing should call for immediate removal of the DM.
I like you. In a friendly non-stalkerish way. Seriously this post is just full of good stuff. Shooting people in the face with hammers, stating that the paladin doesn't lose his alignment or status as a paladin for not butchering goblin babies...you rock.
Remember I don't play with alignment. So if/when I include those, I'm not going to make any moral judgements about the PCs and let them act however they want for the babies. The PCs who are solid people might try to bring them to an orphanage, the PCs who are heartless might leave them to die, and the militant warrior might want to execute them quickly and humanely. I don't care one way or another, and because we aren't using alignment no one is required to hand down a moral judgement on another players PCs actions. He isn't LG because he ignored them. He is "Greg the warrior" he is against killing children, but knows the importance of his mission. He doesn't have time to bring them back to someone who could care for them, but he gives the elderly some of the loot he found and directions to a town.
You can have that encounter without alignment. If you use it, it becomes "Well I'm LG and so I should probably do something like ___". Then you have to base ___ off how your DM has been interpreting alignment. So screw you if its the first time you've ever played with that DM because you have no idea. You can ask him, and hopefully you've got a solid DM. Otherwise he won't actually be able to describe it. A solid DM might say something like "No race is inherantly evil in this setting, its a learned behavior" and you can carry that with you. Most DMs will say something that makes them sound like they put thought into it, maybe even the same thing the solid DM said. Then they forget they said anything next time you attempt to act under those concepts 2 sessions later because they made their choice on the spot without thinking on it. And drow are totally born evil, but goblins are apparently not.
Your outrage over my ficticious example is a perfect example of situations I regulalrly see in games that bother to include alignment. DM or some player says "Dude aren't you CG?" and then implies your alignment should shift anytime you take an action that doesn't fit their definition of CG. The people with the outrage will let it go if you point out how the RAW definition backs you up after a brief (15 min) debate, but they will write it off as "oh your minmaxing your alignment, stupid rules lawyer" to themselves. This will happen every time they say "Wait whats your alignment" or "Aren't you supposed to be CG?" Next game you can say "Screw it, I don't want to deal with this alignment BS, I'll be TN or CN because they seem to think those mean do whatever I want". They will then constantly make assumptions about how you are reckless and will steal from them. Better yet though, the DM will ban CN because it is LE light.
*I had another rant, but it disappeared. Basically you can no longer say you have never encountered these "DM is a jerk alignment debates" because you just had one in our little freeform RPG. The DM was a jerk, changed your alignment, and you threw a fit. Imagine if it was a real game with a character you invested time into.
(Thats not my best example of an alignment trap, thats THE generic example. Also, I specifically said it wasn't a paladin, so I don't know why you guys keep assuming it is)
Remember I don't play with alignment. So if/when I include those, I'm not going to make any moral judgements about the PCs and let them act however they want for the babies. The PCs who are solid people might try to bring them to an orphanage, the PCs who are heartless might leave them to die, and the militant warrior might want to execute them quickly and humanely. I don't care one way or another, and because we aren't using alignment no one is required to hand down a moral judgement on another players PCs actions. He isn't LG because he ignored them. He is "Greg the warrior" he is against killing children, but knows the importance of his mission. He doesn't have time to bring them back to someone who could care for them, but he gives the elderly some of the loot he found and directions to a town.
You can have that encounter without alignment. If you use it, it becomes "Well I'm LG and so I should probably do something like ___". Then you have to base ___ off how your DM has been interpreting alignment. So screw you if its the first time you've ever played with that DM because you have no idea. You can ask him, and hopefully you've got a solid DM. Otherwise he won't actually be able to describe it. A solid DM might say something like "No race is inherantly evil in this setting, its a learned behavior" and you can carry that with you. Most DMs will say something that makes them sound like they put thought into it, maybe even the same thing the solid DM said. Then they forget they said anything next time you attempt to act under those concepts 2 sessions later because they made their choice on the spot without thinking on it. And drow are totally born evil, but goblins are apparently not.
Your outrage over my ficticious example is a perfect example of situations I regulalrly see in games that bother to include alignment. DM or some player says "Dude aren't you CG?" and then implies your alignment should shift anytime you take an action that doesn't fit their definition of CG. The people with the outrage will let it go if you point out how the RAW definition backs you up after a brief (15 min) debate, but they will write it off as "oh your minmaxing your alignment, stupid rules lawyer" to themselves. This will happen every time they say "Wait whats your alignment" or "Aren't you supposed to be CG?" Next game you can say "Screw it, I don't want to deal with this alignment BS, I'll be TN or CN because they seem to think those mean do whatever I want". They will then constantly make assumptions about how you are reckless and will steal from them. Better yet though, the DM will ban CN because it is LE light.
*I had another rant, but it disappeared. Basically you can no longer say you have never encountered these "DM is a jerk alignment debates" because you just had one in our little freeform RPG. The DM was a jerk, changed your alignment, and you threw a fit. Imagine if it was a real game with a character you invested time into.
(Thats not my best example of an alignment trap, thats THE generic example. Also, I specifically said it wasn't a paladin, so I don't know why you guys keep assuming it is)
Krusk, the point is that your example doesn't prove anything about alignment. All it proves is that idiot DM's suck at doing stuff. Everyone already knows that. They suck at lots of things. See my examples about magic & damage reduction.
Chiba: You're about 100% correct with that last post.
Ask 10 different people this question, and you'll get 12 different answers. D&D alignments are pretty vague, and therefore alignment is very much dependent on the subjective interpretation of the reader. And what you're experiencing is a common issue - where two or more interpretations of an alignment are competing with a player's character on the line.
If you're playing 3.5, you're best bet is to talk with your DM about what you and him think Chaotic Neutral means, or should mean, and get on the same page. Primarily because your class abilities depend on you maintaining your alignment in the eyes of your DM, whether or not you think you're probably roleplaying Chaotic Neutral.
If you're 4e, you have nothing to worry about. You can't lose your powers if your alignment changes, there are nearly zero mechanics that reference alignment, and none of those currently matter to you. So you can just continue to roleplay your character as you feel is appropriate.
Krusk, that is fine, but regardless of if you use allignment, or don't put much stock in it, or don't use it entirely. This type of situation of finding babies in with a group of Monsters they are fighting is only there to create a moral issue for the players.
If the DM's intent wasn't to face the players with a complex moral debate, then there simply wouldn't be Goblin Babies in with the Goblin Raiders they were after. Thats a pretty morbid red herring to toss into a game if you aren't exploring morality.
And speaking of Red Herrings, if you aren't playing with allignment then using Goblins in this case is a red herring, because the implication in your example is racism (specyism?) for killing Goblins and little to do with babies.
Lets say the Human party is attacking a Human bandit's outpost, and they burst through a door and find Human babies with their mothers? Unless the group is a party of evil sociopaths, slaughtering the women and babies is out of the question.
See if you are going to claim to play without allignment, then you need to actually play without allignment consistantly, not when it suits you. Goblin baby is either the same as a human baby or else you are saying Goblins are Evil alligned Monsters while in the same breath saying that you don't play with allignments.
See in your scenerio, even "without allignment" you are treating the Goblin Babies as Evil Alligned Monsters, So ya killing them is little different then puting down a nest of diseased rats, or else you are treating them as Neutral Alligned Humanoid babies, in which case they are no different then say Humans, and it is suddenly Murder.
You use allignment, you just aren't tagging stuff outright, and you can't throw a moral issue in someones face and then claim there is no moral issue.
The only thing a codified allignment system does is provide tags to meet qualifications. Shifting a PC's allignment doesn't change the way they act, it simply changes what they qualify for.
A Sword of Chaos gives a bonus to Chaotic wielders, and a negative level to Lawful Wielders, so if your PC picks it up, how does he qualify? You cast Magic Circle against Evil while fighting Human Bandits, how do they qualify?
You can view a Paladin as a holy warrior and his Detect Evil spell amounts to moral guidance from the powers that be. And you can argue how LG allignment restrictions control the PC, but that is what the Player envisioned when he chose the Paladin class. You can ditch allignment but then you need to come up with a more detailed and complex Code of Conduct , in which case you would have to say Code of Conduct, He has to be altruistic, self sacrificing... Oh wait I could just write LG here and be done with it. Yes you can do it without allignment but it amounts to the same thing, a codified allignment just gives him a qualifier, ie the villain who casts Magic Circle vs Good.
If Your cleric worships this Diety, the Diety's allignment qualifies the Cleric to choose these allignments, which qualify him for these Domains, Qualifies turn/rebuke undead, Qualifies Spontaneous heal/harm, Qualifies certain spells.
Also, since it is an allignment question, then the allignment of the Goblins and the Goblin babies is important. In a generic group we have to assume that in some of them there would be a means to determining allignment available to the group, combined with the litmus test above a Paladin is again the most applicable example.
A Paladin could easily justify his actions either way to such a DM, if the babies are evil then he can treat them the same as a nest of diseased rats. If they aren't evil then he is not to blame for "not preventing" their evil actions in the future. So the possibility of being able to detect allignments is very important to such an example.
The DM might otherwise spring it on the PCs that their allignment have changed to evil because "Last week you walked down the street past a butterfly and startled it, as a result of the Chaos theory a hurricane on the other side of the world killed a covent of Nuns...."
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />See if you are going to claim to play without allignment, then you need to actually play without allignment consistantly, not when it suits you. Goblin baby is either the same as a human baby or else you are saying Goblins are Evil alligned Monsters while in the same breath saying that you don't play with allignments.
Uh, he's pointing out that the goblin babies are a problem of games WITH ALIGNMENT. Hence why "you slaughtered the goblinbabies" and "you did not slaughter the goblinbabies" are both Evil Acts (tm) that cause the Paladin to lose Paladin status, if the DM decides they are.
You use allignment, you just aren't tagging stuff outright, and you can't throw a moral issue in someones face and then claim there is no moral issue.
And no, "we do not use mechanics for alignment" does not mean "there is no morality and no moral questions". That's just dumb.
The only thing a codified allignment system does is provide tags to meet qualifications. Shifting a PC's allignment doesn't change the way they act, it simply changes what they qualify for.
Yes. And, in practice, it's used to ENFORCE acting in a certain way, for fear of losing the things they qualify for.
(and taking XP penalties, and losing levels, and losing powers, etc etc etc depending on edition and class)
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
If the DM's intent wasn't to face the players with a complex moral debate, then there simply wouldn't be Goblin Babies in with the Goblin Raiders they were after. Thats a pretty morbid red herring to toss into a game if you aren't exploring morality.
So perhaps the game is exploring morality. That's a perfectly valid thing to do in a game of D&D.
See if you are going to claim to play without allignment, then you need to actually play without allignment consistantly, not when it suits you. Goblin baby is either the same as a human baby or else you are saying Goblins are Evil alligned Monsters while in the same breath saying that you don't play with allignments.
You do not need D&D 3x3 Alignment grid to play with the concepts of good, evil, and morality. You can portray, or more realistically attempt to portray, good and evil without them, just as people have done before D&D's existence, currently do so in ignorance or in spite of its existence, and will do long after the game is forgotten. You certainly don't need the D&D alignment system to have in your setting sentient creatures that are born complete monsters. Likewise, you do not need it at all to to play with the opposite tropes.
You use allignment, you just aren't tagging stuff outright, and you can't throw a moral issue in someones face and then claim there is no moral issue.
More precisely, he's using a situtation that one can attempt to frame into the 3x3 Alignment Rules. And the 3x3 Alignment Rules are just an attempt to categorize tropes that already exist independent of it.
The only thing a codified allignment system does is provide tags to meet qualifications.
That's not the only thing it does. That is one of the primary goals of the subsystem. But alignment has other significant consequences as well.
Shifting a PC's allignment doesn't change the way they act, it simply changes what they qualify for.
Though that, in it of itself, is typically not the issue alignment opponents have with the system.
It's primarily the vagueness of determining when, how, why a PC's alignment changes, and the inconsistency of those rulings across games. Which means that determining when you qualify or, more significantly, stop qualifying for something will likewise vague and inconsistent. And when no longer qualifying for something is as potentially damning as it often is in 3.x, that's can become a huge problem.
Not qualifying for certain spells is a minor annoyance at worse. No longer qualifying for your Sword of [Alignment] is an inconvenience. No longer being able to level up in your preferred class or using all of your class powers is a huge blow that could potentially affect you for weeks or months of real-world time.
A Sword of Chaos gives a bonus to Chaotic wielders, and a negative level to Lawful Wielders, so if your PC picks it up, how does he qualify?
It wouldn't strictly be able to exist as is, but there's a couple of ways to handle it. The item could use 4e's concordance system, which rewards specific actions rather than a broad, general outlook. You could as play the item as being intelligent, or having a vague sense of intelligence. It chooses its wielding based on who can help it further its objectives.
Alternative, you could drop the qualifying component, and just allow any wielder to utilize the sword's chaotic energies in the same way that any wielder of a Flaming Sword wield its fiery energies.
You cast Magic Circle against Evil while fighting Human Bandits, how do they qualify?
Magic Circle could just generically ward against creatures that are either hostile to you or not one of your recognized allies, which covers most uses and intents. Alternatively, you could have Magic Circle ward against specific, observable traits such as, for example, limiting its effect to a specific creature type, subtypes, or species.
You can view a Paladin as a holy warrior and his Detect Evil spell amounts to moral guidance from the powers that be. And you can argue how LG allignment restrictions control the PC, but that is what the Player envisioned when he chose the Paladin class. You can ditch allignment but then you need to come up with a more detailed and complex Code of Conduct , in which case you would have to say Code of Conduct, He has to be altruistic, self sacrificing... Oh wait I could just write LG here and be done with it.
You don't need to compensate for the lack of alignment rules with a bigger Code of Conduct. If the player wants to play the paladin archetype, they probably want to play the paladin archetype. So just let him or her play the paladin archetype however they envision it, same as you would with any other type of character. Unless the player is trying to go out of their way to troll your game, everything should work out fine. And if the player is trying to be a troll, then you have a OOG problem that requires an OOG solution...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
If Your cleric worships this Diety, the Diety's allignment qualifies the Cleric to choose these allignments, which qualify him for these Domains, Qualifies turn/rebuke undead, Qualifies Spontaneous heal/harm, Qualifies certain spells.
Take alignment out of the picture, and the character can still qualify for all those things with little to no adjustment to the system.
Uh, he's pointing out that the goblin babies are a problem of games WITH ALIGNMENT. Hence why "you slaughtered the goblinbabies" and "you did not slaughter the goblinbabies" are both Evil Acts (tm) that cause the Paladin to lose Paladin status, if the DM decides they are.
And my counter is that such a situation occurs without allignment as characters like Paladins also have a Code of Conduct, without an alignment that Code of Conduct would have to be more complex since the current code relies upon allignment (Code of Conduct requires paladin to be LG)
So the same problem exists. In West End games d6 Starwars game the DM could give a Jedi a Darkside point for either choice. In Vampire the Masquerade either choice could result in a loss of Humanity and in Monopoly you would have to "go to jail, directly to Jail, do not pass go and do not collect $200"
And no, "we do not use mechanics for alignment" does not mean "there is no morality and no moral questions". That's just dumb.
Which is what my aurgument was, He has effectively labeled the Goblins as being evil, but inconsistantly claimed the Players had no allignments.
Yes. And, in practice, it's used to ENFORCE acting in a certain way, for fear of losing the things they qualify for.
(and taking XP penalties, and losing levels, and losing powers, etc etc etc depending on edition and class)
Yes because in fantasy literature once a virgin maiden looses her innocence she can no longer ride unicorns.
If you wish to Qualify for something then you must meet that qualification. If I wish to cast spells like a level 15 Wizard then I must have 15 levels of being a Wizard.
If I want to Qualify for a +5 Strength Composite Longbow, then I must equip and state my character accordingly
And if I don't meet those Qualifications then I suffer the consequences of my actions.
A character can't meet the qualifications of being lawful if they are consistantly and grossly being unlawful.
These are alos restrictions that the Player places upon themselves. When I create my level 1 Cleric I can choose to be True Neutral and never worry about any of these "issues" However some players CHOOSE these alignments, They choose to say "These are the rules that my character abides by"
This "Enforcing acting in certain ways" only would apply if the Player hadn't chosen to act in that way, if the DM was the one choosing their allignments.
Now if I created a LG Rogue and the DM suddenly said You can't do that because Rogues are CE, well then the allignemnt system has nothign to do with Your DM being a right nutter. But if I chose to play a LG rogue and the DM tells me I can't be robbing elderly women by stabbing them and remain LG, then that was a consequence of my own choice to be LG
DM" You can't cast Arcane Spells, you are a cleric"
Player "WHAT?!? How dare you force me to only cast certain spells?!?"
Your choises have consequences, don't choose to be LG if you don't want to be LG.
Gerry
Uh, he's pointing out that the goblin babies are a problem of games WITH ALIGNMENT. Hence why "you slaughtered the goblinbabies" and "you did not slaughter the goblinbabies" are both Evil Acts (tm) that cause the Paladin to lose Paladin status, if the DM decides they are.
And my counter is that such a situation occurs without allignment as characters like Paladins also have a Code of Conduct, without an alignment that Code of Conduct would have to be more complex since the current code relies upon allignment (Code of Conduct requires paladin to be LG)
No, you're assuming that in a game without alignment mechanics, that a paladin would still have alignment mechanics.
He wouldn't.
He might have knightly vows, but you know what happens to knights who break their vows? Nothing, mechanically.
In a game without alignment mechanics, you don't have mechanical effects of alignment, full stop.
So the same problem exists. In West End games d6 Starwars game the DM could give a Jedi a Darkside point for either choice.
Since Star Wars has an alignment system, it fails to illustrate your "systems with no alignment have alignment" non-point.
In Vampire the Masquerade either choice could result in a loss of Humanity
Actually, no, it couldn't. Humanity in Vampire, while an alignment system and ONCE AGAIN a non-example of your position, is extremely selfish. That which feeds the Beast causes Humanity loss. That which does not feed the Beast does not cause Humanity loss. "Not killing something" doesn't cause humanity loss. An extremely unrealistically high-Humanity character might risk losing Humanity for not stopping a goblin from hurting someone - especially if he chose to not act for a selfish reason - but that's the kind of thing that results in a risk of dropping from 10 to 9, and it would have to be proximate.
and in Monopoly you would have to "go to jail, directly to Jail, do not pass go and do not collect $200"
Monopoly does *not* have an Alignment system. And, accordingly, there's no penalty for screwing your little brother by convincing him to make a terrible deal with you, as long as you're not cheating - but, then, lying and claiming you're rolling nothing but natural 20s in D&D isn't an alignment violation either.
And no, "we do not use mechanics for alignment" does not mean "there is no morality and no moral questions". That's just dumb.
Which is what my aurgument was, He has effectively labeled the Goblins as being evil, but inconsistantly claimed the Players had no allignments.
You appear deeply confused.
"There are no mechanics for alignment" is not the same as "morality does not exist". In a game without alignment mechanics, a given character can be good, or evil. Like, say, GURPS, or D&D4, or the real world, where there are no alignment mechanics. No "protection from evil", no "detect good", no XP loss for failing to live up to expectations, nothing - and yet, it is still possible for someone to be a good person, or a bad person.
Yes because in fantasy literature once a virgin maiden looses her innocence she can no longer ride unicorns.
Actually, it's her virginity, not her innocence, that matters. Traditionally. It's just that fairy tales tend to conflate the two, because they're misogynist.
If you wish to Qualify for something then you must meet that qualification. If I wish to cast spells like a level 15 Wizard then I must have 15 levels of being a Wizard.
And if you make any choice I the GM disagree with at any time you lose all your wizard levels, including my ability to arbitrarily decide that ALL courses of action, including inaction, cause this. Because that's a BAD MECHANIC.
A character can't meet the qualifications of being lawful if they are consistantly and grossly being unlawful.
I believe you mean "a character cannot meet the qualification of being lawful if the DM decides they aren't lawful enough, no matter how lawful they are". Which is the problem.
Your choises have consequences, don't choose to be LG if you don't want to be LG.
Again, you don't understand the problem. Go back and try again.
Or, you could just throw out the Paladin because having mechanics so intertwined with a stupid thing like alignment makes the class pretty much unplayable. That's what I did.
4E Paladins work just fine regardless of alignment, as do GURPS or (some) Savage Worlds ones.
It's only the alignment-mechanic-dependent ones that are terrible, and that's because of the alignment mechanics.
Or, you could just throw out the Paladin because having mechanics so intertwined with a stupid thing like alignment makes the class pretty much unplayable. That's what I did.
Paladin is my most played class.
I have NEVER lost my abilities as a paladin.
Pretty much unplayable? Wow.
I swear, some people are looking at things that are difficult and just flat out claiming they're "impossible" at this point. It is becoming that ludicrous.
"What?! Beat Super Mario without dying! Impossible"
Yeah unless you're good at playing Super Mario.
I'm good at playing paladins. So are plenty of people.
Is it unplayable for people bad at playing paladins? Yeah just like chess is unplayable for people that don't know chess.
Or, you could just throw out the Paladin because having mechanics so intertwined with a stupid thing like alignment makes the class pretty much unplayable. That's what I did.
4E Paladins work just fine regardless of alignment, as do GURPS or (some) Savage Worlds ones.
It's only the alignment-mechanic-dependent ones that are terrible, and that's because of the alignment mechanics.
Well, yeah, 4e did it right.
Or, you could just throw out the Paladin because having mechanics so intertwined with a stupid thing like alignment makes the class pretty much unplayable. That's what I did.
Paladin is my most played class.
I have NEVER lost my abilities as a paladin.
You've only had DMs who decided not to use the bad mechanics against you.
I'm good at playing paladins.
No, you're not. You've simply never had someone choose to punish you for playing a paladin.
Is it unplayable for people bad at playing paladins? Yeah just like chess is unplayable for people that don't know chess.
And if there was a rule in chess that said if your opponent disagreed with the moral reasoning behind your last move, he could arbitrarily remove the piece you moved? You'd never be able to win a game against someone who used that.
Remember I don't play with alignment. So if/when I include those, I'm not going to make any moral judgements about the PCs and let them act however they want for the babies. The PCs who are solid people might try to bring them to an orphanage, the PCs who are heartless might leave them to die, and the militant warrior might want to execute them quickly and humanely. I don't care one way or another, and because we aren't using alignment no one is required to hand down a moral judgement on another players PCs actions. He isn't LG because he ignored them. He is "Greg the warrior" he is against killing children, but knows the importance of his mission. He doesn't have time to bring them back to someone who could care for them, but he gives the elderly some of the loot he found and directions to a town.
He gives goblin elderly some money and directions to a town?
You can have that encounter without alignment. If you use it, it becomes "Well I'm LG and so I should probably do something like ___". Then you have to base ___ off how your DM has been interpreting alignment. So screw you if its the first time you've ever played with that DM because you have no idea. You can ask him, and hopefully you've got a solid DM. Otherwise he won't actually be able to describe it. A solid DM might say something like "No race is inherantly evil in this setting, its a learned behavior" and you can carry that with you. Most DMs will say something that makes them sound like they put thought into it, maybe even the same thing the solid DM said. Then they forget they said anything next time you attempt to act under those concepts 2 sessions later because they made their choice on the spot without thinking on it. And drow are totally born evil, but goblins are apparently not.
You are so far off base with the very CONCEPT of alignment, before we even get into how the RAW of the mechanics work. First off, a character of X alignment has that alignment because of how he thinks/feels and the way he acts. He does not feel/think/act a certain way BECAUSE of his alignment.
I know this is hard to hear, but the fact is that you are wrong about alignment. You have made the assertion that using alignment means that characters say "well, I'm LG, so I do X". You are flat wrong. A character acts according to his personality. If, overall, his values and actions are in keeping with LG, then he's LG.
Your outrage over my ficticious example is a perfect example of situations I regulalrly see in games that bother to include alignment. DM or some player says "Dude aren't you CG?" and then implies your alignment should shift anytime you take an action that doesn't fit their definition of CG.
Okay, once again, WRONG. Your alignment does NOT shift anytime you take a single action that doesn't fit the definition of your alignment. It actually says that exactly in the rules. Your statement is objectively, proivably false. Furthermore, the RAW also explicitly states that for alignment to change, a character has to demonstrate a consistent and demonstrable change in attitude and actions over the course of a period of time of no less than a week. So every part of what you just said is false.
The people with the outrage will let it go if you point out how the RAW definition backs you up after a brief (15 min) debate, but they will write it off as "oh your minmaxing your alignment, stupid rules lawyer" to themselves. This will happen every time they say "Wait whats your alignment" or "Aren't you supposed to be CG?" Next game you can say "Screw it, I don't want to deal with this alignment BS, I'll be TN or CN because they seem to think those mean do whatever I want". They will then constantly make assumptions about how you are reckless and will steal from them. Better yet though, the DM will ban CN because it is LE light.
So much wrong with this. You clearly have had people misuse alignment in your past to give you this kind of a skewed view on it, but what you need to understand is that those kinds of things are not supported by a RAW use of alignment, that's all houseruling and/or misuse. Which has no bearing WHATSOEVER on the value of alignment as a system, because hundreds of gamers all over the world don't have these problems because they use alignment in accordance with RAW.
An CN is NOT "LE light", at all. Do some people pick CN as an alignment in an attempt to play a "diet evil" character? Yes, but they're misusing it, too. A CN person doesn't steal from his travelling companions (upon whom his life frequently depends on) just because he feels like it. He doesn't roll a die to determine how he feels and what he's going to do. A CN person isn't as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it. You clearly have NO idea what Chaotic Neutral means.
*I had another rant, but it disappeared. Basically you can no longer say you have never encountered these "DM is a jerk alignment debates" because you just had one in our little freeform RPG. The DM was a jerk, changed your alignment, and you threw a fit. Imagine if it was a real game with a character you invested time into.
(Thats not my best example of an alignment trap, thats THE generic example. Also, I specifically said it wasn't a paladin, so I don't know why you guys keep assuming it is)
Your example is invalid because the DM clearly was houseruling alignment rules, which you did not explicitly make clear at the start of your example. If you want to create valid scearios, all parties involved in the discussion needs to have a solid baseline of what kind of rules we are using. Since expousing a list of which houserules are in effect would be tedious, the only valid way to do it is to adhere to RAW.
YOU violated that. YOU created a dishonest example in order to further your biased agenda. He has a right to assume RAW rulings were in effect when he answered that, and you changed it after he answered in order to make your argument sound better. This is called Moving The Goalposts, and it's dishonest debating.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />See if you are going to claim to play without allignment, then you need to actually play without allignment consistantly, not when it suits you. Goblin baby is either the same as a human baby or else you are saying Goblins are Evil alligned Monsters while in the same breath saying that you don't play with allignments.
Uh, he's pointing out that the goblin babies are a problem of games WITH ALIGNMENT. Hence why "you slaughtered the goblinbabies" and "you did not slaughter the goblinbabies" are both Evil Acts (tm) that cause the Paladin to lose Paladin status, if the DM decides they are.
Except that such would once again be a violation of the RAW. NOT killing the babies is a failure to act on a questionable situation. The paladin loses his powers if he "willingly and intentionally commits an evil act".
The only thing a codified allignment system does is provide tags to meet qualifications. Shifting a PC's allignment doesn't change the way they act, it simply changes what they qualify for.
Yes. And, in practice, it's used to ENFORCE acting in a certain way, for fear of losing the things they qualify for.
(and taking XP penalties, and losing levels, and losing powers, etc etc etc depending on edition and class)
Only by Bad DMs, Bad Players, or Inexperienced Groups. Alignment is meant to be used as a tool for roleplaying and character development.
If you are afraid that when you play a certain class the way you like to play characters, that it will result in a loss of class abilities...then MAYBE you should question your own decisions as a player and NOT blame alignment for your woes.
Or, you could just throw out the Paladin because having mechanics so intertwined with a stupid thing like alignment makes the class pretty much unplayable. That's what I did.
So...throw out the baby with the bathwater? That's your solution?
There's enough empirical evidence of people successfully playing paladins that I think it's safe to say that this isn't just an opinion, you are actually objectively wrong, Salla.
Or, you could just throw out the Paladin because having mechanics so intertwined with a stupid thing like alignment makes the class pretty much unplayable. That's what I did.
Paladin is my most played class.
I have NEVER lost my abilities as a paladin.
You've only had DMs who decided not to use the bad mechanics against you.
That...or he's only ever had DMs who actually used alignment in according to RAW, and not adopted houserules intended to screw over the player.
I'm good at playing paladins.
No, you're not. You've simply never had someone choose to punish you for playing a paladin.
Why would anyone but a Bad DM choose to punish a player just for playing a paladin?
Answer: No Good DM would. That's an asinine thing to do. Only a Bad DM would choose to do something like that.
Is it unplayable for people bad at playing paladins? Yeah just like chess is unplayable for people that don't know chess.
And if there was a rule in chess that said if your opponent disagreed with the moral reasoning behind your last move, he could arbitrarily remove the piece you moved? You'd never be able to win a game against someone who used that.
Your analogy is way off, because the RAW regarding alignment are not arbitrary. The RAW do not support the DM aribitrarily punishing players over opinions.
Remember I don't play with alignment. So if/when I include those, I'm not going to make any moral judgements about the PCs and let them act however they want for the babies.
I'm confused. How does one follow the other? Explain your reasoning behind this please. You seem to be suggesting that having alignments precludes reserving moral judgments and allowing players to do as they wish. If that is what you're saying, then how is that the case?
I don't care one way or another, and because we aren't using alignment no one is required to hand down a moral judgement on another players PCs actions.
Again, how are these two concepts related? And even if they were, what effects do moral judgments have on gameplay?
He isn't LG because he ignored them. He is "Greg the warrior" he is against killing children, but knows the importance of his mission. He doesn't have time to bring them back to someone who could care for them, but he gives the elderly some of the loot he found and directions to a town.
From what you have told us, he isn't lawful good because alignment isn't a system in your game, not because of any actions taken or not taken in game. Now, my question is, how doesn having alignment or not having alignment have anything to do with Greg's choices and his reasons?
You can have that encounter without alignment. If you use it, it becomes "Well I'm LG and so I should probably do something like ___".
You're skipping steps in reasoning. How does using ailgnment make the encounter as you describe it? I don't see how that follows.
Then you have to base ___ off how your DM has been interpreting alignment.
Why do you have to base RAW of DM interpretation? Alignment descriptions are pretty clear. If the DM thinks they are something other than what they are, one should seriously consider talking to one's DM beforehand so things get cleared up. If the DM is using an alternate alignment system, its even more important that you talk to your DM, because the rules for that system won't be in the book, but either recorded elsewhere or even in the DM's head, where you won't have easy access to them.
So screw you if its the first time you've ever played with that DM because you have no idea.
More like screw you for not finding out some necessary details about how the world works. I always ask my DM at the start of every game if anything is being house-ruled or changed in any way. It goes a long way toward avoiding misunderstandings in the future. Pretty sure that is basic advice in the PHB for players, and basic advice in the DMG says to make sure your players are clear about the setting, and if any, what rule changes are in effect.
You can ask him, and hopefully you've got a solid DM. Otherwise he won't actually be able to describe it. A solid DM might say something like "No race is inherantly evil in this setting, its a learned behavior" and you can carry that with you.
That isn't a departure from RAW, so I would think the DM would just say something like, "by the book." Generally when DMs I have played with that use non-standard alignment systems, they have always been pretty clear. Maybe I keep coming up sevens with my DMs, but that has been my experience.
Most DMs will say something that makes them sound like they put thought into it, maybe even the same thing the solid DM said. Then they forget they said anything next time you attempt to act under those concepts 2 sessions later because they made their choice on the spot without thinking on it. And drow are totally born evil, but goblins are apparently not.
That would certainly be a new experience for me. One that I wouldn't be too keen on having or repeating. I wouldn't play with that DM again.
Your outrage over my ficticious example is a perfect example of situations I regulalrly see in games that bother to include alignment.
Maybe if you were actually a DM who actually believed that was how alignment worked and actually applied that non-standard system to one of my characters, that would be the case. What you actually did was strawman the RAW (read: use a different version of the RAW and launched your argument from that misunderstood position) and therefore strawmaned an important element of the counter-argument, in an attempt to demonize the alignment system and the people who use it, by saying that games with alignment function that way "You now lose your alignment, welcome to games with alignment." That was one of the most intellectually dishonest and rude things I have seen in a very long time, and I responded in kind. Seeping generalizations are rude, offensive, and incorrect, 100% of the time. If anyone gets that you win an imaginary prize.
He has a right to assume RAW rulings were in effect when he answered that, and you changed it after he answered in order to make your argument sound better. This is called Moving The Goalposts, and it's dishonest debating.
As Chiba said, you did this too. Krusk, your argument is chock full of non-sequitors, one of the big ones you like to use is false equivalency, which is what my first two points in my post point out.
DM or some player says "Dude aren't you CG?" and then implies your alignment should shift anytime you take an action that doesn't fit their definition of CG.
Then they really are doing it wrong, regardless of the reason. Even if their definition of the alignments is actually correct, they are still doing it wrong. Where is the problem with the system here?
The people with the outrage will let it go if you point out how the RAW definition backs you up after a brief (15 min) debate, but they will write it off as "oh your minmaxing your alignment, stupid rules lawyer" to themselves.
Seriously, how do people like this still have groups? I would have been long gone by now.
This will happen every time they say "Wait whats your alignment" or "Aren't you supposed to be CG?" Next game you can say "Screw it, I don't want to deal with this alignment BS, I'll be TN or CN because they seem to think those mean do whatever I want". They will then constantly make assumptions about how you are reckless and will steal from them. Better yet though, the DM will ban CN because it is LE light.
Say what now? Why is the mistreated player in this instance blaming the system when it is clearly a case of human d-baggery? Seriously, you are describing a screwed up bunch of players. Are you really trying to say that systems should be designed with these kinds of people in mind? I think people like this should be banned from game shops.
*I had another rant, but it disappeared. Basically you can no longer say you have never encountered these "DM is a jerk alignment debates" because you just had one in our little freeform RPG. The DM was a jerk, changed your alignment, and you threw a fit. Imagine if it was a real game with a character you invested time into.
You weren't actually a jerk DM though, you were portraying your idea of a jerk DM, and then blaming his conduct on the system. I can't imagine getting far enough into the game to reach a point where I had invested anything into that character because the way I play would have exposed who they were pretty damn fast, likely in the first session, then I would have pulled said session over in a hurry. In fact I might not have even made it to the first session because there are a few things I always ask a new DM; What classes are available, what races are available, what is the setting, what is said setting like, what kind of governments are in existence, what is the cosmology like, what if any planes of existence are in use, how does the deity system function, and how does alignment function, how is magic viewed in what parts of the setting, things like that. Anything that could be relative to the setting basically, is what I ask about. My questions alone likely would have kept me from getting involved in the game if the players and DM were like that.
(Thats not my best example of an alignment trap, thats THE generic example. Also, I specifically said it wasn't a paladin, so I don't know why you guys keep assuming it is)
Because they generally demonstrate the same behavior and saying "paladin" is easier than saying "lawful good character." Or rather, typing, not saying. Trust me, it amounts to the same thing, and its actually more relevant due to the potential consequences involved. Also, I've never heard of this idea of an alignment trap, what is it? If it's anything like the scenario you posited earlier, I would say its actually impossible to have a problem like that, at least under RAW.
I'm good at playing paladins. So are plenty of people.
Is it unplayable for people bad at playing paladins? Yeah just like chess is unplayable for people that don't know chess.
I don't see how one would have this problem even if one were bad at playing a paladin. Playing lawful good isn't that hard, no harder than playing any other alignment. If people are saying that it is difficult to stick to an alignment....I'm not even going to touch that one because I will get banned for sure. Let me just say that the idea of having troubles playing an alignment has never entered my mind, ever.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />You've only had DMs who decided not to use the bad mechanics against you.
No, they've used the mechanic exactly as the mechanic is. They just weren't bad DMs. I don't usually game with bad DMs...and I'm insightful enough to generally spot them from a mile away, especially when that "mile" is just across a game table.
No, you're not. You've simply never had someone choose to punish you for playing a paladin.
Actually I HAVE had one or two DMs try to punish me for playing a paladin. Know what I did? Explained to them how their opinion on alignment made no sense, argued them into a corner and made them look foolish. Then let them know, in no simple terms, that I'd expect better from them in the future. At least one of them I had to walk away from and the game fell apart (because they were a bad DM)...the other shaped up and bothered to look into what alignment means.
And if there was a rule in chess that said if your opponent disagreed with the moral reasoning behind your last move, he could arbitrarily remove the piece you moved? You'd never be able to win a game against someone who used that.
So your argument is that idiot jerks use anything at hand to be idiot jerks. Thank you for that that. I will mull that over for a solid century or so. Startling insight.
Ever have a DM screw you over with a cursed item? Oops better remove magic from the game! Its clearly a broken system!
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />You've only had DMs who decided not to use the bad mechanics against you.
No, they've used the mechanic exactly as the mechanic is.
While ignoring the bits that said they should "test" you with this.
No, you're not. You've simply never had someone choose to punish you for playing a paladin.
Actually I HAVE had one or two DMs try to punish me for playing a paladin. Know what I did? Explained to them how their opinion on alignment made no sense, argued them into a corner and made them look foolish.
"I browbeat a weaker personality..."
Then let them know, in no simple terms, that I'd expect better from them in the future. At least one of them I had to walk away from
"... and if they DID look like they were going to enforce my alignment restrictions, I took my ball and went home. The one time someone DID strip my Paladin powers for not acting like a Paladin in his opinion, I quit, so that doesn't count."
And if there was a rule in chess that said if your opponent disagreed with the moral reasoning behind your last move, he could arbitrarily remove the piece you moved? You'd never be able to win a game against someone who used that.
So your argument is that idiot jerks use anything at hand to be idiot jerks. Thank you for that that. I will mull that over for a solid century or so. Startling insight.
More, "the system can only become relevant in the hands of idiot jerks. Outside of idiot jerks, nobody will ever use it. As such, it's a bad rule and shouldn't exist."
Ever have a DM screw you over with a cursed item? Oops better remove magic from the game! Its clearly a broken system!
Seconded. Let me draw this into real life. Where I live, people were cutting meth with Excedrin, which is a cocktail of Nsaids, Caffeine, and Acitomenaphine. I get headaches that are so bad, that I can literally pop all the Tylenol I want, and it doesn't do a damn thing. They aren't caffiene headaches either, because pure caffiene doesn't fix them. Just plain aspirin takes forever to work on my headaches.
Well, because meth heads were using Excedrin to cut their drugs, it was banned in my county. No joke. Excedrin Migraine is now illegal where I live. I now use a lesser off-brand which is still the same cocktail, just a little more unhealthy for my liver. Now they are cutting it with the off-brand stuff. See the correlation here? Granted, alignment isn't migraine medication, but it is a fun system for gameplay.
Well, because meth heads were using Excedrin to cut their drugs, it was banned in my county. No joke. Excedrin Migraine is now illegal where I live. I now use a lesser off-brand which is still the same cocktail, just a little more unhealthy for my liver. Now they are cutting it with the off-brand stuff. See the correlation here? Granted, alignment isn't migraine medication, but it is a fun system for gameplay.
A better analogy would be "because meth heads were abusing meth in my county, meth has a bad rep despite my no-problems-I-can-see use of meth"
While ignoring the bits that said they should "test" you with this.
That is role-playing, it is the character that is to be tested, not the player.
"I browbeat a weaker personality..."
If you're going to employ an ad hominem, at least make it funny, and include a logical reasoned response to go along side it and note that as your real argument.
"... and if they DID look like they were going to enforce my alignment restrictions, I took my ball and went home. The one time someone DID strip my Paladin powers for not acting like a Paladin in his opinion, I quit, so that doesn't count."
You're confused. You're thinking this is an example of a DM using a bad system as it is written, but it isn't. This is a case of a bad DM misusing a system. If you think that is not bad DMing, then let me explain rule 0 of DMing. When possible, always rule in favor of the player, and only require dice rolls when dramatically relavent. Its the easiest rule in the world to follow and this DM didn't.
More, "the system can only become relevant in the hands of idiot jerks. Outside of idiot jerks, nobody will ever use it. As such, it's a bad rule and shouldn't exist."
I used it all the time and none of my players thought I was an arrogant jerk, and the system was definitely relavent.
Well, because meth heads were using Excedrin to cut their drugs, it was banned in my county. No joke. Excedrin Migraine is now illegal where I live. I now use a lesser off-brand which is still the same cocktail, just a little more unhealthy for my liver. Now they are cutting it with the off-brand stuff. See the correlation here? Granted, alignment isn't migraine medication, but it is a fun system for gameplay.
A better analogy would be "because meth heads were abusing meth in my county, meth has a bad rep despite my no-problems-I-can-see use of meth"
Alignment: Not Even Once.
Well, because meth heads were using Excedrin to cut their drugs, it was banned in my county. No joke. Excedrin Migraine is now illegal where I live. I now use a lesser off-brand which is still the same cocktail, just a little more unhealthy for my liver. Now they are cutting it with the off-brand stuff. See the correlation here? Granted, alignment isn't migraine medication, but it is a fun system for gameplay.
A better analogy would be "because meth heads were abusing meth in my county, meth has a bad rep despite my no-problems-I-can-see use of meth"
You missed the point. Excedrin is the alignment, the off-brand is the replacement system that doesn't work as well, meth heads cutting Excedrin with their drugs is the misuse of alignment, and outlawing Excedrin is removing alignment from the game. Using meth in general is people being jerks. That is a perfect analogy.
Alignment: Not Even Once.
Huh?
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />You've only had DMs who decided not to use the bad mechanics against you.
No, they've used the mechanic exactly as the mechanic is.
While ignoring the bits that said they should "test" you with this.No, you're not. You've simply never had someone choose to punish you for playing a paladin.
Actually I HAVE had one or two DMs try to punish me for playing a paladin. Know what I did? Explained to them how their opinion on alignment made no sense, argued them into a corner and made them look foolish.
"I browbeat a weaker personality..."Then let them know, in no simple terms, that I'd expect better from them in the future. At least one of them I had to walk away from
"... and if they DID look like they were going to enforce my alignment restrictions, I took my ball and went home. The one time someone DID strip my Paladin powers for not acting like a Paladin in his opinion, I quit, so that doesn't count."And if there was a rule in chess that said if your opponent disagreed with the moral reasoning behind your last move, he could arbitrarily remove the piece you moved? You'd never be able to win a game against someone who used that.
So your argument is that idiot jerks use anything at hand to be idiot jerks. Thank you for that that. I will mull that over for a solid century or so. Startling insight.
More, "the system can only become relevant in the hands of idiot jerks. Outside of idiot jerks, nobody will ever use it. As such, it's a bad rule and shouldn't exist."
I noticed you didn't address the cursed item point.
However, lets go over what you've said point by point...
Test? My paladins have been tested plenty of times. They've sacrificed personal gain and their own welfare for the greater good. At least one died. If I got more chances to play it'd happen even more often (not dying, but being tested).
Browbeat a weaker personality? Wow, you live in the most abusive world EVER apparently...or the exact opposite where everyone is so polite their interactions are totally fake and useless. Their approach was awful. It was not conducive to a good game. Either they were doing it accidentally and I clarified things for them, or they were being dicks about it and doing it knowingly and I called them out on their behavior. Sorry, but I have better things to do with my life than put up with BAD D&D games.
As for taking my ball? Good to know you support staying in games with bad DMs that get their jollies from screwing over players. Seriously what are you even arguing? "Rocks fall, everyone dies" is good DMing now? Because that is the sort of jerks we're talking about. Please. I know you desperately want to be right and can't accept that I could play a paladin well in a well run game WITH the alignment system fully intact, but this is just the height of absurdity.
Idiot jerks? Idiot jerks will use ANYTHING to be idiot jerks. I've seen players use loaded dice, argue that their character can cast spells despite not being a spellcasting class because the rules "don't say they can't" and even try to physically threaten other players to get their way in over-ruling something in the books.
Seriously, a violent sociopath beating someone with a toaster doesn't mean toasters are bad. That is basically what your argument boils down to.
You'd think some people got molested by alignment or something.
You'd think some people got molested by alignment or something.
I hope you're ready for the rage that is going to be coming your way now that you said that. But peoples' reactions do seem kind of disproportionate.
Yep, I'm totally convinced.
And the magic item is something different because cursed items are only a tiny fraction of the entirey of magic in a gameworld. What's essentially .1% of a system being bad to some people doesn't warrant the other 99.9% of it removed as well, just the .1% should be removed. Alignment mechanics on the other hand make up a large chunk of alignments in general in pre-4e editions.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Uh, he's pointing out that the goblin babies are a problem of games WITH ALIGNMENT. Hence why "you slaughtered the goblinbabies" and "you did not slaughter the goblinbabies" are both Evil Acts (tm) that cause the Paladin to lose Paladin status, if the DM decides they are.
Except that such would once again be a violation of the RAW. NOT killing the babies is a failure to act on a questionable situation. The paladin loses his powers if he "willingly and intentionally commits an evil act".
Such as "deliberately allowing evil creatures to commit further acts of evil", yes. That kind of "willingly and intentionally commits an evil act".
Or "slaughters babies". That kind of "willingly and intentionally commits an evil act".
Either one. Or both. With whichever one he DOESN'T choose being the wrong one.
Only by Bad DMs, Bad Players, or Inexperienced Groups. Alignment is meant to be used as a tool for roleplaying and character development.
And yet, as written pre-4E, it is a set of punishments to use to reprimand subjectively bad behaviour.
If you are afraid that when you play a certain class the way you like to play characters, that it will result in a loss of class abilities...then MAYBE you should question your own decisions as a player and NOT blame alignment for your woes.
More, "when using certain mechanics, there is no correct way to play it and arbitrary massive punishments come at any time for any reason". So you can either avoid those mechanics as best you can (which limits a lot of things) or you can just not use them in the first place (which is what GOOD GMs do.)
So...throw out the baby with the bathwater? That's your solution?
Error: Assumption of baby not in evidence.
There's enough empirical evidence of people successfully playing paladins that I think it's safe to say that this isn't just an opinion, you are actually objectively wrong, Salla.
HAHAHAHAHAHA no really go read a few Dragon back issues. Focus on the ones Saint Gary wrote editorials or responses to letters columns in.
Why would anyone but a Bad DM choose to punish a player just for playing a paladin?
Because the rules for Paladins say they should, of course. All the way back, as far as Paladins have existed in D&D.
Answer: No Good DM would. That's an asinine thing to do. Only a Bad DM would choose to do something like that.
More, only a DM who wanted to enforce the alignment restrictions on Paladins and also had even the SLIGHTEST disagreement about what "absolutely perfect Lawful Good" was. Especially since the GM knows everything while the player doesn't, which prejudices both positions.
Your analogy is way off, because the RAW regarding alignment are not arbitrary.
They are COMPLETELY arbitrary, because the definitions of alignment are completely arbitrary.
The RAW do not support the DM aribitrarily punishing players over opinions.
Except where the DM is allowed and encouraged to enforce alignment, and where alignment is entirely arbitrary based on the DM's opinion.
For example: You are an AD&D Paladin. You have just encountered a politician in a peaceful nation who appears kinda skeevy. You use your Detect Evil on him, and he shows up "Evil". What do you do?
(If you answer is "I didn't use Detect Evil on him in the first place", you fail. You were given Detect Evil so you could use it to find evil, refusing to use your divine gift in the face of potential evil is intentionally allowing evil to go unpunished. BOOM, instant Fighter.)
((Note, that this is not a hypothetical example. It's a real example, that was presented to the dude who wrote the rules in question, and I know the answer he gave. Quick! Do you know the right answer, better than Gary Gygax did?))
I noticed you didn't address the cursed item point.
It wasn't a point, it was an unrelated tangent.
PS: LERN TO QUOTE LOL. Respond to the bits that are relevant, cut the irrelevant bits. My 6-year-old niece can manage this, you should try.
Test? My paladins have been tested plenty of times. They've sacrificed personal gain and their own welfare for the greater good. At least one died. If I got more chances to play it'd happen even more often (not dying, but being tested).
And yet *not one* has fallen, except that time when your complaints that the test was too tough failed and you flounced off?
Thbbbt.
You are BAD at this.
Browbeat a weaker personality? Wow, you live in the most abusive world EVER apparently...or the exact opposite where everyone is so polite their interactions are totally fake and useless. Their approach was awful. It was not conducive to a good game. Either they were doing it accidentally and I clarified things for them, or they were being dicks about it and doing it knowingly and I called them out on their behavior.
"Their approach was so polite that their interactions were totally fake and useless. I corrected them since it wasn't conducive to a good game, and this TOTALLY doesn't paint me as a bully who yelled until he got his own way when there was an alignment disagreement."
As for taking my ball? Good to know you support staying in games with bad DMs that get their jollies from screwing over players.
Nope. Just pointing out that you *were* playing in that game, and quit (quite proudly, you say) when you were stripped of your Paladin status for committing evil acts.
I'm happy to believe you if you say that these acts your character did weren't REALLY evil, they were only evil in the GM's mistaken imagination. THAT WOULD BE MY POINT, START TO FINISH: ALIGNMENT IS SUBJECTIVE. And, the GM's "mistaken" impression of them is no more and no less correct than your "correct" impression - except that, mechanically, he's right and you're wrong, Mr Fighter Without Bonus Feats.
I'm happy to believe you if you say that these acts your character did weren't REALLY evil, they were only evil in the GM's mistaken imagination. THAT WOULD BE MY POINT, START TO FINISH: ALIGNMENT IS SUBJECTIVE. And, the GM's "mistaken" impression of them is no more and no loess correct than your "correct" impression - except that, mechanically, he's right and you're wrong, MR Fighter WIthout Bonus Feats.
Nice to see YagamiFire has seen the light.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />It wasn't a point, it was an unrelated tangent.
PS: LERN TO QUOTE LOL. Respond to the bits that are relevant, cut the irrelevant bits. My 6-year-old niece can manage this, you should try.
Your 6 year old niece sounds quite nice. I'll wager she could probably code up a better quote system than these boards use.
Though, if I cut the irrelevant bits, there'd be nothing for me to quote at all. Thankfully I'm nicer than that.
And yet *not one* has fallen, except that time when your complaints that the test was too tough failed and you flounced off?
Thbbbt.
You are BAD at this.
Too tough? No. Impossible. I literally rolled my eyes at the situation and said "How about this? I'll accept whatever punishment is appropriate...but, OOC, tell me what the Lawful Good response to the situation was" Mind you this was a while ago, so I don't remember the circumstances...but the DM literally didn't have an answer. The answer was "There wasn't one". That is bad DMing. It is the equivalent of "You are in a room. What do you do?" and if you do nothing, you die from old age...and if you move, the pressure trap underneath you releases and sets off a mine, killing you.
It's stupid immaturity. If a DM presents a problem or test for a character and there IS NO in-universe answer, it's bad DMing. Period.
"Their approach was so polite that their interactions were totally fake and useless. I corrected them since it wasn't conducive to a good game, and this TOTALLY doesn't paint me as a bully who yelled until he got his own way when there was an alignment disagreement."
No, their approach was immature and against the very nature of a game. As already outlined.
Nope. Just pointing out that you *were* playing in that game, and quit (quite proudly, you say) when you were stripped of your Paladin status for committing evil acts.
You're assuming I took any action at all. As outlined above, I actually DIDN'T take any action...I said I was prepared for whatever-comes if there was a way out of the situation that was lawful good after I exhausted EVERY OPTION by asking questions of the DM that my paladin would know the answer to regarding his various options. When given a choice of "right" or "left" and the DM tells you either will kill you it's pretty easy to see that there is no actual choice...and hence, bad DM.
I always proudly quit games where bad DMs are trying to run roughshod over players. I also proudly point out this behavior before I go because usually theres people at the table that feel exactly the same way but won't say anything. I don't believe in staying silent as people abuse trust and authority others have put in them so that they can giddily and childishly jerk those people around in what is supposed to be a game. I suppose you like games of Monopoly where the banker cheats to their own advantage though?
I'm happy to believe you if you say that these acts your character did weren't REALLY evil, they were only evil in the GM's mistaken imagination. THAT WOULD BE MY POINT, START TO FINISH: ALIGNMENT IS SUBJECTIVE. And, the GM's "mistaken" impression of them is no more and no less correct than your "correct" impression - except that, mechanically, he's right and you're wrong, Mr Fighter Without Bonus Feats.
Nope, I didn't take any action. The DMs intent in the situation was clear. To craft a situation in which the ONLY way out was an Evil act. It was a very poor attempt at a magicians trick...I merely exposed the mirrors being involved instead of playing along. Why? Because the intent of the DM was to use a system against the player...this is bad regardless of what the system is.
Seriously, the behavior on this board can be absolutely repugnant.
"Alignment works fine! I just screeched at my DMs if they even thought about enforcing a warped version of it, then ragequit when one did!"
Fixed that for you.
And the magic item is something different because cursed items are only a tiny fraction of the entirey of magic in a gameworld. What's essentially .1% of a system being bad to some people doesn't warrant the other 99.9% of it removed as well, just the .1% should be removed. Alignment mechanics on the other hand make up a large chunk of alignments in general in pre-4e editions.
Unless of course the DM uses a warped version of that system and suddenly cursed items are everywhere and it is impossible to tell the cursed from the normal....Kind of like alignment traps in most warped versions of alignment systems.
"Alignment works fine! I just screeched at my DMs if they even thought about enforcing it, then ragequit when one did!"
Yep, I'm totally convinced.
And the magic item is something different because cursed items are only a tiny fraction of the entirey of magic in a gameworld. What's essentially .1% of a system being bad to some people doesn't warrant the other 99.9% of it removed as well, just the .1% should be removed. Alignment mechanics on the other hand make up a large chunk of alignments in general in pre-4e editions.
If the misuse of things by human beings precluded their use all-together, we would have NOTHING left.
I do find it flat-out HILARIOUS though that for a board so hung up on player empowerment and such, so many of you are so very quick to jump all over and attack someone for standing up to a DM acting like a jerk.
I guess its one of those feel-good sentiments that people are actually too cowardly to follow-up on and follow-thru with in real life. "Power to the players! Uh...but don't actually stand up to anyone. Just stay quiet and let it play out. That'll..uh...show'em"
Nope, I didn't take any action. The DMs intent in the situation was clear. To craft a situation in which the ONLY way out was an Evil act. It was a very poor attempt at a magicians trick...I merely exposed the mirrors being involved instead of playing along.
So, when YOUR PALADIN was presented with a situation where all actions, including inaction, were an evil act, you quit playing.
As if that wasn't what the alignment rules said should happen to you.
As if that wasn't flouncing because you didn't like a DM ruling.
As if that meant you hadn't fallen *because the DM said you fell*.
To wit: You agree with me. And admit that your defense of the Alignment rules is wrong.
the intent of the DM was to use a system against the player...this is bad regardless of what the system is.
Yes. You are starting to understand why the adults on the forums complain about bad systems...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Hint: "alignment", in practice, exists exclusively as a system against the player.
Seriously, the behavior on this board can be absolutely repugnant.
Nope, you've confused "the effects of alignment" with "forum posters point out the inevitable side effects of alignment."
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />So, when YOUR PALADIN was presented with a situation where all actions, including inaction, were an evil act, you quit playing.
You...you do realize that the DM crafts the situations in-game yes?
Of course. And, when your DM presented your character with a situation where all actions, including inaction, were an evil act, you quit playing.
I repeat:
As if that wasn't what the alignment rules said should happen to you.
As if that wasn't flouncing because you didn't like a DM ruling.
As if that meant you hadn't fallen *because the DM said you fell*.
To wit: You agree with me. And admit that your defense of the Alignment rules is wrong.
Please remember to keep your comments positive, productive, and on topic. Remember we are trying to create a
mutually beneficial and productive community for everyone to take part in.
At the end of the day we are all in this thing together, and if we don't work together we will never get anywhere!
If you have any questions or would like to read the CoC you can find it here:
Remember, Keep it clean, Keep it nice, and of course Keep it fun!
Thank you for your understanding!
Please remember to keep your comments positive, productive, and on topic. Remember we are trying to create a
mutually beneficial and productive community for everyone to take part in.At the end of the day we are all in this thing together, and if we don't work together we will never get anywhere!
If you have any questions or would like to read the CoC you can find it here:
Remember, Keep it clean, Keep it nice, and of course Keep it fun!
Thank you for your understanding!
Thank you, friend Orc! May your tusks never break and your mates always be possessed of a pleasant disposition!
Such as "deliberately allowing evil creatures to commit further acts of evil", yes. That kind of "willingly and intentionally commits an evil act".
I'm confused. Where does it say in any bit of the RAW that allowing a creature to live equates with allowing it to commit an evil act? Now, if the paladin was around when the creature was commiting an evil act, you may have an argument, but since the paladin wasn't there, and had no knowledge of the evil acts it would commit (if indeed it would commit any) that doesn't really fall under an evil act as defined by RAW. What is with the false equivalencies today?
To make this even hairier, is knowing they are going to commit acts of evil growing up, even though they are not evil-aligned right now, and then waiting around, and stopping them before they commit the act, make not killing them at the moment of discovery, an evil act? Does it make it a good act? Is one of those acts good an another act evil? What about neutrality? Keep in mind that not going out of your way to help people or stop evil is simply neutral, according to RAW. So say just plain not killing them counts as a neutral act. Whoopty-do. You're also at the same time going to go rescue the princess at personal risk to yourself, which is a good act. So, a neutral act, immediately followed by a good act. That doesn't count as consistently neutral behavior, and is hardly an extreme act of neutrality, so there is no alignment change.
Or "slaughters babies". That kind of "willingly and intentionally commits an evil act".
Depends on what kind of babies they are. If it glows red when I detect evil, and I am good, it does. If I am neutral and it glows red when I detect evil, I'm probably going to try and avoid it, and if I can't, I kill it. If it glows red when I detect evil and I'm evil, I'm probably going to try and make it useful to me somehow, enter into an alliance with it. I would probably try and subjugate it.
Either one. Or both. With whichever one he DOESN'T choose being the wrong one.
The beauty of alignment is that there is no such thing as a wrong choice.
And yet, as written pre-4E, it is a set of punishments to use to reprimand subjectively bad behaviour.
Actually, it is written as a system for defining cosmic forces, and what those cosmic forces look like when expressed through actions. Alignment doesn't make moral judgments, or encourage moral judgments. That is a player construct.
More, "when using certain mechanics, there is no correct way to play it and arbitrary massive punishments come at any time for any reason".
As the alignment rules are written, there is no such thing as a penalty for playing any alignment, and there are certainly correct ways to play alignment, as is written by RAW.
So you can either avoid those mechanics as best you can (which limits a lot of things) or you can just not use them in the first place (which is what GOOD GMs do.)
Yes, that is your argument, but repeating it ad nauseum does nothing to back it up. It has already been established that plenty of DMs that are good have used it with little to no problems, and it has been beneficial to their games. Meaning your statement cannot be universally true, and since it is an objective, persuasive statement, that isn't true in all situations, it can't be true at all.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />HAHAHAHAHAHA no really go read a few Dragon back issues. Focus on the ones Saint Gary wrote editorials or responses to letters columns in.
This is why I am a fan of Death of Author Theory, because it does not automatically presume that the author's interpretation is the correct and only valid one. It states that even the author's take must be supported. By. The. Text. You are engaging in a logical fallacy that one of my instructors is really adamant that we avoid. It's called "appeal to authority." He likes to camp out on that one a lot.
Because the rules for Paladins say they should, of course. All the way back, as far as Paladins have existed in D&D.
Show me in RAW where it says a DM should punish a player for playing a Paladin. I will pre-emptively counter it from RAW in the 3.5 DMG where it says players shouldn't be punished at all, and that you should rule in their favor whenever possible and whenever in doubt.
More, only a DM who wanted to enforce the alignment restrictions on Paladins and also had even the SLIGHTEST disagreement about what "absolutely perfect Lawful Good" was. Especially since the GM knows everything while the player doesn't, which prejudices both positions.
What is absolutely perfect lawful good? I have never heard of this before, and I am completely at a loss as to what, if anything, that has to do with being a paladin. If there is anything the player should know about the setting or character that they don't, the DM either has to tell them or the player should ask about a few certain key things that can differ from setting to setting.
They are COMPLETELY arbitrary, because the definitions of alignment are completely arbitrary.
Yep. You're right. They are arbitrary. So? What does that have to do with anything? Well, I suppose they aren't completely arbitrary, they are loosely based off of Moorcock's Multiverse setting, and I feel like they do a pretty good job of capturing that. In fact, they did a great job. I suppose you could say that Moorcock's definitions of those forces are arbitrary, but guess what? He created them, he can define them however he wants. Like Minovsky particles in the Gundam series, or warp drive in star trek.
Except where the DM is allowed and encouraged to enforce alignment, and where alignment is entirely arbitrary based on the DM's opinion.
The DM only enforces alignment insofar as he enforces any other rule in the game, like someone dying when they hit -10 hp. If that is what you mean by enforcing an arbitrary system, then yeah. But no, the alignment system is not based off DM opinion. It is based off Moorcock's Multiverse, and the rules faithfully re-create it, almost to a T. RAW> and not subject to DM opinion.
For example: You are an AD&D Paladin. You have just encountered a politician in a peaceful nation who appears kinda skeevy. You use your Detect Evil on him, and he shows up "Evil". What do you do?
(If you answer is "I didn't use Detect Evil on him in the first place", you fail. You were given Detect Evil so you could use it to find evil, refusing to use your divine gift in the face of potential evil is intentionally allowing evil to go unpunished. BOOM, instant Fighter.)
Well, I detect on everything I come across when I play a paladin just because that is my established SOP and I think it is cool to have that kind of "special sight," so I wouldn't have that problem. That said I am unfamiliar with AD&D RAW, so you may very well be right, but if it is anything like 3e RAW, then a paladin does not lose his powers for commiting a neutral act, which is what not detecting would be, under 3e RAW. A paladin only loses his powers when he commits an evil act, or some other violation of his code. (intentional or not, under RAW.)
((Note, that this is not a hypothetical example. It's a real example, that was presented to the dude who wrote the rules in question, and I know the answer he gave. Quick! Do you know the right answer, better than Gary Gygax did?))
Again, I don't know AD&D that well, so I'm not going to comment on it beyond what I just did. Maybe I should go find the books and look at the RAW, and see what that says. It would be a fun thing to do anyway, to see the similarities and differences, to see how the game has changed.
if it is anything like 3e RAW, then a paladin does not lose his powers for commiting a neutral act, which is what not detecting would be, under 3e RAW. A paladin only loses his powers when he commits an evil act, or some other violation of his code. (intentional or not, under RAW.)
Yup. And if you let him live, by allowing this evil person to go free free to commit more evil acts, after knowing (or not checking) that they were evil, you've deliberately committed an evil act. You lose Paladin status.
If you killed him, you murdered someone who had committed no crime to your knowledge. That is AT BEST a deliberate chaotic act (so you lose all powers) and more likely an evil act (so you lose Paladin status permanently).
There is no "neutral" act. There is only failing to act (evil) or acting (evil). It's the classic Gygax situation.
((Note, that this is not a hypothetical example. It's a real example, that was presented to the dude who wrote the rules in question, and I know the answer he gave. Quick! Do you know the right answer, better than Gary Gygax did?))
Again, I don't know AD&D that well, so I'm not going to comment on it beyond what I just did. Maybe I should go find the books and look at the RAW, and see what that says. It would be a fun thing to do anyway, to see the similarities and differences, to see how the game has changed.
You should look it up, and also at all the differences between alignment in AD&D vs AD&D2 vs D20.
(Hint: There are none.)
This is one of many reasons why Gygax was a bad game designer.
He created them, he can define them however he wants. Like Minovsky particles in the Gundam series, or warp drive in star trek.
Like Minovsky particles in the Gundam series
Minovsky particles in the Gundam series
Minovsky particles
Minovsky particles
You are officially now my favorite poster on the board and this thread is now a Gundam discussion thread. All other things fade away.
Very good response though.
This whole circular argument (if it could even be called that) really reminds me of the saying "A poor craftsman blames his tools"
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Yup. And if you let him live, by allowing this evil person to go free free to commit more evil acts, after knowing (or not checking) that they were evil, you've deliberately committed an evil act. You lose Paladin status.
If you killed him, you murdered someone who had committed no crime to your knowledge. That is AT BEST a deliberate chaotic act (so you lose all powers) and more likely an evil act (so you lose Paladin status permanently).
There is no "neutral" act. There is only failing to act (evil) or acting (evil). It's the classic Gygax situation.
OH! I get it. You don't know what the word "deliberate" means. I'm sorry. Here.
Deliberate - Adjective:Done consciously and intentionally: "a deliberate attempt to provoke conflict".
You didn't eat that carrot. A rabbit later stole it. Because it ate that carrot it was slow and got shot by a hunter. That hunter fed it to his wife. His wife choked on a rabbit bone and died.
OMG! That carrot deliberately murdered that poor woman! Or...wait...you did because you didn't eat the carrot in the first place? No wait, the farmer did when he planted the carrot. No no wait...the rabbit did because...no...uh...
This is one of many reasons why Gygax was a bad game designer.
Except Gygax didn't design the alignment system. He cribbed it.
Nope, I didn't take any action. The DMs intent in the situation was clear. To craft a situation in which the ONLY way out was an Evil act. It was a very poor attempt at a magicians trick...I merely exposed the mirrors being involved instead of playing along.
So, when YOUR PALADIN was presented with a situation where all actions, including inaction, were an evil act, you quit playing.
As if that wasn't what the alignment rules said should happen to you.
As if that wasn't flouncing because you didn't like a DM ruling.
As if that meant you hadn't fallen *because the DM said you fell*.
To wit: You agree with me. And admit that your defense of the Alignment rules is wrong.
If my DM used an alignment system other than RAW when I was expecting RAW, then I would have quit too.
the intent of the DM was to use a system against the player...this is bad regardless of what the system is.
Yep. Seconded.
Yes. You are starting to understand why the adults on the forums complain about bad systems...."
Hint: "alignment", in practice, exists exclusively as a system against the player.
I'm an adult, and I point out the reasons why I don't like certain systems, and my reasons are generally reasonable. But unless you can show where in RAW that alignment exists for the DM to use "against the player" and how it is meant to be used against the player, I am going to have to call your statement false.
Seriously, the behavior on this board can be absolutely repugnant.
Yep.
Nope, you've confused "the effects of alignment" with "forum posters point out the inevitable side effects of alignment."
Inevitable? Hm then, maybe you're right. Maybe it is just a timeline issue, and the fact that I haven't encountered a problem like that with alignment in 12 years could simply be due to the fact that I haven't been doing this long enough. Seriously, it is possible. But the line of reasoning I am proposing is a logical fallacy known as appeal to probability. Just because it might happen, doesn't mean it will. So then I may never encounter those problem side effects at all, which makes them not inevitable.
So then how do you reconcile their inevitability with the fact that I have never had those problems, and therefore may never have those problems? I am living proof that these side effects are not inevitable. So they aren't inevitable. You still have an argument, even without that point. Maybe they do exist, but its possible to work around them. Now your only recourse left is to prove that these side effects, under RAW, do indeed exist. Good luck.
Oct 26, 2012 -- 9:47PM, LordOfWeasels wrote:
But unless you can show where in RAW that alignment exists for the DM to use "against the player" and how it is meant to be used against the player, I am going to have to call your statement false.
Paladin class. The alignment restriction only exists to punish the player for not staying with LG behavior. There is literally no benefit you get from staying with the LG alignment other than "You don't get all your class features removed for no reason."
Paladin class. The alignment restriction only exists to punish the player for not staying with LG behavior.
Or it only exists to portray the classic holy knight, and staying true to a set of ideals is part of that. See, where I'm having trouble is I can't see where this idea of punishment enters into it at all. You seem to be equating losing paladin abliities due to alignment change or code violation as a punishment, but aside from the fact that the RAW doesn't say anywhere that that is the purpose of it, I personally don't see it as a punishment at all, but a role-playing opportunity. See, its super-easy to keep the code and even easier to stay lawful good, because the code is actually much more strict.
Even commiting a string of consistently evil behavior over the course of a week will only change you from lawful good to lawful neutral, as per RAW. Paladin code says one, single, evil act, and you also can't make any deal or enter into any alliance with anything evil-aligned. The code is much more harsh than alignment anyway, so I'm surprised your beef isn't with that instead, or at least primarily. Back to what I said earlier about a role-playing opportunity. I am going to use an example some of you may not be familiar with, but one that I am personally very fond of.
Show
In the novel Darth Bane: Path of Destruction, the main character is a miner named Dessel, who due to a combination of getting screwed over by an outer rim "company" (basically criminals) and some of the worst elements of the Galactic Republic, he turns to the fledgling New Sith Empire.
He starts as a soldier, but later is discovered to be Force-Sensitive. They train him in the ways of the dark side. Well, for a while, he pulls back, because he feels like he is starting to lose control. Its only later that he realizes that losing control is the point, and that serving and mastering the dark side are one and the same. This opens up to him a whole whack of new possibilities, and makes for a wonderful storytelling sequence.
He starts as a soldier, but later is discovered to be Force-Sensitive. They train him in the ways of the dark side. Well, for a while, he pulls back, because he feels like he is starting to lose control. Its only later that he realizes that losing control is the point, and that serving and mastering the dark side are one and the same. This opens up to him a whole whack of new possibilities, and makes for a wonderful storytelling sequence.
Also@YagamiFire: I agree with the quote system on this board, I have to do so much more work to clean it up, and sometimes the format just plain breaks on me. Also, what do you mean by "he cribbed it?" I am actually somewhat unfamiliar with his involvement and take on alignment, to my mild embarassment.
Oh sorry. All I mean is that the actual methodology of it isn't unique to D&D...it was based on something else, just like Vancian spell-casting.
Or it only exists to portray the classic holy knight, and staying true to a set of ideals is part of that. See, where I'm having trouble is I can't see where this idea of punishment enters into it at all. You seem to be equating losing paladin abliities due to alignment change or code violation as a punishment,
Last I checked, being told "No! Bad Paladin." and losing all my powers was a punishment.
ShowIn the novel Darth Bane: Path of Destruction, the main character is a miner named Dessel, who due to a combination of getting screwed over by an outer rim "company" (basically criminals) and some of the worst elements of the Galactic Republic, he turns to the fledgling New Sith Empire.
He starts as a soldier, but later is discovered to be Force-Sensitive. They train him in the ways of the dark side. Well, for a while, he pulls back, because he feels like he is starting to lose control. Its only later that he realizes that losing control is the point, and that serving and mastering the dark side are one and the same. This opens up to him a whole whack of new possibilities, and makes for a wonderful storytelling sequence.
Also@YagamiFire: I agree with the quote system on this board, I have to do so much more work to clean it up, and sometimes the format just plain breaks on me. Also, what do you mean by "he cribbed it?" I am actually somewhat unfamiliar with his involvement and take on alignment, to my mild embarassment.
Oh sorry. All I mean is that the actual methodology of it isn't unique to D&D...it was based on something else, just like Vancian spell-casting.
Oooooohhhh. I see. Yeah that about sums it up.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />You've only had DMs who decided not to use the bad mechanics against you.
No, they've used the mechanic exactly as the mechanic is.
While ignoring the bits that said they should "test" you with this.
Tell you what. Prove it, prove your point. We are telling you that what you claim about alignment rules is not RAW, and you claim it is.
Quote, ver batim, with page numbers, the rules that explicitly support what you claim.
And if there was a rule in chess that said if your opponent disagreed with the moral reasoning behind your last move, he could arbitrarily remove the piece you moved? You'd never be able to win a game against someone who used that.
So your argument is that idiot jerks use anything at hand to be idiot jerks. Thank you for that that. I will mull that over for a solid century or so. Startling insight.
More, "the system can only become relevant in the hands of idiot jerks. Outside of idiot jerks, nobody will ever use it. As such, it's a bad rule and shouldn't exist."
Your statement cannot be proven to be true in any objective way, ergo, it is not the truth. It is your OPINION.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, if you don't like alignment, don't use it. But don't claim that your opinion is objective truth, because it is not, and continuing to claim such is dishonest at best.
"Alignment works fine! I just screeched at my DMs if they even thought about enforcing it, then ragequit when one did!"
Yep, I'm totally convinced.
Of course you would see it this way, EL. You cannot concieve of the idea that your opinion about alignment is only your opinion, and not some objective, universal truth.
And the magic item is something different because cursed items are only a tiny fraction of the entirey of magic in a gameworld. What's essentially .1% of a system being bad to some people doesn't warrant the other 99.9% of it removed as well, just the .1% should be removed. Alignment mechanics on the other hand make up a large chunk of alignments in general in pre-4e editions.
It's entirely accurate an relevant, because it's still a case of a rule system that gets misused to the detriment of players, and calling for the removal of the entire system as a "fix"
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Uh, he's pointing out that the goblin babies are a problem of games WITH ALIGNMENT. Hence why "you slaughtered the goblinbabies" and "you did not slaughter the goblinbabies" are both Evil Acts (tm) that cause the Paladin to lose Paladin status, if the DM decides they are.
Except that such would once again be a violation of the RAW. NOT killing the babies is a failure to act on a questionable situation. The paladin loses his powers if he "willingly and intentionally commits an evil act".
Such as "deliberately allowing evil creatures to commit further acts of evil", yes. That kind of "willingly and intentionally commits an evil act".
What possible evil could goblin babies be guilty of? If the paladin, as an arbiter of justice, decides that, while these goblin babies may commit evil acts in the future, they have not done so yet, and thus cannot be justifiably butchered, then how is allowing them to live a "deliberate evil act"?
Again, even if killing the evil goblin babies would constitute an Act of Good, it's still "failure to commit a good act", and not "willful commission of an evil act". Those are NOT the same thing.
Or "slaughters babies". That kind of "willingly and intentionally commits an evil act".
Which is why I said it's questionable. Because there's a very solid argument for this point. Even if the babies register as evil, they are still helpless. So...helpless, but evil, which is the right choice to make?
Either one. Or both. With whichever one he DOESN'T choose being the wrong one.
And....right...THERE. There's where you undermine your whole point. By admitting to this, you have admitted to Bad DMing. A Good DM is consistent. If the DM in this situtation was trying to create a moral quandry for the paladin, then he should have already decided which is the right thing to do. Only a Bad DM punishes the paladin no matter what he chooses, ESPECIALLY if the player of said paladin was trying to make the good choice in character. And a DM who acknowledges the choice of "whichever one he chooses is the wrong one" is admitting to himself that he's a d-bag.
Only by Bad DMs, Bad Players, or Inexperienced Groups. Alignment is meant to be used as a tool for roleplaying and character development.
And yet, as written pre-4E, it is a set of punishments to use to reprimand subjectively bad behaviour.
As written? Not quite. If that were true, you'd be able to prove that. Do so. Prove, objectively, using quotes from RAW, that the purpose of alignment AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE RULES is to punish players for bad behavior.
I eagerly await your response, even though I know you won't do it, because a search of the RAW will not yield said proof. And you won't quote them because it would show you, objectively, without bias, that the RAW do not do what you thinki they do, and then you'd have to face the reality that the experiences you have had that made you hate alignment were people misusing or houseruling alignment rules. And once you saw that, you'd be faced with the truth: That your opinion of alignment is just an opinion, and not a fact about the rules.
If you are afraid that when you play a certain class the way you like to play characters, that it will result in a loss of class abilities...then MAYBE you should question your own decisions as a player and NOT blame alignment for your woes.
More, "when using certain mechanics, there is no correct way to play it and arbitrary massive punishments come at any time for any reason". So you can either avoid those mechanics as best you can (which limits a lot of things) or you can just not use them in the first place (which is what GOOD GMs do.)
The second part of this is an objectively unprovable statement, and the first is a blatant, unapologetic LIE.
There IS a correct way to play it. READ. THE RULES. AGAIN. And actually read them, and try, at least TRY to maintain some level of objectivity and read with an open mind.
So...throw out the baby with the bathwater? That's your solution?
Error: Assumption of baby not in evidence.
Do you...understand what that saying means? Salla claimed that because paladins have mechanics tied into alignment, and because he doesn't like alignment, that people should just throw out all paladins completely.
So...in that metaphor the paladin = the baby and alignment = the bathwater.
You...don't get metaphors, do you?
There's enough empirical evidence of people successfully playing paladins that I think it's safe to say that this isn't just an opinion, you are actually objectively wrong, Salla.
HAHAHAHAHAHA no really go read a few Dragon back issues. Focus on the ones Saint Gary wrote editorials or responses to letters columns in.
What? That's entirely non-sequitur. Salla claimed the paladin class, as-written, was unplayable. My point was that since many people CAN play them successfully, Salla's point was entirely false. Doesn't matter if some people wrote into Dragon (which wasn't official content or ruling until the last decade) with problems, the fact that many hundreds more did not have them proves my point true.
Why would anyone but a Bad DM choose to punish a player just for playing a paladin?
Because the rules for Paladins say they should, of course. All the way back, as far as Paladins have existed in D&D.
Prove your statement here.
I am officially declaring your statement false. Quote the RAW from each edition of D&D which says this.
I started paying in 2e, so I don't know about OD&D or 1e, but I can tell you that you won't find it in later editions, ESPECIALLY not in 3.x. NOWHERE in the rules does it say that you should arbitraily punish ANY player who chooses to play ANY class.
But either admit you made a false claim, or back it up, I challenge you to do so.
Answer: No Good DM would. That's an asinine thing to do. Only a Bad DM would choose to do something like that.
More, only a DM who wanted to enforce the alignment restrictions on Paladins and also had even the SLIGHTEST disagreement about what "absolutely perfect Lawful Good" was. Especially since the GM knows everything while the player doesn't, which prejudices both positions.
I enforce alignment restrictions on paladins, and I have NEVER punished a player just because he chose to play a paladin.
Your analogy is way off, because the RAW regarding alignment are not arbitrary.
They are COMPLETELY arbitrary, because the definitions of alignment are completely arbitrary.
Do you not know what arbitrary means?
The definitions of alignment are not arbitrary, they are consistent with ideas of good, evil, law and chaos as have persistent throughout Western Culture throughout history and literature for the last several hundred years.
The RAW do not support the DM aribitrarily punishing players over opinions.
Except where the DM is allowed and encouraged to enforce alignment, and where alignment is entirely arbitrary based on the DM's opinion.
For example: You are an AD&D Paladin. You have just encountered a politician in a peaceful nation who appears kinda skeevy. You use your Detect Evil on him, and he shows up "Evil". What do you do?
Do I also have evidence of his actual wrongdoing? If not, I start investigating him. "Evil" is sometimes just an indicator of extreme selfishness. But since he's in a position of power and authority, he could very well be corrupt, and it warrants further investigation.
Pinging on the "detect evil" radar is not automatically a license to kill someone.
(If you answer is "I didn't use Detect Evil on him in the first place", you fail. You were given Detect Evil so you could use it to find evil, refusing to use your divine gift in the face of potential evil is intentionally allowing evil to go unpunished. BOOM, instant Fighter.)
False. The RAW don't say that the paladin loses his powers if he doesn't use his detect evil ability on EVERYONE he meets. Ergo, your statement here is objectively proven false.
Test? My paladins have been tested plenty of times. They've sacrificed personal gain and their own welfare for the greater good. At least one died. If I got more chances to play it'd happen even more often (not dying, but being tested).
And yet *not one* has fallen, except that time when your complaints that the test was too tough failed and you flounced off?
Thbbbt.
You are BAD at this.
So you can't accept that some players even COULD pass such a test? Sounds more like YOUR failing.
Browbeat a weaker personality? Wow, you live in the most abusive world EVER apparently...or the exact opposite where everyone is so polite their interactions are totally fake and useless. Their approach was awful. It was not conducive to a good game. Either they were doing it accidentally and I clarified things for them, or they were being dicks about it and doing it knowingly and I called them out on their behavior.
"Their approach was so polite that their interactions were totally fake and useless. I corrected them since it wasn't conducive to a good game, and this TOTALLY doesn't paint me as a bully who yelled until he got his own way when there was an alignment disagreement."As for taking my ball? Good to know you support staying in games with bad DMs that get their jollies from screwing over players.
Nope. Just pointing out that you *were* playing in that game, and quit (quite proudly, you say) when you were stripped of your Paladin status for committing evil acts.
You missed his point. The point being that his character did not commit any evil acts, but that his DM attempted to misuse the rules and strip him of his powers anyway. When he brought up the ACTUAL rules to confront said DM, the DM either modified in decision to be acutally IN KEEPING with the RAW, or hge (the player) quit, rather than play with a DM whose objective was to be detrimental to his players.
I'm happy to believe you if you say that these acts your character did weren't REALLY evil, they were only evil in the GM's mistaken imagination. THAT WOULD BE MY POINT, START TO FINISH: ALIGNMENT IS SUBJECTIVE. And, the GM's "mistaken" impression of them is no more and no less correct than your "correct" impression - except that, mechanically, he's right and you're wrong, Mr Fighter Without Bonus Feats.
Unless the RAW directly contradict what the DM was claiming. That's what we're pointing out, and what you, consistently, are missing
Last I checked, being told "No! Bad Paladin." and losing all my powers was a punishment.
Is that what your DM is telling you? If your DM is taking something meant to be used as a role-playing device and using it as a weapon against the players, then the problem is with the DM. If the player is actually playing out of character, the solution needs to be an out-of-game solution, not an in-game one.
I don't see how any of that requires an alignment restriction though.
As far as the code goes, a code is fine, but what exactly the code entails should be decided either by the DM and/or player, or depend on what god the Paladin is serving.
Well, just so you know, there are examples of other options for codes for paladins, and even guidelines for making your own codes in other 3e materials. The Paladin code in the PHB is just the default, as that is the best (in the eyes of Wizards at least) method for demonstrating the values of the classic holy knight. I should also point out that default paladins don't actually serve gods, at least in 3e. I believe 4e is actually different. If you use something other than the Paladin code, chances are you are trying to respresent something other than the classic holy knight. The alignment restriction is in place because being a Paladin requires a certain personal temperment, and that is how that is represented. Someone who is prone to slacking off, for example, simply doesn't make the cut. In broader, more cosmic strokes, you can't tap the powers of law and good in a divine sense unless you are aligned with them. In reality, the latter is merely a metaphor for the former. I keep telling people this stuff is all actually real for a reason.
Thats where narrative comes in, and doesn't require alignment restrictions in the slightest.
I was talking about the code, not alignment. Alignment should rarely be an issue with paladins given how much is required to change it. For alignment, see my above response, additionally, things like alignment restrictions and codes are just tools to represent something in game, like everything else is. HP isn't even necessary to measure how close someone is to dying. There are other system out there (in 3e material), and you could even handle that totally freeform. I have seen it done. None of the systems in D&D are necessary to accomplish what D&D is meant to accomplish. What these are, are narrative aids, tools to help that narrative run more smoothly, that is all.
And nothing of what you suggsted above required alignment restrictions. That's the point I'm trying to get across. Alignment restrictons are pointless.
No, they aren't, at least no more pointless than any of the rules in the game. They are statistics designed to represent something about the character. Alignment represents what powers of the world you are connected to. The powers are law, chaos, good, and evil, by default. Now, you could do away with alignment, but you would have to do away with those forces too, which takes a lot cool stuff out of the game. The paladin doesn't even exist without some cosmic energy force to draw on, so you would have to replace that with something. If you just had those powers but not actual alignment, then you just have nothing to denote the connection. Like having a character with bodily health but no hp.
Now if the player themselves wants to restrict themselves to an alignment, that's different.
I'm confused. I thought that is what codes were there for, at least one of the reasons. You could totally play it straight as well and use the code to demonstrate what sticking to ideals can do, too.
Except this is pointless to mention because it's still essentially "By following the LG alignment, you egt the class features you picked in the first place."
Whereas no other class is restricted to this sort of BS.
No other class has the high calling to oppose the powers of evil with their very lives either. Paladins aren't made, they are born. The powers of good and law reach out to ordain champions to manifest their ideals into the world. Then again, in 3.5, the Barbarian is required chaotic. He has a link to the ever-changing and growing natural world. The monk last I checked was required lawful, as only a disciplined mind can reach enlightenment.
And yet he's the only class restricted in this manner by design.
Not the only one.
A Fighter can be a Fighter for 12 years, get a leave of duty and relax somewhere on an island for 5 years, then pick his sword right back up at the drop of a hat and he's still a Fighter.
Under RAW, so could a paladin.
Any class but Paladin can go directly against what the class entails for them to do and not face any sort of detriment or punishment, except possibly roleplaying a few minutes of them needed to swing their sword a few times to get the feeling of it back, or to remind thesmelves how this spell went again, or reacquainting themselves with their old streets.
The Paladin does one thing against his class and bam, instant power loss. That should not be an inherant game design, but something the player and/or DM decides. THAT is what I want alignment restrictions to be and stay as. Completely optional.
It sounds to me like what you have a problem with is classes themselves. Classes weren't exactly designed with the intent that you "go against them." Breaking with your class mechanically isn't something you're supposed to do, generally, in any RPG. A paladin who actually takes up a new trade, or a new field of learning, is turning his back on his high calling. There should be consequences for that. Its how holy knights have always worked, and the paladin is meant to be a holy knight.
See, that is something the player and the DM decide upon together. That always has been that way and it always will be that way. You get to decide, under RAW, exactly how much those elements come into play, and what they mean. But a code is a necessary part of the portrayal of the holy knight, and a paladin does cast lawful and good divine spells, and to do that, one does need to be both lawful and good. Clerics also cannot cast spells of opposing alignment.
Well, the paladin doesn't get spells of opposing alignment. The paladin's loss of power is so extreme because the paladin is, for the most part, completely dependent upon the power of law and good. Turning away from those means he is going to lose something. As a player and DM, you get to decide whether the character is going to have difficulty with that, or whether the character will be spurred on by that. Alignments and codes are just statistics so you have a framework to use when you go about that. Like everything else, they were never designed to get in the way of the game.
If they are getting in the way of your game, then something is seriously screwed up somewhere. Alignments have never got in the way of my games. I know plenty of other people who can say that. I have seen plenty of people on this board saying that alignments do get in the way of their games. Since alignments don't get in the way of everyone's games, and RAW doesn't change from person to person, I can only come to the conclusion that it is how alignments and RAW are being used.
No other class has the high calling to oppose the powers of evil with their very lives either.
Except everyone else in the Paladin's group.
Then again, in 3.5, the Barbarian is required chaotic. He has a link to the ever-changing and growing natural world. The monk last I checked was required lawful, as only a disciplined mind can reach enlightenment.
And those rules were equally stupid.
I don't see why Monks must be Lawful. I can take a few judo classes and emulate a Monk, but I don't suddenly forget how to do a judo chop if I decide to not follow a to-do list that day.
I don't see why being Chaotic is a requirement of a Barbarian. What about the tribes that are relatively civilized but still fight with large weapons and wear bearskins? Are they not Barbarians? Do they suddenly forget how to egt anrgy ebcause they read a book once?(Oh yeah, barbarians also had to be illiterate, more stupid class design)
No other class has the high calling to oppose the powers of evil with their very lives either.
Except everyone else in the Paladin's group.
What about people that are in it for money? Or fame? Or to oppose chaos without a concern for evil? Or to avenge someone? Or...etc etc
And those rules were equally stupid.
I've never run into a problem with them.
I don't see why Monks must be Lawful. I can take a few judo classes and emulate a Monk, but I don't suddenly forget how to do a judo chop if I decide to not follow a to-do list that day.
If you think a few judo classes helps you emulate a monk, I suggest you read Fist of the Northstar. That is a pretty good representation of heroic monks (actually WoTC should read Fist of the Northstar and make monks TOTALLY more like that).
The lawful for a monk represents the inner discipline, focus and peace required to channel your very life energy into your fists. It is devotion to a lifestyle as much as it is taking a class.
I don't see why being Chaotic is a requirement of a Barbarian. What about the tribes that are relatively civilized but still fight with large weapons and wear bearskins? Are they not Barbarians? Do they suddenly forget how to egt anrgy ebcause they read a book once?(Oh yeah, barbarians also had to be illiterate, more stupid class design)
Civilized does not mean "lawful" especially if those tribes still espouse the importance of individual rights and being true to ones self. Their argument (read any Conan stuff, for example) is usually that they are more civilized than "civilization" because they focus on every individual being good by being a good person...not because a law says so. They don't want laws telling them to do anything. That is the "Chaotic" nature of a barbarian. Be true to yourself and let no man shackle you with obligations.
EDIT: Just noticed that the answer to a lot of "issues" with alignment tends to simply be "Here. Read more."
Except everyone else in the Paladin's group.
Eh? Elaborate please.
And those rules were equally stupid.
I don't see why Monks must be Lawful. I can take a few judo classes and emulate a Monk, but I don't suddenly forget how to do a judo chop if I decide to not follow a to-do list that day.
Sure, just like anyone can pick up a few grappling feats. But it takes years of dedication, and the right frame of mind, to unlock the ability to keep a razor-edged blade from making a mark on your bare chest, which people can do in real life. There is a difference between learning some self-defense techniques and taking up a way of life that centers around physical and mental training to unlock the secrets of the universe. Even people who have been doing martial art for 30+ years, many of them can't do some of the more amazing feats some can do after only 20. There is a reason for this. You aren't going to be harnessing your Ki after a few classes and a certain color belt, that is for damn sure.
I don't see why being Chaotic is a requirement of a Barbarian. What about the tribes that are relatively civilized but still fight with large weapons and wear bearskins? Are they not Barbarians? Do they suddenly forget how to egt anrgy ebcause they read a book once?(Oh yeah, barbarians also had to be illiterate, more stupid class design)
Well, bare sarks, as they were called, would whip themselves into red-out animalistic frenzy by doing everything from cutting on themselves to, well, things that aren't appropriate to mention on this forum, and they were called bare sarks, not because they wore bearskins (a common misonception) but because they fought completely bare-chested. In fact, a lot of the time they fought plain naked. They held no fear because they were insane with rage because they were so wild there was nothing they wouldn't do.
There is actually an argument that some mystic traditions make that they tapped into the surging primal power of an animal god/spirit when they did this, and to do that, again, required a frame of mind that would allow one to connect with that. Regardless of the veracity of what those people say, it is in arguable that they needed to cultivate a certain frame of mind to enter that battle-rage. That is a major influence on the barbarian class. Granted, they aren't only bare sarks, but the barbarian (like many of the other classes) is an amalgamation of similar ideas with inspiration drawn from real-world sources, and much of the time, the sources that are drawn from for the barbarian weren't literate. Granted, there were exceptions, but not many, and all you had to do as a barbarian was spend two skill points, and bam, automaticaly literate.
I suggest you read Fist of the Northstar.
You're awesome. I don't care what anyone else says. Fist of the Northstar is the kind of pulpyish high heroism-in-the-face-of-difficulty story telling that our world really needs to see more modern representation of. All of its spawn, as amazing as they are, are completely inferior. The only possible exception being Dragon Ball. And yes, you're 100% right. Wizards should do monks like that. In fact when I allow the monk class (rare because I think they should be confined to more of an orient setting) I use a variant that is basically rebuilt from the ground up to be more like that.
Ultimately, this boils down to a question of what one wants. All I am saying, is this is how D&D does it, and this is why. I'm not saying that there aren't systems out there that cater to different desires, and I'm not even saying those systems are bad, but generally, I feel like what D&D does have works, for the main reason that their rules, for the most part, serve as an impetus to aid in drawing one into the narrative. Now, if we really want to talk about screwball rules, I could always bring up 3e death from massive damage.
Nope, I didn't take any action. The DMs intent in the situation was clear. To craft a situation in which the ONLY way out was an Evil act. It was a very poor attempt at a magicians trick...I merely exposed the mirrors being involved instead of playing along.
So, when YOUR PALADIN was presented with a situation where all actions, including inaction, were an evil act, you quit playing.
As if that wasn't what the alignment rules said should happen to you.
As if that wasn't flouncing because you didn't like a DM ruling.
As if that meant you hadn't fallen *because the DM said you fell*.
The point is that there is not such things a situation where any action, including inaction, is a deliberate evil act. At the very least, inaction DOES NOT EQUATE to deliberate and willful action. That's what you fail to see.
To wit: You agree with me. And admit that your defense of the Alignment rules is wrong.
To wit: you have failed, repeatedly, to say anyhting of substance that can be proven objectively true.
Admit that your indictment of alignment is NOTHING MORE than your opinion.
the intent of the DM was to use a system against the player...this is bad regardless of what the system is.
Yes. You are starting to understand why the adults on the forums complain about bad systems...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Hint: "alignment", in practice, exists exclusively as a system against the player.
You've got a lot of gall to imply that the "adults complain about bad systems". Especially since most people who complain do so because they didn't get their way, which is a decidedly juvenile perspective.
Hint: "alignment" does not exist exclusively as a system against the player. To prove that statement to be true, you would need direct word-for-word explicit statements from the RAW stating that. Since you cannot provide that, you are making a false statement. That's how adults use logic and reasoning.
Seriously, the behavior on this board can be absolutely repugnant.
Nope, you've confused "the effects of alignment" with "forum posters point out the inevitable side effects of alignment."
If those side effects were "inevitable", they would also be universal. Since they are NOT universal, they must not be inevitable, ergo, you are making a false claim, sirrah.
if it is anything like 3e RAW, then a paladin does not lose his powers for commiting a neutral act, which is what not detecting would be, under 3e RAW. A paladin only loses his powers when he commits an evil act, or some other violation of his code. (intentional or not, under RAW.)
Yup. And if you let him live, by allowing this evil person to go free free to commit more evil acts, after knowing (or not checking) that they were evil, you've deliberately committed an evil act. You lose Paladin status.
So...by your definition, if a paladin walks past some random stranger in a crowded street, and did not detect evil on them, and they happened to be the head of a secret virgin-sacrificing demon cult, then the paladin loses his powers?
Of course not. And the decision to let goblin children live is not a "deliberate evil act". At worst it's a neutral act, because it's neither good nor evil, but undecided. And paladins do NOT lose their powers for commiting neutral acts, only "willful and intentional" acts of EVIL. Or changing alignment, and alignment doesn't change from one act. If the paladin consistently demonstrated a trend towards neutrality and indecisiveness and failed to uphold good over a period of time of no less than one week, then his alignment would shift, causing him to lose his powers.
But from one act? No.
Not only do you have a flimsy, poor understanding of the rules, you also don't understand basic English reading comprehension.
If you killed him, you murdered someone who had committed no crime to your knowledge. That is AT BEST a deliberate chaotic act (so you lose all powers) and more likely an evil act (so you lose Paladin status permanently).
Even if you were right about the moral/ethical framework of those acts, paladin do not lose powers for commiting chaotic acts that are not also evil. Period. It's in the RAW.
There is no "neutral" act. There is only failing to act (evil) or acting (evil). It's the classic Gygax situation.
Which is why rulesets have changed to include the words "intentional" and "willingly" in the descriptors of paladins. Because a paladin must have committed an act which is both. Failing to commit an evil act, even if it has "evil" consequences, is NOT the deliberate commission of an evil act. To continue to claim this shows a lack of logical comprehension.
So your only solution is to place all the goblin children in a sealed box with a vial of poison, a source of radiation, and a hammer over the vial attached to a geiger counter. Schrodinger's goblins. So the goblin babies are both alive AND dead at the same time until such time as the box is opened.
Ta da! Still a paladin.
But unless you can show where in RAW that alignment exists for the DM to use "against the player" and how it is meant to be used against the player, I am going to have to call your statement false.
Paladin class. The alignment restriction only exists to punish the player for not staying with LG behavior. There is literally no benefit you get from staying with the LG alignment other than "You don't get all your class features removed for no reason."
You (typically) misinterpreted what he asked for. You made a claim about the paladin class based on your own judgements and values. He asked for an ACTUAL RULES QUOTE that explicitly states that alignment "exists for the DM to use 'against the player'" as well as show a rules quote that states how.
You could not do this because it does not exist, and so, you blindly repeated your own dogmatic stance on the matter, with no substance, and no proof.
Par for the course, from you.
Or it only exists to portray the classic holy knight, and staying true to a set of ideals is part of that. See, where I'm having trouble is I can't see where this idea of punishment enters into it at all. You seem to be equating losing paladin abliities due to alignment change or code violation as a punishment,
Last I checked, being told "No! Bad Paladin." and losing all my powers was a punishment.
It's a consequence, surely. A consequence for YOUR actions. Which, assuming a game run using RAW, and not a "gotcha" DM, will only occur when you have intentionally acted in a manner contrary to the oaths and ideals your character swore to uphold. So...since we're not going to assume a Bad DM...you only lose your powers if it's your fault.
ShowIn the novel Darth Bane: Path of Destruction, the main character is a miner named Dessel, who due to a combination of getting screwed over by an outer rim "company" (basically criminals) and some of the worst elements of the Galactic Republic, he turns to the fledgling New Sith Empire.
He starts as a soldier, but later is discovered to be Force-Sensitive. They train him in the ways of the dark side. Well, for a while, he pulls back, because he feels like he is starting to lose control. Its only later that he realizes that losing control is the point, and that serving and mastering the dark side are one and the same. This opens up to him a whole whack of new possibilities, and makes for a wonderful storytelling sequence.
No other class has the high calling to oppose the powers of evil with their very lives either.
Except everyone else in the Paladin's group.
No one's forcing them to adventure with that guy. They can ditch him and recruit a fighter.
Then again, in 3.5, the Barbarian is required chaotic. He has a link to the ever-changing and growing natural world. The monk last I checked was required lawful, as only a disciplined mind can reach enlightenment.
And those rules were equally stupid.
First off, Barbarian did NOT require Chaotic, simply non-lawful.
I don't see why Monks must be Lawful. I can take a few judo classes and emulate a Monk, but I don't suddenly forget how to do a judo chop if I decide to not follow a to-do list that day.
Umm...you don't?
One act never changes your alignment, first of all.
And for gods' sakes READ THE F-ING MATERIAL BEFORE YOU POST ASININE STATEMENTS!
Do you know the rules? At all?
Apparently not. Let me educate you. I'll go slow so you can follow.
Monks.
Do.
Not.
Lose.
Class.
Abilities.
If.
They.
Become.
Non-Lawful.
Was that too quick? I hope not. Read the rules before you say crap that makes it look like you don't even know what you're talking about.
Monkks only lose the ability to CONTINUE advancing in the monk class, symbolizing that they have fallen from the rigorous code of discipline that that path required.
I don't see why being Chaotic is a requirement of a Barbarian. What about the tribes that are relatively civilized but still fight with large weapons and wear bearskins? Are they not Barbarians? Do they suddenly forget how to egt anrgy ebcause they read a book once?(Oh yeah, barbarians also had to be illiterate, more stupid class design)
Again, barbarians needed only to be non-lawful to maintain the ability to rage.
Monks and barbarians have the alignment restrictions that they do, because the developers were attempting to emulate SPECIFIC fantasy archetypes with those class abilities. A barbarian's rage is more than just "getting angry". If that were the case, everyone who roleplayed anger well would get the +4 STR and +4 CON that barbarians do. Their rage is an exhausting, specific combat frenzy that they have trained to achieve. This frenzy requires a certain amount of "letting go" of personal control and restrictions, ESPECIALLY overcoming one's own instinct for survival and self-preservation (which is why they lose AC).
And alignment come FROM action, personality, and outlook. Someone who truly has a Lawful alignment is (according to the developers' intent) incapable of that kind of surrender.
These are problems YOU have with the CLASS design. NOT with alignment. Take it somewhere else.
Or, at the very least, read the material before you post inane garbage.
Monkks only lose the ability to CONTINUE advancing in the monk class, symbolizing that they have fallen from the rigorous code of discipline that that path required.
Right, because everyone knows that real life Monks suddenly can't become better anymore once they stop following an incredibly linear list of of Lawful behavio-oh wait.
Monks and barbarians have the alignment restrictions that they do, because the developers were attempting to emulate SPECIFIC fantasy archetypes with those class abilities.
And what about those of us who want to play a civilized Barbarian?
Or Bruce Lee?
Or a Paladin of Bane?
These are problems YOU have with the CLASS design. NOT with alignment. Take it somewhere else.
Wanting better class design means I have problems with class design?
And I have problems with stupid rules that have no place in a game.
How does it make sense a Barbarian can no longer get angry if he reads a book?
What sense does it make that doing something on the spur of the moment means I forget how to improve my martial arts?
What sense does it make that a Paladin screws up once and loses his class abiltiies?
Face it. The restrictions make no sense, and they have no place in D&D.
Right, because everyone knows that real life Monks suddenly can't become better anymore once they stop following an incredibly linear list of of Lawful behavio-oh wait.
...okay a couple things. First of all...you realize that D&D is not about real life, right? Just want to make sure.
Second of all, EVEN STILL the closest thing in real life to D&D monks you'll get are probably Shaolin monks. And, yeah, ask them and they'll tell you that you'll never achieve enlightenment or perfection if you do not maintain discipline with yourself in your life. It's a founding principle of MOST martial arts...especially the ones that have any spiritual component at all. That whole capstone ability that monks get at 20? That's called enlightenment. Congratulations, you're the buddha. That's what "real life" monks strive for.
If you are conflating "Monks" with "Guy that runs the McDojo down the road from me" you are sorely misunderstanding the intent of the monk class.
And what about those of us who want to play a civilized Barbarian?
Or Bruce Lee?
Or a Paladin of Bane?
Civilized Barbarian is an oxymoron. Someone that flies into a destructive rage where he can't even think straight doesn't exactly jive with "lawful"
EDIT: Just had to point out the silliness of this one. Here is a list of dictionary synonyms for "barbarian" ... adjective. barbarous - barbaric - savage - uncivilized
Uncivilized
So there ya go. That is basically equivalent to asking to play a realistic wizard.
Bruce Lee? Lawful monk. In fact, he hit a plateau, got arrogant, and had to be humbled by someone into deeper introspection to advance further in his life and his studies. He...uh...actually perfectly reinforces the whole "Lawful" thing. The guy was one of the most disciplined people to ever live. Hell, his rigorous work-out regimen was what gave him the body that inspired Arnold Schwarzeneggar to bodybuild.
Paladin of Bane? Lawful Evil Paladin...I believe they exist in a splat book.
I will say though the questions seem to heavily draw from a "But why caaaan't Iiiiiii" mentality. Seriously, it's a game...it might have rules...you might have to obey them. Such is life.
Wanting better class design means I have problems with class design?
And I have problems with stupid rules that have no place in a game.
I have no problems with those rules. And there is nothing inherently bad about the design of them. In fact, I can point to where they are good...they reinforce the tropes that the game is attempting to emulate. So, in that regard, they are good design. If you'd like to discuss game design we can do so at length..just be aware, I went to school for it so I might get verbose.
How does it make sense a Barbarian can no longer get angry if he reads a book?
Your example is either purposefully ridiculous or ignorant. Choose one.
A barb would have to change alignment (something that takes continuous, repeated action on the part of the player) to lose the ability to rage. Why? Because they lose touch with the "inner chaos" that lets them fly into a beserk fury. Makes sense to me.
What sense does it make that doing something on the spur of the moment means I forget how to improve my martial arts?
See above and...uh...further above I guess.
What sense does it make that a Paladin screws up once and loses his class abiltiies?
You get held to high ideals. If you can't uphold them, the class might not be for you. It started out as an advanced class for a reason. Besides, when in doubt, just ask your paladin what the best choice in a situation would be. If they aren't a jerk, they will tell you. If they ARE a jerk, well, god bless ya cuz you're gonna have WAY bigger problems in the game than just losing your paladin powers.
Face it. The restrictions make no sense, and they have no place in D&D.
Face it, I just pointed out how they all make sense.
It's something you don't like. Get over it.
The reasoning really seems to be "I want to pick whatever I want and act however I want without repercussions mechanical or otherwise!". Sorry, but that's not how the game is designed.
Right, because everyone knows that real life Monks suddenly can't become better anymore once they stop following an incredibly linear list of of Lawful behavio-oh wait.
Because lawful alignment represents both the mindset and connection to those necessary powers, yes. That would be like a monk waking up one day and deciding they no longer want to train. It's a case of desire reflected.
And what about those of us who want to play a civilized Barbarian?
You can be civilzed and be non-lawful, you can be civilized and even be chaotic. Hell, you can have those alignments and be more than just civilized, you can be down-right cultured. You can also spend two skill points for literacy.
Or Bruce Lee?
Having read all three of his Fighting Method books and The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, I can confirm this man had a Nietszchian style take on the idea of self-improvement. Calling Bruce Lee hard-core lawful wouldn't have been an understatement.
Or a Paladin of Bane?
You mean a dark knight who serves Bane? See blackguard. They exist. I should also point out that there are variant rules all over the place for other kinds of paladins, and other kinds of dark knights. But generally, dark knights serve either no one but themselves, or they champion the ideals of death and destruction. Paladins are pretty much the opposite.
Wanting better class design means I have problems with class design?
And I have problems with stupid rules that have no place in a game.
All of those bolded parts are 100% subjective. You keep repeating them after your points for them have been shot down too. They have a place, and I have actually demonstrated what function they serve. You have tried to say this can be done purely through narrative, and I didn't disagree with you. You can also do body damage purely through narrative, the casting of magic through narrative, you can do everything through narrative. But then it becomes a question of how much you want to commit to being purely in the realm of narrative, and how much you want to be illustrated by mechanics. Just because you think they are better, doesn't mean they are better, just because you think they are stupid, doesn't mean they are stupid, just because you think they have no place in a game, doesn't mean they have no place in a game.
You haven't actually backed those claims up at all, but you're expecting us to just believe it based on non-universal anecdotes. Do you see the problem here? Not only are you not proving your claims, but you're also commiting a "Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is." We keep asking you to provide RAW, or at the very least sound inductive reasoning, but you don't. The only inductive stance you have taken so far, is that they are meant for punishment, but that doesn't hold, since Wizards likely didn't design this game to punish the players, but designed this game for people to have fun by playing it. See the problem? Your premise is faulty, your argument is faulty, and your conclusion is faulty.
How does it make sense a Barbarian can no longer get angry if he reads a book?
Well, there are two problems with that. D&D isn't always perfectly analogous to the real world, and it isn't meant to be. For example, if you get a running start to jump and grab a rope over a pit, you stop movement when you grab the rope, and momentum does not carry you forward. Secondly, a barbarian doesn't lose any class features at all for spending two skill points to become literate. You can still rage, run fast, and all that other good stuff.
What sense does it make that doing something on the spur of the moment means I forget how to improve my martial arts?
It's not that you forget how, its that you lose drive. The monk stops caring, loses the drive, relaxes discipline, which is represented mechanically by shift in alignment, which is what causes the cessation of advancement. This is what you're saying is a bad, stupid system that has no place in game. Well, its just a mechanical representation of something in the setting like everything else, and like everything else, it does its job adequetly enough to be considered at least marginally useful.
What sense does it make that a Paladin screws up once and loses his class abiltiies?
Perfect sense. But at least you're questioning the quality of the RAW now instead of trying to argue what the RAW is. That is how holy knights work. They are held to higher standards. The paladin code is how those standards are represented. If you don't like it, as always take the advice of the designers and change it, but if you're going to try and make an objective judgment about the quality of that system, you're going to be hard-pressed to prove it true, because it does exactly what it was meant to do, and does it well enough to be reliable. If your standard is higher than that, well, I guess your standard is higher than that and you need to use a different system. But again, saying that different system is better, and actually proving it, are two different things entirely.
Face it. The restrictions make no sense, and they have no place in D&D.
They mechanically represent certain aspects to certain classes, and they do it well enough that they don't cause problems or conflicts within the RAW. Therefore they absolutely do have a place. You may not like the fact that they occupy a place in the RAW, but they do, and they fit rather snug.
Monkks only lose the ability to CONTINUE advancing in the monk class, symbolizing that they have fallen from the rigorous code of discipline that that path required.
Right, because everyone knows that real life Monks suddenly can't become better anymore once they stop following an incredibly linear list of of Lawful behavio-oh wait.Monks and barbarians have the alignment restrictions that they do, because the developers were attempting to emulate SPECIFIC fantasy archetypes with those class abilities.
And what about those of us who want to play a civilized Barbarian?
Or Bruce Lee?
Or a Paladin of Bane?These are problems YOU have with the CLASS design. NOT with alignment. Take it somewhere else.
Wanting better class design means I have problems with class design?
And I have problems with stupid rules that have no place in a game.
How does it make sense a Barbarian can no longer get angry if he reads a book?
What sense does it make that doing something on the spur of the moment means I forget how to improve my martial arts?
What sense does it make that a Paladin screws up once and loses his class abiltiies?
Face it. The restrictions make no sense, and they have no place in D&D.
*applause*
They mechanically represent certain aspects to certain classes, and they do it well enough that they don't cause problems or conflicts within the RAW. Therefore they absolutely do have a place. You may not like the fact that they occupy a place in the RAW, but they do, and they fit rather snug.
No they don't.
They mechanically represent certain aspects to certain classes, and they do it well enough that they don't cause problems or conflicts within the RAW. Therefore they absolutely do have a place. You may not like the fact that they occupy a place in the RAW, but they do, and they fit rather snug.
No they don't.
Astoundingly compelling. Tell me more.
They mechanically represent certain aspects to certain classes, and they do it well enough that they don't cause problems or conflicts within the RAW. Therefore they absolutely do have a place. You may not like the fact that they occupy a place in the RAW, but they do, and they fit rather snug.
No they don't.
Astoundingly compelling. Tell me more.
Name one class that would do worse without alignment mechanics.
Monkks only lose the ability to CONTINUE advancing in the monk class, symbolizing that they have fallen from the rigorous code of discipline that that path required.
Right, because everyone knows that real life Monks suddenly can't become better anymore once they stop following an incredibly linear list of of Lawful behavio-oh wait.Monks and barbarians have the alignment restrictions that they do, because the developers were attempting to emulate SPECIFIC fantasy archetypes with those class abilities.
And what about those of us who want to play a civilized Barbarian?
Or Bruce Lee?
Or a Paladin of Bane?These are problems YOU have with the CLASS design. NOT with alignment. Take it somewhere else.
Wanting better class design means I have problems with class design?
And I have problems with stupid rules that have no place in a game.
How does it make sense a Barbarian can no longer get angry if he reads a book?
What sense does it make that doing something on the spur of the moment means I forget how to improve my martial arts?
What sense does it make that a Paladin screws up once and loses his class abiltiies?
Face it. The restrictions make no sense, and they have no place in D&D.
*applause*
I just used a basic application of logic to shoot all of those very faulty points down. I wish people would applaud me when I made poor arguments. Actually wait no I don't, I wish people would correct me so I could make good, or at least better arguments. Seriously what is commendable about making subjective statements as though they were fact, without even trying to back them up? We keep asking this guy for RAW to prove his points when he makes objective statements about what alignment is there for, he doesn't and then proceeds to fall back on an inductive premise that is just as faulty as his other reasoning.
Then when he finally starts arguing against the system instead of trying to argue his idea of what the nature of the system is, he makes blatantly subjective statements, and doesn't even bother trying to prove them. That is dishonest discussion, and its insulting to the people he is trying to persuade. That is what you're lauding as meritable. You can agree with his opinion if you want, I wouldn't blame you for one second if you did, but when you start praising someone for dirty debate tactics and what is little more than childish shouting, then you and I have a major problem.
Oct 27, 2012 -- 7:25PM, Zaramon wrote:
First, define worse. Then I will. I might even throw in my definition of worse. Again, this all comes back to what kind of experience you are after, and exactly how you want to get it.
Which is exactly why alignment restrictions, codes of conduct, and all that other bull is a terrible idea. They serve no purpose other than to prevent players from getting the kind of experience they want.
If you think Paladins should only be LG, Monks have to be Lawful, or Barbarians have to be Chaotic, then you can make that choice for your character, or if you're the DM, at your table. The rest of us should be free to envision, create, and play OUR characters how WE want. This is the thing; a restricted game only makes a few people happy, because only those who agree with it get what they want. With an open game, everybody is happy, because everybody gets what they want.
The only flavor that matters is the flavor the player gives his character.
Which is exactly why alignment restrictions, codes of conduct, and all that other bull is a terrible idea. They serve no purpose other than to prevent players from getting the kind of experience they want.
You're gonna have a hell of a time proving that but you're welcome to try. And thank you for engaging in the discussion, I really do appreciate it.
If you think Paladins should only be LG, Monks have to be Lawful, or Barbarians have to be Chaotic, then you can make that choice for your character, or if you're the DM, at your table.
Of course I can. I can decide to change, use, or throw out anything I wish. But at what point does a paladin stop being a paladin?
The rest of us should be free to envision, create, and play OUR characters how WE want.
So what if someone wants to play a totemic barbarian with a smite and wildshape ability? Change the rules and make it work. But that isn't the default setting. Someone wants to play a holy knight without a code that doesn't demand a special temperment? Well, that's a pretty extreme departure from the idea of a holy knight. I'm not arguing that you could use a different system to represent that, but mechanically, the idea of a class held to high ideals that draws power from the energies that called him, is going to wind up amounting to the same thing. If he turns his back on those powers, of course they are going to take his power away. If he breaks his code, of course he is going to need to atone. That is part of what being a holy knight is, and the quest for atonement is a totally viable role-playing option.
Now your next argument will be the same one made earlier, that you can do that through narrative and therefore don't need mechanics. My response is the same. You don't need to do any of this through mechanics, not even bodily health and damage. You could make it all freeform, but the mechanical representations, and the symbols, help draw people into the story and into the world. Again, you could play it straight and focus on the positives, put the paladin in hard situations and allow the player to demonstrate how one draws strength from those ideals and relies on those powers of law and good. With a mechanical system in place to represent that, it becomes much easier to manage, and again, its easier to draw people in that way.
This is the thing; a restricted game only makes a few people happy, because only those who agree with it get what they want. With an open game, everybody is happy, because everybody gets what they want.
This argument doesn't hold. In any game there is restrictions and boundaries. Its called the framework. If there are no restrictions, then you can do anything. If D&D should be a game where you can give everyone what they want, and make anything anyone wants a part of the game, then D&D shouldn't restrict taking out the literal real-world garbage as a game-play element. That doesn't make any sense. What if I want a wizard that wears full plate? That doesn't follow. See the problem with this? If there are no lines drawn, no boundaries, then identity becomes lost. Nothing is special or unique anymore, everything is the same, therefore nothing matters. That's called egalitarianism, and as a way of thinking, it seriously needs to go the way of the dodo.
Which is exactly why alignment restrictions, codes of conduct, and all that other bull is a terrible idea. They serve no purpose other than to prevent players from getting the kind of experience they want.
If you think Paladins should only be LG, Monks have to be Lawful, or Barbarians have to be Chaotic, then you can make that choice for your character, or if you're the DM, at your table. The rest of us should be free to envision, create, and play OUR characters how WE want. This is the thing; a restricted game only makes a few people happy, because only those who agree with it get what they want. With an open game, everybody is happy, because everybody gets what they want.
The only flavor that matters is the flavor the player gives his character.
Lawful Good serves to give a overall definition of a Paladin (stereotypical Knight in Shining Armor, Righteous Warrior etc)
You don't have to go that route though, You can choose other alternative classes of Paladins, there are several, or you can talk to your DM to allow other allignments with a more complex Code of Conduct or that represents a specific cause or Deity. If You want to play a CN Monk and bring it to your DM about a Drunk-Fu Martial Artist being CN, then power to you
Allignment can be used by the player, not to restrict them, but to define them. If you want to play a Righteous Priest, then you choose to play a LG Cleric, if you wish to play your cleric in other ways you can be CG, NG, CN, it is up to the Player to define which allignment best empowers their character.
Salla you can claim "everybody gets what they want" but in reality you are calling to just ban classes like Paladins. That is hardly an "open" I run open games where everyone is happy and I use allignment.
Name one class that would do worse without alignment mechanics.
Clerics.
Clerics use the allignment mechanic to define their beliefs, either the Deity they worship or the cause they worship. Now because D&D understandably only needs to few sentences to explain it's deities, alignment becomes a very powerful tool, placing the deities in an alignment spectrum goes along way to summing up their religion.
I want to be a Cleric promoting PEace and harmony, fellowship and strict disiplined moral values, so I choose to be LG, worship Pelor and I choose The Good and Healing Domains, I turn Undead and Spontaneously cast Heals.
I want to be a Cleric that teaches Joy and fertility, Life is good and the pursuit of hapiness is all that matters, I am CN and Worship The laughing Rogue with the Luck and Trickery Domains
I want to be a Holy Crusader, I follow Heronious, LG with the War Domain (Gain Longsword Sword Proficency and Weapon Focus Longsword) and the Good Domain.
As a Cleric I teach the world is ending and we must repent, Death is the way of Life, I worship Nerull and am True Neutral, My Domains are Death and Trickery, I Rebuke Undead and Spontaneously cast Inflict Spells.
In addition Clerics cannot cast spells of the opposing alignement, which means these clerics all have different restrictions there to.
The Allignment system gives this class many, many options.
Name one class that would do worse without alignment mechanics.
Clerics.
Clerics use the allignment mechanic to define their beliefs, either the Deity they worship or the cause they worship. Now because D&D understandably only needs to few sentences to explain it's deities, alignment becomes a very powerful tool, placing the deities in an alignment spectrum goes along way to summing up their religion.
I want to be a Cleric promoting PEace and harmony, fellowship and strict disiplined moral values, so I choose to be LG, worship Pelor and I choose The Good and Healing Domains, I turn Undead and Spontaneously cast Heals.
I want to be a Cleric that teaches Joy and fertility, Life is good and the pursuit of hapiness is all that matters, I am CN and Worship The laughing Rogue with the Luck and Trickery Domains
I want to be a Holy Crusader, I follow Heronious, LG with the War Domain (Gain Longsword Sword Proficency and Weapon Focus Longsword) and the Good Domain.
As a Cleric I teach the world is ending and we must repent, Death is the way of Life, I worship Nerull and am True Neutral, My Domains are Death and Trickery, I Rebuke Undead and Spontaneously cast Inflict Spells.
In addition Clerics cannot cast spells of the opposing alignement, which means these clerics all have different restrictions there to.
The Allignment system gives this class many, many options.
I don't see how any of that requires alignment mechanics.
What exactly would be different if the alignment mechanics were removed, but I decided to follow the alignment in your examples and restricted myself from casting spells of the opposite alignment of my own choice? What exactly changes?
Name one class that would do worse without alignment mechanics.
Clerics.
Clerics use the allignment mechanic to define their beliefs, either the Deity they worship or the cause they worship. Now because D&D understandably only needs to few sentences to explain it's deities, alignment becomes a very powerful tool, placing the deities in an alignment spectrum goes along way to summing up their religion.
I want to be a Cleric promoting PEace and harmony, fellowship and strict disiplined moral values, so I choose to be LG, worship Pelor and I choose The Good and Healing Domains, I turn Undead and Spontaneously cast Heals.
I want to be a Cleric that teaches Joy and fertility, Life is good and the pursuit of hapiness is all that matters, I am CN and Worship The laughing Rogue with the Luck and Trickery Domains
I want to be a Holy Crusader, I follow Heronious, LG with the War Domain (Gain Longsword Sword Proficency and Weapon Focus Longsword) and the Good Domain.
As a Cleric I teach the world is ending and we must repent, Death is the way of Life, I worship Nerull and am True Neutral, My Domains are Death and Trickery, I Rebuke Undead and Spontaneously cast Inflict Spells.
In addition Clerics cannot cast spells of the opposing alignement, which means these clerics all have different restrictions there to.
The Allignment system gives this class many, many options.
I don't see how any of that requires alignment mechanics.
What exactly would be different if the alignment mechanics were removed, but I decided to follow the alignment in your examples and restricted myself from casting spells of the opposite alignment of my own choice? What exactly changes?
I'm confused now, your asking what would happen if alignment mechanics were removed but you played in all ways as if they were? Why would you remove them if you're going to follow them anyway?
So what if someone wants to play a totemic barbarian with a smite and wildshape ability? Change the rules and make it work. But that isn't the default setting. Someone wants to play a holy knight without a code that doesn't demand a special temperment?
As far as the barbarian example goes, simple. Assuming this would be how it works in 5e, play a Barbarian with levels in Druid and Paladin. Or for 4e rules, play a Druid multiclass Paladin and call yourself a Barbarian while acting as such.
And why are you comparing something like that with a Paladin code? A Paladin code should be completely optional and determined by either a module or by the player's decision. Hell, in the Paladin class write-up, just have a sidebar that says "Depending on the campaign, your DM may require your Paladin to follow a code of conduct. See page x for a few examples of Paladin codes(then perhaps have 3 codes, one for each LG, LE, and CG just to give them an idea.), or speak with your DM about other codes you can follow, to be determined by you and the DM."
Name one class that would do worse without alignment mechanics.
Clerics.
Clerics use the allignment mechanic to define their beliefs, either the Deity they worship or the cause they worship. Now because D&D understandably only needs to few sentences to explain it's deities, alignment becomes a very powerful tool, placing the deities in an alignment spectrum goes along way to summing up their religion.
I want to be a Cleric promoting PEace and harmony, fellowship and strict disiplined moral values, so I choose to be LG, worship Pelor and I choose The Good and Healing Domains, I turn Undead and Spontaneously cast Heals.
I want to be a Cleric that teaches Joy and fertility, Life is good and the pursuit of hapiness is all that matters, I am CN and Worship The laughing Rogue with the Luck and Trickery Domains
I want to be a Holy Crusader, I follow Heronious, LG with the War Domain (Gain Longsword Sword Proficency and Weapon Focus Longsword) and the Good Domain.
As a Cleric I teach the world is ending and we must repent, Death is the way of Life, I worship Nerull and am True Neutral, My Domains are Death and Trickery, I Rebuke Undead and Spontaneously cast Inflict Spells.
In addition Clerics cannot cast spells of the opposing alignement, which means these clerics all have different restrictions there to.
The Allignment system gives this class many, many options.
I don't see how any of that requires alignment mechanics.
What exactly would be different if the alignment mechanics were removed, but I decided to follow the alignment in your examples and restricted myself from casting spells of the opposite alignment of my own choice? What exactly changes?
I'm confused now, your asking what would happen if alignment mechanics were removed but you played in all ways as if they were? Why would you remove them if you're going to follow them anyway?
To prove a point. I can follow an alignment without being restricted to it or having any mechanics tied to it and absolutely nothing changes. The alignment restrictions change nothing, add nothing, and only hinder certain character concepts.
Name one class that would do worse without alignment mechanics.
Clerics.
Clerics use the allignment mechanic to define their beliefs, either the Deity they worship or the cause they worship. Now because D&D understandably only needs to few sentences to explain it's deities, alignment becomes a very powerful tool, placing the deities in an alignment spectrum goes along way to summing up their religion.
I want to be a Cleric promoting PEace and harmony, fellowship and strict disiplined moral values, so I choose to be LG, worship Pelor and I choose The Good and Healing Domains, I turn Undead and Spontaneously cast Heals.
I want to be a Cleric that teaches Joy and fertility, Life is good and the pursuit of hapiness is all that matters, I am CN and Worship The laughing Rogue with the Luck and Trickery Domains
I want to be a Holy Crusader, I follow Heronious, LG with the War Domain (Gain Longsword Sword Proficency and Weapon Focus Longsword) and the Good Domain.
As a Cleric I teach the world is ending and we must repent, Death is the way of Life, I worship Nerull and am True Neutral, My Domains are Death and Trickery, I Rebuke Undead and Spontaneously cast Inflict Spells.
In addition Clerics cannot cast spells of the opposing alignement, which means these clerics all have different restrictions there to.
The Allignment system gives this class many, many options.
I don't see how any of that requires alignment mechanics.
What exactly would be different if the alignment mechanics were removed, but I decided to follow the alignment in your examples and restricted myself from casting spells of the opposite alignment of my own choice? What exactly changes?
I'm confused now, your asking what would happen if alignment mechanics were removed but you played in all ways as if they were? Why would you remove them if you're going to follow them anyway?
To prove a point. I can follow an alignment without being restricted to it or having any mechanics tied to it and absolutely nothing changes. The alignment restrictions change nothing, add nothing, and only hinder certain character concepts.
Okay, I get point one, that makes sense to me. I don't need to have positive or negative consequences attached to changing alignment to not change alignment either. On this, we are in total agreement. This makes sense 100%. You're second point is where I run into trouble. I think having "alignment restrictions" on the classes that have them is a cool way to give some identity to who they are, especially something like the paladin. If they didn't exist, then in reality they don't have that element of their identity, you might be playing it like it is, but it still doesn't. They definitely add something. As for them hindering certain character concepts...well, yeah, the idea of fixed classes also hinders certain character concepts. Hindering character concepts isn't always a bad thing.
Not being able to do something in a game isn't always a problem. For example, me not being able to play a reaper in Mass Effect isn't a problem. Granted, I'm taking the argument to the extreme, and almost engaging in Reductio ad absurdium, but I'm not going to go so far as criticizing that point, because I don't think that's the point you're trying to make. The point you're trying to make I think, is that the alignment restrictions prevent certain quality and worth-while character concepts that fit within the spectrum of heroic fantasy. If that's what you're going for, then you're going to have to show me how that's the case. In short, I'm still waiting for the meat of your argument, so I can test it. Even if I can see and account for the possibility, that doesn't necessarily mean I am sold yet. I really want you to try and sell me on this idea.
As far as the barbarian example goes, simple. Assuming this would be how it works in 5e, play a Barbarian with levels in Druid and Paladin. Or for 4e rules, play a Druid multiclass Paladin and call yourself a Barbarian while acting as such.
I like the 3e DMG's solution of trading out class features, myself. It streamlines things. I'm not opposed to modulation, but I do think the default should be a certain way. As for what you have proposed, this character wouldn't be a spellcaster, just a barbarian with a smite-style attack and the ability to turn into a bear. You become a paladin or a druid, you get all of the class features involved at that level. What if that character concept doesn't include those class features? It still isn't what I would have wanted.
And why are you comparing something like that with a Paladin code?
I was trying to make a point about restrictions and how they aren't necessarily bad things.
A Paladin code should be completely optional and determined by either a module or by the player's decision.
High standards that have to be met and a necessary disciplined and altruistic temperment are always requirements to be a holy knight. Those are core elements of the concept, and so they are core mechanics of the paladin class that represents that iconic image. A paladin that functions without those things is not a paladin, its something else. It's like the brain and heart for a person. Without those, you have nothing but a dead husk.
Hell, in the Paladin class write-up, just have a sidebar that says "Depending on the campaign, your DM may require your Paladin to follow a code of conduct. See page x for a few examples of Paladin codes(then perhaps have 3 codes, one for each LG, LE, and CG just to give them an idea.), or speak with your DM about other codes you can follow, to be determined by you and the DM."
That's nice for variant rules, and those could totally be in there, but the core identity of the class that represents the holy knight should not be sacrificed. I should also point out that there really isn't a such thing as a paladin of another alignment. There are dark knight, sometimes known as blood knights, but they are not just the same class with another alignment and slightly different class features. They are altogether different beasts. This idea that you have of a paladin without those traits, isn't what a paladin is supposed to be. You would be removing the paladin and leaving something else entirely in its place.
Or it only exists to portray the classic holy knight, and staying true to a set of ideals is part of that.
Here is the thing. You can do this without the letters LG on your sheet. If you want to play a holy knight who sticks to a set of ideals or a code feel free. I doubt anyone would stop you, and most DMs would love it.
All those wasted alignment pages where they talk about how you have to follow legitimate authority to be LG could be replaced with a section on designing a code of conduct. Say "Many characters follow a code of conduct, especially knights or samurai. Here are some sample codes you could follow". And the game would be hugely improved. Instead we are told that to be LG we have to respect legit authority. Now we get to have a debate on what makes authority legit, also if you or your DM misunderstand this, you have your powers taken. Fun times ahead.
Also, guys seriously, learn how to quote or stop doing it.
Astoundingly compelling. Tell me more.
I wasn't going to, because frankly the old school "we must have alignment!" crowd's mind is made up. There's no point in attempting to discuss thing with them because their minds are closed to the subject. To them, it's always been that ways, so it should continue to be that way. Frankly I don't think it's possible to change your minds, so there's no point in going into more detail.
But I'll humor you, even though many other people have made far more compelling arguments then I am able to.
The rules should be there to determine the physics of the system. Things like class composition, making attacks, initiative, etc...all the parts of the game that are governed by dice rolling need rules to govern them. For example, if you remove the part of "how to make an attack" the system breaks down. The rule is nessessary.
Roleplaying a character should /not/ have rules covering them because the system does not break down without them. If you remove alignment restrictions on say a paladin, does it suddenly break the game? Does the paladin no longer work? Nope, still works fine. Therefore, the rule is un-necessary.
So, the heart of your arguments are one of the following:
A) I'm going to tell you how to play your character and if I disagree with it, I can break it since I am the all powerful DM
B) It's always been that way, and I can't imagine a world where it isn't that way.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I wasn't going to, because frankly the old school "we must have alignment!" crowd's mind is made up. There's no point in attempting to discuss thing with them because their minds are closed to the subject. To them, it's always been that ways, so it should continue to be that way. Frankly I don't think it's possible to change your minds, so there's no point in going into more detail.
But I'll humor you, even though many other people have made far more compelling arguments then I am able to.
The rules should be there to determine the physics of the system. Things like class composition, making attacks, initiative, etc...all the parts of the game that are governed by dice rolling need rules to govern them. For example, if you remove the part of "how to make an attack" the system breaks down. The rule is nessessary.
Roleplaying a character should /not/ have rules covering them because the system does not break down without them. If you remove alignment restrictions on say a paladin, does it suddenly break the game? Does the paladin no longer work? Nope, still works fine. Therefore, the rule is un-necessary.
So, the heart of your arguments are one of the following:
A) I'm going to tell you how to play your character and if I disagree with it, I can break it since I am the all powerful DM
B) It's always been that way, and I can't imagine a world where it isn't that way.
And this is the core of the problem with MUCH discussion on this board. You are assuming a vast swath of things instead of just talking to a person. In fact, in doing so, you have become the close-minded one. I am open to the idea that alignment is bad, but this cannot be proven through subjective arguments of "One time a DM did it not good to me!"...that says nothing of a system. People say alignment doesn't have a point, Zaramon and myself have pointed out NUMEROUS times what exactly that point is. People say it can be removed without changing anything, but we have also pointed out how it certainly does change things because of the tropes and mechanics directly tied to alignment. The problem is, almost everyone else is arguing from an emotional, subjective standpoint.
I have no emotion in this debate. Alignment is a tool that is a part of the system of D&D...and I have used it for 15 years without a problem. I have also run other systems (including some that are near-identical to D&D) without alignment and also never had a problem with them.
A) I'm going to tell you how to play your character and if I disagree with it, I can break it since I am the all powerful DM
This is where you show your bias. This board is RIDDLED with this mentality. We get it. We ALL GET IT. You guys apparently had bad DMs in the past...or you guys went to summer camp and a DM chased you with a chainsaw in an attempt to murder you and your friends as a part of some curse...or DMs invaded your home planet and enslaved your people. Yeah, yeah we GET IT.
You have to GET OVER IT. Not once have I or Zaramon said ANYTHING about disagreeing with a player. Nor have we said anything about the alignment system being built to punish people. We've argued against that actually. Anyone that uses alignment to punish people is a BAD DM that doesn't know what they're doing. I pointed out how I have walked away from bad DMs doing just that and basically got told I'm a bad person for doing that...think about that, someone on this board said I was in the wrong for walking away from a bad DM. Why? Because he disagreed with me so he had to try and make everything I did wrong, regardless of how ludicrous it becomes. That is the sort of reasoning going on around here. It's insane.
At ANY POINT in my game (and I am sure Zaramons) a PC that has restricted alignment requirements or guidelines can simply ask "Hmm I'm not sure...would A be the lawful choice or would B? Seems fuzzy" and I will either reply "Well what do you feel? And why?" OR I will say "A is lawful, B is neutral" OR I will say "Neither A nor B is lawful. C would be lawful" or whatever. Why? Because I'm not a bad DM. Nor do I use alignment to "gotcha!" players and punish them. Do some people? Yeah probably. They also use the magic system, class builds, DM fiat and everything else under the sun to play "gotcha!" and punish their players for their own arbitrary immature reasons. In this way, alignment is just a methodology for people making decisions.
Your actual problem is with the system NOT the DM. And to that, all I can say is, suck it up. I wish Adon in Street Fighter had a fireball. It'd make him stupid good. But he doesn't. Because it's not in the game. It's not in the system. When someone picks a paladin they are choosing the class as it exists...Lawful Good restrictions and all. Now, if they want to work with their DM to change or tweak some stuff that is within their right just like it's within the right of any player to ask anything like that. What isn't fair, however, is demanding the system change that just "because". Why have more subtractive design work? The design of the paladin along with its code is a concious trope identity design choice. It is because that's how the designers want it because it reinforces the concept inherent in the paladin.
The paladin class is that of a holy knight...taking away restrictions on behavior reduces the accuracy of its flavor. At some points in games you have to abide by the rules. I do not understand why this is SUCH A HANG UP for some people. I have played several paladins...it's my favorite class...and I've NEVER had an issue playing one in-game. Have I had issues with a DM or two? Yeah but they were making issues for EVERYONE. When I was with good DMs and I chose to be a paladin in a game with them it didn't suddenly make a huge issue. Not once.
The argument "But I should be able to play my character how I waaaaant" doesn't hold much water with me. I played my paladins how I wanted...and did so within the confines of the paladin code and alignment. Were they all the same guy? Heck no. When I had to not do something Evil I never looked at the DM and said "This isn't fair!"...it was perfectly fair. It's what I signed up for. It's basically the same as if I were playing a fighter and said "But I want to cast a spell this ONE TIME! Why can't I?! This isn't fair!"
Essentially, when you are complaining to the DM that them adhering to the rules "isn't fair" you have completely lost the basis of your argument.
However, it's also up to the DM to keep the game fair. Does this mean there is room for abuse with alignment? Yes, just like everything else in a game run by a human being. So this all just goes back to one of my oft-repeated points...D&D needs to do a much better job of preparing DM's to run games. The connection between Solid Mechanics and Bad Gameplay is Poor Execution...and the DM is that middle point.
B) It's always been that way, and I can't imagine a world where it isn't that way.
You have only experienced alignment as bad and you can't imagine a world where it isn't that way. I am telling you, be not afraid, it can be done and it's easy. You've just had bad experiences. Instead of calling for the extermination of all bees because you got stung one time, come over here instead and enjoy some honey. It's great.
As a final note, I have created in the DM's forum, a thread SOLELY devoted to helping people having alignment issues in their game. I did it to help people because I have never had problems with alignment and know how to use it. I did it without anyone asking and without expecting anything in return. People said alignment was a problem, I happily offered to help people with that problem. While there have been a couple legitimate questions in it, the VAST majority of replies have been attacks on me or simply attempts to derail the thread (or both). Now, I want you to answer this question...I really do...what does it say about close-mindedness and the forum in general when someone that puts up a thread to try and help people and answer questions receives that response?
Tying it to the mechanics though is bad. You say you and Zaramon have given many examples of how it "works" but frankly, you haven't. The very best you've done is presenting a logical argument that the monk's abilities are tied to his dedication discipline. I applaud that, but frankly it doesn't get it done. Having a non-lawful monk doesn't harm anything, does it? Be not afraid, answer honestly. That chaotic monk isn't going to break anything. Tell me what /breaks/ when you don't have a lawful monk, and I'll listen. You can't, because the answer is nothing. You're going to spout "It's a rule, suck it up cupcake", just like you have been...because you have no basis for your claims that it's an essential mechanic to make the game enjoyable.
As you can see, the honey is here on my side, where people have the freedom to do what they want and enjoy the game, without arbitrary and un-necessary restrictions. I've been on your side. I've been on mine. The grass is greener on my side of the fence which is why I crossed it to begin with.
Name one class that would do worse without alignment mechanics.
Clerics.
Clerics use the allignment mechanic to define their beliefs, either the Deity they worship or the cause they worship. Now because D&D understandably only needs to few sentences to explain it's deities, alignment becomes a very powerful tool, placing the deities in an alignment spectrum goes along way to summing up their religion.
I want to be a Cleric promoting PEace and harmony, fellowship and strict disiplined moral values, so I choose to be LG, worship Pelor and I choose The Good and Healing Domains, I turn Undead and Spontaneously cast Heals.
I want to be a Cleric that teaches Joy and fertility, Life is good and the pursuit of hapiness is all that matters, I am CN and Worship The laughing Rogue with the Luck and Trickery Domains
I want to be a Holy Crusader, I follow Heronious, LG with the War Domain (Gain Longsword Sword Proficency and Weapon Focus Longsword) and the Good Domain.
As a Cleric I teach the world is ending and we must repent, Death is the way of Life, I worship Nerull and am True Neutral, My Domains are Death and Trickery, I Rebuke Undead and Spontaneously cast Inflict Spells.
In addition Clerics cannot cast spells of the opposing alignement, which means these clerics all have different restrictions there to.
The Allignment system gives this class many, many options.
I don't see how any of that requires alignment mechanics.
What exactly would be different if the alignment mechanics were removed, but I decided to follow the alignment in your examples and restricted myself from casting spells of the opposite alignment of my own choice? What exactly changes?
Eberron demonstrated admirably that clerics do not need alignment restrictions.
Exactly what Salla said. They do not need alignment to determine their behavior, they have their God's dogma and beliefs. That gives the player much more room to interpret and roleplay that interaction with their god/goddess. Alignment as a tool = good. Alignment as a requirement = bad.
The spell restriction for clerics was even dumber. I broke a plot with them, and I wasn't even a spellcaster.
"We believe that an acolyte of Vecna has infiltrated our temple of Pelor!"
"Bring out all the acolytes and tell them to cast Protection from Evil. The one that can't? He's your guy."
But we're supposed to somehow believe that not having choices to make is somehow better then being able to make our own decisions.
Is there a correct response to that statement other than mocking laughter?
Here is the thing. You can do this without the letters LG on your sheet. If you want to play a holy knight who sticks to a set of ideals or a code feel free. I doubt anyone would stop you, and most DMs would love it.
I'm not going to type out the same response to this argument a fourth time. I've already dealt with this point. I will summarize and say its an important enough mechanic to that class and the concept, to, well be represented mechanically.
All those wasted alignment pages where they talk about how you have to follow legitimate authority to be LG could be replaced with a section on designing a code of conduct. Say "Many characters follow a code of conduct, especially knights or samurai. Here are some sample codes you could follow". And the game would be hugely improved. Instead we are told that to be LG we have to respect legit authority. Now we get to have a debate on what makes authority legit, also if you or your DM misunderstand this, you have your powers taken. Fun times ahead.
Also, guys seriously, learn how to quote or stop doing it.
Well, I will keep quoting however I please, and you're going to have to back up those claims that you're making. These blanket statements that the game will be improved aren't being backed up by deductive reasoning, inductive, pr even shaky evidence. Don't get me wrong, what you're saying about variant codes and rules for building them is good, good enough that its actually been done before, a few times. But the elements that the mechanics of a code and required lawful good alignment represent for the paladin, are important enough to be represented by mechanics. The fact that there are mechanics in place just makes it easier on people.
I don't see why being Chaotic is a requirement of a Barbarian. What about the tribes that are relatively civilized but still fight with large weapons and wear bearskins? Are they not Barbarians? Do they suddenly forget how to egt anrgy ebcause they read a book once?(Oh yeah, barbarians also had to be illiterate, more stupid class design)
For that matter, how about the tribes that are NOT relatively civilized but have every moment of their lives guided by tribal customs and traditions? Aren't they Lawful?
But the elements that the mechanics of a code and required lawful good alignment represent for the paladin, are important enough to be represented by mechanics.
Cross out every alignment word in Paladin and replace with another, or just leave it gone. The Paladin is still fully functional.
I'm not going to type out the same response to this argument a fourth time. I've already dealt with this point. I will summarize and say its an important enough mechanic to that class and the concept, to, well be represented mechanically.
Well, I will keep quoting however I please, and you're going to have to back up those claims that you're making. These blanket statements that the game will be improved aren't being backed up by deductive reasoning, inductive, pr even shaky evidence. Don't get me wrong, what you're saying about variant codes and rules for building them is good, good enough that its actually been done before, a few times. But the elements that the mechanics of a code and required lawful good alignment represent for the paladin, are important enough to be represented by mechanics. The fact that there are mechanics in place just makes it easier on people.
No, they are not important enough to be represented by mechanics. Being LG has nothing at all to do with being a paladin. You say that the paladin is a shining knight, a paragon of virtue. I say a paladin is a champion of his or her god/goddess. A god may not be lawful good, therefore a LG character is not necessarily representative of their champion. If Bane wants to have a champion, he's a god and he can do what he wants, and he can grant paladin powers to whomever he wishes.
The differences between your way and my way? Your way is take it or leave it, my way has room for both of us.
Seriously, you guys sound like old communists reminiscing about the good ol' days before glasnost when you could just oppress the peasants and send them to the gulag if they disagree with you.
I wasn't going to, because frankly the old school "we must have alignment!" crowd's mind is made up. There's no point in attempting to discuss thing with them because their minds are closed to the subject. To them, it's always been that ways, so it should continue to be that way. Frankly I don't think it's possible to change your minds, so there's no point in going into more detail.
I've been asking for a compelling argument for some time now, but no one has managed to back up their erronious claims about alignment using RAW, and no one has come up with a compelling case for why alignment shouldn't be a default mechanic. If you've got something, I'm all ears.
But I'll humor you, even though many other people have made far more compelling arguments then I am able to.
The most compelling arguments that I have seen have amounted alignment is bad because it restricts player choice, and that people can create their own codes. The first argument doesn't hold water in a major way. The second one is nice enough point that it has already been done without compromising the identity of the paladin. If you can't come up with any better, you won't be convincing anyone.
The rules should be there to determine the physics of the system. Things like class composition, making attacks, initiative, etc...all the parts of the game that are governed by dice rolling need rules to govern them. For example, if you remove the part of "how to make an attack" the system breaks down. The rule is nessessary.
And here you were saying you wouldn't be able to come up with a better argument. That said, more than just dice rolls are governed by mechanics. Things like tremorsense, some classes have the ability to become native outsiders, and then there are energy types to consider. What you're arguing is that core mechanics are sacred cows but that everything else can be modified or discarded. Well you know what? You're right. This actually goes back to the example that I made earlier about the totemic barbarian. People can and should modify classes to suit their tastes and role-playing goals. If someone wants to play something other than a paladin they should go for it, but there shouldn't be any illusions that you are in fact getting something other than a paladin.
Roleplaying a character should /not/ have rules covering them because the system does not break down without them. If you remove alignment restrictions on say a paladin, does it suddenly break the game? Does the paladin no longer work? Nope, still works fine. Therefore, the rule is un-necessary.
So your argument is that the game is still able to function without it in place, so it should be removed. Well, my counter-argument is just because the game can function without something, doesn't mean that the thing it can function without is a bad thing. You're arguing that a minimalist approach to mechanical systems is the best approach. It's not a bad starting point, but if that is what you're going to argue, then that is what you're going to have to prove.
In a nutshell this is actually what people on your side have been saying, but no one has actually made a serious attempt to back that up yet. You say unnecessary so it should go. I say unnecessary shouldn't be the determining factor in whether or not one could keep a rule. I could name a host of rules that are unnecessary to the game's function, but simplified and less complex doesn't always mean better. Sometimes it just means less-developed.
I have already repeatedly made the point that the idea of having to hold to ideals to maintain power, and drawing power from the forces that called you, are central and important enough concepts to the holy knight, which appears in the form of the paladin class, that they deserve mechanical representation. These mechanics being mechanically represented in the form of spells and abilities powered by law and good, serve to aid one in diving into the experience of playing a paladin. People have also argued for the tailored creation of codes for playing paladins. The default paladin code perfectly captures the spirit and essence of the holy knight. Any other code would be something other than that.
So, the heart of your arguments are one of the following:
A) I'm going to tell you how to play your character and if I disagree with it, I can break it since I am the all powerful DM
I am probably the most vocal person on this forum for advocating the adherence to rule 0, which basically says when possible, rule in favor of the player. I have let players trade out class features before. I have loosened alignment restrictions before. All this stuff I have done when I wanted to achieve a certain effect, but the defaults are the way they are for a reason, because they are meant to portray something. I made the changes that I did when I wanted to portray something else. That is the beauty of modularity.
Say the paladin class didn't exist, and I wanted to play a holy knight, I would create a code of conduct, assign it to the fighter, and give it abilities similar to the cleric...or I could just go with something that already fits the concept perfectly that has already been made. All removing the code and the lawful good requirement does is make people who want to play paladins do more work. For those of you who want to play something other than a paladin, with paladin-like abilities, the foundation is already there, it just requires a little modularity.
The problem I have with that idea that alignments keep players from doing things, so does every class. In every game, there are always, rules, restrictions, and boundaries. Limits that are agreed to on how the players can act, or what they can do. Removing these limits is removing parts of what make the game the game, and doing that in the name of egalitarianism will only make the game more homogenized, less complex, and less engaging. Earlier someone said anything that limits player choice should be removed. So what about class/cross-class skills? What about feat requirements? What about the requirements for unleashing certain powers on a magic weapon? With a statement like that, where do you draw the line? When is it okay to say, "The rules don't let you do that and I'm not changing the way they work so you can have your way?" This argument for egalitarian choice just doesn't hold, and this is probably the fourth or fifth time I have addressed it.
B) It's always been that way, and I can't imagine a world where it isn't that way.
You mean "Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true?" That's a logical fallacy sir, and as I pointed out once on these forums, I view them much like beastiality. Some may like to see, some may like to take part, but that doesn't mean I don't wretch every time I think about it. I don't doubt other people will argue from that faulty stand-point, but I promise you, you won't see me doing that.
Though, if something has been around for a long time, it could be an indication of merit. Whenever something lasts, it should be looked into why it lasts. If it has a good reason for lasting as long as it does, it will bear out in examination, generally. But assuming that something is good because of tradition is just silly.
But the elements that the mechanics of a code and required lawful good alignment represent for the paladin, are important enough to be represented by mechanics.
Cross out every alignment word in Paladin and replace with another, or just leave it gone. The Paladin is still fully functional.
But then it isn't the holy knight motif that the class is designed to represent. Sure, it works, it just isnt the same thing that it used to be.
Oct 28, 2012 -- 11:37AM, crzyhawk wrote:
Yeah, yeah it kind of does. It's a central concept to the idea of the holy knight, which is the idea that the paladin represents.
In your eyes. Your perception is not necessarily reality.
I don't want it changed. I want to have the freedom to interpret that myself. Why is the freedom to choose myself so offensive to you?
You already have that freedom. Talk to the DM. Change what you want changed.
Subtractive design is FAR more simple than having to make things whole-clothe and incorporate them.
Why throw more work on your DM and yourself? "Hey I want a different kind of paladin with a different kind of code or WHATEVER" "Okay lets tweak what exists" vs "Hey I want to play like a holy knight...the sort that serves a code and holy ideals." "Uh...okay well lets start making one and figure out how all that works"
I don't want it changed. I want to have the freedom to interpret that myself. Why is the freedom to choose myself so offensive to you?
You already have that freedom. Talk to the DM. Change what you want changed.
Subtractive design is FAR more simple than having to make things whole-clothe and incorporate them.
Why throw more work on your DM and yourself? "Hey I want a different kind of paladin with a different kind of code or WHATEVER" "Okay lets tweak what exists" vs "Hey I want to play like a holy knight...the sort that serves a code and holy ideals." "Uh...okay well lets start making one and figure out how all that works"
Or I can just delete the un-needed rule, and not worry about it at all. I can play my character however I want.
I don't want it changed. I want to have the freedom to interpret that myself. Why is the freedom to choose myself so offensive to you?
You already have that freedom. Talk to the DM. Change what you want changed.
Subtractive design is FAR more simple than having to make things whole-clothe and incorporate them.
Why throw more work on your DM and yourself? "Hey I want a different kind of paladin with a different kind of code or WHATEVER" "Okay lets tweak what exists" vs "Hey I want to play like a holy knight...the sort that serves a code and holy ideals." "Uh...okay well lets start making one and figure out how all that works"
Or I can just delete the un-needed rule, and not worry about it at all. I can play my character however I want.
You can ALREADY DO THAT. You can throw the rule and the tropes it reinforces (that are part of the heroic fantasy archetypes D&D embodies) and be no worse for it.
Throwing it out of the rules from THE DESIGN stage means that people that DO want it have no option but try and jury rig it back in.
Again, ADDING is much harder in a system than subtracting. Just delete and go on your way. Everyone else that doesn't want to can play the game as written and maybe delete other stuff they don't like.
I disagree, it's easier to add then subtract. It's obvious we're not going to agree though, and like I said earlier on today I won't be getting through to you, so it's a waste of my time to try. Since I've been on your side of the disagreement, and changed sides when I actually experienced a better system in action, you're never going to convince me either.
I hope you have a nice day.
exactly. throwing it out from the design stage is the best way. Which is what 4e did, and one of many things I prefer about the "new" way of playing D&D as opposed to the old way.
I disagree, it's easier to add then subtract. It's obvious we're not going to agree though, and like I said earlier on today I won't be getting through to you, so it's a waste of my time to try. Since I've been on your side of the disagreement, and changed sides when I actually experienced a better system in action, you're never going to convince me either.
I hope you have a nice day.
It sounds like you've had some bad experiences. Maybe one day I'll decide to run an online campaign and you can take part and see how rewarding alignment in play can be.
Until then you're welcome to be completely closed to changing your mind and say that it will never happen.
Then again, you used to think one way and then changed your mind...so...not as impossible as it might seem. Have a good one.
Yeah, yeah it kind of does. It's a central concept to the idea of the holy knight, which is the idea that the paladin represents.
In your eyes. Your perception is not necessarily reality.
Do you know where the concept of the holy knight comes from? I promise you, it didn't come from the group of people who were actually known as "paladins" in the real world. Those people were little more than Malleus Malificarum Inquisitors. It comes from characters like King Arthur, Roland, and more recently, Luke Skywalker. The struggle (and many times the failure) to live up to lofty ideals are always a central part of stories like these. It is common knowledge that it is a highly prevalent trope in many, many cases that the concept of a knight empowered with extra-normal abilities due to ideals. It is inarguably a core element.
My perception may not be reality, but there is not so much dissonance between my perception and reality that I don't realize fire is hot. Asking people to prove common knowledge isn't a viable argument. Don't try pulling the "everything is subjective" argument, because if you do that then no one can ever prove anything. That is why philosophical skepticism is a dead philosophy in most circles. Not being able to prove to yourself that you exist isn't a popular concept.
If you want something like a divine champion, well, they already exist in a couple forms. The favored soul is in complete divine, for one. There are also truckloads of tailored and unique prestige classes that are the champions of their gods. I guess the designers felt like that gods were unique enough that they deserved to have their own unique champions.
Do you know where the concept of the holy knight comes from?
Should we care? Because it doesn't matter.
You want to play your paladin like that, go ahead. You want to restrict paladins to being like that when you run a game, go ahead.
You have no business telling the rest of us how our games or our characters should be run.
My hatred for alignment mechanics is not based in bad experiences, it's based in growth. I don't think that anything that's restricting can be rewarding. I certainly never got anything out of having to meet some abstract, meaning less guidelines.
When I played 2e I was more offended by the restriction for 17 charisma then I was LG. So, no bad experiences, even when I lost a ranger to the system. It's just now, under the 4e system with having tossed alignment out, my character has so much more room for growth. Going back to such a primitive system that tries to dictate to me how to play is unthinkable.
Do you know where the concept of the holy knight comes from? I promise you, it didn't come from the group of people who were actually known as "paladins" in the real world. Those people were little more than Malleus Malificarum Inquisitors. It comes from characters like King Arthur, Roland, and more recently, Luke Skywalker. The struggle (and many times the failure) to live up to lofty ideals are always a central part of stories like these. It is common knowledge that it is a highly prevalent trope in many, many cases that the concept of a knight empowered with extra-normal abilities due to ideals. It is inarguably a core element.
My perception may not be reality, but there is not so much dissonance between my perception and reality that I don't realize fire is hot. Asking people to prove common knowledge isn't a viable argument. Don't try pulling the "everything is subjective" argument, because if you do that then no one can ever prove anything. That is why philosophical skepticism is a dead philosophy in most circles. Not being able to prove to yourself that you exist isn't a popular concept.
If you want something like a divine champion, well, they already exist in a couple forms. The favored soul is in complete divine, for one. There are also truckloads of tailored and unique prestige classes that are the champions of their gods. I guess the designers felt like that gods were unique enough that they deserved to have their own unique champions.
So, I suppose we should be slaves to Tolkein's visions of high fantasy as well, since LotR was really the inspiration for D&D.
No, not really. I played a lot of 2e when I started out. I really enjoyed the game, and have had very few bad experiences that I was not the DM for.
My hatred for alignment mechanics is not based in bad experiences, it's based in growth. I don't think that anything that's restricting can be rewarding. I certainly never got anything out of having to meet some abstract, meaning less guidelines.
When I played 2e I was more offended by the restriction for 17 charisma then I was LG. So, no bad experiences, even when I lost a ranger to the system. It's just now, under the 4e system with having tossed alignment out, my character has so much more room for growth. Going back to such a primitive system that tries to dictate to me how to play is unthinkable.
That bolded part is disproved by the concept of any game with rules. Ever. In the history of time.
Oh also by the concept of educatation, reading, writing and about thousand other human endeavors. The game one is just the most obvious one.
Just so you know.
Seriously, nothing restricting can be rewarding? Wow. Just...wow. My wedding ring even disagrees with that sentiment.
if you say
Anything with structure is, by its nature, restricting in one way or another. Your statement is pure absurdity. At least clarify it.
Can someone point me to where someone has an example of how alignment rules do something better than no rules?
I can't think of any, and so at best its breaking even with "don't print alignment" rules winning out by default because its less wasted paper and trees cut down. At worst its "It enables terrible DMs to be worse, and provides justification" or "Is something you have to convince your group to house rule out".
I don't see why being Chaotic is a requirement of a Barbarian. What about the tribes that are relatively civilized but still fight with large weapons and wear bearskins? Are they not Barbarians? Do they suddenly forget how to egt anrgy ebcause they read a book once?(Oh yeah, barbarians also had to be illiterate, more stupid class design)
For that matter, how about the tribes that are NOT relatively civilized but have every moment of their lives guided by tribal customs and traditions? Aren't they Lawful?
Like Vikings. They are pretty much THE real life Barbarians, but they still had their sets of customs and traditions. Are they Chaotic now?
I actually haven't seen the pro alignment team explain what positives alignment brings to the table. Maybe I missed a post where that was done?
Can someone point me to where someone has an example of how alignment rules do something better than no rules?
I can't think of any, and so at best its breaking even with "don't print alignment" rules winning out by default because its less wasted paper and trees cut down. At worst its "It enables terrible DMs to be worse, and provides justification" or "Is something you have to convince your group to house rule out".
And they won't because they can't.
The only flavor that matters is the flavor the player gives his character. Class names and class fluff are meaningless and unimportant.
exactly. throwing it out from the design stage is the best way. Which is what 4e did, and one of many things I prefer about the "new" way of playing D&D as opposed to the old way.
Your preferences don't count as argumental evidence.
I disagree, it's easier to add then subtract.
A little bit ago you just said that you could simply subtract the rule. You're going to have to explain this in light of that. That said, it is absolutely easier to subtract, as many people on your side have actually been arguing. Let me show you. Say we do things your way and remove alignment, and make the default code just one of several, and use existing guidelines to create a tailored code. You now have to do zero work to get what you're after. But I want to play a holy knight (interesting that everyone who is fo removing alignment is more than willing to take away the concept of the holy knight without much regard for people who want it, and they are the ones trumpeting egalitarian choice the loudest) so I need to do some things to make that happen.
Well, shouldn't be too much work, right? I just need to re-instate the original default code, use the same structure and design for the class, maybe rename it holy knight so it doesn't get confused with what it now the paladin, and then I just need to create a stand-in system for alignment. I will create an energy source and call it "sacred fire." Now I have to create a counter-force. I will call it "chaos fire." I will now associate a certain set of behaviors with both, and use the same rules for alignment shifting in 3e to determine "alignment" in this new system. I now have re-created the paladin.
Here is what you have to do, right now, to get what you want. Ignore the alignment restriction, which requires no work, and draw up your own code, which you were going to do anyway. So, you're not really doing any extra work to get what you want. I have to create a whole new system to get something that should have been in there in the first place, that was in there until someone mucked with it.
It's obvious we're not going to agree though,
And the classic excuse for close-mindedness and willful ignorance appears. If you are tired of the discussion, just say so. No one, least of all me will think that youre "beat" or whatever it is that people like to say on the internet. Just say that you're tired of discussing it but you're still not convinced. But for the love of god please don't preclude the possibility of changed minds on either side.
and like I said earlier on today I won't be getting through to you, so it's a waste of my time to try.
You've still got an avenue of argument that you haven't tried yet. You could still try arguing for minimalist philosophy in the rules. I may have already presented a counter-point to that with evidence, you didn't even try to explore that point.
Since I've been on your side of the disagreement, and changed sides when I actually experienced a better system in action, you're never going to convince me either.
I hope you have a nice day.
Thanks, you too.
Out of curiousity, which system are you talking about? I have played a lot of role-playing games, and the only one that I can think of that functions remotely well as the alignment system, that is comparable to its nature, is the SWRPG's dark side points. I suppose World of Darkness morality has a couple similar mechanics with abjurations and the like, but some of the problems that people mistakenly accuse alignment of having (like vague and unclear rules) the morality system kind of does have. For example, they each have a benchmark crime, like 7 being petty theft, but there are several varieties of crime that aren't actually covered, and they are unclear as to how they define say, petty theft vs. grand theft. That is a line that actually gets blurry.Oct 28, 2012 -- 1:46PM, Krusk wrote:
What if I want a wizard that wears full plate?
Invest a few feats into doing so. There is no need for the rules themselves to say "no, you can't, ever."
But then it isn't the holy knight motif that the class is designed to represent. Sure, it works, it just isnt the same thing that it used to be.
Yes, it is.
All that changes is that "Holy Knight" is no longer the only thing Paladin can represent.
I actually haven't seen the pro alignment team explain what positives alignment brings to the table. Maybe I missed a post where that was done?
Can someone point me to where someone has an example of how alignment rules do something better than no rules?
I can't think of any, and so at best its breaking even with "don't print alignment" rules winning out by default because its less wasted paper and trees cut down. At worst its "It enables terrible DMs to be worse, and provides justification" or "Is something you have to convince your group to house rule out".
Wow...just wow...here...can't tell if you're flat out lying or just haven't been reading...
Show
"Say the paladin class didn't exist, and I wanted to play a holy knight, I would create a code of conduct, assign it to the fighter, and give it abilities similar to the cleric...or I could just go with something that already fits the concept perfectly that has already been made. All removing the code and the lawful good requirement does is make people who want to play paladins do more work. For those of you who want to play something other than a paladin, with paladin-like abilities, the foundation is already there, it just requires a little modularity.
The problem I have with that idea that alignments keep players from doing things, so does every class. In every game, there are always, rules, restrictions, and boundaries. Limits that are agreed to on how the players can act, or what they can do. Removing these limits is removing parts of what make the game the game, and doing that in the name of egalitarianism will only make the game more homogenized, less complex, and less engaging. Earlier someone said anything that limits player choice should be removed. So what about class/cross-class skills? What about feat requirements? What about the requirements for unleashing certain powers on a magic weapon? With a statement like that, where do you draw the line? When is it okay to say, "The rules don't let you do that and I'm not changing the way they work so you can have your way?" This argument for egalitarian choice just doesn't hold, and this is probably the fourth or fifth time I have addressed it."
The problem I have with that idea that alignments keep players from doing things, so does every class. In every game, there are always, rules, restrictions, and boundaries. Limits that are agreed to on how the players can act, or what they can do. Removing these limits is removing parts of what make the game the game, and doing that in the name of egalitarianism will only make the game more homogenized, less complex, and less engaging. Earlier someone said anything that limits player choice should be removed. So what about class/cross-class skills? What about feat requirements? What about the requirements for unleashing certain powers on a magic weapon? With a statement like that, where do you draw the line? When is it okay to say, "The rules don't let you do that and I'm not changing the way they work so you can have your way?" This argument for egalitarian choice just doesn't hold, and this is probably the fourth or fifth time I have addressed it."
Invest a few feats into doing so. There is no need for the rules themselves to say "no, you can't, ever."
So a paladin should just be able to invest a few feats into ditching his code? Let me put it another way. I want to be a wizard, the class, but I don't want to be subject to spell failure. Well, the choice of spells vs. armor is something that has always been a part of D&D, because it makes for an interesting choice. Sure, there are middle ground options, but there is no option that lets you as a wizard wear full plate without dropping in effectiveness in spellcasting. It is a class restriction, and if some people in this thread had their way, anything that is a restriction on a class goes out the window. See the problem here? It's like removing the hands-off rule in soccer.
Yes, it is.
All that changes is that "Holy Knight" is no longer the only thing Paladin can represent.
No, if the paladin doesn't have to maintain his connection to the energies of law and good, then his power does not come from law and good anymore. Removing alignment not only removes the mechanical represntation of that, but removes it from the story as well. In the story, in the setting, under standard alignment rules, law and good are cosmic forces, that the paladin is connected to. That is the conenction that gives him the power, the code, and the nature of that code, is what demonstrates that he is also more than just aligned lawful good, but that he has a higher calling.
If you want the paladin class to be modified to be representative of other things (which it wasn't designed to be in the first place but since that is what you're psuing for) you should be happy to know that it has already been done. Paladins of other alignments, with their own unique class features and everything, already exist. Use them. Classes and prestige classes designed to represent champions of respective gods, already exist. Use them.
There is already enough modularity to make the paladin whatever you want, just waive the restriction. There is no reason, when everything that you want is already in your grasp anyway. Removing alignment would literally have no effect on what you all seem to want, because you have already had everything you want. That being the case your only other argument can be removing alignment for the sake of removing alignment.
YagamiFire said: "Allignment can be used by the player, not to restrict them, but to define them. If you want to play a Righteous Priest, then you choose to play a LG Cleric, if you wish to play your cleric in other ways you can be CG, NG, CN, it is up to the Player to define which allignment best empowers their character."
I want to bring special attention to this. Particularly the bolded bit. Definitions by their very nature carry a degree of restriction. When you define something, you say what it is and also what it is not. By saying something is something, you are making the de facto statement that it is not its opposite. A game without rules, restrictions, and definitions is a game without structure, and a game without structure is free-form role-playing, or even straight-up acting. Free form role-playing is actually something we all used to do when we were kids when we would say things like, "No I got you!" See, with mechanics in place for the paladin keeping/losing his powers, with a system assigned to it, it isn't random, out of the blue, or arbitrary, or at least its a good deal less arbitrary.
The post Chiba just made below mine expounds quite nicely on the idea of defining a character archetype. While I'm not necessarily in favor of majority-based arguments, not believing that the majority represents quality, the game does need to sell for them to be able to make it so we can buy it and play it. He is 100% right about house-ruling a concept around the rules if the rules don't agree with your character concept though, and that is the solution to the problem of potential lack of quality in the majority argument.
Monkks only lose the ability to CONTINUE advancing in the monk class, symbolizing that they have fallen from the rigorous code of discipline that that path required.
Right, because everyone knows that real life Monks suddenly can't become better anymore once they stop following an incredibly linear list of of Lawful behavio-oh wait.
Yagami covered this nicely, but I want to expound on it. Especially because you and I went rounds on this topic a few months back on a DIFFERENT alignment thread.
The 3.x D&D Monk is meant to represent a specific fantasy archetype, that of a disciplined, monastic wuxia-style martial artist who attains not only martial mastery, but physical and spiritual enlightenment and, eventually, perfection. You seem to be GROSSLY UNABLE to grasp the concept that the monk isn't just a guy who learned kung-fu. You want that? Be a fighter and take Imporved Unarmed Strike.
The developers wanted the class to reflect that ONE ARCHETYPE. The archetype is of someone who not only practice martial arts, but meditate, read philosophy, and follow a SPECIFIC discipline towards a goal of enlightenment. In that archetype is the idea that it requires CONSTANT dedication to the path in order to achieve the desired result. So, to the developers, all members of the monk class were these disciplined warriors, and to reflect that, members would have to maintain a lawful alignment to continue advancing.
Does that mean that other wuxia martial-arts concepts are not feasible? Of course not. But the class features, like Still Mind, and so on, were meant to reflect that one archetype.
Monks and barbarians have the alignment restrictions that they do, because the developers were attempting to emulate SPECIFIC fantasy archetypes with those class abilities.
And what about those of us who want to play a civilized Barbarian?
Or Bruce Lee?
Or a Paladin of Bane?
What you CONSISTENTLY FAIL TO UNDERSTAND is that the developers were making a game to appeal to THOUSANDS of people, and the character archetypes they chose to represent were the ones that would appeal to the most people. A Chaotic Monk could very well be a valid character concept, or a "Barbarian", who is a disciplined warrior who goes into a cold-burning state of heightened battle awareness (kind of overlaps the Sohei, but whhatever). The opprsessive, dark knight champion of the god of Tyranny? Absolutely valid.
But...and pay attention, because this is where I always lose you. The people who want character concepts that are SO WILDLY DIFFERENT from the archetypes of the classes are, statistically, in the minority. From the point of view of the developers, who are making a game that ultimately needs to SELL to make money to keep making more game products, do you HONESTLY believe they should be catering to the minority? Or should they go with what is going to appeal to the MOST PEOPLE?
So does that mean that people who want other concepts are out of line, or just SOL? They certainly should not be. But being in the minority, it shouldn't be too difficult to just ask for your DM to make a houseruled exception for you. If it's a compelling character concept, he should allow it. Best DM advice I have ever heard given to a rookie DM was this:
"It is both a GAME and a STORY. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool"
For example, when I first started DMing in 3.0, I eliminated favored classes and multiclassing XP penalties in favor on instituting some race/class restrictions for what I thought would be better in keeping with my idea of what the campaign world was like. Half-Orcs, for example, were not allowed to me paladins. But even then, I had a standing rule that story trumps everything. If someone came to me with a great character concept for a half-orc paladin, I would make an exception. (note: I have since learned to not be as restrictive, I consider my implementation of more restrictions the mistake of a newbie DM).
These are problems YOU have with the CLASS design. NOT with alignment. Take it somewhere else.
Wanting better class design means I have problems with class design?
And I have problems with stupid rules that have no place in a game.
How does it make sense a Barbarian can no longer get angry if he reads a book?
What sense does it make that doing something on the spur of the moment means I forget how to improve my martial arts?
What sense does it make that a Paladin screws up once and loses his class abiltiies?
Face it. The restrictions make no sense, and they have no place in D&D.
My point with that is that what you are really discussing is a problem with class design, and NOT with alignment. Alignment doesn't restrict your options, the class design and it's intent to reflect a narrow archetype.
This is a thread about alignment.
No, if the paladin doesn't have to maintain his connection to the energies of law and good, then his power does not come from law and good anymore.
It never did.
It comes from a couple of tables and a handful of paragraphs in the PHB.
Let's not even get into how ridiculous the idea of 'aligned energy' is ...
Again, yes, WE GET IT...you don't like many of the tropes that are staples of D&D. Feel free to ignore them. Otherwise what you're doing is akin to going to a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle RPG board to start threads that say "Animals mutating because of exposure to toxic waste is stupid & ridiculous. It should be ditched in the newest edition of this Ninja Turtle roleplaying game". See how far you get with that.
No, if the paladin doesn't have to maintain his connection to the energies of law and good, then his power does not come from law and good anymore.
It never did.
It comes from a couple of tables and a handful of paragraphs in the PHB.
False argument. The fighter's power doesn't come from his training and skill with a weapon, it comes from text on a page. The wizard doesn't actually cast magic, a player rolls a set of dice and follows rules for duration, range, target, and damage based on the selected option. Don't try and be a smartass. Want to know what that is actually called? Meta-gaming. But to truly understand meta gaming, you have to understand meta. Meta-ethics, meta fiction, metaphysics.
Meta fiction, is fiction that examines the nature of physics. Metaphysics, is the physics of physics. meta-ethics, is ethical judgments about ethical codes. Meta-gaming, or playing the meta-game, is playing the game, in the context of playing a game. See what I'm saying here? you're arguing something entirely different and disconnected from the actual point. You're arguing about the material content of the books, vs the meaning of the words.
Let's not even get into how ridiculous the idea of 'aligned energy' is ...
PHB page 103: "Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos." Following this statement, there are subjective value judgments made about each alignment, from the standpoint of the alignment making it. Yes, they are definitely another kind of energy type, and they function very similarly to the actual energy types like fire and acid.
...god, eat a light bulb...
wait, what?
Let's not even get into how ridiculous the idea of 'aligned energy' is ...
Again, yes, WE GET IT...you don't like many of the tropes that are staples of D&D. Feel free to ignore them. Otherwise what you're doing is akin to going to a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle RPG board to start threads that say "Animals mutating because of exposure to toxic waste is stupid & ridiculous. It should be ditched in the newest edition of this Ninja Turtle roleplaying game". See how far you get with that.
He responds to you telling him to go eat a light bulb, which while that was a commentary on the pointlessness of what he said, was also a harmless joke, but he hasn't even bothered to address me and I actually called him a smartass. I bet he ignores me and starts flaming you, given the pattern. You really do attract a lot of heat don't you?
...god, eat a light bulb...
wait, what?
Ever see someone do it at a freak show? It's amazing
He responds to you telling him to go eat a light bulb, which while that was a commentary on the pointlessness of what he said, was also a harmless joke, but he hasn't even bothered to address me and I actually called him a smartass. I bet he ignores me and starts flaming you, given the pattern. You really do attract a lot of heat don't you?
I'm the legendary Mechwarrior part that EVERYONE wants in their mech...an infinite heat sink. So much blood has been shed over me! Why must I be cursed with such popularity!!??
...god, eat a light bulb...
wait, what?
Ever see someone do it at a freak show? It's amazing
Whoa, incoming rage for sure now. You just aren't happy until you've pissed someone off, are you?
Lol.Edit: I'm a Bansen (Banson?) raiders fan myself, I liked to shoot them from waaaay far away. I only dabbled in mechwarrior and it has been years since I touched my military. The pieces quite literally have a 1/6 inch layer of dust on them.
...god, eat a light bulb...
wait, what?
Ever see someone do it at a freak show? It's amazing
Whoa, incoming rage for sure now. You just aren't happy until you've pissed someone off, are you?
*sigh*
Fine I'll edit it to "differently-capable-persons show"...
No! Wait a minute! Freak Show is how they bill themselves!
...god, eat a light bulb...
wait, what?
Ever see someone do it at a freak show? It's amazing
Whoa, incoming rage for sure now. You just aren't happy until you've pissed someone off, are you?
*sigh*
Fine I'll edit it to "differently-capable-persons show"...
No! Wait a minute! Freak Show is how they bill themselves!
i thought that was a roundabout, ironic, subtle, and hilarious way of calling the person you were addressing a freak, just to get a rise out of him. Was that not the case? Hm, my mistake then...
...god, eat a light bulb...
wait, what?
Ever see someone do it at a freak show? It's amazing
Whoa, incoming rage for sure now. You just aren't happy until you've pissed someone off, are you?
*sigh*
Fine I'll edit it to "differently-capable-persons show"...
No! Wait a minute! Freak Show is how they bill themselves!
i thought that was a roundabout, ironic, subtle, and hilarious way of calling the person you were addressing a freak, just to get a rise out of him. Was that not the case? Hm, my mistake then...
Oh? Oh no. I've just legitimately seen it done.
The instructions to "eat a light bulb" however were in reference to what you so rightly called a "smartass" answer.
...god, eat a light bulb...
wait, what?
Ever see someone do it at a freak show? It's amazing
Whoa, incoming rage for sure now. You just aren't happy until you've pissed someone off, are you?
*sigh*
Fine I'll edit it to "differently-capable-persons show"...
No! Wait a minute! Freak Show is how they bill themselves!
i thought that was a roundabout, ironic, subtle, and hilarious way of calling the person you were addressing a freak, just to get a rise out of him. Was that not the case? Hm, my mistake then...
Oh? Oh no. I've just legitimately seen it done.
The instructions to "eat a light bulb" however were in reference to what you so rightly called a "smartass" answer.
I've seen sword-swallowing (not that kind, you perverts) but I've never seen that before, not even on TV. I have heard of this one French guy who could actually digest metal, and once ate a functional aircraft for some kind of record though.
I've seen sword-swallowing (not that kind, you perverts) but I've never seen that before, not even on TV. I have heard of this one French guy who could actually digest metal, and once ate a functional aircraft for some kind of record though.
Youtube "eating a lightbulb". Plenty will come up.
I prefer Uncle Fester's lightbulb trick however.
First, define worse. Then I will. I might even throw in my definition of worse. Again, this all comes back to what kind of experience you are after, and exactly how you want to get it.
Which is exactly why alignment restrictions, codes of conduct, and all that other bull is a terrible idea. They serve no purpose other than to prevent players from getting the kind of experience they want.
Or...you know...they serve the purposeof attempting to direct characters of those classes to be in keeping with the spcific archetypes that were envisioned by the developers when designing the game, to create some kind of a sense of unity throughout the multitude of D&D games accross the world.
Why should I suck it up? It provides no value. And that is the point. Since it has no value, I should not have to suck it up. The fact is, it's stupid as a mechanical rule. As a guideline, I find it very useful, and I use it continuously, ot help myself determine how my character would behave.
Fallacy. Facts not in evidence. Your opinion of it's value to you has no bearing on the objective value of the rule. It is not a fact, it is your opinion.
Tying it to the mechanics though is bad. You say you and Zaramon have given many examples of how it "works" but frankly, you haven't. The very best you've done is presenting a logical argument that the monk's abilities are tied to his dedication discipline. I applaud that, but frankly it doesn't get it done. Having a non-lawful monk doesn't harm anything, does it? Be not afraid, answer honestly. That chaotic monk isn't going to break anything. Tell me what /breaks/ when you don't have a lawful monk, and I'll listen. You can't, because the answer is nothing. You're going to spout "It's a rule, suck it up cupcake", just like you have been...because you have no basis for your claims that it's an essential mechanic to make the game enjoyable.
You are correct that the chaotic monk does not break the game. But some of the class features of the PHB monk seem a little at odds with the concept of a chaotic one. Perhaps some houseruling and/or alternate class features would be in order?
I don't see why being Chaotic is a requirement of a Barbarian. What about the tribes that are relatively civilized but still fight with large weapons and wear bearskins? Are they not Barbarians? Do they suddenly forget how to egt anrgy ebcause they read a book once?(Oh yeah, barbarians also had to be illiterate, more stupid class design)
For that matter, how about the tribes that are NOT relatively civilized but have every moment of their lives guided by tribal customs and traditions? Aren't they Lawful?
Ah, one of the greatest fallacies of those who dislike alignment. The idea that someone can't follow laws without being lawful. You realize this is ridiculous, right? Just as the idea that someone can't be chaotic and be a king or something. I have seen dozens of people claim that Conan couldn't fit in D&D, because being a king meant he HAD to be lawful, and yet he was a barbarian.
Equally as ridiculous is the idea that lawful people are somehow compelled to follow every law they come across.
But you want me to address your example? Okay. My PERSONAL answer to that question is that no, those tribes are not lawful. They had tribal customs and rules, but a lot of those rules were the whim of the chief, and subject to be changed whenever the chieftain died. The society was nomadic, and had to follow the herds, avoid sever weather, and in so many other ways change, adapt and be flexible. Hard, codified laws were a luxury of people who could afford to live in one place forever.
Chaotic people aren't somehow COMPELLED to break laws.
Oh, and For Pelor's Sake, people, Barbarians were NOT required to be Chaotic, just non-lawful.
No, they are not important enough to be represented by mechanics. Being LG has nothing at all to do with being a paladin. You say that the paladin is a shining knight, a paragon of virtue. I say a paladin is a champion of his or her god/goddess. A god may not be lawful good, therefore a LG character is not necessarily representative of their champion. If Bane wants to have a champion, he's a god and he can do what he wants, and he can grant paladin powers to whomever he wishes.
He's going by the original defintion of paladin.
pal·a·din (p
l
-d
n)n.
1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
Only because you're so closed-minded you can only see alignment as something used to oppress you.
However, as a History Major, there's a part of me that finds your analogy hilarious.
Yeah, because there totally wasn't these viscious, violent witch-hunts in the cold-war fueled by mob-mentality that led to the deaths of innocent people all in the name of capitalism, right?
I'm guessing that is where you were going with that?Btw, thanks for bringing in the definition, and Roland was in fact one of the twelve. One of my favorite stories is how he used Durandal *Cough Holy Avenger Cough* to carve a mountain in two.
Since alignment doesn't ACTUALLY have 95% of the flaws you people claim it does, why should it be removed? You're on these boards trying to convinve people that alignment is some kind of oppressive force that ruins games.
I'm on these boards to show people not that they SHOULD use alignment (because I don't care if they do or not), but to show them what the rules actually are.
Since I've already made these same points and backed them up, and no one has been able to provide proper counter-arguments, and Chiba is perfectly backing up all his points, I feel totally justified in rooting for this.
I've seen sword-swallowing (not that kind, you perverts) but I've never seen that before, not even on TV. I have heard of this one French guy who could actually digest metal, and once ate a functional aircraft for some kind of record though.
Youtube "eating a lightbulb". Plenty will come up.
I prefer Uncle Fester's lightbulb trick however.
I will check out both.
...god, eat a light bulb...
wait, what?
He basically said "People who disagree with me on the subject of a game need to die." It's like the step just below Godwinning a thread, and pretty much demonstrates that he's wrong and he knows he's wrong.
Don't play with terrible DMs. Why would you play with someone who is just going to screw up systems? If your groups needs convincing to get rid of alignment, you may want to ask them what it is that they find so appealing about the system.
A lot (I'd guess the majority) of players don't get to only play with their friends. There are local game shop games, events, and clubs. You play with who is there, and sure once you find out he is a terrible DM you can leave, but maybe that takes a few sessions for you to determine. Maybe they are a crappy DM only when encouraged by the rules. But without the rules encouraging them to be jerks (5e example "Make up the DCs as you go your players won't notice") they wouldn't even think of it.
...god, eat a light bulb...
wait, what?
He basically said "People who disagree with me on the subject of a game need to die." It's like the step just below Godwinning a thread, and pretty much demonstrates that he's wrong and he knows he's wrong.
Or it was a joke designed to illustrate how silly and meaningless that snarky comment was. Again, seriously, he gets called out for a joke, and I don't get called out when I called the guy a smartass? What's wrong with you people?
Don't play with terrible DMs. Why would you play with someone who is just going to screw up systems? If your groups needs convincing to get rid of alignment, you may want to ask them what it is that they find so appealing about the system.
A lot (I'd guess the majority) of players don't get to only play with their friends. There are local game shop games, events, and clubs. You play with who is there, and sure once you find out he is a terrible DM you can leave, but maybe that takes a few sessions for you to determine. Maybe they are a crappy DM only when encouraged by the rules. But without the rules encouraging them to be jerks (5e example "Make up the DCs as you go your players won't notice") they wouldn't even think of it.
I don't see that happening. Put a control freak "in charge" of a game, and they will find ways to make people uncomfortable by forcing them to do whatever they can to satisfy their compulsions. If people are going to be DMing at events then they have a responsibility to their potential players to be at their best and provide an authentic and therefore enjoyable experience. If they are going to mishandle the rules, they shouldn't be there. Is that a lot to ask of someone? Well, yeah, but its an important position, a lot should be asked of someone in that position.
Sure, that probably won't be the case since we don't live in a perfect world, but you know what? I don't care. I am going to continue to demand that the world improve because I know it can, and I refuse to allow myself to see the world as ugly and bad, because that will make it ugly and bad. I am instead going to try and draw up the potential that I know is there for genuine quality anything.
On a different note, I haven't actually played a game in months due to non-game related disputes I had with my group that I played with. I am joining a new group at my local SF club though so that will be fun. But in the mean time, I refused to play with people I didn't want to play with, and I feel like I am better off for it.
What's wrong with you people?
Everytime I try to engage in fisticuffs across the internet, I just have to replace the LCD panel on my laptop again.
What's wrong with you people?
Everytime I try to engage in fisticuffs across the internet, I just have to replace the LCD panel on my laptop again.
Haha I find myself liking you, Qmark
What's wrong with you people?
Everytime I try to engage in fisticuffs across the internet, I just have to replace the LCD panel on my laptop again.
Wish you had the power to reach through the internet and stranggle some people? Yeah, I felt that way a few times in general when playing online games. Know the feeling buddy.
Ummm...if we're done discussing light bulbs now...
Wow...just wow...here...can't tell if you're flat out lying or just haven't been reading...
It is hard to read when you can't quote... but no I've been reading.
Ill respond to your stuff numbered by each one.
1 - Thats not a reason. Thats just you saying "I enjoy alignment" and then going on to say that "Cross class skills don't let people do stuff". To which I respond 1- Cross class skills allow you to do non-traditional things at a penalty. My fighter can totally have 12 ranks in knowledge the planes if I want. And 2 - I think cross class penalties for skills should be removed as well.
2- The default rules also suggest you should come up with your characters name and backstory too. They don't write out a backstory or motivations for other characters that they then mandate they follow (or we complain about it then too), so why should we want them to do it for paladins. Thats not an advantage for including alignment. Thats you not wanting to create your own character.
3 - Im not calling to ban classes, thats salla. I modify the paladin to make him a devoted warrior. Devoted to whatever he feels like. The problem is that there are situations where I want to be a righteous holy warrior devoted to freedom and justice. Because that doesn't fit your or your DMs definition of a Paladin, I have to use a different class. Even though I think it fits MY idea best. Thats not empowering the player. Thats taking choices away.
4 - Clerics - See eberron. But for a more serious response, look at those same sentances without the alignment stuff. "I want to be a Cleric that teaches Joy and fertility, Life is good and the pursuit of hapiness is all that matters, I Worship The laughing Rogue with the Luck and Trickery Domains." Same message, same implications but you don't have any alignment included.
New players. And I mean NEW new. Never-played-any-kind-of-tabletop-RPG-EVER-new.
I frequently have such players in my games. People to whom the idea of making a character personality and roleplaying is kind of foreign. It's easy for us gaming veterans to forget what that was like, playing for the first time. Some people just aren't as accustomed to using their imaginations. Imagination is kind of like a muscle, those who don't use it often don't use it well, until they get more practice.
And for people who are new to gaming, those tools of roleplaying do not come easy, and alignment can help them decide what to do in character until they develop more in-depth roleplaying ability. This is not to say that alignment needs to be thrown out once they do.
Thats a great reason to include some introduction to roleplaying stuff. Maybe even a chapter on how to think in character. I don't disagree with that idea.
Not a reason to include "If you don't act how your DM thinks you are supposed to act you get stuff taken away from you" rules. Those are stupid.
Exactly. Which is why that code, and the paladin's alignment, which are central concepts and core elements of the class identity (in otherwords, very meaningful) should have mechanical representation. Like everything else that is important does.
Wat. The code is Paladin fluff that gets mechanical punishment. That is why people have a problem with it.
Not a reason to include "If you don't act how your DM thinks you are supposed to act you get stuff taken away from you" rules. Those are stupid.
Yeah... I probably can't add anything more to this thread that isn't just a vague rewording of that sentence.
Don't play with terrible DMs. Why would you play with someone who is just going to screw up systems? If your groups needs convincing to get rid of alignment, you may want to ask them what it is that they find so appealing about the system.
A lot (I'd guess the majority) of players don't get to only play with their friends. There are local game shop games, events, and clubs. You play with who is there, and sure once you find out he is a terrible DM you can leave, but maybe that takes a few sessions for you to determine. Maybe they are a crappy DM only when encouraged by the rules. But without the rules encouraging them to be jerks (5e example "Make up the DCs as you go your players won't notice") they wouldn't even think of it.
I disagree with your presumption about the majority of people playing D&D. I would wager that it's the opposite, and MOST people play with friends in private groups. But since there's no way to prove that without polling EVERY D&D player EVERYWHERE...what's your point?
New players. And I mean NEW new. Never-played-any-kind-of-tabletop-RPG-EVER-new.
I frequently have such players in my games. People to whom the idea of making a character personality and roleplaying is kind of foreign. It's easy for us gaming veterans to forget what that was like, playing for the first time. Some people just aren't as accustomed to using their imaginations. Imagination is kind of like a muscle, those who don't use it often don't use it well, until they get more practice.
And for people who are new to gaming, those tools of roleplaying do not come easy, and alignment can help them decide what to do in character until they develop more in-depth roleplaying ability. This is not to say that alignment needs to be thrown out once they do.
Thats a great reason to include some introduction to roleplaying stuff. Maybe even a chapter on how to think in character. I don't disagree with that idea.
Not a reason to include "If you don't act how your DM thinks you are supposed to act you get stuff taken away from you" rules. Those are stupid.
That's not what alignment does. It's something Bad DMs do with alignment, certainly, but Bad DMs will find a way to do it in some other way.
And you can include all the "introduction to roleplaying" text you want, but you can't cover the wide and varied breadth and width of situations a player will come into contact with. Alignment, by basically being a shorthand summation of a given character's values and personality, gives those new people what they need, and it's worked for over 30 years.
I introduced my wife to D&D, and she remains a first-hand experience example of this point. She likes alignment. She's well-capable of making detailed personality for her characters now, but it was her that brought to my attention that if she hadn't had alignment as a guideline for that first character she ever made, she would have felt lost at what to do when presented with choices. Her characters now have a lot more depth then that first character, but they still have alignment, and she now greatly enjoys the subtleties and varied nuances that can be a part of all the alignments. She's made LG, CN, TN, and CE characters, and she has never once felt pigeon-holed into choices because of her alignment.
.1 - Thats not a reason. Thats just you saying "I enjoy alignment" and then going on to say that "Cross class skills don't let people do stuff". To which I respond 1- Cross class skills allow you to do non-traditional things at a penalty. My fighter can totally have 12 ranks in knowledge the planes if I want. And 2 - I think cross class penalties for skills should be removed as well.
The same argument that you're using right now is also just as viable an argument for removing feat requirements, or for just plain giving everyone all the feats, or letting everyone, or worse yet, whoever wants to, in your group play warforged titans. Games exist because of definitions, which entail restrictions, the nature of those definitions determine what kind of game you're playing. Removing restrictions because restrictions are bad because restrictions limit player choice is grounds for removal of the entire system and going over to free-form role-playing, but that isn't what D&D is supposed to be. It is supposed to be a narrative simulation of heroic fantasy. Stop trying to remove restrictions just because they are restrictions. Find good reasons that they should be removed, if you want them removed.
2- The default rules also suggest you should come up with your charactersname and backstory too. They don't write out a backstory or motivations for other characters that they then mandate they follow (or we complain about it then too), so why should we want them to do it for paladins. Thats not an advantage for including alignment. Thats you not wanting to create your own character.
Backstory and name aren't instrinsic to the paladin like the code and alignment are. You're trying to draw a false equivalency that doesn't exist. Don't forget, alignments are a measure of your character's connection to those cosmic energies. Unlike a lot of other classes, the paladin has a special connection to those cosmic energies, something no other class has. That has consequences that matter, in the setting and story, and mechanically. Nothing about the paladin as written in the RAW precludes anyone from getting as clever or as detailed as they can in their character's motivation and backstory.
Give me an hour and I can come up with three drastically different paladin backstories and motivations that all function under RAW. There will of course be a common element in that all paladins "feel the call," rather than simply deciding to be one. Being a paladin is a response to a desire inherent to one's being. But that is going into territory that isn't part of the subject matter. Don't try and accuse people of just wanting to use alignment as a crutch for lack, or lack of use, of imagination. Alignment is not the same thing as backstory or character motivation, thought they can be related.
3 - Im not calling to ban classes, thats salla. I modify the paladin to make him a devoted warrior. Devoted to whatever he feels like. The problem is that there are situations where I want to be a righteous holy warrior devoted to freedom and justice.
More power to you in that case. Modify away. Seriously, there are rules in the 3.5 DMG to guide you through exactly that. I myself have modifed many classes, the paladin included, on more than one occasion. Alignment doesn't have to not be part of the default game for you to modify the paladin as much or as little, and in any way that you want. Hell, there is even a prestige class that you can use as a base model for that if you wish, called the Holy Liberator.
Because that doesn't fit your or your DMs definition of a Paladin, I have to use a different class. Even though I think it fits MY idea best.
Regardless of what either you or your DM thinks, there is a correct definition for what a paladin is, and that is what the paladin class tries to emulate. So far, from what you have demonstrated, your idea of what a paladin is is a significant deviation from both of those things.
Thats not empowering the player. Thats taking choices away.
Even if that class gives you everything that you wanted, its taking your choice away because you weren't allowed to call it by the name of "paladin?" Is that really what this is about? Seriously, you can totally have everything you are asking for, easily, without the existence or lack of alignment having any bearing on your effort required to get it. So, alignment stays, the paladin stays, you get your devoted warrior, with all of the features that you want for it.
Where is the problem again, and how are your choices being taken away? In fact, the only thing Wizards has ever done for 3.5 is increase player choice since they pretty much already did what you were talking about with creating variants based on the paladin class. They just also kept the original class with the original mechanics. There is literally no reason here to even touch the paladin class. I would also again like to point out that just because a system allows more options doesn't mean it is a good thing. It might not have any effect, or it might even be a bad thing. I'm not allowed to use a certain set of words on these boards anymore, but that is very faulty reasoning, and if you want me to show you what I mean, I can send you a PM about it.
4 - Clerics - See eberron. But for a more serious response, look at those same sentances without the alignment stuff. "I want to be a Cleric that teaches Joy and fertility, Life is good and the pursuit of hapiness is all that matters, I Worship The laughing Rogue with the Luck and Trickery Domains." Same message, same implications but you don't have any alignment included.
Even the gods have alignments. Do you know why? So that way there are universal tools the the designers can use instead of having to create specific and detailed codes of conduct for each and every god produced for the game. It's a hell of a lot less work, so the behavior for an alignment can match the behavior for a god, so the player can reference the alignment rules for ease of use. Either way, clerics of gods are still losing their power if they stray too far, which only makes sense. Its either going to be done with alignment or some other systerm. Alignment just makes it easier to codify and unify everything.
In fact, I think this is one of the reasons why alignment has survived as long as it has, the principle of Occam's Razor. Now, your inevitable response will be the same argument that I just answered in point 3. You want to drop alignment for clerics? Fine. Go for it. Make up more detailed codes of conduct for each level in the priesthood of each god than Wizards ever thought about. There is zero reason you can't use the variant rules and guidelines to do exactly that and get exactly what you want, and not leave alignment right where it is. None of these arguments merit messing with alignment, because none of these show how the game is objectively better without alignment.
Not a reason to include "If you don't act how your DM thinks you are supposed to act you get stuff taken away from you" rules. Those are stupid.
Yeah... I probably can't add anything more to this thread that isn't just a vague rewording of that sentence.
Ditto. That's alignment in a nutshell.
Wat. The code is Paladin fluff that gets mechanical punishment. That is why people have a problem with it.
Or the code is a mechanical representation of core traits of the idea of the holy knight. How do we prove either of these points? Well, no where does the RAW say that anyone should be using the rules to punish anyone for anything, to start with. Now might be a good time to look at what classes actually "are" as defined by RAW. One moment. Hm, interestingly, not much. In a nutshell, your class is your job, which determines the methods you will use when seeking your goals as an adventurer. I wonder how the paladin code plays into this. First, the 3.5 PHB definition of the paladin. Need to split into two posts. "The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold the law, and the power to defeat evil-these are the three weapons of the paladin. Few have the purity and devotion that it takes to walk the paladin's path, but those few are rewarded with the power to protect, to heal, and to smite. In a land of scheming wizards, unholy priests, bloodthristy dragons, and infernal fiends, the paladin is the final hope that cannot be extinguished."
Hrm, interesting. The three weapons of the paladin. I swear I remember paraphrasing the RAW about class determining the methods or something. Eh, it was probably another one of my paranoid delusions, but you should go back and check the underlined text just to be sure. Now, the mechanics match the flavor text quite well, I think. I need to split this into two posts.
Now the code. A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honr (not lying, not cheating, not usin poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Look at that. A mechanical element, from a class, determining how one goes about achieving one's goals. See, this is about more than just what you can't do, but what you should do as a paladin. Look at that act with honor part. It's against the code to do things like use poison, or cheat, because that is not what holy knights (read: paladins) do. Punish those who harm, or even threaten innocents. Wow. For all you combat fanatics out there, yes, there is something in the paladin code that actually encourages you to lay the smackdown on people. See, no where in here or any other part of the RAW does it say that the code or alignment exists to punish paladins. In fact, it is quite clear, from the RAW, that they both exist to help define paladins. This is how they are defined, according to the game. If you don't like it, change it. If you want to change the paladin to where it is defined another way, go for it, but this is clearly about defining and playing a character who is a paragon of justice and virtue, by default. Not punishment. Now would be a good time to again go back and look at what I underlined.
For ease of source material reference, this is the 3.5 Player's Handbook, pages 42, and 44.
Not a reason to include "If you don't act how your DM thinks you are supposed to act you get stuff taken away from you" rules. Those are stupid.
Yeah... I probably can't add anything more to this thread that isn't just a vague rewording of that sentence.
Ditto. That's alignment in a nutshell.
No, it isn't. Seriously, stop making baseless claims please, its rude. Just provide something from the RAW to back this claim up, otherwise admit to it being your unfounded opinion. Nothing, nothing in the RAW supports the DM taking anything away from anyone if he thinks they aren't playing according to the alignment on their character sheet. They don't work that way as I and others have already demonstrated quite clearly. Not only have you failed to support this point, you keep repeating it over and over, and then ignoring what it actually has been put there for.
Again, if DMs are using an alignment as a punishment tool, it is because they are bad DMs. Here is what a DM is supposed to do if a player is unintentionally playing against the alignment that they want, or rather, out of the character that they want. Take them aside, talk to them and say, "here, look, if you want x alignment, this is what you need to do." That is when the DM points them to page 103 of the player's handbook for alignment description.
Oh, holy crap, what did I just do, what did I just come up with? Did I just suggest something...where the DM...works with the players!?!?!? I'm sure that's a strange concept to you guys as much as you talk about DMs delivering out punishments (god your games must be stressful) but big surprise, that isn't how it's actually supposed to work.
Not a reason to include "If you don't act how your DM thinks you are supposed to act you get stuff taken away from you" rules. Those are stupid.
Yeah... I probably can't add anything more to this thread that isn't just a vague rewording of that sentence.
Ditto. That's alignment in a nutshell.
Not one bit, Salla.
Not one iota of the RAW support this, ergo, it is flat out false.
EDIT: Ninja'd
Not a reason to include "If you don't act how your DM thinks you are supposed to act you get stuff taken away from you" rules. Those are stupid.
Yeah... I probably can't add anything more to this thread that isn't just a vague rewording of that sentence.
Ditto. That's alignment in a nutshell.
Not one bit, Salla.
Not one iota of the RAW support this, ergo, it is flat out false.
EDIT: Ninja'd
Like Rikimaru dual-wielding Kusanagi-No-Tsurugi and Muramasa.
Yay! I just wanted to bold a few things for Salla.
Not one iota of the RAW support this, ergo, it is flat out false.
1E and 2E both had a rather steep penalty (half XP until next level for 2E, much worse for 1E) for flopping alignment, even without Paladin screwjobs involved.
Not one iota of the RAW support this, ergo, it is flat out false.
1E and 2E both had a rather steep penalty (half XP until next level for 2E, much worse for 1E) for flopping alignment, even without Paladin screwjobs involved.
As I mentioned before, I am much less familiar with anything before 2e, but I do not recall that being a core rule, was it an optional rule?
Also, please provide direct quotes from the RAW, as we have done, including which book (edition and everything) with page numbers, so we can verify.
But just from what you've said, that doesn't seem to indicate proof that alignment existed to punish players for arbitrary reasons.
And do you have anything to support your points from 3e?
Not one iota of the RAW support this, ergo, it is flat out false.
1E and 2E both had a rather steep penalty (half XP until next level for 2E, much worse for 1E) for flopping alignment, even without Paladin screwjobs involved.
Hehe, screwjobs. Well, whoever it was earlier in this thread who told me that alignments were basically the same across all editions lied to me then. Even so, that again sounds like a mechanical system designed to define something. Without access to the RAW myself, I've no choice but to view that "penalty" exactly as I view the "penalty" of losing class features as a paladin for breaking the code. Now, if you can show me something from RAW that says that the xp "penalty" was created to punish players rather than define something, then I will buy it.
That said, there is still always what I just said a second ago about if someone wants an alignment, but aren't playing according to the alignment they want, the correct response as the DM is not to go "too bad sucks to be you you're changing/keeping your alignment," (whichever was the opposite of what they wanted) but rather, "Hey, look, you're not playing according to the alignment you're after. Here's how to do that. Okay, now let's go back to enjoying our game.
" Even what you posted there doesn't work as proof from RAW that alignments exist to punish players, because there is nothing from RAW (at least nothing that you have provided) that says the purpose of the reduced xp mechanic is player punishment, rather than definition of a system.Don't get me wrong, its not a bad starting place for an argument, but unless you can demonstrate that the xp reduction system's purpose is in fact to punish, rather than define a system (the default assumption) then as always, we revert back to the default assumption.
Or the code is a mechanical representation of core traits of the idea of the holy knight.
Not really. The code is what standards the character sets himself to. It's a behavioral thing.
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honr (not lying, not cheating, not usin poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
And what about Paladins of other alignments?
And again, how does any of that require alignment mechanics? Why can't the code for a Paladin just be optional, and on building if the Paladin doesn't choose a code, just assume he's following one he never mentions to the others at all?(Or assume he mentioned it to the others "offscreen")
Look at that. A mechanical element, from a class, determining how one goes about achieving one's goals. See, this is about more than just what you can't do, but what you should do as a paladin. Look at that act with honor part. It's against the code to do things like use poison, or cheat, because that is not what holy knights (read: paladins) do. Punish those who harm, or even threaten innocents. Wow. For all you combat fanatics out there, yes, there is something in the paladin code that actually encourages you to lay the smackdown on people. See, no where in here or any other part of the RAW does it say that the code or alignment exists to punish paladins. In fact, it is quite clear, from the RAW, that they both exist to help define paladins. This is how they are defined, according to the game. If you don't like it, change it. If you want to change the paladin to where it is defined another way, go for it, but this is clearly about defining and playing a character who is a paragon of justice and virtue, by default. Not punishment. Now would be a good time to again go back and look at what I underlined.
I still do not see why any of this requires alignment mechanics. Seriously, I can play a Cleric multiclass Fighter and hold myself to those same standards and absolutely nothing changes, except I don't get my class abilities removed for not acting within ym DM's view of Lawful Good, which may or may not be different from my view of Lawful Good.
Or the code is a mechanical representation of core traits of the idea of the holy knight.
Not really. The code is what standards the character sets himself to. It's a behavioral thing.A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honr (not lying, not cheating, not usin poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
And what about Paladins of other alignments?
Do you possess a faulty reading comprehension level, or did you just skip over posts which already address this, so you can just repeat the same blithering nonsense? Is it some kind of deliberate effort that you think makes you look like your arguments have weight when you don't actually respond, but just repeat it over and over, despite numerous answers and counter-points?
I will re-iterate for you. The definition of "paladin" as taken from the dictionary:
pal·a·din (pl-dn)
n.
1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
Also, please provide direct quotes from the RAW, as we have done, including which book (edition and everything) with page numbers, so we can verify.
1E DMG, 1979 printing, p.26 (total screwjob)
Immediately upon alignment change actually occurring, the character concerned will lose one level of experience, dropping experience points to take him or her to the very beginning of the next lower level, losing the hit die and/or hit points, and a11 abilities which accrued to him or her with the lost level. If the alignment change is involuntary (such as that 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 is 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. The sacrificial amount is variable, so use your best judgment as to the total and what and where it should go - magic items to build up the NPC cleric, money out of the campaign, magic items out of the campaign, etc. Similarly, such atonement and sacrifice can be accomplished by a quest. Note that, in all likelihood, the character will desire to retain the new alignment, and it is incumbent upon you as DM to ensure that the player acts accordingly. Some equally powerful means (divine intervention, remove curse, etc.) must be used to restore the original alignment before atonement can begin.
2E DMG, 1993 printing, p.29 (advancement slowdown)
The instant a character voluntarily changes alignment, the experience point cost to gain the next level (or levels in the case of multi-class characters) is doubled. To determine the number of experience points needed to gain the next level (and only the next level), double the number of experience points listed on the appropriate Experience Levels table.
If an alignment change is involuntary, the doubled experience penalty is not enforced. Instead, the character earns no experience whatever until his former alignment is regained. This assumes, of course, that the character wants to regain his former alignment.
If the character decides that the new alignment isn't so bad after all, he begins earning experience again, but the doubling penalty goes into effect. The player does not have to announce this decision. If the DM feels the character has resigned himself to the situation, that is sufficient.
3.5 DMG, p.134 (no screwjob, hooray!)
Changing alignment usually takes time. Changes of heart are rarely sudden (although they can be). What you want to avoid is a player changing her character’s alignment to evil to use an evil artifact properly and then changing it right back when she’s done. Alignments aren’t garments you can take off and put on casually. Require an interval of at least a week of game time between alignment changes.
[] Not really. The code is what standards the character sets himself to. It's a behavioral thing.
I was talking about the inspiration for the mechanics, and you know it. If you want to talk about what the code is in-setting, then you are right, yes, but there is more to it than that. In the default setting, the code is the high calling that the paladin champions, and it is by following its discipline that he can employ those powers. For those reasons, yes, it is the standard of behavior the paladin sets himself to. If you're trying to make a claim about the paladin code, please clarify and offer support from the RAW for your claim.
And again, how does any of that require alignment mechanics? Why can't the code for a Paladin just be optional, and on building if the Paladin doesn't choose a code, just assume he's following one he never mentions to the others at all?(Or assume he mentioned it to the others "offscreen")
Put one of the central ideas for the conceptual holy knight in the background? You keep missing the point. They have systems representing them because they are core defining elements of the class, so they therefore need systems to represent them, as core defining elements fo a class need to be represented by systems, otherwise, they are not core defining elements, and they are relegated to the realm of fluff. The code isn't optional because it is part of the concept, it is part of the archetypal identity. That is why. I think I have already said this a few times.
I still do not see why any of this requires alignment mechanics. Seriously, I can play a Cleric multiclass Fighter
Which would be a warrior trained as a priest, who follows a god, which is not even close to the same thing as a paladin, mechanically, thematically, or archetypally. It is no longer a paragon of justice and virtue, but a holy man who serves a god who also knows how to fight. That is not the same thing, not even close. By the way, you're now campaigning for more restrictions, just because "it can be done this way" doesn't mean it should be done this way. If you don't think it should be done this way, and expect to convince anyone of your position, you need to prove why it should not be done this way, because you are the one making the claim. Now you're trying to take away choice, which is what you were accusing us of doing, when we weren't actually doing that.
and hold myself to those same standards and absolutely nothing changes,
Aside from all of the stuff I just said, clerics get their stuff taken away too when they move too far away from their deity's alignment or violate the deity's teachings. Which is also a thematically appropriate mechanical system.
except I don't get my class abilities removed for not acting within ym DM's view of Lawful Good, which may or may not be different from my view of Lawful Good.
Ugh....I thought this was dealt with. I'm going to start by saying this, the concept and definition of lawful good is not a subjective thing. If your DM has a different idea of lawful good than what is stated in the RAW, he is wrong and needs to re-read it. If you have a different idea of lawful good than what is stated in the RAW, you are wrong and need to re-read it. If you both know what the RAW is, and the DM is using it, then there is nooooo problem. Also, the DM is, as always, supposed to help people play in-character. If you are accidentally acting out of character, the DM's job is to help you understand the alignment system so you can play to the alignment you want. If you are acting in-character, then there is no problem. I would also like to point out that with your multiclass fighter cleric option, I don't get smite evil, I don't get my special mount, and I don't get lay on hands. I do get a bunch of bonus feats that I never wanted that are completely worthless to my character concept though. I suppose that's nice. Oh, and the extra bloated spellcasting that I didn't want, and now I'm serving a god that I didn't want to serve.
Interesting post Qmark. Thanks to you, I now know how the alignment system functions in the older editions. What I and others have been asking for though, is proof from the RAW for what its for, not just what it does. That sounds like it exists to mechanically illustrate the hardships and difficulties crises can cause. Now, I don't necessarily agree with losing levels for changing alignment (that doesn't make sense on a mechanical or thematic level) but that is one way to do it.
Now find something from one of those books that states that those penalties are to punish the player. Also, if you find anything that says those penalties are there to illustrate a dramatic conflict or crisis, provide that too please. In fact, if you find anything at all as to what their actual purpose is, show it period.
On a side note, hehe, chaotic dirty...I won't say what that makes me think of.
Do you possess a faulty reading comprehension level, or did you just skip over posts which already address this, so you can just repeat the same blithering nonsense? Is it some kind of deliberate effort that you think makes you look like your arguments have weight when you don't actually respond, but just repeat it over and over, despite numerous answers and counter-points?
....WHat does any of that have to do with Paladins of other alignments?
I will re-iterate for you. The definition of "paladin" as taken from the dictionary:pal·a·din (pl-dn)
n.1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
Sorry this took so long, guys. I had to "punish" a bunch of dishes for changing alignment to Chaotic Dirty.Also, please provide direct quotes from the RAW, as we have done, including which book (edition and everything) with page numbers, so we can verify.
1E DMG, 1979 printing, p.26 (total screwjob)Immediately upon alignment change actually occurring, the character concerned will lose one level of experience, dropping experience points to take him or her to the very beginning of the next lower level, losing the hit die and/or hit points, and a11 abilities which accrued to him or her with the lost level. If the alignment change is involuntary (such as that 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 is 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. The sacrificial amount is variable, so use your best judgment as to the total and what and where it should go - magic items to build up the NPC cleric, money out of the campaign, magic items out of the campaign, etc. Similarly, such atonement and sacrifice can be accomplished by a quest. Note that, in all likelihood, the character will desire to retain the new alignment, and it is incumbent upon you as DM to ensure that the player acts accordingly. Some equally powerful means (divine intervention, remove curse, etc.) must be used to restore the original alignment before atonement can begin.
2E DMG, 1993 printing, p.29 (advancement slowdown)The instant a character voluntarily changes alignment, the experience point cost to gain the next level (or levels in the case of multi-class characters) is doubled. To determine the number of experience points needed to gain the next level (and only the next level), double the number of experience points listed on the appropriate Experience Levels table.If an alignment change is involuntary, the doubled experience penalty is not enforced. Instead, the character earns no experience whatever until his former alignment is regained. This assumes, of course, that the character wants to regain his former alignment.
If the character decides that the new alignment isn't so bad after all, he begins earning experience again, but the doubling penalty goes into effect. The player does not have to announce this decision. If the DM feels the character has resigned himself to the situation, that is sufficient.
3.5 DMG, p.134 (no screwjob, hooray!)Changing alignment usually takes time. Changes of heart are rarely sudden (although they can be). What you want to avoid is a player changing her character’s alignment to evil to use an evil artifact properly and then changing it right back when she’s done. Alignments aren’t garments you can take off and put on casually. Require an interval of at least a week of game time between alignment changes.
Thank you Qmark. I genuinely sppreciate you putting in the effort that other alignment detractors will not.
However, all you have proven is that the WERE mechanical penalties to changing alignment, and also that as the game evolved, those punishments became less severe and eventually went away.
What your quotes does NOT prove, objectively, is that the PURPOSE of this was to just arbitrarily screw players. In fact, as the editions evolved, it was made more clear HOW alignment change should be enforced, leaving it less and less to the adjudication of "whenever the DM felt like it". As I recall 2e did not specify how much time or action was needed to permanently affect a PC's alignment.
If anything, we have seen that the rules have become MORE player-friendly as editions progressed. We need to also remember that a lot of 1e, especially, was left to adjudication. 1e modules, for example (Tomb of Horrors is a prime example), didn't always have the solutions to puzzles laid out, the PCs didn't just have a huge set of skill that could be used, the writers just EXPECTED players to be creative, and the DMs to be creative and make it up themselves. 1e had more player "screwjobs" than just the way alignment was handled, and I will freely admit that in 1e, the DM was given a great deal more authority to just use his/her own subjective judgement.
Having more codified rules PROTECTS players, because there is a RAW way to handle things. (Note: I shied away from saying a "right" way to do things, because that's a value judgement. If your DM wants to houserule things, it is technically his perogative to do so, but RAW is still down in black and white).
To be honest, most of my points come from 3.x. I played 2e, but never DM'd it. I tried my hand at DMing for the first time about a year after 3e came out.
Also, if you find anything that says those penalties are there to illustrate a dramatic conflict or crisis, provide that too please.
It doesn't matter if it's intended to abstract a "change of heart" or being kicked in the testicles.
It is a punishment. Period.
Or to put it another way:
"If you don't act how your DM thinks you are supposed to act you get stuff taken away from you"
If you're trying to make a claim about the paladin code, please clarify and offer support from the RAW for your claim.
My only claim about the Paladin code is it should be entirely up to the player and/or DM whether they follow it or not, or what exactly the code entails.
The code isn't optional because it is part of the concept, it is part of the archetypal identity. That is why. I think I have already said this a few times.
The code is optional because the Paladin class can function just fine without it.
Which would be a warrior trained as a priest, who follows a god, which is not even close to the same thing as a paladin, mechanically, thematically, or archetypally.
Except a Cleric with training in weapons and heavy armor is completely indistinguishable from a Paladin. Both use weapons and heavy armor, both channel the powers of their god, both can follow a specific code of conduct regarding their actions. The only difference is the DM can't just say "I don't believe thta's Lawful Good, so now you're a commoner." to the Cleric.
It is no longer a paragon of justice and virtue, but a holy man who serves a god who also knows how to fight.
Unless I roleplay said Cleric as a paragon of justice and virtue, at which point he's, again, completely indistinguishable from a Paladin.
By the way, you're now campaigning for more restrictions, just because "it can be done this way" doesn't mean it should be done this way
I fail to see how more character concepts are restricting.
Now you're trying to take away choice, which is what you were accusing us of doing, when we weren't actually doing that.
I'm sorry? Please quote exactly where I'm advocating for choice removal.
Aside from all of the stuff I just said, clerics get their stuff taken away too when they move too far away from their deity's alignment or violate the deity's teachings. Which is also a thematically appropriate mechanical system.
Except the restrictions on the Cleric are much, much looser than the Paladin's. The Cleric just has to be within one alignment "square" of his deity. A Paladin has to be Mother Theresa 24/7.
I'm going to start by saying this, the concept and definition of lawful good is not a subjective thing.
The fact that every topic about a Paladin's alignment devolves into an argument of what LG really means, I highly doubt that.
That sounds like it exists to mechanically illustrate the hardships and difficulties crises can cause.
Actually, the Paladin's code of conduct existed to balance the Paladin, since you could only qualify for it by rolling good stats in the right spots. Now that classes are actually being balanced, the code of conduct has no place as a requirement. If the player and/or DM want to have the Paladin follow a code of conduct, that's up to them, but it should not be a mechanically enforced requirement.
Now, I don't necessarily agree with losing levels for changing alignment (that doesn't make sense on a mechanical or thematic level) but that is one way to do it.
IIRC, in early early D&D, losing a level for changing alignment was the best thing a DM could do to you. Another ption was you were attacked by a monsters, who's name escapes me at the moment, that is invulnerable to any damage or effects caused by anyone other than you. IIRC, the monster had the exact same stats, abilities, and equipment you did, plus inherant Regen. No matter the outcoime of this fight, you were removed from the campaign permanently. If you lost, you were killed, and could never be ressurected by any means. If you won, you were taken to the astral sea to be some deity's errand boy.
Now find something from one of those books that states that those penalties are to punish the player.
I fail to see how losing all your class abilities for not following an extremely narrow behavior doesn't qualify as a punishment.
Do you possess a faulty reading comprehension level, or did you just skip over posts which already address this, so you can just repeat the same blithering nonsense? Is it some kind of deliberate effort that you think makes you look like your arguments have weight when you don't actually respond, but just repeat it over and over, despite numerous answers and counter-points?
....WHat does any of that have to do with Paladins of other alignments?I will re-iterate for you. The definition of "paladin" as taken from the dictionary:pal·a·din (pl-dn)
n.1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
What your quotes does NOT prove, objectively, is that the PURPOSE of this was to just arbitrarily screw players.
Here's the three immediately preceding paragraphs from 2e:
There are two possible effects of changing alignment, depending on the situation and circumstances of the change. The first results in no penalty. This effect only should be used when the player and the DM mutually agree that the character's alignment should be changed to improve the play of the game.
Most often this occurs with low-level characters. The player character's alignment may prove to be incompatible with the rest of the party. A player character may simply be more interesting for everyone if his alignment were different. Inexperienced players may select an alignment without fully understanding its ramifications. Discovering they simply do not like the alignment, they may ask to change. Such changes must be made with mutual agreement. As DM, try to accommodate the desires of your players.
In the second type of voluntary change, the case cannot be made that the alignment change would be for the good of the game. This generally involves more established characters who have been played according to one alignment for some time. Here, the effects of alignment change are severe and noticeable.
The only time "punishment" is invoked is when a character changes alignment for roleplay reasons and only when the DM doesn't like it.
....WHat does any of that have to do with Paladins of other alignments?
He's talking about how we have both repeatedly addressed this and you keep ignoring it. Pretty soon, I'm going to start quoting myself, because I have basically already been doing that for a while now. Doing it in actual will just make things easier.
Except the times they didn't, like all the Paladins of other alignments.
They did this twice, once with a variant in 3.5, done to create ease of use for people who wanted to modify the paladin class, and then for 4e, where they seriously downplayed alignment as a whole. With as much as alignment was downplayed, without it being the cosmic forces of the setting, it truly held no more meaning. With radiant and necrotic damage they may as well have just eliminated it. With no code and no power to connect to, and instead serving a god, one could argue that it was an extreme bastardization of the idea of a holy knight. While no true scotsman does exist, simply calling something something, doesn't make it what you're calling it. All the 4e paladin really was was a more offensive cleric with left over vestige class features from when it was a real holy knight.
And just because 4e was the first edition to drop alignment restrictions doesn't mean it should be discounted. Restricting Paladins to a singl alignment cuts out other character concepts. Not to mention I find it hard to beleve only Lawful Good gods want powerful armored holy warriors on their side.
Point 1: They didn't just drop restrictions, they dropped alignments in practice entirely, and then kept the names. Point 2: How is restricting paladins to a single alignment cutting out other character concepts when all of the classes are so modable, and the DMG offers tips for how to do it? Your point there simply does not hold up under an examination of RAW. Point 3: For the last time. Seriously. Paladins do not serve gods. They serve a creed, a set of ideals. It is a serious break from the archetype. Sure, paladins might choose a god to worship as any other character might, but they are not beholden to them, they do not get their power from them, and they sure as hell are not their champions. Seriously, if one more person says paladins follow gods, I'm quoting myself here.
No, it's because Paladins of other alignments do need to be considered. Restricting a class to one specific concept is, frankly, idiotic and horrible game design.
Also, if you find anything that says those penalties are there to illustrate a dramatic conflict or crisis, provide that too please.
It doesn't matter if it's intended to abstract a "change of heart" or being kicked in the testicles.
It is a punishment. Period.
Or to put it another way:"If you don't act how your DM thinks you are supposed to act you get stuff taken away from you"
No. It's a penalty, or a difficulty, or a downside, or a consequence, in the same way that dying is a consequence of losing all your hp. As for you quoting krusk about DM punishment, please actually go back and read what I said about players working with their DMs.
What your quotes does NOT prove, objectively, is that the PURPOSE of this was to just arbitrarily screw players.
Here's the three immediately preceding paragraphs from 2e:There are two possible effects of changing alignment, depending on the situation and circumstances of the change. The first results in no penalty. This effect only should be used when the player and the DM mutually agree that the character's alignment should be changed to improve the play of the game.
Most often this occurs with low-level characters. The player character's alignment may prove to be incompatible with the rest of the party. A player character may simply be more interesting for everyone if his alignment were different. Inexperienced players may select an alignment without fully understanding its ramifications. Discovering they simply do not like the alignment, they may ask to change. Such changes must be made with mutual agreement. As DM, try to accommodate the desires of your players.
In the second type of voluntary change, the case cannot be made that the alignment change would be for the good of the game. This generally involves more established characters who have been played according to one alignment for some time. Here, the effects of alignment change are severe and noticeable.
The only time "punishment" is invoked is when a character changes alignment for roleplay reasons and only when the DM doesn't like it.
That still doesn't prove that the purpose is punishment. For that the RAW would have to state that the purpose is punishment. The RAW no more says that penalties for changing alignment is punishment than dying is a punishment handed out by the DM for losing all of your hp.
If you're trying to make a claim about the paladin code, please clarify and offer support from the RAW for your claim.
My only claim about the Paladin code is it should be entirely up to the player and/or DM whether they follow it or not, or what exactly the code entails.
IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE PLAYER IF HE FOLLOWS IT OR NOT! The only difference is, if his character has sworn to uphold the CoC, and he then violate it, he actually has to deal with the consequences of his action.
The code isn't optional because it is part of the concept, it is part of the archetypal identity. That is why. I think I have already said this a few times.
The code is optional because the Paladin class can function just fine without it.
That's asinine.
The wizard class can function just fine if you remove Arcane Spell Failure chance on armor, give him all armor proficiency and d10 hit dice, too.
The ranger can function if you completely remove his animal companion.
The Samurai (Oriental Adventures version) CAN function without his ancestral daisho.
Just because something CAN function without a feature doesn't make that feature not part of its archetypal identity.
Which would be a warrior trained as a priest, who follows a god, which is not even close to the same thing as a paladin, mechanically, thematically, or archetypally.
Except a Cleric with training in weapons and heavy armor is completely indistinguishable from a Paladin. Both use weapons and heavy armor, both channel the powers of their god, both can follow a specific code of conduct regarding their actions. The only difference is the DM can't just say "I don't believe thta's Lawful Good, so now you're a commoner." to the Cleric.
You make this easy because you don't even understand the rules you're talking about.
Yes, actually, if a cleric's alignment changes so that he is no longer within "one step" of his deity's alignment, he loses his ability to cast spells and turn/rebuke undead.
And furthermore, you are once again using a strawman regarding the paladin. A paladin does not lose his powers if he does one action that isn't "Lawful Good". How do you eat or wipe your *ss in a lawful and good way? The act must be willingly and intentionally commited, and it must be an act of evil.
The rest I'm not responding to, because it's the same inane blather over and over again with no substance.
The rest I'm not responding to, because it's the same inane blather over and over again with no substance.
Welcome to alignment threads!
What your quotes does NOT prove, objectively, is that the PURPOSE of this was to just arbitrarily screw players.
Here's the three immediately preceding paragraphs from 2e:There are two possible effects of changing alignment, depending on the situation and circumstances of the change. The first results in no penalty. This effect only should be used when the player and the DM mutually agree that the character's alignment should be changed to improve the play of the game.
Most often this occurs with low-level characters. The player character's alignment may prove to be incompatible with the rest of the party. A player character may simply be more interesting for everyone if his alignment were different. Inexperienced players may select an alignment without fully understanding its ramifications. Discovering they simply do not like the alignment, they may ask to change. Such changes must be made with mutual agreement. As DM, try to accommodate the desires of your players.
In the second type of voluntary change, the case cannot be made that the alignment change would be for the good of the game. This generally involves more established characters who have been played according to one alignment for some time. Here, the effects of alignment change are severe and noticeable.
The only time "punishment" is invoked is when a character changes alignment for roleplay reasons and only when the DM doesn't like it.
How do you get that out of that text?
I bolded the part where the RAW says that the DM is actually supposed to accomodate his player's choices.
Nowhere does that state in plain text, that you change a PC's alignemnt in order to punish them, or that such is the PURPOSE of alignment, which was the point being made.
The rest I'm not responding to, because it's the same inane blather over and over again with no substance.
Welcome to alignment!
Fixed that for you.
Nowhere does that state in plain text, that you change a PC's alignemnt in order to punish them, or that such is the PURPOSE of alignment, which was the point being made.
Oh, that's what we're fighting about.
During the course of play, keep notes on the actions of the player characters. At the end of each session, read through those notes, paying attention to any unusual behavior. Note which alignment seems most appropriate to each character's actions.If, over the course of several playing sessions, a character's actions consistently fit an alignment different from the character's chosen alignment, an alignment change is probably in order. If small actions are taking a character outside his alignment, the change should be gradual--maybe even temporary. Severe actions could require an immediate and permanent alignment change.
-- 2e DMG, p.28
The rest I'm not responding to, because it's the same inane blather over and over again with no substance.
Welcome to alignment threads!
Lol.
More like "welcome to arguing with EnglishLanguage."
I enjoy debates, but I enjoy them more with people who can actually debate with an open mind. I am willing to accept others' points when they are willing to do the same amount of work that I am and supply RAW quotes as you have.
In the case of what you have posted, for example, I maintain that your quotes do not support the original indictment which was made, which you are trying to prove. But I have thanked you for participating on the same level as the rest of us.
Seriously, one of my favorite forum discussions I ever had was years ago, on the subject of morality and the use of positive/negative energy, especially as it applied to the creation of undead. Myself and the other posters went on for pages and pages in discussion, and eventually came to points of mutual understanding and conclusions based on what was in RAW.
But those guys would actually RESPOND to counter points, and not bury their head in the sand and hide from oposition to their points, and then just re-iterate the same crap a page later. There are a few other posters on these boards who do the same, but to avoid ad hominem attacks, I will not name them. But I remember who they are. And one of them is the guy I've been arguing with.
But I do enjoy reading your counter-points. You have my objective admiration for at least trying to use facts, instead of making baselss claims.
That's just silly.
I'm not going to make enemies of people I don't even know, over a petty disagreement.
That's just silly.
That's what the Block User function is for.
Nowhere does that state in plain text, that you change a PC's alignemnt in order to punish them, or that such is the PURPOSE of alignment, which was the point being made.
Oh, that's what we're fighting about.During the course of play, keep notes on the actions of the player characters. At the end of each session, read through those notes, paying attention to any unusual behavior. Note which alignment seems most appropriate to each character's actions.If, over the course of several playing sessions, a character's actions consistently fit an alignment different from the character's chosen alignment, an alignment change is probably in order. If small actions are taking a character outside his alignment, the change should be gradual--maybe even temporary. Severe actions could require an immediate and permanent alignment change.
2e DMG, p.29
Consequences and repercussions are not the same as arbitrary punishment. The PLAYER made choices. The PLAYER made the decision to act outside of the character personality that HE HAD THE FREEDOM TO MAKE. In this respect, it is no different than 3e's rules. Just because alignment can change due to player action does not at all equate to "the purpose of alignment is to punish players". The text you quoted says, in effect, that "the purpose of a change in alignment is to keep the player's character consistent with the choices that the player himself makes". Remember, that despite free will and differing points of view, in the fantasy world of D&D, Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are objectively quantifyable forces which shape the cosmos. No matter how much you justify an action to yourself, it carries an objective moral weight in the D&D multiverse. One's position in regards to the forces of law, chaos, good and evil, can be measured and quantified. The player decides wheere they stand when they make their own character and his/her personality. And sometimes, the choices that character makes alter that position.
I am happy to see that I was wrong about 2e, I thought that 2e did not specify that alignment change should be gradual.
Now, do I agree with the harsh penalties involved in changing alignment in 1e and 2e? Personally, as a DM, no. I would houserule that if I were playing that edition. Because I think that that particular penalty is a bit harsh, and as a DM, I feel that part of my job is to not only adjudicate the rules and roll dice for monsters, but to oversee the game in a way that makes it FUN for my players.
I have had players start to drift into other alignments before, and I always give them some warning ahead of time. "Hey, by the way, your character's actions lately have been more Y alignment than X alignment. Which is fine, roleplay the way you want, but you should know that if it continues, you will be drifting into a new alignment soon", something to that effect. And do you know what? Every time that's happened, the player decided to go back to their original alignment. And this was with fighters, rogues, and wizards, people who would normally shrug off an alignment change. But I had pointed out to them that their actions were drifting away from the way they had intended that character to be, and they decided that they prefered their original concept. This same thing, by the way, could very well happen in a game that only used character personality and NOT alignment, just substitute the words "your original character personality" for "Y alignment" and "a totally different personality" for "X alignment".
And actually, last session of the 3e game I ran, I, for the very first time in the histroy of me DMing (so...over a decade), changed a player's alignment from an outside source. I'm running a really great pre-published adventure path, and my players just found one of the fragments of the Rod of Seven Parts (which, if you don't know is VERY strongly lawful-aligned Major Artifact). The TN Rogue picked it up and rolled a 1 on his Will save (only a DC17), which moves him one strep further towards Lawful, in this case, LN. I took him aside and told him that the powerful lawful energies of the rod had just caused a major change in him. I told him that I expected any changes in his personality to probably be subtle, little things, especially at first, but that his alignment had been magicaly altered to lawful neutral and that he should familiarize himself with what that means and come to me if he has any questions. My player had no problem. They knew, before they picked it up, what the rod fragment was, most of the party refused to touch it, only wanted the LG cleric of Heironious to touch it, but the Rogue thought it would be handy to have access to its spell-like ability for him, just in case they needed an extra Heal in an emergency and the cleric could not do it. He was totally accepting of it, and, in fact, told me later that he liked the fact that there was something that's magic was so powerful that simply holding it could have profound effects on one's character. He's not one of my most senior experienced gamers, and I think he equated it to the effects tha the One Ring has on it's bearers.
Actually he is and so am I.
Um...no. You're not. I'll respond to your post proper if you edit this out.
I'm not going to make enemies of people I don't even know, over a petty disagreement.
That's just silly.
That's what the Block User function is for.
But that can be used to be equally petty.
For example, you, Salla. I like you. Most every time I read one of your posts on the forums I enjoy it. You are clearly a well-spoken coherent debater, and you know the rules inside and out and (usually) are ready to back up what you say with RAW.
Which is one of the reasons I get frustrated with your input on alignment threads. The fact that you consistently make baseless claims about alignment, state explicitly that your opinions are somehow fact, and REFUSE to back up your claims with actual RAW text...baffles me to no end. I actually respect you as a poster a great deal, Salla. I just see a disconnect from what I come to expect when you post in alignment discussions. It confuses me.
Actually he is and so am I.
Um...no. You're not. I'll respond to your post proper if you edit this out.
I didn't say that, he did. So...will you respond to post #490 like I asked?
IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE PLAYER IF HE FOLLOWS IT OR NOT!
Except for the part where he gets his abilitie staken away if he doesn't. Not exactly a choice.
That's asinine.
The wizard class can function just fine if you remove Arcane Spell Failure chance on armor, give him all armor proficiency and d10 hit dice, too.
The ranger can function if you completely remove his animal companion.
The Samurai (Oriental Adventures version) CAN function without his ancestral daisho.
What I bolded is another example of a rule I don't agree with entirely, especially since, currently in 5e, a Fighter can take the Magic Dabbler theme and cast minor spells just fine in plate armor.
Italisized is a class feature that's fine. EVen if 4e, it's entirely optional and the class runs fine without it, but you don't lose all your class features if the animal leaves.
And I'm not arguing removing them entirely. Just leaving them up to the player and/or DM to decide.
Just because something CAN function without a feature doesn't make that feature not part of its archetypal identity.
Which is fien for flavor text and class lore, not a class restriction.
The rest I'm not responding to, because it's the same inane blather over and over again with no substance.
Ah ad hominem. Can't say I didn't see that coming.
I didn't say that, he did.
I wasn't quoting you in that post.
My only claim about the Paladin code is it should be entirely up to the player and/or DM whether they follow it or not, or what exactly the code entails.
According to RAW, it is. You can change, discard, or use any of that stuff as you see fit. So what's the problem?
The code is optional because the Paladin class can function just fine without it.
The wizard can function just fine without a familiar. That doesn't change the fact that the familiar is there because it is part of the archetypal image.
Except a Cleric with training in weapons and heavy armor is completely indistinguishable from a Paladin.
Wow. Your claims are getting more and more out there. Before I even get to dismantling your evidence I am going to crap all over this point right now, first thematically, then mechanically. Clerics still have the capacity to fear. Paladins, due to their connection with cosmic forces and their adherence to their code, they fear nothing. Just by being around a paladin, people feel better and happier. Most of the time, being around priests makes people feel worse. Any and all paladins possess the ability to strike down the forces of evil, attacking their evil energies directly. No god has been shown capable of granting his followers this awesome power. Paladins are beholden to no one but themselves and their code. Priests are beholden to those above them and their god. Paladins do not take ill, ever, period. Priests have been known to die due to illness. Priests generally stick with a cudgel or their god's favored weapon. Paladins are primarily associated with the image of a sword. I could go on and on and on and on.
Mechanically. Paladins are immune to fear effects, clerics aren't. Paladins are immune to diseases, clerics are not. Paladins automatically bolster anyone around them that isn't their enemy with an anti-fear aura, giving them +4 morale bonuses on their saves. Clerics do not do this. Paladins can smite evil. Clerics cannot. Paladins can summon a special mount. Clerics can't. Paladins get their power because of their adhereance to their code, caused by their strong connection to the cosmic energies of law and good. Clerics get their power by praying to their gods.
Both use weapons and heavy armor,
Do you have any idea how many classes use heavy armor?
both channel the powers of their god,
Point 3: For the last time. Seriously. Paladins do not serve gods. They serve a creed, a set of ideals. It is a serious break from the archetype. Sure, paladins might choose a god to worship as any other character might, but they are not beholden to them, they do not get their power from them, and they sure as hell are not their champions. Seriously, if one more person says paladins follow gods, I'm quoting myself here. In case you're curious, I quoted this from my previous post.
both can follow a specific code of conduct regarding their actions.
Doesn't matter, because different codes.
The only difference is the DM can't just say "I don't believe thta's Lawful Good, so now you're a commoner." to the Cleric.
Okay seriously it was kind of funny because but now I think you're trolling or trying to piss me off. Stop being a disrespectful little toad and read my posts instead of ignoring/glossing over them. The DM cannot, by RAW, do that. You have to actually not be playing lawful good, and even if the DM was running some screwball bastardized version of lawful good, it is his job to make sure you are in character when you play. Not playing according to the alignment you want? The DM is supposed to let you know that, and then show you how to play according to the alignment you want. I have said this in this same damn thread four times now. Stop repeating yourself and ignoring my points, because then I have to repeat myself, and it turns into a really viscious cycle. I should also note that the cleric loses powers by not following a code, just like the paladin does.
Unless I roleplay said Cleric as a paragon of justice and virtue, at which point he's, again, completely indistinguishable from a Paladin.
Just because your character acts like a paragon of justice and virtue, doesn't mean he is. It takes something no cleric will ever have, unless they become a paladin. I would also like to point out that near the top of my post here I listed a truckload of mechanical and thematic differences between clerics and paladins.
I fail to see how more character concepts are restricting.
That is because like everyone who thinks they are doing something innovative and progressive when they really aren't, you're failing to see what you're hurting, what you're taking away. By removing alignment, and not at least creating an alternate system for it (then why remove it in the first place?) you are removing the iconic archetypal paladin from the damn game. There goes one of my favorite classes, unless I re-create alignment, and then all that means is I have to do more work for something that used to be core, that should be core in the damn first place.
I'm sorry? Please quote exactly where I'm advocating for choice removal.
Again? Gladly.
That is because like everyone who thinks they are doing something innovative and progressive when they really aren't, you're failing to see what you're hurting, what you're taking away. By removing alignment, and not at least creating an alternate system for it (then why remove it in the first place?) you are removing the iconic archetypal paladin from the damn game. There goes one of my favorite classes, unless I re-create alignment, and then all that means is I have to do more work for something that used to be core, that should be core in the damn first place.
Your's is the kind of ignorant, insipid, and useless drivel I will fight until the day I die.
Except the restrictions on the Cleric are much, much looser than the Paladin's. The Cleric just has to be within one alignment "square" of his deity. A Paladin has to be Mother Theresa 24/7.
Doesn't matter. All that means is that DM doing what you're describing will take long to pull off with a cleric than it will with a paladin. But if that is what you're DM is doing then no alignment is safe. I should also like to point out that there is a clause that says gods can revoke powers at any time they see fit. There is also the deity's code of conduct, which, if you don't follow, kiss your powers good bye. With that out of the way, the paladin code isn't any harder to follow than the cleric restrictions are. Your real problem is that you think the paladin takes more work, when it doesn't. They are both beyond easy to play.
The fact that every topic about a Paladin's alignment devolves into an argument of what LG really means, I highly doubt that.
Don't be dumb. Back in the day people literally killed each other over whether or not the world was round or flat. That didn't make the shape of the world subjective. Just because people argue about the nature of a thing, doesn't make the nature of a thing subjective, that just means people aren't understanding the nature of a thing. We have clear, empirical proof of what lawful good is in the RAW, and anyone who disagrees with the RAW about what lawful good is, is wrong about what lawful good is. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of law or good concerning anything in the real world, the only thing that matters is what is in the damned book.
Actually, the Paladin's code of conduct existed to balance the Paladin, since you could only qualify for it by rolling good stats in the right spots. Now that classes are actually being balanced, the code of conduct has no place as a requirement. If the player and/or DM want to have the Paladin follow a code of conduct, that's up to them, but it should not be a mechanically enforced requirement.
I'm not gonna let you get away with that BS. Note similar font-modded text. Prove via RAW. As it stands now, I have already demonstrated by RAW, the purpose of the paladin code. According. To. RAW. It is there to help define the class. I have already shown how it does in fact help define the class. You keep ignoring these things. Stop ignoring these things. When I said I wanted you to sell me on this idea, I meant I wanted you to use sound logic to convince me of it, not do the forum equivalent of stick your fingers in your ears and start yelling over me. You won't be able to prove your point via RAW, so it doesn't hold, and the only possible purpose is the one that I positied earlier, which means the conclusion you reach in this paragraph is in fact, false. It helps define the class. Right now, that is the most logical conclusion. At least you're trying something new though.
IIRC, in early early D&D, losing a level for changing alignment was the best thing a DM could do to you.
I'm not using this as an arguing point, I just want to say that every time I see this mentality, I think I get a mild anurism.
Another ption was you were attacked by a monsters, who's name escapes me at the moment, that is invulnerable to any damage or effects caused by anyone other than you. IIRC, the monster had the exact same stats, abilities, and equipment you did, plus inherant Regen. No matter the outcoime of this fight, you were removed from the campaign permanently. If you lost, you were killed, and could never be ressurected by any means. If you won, you were taken to the astral sea to be some deity's errand boy.
In Vampire: The Requiem, when you hit 0 humanity, you become a draugr, and lose access to your character. This is done as a role-playing conceit to demonstrate what happens when humanity is completely lost. In this case, it is also a penalty, in fact its pretty much the ultimate penalty as its hardly any different from dying, but it is definitely not a punishment. It sounds like those things you mentioned are also designed to demonstrate ideas. Hm, taken to the astral sea for overcoming a god's challenge, to await your eternal reward. Sounds pretty cool to me. While you technically lose access to your character there, that sounds like less of a penalty and more of a succesful ending. Either way, if those things are there in order to punish the player, show me where it says that in the RAW and I will believe you.
I fail to see how losing all your class abilities for not following an extremely narrow behavior doesn't qualify as a punishment.
It qualifies as a penalty for sure, but to say a penalty exists to punish the player is a bold claim to say the least. To do that, you would have to back it up with RAW. Otherwise, its no different than any other kind of penalty in the game, save for in its severity.
And actually, last session of the 3e game I ran...
I've never enforced alignment, or ran is as anything beyond a pair of keywords, for effect and magical item shenanigans.
An Axiomatic/Anarchic/Holy/Unholy aluminum baseball bat is a gag I liked to pull a bunch back in the 2e/3e days.
Maybe I just suck at DM'ing.
Actually he is and so am I.
Um...no. You're not. I'll respond to your post proper if you edit this out.
We totally are, do you know why? It is totally allowable in debate to ask your opponent to do several things; elaborate, qualify a claim, and provide evidence for a claim. When someone makes a claim in an argument, you are required to present evidence or concede the point. That is one of the rules of basic debate. So present evidence or concede your point, and about you bringing up ad hom, its really cool that you can bring up logical fallacies but I can't. What you're doing right now is known as a red herring, trying to shift the focus of the argument. Can't say I'm surprised coming from you. A shame, I was starting to like you too.
IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE PLAYER IF HE FOLLOWS IT OR NOT!
Except for the part where he gets his abilitie staken away if he doesn't. Not exactly a choice.
Ahem. To that, all I can say is that you DID have a choice...you chose to play a paladin. It is identical to CHOOSING to play a fighter then complaining later when the DM says you can't cast a spell even though you REALLY want to. It's not a penalty. It's the structure of the game you're playing.
Except for the part where he gets his abilitie staken away if he doesn't. Not exactly a choice.
Since it logically follows that one leads to the other, it logically follows that one is choosing that as a consequence of one's actions. The DM isn't doing anything. Again, its no different than if you lost all your hp. The DM isn't forcing your character to die by saying, "well, you lost all hp, which means you're dead."
What I bolded is another example of a rule I don't agree with entirely, especially since, currently in 5e, a Fighter can take the Magic Dabbler theme and cast minor spells just fine in plate armor.
Sweet, I like wizards, does this mean I can play one with full plate with all of the abilities of a fighter? Hell, if I'm gonna do that I might as well just go ghestalt form Unearthed Arcana and get all of the class features of both classes. It's my character concept, so I should be able to do it, and any restrictions that keep me from doing it are bad game design, right?
Which is fien for flavor text and class lore, not a class restriction.
I will take that as confirmation that I can indeed play a fighter/wizard ghestalt in one of your games. Sweet,
Ah ad hominem. Can't say I didn't see that coming.
"Whaaaa!"
Seriously, with all of the gi-normous fallacies you have comitted in this thread, as well as your almost complete lack of evidence to support your points, and your repeated ignoring of points and evidence of people who don't agree with you, you don't have much room to complain about getting insulted. You kind of asked for it.
Sweet, I like wizards, does this mean I can play one with full plate with all of the abilities of a fighter?
That's what Armor Proficiency feats (or goofy multiclassing) is supposed to do.
Some of us out here look at class descriptions, and see nothing but a bag of level-locked abilities.
IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE PLAYER IF HE FOLLOWS IT OR NOT!
Except for the part where he gets his abilitie staken away if he doesn't. Not exactly a choice.
It's a consequence of the choice that the player made. If he swears an oath to follow a CoC, or lose his powers, and then CHOOSES not to follow the CoC, how is that not a choice?
I realize that you just may be a part of the growing trend in American society that seems to believe that no one is ever really at fault for their own actions and feels that they shoudl not have to pay consequences for them. But that's horsesh*t.
That's asinine.
The wizard class can function just fine if you remove Arcane Spell Failure chance on armor, give him all armor proficiency and d10 hit dice, too.
The ranger can function if you completely remove his animal companion.
The Samurai (Oriental Adventures version) CAN function without his ancestral daisho.
What I bolded is another example of a rule I don't agree with entirely, especially since, currently in 5e, a Fighter can take the Magic Dabbler theme and cast minor spells just fine in plate armor.
Italisized is a class feature that's fine. EVen if 4e, it's entirely optional and the class runs fine without it, but you don't lose all your class features if the animal leaves.
In 4e, the Ranger only gets an animal companion at all if he chooses the Beatmaster build. You're saying the Beastmaster Ranger functions just fine if you take away his animal companion? That's literally stripping him of his entire class identity.
It's also irrelevant, though. I was discussing the 3e Ranger. Mea culpa, I should have specified.
And I'm not arguing removing them entirely. Just leaving them up to the player and/or DM to decide.
You have been arguing for removing them entirely. Which is fine if you remove alignments on a game-by-game basis. I'm not telling you that you HAVE to use alignments. If you don't like them, don't use them. I am arguing that your distaste for alignment is your OPINION, and your claims you make about WHY you don't like it are your OPINIONS. You claim them to be facts and do not support the claim.
I didn't say that, he did.
I wasn't quoting you in that post.
So...you are still NOT going to respond to my points in post #490, then? You keep skirting the issue and finding excuses not to, and I think it's because you can't debate those points. I responded to your points, and you refuse to offer me the same courtesy. I shouldn't have to re-post them all over gain, just go back to #490, and hit Quote, and respond.
Please.
And actually, last session of the 3e game I ran...
I've never enforced alignment, or ran is as anything beyond a pair of keywords, for effect and magical item shenanigans.
An Axiomatic/Anarchic/Holy/Unholy aluminum baseball bat is a gag I liked to pull a bunch back in the 2e/3e days.
Maybe I just suck at DM'ing.
I am sorry if you thought I was making a value judgement of your DM style. I was not. You don't enforce alignment, more power to you, whatever works for your table.
I am trying to debate the actual pros/cons of alignment as it exists solely in RAW.
Actually he is and so am I.
Um...no. You're not. I'll respond to your post proper if you edit this out.
We totally are, do you know why? It is totally allowable in debate to ask your opponent to do several things; elaborate, qualify a claim, and provide evidence for a claim. When someone makes a claim in an argument, you are required to present evidence or concede the point. That is one of the rules of basic debate. So present evidence or concede your point, and about you bringing up ad hom, its really cool that you can bring up logical fallacies but I can't. What you're doing right now is known as a red herring, trying to shift the focus of the argument. Can't say I'm surprised coming from you. A shame, I was starting to like you too.
Thank you, Zaramon, for pointing this out, I think him, and several other posters do not understand how debate works.
EnglishLanguage, I have bolded parts of this for emphasis.
You don't enforce alignment, more power to you, whatever works for your table.
I also don't DM sober, but that's its own issue.
I know we are on the same side of the fence in this argument, but:
Please stop refering to all non-LG paladins as "not paladins". I understand where you are coming from. I know what the word paladin means. But this is a D&D forum. Dungeons and Dragons has re-appropriated the word "paladin" to mean "warrior of X faith". I know that 3e paladins, like clerics , can choose to not have a deity, but in both 3e and 4e, they are considered "divine" classes.
You keep sidetracking EnglishLanguage with what amounts to little more than word semantics. For the purposes of this discussion at least, I politely ask you to abide by the D&D definition of "paladin", which doesn, in fact, allow for LE Paladins of Bane and whatnot, even if those guys don't fit the classic definition of the word "paladin" as it exists in the dictionary.
Please, for me?
The rest I'm not responding to, because it's the same inane blather over and over again with no substance.
Ah ad hominem. Can't say I didn't see that coming.
BTW, ad hominem would be if I said "I'm not responding, because the poster is a blithering idiot" or something to that effect.
I said the substance of your posts was lacking, and it was the same stuff you have said repeatedly already.
Zaramon, I have a request for you.
I know we are on the same side of the fence in this argument, but:
Please stop refering to all non-LG paladins as "not paladins". I understand where you are coming from. I know what the word paladin means. But this is a D&D forum. Dungeons and Dragons has re-appropriated the word "paladin" to mean "warrior of X faith". I know that 3e paladins, like clerics , can choose to not have a deity, but in both 3e and 4e, they are considered "divine" classes.
You keep sidetracking EnglishLanguage with what amounts to little more than word semantics. For the purposes of this discussion at least, I politely ask you to abide by the D&D definition of "paladin", which doesn, in fact, allow for LE Paladins of Bane and whatnot, even if those guys don't fit the classic definition of the word "paladin" as it exists in the dictionary.
Please, for me?
Say no more, done, and I apologize for any difficulty I may have caused.
Oct 28, 2012 -- 9:32PM, Qmark wrote:
I later amended my statement to be a full blown ghestalt. I want to play a wizard, but with all of the class features of a fighter. And to specifify, I want the skill points of the wizard, and the HD of a fighter. I had to mention those because those were exclusive traits. But everything else, I want it all, because my character concept is someone who is really talented and melds the two disciplines in a unique way. See how silly that is?
Actually, that's fully possible in 2E. You are just going to have a stupid slow xp table.
The rest I'm not responding to, because it's the same inane blather over and over again with no substance.
Ah ad hominem. Can't say I didn't see that coming.
BTW, ad hominem would be if I said "I'm not responding, because the poster is a blithering idiot" or something to that effect.
I said the substance of your posts was lacking, and it was the same stuff you have said repeatedly already.
Either way, edit it out and I'll respond to you again.
Really, this is just a formality. I stopped taking alignment seriously when I saw even die-hard "alignment is fine!" fanatics can't tell the difference between alignments(when given the same description of a character with two sentances switched, said fanatic called the character two mutually exclusive alignments, Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good IIRC). If even the people defending alignment can't understand how it works, how can they expect me to support it?
The rest I'm not responding to, because it's the same inane blather over and over again with no substance.
Ah ad hominem. Can't say I didn't see that coming.
BTW, ad hominem would be if I said "I'm not responding, because the poster is a blithering idiot" or something to that effect.
I said the substance of your posts was lacking, and it was the same stuff you have said repeatedly already.
Either way, edit it out and I'll respond to you again.
Really, this is just a formality. I stopped taking alignment seriously when I saw even die-hard "alignment is fine!" fanatics can't tell the difference between alignments(when given the same description of a character with two sentances switched, said fanatic called the character two mutually exclusive alignments, Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good IIRC). If even the people defending alignment can't understand how it works, how can they expect me to support it?
You asked Zaramon to edit something out, and even explicitly mentioned that you weren't talking to me. I was asking you to respond to post #490 in this thread, which you have still failed to do.
The rest I'm not responding to, because it's the same inane blather over and over again with no substance.
Ah ad hominem. Can't say I didn't see that coming.
BTW, ad hominem would be if I said "I'm not responding, because the poster is a blithering idiot" or something to that effect.
I said the substance of your posts was lacking, and it was the same stuff you have said repeatedly already.
Either way, edit it out and I'll respond to you again.
Really, this is just a formality. I stopped taking alignment seriously when I saw even die-hard "alignment is fine!" fanatics can't tell the difference between alignments(when given the same description of a character with two sentances switched, said fanatic called the character two mutually exclusive alignments, Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good IIRC). If even the people defending alignment can't understand how it works, how can they expect me to support it?
Why would you listen to the words of fanatics? You have the text available to you, why are you letting other peoples' conclusions influence your own? Unless they offer compelling evidence of a point, ignore them. That's like not taking flashlights seriously because someone can't get the batteries in the right way.
I later amended my statement to be a full blown ghestalt. I want to play a wizard, but with all of the class features of a fighter. And to specifify, I want the skill points of the wizard, and the HD of a fighter. I had to mention those because those were exclusive traits. But everything else, I want it all, because my character concept is someone who is really talented and melds the two disciplines in a unique way. See how silly that is?
Actually, that's fully possible in 2E. You are just going to have a stupid slow xp table.
So the game is penalizing me for my character concept. Players should not be penalized for their character concepts, we should have more character concepts that don't get discriminated against by stupid mechanics like that. See where egalitarianism leads?
I later amended my statement to be a full blown ghestalt. I want to play a wizard, but with all of the class features of a fighter. And to specifify, I want the skill points of the wizard, and the HD of a fighter. I had to mention those because those were exclusive traits. But everything else, I want it all, because my character concept is someone who is really talented and melds the two disciplines in a unique way. See how silly that is?
Actually, that's fully possible in 2E. You are just going to have a stupid slow xp table.
So the game is penalizing me for my character concept. Players should not be penalized for their character concepts, we should have more character concepts that don't get discriminated against by stupid mechanics like that. See where egalitarianism leads?
He's refering to 2e multiclassing (which only non-humans could do), which was not to be confused with dual-classing (which only humans could do).
I later amended my statement to be a full blown ghestalt. I want to play a wizard, but with all of the class features of a fighter. And to specifify, I want the skill points of the wizard, and the HD of a fighter. I had to mention those because those were exclusive traits. But everything else, I want it all, because my character concept is someone who is really talented and melds the two disciplines in a unique way. See how silly that is?
Actually, that's fully possible in 2E. You are just going to have a stupid slow xp table.
So the game is penalizing me for my character concept. Players should not be penalized for their character concepts, we should have more character concepts that don't get discriminated against by stupid mechanics like that. See where egalitarianism leads?
The custom class tables punish you just for looking at them.
He's refering to 2e multiclassing (which only non-humans could do), which was not to be confused with dual-classing (which only humans could do).
No, 2E has a fully functional Custom Class system. It just heavily favors stock classes, and fully admits so:
You can't reconstruct the existing character classes using this method. The standard classes give players advantages over custom-designed classes. Standard class characters advance in levels more quickly and, generally, have better abilities than custom-designed characters.
Just wanted to pop in and say there is no way I have time to participate in this thread. Since I last checked, there were 65+ new posts. I don't have the time to devote to the thread to actually respond to people.
So I guess to end it, "I was wrong, alignment is totally the best, and works perfectly in every instance, anyone who likes it is dumb".
Just wanted to pop in and say there is no way I have time to participate in this thread. Since I last checked, there were 65+ new posts. I don't have the time to devote to the thread to actually respond to people.
I haven't looked in here since 400-some-odd posts ago. Really needn't have bothered but I had nothing better to do just now.
Name one class that would do worse without alignment mechanics.
Clerics.
Clerics use the allignment mechanic to define their beliefs, either the Deity they worship or the cause they worship. Now because D&D understandably only needs to few sentences to explain it's deities, alignment becomes a very powerful tool, placing the deities in an alignment spectrum goes along way to summing up their religion.
I want to be a Cleric promoting PEace and harmony, fellowship and strict disiplined moral values, so I choose to be LG, worship Pelor and I choose The Good and Healing Domains, I turn Undead and Spontaneously cast Heals.
I want to be a Cleric that teaches Joy and fertility, Life is good and the pursuit of hapiness is all that matters, I am CN and Worship The laughing Rogue with the Luck and Trickery Domains
I want to be a Holy Crusader, I follow Heronious, LG with the War Domain (Gain Longsword Sword Proficency and Weapon Focus Longsword) and the Good Domain.
As a Cleric I teach the world is ending and we must repent, Death is the way of Life, I worship Nerull and am True Neutral, My Domains are Death and Trickery, I Rebuke Undead and Spontaneously cast Inflict Spells.
In addition Clerics cannot cast spells of the opposing alignement, which means these clerics all have different restrictions there to.
The Allignment system gives this class many, many options.
I don't see how any of that requires alignment mechanics.
What exactly would be different if the alignment mechanics were removed, but I decided to follow the alignment in your examples and restricted myself from casting spells of the opposite alignment of my own choice? What exactly changes?
Well the restrictions wouldn't be there without the alignment mechanics, those mechanics are what are used to make those restrictions. Reverse engineer those above differences and you have Clerics that are only allowed to choose from certain Domains and Spells (as well as turn/rebuke, spontaneous cast heal/inflict) depending upon their allignment choices.
It's what stops the "Lawful Good" Cleric above from choosing to Rebuke Undead, Spontaneously Cast Inflict and have both the Good and the Evil Domains.
It is also the cost that a Cleric pays to get certain abilities. The N Cleric that made choices to be able to Rebuke Undead and Spontaneous Cast Inflict spells is restricted from certain Domains as a result, it a balancing act of choosing to be more offensive rather then the Cleric who chose the Good/Healing Domains.
And it relies heavily on the Alignment mechanics that it was designed for.
Domains represent Themed spells and abilities and are inherently based upon the allignment/diety choices of the Cleric. If You wish to scratch that theme, then you may as well dump Domains entirely and just give the Clerics an extra bonus spell per level as generic cookie cutter characters.
Like Vikings. They are pretty much THE real life Barbarians, but they still had their sets of customs and traditions. Are they Chaotic now?
And LAWS.
In fact "viking" is a verb - the Norse, mostly, with a bunch of Danes and a few Swedes mixed in, sent troublesome surplus young men off to go a-viking in someone else's land rather than have them breaking the laws and creating difficulties at home. Some got killed and made no further trouble, some came home wealthy enough to pay off those they had wronged, some grew up during their adventures - and at the very least they were out of their lord's hair for a while.
Not a reason to include "If you don't act how your DM thinks you are supposed to act you get stuff taken away from you" rules. Those are stupid.
Yeah... I probably can't add anything more to this thread that isn't just a vague rewording of that sentence.
Ditto. That's alignment in a nutshell.
No, that's alignment *mechanics* in a nutshell.
Alignment by itself is one way of encouraging (but not requiring) players to think about how their character looks at moral and philosophical issues. That's useful. The 3E alignment system happens to be my favorite tool, out of all I've seen in a bunch of roleplaying games, for that purpose. I use it frequently, including outside of RPGs (assuming that creating a fictional story is not considered an RPG) but I also frequently don't bother with those issues.
But alignment *mechanics*, for some classes and powers, *require* the players - and DM - to think about these issues, and for the players to come to specific conclusions (on behalf of their characters, not necessarily for themselves) in order to play certain broad archetypes. Even worse, those aren't specific conclusions printed in the books, they are the specific conclusions that the DM thinks the players should have come to based on the situation at hand, the non-specific guidelines in the books, and the DM's past experience with ethical systems real or imaginary.
My DM has basically told me that my character needs to act more chaotic to retain my CN alignment. What can i do that's chaotic but yet neutral? i would prefer my character not slip to chaotic evil...
Yousef The Chosen
Human/Doppelganger Cleric Lvl 5
Deity: Taiia The Destroyer
Question authority
I later amended my statement to be a full blown ghestalt. I want to play a wizard, but with all of the class features of a fighter. And to specifify, I want the skill points of the wizard, and the HD of a fighter. I had to mention those because those were exclusive traits. But everything else, I want it all, because my character concept is someone who is really talented and melds the two disciplines in a unique way. See how silly that is?
Actually, that's fully possible in 2E. You are just going to have a stupid slow xp table.
So the game is penalizing me for my character concept. Players should not be penalized for their character concepts, we should have more character concepts that don't get discriminated against by stupid mechanics like that. See where egalitarianism leads?
He's refering to 2e multiclassing (which only non-humans could do), which was not to be confused with dual-classing (which only humans could do).
As long as everybody is playing gestalt characters no one is penalized. If only you are gestalt, the other characters are penalized because you can pretty much handle everything without them by making their talented characters seem half as talented.
I tried the gestalt idea. Since I tend to make quirky characters, I liked it okay until I gain a level or two. Then it feels way too easy... like pac-man. Without ghosts and mazes... just rows and rows of cherries and bananas and oranges and "pellets".
As long as everybody is playing gestalt characters no one is penalized. If only you are gestalt, the other characters are penalized because you can pretty much handle everything without them by making their talented characters seem half as talented.
I tried the gestalt idea. Since I tend to make quirky characters, I liked it okay until I gain a level or two. Then it feels way too easy... like pac-man. Without ghosts and mazes... just rows and rows of cherries and bananas and oranges and "pellets".
Back on topic, Zaramon was using argumentum ad ridiculum, or appeal to ridicule. He was using his oppenent's own reasoning and taking it to an end that he hoped would show his opponent the conclusions that could come from claiming such reasoning for his points.
Even worse, those aren't specific conclusions printed in the books, they are the specific conclusions that the DM thinks the players should have come to based on the situation at hand, the non-specific guidelines in the books, and the DM's past experience with ethical systems real or imaginary.
You could use that arguement against any system of roleplaying that doens't use simply and/or rules for all interaction (like Choose Your own adventure Novels) Since the DM controls the reaction of NPCs to the player's choices based on "specific conclusions that the DM thinks" about human behavior and social structures of monsterous cultural and racial traits, "the non-specific guidelines in the" monster manual in the behaviour of creatures and "the DM's past experience with" social interaction between people, "real or imaginary"
The DM can make the NPCs unnaturally hostile towards the player or unreasonably insulted, creatures can know things they shouldn't about the players and their actions, such as a group of Goblins who all "happened" to consume potions of Fire Resistance for no particular reason before the fight, effectively neutralizing the Wizard with all fire spells prepared, who they didn't know about.
This is like saying the problem with 3.5's allignment system is that it isn't a board game, like snakes and ladders, which forces you to move to specific squares as a result of X, Y and Z.
Don't blame the ruleset if someone tries using Create Food and Water to summon a Donkey (lions eat Donkeys right?) to ride on and a Water Elemental (hey, it's water) It isn't the fualt of the ruleset, it's the fault of the person.
Oh.... Strawman.
As long as everybody is playing gestalt characters no one is penalized. If only you are gestalt, the other characters are penalized because you can pretty much handle everything without them by making their talented characters seem half as talented.
I tried the gestalt idea. Since I tend to make quirky characters, I liked it okay until I gain a level or two. Then it feels way too easy... like pac-man. Without ghosts and mazes... just rows and rows of cherries and bananas and oranges and "pellets".
It wasn't a strawman, in order for Strawman Fallacy to be accurate, he would have to have been seriously attempting to interpret his opponent's argument as some grotesque parody of what it actually was. You either didn't read the entire conversation that led up to that point, or you don't understand what a strawman argument is.
Much like the other poster earlier, who (incorrectly) accused me of ad hominem, when I was saying denigrating and dismissive things about the content of his post. True ad hominem would have been if I attacked his character in an attempt to demean his credibility.
Back on topic, Zaramon was using argumentum ad ridiculum, or appeal to ridicule. He was using his oppenent's own reasoning and taking it to an end that he hoped would show his opponent the conclusions that could come from claiming such reasoning for his points.
I thought that's what he was doing.
Maybe I read it wrong. meh.
Oh.... Strawman.
As long as everybody is playing gestalt characters no one is penalized. If only you are gestalt, the other characters are penalized because you can pretty much handle everything without them by making their talented characters seem half as talented.
I tried the gestalt idea. Since I tend to make quirky characters, I liked it okay until I gain a level or two. Then it feels way too easy... like pac-man. Without ghosts and mazes... just rows and rows of cherries and bananas and oranges and "pellets".
It wasn't a strawman, in order for Strawman Fallacy to be accurate, he would have to have been seriously attempting to interpret his opponent's argument as some grotesque parody of what it actually was. You either didn't read the entire conversation that led up to that point, or you don't understand what a strawman argument is.
Much like the other poster earlier, who (incorrectly) accused me of ad hominem, when I was saying denigrating and dismissive things about the content of his post. True ad hominem would have been if I attacked his character in an attempt to demean his credibility.
Back on topic, Zaramon was using argumentum ad ridiculum, or appeal to ridicule. He was using his oppenent's own reasoning and taking it to an end that he hoped would show his opponent the conclusions that could come from claiming such reasoning for his points.
I thought that's what he was doing.
Maybe I read it wrong. meh.
I wouldn't worry about it, Joseph. Without proper context it was probably not totally clear. I am sure Zaramon doesn't take it personally...he's a reasonable guy.
I thought that's what he was doing.
Maybe I read it wrong. meh.
I think you just didn't read the whole conversation between Zaramon and the other guy up until that point. His opponent really was saying that alignment restrictions prohibit his creativity, such as a chaotic monk, or whatever else he thinks the rules are keeping him from, and that the RAW should cater to anyone's idea for a character. Zaramon was pointing out that just alllowing any unrestricted character concept could go way too far.
This is pretty much it.
I wouldn't worry about it, Joseph. Without proper context it was probably not totally clear. I am sure Zaramon doesn't take it personally...he's a reasonable guy.
Yep.
I generally don't take it personally even when people are actually insulting me.I too would like that.
The Doors. Jim Morrison. Fairly Chaotic Neutral, IMHO.
I'm sure there are other examples and better ones.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Don't blame the ruleset if someone tries using Create Food and Water to summon a Donkey (lions eat Donkeys right?) to ride on and a Water Elemental (hey, it's water) It isn't the fualt of the ruleset, it's the fault of the person.
I think the rule there specifically states the kind of food created... and the description is some sort of gruel or un-buttered, un-sugared oatmeal. I suppose raw horse meat ;) could be on the menu, though...
DM: So you're running low on provisions and still have a long way to....
PLAYER: [Interrupting] Aw heck no I don't! I cast me a wang-a-dang-dang create food and water spell dang doodle all day man and summon RAW HORSE MEAT and wang-dang ride out tha wang-dang dessert swanging a blang-dame cactus on that E-quest-rian food's glooty-maximus to spur that mount back to the wang-dang town before that gate close. I need that 'spearience, mang!
Don't blame the ruleset if someone tries using Create Food and Water to summon a Donkey (lions eat Donkeys right?) to ride on and a Water Elemental (hey, it's water) It isn't the fualt of the ruleset, it's the fault of the person.
I think the rule there specifically states the kind of food created... and the description is some sort of gruel or un-buttered, un-sugared oatmeal. I suppose raw horse meat ;) could be on the menu, though...
DM: So you're running low on provisions and still have a long way to....
PLAYER: [Interrupting] Aw heck no I don't! I cast me a wang-a-dang-dang create food and water spell dang doodle all day man and summon RAW HORSE MEAT and wang-dang ride out tha wang-dang dessert swanging a blang-dame cactus on that E-quest-rian food's glooty-maximus to spur that mount back to the wang-dang town before that gate close. I need that 'spearience, mang!
Using the arguement that the spell says " fare of your choice—highly nourishing, if rather bland" and for 3 people/level, i am sure that for a level 5 Cleric that a small donkey would be enough food for 15 people to eat, and in their defence, I imagine that a donkey would qualify as being rather bland.
Yes I know it doesn't work, and it's patently ubsurd, yet I have seen stuff like this attempted before.
It's the same as "I am CN, therefore I ride into battle on a pig, armed with a large fish, then stab my party to death in their sleep and steal their gold to throw into the nearest river, because I am CN!"
Neither is a problem with the mechanics of the system, the "issues" that are debated about here are neither caused by, solved, nor prevented with an Alignment system, because the root of the problem is with the DM/Players.
It's sort of like the parents who blame their kid's horrible behaviour on that "rock and roll music" a video game, (or for playing D&D) rather then their own parental failings, "it's that Ozzy Ozborn that made him that way, we should never have let him out of the attic!"
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
If you have an issue about moderation, please contact us at : wizards.custhelp.com/
The signin feature at the email us section in the link you have provided is currently broken. It won't let me sign in. Is there another place where I can contact customer help?
If you have an issue about moderation, please contact us at : wizards.custhelp.com/
The signin feature at the email us section in the link you have provided is currently broken. It won't let me sign in. Is there another place where I can contact customer help?
Hi Zaramon,
Sorry to read you're having issues contacting us via the help site. Logging in at that link is currently working. If you're still having issues you may want to try clearing the cookies and cache for your browser. You can find instructions on this here: wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/...
If that doesn't help, please post in the following thread: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Someone will help you with access to our help site as soon as possible. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Monica
Don't blame the ruleset if someone tries using Create Food and Water to summon a Donkey (lions eat Donkeys right?) to ride on and a Water Elemental (hey, it's water) It isn't the fualt of the ruleset, it's the fault of the person.
I think the rule there specifically states the kind of food created... and the description is some sort of gruel or un-buttered, un-sugared oatmeal. I suppose raw horse meat ;) could be on the menu, though...
DM: So you're running low on provisions and still have a long way to....
PLAYER: [Interrupting] Aw heck no I don't! I cast me a wang-a-dang-dang create food and water spell dang doodle all day man and summon RAW HORSE MEAT and wang-dang ride out tha wang-dang dessert swanging a blang-dame cactus on that E-quest-rian food's glooty-maximus to spur that mount back to the wang-dang town before that gate close. I need that 'spearience, mang!
Using the arguement that the spell says " fare of your choice—highly nourishing, if rather bland" and for 3 people/level, i am sure that for a level 5 Cleric that a small donkey would be enough food for 15 people to eat, and in their defence, I imagine that a donkey would qualify as being rather bland.
Yes I know it doesn't work, and it's patently ubsurd, yet I have seen stuff like this attempted before.
It's the same as "I am CN, therefore I ride into battle on a pig, armed with a large fish, then stab my party to death in their sleep and steal their gold to throw into the nearest river, because I am CN!"
Neither is a problem with the mechanics of the system, the "issues" that are debated about here are neither caused by, solved, nor prevented with an Alignment system, because the root of the problem is with the DM/Players.
It's sort of like the parents who blame their kid's horrible behaviour on that "rock and roll music" a video game, (or for playing D&D) rather then their own parental failings, "it's that Ozzy Ozborn that made him that way, we should never have let him out of the attic!"
If I play a cannibalistic savage warrior... can I summon people? ;)
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
If I play a cannibalistic savage warrior... can I summon people? ;)
Yes, but it will be math-professor meat...so very bland.
If I play a cannibalistic savage warrior... can I summon people? ;)
Yep, but it has to be bland so you can't get a seasoned warrior.
