I know for myself, some alignments come more naturally than others. Chaotic Good is an easy one for me, but the opposite Lawful Evil is tricky and it took me awhile to get into the groove of the character when I last played a Lawful Evil character. I would be inclined to be patient if I were you and allow your players time to settle into their characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you dump alignment for a set of allegiances, and encourage people to develop personalities for their characters (without reference to alignment), that helps a lot.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some folks want to be the anti-hero and some folks want the freedom of being a selfish prick. There is a sense of catharsis in doing the things in RP you would never do in your own life. Also, folks seem to think that being lawful and/or being good requires extra actions of your character that other alignments don't.
Most folks will say get rid of alignment, which is a simple solution that works well. On the other hand, folks like myself find having alignment discussions with my group to be one of the most rewarding parts of D&D/PF. No two people have the exact viewpoint on alignment so expect some variance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in the 'chuck alignment' camp, but I'll stifle that for now.
Things to remember:
1. Alignment is dynamic, not static.
2. Actions determine alignment, not the other way around. You should never think, "I am (alignment), therefore I (action)."
If a character doesn't do evil things, then that character's alignment should eventually become neutral. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. This is not a penalty*.
Though the rules often fall short of this ideal, the book claims that alignment is not a straitjacket. Ultimately, in my mind, alignment fails because rules should be clear, unambiguous, and objective. Good and Evil are things people have tried to define for thousands of years and still struggle with, because the terms are subjective. A game book certainly isn't going to settle those debates. I find it to be far more trouble than it's worth.
*Blah blah class alignment restrictions blah blah. Another really stupid idea. "I lied a lot, now I can't get better at martial arts." Wha?
Things to remember:
1. Alignment is dynamic, not static.
2. Actions determine alignment, not the other way around. You should never think, "I am (alignment), therefore I (action)."
Although I tend to ignore alignment during a gaming session (as the DM), I outright ban evil alignments. Why? Because IMO they detract from the supportive team spirit I like to encourage amongst my players. They get off on being "heros" and somehow evil alignments just don't correspond to that.
Sure, I understand that some people like evil-aligned PCs. But intra-party betrayal, theft, and even all-out PvP combat and murder are often logical by-products of evil alignment. Not what I want out of an RPG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before this devolves into another "your way is stupid" thread.
Think of your players as actors. You all can think of actors who are playing themselves in whatever role they are in. You all can think of actors who lose themselves in their roles. Both can be a lot fun to watch. Now, as a GM, you are the Director, part of your job is to have the roles be a good fit for the actors. Ms. Snarky is going to be Ms. Snarky, since you know that, and can pretty much rely on it, you can use it to push the storyline.
Some of your players are never going to be able to, or even want to lose themselves into a role, or even really understand your take on alignments. So what? Leave those roles for the players who enjoy them, and are capable of filling them.
Our alignment system is simple: no evil, but if you pick a trait or feat that is predicated on something specific, you need to at least make an attempt to play that way. I had a player pick some sort of trait based on neutral of some sort, then proceeded to try to heal an enemy, during combat, as it was attacking party members (the wizard, in fact). That was absurd. And gaming the sytem.
My tengu paladin introduces herself as a grandmother. There are certain things one expects from a grandmother, especially a cagey wily sort that's seen a lot of things.
Yet she's also respectful of some organizations, places, and the like.
Most folks presume it's because she's a grandmother and being respectful to folks, rather than the fact that *she's a paladin and she's gotta*.
Has she opted for the 'sneaky/underhanded route'?
A bunch of times, because in her mind it's better to avoid the chance of combat where good well-meaning folks could die if a few words by someone who can speak well can mitigate that completely, or sneaking past guards rather than alerting an entire complex that there are intruders, etc.
Despite that, she's a good bird and she's mindful. Those who are alignment 'fundamentalists' might insist that she fall in a heartbeat, because how dare she be 'shifty' like that?
I have *yet* to see a GM rule that way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is descriptive not prescriptive.
If you're the kind of person who keeps their desk and sock drawer organized, makes lists and uses them, and whose word is a bond, then you're lawful. If you make sacrifices of yourself or take risks to help others because you feel it's just the right thing to do, then you're good.
I find alignment to be a useful shorthand description of a character's core personality. It's kind of like the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator: It describes some general trends of a character's personality, but does not dictate actions in any way.
There's nothing inherently evil or chaotic about many things that people say LG characters can't/shouldn't do. No reason a LG character can't hide, or keep secrets, or lie to protect another, or even use poison in some circumstances.
("Poison?? No way!!" I hear you say. Check out the Bestiaries for a long list of LG-aligned creatures that use poison.)
Such acts could certainly be against one's personal or formal code of ethics and morals, but they are not inherently antithetical to having an LG alignment.
As a GM, I have no problem with a paladin deliberitely feeding an enemy disinformation, or sneaking into an enemy fortress and dressing up as a guard to rescue prisoners, or using knockout drops to capture a valuable enemy without bloodshed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
She has said multiple times during this campaign how much more enjoyable this character is to play rather than her "goody-good" dwarf.
One possible interpretation is that playing the "good" character, she felt guilty on the PC's behalf over the failure of the character to live up to a good alignment. As an "evil" character playing the same way, no problem.
Haladir, mostly agree.
Have had the argument that a sleep poison is more merciful than combat when capture is an option. Results varied. Stealth, strategy and tactics are generally not fall-worthy, unless they are used to avoid dealing with an evil situation entirely, rather than dealing with it in the most effective, but still appropriate manner.
Disagree on one point. Lies are very iffy. In most cases, lies are corrosive, they are an attack on reality. They are also seductive. They allow you to avoid problems rather than dealing with them. Lying to an evil power gives it validation in the eyes of those not in the know. Lying can be pragmatic, even prudent. It is not being a shining example of righteousness.
Now "Grandmother" Tengu is portraying what should actually be an archetype. The Wise Elder, in the best sense of the world. As long as she brooks no foolishness or nastiness and acts always as a good example, yes she is still a paladin. If she works always from the shadows, kills in secret, even if she is always secretly apposing evil, she is not a paladin, she is a Vigilante, and we have rules for that now. To be a paladin, you must always be an example of righteousness. That is what the word has grown to mean. Paladins, and even Anti-Paladins are Exemplars. They are walking billboards. Whether that message is that Iomedie has shown us the , or that Callistria has shown us the , or sometimes just I am showing you the .
Haladir, mostly agree.
Disagree on one point. Lies are very iffy. In most cases, lies are corrosive, they are an attack on reality. They are also seductive. They allow you to avoid problems rather than dealing with them. Lying to an evil power gives it validation in the eyes of those not in the know. Lying can be pragmatic, even prudent. It is not being a shining example of righteousness.
However, they could be a good step towards consolation and compassion to help someone get through their time of loss and get them back to being a good person, if used exceptionally sparingly and respectfully.
Now "Grandmother" Tengu is portraying what should actually be an archetype. The Wise Elder, in the best sense of the world. As long as she brooks no foolishness or nastiness and acts always as a good example, yes she is still a paladin.
Yes, a grandmother crow following Andoletta.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If she works always from the shadows, kills in secret, even if she is always secretly apposing evil, she is not a paladin, she is a Vigilante, and we have rules for that now. To be a paladin, you must always be an example of righteousness. That is what the word has grown to mean. Paladins, and even Anti-Paladins are Exemplars. They are walking billboards. Whether that message is that Iomedie has shown us the , or that Callistria has shown us the , or sometimes just I am showing you the .
I disagree - what's wrong with a Paladin of Kelinahat that sneaks and hides in the shadows to gain information to be used for the cause of Good? Nowhere in the Paladin description does it say you have to be embodying Righteousness all the time - indeed, the description says you should embody the teachings of the deity you worship. Constantly being an example of Righteousness is Lawful Stupid, not Lawful Good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Wei Ji,
You reminded me of the other half of the lies issue.
Pratchett's Discworld had the beautiful, if not perfect, idea of tying lies into faith. Believing little lies, like the Hogfather, (Santa Claus), allows you to believe the Big Lies when you grow up, like Justice, Honor and the rest.
I love it, but it is iffy. It oversimplifies faith in the quirky, irreverent way that has caused me to own more of Pratchett's books than any other single author.
As long as your Paladin is always an Exemplar, showing the Rightness of their Faith and Way, I am ok with them. Any time they choose Pragmatism over Righteousness, I am Not OK with them.
Now, if you are playing a game focused solely ^-^ and soul-lessly on stat-blocks and skill sets, this is all irrelevant to your game. If you are playing a game using the "No-One is Clean" philosophy, then this is irrelevant to you, but then, so is the idea of the Paladin, except in a doomed, tragic sort of way.
If she works always from the shadows, kills in secret, even if she is always secretly apposing evil, she is not a paladin, she is a Vigilante, and we have rules for that now. To be a paladin, you must always be an example of righteousness. That is what the word has grown to mean. Paladins, and even Anti-Paladins are Exemplars. They are walking billboards. Whether that message is that Iomedie has shown us the , or that Callistria has shown us the , or sometimes just I am showing you the .I disagree - what's wrong with a Paladin of Kelinahat that sneaks and hides in the shadows to gain information to be used for the cause of Good? Nowhere in the Paladin description does it say you have to be embodying Righteousness all the time - indeed, the description says you should embody the teachings of the deity you worship. Constantly being an example of Righteousness is Lawful Stupid, not Lawful Good.
I would normally just chalk that up to preference. The Lawful Stupid Paladin trope exists because of artificially limited options, unimaginative players/GMs, and generally, laziness.
Since you are, ostensibly, a Venture Captain, the Rule is more important for you, so I should bring it up.Paladin
Source PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 60 (Amazon)
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful.Role: Paladins serve as beacons for their allies within the chaos of battle. While deadly opponents of evil, they can also empower goodly souls to aid in their crusades. Their magic and martial skills also make them well suited to defending others and blessing the fallen with the strength to continue fighting.
Now there should probably not even BE a Paladin of Kelinahat, as that particular gods teachings are not appropriate to the class. If the Paladin existed within that framework, his purpose would be to be the distraction, the one who holds the Foes attentions while his allies do their jobs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a Lawful Good Empyreal Lord of Ignorance. If no one even knows Cthulhu exists then they won't worship him.
I don't really like to see lying portrayed as chaotic personally. Governments and authorities do it all the time to promote order. Why, just look at Devils.
This deal is in your best interest
Magehunter,
Ignorance is really irrelevant to your follow on topic of Lying.
Not knowing is a different thing than believing a lie, even if their end effect is the same.
Also lying is not really a Law/Chaos thing so much as a Good/Evil thing. Even little white lies are, at best, a choosing of the least harmful option.
As a GM, I handle alignments with as light a touch as possible, and let my players choose an alignment, and how they want to play and portray said alignment. I have found that this works fine for my two groups, as they are mostly self enforcing of their chosen alignments.
Only rarely do I have to give a player a questioning look, if they attempt an action that runs counter to their alignment. Even in those cases, I tend to accept their explanation 9 out of 10 times as, they themselves either moderate or clarify their actions to suit their character.
As a Player I do tend to stick to the "Neutral cross" of the alignment chart, as most of my characters tend to, well, wiggle under the concept of a static mode of behaviour that (slavishly) following alignments can result in (in can, but doesn't always).
They tend to be played, as a fully constructed personality with their own set of behaviours, besides that usual set of alignment considerations.
It also helps that Neutral territory is the closet you can come to Blue and Orange (or Bacon and Necktie if you prefer) morality, in a game that usually operates in the shades of Black, Grey and White ^^'
As for lying, I'll leave it at lies are complicated.
Also lying is not really a Law/Chaos thing so much as a Good/Evil thing. Even little white lies are, at best, a choosing of the least harmful option.
I would disagree with a blanket statement that all lying is evil. Most lying would be neutral or evil, but context and intent really matter.
For example, lying to save someone else can be a good act... particularly if the person you're covering for is innocent and faces dire consequence, and when doing so puts yourself in danger as well.
Like if you were with the Bellflower Network smuggling halflings to Andorran, and a group of Thrune Agents asked if you were harboring escaped slaves, saying "No, I am not!" would be a good act.
However, if a character's Paladin Code states that they shall not tell a lie, then doing so, even for a good reason, would be breaking the code, and that could start down the path of losing powers.
I was disappointed with the removal of "grossly" from the violation of their code of conduct. A paladin should be able to lie if it will help prevent evil. I see lying as a chaotic action at its core (or at the very least, a non-lawful act). How the lie is used determines if it is a good, non-good, or straight evil act. A DM needs to be able to use their own common sense to determine if the paladin code has been grossly violated or not.
This is how I run Paladins in my games.
|
|
The concept of a what a paladin is has become so horribly twisted from its RPG roots, it is really a different class now. It has become 'I want to have the Paladin abilities, without the roleplaying restrictions that kept those abilities balanced.'
Paladins were -powerful- originally. That power was balanced by a few game rules, yes, but mostly by roleplaying mechanics. And those role-play mechanics were important.
Then 3rd edition came around, and they decided to balance all the classes around stats and abilities. So those role-play limitations were lessened. Which lead to gods that should never have had paladins getting them.
Nowadays, the class is just a pale shadow of what it was.
Of course this leads to problems interpreting the class. Because all of us are using different baselines. Having been playing for as long as I have been, I have to constantly remind myself that these people aren't playing Paladins anymore. They are playing paladins.
Some people consider this a good thing. People -like- options. But a fighter who chooses to sword and board vs using a two-handed weapon is still a fighter.
A person who wants to alter the -roleplaying- requirements of a Paladin... Isn't wanting to play a Paladin anymore. The are just wanting the Paladin abilities.
Is this wrong? That, I cannot speak to. But yes, it makes it much harder to come to a consensus on what a paladin should be.
As an aside, if you are interested in a fairly good interpretation of what a Paladin was meant to be, read 'The Deed of Paksinarrion' by Elizabeth Moon.