If we were already fighting to the death when the cave-in happened, then I see no reason why not finishing the fight and kill him -before he kills me- (I mean, wasn't I already on my way to kill him anyway?). Plus, if he calls a truce but is STILL GLOWING EVIL as he promises not to backstab me I'd need to be a complete IDIOT to trust him when MY GOD IS YELLING AT ME "HE'S BACKSTABBING YOU IN YOUR SLEEP DAMMIT!" (it's not an issue with the code, it's an issue with MY DAMN I.Q, I'm 'Lawful Good' not 'Lawful Idiot', thank you very much).
This is an excellent point, but once again brushes on the mechanics of detect evil. It's detect EVIL, not clairvoyancy (not as the spell, but in the more colloquial definition of the word), and evil people are quite capable of keeping their word just as much as they are capable of breaking it, since lawful evil, neutral evil and chaotic evil all show up under detect evil without prejudice.
I really like the idea of finishing the fight, although examining other alternatives is NOT "lawful idiot".
HOWEVER, if we happened to be in a situation where I DO NEED HIM to escape then the best I can do is to bring him with me while trying and keeping circumstances in my favor all the time as to prevent him from getting rid of me in a moment of weakness. Saying we both get out of it alive whatever happens will be rather circumstantial: If his crimes were relatively minor and he shown me throughout our little missadventure that there's still hope for him I let him go with a warning (well he SAVED my life, didn't he?), but if his crimes DEMAND retribution what I'll do is knock him out and bring him to justice ALIVE (he might get hanged, but not by my hand... he still SAVED my life, I'm not a monster).
Now let's say he's calling the truce while still glowing evil BUT my level of skill far surpasses his AND whatever crimes on his list still don't fall under the 'deserve to die' column. I knock him out and bring him out alive (If I can easily stomp any attempts on my life on his part then killing him would be just petty from me).
So, does this Paladin loses his powers for teaming up? No, he doesn't, but he'd need to be very stupid not to expect the inevitable.
I'm going to view this as another vote for arresting the criminal until he can be stand trial. Take their weapons or handcuff them in some way or something like that. The second book in the Twilight War (Go Paul S. Kemp!) has an EXCELLENT example of this.
|
Lawful Good is not more Good than Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. In fact if one of the Good alignments would be considered the most good it would be neutral good because that alignment has only the goal of good to be concerned about, while the other two are conflicted (chaotic and good or lawful and good). Jesus most likely would not have been LG, but NG. (assuming you accept he would have been good at all)
What he said. The Neutral Good guy is the one who would be willing to sacrifice his own freedoms to help others (which a Chaotic Good person would find anathema) or break an unjust law or personal code to help others (which a Lawful Good person might be unwilling to do).
The more 'selfless' a Good character, the more likely they are to fit under Neutral Good.
Someone who is Lawful Good or Chaotic Good will have limits, places they will not go, rules they will not break (or follow), even if it would be required to 'do good.' The Neutral Good person values good deeds and good results more than any personal code of conduct or concern how they end up 'looking' after the fact.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Can a paladin kill a pregnant evil gibbering that is attacking him?Of course. I don't think that gibberling will put up much of a fight in her state of pregnancy.
Oh, wait, you're talking about that moral stuff you doo-gooders are always blathering about. I guess he may incapacitate her so she's no longer a threat to him, but killing might go too far.
But the situation intrigues me. I shall submit to house thrune the idea of creating an order of warrior women who will be impregnated before the fight (preferrably by devils, because the gestation period would be longer, and we'd be getting half-devils out of the deal, too) and enter the frey in maternity armour. That will be our superweapon should we ever invade Andoran, Lastwall or Mendev.
You sir, win the thread
I don't understand your post, Magdalena- in the first part you say that a paladin should be ready to die down there as opposed to work with an evil character and then you point out the ridiculousness of the no association with evil rule overall and the importance of the good that can come from associating with evil. Which one is it? Would arresting said neer do well be a good idea from your perspective?
It depends how the religious order/god sees the matter: if they say that one shouldn't associate with evil beings, then the paladin shouldn't (this can be further supported if, say, that evil NPC would be imprisoned on reasonably lawful causes).
But I don't think good religious orders, including ones supporting paladins, would necessarily have a rule that one shouldn't associate with evil characters...actually some might be actively supporting associating with neutral and evil characters, in a missionary sense. Thus I might consider that rule to not be part of Paladin's Code.
|
|
This is why I would never use the stock code from the PHB, my paladin can travel with evil creatures because he believes in the power of redemption (his mother was living proof of it) as long as I am actively trying to bring the evil character to the good side, and as long as he doesn't do anything evil that I'd have to stop him, I can travel with him. I would say take a look at the players character history and have a discussion with the player and determine whether or not you feel he is violating his characters code. Don't just look at one stupid line from a stock character in the book and say "well, that's it for every paladin ever".
Thank you all. You have given me alot to go over, and caused me to change the way the paladin class is in my world. Aside from that, there is no law outside a towns borders unless there is an overuling power that governs the entire country.
|
And if someone proved unable to live up to the code, say, by doing something patently selfish and evil like valuing his class abilities more than other people's lives (since being willing to sacrifice even one's Paladinhood for others is, IMO, a Good thing), I'd allow the ex-Paladin to pick up Fighter feats at an accelerated rate and turn his ex-Paladin levels into Fighter levels.
one of my GM actually did this when the paladin fell
but well it all went wrong when we arrived to townmy CG cleric realised he was LG, and obeyed the law far more than the paladin
and the paladin did found 2 fireburst swords.... we decided he was evil when we heard him laughting when heconfirmed criticals... believeme it was just evil... (that and the little bussiness killing the guards when they wanted to arrest him for not pacyfing his swords... killing... is an underexpression... he massacred them, 8 lvl paladin vs lots of 1st level fighters or warriors...) actually he was called Aramil Nailo... which make me ask my myself... Samuel, is that you?
I don't understand your post, Magdalena- in the first part you say that a paladin should be ready to die down there as opposed to work with an evil character and then you point out the ridiculousness of the no association with evil rule overall and the importance of the good that can come from associating with evil. Which one is it? Would arresting said neer do well be a good idea from your perspective?It depends how the religious order/god sees the matter: if they say that one shouldn't associate with evil beings, then the paladin shouldn't (this can be further supported if, say, that evil NPC would be imprisoned on reasonably lawful causes).
But I don't think good religious orders, including ones supporting paladins, would necessarily have a rule that one shouldn't associate with evil characters...actually some might be actively supporting associating with neutral and evil characters, in a missionary sense. Thus I might consider that rule to not be part of Paladin's Code.
Copied from this thread:
As a general statement, I tend to think that paladins are far more workable than many people believe. Often it seems that unrealistic expectations and interpretations of a paladin's code and obligations in certain situations lead to problems, rather than the code itself. See Miko Miyazake in Order of the Stick (and Rich Burlew's various notes about her) for a prime example.
Now then, I think the main point here is the verb associate.
The paladin sees a crime lord out on the street. He waves and walks over, greets him with a friendly "Hello!", asks how things are going, chats about the weather, and then wishes him a nice day before walking on.
That is associating with evil. Obviously, there are lesser (and greater) instances which qualify, but it is the essence of that nonchalant and accepting interaction with evil that is forbidden to a paladin. Not associating with evil does not require the paladin to be at physical or even verbal war with every villain he encounters, 24/7.
For example, if we change the situation above, the paladin now (properly) wishes for nothing more than to take down that crime lord, bring him to trial and justice for all that he has done. But he has no proof significant enough for an arrest, no way to stop his nemisis. Yet the crime lord makes a point of visiting the paladin frequently for his own perverse amusement, chatting and joking with him. The paladin would be foolish to be overtly hostile all the time, what with the crime lord's influence in the city. So the paladin grits his teeth and bears it or, if he's in a particular mood, even ironically chats back.
That isn't "associating" with evil; not in the sense of the code. He can hold conversations and interact with the crime lord frequently, but I don't think anyone would agree that they are associates.
Likewise, there is a huge difference between "working with" or associating with someone who is evil, and seeking to redeem them. So long as the paladin appropriately objects to and takes actions to prevent and correct the wrongdoing of another and makes earnest efforts to "save" said other, I believe that a paladin is perfectly within his bounds.
Note that I say "appropriately objects." I think this bears a little elaboration. Let's take the offered example of a paladin and Mickey Murdersalot, whom we presume are being forced to interact with each other over a prolonged time for some reason. If Mickey steals a loaf of bread, the paladin should not only scold him, but also do his best to see that the bread is returned or compensation made, preferably by Mickey himself. Of course, an escalation to lethal violence would not be appropriate on the part of the paladin. I don't think that any law which is not actually evil (and therefore not binding to the paladin in the first place) would place one's life as the penalty for stealing a loaf of bread. If the paladin could not reasonably force Mickey to return the bread and could not make remedy himself for some reason, there would come a point where the paladin would have no real choice but to (regrettably to the paladin, I would expect) drop the issue. That may not seem very paladin-ish, but again, this is when there is no real choice. When such is the case, the paladin is not at fault; paladins may be held to a higher standard, but they shouldn't have to perform the impossible.
That all said, if Mickey refused to return the bread or stole a second time, the paladin should escalate his responses suitably. And if Mickey Murdersalot ever lived up to his name and unjustly killed someone, I would very much expect a paladin to try locking him in irons and dragging him off to await trial and sentencing. If Mickey resisted in this instance, the paladin quite possibly could be pushed into using lethal force.
Also note that none of that is mutually exclusive with trying to redeem Mickey Murdersalot. Even if we assume Mickey kills someone, is arrested, tried, and sentenced to death, the paladin can still seek his redemption, even if only to ease his afterlife and attempt to spare him an eternity of damnation.
Of course, it is possible to play semantic word games and say that any of the above examples is a form of "association," meaning interaction. But I can't help but feel such attitudes overlook the whole spirit of the code, and (mis)interpret it in such a way as to make it inviable and impossible to actually support and live up to. Again, paladins can and should be held to a higher standard; but they cannot and should not be asked to perform the impossible.
Also,
I realize that it has been a long time for most of us, but let's keep in mind what it means to be evil.
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.“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.
So, would a creature, say our hypothetical shopkeep, register as evil if he had no compassion for others, but had never found it convenient to actually go so far as killing?
And finally,
From a moral perspective, I have to then ask you what is the difference between Good and Evil? The spelling?Surely you are not suggesting that there is a moral equivalence between someone that rapes and murders children and someone who puts a yard of cold steel through the bastard's guts.
Depends on why he's putting the steel through the bastard's guts. If it's for the reasons Krome lists a paladin should be motivated by, then yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
So, would a creature, say our hypothetical shopkeep, register as evil if he had no compassion for others, but had never found it convenient to actually go so far as killing?Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“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.
Technically, no. A person hiding in their home and mentally masturbating (or physically possibly) to the ideas of killing people but never doing it doesn't make someone evil in D&D. I would say they don't necessarily have to be successful but they have to try to be successful (attempted murder is good enough, IMO). So no a rude jackhole that doesn't give a crap about other people is not evil necessarily.
Here you go, if you can justify your shopkeeper as more evil than formians (LN), then we can say he is evil. So look at what formians do and if he is worse then them, I'll happily accept him as evil.
|
|
Lawful Good is not more Good than Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. In fact if one of the Good alignments would be considered the most good it would be neutral good because that alignment has only the goal of good to be concerned about, while the other two are conflicted (chaotic and good or lawful and good). Jesus most likely would not have been LG, but NG. (assuming you accept he would have been good at all)
Jesus would be considered LG because they offered him the opportunity to escape his capture, torture and death... and he decided to let such actions happen, not only for a further plan... also ebcause it was the law
Pilato and Herodes sent him from one to the other because they could not found any crime in what he did...
the people of his country and race just wanted him death because he was inconvenient
|
|
This is why I would never use the stock code from the PHB, my paladin can travel with evil creatures because he believes in the power of redemption (his mother was living proof of it) as long as I am actively trying to bring the evil character to the good side, and as long as he doesn't do anything evil that I'd have to stop him, I can travel with him. I would say take a look at the players character history and have a discussion with the player and determine whether or not you feel he is violating his characters code. Don't just look at one stupid line from a stock character in the book and say "well, that's it for every paladin ever".
remembers me of something we palyed a few weeks ago between my LG Cleric of Iomedae and a N Wizard specialist in Necromancy
they are interrogating a goblin while the town is under attack so they can plan better how to confront the goblins
The Cleric has no compulsion in making the goblin note that shewill inflict harm in him if he doesn't begin talking... which he does as she expented... but not too much... there is a problem out and she leaves to confront such... then the Wizard... who while not evil has no compulsion against torturing the goblin (which he has been doing in a psicological way while speaking in goblin, because no one else understand a word of what he says) does begin torturing him physically now that the cleric is out (he does not care about torturing the goblin, but does care about what she is going to say)
when she re-enters (one less goblin in the worldand outside the inn, now) he tells her what the goblin told him, and the whole party prepares to go on further goblin hunting... then while she is preparing he aks:
"now what, do we kill the goblin?"
"what? no, of course not! tie him, so the people can deliver the goblin to the sherrif"
she has no compulsion in terminating a goblin who would have hurt her or others (it had a torch and planed to burn the inn), but would never hurt someone who has surrendered or is incapacitated.
sometime later she was shocked when she intimidated a group of goblins (natural 20, after the rogue killed their 'sub-leader') and they prefered to jump to their deaths to confront the group or surrender. She wasnot feeling guilty, but couldn't understand why they jumped from the cliff.
Jesus most likely would not have been LG, but NG. (assuming you accept he would have been good at all)
*sigh* I'd like people for once got over their anti-lawful prejudices for a second and actually try to understand the whole implications of lawful:
'Lawful' is a person who finds himself comfortable living in an orderly manner, which goes way beyond just 'obeying the law':
- Are you a man of habits? You're lawful
- Can you start a diet and actually follow through? You're lawful
- Are you a morning person? You're lawful
- Can you do a job you HATE without hesitating or complaining? You're lawful.
- Can you fulfill a promise even if it turns out you're getting the short end of the stick in the end? You're lawful
... in other words, are you disciplined? If so, you're lawful.
A monk is lawful because he is required to endure (and enjoy) a life of discipline (sometimes frugality). Jesus Christ was lawful because he knew all the time he'd be betrayed and then crucified, yet he manned up and carried on without hesitation because that's how it was written ('So it was written, so it shall be done'... soo much a lawful phrase). Finally, if Ghandi hadn't been lawful he wouldn't have been able to carry on with the hunger strikes he did throughout his life.
Likewise, a LG character will not obey a law he considers unjust or detrimental to others. It has been mentioned several times already that a Paladin won't hesitate to oppose a tyrant and dethrone him if necessary, regardless of whether his will is the law in his kingdom.
Jesus most likely would not have been LG, but NG. (assuming you accept he would have been good at all)*sigh* I'd like people for once got over their anti-lawful prejudices for a second and actually try to understand the whole implications of lawful:
'Lawful' is a person who finds himself comfortable living in an orderly manner, which goes way beyond just 'obeying the law':
- Are you a man of habits? You're lawful
- Can you start a diet and actually follow through? You're lawful
- Are you a morning person? You're lawful
- Can you do a job you HATE without hesitating or complaining? You're lawful.
- Can you fulfill a promise even if it turns out you're getting the short end of the stick in the end? You're lawful... in other words, are you disciplined? If so, you're lawful.
A monk is lawful because he is required to endure (and enjoy) a life of discipline (sometimes frugality). Jesus Christ was lawful because he knew all the time he'd be betrayed and then crucified, yet he manned up and carried on without hesitation because that's how it was written ('So it was written, so it shall be done'... soo much a lawful phrase). Finally, if Ghandi hadn't been lawful he wouldn't have been able to carry on with the hunger strikes he did throughout his life.
Likewise, a LG character will not obey a law he considers unjust or detrimental to others. It has been mentioned several times already that a Paladin won't hesitate to oppose a tyrant and dethrone him if necessary, regardless of whether his will is the law in his kingdom.
Seems as if there may be some anti-neutral (L-C) going on. Let's try those again.
- Are you a man who must follow certain habits? You're lawful
- If you start a diet and have to follow it through. You're lawful
- If you always get up at the same time each day, irregardless of whether it is a holiday, work day, weekend, whatever. You're lawful
- If you have to do a job you HATE without hesitating or complaining? You're lawful.
- If you have to fulfill a promise even if it turns out you're getting the short end of the stick in the end? You're lawful
Neutral people and even chaotic ones can have habits, can be morning people, can follow through with an effort to better themselves, can do crappy jobs without complaint or hesitation, and can even keep their words even if they end up being on the losing end. The question isn't about what a man can do but what they feel they must do.
- Are you a man who must follow certain habits? You're lawful
An alignment is what you are, now what someone else tells you. A lawful person does the things he does because he believes in doing them, contrary to just 'having to do them'. The way you're interpreting things, 'lawful' people don't have an actual alignment as they're only doing the things they do because 'they have to', not because they believe in them.
An alignment is what you are, now what someone else tells you. A lawful person does the things he does because he believes in doing them, contrary to just 'having to do them'. The way you're interpreting things, 'lawful' people don't have an actual alignment as they're only doing the things they do because 'they have to', not because they believe in them.
- Are you a man who must follow certain habits? You're lawful
Who is saying that some external person is the one telling them they have to?
I dont see why they would lose it as it's a one time thing..seems a case of lawful stupid if they didn't work together.
Rephrasing:
- A neutral/chaotic person can adhere himself to a diet.
- A neutral/chaotic person can be a morning person.
- A neutral/chaotic person can do jobs they hate (for a time).
- A neutral/chaotic person can fulfill promises that won't benefit him.
BUT a chaotic person WILL NOT do ALL OF THOSE TOGETHER because that's a way of life he'd find constricting. Likewise, for a neutral person, doing all of that together would be too much of a hassle when there are simpler ways to get things done. Being able to do all of that together is what lawful is about.
Finally... while alignments are explicit, only fantasy tales feature moral absolutes (Even NG is an absolute if you adhere to the text strictly). Most people have different degrees of adherence to law/chaos and good/evil.
To the OP, the answer to your question depends on far more variables. To many players and DM’s get hung up on singular definition for each alignment. There are no absolutes in any system of morality, or lack thereof.
The only absolute about alignments in D&D is how they are affected by certain magic. This marriage between game mechanics and alignment is integrated into the mythology of the game. In my opinion, to remove it would dilute the flavor of D&D. But, if players and DM have a hard time arbitrating theoretical morality in a Role Playing GAME, may I suggest 4e.
There is no universally correct way to play a character of any alignment. The moral outlook of a LG Paladin can be as varied and diverse as a CE Rogue, within their own parameters. For example, a Paladin that follows a traditional code of medieval chivalry would face a dilemma if attacked by an obviously pregnant CE Barbarian. Another Paladin that follows a more militant code and considers men & women equal would simply declare, “I smite evil.”
One has to consider that attacking in the game may not always constitute intent to kill. As someone trained in the use of force, I understand that disabling an opponent with the “minimum force necessary” can mean shooting them center mass. If the morality is ambiguous a character should be given the option of “pulling” their attack. “The unicorn that is attacking you stumbles and is bleeding heavily. You think you might be able to subdue it or kill it with your next attack.”
I suggest anyone that plays a character whose powers or class are dependent on alignment come up with some type of code or alignment parameters. There are a number of very good resources in back issues of Dragon magazine and supplements from Mongoose Publishing; The Quintessential Paladin II comes to mind. This guide should be fairly simple and tailored for the individual character. There should be clear penalties for breaking alignment, as well as means of atonement.
I have a basic answer to the OP’s question. If the character is unredeemably evil (evil outsider) and could never escape without the Paladin’s help, then the Paladin presses the attack despite the outcome. If the evil character were of the mundane mortal variety then mutual cooperation would be expected. The Paladin would exchange his assistance to ensure that proper justice was applied to the evil character.
BUT a chaotic person WILL NOT do ALL OF THOSE TOGETHER because that's a way of life he'd find constricting. Likewise, for a neutral person, doing all of that together would be too much of a hassle when there are simpler ways to get things done. Being able to do all of that together is what lawful is about.
More accurately, a chaotic person and a neutral person won't do those consistently. They may do them all during a short specific span of time, but they won't do them over a larger span.
We'll have to disagree about this . For me , he IS evil
And in most games I run, he'd be evil also, but not by the RAW. Which is fine, nobody is forced to stick to the RAW.
One thing to keep in mind is that even though alignments should be handled objectively, each gaming group is going to subjectively decided exactly where the lines are drawn.
Why must a male pronoun be assigned to this mental masturbator?We'll have to disagree about this . For me , he IS evil
Technically, no. A person hiding in their home and mentally masturbating (or physically possibly) to the ideas of killing people but never doing it doesn't make someone evil in D&D.
Good point. You sir are a master debater. ;)
|
|
Another thing you must consider with these scenarios and the Paladin is how the game world and the DM interprets the use of the Detect Evil ability(or any alignment detection ability, for that matter).
Some people play in games or with DMs who have hard and fast rules stating that you always show up as your alignment, no matter what your actions(although your actions can change your alignment); others interpret that while you may have an Evil alignment, you only show up as evil if you have recently performed an evil act(or you have a class feature that constantly generates an evil aura, such as being a Cleric of an Evil Deity, or being a creature with an alignment subtype).
If you play a game in the former setting, then some things are simpler, albeit, you still don't know how that person is evil, just that he is.
If you play in the latter setting, then things are a little more difficult.
Personally, I prefer the latter, but to each his own.
I realize that it has been a long time for most of us, but let's keep in mind what it means to be evil.
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“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.
Right, so my hypothetical merchant has never killed. However, he does impose high prices on those who cannot afford so much, but pay anyway, reveling in his ability to milk every last copper because people need his goods and have nowhere else to turn. He is "hurting" them and enjoying it. Would this not fit the SRD definition of evil?
Exacerbating the problem, suppose that a poor peasant needs a curative from said merchant for his sick child, but cannot afford to pay. He begs a paladin for aid, but the paladin is not high enough level to remove disease. By a literal interpretation of the rules, he cannot deal with the merchant and buy the curative to save a life. Does this mean he should kick down the door, kill the shopkeep, and take what he needs? Shake down the merchant and force him to sell at a lower price, even though he is within his lawful right to charge what he wants?
I notice that often, in gaming, it ends up boiling down to "evil is evil" and everything is dealt with the same way. Kill the bad guy, take his stuff. The opportunity for great roleplaying falls victim to an ethic of laziness. Why struggle with the problem, I'm LG, he's E; smite makes right; I win.
In the Paladin, evil merchant, sick child triad. Most Paladins should have no problem buying a potion of cure disease. A Paladin would rarely have a need to detect evil on a merchant, so there would be no conflict. Even if the Paladin did know the merchant was evil; altruistically buying a curative to end the suffering of an innocent wound in no way break their code. This would be like judging newlyweds buying conflict diamonds as evil.
Once the greater good is served, and there are no more pressing concerns, the Paladin may want to spend some time trying to put an end to the merchants price gouging. You have to consider that price gouging would probably only be evil if the merchant really enjoyed and promoted the suffering it caused. Normally it would be case of vested self-interest, which is a neutral stance.
Right, so my hypothetical merchant has never killed. However, he does impose high prices on those who cannot afford so much, but pay anyway, reveling in his ability to milk every last copper because people need his goods and have nowhere else to turn. He is "hurting" them and enjoying it. Would this not fit the SRD definition of evil?I realize that it has been a long time for most of us, but let's keep in mind what it means to be evil.
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“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.
Evil implies that hurting others would happen, but hurting others is not proof of being evil, otherwise all parties would be evil. Same with killing or even oppressing (see the formians as an example). Instead if you are evil you are more willing to do these things, but these things in themselves do not make one evil.
|
|
Here's how I do it:
If a paladin has to chose the lesser of two evils and does so with good intentions, he's probably fine. Working with the evil guy to escape would be perfectly acceptable. Besides, the final arbiter of the paladin's paladinhood is his deity. If the deity would act in a similar manner, the paladin's doubly okay.
This also means that paladins of different deities act VERY differently.
The paladins of Myrtain (LN), god of retribution, are scary people. They will kick in your door without warning, very roughly take you into custody, and haul you off to be hanged. If you resist, they will take you down savagely and without pity, fighting VERY dirty and brutally. (When you get kicked in the groin by a paladin, you know you're up against Myrtainians...) They are hard, forceful, and more than a little ruthless. They don't care if you can be redeemed. You did wrong, and you'll face the consequences of your actions, dammit. Most evildoers actively fear them, because they are a bit terminator-like. However, in order to attract Myrtainians, you have to be worse than "pedestrian" evil. A dishonest, price gouging merchant, common thief, local bully, or similar petty nuisance isn't going to get any resources diverted his way, though if they present themselves as a tempting enough target of opportunity, individual Myrtainians may do something (usually of the intimidation variety). A serial killer, demon cultist, or rapist, on the other hand, is hosed.
By contrast, the paladins of Essellos (CG, and the only CG deity with LG paladins), goddess of redemption, will reason with, cajole, and attempt to subdue without harm most enemies. Their high priestess is a redeemed erinyes devil, so they take this very seriously. They use deadly force only in defense of themselves or innocents, and even then, they prefer to cripple or knock out foes. They do this because they want to get them back to the holding area in the temple where they can be shown that there is indeed another way.
This doesn't even touch the gods of Harmony, Purification, Courage, Protection, Magic, Competition, Fate, Judgment, etc.
Lawful Good is a very diverse alignment with lots of room for subtlety. Different deities will see it in vastly different ways, and so will their agents.
|
|
A paladin who chooses the lesser of two evils though with good intentions is still choosing EVIL, is he not?
I've never bought the catch-22 approach. If the paladin is in such a situation through no fault of his own (if he got there through arrogance or bad judgment, it's a different story) I can't see a deity stripping him of his paladinhood.
But (going out on a limb here and playing gamer personality sage) since you picked Cheliax as your PFS faction, I imagine the idea of a paladin is ridiculous and/or abhorrent to you, and you'd see them falling as inevitable, appropriate, or both. (I could easily be wrong, of course.)
A paladin who chooses the lesser of two evils though with good intentions is still choosing EVIL, is he not?
And lest we forget...martyrdom is not evil. So it is not a lesser evil either.
And DM who puts a paladin in a defect-or-die situation is an a*****e.To other comments floating around, I do consider petty selfishness which does not go over to mass murder still evil, and thus there would be loads of evil NPCs who actually never do anything villainous. Just like there are vaguely good NPCs who are not paragons of good, justice and all those things. Or that 99% of all people are neutral in alignment (notion which is not supported by published material).
To mix real world religions to the discussion, I've been reading now a book about Christian monasticism (not particularly good book, so I don't name and recommend it, but anyway), which moves on the subject of who one should associate with. Some are more removed from the world, seeking either hermitage or association only with other brethren (of assumably same alignment), others do work actively among "normal people" or varying alignments. Also in Islam there isn't any real monasticism, as people of religion are expected to associate and live among other people to guide them, while eg. Sufi mysticism does have similarities to some religious orders of Christianity...
Similarly in fantasy world it does make sense to have somewhat different codes and interpretations of codes among different sects, locations and times for paladins, monks and clerics. There should be strict smite-the-evildoer paladins who see NG as somewhat questionable moral position and those who are actively encouraged to be candles in the darkness and lead morally confused people by their example.
actually he was called Aramil Nailo... which make me ask my myself... Samuel, is that you?
Nope, not Samuel. When I play 3/3.5 I'm an elven (drow if I'm allowed) Chaotic Good (or Chaotic Neutral depending) ranger.
A paladin who chooses the lesser of two evils though with good intentions is still choosing EVIL, is he not?And lest we forget...martyrdom is not evil. So it is not a lesser evil either.
And DM who puts a paladin in a defect-or-die situation is an a*****e.
Here is my stock answer when someone asks what a paladin should do in such a situation (only choices are evil). Do one (it really doesn't matter which), then have your paladin commit seppuku to regain his honor, and lastly smack your DM about the head with your PHB and leave the game.
To other comments floating around, I do consider petty selfishness which does not go over to mass murder still evil, and thus there would be loads of evil NPCs who actually never do anything villainous. Just like there are vaguely good NPCs who are not paragons of good, justice and all those things. Or that 99% of all people are neutral in alignment (notion which is not supported by published material).
I would agree that whatever standard you hold for someone to be evil should be equally as strict or lax for someone to be good.
Atleast most seem to be assuming that the palladin can't get out without the help of the evil character. The NPC knowing how to get out doesn't mean it would be impossible for the palladin to get out on his own, it just means it'll be easier (maybe a lot, maybe not). The choice isn't exactly join or die, there is no blade to his throat after all. And when you look at it, either one has a better possibility of survival (since there is a chance that the NPC will, in fact, try to kill him in his sleep). As has been said previously, palladins aren't stupid. Is he smart enough to be able to maybe find his own way out?
The Neutral Good guy is the one who would be willing to sacrifice his own freedoms to help others (which a Chaotic Good person would find anathema) or break an unjust law or personal code to help others (which a Lawful Good person might be unwilling to do).
Depends on what freedoms you refer to. A chaotic good character does what is right without regard for the law. He doesn't care what the law says about it, if it's what's right it's what's right. Would he actually be willing to sacrifice his freedom? I'd say it depends on how good the cause. Would he do something that would get him arrested, even though it's for the greater good? Of course. He would try his best to avoid being arrested. How violent or fatal being at his discression, and possibly resulting in an alignment change depending on exactly how far he went to ensure he didn't get arrested (such as seeking out and killing the town gaurds, which I would see as evil and immediatly change his alignment to Chaotic Neutral).
... A chaotic good character does what is right without regard for the law. He doesn't care what the law says about it, if it's what's right it's what's right. Would he actually be willing to sacrifice his freedom? I'd say it depends on how good the cause. Would he do something that would get him arrested, even though it's for the greater good? Of course. He would try his best to avoid being arrested. How violent or fatal being at his discression, and possibly resulting in an alignment change depending on exactly how far he went to ensure he didn't get arrested (such as seeking out and killing the town gaurds, which I would see as evil and immediatly change his alignment to Chaotic Neutral).
Alignment change goes both ways: a Chaotic Good character who does what is right and good regardless of Law or Chaos should be in very real "danger" of becoming Neutral Good, which is actually the alignment that statement describes. People like to assume that Chaos is superior to Law because it can do anything, anytime, even Lawful actions, without repurcussions. But it is as "extreme" an alignment as Lawful Good, and while the Chaotic Good's compunctions should differ substantially from a Lawful Good character's, he should have just as many. That may well include refusal to give up his freedom for the greater good, because it goes against his beliefs.
Only alignments with a Neutral component are, techinically, "pure." Every other alignment, from Chaotic Evil to Lawful Good and all the recombinants thereof, have two philosophical ideas that they are dedicated to, and thus it is easily conceivable, and perhaps even probable, that characters of such alignments will have to make tough choices when one component of their alignment, regardless of what it is, comes into conflict with another.
It may be an odd example, but even a Chaotic Evil murderer may have to choose between killing his victim, the Evil act, and evading capture, the Chaotic act.
Here is my stock answer when someone asks what a paladin should do in such a situation (only choices are evil). Do one (it really doesn't matter which), then have your paladin commit seppuku to regain his honor, and lastly smack your DM about the head with your PHB and leave the game.A paladin who chooses the lesser of two evils though with good intentions is still choosing EVIL, is he not?And lest we forget...martyrdom is not evil. So it is not a lesser evil either.
And DM who puts a paladin in a defect-or-die situation is an a*****e.
I wholeheartedly agree with this out-of-game solution, but consideration of the problem still has merit in-game. I am taking the stance that the default paladin follows and essentiall Naturl Law-based philosophy. Thus, the answer is provided: in a case where the paladin has no option that is not Evil (including doing nothing), he is not actively choosing to commit Evil; i.e., no real moral choice. I already mentioned this in an earlier post. If the outcome WILL BE 100 dead or 20 dead, any Good character is going to opt for the lesser number dead. That's not choosing in a morally significant manner, and thus the paladin, while probably feeling terrible and in need of a talking with his superiors just out of protocol's sake, is in no real danger of loosing his status. Again, the paladin cannot choose the impossible, including to do Good when no Good is possible.
To other comments floating around, I do consider petty selfishness which does not go over to mass murder still evil, and thus there would be loads of evil NPCs who actually never do anything villainous. Just like there are vaguely good NPCs who are not paragons of good, justice and all those things. Or that 99% of all people are neutral in alignment (notion which is not supported by published material).I would agree that whatever standard you hold for someone to be evil should be equally as strict or lax for someone to be good.
That is a possibility; but it isn't the only one. Western culture (ours) is replete with the concept that Good is harder to attain and maintain than Evil. It goes back to my earlier point; there is more difference between Good and Evil than the spelling. Evil is the easy way. Good is the hard way. Thus, Good requires more than Evil.
Liken it to the physical sciences: order and entropy. In this model, Good is order, and Evil entropy. Order requires an input of energy to achieve and maintain. Entropy is what things fall to naturally without such input. The same principle is easily applicable to moral standards, so much so that I would say it is the societal default and what D&D alignments assume.
I realize that it has been a long time for most of us, but let's keep in mind what it means to be evil.
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“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.
I'd like to go back to this citation and say that I think the argument you support with it is flawed. I think there is a very real difference between what the SRD has to say about things we would have no concept of without it (the workings of a rule, a paladin's code, etc.) and that which we can and likely do have a very real understanding of outside of the game, as well. The entire section of the PHB on alignment reads more like a cursory overview, and a blurb, rather than a detailed legalese manual (such as we find throughout most of the rest of the book). The game involves concepts of Chaos, Evil, Good, and Law, so it has to say something about it. But I don't think those few lines are or were ever meant to be the end-all, be-all judgement of what constitutes any alignment in D&D.
Further, if the definition is so far removed from what everyone else uses on a routine basis (as you yourself admitted, most games you run wouldn't use the interpretation you are forwarding, and so far I don't think anyone else has championed such usage of the rules as well), then it strikes me as being in danger of becoming a useless rule and one that has no real and practical application. Rather, I think it is essential that these statements be seen as general indicators that capture the basic idea of an alignment, rather than the final arbiter of what is and is not part of that moral outlook. Certainly the things it explicitly lists as Good or Evil, Chaotic or Lawful, are those things; but not exclusively.
So I say "Yes, the shopkeeper who would kill if it convenienced him but has never found it convenient to do so is, in fact, evil." (But, even though his ability would work just fine on said shopkeep, a paladin still shouldn't smite him).
|
|
pres man wrote:
magdalena thiriet wrote:
Radavel wrote:
A paladin who chooses the lesser of two evils though with good intentions is still choosing EVIL, is he not?
And lest we forget...martyrdom is not evil. So it is not a lesser evil either.
And DM who puts a paladin in a defect-or-die situation is an a*****e.Here is my stock answer when someone asks what a paladin should do in such a situation (only choices are evil). Do one (it really doesn't matter which), then have your paladin commit seppuku to regain his honor, and lastly smack your DM about the head with your PHB and leave the game.
I wholeheartedly agree with this out-of-game solution, but consideration of the problem still has merit in-game. I am taking the stance that the default paladin follows and essentiall Naturl Law-based philosophy. Thus, the answer is provided: in a case where the paladin has no option that is not Evil (including doing nothing), he is not actively choosing to commit Evil; i.e., no real moral choice. I already mentioned this in an earlier post. If the outcome WILL BE 100 dead or 20 dead, any Good character is going to opt for the lesser number dead. That's not choosing in a morally significant manner, and thus the paladin, while probably feeling terrible and in need of a talking with his superiors just out of protocol's sake, is in no real danger of loosing his status. Again, the paladin cannot choose the impossible, including to do Good when no Good is possible.
the DM is still an ashole
if its a decent game situation i will run with it... if just for bien an a+%%!%% and see my paladin fall... i pluck the characterand leave the table...while there is not always a good option, they are ways to working around it...
in your example poison 20 children's milk or letting 100 villagers die...i would take the guy offering me the poison smack him for good reveal his secret plan, and help stop BOTH murders. :P
... or die trying
magdalena thiriet wrote:
To other comments floating around, I do consider petty selfishness which does not go over to mass murder still evil, and thus there would be loads of evil NPCs who actually never do anything villainous. Just like there are vaguely good NPCs who are not paragons of good, justice and all those things. Or that 99% of all people are neutral in alignment (notion which is not supported by published material).
I would agree that whatever standard you hold for someone to be evil should be equally as strict or lax for someone to be good.
That is a possibility; but it isn't the only one. Western culture (ours) is replete with the concept that Good is harder to attain and maintain than Evil. It goes back to my earlier point; there is more difference between Good and Evil than the spelling. Evil is the easy way. Good is the hard way. Thus, Good requires more than Evil.Liken it to the physical sciences: order and entropy. In this model, Good is order, and Evil entropy. Order requires an input of energy to achieve and maintain. Entropy is what things fall to naturally without such input. The same principle is easily applicable to moral standards, so much so that I would say it is the societal default and what D&D alignments assume.
this is indeed how i see it... order and good requiere effort... caos and evil not so much... but sometimes... it does erquiere... ask the Evil Masterminds or Mad Evil Genius, its all about looking goodand extravagant...
in other regard... i agree.. if you have in your house ideas of how to kill and hurt and plain them, it doesn't make you evil... but it might... if you don't do them just because you are afraid you are going to be catch, you are evil. period.
the merchan who strangles the population, knowing they are suffering and that his prices are unfair, is evil, because he could still earn alot with fair prices.
my ex-boss made pacts with some para-goverment workers (i am not in usa, don't worry), bribing them so he could give more expensive products or have no competition... those products are bought with our taxes... money that would be better used for education, medicine, etc... but here it spent in someones greed... his pretextis that anyway another one would do this, or theywould still steal the money... so why not have a part...
he goes to church everysunday and its decently good with his family, and relatively decent with his employees... even when he could pay them more and try to pay as little as posible...
this man if i had to put an aligbnmenti would sy he is LE...he works withthesystem and abuses it to get a personal benefit... he has never killed (to my knowledge, but he has 2 guns in his desk) but he abuses his people, he is sometimes unfair, and condones a corrupt system by being part of itand doing nothing to make it better... still he complains...
and still the paladin would not smite him
The entire section of the PHB on alignment reads more like a cursory overview, and a blurb, rather than a detailed legalese manual (such as we find throughout most of the rest of the book). The game involves concepts of Chaos, Evil, Good, and Law, so it has to say something about it. But I don't think those few lines are or were ever meant to be the end-all, be-all judgement of what constitutes any alignment in D&D.
While I agree with your point, that the entries under alignments aren't the be-all, we then should be looking at other examples to see where the lines are expected to fall. Again (for the third time?) look at formians, they oppress and enslave people and force them to work for the formians. Yet formians aren't evil, they are LN. Thus whatever it means to be evil, has to be worse than what formians do. Don't like formians, how about slaad? Again, not evil (for the most part), so evil has to be worse than how slaads act. So while the entry in the PHB isn't the end-all-be-all, it combined with examples of various creatures give us a pretty good picture that what it means to be evil in the default parameters is pretty darn bad. Much worse than just some banal version of evil like giving the nerdy kid, who plays with weird dice, a swirly.
Evil implies that hurting others would happen, but hurting others is not proof of being evil, otherwise all parties would be evil. Same with killing or even oppressing (see the formians as an example). Instead if you are evil you are more willing to do these things, but these things in themselves do not make one evil.
Yes, hence the line where I state "He is 'hurting' them and enjoying it." I presume that would imply him being "more willing."
|
|
Yes, hence the line where I state "He is 'hurting' them and enjoying it." I presume that would imply him being "more willing."
Even that gets a little squiffy around the edges.
A holy crusader might feel a sense of righteous vindication as he 'rams a yard of cold steel into some monsters guts.' The monster may have been making stew out of succulent babies, but is the knight 'good' for *enjoying the taking of vengeance?*
A necromancer might feel nothing at all but impatience at how long this is taking as he wanders into a village at night and replenishes his undead hordes by dispassionately sending his Shadow minion to suck the life out of sleeping villagers and create new Spawn.
The presence (or absence) of emotional satisfaction at the end tesult of killing someone (or entire tribes / villages of people) doesn't really change that, IMO.
True justice, devoid of sadism, vengeance, anger and hatred, devoid of 'evil,' would require a level of dispassion, of clinical detachment, that would only be achievable by cold-blooded sociopaths.
Which kinda is the ultimate irony. For executions to be 'moral,' they'd have to be performed by people society regards as completely insane and incapable of understanding the concept of morality, people who wouldn't 'enjoy it' or get a sense of righteous validation from 'punishing the wicket,' but just regard it as some onerous chore for which they get paid.
It gets even more sticky when the XP system is factored into it. Paladins of LG gods get more blessings and powers from their gods for doing the exact same thing that CE Death Masters in service to Orcus do, killing the folks that their god deems worthy of killing. At the end of the adventuring day, both of them are going to be up to their elbows in the blood of others, and it's likely that both of them are gonna feel pretty good about themselves.
|
|
True justice, devoid of sadism, vengeance, anger and hatred, devoid of 'evil,' would require a level of dispassion, of clinical detachment, that would only be achievable by cold-blooded sociopaths.
Which kinda is the ultimate irony. For executions to be 'moral,' they'd have to be performed by people society regards as completely insane and incapable of understanding the concept of morality, people who wouldn't 'enjoy it' or get a sense of righteous validation from 'punishing the wicket,' but just regard it as some onerous chore for which they get paid.
maybe that is the solution to get rid of socyopats
not killing themgiving them the job they are best prepared tto do and that no one would best at (partserious, partjoking)
aside of that from a kobold 6, I took a partaboutthepaladin code, showing what was supposed to be a true paladin code:
Peer Knight
A peer knight follows the code outlined in the Song of Roland:
• To fear God and maintain His Church
• To serve a liege lord in valor and faith
• To protect the weak and defenseless
• To aid widows and orphans
• To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
• To live by honor and for glory
• To despise pecuniary reward
• To fight for the welfare of all
• To obey those placed in authority
• To guard the honor of fellow knights
• To eschew unfairness, meanness, and deceit
• To keep faith
• At all times to speak the truth
• To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
• To respect the honor of women (or the dignity of men)
• Never refuse a challenge from an equal
• Never turn the back upon a foe
A neutral good character would be more apt to FOLLOW the law than a chaotic good character. Neutral good will follow the law and likely work with the guards until the law can't handle the situation. Chaotic good will do what is right. If they see someone putting down another, or just being a bully, they aer apt to knock that person down a few pegs (or more). Chaotic good sees law as a burden, while neutral good looks at breaking the law as something of a last resort. Most super heroes you find in comic books are vigilantes, such as batman, and are chaotic good. Spider-man is more apt to work with the local PD until the situation demands otherwise, and thus is more neutral good. An example of a lawful good superhero would be Captain America, who refuses to break the law (ever notice that lawful good is more likely to kill someone without trying to subdue them).
A neutral good character would be more apt to FOLLOW the law than a chaotic good character. Neutral good will follow the law and likely work with the guards until the law can't handle the situation. Chaotic good will do what is right. If they see someone putting down another, or just being a bully, they aer apt to knock that person down a few pegs (or more). Chaotic good sees law as a burden, while neutral good looks at breaking the law as something of a last resort. Most super heroes you find in comic books are vigilantes, such as batman, and are chaotic good. Spider-man is more apt to work with the local PD until the situation demands otherwise, and thus is more neutral good. An example of a lawful good superhero would be Captain America, who refuses to break the law (ever notice that lawful good is more likely to kill someone without trying to subdue them).
A search of the archives should produce a wealth of posts in a number of threads that will say the exact opposite: that characters such as Batman and many other superheroes are, in fact, Lawful Good. And I would be inclined to agree. Superman certainly is. I think the Dark Knight portrays Batman in a very Lawful manner, too. In Batman Begins, His "vigilantism" takes the form of rebellion against a corrupt and evil government; what Good elements exist within it are totally impotent. In Dark Knight, he clearly tries to hand the city back over the legitimate government, but cannot because there are still things which must be done to save it. Further, he has the implicit aid and support of the local government. And shall we bring up his very strong personal codes (the most prominent being his refusal to kill), and the fact that he trained at a monastery (read in D&D: monk; i.e., Lawful). All that builds a very strong case for pegging Batman as a Lawful Good character. What evidence can you produce (aside from basic "vigilantism," which I've already address; what else about it, what new facets that I didn't cover or misinterpreted point to his being Chaotic?) for his being Chaotic?
Not to attack you too harshly, but I do believe that you have a slightly skewed view of what Chaotic Good means. In D&D, Chaos is not just a disregard for the Law, and thus unfettered action to pursue any other moral outlook one may have (i.e., Good or Evil). Chaos is as much a philosophy as Law, or as Good, or as Evil. Chaotic Good is one of the four "extreme" alignments, just as much as Lawful Good is (along with Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil). The "pure" alignments, the ones with a Neutral component, are the only ones in which it is likely that a character can avoid internal conflict with another basic philosophy in pursuit of the first.
Again, Neutral Good is the alignment that does whatever is Good for Good's sake without regard for Law OR Chaos. If your character is behaving in such a way but has Chaotic Good written on his sheet, then the sheet is wrong and should read Neutral Good.
I restate here that I don't want to come down on you too harshly, but it seems that you have an anti-Lawful outlook, as evidenced by inflating the Chaotic alignment to an idyllic representation of things that it doesn't actually cover. That is one of the reasons that paladin gets so much flak: many people simply have a misunderstanding of what Law and Chaos represent, with a bias favoring the latter. Thus, they misinterpret a paladin's code often reading it in the most arduous, least workable way possible. It's not fair to the class or those who enjoy playing them.
I hope that didn't come off too offensively.
No offense taken. Before I continue, I will post the alignment descriprions as stated in the 3.0 PHB (I don't have the 3.5 handy at the moment). I would also like to state that I have taken the alignment test. Althuogh I realise it isn't the most thorough test in the world, I always get chaotic good.
Lawful Good, "Crusader"- A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commiment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fightes evil without mercy and who protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.
Neutral Good, "Benefactor"- A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Jozan, a cleric who helps other according to their needs, is neutral good.
Chaotic Good, "Rebel"-A chaotic good character acts has his conscience directs him with little regard for others expect of him. He makes his own way, but is kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has use for laws and regulations. He hates when people try to intimidate and others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. Soveliss, a ranger who waylays the evil baron's tax collectors, is chaotic good.
I would now like to state that when you look deep, none of the three are really different from each other. All the arguements over the differences between good alignments are moot. For the sake of arguement, however, I will continue.
What makes one chaotic, I suppose, would be the willingness to work directly against the law. That, alone, is what would make the difference. A neutral good character would attempt to reach some medium before acting with the law or against it if necesarry. A chaotic good character would act as his moral compass deemed correct, wether or not it was agaisnt the law. A lawful good character would act as law dictated, so long as the laws were for the greater good.
As far as Batman's alignment, that doesn't prove he's lawful. I haven't seen Begins, but I have seen the Dark Knight recently. He acted against the law, even going so far as to beat the crud out of Joker in the interogation room. Tell me, how is that lawful? He even went so far as to jam the door so the police couldn't stop him, aswell as using excessive force. His unwillingness to kill Joker doesn't make him lawful, it gives him a conscience. Batman doesn't have the open support of the local government, he is to be arrested on sight. In fact, the only way that they aid him is by not arresting him. While he does have the support secretly, he does not openly work with them and actively works against them when the law isn't enough or is to restrictive. Yes, he does attempt to hand the city back. Everyone deserves a little RnR, and where does it say that a chaotic character can't retire from his profession?
On the subject of Batman, I think the most we can hope to agree on is neutral good as far as alignment is concerned.
|
|
Part of the problem is the choice of words when the designers picked an opposite of chaos. Law is an opposite, in some ways, but the way the definition has been used for Chaos, makes the word Law inadequate. Take Good and Evil for example, they are perfect examples of opposites. But in the way the game uses the word Law is as a form of Order; however, many people don't interpret Law like that. They see it only as the the laws that people are told to obey.
They see it as "law"(little l), not "Law"(big L). Due to viewing "Lawful" in such a narrow scope, also renders the view of "Chaos" to be lacking. It misleads people into thinking that were a Paladin to step into a land where it is mandatory that holy men must drink the blood of a child no older than 2 years in front of that child's parents(ignoring the fact that the population would soon plummet) he would lose his features no matter what he chooses because he'd either be going Evil, or breaking the "law". A Paladin is a symbol of Justice, Justice is both Good and Lawful. Thusly, "laws" that are inherently Evil do not bind the Paladin because they are unjust.
"Law" is orderly, "Chaos" is disarray. Since this game has been around for so long, its unlikely to get "Lawful" changed to "Disciplined".
As a sidenote, the Paladin faced with the choice of 100 villagers dieing or helping to poison 20 children, should go and get Antitoxin for the kids. Just because he agreed to help poison them, doesn't mean he wouldn't try and think of a way to help them survive it that wouldn't break his word.
|
|
Part of the problem is the choice of words when the designers picked an opposite of chaos. Law is an opposite, in some ways, but the way the definition has been used for Chaos, makes the word Law inadequate. Take Good and Evil for example, they are perfect examples of opposites. But in the way the game uses the word Law is as a form of Order; however, many people don't interpret Law like that. They see it only as the the laws that people are told to obey.
They see it as "law"(little l), not "Law"(big L). Due to viewing "Lawful" in such a narrow scope, also renders the view of "Chaos" to be lacking. It misleads people into thinking that were a Paladin to step into a land where it is mandatory that holy men must drink the blood of a child no older than 2 years in front of that child's parents(ignoring the fact that the population would soon plummet) he would lose his features no matter what he chooses because he'd either be going Evil, or breaking the "law". A Paladin is a symbol of Justice, Justice is both Good and Lawful. Thusly, "laws" that are inherently Evil do not bind the Paladin because they are unjust.
"Law" is orderly, "Chaos" is disarray. Since this game has been around for so long, its unlikely to get "Lawful" changed to "Disciplined".
As a sidenote, the Paladin faced with the choice of 100 villagers dieing or helping to poison 20 children, should go and get Antitoxin for the kids. Just because he agreed to help poison them, doesn't mean he wouldn't try and think of a way to help them survive it that wouldn't break his word.
|
|
Part of the problem is the choice of words when the designers picked an opposite of chaos. Law is an opposite, in some ways, but the way the definition has been used for Chaos, makes the word Law inadequate. Take Good and Evil for example, they are perfect examples of opposites. But in the way the game uses the word Law is as a form of Order; however, many people don't interpret Law like that. They see it only as the the laws that people are told to obey.
They see it as "law"(little l), not "Law"(big L). Due to viewing "Lawful" in such a narrow scope, also renders the view of "Chaos" to be lacking. It misleads people into thinking that were a Paladin to step into a land where it is mandatory that holy men must drink the blood of a child no older than 2 years in front of that child's parents(ignoring the fact that the population would soon plummet) he would lose his features no matter what he chooses because he'd either be going Evil, or breaking the "law". A Paladin is a symbol of Justice, Justice is both Good and Lawful. Thusly, laws that are inherently Evil, or at the very least, laws that do not serve Good, do not bind the Paladin because they are unjust.
"Law" is orderly, "Chaos" is disarray. Since this game has been around for so long, its unlikely to get "Lawful" changed to "Disciplined".
As a sidenote, the Paladin faced with the choice of 100 villagers dieing or helping to poison 20 children, should go and get Antitoxin for the kids. Just because he agreed to help poison them, doesn't mean he wouldn't try and think of a way to help them survive it that wouldn't break his word.
Agreed, there. There is a difference between law and order, but on the note of order-it backs up the arguement that there is little if any difference between the different good alignments. All three have some form of order, being chaotic doesn't mean you don't know the meaning of the word, and it doesn't mean that you don't impliment it. On the line of a palladin entering a land where the law is as such, he would have to do his best free the land from the obviously evil government. A palladin doesn't have to follow laws that are evil, but he can't break ones that aren't evil just because they aren't good or he doesn't like them.
I would like to take a moment to state that my co-dm, who happens to be my counterpart since he normally plays a lawful good palladin, is also reading this thread. I am running most of what I say by him before posting. He helps keep my chaotic nature and strong distaste for law in check during such arguments, and we make sure that each post is as unbiased as possible. Although he didn't come in fully until the last couple posts.