|
Well, that brings forth the idea of trying to cheat karma. As was mentioned previously, the auras a character projects in relation to alignment is based on the universe saying "He's Evil, She's Good, and that guy is Unpredictable."; so it boils down to the character himself thinking that if he does enough Good deeds, he should be allowed to do an Evil deed once in a while and not have it reflect poorly on him. No, that's a selfish line of thought.
Say the character went out and fed, clothed, and sheltered a poor family; then tortured and murdered a five-year old, does that equal out? Of course not, he's doing those Good deeds for no other reason than to try and keep from getting in trouble for his Evil deeds, which were what he really wanted to do. He won't get to visit the Seven Mounting Heavens, he's gonna be fiend-fodder until he changes. Good and Evil are not just deeds but the intent behind them.
But, the real question here is, how long are we going to continue this existential debate? :P
|
Well, that brings forth the idea of trying to cheat karma. As was mentioned previously, the auras a character projects in relation to alignment is based on the universe saying "He's Evil, She's Good, and that guy is Unpredictable."; so it boils down to the character himself thinking that if he does enough Good deeds, he should be allowed to do an Evil deed once in a while and not have it reflect poorly on him. No, that's a selfish line of thought.
Say the character went out and fed, clothed, and sheltered a poor family; then tortured and murdered a five-year old, does that equal out? Of course not, he's doing those Good deeds for no other reason than to try and keep from getting in trouble for his Evil deeds, which were what he really wanted to do. He won't get to visit the Seven Mounting Heavens, he's gonna be fiend-fodder until he changes. Good and Evil are not just deeds but the intent behind them.
This would only apply in a world where good and evil weren't *mechanical* traits.
This is D&D, where casting Death Knell in a triage situation to figure out who needs saving first and most and maximize the amount of people you can save is [Evil]. Intentions are *meaningless.* Animate Dead to save a village from a hobgoblin raid by having their ancestors rise up to help fight off the invaders? [Evil] Protection from Good to hold off a crazed Celestial? [Evil] Summon Monster 1 (fiendish wolf) to help pull Timmy out of a well? [Evil] Symbol of Pain against a Bone Devil? [Evil] Power Word Kill against an Astral Deva? Evil with a little 'e,' but not mechanically [Evil]. Fireball into an orphanage? Wicked, but not [Evil], just [Fire]. Sound Burst to cause a stampede during a parade and get dozens of people trampled? Vicious, and [Sonic], but not [Evil].
No exceptions. No 'interpretations.' No 'oh, he was using fire to fight fire.' No 'intent behind them.' Just simple descriptors. Death Knell is as [Evil] as Burning Hands is [Fire].
And if casting Protection from Good is [Evil], and Protection from Evil is [Good], then, unless evil is inherently *better* than good, they should cancel out. Animate Dead is 3 levels of [Evil] for that Neutral Cleric. Casting three Protection from Evils, or summoning three Celestial Riding Dogs, should cancel out the descriptor based mechanics.
Do I *like* this idea? No. Alignment descriptors cheapen the entire concept of alignment, IMO. But they exist, and are part of the game, and codify quite clearly that intent is meaningless. No matter how lily-white your intentions, you cast spell X, that's evil. Logically, that means no matter how despicable your intentions, if you cast spell Y, it's good.
Summon up those Celestial Bison and have them trample through the hospice. It's a [Good] thing!
Do I *like* this idea? No. Alignment descriptors cheapen the entire concept of alignment, IMO. But they exist, and are part of the game, and codify quite clearly that intent is meaningless. No matter how lily-white your intentions, you cast spell X, that's evil. Logically, that means no matter how despicable your intentions, if you cast spell Y, it's good.
I am not trying to flame you. That said:
This is not a logical argument. The fact that spell have alignment descriptors in no way invalidates our normal understandings of morality in the rest of the game.
You are correct that death knell is as [Evil] as burning hands is [Fire], but that is because, in addition to our understanding of morality, moral concepts also exist in the D&D universe as a "tangible" quasi-energy. The spell death knell or animate dead or summon monster I-IX when used to conjure evil creatures, tap into this quasi-energy and are thus Evil acts in and of themselves.
Casting animate dead to save a village from annihilation is, in D&D terms, very similar to torturing a prisoner to gain information which will save many more lives. Is the saving of the lives Good? Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that torture is Evil. No if's, and's, or but's about it. Is saving the village Good? Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that casting animate dead is Evil. No if's, and's, or but's about it. Whether you want to take the stance of Natural Law or Utilitarianism or any other doctrine that I am unaware of in my feeble formal learning of philosophy (i.e., whether Good can be achieved through Evil means, whether the ends justify the means) is up to you; but it doesn't change the fact that the means in question are Evil.
Sending a celestial bison through on a rampage through an orphanage is not a Good act (depending on how smart the DM rules an Intelligence 3, but celestial, bison to be, it may not even be possible to make the creature do that); it is Evil. Just as an [Evil] spell taps into the quasi-energy that is Evil in D&D, intent plays a huge factor in determining what "quasi-energy" everyday, nonmagical actions tap into.
Intent cannot be facotered out, or D&D alignment becomes such a foreign and alien entity that none of us can have any real-world basis for understanding it, and the entire mechanics is rendered useless and its very presence in the game becomes suspect.
Further, one has only to read the section of the PHB dealing with alignment to realize it is in no way to be as foreign as what you have presented.
I may be way off base here, but to my understanding, the only mechanical effect of [good] or [evil] is that some class features may allow you to cast [good] or [evil] spells at +1 caster level - so when you invoke something good or evil, you do so more powerfully than you'd otherwise be able to.
...something completely subjective...
Says you. :)
I understand your mentality, but I am glad that D&D has the alignment mechanic (or did; 4e rather slaughtered it). The beauty of it in this consideration is that, if you don't like it, you can remove it with almost no work.
Just wanted to ask this:
Anyone here ever have trouble with DMs who demand that all LG types, especially Paladins, must be played as either morons or bigots and then penalize the player when they don't "get it right"?
Let me assure you, it gets real tired, real fast.
Just wanted to ask this:
Anyone here ever have trouble with DMs who demand that all LG types, especially Paladins, must be played as either morons or bigots and then penalize the player when they don't "get it right"?
Let me assure you, it gets real tired, real fast.
Never actually seen that before, Eric. Have you experienced that sort of thing with more than one DM?
|
|
...something completely subjective...Says you. :)
I understand your mentality, but I am glad that D&D has the alignment mechanic (or did; 4e rather slaughtered it). The beauty of it in this consideration is that, if you don't like it, you can remove it with almost no work.
Exactly.
If you can easily remove something out of the game and not notice it's absence I ask you was it needed in the first place? I and many others say no. It's a legacy mechanic. There's several essays already out there that describe D&D's illogical, vague, and often contradictory alignment/morality system.|
|
Your comments were certainly not taken as a flame, nor is my rebuttal meant as one. :)
Sending a celestial bison through on a rampage through an orphanage is not a Good act (depending on how smart the DM rules an Intelligence 3, but celestial, bison to be, it may not even be possible to make the creature do that); it is Evil. Just as an [Evil] spell taps into the quasi-energy that is Evil in D&D, intent plays a huge factor in determining what "quasi-energy" everyday, nonmagical actions tap into.
Intent cannot be factored out, or D&D alignment becomes such a foreign and alien entity that none of us can have any real-world basis for understanding it, and the entire mechanics is rendered useless and its very presence in the game becomes suspect.
By your own argument;
1) Intent is meaningless if I cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor. Only the action itself matters, even if I use a Summoned Fiendish Wolf to save someone's life.
2) Intent is all that matters if I cast a spell with no descriptor (such as using Burning Hands to torture someone).
3) Intent is still crucial if I cast a spell with the [Good] descriptor and then use it to perform an evil deed (and the Celestial Bison has no vote in the matter. As a summoned creature, he'll trample who I direct him to trample, even if it's a bunch of nuns).
Because of this very common dichotomy (you certainly aren't the first person who has supported the idea that intent means *nothing* when casting [Evil] spells, but is *vital* when casting [Good] spells, which is an inherent contradiction), I'm left concluding the same as you have in your final paragraph.
Alignment in D&D *is* meaningless and arbitrary, as you say, 'a foreign and alien entity' it's 'very presence in the game... suspect.'
A fair summary...
I don't think a binary is quite accurate. I think three options are a fairer description of the thread's arguments thus far:
1. Intention is all that matters. Using a celestial bison or an imp to kill nuns doesn't matter. Killing nuns does. Do evil by any means necessary.
2. Using [evil] and [good] descriptor spells causes taint due to the source of the mystical energy and the imprint of the spell. No matter what you do with the spell it leaves its mark. Use a different spell to accomplish the same goal.
3. The type of spell and its use both matter. The [evil] spell may leave its taint, but that taint can be overcome if there is a greater good.
Fair?
I have been reading all your posts. And there has been some very good points (even if they don't apply to my situation).
But I'll get to that in a bit.
I also know that the alignment/vow restrictions for paladins are very hard. To this affect I have added a paladin ability that allows them to regain hit points automatically (through divine healing) if they are brought to 0 or below. This has a one week (1d6 days) recharge rate.
It helps give them that divine reward for their earthly trials and helps keep them brave on the front lines.
I thought Saern had an excellent point about immersion.
Since they're not that interested and/or capable of achieving an immersive roleplaying experience, there is a very real sense of "This is a game" running through their heads, a very real barrier between themselves and their character. In this situation, they are very akin to the player of a video game who just wants entertainment and to see things blow up. There is an element of desire there, desiring to play the badass. But it's subdued and goes hand in hand with the desire to escape from rules and regulations.
I'm curious...what are your settings like? What moral dilemmas are presented? What kind of situations do the pcs have to work their way through? This has a lot to do as well with what players tend to play.
When I devise moral choices within the setting... they have the choice of short term gain with a slightly more direct option (evil or evil-ish) OR a slightly harder route which requires abit more control/thought or moral understanding and a long term gain (good or good-ish).
I try not to railroad individuals or plots. But nor do I shield characters from the consequences of their actions.
Well I think that answers that. My players (the ones who regularly play the scum of the earth) want it to be as easy as possible and do what ever they want.
Just wanted to ask this:
Anyone here ever have trouble with DMs who demand that all LG types, especially Paladins, must be played as either morons or bigots and then penalize the player when they don't "get it right"?
Let me assure you, it gets real tired, real fast.
That would be an utterly horrid experience that would cause that paladin to cleave the next important NPC he encountered. :)
In my experience - and I speak specifically of paladins as a class and characters of Lawful Good alignment here - the single biggest problem to seeing more of both in the games that I've played in can be summed up simply: bad examples.
To explain and illustrate the paladin part, I offer an actual example from a published (non-Paizo) product, Dramatis Personae: Campaign Ready NPCs by Archangel Studios. In it, they offer up a paladin npc who, straight off the page, has the established practice of walking into bars (and presumably any other establishment he visits), using his Detect Evil power, and then more or less mindlessly attacking anyone that registers until they are slain.
I don't know how that would work in anyone else's game, but in mine it's a one-way ticket to jail since no paladin could lie about having done it and remain a paladin (presuming he'd somehow managed to keep his paladinhood after a few stops in the first place). This kind of 'convert or die,' 'my way or the highway,' 'kill them all and the gods will know their own,' and so forth behavior is a staple of the way that I've seen paladins portrayed in campaigns and source material since I started this hobby (which was, to give you an idea of how long I've been seeing it, in 1976). Too many people seem to think that this sort of rigid, unyeilding, famaticism is what's required to be a paladin, and after a few encounters with guys like this, most parties will (understandably) turn around and walk the other way when they see one coming.
The Lawful Good issue is a simlar sort of thing: far too many people seem to think that having that alignment turns you into either a killjoy inquisitor from Torqumada's cohort that is out to ruin everyone's fun (a frequent use of the alignment in published material), or someone with an IQ of about 45 that gets everyone into trouble because they refuse to believe the worst of anyone (more often encountered in a player in my experience). It's been so bad in some groups I've gamed with that 'Lawful Stupid' or 'Awful Good' were the way the alignment was actually referred to by players and the DM.
Now neither of those ways off viewing the alignment are, in my opinion, accurate, as they both come from extremist viewpoint ends of the alignment line. But both of them can kill the fun in a game faster than you can say "Jack Robinson."
The problem is in the way the alignment and class are presented to and by the players - because gamers have to a real extent been conditioned to think of paladins as rigid, unyeilding killjoys, and people with Lawful Good alignment as either idiots or fanatics out to make everyone into a Stepford Wife 'for the good of their soul' then players avoid them both because of simple avoidance. They're like Pavlov's dogs, reacting because of a stimulus, no matter if the stimulus is accurate or not.
Just wanted to ask this:
Anyone here ever have trouble with DMs who demand that all LG types, especially Paladins, must be played as either morons or bigots and then penalize the player when they don't "get it right"?
Let me assure you, it gets real tired, real fast.
See the extremely long post I just posted, Eric. In short, and sadly, yes, yes, I have.
|
|
I played in a d20 Modern campaign where we all played Roman Catholic priests that were part of a secret organization within the Vatican that basically did what Buffy did. It was interesting, because the usual carrots (money, babes, stuff, etc.) didn't apply to a bunch of dudes who had vows of chastity and charity and poverty.
We still managed to get into trouble, (my Jesuit surgeon actually had to do a ton of community service at one point!), but it was a really fun challenge to act good AND play in a game that was inherently violent. We couldn't kill innocents, obviously, but we also couldn't kill disarmed but really evil mortals either. We had a trio of nemeses that we HATED, but the one time we got the drop on them, we couldn't shoot them because they were unarmed. It was very frustrating, but in a good way. When the demons came out to play, we were able to pull out uzis out of our medical bags and go to town, but when it was possessed folks, or just common criminals, it was a bigger challenge because we had to be careful not to kill them.
That sounds like a fantastic game!
|
|
I really hate alignment in D&D and other games. Let's take something completely subjective and make it into objective crunchy bits!
Frankly I just play the damn game and if an action is good or evil it's no sweat off my snout.
Burning Wheel's beliefs & instincts or GURPS disadvantages seem better at modeling real behavior and would fit your criteria. ;)
|
|
Just wanted to ask this:
Anyone here ever have trouble with DMs who demand that all LG types, especially Paladins, must be played as either morons or bigots and then penalize the player when they don't "get it right"?
Let me assure you, it gets real tired, real fast.
Yeah. It seems odd to me that to some people LG = Imperium of Man (warhammer 40k). The Imperium of Man is LE if ever a society was such a thing. They are genocidal, brutal fanatics bent on conquest. How do you get LG out of that?
To me some notable LG archetypes would be:
Honest Cop (Examples: Commissioner Gordon from Batman Begins/The Dark Knight)
Heroic Doctor (Example: Richard Jadick)
Virtuous Politician (Examples: King Arthur, Winston Churchill)
Compassionate Scholar (Example: the professor from The Chronicles of Narnia)
Noble Servant (Example: Alfred Pennyworth)
Righteous priest (Example: the monsigneur at the beginning of The Boondock Saints)
A couple of good fictional examples of characters who could be seen as paladins in D&D terms would be Solomon Kane and (humorously enough) Carrot Ironfondersson (Discworld). Either of these would be fine in any game I ran.
|
Yeah. It seems odd to me that to some people LG = Imperium of Man (warhammer 40k). The Imperium of Man is LE if ever a society was such a thing. They are genocidal, brutal fanatics bent on conquest. How do you get LG out of that?
Anyone finding any faction in Warhammer 40,000 any flavor of Good is seriously doing it wrong. Hell, the closest thing they have is the Tau, and they're quickly racking up war atrocities(though they're still way behind the Imperium, who have made it an art form).
Also, don't forget Atticus Finch!
And man, that NPC supplement sounds terrible. I'm tempted to check it out out of morbid curiosity alone.
|
|
Yeah. It seems odd to me that to some people LG = Imperium of Man (warhammer 40k). The Imperium of Man is LE if ever a society was such a thing. They are genocidal, brutal fanatics bent on conquest. How do you get LG out of that?
Anyone finding any faction in Warhammer 40,000 any flavor of Good is seriously doing it wrong. Hell, the closest thing they have is the Tau, and they're quickly racking up war atrocities(though they're still way behind the Imperium, who have made it an art form).
Also, don't forget Atticus Finch!
And man, that NPC supplement sounds terrible. I'm tempted to check it out out of morbid curiosity alone.
D'oh! You're right! If Atticus Finch isn't LG, I don't know who would be. The other example that always comes to mind for me is The Confessor. (Astro City: Confession)
Yeah; the 40k universe is basically LE (Imperium) vs. NE (Necrons) vs. CE (Chaos) vs. CE (Tyranids) vs. CE (Orks) vs. LN (Eldar) vs. NE (Dark Eldar) vs. N with SLIGHT good tendencies (Tau)
I don't know how that would work in anyone else's game, but in mine it's a one-way ticket to jail since no paladin could lie about having done it and remain a paladin (presuming he'd somehow managed to keep his paladinhood after a few stops in the first place).
In mine they would instantly lose their paladin powers.
But very good point on the very bad examples.
I don't think a binary is quite accurate. I think three options are a fairer description of the thread's arguments thus far:
1. Intention is all that matters. Using a celestial bison or an imp to kill nuns doesn't matter. Killing nuns does. Do evil by any means necessary.
2. Using [evil] and [good] descriptor spells causes taint due to the source of the mystical energy and the imprint of the spell. No matter what you do with the spell it leaves its mark. Use a different spell to accomplish the same goal.
3. The type of spell and its use both matter. The [evil] spell may leave its taint, but that taint can be overcome if there is a greater good.
Fair?
Of the three summaries, I would be tempted to go with the third one, with a bias to first one. Intent is more important here, but there are acts which are questionable in themselves, and eg. summoning demons is one of them. Because outsider forces are extreme and they do taint you, to an extent.
As House Tytalus saw it, it is a game of infinite bets, and you better not lose it...
I don't think a binary is quite accurate. I think three options are a fairer description of the thread's arguments thus far:
1. Intention is all that matters. Using a celestial bison or an imp to kill nuns doesn't matter. Killing nuns does. Do evil by any means necessary.
2. Using [evil] and [good] descriptor spells causes taint due to the source of the mystical energy and the imprint of the spell. No matter what you do with the spell it leaves its mark. Use a different spell to accomplish the same goal.
3. The type of spell and its use both matter. The [evil] spell may leave its taint, but that taint can be overcome if there is a greater good.
Fair?
Of the three summaries, I would be tempted to go with the third one, with a bias to first one. Intent is more important here, but there are acts which are questionable in themselves, and eg. summoning demons is one of them. Because outsider forces are extreme and they do taint you, to an extent.
As House Tytalus saw it, it is a game of infinite bets, and you better not lose it...
Precisely. I lean more towards the philosophy of Natural Law, in and out of game, so I feel more inclined towards 1., but one cannot exclude 3.
This was my whole point in relating the classic toture situation, which boils down to the more essential question, should one made to suffer unwillingly for the good of the many? I suppose in a purely Utilitarian interpretation (which I typically disagree with, but it beas consideration), I suppose the torturing of the prisoner to save the lives of many is not really an Evil act, because the ends literally justify the means; make them okay. That doesn't completely fly in D&D; the means are going to be as objectively Evil as fire is objectively Fire. But one can still debate whether their employment is ever justified. Some may argue that summoning a demon can be used for Good ends, others may say no Good can come of it; and further, whether the summoner is condemned by that one act or not. But in both cases, the demon and the mode and the act of summoning it are unquestionably Evil.
It is also like fighting fire with fire. You can do this for a variety of purposes, and argue whether they are ultimately good or bad. But in the end, what you are fighting the fire with is still objectively fire.
In the end, D&D alignment is not some strange and alien thing; it cannot be, by necessity, or none of us could use it.
About paladins and the LG alignment in general.
Good post. My first play group had similar opinions of paladins, though the ones we had in the party (there was one player who wasn't so prejudiced, and have tried my hand at them, as well) never acted like that. But it becomes a self-perpetuating mindset. I don't understand how people become so possessed of the idea that LG means "killjoy," as you said. It's no more extreme than CG, which always seems to be so popular and beloved by those who despise it's Good counterpart. Typically, the Chaotic part of Chaotic Good is underplayed; most of such characters seem to be NG, at most. It's like they want that Chaotic descriptor there as a "get out of jail free" card, to be played whenever they would have to do something difficult but at no other time.
I suppose it returns back the basics of this thread and what I posted earlier:
Playing Lawful is often seen (and frequently rightly so) to require a deeper level of roleplaying and immersion in the world. Even people who are willing to play Good characters may not be willing to play Lawful, whether they simply want to escape from regulations and obligations in their real lives or they simply don't want to get that "deep" in the game.
But there is another point which your post brings up and bears mentioning, regarding the "smite makes right" mentality which villifies the paladin in so many people's eyes:
Just because you are killing evil things because they are Evil, doesn't inherently make you Good.
|
|
Playing Lawful is often seen (and frequently rightly so) to require a deeper level of roleplaying and immersion in the world. Even people who are willing to play Good characters may not be willing to play Lawful, whether they simply want to escape from regulations and obligations in their real lives or they simply don't want to get that "deep" in the game.
Somewhat paradoxically, Lawful Evil and Neutral Good are my two favorite alignments.
Chaotic Evil, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good, in my experience are recipes for interparty conflict, either due to the Chaotic Es and Ns deciding that they can do any psycho disruptive thing they want because they're 'chaotic' and the Lawful Gs and Ns breaking down into some persnickety literalist legalistic jingoism that allows them to rationalize being disruptive pricks in the exact same way that the chaotics were doing.
"Oh, you broke the law / crossed the line / violated my code back there, I *had* to kill all of you! I'm just roleplaying my alignment!"
"Oh, you broke the law / crossed the line / violated my code back there, I *had* to kill all of you! I'm just roleplaying my alignment!"
That is bad role playing, not bad alignment (and we all have seen plenty of that).
This was my whole point in relating the classic toture situation, which boils down to the more essential question, should one made to suffer unwillingly for the good of the many?
One could point out a high potential of moral taint in it. Let's say it is justified this time. Next time there will be less moral threshold to use torture, and the next and the next...it is easy to end up in the situation where torture for suspection of minor crimes will be justified.
This is a big reason why bleeding-heart liberals oppose torture, death penalty, chipping away free speech etc. It might be justified in this very specific situation but it opens up a nice slippery slide to hell.
Never actually seen that before, Eric. Have you experienced that sort of thing with more than one DM?Just wanted to ask this:
Anyone here ever have trouble with DMs who demand that all LG types, especially Paladins, must be played as either morons or bigots and then penalize the player when they don't "get it right"?
Let me assure you, it gets real tired, real fast.
Personally, only the one time, but what I've read and heard from oyhers showed me that my experience wasn't unique.
Dunno if this will make trouble, but go to the site http://www.tvtropes.org and check out their entry for 'Lawful Stupid' for more.
Somewhat paradoxically, Lawful Evil and Neutral Good are my two favorite alignments.
Oddly enough, I think I agree with you for once! :)
Most people who choose LE over any other type of Evil have a roleplaying inclination and an idea about how to play Evil without being stupid, and without breaking the suspension of disbelief in terms of why the PCs are together at all. LE characters often just seem more realistic and compelling than Evil characters of other varieties, and sometimes even more than Good characters*. Plus, the "classical" Evil is Chaotic Evil, with some straying into Neutral Evil. Lawful Evil just never seems to lose its novelty, perhaps because on the whole it doesn't get played that much and so always remains fresher than the altenatives.
On the other hand, NG often seems the most level-headed of all alignments, and frequently those who choose it over Chaos or Law seem to be able to play wiser characters, even more heroic and better characters, than those who choose one of the extremes.
|
|
Easier...
Now I think we have ourselves to blame for that.
I personally play a mjority of 'Good' characters when I play, because I personally think thats what makes for a better gaming environment.
But why do I think we have ourselves to blame?
simple...as a few have already pointed out, DM's 'try' to use the 'you are a good character as the stick to make them do certain things...or react in certain manners. Which isnt neccessarily wrong or bad DM'ing....
where the breakdown occurs is that we 'don't enforce' reactions (typically) to Evil actions either...
How many characters have been put in jail and had to stand trial, and then had legal punishment placed upon them for their actions? How many have had bounty hunters chasing them? how many have had to totally stay away from towns because of Exiles?
Im willing to bet, the vast majority of DM's (myself included) overlook the occasional indescretion in the interst of 'keeping the flow of the game going' rather than face the reality of the repurcussions that WOULD REALLY occur.
So many players get the false sense of security that 'I can be Evil and get away with things, that I can't if Im good'......
my thoughts.
Personally, only the one time, but what I've read and heard from oyhers showed me that my experience wasn't unique.
You usually run across a lot of it during any paladin actions/loss of paladinhood debates on the internet.
I have no trouble with alignments, but I do think it's important that the DM sit down with the players and lay out what alignment will mean for the campaign. Will the DM be fairly strict? What is the difference between lawful and chaotic in a way that makes sense? And how tough will he be on any paladin PCs in the game?
Once the ground rules are established, have at it.
You usually run across a lot of it during any paladin actions/loss of paladinhood debates on the internet.
I have no trouble with alignments, but I do think it's important that the DM sit down with the players and lay out what alignment will mean for the campaign. Will the DM be fairly strict? What is the difference between lawful and chaotic in a way that makes sense? And how tough will he be on any paladin PCs in the game?
Once the ground rules are established, have at it.
It does seem from my own experience that a lot of the problems with paladins come from the GM and player(s) having possibly widely varying ideas on just what qualifies as 'Lawful Good' -- though some players and GMs just seem to have it in for the paladin class for whatever reason.
Though in the latter case the GM should have the honesty to tell the players as much before they start making their characters, and the players should respect his wishes.
|
I played in a d20 Modern campaign where we all played Roman Catholic priests that were part of a secret organization within the Vatican that basically did what Buffy did. It was interesting, because the usual carrots (money, babes, stuff, etc.) didn't apply to a bunch of dudes who had vows of chastity and charity and poverty.
We still managed to get into trouble, (my Jesuit surgeon actually had to do a ton of community service at one point!), but it was a really fun challenge to act good AND play in a game that was inherently violent. We couldn't kill innocents, obviously, but we also couldn't kill disarmed but really evil mortals either. We had a trio of nemeses that we HATED, but the one time we got the drop on them, we couldn't shoot them because they were unarmed. It was very frustrating, but in a good way. When the demons came out to play, we were able to pull out uzis out of our medical bags and go to town, but when it was possessed folks, or just common criminals, it was a bigger challenge because we had to be careful not to kill them.
That's a cool campaign!
My groups are usually comprised of good and virtuous characters with the random neutral rogue or cleric thrown in the mix. No one plays evil because they don't really enjoy it.|
|
Inspired by Why Are People Reluctant To Play Clerics thread. (That and players.)
I have noticed a trend in my years of GMing and playing.
PCs usually range from unsavory to down right evil.
Is this because of a lack of understanding?
Is this because of desire to be "badass"?
Is this so they can play the popular anti-hero?
Is this because of villains are thought to have more fun?
Is this because it's easier?In ending, why can't people play a whole group of f-ing good characters for once?
mmm ok i suppose some poeple have fun playing an evil or uncaring character (i hae a few players who love this)
there are others that just give a damn and want to have fun, making mostly selfish characters but that will help their friends, but won't move to help a defenseless person unless they gain somethingand i have a few players that actually play the good or heroic champion...
for example in a RotRL Campaign we are playing, (this time i am a player)
we have a paladin which is closer to neutral, but will do whatever is best for the town, and help the people in the town... even if he abuse a bit of his freedoms... (he doesn'tbelieve in the existence of innocents)
we have a good bard... but she is almost CN in attitude, even if she cares about her friends
we have an almost sociaopat necromancer who is N, he doesn't careifhe hurts you... or help you... he will behave in general... but if he has to ask questions he is a bully... just please don't mess with the Cleric of Iomedae... or he will torture, intimidate and kill you while she is distracted
Rogue.... ok he is absolutely not heoric but he moves along with the group
another Rogue... difficult to get hold of him into the group
gnome druid... obviously she cares more about animals than people... but she will protect people from goblins... and kill goblins
and you have the heroic cleric of Ioemdae which already took out a badguy (with the wizard's help) who threated badly some orphans and adopted them... she doesn't know what to do with themnow... but she will take care of them
yeah... why areso few of us playingthe really good person here? (i play the cleric)
|
|
I played in a d20 Modern campaign where we all played Roman Catholic priests that were part of a secret organization within the Vatican that basically did what Buffy did. It was interesting, because the usual carrots (money, babes, stuff, etc.) didn't apply to a bunch of dudes who had vows of chastity and charity and poverty.
We still managed to get into trouble, (my Jesuit surgeon actually had to do a ton of community service at one point!), but it was a really fun challenge to act good AND play in a game that was inherently violent. We couldn't kill innocents, obviously, but we also couldn't kill disarmed but really evil mortals either. We had a trio of nemeses that we HATED, but the one time we got the drop on them, we couldn't shoot them because they were unarmed. It was very frustrating, but in a good way. When the demons came out to play, we were able to pull out uzis out of our medical bags and go to town, but when it was possessed folks, or just common criminals, it was a bigger challenge because we had to be careful not to kill them.
That's a cool campaign!
My groups are usually comprised of good and virtuous characters with the random neutral rogue or cleric thrown in the mix. No one plays evil because they don't really enjoy it.
whoa! i agree sounds like a cool campaign
|
|
whoa! i agree sounds like a cool campaignI played in a d20 Modern campaign where we all played Roman Catholic priests that were part of a secret organization within the Vatican that basically did what Buffy did. It was interesting, because the usual carrots (money, babes, stuff, etc.) didn't apply to a bunch of dudes who had vows of chastity and charity and poverty.
We still managed to get into trouble, (my Jesuit surgeon actually had to do a ton of community service at one point!), but it was a really fun challenge to act good AND play in a game that was inherently violent. We couldn't kill innocents, obviously, but we also couldn't kill disarmed but really evil mortals either. We had a trio of nemeses that we HATED, but the one time we got the drop on them, we couldn't shoot them because they were unarmed. It was very frustrating, but in a good way. When the demons came out to play, we were able to pull out uzis out of our medical bags and go to town, but when it was possessed folks, or just common criminals, it was a bigger challenge because we had to be careful not to kill them.
That's a cool campaign!
My groups are usually comprised of good and virtuous characters with the random neutral rogue or cleric thrown in the mix. No one plays evil because they don't really enjoy it.
Agreed. However; were I playing, even with all those vows, I'd probably still find ways to add to my Big Trouble List.
"No, Chris, you can't start play as the Pope."
"Can I at least have the hat?"
"No."
"Do you think he'd let me borrow it?"
If you're a DM and your PCs aren't good, ask yourself if your campaign is heavily aimed at theft, murder, and desecration, i.e. "killing things, taking their stuff, and looting old graves."
If you want good PCs, they need to have evil opposition and/or good origins. That will most often be either an evil overlord of some kind, if the PCs are independent, or evil rebels, if the PCs work for a good king/church/etc..
|
I have noticed a trend in my years of GMing and playing.
PCs usually range from unsavory to down right evil.
As a person of a particular faith, I am always amused when told from those OUTSIDE the faith or its study are busy telling me how I am to believe, behave, etc.
Having played a paladin predominately in my gaming life (1976 forward) I have experienced the exact same effect in game. We come to a situation, and everyone around the room starts mandating what my character's response is. It's like I have become a party-controlled NPC.
It's an unfortunate byproduct of metagaming. The best DM I ever played with, upon XP countup time, gave all the XP to my paladin. When the players started complaining he affixed each one of them with a steely gaze and told them they were too busy playing my character to play theirs, therefore no XP for their characters. That lesson learned, next session I was allowed to control my own destiny, and we had a really good time.
See the extremely long post I just posted, Eric. In short, and sadly, yes, yes, I have.Just wanted to ask this:
Anyone here ever have trouble with DMs who demand that all LG types, especially Paladins, must be played as either morons or bigots and then penalize the player when they don't "get it right"?
Let me assure you, it gets real tired, real fast.
I read your post. I've seen much the same thing happen in games without alignment systems myself. *Sighs* I do wonder why you never see 'evil' CG characters (Freedom is the ultimate good! Now turn that rapist loose, you have no right to interfere with his life!) or NG (I'm lacking a good example of hypocritical/stupid/intolerant NG behavior). It's only the LG characters who turn into the Son of Torquemada. Heck, sometimes they get shown as being worse than demons!