And the paladin is going to have time to scan each person indiviually?
Nah, he does it at a glance. Those diabolists are prominently wearing Asmoean pentagrams.
Besides, I have to question why the diabolists are so eager to help but no one else is.
No one else is there. The city guard has just been torn to shreds by a glabrezu.
Alone, the Paladin will fail, but luckily, those diabolists have just arrived on the scene, and since they hate demons, they offer their services. One has a nice scroll he can use to call a quartet of furies to help.
Sorry, but as I said I hate these whole "Can a paladin work with evil under these circumstances" hypothetical situations. If you see a situation IG where somthing like this crops up (I.E supposedly evil people helping in a situation where evil wouldn't normally help but good aligned characters would) then explain that situation rather than these hypotheical ones.
I just did.
Orphanage under attack by demons outgunning him. Everyone else who could have helped is dead.
Priest of Asmodeus and his trusty hellknights arrive intent in using their infernal power to stop demons, all for the glory of Hell and the ultimate triumph of Law.
If you were calling the shots, the Paladin, already outclassed, could not work together with the devil worshippers, even though this would definetly be for the greater good (better organised defense against demons means less orphans slaughtered)
Theres a word to describe a paladin like that - Paranoid.
No, there's a couple of words describing a paladin like that: "Not a f&#@ing hypocrite".
Paladins have the code. They don't just have LG alignment, they have an actual class feature that says they have to hold themselves to higher standards than others.
That code stipulates that they may not associate with evil.
Their divine patron's grace grants them the ability to know when someone is evil, and it takes next to no effort.
A paladin is pretty much required to use the powers given to him to fulfill the oath.
It's not as if he walks around with 300 people in the party. It's a handful. A paladin is required to form an opinion about his comrades. He gets a power that helps. He must use it.
It's just a matter of course. Paladins are lawful. Lawful types do that sort of thing. In the real world, you often must submit to tests that some might find paranoid. Fly anywhere and they'll scan you and your luggage for weapons. Not because they have a reason to suspect any one person is an arms smuggler or terrorist dressing up as a well-to-do businessman, but because it's in the regulation.
Some jobs or licenses require a certificate of good conduct. Others require drug tests. Not because of paranoia. It's just a matter of course.
It's the same with paladins. They have a code - something that will cost them their powers if they break it - against working with evil people, and have an ability to easily identify those people. Putting two and two together, they use that ability on party members. A formality. They use it on fellow paladins. No one is singled out.
And the paladin is going to have time to scan each person indiviually?
Nah, he does it at a glance. Those diabolists are prominently wearing Asmoean pentagrams.
Besides, I have to question why the diabolists are so eager to help but no one else is.
No one else is there. The city guard has just been torn to shreds by a glabrezu.
Alone, the Paladin will fail, but luckily, those diabolists have just arrived on the scene, and since they hate demons, they offer their services. One has a nice scroll he can use to call a quartet of furies to help.
Sorry, but as I said I hate these whole "Can a paladin work with evil under these circumstances" hypothetical situations. If you see a situation IG where somthing like this crops up (I.E supposedly evil people helping in a situation where evil wouldn't normally help but good aligned characters would) then explain that situation rather than these hypotheical ones.
I just did.
Orphanage under attack by demons outgunning him. Everyone else who could have helped is dead.
Priest of Asmodeus and his trusty hellknights arrive intent in using their infernal power to stop demons, all for the glory of Hell and the ultimate triumph of Law.
If you were calling the shots, the Paladin, already outclassed, could not work together with the devil worshippers, even though this would definetly be for the greater good (better organised defense against demons means less orphans slaughtered)
Theres a word to describe a paladin like that - Paranoid.
No, there's a couple of words describing a paladin like that: "Not a f@+&ing hypocrite".
Paladins have the code. They don't just have LG alignment, they have an actual class feature that says they have to hold themselves to higher standards than others.
That code stipulates that they may not associate with evil.
Their divine patron's grace grants them the ability to know when someone is evil, and it takes next to no effort.
A paladin is pretty much required to use the powers given to him to fulfill the oath.
It's not as if he walks around with 300 people in the party. It's a handful. A paladin is required to form an opinion about his comrades. He gets a power that helps. He must use it.
It's just a matter of course. Paladins are lawful. Lawful types do that sort of thing. In the real world, you often must submit to tests that some might find paranoid. Fly anywhere and they'll scan you and your luggage for weapons. Not because they have a reason to suspect any one person is an arms smuggler or terrorist dressing up as a well-to-do businessman, but because it's in the regulation.
Some jobs or licenses require a certificate of good conduct. Others require drug tests. Not because of paranoia. It's just a matter of course.
It's the same with paladins. They have a code - something that will cost them their powers if they break it - against working with evil people, and have an ability to easily identify those people. Putting two and two together, they use that ability on party members. A formality. They use it on fellow paladins. No one is singled out.
|
Ok.Curse of the Crimson frickin' Throne!
In this Adventure Path, the players are supposed to team up with fairly obviously evil people to defeat a greater evil or accomplish a goal towards defeating that evil.
Firstly, points for using an example which actually crops up IG, even if I still disagree. Though remember that this is the same story in which the PC's meet by finding an common enemy and hunting that enemy down. Besides, I would count working together to overthrow a tyranicle queen working with devils as a dire situation I.E one in which I wouldn't mind a paladin working with evil.
True, but I've also seen alot of complaints regarding adventure paths "not working" with paladins.
So, there's not only a real game example, but as Paizo published it, it was clearly supposed to be workable with paladins,...
It doesn't work under the old code, certainly. But the new Paladin code allows it, and I agree, the situation is certainly dire enough, but it falls well short of "world about to be eaten by Galactus" scenario you seemed to propose as being the required level.
Personally, I wouldn't be happy if the Paladin was always working with evil, either. Unless there's a dire threat, they shouldn't mix. However, for a literary example, Sturm Brightblade and Raistlin managed to adventure together for a while despite one being as close to a paladin as anyone, even if they had as little to do with each other as possible during that time.
And finally, our paladin checks EVERYONE out with detect evil. Anyone who it looks like he'll be working with gets the staredown.
|
Ok.Curse of the Crimson frickin' Throne!
In this Adventure Path, the players are supposed to team up with fairly obviously evil people to defeat a greater evil or accomplish a goal towards defeating that evil. Twice! Maybe three times if you count getting information in exchange for not slaughtering a bunch of evil later. In each case, the evil people have their own motivations for joining up which is not the same as the players' but is not opposed either.
So, there's not only a real game example, but as Paizo published it, it was clearly supposed to be workable with paladins,...
As far as I have ever heard, the "call sign" on Curse of the Crimson Throne was, literally, It's time to leave the paladins at home.
Nah, he does it at a glance. Those diabolists are prominently wearing Asmoean pentagrams.
And this is why I hate these hypothetical situations rather than ones that have actually cropped up IG. I've only ever seen a similer scenario actually IG, and the DM in question was trying to make the paladin fall.
If somthing like this crops up in your game, the problem is your game, not the rules or the paladins code. You need to accept that theres a point where the scenario is no longer "A possibility" and just "Somthing to see how far we can push the code".
Alone, the Paladin will fail, but luckily, those diabolists have just arrived on the scene, and since they hate demons, they offer their services. One has a nice scroll he can use to call a quartet of furies to help.
And you know the paladin will fail definately? In a setting where things are determined primarily by luck (I.E the roll of a D20). If anything the paladin should stand a better chance than the diabolists, since the paladins main class features actually cateer to fighting evil outsides. Besides, if no other non evil creature is willing to help, I'd actually for as far as to beleive it's a trap set up by the diabolists.
I just did.
No you didn't. Any game worth a damm would never have such a silly situation. No DM with any damm sense of the class would ever force a paladin to choose between their code and somthing like the lives of innocents.
The code exists to put a set of guidlines on the character, not put them in positions where they can't do jack. Yet thats not really a problem since only in these long winded hypothetical situations do such "dammed if you do, dammed if you don't" scenarios crop up.
No, there's a couple of words describing a paladin like that: "Not a f%#!ing hypocrite".
Firstly, chill. I've noticed this in quite a few of your posts, you need to relax a little. Taking a harsh tone isn't going to convince me that you're right (on the contray, it just makes me think that I'm right even moreso).
Tell you what then, in any game you play a paladin, play them like that, scanning everything under the sun just on the off-chance it might be evil. I'm sure you'll have fun. Mean-while, I'll be over here, playing paladins who realise just how futile it is to scan everything constantly just to make sure the icky presence of evil doesn't happen to be nearby.
What about when you paladin goes to get somthing to eat? Will he scan every vendor? What about every pedestrian he passes? What about the city watch? Should he scan the pork he's about to eat on the off-chance the pig was evil? Where does it end?
|
Nero24200 - you mention that you want the evil PCs to act realistically evil, and then wonder why they would associate with a Pally. In history, many people that we consider 'evil' today thought that they were doing good things for the good of the people. They are deranged enough to believe that they would not show up on a detect evil (there are obvious exceptions, such as championing and evil god).
A great example of 'dire circumstances' is the book Villains by Necessity I would recommend it to any D&D or pathfinder player.
Nero24200 - you mention that you want the evil PCs to act realistically evil, and then wonder why they would associate with a Pally. In history, many people that we consider 'evil' today thought that they were doing good things for the good of the people. They are deranged enough to believe that they would not show up on a detect evil (there are obvious exceptions, such as championing and evil god).
A great example of 'dire circumstances' is the book Villains by Necessity I would recommend it to any D&D or pathfinder player.
D'n'D isn't Real Life. Fact.
you can't apply the alignment system to Real life. Alignment in d'n'd is abract. Unlike real life you are either evil, good, or neutral, there is no middle ground.
As I said, if someone in D'n'D is evil, they're evil, not "Good, but from a different view point" as those examples you mentioned might fall under.
As the paladin in question, I would have attacked the Demons and tried to save the orphange. If the diabolists also attacked so be it, if they did not then perhaps my sacrafice would give some of the orphans time to escape. I would have died doing the right thing.
While I agree it's okay to attack the demons as well, apparently it's impossible to fight alongside someone without assocaiting with them.
you can't apply the alignment system to Real life.
This is how you know you're doing it completely wrong.
This is how you know you're doing it completely wrong.
No, that's how I know I'm doing it right. Can you really say that our actions are either good, evil or neutral? No middle ground? The world isn't anywhere near as black and white as D'n'D.
if you claim he did so the weak will learn their place well you might be talking LE. If he did it because he could get away with it and he likes killing well any E will do.
Even though he's also helping the weak without personal gain, right? You haven't forgotten that part?
My point is that if you make alignment assertions based only on one act or trait, and you keep doing that every time you see a morally loaded action, these assertions are going to conflict.
I'm not touching your law-vs-Law mixup with a ten-foot pole, though. Got to choose my battles here.
This is how you know you're doing it completely wrong.No, that's how I know I'm doing it right. Can you really say that our actions are either good, evil or neutral? No middle ground? The world isn't anywhere near as black and white as D'n'D.
You've used alignment as an excuse to forbid ethically complex characters. Yes, you're doing it wrong.
From the SRD:
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
Also,
Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.
The DMG goes into greater detail about how alignment is a passive label, but I don't have a copy on hand. If a character tries to play a complex character and you say "you can't do that, either be neutral or be evil", then not only are you doing alignment wrong, but you're also an aweful DM.
There is no need to directly insult one another. Play nice.
Is that directed at me or at the post you just deleted?
Is that directed at me or at the post you just deleted?
Specifically toward the post(s) I removed. That said, I expect our board users to remain civil toward one another.
However, for a literary example, Sturm Brightblade and Raistlin managed to adventure together for a while despite one being as close to a paladin as anyone, even if they had as little to do with each other as possible during that time.
I don't suppose that it would help to point out that during the time Sturm and Raistlin were "associated," Raistlin was Nasty Neutral rather than Evil? Sturm, while not a paladin in name, was a Lawful Good fighter holding himself to a paladin's code because he felt it was the right thing to do. And Sturm still had to fight the urge to thrash him. (Personally, I believe the tippint point for his alignment change was when he abandoned his friends and brother using the Dragon Orb, but I digress.)
Several of the recent posts seem to hinge on the definition of "associate," including a few that seem to use it in place of "interact." If a paladin can't interact with evil, he can't do his job, or even complete daily tasks. If the shopkeeper you're buying from registers as evil, do you refuse to buy from him, even if he's the only in town? Now if there's another shopkeep down the street who isn't evil, even if prices are a little higher, I would say the pally has a choice to make. But if you can't even be in the vicinity of evil without being "associated" with it, and you're supposed to be paranoid enough to scan everything and everyone, you have your paladin reeling down the street like a drunken schizo experiencing a psychotic break, backpedaling from every evil creature for fear of being "associated" with him/her and losing his abilities.
Definition from the dictionary Link.
I respectfully submit that many of these disagreements come back to style of play. It tends to go poorly when we assume our style of play is better than some one else's.
There are huge variations in moral complexity in different games. It's just a bad idea to say someone else is doing it wrong because they play differently than us.
You've used alignment as an excuse to forbid ethically complex characters. Yes, you're doing it wrong.
No, I'm trying to get characters to choose their alignments for a reason. As I've said a few times, I hate the hypothetical paladin situations, and one reason why is because 9 times out of 10 the evil pc/npc is evil "just because" and seem to have some magical urge to work with the paladin. I like my evil characters to actually..you know, be evil. I'm not saying they should openly eating live babies or anything, but actually do/think in a way that actually means they deserve the alignment rather than just a case of "Not sure what alignment to put, oh well, evil works as good as any".
The DMG goes into greater detail about how alignment is a passive label, but I don't have a copy on hand.
Saying it's passive is all well and good, but a paladin needs a definate distinction. Last I checked, the paladins smite doesn't "partially work" on characters somewhere between netural and evil, it's either all or nothing. This is partly why I feel the system is far more black and white, because alignemnt comes into the rules alot with divine characters and theres no rules for characters between alignments. (It's also one of the few things I think they got right in 4E by having an "unaligned" options for characters like this).
If a character tries to play a complex character and you say "you can't do that, either be neutral or be evil"
So if they're neither what alignment should they put on their character sheet? "Between neutral and evil" isn't an alingment that fits into the system. It sounds more like you're trying to argue against alignment as a whole.
"Between neutral and evil" isn't an alingment that fits into the system.
Why not? 1e had N, NE, and N(E) in between, and didn't seem to suffer for it.
So if they're neither what alignment should they put on their character sheet? "Between neutral and evil" isn't an alingment that fits into the system.
Everyone is either good, neutral or evil. Sometime, a character is so close to the border that all it takes is one action to push them to the other side.
However, "Good", "Neutral" and "Evil" are still only labels which are applied after the fact of human behavior.
If a character is blurring the distinction between "neutral" and "evil", it is your job as a DM to make a call. You do not have any right to say "Your character is to complicated, please either act more evil or act more neutral to make things easier for me." I don't care what system you're playing or what houserules you've made, that is bad DMing.
Sometimes these are tough calls to make. Sometimes it isn't any fun to make them. If that's how you feel, then that's fine; alignments are a tricky and compelx thing. Not everyone likes them. Some peole hate them. Feel free to houserule this game to your tastes, or to play another one altogether.
Anything else I can help with?
"Between neutral and evil" isn't an alingment that fits into the system.Why not? 1e had N, NE, and N(E) in between, and didn't seem to suffer for it.
In which case, it's now "Between N and NE" that isn't an alignment. =p
No matter what you do, if you draw lines, you're going to have to decide who falls to what side of them. Drawing more lines doesn't help.
|
|
As the paladin in question, I would have attacked the Demons and tried to save the orphange. If the diabolists also attacked so be it, if they did not then perhaps my sacrafice would give some of the orphans time to escape. I would have died doing the right thing.
I dunno, that doesn't seem to gel with how I'd play the paladin in question.
Were it me, I'd put top priority on saving the orphans. Knowing that I'd have a better chance of success the orphans with the support of the diabolists, I'd rather break the part of my code that says "no hangin' with evil dudes" than the part of my code that says "protect the weak and innocent". It's a lot easier to seek atonement or accept a fallen status than to raise orphans from the dead, after all. Especially when you're dead.
As the paladin in question, I would have attacked the Demons and tried to save the orphange. If the diabolists also attacked so be it, if they did not then perhaps my sacrafice would give some of the orphans time to escape. I would have died doing the right thing.I dunno, that doesn't seem to gel with how I'd play the paladin in question.
Were it me, I'd put top priority on saving the orphans. Knowing that I'd have a better chance of success the orphans with the support of the diabolists, I'd rather break the part of my code that says "no hangin' with evil dudes" than the part of my code that says "protect the weak and innocent". It's a lot easier to seek atonement or accept a fallen status than to raise orphans from the dead, after all. Especially when you're dead.
I'm not going throw my hat in on either side of this debate.
However, I LOVE that the rules bave backed up enough that we are now confronting this interesting situations as players ("I would do this, I would do that") rather than as rules arbitraters ("This makes you fall, this doesn't").
|
|
As the paladin in question, I would have attacked the Demons and tried to save the orphange. If the diabolists also attacked so be it, if they did not then perhaps my sacrafice would give some of the orphans time to escape. I would have died doing the right thing.I dunno, that doesn't seem to gel with how I'd play the paladin in question.
Were it me, I'd put top priority on saving the orphans. Knowing that I'd have a better chance of success the orphans with the support of the diabolists, I'd rather break the part of my code that says "no hangin' with evil dudes" than the part of my code that says "protect the weak and innocent". It's a lot easier to seek atonement or accept a fallen status than to raise orphans from the dead, after all. Especially when you're dead.
Agreed, and it is better to know the orphans will take after your example and have a better chance of growing up good(though lawful is stil up to them)
If a character is blurring the distinction between "neutral" and "evil", it is your job as a DM to make a call.
I'm not saying a call should be forced, but the problem I have with most of the hypotheical paladin situations is that the "evil" PC's used as examples fall into this catagory far too many times for my liking.
I suppose partly the reason why I argue so hard against such a thing is because I've seen quite alot of "Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't" paladin situations IG (Mostly in PBP), and just about every time the problem arises from
A: Antagonistic DM's intentionally putting the paladin into hot water, usally via unrealisticly and poorly played NPC's (I'm talking very poor, "Your NPC just killed innocents in front of me for his own sadistic pleasure and you're trying to say I'm anal 'casue I don't like it?" poor).
B: Players annoyed that their "evil" PC's don't get on with the paladin...even though for the most part their PC's aren't actually evil (unless you count being idiotic or a jerk as being evil).
I don't care what system you're playing or what houserules you've made, that is bad DMing.
Like it or not a fair portion of mechanics of rely on characters having a distinct alignment. If you feel they should be blurred a little, fine, but you'll need to be housing a rule spells and abilities. If I want to start throwing around spells like "Holy Word" I'm going to need to know which catagories the PC's fall into, regardless of whether or not such catagories restrict them. I feel the alignment system is very black and white for this reason: Your character fits into one of 9 catagories, that's it. In real life I don't think there is a set number of such catagories.
And these late two pages are the reason why I prefered 2E's version of Sense Evil where a paladin, rather than -alignment-, detected -evil intent-.
And for our next -never to be resolved- debate:
Tyranosaurus Rex: Predator or scavenger?
Now Seelah can start hanging around with corrupting influences like Amiri with her loud music and Seltyiel with that long hair more often!
Hmm, not sure about that, Ezren still complains a lot about Amiri's "devil music" giving him headaches, and he hangs around her a lot, so I'm not sure Amiri is welcome in the clique.
Opportunistic eater.
No, you have to pick one of the two! There are only two options! =D
I'm not saying a call should be forced, but the problem I have with most of the hypotheical paladin situations is that the "evil" PC's used as examples fall into this catagory far too many times for my liking.
Of course they do. If every badguy in the world was a cackling silent-film mustache twiddler, then stripping a paladin's powers just for associating with them would be perfectly reasonable, and your arguements would actually hold water. :)
Thankfully, this game (as it was ment to be played and as most people play it) is a little more complicated than that. People want to tell stories like the ones they read, stories where even the "badguys" are complex and sympathetic characters, and where figuring out what the right thing to do is might not always be easy.
Like it or not a fair portion of mechanics of rely on characters having a distinct alignment.
Alignments are distinct and inflexible.
Character behavior, on the other hand, covers a wide and pervasive range.This is why each of the 9 alignments covers such a wide range of behavior, and why two characters who act nothing alike can still have the same alignment.
Creative Director
|
Tyranosaurus Rex: Predator or scavenger?
Since his teeth were designed to punch through bone and his sense of smell was quite incredibly good, he was probably a carrion eater.
Since he had binocular vision and could probably run quite fast, he was probably a hunter.
Since he's bad-ass and the best dinosaur, he could probably do whatever he wanted.
I'm pretty sure t-rex was just an eating machine. I don't think he really cared whether a given piece of meat was still moving or not.
Tyranosaurus Rex: Predator or scavenger?Since his teeth were designed to punch through bone and his sense of smell was quite incredibly good, he was probably a carrion eater.
Since he had binocular vision and could probably run quite fast, he was probably a hunter.
Since he's bad-ass and the best dinosaur, he could probably do whatever he wanted.
LOL
I love these arguments. You notice all the experts never come up with the answer 'Hey, he was both, 'cause evolution was still experimenting all those millions of years ago'. A hunter with good scent is not unusual, see bloodhounds, wolves, etc. No one would argue a wolf is a carrion eater, yet they do, eat carrion that is. They are primarily a hunter who tracks by smell, has decent eye-sight, run quite fast, and will eat carrion.
In other words, it's really a stupid argument that only long-hairs care about, and they are too stubborn to admit they are both right.
Since we're on the topic...
Batman is Chaotic Good.
Han Solo is Chaotic Neutral.
James Bond is Neutral.
Captain Kirk is Neutral Good.
Superman is Lawful Good.
Dirty Harry is Lawful Neutral.
Darth Vader is Neutral Evil.
The Joker is Chaotic Evil.
Lex Luthor is Lawful Evil.Discuss.
I'd always thought of Bats as more Neutral Good. He respects the law, he enforces the law in his own way, he just doesn't think the law has all the answers. Chaotic would be anti-law, and he's not anti-law, he tries to help the law whenever possible.
I'd think of Wolverine as more chaotic good. He doesn't respect the law, he doesn't try to enforce the law, he does what he thinks is best in a given situation.
|
|
Since we're on the topic...
Batman is Chaotic Good.
Han Solo is Chaotic Neutral.
James Bond is Neutral.
Captain Kirk is Neutral Good.
Superman is Lawful Good.
Dirty Harry is Lawful Neutral.
Darth Vader is Neutral Evil.
The Joker is Chaotic Evil.
Lex Luthor is Lawful Evil.Discuss.
I geuss the Riddler's alignment is "Not in Question" then?
Hyuck, Hyuck, Hyuck
:D
Since we're on the topic...
Batman is Chaotic Good.
Han Solo is Chaotic Neutral.
James Bond is Neutral.
Captain Kirk is Neutral Good.
Superman is Lawful Good.
Dirty Harry is Lawful Neutral.
Darth Vader is Neutral Evil.
The Joker is Chaotic Evil.
Lex Luthor is Lawful Evil.Discuss.
Thinking about it, I also disagree with Lex Luthor. He's more Neutral Evil. He is out for himself, and uses the law when it's good for him, and flaunts it when it's inconvenient.
I think Lawful Evil would be more along the lines of Lady Deathstrike, from Marvel. She follows a bushido type code, but is still evil.
Since we're on the topic...
Batman is Chaotic Good.
Han Solo is Chaotic Neutral.
James Bond is Neutral.
Captain Kirk is Neutral Good.
Superman is Lawful Good.
Dirty Harry is Lawful Neutral.
Darth Vader is Neutral Evil.
The Joker is Chaotic Evil.
Lex Luthor is Lawful Evil.Discuss.
You fool, what have you done???
I'd think of Wolverine as more chaotic good. He doesn't respect the law, he doesn't try to enforce the law, he does what he thinks is best in a given situation.CHEATING!
Wolverine was not on the list!
Not cheating. You only picked one person per alignment, and didn't offer any others. This is not cheating on my part, but an epic failure on your part to consider alternatives. :)
I was giving you a correction to your list. :)
|
|
You fool, what have you done???Since we're on the topic...
Batman is Chaotic Good.
Han Solo is Chaotic Neutral.
James Bond is Neutral.
Captain Kirk is Neutral Good.
Superman is Lawful Good.
Dirty Harry is Lawful Neutral.
Darth Vader is Neutral Evil.
The Joker is Chaotic Evil.
Lex Luthor is Lawful Evil.Discuss.
He's broken the first seal... the Apocalypse has begun.
See you all Dec 22, 2012.
>:D
|
|
A quick alignment questions this discussion has brought up ... (sorry for yet another thread jacking) ...
I assume that alignment is always judged from the point of the campaign society or the DM's moral code. If there is a mad man that thinks he is saving children by chopping them up he is still obviously evil regardless of what he thinks right?
My question comes with the idea of lawfulness ... does lawfulness mean following the given societies law or does it mean following more abstract "laws" like the idea of justice?
Could a paladin be a vigilante? In the sense that he always follows the greater morale law of "Justice" even if its breaking the lesser law of that societies legal system.
I assume nothing can always be completely lawful because too many laws contradict or supersede each other.
Since we're on the topic...
Batman is Chaotic Good.
Han Solo is Chaotic Neutral.
James Bond is Neutral.
Captain Kirk is Neutral Good.
Superman is Lawful Good.
Dirty Harry is Lawful Neutral.
Darth Vader is Neutral Evil.
The Joker is Chaotic Evil.
Lex Luthor is Lawful Evil.Discuss.
I disagree regarding Batman. Regarding Law-Chaos, there's no way someone who trained like that for over twenty years into becoming, quoting Superman, "the most dangerous man on earth" can be chaotic. He's disciplined, he's methodical, he's prudent and, while adaptable, he firmly believes there's a right way to do things. He's as close to the Monk class as you get (class which, for the same reasons, has Lawful as a requisite)... as a matter of fact, he has already shown displays of Monk-like self-mastery such as walking over lava, getting over a drug addiction in mere two weeks without help from anyone, and channeling the power of the Eclypso gems.
Regarding Good-Evil, while Batman cares for his city, he's disconsiderate, he's arrogant, he rules Gotham by -fear-, he's selfish (he keeps involving kids in his cruzade, two of which have paid the ultimate price doing so) and, once all is said and done, at the end of the day all Batman cares about is his cruzade. To Batman, it's all about the bottom line. So IMHO, Batman is Neutral.
Lawful Neutral... perhaps with good tendencies.
P.D: James, are you a predator or a scavenger? =D
A quick alignment questions this discussion has brought up ... (sorry for yet another thread jacking) ...
I assume that alignment is always judged from the point of the campaign society or the DM's moral code. If there is a mad man that thinks he is saving children by chopping them up he is still obviously evil regardless of what he thinks right?
My question comes with the idea of lawfulness ... does lawfulness mean following the given societies law or does it mean following more abstract "laws" like the idea of justice?
Could a paladin be a vigilante? In the sense that he always follows the greater morale law of "Justice" even if its breaking the lesser law of that societies legal system.
I assume nothing can always be completely lawful because too many laws contradict or supersede each other.
This is the "law vs. Law" issues that I avoided earlier.
"Law" as a cosmic force favors structure, premeditation, and consistent behavior over fluidity, spontaneity, and dynamic behavior. It favors "rules" in the broadest sense: whether those rules are imposed by culture, society, family, or even by yourself. "Law" doesn't say that following your own rules is more or less important than following societies (just as "Good" doesn't say that rescuing one orphan is more important than rescuing another), it just requires that you favor rules and structure over mood and impulse.
Back on topic. Yes, a (typical) Lawful character prefers following written laws over not following them, but that's only one aspect of what it means to be Lawful, no more important than, say, telling the truth or keeping your word. If you're in a situation where it's against the law to tell the truth, then I think at best that cancels out to a neutral act.