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.
I think a lot of people are going to disagree with your analysis of the Dark Knight there. Batman has really, really good (And by good I mean Good) reasons for everything he does. However, above all else, Batman does what works. Which is why I would tend to call him ethically neutral rather than Lawful.
The thing is, though, that Batman has been handled by countless different writers over the years.
The core of the character is the contradiction: the good guy with the black cape, the illegal methods of promoting law and order, the dark image employed for a bright cause.
What this means is, there are a lot of ways for different authors to emphasize different aspects and come out with wildly different characters. Moore's Batman, for instance, doesn't have much in common with Super Friends Batman.
Isn't that a fiendish t-rex, though?
That's completely different. Fiendish tyrannosauruses are babyvores.
|
good stuff
Thanks ... I had some thoughts, but I am glad to get a stronger sense of how others think. I have a character who is a bit of a vigilante when it comes to protecting the weak ... and he thinks he is good and even lawful, but I'm not sure what alignment I should write on his sheet ...
Some other players think he is should be written down as evil ... I'm still not sure.
Darth Vader as NE and not LE? Hmm...
On the other hand, do we know what relevance, if any the predator-versus-scavenger issue would have to a Fiendish T-rex?
good stuffThanks ... I had some thoughts, but I am glad to get a stronger sense of how others think. I have a character who is a bit of a vigilante when it comes to protecting the weak ... and he thinks he is good and even lawful, but I'm not sure what alignment I should write on his sheet ...
Some other players think he is should be written down as evil ... I'm still not sure.
Ask your DM. No matter what, he's right. :)
The PHB does its best to define the alignments in a simple and accurate way, and we Interweb X-perts do our best to infer a consistent system based on what's written there, but at the end of the day alignment is totally up to your DM. It's one of those areas where you need a human judge (even if how he sees it is nothing like what the designers intended) because human ethics are just too freaking complicated to completely define in a rulebook.
|
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 refuse to post any disagreements in this thread, since it's a TRAP!
I totally agree that Luthor is (generally) portrayed as Neutral Evil. He's a moral opportunist, and will claim to be a good guy, or just following the law, when it's in his favor to do so, and then violate any laws that get in his way with callous disregard for 'order.'
And yeah, T-Rex eats whatever the hell it wants to eat. It's the Doctor Doom of the prehistoric food chain, beyond classification and likely to eat anyone who tries to tell it what it can and cannot do. It's an equal opportunity meat-itarian.
And now that the thread's officially gone to the pit with James bringing up Batman's alignment, I think we should also have a calm, dispassionate, reasoned discussion about whether or not a katana is the best sword ever, superior to all other weapons invented before or since, and can cut through an engine block or a desperate attempt to make a remotely serviceable weapon (using steel-folding techniques commonplace in Europe, particularly Spain) out of sub-standard iron ore. FIGHT!
Luthor is a (the) white-collar tyrant.
And I would agree that he's NE. Which is interesting to me, since in most settings your stock-tyrant is LE, but when you think "white-collar tyrant" you almost certainly think of an opportunistic, unscrupulous prick like Lex.
I've been tempted to write a new weapon table, in which many weapons would either have a "pierce" (bonus atk verses armor) or "rend" (bonus dmg verses unarmored) stats.
So, for example, a pick would have pierce 3 (ignores 3 points of armor) while a katana might have rend 4 (+4 damage vs. mages).
The most interesting thing about a katana is the "clamshell" edge; it does jack against metal armor, but will cut through skin like nobody's business. It would be such an ugly weapon for a mage-hunter or an urban assassin.
|
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.
For a paladin, I would say that the laws of his/her deity always supersede any societal laws in case of contradiction. That's not to say that a paladin wouldn't put effort into following the laws of whatever society (as Lawful, he naturally gravitates to being a law-abiding citizen). It's when particular societal laws conflict or contradict his (Good) moral compass or the laws of his deity that he won't feel bound to follow the offending societal laws.
Could a paladin be a vigilante? Depends on the circumstances. A paladin would prefer to work within the law, but when the law is corrupt, inadequate, nonexistent, unjust, contrary to his ethics, or not doing what laws should do (protect the citizens) then the paladin may consider "supplementing" the law as necessary. ;)
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.
For a paladin, I would say that the laws of his/her deity always supersede any societal laws in case of contradiction. That's not to say that a paladin wouldn't put effort into following the laws of whatever society (as Lawful, he naturally gravitates to being a law-abiding citizen). It's when particular societal laws conflict or contradict his (Good) moral compass or the laws of his deity that he won't feel bound to follow the offending societal laws.
Could a paladin be a vigilante? Depends on the circumstances. A paladin would prefer to work within the law, but when the law is corrupt, inadequate, nonexistent, unjust, contrary to his ethics, or not doing what laws should do (protect the citizens) then the paladin may consider "supplementing" the law as necessary. ;)
I think it's very important to remember, too, that paladins are NOT punished for committing chaotic acts (which don't directly violate the code) the same way they are for committing evil ones.
A paladin only has to maintain an overall alignment of "lawful", which is much easier than "never committing a chaotic act". And since his code forces them to do a lot of lawful things already, he has a lot brownie-points to spend in that regard.
As for the "laws of his deity" thing, that varies greatly actually. In core (greyhawk) 3.5 religion is completely secondary and doesn't affect a paladin's powers (which come directly from Lawful Goodness). In otherwords, you can be an awful worshiper of St. Cuthbert, but still be an impeccable paladin.
In many other settings though (like the 'Realms) all divine spellcasters (including pallys and rangers) are dependent on the gods for their powers.
Moore's Batman, for instance, doesn't have much in common with Super Friends Batman.
And either of them would kick the living shazbot out of live-action-TV Batman! :-)
Okay, I only know of one of Batman's wards paying the ultimate price. And he got better (thank you, Superboy Prime... *glare*). Last I heard, Batman was actually dead, and Dick and Tim were still alive and kicking. Unless you count the female Robin, who died while not being Robin, IIRC.
It saddens me how much I know about the Batman mythos when I haven't even really read more than a couple of non-cannon books.
I also contend that Han Solo is Chaotic Good, but he tries really hard to be neutral. You can see it all throughout the original trilogy - a neutral character would have acted in more self interest than he did. He wanted people to think he was a "bad" guy, but he's actually really descent.
An argument can be made that Han was a N or CN character whose heroism was driven by friendship (or infatuation) rather than by altruism. There is such a thing as "heroic neutral", after all.
I'd probably call him good though, personally. Or at least, if a player put CG on his sheet then acted like Han, I would leave him alone.
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.
Oh, boy -- Now you've done it...
Han Solo as Chaotic Neutral? Definitely, at the beginning of A New Hope. I don't care how much Lucas wanted to kid-proof his characters while fiddling with (some would say ruining) his movies -- Han shot first! However, for whatever reason he has a change of heart before the end of the film and for the remainder of the saga is safely Chaotic Good.
You've hit Superman, The Joker, and Lex Luthor right on the head... the rest are debatable.
Just re-watched all the Dirty Harry movies. LN is about as far as you can possibly get from Harry. He makes deals with black revolutionaries (with whom he's quite friendly) to get information so that he can go rescue the mayor -- but he hates the mayor, and just wants to blow up the terrorists who kidnapped him because they're "creeps." He gets suspended from duty in what -- every movie? -- for refusing to work within channels, refusing to call for backup, and telling his superiors to stick his badge up their respective posteriors. But overall, he does try to help people (when he's not blasting away with his .44), so maybe CG is a better bet? Then again, we see in one of the flicks that he's not a total vigilante, and actually opposes a squad of vigilante cops. NG, then? But there's all that shooting, blowing up, and mayhem he loves so much. N? CN?
Or is the whole alignment system just plain silly, since for any character you might name, you can sit there and discuss for hours what "alignment" they are, and never come to an agreement?
Driven, badass vigilantes have a funny place in these debates. For some reason, the argument always seems to be "chaotic good verses lawful neutral". Which, of course, are almost diametric opposites.
I tend to call such characters "neutral", but there's a perception that "extreme" characters can't possibly be neutral.
Okay, I only know of one of Batman's wards paying the ultimate price. And he got better (thank you, Superboy Prime... *glare*). Last I heard, Batman was actually dead, and Dick and Tim were still alive and kicking. Unless you count the female Robin, who died while not being Robin, IIRC.
It saddens me how much I know about the Batman mythos when I haven't even really read more than a couple of non-cannon books.
I also contend that Han Solo is Chaotic Good, but he tries really hard to be neutral. You can see it all throughout the original trilogy - a neutral character would have acted in more self interest than he did. He wanted people to think he was a "bad" guy, but he's actually really descent.
I think Han was Neutral when he was introduced, a merc out for himself. He had a personal code he lived by, which was basically loyalty to his friend (Chewbacca) and that was it. He was in trouble for dumping DRUGS (spice is a drug). So... he's not good or lawful (drug runners aren't either). He is either neutral neutral, or neutral chaotic. I think he leans heavily towards chaotic (other than not violating his personal code).
I think by the end of Return of the Jedi, he'd become Chaotic Good. Redeemed by Luke and Leia. But, in the beginning, he's Chaotic Neutral.
Okay, I only know of one of Batman's wards paying the ultimate price. And he got better (thank you, Superboy Prime... *glare*). Last I heard, Batman was actually dead, and Dick and Tim were still alive and kicking. Unless you count the female Robin, who died while not being Robin, IIRC.
It saddens me how much I know about the Batman mythos when I haven't even really read more than a couple of non-cannon books.
I also contend that Han Solo is Chaotic Good, but he tries really hard to be neutral. You can see it all throughout the original trilogy - a neutral character would have acted in more self interest than he did. He wanted people to think he was a "bad" guy, but he's actually really descent.
I think Han was Neutral when he was introduced, a merc out for himself. He had a personal code he lived by, which was basically loyalty to his friend (Chewbacca) and that was it. He was in trouble for dumping DRUGS (spice is a drug). So... he's not good or lawful (drug runners aren't either). He is either neutral neutral, or neutral chaotic. I think he leans heavily towards chaotic (other than not violating his personal code).
I think by the end of Return of the Jedi, he'd become Chaotic Good. Redeemed by Luke and Leia. But, in the beginning, he's Chaotic Neutral.
I don't have a problem with chaotic characters having their own code of honor. That's how I would envision playing a "noble" barbarian concept for example.
Its reasons for adhering to its own code are probably more selfish and self-centered than those of a lawful character, but the resulting behavior would be similar.
I haven't read all the posts up to this point, but I would point out, that this is actually more restrictive than the 3.5 paladin.
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.
You'll notice that the associates clause is entirely separate from the code of conduct. Also notice that a paladin falls for breaking her code (grossly), is no longer LG, or does an evil act. Nothing in there about who she associates with. The only game restriction with the association clause is who a paladin may have for followers and cohorts (see the leadership feat).
Since the PF paladin actually puts more game restrictions on the paladin (should seek atonement) it is actually more restrictive, not less.
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.
For all of Han's "roguish" behavior he was a sucker for hard luck cases and doing what was right even if it cost him. He was also loyal to a fault and kept his word. I would say he was CG prehaps even NG.
Batman's willingness to kill at times could push him to CN, his quest for vengence often when way past righting wrongs.
Vader ... His training would put him at LN, his actions at LE. He seemed to truly believe in might makes right. Might makes right is LE at it's very core, he serves the Emporer because he is stronger than Vader. Nearly every choice he makes is to bring order to the galaxy, that really feels to me like LE.
An argument can be made that Han was a N or CN character whose heroism was driven by friendship (or infatuation) rather than by altruism. There is such a thing as "heroic neutral", after all.
I'd probably call him good though, personally. Or at least, if a player put CG on his sheet then acted like Han, I would leave him alone.
Read the books about him and Solo can't really be anything but Good.
Definition from the dictionary Link.
So if I think paladin whenever I think evil bastard, that paladin loses his powers? Sweet. I will DEVASTATE Irori's insufferable champions with this! :D
|
Since we're on the topic...
Robin Hood is Chaotic Good.
Jack Sparrow is Chaotic Neutral.
The Watcher is Neutral.
The Winchester Brothers (from Supernatural) are Neutral Good.
Captain America is Lawful Good.
Judge Dredd is Lawful Neutral.
The Juggernaught is Neutral Evil.
The Demon in Dogma is Chaotic Evil.
Mephisto (marvel comics version)is Lawful Evil.Discuss.
Here, lets create another contentious list
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.
Now that is solid thinking! Get in contact with that chick who took over my business while I'm on walkabout, I'll call her and tell her to accept you as a paladin. I could also put in a good word for you with a number of other deities supporting paladins.
And by the way: You didn't break the code. It says you get to work with those evil people if it serves the greater good. You might still need to go to confessions about it, do some fasting and praying or something else to purify you again, but the days where it's easy to make you fall by putting you in a situation where you have to work with evil in order to stop another evil have gone the way of Azlant.
Tyranosaurus Rex: Predator or scavenger?Opportunistic eater.
Oh, I know this one. A tyrannosaurus rex is whatever it wants to be.
EDIT: Is it considered predation or scavenging if they eat someone who just stand there and wets themselves?
I consider that gross.
but the days where it's easy to make you fall by putting you in a situation where you have to work with evil in order to stop another evil have gone the way of Azlant.
Those days never exists except by DM fiat. There is nothing in the 3.5 rules that says a paladin falls for associating with evil characters (the association clause is not part of the code of conduct clause).
|
|
but the days where it's easy to make you fall by putting you in a situation where you have to work with evil in order to stop another evil have gone the way of Azlant.Those days never exists except by DM fiat. There is nothing in the 3.5 rules that says a paladin falls for associating with evil characters (the association clause is not part of the code of conduct clause).
No. It says you can't do it full stop. So that's even harsher than people thought. No falling, just flat out banned, in the same way you can't have lawful barbarians or chaotic monks.
This is not only common sense, but good to see in print.
If it's a choice between converting the guy who occasionally poisons people for money and stopping the vampire queen of the damned who eats virgins daily, a sensible paladin will usually view the greater of the two evils being the one with the higher bodycount.
Any paladin booking passage on a ship of any size already had to deal with this anyway. You think the captain cares what people think or what gods they worship so long as they pay their fare and don't cause trouble for the other passengers?
But nice to see it in print. And as mentioned, it's hard to convert the wicked if you don't actually talk to them.
He's broken the first seal... the Apocalypse has begun.See you all Dec 22, 2012.
>:D
What? You don't intent to pick your eyes out before? You want ot see what is going to happen?
Lunatic.
Moore's Batman, for instance, doesn't have much in common with Super Friends Batman.And either of them would kick the living shazbot out of live-action-TV Batman! :-)
My youngest cousin would kick the snot out of that one.
No. It says you can't do it full stop. So that's even harsher than people thought. No falling, just flat out banned, in the same way you can't have lawful barbarians or chaotic monks.but the days where it's easy to make you fall by putting you in a situation where you have to work with evil in order to stop another evil have gone the way of Azlant.Those days never exists except by DM fiat. There is nothing in the 3.5 rules that says a paladin falls for associating with evil characters (the association clause is not part of the code of conduct clause).
So therefore if a paladin does associate with someone, they can't be evil. Thus by associating with them the paladin immediately converts them from any evil alignment. Why that is awesome!
The statement in the PHB(SRD) is what we in the biz call, "fluffy text", it just gives you a discussion of how a paladin should be approached and why when using the leadership feat they can only have LG followers and cohorts. There are no teeth to it when comes to working with evil PCs for example.
I haven't read all the posts up to this point, but I would point out, that this is actually more restrictive than the 3.5 paladin.
Ah, semantics!
Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.
That is as restrictive as it gets. Doesn't say may not associate with evil. Doesn't say what happens whens he does. Just says she does not. Like it's hard-wired.
I haven't read all the posts up to this point, but I would point out, that this is actually more restrictive than the 3.5 paladin.Ah, semantics!
That is as restrictive as it gets. Doesn't say may not associate with evil. Doesn't say what happens whens he does. Just says she does not. Like it's hard-wired.
Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.
And what if they do?
A: They can't.
But what if they start associating with someone that is evil?
A: They can't, it is impossible.
But what if they do, do they fall? What happens if they do?
A: It can't happen, it is impossible.
But what if you (a) have a paladin and (b) they associate with someone that is evil, what happens then.
A: It can't happen, it won't happen, it is impossible for it to happen!
Sorry, I don't think that is much of an argument. It is fluff text guys, live with it.
Creative Director
|
I haven't read all the posts up to this point, but I would point out, that this is actually more restrictive than the 3.5 paladin.
You'll notice that the associates clause is entirely separate from the code of conduct. Also notice that a paladin falls for breaking her code (grossly), is no longer LG, or does an evil act. Nothing in there about who she associates with. The only game restriction with the association clause is who a paladin may have for followers and cohorts (see the leadership feat).
Since the PF paladin actually puts more game restrictions on the paladin (should seek atonement) it is actually more restrictive, not less.
I'm not seeing the PFRPG paladin code as being more restrictive at all. If it DOES seem that way, then that's my fault because I wrote those paragraphs myself and I guess I should have been more clear about it.
The code of conduct section in the PFRPG is deliberately short and vague, partially because we wanted to let GMs build their own world-specific codes if they wished, mostly because the more details we put in there the more restrictive things get.
And for the record... the code of conduct section and the associates sections in PFRPG are separate paragraphs as well, with nothing in the code of conduct that talks about who the paladin hangs out with.
Comparing the three paragraphs in question sheds some more light:
Code of Conduct: The SRD version of this section is identical to the PFRPG version.
Associates: The SRD version is short; it says a paladin won't associate with evil characters and says nothing about chaotic characters, then says that a paladin can only have LG henchmen, followers, and cohorts. The PFRGP version expands this section about how a paladin can, under exceptional circumstances, work with evil allies but only to defeat what she believes is a greater good. Note the use of the word "believes." If a paladin legitimately believes her aid to an evil creature is for the greater good, then she does not lose her paladinhood. If she later discovers she was deceived or wrong, she'd better act immediately to fix things... and she still might lose her paladin powers at this point. But being a paladin isn't a shortcut to finding out if an evil ally intends to betray you or is tricking you; deities don't watch like hawks for paladins to make honest mistakes and then swoop down to punish them, thereby immediately cluing them in to the fact that, perhaps, the situation is more complicated than the paladin realizes. It's all based on the paladin's perception of things as they appear. In any case, this section in the PFRPG loosens restrictions from what they are in the SRD.
Ex-Paladins: These sections are identical, except for the fact that the PFRPG removes the paladin restriction on multiclassing entirely.
In any case, this section in the PFRPG loosens restrictions from what they are in the SRD.
Except there are no realistic restrictions in the SRD.
Though I would agree. The "should" seek atonement, pretty makes these two equivalent. Neither is more restrictive, so I will rescind my claim that the PF paladin is more restrictive, it is the same level of restriction. Neither has any (game) teeth to require certain associations of the paladin. The SRD version makes some kind of non-possible declaration, while the PF version makes a suggestion. In either case a paladin can associate with evil doers and not seek atonement since there is no rules in either version to what happens if they choose to do that.
|
Creative Director
|
In any case, this section in the PFRPG loosens restrictions from what they are in the SRD.Except there are no realistic restrictions in the SRD.
Though I would agree. The "should" seek atonement, pretty makes these two equivalent. Neither is more restrictive, so I will rescind my claim that the PF paladin is more restrictive, it is the same level of restriction. Neither has any (game) teeth to require certain associations of the paladin. The SRD version makes some kind of non-possible declaration, while the PF version makes a suggestion. In either case a paladin can associate with evil doers and not seek atonement since there is no rules in either version to what happens if they choose to do that.
And while you might view these paragraphs as non-toothed flavor... I can assure you that many do not; when something appears written down in rule form, a lot of folk take that word as law. By making the text in the SRD into something that's more workable and flexible and less impossible to do, we lessen the overall restrictions in the minds of readers and players who apply more weight to the flavor text.
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.
Our Dark Lord Vader is clearly Lawful Evil, IMHO.
And Bond slapped women about in the books. He is much nastier than in the films. Pos Evil alignment?And Captain Kirk is probably Chaotic A@@hole or is it just my dislike of William Shatner's acting?
His music is much better :)
The code of conduct section in the PFRPG is deliberately short and vague, partially because we wanted to let GMs build their own world-specific codes if they wished, mostly because the more details we put in there the more restrictive things get.
I have always felt this is the best way to go. Any time I want to play a paladin or someone in my game wants to, we sit down GM and player and work out a paladins code. What Does your code say about associating with unsavory characters to defeat a greater evil. If you have the proverbial 'save the children' vs smite the bad guy, which do you choose? I dont think there are, nor should their be universal answers to this.
I would like to see if there is soom in some future book where it would be appropriate, an exploration of the paladin code and advice for gms and players on how to manage it. In my experience, regardless of the group, when someone announces they are playing a paladin there is a sense of dread and a frustrated sigh from at least one person at the table, usually more. Because of the rigidness of the class it disrupts other character concepts and even prospective plot lines. I dont think any other class does that.
|
Creative Director
|
I would like to see if there is soom in some future book where it would be appropriate, an exploration of the paladin code and advice for gms and players on how to manage it. In my experience, regardless of the group, when someone announces they are playing a paladin there is a sense of dread and a frustrated sigh from at least one person at the table, usually more. Because of the rigidness of the class it disrupts other character concepts and even prospective plot lines. I dont think any other class does that.
Even evil classes don't cause this much polarization, in my experience. It's part of my own frustration with the class, in fact... the strict code attached to something as easily arguable as alignment is often an irresistible magnet for troublemaker players who seem to think that the paladin provides them hard-wired rules to be disruptive. This may partially be game cynicism talking... but the fact that paladins are often more disruptive to an overall game than any other class or tend to be the favorite classes of players who have a history of being disruptive (again, in my experience) is the main reason I tried to loosen the restrictions on their code a little in the PFRPG.
We'll see if it worked in the months and years to come, I guess! :)
I would like to see if there is soom in some future book where it would be appropriate, an exploration of the paladin code and advice for gms and players on how to manage it. In my experience, regardless of the group, when someone announces they are playing a paladin there is a sense of dread and a frustrated sigh from at least one person at the table, usually more. Because of the rigidness of the class it disrupts other character concepts and even prospective plot lines. I dont think any other class does that.Even evil classes don't cause this much polarization, in my experience. It's part of my own frustration with the class, in fact... the strict code attached to something as easily arguable as alignment is often an irresistible magnet for troublemaker players who seem to think that the paladin provides them hard-wired rules to be disruptive. This may partially be game cynicism talking... but the fact that paladins are often more disruptive to an overall game than any other class or tend to be the favorite classes of players who have a history of being disruptive (again, in my experience) is the main reason I tried to loosen the restrictions on their code a little in the PFRPG.
We'll see if it worked in the months and years to come, I guess! :)
Perhaps a revisit to the IMO pretty good 2e Paladin's Handbook is in order?
And while you might view these paragraphs as non-toothed flavor...
Which they are since they do not have any consequences to violating them. In the SRD, there is no consequence to associating with an evil character. In PF, there is no consequence to not getting atonements on a regular basis when associating with an evil character. No teeth in either case.
Though both are not complete toothless and flavorful, both deal with at least one particular game aspect, the leadership feat. Both discuss what type of henchmen, followers, and cohorts a paladin might have, that is where the paragraphs actually have some teeth.
I can assure you that many do not; when something appears written down in rule form, a lot of folk take that word as law. By making the text in the SRD into something that's more workable and flexible and less impossible to do, we lessen the overall restrictions in the minds of readers and players who apply more weight to the flavor text.
I agree, the restrictions were in the minds of some of the readers the entire time. Some people do need to be told it is ok to relax a bit. I am not saying the PF version is bad, I am just saying it is not really needed if people are open minded enough, since there wasn't really any rule against associating before. But as you point out, some folk do need it, so it is good for them.
I would like to see if there is soom in some future book where it would be appropriate, an exploration of the paladin code and advice for gms and players on how to manage it. In my experience, regardless of the group, when someone announces they are playing a paladin there is a sense of dread and a frustrated sigh from at least one person at the table, usually more. Because of the rigidness of the class it disrupts other character concepts and even prospective plot lines. I dont think any other class does that.Even evil classes don't cause this much polarization, in my experience. It's part of my own frustration with the class, in fact... the strict code attached to something as easily arguable as alignment is often an irresistible magnet for troublemaker players who seem to think that the paladin provides them hard-wired rules to be disruptive. This may partially be game cynicism talking... but the fact that paladins are often more disruptive to an overall game than any other class or tend to be the favorite classes of players who have a history of being disruptive (again, in my experience) is the main reason I tried to loosen the restrictions on their code a little in the PFRPG.
We'll see if it worked in the months and years to come, I guess! :)
You obviously didn't play with too many 1st ed assassins, dang those guys would always tear a party apart sooner or later.
I think something is being lost here. It all started out about the Paladin's Code and now the thread has turned into a discussion on alignments in D&D in general. I think a great role-playing oppertunity is being missed.
I gave up on D&D when 2E came out, it just seemed and excuse to fleece gamers out of cash releasing various "Complete...." books. So I turned back to my first gaming love Runequest (if you want a gaming system which had virtually no scenarios published this was it!).
It has no alignments but plays on the religion/cult angle very heavily. A Humakti Warrior stuck to his code of conduct not because his "alignment" would shift but because he would first get a bad case of the hives as a warning, then all his swords would start shattering in combat if he didn't ment his ways. Orlanthi characters would get attacked by the Wind Fists if they consorted with Chaotic creatures (Chaos has a very different meaning in Runequest). The players always played in a consistant manner because of this. It seems that alignment is an artificial game construct to keep players from having characters with personality disorders. Last week the PC helped the villagers because it suited him, this week he is killing innocents because its suits him.
The gods are a part of everyday life in D&D and every character should, IMHO, follow a deities teachings. They should strive to act like that deity or suffer what ever ill the GM could think of.
All in all alignment has nothing really to offer the game, it is artifical, other than to stop immature play and prevent schizoid PCs being good one minute and bad the next.
*Sits back and waits to be shot down in flames*
If used right, alignment is a great tool. You have to remember it's a slave to you.
As for paladins: It is, sadly, true that many people use it as an excuse to be a pain in the butt. Sadly because the class has so much potential.
A couple of characters from novels I see as the epitome of what a paladin should be are Carrot Ironfoundersson from Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels and Michael Carpenter from Jim Butcher's Dresden Files.
Read that stuff. All of it. Only 40 books or so, so you'll be occupied for a couple of months, but it's more than worth it.
ok, I'm sure I'm going to get slammed here by all the new-agey touchy-feely sorts, but (in my mind) Paladins do not convert evil, they destroy it. Paladins are classically depicted as the swords of justice and righteousness not proselytizing evangelists. They exist to destroy evil, converting evil is the job of priests and philosophers. Paladins were given their might and skill at arms in order to defeat and destroy evil, not chat with it.
If there is a paladin in the party the DM should not allow an evil PC in the same group. As is is, playing evil PC's is counter to the stereotypical game, which should be about heroic characters adventuring in a dangerous world defeating monsters. Of course individual campaigns will differ, and there is no single one "right" way to play, I'm just saying that I think more people look at it from a "my pc is a hero" perspective rather than the "I want my pc to run around looting, raping, and pillaging villages" perspective.
Its a DM's job to manage his group of players and its a simple matter of saying "ok guys, I'm not banning evil characters so therefore a paladin would be a very bad choice for a PC" or, alternatively, "there is a paladin in the group, so please no one play an evil pc" etc.
By the same token, the players should all make a point of trying to get along and perhaps even help the other players develop the story of their PC. Which is the exact polar opposite of creating an annoying, opportunistic, offensively evil pc who is only there to cause trouble.
Either way, this only seems to happen in groups with younger or less mature players and is also often a side effect of a DM who has no power.
I said it before and I'll say it again, in campaigns I run Paladins are swords of justice and righteousness who destroy evil wherever it is found. They do not see shades of gray and they do not choose the lesser of two evils. They do not associate with evil and they do not bargain with evil. A paladin destroys evil and if that somehow causes him to meet his deity sooner then he'll work it out with him at that point. Players of characters in a group with a paladin need to understand that and plan to work around it and it is an interesting roleplaying challenge I think people can handle, if they just make a point of not being dicks.
As much as I love everything else about Pathfinder so far, I think including this wording will now introduce MORE arguments between player's and DM's because before the DM could just point to the class descriptive text and say "here is what you can and can not do" and the player could say "well crap it is right there in print" but now the player can get all crazy and play poker with pit fiends, so long as the player can come up with a convincing argument why its not evil. This just means more debating and arguing, not to mention players thinking their DM is just making things up in order to be a pain.
To me, "Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil." is an example of the "ends justifies the means" philosophy, and in my opinion, Paladins are 100% NOT ends justifies the means types. They hold their morals to be above all else, and allying with evil for even a moment offends both themselves, and their god, which a paladin would never do.
Of course, this may just be *my* concept of a paladin, but I'm under the impression that more people think of paladins that way than do not, who knows, maybe I'm on crack.