Okay so this might just be me ranting, but I really hate the stigma that comes with the alignments you choose, especially if your class has any sort of alignment restrictions.
The ones who really get the shaft are Paladins, always Paladins (Druids have a terrible stigma as well, but it's usually from other obsessive stereotypes). Because there are a lot of people that play paladins as a stupid warrior that must go out and destroy anything he or she detects as wrong, the term Lawful Stupid has come around. It's so bad that it ends up getting meta-gamed into the campaign.
When I introduced Silver, my somewhat intelligent and definitely level headed Paladin, the other players automatically assumed him to be a ditz ( At least I think it's the Stupid Paladin stigma and not the fact that I designed him to look a bit Bishie >.>).
However when you really think about it, a character who's so obsessed on destroying something that he puts himself and others at risk is rather chaotic. I actually believe that NPC Paladins should also follow the priorities list and be level headed after all they are supposed to be graceful.
Actually the group I play with follows their alignments pretty well. For example, we got attacked by some monsters. While my Paladin, being level headed felt it was best to not waste time and energy on the orcs so that we could catch up with the kidnapped innocents. But since the whole group wanted to fight orcs, he had to stay behind. (Leaving your party behind is not only mean, but it's just stupid to go alone)
Anyway, just saying that just because someone is Lawful or Good doesn't mean they have to be stupid. Just because a character is Chaotic doesn't make them automatically unorganized (Even Orcs come in groups). And being Neutral doesn't mean you must shun all that is good or evil. Even lawful people lie (Paladins can't because being deceptive lacks honor).
But being a Paladin doesn't mean you can't have subtlety and deal with things calmly, reasonably, and without bashing skulls in and splattering blood on the walls.
Being a druid doesn't mean you have to slay everyone that eats meat, or uses a wooden table.
I'm not saying that you can't play your characters like that, but I that kind of stereotype is awful stigma for a player, that in all honesty probably makes less sense in game for a character not of that stereotype to have since such extreme and radical versions of the class or alignment in the campaign would often had quick work made of them.
Add to the list the people who play Chaotic Neutral as an excuse to do anything they want.
Oh, and Paizo did fix one of the problems with Druids from the older editions of the rules. Druids no longer have to be True Neutral and instead just have to be Neutral in some way. That was such a relief to me, as I feel that True Neutral is a tough alignment to play properly and one most people I have known have screwed up.
|
Oooh, can you add race stereotypes to the title? I do not like the stigma half-orcs get, even in the APG where it describes why they are in a specific class! Yes there are probably a few more half-orc barbarians than wizards, but why does every half-orc seem to get the "I'm a dumb brute, RWAR!" stereotype on them?
I can be a gentle preist of Desna, more concerned with healing a little kids scrapes and bruises then actually fighting, but if I walk into a town wearing armor the words "war-preist" pop into the villagers heads...
Half-orcs are monstrosities, their tragic births the result of perversion and violence—or at least, that's how other races see them. It's true that half-orcs are rarely the result of loving unions, and as such are usually forced to grow up hard and fast, constantly fighting for protection or to make names for themselves. Feared, distrusted, and spat upon, half-orcs still consistently manage to surprise their detractors with great deeds and unexpected wisdom—though sometimes it's easier just to crack a few skulls.
Can't we get one sentence saying what great wizards half-orcs can be?
...but then the element of surprise will be gone...
"Oh, they're just savage---- they shouldn't cast FIREBALL!!"
Along with paladins, druids, monks and barbarians, rogues still get grief from people that assume rogue MUST = thief.
I remember someone else eplaining half-orc paladins as representative of everything wrong with Third Edition. Haw.
It is kind of sad because there are scouts, thieves, and assassins, all different archetypes, but all which fall under rogue.
Another alignment thread.
Where is the alignment thread-spawner so I can purge it?
Oh, and Paizo did fix one of the problems with Druids from the older editions of the rules. Druids no longer have to be True Neutral and instead just have to be Neutral in some way.
That was the same way in 3.5, it's not a new Paizo thing :)
|
Another alignment thread.
Where is the alignment thread-spawner so I can purge it?
If you don't like it, don't read it. Simple solution that keeps it on the end user. In other words, be responsible for yourself.
Otherwise,
I'm actually interested in this most recent thread. Mostly because I like paladins quite a bit, and have been doing A LOT of philosophical research into the foundations of morality.
Based on that, I've come up with a simple system that is by no means finished, but is at least functional for my paladin. We already know there are 3 major drivers behind a Paladin. 1)Good, 2)Law, and 3)Religion.
In a much more in depth guide. These 3 tenets create a checks and balances for each other. In other words, if 2/3 of these guides show that he should do something, then more than likely he will. Though, even then a paladin should proceed cautiously. The only time a paladin can truly act with full confidence is if he's got all 3 backing him up. Even, then you have to consider everything that could happen. I'll have more on this later probably. Have a lot on my plate for development.
Another poster commented on killing anything that shows up evil. -
As far as killing anything that is evil. Really great question for a paladin, other than showing up as evil with magic which can EASILY be fooled, what has that evil townsfolk you see on the street done to deserve a squashing? Further, what law both medieval and current says that being evil is a crime?
Further, historically without hard evidence magic was only circumstantial evidence and never allowed to be the convicting piece of evidence, at least where the church wasn't involved. Magic was a crime then. You had to have hard proof that someone did something evil to punish them for their evil deeds.
|
|
Paladin's require a thorough understanding of what good is. A good place to start is here. Roughly 16 pages of what morality is, and hits all over paladin's three tenets as I listed above. I understand why Paizo couldn't go more in depth on what it is to be good. So, here is a better definition.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
Another alignment thread.
Where is the alignment thread-spawner so I can purge it?
If you don't like it, don't read it. Simple solution that keeps it on the end user. In other words, be responsible for yourself.
Otherwise,
I'm actually interested in this most recent thread. Mostly because I like paladins quite a bit, and have been doing A LOT of philosophical research into the foundations of morality.Based on that, I've come up with a simple system that is by no means finished, but is at least functional for my paladin. We already know there are 3 major drivers behind a Paladin. 1)Good, 2)Law, and 3)Religion.
In a much more in depth guide. These 3 tenets create a checks and balances for each other. In other words, if 2/3 of these guides show that he should do something, then more than likely he will. Though, even then a paladin should proceed cautiously. The only time a paladin can truly act with full confidence is if he's got all 3 backing him up. Even, then you have to consider everything that could happen. I'll have more on this later probably. Have a lot on my plate for development.
Another poster commented on killing anything that shows up evil. -
As far as killing anything that is evil. Really great question for a paladin, other than showing up as evil with magic which can EASILY be fooled, what has that evil townsfolk you see on the street done to deserve a squashing? Further, what law both medieval and current says that being evil is a crime?
Further, historically without hard evidence magic was only circumstantial evidence and never allowed to be the convicting piece of evidence, at least where the church wasn't involved. Magic was a crime then. You had to have hard proof that someone did something evil to punish them for their evil deeds.
+1, i get really tired of people posting how they don't like the thread, i don't want to try and read a thread and end up coming across comments like that. if you don't like the thread then don't post, you will not stop a thread by saying that the thread is pointless.
i too hate alignment stereotypes
Oh, and Paizo did fix one of the problems with Druids from the older editions of the rules. Druids no longer have to be True Neutral and instead just have to be Neutral in some way.That was the same way in 3.5, it's not a new Paizo thing :)
Really? Huh, I guess I never really did look at the druid at all during the times I actually played 3.5. Around the time 3rd came out, I took a long break from D&D and played a bunch of other games instead.
Just sometimes, it's automatically assumed that player stereotypes are the character stereotypes. Part of being a Paladin is being lawful, which means you can't just walk into a city and start slaying all the people you've detected as evil. Because you're good, it doesn't mean you're automatically stupid, that's why people can go get backup to help them out, or even let the folks who are better at their job take care of it. Otherwise low level Paladins would always be getting themselves killed off.
Just because a significant players before me have played a Paladins as prideful, arrogant, dumb heroes with attention deficit disorder, doesn't mean that would be the staple Paladin of the world.
I guess what really frustrates me is that there's this stigma on my character that really shouldn't exist in-game.
Likewise no character should just automatically assume a rogue is automatically a thief, because they could just as likely be a treasure hunter.
And characters shouldn't be worried that every hermit living in the woods is going to try and entangle and slay them just because they have wooden handles or a wolf pelt. (which in my experience can be rather hypocritical)
Class and Alignment stereotypes suck, but they're there because SO MANY people fall into them. I've been role-playing for 16 years now, and in my whole time playing DnD (regardless of edition), I've only ever seen one person roleplay Chaotic Neutral as anything other than a selfish jerk who did whatever he wanted regardless of what everyone else around him felt about it (which in my opinion is more Neutral Evil than Chaotic Neutral). Most people I play with, when they play paladins, play them as that pompous, holier-than-thou holy jerk that wants to kill everything that isn't Lawful Good (very annoying for the Chaotic Good Ranger in the party).
There are plenty of good role-players out there, but role-players, just like Youtube videos or fanfiction, have one gem for every one hundred pieces of... um... stuff.
Personally, I like to give paladins the moron trap. I let the paladin see a group of orcs. If they attack and kill the orcs, the paladin loses his paladin status. Why? Sure, orcs are evil by nature, but these orcs hadn't done anything wrong. They were just walking there. If the player gets REALLY uppity about it, then I make the orcs a peace delegation from a neighboring tribe sent to end a war with a nearby human settlement that's been costly on both sides. Because that peace delegation was slaughtered, the war not only continues, but rages out of control, consuming the entire region. Oops, bad Paladin.
The same principal can be used with any class/race that's playing into the stereotype.
The Druid gets mad at a hunter that's killing off way more deer than he can possibly eat, only to find out after he kills the hunter that the deer population is out of control and the forest is losing all it's plantlife. And now the village the hunter was a part of is looking for the man's murderer.
The Rogue steals a purse, only to find it magically enchanted, and he spends the whole adventure rotting in prison.
The list goes on. I know of too many people that play elves as either prissy drama queens or sex-crazed bisexuals. I've seen too many Half-orc barbarians to count (though a half-orc barbarian that follows the 'noble savage' route could be interesting). I think it's up to the DMs/GMs out there to forcibly break these stereotypes. The only way to really successfully do that is to make in-game consequences for the character's actions.
Also, as a note to ThornDJL7, I like your morality scheme for paladins, but you were mistaken on one historical fact. Actually, it was only when the church WAS involved that allegations of witchcraft was circumstantial and not permissible as evidence. The people who were killed in tings like the Salem witch trials were killed by scared townsfolk, not church officials. Even the Spanish Inquisition came to a quick end once the church found out what was going on (the Spanish Inquisition was run by the King and Queen of Spain for the five years that it went on). It's a common mistake, I just want to set the record straight.
|
|
Also, as a note to ThornDJL7, I like your morality scheme for paladins, but you were mistaken on one historical fact. Actually, it was only when the church WAS involved that allegations of witchcraft was circumstantial and not permissible as evidence. The people who were killed in tings like the Salem witch trials were killed by scared townsfolk, not church officials. Even the Spanish Inquisition came to a quick end once the church found out what was going on (the Spanish Inquisition was run by the King and Queen of Spain for the five years that it went on). It's a common mistake, I just want to set the record straight.
You're right on that note, and my writings weren't clear enough. To clarify, magic itself was a crime in the churches eyes, and being a corrupt source couldn't be trusted.