Another alignment thread


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

MrSin wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I always regarded clerics as basically crusaders/knights templar/whatever. Then along came a paladin and it just puzzled me: "Does the introduction of these new fangled 'holy knights' imply that those LG clerics are actually priests from the local parishes?" :o
There is a horrific realization when you realize that the local priest can fight as well as the thug in the alley... What happened there?

They dont generally traipse around in armor carrying heavy weapons though (nor do they receive training in such).


Spook205 wrote:
I always had a liking for the Hardheads, until I found out their paladin boss apparently condoned horrible acts that genuinely should have resulted in him losing his paladinhood all because 'too much good becomes arrogant and intolerant and becomes evil' or some similar bromide.

I think there's an important distinction to be made between each faction's philosophy, and the faction's day-to-day operation. As you point out, canon presents the Hardheads as pretty extreme fascists, but with different leadership they'd probably be a much more popular and sympathetic group.

Likewise, all Bleakers suffer a bizarre madness sooner or later in their lives because...I guess Zeb Cook thought that all existentialists must be horribly depressed people? PS is full of these kind of stereotypes, comical extremes, and of course alignment baggage; but the philosophies themselves don't demand such treatment.

Spook205 wrote:
A similar issue I had was how you couldn't be a lawful good member of the Doomguard. Given the doomguard was just about entropy, I had trouble seing why you couldn't be like a paladin of Shiva or something helping along the next talpa or something.

I agree with your particular criticism, but don't get me started on the Doomguard. ;) I gave them an entirely new philosophy, because I can't see any group of significant size forming around 'We promote entropy because...entropy!' Especially in a place like Sigil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I've just never really 'got' what made them different from a LG cleric of the same god.

High BAB and fewer spells. :)

The paladin is essentially a hybrid class that got stuck with an overly specific archetype.

I think a cleric is a hybrid class (a cross between a warrior and a priest).

I always regarded clerics as basically crusaders/knights templar/whatever. Then along came a paladin and it just puzzled me: "Does the introduction of these new fangled 'holy knights' imply that those LG clerics are actually priests from the local parishes?" :o

The only sure difference is that paladins are more fight-y and clerics are more magic-y. If clerics are half and half, paladins are one-quarter and three-quarters. Maybe paladins are the ones who loved phys ed in priest school, while clerics focused on Bible study and just took the phys ed classes required of them. Or maybe paladins went to Kick Butt in God's Name High, while clerics went to Call Down God's Wrath High.

*shrug*

The difference is whatever you make it. It's not even necessary to define a universal difference, unless you really want to; there's nothing wrong with each player deciding the nature of his paladin or cleric's training.

Silver Crusade

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Spook205 wrote:
I always had a liking for the Hardheads, until I found out their paladin boss apparently condoned horrible acts that genuinely should have resulted in him losing his paladinhood all because 'too much good becomes arrogant and intolerant and becomes evil' or some similar bromide.

I think there's an important distinction to be made between each faction's philosophy, and the faction's day-to-day operation. As you point out, canon presents the Hardheads as pretty extreme fascists, but with different leadership they'd probably be a much more popular and sympathetic group.

Likewise, all Bleakers suffer a bizarre madness sooner or later in their lives because...I guess Zeb Cook thought that all existentialists must be horribly depressed people? PS is full of these kind of stereotypes, comical extremes, and of course alignment baggage; but the philosophies themselves don't demand such treatment.

Spook205 wrote:
A similar issue I had was how you couldn't be a lawful good member of the Doomguard. Given the doomguard was just about entropy, I had trouble seing why you couldn't be like a paladin of Shiva or something helping along the next talpa or something.
I agree with your particular criticism, but don't get me started on the Doomguard. ;) I gave them an entirely new philosophy, because I can't see any group of significant size forming around 'We promote entropy because...entropy!' Especially in a place like Sigil.

I admit some of the more interesting concepts there were the CN member of the Anarchists who decided to dedicate himself entirely to law and rebel against chaos.

"Shouldn't you be lawful?"
"Hell no! I'm all for disorder!"
"But you support the law..."
"Yeah! Because when we take care of chaos, then we can take down law! Chaos is part of the order too so it has to go!"

The sad part is I remember him being somewhat effective because the chaotic folks weren't really equipped for dealing with other chaotics.

On the cleric and paladin thing, the clerics were meant more to be 'dude in armor who heals us and hits things with blunt weapons,' but that eventually changed over the years. It became more 'spellcaster what gets to wear armor and has big fighty stick.'

Generally, I always used to view the rogue/cleric THAC0 progression as the normal person's, until 3e came along and showed us that commoners and wizards are the 'normal' people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't see anyone reply to what I said, but again, Paladins made mroe sense in 2e when they were a special class you had to have good enough Ability Scores to qualify for. It bcomes a little more muddled when they're a base class just like everything else.

Dark Archive

HarbinNick wrote:

Honestly, as DM, just write up a quick paladins code

1)Can you lie for the greater good?
2)Torture?
3)Sexual morality?
4)Relation to non-combatants
5)Mercy vs justice
6)Break the laws of the land? Or work within the confines of the law?
Spare your players the anguish later.

That's probably the best idea, in the end.

It doesn't matter what some dude on the internet (or at Paizo) thinks is appropriate or not for a LG Paladin to do, it only matters what your GM thinks is appropriate.


and the PC yells, "I NEVER BROKE LAWFUL GOOD! I AM LAWFUL GOOD!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh... So I was watching V for Vendetta and realized its another one of those weird cases that people might have totally different ideas on alignment. Fighting Tyranny, collateral here and there, vengeance driven, Personal Code of Ethics/honor, wants the greater good(and is likely achieving it.), gets the masses together... What does that make him?

Just seems like one of those times someone has several features that are synonymous with certain alignments, but the traits are sometimes conflicting with another trait of another alignment. If that makes sense.


I dont know the movie/television show or whatever, but in the comic the protagonist was written as an anarchist. Hard to see an anarchist as anything other than chaotic isnt it? Even if they follow their own code - thinking others are free to follow different codes seems to be the antithesis of law (which inherently inhibits the individual's rights).


Its sort of awkward to watch him in the movie, Evie outright calls him evil at one point. He then states he doesn't always feel sure about his actions, but her convictions strengthened his and he thought he was doing it for the best reasons. He also probably wouldn't have been an anarchist if the world wasn't built against him. Its hard to deny that he was doing something for evil when he wanted to free people. I suppose you could argue its entirely selfish, but looking into a person's morality is a pretty long and hard thing to do sometimes. I actually haven't read the comic.

Personally, I think a decent analogue to him in DnD is the Avenger class from 4E. Work for an ideal, dual wielding, lots of awesome pick your mark things. Its been a long time since I've seen that though, so grain of salt if you would.

Here's a thought, how chaotic is chaotic? If your chaotic for hating a system that works against you, does that mean your suddenly lawful for being in one that agrees? Its hard not to be chaotic when things are built against you, or when tyranny is around. Sometimes its not even going to be an issue of security vs. freedom, but instead over other smaller matters or even something that you aren't even a part of but feel you have to champion. Food for thought I suppose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How lawful is lawful?

I would be considered a pretty lawful person..would I be "breaking my alignment" by downloading music and occasionally jaywalking when the crosswalk is a 1/2 mile away?


MrSin wrote:

Its sort of awkward to watch him in the movie, Evie outright calls him evil at one point. He then states he doesn't always feel sure about his actions, but her convictions strengthened his and he thought he was doing it for the best reasons. He also probably wouldn't have been an anarchist if the world wasn't built against him. Its hard to deny that he was doing something for evil when he wanted to free people. I suppose you could argue its entirely selfish, but looking into a person's morality is a pretty long and hard thing to do sometimes. I actually haven't read the comic.

Personally, I think a decent analogue to him in DnD is the Avenger class from 4E. Work for an ideal, dual wielding, lots of awesome pick your mark things. Its been a long time since I've seen that though, so grain of salt if you would.

Here's a thought, how chaotic is chaotic? If your chaotic for hating a system that works against you, does that mean your suddenly lawful for being in one that agrees? Its hard not to be chaotic when things are built against you, or when tyranny is around. Sometimes its not even going to be an issue of security vs. freedom, but instead over other smaller matters or even something that you aren't even a part of but feel you have to champion. Food for thought I suppose.

My personal take on alignment is not typical. I regard Good-Evil as the morality axis (a good person values benefitting others, an evil person values harming others and a neutral person is indifferent to others).

Then I treat Law-Chaos as an ethical axis - how one goes about furthering one's own moral goals. If you are lawful, you'll value the social contract and respect agreements. If you're chaotic, you'll value individual freedom and not feel bound by agreements if the situation changes. Neutral being someone who values a social contract in some situations but thinks individual freedoms should take precedence in others.

As usual with any such schema, it's the neutral 'flavors' which are the most difficult to account for sensibly.

I dont like to refer to evil as selfish - I wouldnt have any problem with a good character pursuing their own interests at the expense of others (in business, for example, but also in competition in a broader sense). I think evil should be more than that and involve actually valuing the inflicting of harm on others.


kmal2t wrote:

How lawful is lawful?

I would be considered a pretty lawful person..would I be "breaking my alignment" by downloading music and occasionally jaywalking when the crosswalk is a 1/2 mile away?

I see your point and I hope others do as well, but I think your analogy is strained. Both downloads and crosswalks and the laws applying to them are a modern thing that don't really have an analog in most fantasy. Here's a better one. An employee of a department store is told to destroy and dispose of clothing the store is getting rid of. Is it an unlawful act to take that clothing and donate it to a homeless shelter instead of destroying it even though it is against store policy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

the fact that these are modern examples is irrelevant because they are minor laws that its arguable whether they're hurting anyone.

These laws exist in all eras. You're supposed to, by law, cow tow to the emperor in imperial China. This is a pretty big law..And what if I don't? Am I no longer lawful good?


kmal2t wrote:

How lawful is lawful?

I would be considered a pretty lawful person..would I be "breaking my alignment" by downloading music and occasionally jaywalking when the crosswalk is a 1/2 mile away?

I suppose you have an answer of your own?

That said, you then ask yourself is it good or bad to do so. Can you justify it? Should you? What if a system is corrupt? What if it has merits and is still corrupt? You get a sort of awkwardness when you walk into a culture/nation that is efficient, but follows completely different laws and social norms. More so if the people are actually happy about it.


kmal2t wrote:

How lawful is lawful?

I would be considered a pretty lawful person..would I be "breaking my alignment" by downloading music and occasionally jaywalking when the crosswalk is a 1/2 mile away?

You fall, losing all paladin abilities.


MrSin wrote:
kmal2t wrote:

How lawful is lawful?

I would be considered a pretty lawful person..would I be "breaking my alignment" by downloading music and occasionally jaywalking when the crosswalk is a 1/2 mile away?

I suppose you have an answer of your own?

That said, you then ask yourself is it good or bad to do so. Can you justify it? Should you? What if a system is corrupt? What if it has merits and is still corrupt? You get a sort of awkwardness when you walk into a culture/nation that is efficient, but follows completely different laws and social norms. More so if the people are actually happy about it.

Yeah, I got into a thread on lawfuls against the feudal order. The discussion was quite heated, but interesting.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
You fall, losing all paladin abilities.

He only falls if the GM thinks he ceased to be lawful good or commited a good act. Nothing against chaotic actions!

Seriously though, downloading music? Don't you know the value of intellectual property!

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Yeah, I got into a thread on lawfuls against the feudal order. The discussion was quite heated, but interesting.

Paladin: "Well King Joe said..."

Cavalier: "But King Jeb said!"

Yeah, its awkward. Obviously we need to retreat to safe places from this culture thing. Anyone up for raiding a dungeon of evil oozes and non sentient undead? I hear they drop good loot.


Oozes, never again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And corrupt is up to the individual. I could say the U.S. system is pretty corrupt, but I abide by the laws.

And what about intention?

I don't obey all the laws because I think they're right. I do some because I don't want to get a fine or go to jail.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Oozes, never again.

A non sentient glob of matter that does nothing but eat by running you over and punching you with its blobbyness? What could go wrong!

kmal2t wrote:

And corrupt is up to the individual. I could say the U.S. system is pretty corrupt, but I abide by the laws.

And what about intention?

I don't obey all the laws because I think they're right. I do some because I don't want to get a fine or go to jail.

Back to V, the government was obviously Corrupt. Not everyone agreed. In fact V's message was that people actually allowed it to happen, and his goal was to enable them again. Some people might argue the US government is bad, but without a universal value you end up having varying opinions, and with a universal value you end up stepping on everyone who disagrees to make it.

This whole personal opinion and flexibility winning things is something I'm all for, I must be too chaotic?

Shadow Lodge

Lawful does not mean following laws, although such characters tend to obey laws. It really should have been called Order, to avoid the confusion.


so...someone who believes in creating order...pretty sure that's what laws are intended to do.

Shadow Lodge

No. Someone who is Ordered.

Liberty's Edge

There is no single definition of Law or Chaos that would work for everybody. Same as Good and Evil really.


how is a person "ordered"? Orderly? Follows his own code and precepts? Because in that case it's basically still talking about what the person defines as Good.

If I follow the 10 commandments as my "code" that is a value judgement I'm making on what precepts and codes I believe to be right or wrong.

Shadow Lodge

I use this as my basis for Order. So it is not that you follow laws, it's that you follow the RIGHT laws.


Uh oh. Kant got brought into this conversation.

S**T just go realz.

Shadow Lodge

If you look at the description of LG, that's pretty much what it is. There are right ways to do things because they are the right ways, and not doing them is the wrong way.


"If you look at the description of LG, that's pretty much what it is. There are right ways to do things because they are the right ways, and not doing them is the wrong way.*"

*By Kant's point of view

And so people know who aren't familiar with Kant, the intent is what matters not the consequence (like some later writers contended).


A good deed is a good deed everywhere, for all time, consequence doesn't matter. Saving Baby Hitler from a fire is a good deed. Putting baby hitler in the fire is a bad deed.


You could have been a really good father figure for Hitler.

Imagine The Last of Us, with kid Hitler.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:

You could have been a really good father figure for Hitler.

Imagine The Last of Us, with kid Hitler.

That'd be an awesome idea for a game or an adventure in a campaign.

Protect this innocent child from time travelers who want to murder him 'for the greater good,' while at the same time attempting to teach the kid through example why not to be a genocidal murderous bastard 'for the greater good.' I think the movie Looper had a similar idea actually as I think about it.

Thats always been what gets me, the folks who are pro killing Baby Hitler don't realize they're identical to the guy, all that differs is the scale they decide to push their self-justified evil out to.


Ahhhh... the murky, sodden air of another alignment thread. What joy! As has been stated, alignment is misunderstood. Severely so. The clearest example is that lawful means you follow laws. I maintain: not every law is lawful. Being lawful means you feel that predictability is important, that societal roles give people a sense of meaning, that responsibility is important, and that etiquette and norms help people to live a good life. A law that means these things are promoted is a good thing, but a law that does not is a pissy construct. The only reason to respect a bad law is that is still a law - but changing it becomes a priority. And if you are Lawful Good, you would see reason to change, or break, laws that promote evil behaviour. You know, torture, even if called enhanced interrogation techniques, indefinite detainment in extraterritorial camps, rendition, laws that make it possible to sidestep controls on starting wars because they are profitable, and so on and so forth.

The second problem is that people think you have to be "bwahahahaaaa I hurt that guy" evil to be evil. That does not exist. Nobody does evil to hurt someone else. The hurting happens for some other reason, such as needing to assert dominance, protecting a fragile ego, etc. What is evil is not caring. Destroying a homeless shelter because it interferes with your business is flat out, completely Evil, not Neutral. It is telling that so many buy into this crap definition of evil. Likely many people don't want to admit they have a problem they need to look at regarding their actions.

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
I use this as my basis for Order. So it is not that you follow laws, it's that you follow the RIGHT laws.

I guess you mean "basis for LG". I guess it could work for LN too, but I do not see it working for LE.

Truth be told, I feel that the linked text does not distinguish between what we would call Lawful or Chaotic, but rather deals with intent vs results.

It does not clarify whether the intent came from adherence to outside rules (ie, what I call Lawful) or from completely internal choice (ie, what I call Chaotic).


Sissyl wrote:

Ahhhh... the murky, sodden air of another alignment thread. What joy! As has been stated, alignment is misunderstood. Severely so. The clearest example is that lawful means you follow laws. I maintain: not every law is lawful. Being lawful means you feel that predictability is important, that societal roles give people a sense of meaning, that responsibility is important, and that etiquette and norms help people to live a good life. A law that means these things are promoted is a good thing, but a law that does not is a pissy construct. The only reason to respect a bad law is that is still a law - but changing it becomes a priority. And if you are Lawful Good, you would see reason to change, or break, laws that promote evil behaviour. You know, torture, even if called enhanced interrogation techniques, indefinite detainment in extraterritorial camps, rendition, laws that make it possible to sidestep controls on starting wars because they are profitable, and so on and so forth.

The second problem is that people think you have to be "bwahahahaaaa I hurt that guy" evil to be evil. That does not exist. Nobody does evil to hurt someone else. The hurting happens for some other reason, such as needing to assert dominance, protecting a fragile ego, etc. What is evil is not caring. Destroying a homeless shelter because it interferes with your business is flat out, completely Evil, not Neutral. It is telling that so many buy into this crap definition of evil. Likely many people don't want to admit they have a problem they need to look at regarding their actions.

Sodden? Look we'll take the oozes out okay?


Sissyl wrote:
The second problem is that people think you have to be "bwahahahaaaa I hurt that guy" evil to be evil. That does not exist. Nobody does evil to hurt someone else. The hurting happens for some other reason, such as needing to assert dominance, protecting a fragile ego, etc. What is evil is not caring.

What would you suggest distinguishes evil from neutral?

Sovereign Court

Steve Geddes wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
The second problem is that people think you have to be "bwahahahaaaa I hurt that guy" evil to be evil. That does not exist. Nobody does evil to hurt someone else. The hurting happens for some other reason, such as needing to assert dominance, protecting a fragile ego, etc. What is evil is not caring.
What would you suggest distinguishes evil from neutral?

Evil is callous in not caring. It will walk by scenes of carnage and torture and pain whistling and not giving a hand. Neutral will lend a hand as long as they are not in personal danger. Evil will not, unless it can accomplish some sort of personal goal.


Evil can care, just depends on what you care about. If evil didn't care he couldn't yell "NO!" when the heroes stop his death ray of doom. Sometimes its about what you care about!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Evil isn't even necessarilly callous.

The social engineer who destroys culture and people for 'their own good,' is just as evil as the worst puppy eater. These are actually arguably worse.

The bent do more damage then the broken.

The fallen crusader who wants to 'save mankind' by destroying their will fights with the bravery of a real crusader because he thinks his insane and vile goals are noble and necessary.

The greedy jerk steals 10,000gp from the villagers and then he's good. He's got the cash, he's done. He doesn't need to burn their houses down or try to rewrite their minds.

The trick to adjudicating alignment as an objective standard it is to remember that the person's opinions on the matter don't matter a whit, neither do the 'consequences'.

If I feed a guy today, and fifty years from now he's a leader of a police state I haven't done som evil by 'sustaining' him.

Similarly, if I decide that I need to 'free the poor' and do by robbing the 'rich who obviously stole it from the oppressed' I'm an evil jerk.

Good's not an easy path to walk. And being a 'nice person' isn't enough to qualify.

Course the problem again with alignment for some folks is its predicated on an objective, and we all have differing subjective views of what that objective reality is.

Shadow Lodge

The black raven wrote:
I guess you mean "basis for LG". I guess it could work for LN too, but I do not see it working for LE.

It does for the Noble Demon. He pursues evil ends, but there are methods he will not use.


HarbinNick wrote:
A good deed is a good deed everywhere, for all time, consequence doesn't matter. Saving Baby Hitler from a fire is a good deed. Putting baby Hitler in the fire is a bad deed.

Is it really?

If you KNOW this is a man who will grow up to be a great dictator and order (and receive) the deaths of millions all over the world, is it REALLY a Good act? Or is it just a shortsighted one?


Its probably a hypothetical question asked in dozens of films that has no real answer.

Sovereign Court

Killing a baby, no matter who will it grow up to be, is an evil act. The intent does not matter. Consequences do not matter. You still killed a helpless baby.
If that saves millions of lives, cool, but you still have the taint of child murder on your soul.


That's an opinion Hama. One created by the cultural bias of baby killing being wrong. There are cultures where its done regularly, and others where they used to before modernization by outside cultures.


Hama wrote:

Killing a baby, no matter who will it grow up to be, is an evil act. The intent does not matter. Consequences do not matter. You still killed a helpless baby.

If that saves millions of lives, cool, but you still have the taint of child murder on your soul.

Says who?

And even if that were true, the "taint" of a single child murder is completely outweighed by the "good goop" or whatever you want to call reverse-taint of the millions of men, women, and children who didn't die there.

Sovereign Court

MrSin wrote:
That's an opinion Hama. One created by the cultural bias of baby killing being wrong. There are cultures where its done regularly, and others where they used to before modernization by outside cultures.

Killing anyone who is harmless is evil. Not just babies. If it is not threatening your life in some way, it's evil to kill them.

Rynjin wrote:

Says who?

And even if that were true, the "taint" of a single child murder is completely outweighed by the "good goop" or whatever you want to call reverse-taint of the millions of men, women, and children who didn't die there.

Says I.

Yeah, but at the very moment of child murder, none of the good goop has happened yet. So it's evil. Plus, you'd have to live with the fact that you killed a child. I know that it would give me nightmares. Even if it was baby Hitler.


Hama wrote:
MrSin wrote:
That's an opinion Hama. One created by the cultural bias of baby killing being wrong. There are cultures where its done regularly, and others where they used to before modernization by outside cultures.
Killing anyone who is harmless is evil. Not just babies. If it is not threatening your life in some way, it's evil to kill them.

There are cultures wiped out by overpopulation who might disagree. The baby is a threat. Its a threat to 1000s. You know its existence will cause suffering. Some situations are different, but lets say you know down the line it will create harm. There isn't a way around it. Still want it to live? Still stuck with absolute ideals that always stand, 100% of the time? By letting it live you've hurt others, how will they see you?

I should add I don't endorse baby killing, nor the talk of it. Can we move on to something else?


What if Hitler had been raised by the Cosby's?

And the argument of intent vs. consequence has been argued for centuries. I'm glad you guys solved it in this thread with the Infallible Alignment System.

Shadow Lodge

Rynjin wrote:
And even if that were true, the "taint" of a single child murder is completely outweighed by the "good goop" or whatever you want to call reverse-taint of the millions of men, women, and children who didn't die there.

If I tell you that taking a glass of antifreeze today will allow the city to feed all their homeless, would you think drinking the glass wasn't a bad thing for you?

151 to 200 of 273 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Another alignment thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.