As a counterpoint, I will reiterate this line that has helped me grasp the alignment system much better.
Alignment is the RESULT of your actions, not the CAUSE of your actions.
{. . .}
The way I see it, Alignment and actions are both cause and effect of each other -- they form a complete cycle that tends to maintain itself, although subject to perturbation by sufficiently strong other factors, including but not limited to will to change (internal) and temptation (external).
I honestly see alignment as how you rationalize any action you take.
the reasons you set a horse on a fire can vary greatly to any alignment. just like any action.
basically, actions aren't aligned, but why you did them is. a chaotic evil character can definitely save someones life, if it is fueled by a chaotic evil rationale. like if he thought a reward would be in order, or that the character was especially good as destabilizing the towns ability to pay taxes to the crown.
someone of an alignment doesn't even need to behave like the alignment all the time. someone who is chaotic evil, can certainly do tasks that are purely chaotic, such as bribing a town crier to spout anti-government propaganda, or just go full evil and sacrifice some baby to some god or something.
I honestly see alignment as how you rationalize any action you take.
the reasons you set a horse on a fire can vary greatly to any alignment. just like any action.
basically, actions aren't aligned, but why you did them is. a chaotic evil character can definitely save someones life, if it is fueled by a chaotic evil rationale. like if he thought a reward would be in order, or that the character was especially good as destabilizing the towns ability to pay taxes to the crown.
someone of an alignment doesn't even need to behave like the alignment all the time. someone who is chaotic evil, can certainly do tasks that are purely chaotic, such as bribing a town crier to spout anti-government propaganda, or just go full evil and sacrifice some baby to some god or something.
I'd love to see a non evil character justify setting a horse on fire.
That being said I agree with that assessment of alignments. Ultimately it shouldn't be a limitation on your character.
I ran a short game of good vs. good with paladins on both sides of the conflict. One side of good was a bit too lawful...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love to see a non evil character justify setting a horse on fire.
"The horse was mad and attacking everyone, and I had a fire spell prepared."
As a counterpoint, I will reiterate this line that has helped me grasp the alignment system much better.
Alignment is the RESULT of your actions, not the CAUSE of your actions.
Paladins retain their powers as long as they perform actions dedicated to order and goodness. Antipaladins retain their powers as long as they perform actions dedicated to chaos and evil.
This is actually sort of the opposite understanding most people have of how alignment should ideally work.
If the result of your actions is all that matters than a antipaladin falls for saving anyone or helping anyone because these would generally be considered good acts.
However, if his motivation to do so is because he can use that person to further his own evil ends than it is a neutral to evil act. Depending on what he did to save the person.
The reason why you did something matters just as much, if not more, than exactly what you did. But your alignment is generally a result of what you were trying to do, not what you actually did.
I mean, if you were fixing a piece of equipment and there was some sort of accident that resulted in death does that make you evil? I think most people would simply say, it was an accident. And while you might feel bad about the result, you did not intend for anyone to be injured so you are not evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love to see a non evil character justify setting a horse on fire."The horse was mad and attacking everyone, and I had a fire spell prepared."
Facing an enemy cavalry charge. Fireball damages them all and probably takes out a bunch of their mounts at the beginning of the fight.
That one really tough unarmed antipaladin grabbed this horse and was heading to trample those kids playing hopskotch. I knew he had that ring of fire resistance and all I had left was scorching ray. I scorching rayed his horse so our rage barbarian could grapple him and we stopped his plan. We saved those kids but I think I'm going to hear horse screams in my dreams for the next month.
|
Nope.
It should be noted that not all antipaladins are fallen heroes. Some warriors are trained from a young age to assume the mantle of antipaladin, forged through pain and trauma into exemplars of evil. These cruel warriors know nothing of compassion or loyalty, but they can teach a great deal about pain and suffering.
The big problem with the Antipaladin, is that they don't make good evil minions (by their very nature), but they don't make a good BBEG either. They don't approach the power of a wizard or cleric. They don't tip the battle unless they are personally involved in combat. They need minions, terrain advantages, ambush/surprise attacks, and more to really be threatening if they have an appropriate CR.
At best, they are sort-of the "thorn in the side" type of villain that springs an attack and flees when beaten, or attacks your PC's resources until they force a confrontation.
Beyond that, for story purposes, they're never really relate-able. In fact, they're the epitome of un-relate-able for most PC's of most alignments. A fallen Paladin would be lamentable if he fell in Hellknight style tyranny, but you just can't sympathize with the pure, puppy-kicking monstrosity that is the Antipaladin...
Antipaladins are the field marshall of the evil powers army, as chief lieutenant of the BBEG - they fit fine for that.
As a counterpoint, I will reiterate this line that has helped me grasp the alignment system much better.
Alignment is the RESULT of your actions, not the CAUSE of your actions.
Paladins retain their powers as long as they perform actions dedicated to order and goodness. Antipaladins retain their powers as long as they perform actions dedicated to chaos and evil.
This is actually sort of the opposite understanding most people have of how alignment should ideally work.
If the result of your actions is all that matters than a antipaladin falls for saving anyone or helping anyone because these would generally be considered good acts.
However, if his motivation to do so is because he can use that person to further his own evil ends than it is a neutral to evil act. Depending on what he did to save the person.
The reason why you did something matters just as much, if not more, than exactly what you did. But your alignment is generally a result of what you were trying to do, not what you actually did.
I mean, if you were fixing a piece of equipment and there was some sort of accident that resulted in death does that make you evil? I think most people would simply say, it was an accident. And while you might feel bad about the result, you did not intend for anyone to be injured so you are not evil.
I wasn't trying to say that context doesn't matter. It does.
As I understand it, an antipaladin would be allowed to save people in order to use them because, in the end, that is a selfish, evil act. But if they keep saving people without ever balancing it out with the abuse, it will drift into neutral territory.
Under exceptional circumstances, an antipaladin can ally with good associates, but only to defeat them from within and bring ruin to their ranks. An antipaladin does not need an atonement spell during such an unusual alliance as long as his nefarious goals are met in the end—evil cares only about results.
As for your example with equipment, I would GM that as a neutral event, as long as you didn't expect it to happen. And that is where context is important.
Is a paladin allowed to burn down an orc village? Maybe once. But doing it a hundred times, without ever offering peace or a non-violent solution, brings them closer to the LE "order at all costs" type of character people have discussed. Is an antipaladin allowed to spare someone's life when its in his hands? Yes, but only as long as he uses them to spread evil. But when he goes soft and develops an enduring sense of mercy, he gets closer to falling -- err, rising.
When I say that alignment is tied to your actions, not your motivations, I mean...well, let's say that it's an "external" mechanic. The game uses alignment to measure and quantify creatures based on what they do. Alignment is an "external" mechanic that changes and reacts to your choices rather than an internal one that defines them.
I guess if I learned anything from this, it's that I give more wiggle-room to the alignment restricted classes than most others seem to do.
Regardless, while I enjoy the healthy debate, I'm not trying to force anyone to change their opinions. How they play their game is how they play their game. I just wanting to throw my two cp into the conversation to see if it sparked thoughts in anyone else. Keep it clean, folks, I'm checking out.
Antipaladins are the field marshall of the evil powers army, as chief lieutenant of the BBEG - they fit fine for that.
I'm not sure how you reconcile that.
They make pacts with fiends, take the lives of the innocent, and put ahead of their personal power and wealth.*
An antipaladin's code that he place his own interests and desires above all else.*
*emphasis mine
I'm pretty sure they would be willing to serve somebody. But, only to usurp their power and influence, kill them, and take over.
the reasons you set a horse on a fire can vary greatly to any alignment.
I'd love to see a non evil character justify setting a horse on fire.
That being said I agree with that assessment of alignments. Ultimately it shouldn't be a limitation on your character.
it was a mercy killing.
Here's another conundrum. Paizo has published books with Antipaladins in them who could not possibly have been paladins beforehand. The Monster Codex is full of them, and are we to assume that every Bugbear, Orc, and Gnoll Antipaladins used to be Paladins at some point?
in chaotic evil societies, they would be made just like paladins are made in lawful good societies.
As a counterpoint, I will reiterate this line that has helped me grasp the alignment system much better.
Alignment is the RESULT of your actions, not the CAUSE of your actions.
Paladins retain their powers as long as they perform actions dedicated to order and goodness. Antipaladins retain their powers as long as they perform actions dedicated to chaos and evil.
This is actually sort of the opposite understanding most people have of how alignment should ideally work.
If the result of your actions is all that matters than a antipaladin falls for saving anyone or helping anyone because these would generally be considered good acts.
However, if his motivation to do so is because he can use that person to further his own evil ends than it is a neutral to evil act. Depending on what he did to save the person.
The reason why you did something matters just as much, if not more, than exactly what you did. But your alignment is generally a result of what you were trying to do, not what you actually did.
I mean, if you were fixing a piece of equipment and there was some sort of accident that resulted in death does that make you evil? I think most people would simply say, it was an accident. And while you might feel bad about the result, you did not intend for anyone to be injured so you are not evil.
I wasn't trying to say that context doesn't matter. It does.
As I understand it, an antipaladin would be allowed to save people in order to use them because, in the end, that is a selfish, evil act. But if they keep saving people without ever balancing it out with the abuse, it will drift into neutral territory.
Under exceptional circumstances, an antipaladin can ally with good associates, but only to defeat them from within and bring ruin to their ranks. An antipaladin does not need an atonement spell during such an unusual alliance as long as his nefarious goals are met in the end—evil cares only...
except if all those events had perfectly viable justifications then they should not effect alignment.
you go around as a antipaladin saving people. why? because they all hate the king and have positions of power.
as a paladin you burn down every orc settlement you see. why? the King of a neighboring land is going to get involved if they're not delt with. not exterminating them isn't going to sate the foreign king, so you better believe more lawful good will happen if you murder them all.
I'd love to see a non evil character justify setting a horse on fire.That being said I agree with that assessment of alignments. Ultimately it shouldn't be a limitation on your character.
I detected evil, and it WAS EVIL. In fact, it was a nightmare. The number of deaths it has caused was countless. In fact it was probably in this village just to cause even more deaths to innocents who were peacefully sleeping.
I could not allow that...but before I could slay it, it burst into the flames of hell. I had to brave those flames just to chop it asunder a smite evil mightily.
:P
Just joking around...
The other ones people previously posted are actually a ton better.
I think the one with the opposing cavalry charge actually would be excusable by me if I were a DM.
I'd love to see a non evil character justify setting a horse on fire.That being said I agree with that assessment of alignments. Ultimately it shouldn't be a limitation on your character.
I detected evil, and it WAS EVIL. In fact, it was a nightmare. The number of deaths it has caused was countless. In fact it was probably in this village just to cause even more deaths to innocents who were peacefully sleeping.
I could not allow that...but before I could slay it, it burst into the flames of hell. I had to brave those flames just to chop it asunder a smite evil mightily.
Here's another conundrum. Paizo has published books with Antipaladins in them who could not possibly have been paladins beforehand. The Monster Codex is full of them, and are we to assume that every Bugbear, Orc, and Gnoll Antipaladins used to be Paladins at some point?
You don't necessarily need to be paladin in order to become an antipaladin. The official text of the class mentions this.
It should be noted that not all antipaladins are fallen heroes. Some warriors are trained from a young age to assume the mantle of antipaladin, forged through pain and trauma into exemplars of evil. These cruel warriors know nothing of compassion or loyalty, but they can teach a great deal about pain and suffering.
Also in my campaign I treat the champion classes as such, paladin for LG, avengers for CG, tyrant knights for LE and anti-paladin (or whatever each one calls itself) at CE. There is no true neutral champion as of yet, but maybe someday if things get out of balence in the game.
Best thing to do would be to just dump the 'Lawful Good Only' thing and replace it with 'Same as their deity', so that lawful paladins get Smite Chaos while chaotic paladins get Smite Law, good paladins get Smite Evil while evil paladins get Smite Good, kinda like the cleric.
In general however, alignment restrictions don't really make sense.
Antipaladins are the field marshall of the evil powers army, as chief lieutenant of the BBEG - they fit fine for that.I'm not sure how you reconcile that.
They make pacts with fiends, take the lives of the innocent, and put ahead of their personal power and wealth.*
An antipaladin's code that he place his own interests and desires above all else.*
*emphasis mine
I'm pretty sure they would be willing to serve somebody. But, only to usurp their power and influence, kill them, and take over.
Perhaps it takes time to set up their sudden but inevitable betrayal, and they need to play at obedience until everything is in place. Or they might be acting as lackey to another bad guy to build their own power base or fulfill some hidden agenda. Or maybe the Antipaladin just doesn't care, so long as the BBEG gives them the tools to go around spreading chaos, death, and destruction.
Also in my campaign I treat the champion classes as such, paladin for LG, avengers for CG, tyrant knights for LE and anti-paladin (or whatever each one calls itself) at CE. There is no true neutral champion as of yet, but maybe someday if things get out of balence in the game.Best thing to do would be to just dump the 'Lawful Good Only' thing and replace it with 'Same as their deity', so that lawful paladins get Smite Chaos while chaotic paladins get Smite Law, good paladins get Smite Evil while evil paladins get Smite Good, kinda like the cleric.
In general however, alignment restrictions don't really make sense.
I've done this (switch from LG only to same alignment as deity) since 3.5, and it works great. Also the code they follow is determined by deity rather than a one size fits all approach. The chosen elite warriors of the divine ought to serve the divine, not romanticized notions of chivalry.
I stand by the original antipaladin--who was whiny, snively, thief-like, and otherwise opposite in every way.
...but who made great use of minions.