Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wrex]

Chaos and evil are unfairly weighted, frankly, and mean wildly varying things from DM to DM. I typically drop all alignment restrictions since a class is more of a function of who you are rather than what others think you are. by All Accounts, Sir Lancelot would be a barbarian rather than a paladin.


Also, Paladin and Monk are some of the worst classes in the game, but that is a debate for another day.

[Techhead]

I think part of the problem with the alignment system is the different schools of thought in real-world morals/ethics.
See: Deontology versus Consequentialism versus Virtue Ethics versus et cetera.

[Darvi]

Pallies also fall when you trip them. Or if you stab their horse. Or if you pull that lever that activates the trapdoor beneath them.

How the hell are they even playable?

It depends on the party (A party of people who are all Lawful Good who don't use stealth, Bluff, or devious skill as well as not having any vices work)... but some versions of dungeons and dragons differ in how strict the rules on Paladins actually are.

I can't believe somebody actually takes me seriously.

[Cthulhu]

Is it just me, or is chaotic neutral has the most wildly varying descriptions from DM to DM. My current DM believes that it's the Chaotic Neutral present in the 2E Rulebook, you know the one that is for insane/incredibly random people. I always thought it was sort of like being neutral, and valuing your own personal freedom over laws and whatnot. I've never had a single DM who has had the same opinion about Chaotic Neutral.

I consider chaotic neutral to be the latter, but chaotic neutral rogues being complete fucks is a longstanding tradition.  If he's a kender just kick the player out of your group before it's too late.

[Sergius]

I refuse to acknowledge the paladin described by lectorog as lawful good. unarmed children hiding for fear and unarmed enemies begging for mercy, shouldn't be killed.

however, I must say my only knowledge of such alignments come from a D&D based comic, rather than D&D rules directly.

You're forgetting that those children were full of black midichlorians.

[Zangi]

Alignment is a guideline... not the extreme finality of how a character should act...

And also, it is a roleplaying game... definition of law/good/chaotic/evil should be open to interpretation...  People tend to stick to a core/narrow/generic definition of what is good/evil/law/chaotic though...

Random Idea:  Create a Character/NPC... base all alignment interpretations from that character from the start of the Campaign.  When you have to decide on alignment actions... ask:  "What alignment would Urist McAlignment consider this action to fall under, regarding the context of the situation?"

[Neonivek]

Pallies also fall when you trip them. Or if you stab their horse. Or if you pull that lever that activates the trapdoor beneath them.

How the hell are they even playable?

It depends on the party (A party of people who are all Lawful Good who don't use stealth, Bluff, or devious skill as well as not having any vices work)... but some versions of dungeons and dragons differ in how strict the rules on Paladins actually are.

I can't believe somebody actually takes me seriously.

Oddly enough this isn't the first time I did.

[Techhead]

I figure the way to play pally in the same party as a rouge/illusionist/bard would be to use Doctrine of Metal Reservation.

[Neonivek]

I figure the way to play pally in the same party as a rouge/illusionist/bard would be to use Doctrine of Metal Reservation.

It really depends on the DM. As you can tell a lot of DMs hold dungeons and dragons by strict modern standards.

Then they not only hold it by strict modern standards but they also make you have to actively seek out your alignment as well.

So the idea of a good and holy person who hangs out with theifs, prostitutes, and murderers is unfounded (Remind you of anyone? It should it is pretty much the steriotypical Super holy Man)

[Psyco Jelly]

The difference between Lawful Good and Lawful neutral is mercy. Good should always supersede any other spectrum of alignment.

If there is a paladin in my party (I have one who plays the class really well right now), I would never expect them to be some inscrutable beacon of 'light' that exterminates all signs of evil with no chance for redemption, and would sacrifice innocents just to punish the guilty. I would never let a Paladin fall from one mistake, or one piece of deception, or one moment of weakness. Paladins are Good, and they are only lawful in how they go about holding up good.

If a paladin had to choose between siding with Good or Law if they came into conflict, he would always side with good. And he would not fall for that choice.

[Neonivek]

Good should always supersede any other spectrum of alignment

Actually for a Lawful Good person... both Law and Good are equal (well OK, it depends on your character... but alignment wise both Law and Good are equally measured). No where in alignment did they even hint that Law-Chaos spectrum is secondary to Good-Evil.

A Lawful Good person who has to enact a harsh but strict sentence may have prefered a lighter sentence but understand the importance of upholding the law.

Law is about understanding that the law has purpose that order is important. A Lawful Good Paladin would be a character who could let a villain go free because that is the law.

For example lets say the villain went to trial and the Paladin KNOWS he is guilty and that he will just go back to doing evil things... but the trial found him innocent.

The difference between a Lawful Good character and a Chaotic Good character would be that the Lawful Good person may leave him alone  (or reinvestigate... that would be the most likely action)... while a Chaotic Good person would likely ignore the trial and kill the villain. Afterall to a Chaotic Good character the law is only a barrier to the greater good. While to a Lawful Good character the law is the tool to the greater good.

Often the best way of thinking of it is that a Lawful Good character wants to use the law, honor, and commitment to do good.

[Zangi]

The difference between Lawful Good and Lawful neutral is mercy. Good should always supersede any other spectrum of alignment.

If there is a paladin in my party (I have one who plays the class really well right now), I would never expect them to be some inscrutable beacon of 'light' that exterminates all signs of evil with no chance for redemption, and would sacrifice innocents just to punish the guilty. I would never let a Paladin fall from one mistake, or one piece of deception, or one moment of weakness. Paladins are Good, and they are only lawful in how they go about holding up good.

If a paladin had to choose between siding with Good or Law if they came into conflict, he would always side with good. And he would not fall for that choice.

It seems to be a somewhat narrow interpretation when the players is expected to play as 'Good' before they would act upon their 'Lawful' side... if they are to continue being a Paladin?  It seems to be a big limitation of how the character can play if they want to keep things gravy... 
Though, I'm assuming that what the character thinks is the good action, can be wildly different from what the GM/Patron God thinks...

[Psyco Jelly]

Actually for a Lawful Good person... both Law and Good are equal (well OK, it depends on your character... but alignment wise both Law and Good are equally measured). No where in alignment did they even hint that Law-Chaos spectrum is secondary to Good-Evil.

A Lawful Good person who has to enact a harsh but strict sentence may have prefered a lighter sentence but understand the importance of upholding the law.

Law is about understanding that the law has purpose that order is important. A Lawful Good Paladin would be a character who could let a villain go free because that is the law.

For example lets say the villain went to trial and the Paladin KNOWS he is guilty and that he will just go back to doing evil things... but the trial found him innocent.

The difference between a Lawful Good character and a Chaotic Good character would be that the Lawful Good person may leave him alone  (or reinvestigate... that would be the most likely action)... while a Chaotic Good person would likely ignore the trial and kill the villain. Afterall to a Chaotic Good character the law is only a barrier to the greater good. While to a Lawful Good character the law is the tool to the greater good.

Often the best way of thinking of it is that a Lawful Good character wants to use the law, honor, and commitment to do good.

Sorry to mislead, I meant that for a paladin good should always supersede law. I'm usually pretty fluid about how I let my players roleplay, and I don't like to argue about specifics. Really, any person who truly thinks what he's doing is right, and does so in an orderly and consistent fashion is Lawful Good as far as I'm concerned.

And I could see it being perfectly justified for the paladin to go outside the law to kill someone who truly deserves it, accepting his fall as necessary. Even if he must seek atonement. If my player can justify why a character would do something, I don't hold them to the absolute most extreme examples of their alignment.

It seems to be a somewhat narrow interpretation when the players is expected to play as 'Good' before they would act upon their 'Lawful' side... if they are to continue being a Paladin?  It seems to be a big limitation of how the character can play if they want to keep things gravy... 
Though, I'm assuming that what the character thinks is the good action, can be wildly different from what the GM/Patron God thinks...

Well, usually the two go hand-in-hand, but one must keep in mind that the Paladin is good above all else. They don't get 'smite chaos' (though admittedly a class variant like that might not be pretty interesting), and they aren't normal law enforcers. It's only my group's interpretation of the class.

[Neonivek]

Sorry to mislead, I meant that for a paladin good should always supersede law.

Actually even for a Paladin they are also equally measured. A Paladin is usually vowed to uphold the law, expected to keep their word (in fact in some versions they would fall if they broke their word), always tell the truth, and be the vessel for dicipline. (Lying is a Chaotic action, not a evil action)

It is why the Chaotic version of the Paladin is the Paladin of Freedom.

[Psyco Jelly]

Sorry to mislead, I meant that for a paladin good should always supersede law.

Actually even for a Paladin they are also equally measured. A Paladin is usually vowed to uphold the law, expected to keep their word (in fact in some versions they would fall if they broke their word), always tell the truth, and be the vessel for dicipline. (Lying is a Chaotic action, not a evil action)

It is why the Chaotic version of the Paladin is the Paladin of Freedom.

Paladins don't get 'smite chaos'. They are mechanically and fluff wise geared to fight evil. You and your DM don't have to agree with this explanation, but I allow a lot more fluidity in what alignment means than others do.