Print

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

[Cthulhu]

I prefer the way Exalted does alignment (Actually, I prefer the way Exalted does everything).  Instead of alignment you put character creation points into four virtues, Compassion, Conviction, Temperance, and Valor.  With some limitations, you can get bonus dice depending on your level in a virtue when you take an action in accordance with the virtue (So someone with five Temperance could get 5 bonus dice to resist temptation).  Also you have to pick a main virtue, and must either make a successful check or pay a cost to resist the call of that Virtue (So the aforementioned Temperate character would have to lose temporary willpower and increase his Limit score, or pass a check, to go drinking and whoring).  If your limit reaches ten (There are other means of increasing it) you risk a Limit break, which is some curse put on the Solar Exalts by the Primordials, wherein your virtue fails catastrophically.  The Temperate character might give all his stuff away, put on a hair shirt, and run off into a cave for a week, or he might lose all inhibition and go on a debauched binge.

It's better and more nuanced.  It's not an impossible dichotomy that horrible GMs can use to fuck with the players, and there's not as much room for abuse on the other end, by horrible players who want an excuse to fuck up the game with "wacky" and "random" bullshit.

[Techhead]

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.

If I was a DM, I would make a Paladin fall if he apprehended a villain, brought him to trial, and then killed the man after he was acquitted. Not just for going against the law, but if you intended on giving the bad guy a death sentence no matter what, you should kill him in the field and not give him the false pretense of justice. If he's a bad enough threat that he absolutely needs to die, kill him, but if you want to see him face trial, honor the results thereof.

[Heron TSG]

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.

There is a Paladin prestige class that does in fact get to smite chaos later on.

[Psyco Jelly]

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.

If I was a DM, I would make a Paladin fall if he apprehended a villain, brought him to trial, and then killed the man after he was acquitted. Not just for going against the law, but if you intended on giving the bad guy a death sentence no matter what, you should kill him in the field and not give him the false pretense of justice. If he's a bad enough threat that he absolutely needs to die, kill him, but if you want to see him face trial, honor the results thereof.

In that example, I agree. That's just sort of a stupid thing to do.

[Bauglir]

There is a Paladin prestige class that does in fact get to smite chaos later on.

Isn't the Gray Guard, though, pretty much the definition of pursuing the law in preference to good? The whole class is geared around letting you perform slightly evil acts if they're "necessary". The fluff has a lot of stuff about supporting the cause of good, but none of the mechanics or how their order is described as different from other paladins really fits that. Or was there a different one you were thinking of?

[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.

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.

That is because Paladins are not charged with destroying chaos, nor are they charged with subjigation (spelled incorrectly). They are charged with destroying evil in all of its form, or to convert it to the light.

Even though the Law is just as important to a Paladin then good is. They don't consider chaotic people as terrible to all that exists. While they certainly consider evil to be that way.

It just means that Paladins hate evil but dislike Chaos.

[Sensei]

When each of you are saying "Lawful good should be X", almost all of those are reasonable characters. In saying that any one version of lawful good is the only correct one, you're in effect saying that the other versions of lawful good do not and connect exist, and that all lawful good characters act in that one particular way.

Of course, the intent of the alignments is to encompass all of those different interpretations. Those, really, are individual characters you're talking about. A paladin in one setting/campaign might value good over law or the opposite in another, or indeed within the same setting.

[Neonivek]

When each of you are saying "Lawful good should be X", almost all of those are reasonable characters. In saying that any one version of lawful good is the only correct one, you're in effect saying that the other versions of lawful good do not and connect exist, and that all lawful good characters act in that one particular way.

Of course, the intent of the alignments is to encompass all of those different interpretations. Those, really, are individual characters you're talking about. A paladin in one setting/campaign might value good over law or the opposite in another, or indeed within the same setting.

Naw if you read up earlier I said that Lawful Good values each equally and it is up to the player to decide which is more important to them.

The issue of course is always the paladin because unlike some of the other classes like the Barbarian (who's alignment requirement is sometimes considered arbitrary) the Paladin often has a specifically written out code of conduct. Though most modern settings don't flesh out Paladins specifically to avoid the sort of railroading required to run the old ones. As well as often having trigger finger falling mechanics.

It is a bit harder because while alignment can be ignored, since it isn't as important outside a few mechanics, the Paladin is hardwired with specific rules on how to play it.

[Darvi]

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.

There is a Paladin prestige class that does in fact get to smite chaos later on.

They also get to bend the law, and  later on they can smite anything. Grey Guards are awesome, relatively speaking.

[Felius]

I didn't really read the whole thread yet, but just a couple cents:

While I dislike the good-evil D&D moral axis (it's ridiculous to try to force a simplistic objective morality in something so complex as ethics), it at least is understandable and relatively easy to define as long as you keep the choices simple and don't go looking for hard issues. But I really hate with all my heart the law-chaos axis. Except in their extreme abstract forms they mean nothing. Nothing at all. You can justify nearly anything in any point of the axis. Don't care for the law of the lands, just your personal code? Could be all the way from the lawful monk to the chaotic barbarian. Follow the laws of the land, that is, as long as you like them? Maybe not outright chaotic without a bit of mental acrobatics (not that it is impossible), but anywhere from neutral to lawful. It's a meaningless, ill-defined, and purposeless axis. Just the idea that it should be mentioned or used in any way is terrible.

[Neonivek]

Follow the laws of the land, that is, as long as you like them? Maybe not outright chaotic without a bit of mental acrobatics (not that it is impossible), but anywhere from neutral to lawful.

On the contrary. You can still be Chaotic. Chaotic characters can fear the reprocussions of the law and follow them out of fear or logic of being caught.

Law Vs. Chaos makes more sense and means a lot more if you concentrate. The only part of the Axis that means nothing is Chaos. Chaos can justify anything but Law cannot.

[Bauglir]

Chaos can justify anything but Law cannot.

Not actually true. Sufficiently selective reading of a large enough sample of laws allows pretty much anything, too. Particularly if you're allowed to have personal codes that are not sanctioned by any particular authority, and your character is allowed to evolve and grow as a person (meaning that code might change as the campaign proceeds).

EDIT: You can get similar results by appealing to different aspects of the consequences or intent of a given deed for good and evil. That can be a bit harder to work around than law and chaos, but you could get a pretty good argument going with a player whose character honestly believed that the ritual sacrifice of innocent orphans without warning would bring about the resurrection of his god (whose priesthood specifically made this policy a fundamental rule of the church), who would save the world from the impending apocalypse that the party is trying to stop.

[scriver]

Really, the only good part about the alignment system was how it tied in with the metaphysics and cosmology of the settings (especially Planescape). How the extra-verse is shaped like it and all that.

But then I guess 4ed happened.

[Neonivek]

Really, the only good part about the alignment system was how it tied in with the metaphysics and cosmology of the settings (especially Planescape). How the extra-verse is shaped like it and all that.

But then I guess 4ed happened.

Yeah but they are already taking back 4th edition with 5th edition.

Mind you I am happy to hear some of the genuin improvements 4th edition brought are comming back.

[scriver]

I haven't played anything 4th Ed so I can't say anything about  the game mechanics, but from what I heard they totally changed the lore and consequently wrecked the whole Planescape setting, or at least the chances of it ever returning in any shape like it was (that is, with the lore that made it good). Why anyone would do that to what was definitely in the top five awesomest and most interesting fantasy settings (not counting mythologies ) that ever was created is completely beyond me.

Ehrr. On other words, would they possibly be able, or willing, to take it back in such a way that Planescape could exist again (even if they don't write books for it any more) again?