What Did Alignments Ever Do For D&D?

[Celebrim]

The only concretely positive thing the D&D alignment system ever did for me was this:

Anyone who brought a Chaotic Neutral character to a game was asked to think of something else to play or become uninvited. Nobody wants to play with Leroy Jenkins.

Anyone at my table that understands alignment to mean personality traits like being impulsive, neat, messy, abrasive, polite, or showy (or whatever) gets a mini-lecture on the difference between personality and character. For that matter, anyone who thinks that there is only one personality for each alignment gets a mini-lecture on philosophical breadth, probably beginning with the neutral alignments (LN, N, CN) because those are the most often misunderstood.

 

[hamishspence]

Thing is, on the subject of dealing with the evil aligned, and those who commit evil acts, the paladin's code really has only one guideline:

"Punish those who harm or threaten innocent life"

Which can lead to some pretty interesting situations.

Here's a little sketch on the subject I drew up:

The characters are a LG paladin (Hero), a LN cleric of an LG deity (Villain), who has launched an inquisition to destroy evil- but also (very regretfully) destroyed innocents along the way- and an LE blackguard of an evil deity (Antihero) who commits evil with great delight and has only one major redeeming feature- a moral compunction against harming or threatening the innocent. The villain has the antihero cornered, and the hero has come on the scene:

Villain: "Ah, brave paladin. Help me punish this vile evildoer."

Antihero: "Yes, I'm a vile evildoer- I do evil and I love it. If you must punish me, get it over with."

Hero: (points at Antihero) "I'm not here for his punishment."

Antihero and Villain: "WHAT?!"

Hero: (points at Villain) "I'm here for yours."

Antihero and Villain: "Why??"

Hero: "Because he may be a vile evildoer..."

Antihero: "Kind of you to say so."

Hero: "Not helping."

Antihero: "Sorry."

Hero: "He may be sadistic and psychopathic..."

Antihero: "Hey, those are my best points!"

Hero: "Not. Helping!"

Antihero: "I'll shut up."

Hero: "Yet in all his sick and twisted career of evildoing, he has never once harmed or threatened the innocent. You. Have."

Hero: (draws weapon, points it at Villain): "Surrender now, and your punishment will be left to the authorities. Otherwise, we fight."

 

[Celebrim]

The characters are a LG paladin (Hero), a LN cleric of an LG deity (Villain), who has launched an inquisition to destroy evil- but also (very regretfully) destroyed innocents along the way- and an LE blackguard of an evil deity (Antihero) who commits evil with great delight and has only one major redeeming feature- a moral compunction against harming or threatening the innocent.

Huh?

Might I ask, what evil has said person done if they don't harm or threaten the innocent? I mean, as far as redeeming features go, that's a pretty redeeming feature. What evil is left after we substract out, "Does no harm"? If you have no blood of the innocents on your hand, not even metaphorically because apparantly not only does he refrain from harm but bridles his tongue and temper, then yeah, I would say you are pretty well redeemed. I'm reminded in such a statement of for example, the nun of Les Miserables who has never ever sullied her tongue with a lie, until she does so to protect the innocent from harm. If you do no harm save to those that deserve it, exactly where on the evil scale do you manage to get in your estimation? What evil does he joyfully do if it doesn't involve doing, you know, actual harm?

Conversely, why do you imagine that 'regretting you've done harm' weighs such on the scales of good that it balances against mass murder and produces the verdict of 'neutral'? I mean, since when does, "I meant well", excuse everything? Where I said LG deity, I might be inclined to ask just what this LN crusader was actually crusading against, since it doesn't appear to be evil.

 

[hamishspence]

Answer- the LN crusader is the sort of guy who, in war, gives orders he knows will lead to the deaths of the innocent, or even kills them himself, if he thinks it's "the only way to win against evil"

Like, say, ordering his wizards to nuke an evil city- which also has a lot of innocent children in it.

He will never kill the innocent for fun or profit, but he will kill them for other reasons.

Think of him as a bit like a 40K inquisitor- but on a smaller scale.


The LE antihero however, is incredibly sadistic toward the not-innocent (defined by him as "those who prey on the innocent") but would never harm innocent people.

Think of him as a bit like a more cruel and sadistic version of Dexter or The Punisher.

 

[fanboy2000]

The LE antihero however, is incredibly sadistic toward the not-innocent (defined by him as "those who prey on the innocent") but would never harm innocent people.

So he'd likely giving someone the death penalty for double parking?

Think of him as a bit like a more cruel and sadistic version of Dexter or The Punisher.

Or ED-209?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

My issue is with players giving lip service that they are good and then not playing good when it is not as convenient. It is much easier to play neutral than good and I don't have a problem with that if that is what you want to play. Which is why I favor alignments. Though it by no means is the perfect solution to certain issues with players.

I can agree with the attitude with wanting "good" players, but it sounds like:

1) You told the players to be "good" and they just wrote "good" on their character sheet without actually "being" good.
2) You didn't care much, and just took issue with the two letter combo they wrote on their character sheet.

If it's the first, alignment won't solve any issues. Talking will. They can read the "rules" about "good" just like you can.

If it's the second, it's so minor there's no point of engaging in a threat of this length about it.

 

[hamishspence]

So he'd likely giving someone the death penalty for double parking?

Or ED-209?

Nope- he's a lot more discriminating than that. "Non-Innocents" for him, is virtually synonymous with "Those who debase or destroy the innocent for fun or profit."

And even then- it's at the high end of the scale- acts that could reasonably, in a D&D world, carry a death penalty.

If you think of any case where your average D&D character might end up killing people- this guy wouldn't just kill "bad guys" they'd stalk them, capture them, and torture them to death horribly (and revel in it).

 

[TarionzCousin]

This thread is confusing my LG Paladin, Smite-O the Simple.

I smite this thread.

 

[hamishspence]

The point to be made is that the Code says "paladins punish those who harm or threaten innocents"

Not "Paladins punish those who are evil aligned" or "paladins punish those who commit evil acts"

The idea that a paladin might be faced with having to punish a Neutral enemy who has harmed the innocent-

and have no real justification for dealing with a certain Evil character- because they have never harmed or threatened the innocent, is I think an interesting one.

Sometimes Detect Evil is not the way to determine who to punish.

 

[Merkuri]

Sometimes Detect Evil is not the way to determine who to punish.

The way I like to look at it is that your alignment is what you are "inside". Your actions alone do not dictate your alignment. Your intentions, and what you want to do, are a big part of that. Which is why my do-gooder knight from upthread continued to be Lawful Neutral. She wasn't saving innocents because it was the right thing to do, she was just trying to score points, basically.

So someone could be evil to the core but not have a black mark to their name and be untouchable by the law or by wandering paladins.

Now, saying your alignment is what you are "inside" is different than saying alignment is what you think you are. A cleric who believes he is working for the greater good by torturing nonbelievers is still evil. Especially if deep down inside he likes seeing them squirm, though he'd never admit it.