D&D 5E So what's the problem with restrictions, especially when it comes to the Paladin?

[pemerton]

Why would understanding of mercy impart an understanding of good or evil?

Given board rules, I'll refrain from discussing the many real-world answers to that question!

But the point I was making is slightly different: if the god of mercy is LG or NG (which is pretty standard in most campaign worlds, I think), but Good is an arbitary label for some imaginary "cosmic force", then it turns out that the god of mercy, in pursuing mercy (which ex hypothesi I assume that god has an excellent grasp of), might change alignment. Which frankly strikes me as bizarre.

To put it another way, there is a reason most campaigns have their god of mercy as LG or NG. It's because most D&D play is actually structured around the assumption that "good" and "evil", as they appear in alignment designations, carry more-or-less their real world meaning. Nowhere in the rulebooks is there any suggestion that alignment refers to fictional morality and fictional ideals.

you release anti-paladins in some form or another have existed since 1e.

Yes.

My point is that, if LG is a more-or-less arbitrary designation unconnected to actual values and ideals, it doesn't really make sense that the LG paladins are nice guys, and the anti-paladins not?

 

[billd91]

I didn't introduce the distinction. Multiple other posters invoked it, upthread, to explain why the GM has authority over interpreting alignment in the game - because the GM is the arbiter of the morality of the gameworld (what I've called the fictional or fantasy morality).

If the alignment ideals are meant to be real ideals, than the GM's authority seems to become harder to explain - why is the GM a moral arbiter for the table?

The GM is not the moral arbiter for the table any more than anybody else at the table is. But unlike the real world as far as we can tell, the morality your character exhibits has a real objective effect in the game world and those things need a referee for arbitration. It seems a bit far fetched to say the GM's powers of arbitration of alignment labels, power effects, and power eligibility turns them into a moral arbiter for the players at the table.

 

[Imaro]

Given board rules, I'll refrain from discussing the many real-world answers to that question!

But the point I was making is slightly different: if the god of mercy is LG or NG (which is pretty standard in most campaign worlds, I think), but Good is an arbitary label for some imaginary "cosmic force", then it turns out that the god of mercy, in pursuing mercy (which ex hypothesi I assume that god has an excellent grasp of), might change alignment. Which frankly strikes me as bizarre.

To put it another way, there is a reason most campaigns have their god of mercy as LG or NG. It's because most D&D play is actually structured around the assumption that "good" and "evil", as they appear in alignment designations, carry more-or-less their real world meaning. Nowhere in the rulebooks is there any suggestion that alignment refers to fictional morality and fictional ideals.

But a deity of Mercy would be first and foremost concerned with promoting mercy, and would be aligned with the cosmological force that best allowed it to do that.

As to whether they carry their real world meaning... you've already said morality is too complex to be compartmentalized and categorized as it is in D&D... so how can they ever encompass real world meanings? They draw on real world meanings as a basis in most people's campaign settings because it's easy and provides a point of reference for everyone... but the specifics are (usually) determined by what the creator of the campaign setting determines they are.

Yes.

My point is that, if LG is a more-or-less arbitrary designation unconnected to actual values and ideals, it doesn't really make sense that the LG paladins are nice guys, and the anti-paladins not?

LG is connected to values and ideals, which have a real world basis (for the majority of campaigns) but what the specifics of those ideals are... is usually determined by the creator of the campaign world, since like the designation of a PC as a players territory... cosmology is usually the DM's.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But this creates the possibility that the god of mercy, in being committed to "Good", is making a mistake. I have trouble with that - no one should understand mercy better than the god of mercy.

Well, then the player's take on mercy, at least. The god probably doesn't think it is merciful (in your example). This has no bearing on whether or not the players can explore mercy, though.

On this account, though, it seems arbitrary that there are not "paladins" for the other teams.

You'd either want a setting reason (good enough for me, and what I did), or a story reason (perhaps Good needs it more than Evil in their thus far eternal struggle?). And, of course, you may use Anti-Paladins / Blackguards as well.

Nowhere in the rulebooks is there any suggestion that alignment refers to fictional morality and fictional ideals.

I disagree. About the time is gives descriptions of Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral, it's set up a fictional morality system. The entire point of exploring real world morality is that we can debate things, push what we know (or think we know), etc. Real world morality isn't set in stone; D&D's alignment system is. How can that be anything but a fictional morality system?

My point is that, if LG is a more-or-less arbitrary designation unconnected to actual values and ideals, it doesn't really make sense that the LG paladins are nice guys, and the anti-paladins not?

Well, Lawful and Good mean things, still. From the d20SRD:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life... "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others... A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

I don't see how you can say that Lawful Good is unconnected to actual values and ideals when descriptions are given in the game of how Lawful and Good creatures act. Assumably, a Lawful Good creature is following most of the above values and ideals (or his alignment would change). As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

you've already said morality is too complex to be compartmentalized and categorized as it is in D&D... so how can they ever encompass real world meanings? They draw on real world meanings as a basis in most people's campaign settings because it's easy and provides a point of reference for everyone... but the specifics are (usually) determined by what the creator of the campaign setting determines they are.

<snip>

LG is connected to values and ideals, which have a real world basis (for the majority of campaigns) but what the specifics of those ideals are... is usually determined by the creator of the campaign world, since like the designation of a PC as a players territory... cosmology is usually the DM's.

That process of "specification" is what I am referring to as the fictional/fantasy morality. The more weight that is given, the less genuine moral heft a paladin (or cleric, or druid, etc) has. Conversely, the less weight the GM's specification is given, and the more emphasis placed on real world values and ideals, then the weaker the argument that the GM should adjudicate because s/he is the one who decides the ingame morality.

My basic point is that we can't have it both ways: both that characters like paladins and druids have thematic heft because they touch on real world values and ideals, and that the morality of the gameworld isn't real morality but a fictional morality stipulated and adjudicated by the GM.

Well, then the player's take on mercy, at least. The god probably doesn't think it is merciful (in your example). This has no bearing on whether or not the players can explore mercy, though.

No. But it does entail that the PCs, in the game, might conclude that the god of mercy doesn't really understand mercy. Which was my self-delusion point above. A fantasy world in which it is coherent to suppose that the god of mercy is deluded about what mercy really requires is, in my view, not one which has room for the paladin ideal. It is essentially modernist - as I said above, even nihilistic or cynical (as REH's Conan tends to be).

About the time is gives descriptions of Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral, it's set up a fictional morality system.

I regard the d20 SRD as trying to give an account of good that is not fictional. Gygax did the same in AD&D, when he referred to both Benthamite and human rights accounts of goodness in his definitions of the good alignment.

The GM is not the moral arbiter for the table any more than anybody else at the table is. But unlike the real world as far as we can tell, the morality your character exhibits has a real objective effect in the game world and those things need a referee for arbitration.

These two sentences strike me as contradicting one another.

If the GM - the referee - is arbitrating what counts as compliance with ingame moral requirements, then either (i) those ingame moral requirements are fantasy/fiction morality, or (ii) those ingame moral requirements are expressive of real morality. If the latter - which I thought was what you said upthread - then the GM, by arbitrating the ingame requirements of real moral values, is acting as the moral arbiter for the table.

 

[Hussar]

The GM is not the moral arbiter for the table any more than anybody else at the table is. But unlike the real world as far as we can tell, the morality your character exhibits has a real objective effect in the game world and those things need a referee for arbitration. It seems a bit far fetched to say the GM's powers of arbitration of alignment labels, power effects, and power eligibility turns them into a moral arbiter for the players at the table.

Um, what? Since the DM tells the group what is actually an evil act, he has to be a greater moral arbiter than anyone else at the table. That's unavoidable.

 

[JamesonCourage]

No. But it does entail that the PCs, in the game, might conclude that the god of mercy doesn't really understand mercy. Which was my self-delusion point above.

Oh, well, that's true. Of course, the PCs might be delusional. Not saying they are, but it's a great setup for one of those "fallen Paladin thinks he knows best" situations that you can explore, or ignore. There are possibilities.

And, of course, the NG god of mercy might make exceptions. Good PCs can commit Neutral or Evil acts without switching alignments immediately, for example. I see no reason to make your gods any different, barring extreme circumstances (gods embodying an alignment, for example). The god would still be Good, but advocate for some hypothetical Neutral / Evil acts.

A fantasy world in which it is coherent to suppose that the god of mercy is deluded about what mercy really requires is, in my view, not one which has room for the paladin ideal. It is essentially modernist - as I said above, even nihilistic or cynical (as REH's Conan tends to be).

This requires that the players have a very concrete view of what mercy is already. There's not much exploring of mercy to be done, then; just administering it. In this respect, perhaps the conflict with mercy (as seen in the eyes of alignment in the multiverse) is more appropriate.

I regard the d20 SRD as trying to give an account of good that is not fictional. Gygax did the same in AD&D, when he referred to both Benthamite and human rights accounts of goodness in his definitions of the good alignment.

Well, it's not Gygax.

As of the point an author lists how morality is concretely defined by tangible forces in his universe, how is this anything but a fictional morality system? Even if it's based on non-fiction, it is definitely a fictional morality system. I guess you might disagree, but that's kind of baffling to me. Definitely not going to see eye to eye on that one. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

The problem, JC is when the rubber meets the road. The definition of LG and alignment in general is so vague and contradictory, that we've seen two DM's in this thread alone give mutually exclusive interpretations of the same alignment.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The problem, JC is when the rubber meets the road. The definition of LG and alignment in general is so vague and contradictory, that we've seen two DM's in this thread alone give mutually exclusive interpretations of the same alignment.

Yep. Once again, I'm totally okay with less ambiguous wording. And, I think alignment should be optional in 5e (even if I wouldn't play D&D without it). So, that might save us a lot of problems, too. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION], I have fairly well-developed views in the metaphysics of morals, but my understanding is that it would probably be against board rules to share them.