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

[JamesonCourage]

I don't see that the issue is amenable to disagreement - it's essentially indisputable.

All I can do is repeat myself: "Again, I respectfully disagree, for reasons I've gone into in this thread." If you have a take on what I've said, I'll reply to that, but I'm not going to get into any more of a "no" "yes" "no" "yes" argument. As always, play what you like

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@pemerton

But those arguments are premised on a relative concept ad morality and ethics, because we as humans argue the relative merits in the absence of the absolute. But DND is not a game where morale and ethical absolutes are disambiguous, indeed the the opposite, they are codified.

IRL, all we have is deconstruction to understand the universe; indeed that is the whole purpose of science and ultimately religion, to help us better understand the universe in a mathematical framework that we don't have access to naturally (moral imperatives aside)

DND by its mathematical constructs determines these ambiguities as obsoletes. The sheer act of alignment in dnd removes morale ambiguity de facto, the only issue that remains is description in the rules of what this means.

(spoken from the unfortunate position of a double first in math(s) and philosophy)

Sure, but you missed [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s point (actually two points). It is irrelevant if the DnD world's ethics are absolute or not, the rules would have to be UTTERLY UNAMBIGUOUS and we know that is impossible. Pemerton brought up 2 SIMPLE cases of ambiguity without even breaking a sweat. In a topic like this where we're talking about non-concrete situational 'rules' there is no hope of making them exact. Any such project is doomed to fail from day one. The result is just a lot more verbiage and the same DM and/or player judgment as ever. Why waste the words? It is just pointless.

Secondly though the whole notion that "oh, its all just absolute world-rules" is utterly antithetical to what many of us want to do with the game. You can make up any rote set of behavioral rules you want, I'm not interested. What I want to do is explore ethics. That exploration consists of working out a pathway through ambiguous and uncertain situations in which there can never really be entirely clear rules. If you simply reduce it all to some formula of "X is right, Y is wrong" what's the point? Its like dungeon crawling through a dungeon you already know.

So, IMHO what we see is that no codification can ever hope to succeed and that the very notion of adventuring in a game where morality is just a rule you look up is objectionable and limiting. I can see playing in a game where all you do is some skirmishing and light RP and nobody cares, but in that case why have any concern about it at all?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't see that the issue is amenable to disagreement - it's essentially indisputable. If you have a code that will prove the world wrong by encapsulating the actual essence of good, please publish it - a Nobel Peace prize, at the very least, awaits!

Exactly, there really is not any argument to be had on this topic.

 

[gyor]

If this thread is such a headarche, that along is a huge reason against alignment restrictions, because of these sorts of problems, endless with no resolution.

 

[Hussar]

If this thread is such a headarche, that along is a huge reason against alignment restrictions, because of these sorts of problems, endless with no resolution.

Yeah. Pretty much. This sort of alignment wa... discussion has been ongoing in the hobby for decades without coming any closer to resolution. The idea that we should just keep doing what we've been doing simply because that's what we've always been doing seems really strange to me. When something has never worked for thousands and thousands of game play hours, it's time to try something a wee bit different.

I mean, this pretty much says it all:

 

[JamesonCourage]

Yeah. Pretty much. This sort of alignment wa... discussion has been ongoing in the hobby for decades without coming any closer to resolution. The idea that we should just keep doing what we've been doing simply because that's what we've always been doing seems really strange to me.

I agree it's a problem, and agree that if it's kept (even optionally, as I prefer), it should be cleaned up a bit.

I mean, this pretty much says it all:

It does say that people don't understand how alignment swaps work well. To be fair, I'm not sure how well they're described, so I can't say I blame them completely (thus the "cleaned up a bit" sentiment). The 3.5 PHB says this, though:

In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if that's not lawful or good behavior. People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on.

To me, at least, it seems clear that it's okay to act outside of your alignment from time to time. But, the "alignment change" rules are admittedly hazy (it basically leaves it up to the GM). At any rate, the "Batman is hard to pin down" isn't too bad once we start eliminating the extremes (like the Chaotic Evil one [probably entirely out of context]), correct certain things on that chart (like Neutral Evil; unless we're talking about torture, and then we're onto something, probably), etc.

At any rate, alignment debates have gone on long enough to make many people argue -quite vigorously- over what they mean. When it's included (hopefully optionally), I do hope they try to clarify a bit (about acting outside alignment and alignment shifts in particular). As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

I'll agree that a well rounded character likely doesn't fall under a single alignment 100% of the time. However, I shouldn't be able to ask three different people what the alignment of a character is, and have them give three opposite answers, all of which are supported by the mechanics.

I remember various board discussions talking about the alignment of popular characters, and you see people giving completely opposite interpretations of the same character. I mean, what alignment is James Bond? You can make a very good argument for good or evil, lawful or chaotic.

You'd think after 30 years of alignment mechanics, we'd be able to give interpretations that are at least in the same general corner. I mean, if you say a character is LG and I say NG, that's fair enough. I got no problems there. But if you say LG and I say CE and we're both right, according to how you interpret the mechanics, that's a mechanics failure.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'll agree that a well rounded character likely doesn't fall under a single alignment 100% of the time. However, I shouldn't be able to ask three different people what the alignment of a character is, and have them give three opposite answers, all of which are supported by the mechanics.

I agree that more clarity would be useful. Here's hoping it's included in the (hopefully optional) alignment system by release. As always, play what you like

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree that more clarity would be useful. Here's hoping it's included in the (hopefully optional) alignment system by release. As always, play what you like

I don't think anyone really wants to deny you what you desire, but OTOH we're free to doubt that you'll find it useful when you get it, any more than the alignment discussions of the last 5 editions of D&D have clarified things one bit from what they were in 1e.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't think anyone really wants to deny you what you desire, but OTOH we're free to doubt that you'll find it useful when you get it, any more than the alignment discussions of the last 5 editions of D&D have clarified things one bit from what they were in 1e.

... okay?