D&D General The Problem with Evil or what if we don't use alignments?

[d24454_modern]

Exactly.

So basically you want to be called a Paladin but not actually act like one. Sounds like murderhobo logic honestly.

 

[Shair-afiyun]

So basically you want to be called a Paladin but not actually act like one. Sounds like murderhobo logic honestly.

Not necessarily. Its the freedom of choice and morality. That for paladin as example, it is up to the player to stay within the graces of their deity. Not because their alignment said they outright should.

And that paladins already have something better than alignment: A code of conduct. By staying within that code, prescribed to you by your deity and faith, you keep your deity happy with your work.

That is what lawful good should be. But too many players miss the memo and instead create what is known as lawful stupid.

 

[d24454_modern]

Not necessarily. Its the freedom of choice and morality. That for paladin as example, it is up to the player to stay within the graces of their deity. Not because their alignment said they outright should.

And that paladins already have something better than alignment: A code of conduct. By staying within that code, prescribed to you by your deity and faith, you keep your deity happy with your work.

That is what lawful good should be. But too many players miss the memo and instead create what is known as lawful stupid.

That's explicitly the opposite of what morality is. You can't hurt innocent people and still be called a good person.

Besides, Paladins and Clerics don't even need to have a deity.

Edit: Fixed it.

 

[Shair-afiyun]

That's explicitly the opposite of what morality is. You can't hurt innocent people and still be called a good person.

Besides, Paladins and Clerics don't even need to be religious.

In 5e paladins don't have to but are free to, but clerics actually have to pick a deity to follow and worship.
Clerics and deities are fairly inseparable as they are basically in layman's terms divine warlocks.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I've found that people don't actually like to be punished for their actions. They play a Paladin cause it can heal. They don't actually care about helping people.

1) You play a paladin to smite, not to heal. You play clerics to heal.

2) Paladins haven't had to be good for like 20 years. The less awful Paladin variants appeared in Dragon in the early 2000's.

3) Not 'punished for their actions', 'punished for not having the same moral or ethical outlook as the DM'. Everyone cites murder as evil, but D&D has historically also called lying, stealing and poison use evil and heavily implied that BDSM and being fat are signs of evil. And people will say this is from prior editions, but those same people also want alignment expanded upon and we have to face the not possibility but probability of this weird morality getting written back in if we do. Because YOU (the rhetorical 'you'), the divine prophet of knowing how alignment works will not be the one who writes it, but likely an actual flawed human.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's explicitly the opposite of what morality is. You can't hurt innocent people and still be called a good person.

Besides, Paladins and Clerics don't even need to have a deity.

Edit: Fixed it.

So, just curious. The phrasing in question was "Even the paladin could do Amoral stuff if it meant surviving in a harsh landscape"

How do you go from that to hurting innocent people? Amoral doesn't even have to mean that he did anything evil, just that he wasn't being a paragon of everything that is good and holy. Not sharing your waterskin with a fellow traveler in the desert isn't causing harm per se, and the paladin could even believe that it is the correct choice, if they are worried they will not survive to reach their destination and prevent greater harm from befalling the world.

Yes, in morality tales about the best and most holy people, they of course did the morally upstanding thing even if it could doom the world. But that doesn't have to be the paladin in the game you are playing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

3) Not 'punished for their actions', 'punished for not having the same moral or ethical outlook as the DM'. Everyone cites murder as evil, but D&D has historically also called lying, stealing and poison use evil and heavily implied that BDSM and being fat are signs of evil. And people will say this is from prior editions, but those same people also want alignment expanded upon and we have to face the not possibility but probability of this weird morality getting written back in if we do. Because YOU (the rhetorical 'you'), the divine prophet of knowing how alignment works will not be the one who writes it, but likely an actual flawed human.

THIS^^^

This right here.

I always love how it goes from "I don't think I want my paladin constrained by lawful good" (which as noted isn't the case anymore) to being told "Well, if you are okay with child murder and wanton slaughter". But there are other things that have been traditionally labeled as "evil"

What if I want to play an Avenger who uses poison on his blade, because it is the most effective way to ensure the destruction of evil? Using poison is "evil" but... really there isn't a good reason for it. Sneaking up on a target is also considered "evil" in some circles. The paladin for a long time was constrained so much that it gave rise to the "Lawful Stupid" meme, because some DMs actually did say that you couldn't sneak up on an enemy, or attack someone who surrenders.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I always love how it goes from "I don't think I want my paladin constrained by lawful good" (which as noted isn't the case anymore) to being told "Well, if you are okay with child murder and wanton slaughter".

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Gygax specifically told us that child murder is lawful good!

 

[d24454_modern]

So, just curious. The phrasing in question was "Even the paladin could do Amoral stuff if it meant surviving in a harsh landscape"

How do you go from that to hurting innocent people? Amoral doesn't even have to mean that he did anything evil, just that he wasn't being a paragon of everything that is good and holy. Not sharing your waterskin with a fellow traveler in the desert isn't causing harm per se, and the paladin could even believe that it is the correct choice, if they are worried they will not survive to reach their destination and prevent greater harm from befalling the world.

Yes, in morality tales about the best and most holy people, they of course did the morally upstanding thing even if it could doom the world. But that doesn't have to be the paladin in the game you are playing.

Doesn't that assume that they had water to begin with? It's funny how the concept of morality only matter when you're with other people.

Whether or not the Paladin's action is bad or not depends on whether or not he's just making excuses for his actions.

Beside, one bad act doesn't automatically make someone evil. I just hate the idea that it's better ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.

 

[d24454_modern]

THIS^^^

This right here.

I always love how it goes from "I don't think I want my paladin constrained by lawful good" (which as noted isn't the case anymore) to being told "Well, if you are okay with child murder and wanton slaughter". But there are other things that have been traditionally labeled as "evil"

What if I want to play an Avenger who uses poison on his blade, because it is the most effective way to ensure the destruction of evil? Using poison is "evil" but... really there isn't a good reason for it. Sneaking up on a target is also considered "evil" in some circles. The paladin for a long time was constrained so much that it gave rise to the "Lawful Stupid" meme, because some DMs actually did say that you couldn't sneak up on an enemy, or attack someone who surrenders.

You can argue about whether or not killing someone is bad but it's generally accepted that torture is unambiguously bad. That's one of the reasons why poison is frowned upon. It might be "cleaner" then chopping off their head, but it's just as torturous.

If you do it when your target isn't aware, then it robs them of the chance to surrender or argue their case.

While I do agree that calling poison itself "evil" is ridiculous, I feel like people don't really think about why it has that connotation to begin with.