D&D General Deleted

[EzekielRaiden]

Probably the next question should be - what MADE a Paladin Lawful Stupid, and is every LG paladin actually LS?

First: The crap descriptions of what the oath is and means, and the extremely strong implication that DMs should put paladins in catch-22 scenarios.

Second: Trivially no. It's just encouraged by the flavor text and, in at least some editions (especially 3.x), also encouraged by the rules themselves, so LS has a tendency to predominate.

Because forgive me if I misunderstood you, this is what you seem to imply in the first part of the post - if the class wasn't "broadened" then it would have remained LS.

The broadening was one part of the process of taking Lawful Stupid interpretation out behind the woodshed, yes. Well, other than as an intentional "this is a Paladin who is going to fall" story, which I have flirted with once. (RP'd a Draenei Paladin in WoW, Altuurem, who was profoundly racist and very hopped up on vengeance juice due to, y'know, the genocide of his people by the orcs. He got lucky, and had a "Come to Jesus the Light" moment right at the time when he would have fallen, which f'd him up bigtime because he finally realized just how bad he had been and how easily he could have become everything he hated. This was my explanation for him going from Retribution aka DPS spec initially, to gaining Protection aka tank as his alternate spec at higher levels, and potentially swapping fully to tanking and Holy, aka healing, spec upon hitting level cap.)

LG non-LS can exist, right? If yes, how?

Mostly, by kicking what is said the actual books (prior to 4e, at least) in the teeth. Because what the actual (pre-4e) books say about alignment is some of the worst faux-losophy I've seen in written media. Sci-fi authors commenting on religion do a better job--you know, the whole "ah yes, those quaint, simple-minded superstitions, we have outgrown those" thing.

One of the problems with D&D alignment (among many, many others) is that it puts two things on equal footing that are not on equal footing: goals vs methods. Law and Chaos are methods, ways to achieve some end. They do not discriminate based on what end you seek; they only guide the tools, techniques, practices, etc. that you use in order to seek them. Good and Evil, on the other hand, are goals. They do not discriminate based on what methods you use, only valuing what goal you aim toward, what end you wish to achieve (or, for a consequentialist take, what ends you actually do achieve, regardless of what you were trying to achieve.)

LG without a hint of LS is easily achieved when we view this from that standpoint. The non-stupid LG says, "Good is the only truly worthy end, so Law may only be permitted to push toward Good, or at least not push toward Evil." Under these lights, a Lawful Good person is not only not obligated to follow evil laws, they are obligated to resist evil laws--but in a way that promotes new, better laws, not one that promotes the removal of law in general. Every law must be evaluated by three criteria:
Does it support Good or at least avoid supporting Evil?
Is its end actually a worthwhile one?
Does it achieve its end effectively?

If the answer to any of these questions is "no," then the no-stupid LG person is obligated to push for reform. In some cases, there is no need to even replace the law, because the law itself is actually evil and no law at all is the only correct one, e.g. laws permitting people to kill their slaves do not need to be replaced with other laws regarding the treatment of slaves, they just need to be eliminated, and new laws forbidding slavery in the first place need to be implemented.

The non-stupid LG person is, in general, obliged to try to preserve the system, but with the caveat: if and only if the system is actually redeemable in the first place. Sometimes, the only effective path to producing a truly Good society that operates by Law is to replace the whole thing, because it is rotten down to its core. Hence, revolution is not inherently contradictory to being Lawful Good, but it must be undertaken only as a desperate measure when reform proves, practically or fully, impossible.

I have thought about this topic quite a lot.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

A reminder:

We expect posters to be civil here on ENWorld. This is especially important in [+] threads.

To be clear: being civil does not mean that no disagreement is allowed. A [+] thread is not an echo chamber.

But behaviors like “mind reading”, “junior modding”, the temptation to be snarky or take pot shots at other posters and so forth are particularly disruptive to threads like this. Ditto indulging a hair-trigger temper or a long-standing grudge.

So please try to be on your best behavior. If you feel your hackles rising or hear your blood pounding in your ears, take a break from the keyboard before posting.

 

[Hussar]

No doubt, there were more than a few DM's who seemed to take quite a bit of joy in putting the Paladin in Catch-22 situations. 3e was also the edition that really soured me on good alignment by introducing mechanics that actively penalized you for being good, like unholy blight. I prefer to play Good alignments, but getting tagged with some nasty effect that hinders you more for daring to write "good" on your sheet, while neutral characters can be massive jerks or do pretty much anything they want with no real downside, was enough for me to be pretty much done with alignment.

One of the most eye opening experiences I had about alignment was during 3e, years ago. I got a new player at my table and he plonked down his new character (I forget what class now, doesn't really matter). The character was Chaotic Neutral. I raised an eyebrow or two, mostly because this was a new player to the table and I had zero interest in the player being disruptive. The player promised that he wouldn't be disruptive but insisted on the CN designation. So, I grudgingly okayed it with the caveat that at some point down the road, we were going to have another conversation about this.

So, a couple months passed and there were no problems with the character. The character was always forthright, upstanding, kept his word, never disobeyed an order, stuck to plans and was always up for a good strategy session.

"You realize your character is Lawful Good, right?" I asked?
"No way. He's CN! He has to be CN!"
"But, he's never done anything even remotely chaotic and he's always acted good. He's organized and never impetuous. He works very well with others and always has the group's interest at heart. This guy is textbook LG. Maybe NG? He's the opposite of CN though," I replied.
"NO! Absolutely not. This character MUST be CN because I do not ever want you to tell me what my character will do because of his alignment."

Now, I'm paraphrasing a conversation from 20 years ago, but, that's the gist of it. He was CN, not because of any real interest in being CN but because he absolutely hated the idea of me, the DM, trying to enforce any alignment based behavior on him. Didn't matter that I wasn't that kind of DM and had never once even hinted that I would ever do that. He was absolutely adamant about being CN. Once I realized what the conversation was actually about, I totally let it go and let him be whatever alignment he felt comfortable with.

That was the day I ejected alignment from my D&D games. From that point onward, I never even bothered asking the alignment of characters. Couldn't care less. It's your character. You define that character, not me and certainly not whatever was in the PHB. 5e ejecting alignment from the game has been one of the absolute best ideas of the edition.

As far as the whole context of paladins goes - well, context is tricky. It's hard to say what something will connote to me or you. Just because something doesn't connote a certain meaning to you does not mean I'm wrong for taking the connotative meaning differently. It's simply different interpretations of the same word. Trying to "prove" that someone's connotative meaning is wrong will never, ever work. And it's not like the connotation of paladin as linked to medieval knights is all that hard to see. It's there in the pictures, the text and all sorts of elements. This isn't really a stretch to see how the connection is made.

The best solution, AFAIC, going forward, is to, as others have said, broaden the class. Cast a wider net of inspiration so that the Crusading Knight connotation can fade into the background further and further and we can have a different iconography for paladins going forward. For example, I don't think this image of an Oath of Ancients Paladin is evoking Christian Crusader in any real way:

((Oh, crap, that character has GLASSES!!! RUNNNNNNN!!!!))

 

[Chaltab]

((Oh, crap, that character has GLASSES!!! RUNNNNNNN!!!!))

Wait what ancestry is he? Elf ears, but has a full beard. Seems too tall to be a gnome or halfling... confused.

 

[GrimCo]

LS paladins existed because there were bad DMs who enjoyed screwing with Paladins. With good DMs, not so much. As i said once in this thread, there were mechanical consequences if you deviate from paladins code of conduct and LG alignment. You lose all your powers and become crappy version of fighter ( at least fighter got his feats). Later splatbooks gave us CG, LE and CE paladins. CG was argubly best one with most wiggle room while maintaining Champion of Good archetype. LG&CE are two alignments that people usually played as LS and CS.

One of the problems was, in retrospect, we were too young and green in those days to comprehend nuances. RAW vs RAI, spirit and letter of law. And i think lot's of people who were on the younger side those days, both as players and DMs, fell into the trap. More mature DM with mature players, could pull of 2/3.x ed paladin just fine, even with all the trappings of alignment and code of conduct.

CN was popular cause it's closest to real life moral relativism mixed with nature of humans as flawed beings.

Historical origins are problematic if you make them problematic. Human history is history of conflict. But we can choose to move away from real world history and in our fantasy lands, we make history. We choose how classes are portrayed.

 

[pemerton]

Because what the actual (pre-4e) books say about alignment is some of the worst faux-losophy I've seen in written media.

In my view, this is unfair to Gygax's PHB and DMG.

One of the problems with D&D alignment (among many, many others) is that it puts two things on equal footing that are not on equal footing: goals vs methods. Law and Chaos are methods, ways to achieve some end. They do not discriminate based on what end you seek; they only guide the tools, techniques, practices, etc. that you use in order to seek them. Good and Evil, on the other hand, are goals. They do not discriminate based on what methods you use, only valuing what goal you aim toward, what end you wish to achieve (or, for a consequentialist take, what ends you actually do achieve, regardless of what you were trying to achieve.)

This is how Gygax treats Law and Chaos - as means.

The LG are those who believe that the only way to achieve wellbeing, foster truth and beauty, etc is social organisation. The CG, on the other hand, believe that the best way to these things is via individual self-realisation: organisation is a burden on the good, not an underpinning of it.

The CE agree with LG about the effects of organisation, and - because they disdain wellbeing, truth and beauty - they tear down organised society and pursue self-aggrandisement. The LE agree with the CG about the effects of organisation, and for that reason they pursue it, so as to enjoy wielding power even though that undermines wellbeing and mars all beautiful things.

For a fuller discussion of this, see this old thread of mine: "Narrativist" 9-point alignment

It is somewhere around MotP, and then 2nd ed AD&D - and compounded by Planescape and then 3E - that alignment became incoherent nonsense, with Law and Chaos being weirdly elevated as putative ends in themselves.

 

[teitan]

The problem is that D&D Paladins, like the original ranger, are based on one specific character from a specific book that was highly influential on Gygax and his approach to D&D including the Troll, Werewolf, how he handled elves and dwarves and it wasn't someone in Lord of the Rings. The Paladin, in the same way that the original Ranger was the Aragorn class, was the Holger Carlsen class, the main character from 3 Hearts & 3 Lions. The novel was so influential that it brought us alignment as well and influenced Michael Moorcock. It is THE quintessential D&D novel in my opinion.

So nothing about the Paladin is historical beyond Charlemagne's knights being called "paladins" as well and Holger in the novel was a mythical paladin of Charlemagne, Ogier. Even the sword, the sword of Tristan, in the novel, is the foundation of the Holy Avenger and supposedly is the sword used in the coronation of the Kings/Queens of England, Cortana, Cortain.

 

[teitan]

There is a world of difference between how Rogues and Paladins are depicted. Paladins are almost always depicted as good guys, and Rogues are at best depicted as Robin Hood or swashbuckling archetypes, but are normally darker themed (Thieves’/Assassins guilds). One is presented as moral, the other as usually immoral.

Thieves, the original rogue, was, much like the Paladin, based on a specific character, Grey Mouser. Right down to using magic user scrolls.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is that D&D Paladins, like the original ranger, are based on one specific character from a specific book that was highly influential on Gygax and his approach to D&D including the Troll, Werewolf, how he handled elves and dwarves and it wasn't someone in Lord of the Rings. The Paladin, in the same way that the original Ranger was the Aragorn class, was the Holger Carlsen class, the main character from 3 Hearts & 3 Lions. The novel was so influential that it brought us alignment as well and influenced Michael Moorcock. It is THE quintessential D&D novel in my opinion.

So nothing about the Paladin is historical beyond Charlemagne's knights being called "paladins" as well and Holger in the novel was a mythical paladin of Charlemagne, Ogier. Even the sword, the sword of Tristan, in the novel, is the foundation of the Holy Avenger and supposedly is the sword used in the coronation of the Kings/Queens of England, Cortana, Cortain.

Again, though, you're ignoring a LOT of representations of the Paladin. It's more than just Three Hearts and Three Lions. After all, 3H&3L isn't written in a vacuum. The ideas in the novel were also influenced by culture of the time. You can't just claim a single source and then expect everyone else to ignore everything else.

 

[James Gasik]

One of the most eye opening experiences I had about alignment was during 3e, years ago. I got a new player at my table and he plonked down his new character (I forget what class now, doesn't really matter). The character was Chaotic Neutral. I raised an eyebrow or two, mostly because this was a new player to the table and I had zero interest in the player being disruptive. The player promised that he wouldn't be disruptive but insisted on the CN designation. So, I grudgingly okayed it with the caveat that at some point down the road, we were going to have another conversation about this.

So, a couple months passed and there were no problems with the character. The character was always forthright, upstanding, kept his word, never disobeyed an order, stuck to plans and was always up for a good strategy session.

"You realize your character is Lawful Good, right?" I asked?
"No way. He's CN! He has to be CN!"
"But, he's never done anything even remotely chaotic and he's always acted good. He's organized and never impetuous. He works very well with others and always has the group's interest at heart. This guy is textbook LG. Maybe NG? He's the opposite of CN though," I replied.
"NO! Absolutely not. This character MUST be CN because I do not ever want you to tell me what my character will do because of his alignment."

Now, I'm paraphrasing a conversation from 20 years ago, but, that's the gist of it. He was CN, not because of any real interest in being CN but because he absolutely hated the idea of me, the DM, trying to enforce any alignment based behavior on him. Didn't matter that I wasn't that kind of DM and had never once even hinted that I would ever do that. He was absolutely adamant about being CN. Once I realized what the conversation was actually about, I totally let it go and let him be whatever alignment he felt comfortable with.

That was the day I ejected alignment from my D&D games. From that point onward, I never even bothered asking the alignment of characters. Couldn't care less. It's your character. You define that character, not me and certainly not whatever was in the PHB. 5e ejecting alignment from the game has been one of the absolute best ideas of the edition.

As far as the whole context of paladins goes - well, context is tricky. It's hard to say what something will connote to me or you. Just because something doesn't connote a certain meaning to you does not mean I'm wrong for taking the connotative meaning differently. It's simply different interpretations of the same word. Trying to "prove" that someone's connotative meaning is wrong will never, ever work. And it's not like the connotation of paladin as linked to medieval knights is all that hard to see. It's there in the pictures, the text and all sorts of elements. This isn't really a stretch to see how the connection is made.

The best solution, AFAIC, going forward, is to, as others have said, broaden the class. Cast a wider net of inspiration so that the Crusading Knight connotation can fade into the background further and further and we can have a different iconography for paladins going forward. For example, I don't think this image of an Oath of Ancients Paladin is evoking Christian Crusader in any real way:

((Oh, crap, that character has GLASSES!!! RUNNNNNNN!!!!))

I've been playing D&D for a long time, and I was always perfectly happy with the alignment system. I was happy having three flavors of good, and I could even see the merits of Lawful Evil. But yeah, while not as extreme as your Chaotic Neutral player, I found myself realizing that alignment only has downsides, and no upsides. Oh sure, NPC's probably react better to someone who professes to be good, but I found that being Neutral with Good tendencies let me play how I wanted to, without being hit by a stick. Being Good isn't easy, and it's not supposed to be- but when being Good has penalties that don't exist for other alignments, or puts your behavior under a microscope and subject to you being judged for your actions, I'd rather not, thanks. It's like making a character who has a family. You'd think this is an interesting plot hook, but more often than not, if it comes up at all, it's so that the GM can kidnap your family or otherwise put them in danger to "motivate" a character to go deal with some threat the GM has cooked up. Doubly annoying since helping people in need is something I would generally do anyways!

And that's before you get to the weirdness of the alignment system- using poison is evil! Unless you're a snake, of course, then it's not. So does that mean I could be a Grung Paladin? Oh but if it was poison that only affects evil people (looking at you, Book of Exalted Deeds), it's ok?

Or how using "evil" magic to do good is still evil. Just look at the "why are undead evil" threads. It doesn't matter how many non-evil undead you use as examples, necromancy is bad, there's no way to use it to be a hero, it's just icky, but we're perfectly ok having necromancy options in the PHB? What?

Warlock trying to redeem himself by using his dark powers to be a hero? Sorry pal, D&D alignment just called, you're a bad guy no matter what you do, unless you find a way to break the pact and lose your powers!