D&D General Deleted

[Clint_L]

Here's Gary Gygax on the subject of Lawful Good (2005):

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.

The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...

Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question.

Cheers,
Gary

So...yeah. This is one of the reasons I don't use alignments.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

In 2024, all spells names that refer to alignment should refer to planes instead.

Protection from Evil or Good renames as Planar Protection.

The D&D planes are other levels of existence beyond the material world of the five sense. It makes sense for magic to care about and recognize these otherworldly beings.

The 3e spell also has a generic protection against possessions and mental control, and both 3e and 5e can protect against evil from the same plane.
Not that what you suggest cannot be implemented, you just need to go on "protection from possession" and/or "protection from aberrations" route if you wish so.

 

[Cadence]

Here's Gary Gygax on the subject of Lawful Good (2005):


So...yeah. This is one of the reasons I don't use alignments.

I mean, sure. I would rather just not look at the game through the worst lenses possible from folks who haven't been involved for 19 years (at the time of the post you quote). I totally get why some folks don't like alignment (I wouldn't generally apply it to characters in any mechanical way) - but going by the worst quotes we can find feels like it slippery slopes a huge chunk of the game into being gross.

In any case, here is LG from PF 1e.

 

[Yaarel]

The 3e spell also has a generic protection against possessions and mental control, and both 3e and 5e can protect against evil from the same plane.
Not that what you suggest cannot be implemented, you just need to go on "protection from possession" and/or "protection from aberrations" route if you wish so.

Planar Protection includes protection from other planar creatures (alloplanar?). If there is an Astral (Celestial, Fiend) creature in the Material Plane, the spell applies. Likewise Ethereal (Undead, Fey).

Elemental seems ambiguous. The concept might be immaterial, a "form" of matter adjacent to the Astral Plane. Or, Elemental is an animation of matter that is native to the Material Plane.

In any case, Planar Protection includes protection against any planar origin other than ones own. One might use it when adventuring in an other plane. Likewise an Astral (Celestial, Fiend) could cast it on oneself while in the Material Plane.

 

[MGibster]

The game and its universe still champions disproportionate violence for a philosophical dispute.

Well, yeah. D&D stands for Dungeons & Dragons not Discourse & Disagreements.

Yeah. This approach to Paladins was birthed back in 1e, a time when, Session Zero and "make sure you all have compatible goals and expectations of play" weren't common things. Players who have spent a bit of effort to align their approaches to play, and don't actively subvert that agreement, don't have those old problems.

You're absolutely correct, and even without session zeroes, this kind of behavior isn't something I've seen in a few decades. There were similar problems with Barbarian group incompatibility with magic items and Magic-Users in particular as I recall. For the Barbarian, I think a lot of us just ignored the parts that made it difficult to have one in the group.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is untrue. First and foremost, the universe tells apart normal orcs from fiends in 3e. As an example, look how detect evil works - the HD table is related to the creature type. Outsiders ping strongly with less HD.

Still not hot Holy Word works. Do you ping evil? Time to suffer -- because causing suffering is what good is all about apparently.

Robin Hood does not get flayed because Holy Word does not punish stealing, or specific actions, but Evil, and RH's robberies are often depicted as a Chaotic Good acts.

Ah, but 3e tells us flat out that alignment is objective. doesn't matter how reasonable people see it, alignment proudly puts its pants on its head and loudly declares that stealing is evil every time. It also says killing is evil objejectively, then says it's okay to kill evil things too, so it's a real good guideline for stuff.

If for some reason I cannot fathom RH is evil in your universe, his motivations and actions will be different and Holy Word will work.

Not my universe because I don't use a terrible, bent-moral system like alignment, which thinks all stealing is evil.

The people that get "flayed" by Holy Word committed acts very different from stealing to feed orphans or such.

Sorry, that's not what Holy Word says. You proc evil? You get undue suffering. That's how it works.

 

[Cadence]

Sorry, that's not what Holy Word says. You proc evil? You get undue suffering. That's how it works.

"Non-good", not evil, right?

Much better if it just hits everyone like most spells though?

(Now I kind of want one that hit's everyone the caster doesn't value as a friend. That could make for some awkward conversations in the aftermath).

 

[Vaalingrade]

"Non-good", not evil, right?

Much better if it just hits everyone like most spells though?

(Now I kind of want one that hit's everyone the caster doesn't value as a friend. That could make for some awkward conversations in the aftermath).

To be fair, it visits slightly less undue suffering unto the filth whose hearts are full of neutrality.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Ah, but 3e tells us flat out that alignment is objective. doesn't matter how reasonable people see it, alignment proudly puts its pants on its head and loudly declares that stealing is evil every time. It also says killing is evil objejectively, then says it's okay to kill evil things too, so it's a real good guideline for stuff.

Sorry but no. This whole premise is invalid.
The fact that alignment is objective doesn't mean that stealing is always an evil act - because some may break the law to do good, like Robin Hood does. Chaotic, Good.
You are filling a lot of space with stuff that isn't there. Holy Word does't flay you just for being a thief because stealing itself is never automatically evil. I mean, see adventurers in general.
We say killing is evil in real life too, even if we then justify it for self defense, or accept that a soldier is not a murderer because of how war works.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sorry but no. This whole premise is invalid.

Nope.

The fact that alignment is objective doesn't mean that stealing is always an evil act

That's what reasonable people say. That is not what 3x alignment says.

because some may break the law to do good, like Robin Hood does. Chaotic, Good.

Also? This is the opposite of objective morality.

You are filling a lot of space with stuff that isn't there.

I'm saying just what 3x says. If you have issue with it, congratulations, I agree.

Holy Word does't flay you just for being a thief because stealing itself is never automatically evil. I mean, see adventurers in general.

You're right.

It doesn't flay them.

But if you're saying adventurers steal, then you're seeing the problem.

We say killing is evil in real life too, even if we then justify it for self defense, or accept that a soldier is not a murderer because of how war works.

That's why we invented the word 'murder' in place of 'kill'. Because humans love killing but don't like getting killed for some reason.