D&D General Deleted

[Yaarel]

Heh, I guess for Pride month,

LG

is the Lesbian/Gay alignment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The point is that NG is making a claim. That LG and CG disagree with! It's not a neutral description, it's a partisan position.

And moreso for LN and CN. We already know that LN and CN people are not good. So what is their opinion worth? LN are a type of order-fetishist, who have mistaken a means for an end, but are not actively evil. Likewise the CN, except that they fetishise individualism.

Again, it's only if we take the view that LN is itself a defensible meritorious outlook - which is to say, if we ignore the ordinary meaning of the word "good" and hence what it would mean to be neutral towards (ie indifferent about) goodness - that we get the silliness of supposing that Law and Chaos have independent value, and nonsense like the idea that NG is more "purely" good than (say) LG or CG.

I think that runs into a problem though, when the game wants you to take that viewpoint as an objective truth of the universe. Sure, if you assume LN and CN people are wrong and mistaken, you can make things fit a certain framework... but if they are wrong, they are not objectively true forces of the multiverse, centered around a valid moral outlook.

Mechanus and Pandemonium then are not places of objective alignment energy that is equally valid to the Lower Planes and the Celestial Planes. They have no independent value.

Which is not the multiverse that is presented to us.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure. But I don't think it's much of a stretch to acknowledge that the initial concept of the Paladin was built using the model of medieval Christianity, in which the paladin's deity was defined dogmatically as both omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Does that make the paladin concept kind of incoherent with D&D pantheon henotheism? Almost certainly! That's why we've been arguing about it for 40+ years!


And therein lies the tragedy of the paladin.

Yes, the paladin knows that telling a lie to this city guard will save these four orphan children from incarceration and most likely death. But his god has told him he must never lie. If his god has told him he must never lie, then lying here is certainly going to cause pain and evil to flourish. Your god almost certainly has a plan for those children. But now they're crying, and that guard has a cruel look in his eye....

Some players will look at that example and say "That's terrible. You're putting the player in the no-win situation, he has to either break his code OR let terrible things happen to those children." To my mind, those situations are exactly the point of playing an old-school paladin. If my paladin is never in a situation where they were on the absolute cusp of breaking their code, why play a paladin?

And thus why we abandoned the old-school paladin, and went with the better version of it in modern times. The version that isn't a default Tragic Figure "because doing good should be something that leads to tragedy and being a hard man making hard choices".

To me, the point of playing a paladin is to be the big blue boyscout. To be the person who always does the right thing, who refuses to bend the knee to forces of harm or destruction. The idea of being in a situation where I have to decide "do I do the the right and good thing, or do I follow my oath" with a paladin is ludicrous, because if the oath is getting in the way of doing the right thing, it isn't a good oath.

Now, I'm fine with someone like the Oath of the Crown Paladin or the Oath of Glory Paladin being more devoted to their oaths instead of doing good, or for evil paladins to stick by their oaths instead of doing the right thing, because those are slightly different concepts. But the traditional Devotion Paladin archetype should never be in a situation where they must be torn between their oath and the correct course of action.

Now, this isn't to say they should never be challenged, but it isn't THAT hard to find solutions to these issues. "Do I lie and save these orphan children from death, or do I tell the truth and sentence them to death...." Neither! Why are these your only options?! How about "These four children are the newest acolytes of my order. I have taken responsibility for training them to be fine followers of Pelor. If they have previously done wrong, I shall endeavor to right the scales, as is my responsibility as their teacher." Is that a lie? Not if the paladin is honestly planning on taking in these orphans and becoming responsible for their training and teaching. Which isn't an easy thing to do, but it also isn't sentencing them to death. And presenting and thinking about it only in a black or black outlook, where both options are terrible... isn't what the paladin should be about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I feel like the Paladin is the smallest of problems in terms of problematic cultural upbringings of Dungeons & Dragons. While I rarely see a campagin where holy knights travel across the world to bring horrible deeds to followers of a different religion in D&D, I see quite often adventures leaving the "safe and civil" city into the wilderness full of uncivilised savage tribe cultures like goblins, go to their quarters, invade them, kill them all, loot their corpses and chambers and bring the treasures back to the motherland, uhm, hometown. Colionalism and imperialistic Western-centric views are the bread and butter of D&D, holy wars not so much IMO.

But if I would want to get rid the Paladin of that "Crusader" notion I would do basically what 5e already started. Getting rid of that holy warrior notion and focusing more on oaths that are so strong they bring magical power to their bearer. From "holy" crusader to mystic knight. Knights of the round table, not crusaders of the church.

Like I said, you just have to find a way to look past all that stuff, or you won't be able to enjoy D&D. It's maybe not easy (if you're even asking the question, it's not easy), but it is simple. Or you can play some other game that isn't saturated with the trappings of awful people doing awful things, because D&D will never be that game without ceasing to be D&D in any sense beyond the legal.

 

[Retros_x]

Like I said, you just have to find a way to look past all that stuff, or you won't be able to enjoy D&D. It's maybe not easy (if you're even asking the question, it's not easy), but it is simple. Or you can play some other game that isn't saturated with the trappings of awful people doing awful things, because D&D will never be that game without ceasing to be D&D in any sense beyond the legal.

I didn't read this whole thread, but I agree partly. I meant it more in a way of "if anything makes you uncomfortable about D&D, there is a much more modern atrocy engrained into the cultural undertones of D&D than crusades".

Why do I agree only partly? Awful people doing awful things is part of D&D, thats true. But it is possible to remove or at least reduce all that colonialistic sentiments. I think its mostly in the setting and lore and not so much in the system itself. The Eberron setting shows a direction where its not so much the "adventurers exploring the savage lands and ripping the cultural artifacts out of the hands of some uncivilized folk".

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't read this whole thread, but I agree partly. I meant it more in a way of "if anything makes you uncomfortable about D&D, there is a much more modern atrocy engrained into the cultural undertones of D&D than crusades".

Why do I agree only partly? Awful people doing awful things is part of D&D, thats true. But it is possible to remove or at least reduce all that colonialistic sentiments. I think its mostly in the setting and lore and not so much in the system itself. The Eberron setting shows a direction where its not so much the "adventurers exploring the savage lands and ripping the cultural artifacts out of the hands of some uncivilized folk".

I don't know...Xendrik's origins seem to dovetail pretty nicely into that colonial narrative so many seem to want to ignore.

 

[Baron Opal II]

And thus why we abandoned the old-school paladin, and went with the better version of it in modern times. The version that isn't a default Tragic Figure "because doing good should be something that leads to tragedy and being a hard man making hard choices".

To me, the point of playing a paladin is to be the big blue boyscout. To be the person who always does the right thing, who refuses to bend the knee to forces of harm or destruction. The idea of being in a situation where I have to decide "do I do the the right and good thing, or do I follow my oath" with a paladin is ludicrous, because if the oath is getting in the way of doing the right thing, it isn't a good oath.

I agree. I find it interesting how people could read the same thing and come away with different impressions.

I always thought that the point of the paladin was to be either the Professional Hero or God's Buttkicker. To play a paladin was to be noble and self-sacrificing, not looking to screw someone over due to matters of debate over what "Lawful" meant. I'm not a big fan of the oaths, but mostly because I see non-noble paladins as non-sensical.

Anyway...

 

[pemerton]

Because Dr. Doom is actively trying to harm people. Stopping the man who wants to harm people is good. Also doing common sense out-reach to make people's lives better when you are constantly fighting a PR campaign of how people hate you for being too dangerous is ALSO a smart thing to do, but we don't but we don't refuse to fight evil just because making plows will stop starvation.

I don't really follow the last clause. You seem to be arguing against the idea that 4-colour superheroes are absurd outside of their own genre tropes: I disagree.

So... you realize with this you have effectively given the Paladin premier place in the fiction, right? Because by Arthur's assertion, a rogue who fights via trickery and deceit would always lose to someone who uses no trickery or deceit. The wizard who uses magic would always lose to the "true knight" represented by the paladin.

And so if the story is to present that the rogue or the wizard can be heroes whose methods cause good... then the paladin no longer has a place in the game, according to this theory. Which means the person who wants to play a paladin (or the DM who decides this) now gets to dictate everyone else's character and their arc. They all MUST affirm their faith in the workings of Providence, or lose. They cannot find strength in other callings, or approach a problem in different ways.

None of what you say here is true. You are making assumptions about the relationship between action resolution, and how the fictions is established, that are not obligatory.

A Devotion Paladin takes an Oath to never lie. They are grabbed by the BBEG, who demands to know where the Orb of Ultimate Power is located. Now, a rogue, might lie, might deceive the dragon and save their own life. The Paladin who says "I cannot tell a lie, the Orb of Ultimate Power is hidden in the Village of Hex" may feel like they are being noble, not deceiving and being honest in all ways.... they are also being an IDIOT. Because "I refuse to tell you" is ALSO not a lie, but hides the Orb. But I have completely seen people do this. They have acted against the interest of the party, against the interest of the innocents, all to make sure everyone is aware that they are Capitol G Good and have never used an underhanded tactic ever. They won't even lie by omission!

I don't really follow how refusing to answer is lying by omission. In what way does it cause someone to believe what is false? Where is the element of deception? It seems, in most cases - like your interrogation example - to cause the interrogator to believe a truth (ie that this person knows but won't tell) and to not deceive at all.

Yes, the paladin knows that telling a lie to this city guard will save these four orphan children from incarceration and most likely death. But his god has told him he must never lie. If his god has told him he must never lie, then lying here is certainly going to cause pain and evil to flourish. Your god almost certainly has a plan for those children. But now they're crying, and that guard has a cruel look in his eye....

Some players will look at that example and say "That's terrible. You're putting the player in the no-win situation, he has to either break his code OR let terrible things happen to those children." To my mind, those situations are exactly the point of playing an old-school paladin. If my paladin is never in a situation where they were on the absolute cusp of breaking their code, why play a paladin?

I remember the first time I watched Battleship Potemkin. [Spoilers for a 99-year old movie follow.] In the closing (or thereabouts) scene, the battleship turns towards the line of other warships that have been sent to suppress the mutiny, and steams towards them. I was anxious - what is going to happen? Won't they be blown up? The Potemkin flies the Red Flag - and the sailors on the "enemy" ships don't fire. They cheer the Potemkin as it passes between their lines. My pessimism was a product of my own bourgeois thinking, and too much Star Trek and Star Wars - I hadn't appreciated the power of the Potemkin's revolutionary example.

When the paladin refuses to lie, what is going to happen in response? How will the guard respond? The other city-folk? It's only if all other possibilities are closed off that the paladin's choice is a foolish one.

 

[pemerton]

LG people also conflict with LG people.

Lawful people disagree with each other about which laws to implement, to keep, and to abolish.

If they take up arms over it, something has gone wrong!

 

[pemerton]

I think that runs into a problem though, when the game wants you to take that viewpoint as an objective truth of the universe. Sure, if you assume LN and CN people are wrong and mistaken, you can make things fit a certain framework... but if they are wrong, they are not objectively true forces of the multiverse, centered around a valid moral outlook.

Of course they're not "valid" - they repudiate good! (But they are not fully evil.)

Gygax's alignment is not neutral on the question of whether we should be good rather than evil. It takes it for granted! (Of course a player can play an evil character. Or a LN or CN one. But that player has chosen to play a character who is not good.)

Mechanus and Pandemonium then are not places of objective alignment energy that is equally valid to the Lower Planes and the Celestial Planes. They have no independent value.

Which is not the multiverse that is presented to us.

As I've already said, Planescape is incoherent.

But Gygax's PHB and DMG are not. (There are hints of Planescape in PHB Appendix IV, but it hasn't gone all the way.)