D&D General Deleted

[Chaosmancer]

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.)

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.)

Um...

If you are going to say that any view except that which emphasizes "good" is an invalid viewpoint, then there is a massive problem. Because whether or not you think Placescape is incoherent, or that Gygax's original work was coherent, the 5e DMG and PHB present the Great Wheel and the Alignment Planes as true, as valid, and as potential philosophical outlooks. Lawful Neutral may not be a "good-aligned" position, but it is presented as a valid and viable position, and one that makes up part of what is meant by Lawful Good. Even if Gygax never intended anyone to play a non-good character, that is rather immaterial since the option has long existed, and been presented as a viable character option with a coherent worldview that is expressed to not only be possible, but objectively true on a cosmic scale.

Simply declaring "none of that was valid, it is all incoherent, we were all supposed to play heroes all along" doesn't erase what has been published for the last few decades.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Um...

If you are going to say that any view except that which emphasizes "good" is an invalid viewpoint, then there is a massive problem. Because whether or not you think Placescape is incoherent, or that Gygax's original work was coherent, the 5e DMG and PHB present the Great Wheel and the Alignment Planes as true, as valid, and as potential philosophical outlooks. Lawful Neutral may not be a "good-aligned" position, but it is presented as a valid and viable position, and one that makes up part of what is meant by Lawful Good. Even if Gygax never intended anyone to play a non-good character, that is rather immaterial since the option has long existed, and been presented as a viable character option with a coherent worldview that is expressed to not only be possible, but objectively true on a cosmic scale.

Simply declaring "none of that was valid, it is all incoherent, we were all supposed to play heroes all along" doesn't erase what has been published for the last few decades.

Evil parties are more fun anyways

 

[Chaosmancer]

But the oath IS the right and good thing. Who's deciding the "right and good" thing here if not the paladin's deity, the one who prescribed the oaths?

If the paladin is deciding what's right and good, and placing their own judgment AHEAD of the judgment that their deity has rendered already (by creating the oath), that's the chaotic act of pride that requires the paladin to atone.

Look man, I'm not saying it's RIGHT, or even the better way to play a paladin. I'm just saying that it's the thinking behind the AD&D paladin mechanics that you can use to make their limitations coherent. If you want the AD&D paladin to just be WRONG, that's fine with me.

Yeah, I think the AD&D version is wrong. That is WHY it has always created so so so many problems. That is WHY people like Pemerton have tried to point out that it is a fundamental world-building question of if paladins should even be allowed. Because people take this idea that the oath is immutable, written by the gods, and the ultimate expression of all that is good... without realizing that nothing in the modern game states that anymore.

Notably, nothing in the oaths section says it was written by the gods. Nothing in that section says it is immutable. Heck, nothing says that you as the paladin aren't misinterpreting the oath when you think it is in conflict with the right thing to do. Maybe the original supernal version of the oath if read with the correct mind set, would tell you that your actions do not conflict with your oath.

And I think we still, to this day, see the echoes of these bad ideas cropping up. Whether from player or DM, and causing some of the problems we still see with Paladins. Not because the idea of an oath-bound warrior who draws strength from their convictions is a bad concept, but because people tie in unnecessary concepts like "providence" or that choosing to follow their morals instead of the legal word of their oath means they were prideful and wrong. And these concepts are being pulled from genres of fiction that just do not fit with the assumptions of a DnD game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, I think the AD&D version is wrong. That is WHY it has always created so so so many problems. That is WHY people like Pemerton have tried to point out that it is a fundamental world-building question of if paladins should even be allowed. Because people take this idea that the oath is immutable, written by the gods, and the ultimate expression of all that is good... without realizing that nothing in the modern game states that anymore.

Notably, nothing in the oaths section says it was written by the gods. Nothing in that section says it is immutable. Heck, nothing says that you as the paladin aren't misinterpreting the oath when you think it is in conflict with the right thing to do. Maybe the original supernal version of the oath if read with the correct mind set, would tell you that your actions do not conflict with your oath.

And I think we still, to this day, see the echoes of these bad ideas cropping up. Whether from player or DM, and causing some of the problems we still see with Paladins. Not because the idea of an oath-bound warrior who draws strength from their convictions is a bad concept, but because people tie in unnecessary concepts like "providence" or that choosing to follow their morals instead of the legal word of their oath means they were prideful and wrong. And these concepts are being pulled from genres of fiction that just do not fit with the assumptions of a DnD game.

When you say, "do not fit with the assumptions of a DnD game", what do you mean? What do you think those assumptions are, and what do you mean when you say the unadorned "DnD"?

 

[Vaalingrade]

If you are going to say that any view except that which emphasizes "good" is an invalid viewpoint, then there is a massive problem.

For a very long time it's been implied that Lawful Good is Correct Good.

Partially because D&D is heavily inspired by early spec-fic where Chaos was the antagonist and Law was the protagonist.

 

[MGibster]

Just like for the Paladin, it shouldn't be "I either reveal the entire scope of our plans to the bad guys, or I must lie and break my oath!" or "I must either force us into a frontal charge regardless of the cost, or I must break my oath!"

I don't know if it was an article in Dragon or another publication, but it was about how Lawful Good characters, Paladins included, could conduct tactical operations. They didn't have to charge straight foward, they could use feints, attack from the flank, mislead their their opponents, or even attack them via surprise. At least when it came to Paladins, they were people who understood war and knew how to conduct it.

 

[Hussar]

I don't know if it was an article in Dragon or another publication, but it was about how Lawful Good characters, Paladins included, could conduct tactical operations. They didn't have to charge straight foward, they could use feints, attack from the flank, mislead their their opponents, or even attack them via surprise. At least when it came to Paladins, they were people who understood war and knew how to conduct it.

I remember that article. That's a deep cut. Somewhere in the early 80's anyway. But, yeah, it was kinda eye opening.

Thing is, many of the DM's I played with at the time just had zero interest in interpreting paladins in any other way than the most punishing for the player.

 

[pemerton]

You are the one who said that Paladins only function in world's where doing the Noble Knight charge the front gates schtick is the only way to truly win.

I didn't say that. Maybe you're alluding to my reference to Arthur, in Excalibur: that no knight who is false can defeat, in single combat, one who is true?

I have seen people over and over again state that, because their oath says they cannot lie, they must answer any question fully and completely. Why do they do this? Because to do otherwise would be lies of omission is a common answer I have heard.

<snip>

responding to the Villainous Guards when they ask "who are you?" with "I am the Hero Tom Lawrenceville, of the House of Lawrenceville, sworn sword of Light here to slay the evil Baron!" because just telling them "Tom, a traveler" would "be a lie".

I can't speak for those people. I've never met them. I don't know what the GMs who adjudicate their actions are doing.

But Aragorn did announce himself to Eomer on the plains of Rohan, and it didn't set him back. Eomer lent him horses!

 

[pemerton]

If you are going to say that any view except that which emphasizes "good" is an invalid viewpoint, then there is a massive problem.

I don't know what you mean by "valid".

But it strikes me as tautological that to repudiate goodness is an error, and to embrace evil is a terrible error.

Lawful Neutral may not be a "good-aligned" position, but it is presented as a valid and viable position, and one that makes up part of what is meant by Lawful Good.

Neither of these claims is true. Nothing presents LN as "valid" or "morally viable". Nor is it part of what it means to be LG.

Even if Gygax never intended anyone to play a non-good character, that is rather immaterial since the option has long existed

I didn't say anything about who can play what. Of course people can play villains - I play a Dark Elf in my current Burning Wheel game. I just don't delude myself that the character's actions and disposition are morally defensible.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, I think the AD&D version is wrong. That is WHY it has always created so so so many problems. That is WHY people like Pemerton have tried to point out that it is a fundamental world-building question of if paladins should even be allowed. Because people take this idea that the oath is immutable, written by the gods, and the ultimate expression of all that is good... without realizing that nothing in the modern game states that anymore.

Notably, nothing in the oaths section says it was written by the gods. Nothing in that section says it is immutable. Heck, nothing says that you as the paladin aren't misinterpreting the oath when you think it is in conflict with the right thing to do. Maybe the original supernal version of the oath if read with the correct mind set, would tell you that your actions do not conflict with your oath.

And I think we still, to this day, see the echoes of these bad ideas cropping up. Whether from player or DM, and causing some of the problems we still see with Paladins. Not because the idea of an oath-bound warrior who draws strength from their convictions is a bad concept, but because people tie in unnecessary concepts like "providence" or that choosing to follow their morals instead of the legal word of their oath means they were prideful and wrong. And these concepts are being pulled from genres of fiction that just do not fit with the assumptions of a DnD game.

I always found the 1E and 2E paladins a little open to interpretation in this respect. Personally I do find it more interesting if their oath powers are more about the will of the either the gods they serve or some kind of cosmic ought in the setting than merely their own convictions. But ultimately this is something the group needs to be on the same page about before play starts.

Importantly in both those version, the rules around chaotic behavior seem a bit more lenient to me than evil behavior. It says that chaotic behavior has to be performed knowingly for it to be an issue. While even evil acts performed knowingly or under mind control would constitute a problem for the paladin. Also the punishment for performing a chaotic act is penance while the punishment for performing an evil act is loss of paladin hood. This suggests to me that a Paladin trying to weigh lying against saving a life, wouldnt' have to atone if they lied to prevent evil (or whatever impossible choice you want to give a paladin). Evil is the much bigger consideration I think