Alignment, clerics, and support

[Kae'Yoss]

Alignment can be just your outlook and personal code of behaviour, and it can be a cause. I refer to it as active and passive.

The greedy rogue is passively evil, but the blackguard of tyranny is actively evil. A monk is passively lawful, the paladin is actively lawful. And so on.

In most D&D games, the moral axis is far more important than the ethical axis. Thus LG and CG get along just fine (despite the occasional discussion about how to go about doing things), whicle LG and LE will be bitter enemies. You could, of course, change that in your game, saying "no lawful characters". CG and CE will be the freedom fighters trying to overthrow Law's steel grip, maintained by the LG and LE "villains".

 

[Quasqueton]

Going to Hell or the Abyss is usually dominated by the evil of the inhabitants, not the lawful or chaotic aspects of the individual fiends.

Actually, going to Hell or Abyss *is* determined by the Law/Chaos aspects of alignment. It is the defining difference: LE vs. CE.

Even in the outer planes the terminology is the upper planes and the lower planes, not the left or right ones.

From whose perspective is this terminology? Not the slaad/modrons point of view.

Note that there is no difference in the affects of a mildly/strongly Law/Chaos aligned plane vs. the affects of a mildly/strongly Good/Evil aligned plane.

Chaos hammer hurts paladins and monks as much as unholy blight (assuming a LG monk).

Law/Chaos is just as strong a universal struggle as the Good/Evil opposition. It's just that Law/Chaos is possibly less likely to result in bloodshed, because that is Good/Evil's "method". But the Good/Evil struggle is possibly less likely to result in order or entropy.

Quasqueton

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Law/Chaos is just as strong a universal struggle as the Good/Evil opposition.

I tend to agree. However, your average campaign takes place mainly on the material plane, and I think that on the material, the ethical part of alignment is of less significance than the moral part. If you go planehopping, you might get into conflicts where they just don't care about good or evil, and universally, it evens out, but most of the time, you will perceive good versus evil to be the main issue.

 

[Warehouse23]

As a lawful cleric, I would only heal those who behaved lawfully--who understood the risks of combat and the rules of the party, and who acted accordingly. A chaotic character who picked a fight with an innocent bystander (say, in a pub) is a ruffian, and will heal on his own (thankyouvermuch).

As a good cleric, I would heal all those in need of healing.

As a lawful good cleric, there's some problems. Remember: the two alignment axes are not orthogonal. Sometimes it's hard to be lawful and good.

 

[Quasqueton]

but most of the time, you will perceive good versus evil to be the main issue.

I agree, Good/Evil is probably, most often, the main issue. But my question (going back to my original post): is Law/Chaos an issue at all? Should it be? Especially considering the examples I gave (Lawful cleric of Lawful god with Law domain or Chaotic cleric of Chaotic god with Chaos domain). And consider the cleric and god is Lawful Neutral/Chaotic Neutral. The one and only thing they stand for is Law/Chaos.

Quasqueton

 

[Warehouse23]

Law-chaos is a huge, real-world, material plane issue. Consider an adventure in a dwarven city. The town fathers ask your party (because of the dwarven fighter you serve with) to clear out a band of bards, ruffians, marauders, and malcontents who are preying on their fair city. Suddenly it turns out that these "malcontents" are merely artists who oppose the stringent rules of the dwarven city, and whose only crime is upsetting the "law and order" of the town by painting provokative murals.

There, my friend, is an adventure.

 

[Li Shenron]

Would such a cleric (Lawful, of a Lawful god, with the Law domain) be hesitant, resistant, or even fully against supporting or healing folks of the diametrically opposed alignment?

If such a cleric refused to heal a wounded comrade because of his alignment (even if it was CE), what kind of cleric would he be? An evil cleric IMHO, or neutral at best, but definitely not good.

If the contrast Law vs Chaos in a certain setting is strong enough to make these questions a serious issue, then it's probably better to just suppose that two opposite characters would not adventure together since the start, unless they are forced to do so against their will.

 

[Hussar]

I've always played up the Law/Chaos aspect in my games much more than the Good/Evil one. Two good characters should see eye to eye on a particular goal for example. However, a Lawful Good and a Chaotic Good character would likely take almost completely opposite means of acheiving that goal. At the most basic, the LG character would likely plan out a strategy, expect certain actions from those involved in the plan, create fall back plans and what not. The Chaotic would charge in and try to muddle his way through until he reached his goals. Both would be aware of trying to minimize violence and bloodshed, since they are both good. But the chaotic wouldn't bother developing extended plans. Flying by the seat of his pants, he'd leap where angels fear to tread.

I could easily see a LG cleric having huge problems with a chaotic companion. As was mentioned above, it will depend on the specifics of the situation, but, if the chaotic was hurt doing something chaotic, like a bar fight or maybe a little light larceny, the LG cleric of Law and Good isn't going to lift a finger to help him unless he's about to die.

Not healing someone is hardly an evil act. People DO actually heal on their own believe it or not. Letting someone die, might be an evil act. But, letting someone suffer for their own actions is pretty much the definition of Lawful.

 

[Li Shenron]

But, letting someone suffer for their own actions is pretty much the definition of Lawful.

Well, perhaps one sort of lawful but not all. Incidentally (tho this means nothing to this discussion) not helping someone in need if you can is against the law in many RL countries, it's a crime called "omission of aid".

 

[gizmo33]

Well, perhaps one sort of lawful but not all. Incidentally (tho this means nothing to this discussion) not helping someone in need if you can is against the law in many RL countries, it's a crime called "omission of aid".

In medieval times IIRC it was called something like "responding to a hue and cry" and the law on this was probably more strict that it is in modern times. A lawful character in such a society would follow this law, where it applies - which is much more the definition of law than allowing characters to reap the rewards/punishments of their own actions - which seems a chaotic philosophy to me - although if the law of the land is chaotic (ex. life, liberty, property) then is one being lawful or chaotic by following it? (and now I get off the never-ending alignment ferris wheel)