Alignment

[Alexander123]

Even in D&D it is possible to have different definitions of good such as the definition of good offered by a dove or a hawk.

Now this becomes more difficult in settings where classes lose class features when they violate D&D's idea of good and evil, but it can be done in settings like Eberron.

Edit: While altruism may be the standard definition of good, it is by no means the only definition of good.

 

[Lawful Good Garagos]

Poor troll, this is ridiculous. If my character was in the party he would confront his comrades and even accuse the paladin of being a phony.

I think the Paladin and the Cleric all need an atonement spell to prove that they have sincerely repented before they can use their divine powers again.

Seriously, the way most of the party acted was so absurd, I wouldn't consider them Lawful Good at all. Sounds like something Cyric would do.

 

[Sekhmet]

...

Zealousness isn't lawful or chaotic, it's just a descriptor of what. It's a devotion to an ideal. There's Zealous priests of demogorgan... granted they're insane, but they are zealous.

I personally believe that Lawful Good characters aren't avatars of their deity, but believe in that way of life as a world view.

We could go into Good = Ethical and killing an incapacitated creature that showed itself to be an ally is unethical and dishonorable. That's chaotic and evil. Tyr is pretty serious about killing and because of that, I question if he's really a "good" deity. Published material or not. That's an evil act and Tyr shouldn't have Good and Knowledge in his portfolio if he holds onto biased and obviously bigoted beliefs. That's prejudice and that's evil and ignorant.

Devotion to an ideal is one of the cornerstones of Lawfulness.
"Lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability." The D&D definition makes it absolutely clear that these PC's were acting in accordance with Lawfulness. They were close minded/ignorant to the idea of a non-evil Troll, the Magic User reacted in adherence with the traditional troll protocol (burn it), they judged it long before it had a chance to defend itself, and they failed to adapt to the situation in front of them being outside of the norm.
All of these are also characteristics of Tyr, a deity who believes in justice and truth can hold prejudices if it does not affect his ability to uphold those two ideals.

This troll slaying was Lawful. Whether it was Good or Evil is secondary, and therefor does not merit divine punishment.

 

[Sekhmet]

Drow are Usually Evil, yet that have a god for good drow. That means there's enough in the world to keep a deity afloat.

There are so many deities available in the myriad pantheons that I would not be surprised if you found a God of Sentient Cupcakes.

However, to really answer that comment constructively, I ask you this: If you asked the town Priest about Drow, what would he say?
You can almost guarantee he would use the words "Evil", "Treacherous", and "Vile" in his description.

 

[kitcik]

Whether it was Good or Evil is secondary

I guess you are playing a different game than me. In the D&D I know, not to mention real life, whether an act is good or evil is the primary consideration. Even a lawful person will bend/break a law if they believe the law is resulting in an evil outcome. There's nothing more I can say.

 

[TanisFrey]

The act was Lawful and Evil. They killed a helpless being that acted as an ally. Not enough to do an alignment shift, but some restless nights as they have bad dreams.

Also it depends on what god the Cleric or Paladin worships, to see if they loose some or all their class abilities.

Anditch, what is the setting and what gods to the characters worship?

 

[Sekhmet]

I guess you are playing a different game than me. In the D&D I know, not to mention real life, whether an act is good or evil is the primary consideration. Even a lawful person will bend/break a law if they believe the law is resulting in an evil outcome. There's nothing more I can say.

Alignment does not work in the real world.

Whether it is Good or Evil to kill a troll is not a consideration. All trolls are made helpless before they die, should you therefor only knock trolls out and then leave them alone every time? Making an exception, at any time, is Chaotic behaviour, not Lawful behaviour.


Regional laws have no bearing on a Lawful character. Alignment is not regional.
A purely Lawful person will never go against their beliefs, no matter what they are presented with. A Lawful person does not necessarily care about Good or Evil, and does not necessarily care about the Good or Evil outcome of an event, only the Lawful outcome.

Law/Chaos and Good/Evil are independent of eachother for a reason, and sometimes it is impossible to do the Lawful AND Good thing, just like it is sometimes impossible to do the Lawful AND Evil thing. Even Gygax admitted that. Thats why Paladins are so hard to play correctly.

 

[Anditch]

The Lawful good cleric did not burn the troll he was the only one in the party wanting to save the creature. The others in the group when Chaotic neutral chaotic good not sure of the other one but not evil alighned

 

[kitcik]

Whether it is Good or Evil to kill a troll is not a consideration.

Sorry again, but in the D&D game I play, there are two aspects of alignment. Law/Chaos and Good/Evil. And neither is given precedence in terms of importance over the other.

While one person could say it was lawful to kill the troll, for the reasons you set forth, another could say it was chaotic to suddenly attack a seeming ally.

On the other hand, it was clearly evil (at least to everyone else who responded to this thread).

If you have a good alignment and perform an evil act, that is worthy of consideration by the DM as far as alignment violation, deity implications, etc. I'm not going to opine on what I would do as the DM in this particular situation, but clearly the good characters have made a transgression whether they are lawful or chaotic.

 

[Animal]

i think you guys are oversimplifying the matter. though that troll attacked orcs, it absolutely didn't mean he was a potential ally. though he was not evil, it absolutely didn't mean he was friendly to humans, elves and dwarves and wasn't going to eat them right after that orc. hello! neutral monsters eat PCs with same appetite as evil ones. trolls are trolls and every paladin knows they should be set on fire first, questioned second.