D&D General Deleted

I'm saying just what 3x says. If you have issue with it, congratulations, I agree.
It does only in your interpretation which you intentionally devoid of any context.
Chaotic Good is not the opposite of objective morality - is just not Lawful Good. Chaotic Good thinks stealing is not bad if it helps the innocent, LG will tell you "there must be another way, the Law is still important".
Even then, I presume an humanoid will never be as strict as an outsider of that alignment.
There is no contradiction unless one misconstrues everything to find one.
And yes, we say murder vs kill. In this case, is steal vs steal to the rich to feed the poor, which FOR A CG CHARACTER is often acceptable.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think is context dependent. Say Aragorn spares Grima but would not accept a Witch King surrender.
Is this the Exalted Deeds? Because I don't recall this in the PH but I could be wrong.
Yeah sorry, it's Exalted Deeds. I thought it relevant since it's a 3e book that discusses alignment.
 

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.

View attachment 365541
That is the exact same quote from the 3e PHB, lol.
 

Yeah sorry, it's Exalted Deeds. I thought it relevant since it's a 3e book that discusses alignment.
I have to forfeit because you are technically correct - but that book is bonkers. Nothing as such is in the 3e corebooks though, and BoED has been discussed to nausea.
That is the exact same quote from the 3e PHB, lol.
Of course, PF1e is an evolution (mostly, I sometimes prefer 3.5 or 3.0 here and there) of 3.5.
 


Have you considered being reasonable about the alignment system? Because, at the moment, your absolutist position on it looks rather like an absolute morality statement, which... well, becomes a bit ironically self-referential.

And also, like, the thread isn't supposed to be about the alignment as depicted in a game published nigh a quarter century ago. 5e moved on. Maybe time for the discussion to do so as well.
 

Have you considered being reasonable about the alignment system?
I answered the question about why the LS Paladin came into being and then replied to challenges toward that analysis. Nothing unreasonable about that.
Because, at the moment, your absolutist position on it looks rather like an absolute morality statement, which... well, becomes a bit ironically self-referential.
In reference to the absolutist morality in the actual books. That's the problem.

But if you say it's done it's done.
 

I have to forfeit because you are technically correct - but that book is bonkers. Nothing as such is in the 3e corebooks though, and BoED has been discussed to nausea.

Of course, PF1e is an evolution (mostly, I sometimes prefer 3.5 or 3.0 here and there) of 3.5.
Oh well, if we're just sticking to the PHB when we're talking about 3e alignment, that's fine. I thought it was a discussion about alignment in the edition as a whole. Anyways, my veering into talking about Paladins and alignment is kind of outside the lines of the thread, and I realize just talking about it is like talking about different editions of D&D, Warlords, Monks, Rangers, Psionics, and Katanas- very likely to turn every thread into the same old rehash of every other thread that tackles these topics.

There are many D&D-isms that people have to learn to either live with or ignore. Alignment is one of these- it exists in the pop culture as an eternal source of memes and shorthand for archetypes of people because of D&D, but it really shouldn't because it's woefully inaccurate. See "what alignment is Batman" and other silly debates. You can't define a complex character as fitting into a given alignment save in the most general sense, and this is where I think D&D went wrong. It wants to define characters as being strictly of their given alignment, which isn't how people work. You can, in aggregate, look at a character's actions and say "in general, they are Neutral Good". Great, fantastic, but D&D likes to jump up and down and point to individual incidents to point out how someone isn't an alignment because they did something opposed to the definition of that alignment.

Put another way, only a cartoon character or a maniac is going to run around claiming to be a particular alignment- we're all the heroes of our own stories. Except maybe this guy:
Emirikol.jpg
 



).
I think what the designers failed to do here is to overestimate the common sense available to the average player if this cannot be easily considered at the table.

So now those that interpret differently than you are just too stupid to understand how alignment works?

That’s certainly a take.

As I said, one of the best things 5e did was make alignment entirely a flavor thing with no mechanical impact.

But as far as the op goes, I do believe that this is largely a non-issue, or at least a fading issue. The crusader roots of the paladin have been fading for years. Give it a bit more time and likely they’ll be nothing more than a footnote.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top