D&D General Deleted

[Clint_L]

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven" (Milton ripping off Shakespeare).

I can conceptualize a plane of evil or a plane of good. Sort of. But only by imagining things that I think are good or bad. There is no good or evil without context. At best, you can have an authority declare that x is evil and y is good, and folks might be persuaded (or indoctrinated) to agree. So the characteristics of, say, a plane of good would have depend on the individual experiencing it. But that doesn't work for a shared setting. So what D&D does is express some place like the Nine Hells by using widely accepted cultural signifiers.

It's just another fun fantasy environment. Like Narnia, or Florida.

 

[GrimCo]

@Cadence

Those excerpts are good and all. Now, if you be so kind, take a look at 2ed paladins code of conduct. If they commit evil act while being mind controlled or possesed ,the lose powers. If they ever do deliberate evil act, they lose all powers, switch class to fighter and don't benefit from specialization. In most cases they need to find lv 7 cleric of lawful good alignment and do penance. And they don't get exp while they are on their redemption quest. 3ed paladins code isn't any better. In PF1 same, but at least there you can go full on evil and switch all your paladin levels for antipaladin levels on 1 to 1 basis.

 

[Cadence]

@Cadence

Those excerpts are good and all. Now, if you be so kind, take a look at 2ed paladins code of conduct. If they commit evil act while being mind controlled or possesed ,the lose powers. If they ever do deliberate evil act, they lose all powers, switch class to fighter and don't benefit from specialization. In most cases they need to find lv 7 cleric of lawful good alignment and do penance. And they don't get exp while they are on their redemption quest. 3ed paladins code isn't any better. In PF1 same, but at least there you can go full on evil and switch all your paladin levels for antipaladin levels on 1 to 1 basis.

A lot of that is straight from 1e. And I will completely agree that needing a big quest because you were mind controlled seems bleh!

But the part about losing it if they knowingly and willingly do an evil act? They at least warned everyone up front. And it feels like one shouldn't sign up to be a platonic ideal if one doesn't want to be a platonic ideal.

Whether being a platonic ideal is a reasonable thing to ask of a class is another story...

 

[MGibster]

I find this impossible to conceptualize. I can only imagine evil in terms of context.

That's the fun part of role playing games. We get to imagine worlds that can't really exist. I love Call of Cthulhu, but me personally, I simply cannot buy the idea that gaining greater knowledge of how the universe actually is will cause insanity. It's still fun to play a game with those assumptions though.

Some of that is so silly to me. Stealth in the cause of good is a last resort? What if you're trying to get the jump on some mind flayers and don't want to risk your brain?

What does last resort mean? If you consider all your options and stealth is the least likely to get everyone killed then you go with stealth.

I do find D&D cosmology a little bit cartoonish (it is one of the reasons I preferred the Ravenloft setting). But I don't think it is hard to imagine. It strikes me as somewhat Manichaean.

For me, that's a feature not a bug. D&D is a simplistic game of good versus evil. At least that's how I play it. If I want complex morality then I choose a different game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven" (Milton ripping off Shakespeare).

I can conceptualize a plane of evil or a plane of good. Sort of. But only by imagining things that I think are good or bad. There is no good or evil without context. At best, you can have an authority declare that x is evil and y is good, and folks might be persuaded (or indoctrinated) to agree. So the characteristics of, say, a plane of good would have depend on the individual experiencing it. But that doesn't work for a shared setting. So what D&D does is express some place like the Nine Hells by using widely accepted cultural signifiers.

To me this feels like doing real world moral philosophy though. This argument goes beyond not being able to imagine evil objects and good objets and seems to extend to not being able to imagine evil gods or good gods. Unless I am misunderstanding the point you are making.

The conceit of a D&D cosmology is that it isn't a subjective moral system. It is a world where morality exists objectively. One doesn't have to subscribe to that worldview to imagine it. I mean we can all imagine the ring of power being an evil object that corrupts people.

 

[Raiztt]

Even if we completely granted OPs premise, which several people here have already stated that they do not, I fail to see what the actual issue is? Not like I disagree, it's I literally don't understand.

The game play and the class don't have any intersection with the crusades.

Like, it really sounds to me like OP is saying "This thing has a bad origin if you really squint, so therefor the word is forever unsuable". This absolutely sounds like an OP personal problem, to be 100% frank. Like what material harm is the paladin class doing?

 

[Bedrockgames]

For me, that's a feature not a bug. D&D is a simplistic game of good versus evil. At least that's how I play it. If I want complex morality then I choose a different game.

And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Sometimes I want media that is just about good versus evil. The real world is complicated and hard to navigate. Sometimes you want to kick back and be a hero fighting against the forces of darkness.

 

[GrimCo]

Why not both? Use same system to play GoT and Thundar the Barbarian? Imho,5e does that well with making alignment pure fluff without mechanical implications.

 

[Cadence]

Why not both? Use same system to play GoT and Thundar the Barbarian? Imho,5e does that well with making alignment pure fluff without mechanical implications.

And make it an optional rule for when someone really want Elric or holy questing nights?

 

[MGibster]

Why not both? Use same system to play GoT and Thundar the Barbarian? Imho,5e does that well with making alignment pure fluff without mechanical implications.

Switching suddenly from GoT to Thundarr the Barbarian isn't recommended due to the extreme risk of tonal whiplash. I do accept that alignment is no longer a meaningful part of D&D and hasn't been for 14 years now.