how to play alignment convincingly

[Korgan26]

I agree with Rashak Mani

I have to disagree with the statement that most people are good. I think most people are closer to neutral evil. (Is stupid an alignment?) Now I’m not talking good and evil in the Christian sense. I’m talking good as in being nice and courteous to your fellow human beings. Most people aren’t. (Unless someone is watching) Most people will try to get away with as much as possible as long as it doesn’t make the Jones talk. I try to be good but honestly I’m closer to lawful evil. Hey I’m working on it. I can’t say it enough, most people are disgusting, petty, conniving, who only help each other when they are ganging up on a common threat. (Read Thomas Hobbes Leviathan.) Or when the proverbial S#@T hits the fan and they need help.
Now there are truly good people in the world. They were the ones in the back of the room crying when Iraq was invaded, because of the innocent people that would be hurt. But you didn’t hear them over your cheering or jeering. Those are the only people in the world that I admire.
I know this was off topic but after reading that everyone seemed to think people are good at heart. I started to foam at the mouth and I had to say some thing. Remember every time some one comes along and points out that we really should be nicer to each other we generally kill them. Gandhi, Jesus, Martin Luther King. No people are not Nice or Good.

Z

 

[Hand of Evil]

I really do feel you don't play at alignment, that it is the DM's job to be your guiding voice to tell you something is vile and wrong or good and wholsome based on your alignment, he defines good and evil in his games uses his language and description of sights and sounds to direct the players to an action.

Okay, so its a pipe dream...

 

[Trickstergod]

post. LG as respecting institutions of law I have no problem with and totally agree with, but some law put forth by some evil king or dictator to oppress their people, the paladin is going to follow?

No they won't.

-------
Evil Overlord: "I decree that you must renounce your god and fall on your sword, paladin! And my word is law in my realm!"

Paladin: Fall on sword and dies.

Evil Overlord: "Fool! I win!"

These are the ridiculous dilemmas that occur. Some DM's even believe that this nonsense is good role-playing.

One tenet to keep in mind for a realistic paladin code is St. Augustine's famous statement: "An unjust law is no law."

An unjust law or the unjust application of a law is no law. And it is no crime to violate that which is no law.

Actually, those are the ridiculous dilemmas that don't occur. Leastaways, not in a Lawful Evil society. Your examples seem to show a ruler who leads by whim and impulse, as opposed to cruel practicality, which doesn't sound particularly Lawful in my book. As such, of course the paladin is going to ignore them. They serve no point.

A more apt example would be:

Evil Guardsman: "Are you a member of the military or clergy of the Evil Bob God?"

Paladin: "No."

Evil Guardsman: "Then I'm going to have to confiscate your weapon."

Paladin: "What? But, but..."

Evil Guardsman: "Sorry. Dem's da rules. Can't have people raising arms against the state. Hand them over."

At which point the paladin either starts straying towards Neutral Good and keeps his weapons, or maintains the Lawful aspect of being a paladin, and hands over the weapons.

A Lawful individual will work, as much as possible, within the confines of the law to achieve their goals.

Also notice that you said Wizards said paladins are hamstrung - not outright rendered ineffectual - within a Lawful Evil society. There's a difference.

The moment a character begins to disregard laws is the moment a character slips towards Neutrality and Chaos.

I would say a paladin who performs Chaotic acts (not handing over his weapons to legitimate, if evil, authorities) will not suffer a loss of paladinhood for it, at least not until the paladin ceases to be Lawful Good, and becomes Neutral Good, but it still remains that the blatant disregard for the rules and hierarchy of the land (all tools with which the paladin can potentially work with) are not the acts of a particularly law-minded individual. One aspect of your alignment does not exempt you from the other half.

EDIT: Even better way for the example to work. True Neutral, or even Lawful Neutral, Guardsman of the Evil Empire. That way, what's the paladin going to do when he resists arrests? Kill the poor guard just for doing his job? Beat him unconscious? That's still not much better. Run? That's likely to get him caught. Oh, I know - lie! Say he's a member of the military or clergy.

All the options are fairly non-lawful in their nature. WotC isn't spouting rubbish when they say when you share an alignment with someone or something, yet the other part is diametrically opposed, that there's going to be some amount of friction between which aspect of the alignment to act upon or ignore.

 

[fusangite]

Even if alignment were a good system, which it most certainly is not, to expect it to function as a totalizing system is kind of absurd. A Paladin's experience should be primarily defined by the situations in which being Lawful and being Good are in conflict. Even if the concept of "Lawful Good" were a sensible one, to expect that it would always provide easily discoverable correct answers is absurd. The fact that characters experience internal conflict about their alignment is one of the few signs that it is succeeding, not a sign that it is failing. If it didn't contain paradoxes and conflicts within it, it would be an even worse system as it would rob people of human agency and free will.

Thus, I reject the idea that Augustine's teleological worldview is a completely lawful one.

 

[Wombat]

...more fuel for dropping alignments altogether...

 

[Valiantheart]

Drop them and burn them i say...

 

[Desdichado]

That example of the paladin and the lawful evil society is pretty absurd. Paladins stand for the concept of law (and good) not The Law (and good.) But there is no easy answer, however. Why? Because alignments are fundamentally pretty stupid and don't work for any but the most shallow of games.

Of course, shallow games can be fun sometimes, and if all you want to do is go slay some Elemental Evil in a hole in the ground, then it works just fine. It might even be a useful mechanic.

See, the problem isn't alignment per se, it's people like us who try to stretch it beyond what it was ever intended to model.

 

[Savage Wombat]

In the example of the "Evil Overlord" earlier, keep in mind that Paladins (especially) answer to a higher LAW than mere mortal laws. A lawful good will, usually, obey the word of their lawful good faith when it contradicts with the laws of a lawful evil society.

Thus are martyrs made.

 

[Dragonblade]

Wow! Good posts everyone!

Ok, I believe the paladin being asked to hand over his weapon is a really good example.

But I would posit that the paladin's code, especially if set forth by a deity, trumps any secular law that would conflict with it.

If the paladins code specifically says, "thou shalt never surrender thy arms to the forces of evil" then I think the paladin could rightly tell the guard to get lost.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Regarding alignment:

How would a system of Allegiances (ala d20 Modern) work in D&D instead of the Alignment system? While it would be possible to have good, evil, lawful & chaotic characters, those elements may not be the key factors for the character's motivations.

Also, IIRC, the 1st Allegiance listed is the most important one, with each one listed afterward having less importance. This could easily clear up whether a paladin-like character focuses more on Law than Good, or vice-versa.

Thus the classes would have mandatory Allegiances instead of Alignments--perhaps druids would require to have an Allegiance to Nature first, and any others come afterward.

However, if the Allegiance system is used, I'd think that some of the core classes should be prestige classes instead (such as paladins, & possibly druids as well). Basically any core class that would have strict/required/specific Allegiances should be a PrC instead for such a system.

I think the Alignment system works well in a setting/game that has the absolutes of the AL concepts present (i.e., good & evil as tangible forces). However, in more grim-&-gritty, morally-ambiguous games, maybe the Allegiance system may work better.