I can't do without the 9 alignments
- Thread starter Cas Liber
- Start date
the problem is, the old system assumed that the only champions of a faith that could be classed as paladins, were the Goodly Deities... How is that possible? Shouldn't there have been Paladins for the not-so-good deities? (not Anti-Paladins or blackguards, because both of those were twists stating that it used to be a goodly knight, twisted to become vile and all that)
If they were really going for moral absolutist in their methodology, then there would have been some form of this character that was allowed to NOT be LG... Instead, there were no paladins of gods who were merely NG, or LN... Only the highly righteous Gods could have TRUE champions for their cause...
No, the system did not make sense... they had contradictions within almost all parts of the system...
If they were really going for moral absolutist in their methodology, then there would have been some form of this character that was allowed to NOT be LG... Instead, there were no paladins of gods who were merely NG, or LN... Only the highly righteous Gods could have TRUE champions for their cause...
No, the system did not make sense... they had contradictions within almost all parts of the system...
Danceofmasks
First Post
Well, the paladin class was based on galahad/lancelot and the whole one indiscretion = falling from grace idealised knight.
The whole faith thing was a D&D afterthought.
Come to think of it, the pre-4e paladin class was always a bad idea for an adventuring party.
The whole faith thing was a D&D afterthought.
Come to think of it, the pre-4e paladin class was always a bad idea for an adventuring party.
Yes, for sure there are quite specific and measurable forces in D&D world, A and B. Human/demihuman society is almost universally calling A Good and B Evil, to the point of putting such labels on spells etc. There is also a lot of coincidence that force A (Good) is good for society of human, while force B is generally harmful.
It doesn't really mean that for other cultures/monsters, Good is good. Far Realm creatures can call A Foo and B Bar and have Protection from Foo spell - after seeing that Foo is causing bodily harm to them. From their point, human 'Good' is actually bad/evil. Tentacle Champion will be good/Bar for it's people and evil/Evil for human. It is just that human got to label his point of view in common language first, by using Good for A and Evil for B. As soon as you start speaking Far Realmish, confusion goes away.
Mal Malenkirk
First Post
You are wrong.
In 3.5, you could call the drows Evil, Good, Foo or Bar. It won't change the fact that only Protection from Evil will help you when they attack, and that if you are Evil yourself you won't be able to cast that spell, even if you believe you are Good, Foo or Bar.
In 3.5, a righteous Bane priest who sees his cause as pure can sit in his corner and argue relativism all night, it won't change the fact that his [Evil] spell do squat against the infidel Zehir worshipping assassin sent to take his head off. The priest can argue that the assassin is nothing but a mercenary, that he is faithless and cursed, that he doesn't understand the meaning of family... He can explain that he, on the other hand, will usher in a new era of order of security and prosperity. It doesn't matter in the least. His [Evil] Spell don't work against the assassin, period. He is Evil and so is the Assassin, no matter how hard the priest argues the point.
In 4e you can do a shade of gray campaign but in 3.5 you would have needed to get rid of tons of spell. The alignment system is not relative, it is absolute.
Last edited:
Danceofmasks
First Post
But the argument is from a perspective of language.
Your spell is called protection from evil, but does that mean it's actually protection from evil?
'cos if you find a spell labelled protection from evil in a drow's (in undercommon) spellbook, its effects could very well be exactly the same as a dwarf's protection from good spell.
Your spell is called protection from evil, but does that mean it's actually protection from evil?
'cos if you find a spell labelled protection from evil in a drow's (in undercommon) spellbook, its effects could very well be exactly the same as a dwarf's protection from good spell.
Mal Malenkirk
First Post
The alignment is a map. You are located somewhere on it. Your opponent is located somewhere on it.
If two people from the same segment battle each other, they can call themselves good and the opponents evil until their voice is hoarse; the aligment spells still won't work against each other.
Renaming the segments of the map does not move the map. The same actions and beliefs still mark you as belonging to a specific segment, no matter how much you argue against it, no matter what you'd like to call the segment you are standing on.
yesnomu
First Post
They're very, very few, but they are there. There's a paladin PP power that does more damage against evil things, there's a helmet that can only be used by LG/G characters, and in one of the Scales of War adventures
there's a vein of elemental power that enhances the attacks of CE creatures and diminishes all others'.
Heh, my DM decided my wizard got the benefit of that last one. I had attempted to channel the energies of the dark gods in a recent ritual, so I guess I can't blame him too much.
Danceofmasks
First Post
But Pelor is evil.
And Paladins are evil.
See, my protection from evil spell works against them!
Mal Malenkirk
First Post
But it doesn't work against the Balor screaming 'I am Evil Incarnate!'. Or against the nihilistic assassin who tells to your face that he believes your god is an impotant mongrel and that intend to rip your head off. Funny that. You'd think they were evil too...
This isn't moral relativism. This is just changing words without changing their meaning. I'm saying the (traditional) D&D alignment system is one of moral absolutism and your argument doesn't even dent my claim.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
