[i]This[/i] is my problem with alignment

[Voadam]

So is complete dedication to a cause lawful?

Is it neutral on the law/chaos axis (lawfuls and chaotics can be dedicated in equally great or small amounts)?

If it is to a chaotic cause is it chaotic?

Can an npc who is a completely devoted servant of chaos be lawful for his unswerving dedication as a minion and servitor or chaotic because it is to chaos?

 

[JackGiantkiller]

An entertaining thread. I think you speak different languages from one another, but its still interesting.

Fusangite...I agree that alignment is internally contradictory. It seems self evident to me.

swrushing ...I agree that alignment is descriptive of actions taken and choices made...but how do you decide what actions to take, if you do in fact wish to remain in a class that has an alignment restriction, if your actions are not clearly delineated as being in one camp or the other? or if they are clearly delineated in one camp or the other, but choosing one action in order to achieve a goal swings you into an unchosen alignment, thus causing you to lose class abilities that you the player did *not* in fact want to lose? (I can't think why you'd want to be an ex-paladin...its not like you suddenly get feats to replace all the neat powers that are just...gone.)

I think you folks need to decide what proscription means. In my experience, when a thing is forbidden, it has consequences that are intended to dissuade that action being taken. That is the meaning of proscription, IMHO. There are consequences for straying from alignment for many classes in the game. Thus, for those classes, alignment is proscriptive. Saying it isn't doesn't make it so. yes, the player ( and character) can still take the action. They will be punished for it by the loss of class abilities. they wil become less effective, and in many cases less fun to play while everybody else is still running full tilt. That's proscriptive.

Fusangite...remember we *aren't* talking about the real world. In a fantasy, it is possible to have individual rights without the rule of law. In a fantasy, people could just get along without laws forcing them to. they could accord each other mutual respect, understand each others basic, deifically granted rights (or even more fundamentally, rights that derive from the state of sentience regardless of the interference of deities...) and just generally groove on free love. None of these things can happen in the real world, i agree. But they can in fantasy.

On the other hand...all of our founding fathers were Chaotic Good in ideology. Many of them were Chaotic Good in behavior. Ben Franklin was quite a rake, i understand. Of course...they all had slaves, which sort of breaks the argument again...

Oh well.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

here's a thought:

Most of the races are described interms of how they diverge froma human norm. If alignment is determined on basis of divergence from campaign specific norms, it might work. For instance:

The barbarians do indeed respect their own laws and traditions, and are honorable. But by the standards of the *dominant* culture, they are chaotic, because they do not follow 'civilized' laws.

Orcs are evil because they oppose the dominant race or races moral codes.

Of course, this takes us into relativistic morality..but look at it this way:
Each campaign decides what absolute to follow by designating the views on good and evil of the dominant culture, or of the gods if they exist. Other than that, your on your own. So you are both right...from a certain point of view. (I should have been a Jedi.)

 

[fusangite]

The answer here would be 'no'. The paladin is perfectly capable of becoming evil. There just happen to be consequences if he does. The threat of losing one's class abilities might deter, but it does not necessarily prevent.

It's like the difference between "wizards can't use swords" and "wizards can use swords but they take a -4 proficiency penalty".

So, making murder a criminal offence and giving it the death penalty, in your model, does not proscribe it. After all, people can still commit murder -- making it illegal doesn't stop it -- they just get tried, convicted and killed. But they can still do it.

In D&D, you have a choice: you can be lawful good and continue to be a paladin or you can stop being lawful good and cease to be a paladin. In other words, you cannot both be not lawful good and a paladin -- the rules do not permit this. You can be non-lawful/non-good OR you can be a paladin. The rules make it impossible to be both non-lawful/non-good and a paladin at the same time -- how else could the rules possibly express that paladins are proscribed from not being lawful good.

If not to proscribe evil acts, how would you describe the mechanical interaction between alignment and the paladin class? What is its instrumental function other than to proscribe certain behaviours?

 

[swrushing]

swrushing ...I agree that alignment is descriptive of actions taken and choices made...but how do you decide what actions to take, if you do in fact wish to remain in a class that has an alignment restriction, if your actions are not clearly delineated as being in one camp or the other? or if they are clearly delineated in one camp or the other, but choosing one action in order to achieve a goal swings you into an unchosen alignment, thus causing you to lose class abilities that you the player did *not* in fact want to lose? (I can't think why you'd want to be an ex-paladin...its not like you suddenly get feats to replace all the neat powers that are just...gone.)

both the player and Gm arw working off the same guidelines. if a Gm has any odd setting specific things, he shoudl, as with all setting specific oddities, tell them before hand.

Alignment change doesn't occur overnight. it is the result of a long process, and so, there are numerous opportunities for the player and Gm to discuss whats happening and stay on the same page. obviously, if a Gm sees an alignment change as "in the works" this is a point to make sure both he and player are on the same page.

This isn't a blind guessing game. the GM sits a few feet from you every session.

people seem to act like alignment change will be this "ahah! gotcha" Gm blind side sort of thing. it isn't.

Well. of course, it could be if the "bad" gm wanted it to be... but no rule is proof against a "bad" gm.

of course, the big kicker in a class sense is the "one evil act" whammmy on the paladin. but, of course, a paladin player would check with the Gm before playing the paladin to make sure both are on the same page about "evil acts" because both know this is a real biggie going in.

Not since the olden days of the girdle of alignment change have i seen a player character go thru an alignment change that the player did not want and did not expect a ways off.

Alignment change reflects a change in the character... and matter of fact the change it reflects took place quite a while back and long before the alignment change took place on the character sheet... long enough ago for the series of choices under the new outlook to outweigh all those that went before the change in outlook occured.

not a surprise, a choice... one made long ago.

Why would someone choose to become an ex paladin? because it is the thing they see the character doing. Sure, its not the brightest of moves from a "how many plusses do i have" but if the character would commit a revenge killing even if it meant losing the faith... that makes great story, and not all decisions are motivated by the numbers.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

I wasn't talking about numbers. I wasn't 'rollplaying'. I was talking about choosing to be an ex-paladin tending to be something that detracts from long term fun because you get much less share of the spotlight. You are capable of less, you have no neato things you can do, and you are depressed. I play Vampire for that.

D&D is about heroics, for me...or evil so depraved its hard to quantify. i happened to mention that you lose things. That choices have consequences, thus making it a proscription. This does not mean its all about the plusses for me, and I'm a tad offended that you would make that assumption.

 

[fusangite]

To go along with swrushing, a paladin can fall and still remain Lawful Good.

I know. Who said the contrary? Alignment is one of the three ways the PHB states a paladin can fall.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

"both the player and Gm arw working off the same guidelines. if a Gm has any odd setting specific things, he shoudl, as with all setting specific oddities, tell them before hand"

This is not always the case. I know a number of people, myself included who have had problems in the past, losing paladins to DM whose interpretation of evil was different than our own. It seems to me that Fusangite and I simply believe that such things would be reduced somewhat if the alignment system were more formalized and internally consistent.

Part and parcel of this is the notion that political idealogy and personal conduct in pursuit of goals are not inhyerently the same, and that adherence to both sets of guidelines for alignment can be at times mutually exclusive, exacerbating the dilemma.

For example...two different friends of mine, both of whom know me very well have described me as, respectively, Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Good...and they cited many similar reasons for their dissimilar choices. That suggests to me that the system may have a bit too much wiggle room to be a valuable descriptor.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

I wasn't talking about numbers. I wasn't 'rollplaying'. I was talking about choosing to be an ex-paladin tending to be something that detracts from long term fun because you get much less share of the spotlight.

Whoa nellie!!! Here we part company.

losing you paladin status and the resultant and previous storylines should propel you INTO the spotlight a whole lot more than you lack of plusses and neat abilities keep you out of it. The whole crisis of faith,fall from grace, and potential redemption storyline is loads of spotlight. heck, there may even be an entire quest built round your character's travails.

The loss of a "full set" of "kewl powerz" doesn't seem like it ought to massively derail all that bonus, intimately personal spotlight time.

You are capable of less, you have no neato things you can do, and you are depressed.

you character might be depressed or he might be righteously angry. Either way, getting your story this much in the spotlight ought to be making you the player happy as a clam. I really cannot think of anything within the rules more "put the spotlight on me and do it now" than this sort of thing.

D&D is about heroics, for me...or evil so depraved its hard to quantify. i happened to mention that you lose things. That choices have consequences, thus making it a proscription. This does not mean its all about the plusses for me, and I'm a tad offended that you would make that assumption.

well, maybe i am off but to me, heroics is enhanced by "overcoming adversity and loss" than having all your toys.

and, Ok, maybe for you it isn't about plusses (or not) and it isn't about having neato powers (or not), but you sure seemed to link less spotlight time and "You are capable of less, you have no neato things you can do..." which is where we diverge greatly.

if you truly believe losing ones paladinhood as a part of the game will reduce spotlight share, we run vastly, unimaginably different games.

 

[JackGiantkiller]

This is undeniably true...but I was speaking of games I played in. Unless the DM specifically plays to you, you get left out, because you can do less. And you don't always get the chance to atone, because the DM has other plans, or just runs modules.

Could you be a little less insulting than "kewl powerz" please? i realize I asked for it by saying neato, but still.

In games I run, i tend to give paladins a bit more latitude, and as you say, i discuss expectations with them ahead of time. This has not been my experience with other DM's. Nor has it been my experience that the fallen paladin gets any measurable increase in screen time, as several DM's in the past have just said, oh well, now you aren't a paladin, have fun being a fighter...and went on with their campaign as usual.

But that's not the point. The point is, the alignment system, AS WRITTEN, not as tweaked, is inherently self-contradicting, and proscriptive. You cannot assume optimum conditions of play when you write rules.