D&D 5E June 27 Q&A: Modular Features, Paladin Alignment and Legendary Creatures

[Imaro]

You're not taking my point. I'm advocating getting rid of alignment entirely, at least for mortals. On this view, there are no 'chaotic characters' any more, there's just characters.

Not to say there won't be characters who might act 'chaotically', and you're right, they probably wouldn't be interested in the Cavalier class, or whatever it ends up being called. But in the end, there's just the code; if it isn't followed, you're in peril of losing your powers.

Stop worrying about whether or not a person or an action is 'lawful' or 'chaotic'. Just describe a person, and describe a code, and then decide if that person would be interested in that code. Or, if you prefer, listen to your GM's description of a code, and then describe a person who would, in point of fact, be interested in that code.

I get your point... I'm just not interested in a D&D that has no alignment in it (even if it has to be an optional module). I enjoy the Moorcockian feel that alignment brings to my D&D games, where alignment isn't necessarily about describing your personality (though it can and often times does paint a broad picture of it), but is instead about aligning one's self with a cosmic force and promoting that cosmic force either explicitly or implicitly through one's actions and deeds. I think that is our disconnect, I don't expect alignment to tell me all the facets of a person's

 

[Imaro]

The last couple pages of this thread perfectly illustrate what I was saying... that Lawful and Chaotic alignments are ill-defined and only breed arguments about what they "really" mean.

I have no problem with them being "ill-defined" since I think what they mean are going to vary slightly from campaign to campaign and DM to DM. As an example... in the Young Kingdoms good and evil are vague and barely recognized concepts by most (it's the fact that Elric feels any type of "moral" quandaries that sets him apart from his people), while chaos and law are cosmological forces that have a very real and felt presence on the inhabitants of the Young Kingdoms and are defined by the god-like beings who manifest quite often throughout the stories.

I also don't think internet arguments are representative of what actually happens at the game table (at least not mine). I have never had any type of disruptive alignment argument with my gaming group though we have had in-character arguments about differing philosophies as well as discussed it OOC (as a thought exercise which is exactly what I see this discussion as). I have had to make judgement calls on paladins, but I give them a warning before the action and, unless it's a blatantly evil/chaotic act I tend to let the group decide if they have stepped outside their alignment restriction... it works well for us. I just don't see how discuss and come up with a proper code is any easier than discuss and set the boundaries of a particular alignment... YMMV of course.

 

[Alzrius]

I would say that the question we're all asking here is "what's a paladin?"...but I've seen the madness that comes from asking that, and it's not pretty.

[video=youtube;Otf9Bnm48Kk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otf9Bnm48Kk[/video]

 

[The Shadow]

I get your point... I'm just not interested in a D&D that has no alignment in it (even if it has to be an optional module). I enjoy the Moorcockian feel that alignment brings to my D&D games, where alignment isn't necessarily about describing your personality (though it can and often times does paint a broad picture of it), but is instead about aligning one's self with a cosmic force and promoting that cosmic force either explicitly or implicitly through one's actions and deeds.

Well, if you like it, there's an end. There's no disputing matters of taste. (Because mine is obviously right and yours is obviously wrong, of course! I hope you don't mind if I ask you a few questions about how you do this, though?

Because while I'll grant you that the term 'alignment' does seem to suggest some sort of interface with cosmic entities, this doesn't really seem to be manifested in the rules very much. How does it appear at your table?

If a Lawful character has some sort of explicit allegiance to cosmic forces of Order, sure, I see that that makes a difference. But of course most Lawful characters do not - and you allow for this when you say that one can implicitly promote a cosmic force through one's actions and deeds. Let's look at that implicit case.

What difference does it make to gameplay? How does this implicit allegiance change how the character is played, or how the rules treat that character? (Aside from things like 3e-style 'Detect Law' spells, that's obvious. Such spells of course did not exist before 3e.)

(I have serious difficulty comprehending what a cosmic force of Order would even be like, I have to confess. There is no one ultimate Order, there are different orders that are mutually incompatible. And I have even more serious philosophical objections to a cosmic force of Evil that people bear allegiance to. In my view, even demons and devils don't give a fig about Evil with a capital E. They corrupt souls because they get status, power, and/or pleasure from it; they engage in destruction because they find it fun. If they did those things out of disinterested pursuit of Evil (TM), one could argue that it would be a step toward goodness!)

I think that is our disconnect, I don't expect alignment to tell me all the facets of a person's

I never claimed it was supposed to tell you all the facets of someone's personality. I in fact say that it tells me just about nothing about their personality. It has no effect on how I play the character, either as a player or as a GM.

I have no problem with them being "ill-defined" since I think what they mean are going to vary slightly from campaign to campaign and DM to DM.

By "ill-defined", I don't mean 'vague' or 'unfocussed', I mean, 'incoherent and inconsistent with itself'.

To take what I find the most egregious example, Chaos is somehow supposed to be both 'randomness' and 'love of liberty'. Those two things have nothing to do with each other! And the effort to force them to lie down together leads to mental contortions that I find quite unnecessary.

Since (so far as I can see) Law and Chaos are grab-bags of incompatible ideas, people seize on one and emphasize it the most... or different ones in different situations. And when someone else comes along and emphasizes a different one, trouble ensues.

As an example... in the Young Kingdoms good and evil are vague and barely recognized concepts by most (it's the fact that Elric feels any type of "moral" quandaries that sets him apart from his people),

You have ably illustrated one reason why I find reading those books to be an exercise in masochism. They are about an unbelievable society of sociopaths, utterly lacking in sympathetic characters. I can't think a human society where good and evil aren't live categories. I might think a fictional culture is mistaken about good and evil, they might think some things good and evil that I can't understand the rationale of, but a culture that just doesn't care? They come off as sock-puppets rather than people.

Now, I willingly grant that it's been decades since I read the books, since I don't like them. But what do Elric's moral qualms come to ultimately? Do they ever, in fact, guide his actions? Let's remember we're talking about a guy who routinely sucks people's souls into his sword to preserve his own skin.

Even Arioch, a supposed Lord of Chaos, doesn't come off as very 'chaotic' to me. As far as I can recall, he's just straight-up evil.

 

[pemerton]

The last couple pages of this thread perfectly illustrate what I was saying... that Lawful and Chaotic alignments are ill-defined and only breed arguments about what they "really" mean.

The terms have nothing to do with how real people actually act. They are useful only in a Moorcockian universe in which one necessarily aligns with one group of bastards or the other.

I can't XP you, but agree completely with this.

That's why I'm not against the very modest, cosmological/descriptive role that alignment plays in B/X and 4e - where it does (mostly) fit characters into a cosmological struggle - but think the AD&D/3E version, which purports to have aignment be a universal descriptor for personality and morals, is hopeles.

If I say of my character that he's loyal to a fault, is proud of his family lineage to the point of unreason, has trouble drinking in moderation, and is unfailingly chivalrous to women and anyone of lower social station... isn't that plenty to go on for running him?

What does adding, say, "Neutral Good" to that contribute to my knowledge of the character? I submit that it adds essentially nothing.

Another good post.

And for the hat trick:

Being devoted to a society's laws and being devoted to a personal code are practically orthogonal to each other.

The classic version of this dilemma is, "Is a paladin required to follow an unjust law?" Experience with gamers for over 30 years, and with Internet arguments for around 20, convince me that there simply is no universal answer to this question.

I agree with this, but wanted to add - the problem of unjust laws is a profound one on which much ink has been spilled. Particularly once one considers what John Finnis calls the "collateral obligation" to obey - namely, one should obey certain moderately unjust laws in order to avoid undermining a system of government that is, on balance, just. (John Rawls expresses a similar idea. Arguably the whole framework of constitutional democracy presupposes widespread acceptance of this sort of obligation.) Plus additional problems introduced by oaths to uphold the law (which a knight may well have sworn) and the idea that law is utimately not a human but a divine creation (which many paladins may believe).

It shouldn't be necessary for a table of RPGers to satisfactorily resolve these philosophical questions before the paladin classs becomes playable!

Then there's the crowning absurdity of the slaadi, who are supposedly the essence of Chaos... yet they all take the form of humanoid toads, and fall into rigidly color-coded castes. Oh, and they're Neutral between Good and Evil, but violently implant eggs in sapient beings to forcibly turn them into others of their own kind. Which isn't Evil, honest!

I think 4e's rendering of slaads as CE is a pretty reasonable fit. In functional terms they're a form of demon, even if in in-fiction metaphysical terms they have no special connection to the Abyss.

I have serious difficulty comprehending what a cosmic force of Order would even be like, I have to confess. There is no one ultimate Order, there are different orders that are mutually incompatible. And I have even more serious philosophical objections to a cosmic force of Evil that people bear allegiance to. In my view, even demons and devils don't give a fig about Evil with a capital E. They corrupt souls because they get status, power, and/or pleasure from it; they engage in destruction because they find it fun. If they did those things out of disinterested pursuit of Evil (TM), one could argue that it would be a step toward goodness!

More good stuff.

There is also the difference between the revelling in corruption/destruction which characterises devils and demons, and a certain sense of necessity and willingness to get dirty hands, which is how Asmodeus and Vecna ares (in part) characterised in 4e, and how Bane is (in total, I think) characterised. Which opens up interesting possibilities, like a basically decent PC who respects or reveres one of those gods. Whereas you have to be pretty nuts to worship Torog or Demogorgon.

 

[The Shadow]

I can't XP you, but agree completely with this.

Thank you for the kind words. I'm not sure how XP even works any more, I don't see a button to do so? Yet obviously it works for some.

That's why I'm not against the very modest, cosmological/descriptive role that alignment plays in B/X and 4e - where it does (mostly) fit characters into a cosmological struggle - but think the AD&D/3E version, which purports to have aignment be a universal descriptor for personality and morals, is hopeles.

I can see a place for this - in certain campaigns. I don't see why it needs to be part of all or even most campaigns, so I'm glad to see it become modular.

It shouldn't be necessary for a table of RPGers to satisfactorily resolve these philosophical questions before the paladin classs becomes playable!

I completely agree! Which is why I say to drop the idea of 'Lawful Good' - then the issue won't arise, at least nearly as much.

I think 4e's rendering of slaads as CE is a pretty reasonable fit. In functional terms they're a form of demon, even if in in-fiction metaphysical terms they have no special connection to the Abyss.

While I dislike 4e as a system, I've always quite liked its cosmology and much of its lore. I've hated the Great Wheel intensely ever since I first came across it in the DMG appendix in 1981 or so. Don't even get me started on Planescape.

Putting the slaadi in a whirling 'Elemental Chaos' rather than the Chaotic Neutral plane of 'Limbo' (what a horrible name for it, I might add!) is just... right. It has mythic resonance, it speaks to the gut.

I mean, if you're really going to have an opposition between Order and Chaos? It doesn't say much to have Order on the left and Chaos on the right of a Ghostly Dinner Plate. (My group's 'affectionate' term for the Great Wheel.) How much better to have Chaos gnawing at the outer limits of everything, seeking to overthrow the ordered cosmos. And then, when you go even further, beyond even the reaches of the slaadi, then there lies only madness.

There is also the difference between the revelling in corruption/destruction which characterises devils and demons, and a certain sense of necessity and willingness to get dirty hands, which is how Asmodeus and Vecna ares (in part) characterised in 4e, and how Bane is (in total, I think) characterised. Which opens up interesting possibilities, like a basically decent PC who respects or reveres one of those gods. Whereas you have to be pretty nuts to worship Torog or Demogorgon.

I see the point you're making, but Asmodeus just doesn't strike me as that kind of guy. Even Vecna doesn't, really. Bane, sure.

Though I *can* definitely see a sane, if despicable, person worshipping Asmodeus in a way I can't see it for Demogorgon.

 

[pemerton]

Thank you for the kind words. I'm not sure how XP even works any more, I don't see a button to do so? Yet obviously it works for some.

For me, at least (in legacy view) it's the green star at the left bottom of the post.

The rest of your post all makes sense. I agree that 4e alignment presupposes a certain sort of campaign. In Dark Sun, for instance, all it would be good for (I think) would be a very truncated personality descriptor.

I have a certain fondness for the (pre-Planescape, pre-DDG) version of the "ghostly dinner plate". I quite like it when the aligned planes more-or-less take the place of the gods and their myths. Lev Lafayette captures something like this aspect in an RPGnet review of Gygax's PHB:

The final section of the book includes an alignment graph (without systematic suggestions for use) and the planes of existence, including the rather evocative assignment of Earthly polytheistic pantheons within the AD&D alignment system.​

What I personally don't like about the DDG/Planescape approach is that, instead of Gladsheim being the plane of the Norse pantheon, it becomes a distinct place where (some of) the Norse Gods, plus sundry others, plus in due course Eladrin, hang out. That is just silly, in my view.