LE Paladin in Adventurer's League

[pemerton]

As an small aside when we used to play 1e we distinguished between "True Neutral" - actively seeking the balance and "Neutral" which is more like 4e unaligned.

I think the 4e "unaligned", in AD&D, is often closer to CN.

But it's tricky. Even in the context of AD&D, Oriental Adventures had a restatement of alignments which was not fully consistent with what Gygax said in his PHB/DMG.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the 4e "unaligned", in AD&D, is often closer to CN.

Which is hilarious to me, because one of the most common examples of an Unaligned deity is Erathis, goddess of civilization, law, and invention.

 

[Flamestrike]

I think the 4e "unaligned", in AD&D, is often closer to CN.

Close but not quite.

Best movie example of CN I can think of is Brad Pitts Achilles in Troy. Fickle, hard to control, petulant. Motivated by neither good nor evil, just war and battle. Defies orders, does things his own way and for his own reasons, never simply out out of malice nor out of good will. Kills Hector, and then doesn't reveal Hectors father when he comes to collect the body. Neither good nor evil, but a force that is impossible to control.

From the same movie, Agamemnon was LE, Odysseus LN (and the only movie I can recall where Sean Bean didnt die!), Hector LG, and Paris NG (forever trying to live up to his brothers higher ideals, but unable to).

And who was saying Vader was LE? No-one doubts the 'E' but he was fairly darn 'C' as as well. Even as a Jedi, he didn't work well with others, never followed rules if it didn't suit him, and was petulant and individualist. He then literally betrayed the Jedi order, before becoming a Sith (whose entire dogma was all about rage, anger, embracing ones passion and gaining strength through unbridled fury). Still not content, he then turned on his pregnant wife (betraying both her ideals and betraying her when he attempted to kill her via Force grip) and also attacked and tried to kill his best friend and mentor. Eventually he also even manage to break the singular rule of the Sith code (the rule of two) by secretly training another apprentice. He really only ever gave his word once (to Lando Calrissian) and then 'altered the deal' literally straight afterwards. Still not happy with any of that, he then finally even betrayed the Sith by tossing the Emperor down a one of those bottomless shafts that seem to be everywhere in a Galaxy far far away (they haven't heard of OH and S in that galaxy clearly).

Even in the Empires chain of command he sat outside it, doing pretty much whatever he wanted, and answering only to the Emperor (being largely in Palpatines thrall). Aside from doing largely what the Emperor told him to do (mostly out of fear) and working for the Empire, what 'Lawful' traits did he possess? The Sith 'code' only had one rule, and he even managed to break that.

It don't get much more CE than that. Aside from the Joker of course, who is the epitome of all the worst traits of the CE alignment.

 

[pemerton]

Which is hilarious to me, because one of the most common examples of an Unaligned deity is Erathis, goddess of civilization, law, and invention.

Sure, it can go that way. That's why I said "often" (Avandra, Melora, Kord, Corellon, Sehanine). The Raven Queen is somewhere around NE or TN depending on which bits of the lore you draw on (she is much darker in my game than in WotC's E-modules, for instance - at least one or two PCs in my game would probably let Orcus finish her off before then taking him on!).

And Erathis would be LN in pre- or post-4e.

Close but not quite.

Maybe. It's hardly a precise science. But I didn't really see how your examples contradicted what I said.

My main point was really that I think Druidic balance TN is more coherent (within the context of 9-point alignment) than selfish/individualist TN, which seems to leave no meaningful room for NE or CN.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My main point was really that I think Druidic balance TN is more coherent (within the context of 9-point alignment) than selfish/individualist TN, which seems to leave no meaningful room for NE or CN.

Heh...I find it very difficult to wrap my brain around accepting the "Druidic Balance TN" as coherent. Any philosophy which says, "I am morally bound to betray the people I'm helping as soon as it looks like they've gotten stronger than I like" is super incoherent in my book!

I, personally, don't think TN is actually "selfish" per se. It's self-interested, but there's an important subtlety between them. "Selfish" is "My wants and needs come categorically before the wants and needs of others." (Which is a position I consider Evil.) Self-interested is, "Look, I understand that there are bad things in the world. Sometimes those bad things come for me, sometimes they come for somebody else. If I'm gonna risk my neck to fight things that aren't even paying attention to me, I want to be compensated for that risk."

Perhaps a 'worked' analogy would be best. Let's say we have Evelyn Evil, Natasha Neutral, and Christine Chaotic; their alignments are NE, TN, and CN respectively. They are (individually) approached by someone seeking their help. Let's say it's a mining village in the middle of butt-scratchin' nowhere.

Evelyn says, "Why should I help you? Your struggles are not my problem. If you actually want me to deal with this, I'd better get a handsome reward." If she does in fact go, she will leverage for every penny and benefit she can get--and she may even betray the townsfolk if she believes she can get a better deal that way.

Natasha says, "Hm. It's a big request. I have no problem helping others, but this will be a job, yeah? Payment made for services rendered." Not being Lawful, Natasha won't be a stickler about rules and may not even use such "contractual" language, but she will expect agreements to be honored on both sides, barring 'unforseen problems' or the like. She'll do the job, and accept the payment; if she feels she has been deceived by the townsfolk (e.g. the threat was downplayed) she might demand more, or might shrug it off. On the flipside, if she feels the reward is a little too generous? She's very unlikely to refuse it or return any of it. She earned it, after all.

Christine eschews any talk of contract or obligation. Your word is your bond and nothing else. "You're having a problem? Sure, I can fix it." Depending on her demeanor (since one can be both "nice" and "mean" while still being CN), she might take liberties with how she "fixes" the problem, or might embellish/exaggerate her accomplishments to try to get more money (she isn't being paid to be honest!) but by that same token she won't just dick the townsfolk over and skip town with the loot (that would probably be too Evil). If things get too hot, though? She'll (probably) skedaddle. It's not like she HAS to deal with things if the situation ends up different than she expected.

Does that help? True Neutral is always going to be fuzzy because it's defined in the negative; it's not dog-kicking and it's not puppy-petting, it's not letter-by-letter exacting and it's not "oh, you were expecting me to ACTUALLY do what I said I'd do?" And, by definition, it will occasionally include forays in all four directions. It's too damn contextual.

 

[pemerton]

I, personally, don't think TN is actually "selfish" per se. It's self-interested, but there's an important subtlety between them. "Selfish" is "My wants and needs come categorically before the wants and needs of others." (Which is a position I consider Evil.) Self-interested is, "Look, I understand that there are bad things in the world. Sometimes those bad things come for me, sometimes they come for somebody else. If I'm gonna risk my neck to fight things that aren't even paying attention to me, I want to be compensated for that risk."

Perhaps a 'worked' analogy would be best. Let's say we have Evelyn Evil, Natasha Neutral, and Christine Chaotic; their alignments are NE, TN, and CN respectively. They are (individually) approached by someone seeking their help. Let's say it's a mining village in the middle of butt-scratchin' nowhere.

Evelyn says, "Why should I help you? Your struggles are not my problem. If you actually want me to deal with this, I'd better get a handsome reward." If she does in fact go, she will leverage for every penny and benefit she can get--and she may even betray the townsfolk if she believes she can get a better deal that way.

Natasha says, "Hm. It's a big request. I have no problem helping others, but this will be a job, yeah? Payment made for services rendered."

I can't really see the big difference between E and N here. Both insist on payment. You build in an unwillingness of N to betray, but it's not clear on what basis that rests (she's not LN, after all!).

I find it very difficult to wrap my brain around accepting the "Druidic Balance TN" as coherent. Any philosophy which says, "I am morally bound to betray the people I'm helping as soon as it looks like they've gotten stronger than I like" is super incoherent in my book!

I don't think that's a fair description, though.

Board rules put limits on discussing religion, but look at the language Gyagx uses: "all are parts of the whole"; "naturalistic philosophy"; etc. The allusion to certain elements of Daoist and Zen thought (the latter, historically, having been influenced by the former) seems pretty clear to me.

Of course, it then doesn't make sense that monks can't be TN (look at Jet Li in Tai Chi Master), but that wouldn't be the only thing in AD&D or its alignment framework that doesn't make perfect sense!

 

[Flamestrike]

Of course, it then doesn't make sense that monks can't be TN (look at Jet Li in Tai Chi Master), but that wouldn't be the only thing in AD&D or its alignment framework that doesn't make perfect sense!

Also doesn't make sense that Monks cant be CG. Look at Monkey from monkey magic.

 

[Mephista]

Nevermind

 

[steeldragons]

You are curious and confused about why the DM of an AL game would take an interest in how exactly someone plays an LE Paladin PC?

I am fairly sure I was fairly clear that is not what I asked/said. For starters, the first response I was looking for, minus the defensive snark, would be "Yes, I am the DM." So there's one thing. That was not clear to/recalled by me from the OP.

Following that, the question at hand was "Why are you expecting a discussion about what Oath the character will take at 3rd level." That is not, even as a DM, something I would expect. What the player does with their character -within the parameters set at the table- is up to them. In this case it is an AL table and so there are very clear parameters within which the players must comply.

Now, I see you mention that AL prohibits Oathbreaker paladins. So, yeah. "What oath are you taking?" "I'm thinking Oathbreaker." "Can't do that in AL. Pick something else." seems to be something that would need saying.

That's not a discussion on how they are playing their "LE." That's not what you were "anticipat[ing] a discussion about." According to the post I read, anyway. So, my misunderstanding, I guess. Apologies.

Um... are you an AL DM?

I am not.

I run a table which is (one tiny part of) the public face of D&D. A parent brought his 10-year-old son to the store, to watch our game, so that the 10-year-old could get a first-hand idea of what D&D is. If that 10-year-old's glimpse of D&D had started with a scene in which a PC paladin of Loviatar tortures an NPC for information... well, I'd hate to contribute to a negative misperception. So yeah, I want to be prepared, just in case a situation like that emerges. I want to have pondered the issues. And some people on EnWorld are helping me ponder.

Sounds very important. Good thing you take it so seriously and responsibly.

-snip- I am also posting on the AL forum on a WotC site. I will see what they say there. I will be very surprised if the WotC people say "back off, man, it's not your business as DM to worry about how an LE Paladin of Loviatar influences the tone of the table". They have pointed out that Oathbreaker is NOT a valid option for AL; the player was planning to go Oathbreaker, and so I'm the bearer of the news of "sorry, can't do that in AL".

Yes. Which is something that would be your place, as a DM of any table, to say. Not exactly something that requires great ponderance. I also missed the detail that the player has already made this PC a paladin of Loviatar. Guess I should read first posts more thoroughly.

Follow up thought, why did you permit a LE character -or are you not permitted to adjust AL's parameters (assuming AL allows Evil PCs)- if you are concerned about their effect on the tone at the table?

Just as a point of order, are you a manager of the AL program? If not, then perhaps you are overstepping which boundaries are yours to keep, and which boundaries are theirs to keep.

Again, I am not. I'm not looking to "keep" any "boundaries." I was questioning yours. The response "I'm the DM." would have pretty much answered that nicely.

Carry on.

 

[Riley37]

I am fairly sure I was fairly clear that is not what I asked/said. For starters, the first response I was looking for, minus the defensive snark, would be "Yes, I am the DM."

You posted: "are you the DM of this Adventure League game? Otherwise...or even so, if you are..."
Yes, you asked; and then the "even so, if you are"... makes your following words NOT conditional on who's the DM.

"Sounds very important. Good thing you take it so seriously and responsibly."
If you're snarking at my Lawful and Good behavior, then that tells me something about your perspective on alignment.

My DM style is different from yours. What you gonna do about it, eh?