Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 1930456" data-attributes="member: 27012">Fair enough.  I saw our discussion more as working out the bounds of the SRD and what's possible under it than trying to find one correct answer.  I simply think that alignment is integral enough to D&D and the intended tone of heroic fantasy that I think it's important to keep.  But since I tend to run world-based games and play world-based characters and versimilitude is pretty important to me, having a definition of Good and Evil that stand up to at least some modicum real world logic is important to me.  My foray into real world issues was an attempt to put a real world spin on the discussion, not an attempt to drag real world politics or social issues into the debate except, perhaps, get people to think about them and to point out that they are positions or arguments that real people hold in the real world.Part of what I've been trying to say is that if a slaying is necessary, a paladin shouldn't necessarily need to trouble themselves over it.  You can dwell on a necessary Evil or you can move on.  I'm more concerned if the paladin does "X", they are still Good than whether "X", in isolation or in the abstract, is Good.  As I've said elsewhere, the PCs in the game that I'm running didn't enjoy slaying goblin women and children.  In that sense, yes, it was an unpleasant task--a necessary Evil.  On the other hand, they don't regret or second-guess that choice because it was the right thing to do.  In that sense, it was the Greater Good.  On the small scale, it was unpleasant and even troubling but, on the large scale, it was necessary and correct.  I think that, perhaps, your focus has been on the immediate small scale while my focus has been on the big picture.  In fact, I think a Good character could justify their actions in either scope and might even link the scope that a character focuses on to the Law-Chaos axis, with Law being "big picture" and procedures while Chaos is "little picture" and individual rights, with Neutral being a pragmatic center.  And that paladins are Lawful Good suggests to me that they would tend to operate in the "big picture" realm without a lot of pause.  In fact, I'd suggest that paladins are Lawful Good (and not Neutral Good) because that alignment will act without hesitation based on rules of conduct rather than taking everything on a case-by-case basis.And I think that's Tolkien's Catholicism slipping in.  It's also, arguably, his response to Wagner.  But it's interesting how many other cultures actually expected (or even still expect) pride from their heroes and elite and didn't consider it a sin or weakness.  From Achilles to the samurai, displays of pride was the norm.  In fact, I'd argue that we're seeing a revival of that in everything from professional sports to politics.  While I'm certainly sympathetic to Tolkien here, is that the only way to look at it?  Are goblins Evil out of pride or nature?  Depending on how you answer that will change how a paladin should treat them.  In fact, that's why I have both types in the D&D game that I'm running and give the players some clues as to which type of Evil they are dealing with.As much as I agree with them personally, I question whether those values necessarily translate into a D&D setting that has many gods, the standard Outer Planes, might have reincarnation, has alignment as a detectable force, etc.  Tolkien was working within a quasi-Catholic worldview where people were free moral agents that could choose good or Evil and where redemption was always possible for people.  Is this true of the creatures that are Usually Lawful/Neutral/Chatoic" Evil aligned in D&D, rather than the "Often Neutral" or "Usually Neutral" that humans would be?  How one answers that changes a great deal.I still think you can seperate the two, even as you describe it here.  It wasn't as if Sam had to resist as great a temptation (which would have required great Willpower).  The temptation wasn't so strong because Sam's nature didn't give it fertile ground to grow in.  I think that was his good nature protecting him, not his will in the sense of a conscious struggle with Evil.To be honest, I've only read about half the Trilogy and that was very long ago.  You're certainly giving me some incentive to give it another try, since these are the sorts of details that don't make it into movie theaters.I, too, assume that Neutral plays the most active role in a campaign setting but I (A) assume that Neutral is a fairly wide band of values and actions that can roughly be defined as "pragmatic self-interest and survival" and (B) assume that in order to radiate a Good or Evil aura, you need to cross a line where pragmatism and survival are no longer your primary objectives in life.  In the case of Good, it's a transition from pragmatic self-interest and survival to altruism (at least toward "innocent" or nice people, which I'd broadly define as Good and Neutral-aligned people).  In the case of Evil, it's a transition from pragmatic self-interest and survival to cruelty (usually toward other sentients of some sort).  And just as the Good person will go out of their way to help others, I think the Evil person will go out of their way to hurt others.  Looking at Evil as the mirror of Good in some ways, the SRD says, "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."  To me, that also implies that "Evil characters take personal risks to hurt others."  In between, is the pragmatic survival center where people don't risk themselves (or those that they have personal ties to) to indulge either their desire to help others (the Good side of Neutral) or their desire to hurt others (the Evil side of Neutral).  Now you can argue that those on either side of Neutral are essentially Good or Evil but I don't think they cross the threshold of radiating an alignment aura.  To do that, your altruism or cruelty needs to become your goal, priority, or lifestyle.Put another way, if a child runs into the road in front of a car being driven by a Good, Neutral, or Evil person:  The Good person will do everything they can to avoid hitting the child, including risking their own life.  The Neutral person will avoid hitting the child if they can but won't endanger their own life to do it.  The Evil person will swerve to make sure that they hit the child or, if they swerve not to kill them, their objective is to hurt and cripple the child.  How a Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil person hit the child and what they do afterward might be very different, but the thing that binds them all together is that their first thought, upon seeing a child run into the road, is "How can I hurt this kid?" where the first thought that a Good person woudl have is, "How can I save this kid?"  Now, the Neutral person might have, "If I hit this kid, I'm going to get sued!" running through their mind.  They might also be thinking, "I'll feel really awful if I hit this kid," or even "I wish I could get away with hitting this kid."  Ultimately, they'll try to avoid hitting the kid for pragmatic reasons but they are more concerned about how hitting the kid will affect them than they are about how it will affect the kid.Does that make any sense?</blockquote>

Verification