Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Madmage" data-source="post: 6114248" data-attributes="member: 6693380">I disagree mainly because in the example of torture within the D&D alignment system, is considered an ultimately evil act. Choosing and acting upon the choice of torture is committing evil. To opt not to isn't Evil but not necessarily an act of Good. By being an agent of good, conceding to take an evil act is recognition that Good is not superior to Evil. Thus, the planar balance is shifted (albeit extremely slightly in the parameters of the multiverse). The dilemma of the Paladin in the first 3 editions of the game was varying degrees of how to best serve as that paragon. Nevertheless, the Paladin is a mortal being and thus not infallible. The class was about living up to a set of ideals. I do agree that the earlier basic or original settings were very clear cut in their definitions of good and evil. It wasn't hard to determine who was evil in a setting like Greyhawk with entire countries making pacts with fiends from the lower planes as frequently as the local insurance company does with their customers (some might argue they are one and the same! lol). But if you are at a table where a player must justify that his Paladin will lie, cheat and steal on a regular basis... well I think the fact he or she has to do so certainly warrants a discussion or perhaps a warning such as "As you are about to pocket the coin, you are overwhelmed by a sense of guilt. Are you sure you take the coin?" Or divine warnings etc. In RAW, you only lose your powers when you willingly commit acts of evil. I think the point of contention everyone seems to be having here is that some think there is only 1 definition of Lawful Good. In most campaign settings, there's multiple deities of Lawful Good and even in the context of Planescape, there are multiple layers to Celestia that represent different aspects of Lawful Good. Going back again to the Forgotten Realms, as that is the setting I am most familiar with, both a Paladin of Tyr and a Paladin of Ilmater will both fight slavers but their main motivation would be different. The former would be fighting for the matter of Justice and the rights of the individual, while the other to rescue the slaves from a life of undue hardship. They might even employ different methods where the Ilmaterite would be more willing to allow himself to get captured if the fight goes against him to try to help those within while the Paladin of Tyr would be more open to working with local authorities. However, the paladins themselves can have disagreements because the Ilmaterite might criticize the Tyrite for taking too long by trying to organize support from the local authorities which would lead to the retort that his methods would bring greater force to bear to prevent slavers from escaping and continuing their ignoble deeds. They are both fighting for the same cause, just using different methods  that are both lawful and good. As a DM, I would both see them as being  right. The example used by Shidaku is similar. The perception of a paladin from a feudal society will be that his form of government is just so long as the local lord adheres to the social contract and doesn't abuse the local populace. The paladin that hails from a cosmopolitan city-state would see it differently because the feudal contract can be twisted by petty or selfish lords and his experience of a democratic state where the power of the community and legitimate authority derives from the Populace is more likely to form a just society. On the other hand, the feudal Paladin could point out that many city state officials can become corrupt and that system doesn't necessarily behoove officials (elected or appointed) to have a stake in the general welfare of the community. I.e. the local clerk doesn't benefit directly from the well-being of the populace. The more this thread goes on, the impression I get is that some players or tables have had bad experiences while others have had good experiences or no issues. The 3rd edition basic write up was simple enough (no lying, cheating, etc) that it set up a guideline of what was unacceptable without going out of its way to give a morality lesson to readers. If the eventual PHB for D&D Next has enough room to go into more detail then I say great! But limitations of page count and so forth are to be considered (and perhaps desires to publish books on the divine classes) and so I won't fault the designers if they KISS. My table doesn't need a complete and thorough treatise on both the spirit and letter of what LG is. Hopefully, no one else does either. And if you do... well the current iteration of the Paladin can be LN or LE so have fun!</blockquote>

Verification