Societies: Lawful and Chaotic; What Are They?

[Chrisling]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrm

No kidding. I had a Paladin-Bard idea bouncing around in my head for a while, but it just won't work unless I can find a DM willing to Rule Zero it for me.

There are some ways around the rules limitation. Someone on these boards pointed out that a Bard doesn't lose his powers for becoming Lawful, he just can't progress further as a Bard. So I realized I could do a Bard who becomes Lawful (perhaps by embracing a LG god of justice after losing someone important to him). But that would necessitate starting as a Bard, becoming Lawful, taking a level or two of something else while I RP the transition from bard to Paladin ('cause I just couldn't justify going right to it), then becoming a Paladin. It just seems so inorganic... Planning out the whole life of a character before you even roll a die. Not what I was looking for (and it doesn't even come CLOSE to the character I had in my head...)

Is this sort of thing a real problem in games, tho'? I mean, if a player came to me and said, "I want to play a bard-paladin, but the rules prevent me from doing so" and I talked the player, found they were thoughtful and serious, I'd gladly waive both the "lawful" restriction for the bard and even the trouble with multi-classing paladins recieve. I strongly suspect all the GMs I play with would do the same thing.

So, like, do rules-lawyer DMs do this sort of thing in actual games? Give players with good ideas hassles because of a mere rule?

 

[Chrisling]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrm

Ack. Rangers are a LOT more than mere hunters. See, there's one of my associations. "Ranger-courtier" that actually hurt my eyes to read.

Not for this player they aren't because she wants to play a courtier who hunts, and the best way to do that is to play a ranger-courtier. We are refusing to allow Aragorn get in the way of her character.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrm

Not for this player they aren't because she wants to play a courtier who hunts, and the best way to do that is to play a ranger-courtier. We are refusing to allow Aragorn get in the way of her character.

Believe it or not, I wasn't trying to be judgemental. And it has very little to do with Aragorn. Who was a Ranger-Paladin anyway, probably with a Numenorean template of some kind added on for good measure. It's just my personal image of the Ranger. As I said, one of those associations you mentioned. I have very strong associations where Rangers and Paladins are concerned. While I like being able to start play as one, the more I think about it, the more I agree with those who say they should be prestige classes. But that's another thread entirely, and we're really starting to wander as it is.

 

[S'mon]

The chaotic good nation, though it's intensions are good, tends to make rash decisions and will be more concerned with what is happening within it's own borders.

Like I said, the USA is clearly Chaotic!

 

[mkletch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrm

There are some ways around the rules limitation. Someone on these boards pointed out that a Bard doesn't lose his powers for becoming Lawful, he just can't progress further as a Bard. So I realized I could do a Bard who becomes Lawful (perhaps by embracing a LG god of justice after losing someone important to him). But that would necessitate starting as a Bard, becoming Lawful, taking a level or two of something else while I RP the transition from bard to Paladin ('cause I just couldn't justify going right to it), then becoming a Paladin. It just seems so inorganic... Planning out the whole life of a character before you even roll a die. Not what I was looking for (and it doesn't even come CLOSE to the character I had in my head...)

Yeah, and that was what killed it for me. My current character was planned out in detail from 1st level to 20th, and now being at 19th, I can see that it was fun to realize the plan but it did take something away from the game.

It's not like the abilities for either class are obviously tied to alignment (except detect evil, and that is easily modified). It's more of a campaign flavor and game balance thing. I would go almost as far as to say that a paladin could be of any alignment, as long as the character stuck to that alignment and could not go back to paladin if they 'slipped'. The only change would be a system for the paladin's mount though the blackguard's fiendish servant, and all points in between. This result would negate the need for about a dozen official prestige classes...

-Fletch!

 

[Urbannen]

I think it's problematic that Chaos/Law are used to talk about personality, i.e. "the carefree, wandering lifestyle of the Bard is not consistent with the Lawful alignment." Supposedly alignment refers to morality. If you read any Forgotten Realms products, especially Faiths and Pantheons, you'll see just how messed up the whole system is. Shaundakal is the "Helping Hand" but he's not good. Tempus teaches that all should observe the code of warfare, yet he's chaotic. Shar insists that her followers obey their superiors except if it would mean death, yet she's not lawful. Alustriel is the incredibly organized and efficient ruler of a peaceful kingdom, yet she's chaotic. Tymora appeared at her temple in Arabel during the Time of Troubles to protect it from the chaos, but since she's chaotic, wouldn't she want to increase the chaos? The list goes on and on.

The suggestion that law vs chaos really means group vs individual is really good and is a pretty supportable position across a spectrum of published products.

 

[mkletch]

I think it's problematic that Chaos/Law are used to talk about personality, i.e. "the carefree, wandering lifestyle of the Bard is not consistent with the Lawful alignment." Supposedly alignment refers to morality.

Actually, in previous editions, the G-E axis was the character's morals, and the L-C axis reflected the character's ethics. Two completely separate considerations, but with some similarities in how they are represented as a game mechanic.

-Fletch!

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Actually, in previous editions, the G-E axis was the character's morals, and the L-C axis reflected the character's ethics. Two completely separate considerations, but with some similarities in how they are represented as a game mechanic.
-Fletch!

Is there a succinct way of explaining to me why morals and ethics are actually separable? I've been told I was wrong on this before, but isn't the one entirely dependent on the other?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrm

So, like, do rules-lawyer DMs do this sort of thing in actual games? Give players with good ideas hassles because of a mere rule?

I can't believe I missed this last night...

In a word... Yes.

From what I can tell from these boards, the quality of the DMs here, is generally much greater than what I've worked with personally.

Granted, I'm working from n=3, so maybe my data is not a true sample of the DM population

 

[mkletch]

Is there a succinct way of explaining to me why morals and ethics are actually separable? I've been told I was wrong on this before, but isn't the one entirely dependent on the other?

They are certainly related to each other, but independent. For a particular moral outlook, one's ethics can vary widely. For a particular ethical outlook, one's morals can vary widely. The only comparison I can think of is complex numbers. Part real, part imaginary, but with practical uses and results. Also, the real and imaginary parts of complex numbers are continuous spectra, as are morals and ethics.

Edit: pretty geeky, huh?

-Fletch!