The old LG vs CN problem….
- Thread starter Wellby
- Start date
Celebrim
Legend
[MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION]: I certainly didn't mean to imply that all players of CN were treating CN as CE with no downsides, or a sort of CE lite. However, in my experience the majority of them were. This will of course vary with your experience, but I don't think it's an inconsiderable sum.
In my game, if CN was an axiom, it would be: "Harm no one; do as you please." or "Don't do to anyone, what you wouldn't want done to you." It's not immorality, and not necessarily insanity, and certainly not all insanity falls under CN (a harmless crackpot would; a sociopathic serial killer wouldn't). The fundamental difference between CN and CE is that you don't think you have a right to hurt others or trespass on their rights. The fundamental difference between CN and CG is that you don't feel obligated to help anyone, and if forced to choose between risking your own interests and intervening to save someone, you'll generally choose to save yourself. In other words, you might not push someone into the water, but if someone else has, you probably won't risk your neck to rescue them. In general, a CN person will look and act a lot like a CG person until it comes time to make some sort of real sacrifice. They see life as a series of transactions, freely entered into, and freely left. Everyone is supposed to be getting what they want, and leaving everyone else alone when they want to be left alone.
'Mischievous Rascals': In general, these are players whose aesthetic of play is to be crazy, blow steam, and draw attention to themselves by clowning around. They perceive CN as legitimizing that, and to a certain extent they are correct, but I think they are confusing personality with alignment sometimes. And in any event, a not inconsiderable percentage of these frequently carry it to far and are in play actively malicious and treacherous. Because sadism is funny, right?
'Actual Chaotic Neutral': These are players that get it and RP the character per the actual alignment. I never really have a trouble with this group. It's actually a fairly sizable group, per my theory that 80% of all players are only able to play some variation of themselves (either themselves, or an idealized version of themselves as they wish they were, or themselves as they would be if the fear of consequences was removed), and the fact that the ideas I outlined as CN are pretty hip and popular currently back in the real world IMO. Like you, I observe the majority of players begin as either CG or CN. I'd also add that the majority of alignment drift in play I observe is downward, as a fair percentage of the CG ones end up CN and a fair percentage of the CN end up CE.
Your other category strikes me as a being distributable amongst the 'CN is CE without the drawbacks' and 'Actual CN' categories.
I should also make clear that to me, if you want 'no strings attached', you should play Neutral. Every other alignment is taking a stand on some sort of principle that I expect them to observe most of the time during play. Neutral can be taking a stand, but it usually isn't. In particular, the character I'd expect the least constancy in (and thus the most freedom for the player to act however they want) would be a Neutral aligned character with low intelligence and low wisdom. They don't particularly stand for anything and nothing constantly. They won't have really thought about what they stand for. And even to the extent that they think they stand for something, their low wisdom prevents them from perceiving the issues at hand correctly, from formulating a response to those issues that actually lives up to their standards, and from having the willpower to live up to any sort of code consistently anyway. This wouldn't necessarily stop them from thinking that they are a paragon of virtue, because the Dunning–Kruger effect doesn't just apply to knowledge, but it does mean that they are free to act like a loose cannon without me thinking that they are being really out of character.
In my game, if CN was an axiom, it would be: "Harm no one; do as you please." or "Don't do to anyone, what you wouldn't want done to you." It's not immorality, and not necessarily insanity, and certainly not all insanity falls under CN (a harmless crackpot would; a sociopathic serial killer wouldn't). The fundamental difference between CN and CE is that you don't think you have a right to hurt others or trespass on their rights. The fundamental difference between CN and CG is that you don't feel obligated to help anyone, and if forced to choose between risking your own interests and intervening to save someone, you'll generally choose to save yourself. In other words, you might not push someone into the water, but if someone else has, you probably won't risk your neck to rescue them. In general, a CN person will look and act a lot like a CG person until it comes time to make some sort of real sacrifice. They see life as a series of transactions, freely entered into, and freely left. Everyone is supposed to be getting what they want, and leaving everyone else alone when they want to be left alone.
'Mischievous Rascals': In general, these are players whose aesthetic of play is to be crazy, blow steam, and draw attention to themselves by clowning around. They perceive CN as legitimizing that, and to a certain extent they are correct, but I think they are confusing personality with alignment sometimes. And in any event, a not inconsiderable percentage of these frequently carry it to far and are in play actively malicious and treacherous. Because sadism is funny, right?
'Actual Chaotic Neutral': These are players that get it and RP the character per the actual alignment. I never really have a trouble with this group. It's actually a fairly sizable group, per my theory that 80% of all players are only able to play some variation of themselves (either themselves, or an idealized version of themselves as they wish they were, or themselves as they would be if the fear of consequences was removed), and the fact that the ideas I outlined as CN are pretty hip and popular currently back in the real world IMO. Like you, I observe the majority of players begin as either CG or CN. I'd also add that the majority of alignment drift in play I observe is downward, as a fair percentage of the CG ones end up CN and a fair percentage of the CN end up CE.
Your other category strikes me as a being distributable amongst the 'CN is CE without the drawbacks' and 'Actual CN' categories.
I should also make clear that to me, if you want 'no strings attached', you should play Neutral. Every other alignment is taking a stand on some sort of principle that I expect them to observe most of the time during play. Neutral can be taking a stand, but it usually isn't. In particular, the character I'd expect the least constancy in (and thus the most freedom for the player to act however they want) would be a Neutral aligned character with low intelligence and low wisdom. They don't particularly stand for anything and nothing constantly. They won't have really thought about what they stand for. And even to the extent that they think they stand for something, their low wisdom prevents them from perceiving the issues at hand correctly, from formulating a response to those issues that actually lives up to their standards, and from having the willpower to live up to any sort of code consistently anyway. This wouldn't necessarily stop them from thinking that they are a paragon of virtue, because the Dunning–Kruger effect doesn't just apply to knowledge, but it does mean that they are free to act like a loose cannon without me thinking that they are being really out of character.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
pardon me for shouting a bit, but...
Well OF COURSE it is simplistic! Oh my word... Why don't people grok this? Do you really think that the purpose of ever putting alignment into D&D was so that 40 years down the road players could still be arguing morals and ethics? The point of still clinging to alignment is to ELIMINATE debates and arguments among DM's and players about morals and philosophy and actually get some frikkiin' gaming done. The purpose is NOT to simply PERPETUATE debate. Alignment fulfills its purpose by GROSS simplification. OUTRAGEOUS simplification. Assigning somewhat fixed parameters to what is otherwise INFINITELY fluid and malleable FOR EVERY INDIVIDUAL. What one person believes and how those beliefs guide what they will or will not do is SUPPOSED to have been made simple, generalized, and VASTLY easier to use as a comparison; a comparison for players to refer to in keeping their characters actions reasonable and consistent rather than random, meaningless and disruptive.
If that is what your version of the game or your DM says that a paladin is, does, must do, then yes. But paladins are not redeemers. They have no powers to redeem. Nowhere in ANY version of the rules that I know of are they given any mandate to redeem. They are religiously supported AND secularly supported, but SELF-appointed KILLERS OF EVIL. That this is so widely incomprehensible to people is similarly gobsmacking to me. I can only assume that it stems from a relentless attempt (by various later versions of the rules and supplementary materials) to reinterpret them as being nearly everything else except adherents to that simple concept.
I don't know why it should be an aspiration. It just isn't that hard. Or at least it SHOULDN'T be. It only is because too many people have MADE it hard. How? By doing nothing more complicated than refusing to accept the SIMPLIFIED concepts that the system is attempting to utilize.
[edit] Down through the years alignment should have become simpler still with every new set of rules - easier to explain, easier to implement and to make use of. Instead, it has become incomprehensible, re-defined so many times as to be meaningless and therefore useless, so abhorred due to so many stupid and ham-fisted attempts by both designers and players to "fix" it without first even being able to define what it is, and what it's supposed to be for, that every subsequent attempt only leads to greater confusion and LESS likelihood that it will ever be useful to more than a small handful who can filter out 4 decades of crap.
Last edited:
First off, if alignment were actually "simplified ethics and morality which allows us to get on with gameplay", we would not have huge discussions on alignment.
Second, alignment is not a point. There are not 9 possible world views, with no others are acceptable in the game. The old 1e page diagram represents it well. LG is a broad area of characters who lean to both Law and Good. Some are extremely Lawful and very Good. Others may favour Law over Good, or Good over Law, when the two conflict. Most will have some non-Lawful and/or non-Good traits. Some will be absolute paragons of Law and Good, right up there in the top left corner of the page. Others will be much less absolute, right near that border with Neutral.
Paladins are actually required to be more Good than Lawful. A single Evil act removes their status, but a single Chaotic act does not. Association with CG and CN characters is not prohibited, but stay away from those LE guys. They are capable of compromise. They have to be - they are neither purely Good (NG) nor purely Lawful (LN) - Law tempers Good and Good tempers Law.
With this in mind, any given Paladin can emphasize Mercy and Redemption over Justice and Retribution, or vice versa. Two Paladins might have very different views on dealing with any given criminal, with one favouring the "one strike" viewpoint - "you committed the crime, the penalty is death - an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life" , and the other believing that all life is sacred - "taking a life for the crime of taking a life is still taking a life, and is still a crime against Good - we must try to redeem the offender". Neither, however, will fail to stand against irredeemable evils like undead or outsiders. Both would place themselves in harm's way to protect an innocent person. But one may well see the other as too soft, and the other sees him as too rigid and unforgiving.
Alignment has broadened over the years. We started with Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic in OD&D. But L became G and C became E. It was a White Dwarf article I read 30+ years back in a compilation of its early highlights that noted Dr. Who its inspiration - the Doctor is clearly both Good and Chaotic, while the Daleks epitomize both Evil and Law. And the Basic Blue Book presented 5 alignments - LG, CG, N, LE, CE.
AD&D added the "pure" alignments of NG, NE, LN and CN. One ideal to the exclusion of all others. The cosmology eventually added more borders, to fit more outer planes in, which reflected some LG's being more Good and others more Lawful.
For some characters, I can outline views and personalities, and alignment is clear. For others, they probably straddle some lines, and are tougher to pin down. But it's only a big deal if alignment change is a big deal. It is for some classes, of course, but less so for others.
Another great old magazine article posited four clerics, two LG and two CG. The LG Cleric of Tyr is discussing the battle plan for dealing with the approaching enemies, while the CG cleric of Thor is all for charging into the fray and get on with it. The LG cleric of Dian Cecht (one word in D&D lore IIRC) isn't going anywhere - there are injured men here who he must tend to. Meanwhile, the CG cleric of Aphrodite unclasps the shoulder of her gown and tells them "Boys, stay here - I'll soon end their desire to fight at all."
Alignment used as a tool can be useful. Alignment used as a straightjacket strangles the game. Order of the Stick shows us that alignment used as a parody can be hilarious - always carry your lead shield!
Second, alignment is not a point. There are not 9 possible world views, with no others are acceptable in the game. The old 1e page diagram represents it well. LG is a broad area of characters who lean to both Law and Good. Some are extremely Lawful and very Good. Others may favour Law over Good, or Good over Law, when the two conflict. Most will have some non-Lawful and/or non-Good traits. Some will be absolute paragons of Law and Good, right up there in the top left corner of the page. Others will be much less absolute, right near that border with Neutral.
Paladins are actually required to be more Good than Lawful. A single Evil act removes their status, but a single Chaotic act does not. Association with CG and CN characters is not prohibited, but stay away from those LE guys. They are capable of compromise. They have to be - they are neither purely Good (NG) nor purely Lawful (LN) - Law tempers Good and Good tempers Law.
With this in mind, any given Paladin can emphasize Mercy and Redemption over Justice and Retribution, or vice versa. Two Paladins might have very different views on dealing with any given criminal, with one favouring the "one strike" viewpoint - "you committed the crime, the penalty is death - an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life" , and the other believing that all life is sacred - "taking a life for the crime of taking a life is still taking a life, and is still a crime against Good - we must try to redeem the offender". Neither, however, will fail to stand against irredeemable evils like undead or outsiders. Both would place themselves in harm's way to protect an innocent person. But one may well see the other as too soft, and the other sees him as too rigid and unforgiving.
Alignment has broadened over the years. We started with Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic in OD&D. But L became G and C became E. It was a White Dwarf article I read 30+ years back in a compilation of its early highlights that noted Dr. Who its inspiration - the Doctor is clearly both Good and Chaotic, while the Daleks epitomize both Evil and Law. And the Basic Blue Book presented 5 alignments - LG, CG, N, LE, CE.
AD&D added the "pure" alignments of NG, NE, LN and CN. One ideal to the exclusion of all others. The cosmology eventually added more borders, to fit more outer planes in, which reflected some LG's being more Good and others more Lawful.
For some characters, I can outline views and personalities, and alignment is clear. For others, they probably straddle some lines, and are tougher to pin down. But it's only a big deal if alignment change is a big deal. It is for some classes, of course, but less so for others.
Another great old magazine article posited four clerics, two LG and two CG. The LG Cleric of Tyr is discussing the battle plan for dealing with the approaching enemies, while the CG cleric of Thor is all for charging into the fray and get on with it. The LG cleric of Dian Cecht (one word in D&D lore IIRC) isn't going anywhere - there are injured men here who he must tend to. Meanwhile, the CG cleric of Aphrodite unclasps the shoulder of her gown and tells them "Boys, stay here - I'll soon end their desire to fight at all."
Alignment used as a tool can be useful. Alignment used as a straightjacket strangles the game. Order of the Stick shows us that alignment used as a parody can be hilarious - always carry your lead shield!
My OoTS aspiration comment has little to do with alignment. I've seen far too many players who build their character, have him pop in from nowhere with no history and a couple of personality quirks, and that's the character. He does not grow, change or evolve. The scrap of paper he was originally described on summarizes his "personality" and he will never grow beyond it, reconsider his views in light of his experiences or in any way differ from the two quirks he was defined by when he was first introduced. Role playing wise, he IS a stick figure.
Celebrim
Legend
Not necessarily. While the original restriction was almost certainly intended to be a simple gamist construct that restricted the ‘moves’ you could make in game, the underlying issue isn’t simple at all.
It’s actually a minority of real world religions that would agree with the assumptions you raise. That it seems simplistic is a background bias, because the actual issues here are quite complex and there is very little agreement on them. Some religions make a distinction between being with or among the impure - heretics, nonbelievers, sinners, low caste, however that is defined within the religion – and being associated with them. That is, a religion might command its followers to be friendly to the out group, it might forbid that they should ever be connected to them. Perhaps you can fellowship with them, but you can’t be their associates. Love your neighbor, but do not be yoked to them.
But in the vast majority of religions, whether Eastern or Western, even to be among the impure is considered wrong. These religions focus on the idea of ritual or spiritual purity, and the outgroup – heretics, nonbelievers, sinners, low caste, heathens, etc. – caries the idea of uncleanliness so that even to touch them or to be among them contaminates you and renders you unclean. Just as a sacred space has to be set apart from mundane uses in order to be a sacred space, in order to retrain your sacredness, you have to be set apart. This is the reason for example that if you clown around and blow bubbles in Arlington National Cemetery and particularly around the tomb of the unknown soldier, someone from the military is likely to point a bayonet at your throat and ask you to leave. They wish to protect and keep the place sacred. Likewise, the vast majority of world religions keep their priesthood set apart as a special caste of persons so that they will retain their purity, and require the followers of the religion to be set apart.
So one major question is how associated can you be with the outgroup and still retain your purity? Most religions absolutely forbid marrying outside of the religion, but after that it gets more open to interpretation. Can you form a business partnership? Can you be friends? Can you eat a meal with them? How connected in the mind of an onlooker are you allowed to be? The religion I imagine you are most familiar with is actually really unusual in allowing and even encouraging this sort of fellowship with the outgroup. Most would answer the question, “Should you eat a meal with them?” with “Certainly not! Forbid that I should ever be seen with sinners or heathens!” There is even a widespread extant religion where the mainstream widely accepted jurisprudence regarding the religions demands is that to form a friendship with a non-believer is a crime worthy of death, and the only valid excuse you have is if you are just pretending to be friends because you feared for your life if you didn’t.
At some level, we are going to have to define ‘good’ if we are to proceed here, and that’s an even trickier subject than evil. We can usually agree at a high level on what is evil, but what is good – what is the remedy to evil – is not something that there is usually agreement on. Everything about your post reeks with viewpoint. Many religions don’t believe that people are redeemable, and some even believe it is wrong to even try. Many religions believe that people are destined to certain outcomes, and attempting to effect that destiny – even to a positive outcome – is wrong. In a D&D context, lawful religions are more likely I would think to believe in destiny, and the more lawful the more likely that they are to believe in unchangeable destiny. And it’s not like only good fantasy sects might expect their priesthood or followers to be set apart in some way so that they could accumulate sacred (or profane) power.
So I think it is reasonable that some lawful good fantasy sects would demand their most sacred mortal representatives to always be set apart from the unclean and not associated with them. Also some sects might believe that mercy is good because it is good for you to be merciful, or because it is good for those that receive it. That is a pretty big distinction. To pick on a real world religion in a way I both hope won’t offend anyone and also won't promote piling it on or venting, do you think the street preachers that shout on soap boxes do so because they think it is good for the souls of those that hear them, or because they think it is good for their own? In other words, is the act motivated by empathy or is it motivated by the desire to be more set apart and more sacred? Is it motivated by the desire to win converts and assimilate the hearers (even if or because you despise them), or is it motivated by a desire for self-improvement? In D&D terms, exactly what is going on to motivate that act could be the difference between law and chaos.
Even within the very few religions that promote charity toward the outgroup, there is usually historical tension between the desirability of being cloistered away in a sacred place to pray and worship and the desirability of reaching out in acts of charity. There is always a tension between purity and compassion, and proponents of each will often claim that each provides a valuable example. If you want to be a shining example of righteousness, shouldn’t you be set apart and pure? Can you be a shining example of righteousness while toiling amongst the filth of this world, or will it not inevitably contaminate you?
So in a D&D context, I can see this as being a major point of contention even within alignments and sometimes within cults and sects. Should we set ourselves apart in a sacred space, or should we go out and do whatever works are required by our beliefs? And different deities might compel their champions to act differently, and have different requirements for what counted as ‘associated’ with someone who was evil. That probably should be spell out in the code for their champions prior to expecting someone to act the part.
Last edited:
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Well certainly THAT I can agree is a problem as I've too often seen that myself and wished certain players would invest just a LITTLE bit of effort in making their PC more than just numbers on a page.
Celebrim
Legend
Rich’s presentation of alignment in ‘examples of play’ is so much more nuanced, coherent and thoughtful than anything TSR or WotC has ever done. I’ve been very impressed with the clarity of his thought and above all with the empathy and compassion with which he approaches characters of each alignment. I don’t know if this empathy is a natural attribute of Rich or something cultivated by long experience as a DM, but it’s really impressive to me either way. I’ve long held that as a DM, you need to be able to eloquently defend each alignment’s precepts, because otherwise it’s not reasonable to believe that real people would believe them and your characters will therefore be flat and one dimensional. Certainly this will be true of the characters of the alignments you can’t empathize with, but it will also I think undermine your ability to portray the alignments you most empathize with because you’ll be unreflective and just assume that point of view is obvious.
(This is something also discussed eloquently in Green Ronin’s ‘The Book of the Righteous’ on the topic of evil, when the writer points out how terribly unlikely and unreasonable it would be for and large number of real people to serve evil gods as they are usually presented in other fantasy works.)
In my mind, as I read OotS, I read it as if it was a transcription of actual play, and that there were actual players animating the choices of all the characters. I do that first because it is believable as a transcription of actual play in every level, and because it’s interesting to think about how the choices of the characters are both on one level believable reification of the characters and at the same time serving the purposes of the story. Combined with the seriousness with which each character’s beliefs are displayed, this causes me to imagine the players as being extremely skilled and masterful RPers. In particular, the imaginary players of Roy and Belkar for me are the sort of players I would aspire to be. They are absolutely fantastic in every way, playing alignments that are extremely tricky to get right, not the least of which is the vast majority of examples of play of characters of that alignment that people have seen get them all wrong. I mean sure, it’s easy to imagine Elan’s player as the sort of typical CG/CN goofball player that is trying to draw spotlight to himself and blow steam by being nutty and stupid and Durkar’s player is a sort of stodgy gamist type with a neckbeard that has a lot of experience but isn’t entirely into all the thespianism, but Roy and Belkar are just amazing.
In particular, what gets me about Belkar’s player compared to almost every CE character I’ve ever seen in a game is the player understands that if he’s going to play an evil character it’s not the rest of the groups responsibility to comprise to allow him to fit in, but that as the anti-hero/anti-villain outlier in the group its his responsibility to make it believable that the character is allowed to remain in the group. And so Belkar almost invariably finds a funny excuse for ‘standing down’ when confronted in a way that strongly makes Belkar come across as a scary creep, but still excuses the party for hanging out with this creep. And Belkar’s player is so patient. He knows he’s in a multi-year campaign, so he’s not expecting 15 minutes into it to pull off a stunning betrayal are brutal crime to prove his bone fide CE’ness. He knows he’s got lots of time to establish character, and it indicates he’s playing the character out of a genuine interest to explore the character and not because his own id/ego/whatever is compelling him to act out evil acts because of the desirability or fun his player perceives in acting out those acts. As a DM I find that immensely refreshing compared to, “Look. Look. I’m torturing and raping people. Hur Hur. No, really, I am!! I really am. Isn’t it cool!”
But the relationship between Belkar and Roy is just a thing of beauty. These are two characters at the opposite ends of the alignment spectrum. They’ve got nothing in common really. They are just using each other. They detest what the other stands for. In most groups, by the second session they’d be trying to kill each other, and the players would make the character’s belief conflict personal (probably because often as not each player was actually playing himself) and you’d end up with table conflict. But instead while the characters are at each other’s throats, it’s easy to imagine that the players themselves have this incredible rapport. Belkar’s player knows that as the chaotic PC, his character is much more free to change his mind and his beliefs compared to Roy, and so is willing to take Roy’s queues and then find a reason to back down to end the conflict before it reaches the level of roll for initiative. Roy’s player on the other hand is played as this very intellectual character whose both strength and weakness is a gift for long term planning. Roy’s justification for associating with Belkar is essentially that it’s better serves the interests of good and law in the long term (or at least the mid-term) for him to do so. Not only will not associating with Belkar make the quest less likely to succeed - at least until his presumed inevitable betrayal that Roy believes he can prepare for and see coming - but that if Belkar is ejected from the group he’s only going to end up working for Team Evil and be an even worse force for evil. So when Roy needs to compromise, Roy’s player invents a long term reason for doing so that is benevolent and orderly.
And don’t get me wrong, as LG he’s got the freedom to be merciful and be in character, but instead of playing this as being paragon Lawful Good, Roy’s player is playing this as a slight but perhaps tragic character flaw either consciously or because the player himself has that flaw. And you can really see that coming out in the current Durkon plot line, because it’s exactly this willingness to discard his straight forward ethical beliefs in the name of long term planning that has gotten him into serious trouble with Durkon’s vampiric state. Roy essentially has and always had a flaw of mild arrogance, an assumption that he’s smart enough to figure it out for himself and he doesn’t have to rely on a moral/ethical code but that he’s capable of interpreting it. That’s actually mildly chaotic, and Roy was called on it when he died and was judged, but Roy’s player pulls it off as not an ethical conflict but as being a personality and justifies it as being lawful and good to the best of Roy’s ability. And this is great on so many levels, because it shows that no one need be 100% consistent, that personality and alignment aren’t the same thing, that you can be lawful good without being lawful stupid, but at the same time maybe sometimes you should just follow the rules and not assume you know better than whoever made the rules. (I mean, witness Roy lecturing the Gods recently, and at the same time not realizing they can’t even hear him.) Roy is about to be in a huge moral crisis, because Belkar’s chaotic evil – hit your enemies as hard as you can before they can hit you – was probably the right thing to do hear and Roy pragmatism (neutral) and reliance on his own judgment (chaotic) badly is leading him astray. I wouldn’t be surprised to find Roy thrown into the same level of depression and crisis Belkar was thrown into when he realized his officiousness was actually working against his own self-interest.
And all of this just shows just how amazing and how much story can be added and how much fun it can be to play a Lawful character. It’s not a drag to play lawful. It doesn’t mean that you are somehow gimped as a player or as a character. I mean consider O-Chul who is probably the most ‘badass’ character in the whole story, and is honestly the best most fully realized Paladin in the history of D&D media. I mean D&D has been around like 40 years now and we are finally just recently getting a good public characterization of a Paladin, instead of an endless parade of Lawful Stupid, Lawful Cruel, and hypocrites that inevitably turn into villains that have marked how the Paladin has been handled in prior media. Did it really take nearly 40 years to find someone who could at least empathize with the LG perspective rather than scorn it? No wonder the growth of RPGs as art has been so slow.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
D&D 5E (2024)
Youre All Wrong. Its Not A Martial vs Caster Situation
