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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6688673" data-attributes="member: 6681948">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!</blockquote>

Verification