Understanding Alignment

[Dannyalcatraz]

I do agree that the Call is the standing feature to the paladin. Something in them burns brighter then the sun and causes them - not forces them, but makes them desire to - serve the Good. Now, for each paladin, the reason for answering the Call might be different, and paladins themselves are not supernaturally good, which leads to character flaws potentially leading to them falling.

That said, I would go so far as to claim that the Call doesn't even need a god. People who've read Dresden Files can note that there's a buddhist and even an agnostic Knight of the Cross.

Speaking of which, I would argue that Michael is a perfect example of the NT archtype paladin.

My reading of Paladin legend and lore differs somewhat.

There was very little option in the "Paladins" of various eras- and some who heard The Call thought they were mad before they realized the incessant demands were of divine origin. Some were even punished. One does not lightly ignore the express will of the divine.

As for The Call not requiring a god...I can buy that in 3Ed+ D&D and even a few modern novels, but they are far and away the exception. In a faith that has a concept of the divine that does not recognize or include true deities, the Paladin is probably someone who has been made aware of a particular need that he or she knows- to a dead certainty- that it is his cosmic duty to satisfy.

Even the agnostic fits to a certain point, since they, by definition, are seeking but do not know the answer as to whether there is a divine force or not. To them, The Call may be a personal test of whether the divine exists at all. To use another phrase from christian theology- they may well be "acts, not faith" oriented. Their Code will be somewhat different, since their motivation is so highly internalized. And the consequences of their failures result in the loss of their power because they have lost faith in themselves.

Atheists, though...

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I would agree that the Call requires some form of divinity to be involved, just maybe not from one specific god. The problem there may be less with the paladin and more with my irateness that D&D makes gods perhaps a bit too literal and existant at times, leading to the "Everyone is polytheist" thing.

 

[delericho]

Fair enough...

Of course, the whole OT/NT divide- and our discussion of it, kind of begs the question "What makes a Paladin a Paladin?"

Agreed.

I think the main difference- the key to the heart of the class- is The Call.

Oh yes, The Call. I forgot...

I do agree that the Call is the standing feature to the paladin.

That said, I would go so far as to claim that the Call doesn't even need a god.

As for The Call not requiring a god...I can buy that in 3Ed+ D&D and even a few modern novels, but they are far and away the exception.

IMC, it was always the forces of Law and Good themselves that issued The Call to Paladins, rather than any particular god. As such, a Paladin may be dedicated to a particular god, but certainly is not required. Furthermore, a Paladin may at length find himself at odds with the church of his deity (or perhaps even the deity himself) without it necessarily impacting on his Paladinhood.

Something in them burns brighter then the sun and causes them - not forces them, but makes them desire to - serve the Good.

My reading of Paladin legend and lore differs somewhat.

There was very little option in the "Paladins" of various eras- and some who heard The Call thought they were mad before they realized the incessant demands were of divine origin. Some were even punished. One does not lightly ignore the express will of the divine.

One character concept that always fascinated me (but I never got to play, both because I very rarely get to play anyway, and because I wasn't able to find a DM who would allow it) is the "reluctant Paladin" - a character who has been issued The Call, is given all the powers of the the Paladin, and feels obliged to fulfil that role (because when the divine says "go", who are you to say "no"?), but really doesn't want to.

I've always been fascinated by the concept of the Paladin, but only because of the alignment restrictions. I have absolutely no interest in playing a 4e Paladin, precisely because the restrictions have been removed and alignment has been made nigh-meaningless.

 

[Starfox]

Taking old testament citations (at least pre Babylonian exile) as examples of good is to me fundamentally flawed; the old testament does not claim to be good. It is a historical account of events and actions, governed by rules rather than ethos. In fact, I believe the concept of "universal good" as we see it today is alien to those texts. They are about patriots looking for the good of the people, not a universal human good. Samson is not punished for being evil, but for breaking the rules. In many ways, the OT is best represented by the ODD Lawful <-> Chaotic alignment scale.

I this entire development of the idea of an abstract good very fascinating, tough outside the scope of these forums. In many ways, David is the most interesting character in the OT - he gets away with breaking rules and commands because he is so good and charismatic, perhaps the first genuinely sympathetic figure in the Bible, even tough he still does some bad things. I recommend David Miles "God, a Biography" for others interested in this angle, even if I do not in all ways agree with him.

In my opinion, much of the problem with understanding Alignment seems to be the fact that Alignment as articulated in 1st edition AD&D posited a fundamentally unfair multiverse. A person isn't Lawful Good because he does lawful and good things. He is Lawful Good because his spiritual essence is aligned with that of the Seven Heavens.

While this was never my interpretation of the 1ed alignment system, it is a very interesting interpretation - in a literary sense. The doom that constantly hangs over Elric, for example, meshes very well with this system. And I disagree that this notion is un-western - if you include things like the Celtic and Germanic sagas in "Western". It is definitely un-existentialist and alien to some forms of modern religion, but not all.

The bottom line is that the idea of a universal good determined by your actions is a pretty recent one, that did not really get widespread acceptance until Hellenistic times (maybe 300 BC) and did not reach Northern Europe until the advent of Christianity.

"Your cattle shall die; your kindred shall die; you yourself shall die; one thing I know which never dies: the judgment on each one dead." - Havamal

(Yes, I know this quote contradicts rather than supports what I say above; I just think its poetic.)

 

[Hussar]

No.

Because this is the mark of a bad DM. "WHICH EVIL DO YOU CHOOSE!"

When a DM does this, they aren't being witty or cool or edgy, they're just being a douchebag.

You are attempting to apply things outside of alignment in order to show the "flaws" of the alignment issue. There is no unambiguous, always correct answer to the trolly problem. With or without alignment.

But, that's the whole point. If it is fairly simple to come up with situations in which there are no "unambiguous, always correct answers" then how can the mechanics provide unambiguous, always correct answers?

No. The original point is NOT that there are right and wrong answers to alignment questions (regardless of whether anyone agrees with anyone else). The original point is that there IS a stated and clear definition/description of alignment in the book. The purpose of alignment is stated clearly, and the use of alignment is stated clearly. None of this is vague or convoluted.

Stop right there. That's the whole issue in a nutshell. You are claiming that the descriptions of alignment are "stated and clear" when they are not in the slightest. They are broad, vague and open to all sorts of interpretation, as has been evidenced by thread after thread on forums and article after article in Dragon.

You're basically claiming that there are no problems with the rules, just that lots of people are too stupid to understand them.

You may not like the rule, just like someone may not like that a falchion is a two-handed weapon, or that elves stand 5-feet tall, or that it's sometimes hard to describe something without someone thinking you're using a game term (she's stunning, he's a rogue, I'm exhausted). But I don't see how anyone can say the alignment rules are not clear.

Really? You can't see how anyone can say the alignment rules are not clear. Honestly?

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

They don't actually say what good is. They say it implies certain things, but they never once come out and specifically define Good in D&D. You will not find one concrete definition of good in D&D. Certainly not in the core rules. The closest thing you get is "implies".

A longsword is X to Y feet and inches long is not implying anything. That's a concrete statement with no interpretation available. "When you reach -10 hit points, your character dies" is also a concrete statement with no interpretation available. "Good implies altruism" is not a concrete statement and allows for all sorts of interpretation.

After all, define, in mechanical, quantitative terms, "imply" and "altruism".

When you can do that, your argument for comparing the length of a sword or the reach of your character to alignment definitions will hold some water.

I find it interesting that I'm the only one using actual information/quotes from the books. Why is this? I think if some would go back and actually read the text in the books, a lot of this thread would be cleared up.

If we were talking about attacks of opportunity, there'd be rules quotes all over the place.

Bullgrit

Yup, because there are quantitative, numerical expressions that you can point to when discussing AOO's. There isn't a whole lot of fudge factor. ((Now grappling, on the other hand...)) There isn't a lot of point quoting the alignment rules yet again, because the rules are so vague and undefined that it all comes down to personal opinion anyway.

 

[Derren]

While there were very vocal alignment discussions imo the real "problem" with alignment in previous editions was that too many people did not account for alignment (and alignment detecting) when creating adventures which lead to a lot of "My players destroyed the plot because they used detect evil" whines.

 

[Hussar]

Thinking back at the issues I saw in alignment. From my own personal experience:

• DM's who tried to beat you over the head with alignment.
• Players who write down an alignment on their character sheet and then proceed to completely ignore that alignment. No, CN doesn't mean that you are reliable, dependable and always work well with others.
• Deadlocks at the table. The DM and possibly some players interpret things one way and a player or players interpret it another and the game comes to a screaming halt because no one can get past this impass.
• 2e's relative alignment system was a horrid mess. That alignment was self-defining, with people's alignments being determined by what they thought of themselves, was just incredibly difficult to adjudicate because alignment had mechanical effects.
• Probably the biggest issue I had at tables was the huge disconnect between D&D's definition of good and evil and any sort of real world interpretation. In a game where you generally go places you shouldn't go, kill lots of things for pretty much the sole purpose of stealing their goodies, and then the game tells you that this is a "good" thing makes for all sorts of wonkiness.

That last one is my biggest issue really. It's pretty difficult to find a single real world morality that says killing people for their coin is good. It's even harder to find one that says being paid by other people to kill people and steal their coin is good. Yet, that's what D&D tries to say. Go somewhere, kill everything you find, not because it's morally imperative, but because they are Team Evil and thus killing them is ok, because you are Team Good.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

One character concept that always fascinated me (but I never got to play, both because I very rarely get to play anyway, and because I wasn't able to find a DM who would allow it) is the "reluctant Paladin" - a character who has been issued The Call, is given all the powers of the the Paladin, and feels obliged to fulfil that role (because when the divine says "go", who are you to say "no"?), but really doesn't want to.

I've always been fascinated by the concept of the Paladin, but only because of the alignment restrictions. I have absolutely no interest in playing a 4e Paladin, precisely because the restrictions have been removed and alignment has been made nigh-meaningless.

Jeanne D'arc was a classic one of those. She went from thinking she was going mad to being reluctant- enthusiastic in battle, yes, but almost always reluctant to go on the next mission.

In more modern fiction, Terry Brooks' Knights of the Word are almost universally reluctant Paladins.

Taking old testament citations (at least pre Babylonian exile) as examples of good is to me fundamentally flawed; the old testament does not claim to be good. It is a historical account of events and actions, governed by rules rather than ethos.

I don't particularly agree: while it is at a certain level largely an account of historical events, its one that has a goodly degree of Godly interventions. Assuming, arguendo, that Judaism (like other monotheistic faiths) claims that the being they worship is omnibenevolent, the actions directly taken by that being must perforce be good. What evil is done in his name is the fault of the imperfect tools he chooses to use (a.k.a. Humans).

Ehud was called by God to be a champion for the Israelites, and managed to slay the Moabite king and lead the downtrodden Israelites over the Moabite army. The "Call" + the overthrow of an army by former slaves led by the Chosen one sounds very "paladin-y" to me.

The regular Nazarite vow, as I understand it, is somewhere between what we'd consider a Paladin and the BoED's Sacred Vow in what it means as a way of living your life. Samson's variant of it, though, came (again) directly from God. Its that "Call" again, I think, that elevates him to being a Paladin.

 

[doctorhook]

I always found alignment in D&D a good shorthand way of describing a PC/NPC's basic character. It wasn't a pinpoint accurate descriptor, but it was a decent thumbnail image.

The alignment names -- Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral, Good, Evil -- were pretty understandable on an intuitive level, even though the descriptions in earlier editions of D&D were vague or convoluted.

I thought the D&D3 descriptions of the alignments were damn well written -- clear, concise -- and the concept that alignments were not straightjackets was up front and straight stated.

It amazed me how some people could be confused by the alignment concepts. The idea that someone could be "Evil" but not actually be evil floored me. (That they could detect as Evil but have never done anything evil.)

Or that someone "Good" could/would regularly do very bad acts "for a greater good" or "a good end."

And then D&D4 removed/altered/changed/rennovated the alignments ostansibly because they were too complicated or too often misunderstood.

I'm curious, did most people actually have a problem with alignments, or was/is it just a vocal minority? I'm curious to hear from people who had no problems with alignments; who liked alignments.

I always thought of alignments as a great, iconic thing about D&D.

Bullgrit

Honestly, the way you're describing the use of alignment actually sounds pretty decent! Unfortunately, I don't think it was used this way by most people, in practice.

"Lawful Evil" is perfect for a short description of how "cardboard-character X" behaves, but once characters start having dynamic, complicated personalities, you start to wonder which alignment should be the dominant one, and at what point should you change what's written on the sheet. This is how we get into discussions about what alignment Hitler would have, and other stupidity. (Should people have different alignments at different times of the day, for example? Is a tyrant who is nice to children only Evil when he's at work?)

I like the 4E alignment system because it's less specific. It doesn't try to define alignments as narrowly, and so avoids a lot of the pointless debates. In 4E, Hitler would just be Evil, and Harry Potter would just be Good.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

That last one is my biggest issue really. It's pretty difficult to find a single real world morality that says killing people for their coin is good. It's even harder to find one that says being paid by other people to kill people and steal their coin is good. Yet, that's what D&D tries to say. Go somewhere, kill everything you find, not because it's morally imperative, but because they are Team Evil and thus killing them is ok, because you are Team Good.

Did this ever actually happen in your games?

In every instance of the players going out to attack someone else, to my memory, it's always prefaced with "Those monsters have begun raiding" or "Those bandits are attacking caravans" etc etc.

I've never had players spontaniously decide to attack villages they come across, regardless of the races of said village, and not expect to start hitting those Evil points. You make it sound like that happens all the time.