Quasqueton said:
Why are D&D alignments so hard for everyone to agree on and come to a mutual understanding of? What is the intrinsic flaw of D&D alignments?
I find them to be restrictive because you're expected (from some DMs) to play the same alignment
every day.
To give you an example, a lot of Mafia bosses would be considered evil in DnD terms (they sell drugs, corrupt people, etc) but they also give out money to their community. It may be some form of protection (eg they won't turn against you if you "bribe" them ahead of time) but so what? A DM who uses alignment as a straightjacket would either punish that person or pull out their "shades of grey" chart.
Now reverse the situation. You are a good-aligned character did something somewhat evil. Whatever you consider the opposite of giving money to your community is.
Some DMs will say, at that point, "I think that's kind of evil... I'm moving you towards neutral." That's pretty fair. Others will give you a twenty-minute rant about how you weren't
playing your character right which frequently means
plyaing your character in a way I disapprove of or
playing your character within my alignment bounds.
Some won't even care, as they see alignment as two letters on a piece of paper that only make a difference when a few spells are cast.
Or another example. I once played a LE assassin in a campaign where the DM made it clear, before the game started, what he considered the alignments to be. I occasionally committed acts which were neither lawful nor evil, but
most of the time I could be identified as lawful evil. I
knew I was occasionally stepping out of LE, which isn't surprising considering most people do not endlessly repeat the same behavior. The DM told me "start acting lawful evil or I will take ... steps".
And why does it seem that 90% of all the D&D alignment problems revolve around Lawful Good?
Lawful is seen as less flexible. If a chaotic character does a "lawful act" (eg I'm joining a monastery for a month) it's just seen as capricious. Lawful characters are "held to a higher standard" and, in some campaigns, aren't even playable the way the DM interprets it.
(I also dislike how lawful characters are assumed to follow the laws, even if they're trying to bend them. A lawful evil rogue might break into someplace to steal something. They clearly broke the law. They're not suddenly spiralling into chaotic territory here. See this quote: "A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition,
or a personal code directs her.")
Paladins draw heat because their code goes beyond lawful good. It's lawful stupid.
You can't use stealth "except as a last resort". Poor Flik the paladin/rogue from Dragon Magazine wouldn't like that. Suppose you have an adventuring party with a master planner. He comes up with three plans, the best of which involves stealth, and two others that don't invovle stealth. They're all pretty good plans, but the first one is obviously the best. If you follow the other two plans, however, the party will
not be ripped to shreds.
So the paladin pipes up, saying he doesn't want to follow plan #1. It's not the last resort, so he can't do it. He refuses to go along with the plan if the players follow plan #1 (and loses out on XP) or the other players conceal which plan they're using (turning the paladin into a joke ... I saw this way too often when I was a 2e player) or the other players relent, choose plan #2 or #3, and start to
police the paladin as it's hurting them.
You know there's a lot of DMs who wish their players would try being stealthy or "diplomatic" (use your Bluff!) rather than just killing every enemy they see without regards to guile, grace or finesse? Sometimes paladins get in the way of RP.
Paladins can't lie. IMO this is the epitome of lawful stupidity. You aren't even allowed to mislead your opponents! Well, actually you can if you're "clever" and only literally follow the word of the rule that says you can't lie. You turn into a Vulcan or Aes Sedai clone, rather than a real character, if you keep that up.
Are they allowed to stand around when
other players lie? See the part about association.
Most DMs I've had believe that even one lie causes you to lose paladin status. IMO the rule should say paladins are "discouraged" from lying.
Some people have suggested that, because paladins are known for not lying, people should trust them more. I disagree. Maybe it's because I've read three Wheel of Time books, but I woudln't trust
anything an Aes Sedai said, so why should I trust a paladin? If they're my enemy, they're probably leaving something out or otherwise trying to lie to me in a way that won't get them fallen.
The restrictions on paladin behavior is stricter than that of a lawful good cleric. In large part this is because cleric codes are rarely printed, but the ones in FRCS were generally playable and not as strict. Considering the cleric gets a lot more power from their deity, I don't see why it makes sense that the paladin has more RP restrictions than the cleric.
You can't balance mechanics with RP. If the RP restrictions on a paladin were an attempt to balance it's power it is a failure. (I see no evidence of that, though. Paladins are pretty powerful, but not grotesquely overpowered in the core rules.)
Paladins cannot associate with certain other party members. It should be obvious why this is a problem.
Paladins need an atonement spell if they do
not deliberately breach their code, but for some reason breach it (eg they're
dominated and forced to do something evil). Paladins should not fear for their class abilities to that extent, as it results in an overly cautious character.
As I mentioned above, players often police the paladin. Well, so do DMs. For some reasons, reasonable DMs, even those relaxed on alignment issues, become hyperaware of such things when there's a paladin around and turn into monsters. They feel it's their duty to cause the paladin to fall, either by waiting for the player to make a human mistake, or deliberately provoking a fall from grace. If the DM is still reasonable around the paladin, the players won't be. The paladin sucks the joy out of
their gaming. (See the part about stealth and diplomacy.)
No one ever comes here and asks whether an action/reaction was true to Chaotic Evil
It's difficult to be evil all the time. Clearly there are times you're not massacring peasants or torturing people. Unless you're a demon, in which case even you might run out of victims.
What is the core flaw in D&D alignments that makes it so hard for everyone to understand? Is it the written definitions (they are pretty straight forward and clear, to me)? Is it the baggage from previous editions of this game? Is it Real World gray morality clouding the concept? What is it?
Quasqueton
Some of the previous baggage disappeared. No more XP penalties for changing "alignment" or backstabbing druids or other such nonsense. In many groups I've been in, all the players have played in 2e, and it has colored their view of paladins.
