Community

septembervirgin wrote:

First of all, you gotta remember that alignment is just like any other roleplaying contrivance: it's part of the game and as part of the game it has rules and effects game situation. GURPS has mental disads and quirks, Champions has mental disads, Palladium has alignment (and it's not going to suddenly become the one game with alignment), etc.

And it's a bad roleplaying contrivance, being oversimplified.

septembervirgin]Isn't it true that what a lawfully aligned person would see fit to do would normally differ from what a chaotically aligned person would see fit to do?

Alignment needn't be a straightjacket, as has been noted in an old Dragon magazine article. What is noteworthy about a paladin is that a paladin will see kindly and merciful order must be achieved and prefer kindly and ordered methods to other methods.

Lawful characters simply prefer ordered situations and ordered behavior in themselves and others.

And requiring that of certain classes and forbidding it from other classes is bunk. Also, causing disorder, as adventuring behavior often does, will cause a DM to punish said paladin for simply going about his regular business, and be well within the rules in the DMG.

Isn't it true that what a lawfully aligned person would see fit to do would normally differ from what a chaotically aligned person would see fit to do?

Alignment needn't be a straightjacket, as has been noted in an old Dragon magazine article. What is noteworthy about a paladin is that a paladin will see kindly and merciful order must be achieved and prefer kindly and ordered methods to other methods.

Lawful characters simply prefer ordered situations and ordered behavior in themselves and others.[/quote]
And requiring that of certain classes and forbidding it from other classes is bunk. Also, causing disorder, as adventuring behavior often does, will cause a DM to punish said paladin for simply going about his regular business, and be well within the rules in the DMG.

This has been refuted time and time again, sometimes through invoking the name of Freud (you know, retention of certain maturation stages can result in avoidance of rules and law), sometimes through simple expanation that a DM who punishes players with physical torture probably should be avoided. Otherwise, it's called "part of the game".

A part of the game that is "absurdly oversimplified and should be removed." Also, Freud began the science of psychiatry, and a very small percentage of psychiatrists still believe in his doctrines and methods.

How about the guy who says that his paladin should torture and assassinate as a code of conduct? Come on, guy, think a little about the reason alignment is there in the first place. It's simple, it's easy to use, and it helps calm people down because "it's the rules".

DM says "Heironeous says 'no.' The rules say that I should suspend your powers for behaving in a way counter to your god's doctrines, and that's pretty definitely what you're trying to do with this 'code of conduct.' Try again." Problem solved.

Think about this one: a paladin who summons devils in order to achieve selfish goals that fit perfectly into a code of conduct. Hey, the religion has paladins, the religion isn't good or evil because there's NO ALIGNMENT, and if devils can be used to achieve personal ends that don't threaten the religion's goals -- why not?

Because that violates the code of conduct that the DM and player have agreed upon.

The reason why not is to remove alignment and its influence turns epic fantasy on its head. It's more likely the majority of players will want paladins as "Lawful Good" than paladins as "Any Alignment" -- and the lesser group is usually the group who don't need nor want game rules anyway. So, paladins should retain Lawful Good alignment in the rules, alignment should still be pertinent to gameplay, and the smaller group that WANTS alignment to be out could always ignore alignment rules. It's been done before. It's been done in Rune Quest. Hero Quest also does not use alignment rules. Is D&D Rune Quest? Is D&D Hero Quest? Is D&D any other fantasy game besides D&D? No, no, and no. A thousand times no.

By the way, paladins of Asmodeus have been confirmed for 4E. Looks like paladins being required to be LG is gone. I'm guessing there are other, more roleplaying oriented methods of keeping the paladins and their patrons on the same page.

D&D has character classes, D&D has playable non-human species of humanoids, D&D has alignment, armour class, hitpoints, and saving throws.

It's called an American Passtime, a hobby developed in Wisconsin, a new game in the world made by good old American know-how by good US citizens, Gygax and Arneson. Arduin-Grimoire and Empire of the Petal Throne should be given honorable mention though!

One might as well try to remove the smile from the Mona Lisa, eh?

It also had THAC0. I don't miss that. Do you?

caeruleus]The whole point is that it's simplified. Alignment is not supposed to be a personality assessment of your character. It's a rough way of categorizing what values are considered important in the default setting. The labels "conservative" and "liberal" are also oversimplified. But in the right contexts, they can be useful for making comparisons.

Fair enough. But that point, too, can be useful in making my argument stronger. Suppose, for a moment, we replace alignment in DnD with "conservative" and "liberal," and turn me into a DnD character. My views are strongly conservative on most issues. However, I feel strongly about individual rights. Suppose the DM puts me in a situation where an individual's rights are being ignored entirely. Naturally, due to my personal perspective on this issue, I attempt to defend him. How long and how vigorously can I struggle for this cause currently associated in America with the "liberal" side without the DM pointing out that I've been championing liberal ideals, while my character sheet says I'm conservative, and should really change my sheet to reflect my behavior?

The whole point is that it's simplified. Alignment is not supposed to be a personality assessment of your character. It's a rough way of categorizing what values are considered important in the default setting. The labels "conservative" and "liberal" are also oversimplified. But in the right contexts, they can be useful for making comparisons.[/quote]
Fair enough. But that point, too, can be useful in making my argument stronger. Suppose, for a moment, we replace alignment in DnD with "conservative" and "liberal," and turn me into a DnD character. My views are strongly conservative on most issues. However, I feel strongly about individual rights. Suppose the DM puts me in a situation where an individual's rights are being ignored entirely. Naturally, due to my personal perspective on this issue, I attempt to defend him. How long and how vigorously can I struggle for this cause currently associated in America with the "liberal" side without the DM pointing out that I've been championing liberal ideals, while my character sheet says I'm conservative, and should really change my sheet to reflect my behavior?

Well, the problem is isn't so much with alignment, as with alignment restrictions for classes. Furthermore, I think the reason you find alignment so stifling is because you take it too literally.

If you're not supposed to do what the words in the book say, what good are those words doing? My characters usually get warnings from my DMs that I'm pushing the boundaries of my alignment, and am about to take a shift. I can, when asked, explain how my character still fits overall into his alleged alignment, but I'm always asked, because DnD assumes that you're going to be acting within the guidelines of your chosen alignment, and I find those two-dimensional and constraining.