|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 2:38PM
#201
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
I'm a little torn on this one. On one hand, I hate alignment restrictions. On the other, I do beliecve words have meanings, and Paladins by definition are Good aligned (Christian by the origin of the word).
If you look at the actual history, it's more accurate to say that the original Paladins were Christian aligned, and some of them were usually Good when that didn't conflict.
In other words, they were closer to being champions of their religion (not their deity).
But they weren't really that either. They were actually champions of their king, who would tell them to overrun a same-faith rival as willingly as a rival of a different faith. And they would follow either order with the same zeal.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 2:45PM
#202
|
|
|
Alignments should be restricted to settings material.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 2:45PM
#203
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
I think the issue here is that it is easier for you to tell your players aliagnment doesn't matter, it is harder to tell a player that you are restricting the Paladin.
Well, that depends.
If the rules say that Paladins are always Lawful Good, but there are absolutely no alignment-based mechanics, it's easy to toss the restriction out.
If the alignment-based mechanics are as prevalent as in 1E, and we throw out alignment-based mechanics... what happens when the Paladin casts Detect?
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 2:55PM
#204
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
I'm afraid of the renaming path...after all Barbarians and Monks you can also argue endlessly have names that reflect a particular alignment (I don't see it but the argument has been made before.)
And honestly, the legacy names are not changing anytime soon I'm quite certain.
Yes... both are heavily rule-bound - by tribal laws and tradition in one case, by the rule of their order in the other - so both must be, or have once been, Lawful.
Wait, what?
(But changing alignment would not immediately cause either to lose their abilities. And perhaps not at all. A now-Chaotic monk would not necessarily neglect his practice at mental and physical disciplines.)
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 3:00PM
#205
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
I'm still failing to see how exactly they die makes it less Lawful or Less Good. It's a-ok if I murder them by slicing their face off, but if I stab them in the back I'm suddenly a criminal? Despite my god wants them dead anyway possible? Why should it matter?
And yes Shas, what you're describing is heavily Lawful Stupid behavior. Just because a Paladin fights with honor doesn't mean his enemies will, and just because he comes out and demands an honorable duel doesn't mean he'll get one with some villains, and chances are he'll just get filled with arrows the second he finishes his challenge statement.
While yes there are some villains this can work for(I did fight one once. He was an Orc warlord who always insisted on fair fights, killing one of his own flunkies who tried a cheap sneak attack once, and gave us some healing potions before our fight so we were all at full strength), but even the most stubbornly Lawful Good Paladin is going to have to realize not every villain plays by their rules, and sometimes they're going to have to do slightly less "fair" things if it means they're god's will getting done.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 3:13PM
#206
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
I just want to know where you found alignment definitions that flat out said LG couldn't assasinate folks. I mean evil guilty folks sure but if say St Cuthbert shows up and gives you a picture of some dude and says "he's going to blow up the world, go kill him" the Paladin is way within alignment to do so, in fact if any of his religious superiors do so and it turns out the dude is guilty, and for whatever reason capturing him is a bad plan, why shouldn't the Paladin just kill the guy?
That isn't an assassination. At least not in the Sneaky assassign type class idea.
So for the purpose of anything that I've mentioned on assassination, Assassination does not simply equal killing someone, but doing so from a position of hiding/poising said individaul who will never know you were there.
And a Paladin would insist on facing and defeating an entire army of (mostly) ignorant well-meaning underlings, so that he could challenge the bad guy face to face - rather than a nice quiet assassination that has a much higher chance of success and kills no innocents - because...
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 3:28PM
#207
|
Date Joined:
Oct 27, 2007
|
I'm still failing to see how exactly they die makes it less Lawful or Less Good. It's a-ok if I murder them by slicing their face off, but if I stab them in the back I'm suddenly a criminal? Despite my god wants them dead anyway possible? Why should it matter?
And yes Shas, what you're describing is heavily Lawful Stupid behavior. Just because a Paladin fights with honor doesn't mean his enemies will, and just because he comes out and demands an honorable duel doesn't mean he'll get one with some villains, and chances are he'll just get filled with arrows the second he finishes his challenge statement.
While yes there are some villains this can work for(I did fight one once. He was an Orc warlord who always insisted on fair fights, killing one of his own flunkies who tried a cheap sneak attack once, and gave us some healing potions before our fight so we were all at full strength), but even the most stubbornly Lawful Good Paladin is going to have to realize not every villain plays by their rules, and sometimes they're going to have to do slightly less "fair" things if it means they're god's will getting done.
The big difference is here in what the god wants. Does the god want this warlord dead or does this god want his followers to act honorable. Does the god particulary care about what happens "on the ground", does the act of behaving honorably generate a metaphysical energy that strengthens the god. Maybe the god can only increase his army of angels through souls of honorable martyrs and a smart paladin might save a lot of good people by assasinating an evilwarlordbut will thereby deprive the god of that paladins soul as angel-material.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 3:33PM
#208
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
On that you have it counter to the LAWFUL part. Poison and Ambush are considered dishonorable as far as chivalry is concerned. Lawful insinuates a code of honor. Classically that code of honor forbade posioning and attacking unawares.
First, the code of chivalry was not invented until the era that it applied to was pretty much over. And it was not invented by the people who were allegedly bound by it (but actually broke it rather routinely).
Second, the code of chivalry is very far from being the only code of honor.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 3:36PM
#209
|
|
|
I've never had a problem with alignment restrictions.
That said, I'm all for putting in sidebars to classes where the Developers can suggest alignments for those classes. LG for Paladin & Monk, No Lawful for Barbarian & Bard & maybe Rogue (LG Rogue locksmith FTW). Something like that.
I agree that the table/DM/players should decide that stuff at world/setting design or character creation.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 13, 2012 - 3:45PM
#210
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
I'm still failing to see how exactly they die makes it less Lawful or Less Good. It's a-ok if I murder them by slicing their face off, but if I stab them in the back I'm suddenly a criminal? Despite my god wants them dead anyway possible? Why should it matter?
And yes Shas, what you're describing is heavily Lawful Stupid behavior. Just because a Paladin fights with honor doesn't mean his enemies will, and just because he comes out and demands an honorable duel doesn't mean he'll get one with some villains, and chances are he'll just get filled with arrows the second he finishes his challenge statement.
While yes there are some villains this can work for(I did fight one once. He was an Orc warlord who always insisted on fair fights, killing one of his own flunkies who tried a cheap sneak attack once, and gave us some healing potions before our fight so we were all at full strength), but even the most stubbornly Lawful Good Paladin is going to have to realize not every villain plays by their rules, and sometimes they're going to have to do slightly less "fair" things if it means they're god's will getting done.
The big difference is here in what the god wants. Does the god want this warlord dead or does this god want his followers to act honorable. Does the god particulary care about what happens "on the ground", does the act of behaving honorably generate a metaphysical energy that strengthens the god. Maybe the god can only increase his army of angels through souls of honorable martyrs and a smart paladin might save a lot of good people by assasinating an evilwarlordbut will thereby deprive the god of that paladins soul as angel-material.
I doubt a god is going to send a Paladin to die just to give him a job in the heavens though. Not to mention the god probably wouldn't have a very good name in the land if he keeps sending Paladins out on what he knows are suicide missions.
Beside,s it's not exactly an honorable martyr sacrifice if the god sent him there with the intention of him dying. An honorable martyr should be more of a thing where the Paladin realizes the current situation is hopeless, but decides to carry on his beliefs and fight to the bitter end, not what essentially ends up as a pre-planned, drawn out execution.
|
|
|
