The history of Paladin discussions is a history of misunderstandings.

Gary was quite clear, still many do not get what a Paladin is.

Quote from: jrientsI'd be all for keeping alignment as a handy tag for roleplaying notes, but I'm not as fond of it as a metaphysical source for game mechanics (i.e. a damage type, a spell descriptor, etc).

I subscribe to this view. It is a handy shorthand, but not really important. I rarely bother with it nowdays; and after all, 90% of PCs in my games seem to be N, CN and CE types.

Quote from: SettembriniGary was quite clear, still many do not get what a Paladin is.

Paladin: someone in heavy armor who has the hots for a swan-may.

Quote from: James J SkachIf you don't have alignment, what good is a "Detect Evil" spell?

It detects anything that has an aspect that contains the word "Evil"?

Quote from: HinterWeltPure speculation, but just the way it is treated in the books it seems a punitive rule from conception. The only time it comes into play (going from memory here) is as a spell aspect or a behavior restriction. I don;t think you see "If he is Lawful Good, doing right in the world and supporting the laws of the land, he will be blessed with the powers granted by his god". Isn't it "If he does an evil act, he loses all divine powers"?

In the D&D game I'm currently running, I'm using a system for Action Points that Bill White at Storygames originally developed as an XP system. Basically, you get rewarded for actions within the path of your own and adjacent alignments (and if you act more on an adjacent one, you'll shift over), and get penalized for acting within your opposite, except you can instead renounce your alignment for a big bonus (starting over at Neutral and working toward a new alignment).

What I like about it relevant to this discussion is that A) the descriptions Bill wrote are really good, non-wonky "rule of thumb" encapsulations of actual behavoirs of the alignments, and B) it doesn't force anyone to do anything, just incentivizes a certain (pretty flexible, I think) range of behaviors. The Chaotic Good person can act all Lawful Neutral if he wants, he just doesn't a bonus OR penalty for it. Doesn't address the "Paladin issue" you're talking about (which is fine because we don't have any Paladins), but I think it works great for alignment behavior in general.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: -E.Anyway, I think alignment can add color and even... well, philosophical depth to a game. And I think it actually brings up questions about what's "Good" and what's "Evil" in a way that would be unaddressable without those rules.

I'm really, really curious. Just what does this "philosophical depth" WRT alignment look like, in play? 'Cause it's really counter to my own experience, which is more like "I stole because I'm chaotic!" or "I killed because I'm evil!" or (even worse) "I just killed a kind and helpful guy for no reason! Does that make me Chaotic Evil yet?" (<-actual play example! :eyecrazy: )

So yeah, I'd really like to know what that's like. :confused:

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorI'm really, really curious. Just what does this "philosophical depth" WRT alignment look like, in play? 'Cause it's really counter to my own experience, which is more like "I stole because I'm chaotic!" or "I killed because I'm evil!" or (even worse) "I just killed a kind and helpful guy for no reason! Does that make me Chaotic Evil yet?" (<-actual play example! :eyecrazy: )

So yeah, I'd really like to know what that's like. :confused:

Peace,
-Joel

Yeah, I know what you're saying, but I've been fortunate enough to play with both types of players, sometimes the same guys at different times. One group I DMed used alignment exactly how you say - "I wanna be Chaotic Neutral; then I can get away with anything!" That's not far from something I've actually heard uttered. On the other end of the spectrum, I've had game sessions morph into discussions of the nature of good and evil (and neutrality), and how it all relates to the underpinnings of existence. That's not as pretentious as it sounds; it was always with a group of friends that played for the sheer enjoyment of the game as a game - you know, an excuse to get together and hang out, not some deadly serious exercise in small-scale improvisational theater. So the discussion, like the game session as a whole, was pretty informal and relaxed (especially if some of them had been smoking weed).

Eh.  I just pick one that feels right for my character, and don't really think about it much.

I don't pick an alignment, and then play my character to suit, I make my character, and then pick my alignment to match.  I find that there's enough range of basic moral philosophy that I can find one that matches well enough with any of the characters I've come up with.

Quote from: SettembriniThe history of Paladin discussions is a history of misunderstandings.

Gary was quite clear, still many do not get what a Paladin is.

If so many don't get what a paladin is, then Gary wasn't clear at all.

Quote from: MelinglorI'm really, really curious. Just what does this "philosophical depth" WRT alignment look like, in play? 'Cause it's really counter to my own experience, which is more like "I stole because I'm chaotic!" or "I killed because I'm evil!" or (even worse) "I just killed a kind and helpful guy for no reason! Does that make me Chaotic Evil yet?" (<-actual play example! :eyecrazy: )

So yeah, I'd really like to know what that's like. :confused:

Peace,
-Joel

In the last D&D game I ran the PC's patrons were philosophers who were questioning the nature of evil.

In a D&D world you can test for Evil empirically, so you examine gray areas (like utilitarian decisions, or answers to various "trolley questions") and determine what actually makes a person 'Evil' in the directly observable sense.

And that, in turn, tells you something profound about the nature of the universe.

You can also look at evil in terms of personality. One of the adventures was to go recover a cursed artifact -- one of those helms that reverses your alignment -- so the characters could see if putting it on changed you into a raving sociopath or simply a cold-blooded calculating triage nurse...

No one was willing to put it on, but the speculation about what *might* happen was interesting. Everyone agreed it probably wouldn't change your personality or memories... just your moral calculus.

There was also a few adventures about the nature of forgiveness (let's say you've 'gone evil' -- can you ever go back?) and what it takes to erase an evil action (or if actions, themselves are evil, or if it all comes down to intent).

I got to trot out an adventure in Ethan Brand's rotting Limefurnace (to recover the black stone heart, of course), and so-on.

By taking the D&D alignment system literally and seriously, it simply forced thoughtful questions about good and evil into the foreground.

Make sense?
Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: J ArcaneI don't pick an alignment, and then play my character to suit, I make my character, and then pick my alignment to match.

That's the way to do it, in my book. Given that a lot of m,y plaers in the abovementioned game were using alignment to point the way, I figured the system I adopted would be a way to do it without personally going crazy. And everyone's found it fun so far.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: -E.Make sense?
Cheers,
-E.

I think I'm getting the picture. Getting to "test for Evil" does have interesting potential for an examination of evil that we don't have available to us in the real world, as you say. I still think I prefer the real-world, no-handy-scorecard framework for examining moral issues, but you demonstrate a fascinating alternative.

I would really like to see the whole "alignment reversal helm" thing played out with the same personality but altered ethics. That would be awesome.

Peace,
-Joel

Haven't used it since I was a teenager playing AD&D, where we tortured suspects to make them speak their alignment language, and if we didn't understand it (we were good) we killed them.

Since overall we were ridding the world of evil, we felt that was justified.

I think the idea is good for newbies, because it sets out their motivations each session but it soon wanes when you get a bit older and want to play a character that is good for some acts but utterly evil for others.

Quote from: Rob LangI think the idea is good for newbies, because it sets out their motivations each session but it soon wanes when you get a bit older and want to play a character that is good for some acts but utterly evil for others.

I think that's true, it helps when you start out but later it just lacks nuance.