Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    David Sean Brown
    Guest

    Paladins, Priests, and Alignmen

    > You're right, but these points only pertain to a very superficial level
    > of a character's motivations.
    > The point I'm making here is that the alignment system doesn't really allow
    > for more complex characters, only more
    > black-and-white distinctions. A character, for example, that believed in
    > having as little government as possible,but
    > that the laws put forth by that government should be strictly obeyed--would
    > be described as what? Chaotic Lawful Good?
    > It's a little contradictory, that's all.

    I see what you are saying..it really depends on how extreme you view the
    system I suppose...in the example you gave, I would say the character is
    lawful good...just not the extreme lawful of say a paladin, but not
    lawless enough to be neutral..Personally, I feel the system used is pretty
    flexible, in that with only 9 types, you can still make a character do
    whatever you want and still fit within a particular align (providing they
    aren't all over the road with their actions)..I suppose I'm a little more
    leniant with my players use of the system than others

    Sean

  2. #12
    The Olesens
    Guest

    Paladins, Priests, and Alignmen

    I must say thanks to those who wrote in on the Alignment part of this thread. I had a PC
    (from Dhoesone) who I couldn't figure out an alignment for. This discussion helped.
    Thanks again!

    - -Andrew

  3. #13
    Crossfell@aol.co
    Guest

    Paladins, Priests, and Alignmen

    I believe the recent discussion proves that the alignment, as some have
    already said, is inadequate. Different cultures definitely perceive law,
    chaos, good and evil differently. Even worse people of the same culture can't
    agree. I've had many discussions with players who wanted to play neutral
    assasins. While their arguments had merit in their eyes it didn't hold water
    for me.

    So why bother with alignment? For the atheist and agnostic what power is
    going to monitor their progress in life to the point that they'll take a level
    away if a major diversion is made? Even worse, why include an element that is
    a potential source of conflict between the players and the players and the DM?
    It is a source of conflict to in several games I've been in.

    For the devout worshipper surely following the tennents of their deity is
    enough. If Haelyn is the deity of Noble War and making Laws than if his
    priests follow these concepts they will surely be rewarded. Note that this
    wouldn't prevent a priest from raiding the treasury for his own profit, as
    long as the holy books don't specifically forbid it. Even if they do the gods
    know we are human, and humans err. Just as long as they don't err to often or
    to greatly. In my world I track how well they follow their god's areas of
    concern. If they keep on track all is well and good, if not they find out and
    pay the price.

    DM's who want paladin's of all faiths to be holy warriors, well it's your
    world and have at it! I don't believe it's logical though for the goddess of
    thieves to have a knighthood. Should you insist on having these knights
    consider a third option. Consider another class, call them Avatari. The
    priests exist to preach to the masses (or the covert groups) encouraging
    worship of their deity and generally spreading the faith. Paladins are the
    mighty defenders of the church or champions of the deity's special causes.
    Avatari on the other hand would be those few who did try to become like their
    deity, as much as humanly possible at least. You could base them on the
    avatar of the deity in question. Make them rise in levels as that of the
    class that most closely epitomizes the god. Perhaps jack the points up some
    to account for special abilities.

    Cheers,

    Steve

  4. #14
    Samuel Weiss
    Guest

    Paladins, Priests, and Alignmen

    That example from the 2nd ed. PHB is stupid. Ignore it. That is a madman,
    not a Chaotic Neutral. Read the description of Chaos vs. Law again.
    Law puts the group and the need sof the group first.
    Chaos puts the individual and the desires of the individual first.
    They put their wants first. If they agreed to do something else, so what?
    They heard this rumor of a great magic item somewhere, so you can take your
    quest and shove it. But they don't just decide it is time to go feed the
    ducks because it is unexpected.
    A Lawful person might hear about their arch nemesis being helpless just over
    the hill, but they signed on for a mission, and they must keep their word,
    serve their king and country, and do what they are supposed to first.
    Personal matters can wait.
    For someone who wants very few laws, but insists that those that do exist be
    followed, it is called Neutral Good/Neutral Evil/Neutral Neutral. Neutrality
    on that axcis does not mean follow the law one day, break it the next, no
    more than Neutrality with regards to Good and Evil means commit murder one
    day, open an orphanage the next.
    Finally, there seems to be a misunderstanding being Good the alignment and
    good meaning either beneficial or according to the precepts of a group or
    proficient. An Evil priest is Evil, however, he may be quite good at being
    Evil, following the precepts of his EVil religion, or does things that
    benefit only himself.
    Example: Killing someone and taking all their money is quite good for me. I
    get lots of money for not much effort. If I do can kill 30 or 40 people a
    day, obviously I am quite good at what I do. SInce I hang out with thieves,
    they all think I am quite the good killer and thief, having lived up to the
    highest standards of their society.
    I am also an unrepentantly Evil SOB.
    That is alignment in AD&D. Defining what Good and Evil specifically consist
    of, is different, but most always remain consistent or the whole alignment
    system collapses. A proficient Evil Priest is never Good because that is
    what his culture or faith believes in and calls for. It just doesn't work
    that way.

    Samwise

  5. #15
    Daniel McSorley
    Guest

    Paladins, Priests, and Alignmen

    From: Galwylin
    >I don't know what brought in Political Correctness but my stance remains.
    >It is not easy to apply absolutes to humans. Much of what we think of as
    >evil now was perfectably acceptable 2000 years ago. Does that mean we've
    >reached a point where we can condemn those we've never met?
    (That's political correctness: to be afraid to condemn someone for doing
    something wrong, because it was their belief then.)
    > I personally
    >think your language is offensive but I'm certain others don't.
    I apologize, I didn't mean to offend anyone.

    >> The Alignment axis of good and evil is supposed to represent that, I
    >>think. It is set on an absolute scale, rather than a cultural or
    individual
    >>one. So an ancient Aztec priest, sacrificing people right and left, may
    be
    >>a fine upstanding citizen, but he is still evil on the absolute scale.
    >
    >But in his own culture, he is not evil.
    That means his culture is evil, which is the point I was trying to get
    at. If a culture accepts something bad, that doesn't make it acceptable,
    that makes the culture bad as well.

    Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

  6. #16
    David Sean Brown
    Guest

    Paladins, Priests, and Alignmen

    > That example from the 2nd ed. PHB is stupid. Ignore it. That is a madman,
    > not a Chaotic Neutral. Read the description of Chaos vs. Law again.
    > Law puts the group and the need sof the group first.
    > Chaos puts the individual and the desires of the individual first.
    > They put their wants first. If they agreed to do something else, so what?
    > They heard this rumor of a great magic item somewhere, so you can take your
    > quest and shove it. But they don't just decide it is time to go feed the
    > ducks because it is unexpected.

    Just curious then..why the difference between the word Chaos, and the word
    Chaotic? They mean the same thing...Chaotic means to act in a fashoin
    without order, and thus unpredictable. The example in the PHB is
    perfectly suited to this alignment as far as I can see...back on this
    whether selfish is a Chaotic only characteristic or not..

  7. #17
    Jim Paterson
    Guest

    Paladins, Priests, and Alignmen

    At 06:20 PM 24/09/98 -0400, you wrote:

    >Hold up. Not in the least.
    >Chaotic does not mean "roll a die to determine each action". It means
    >precisely the opposite of Lawful, the putting of indivdual needs and desires
    >above that of the group.
    >With your examples, should a Chaotic charater feel the desire to explore a
    >cave instead of continuing on with a particualr mission, he would go off and
    >do so, not caring one whit whether his comrades, king, or country will
    >suffer for it. Were he Good, he would try to insure his whims caused no harm
    >to others or impeded them from acting upon their individual needs and
    >desires. Were he also Evil, others needs or desires would concern him not at
    >all.

    >No Chaotic person shopuld ever consider rolling a die, or changing his mind
    >just "because". That is insanity, not the Chaotic axis of AD&D alignment.

    I remember reading a definition of "chaotic neutral" which described it as
    'an insane or close to insane type of character'

    I'll go with the first interpretation of chaotic. You do what you thinkis the
    most appropriate action in any given situation, so long as it conforms with the
    other half of the alignment; The other PCs and the DM should be suprised by
    your reactions, which would be not according to the book, in most situations.
    It is a hard alignment to play well because of this.




    Cheers; Jim Paterson

  8. #18
    James Ray
    Guest

    Paladins, Priests, and Alignmen

    I can agree with THAT. "Good" and "Evil" (same with "Law" and Chaos"), in
    my opinion, are absolutes. Is it Good or Evil to kill? Is it Lawful or
    Chaotic or lie? Are there situations that change those definitions? THAT
    lies at the heart of role-playing. The "Aztec Priest" example, though
    (slaughtering people left and right...)...a GOOD priest would view the
    essential ritual merely as a distasteful necessity. An EVIL Priest would
    ENOY it.

    James

    - ----------
    > From: Daniel McSorley
    If a culture accepts something bad, that doesn't make it acceptable,
    > that makes the culture bad as well.
    >
    > Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Why do you prefer priests or paladins?
    By Ariadne in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-06-2002, 09:50 AM
  2. Paladins, Priests, and Alignments
    By Brian Stoner in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-24-1998, 11:02 AM
  3. RE: Paladins for Everyone
    By Kariu in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-20-1998, 05:28 PM
  4. Another Inquiry [Realm Alignmen
    By c558382@showme.missouri. in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-11-1998, 02:26 AM
  5. vos paladins
    By Alexander in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-12-1997, 03:49 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.