Alignments

[maximus]

Thanks for the input guys. I guess the dilemma was trying to explain to my 12 yr old son (who is playing the Ranger and is the party's caller) what would constitute an evil act and what the PCs true purpose in the Caves was. They were obviously commissioned by the the Keep's officials to investigate and root out any and all threats to the Keep. I thought the idea to turn the one priest to good by forcing the helmet on him was pretty intuitive. He'll get some extra XP for that one...

[Lurker]

I tend to lean toward Paladins as my favored character class, but, I have a harsher outlook than some expect with a paladin.

I avoid the 'goodie two shoe' butterfly and rainbow outlook that some expect from a paladin. To me, in the wilder lands and realms that draw adventurers, the paladin (and to a lesser extent any 'good' adventurer) is the Texas Ranger/Judge Dread of the area. With that look, a good character can easily be expected to kill one that is explicitly evil. No if ands or buts to it. I would go as far to say implicitly evil too - the discussion a few weeks back about good and torture got me to thinking on this. The use of spells like detect evil and detect lies goes a long way on providing the proof needed to justify killing a bad guy.

However, as I lean towards the devils advocate in debates, I could se a need for not killing every evil NPC the party runs into. This depends on the depth of role playing you want to do and the depth of moral dilemmas and ethics you want to explore. If there is a viable mechanism for repentance and atonement for their actions, and if they are showing a desire to repent and change, ... Killing them before they have the opportunity to do so would be evil.

Of course, for 12 year old players new to the game, you may not want to go into those deep troubled waters ...

[Captain_K]

An army of peasants under order of their Lords fights and army of other peasants simply defending their lands... neither is really evil, they're just being human. Eat, live, need land and resources.

Were all "US settlers" evil for the genocide to the first peoples of North America?

[Arduin]

Were all "US settlers" evil for the genocide to the first peoples of North America?

I don't know as US settlers didn't kill the first people in North America. THOSE people were killed off by the people the US settlers encountered. The first people were from Europe thousands of years earlier...

[maximus]

I haven't gone too deep into alignments yet other than basic good and evil. In the Caves, the hobgoblins were more organized in their defense and acted more cohesively than the orcs and I tried to stress the differences.

[Litzen Tallister]

I tend to lean toward Paladins as my favored character class, but, I have a harsher outlook than some expect with a paladin.

I avoid the 'goodie two shoe' butterfly and rainbow outlook that some expect from a paladin. To me, in the wilder lands and realms that draw adventurers, the paladin (and to a lesser extent any 'good' adventurer) is the Texas Ranger/Judge Dread of the area. With that look, a good character can easily be expected to kill one that is explicitly evil. No if ands or buts to it. I would go as far to say implicitly evil too - the discussion a few weeks back about good and torture got me to thinking on this. The use of spells like detect evil and detect lies goes a long way on providing the proof needed to justify killing a bad guy.

A quote that I remember, but unfortunately not well enough to remember who said it, is that "lawful good does not equal lawful nice." But to the broader question of alignment and class selection, I think the interplay between the two allows for some interesting character creation. A lawful good thief might be employed by the local government to rob from evil-doers. The combination of unexpected alignment with a character class opens more doors than restricting classes to certain alignments does.

[serleran]

For the most part, alignment has been discarded in my game. That is, you still have one, and you're expected to play with it in mind, but there are few instances where it matters -- mostly certain interactions, a few weapons/items, and entry to restricted zones. We pretty much just assume 99% of the world is neutral (with good intentions) and only the outliers matter.

[Jyrdan Fairblade]

I’m of the opposite view from my brother. I’m all for alignment restrictions (and racial restrictions for that matter, though not level limits). Removing the restrictions opened up all sorts of possibilities, but also diluted the archetypes.

[Daniel]

I don't push the alignments too hard, but I do watch for trends. If you say you are good but keep doing evil acts I do call you on it. But I reject the idea that one act, in and of itself, would change your core "alignment". My one exception is with Paladins. Because their whole focus is based on their alignment, I do ask players to be more aware of their character's actions. But I don't think Lawful Good = Lawful Stupid. I do try and work with the Paladin to allow them to play out their ideas within the confines of the class and alignment.

[Arduin]

I don't push the alignments too hard, but I do watch for trends. If you say you are good but keep doing evil acts I do call you on it. But I reject the idea that one act, in and of itself, would change your core "alignment". My one exception is with Paladins. Because their whole focus is based on their alignment,

Same here with the exception of adding Clerics in with Paladins. They MUST be the same alignment as the God they serve and if they muck about by going outside their alignment they lose spells. Continual violations ends by converting to a Fighter one level lower than their Cleric level.