Fall Paladin, Fall!

[Particle_Man]

That said, there are a LOT of deviations from RAW I've been seeing in this thread.

1) "Rescuing prisoners" regardless of their alignment, is not an Evil act. How is a Paladin supposed to even try to redeem an evildoer if he lets them suffer and/or die?

The DM decided that it was a Chaotic act and thus suitable for falling.

2) Paladins are explicitly immune to lycanthropy.

This was 1st ed. I am not sure what the rules were then (and likely my DM wasn't sure back then either). I mean paladins were "immune to diseases of all sorts" but lycnathropy back then seemed to be its own special thing. Not sure what the RAW on 1st ed paladin werewolves would be.

[ezekielraiden]

Why not just create the code that your Paladin lives by (with your DM's permission, of course). Removes a lot of ambiguity and it's good flavour for your character too.

I very much agree--and am frankly surprised at how many players fail to do this.

What's the name of that fallacy that claims that the rules aren't bad if you can fix them with houserules?

I will readily agree that the atrocious alignment/code rules are much more tolerable if you ignore them completely and replace them with rules that aren't bad.

It's...not house rules though? Like it's explicitly not that. You aren't replacing the alignment rules. You're figuring out what your specific character's oath is. The rules expressly do not define what the words of that code are--just the overall shape and structure of it. From the PHB: "Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment. Additionally, paladins must swear to follow a code of conduct that is in line with lawfulness and goodness." And (emphasis in original), "Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a Paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use that help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

The word choice and such, coupled with the existence of explicitly different Paladin orders, makes it pretty clear that there is no single code of conduct that all Paladins identically recognize--instead, every code shares a common core, a common set of virtues and restrictions, which may be extended or elaborated upon by individual paladins or groups of paladins. The rules don't define the specific entries of the code, just what things it has to say are definitely forbidden, and what things it has to say are definitely required. There may be more that is required, or more that is forbidden, and such an open space is exactly where "talk to your DM" is the only rules-appropriate response.

Now, if this were "I'm the DM and I'm ignoring what 'lawful' and 'good' mean in the books, here's my take," then I would have to agree with you--it would be house-ruling alignment, as most DMs do. But working out any individual paladin's code is not house-ruling, because the code isn't sufficiently defined--unless the DM modifies or ignores one of the explicitly-stated characteristics the code must have. It would be like saying that it's "house ruling" to work out with the bard what song they're singing when they inspire competence or the like.

[FaerieGodfather]

Why not just create the code that your Paladin lives by (with your DM's permission, of course). Removes a lot of ambiguity and it's good flavour for your character too.

What's the name of that fallacy that claims that the rules aren't bad if you can fix them with houserules?

Who's houseruling anything? Your Paladin has a code they choose to live by, your paladin has spent years of their life in training, if not in combat too, dedicated to upholding that code. There's no reason that your character wouldn't know exactly what that code is, you're just now spelling it out.

It's...not house rules though? Like it's explicitly not that. You aren't replacing the alignment rules. You're figuring out what your specific character's oath is. The rules expressly do not define what the words of that code are--just the overall shape and structure of it. From the PHB: "Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment. Additionally, paladins must swear to follow a code of conduct that is in line with lawfulness and goodness."

So... then... we're not actually addressing the problem at all. We're taking the clear and concise guidelines that the Paladin class has always needed, writing them ourselves, and then simply layering them on top of the vague and contradictory guidelines that the Paladin has always had.

You're putting in all of the effort while receiving none of the reward.

Well, for one, you need to have a way to keep advancing after losing your main class.

You do not seem to be grasping the point of "losing" a class. You're not supposed to be able to keep advancing in it.

The fact that the designers put so much effort into fixing this problem demonstrates that even they were capable of recognizing it as a problem, even if they were incapable of fixing this problem at its roots instead of just piling more cruft on top.

[MisterKaws]

You do not seem to be grasping the point of "losing" a class. You're not supposed to be able to keep advancing in it.

The fact that the designers put so much effort into fixing this problem demonstrates that even they were capable of recognizing it as a problem, even if they were incapable of fixing this problem at its roots instead of just piling more cruft on top.

Wasn't the first bad design choice they made, and won't be the last. The problem comes with associating fluff to crunch, as opposite to keeping them separate.

It is what it is, and they rely massively on rule 0 to fix their own mistakes, as much as we like to say this is a fallacy.

The paladins of opposed alignment were pretty much that - instead of falling, you just talk to your DM and go on a quest to change your ideals and become a Paladin of another cause.

In reality, we all know this doesn't work because almost all DMs who do force a fall do it on purpose, while the exceptions to these statistics are already reasonable enough to let the fallen Paladins redeem themselves with just a decent amount of effort. So, in reality, you need it as a firm rule to prevent scumbag DMs from abusing the unwritten laws.

They didn't know that back then, I guess. Not that 5e got much better IMO. Took too much away from what I like about 3.5 to compensate its balance.

[King of Nowhere]

What's the name of that fallacy that claims that the rules aren't bad if you can fix them with houserules?

I will readily agree that the atrocious alignment/code rules are much more tolerable if you ignore them completely and replace them with rules that aren't bad.

That's a bit of a different case.
the thing is, d&d is not a game. it is a highly customizable system to make games. that's why many rules are ambiguous, because it should be up to the table to decide details.

having the kind of detailed regulation you seem to be asking for would be even worse. I'm not letting a game designer tell me that what my paladin did was bad. I feel mildly offended by the book of exalted deeds, because those guys who wrote it have no moral autority to tell me what is good and what is evil, not in those matter-of-fact terms.
So, I don't want the game designers to tell me how a paladin should behave. I want the game designers to tell me that a paladin is supposed to be a righteous warrior pure of heart, and then let me decide how I want to interpret that, by agreement with my table if needed.

Even discounting that and accepting that the rules are bad (they are, on many aspects), well, that's just one more reason to houserule! it's not oberoni's fallacy, perhaps the reverse. Instead of "just because the rules can be fixed, doesn't mean they are not bad" we have "exactly because the rules are bad they need to be fixed".

I don't understand all those people complaining about the rules all the time and then insisting on strict RAW. If the rules are so bad, why must one commit to follow them in the strictes and worst sense?

So... then... we're not actually addressing the problem at all. We're taking the clear and concise guidelines that the Paladin class has always needed, writing them ourselves, and then simply layering them on top of the vague and contradictory guidelines that the Paladin has always had.

Yes, that's exactly what we are doing. and we are also ignoring the guidelines when they are contradictory or too vague. and that addresses the problem, because there's no problem playing paladins when you do that.

I'm not even sure how you would address the problem differently. certainly you won't improve the rules for paladins by making them fall for dumb reasons at your table.

Also, "willingly committing an evil action" requires not only that you commit the action willingly, but also that you realize that the action is evil. If there is enough of a debate on it, it shouldn't be fall-worthy.

I'm not sure that this is true. Plenty of Fallen paladins in the fluff genuinely believe they committed no Evil act. Look at Miko in OOTS, for example.

Ok, I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about miko. I'm talking about paladins being tricked into taking seemingly innocent actions that they cannot believe are bad.
Like one of the examples brought into this post; the paladin buys something from a merchant, surprise! the merchant was a disguised devil, the paladin then made a pact with a devil and fall. Or "by stepping on this trap, you have activated a mechanism that shoots a dart... at someone else who is kept prisoner in another place. you caused the death of an innocent, you fall". Or "the halfling knight you vanquished in fight was actually a kid who was dominated and put into a concealing armor. you killed the kid, you fall". those should never cause one paladin to fall as there would be no realistic way for the paladin to know that they are being tricked.
Becoming miko is an entirely different thing.

Then again, the dm that use that kind of crap to justify falling a paladin are generaly looking for ways to make them fall regardless, so it won't matter that the causes are legitimate or not.

[hamishspence]

I'm talking about paladins being tricked into taking seemingly innocent actions that they cannot believe are bad.
Like one of the examples brought into this post; the paladin buys something from a merchant, surprise! the merchant was a disguised devil, the paladin then made a pact with a devil and fall. Or "by stepping on this trap, you have activated a mechanism that shoots a dart... at someone else who is kept prisoner in another place. you caused the death of an innocent, you fall". Or "the halfling knight you vanquished in fight was actually a kid who was dominated and put into a concealing armor. you killed the kid, you fall". those should never cause one paladin to fall as there would be no realistic way for the paladin to know that they are being tricked.

Indeed. As WoTC puts it in Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic

http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...d/sg/20050325a


Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

[GloatingSwine]

Ok, I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about miko. I'm talking about paladins being tricked into taking seemingly innocent actions that they cannot believe are bad.
Like one of the examples brought into this post; the paladin buys something from a merchant, surprise! the merchant was a disguised devil, the paladin then made a pact with a devil and fall. Or "by stepping on this trap, you have activated a mechanism that shoots a dart... at someone else who is kept prisoner in another place. you caused the death of an innocent, you fall". Or "the halfling knight you vanquished in fight was actually a kid who was dominated and put into a concealing armor. you killed the kid, you fall". those should never cause one paladin to fall as there would be no realistic way for the paladin to know that they are being tricked.
Becoming miko is an entirely different thing.

Then again, the dm that use that kind of crap to justify falling a paladin are generaly looking for ways to make them fall regardless, so it won't matter that the causes are legitimate or not.

Yeah, the standard is the "should have known" standard.

If a reasonable person should know that the act is evil, the paladin falls. It should also be a deliberate act. As in the paladin should be specifically attempting to accomplish the thing that makes them fall (or they should be reasonably forseeable consequences of their deliberate act).

Miko's case is a good example. She was specifically attempting to do the thing that made her fall, killing Shojo, and a reasonable person should have known that killing an unarmed man was an evil thing to do in the circumstances.

[AnimeTheCat]

The DM decided that it was a Chaotic act and thus suitable for falling.

Doing one chaotic thing isn't at all suitable for having a paladin lose their class features. Their code says:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

So, literally the only line in there that says "Loses all class abilities" is the part that talks about WILLINGLY committing an evil act. Breaking prisoners out is not evil. Unlawful, maybe. Evil, absolutely not. This is really the cause of most confusion and issue around the paladin's code of conduct. There's only one thing and one thing alone that will cause a paladin to lose his or her class features. Willingly committing an evil act. Now yes, I realize that there is the line later that says:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her iolations (see the atonement spell description, page 201), as appropriate.

To that, I'll point to the DMG that someone has already quoted saying that one act does not make your alignment change. Simply comitting the act of breaking prisoners out of jail should not change your alignment. Further, if the prisoners have been unjustly imprisoned, imprisoned by an illegitimate authority (bandit 'king', false magistrate, etc), or similart situation, that paladin isn't disrespecting legitmate authority, they are acting with honor, and they are helping those in need while also punishing those who harm or threaten. There is literally no breach of the code of conduct in breaking these wrongfully imprisoned people out of prison.

Now, if they were imprisoned by the legitmate magistrate under legitimate pretense of actual lawbreaking, the paladin could still do this without losing their class features. They would probably be chastised by their church and potentially punished in that way, but since they are operating under the impression that these people are in need, the ones imprisoning them are evildoers, and if the paladin acts honorably (doesn't lie when questioned about it, etc), disrespecting this legitimate authority is not a gross violation. A violation, to be sure, but certainly not a gross violation. There should be consequences, especially from the Paladin's church or faith. The paladin should certainly be repremanded, and possibly turned over to the authorities to face their own due justice. But They should not be stripped of their class features. If the paladin fights back or lashes out for what they've done and does not accept the consequences, now they're trending towards that neutral/chaotic realm and should probably start slowly noticing their powers fade unless they begin owning up to it and acting with honor once more. Another solution could be that the paladin begins transitioning from a Lawful Good Paladin to a Paladin of Freedom where they can freely act against the law in an attempt to be a holy liberator of the wrongfully accused and imprisoned.

Just my opinion on the matter, and Partical_Man, I didn't intend on singling you out or anything, your quote just really made me act on replying to this thread. It was the catalyst for my response.

[Efrate]

Part of the problem is there is no precedent for slowly losing your class features or them fading, its an all or nothing approach. How many chaotic acts does it take to switch from being lawful? Because as soon as that LG is gone so are all of your paladin abilities.

I like the idea of slowly slipping into PoF, but there is still a point where you fall, and you should need an atonement from a cg cleric to start as a PoF. You still volated your tenets. I think that that handled well is great, but you still need consequences. You failed to uphold a standard. You have a new standard but you need to make up for failing your first standard. It should not be character ending, and easily handled in a session or so, but I feel that there needs to be something.

[pabelfly]

So... then... we're not actually addressing the problem at all. We're taking the clear and concise guidelines that the Paladin class has always needed, writing them ourselves, and then simply layering them on top of the vague and contradictory guidelines that the Paladin has always had.

You're putting in all of the effort while receiving none of the reward.

I might be being misunderstood here, so I'll try to explain myself again. You come up with your Paladin Code (along with the rest of your Paladin character) which details what your Lawful Good Paladin will do. There's already a rough code provided in the book, you're using that information and being more explicit about what your Code actually means and making sure it suits your character and their story.

After we've finished our Paladin, we present our entire character, including our Code, to the DM, for their approval like any other character. This gives you the opportunity to discuss with the DM the mechanics of the Code and what acts and behaviours might be against the code, and to make sure they're okay with it and your character. Much better to see if they're okay with the Code now than after you've started play.

And, let's be honest, if you've decided to bring a Paladin to the table you're likely doing it specifically because you want to live that Code, so complaining about working on it and the effort you're putting in doesn't really make sense.

[AnimeTheCat]

Part of the problem is there is no precedent for slowly losing your class features or them fading, its an all or nothing approach. How many chaotic acts does it take to switch from being lawful? Because as soon as that LG is gone so are all of your paladin abilities.

The DMG is vague on this, but when you start mostly committing unlawful acts, you're likely chaotic, when you commit an equal blind of lawful and unlawful acts you're neutral, and when you're primarily lawful while rarely unlawful, you're lawful. You can't put a specific number on what is considered the character's normal behavior.

I like the idea of slowly slipping into PoF, but there is still a point where you fall, and you should need an atonement from a cg cleric to start as a PoF. You still volated your tenets. I think that that handled well is great, but you still need consequences. You failed to uphold a standard. You have a new standard but you need to make up for failing your first standard. It should not be character ending, and easily handled in a session or so, but I feel that there needs to be something.

"Falling" isn't even a term used in the PHB. Losing your class features is. So sure, there is a point at which you lose your paladin class features. Nothing says you can't immediately gain the class features of a paladin of freedom. The whole affair can take place in a matter of minutes via a dream or a single session via a mission. The consequences can be as simple as being excommunicated from the paladin's church or faith. There doesn't have to be any character punishing consequences unless the player and DM agree upon them. Why do you need to make up for failing a standard you no longer support? Why is there a need for that? Paladins receive their power from a deity. Why can't another deity pick up where one deity decides to leave off, complete with new powers and everything. If heironeous thinks you've failed to respect the archpaladin, but Pelor thinks you've done well, why can't it just be left at that.

[MisterKaws]

The DMG is vague on this, but when you start mostly committing unlawful acts, you're likely chaotic, when you commit an equal blind of lawful and unlawful acts you're neutral, and when you're primarily lawful while rarely unlawful, you're lawful. You can't put a specific number on what is considered the character's normal behavior.


"Falling" isn't even a term used in the PHB. Losing your class features is. So sure, there is a point at which you lose your paladin class features. Nothing says you can't immediately gain the class features of a paladin of freedom. The whole affair can take place in a matter of minutes via a dream or a single session via a mission. The consequences can be as simple as being excommunicated from the paladin's church or faith. There doesn't have to be any character punishing consequences unless the player and DM agree upon them. Why do you need to make up for failing a standard you no longer support? Why is there a need for that? Paladins receive their power from a deity. Why can't another deity pick up where one deity decides to leave off, complete with new powers and everything. If heironeous thinks you've failed to respect the archpaladin, but Pelor thinks you've done well, why can't it just be left at that.

For Pelor you'd end up as a Paladin of Tyranny, though.

[AnimeTheCat]

For Pelor you'd end up as a Paladin of Tyranny, though.

you forgot the /s or blue text I think... because Pelor is 100% listed a Neutral Good in practically every source except for maybe one adventure path or something?

[MisterKaws]

you forgot the /s or blue text I think... because Pelor is 100% listed a Neutral Good in practically every source except for maybe one adventure path or something?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...6#post23994996

I'm on mobile. Too frigging hard to use tags.

[AnimeTheCat]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...6#post23994996

I'm on mobile. Too frigging hard to use tags.

oh... I'm unimpressed. If you dig in hard to every deity in the game, you'll find countless inconsistencies. I'm not worried about it, and I will still treat Pelor as a NG deity of the Sun, as he is statted and written in the vast majority of contexts.

[MisterKaws]

oh... I'm unimpressed. If you dig in hard to every deity in the game, you'll find countless inconsistencies. I'm not worried about it, and I will still treat Pelor as a NG deity of the Sun, as he is statted and written in the vast majority of contexts.

Though among good deities only Pelor has a history of having his Paladins sent to hell, creating weapons that harm the user's friends and giving said weapons to Angels, supporting evil Clerics and creating an entire order of black ops-styled assassins.

Okay, the Silver Flame too but the Templars are mostly non-casters.

[Morty]

Setting aside my feelings about the code of conduct and paladins in general, they should fall for failing to live up to the moral standard they set, not because they misjudged a situation or made a mistake. Punishing people for failure is a Lawful Evil thing to do, not Lawful Good. So the same action can cause a paladin to fall or not, depending on whether they try to do the right thing or because of pride, anger, vengeance etc.

[AnimeTheCat]

Though among good deities only Pelor has a history of having his Paladins sent to hell, creating weapons that harm the user's friends and giving said weapons to Angels, supporting evil Clerics and creating an entire order of black ops-styled assassins.

Okay, the Silver Flame too but the Templars are mostly non-casters.

He's one of the most worshiped deities in the lore, and has some of the most published content under his name. There are going to be editing errors and items that don't make sense. It happens because those are made by different people with different ideas and concepts and working for different "directors". As for Paladins going to hell, well... since I haven't read specifically what your talking about all I can say is that I doubt Pelor specifically sent that paladin to hell, especially not for some nefarious reason.

Let's just say I disagree with your assertation of Pelor's true alignemnt and motives, and be done with it. Neither of us will change our minds and that's fine. If we ever find ourselves in a game together, we'll just have to find out what the DM subscribes to and follow suit as players.

[RedMage125]

There is a small part of me that wonders about the people who can read thread after thread after thread of the same old arguments and still argue with people that the alignment rules-as-written are good for the game, and that the Paladin class was better before 4e and 5e simply took "falling" off the table.

Alignment has been cancer since 1979, and Paladins are merely the most egregious symptom.

There's a small part of me that wonders about people who can read thread after thread of the same old arguments and still argue that their negative opinion about alignment is somehow a universal fact or truth. Claiming that alignment "has been a cancer" is your opinion. You are entitled to your own opinion, and far be it from me to try and change your opinion. But it is not a fact.

I know I'm in the "pro-alignment" camp, but at least I can distinguish between opinion and fact. I can also understand that RAW is something that is the only acceptable verified fact or truth in discussions about the rules. So when someone says here in the forum "alignment means what my character can't steal something!", that's a provably false statement. Or when someone says "I stole one thing, and my DM changed my alignment from LG to CE!", also provably not in keeping with the RAW (on several counts, that one).

People use house rules, and there's nothing wrong with that. One of the things that makes this game great is how customizable it is. The only "wrong way to play" is when people at your table are not having fun. I just want to be clear on that, because sometimes I come across as sounding like I'm saying "strict RAW is the only right way to play", and I do not advocate for that. RAW is the only thing that can be classified as true in a forum discussion about the rules.

Now, that said...alignment rules and mechanics can be useful to the game. They can give mechanical voice to classic tropes of fantasy in an objective manner that would otherwise be left to DM fiat. Holy weapons that cannot be wielded comfortably by evil individuals. Characters being able to detect a "lingering taint of evil" from a place where a fiend cult used to operate, or from the Book Of Vile Darkness, for example. Good clerics being able to cast spells (Holy Smite, Holy Word, etc) that are harmless to those who are Good, but severely damaging to those who are Evil. It's not that these effects would be "gone" from a game where alignment was removed, but all of the effects (who would be affected, etc) would be entirely up to DM fiat. It is my opinion that concrete, objective emchanics liek this protect players from capricious DM fiat.

Also, seriously, how anyone actually justify the alignment restrictions on practically any other class that is not Paladiin?

This is actually something I love discussing on alignment threads. because what you're discussing here isn't a problem with alignment mechanics. Your issue is with class design.

fact is, the designers of 3e explicitly designed the classes to represent what they viewed as the most common and thematically resonating archetypes of those classes. And there are restirctions and class features designed to re-enforce those narrow and specific archetypes.

Spoiler: bloakced up for space

Show

Barbarians: How often do you hear the claims about "why can't my barbarian be lawful? Lots of tribal cultures had rigid laws", or "if I'm lawful suddenly I cant get angry anymore?". First of all, these arguments are completely bunk, for a few reasons. "Lawful" in alignment does not necessarily having anything to do with civil laws of a society, whatever that society may be. People of Chaotic alignments are not compelled to disobey laws. Furthermore, Barbarian Rage is more than just "getting angry", it's a state that one enters that has a drastic change on one's abilities. the problem is that the Barbarian class was designed to solely represent the "wild savage" archetype, and Barbarian Rage was viewed by the designers as something that required a kind of "surrender to savagery" that was viewed as incompatible with the rigid and disciplined mindset common to those who are Lawful. Is a Lawful Barbarian a viable concept? Sure, let me throw one out. Let's say you're playing L5R D20 (blasphemy to most L5R fans, but bear with me). You want to make a Hida Dead-Eyes Berserker. These berserkers enter a cold, emotionless state of heightened battle awareness during which they hit harder and can withstand more damage, but it has the downside of leaving one's defenses down somewhat (perfect analogy for boost to STR and CON, penalty to AC). This state is physically demanding (limited # of times per day). But the Hida berserkers are still Samurai of their Clan. They follow the Code of Bushido, they are disciplined (indeed, being able to attain this state required a great deal of training, discipline, and meditation), and they are honorable. Would the Barbarian class represent this character concept well, mechanically? Yes. Should he be able to be Lawful? Certainly. But I would also ask why would he be Illiterate? He's an educated warrior of a noble family, he should certainly be literate. It's not just alignment that enforces this archetype. You don't see much outcry for Literate Barbarians, do you?

Monks: Same story. People cry out for Chaotic Monks. "If I'm not Lawful I can't punch people?" is one of the more ridiculous ones I've heard. First off, you want to be able to "punch people"? take the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. that's what it's for. At any rate, class design for Monks. Monks are designed towards the archetype of the wuxia martial artist, complete with meditation, fantastic physics-defying abilities, the whole bit. You'll note that several of the Monk's class features (such as Still Mind) say things like "due to the many hours spent in meditation", or similar. The idea that a Monk somehow "must" represent a disciplined warrior on a path to physical and spiritual enlightenment/perfection was what informed the class design of the 3e Monk. Are other character concept possible? Sure, but some class features may not make as much sense. I know Dragon magazine once had a Chaotic Monk variant with an alternative set of class features.

Druid: Again, the idea that a druid somehow "must remain partially Neutral" is similar to the Cleric's mandate to stay within "one step" from the alignment of their deity. Honestly, this is an improvement over previous editions, where they had to be True Neutral (and that alignment was almost unplayable by the way it was defined in previous editions). Is the idea of someone wild and individualistic who is also benevelont (Chaotic Good) completely at odds with the concept of a nature-revering divine caster? Of course not. But the designers tried to adhere, at least somewhat, to the concpets of previous editions. And it resonates with the reasoning that nature is inherently neither Good, Evil, etc. so the Druid must be somewhat Neutral as well.

Bard: Okay, this one always made the least sense to me. I guess because they only see Bards as "wandering minstrels" thematically, but they say something like "the spontaneous nature of their magic and the lifestyle they lead are incompatible with a lawful alignment". The sponataneous nature of their magic? The one that's identical to a sorcerer's magic (no alignment restriction). Or their lifestyle? You mean the exact same lifestyle shared by all adventuring PCs? I get that they had something specific in mind for this class, but they don't even make it make sense or resonate with the reasoning at all. I mean, Monks are only disciplined martial artists? At least makes sense. Barbarians are all wild savages? That at least resonates thematically. But Bards? Last time this got brought up, I created a Lawful Bard concept on the spot. Half-Elf, son of a minor noble house, was classically trained in the violin. As part of his widespread and esoteric education, he learned about the Echoes of creation, and how they may be replicated by mortals to produce magical effects (i.e. spells). He now seeks to travel the world, uncovering mroe of these secrets, believing, as he does, that uderstanding about the deeper truths of reality will come from them. He believes that the song of creation was very ordered and structured. It would have to be, in order to successfully create life and matter. He likewise believes that music is most beautiful when it is planned, measured, and proceeds at a specific tempo, much better than the wild, improvisational style common in taverns. This character could be a Lawful Neutral Bard (probably go for Seeker of the Song PrC), and makes sense as a concept.

Cleric: All the times I see alignment detractors complain about classes with alignment restrictions, and no one ever mentions Clerics. It's one of the things that leads me to believe that these people don't have any actual legitimate complaints about alignment mechanics, but that they're just a convenient scapegoat and something to blame for why they have to chafe at any restriction imposed upon them. Clerics have more restrictions than any other class in the PHB. Clerics must be within "one step" of alignment from their deity. A Cleric may not cast spells with an alignment descriptor that is of an alignment that opposes theirs or their deity's. Clerics radiate a powerful aura of their deity's alignment. You may not be a cleric of a deity with a race mentioned in its portfolio unless you are a member of that race (no human raised by dwarves who became a cleric of Moradin). So look at all that. That's just off the top of my head, without even opening a book. So a LE cleric of Wee Jas (LN) cannot cast Good spells, but a LN cleric of the same deity can. That LE cleric only has a powerful Lawful aura, his Evil aura would be of any other humanoid of his HD. A NG cleric of Heironeous has a powerful Lawful aura and cannot cast Chaotic spells, but his NG cleric of Pelor friend can cast them.

The short version is that all these alignment restrictions on classes are more correctly an indictment of narrow class design, and there's other restrictions or class features with most of those classes that enforce that narrow archetype. Alignment isn't even they only tool the designers used to force that archetype down your throat. It's entirely disingenuous to claim that alignment mechanics are bad because of that.

The problem is, there's no actual code of conduct in the PHB for Paladin players to learn. It's all vague references to the alignment system, which the designers didn't want to be completely subjective so they just... said it wasn't.

Even the most parsimonious chivalric code is going to be longer than two words.

People have already quoted the PHB to you. There's more than just 2 words. But it's still a pretty general guideline. A lot of specific Paladin orders have more defined CoCs. Kelemvor's Paladins, for example, must adamantly oppose and destroy the undead. They still adhere to the other restrictions, but they have additional ones. A Paladin of Wee Jas, on the other hand, may be required to cooperate with certain undead creatures, as Wee Jas is not entirely anti-undead, and in fact, some liches serve her.

This is a description of how you would enforce the mindnumbingly arbitrary restrictions, not how you or any other thinking being can legitimately claim that those restrictions are necessary or that they make sense.

If you look up the definition of "Paladin", you will get (aside from the Peers of Charlemagne) somethign along the lines of "a noble knight" or "defender of a righteous cause". With the sole exception of 4th edition, Paladins are not bound to serve deities. Even the 3e Paladin class says "devotion to righteousness is enough". I blame the 3.0 supplement Defenders of the Faith for making people think that Paladin was just a warrior analogue of Cleric. Didn't help that the 3e iconic Paladin, Alhandra, was a devotee of a deity. But the point stands that they didn't NEED to be.


Which is why the claim of "why don't evil deities have paladins" is also bunk, because the correct answer is "because people who are devoted to righteouness as a principle generally do not serve evil deities". Once you understand that a "Paladin" is "a warrior devoted to righteouness", can you really say that the restriction "doesn't make sense"?

Honestly, I have big issue with the Paladins of Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter more than anything else. I know Unearthed Arcana is all "optional rules", but calling those things "Paladins" made no sense.

4e changed the dynamic. Essentially, WotC re-purposed the word "paladin" to mean "champion of a specific deity/faith". And in 5e, while there are no actual mechanical restrictions, all the text of the Paladin class seems to imply that they should be some form of "Good".

That's another thing. If those alignment restrictions are such an important part of the character class, why do the designers keep shoehorning in so many different, convoluted ways of bypassing them?

Because WotC wants to sell product, and a bunch of people are whiny and chafe at any restriction, so they give extra options.

Seriously, however, all those things he mentioned are Prestige Classes, many of which represent a paradigm shift of classes. Malconvoker, Gray Guard, Rage Mage...all these things allow PCs to bypass one or more restrictions of their classes, and that's just the first 3 I thought of off the top of my head.

What's the name of that fallacy that claims that the rules aren't bad if you can fix them with houserules?

I will readily agree that the atrocious alignment/code rules are much more tolerable if you ignore them completely and replace them with rules that aren't bad.

There should be a name for the fallacy of "If X only bad when it is misused, then that's not a valid indictment of X".

In 19 years of playing this game, and 17 years of discussing it on this and the old WotC forums, I can say, positively, that 100% of stories I have ever heard people share about "why alignment is a bad system" stem from some deviation from the RAW. Players who try to use alignment to excuse bad behavior, DMs who use it to straightjacket or otherwise control players, or DMs who use the mechanics inappropriately, or use their own definitions of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. A whole bunch. And those are problems with people, not the rules.

I'm not sure that this is true. Plenty of Fallen paladins in the fluff genuinely believe they committed no Evil act. Look at Miko in OOTS, for example.

The point is that they willingly committed the act. Miko knew she was going to kill Shojo with that strike. She knew he was her liege lord, she knew he was unarmed. Take Hinjo, for example, he heard the same thing she did, had the same bad impression of it, and he didn't muder Shojo. She was under no form of charm or compulsion, she was just an ***hole.

They are. At level 3+. Before Level 3 they arent and could contract it.

Okay, but you don't change alignment permanently unless you embrace the change willingly, right? Isn't that in the rules? And if you hit level 3 before you find a cure, problem solved as well.

The DM decided that it was a Chaotic act and thus suitable for falling.

As has been pointed out, paladins do NOT fall for committing Chaotic acts. Nor does one act change your alignment (DMG pg 134).

Mind you, as this is a 3e forum, I assumed you meant 3e when you did not specify so at first.

You do not seem to be grasping the point of "losing" a class. You're not supposed to be able to keep advancing in it.

Those were prestige classes that advanced bard abilities. Monks were not allow to return to Monk if they multiclassed out. But a Monk who took a few levels of Sorcerer and then went into the Enlightened Fist Prestige Class still advanced their Monk abilities as per the PrC.

I feel mildly offended by the book of exalted deeds, because those guys who wrote it have no moral autority to tell me what is good and what is evil, not in those matter-of-fact terms.

Minor note, but since D&D is a construct of FANTASY (whether or not you want to call it a game, rules for a game, etc), that means that the designers actually DO have the authority to say "in the default rules of D&D X is Good, Y is Evil" and that will be true for the RAW. Individual DMs will of course customize what they wish, but the devs can say whatever they wish for the default, and it is true.

It's one of the reasons so many of my arguments in alignment threads end up trying to make people realize that they're blaming the alignment mechanics (which are logical, resonate with Western ethical mores, and are internally consistent and coherent for the most part) just because the RAW don't resonate with their personal values. One common example is the people who don't think skeletons and zombies should be Evil (because they're mindless), and animating them shouldn't be an Evil act. Meanwhile, by the RAW we can see that Animation/Creation of Undead by any means is an Evil act (BoVD, Ch 2). Ergo, there is Evil in their creation, and thus in the magicks that animate their bodies (and I don't mean just Negative Energy, which is obviously Neutral). This is internally consistent with the fact that undead register on a Detect Evil spell (regardless of the undead's alignment). It also means that the RAW on creatures to whom alignment is an inherent part of their nature (just like fiends) specifically override the general rules about how mindless creatures (like vermin or animated objects) are incapable of having alignment. Specific Overrides General. But some people can't wrap their minds around the first part (that animating/creating undead is Evil, objectively), and they blame alignment mechanics and say they are bad.

Here's a relvant quote from The Giant himself: "Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?"

So, I don't want the game designers to tell me how a paladin should behave. I want the game designers to tell me that a paladin is supposed to be a righteous warrior pure of heart, and then let me decide how I want to interpret that, by agreement with my table if needed.

That's more or less what 5e did. The text all suggests that Paladins should be Good aligned, but there's no actual mechanical restriction that says so.

I don't understand all those people complaining about the rules all the time and then insisting on strict RAW. If the rules are so bad, why must one commit to follow them in the strictes and worst sense?

To be fair, it's usually the reverse. It's one camp saying "the rules are bad", and the other saying "you didn't use RAW, how can they be bad?".

I fall in the latter category. And I should clarify something here, in case it seems at odds with what I said about how there's "no right way to play". I do not think that "playing by strict RAW" somehow gets one a superior play experience. However, I firmly espouse that once you have deviated FROM them, you do not get to blame them when your experience was terrible.

To wit, I was recently in an argument with someone about the encounter at the end of the first module of the Age of Worms adventure path. He claimed the Wind Warriors (unique elemental creatures to that module) were "an impossible fight for 3rd level characters". I asked him if he followed what the module says for their tactics (open with their ranged sonic blast, then close to melee and fight with 2 longswords). He said, "No, I kept them flying out of the player's reach at fats fly speeds, using the sonic blasts as hit-and-run tactics, I thought the module's tactics were dumb." At which point, I told him point-blank that he didn't get to blame the module. I've run that module with 2 different groups, used the tactics in the module, and it was a decent fight, but not "impossible" by any means.

If the RAW are only problematic when they are deviated from, how can the RAW themselves be the problem?

Ok, I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about miko. I'm talking about paladins being tricked into taking seemingly innocent actions that they cannot believe are bad.
Like one of the examples brought into this post; the paladin buys something from a merchant, surprise! the merchant was a disguised devil, the paladin then made a pact with a devil and fall. Or "by stepping on this trap, you have activated a mechanism that shoots a dart... at someone else who is kept prisoner in another place. you caused the death of an innocent, you fall". Or "the halfling knight you vanquished in fight was actually a kid who was dominated and put into a concealing armor. you killed the kid, you fall". those should never cause one paladin to fall as there would be no realistic way for the paladin to know that they are being tricked.
Becoming miko is an entirely different thing.

Then again, the dm that use that kind of crap to justify falling a paladin are generaly looking for ways to make them fall regardless, so it won't matter that the causes are legitimate or not.

Actually, by the RAW none of those examples should cause a fall. I refer you to the Book of Vile Darkness Chp 2 (The Nature of Evil) and specifically the section titles "Intent and Context". 3 examples of a situation where a Paladin named Zophas climbs some rocks to escape some monsters and triggers a rockslide which crushes a hut down the mountain and kills some innocent villagers. If it was an honest accident, and he had no way of predicting the consequences, he does not lose his paladinhood. All of those examples are a jerkbag DM. Even the first one. Buying somethign from a merchant is not the same as "Consorting With Fiends" (again, check Ch2 of the BoVD). If the merchant explicitly asked for his soul and told him to sign a contract, then he should immediately refuse the deal and be suspicious of the merchant. But that's the only way he should fall for that.

Also, defending yourself with lethal force when attacked with lethal force is not "murder", either. Not by D&D mores. If Roy had gotten in a lucky crit and killed Miko during their first encounter in the rain, it would not have been an Evil act, even though she's a Paladin. Intent and Action (framed by Context) determine the alignment of an act, not Consequences.

Indeed. As WoTC puts it in Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic

http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...d/sg/20050325a


Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

Very much this. On my home computer I have that article bookmarked, because I refer to it so frequently in alignment arguments.

Part of the problem is there is no precedent for slowly losing your class features or them fading, its an all or nothing approach. How many chaotic acts does it take to switch from being lawful? Because as soon as that LG is gone so are all of your paladin abilities.

By the 3.5e RAW, a period of time (to be no less than a week of in-game time) during which behavior which is repeated and consistent that is more in keeping with an alignment other than the character's own will cause the character's alignment to shift "one step" closer to that alignment. This is on page 134 of your DMG.

He's one of the most worshiped deities in the lore, and has some of the most published content under his name. There are going to be editing errors and items that don't make sense. It happens because those are made by different people with different ideas and concepts and working for different "directors". As for Paladins going to hell, well... since I haven't read specifically what your talking about all I can say is that I doubt Pelor specifically sent that paladin to hell, especially not for some nefarious reason.

Let's just say I disagree with your assertation of Pelor's true alignemnt and motives, and be done with it. Neither of us will change our minds and that's fine. If we ever find ourselves in a game together, we'll just have to find out what the DM subscribes to and follow suit as players.

The Burning Hate is sort of a tongue-in-cheek kind of a thing. Aside from the examples mentioned in that link, there's also the fact that Jozan in the PHB is shown casting a Symbol of Pain spell (which has the [Evil] descriptor), and shown stepping on Krusk's face in the picture of Aid Another actions with Skills. It's a cheeky fan-theory, and very amusing. But not serious.

The picture probably mis-labelled the spell, for example.

Setting aside my feelings about the code of conduct and paladins in general, they should fall for failing to live up to the moral standard they set, not because they misjudged a situation or made a mistake. Punishing people for failure is a Lawful Evil thing to do, not Lawful Good. So the same action can cause a paladin to fall or not, depending on whether they try to do the right thing or because of pride, anger, vengeance etc.

The part I bolded is actually supported by the RAW. Like I said, BoVD, Chp. 2, Zophas example.

As for the rest of it...it depends on what you mean by "failure". Paladins are set to a higher standard where they do not accept Evil as a meand to do Good. That's part of the balancing act they do to get all their ridiculous powers (immune to all disease, even magical ones, immune to fear, healing hands, detect evil at will, smite evil, celestial mount, etc.). A Paladin who "fails" to resist temptation to do something evil because it is more convenient than other alternatives should absolutely lose their powers. A Paladin who fails to save a villager because the goblins used tanglefoot bags to root him to the ground while they cut the villager's throat should not.

EDIT: Is there a limit on multi-quoting now? I had a bear of a time trying to quote the last few people.
2nd EDIT: relaized one of my sentences needed to be moved to make the post make more sense.

[AnimeTheCat]

The Burning Hate is sort of a tongue-in-cheek kind of a thing. Aside from the examples mentioned in that link, there's also the fact that Jozan in the PHB is shown casting a Symbol of Pain spell (which has the [Evil] descriptor), and shown stepping on Krusk's face in the picture of Aid Another actions with Skills. It's a cheeky fan-theory, and very amusing. But not serious.

The picture probably mis-labelled the spell, for example.

I figured it was an editorial error when I first saw it and never thought otherwise after that.

[MisterKaws]

That's part of the balancing act they do to get all their ridiculous powers

Please do tell me: in which context is it ridiculous?Seriously, though, so weak.

EDIT: Is there a limit on multi-quoting now? I had a bear of a time trying to quote the last few people.

I guess they never expected people to write a scientific paper's worth of quotations in a single post.

[RedMage125]

Please do tell me: in which context is it ridiculous?Seriously, though, so weak.

In context with other characters of their level, at the levels at which they gain those powers, that is. Level 3, immune to fear, immune to ALL disease (including magical ones), get CHA bonus to saves, heal at a touch without a spell, detect/smite evil. Even a level 3 Wizard isn't that impressive yet.

I guess they never expected people to write a scientific paper's worth of quotations in a single post.

I have been described as...verbose. That's a nice way to say it. Verbose.

[MisterKaws]

In context with other characters of their level, at the levels at which they gain those powers, that is. Level 3, immune to fear, immune to ALL disease (including magical ones), get CHA bonus to saves, heal at a touch without a spell, detect/smite evil. Even a level 3 Wizard isn't that impressive yet.

True that.

Except Color Spray exists.

[Zanos]

Tricking paladins into falling is kind of stupid. Paladins should really only seriously fall when they do something either tremendously arrogant believing themselves to be in the right, or knowing that it will make them fall but do it anyway. Temptation is everywhere, seems kind of stupid to make a Paladin fall because he was put into a situation where there either was no choice or not enough information to make a good choice. It should be appropriatley dramatic if you want to play with it, and even then I don't know why people feel that having the Paladin fall is mandatory or something. Sometimes Paladins are just Good, and that's fine.

My real issue with Paladins(and sometimes certain clerics) is almost always that they railroad the rest off the party. The Paladin is by default the character in the story with the most restrictions about what he can do and can associate with, making the game pretty frustrating for characters who don't always agree, even if they aren't out and out Evil.

[Segev]

To wit, I was recently in an argument with someone about the encounter at the end of the first module of the Age of Worms adventure path. He claimed the Wind Warriors (unique elemental creatures to that module) were "an impossible fight for 3rd level characters". I asked him if he followed what the module says for their tactics (open with their ranged sonic blast, then close to melee and fight with 2 longswords). He said, "No, I kept them flying out of the player's reach at fats fly speeds, using the sonic blasts as hit-and-run tactics, I thought the module's tactics were dumb." At which point, I told him point-blank that he didn't get to blame the module. I've run that module with 2 different groups, used the tactics in the module, and it was a decent fight, but not "impossible" by any means.

If the RAW are only problematic when they are deviated from, how can the RAW themselves be the problem?

To be fair, he's right that the tactics outlined are stupid. Which points to a flaw in the design of the creatures: they should have had the ranged attack as a one-off that could only be used once in the encounter. The "tactics" claim they'll fight as if this is the case; the designers should have made it the case so the tactics made sense. The DM here wasn't without blame for complaining that playing the monsters to their best tactical advantage made them too tough when the assumption was that the tactics wouldn't be to their advantage, but it still is a valid design flaw to complain about.

I don't know if it should be once per minute, once per hour, or even once per day, but the sonic blasts shouldn't have been usable in hit-and-run maneuvers if the module relied on the creatures not using them for such to keep the creatures balanced.

[ShurikVch]

When a Paladin fall, does Imp yell "Timber!"?

[RedMage125]

To be fair, he's right that the tactics outlined are stupid. Which points to a flaw in the design of the creatures: they should have had the ranged attack as a one-off that could only be used once in the encounter. The "tactics" claim they'll fight as if this is the case; the designers should have made it the case so the tactics made sense. The DM here wasn't without blame for complaining that playing the monsters to their best tactical advantage made them too tough when the assumption was that the tactics wouldn't be to their advantage, but it still is a valid design flaw to complain about.

I don't know if it should be once per minute, once per hour, or even once per day, but the sonic blasts shouldn't have been usable in hit-and-run maneuvers if the module relied on the creatures not using them for such to keep the creatures balanced.

Spoiler

Show

The Advanced Wind Warriors in the later Wind Duke Tomb in "A Gathering of Winds" DO use better tactics. But by then, the party is like, 11th level, and has measures to combat that kind of thing.

[FaerieGodfather]

I know I'm in the "pro-alignment" camp, but at least I can distinguish between opinion and fact.

Ah, but have you yet perceived the difference between pedantry and insight?

RAW is the only thing that can be classified as true in a forum discussion about the rules.

So anybody who read the rulebook differently or (more importantly) played with a DM who read the rulebook differently was playing a different game and therefore their experiences and arguments didn't have anything to do with the platonic ideal of the game that you were defending.

I can see now why you think you're so smart.

Now, that said...alignment rules and mechanics can be useful to the game. They can give mechanical voice to classic tropes of fantasy in an objective manner that would otherwise be left to DM fiat.

Surely, a person of your impossibly advanced intellect would have noticed that I said that the "alignment rules" were cancer, and that they had been so since 1979. Implying, among other things, that different alignment rules might possibly not be cancer... and that the existing alignment rules were not cancer prior to 1979 when Gygax included more extensive roleplaying guidelines and built in mechanical penalties from "deviating" from the character's chosen alignment. Or, as is the case in these threads after threads after threads of the alignment system not working, deviating from the Dungeon Master's idiosyncratic, unspoken vision of that alignment.

Which the PHB told him was objective, and that he was the sole arbiter of, and that he was responsible for holding his players to.

You might notice I am not complaining about the alignment systems in Old/Classic D&D, or in 4e or 5e. It's because they don't do this. They allow all of the things you use as positive examples in your response... but they don't do the things I'm complaining about.

This is actually something I love discussing on alignment threads. because what you're discussing here isn't a problem with alignment mechanics. Your issue is with class design.

No, ackshually, it's alignment. PCs don't get penalized for the DM arbitrarily making them literate. In all of my years playing D&D, I've never seen a Druid fall for "ceasing to revere nature", I've never seen a Paladin fall for breaking their Oaths... and the Monks and Bards and Barbarians never actually had Codes of Conduct to fall from except their asinine and arbitrary alignment prerequisites.

So Bards, apparently, can live up to any archetype their player desires as long as they don't pay their taxes on time.

Cleric: All the times I see alignment detractors complain about classes with alignment restrictions, and no one ever mentions Clerics.

I would argue that's because of all of the classes that have alignment requirements, Clerics and Paladins are the only ones that make any kind of sense... and Dungeon Masters have historically been less encouraged to be ridiculously punitive towards Clerics.

I would like to replace the alignment restriction with ethos-specific codes of conduct, but I haven't spent the last twenty-some years hearing about games it ruined.

People have already quoted the PHB to you. There's more than just 2 words. But it's still a pretty general guideline.

Specifically, it's a guideline that nobody knows what's in it until it occurs in game. Sure, no lying and no poison... but the vast majority of it lies undefined under the nature of "Lawful" and "Good".

If you look up the definition of "Paladin", you will get (aside from the Peers of Charlemagne) somethign along the lines of "a noble knight" or "defender of a righteous cause". With the sole exception of 4th edition, Paladins are not bound to serve deities. Even the 3e Paladin class says "devotion to righteousness is enough".

I'm not the guy saying we need Evil Paladins. I'm the guy saying Good Paladins need more guidance than is in the PHB, and if we're defining a bunch of specific flavors of LG anyway... could we maybe have a couple of NG and CG variants?

Because the alignment rules say that Lawful Good isn't the "best" good, but the class rules say otherwise.

Honestly, I have big issue with the Paladins of Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter more than anything else. I know Unearthed Arcana is all "optional rules", but calling those things "Paladins" made no sense.

In a desperate bid to find some point of accord between us... I will say that I agree with you here but say that so-called "Gray Guard" Paladins are even worse

There should be a name for the fallacy of "If X only bad when it is misused, then that's not a valid indictment of X".

If it gets misused that frequently, it damned well is.

In 19 years of playing this game, and 17 years of discussing it on this and the old WotC forums, I can say, positively, that 100% of stories I have ever heard people share about "why alignment is a bad system" stem from some deviation from the RAW. Players who try to use alignment to excuse bad behavior, DMs who use it to straightjacket or otherwise control players, or DMs who use the mechanics inappropriately, or use their own definitions of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. A whole bunch. And those are problems with people, not the rules.

No.

See, it's the rules that give grossly undefined parameters for what the alignments mean, tell the Dungeon Master to color the rest in by themselves, and then tell them that this is the objective morality of the game world. They are required to use their own subjective definitions of the alignments, because those are the only definitions available to them. And when you accuse Dungeon Masters of being bad actors, they are only following the Rules-as-Badly-Written according to their own equally legitimate understanding of the words.

It's the rules that say a Paladin Falls for committing "any evil act" without ever actually defining what actually constitutes the smallest possible Evil act.

Minor note, but since D&D is a construct of FANTASY (whether or not you want to call it a game, rules for a game, etc), that means that the designers actually DO have the authority to say "in the default rules of D&D X is Good, Y is Evil" and that will be true for the RAW. Individual DMs will of course customize what they wish, but the devs can say whatever they wish for the default, and it is true.

Ironically, I'm currentlly arguing that the problem is that they never really did this, so there's no real universal reference. Except for BoVD and BoED, which I still spend thirty minutes a day trying to forcefully will out of existence. Kind of a Catch-22, now that I think of it.

Also, defending yourself with lethal force when attacked with lethal force is not "murder", either. Not by D&D mores.

I agree with you! Does the RAW, though?

I'd like to see an offiicial D&D rules source that actually discusses the specific alignment values of the continuum of force, the provision of low justice, all the sundry issues that attend medieval warfare, and all the various issues pertaining to prisoners and noncombatants. Oh, and of course, the boundaries of Lawful and Good characters in response to Evil authorities.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.