WHY BARDS (and maybe barbarians) UNABLE TO BE LAWFUL IS JUST SO SILLY

[Waverider10]

No.

Well, more accurately you can argue, you can also bang your head against a brick wall.

Alignment should reflect the metaphysical position of the character in relation to the great cosmic truths of law, chaos, good.and evil. It's something that the character themselves is unlikely to be aware of (unless they're of a scrutinized divine order who are big on checking out souls).

This is exactly what I was getting at with the question.

A player can't have his cake and eat it too in regards to the D&D world/system. You can free slaves in Thay which is against their laws and still be lawful... but that friction creates personal and society conflict . You may lose a point of Lawfullness for your decision but you're still lawful. If you free slaves in all the countries in the world... well, that'll make you chaotic and through that shift may make you lose faith. Of course, you can have events to dramatically change your alignment as well but that's usually talked about with DMs.

[Kaybrie]

Not at all waverider. You'd just become lawful good if anything. It's not unlawful for a character to ignore unjust laws. If every country in the world suddenly passed a law that required paladins to kill themselves. They would not lose there powers for not doing so.

[Waverider10]

Not at all waverider. You'd just become lawful good if anything. It's not unlawful for a character to ignore unjust laws. If every country in the world suddenly passed a law that required paladins to kill themselves. They would not lose there powers for not doing so.

The important part of that was the "may lose a point of alignment" because of exactly your point. Its ultimately the DM and player who make the call. If the DM feels the player is straying from his alignment then the tools are there to punish him. Similar to clerics and spell powers. If the DM thinks he's not evil or good enough then perhaps the cleric's prayers won't be answered. If a Paladin goes around slaying evil, then perhaps a DM would create a challenge to see if the taint of killing changes his alignment.

[Kaybrie]

Eh... I'm strongly opposed to using the alongnment wand to punish players just as I avoid arguing with DMs who make use of the tool. It's there to help symbolize change. In my opinion, regardless.

[[DM] Grinning Death]

...using the alongnment wand to punish...

Heheh.

[Kaybrie]

I take it all back.

I love what this phone does to my posts.

[Snowmane]

You're thinking of heroic neutral. ala Mordenkainen, it didn't apply to average people. Though I digress, in 3rd it represents the grey area that most humans (including carreer soldiers and wild folk stand in.

It takes effort to take on an alingment. Dropping your spare change in a donation box doesn't make you good. Nor does obeying the law make you lawful or thinking of how much you want to kill someone make you evil. Its part of why some paladins just outright kill someone with an evil alingnment. having that stain on your soul is irrefutable proof that said character hasn't just done something wrong, but likely cotinues to do so and deserves whats comming to him.

QFT

I concur with everything Kasso said here for PnP games.

This would be a little sticky to implement in NWN2 though. Basically every x amount of time passed, the characters alignment would have to shift toward true neutral, then there would have to be a lot of repeatable things characters could do to earn the shift back in the direction they want. Could get annoying pretty fast.

[Root]

Why not?

I could easily see this guy as belonging to a tribe with deeply help superstitions, traditions, and customs. Allegiance amongst the tribe is nearly unbreakable, and to question the wisdom of either their sacred customs or the word of the tribal elder/medicine man/voodoo dude is almost unheard of.

Being a fierce warrior that shows no regard for his own safety when battling the enemies of his tribe wouldn't make him any less lawful.

Agree entirely. And have played barbarians with huge amounts of devotion to their tribal traditions and rules. On this server, in fact.

Same as a Monk has a place engaging in fist fights in a sanctuary to defend his honour and enjoying the test of combat, but no place starting barfights for fun.

Firm belief here in the spirit of the rule over the rule. Barbarians shouldn't be Lawful because they should be, in some clear, definite way, barbaric, not because they have an aversion to any kind of order.

tl;dr: Devotion to tribal elders and traditions good, saluting and marching in formation bad. It's not the fact that they're accepting a superior and following their word, it's whether that superior is 'Great Elder Mauk' or 'Third Admiral Threepwood'.


I just suppose it was easier for the designers to say 'Let's make them be non-lawful' than 'Let's add five paragraphs about what separates a barbarian from a fighter'.

Look at every bit of fluff writted in the source books about Barbarians, and you'll be hard pressed to find any part that says barbarians are suited to obeying orders in a civilised army.

[Doubtful]

Civilization doesn't have jack to do with lawful alignment.

It's just a conspiracy to prevent Barbarian(or bard)/ Paladin(or monk) builds. A shame, as I'd love to play a Barbaric Paladin.

Though even that's changed with the Paladin Varients!

[Kaizen]

I have a soft spot for paladins.

So as hypocritcal as this sounds ('cause it is, given that I started this thread and apples and oranges and...)

Any paladin that isn't Lawful Good is no longer a paladin in my book. I REFUSE AND I'LL CALL 'EM A DIVINE CHAMPION. YOU CAN'T MAKE ME.

[Doubtful]

Get thee to a nunnery..

"After failing to remember the correct introduction for a second son of an Earl and causing a beverage to be spilled when you were jostled in a bar, your 2nd Ed Paladin has lost his divine powers"

[Thief Of Navarre]

Dosen't change the fact that they're in a disciplined group, following orders, and obeying a chain of command.

In a military group, a barbarian wouldn't go long without finding a situation where his personal beliefs contradicted orders. Following the orders of superiors against your beliefs is a hugely lawful act, that speaks of self-control and discipline.

Here is a picture of a barbarian.

One does not run at a 45' angle whilst wearing a bear because they respect authority.

Made me lol sooo bad!

[Torgar]

Alignment is often a point that me, Roguethree, many of the staff at various times, and players that have come and gone have very heatedly discussed at times, and one point I think most of us have come to agree on is this: Nonlawful does not mean chaotic. Nonchaotic does not mean lawful.

Example: A barbarian in the dwarven militia of Silver hall hold. His alignment is NG, because he does his best to make the lives of his people better without holding special consideration for the specific laws or traditions of his people, because those are already well established and simply adhering to them does not make him lawful. He is still a battlerager, who flies into a berserker rage to defend his friends and families home. However, he does not enforce his clan's belief's and traditions upon travelers to his home, laughing about the fact that the outsiders "just dinnae understand the proper way o' things". A lawful dwarf would stop the outsiders who are possibly breaking some law or custom unknowingly, teach them about it, and enforce it's practice upon them while there. As a NG barbarian(battlerager), the example dwarf does not. It is a nonlawful action on his part, but that does not mean it is a chaotic one.

Example two: LG paladin freeing slaves. Indeed, this can be quite the problem, as a country that has laws protecting the right to owns slaves, and is the rightful government, by the strictest interpretation of the paladin class should be allow to hold slaves. Most people would agree on this point....

Except that's completely wrong. There will be paladins within Faerun, the world our server is based in, that may choose to ignore the pleas of the slaves because his paladin order is there to maintain peace and guard against outside incursions, not to go around being heroic saviors of the slaves. This act is not good, certainly, but it also is not evil, it is simply apathetic, and apathy is not evil. However, should a paladin be so moved as to free slaves, that is not a Chaotic action. The reasoning is thus: He is freeing them because he is concerned about their well being, and feels that they will obtain a better and more productive live outside of slavery. Happy workers produce more then oppressed ones, so he may actually be moved by the hope of increasing the lives of all of Thay by helping make more free workers, thus increasing the prosperity of Thay as a whole, a very lawful act, and also good.

A chaotic action would be to free the slaves regardless of what state of living they are in, and for no other reason then you are against slavery. Lacking any empathy towards the slaves themselves, and merely hating the enslavement ideal, you free the slaves, but afterwards most chaotic people rarely stick around to make sure the lives of those they have freed are improved in any way, and simply move on. A LG paladin will stick around until he is assured the slaves lives have settled down, and they are the better for his involvement.

Basically, Law and Chaos are similar to Good and Evil. Intent is, even in DnD, important. It's true, in a previous example of a wizard summoning a Balor to save orphans, that the continual summoning and use of evil magic will eventually corrupt the wizard. However, the process takes far longer then a typical neutral wizard doing it just to gain power, because the intent is grounded in good, and thus greatly slows down the creep of power corruption. Should the wizard only summon the balor in instances when he is saving the lives of those that are in situations that no other creature he can call upon can survive and hope to save those in peril, then chances are that in the end, he will still die a good man, with only very slight blemishes upon his cosmic record as a result.

Just as those with evil alignment PC wise, those players whom create evil PC's, are those who have not only committed evil, but done so for most of the formative years of their life, but they also usually espouse the use of acts which, although maybe not all entirely evil are certainly not good, so is it with a person of good alignment. There is an exception I will mention shortly. If you are good aligned, you have been brought up with values of morality, honesty, valor. That does not mean you can not lie, that does not mean you can not do non-good things, that does not mean you can not be a coward. It simply means those are the values you grew up around, with, and usually tend to turn to in dealing with a given situation. The wizard in the example would most likely be Neutral good, as he turns to the best way to save people, without real regard towards encouraging the values of either order, or the values of Chaos. He simply is trying to do something good, although he is doing it through non-good...alright, evil means. Will he receive points of evil? Yes, I'm not arguing that, but the amount he receives is not the same as the amount of evil he would get if he were simply summoning a balor to summon a balor, because he did it to save lives. Instead of 5 evil points, he gets 2. Still evil, but his intentions softened the blow. Now, the exception.

Paladins. I love paladins, don't get me wrong. Honestly, one of my favorite classes for RP and combat, especially since I play Pathfinder, and Pathfinder made paladins BAMF's, but that's digressing. RP perspective, I love paladins. However! Paladins are champions of their gods, trained from a young age to follow the strictest tenets of their gods ethos, portfolio, and moral code to further the aims of Order, Good, and the goals of their god. They are the front line warriors in the fight against Evil, and as such they have very strict practices they MUST adhere to when dealing with evil. There is no grey area for a Paladin, like there can be for a LG fighter.

Example given prior: Paladin walking into temple of evil people, killing them all.

Problem: Who's the temple dedicated too?

Reason: Tormite ethos, straight from the Wiki: "Tormish must expend all possible effort to eliminate any surviving cults of Bane, as well as to oppose all efforts of Cyricists, Xvimists, and the Zhentarim." So, if a Tormish Paladin walks into a temple of bane and proceeds to whoop banite ass and kills them all, are they allowed? Not just allowed, they are encouraged, no, it is DEMANDED of them by their god to do so. Same if it's a cyric temple, or a Zhentarim stronghold. If it's in there, and evil: Send them to be judged by swordpoint.

Now, I will also counter my own arguement for the sake of those who are going to read just that part and flame me for reasons that don't make sense because it's not my fault they don't read everything posted. If a paladin of a god of....Moradin. Ok, we'll go with Moradin paladin. Paladin of Moradin walks into temple of Umberlee, evil goddess, and started killing everything evil in there, is Moradin happy? Unlikely, unless doing so resulted in saving a town from some ritualistic flood, or if it saved some sap from ritual sacrifice, or if they were orcs. Orcs: Kill them, it's moradin, dwarven god, he's not going to be mad about that, ever. So, if those criteria are NOT met, then no, what the Paladin did was not right, and it's even possible he could fall. Paladin's do not get to soft step on the line of good and law, they fall HARD. That's why there's atonement. That same action that made him fall, his god is also not going to be against reinstating him, because although it wasn't in the gods best interest, or the best interest of those around that temple, he still fell fighting evil, and therefore will likely be forgiven.

So, my major points: A bard acting non-chaotic, or a barbarian acting non-chaotic, is NOT NECESSARILY LAWFUL. I can not stress this enough. Now, if said bard/barbarian/monk is CONSISTANTLY ACTING LAWFUL, being rigid with all laws and rules, never making allowances for others, never encouraging personal freedoms, or any of that other lawful stuff, then THAT is lawful, and the character should be unable to continue upon the class they are in, IE bard/barb etc. However, none of these classes lose a damned thing for being lawful, except the allowance to gain another level in that class, so honestly, if you are a bard/barb and seem to be acting lawful, just go with it, don't freak out. Lawful bard? Go rogue or fighter, or even some prestige if you meat the prereq for it. Lawful Barbarian? fighter/ranger, and you're still good to go. Non-lawful monk? Fighter/rogue are good choices, or even cleric. Heck, you're a wisdom class anyways. Fallen paladin? Ask for an atonement spell, it's there for a reason. The gods knew people could lose powers in the duty to their gods because of the cosmic balance being anal retentive, so they made a spell to fix you up as long as you appease said balance.

So ends another long winded Torgar rant. I make no apologies for any loss of life caused by my ranting. Side effects may include, but are not limited to: Flaming of the post, trolling the poster, headaches, nausea, sudden disillusionment of the alignment system, loss of bowel control, and the urge to give Torgar's characters exp and faction rep.

So yea. Done ranting now. Enjoy the post.



PS: Vampires are always evil, no such thing as a non-evil one, and Bloody Redjack play's the best bad guy, vampire or not, ever.

[ManUtd4Ever]

Bloody Redjack play's the best bad guy, vampire or not, ever.

I completely agree.

[Mournas]

You're thinking of heroic neutral. ala Mordenkainen, it didn't apply to average people. Though I digress, in 3rd it represents the grey area that most humans (including carreer soldiers and wild folk stand in.

It takes effort to take on an alingment. Dropping your spare change in a donation box doesn't make you good. Nor does obeying the law make you lawful or thinking of how much you want to kill someone make you evil. Its part of why some paladins just outright kill someone with an evil alingnment. having that stain on your soul is irrefutable proof that said character hasn't just done something wrong, but likely cotinues to do so and deserves whats comming to him.

There are plenty of ways to be evil without just murdering and calling for a simple death penalty. If a Paladin strikes out unjustly just because you are evil then it is a chaotic act, in which he will have to atone to perhaps be forgiven by his god for breaking the code he swore to uphold. Paladins are subject to double jeopardy.

The whole "I can see into this mans soul, hes evil." thing ... but why is he evil? What is it he does that makes him so? To slay a person because they are evil is simply a perversion of the Paladin's code. The detect evil ability is basically a hint system saying hey keep an eye out for this guy. You still have to arrest people and bring them in for a trial etc. To arrest someone this means you also need to have PHYSICAL evidence. This is all of course subjective to the area you live in.

Bottom line, Paladins are subject to double jeopardy. They must follow the tenants of their god, they must follow the paladins code of honor, and last but not least they must also follow the laws of the land in which they choose to reside.