|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Oct 3, 2023 23:39:16 GMT -5
ADMIN NOTE: This was not the first post in the thread, that poster rage quit and deleted his posts: However you can go to the below link for the Internet Archive and access the missing posts:web.archive.org/web/20240106075708/https://ruinsofmurkhill.proboards.com/thread/8829
So I suggest you go to the link to see the original OP and then proceed from there.When I look at alignment I can only look at through my own lens which is how I apply it in OD&D. This does not align at all with AD&D 1st or 2nd Ed. I view good and evil as absolutes that are not adjusted by culture. I view some cultures as fundamentally evil, based on the norms of some cultures. I do not believe that various cultures get to define good and evil for themselves. I believe in moral absolutes. No one is perfect and alignments do not dictate behavior of PCs or NPCs or Monsters. They do inform what the general tendency for any creature is; however, alignment can change over time for many reasons, the most common reason being that the player cannot consistently play the alignment that originally said the PC was. All that said, the Paladin would approach the farmer and have a conversation with him. If the farmer refused to change his ways after having things clearly explained to him, then the Paladin would take the man into custody and assign good people in the community to distribute the food stores at reasonable prices for those who can afford it and charity for those who cannot (the money being set aside to fund the next crop). The Paladin would take the man before a Paladin Lord (at least 8th level) where he would be tried and then most likely executed. If the Paladin were a Paladin Lord, then he is Judge, Jury and if needed Executioner wielding authority over even kings and he would have handled the matter fully in the community.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Oct 4, 2023 0:05:16 GMT -5
I don't know anything about 2E, but my Paladins are based on the REH character Solomon Kane. He is pragmatic, as at one point he accepts a shaman who opposes evil, but who is somewhat suspect himself, as an ally to fight a greater evil. He would kill the farmer for not being generous to hungry families, especially those with children.
This description of Solomon Kane by REH, to me defines what being a Paladin is all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Oct 4, 2023 9:07:34 GMT -5
I'm going to start with a scenario that tells me if you understand AD&D 2E alignments. After people respond I will cover the alignments in detail on both the character and societal level. Interesting thread. Should I understand that 2E alignments are different from 1E alignments? I've never really looked at 2E materials much. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Oct 4, 2023 16:02:22 GMT -5
When I look at alignment I can only look at through my own lens which is how I apply it in OD&D. This does not align at all with AD&D 1st or 2nd Ed. I view good and evil as absolutes that are not adjusted by culture. I view some cultures as fundamentally evil, based on the norms of some cultures. I do not believe that various cultures get to define good and evil for themselves. I believe in moral absolutes. No one is perfect and alignments do not dictate behavior of PCs or NPCs or Monsters. They do inform what the general tendency for any creature is; however, alignment can change over time for many reasons, the most common reason being that the player cannot consistently play the alignment that originally said the PC was. All that said, the Paladin would approach the farmer and have a conversation with him. If the farmer refused to change his ways after having things clearly explained to him, then the Paladin would take the man into custody and assign good people in the community to distribute the food stores at reasonable prices for those who can afford it and charity for those who cannot (the money being set aside to fund the next crop). The Paladin would take the man before a Paladin Lord (at least 8th level) where he would be tried and then most likely executed. If the Paladin were a Paladin Lord, then he is Judge, Jury and if needed Executioner wielding authority over even kings and he would have handled the matter fully in the community. Your paladin is now a fighter since he committed theft of another man's property. If you have the paladin lord execute the farmer he and everyone involved also lose their paladinhood because it's murder since hoarding and setting prices is not a crime. In AD&D 2E, Good is Selfless and Evil is Selfish. Lawful is Organization while Chaotic is Individuality. The village in the situation is a Lawful Good society where it has just laws to promote the greater good. Private property is a hallmark of a LG society. By depriving the farmer of his property the paladin has committed the crime of theft. If the paladin lord put the poor farmer to death that's tyrannical and lawful evil. Here's a review of all the alignments as it pertains to society. LG society is marked by honest, law abiding people, and helpful to others. LN is where you have a lot of bureaucratic red tape that regulates everything. LE government has harsh laws with harsh punishments. It's not too concerned with finding the actual guilty party. Any old person will do. The laws are designed for the status quo while turning a blind eye to corruption and bribery. NE, N, and NG societies are dictatorships. They can be benevolent or outright evil. CG is like the LG society, except that they have a strong dislike for central governments. The citizens are more apt to take the law into their own hands and resolve things that way rather than wait on courts and the like. CN is pure anarchy and is a case of the patients running the asylum. CE is might makes right. Those that are the strongest rule with an iron fist. Your paladin's actions are either LE if using the paladin lord or CG since he took the law into his own hands to make things right. Good is being selfless while evil is being selfish. The farmer committed no crime since in a LG society you are allowed and encouraged to hold property while improving one's lot in life. Hoarding and setting prices on your goods is not a crime in a LG society. That just points out one reason why I do not play 2E, I do not agree with those definitions. Hoarding to the detriment of others during a famine and doubling prices is IMO the very definition of evil. As for the definitions, "might makes right" is the very definition of Lawful Evil. As for the Paladin, the evil man who hoards during a famine and double prices, justly forfeits all he has. The Paladin is appointed and chosen to enforce justice with mercy. The farmer refused mercy, by refusing to do what was right. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Oct 4, 2023 16:05:22 GMT -5
I'm going to start with a scenario that tells me if you understand AD&D 2E alignments. After people respond I will cover the alignments in detail on both the character and societal level. Interesting thread. Should I understand that 2E alignments are different from 1E alignments? I've never really looked at 2E materials much. In 2E they made the situational ethics implicit in 1E more explicit. The whole good and evil being defined by culture, rather than being absolutes is situational ethics. Good and Evil are polar opposites having nothing to do with culture. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Oct 4, 2023 16:08:27 GMT -5
I don't know anything about 2E, but my Paladins are based on the REH character Solomon Kane. He is pragmatic, as at one point he accepts a shaman who opposes evil, but who is somewhat suspect himself, as an ally to fight a greater evil. He would kill the farmer for not being generous to hungry families, especially those with children. This description of Solomon Kane by REH, to me defines what being a Paladin is all about. I like this and anyone who harms children is by definition evil. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Oct 4, 2023 16:16:14 GMT -5
Do you paladin have the right to smite this evil farmer for what he's doing? I will also say this, if paladins in 2E lose the right to deal with evil and act as Judge, Jury and Executioner, then there is no reason to have paladins in the game, the reason for their existence has been removed. The class comes with many major restrictions to offset their power and responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Oct 4, 2023 19:41:04 GMT -5
Somebody call Ayn Rand!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Oct 4, 2023 21:50:14 GMT -5
Except that there isn't anything subjective in the definition of good and evil. You agree with the definition of 2E's evil which is selfishness. Might makes right is Chaotic Evil. Lawful evil is a corrupt state that punishes the just equally as the unjust. So you think that paladins should be stealing property from a person which the law does not support is a just action? Mercy is Good which is selflessness. By committing evil in the name of justice is still evil. The requirement of the paladin is to adhere to the law and be good. If the law, as in the example given, says that you can hoard and set prices then the paladin has broken the law. Putting a man to death for holding onto his property is the very definition of a tyrant and evil. The key to being a just judge, jury, and executioner is that the paladin has to adhere to the law that he represents. In the above example, private property and setting your prices is lawful. By stealing the farmer's property the paladin is nothing more than a common thug that does not respect the law and is certainly not acting in a just manner. Executing the farmer is an extreme abuse of power. The key to the paladin is that he can't commit an evil act. By doing what you suggested shows that he committed an evil act in the pursuit of "justice". Remember, good is selflessness while evil is selfishness. Selfishness is not just murder, rape, and other crimes. The mere act of withholding your items in accordance to the law is still a selfish act. The proper action the paladin should have taken is go to the local church and government to get the funds to buy the food after trying to haggle the prices down. He is acting in accordance to local law concerning commerce. The Paladins power and mission come from the power that grants him his powers and authority. The Paladin is given a divine mission to smite evil. He is not stealing anything, the farmer by mistreating the poor has forfeited his place and it will be given to another who is more deserving. I think you misunderstand Paladins, they don't answer to human laws or authorities, they answer only to the divine. Those who mistreat the poor, the widow and the orphan are deserving of death. As I stated I don't agree with the definitions. As I stated it, the Paladin is adhering to the Law that he represents. He gives the evil farmer the chance to change, he refuses the verdict is determined and carried out. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Oct 4, 2023 21:52:35 GMT -5
Except that there isn't anything subjective in the definition of good and evil. 2E states that Good and Evil are defined by culture and are different in each culture. That makes Good and Evil in 2E subjective and situational. |
|
|
|
Post by Morose on Oct 4, 2023 22:15:20 GMT -5
TPD, leave this thread and leave him to it, before you both get mad. He is not going to change your mind and you are not going to change his. OD&D is about old school morality.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Oct 5, 2023 10:46:51 GMT -5
Interesting discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 5, 2023 23:37:51 GMT -5
His power comes from his god/goddess who is lawful good. They do answer to human laws and authorities, specifically their church. The farmer didn't mistreat anyone. He is willing to sell to any individual that has money. That's not illegal either. By forcing the farmer to change the paladin has violated his oath to uphold the law and be a good individual. He is acting as a tyrant and thief. Many of us in our OD&D have Paladins answer only to their god directly and to no one else. As OD&D people we are always going to object to how 2E handles alignments. But even going by 2E evil is selfish, i.e. sinful and the penalty of sin is death. OD&D Paladins job is to carry that sentence out. The farmer could easily avoided death by simply being charitable to the "poor, the widow and the orphan." |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 14, 2023 17:38:17 GMT -5
Many of us in our OD&D have Paladins answer only to their god directly and to no one else. As OD&D people we are always going to object to how 2E handles alignments. But even going by 2E evil is selfish, i.e. sinful and the penalty of sin is death. OD&D Paladins job is to carry that sentence out. The farmer could easily avoided death by simply being charitable to the "poor, the widow and the orphan." Mercy at the end of a barrel of a gun is tyranny. Charity that is forced at gunpoint is not charity, but a tax. The farmer "might" be doing what is Lawful for his country by starving his poorer neighbors who cannot pay his higher prices, but he is not doing what is Lawful according to god who is followed by the country and specifically by the Paladin. If he does not choose to turn from his wicked ways and thereby receive mercy and continue to live, then the just penalty is death. The Paladin carries the sword to carry out that justice, that is why the Paladin exists in the first place. You may be interpreting 2E alignment correctly, but you are way off on old school alignment views. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 15, 2023 7:51:19 GMT -5
The farmer "might" be doing what is Lawful for his country by starving his poorer neighbors who cannot pay his higher prices, but he is not doing what is Lawful according to god who is followed by the country and specifically by the Paladin. If he does not choose to turn from his wicked ways and thereby receive mercy and continue to live, then the just penalty is death. The Paladin carries the sword to carry out that justice, that is why the Paladin exists in the first place. You may be interpreting 2E alignment correctly, but you are way off on old school alignment views. Justice by performing injustice is not justice. It's tyranny. You're using a subjective view and trying to pass it off as an objective thing. As I said, "Charity at the end of a gun is tyranny." Your interpretation of the alignments shows that the paladin is lawful neutral at best and lawful evil at worse. I didn't realize that using force to steal from a private citizen was a just thing. I didn't realize that owning private property and disposing of it as you see fit is evil fit to be put to death over. Neither is the pursuit of engaging in lawful commerce is a criminal offense. Where is the justice in all of what you propose? Where is the lawful good nature in all of this? The disconnect for you seems to be not understanding the Lawful part of Lawful Good. You say evil can do anything it wants and as long as it is Lawful, they get a free pass. The problem is that you think in a Lawful Good society, that evil acts get a free pass. That is not the case, evil acts in a lawful society have a penalty. You are saying because part and only part of the action is lawful the entire action is lawful including the evil part. You are trying to use Lawful Good to justify and excuse an evil act. That is not the way the alignments work. For his evil act of of raising the price during a famine, you try to say that it is OK, but it is not. Your Paladin, by doing nothing, condones evil and that is evil and your Paladin is stripped of his Paladinhood and can never get it back. You are looking at it backwards. You would have it right if and only if he lived in a Lawful Evil society and if and only if the Paladin was also Lawful Evil. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 15, 2023 7:53:20 GMT -5
Incidentally, you can substitute the farmer with a random passer by on a street that refuses to give an orphan money for food. By your answers, you can have your paladin murder the man on the street for failing to part with his property because that's justice in your eyes. Evil is being selfish while good is selfless. That's the objective standard I employed. You are ignoring the Lawful part of the equation. Under Lawful Good, a strict reading of it is that every evil act is punished, that is if you do not ignore the Lawful part. The good part is that evil is given a chance to repent before the Lawful part is brought to bear. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 16, 2023 0:33:47 GMT -5
The disconnect for you seems to be not understanding the Lawful part of Lawful Good. You say evil can do anything it wants and as long as it is Lawful, they get a free pass. The problem is that you think in a Lawful Good society, that evil acts get a free pass. That is not the case, evil acts in a lawful society have a penalty. You are saying because part and only part of the action is lawful the entire action is lawful including the evil part. You are trying to use Lawful Good to justify and excuse an evil act. That is not the way the alignments work. For his evil act of of raising the price during a famine, you try to say that it is OK, but it is not. Your Paladin, by doing nothing, condones evil and that is evil and your Paladin is stripped of his Paladinhood and can never get it back. You are looking at it backwards. You would have it right if and only if he lived in a Lawful Evil society and if and only if the Paladin was also Lawful Evil. No, I stated what the law was in my second post in this topic. It's the ability to own private property and to conduct commerce. What crime did the farmer commit under the law?This is what ChatGPT said on the quiz and its response. Evil as defined in AD&D 2E is the antithesis of good. Good is being honest, charitable, and forthright. The only evil the famer is committing is charging double for his goods. He's being selfish. By your own position, any time a paladin sees someone being selfish and not giving their gold to an orphan or the downtrodden opens them up to being kill for no crime. See the bold print above, the law the farmer broke was the law of god, starving the poor is a breaking of the moral law of the creator of the world contained in the game, by that law the farmer deserves death. I am leaving this conversation since it is clear that you do not understand alignment or the real world morality on which many of us base our definitions of alignment. The starting place is "all have sinned and all deserve death." Besides which the secular law of the king is for all of the ordinary citizens, but Paladins are not subjects to that law at all, they are subject to the higher perfect moral law of their god. As for ChatGPT, I am not surprised that a soulless number cruncher would fall in line with a false view of alignment and the stated problem. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Oct 16, 2023 12:56:28 GMT -5
By your reading of the alignments a paladin can slaughter anyone for failing to give their last gold piece to a beggar. How is that mercy? How is that charity? Any god that allows that is LE at best and CE at worst. Your hyperbole "paladin can slaughter anyone for failing to give their last gold piece to a beggar" comparing this to starving many poor people with families is a typical false comparison. While the definitions in 2E are miles away from what was intended in OD&D, you are even twisting the 2E definitions. I understand that you do not believe there should be penalties for evil and that Lawful Good means roll over and die without a fight. This is my last response. Someone please lock this disgusting thread promoting anti-paladins as paladins. |
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Oct 16, 2023 17:58:29 GMT -5
Alignment being a contentious and highly debated issue - who knew?  |
|
