D&D alignments, how do they work?

[Cael]

He is listed as "lawful evil" (no idea what this is based on), so I guess he's most valuable for evil runs.

Makes sense. He's clearly principled and lives an ordered life, and he values the rule of law. But he clearly has no qualms with committing evil acts in the pursuit of his research. I like that they have someone in the game that is Lawful Evil without being a cackling villain, and can be worked with to the point where even a Paladin might end up recruiting him, never giving it a second thought, especially with all the Lawful Good "monsters are evil, die!" which is bordering on the tiresome considering that "Good" (i.e. Neutral Good) is apparently all about being nice and extra forgiving and shit to the point of retardation. Alignments in the game are generally stupid, and I have no idea what muppet was in charge of them, so it's nice to hear that it's not all bad.

This will turn into an alignment discussion, but the thing is that most people who play Lawful Good simply aren't.

Just ask a fucking SJW and it will proudly tell you that it is Lawful Good and doing whatever it takes to force you to do "good" is justified. It will believe that it is a modern day Paladin on a crusade to rid the world of "evil", "bigotry" and "hate".

That is the problem with the whole alignment thing. In DnD type games, alignments are absolutes. There are entire dimensions/planes dedicated to an alignment concept (Celestia, the Abyss, the 9 Hells, Mechanus, Pandemonium, etc.). They cannot be viewed "from a certain point of view". This is what most people don't get.

Too often, people focus on one axis and forget about everything else. People playing Lawful Good paladins, for example, too often forget the Good part of the alignment. They justify that eradicating Evil is a Good thing and therefore ping-thump is justified. WRONG! Justice is a Law concept, not a Good concept. A fanatic paladin going ping-thump is being Lawful Neutral. Forget compassion (Good concept), forget tolerance (Good concept), forget forgiveness (Good concept). Those things are rarely part of a player paladin. That is where the problem is.

Similarly with Lawful Evil. A cackling villian is Evil, yes. But is he really Lawful? Not really. Too many players worship the concept of the Joker (seen too many in other RPG forums) and think that it is "cool". So they make up some stupid rule their character follows (e.g., will not eat babies with his breakfast; lunch and dinner is fair game) and call it Lawful Evil. Why? Well, because it says so in the damned PHB. Yep, the writers of the bloody thing caused the problem in the first place. But that is not what Lawful Evil is all about. Take Mephasm. He is a Pit Fiend, basically an embodiment of Lawful Evil in DnDverse. The way he acts is very Lawful Evil. He warns you about the dangers of entering into pacts with him, he honours his deals and he will help you if it suits his purpose and plans. Even with Ammon Jerro, he warns him of the dangers of his actions. And he will stand aside and let the consequences befall you (and Ammon) if you went ahead. He isn't going to help. He fucking warned you and you still went ahead. Reap the reward, fool. No compassion, no tolerance, no forgiveness. He will extract his due as per the deal.

The problem with the alignment system is not the system. It is players wanting to be something they are not and forcing others to accept it on pain of lots of whining and bitching. This is coming from a long time DM who has seen all kinds of people trying to abuse the alignment system, some out of sheer ignorance because they are newbies, others just wanting to be something they are not, and still others trying to powergame (usually by trying to add a class that requires a non-Evil alignment when they are plainly Neutral Evil at best if not outright Chaotic Evil, and so write "Neutral Good" on their character sheet). And being a long time DM, I have plenty of creative ways to wreck their shit when they keep up their nonsense.

 

[ArchAngel]

He is listed as "lawful evil" (no idea what this is based on), so I guess he's most valuable for evil runs.

Makes sense. He's clearly principled and lives an ordered life, and he values the rule of law. But he clearly has no qualms with committing evil acts in the pursuit of his research. I like that they have someone in the game that is Lawful Evil without being a cackling villain, and can be worked with to the point where even a Paladin might end up recruiting him, never giving it a second thought, especially with all the Lawful Good "monsters are evil, die!" which is bordering on the tiresome considering that "Good" (i.e. Neutral Good) is apparently all about being nice and extra forgiving and shit to the point of retardation. Alignments in the game are generally stupid, and I have no idea what muppet was in charge of them, so it's nice to hear that it's not all bad.

This will turn into an alignment discussion, but the thing is that most people who play Lawful Good simply aren't.

Just ask a fucking SJW and it will proudly tell you that it is Lawful Good and doing whatever it takes to force you to do "good" is justified. It will believe that it is a modern day Paladin on a crusade to rid the world of "evil", "bigotry" and "hate".

That is the problem with the whole alignment thing. In DnD type games, alignments are absolutes. There are entire dimensions/planes dedicated to an alignment concept (Celestia, the Abyss, the 9 Hells, Mechanus, Pandemonium, etc.). They cannot be viewed "from a certain point of view". This is what most people don't get.

Too often, people focus on one axis and forget about everything else. People playing Lawful Good paladins, for example, too often forget the Good part of the alignment. They justify that eradicating Evil is a Good thing and therefore ping-thump is justified. WRONG! Justice is a Law concept, not a Good concept. A fanatic paladin going ping-thump is being Lawful Neutral. Forget compassion (Good concept), forget tolerance (Good concept), forget forgiveness (Good concept). Those things are rarely part of a player paladin. That is where the problem is.

Similarly with Lawful Evil. A cackling villian is Evil, yes. But is he really Lawful? Not really. Too many players worship the concept of the Joker (seen too many in other RPG forums) and think that it is "cool". So they make up some stupid rule their character follows (e.g., will not eat babies with his breakfast; lunch and dinner is fair game) and call it Lawful Evil. Why? Well, because it says so in the damned PHB. Yep, the writers of the bloody thing caused the problem in the first place. But that is not what Lawful Evil is all about. Take Mephasm. He is a Pit Fiend, basically an embodiment of Lawful Evil in DnDverse. The way he acts is very Lawful Evil. He warns you about the dangers of entering into pacts with him, he honours his deals and he will help you if it suits his purpose and plans. Even with Ammon Jerro, he warns him of the dangers of his actions. And he will stand aside and let the consequences befall you (and Ammon) if you went ahead. He isn't going to help. He fucking warned you and you still went ahead. Reap the reward, fool. No compassion, no tolerance, no forgiveness. He will extract his due as per the deal.

The problem with the alignment system is not the system. It is players wanting to be something they are not and forcing others to accept it on pain of lots of whining and bitching. This is coming from a long time DM who has seen all kinds of people trying to abuse the alignment system, some out of sheer ignorance because they are newbies, others just wanting to be something they are not, and still others trying to powergame (usually by trying to add a class that requires a non-Evil alignment when they are plainly Neutral Evil at best if not outright Chaotic Evil, and so write "Neutral Good" on their character sheet). And being a long time DM, I have plenty of creative ways to wreck their shit when they keep up their nonsense.

You got it wrong. Justice is a lawful concept but to have Justice you need to prove it. Ping meter is not proof to the lawful society at large, unless that society is a theocracy. Being Good allows you to take revenge and punishment on any EVIL you find, being Lawful prohibits you to do it any other means but through Justice and its systems.
It is why Good Rangers are usually the real paragons of Good because their Neutral or Chaotic Good alignment lets them fight evil without rules and regulations.

 

[Luckmann]

He is listed as "lawful evil" (no idea what this is based on), so I guess he's most valuable for evil runs.

Makes sense. He's clearly principled and lives an ordered life, and he values the rule of law. But he clearly has no qualms with committing evil acts in the pursuit of his research. I like that they have someone in the game that is Lawful Evil without being a cackling villain, and can be worked with to the point where even a Paladin might end up recruiting him, never giving it a second thought, especially with all the Lawful Good "monsters are evil, die!" which is bordering on the tiresome considering that "Good" (i.e. Neutral Good) is apparently all about being nice and extra forgiving and shit to the point of retardation. Alignments in the game are generally stupid, and I have no idea what muppet was in charge of them, so it's nice to hear that it's not all bad.

This will turn into an alignment discussion, but the thing is that most people who play Lawful Good simply aren't.

Just ask a fucking SJW and it will proudly tell you that it is Lawful Good and doing whatever it takes to force you to do "good" is justified. It will believe that it is a modern day Paladin on a crusade to rid the world of "evil", "bigotry" and "hate".

That is the problem with the whole alignment thing. In DnD type games, alignments are absolutes. There are entire dimensions/planes dedicated to an alignment concept (Celestia, the Abyss, the 9 Hells, Mechanus, Pandemonium, etc.). They cannot be viewed "from a certain point of view". This is what most people don't get.

Too often, people focus on one axis and forget about everything else. People playing Lawful Good paladins, for example, too often forget the Good part of the alignment. They justify that eradicating Evil is a Good thing and therefore ping-thump is justified. WRONG! Justice is a Law concept, not a Good concept. A fanatic paladin going ping-thump is being Lawful Neutral. Forget compassion (Good concept), forget tolerance (Good concept), forget forgiveness (Good concept). Those things are rarely part of a player paladin. That is where the problem is.

Similarly with Lawful Evil. A cackling villian is Evil, yes. But is he really Lawful? Not really. Too many players worship the concept of the Joker (seen too many in other RPG forums) and think that it is "cool". So they make up some stupid rule their character follows (e.g., will not eat babies with his breakfast; lunch and dinner is fair game) and call it Lawful Evil. Why? Well, because it says so in the damned PHB. Yep, the writers of the bloody thing caused the problem in the first place. But that is not what Lawful Evil is all about. Take Mephasm. He is a Pit Fiend, basically an embodiment of Lawful Evil in DnDverse. The way he acts is very Lawful Evil. He warns you about the dangers of entering into pacts with him, he honours his deals and he will help you if it suits his purpose and plans. Even with Ammon Jerro, he warns him of the dangers of his actions. And he will stand aside and let the consequences befall you (and Ammon) if you went ahead. He isn't going to help. He fucking warned you and you still went ahead. Reap the reward, fool. No compassion, no tolerance, no forgiveness. He will extract his due as per the deal.

The problem with the alignment system is not the system. It is players wanting to be something they are not and forcing others to accept it on pain of lots of whining and bitching. This is coming from a long time DM who has seen all kinds of people trying to abuse the alignment system, some out of sheer ignorance because they are newbies, others just wanting to be something they are not, and still others trying to powergame (usually by trying to add a class that requires a non-Evil alignment when they are plainly Neutral Evil at best if not outright Chaotic Evil, and so write "Neutral Good" on their character sheet). And being a long time DM, I have plenty of creative ways to wreck their shit when they keep up their nonsense.

You got it wrong. Justice is a lawful concept but to have Justice you need to prove it. Ping meter is not proof to the lawful society at large, unless that society is a theocracy. Being Good allows you to take revenge and punishment on any EVIL you find, being Lawful prohibits you to do it any other means but through Justice and its systems.
It is why Good Rangers are usually the real paragons of Good because their Neutral or Chaotic Good alignment lets them fight evil without rules and regulations.

Lawful is not about following rules and regulations, it's about having principles, following them, and living by a code. The difference may be small, but it is critical, because it is what makes it possible for Lawful Good people (say, nationalists) to act against a Lawful Evil society (say, communism). Lawful Good people are Lawful because they believe that order and principles are ultimately better in the pursuit of Good, whereas they could consider Chaotic Good people as being unwilling or unable to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Lawful therefore implies premeditation, whereas Chaotic implies impulsiveness. A lot of SocJus people would be considered Chaotic Good because they generally do good, but they have no concept of the consequences of their actions ultimately resulting in Evil. Of course, even more of them would be Chaotic Neutral, disregarding what is good in the pursuit of their pet ideology, and yet more Chaotic Evil because they simply do what makes them feel fuzzy inside, even if it kills people or gets them fired, etc.

Chaotic usually means retarded. Usually.

 

[ArchAngel]

He is listed as "lawful evil" (no idea what this is based on), so I guess he's most valuable for evil runs.

Makes sense. He's clearly principled and lives an ordered life, and he values the rule of law. But he clearly has no qualms with committing evil acts in the pursuit of his research. I like that they have someone in the game that is Lawful Evil without being a cackling villain, and can be worked with to the point where even a Paladin might end up recruiting him, never giving it a second thought, especially with all the Lawful Good "monsters are evil, die!" which is bordering on the tiresome considering that "Good" (i.e. Neutral Good) is apparently all about being nice and extra forgiving and shit to the point of retardation. Alignments in the game are generally stupid, and I have no idea what muppet was in charge of them, so it's nice to hear that it's not all bad.

This will turn into an alignment discussion, but the thing is that most people who play Lawful Good simply aren't.

Just ask a fucking SJW and it will proudly tell you that it is Lawful Good and doing whatever it takes to force you to do "good" is justified. It will believe that it is a modern day Paladin on a crusade to rid the world of "evil", "bigotry" and "hate".

That is the problem with the whole alignment thing. In DnD type games, alignments are absolutes. There are entire dimensions/planes dedicated to an alignment concept (Celestia, the Abyss, the 9 Hells, Mechanus, Pandemonium, etc.). They cannot be viewed "from a certain point of view". This is what most people don't get.

Too often, people focus on one axis and forget about everything else. People playing Lawful Good paladins, for example, too often forget the Good part of the alignment. They justify that eradicating Evil is a Good thing and therefore ping-thump is justified. WRONG! Justice is a Law concept, not a Good concept. A fanatic paladin going ping-thump is being Lawful Neutral. Forget compassion (Good concept), forget tolerance (Good concept), forget forgiveness (Good concept). Those things are rarely part of a player paladin. That is where the problem is.

Similarly with Lawful Evil. A cackling villian is Evil, yes. But is he really Lawful? Not really. Too many players worship the concept of the Joker (seen too many in other RPG forums) and think that it is "cool". So they make up some stupid rule their character follows (e.g., will not eat babies with his breakfast; lunch and dinner is fair game) and call it Lawful Evil. Why? Well, because it says so in the damned PHB. Yep, the writers of the bloody thing caused the problem in the first place. But that is not what Lawful Evil is all about. Take Mephasm. He is a Pit Fiend, basically an embodiment of Lawful Evil in DnDverse. The way he acts is very Lawful Evil. He warns you about the dangers of entering into pacts with him, he honours his deals and he will help you if it suits his purpose and plans. Even with Ammon Jerro, he warns him of the dangers of his actions. And he will stand aside and let the consequences befall you (and Ammon) if you went ahead. He isn't going to help. He fucking warned you and you still went ahead. Reap the reward, fool. No compassion, no tolerance, no forgiveness. He will extract his due as per the deal.

The problem with the alignment system is not the system. It is players wanting to be something they are not and forcing others to accept it on pain of lots of whining and bitching. This is coming from a long time DM who has seen all kinds of people trying to abuse the alignment system, some out of sheer ignorance because they are newbies, others just wanting to be something they are not, and still others trying to powergame (usually by trying to add a class that requires a non-Evil alignment when they are plainly Neutral Evil at best if not outright Chaotic Evil, and so write "Neutral Good" on their character sheet). And being a long time DM, I have plenty of creative ways to wreck their shit when they keep up their nonsense.

You got it wrong. Justice is a lawful concept but to have Justice you need to prove it. Ping meter is not proof to the lawful society at large, unless that society is a theocracy. Being Good allows you to take revenge and punishment on any EVIL you find, being Lawful prohibits you to do it any other means but through Justice and its systems.
It is why Good Rangers are usually the real paragons of Good because their Neutral or Chaotic Good alignment lets them fight evil without rules and regulations.

Lawful is not about following rules and regulations, it's about having principles, following them, and living by a code. The difference may be small, but it is critical, because it is what makes it possible for Lawful Good people (say, nationalists) to act against a Lawful Evil society (say, communism). Lawful Good people are Lawful because they believe that order and principles are ultimately better in the pursuit of Good, whereas they could consider Chaotic Good people as being unwilling or unable to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Lawful therefore implies premeditation, whereas Chaotic implies impulsiveness. A lot of SocJus people would be considered Chaotic Good because they generally do good, but they have no concept of the consequences of their actions ultimately resulting in Evil. Of course, even more of them would be Chaotic Neutral, disregarding what is good in the pursuit of their pet ideology, and yet more Chaotic Evil because they simply do what makes them feel fuzzy inside, even if it kills people or gets them fired, etc.

Chaotic usually means retarded. Usually.

Nope. LG paladin can go vs LE society because second part of his alignment, the G part. But the way he would do it would NOT be to charge into throne room and behead the ruler because that would cause chaos in the land.
He would try to find an orderly way to do it.
The NG or CG character would be the one that would try to cut off the snake head no matter the consequences after it.
Chaotic actions don't result in Evil, you are mixing apples and oranges. Robin Hood's way was pretty Chaotic but his actions resulted in Good.

 

[Prime Junta]

Nope. LG paladin can go vs LE society because second part of his alignment, the G part. But the way he would do it would NOT be to charge into throne room and behead the ruler because that would cause chaos in the land.

Oh, he could. He'd just have a provisional government all set up and waiting to step in to fill the vacuum immediately.

 

[ArchAngel]

Nope. LG paladin can go vs LE society because second part of his alignment, the G part. But the way he would do it would NOT be to charge into throne room and behead the ruler because that would cause chaos in the land.

Oh, he could. He'd just have a provisional government all set up and waiting to step in to fill the vacuum immediately.

Ok, but that is still different than charging into throne room at first opportunity and killing the guy in charge. That still takes weeks of planning and finding allies and Lords that will take over. And he would certainly come to "arrest" that LE ruler first.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Nope. LG paladin can go vs LE society because second part of his alignment, the G part. But the way he would do it would NOT be to charge into throne room and behead the ruler because that would cause chaos in the land.

Oh, he could. He'd just have a provisional government all set up and waiting to step in to fill the vacuum immediately.

Right, that's the point of LG, non lawful would be more likely to koniec the king and then fill the vacuum.

 

[Reinhardt]

He'd just have a provisional government all set up and waiting to step in to fill the vacuum immediately.

Usually it's other way around.

 

[Tacgnol]

Nope. LG paladin can go vs LE society because second part of his alignment, the G part. But the way he would do it would NOT be to charge into throne room and behead the ruler because that would cause chaos in the land.

Oh, he could. He'd just have a provisional government all set up and waiting to step in to fill the vacuum immediately.

Also an LG character will usually prioritise good over order if there is a clash in a life or death situation. That's generally the difference between a hardline LN character and an LG'er.

 

[Dodo1610]

Is it even possible to be a hypocrite in DND?
A Character that enforces the law on everyone but himself.

 

[ArchAngel]

Is it even possible to be a hypocrite in DND?
A Character that enforces the law on everyone but himself.

Yea, it is called NE.

 

[Cael]

Is it even possible to be a hypocrite in DND?
A Character that enforces the law on everyone but himself.

Of course. His alignment is likely to be some form of Chaotic, though.

 

[Prime Junta]

“Good laws must be followed. Bad ones must be changed” is a LG statement.

That would have a corollary, “Rulers who make and enforce bad laws must be replaced with rulers who make and enforce good laws.” That gives a lot of latitude. There is plenty of room for a LG revolutionary, even a ruthless one, if he’s acting from motives like the above. Sometimes assassinating an evil king is a LG act.

Variations on that sentence would illustrate the alignment compass pretty well.

 

[Van-d-all]

“Good laws must be followed. Bad ones must be changed” is a LG statement.

That would have a corollary, “Rulers who make and enforce bad laws must be replaced with rulers who make and enforce good laws.” That gives a lot of latitude. There is plenty of room for a LG revolutionary, even a ruthless one, if he’s acting from motives like the above. Sometimes assassinating an evil king is a LG act.

Variations on that sentence would illustrate the alignment compass pretty well.

I'd say that even the act of rebelling is disputably unlawful enough to call for a pretty well stated code of principles for an LG character to conduct. But then again, that's what alignment shifts are for.

 

[Lacrymas]

There's also the problem of what exactly determines your alignment, is it your own perception of yourself or are they some kind of metaphysical constants that enforce strict guidelines. Can you still be a Paladin if (for example) you murder innocent lizardfolk because you think the world will be more good and lawful if they didn't exist?

 

[Cael]

“Good laws must be followed. Bad ones must be changed” is a LG statement.

That would have a corollary, “Rulers who make and enforce bad laws must be replaced with rulers who make and enforce good laws.” That gives a lot of latitude. There is plenty of room for a LG revolutionary, even a ruthless one, if he’s acting from motives like the above. Sometimes assassinating an evil king is a LG act.

Variations on that sentence would illustrate the alignment compass pretty well.

The first part is correct. The second part is wrong.

LG means you respect the laws, even if it is a bad one. However, you also try to change the bad ones within the framework of the law and the society. Things like running bills through parliament, trying to advice the king to change things, or show compassion in your judgement: "Yes, the accused violated the law. He is guilty. Let it be entered in the records that he is guilty of the crime. However, in the light of what was done to him by the greedy landlord, I hereby decree that he will pay 1c as punishment and be released immediately upon handing over that 1c. Next case!"

Assassinating the king? Neutral Good at best.

Lawful Good is not easy. It is not supposed to be easy. That is the whole point. That is why Paladins have always been saddled with that alignment. It is the hardest alignment to uphold, and will always be because human nature being what it is.

 

[Prime Junta]

There's also the problem of what exactly determines your alignment, is it your own perception of yourself or are they some kind of metaphysical constants that enforce strict guidelines. Can you still be a Paladin if (for example) you murder innocent lizardfolk because you think the world will be more good and lawful if they didn't exist?

Definitely metaphysical. That's what the Outer Planes are all about. A Lawful Evil character might believe he's Lawful Good, but if he's doing shit that puts him in tune with the Lower Planes, he's Evil.

In your hypothetical example, murdering innocent lizardfolk simply because of something you think would likely cause your paladin to fall. If, however, the lizardfolk were agents of metaphysical Chaotic Evil, however innocent they are individually, then murdering them to further the cause of Lawful Good would not only be permitted, it would be an imperative.

This is why nobody likes paladins.

The first part is correct. The second part is wrong.

You have a very superficial view of the D&D alignment system. Play more Planescape.

 

[Cael]

There's also the problem of what exactly determines your alignment, is it your own perception of yourself or are they some kind of metaphysical constants that enforce strict guidelines. Can you still be a Paladin if (for example) you murder innocent lizardfolk because you think the world will be more good and lawful if they didn't exist?

Definitely metaphysical. That's what the Outer Planes are all about. A Lawful Evil character might believe he's Lawful Good, but if he's doing shit that puts him in tune with the Lower Planes, he's Evil.

In your hypothetical example, murdering innocent lizardfolk simply because of something you think would likely cause your paladin to fall. If, however, the lizardfolk were agents of metaphysical Chaotic Evil, however innocent they are individually, then murdering them to further the cause of Lawful Good would not only be permitted, it would be an imperative.

This is why nobody likes badly played paladins.

Fixed it for you.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

agents of metaphysical Chaotic Evil, however innocent they are individually,

Hang on, explain this one to me. How can you be one and the other here?

 

[111111111]

There's also the problem of what exactly determines your alignment, is it your own perception of yourself or are they some kind of metaphysical constants that enforce strict guidelines. Can you still be a Paladin if (for example) you murder innocent lizardfolk because you think the world will be more good and lawful if they didn't exist?

Definitely metaphysical. That's what the Outer Planes are all about. A Lawful Evil character might believe he's Lawful Good, but if he's doing shit that puts him in tune with the Lower Planes, he's Evil.

In your hypothetical example, murdering innocent lizardfolk simply because of something you think would likely cause your paladin to fall. If, however, the lizardfolk were agents of metaphysical Chaotic Evil, however innocent they are individually, then murdering them to further the cause of Lawful Good would not only be permitted, it would be an imperative.

This is why nobody likes badly played paladins.

Fixed it for you.

How do you even badly play a paladin they have like 5 skllls

 

[Prime Junta]

agents of metaphysical Chaotic Evil, however innocent they are individually,

Hang on, explain this one to me. How can you be one and the other here?

Consider a new-born demon who has not had time to actually do anything evil yet. Individually, perfectly innocent. Yet nevertheless an irredeemable agent of Chaotic Evil, and fully deserving of a righteous dose of Smite Evil at the business end of a Holy Avenger.

What you guys are missing here is the metaphysical aspect. In our postmodern age, everday ethics are situational, either intentionalist or consequentialist. D&D ethics aren't like that: there's always the greater cosmic order that grounds them, and determines utterly objectively where an act or a creature falls on the scale. The interesting things happen precisely at the edges, like the question of the Lawful Evil king for example: yes, rebellion is unlawful, but if there is no lawful way to unseat him, it is even more unlawful to refuse to act to unseat him – or even assassinate him, if that's the only option available – in favour of a Lawful Good king. It's not just the beliefs or intentions or adherence to some particular tenet that matter, it's where that act fits in the cosmic order. The Lawful Evil king, knowingly or not, is an agent of the Nine Hells: that's where his soul is grounded, and that's where it will go. The Lawful Good rebel who strives to replace him is an agent of Celestia. Which, paradoxally, brings everything back to situational ethics again – except this time there's the cosmic background to consider.

 

[Cael]

How do you even badly play a paladin they have like 5 skllls

Players are creative in their stupidity. Especially zealots

 

[ERYFKRAD]

agents of metaphysical Chaotic Evil, however innocent they are individually,

Hang on, explain this one to me. How can you be one and the other here?

Consider a new-born demon who has not had time to actually do anything evil yet. Individually, perfectly innocent. Yet nevertheless an irredeemable agent of Chaotic Evil, and fully deserving of a righteous dose of Smite Evil at the business end of a Holy Avenger.

Right, newborn. But given there's no ambiguity of their nature and no possibility of change in nature, why wouldn't anyone krump them pre-emptively.

 

[Luckmann]

Nope.

Yes. Objectively.

LG paladin can go vs LE society because second part of his alignment, the G part. But the way he would do it would NOT be to charge into throne room and behead the ruler because that would cause chaos in the land.

Good is *why* he'd go against Evil, but my point was that he in no way violates his Lawful alignment by doing so, because Lawful has nothing to do with law, it has to do with order and principles.

He would try to find an orderly way to do it.

Obviously. That said, the idea of "orderly" in this context is extremely subjective. War would easily be considered orderly. So could trial by combat and even assassination, in many situations. And this would obviously often be completely agains the laws and what is considered ordered conduct of the Lawful Evil kingdom/society. Or the character could act entirely within the framework of the law. Alignments are not always one-size-fits-all.

The NG or CG character would be the one that would try to cut off the snake head no matter the consequences after it.

Yes, I believe that's exactly what I said.

Chaotic actions don't result in Evil, you are mixing apples and oranges.

Chaotic actions can *absolutely* result in evil, precisely *because* chaotic actions are judged regardless of Good or Evil. A defining aspect of Chaotic alignments is precisely that actions taken are usually not well-considered, and the results are often unpredictable. They not only cause chaos, they are chaotic and and of themselves. You kill an evil ruler, a Good act, in a Chaotic fashion only to have another one that is worse take his place. The act itself is not necessarily Evil, but it can absolutely result in evil, which is precisely the type of criticism someone Lawful would levy against their Chaotic counterparts.

Robin Hood's way was pretty Chaotic but his actions resulted in Good.

A very arguable point, but not one I necessarily disagree with. However, it's completely fucking irrelevant. Nobody said that Chaotic Good didn't exist or something, what the fuck.

 

[Cael]

agents of metaphysical Chaotic Evil, however innocent they are individually,

Hang on, explain this one to me. How can you be one and the other here?

Consider a new-born demon who has not had time to actually do anything evil yet. Individually, perfectly innocent. Yet nevertheless an irredeemable agent of Chaotic Evil, and fully deserving of a righteous dose of Smite Evil at the business end of a Holy Avenger.

Right, newborn. But given there's no ambiguity of their nature and no possibility of change in nature, why wouldn't anyone krump them pre-emptively.

Not even that. So-called "newborn" demons in DnDverse is made up of souls of dastardly people or stolen souls which are corrupted into demon form. They are not "born" in the conventional sense, and do not actually come into existence with a clean slate.

The "newborn" argument is a red herring and completely deceptive.