The title says it all. Is this something that can be played? Good in every other aspect, but if she does a sense evil and sees a chaotic evil character or NPS she literally can not stop herself. Think turrets, it's compulsive.
First to note in this edition of D&D you do not have to be LG to be a paladin. Also different people have different views on what is lawful and what is good so speak to your DM about your character concept. Depending on the DM and the campaign alignment has little to no impact on the game.
Bear in mind characters do not have a flag saying what their alignment is, your PC seeing a tiefling / goblin or something in the street does not know their alignment, they only see where they act in a good or evil way.
This attitude could also lead to a swift character death. In one of my campaigns at level 2 or 3 we had to get a magic item from an ancient ruin underneath the lair of an adult green dragon. To do so we had ot negotiate access to the ruin with the dragon, if one PC had just atttacked her they (and probably the rest of the party) would have been wiped out very quickly.
Only your DM can say whether such a character concept is viable.
Jegpeg explained it well. I’ll just add paladins don’t sense “evil” anymore. They sense if there’s a fiend, undead, etc. an evil human won’t register on their radar.
I’d also talk with the other players about this. They might find it really annoying you just going around murder-hoboing everyone you decide is evil.
Also, I’m really not sure what a brain tumor has to do with anything. Particularly when as a paladin you are immune to disease, and can cure yourself of a disease with a touch.
Xalthu and Jegpeg covered the alignment issues pretty well. But to something, about the tumor:
Before modern medicine and screening techniques there was virtually no way of knowing what a brain tumor is. So it doesn't really make for a good story in an average fantasy world when nobody can tell why this person is acting so weird sometime. If you want to go with this kind of compulsion maybe go with some kind of trauma or revenge desire or change the tumor for some kind of mental illness (although be mindfull about that, it can come of quite wrong if done in a bad way) or even go fully fantasy and make it a parasite infecting the brain or some kind of curse or godly edict that forces you to do that. Make it something a story can interact with in more than a "oh, he suddenly collapsed and died, guess his brain wasn't healthy anymore" way.
This is a really interesting concept! I like it a lot, but I think it would be best to discuss with your DM to see if this kind of character choice is allowed. As much as I like this idea, as a DM I would be hesitant to allow a PC with the desire to kill on a subjective impulse at my table, because it could easily throw off my game plans.
There's no way I'd allow that at my table. "it's what my character would do" is the bane to smooth running games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
There's no way I'd allow that at my table. "it's what my character would do" is the bane to smooth running games.
^ THIS
A character that only acts in one particular way is not only disruptive, it's also boring and shows a lack of depth of character. Characters that need to think about their decisions are vastly more interesting and generally more open to dialog with their party. A paladin is sworn to uphold their oath but facing situations that challenge their oath are more interesting than a blanket, "I attack because my oath demands it".
An example would be having to deal with the victim of a vampire whom themself have been turned into a vampire, now some parties might try and help the vampire try and remove their condition, some might encourage a darker path in embracing their new situation while others might offer a mercy kill or transportation to a temple to seek help from a priest. All of these options disappear if a paladin goes, "It's an undead! an evil creature, my character attacks!" It's just a dumb and stupid way to play the game and ruins the fun and interesting encounters for the entire table.
Personally only made one decision as a Paladin myself that forced a decision but it was one that was against that Paladin's oath, she made a decision to protect her friends, her party and it pushed her into a situation that violated her oath and there were consequences to that decision. To sum it up, she was a Oath of Devotion Paladin whom is devoted to Bahamut. The party was chasing down a bunch of cultists and one of the leaders were sickly and bed-ridden. The thugs under that cultist tried to get help in curing their leader from a healer and as a paladin, my character went up and ultimately decided to protect the party from a cultist from a cult that had been attacking the party and a nearby town.
It was neither an honorable or compassionate decision but out of the choices she had (and being in the limelight) she ultimately decided on the option that protected the people she cared about over the cultist that had threatened their lives in the past. Of course this violation of her oath caused issues in the story and ultimately a paladin that breaks their oath needs to seek out the assistance of a cleric or paladin for the purposes of getting absolution but mostly these decisions built up the character and showed depth to the character, there was a reason too it.
Same paladin, who had a terrible perception usually always missed when the party rogue would steal something but on one occasion caught the kleptomaniac trying to steal herbs from a kitchen. The paladin slapped the rogue's hand to force em to drop the herbs and then once away from everybody's earshot scolded the rogue (whom mostly wasn't listening). It's best to work with the party and as a paladin, you don't need to be batman (and even batman has moments where he breaks his normal attitude, like if a villain helped him take down a bigger villain, he might give em a 10 minute headstart to run away).
You could make the argument that killing is unlawful therefore, a character that can't stop from killing evil is inherently unlawful. I'd also make the argument that a character that can't stop itself from killing is additionally, inherently evil itself and a clear contradiction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
You could make the argument that killing is unlawful therefore, a character that can't stop from killing evil is inherently unlawful. I'd also make the argument that a character that can't stop itself from killing is additionally, inherently evil itself and a clear contradiction.
I was just going to post something similar. The modern day Catholic Church opposes the death penalty on the basis that it removes an individual’s potential to repent, and it should not be up to man to determine when another’s life ends, and therefore execution is in and of itself an inherently evil act.
You could make the argument that killing is unlawful therefore, a character that can't stop from killing evil is inherently unlawful. I'd also make the argument that a character that can't stop itself from killing is additionally, inherently evil itself and a clear contradiction.
I was just going to post something similar. The modern day Catholic Church opposes the death penalty on the basis that it removes an individual’s potential to repent, and it should not be up to man to determine when another’s life ends, and therefore execution is in and of itself an inherently evil act.
One could argue that intent matters in this case. If a person can't stop themselfs from killing to a degree that it's out of their control (and maybe doesn't even want to do it and regrets it while and after doing it) might not be evil in and of themselfs. Say you're under a Geas or Dominate Person Spell and you're made to kill someone - that probably wouldn't be considered you doing an evil act.
You could make the argument that killing is unlawful therefore, a character that can't stop from killing evil is inherently unlawful. I'd also make the argument that a character that can't stop itself from killing is additionally, inherently evil itself and a clear contradiction.
I was just going to post something similar. The modern day Catholic Church opposes the death penalty on the basis that it removes an individual’s potential to repent, and it should not be up to man to determine when another’s life ends, and therefore execution is in and of itself an inherently evil act.
One could argue that intent matters in this case. If a person can't stop themselfs from killing to a degree that it's out of their control (and maybe doesn't even want to do it and regrets it while and after doing it) might not be evil in and of themselfs. Say you're under a Geas or Dominate Person Spell and you're made to kill someone - that probably wouldn't be considered you doing an evil act.
One can argue anything one wishes, it does not make one correct. Half of America believes Trump to be a self serving, egotistical, dictatorial, bigoted, seditionist, sexual predator and nincompoop, and Harris to be an honest, benevolent, civic minded, intellectual; and half the country believes Trump to be a righteous, intelligent, upstanding champion of freedom and Harris to be a dishonest, incompetent, failure. Obviously at least one of those groups must be incorrect, but it doesn’t stop them arguing.
You could make the argument that killing is unlawful therefore, a character that can't stop from killing evil is inherently unlawful. I'd also make the argument that a character that can't stop itself from killing is additionally, inherently evil itself and a clear contradiction.
I don't perceive that to be the way that lawful/choatic works, I see it more about having a moral code or similar standard and lawful characters live by that code whereas a chaotic character has no moral code what-so-ever. Thus Devils are Lawful Evil, they still can very much kill but they won't kill if the action to do so is choatic, or other wise against their code, unlike a demon that'd be happy to kill anything under any circumstance and without any reason what-so-ever.
For a Paladin, they should try to live by their oath, that is their moral code or enshrines their moral code but a good character should come across issues where they are torn between being lawful and being good. If a paladin catches a child stealing an apple, do they a) take the kid down to the local jailhouse or guardhouse, b) look the other way or c) pay for the apple themself so that the kid can eat. The lawful thing is to hand the kid in, the good thing is to let the kid actually get food while if searching deeper, the best compromise between the two is paying for the apple.
I view Lawful as following the rules or a devotion to order. You follow the rules, whether the rules are right or wrong. the rules generally say, you can't kill people. So, just killing is unlawful. A chaotic character cares not one whit for what the law says, and doesn't particularly like being told what to do. In my view, that chaotic character is absolute morality. So the CG character is dedicated to following their moral code, regardless of what the law says.
NG would be the fence sitters. They try to balance law and morality to the greatest extent possible and apply sense and reason to their solutions for problems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I don't see it this way, a Lawful Good character may come across decisions that are lawful but not good or options that are good but not lawful, making a decision between the two doesn't make the character NG or LN since they had no option which is both lawful and good. What would then make them LG is a tendency to in some cases perform the lawful action and in others the good action, this isn't a true neutral character either, they are still trying to do what is right, be that good or be that lawful. They are going to select the LN option over the CG option and the NG option over the LE option but will try to take options that are both LG where available.
As for a CG character, they wouldn't care about any moral code, they'd just do what they believe to be right or good and that isn't set on any particular set of beliefs.
Think we'll have to agree to disagree, and that's ok. The only problems come in when one of us is DM for the other, in a system where alignment means something. I for one, do not miss those sort of restrictions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The title says it all. Is this something that can be played? Good in every other aspect, but if she does a sense evil and sees a chaotic evil character or NPS she literally can not stop herself. Think turrets, it's compulsive.
First to note in this edition of D&D you do not have to be LG to be a paladin. Also different people have different views on what is lawful and what is good so speak to your DM about your character concept. Depending on the DM and the campaign alignment has little to no impact on the game.
Bear in mind characters do not have a flag saying what their alignment is, your PC seeing a tiefling / goblin or something in the street does not know their alignment, they only see where they act in a good or evil way.
This attitude could also lead to a swift character death. In one of my campaigns at level 2 or 3 we had to get a magic item from an ancient ruin underneath the lair of an adult green dragon. To do so we had ot negotiate access to the ruin with the dragon, if one PC had just atttacked her they (and probably the rest of the party) would have been wiped out very quickly.
Only your DM can say whether such a character concept is viable.
Jegpeg explained it well. I’ll just add paladins don’t sense “evil” anymore. They sense if there’s a fiend, undead, etc. an evil human won’t register on their radar.
I’d also talk with the other players about this. They might find it really annoying you just going around murder-hoboing everyone you decide is evil.
Also, I’m really not sure what a brain tumor has to do with anything. Particularly when as a paladin you are immune to disease, and can cure yourself of a disease with a touch.
Xalthu and Jegpeg covered the alignment issues pretty well.
But to something, about the tumor:
Before modern medicine and screening techniques there was virtually no way of knowing what a brain tumor is. So it doesn't really make for a good story in an average fantasy world when nobody can tell why this person is acting so weird sometime. If you want to go with this kind of compulsion maybe go with some kind of trauma or revenge desire or change the tumor for some kind of mental illness (although be mindfull about that, it can come of quite wrong if done in a bad way) or even go fully fantasy and make it a parasite infecting the brain or some kind of curse or godly edict that forces you to do that. Make it something a story can interact with in more than a "oh, he suddenly collapsed and died, guess his brain wasn't healthy anymore" way.
This is a really interesting concept! I like it a lot, but I think it would be best to discuss with your DM to see if this kind of character choice is allowed. As much as I like this idea, as a DM I would be hesitant to allow a PC with the desire to kill on a subjective impulse at my table, because it could easily throw off my game plans.
There's no way I'd allow that at my table. "it's what my character would do" is the bane to smooth running games.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
^ THIS
A character that only acts in one particular way is not only disruptive, it's also boring and shows a lack of depth of character. Characters that need to think about their decisions are vastly more interesting and generally more open to dialog with their party. A paladin is sworn to uphold their oath but facing situations that challenge their oath are more interesting than a blanket, "I attack because my oath demands it".
An example would be having to deal with the victim of a vampire whom themself have been turned into a vampire, now some parties might try and help the vampire try and remove their condition, some might encourage a darker path in embracing their new situation while others might offer a mercy kill or transportation to a temple to seek help from a priest. All of these options disappear if a paladin goes, "It's an undead! an evil creature, my character attacks!" It's just a dumb and stupid way to play the game and ruins the fun and interesting encounters for the entire table.
Personally only made one decision as a Paladin myself that forced a decision but it was one that was against that Paladin's oath, she made a decision to protect her friends, her party and it pushed her into a situation that violated her oath and there were consequences to that decision. To sum it up, she was a Oath of Devotion Paladin whom is devoted to Bahamut. The party was chasing down a bunch of cultists and one of the leaders were sickly and bed-ridden. The thugs under that cultist tried to get help in curing their leader from a healer and as a paladin, my character went up and ultimately decided to protect the party from a cultist from a cult that had been attacking the party and a nearby town.
It was neither an honorable or compassionate decision but out of the choices she had (and being in the limelight) she ultimately decided on the option that protected the people she cared about over the cultist that had threatened their lives in the past. Of course this violation of her oath caused issues in the story and ultimately a paladin that breaks their oath needs to seek out the assistance of a cleric or paladin for the purposes of getting absolution but mostly these decisions built up the character and showed depth to the character, there was a reason too it.
Same paladin, who had a terrible perception usually always missed when the party rogue would steal something but on one occasion caught the kleptomaniac trying to steal herbs from a kitchen. The paladin slapped the rogue's hand to force em to drop the herbs and then once away from everybody's earshot scolded the rogue (whom mostly wasn't listening). It's best to work with the party and as a paladin, you don't need to be batman (and even batman has moments where he breaks his normal attitude, like if a villain helped him take down a bigger villain, he might give em a 10 minute headstart to run away).
You could make the argument that killing is unlawful therefore, a character that can't stop from killing evil is inherently unlawful. I'd also make the argument that a character that can't stop itself from killing is additionally, inherently evil itself and a clear contradiction.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I was just going to post something similar. The modern day Catholic Church opposes the death penalty on the basis that it removes an individual’s potential to repent, and it should not be up to man to determine when another’s life ends, and therefore execution is in and of itself an inherently evil act.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
One could argue that intent matters in this case. If a person can't stop themselfs from killing to a degree that it's out of their control (and maybe doesn't even want to do it and regrets it while and after doing it) might not be evil in and of themselfs. Say you're under a Geas or Dominate Person Spell and you're made to kill someone - that probably wouldn't be considered you doing an evil act.
One can argue anything one wishes, it does not make one correct. Half of America believes Trump to be a self serving, egotistical, dictatorial, bigoted, seditionist, sexual predator and nincompoop, and Harris to be an honest, benevolent, civic minded, intellectual; and half the country believes Trump to be a righteous, intelligent, upstanding champion of freedom and Harris to be a dishonest, incompetent, failure. Obviously at least one of those groups must be incorrect, but it doesn’t stop them arguing.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'd amend that too "at least one of these groups must be incorrect" </politics>
I don't perceive that to be the way that lawful/choatic works, I see it more about having a moral code or similar standard and lawful characters live by that code whereas a chaotic character has no moral code what-so-ever. Thus Devils are Lawful Evil, they still can very much kill but they won't kill if the action to do so is choatic, or other wise against their code, unlike a demon that'd be happy to kill anything under any circumstance and without any reason what-so-ever.
For a Paladin, they should try to live by their oath, that is their moral code or enshrines their moral code but a good character should come across issues where they are torn between being lawful and being good. If a paladin catches a child stealing an apple, do they a) take the kid down to the local jailhouse or guardhouse, b) look the other way or c) pay for the apple themself so that the kid can eat. The lawful thing is to hand the kid in, the good thing is to let the kid actually get food while if searching deeper, the best compromise between the two is paying for the apple.
I view Lawful as following the rules or a devotion to order. You follow the rules, whether the rules are right or wrong. the rules generally say, you can't kill people. So, just killing is unlawful. A chaotic character cares not one whit for what the law says, and doesn't particularly like being told what to do. In my view, that chaotic character is absolute morality. So the CG character is dedicated to following their moral code, regardless of what the law says.
NG would be the fence sitters. They try to balance law and morality to the greatest extent possible and apply sense and reason to their solutions for problems.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I don't see it this way, a Lawful Good character may come across decisions that are lawful but not good or options that are good but not lawful, making a decision between the two doesn't make the character NG or LN since they had no option which is both lawful and good. What would then make them LG is a tendency to in some cases perform the lawful action and in others the good action, this isn't a true neutral character either, they are still trying to do what is right, be that good or be that lawful. They are going to select the LN option over the CG option and the NG option over the LE option but will try to take options that are both LG where available.
As for a CG character, they wouldn't care about any moral code, they'd just do what they believe to be right or good and that isn't set on any particular set of beliefs.
Think we'll have to agree to disagree, and that's ok. The only problems come in when one of us is DM for the other, in a system where alignment means something. I for one, do not miss those sort of restrictions.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha