Ok, my son is playing a paladin in a campaign based on "Midsummer's Night Dream". In the play, Eugeus asks the Duke to force his daughter to marry Demetrius and not Lysander, how she loves. If she doesn't agree with his wishes, she wants to enact the rite of the parent to put her to death. Duke Theseus gives her the option to marry Demetrius or join a convent. Needless to say, his daughter runs off into the woods with Lysander. The question is... my son wants to stop Eugeus from putting his daughter to death feeling that it is cruel and against his moral code. I feel that this would break the law and go against his alignment. I told my son that he is imposing modern moral standards on historical different moral standards. Who is right?
What is your son’s alignment? If he’s lawful good he could still see the law as wrong but abide by it because he isn’t a criminal. If he’s any other alignment, and I mean any otheralignment, then it could be justified as to why he wants to break the law.
Where is your son's character from? Laws differ from place to place, and lawful doesn't have to mean you uphold the laws of whatever place you're in but rather those you have adopted yourself, whether they be the laws of your homeland or a personal code or whatever.
Morally intractable Paladins based on alignment (usually LG), from what I see are more a DM-insisted upon relic from past edition constraints. It's the Oath that really matters. Broadly conceived the Paladin is still "right vs wrong" but as far as particular codes to ascribe to I see levels 1-2 as sort of "knight errant" levels where the Paladin can explore the different ways their martial gifts can serve higher ideals. So if you're doing a level 1-2 Paladin, I'd DM a lot of slack with a OOC dialogue going sort of explaining the moral choices the Paladin may be making as something to get the player more mindful of the character as they advance.
Besides, while it's been a while since I've read Midsummer Night's Eve, isn't one of the major themes the notion that both the mortal and immortal characters stuck on principle need to loosen up a bit? It's also what I remember being called a "restorative comedy" so characters actually should feel free to step out of line as well as things are repaired in the end, along the classic comedy structure, if I were DMing. I'm actually liking a meta drama of archetypal parent and son (playful) conflict playing out outside the game while the in game comedy plays.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid. Lawful Good characters are free to oppose and disobey laws that are unjust.
Which is why a Lawful Good likely should not be Order of the Crown unless the DM is really good at coming up with just laws.....
I could actually see Order of the Crown paladins taking opposing sides in civil war. The Oath can be to a particular Monarch or Noble line, but a schism can arise even in that. Most broadly construed the Order of the Crown is invested in the preservation of some sort of ideal civilization, what some Crown Oathkeepers identify as a threat to that civilization could reasonably lead other Crown Oathkeepers to identify those Paladins as threats. In a coup, a demesne's Crown Oathkeeps could all gravitate to one side or the other, or pick sides.
In this instance if the Paladin believed the Duke's actions were not in the best interest of society, I could see them siding with the daughter, especially if the daughter had some sort of social-political popularity and wasn't seen simply as an instrument of her father for statecraft. I could also see the Paladin sticking with Loyalty to the Man, but I think when Crown Oathers see their sovereign as "The Man" they may start advancing the civilization's ideals through other political actors.
The Oath the paladin is striving towards or has taken should guide the actions, for example (using the PHB oath of Devotion):
Oath: Honesty, Courage, Compassion, Honor, Duty.
Your sons character in this regard would be showing Honesty (as he feels the death penalty is not warranted and is open about it), Courage (he is willing to stand up to the authority to state his opinion/case), Compassion (he doesn't want a girl put to death because of an archiac law/mothers whim) and Honour (he is standing up for what he believes is right) but might fall down with regards to Duty (potentially acting against his liege lord/authority).
If he were to cover up the daughter/lysander eloping then he would be in breach of more of the oath.
So regardless of his alignment he would be acting in accordance with the Oath he swore or the potential Oath he wants to take. Other Oaths would give slightly differnt view points on the scene.
Lawful means a character is principled, not necessarily that they obey every actual law no matter what. Especially if they're lawful good/evil and not neutral.
Honestly though, while alignment can be a useful shorthand in some situations, do not let it be the be all and end all of your character. Alignment can, in part, describe your character. It should not DEFINE your character.
Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid. Lawful Good characters are free to oppose and disobey laws that are unjust.
Which is why a Lawful Good likely should not be Order of the Crown unless the DM is really good at coming up with just laws.....
Taking and abiding by an oath as a paladin probably shouldn't be convenient or easy. Not that the DM should be testing the paladin at every turn, but if the oath is never challenged either that's a lot of wasted potential in my opinion.
On topic: it's not quite as black and white as "this goes against the law, so it's breaking alignment". I could easily see the paladin disapproving of Hermia's actions while also feeling that a law calling for the death penalty for disobeying a parent is unjust and opposing it, for instance. Also, if memory serves the patriarchal law Eugeus espouses is at the end of the play overruled by the ruler of Athens, Theseus - so, the paladin actually obeys what will be the decision of the higher authority. This also means what you claim to be the historical moral standards are somewhat in question.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Have them look at their Oath. Consider the following words. Find the best fit, that's your character's Alignment. Or simply don't bother. In the real world, there's no such thing as Alignment, just tendencies, and people change their minds about things all the time. Are they;
Are you the Dungeon Master? If so, you are right. The DM is always right.
If you are not the DM then your son is right. It is his character and not yours so he gets to interpret his alignment and how it impacts his play. You do not.
You can still disagree with him, but it is his choice to make.
Ok, my son is playing a paladin in a campaign based on "Midsummer's Night Dream". In the play, Eugeus asks the Duke to force his daughter to marry Demetrius and not Lysander, how she loves. If she doesn't agree with his wishes, she wants to enact the rite of the parent to put her to death. Duke Theseus gives her the option to marry Demetrius or join a convent. Needless to say, his daughter runs off into the woods with Lysander. The question is... my son wants to stop Eugeus from putting his daughter to death feeling that it is cruel and against his moral code. I feel that this would break the law and go against his alignment. I told my son that he is imposing modern moral standards on historical different moral standards. Who is right?
There isn't a right and wrong in this situation to me anytime historical differences or even just difference in viewers occur the important thing is will you follow your own wishes? If you do, then that seems like a good choice in my book.
Are you playing this character or is your son? Why do you think you get to dictate or question how someone else (regardless of their relationship to you) chooses to play their character? If anything is morally wrong it is your OP.
Forcing someone to marry someone they don't want to marry, isn't very good or lawful. "Dream" isn't historical in any way and neither is D&D so the argument that he is imposing different moral standards on the story is just weird. As a side note, what is *very* historical are stories about people helping other people who are being forced to marry someone they don't want to marry against their will. Shakespeare wrote a play about that...
Forcing someone to marry someone they don't want to marry, isn't very good or lawful.
Not to quibble, but it is definitely lawful -- both in many cultures historically and in some cultures still today. Whether it is good depends almost entirely on perspective.
IMO the question isn't really about whether it is good or lawful, the question is about who is right and who is wrong in a disagreement over how a Paladin should act. IMO the whole point that is missed by the OP is that only the player running the Paladin can determine that. Their opinion, or ours for that matter, is irrelevant. It is the son's character and so it is up to the son to play it as he wants. If there is an issue that is up to the DM to adjudicate within the game itself.
Forcing someone to marry someone they don't want to marry, isn't very good or lawful. "Dream" isn't historical in any way and neither is D&D so the argument that he is imposing different moral standards on the story is just weird. As a side note, what is *very* historical are stories about people helping other people who are being forced to marry someone they don't want to marry against their will. Shakespeare wrote a play about that...
No "Dream" isn't historical but the notion of marrying for a civic or public or even family business "good" was a well known phenomenon in Shakespeare's times. The contemporary romantic notion of marriage isn't even a global universal today and is largely a very recent conception almost luxury commodity in present society. In other words, Love, then Marriage is more a product of contemporary privileged agency. Marriage, then love (if both parties are "good") was a common notion going back to even a few centuries after Shakespeare.
Gotta use less broad strokes and recognize the lines you're painting within when going on about "lawful" "good" and other values.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
IMO the question isn't really about whether it is good or lawful, the question is about who is right and who is wrong in a disagreement over how a Paladin should act. IMO the whole point that is missed by the OP is that only the player running the Paladin can determine that. Their opinion, or ours for that matter, is irrelevant. It is the son's character and so it is up to the son to play it as he wants. If there is an issue that is up to the DM to adjudicate within the game itself.
That's a pretty sloppy articulation of player agency. Yes, the final decider of how a Paladin acts is the player. But in no way is the player the determiner of what is a right and wrong action. It is well within the prerogative of the DM, who seems to be the parent in this case, to intervene and remind the player of oaths or principles that are supposedly at the core of the character's concept, or begin the dialogue that helps the player come to terms with their character if things like oath, principles, law, and good are going to be integral elements to the game. It is perfectly acceptable for a DM to evoke a character's likely conscience on certain issues, it's a bit presumptuous that a player, a presumably young player has necessarily mastered the moral calculus required to play in a game where virtues, principles, codes, etc. are integral to the game's themes.
When a character is made, it's common for DM and player to discuss the character's ethos, etc. It's very easy to imagine players forgetting first principles etc. in a game that played weekly or monthly, and so it's also right understandable for a DM to question a player's decisions regarding a character for considerations of continuity and game integrity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If you'll read higher up I comment that if the DM is the parent then the parent is right because the DM is always right.
I'll also note that I said if the parent is not the DM then the player is right because it isn't the parent's character.
However, I conclude in the post you object to by observing that although the player can do whatever they want, the DM can impose sanctions if the DM thinks it is inappropriate.
Not sure how that is sloppy. That is the way D&D has always worked AFAIK.
Because the OP does not specify that they are the DM (and because I've missed any subsequent post that says they are), then all the other observations about what is or isn't common in a game is irrelevant as it is not between the parent and son. Parent's opinion doesn't matter. Son's opinion matters. DM (whomever that may be) is free to impose sanctions.
I would contend that this is the case even if the parent is the DM as the role of a DM is not to dictate player action but to reward and/or punish player action and the familial relationship, if it exists, is irrelevant.
BTW, I think the parent is not the DM because a DM would write, "I DM a game and I have a player who wants to do X." IMO this isn't a DM v player issue. It is a parent v child issue with the parent being way too controlling and not allowing their child to make decisions on their own. It isn't any of the parent's business. And the best way for the child to learn is in the presumably safe environment of a role playing game where there are no real life consequences.
In fact, I've only seen a single post from the original author which leads me to think they got an answer and have decided to live with whatever that was. Not sure we need to be pursuing it much beyond that. So, I think that I'll let this be my last post on this subject.
Ok, my son is playing a paladin in a campaign based on "Midsummer's Night Dream". In the play, Eugeus asks the Duke to force his daughter to marry Demetrius and not Lysander, how she loves. If she doesn't agree with his wishes, she wants to enact the rite of the parent to put her to death. Duke Theseus gives her the option to marry Demetrius or join a convent. Needless to say, his daughter runs off into the woods with Lysander. The question is... my son wants to stop Eugeus from putting his daughter to death feeling that it is cruel and against his moral code. I feel that this would break the law and go against his alignment. I told my son that he is imposing modern moral standards on historical different moral standards. Who is right?
What is your son’s alignment? If he’s lawful good he could still see the law as wrong but abide by it because he isn’t a criminal. If he’s any other alignment, and I mean any other alignment, then it could be justified as to why he wants to break the law.
Come participate in the Competition of the Finest Brews, Edition XXVIII?
My homebrew stuff:
Spells, Monsters, Magic Items, Feats, Subclasses.
I am an Archfey, but nobody seems to notice.
Extended Signature
I would say nobody is "right", and this is one of those situations where alignment takes a backseat to roleplay.
Where is your son's character from? Laws differ from place to place, and lawful doesn't have to mean you uphold the laws of whatever place you're in but rather those you have adopted yourself, whether they be the laws of your homeland or a personal code or whatever.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Morally intractable Paladins based on alignment (usually LG), from what I see are more a DM-insisted upon relic from past edition constraints. It's the Oath that really matters. Broadly conceived the Paladin is still "right vs wrong" but as far as particular codes to ascribe to I see levels 1-2 as sort of "knight errant" levels where the Paladin can explore the different ways their martial gifts can serve higher ideals. So if you're doing a level 1-2 Paladin, I'd DM a lot of slack with a OOC dialogue going sort of explaining the moral choices the Paladin may be making as something to get the player more mindful of the character as they advance.
Besides, while it's been a while since I've read Midsummer Night's Eve, isn't one of the major themes the notion that both the mortal and immortal characters stuck on principle need to loosen up a bit? It's also what I remember being called a "restorative comedy" so characters actually should feel free to step out of line as well as things are repaired in the end, along the classic comedy structure, if I were DMing. I'm actually liking a meta drama of archetypal parent and son (playful) conflict playing out outside the game while the in game comedy plays.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid. Lawful Good characters are free to oppose and disobey laws that are unjust.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I could actually see Order of the Crown paladins taking opposing sides in civil war. The Oath can be to a particular Monarch or Noble line, but a schism can arise even in that. Most broadly construed the Order of the Crown is invested in the preservation of some sort of ideal civilization, what some Crown Oathkeepers identify as a threat to that civilization could reasonably lead other Crown Oathkeepers to identify those Paladins as threats. In a coup, a demesne's Crown Oathkeeps could all gravitate to one side or the other, or pick sides.
In this instance if the Paladin believed the Duke's actions were not in the best interest of society, I could see them siding with the daughter, especially if the daughter had some sort of social-political popularity and wasn't seen simply as an instrument of her father for statecraft. I could also see the Paladin sticking with Loyalty to the Man, but I think when Crown Oathers see their sovereign as "The Man" they may start advancing the civilization's ideals through other political actors.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
As MidnightPlat said the Oath is what matters.
The Oath the paladin is striving towards or has taken should guide the actions, for example (using the PHB oath of Devotion):
Oath: Honesty, Courage, Compassion, Honor, Duty.
Your sons character in this regard would be showing Honesty (as he feels the death penalty is not warranted and is open about it), Courage (he is willing to stand up to the authority to state his opinion/case), Compassion (he doesn't want a girl put to death because of an archiac law/mothers whim) and Honour (he is standing up for what he believes is right) but might fall down with regards to Duty (potentially acting against his liege lord/authority).
If he were to cover up the daughter/lysander eloping then he would be in breach of more of the oath.
So regardless of his alignment he would be acting in accordance with the Oath he swore or the potential Oath he wants to take. Other Oaths would give slightly differnt view points on the scene.
Lawful means a character is principled, not necessarily that they obey every actual law no matter what. Especially if they're lawful good/evil and not neutral.
Honestly though, while alignment can be a useful shorthand in some situations, do not let it be the be all and end all of your character. Alignment can, in part, describe your character. It should not DEFINE your character.
Taking and abiding by an oath as a paladin probably shouldn't be convenient or easy. Not that the DM should be testing the paladin at every turn, but if the oath is never challenged either that's a lot of wasted potential in my opinion.
On topic: it's not quite as black and white as "this goes against the law, so it's breaking alignment". I could easily see the paladin disapproving of Hermia's actions while also feeling that a law calling for the death penalty for disobeying a parent is unjust and opposing it, for instance.
Also, if memory serves the patriarchal law Eugeus espouses is at the end of the play overruled by the ruler of Athens, Theseus - so, the paladin actually obeys what will be the decision of the higher authority. This also means what you claim to be the historical moral standards are somewhat in question.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Have them look at their Oath. Consider the following words. Find the best fit, that's your character's Alignment. Or simply don't bother. In the real world, there's no such thing as Alignment, just tendencies, and people change their minds about things all the time. Are they;
<Insert clever signature here>
Are you the Dungeon Master? If so, you are right. The DM is always right.
If you are not the DM then your son is right. It is his character and not yours so he gets to interpret his alignment and how it impacts his play. You do not.
You can still disagree with him, but it is his choice to make.
Honestly, ignore alignment in favor of things like Personality, Flaws, Ideals, Bonds and, in the case of Paladins, Oath Tenets.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
There isn't a right and wrong in this situation to me anytime historical differences or even just difference in viewers occur the important thing is will you follow your own wishes? If you do, then that seems like a good choice in my book.
Are you playing this character or is your son? Why do you think you get to dictate or question how someone else (regardless of their relationship to you) chooses to play their character? If anything is morally wrong it is your OP.
Forcing someone to marry someone they don't want to marry, isn't very good or lawful. "Dream" isn't historical in any way and neither is D&D so the argument that he is imposing different moral standards on the story is just weird. As a side note, what is *very* historical are stories about people helping other people who are being forced to marry someone they don't want to marry against their will. Shakespeare wrote a play about that...
Not to quibble, but it is definitely lawful -- both in many cultures historically and in some cultures still today. Whether it is good depends almost entirely on perspective.
IMO the question isn't really about whether it is good or lawful, the question is about who is right and who is wrong in a disagreement over how a Paladin should act. IMO the whole point that is missed by the OP is that only the player running the Paladin can determine that. Their opinion, or ours for that matter, is irrelevant. It is the son's character and so it is up to the son to play it as he wants. If there is an issue that is up to the DM to adjudicate within the game itself.
No "Dream" isn't historical but the notion of marrying for a civic or public or even family business "good" was a well known phenomenon in Shakespeare's times. The contemporary romantic notion of marriage isn't even a global universal today and is largely a very recent conception almost luxury commodity in present society. In other words, Love, then Marriage is more a product of contemporary privileged agency. Marriage, then love (if both parties are "good") was a common notion going back to even a few centuries after Shakespeare.
Gotta use less broad strokes and recognize the lines you're painting within when going on about "lawful" "good" and other values.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That's a pretty sloppy articulation of player agency. Yes, the final decider of how a Paladin acts is the player. But in no way is the player the determiner of what is a right and wrong action. It is well within the prerogative of the DM, who seems to be the parent in this case, to intervene and remind the player of oaths or principles that are supposedly at the core of the character's concept, or begin the dialogue that helps the player come to terms with their character if things like oath, principles, law, and good are going to be integral elements to the game. It is perfectly acceptable for a DM to evoke a character's likely conscience on certain issues, it's a bit presumptuous that a player, a presumably young player has necessarily mastered the moral calculus required to play in a game where virtues, principles, codes, etc. are integral to the game's themes.
When a character is made, it's common for DM and player to discuss the character's ethos, etc. It's very easy to imagine players forgetting first principles etc. in a game that played weekly or monthly, and so it's also right understandable for a DM to question a player's decisions regarding a character for considerations of continuity and game integrity.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If you'll read higher up I comment that if the DM is the parent then the parent is right because the DM is always right.
I'll also note that I said if the parent is not the DM then the player is right because it isn't the parent's character.
However, I conclude in the post you object to by observing that although the player can do whatever they want, the DM can impose sanctions if the DM thinks it is inappropriate.
Not sure how that is sloppy. That is the way D&D has always worked AFAIK.
Because the OP does not specify that they are the DM (and because I've missed any subsequent post that says they are), then all the other observations about what is or isn't common in a game is irrelevant as it is not between the parent and son. Parent's opinion doesn't matter. Son's opinion matters. DM (whomever that may be) is free to impose sanctions.
I would contend that this is the case even if the parent is the DM as the role of a DM is not to dictate player action but to reward and/or punish player action and the familial relationship, if it exists, is irrelevant.
BTW, I think the parent is not the DM because a DM would write, "I DM a game and I have a player who wants to do X." IMO this isn't a DM v player issue. It is a parent v child issue with the parent being way too controlling and not allowing their child to make decisions on their own. It isn't any of the parent's business. And the best way for the child to learn is in the presumably safe environment of a role playing game where there are no real life consequences.
In fact, I've only seen a single post from the original author which leads me to think they got an answer and have decided to live with whatever that was. Not sure we need to be pursuing it much beyond that. So, I think that I'll let this be my last post on this subject.