You can do it depending on the background of the character. 1940's men weren't evil, that's just how they were brought up. In a fictional planetary scale, the Greysons in the Honor Harrington books are similar. They are neither evil nor chaotic. Over the course of a campaign it might be interesting to see the characters personal growth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
This is one of the core problems with the alignment system. How flawed can a Good character be before the cosmic forces that determine Goodness withdraw their blessings? You're not going to get a definitive answer in this forum thread; players have been debating this for literal decades at this point.
In my opinion, this is less a problem of whether a misogynist can be Good and more a problem of whether you think this particular misogynist character will be fun to have in the game. Ask the player why they want their character to be a misogynist. Do they want the character to be hindered by a serious flaw that they outgrow over the campaign? Do they just think it would be funny for this otherwise good guy to be kind of an idiot when it comes to women? I think depending on how they play it, this could be totally fine. Just because they're playing a Good character who is a misogynist doesn't mean they need to be playing as though misogyny itself is Good. If the other players are okay with it, I'd tentatively okay the character with the understanding that he may need to be adjusted or replaced later if he proves disruptive.
1. Is it possible for a paladin who is (unintentionally) misogynist to be lawful good?
2. Should I let someone play a misogynist paladin in my campaign?
The answer to #1 is simple: it's your call. There is no centrally agreed upon set of principles for alignment in Dungeons and Dragons. The debate over this is pointless. The alignment system is what you say it is in your setting, and that's it. In some settings, alignment is a set of immutable moral principles; in others, it may be more flexible. Even if you're running a setting with an alignment system that appears more defined, you are still the one running that setting, and so you can still change it if you would like. You've already said that misogyny and lawful good are incompatible. Stick to that. This is not something that you need to discuss further with your players. Ultimately, the campaign setting is defined by you. If the player still wants to play a misogynist paladin, then you can insist that the paladin is lawful neutral; as others have pointed out, paladins don't have to be lawful good anyway, especially in 5e. The character can always think that they are lawful good, but you don't have to allow that to be the case if it goes against your setting.
For #2: if this is something you don't want in your campaign, you can just say no. Full stop. If you don't care either way and you feel capable of handling this type of character, then you can check in with your other players to see if they are comfortable with this. However, you need to be aware that whether or not they say they would be comfortable, they might not tell the truth, and they might change their minds when the character hits the table. If you notice this character is making you or anyone else uncomfortable, or if it's disruptive at the table, then you should tell the paladin player this directly and ask them to either make a change or retire the character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You can do it depending on the background of the character. 1940's men weren't evil, that's just how they were brought up. In a fictional planetary scale, the Greysons in the Honor Harrington books are similar. They are neither evil nor chaotic. Over the course of a campaign it might be interesting to see the characters personal growth.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I don't see why not. It could be a tender subject so make sure it is ok with the rest of the table first.
Not liking women is not in and of itself evil.
This is one of the core problems with the alignment system. How flawed can a Good character be before the cosmic forces that determine Goodness withdraw their blessings? You're not going to get a definitive answer in this forum thread; players have been debating this for literal decades at this point.
In my opinion, this is less a problem of whether a misogynist can be Good and more a problem of whether you think this particular misogynist character will be fun to have in the game. Ask the player why they want their character to be a misogynist. Do they want the character to be hindered by a serious flaw that they outgrow over the campaign? Do they just think it would be funny for this otherwise good guy to be kind of an idiot when it comes to women? I think depending on how they play it, this could be totally fine. Just because they're playing a Good character who is a misogynist doesn't mean they need to be playing as though misogyny itself is Good. If the other players are okay with it, I'd tentatively okay the character with the understanding that he may need to be adjusted or replaced later if he proves disruptive.
There are two questions here.
1. Is it possible for a paladin who is (unintentionally) misogynist to be lawful good?
2. Should I let someone play a misogynist paladin in my campaign?
The answer to #1 is simple: it's your call. There is no centrally agreed upon set of principles for alignment in Dungeons and Dragons. The debate over this is pointless. The alignment system is what you say it is in your setting, and that's it. In some settings, alignment is a set of immutable moral principles; in others, it may be more flexible. Even if you're running a setting with an alignment system that appears more defined, you are still the one running that setting, and so you can still change it if you would like. You've already said that misogyny and lawful good are incompatible. Stick to that. This is not something that you need to discuss further with your players. Ultimately, the campaign setting is defined by you. If the player still wants to play a misogynist paladin, then you can insist that the paladin is lawful neutral; as others have pointed out, paladins don't have to be lawful good anyway, especially in 5e. The character can always think that they are lawful good, but you don't have to allow that to be the case if it goes against your setting.
For #2: if this is something you don't want in your campaign, you can just say no. Full stop. If you don't care either way and you feel capable of handling this type of character, then you can check in with your other players to see if they are comfortable with this. However, you need to be aware that whether or not they say they would be comfortable, they might not tell the truth, and they might change their minds when the character hits the table. If you notice this character is making you or anyone else uncomfortable, or if it's disruptive at the table, then you should tell the paladin player this directly and ask them to either make a change or retire the character.