Changing companion alignment.

[TrashMan]

PC with god-like Charisam that can talk everyone into aynthing? No tanks,,,

[gglorious]

I think this is a cool idea. It doesn't have to be literally every party member, but certainly having a good number change their perspectives on something would be nice. I don't think it should be automatic, like "You have influence therefore this character thinks like you now". Instead, it should be dialogue and personality driven. Who knows? Maybe some character will start to be LESS like you by your influence on him(contrarian streak?), and you become some sort of argument buddy with him than a mentor. I mean, variations can be fun.

[Alexjh]

Much as I can appreciate that some people might like corrupting characters, I think it shouldn't be possible with every character, and indeed, some characters should equally be trying to change *you*.

 

To pick a couple of examples from Black Isle/Obsidian/Bioware games:

 

A character like Keldorn should generally speaking basically try to kill you if you are acting particularly evilly, but if it just extended to petty crime, he should be trying to reform you. "Breaking" him should be either incredibly difficult or impossible, and if the former, require sticking him in a position where he had been repeatedly forced to challenge his own beliefs and THEN sticking him in a situation where there is no correct answer for him according to his ethos. Even then, realistically, I would kind of imagine that even if you did get him to that point, you'd rest in an inn one night and wake up to discover he'd commited suicide. A Blackguard type character should work in the opposite direction, but as to be evil you generally have to be selfish, and perhaps instead of a true reformation the lesson they actually learn is that its easier to get what you want out of people if they think you are a hero while still being a reasonably unpleasant person. The Zaalbar/Mission evil ending I've heard of was interesting to: doing that doesn't make Zaalbar a different alignment in my mind, as he clearly knows what is right and wrong, but, if you are warping people to your own ends, knowledge of their customs and society might help. If you wanted your neutral good wizard who believes foremost in the power of knowledge, to help you kill good villagers, you might lie to him to say they are evil book burners who have destroyed ancient tomes of lore to get him to go along with it.

 

As mentioned, Kreia is another interesting one, she shouldn't mind as such whatever you do, but challenge you to see the ramifications of all of them, and be equally as scornful of the goody-two-shoes paladin type as of someone who kills villagers for the fun of it.

 

Similarly, if you have an amoral master thief in your party they should be trying to get you to act like them and if they are morally lose would be willing to play along to good or evil. But a master assassin might be disgusted by you pandering to the weak. Some characters might eve just be apathetic to whatever you do: they are with you for some specific reason, and anything you do otherwise is none of their business.

 

Either way, there should be a good mix of good and evil, corruptable and incorruptable, indifferent and impassioned and so on, and like Baldur's Gate, there should certainly be the possibility of intra-party conflict should things get too serious...

[JFSOCC]

Much as I can appreciate that some people might like corrupting characters, I think it shouldn't be possible with every character, and indeed, some characters should equally be trying to change *you*.

 

To pick a couple of examples from Black Isle/Obsidian/Bioware games:

 

A character like Keldorn should generally speaking basically try to kill you if you are acting particularly evilly, but if it just extended to petty crime, he should be trying to reform you. "Breaking" him should be either incredibly difficult or impossible, and if the former, require sticking him in a position where he had been repeatedly forced to challenge his own beliefs and THEN sticking him in a situation where there is no correct answer for him according to his ethos. Even then, realistically, I would kind of imagine that even if you did get him to that point, you'd rest in an inn one night and wake up to discover he'd commited suicide.

Keldorn the man who put his own wife in prison because we don't do divorce.

[mokona]

Magical Alignment Changes

 

A second, more insidious, type of magical item is the one that changes a character's alignment. Unlike the usual, gradual methods by which a character changes alignment, magical alignment changes are instantaneous. The character's personality undergoes an immediate transformation, something like magical brainwashing.

 

Will, or should, Project Eternity allow you to brainwash your companions by tricking them into wearing a Helm of Opposite Alignment? Dungeons & Dragons has had some weird magic item effects (Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity, I'm looking at you).

[Vhostym]

Personally I'd like to see something loosely related to what Obsidian did with KOTOR 2. If you had high influence with a companion their alignment would be shifted towards yours. While I understand that there won't be any alignment in P:E, there will be some sort of influence system (preferably invisible) and I think that it'd be cool to have your companions begin to mimic your world views to a degree. Of course this would only work for companions who can be influenced, but in my mind Obsidian already has a handle on that especially since in KOTOR 2 you could not influence everyone, Kreia was always neutral, and the psychotic wookiee Hanrrar (or whatever his name was) was always evil.

 

The problem with how KotOR2 handled alignment shifts is that, while it may have affected their appearances, what items they could use and how much Dark and Light Side force powers cost, it didn't change their personalities in the slightest. At least in BG2: Throne of Bhaal and DA:O when you converted someone to your way of thinking, it changed some of their dialogue. In DA:O, if you "hardened" Alistair, it could even have an impact on the ending.

 

I get what you're saying, though I thought that their personalities changed as a result, may just be remembering incorrectly. What I liked about KOTOR 2 was that you had 2 companions, Kreia and the spherical droid GOTO, who tried to change you as well. Kreia in the sense that Alexjh was saying, she tries to bend you towards neutrality, and Goto who tries to change you towards a more lawful evil worldview. Also, if you got low influence with a companion they would lean in the opposite direction. Granted the game took this to extremes, where if one of my characters really hated me I could turn them into a dark jedi (if I'm good) or a light-side jedi (if I'm evil). This made no sense, but I think that if the mechanic was toned down it would be interesting. I get that there is no alignment system but as humans we always try to find absolutes and generalizations so I don't think it'd be too hard to work up a quasi-alignment system that doesn't have in-game ramifications but is used as a sounding board as to how characters view the world (or you could look at things point by point).

[Alexjh]

Much as I can appreciate that some people might like corrupting characters, I think it shouldn't be possible with every character, and indeed, some characters should equally be trying to change *you*.

 

To pick a couple of examples from Black Isle/Obsidian/Bioware games:

 

A character like Keldorn should generally speaking basically try to kill you if you are acting particularly evilly, but if it just extended to petty crime, he should be trying to reform you. "Breaking" him should be either incredibly difficult or impossible, and if the former, require sticking him in a position where he had been repeatedly forced to challenge his own beliefs and THEN sticking him in a situation where there is no correct answer for him according to his ethos. Even then, realistically, I would kind of imagine that even if you did get him to that point, you'd rest in an inn one night and wake up to discover he'd commited suicide.

Keldorn the man who put his own wife in prison because we don't do divorce.

 

That to my mind is one of the reasons why he was an interesting character: even him doing that didn't break him, if a character can make that kind of decision there is more or less nothing you can do within reason to break him. I think one of the weaknesses of the perception of "lawful good" (or to a lesser degree, lawful evil) is that at some point or other these are going to conflict with each other.

It's certainly possible to put a character in a position where they have to choose either their own personal rules or what the actual good thing to do is. As paladins are historically the lawful good exclusive class, lets stick with them for now.

 

So for a little example using Keldorn, presented with a choice of the lawful choice (send his wife to prison) or the good choice (forgive his wife) he decides to go by his personal code. A "lawful>good" character is therefore one which while they will try to be LG generally speaking, if they have to choose will go for lawful, while some given the choice will go for lawful<good, but its the nuances of either where you get the real juice of the characters.

[clippedwolf]

Would it be a positive change if they regularly bonded with each other? In the Baldur's Gate series their were plenty of pairs of characters who had bonds, only Minsc and Aerie created a bond. What about trios, quartets, and quintets, the PC either being part of this group or a spectator to it? All of this is a prelude to the age old idea of peer pressure and groupthink.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html

If there is companion alignment change I think that certain characters would be more susceptible than others. A classic psychological experiment on the frightening powers of authority is Milgram's experiment. In the 90's they redid the experiment, they also included women. The results were the same, most people will do things that are against their personal morals when they can shrug off responsability to an authority. The participants that ended their participation in the experiment felt a high degree of personal ethical or religious responsibility.

http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm

 

Going back to game mechanics: What about each companion having a constant opinion about each other? Given time their banters will strengthen their bonds with each other, or sow the seeds of discord.

Strong bonds with multiple characters, who have strong bonds with each other, with different looks on the world would set the stage for "character alignment change". You make a moral decision and if a character's "alignment" is opposing that of his/her friends their is a chance of change via a moral slide (up or down) unless that character is strongly opposed to the decision and you have conflict instead.

 

Other games have had similar events like this, but it was between you and an individual with the group just happening to be there. I'm talking a dynamic group with the player character as the leader.

[JFSOCC]

Much as I can appreciate that some people might like corrupting characters, I think it shouldn't be possible with every character, and indeed, some characters should equally be trying to change *you*.

 

To pick a couple of examples from Black Isle/Obsidian/Bioware games:

 

A character like Keldorn should generally speaking basically try to kill you if you are acting particularly evilly, but if it just extended to petty crime, he should be trying to reform you. "Breaking" him should be either incredibly difficult or impossible, and if the former, require sticking him in a position where he had been repeatedly forced to challenge his own beliefs and THEN sticking him in a situation where there is no correct answer for him according to his ethos. Even then, realistically, I would kind of imagine that even if you did get him to that point, you'd rest in an inn one night and wake up to discover he'd commited suicide.

Keldorn the man who put his own wife in prison because we don't do divorce.

 

That to my mind is one of the reasons why he was an interesting character: even him doing that didn't break him, if a character can make that kind of decision there is more or less nothing you can do within reason to break him. I think one of the weaknesses of the perception of "lawful good" (or to a lesser degree, lawful evil) is that at some point or other these are going to conflict with each other.

It's certainly possible to put a character in a position where they have to choose either their own personal rules or what the actual good thing to do is. As paladins are historically the lawful good exclusive class, lets stick with them for now.

 

So for a little example using Keldorn, presented with a choice of the lawful choice (send his wife to prison) or the good choice (forgive his wife) he decides to go by his personal code. A "lawful>good" character is therefore one which while they will try to be LG generally speaking, if they have to choose will go for lawful, while some given the choice will go for lawful<good, but its the nuances of either where you get the real juice of the characters.

We don't need alignments. I didn't really want to repeat that since i've mention it in several threads already. Alignment is a narrowminded black and white way of looking at the world, and completely unrealistic. A person doesn't do evil or good just because they are evil or good, they're not prone to lawful or chaotic behaviour because that's just their alignment. that's ridiculously stupid and I won't stand for it. Obsidian wants to make a more mature game? then alignments must be out. People have motivations, sometimes those make them come in conflict with others.

It sort of worked for Keldorn, not because he was lawful good, but because the has the religious zeal we know from paladins, he was a narrow-minded idiot who wouldn't stray from his dumb absolutist path. Except that the reason he couldn't ingame, was because switching alignment would have made him lose all the paladin levels. that's not a good way to write characters.

I'm happy with the idea that you can influence your companions however. not their alignment, but the way they view the world.

[Cultist]

I prefer the situation where you can influence companions' alignment and character, not shape them completely. That way we can avoid situation we had in Dragon Age 2 where all-accepting all-bisexual all-tolerating companions would stay with character once you get enough rivalry\friendship, even after performing most heinous and offensive acts.

There should be situation when companions will say "No!" or turn unto you no matter how high you persuasion or such skill is. I have no desire to see another DA2 situation, where Mother Theresa will say "Okay" when you butcher Jesus just after his Second Coming.

[Alexjh]

Much as I can appreciate that some people might like corrupting characters, I think it shouldn't be possible with every character, and indeed, some characters should equally be trying to change *you*.

 

To pick a couple of examples from Black Isle/Obsidian/Bioware games:

 

A character like Keldorn should generally speaking basically try to kill you if you are acting particularly evilly, but if it just extended to petty crime, he should be trying to reform you. "Breaking" him should be either incredibly difficult or impossible, and if the former, require sticking him in a position where he had been repeatedly forced to challenge his own beliefs and THEN sticking him in a situation where there is no correct answer for him according to his ethos. Even then, realistically, I would kind of imagine that even if you did get him to that point, you'd rest in an inn one night and wake up to discover he'd commited suicide.

Keldorn the man who put his own wife in prison because we don't do divorce.

 

That to my mind is one of the reasons why he was an interesting character: even him doing that didn't break him, if a character can make that kind of decision there is more or less nothing you can do within reason to break him. I think one of the weaknesses of the perception of "lawful good" (or to a lesser degree, lawful evil) is that at some point or other these are going to conflict with each other.

It's certainly possible to put a character in a position where they have to choose either their own personal rules or what the actual good thing to do is. As paladins are historically the lawful good exclusive class, lets stick with them for now.

 

So for a little example using Keldorn, presented with a choice of the lawful choice (send his wife to prison) or the good choice (forgive his wife) he decides to go by his personal code. A "lawful>good" character is therefore one which while they will try to be LG generally speaking, if they have to choose will go for lawful, while some given the choice will go for lawful<good, but its the nuances of either where you get the real juice of the characters.

We don't need alignments. I didn't really want to repeat that since i've mention it in several threads already. Alignment is a narrowminded black and white way of looking at the world, and completely unrealistic. A person doesn't do evil or good just because they are evil or good, they're not prone to lawful or chaotic behaviour because that's just their alignment. that's ridiculously stupid and I won't stand for it. Obsidian wants to make a more mature game? then alignments must be out. People have motivations, sometimes those make them come in conflict with others.

It sort of worked for Keldorn, not because he was lawful good, but because the has the religious zeal we know from paladins, he was a narrow-minded idiot who wouldn't stray from his dumb absolutist path. Except that the reason he couldn't ingame, was because switching alignment would have made him lose all the paladin levels. that's not a good way to write characters.

I'm happy with the idea that you can influence your companions however. not their alignment, but the way they view the world.

 

Oh I wasn't saying you need alignments (at least not overt/seen by ones, might be interesting for the game to keep track what you and your companions are doing and have the rest of the world react accordingly, and then only as shorthand for something that could never be written longhand) But equally I think you have the wrong end of the stick slightly on what alignments are supposed represent - they certainly aren't definitive solutions or 100% accurate categories in which the world can be broken down into, but they are a simplified gist of how an individual character acts under normal circumstances, lawful-chaotic represents whether they have an internal code or not that they absolutley believe in, while good-evil is perhaps a bit more misleading in name as I'd evil is not so much about doing evil 100% of the time, but by evil things not personally bothering them - a person of evil alignment might go for their entire lives doing nothing but good things, but if put in a situation where they feel they can get away with something and there are no downsides for them, they'd have no personal moral compunction about doing it. Either way, alignment is a measurement of actual behaviour/personality, not the other way round where people can only act according to their alignment.

 

But anyway, as I've said I have no problem leaving alignments out, but I stick with what I say in that some companions should be more easily influenced than others. Some might even purposefully do exactly the opposite of what you want them to because that's what they're like

[JFSOCC]

fair enough

[AGX-17]

It's simply ludicrous to suggest that all your companions should be mindless drone thralls for you to mold as you please. They're not real characters if they're devoid of personal beliefs, morals ethics and convictions. This idea sounds more like sexual fetish than legitimate storytelling (yes, this is another stupid sexual fetish around which an entire subculture revolves. I am aware of practically every ludicrous sexual fetish present on the internet after 20 years of using it.)

 

There's nothing wrong with swaying a character's opinion on a particular subject, situation or personal dilemma, but this sort of black & white morality and total domination of every character's personality you're expecting will not be present in P:E, so your (bad) idea wouldn't even fit. You're not going to get to turn a chaste and innocent female companion into a skanky hermaphrodite succubus or a kindly healer into a sadistic pedophile serial killer. So deal with it, I guess.

Edited November 21, 2012 by AGX-17

[bonarbill]

It's simply ludicrous to suggest that all your companions should be mindless drone thralls for you to mold as you please. They're not real characters if they're devoid of personal beliefs, morals ethics and convictions. This idea sounds more like sexual fetish than legitimate storytelling (yes, this is another stupid sexual fetish around which an entire subculture revolves. I am aware of practically every ludicrous sexual fetish present on the internet after 20 years of using it.)

 

There's nothing wrong with swaying a character's opinion on a particular subject, situation or personal dilemma, but this sort of black & white morality and total domination of every character's personality you're expecting will not be present in P:E, so your (bad) idea wouldn't even fit. You're not going to get to turn a chaste and innocent female companion into a skanky hermaphrodite succubus or a kindly healer into a sadistic pedophile serial killer. So deal with it, I guess.

 

Surely if they going to take their time out of their busy schedule to travel with some nutjob like the main character, then the main character should have some influence over them. Otherwise, why travel with someone you don't like or travel with someone who doesn't have the same ideals as them? Besides, a person who is very charismatic can change a person's opinion about life. Look at Kane from Command and Conquer, or even Hilter if we're going to bring RL into it.

Edited November 21, 2012 by bonarbill

[Gurkog]

I want a companion that is too stupid to be swayed by any social skills!

[TrashMan]

We don't need alignments. I didn't really want to repeat that since i've mention it in several threads already. Alignment is a narrowminded black and white way of looking at the world, and completely unrealistic. A person doesn't do evil or good just because they are evil or good, they're not prone to lawful or chaotic behaviour because that's just their alignment. that's ridiculously stupid and I won't stand for it. Obsidian wants to make a more mature game? then alignments must be out. People have motivations, sometimes those make them come in conflict with others.

It sort of worked for Keldorn, not because he was lawful good, but because the has the religious zeal we know from paladins, he was a narrow-minded idiot who wouldn't stray from his dumb absolutist path. Except that the reason he couldn't ingame, was because switching alignment would have made him lose all the paladin levels. that's not a good way to write characters.

I'm happy with the idea that you can influence your companions however. not their alignment, but the way they view the world.

 

You never did undestand aligment really, did you?

 

Aligment is a guideline. Tendancy. Aspiration.

It's not an abosolute.

 

And IIRC; you could connvince Keldorn to stay with his wife.

Also, how is he narrow-minded?

Beliving path X is the right path to take in not narrowmindedness.

[JFSOCC]

We don't need alignments. I didn't really want to repeat that since i've mention it in several threads already. Alignment is a narrowminded black and white way of looking at the world, and completely unrealistic. A person doesn't do evil or good just because they are evil or good, they're not prone to lawful or chaotic behaviour because that's just their alignment. that's ridiculously stupid and I won't stand for it. Obsidian wants to make a more mature game? then alignments must be out. People have motivations, sometimes those make them come in conflict with others.

It sort of worked for Keldorn, not because he was lawful good, but because the has the religious zeal we know from paladins, he was a narrow-minded idiot who wouldn't stray from his dumb absolutist path. Except that the reason he couldn't ingame, was because switching alignment would have made him lose all the paladin levels. that's not a good way to write characters.

I'm happy with the idea that you can influence your companions however. not their alignment, but the way they view the world.

 

You never did undestand aligment really, did you?

 

Aligment is a guideline. Tendancy. Aspiration.

It's not an abosolute.

 

And IIRC; you could connvince Keldorn to stay with his wife.

Also, how is he narrow-minded?

Beliving path X is the right path to take in not narrowmindedness.

Alignment is a weak device, and the mechanics built around it made it fairly absolute, because it never makes sense to stray from your alignment. that prevents a character from having an arc. "This is the way they think, and this is how they'll always think" A Bard can't become lawful, and a paladin can't become neutral, where as rangers aren't allowed to take up a cause other than what the game designers have determined is a neutral cause. Why must my assassin be evil? why is a class linked not to a skillset but to alignments? Must I accept that people choose to be evil, or that those who have a good alignment will therefor be good. that's incredibly dumb.

So yeah, I don't understand alignments, they don't make sense, are incredibly unrealistic, limit role-playing, make characters more 1-dimensional, and there is an infinitely better alternative available: Not having alignments, but character motivations.

 

I didn't want Keldorn to stay with his wife, his wife clearly didn't love him anymore. but in his narrowminded mind-set there were only 2 solutions, prison or back into an unhappy marriage. If Keldorn can't think outside those options, then clearly he is narrow-minded.

[Alexjh]

We don't need alignments. I didn't really want to repeat that since i've mention it in several threads already. Alignment is a narrowminded black and white way of looking at the world, and completely unrealistic. A person doesn't do evil or good just because they are evil or good, they're not prone to lawful or chaotic behaviour because that's just their alignment. that's ridiculously stupid and I won't stand for it. Obsidian wants to make a more mature game? then alignments must be out. People have motivations, sometimes those make them come in conflict with others.

It sort of worked for Keldorn, not because he was lawful good, but because the has the religious zeal we know from paladins, he was a narrow-minded idiot who wouldn't stray from his dumb absolutist path. Except that the reason he couldn't ingame, was because switching alignment would have made him lose all the paladin levels. that's not a good way to write characters.

I'm happy with the idea that you can influence your companions however. not their alignment, but the way they view the world.

 

You never did undestand aligment really, did you?

 

Aligment is a guideline. Tendancy. Aspiration.

It's not an abosolute.

 

And IIRC; you could connvince Keldorn to stay with his wife.

Also, how is he narrow-minded?

Beliving path X is the right path to take in not narrowmindedness.

Alignment is a weak device, and the mechanics built around it made it fairly absolute, because it never makes sense to stray from your alignment. that prevents a character from having an arc. "This is the way they think, and this is how they'll always think" A Bard can't become lawful, and a paladin can't become neutral, where as rangers aren't allowed to take up a cause other than what the game designers have determined is a neutral cause. Why must my assassin be evil? why is a class linked not to a skillset but to alignments? Must I accept that people choose to be evil, or that those who have a good alignment will therefor be good. that's incredibly dumb.

So yeah, I don't understand alignments, they don't make sense, are incredibly unrealistic, limit role-playing, make characters more 1-dimensional, and there is an infinitely better alternative available: Not having alignments, but character motivations.

 

I didn't want Keldorn to stay with his wife, his wife clearly didn't love him anymore. but in his narrowminded mind-set there were only 2 solutions, prison or back into an unhappy marriage. If Keldorn can't think outside those options, then clearly he is narrow-minded.

 

I think a lot of the confusion here is that the terminology of D&D isn't the same as real life, and while I'll agree that some of those are silly (Bards and barbarians can't be lawful?) some of the others do make sense. Monks only being lawful makes sense because they require huge amounts of discipline to do their things, similarly Paladins as always lawful makes sense because part of their thing is that wholehearted believe in their cause and cannot stray from its dogma, because if nothing else, the Paladin trainers would have booted out someone who didn't meet those standards before they became a full paladin. Druids are a bit of a funny one, I can see what they are trying to get at, but it strikes me as slightly paradoxical - the very act of strictly being neutral is a lawful action. An Assassin is not anyone who assassinates someone but a specific discipline, and clearly, if you are going to be killing someone for pay or just for instructions you aren't good. Arguably perhaps you should be able to have assassins of the neutral alignments too, but certainly not good unless you've tricked your way into getting the training.

 

But if you think they limit roleplaying, I hate to say this, but in terms of tabletop games you are doing it wrong. You should have a concept of your characters motivations independent of alignment, and its where what you do conflicts with their most basic principles (alignment) that you get the juice of character development and the nuances.

 

As for Keldorn, he is narrow minded, but that's because he's a narrow minded character, not because his alignment dictates that it be so. A different lawful good paladin in his situation might agree to a divorce, or even let her remarry that other guy, or another one again might have killed her to satisfy his honour. Keldorn is a zealot, but that's just him, and that's why he's an interesting character to discuss.

[JFSOCC]

All paladins are zealots, all of them adhere strictly to a absolute moral code. that makes them religious fundamentalists and decidedly not good. Yet the alignment says lawful good. it's already been decided then...

 

I come up with some examples of why I don't like the alignment system, and your responses (as they come across) are along the lines of "but sometimes it makes sense". Even a clock that stands still is right twice a day, right?

Well, if you do away with alignments and focus solely on motivations, I think it will always make sense.

[Alexjh]

All paladins are zealots, all of them adhere strictly to a absolute moral code. that makes them religious fundamentalists and decidedly not good. Yet the alignment says lawful good. it's already been decided then...

 

I come up with some examples of why I don't like the alignment system, and your responses (as they come across) are along the lines of "but sometimes it makes sense". Even a clock that stands still is right twice a day, right?

Well, if you do away with alignments and focus solely on motivations, I think it will always make sense.

 

You are simultaniously trying to argue that "characters should be focused on individual motivations" while also arguing that "all paladins are zealots". This contradicts itself: individual paladins aren't automatons that suddenly throw reason, justice and fairness out the window in a precisely equal way, and different orders of paladins would function function differently. Having a belief system doesn't make one a zealot.

 

If an order of Paladin's had the following doctorines:

 

A paladin must never be the first to draw their weapon.

A paladin must protect the weak from oppression, regardless of race, religion or creed.

A paladin must always accept surrender when offered and deliver them to a fair trial.

A paladin must never lie, cheat, steal or use poison or attack without a warning.

 

Is a very different order of paladins to one which had:

 

A paladin must always obey the commands of their superior.

A paladin must not permit a wizard to live.

A paladin must slay any evil wherever it is seen using whatever means at their disposal.

 

Both fall into the category of potential paladin. The second is kind of what you see as the corrupt Paladin archetype, but the first is equally within the archetype. As for the clock metaphor, more of what I'm suggesting is, to use my own metaphor, saying a character is, say, neutral evil is the same as casually saying a painting is a blue painting. The painting may be most obviously blue, but it might have lots of red or green in it if you look closely, and furthermore, saying a painting is blue doesn't really say what shade of blues it may be made up of.

 

As I said anyway I don't mind getting rid of alignment, but its not really half as offensive a system as you seem to think.

[Tsuga C]

All paladins are zealots, all of them adhere strictly to a absolute moral code. that makes them religious fundamentalists and decidedly not good.

 

My, aren't we narrow-minded and self-righteous? TrashMan has the right of this one as one's moral code need not be mean-spirited, arbitrary, and picayune.

[JFSOCC]

All paladins are zealots, all of them adhere strictly to a absolute moral code. that makes them religious fundamentalists and decidedly not good.

 

My, aren't we narrow-minded and self-righteous? TrashMan has the right of this one as one's moral code need not be mean-spirited, arbitrary, and picayune.

No "we" are not. We're pretty much describing what the Paladins are per description of the DnD rulesets. I would love it if people could play a paladin differently. but once a paladin acts against his strict code (not a personal one, but following a lawful good deity) even if it is better, they can't because they would lose all their levels and class abilities till they atone.

that makes Paladins BY DESIGN the narrow-minded and self-righteous characters that I love to hate so much.

[JFSOCC]

You are simultaniously trying to argue that "characters should be focused on individual motivations" while also arguing that "all paladins are zealots".

The way they are portrayed currently, with the alignment system, they are. that's what I would like to see ended.

So yes, I am simultaneously arguing that characters should be focused on individual motivation while showing you an example of why the alignment system sabotages that very effort.