Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6190916" data-attributes="member: 6681948">My experience is often the reverse, that the personality disappears when tactical choices are made.&nbsp; &quot;well, sure he hates goblins, but the human cleric is the better tactical choice, so of course he will attack the human cleric first&quot;; &quot;yes, he's afraid of water, but he'll still go on the boat - he's not SO afraid that he'd travel through the more dangerous and lengthy wilderness journey first!&quot;No different than &quot;Yes, he's Lawful Good, but he doesn't put up with lip from the barman - now drink from the spittoon!&quot;; &quot;Sure, he's Lawful Good - the greatest good will come from quickly locating the evil priest's lair, so Torch to the Groin again for the best interrogation modifier&quot;.One of my key alignment tenets is similar to your &quot;I thought it was lawful because...&quot;, though perhaps a bit less lenient.&nbsp; That is that if there is no right answer, there can be no wrong answer.&nbsp; That is, if the Paladin is put in the moral quandary (eg. &quot;kill one innocent or let five die&quot;), since neither approach is the &quot;good, respectful of innocent life&quot; answer, he loses nothing for either choice.&nbsp; If you want players to play &quot;Lawful Good&quot;, then there must be another choice for the Paladin to take which preserves all six innocent lives.&nbsp; If the GM structures the game so &quot;good&quot; becomes &quot;lawful stupid&quot; or &quot;character suicide&quot;, he has no right to complain when the players stop playing Good characters, whether by name or by actions.&nbsp; If we want characters played as Good, Righteous and Valorous, then that type of play must reap rewards, not be clearly seen as less effective than ruthlessness or evil.&nbsp; If the PC's succeed by ruithlessness and fail by righteousness, why would we be surprised that they stop making Good characters?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6190916, member: 6681948"] My experience is often the reverse, that the personality disappears when tactical choices are made. "well, sure he hates goblins, but the human cleric is the better tactical choice, so of course he will attack the human cleric first"; "yes, he's afraid of water, but he'll still go on the boat - he's not SO afraid that he'd travel through the more dangerous and lengthy wilderness journey first!" No different than "Yes, he's Lawful Good, but he doesn't put up with lip from the barman - now drink from the spittoon!"; "Sure, he's Lawful Good - the greatest good will come from quickly locating the evil priest's lair, so Torch to the Groin again for the best interrogation modifier". One of my key alignment tenets is similar to your "I thought it was lawful because...", though perhaps a bit less lenient. That is that if there is no right answer, there can be no wrong answer. That is, if the Paladin is put in the moral quandary (eg. "kill one innocent or let five die"), since neither approach is the "good, respectful of innocent life" answer, he loses nothing for either choice. If you want players to play "Lawful Good", then there must be another choice for the Paladin to take which preserves all six innocent lives. If the GM structures the game so "good" becomes "lawful stupid" or "character suicide", he has no right to complain when the players stop playing Good characters, whether by name or by actions. If we want characters played as Good, Righteous and Valorous, then that type of play must reap rewards, not be clearly seen as less effective than ruthlessness or evil. If the PC's succeed by ruithlessness and fail by righteousness, why would we be surprised that they stop making Good characters? [/QUOTE]

Verification