Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GameDoc" data-source="post: 5479837" data-attributes="member: 53915">Someone mentioned "lawful stupid" characters, particularly paladins. On another site, I recently saw a lengthy debate where the OP had banned paladins in any of his games (prior to 4e) and hated for anyone to play a lawful good character of any class.  His rationale was that there is only one way to play lawful good, as opposed the other other alignments allowing lattitude for interpretation. My feeling was he was being overly strict with his version of lawful good.  He never did make it clear if that was his personal opinion of the alignment (i.e., when a LG character in his campaign acted contrary to his definigion, the character was deemed out of alignment) or whether it was due to every player he'd ever had who chose the LG alignment playing a Dudley Dooright type character (in which case it was poor roleplaying on the part of his associates, IMO). All that to say that another peeve of mine is people who can't get past the idea that lawful good is a ball and chain that only allows for a small range of character types that cannot get along with memebers of other alignments, are always preachy, controlling, or over-bearing or alternatively meek and naive in their goodness.  Those are both possible characters that can fall under LG, but there are many others. More generally (and I think several posts here have empahisized this), I think a big problem is people using alignment as a straightjacket and making their character entirely one-dimensional.</blockquote>

Verification