Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4230358" data-attributes="member: 710">True, but there is still a conflict. And the cause of the myriad of Paladin alignment threads (there are other causes, but considering the infinite amount of Paladin threads...). It is an awkward aspect of the law/chaos and good/evil axis. If the alignments are supposed to be helpful descriptors for personality, behavior or just moral concepts (even if not complete ones), they should not have such a conflict. Put at the extreme - how can changing the laws be lawful behaviour? In todays countries, this might work - there are laws that allow us to change the laws in most constitutions. But in a monarchy, there might be only one person that is actually allowed to change the laws. And if he's not listening to you (because you are a Knight of the Shining Order, and he is a devil worshipper), you can't change the laws in a lawful manner. That's an interesting conflict, but not a sign that the alignment descriptors are all that helpful to create a consistent definition. I know where you getting at, but descriptors like Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good are not part of German Law. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Is it? I found the idea of someone going around killing people and possibly aiming to destroy existence pretty terrifying. A dictator 's behavior I might at least predict, and there's a chance I could end up on &quot;his side&quot;, or at least a side he doesn't care about. (Was Centauri Emperor Cartagia lawful evil or chaotic evil? In 4E, he's certainly chaotic evil...)Yes. It is definitely more a personality descriptor now, then a &quot;ethic and morals&quot;-descriptor. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 4230358, member: 710"] True, but there is still a conflict. And the cause of the myriad of Paladin alignment threads (there are other causes, but considering the infinite amount of Paladin threads...). It is an awkward aspect of the law/chaos and good/evil axis. If the alignments are supposed to be helpful descriptors for personality, behavior or just moral concepts (even if not complete ones), they should not have such a conflict. Put at the extreme - how can changing the laws be lawful behaviour? In todays countries, this might work - there are laws that allow us to change the laws in most constitutions. But in a monarchy, there might be only one person that is actually allowed to change the laws. And if he's not listening to you (because you are a Knight of the Shining Order, and he is a devil worshipper), you can't change the laws in a lawful manner. That's an interesting conflict, but not a sign that the alignment descriptors are all that helpful to create a consistent definition. I know where you getting at, but descriptors like Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good are not part of German Law. ;) Is it? I found the idea of someone going around killing people and possibly aiming to destroy existence pretty terrifying. A dictator 's behavior I might at least predict, and there's a chance I could end up on "his side", or at least a side he doesn't care about. (Was Centauri Emperor Cartagia lawful evil or chaotic evil? In 4E, he's certainly chaotic evil...) Yes. It is definitely more a personality descriptor now, then a "ethic and morals"-descriptor. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification