Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1571110" data-attributes="member: 18280">Hey, I don't disagree with this.&nbsp; In Celtic mythology, people are screwed all of the time because honor and various geases require different things of them.&nbsp; Cuchulainn, the Hound of Ulster, was a Red Branch Knight.&nbsp; He had a specific geas that prevented him from eating the flesh of dogs, but he encountered a situation where he could not both keep honor intact and maintain his geas.&nbsp; Now, C was the closest thing that setting had to a paladin (his horse even avenged his death), but this act stripped him of his special powers and brough about his downfall.But there's a big difference between saying &quot;A paladin must keep his word,&quot; and then having intelligent enemies try to set up a no-win scenario on the basis of this prohibition, and not having some leniency in interpreting what &quot;lawful good&quot; means.&nbsp; Especially the &quot;lawful&quot; part, because the odds are that you can't put 20 random DMs (or players) in a room and get less than a dozen different intretations as to what that word means.There is a world of difference between an objective violation of a clear tenet and a subjective violation of a rather unclear principle.Raven Crowking</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 1571110, member: 18280"] Hey, I don't disagree with this. In Celtic mythology, people are screwed all of the time because honor and various geases require different things of them. Cuchulainn, the Hound of Ulster, was a Red Branch Knight. He had a specific geas that prevented him from eating the flesh of dogs, but he encountered a situation where he could not both keep honor intact and maintain his geas. Now, C was the closest thing that setting had to a paladin (his horse even avenged his death), but this act stripped him of his special powers and brough about his downfall. But there's a big difference between saying "A paladin must keep his word," and then having intelligent enemies try to set up a no-win scenario on the basis of this prohibition, and not having some leniency in interpreting what "lawful good" means. Especially the "lawful" part, because the odds are that you can't put 20 random DMs (or players) in a room and get less than a dozen different intretations as to what that word means. There is a world of difference between an objective violation of a clear tenet and a subjective violation of a rather unclear principle. Raven Crowking [/QUOTE]

Verification