Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FreeTheSlaves" data-source="post: 5918316" data-attributes="member: 9952">But you and I are modern and we're talking chivalry. That we can talk about it, and non-D&D gamers too, shows the word still gets usage and so there must be a shared definition. The way I see it, if chivalry is about anything it is about ideals. Ideals of honour, ideals of virtue, courtly love etc. Oh I can see a certain disdain towards the masses creeping into the code, although I'd treat with care such a definition. It sounds like a definition that served a particular purpose in history. Certainly it is not a publicly acknowledged ideal if only for its ugliness.These are spaces for non-LG paladin to exist within a single class. Become disdainful towards the weak, that's the good-evil axis moving. Over-indulge in personal glory at the expense of duty, that's the law-chaos axis moving.   Unfortunately I've never really had players that wanted to get into much more than a casual pseudo-historical mind-set. Alignments were really just a guide to me as their DM of how they intended to play. After character creation it only really mattered for the odd spell. I guess I'm fortunate that alignment has never caused any issues that I can recall.Oh, and I am putting in Orc young and a good Vampire in the upcoming campaign with a paladin PC. Not to screw with them mind, but to give them a moral work out in between all that honour and glory.</blockquote>