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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FreeTheSlaves" data-source="post: 5919005" data-attributes="member: 9952">The term chivalry has gone through a lot of change since it was first coined, so an historical analysis needs to settle on a definition at a given point in time and place. My definition rests in the current age and aspects that offend modern moral sensibilities are not considered chivalric - they are no longer (if they ever were) ideal. The bar has been raised. I suspect that I'm not alone in taking this approach.Interesting point over egalitarianism. A social class hierarchy can be a good thing should it be based on meritocracy with more or less equal opportunity for social mobility. Historically accurate feudalism doesn't give much in this way, although in earlier medieval periods knighthood on the battlefield was more common and there was always the mercantile/religious path options - limited as they were. But then, do most adventures exist in such a world? Not in my experience, usually with some contemporary values and social structure. That can't be helped, the shared world of the imagination needs to speak from and to all the players gathered.So is the lawful good alignment egalitarian? Well maybe. It could well be patriarchal for example, depending on where the slider is within each alignment. For me the key thing here is within a given alignment there is a lot of wiggle room. Is the ideal chivalric code egalitarian? Well again, I find myself agreeing with you that is not, as its hierarchical nature has different etiquette expectations under different social circumstances.I'm not sure the role play tool of alignment is of use for expressing the concept of egalitarianism. It seems to apply across the good-evil axis because letting someone fail and starve to death could be to treat them with economic equality of opportunity - without regard to outcome. On the other hand it seems to rest easiest within the lawful alignment because it seems bound to social structure. Real world Buddhism, just like many real world things of great sophistication are hard to place in the alignment system. Is democracy destabilizing or stabilizing to society? Both, so is that chaos or law? You're right to point out the philosophical inadequacies of alignment due to its lack of specificness. The terms are too vague to be of any use to scholars, but then it wasn't invented for their use. Since 3e it has been a roleplay tool of flagged intentions, and occasionally interacting with certain spells and rules. My approach is not to over-think things in the game and just go with what makes sense at a broader level. Focusing on alignment system at the detailed level basically cuts it to bits but replaces it with what? Without an alignment short-hand system I'd require a more extensive back-ground write up from my players to get the same benefit - good luck me getting that...Anyhoo, time marches on. Tell me pemerton, in a hypothetical game that used the alignment rule-set, what Alignment components if any would the Paladin possess?</blockquote>

Verification