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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7817959" data-attributes="member: 42582">Thanks!It did in the sense that you point out with your examples. But I don't think it did in the sense that there is morality in (say) LotR, or The Quiet American, or even Apocalypse Now.I agree with [USER=30518]@lewpuls[/USER] (in the other current alignment thread)  that, in the classic game, alignment was another piece of the puzzle. The point of playing a Lawful character wasn't to explore (in aesthetic and emotional terms) what it might mean to be good in a world full of orcs and demons. It was to see whether you could meet the game's victory conditions (ie aquiring loot, with a willingness to kill monsters in the course of doing so) while abiding by certain restraints. In return, you get the benefit of (i) greater team stability in what is a team game, (ii) a greater degree of friendliness from non-opposition NPCs, and (iii) better access to buffs and healing.In that context, the scenario described in the OP isn't one that is to be resolved by thinking onself (intellectually and emotionally) into the place of the paladin and deciding what to do when confronted by the dragon. Rather, the player has to make a rational decision that involves trade-offs: if I stick to my aignment and code I run the risk of death but, if I survive I get to keep my paladin bennies; if I throw the NPC to the dragon I'm guaranteed to keep my PC but probably in a de-buffed form.Whether it's fair for the GM to force that sort of choice in classic D&D play is a further question: I think there are no abstract answers to that question, and rather they depend very heavily on the norms, expectations, what's come before, etc at a particular table.</blockquote>

Verification