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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gammadoodler" data-source="post: 7746186" data-attributes="member: 6914290">"People are subject to the laws of their surroundings" has literally nothing to do with class or alignment. What it means is that if there is a law of the land, and you are in that land, the normal expectation is for you to follow those laws. Characters of differing alignments may have differing feelings regarding adhering to that norm, but their alignment doesn't exempt them from the expectation. It is interesting, though your choice of the phrasing in "alignment selection." It's been my interpretation, thus far, that alignment is intended to describe how others view the actions of the character; these "others" may be characters in game, or the players and DM at the table. If the assumption here is that it's really how the character sees themselves, I see better where you are coming from. There would still be problems (I suspect most people and D&D creatures would see themselves as basically lawful and basically good, at least within whatever context matters to them), but I'd understand better the basis.You really needn't have. If we're already debating whether a new ruleset should restrict the alignment of the class, I don't know what would make you think that a reference to another ruleset in a different system is likely to be persuasive. That said, if there is this "transcendant law" that paladins are required to follow, it's pretty important to specify what/where it comes from (as the presence of this transcendant lawful force..or whatever.. should have some kind of cosmological implication on the world) and whether it is written down (as following an unrecorded "transcendant law" just means you're lawful because you say you are lawful).Perhaps not that particular analogy, but basically everything else you've said would seem to line up with that conclusion. But I'm willing to step back a bit. Are you meaning to say that a character is a paladin because they are lawful and good, or that a character is lawful and good because they are a paladin. Or are you saying some other, third thing (For example, if you contend that a chaotic or neutral good paladin are possible, then we're probably just talking past each other). I'm assuming you just didn't read the list, I'm not really sure what actions they fail to describe.1. Follow and enforce the laws 2. Follow and enforce the "spirit of the law."3. If the "spirit of the law" sucks too, ignore/break the law. Conclusion: If a paladin does any of these, they are lawful good.Perhaps I should have added "actively subvert or rebel against the laws" in order to cover the complete range of activity, but it didn't really seem necessary at the time. (Note, these bullets only presume the existence of laws, not the morality of those laws and reflect my understanding of the ways you feel a paladin may act and your conclusion that they are in all cases to be considered lawful good).</blockquote>

Verification