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: 7746619" data-attributes="member: 42582">But this is taking for granted that the relevant facts can change. If, in fact, social organisation is always the best way to promote wellbeing and other valuable things (as the LG contend), then the NG - by casting doubt on this - are simply getting in the way of realising and upholding the good.My understanding of CG (which admittedly might be 40 years out of date, given that it draws on Gygax's AD&D books) is that CG people think that things worth valuing (rights, flourishing, truth, beauty, etc) are better promoted and secured via self-realisation, than via participation in social structures and collective endeavour.Because the paladin archetype is connected to service (to a king, a church, etc) a CG "paladin" is necessarily going to depart from that archetype. But I think it is quite easy to envisage something like a CG "paladin" that combines elements of the archetype (devotion, hope, courage, honour) with romantic conceptions of individual achievement and self-realisation which yields quite a playable concept - a certain sort of approach to a knight errant could work, for instance.Of course, we would then have the question - who is right, the LG paladin (who thinks service and society are necessary conditions of realising and upholding the good) or the CG paladin (who denies that) or the NG paladin (who has a bet each way)? But addressing that question would head into new territory for this thread - namely, how ought alignment conflicts to be framed and resolved in play? - and so I'm not going to go there on my own!</blockquote>

Verification