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: 7746935" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm more thinking about the player's relationship to the GM, than the PC's relationship to other characters within the fiction.If the GM - or the game system that the GM is administering - takes as a premise that it is impossible to fully realise the good while adhering to lawfulness, then the paladin player knows that s/he has already lost, and that his/her PC's aspirations are hopeless.Yes, CG believes that LG falls short. And vice versa. LG also believes that NG falls short - if they didn't, they would all convert!Hence why I don't like a framing of the alignment system that seems to take as a premise that NG is in fact correct (ie that achieving the Good sometimes requires abandoning or rejecting sociality, hierarchy, stable community, etc).EDIT:I think this post either takes as a premise, or counts as an argument for, the claim that LG is not fully good.Now that may be true or it may be false (though I think it's against board rules to get into an argument about that). What I'm saying is that, if the alignment system is meant to be viable, I think it has to be neutral as to any such premise or argument. So it can't be defined or presented in such terms.So if, in play, some cleric of Tritherion runs your argument against my paladin, that's fine and grist for the roleplaying mill. But if the GM or the game system asserts your argument, then that would make me wonder why I'm bothering to play a paladin in that game, when the system already takes for granted that I (and my character) have failed.</blockquote>

Verification