Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 5799455" data-attributes="member: 71756">How would a non-epic cleric slay a deity off of their home plane? Why would a deity be physically present in a temple? Why would a lawful good deity order a cleric to kill someone for a minor offense? This seems like an absolutely absurd situation that totally misrepresents the idea of divine magic and alignments.I generally like this idea as I can see if representing both the "holy warrior" and "virtuous knight" archetypes quite well.Agreed on all points. Paladin seems more like the calling of an experienced adventurer, not someone just starting off on their adventures. And classes, while archetypal, should be capable of breaking out of their default archetype.Got to agree here. If anything, barbarians strike me as more lawful than anything else, since they have as much self-discipline and control as a monk does: it's just that control is put into a focused kind of feral rage, rather than into quasi-supernatural wuxia abilities. At the end of the day, though, both require a character with a great degree of self-control.Mind you, lawful does not necessarily equate to self-control - the inverse idea of chaotic characters as id-driven madmen is not a particularly good one - but if we're going to go down the route of combat style = alignment, then I can see barbarians qualifying for lawful as easily as chaotic.Honestly, barbarian is a silly idea for a class to begin with, based on racist ideas of the Germanic and Celtic warriors of antiquity, but since people want it I wouldn't deny them the option. I'd just like to see it fleshed out a bit more and perhaps reflavored as the berseker class others have described. There should be urban barbarians and rural fighters, too.How's this relevant? The nine-alignment system was never meant to represent a real-world code of ethics - that would have been far too controversial and subjective. It's meant to represent a spectrum as well as the kind of cosmic conflicts common to many mythologies. Good vs. evil, per the Abrahamic faiths, and law vs. chaos, which was more common to many of the polytheistic faiths of antiquity such as Babylonian or Norse mythology.Yes, the definitions can get muddy at times, but it is, IMO, a broader and more interesting take on morality than the black and white of good vs. evil or law vs. chaos on their own.Perhaps, but as another poster noted this provokes endless debates about what "Lawful" means. A handful of the endless tedious examples:The former definition makes no sense. Real-life samurai were very definitely lawful or at least were supposed to be. Fealty to your social superior was one of the highest virtues of bushido.I think mechanical alignment should be a supplemental option and flavored alignment a flavored option with the core books themselves. However, I agree that in general players should be allowed to play character they want to play. I see alignment as a tool a player can use to guide their roleplaying, not as a requirement or a straightjacket.Honor is a part of D&D "law," not its sole sum, any more than mercy is the sole sum of "good." It's an important component and a lawful character considers it to be a virtue, but it isn't the end-all of the alignment.I think you're probably right about this, actually. I think alignment appeals mostly to players who like to immerse themselves in the game's story and setting and is less appealing to those who'd rather just get on with the game.I'm entirely fine with paladins being, by default flavor, lawful good. And your suggestion seems like a good one, that the game would be flexible enough to allow characters who are playing as paladins but don't want to be LG to change that to reflect a different set of beliefs or values.However, I'd disagree that it would necessarily have to be a set of "lawful" beliefs or even a code of behavior precisely. A paladin (or whatever) could simply embody a particular outlook on the world. A chaotic paragon, for example, wouldn't obey a code of behavior detailing how to be "chaotic." That's lawful's shtick. Instead, they'd follow their own conscience, believing very strongly in principles like individuality and freedom, opposing all forms to enforce conformity or law.In other words, the CN paladin would be held to a higher standard of chaos than the LG paladin, but because of the difference in the two alignments the way they'd go about demonstrating that would be markedly different.Again, though, I'm fine with LG paladins being the default, so long as other options are available.This is how I see alignment in general, though I'm a bit more ambivalent about specific class restrictions.</blockquote>

Verification