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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3201978" data-attributes="member: 30001">Which IRL perhaps is debateable.  But in DnD, the alignment system pretty clearly states that this is not the case.  Any paladin in a standard campaign is going to have to explain a hobgoblin's alignment and behavior if he tries to suggest that orderliness leads to goodness.  If his priority is goodness, then the moral superiority that he feels over a Chaotic Good person has no justification because a Chaotic Good person could clearly demonstrate, by use of divination spells or equivalent (handling a magic item that causes damage to non-good) that he is as Good as the paladin.On a more subtle level, if the paladin's faith confines itself only to opinions about building roads, then one has to ask exactly what a paladin of Wee Jas gets out of his membership in the organization.  It's hard to imagine that the Doctrine of Wee Jas specifies that building roads is good but doesn't discuss the moral issues underlying that.  "Build roads, my children, for reasons that I refrain from discussing so as not to upset my Lawful Evil followers."And if it does discuss those moral principles, then how are those principles not in conflict with Lawful Evil?  Seems to me that putting a priority on "shelter and medicine" for a bunch of commoners is at odds with the definition of Lawful Evil.  This is one of my issues with the DnD alignment system.  There's no need to talk about "good" when you've got Good to work with.  'Good' isn't ambiguous in a DMs campaign - if it were then a paladins adherence to the alignment would be impossible to determine.  'Good' is detectable through magic - or observable by it's interaction with other alignment forces.  In DnD, 'Good' is as tangible and unambiguous as gravity.</blockquote>

Verification