Lord Pendragon
First Post
Re-reading this portion of my post, I thought it important to clarify something. It may seem like my system makes use of subjective definitions, even though I previously demanded an objective definition of Lawfulness. However, it's not so much that each player defines Lawful for his own PC, but rather that each character chooses the aspect of Lawful that his character particularly embodies. Just as I wouldn't consider a paladin to be commiting an evil act by withholding Mercy if his concept had always been Divine Wrath, I would not penalize the fighter for breaking laws, if his concept had always been Personal Discipline.Lord Pendragon said:One player may decide that his PC is lawful because he is, in fact, law-abiding. He believes that there must be Order in society, and going against that Order is wrong. So if he then does that, he's commited a Chaotic act. Then, if another character claims his character is Lawful because he's rational and disciplined, a uncharacteristic and emotion action would likely be Chaotic. Basically, the player defines how his character is Lawful.
As Elder-Basilisk pointed out, the alignments are filled with contrary concepts, even Good and Evil. Mercy vs. Justice, etc. etc. I do not shift a PCs alignment unless he acts contrarily to those aspects of his alignment he professed to follow. I don't hold him accountable for all aspects.