Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jdrakeh" data-source="post: 2709027" data-attributes="member: 13892">Perhaps not, but these are the two primary arguments that I've seen made for the definition of 'Lawful' on this thread. Again, though, this comes back to a fundamental failing of alignments and the Paladin's code as both are worded vaguely and open to multiple interpretations. Seriously, this thread has produced very little objective commentary, yet it's run on far longer than many far more productive threads here do. It's essentially de-evolved into to groups of people with very different interpretations of poorly-written rules trying to convince each other that they're right. The bottom line is that there is no written rule that clearly and concisely presents a solution to this situation (if there were, this thread wouldn't exist) - in the end, GM fiat must be applied to resolve the debacle. Which make me wonder... if alignments and the Paladin's code are so poorly worded as to cause this much debate without providing a clear solution, why then, do they exist at all?Isn't the purpose of rules to convey a point? Where these two rules are concerned, that point seems to have been lost amongst the explanation, as said rules have some people arguing that Paladins are characters charged to uphold the law (so long as it is just) while others are arguing that Paladins are the law (i.e., enforcers vs. vigilantes).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jdrakeh, post: 2709027, member: 13892"] Perhaps not, but these [i]are[/i] the two primary arguments that I've seen made for the definition of 'Lawful' on this thread. Again, though, this comes back to a fundamental failing of alignments and the Paladin's code as both are worded vaguely and open to multiple interpretations. Seriously, this thread has produced very little objective commentary, yet it's run on far longer than many far more productive threads here do. It's essentially de-evolved into to groups of people with [i]very different[/i] interpretations of poorly-written rules trying to convince each other that they're right. The bottom line is that there is no written rule that [i]clearly[/i] and [i]concisely[/i] presents a solution to this situation (if there were, this thread wouldn't exist) - in the end, GM fiat must be applied to resolve the debacle. Which make me wonder... if alignments and the Paladin's code are so poorly worded as to cause this much debate without providing a clear solution, why then, do they exist at all? Isn't the purpose of rules to convey a point? Where these two rules are concerned, that point seems to have been lost amongst the explanation, as said rules have some people arguing that Paladins are characters charged to [i]uphold[/i] the law (so long as it is just) while others are arguing that Paladins [i]are[/i] the law (i.e., enforcers vs. vigilantes). [/QUOTE]

Verification