Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5425279" data-attributes="member: 64209">Pemerton, you made some very, very good points. Points that made me rethink a portion of what I believe/am saying.&nbsp;Two things I neglected:&nbsp;1. There are different &quot;moralities&quot; and different &quot;paladins&quot;....a paladin of Sune will have very different standards and courses of action that are &quot;right&quot; than a paladin of Kord.&nbsp;2. This is a game and not an ethics seminar (I was a philosophy major specializing in ethics BTW...so they might be a bit more interchangeable/fun for me than others).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That said....&nbsp;I think, if we are to move forward with &quot;highly ethical characters&quot; just like &quot;highly tactical warriors&quot; then we need to understand what the boundaries are for both...in a codified way.&nbsp;&nbsp;So, here's my (admittedly, off the cuff) solution: If you have an &quot;extreme&quot; alignment or an &quot;ALIGNMENT!!!!&quot; as I stated earlier, what about these questions?&nbsp;1. What will you ALWAYS do? OR What will you ALWAYS fight for?2. What will you NEVER do? &nbsp;I balk at the idea that &quot;super good&quot; characters are overly free of moral restrictions...and submit that these restrictions can, and probably should be player derived. So, perhaps a code of conduct or player questionairre is in order?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In my opinion, which is swayed a bit, but not totally...if a character is &quot;super moral&quot; as I've suggested....they need a personal code of conduct. Just like a tactician, or fighter, or spellcaster....there need to be boundaries defined that are shared with the DM. These boundaries need not be &quot;rules&quot; per se...but could be a descriptive coda of action.&nbsp;In any case...it is totally reasonable for a paladin of justice and a paladin of beauty to go head to head...perhaps in their lawful goodness and zealotry to try to kill one another.&nbsp;But, in such a case, the DM should have a very good understanding of why such a thing is happening.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aberzanzorax, post: 5425279, member: 64209"] Pemerton, you made some very, very good points. Points that made me rethink a portion of what I believe/am saying. Two things I neglected: 1. There are different "moralities" and different "paladins"....a paladin of Sune will have very different standards and courses of action that are "right" than a paladin of Kord. 2. This is a game and not an ethics seminar (I was a philosophy major specializing in ethics BTW...so they might be a bit more interchangeable/fun for me than others). That said.... I think, if we are to move forward with "highly ethical characters" just like "highly tactical warriors" then we need to understand what the boundaries are for both...in a codified way. So, here's my (admittedly, off the cuff) solution: If you have an "extreme" alignment or an "ALIGNMENT!!!!" as I stated earlier, what about these questions? 1. What will you ALWAYS do? OR What will you ALWAYS fight for? 2. What will you NEVER do? I balk at the idea that "super good" characters are overly free of moral restrictions...and submit that these restrictions can, and probably should be player derived. So, perhaps a code of conduct or player questionairre is in order? In my opinion, which is swayed a bit, but not totally...if a character is "super moral" as I've suggested....they need a personal code of conduct. Just like a tactician, or fighter, or spellcaster....there need to be boundaries defined that are shared with the DM. These boundaries need not be "rules" per se...but could be a descriptive coda of action. In any case...it is totally reasonable for a paladin of justice and a paladin of beauty to go head to head...perhaps in their lawful goodness and zealotry to try to kill one another. But, in such a case, the DM should have a very good understanding of why such a thing is happening. [/QUOTE]

Verification