Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xyanthon" data-source="post: 3135107" data-attributes="member: 9181">I think Frank is right on with the whole definition of &quot;Good&quot; in a campaign.&nbsp; It seems that some folks try to apply modern values to a medieval mindset, which really just does not work.&nbsp; The knightly codes that paladinhood seems to be based on were certanly far from egalitarian and most people today would think that the knights and nobles of that period were horribly misogynistic.&nbsp; If you were not of the faith, not of a certain social standing, and not of a certain race, then in many cases you were no more than cattle.&nbsp; Not being viewed as human, knights did not have to pay the same sort of respect to serfs and slaves let alone saracens and the like.&nbsp; Yet the ideas enspoused by chivalry tend to be upheld as the very definition of what in game terms would be percieved as Lawful Good.&nbsp; So, I think that it is best from the outset to have players and the DM come to a consensus on what is good and evil in a campaign.&nbsp; Otherwise it is unfair to everyone when someone such as a paladin or cleric loses their abilities because the standard for good and evil were not properly defined.EDIT:So on topic, it should not be hard to be a paladin or any other such character as long as the moral underpinnings of the campaign are laid out up front.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xyanthon, post: 3135107, member: 9181"] I think Frank is right on with the whole definition of "Good" in a campaign. It seems that some folks try to apply modern values to a medieval mindset, which really just does not work. The knightly codes that paladinhood seems to be based on were certanly far from egalitarian and most people today would think that the knights and nobles of that period were horribly misogynistic. If you were not of the faith, not of a certain social standing, and not of a certain race, then in many cases you were no more than cattle. Not being viewed as human, knights did not have to pay the same sort of respect to serfs and slaves let alone saracens and the like. Yet the ideas enspoused by chivalry tend to be upheld as the very definition of what in game terms would be percieved as Lawful Good. So, I think that it is best from the outset to have players and the DM come to a consensus on what is good and evil in a campaign. Otherwise it is unfair to everyone when someone such as a paladin or cleric loses their abilities because the standard for good and evil were not properly defined. EDIT: So on topic, it should not be hard to be a paladin or any other such character as long as the moral underpinnings of the campaign are laid out up front. [/QUOTE]

Verification