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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7972920" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't know exactly what examples of fallen paladins you have in mind - but I'm imagining those who are deemed by GMs to be chaotic or even evil because they oppose (say) state-sanctioned slavery.But I don't think  that a morality of tradition and conformity - which LG undoubtedly is - has to affirm a fully content-neutral theory of obedience. Real-world natural law scholars do not. And nor does Gandalf in LotR - when Denethor goes mad and tries to kill himself and Faramir, Gandalf says the Steward that "others may contest your will, when it is turned to madness and evil" (p 886).This is a fundamental difference between traditional forms of government and modern legal forms of government. I think it is the imposition of those modern conceptions onto a fantasy set-up that generates the paladin issues you describe. But equally a lawful paladin won't just overthrow the realm and set up a republic. S/he should look to restore the honour and integrity of the received traditions - as Gandalf and Aragorn do, with the support of Imrahil and Eomer. Of course a GM can always set up the gameworld to make this impossible - but that is like the sort of case [USER=18]@Ruin Explorer[/USER] flagged upthread, of the GM making "simple" or romantic morality impossible.Anyone in the fiction who sincerely affirms that "the system" is more important than human wellbeing ("it's victims") is committed to LN, not LG. Again, if a game is set-up so thtat this distinciton between LN and LG is elided that would be perfectly fine, but (i) romantic fantasy will be hard to pull off, and (ii) the D&D alignment system will be a serious impediment, not an aid to good play.I was not talking about retaliation in pursuit of defence - which is unlawful in contemporary international law and I think immoral in most theories of just war, both classical and contemporary.I was talking about retributive violence ie the infliction of violence as just punishment. I don't think any modern scholars of just war accept this as a reason for warfare, but the classical theorists tended to. And for me this makes much more sense of what goes on in the default approach to D&D. The giants, orcs etc have done evil things - unjustified raiding, looting, killing, etc - and the PC heroes are inflicting justified punishment.I think the discussion will be enhanced by moving away from notions like genocide and considering to what extent the tropes of the game and genre are best served by adopting (in imagination) a conception of good that is more permissive than many contemporary conceptions: that (i) allows for retributibe violence being carried out by "vigilante" heroes; and (ii) allows for consensual infliction of lethal violence in the form of duels, jousts, and even perhaps some warfare between willing warbands.</blockquote>

Verification