Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7976360" data-attributes="member: 42582">It seems pretty much a matter of definition that means get their value simply from their ability to contribute to valuable ends.This common-sense notion is exmplefied both in standard remarks about the ends justifying the means- which are typically produced when the means in some fashion undercut the ends - and also in Bertrand Russell's famous retort when someone said this to him (&quot;What else would?&quot;).As Gygax says (PHB p 35): characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts (ie law and order) to improve the common weal.They don't value law and order in-and-of themselves.The reason a paladin must avoid chaotic acts is because the paladin believes that engaging in such acts will undermine the improvement of the common weal, by undermining the necessary means thereto. Chaotic acts aren't objectionable per se.As I posted upthread, and was discussing with [USER=6993955]@Fenris-77[/USER], I think your move from not internal to external in the mode of external laws is too swift. It's as if there are no options but conscience or external law. But in a FRPG, which in its tropes expressly eschews modernity, we should be looking at the social, that is, tradition and custom as the lived experiences of the people. Particularly in the context of LG, because then - even if one personally doesn't agree in the real world - one can see straight away (eg keeping in mind authors like Burke and Ruskin) the connection between upholding such traditions and customs and ensuring the common weal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7976360, member: 42582"] It seems pretty much a matter of definition that means get their value simply from their ability to contribute to valuable ends. This common-sense notion is exmplefied both in standard remarks about [I]the ends justifying the means[/I]- which are typically produced when the means in some fashion undercut the ends - and also in Bertrand Russell's famous retort when someone said this to him ("What else would?"). As Gygax says (PHB p 35): [I]characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts (ie law and order) to improve the common weal.[/I]They don't value law and order in-and-of themselves. The reason a paladin must avoid chaotic acts is because the paladin believes that engaging in such acts will undermine the improvement of the common weal, by undermining the necessary means thereto. Chaotic acts aren't objectionable per se. As I posted upthread, and was discussing with [USER=6993955]@Fenris-77[/USER], I think your move from [I]not internal [/I]to [I]external in the mode of external laws [/I]is too swift. It's as if there are no options but [I]conscience [/I]or[I] external law[/I]. But in a FRPG, which in its tropes expressly eschews modernity, we should be looking at [I]the social[/I], that is, tradition and custom as the lived experiences of the people. Particularly in the context of LG, because then - even if one personally doesn't agree in the real world - one can see straight away (eg keeping in mind authors like Burke and Ruskin) the connection between [I]upholding such traditions and customs[/I] and [I]ensuring the common weal[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification