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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6042725" data-attributes="member: 6668292">It kinda blends right in there. And no worries, I think you're being very intellectually honest when you engage me. I wasn't worried about it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That's all that the first 9 are; they're just traits that Lawful characters tend to have, not that they must have. Taking those into account, and your observation that he might not promote Lawful behavior in society, and your tally would become 8/14, which is 8 for Lawful, and 6 not for it. That's pretty close (and more generous than my reading, as I don't equate "helpful" with "reliable", and other bits I disagree with).Agreed on this one (though the Paladin, following his calling, probably has aligned his conscience [Chaotic] with his Oaths and the Code [Lawful]). But it's still marking 1 on the Chaotic checklist.I disagree. He doesn't like being judged by others in his faith. He bucked against it, and when the head Cleric tried to change things to get him expelled, Cedric paid for it. I'm sure he was taught and told not to do those things before that point, and he sure seemed to laugh off others judging him (which leads me to believe that he acted the same way before, when he was taught it was wrong -we are speaking of the personality presented).His lifestyle is based on it. He's living in a completely new way than his church recommends (in fact, it spoke against it) or teaches. It's clear that he values that over tradition. That's the point of this thread.Service is Lawful, yes. I'll give you that. But he's going to live how he wants, because it's fine. He deserves it. And if you don't like it, you can smiley-face off. It's all about his personal freedom.He's trying to make the Code as flexible as possible. He's adapting in combat and on the fly (dirty shots, setting the warlord up for Fireballs, etc.). He works with what he's got, and makes the best of his limitations. He tries to circumvent them as best he can (and in the case of the Code, without violating them). I think it's clear he favors flexibility and adaptation. Again, his lifestyle is based on that flexibility.That's just so far from what I think is obvious that I don't think we'll resolve our alignment debate. It's fairly obvious to me that he values both Law and Chaos to some degree, which is why I pegged him at Neutral, leaning Chaotic. However, you think he's straight Lawful, and I just can't get behind the reasoning. It just doesn't click with me.This is exactly how he died. He charged into battle, and didn't think he would get killed by the mob. And they killed him. He planned out the fight to some degree, but man was he ever reckless.Totally disagree. He knows how Good people are expected to act, and he blatantly disregards it and aggressively dismisses it when its brought up.Neutral Good: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. I think he obviously tries to do the best a Good person can do (he's a Paladin). He is devoted to helping others (in his way, but still helping them). It looks like he works with authority (the army), but he doesn't seem to be in their employ, and he'd probably fight against them if they were tyrannical. It seems to fit all around to some degree, while Lawful Good doesn't.Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. Cedric obviously follows his conscious (as Paladins should), and has little regard for what others expect of him (his lifestyle is based on this, as is the thread). He believes in Goodness and right (Paladin), but has little use for laws and regulations (seems to have a "live and let live" type of mentality, and didn't follow the teachings of the church). He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do (standing up against the warlord, or not yielding to the head Cleric of his church). He follows his own moral compass, which is Good, but may not agree with that of society (his whole lifestyle versus what the church -and maybe the soldiers- expect of a Paladin). He hits all of these notes dead on.You can resign. You might be imprisoned; so be it.Again, I only have the SRD right now, but let me hit two parts of it.Ex-PaladinsA paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.AtonementRestore ClassA paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.The Atonement spell specifically talks about bringing a Paladin back. This can only be done if the Paladin lost their class features due to committing an Evil act, and, again, my interpretation of "gross violation" would be along the lines of "conscious and voluntary disregard" of the Code. But, my point is that the Atonement spell only brings Paladin's back for Evil acts; not for violating the Code. If you lose your Paladin powers by knowingly acting against the Paladin Code, you cannot be Atoned.What scale am I using?I think that if it's disrespectful, yes. In the Two Towers movie, when Legolas asks if Gimli needs a box (to see the army over the wall), it was clearly not to disrespect him. It was a good-natured joke, and not an attempt to belittle or disrespect him. Such jokes would be fine. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification