Quote:
Originally Posted by
Larpus
The main problem I have with the alignment system...actually, D&D in general is that everything is very binary in nature.
Things either are or aren't. You either succeeded or failed. Stuff like that.
Don't wanna dwell in rant, so I'll keep to the matter at hand.
I'm not saying that the division of Law vs. Chaos or Good vs. Evil is my problem, but rather that fact that if you're evil, you're evil, the end.
Yes, "things are or are not evil" is simplistic. But I'm not sure that Keith Baker's solution - that people can be both good
Quote:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
The only thing I can think of is that people get confused with the real-life paladins, the palatial servants were supposed to be the epitome of knighthood and protectors of the weak. The code does mention helping non-chaotic, non-evil innocents . . . but those are pretty notable exceptions, and in any remotely realistic society large numbers of the downtrodden are going to be excluded because of them. That peasant who couldn't render his proper taxes to his lord last year? Out. The bum who steals bread to live? Out. That squatter who lives in a condemned building because he can't afford real housing? Out. Those are all acts in defiance of the law, and the people are persisting in those conditions. The paladin isn't required to help them, and by the rules maybe