Pathfinder Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous - Game of the Year Edition

[Grunker]

Stoned Ape boring and basic bitch as it sounds (since this race was also spammed for Kingmaker builds), Motherless Tiefling is almost too perfect for that Feral Champ demon. Not only does it get the bite for free (as opposed to Half-Orc which has to pay a feat for it, or other options where you have to spend 1 or more class levels to get, like Mutation Warrior), it also gains +2 in both STR and main casting stat. Hard pressed to find an argument not to do MT tbh :D

Spending my evening after finishing up fitness looking at different MC options, and I must admit I'm getting more and more keen on your suggestion here. It looks really fun and is even pretty gish, and reading some non-spoilery mythic path overviews it looks like Demon is actually pretty fun. I've also never done Natural Weapons in Pathfinder despite having played like a billion P&P campaigns in the thing.

Awesome, glad to be of help!

Motherless looks perfect for the job, has everything you need to boost the strengths of the class and nothing that takes away from it.

Hope you have a lot of fun with it!

See my edit - isn't the MT's bite being a secondary attack kind of a big deal here?

EDIT: nevermind. Half-orc bite is also a secondary attack.

EDIT2: Double nevermind. Deadly Natural Weapons fixes the issue completely.

 

[Jaedar]

[disclaimer]d&d alignment debates are pointless and stupid[/disclaimer]

I mean they can be fun!

I think lawful is a stupid name. It should just have been order vs chaos.

Demon is actually pretty fun

Demon seems pretty cool, but it is often seen as the weakest and chaotic evil is dumb.

Also have an old Indiana Jones Archaeologist tripper lying around somewhere from an old Serpent’s campaign that I never got to level past 6 because the GM moved away, but I’m a bit worried about its scaling in WotR

I am pretty sure a lot of lategame enemies are outright immune (demons often have wings after all), even if you could match their CMD.

 

[Haplo]

(...) at least two front-line fighters, one of which should be mounted (could be the shield-basher, Gendarme Cavalier would fit well with feat requirements for that), and at least one ranged specialist who can do serious damage (I currently like a crossbow-shooting rogue/slayer type best for this job, but a Ranger also works well).

Apologies, but I'm always triggered by this. If making a mounted character, why invest a ton of feats to nerf one's damage output? When mounted, your pet is your shield...

Also crossbows are a bit unusual choice, considering you add neither Str or Dex to their damage. Explosive Fervor is very cool, but it's available in Act 5...

 

[Acrux]

It should just have been order vs chaos.

I agree that would make things more clear now, especially since most people aren't familiar with Three Hearts and Three Lions.

 

[Stoned Ape]

(...) at least two front-line fighters, one of which should be mounted (could be the shield-basher, Gendarme Cavalier would fit well with feat requirements for that), and at least one ranged specialist who can do serious damage (I currently like a crossbow-shooting rogue/slayer type best for this job, but a Ranger also works well).

Apologies, but I'm always triggered by this. If making a mounted character, why invest a ton of feats to nerf one's damage output? When mounted, your pet is your shield...

Also crossbows are a bit unusual choice, considering you add neither Str or Dex to their damage. Explosive Fervor is very cool, but it's available in Act 5...

The shield bash thing was because Grunker wanted a character with shield bash, and a Feral Champion, but I think you're missing out if you don't have at least one mounted character in the party if you're only playing through Wrath once. So I suggested that his shield bash character could be mounted because you can't get a Feral Champion a pet (except Bismuth, but I don't think he really counts).

Up until my last DLC run I've always used longbows for my sniper, but that time I used a heavy-crossbow wielding silvan trickster 10/slayer 6 and it worked out due to increased crit threat and cleaving shot. Damage output is lower per shot and you miss manyshot, but getting twice as many crits is great. I think you can even pick up Evercold during Act 3 of the main game if you have the expansion so that makes up for the missing shot (and you can do a move action and fire twice with it, which you can't with a normal bow).

 

[Jaedar]

, but I think you're missing out if you don't have at least one mounted character in the party if you're only playing through Wrath once

Why is that?

 

[Stoned Ape]

, but I think you're missing out if you don't have at least one mounted character in the party if you're only playing through Wrath once

Why is that?

Because it wasn't a feature in Kingmaker and it's interesting tactically to have a more mobile character to play with, especially in turn-based mode.

 

[Desiderius]

If it's wrong, does a Paladin of Torm stop being Lawful if he enters a land where something normally illegal is legal?

Nope. That’s my point, not yours.

How? I'm saying law means having strict principles you follow. So no - in my version, the Paladin would absolutely keep being Lawful when crossing borders, because that adherence to those principles do not change regardless of the law of the land. You're the one saying those principles must be named and are static/implicit to actual law i.e., Lawful is context-sensitive in your mind.

How old are you btw Desiderius?

Old enough to have stolen money from my grandmother to play coin-op Breakout when it first came out.

How old?

The law is the law whether some Paladin has it or not. It’s the radical subjectivity you don’t even know you’ve been conned into that’s context-specific, not the objective law that was around before you (and I) were born and will be after we’ve gone on to meet our (and it’s) Maker.

Delta S could give a fuck what a Paladin believes or what some tatted-up blue-hair with a fake PhD thinks, or more to the point refuses to.

 

[Desiderius]

(...) at least two front-line fighters, one of which should be mounted (could be the shield-basher, Gendarme Cavalier would fit well with feat requirements for that), and at least one ranged specialist who can do serious damage (I currently like a crossbow-shooting rogue/slayer type best for this job, but a Ranger also works well).

Apologies, but I'm always triggered by this. If making a mounted character, why invest a ton of feats to nerf one's damage output? When mounted, your pet is your shield...

Also crossbows are a bit unusual choice, considering you add neither Str or Dex to their damage. Explosive Fervor is very cool, but it's available in Act 5...

This is correct I think. The Feats spent on Shield Bash are better spent on Mounted Feats/Mobility. I’ve done it on Seelah because she starts with Shield Focus but I’m back to thinking she’s better off without the Mount with UMD instead of Mobility, which is too much of an uphill battle.

XBow is good for Spellstrike because wider crit range and there are some great procs on XBow so I’ve used it on Aru. Generally though you want to be going Large on Ranged so you naturally end up with a lot of STR.

 

[Jaedar]

, but I think you're missing out if you don't have at least one mounted character in the party if you're only playing through Wrath once

Why is that?

Because it wasn't a feature in Kingmaker and it's interesting tactically to have a more mobile character to play with, especially in turn-based mode.

Maybe? I find that with haste I can move as far as I want anyway. Admittedly being able to walk with mount and full attack with rider is really nice if you don't have a full attack on charge perk.

It’s the radical subjectivity you don’t even know you’ve been conned into that’s context-specific, not the objective law that was around before you (and I) were born and will be after we’ve gone on to meet our (and it’s) Maker.

I don't think pathfinder says lawful as being about objective law as imagined by Axis or Abadar or whatever. And it definately isn't saying lawful is about the presumably christian concept you are talking about. Don't bring your real life politics into this fantasy universe please, some of us are trying to roleplay and have fun.

 

[Grunker]

If it's wrong, does a Paladin of Torm stop being Lawful if he enters a land where something normally illegal is legal?

Nope. That’s my point, not yours.

How? I'm saying law means having strict principles you follow. So no - in my version, the Paladin would absolutely keep being Lawful when crossing borders, because that adherence to those principles do not change regardless of the law of the land. You're the one saying those principles must be named and are static/implicit to actual law i.e., Lawful is context-sensitive in your mind.

How old are you btw Desiderius?

Old enough to have stolen money from my grandmother to play coin-op Breakout when it first came out.

How old?

The law is the law whether some Paladin has it or not. It’s the radical subjectivity you don’t even know you’ve been conned into that’s context-specific, not the objective law that was around before you (and I) were born and will be after we’ve gone on to meet our (and it’s) Maker.

Delta S could give a fuck what a Paladin believes or what some tatted-up blue-hair with a fake PhD thinks, or more to the point refuses to.

It's fine that you've read The Closing of the American Mind, I have too. It's a great book with a lot of truth in it - Bloom was ahead of his time, really - though I do find some of it, like his musings on "modern" music, to be absolutely hilariously wrong (objectively, in fact, c wut i did thar?). Sperging about intellectual ideas about truth values and the growing cult of relativity in modern thinking doesn't make them any more relevant for a discussion about how the D&D alignment matrix was meant to be (or is most usefully) used to roleplay and make interesting characters. That's using pearls to adorn swine.

Moreover, to quote a movie: "Your majesty's in danger of seeming... a little stupid," when you wax poetic about how I, as a "kiddo", have been fooled by modernity into embracing radical subjectivity when not only do I fight the very concept every single day and get paid handsomely for the privilege - I also combat it on a volunteer level as a pundit who debates Danish academics about that subject. As any autist, instead of observing the world and reacting accordingly, you already constructed my views in your brain - and from a trivial debate about fucking D&D alignments, no less. If you want to be come off as a big stronk well-read intellectual, try not attempting to elevate pulp like D&D alignments into that sphere.

As for the discussion, your point is that you want Lawful to be imbued with inherent values, which is... fine, I guess, and I concede it doesn't have to be context-sensitive, but it unnecessarily limits the core purpose of the alignment system (= making and roleplaying interesting characters). If Lawful means adhering to a strict set of principles, it leads to you imagining what a given character might have as those very principles - rather than just adding the pre-purposed list of imbued Lawfulness to a character. And that's the purpose of our debate: how alignment is used most effectively and makes for the best games.

More importantly, though, your aloof jargon doesn't have the slightest relevance for this subject, and lets be honest; is absolutely laughable, which is ironic when the very purpose was to make you come off as a SERIOUS DUDE schooling the "kiddo" (which, incidentally, is why I asked you about the age you are so reluctant to divulge).

 

[ArchAngel]

(...) at least two front-line fighters, one of which should be mounted (could be the shield-basher, Gendarme Cavalier would fit well with feat requirements for that), and at least one ranged specialist who can do serious damage (I currently like a crossbow-shooting rogue/slayer type best for this job, but a Ranger also works well).

Apologies, but I'm always triggered by this. If making a mounted character, why invest a ton of feats to nerf one's damage output? When mounted, your pet is your shield...

Also crossbows are a bit unusual choice, considering you add neither Str or Dex to their damage. Explosive Fervor is very cool, but it's available in Act 5...

The shield bash thing was because Grunker wanted a character with shield bash, and a Feral Champion, but I think you're missing out if you don't have at least one mounted character in the party if you're only playing through Wrath once. So I suggested that his shield bash character could be mounted because you can't get a Feral Champion a pet (except Bismuth, but I don't think he really counts).

Up until my last DLC run I've always used longbows for my sniper, but that time I used a heavy-crossbow wielding silvan trickster 10/slayer 6 and it worked out due to increased crit threat and cleaving shot. Damage output is lower per shot and you miss manyshot, but getting twice as many crits is great. I think you can even pick up Evercold during Act 3 of the main game if you have the expansion so that makes up for the missing shot (and you can do a move action and fire twice with it, which you can't with a normal bow).

I turned that artists Cleric into my mounted character with Impossible Domain. Also gave him a Glaive and played him as melee character. As full priest he has access to good buff spells and with ability to turn his Domain abilities into swift actions he could self buff himself better then most gish characters.

 

[Desiderius]

, but I think you're missing out if you don't have at least one mounted character in the party if you're only playing through Wrath once

Why is that?

Because it wasn't a feature in Kingmaker and it's interesting tactically to have a more mobile character to play with, especially in turn-based mode.

Maybe? I find that with haste I can move as far as I want anyway. Admittedly being able to walk with mount and full attack with rider is really nice if you don't have a full attack on charge perk.

It’s the radical subjectivity you don’t even know you’ve been conned into that’s context-specific, not the objective law that was around before you (and I) were born and will be after we’ve gone on to meet our (and it’s) Maker.

I don't think pathfinder says lawful as being about objective law as imagined by Axis or Abadar or whatever. And it definately isn't saying lawful is about the presumably christian concept you are talking about. Don't bring your real life politics into this fantasy universe please, some of us are trying to roleplay and have fun.

Objective law isnt imagined lol, that’s the whole point. The garbage subjectivism you were taught is eating its own tail again right in front of you, and yet you cling to it as if your life depended on it. More like the opposite.

Second Law of Thermodynamics also doesn’t give a fuck about the petty anti-Xian animus (as if a Creator were only a Xian concept, who’s the gap-toothed parochial now?) you’ve had poured into your head in lieu of a decent education. The people who did that to you didnt have your best interests in mind. Back on topic it also makes for lousy writing, as can be seen in Wrath.

Without an objective world to be about what use are stories at all?

 

[Desiderius]

(...) at least two front-line fighters, one of which should be mounted (could be the shield-basher, Gendarme Cavalier would fit well with feat requirements for that), and at least one ranged specialist who can do serious damage (I currently like a crossbow-shooting rogue/slayer type best for this job, but a Ranger also works well).

Apologies, but I'm always triggered by this. If making a mounted character, why invest a ton of feats to nerf one's damage output? When mounted, your pet is your shield...

Also crossbows are a bit unusual choice, considering you add neither Str or Dex to their damage. Explosive Fervor is very cool, but it's available in Act 5...

The shield bash thing was because Grunker wanted a character with shield bash, and a Feral Champion, but I think you're missing out if you don't have at least one mounted character in the party if you're only playing through Wrath once. So I suggested that his shield bash character could be mounted because you can't get a Feral Champion a pet (except Bismuth, but I don't think he really counts).

Up until my last DLC run I've always used longbows for my sniper, but that time I used a heavy-crossbow wielding silvan trickster 10/slayer 6 and it worked out due to increased crit threat and cleaving shot. Damage output is lower per shot and you miss manyshot, but getting twice as many crits is great. I think you can even pick up Evercold during Act 3 of the main game if you have the expansion so that makes up for the missing shot (and you can do a move action and fire twice with it, which you can't with a normal bow).

I turned that artists Cleric into my mounted character with Impossible Domain. Also gave him a Glaive and played him as melee character. As full priest he has access to good buff spells and with ability to turn his Domain abilities into swift actions he could self buff himself better then most gish characters.

Frightful is a nonbo with Mounted, and you can use the Mythic you save on Abundant or Mythic Evo Focus for Archon’s and some good spells or Mythic Spell Pen for Prayer or Ever Ready since you’re Reach + Frightful/Righteous.

 

[ArchAngel]

If it's wrong, does a Paladin of Torm stop being Lawful if he enters a land where something normally illegal is legal?

Nope. That’s my point, not yours.

How? I'm saying law means having strict principles you follow. So no - in my version, the Paladin would absolutely keep being Lawful when crossing borders, because that adherence to those principles do not change regardless of the law of the land. You're the one saying those principles must be named and are static/implicit to actual law i.e., Lawful is context-sensitive in your mind.

How old are you btw Desiderius?

Old enough to have stolen money from my grandmother to play coin-op Breakout when it first came out.

How old?

The law is the law whether some Paladin has it or not. It’s the radical subjectivity you don’t even know you’ve been conned into that’s context-specific, not the objective law that was around before you (and I) were born and will be after we’ve gone on to meet our (and it’s) Maker.

Delta S could give a fuck what a Paladin believes or what some tatted-up blue-hair with a fake PhD thinks, or more to the point refuses to.

D&D and Pathfinder has little to do with real world. Laws made by mortals are also meaningless, there are primal forces at play here. And in this world Murder for money is evil, not chaotic. Murder for pleasure is Evil and Chaotic.

 

[ArchAngel]

(...) at least two front-line fighters, one of which should be mounted (could be the shield-basher, Gendarme Cavalier would fit well with feat requirements for that), and at least one ranged specialist who can do serious damage (I currently like a crossbow-shooting rogue/slayer type best for this job, but a Ranger also works well).

Apologies, but I'm always triggered by this. If making a mounted character, why invest a ton of feats to nerf one's damage output? When mounted, your pet is your shield...

Also crossbows are a bit unusual choice, considering you add neither Str or Dex to their damage. Explosive Fervor is very cool, but it's available in Act 5...

The shield bash thing was because Grunker wanted a character with shield bash, and a Feral Champion, but I think you're missing out if you don't have at least one mounted character in the party if you're only playing through Wrath once. So I suggested that his shield bash character could be mounted because you can't get a Feral Champion a pet (except Bismuth, but I don't think he really counts).

Up until my last DLC run I've always used longbows for my sniper, but that time I used a heavy-crossbow wielding silvan trickster 10/slayer 6 and it worked out due to increased crit threat and cleaving shot. Damage output is lower per shot and you miss manyshot, but getting twice as many crits is great. I think you can even pick up Evercold during Act 3 of the main game if you have the expansion so that makes up for the missing shot (and you can do a move action and fire twice with it, which you can't with a normal bow).

I turned that artists Cleric into my mounted character with Impossible Domain. Also gave him a Glaive and played him as melee character. As full priest he has access to good buff spells and with ability to turn his Domain abilities into swift actions he could self buff himself better then most gish characters.

Frightful is a nonbo with Mounted, and you can use the Mythic you save on Abundant or Mythic Evo Focus for Archon’s and some good spells or Mythic Spell Pen for Prayer or Ever Ready since you’re Reach + Frightful/Righteous.

I don't need Frightfull, he covers that slight Strenght loss by getting more attacks even after moving. And hitting stuff was not a huge problem when he can combine Divine Power and his sacred bonuses to attack or rerolling d20 and taking a better roll.

 

[Grunker]

If it's wrong, does a Paladin of Torm stop being Lawful if he enters a land where something normally illegal is legal?

Nope. That’s my point, not yours.

How? I'm saying law means having strict principles you follow. So no - in my version, the Paladin would absolutely keep being Lawful when crossing borders, because that adherence to those principles do not change regardless of the law of the land. You're the one saying those principles must be named and are static/implicit to actual law i.e., Lawful is context-sensitive in your mind.

How old are you btw Desiderius?

Old enough to have stolen money from my grandmother to play coin-op Breakout when it first came out.

How old?

The law is the law whether some Paladin has it or not. It’s the radical subjectivity you don’t even know you’ve been conned into that’s context-specific, not the objective law that was around before you (and I) were born and will be after we’ve gone on to meet our (and it’s) Maker.

Delta S could give a fuck what a Paladin believes or what some tatted-up blue-hair with a fake PhD thinks, or more to the point refuses to.

D&D and Pathfinder has little to do with real world. Laws made by mortals are also meaningless, there are primal forces at play here. And in this world Murder for money is evil, not chaotic. Murder for pleasure is Evil and Chaotic.

Desi’s logical fallacy is much more obvious and banal: it’s his inability to understand that how one uses D&D alignment as a tool for making characters doesn’t have to have any relation to one’s ethics or ontological conceptions (and I can’t even fucking believe my life now includes me writing that sentence).

As far as autism goes, I will grant that it excels in so far as it has managed to surprise me with a new brand when I thought I had seen all of its forms on the Codex already.

 

[Rhobar121]

Actually, the mount is the only tank you need, even for unfair.
Horse can be enought, although other choices are definitely better. The most I could get up to 75 ac outside combat with elk.
I don't count bonuses like fighting defensively or crane styles that work only in combat.
Due to the fact that I play TT, AC should be even higher on the base game.

 

[Haplo]

(...) at least two front-line fighters, one of which should be mounted (could be the shield-basher, Gendarme Cavalier would fit well with feat requirements for that), and at least one ranged specialist who can do serious damage (I currently like a crossbow-shooting rogue/slayer type best for this job, but a Ranger also works well).

Apologies, but I'm always triggered by this. If making a mounted character, why invest a ton of feats to nerf one's damage output? When mounted, your pet is your shield...

Also crossbows are a bit unusual choice, considering you add neither Str or Dex to their damage. Explosive Fervor is very cool, but it's available in Act 5...

The shield bash thing was because Grunker wanted a character with shield bash, and a Feral Champion, but I think you're missing out if you don't have at least one mounted character in the party if you're only playing through Wrath once. So I suggested that his shield bash character could be mounted because you can't get a Feral Champion a pet (except Bismuth, but I don't think he really counts).

Up until my last DLC run I've always used longbows for my sniper, but that time I used a heavy-crossbow wielding silvan trickster 10/slayer 6 and it worked out due to increased crit threat and cleaving shot. Damage output is lower per shot and you miss manyshot, but getting twice as many crits is great. I think you can even pick up Evercold during Act 3 of the main game if you have the expansion so that makes up for the missing shot (and you can do a move action and fire twice with it, which you can't with a normal bow).

I turned that artists Cleric into my mounted character with Impossible Domain. Also gave him a Glaive and played him as melee character. As full priest he has access to good buff spells and with ability to turn his Domain abilities into swift actions he could self buff himself better then most gish characters.

Frightful is a nonbo with Mounted, and you can use the Mythic you save on Abundant or Mythic Evo Focus for Archon’s and some good spells or Mythic Spell Pen for Prayer or Ever Ready since you’re Reach + Frightful/Righteous.

I don't need Fightfull, he covers that slight Strenght loss by getting more attacks even after moving. And hitting stuff was not a huge problem when he can combine Divine Power and his sacred bonuses to attack or rerolling d20 and taking a better roll.

Frightful would work fine on a horse with Animal Growth.
In TTT I think the size buffs for other animals are fixed too. Otherwise there's the option of LP on mount.

 

[Haplo]

Ok, this is fun


Also there's a +10 Mobility belt in the Hellknight Outpost!

 

[Desiderius]

Ok, this is fun


Also there's a +10 Mobility belt in the Hellknight Outpost!

Skeleton sells it in DLC as well.

 

[Desiderius]

D&D and Pathfinder has little to do with real world. Laws made by mortals are also meaningless, there are primal forces at play here. And in this world Murder for money is evil, not chaotic. Murder for pleasure is Evil and Chaotic.

Desi’s logical fallacy is much more obvious and banal: it’s his inability to understand that how one uses D&D alignment as a tool for making characters doesn’t have to have any relation to one’s ethics or ontological conceptions (and I can’t even fucking believe my life now includes me writing that sentence).

As far as autism goes, I will grant that it excels in so far as it has managed to surprise me with a new brand when I thought I had seen all of its forms on the Codex already.

The thing about the ontological is that it doesn't go away just because you want it to. Most of us develop a sense of object permanance somewhere around two or three. Talk about retarded.

There are laws that aren't made by mortals. That's my whole point. I don't know what's more amazing - your utter inability to wrap your head around the very concept or the arrogant ignorance that flows out of that inability.

The ethics I'm referring to are not "one's" or even "many's", they just are. There is a world beyond and before anyone's conceptions.

The ultimate irony is a bunch of Bishop Berkeley's strutting around full of themselves about how post-Christian they are for owning the lone defender of Enlightenment epistemology.

 

[IllusiveBrian]

I don't really know much about Pathfinder's lore, but I was under the impression that while Hellknights would generally abide by the laws of the jurisdiction they are in, they will still treat The Measure and the Chain as their supreme law, including some provisions which allow them to overthrow an otherwise legal ruler. It also seems unlikely to me that if an army from Hell decided to invade Elysium that they would feel obligated to follow any of Desna's rules.

There are laws that aren't made by mortals. That's my whole point.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, but just because Demons are still subject to the laws of gravity doesn't make them lawful.

 

[Grunker]

D&D and Pathfinder has little to do with real world. Laws made by mortals are also meaningless, there are primal forces at play here. And in this world Murder for money is evil, not chaotic. Murder for pleasure is Evil and Chaotic.

Desi’s logical fallacy is much more obvious and banal: it’s his inability to understand that how one uses D&D alignment as a tool for making characters doesn’t have to have any relation to one’s ethics or ontological conceptions (and I can’t even fucking believe my life now includes me writing that sentence).

As far as autism goes, I will grant that it excels in so far as it has managed to surprise me with a new brand when I thought I had seen all of its forms on the Codex already.

The thing about the ontological is that it doesn't go away just because you want it to. Most of us develop a sense of object permanance somewhere around two or three. Talk about retarded.

There are laws that aren't made by mortals. That's my whole point. I don't know what's more amazing - your utter inability to wrap your head around the very concept or the arrogant ignorance that flows out of that inability.

The ethics I'm referring to are not "one's" or even "many's", they just are. There is a world beyond and before anyone's conceptions.

The ultimate irony is a bunch of Bishop Berkeley's strutting around full of themselves about how post-Christian they are for owning the lone defender of Enlightenment epistemology.

No, the point is that even if I completely embraced and subsequently swallowed your pseudointellectual christianitybabble as an undeniable fact of reality, it wouldn’t have anything to do with how to best utilize D&D’s alignment matrix you fucking wacko

 

[Desiderius]

If it's wrong, does a Paladin of Torm stop being Lawful if he enters a land where something normally illegal is legal?

Nope. That’s my point, not yours.

How? I'm saying law means having strict principles you follow. So no - in my version, the Paladin would absolutely keep being Lawful when crossing borders, because that adherence to those principles do not change regardless of the law of the land. You're the one saying those principles must be named and are static/implicit to actual law i.e., Lawful is context-sensitive in your mind.

How old are you btw Desiderius?

Old enough to have stolen money from my grandmother to play coin-op Breakout when it first came out.

How old?

The law is the law whether some Paladin has it or not. It’s the radical subjectivity you don’t even know you’ve been conned into that’s context-specific, not the objective law that was around before you (and I) were born and will be after we’ve gone on to meet our (and it’s) Maker.

Delta S could give a fuck what a Paladin believes or what some tatted-up blue-hair with a fake PhD thinks, or more to the point refuses to.

It's fine that you've read The Closing of the American Mind, I have too. It's a great book with a lot of truth in it - Bloom was ahead of his time, really - though I do find some of it, like his musings on "modern" music, to be absolutely hilariously wrong (objectively, in fact, c wut i did thar?). Sperging about intellectual ideas about truth values and the growing cult of relativity in modern thinking doesn't make them any more relevant for a discussion about how the D&D alignment matrix was meant to be (or is most usefully) used to roleplay and make interesting characters. That's using pearls to adorn swine.

Moreover, to quote a movie: "Your majesty's in danger of seeming... a little stupid," when you wax poetic about how I, as a "kiddo", have been fooled by modernity into embracing radical subjectivity when not only do I fight the very concept every single day and get paid handsomely for the privilege - I also combat it on a volunteer level as a pundit who debates Danish academics about that subject. As any autist, instead of observing the world and reacting accordingly, you already constructed my views in your brain - and from a trivial debate about fucking D&D alignments, no less. If you want to be come off as a big stronk well-read intellectual, try not attempting to elevate pulp like D&D alignments into that sphere.

As for the discussion, your point is that you want Lawful to be imbued with inherent values, which is... fine, I guess, and I concede it doesn't have to be context-sensitive, but it unnecessarily limits the core purpose of the alignment system (= making and roleplaying interesting characters). If Lawful means adhering to a strict set of principles, it leads to you imagining what a given character might have as those very principles - rather than just adding the pre-purposed list of imbued Lawfulness to a character. And that's the purpose of our debate: how alignment is used most effectively and makes for the best games.

More importantly, though, your aloof jargon doesn't have the slightest relevance for this subject, and lets be honest; is absolutely laughable, which is ironic when the very purpose was to make you come off as a SERIOUS DUDE schooling the "kiddo" (which, incidentally, is why I asked you about the age you are so reluctant to divulge).

Bloom lol.

You’re so far in over your head.