jrizz, it wasn't so much "that's silly, of course you can't just write that you did that!!" and pointing out how ridiculous it was, but more, "I don't think that's a good comparison, since it was not suggested that the evil equivalent was any less ridiculous." So it just didn't seem to have a lot of purpose, is all.
Lonn, the faction thing seems more the fault of that in fantasy, there exist undeniably inherently evil races at all, not necessarily the wanton extermination of them. They're more like the invading aliens of shock-scifi, than just different looking humans who are horribly oppressed. When it doesn't cross the fantasy line, still just because factions both scream evil at each other doesn't mean either of them are good, with how the system is meant to be used. I mean, a paladin say, killing a good, innocent drow in cold blood has committed an evil act...it's just that there much is rarely such thing as an innocent drow in fantasy-land, unlike how things would really be.
They've made everything nice and clear cut for everyone, and ensured that when slaying evil monsters, a paladin will almost always be justified - it's an issue of both annoyance and relief, really. On the one hand, a little too clear cut and simply not how things work in life, but on the other, most people do play to get away from some aspects of life, after all. It's much more relaxing to be justified in hatred and always have an enemy you're allowed to kill on sight and not romp through all social issues of years past, I'm sure. Instead, love each other, hate the orcs! Everyone knows that humankind gets along a lot better once the invading squids come.
Fantasy humans are light years ahead of the real world when it comes to accepting other cultures and colors of their own species! Rather than touch that, they made goblins and orcs!
And really, adhering to the laws and taboos of one's society in D&D is more covered by being Lawful, anyway... a man might slay an orc from the land of good orcs no on knew about, on sight according to the guides of social acceptance in his neck of the woods without so much as a warning... it's not really about morals anymore at that point. Killing a child of an opposite faction is not really about morals anymore. What is perceived as a necessity of war is rarely considered pure and good in all senses of the words, right?
And I dunno jrizz, stepping out of dogma is far more important than stepping out of alignment, for a cleric. If one's dogma is essentially to be righteous defender of a particular moral stance, then technically breaking dogma and breaking alignment go hand in hand, but still the order is the other way around.
They are not meant to be prisons that you are punished for venturing out of. Few people are their alignments 'all the time.' It represents a trend of actions, and for a character of a LG mindset, the act of slipping to a side alignment in a single act on a bad day is in itself a 'ding' because it is against what he believes. "I broke that law, I should not have done that, I have failed in my duty," and all that junk, unless it is a divine character and in breaking a law he broke a point of dogma and it came with divine consequences. A LE character gets sick and disgusted with pent up rage at having to tolerate or even praise the lesser men around him without doing as he wishes and putting them all to the torch. For now. Or something.
They're guidelines. Not strongboxes. To stay on the road and in the right mindset and all that. Venture too far out of it and you don't really have the same character anymore, because trends are slow to change.
I ran out of croissants to fuel my essays and feel that I've dissolved into disjointed rambling (moreso than usual) aloud (sort of), so I'm done too until future boxes are delivered. *nods a few times*
