Shattered Kingdoms

I vote no. If you aren't a goody goody two shoes, you have scrupulous. We don't need more gray area here.

Or it can be a chance to remove it. Curious on your definition of goody goody two shoes is, for whenever anyone tried to play one in SK they got curbstomped for going against the grain.

I'm still hung up on wanting that Pacifist alignment.

Okay, I know you're on vacation and all, but I p. much consider myself a Superman fanboi and this statement has been bothering me for a while now. Why, precisely, do not see the Superman from Man of Steel as qualifying as principled?

Well I realize this question wasn't directed to me but, if you compare superman from the comics, to the superman from man of steel, I'd have to say that this movie's superman is more prone to anger, decisions based on emotions and generally, is less concerned with being an exemplary good guy. He just has a code he follows and doesn't like these [REDACTED] from his old planet

He risks everything, with little concern for himself, to defend his adopted planet, the population of which he's not even sure he can trust but he believes in the potential of, against those who have stated a willingness to kill every single human on earth. He exercises restraint of using his strength even when it results in the death of someone personally important to him in order to protect the greater good of society. When faced with American soldiers that have (admittedly ineffectual) weaponry pointed at him, he simply continues to walk through them without violence, effectively bearing the brunt of their distrust and aggression without retaliation based on personal offense. He literally condemns his species to extinction in order to protect a people who are innocent of any crime excepting wanting to exist and live free. He makes every reasonable effort to stop Zod from continuing his murderous rampage without killing him, gives him every reasonable opportunity to stop trying to kill people, and only resorts to force when no other option presents itself. When he does take Zod's life, he mourns the necessity of it, and feels pain for the need to kill one to protect many.

I'm not sure a more perfect example of Principled, in the context of SK, could exist in film.

EDIT: As to your points about emotion-based decision making, there's only one church that invests Paladins that actually considers that sinful. The concept of righteous anger (i.e., anger in the face of evil) is actually fairly well enshrined as a principle tenet of one paladin faith, and not derided by the other.

Ignoring Grep, because that's a good policy regardless of topic, I'm going to add that as the player of Galthryn I think you're the last person qualified to comment on Light aura RP restrictions and the confines of such. I'm more interested to know where Dulrik sees the Man of Steel Superman deviating from the principles of light-aura RP in the context of SK. Since Principled exists basically at his sole discretion, I'd like to know where he thinks there's deviation and will be content wait until he's back from vacation for the answer.

I don't know about his character but I think Galthryn had good points. The killing superman did in the most recent movie was a blatantly out of whack with canon.... In the context of supermen, he is scrupulous while the rest are principled I think. Out of context I'd agree that he is principled for the reasons OA listed. Does that make sense?

The only life Superman took in Man of Steel was Zod's, and that was after repeated efforts to get him to stop his overt and real threat to human life without resorting to such. Superman in all his iterations has done the same (Doomsday's original appearance is a good example of that). There was literally no other way to stop Zod from killing people, so the choice became Zod or everyone else, and even in that situation Superman felt remorse for having to do it. In fact, in that movie, Superman repeatedly forsook pursuing an attack against the enemy to save what individual lives he could, and makes efforts to minimize any collateral casualties even while under fire from those he considers friendlies (even while they don't consider him a friendly.)

The Man of Steel Superman actually doesn't deviate from the original Superman context as far as many less versed in his storylines might think, and is very much in-line with New 52 Superman storylines in general. The main difference between old Superman and New 52 Superman is his lack of reverence for (subservience to?) the American Government.

Also, again, Galthryn's point mostly relies on the fact that righteous anger and emotion are bad things in the context of light alignments. They're not. The church of Alshain literally enshrines the idea of righteous anger against the evil. The church of Dulrik believes in the same within a certain disciplined confine. Only the church of Ain disdains emotion-based thinking, and that's more related to its church tenets than any restrictions of the principled alignment.

EDIT: A great example of the difference between Superman as Scrup and Superman as Princ is the difference between The Eradicator (the visored Superman during the Reign Of The Supermen saga) and Superman in general.