1.) Lawful is not predictable. Lawful implies RELIABLE, meaning that once they've decided to be on someone's side they're THERE, but it doesn't mean said Lawful person will react the same way to any similar situation.
2.) How so? It doesn't really seem like any sort of "aligned" statement whatsoever. If you believe killing is wrong that's what your stance is gonna be, regardless of alignment.
Though if I remember correctly the more accurate translation is "Thou shalt not murder" which puts in firmly into the "good" category for me. You may kill, but only with cause.
The CG paladin doesn't believe in code-for-the-sake-of-code. If that's what you mean by "the CG Paladin doesn't believe in the code" then that's true. But I don't think that's what you intend because otherwise the paladin would swear to any old code - the paladin has to believe that the contents of his specific code are good.
I almost have to believe you are being willfully disingenuous here. You brought up not believing in the code, I said by your logic the chaotic believes less in the code. The Paladin does not follow A code because its a code, a Paladin follows THE code because the code is good (the code clearly being the Paladin's code).
The CG paladin does believe, just like the LG paladin, that the individual statements contained in the code are each good and that each should be followed even if it's difficult or means personal sacrifice. They don't believe in the concept of "code" but they do believe in its contents it's not coincidence that they happen to follow it.
We apparently see lawful and chaotic differently. Lawful represents trying to approach life in a set manner. To a LG Paladin this is the code (again the Paladin's code). Even if your "CG" Paladin follows a personal code that exactly matches the Paladin's code (even if you take out "respect authority") it is still following a code. You're approaching life in a set way. Chaotic is about being flexible, adaptable. Following a code is Not adapting. It is doing it the same way every time.
Does it really matter if he believes in code-for-the-sake-of-code? Not by RAW. The (LG) paladin doesn't fall for not believing that codes are a good thing, they fall for not acting as the code describes.
You cannot argue RAW. RAW is Paladins are Lawful Good. RAW, you lose.
At most not believing in code-for-the-sake-of-code would make a CG paladin slightly more likely to fall than a LG one because the CG paladin is more likely to question the code thus break it in those rare situations in which it's not a no-brainer to follow it. But a paladin of Abadar would also be slightly more likely to fall than a paladin of Iomedae because the former follows a LN deity whose teachings tolerate evil such as slavery, and that doesn't mean that paladins of Abadar are disallowed.
Again, I feel someone that doesn't believe in the code is not following the code. I see a difference between the Paladin following a code and the Cleric's code of conduct. As far your deity questions, I don't know. I don't use them and do not know their beliefs. Slavery is evil. A nation that allowed slavery would be evil and thus not a "legitimate" authority.
1.) "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability."
2.) Rules are not completely the purview of the Lawful, that's what some of us have been trying to get through some others' thick skulls. Chaotic does not mean "spastic" or "out of control" or "inconsistent", at all.
The reason "Don't murder" is a good statement and not a Lawful one is because whereas "kill" refers to the ending of life, so "Don't kill" is an arbitrary, inflexible rule, "murder" refers to a very specific kind of killing: Unjustified killing of a sentient creature.
Then you probably shouldn't talk philosophy at all. Everyone has a different foundation in it.
On a completely different note, the curse of the Paladin strikes again in my game. One of my players is adamant in saying a Vishkanya Paladin/Trapper Ranger (a proposed character for our game from a new player) is impossible since traps are dishonest and Vishkanya are toxic.
What say you, people of the board?
|
Then you probably shouldn't talk philosophy at all. Everyone has a different foundation in it.
On a completely different note, the curse of the Paladin strikes again in my game. One of my players is adamant in saying a Vishkanya Paladin/Trapper Ranger (a proposed character for our game from a new player) is impossible since traps are dishonest and Vishkanya are toxic.
What say you, people of the board?
I say that if Reginald Cormoth, the lawful good paladin leader of the Eagle Knights of Andoren can play "Undercover Boss" with his subordinates, then a paladin can lay a trap.
|
I prefer a code with clear fall conditions, because it makes it clear exactly what the paladin believes in.
No you don't. The code clearly mirrors the description of Lawful behavior and you take issue with it.
It is very clear what the Paladin believes in, spreading divine justice and embodying the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
And you seem to hate that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then you probably shouldn't talk philosophy at all. Everyone has a different foundation in it.
On a completely different note, the curse of the Paladin strikes again in my game. One of my players is adamant in saying a Vishkanya Paladin/Trapper Ranger (a proposed character for our game from a new player) is impossible since traps are dishonest and Vishkanya are toxic.
What say you, people of the board?
The traps are fine (assuming either non-lethal or only used when supervised as you can argue it is the more humane way to deal with, yadda, yadda...) and being toxic doesn't mean you have to use it.
As to the argument about what Chaotic means and doesn't, we can look to the book (And I will keep doing this, because it is the reference point to use, not personal opinion...)
"Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."
...
"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
And more specifically...
"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.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit."
Which, if read, should end the debate regarding "Is" and move the debate to "should". Then, once the debate is about "Should", it strongly makes the case that the base concept is fundamentally incompatible with the chaotic alignment.
Then, if somone wants to make a "Robin Hood" style "Paladin-like" archetype or class, fine.
But don't call it a paladin, as a) It ain't a paladin and b) It would probably resent being lumped in with paladins.
Case in point.
"Thou shalt not kill"
Is this a good statement, or a lawful statement?
If you can't answer that "lawful" then you really don't understand alignment.
"Thou Shalt not Kill" isn't hebrew. King James and other translators were really bad reading ancient hebrew.
A direct translation is "Thou Shalt not Murder"
|
... let's put this another way. Chaotic means, not insane, but unpredictable. Lawful means predictable.
This may describe chaotic behaviour, but it certainly does not describe chaotic alignment!
When talking about philosophical alignment, chaos believes that the rights of the individual should trump the rights of the state, and lawful means that the rights of the state should trump the rights of the individual.
Believing in personal freedom would in no way force a chaotic person to break such a loose code that is the paladin's code.
The traps are fine (assuming either non-lethal or only used when supervised as you can argue it is the more humane way to deal with, yadda, yadda...) and being toxic doesn't mean you have to use it.
As to the argument about what Chaotic means and doesn't, we can look to the book (And I will keep doing this, because it is the reference point to use, not personal opinion...)
"Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."
...
"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
And more specifically...
"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.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit."
Which, if read, should end the debate regarding "Is" and move the debate to "should". Then, once the debate is about...
Dude just copy this and keep pasting it. Eventually it will sink in.
|
|
Even if your "CG" Paladin follows a personal code that exactly matches the Paladin's code (even if you take out "respect authority") it is still following a code. You're approaching life in a set way. Chaotic is about being flexible, adaptable.
I'm looking at the code, and it doesn't force you to 'approach life in a set way', nor does it prevent you from 'following it' by adapting something new in a flexible way to satisfy the code.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
(I've removed 'lawful' here, and I'll change the 'respect authority' line, to show the code that a paladin of 'any good' alignment must follow)
Staying good aligned does not require a 'set approach to life' that is incompatible with a chaotic alignment, and not committing a singe evil act is all about the good/evil axis, not the law/chaos axis.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect the forces of good,
Hardly a set approach. The way you show respect is not scripted; it's entirely up to you.
act with honour,
There are so many variations of 'honour' that obeying this restriction is not 'a set approach' that cannot be deviated from.
help those in need
You can help them any way you like! Just make reasonably sure they won't use that help to do evil.
and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Any. Way. You. Like.
|
I prefer a code with clear fall conditions, because it makes it clear exactly what the paladin believes in.No you don't. The code clearly mirrors the description of Lawful behavior and you take issue with it.
It is very clear what the Paladin believes in, spreading divine justice and embodying the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
And you seem to hate that.
Let me clarify: I like that individual paladins and paladin orders have codes with clear fall conditions, because it makes it clear what that individual paladin or order believes in. I do not like having a single very objective and very specific code that must be applied to all paladins in all campaign settings because that constitutes Paizo enforcing their moral opinions on my game. Whether a particular grey-area act is evil (killing a helpless but unrepentant evil foe) and what exactly is dishonourable (suidice? fleeing from battle? striking a woman?) ought to be up to the paladin's player and the GM to decide. So is what constitutes a legitimate authority (legally recognized? non-evil?). This is one reason why I like what Faiths of Purity did - they added a few more specific but optional codes that helped clarify exactly what the paladins of particular gods stood for (while maintaining broader standards for all paladins).
Seriously, just do what you want to do. Argue with your GM that you should be able to be a CG paladin. But don't expect Paizo to allow it, or PFS, or most other GM's you encounter. And certainly don't expect everybody here to agree with you, though obviously some do. We've established that this is an argument between people with different philosophical bases, and as such, is no argument at all since there's no common ground in between from which an understanding can be build. Let's just agree to go our own ways.
The whole don't expect PFS or Paizo to ever allow anything still infers you think your arguement is an absolute and that the option itself is out of the question and wrong. Having an RAW option isn't that awful is it?
|
|
I almost have to believe you are being willfully disingenuous here. You brought up not believing in the code, I said by your logic the chaotic believes less in the code. The Paladin does not follow A code because its a code, a Paladin follows THE code because the code is good (the code clearly being the Paladin's code).
I'm not being willfully disingenuous here, I was legitimately confused about your position. I'm not sure why a CG paladin would believe less in the code than a LG one unless it was because you believe that a paladin must believe that codes are an inherent good.
THE code has changed over iterations of the game. AD&D has rules on the wealth a paladin was allowed to obtain (excess had to be refused or donated to LG causes) and required that they tithe to their church. It could change further to replace the "respect authority" line which is the only anti-chaotic sentiment.
We apparently see lawful and chaotic differently. Lawful represents trying to approach life in a set manner. To a LG Paladin this is the code (again the Paladin's code). Even if your "CG" Paladin follows a personal code that exactly matches the Paladin's code (even if you take out "respect authority") it is still following a code. You're approaching life in a set way. Chaotic is about being flexible, adaptable. Following a code is Not adapting. It is doing it the same way every time.
No, it's about doing the same general thing every time. The only part of the paladin's code that specifies *how* is "be honourable - act with honour." The rest of it is *what* the paladin ought to do in whatever way he likes.
Adaptability and flexibility doesn't mean not sticking to your moral convictions, it's just about how you prefer to plan. A good way to think about it is a Judging vs Perceiving difference. Lawful characters like to make decisions and plan ahead. They like to make lists of tasks. Chaotic characters prefer to keep plans to a minimum and keep their options open in case the situation changes. But that doesn't mean that they are willing to abandon their moral convictions - or that they necessarily believe the ends justify the means - just that they're willing to improvise more within the range of actions they consider ethically acceptable.
The lawful attitude says "There weren't supposed to be guards here, I guess we have to call off the mission."
The chaotic attitude says "That's OK, I'll distract them and you just go ahead with the mission. My trained monkey can do the lockpicking bits instead of me."
The chaotic attitude does not necessarily say "That's fine, I'll just go ahead and kill them all even though they're innocent."
You cannot argue RAW. RAW is Paladins are Lawful Good. RAW, you lose.
I'm trying to point out that many of the arguments in favour of lawfulness being an inseparable part of the paladin (not just a RAW part) are not actually supported by the rest of RAW. A paladin is neither required to submit to a deity's judgement nor to think that codes are inherently good, so these things cannot be valid reasons for a lawful requirement on paladins. It's about the fact that there's no huge web of RAW that would be torn apart by CG paladins, just one or two lonely threads.
As far your deity questions, I don't know. I don't use them and do not know their beliefs. Slavery is evil. A nation that allowed slavery would be evil and thus not a "legitimate" authority.
The LN deity Abadar believes that slavery is acceptable in the interests of commerce, and thus a paladin of Abadar would experience some conflict between their religious beliefs and their code. They would have to put the code first or fall, but the conflict is similar to the one a CG paladin might feel on the very rare occasions where the code disagreed with their personal conscience, meaning that the latter conflict should not prohibit CG paladins.
|
|
Let me clarify: I like that individual paladins and paladin orders have codes with clear fall conditions, because it makes it clear what that individual paladin or order believes in. I do not like having a single very objective and very specific code that must be applied to all paladins in all campaign settings because that constitutes Paizo enforcing their moral opinions on my game. Whether a particular grey-area act is evil (killing a helpless but unrepentant evil foe) and what exactly is dishonourable (suidice? fleeing from battle? striking a woman?) ought to be up to the paladin's player and the GM to decide. So is what constitutes a legitimate authority (legally recognized? non-evil?). This is one reason why I like what Faiths of Purity did - they added a few more specific but optional codes that helped clarify exactly what the paladins of particular gods stood for (while maintaining broader standards for all paladins).I prefer a code with clear fall conditions, because it makes it clear exactly what the paladin believes in.No you don't. The code clearly mirrors the description of Lawful behavior and you take issue with it.
It is very clear what the Paladin believes in, spreading divine justice and embodying the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
And you seem to hate that.
And I like a rule book that is a book rather than a volume of books.
The code is basically the description of Lawful because, surprise, Paladins are intended to be lawful.
And you don't like that.
act with honour,There are so many variations of 'honour' that obeying this restriction is not 'a set approach' that cannot be deviated from.
Just to nit pick this real quick. "Honour" may vary from person to person (or Paladin to Paladin) it should not be ever changing to the Paladin. The individual Paladin should indeed have a set approach to "honor."
I almost have to believe you are being willfully disingenuous here. You brought up not believing in the code, I said by your logic the chaotic believes less in the code. The Paladin does not follow A code because its a code, a Paladin follows THE code because the code is good (the code clearly being the Paladin's code).I'm not being willfully disingenuous here, I was legitimately confused about your position. I'm not sure why a CG paladin would believe less in the code than a LG one unless it was because you believe that a paladin must believe that codes are an inherent good.
THE code has changed over iterations of the game. AD&D has rules on the wealth a paladin was allowed to obtain (excess had to be refused or donated to LG causes) and required that they tithe to their church. It could change further to replace the "respect authority" line which is the only anti-chaotic sentiment.
Again, not "codes" are an inherent good but The code is an inherent good. I completely agree that different Paladins can have different codes with two caveats. The code should include the rules from the CRB (how harshly you judge the code is up to the GM) and Paladins of the same "order" or church (if they are from one) should have the same code.
Again, I don't feel the code is lawful (I seem to differ from ciretose on this issue), I see the code as good and adhering to the code to be lawful (thus lawful good Paladins). And yes the code doesn't affect everything but it should affect some things, shouldn't it? Why have a "code" that doesn't affect your life? I believe should look at all things thru the code. The Paladin must act with honor. "Should I accept the gift from this poor family? Would it be a greater dishonor to take from the poor or refuse their gift, possibly shaming them?" Is the answer to that in the CRB? No, that is up to the player and GM.
If you are following a code, the code should influence how you act. If you are deciding you want your actions influenced by this "higher authority" or code, then that sounds like a lawful mindset.
Uh, more stuff. You know what you wrote.
If you want to argue RAW, Paladins are LG. If you want to argue RAI, I think it's pretty clear that Paladins are intended to be LG. You have already conceded the code would have to change to allow chaotics. And now, apparently you and Mr. Silverclaw agree that the code shouldn't affect his behavior and then he can be chaotic. But how is he still a Paladin?
As a side note, unless this is for society play I do not know why you would want to change this. I've been playing this game a long time (Pathfinder and D&D, before it). I completely understand wanting to play something "different." I don't understand the need to make this "difference," cannon (so to speak). In my campaigns, the classes are "average." If you meet a NPC monk or barbarian, they are going to be monks and barbarians. If you want to be that, clearly you can. If you want to do something different, like the "combat focus" barbarian or "acrobat" monk, then you can and You are the exception. You are different from the others because you are a PC and they're not. If your CG Paladin is cannon, then doesn't he lose some specialness?
|
|
Just to nit pick this real quick. "Honour" may vary from person to person (or Paladin to Paladin) it should not be ever changing to the Paladin. The individual Paladin should indeed have a set approach to "honor."
act with honour,There are so many variations of 'honour' that obeying this restriction is not 'a set approach' that cannot be deviated from.
I actually agree with your nit-pick here, but there's more to it:-
1) The code doesn't specify what that 'honour' is, so when building your paladin you have a great deal of flexibility in which god you choose (if any), what culture you're from, what particular code of honour you choose from that culture, and how that code of honour interacts with the paladin's. So, although any particular paladin PC, should be expected to act with honour as he understands honour, and logically this would not change too much during his adventuring life, the honour is not dictated by the code.
2) Another thing that should vary wildly from paladin to paladin is how he reacts to codes of honour that differ from his own. Does he believe that other codes are by definition 'BadWrongHonour' and disdain them? Does he respect other cultures and their codes of honour? Does he find out what the code is and then make a judgement call? This will, and should, vary from paladin to paladin. They should not be cookie-cutter copies of each other.
1) The code doesn't specify what that 'honour' is, so when building your paladin you have a great deal of flexibility in which god you choose (if any), what culture you're from, what particular code of honour you choose from that culture, and how that code of honour interacts with the paladin's. So, although any particular paladin PC, should be expected to act with honour as he understands honour, and logically this would not change too much during his adventuring life, the honour is not dictated by the code.2) Another thing that should vary wildly from paladin to paladin is how he reacts to codes of honour that differ from his own. Does he believe that other codes are by definition 'BadWrongHonour' and disdain them? Does he respect other cultures and their codes of honour? Does he find out what the code is and then make a judgement call? This will, and should, vary from paladin to paladin. They should not be cookie-cutter copies of each other.
1) the code should specify what the Paladin's sense of honour is (to a degree, which could vary from Paladin to Paladin). So his honour should be, at least somewhat, spelled out in his code.
2) yes and no. I would think the Paladin views his code as the best (which is why he follows it) but he would understand not everyone can live up to his high standards and, I would think, at least respect someone trying to live by some standards (unless they were evil standards, of course).
|
|
It actually does spell it out.
Really? Spells it out?
act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)
Not lying
Not cheating
Not using poison
...and so forth!
Is this the lawful version of 'spelling it out? Is this the entirety of every single paladin's code of honour?
I don't think so!
It is for Pathfinder. Any other bit of code a Paladin picks up is irrelevant, as long as it doesn't conflict with the parts that are in the book.
|
|
1) the code should specify what the Paladin's sense of honour is (to a degree, which could vary from Paladin to Paladin). So his honour should be, at least somewhat, spelled out in his code.
But it isn't.
2) yes and no. I would think the Paladin views his code as the best (which is why he follows it) but he would understand not everyone can live up to his high standards and, I would think, at least respect someone trying to live by some standards (unless they were evil standards, of course).
You've described one (perfectly reasonable) possibility. It would be wrong to believe that every single paladin would have the same take, even if all the paladins are LG.
That is this entire conversation in microcosm; your (perfectly reasonable) take on the paladin becomes, in your assertions, the only possible take on the paladin allowed in the game.
1) the code should specify what the Paladin's sense of honour is (to a degree, which could vary from Paladin to Paladin). So his honour should be, at least somewhat, spelled out in his code.But it isn't.
So, your argument is the Paladin should be less restrictive because it is not restrictive enough? This makes no sense. No the Paladin's code is not spelled out entirely. If it were, every Paladin would act the same. I know this is not what you want so you are trying to slip a catch 22 in there that doesn't exist. The player comes up with the character's code. I believe it should encompass the code in the rule book (because its the rule book). If you want to change it for your Paladin then go right ahead but the rule book spells out at least three things as dishonorable.
2) yes and no. I would think the Paladin views his code as the best (which is why he follows it) but he would understand not everyone can live up to his high standards and, I would think, at least respect someone trying to live by some standards (unless they were evil standards, of course).You've described one (perfectly reasonable) possibility. It would be wrong to believe that every single paladin would have the same take, even if all the paladins are LG.
I was giving one possibility. I truly don't follow your argument here. Because all Paladins don't act the same then...chaotic. It doesn't work that way. A Paladin can respect other codes, he does not have to respect them. He could be a righteous a-hole and constantly tell everyone how they fail to live properly. He could be a complete idiot and not fully understand other people have codes or that they differ from his. The fact that individual Paladins act differently in no way makes the class chaotic.
That is this entire conversation in microcosm; your (perfectly reasonable) take on the paladin becomes, in your assertions, the only possible take on the paladin allowed in the game.
The entire conversation with you has been, we don't have your "deeper" understanding that contradicts the rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
My understanding is that the PF CRB is supposed to be setting-neutral, and that should mean that all flavour, including alignment, should be presented as "suggested flavour" instead of "required flavour."
Let me clarify: I like that individual paladins and paladin orders have codes with clear fall conditions, because it makes it clear what that individual paladin or order believes in....No you don't. The code clearly mirrors the description of Lawful behavior and you take issue with it.
I prefer a code with clear fall conditions, because it makes it clear exactly what the paladin believes in.And I like a rule book that is a book rather than a volume of books.
The code is basically the description of Lawful because, surprise, Paladins are intended to be lawful.
And you don't like that.
The fact that I don't like the code to require lawfulness does not mean that I don't think that a paladin should have a code with clear fall conditions. It doesn't require a volume of books. I would be perfectly happy with these lines added to the end of the paladin entry in the CRB:
"Alternate Paladins:
Though the typical, classic paladin is described above, in some settings it may be possible for paladins with slightly different philosophies to exist. Such paladins may have slightly different codes, or even be of nonlawful alignment. Work with your GM if you are interested in this possibility. The player should be prepared to construct an alternate but similarly strict code. For example, a chaotic paladin may replace the requirement to respect legitimate authority with a requirement to respect individual liberty. Alternate paladins are subject to GM approval."
It's quite similar to the lines in the cleric description that say “While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.) ” or the line in the Ronin/Knight Errant order that states “ Each ronin should determine his own edicts, which should include at least three provisions. These edicts are subject to GM approval.” It invites groups to approach the class in a more flexible way but emphasizes that the GM retains control over the availability and/or execution of these options.
@Durngrun Stonebreaker: Are you saying that you think that any code is fundamentally incompatible with the chaotic alignment? You wouldn't be alone in that, but I don't think it's a universal view. For example, there's a CN hired killer NPC called Blackstrike in the NPC Codex who is described as absolutely refusing to accept a contract on a child or other innocent.
And now, apparently you and Mr. Silverclaw agree that the code shouldn't affect his behavior and then he can be chaotic. But how is he still a Paladin?
It's not that it doesn't affect his behavior, it's that having a code doesn't prevent him from being flexible and adaptable because the requirements of the code are general enough that they allow a large range of behaviours that the CG paladin could navigate (just like two different LG paladins following the code won't always approach the same problem in exactly the same way).
So, your argument is the Paladin should be less restrictive because it is not restrictive enough? This makes no sense. No the Paladin's code is not spelled out entirely. If it were, every Paladin would act the same. I know this is not what you want so you are trying to slip a catch 22 in there that doesn't exist. The player comes up with the character's code. I believe it should encompass the code in the rule book (because its the rule book). If you want to change it for your Paladin then go right ahead but the rulebook spells out at least three things as dishonorable.
The point is not that the code should be less restrictive, but that it is less restrictive than some seem to think. It's strict – break and fall – but what actually counts as breaking the code is subjective. The rulebook does spell out three things as specifically dishonourable, but there are tons of things that could be included in the “and so forth” that aren't addressed. These include suicide, striking women, ambushes, coup de grace (and other variations on striking a helpless and/or unarmed opponent) – even use of traps, benefiting from flanking bonuses (attacking someone's back), and the dirty trick maneuver have had their “honourable” status questioned by at least one person I've seen on the boards.
The fact that individual Paladins act differently in no way makes the class chaotic.
But it does have room for chaotic characters inside it.
My understanding is that the PF CRB is supposed to be setting-neutral, and that should mean that all flavour, including alignment, should be presented as "suggested flavour" instead of "required flavour."
You do realize I have been saying this the entire time. If you want to change it, then change it. Do we really need something after every class? The Paladin is LG, you can play it differently if you want. The fighter is a trained warrior, you can play it differently if you want. The monk is a dedicated martial artist, you can play it differently if you want. The rogue is a scoundrel, you can play it differently if you want. Have you just been missing this?
The code in the CRB is essentially a "base" code. I have never played a Paladin who's code was simply, "no lies, no cheating, no poison." The end. The "and so forth" clearly implies there is more to the code. Are you saying working out a code for your Paladin is too much work?
The assassin's "no women, no kids" is not a code. That is a line he will not cross, not a personal code by which he lives his life. I don't care if some person on the Internet says flanking is dishonorable. It is not in my game and he is not in my game. His opinion does not make the code unworkable. The point of this thread was, if you want to play a Paladin then sit down and discuss a few things with your GM and you shouldn't have any trouble. That's all you have to do. Talk to one person (who I would think is your friend but I realize that is not always the case). You don't have to convince me or ciretose or Paizo or the whole of the Internet.
I'm really losing the thread of this argument. "Chaotic doesn't mean what it says in the book, so I use it differently." "The code is not spelled out in triplicate, so it's invalid and I don't use it." "Ask my GM to play a slightly different character concept? Impossible!"
|
|
So, your argument is the Paladin should be less restrictive because it is not restrictive enough?
No. I'm pointing out that your camp's claim that the paladin lives by a 'restrictive' code is untrue. I'm pointing out that the code does not specify a code of honour. I'm pointing out that the claim that the code specifies a code of honour within it is untrue.
This makes no sense. No the Paladin's code is not spelled out entirely. If it were, every Paladin would act the same. I know this is not what you want so you are trying to slip a catch 22 in there that doesn't exist. The player comes up with the character's code. I believe it should encompass the code in the rule book (because its the rule book). If you want to change it for your Paladin then go right ahead but the rule book spells out at least three things as
Those things in the brackets are examples of things which are dishonourable in most codes of honour, but as we've established there are many codes of honour and the code does not specify which code of honour is part of the paladin's code. So, when the paladin does work out his code (in partnership with the DM, ideally) then that code may allow lying if to save an innocent, poison as long as it's effects are unconsciousness not death, cheating if being cheated, etc, whatever holds true for that code of honour.
A Paladin can respect other codes, he does not have to respect them. He could be a righteous a-hole and constantly tell everyone how they fail to live properly. He could be a complete idiot and not fully understand other people have codes or that they differ from his. The fact that individual Paladins act differently in no way makes the class chaotic.
My point is that, as you say, a paladin has a huge amount of choice about this...and everything else in the so-called 'restrictive' code. My point is to refute the argument that a chaotic person could not live by a code as restrictive as the paladin's, as that code is not restrictive at all.
So, your argument is the Paladin should be less restrictive because it is not restrictive enough?No. I'm pointing out that your camp's claim that the paladin lives by a 'restrictive' code is untrue. I'm pointing out that the code does not specify a code of honour. I'm pointing out that the claim that the code specifies a code of honour within it is untrue.
This makes no sense. No the Paladin's code is not spelled out entirely. If it were, every Paladin would act the same. I know this is not what you want so you are trying to slip a catch 22 in there that doesn't exist. The player comes up with the character's code. I believe it should encompass the code in the rule book (because its the rule book). If you want to change it for your Paladin then go right ahead but the rule book spells out at least three things asThose things in the brackets are examples of things which are dishonourable in most codes of honour, but as we've established there are many codes of honour and the code does not specify which code of honour is part of the paladin's code. So, when the paladin does work out his code (in partnership with the DM, ideally) then that code may allow lying if to save an innocent, poison as long as it's effects are unconsciousness not death, cheating if being cheated, etc, whatever holds true for that code of honour.
A Paladin can respect other codes, he does not have to respect them. He could be a righteous a-hole and constantly tell everyone how they fail to live properly. He could be a complete idiot and not fully understand other people have codes or that they differ from his. The fact that individual Paladins act differently in no way makes the class chaotic.My point is that, as you say, a paladin has a huge amount of choice about this...and everything else in the so-called 'restrictive' code. My point is to refute the argument that a chaotic person could not live by a code as restrictive as the paladin's, as that code is...
Except that it is restrictive. The code says act with honour, then gives three examples of restrictions (which i like so i use), and then basically says come up with some more restrictions. You can change the restrictions, but different Paladins following different restrictions are still Paladins following restrictions. You can remove them if you want but you can't then turn around and argue, "I've removed them so now they're not there so I can be chaotic."
I'm really lost now. It's ok to change what alignments mean, it's ok to change the code or get rid of it all together. Why can't you just play a CG Paladin?
|
|
It is for Pathfinder. Any other bit of code a Paladin picks up is irrelevant, as long as it doesn't conflict with the parts that are in the book.
Which are the parts that make the Paladin Lawful.
You can't spend 2000 posts arguing against what is written then try to argue you want more rules.
You don't even like following the ones that are included.
|
|
My understanding is that the PF CRB is supposed to be setting-neutral, and that should mean that all flavour, including alignment, should be presented as "suggested flavour" instead of "required flavour."
Setting neutral doesn't mean irrelevant. In all setting where you want to have a Pathfinder Paladin, it is Lawful Good.
It is Lawful Good in a box,
It is Lawful Good with a fox,
It is Lawful Good with a ham,
It is Lawful Good with a guy named Sam.
When should a Paladin be not Lawful Good?
The answer is never, it always should.
Say the bad guy crosses the street to go murder some kids. The paladin can't find a crosswalk, so he jaywalks in pursuit. He has knowingly and willingly broken a law and committed a chaotic act. Does the DM take away all his powers? I say yes. Or does "has to be lawful" just mean you write it on the sheet, but ignore it when convenient?
|
|
Say the bad guy crosses the street to go murder some kids. The paladin can't find a crosswalk, so he jaywalks in pursuit. He has knowingly and willingly broken a law and committed a chaotic act. Does the DM take away all his powers? I say yes. Or does "has to be lawful" just mean you write it on the sheet, but ignore it when convenient?
What a ridiculous strawman.
Must the Chaotic person never cross in the crosswalk?
Say the bad guy crosses the street to go murder some kids. The paladin can't find a crosswalk, so he jaywalks in pursuit. He has knowingly and willingly broken a law and committed a chaotic act. Does the DM take away all his powers? I say yes. Or does "has to be lawful" just mean you write it on the sheet, but ignore it when convenient?What a ridiculous strawman.
Must the Chaotic person never cross in the crosswalk?
Poor Neutrals!!! They have to do the Hokey-Pokey the whole way across the street!
Say the bad guy crosses the street to go murder some kids. The paladin can't find a crosswalk, so he jaywalks in pursuit. He has knowingly and willingly broken a law and committed a chaotic act. Does the DM take away all his powers? I say yes. Or does "has to be lawful" just mean you write it on the sheet, but ignore it when convenient?What a ridiculous strawman.
Must the Chaotic person never cross in the crosswalk?
Yes, they can't. Unless its a red light, then they floor it. They were driving thier car on the sidewalk, becuase streets are too lawful. And their cars fly, because gravity is too lawful, but flying in the sky is too normal too.
Insanity aside... Not all GMs are willing to let you go around the code, even when it really counts. You get a fail and fail thing going on, and some vicious GMs are more than happy to set it up. Probably not as simple as crossing a street, but something intense involving save the world, save the damsel type choices. I think your infering or generalizing the way GMs handle this sort of thing.
|
|
Say the bad guy crosses the street to go murder some kids. The paladin can't find a crosswalk, so he jaywalks in pursuit. He has knowingly and willingly broken a law and committed a chaotic act. Does the DM take away all his powers? I say yes. Or does "has to be lawful" just mean you write it on the sheet, but ignore it when convenient?What a ridiculous strawman.
Must the Chaotic person never cross in the crosswalk?
Ridiculous? Yes.
Stawman? No.
By reducing the argument to absurdity he is making it easy to see why the code should not be read in the way that makes 'fall or fall' almost unavoidable.
The code should be understood to value good over law, and greater good over lesser good.
Although a LG paladin would be happy to obey laws designed to make crossing the road a safer place, if he is in a situation that makes him choose between this law and preventing the murder of innocents, not only must he save the kids but he would not fall for doing so. He would fall for not doing so!
As (deliberately) ridiculous as this is, it nicely parallels a hypothetical situation well-discussed in this thread. Although a paladin is happy to follow the code by 'not lying' as lying is usually dishonourable (in the same way that crossing the road at a crosswalk is usually safer than crossing the road at a different spot), if he is asked by the nazis if there are jewish kids in the attic and he knows that his silence or prevarification would arouse their suspicions with predictably fatal consequences, then he must act to save them, and in this case it means he must lie. He won't fall because saving the kids is the greater good and deceiving the child-murderers is preferable to the death of innocents.
Must the Chaotic person never cross in the crosswalk?
Here you show, yet again, your lack of understanding of the chaotic alignment.
You characterise a chaotic person as 'refusing to cross at the crosswalk'. Why? Does he refuse to cross in the best place purely on the grounds that someone else wants him to cross there? That would be insane! But that's what you think the chaotic alignment indicates; insane.
From my 'deeper understanding of chaos' (actually, just using my thinky bits) the actual reaction of a chaotic person to this situation (no kids/murderer, just road/crosswalk) would be to cross wherever he liked if he thinks it would be safe, and if the crosswalk is near enough he'd be happy to use it. If it was too much of a shlep then he'd make a judgement call; if he thinks it would be safe to cross without a crosswalk then he will, if it isn't then he'll go to the crosswalk.
Because he's not insane.
|
|
Say the bad guy crosses the street to go murder some kids. The paladin can't find a crosswalk, so he jaywalks in pursuit. He has knowingly and willingly broken a law and committed a chaotic act. Does the DM take away all his powers? I say yes. Or does "has to be lawful" just mean you write it on the sheet, but ignore it when convenient?What a ridiculous strawman.
Must the Chaotic person never cross in the crosswalk?
Ridiculous? Yes.
Stawman? No.
Is your definition of strawman different as well, since you reject the book definition of Chaotic and Lawful...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very well. If we are using the crosswalk as a metaphor for the Code...
You are actually describing exactly what a chaotic person would do, Malachi. He would cross wherever it pleased, or was easiest, or fastest, or whatever. But, then you go on to try and say, that he could always, unfailingly use the crosswalk, never setting a toe outside the lines, every single time, no matter the circumstance, and as long as he keeps childishly sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "I'm only doing this because I want to, not because you said so!" he somehow continues to be chaotic.
Which is silly.
|
|
If the chaotic person, exercising his judgment, notes that not using the crosswalk is invariably dangerous in a particular city, or that jaywalking is hazardous to cars (they are not used to jaywalkers and will swerve erratically even when their course does not actually intersect with the jaywalker) then the chaotic person is free to, using his judgment, continue to use the crosswalks consistently.
If a chaotic person believes that murder is wrong, he is free to never murder someone and that consistency in following a "don't murder" rule does not make him lawful. Nor does it make him lawful if he also consistently follows a "don't assault" rule and a "don't light other peoples' stuff on fire" rule.
The default for a lawful person is to cross there because ... well, because it's the law, and laws are in place for a reason. (Lawful good, lawful neutral and lawful evil default to different reasons for obedience to and enforcement of law, but all respect law itself.)
Correct. And as long as the chaotic person is obeying a particular law for reasons other than "because it's the law, so there has to be a reason" they are not being lawful. The lawful person simply uses “it's the law” to shortcut the rest of the process of figuring out what the reason for the law is and whether that reason is persuasive.
Setting neutral doesn't mean irrelevant. In all setting where you want to have a Pathfinder Paladin, it is Lawful Good.
Circular again. The PF paladin is currently LG, therefore it must be LG.
The PF system doesn't fall apart if a CG paladin is introduced any more than it falls apart if a cleric without a deity, a bard without the perform skill, or an illiterate wizard (goblin pictograms) is introduced.
|
|
@Durngrun Stonebreaker – I understand your frustration. In fact, what you suggest is exactly what I do when I play. My group has a mutual understanding that the GM will make exceptions to RAW to accommodate an interesting, setting-appropriate concept, as long as it doesn't throw off game balance too much.
However, on this forum I've seen a lot of people react badly to paladin conduct houseruling. “Should the paladin fall” threads can get extremely heated and some make extremely sweeping declarations about what a paladin should be. Some are concerned that the code is a balancing mechanism and that if they alter it or allow some flexibility then it will ruin their game. When someone mentions a chaotic paladin they are routinely told “Play an Inquisitor/martial cleric/cavalier instead” rather than “ask your GM if they will allow you to play one, be prepared to adjust the code, and if your GM says no here are some alternate options...” There's this common idea (appearing on this very thread) that alternate paladins are “cheating.” Not "a houserule that I don't like." And that affects some peoples' willingness to raise the subject with their GMs off the boards, especially if their group doesn't have a pre-established culture of “concept comes first.”
Most people once they step back a bit will acknowledge that you have the right to houserule, but there are very few houserules that get the same visceral opposition as variant paladins. Philosophy clerics don't get that response. Maybe if philosophy clerics weren't mentioned in the CRB as a possible concept, they would get that response (Cherrypicking two domains without being limited by your deity's list? Cheating!) I don't expect “Any good” paladins to become mainstream or be allowed in Golarion or PFS. But I would like to see them at least have the same status as philosophy clerics, to protect PF players from the stigma that is sometimes attached to the concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Weirdo: Even putting aside the arguments that a CG Paladin is possible, adding a side-note to the core rules about "alternate alignment paladins" creates at least as many problems as you think it would solve. From that point forward DM's are no longer permissive in allowing a CG Paladin, they instead become restrictive in denying them. Players are not the only participants in the game. There's no need to put extra burdens that may villify some DM's to make your houserule a core rule.