|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it marginalizes a true Paladin? If just any good character can do those things...
CG paladins would no more marginalise a LG paladins than gay marriage would marginalise traditional marriage.
A couple who value their marriage and who've been happily married for 50 years one day discover that a gay couple got married 1000 miles away. Would the straight couple suddenly believe their marriage was a lie, that it never had meaning, that it means nothing any more? The existence of that other marriage 1000 miles away does not affect their marriage one tiny bit!
Similarly, if a LG paladin following a LG code and a LG god suddenly hears about a paladin 1000 miles away who is CG, follows a CG code and worships a CG god, what would the LG paladin do? Throw it all away because his paladinhood suddenly had no validity?
Absurd! He would continue to work for good! The existence of the CG paladin would not affect the LG paladin in the slightest!
Also, JJ doesn't require paladins to worship LG gods, the God's alignment must be within one step of LG (which is another way of saying that the paladin's alignment must be within one step of their god's). Any CG paladin would be limited to gods of NG, CG and CN alignments.
In fact, Shelyn (NG) could have paladins of LG, NG and CG all working for her at the same time, all following an appropriate code as well as the code specific to Shelyn.
lol wut?
Really? You're equating a civil rights issue to paladin alignment requirements?
I can't even begin to wrap my mind around how crazy that is.
My thoughts on the topic are on display all throughout this thread, about why I feel that paldins just aren't paladins without a) being lawful good, and b) following their code. Others have commented how it doesn't make sense for a NG or CG character to follow said code.
Removing the LG restriction isn't enough to allow CG and NG paladins. You'd have to change the code or remove it entirely, which then, in my mind, it ceases to even be a paladin.
And, again, go houserule your holy champion of chaotic goodness to have the same mechanical benefits without any of the RP drawbacks. Nobody is stopping you. Well, except for PFS play, maybe.
You could always absurdly equate the inability to play a CG paladin in PFS with marriage equality, and see where that gets you.
|
|
Always hated the notion of Lawful Good being Best Good that gets pushed by some, especially when NG can be good unhampered by law or chaos.
.
Actually if you remembered the text of the old 3.X book. Each alignment was self touted as "the best".
Also keep in mind that for a Lawful Good, Chaotic Good is the same number of steps away as Lawful Evil.
I do remember. I am referring to that attitude turning up elsewhere.
Also, the number of steps between CG and LG being equal is not only irrelevant, it ignores a key difference between good and evil: Cosmic Good tries not to war with itself. That's why we don't have archons and azatas out for each others' blood.
|
|
So I'm busy drawing up a Chaotic Good 'Paladin"....Decided to keep Lay On Hands, Detect/Smite Evil (thinking of MAYBE changing it to Detect/Smite Law)
Please don't!
I've always loved paladins, and as a CG person always wished for a CG paladin.
Imagine my anticipation when Dragon magazine was going to publish an 'official' CG paladin (as well as versions for the other seven alignments....meh!) as part of two issues heralding the change from 3.0 to the new fangled 3.5, after months of teasers and tasters.
At last, a champion of Good who could fight Evil on an equal footing with any LG paladin, without the obvious pro-lawful bent of the game designers. As if LG was somehow a better kind of Good than CG!
Then I saw it. WTF! Smite Law?!? What for? LG paladins don't Smite Chaos! They have no abilities against Chaos whatsoever! They have power against Evil That's what they're for! That's what CG paladins would be for! As if they would have power against Law, including LG, but have no power against Evil! Absurd!
Yet another example of how some writers think that LG is somehow more 'Good' that CG!
I never looked at that abomination again.
If you were to change it to detect/smite law then there would be no reason to play one and people would still be looking for a CG paladin, who fights Evil as god intended!
|
|
For me quite frankly, the Chaotic Good Paladin is NOT a Paladin. He has all of the benefits, with a lot less of the restrictions. And some of his powers and available spells are actually better.
See, I don't think this at all!
A CG paladin would have restrictions that are just as binding, but they would be concerned about preserving freedom over tyranny (as well as promoting Good over Evil).
It is a mis-understanding of chaotic behavior with chaotic alignment to think that CG creatures cannot keep their word or stick to an agreement when they have chosen to make that commitment!
They would never allow themselves to be forced to conform to any code, but if they chose to commit to that code of their own free will then there is no reason to think that they would abandon it on a whim, that would be chaotic behaviour, not chaotic alignment!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stop using issues that are actually issues to talk about RPG stuff
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They would never allow themselves to be forced to conform to any code, but if they chose to commit to that code of their own free will then there is no reason to think that they would abandon it on a whim, that would be chaotic behaviour, not chaotic alignment!
I like the idea of an oath/taboo system for CG exemplars. Binding oaths were actually a thing in Planescape's CG Arborea, IIRC.
"No one's words shall bind me but my own."
Because it marginalizes a true Paladin? If just any good character can do those things...CG paladins would no more marginalise a LG paladins than gay marriage would marginalise traditional marriage.
A couple who value their marriage and who've been happily married for 50 years one day discover that a gay couple got married 1000 miles away. Would the straight couple suddenly believe their marriage was a lie, that it never had meaning, that it means nothing any more? The existence of that other marriage 1000 miles away does not affect their marriage one tiny bit!
I say that's inaccurate. Try this:
A real ugly couple is married and everybody says they look like two guys. However, since gay marriage is illegal, they can prove by the fact they are married that one of them has to be a girl. Then, somewhere 1000 miles away, gay marriage is legal. Now their proof is not as valid. (Just to be clear, I'm clarifying the analogue and not advocating against gay marriage.)
So I'm busy drawing up a Chaotic Good 'Paladin"....Decided to keep Lay On Hands, Detect/Smite Evil (thinking of MAYBE changing it to Detect/Smite Law)Please don't!
I've always loved paladins, and as a CG person always wished for a CG paladin.
Imagine my anticipation when Dragon magazine was going to publish an 'official' CG paladin (as well as versions for the other seven alignments....meh!) as part of two issues heralding the change from 3.0 to the new fangled 3.5, after months of teasers and tasters.
At last, a champion of Good who could fight Evil on an equal footing with any LG paladin, without the obvious pro-lawful bent of the game designers. As if LG was somehow a better kind of Good than CG!
Then I saw it. WTF! Smite Law?!? What for? LG paladins don't Smite Chaos! They have no abilities against Chaos whatsoever! They have power against Evil That's what they're for! That's what CG paladins would be for! As if they would have power against Law, including LG, but have no power against Evil! Absurd!
Yet another example of how some writers think that LG is somehow more 'Good' that CG!
I never looked at that abomination again.
If you were to change it to detect/smite law then there would be no reason to play one and people would still be looking for a CG paladin, who fights Evil as god intended!
Heh.
Well I ended up, for now, keeping it as Detect/Smite Evil, but removed spellcasting and Channel Energy (and Mercy, but it's sorta kinda there still) in favor of a sort-of Bard-esque set of pick and choose abilities and a "Combat Pragmatist" set of pickable abilities as well.
He's not less good, but he leads by example (Inspiring Presence) and has no need for archaic notions of honor and fair play, he does what it takes to win a fight (Combat Pragmatism).
|
|
In practise it's a lot different. A Chaotic Good character has a far wider range of acceptable behavior for his alignment.For me quite frankly, the Chaotic Good Paladin is NOT a Paladin. He has all of the benefits, with a lot less of the restrictions. And some of his powers and available spells are actually better.See, I don't think this at all!
A CG paladin would have restrictions that are just as binding, but they would be concerned about preserving freedom over tyranny (as well as promoting Good over Evil).
It is a mis-understanding of chaotic behavior with chaotic alignment to think that CG creatures cannot keep their word or stick to an agreement when they have chosen to make that commitment!
They would never allow themselves to be forced to conform to any code, but if they chose to commit to that code of their own free will then there is no reason to think that they would abandon it on a whim, that would be chaotic behaviour, not chaotic alignment!
Any random CG character would have that range, but a CG paladin would have, by definition, chosen to bind himself to a code of conduct. That code would be binding, despite it's support of free will over obedience. The CG paladin chose to be bound to this of his own free will.
He also has access to the Freedom of Movement spell which is hard to beat with the LG's selection.
Where do you get this theoretical spell list from? The only forced substitution of spells would be the ones that mention law/chaos.
|
Removing the LG restriction isn't enough to allow CG and NG paladins. You'd have to change the code or remove it entirely, which then, in my mind, it ceases to even be a paladin.
Right, in your mind. Not in the mind of everyone who plays and enjoys PF. And though gay marriage is obviously a much more important issue than PF rules (which is why I used a cooking analogy) he does make the valid point that using a more inclusive definition of a concept that has value to people (marriage/paladins) is not going to harm, invalidate, or weaken the examples of that concept that conform to the stricter definition (straight marriages / LG paladins).
Dunno why a barbarian respecting legitimate authority makes them lawful, or it just happens to coincide with a small part of a paladin's code. This does not mean barbarian = lawful.
A barbarian who happens to do these things at random does not make them lawful.
No, but it was argued earlier that a character who consistently acts in a lawful manner (respects authority, follows tradition, believes in honour) is lawful. It's just not likely to cause as many problems with a barbarian because no one is looking too closely at the barbarian's behavior. They do pay that sort of attention to the paladin's behavior, because paladins are held to a higher standard. And I believe that is appropriate. However, there are plenty of standards just as high as the CRB paladin's code. Holding the class so strictly to a specific code needlessly excludes legitimate character concepts not just from your game and ciretose' game but from the gaming community in general. Yes, house rules are possible, but as I demonstrated, it is difficult for a player in a game that allows chaotic paladins to get the forum's advice about their character due to the fact that the concept has no official recognition.
I say that's inaccurate. Try this:
A real ugly couple is married and everybody says they look like two guys. However, since gay marriage is illegal, they can prove by the fact they are married that one of them has to be a girl. Then, somewhere 1000 miles away, gay marriage is legal. Now their proof is not as valid. (Just to be clear, I'm clarifying the analogue and not advocating against gay marriage.)
Or they could prove their gender directly using a driver's license or other legal document that states gender - it's easier and more direct than pulling out a marriage certificate.
Where do you get this theoretical spell list from? The only forced substitution of spells would be the ones that mention law/chaos.
Probably from the player-created variant here which trades Death Ward and Discern Lies for Freedom of Movement. They also replace Mercy with Remove Disease. Neither of those changes are necessary or even desirable IMO.
|
|
Probably from the player-created variant here which trades Death Ward and Discern Lies for Freedom of Movement. They also replace Mercy with Remove Disease. Neither of those changes are necessary or even desirable IMO.
I agree. The only changes to the LG paladin that are needed to make the perfect CG paladin are the alignment, the fluff (which includes the code) slightly, and whatever spells on the list that mention law/chaos should be reversed.
"There is no way a Chaotic or Neutral Good person deserves these 'Divine Avatar' powers, go play Inquisitor."
This is the largest issue I have with this thread.
It isn't "deserved".
If a concept hates nature, does it get druid powers?
This a large part of what I hate about the Player Entitlement Community. Not everyone gets everything, all the time in every concept. I will now speak in the general "you" rather than the "specific" you.
If you are Chaotic and want to smite, play a Chevalier. Don't like that class? Play something else. There are billions of potential concepts, and you can't come up with one that actually will fit the setting? And you call that creative? Really?
Creative people are giving problems and they find multiple ways to solve them. If one doesn't work, they find another.
Uncreative people may find a solution, but are lost if that specific solution doesn't work.
The most creative guy in our group almost always GMs because he literally gets bored playing only one character for more than a few sessions, because there are so many other things he could be playing.
Within the given framework.
I love the Paladin concept. I think it is awesome. And I think even within it's relatively narrow framework there are a million ways to go with it.
But part of the concept is that when people find out you are a Paladin, that has a meaning to them. Much like when in the Dark Tower Series, people found out Roland was a Gunslinger, that had meaning to them.
Does that make Roland a Paladin? No. He is a gunslinger, that has a specific meaning in that setting. A Hellknight has a specific meaning in Golarion, and when one walks into a place, that means something.
I am fine with a class or archetype that has some Paladin features. I think the Chevalier is awesome, and they can smite.
But when you remove the restrictions, you fundamentalism change the class. Instead of "That is a Paladin, they are lawbringers, you can trust them" you get "That is...
Agree!
*shouts from the stands*| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably from the player-created variant here which trades Death Ward and Discern Lies for Freedom of Movement. They also replace Mercy with Remove Disease. Neither of those changes are necessary or even desirable IMO.I agree. The only changes to the LG paladin that are needed to make the perfect CG paladin are the alignment, the fluff (which includes the code) slightly, and whatever spells on the list that mention law/chaos should be reversed.
That's boring though. It's not a different class, it's just "Paladins aren't alignment restricted". Which is a perfectly acceptable solution I guess, but when someone says to me "I want a Paladin-like class for CG characters" I don't automatically think "Reskin".
A Chaotic Good character's methods and powers, to an extent, would be different. Their methods would be different, their power sources would be different, and their overall attitude would be different.
No, but it was argued earlier that a character who consistently acts in a lawful manner (respects authority, follows tradition, believes in honour) is lawful. It's just not likely to cause as many problems with a barbarian because no one is looking too closely at the barbarian's behavior. They do pay that sort of attention to the paladin's behavior, because paladins are held to a higher standard. And I believe that is appropriate. However, there are plenty of standards just as high as the CRB paladin's code. Holding the class so strictly to a specific code needlessly excludes legitimate character concepts not just from your game and ciretose' game but from the gaming community in general. Yes, house rules are possible, but as I demonstrated, it is difficult for a player in a game that allows chaotic paladins to get the forum's advice about their character due to the fact that the concept has no official recognition.
Ask in the homebrew section? That's what it's there for.
Nobody will (well shouldn't) get on your case about CG Pally's in that forum. And you should get good input. Like you're getting here from Rynjin.EDIT:
Now that I think of it, I believe there are already some alternate alignment Paladin archtypes in the homebrew section, and even one of the suprstar entries was a paladin archtype that, iirc, was not LG.
|
Always hated the notion of Lawful Good being Best Good that gets pushed by some, especially when NG can be good unhampered by law or chaos.
Not coincidentally, always wanted Good Exemplar options for CG and NG that were in equal standing with paladins, goodwise.
They are in equal standing with the Paladin "good wise"
Chaotic Good Gods probably think most Paladins are kind of stuck up, narrow minded tools.
This isn't a "Paladins are better at being good" issue.
This is a "Paladins are X, therefore they fall if they are Y" issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When players get upset with their GMs about their Paladins, it's a communication issue. Paladins are a touchy and highly variable class, despite usually being the chaste and lawful ones. If you wanna play one in a particular fashion, especially if you know it to deviate from the norm, but even if you don't think it's a big problem, talk to your GM about it.
If there's a problem, it's not that paizo didn't do a good job with the class or the alignments, it's the player and the GM didn't agree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which was pretty much the point of the OP.
I've wondered a few times today how this got turned into a Paldin alignment thread. /boggle
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which was pretty much the point of the OP.
I've wondered a few times today how this got turned into a Paldin alignment thread. /boggle
Two reasons.
1. It was in the title.
2. People confronted with the actual topic of the OP can't really argue with it, so they want to find other approaches.
Which was pretty much the point of the OP.
I've wondered a few times today how this got turned into a Paldin alignment thread. /boggle
People like to argue about Paladins, and alignments, and how they can't play what they want to play, and people just like to argue.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a rule, all paladin threads have to continue until they are locked by the website admins.
This one ran out of flaming and argument on the OP stuff, so people have been arguing alignment hoping to push the web admins over the edge into locking the thread.
That's why we're up to 1170+ posts.
Obviously people are not being snarky and belittling enough to each other.
The thread will continue until abusiveness improves!
|
|
This isn't a "Paladins are better at being good" issue.
And yet, no lesser personage than yourself, famed across these boards for fair-minded attitudes, gave an example earlier; the one about the lawful and the chaotic owners of breweries when Prohibition becomes law.
You ascribe the highest motives to the lawful owner, saying that the reason he would obey the law is because he wholeheartedly believes that following laws makes for a better society (What a guy!), while ascribing the lowest motives to why the chaotic owner obeys the law (he's afraid of getting caught and punished).
As I posted at the time, their respective alignments wouldn't result in their motives being predictable. The only predictable thing was the usual 'law is more good than chaos' trope that blights the game, and has since its inception.
Not being a dick to other party members needs to be in the paladin's code.
Lump it under no betrayal, do not harm allies that aid you in your quests.
|
|
I ascribed motives to both.
I also said the lawful good person might defend slavery while the chaotic good person would just say "screw that".
Not to mention the multiple Javert analogies.
Don't cherry pick. You are better than that. You are also better than the gay marriage analogy, but if we want to use that, the Lawful person would be the one less likely to allow gay marriage (change to tradition bad).
Ah traditionalists. The lords of the cherry pick.
That isn't anymore a trope than 'people are more comfortable with consistency than chaos'.
|
|
Homebrew forum is great if you actually want to work on a homebrewed paladin variant like Rynjin is doing, but the thread I linked to looked more like a request for build advice, including the question "what god should I pick?" And even if you feel like any discussion of a character containing conspicuous homebrew elements belongs in the Homebrew forum, you can just report it as being in the wrong forum and otherwise leave it alone. No need to overwhelm the OP with unhelpful comments.
But you've all made it clear you don't want to hear from me any more, so I'm going to make one last comment to Rynjin and leaving. Rynjin, if you want to discuss your variant further start a thread in homebrew/houserules, I'll keep an eye out for it.
That's boring though. It's not a different class, it's just "Paladins aren't alignment restricted". Which is a perfectly acceptable solution I guess, but when someone says to me "I want a Paladin-like class for CG characters" I don't automatically think "Reskin".
A Chaotic Good character's methods and powers, to an extent, would be different. Their methods would be different, their power sources would be different, and their overall attitude would be different.
The same could apply to a LG and CG Inquisitor, and their mechanics are very similar, especially if they pick a fairly neutral Inquisition like Conversion. You can even have clerics of LG and CG gods with the same pair of domains - LG Erastil, Grundinnar, and Folgrit and CG Bergelmir and Findeladlara all share Good and Community, LG Erastil and CG Ketephys share Animal and Plant (which they also share with TN Gozreh), LG Iomedae and CG Skode share Good, Glory, and Sun, LG Apsu and CG Desna and Cayden share Good and Travel, and LG Torag and CG Milani share Good and Protection. LG and CG clerics and inquisitors could be mechanically identical aside from alignment and favoured weapon. You can give different abilities to a CG paladin if you want, but there's clearly no requirement for LG and CG divine casters to have different class features aside from casting only one of protection from law/chaos. All the differences in philosophy can easily be addressed in the code and in roleplay.
True enough, yeah. I posted a thread in Homebrew. The OP is essentially a Paladin reskin with a couple of swapped abilities, but I'm working on a more mundane-ish variant now.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I say that's inaccurate. Try this:A real ugly couple is married and everybody says they look like two guys. However, since gay marriage is illegal, they can prove by the fact they are married that one of them has to be a girl. Then, somewhere 1000 miles away, gay marriage is legal. Now their proof is not as valid. (Just to be clear, I'm clarifying the analogy and not advocating against gay marriage.)
Or they could prove their gender directly using a driver's license or other legal document that states gender - it's easier and more direct than pulling out a marriage certificate.
Well it wasn't my analogy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not being a dick to other party members needs to be in the paladin's code.
Lump it under no betrayal, do not harm allies that aid you in your quests.
From personal,experience, a good number of the "paladin being a dick" situations started as other party members playing a game of "poke and provoke" on the paladin, purposely trying to do things that they would have to know were provocative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a bigger problem with the antipaladin, they make a complete 180 on both good and law. I can see a paladin who trying to be good, but feels law is holding him back. Or the paladin who is lawful, but feels that good is holding him back and making him weak. But the, "screw this I'm gonna go chaotic evil" mentaility would never be seen in a person who could've become a paladin.
I've never had a player want to play pretty much everything under the sun, but never the anti-paladin. Maybe greywardens, necromancers, assassins, cannibalistic barbarians, body snatchers, doppelgangers. But never anti-paladins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just me or people seems to miss a single fundamental thing in the Code of Paladins?
I mean, if a creature becomes a Paladin i suppose she firmly believes in the obligations contained in the code and would never break it willingly... They should be not "clothes too tight", the obbligations should be "the ideal of an example to others ANY paladin YEARN to reach"...
And following this, i think, necessary condition for one becoming a paladin:
According to what logic being forced, against your will, to put aside your highest ideals and feel forever tainted by the act of breaking your code for a greater good (risking to lose your benefit as a paladin), should not be a form self-sacrifice i should expect from a REAL paladin?
That's the same logic that leads to Oxymandias a.k.a. the Watchmen. I'll go with Night Owl's reply.It's just me or people seems to miss a single fundamental thing in the Code of Paladins?
I mean, if a creature becomes a Paladin i suppose she firmly believes in the obligations contained in the code and would never break it willingly... They should be not "clothes too tight", the obbligations should be "the ideal of an example to others ANY paladin YEARN to reach"...
And following this, i think, necessary condition for one becoming a paladin:
According to what logic being forced, against your will, to put aside your highest ideals and feel forever tainted by the act of breaking your code for a greater good (risking to lose your benefit as a paladin), should not be a form self-sacrifice i should expect from a REAL paladin?
I'm not sure i get which reply you mean...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ascribed motives to both.
I also said the lawful good person might defend slavery while the chaotic good person would just say "screw that".
Not to mention the multiple Javert analogies.
I don't have a problem with most of your examples, but that particular one really irked me. The idea that the owner of a distillery, no matter how much he believed in the principles of the rule of law being a good thing, would react the way you proposed. He already believes that alcohol manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption is okay, or he'd be a worthless example in this case (an abolitionist distillery owner?). When Prohibition was proposed, he'd fight it tooth and nail, lawfully. When Prohibition was made law due to the influences of abolitionists and God-botherers there is no way his attitude would be, 'Oh, well, it must be good for society if it's the law!' No, he'd continue to fight tooth and nail, lawfully, to get a law he thinks is fundamentally wrong repealed! When it was repealed his opinion wouldn't change back because it wouldn't have changed in the first place! During Prohibition he would have obeyed the law, not because he thinks that the country is better for it but because he'd be fined or jailed! Y'know, 'afraid of being caught and punished', which was the motive you ascribed to the chaotic guy.
As to 'cherry-picking', I found no need to respond to the examples with which I had no problem, just the one which irked me. Does this sound strange or unreasonable?
Don't cherry pick. You are better than that. You are also better than the gay marriage analogy, but if we want to use that, the Lawful person would be the one less likely to allow gay marriage (change to tradition bad).
I didn't realise that it would cause confusion, but the 'gay marriage' analogy had nothing to do with alignment. I wasn't attempting to say that lawful and chaotic people respond to the concept of gay marriage in different ways, because I don't believe that alignment is the determining factor of a person's attitude to it. The analogy was strictly in response to those posts suggesting that if someone was playing a paladin which didn't conform to their idea of 'paladin', then any paladin they played from then on would be irrevocably tainted by someone else's portrayal 1000 miles away. One objection to gay marriage is that it would render 'traditional' marriage meaningless, an assertion I find particularly absurd, so the assertion that 'if the rules allowed CG paladins then LG paladins would cease to have their meaning' to be equally absurd. Not because of law versus chaos, but the idea of other people being officially allowed to play paladins with any alteration you wouldn't have chosen yourself would 'spoil' paladins for you!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they didn't, they would be acting unlawfully. Which is fine if you aren't playing a character that is the embodiment of law. But it is 100% correct that if a law changes, a lawful person would generally change with the law.
He may believe alcohol is ok, but that doesn't make it lawful. A Chaotic person establishes personal "right and wrong" a lawful person puts the good of society above any personal wishes.
The lawful person believes that everyone following the rules is good for society, even if they don't agree with every single law. That is the specific characteristic that separates them from a chaotic person, who believes laws that they don't agree with don't have to be followed.
Actually, this is probably the best point yet. Ciretose has made it quite a few times actually, and I'm surprised how much it gets glossed over.
A few situations in driving is a perfect example of this. Imagine it's something like 2 AM in the morning, you're going home and you come to a red light. There are no cars anywhere that you can see (easy viewing lanes, no blind curves), and because of the well-lit area, you can tell there are no cops or cameras on the lights. You can completely safely drive past the red light without fear of a ticket. Do you wait for it to turn green, or go?
I have this situation most every friday night (after PF, incidentally), coming home at 3 AM or so. No cops. No cameras. No traffic. Just me and a light. A lawful person - even though he could completely safely run the red light without fear of any repercussions - waits for it to turn green. A chaotic person might think "The point of lights is for safety and to make driving with traffic coming both ways easier, but since neither of those are a concern, I can run it, and not get a ticket too!" He then runs the light.
It's clear that even though the chaotic person broke the law, he did nothing that could be considered unsafe. It's likewise clear the lawful person also did nothing unsafe by following the law. They simply did it because of differing philosophical viewpoints.
Following this basic premise and moving it to a Paladin is simple enough and makes clear why - code and all - a Paladin must be LG, and why no other alignment will do.
|
|
Which is the entire problem of a chaotic concept following an inflexible code supervised and administered by someone other than that character.
It is the opposite of chaotic to follow a code you can not control.
If a class appears with similar mechanics and no code, that would be fine (although some clear distinction would be nice) but that isn't what is currently described in the class.
Which is the entire problem of a chaotic concept following an inflexible code supervised and administered by someone other than that character.
It is the opposite of chaotic to follow a code you can not control.
If a class appears with similar mechanics and no code, that would be fine (although some clear distinction would be nice) but that isn't what is currently described in the class.
For some reason, even though I was in agreement with you before, something about your second line clicked and made me agree with you even more. Perfect logic on all counts, Ciretose.
Incidentally, I always wait for the light. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Self sacrifice != suicide.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Elf sacrifice = An art
in many religions suicide is a serious sin, therefore, a paladin could actually be committing an evil act by attacking something he has no hope of defeating
It takes a special kind of DM to force Paladins to attack things that are clearly beyond their abilities or risk losing their powers. No first-level Paladin (or any level below, say, 15th), should have to charge a Balor or else fall. They can do more good by surviving and allowing their betters to tackle such a beast.
Really, even if it's in the middle of killing commoners, what are you gonna do, delay it for a single round? If he can outsmart it and save lives, and possibly even save himself, that's a much smarter use of his life.
EDIT: That last line is in reference to a level one. Higher levels warrent different responses. While no 10th level Paladin could take a Balor in a straight fight, he might be able to do something while keeping himself alive. Or he may choose to die and have his cleric Raise him at a later date.
|
|
*A traffic light analogy, followed by*
Following this basic premise and moving it to a Paladin is simple enough and makes clear why - code and all - a Paladin must be LG, and why no other alignment will do.
Whoa! That's a huge leap!
I've just re-read the Dragon magazine article where it published official non-lawful good paladins.
There were paladins for NG, CG, LN, TN and CN, and we were promised paladins for the three evil alignments to follow in the next issue.
Every single one had a strict code that must be followed, or fall! Yes, even the chaotic ones!
How can this be? Official chaotic paladins? With codes?
Simple. Chaotic alignment and chaotic behaviour are different things!
Chaotic behaviour may mean you do things on a whim.
Chaotic alignment means you value the freedoms and rights of the individual over the rights of the state/organisation/tribe/etc. Such a person can easily, inflexibly make a life-long commitment to uphold and fight for those chaotic principles of his own free will.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't a huge leap at all.
Rather than citing an article written for Dragon Magazine (obviously for 3.5 and bordering on 3pp...) lets look at what it actually says in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. And I'll use bold, like you do.
"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."
Not much I need to add. Says it pretty clearly.