Hopefully not another Paladin alignment discussion. (It totally is)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 283 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Weirdo wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Maybe it would be helpful if people could post some possible rules of behavior for non-LG paladins, because if the character doesn't have a code that is sometimes hard to follow (i.e. it sometimes rules out the most pragmatic or best tactical option in a situation), then IMO you don't have anything like a paladin.

CG codes, from a previous post of mine. The first two have very obvious consequences in dealing with authority figures, and the rest can be otherwise situationally inconvenient.

  • Cannot assume titles of authority or use them in addressing others (ex: Your Highness, Your Honour)
  • Cannot participate in rituals of obedience (ex: bowing, doffing hats)
  • Cannot use or condone the use of magic interfering with free will, including Charm, Dominate, Suggestion, or Mark of Justice
  • Cannot keep a prisoner who prefers death to imprisonment
  • Cannot tolerate punishment of persons for crimes that are not evil in nature (ex: adultery)
  • Cannot enter into or encourage others to enter into a binding contract (one that has penalties for breaking the contract beyond the loss of its benefits)
  • Cannot make promises, as this gives the impression of having entered into a verbal binding agreement. Instead of saying "I promise to save your brother" the CG paladin says "I intend to save your brother."

I like this code. That could make for some very interesting roleplaying.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, as CG is concerned with the self, self sacrifice to benefit others is a marginal act, at best. CG is far more likely to be 'tough love, live and let live'.

Lawful people tend to favor society and others, and good people are willing to give of themselves. Combine them, and you have great self-sacrifice. That's only partially a Good trait, but it's a very strong LG trait. There's always people willing to die for a cause...but to labor away without much reward in service to one? That screams LG. CG gets something out of it!

In the first movie, McClane's wife punches out the reporter, not him. Nobody in his chain of command is actually giving him an order, and they are attempting to give him orders when they don't know the situation, and he does. He's not chaotic...he's doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing. Those who've been following orders get killed.

The Robin Hood examples I use are the classic tales, not the many modern reinventions.

As for Dresden, the fact the fey and angels and whatnot are constrained by their rules is frustrating when things have to get done, but that doesn't make him chaotic.
Likewise, participating in illegal activities doesn't make one unlawful. Cue the Knights of the Sword. Michael Carpenter is extremely lawful good, but he operates on a different scale then mortal laws.
Actually, discipline is NOT a trait of Chaotic Good. Passion and possibly obsession are. Lack of willingness to follow a pattern, and superstitions instead of habits, are signs of CG. Dresden always eats at Burger King, drove the same care, used the same weapons, etc etc etc.

IN the most recent book, Michael Carpenter breaks into a bank to help rob another, and evades the legal authorities at the end of it. Breaking all sorts of laws, but he's still LG to the core. He does have to justify to himself why he's doing it, however.

As for the Laws of Magic - sorry, killing mortals with magic doesn't mess with your mind, or Harry's Grandfather would be batcrap wacko, as in one book alone he kills dozens, if not hundreds, of mortals directly with magic using the Blackstaff, pulls a satellite down on a vampire castle where dozens of mortals die in another, etc.
Now, messing with someone's head with 'Jedi Mind Tricks', that'll have consequences.
The White Council's Laws of Magic are there because of the consequences that happen when people break them, or try to break them. The fact they mirror crap you just should not do from the standpoint of maintaining reality itself is just good common sense.

==Aelryinth


JoeJ wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Maybe it would be helpful if people could post some possible rules of behavior for non-LG paladins, because if the character doesn't have a code that is sometimes hard to follow (i.e. it sometimes rules out the most pragmatic or best tactical option in a situation), then IMO you don't have anything like a paladin.

CG codes, from a previous post of mine. The first two have very obvious consequences in dealing with authority figures, and the rest can be otherwise situationally inconvenient.

  • Cannot assume titles of authority or use them in addressing others (ex: Your Highness, Your Honour)
  • Cannot participate in rituals of obedience (ex: bowing, doffing hats)
  • Cannot use or condone the use of magic interfering with free will, including Charm, Dominate, Suggestion, or Mark of Justice
  • Cannot keep a prisoner who prefers death to imprisonment
  • Cannot tolerate punishment of persons for crimes that are not evil in nature (ex: adultery)
  • Cannot enter into or encourage others to enter into a binding contract (one that has penalties for breaking the contract beyond the loss of its benefits)
  • Cannot make promises, as this gives the impression of having entered into a verbal binding agreement. Instead of saying "I promise to save your brother" the CG paladin says "I intend to save your brother."

I like this code. That could make for some very interesting roleplaying.

Weirdo wrote a great CG paladin code. It would be interesting to see how the CG paladin plays. If enough players would like to advocate for alt paladins, they could run an AP or supermodule. If you had notes from two groups playing each of Carrion Crown and The Emerald Spire, one 'control' group with a LG paladin and one test group with a CG paladin, you could post the notes. The ACG playtest notes had great feedback on all the classes, both mechanically and roleplay-wise. If you advocates test out the CG paladin and how it works in gameplay that might get more attention from the Paizo devs (they read these posts, but we all have opinions and I suspect they're too busy to run a campaign to check out opinions posted here).


Aelryinth wrote:
Actually, as CG is concerned with the self, self sacrifice to benefit others is a marginal act, at best. CG is far more likely to be 'tough love, live and let live'.

Where does it say that? Can't they make a sacrifice for the greater good? Especially martyrdom relating to the freedom of others.

Not a big fan of saying only good people sacrifice. Evil and neutral can make a lot of sacrifices too. The reasons and what could vary pretty greatly from individual to individual though.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

'The greater good' is NOT CG. Chaotic Good is 'do what you want, with respect and goodwill for others.' 'The Greater Good' is a mantra of being Lawful, actually. It's the reason we have laws in the first place!!!

Can CG sacrifice for others? Sure. But he'd have to have a very good reason to, and he's also happy to lie, cheat and steal to feather his own bed, as long as nobody actually gets hurt (the CG theif is probably the most iconic trope for CG). He's not likely to be charitable, unless he gets something out of it...CG is about the self, not everyone else. Sure, he'll help his friends out, but he'll expect to be repaid in one way or another.
================================

That CG code is a living suicide mission.
CG characters often live or die by their oaths and promises. The fact they consider their personal honor greater then the laws and rules of others is one of the main tenets of being CG. A Lawful Good character would swallow his honor and break a vow for the good of his family and his king...or try to find some way to work around the restriction. The Chaotic Good character will simply do what his heart says is right, in the face of adversity from friends, family, and stuff.

Doffing a hat and bowing are signs of respect, not obedience. Such a rule is also likely to be fatal in many courts...meaning you are restricting yourself to actions which will get you killed, AND the many traditions (not laws) that help society stay together you are actively ignoring.
Personal power is huge in CG. One of the other tenets of Chaotic philosophies is 'your rule is exactly as far as your reach.' The king can make you bow and scrape, but the instant he can't take your head for it, you're on your feet and saying whatever you want to...as long as it isn't treason that will catch his ear and have the bounty hunters after you, of course! Chaotics are eminently practical in that manner.

Throwing someone in prison is little different then shoving a Mark of Justice on them. Having someone repay a debt is not lawful, it is simply fair. The CG person will, however, make sure the person is freed once the debt is repaid.
YOu can kill someone, but can't charm them to prevent loss of life. Neat.

Ah, so he'd stay married to a woman who adultered on him, instead of throwing her out of the house? Good to know. Can't punish her for being randy, after all (or vice versa for the gender). Can't punish a man for not providing for his family? Yep, he can walk away and leave the lady and little ones to get by however. He never wanted to support them, anyways. All them bards who get the lord's daughters pregnant and skip town, yeah, they're totally in the right of things.

Can't make promises, meaning has no personal honor. Willingness to uphold oaths in the face of all sorts of opposition, just because it's YOUR oath? Nope, can't make an oath. I suppose that leaves you free to just change your mind at will, then.

CG code? I'm seeing insanity, really.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
'The greater good' is NOT CG. Chaotic Good is 'do what you want, with respect and goodwill for others.' 'The Greater Good' is a mantra of being Lawful, actually. It's the reason we have laws in the first place!!!

The words greater good don't come up in any of the write ups for alignments in pathfinder. A CE guy could do things for the greater good but be an absolute monster. Zealotry in particular is notable.

Aelryinth wrote:
Can CG sacrifice for others? Sure. But he'd have to have a very good reason to, and he's also happy to lie, cheat and steal to feather his own bed, as long as nobody actually gets hurt (the CG theif is probably the most iconic trope for CG). He's not likely to be charitable, unless he gets something out of it...CG is about the self, not everyone else. Sure, he'll help his friends out, but he'll expect to be repaid in one way or another.

Not exactly painting CG in a good light. The guy your describing could also fit CN because he doesn't actually look benevolent so much as in it for himself. I definitely don't remember anything in CG about being happy to steal and being selfish and in it for the coin.

Robin Hood is an iconic CG, and I don't remember him being a steal from the rich to give to himself kind and poor when they did something for him kind of guy.

So why are we talking about this again?


Movie adaptations of Robin Hood tend to be more CG, but I agree with Aelrryinth that the original source material is more NG.

I think the CG paladin advocates should run the CG paladin through and AP or The Emerald Spire and post notes. The concept of CG paladin is contradictory, a paladin gains divine power by following a code s/he views as a higher calling than their own take on morality and law. A CG character does not recognize any higher calling than their own perspective, which is the opposite of being a paladin. But the CG paladin advocates should post the CG paladin code and mechanics and fluff (add any spell with Freedom in the title and remove litanies from the spell list, for example). Then if the CG paladin advocates run an AP (I suggest Carrion Crown or The Emerald Spire) and post the notes, similar to the ACG playtest, that will provide feedback that might be more useful to devs. We can argue whether Robin Hood is NG or CG all day (and sometimes we do), but playtest notes probably are more useful to devs.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Robin Hood totally stole from the rich and gave mostly to himself...and then spent the money with the poor, as well, effectively returning their tax dollars to them. He also happily lived off the land, killed the king's deer, squatted in the king's forest, etc etc. Kindly note that most of his men were actually 'the poor'!

Han Solo is iconic CG - happy to break laws as long as he made a buck, but he drew the lines in many places, slavery being the most notable of them.

And anyone's 'actions' can benefit the greater good. Whether your motives are to actually do so is something quite different. Chaotics are fun in that regard because you can play them lawful or crazy as the situation dictates.

Lying, cheating, and stealing are all iconic actions of CG people, as long as no true harm is done. And it's the admittance of this whole class of behaviors into getting all the benefits of a 'paladin' which has so many of us hard-set against it.

If there's no reward for virtue, why be virtuous? The paladin is the exemplar of giving up flexibility in actions for power in those actions allowed him.

If all you want to do is call him a bundle of mechanical benefits, you're really missing the point of what he's supposed to represent.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
And it's the admittance of this whole class of behaviors into getting all the benefits of a 'paladin' which has so many of us hard-set against it.

Your setting up a pretty biased example though. "CG isn't a goodly good because it lies, cheats, and steals!" and ignoring the idea you can play a CG character without those, or even a NG, and that there's already a code in place to determine what the paladin is, and that's a guy who can't lie to save orphan's. You could even have a guy with a totally different code to represent another ideal, or build your own codes to create a character who's really flexible and built around his own ideal and character rather than being pigeonholed into one archaic one.

Aelryinth wrote:
The paladin is the exemplar of giving up flexibility in actions for power in those actions allowed him.

Your going to have to prove that's part of the balance though. Is that really what the paladin is all about? Getting superpowers for roleplaying things? Do you have any proof to support that statement.

Aelryinth wrote:
If all you want to do is call him a bundle of mechanical benefits, you're really missing the point of what he's supposed to represent.

He's a bundle of mechanics. Every class is. Mechanics you can use to roleplay and that determine how you can play in the game. People already know that there is a paladin in the core rulebook that represents a certain ideal, but not everyone thinks it should be restricted so much or that you can't have other ideals or champions of other ideals.


ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
I think the CG paladin advocates should run the CG paladin through and AP or The Emerald Spire and post notes.

What if I can show you proof an inflexible LG paladin can create problems from personal experience or through other forum post?

Why does someone have to prove a CG character can possibly follow a code and remain CG. Its possible they still have a chaotic way of going about things, or don't deal well with traditionalist or law, or that they really believe in personal freedoms which the Paladin code says nothing against, and that through all of that, they have a belief in doing good and laying down the smack to evil and wrongdoers.

ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
but playtest notes probably are more useful to devs.

Are you sure they really care or would change anything? I think you might have higher hopes than me.


MrSin wrote:
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
I think the CG paladin advocates should run the CG paladin through and AP or The Emerald Spire and post notes.

What if I can show you proof an inflexible LG paladin can create problems from personal experience or through other forum post?

Why does someone have to prove a CG character can possibly follow a code and remain CG. Its possible they still have a chaotic way of going about things, or don't deal well with traditionalist or law, or that they really believe in personal freedoms which the Paladin code says nothing against, and that through all of that, they have a belief in doing good and laying down the smack to evil and wrongdoers.

ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
but playtest notes probably are more useful to devs.
Are you sure they really care or would change anything? I think you might have higher hopes than me.

Paizo has a lot of information on PFS play. They know what races, classes, and alignments get played. They get feedback from GMs and players as part of PFS play. It looks like the LG paladin is popular enough to keep as is. Demonstrating a CG paladin is probably more productive than sharing stories of players not liking the LG paladin. Enough players play the LG paladin in PFS for Paizo to keep the LG paladin LG. I don't know that the Paizo devs will change anything based on an unofficial homebrew playtest of a CG paladin, but I suspect it would provide information that is more useful to them than critiquing the LG paladin.


ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
It looks like the LG paladin is popular enough to keep as is.

To be fair, the LG paladin is your only option in core. I'd imagine that skews the numbers quiet a bit.

Again, you shouldn't have to prove it can function to begin with as much as prove that it creates a problem if not, and just the same I can show you examples of how LG only can cause problems because of its lack of flexibility. Heck, this forum thread might even be considered one.


MrSin wrote:
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
I think the CG paladin advocates should run the CG paladin through and AP or The Emerald Spire and post notes.
What if I can show you proof an inflexible LG paladin can create problems from personal experience or through other forum post?

Go ahead.

Quote:
Why does someone have to prove a CG character can possibly follow a code and remain CG.

Because that's how logic works. You make a statement. You offer evidence to support that statement. You currently have no evidence for your statement.


ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
Cannot make promises, as this gives the impression of having entered into a verbal binding agreement. Instead of saying "I promise to save your brother" the CG paladin says "I intend to save your brother."

To point out the problems inherent in a chaotic good code, isn't a chaotic good paladin making a promise not to make any promises?

Shadow Lodge

Aelryinth wrote:

'The greater good' is NOT CG. Chaotic Good is 'do what you want, with respect and goodwill for others.' 'The Greater Good' is a mantra of being Lawful, actually. It's the reason we have laws in the first place!!!

Can CG sacrifice for others? Sure. But he'd have to have a very good reason to, and he's also happy to lie, cheat and steal to feather his own bed, as long as nobody actually gets hurt (the CG theif is probably the most iconic trope for CG). He's not likely to be charitable, unless he gets something out of it...CG is about the self, not everyone else. Sure, he'll help his friends out, but he'll expect to be repaid in one way or another.

From the CG description in Champions of Purity:

"Chaotic good characters want the freedom to do as they will and desire others to be free of oppression as well."

"For vigilantes, justice must be delivered at all costs, and they risk their own lives to keep the lives of innocents safe and secure."

"While chaotic good characters do not accept that individuals must sacrifice their ideals and follow laws for the good of the whole, they willingly sacrifice themselves (and their individuality) to protect the whole in the name of good."

Aelryinth wrote:
That CG code is a living suicide mission.

So you're saying it's harder to follow than the LG one?

Aelryinth wrote:
CG characters often live or die by their oaths and promises. The fact they consider their personal honor greater then the laws and rules of others is one of the main tenets of being CG.

So a CG character can consistently follow a moral code, as long as they decide what that code is?

Aelryinth wrote:
CG code? I'm seeing insanity, really.

It's not a full code, it's a list of specifically CG clauses that could be used in place of the LG clauses "must respect legitimate authority" and "must behave with honour." It's an example of some the principles with which a CG champion could be played. And yes, some of those principles do look distasteful to a LG person, but that's because law doesn't appreciate chaotic values.

The bard who impregnates the king's daughter looks like a cad, but if he was clear about his intentions then he hasn't harmed the lady, who made her choice out of her own free will. Besides, having a child out of wedlock shouldn't be a problem in a society that respects the king's daughter as a person and provides single parents of either gender with the resources they need to raise a child that the other parent can't or won't properly care for. And if the princess is shamed for the incident, then it's the kingdom that's at fault more than the bard.

The CG champion absolutely believes in being fair, and they try to hold up their end of any bargains. However, they also believe that life can be unpredictable and that you shouldn't try to uphold a deal or keep a promise at the expense of what is actually the right thing to do. They make sure that that is clear to others, and while a person dealing with a CG champion can't be confident that the letter of the agreement will be followed, they'll know that the champion will do their best to ensure they are happy and have what they want as long as that doesn't hurt others. Which, for some, is more comforting than dealing with a LG paladin who might be tied up in red tape when dealing with rules or promises that have become harmful.

The classic LG paladin finds it distasteful that the CG champion can't use charm or Mark of Justice to save a life, but the CG champion finds it distasteful that the LG paladin can't lie or use poison to save a life.

ParagonDireRacoon wrote:
I think the CG paladin advocates should run the CG paladin through and AP or The Emerald Spire and post notes. The concept of CG paladin is contradictory, a paladin gains divine power by following a code s/he views as a higher calling than their own take on morality and law. A CG character does not recognize any higher calling than their own perspective, which is the opposite of being a paladin. But the CG paladin advocates should post the CG paladin code and mechanics and fluff (add any spell with Freedom in the title and remove litanies from the spell list, for example). Then if the CG paladin advocates run an AP (I suggest Carrion Crown or The Emerald Spire) and post the notes, similar to the ACG playtest, that will provide feedback that might be more useful to devs. We can argue whether Robin Hood is NG or CG all day (and sometimes we do), but playtest notes probably are more useful to devs.

I could go for that. Are there any logistics or record-keeping attached, or do we just take notes in play?


Ipslore the Red wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
I think the CG paladin advocates should run the CG paladin through and AP or The Emerald Spire and post notes.
What if I can show you proof an inflexible LG paladin can create problems from personal experience or through other forum post?

Go ahead.

Uh, there are countless Paladin threads on these boards alone, let alone also the various 3.5 boards on the issues the LG code/having to play LG causes.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
To point out the problems inherent in a chaotic good code, isn't a chaotic good paladin making a promise not to make any promises?

Nope, they're stating an intent not to make any promises. If they find that they absolutely have to make a promise to do the right thing, they will make that promise and fall, and then maybe atone. Which happens to LG paladins sometimes, so no problems there.


Scavion wrote:
Ipslore the Red wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
I think the CG paladin advocates should run the CG paladin through and AP or The Emerald Spire and post notes.
What if I can show you proof an inflexible LG paladin can create problems from personal experience or through other forum post?

Go ahead.

Uh, there are countless Paladin threads on these boards alone, let alone also the various 3.5 boards on the issues the LG code/having to play LG causes.

I was asking MrSin to support his argument. I'm aware of the threads. I'm posting in one, after all.


Ipslore the Red wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Why does someone have to prove a CG character can possibly follow a code and remain CG.
Because that's how logic works. You make a statement. You offer evidence to support that statement. You currently have no evidence for your statement.

Aren't I proving a negative if I have to prove that something doesn't cause a problem though? I can prove a positive, like there's a demand or people can cause problems, but I can't prove a negative.

I suppose I could share, for example, I played a paladin of slaughter in 3.5 and that never went wrong because he always followed his code because they happened to fall right in line with the campaign and his personality and worshipped tenants of his goddess while working under an extremely high level lich for power. Is that proof of anything? I could state that this thread is proof of demand, as would the list of links shared earlier.


"I could go for that. Are there any logistics or record-keeping attached, or do we just take notes in play?" (sorry for not using the reply feature, there was a weird glitch when I tried a moment ago).

I would make a thread for it, and make a google doc with the CG paladin code and changes to mechanics and fluff. Check with some who GMs Pathfinder Society play and find out what kind of feedback Paizo prefers. And keep notes. Having a control group with a LG paladin and a group with a CG paladin would be ideal. Any adventure path or long module would work great, but Carrion Crown, Wrath of the Righteous, and the Emerald Spire would all work great.

I suspect there will differences in how the story plays out between the LG paladin group and the CG paladin group, and mechanical differences. Changing the spell list might have a big impact- trading out litanies for spells with freedom in the title will change things at medium levels. How the parties build themselves will also be affected- if each group has a paladin, investigator, sorcerer, and oracle the rest of the group might choose feats, spells, and magic items to capitalize on strengths of the paladin and lessen the impact of weaknesses. If a LG paladin is a tank and smiting machine in an undead or demon heavy campaign, the party can stand back and deal damage at a distance. If a CG paladin is more of a skirmisher and has spells and class abilities that maximize mobility for the party, the oracle might need a melee focus and the sorcerer won't be able to count on an impassable tank wall in combat.


MrSin wrote:
Ipslore the Red wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Why does someone have to prove a CG character can possibly follow a code and remain CG.
Because that's how logic works. You make a statement. You offer evidence to support that statement. You currently have no evidence for your statement.

Aren't I proving a negative if I have to prove that something doesn't cause a problem though? I can prove a positive, like there's a demand or people can cause problems, but I can't prove a negative.

I suppose I could share, for example, I played a paladin of slaughter in 3.5 and that never went wrong because he always followed his code because they happened to fall right in line with the campaign and his personality and worshipped tenants of his goddess while working under an extremely high level lich for power. Is that proof of anything? I could state that this thread is proof of demand, as would the list of links shared earlier.

You were suggesting that you could prove a positive- that a CG character can follow a code and remain CG. Personally, I agree. It still requires evidence, because neither of our opinions prove anything.

Proving that something doesn't cause a problem is indeed nearly impossible to do outside of anecdotal evidence, but that's not the question. It's accepted that anything can cause a problem in at least one table.

Proof of demand... sure, that works, although just how much demand exists is somewhat difficult to quantify.


Weirdo wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
To point out the problems inherent in a chaotic good code, isn't a chaotic good paladin making a promise not to make any promises?
Nope, they're stating an intent not to make any promises. If they find that they absolutely have to make a promise to do the right thing, they will make that promise and fall, and then maybe atone. Which happens to LG paladins sometimes, so no problems there.

Well then what is the CG paladin falling for ? They didn't break anything if they really really tried.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
To point out the problems inherent in a chaotic good code, isn't a chaotic good paladin making a promise not to make any promises?
Nope, they're stating an intent not to make any promises. If they find that they absolutely have to make a promise to do the right thing, they will make that promise and fall, and then maybe atone. Which happens to LG paladins sometimes, so no problems there.
Well then what is the CG paladin falling for ? They didn't break anything if they really really tried.

The paladin can fall for making a promise if he has to because his code and ideal was that he would never make a promise(which tbh I don't think is related to chaotic, but eh, subjective things are subjective).

Then again, being chaotic doesn't mean you can't follow a code, it might just mean you have a chaotic code or a code about chaotic things like selfishness or personal freedom of others. Your code could be "Don't tolerate slavery of any kind, all men are free!" or "When you see creativity stopped unjustly, you work to defend it!"

Or maybe we should discuss just what's so lawful about not being able to use poisons and how not lying can actually harm others.

Liberty's Edge

Aelryinth wrote:
Actually, as CG is concerned with the self, self sacrifice to benefit others is a marginal act, at best. CG is far more likely to be 'tough love, live and let live'.

Uh...as Weirdo notes, this is not said anywhere. You're inserting your own biases into the question. CG is not less willing to sacrifice their lives for others than LG because Law and Chaos say nothing about that. Being willing to do so is in the description of Good alignments as a whole:

"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

Bolding mine. Why would Law or Chaos change that?

Aelryinth wrote:
Lawful people tend to favor society and others, and good people are willing to give of themselves. Combine them, and you have great self-sacrifice. That's only partially a Good trait, but it's a very strong LG trait. There's always people willing to die for a cause...but to labor away without much reward in service to one? That screams LG. CG gets something out of it!

Yeah...selfishness isn't listed in the description of Chaotic. They're more individual oriented, but that means they're likely to die to save a drowning child rather than die to stop a revolution. Individual focus rather than societal isn't selfishness, it's focusing on individual trees rather than the forest...and even that isn't an absolute, as they care quite a bit about freedom as a general principle and will die for people's right to it.

Harry Dresden's willingness to die or start a war over individual people's safety and rights is textbook CG.

Aelryinth wrote:
In the first movie, McClane's wife punches out the reporter, not him. Nobody in his chain of command is actually giving him an order, and they are attempting to give him orders when they don't know the situation, and he does. He's not chaotic...he's doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing. Those who've been following orders get killed.

You're right on the reporter, I forgot that.

And the fact that McClane is both right and smart doesn't make him Lawful. He defies the legal authorities (and they are in his chain of command in a very real sense, because they're cops giving orders to a civilian...he's out of his jurisdiction, remember?) He's absolutely doing the right thing...but 'supposed to be doing'? New York cops are in no way supposed to try and stop LA crime, and indeed can get arrested if they do, just like any civilian who goes overboard on the vigilante thing.

Aelryinth wrote:
The Robin Hood examples I use are the classic tales, not the many modern reinventions.

Me too, generally speaking.

Aelryinth wrote:
As for Dresden, the fact the fey and angels and whatnot are constrained by their rules is frustrating when things have to get done, but that doesn't make him chaotic.

It does a little. Look at Michael's reaction to the angels' restrictions as opposed to Harry's. Michael has faith that the rules of his faith are for the best and will make things work out. Harry does not. That sort of faith in the rules is Lawful, a lack of such faith Chaotic.

Aelryinth wrote:
Likewise, participating in illegal activities doesn't make one unlawful. Cue the Knights of the Sword. Michael Carpenter is extremely lawful good, but he operates on a different scale then mortal laws.

True. But Harry breaks all the laws, including the ones he considers good and right when it's convenient. Michael would never break his own rules...Harry breaks his all the time when he feels they get in the way. That's the difference.

Aelryinth wrote:
Actually, discipline is NOT a trait of Chaotic Good. Passion and possibly obsession are. Lack of willingness to follow a pattern, and superstitions instead of habits, are signs of CG. Dresden always eats at Burger King, drove the same care, used the same weapons, etc etc etc.

I didn't say discipline was a trait of CG...I said it wasn't a sign of Alignment one way or the other. And Harry being a creature of habit is something of a Lawful trait...but far outweighed by everything else he does being Chaotic.

Aelryinth wrote:
IN the most recent book, Michael Carpenter breaks into a bank to help rob another, and evades the legal authorities at the end of it. Breaking all sorts of laws, but he's still LG to the core. He does have to justify to himself why he's doing it, however.

Indeed. Harry doesn't require such justification. It being the best way to achieve the outcome he desires is sufficient.

Aelryinth wrote:
As for the Laws of Magic - sorry, killing mortals with magic doesn't mess with your mind, or Harry's Grandfather would be batcrap wacko, as in one book alone he kills dozens, if not hundreds, of mortals directly with magic using the Blackstaff, pulls a satellite down on a vampire castle where dozens of mortals die in another, etc.

Actually, again per the official Dresden Files RPG (which was written with Jim Butcher's personal input by a very good group of designers at least one of whom is a personal friend of his), it very much does mess with your mind (if in a different way than mind control). The Blackstaff appears to be a rather potent artifact that lets you do such things without such consequences (again, according to the official RPG).

Aelryinth wrote:
Now, messing with someone's head with 'Jedi Mind Tricks', that'll have consequences.

Indeed.

Aelryinth wrote:
The White Council's Laws of Magic are there because of the consequences that happen when people break them, or try to break them. The fact they mirror crap you just should not do from the standpoint of maintaining reality itself is just good common sense.

Not entirely, no. At least (again) per the official RPG.


ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:

"I could go for that. Are there any logistics or record-keeping attached, or do we just take notes in play?" (sorry for not using the reply feature, there was a weird glitch when I tried a moment ago).

I would make a thread for it, and make a google doc with the CG paladin code and changes to mechanics and fluff. Check with some who GMs Pathfinder Society play and find out what kind of feedback Paizo prefers. And keep notes. Having a control group with a LG paladin and a group with a CG paladin would be ideal. Any adventure path or long module would work great, but Carrion Crown, Wrath of the Righteous, and the Emerald Spire would all work great.

I suspect there will differences in how the story plays out between the LG paladin group and the CG paladin group, and mechanical differences. Changing the spell list might have a big impact- trading out litanies for spells with freedom in the title will change things at medium levels. How the parties build themselves will also be affected- if each group has a paladin, investigator, sorcerer, and oracle the rest of the group might choose feats, spells, and magic items to capitalize on strengths of the paladin and lessen the impact of weaknesses. If a LG paladin is a tank and smiting machine in an undead or demon heavy campaign, the party can stand back and deal damage at a distance. If a CG paladin is more of a skirmisher and has spells and class abilities that maximize mobility for the party, the oracle might need a melee focus and the sorcerer won't be able to count on an impassable tank wall in combat.

Some more thoughts on mechanics for an unofficial homebrew CG paladin playtest:

Instead of falling, make class abilities and spell dependent on a mechanic similar to grit points. Call the CG paladin a Paladin of Liberty. Write up a tiered system of class abilities and spells. Class abilities at first level are tier one and require zero liberty points. Class abilities gained at levels 2-5 are tier one and require at least one liberty points to use. Level 6-10 abilities are tier two and require at least two liberty points to use, and so on. Write up guidelines for gaining and losing liberty points based on the CG paladin code.

A CG paladin could have shades of grey to navigate, just different shades of grey. Two scenarios I can think of (I'm reading book five of ASoIaF):
1) A nation is at war with a group of allied tribes, and a marriage is arranged between a noble of the nation and a chieftain (or chieftain's daughter) to bring peace. Neither wanted to get married, but are willing to for the good of their people. The party is negotiating peace and is involved, how does the CG paladin navigate this?
2) Taxes and how they are used. A paladin of liberty does not have the paladin requirement to respect legitimate authority, or at least has different criterion for legitimate authority. Taxes are being used to buy slaves, and part of the deal is the slavers are sending (free) troops to help with the Worldwound Incursion. Without reinforcements, demons roam free from the Worldwound.

Other possible scenarios could involve a nation like Latveria with a Dr. Doom inspired ruler. I see Dr. Doom (at least in stories I like) as LE, and he is well-liked by his people. But a LE Dr. Doom is the polar opposite in terms of alignment from the CG paladin of liberty. The party is sent to negotiate with Latveria just as Dr. Doom imposes martial law. Or along the same lines, the party is travelling through a country with similar restrictions on freedom as China or Soviet Russia. How does the CG paladin react to omnipresent oppression and lack of freedom?

I think the spell list should add haste and freedom of movement and lose litanies and anything with a law or order component. I'm not writing up any specific mechanics, better designers than me (Andy Collins and James Jacobs) have with mixed results. The CG paladin advocates will have to write up mechanics and fluff they are happy with, and post notes and observation from gameplay.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Example 1) also, the parties going to be married don't want to get married, and want to elope with their true loves. If they do, it's war.

fun times.

2) Slavery came about as an alternative to killing prisoners of war. The CG paladin's order has completely shut down the slaving trade, so the nations that used to sell off prisoners are now slaughtering them all, as they have no means nor desire to support them, and certainly aren't going to release them to go back to their hereditary enemies.

Because they don't have a more humane way of relieving themselves of prisoners, the 9neutral) nations are now instead simply slaughtering thousands of the helpless. What does the CG paladin do?

Oh, and remember, the CG paladin can't address the rulers of these nations by their proper titles, bow to them, salute them, or treat them any differently then any other person, because that would be showing obedience. Mmm.
===================
Lie, Cheating, and stealing is part of what a Chaotic character can do. They don't HAVE to do it, but they CAN, and without penalty, as long as nobody is harmed.

Yeah, the bard is free to knock up all the pretty girls and walk away from providing for the children. Wootie, great chaotic mindset...only women are responsible for the kids! And maybe not even then! Orphanages should be overflowing with kids women dumped on them and walked away from, letting someone else take care of their mistakes is fine and dandy and all.

Oh, and Harry Dresden doesn't break his own rules. That's his key point. He's perfectly willing to break all of other people's rules that aren't relevant to what he's doing (beating up Cassius Snakeface when the knights had to walk away still makes me laugh), but then, he's not a Knight of the Cross, who get special abilities BECAUSE they follow those rules.

And like it or not, there's fey rules he has to follow now, because he's the Winter Knight.

But being too stubborn to let others change him isn't a CG mindset, either. He's got his rules and he's sticking to them. I'd make him solidly NG...innately disciplined, methodical and habitual, but willing to be innovative and get off the road when necessary to get the job done.

But blind obedience to how others see the law? Nah. I'll agree with you there. His respect for laws tends to take a much different twist.

But CG? Don't see it. Not emotional enough. Too stubborn and emotionally stupid that way. Overthinks things and isn't THAT impulsive (except for maybe his motormouth, but that's a defense mechanism a lot of jokers have).

McClane is a highly trained officer of the law inside a situation where he can correctly judge what is going on, where those outside cannot, especially with his limited communication. Ignoring orders that would get actual civilians killed because those giving the orders don't know the situation does not make him Chaotic. If he didn't know laws, rules, and regulations and be willing to abide them in the first place, he never would have been a policeman to begin with. Getting thrown into a very unconventional and perilous position to deal with doesn't suddenly alter alignment! It just shows his resourcefulness and adaptability...and those aren't traits restricted to the chaotic, either.

==Aelryinth


Well, it seems like a CG Paladin has gained some traction. XD

Suggestion on that front, have someone who doesn't like the idea of CG Paladins ALSO play through something like that, to reduce any possibility of accusations, and to also compensate for the additional variable of beliefs/intentions of the person playing it.

Does anyone have anything to say about NG, or even LN as Paladin alignments?

Or even alignment-less? All this focusing on a CG variant of the Paladin has made a few other questions fade into the background.

While part of the question was indeed "Why can't Paladins be other Alignments?", the other part of the question is, "Why aren't Paladins the same alignment as their Deities?"

It was explained that Paladins get their powers from some third party dependent on them and their Code, who's to say that those same Deities couldn't MAKE Paladins, and have them use their own Code based off their Diety. Iomedae, Sarenrae, Shelyn and Abadar all have specific Paladin codes in Inner Sea Gods, which means, that for those Gods, and those alignments (LN, LG (Variant of Main Paladin), and two versions of NG), there are pre-built Codes as applied to those Gods.

I understand, "That's not how it works", but, aside from that, any issues with this?

Ever so slight tangent (Or not so Tangent possibly), anyone remember the Knights of Tahkisis? :)

Liberty's Edge

Aelryinth wrote:

Example 1) also, the parties going to be married don't want to get married, and want to elope with their true loves. If they do, it's war.

fun times.

2) Slavery came about as an alternative to killing prisoners of war. The CG paladin's order has completely shut down the slaving trade, so the nations that used to sell off prisoners are now slaughtering them all, as they have no means nor desire to support them, and certainly aren't going to release them to go back to their hereditary enemies.

Because they don't have a more humane way of relieving themselves of prisoners, the 9neutral) nations are now instead simply slaughtering thousands of the helpless. What does the CG paladin do?

Oh, and remember, the CG paladin can't address the rulers of these nations by their proper titles, bow to them, salute them, or treat them any differently then any other person, because that would be showing obedience. Mmm.

That's the Chaotic Stupid version, much like the Lawful Stupid version everyone complains about with the normal Paladin.

Aelryinth wrote:
Lie, Cheating, and stealing is part of what a Chaotic character can do. They don't HAVE to do it, but they CAN, and without penalty, as long as nobody is harmed.

Sure...and?

Aelryinth wrote:
Yeah, the bard is free to knock up all the pretty girls and walk away from providing for the children. Wootie, great chaotic mindset...only women are responsible for the kids! And maybe not even then! Orphanages should be overflowing with kids women dumped on them and walked away from, letting someone else take care of their mistakes is fine and dandy and all.

Uh...no. That's a CN attitude, not CG. Good alignment of any sort generally involves not being a giant dick. A CG person is free to sleep around...but only as long as they don't cause too much pain and hardship thereby (this example would fall under 'causing pain and hardship' and is thus not okay for a Good character).

Aelryinth wrote:
Oh, and Harry Dresden doesn't break his own rules. That's his key point. He's perfectly willing to break all of other people's rules that aren't relevant to what he's doing (beating up Cassius Snakeface when the knights had to walk away still makes me laugh), but then, he's not a Knight of the Cross, who get special abilities BECAUSE they follow those rules.

Harry killed Lloyd Slate in a ritual sacrifice for power, and made a deal with Mab, two things he swore he'd never do, earlier he called on Lash's power and used Hellfire and other powers of hell...something else he said he'd never do. Later he killed the mother of his child, something else he swore he wouldn't do. A major point of the series as a whole is that choices mean what you decide they mean. Harry talks with his father one time about that in a very telling fashion.

He breaks all his own rules...except those that would make him no longer Good.

Aelryinth wrote:
And like it or not, there's fey rules he has to follow now, because he's the Winter Knight.

This is true...and why I noted him becoming more lawful in recent books.

Aelryinth wrote:
But being too stubborn to let others change him isn't a CG mindset, either. He's got his rules and he's sticking to them.

Yes it is. Not letting other people dictate your actions is very precisely the CG mindset.

And he doesn't stick to them, not always. Nobody else can make him break his rules, but he does himself, when he feels he needs to.

Aelryinth wrote:
I'd make him solidly NG...innately disciplined, methodical and habitual, but willing to be innovative and get off the road when necessary to get the job done.

That's possible, I suppose...but he's sure as hell on the CG end of it if so.

Aelryinth wrote:
But blind obedience to how others see the law? Nah. I'll agree with you there. His respect for laws tends to take a much different twist.

He has no respect for the law as such. He has respect for doing the right thing which is quite different.

Aelryinth wrote:
But CG? Don't see it. Not emotional enough. Too stubborn and emotionally stupid that way. Overthinks things and isn't THAT impulsive (except for maybe his motormouth, but that's a defense mechanism a lot of jokers have).

Stubbornness isn't counter-indicated by Chaotic alignment, nor is acting without considering your own feelings (and Harry certainly acts on impulse).

Aelryinth wrote:
McClane is a highly trained officer of the law inside a situation where he can correctly judge what is going on, where those outside cannot, especially with his limited communication. Ignoring orders that would get actual civilians killed because those giving the orders don't know the situation does not make him Chaotic.

It sure drifts him away from Lawful. Lawful alignments need not blindly obey legal orders...but they should pay more attention to them than McClane does (especially in later movies).

Aelryinth wrote:
If he didn't know laws, rules, and regulations and be willing to abide them in the first place, he never would have been a policeman to begin with.

Uh...there are a whole host of reasons to become a cop that don't involve a lawful motivation. Willingness to put up with laws, sure, that's needed, as is knowledge of the law...but neither of those necessitate Lawful alignment. Heck, to give a Pathfinder example, Baelor Hemlock, the Sherriff of Sandpoint, is CG.

Aelryinth wrote:
Getting thrown into a very unconventional and perilous position to deal with doesn't suddenly alter alignment! It just shows his resourcefulness and adaptability...and those aren't traits restricted to the chaotic, either.

Sure...and that movie in isolation might not be sufficient to label him Chaotic (though it argues against Lawful), but every bit of his characterization in every other movie just reinforces the Chaotic alignment.


Weirdo wrote:

Plus, 4E actually has an alignment system that is more friendly to the LG-only paladin than 3E/PF.

Namely, that LG actually is "Good Plus." There is no CG - chaos can be a particular vice in an evil creature, but never a particular virtue. Since LG actually has an extra-special status compared to ordinary good in 4E, it would make more sense that LG also has an extra-special class associated with it.

It doesn't.

...Ugh. How many times have I seen this misconception? It still ticks me off.

I hate to spell this out, but 4e Lawful Good is NOT "Good Plus". I don't know, people seem to see the fact it makes for one single row and make this assumption... As the corebook spells out, and as WoTC publically stated on their website, Lawful Good is the alignment of "Good AND Order, working together in harmony, are best". Lawful Good is the alignment of people who believe that order is an integral part of goodness, that systems should be changed from within where possible and that once evil is toppled, a new and righteous orderly reign should be established to take its place.

Good people are the kind who sweep into a village, stomp the nearby orcs harassing the place, then move on. Lawful Good people are the ones who show up, defeat the orcs, then try to organize a militia or evacuation procedures or other such things to ensure that people can fend for themselves before leaving.

Arguably, Chaotic Evil can be seen as an "Evil Plus" alignment in 4e, since the difference between the two is "Evil alignment is evil for a cause - even if that cause is conquering the universe and ruling it with a brutal iron fist, whereas Chaotic Evil alignment is evil of the I just want to watch the world burn variety". I'll concede that fact. But Lawful Good has been described in 4e all along as being a very specific form of Good, not "Gooder than Good".

That people keep misconstructing it otherwise really irks me, especially when there are other, more legitimate reasons to disapprove of the things 4e did.

To get back on topic, as I said much earlier, I'm of the camp that Paladins having to be Lawful Good is basically a sacred cow that has become increasingly pointless as the rules have grown far less brutally byzantine. The idea of a knight in shining armor can be handled by any sufficiently noble combat-focused class, from Fighter to Paladin, Ranger to Cavalier. The Paladin would be far better off if it actually embraced its potential fluff as a divinely empowered warrior-champion, dumped the alignment restrictions, and focused on its potential in that far more necessary concept niche.

Players who want the old holy-magic-using knight in shining armor can still play it via the paladin, and players who want to be a holy warrior fighting on behalf of any god, especially those of good alignments, can get what they want as well.

It's honestly a win-win scenario in my eyes, so the only real reason I can see not to change it is sheer grognardia.


The CG paladin has been tried before (3E Unearthed Arcana) and despite being well written it was not particularly popular, as I recall. I've made suggestions on how I think a CG paladin could be done, and Weirdo will try to make it work. I think an unofficial homebrew playtest of a CG paladin is more constructive than using the term Grognard to describe people who disagree with you.

The paladin alignment restriction discussion might be a bit of a proxy for disagreements on the alignment system, morality in general, and different editions. D&D/PF is a game of heroic fantasy with a lot of Tolkien influence, which means clearly defined good and evil with mechanical effects is a part of the game. MMOs have paladins with no alignment consequences, and 4E had elements of that. 4E might be dismissed as not an accurate test of alignmentless paladins, but if you dismiss 4E then you need to provide an example of alignmentless paladins being successful in a tabletop RPG (successful from a sales perspective).


ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
The CG paladin has been tried before (3E Unearthed Arcana) and despite being well written it was not particularly popular, as I recall.

How are you telling if its popular enough? How are you telling if anything is popular enough?


ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
The CG paladin has been tried before (3E Unearthed Arcana) and d

Where could you possibly be getting your data on this?!? It was one of hundreds of variants in a widely available supplement, so sales of UA aren't much of an indicator, since it doesn't say who used what from UA...

and that's even if you have the sales numbers, which you don't.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
And like it or not, there's fey rules he has to follow now, because he's the Winter Knight.
This is true...and why I noted him becoming more lawful in recent books.

I don't think I would call his behavior in regard to fey rules lawful in the slightest. He's only abiding by the rules because he has no choice in the matter. The first time he said "screw Winter Law" he was back to being paralyzed from the waist down. Likewise, Harry only works for Mab in Skin Game because his head will explode if he doesn't.

It's not that Harry has any respect for the fey's laws. He places no value on them, or thinks they're a good or noble thing. He's just stuck in a situation where disobedience is suicide, so he (with extreme reluctance) obeys.

If the threshold for lawful alignment is "obeys laws when it would be utterly suicidal to break them," then everyone but the criminally insane would be Lawful.


"The CG paladin has been tried before (3E Unearthed Arcana) and despite being well written it was not particularly popular, as I recall." You'll just have to take my word for it that I am correctly describing what I remember.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
"The CG paladin has been tried before (3E Unearthed Arcana) and despite being well written it was not particularly popular, as I recall." You'll just have to take my word for it that I am correctly describing what I remember.

Well in that case it did wonderfully and pathfinder is weird for not following suit while the other branches of the game did. You'll have to take my word for it.

Shadow Lodge

Aelryinth wrote:

2) Slavery came about as an alternative to killing prisoners of war. The CG paladin's order has completely shut down the slaving trade, so the nations that used to sell off prisoners are now slaughtering them all, as they have no means nor desire to support them, and certainly aren't going to release them to go back to their hereditary enemies.

Because they don't have a more humane way of relieving themselves of prisoners, the (neutral) nations are now instead simply slaughtering thousands of the helpless. What does the CG paladin do?

Oh, and remember, the CG paladin can't address the rulers of these nations by their proper titles, bow to them, salute them, or treat them any differently then any other person, because that would be showing obedience. Mmm.

And while we're at it, let's send the LG paladin on a deep-cover spy mission to retrieve an evil artifact from Cheliax. But he can't lie or steal, because that would be dishonourable. I'm sure that will work out swimmingly.

Teatime42 wrote:

Does anyone have anything to say about NG, or even LN as Paladin alignments?

Or even alignment-less? All this focusing on a CG variant of the Paladin has made a few other questions fade into the background.

While part of the question was indeed "Why can't Paladins be other Alignments?", the other part of the question is, "Why aren't Paladins the same alignment as their Deities?"

I personally like "any good" paladins. They require the least mechanical fiddling. Also the class remains the "big damn hero" class, which appeals to some, me included.

I would support an "any alignment" paladin/champion from an inclusiveness POV but would not play one myself.

I do see paladins as champions of a cause rather than servants of a deity, however. They may serve a deity as well as a cause, but the paladin as I see it should gain power from the strength of their convictions and their commitment to them above all else rather than just being another flavour of deity's follower.

QuietBrowser wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

Plus, 4E actually has an alignment system that is more friendly to the LG-only paladin than 3E/PF.

Namely, that LG actually is "Good Plus." There is no CG - chaos can be a particular vice in an evil creature, but never a particular virtue. Since LG actually has an extra-special status compared to ordinary good in 4E, it would make more sense that LG also has an extra-special class associated with it.

It doesn't.

I hate to spell this out, but 4e Lawful Good is NOT "Good Plus". I don't know, people seem to see the fact it makes for one single row and make this assumption... As the corebook spells out, and as WoTC publically stated on their website, Lawful Good is the alignment of "Good AND Order, working together in harmony, are best". Lawful Good is the alignment of people who believe that order is an integral part of goodness, that systems should be changed from within where possible and that once evil is toppled, a new and righteous orderly reign should be established to take its place.

...But Lawful Good has been described in 4e all along as being a very specific form of Good, not "Gooder than Good".

But what makes LG more important or meaningful as a specific form of good than CG? That's why I describe LG in 4E as "Good Plus" - not that it's necessarily "gooder than good," but that it's "Good plus Order" without a corresponding "Good plus Liberty."

ParagonDireRacoon wrote:

I would make a thread for it, and make a google doc with the CG paladin code and changes to mechanics and fluff. Check with some who GMs Pathfinder Society play and find out what kind of feedback Paizo prefers. And keep notes. Having a control group with a LG paladin and a group with a CG paladin would be ideal. Any adventure path or long module would work great, but Carrion Crown, Wrath of the Righteous, and the Emerald Spire would all work great.

...
I've made suggestions on how I think a CG paladin could be done, and Weirdo will try to make it work.

I've already made it work - or rather, a player in my group already made it work, in the process selling me on the entire concept. The question is whether it's worthwhile for me to provide official playtest feedback given that James Jacobs and maybe other devs are personal fans of Paladin Classic. Would it have to be an AP, for example? I've never run one and hadn't intended to start.


"The CG paladin has been tried before (3E Unearthed Arcana) and despite being well written it was not particularly popular, as I recall." This statement was quotes twice and disagreed with both times. My statement is that, as near as I can remember, the CG paladin was not very popular in 3E. Disputing my claim is disputing that I am accurately describing what I remember from ten or so years ago. If one claims that the CG paladin was popular in 3E, that returns to Russell's Teapot and burden of proof.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
"The CG paladin has been tried before (3E Unearthed Arcana) and despite being well written it was not particularly popular, as I recall." This statement was quotes twice and disagreed with both times. My statement is that, as near as I can remember, the CG paladin was not very popular in 3E. Disputing my claim is disputing that I am accurately describing what I remember from ten or so years ago. If one claims that the CG paladin was popular in 3E, that returns to Russell's Teapot and burden of proof.

Which is really odd because out of the 4 Paladins played in the group I've been with only 2 were normal Paladins.

No issues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
"The CG paladin has been tried before (3E Unearthed Arcana) and despite being well written it was not particularly popular, as I recall." This statement was quotes twice and disagreed with both times. My statement is that, as near as I can remember, the CG paladin was not very popular in 3E. Disputing my claim is disputing that I am accurately describing what I remember from ten or so years ago. If one claims that the CG paladin was popular in 3E, that returns to Russell's Teapot and burden of proof.

Improper use of Russell's Teapot.

You claim one thing that is reasonable, they claim another thing that is reasonable. Neither side has offered much in the way of proof.

Explanation of why Russell's Teapot doesn't work here


Weirdo wrote:
But what makes LG more important or meaningful as a specific form of good than CG? That's why I describe LG in 4E as "Good Plus" - not that it's necessarily "gooder than good," but that it's "Good plus Order" without a corresponding "Good plus Liberty."

Firstly, saying simply "Good Plus" will generally prompt the assumption that you mean "better than Good".

Secondly, it's rather pointless to sum up an alignment as "Good plus Liberty" since a respect for liberty and the rights of all beings to have it is an inherent part of BEING good in the first place. There is a reason why slavery and tyranny have been considered inherently evil since the very earliest days of the game.

Finally, why is "lawful good" worthy of being considered separate from "good"? Because of the simple fact that there's an inherent difference between those who want simply "liberty and justice" and those who want "liberty, justice AND order". Neutral Good and Chaotic Good have always been very similar, unless you really play up the Order vs. Chaos angle. Lawful Good, meanwhile, has always stood alone for its placing equal emphasis on the importance of both law and good. There's a reason why there's a trope about being lawful or good, but not one about being chaotic or good.

Really, look at the actual write-ups for Good and Lawful Good from the 4e PHB, they probably make a much more eloquent argument as to the difference than I ever will.

Quote:


Character Alignment: Good
Moral Stance: Freedom & Kindness
Summary Quote: Protecting the weak from those who would dominate or kill them is just the right thing to do.

If you’re a good character, you believe it is right to aid and protect those in need. You’re not required to sacrifice yourself to help others or to completely ignore your own needs, but you might be asked to place others’ needs above your own.... in some cases, even if that means putting yourself in harm’s way. In many ways, that’s the essence of being a heroic adventurer:

The people of the town can’t defend themselves from the marauding goblins, so you descend into the dungeon—at significant personal risk—to put an end to the goblin raids.

You can follow rules and respect authority, but you’re keenly aware that power tends to corrupt those who wield it, too often leading them to exploit their power for selfish or evil ends. When that happens, you feel no obligation to follow the law blindly.

It’s better for authority to rest in the members of a community rather than the hands of any individual or social class. When law becomes exploitation, it crosses into evil territory, and good characters feel compelled to fight it.

Good and evil represent fundamentally different viewpoints, cosmically opposed and unable to coexist in peace. Good and lawful good characters, though, get along fine—even if a good character thinks a lawful good companion might be a little too focused on following the law, rather than simply doing the right thing.

Quote:


Character Alignment: Lawful Good
Moral Stance: Civilization and Order
Summary Quote: An ordered society protects us from evil.

If you’re lawful good, you respect the authority of personal codes of conduct, laws, and leaders, and you believe that those codes are the best way of achieving your ideals. Just authority promotes the well-being of its subjects and prevents them from harming one another. Lawful good characters believe just as strongly as good ones do in the value of life, and they put even more emphasis on the need for the powerful to protect the weak and lift up the downtrodden. The exemplars of the lawful good alignment are shining champions of what’s right, honorable, and true, risking or even sacrificing their lives to stop the spread of evil in the world.

When leaders exploit their authority for personal gain, when laws grant privileged status to some citizens and reduce others to slavery or untouchable status, law has given in to evil and just authority becomes tyranny. You are not only capable of challenging such injustice, but morally bound to do so.

However, you would prefer to work within the system to right such problems rather than resorting to more rebellious and lawless methods.

Silver Crusade

QuietBrowser wrote:
Finally, why is "lawful good" worthy of being considered separate from "good"? Because of the simple fact that there's an inherent difference between those who want simply "liberty and justice" and those who want "liberty, justice AND order".

It could equally be stated that chaotic good is 'good plus', because LG is simply 'justice and order', but CG is 'justice, order AND freedom!'

In other words, your argument is bogus.


MrSin wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
MrSin wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Except that to allow Druid to be any Neutral took a change of one word. Changing Rangers & Bards took the same.
Actually it does only change one word. Even if you took the paladin as written just remove the alignment restriction section and you still have a guy with a code. If it works for someone playing a CG, LN, or NG character then good for them right?
Why would a CN Paladin smite Evil? Few Evil alignments have healing. Not too sure why LN would have "mercies". Why would a NE Paladin be able to make his weapon Good aligned? Many class features only fit for either Good or Lawful.

All evil alignments have healing because its not a good aligned spell, and because you need to heal people, including minions, subjects and tools to further your cause. Oh, and yourself. Tiefling paladins are all about healing themselves you know. Its not like a LN paladin of abadar or Irori following the code to the word wouldn't want mercies to improve his lay on hands and bring order to the world and other peoples minds. A NE paladin wants a good aligned weapon to slay evil things with dr/good, because its not like he just gets along with those guys and they aren't a threat to the mortal realms or even each other.

"An evil cleric (or one who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy". So, yes, Evil caster can still cast CLW, but they can only channel negative energy.

The current LG class does not make sense at all when applied to a NE or CN.


MrSin wrote:
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
I think the CG paladin advocates should run the CG paladin through and AP or The Emerald Spire and post notes.

What if I can show you proof an inflexible LG paladin can create problems from personal experience or through other forum post?

No more than a CN "kill and steal anything I think is fun" PC can. Alignments don't cause problems- jerk players using those alignments are excuses for jerk behaviours cause problems.


DrDeth wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
I think the CG paladin advocates should run the CG paladin through and AP or The Emerald Spire and post notes.

What if I can show you proof an inflexible LG paladin can create problems from personal experience or through other forum post?

No more than a CN "kill and steal anything I think is fun" PC can. Alignments don't cause problems- jerk players using those alignments are excuses for jerk behaviours cause problems.

Actually, a game format can create a situation where a problem is more likely to occur, or can have worse consequences. The paladin for instance is a magnet for "you should play this way!" situations, and has a hammer over their head where they lose their class if they don't. A more flexible class could avoid that entirely, see fighter. There's also a thing about how your creating a game for a variety of people to have fun, and having flexibility can really help that. Paladin also appears as a class that can fill multiple roles, but apparently is pigeonholed into one thing, with consequences for leaving that thing and is inflexible as to fill those other roles because... reasons. Creating a sort of trap.

Jerks only make things worse.


ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:
"The CG paladin has been tried before (3E Unearthed Arcana) and despite being well written it was not particularly popular, as I recall." This statement was quotes twice and disagreed with both times. My statement is that, as near as I can remember, the CG paladin was not very popular in 3E. Disputing my claim is disputing that I am accurately describing what I remember from ten or so years ago. If one claims that the CG paladin was popular in 3E, that returns to Russell's Teapot and burden of proof.

Actually, I brought it up several times before and most people agreed. Nor are they actually disagreeing, since they know full well it was poorly received, but they are just trying to get a rise out of you by saying "prove it".

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Depriving an enemy of a powerful weapon is a fundamental military tactic. Theft is generally stealing from another to enrich yourself. Stealing an artifact from Cheliax falls under the same lines as destroying it in this instance, since destroying it is not possible, you do the next best thing. The objective is not to gain the artifact to sell it, its to get it out of the control of the enemy and weaken them...a very worthy goal.

As for not lying...minor violation at best, and there are SO MANY ways around this its not funny. Being misleading is an artform that is not limited to the practice of rogues and bards.

As for paladins not being able to game the enemy...Undetectable Alignment is on their list for PRECISELY this reason. Being a paladin doesn't mean stupid.

==Aelryinth

201 to 250 of 283 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Hopefully not another Paladin alignment discussion. (It totally is) All Messageboards