Laws are not necessarily lawful. Repeat that until it sinks in. Why must every alignment thread always rehash the same boneheaded arguments?
I'd really like some chaotic law examples. the person trying to enforce laws, is lawful, as he is trying to support consistency and order in the realm.
and don't pull out the, no cupcakes can be baked on wednesday, ones, those are just insane.
a law is lawful in only that support of it supports order and depletes chaos.
This will be a long forum as the law / chaos scale isn't as readily discussed as good / evil (and there is room for endless debate on both).
My two cents is as follows -
Lawful likes stability, rules, hierarchies.
A LG person will follow orders of a person that is appointed as a superior in their chosen organization. If that superior breaks the organizations rules, or acts evil, the LG person would try to act within the rules to correct the problem. If that leader does no visible action that is against the rules, nor is clearly evil, the LG character would feel comfortable following that leader. Even if that leader does prove incompetent without being evil, the LG character would obey because the LG character wants to uphold the system.
Chaotic likes personal freedom, to follow their heart (whether it is good or ill).
A CG person distrusts being told someone is an authority figure, though a CG person would follow someone if they somehow prove their worthiness to lead. If that worthy person did something that breaks the CG person's faith in that leader, the CG person has no problem in undermining that leader's authority at any turn.
A neutral person either swings wildly from one extreme to the other, or takes no strong stance in either direction.
A NG person might not feel comfort or discomfort at having an appointed authority figure. The NG character might not undermine authority as a knee-jerk reaction, yet does not feel constrained by a system if a leader proves to be harmful and would correct the problem as the situation requires. (Example of the balanced approach. The extreme approach is harder to explain).
as i have said like 10 times now, saying someone is illegitimate because he is evil, is a chaotic good action, not something a paladin does.
I'm not saying being evil makes someone illegitimate, I'm saying not having consent of the governed makes someone illegitimate. An evil but beloved ruler is legitimate, a well-meaning but resented ruler is illegitimate.
Laws are not necessarily lawful. Repeat that until it sinks in. Why must every alignment thread always rehash the same boneheaded arguments?I'd really like some chaotic law examples. the person trying to enforce laws, is lawful, as he is trying to support consistency and order in the realm.
The classic CE ruler who makes decrees based on whim, is doing a very good job of creating chaotic laws. It's not so much that no cupcakes can be baked on Wednesdays, but the uncertainty of not knowing whether cupcakes can be baked on any given Wednesday or not.
A law that states that any member of the clergy of Rovagug can sentence any member of the peasant class for any offense to any punishment he sees fit is another example of a chaotic law. That's simply codifying rule-by-personal-whim.
If you want a historical example, Article 36 of the Articles of War in the Royal Navy: "All other crimes not capital committed by any person or persons in the fleet, which are not mentioned in this act, or for which no punishment is hereby directed to be inflicted, shall be punished by the laws and customs in such cases used at sea," which in practical terms meant "at the Captain's whim." The only thing that really preserves this from true chaos is the structure provided by the first thirty-six articles and the fact that the captain's decision itself was typically regulated from above.
as i have said like 10 times now, saying someone is illegitimate because he is evil, is a chaotic good action, not something a paladin does.I'm not saying being evil makes someone illegitimate, I'm saying not having consent of the governed makes someone illegitimate.
Shrug. And you're wrong, from a historical perspective. In a hereditary monarchy, the son of the previous king is a legitimate ruler. The idea that the "consent of the governed" matters at all is very much a post-Rennaissance ideal. Although first cited in 1433 -- which itself suggests how very silly it is when applied to a game set in the pseudo-Middle ages -- it didn't really get traction until the political philosophies of Locke and Hume were published and accepted.
I think the whole legitimate authority is actually referring to those who have authority over the paladin. Paladins are lawful good and that usually means they are part of an organization. While not all paladins serve a deity they can. If a paladin is a member of a religious order than the command of the order is what he considers legitimate. If he servers a secular lord than legitimate authority are those of higher rank than he is. If the organization he servers has alliances with other organizations he may respect them as legitimate authorities as long as they are not in conflict with his own organization.
Some organizations may be seen as neutral and would generally be respected if their orders do not conflict with the goals and orders of his own organization. Under no circumstance will the paladin consider enemies of his organization as legitimate authority.
yeah, but following a god doesn't change his paladin rules, thus he still has to behave exactly the same. PFS is special.
a paladin that is the only man alive on his plane, is still lawful good. he doesn't have to be part of an organization. he simply must always try to promote the common good and order. if doing good would destabalize a region, he would not do it. as mentioned he would work from within the system.
also the wording legitimate authority, is almost exclusively used in the context of rulers of nations, kingdoms or states.
Again while a paladin does not have to follow a deity he can. If he is a member of a religious order than that order will be considered a legitimate authority. The same is also true for being a member of a kingdom. If I have sworn allegiance to a group and that group is not evil than they become my legitimate authority. And some paladins do worship a deity there are several archetypes that state they serve a specific deity. These archetypes are no less of a paladin than any other archetype.
Also a paladin will always choose Good over law. If a paladin knowingly commits an evil act they fall right then and there. They can commit a chaotic act and do not fall until their alignment actually shifts from lawful Good to neutral good. That is RAW straight out of the book.
To put it in modern terms if a marine guarding a US embassy in Russia is given an order by a Russian official that directly contradicts his orders he will not obey them. The reason being is the Russian official does not have authority over the marine. For example let’s say a Russian police officer wanted to arrest someone granted diplomatic asylum by the US in the embassy. The marine is not going to allow the Russian police officer to enter the embassy even though arresting the person is completely legal.
Legitimate authority is not always a cut and dried situation.
Alignment debates come up often -
Here is another past take on them
true neutral
Legitimate authority is another grey zone. Legitimate usually means rules set by the traditions of an organization or people. This is meant to differ from people in authority that overstep their own traditions repeatedly, usurpers, or governments and organizations that your own organization opposes. That last bit means that a LG character would have no problem fighting a legitimate war with another non-evil nation should such a war be declared. The LG character would observe every rule of conduct in that war, yet wouldn't refuse to participate unless that LG person feel that such a war wasn't legitimately declared (leader was under mind control, or replaced by a shapeshifter, etc.).
To put it in modern terms if a marine guarding a US embassy in Russia is given an order by a Russian official that directly contradicts his orders he will not obey them. The reason being is the Russian official does not have authority over the marine. For example let’s say a Russian police officer wanted to arrest someone granted diplomatic asylum by the US in the embassy. The marine is not going to allow the Russian police officer to enter the embassy even though arresting the person is completely legal.
On the other hand, a marine posted to Russia will obey orders given to him by a Russian policeman if he's off-duty and drinking in a restaurant. Even if the order is "come with me, you're under arrest."
* Yes, the marine probably has some form of diplomatic immunity, so the cop is exceeding his authority. But this can and will be sorted out at the precinct office.
* The alternative is to resist arrest, which will probably result in someone getting hurt. Possibly the cop, possibly bystanders, possibly the marine himself. Shooting a Russian cop is a bar is probably a career-limiting move. Shooting a bystander is definitely a CLM.
|
Looking at the alignment on a heroic kind of way, as defined by champion of purity:
Neutral Good: They seek to do the most good in the world basically. They don't follow any extreme of the law-chaos axis.
Types of NG people:
Healers: You know that guy that always value life above all else? Yeah these guys.
Mediators: The guy/gal who is always trying to find peaceful solution to disagreements or could even be a diplomat.
Redeemers: People who believes in redemption and would be the most likely person to sponsor evil beings who are trying to redeem themselves.
Lawful Good: They know that laws are necessary to help the people. But LG people can indeed fight to abolish Laws that they deem unjust. LG are the typical main characters heroes of every cartoons or anime especially in the Shonen genre.
Types of LG:
Builders: Essentially they create stuffs to make a better society.
Crusaders: Seek and fight evil, wherever it is.
Guardians: Risk your life to protect the lives of other.
Now of course your point of view of alignment might skewed depending on the kind of setting you run. I mean being Neutral Good and Lawful Good in Ravenloft is very different than being those alignment in the carebears adventures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to see a real-world example of "lawful," there's a very good study here. Basically, due to diplomatic immunity, there is no enforcement of parking violations committed by diplomats in the UN, and no real legal expectation that tickets written to an embassy car will be paid. The amount of violations numbers in the millions of dollars per year.
Despite this lack of any legal teeth, the UK, the Netherlands, Australia, Denmark, Norway, and Canada (among others) have paid, without question, every parking ticket issued to them. By contrast, Mozambique, Bulgaria, Sudan, Chad, and Egypt have accumulated over 100 unpaid tickets per diplomat over the five-year period studied, and Kuwait has more than two hundred tickets per diplomat.
What makes Dutch diplomats so willing to pay their parking tickets, even when everyone recognizes they don't have to? Basically, a lawful alignment. If your paladin thinks he doesn't need to pay parking tickets because he has diplomatic immunity,... there's an issue.
Ok my 2 cents, because for the first time ever I am playing a Paladin, my groups DM had me actually sit down and write out the code my Paladin lives by. Pathfinder/DND make legitimate authority a very difficult thing to grasp for one reason, you can literally talk to your god. So with that in mind what authority is more legitimate than god? I mean most people I talk to about help with playing a Paladin would cite Joan of Arc as an example but she wouldn't follow most of your examples of lawful.
Well, that's one reason that I'd not necessarily consider Jeanne d'Arc a paladin. Are you Francophone? I ask, because in most English-speaking countries, the quintessential paladin that everyone thinks of is Sir Lancelot and the rest of Arthur's Round Table, followed perhaps by Roland or Richard the Lion-Hearted.
And part of the reason for that is that a paladin is required to respect legitimate authority, and while you can argue that God is more important than King Charles VII, that doesn't mean that Chucky is not legitimate.
But you may also be misunderstanding what Jeanne d'Arc actually did. My understanding is that every action she took, every step of the way, was explicitly with the permission and in many cases under the orders of Charles VII. So it's not clear how you're challenging authority by doing what authority told you to do.....
To put it in modern terms if a marine guarding a US embassy in Russia is given an order by a Russian official that directly contradicts his orders he will not obey them. The reason being is the Russian official does not have authority over the marine. For example let’s say a Russian police officer wanted to arrest someone granted diplomatic asylum by the US in the embassy. The marine is not going to allow the Russian police officer to enter the embassy even though arresting the person is completely legal.On the other hand, a marine posted to Russia will obey orders given to him by a Russian policeman if he's off-duty and drinking in a restaurant. Even if the order is "come with me, you're under arrest."
* Yes, the marine probably has some form of diplomatic immunity, so the cop is exceeding his authority. But this can and will be sorted out at the precinct office.
* The alternative is to resist arrest, which will probably result in someone getting hurt. Possibly the cop, possibly bystanders, possibly the marine himself. Shooting a Russian cop is a bar is probably a career-limiting move. Shooting a bystander is definitely a CLM.
You are right about the Russian police officer in the bar. Like I said legitimate authority is not cut and dried. There is a hierarchy of authority that needs to be established. If that same marine’s commanding officer was there and told him not to go with the Russian police he would follow the orders of his commanding officer. Also if the US ambassador was in the bar and the Russians were attempting to arrest him he would not allow that.
You are right about the Russian police officer in the bar. Like I said legitimate authority is not cut and dried. There is a hierarchy of authority that needs to be established.To put it in modern terms if a marine guarding a US embassy in Russia is given an order by a Russian official that directly contradicts his orders he will not obey them. The reason being is the Russian official does not have authority over the marine. For example let’s say a Russian police officer wanted to arrest someone granted diplomatic asylum by the US in the embassy. The marine is not going to allow the Russian police officer to enter the embassy even though arresting the person is completely legal.On the other hand, a marine posted to Russia will obey orders given to him by a Russian policeman if he's off-duty and drinking in a restaurant. Even if the order is "come with me, you're under arrest."
* Yes, the marine probably has some form of diplomatic immunity, so the cop is exceeding his authority. But this can and will be sorted out at the precinct office.
* The alternative is to resist arrest, which will probably result in someone getting hurt. Possibly the cop, possibly bystanders, possibly the marine himself. Shooting a Russian cop is a bar is probably a career-limiting move. Shooting a bystander is definitely a CLM.
Authority need not be hierarchical, and in most cases isn't. In your example, if the commanding officer told him not to go with the Russian police officer.... that's actually down in the books (UCMJ, Art. 90, Explanation (2)(a)(i)) as a "patently illegal order" (he's being ordered to commit the crime of resisting arrest) and need not be obeyed. (And if the CO said "don't go with the cop, but don't resist arrest" or some other inanity it's a patently impossible order that also need not be obeyed.)
Which is to say, marines are expected to to be professionals, and not robots. A marine-paladin who receives conflicting instructions from authority is supposed to do the right thing, because doing the right thing is what paladins do. This specifically does not mean always-follow-X-over-Y, because X isn't always telling you to do the right thing. Indeed, in Golarion even the gods aren't omniscient. Respecting authority isn't the same thing as blindly following it, as indeed the UCMJ and other real-world codes of conduct recognize.
I think we may have moved past the point where the marine analogy is helpful. Yes, authority can conflict.... we both accept that. I disagree that any paladin can or should come up with rules that will solve the problem of conflicting authority without regard to the "facts on the ground" -- saying that the Church trumps the States without regard to the specific doctrines in question risks being neither lawful nor good.
A paladin will, for example, respect legitimate authority and act with honor. In the event that legitimate authority demands a dishonorable action, a paladin will attempt to find a third path that satisfies both the needs of the authority and the demands of honor. Not knowing the details of either, it's literally impossible for anyone to say what a paladin should do in that instance, as for every analogy there is an equal and opposite analogy.
my groups DM had me actually sit down and write out the code my Paladin lives by
I think this is reasonable, and it may be the problem if there is a communication barrier. Your GM wants some solid rules your PC lives by, and you might not have an idea of what exactly the GM is looking for.
Have your GM make an example for you so you can understand what the GM is looking for.
Not all Paladins follow the same code or authority. The differences are subtle, yet can be important where motivation is concerned. For example-
1. Will not lie, though can withhold information should an answer harm you, your allies, or the innocent
2. Will obey your word of honor
3. Will protect the defenseless, if innocent life is threatened you will seek to best protect them heedless of your own safety.
4. You will obey your appointed superiors (you must clearly define if that means your nation's leader, your religion's leadership, your organization's leader, or even just the group leader).
5. You will not take advantage of a helpless opponent. Capture yes, though not hit them when you happen upon a helpless foe.
6. You will show mercy. This means if you believe someone surrenders, you will capture them rather than kill, even if it causes logistic problems.
7. You will be generous. This doesn't mean you give away all your worldly possessions (and certainly not possessions belonging to others), yet it also means you would help starving orphans if you had a few spare coins to help them out.
Those are some good rules to follow as a code, and another Paladin might have a different code with different focuses, such as fighting cruelty when it is found (stop tortures, or abuse when seen), promote freedom (prevent slavery when possible), attempt redemption (willing to attempt to reform those that desire to become better, or try to bring a former friend or family member back to a better path should they choose an evil road to travel), always fight fairly (if I fight you, you will be armed, facing me, and awake), and so on. What is important and honorable to one LG character is not exactly the same as what is important to another LG character, yet enough should be alike that they may find much common ground.
You are right about the Russian police officer in the bar. Like I said legitimate authority is not cut and dried. There is a hierarchy of authority that needs to be established.To put it in modern terms if a marine guarding a US embassy in Russia is given an order by a Russian official that directly contradicts his orders he will not obey them. The reason being is the Russian official does not have authority over the marine. For example let’s say a Russian police officer wanted to arrest someone granted diplomatic asylum by the US in the embassy. The marine is not going to allow the Russian police officer to enter the embassy even though arresting the person is completely legal.On the other hand, a marine posted to Russia will obey orders given to him by a Russian policeman if he's off-duty and drinking in a restaurant. Even if the order is "come with me, you're under arrest."
* Yes, the marine probably has some form of diplomatic immunity, so the cop is exceeding his authority. But this can and will be sorted out at the precinct office.
* The alternative is to resist arrest, which will probably result in someone getting hurt. Possibly the cop, possibly bystanders, possibly the marine himself. Shooting a Russian cop is a bar is probably a career-limiting move. Shooting a bystander is definitely a CLM.
Authority need not be hierarchical, and in most cases isn't. In your example, if the commanding officer told him not to go with the Russian police officer.... that's actually down in the books (UCMJ, Art. 90, Explanation (2)(a)(i)) as a "patently illegal order" (he's being ordered to commit the crime of resisting arrest) and need not be obeyed. (And if the CO said "don't go with the cop, but don't resist arrest" or some other inanity it's a patently impossible order that also need not be obeyed.)
Which is to say, marines are expected to to be...
What I meant by a hierarchy of authority is that sometimes one authority takes precedence over another. Your example is better than mine. The case of the illegal or impossible order is a lot clearer than mine.
I actually agree with everything you said. My original point was that a paladin does not need to blindly follow every law.
Got an easy solution. Ban the Paladin class.
Let them play multi-classed Fighter/Cleric.
The alignment system is best used, as goal to strife toward. The character strife toward being LG or CG, they strife toward being LE or CE.
I have never seen any character in life, tv, or movie that i would say could truely be considered a paladin, even if they were called that in the show or had there powers.
(( The one exception, there is always an exception to ever rule, is the Japanese Anime TV show "The Sacred Blacksmith", The Character "Cecily Cambell ". Not talking about the book or manga, which i have not read... am talking about the Anime. She is not called a paladin (does not have any powers), but called a Knight. It is in, her action and deeds, that i would say she is LG, and would called her a paladin, by that alone. ))
It started off so well.
Why couldn't we stick to the difference between Lawful Good and Neutral Good?
Just because somebody says "Paladin!" like someone screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded conference room, doesn't mean we all need to react to it.
- DUCK!!!
- WHERE???
In the 2nd edition Player's Handbook, there appeared in two places the story of a theoretical adventuring party that had one character of each of the nine alignments. One passage was about a battle and the other was in regards to how the survivors wanted to split up the loot. It was preposterous that it could ever happen, but was pretty interesting to read.
Its been a really long, long time since I read it, so I can't relate all of the pertinent details, but I do remember that while the LG character chose to charge the foes and fight them, the NG character saw that the captive villager was left unattended, so instead chose to free the villager. (The character of each alignment chose differently)
It is not proposed that you follow this as a guide, but that you weight the values of each character you play. Good vs evil is easier to comprehend in theory (if not in practice), but law vs chaos is slippier to get ahold of. For starters, think of it as "how" your good or evil nature happens.
I always think about the L/N/C alignment system more as prioritization of free will/individualism.
A lawful person is more likely to subsume their free will and that of others for the good of the whole.
A chaotic person is more likely to pursue their own agenda or protect other people's right to pursue theirs.
The neutral person is aloof from this dissonance. Perhaps they like a balance of the 2. Perhaps they like researching spells in their spare time as a major hobby. Perhaps they just can't find time for politics whilst there are pubs to visit.
When I play lawful, I talk about the greater good.
When I play neutral, I talk about what's in front of me.
When I play chaotic, I talk about what I want.
The G/N/E spectrum flavors what I say.
I was at the supermarket last night, and someone had left $20 in the change slot (apparently they forgot their cash-back.)
An LG says, "No, that's not my money." An NG says, "Well, I could do more good with that money if I used it to help out the poor."
I always think about the L/N/C alignment system more as prioritization of free will/individualism.
A lawful person is more likely to subsume their free will and that of others for the good of the whole.
A chaotic person is more likely to pursue their own agenda or protect other people's right to pursue theirs.
The neutral person is aloof from this dissonance. Perhaps they like a balance of the 2. Perhaps they like researching spells in their spare time as a major hobby. Perhaps they just can't find time for politics whilst there are pubs to visit.
When I play lawful, I talk about the greater good.
When I play neutral, I talk about what's in front of me.
When I play chaotic, I talk about what I want.
The G/N/E spectrum flavors what I say.
That's not a bad description, except that I think all three types would be talking about the greater good -- they'd just approach it differently.
The lawful type believes that the greater good is achieved through collective action; if everyone does the same (good) thing, the greater good will happen through unity of action.
The chaotic type believes that the greater good is achieved through individual action; if everyone does what they want to see, the greater good will happen through individual efficiency.
The neutral type, as usual, is somewhere in between.
For example, the Gates Foundation attempts to achieve the greater good through a relatively lawful approach -- they make huge grants to organizations to make sure those organizations have resources enough to carry through on major long-term changes or infrastructure creation. To feed Africa, they've devoted something like $20 million dollars with the goal of improving the quality of rice varieties and crop management techniques.
Oxfam takes a more chaotic approach, making microgrants to individual households. They'll buy someone a pair of chickens so that they have fresh eggs to eat and to sell, and eventually more chickens. $20 million will buy chickens for more than a million families.
Which one does more for the greater good? Well, that's your alignment test, right there.