|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ok, so there seem to be 2 main camps for the Paladin: those that want LG-only Paladins and those that want Paladins of all alignments. In terms of the Playtest, I am going to do my best to make RAW Paladin the best it can be. However, I am also going to play around with an any-alignment class houserule that could conceivably replace the Paladin (with Paladins being a Champion subclass). Just as my feedback on the RAW Paladin is going to be as constructive as possible, I expect anyone who favors RAW-only Paladins to give this alternate a fair shot at constructive interaction should they choose to comment here.
The idea for this thread is to create a "Champion" that would fill the role that the "any-alignment Paladins" wanted filled. I intend to test this homebrew class within the Playtest rules and alongside the Paladin-as-Written. My sincere hope is that any player, gm, or designer who reads this thread sees it as a genuine attempt to make PF2 the best it can be by utilizing a more "scientific comparison" between the two possible paths for Paladins/Holy Warriors.
I know this is risky, but here is a Google Docs link that anyone can edit. Please don't abuse this trust I am giving you, PF community!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iDErpeicb375oBzIhG82sQZLZvt0373kYV7XVU_ fBIE/edit?usp=sharing
I really feel like too after his comment that they would not be opposed to paladins (champions) of different alignments he just wants the time to do a thorough alteration that would be appropriate for each alignment as opposed to just slapping a chaos or law sticker over smite evil
So one of the first things that I heard that I would like to submit is that non-lawful paladin types would have something other then oaths that they have to do to keep their divine powers. such as was suggested evil types having to sacrifice to dark gods.
Vidmaster7 wrote: I really feel like too after his comment that they would not be opposed to paladins (champions) of different alignments he just wants the time to do a thorough alteration that would be appropriate for each alignment as opposed to just slapping a chaos or law sticker over smite evil
So one of the first things that I heard that I would like to submit is that non-lawful paladin types would have something other then oaths that they have to do to keep their divine powers. such as was suggested evil types having to sacrifice to dark gods.
maybe, but oaths still work, a chaotic person is opposed to anyone being told what to do against their will, not to making binding promises and deals (well usually)
Rob Godfrey wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: I really feel like too after his comment that they would not be opposed to paladins (champions) of different alignments he just wants the time to do a thorough alteration that would be appropriate for each alignment as opposed to just slapping a chaos or law sticker over smite evil
So one of the first things that I heard that I would like to submit is that non-lawful paladin types would have something other then oaths that they have to do to keep their divine powers. such as was suggested evil types having to sacrifice to dark gods.
maybe, but oaths still work, a chaotic person is opposed to anyone being told what to do against their will, not to making binding promises and deals (well usually) But a chaotic person is less tied to those oaths by their vary nature. Sure i'll follow the oath until it doesn't suit me! In this case however your oath is to a god or other powerful entity so they are going to need some reassurances to who they are going to give their powers too.
Now maybe your average chaotic person is ok with oaths but we are talking about a CHAMPION of chaos. It would almost seem foolish to me to trust a champion of chaos to keep his word.
We did pretty much get in clear text that they wanted to "get good at the LG Paladin" first before they took into the steps making variants for the Paladin that was more than just a caricacture like the Anti-Paladin was.
Again a lot of my issues with Paladins have been poked at by Paizo, but it remains to see how it works in practice.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: I really feel like too after his comment that they would not be opposed to paladins (champions) of different alignments he just wants the time to do a thorough alteration that would be appropriate for each alignment as opposed to just slapping a chaos or law sticker over smite evil
So one of the first things that I heard that I would like to submit is that non-lawful paladin types would have something other then oaths that they have to do to keep their divine powers. such as was suggested evil types having to sacrifice to dark gods.
maybe, but oaths still work, a chaotic person is opposed to anyone being told what to do against their will, not to making binding promises and deals (well usually) But a chaotic person is less tied to those oaths by their vary nature. Sure i'll follow the oath until it doesn't suit me! In this case however your oath is to a god or other powerful entity so they are going to need some reassurances to who they are going to give their powers too.
Now maybe your average chaotic person is ok with oaths but we are talking about a CHAMPION of chaos. It would almost seem foolish to me to trust a champion of chaos to keep his word. no, we are talking about the champions of a chaotic deity, vital difference. They already. Effectively sacrificed their freedom to the higher ideals of their faith.
Rob Godfrey wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: I really feel like too after his comment that they would not be opposed to paladins (champions) of different alignments he just wants the time to do a thorough alteration that would be appropriate for each alignment as opposed to just slapping a chaos or law sticker over smite evil
So one of the first things that I heard that I would like to submit is that non-lawful paladin types would have something other then oaths that they have to do to keep their divine powers. such as was suggested evil types having to sacrifice to dark gods.
maybe, but oaths still work, a chaotic person is opposed to anyone being told what to do against their will, not to making binding promises and deals (well usually) But a chaotic person is less tied to those oaths by their vary nature. Sure i'll follow the oath until it doesn't suit me! In this case however your oath is to a god or other powerful entity so they are going to need some reassurances to who they are going to give their powers too.
Now maybe your average chaotic person is ok with oaths but we are talking about a CHAMPION of chaos. It would almost seem foolish to me to trust a champion of chaos to keep his word. no, we are talking about the champions of a chaotic deity, vital difference. They already. Effectively sacrificed their freedom to the higher ideals of their faith. Isn't that kind of a oxymoron then? Like that line of thinking seems to imply that it shouldn't exist in the first place. Chaotic deity is like hmm in order for you to serve my chaotic ways I need you to not be chaotic? see I don't follow that logic.
Ok, so here are some of my thoughts about a "Champion" class. I believe that the core mechanic of a Holy Warrior of a particular ideal is the genuine upholding of an idealistic code. I know, Chaotic and Evil don't seem like good choices for codes. But hear me out.
Between alignment and deity (or philosophy: if the Champion holds to a philosophy that is not supported by a deity, some real-world, living role model can serve as the replacement for a deity for that philosophy. Magic that stems from that deity would be replaced with abilities that stem from that mentor's teaching.), any character should have enough details present to formulate a working system of morality. All I want is for the Champion to be held to a code that the DM and player are expected to flesh out together. This code should arise naturally from the character's own beliefs and then the alignment should be added once it is determined which alignment that set of beliefs holds to. This would allow for Champions of any diety regardless of whether or not that diety was present in core.
As for mechanics, the Champion is more of a simple follower of his beliefs. He cares more for actions than for heady debates, and will follow the tenets of the faith he Champions without hesitation (unless, of course, the story demands his introspection). The class would be a martial class, with at least Master proficiency in his deity's favored weapon (or a weapon of choice) and in an armor type of his choice.
As for magic and granted abilities, all Champions have two categories of abilities. Half of the abilities are Conviction abilities, and stem from alignment and/or personal ideals. The other half of the abilities stem from the deity (or philosophy role model) that he holds to. In this manner, a Champion may "fall from grace" with his deity/role model and lose his granted powers but still hold on to his convictions, or he may lose his conviction and still be blessed by his deity/mentor. For now, I'm going to assume deities only, but there is totally design space for mentors of a philosophy.
One important conviction power is the Smite. The Smite comes directly from the Champion's conviction that his alignment is best. As such, it can be used against anyone *acting* against his alignment and deals extra damage to those who are permanently opposed to his alignment. Because the corner alignments would then have smites that proc double damage on more enemies, Neutral Champions have the ability to smite anyone who is not acting *in favor of* their one polarized alignment. True neutral Champions may smite anyone at any time for any reason but may never gain the double damage. (The smite is based off of conviction. If the Champion does not wholeheartedly believe that the target of a smite ought to die, the smite will fizzle.)
Litanies (from Paladin) would also be ported over as a Conviction ability. The Champion may use any litany that matches his alignment. Again, the Champion must believe his own denouncement for it to be effective.
Diety powers come directly from the deity that the Champion follows. Champions get one domain just like clerics do, and they have access to additional domains via feats. While Champions will only get limited spellcasting at best, they can cast these domain powers using their pool of spell points. They also get a Blessing of <Deity> power that is a buff spell usable with spell points. This can be any first-level buff spell that matches the alignment restrictions of the Champion and the overall feel of the deity that the Champion serves. It may also be any first level domain power of that deity.
Other features may be modified from the Paladin class features or by cribbing from a fitting class. This is hard to do at this time with no real mechanical material on classes or leveling progressions. Ovbiously, it will need balancing.
Vidmaster7 wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: I really feel like too after his comment that they would not be opposed to paladins (champions) of different alignments he just wants the time to do a thorough alteration that would be appropriate for each alignment as opposed to just slapping a chaos or law sticker over smite evil
So one of the first things that I heard that I would like to submit is that non-lawful paladin types would have something other then oaths that they have to do to keep their divine powers. such as was suggested evil types having to sacrifice to dark gods.
maybe, but oaths still work, a chaotic person is opposed to anyone being told what to do against their will, not to making binding promises and deals (well usually) But a chaotic person is less tied to those oaths by their vary nature. Sure i'll follow the oath until it doesn't suit me! In this case however your oath is to a god or other powerful entity so they are going to need some reassurances to who they are going to give their powers too.
Now maybe your average chaotic person is ok with oaths but we are talking about a CHAMPION of chaos. It would almost seem foolish to me to trust a champion of chaos to keep his word. no, we are talking about the champions of a chaotic deity, vital difference. They already. Effectively sacrificed their freedom to the higher ideals of their faith. Isn't that kind of a oxymoron then? Like that line of thinking seems to imply that it shouldn't exist in the first place. Chaotic deity is like hmm in order for you to serve my chaotic ways I need you to not be chaotic? see I don't follow that logic. I think we interpret chaotic differently. I tend to see chaotic types as people who promote personal freedom. Part of that freedom involves sticking to my own, internal code rather than conforming to some random external one. Sure, it's more intuitive and less legalistic, but it's still very much a code.
I don't know the more I think about it the more I feel that it would almost need its own class per alignment or at least one class per 3 alignments. I'll read what you guys come up with and decide need more input I think.
I don't think I would call doing what suits me best a code. I mean you could kind of force the square peg into the round hole but I think that defeats the purpose of calling it chaotic in the first place. Its just a different way of looking at lawful. hmm I might not be explaining this perfectly.
Vidmaster7 wrote: I really feel like too after his comment that they would not be opposed to paladins (champions) of different alignments he just wants the time to do a thorough alteration that would be appropriate for each alignment as opposed to just slapping a chaos or law sticker over smite evil
So one of the first things that I heard that I would like to submit is that non-lawful paladin types would have something other than oaths that they have to do to keep their divine powers. such as was suggested evil types having to sacrifice to dark gods.
As for the sacrifice specifically, I think it depends on the deity he worships. The key word for me here is "worships." I don't think a Champion can really champion a deity or philosophy that he's not genuinely into. If his CE deity says "Feed me babies" then the Champion has to be like "these sacrifices are to Baby-Eater, the true lord of the earth! All you who do not sacrifice to Baby-Eater pervert the true way to your own ignorance and destruction!" Or somesuch. Basically, even the evilest of religions is the "right religion" to its own followers, and I'd like to represent that.
I don't think he should have to worship a deity at all. I'm ok with worshiping or serving the alignment in general. So what I like is the idea that the oath/sacrifice/we enforces the alignment the character is serving. Staying to a rigid set or morales enforces law and good while sacrificing to evil entities enforces the evil alignment.
Vidmaster7 wrote: I don't think I would call doing what suits me best a code. I mean you could kind of force the square peg into the round hole but I think that defeats the purpose of calling it chaotic in the first place. Its just a different way of looking at lawful. hmm I might not be explaining this perfectly. You've heard of Ayn Rand, right? I would call her philosophy CE. She teaches that if everyone acted in his own self-interest then we wouldn't have to worry about whether or not someone else was "taken care of," because everyone would buck up and take care of himself. Rand advocated against murder and theft, but purely because in an organized society things like murder and theft decrease your chances of survival. In other words, "We are only free when we are acting in our own best interests, so selfishness is actually a good thing. Only follow laws when you decide to. If you can get away with breaking them, go ahead, but don't be stupid about it."
Vidmaster7 wrote: I don't think he should have to worship a deity at all. I'm ok with worshiping or serving the alignment in general. So what I like is the idea that the oath/sacrifice/we enforces the alignment the character is serving. Staying to a rigid set or morales enforces law and good while sacrificing to evil entities enforces the evil alignment. I did mention serving philosophies as well, but that is difficult to reconcile with the "divine magic" bit. The key idea that binds all Champions together is complete devotion to a particular system of moral thought, deity or no.
Doing what suits you I absolutely feel represents chaotic. Your kind of making my point however follow the rules when it suits you. Its easier that way. So oaths for example don't represent and enforce the chaotic alignment.
SilverliteSword wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: I don't think he should have to worship a deity at all. I'm ok with worshiping or serving the alignment in general. So what I like is the idea that the oath/sacrifice/we enforces the alignment the character is serving. Staying to a rigid set or morales enforces law and good while sacrificing to evil entities enforces the evil alignment. I did mention serving philosophies as well, but that is difficult to reconcile with the "divine magic" bit. The key idea that binds all Champions together is complete devotion to a particular system of moral thought, deity or no. Agreed
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
SilverliteSword wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: I don't think I would call doing what suits me best a code. I mean you could kind of force the square peg into the round hole but I think that defeats the purpose of calling it chaotic in the first place. Its just a different way of looking at lawful. hmm I might not be explaining this perfectly. You've heard of Ayn Rand, right? I would call her philosophy CE. She teaches that if everyone acted in his own self-interest then we wouldn't have to worry about whether or not someone else was "taken care of," because everyone would buck up and take care of himself. Rand advocated against murder and theft, but purely because in an organized society things like murder and theft decrease your chances of survival. In other words, "We are only free when we are acting in our own best interests, so selfishness is actually a good thing. Only follow laws when you decide to. If you can get away with breaking them, go ahead, but don't be stupid about it." To add onto this, my "3 laws of CE" would be:
1: Always do that which would ensure the greatest long-term benefit to yourself.
2: Never allow yourself to hamper the freedoms of others by letting them use you as a crutch. Everyone must stand or fall on his own decisions: charity weakens people and insults the free choices they made to reach where they are today.
3: Because it benefits you to live in a society that respects your beliefs, always stand up for the ability of others to act in their own best interests and advocate for the removal of crutches and systems that are preventing others from actualizing their own freedom.
Note that this could be described as "doing whatever suits you," there is definitely still an attitude towards certain actions as being right or wrong. In this belief system, charity is wrong because it cheapens the free choices that people make. In addition, standing up for the ability of others to also be free is right, while restricting those freedoms is wrong.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: But a chaotic person is less tied to those oaths by their vary nature. Sure i'll follow the oath until it doesn't suit me! If they stop following the code, they fall. The same choice LG paladins get, with like 1/3 he angst. Best to give atonement a chance to fail as well though. The purists will like that; it'll give the moments they martyr their characters over code conflicts a chance at permanent penalties.
Edit: to more completely explicate this, chaotic characters wouldn't see Oaths as rewards for good behavior. They'd see the behavior as the price they pay to receive the reward. Same mechanical benefit; totally different mindset.
AnimatedPaper wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: But a chaotic person is less tied to those oaths by their vary nature. Sure i'll follow the oath until it doesn't suit me! If they stop following the code, they fall. The same choice LG paladins get, with like 1/3 he angst. Best to give atonement a chance to fail as well though. The purists will like that; it'll give the moments they martyr their characters over code conflicts a chance at permanent penalties.
Edit: to more completely explicate this, chaotic characters wouldn't see Oaths as rewards for good behavior. They'd see the behavior as the price they pay to receive the reward. Same mechanical benefit; totally different mindset. But why would a chaotic diety or chaos itself want to represent obedience to it by using lawful means.
AnimatedPaper wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: But a chaotic person is less tied to those oaths by their vary nature. Sure i'll follow the oath until it doesn't suit me! If they stop following the code, they fall. The same choice LG paladins get, with like 1/3 he angst. Best to give atonement a chance to fail as well though. The purists will like that; it'll give the moments they martyr their characters over code conflicts a chance at permanent penalties. Precisely! The point of "falling" is to define and add drama to more metaphysical crises, anyways. Anyone, of any belief, can have a crisis of beliefs. The difference between a normal crisis and a Champion falling is that because they literally gave everything to these beliefs and tenets, it is so much more devastating when doubt creeps in.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: AnimatedPaper wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: But a chaotic person is less tied to those oaths by their vary nature. Sure i'll follow the oath until it doesn't suit me! If they stop following the code, they fall. The same choice LG paladins get, with like 1/3 he angst. Best to give atonement a chance to fail as well though. The purists will like that; it'll give the moments they martyr their characters over code conflicts a chance at permanent penalties.
Edit: to more completely explicate this, chaotic characters wouldn't see Oaths as rewards for good behavior. They'd see the behavior as the price they pay to receive the reward. Same mechanical benefit; totally different mindset. But why would a chaotic deity or chaos itself want to represent obedience to it by using lawful means? Your obedience to the deity is represented by anathema. Your obedience to your own conscience (a very C concept, BTW) is represented by the code. You can fall from grace with your deity but keep your conviction, you can lose your conviction but not your diety. One is alignment, the other is deity, and they aren't linked.
*Them not being linked is something I'd like to explore, and by no means a requirement.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: AnimatedPaper wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: But a chaotic person is less tied to those oaths by their vary nature. Sure i'll follow the oath until it doesn't suit me! If they stop following the code, they fall. The same choice LG paladins get, with like 1/3 he angst. Best to give atonement a chance to fail as well though. The purists will like that; it'll give the moments they martyr their characters over code conflicts a chance at permanent penalties.
Edit: to more completely explicate this, chaotic characters wouldn't see Oaths as rewards for good behavior. They'd see the behavior as the price they pay to receive the reward. Same mechanical benefit; totally different mindset. But why would a chaotic diety or chaos itself want to represent obedience to it by using lawful means. They wouldn't. They'd offer power, and tell you what you have to do to get it.
To put it another way, lawful characters and deities would choose behaviors, and grant you boons becaue you are just that special. Chaotic characters and deities would choose the rewards, and put up with the related behavior because the universe operates on a transactional basis but see no harm in gaming those transactions.
Same mechanical benefit; totally different mindset.
But a deity saying you follow this oath or lose your power is explicitly lawful. Why would a chaotic deity do that? why would you even have chaotic champions if the first thing you have to do to become one be stop being (at least on some level) chaotic or give up a chaotic behavior.
AnimatedPaper wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: AnimatedPaper wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: But a chaotic person is less tied to those oaths by their vary nature. Sure i'll follow the oath until it doesn't suit me! If they stop following the code, they fall. The same choice LG paladins get, with like 1/3 he angst. Best to give atonement a chance to fail as well though. The purists will like that; it'll give the moments they martyr their characters over code conflicts a chance at permanent penalties.
Edit: to more completely explicate this, chaotic characters wouldn't see Oaths as rewards for good behavior. They'd see the behavior as the price they pay to receive the reward. Same mechanical benefit; totally different mindset. But why would a chaotic diety or chaos itself want to represent obedience to it by using lawful means. They wouldn't. They'd offer power, and tell you what you have to do to get it.
To put it another way, lawful characters and deities would choose behaviors, and grant you boons becaue you are just that special. Chaotic characters and deities would choose the rewards, and put up with the related behavior because the universe operates on a transactional basis but see no harm in gaming those transactions.
Same mechanical benefit; totally different mindset. I think it would vary from deity to deity a bit more, but yeah.
Believe it or not, Chaotics believe in codes and morals, they just prioritize different things.
My version of the CE Code:
1: Always do that which would ensure the greatest long-term benefit to yourself.
2: Never allow yourself to hamper the freedoms of others by letting them use you as a crutch. Everyone must stand or fall on his own decisions: charity weakens people and insults the free choices they made to reach where they are today.
3: Because it benefits you to live in a society that respects your beliefs, always stand up for the ability of others to act in their own best interests and advocate for the removal of crutches and systems that are preventing others from actualizing their own freedom.
Note that this could be described as "doing whatever suits you," there is definitely still an attitude towards certain actions as being right or wrong. In this belief system, charity is wrong because it cheapens the free choices that people make. In addition, standing up for the ability of others to also be free is right, while restricting those freedoms is wrong.
Because it is individual choice. The deity isn't asking this of you. You are asking for power. This is the price, because they are bound by their restrictions against offering something for nothing (though, mind, they can offer advice on how best to get around those restrictions).
I'm ok with the transaction idea but the transaction shouldn't be for an oath to gain his power. Their should be something else. By saying their offering power your still paying with lawful actions. No matter how you want to say the wording an oath for power is still lawfulness to gain power. If your gaining chaotic power I feel you should be doing something chaotic to gain it not something lawful.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: But a deity saying you follow this oath or lose your power is explicitly lawful. Why would a chaotic deity do that? why would you even have chaotic champions if the first thing you have to do to become one be stop being (at least on some level) chaotic or give up a chaotic behavior. In my headcanon, at least part of it is internal. These powers are fueled by faith, and doubt naturally erases them. It's less a punishment and more of the way things naturally are.
Same with the deities. It's less of "do this or I punish you" and more "if you do this I can no longer help you because to do so would violate my vary nature."
Vidmaster7 wrote: I'm ok with the transaction idea but the transaction shouldn't be for an oath to gain his power. Their should be something else. By saying their offering power your still paying with lawful actions. No matter how you want to say the wording an oath for power is still lawfulness to gain power. If your gaining chaotic power I feel you should be doing something chaotic to gain it not something lawful. Then your problem is with the word. Make them contracts instead.
AnimatedPaper wrote: Because it is individual choice. The deity isn't asking this of you. You are asking for power. This is the price, because they are bound by their restrictions against offering something for nothing (though, mind, they can offer advice on how best to get around those restrictions). That is just Semantics. Your still being forced to be lawful to gain chaotic powers. It should not be an oath.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I got nothing dude. Your reading of lawful isn't mine, and I can't reach you on this one.
SilverliteSword wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: But a deity saying you follow this oath or lose your power is explicitly lawful. Why would a chaotic deity do that? why would you even have chaotic champions if the first thing you have to do to become one be stop being (at least on some level) chaotic or give up a chaotic behavior. In my headcanon, at least part of it is internal. These powers are fueled by faith, and doubt naturally erases them. It's less a punishment and more of the way things naturally are.
Same with the deities. It's less of "do this or I punish you" and more "if you do this I can no longer help you because to do so would violate my vary nature." Lawful deities should be going do this or I punish you that is lawful. Chaotic deities should not be functioning this way.
Contracts are still lawful no that just doesn't work. You wanna know who would be a good chaotic paladin? a barbarian he does what he wants and answers to know one. base it from their. Heck maybe the chaoticaladin only gets to use his powers when he is being highly chaotic. or heck maybe roll a dice in combat to see if he gains his powers this combat. But breaking a contract should be expected of a chaotic character thats the point now maybe if the deity just set the rules with the express hope that the character would break them. Heres the rules! Breaks the rules *deity internally YES!*
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: SilverliteSword wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: But a deity saying you follow this oath or lose your power is explicitly lawful. Why would a chaotic deity do that? why would you even have chaotic champions if the first thing you have to do to become one be stop being (at least on some level) chaotic or give up a chaotic behavior. In my headcanon, at least part of it is internal. These powers are fueled by faith, and doubt naturally erases them. It's less a punishment and more of the way things naturally are.
Same with the deities. It's less of "do this or I punish you" and more "if you do this I can no longer help you because to do so would violate my vary nature." Lawful deities should be going do this or I punish you that is lawful. Chaotic deities should not be functioning this way. Antipaladin of Gorum acts with cowardice and flees from the site of a great battle. You might be the only person in the world who would think Gorum punishing his champion for this would be a sign that Gorum is a lawful deity.
Vidmaster7 wrote: SilverliteSword wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: But a deity saying you follow this oath or lose your power is explicitly lawful. Why would a chaotic deity do that? why would you even have chaotic champions if the first thing you have to do to become one be stop being (at least on some level) chaotic or give up a chaotic behavior. In my headcanon, at least part of it is internal. These powers are fueled by faith, and doubt naturally erases them. It's less a punishment and more of the way things naturally are.
Same with the deities. It's less of "do this or I punish you" and more "if you do this I can no longer help you because to do so would violate my vary nature." Lawful deities should be going do this or I punish you that is lawful. Chaotic deities should not be functioning this way. What about Pazuzu? A couple of sensible "Oaths" a CE Champion of Pazuzu might take:
- You must oppose Lamashtu or her followers whenever you find them.
- You must enslave and control beasts to bring them under my domain instead of Lamashtu's.
- Seek to gain me entrance into the souls of mortals so that I may possess them
Attitudes that Pazuzu's Champions would be expected to hold:
- Lamashtu wronged Pazuzu, and I must extract eternal vengeance whenever I can
- Beasts belong to Lamashtu, and should be enslaved or destroyed
- Pazuzu deserves control over the material plane, and I can help him obtain that control by recruiting people to be possessed by him, through deception, kidnapping, extortion, or any other means necessary to acheive the rightful lord Pazuzu's will.
Code that I would recommend:
1: Always do that which would ensure the greatest long-term benefit to yourself. Because Pazuzu is the rightful overlord of the material plane, this means furthering his reach.
2: Lamashtu and all her followers must be expunged with no quarter. Pazuzu's wrath must fall on her and all that belong to her.
3: In accordance with Pazuzu's war on Lamashtu and his rightful claim to dominion over the material plane, all beasts are to be subjugated to Pazuzu's rule or destroyed.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: Contracts are still lawful no that just doesn't work. You wanna know who would be a good chaotic paladin? a barbarian he does what he wants and answers to know one. base it from their. Heck maybe the chaoticaladin only gets to use his powers when he is being highly chaotic. or heck maybe roll a dice in combat to see if he gains his powers this combat. But breaking a contract should be expected of a chaotic character thats the point now maybe if the deity just set the rules with the express hope that the character would break them. Heres the rules! Breaks the rules *deity internally YES!* Given the problems with the terms "lawful" and "chaotic" i tend to pull the "Freedom vs. Authoritarian" axis from political theory as the starting point for the Lawful/Chaotic axis for things like this. People who are freedom/chaotic hate unnecessary rules, not all rules ever. Even anarchists believe in a personal code that they internally hold themselves to. Chaotic is less about rules/no rules than where those rules are stemming from. Lawful types defer to the majority or authority while chaotic types follow their own conscience/ moral compass even if the authority or majority says they are wrong.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
SilverliteSword wrote: Given the problems with the terms "lawful" and "chaotic" i tend to pull the "Freedom vs. Authoritarian" axis from political theory as the starting point for the Lawful/Chaotic axis for things like this. People who are freedom/chaotic hate unnecessary rules, not all rules ever. Even anarchists believe in a personal code that they internally hold themselves to. Chaotic is less about rules/no rules than where those rules are stemming from. Lawful types defer to the majority or authority while chaotic types follow their own conscience/ moral compass even if the authority or majority says they are wrong. More or less where I fall as well. I came across a post forever ago that posited that the entire G vs E and L vs C alignment structure makes sense...if you're describing alignment from a LG perspective. Quote: Chaotic Evil societies might translate the Good/Evil axis as the Unreasonable/Reasonable axis, and the Law/Chaos axis as the Dogmatic/Pragmatic axis.
Lawful Evil societies might translate the Good/Evil axis as the Slavish/Masterful axis, and the Law/Chaos axis as the Honorable/Dishonorable axis. An Honorable Masterful noble would have little time for a Dishonorably Slavish rabble rouser and his priggish peasant uprising.
True Neutral societies might translate the Good/Evil axis as the Vainglorious/Virtuous/Vicious axis, and the Law/Chaos axis as the Rigid Morals/Proper Morals/Loose Morals axis. They'd consider themselves Virtuous and Proper, Lawful Good paladins to be Rigid and Vainglorious, and Chaotic Evil blackguards to be Loose and Vicious.
From Escapist magazine The entire article is pretty interesting.
Arachnofiend wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: SilverliteSword wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: But a deity saying you follow this oath or lose your power is explicitly lawful. Why would a chaotic deity do that? why would you even have chaotic champions if the first thing you have to do to become one be stop being (at least on some level) chaotic or give up a chaotic behavior. In my headcanon, at least part of it is internal. These powers are fueled by faith, and doubt naturally erases them. It's less a punishment and more of the way things naturally are.
Same with the deities. It's less of "do this or I punish you" and more "if you do this I can no longer help you because to do so would violate my vary nature." Lawful deities should be going do this or I punish you that is lawful. Chaotic deities should not be functioning this way. Antipaladin of Gorum acts with cowardice and flees from the site of a great battle. You might be the only person in the world who would think Gorum punishing his champion for this would be a sign that Gorum is a lawful deity. Let me just take a moment here to break topic. This post above me here makes a great example of What I've been talking about in other threads. People making statements like this one (their are better examples but hey here it is) That instead of helping people understand each other and find middle ground causes people to instead entrench and push people away from each other. It in fact does nothing to convince someone that that their side might have a point but instead makes someone want to argue more just to frustrate everyone else. It shows a willful attempt to resist trying to relate to someone else and instead deride them. Derision does not bring people over to your side of the fence.
Let me just say that this is not a particularly heinous nor over the top example mind you. Its fairly tame in fact but before I reasoned it out their was a moment when I wanted to just spend time disputing everything that was said.
With that out of the way I see what your saying silver. I still feel we could do something more satisfying for a chaotic champion then just an oath.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
AnimatedPaper wrote: SilverliteSword wrote: Given the problems with the terms "lawful" and "chaotic" i tend to pull the "Freedom vs. Authoritarian" axis from political theory as the starting point for the Lawful/Chaotic axis for things like this. People who are freedom/chaotic hate unnecessary rules, not all rules ever. Even anarchists believe in a personal code that they internally hold themselves to. Chaotic is less about rules/no rules than where those rules are stemming from. Lawful types defer to the majority or authority while chaotic types follow their own conscience/ moral compass even if the authority or majority says they are wrong. More or less where I fall as well. I came across a post forever ago that posited that the entire G vs E and L vs C alignment structure makes sense...if you're describing alignment from a LG perspective. Quote: Chaotic Evil societies might translate the Good/Evil axis as the Unreasonable/Reasonable axis, and the Law/Chaos axis as the Dogmatic/Pragmatic axis.
Lawful Evil societies might translate the Good/Evil axis as the Slavish/Masterful axis, and the Law/Chaos axis as the Honorable/Dishonorable axis. An Honorable Masterful noble would have little time for a Dishonorably Slavish rabble rouser and his priggish peasant uprising.
True Neutral societies might translate the Good/Evil axis as the Vainglorious/Virtuous/Vicious axis, and the Law/Chaos axis as the Rigid Morals/Proper Morals/Loose Morals axis. They'd consider themselves Virtuous and Proper, Lawful Good paladins to be Rigid and Vainglorious, and Chaotic Evil blackguards to be Loose and Vicious.
From Escapist magazine The entire article is pretty interesting. I like this. I think we will need to use this in order to really represent each Champion the way he thinks of himself.
Lawful (Deontological): judges the correctness of an action based on whether the action itself adhered to a set of principles developed in advance.
Neutral (Aretological): judges the correctness of an action by the character of the person making the decision: i.e. by wisdom and intent.
Chaotic (Consequentialist): judges the correctness of an action based on the consequences of the action.
Good (Altruistic): judges the correctness of an action by whether or not it benefits others
Neutral (Humanistic): judges the correctness of an action by whether or not it harms another or benefits the most people with no particular compunction to give sacrificially
Evil (Self-interested): judges the correctness of an action by whether or not it helps oneself and those one cares deeply about.
So, to clarify for each combination:
LG: an action is correct if it adheres to the strict set of principles laid down by my god, nation or philosophy in advance (in that order). When not explicitly forbidden by a commandment, all actions should be taken to achieve justice for as many others as possible.
LN: an action is correct if it adheres to the strict set of principles laid down by my nation, god, or philosophy in advance (in that order). When not explicitly forbidden by a commandment, all actions should be taken to help my government/community so long as I do not dishonor myself in the process.
LE: an action is correct if it adheres to the strict set of principles laid down by my nation, philosophy, or god in advance (in that order). When not explicitly forbidden by a commandment, all actions should be taken exclusively to help myself and my goals or the goals of those I care deeply about such as my allies, family, friends, or romantic partners.
NG: an action is correct if it adheres to the character traits that my god, philosophy, or nation values (in that order). So long as I do not violate that character, all actions should be taken to help improve the character or quality of life of as many others as possible.
TN: an action is correct if it adheres to the character traits that my nation, god, or philosophy values (in that order). So long as I do not violate that character, all actions should be taken to help make my community more virtuous so long as I do not harm myself in the process.
NE: an action is correct if it adheres to the character traits that my philosophy, nation, or god values (in that order). So long as I do not violate that character, all actions should be taken exclusively to help improve myself or those I care deeply about such as my family, friends, or romantic partners.
CG: an action is correct if it leads or seems to lead to results that my god, philosophy, or nation approves of (in that order). In the absence of results that are not acceptable, actions that lead to a greater freedom or quality of life for a greater number of people should be taken.
CN: an action is correct if it leads or seems to lead to results that my philosophy, god, or nation approves of (in that order). In the absence of results that are not acceptable, actions that lead to a greater freedom or quality of life for my community should be taken so long as I do not bring harm to myself.
CE: an action is correct if it leads or seems to lead to results that my philosophy, nation, or god approves of (in that order). In the absence of results that are not acceptable, actions should be taken that lead to a greater freedom or quality of life for myself or those I care deeply about such as my friends or romantic partners.
The end result of all of this is that no one really sees himself as taking "incorrect" actions. The real difference lies in what seems right to each person.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: With that out of the way I see what your saying silver. I still feel we could do something more satisfying for a chaotic champion then just an oath. If we go by this source:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/checkfortraps/8386-A ll-About-Alignment
then the chaotic alignments should be more results-oriented than rules-oriented. This means that the "oath" or "tenets" of a Chaotic person deal much more with what results are to be pursued or not pursued than restrictions on the means needed to get there.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Based on these benchmarks, then, Ayn Rand would be "CE" because she:
(C) Permits actions based on the outcome of those actions (net utility) and
(E) Chooses actions based on the effect they will have on herself and those she personally cares about.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Why don't we test this framework by applying it to characters from fiction? I'll do Luke Skywalker:
His mentor is Ben Kenobi, His philosophy is the Jedi Way, and his community is the rebels.
He obeys his aunt and uncle even though he would rather do otherwise.
He chooses to turn off his targeting computer and trust Ben over the Rebels.
He's perfectly OK abandoning his Jedi training to save his friends, even though the consequences would be dire: but not because he knows he would save them, but rather because he cannot be the sort of person who would leave them.
He's willing to use the force in slightly aggressive or reckless ways.
He seems to give a lot of thought to his own identity rather than either rules or consequences, so I'd say that's authority-neutral.
He gives much more thought to his own community than the outside world, but he does think some about the well-being of others. That seems between G and N, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say G.
I'd say that Luke qualifies as a NG who often strays into TN or CG territory.
Vidmaster7 wrote: With that out of the way I see what your saying silver. I still feel we could do something more satisfying for a chaotic champion then just an oath. To be clear, is your exact issue that a chaotic character would not swear an oath, even if that is the most direct method to acquire power (and likely with their fingers crossed behind their back)? Or is that their diety would not grant powers for their followers assuming such an oath?
If its the former, then I go back to having nothing. Our interpretations of chaos and law are too far apart for this one.
If its the diety, then this might actually be solvable. Simply reflavor that, while an oath is usually (almost always on Golarian) sworn in a diety's name, they do not actually empower the paladin. Instead it is the paladin's own conviction empowering them. On the lawful side, it is their assurance that they are doing the right thing; on chaos, it is their knowledge that they have arranged the best deal.
Chaos deities in this set up could choose to be amused, shrug it off in confusion, or act genuinely annoyed when faced with their paladins, according to their own biases. And it opens up the possibilities of paladins devoted to principles rather than gods, if that is appropriate to your setting.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: I really feel like too after his comment that they would not be opposed to paladins (champions) of different alignments he just wants the time to do a thorough alteration that would be appropriate for each alignment as opposed to just slapping a chaos or law sticker over smite evil
So one of the first things that I heard that I would like to submit is that non-lawful paladin types would have something other then oaths that they have to do to keep their divine powers. such as was suggested evil types having to sacrifice to dark gods.
maybe, but oaths still work, a chaotic person is opposed to anyone being told what to do against their will, not to making binding promises and deals (well usually) But a chaotic person is less tied to those oaths by their vary nature. Sure i'll follow the oath until it doesn't suit me! In this case however your oath is to a god or other powerful entity so they are going to need some reassurances to who they are going to give their powers too.
Now maybe your average chaotic person is ok with oaths but we are talking about a CHAMPION of chaos. It would almost seem foolish to me to trust a champion of chaos to keep his word. no, we are talking about the champions of a chaotic deity, vital difference. They already. Effectively sacrificed their freedom to the higher ideals of their faith. Isn't that kind of a oxymoron then? Like that line of thinking seems to imply that it shouldn't exist in the first place. Chaotic deity is like hmm in order for you to serve my chaotic ways I need you to not be chaotic? see I don't follow that logic. Demons already do it, make a deal with one and move towards Chaos and Evil, just the brand that serves them, this would be a development of that, Chaos as cosmic force (or neutrality or w/e), you have made a pact, and in so doing been altered so that you serve better, Gorum increases your lust for blood and glory, Cayden increases your sense of injustice and hatred of chains etc,
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
That chaotic good characters can't have tenets and be a paladin is utter nonsense. Chaotic Evil characters can be antipaladins, and follow the tenets their gods give them.
Chaotic does not mean "no personal rules". Anarchists have tenets too
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Rob Godfrey wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: I really feel like too after his comment that they would not be opposed to paladins (champions) of different alignments he just wants the time to do a thorough alteration that would be appropriate for each alignment as opposed to just slapping a chaos or law sticker over smite evil
So one of the first things that I heard that I would like to submit is that non-lawful paladin types would have something other then oaths that they have to do to keep their divine powers. such as was suggested evil types having to sacrifice to dark gods.
maybe, but oaths still work, a chaotic person is opposed to anyone being told what to do against their will, not to making binding promises and deals (well usually) For a CG person like me, an oath is "I do this and always will do this because "I" freely decided to do this. Nobody forced me. It is MY choice and I will face its consequences".
AnimatedPaper wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: With that out of the way I see what your saying silver. I still feel we could do something more satisfying for a chaotic champion then just an oath. To be clear, is your exact issue that a chaotic character would not swear an oath, even if that is the most direct method to acquire power (and likely with their fingers crossed behind their back)? Or is that their diety would not grant powers for their followers assuming such an oath?
If its the former, then I go back to having nothing. Our interpretations of chaos and law are too far apart for this one.
If its the diety, then this might actually be solvable. Simply reflavor that, while an oath is usually (almost always on Golarian) sworn in a diety's name, they do not actually empower the paladin. Instead it is the paladin's own conviction empowering them. On the lawful side, it is their assurance that they are doing the right thing; on chaos, it is their knowledge that they have arranged the best deal.
Chaos deities in this set up could choose to be amused, shrug it off in confusion, or act genuinely annoyed when faced with their paladins, according to their own biases. And it opens up the possibilities of paladins devoted to principles rather than gods, if that is appropriate to your setting. Apparently I did not make that clear based on everyone else's comments but yes I'm referring to the gods. (even though I mentioned deity having a problem with it like 3 times!) so in your example here what would be the tenets of a chaotic paladin? what is their motivation?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Part of the issue I am coming up against here is that the view of Chaotic is, ironically, very limiting. If it was that hard to follow the guidance of a Chaotic God then they could never tell their Clerics what to do either. I think a Chaotic individual can have a Code, even a Code that they didn't come up with, if they believe in it. A Chaotic "Paladin" is the same as a Lawful Paladin in that they have to believe in their cause.
I guess if there's a need to differentiate, a Lawful Paladin is about discipline. So a Chaotic 'Paladin' should be about their passion. They believe, they believe harder than anyone else in their cause, and it awakens something in them. But that something is based on their absolute belief in themselves and their cause, and if they falter then that power falters.
So maybe start from that. Its less about following something with strict obedience, and more about intense passion and belief in something they have to do. Chaotic Paladins dig down deep, and become the drill that will pierce the heavens.
Follower of Sarenrae, watching raiders attack the village, they need to stop them. They really need Sarenrae's help.
Follower Stands Before The Raiders: "There is no darkness that does not flee lights touch, and even a lone candle will hold it back."
Raiders Start The Pillaging: "A candle isn't enough this time, loser."
Follower Picks Up That Sword And Starts Believing: "Then I will be more than a candle!"
Follower Starts Shining Light And Wrecking Face: "I WILL BURN LIKE THE SUN!"
A Chaotidin's tenets are not easy to extrapolate immediately, but I'd personally still put opposition to Evil at the forefront. Keep the 'Can't hurt innocent people' because a Chaotidin doesn't take the shortcuts that Lawfuldins constantly accuse them of, their powerful comes from their belief that they can make their ideal world a reality.
Lets say that the Honor part of Paladin stays with the Lawfuls, and Chaotidins get to lie and cheat, and maybe can even take advantage of people. I can't think of any replacement right now, have to go to work, but there are doubtlessly some replacements there.
For their last thing, Paladins have to obey laws when it doesn't oppose their higher tenets. Chaotidins may not care too much for law, but can't just mirror it and say "Break it when you can." So maybe Chaotidins have to care more about individuals. They have to help uplift the downtrodden, have to spread hope, must go out of their way to help others achieve their dreams. Something positive, but focused on individuals over 'Greater Good'.
I was of a third opinion - that the alignment base is just one way to build on top of the martial divine class chassis. The powers of the class come from who or what they are devoted to. That can be a deity OR an ideal. As varied in options as clerics and fighters, this one chassis can serve an extremely large number of character concepts.
If we're calling it warpriest, or champion, whatever:
Champion of Shelyn is a CG, NG, LG, or N devotee of The Eternal Rose, dedicated to protecting lovers, artists, and the places they inhabit.
Champion of Gorum is a CE, CN, CG, or N devotee of The Lord in Iron, dedicated to battle in all it's glorious forms - never backing down from a potentially winnable battle, and glorying in the defeat of his enemies.
Champion of Iomedae is a NG, LG, or LN devotee of the Inheritor, dedicated to bringing a light to dark places, and inspiring the honorable towards greatness.
Paladin of Righteousness is a LG devotee to all that is good and just. Equally motivated by the protection of innocent, and defeat of the wicked. Not necessarily an adherent to any specific deity, but to the concepts of law and good directly.
This one chassis can work for Eagle Knights, Hell Knights, Anti-Paladins, Tyrants, Gravekeepers, Road Wardens, any highly dedicated non-casting servant of a god or ideal can be made to work versatily.
Ideals and Deities can be crafted for many years to come to provide the specific oaths, anathemas, and specialized powers without much work on the actual class itself. Many classes that are currently prestige classes tied to in-game organizations could actually have their own oath to use this class with, and so on. It's a splatbook author's dream.
|
