| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...this is, as an aside, why I'd love to see a CG good warrior class built from the ground up, with mobility, teleport, and so on to leap them across the battlefield. In that way, its mechanics from the ground up have the opportunity to explore multiple definitions. It also avoids the "carbon copy of the paladin, but different" than the antipaladin kinda was. The anti had some neat abilities, but always felt a little cheap bc of that association (even though other elements were awesome), and I don't want that, here.Not saying that's bad to want, or not something interesting to shoot for, but I do actually like the idea that a Chaotic class wouldn't be pushed away from Heavy Armor and Tanking.
Monks are Lawful, but they are the 'No Armor, Moving Free' masters (when magic isn't overshadowing everything, so they get a good three levels of it). So I don't think it follows that Chaotic is to be more focused on the moving and slippity bippities. I'd be happy with the Paladin focus on protecting others not changing between Good alignments.
Teleporting light armor stick em up being an archetype for Paladin would be great though. And I wouldn't be torn up if Chaotic was light armor by default, I just prefer they be as capable of tanking in heavy armor as the Lawfuls.
Mobile doesn't mean without armor. >.> That's a misconception put forward by a certain Mr. Twain that we've never gotten over.
They deserve more than an archetype, anyhow. An archetype would be kinda sad, because those sorts of abilities are both different and varied enough that an entire class could and should be made from them.
Chaotic: This sort of character chaffs against hard-and-fast rules. The "Ethics" of such a character tend to arise from intuition rather than reason if at all. Tends to resist societies with strict rules, especially those run by "systems" rather than "people".The thing is, I don't even really disagree with this...except the 'intuition rather than reason' bit. That's not part of the Lawful/Chaotic dichotomy and shouldn't be. Both Lawful and Chaotic people can either be intuitively so or rationally so.
Anyone, regardless of Alignment, can have a logically thought out and consistent moral code. A Chaotic moral code is just a very different beast with very different emphases than a Lawful one (and quite possibly more inclined to situational exceptions).
And anyone, regardless of Alignment, can have not thought through why their moral code is as it is and simply be going with their own personal moral intuition plus the things they were taught growing up, all without thinking much about why.
In the real world, both of those types of moral code exist (the second is vastly more common than the first) and are both found among philosophies of all types, both those focused on things like the social contract or a particular religious doctrine, and those focused on personal freedom as the ultimate good. Dividing them up on Alignment lines is weird, inaccurate to reality, and not borne out anywhere in the Alignment rules.
I agree that the alignment rules aren't super clear on this stuff. This is just how I tend to RP my own characters and how I recommend my players RP when I am the GM.
Real talk though: Good and Evil aren't totally real things either. They are just archetypes that are useful to individuals and societies and mean different things depending on the person or society at large.
However! I think Good/Evil and Law/Chaos (as I have defined them above) are interesting ways to think about a character's motivations and the way they think.
On the reason/intuition thing: I am only talking about "ethics" in terms of "rules". I am not saying a chaotic character cannot be rational in the pursuit of their desires. A chaotic/good being does not torture their enemies because they do not want to harm another living thing rather than the fact that they have decided that torture is always wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Freedom is excellent for Chaotic but it does not necessarily ends in Good
I propose Hope as the most important cause for CG
...you know. I really like that. Let's expand on it, and some other concepts?
I think the kind of "freedom" that a CG character emphasizes most is the "freedom to make yourself and others happy".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hrm. You know, that can't be the only distinction and nor should it be the "only good" that Chaos has to offer. Creativity, thinking outside the box, finding alternate solutions to impossible problems can also be good.
Those are definitely lowercase good things, but they are not morally Good (with a capital G). They're methodologies available to any Chaotic character rather than something specifically morally righteous.
We also have instinct, personal flexibility, and keeping your own promises but not feeling bound what others promised on your behalf can be an asset as well. The ability too, of rethinking rules to where they become instead, strong guidelines. Shackled vs unshackled.
And again, all those are good, useful, traits that a CG person might use to advance their goals...but so might a CE person. If we're to define the CG Paladin as equally focused on Good to their LG counterpart then their Code should primarily involve moral considerations, and none of the things you list are moral considerations except maybe not feeling bound by others promises...which is covered by removing the 'honor' tenet rather than by adding any.
If we say that "Personal Freedom" is the only Good trait about Chaos, then we risk doing a disservice to that axis and also pigeonholing the chaotic holy warrior concept to one thing. So...let's address this early on, to make sure it doesn't become about the one thing? And that that one thing doesn't end up inserting itself as THE difference between the axis?
See, it'd be very easy to point to two different flavors of holy warrior and say: there, THAT is the single difference between the two alignments.
We're talking about their Code here, not the whole Class. I'd actually be very on board with Paladin Class Feats for a CG Paladin that emphasize, say, tactical flexibility in contrast to the LG Paladin's Oath Feats. That sounds cool.
But morally? Yeah, I think a focus on freedom rather than honor is very much the correct route to go for the Code specifically. Which is what this thread is about, after all.
|
|
I agree that the alignment rules aren't super clear on this stuff. This is just how I tend to RP my own characters and how I recommend my players RP when I am the GM.
Sure, but I'm just pointing out a serious issue with that depiction of Alignment from a realism perspective, and noting it's not supported by the book.
Real talk though: Good and Evil aren't totally real things either. They are just archetypes that are useful to individuals and societies and mean different things depending on the person or society at large.
I don't want to get into a discussion of what real world morality is correct, but I'll just note here that I absolutely believe, in real life, that some things are fundamentally evil. Objectively. For everyone.
Now, I freely acknowledge that other people won't all agree with my definitions (though I think most will), but I would not remotely say that evil isn't real.
However! I think Good/Evil and Law/Chaos (as I have defined them above) are interesting ways to think about a character's motivations and the way they think.
Oh, absolutely, but if you assign a trait that applies to 90%+ of real world people to one section of Alignment (which you are if you're assigning 'instinctive morality' to Chaotic people, the vast majority of real people's morality falls into this category) you're either skewing your alignment statistics wildly from the game's core assumptions or you're making a world with a verisimilitude problem.
On the reason/intuition thing: I am only talking about "ethics" in terms of "rules". I am not saying a chaotic character cannot be rational in the pursuit of their desires. A chaotic/good being does not torture their enemies because they do not want to harm another living thing rather than the fact that they have decided that torture is always wrong.
I am also talking about very specifically this. And this isn't a Law/Chaos distinction its an introspective/non-introspective distinction, and introspection is not more common among Lawful people than Chaotic ones.
Hrm. You know, that can't be the only distinction and nor should it be the "only good" that Chaos has to offer. Creativity, thinking outside the box, finding alternate solutions to impossible problems can also be good.Those are definitely lowercase good things, but they are not morally Good (with a capital G). They're methodologies available to any Chaotic character rather than something specifically morally righteous.
We also have instinct, personal flexibility, and keeping your own promises but not feeling bound what others promised on your behalf can be an asset as well. The ability too, of rethinking rules to where they become instead, strong guidelines. Shackled vs unshackled.And again, all those are good, useful, traits that a CG person might use to advance their goals...but so might a CE person. If we're to define the CG Paladin as equally focused on Good to their LG counterpart then their Code should primarily involve moral considerations, and none of the things you list are moral considerations except maybe not feeling bound by others promises...which is covered by removing the 'honor' tenet rather than by adding any.
If we say that "Personal Freedom" is the only Good trait about Chaos, then we risk doing a disservice to that axis and also pigeonholing the chaotic holy warrior concept to one thing. So...let's address this early on, to make sure it doesn't become about the one thing? And that that one thing doesn't end up inserting itself as THE difference between the axis?
See, it'd be very easy to point to two different flavors of holy warrior and say: there, THAT is the single difference between the two alignments.
We're talking about their Code here, not the whole Class. I'd actually be very on board with Paladin Class Feats for a CG Paladin that emphasize, say, tactical flexibility in contrast to the LG Paladin's Oath Feats. That sounds cool.
But morally? Yeah, I think a focus...
I have to disagree respectfully here, though I hope, for good reasons.
Freedom isn't always good. Freedom is also Anarchy. It's cutting loose the chains of the murderer, the arsonist, who deserve "freedom" as well.
So, what we might instead say is that "this one aspect of Freedom is mostly good." Doing that though, doesn't look at "Freedom" as a whole, you know? And, if we're taking a nuanced view of Freedom to begin with...
...might we also take a nuanced view of other elements, and incorporate them, so that we don't have a singular concept in the showcase?
Freedom isn't intrinsically Good unless we look at a tiny part of it, and then say: but only in these cases is it deserved or Good. We wouldn't want to let loose the murderer, any more than we would the Insane God, who lies chained in the Abyss.
I'm not saying this to be a pest; I'm saying it from "yeah, well...we tried this for a few years; this turned into x too many times, over too many campaigns, over too many participants, and it ended up locking out other interpretations."
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...you know. I really like that. Let's expand on it, and some other concepts?Freedom is excellent for Chaotic but it does not necessarily ends in Good
I propose Hope as the most important cause for CG
My issue with this is that I've always seen all Paladins as beacons of hope. Taking that away from LG Paladins to make it specific to CG ones seems wrong to me.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree respectfully here, though I hope, for good reasons.
Freedom isn't always good. Freedom is also Anarchy. It's cutting loose the chains of the murderer, the arsonist, who deserve "freedom" as well.
Honor isn't always Good either, but of all the Lawful traits available, it's the one that's mostly Good, and thus what LG Paladins focus on. Similarly, Freedom is by far the Chaotic trait most associated with Good, and so should be the focus of a CG Paladin.
So, what we might instead say is that "this one aspect of Freedom is mostly good." Doing that though, doesn't look at "Freedom" as a whole, you know? And, if we're taking a nuanced view of Freedom to begin with...
...might we also take a nuanced view of other elements, and incorporate them, so that we don't have a singular concept in the showcase?
As noted above, I'm totally on board with incorporating other aspects of Chaos into a CG Paladin. But into their Code? What other aspects of Chaos even have a moral element? All the ones you've listed are tactics for achieving whatever your objective may be, rather than something that is a Good objective to achieve.
Freedom isn't intrinsically Good unless we look at a tiny part of it, and then say: but only in these cases is it deserved or Good. We wouldn't want to let loose the murderer, any more than we would the Insane God, who lies chained in the Abyss.
I'd strongly argue against this chain of logic. Imprisoning people who take away freedom from others (and murder is one of the greatest removals of another being's freedom possible) is actually something that can be done in service of freedom. Saying that allowing a murderer to go free is an increase in freedom is inaccurate on a rather profound level, actually. It's like saying you have to tolerate intolerance to be really tolerant.
I'm also not sure insane is the right word here.
I'm not saying this to be a pest; I'm saying it from "yeah, well...we tried this for a few years; this turned into x too many times, over too many campaigns, over too many participants, and it ended up locking out other interpretations."
I've also done CG Paladins for quite a while, and have never had a problem. Maybe the difference is in emphasis or something?
Oh, absolutely, but if you assign a trait that applies to 90%+ of real world people to one section of Alignment (which you are if you're assigning 'instinctive morality' to Chaotic people, the vast majority of real people's morality falls into this category) you're either skewing your alignment statistics wildly from the game's core assumptions or you're making a world with a verisimilitude problem.
What percentage of the world do you think belongs to organized religions? I would say that the majority of these people have a lot of rules that they think really should be followed. Even if intuition lead them to the rules they have subscribed to, they still are choosing to follow a code of laws.
I don't want to get into a discussion of what real world morality is correct, but I'll just note here that I absolutely believe, in real life, that some things are fundamentally evil. Objectively. For everyone.
Now, I freely acknowledge that other people won't all agree with my definitions (though I think most will), but I would not remotely say that evil isn't real.
I feel ya. I Think you are wrong but I feel ya.
I have to disagree respectfully here, though I hope, for good reasons.
Freedom isn't always good. Freedom is also Anarchy. It's cutting loose the chains of the murderer, the arsonist, who deserve "freedom" as well.
Honor isn't always Good either, but of all the Lawful traits available, it's the one that's mostly Good, and thus what LG Paladins focus on. Similarly, Freedom is by far the Chaotic trait most associated with Good, and so should be the focus of a CG Paladin.
So, what we might instead say is that "this one aspect of Freedom is mostly good." Doing that though, doesn't look at "Freedom" as a whole, you know? And, if we're taking a nuanced view of Freedom to begin with...
...might we also take a nuanced view of other elements, and incorporate them, so that we don't have a singular concept in the showcase?
As noted above, I'm totally on board with incorporating other aspects of Chaos into a CG Paladin. But into their Code? What other aspects of Chaos even have a moral element? All the ones you've listed are tactics for achieving whatever your objective may be, rather than something that is a Good objective to achieve.
Freedom isn't intrinsically Good unless we look at a tiny part of it, and then say: but only in these cases is it deserved or Good. We wouldn't want to let loose the murderer, any more than we would the Insane God, who lies chained in the Abyss.I'd strongly argue against this chain of logic. Imprisoning people who take away freedom from others (and murder is one of the greatest removals of another being's freedom possible) is actually something that can be done in service of freedom. Saying that allowing a murderer to go free is an increase in freedom is inaccurate on a rather profound level, actually. It's like saying you have to tolerate intolerance to be really tolerant.
I'm also not sure insane is the right word here.
I'm not...
Well. XD
I mean, if you can't find other elements of Chaos that would be Good then...that's kind of a problem, you know?
If Freedom is only good when given a selective lens, and if other Chaotic elements can't be good when also given a selective lens--then yeah. :)
And yeah, I know. Freedom is crazy easy to focus on. Sometimes, I think it acts a little like a set of blinders, because "hey, here's the big red thing," and then other options just fall away, or become invisible by comparison.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What percentage of the world do you think belongs to organized religions? I would say that the majority of these people have a lot of rules that they think really should be followed. Even if intuition lead them to the rules they have subscribed to, they still are choosing to follow a code of laws.
The vast majority of people who follow an organized religion put no thought at all into why those things are wrong. They simply and instinctively believe that the tenets of their faith are and must be correct, without giving any thought to (for example) why God would make something a sin. Most also cherry pick their religious texts for stuff that feels right to them while ignoring that which doesn't...which is following a Code, still, since it's a specific set of rules, but not a thought out one or one based on anything but instinct.
The vast majority of people who don't follow an organized religion also don't think through their morality, mind you, but you asked about organized religion.
I feel ya. I Think you are wrong but I feel ya.
I appreciate the empathy. :)
|
|
Well. XD
I mean, if you can't find other elements of Chaos that would be Good then...that's kind of a problem, you know?
If Freedom is only good when given a selective lens, and if other Chaotic elements can't be good when also given a selective lens--then yeah. :)
I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying.
The aspects of Chaos you've been citing are means. They are methods of accomplishing a thing.
Freedom, meanwhile, is an end. It is a thing to be accomplished. And a Good one for the most part.
Means can be Evil, but they're very difficult to envision as inherently Good (I mean, an Evil person can certainly think outside the box), while ends absolutely can be Good very easily.
And yeah, I know. Freedom is crazy easy to focus on. Sometimes, I think it acts a little like a set of blinders, because "hey, here's the big red thing," and then other options just fall away, or become invisible by comparison.
If you present some other aspect of Chaos I can't easily see as a useful methodology a CE person could readily utilize, I'm perfectly happy to focus on that as well.
That hasn't happened yet.
What percentage of the world do you think belongs to organized religions? I would say that the majority of these people have a lot of rules that they think really should be followed. Even if intuition lead them to the rules they have subscribed to, they still are choosing to follow a code of laws.The vast majority of people who follow an organized religion put no thought at all into why those things are wrong. They simply and instinctively believe that the tenets of their faith are and must be correct, without giving any thought to (for example) why God would make something a sin. Most also cherry pick their religious texts for stuff that feels right to them while ignoring that which doesn't...which is following a Code, still, since it's a specific set of rules, but not a thought out one or one based on anything but instinct.
The vast majority of people who don't follow an organized religion also don't think through their morality, mind you, but you asked about organized religion.
My point is that a large portion of people in organized religions likely fall under the neutral/lawful spectrum more than chaotic even if the moral codes arose from moral intuition initially.
In fact, I imagine some moral intuitions likely arose from being initially taught a specific moral code.
|
|
My point is that a large portion of people in organized religions likely fall under the neutral/lawful spectrum more than chaotic even if the moral codes arose from moral intuition initially.
In fact, I imagine some moral intuitions likely arose from being initially taught a specific moral code.
Absolutely! But that's sort of my point. Most people's morality isn't thought out. It being thought out is a personal thing for a few people, and sort of irrespective of whether it'd be Lawful or Chaotic in Pathfinder terms.
Absolutely! But that's sort of my point. Most people's morality isn't thought out. It being thought out is a personal thing for a few people, and sort of irrespective of whether it'd be Lawful or Chaotic in Pathfinder terms.My point is that a large portion of people in organized religions likely fall under the neutral/lawful spectrum more than chaotic even if the moral codes arose from moral intuition initially.
In fact, I imagine some moral intuitions likely arose from being initially taught a specific moral code.
But here is the thing: if a person looks to their intuition and decides on their moral code rationally then that is being lawful. If they think about it and decide on no code of ethics (and instead decide to reach no conclusions) then they are being chaotic.
The latter person only has "ethics" in the sense that they tend not to do certain things because they emotionally feel wrong.
Note that my initial use of the word ethics in my description of the chaotic alignment used that most spooky of grammatical conventions: scare quotes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you present some other aspect of Chaos I can't easily see as a useful methodology a CE person could readily utilize, I'm perfectly happy to focus on that as well.
That hasn't happened yet.
...I *knew* you'd do that. And oh no. Nonononono. Not with a ten foot pole. XD Even if ladders are technically cheaper.
Your definitions, your understanding are specific in a different way than some of what myself or others who have shared, though there is some overlap. We need to start with your understanding and build forward and expand. Otherwise we risk that endless cycle of one person or maybe two proposing ideas and the other saying no, that does not fit.
I cannot read your mind, to put it another way. Ideas I put forward will not make you happy.
If chaos has only the one good thing as it's what, end goal? ... Maybe end goal is better than "means." ... That is an issue, but hey. Issues are just problems that haven't been solved yet.
|
|
But here is the thing: if a person looks to their intuition and decides on their moral code rationally then that is being lawful. If they think about it and decide on no code of ethics (and instead decide to reach no conclusions) then they are being chaotic.
The latter person only has "ethics" in the sense that they tend not to do certain things because they emotionally feel wrong.
Note that my initial use of the word ethics in my description of the chaotic alignment used that most spooky of grammatical conventions: scare quotes.
There is no evidence of this being true in the Alignment descriptions, nor does it match up with people in the real world at all. In short, this is simply not true in normal Pathfinder and does not accurately reflect the real world, which is problematic.
So we're back to my first post on this topic.
Just as an example of the weirdness of this perspective, it makes a Chaotic philosopher impossible, which is pretty clearly and obviously counter-intuitive and doesn't work with either reality or the setting.
...I *knew* you'd do that. And oh no. Nonononono. Not with a ten foot pole. XD Even if ladders are technically cheaper.
Your definitions, your understanding are specific in a different way than some of what myself or others who have shared, though there is some overlap. We need to start with your understanding and build forward and expand. Otherwise we risk that endless cycle of one person or maybe two proposing ideas and the other saying no, that does not fit.
Okay. I think I've made my position pretty clear, but okay.
I cannot read your mind, to put it another way. Ideas I put forward will not make you happy.
This is not necessarily true. If you have a Chaotic thing that's an end goal rather than a means to an end, and is pretty clearly usually Good, I'm perfectly happy to hear it, but if you don't want to propose any I can understand that too.
If chaos has only the one good thing as it's what, end goal? ... Maybe end goal is better than "means." ... That is an issue, but hey. Issues are just problems that haven't been solved yet.
Well, in fairness, I also think Lawful has almost no 'end goals' that qualify as Good either. Honor's about as close as it gets.
Really, I tend to think Law and Chaos are less about ends than means in the first place, which is one reason I think the LG Paladin focuses more on Good than Law by default, and also a reason LG and CG people get along a lot better than LG and LE people.
But here is the thing: if a person looks to their intuition and decides on their moral code rationally then that is being lawful. If they think about it and decide on no code of ethics (and instead decide to reach no conclusions) then they are being chaotic.
The latter person only has "ethics" in the sense that they tend not to do certain things because they emotionally feel wrong.
Note that my initial use of the word ethics in my description of the chaotic alignment used that most spooky of grammatical conventions: scare quotes.
There is no evidence of this being true in the Alignment descriptions, nor does it match up with people in the real world at all. In short, this is simply not true in normal Pathfinder and does not accurately reflect the real world, which is problematic.
So we're back to my first post on this topic.
Just as an example of the weirdness of this perspective, it makes a Chaotic philosopher impossible, which is pretty clearly and obviously counter-intuitive and doesn't work with either reality or the setting.
Moral philosophy would be mostly impossible save for a conclusion like:
"Finding objective ethics is so hard as to be impossible or maybe is totally impossible. As such, no one should presume to force their morality and ethics on others and call it justice."There are a lot of fields of philosophy besides morality though.
|
|
Moral philosophy would be mostly impossible save for a conclusion like:
"Finding objective ethics is so hard as to be impossible or maybe is totally impossible. As such, no one should presume to presume to force their morality and ethics on others and call it justice."
This quote is both a potentially inviolable moral principle, and a pretty good basis for the Paladin Code I posted.
There are a lot of fields of philosophy besides morality though.
True enough, I should've specified moral philosophy.
I feel like "change" is a fundamental aspect of Chaos that is not irreconcilable with "good".
So as much as the Paladin's focus is on "protecting the good things there already are" a Chaodin should be focused on "changing things for the better."
|
|
I feel like "change" is a fundamental aspect of Chaos that is not irreconcilable with "good".
This is definitely true.
So as much as the Paladin's focus is on "protecting the good things there already are" a Chaodin should be focused on "changing things for the better."
I'm not sure I buy that the LG Paladin is all about protecting existing stuff, though. I've definitely seen LG Paladins actively trying to change things. Heck, isn't that Iomedae's whole crusader schtick extraordinarily proactive in regards to changing things?
It's definitely something that CG Paladins should be all over, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't seem exclusive to them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with this is that I've always seen all Paladins as beacons of hope. Taking that away from LG Paladins to make it specific to CG ones seems wrong to me....you know. I really like that. Let's expand on it, and some other concepts?Freedom is excellent for Chaotic but it does not necessarily ends in Good
I propose Hope as the most important cause for CG
Yes, I thought about this too and LG Paladins also inspire hope
Which is why I do not wish to make hope the sole province of CG Paladins, but rather their focus
I think we are on a case of which positive aspect ends up first in a list of Good things. And I do not see them as exclusive
I see the LG Paladin as holding virtue as the highest priority, even though inspiring hope is also important to them
Conversely I see the CG Paladin as holding hope as the highest priority, even though virtue is also important to them
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is the big issue here, because if we say that chaos doesn't ever follow codes (or just strongly dislikes following them and thus won't maintain over long periods of time) it causes an issue. This is shown with the question "What is good?", I'd say (and I'm probably not alone) that it's a code of how to act and behave with (and to) others. Which means that if chaos won't follow codes (or just dislikes them), they can't ever really be good. They might not necessarily be evil, but they wouldn't be good, and that causes an issue.
The fact that chaos doesn't follow codes is really only an issue when you attempt to shoehorn a code in. Chaotic people (or characters) may seem to do things without purpose (which is a completely chaotic thing to do in a pure sense of the word), and often times that's true, but they may also act irrespective of a code. That means that at times, their actions may be congruent with an existing code, or set of laws, but at other times they may not. The defining point here is that the rules don't matter. It doesn't matter if they exist, or if they don't exist. The chaotic character would do what they're going to do without any regard for rules or codes.
The lawful character would follow the rules unless they had a good reason not to. The neutral character would follow rules that they feel like following or that they agree with while not following rules they don't feel like following or that they disagree with. The chaotic character wouldn't even pay rules any mind because for the chaotic character, rules don't even matter to them. As such, with rules not even mattering, they wouldn't accept another entity placing rules upon them, as they would then be forced to at least tacitly acknowledge rules as appying or not applying to them. They would reject the notion that any being even has the authority to subject them to rules in the first place.
This does not mean that without having any regard for rules that the character cannot act in a good fashion. They act in a good fashion because they choose to, not because anything says that they must. It's like the atheist perspective; they don't rape, or kill, or steal because they don't want to rape, or kill, or steal, not because some mythical bearded man in the sky tells them that it's bad.
I see what you're saying, and while I don't fully disagree, I have to reference my statement above, if chaotic cannot maintain a code (or follow a set of rules) how can they maintain being good, when good is held to a higher (not higher, all alignments are equal, but I feel you'll understand what I mean) standard (and code/rules). Also note that social interactions tend to follow rules as well, the chaotic character is not required to just always ignore them.
I believe I already answered this above, but I think it bears repeating. The chaotic good character can be good because they want to be good, not because they'll be punished for not being good because of "Rules, man. Rules."
So, with regard to social interactions, a very basic one is a greeting. You say some form of hello to me, and I say some form of hello back to you. That's a pretty basic social convention. The chaotic character may say hello back to you, but not because it's the "socially acceptable" thing to do; things like "social acceptability" don't really matter to them. They say "hello" back to you because they want to. Or they nod their head and don't say anything at all. Or maybe they grunt a reply, or don't acknowledge you at all. They don't explicitly bow to the social convention of greeting you back.
Also, while a chaotic character might reject laws that don't conflict with good, they don't necessarily fight them all the time, instead ignoring them when inconvenienced by them. Some might choose to champion against them, while others might accept their existence and instead choose to educate others on the downsides of them.
I don't disagree with this at all.
Similarly, I think that the alignment square is a bad representation of how alignment looks and how the axes influence each other. Instead I'd consider it akin to the color circle, with an extra source color and G,E,L,C as the source colors (I really enjoyed how unchained did alignment, and this is like a more granular version of that), With the corner alignments being somewhere in-between. This means that each corner alignment, can be various shades of their sources. So we end up with some CG's whom have a little more C than G in them, whom like you said can't follow a code really, and other CG's whom would be able to (Maybe they've got a splash on lawful in their color ;D ).
While I don't inherently disagree with this, I find it problematic when one of the axes overwhelms the other to the point where the other is irrelevant. At that point, the law-chaos axis naturally settles to "neutral" because the neutral point in the axis prefers neither side of the law-chaos axis to the other.
I know it's not meant for me, but, You too, kind sir! Your posts are growing on me, and it is somewhat enjoyable to see them, despite my disagreement.
I appreciate the respectful discourse as well! We may not agree, but that's part of the process, and if we eventually reach consensus, I will feel that this conversation was deeply rewarding. If not, it'll still be a good conversation. So, I say "Best wishes!" to you as well, good sir!
==========
I'll repeat that I keep bringing up Good because a LG Paladin prioritizes Good over Law, and I thus consider a CG one prioritizing Good over Chaos to be very much the way a CG Paladin should work.
I think it's only natural that a paladin prioritizes Good over Law, as they would be completely unable to function as a paladin if they did not do so. However, that doesn't mean that Law holds no bearing upon their actions, and "Law" does not always mean "laws and rules". It can also mean "pattern", "code", "order" (as in the natural order of things in this specific context, not as in command, but it can mean that as well), or any other host of synonyms. I know you understand this, but I wanted to be specific that it's not limited to only the three synonyms I listed here.
Chaos, on the other hand, can also mean "discord", "disorder", "unruliness" (or again, a host of other synonyms not limited to the three I chose). Chaos finds itself in opposition to order or law not explicitly because it is the equal and opposite counter to any given rule or law, but because it doesn't engage with law. It's akin to colouring a picture by numbers; the lawful character will colour a section of the picture blue because the picture calls for blue, and that matters. The chaotic character may choose to use blue in any specific spot that calls for blue, or they may choose to use another colour instead because the colours called for don't really matter to them.
I disagree that prioritizing the freedom of others over your own is in any way non-Chaotic. It's explicitly Good and thus not typical of CN or CE, but it's a very Chaotic act to prioritize freedom in general regardless of whose. And that's what most of the Code I'd give a CG Paladin is: prioritizing freedom.
I don't disagree that the prioritizing of freedom of others over your own is explicitly non-chaotic. I do, however, argue that doing so universally or consistently is non-chaotic. A chaotic good paladin, in prioritizing freedom, must sometimes prioritize their own as well, and that may sometimes conflict with prioritizing the freedom of others. This is best done when it does not conflict with a good act.
Absolutely! Unfortunately, having a Code that actually necessitates lawbreaking is not feasible and does not actually covey the lack of respect for laws a Chaotic character should have, since it binds them to them every bit as closely as requiring them to obey them.
Which is why my CG Paladin Code is focused pretty exclusively on protecting the freedom of others rather than anything else.
I agree with you that having a code that necessitates lawbreaking is not feasible. I disagree with you that the chaotic character would overmuch care (or consider) the law when acting in a good fashion. It's good for goodness sake, as opposed to the proverbial bearded man in the sky telling them that they have to be good or be condemned to an eternity of fiery torture.
I understand and respect your position on the chaotic good "paladin" focusing pretty exclusively on protecting freedoms, but I argue that they must also preserve their own. In preserving their own, I find it to be at odds with the concept that they would allow their freedom to be restricted by a set of behavioural rules. The bearded man in the sky can't tell them what to do, but they can still do good of their own volition.
And once again, the same to you. :)
As always, best wishes to you, good sir.
I don't think the Law/Chaos axis is as focused as Good/Evil. What I mean by that is that there are a lot of different opposites that could be used to define Law vs Chaos: Discipline vs spontaneity, laws vs anarchy, order vs randomness, intuition vs reason, and probably lots more. So to say that all chaotic characters MUST be anti-laws or anti-codes is missing the big picture. A chaotic person can still follow the law, or have a code. They are chaotic in other ways, maybe in their lifestyle, interests and hobbies, routines, or whatever. A 100% all-about-the-chaos person might be a complete anarchist sure, but simply labeling someone CN doesn't mean they register strong on the chaos side. They might just feel stifled by living in one place to long, and do a lot of wandering. They could still follow all the laws of wherever they are currently living, but that doesn't make them lawful. And honestly, someone can be 100% chaos and STILL follow laws or have a code (like demons for example. It could easily be said that they have a code). Proteans fit that description, but there is more than one type of chaos.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Chaos Codes submitted by and large? Strike me as very, very NG because things appear to be blurring into one another. That is:
* Focusing on one element of L & C, rather than multiples
* Focusing on preferred traits, ...as though this concept of mercy or humility is only a Chaotic trait.This overall just furthers the idea tha perhaps the L-C axis shouldn't be part of PF in the future, as "things I identify with or prefer over the other" seem more closely ascribed to it, and in that vein things become overly squishy. This isn't meant as an insult--it's a respectful concern that has been buzzing about for some time, and I hope it will be seen in that vein.
Maybe we should just say that a paladin is any good, and most of them can follow the same code, regardless their position on the L-C axis.
Then, lawful gods will stress some particular rules, and chaotic gods some others.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Chaos Codes submitted by and large? Strike me as very, very NG because things appear to be blurring into one another. That is:
* Focusing on one element of L & C, rather than multiples
* Focusing on preferred traits, ...as though this concept of mercy or humility is only a Chaotic trait.This overall just furthers the idea tha perhaps the L-C axis shouldn't be part of PF in the future, as "things I identify with or prefer over the other" seem more closely ascribed to it, and in that vein things become overly squishy. This isn't meant as an insult--it's a respectful concern that has been buzzing about for some time, and I hope it will be seen in that vein.
Maybe we should just say that a paladin is any good, and most of them can follow the same code, regardless their position on the L-C axis.
Then, lawful gods will stress some particular rules, and chaotic gods some others.
I've been championing that idea for a while now.
Well, even if Erastil COULD have CG paladins, his Paladin code would not be fit for them.
Loving these civil, constructive arguments Bodhi, willuwontu, and Deadman! Keep up the good work! ;-)
Paladins do not lie unless there is extenuating circumstances.Scene:
Heroes are in a El Alamo situation.
A civilian trapped with them ask if they are doomed. One of the heroes step forward and says "we are not", to sooth the morale. He knows they are screwed. It is a lie. Is it evil? Should a Paladin fall?If the Paladin believes it to be true, that they are doomed, then it is a lie.
A smart Paladin would answer in a way that isn't a lie, but that raises morale none the less.
What if he is not a smart paladin? Does he fall if he says they are not doomed?
What about the other examples? Does he fall if he says Santa exists to children? Does he fall if he says "your cat is OK" to dying grandma?
More important maybe, regardless of paladins. Is it evil to say Santa exist? Is it chaotic?
Untrue. They do, then fall. That is why fallen paladins are a thing.
Anyways, I roll with your answer. So, to play a paladin at your table, I HAVE to tell children Santa does not exist? What if don't? Would you, as a GM, make me fall?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And honestly, someone can be 100% chaos and STILL follow laws or have a code (like demons for example. It could easily be said that they have a code).
menzoberranzsn in DnD was an example. Drows are CE, yet they have rules. Lots of rules. Rules about which sex has political power. Which order of birth gives you what job (first born man becomes fighter. Next one is wizard, etc). Rules about the power each House control. Rules about when and how worship Loth. Even rules about how a house can be destroyed, and what happens if there are survivors or witnesses.
Sure, the rules where bloody, and ruthless, and promoted a "might makes right" environment of fear and death. But they are rules anyways. Tons of them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's only natural that a paladin prioritizes Good over Law, as they would be completely unable to function as a paladin if they did not do so. However, that doesn't mean that Law holds no bearing upon their actions, and "Law" does not always mean "laws and rules". It can also mean "pattern", "code", "order" (as in the natural order of things in this specific context, not as in command, but it can mean that as well), or any other host of synonyms. I know you understand this, but I wanted to be specific that it's not limited to only the three synonyms I listed here.
Sure. Operationalizing terms is always useful.
Chaos, on the other hand, can also mean "discord", "disorder", "unruliness" (or again, a host of other synonyms not limited to the three I chose). Chaos finds itself in opposition to order or law not explicitly because it is the equal and opposite counter to any given rule or law, but because it doesn't engage with law. It's akin to colouring a picture by numbers; the lawful character will colour a section of the picture blue because the picture calls for blue, and that matters. The chaotic character may choose to use blue in any specific spot that calls for blue, or they may choose to use another colour instead because the colours called for don't really matter to them.
That's certainly a typical Chaotic attitude, yes. But I think a particular Chaotic character can decide to, say, always follow the directions of color by numbers pictures specifically as long as they're Chaotic in most other aspects of their life.
I don't disagree that the prioritizing of freedom of others over your own is explicitly non-chaotic. I do, however, argue that doing so universally or consistently is non-chaotic. A chaotic good paladin, in prioritizing freedom, must sometimes prioritize their own as well, and that may sometimes conflict with prioritizing the freedom of others. This is best done when it does not conflict with a good act.
The Code I wrote absolutely allows prioritizing their own freedom in many situations. It just doesn't allow them in specific relation to breaking the Code. Which goes back to the color by numbers example above.
In short, I think a Chaotic character can pick a particular aspect of their life and have it not be quite as Chaotic and still maintain their Alignment as long as Chaos is till their main thing in most of the rest of their life. And I think for a CG Paladin, like a CG Cleric doing stuff with Anathema, obeying their Code is that part of their life that isn't 100% Chaotic.
I agree with you that having a code that necessitates lawbreaking is not feasible. I disagree with you that the chaotic character would overmuch care (or consider) the law when acting in a good fashion. It's good for goodness sake, as opposed to the proverbial bearded man in the sky telling them that they have to be good or be condemned to an eternity of fiery torture.
Oh, agreed. But where do Chaotic Clerics come from? In my head, they're Chaotic people who just found a God that already agreed with their existing ideas and chose to follow them. CG Paladins would presumably arise in the same way.
"Wait, you'll give me superpowers for stuff I was probably gonna do anyway as long as I stick to doing that stuff? You're awesome. I'm in."
I understand and respect your position on the chaotic good "paladin" focusing pretty exclusively on protecting freedoms, but I argue that they must also preserve their own. In preserving their own, I find it to be at odds with the concept that they would allow their freedom to be restricted by a set of behavioural rules. The bearded man in the sky can't tell them what to do, but they can still do good of their own volition.
And I'd argue that they're not giving up meaningfully more freedom than most Clerics of Chaotic Gods are with Anathema, and those clearly exist.
I do think that CG Paladins are probably more likely to fall and need an atonement than LG ones as they work around or past their Code, but that doesn't make them impossible or anything.
As always, best wishes to you, good sir.
And the same to you. :)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, to play a paladin at your table, I HAVE to tell children Santa does not exist? What if don't? Would you, as a GM, make me fall?
So, this is totally off topic, but I always thought my parents did this one right. When I asked whether Santa Claus was real they told me that Santa Claus was a myth and myths were some of the realest things there are (followed by a discussion of what a myth was and why they were real things).
My parents are cool. Also, that seems a very Paladin-like way out of that dilemma.
Yes, it is a good, smart, paladinesque way out. But not all paladins are smart, and even those who are smart might have different answers to a same problem. What if I, playing the paladin, tell the child that Santa exists? Do I fall, or not?
|
|
Yes, it is a good, smart, paladinesque way out. But not all paladins are smart, and even those who are smart might have different answers to a same problem. What if I, playing the paladin, tell the child that Santa exists? Do I fall, or not?
Oh, I'm not really arguing with you, I just wanted to tell that story.
My actual answer is that if you can't think of a way to avoid saying that without hurting the kid's feelings, then Tenet #2 kicks in and you can lie (since telling a kid Santa isn't real hurts an innocent).
I agree with that position, and will never make a paladin fall for that kind of lie (talking about LG paladins here). I'm happy the code splictly allows you to lie to keep others safe. Just wondering how people who is more strict on the L side would do it
That's certainly a typical Chaotic attitude, yes. But I think a particular Chaotic character can decide to, say, always follow the directions of color by numbers pictures specifically as long as they're Chaotic in most other aspects of their life.
I don't see that as particularly likely. I'll talk about this in terms of nature and demeanor (from some of White Wolf's RPG's). One's demeanor is how they present themselves to others, while their nature is who they truly are. I take alignment as the nature, while the actual role-playing at the gaming table represents one's demeanor. The chaotic character could decide to follow the directions of the colour by numbers... Because they want the outcome the numbers guide them to, but not because the numbers tell them to do so. In times of stress, they're even more likely to revert to their base nature, not less likely.
Granted, one could interpret alignment with regard to demeanor/nature as the chaotic side being one's demeanor, and the good being their nature. The priority of a paladin's code for PF2 seems to suggest that this is going to be the case with lawful and good (and PF1 seems to indicate this as well). That would mean that in cases where chaos and good do not conflict, one would demonstrate their general demeanor (chaos) pretty much all the time... Except where it conflicted with good (their nature); that's generally how it was used in the White Wolf games. Maybe your demeanor was "angry" but your nature was "cool under pressure", so you could walk around shouting obscenities at and threatening others all the time, but when you got into a stressful situation, you became calm and rational.
Anyway... The point is that one cannot present as "lawful" except in cases when they choose to be "chaotic" and call that "chaotic". That pretty much sums up what "neutral" is.
In short, I think a Chaotic character can pick a particular aspect of their life and have it not be quite as Chaotic and still maintain their Alignment as long as Chaos is till their main thing in most of the rest of their life. And I think for a CG Paladin, like a CG Cleric doing stuff with Anathema, obeying their Code is that part of their life that isn't 100% Chaotic.
While this might be true, I think it isn't sensical to allow that such a character would be "lawful" about one of the most important aspects of their life (their faith, which would define their class powers in this context), and chaotic about things that are less important to them. Class is a pretty big defining factor of who your character is in-game. As for chaotic good clerics and anathema, we'll have to see what comes out to make a better determination on that point.
Oh, agreed. But where do Chaotic Clerics come from? In my head, they're Chaotic people who just found a God that already agreed with their existing ideas and chose to follow them. CG Paladins would presumably arise in the same way.
"Wait, you'll give me superpowers for stuff I was probably gonna do anyway as long as I stick to doing that stuff? You're awesome. I'm in."
Chaotic clerics come from their mothers, just like the rest of us. Duh!
I can see a chaotic person finding a god that fits their personal views and deciding to follow them. I don't see that chaotic person (cleric or otherwise) choosing to follow that god because they like the rules of behaviour that the god demands of them. "You've got no rules that tell me what to do and how to act? Tell me more..." (leaning forward with interest) I believe it's more a case of, "Wait, you'll give me superpowers for stuff I was probably gonna do anyway as long as I stick to doing that stuff? Yeah... Ummm... I can't commit to that. Bye." (and turning to the other god) "Wait, you'll give me superpowers for stuff I was probably gonna do anyway as long as I do what I want to do without rules? Score! You're the god for me!"
And I'd argue that they're not giving up meaningfully more freedom than most Clerics of Chaotic Gods are with Anathema, and those clearly exist.
I do think that CG Paladins are probably more likely to fall and need an atonement than LG ones as they work around or past their Code, but that doesn't make them impossible or anything.
They (un)clearly exist, as we haven't seen the Anathema just yet, but I hear what you're saying. Clerics of chaotic gods exist, and thusfar, we have no "thou shalt do" or "thou shalt not do" from those chaotic gods. Until we've seen that list of dos and don'ts, we can assume they exist, but we cannot assume what they actually are and how that impacts those clerics.
I also think that CG "paladins" are more likely to fall and need and atonement than LG ones... And that's where the major flaw is. They shouldn't be more or less likely to fall than a LG "paladin" in order to be a "paladin". I believe it's poor design, and punitive to players wanting to play a CG "paladin", to put them in that position. "Your paladin has fallen!" is contentious enough as it is without adding more opportunities for fall conditions into the mix.
And the same to you. :)
Still wishing you all the best!
Permit me to ask a question in the similar vein as this forums heading:
"What would a CG Paladin look like?"
I just finished reading my son's book called "The Usborne Illustrated Tales of King Arthur" In it there are the fantastic tales of Sir Gawain and Sir Galahad. Knights of Chivalry, Paragons of Virtue, Humble, Honourable, and even willing to ride to certain death just to keep a promise. These guys (and others) have been inspiring LG Paladin play for years. (They are even explicitly mentioned in the AD&D 2nd ed PHB) So in like manner, where can the CG Paladin find inspiration? Is there even a fictional character that embodies what a CG Paladin looks like?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
V is not a Paladin. For a host of reasons. His ethos are definitely CG (at least in the movie and debatably in the comic), but he does things in the pursuit of them that make it debatable whether he's even Good aligned, never mind Paladin material.
For myself, I think most classical depictions of Robin Hood are pretty solid CG Paladin inspiration. There are definitely interpretations where that's less true, but there are those for the Knights of the Round Table as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Robin Hood, Spider-Man. Cyrano de Bergerac.
Cyclops, NO. Wolverine, YES. That’s why they argue all the time.
Nightcrawler, too. Charming, religious, self-conscious, and whimsy.
Is there even a fictional character that embodies what a CG Paladin looks like?
It's a difficult question, because the paladin model includes religious belief, and real-world religions I know about/that inform cultures I know about are all pretty much lawful.
That said... my candidate for CG paladin is... Shane.
Heroic, decent, self-sacrificing, but in a tradition of individualism and not above using trickery in the defence of the greater good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Luke Cage is a CG paladin.
Daredevil too.
Thor also (both myth and marvel)