Xerres's page

I think it's pretty likely we get the 4 corners knights in this edition, since it seems like the best compromise solution. I just hope we don't call the CG one a Paladin (I like "Elysium Knight" or something).

Give the CG one more offensive and fewer defensive powers too.

I am down for restricting the name Paladin to LG. But I think giving CG a name that is too narrow can put someone in a certain headspace about origins and so forth. "Elysium Knight" tied to planar energy, "Avenger" being kind of aggressive.

That being said, my ability to think of a better name is highly questionable. Bordering on useless... now officially useless. Elysium Knight it is.

They are a class.

They are Lawful Good.
Let us just move on.

"I got what I want. Stop asking for something else or maybe you'll get what you want instead of me."

Self-Interest is well and good, but since its your self-interest and not mine I don't feel any conviction to do it.

Devs: Paladins of Any Good, please and thank you. Or sidebar encouraging discussion of other alignments.

Knight class!!!!

Hellknights as a base class option.

No waiting for book 2 to get blackguards!!!!

Paladins are not unique, if we can get alchemist in core then we can at least get blackguards/antipaladins. They are considered the same class in PF1 anyway.

And there's multiple alignment variants.

I want hellknights and smite chaos as a base class.

Yes! A class for when you really believe the crap out of something, and want to make it everyone else's problem! I'd be super down for that.

Not a feat I think, but maybe just a sidebar for an alternate rule or something. "You aren't really your Gods normal cup of tea, but gosh darn it, you're just adorable they love you anyway, so they give you the powers of their Clerics!"

A feat that just lets you bypass alignment rules is annoying for the people that hate alignment. Archetypes that let you do special things tied to being a Heretic of that Deity would be fun for later though.

"A Lawful Neutral Cleric of Asmodeus, the Dark Prince appreciates someone lying so convincingly they even fool themselves and has a use for you! Congratulations, your suffering will be legendary even in Hell, but maybe you'll lie your way out of that one too."

"A Chaotic Good Cleric of Gorum, Our Lord in Iron finds your gumption charming, and is interested to see just how well you'll do in your seemingly hopeless battle. And maybe you'll cheese off a Demon Lord or two and they'll be stupid enough to fight Gorum himself! Fun!"

Dracala wrote:

Rysky, Life is about shades of gray, shades of gray bring far more nuance and ambiguity than hard lined black and white dichotomy between good and evil... Sure there's neutral in between, but know what? Everyone has their reasons for doing things, and no person is an island for we are All shaped by chance and circumstance.

And Pathfinder is a fantasy game. Where you can have unambiguously good and evil things. And all the grey in-between.

One benefit of alignment I notice for myself is that there is far less effort to 'subvert' the image of a 'Good Guy' and draw everything toward that center grey. Easy example: Superman. Yes, I'm aware that because of his horribly expansive library of stories, you can always find one where he sucks, but as a baseline, he's an All Loving Hero who wants to save the world. Hooray! So in Pathfinder, he's Good aligned. Which good, debatable, but there he is. When you strip out alignment, there's so much temptation to say "What skeletons does Hero Person have in his closet." because they don't have to maintain their Good alignment. So you can say he's actually the Plutonian, and he's going to snap and go nuts because he's actually a villain mad with power!

Eberron has moral ambiguity, where a Good aligned leader wants to restart a horribly devastating war, and an Evil aligned leader is desperately trying to keep the peace. But having those alignments forces you to think deeper about them. You can't just say "She wants war, what a horrible person she must be!" How does she maintain that Good alignment even with those intentions? She doesn't want to rule with an iron fist, the post-war landscape of Khorvaire is vulnerable and broken. It has to be re-united so it can heal, by some views. And the Evil guy may want peace, but he is going to do horrible things to keep it.

And I'm not saying alignment is perfect, but I've never had any trouble with moral ambiguity when using it. The turning everything into shades of grey is... boring. I only ever see it really used to muffle things down and make it seem like no one is actually a decent person. Can't trust anyone, any good person will die/turn out to be a Doombot. Its terribly uninteresting to me.

Shinigami02 wrote:

So I was looking at Gorum's Edicts and Anathema...

Edicts: attain victory in fair combat, push your limits
Anathema: kill prisoners or surrendering foes, prevent conflict
through negotiation, win a battle through underhanded tactics
or indirect magic

So let's see. He wants you to fight fair, and gets upset if you kill those who are at your mercy or use underhanded tactics... Someone remind me, why does he support Evil and not Good? Because those tenants seem borderline Good-leaning to me.

If you’re not stabbing peace negotiators when they keep on trying to negotiate, Gorum is going to abandon you pretty quickly.

I guess they'll change things to make Gorum more simplistic, but from Inner Sea Gods:

"It is more pleasing to Gorum to see a soldier fight a score of battles in his lifetime than die in the first, and if compromises or truces mean warriors live on to fight again, he supports diplomacy over seeing every soldier fight to a pointless death, but he doesn’t care for negotiations and quickly loses interest when tempers cool and blades are sheathed."

His overall stance always seemed to be fighting others willing to fight, not senseless murder of anything in your way. It actually does make sense, for old Gorum, that he'd favor Good aligned worshipers over Evil because they are more likely to accept surrender, will refuse to fight the defenseless, and frankly siding with them gives a MUCH bigger challenge to face. Far more war when you're battling the unending tides of the Abyss. No where near as many beings willing to fight over nothing when you invade Elysium. Gorum really doesn't want to go chasing down harmless souls fleeing in terror from him.

Though it goes back to understanding why he has so many Evil followers when it says Gorum will swing at a child with a table knife if that child is willing to fight. Though just what he expects of Clerics blurs things. If he'll denounce a Good aligned Cleric for ignoring a challenge from a near helpless opponent, it would seem certain that he'd denounce an Evil Cleric who gets too caught up in the frenzy and kills someone who surrendered or never put up a fight to begin with.

So really, if you go stabbing Peace Negotiators, you're probably pissing Old Gorum off by fighting people who don't want to fight. You're supposed to ignore the Peace Negotiator as a coward unworthy of your time, and go fight the people still willing to fight. And hopefully inspire others to also ignore the negotiations, and spread the glory of battle.

But maybe they're changing things so that Gorum isn't as complicated anymore. I would not enjoy that, but it could be happening. Regarding Anathema though, wouldn't that mean that you, the Cleric, are the one not allowed to negotiate peace? Or is it something you can't let anyone do. If its just you, makes sense for Gorum. He's just saying that if you come across two tribes killing each other over an ancient mix-up of stupid proportions, you aren't supposed to be telling them to stop killing each other. Doesn't matter if its for a stupid reason, they chose to fight, now let them fight.

No CG Cleric of Gorum seems silly to me.

CG Gorumite: "I embrace war and conflict as a means to strengthen the body, mind, and spirit. I will fight alongside others, or in their stead. And seek to inspire them to fight against the coming tide of darkness."

Suggester Person: "Worship Cayden Cailean then!"

CG Gorumite: "I am not a drunkard starting bar fights. There are literal armies of Evil waiting to prey on the innocent. I will stand against them."

Suggester Person: "Worship Iomedae, she likes that stuff."

CG Gorumite: "She's a stuff shirt blowhard who believes the only way to be a Hero is to follow The One True way. She rejects those who carve their own path, and is of no use to me."

Suggester Person: "Desna fights Evil."

CG Gorumite: "War comes to the followers of Desna by happenstance, not by choice. They embrace wonder and joy, not hardship and struggle."

Suggester Person: "Sa... Sarenrae?"

CG Gorumite: "Too much talking, standing by while others suffer in the hopes of redeeming the wicked. I will take action, not wait in contemplation."

Suggester Person: "Torag? Erastil?"

CG Gorumite: "Just as soon spit at me as look at me."

Suggester Person: "Milani?"

CG Gorumite: "One of the good ones, but her focus is in the uprisings. In toppling the old regimes. Good work, needs to be done, but my place is on the front lines. Meeting the endless horde and cutting my way through it."

Suggester Person: "So why follow Gorum, he's empowering those who do Evil as well as you."

CG Gorumite: "Because Gorum is a path to strength, and a path to mastery. If I meet his followers working for my enemy, then I will fight them as well. My battle is not something that will end, not by my actions. All I can do as a single soul is fight as hard as I can against all that preys on those I protect. There is a fire within me that demands I spill blood, that I meet my enemy's blade with my own. Gorum will teach me to master the tools I must use, but I will choose the path I follow and the enemy I face. They are unending, and so is my battle. As pleases Our Lord in Iron."

--- --- ---

I actually had an idea of a former Cleric of Sarenrae that turned from her faith because of the Cult of the Dawnflower and prevalent slavery of Qadira, and embraced a faith in Gorum instead, because Gorum made no promises of justice or fairness. Only that he would give strength to those willing to fight. A CG Cleric of Gorum is probably more grim than a Cleric of Cayden, but they're doing dirty work. In a multiverse with the Abyss and Hell, there have to be those willing to fight and die against it. And no matter what nonsense those Paladins try to push, you don't have to be LG to be a Hero. Or even nice.

I love me some Eberron, and one of the Gods in that setting is the Mockery, Dol Azur. One of three war deities. Dol Arrah is the LG Paladin deity, and looked to for Tactics and Strategy. Dol Dorn is CN Normal Warrior deity, looked to for Strength and Skill. Dol Azur, the Mockery, is the NE Underhanded deity, known for dishonorable combat.

I wondered for awhile why anyone cared about the Mockery, when Dol Arrah and Dol Dorn seemed to have the better paths to follow, until Keith Baker explained the idea behind the Mockery in a blog post. Namely, that the Mockery is the path to victory at any cost. He is not strong, and is not more powerful than his enemies, but he will WIN, and he will teach you to win if you follow him. Obviously Gorum is a Warrior deity, and he wants you to be more straight forward, prefers you wear heavy armor and fight head on, but I still think of the Mockery when contemplating why a CG character would worship Gorum. Because Gorum doesn't have the same limits that Cayden or Desna hold to, but also isn't forcing anything on you as a worshiper. He just wants you to fight, however you know how, and in following Gorum you will learn the path to victory. Cayden is brave but foolhardy, Desna is clever but flighty, Sarenrae is empowering but hesitant. There is value in following a path that strips away other concerns and focuses only how you will win, Keeping your morals intact is a struggle for the individual to decide, as befits a CN deity, but I don't see a reason to exclude it entirely.

Can't say that I'm completely against nerfing casters a bit, but I'm far more interested in lifting the non-magical characters up.

High powered characters that decimate armies and challenge demigods is exactly what I want higher levels to be. I have the lower levels to frolic in when I want to enjoy more harrowing fare. Third party could at least scratch that itch for martial characters in PF1, but I'd hoped for more impressive things martial characters could so in this one.

Monks get access to the one Ki power that creates a swell of wind around them I guess. Having an aura of power that makes it hard for anyone to even walk toward you is cool. More stuff like that please. Go further with it, more cool stuff that does a thing.

Meh, Paladins don't need to exist with Cleric/Fighters. Rangers don't need to exist with Rogue/Druids. Bards is just some lute kook Rogue/Wizards. Why does the Alchemist exist if he's just making potions like a Wizard? An Oracle can just be a set of feats that gives Cleric weird curses, a Witch can be a set of feats giving Wizards interesting Curse magic. There is a certain point where that reductionist view must meet a cut-off.

Lore of Magi predating Wizards is unnecessary, but "Uses magic as a fundamental energy instead of structured spells." is about as reasonable as "Bards play the music and the thing happens." Of course others can say "That idea is stupid." and I can't argue anyone into thinking its interesting, but I'd say its about as valid a concept for a class as Ranger (The 'Loves Nature, but not as much as Druid I guess" Class) or Oracle (Cleric, but it was forced on you.)

As to why Magi has flavor redirected to "Uses vague magical energy over traditional spells"? Mostly because of their Arcane Pool. They used it to charge up their swords, charge up themselves, counter magic, breath water or walk on it, change targets of spells, blah blah yap yap drivel drivel drivel.

I think it'd be an interesting concept for a class, to be talented at manipulating magic on a fundamental level, but lacking the more complex applications of it without multi-classing.

Obviously need to find out how the spell point stuff works, but it could be fascinating. I like the notion that a Magus is interested in magical energy at a basic level, and comes up with fascinating uses for that. Like imbuing weapons/armor, creating weapons from nothing, negating magical effects of others. If they can use spell points to create some classic magical effects (elemental damage, be invisible, minor illusions, haste, I don't know) then it could replicate some of the feel of the old class.

While I'm certainly fond of the 'Perfectionist in melding magic and might' angle, being that I love all Gish to pieces, I agree that Magus needs to have a more unique approach to magical theory. If Wizard is high science, pushing the boundaries, and Sorcerers are unbridled bundles of magical energy, ready to burst, then I think Magi could be more interested in magic at its fundamental level. Like it'd be cool if they can dispel magical effects, suck up that energy, and then use it for something else. Less capable of the complicated spells of a Wizard or grand overtures of a Sorcerer, but flexible and innovative in quick fashion, maybe with a slight focus in anti-magic if they can mess with other people's spells on a fundamental level.

Maybe the lore could be that Magi predated the Wizard, which is why there's still more ties to weapons and fighting for them. People following the Magi path are less interested in the absolute limits of what magic is capable of, and more focused on how it interacts with the world and themselves. I freaking love Star Wars and the Jedi, so having Magi be more about attuning themselves to the cosmic flow of energy and having less interest in trying to be its masters would tickle me pink.

Magus ties with Paladin as my favorite class in Pathfinder, not counting Third Party Stuff, so I do certainly agree there's a lot to it that I'd like to see brought over.

I am somewhat conflicted in making it a class just for the sake of it. Fighter/Wizard with some specific feats can cover much of it, but I do like the Magus as a legacy of innovating how magic was used and applied. If it is made a class in the new edition, its a good idea to focus less on "This is a class made because Fighter/Wizard doesn't work that well." and more "The Magus is a class with a unique interpretation and application of Magic."

A Fighter/Wizard or Wizard/Fighter is someone with armor and weapons training who is also a smart cookie studying magic. They are clearly better at one of these things, but they're smart enough to hedge their bets on multiple solutions to problems. I think the Magus could cover a conceptual area of "Magical Maverick", a prodigy taking short-cuts, or just someone that couldn't hack it fully as a swordsman or a mage and put them together to throw others off their guard.

This guy is a better swordsman than you, throw magical sand in his eyes and then stab him while he can't see you. That mage is countering your spells, channel it into your sword so that he doesn't see it coming this time. That guy with the huge hammer is going to smash your skull, fortify your helmet with magic and take out his legs after he swings. That snooty son of a gun Necromancer sure does know a lot more about killing spells than you do, but since you've spent so much time figuring out the magical matrix involved in swiftly enchanting items, you understand magical energy on a fundamental level that he hasn't considered and can dissolve his magical energy. That'll make his skull a lot easier to split in half!

I mean, arguments can be made that some kind of Wizard should be the maverick, but I always play Magi as character who couldn't really cut it as a fighter or wizard, and decided to 'cheat' instead and use magic and weapons in ways the more dedicated types didn't because they don't have to. I guess I tend to think of Magi being to Wizards as Rogues are to Fighters: less capable in a 'fair' fight, but insulted by the idea that they were going to fight 'fair' in the first place.

So I want to go ahead and say some thoughts I've had about this.

The reason I don't like the prospect of a non-LG paladin is because I'm worried a NG or CG paladin will be the same as the LG one, but with a less restrictive code, and therefore strictly and objectively better.

In the Paladin blog, we learned that and how the LG code is being made less restrictive. If this version proves to be more popular than the PF1 one, and people prove less hesitant to play it out of fear of having to be LG, I'll be a lot less fearful that people will abandon LG paladins altogether.

As things are there's such a stigma around paladins that I once saw a thread where someone panicked and asked the whole forum what to do because one of their players wanted to be a paladin, in roughly the tone that would have been appropriate if they'd wanted to play a CE Gargoyle cleric of Rovagug in a non-evil campaign. In the meantime, every LG character I have ever seen has been either a Paladin, a Monk, or played by me. The only LG wizard I've ever seen is mine. Likewise with my LG bard. I'm sure you play a party of four LG rogues and a LG Cleric of Sarenrae, but it seems overwhelmingly the case to me that LGs are super uncommon.

I think the real problem is that as things stand, being chaotic perceived as being better than being lawful in general. I think the real fix isn't to disallow CG paladins forever, but to figure out what makes LG characters in general so unattractive and fix it. As of now, I think it's the perception that LG characters are disadvantaged because they have fewer options in a situation. We need to either figure out a corresponding advantage (better reputation/relationship with society?) or, and this is the worse of these two options, slap Chaotic characters with some limitation. (Inherently worse reputation? Being treated more harshly by most authorities?)

I love me some LG characters, but I have to say I really don't understand this viewpoint of trying to enforce what alignments people play. Like I don't like it for Classes in general, but I can still consider it reasonable, whereas when it comes to just trying to stop people from playing Chaotic characters in general I am wondering why anyone cares so much.

You've got an alignment, you like your alignment, you think other people would like it. That's all great, but there's no need to enforce or reward alignments as a mechanic. People play their characters however its fun to play them. There's certainly really common tropes to playing Chaotic that are infuriatingly annoying, same with Lawful, but that's more about just getting players to play in a way that doesn't impede fun for everyone else.

But if some alignments are more popular than others, then they're just going to be more popular and that's it. We can't go trying to 'Balance the Scales' because we think other people aren't playing a diversified enough array of alignments.

My own stance on Paladins is that I don't like LG getting more than other alignments, I don't like anything placing it above others. Having "Everything NG/CG gets, +Paladins." makes it the 'Special' or 'Best' Good alignment and I don't like that. I am not willing to lose gracefully on that issue at present, I far prefer to make a big scene and get beaten by security before they steal my phone and toss me in a dumpster.

UlrichVonLichtenstein wrote:

Reading through this issue again, and going over some of the comments and designer replies therein, I'm becoming less and less of a fan of what is a blatant Feat tax to play interesting and diverse characters.

I might be missing an obvious flaw with what I'm about to suggest, and I'm sure somebody will point it out if I am, but wouldn't a better alternative to this -again- blatant Feat tax, simply to allow players to create Half-bloods without paying any sort of tax?

i.e. Take the Human Ancestry, replace two features with that of the Elf (the exact function of the Heritage Feat) without actually needing to spend a Feat. Then I still have my Ancestry Feat available to me at first level. This would, in theory, quell the need to give *everybody* an additional Ancestry Feat at 1st level.

And before anybody cries "House Rule!" at me, I'm not a Dungeon Master. I'm a Player, therefore it's not my place to establish House Rules or make such requests of a Dungeon Master who hasn't had the opportunity to vet the idea for game balance. And why should I have to House Rule it, anyway, when 90% of people in this thread *CLEARLY* want their Ancestry Feat back?

Question: how is this not making half-bloods literally better than humans in every way?

I am in a loop of pondering this myself, even in regards to "Give everyone two ancestry feats!" suggestion.

It seems like the option Humans get that's really rustling the jimmies is the extra Class feat. Its probably good stuff. General feat probably too. But, if everyone gets two ancestry feats to start then Humans either get an extra Class and General feat at the start of the game, which is probably too much, or the "One of them has to be a Heritage feat" notion is pressed, and then whatever Heritage feat the Human has access to has to compete with "Gain access to all of another ancestries non-Heritage feats."

Even the current state is delayed gratification, trading the ability to jump-start a build for the ability to (Possibly) perfect it later. So Half-Whatever seems like a stronger choice over the long-term, over either parent. Though I can be missing something myself.

Still, many of the suggestions put forward look to me like making a choice of 'Human' far less useful that being Half-Something. I'm not actually super pleased about the way Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are being handled, I prefer them being their own thing. But along with the Half-Races I play Humans predominantly, so I am still wary of my own primary stand-by becoming the "Not as Good as Mixed-Blood" option.

I am aware that Humans were probably overtuned in PF1. I'm fine trying to even that out, but I don't want to see them falling behind either. I could be wrong that these suggestions would do that, but since I imagine "Humans get an extra Feat or two." is pretty much going to be their only selling point, as before, having others freely cherry pick that option seems like it will greatly diminish any point of playing one.

I'd still do it anyway, because my problems are the opposite of Arachnofiend's and I spend too much time with Orcs and Half-Golems and Gargoyles. Being 'Normal' makes me the odd man out, but I shall not falter in the face of those cocky so-and-sos.

Also means you have guidelines you can cling to, an established hierarchy you can appeal to, your choices are much more pre-selected and you don't need to justify them as hard. You know what's right, and what's wrong, what injustices you're allowed to let stand and when you're allowed to fight.

An argument can be made that a Paladin, or Lawful Good character in general, has it easier because they don't need to think for themselves as much. They have things they have to adhere to, but they also have excuses for what they can let pass in the name of the Greater Good.

Like flim-flam'n Qadira and its slave trade operating right under the Church of Sarenrae's nose! Warble warble, forever shall I bemoan that.

And I'm not trying to insult Lawful Good, its my favorite alignment. Its my default. Having to think within restrictions stimulates my imagination, and I really like having depths to supposedly strict and dull characters. A Samurai who spends seemingly all day every day training his body in grueling fashion and standing in service of his Lord, surprised everyone when his idea for a first date was to magically empower his paramour with flight, and fly through the Northern Lights. Because he's a worshipper of Shizuru, so he bases his romantic ideals on a love story between Gods.

Playing a Chaotic character though? That's hard for me, because I feel like there's less to base my actions on. I feel directionless, its hard to figure out a real path I want to be on. Best 'Chaotic' character I've had so far is True Neutral, because I can't commit fully to the Chaos and free thinking, I have to organize my resources and keep a clear gameplan, even if I let it change constantly, there has to be one.

So, much as I get insulted by people saying Lawful Good is somehow Evil (Its not. Its Good aligned, right there in the name pal.), I also get confused/insulted by the notion that Lawful Good is the 'Hard' alignment. Lawful Good is the alignment that already has the answers, and often faces uncomfortable notions in following those answers through. Chaotic Good is looking for the answers, because they're certain there's a better one out there.

A character who has to find that faith and that devotion inside themself, keep that flame burning without the support of their hierarchy or a long established tradition of belief, that's inspiring to me. Its something I've touched on with a few characters, but I've never really dived into something like "I don't have the answers, that's something I have to find. I know there's a Light, but how to bring it to the world is the challenge." Something I think I'll try to cook up. If Paizo allows for the Chaotic Paladins, I think I might finally try to step up to the plate on that idea, and take the plunge into Chaos to find them answers.

And then totally have a rocking party between the Lawful characters and the new Chaotic guy. Lawful plays bass, Chaos needs them vocals. I should name the Chaos Paladin Lou Gramm, be easy to get the inspired then.

I like the idea of Divine Champion archetypes for deities, I think that's a great idea. Still want to see Chaotic Good 'Paladins' as a Core option because Lawful Good gets a class built around its ideals. We can be sure the Anti-Paladin will do that for Chaotic Evil, and since they stretched that to Lawful Evil last time there's a reasonable position to say they'll likely do it again.

Lawful Good is my favorite alignment, but I really don't like it getting special treatment or being the only alignment that gets the "Super Good at being Super Good" class. I don't want Chaotic Good to only get a token archetype to make the 'Chaotidin' supporters shut up, so the idea can be abandoned to continue funneling more support into the Lawful Good Paladin.

I mean, I'd overall prefer four separate classes for the four corner alignments. But at best, that'd be Paladin first, and then the others... eventually. And never receiving the same support the Paladin does, so just continuing the standard of Lawful Good living by the "All alignments are equal, but some alignments are more equal than others." mantra. The Paladin being some unique phenomenon that only Lawful Good can produce is so set against the very idea of Paladins and Lawful Good to my thoughts. I've never liked it, even though it doesn't technically affect me because I like playing Lawful Good more anyway.

I understand that other people really, really care about the tradition they're used to, and I won't argue up or down about it. Just think that more people overall would be happy if it were opened up, and it'd be a more fair approach to the alignments. Lawful Good getting more stuff just irks me.

Immunity to Fear I see as a Chaotic trait more than a Lawful one. The God of Bravery is CG in Golarion after all. Immunity to Disease and Divine Grace seem decidedly Neutral to me. Auras I could as more Lawful I guess.

Yep, the real sting in the pants of the Paladin is that in Pathfinder it was focused on opposing Evil. You had to use an archetype to oppose Chaos over Evil. The mechanics of the class were: Heal the Injured, Protect the Vulnerable, and Defeat Evil. To a great many people, the Paladin does not come across the "Champion of Lawful Good", its comes across as "The Champion of Good, Who Happens To Be Lawful."

A new class just to have a Chaotic equivalent is then scratching its head going "The Paladin kind of already has all the traditional elements of the Good aligned Champion." and then there's going to be pushback if you try to make it an actual Champion of the Good alignment. Because that's the Paladin's thing, and this has to do something else.

If Paladin remains the "Best at facing Evil" class then people that want Chaotic Good 'Paladins' aren't going to be satisfied with something 'appropriate' to CG like "Opposes tyranny.' because that's such a limited scope and something LG Paladin is supposed to do already. There's no good track record for making a CG Champion, because the Paladin is already claiming the key elements to a Champion of the Good Alignment, and trying make a CG Champion different just leads to it being less of a Good Aligned Champion.

I think the people that see the Paladin as "Champion of Good Who Happens To Be Lawful.", just want a "Champion of Good Who Happens To Be Chaotic." Not a class that has to fit some criteria of "Are these abilities Chaotic enough?" because the Paladin doesn't have that microscope focused on it be sure its abilities are Lawful enough.

It doesn't satisfy everyone, but to me the best solution really is to just have a sidebar with a Code for Neutral Good and Chaotic Good, or just Chaotic Good. Says "Many players and GMs prefer Paladins open to alignments other than Lawful Good. In such case this/these code(s) can be followed by Paladins of other alignments." The LG Paladin supporters can be happy that their version is the baseline, Paizo can figure out if they exist in Golarion or not, and CG supporters can be happy that the book acknowledges they exist and gives them a Code they can use as a baseline.

Then, down the road, if you want to have a more "This is really CHAOTIC!" CG Paladin, its just an archetype that has to use the CG Code.

...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.

That is a reason I like Deadmanwalking consistently pointing out that the Lawful Paladin Code holds Good above Law. Chaotic equivalent is much easier when its interpreted as "Do Good in a Chaotic way." the same as Paladin is just "Do Good in a Lawful way."

Also, Deadmanwalking's Code will still produce endless arguments about whether a Chaotic Paladin imposed on someone's autonomy enough to fall. Combined with eternal arguments that a given character isn't being Chaotic enough to keep their alignment, the Chaotidin will fulfill the same purpose as the traditional Paladin: Endless arguments about whether a Player got screwed by their GM, or if the GM has been cursed with Players who don't understand the class at all.

I think that's what really matters.

Bodhizen wrote:

A bunch of stuff

Yes, you've made your view that you believe in the alignment triangle quite clear.

HWalsh wrote:

See, here is one question...

If Chaotic is the alignment of honor, dedication, honesty, and all about following codes... Which is what it seems like the argument here is...

Then what does Lawful mean?

Following external codes as opposed to internal ones.

Regardless, take your alignment debate elsewhere, this isn't the place for it.

I am sorry for helping to clog your thread. It may be a good idea to start a different thread with the current two front-runner ideas for a Chaotic Good Paladin Code, and make a provision of the thread that its not a place to dictate whether they can exist. Just for people who think they can to discuss it.

Chaotic good is, by no means, inept. But, there are distinctions for reasons, and I see a lot of "chaotic" get confused for "neutral", and vice versa. Lawful is a lot more clearly defined (because it really is easier to define).

I find that basically everything can be Neutral for some reason or another, unless it is utterly extreme.

You say "will". I've repeatedly said "can".

Okay, my mistake. But Lawful "can" break their Codes, and do so, creating Fallen Paladins.

I can likely agree Lawful is less likely to break a Code on the principles of "I didn't write it, ain't my Code!" and that Lawful characters will accept what the Code says on the basis its the Code.

But I think when a Neutral or Chaotic character accepts a Code, it is not a flippant commitment. Less likely to accept a Code? I can certainly agree. But once its their Code, I think they follow through on it.

Easiest example: Gorum's followers being brave in battle. They're allowed to retreat from a battle they can't win, but to show outright cowardice in the face of the enemy is something I would say is vanishingly rare among Gorum's devoted.

It isn't, but then again, you're not the arbiter of how much weight my arguments hold for a chaotic good code beyond your game table.

As I've repeatedly stated (in various forms), the chaotic good character will do good for goodness sake, but won't do good deeds because someone tells them that they have to. If they choose to do something that someone told them to do, "Rescue the princess, Mario!", it will be because they choose to do so, not because they're required by any sort of "anything at all that says that they must". This includes a "code".

I'm not that arbiter at all, no. But I can definitely take your argument, say "This doesn't line up with any of the basic descriptions of alignment in the game." and then follow with "Since this is incongruous with everything established about the alignment we're discussing, I don't think it can really have any logical application to using said alignment." Just without the aggressive connotations it had before.

They'll do good deeds because they told themselves to though. "I chose this Code, I believe in this Code. This Code is mine, and I'm not giving it up no matter how much the world wants to break me from it."

You can't force a Code onto a Chaotic Good character, that's absolutely true. But you can't force one out of them either.

That's where we're at odds. Chaotic characters will not follow a code, because a code is rules, and "rules are for f***sticks", so "damn your rules, 'cause I'm gonna do what I wanna do". Chaotic characters are more likely to believe in their own inner strength or judgment, or awesomeness, or rightness of purpose than any external factor (such as a god's rules) simply because they do what they want to do, when they want to do it. That's pretty much the nature of the chaotic part of alignment, and it's supported by the alignment definition of chaos that you were kind enough to provide earlier in the thread. It's not that chaotic characters cannot have strength of purpose, but they do so by their own personal ethos rather than by the rules of some god.

I believe "Chaotic characters will not follow a code, because a code is rules, and "rules are for f***sticks", so "damn your rules, 'cause I'm gonna do what I wanna do". Is a needlessly extreme interpretation of the alignment. I am going to respond with a needlessly extreme interpretation of Lawful to illustrate that I believe you're handicapping CG.

"I am Lawful, and so I follow the rules. If there are no rules, I do nothing, because without rules telling me what to do, how do I know if I'm allowed?"

Chaotic characters will follow the rules they agree with, and fight against the ones they don't. I agree Chaotic characters will believe in their own judgement, but I think that they can judge a Code to be right and proper, and then choose to follow said Code.

These rules would work out pretty well for a neutral good character. The fact that these rules even exist would put a chaotic (anything) character into a tizzy of "I challenge your authority, and you can't make me follow your rules."

Outside the provision about following Laws, and your own belief that Codes are for Lawful characters, can you explain how the current Paladin Code is not just as well suited to a Neutral character? Because Neutral characters are the ones that basically get to do whatever they want without any real chance of someone arguing their alignment. So its really easy to say something fits them.

The fundamental divide I can determine is that I think Chaotic characters can't be forced into following rules, but they can absolutely decide to do it on their own. I think your view of Chaotic as an alignment is needlessly extreme.

And I also now realize that willuwontu wanted to stop continuing this debate. Should probably be a different thread made for arguing it.

what it seems here, and it may not be so, but itdoes look like alot of Lawful stupid and chaotic dumb going on....

A struggle against one's oppressors is never dumb! Vive la Resistance!

Edit: If you want me to in-depth respond to any other part of your post then I'll do that without issue. But your tone is plenty insulting to me as well. And fair enough, I 'fired first' there. If this post comes across as snarky, then snark back so I don't get the last snark. But then I'll admit I started it and just let it go.

Stuff.

In the greater context of the debate going on, I say I see Lawful Good Paladin supporters marginalizing Chaotic Good as inept or less 'Good'. And then I used your example for Caydenite Paladin, which was a gloriously shining example of what I was talking about, and I've outright said its the thing I take issue with.

Since you're saying that Caydenites, Sarenites, Shelynites, and etc that aren't Lawful Good will abandon any 'Code' when it suits them, I did take your example as a standard presentation of how you use alignment.

If you'd said "Okay, Caydenite example was a bad one, let me use a different one." then I'd have dropped the bone. And hey, I was aggressive so defending the point is a natural reaction. Fine. But since you seemed to want to defend it as a legitimate point, I continued with it.

If that example is your typical definition of Chaotic Good, then indeed, I don't think your words have a lot of weight for a Chaotic Good Code. If that's not your typical definition, throw out another one, and I'll not be aggressive or use bolded text. Or if you don't want to, I won't keep mentioning it.

--- --- ---

So I'll start fresh with my base position:

Chaotic characters will follow a Code if they believe in the Code. The same as Lawful characters. And the power of a Chaotidin would work exactly the same as a Paladin: their strength of belief in their Code gives them power.

If a Chaotic character stops following their Code, its because they stopped believing in it, and so they lose their power.

I see no reason this conflicts with the flavor of a Paladin, outside following Laws in the Code, so I am interested in the purpose of this thread, to think of a 'Chaotic' Code for them to follow.

Paladins follow the codes they do not because they're hard, but because they believe that living by that code is the right thing to do. They don't get rewarded for their obedience half so much as they get punished by failing to live up to that obedience. From an in-character perspective, they receive power for obedience (or loyalty, if you will), but from an out of character perspective, they automatically gain their powers and lose them due to disobedience. Paladins gain power because they're obedient, not because they give up their free will. Players voluntarily give up some of their freedoms in exchange for the class abilities that paladins are granted. Paladins aren't in it for the power; they're in it for the faith. Players are in it for the power.

Having said that, when we go to the chaotic cleric, "God" doesn't expect as much from their clerics. Yes, PF2 introduces anathema to address some of that, but the fact of the matter is, God isn't expecting the cleric to go out there and bring the faith to the people by force. We're not expecting our Catholic priests (or priests of whatever religion) to be the holy warriors of old; we actually expect the opposite from them. I'm not saying that chaotic priests couldn't follow a code, just as I'm not saying that lawful priests couldn't break a code. They'd be completely unlikely to submit to a code in the first place because that's not in their nature. Ain't nobody gonna break-a my stride. Ain't nobody gonna hold me down, oh no, I gotta keep on movin'!

Again, going by posters saying that the Code is hard so they need a reward, that's why Paladins follow them.

Actually, no it's not absurd. The neutral character explicitly gets to pick and choose when they want to follow the law (or a code) because it suits them, and when they don't want to, without violating their belief system. The chaotic character would actively avoid being put into a position where they have to follow someone else's rules because "f*** that". The lawful character is the guy who follows the speed limit because it's the law. The chaotic character is the guy who doesn't follow the speed limit because "f*** speed limits!" The neutral character is the guy who chooses to follow the speed limit when he feels like it, and when he's all alone on the road with little to no chance of getting caught, opens up the throttle. Can the lawful character speed? Sure, but not without violating his ethos. Can the chaotic character follow the speed limit? Sure, but he wouldn't just because the limit exists. He'd do it simply because he made the choice to do so, not because some damn sign said to do it.

Minor-ish things, yeah, I'll agree Neutral or Chaotic are more likely to break them. Not because they can, but because they think that have to or should.

But a Code, something core to a character's sense of identity? No, they wouldn't break that flippantly. They can corrupt their Codes, like the Cult of the Dawnflower corrupted Sarenrae's mercy and redemption. But that isn't saying "Lol, screw the Code, I do what I want!", its specifically altering/corrupting it to fit a new purpose. A purpose they still hew to strongly.

I can see that this line of logic is upsetting to you, but it doesn't put lawful up on a pedestal. Lawful is hard. Following the rules all the time is hard. You don't get to break the rules every now and then and still be counted as having followed the rules 100% of the time (which is the expectation that the paladin is held to). In this context, you get some special toys for following the expectation, and if you break the rules, those toys get taken away from you (at least until God decides that you've learned your lesson).

No it isn't. I play Paladins, and I play Lawful characters who follow even stricter Codes without any rewards. I do that because its fun, really fun. Characters with that sense of discipline and steadfast willpower are wonderful. And by playing Lawful I get the support of the community, I am more trusted, people feel they can rely on my characters, I am an upstanding citizen. And the duels! I love duels, and Lawful characters get to have that honorable one-on-one combat so much easier.

Chaotic is hard, at least for me. Less structure, less support. Always on the move, no foundation. Playing some wanderer leaves less of an identity for who you are, what you're really willing to stand for. I honestly flounder with Chaotic when I try to play the way you suggest they act.

But anyway, you're absolutely putting Lawful on a pedestal if you say Chaotic Good can leave people to die so they can get drunk. Because then Chaotic Good is for worthless lay-abouts who care for nothing but themselves, and Lawful Good is for the ones willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of all.

Sacrifice for others was supposed to be a Good aligned trait, not Lawful Good. Trying to squirrel it away from the other alignments is just cobbling together a fine pedestal for Lawful Good.

No, it's not that people want Lawful Good to be the "best good" or "true good". It's that chaotic good does good because they want to, not because they're expected to, or because someone tells them that they must. They wouldn't want to follow a Chaotic Code (again, chaos in this context and code are incompatible) because they don't want anyone telling them what to do.

So, that follower of Cayden Cailean would be unlikely to abandon the villagers, but (to use similar emphasis to yours) they could if they want to and it wouldn't violate their alignment one iota, unlike the paladin followers of Sarenrae who, by abandoning the villagers, would explicitly violate their alignment and Sarenrae's code.

What's actually insulting and what's actually absurd is that you made a lot of assumptions about what is and isn't in my games, that you seem to want to strawman and paint other posters with the "no true Scotsman" brush, and then there's your use of BIG BOLD TEXT in the context of a civil conversation (even with a difference of opinion), not the fact that we have different views. If that's too "insulting" for you, then you're welcome to see your way out. If you'd like to calm down and have a civil discussion, I'm happy to oblige.

Whether its what they want or not, its what they are presenting. Saying that its Chaotic Good to leave innocent people to die because you want a drink creates a system where-in it is a lesser 'Good' than Lawful Good. And frankly not even on the scale of Good alignment at all by any reasonable measure.

Abandoning people to die so you can get drunk is not Chaotic Good. You can't save them? Okay, then you retreat. You're afraid? Weird for a follower of Cayden, but okay, fear overrides your morals. But you just want to get plastered more than you care about their lives That is not Good aligned. Its not a strawman on my part to say there's no Chaotic Good in your games, if you can say "You can abandon the innocent to die because you were thirsty, don't worry about your alignment."

And I want to know, truly, how I'm using 'No True Scotsman' anymore than you or anyone else in this thread is. You say Chaotics can't follow a Code, you say Chaotics can't do this, can't do that. I'm saying that if you think that letting innocent people die so you can get a drink is Chaotic Good, then you don't know what Chaotic Good is.

I mean seriously, the Cayden bit is the only real contention I have with you, because its what shows how this view of alignment leads to "Lawful Good = Best Good" whether its intended or not. So here's the definition of Good I'm picking from the Core Book:

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

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

So that's straight from the Core Book there, nothing in Chaotic Good opposes that. With your view that a follower of Cayden can abandon the innocent to get drunk we can scratch off altruism.

Protect innocent life? Hahaha! Oh man, that's a good one.

Concern for dignity of sentient beings. The example given doesn't address that, so moving on.

Make sacrifices to help others. In your version they won't even sacrifice a beer, so we can scratch that off.

No respect for life if its not worth more than a beer, so lets check the totals.

We're left with Caydenites maybe having one out of five aspects attributed to the "Good" alignment. And that's a shaky maybe.

You may be insulted that I said it, and my bold text may be over the line, but going by the Core description of alignment, your idea of Chaotic Good is not 'Good' at all. And I stand by my assertion: You don't have Chaotic Good in your game if they can abandon the innocent to get drunk without it changing their alignment. And that's a fine thing if that's how you play the game, honestly it is! I'll straight up apologize about my bold text and say it was an overreaction. But your view of Chaotic 'Good' is at odds with the alignments as portrayed in the Core book, so I find them drastically less relevant in discussions about a Chaotic Good Paladin Code.

A CG Paladin would fight all the things a LG Paladin would fight.

The concept is just as broad.

I have to imagine that's why there's such a push to open the class alignment. If it were more like a straightforward "Knight" that was a Fighter, but different, unlikely people would care. Be like the Barbarian, some interest in removing the alignment constraint, but overall people just going "Yeah, whatever, its not that big a deal."

Like the Monk I guess. Not often to have drag out fights about lifting the Lawful part, though I do see those arguments made. And personally agree with them.

Paladin though, having the 'Champion Against EVIL!" slot, really draws that "I want to do that my way!" sentiment like a lightning rod. And resentment that their Good isn't Good enough to have those powers. Dispute about why Lawful Good does the thing and others don't aside, and the eventual Warpriest sort of doing what people wanted. Paladin is such a cool class and idea, all kinds of cool places it can go. I understand why so many want in, just without being told their way is wrong.

I'm going to try and spread this out a little bit. Man, I hear you. ...have you considered though, the impact of this on others?

I mean, deliberately or not, rereading others' thoughts and words into this interpretation of them can feel like it pushes them into a stereotype. I understand that isn't intentional but--

--it can come across as pretty belittling. Again, I know it isn't intentional.

I'm more saying that their ideals about alignment, put into practice, have an end result that I consider distasteful. That being Lawful Good on top, Chaotic Good sometime nonexistent. There is a lack of respect for Chaotic Good, a blanket acceptance that it doesn't get as much and that's fine, and sorry to say but it cheeses me off dude.

It's more than that, though, because that act can have a greater effect on cooperation, which I'm concerned about.

When it comes to Non-Lawful Paladins, there is little to be had in the way of cooperation. Has been made abundantly clear by many posters, compromise is not acceptable. And fair enough, they feel what they feel, but I don't have to just accept it.

Why? Well, it risks ignoring the work and enthusiastic support others have given to a Chaos Knight/Warrior/Incinerator. It risks putting down anyone who's said they're willing to wait, just so that others could be happy. It risks putting down anyone who'd express story and tradition concerns, and rewrites--

And yet not bringing it up risks those ideas becoming/remaining the standard. With Chaotic Good being the realm of people that throw their morals away on a whim, and Paladins the shining example of Good.

Chaos Knight is a super cool idea, but it doesn't embody the Good alignment, which is the issue at hand here.

--rewrites those into "you're just being arrogant." ...and again, I know you don't mean to do that. It's just that it can come across as belittling efforts and that seems to be pretty much the opposite of what you're trying to do.

Whew. Anyhow, I respect the ideas and thought you put into things, man. Just, this concerns me and I wanted to bring it up--because I think the different perspectives and ideas are important to have.

I read a serious lack of respect for Chaotic Good, and its just infuriating. I can get behind your sentiment here, and you may be right in the end. But when there's a suggestion that a follower of Cayden Cailean would get drunk instead of save innocent lives, that means something. That's the end result I'm talking about, where 'Chaotic Good' becomes an oxymoron and the alignment means nothing anymore.

Call me out whenever you feel a need to, because I honestly appreciate someone telling me to slow down and consider what I'm suggesting. I still think that my point is valid, that Chaotic Good is being marginalized and Lawful Good is shown favoritism, but I accept your points and think you could be right. Thank you for taking the time to make your thoughts heard, its good to have posters with sympathy to both sides.

Xerres wrote:

With Paladin having all that, a Chaotic Good class getting some left over scraps would be an insult. Even assuming they ever got anything to begin with.

Then let's make sure they get more than scraps.

I've started to wonder if a Pirate/Swashbuckling Sky Warrior might not be more excellent and fun in some ways. Once the rules come out, we'll be free to propose whichever chassis we want.

I'm writing this after a grueling day at the hospital getting scans, because I believe that fun is awesome. :)

I had a bit of a tangent about romanticizing Pirates, but its not really needed. Safe to say: Pirates were nothing close to Good by any definition, but Swashbuckling Sky Warrior sounds utterly delightful.

And believe me, if there was any ball rolling for such a prospect I'd be on it. I don't have hope in seeing anything like it, but I'd be tickled pink to be wrong.

As someone who prefers LG Paladins, I can understand the feeling that some or all of us consider Lawful Good the Best Good in some way.

The set of ideals I associate with the paladin align solely with a LG alignment. Putting "any good" on the class would cheapen it in my view. I can understand that others view things differently.

A LG paladin doesn't mean that CG can't have nice things. I'd like to see a distinct CG champion class that is focused around different ideals than the paladin and that has similar, but distinct powers to reflect that difference.

I prefer Lawful Good myself, and love my LG Paladins, which is why I get worked up by (As I see it) Lawful Good being held above the other Good alignments. Lawful Good to me is about fairness, and that's not fair, so off I go losing my mind.

I'd be happier with Lawful Good only Paladins, and a unique class for Chaotic Good. But not only do I believe a unique class for Chaotic Good has the same chance of showing up as a snowflake in Arizona, I also worry that because of how broad the Paladin is then the Chaotic Good class will get cheapened.

The most common focus for a Chaotic Good class I've seen says they go after tyrants and slavers. Meanwhile the Paladin is opposing ALL EVIL, which conveniently includes tyrants and slavers more often than not. Paladin just has such a broad base, and a hold on several aspects fundamental to the Good alignment. Opposition to Evil, protection of the innocent, healing the sick, empowering others.

With Paladin having all that, a Chaotic Good class getting some left over scraps would be an insult. Even assuming they ever got anything to begin with. With the Paladin so much more focused on Good than on Law, it seems like a far more likely solution to open it to "Any Good".

Its not perfect, but I think its far more fair. And that really matters to me.

Furthermore, I will ask you to politely stop this "Best Good" stuff. I have never said that, in fact NOBODY on the LG side has said that. You are saying that we have been making an argument that none of us have made. It isn't very honest to do such a thing.

I will first say that I understand it is stressful to be the focal point on which arguments are made against, as you are the most vocal advocate of your side on this debate. And I'm not trying to add to any stress you're feeling about defending your point against multiple posts at a time.

But I will continue to contend that "Best" Good, even if not directly stated, is a fair interpretation of what your, and many other's, view on alignment creates.

From all arguments and posts I've seen, the set up Pro-Lawful Good Paladin Players have puts Lawful Good and Paladins on the top of the "Good" scale. And sometimes Chaotic doesn't make the scale at all.

I am not claiming that you're stating Lawful Good is Best Good. I don't think any "Pro Lawful Good" poster has said it. But I absolutely will continue to contend that in practice, that's what the views suggest by said posters amounts to. Intentional or not, I see Chaotic getting the short end of the stick in favor of the posters favored alignment.

Nobody is saying that the NG and CG would abandon innocents.

Here's where the chaotic-good paladin fails, though... The chaotic-good paladin of Cayden Cailean, when confronted with Cayden Cailean's cardinal rule of "do good deeds" (if that's his cardinal rule) might say, "Y'know what? Screw that! Imma get (more) drunk. Those villagers can save themselves."

--- --- ---

Your example is about orders, not a Code. About fitting into an overall organization, not a guiding set of principles your follow.

So yes, I agree that Chaotic characters do have difficulty fitting into an overall structured organization. And are going to be prone to creative interpretations at the best of times. Their ideal scenarios would be along the lines of Hannibal at Cannae, using creative and unexpected tactics to surprise a staid enemy. Their worst scenarios would be like Rommel in North Africa, wasting resources on pointless campaigns because they're too full of themselves to listen when their superiors tell them they're too incompetent for the Eastern Front and are being put in a back theater to be out of the way.

It's VERY convenient that the best favored alignement has positive outcomes for good and bad, but neither of the other examples does.

How far into the Atlantic are the goalposts by now?

EDIT:

Historically, General Patton had this option during the Battle of the Bulge, and relieved the defenders of Bastogne.

Arguably, it was a Chaotic Good 'because they are our guys and we need to bail them out' sort of move... but that was a positive outcome!

Wait... what?

A Chaotic maneuver having a positive outcome? Stop the presses!

hahaha! I swear I mentioned Rommel before I saw this post! Honest I did!

\\that is so true Xerres.

NG and CG would not abandon the innocent.
a cg paladin of cayden cailean would get drunk afterwards.

Preach! We need Chaotic Good Champion so they can defeat Evil and then throw rocking parties.

And I'll just throw out my stance on Chaotidins following Codes again:

Chaotic characters follow what they believe in. If they believe in the Code they'll follow it, and if they don't believe in it they won't follow it.

Lawful characters are the same, they'll follow a Code until they don't.

And that's it.

HWalsh wrote:

I feel some people don't understand the lawful/neutral/chaotic alignments.

So, to that end, I'm bringing in the definition of lawful, chaotic, and neutral as it was intended:

Quote:

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

But lawful characters can be flexible, adaptable and support freedom. They can even ignore authority if they view it as illegitimate. I And chaotic characters can have honor and trustworthiness.

Exactly, because alignment is worthless as a straight jacket or a box to keep other players playing the 'Right' way. They're useful as guidelines, I find, and I frankly like the spells and mechanics that use them. But when its just "This is your Box. Stay inside this box." then there's no value to it all anymore.

The utter lack of respect for Chaotic Good as an alignment is staggering to me. And absolutely why I think it needs to get representation in the Paladin or otherwise, as a Champion of Good, a Champion against Evil, for the innocent, for the helpless.

Not a Champion of "Screw them, I got mine." like I so often see suggested.

So... Sure, chaotic clerics are still going to have anathema, because anathema are more linked to the idea of, "If you do this, you piss God off" more so than "you're a goody-two-shoes all the time" or "you do what you feel like". Anathema are more about what you have to do in exchange for your power because God will take it away if you don't follow his/her commandments, even if those commandments are whimsical by nature. "Don't step in a turd on the third Tuesday of the month when the purple moon is in its waxing phase" might be oddly specific, and never happen... Except when it does, and that whimsical god might just say, "Whoa, buddy... You broke the one rule I had. Get ready for a whoopin'!" Might seem like something very "lawful" because of its specificity, but really just be that, "Even God didn't expect that to happen. Imagine that. He might just laugh it off... But he's probably going to kick your kiester."

Going by the many arguments of "Codes are hard, they must be rewarded." then the trading obedience for power is why Paladins follow their Codes in the first place.

Unlike noble Samurai, who follow their Codes of service without expectation of gain, Paladins are only in it for the power. Shiftless thieves, the lot of them, they'd steal a baby's lollipop if it gave them another use of Smite Evil.

And less jokey, Paladins still only follow the Code because something happens when they do. Or, if we accept that Chaotic Cleric submit themselves to the will of their Gods out of belief and devotion, accepting the 'rule' or 'guidance' of a higher power... then saying they can't follow a Code they believe in is absurd.

The neutral character would violate their "code" whenever it suits them.

No they wouldn't what are you even talking about? I am sorry, but this is absurd. A follower of Sarenrae does not turn away others seeking redemption on a whim, or whenever it suits them! A follower of Shelyn doesn't stand in the way of love when they can make a few bucks!

I apologize in advance for being rude, but this line of logic is upsetting to me, because its putting Lawful on a pedestal, and using alignment as an instrument to bludgeon other characters into their boxes. "You have [Blah] Alignment. You can't follow a Code. If you choose the same breakfast two days in a row you're Lawful."

A Paladin can break their Code whenever they feel like, its how you get Fallen Paladins. They can decide the wind blew against their cheek too hard, and now the Code is out the window. There is nothing that stops them from breaking it, or a Chaotic character from keeping it. If we followed this extreme interpretation of what's Lawful and what's Chaotic then Chaotic Good wouldn't exist because not murdering the innocent is far too stable a position for a Chaotic character to have.

Here's where the chaotic-good paladin fails, though... The chaotic-good paladin of Cayden Cailean, when confronted with Cayden Cailean's cardinal rule of "do good deeds" (if that's his cardinal rule) might say, "Y'know what? Screw that! Imma get (more) drunk. Those villagers can save themselves."

WHAT!?!

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say people just want Lawful Good to be Best Good, or True Good. A Chaotic Good character, especially a Chaotic Good follower OF THE GOD OF BRAVERY AND HEROISM! Does not abandon the innocent TO GET DRUNK!

I am very sorry, but this is the most absurd argument against Chaotic Codes I have ever seen. This is insulting a personal level to anyone who follows the Chaotic Good ideals. If Chaotic Good doesn't exist in your personal games then that is fine, but that is not the default of Pathfinder.

I don't really want Wuxia in the game.

It wasn't in PF1, a 3pp that adds it isn't really it being in PF1, it is just a 3pp that has it.

The lore of Golarion is more down to earth. There are some extreme powers, but they are straight Ki, and even then they don't go into the Dragonball Z levels.

And yet it is something many other people would be excited to see. Hence why I suggest compromises, so that it can be included or excluded based on what an individual group wants.

You can get hung up on the fact I mentioned Path of War if you want, but Path of War was a response to people wanting Wuxia in Pathfinder. Something they had in 3.5, albeit toward the end.

My compromise is that the 'Mundane' Fighter guys get what they want first. And then I get options to put some Wuxia in his shoes. Options that you can ignore at your leisure.

But I'll definitely push to have the Monk start Wuxia, so that there's a basis for it and better chance of it being a supported idea.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. Option 2 is just fine for me. I basically never play or run in Golarion and the only games where I've ever had to twist anyone's arm about running a Chaotic Good paladin were games I wasn't too thrilled about being in anyway.

You fiend! Did you not read the title of the thread? How dare you bring this positivity into a Paladin thread!

Begone with you!

Jester David wrote:

Paladins

It’s easier to grant permission than take it away.
A sidebar where the GM is encouraged to allow non-LG paladins is fine, but I like making the baseline tied to an alignment.

Fighters
Fighters are like Batman. They’re defined by their lack of superhuman abilities. Aka magic. If the fighter starts being able to do fantastic things, it’s like Batman having the ability to read minds or fly. It defeats the whole purpose. They lose what makes them special.

A magical fighter is cool. That’s a magus or eldritch knight. But that’s not the baseline. Wuxia is cool, but sometimes you want to play Lord of the Rings, Willow, or Robin Hood.

I'd be happier if the baseline fighter was more scalable things like i pointed out, with archetypes for the jump over a mountain/throw wind slashes etc.

Edit: the logic behind that is that, much like archetypes for divine champions, its easier to add supernatural things with an archetype, than it is for someone wanting grittier realism to sift through all the options and narrow them down.

I know that people want Fighters at least to remain more 'Normal', which is why the compromise I suggest there is just that if a Fighter or any other given 'Normal' class starts to do the mythic feats of legend, they're use Ki or Rage Juice. They're using something Supernatural to accomplish their goals.

Also that its explicitly done through feats/archetypes, so that its a deviation from standard Fighter path. Creating Demiplanes is out of the picture, but punching the ground to make shockwaves and throwing out kamehameha waves is at least really freaking cool. And that satisfies many people like myself who want that nonsense.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I do hope I'm on the same page and just not being clear about it.

Fighter is normal Fighter, the 'mundane' class who is the Lord of the Rings bound sort. That's the standard Fighter that is presented.

Lots of people, including myself, want the Fighter to do more outrageous stuff. Truly, truly, truly outrageous. My suggestion is that it be made available in feats and/or archetypes.

Problem with that? The peeps that like their Fighters non-magical want to know how those Fighters are doing that. My solution is to say the feats/archetypes explicitly say "Fighter is using Ki like a Monk dude, they have supernatural power because of this feat/archetype."

The "I'm just a normal guy!" Fighter is still there. He's the standard, he's the one you have by default, and hopefully that default is the really cool technique driven warrior Ryan suggests. He only gets supernatural if you get feats to use Ki Power/Rage Juice. That is the "Compromise" I see between the 'Mundane" Fighter camp, and the "Jem" Fighter camp. Fighter is "Mundane" to start, but later people can make it outrageous and justify the flavor by saying its Monk/Barbarian training/power.

I guess the way I'd sort it is the say that Core Monk gets the crazy "Anime/Wuxia", and Core Fighter gets "Mundane But Please Oh Please At Least Be Cool This Time..." And then in the equivalent of Advanced Player's Guide gives feats and such to let the Fighter in on that Wuxia jam. And for the Monk to lose the Wuxia and just be a guy who trains to punch things I guess, like a Brawler.

I mean, I could still be screwed and there's nothing close to Wuxia in the game at all. In which case I'm just boned and have to remain in PF1 Town with Path of War, which is unfortunate for me. But if the Wuxia is there, that seems like a fair way to handle it.

come on, dont egg him on.

we all know where he stands o the hill.

so I purpose

we open it to any good.

and have a set of class features and regular feats, and arch types if there are going to be any, that grant apower bonus to LG paladins, and have hwalsh make the layout for it

Want to be clear that I was serious, and was perfectly happy that Walsh did what I asked in the thread. I'm aware Walsh can't compromise on the Paladin, but I wanted the holes shot into it regardless, why not? Walsh shot my compromise down, exactly like I asked, and I wanted to have a sense of humor about it instead of getting angry or sad.

The compromise wasn't really going to go anywhere, but there's still some value to get out of criticisms. We don't necessarily need the most extreme sides of the debate satisfied. If something can be cooked up that satisfies the majority of the "Lawful Good only in my preference, but I guess I can deal if they aren't." players, by establishing that their variety takes precedence in the setting/other variety needs permission, then there may eventually be a point of happiness for most players. Not all, but maybe most. Better than half is the current mark for me.

As for yours, giving the Lawful Paladin some kind of advantage over the others (Maybe just the social thing occasionally brought up?) might make Lawful Paladin players happier about a middle-ground.

How is that idea a compromise to the group that wants LG only Paladins?

I don't think you should suggest that the gm compromise either, or work with the player to create a non-LG Paladin. The implies that the player has some kind of right to a non-LG Paladin and they don't.

Instead I'd use language that is much more neutral:

"If A player requests to play a non-Lawful Good Paladin, the GM should consider the request before deciding if they feel such would benefit their campaign."

As for booms for it in PFS? No.

I knew I could count on you for the first part of the thread Walsh! Thanks for your support!

Its a compromise for the group that wants only LG Paladins because it explicitly says Golarion or other settings essentially only have LG Paladins. It establishes that standard, takes the weight off the DM's shoulders to ban it. Says right in the book "Dude, Golarion has LG Paladins, other Paladins are on DM permission basis brah."

And I didn't say compromise, I said agreement. The notion is presented as something common, and it is, and the book encourages a player that's interested to talk to their DM. Doesn't say DM has to allow it, just that they should talk. A player in your group would have no hope, need to be let down early. A player in a different group? Maybe they can work something out.

Still, I gotta say, you came strong right out the gate for the first topic of this thread. You're an All-Star Walsh, go get your game on.

I'd like to see out of combat utility for all martials - information gathering for the rogue that approaches divination, a network of contacts that can arrange transport on short order to nearly anywhere, that kind of thing

I'd love for 'mundane' characters to at least get more 'mundane' resources. If you don't mind me questioning, how would you envision that information gathering working? Does the Rogue automatically get a spy network, does she just always somehow seem to figure out the secrets people don't want her to know? Do you see a different way?

If it were an automatic spy network, then I could see some push back against DMs having to adjust their setting to fit that. If its just "Always seems to know secrets..." then demands to explain how it works.

I personally like the idea of a Rogue effectively having a "Spider Sense" that just slips little secrets into their mind. Explained by them just learning to read the clues no one else notices, or just shadows themselves whispering secrets to them. I think it'd be super cool. A spy network is great if your DM lets you, but then I do start to wonder if you can do other stuff with your network of minions.

Oh! Series of feats for Rogues to build their own criminal underworld they're in charge of. That could be fun.

Abilities to fatigue enemies that hit you with a reaction, possibly added to a shield bash, because you are so well-defended with armor and shield that even the rare attack that finds its way through is costly to the attacker.

THat'd be interesting. I do like the notion of a tough, gruff warrior that fights conservatively to wear over-eager fighters out before stepping on the gas.

Ability to use your shield for someone else instead of yourself, possibly at an AC penalty to you, as a way of baiting foes into striking you.

Multiple varieties of tanking would be great to have. Even though I personally hope for some more grand scale feats, I really like the notion of actually using that shield for others.

I want to be able to throw a shield to smack an attack away from an ally, and have the shield bounce back into my hand to defend against the next hit against me. Fights that look like they had good choreographers, that's what I'm hoping for. Within the first 10 levels or so at least.

The other thread up about what it would be cool for Paladins to have had some very cool ideas that would both be envied by people who really don't want to be stuck with a single alignment class and some of which seem like a nice step forward for more 'Mundane' characters to have.

So first, I want to suggest a compromise for the Paladin alignment and have it rejected. Everyone else got theirs rejected, I want to have a turn:

Paladins in the Core book are either listed as Lawful Good and have a sidebar that says many DMs and certain settings open that to other alignments (Maybe just usggest Any Good, or only Chaotic Good, or only Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral, I dunno) and its suggested that if a player request that, the DM discuss it with them to reach an agreement.

Or

Paladins are listed as "Any Good" and have a sidebar or flavor text noting that in Golarion and many other settings, Paladins are only Lawful Good with very few exceptions, and it will be a common house rule for DMs to not allow Neutral or Chaotic Paladins.

Either way, in PFS, since its Golarion based, they're limited to Lawful Good, but you can get a special exception (Boons? I don't know, I don't play PFS, someone help me.) to play a different alignment. So that Lawful Good players aren't bother with constant Chaotic Paladins, but players that are really into it have a shot.

If anyone can explain in detail why I is dum and they reject that idea, I'd appreciate it.

--- --- ---

That aside, the other thread has some cool ideas. Sword beams, creating weapons from light, whatever amazing idea I had. All of them great. But aside the obvious issue that people who don't play Paladins wouldn't get to use the really cool stuff, it struck me to wondering what kind of cool abilities martial characters without magic should get.

Caster/Martial Disparity is fun, I look forward to arguing about it endlessly once a real spark lights that fire. But for now just wondered what kind of abilities people want to see for classes that lack magic.

Like, the "Cut the air and still hit someone" theme of a Paladin Sword Beam is something I'd love Fighters to have. If not a 'Beam', then at least slicing the air and cutting something 30ft away in half. And in the Paladin blog thread there was a note made of angel wings for the Paladin. That's not something I'd say should be shared, but it is super ridiculously cool. I want non-magical classes to have the super ridiculously cool abilities.

So ideas about what super ridiculously cool abilities for Fighters and Rogues and Barbarians would be great. Even if you want to keep a lid on mundane characters, just what you think they could do at high levels that cool would be interesting to read about.

To start, I want Fighters to be able to cut things 30ft away, I want Barbarians to throw massive objects as their ranged attack, and I want Monks that throw hadokens at level 1 and move on to Kamehameha Waves by level 10. Really hope those Monks will have sword options too...

I agree with Smite Evil remaining powerful and an actual reason for Evil creatures to be afraid when a Paladin is around. If you're just hard to kill but not a notable threat then... who cares. You'll survive while they kill everyone else. Good job.

Energy sword is fun, and I'd greatly enjoy it combined with PF1 Smite so I can pretend I got the Light Hawk Wings and I'm about to wreck Kagato's face. But I'd prefer that as a generic feat, because Ryosko ain't no Paladin. But a decent 'Soulknife' option would be great, energy swords are cool, everyone should have one. Metal swords are for peasants.

Someone in the other thread brought up wanting Paladin archetypes to not focus too much on doing what the Paladin does already, but slightly different. They wanted Archer Paladin archetype, Gunslinger Paladin archetype, Light Armor Skirmisher Paladin archetype, so on and so forth. I agree with that sentiment.

I'd like to see Paladins have abilities themed around Light in general more often I guess. Create swords from it, shields from it, do some Green Lantern nonsense I guess. Big AoE explosions of it. My Paladins invariably align with Sarenrae, and I want to burn like the Sun.

First of all, I want to thank you Xerres for such a long and thoughtful response to my post. I came to this thread to understand your side of the argument and to have my own preconceived notions and thoughts challenged. I was hoping to perhaps even do the same for someone else. If you think my intentions were to sway you to the LG side, then you're sadly mistaken.

Yep, I fall into the trap of assuming everyone's arguments are going to be the same. After awhile, there is an alignment (ha!) between people on one side or another of a debate, when they start using the same arguments/logic. Then that becomes what you argue against.

Xerres wrote:

To remain Good aligned you can't kill, you can't torture, you can't rob people, you can't even step in someone's cornflakes too aggressively. A Good aligned character is already restricting themselves. This common notion that Chaotic characters can't restrain themselves just makes them all insane.

Did I say that Chaotic characters CAN'T restrain themselves? Well, no I didn't. If I thought that were the case, then I probably wouldn't have mentioned Chaotic Clerics. Because obviously if they can't restrain themselves then they'd fall the second they were tempted to do something against their god/esses wishes. My point was to ask when does the Code hamper their "free spirit"? Their Individuality. Obviously that point for you is...

Xerres wrote:

When it screws with a player's ability to interact with the world beyond reason.

So my question to you Xerres is this: Is the moment the Code screws with a player's ability to interact with the world beyond reason, the very moment you become Lawful?

I think that it interferes with their 'Free Spirit' when they hold that Code above their own beliefs. Not when they weigh their beliefs against their Code, but when they do not question following the Code at all. Its my line of thought that a Chaotidiin will never accept their Code as absolute truth, they will question and debate it, but ultimately follow its precepts because they find time and again that it aligns with their soul.

A Chaotidin, to me, is a rare mix of beliefs and willpower that coincides with whatever their Code is. They don't follow the Code because its the Code, they follow the Code because thats who they are.

What I mean when I say it only matters "When it screws with a player's ability to interact with the world beyond reason." is that we don't need to be policing how Chaotic a character is being. Make a Code, have it be more Chaotic than the Paladin Code, and then just let it be unless it causes issues for the players of the Chaotidin.

Before I go further, I would like to get some definition of terms from everybody. Because when you drop a big statement like:

Xerres wrote:

Frankly I just want to put forward that HOAs prove that Law is inherently an Evil alignment.

I need some more explanation... (I'm guessing that HOAs=CHAOS) Because if the belief that Lawful=Evil, then we have a serious differentiation of terms/opinions here. (In fact if you believe that Law=Evil then I can see that interlaced through out your post)

An HOA is a Homeowner's Association, commonly formed in neighborhoods throughout the United States. These "HOAs" set up rules that have to be followed by all homeowners in a given area. Rules like how long your grass can be, what color your house can be, when can you mow your lawn, how many cars can you have in your driveway, when can you open your windows, what kind of air conditioning your house can have, can you have trees in your yard, can you have Garden Gnomes, can you have a swimming pool, etc.

These "HOAs" are meant to be formed to protect property values, so that one bad neighbor can't park a rusted car on the lawn and tank the value of everyone's house. But many HOAs have many rules about lesser issues that people find extremely annoying, and/or are run by Pure Evil incarnated into people with too much time on their hands. Meaning annoying letters, fines, or even threats of being evicted over things like the color of your door and how long you had your curtains open/closed.

Given the horrors unleashed by poorly managed HOAs, it is a scientific fact that if there is a Hell, it is run by a Homeowner's Association.

My definition of the Lawful spectrum is more akin to Order, or perhaps Boundaries. We have rules that govern the land (what side of the road to drive on, how to vote for someone to represent me in government, who to call if someone breaks in my house to take my stuff, etc) and rules that govern our own lives. (sharing food with housemates, who does the chores, etc) These rules promote peace and prosperity because within the Boundaries we are free to do whatever we choose. Yet they also grant us protection. Proof can be found by taking away rules and seeing what happens. (people driving on all sides of the road, individuals setting themselves up as leaders through sheer willpower/bloodshed or whatever, people coming into my house to take my stuff as they see fit, someone hogging all the food, no one doing chores, on and on)

Now comes to my definition of Chaos. Yes, that's right. The opposite of Order. Anarchy. Every man/woman doing what he or she sees fit. No structure or safety. Any society that wants to function needs to have a set of rules somewhere. Pirates? Need a code so that the crew is ready to board ships and steal loot. All those "Barbaric" tribes of the present and yesteryears? They function under some type of tribal laws, or else they implode upon themselves... (I can think of an example of a tribe in the jungles of South America that came close) Even those examples of Pathfinder countries have some semblance of order/laws. Which I'd love to get into more, but I'm going to pause that discussion for now...

With all that being said, I did come to this thread to hear your view points. You guys have made some great points as to why Chaos does not necessarily mean anarchy. But I would love to hear a robust definition. On top of that, I do concur that not ALL rules, laws, order, or boundaries are good. People have and still abuse them to their advantage. I just don't believe that they're inherently evil... But then again it seems that I believe that Chaos is inherently evil. C'est la vie!

As far as Law vs Chaos, I personally think its more "Focused on the community." vs "Focused on the individual."

If you think I'm opposed to Law in general that'd be a mistaken impression I gave you, Lawful Good is my favorite alignment, Chaos and Evil are harder for me to pull off. I love playing Samurai following four different Codes, I love Paladins that always think of others before themselves, and when I play Magic the Gathering you know that my color is White. Everything is fair, even when that hurts everyone, and oddly seems to benefit White more than you.

Even my attempt at an unpredictable Pirate ended up as a mastermind carefully crafting plots, or at least carefully crafting the reputation that he's somehow plotting things out far in advance. I have no real idea what I'm doing, but a combination of good dice rolls and better roleplay always has that guy coming out on top. Very fun, but not nearly as Chaotic as I was trying for.

But, I also just think alignments are best used as guidelines to enhance how you play the game. Giving some suggestions for actions, a base to make decisions if you're unsure, inspiration to work with when you're looking for something to spark in your head.

What I absolutely don't think alignment is good for is being used as boxes to keep characters contained in approved spaces. Which is what I feel the 'Chaotidin' supporters are constantly running up against, being told they aren't in their Chaos Box. When letting yourself be stuck inside a box is the opposite of Chaos.

However, getting inside the box and playing race car is properly Chaotic, which is why I support a Chaotidin Code. There's a nice shiny box that says "Code" on it, and there are many Chaotic characters with wild imaginations ready to take it to the moon. Going to get my Paladin and go meet those Space Cowboys in the void., we're going to have an adventure.

Hey Guys,

Just so that we’re clear from the beginning, I’m one of those guys that is not sure that Paladins should be anything but LG. While that is true, I am open to give others creative differences. Hence why I have been following this thread. I have a few questions/thoughts on this thread…
My first thought/question is the validity of giving a replica of the LG Paladinic code of conduct to CG Paladins. Wait! before you write me off, I’m not rehashing the old arguments. I concur that Chaotic gods have tenets and anathemas that their clerics must follow. But at what point does the code become too restrictive? (ie too Lawful) Is it the length? Or the number points to follow? (Which I laughingly note that the CG Code is longer and wordier than LG counterpart at this present moment) I dig the idea that LG get their Code from without while the CG gets it from within. But isn't making a 7 point Code (on top of your god's anathema!) that EVERY CG Paladin must follow by its very nature restrictive from without?

To remain Good aligned you can't kill, you can't torture, you can't rob people, you can't even step in someone's cornflakes too aggressively. A Good aligned character is already restricting themselves. This common notion that Chaotic characters can't restrain themselves just makes them all insane.

It may be kind of funny that the Chaotic code has more tenets, but whatever. If a Chaotic character believes those ideals are correct, they'll do it.

When is it too restrictive? When it screws with a player's ability to interact with the world beyond reason. That should be the benchmark, not people dictating that your Chaotic character is following too many rules and has lost their Chaos.

How about a real Golarion-life example. I give you, the CG country of Nirmathas. Nirmathas has been sticking it to the Lawful Stupid (ie LN not LG) country of Molthune for years. Nirmathas does have an elected leader, Weslen Gavirk, but if anything he's a figurehead. He has little say or power over most of the country. In fact, it's mostly up to the INDIVIDUAL community, household, whatever to dispense justice and governance. Now imagine if poor Weslen decided to send out an edict laying out the foundations of what it means to be or not to be a Nirmathan. (a code of conduct shall we say) How do you think the good people of Nirmatha respond? They would ignore him and his rules. (politely of course they are good after all…) Even if the rules were good and something they already knew and lived out (like say have a permanent residence in Nirmathas, come to aid Nirmathas against Molthune invasions, etc) they would still ignore him. Why? He is impinging on their INDIVIDUALITY.

In the Land of the Linnorm Kings, what the Linnorm Kings say goes. They'll put you in chains or on the chopping block if you try to tell them to shove it when they tell you the rules.

In Brevoy its an issue of who rules the nation that's tearing it apart. Those darn Surtovas using their rule of the nation to line their own pockets.

Over yonder in the River Kingdoms... who even knows man. A Kingdom with rules one day doesn't exist the next. Barely any better than Galt, only rules there are determined by the Final Blades.

And yet in Kyonin, they have rules like no humans outside the one town, they have a Queen making laws for them Elves to follow. The laws are loose, and there's occasional plotting, but every kingdom worth salt has illicit plotting.

Chaotics are hard to predict man, which ones follow what rules and when is an individual choice they make. A 'Chaotidin' following their Code is a Chaotic individual who has chosen the rules they feel like following, and breaking those rules is no easier for them than it is for a Paladin. Which is to say: Its really freaking easy, and forth either character its their moral fortitude holding them to it, not their alignment.

This example illustrates what CG in Pathfinder looks like.

It is one example, that is countered by Kyonin, and that variability is proven further in how different the Land of the Linnorm Kings are compared to Brevoy. The real lesson? Chaotic nations require strong leaders. Its like herding cats, a bunch of ungrateful monsters that eat all the food and constantly put paper towels in their water bowl. Then they look at you and tell you to fix it.

I'm not trying to force anyone to play a certain way, I'm just saying that in order for CG to mean anything we have to agree what it looks like. I seem to sense that the general consensus is that CG means: To be free to express yourself individually for the good of all, then empowering others to do likewise. How you go about doing that is completely up to the player.

I'm not trying to be mean here, but why? Why should the people that want their "Chaotidin" care if Paladin players disapprove?

Lets remember, the push for this idea comes from Paladin players not wanting to share. I'm not accusing anyone of immaturity, that's just what the situation is. Paladin players say it is what it is, opposing viewpoints don't matter, and so far that's working out for them.

Attempts to use the Paladin for anything not Lawful Good are met with variations of 'No.' And then attempts to try and get something else put together are met with "That's not good enough for me, your character must act this way or that way."

So when it comes to people who greatly enjoy the Paladin (I know I do, for apparently different reasons than everyone else.), why is there so much need to say "Chaotic characters can't do this and that. You must obey the rules, or you will be Lawful."

That brings me back to the Paladin and the Code. If you notice in the Nirmathas example, the country still had law and order. But it was done at an INDIVIDUAL level. Shouldn't that be the same for CG Paladins? I find that if it were to work, they'd need some individual code of conduct. Probably something short and sweet, and not too restrictive. But that in itself opens up a can of worms... Who legislates the Code? Is it up to the GM and player? Does Paizo give some guidelines? Also thematically, who keeps the Paladin accountable? Because this could easily degenerate into a player can now be a murderhobo paladin if he/she wants to be by changing the alignment as they see fit. Which I believe would be a great disservice to the Paladin...

They can just accept the Code, on an individual level. If they're following it because they want to, then its not some big issue. Its just Chaotic people doing whatever they want. If you give them individual codes, then Paladin players will instead say they aren't restricted enough and therefore shouldn't get to have powers.

I swear its some weird conspiracy to make playing Chaotic characters impossible, so the Lawful Illuminati can take over the game.

One final thought is actually an answer to the Pirate Code example. I've seen it used a couple of times to prove that Chaotic societies used a Code of Conduct. While yes those are interesting real life examples, all they do is to show that a purely Chaotic society cannot function. In order to function there needs to be some sense of order. Which mind you, the Code differed from ship to ship. Which furthers my point about Chaotic societies work from an individual perspective. Also if there were a universal Pirate Codes, it would be, to quote a famous fictional pirate, “ more of what you'd call guidelines...”

A purely Lawful society can't function either, because we aren't robots yet. What a Chaotic society does is more easily put forward that Laws only matter when they can be enforced. Though I wouldn't say that its human nature to ignore rules and customs in general. The most evil of Lawful Evil organizations known to our world, the Homer Owners Associations, prove that people will make rules where there are none, and enforce them for no reason other than because they exist.

Frankly I just want to put forward that HOAs prove that Law is inherently an Evil alignment.

All right, I tried to put in all your best suggestions. It’s becoming beautiful!

1) You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it.

3) You should treat others with courtesy, dignity, and respect. Do not cheat, steal, or lie to others unless it is necessary to protect the life and freedom of innocents.

4) You must not violate another's free will, neither allow others to violate your own free will.

5) You must stand against tyranny, unjust impositions and privation of liberty, unless this violates a higher tenet.

6) You must be a beacon of hope, show mercy, be compassionate and sow joy in this world. How these are done is less important than leaving the world a better place than it was during your lifetime.

7) The greater good and the lesser good are not mutually exclusive. You must strive to find a solution that benefits both the community and the individual. No single life has more weight or importance than any other, and a single individual has the same importance on the cosmic balance as the destiny of a world.

I am liking how that Code is shaping up.

The difference between Lawful and Chaotic in terms of promises has always seemed to be the following:

If someone Lawful makes a promise, they will generally keep it regardless of context, because it's a promise. The concept of a promise itself is important to them on a fundamental level.

If someone Chaotic makes a promise, whether they keep it depends on who they made it to and the circumstances they made it under. The concepts of promises as some platonic ideal are generally less important to a Chaotic person. However, they may well still be fanatical about keeping promises to people who are important to them, as those people are important to them and violating their word would be a betrayal of that person, even if the abstract concept of a promise is not.

I can think of few people more important to keep a promise to, even for the most Chaotic, than themselves and, if devout, their God. And those are the people a Paladin's Code is a promise to. Even someone CE is probably gonna care about keeping their word to themselves, and certainly to their God if they're devout.

I like the view that following the Code is essentially a promise to yourself.

All this about "Chaotics can't follow a Code!" is crazy to me because:

1) Yes they can, you can't tell them what to do, that's why they're Chaotic. If anything, not following a Code because other people say you can't is a Lawful thing to do.

2) "A Paladin is a Paladin because they can't break their Code!" Yes they can. That's where Fallen Paladins come from. If they couldn't break their Code, then they'd be programmed robots, and Lawful Neutral.

3) "Chaotic characters can break their Codes whenever they want." So can Paladins. A Paladin player can break the Code for any silly reason in her head. "Its Tuesday and I don't like three out of five colors I've seen today, time to break the Code." is something a Paladin player is fully capable of deciding. Whether Lawful or Chaotic, if you break the Code then you lose your powers, because the Code doesn't care why you broke it. Maybe you were angry, or maybe it was Tuesday, Code don't care.

The "Chaotic Characters can't follow Codes" argument just seems to me like telling other people how to play. Which is a major reason there is such a large number of people who want Paladin to not be Lawful Good. Which makes it less surprising that its the Lawful Good Paladin side that is telling people what their Chaotic characters are allowed to do. And surprise surprise, players who want to play Chaotic don't respond well to being told how to play.

The whole debate is actually a very nice microcosm of why Law and Chaos are opposed to each other the in the multiverse. It is really funny, and kind of cool, that the two sides seem to have even numbers, and the arguments run together forever in eternal balance.

I would like to add something, about Codes and alignment. Namely, why Lawful characters and Chaotic characters follow them. Crazy enough, its the exact same reason: They believe in them.

A Lawful character is not a robot. She does not do what the Code says because "Well, that's the Code. Input received, directives modified. Sure hope I get a software upgrade soon." A Lawful character will follow the Code because they believe its the right one. Thousands of Codes and creeds, and Paladins follow the one they do because its the one that resonates with them, the one they believe in. In the depths of their soul, the Code rings of truth.

By the same token, Chaotic characters are not criminally insane and incapable of following any thought that is not their own. They just don't want to be forced into it, they want to choose which one is right. Discover it, interact with it, see what it sparks in them. Does this Code inspire them? Does it fill them with purpose? Is this the path they've been searching for?

Is it going to be rare for a Chaotic character, even a Chaotic Good character, to not only coincidentally believe in the ideals of the Chaosadin Code, but align with them so closely that they can't be tempted to break them even for a VHS copy of Hudson Hawk and some corn in a frisbee? Yes, very rare.

But so are Paladins. Lawful doesn't automatically mean enough willpower and dedication to follow the Paladin's path. And Good doesn't mean you'll decide the Paladin Code is the right one. A Samurai can follow even stricter ideals, and think Paladins lack honor because they do not serve a proper Lord. A Hellknight can think they're too weak to actually follow the letter of the Law, finding pathetic loopholes to suit their 'Morals'.

Paladins, and theoretical Chaosidins, only follow their Codes because they want to. They are not robots doing it automatically, or lunatics who can't follow any guideline at all. It is a choice, it is always a choice, and the choice to follow that Code is up to the player not the alignment.

And again, Antipaladins have Codes, and a follower of Gorum who flees from battle isn't going to get a free pass because "I'm Chaotic man!"

Chaotic characters believe in things, they just refuse to be told to believe in those things. A Chaotic 'Paladin' follows a Code because they believe in the 'Code'. And if they stop following the Code, its because they no longer believe in it, and whoopsie doodle, their power fades because they can't sustain it anymore.

Chaotic characters are capable of sustaining consistent behavior. They are not insane. If following a Code they agree with and believe in grants them what they want, they'll do it.

Disclaimer: This my opinion, this doesnt reflect the devs at all.

But overall, quite honestly, we here can reach a consensus by a miracle, it will matter NOTHING, if when the class gets released tons of people give another feedback, that is it.

Based on what i saw the devs say, mind you again this isnt what they said word for word, the feedback they are more interested in anyway is the one during the playtest by whatever means they will create for said feedback to be given.

The book is already actually out for printing.

Your point is articulate and thoughtful, but I offer this counter:

I am sort of bored and the news of the alignment was upsetting. Therefore, I took to the internet to make things worse by any means possible.

I am interested to see what the survey or whatever will reveal about the general opinion on the issue. I think Mark said his fear is that it will be split like the forums are.

My newest dilemma is that most Pro Lawful Paladinners have been modest and contrite about the 'victory', so now I will feel bad if I get what I want regardless. But I see this only as further evidence of their Evil, that even in 'victory' they will not allow me contentment. It only serves to fuel my impotent rage.

Edit: Also, about a possible survey or whatever, I really hope there's a "What are you talking about? Who cares!?! Make them whatever alignment and just fix the stuff with the class we mentioned!" option.

And it gets the vast majority of votes, proving fully that I wasted my time. I need that reassurance in the dark times. :)

An interesting view, but i wonder how many people "on the fence" even are for anyone to influence, cause i check this thread often and honestly by this point it is pretty much the same folk, with the same views, playing in a circle where one side says A, the others says B and it just keeps going and going.

I personally doubt even more the devs making the calls are on the fence about anything when creating such a project, but then again, cant and wont speak for the devs here.

Probably, but the circle serves its purpose of keeping the fact that its hotly contested front and center. If Pro-Other Alignment Paladinners just quieted down when it was announced "They're Lawful Good still." then there would absolutely be arguments along the lines "Well, they accepted it or moved on, not a big deal anymore. Lets have a pizza party for Lawful Good Paladinners! Hooray!"

If it were the other way around, if the Paladin had been announced as 'Any Good', then I really doubt that Walsh would have said "Argh! I am vanquished! Go ahead and do what you want with the Paladin then, I have been defeated." I expect he'd argue until he figured the chance to change it was totally lost, then go do the whatever else like he's said.

I have little hope in getting what I see as fair treatment for other alignments, but I'll still argue about it and suggest things. Otherwise, there's no chance at all, and Pro Lawful Paladinners win. Do you have any idea what it means if Pro Lawful Paladinners win? The world will be exactly the same, but I'll be slightly upset at having technically lost something on the internet!

I can't allow such a horrible timeline. I'm sorry.

Second: A question for those of you wanting multiple alignment 'paladins'.

Do you actually want the full package? Do you want to find your character tied to tenets so important that you can lose everything by violating them? Because, to me, that potential sacrifice is part and parcel of a Paladin.

Oh buddy, you think you can scare me with Codes and losing something if you break them?

My Samurai was nearly moved to kill himself, because (No joke!) he participated in a pie eating contest and it had... unforeseen consequences.

Bring. It. On.

:)

Thoughtful Responding Post

Ok, thank you for explaining your view point, honestly appreciate it. It changes my nagging sensation that you don't really give Chaotic much credit, but I do think your interpretation of a Chaotic character is more... rare? It seems harder to be Chaotic than Lawful under those guidelines, to me. But I find its much easier to play Lawful, so I that might skew my viewpoint. Your interpretation of Chaotic may be closer to the mark, but I'm leaning to hard away from it. Not willing to make a judgement call on that.

But alignments are very open to interpretations. I think someone else said they're much more useful as guidelines than straitjackets. So I don't mean to push some view of 'Correct' to what you said, just wanted to understand the view better.

Anyone have a different take? Do people consider planning to be a Lawful thing? I really like to have characters that plan things out in advance. My Samurai had a rivalry with a Barbarian in the party, they really enjoyed fighting each other, but that Barbarian kept getting Natural 20s to beat me every time. In-character, had my Samurai formulate a new training regimen to counter the Barbarian's superb luck, and the next time they dueled, he rolled a Nat 20 on the first attack (AGAIN!), but my Samurai put his plan into action and negated the attack (Readied action to move before he hit me.) and went on to win the fight.

I considered that planning to defeat Luck and the dice themselves to be a very Lawful trait. I would put Improvisation as the Chaotic opposite of a positive trait. But if there's to be any Chaotic equivalent to a Paladin, would need to compile the alignment's positive traits to express.

(For the record, I'm still fine with just saying Any Good on Paladin, but I just like the idea of unique Chaotic Good class more.)

]His lack of planning and forethought, willingness to fight by instinct and improvisation, and general thoughts putting his own desires ahead of others point him to Chaotic.

If Improvisation/Instinct isn't Chaotic, Determination/Discipline are hardly Lawful. I'll concede that Goku's sense of honor is a trait that would support him being Lawful. Refusing to let Kami or Tien fight Piccolo, because then he'd lose the match. But that's as much because of Goku's pride as it is about specific rules. He wants to win because he's better, not because he took advantage of weakness or numbers.

I was just saying, it strikes me as weird when I see though that people won't try the Paladin because they can't play lawful only because there is such a massive and wide way to play lawful and I have never met anyone who had at least one character that they didn't like who could easily be classified as lawful.

In all honesty, not to sound mean, it seems like you give Chaotic a much smaller number of traits than you do Lawful. While I tend to agree with you that Lawful is a very flexible and broad alignment, I bump up against your interpretation of Chaotic often.

Maybe I should make a different thread, but I'd like to know what people think the positive aspects of Chaos are. It comes across to me that Pro-Lawful Paladinners do not attribute very many positive traits to Chaotic characters. I'd certainly prefer to be mistaken on that part, but it contributes to me thinking that Chaos is getting intentionally short changed. But there's definitely the personal bias that I think I noticed it, so now I look for it.

Just a straight comparison "These are the positives of Lawful, these are the positives of Chaotic." might straighten me out, or reveal other unintentional biases.