The alignment entry for the cavalier in the beta testing material states that a cavalier may be of any alignment, which I don't think fits the flavor of the class. It is my opinion that the cavalier class should be restricted to non-chaotic characters.
Cavaliers put a heavy emphasis on making vows and adhering to the tenants of an order, neither of which are actions chaotic characters are particularly fond of.
The alignment entry for the cavalier in the beta testing material states that a cavalier may be of any alignment, which I don't think fits the flavor of the class. It is my opinion that the cavalier class should be restricted to non-chaotic characters.
Cavaliers put a heavy emphasis on making vows and adhering to the tenants of an order, neither of which are actions chaotic characters are particularly fond of.
It depends on what you mean by the various alignments. Chaotic characters do not have to be irrational and disorganized. It could and often does mean they dont have an interest in established laws. Now ofcourse this can be and is a 5billion post argument involving batman, robin hood and like a billion other pop-culture icons. I'm just saying while it isn't an easy fit for a chaotic oath making character its not completely out of the question either.
It's true that chaotic characters don't have to be disorganized or irrational, but it IS harder to believe that a chaotic character would hold true to any oath s/he makes... The whole point of being a chaotic character is not playing by the rules right? The alignment breakdown makes it clear that CG, CN, and CE characters all shun laws and "traditions" because of their desire to be "free."
Personally, when I look at the Cavalier class, I see a re-vamped Knight class (presented in WotC's PHB2) that has been merged with the Cavalier prestige class (presented in the Complete Warrior).
Since taking an Oath and being in an Order are the cores of this class, I think it should be restricted to the Lawaful alignments.
I just think that makes logical sense.
A chaotic character would be very tempted to bend the rules of his or her Oath and Order. That's what chaotic characters do. :)
Director of Games
|
I had deeply considered a "non-chaotic" alignment restriction for the cavalier, but left it out to keep things flexible. I could easily see an order of the dragon cavalier not being particularly lawful, the question is whether or not he is chaotic.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
What's the difference between a anarchist and a person who swears an oath to bring an end to the status quo?
What's the difference between a nonconformist and a person who swears an oath to avoid being shackled by cultural norms?
EDIT: Also, the statement, "I don't play by the rules," is an oath.
Choatic Orders don't however make any long term sense, they would by their very nature fall apart.
I don't see the Cavalier as open to all alignments, doesn't make sense. If I allowed the class in my game(and as written I wouldn't) it would be Lawful only. But the cool part is in your game you can allow all alignments.
Choatic Orders don't however make any long term sense, they would by their very nature fall apart.
False.
I had deeply considered a "non-chaotic" alignment restriction for the cavalier, but left it out to keep things flexible. I could easily see an order of the dragon cavalier not being particularly lawful, the question is whether or not he is chaotic.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Okay, I can definitely see the Order of the Dragon being a non-lawful type, perhaps even more CN, CE, or NE...
Perhaps that would be something to consider? Have each Order have a bank of alignments to choose from that the character would have to choose from?
Like instead of "Alignment: Any" it is "Alignment: Varies based on chosen Order (see below)" ...? Then each Order could have, lets say, 3 alignments choices, each just one step away from each other that fits the code of the order. That even would work of the potential CN, CE, NE for the Order of the Dragon, ya?
Choatic Orders don't however make any long term sense, they would by their very nature fall apart.False.
Untrue.
But why?
I can see justifications for most of the alignments to cover most of the orders. Order of the Shield is actually the most restrictive, not Order of the Dragon, and Order of the Shield could easily apply to four or five different alignments.
I really don't see any good reason to restrict the cavalier's alignment. It doesn't serve any purpose.
Untrue.Choatic Orders don't however make any long term sense, they would by their very nature fall apart.False.
Please elaborate. You've stated an absolute assertion (it's impossible for chaotic characters to cooperate long-term) and provided no reasoning to back it up.
Please elaborate. You've stated an absolute assertion (it's impossible for chaotic characters to cooperate long-term) and provided no reasoning to back it up.Untrue.Choatic Orders don't however make any long term sense, they would by their very nature fall apart.False.
I have to agree with Zurai. wouldn't a thieves guild or assassains guild be considered more or less "chaotic?" sure there ARE lawful rogues, but they aren't swarming the streets like the neutral and/or chaotic ones.
I would consider those to be an "order" in a manner of speaking
But why?
I can see justifications for most of the alignments to cover most of the orders. Order of the Shield is actually the most restrictive, not Order of the Dragon, and Order of the Shield could easily apply to four or five different alignments.
I really don't see any good reason to restrict the cavalier's alignment. It doesn't serve any purpose.
It just seems that if there is any sort of order or organization a character would be a part of , they would have to meet certain guidelines or criteria to be part of it.
*shrugs*
|
Perhaps that would be something to consider? Have each Order have a bank of alignments to choose from that the character would have to choose from?
Like instead of "Alignment: Any" it is "Alignment: Varies based on chosen Order (see below)" ...? Then each Order could have, lets say, 3 alignments choices, each just one step away from each other that fits the code of the order. That even would work of the potential CN, CE, NE for the Order of the Dragon, ya?
+1
I was about to suggest the same thing.
|
(I'm seeing an unfortunate trend in the names of cavalier class abilities. "Challenge" doesn't actually involve issuing a challenge. "Order" doesn't refer to an actual knightly order. And I'm betting that "banner" doesn't require an actual banner.)
+1 :)
Personally the less alignment restrictions on core 20 level classes the better. Once I have had my fair use from Pathfinder to start house ruling classes the first thing to go will be the Paladin, he'll become a holy/unholy knight and alignment will be based on a chosen faith.
I am also not a fan of alignment restrictions. Again There is alot more wiggle room in the alignments then people seem to think. The idea that an organization of individually chaotic characters could not stay together long term is ludicrous. Alignments are incredibly subjective, and mean different things to different groups no matter what has been written in the alignment section of a rule book. You can look on any single dnd related message board and i would put money on there being a half dozen looooong threads discussing alignments. "Batman was CG, no he was LG, no he was NG, no he was LN,......[200 posts later no concensus]"
One does not have to be lawful to hold true to an oath, in fact chaotic characters can be perfectly honest and trustworthy, they may just not hold to common conventions. Lawful characters can also be untrustworthy and not be true to their words. Oaths are not exclusive to lawful characters.
I had deeply considered a "non-chaotic" alignment restriction for the cavalier, but left it out to keep things flexible. I could easily see an order of the dragon cavalier not being particularly lawful, the question is whether or not he is chaotic.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I too saw the the dragon cavalier as having the potential of being non-lawful. Dragon cavaliers are all about selfishness, which is the defining feature of the neutral evil alignment. Even they, however, must follow a code or be cast out of their order, which would certainly chafe a chaotic character. That's why I suggested that the cavalier be limited to non-chaotic characters rather than lawful characters.
Please elaborate. You've stated an absolute assertion (it's impossible for chaotic characters to cooperate long-term) and provided no reasoning to back it up.Untrue.Choatic Orders don't however make any long term sense, they would by their very nature fall apart.False.I have to agree with Zurai. wouldn't a thieves guild or assassains guild be considered more or less "chaotic?" sure there ARE lawful rogues, but they aren't swarming the streets like the neutral and/or chaotic ones.
I would consider those to be an "order" in a manner of speaking
I disagree. Just because criminals break the laws of a particular community does not automatically mean that they are chaotic. Guild thieves instead follow a different set of laws, the laws of the guild. Doing what you want without paying attention to the law is chaotic, intentionally breaking the law for profit is evil.
For those of you who doubt me, I present the following as proof: the Mafia. The Mafia has both a strict power hierarchy as well as its own codes of honor. While organized criminals break the law on a regular basis, they do it for profit, rather than out of rebelliousness or free spiritedness. Thus, organized crime is, at its heart, a lawful evil enterprise.
Except that rebelliousness and freespiritedness aren't necessary traits of the Chaotic alignment. This is all a debate for a different thread, but Chaotic alignment doesn't mean you're a Xaositect (Planescape reference): you don't have to be anarchic, unable to get along with others, out to break every law, unable to follow common sense rules simply because they're rules, etc ad nauseum. It just means that you don't think twice about breaking a rule if the situation calls for it. A Chaotic character is still quite capable of (and, indeed, likely to) agreeing to and even supporting and enforcing rules.
Please elaborate. You've stated an absolute assertion (it's impossible for chaotic characters to cooperate long-term) and provided no reasoning to back it up.Untrue.Choatic Orders don't however make any long term sense, they would by their very nature fall apart.False.I have to agree with Zurai. wouldn't a thieves guild or assassains guild be considered more or less "chaotic?" sure there ARE lawful rogues, but they aren't swarming the streets like the neutral and/or chaotic ones.
I would consider those to be an "order" in a manner of speaking
I disagree. Just because criminals break the laws of a particular community does not automatically mean that they are chaotic. Guild thieves instead follow a different set of laws, the laws of the guild. Doing what you want without paying attention to the law is chaotic, intentionally breaking the law for profit is evil.
For those of you who doubt me, I present the following as proof: the Mafia. The Mafia has both a strict power hierarchy as well as its own codes of honor. While organized criminals break the law on a regular basis, they do it for profit, rather than out of rebelliousness or free spiritedness. Thus, organized crime is, at its heart, a lawful evil enterprise.
And there lies the basis of my argument, I call him chaotic, you call him lawful (the thief in the thieves guild that is). What about street gangs held together by violence? They can certainly last, and it would be hard to argue everyone there is lawful with deep roots in tradition.
Untrue.Choatic Orders don't however make any long term sense, they would by their very nature fall apart.False.
Nordic tribes, Celtic tribes and several, seral other can be said to be Chaotic "orders".
|
I had deeply considered a "non-chaotic" alignment restriction for the cavalier, but left it out to keep things flexible. I could easily see an order of the dragon cavalier not being particularly lawful, the question is whether or not he is chaotic.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well, my first thought (in regards of the chaotic alignment) was: NOOOO WAYYY.
But then I had my "1st Ed Cavalier involving Campaigns" run through my mind. After a more or less short playing period Cavaliers where called "Lawfull Stupid". (for reasons true and false).
I do think that a cavalier can be chaotic. Plenty of acceptable reasons have been mentioned in the above posts, most, if not all valid, be the pro or contra.
But I think the chaotic alignment gives a player more options fore roleplay. It does not matter if chaotic or lawful, what will be important are the Cavalier sticking to its organizations own "rules, articles, bylaws constitution" etc.
If, or if not an order of the dragon cavalier should be lawful or Chaotic would depend on the Dragon-Alignment if at all, why should a good paladin not be part of a dragon-society who also worship chaotic evil dragons because of their abilities, strength, power....?
my opinion, let the players pick if chaotic or lawfull...more fun for players and GM alike.
George
Just because your chaotic does NOT mean you cannot keep a promise.
Oathe = Promise.
nuff said.
Chaotic PC's don't have to be Anarchy this Anarchy that and not be control over their own volition and mind. that would be a crazy Chaotic PC which for some reason is the General definition of Chaotic.
I myself do not like some of the LAWs i abide by but can keep a promise till kingdom come...
What it comes down to is loyalty. Chaotic characters aren't necessarily loyal to an organization, dogma, or cultural norms, but they certainly have the capacity to be loyal to something - friends, comrades, even an ideal. In that sense, the Cavaliers of the Order of the Dragon, while self-serving and unpredictable, can be loyal enough to the ideals of the Order, to maintain an Order without impeding their own freedoms. It's like organized crime - you can be loyal without being lawful.
I had deeply considered a "non-chaotic" alignment restriction for the cavalier, but left it out to keep things flexible. I could easily see an order of the dragon cavalier not being particularly lawful, the question is whether or not he is chaotic.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingWell, my first thought (in regards of the chaotic alignment) was: NOOOO WAYYY.
But then I had my "1st Ed Cavalier involving Campaigns" run through my mind. After a more or less short playing period Cavaliers where called "Lawfull Stupid". (for reasons true and false).
I do think that a cavalier can be chaotic. Plenty of acceptable reasons have been mentioned in the above posts, most, if not all valid, be the pro or contra.
But I think the chaotic alignment gives a player more options fore roleplay. It does not matter if chaotic or lawful, what will be important are the Cavalier sticking to its organizations own "rules, articles, bylaws constitution" etc.
If, or if not an order of the dragon cavalier should be lawful or Chaotic would depend on the Dragon-Alignment if at all, why should a good paladin not be part of a dragon-society who also worship chaotic evil dragons because of their abilities, strength, power....?
my opinion, let the players pick if chaotic or lawfull...more fun for players and GM alike.
George
I think you misunderstand what Order of the Dragon means. They don't worship dragons any more than Order of the Cockatrice worship cockatrices. They are called the Order of the Dragon because they exhibit behaviors common to dragon kind, such as avarice and arrogance (even good dragons amass hordes and have large egos).
This is just speculation on my part, but I think the names of the cavalier orders has more to do their heraldry than it does with the the qualities of the order (Order of the Shield being an exception).
True true. And the Mafia example is perfect of a lawful group of rogues-types.
Also, I definitely am reminded of the Three (well, four) Musketeers. They would definitely be described as Cavaliers (scoundrels even!) and they were loyal to the King of France. They had their own adventures AND served in the army in times of war because their King and code said it was required of them...
But in their "down time" they were tricksters, rogues, scoundrels, lovers, gamblers, etc etc etc...
Alright, I can totally see the arguement to allow all alignments.
I think it would have to be noted by both the pLayer and the GM what the characters personal "code" is and make sure they follow their decision(s). You know, that roleplaying stuff.
LOL
I'm all for cavaliers of any alignment. If you don't want to play a chaotic one, don't play one. Don't get your inherently flawed lawful attitude of "If I cannot see a way, there is no way, therefore close that road for everyone" into my game.
I understand that many cannot imagine an organisation of chaotic individuals, but that that doesn't mean they cannot exist. I, for one, see no paradox in this concept, and I have no problem envisioning such a character.
A big part of the problem is people's misconceptions about alignment: Chaotic doesn't mean random and unruly. random and unruly are just random and unruly.
A chaotic cavalier will live by a code and make vows. The difference is that he won't just live by a code someone else chose for him, or told him to assume. He will select the code he likes best - and probably adapt it to his notions of right and wrong - or create one from scratch. A code is a set of ideals. Chaotic individuals have ideals to strive for. In a way, they're truer to those ideals, because they choose what they think is right. They can follow this code with all their hearts.
They will also take vows. They understand that with a vow comes a spiritual benefit, they choose to take a certain course of action, refrain from certain things, and so on, and will grow spiritually.
The difference between a lawful character is that they'll know where they stand in regards to this vow. If they feel that a situations calls for them to break their vow, they will do so. They will make this choice, like they made the choice to take the vow - [/i]and they will accept the consequences[/i].
They're not so different from lawful types in that regard. Even lawful characters will break their vows in certain situations. In fact, some vows will turn out to be impossible to keep. If your Vow of Abstinence forbids you to touch a woman, and a female enemy forces her touch upon you (and she succeeds in this), your vow is broken.
The difference is situations like this: Character takes Vow of Abstinence, swears not to touch a woman. Character then finds a woman, unconscious, in the path of danger. Character knows that if he wants to save her, he will need to break the vow. If he doesn't, she's dead.
Now, the lawful character might agonise over this decision, because he might weigh the importance of his vow and maybe his mission against the live of that woman. What is the greater good? Will the loss of my vow-granted power result in the failure of my holy mission? Is this a divine test?
The chaotic character, on the other hand, will act, knowing that for him, life is more sacred than a vow.
As for organisations: D&D is full of chaotic organisations and groups. Even the proteans, ultimate incarnation of disorder, form groups called Choruses. The azatas have their courts. Demons have whole cults of followers, and chaotic gods have churches.
So my vote goes to "Alignment: Any." It fits the 3e/PF design philosophy: "It's your choice." Keep things open - if people cannot handle that, let them introduce their own restrictions for themselves and their groups.
Any non chaotic would fit with a Cav. I wouldnt' go as far of only lawful, thu I would play only a lawful, but as a DM it makes sence to be any non chaotic.
I agree. I am think non-chaotic is the best idea. After all, there are all part of "orders"
Choatic Orders don't however make any long term sense, they would by their very nature fall apart.
The mafia would beg to differ.
Alignment: Any seems perfectly fine to me. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it's only the "oath" feature which I feel is inaptly named. (I favor "boon" for this.)
I think, as several others have posted, that it makes more sense to take it on an order by order basis. Just like some gods don't have clerics of a certain alignment, some orders just don't lend themselves to certain alignments. The Dragon Order is a perfect example of an order that really doesn't lend itself to LG in any way shape or form. There's plenty of precedent (gods and alignments for clerics, etc).
I've always thought of Law and Chaos more along the lines of lawful characters believing in predestination, or a natural order to reality and one's role within it and a chaotic character believing more in self-determination and one's dominion over their environment and the course of their own fate. It could also be thought of as traditional left-wing and right-wing ideology; self-determination vs. state oversight. This tends to give my players a much better grasp of the Law and Chaos concepts at the least.
*ahem* But coming from that interpretation of the alignments, I tend to read restrictions a bit looser than some, so it may not amount to much, but I can see the Cavalier working with chaotic alignments. I would think a chaotic character considers her personal oaths and allegiances to be far stronger than those of a cavalier she believes only made those decisions through social pressure or as a result of politicking. In my opinion, it's just that level of personal conviction really forming the backbone of the class more than the Letter of the Law of oaths and treaties.
|
I would think a chaotic character considers her personal oaths and allegiances to be far stronger than those of a cavalier she believes only made those decisions through social pressure or as a result of politicking.
I agree. I think chaotic cavaliers can work if the oaths can be personal. I can certainly see a chaotic person making and keeping oaths to himself. If the cavalier is supposed to make oaths to a real organization or a deity (although I don't think the latter applies here), then there might need to be alignment restriction, at least for the orders.
|
The Halfling Order of the Sword Cavalier I ran today saw his character as a devotee of Cayden Cailean, his challenges were personal challenges. He wanted to be the greatest hero a halfling has ever been, kicking open doors and bungee jumping from parapets to deal damage.
I endorse the Chaotic Cavalier.
|
|
True true. And the Mafia example is perfect of a lawful group of rogues-types.
Also, I definitely am reminded of the Three (well, four) Musketeers. They would definitely be described as Cavaliers (scoundrels even!) and they were loyal to the King of France. They had their own adventures AND served in the army in times of war because their King and code said it was required of them...
But in their "down time" they were tricksters, rogues, scoundrels, lovers, gamblers, etc etc etc...
Alright, I can totally see the arguement to allow all alignments.
I think it would have to be noted by both the pLayer and the GM what the characters personal "code" is and make sure they follow their decision(s). You know, that roleplaying stuff.LOL
I agree with this too.
Orders can have a strong center and very codified rules and behaviors, or it can have a vision and a few traditions.
I'd hardly call a motor cycle gang "Lawful" or "Neutral" in the Alignment sense. They will fight amongst themselves if they feel like it, but will stand together just as well.
Keep the Alignment open on this.
I'd say that each Order should have it's own range of alignments - "acting like this isn't in keeping with the spirit of this order" - rather than any alignment for any order. It wouldn't be fitting for an Order of the Dragon Cavalier to be LG or LN, though perhaps LE could be acceptable, and for other orders any Chaotic alignment would be a bad fit. I think making limiting alignments among Orders makes sense in-world as well: your character has a personal ethos (alignment) during their development and when it's time to join an Order, they find one that best fits their personality and moral code. The Musketeers, to use a prior example, would all be Good, but while Porthos is most certainly Chaotic Good, Aramis might be better construed as Neutral Good, and D'Artagnan might even aspire to Lawful Good; one might then say that the Order of Musketeers is restricted to Good alignments, and evil actions are grounds for disbarrment.
At least, that's how I see.
I really don't like restricting the alignment by Order. I think they should be alignment: Any, and if someone wants to be a CE Order of the Shield... well, good luck trying to roleplay the collision in priorities. The real concern, though, is that if the Orders were the gateway to which alignments you could play, you'd have to read through and understand the entire class before you got to which alignments were allowed. That's ass-backwards. There's a reason the Alignment: tag is right up front on the first page of any class.
|
Director of Games
|
(I'm seeing an unfortunate trend in the names of cavalier class abilities. "Challenge" doesn't actually involve issuing a challenge. "Order" doesn't refer to an actual knightly order. And I'm betting that "banner" doesn't require an actual banner.)
Challenge is the tricky one. Order can refer to an actual organization, but I did not want to hard-code that into the class. Instead I wanted to leave it up to GM decision concerning his game world. Banner, does require a banner. I am looking at cleaning up that language.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
A vow to take vengeance upon a group of nobles that killed you kid brother no matter the cost, is definitely a vow that will put you in confrontation with laws...is that chaotic? or is it lawful because the justice is vengeance based.
I really like the vow system, and I would like to see it implemented in a non-cavalier character, like an "Oathbound" or something...the mounted knight aspect doesn't always fit right for that concept.
I think some REALLY interesting class variants could be bashed together using the Paladin and Cavalier and swapping some class abilities.
|
|
True true. And the Mafia example is perfect of a lawful group of rogues-types.
Also, I definitely am reminded of the Three (well, four) Musketeers. They would definitely be described as Cavaliers (scoundrels even!) and they were loyal to the King of France. They had their own adventures AND served in the army in times of war because their King and code said it was required of them...
But in their "down time" they were tricksters, rogues, scoundrels, lovers, gamblers, etc etc etc...
Alright, I can totally see the arguement to allow all alignments.
I think it would have to be noted by both the pLayer and the GM what the characters personal "code" is and make sure they follow their decision(s). You know, that roleplaying stuff.LOL
I agree with this too.
Orders can have a strong center and very codified rules and behaviors, or it can have a vision and a few traditions.
I'd hardly call a motor cycle gang "Lawful" or "Neutral" in the Alignment sense. They will fight amongst themselves if they feel like it, but will stand together just as well.
Keep the Alignment open on this.
Is anybody else picturing a Cavalier with a motorcycle mount holding a lance out in a post-apocalyptic setting?
Challenge is the tricky one. Order can refer to an actual organization, but I did not want to hard-code that into the class. Instead I wanted to leave it up to GM decision concerning his game world. Banner, does require a banner. I am looking at cleaning up that language.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
When my player play tested this he always "issued the challenge" RP-wise before laying the smack-down. Sure it was a swift action, but in a way his challenge wasn't about the enemy hearing him, it was about honour and glory! A personal challenge if you will.
That said, some clarification of the nomenclature could be useful.
Idea: Perhaps the Challenge must be issued in a manner that is clear enough for the enemy to understand. I.E. no challenging from stealth. "Villain! I shall lay my vengeance down upon you and you will know I am the lord!". It also means that the target of your Challenge can't be treated as "flat-footed" as they are alert to your presence.
|
|
One does not have to be lawful to hold true to an oath, in fact chaotic characters can be perfectly honest and trustworthy, they may just not hold to common conventions. Lawful characters can also be untrustworthy and not be true to their words. Oaths are not exclusive to lawful characters.
+1
I think a chaotic organization (as strange as the name may seem) is entirely plausible. You don't have to respect laws to respect life, freedom, and friendship. There really is a lot more wiggle room in each alignment than the average gamer might think, so I'd have no trouble believing a Chaotic cavalier.
I don't see any problem with a Chaotic Cavalier.
They may well be the Cavalier's more prone to break their Oaths - So what?
What IS the problem with short-lived (in-game-world) Chaotic Cavalier Orders?
Cavaliers join/create them, get high on their jollies for a bit, then get distracted/ disaffected, and move on to find something new for their focus: JUST LIKE ALL CHAOTIC CHARACTERS (if you're going to read alignment in this direct, prescriptive way).
As has been repeatedly mentioned, the Orders DO NOT need to correspond to specific game-world organizations in the first place, and the wording suggests that even when they do, they very well may correspond to MULTIPLE organizations who share certain similarities - at least for purposes of Cavalier Class Abilities (this is nigh-required given there are probably multiple "Sovereigns" in the game-world, each of whom is a viable "leader" for Order of Lion Cavs to follow). Further, even when a Cavalier is a member of a game-world organization, that organization need not be restricted to Cavaliers, i.e. Order of the Star Cavs could be part of a religious-military organization devoted to their God, including Paladins and Fighters and Clerics as well.
The game-mechanic Orders are fundamentally not much different than "Ranger Fighting Styles", and any correlation to real-world organizations is an external factor left up to player & GM - Order of the Lion clearly requires dedication to a "sovereign", but such Cavaliers (dedicated to the same Sovereign) may well not even have their own organization, but simply be 'devoted followers' of their King, either somewhat independent or integrated into a convential (non-Cavalier) military force. Order of the Dragon seems to LEND ITSELF to solitary Cavaliers (like solitary dragons...), though there very well COULD exist game-world organizations of such individuals (just as there could for ANY class/ alignment/ ideal).
Personally, I find the combo of Chaotic Alignment with a Class clearly tied to concepts like honor and social hierarchy (even the Order devoted to defending the common man clearly justifies their own self-worth thru "noble" defense of the defenseless) amazingly interesting and fun. Looking at real-word historical examples, Chaotic "noble adventurers" thumbing their nose at convention, while nonetheless CONSCIOUS and PART of it, are clearly a viable, and indeed OBVIOUS trope. I think part of opposition to this is a desire to see/enforce a 'self-consistency' on Chaotic Alignment, i.e. that it must oppose the Law ALL THE TIME - but that itself isn't Chaotic, so clearly Chaotic individuals CAN associate themselves with Lawful organizations/regimes, they just probably tend to exist on the mischievous fringes. "Chaotic Stupid" is not an actual alignment option in D&D.
"Chaotic Stupid" is not an actual alignment option in D&D.
It's absolutely astounding how often it's played like it was, though. I usually see it with "CN" as the recorded alignment, but Chaotic Stupid characters seem to crop up in all three Chaotic alignments.
I can't entirely fault them, because the Chaotic alignment is by far the most nebulously-defined alignment in the game, but there's still that nagging Stupid half of the alignment...