Okay, I've really enjoyed reading this thread, because debating alignment is, and has always been, a favorite d&d/PF sideshow for me. Although the alignment system is not perfect (as we saw here, as we've had several reasonable interpretations of the same thing), its a good general guideline to describe characters, and I like it for that reason.
I do think some classes really imply certain alignments... barbarian is the most obvious one, cause I've always understood law v. chaos to not ONLY be "following laws." Isn't it more of a general statement on worldview? ie someone who is traditionally minded and does what society indicates he/she should is lawful, whereas a person who isn't concerned with ceremony or what others think is more chaotic, and there doesn't necessarily have to be law-breaking involved. Thus, a barbarian isn't lawful by his or her very nature. Monks are the exact opposite.
Regarding Cavaliers... I don't like putting full-on restrictions on players unless there is a compelling reason to do so. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the overwhelming majority of Cavaliers would be nonchaotic. But since there is no contradiction in terms (at least not in the way a lawful barbarian or a chaotic monk is a contradiction in terms), I don't think it should be said that one *cannot* be a chaotic Cavalier. Perhaps just a dash of flavor text would be sufficient--"The majority of Cavaliers are lawful, or at least not chaotic."
Y'all have convinced me to allow lawful barbarians in my games. Congratulations. (As for the original topic: of course cavaliers could be of any alignment. Don Quixote!)
|
Note that chaotic is not the opposite of good. Morals do not counteract chaos.
Agreed but following ones morales or choosing to ignore them IS chaotic. Randomness doesnt have to involve a dice roll and characters can do the most unexpected things at the strangest of times.
Take my last session, the party where ambushing a wagon but told to kill as few as possible, the paladin however slaughtered every opponent he came into contact with, while everyone else tried to subdue or use spells like sleep and color spray.
If any other character killed regardless I would probably not think twice about it, I would remind the player of the request but if they chose not to follow that its their choice. The Paladin however has extra strictures, the opponents where not evil (except one) and were on the defensive during the encounter. This isnt the only time the paladin has turned a blind eye to evil and chaotic acts and I am inclined to remove his paladinhood with the next violation.
The issue with the paladin for me is that his moral alignment IS defined by his class choice while all other classes have flexibility to rely on human emotions and decisions.
It's not a CE act to act on your fears. Especially if they're supernatural.
Remind me never to play a paladin in your game. Or anything else. If you think you can break someone's alignment by making him fail a save, people's alignment must jump all over the place in your games.
/sigh, you completely missed the point of that example - I was pointing out that FEAR overrides any alignment and that is how chaotic organisations impose laws into a chaotic society, through threats and fear. The paladin example was a simple tongue-in-cheek exageration to emphasise the point.
Try to read the paragraph as a whole (and understand its intention) before you start belittling someone.
Chaotic in D&D means you follow your own guidelines instead of what others want of you, think of you, expect of you, or tell you to. It doesn't mean you don't have any outlook or code.
I find that almost impossible to apply to a roleplaying environment. No one I have ever played with has ever listed a defined set of guidelines that their characters follow, they simply play the character however they feel on that given day often letting their real life emotions cloud their character judgement. And its impossible to DM any form of alignment this way.
For me, Treating the law/chaos axis as a definition of what is morally right or wrong and how the player actually acts on that moral defines a characters alignment far better.
For example, rescuing the princess is a good act and the morally correct thing to tell the king is you will do your best to rescue the princess.
A Good character will tell the king "I will save the princess",
An Evil character will say "I will not save the princess",
A lawful character will keep to his word and do as stated,
A chaotic character will make no attempt to justify his answer but may or may not fullfil his pledge.
but following ones morales or choosing to ignore them IS chaotic.
Not in the least.
If a Lawful Good character begins to have "flexible morality", then they don't switch to neutral good. They switch to Lawful Neutral.
A Chaotic Good alignment does not imply less adherance to morality than Lawful Good.
The Law/Chaos axis only helps define those morals, not determine if you follow them. It certainly does not determine how consistantly you follow them.
A Chaotic Good character can be completely and utterly consistant in following his morality.
However, it is more likely that Chaotic Good characters morality favors freedom over structure. It is also less likely the Chaotic Good character will consider traits like "honesty", "adherence to authority", "honor" or "discipline" to be moral by definition.
Randomness doesnt have to involve a dice roll and characters can do the most unexpected things at the strangest of times.
Yes, but that does not mean a chaotic alignment.
A chaotic character who ALWAYS and consistantly values freedom is playing the chaotic alignment.
If they randomly value freedom or structure - that's not a chaotic alignment. It would best fit a neutral alignment, since the values of Law and Chaos are in balance - even if it's an unsteady balance.
Likely too, the character is insane.
This isnt the only time the paladin has turned a blind eye to evil and chaotic acts and I am inclined to remove his paladinhood with the next violation.
Killing the innocent is evil - not chaotic.
If fighting in an undisciplined way caused accidental deaths - that could be considered chaotic.
Giving your word and then breaking it would also be considered chaotic.
So I agree the Paladin acted both chaotic and evil - but want to make it clear that evil and chaotic have no overlap.
/sigh, you completely missed the point of that example - I was pointing out that FEAR overrides any alignment and that is how chaotic organisations impose laws into a chaotic society,
I'm now certain you don't understand the term "Chaotic" in the realm of gameplay.
Using "Fear" is classic evil, not chaotic.
Imposing Laws is classic Lawful, not chaotic.
Therefore, your example defines how a LAWFUL EVIL organizations impose laws onto any society.
The chaotic organization, if it is acting truly chaotic, is either going to have very few laws lightly enforced, or not impose laws at all.
Being Chaotic and Being Evil have nothing to do with each other.
The Chaotic Good character has no problem lying to the Nazi's that Anne Frank and her family are hiding in the house. The Lawful Good character is more likely to be conflicted.
When you understand what "Chaotic" means in gameplay, you will consider a Chaotic Good character every bit as good by alignment as a Lawful Good character.
However, they go about and define those very consistant, predictable, and unflexible morals in a different way.
Didn't d20 modern have a more interesting system called allegiance (or something to that extent) instead of alignment. It always sounded as an improved alignment system where people could act outside of their alignment but still be considered loyal to that cause, and others had no allegiance (alignment at all).
Never got to much into d20 modern (never played it) so maybe I'm mistaken, anyway, it would end a lot of the alignment debates if your alignment is what you ascribe to be (what beliefs you cherish most) not the way you actually are.
Edit: Hey, I wondered off the subject sorry about that. In any case I agree that a chaotic character can be loyal to a far reaching ideal, say goodness is its own reward, and use that as part of his oath. However, if we go by the strictest sense of the word oath it would imply some some lawful traits. So, it really depends if you allow a basically chaotic character to have small lawful traits, or not.
Personally I believe these discussions do nothing for the game or players as a whole, just let the cavalier be any alignment.
Note that chaotic is not the opposite of good. Morals do not counteract chaos.Agreed but following ones morales or choosing to ignore them IS chaotic. Randomness doesnt have to involve a dice roll and characters can do the most unexpected things at the strangest of times.
Take my last session, the party where ambushing a wagon but told to kill as few as possible, the paladin however slaughtered every opponent he came into contact with, while everyone else tried to subdue or use spells like sleep and color spray.
If any other character killed regardless I would probably not think twice about it, I would remind the player of the request but if they chose not to follow that its their choice. The Paladin however has extra strictures, the opponents where not evil (except one) and were on the defensive during the encounter. This isnt the only time the paladin has turned a blind eye to evil and chaotic acts and I am inclined to remove his paladinhood with the next violation.
I disagree with Chaos as an alignment being inherently 'chaotic' just by the way it's actually written up and how it works in the game. If the way you work it seems to work fine for you that's worth a lot more than what other's think, but here's my 2 cp on the subject (disregard any authoritarian voice intended to make it sound less wishy-washy.)
I view chaos as only as much opposed to law as it is to neutrality and the same for good, neutrality and evil. Classically, law, neutrality and chaos are equally opposed to each other.
On an ethical scale, law represents one's ethics being determined by society at large and one's role within it and chaos is a personal standard of ethics and a personal idea of the workings of the world. Neutrality is not halfway in between on the ethical scale, but is actually a lack of ethics. A neutral character does not act as she wishes, nor does she act as society or law prescribes, she acts on her perceptions of need whether for the greater good, for her personal gains or as the whim of amorality dictates. True neutral is truly the most 'chaotic' alignment in the game; it is why animals and non-intelligent beings default to this category, it is completely amoral and unbound by the restrictions of ethics.
In the case of the berserker paladin, the results of his actions, the wanton slaughter of 'defenseless' enemies dictate a moral dilemma. If he had no particular reasoning behind it, I would call it neutral; if he stood to gain something from the slaughter, I would rule evil and strip him of paladin powers ASAP. The rules that he broke or did not break to do this would determine the ethical ramifications; if he broke the rules because he personally saw a benefit to slaughter the hostiles for himself or the greater good, that would fall under Chaos as an alignment, if it was a baseless breakage of the rules, Neutral, if he used some loophole in the orders to justify the slaughter, that would actually still be lawful though. The truly frustrating things about paladins is if he manipulate the letter of the law to acheive greater good, he's probably an unpleasant person, but this still falls under Lawful Good.
Anyhow, 'Chaos' doesn't really represent the actual alignment description very well and the presentation of neutrality as in between the extremes really throws a kink in the system, but it works when you don't look at it as a scale. Another fix would be to change the 'Chaos' alignment to 'Freedom' or something else that may not sound as silly.
Otherwise, I'd like to restate that Order allegiances, as mentioned above, would be a great alternative to alignment restrictions. I'd love to see how the Order priorities would trump or work with traditional alignment stances.
Given the examples of Batman and The Musketeers, and let's throw in the Scarlet Pimpernel and Zorro as well, I think there's a very strong case to be made for Neutral and Chaotic Cavaliers. So I'd say the CLASS shouldn't have any alignment restrictions.
However, I believe that each Order/Creed should have it's own ethical standards which may not and should not be universal. The Order of the Dragon should fit Chaotic characters better than Neutral or Lawful - it is more self-centered. The Order of the Shield feels more Lawful than Chaotic. I think that the Orders should have alignment standards, but not the class as a whole, in the same way that a Cleric should have a compatible alignment with their God - saying that they shouldn't is absurd. In a fantasy world where there are many gods, and they aren't distant and unknowable but rather make their presence felt regularly, it simply doesn't make sense to worship a god whose ideals one does not share. Moreso than that, a God would not empower someone whose actions they do not approve of.
Have alignments for the Orders is also a good roleplaying tool. "That may be allowable for /them/, but not for members of /this/ order!"
I think the Edicts of each Order already restrict the Cavalier's behavior sufficiently. Adding alignment restrictions by Order would be redundant at best and stifling at worst.
I dont know if this has been mentioned before, but for those who think there needs to be alignment restrictions, maybe something similar to how alignment works for clerics. Each order has an alignment that generally reperesents how that order behaves, and to be a part of that order, you have to be close to, but not necessarily matching that alignment. The concept works well enough for clerics, and I picture this being a very similar setup.
That works for clerics because there are an infinite number of deities/ideals, and the mechanics of the class are basically unrelated to their alignment (exception of course being positive vs negative energy). In other words, you can create a cleric of any alignment with any two arbitrary Domains. The other reason that it works is because clerics only have power at another being's whim, which means they have to keep from upsetting said being.
That won't work for cavaliers because there's a finite number of Orders and each Order contains 100% unique-to-that-Order mechanics with no overlap in any other Order, and because cavaliers are not beholden to anyone for their powers. There's no one to say "You aren't acting in accordance with being a Cavalier of the Dragon, so you're kicked out of the Order!".
I don't think alignment restrictions to order would be too stifling, I can even see them as being kind of necessary at times. I can't envision a Cavalier of the Shield to be Chaotic Evil, for example. The edicts completely contradict his nature. The alignments don't even have to follow the one step rules the clerics have, they could be something like:
Order of the Dragon: Any non-good
Order of the Lion: Any non-chaotic
Order of the Shield: Any non-evil
Order of the Star: As cleric alignment restrictions
These allow six alignments for each order without pigeon holing the character into a certain personality.
Note that chaotic is not the opposite of good. Morals do not counteract chaos.Agreed but following ones morales or choosing to ignore them IS chaotic.
Evil characters usually don't have any morals, or not nearly enough. And having morals but ignoring them is evil, not chaotic. Ignoring laws and traditions is chaotic.
Randomness doesnt have to involve a dice roll and characters can do the most unexpected things at the strangest of times.
Unexpected is not random. And chaos does not need random. Not at all.
The part is not the whole.
Even the Proteans - Chaos Incarnate - aren't completely random.
Try to read the paragraph as a whole (and understand its intention) before you start belittling someone.
And rob you of your ability to be condescending? That would kill you.
Hm... grey area.
I find that almost impossible to apply to a roleplaying environment. No one I have ever played with has ever listed a defined set of guidelines that their characters follow, they simply play the character however they feel on that given day often letting their real life emotions cloud their character judgement. And its impossible to DM any form of alignment this way.
Chaotic in D&D means you follow your own guidelines instead of what others want of you, think of you, expect of you, or tell you to. It doesn't mean you don't have any outlook or code.
Listing a defined set of guidelines? Never said that.
But I usually manage to play a different character, not just me on a different character sheet. And I had players like that.
For me, Treating the law/chaos axis as a definition of what is morally right or wrong and how the player actually acts on that moral defines a characters alignment far better.
Good for you. Not Pathfinder, though.
And I disagree. I like the two-dimensional alignment system better than your one-dimensional one. Better base for a three-dimensional character.
For example, rescuing the princess is a good act and the morally correct thing to tell the king is you will do your best to rescue the princess.
A Good character will tell the king "I will save the princess",
An Evil character will say "I will not save the princess",
A lawful character will keep to his word and do as stated,
A chaotic character will make no attempt to justify his answer but may or may not fullfil his pledge.
Too many wills in this.
An evil character may say "I will not save the princess". Or he may say "What do I get out of this?"
A lawful character might keep his word - or break it, if he later comes into information that he deems more important than his word.
A chaotic character is as likely to explain his decision as everybody else, and no more likely to decide by coin toss. His reasons may be different, though. Whether he will keep his word depends as much on the circumstances as everything else. Just because he's chaotic doesn't mean he will change his mind just like that.
|
A chaotic character is as likely to explain his decision as everybody else, and no more likely to decide by coin toss. His reasons may be different, though. Whether he will keep his word depends as much on the circumstances as everything else. Just because he's chaotic doesn't mean he will change his mind just like that.
What again was Luigi's reason for trying to rescue the princess? Sometimes you don't even need a reason to do something.
Also, changing your mind everytime doesn't indicate a chaotic character, and in fact to mean screams that this is likely a lawful character with either OCD, Geas, or some form of odd Taboo.
What again was Luigi's reason for trying to rescue the princess?
He was a video game character and the pretence for this game was that you rescue some princess. (That was back in the day before every silly little game needed 20 hours of story development) ;-)
Also, changing your mind everytime doesn't indicate a chaotic character, and in fact to mean screams that this is likely a lawful character with either OCD, Geas, or some form of odd Taboo.
...or someone who plays Chaotic Stupid just to be annoying.
Seriously, whenever someone goes completely random just because "he plays CN, the alignment of madmen" I tell him "Well, it's all random, so now I roll the die that says what you do, and I have the random action chart here. *rolldie* Hm.. my chart says you kill yourself in a fit of ennui."
Actually, I didn't get to do that. My players are either more mature than that or they know me for the vicious bastard I am.
Having a naginata on the wall and a stand with swords on a cabinet may help - I always assure them that those are purely decorative, but maybe they think I'm lying.
|
|
KaeYoss - I guess we will never really agree on this subject since we clearly have different view points on the Law vs Chaos Axis.
You obviously apply the two exclusively to every situation where as I prefer to use the L v C axis to build on a characters morality through G v E. it may seem one dimensional but its certainly easier to manage it this way as a DM.
I also find handling it this way better for managing aligned governments, cities and societies. For example in a Lawful Evil society where slavery is commonplace and accepted, a character who is Chaotic Good will be more likely to accept the laws even though he feels they are morally wrong (he chooses to follow what he believes is wrong, not acting in the way his morally good alignment would dictate). While a Lawful Good character will actively oppose slavery based on his own morality.
Keeping them seperate like you imply would leave questions such as would it be ok for a LG character to have a slave? By his lawful axis alone he would be allowed to have a slave since he is following the law of the land he has been brought up in, yet he would likely give that slave his freedom after "purchasing him" because its the right thing to do.
This way just leaves far too many grey areas to adjudicate properly in a game environment and that's the point I was trying to get across - I'm not saying my way is correct or yours is wrong, just that from a game point of view mine is easier to apply to game aspects like codes of conducts, oaths, and orders.
Chaotic Neutral is the most random but I agree it shouldn't be an escape goat for just being stupid...Also, changing your mind everytime doesn't indicate a chaotic character, and in fact to mean screams that this is likely a lawful character with either OCD, Geas, or some form of odd Taboo....or someone who plays Chaotic Stupid just to be annoying.
Seriously, whenever someone goes completely random just because "he plays CN, the alignment of madmen" I tell him "Well, it's all random, so now I roll the die that says what you do, and I have the random action chart here. *rolldie* Hm.. my chart says you kill yourself in a fit of ennui."
Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters.
This "moral" reason for being stupid is why I find CN the most volatile and dangerous alignment for a campaign. Doing stupid (CN) actions can throw a campaign into complete disarray just because the player felt like it.
Taking a Oath in and of itself is a voluntary construction of and/or adherance to Order.
So a (Chaotic) Barbarian would NEVER vow to kill all Orcs (or Humans)?
I really think this is taking Aligment way too far in straight-jacket realms. The next step is a Chaotic character having to roll each time to determine if they drive on the right side of the street or not (and the same with any law). I don't see any problem with a Chaotic character swearing Oaths: they are fundamnetally about "accomplishing tasks" (that's the RAW), not forcing the character's alignment towards Lawful. A Lawful character may well have a more stringent personal restriction on who they swear Oaths of Vengeance against, vs. a "Chaotic Insane" character who may decide you looked at him the wrong way and now you're their #1 enemy.The Cavalier as written includes BREAKING and CHANGING vows as part of the class, much more so than a Paladin. Likewise, 'adherence' to an Order (which is basically a personality tendency with mechanical benefits) is 100% not required, it's simply more beneficial to choose an Order which you won't have a problem following thru with. The Cavalier still has signifigant Class Abilities that function independent of 'adherence' to their Order/Ideal - AND YOU CAN SWITCH ORDERS every level if you want.
I agree the term "Order" and how it's introduced ("pledging yourself to (an) Order", "edicts (you) must follow") is pretty confusing by making it seem like a membership in a real-world organization/ set of rules, but if that's fixed, I don't see any problem with the approach. All these aspects seem to re-enforce the idea of the Cavalier being in the thick of, and aware of, their social mileu and how they are viewed in that light: that doesn't force them to take one role, as seen by their ability to switch "Orders". "Chaotic" Swashbucklers, who are both heavily implicated in a social order, yet may thumb their nose at it, seem perfectly great options for a Cavalier that I wouldn't want to see taken away.
So a (Chaotic) Barbarian would NEVER vow to kill all Orcs (or Humans)?Sure, he might, but he will get tired of it after a while and may find that it's not what he vows to do tomorrow. That's what Chaos is all about. Being Chaotic. Sticking to a plan is Ordered behavior. You can't vow to stick to a plan if your inherent nature is to change your mind on a regular basis. That reflecs an alignment of Law over Chaos.
So why the option to change Orders every other level?
Why the option to swap out Oaths immediately after completing one, or worst case, 24 hours after abandoning one?I think your reading of Aligment is overly prescriptive...
If it really worked that way, how would a Chaotic character every finish an AP?
Wouldn't they "get tired of it" and find something else to do?
Wouldn't they get tired of the same companions after awhile (Oath of Loyalty) and ditch them for new friends?
Is it really impossible for Chaotic characters to:
? (Cockatrice)
Or to ? (Dragon)
Or ? (Sword)
This is what the rules have to say on Chaos:
I don't see anything about having to abandon tasks, being unable to stick to a plan, or even changing your mind on a regular basis. Those would probably be classed a "Chaotic", but not every Chaotic character need be so overwhelmed by Chaos in every aspect of their lives (some also probably manage to drive on the right side of the road on a consistent basis). Chaos ALSO mentions the concepts of "adaptability" and "flexibility" as well as "freedom" - i.e. NOT always following the dictates of some chaotic Ego's desires, but sometimes 'going with the flow', like for the love of a lady, your king, or your adventuring mates.
That's also the difference between a prescriptive reading of Aligment and a descriptive one. If a prescriptive reading really was intended, characters would never act outside of their alignment or change aligment, bar magical intervention. Yet those possibilities certainly exist in the game.
...Anyhow, I think Jason's probably already made up his mind on this topic :-)
Taking a Oath in and of itself is a voluntary construction of and/or adherance to Order.So a (Chaotic) Barbarian would NEVER vow to kill all Orcs (or Humans)?Sure, he might, but he will get tired of it after a while and may find that it's not what he vows to do tomorrow. That's what Chaos is all about. Being Chaotic.
Sticking to a plan is Ordered behavior. You can't vow to stick to a plan if your inherent nature is to change your mind on a regular basis. That reflecs an alignment of Law over Chaos.
The Chaotic alignment does not imply, nor does it require, Attention Deficit Disorder, which is what you describe here.
|
|
The Chaotic alignment does not imply, nor does it require, Attention Deficit Disorder, which is what you describe here.
I don't see anything about having to abandon tasks, being unable to stick to a plan, or even changing your mind on a regular basis. Those would probably be classed a "Chaotic", but not every Chaotic character need be so overwhelmed by Chaos in every aspect of their lives (some also probably manage to drive on the right side of the road on a consistent basis).
Agreed what he is describing is what the rules cover with changing alignment...
Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters.
CN is probably the least fitting alignment for a cavalier BUT it would not be impossible to design a CN Order to specifically cover this...
For example: Order of the New Dawn: each day the CN character chooses a new orders philosophy to follow as the new sun rises assimilating that orders ideals to achieve his own selfish desires.
|
OK so I have to note that I have a general disdain for alignment rules anyway. I generally find that if I make my players too aware of their alignment restrictions their characters become stereotyped very quickly. That being said, although I can appreciate this class having some flexibility it seems bizarre to have a class as argued before based on oaths and such that allows and rewards more chaotic players to play outside their normal persuasion. However, lawful and neutral characters do sometimes act in chaotic manners thus making them more 'human' in their failures as characters and cavaliers. It would seem an odd choice for a person of chaotic persuasion to choose this lifestyle however life is odd. I once had a character insist on becoming a sorcerer even though he had a low charisma score.. ok dumb, but ok, and hey haven't we all met people doing jobs they really shouldn't. I do however think that the game play with all the nuances would be a nightmare for a controlling, hyper aware by the book GM.
I also find handling it this way better for managing aligned governments, cities and societies. For example in a Lawful Evil society where slavery is commonplace and accepted, a character who is Chaotic Good will be more likely to accept the laws even though he feels they are morally wrong (he chooses to follow what he believes is wrong, not acting in the way his morally good alignment would dictate). While a Lawful Good character will actively oppose slavery based on his own morality.
It is actually the Lawful Good character who would not oppose the use of slaves in that situation. LG believes that maintaining social order and upholding the status quo is just as important as good morals. If they are from the city, slaves are a reality they have been raised to accept, if they oppose the use of slaves, they seek legal avenues to getting rid of it, but they won't break the law to oppose it.
The Chaotic Good character, on the other hand, will free slaves and not care about the repercussions. They don't care if a slave farm will fail afterwards and food production for the whole city falters and thousands of people die of starvation. They probably don't even care what happens to the slaves after they're free, they likely feel that once a person is free of oppression, suddenly they have the same chance of survival as everyone else.
The Neutral Good character would weigh the repercussions of freeing the slaves and decide what to do based on which action would cause the least harm. If the slave farm provided food for an entire region or the slaves would just be replaced by more slaves or recaptured and punished, they would likely turn their backs on the situation. If the slaves had a safe place to go to after being freed and the farm produced a luxury crop, they would probably free the slaves.
It should also be pointed out that real Cavaliers were royalists; they opposed the word of law and supported the determination of individual rulers and members of the upper class. This would probably start arguments as to whether that's Neutral or Chaotic, but it's less 'Lawful' than were the Parliament supporters.
So, it appears that Chaotic individuals are shiftless people with no motivation or goals. Good to know; I'll tell Mrs. Lamashtu that she's not actually Chaotic, after all. And all the other Demon Princes and Princesses who dedicate their lives to the spread of chaos and evil everywhere.
Chaotic implies being shifty (not shiftless, which means "not being able to shift"). Chaotic characters typically ignore structure and dislike rules. Being part of an Order means that rules are in place that govern the behavior of those who belong to them.
So then, why is it not forbidden for Clerics to be Chaotic? After all, they have rules which govern their behavior.
Strongly agree. Not just because taking an oath is an orderly, "lawful" action; but because cavalier Orders and Banners indicate a respect for tradition and ritual, and a higher regard for an organization and its history than for individuality. This idea in particular, of the whole being greater than the individuals that comprise it, seems very orderly and non-chaotic.
Someone hasn't read the Order of the Dragon, I see.
Let's not forget that Cavaliers are essentially knights. There were plenty of Knights were were black-hearted villians who thought nothing of breaking laws or betraying comrades if it increased their own glory.
The Oath of Greed and Order of the Dragon, for example, certainly do not require any degree of lawfulness.
An oath can be a goal that a character has become obsessed with. Take the Sons of Feanor in the Silmarillion, who swore oaths to recover the Silmarils at any cost, and to slay anyone, friend or foe, who would prevent them from doing so.
That's definitely an oath that doesn't require any sort of lawfulness. And, indeed, the sons of Feanor violates just about *every* law and performed exceedingly evil deeds, in the name of recovering those damned gems.
So, +1 to No Alignment Restrictions, from me.
The Order of the Dragon idea basically allows characters to have all the benefits of being a cavalier without actually having to belong to an organization.
It's been pretty well established by now that the Orders aren't (required to be) actual organizations. They're philosophies more than anything. There IS no requirement to be a member of an organization inherent in being a Cavalier.