In a political sense it can mean more than that.
But no less.
like anarchocapitalism, which can be a type of anarchism
Historicallly and politically, it has no links with anarchism. And it doesn't promote an anarchic society. So I'd say it can't.
The fact that anarchocapitalism has nothing to do with anarchy doesn't change much for OP's character.
But assuming the paladin doesn't care about inconsequence, and defines himself as an anarcho-capitalist, raise others problems. Anarchocapitalism proposes a society of individual economic agents accepting to enforce their right to private property and not encroach on the others', and to limit their collective control on their society to trade affairs. Past the obvious contradictions of such a system, what does that mean in a medieval or antique-like society ? More or less a status quo. Lords in castle possessing lands, letting people work on it, and defending the whole from bandits, goblins and other lords, in exchange for a part of their production. The anarchocapitalist would be defending this system from the next band of orcs, from peasant revolts, and from its historical tendency to produce a king. It is not compatible with the mission to fight evil, to defend the oppressed, and to not stray from just and honourable ways.
A libertarian can't be a paladin.
In a political sense it can mean more than that.
But no less.
Anarchocapitalism isn't linked to anarchism, politically or historically, and does not promote an anarchic society, so it's safe to say that it is not a type of anarchism.But OP's character may not be consequent, and define himself as an anarchocapitalist.
But then, he should fight all forms of non-economic community, for example "defending" local lords owning lands against peasants revolts and their tendency to elect a king in times of need, and accept injustice and oppression as long as those are supported by the right to private property. And he would have to ask for payment in exchange of his protection against evil.
So no, a libertarian cannot be a paladin.
There is no need for personal attacks. If you have a differing opinion, feel free to state it, but that isn't the same as being hostile and offensive.
So it seems the long and short of it is:
IF anarchy is defined as the violent overthrow of government without intention to replace it, then a lawful good character cannot support it. If, however, anarchy is simply defined as a political philosophy that advocates no authority, then a lawful good person can support it.
However, if the second definition is true, we must further define whether the absence of authority involves only earthly, political factions, or if it includes any authority, including that which is voluntarily chosen. (Note that democracy isn't a voluntarily chosen authority, since the vote will not be unanimous - there will always be those who didn't choose the current government.) IF it only considers earthly political groups, then any paladin can be an anarchist. If it means any authority at all, however, then only paladins that derive power from a concept (if such is allowed in the campaign world) could be anarchists.
Does this seem to be what people are saying?
In a political sense it can mean more than that.But no less.
Anarchocapitalism isn't linked to anarchism, politically or historically, and does not promote an anarchic society, so it's safe to say that it is not a type of anarchism.But OP's character may not be consequent, and define himself as an anarchocapitalist.
But then, he should fight all forms of non-economic community, for example "defending" local lords owning lands against peasants revolts and their tendency to elect a king in times of need, and accept injustice and oppression as long as those are supported by the right to private property. And he would have to ask for payment in exchange of his protection against evil.
So no, a libertarian cannot be a paladin.
Well, not all libertarians are anarchists - I'm a libertarian, and a minarchist instead. However, I am not an evil bastard that murders people for hearing the wrong thing, yet I have played drow characters before. I'm not advocating anarchy, here, I'm just asking if a character could advocate it.
As for such a paladin having to sell his services, that simply isn't true. Nothing in capitalism prevents you from doing charitable works. All capitalism says is that the paladin must voluntarily choose to give his time - nobody can make him serve. For that matter, capitalism even supports communism! If a group of people voluntarily choose to abolish private property amongst themselves, and share ownership in everything, then nothing stops them. (The problem comes in when they try to force others to give up property to the group.) As far as the local lord situation, yes, that might get tricky - if we consider the lord owns the land, then a peasant revolution would be opposed. However, if the lord tried to keep any of the peasants from leaving the land, the lord would have to be stopped, so you can't really say they have to support injustice and oppression. Also, the question of whether the lord truly owns the land is debatable in itself, given the history of how lords come to be. But that's a topic for another thread.
EDIT: Heh, ninja'd again!
Given that the greatest evils are done by beuracracies and the greatest goods are done by people
In a fantasy world, that's wrong in the first degree. In the real world, that's nonsensical, the concepts of evil and of an opposition between bureaucracies and people do not reflect any reality.
It's true that a libertarian doesn't accept injustice more readily than anyone, but it's true that he does accept it.The elimination of the governement is not the point of anarchism and it doesn't suffice to be a link to anarchism.
Charity is supposed to make the system bearable, not to eliminate injustice and oppression.
I am equating libertarians to anarchocapitalists. And libertaries to anarchists. I shouldn't, because that's not the senses of the words in english, but it is in the other language I speak (libertary being an ancient and nicer way to say anarchist, and libertarian being a recent anglicism that arrived from america at the same time as the ideology it refers to), and I find that precision useful.
As for such a paladin having to sell his services, that simply isn't true. Nothing in capitalism prevents you from doing charitable works.
Nothing, but advocating actively anarcho-capitalism, that a society can be based on equity of greed, makes a divine mission a stretch.
If a group of people voluntarily choose to abolish private property amongst themselves, and share ownership in everything, then nothing stops them.
Co-ownership is not communism...
As far as the local lord situation...
Lordship doesn't necessarily mean serfdom, there's other ways to keep people on the land than physical and legal coercion.
I recommend you read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay.
Hm... I see the link with "the greatest goods", but not with the opposition between people and bureaucracy.
As for such a paladin having to sell his services, that simply isn't true. Nothing in capitalism prevents you from doing charitable works.Nothing, but advocating actively anarcho-capitalism, that a society can be based on equity of greed, makes a divine mission a stretch.
Who said anything about greed? I'm saying they are equal in self-ownership, and free to use their property as they wish. If that includes greed, that is up to them, but they must still get others to agree to give them more stuff.
If a group of people voluntarily choose to abolish private property amongst themselves, and share ownership in everything, then nothing stops them.Co-ownership is not communism...
You are correct - technically, communism is collective ownership of the means of production. Things that aren't means of production can be privately owned in a commune. My point, however, still stands - a group of people can be communist within a capitalistic system, as long as they aren't trying to force others into their group.
As far as the local lord situation...Lordship doesn't necessarily mean serfdom, there's other ways to keep people on the land than physical and legal coercion.
Sure there is. It still doesn't inherently imply that a lord owns the land, and if he does, it doesn't follow that oppression must be supported by the paladin. The paladin should, to follow his own code, uphold the property rights, but that's all.
Who said anything about greed?
Most anarcho-capitalists I've talked to. There's little point in private property if not depriving the rest of the community. The idea, or so I've been told, is that it ensures the growth of the general wealth, and thus the continuation of human society.
a group of people can be communist within a capitalistic system, as long as they aren't trying to force others into their group.
Only a society can be communist. "The means of production" means all of them.
It still doesn't inherently imply that a lord owns the land, and if he does, it doesn't follow that oppression must be supported by the paladin. The paladin should, to follow his own code, uphold the property rights, but that's all.The lords owns the land because they do, even though they might not have the receipts. A land reform isn't something that paladin would support, and a general resale will only let the rich - the lords - buy back the land (taking their riches too isn't an option, I guess), and who would organize it and who would receive the money, anyway ?
Private property means unequal merchant relations, and from that, oppression.
Well, I guess none of these groups are communes, because they aren't international.
Also, remember that labor is a means of production. Common ownership of all means of production would mean everyone is a slave. That's worse oppression than any merchant relation I have ever heard of.
It is the point of some forms of anarchism.
I'd ask which ones, if I didn't know that it's not.
Charity was directed towards the payment comment. Injustice and oppression would be handled by the private sector.
Exterior agressions would be handled by the private sector, which is why the paladin needs to be payed. Injustice and oppression as a result of the working of the private sector won't be handled by itself, more than they are now - that means through charity - or the right to private property would be restrained by collective effort.
Well as long as your recognize that they are different things in English, I can't say for other languages. It would really help cut down on confusion to use the meaning they refer to in English.
You misunderstood. They are the same thing in english, that's the problem.
Groups of people (forex. beuracracies) have minds of their own which make decisions which no sane person working alone will make.
No sane person works alone.
Well, I guess none of these groups are communes, because they aren't international.
Yes. Communism is a project, labor is labor, and the means of production are what allow labor to product.
The point of private property is to assign accountability. Surely you've heard of the tragedy of the commons?I've heard, it supposes co-ownership of a ressource without collective organization. A particular case of private property failing to ensure its continuity. Real-world examples are numerous, even though several of the contradictions of the capitalism have been brought to a stalemate with the help of the modern states.
I don't even know what "unequal" means here, but I do know that any government system which puts property into the hands of the government (excuse me, *bullshot*people*bullshot* by means of beauracracy) is -fundamentally- unequal because the people who operate the beauraracy will always have more power than everyone else.
You're right, of course, state capitalism is fundamentally unequal. That doesn't mean that free-market capitalism isn't, though.
The word doesn't matter. The way it is managed does.
My other point was that there is no spiritual nature for bureaucracies.
Like I said, the pasture called the commons in the example, is not collectively managed, and every herder use it to maximize his own private gain. That's what I'd call private property.
The other thing, worded differently : bureaucracies have no mind on their own. Groups and individuals are a constant, even visionnaries existed and are remembered through their contact with the rest. It's relevant to the discussion because it is what was discuted (among other stuff).
Getting rid of lawful authority so that "the people" may create their own guidelines is about as chaotic good as it gets. It's pretty much un-lawful to the extreme.
Anarcho-capitalism is extremely individualistic, so from that perspective, no, I don't think a paladin could be an anarchist. Also, I wouldn't dare call an anarcho-capitalistic society anarchistic since it would have extremely strict hierarchies. Socialistic anarchism on the other hand, is a lot more collectivistic, and as such could very well fit the "lawful good" niche.
Anarchism is about getting rid of hierarchies (and no, not just a state that is to be replaced with a privately owned corporation with the same function as a dictatorial state), and a paladin is usually very submissive of ("legitimate") authority. Since an anarchist sees hierarchies as something by nature evil, finding "legitimate authority" will be very hard. Some half-way anarchists (including me) propose direct democracy, and in a direct democratic society you could have "legitimate authority". Still, most people who propose direct democracy don't seem to see themselves as pure anarchists.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority No, as explained above.
act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. All those seems okay.
Getting rid of lawful authority so that "the people" may create their own guidelines is about as chaotic good as it gets. It's pretty much un-lawful to the extreme.
Lawful and chaotic is about more than just "having many laws" and "having less laws" though. It's also about collectivism vs individualism.
|
Yes, a paladin can be an anarchist. How you ask? A paladin does NOT follow mortal laws, a paladin follows the laws of his god, a code of conduct he simply cannot break. THAT is what makes him lawful. Mortal law is not the same as holy law, therefore he doesn't have to abide by them, but most of the time he does because he is a good, law-abiding citizen.
Stick a paladin in an evil land where laws come in direct conflict with his god's word, then the paladin will work to undermine that authority, as he simply does not recognize them as a "true" authority. To abide by the evil country's laws would directly break his vows, so you have an instant "anarchist" who is LG.
It's also about collectivism vs individualism.I don't know about that. It is about order, authority, tradition. Not collectivism v individualism.
I think both are true, really. There are so many things that go into law and chaos it is confusing.
There is the tradition dynamic, the honor dynamic, the collectivist dynamic, the honesty dynamic, the legal dynamic, the order dynamic, the logical dynamic... the list goes on and on. Someone who follows old family traditions but lies all the time? Neutral. Someone who adheres to the law, but relies heavily on emotion to make decisions? Neutral. Someone who believes strongly that there is a place for everything and everything has a place, but is a strong individualist? Neutral.
Someone who is a staunch individualist, but cares about old family traditions, thinks very logically, has a strong sense of honor, and always tells the truth? Lawful.
Just to clarify here, Fred Ohm, you are arguing that a paladin can be an anarchist, but not a capitalist, right? Because you say capitalism is inherently oppressive an unjust? I just want to be sure I'm arguing the right point.
Just to clarify here, Fred Ohm, you are arguing that a paladin can be an anarchist, but not a capitalist, right? Because you say capitalism is inherently oppressive an unjust? I just want to be sure I'm arguing the right point.
While I'm not Ohm, I'd say that a bigger issue is that free-market capitalism is indivudalistic, a chaotic trait. While I agree with him that capitalism leads to oppression and is an inherently unjust system, clearly my definition of justice and D&D's definition are different. Thus, the case of capitalism being unjust and oppressive is more open to debate, and personal viewpoints; I think everyone can agree that free-market capitalism (as opposed to the state capitalism often promoted in non-individualistic ideologies such as fascism) is indivudalistic. It focuses on the individuals right to do whatever he wants with his stuff, more than on "what's best for all people".
Capitalism leading to hierarchies is more a problem to the pairing of it with anarchism (since anarchists generally see hierarchies as injust by nature) than it is to pairing of it with the paladin, who clearly allow and in some cases promote hierarchies.
I think a paladin can be an anarchist, since anarchism in itself isn't on the scale of good/evil and lawful/chaotic, but not a capitalist, since that would be on the chaotic side.
to the OP anarchy is usually seen as a lawless government or lack of or very little laws. Anarchy is typically seen as " chaotic " a very spontaneous and with out structure archtype. so answer is... not really paladins are all about " law and order" to do the right and just thing, following a strict code of ethics and order. To follow anarchy would require a paladin to give up his code of ethics and his sound laws and rules, i'd say no a paladin cant really be an anarchist, just seems to be opposite of what we generally think of a paladin doing. Now just base rules of course, always ways to modify the paladin but yea using core anyway.
Getting rid of lawful authority so that "the people" may create their own guidelines is about as chaotic good as it gets. It's pretty much un-lawful to the extreme.Lawful and chaotic is about more than just "having many laws" and "having less laws" though. It's also about collectivism vs individualism.
Oh, I know it's more then that, but I'm saying the goal of knocking down government for the sake of "the people" is chaotic good ;p. I vew chaotic good as the sorta 80's cyberpunk hero - he sees "the man" as this overreaching apathetic or anti-social entity, and his goal is to bring it crashing down so that the people can live again without being chained up. Motorcycle and dynamite come included.
Yes, a paladin can be an anarchist. How you ask? A paladin does NOT follow mortal laws, a paladin follows the laws of his god, a code of conduct he simply cannot break. THAT is what makes him lawful. Mortal law is not the same as holy law, therefore he doesn't have to abide by them, but most of the time he does because he is a good, law-abiding citizen.
Stick a paladin in an evil land where laws come in direct conflict with his god's word, then the paladin will work to undermine that authority, as he simply does not recognize them as a "true" authority. To abide by the evil country's laws would directly break his vows, so you have an instant "anarchist" who is LG.
That's not anarchy though. An anarchist would care if the land was evil or good. The paladin in an evil land would try to knock down that authority, yes, but he'd also try to replace it with a different, good aligned one.
I will agree that anarchy, especially ancap, tends to be a chaotic ideal. BUT!
Paladins aren't required to support all forms of lawful behavior, no more than a chaotic character is required to embody all forms of chaotic behavior. A chaotic character can be honest and loyal, both things we associate with law, without shifting from chaos.
Can't a paladin, then, embody most aspects of law in his own personal life, still maintain his code, and through totally lawful means (such as the adherence to a specific principle) arrive at a chaotic ideal to support?
Lawful Evil characters are lawful, but are usually individualistic; they attempt to subvert societal standards to their desires. Monks are lawful as well, and many monastic orders have nothing to do with politics - rather, their lawfulness is a function of their orderliness in their own life.
It should be noted that paladins lose their abilities for committing an evil act, but not a chaotic one. Also, if their alignment changes from lawful good. So if they remain lawful good, but commit a chaotic act, nothing happens to them.
The only tricky point is in their code, on two counts. One is the respect of legitimate authority, but if they don't see any authority (or any coerced authority) as legitimate, then that's not a problem. The other is that they must help those in need, unless that help serves a chaotic end.
In short: remain lawful good, don't do even occasional evil, and don't offer help that will ultimately be chaotic, and you can be an anarchist paladin. Only the third of these might be a problem.
The paladin in an evil land would try to knock down that authority, yes, but he'd also try to replace it with a different, good aligned one.
Why? Nothing in the paladin's description says he would constantly try to create authorities. If he knocks down the evil authority, and see the people living well on their own, being able to work together without hierarchies, he isn't in any way forced to implement them. In fact, if a paladin would force or try to manipulate in some kind of authority upon a peaceful, self-sustaining society where decisions are made on basis of consensus or direct democracy, I'd probably crown that one a fallen paladin in no time.
Greyhawk's halfling goddess Yondalla is lawful good, but she doesn't seem to uptight about strict hierarchies - in fact, greyhawk halflings seem to be the race that cares the least about authority (maybe matched by moon elves).
|
|
The paladin in an evil land would try to knock down that authority, yes, but he'd also try to replace it with a different, good aligned one.Why? Nothing in the paladin's description says he would constantly try to create authorities. If he knocks down the evil authority, and see the people living well on their own, being able to work together without hierarchies, he isn't in any way forced to implement them. In fact, if a paladin would force or try to manipulate in some kind of authority upon a peaceful, self-sustaining society where decisions are made on basis of consensus or direct democracy, I'd probably crown that one a fallen paladin in no time.
Greyhawk's halfling goddess Yondalla is lawful good, but she doesn't seem to uptight about strict hierarchies - in fact, greyhawk halflings seem to be the race that cares the least about authority (maybe matched by moon elves).
Actually, I never said that, that was the other guy...who was qouting me, so you probably typoed. We probably agree with eachother then, yes? If the paladin's code is what makes him lawful, and he technically only has to abide by his code to remain a paladin, then he could absolutely topple authorities and not care what happens after that as long as everything looks like the good guys will win.
And not every government is going to have rules that the paladin will like, but in Golarion, there are actually quite a few governments that a paladin could topple and still be lawful and good. Irrisen, Cheliax, whoever is currently running the show in Galt, I ran out of examples on the top of my head, oh Geb and Nex if they have rulers, etc.