|
TOZ,That code does make you lawful.
Only it doesn't. It may mean you have some lawful tendencies, but it doesn't make you a Lawful character.
I have a Soldier's Code, and I try to follow it, but I'm far from a Lawful character. If I decide I will adhere to a code of my own, but that code is lie, cheat, and steal from everyone I meet, I'm not Lawful. I've got the reliability part down, but I'm not trustworthy or obedient.
I have a Soldier's Code, and I try to follow it, but I'm far from a Lawful character. If I decide I will adhere to a code of my own, but that code is lie, cheat, and steal from everyone I meet, I'm not Lawful. I've got the reliability part down, but I'm not trustworthy or obedient.
And all your supernatural powers and abilities disappear the moment you violate that Code?
That's the difference.Anyhow, let's agree to disagree, folks. It's not like people can agree about Aligment in the first place :-)
|
|
And all your supernatural powers and abilities disappear the moment you violate that Code?
That's the difference.Anyhow, let's agree to disagree, folks. It's not like people can agree about Aligment in the first place :-)
My disagreement comes from the fact that a Neutral Good character can maintain that code just as well as a Lawful Good character.
I'm just here so studying for my Philosophy exam doesn't break my brain.
If you live by that code you will not stay NG but become LG as that code prettymuch is the embodiment of LG even if most LG folks can't live up to it
Not all Neutral characters perform lawful and chaotic acts. Some only peform neutral acts. Some perform more lawful acts than chaotic and vice versa. But the Paladin only falls if he commits an Evil act. Having a code doesn't make you Lawful.
There are very few neutral acts. Breathing and eating are two that come to mind. :D And I'm unsure about the falling. He falls for one evil act, but I would say he also falls if he breaks the other parts of his code often enough.
Also Navarion,none of the things your brought up are issues. Doing one or the other is not a problem. Leaving the village to face the orcs is not an evil act, he can warn them. Staying to help the villagers in place of going to fight the other thing is the more foolish act, but also not evil and neither violates the code
Who said that he knew beforehand of the orcs? I was talking about riding past the village while it is already under attack. So you either have to leave innocents to die instead of protecting them risk being too late to fight the greater evil.
It may bug your GM your screwing with his storyline but none of it effects his code or AL in the lest.
You only answered one out of three and misunderstood the situation there.
And AU never was official in any setting, not even eberron who were lax a bit on most AL but not paladins AL. AU was a optional rule book, full of options that were never supported by the company that made the book.So no they are not paladins.
Who cares about settings? The rules officially exist and are part of the SRD. You can deny it all you want but that won't change it.
By the way, if you say that only stuff in settings is legal.... There's a nice feat in a Forgotten Realms sourcebook that allows paladins to completely ignore their code of conduct as long as they stay lawful good. :D
Navarion I just saw the one will go back and look.
TOZ, sure any one or two of those things is fine, living by them all and your no longer NG but LG and as a paladin ya can't just ya know bend one of forget about it for a bit, NG could with no ill effect.
|
|
So Lawful Good consists of the people that tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, and follow tradition, while Neutral Good consists of people that only follow one or two of those ideas. And I suppose Chaotic Good consists of the people who follow their own ideas, resent authority, and don't keep their promises, while the people that only follow one or two of those ideas are also Neutral Good. So there are large groups of NG characters versus much smaller groups of LG ang CG characters.
Big problem is, this seems to be straightjacketing alignment, which it explicitly says not to do. You can follow the paladin's code without being LG. Even a CG character could. The paladins code is not incompatible with the other two Good alignments.
My CG elf could totally respect legitimate authority, because the people accepted that authority of their own free will. He could totally act with honor, because he wouldn't want someone to lie to him. And he is all about helping those in need and punishing evil-doer's. He doesn't follow the code because others tell him to. He follows it because it's the right thing to do. These rules are in alignment with his own moral compass.
I never said only LG people could do that, but if you live by that strict a code your Lawful like it or not. After all even most LG folks can't live by such a strict code. Anyhow Guess we'll have to disagree is all.
|
|
I never said only LG people could do that, but if you live by that strict a code your Lawful like it or not. After all even most LG folks can't live by such a strict code. Anyhow Guess we'll have to disagree is all.
Ah, there's the disconnect. Nowhere in the Lawful description does it say you follow a code. Thus, I do not consider following a code to be Lawful. And I do not find the Paladin's code to be 'strict'. It basically tells you to be a shining example of Good, which a Paladin would do anyway. Nothing Lawful about it.
So wait, you're not saying Neutral/Chaotic characters can't follow a code, but if you follow a code you must be Lawful? Doesn't that mean Neutral/Chaotic characters can't follow the code or they become Lawful? So Neutral/Chaotic characters can't follow a code?
|
I think it's funny that SoS keeps calling clerics (primary casters) holy warriors. Yeah, they can fight, but they will have lower ACs, lower attack rolls, less attacks, only simple weapons, and less hit points than any other standard warrior class. There is the Golarion swap-out to trade both domains for a full BAB and all martial weapons, but then you end up with a cleric with even less flavor than he did before (and clerics have very bland class features to start with).
Also, I think someone should pass a law that would make alignment discussions illegal, because no good ever comes from them.
I think it's funny that SoS keeps calling clerics (primary casters) holy warriors. Yeah, they can fight, but they will have lower ACs, lower attack rolls, less attacks, only simple weapons, and less hit points than any other standard warrior class. There is the Golarion swap-out to trade both domains for a full BAB and all martial weapons, but then you end up with a cleric with even less flavor than he did before (and clerics have very bland class features to start with).
Also, I think someone should pass a law that would make alignment discussions illegal, because no good ever comes from them.
Dude, clerics are awesome holy warriors. Full BAB doesn't automatically equate to "awesome warrior," just as medium BAB doesn't equate to "terrible warrior." Plus, Clerics can knock their BAB to max with a single spell, and then boost themselves up even more after that. Likewise they have many ways of boosting their AC or, far more wisely, getting other defensive measures.
|
|
Also, I think someone should pass a law that would make alignment discussions illegal, because no good ever comes from them.
Wrong, I've gotten a good afternoon of distraction out of them today. :) Now if only James would come back to the 'Declaring Cleave' thread.
Hot damn, ask and ye shall receive...
He can do all that, however, that's not the complete code of conduct. If you look at the whole thing you see that a lot of chaotic acts are forbidden.
There are precisely two forbidden Chaotic acts: lying and cheating.
That's it. That's the entirety of the anti-Chaos rules inherent to the Paladin class.
It's definitely false to state that "a lot of chaotic acts are forbidden", unless two is your definition of "a lot".
A neutral ... character ... alternates between lawful and chaotic acts because they don't mean anything to him
This makes my brain hurt because it's a direct and blatant contradiction of the rules as written. Neutral characters are quite aware of the difference between Law and Chaos or Good and Evil; they just don't have a preference for or bias towards one side or the other. They don't (necessarily) alternate between two extremes. That's called being "Stupid Neutral", and it's just as moronic an alignment as Lawful Stupid (it's also Lawful in and of itself, because you're rigidly adhering to a pattern, but that's beside the point).
Your common, everyday person is Neutral on the Law/Chaos (and Good/Evil, but that's irrelevant to the discussion) axis. They're aware of the law, and the laws definitely mean something to them (no one sane wants to get caught breaking the law), but they're still tempted to break the law when the opportunity presents itself and don't have any desire to enforce the law on others. Case in point: how many people here never speed? A truly Lawful person wouldn't. Note, however, that a Paladin's code does not prevent them from breaking the law. In fact, if it did, Paladins would be utterly useless in any country ruled by a legitimate tyrant (for example, the rightful sole heir to a monarchy, who just happens to be a Lawful Evil bastard that screws over his subjects entirely within the law).
A Paladin is still perfectly able to break some Law Eggs to make the Holy Omelet of Goodness. Heck, he's even allowed to use the Spicy Hot Sauce of Hell to do it as long as he gets an atonement afterwards.
Ergo, since a Paladin is not restricted in any way from breaking a law, and because a truly Lawful person would never break a law, the Paladin cannot be required to be a truly Lawful character (although it's certainly valid to be a truly Lawful Paladin).
All that is required is that you act honorably (which is as much about Good as it is about Law), respect legitimate authority (which is about as vague as can be), and remain LG. Since the first two elements are not precluded by a non-Lawful alignment, we therefore conclude that the only reason Paladins must be Lawful is that Paladins must be Lawful. In other words, the alignment restriction is the only thing keeping Paladins Lawful; they could fulfill their code just fine as a Neutral Good character or even as a Chaotic Good character with some effort.
Plus, Clerics can knock their BAB to max with a single spell
Not in Pathfinder, they can't.
Dude, clerics are awesome holy warriors. Full BAB doesn't automatically equate to "awesome warrior," just as medium BAB doesn't equate to "terrible warrior." Plus, Clerics can knock their BAB to max with a single spell, and then boost themselves up even more after that. Likewise they have many ways of boosting their AC or, far more wisely, getting other defensive measures.
Plus Inquisitors who basically have signifigantly better to-hit several times per day, and/or equal to-hit if they use their spells for that purpose... Their spell list containing such a number of great batman-y spells that there's plenty of other demands for their spell slots, of course. And Clerics' model was that of the Templars, i.e. holy warriors, not benedictine monks or guys in funny hats doing... never mind...
I never said only LG people could do that, but if you live by that strict a code your Lawful like it or not. After all even most LG folks can't live by such a strict code. Anyhow Guess we'll have to disagree is all.
The D&D class police have spoken.
|
I rather prefer this paladin's code.
That's a very good code for some paladins, I will definitely apply it to at least one appropriate god for my paladins. I'm a person who makes unique codes based on deities, secular choice, or order. Always setting it up with the player before the game.
All kinds of characters who are clearly "Chaotic" in fiction follow a code. Suggesting a NG character cannot follow a code seems like lunacy to me.
For example:
Obiwan Kenobi aids the rebel alliance - and is therefore not supporting the Law that Darth Vader and the Emperor represent, however, he follows a very strict code (probably stricter than the Paladin code).
Therefore he both MUST be lawful and MUST be chaotic if we are to assume that only Lawful characters can make Lawful actions, and only Chaotic characters can make Chaotic ones.
Such silliness has no place in a system that allows for complex motivations and personalities.
However, the Paladin is pretty simple. Good above everything else. The Paladin alignment restriction is LG, but the fluff is NG all the way.
Something important to keep in mind.
Most players who like paladins actually enjoy the fact that they're lawful good
Was there some poll that I was unaware of? There must have been, because there is no other way you could know that.
Weird, I could have sworn that most players think there are too many alignment restrictions on base classes...you'll have to link me to that poll.
Removing or lessening that restriction would be like saying dwarves are beardless and abhor alcohol.
I didn't realize it was also forbidden in the rules to make a non-stereotypical dwarf like that. Is that the direction that Pathfinder is taking? I hope not.
I'm certain that a beardless dwarf or an unrestricted alignment paladin could be popular, but I don't want to change things that annoy or aggravate the bigger fans of the class or race or whatever.
So they are not only more numerous, the are also "bigger" fans of the class? That was some poll you guys did.
Removing or lessening that restriction would be like saying dwarves are beardless and abhor alcohol.I didn't realize it was also forbidden in the rules to make a non-stereotypical dwarf like that. Is that the direction that Pathfinder is taking? I hope not.
Doesn't the iconic dwarf Ranger hate alcohol? Man, now I'm going to have to dig up the Meet the Iconics article on him...
Yep!
Harsk, like many of his kind, is gruff and taciturn, but there ends most of his connection to dwarven society. Something of a loner, he prefers to spend his time outdoors, communing with nature, though he occasionally travels alongside others whose goals match his own. Uninterested in the beer and ale that so characterize dwarves in the minds of human society, Harsk instead drinks pot after pot of strong tea to keep his senses sharp. While he never lets his brother's axe out of his sight, he wields it only as a last resort, knowing that his true skills lie in the hunt and striking from darkness.
He's not beardless, but he does have a fairly short beard, for a dwarf.
EDIT: I suppose that's not "hating alcohol", but it's close enough for my amusement. To be clear, James, I don't mean anything by this except illustrating an amusing coincidence. I'm not trying to make any particular point, really.
I think James meant The race as a whole. If most if not all Dwarf's where like that folks would be upset
I mean not all paladins act the same way even if all must be LG, they are not robots or clones after all do all NG rangers act the same?
I think James meant The race as a whole. If most if not all Dwarf's where like that folks would be upset
And Treantmonk's point, if I'm reading him right, is that forcing all Paladins to be LG despite nothing in their Code requiring the L part is no different than forcing all Dwarves to have beards and love alcohol, even though you can certainly come up with a viable dwarf character who is beardless and doesn't drink spirits.
I don't see it anywhere near the same. One is a race of people, the other is a class.
Kinda like saying "Why should my fighter have to use weapons when his human can be bald! "
As has been pointed out that code is more or less the embodiment of LG, where your dwarf just had a shave.
As has been pointed out that code is more or less the embodiment of LG
As has been pointed out before, that code is more or less the embodiment of Good, with no real ties to Lawful. Even James Jacobs said the Paladin focuses much more on Good than Law.
I disagree, If ya look at the code it is where the LG AL came from, It may even predates it. And following such a strict code is a Lawful act.
Anyhow we are not gonna agree on it and yall have the official stance and reasoning, ya might not like it , but there it is.
|
I disagree, If ya look at the code it is where the LG AL came from, It may even predates it. And following such a strict code is a Lawful act.
Anyhow we are not gonna agree on it and yall have the official stance and reasoning, ya might not like it , but there it is.
Or a neutral act because you don't have any other code to follow.
I think James meant The race as a whole. If most if not all Dwarf's where like that folks would be upsetAnd Treantmonk's point, if I'm reading him right, is that forcing all Paladins to be LG despite nothing in their Code requiring the L part is no different than forcing all Dwarves to have beards and love alcohol, even though you can certainly come up with a viable dwarf character who is beardless and doesn't drink spirits.
That was my point, which I think is doubly valid after James Jacobs made the analogy of not forcing Paladins to be LG was like having non-bearded, alcohol abhorring dwarves (which is allowed in the rules - and I haven't seen the game fall apart because of that allowance).
The big problem being that Lawful and Chaotic have nothing that sets them against each other. There are no diametric opposites like Good and Evils 'do not harm/cause harm'. They have some flimsy statement about to follow or not follow the rules, but in practice it's no different.
It isn't true that there aren't any diametrically opposed principles on the Law/Chaos axis. It is true that those principles are somewhat more philosophical and nebulous than the ones on the Good/Evil axis.
Honestly, the best treatise on the alignments of Law and Chaos I have personally seen (note: I have not read the Elric books, which I understand have more to do with L/C than G/E) is Babylon 5. The Elder Races are perfect embodiments of Lawful Neutral (the Vorlons) and Chaotic Neutral (the Shadows).
The Vorlons promoted order, treaties, unity, and so forth.
The Shadows promoted competition, change, evolution, war, and so forth.
As a matter of fact, both races had the exact same goal: to usher the "younger races" into enlightenment. They just had diametrically (and violently) opposed viewpoints on how that was to be done. Neither side was really evil, although they both did some really nasty things (as did every single major race, if not quite on the scale of the Vorlon Planet Killer, etc), nor was either side good.
The problem here is that "order vs change" isn't something that's as easy to define and categorize as "kill vs not kill". Which actually makes sense, if you think about it, because Chaos is against categorization and definition. It's no mistake that Chaos is almost always referred to as formless or without shape. Chaos thrives on change; Law thrives on immutability.
Damn you Zurai I must now say it.......
"Who are you?"
"Who are you?"
I'm Batman.
Ah, yes, the Vorlon Question, as opposed to the Shadow Question:
"What do you want?"
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave, like this. Can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"
:P
Probably my favorite scene and payoff in the entire series.
Yes, that is a great one, truly one of the best sci-fi shows ever if ya ask me. I really need to watch that one again, been awhile and it's getting fuzzy.
Ya know one of my favs is Londo fighting the bug in his suite, and the one when he takes Lennier gambling
If ya have never watched it, I highly recommend you do so.
NG would bend his code if he needed to, He wouldn't care if he bent a law here or there, he would not care if he broke an order {even just ones} now and then
Simply put NG is not a paladin. As a paladin does not compromise, does not brake a rule here and there just because it's easier to...
Just because you are NG doesn't mean you can not have a code or even if you are CG. These would be the reasons why an atonement spell would be needed. So a CG paladin might try to bend his code a little bit here and there. They had to add to a paladins code that he could work with evil people if it were for the greater good just so a LG paladin could actualy be viable in games half the time and if that isn't bending your code from 3.5 I don't know what would be.
Paladins are human (or elvan or whatever) like everyone else and I just believe, in my games at least, letting a paladin play a different alignment would let this holy knight of justice seem a little more realistic and human.
Also I believe that if a LG paladin needed to he would break his code to save the world, a town, another life because a paladin is selfless incarnate and losing his powers for a while is nothing to saving a life.
Creative Director
|
As has been pointed out that code is more or less the embodiment of LGAs has been pointed out before, that code is more or less the embodiment of Good, with no real ties to Lawful. Even James Jacobs said the Paladin focuses much more on Good than Law.
Yet it's worth remembering that even James Jacobs thinks paladins should be lawful good and not any other alignment. ;-P
|
I rather prefer this paladin's code.
Your example code is the epitome of Lawful tied to good.
Three things:
1) That code is Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative. It 100% lawful to the extreme. In fact, it is a form of deontological ethics, which actually means ethics of duty or obligation (both lawful ideals). A non-lawful being would be more tied towards teleological or end-purpose ethics. Chaotic would be more of a benevolent relativism.
Traditional example: A murderer comes to your door and asks if Josh is in your house. You know that he is. You also know that this murderer explicitly kills all guys name Josh. Is it ok to lie to save Josh's life?
Kant (and St. Augustine): No. It would never be appropriate to lie, as I could not will that everybody at all times be able to lie, as then trust would never exist and lies would never work, nor would truth. I need to find another to solve this. (Augustine would say, "I saw him not long ago, nearby. You can find him if you hurry.)
Teleologist: The end (saving an innocent man's life) is a a greater inherent good than the means is an inherent evil(the lie), and thus lying is completely acceptable.
Another, more brief example is the idea of sacrificing few for many. If you had to kill 1000 people to save 1 million, would you? How about 100? 10? What if killing one person could save 1 million people. LG says, "No, not even one person is an option." NG and CG would say, "While I despise it, if killing 1 saves a million... saving a million is the greater good."
2) I totally agree with you on calling them something different and then it being cool. I'm all for a Champion of Freedom or an Tyrannical Overlord as "paladin" variants. All I want is to keep the name associated with LG.
3) I think that one thing we forget is this: Who is the "Holy Champion" of the god of magic? A wizard. Who for a god of mischief and secrets? A rogue. Who for nature? The druid. For a god of war? Barbarians or fighters. For a god of good and order? A paladin. Many of the gods different gods have many different niches for their "thing." A paladin based class does not fit for all of them. A lot of these gods just don't blend with the concept of paladin, even if the alignment restriction were lifted. Why on earth would you have a paladin of magic? The embodiment of magic is a wizard (or sorcerer). Clerics end up being a generalist class, as they can fit in with almost any deity. Many LG gods don't even quite fit.
Erastil: Ranger
Iomedae: Paladin
Torag: Any good class with healing or craft
Sarenrae: Inquisitor
Shelyn: Bard
Desna: Oracle or rogue
Cayden: any good fighter
Abadar: perhaps a paladin (one step)
Iori: the monk or maybe even the wizard
Gozreh: Druid
Pharasma: Oracle
Nethys: Wizard or Sorcerer
Gorum: barbarian or fighter
Calistra: Rogue
Asmodeus: power-hungry arcanist
Zon-Kuthon: Necromantic magic user
Urgathoa: Necromantic magic user
Norgorber: any evil
Lamashtu: any evil
Rovagug: barbarian
That was lengthy. I hope it was half coherent.
Another, more brief example is the idea of sacrificing few for many. If you had to kill 1000 people to save 1 million, would you? How about 100? 10? What if killing one person could save 1 million people. LG says, "No, not even one person is an option." NG and CG would say, "While I despise it, if killing 1 saves a million... saving a million is the greater good."
I really don't see what Law and Chaos has to do with killing someone to save the many. I don't think that someone who is NG would make that choice just because they are NG and the same can be said about CG. Either may try to save everyone and die trying and maybe a million people will die. I am assuming this is an innocent person you are talking about and not the threat itself in which case and good aligned person would be ok will killing the bad guy trying to kill 1 million people. CG people don't don't acts of evil any more often than LG people and killing an innocent is an evil act.
That makes Jedi categorically Lawful. But they are always fighting the ruling government of the universe. FUUUUUUUUUUUU-
Paladin in Pathfinder will never be anything but LG because Pathfinder is increasingly obviously an attempt to update 1E and 2E with 3.x d20 rules.
Screw you guys, I'm going to go play an Elf.
Something's off when that Kantian paladin code explicitly stating that only intention matters and not consequence. Case in point: Miko from OotS.
|
|
I rather prefer this paladin's code.Your example code is the epitome of Lawful tied to good.
Thank you for helping me review for my Philosophy exam this morning. :)
If we're going to require a Paladin be Lawful because of his code, let's make the CODE Lawful, okay?
LG and LN are not the same thing. LG does not mean MUST FOLLOW EVERY LAW EVER. No it means he sticks to his code without bending, without braking his code.
+50. Thank you, was going to make the point myself, because I'm *soo* sick of hearing that argument. Lawful doesn't mean "follows every law that's written for the place he's in", or else paladins raiding the LE Hells would be in violation.
|
Neither does Lawful Neutral. True Lawful sticks to the general code of the land or their leader. Lawful Good does it in a Pansy goody-two-shoes way, often thinking their interpretation of right and wrong is more important than the laws set down by their ruler.
Ask any Chelaxian, as long as you follow the laws of the Pathfinder Society and the great lord Asmodeus unquestionably, life will be good for you.