|
Civilized actually is a large part of lawful. Perhaps it has been awhile since you looked at the more recent descriptions, and are still thinking of the Greyhawk days.
"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmental, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."
"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
Civilized actually is a large part of lawful. Perhaps it has been awhile since you looked at the more recent descriptions, and are still thinking of the Greyhawk days.
"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmental, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."
"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
Are you joking? Nothing you quoted has anything to do with civilization or being civilized. In both cases it mentions lawful and chaotic for their benefits to society. Neither say anything about civilized. You could have a Paladin wandering around in a Loincloth and wielding a +5 holy dinosaur bone just as easily as you can have a Barbarian who owns lands, wears fine clothes, and votes. And it's damn easy to do so because being Civilized has absolutely nothing to do with alignment.
|
|
This thread is moving too fast for me to make an extended response, but here's some quick comments:
1) While classes are presented with built-in flavour in order to provide context and inspiration, it is limiting to player creativity to assume that this built-in flavour must always be followed.
And again, I ask how saying a Warforged is out of setting is good flavor, but saying a class actually has an ingrained flavor is bad.
The fact you don't like the flavor of the classes doesn't mean they aren't part of the rule set. That is why you can house rule.
And it doesn't mean archetypes can't exist to mitigate the penalties in the flavor in exchange for alternative option.
But when you reach a point that the mechanics become the class, which is at least one posters stated goal, you are altering the setting.
The tea sipping barbarian and the Paladin of Rovagug are cute in concept and will work in games that veer toward the absurd, but such extremes should never be the target of design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
Civilized actually is a large part of lawful. Perhaps it has been awhile since you looked at the more recent descriptions, and are still thinking of the Greyhawk days.
"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmental, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."
"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
Are you joking? Nothing you quoted has anything to do with civilization or being civilized. In both cases it mentions lawful and chaotic for their benefits to society. Neither say anything about civilized. You could have a Paladin wandering around in a Loincloth and wielding a +5 holy dinosaur bone just as easily as you can have a Barbarian who owns lands, wears fine clothes, and votes. And it's damn easy to do so because being Civilized has absolutely nothing to do with alignment.
Did you miss the words "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability?" or just ignore them?
Does resentment toward legitimate authority denote owning lands, wearing fine clothes and voting in your mind?
We get it, you don't like being told what the flavor of a class is. But guess what, it is literally the first paragraph. And that wasn't by accident, it was for a reason.
It was so a "Paladin wandering around in a Loincloth and wielding a +5 holy dinosaur bone" isn't the default concept and a "Barbarian who owns lands, wears fine clothes, and votes." isn't the default concept.
Because those things are counter to the concept of the class. In the case of a Paladin it is anathema to the concept of the class to not adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. That act is why they are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful.
You don't value the flavor when you don't agree with it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean it doesn't inform the mechanics of the class. That doesn't mean it should be hand waved away so you don't have to actually come up with a way to color within the lines.
I wasn't planning to rejoin this conversation but it turned in a direction that I happen to have a relevant story for so...what the hell. The story is long so I'll just sprinkle a little spoiler on it.
The last paladin that I played not only did not identify as paladin but when confronted with another character in the class he was confused. He had no idea what the Code was. He was just an upstanding guy whose mother was a priestess and whose father was a barrister and who had a harsh upbringing. When he was young his father forced him into the military to serve as all the males in his family had done at some point in their lives.
He did identify himself as all sorts of things. As a warrior, soldier, knight, noblemen, scholar, etc. His title was Conciliator, Judge of Assize and later in the campaign Exarch. He identified himself by his position more than "paladin" (he thought it was arrogant to call yourself a paladin unless granted the titled).
He resented his father for his strict upbringing and felt he had been robbed of his childhood and had been indoctrinated into an abusive and forceful, unforgiving worldview (which I modeled off the Song of Roland). When the "paladin" NPC tried to teach him about the code he resented that too for its similarity to his fathers worldview. He actually thought that the NPC paladin was a self-righteous ass hat. He hated his intrusive preaching and felt it was hypocritical to his code to be so arrogant and proud. When we entered a town and the paladin and my character were both greeted as heroes, I asked to not be given special treatment and chastised the NPC for using his orders reputation to gain undeserved trust and favor among the people who had no agreement or reason to do so. When approached by a young man who wanted to be my squire I respectfully asked that he not give trust, honor, or glory to anything but men who have earned it and deserve it from you personally. I declined his offer because I felt he was giving me unearned respect and admiration.
My characters best friend in the campaign was the bear warrior barbarian (this was all in 3.5). The barbarian believed in family and honor and had a great amount of pride without being arrogant (which was foreign to my paladin). One day, the barbarian chopped off the head of a man on his knees. Not just any man, but a man from his own tribe who was not even his enemy. I could have taken the self-righteous route and brought down righteous wrath for something that I (and the DM) viewed as evil, but instead, knowing that he came from a very different culture than mine and knowing that he was a very honorable person at heart, I tried to explain to him why what he had done was wrong. I was willing to forgive him for what he'd done but I wanted him to never do it again. However, the conversation blew my paladin's mind (and changed the DM's mind about it being evil too).
The barbarian had explained that the man he killed was a warrior from his tribe and a good friend of his and that he did not want to disrespect him by giving him anything less than a warriors death and that he would not want anything less to happen to him. My character had never even considered the possibility that some people might PREFER death. Of course there were those that were suicidal and death might be preferred over torture. But that a person might prefer death as a consequence had never crossed my characters mind. And that they might have a specific preference for how they die. But it seemed logical once he had given it some thought. After all, there were so many ways that people DIDN'T want to die (my pali wasn't to fond of the idea of drowning in acid after a close call with an ooze). The idea that not killing them might even be robbing them of a choice they had made was brand new. In the future, when the barbarian killed people who were trying to kill us, I role-played my character as being very conflicted about it. He could never bring himself to kill anyone he didn't think truly deserved it (which was rare) but the barbarian never killed anyone (or anything) that hadn't attacked him first and been a worthy opponent. My pali just wasn't sure that the barbarian was doing anything wrong.
So I'm honestly interested in hearing what you have to say about my paladin Ciretose. He did not identify as being a paladin and was not proud to be one, he hated the paladins Code, he didn't like when people treated him differently because of a prestige that he hadn't earned individually (and thus hated the idea of paladins being trusted or treated special just because of the reputation of others), he was accepting of conflicting views and offered forgiveness to people who had done things that he would not do himself, did nothing to prevent actions which he was morally unsure of and even became best friends with the person committing the actions. How does my character fit the trope? Or does he? And Why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The crux of the current discussion seems to be this: Do classes have inbuilt flavor that cannot be separated from the class? And looking at examples of both pathfinder and 3.5 classes, there seem to be arguments for both sides.
Both Warforged and Gunslinger are classes where it's nearly impossible to separate the flavor. You either have guns in your setting or you don't. You either have robot people from different eras of time or you don't. I recently came across the 3.5 PrC Malconvoker, which is mechanically bent towards a specific flavor (summoning demons). Then again, PrC’s may be a different animal in the flavor debate. That’s probably a separate question.
On the other hand, the Pathfinder class archetypes (mechanical, not social) do a pretty good job of providing alternate versions of the ‘classic’ images for those classes. We have bards that don’t play music, drunken fighting monks (seem pretty chaotic), and a number of other examples that go against what is normally accepted. Additionally, we have the slow removal of restrictions on traditional classes over time.
Honestly, I don't think the developers themselves are united on this one.
It occurs to me that "Archetype" was a poor choice for the name of Paizo's alternate class features. It always seems to cause confusion.
It's an awesome concept, and I love the flavor. I would have loved to game with that character. But it's also a concept that had to be house-ruled into existence. And I know that at my table at least, you wouldn't have been able to do it.
Paladins have to live by the Paladin Code. At some point, they have to swear an Oath. (I think? Not sure the Oath is RAW, actually. The Code is, though.) It's really cool to have someone who, because of his background, incidentally has a Paladin's moral standards. You could have rocked that idea at my table using a Fighter. But I don't see a 'traditionalist Paladin' GM who goes only by RAW letting it happen, because Paladin's also have magic. Were I a GM, my biggest question would be 'when did you start getting your Holy powers and why? What event transpired to push you over the line from LG Fighter to Holy Champion?'
The key for me would be a moment in your character's backs-tory where he made a promise (Oath) to Something, and then suddenly found himself to be a little more than human. Were I your GM, I'd work with you to build that in, and play up the 'accidental Champion who has a God fondly looking over him' angle. But the Oath would be critical for me, and it doesn't sound like your character made one.
Still... rockin concept.
|
It was so a "Paladin wandering around in a Loincloth and wielding a +5 holy dinosaur bone" isn't the default concept and a "Barbarian who owns lands, wears fine clothes, and votes." isn't the default concept.
But neither are against the concept. Because how you dress and what you own has little to do with your alignment.
|
|
I wasn't planning to rejoin this conversation but it turned in a direction that I happen to have a relevant story for so...what the hell. The story is long so I'll just sprinkle a little spoiler on it.
** spoiler omitted **...
If I were your GM, and this were a Golarion-like setting, I would say to you something like this.
"You seem to be going in a resentful of authority with daddy issues kind of direction, why are you thinking Paladin with that concept, because it doesn't seem to fit?"
And then I would wait for your reply. Because although to me what you described sounds nothing like a Paladin, I'd want to hear out your argument first because it does sound like an interesting character.
If your answer was "Because I like the mechanics" I would probably say it sounds more like an inquisitor, and that I am not comfortable with a Paladin who resents authority figures.
|
|
It was so a "Paladin wandering around in a Loincloth and wielding a +5 holy dinosaur bone" isn't the default concept and a "Barbarian who owns lands, wears fine clothes, and votes." isn't the default concept.But neither are against the concept. Because how you dress and what you own has little to do with your alignment.
Depends on the setting, actually.
Which is the point.
Did you miss the words "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability?" or just ignore them?
You're asking if I'm ignoring something that already isn't there? Where do you see "civilized" in that list of words? I'm legitimately curious. Because civilized is not in there. At all. Period. Those are all things divorced from civilization or civilized. Except perhaps obedience to authority but that requires you to extend into a much narrower description of civilized full of ifs.
Maybe before continuing this argument you should educate yourself on your own argument first. Because civilization has nothing to do with alignment or Paladins for that matter.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
Adding to this, and clarifying what I said, if you had a plan that would make you into a Paladin, with this as your backstory, I would have no issue with it.
What I am bothered by, and what seems to be a goal for some, is when you have a concept that is completely playable, but you don't like that you can't have the mechanics exactly how you want for the concept.
What you described is a perfect concept for an inquisitor, a cleric, or even a multi-class. It is to me, incredibly lazy to just try to plug a concept into a class, regardless of if it makes sense for the concept of the class.
It's like saying I want to be an illiterate wizard, and not understanding why others think that is a stupid idea.
Did you miss the words "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability?" or just ignore them?You're asking if I'm ignoring something that already isn't there? Where do you see "civilized" in that list of words? I'm legitimately curious. Because civilized is not in there. At all. Period. Those are all things divorced from civilization or civilized. Except perhaps obedience to authority but that requires you to extend into a much narrower description of civilized full of ifs.
Maybe before continuing this argument you should educate yourself on your own argument first. Because civilization has nothing to do with alignment or Paladins for that matter.
On a side note, looking at our conversations objectively, this is how I see it playing out.
Guy #1: "Something about trees and alignment."
Guy #2: "But trees have nothing to do with alignment and alignment doesn't mention trees."
Guy #1: "Stop ignoring the trees! Your argument sucks!"
Guy #2: "Where are you getting this tree stuff?"
Guy #1: "Strawman and goalposts! I called it!"
Maybe we can skip ahead a few chapters.
|
|
Did you miss the words "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability?" or just ignore them?You're asking if I'm ignoring something that already isn't there? Where do you see "civilized" in that list of words? I'm legitimately curious. Because civilized is not in there. At all. Period. Those are all things divorced from civilization or civilized. Except perhaps obedience to authority but that requires you to extend into a much narrower description of civilized full of ifs.
Maybe before continuing this argument you should educate yourself on your own argument first. Because civilization has nothing to do with alignment or Paladins for that matter.
Are you really unable to see the connection between the description for lawful and civilized behavior?
Again
"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmental, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."
That is kind of impressive in a way.
But then again, it wouldn't matter to you regardless, because to you, and I quote "A class is nothing more than a mechanical building block for describing a character"
Any attempt to establish a foundation for the class concept would be wrong, since it only exists as a mechanical framework. The two descriptive paragraphs were only put first to get them out of the way...
|
|
Did you miss the words "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability?" or just ignore them?You're asking if I'm ignoring something that already isn't there? Where do you see "civilized" in that list of words? I'm legitimately curious. Because civilized is not in there. At all. Period. Those are all things divorced from civilization or civilized. Except perhaps obedience to authority but that requires you to extend into a much narrower description of civilized full of ifs.
Maybe before continuing this argument you should educate yourself on your own argument first. Because civilization has nothing to do with alignment or Paladins for that matter.
On a side note, looking at our conversations objectively, this is how I see it playing out.
Guy #1: "Something about trees and alignment."
Guy #2: "But trees have nothing to do with alignment and alignment doesn't mention trees."
Guy #1: "Stop ignoring the trees! Your argument sucks!"
Guy #2: "Where are you getting this tree stuff?"
Guy #1: "Strawman and goalposts! I called it!"Maybe we can skip ahead a few chapters.
You decided to join a thread I started and derail it from the OP, not me. You are welcome to move on to derailing someone else's thread or starting your own. I've shown you the courtesy of avoiding your threads for months now, if you haven't noticed.
** spoiler omitted **
I read WPharolin's post. I don't actually see how he did anything against RAW. RAW doesn't say you must like a Paladin's code, but it does appear that he followed it perhaps out of habitual training. His Paladin didn't commit any evils I saw during the story. His Paladin actually seemed more humble and pious than most Paladins (and a heck of a lot less self-righteous).
All in all, it looked to me like WPharolin made a pretty good case that a Paladin can look more like this: Merciful Knight.
And less like this: God Warrior.
Still... rockin concept.
Thanks. I appreciate the feedback too.
|
|
Is this like polyester being forbidden?Depends on the setting, actually.
Which is the point.
If you are going to a bonfire, it is probably a good idea.
To simplify how I feel my view varies from my favorite person over them...
A wild GM appears! They are excited because they have an idea and they say "Hey guys, I'm willing to invest a ton of time running a game if you'll let me, here is the concept, I have one slot left are you interested?!?!?!"
I listen to the concept, think about if I will have fun with this GM and this concept, and then try to come up with something that fits into the game and the concept, run it by the GM, get input and make improvements based on suggestions until we both come up with something we think will be awesome and fun to play, and then I work hard to try to make the game fun for everyone!"
And the other person says "F your concept, F the way the world is intended, I have a superawesomebadass idea about this trope that I could totally play using another class, but that I am going to shoehorn into this class because I want the benefits of the mechanics, and if you make me have to play the classes restrictions, you are cruel."
If you are the GM, who are you picking.
Are you really unable to see the connection between the description for lawful and civilized behavior?Yep.
The same things he quoted past the aspects of law, such as reactionary adherence to tradition, is also a mark against civilization. Being civilized often means being advanced which requires once to break from traditions. Reactionary adherence to tradition is trait that is actually one of the most stifling to both civility and civilization.
It is a cool concept. I just don't see why it is a Paladin rather than an inquisitor or something else.Thanks. I appreciate the feedback too.
Still... rockin concept.
I call BS.
I feel I have accomplished something.
(^_____^)
|
|
The same things he quoted past the aspects of law, such as reactionary adherence to tradition, is also a mark against civilization. Being civilized often means being advanced which requires once to break from traditions. Reactionary adherence to tradition is trait that is actually one of the most stifling to both civility and civilization.Are you really unable to see the connection between the description for lawful and civilized behavior?Yep.
Are you actually now trying to argue that adherence to tradition is "uncivilized" behavior.
Hold up a picture of Isabella Locke to a bunch of people who have never played Skull & Shackles
Ask them what class she is
She looks like a Pirate!
(Which means she could be an Adept, Aristocrat, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Inquisitor, Monk, Ninja, Ranger, Rogue, Paladin, Sorcerer, Warrior, Witch, or Wizard)
hi5 Ashiel I think this is like the first time we are like on the same side of a point of contention
|
|
Well, I guess it's just another facet of the 'lawful does/doesn't mean following laws' chestnut.I call BS.Are you really unable to see the connection between the description for lawful and civilized behavior?Yep.
Serious attempt at discussion on this top, since I actually value your opinion and observations, even if you are the only person to have both Ashy and I listed as possibly drinking buddies. Are you disagreeing that Lawful behavior could be considered reasonably synonymous with a descriptive of "Civilized" behavior (as defined by the norms and expectations of each society) or are you just agreeing that Ashiel doesn't have to have complete cognitive dissonance to not see a connection between the two.
Because reading the description of Lawful and Chaotic and considering the descriptions of the Paladin and Barbarian, it seems very clear to me that the intent was for Lawful behavior to represent the pull toward "civilized" behavior with tradition, rules and order. As written "Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."
While Chaotic leans toward the more libertarian conception, as written "Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
And while I will admit one could spend hours debating the nuances, the conceptions inherent in each aren't fuzzy in the least.
A Paladin is the Paragon of Lawful behavior, following a code regardless of reason because of a belief that he is a part of something larger and that if everyone lives righteously, all will be better.
Conversely, although to a far lesser extend since it is a libertarian conceit and therefore resistant to classification, the Barbarian represents someone who doesn't conform to the rules and rituals of "civilized" behavior for humanity as a whole, but rather is...well...barbaric...in that they are full of rage.
I believe calling a "rage" mechanic lawful is silly.
I believe calling a class that literally receives power because they "adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline" chaotic is silly.
If you want to allow these things into your setting, you are saying "I am ignoring the flavor of the classes, they have no meaning in the setting other than a framework for mechanics."
That isn't a rule set I am interested in playing. I want the mechanics to be written to enhance the flavor of the class, and I view that as a positive.
|
|
Hold up a picture of Isabella Locke to a bunch of people who have never played Skull & Shackles
Ask them what class she is
She looks like a Pirate!
(Which means she could be an Adept, Aristocrat, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Inquisitor, Monk, Ninja, Ranger, Rogue, Paladin, Sorcerer, Warrior, Witch, or Wizard)
hi5 Ashiel I think this is like the first time we are like on the same side of a point of contention
But again, back to the point that has been a bit obscured. If she were a Paladin (I don't know one way or the other) she would identify herself as one with pride. And conveying that to a group would have meaning, specifically that as a Paladin, this person embodies the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve and follows a moral code.
This person, by definition of who they are, can be trusted.
Unless you throw the whole concept thing out the window, in which case it's just mechanics.
If I were your GM, and this were a Golarion-like setting, I would say to you something like this."You seem to be going in a resentful of authority with daddy issues kind of direction, why are you thinking Paladin with that concept, because it doesn't seem to fit?"
And then I would wait for your reply. Because although to me what you described sounds nothing like a Paladin, I'd want to hear out your argument first because it does sound like an interesting character.
If your answer was "Because I like the mechanics" I would probably say it sounds more like an inquisitor, and that I am not comfortable with a Paladin who resents authority figures.
I want to clarify that He was not at all resentful of authority. He served in the military (and enjoyed it despite not originally wanting to go) and eventually became a member of the courts and a politician (Conciliator, Judge of Assize, Exarch). He served his nation for 20 years before becoming an adventurer and continued to serve afterward.
As for the Daddy issues, I think I should clarify that while he did have some they were mostly minor and his major problem was with certain social issues. I want to be absolutely clear that he didn't hate society, he hated a certain viewpoint. And of course you would expect a paladin to speak out against social injustice wouldn't you? My character was interested in bringing about social change that would see society thinking more about being tolerant and forgiving. The way he went about doing this was not by force or by preaching, but by educating the public (he funded schools and made an effort to keep them from being biased. My character believed that people who were educated would come to the same conclusion on their own) and also leading by example.
Yes, I played him because of the mechanics. Because the mechanics fit the concept better than a multi-classed cleric/fighter. Or a knight. Or anything else. The paladin class performed the actions that I wanted him to be doing. It had exactly the right mix of divine casting and melee ability and more importantly...more than anything else that it had, it had the paladin's mount. The hippogriff was the symbol of his nation and an important part of his heritage (just because there were aspects of his homeland he didn't like didn't mean he didn't love it and have pride in it) and I took that as my mount.
|
|
At this point I would want to discuss with you what your defined ideals were, particularly in relation to your God of choice and work out your code.
Then I'd be fine with it as long as we can have a framework on the code.
EDIT: To be clear, the original description emphasized areas of antagonism, once I saw that the character has a clear sense of duty and honor, I was fine with it. The rest is just details.
Hold up a picture of Isabella Locke to a bunch of people who have never played Skull & Shackles
Ask them what class she is
She looks like a Pirate!
(Which means she could be an Adept, Aristocrat, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Inquisitor, Monk, Ninja, Ranger, Rogue, Paladin, Sorcerer, Warrior, Witch, or Wizard)
hi5 Ashiel I think this is like the first time we are like on the same side of a point of contention
Indeed. It is a wonderful feeling. I raise my keyboard and my mug (okay it's a refilled bottle of water) in your honor good sir. :D
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you disagreeing that Lawful behavior could be considered reasonably synonymous with a descriptive of "Civilized" behavior (as defined by the norms and expectations of each society) or are you just agreeing that Ashiel doesn't have to have complete cognitive dissonance to not see a connection between the two.
I do not disagree that Lawful characters are more inclined to be a part of a 'civilized' culture.
Where I disagree is that Chaotic characters can be just as civilized, and that Lawful characters can be completely uncivilized. They merely do so in differing ways.
It may also be an issue with our definition of 'civilized'. Were the native Americans 'civilized'? Lawful or Chaotic?
If my savage barbarian never speaks false, never abandons his comrades, and honors the great spirits, is he uncivilized? Can he not gain the protection of those spirits, or must he draw his strength from within?
Your level of civilization informs, but does not mandate your alignment.
To bring some definitions into the mix:
civ·i·lized [siv-uh-lahyzd] Show IPA
adjective
1.having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2.polite; well-bred; refined.
3.of or pertaining to civilized people: The civilized world must fight ignorance.
4.easy to manage or control; well organized or ordered: The car is quiet and civilized, even in sharp turns.
Synonymous comparisons
Respecting authority - politeReliability/obedience - easily controlled, ordered
hu·mane [hyoo-meyn or, often, yoo-] Show IPA
adjective
1.characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed: humane treatment of horses.
2.of or pertaining to humanistic studies.
From the good alignment: respecting life - humane
From the code: protecting innocents - sympathy for suffering peopleI see nothing wrong with ciretose's conclusion.
At this point I would want to discuss with you what your defined ideals were, particularly in relation to your God of choice and work out your code.
Then I'd be fine with it as long as we can have a framework on the code.
So as long as there IS a code and you see it as being something that would be lawful good? Am I understanding you correctly?
I read WPharolin's post. I don't actually see how he did anything against RAW. RAW doesn't say you must like a Paladin's code, but it does appear that he followed it perhaps out of habitual training. His Paladin didn't commit any evils I saw during the story. His Paladin actually seemed more humble and pious than most Paladins (and a heck of a lot less self-righteous).
Oh, no question about the humble and pious part! If anything, that was the part I liked the most about the character. He's being more of a Paladin by accident than the guys who actually trained/were selected for the position are being. Not that he'd ever admit it, because that would be un-Paladin behavior. :D
But for me at least, that's the crux of it: the history of the character feels a little too much like he got there by accident. I could totally see him inheriting his positions that way. Also, the character's reaction to the public's perception of himself has a lot of comedic charm. "No, no! I'm not a Paladin. I'm just a humble servant doing my imperfect best to defend the weak, heal the sick, give to the poor, and protect the defenseless. You know... what everyone should be doing." In fact, I could see a crowd nodding solemly and silently deciding that he was right: They couldn't call him a Paladin because he was better than that. Then an entirely new order of "Servant Paladins" springs up and eventually overthrows the original order. And all this time, WPharolin's character doesn't even notice because he's too busy being a Defender of Righteousness and Justice to care. As a GM, I'd love it.
Getting back to my point: there are lot of Paladin-esque things the character could do accidentally. But when it comes to gaining magic, I feel that it would take a deliberate acceptance. For me, that'd be swearing an Oath to live by a Code. If you could role-play out a moment where the character solemnly swears to act a certain way while alone in a field some dark night, that'd be fine. He wouldn't even have to know that he's swearing to live by the same (or very similar) Code as an order of holy champions. But he would have to
1. Live by a Code.
2. Deliberately acknowledge that he's going to do so.
It could be done in private. It could be done without the character realizing the full impact of what he was doing. It could be done incidentally- in complete disregard for whoever else might be making similar vows. But it would have be deliberate enough to set the tone for the rest of the character's life.
If WPharolin can say his character did that, then I say that RAW says he's a Paladin. But as a GM, I'd need a reasonable explanation of why this morally upright Lawful Good warrior has holy powers. I'd work with you to get it, but that'd be the dividing line between Paladin and LG Fighter for me.
|
|
Are you disagreeing that Lawful behavior could be considered reasonably synonymous with a descriptive of "Civilized" behavior (as defined by the norms and expectations of each society) or are you just agreeing that Ashiel doesn't have to have complete cognitive dissonance to not see a connection between the two.I do not disagree that Lawful characters are more inclined to be a part of a 'civilized' culture.
Where I disagree is that Chaotic characters can be just as civilized, and that Lawful characters can be completely uncivilized. They merely do so in differing ways.
It may also be an issue with our definition of 'civilized'. Were the native Americans 'civilized'? Lawful or Chaotic?
If my savage barbarian never speaks false, never abandons his comrades, and honors the great spirits, is he uncivilized? Can he not gain the protection of those spirits, or must he draw his strength from within?
Your level of civilization informs, but does not mandate your alignment.
I would go with they can be perceived as such, and given relative morality and definitions of law they can come into direct conflict, but a lawful being always believes it is civilized.
Where I would disagree is if you accept the libertarian aspect of Chaotic...which is where the Native American come in...kinda...since it varied so much from tribe to tribe (fun fact, the Native American Stereotype of the Indian on Horseback hunting on the plains was impossible prior to 1492.)
I could easily envision a Native American style Paladin who matched your description. But your Barbarian is a rage based creature.
You can squeeze the class concepts into most any culture, but I think it is lazy to try to make a chaotic paladin Native American Savage rather than making a native american paladin who defines his law based on the tribes rules and his views.
The only reason not to that I can think of is in an attempt to manipulate mechanics.