and kindly note that a warlord who takes a throne is king by Right of Conquest, which is as perfectly valid as Right of Inheritance.
As for Cheliax, paladins don't have to accept a house of devil-worshippers as 'legitimate authority' in the slightest. that doesn't mean they have to go charging up to the doors and get slaughtered, and given how Cheliax tends to mock paladins in general, they likely are quiet about their beliefs and work in a more subtle manner then in other countries. "Corrupting" orders of "hellknights" into 'heavenknights' is probably one way they are going about it. And when it comes time to bring down the hammer of Justice on Thune and punish them for their sins, being the 'rulers' of Cheliax isn't going to save them.
As noted above, you can't FORCE a code of conduct on a Chaotic Good character...that's completely against the tenets of the alignment itself. A code of conduct is EXPECTED of those of Lawful alignment. Also, there was a 'CG' paladin, he was called the Liberator. It was a PrC, and no, not as good as a paladin, but devoted to the cause of Freedom, of course.
Also, as soon as you veer away from LG, Justice stops being a higher cause and starts to devolving to vengeance, wrath, retribution, and similar, lesser concepts.
As for CE anti-paladins, they don't have a restrictive code...they have the flexibility to do whatever they damn well please, and anybody who deals with them better know they are completely unreliable and are going to be discarded in the future as soon as they are no longer useful. That's fantastically open and flexible, not a restriction! There is literally nothing he is not allowed to do!
==Aelryinth
Show me one power a paladin has that would not fit thematically on a warrior empowered to visit holy wrath upon tyrants and villains by a Chaotic Good god.You just rolled a natural 1 on getting the point. It's not about what's thematic, it's about what's balanced. Lawful good places a lot of strictures on a character, which balances the paladin's great powers. Chaotic good much less so, so they shouldn't get as great a spread of powers.
The Antipaladin exists. He sets a mechanical precedent for a Paladin with a less restrictive alignment and virtually identical powers. If a Chaotic Evil paladin can exist, then there is no rational reason a Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good person cannot exist.
Chaotic people can have strictures. Gorum is Chaotic Neutral, and most of his Clergy is Chaotic Neutral as a rule, and he actually imposes some fairly specific strictures on them--he's all about war, but he does not approve of killing prisoners or the the surrendered, attacking from behind, using 'cowardly' tools like poison, otherwise failing to face things head-on, and butchering non-combatants (though a disctinction is made between non-combatants and pacifists--those who can't defend themselves, versus those who won't). A Gorumite who does any of those risks losing his powers. Same as a CG paladin might risk his powers if, say, he didn't attempt to free slaves he came across. Or if his powers come from conviction instead of a god, then the code is self-imposed, which is perfectly in line with Chaotic Good.
Having no rules whatsoever means Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil. Robin Hood, the Doctor, Mal Reynolds, whatever example of Chaotic Good you care to pick--...
Lawful Good characters (not paladins) can break all the man-made laws they want, assuming that the lawful aspect of their alignment is in reference to SOMETHING - a personal code, a code set down from whatever organization they're in, etc. etc. In that respect, I would argue that (though I'm not familiar with the Doctor) the list you gave are in fact Lawful Good characters who care nothing for the laws of the land.
Robin Hood is more complex than a simple alignment. He did what he thought was right, even though it would have resulted in higher taxes and possibly the slaughter of peasants to send a message. His code of honor though, kept him from doing many things that might have been more tactically or strategically sound. He is also reported to have had more command and loyalty from his men than a certain king (in A Gest of Robyn Hode).
By "the Doctor" I can only assume you mean "Doctor Who"; I can't speak on that character because I don't know anything about him.
Malcolm Reynolds is not confined to a single alignment, either. I'm pretty sure Mal could arguably fall under any of the nine alignments at various points. I don't care to do a full write up on this particular topic, because it's very involved. But it is for this reason that I do not place an emphasis on alignment in my games.
Batman is probably the most controversial character to tie to an alignment. There may be a larger portion of people who claim one or another, but I doubt you will find a larger spread. Despite his tragic childhood, he became obsessed with Justice, though he is fully aware that he walks a fine line between Justice and Vengeance. Between his rigid morals and vigilantism, his violent outbursts, and twisted mind, his alignment is as clear as mud.
These characters are great because they are complex - they are the product of more than two letters on their proverbial character sheet. I don't know why paladins (who are at their core LG) can't be more complex than that.
Show me one power a paladin has that would not fit thematically on a warrior empowered to visit holy wrath upon tyrants and villains by a Chaotic Good god.
IMHO, Aura of Courage, Aura of Resolve, Aura of Righteousness all work only thematically for a character of Lawful Good alignment. This is a representation of the Paladin's absolute commitment to fighting against evil, and protecting his allies and innocents. While a Chaotic Good character might have the very best of intentions, by definition they lead with their heart. Hearts are easily led astray.
To juxtapose, consider the Antipaladin's equivalent abilities, Aura of Cowardice, Aura of Despair, Aura of Depravity. They are exactly what a chaotic creature would desire: the ability to make others more malleable, less committed, more "chaotic"...
Complete and utter conviction and dedication and righteousness are what earns a Paladin his abilities. That is something a Chaotic person, no matter how holy, can emulate.
Any character can be argued to be of any alignment, especially on the Law-Chaos axis. But Robin Hood, Mal Reynolds, and the Doctor are commonly accepted to be Chaotic Good. Certainly, Complete Scoundrel lists Mal and Robin Hood as Chaotic Good, which is as close to an 'official' alignment as anyone not conceived as a D&D character is ever going to get.
Complete and utter conviction and dedication and righteousness are what earns a Paladin his abilities. That is something a Chaotic person, no matter how holy, can emulate.
Your assertions offend me, sir.
Show me one power a paladin has that would not fit thematically on a warrior empowered to visit holy wrath upon tyrants and villains by a Chaotic Good god.IMHO, Aura of Courage, Aura of Resolve, Aura of Righteousness all work only thematically for a character of Lawful Good alignment. This is a representation of the Paladin's absolute commitment to fighting against evil, and protecting his allies and innocents. While a Chaotic Good character might have the very best of intentions, by definition they lead with their heart. Hearts are easily led astray.
To juxtapose, consider the Antipaladin's equivalent abilities, Aura of Cowardice, Aura of Despair, Aura of Depravity. They are exactly what a chaotic creature would desire: the ability to make others more malleable, less committed, more "chaotic"...
Complete and utter conviction and dedication and righteousness are what earns a Paladin his abilities. That is something a Chaotic person, no matter how holy, can emulate.
On the contrary, a Chaotic Good person wants people less malleable. He believes in individuality, and refusing to be bowed or compelled. He wants to see the shackles of fear and domination broken. Cowardice, Despair, and Depravity are Evil concepts, not Chaotic ones. Courage and Resolve know no alignment, and Righteousness is Good, not Lawful. And that's just going by the names; IMHO, being immune to compulsion is a considerably more Chaotic trait than a Lawful one.
IMHO, being immune to compulsion is a considerably more Chaotic trait than a Lawful one.
PALADIN AM LAWFUL GOOD. PALADIN GOD SAY SO. BLACKGUARD SAY AWFUL GOOD, SO PALADIN SMITE BLACKGUARD INTO EVIL GOO. NEED LAWFUL GOOD MOP FOR CLEANUP. EVIL GOO AM STICKY.
Please stay on these forums for ever... <3
On the contrary, a Chaotic Good person wants people less malleable. He believes in individuality, and refusing to be bowed or compelled. He wants to see the shackles of fear and domination broken. Cowardice, Despair, and Depravity are Evil concepts, not Chaotic ones. Courage and Resolve know no alignment, and Righteousness is Good, not Lawful. And that's just going by the names; IMHO, being immune to compulsion is a considerably more Chaotic trait than a Lawful one.
You're correct, of course, that courage and righteousness are not purely "lawful" qualities. (I would argue that resolve most certainly is.) But, the names aside, my statement still stands. It is his commitment (read: "Lawfulness"), absolute and unflinching, that grants this power to him. While the warrior of Cayden Cailean spends his days liberating the oppressed (or not, as he chooses [Chaotic]), and his nights in drunken revelry, the Paladin spends his days and nights in a tireless quest against evil.
...he continued in his godly life much as he did when a mortal - fighting for just causes, enjoying various alcohols, and doing only what he wanted to do.
*Emphasis mine*
She is a righteous knight, spreading the good word and crushing evil with the force of her presence and her mighty sword. Though skilled in war, she does not see herself as a war-deity; she would rather convince evildoers to lay down their arms in honorable surrender than cut them down in the midst of battle, but she is fearless and willing to fight for what she believes in. She is a missionary and crusader, bringing benign sovereignty to the good and merciful justice to the evil. She loathes incorrigible evil, fiend-spawn, traitors, and those who abuse good in the name of “greater” good.
and kindly note that a warlord who takes a throne is king by Right of Conquest, which is as perfectly valid as Right of Inheritance.
I don't agree with that, i think that an evil warlord taking the throne from a king is fair game for paladins.
For example i could very well see a paladin of Torag go against the evil warlord that took the throne from his (at least) neutral king and is now abusing the citizens.
She loathes... and those who abuse good in the name of “greater” good.
She wouldn't happen to be married to Frozone would she?
and kindly note that a warlord who takes a throne is king by Right of Conquest, which is as perfectly valid as Right of Inheritance.
I don't agree with that, i think that an evil warlord taking the throne from a king is fair game for paladins.
For example i could very well see a paladin of Torag go against the evil warlord that took the throne from his (at least) neutral king and is now abusing the citizens.
Yes. But I don't think that was stated in the original context of this part of the discussion. The new evil king wasn't being oppressive, just underhanded.
EDIT: An evil man who rises to power through legitimate means and who allows the weight of his reign to slowly crush the meek and simple commoners by changing the law over time and through legitimate channels has done nothing to stir more than diplomatic resistance from a paladin.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please stay on these forums for ever... <3
PALADIN AM CRUSADER OF GOOD. PAIZO FORUM AM MADE OF GOOD AND LIGHT. EVIL AND DARK STAIN FORUMS LIKE BLIGHTY BLIGHTNESS. PALADIN SMITE EVIL ALL DAY, BUT JOB NEVER DONE. PALADIN AM NOT GOING AWAY ANYTIME SOON. PALADIN AM HAVE GOOD JOB SECURITY. NO HEALTH PLAN. PALADIN AM NOT NEEDING MEDICAL.
Charms and compulsions=Making you do what you don't want to do. As Falandr pointed out, the first use of Aura of Resolve as the term for a class ability was on the 3.5 Paladin of Freedom.
Chaotic good much less so, so they shouldn't get as great a spread of powers.Not so. Plain old lawful good isn't all that restrictive. Similarly with plain old chaotic good. Paladin-level LG is very restrictive, and it would be the same with paladin-level CG. Again, look at the antipaladin code. It's extremely restrictive--they basically are forced to screw over every single person they meet. They cannot cooperate with anyone in the long-term.
By definition, lawful means following a logical, codified set of rules for action. That's restrictive compared to a chaotic ethic, which is to basically do whatever you feel like doing. Hence by definition of law and chaos, the chaotic character has less restraints on them right at the outset.
As pointed out, a chaotic good character cannot by definition have a code of conduct beyond 'be good' because that in itself would be against the idea of chaos as freedom of choice. Therefore a chaotic good paladin cannot be held to a strict code like a lawful good paladin, and the code defines the paladin.
The Antipaladin exists. He sets a mechanical precedent for a Paladin with a less restrictive alignment and virtually identical powers. If a Chaotic Evil paladin can exist, then there is no rational reason a Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good person cannot exist.
As it happens, the antipaladin's powers, while thematic, actually are weaker than the paladin's: His cruelties have a save, unlike a paladin's mercies. So he can waste an action using a cruelty which might work, while a paladin can expend the same action to relieve the cruelty and it will work.
Using the "Paladin of Freedom" does not really reinforce your point. All that proves is that someone else shares your opinion. By that reasoning, I could simply state that by RAW and RAI the Paladin must be Lawful Good, and close the door.
The disconnect seems to be that some people view "Chaotic" as a commitment to the ideals of liberty, self-determination, etc. (Please feel free to reword that.)
Others, (myself included) view "Chaotic" as the absence of conviction. A simple unwillingness to allow your life to follow a path or standard or authority, etc.
The Holy Warrior bit mentioned earlier is in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, under the cleric entry. You trade domains for full BAB and a d10 hitdie. As my roommate put it, it is a "pre-archetype."
I am all for stuff like this. I -want- there to be something akin to paladins, hopefully a full blown archetype of probably Cleric, for all the gods. But the class Paladin specifically was designed originally with a very focused intent, and while the current archetypes allow for some changes, the final product is the same and should be.
Sure it does. Nothing in that code says they have to do it 'right now'. Likewise, 'advantage' is tremendously nebulous. Having the opportunity to steal something and blame someone else has to be balanced against the fact you might get caught red-handed. He decides it's not advantageous to act like that.
Self-interest over all. Chaotics can interpret anything to their disadvantage. Being CE total bastards doesn't mean acting like it when it is to their 'advantage' not to do so. All he has to do is not mean it when he's nice, planning to come back and put the town to the torch as he hands out candy and flowers to the kiddies and pets the nice doggie.
==Aelryinth
Charms and compulsions=Making you do what you don't want to do. As Falandr pointed out, the first use of Aura of Resolve as the term for a class ability was on the 3.5 Paladin of Freedom.
Non argument. The ability to think clearly and freely is essential for living in a lawful good community. Being compelled to obey is slavery, and not LG. Free Will is a not a thing restricted to CG...you must be allowed to CHOOSE lawful good.
==Aelryinth
and kindly note that a warlord who takes a throne is king by Right of Conquest, which is as perfectly valid as Right of Inheritance.
I don't agree with that, i think that an evil warlord taking the throne from a king is fair game for paladins.
For example i could very well see a paladin of Torag go against the evil warlord that took the throne from his (at least) neutral king and is now abusing the citizens.
An evil warlord taking by conquest is as valid to a random paladin as an evil prince taking by right of inheritance. Neither 'right' makes you fit for rulership.
==Aelryinth
On the contrary, a Chaotic Good person wants people less malleable. He believes in individuality, and refusing to be bowed or compelled. He wants to see the shackles of fear and domination broken. Cowardice, Despair, and Depravity are Evil concepts, not Chaotic ones. Courage and Resolve know no alignment, and Righteousness is Good, not Lawful. And that's just going by the names; IMHO, being immune to compulsion is a considerably more Chaotic trait than a Lawful one.Show me one power a paladin has that would not fit thematically on a warrior empowered to visit holy wrath upon tyrants and villains by a Chaotic Good god.IMHO, Aura of Courage, Aura of Resolve, Aura of Righteousness all work only thematically for a character of Lawful Good alignment. This is a representation of the Paladin's absolute commitment to fighting against evil, and protecting his allies and innocents. While a Chaotic Good character might have the very best of intentions, by definition they lead with their heart. Hearts are easily led astray.
To juxtapose, consider the Antipaladin's equivalent abilities, Aura of Cowardice, Aura of Despair, Aura of Depravity. They are exactly what a chaotic creature would desire: the ability to make others more malleable, less committed, more "chaotic"...
Complete and utter conviction and dedication and righteousness are what earns a Paladin his abilities. That is not something a Chaotic person, no matter how holy, can emulate.
Differ on malleability. I think the term you want is pliable, i.e. influenced by an outwards source/force.
He definitely wants them more malleable, i.e. open to accepting change. A paladin would encourage strength of character and resolve, a chaotic character would cherish flexibility of character and adaptability.
Note also Paladins of Freedom from the 3.5 SRD get Bluff as a class skill, i.e. allowed to lie without a problem. The very ticket to flexible ethics!
==Aelryinth
Using the "Paladin of Freedom" does not really reinforce your point. All that proves is that someone else shares your opinion. By that reasoning, I could simply state that by RAW and RAI the Paladin must be Lawful Good, and close the door.
The disconnect seems to be that some people view "Chaotic" as a commitment to the ideals of liberty, self-determination, etc. (Please feel free to reword that.)
Others, (myself included) view "Chaotic" as the absence of conviction. A simple unwillingness to allow your life to follow a path or standard or authority, etc.
Again: Clerics of Gorum, Cayden Cailean, and Desna absolutely have taboos, strictures, and codes. They absolutely have a commitment to some kind of higher ideal. Conviction isn't lawful, chaotic, or even neutral (Pharasmans have some very strong convictions, after all). It's human. Or elven, or dwarven, or what have you.
Look at V for Vendetta. Whatever V's alignment, I think we can agree that part of it was definitely part of it, as he was an ideological anarchist seeking to tear down the established order. And he definitely had conviction. "Ideas are bulletproof."
So yes, I absolutely believe that Chaotic people believe in individualism and freedom. Chaotic Good believes that liberty, self-determination, and equality are the best means to Justice. Chaotic Neutral believes in anarchy; that, in general, people should be able to do whatever they want to. Chaotic Evil believes that no one should be able to stop them from doing whatever they want to.
Your interpretation strikes me as tantamount to saying that Chaotic characters are not suitable for play.
Chaotic good much less so, so they shouldn't get as great a spread of powers.Not so. Plain old lawful good isn't all that restrictive. Similarly with plain old chaotic good. Paladin-level LG is very restrictive, and it would be the same with paladin-level CG. Again, look at the antipaladin code. It's extremely restrictive--they basically are forced to screw over every single person they meet. They cannot cooperate with anyone in the long-term.By definition, lawful means following a logical, codified set of rules for action. That's restrictive compared to a chaotic ethic, which is to basically do whatever you feel like doing. Hence by definition of law and chaos, the chaotic character has less restraints on them right at the outset.
As pointed out, a chaotic good character cannot by definition have a code of conduct beyond 'be good' because that in itself would be against the idea of chaos as freedom of choice. Therefore a chaotic good paladin cannot be held to a strict code like a lawful good paladin, and the code defines the paladin.
The Antipaladin exists. He sets a mechanical precedent for a Paladin with a less restrictive alignment and virtually identical powers. If a Chaotic Evil paladin can exist, then there is no rational reason a Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good person cannot exist.As it happens, the antipaladin's powers, while thematic, actually are weaker than the paladin's: His cruelties have a save, unlike a paladin's mercies. So he can waste an action using a cruelty which might work, while a paladin can expend the same action to relieve the cruelty and it will work.
Anyone will tell you that an attack power is more important then a defensive one, because the attack power can make someone incapable of defense OR ineffectual on the attack. And if the target of the paladin's mercies should want to save, they are certainly allowed to do so. I doubt few would be, unless you're talking damage to undead, however.
It's the same way negative energy channeling is more powerful then positive - it can kill someone before they can heal the damage, but you can't 'buff up' with positive channeling ahead of time to 'soak' the effect. Being on the reactive end of things can really suck at times. And you can take feats/races to be healed by negative energy while harming others, whereas you don't have the option with positive energy to be harming non-undead type folks!
==Aelryinth
"Whenever possible". Not "whenever convenient".Sure it does. Nothing in that code says they have to do it 'right now'. Likewise, 'advantage' is tremendously nebulous. Having the opportunity to steal something and blame someone else has to be balanced against the fact you might get caught red-handed. He decides it's not advantageous to act like that.
Self-interest over all. Chaotics can interpret anything to their disadvantage. Being CE total bastards doesn't mean acting like it when it is to their 'advantage' not to do so. All he has to do is not mean it when he's nice, planning to come back and put the town to the torch as he hands out candy and flowers to the kiddies and pets the nice doggie.==Aelryinth
It's not possible for this to be to my absolute advantage now.
To emphasize one part of the code and ignore the rest basically means your Anti-paladin is committing suicide by existing. As long as there's a .001% 'possibility', he'd be forced to act, despite the fact its 99.999% to his DIS-advantage to do so.
Nope.
==Aelryinth
Using the "Paladin of Freedom" does not really reinforce your point. All that proves is that someone else shares your opinion. By that reasoning, I could simply state that by RAW and RAI the Paladin must be Lawful Good, and close the door.
The disconnect seems to be that some people view "Chaotic" as a commitment to the ideals of liberty, self-determination, etc. (Please feel free to reword that.)
Others, (myself included) view "Chaotic" as the absence of conviction. A simple unwillingness to allow your life to follow a path or standard or authority, etc.
Again: Clerics of Gorum, Cayden Cailean, and Desna absolutely have taboos, strictures, and codes. They absolutely have a commitment to some kind of higher ideal. Conviction isn't lawful, chaotic, or even neutral (Pharasmans have some very strong convictions, after all). It's human. Or elven, or dwarven, or what have you.
Look at V for Vendetta. Whatever V's alignment, I think we can agree that part of it was definitely part of it, as he was an ideological anarchist seeking to tear down the established order. And he definitely had conviction. "Ideas are bulletproof."
So yes, I absolutely believe that Chaotic people believe in individualism and freedom. Chaotic Good believes that liberty, self-determination, and equality are the best means to Justice. Chaotic Neutral believes in anarchy; that, in general, people should be able to do whatever they want to. Chaotic Evil believes that no one should be able to stop them from doing whatever they want to.
Your interpretation strikes me as tantamount to saying that Chaotic characters are not suitable for play.
Chaotics are generally limited, if at all, by what they are forbidden to do.
A lawful code of conduct is more about what you ALLOWED to do, which is exactly the opposite. Telling someone they must act one way, and telling someone else that they can't do this specific thing as taboo are two different things.And the best thing about Chaotics is that these taboos are all situational! After all, Chaotics SPECIALIZE in justifying their own actions by a mixed code of ethics.
"Sorry, Gorum, I got so caught up in my battle-rage, I didn't really notice he wasn't fighting me face-first until after I'd already clove his weak skull in. I'll do better next time."
==Aelryinth
The Divine Champion of Cayden Cailean stands at a crossroads. He looks north and sees a horde of demons spewing into the world. He looks east and sees a land of high adventure, where tremendous fame and fortune can be won. He looks south and sees a land under the yoke of slavery and oppression. He looks west and sees a town preparing for there annual Festival of Free Chocolate, Ale, and Prostitutes. Does he:
A. Go north. The demons are the greatest threat to the realm.
B. Go east. Adventure calls to him.
C. Go south. Oppression of the meek cannot stand.
D. Go west. For the free goodies.
E. Say to himself, "There will be many travelers on this road, be they soldiers, adventurers, refugees, or tourists. I will stay here and build an inn and tavern, craft fine ales, and gain wealth and reknown."
Are any of these the wrong choice? Can he fail? Is there any moral quandry from which he cannot excuse himself?
|
Motivated from the thread about the dude playing the paladin (would link, but I am on break and doing this from my phone), I want to know people's opinions on paladins and how they interact with gods and alignment. I have heard of people allowing paladins with any alignment, so long as they matched it to their diety. I can be convinced differently, but I don't agree with that.
To start off, I'll state what I think.
Conceptually, paladins were supposed to be warriors who used divine power to further the overall cause of good, while adhering to a rigid code of conduct.
By design theory, they were meant to be a notch above other classes, at the cost of alignment and roleplay restrictions.
Neutral, to me, goes against the intent of the class - that is, to have apathy towards both lawfulness and chaoticism (is that a word?). Paladins were meant to be devoted, and the very idea of having apathy at all seems wrong to me.
If it is not Lawful Good, it is not a Paladin.
Aelryinth's points on the antipaladin are quite valid - it would technically be advantageous if one could walk into this metropolis with thousands of guards and be able to just take over it. The likelihood of being able to actually do that is quite low. CE doesn't have to be dumb by any means; in fact, those still alive are probably quite cunning, given the extremes of which they live by.
As far as the chaotic good argument on paladins goes, I can agree conviction is a common trait of all sentient beings, regardless of alignment. However, the difference is how the individual handles that conviction.
I allow paladins of different alignments with the Heretic of the Faith feat (Power of Faerûn, but a little customized). Divine Champions of any faith that are another matter that I call Zealots.
There's no advantage in his eyes in doing something...the terms are mutually interchangeable. You keep trying to rope in all possibilities of gaining advantage, which is suicide...there's always a possiblity, however small. But the AP is going to make his call, note its not to his advantage, and do something else.
Advantage you can't succeed at it isn't advantage, it's just a long-shot gamble. Fun enough in its own way, but not going to dominate his thoughts. He's a freaking backstabber and coward, after all...defying the odds is not his trademark. Cheating and breaking them is.
==Aelryinth
I see an antipaladin traveling with a group of (non-Good) adventurers, using their own interest in gaining fame and loot to further his own evil goals. He would be presented with situations in which he could kill them - he very well might, but he also might think that they're worth more to him alive than dead and let them live.
Is killing the authoritarian ruler of a diplomatic nation in order to attempt to seize control taking advantage of the situation or is corrupting him and using him as a puppet better for him? Both can be argued, but I'd say that either are correct.
Action that results in the antipaladin being put in the spotlight, shown as the deceiver he is, is not taking advantage of every situation he's going to be in. Sometimes, he needs to use a finer touch.
The differences in interpretation of what constitutes as "chaotic" or "lawful" here are not only going to vary from person to person, but so are the levels of importance that each individual within a playing group.
For instance, I look at Chaotic and think that one can choose the label because:
A) They have no convictions and pretty much do whatever feels "right" (quote marks, because even wrong can feel right with a certain frame of mind) at any given moment.
B) They have a tendency to lie frequently, more often out of compulsion than desire.
C) They actively seek to break rules because they dislike "establishment."
D) They are unable to structure themselves, for example: they hate meditating, taking orders, waking up at a specified time. (This is a very weak reason, and not one I am quick to allow.)
Any ONE (or more) of those four things can be Chaotic at my table. Perhaps there are other things, but those are the four things I have seen come up that I agree with. Lawful alignments, pretty much reverse (or inverse, whatever) the above things.
The difference between my method and what I perceive RAWs approach being is that if you have CE written on your character sheet, you are not a physical manifestation of the ideals of CE. You don't have to run around burning orphanages down or kicking kittens with spiked greaves. You can be a lazy bastard who could more or less not care about keeping his watch at night, and who would secretly pocket items from the dragon's hoard before it's divvied up evenly because you're a greedy SOB. That's chaotic AND evil to me. Mind you, they are much lesser forms of either alignment, but they qualify, and if those are the strongest defined parts of your character's personality, then they are dominant traits of your character and qualify as alignment, especially if you play them as described. But that CE character may have a soft spot for children, because he watched his little sister be taken by orcs while he was pinned under a collapsed awning, so he will throw himself into harm's way to protect any child he thinks is in danger. Obviously that's good, right? That seems to outweigh all the evil greediness and apathetic position towards his allies while keeping watch. One could argue this character is closer to Chaotic Neutral, but I don't believe that an evil trait and a good trait "balance out" to be neutral, because that reminds me too much of a video game (like Fable). Not a bad thing if you're into it. I'm not.
At my table, a LG paladin can be good as gold. Gives his spoils to his church, works at a soup kitchen on his days off, fosters orphans at home, has never broken a law, always payed taxes, and prays diligently for hours a day (some in the morning, and some before bed, and before meals). But he is proud. VERY proud. He wants everyone to KNOW how Lawful Good he is. Pride, as we all know, is one of the infamous seven deadly sins, and pride always comes before a fall. But that's his ONLY fault, and he still has paladin powers... it really depends on how it's played out.
Pardon me while I try to refocus what I'm writing...
So, these things are MY personal interpretation of alignment. I tell my players that they should choose the alignment that fits BEST, but they are by no means forbidden from having personality traits that fit another alignment, just so long as they are not primary to the character theme. In fact, I encourage it.
My point was to illustrate a different interpretation of alignment and how it can be used without making players the sum of two letters on a character sheet. If that's all you want, nothing is stopping you from playing that way, but neither [read: any] way of handling it is objectively "correct." It just has to be dealt with at your own table.
|
With everyone going on and on about how a paladin can only be LG, and others say it should be everything, but the former group saying that you can't do that (that's what the anti-paladin is for, blah blah), can someone please explain to me how it's possible for a paladin to be LE and still gain all of their spells in a Paizo module then?
Algon the Ever-Seeking from The Harrowing module is a lvl 11 LE human paladin with all of his spells, mount, lay on hands, everything.
So, what? NPCs can be any alignment they want to, but PCs can only be LG?
Is he one of the 'stories' in that module? I can't speak for the circumstance because I don't own it.
And I can make a CE paladin up and if Paizo prints it, yahoo. Doesn't mean it's a paladin. It's some twit tweaking their nose at alignment restrictions.
==Aelryinth
The Antipaladin has to be chaotic evil. A lawful evil character would manipulate and conquer, but he would also build and organize, even if only for his own benefit. The Antipaladin is never a constructive force. He exists only to corrupt, defile and destroy. Think, "What would Cthulhu do?"
Not really, Cthulhu just sits on the couch and either sleeps or watches tv. He doesn't get off said couch till the stars are right, he is a bum, and should try to get a job.
Aelryinth makes the most compelling argument to me (if you recognize my picture, you see I have some opinions on Paladins).
One thing me and another in my group agree on "Being a Paladin is more than words on a page". I don't think one should half-heartedly[sic] play a Paladin character. It is something more than just being good or just being lawful. The code provides that, but even the code is not the limit. It is willing taking the harder path, to give of yourself when others would not. To quote 3.5 Player's Handbook - "The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold law, and the power to defeat evil; these are the three weapons of the paladin".
For other alignment Paladins, I could see it happening, using the Paladin as a base, but give it new abilities that reflect it's new alignment (or maybe change existing ones). I would give a NG Paladin more mercies, but less smites per day, and maybe the ability to use cure spells as a spell-like ability X times per day. Each alignment should have it's own restrictions (even chaotic, which does contradict the alignment, to an extent), and it's own personal benefits based on that alignment.
|
|
Is he one of the 'stories' in that module? I can't speak for the circumstance because I don't own it.
And I can make a CE paladin up and if Paizo prints it, yahoo. Doesn't mean it's a paladin. It's some twit tweaking their nose at alignment restrictions.
Yes, he is one of the stories and first villains. @TheRedArmy, he is built exactly as a LG paladin is. Same mercies, same everything. He even channels positive energy, detects evil, and smites evil. But he's LE.
Yet is says "Alignment: Lawful good" and under Ex-Paladin mentions "A paladin who CEASES TO BE LAWFUL GOOD, who willfully commits an evil act, OR who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features" (so just need to do one of the three). But he's LE and still has everything.
Paizo, why must you make my brain hurt?
|
|
The difference between my method and what I perceive RAWs approach being is that if you have CE written on your character sheet, you are not a physical manifestation of the ideals of CE. You don't have to run around burning orphanages down or kicking kittens with spiked greaves. You can be a lazy bastard who could more or less not care about keeping his watch at night, and who would secretly pocket items from the dragon's hoard before it's divvied up evenly because you're a greedy SOB. That's chaotic AND evil to me.
I think that's more Neutral Evil. "I'm in it for me and the hell with everybody else."
What makes Chaotic Evil so much harder than that is that a chaotic evil character would more likely be the one to volunteer for watch, then while everybody is sleeping throw all of their equipment into the nearest river or poison their water or bait wild animals to invade the camp just to see what would happen. He would steal from the dragon's horde, then tell the dragon it was a cleric of Sarenrae who lived in the neighboring village. They don't really benefit from any of it any more than they enjoy the ensuing destruction.
Because of that, CE should be (to my mind) harder to play than NE. Similarly, LG should be harder than NG because it's not only a commitment to doing good, but to due process and the trappings of law. To that end, I'd actually support a Chaotic Paladin before I'd support a Neutral One.
Is he one of the 'stories' in that module? I can't speak for the circumstance because I don't own it.
And I can make a CE paladin up and if Paizo prints it, yahoo. Doesn't mean it's a paladin. It's some twit tweaking their nose at alignment restrictions.
Yes, he is one of the stories and first villains. @TheRedArmy, he is built exactly as a LG paladin is. Same mercies, same everything. He even channels positive energy, detects evil, and smites evil. But he's LE.
Yet is says "Alignment: Lawful good" and under Ex-Paladin mentions "A paladin who CEASES TO BE LAWFUL GOOD, who willfully commits an evil act, OR who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features" (so just need to do one of the three). But he's LE and still has everything.
Paizo, why must you make my brain hurt?
So, a corrupted figment of the imagination given form is now the poster boy for allowing LE paladins?
Didn't think so. He's a story given form, and then twisted. You can do anything to a story. He's no more proof of support for the concept then making an illusion of a CE paladin is.
He's a story. He's NOT REAL.
===Aelryinth
|
LG is not why paladins can be hard to play. LGs are easy to play IMO. Do good, follow orders, respect authority, be organized. Paladins are restrictive because of their CODE OF CONDUCT, not because of their LG requirement. They need to seek out evil and destroy. They need to do more. They need to set an example. They need to bring hope.
3E Ed opened the door to paladins of different gods and different paths. Because of that, I don't think paladins have ever been the same. 2nd Ed's paladins were the Christian crusader that tried to do LG acts for the sake of God. There's no God in PF or 3E, there are gods. The pally is one of the things that is hard to reconcile, and I think it's one of the things the older D&Ds did better than 3E and PF. I want them to stay the same, but it's getting harder to justify it.
|
|
So, a corrupted figment of the imagination given form is now the poster boy for allowing LE paladins?
Didn't think so. He's a story given form, and then twisted. You can do anything to a story. He's no more proof of support for the concept then making an illusion of a CE paladin is.
He's a story. He's NOT REAL.
What exactly is "real"? King Arthur? This is a game, of course this is not real. However, rules are still real. Just because I say "Oh, he's not really real despite the fact that he does damage to your character and coup de graces you, he's not real. BTW, make a new character because the not real guy killed off your character." And all modules are "a story".
But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, right?
Tell that to the Antipaladin. They must follow their particular code of ethics, just as Paladins must. They must take every advantage whenever possible (so they have to lie to, cheat, and steal from everyone they possibly can). They must not commit any good act that does not serve an evil end (not a single act of charity or kind word to anyone, ever, unless it serves an evil purpose). They must put their own whims and desires above everyone else's at all times (no cooperation--it's the Antipaladin's way or the highway). They must punish anyone who is good or just.
Problem is, if they do this they will spend a lonely, hunted existence. If they HAVE to lie cheat and steal from everyone, then that includes their own allies. They literally have to run around acting like an insane psychotic. Feel angry? Kill one of your lieutenants. One of your minions finds a shiny? Kill him and take it. One of your minions helps one of your other minions? he acted good, punish him.
They literally self-destruct unless they chaotically refuse to conform to their code. Then, they stop being an anti-paladin.
Oh, and the problem with the cruelties is the action economy - you lose a full-attack round to use them, when you are a melee class. With mercies it is not an issue, because it is a swift action to use them on yourself, on others they can be used out of combat.
|
|
In my opinion the real problem with these discussions comes about when player and GM have differing views on what is "good" and what is "evil" (let alone "lawful" and "chaotic").
This isn't helped by the fact that people have been arguing about these definitions since the time of Aristotle, who postulated that no one ever knowingly commits an evil act - they just see good and evil differently.
( how often do we hear some melodramatic villain claim "your evil is my good !" Maybe they *are* just misunderstood. )
Well, rather than risk 5000 years of philosophical argument at my gaming table I have opted to dispense with morality completely from my game (starting next campaign).
Everything still has an alignment, but this relates to game mechanics only (i.e. the way spells work and so on), not to an actual code of conduct.
The latter part, particularly for Paladins, is governed by their deity.
Deity's do not have a morality as we know it in our world. Whatever a deity actually is (I'm avoiding metaphysics here too), the way you worship a deity is to behave as closely as possible to the stereotype that they represent. That's what your deity is principally interested in - active visible support of the principles that it champions.
To this end, I have a system of Geases which you must abide by.
If you're interested in all of this, look under alignment, piety and geases in this document:
http://www.qusheet.com/misc/Campaign.pdf
- it's the campaign guide for my next campaign.
Richard
So, a corrupted figment of the imagination given form is now the poster boy for allowing LE paladins?
Didn't think so. He's a story given form, and then twisted. You can do anything to a story. He's no more proof of support for the concept then making an illusion of a CE paladin is.
He's a story. He's NOT REAL.
What exactly is "real"? King Arthur? This is a game, of course this is not real. However, rules are still real. Just because I say "Oh, he's not really real despite the fact that he does damage to your character and coup de graces you, he's not real. BTW, make a new character because the not real guy killed off your character." And all modules are "a story".
But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, right?
Your reply was as expected and frivolous.
Your 'paladin', within the game itself, is a living story given reality. He's as real as a self-sustaining, high level illusion.He's not a PC, or an NPC. He's a background effect.
He's definitely not an example of multi-alignment paladins.
==Aelryinth