| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As is, the Paladin is the most disruptive class in Pathfinder, and I blame the part of the code of conduct that mandates lawful behavior. Too many players see this and either go full blown lawful stupid or spend all their time annoying the less lawful members of the party. This causes a lot of problems. The non-Paladin players hate having to tailor their every little action to avoid pissing off the Paladin, and may very well quit the game or retaliate, and lawful stupidity easily gets in the way of good. Even in those instances where a Paladin doesn't fall into this trap and is played the way a lawful good character should be played, plenty of GMs love to throw difficult moral situations (the classic law or good decision especially) at the Paladin or cause the Paladin to fall over stupid stuff. Then we have the fact that lawful good isn't an easy alignment to RP, and not all gamers can handle the Paladin class's strict moral guidelines. That's what causes so much lawful stupidity.
I think that it's time to pull law from the code of conduct, and make Paladins of any good alignment. After all, neutral good and chaotic good characters are rarely seen as particularly disruptive. This would alleviate these issues a good bit, and it makes sense in game terms. For example, neutral good deities like Shelyn have Paladins. If Shelyn would be willing to create a lawful good Paladin, why wouldn't she be willing to create a Paladin who shares her alignment? It makes no sense whatsoever that she wouldn't, and it makes no sense that she'd take away a Paladin's powers for adopting her alignment later on. What about chaotic good deities like Cayden Cailean? If Paladins are so useful to good deities, why wouldn't he want a few of his own?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like more of a stupidity issue than a game mechanics issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like more of a stupidity issue than a game mechanics issue.
The problem is that the mechanics are the cause of the majority of the stupidity.
a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)
It says this, yes, but it ALSO goes on to say that she can work with evil (or chaotic) people (and presumably do evil (or chaotic) acts) as long as she believes a greater good will come from it. I believe this in the intention. If you take the RAW, sure, but intention is far more important to me than RAW.
The main reason a paladin has to be lawful is because of the dedication a paladin requies to maintain her discipline. The same reason why a monk has to be lawful.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree.
Paladins acting above the law — with detect evil giving them all they need to self-appoint themselves as judge, jury, and executioner — doesn't solve what you describe as your problem.
Pathfinder has gone as far as to include a clause about working constructively with evil PCs in the party if it is to the greater good. That seems (to me) to be steps toward a greater solution.
But the #1 thing to bear in mind is not to allow people to play paladins as jerks. Paragons of virtue don't act like jerks, even to evil. That's what sets them apart from evil and chaos.
** spoiler omitted **
It says this, yes, but it ALSO goes on to say that she can work with evil (or chaotic) people (and presumably do evil (or chaotic) acts) as long as she believes a greater good will come from it. I believe this in the intention. If you take the RAW, sure, but intention is far more important to me than RAW.
The main reason a paladin has to be lawful is because of the dedication a paladin requies to maintain her discipline. The same reason why a monk has to be lawful.
The intention of the RAW does nothing to stop all the Paladin drama that breaks out when people play them. As for discipline and dedication, I don't buy it for one second. Neutral and chaotic people can be disciplined and dedicated. That's why chaotic good characters don't go nuts whenever someone angers them via injustice. They have the self control not to fight evil with evil.
As for monks, I'm not in favor of that alignment restriction, either.
I disagree.
Paladins acting above the law — with detect evil giving them all they need to self-appoint themselves as judge, jury, and executioner — doesn't solve what you describe as your problem.
Pathfinder has gone as far as to include a clause about working constructively with evil PCs in the party if it is to the greater good. That seems (to me) to be steps toward a greater solution.
But the #1 thing to bear in mind is not to allow people to play paladins as jerks. Paragons of virtue don't act like jerks, even to evil. That's what sets them apart from evil and chaos.
I think pulling the lawful requirement would at least cut a good deal of lawful stupid behavior by simply not mandating law in the first place. Plus, it makes sense. NG deities like Shelyn have Paladins, and I have a very hard time seeing her taking away a Paladin's powers for becoming an NG person. Why would she punish a loyal servant for becoming more like her?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like more of a stupidity issue than a game mechanics issue.The problem is that the mechanics are the cause of the majority of the stupidity.
At least in your gaming group it might be, but this is not the case for all groups. In my group we haven't had a problem with the Paladins code of conduct.
Its a matter of opinion if the mechanics are to blame.
Seems like more of a stupidity issue than a game mechanics issue.The problem is that the mechanics are the cause of the majority of the stupidity.At least in your gaming group it might be, but this is not the case for all groups. In my group we haven't had a problem with the Paladins code of conduct.
Its a matter of opinion if the mechanics are to blame.
It may not be an issue in your games, but it is an issue in a whole lot of them, and not just mine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even in those instances where a Paladin doesn't fall into this trap and is played the way a lawful good character should be played, plenty of GMs love to throw difficult moral situations (the classic law or good decision especially) at the Paladin or cause the Paladin to fall over stupid stuff.
How should a Lawful Good character be played? I'm willing to bet the way you think they should be isn't the same as the way of others.
plenty of GMs love to throw difficult moral situations (the classic law or good decision especially) at the Paladin or cause the Paladin to fall over stupid stuff.
This is a problem with the GM, not the Paladin.
Even in those instances where a Paladin doesn't fall into this trap and is played the way a lawful good character should be played, plenty of GMs love to throw difficult moral situations (the classic law or good decision especially) at the Paladin or cause the Paladin to fall over stupid stuff.How should a Lawful Good character be played? I'm willing to bet the way you think they should be isn't the same as the way of others.
I think that good should be more important than law, and respect more important than preaching at the rest of the party. That's not how a lot of Paladins get played, though.
plenty of GMs love to throw difficult moral situations (the classic law or good decision especially) at the Paladin or cause the Paladin to fall over stupid stuff.This is a problem with the GM, not the Paladin.
It's still anissue for people who play Paladins.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how a lot of Paladins get played, though.
Paladins as a class are unfortunately a magnet for annoying drama queens, but they don't have to be. I've seen some exceptionally cool paladins in play, none of which were the slightest bit annoying, drama-centered, or disruptive in following their code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As always with this game, if you don't like the rules and you are the GM, then change it, simple enough. In my games I completely get rid of alignment system as it exists in RAW. You are either Good, Nuetral, or Evil. Paladins and monk characters still have to follow a code of conduct for their faith or beliefs to maintain their class abilities, but I see this as more discipline rather than lawful or chaotic. If they abandon their codes, they lose their class abilities. This allows the Paladin and Monk classes to stick to their own codes, but allow for flexibility as far as group cohesion works.
I know some people will cry and say oh but what about damage reduction and blah blah blah about law and chaos. It's simple, you house rule that crap away to and change the DR to something that makes sense.
That's not how a lot of Paladins get played, though.Paladins as a class are unfortunately a magnet for annoying drama queens, but they don't have to be. I've seen some exceptionally cool paladins in play, none of which were the slightest bit annoying, drama-centered, or disruptive in following their code.
You are right, Kirth, and I think that pulling law may reduce the Paladin class's gravitation towards this drama queen behavior without forbidding the classic lawful Paladin, and it also opens up the class to those who want the awesome Paladin abilities and status as a holy warrior, but who'd rather be NG or CG.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two things that always pop to mind when I see another discussion on paladins or alignment:
1) Paladins' codes require them to punish those who harm/threaten innocents. Require. If your idea of LG doesn't square with that, you're doing it wrong.
2) Ragathiel is a LG deity whose portfolio includes vengeance. If your idea of LG doesn't square with that, you're doing it wrong.
More directly to the OP:
If you're the GM, change whatever rules you want. In a more general sense, though, the insistence of certain players/GMs to insert their own bias/expectation into the rules instead of taking them for what they are is NOT the fault of the rules. It's no different than people getting TWF rules wrong, or claiming that the rules forbid a clearly-supported option, or whatever. Doesn't mean the rules need to change.
Seems like a player issue not one with the class or code.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit, I think it's lousy game design to try and balance mechanical abilities using "fluff." In 1e, the paladin was hands-down better than the fighter... "oh, but you have a CODE, so it's OKAY!" But it wasn't OK then, and it's still not OK now (which is especially silly insofar as the paladin doesn't need any extra balancing any more). Mechanics should be mechanically balanced. Fluff can take care of itself, and need not be wedded to the mechanics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People playing Paladins need to realise that the Code of Conduct says ...respect authority... not bend over backwards to obey it. I agree with the sentiments of the OP, I've even stated No Paladins in a campaign I've created for these reasons - that is also how I perceive them as being played.
So much crime-fighting TV is about the protagonist breaking the law in order to bring someone to justice. How often do we see the investigator break into someone's house to find evidence against them?! James Bond is a great example of this and yet I would place him as LG - he follows his own code of laws, he suffers moral dilemmas that CG people wouldn't worry about, he doesn't break his promises. Admittedly he doesn't have respect for authority...
But this isn't about James...
People playing Paladins like this are jerks - they are deliberately trying to anger the other players. Or, when the GM tries to force the paladin into a moral issue again and again, then the GM is being a jerk. It is just shoddy roleplaying - tell them to take their antagonism and go play football or Monopoly. Tell them they are Trolling.
Regarding a sympathy for why people think Paladins should be played that way - it is a deliberate misinterpretation of the rules, same as any other Cheese, done to gain advantage over the game and the other players. That player would do much the same in any other class, it would just be a different flavour of cheese.
Let's retitle the thread:
I think it's about time we told a jerks what we really think about them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like more of a stupidity issue than a game mechanics issue.The problem is that the mechanics are the cause of the majority of the stupidity.
Disruptive players don't need mechanics to be disruptive or stupid. Removing the lawful restriction from paladins won't get rid of lawful stupid Paladins, it will merely add the possibility of chaotic stupid Paladins, (or just plain stupid Paladins).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think pulling the lawful requirement would at least cut a good deal of lawful stupid behavior by simply not mandating law in the first place. Plus, it makes sense. NG deities like Shelyn have Paladins, and I have a very hard time seeing her taking away a Paladin's powers for becoming an NG person. Why would she punish a loyal servant for becoming more like her?
Simple. Shelyn doesn't grant paladins their powers in Golarion. Paladins, by the RAW, are not directly granted their powers by a deity, they gain their powers from their obsessive devotion to their ideals. This is why they are Lawful Good. Can a Chaotic character be Disciplined? Of course they can, but they cannot approach the rigid, intense and obsessive devotion that the Paladin requires to hold to their ideals to the point where they gain powers from it.
A Paladin, as Pathfinder defines it, is a very specific sort of frighteningly, zealously devoted warrior, exemplified by people like Sir Galahad (who was defined in several of the Arthurian cycles (specifically Tennyson's idylls of the king) by being so pure of heart that it was genuinely CREEPY to others). They are not the generic divinely empowered foot-soldiers of the Gods. Those are Clerics. A Paladin is intended to be something very specific. They are not just that devoted, noble guy, they are that frighteningly, borderline obsessively devoted follower of Good, so unyieldingly righteous that it taps their inner spark of divinity and manifests as their powers. This is why losing a Lawful alignment can cause them to follow. One chink in the devotion, and it all crumbles.
Chaotic Good is too Free Spirited to hold to such an inflexible code. Neutral Good is too laid back.
Paladins are not free spirited, nor are they laid back. At least, they are not intended to be.
(This is my understanding based on the RAW, and some commentaries I've seen the creators give in various paladin threads. Alas, I do not have links.)
Neutral Good: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order.
I've always felt that NG best fits paladins. Line for line, the above would apply best for the shining beacon of goodness. Following a Code doesn't necessitate being Lawful (many other character types follow personal codes without being confined to Lawful alignments).
See previous post. It is quite arguable that a Paladin is not just a follower of a code. They are OBSESSIVE DEVOTEES of a Specific, and Narrow Ideal.
There are two things that always pop to mind when I see another discussion on paladins or alignment:
1) Paladins' codes require them to punish those who harm/threaten innocents. Require. If your idea of LG doesn't square with that, you're doing it wrong.
2) Ragathiel is a LG deity whose portfolio includes vengeance. If your idea of LG doesn't square with that, you're doing it wrong.
I've seen this used (by myself, unfortunately) to justify some really brutal stuff.
I've seen this used (by myself, unfortunately) to justify some really brutal stuff.There are two things that always pop to mind when I see another discussion on paladins or alignment:
1) Paladins' codes require them to punish those who harm/threaten innocents. Require. If your idea of LG doesn't square with that, you're doing it wrong.
2) Ragathiel is a LG deity whose portfolio includes vengeance. If your idea of LG doesn't square with that, you're doing it wrong.
You'd see it used to justify that with or without the Lawful Requirement.
I think pulling the lawful requirement would at least cut a good deal of lawful stupid behavior by simply not mandating law in the first place. Plus, it makes sense. NG deities like Shelyn have Paladins, and I have a very hard time seeing her taking away a Paladin's powers for becoming an NG person. Why would she punish a loyal servant for becoming more like her?Simple. Shelyn doesn't grant paladins their powers in Golarion. Paladins, by the RAW, are not directly granted their powers by a deity, they gain their powers from their obsessive devotion to their ideals. This is why they are Lawful Good. Can a Chaotic character be Disciplined? Of course they can, but they cannot approach the rigid, intense and obsessive devotion that the Paladin requires to hold to their ideals to the point where they gain powers from it.
Devotion and discipline have nothing to do with law, though, and I haven't seen anything that says Paladins don't get power from deities.
A Paladin, as Pathfinder defines it, is a very specific sort of frighteningly, zealously devoted warrior, exemplified by people like Sir Galahad (who was defined in several of the Arthurian cycles (specifically Tennyson's idylls of the king) by being so pure of heart that it was genuinely CREEPY to others). They are not the generic divinely empowered foot-soldiers of the Gods. Those are Clerics. A Paladin is intended to be something very specific. They are not just that devoted, noble guy, they are that frighteningly, borderline obsessively devoted follower of Good, so unyieldingly righteous that it taps their inner spark of divinity and manifests as their powers. This is why losing a Lawful alignment can cause them to follow. One chink in the devotion, and it all crumbles.
Oh, gods. No. No, no, no. This description will do nothing except encourage Paladins to go flat out b@@#~@$ insane.
Chaotic Good is too Free Spirited to hold to such an inflexible code. Neutral Good is too laid back.
Paladins are not free spirited, nor are they laid back. At least, they are not intended to be.
Therein lies the problem. There shouldn't BE an inflexible code. All such a code does is prevent the player from playing the character they want, encourage lawful stupid behavior, and provide fuel for massive Paladin alignment fights.
(This is my understanding based on the RAW, and some commentaries I've seen the creators give in various paladin threads. Alas, I do not have links.)
I don't like this understanding.
|
I never get any Paladin alignment problems in games I run. Maybe it's because my players are, on average, intelligent and mature people who don't pour over RL into my gaming sessions.
Or maybe it's because I'm an anal GM and they do know that any attempt to stir trouble will result in them being thrown out of the window.*
* I live on the ground floor so it's no biggie, but still.
I believe the Paladin class should NOT be changed.It is, however, a harder class for the individual to play and the group to interact with, as it can potentially lead to group conflict.
I think that it shouldn't be as hard to play or as open to group conflict.
These issues should be discussed by the group members and the GM prior to starting play. Note that the Paladin's code indicates he should only be associating with non evil characters and that he should disassociate himself from those who consistently offend his moral code. There are far fewer potential problems when the alignments of the groupmembers are similar and there are no evil or chaotic members in the group.
So, I should either not get to play the character I want (a Paladin), or someone else should not get to play the character they want (a chaotic character)? I don't line that. I'd rather have an NG or CG Paladin that doesn't have much of a problem with the chaotic characters. Then we can all have fun instead of arguing over who is allowed to play what.
I never get any Paladin alignment problems in games I run. Maybe it's because my players are, on average, intelligent and mature people who don't pour over RL into my gaming sessions.
Or maybe it's because I'm an anal GM and they do know that any attempt to stir trouble will result in them being thrown out of the window.*
* I live on the ground floor so it's no biggie, but still.
Paladins may work well for you, but they don't work well for a lot of people. See the endless deluge of Paladin threads this site gets.
Woooo another Paladin alignment thread, we just don't get enough of those.
At least this one is about making the Paladin less prone to problems and hopefully cutting down on such threads in the future as a result.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The endless deluge comes because many people just can't handle playing Paladins. It's not a class issue, there are dozens of RPGs there where you get to play something that's bound by some arbitrary rules (SW's Jedis? WoD's almost anything? L5R *everything*?). And there's always a bunch of folks who just aren't able to play such characters.
You'd see it used to justify that with or without the Lawful Requirement.I've seen this used (by myself, unfortunately) to justify some really brutal stuff.There are two things that always pop to mind when I see another discussion on paladins or alignment:
1) Paladins' codes require them to punish those who harm/threaten innocents. Require. If your idea of LG doesn't square with that, you're doing it wrong.
2) Ragathiel is a LG deity whose portfolio includes vengeance. If your idea of LG doesn't square with that, you're doing it wrong.
Unfortunately I probably would. Combining vengeance and Paladins is a bad idea.
Well, I wouldn't expect it to go anywhere. The developers have made it rather clear that their view of the class is as representing a specific fantasy archetype, and it's one of the legacies of the game that a lot of gamers really like.
My objections to your points are primarily rooted in a dislike of changing mechanics based on how bad players commonly play them. This is the equivalent to basing the rules entirely around protecting the gameplay experience from the sorts of people who are going to be disruptive no matter HOW many opportunities the game gives them.
It's also the last vestige of the Knightly association of Lawful Good left in the game, and I'd be very sad to see that go. It grants the view a certain legitimacy. Of course, that may also be an issue you have with it, in which case... *Shrug* I'll just be happy that for now, the game still includes something quite dear to me.
The endless deluge comes because many people just can't handle playing Paladins. It's not a class issue, there are dozens of RPGs there where you get to play something that's bound by some arbitrary rules (SW's Jedis? WoD's almost anything? L5R *everything*?). And there's always a bunch of folks who just aren't able to play such characters.
Exactly, and what I am suggesting will make Paladins easier to handle playing by making them less rigid.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Woooo another Paladin alignment thread, we just don't get enough of those.At least this one is about making the Paladin less prone to problems and hopefully cutting down on such threads in the future as a result.
Nope, it's "Kelsey's New Alias and New RP Problems in her group" thread, on a weekly schedule. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Devotion and discipline have nothing to do with law
Here's the CRB on lawfulness:
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
...
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.
...
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly.
...
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
The rules even use the word "discipline", so you can't really say they're unrelated.
Well, I wouldn't expect it to go anywhere. The developers have made it rather clear that their view of the class is as representing a specific fantasy archetype, and it's one of the legacies of the game that a lot of gamers really like.
My objections to your points are primarily rooted in a dislike of changing mechanics based on how bad players commonly play them. This is the equivalent to basing the rules entirely around protecting the gameplay experience from the sorts of people who are going to be disruptive no matter HOW many opportunities the game gives them.
It's also the last vestige of the Knightly association of Lawful Good left in the game, and I'd be very sad to see that go. It grants the view a certain legitimacy. Of course, that may also be an issue you have with it, in which case... *Shrug* I'll just be happy that for now, the game still includes something quite dear to me.
I disagree. I think that if a mechanic is frequently misinterpreted or used badly, it should be rethought and possible eliminated, and I don't think that classes should be shoehorned into one very specific role.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins may work well for you, but they don't work well for a lot of people. See the endless deluge of Paladin threads this site gets.
I am of the belief that for every person created a thread about how X class/feat/whatever sucks, there are an equal or greater number of people who do not believe that. We just don't see them because they don't feel the need to post what is(to them) obvious.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The endless deluge comes because many people just can't handle playing Paladins. It's not a class issue, there are dozens of RPGs there where you get to play something that's bound by some arbitrary rules (SW's Jedis? WoD's almost anything? L5R *everything*?). And there's always a bunch of folks who just aren't able to play such characters.Exactly, and what I am suggesting will make Paladins easier to handle playing by making them less rigid.
I have absolutely no problem with *one* class in the game being rigid.
Contrast that with L5R where *every* *single* *one* character is bound by social norms and codes that makes you think twice before you wink, let alone move your arm or open your mouth. You folks all really need to go and play more RPGs than just this (very fun and enjoyable) tactical wargame, it would open your eyes far better than anything I write here.
On the other hand, there are players who enjoy the challenge of playing rigid characters, so throwing them a bone is good thing IMO.
Devotion and discipline have nothing to do with lawHere's the CRB on lawfulness:
The rules even use the word "discipline", so you can't really say they're unrelated.Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
...
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.
...
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly.
...
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
Just because lawful characters are usually disciplined doesn't mean that devotion and discipline are lawful. That's like saying that honor is a lawful attribute just because law tends to put emphasis on honor. Neutral and chaotic characters can easily be highly disciplined and devoted (Or honorable, for that matter. See Barbarian tribes.).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
what I am suggesting will make Paladins easier to handle playing by making them less rigid.
...
I think that if a mechanic is frequently misinterpreted or used badly, it should be rethought and possible eliminated
Personally, I'm against the philosophy of changing things to align with people's mistakes. Let's try fighting ignorance/incompetence instead of covering it up by redefining the standard.
Nope, it's "Kelsey's New Alias and New RP Problems in her group" thread, on a weekly schedule. :)Woooo another Paladin alignment thread, we just don't get enough of those.At least this one is about making the Paladin less prone to problems and hopefully cutting down on such threads in the future as a result.
I didn't mention what's going on in my group right now. I mentioned a problem that a lot of different groups have and a possible solution.
The endless deluge comes because many people just can't handle playing Paladins. It's not a class issue, there are dozens of RPGs there where you get to play something that's bound by some arbitrary rules (SW's Jedis? WoD's almost anything? L5R *everything*?). And there's always a bunch of folks who just aren't able to play such characters.Exactly, and what I am suggesting will make Paladins easier to handle playing by making them less rigid.I have absolutely no problem with *one* class in the game being rigid.
Contrast that with L5R where *every* *single* *one* character is bound by social norms and codes that makes you think twice before you wink, let alone move your arm or open your mouth. You folks all really need to go and play more RPGs than just this (very fun and enjoyable) tactical wargame, it would open your eyes far better than anything I write here.
On the other hand, there are players who enjoy the challenge of playing rigid characters, so throwing them a bone is good thing IMO.
Letting Paladins be NG or CG doesn't mean you can't play a completely rigid LG Paladin. It means you don't have to to belong to the class.
Just because lawful characters are usually disciplined doesn't mean that devotion and discipline are lawful. That's like saying that honor is a lawful attribute just because law tends to put emphasis on honor. Neutral and chaotic characters can easily be highly disciplined and devoted (or honorable, for that matter).Devotion and discipline have nothing to do with lawHere's the CRB on lawfulness:
The rules even use the word "discipline", so you can't really say they're unrelated.Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
...
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.
...
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly.
...
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
At this point, however, this is more your opinion that actual rules work. The Rules are tilted far more in favor of Honour and Justice and Discipline being associated with Law, than with any other alignment.
Which is, again, why Lawful Behavior is in the Paladin code. It is not that other alignments can't be Honorable or Disciplined, it's that they aren't honorable or disciplined ENOUGH.
Personally, I'm against the philosophy of changing things to align with people's mistakes. Let's try fighting ignorance/incompetence instead of covering it up by redefining the standard.what I am suggesting will make Paladins easier to handle playing by making them less rigid.
...
I think that if a mechanic is frequently misinterpreted or used badly, it should be rethought and possible eliminated
Normally I'd agree, but in this particular case I think a rewrite of the fluff would work better and be more fun in the long run.