I think it's about time to remove law from the Paladin code of conduct.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 659 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Shalafi2412 wrote:
I do not think that it has anything to do with the way that the class is designed and written about in the Core book. It has to do with the way people play or do not play the class. How is that the fault of the class or the book?

The reason the Paladin gets played how it gets played is because of how easy it is to misconstrue what the book says.


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
I just don't think that you need to be lawful to be a virtuous, honorable knight willing to die in the protection of the weak, and I feel that the lawful requirement causes to much lawful stupid, too much "gonna annoy the rest of the party", and too much "gotta punish the Paladin for being irritating", and I want to see it as an any good alignment class.

Then don't play a paladin. They are the examplars and champions of of just law and goodness since they were first introduced as a class over 34 years ago. What a Paladin is has been well established and defined.

I would like to note that those who are truly just and righteous in all they do and in every way they live CAN BE annoying to the rest of us who cannot tow such a stringent line and be so upstanding. Such is the reality of the truly good.

Maybe your fellow players need to play better good aligned characters.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
I get what your saying. But its not like people don't have other options for a divine warrior if they don't like the Paladin fluff.

Then -- begging your pardon -- you don't quite get what I'm really saying. A "class" is a set of mechanical game features. Generally these features are based around some kind of theme, but some of those are a lot looser than others.

A "divine warrior" theme could be modeled by the paladin's set of mechanical features, but I could just as easily model one on the barbarian's set of mechanical features -- rename "rage" as "righteous indignation," etc. Yet the barbarian "class" is required by the rules to be non-lawful, for no reason I can see other than to prevent me from doing something that actually makes a lot of sense, and would be an interesting character.

If someone wants to play a character who detects and smites the bad guys, heals their friends, has a cool magic horse (i.e., has the paladin's set of mechanical features) -- but is a "Fairy Knight" and worships the fey and takes after them in terms of being chaotic -- the rules as written prevent them from doing so, and instead force that person to shoehorn their character concept into a different set of mechanics that might not fit nearly as well. And that's fairly silly, when you really think about it.


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.
Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.
I get what your saying. But its not like people don't have other options for a divine warrior if they don't like the Paladin fluff.
I suspect, that the issue is more that the paladin is one of the most powerful classes in the game. There is (or may be) a view (not one I share, mind) that it being restricted to a LG alignment accordingly crowns that alignment with the "Most Noble and Good" award. If someone doesn't view LG as deserving that place (whether true or perceived) it rankles.
You got me. LG is my favorite alignment, but I don't think it deserves a place as "most noble and good". I think all good alignments deserve equal places as paragons of virtue, and if I was forced to choose only one as "most noble and good" it'd be NG, not LG, do to NG's neutrality on anything not involving good.

All comes down to how you view the alignments, I guess. I understand your point, though. I still disagree, but I understand. That's enough for me.

Enjoy your debate, folks. I got all I wanted. ^_^


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.
Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.
I get what your saying. But its not like people don't have other options for a divine warrior if they don't like the Paladin fluff.
Not with the Paladin class features there aren't.
Then like i said either house-rule it or suck it up and play a cleric or inquisitor.

I already do have house rules to that effect, but I can't use them under another GM, and I don't want Cleric or Inquisitor features. Why can't I just have the Paladin features and be NG?


Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Then what do you think Law should be better at than Chaos? Or should neither be better than the other at anything?
Neither should be better than the other at anything.

That's what I thought. In that case, your gripe is with the entire concept of alignment, not with Paladins. You just notice the issue with Paladins because they have the most specific interaction with alignment.

The whole point of "Law vs Chaos" is that Law is better at some things while Chaos is better at others. Neither is better overall, they just have differing strengths and weaknesses (and the CRB spells this out explicitly).

If you don't like the idea of one alignment being better at X than another, that's fine. It's just not about the paladin. :)

Under my house rules alignment doesn't exist, and Paladins have to be good but not necessarily lawful. The issue is playing in games that do use alignment and having Paladins shoehorned in those cases.


Weables wrote:

Heck,

To be a virtuous, honorable knight willing to die in the protection of the weak, you don't have to be lawful. You also you don't have to be a Paladin.

True. But a paladin DOES have to do that and make sure that their honor and morals are above reproach while doing so. Paladins are not just Lawful Good. They are held to a higher standard of goodness and justness, that is the real meat of the RP of the class. Can you play ANY class like that? Sure. But the Paladin is a specific example of that specific role and has a singular background that caused it to be what it is.

Again if the Paladin annoys you, don't play one.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

There was a funny comment that I read on the Dragonlance webpage discussion boards. IIRC I think it was someone's signature. It went something like this: Why bother with what the rule's say when everything I say and want is much better?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
I get what your saying. But its not like people don't have other options for a divine warrior if they don't like the Paladin fluff.

Then -- begging your pardon -- you don't quite get what I'm really saying. A "class" is a set of mechanical game features. Generally these features are based around some kind of theme, but some of those are a lot looser than others.

A "divine warrior" theme could be modeled by the paladin's set of mechanical features, but I could just as easily model one on the barbarian's set of mechanical features -- rename "rage" as "righteous indignation," etc. Yet the barbarian "class" is required by the rules to be non-lawful, for no reason I can see other than to prevent me from doing something that actually makes a lot of sense, and would be an interesting character.

If someone wants to play a character who detects and smites the bad guys, heals their friends, has a cool magic horse (i.e., has the paladin's set of mechanical features) -- but is a "Fairy Knight" and worships the fey and takes after them in terms of being chaotic -- the rules as written prevent them from doing so, and instead force that person to shoehorn their character concept into a different set of mechanics that might not fit nearly as well. And that's fairly silly, when you really think about it.

I just meant i understand what you're saying and to a degree it makes sense, just not my cup of tea. I've seen your ideas for games and they would make a great game, like i said i actually prefer how it works currently.


Gilfalas wrote:
Weables wrote:

Heck,

To be a virtuous, honorable knight willing to die in the protection of the weak, you don't have to be lawful. You also you don't have to be a Paladin.

True. But a paladin DOES have to do that and make sure that their honor and morals are above reproach while doing so. Paladins are not just Lawful Good. They are held to a higher standard of goodness and justness, that is the real meat of the RP of the class. Can you play ANY class like that? Sure. But the Paladin is a specific example of that specific role and has a singular background that caused it to be what it is.

Again if the Paladin annoys you, don't play one.

Paladins don't bug me. I find LG Paladins loads of fun. My issue is telling players they can't have an NG or CG Paladin. I think that's wrong.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Under my house rules alignment doesn't exist, and Paladins have to be good but not necessarily lawful. The issue is playing in games that do use alignment and having Paladins shoehorned in those cases.

So the issue is having to play with people who don't use your houserules? And your suggestion is that your houserules should become the actual rules?

So basically, your issue is that other people don't like to play the same way you do, and so you want them to be forced to via a change to the rules?

Learn to play well with others. Sometimes it'll require not getting your way. Deal with it.


Shalafi2412 wrote:
There was a funny comment that I read on the Dragonlance webpage discussion boards. IIRC I think it was someone's signature. It went something like this: Why bother with what the rule's say when everything I say and want is much better?

If you don't like debating the rules, you don't have to, but I see no reason to keep silent about things I disagree with.


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Paladins don't bug me. I find LG Paladins loads of fun. My issue is telling players they can't have an NG or CG Paladin. I think that's wrong.

Then you have already done all you can. You have altered it for your own game. If you want to play your custome Paladin in other games then ask the ref. If they say no, then deal with it and move on.

But I have seen 0 reason why the STANDARD Paladin should have anything of it's RP so radically changed.


I don't think the code is an issue. The issue is the disconnect between players and GM's on how much they are supposed to be allowed to do.
I got into a debate with a player who considered feints(the mechanical effect) to be breaking the code.
Another said a paladin General must not use ambushes, and must fight out in the open.
I have had a player in real life who thought paladins had a license to kill, but in his defense he was used to GM's that had goblins, and other humanoids as nothing more than monsters, as opposed to being considered people so they had no rights.

I think that if more GM's and players have a "what if" session before the the game, issues can be ironed out or the player can choose another class if he feels the GM is too restrictive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
I just meant i understand what you're saying and to a degree it makes sense, just not my cup of tea. I've seen your ideas for games and they would make a great game, like i said i actually prefer how it works currently.

Cool. And really, as long as we're both having fun, it probably doesn't make much difference in the long run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Learn to play well with others. Sometimes it'll require not getting your way. Deal with it.

Spoken like someone who's getting his way.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post that was not helping. Also, a post that abused the quote function. As well as the replies to both.


Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Under my house rules alignment doesn't exist, and Paladins have to be good but not necessarily lawful. The issue is playing in games that do use alignment and having Paladins shoehorned in those cases.

So the issue is having to play with people who don't use your houserules? And your suggestion is that your houserules should become the actual rules?

So basically, your issue is that other people don't like to play the same way you do, and so you want them to be forced to via a change to the rules?

Learn to play well with others. Sometimes it'll require not getting your way. Deal with it.

No, I don't advocate making my house rules RAW. If I did, we'd be having a whole different debate right now. What I do advocate is loosening the RAW concerning Paladins a bit, because I disagree with how strict the class is. I can play under the RAW as it is, seeing as how LG is my favorite alignment (when I use alignment at all). However, I do not agree with the RAW, even though it doesn't prevent the characters I like to play, on principle. I don't think the class should be as strict as it is, because I think NG and CG Paladins should be a perfectly valid choice from a RAW perspective, even if I myself like my Paladins LG.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Learn to play well with others. Sometimes it'll require not getting your way. Deal with it.
Spoken like someone who's getting his way.

Actually, spoken by someone who currently only plays in Organized Play and therefore always has to defer and can never ever just work out an exception with the GM and therefore isn't getting his way on about half a dozen things but has fun anyway.


Ross Byers wrote:
I removed a post that was not helping. Also, a post that abused the quote function. As well as the replies to both.

Can I get a clarification on this? Is breaking up a quote to discuss it piece by piece considered abuse?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

I don't advocate making my house rules RAW.

.....
What I do advocate is loosening the RAW ... because I disagree

You're not advocating making your house rules into RAW, you're just advocating changing the RAW because you disagree with it?


Kesley it seems to me that you can't define Law and Chaos and by not doing that you can't understand why it can't be (or shouldn't be) a CG or even a NG paladin, you seem to see the lawful and chaotic alignments as something subjective and nothing more than labels, well they aren't. They are defined, objective, measured forces.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Actually, spoken by someone who currently only plays in Organized Play and therefore always has to defer and can never ever just work out an exception with the GM and therefore isn't getting his way on about half a dozen things but has fun anyway.

Ah -- OK, I get it. That's my chaotic alignment for you -- it prevents me from even considering Organized Play!


Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:

I don't advocate making my house rules RAW.

.....
What I do advocate is loosening the RAW ... because I disagree

You're not advocating making your house rules into RAW, you're just advocating changing the RAW because you disagree with it?

Yes.


leo1925 wrote:
Kesley it seems to me that you can't define Law and Chaos and by not doing that you can't understand why it can't be (or shouldn't be) a CG or even a NG paladin, you seem to see the lawful and chaotic alignments as something subjective and nothing more than labels, well they aren't. They are defined, objective, measured forces.

I'm not seeing it. If Shelyn is willing to create an LG Paladin, she'd be willing to create an NG Paladin.

As for alignment as an objective force, I disagree. It causes more rules arguments than anything else and is played differently at every gaming table, and is therefore pretty clearly subjective.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ah -- OK, I get it. That's my chaotic alignment for you -- it prevents me from even considering Organized Play!

Just as my Lawful alignment draws me to it! ;)

See, this is a great example: being Lawful myself, I respect that I need to make sacrifices in order to let Organized Play work for as many people as possible - meanwhile, many Chaotic players/GMs get rubbed the wrong way by having to stay within such specific rules.

But in a home game, a Chaotic GM (or even player) will be able to express great creativity by taking the rules as mere suggestions and - if able to wield that freedom benevolently - create a totally unique experience.

This is the beauty of the diversity of alignments!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:

I don't advocate making my house rules RAW.

.....
What I do advocate is loosening the RAW ... because I disagree

You're not advocating making your house rules into RAW, you're just advocating changing the RAW because you disagree with it?
Yes.

Someone please tell me I'm not the only one seeing the self-contradiction here?


Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:

I don't advocate making my house rules RAW.

.....
What I do advocate is loosening the RAW ... because I disagree

You're not advocating making your house rules into RAW, you're just advocating changing the RAW because you disagree with it?
Yes.
Someone please tell me I'm not the only one seeing the self-contradiction here?

It's no different than expressing an opinion that the Rogue or Fighter has issues that should at some point be fixed or expressing disagreement with pretty much any other rule. Expressing disagreement with the RAW is perfectly valid.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
I removed a post that was not helping. Also, a post that abused the quote function. As well as the replies to both.
Can I get a clarification on this? Is breaking up a quote to discuss it piece by piece considered abuse?

No. However 'Fixed it for you' generally is.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, except Fighter and Rogue is math, while this is "how I view the alignments, how I read the Paladin code, and why some people are brainless douchebags".


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Kesley it seems to me that you can't define Law and Chaos and by not doing that you can't understand why it can't be (or shouldn't be) a CG or even a NG paladin, you seem to see the lawful and chaotic alignments as something subjective and nothing more than labels, well they aren't. They are defined, objective, measured forces.

I'm not seeing it. If Shelyn is willing to create an LG Paladin, she'd be willing to create an NG Paladin.

As for alignment as an objective force, I disagree. It causes more rules arguments than anything else and is played differently at every gaming table, and is therefore pretty clearly subjective.

That's your mistake right there, you don't understand in the game world Law, Chaos, Good and Evil are objective, there are spells that instantly measure you and harm you if you are of the opposite force, for example chaos hammer.


leo1925 wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Kesley it seems to me that you can't define Law and Chaos and by not doing that you can't understand why it can't be (or shouldn't be) a CG or even a NG paladin, you seem to see the lawful and chaotic alignments as something subjective and nothing more than labels, well they aren't. They are defined, objective, measured forces.

I'm not seeing it. If Shelyn is willing to create an LG Paladin, she'd be willing to create an NG Paladin.

As for alignment as an objective force, I disagree. It causes more rules arguments than anything else and is played differently at every gaming table, and is therefore pretty clearly subjective.

That's your mistake right there, you don't understand in the game world Law, Chaos, Good and Evil are objective, there are spells that instantly measure you and harm you if you are of the opposite force, for example chaos hammer.

That doesn't make alignment any less subjective. I again point you to the fact that everybody has a different idea of what alignments mean.

Furthermore, the objectivity or subjectivity of alignment is irrelevant to whether NG or CG Paladins make sense.


Gorbacz wrote:
Yeah, except Fighter and Rogue is math, while this is "how I view the alignments, how I read the Paladin code, and why some people are brainless douchebags".

The intent was "The Paladin code should be less strict and only require a good alignment, not a lawful alignment".


Ross Byers wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
I removed a post that was not helping. Also, a post that abused the quote function. As well as the replies to both.
Can I get a clarification on this? Is breaking up a quote to discuss it piece by piece considered abuse?
No. However 'Fixed it for you' generally is.

Well, that's kinda sad. That's just about always done in jest, as the little smiley accompanying "Fixed if for you." shows us.

Oh well...

@leo195: Wonderful spells, but I think you should start with the detect line first. Casting holy smite on everyone you meet is bound to be frowned upon. ;)


The fact that we argue about them in real life does not affect fantasy land. In fantasy land the alignments are not open to interpretation. If not then most people would not be subject to protection from evil. Even in our world the people that we consider to be evil don't think of themselves as such, but in fantasyland they they definitely get the evil tag as an example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
No. However 'Fixed it for you' generally is.

Wow -- that was my post from like 2 pages ago! And here I was thinking it got to the heart of the matter without being obnoxious... if the rule is "don't alter quotes to make a point, even if you're not being a jerk," I've got it now, and can see how that makes sense.

Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Want a good example of a paladin in a group with chaotic members, without being a pain in anyone's butt? Big-Ears, from the webcomic Goblins. Look it up. I have never seen a better example for a paladin.

I consider it proof that the paladin is fine. It's the PLAYERS that need to change.


Kevin-Éric Bouchard wrote:
Want a good example of a paladin in a group with chaotic members, without being a pain in anyone's butt? Big-Ears, from the webcomic Goblins. Look it up. I have never seen a better example for a paladin.

My favorite paladin is John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn.


How does the existance of spells like chaos hammer and detect alignment don't make alignment any less subjective? If that's true then who judges when and to what extent these spell work?

Yes everyone has a different idea because they bring subjectivity instead of just following what the rulebook says, also a lot of times they bring 21st century morality to a fantasy setting.

The objectivity or or subjectivity of alignment is relevant to whether NG or CG Paladins make sense, because if you can't tell the difference between law and chaos then they should very well not exist as rules, thus NG and CG paladins make sense, if law and chaos are different things then NG and CG paladins might not make sense.


@Azten
You made me laugh big time, yes you are right but i was trying to demonstrate how alignment isn't subjective and how you can be killed by cosmic forces for belonging to one side and not another.


leo1925 wrote:

How does the existance of spells like chaos hammer and detect alignment don't make alignment any less subjective? If that's true then who judges when and to what extent these spell work?

Yes everyone has a different idea because they bring subjectivity instead of just following what the rulebook says, also a lot of times they bring 21st century morality to a fantasy setting.

The rulebook doesn't cover all the possible conflicts of alignment, and it only gives a page or two to it. There has to be interpretation as a result, and interpretations, by their very nature, differ. Alignment may not be subjective in game, but it sure is out of game.

Quote:
The objectivity or or subjectivity of alignment is relevant to whether NG or CG Paladins make sense, because if you can't tell the difference between law and chaos then they should very well not exist as rules, thus NG and CG paladins make sense, if law and chaos are different things then NG and CG paladins might not make sense.

I can tell the difference between law and chaos. I just define it different than you do, and I feel that the RAW should have a place for NG and CG Paladins. I'll still play LG Paladins on those occasions when I have to have an alignment at all, but I think they should be an option for others.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder is backwards compatible with 3.5 right? With a little bit of imagination and some work you can include classes and variants from 3.5 material into Pathfinder. So why not use the variant paladin rules from Unearthed Arcana?

Better yet, and this suggestion comes partly from TOZ's idea, make the paladin a prestige class as well (again an example of this can be found in Unearthed Arcana) and modify it to your needs. I know this is house ruling again, but you're not going to escape it.

In my campaigns, I sit down with a potential paladin player and discuss the class with them. I like to get it straight on how (s)he wants to play the class in relation to a code of conduct and how that code could (or should) be changed in reference to the chosen deity or ideal.

I also do the same thing with other classes, especially any class that has to adhere to any particular restriction. I want to be on the same page with my players. However, at the end of the day, if we're overhauling the class beyond recognition, I suggest it might be better to find a different class as a solution.

Personally, I like how the paladin is presented in RAW and currently, in my group's Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign, one player is playing an exceptionally interesting and cool paladin. As far as I can see there has been no modification to the class as written.


It's because alignments are objective in game that a paladin can't or shouldn't be NG or CG and can only be LG.

Then what is the difference between law and chaos? becuase earlier in the thread it seems as if you didn't see any difference between the two of them since everything the law encompasses could be in chaos and everything choas encompases could be in law?

And yes i agree that they should put more pages about alignment in the book.


Paladin and druid are the only two classes with alignment restrictions that I agree with.

Alignment is subjective, it is put into several classes as a mechanic and therefore becomes objective. It has to be done on a case by case basis and GM's should sit down with their players beforehand to work out basic guidelines for their own subjective views of what *enter alignment term here* "really" means. In my opinion this should be a compromise between GM and Player(s). If alignment is really THAT big of a deal in your* campaigns and stops game-play for a lengthy discussion on the matter, then its probably best just to hand-wave the mechanic or avoid those classes entirely.

*Not naming anyone specifically, just using the second person.

Silver Crusade

Montana MacAilbert wrote:
I just define it different than you do, and I feel that the RAW should have a place for NG and CG Paladins. I'll still play LG Paladins on those occasions when I have to have an alignment at all, but I think they should be an option for others.

Well, the term "paladin" means knightly champion. A knightly champion does not have to be the "paladin" as ruled in Pathfinder. You could easily have a fighter who wanders around calling himself a "paladin" as well. Even a cleric could do the same. Take the crusader archetype or the such.

If you want all the cool class features and be able to play a paladin in games that are not run by you, then you currently have to be a LG paladin. I have seen many players want all the cool features and never want to take on the restrictions. Its not a class that is easily played by all players.

Kirth definitely has a point about fluff being linked to mechanics, but it also comes down to how a player approaches the paladin. Personally, I think paladins should be LG and follow a code of conduct. I like the more rigid foundations of how to role play the class.

In the various threads you have mentioned playing a paladin, I get the feeling it is not the class for you Kelsey. You really seem to enjoy having the kind of fun in game that does not fit in well with the inspiration or restrictions of the class IMHO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't handle a Lawful Paladin!

Lawful Paladins live in a world that has expectations, and those expectations have to be guarded by developers who make the rules. Who's gonna do it? You? Gorbacz?

Paladins have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for your vision, and you curse the RAW. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what the developers know. That the RAW, while tragic, probably saved the majority from excessive nerd-rage. And the existence of a Lawful-only Paladin, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, spares the headaches.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at gaming sessions, you want things your way, you need things to be done your way. Paladins use words like honor, code, loyalty. Paladins use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.

Maybe you should just say thank you and go on your way with a houserule and get over it.


Law is the support of organized government, and chaos is opposition to organized government. Anything else is irrelevant to law and chaos. Even if you define the two differently than I do, I still don't see an issue with a Paladin who takes the CG or NG side and not the LG side.


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Law is the support of organized government, and chaos is opposition to organized government. Anything else is irrelevant to law and chaos. Even if you define the two differently than I do, I still don't see an issue with a Paladin who takes the CG or NG side and not the LG side.

Whoa now, that may be your personal definition, but that is not necessarily the canon definition as by the RAW.

The PFSRD said wrote:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, 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.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Emphasis mine. Law and Chaos are far more than you stated in your post, and while respect or rejection are a part of them both, they are NOT the only relevant part of that axis, except in your personal interpretations, which are not reflective of the rules as written. You can debate how they play out at the table all well and fine, but these are how the RAW defines them. Asserting them to be only stripped down versions of themselves is dishonest.


TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Law is the support of organized government, and chaos is opposition to organized government. Anything else is irrelevant to law and chaos. Even if you define the two differently than I do, I still don't see an issue with a Paladin who takes the CG or NG side and not the LG side.

Whoa now, that may be your personal definition, but that is not necessarily the canon definition as by the RAW.

The PFSRD said wrote:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, 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.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Emphasis mine. Law and Chaos are far more than you stated in your post. You can debate how they play out at the table all well and fine, but these are how the RAW defines them. Asserting them to be only stripped down...

The problem here is that all of the qualities listed as lawful, except for adherence to law, can be had by a chaotic character, and vice versa.


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Law is the support of organized government, and chaos is opposition to organized government. Anything else is irrelevant to law and chaos. Even if you define the two differently than I do, I still don't see an issue with a Paladin who takes the CG or NG side and not the LG side.

Whoa now, that may be your personal definition, but that is not necessarily the canon definition as by the RAW.

The PFSRD said wrote:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, 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.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Emphasis mine. Law and Chaos are far more than you stated in your post. You can debate how they play out at the table all well and fine, but these are how the RAW defines them. Asserting them
...

And a Lawful Character can accept or reject authority. It's not an axis of absolutes, but of tendencies. You also stated that only one aspect of that axis (one listed under implications, with all the rest) was relevant. This is demonstrably untrue.

Regardless, the Rules as Written do not seem to support your assertion. Honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability are explicitly, in the rules, associated with Law. Freedom, adaptability, and flexibility are explicitly associated with Chaos.

Whether or not a L or C character can possess any of these traits as well is not relevant to how the rules explicitly (which they do) define those two steps on the alignment chart.

There is more to Law and Chaos than the support or rejection of authority, by the rules.

101 to 150 of 659 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / I think it's about time to remove law from the Paladin code of conduct. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.