I do recall harsher posts from you in regards to my old DM and my relation to him (since you seemed adamant that I was more at fault than he would have ever been just because he was DM), but for the life of me I can't be bothered digging them up now. This has been mostly miscommunication anyway. I apologize for the outbursts that were uncalled for. Though it's kind of funny in retrospect, since half of whatever you say just seems to come off as offensive to me on some level :3
Thank you Icyshadow. Apology accepted.
Although I do honestly wonder how you keep misinterpreting things I type.I would ask if I am unclear in some way... but I don't wish to derail the thread anymore. Perhaps you could toss me a PM if you know the answer.
I also think the paladin issue isn't likely to be solved. There are two very different views on how paladin should be treated. I am comforted because I believe Pathfinder will continue to treat the class more as I like it. But this is more an issue for each GM to decide for them self. I have always given GMs the final say on setting or rules, even when they are wrong. If a GM wants paladins of every stripe and color then it won't hurt game balance any. And it will still play quite enjoyably. Would I play such a game? Yes I would. Would I miss my special paladin on her ivory tower? I sure would. But I would have fun regardless.
BTW, A CE paladin doesn't give a fig for his own people. He's CE...it's all about him. HE thinks a LG paladin is a weak-willed, simpering fool who is letting weaker fools dictate to him the limits of his actions, abiding by a code set up by others that restrains him from taking what is rightfully his.
The CE paladin acknowledges no right but power. He will do what he wants, take what he wants, and only power will check him...as it should be.
Certainly no limp-wristed king or mewling sheep of the populace are going to dictate terms of conduct to HIM.
==Aelryinth
http://www.pathfinderdb.com/character-options/classes/1515-aeonic-paladin
Here is my True Neutral paladin.
Behold the paladins of True Neutrality ;P!
Well one of the main reasons not to do is simply the fact that if you do make a paladin for every alignment it makes the paladin itself a whole lot less interesting and special.
do as in eberron rules!!
let the aligments less important for a deitylet the players the option to do both spells (inflict or heal as they want)
let the corruption a posible cause in your churches
an lawful evil cleric of sarenrae for example
plz break the wall that aligment represents
If I recall correctly, 1E AD&D also had a Law vs. Chaos war (Rod of Seven Parts plotline, I believe) where there was good vs. good conflict with evil allies on both sides.
You're incredibly unlikely to see anything like that with the current alignment scale and where paladins would almost automatically fall. Which is unfortunate, because I could see some great epic plotlines about the restoration or opposition to the restoration of prophecy and the shades of grey of self determination in Golarion with a Law vs. Chaos war.
Overall though, I don't mind LG-only paladins, but I would prefer to see LE Anti-Paladins (yes, already house-ruled).
-TimD
|
Aranna, I appreciate your concerns, but I disagree that a classic LG paladin is in any way more virtuous, more difficult to play, or more "real" than a CG paladin. You may prefer it, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean that a CG paladin is a half-paladin any more than a druid who eats meat is less of a druid than their stereotypical vegetarian colleagues.
I have always liked the idea of the 4 extremes paladins (LG, CG, LE, CE). And the defenders of only LG can have true paladins sounds to me like "LG is superior good to others good alignements", and idea that I really hate.
I really HATED the 2E Guide to Hell's story of the creation of multiverse, with Law as the maximum in good and evil and Chaos as a simple remnant/byproduct. In my homebrew universe, the Main God has a feminine/lawful good aspect and a masculine/chaotic good aspect (the Lovers). And both have holy warriors.
This is how I feel on the subject. People tend to treat LG as a good-plus, and CG as simply good in the absence of laws.
The essential difference, as I see it, is this: when given the choice to work within or outside of a system of law, a lawful character will choose to work inside the law and the chaotic character will choose to work outside it. All good characters will work against oppression, but a lawful good character will do so by trying to change the oppressive law or regime using lawful means. A chaotic good character will help people to break the law or evade punishment. The guy who formally abolishes slavery is LG; the guy working the Underground Railroad is CG. A lawful good character believes that the law exists for the benefit of the people, that it ensures fair treatment of all, and that it should be respected. A chaotic good character believes that the law restrains people from doing good, that it favors the powerful, and that the best way to serve the people is to ensure that they are free to reach their full potential.
Law and Chaos are equally valid philosophies, and it is possible to play both lawful and chaotic characters at the highest standard of good. And remember that for a classic paladin, good is ultimately the more important requirement - PF paladins don't have an Aura of Law.
The CG paladin I described put her life on the line to save her son's murderer from eternal damnation and was sorry that she could not save his life as well as his soul. If that isn't a higher standard of goodness I don't know what is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, A CE paladin doesn't give a fig for his own people. He's CE...it's all about him.
I regard this as an unacceptably narrow reading of the chaotic evil alignment.
How would you resolve the alignment of someone who selflessly dedicates their life to securing the stability and prosperity of their people at great personal peril, but does so by conquering, plundering, enslaving, and slaughtering other people? He may have strong redeeming features that make his own people regard him as a hero, but his depraved actions put him deep into evil-alignment territory in my books.
This character is a champion, but a dark and terrible one; this is the kind of character I want to be the evil Paladin in my campaign setting.
Certainly no limp-wristed king or mewling sheep of the populace are going to dictate terms of conduct to HIM.
Not his countrymen? Not his friends? Not his family? Evil characters can still love, and chaotic characters can still have their loyalties. Yes, this is a character who believes that might makes right (in fact, evil Paladins are called "Paladins of Might" in my campaign setting in reference to this very maxim), that he can take what he wants from anyone too weak to defend it. That doesn't mean he can't value other people and their well-being; his family, his tribe, his city, his nation.
I'm certainly not opposed to a psychopath who really only cares about himself, but they represent an uncommon extreme of the spectrum, equivalent to a good-aligned Paladin who refuses to resort to violence except in the most extreme of situations. I certainly wouldn't force such a straightjacket on good Paladins, and am similarly disinclined to do so for evil ones.
A Morally ambiguous setting should have less alignment based mechanics not more.
It's morally ambiguous, not alignment agnostic. The setting is open-ended as to what is right and wrong, but that doesn't mean that people won't take principled stands on one side or another. It is the clash between these competing beliefs that forms the foundation of the campaign's conflict.
I did actually have trouble fitting Paladins into my original concept document for the campaign for that reason. However, I reconciled this by envisioning the Paladin as someone who draws his power from the sheer force of his personal convictions. This says nothing of whether his beliefs are right, merely that he believes in them strongly enough for them to manifest as divine powers. With that concept in mind, Paladins of every alignment are basically mandated for my setting.
if he's letting others dictate terms of conduct, he's lawful, not Chaotic. A prime tenet of Chaotic is you only rule what you can hold, areas outside the reach of your power obey you only to the extent you can force them to do something. This is how demons work.
A CE Paladin places himself above everyone...that's what CE means. A LE paladin will willingly sacrifice even those he loves to further his place and ability, but will do so within the confines of laws set up by a superior power. HE may REGRET his actions...but he will still do them, and thus is Evil.
Violence in defense of others is not considered evil. Violence as the primary tool of rulership is not good. An LG paladin will choose diplomacy as readily as battle...both are equally viable, even if the one is more difficult. A CE paladin will choose whatever is most pragmatic and will deliver the results he wants. Sweet talk and bribe? Rape, slaughter, pillage? Equally useful. No inhibitions. The lives of others are not the consideration here...it's how convenient it is to HIM.
CAN he act like a normal person. Sure. CE can do ANYTHING...that's the beauty of the alignment. No restrictions on anything, from the veneer of honor and integrity to the depths of moral depravity. The reason he's CE is because HE CHOOSES the depths.
If he doesn't choose the depths, he's not CE, and it's a moot argument. People who want the freedom without the drawbacks are fooling themselves.
------
The reason CG is considered a sideshow to LG is very simple...LG is extremely restrictive in actions. We tend to elevate those who abide by stricter codes of conduct higher then others.
A CG paladin has within the realm of his possible actions EVERYTHING a LG paladin might do. In ADDITION, he has a whole slew of possible actions that non-lawfuls can do without shame.
Because they can do things that LG paladins will not, they aren't seen as pure and holy, and it's an entirely reasonable argument. The rabble rousing street preacher is generally not seen as holy as the devoted priest who tends to a congregation and submits to a heirarchy, though both may be equally pious and faithful. It's because of the range of actions each is permitted to do. LG holds itself to a higher standard of NOT DOING STUFF...and thus is seen as holier.
===Aelryinth
Yes Aelryinth, Lawful is a set of restrictions and chaotic is a lack of restrictions. This is why I called the CG paladin a half paladin. They are both held to a higher standard on good behavior, BUT only the LG paladin is held to a higher standard on lawful behavior. The chaotic one is unrestricted and has no higher calling on the L-C axis.
Isn't that technically something that would basically call for an alignment discussion? Just that I don't see that exactly as anything more than an interpretation of Chaotic as an alignment that I fail to agree with. The chaotic individual can (and usually do) have their own code or morals that they follow, despite the fact that set-in-stone (as in Lawful) rules are something they consider themselves as something free to disregard. Was Robin Hood not held to a higher standard both as an opposition to tyranny AND as a helper of those in need?
You have to fit a certain bill to be of a certain alignment, and that applies as much to Chaotic as it does to Lawful.
Just saying that this is my opinion on that, and that alignment discussions never have (and probably never will) ended well on any forum.
That's just it Icyshadow. A chaotic can follow a code if they want to or discard it two months later. Certainly not all chaotic characters have a code so it isn't an alignment violation to fail to live up to one, even one of your own making.
The restrictions for a lawful character do not have to be imposed from outside, so long as they are stringent. As long as they follow a logical and methodical code, they are lawful.
The way I look at this, the real question to ask is, how do you become a paladin in the first place? The way I see it, first, some god decides they want to have some elite order of holy knights out there championing their cause. Right off the bat, this narrows the options for paladins down some. Certain gods just plain don't have the temperament for that. Cayden Cailean is never going to have an elite holy order of knights serving him, for instance. That particular religion is all about being laid back, not telling other people what to do, and using your own best judgement. Desna doesn't work either. Not big on formality or organized worship, avoiding conflict is encouraged. Now, granted, in a given campaign, you might be making up your own list of gods rather than use the defaults, but still, an elite order of holy warriors is just kind of an inherently lawful sort of thing for a deity to promote.
Let's say though, for argument's sake, we do have exceptions. Actually, forget argument's sake. Sarenrae and Shelyn have paladin codes outlined in Faiths of Purity despite being NG. They're not really all about honor and duty and such, but they still see the value in the whole elite order of holy warriors concept. So with them, being specifically LG to line up with the values of your chosen god is not a required. They'd prefer you be NG, but any flavor of good or TN is cool too.
However, to become a paladin of one of these two (or any homebrew god of any given alignment you might create) is still as rigorous and demanding as it is for one of the proper LG paladin orders. You're still spending years in training to become this elite disciplined warrior, with absolute devotion to your cause, and this sacred code of conduct you swear to uphold. The religion you're serving is relatively way more laid back, but as a paladin, you're still being held to this major, formalized standard, right?
Being able to dedicate yourself to a cause that completely and unwaveringly makes you lawful. That's pretty much the definition. Being chaotic means you're outright opposed to following strict codes of conduct on general principle. Even if they line up perfectly with your personal morals, you're not going to formally swear to abide by that sort of thing, because you have the sort of personality where you just can't look at any sort of oath swearing as something that will somehow come back to bite you somehow, and if you're neutral on the law/chaos axis, that indicates a lack of the sort of conviction to really get off your butt and devote yourself whole-heartedly to that sort of a lifestyle.
That said, I have way less of a problem with the concept of non-good paladins than non-lawful ones. I can totally see LN or LE gods wanting orders of holy warriors serving them, and I can see people who are just really dedicated to maintaining social order or craving power and respect having the dedication to advance through the ranks there. You'd get weird variations of course instead of standard paladin powers, because I can't see a neutral paladin healing people and smiting evil and such, but the fact that there's nothing at least vaguely Paladinish in the service of say, Moloch, that's just plain weird.
There's also something to be said for having divinely empowered holy champions for some of the more laid-back gods, but not at all using Paladins as the model. Going back to my first example here, I could see Cayden Cailean personally hand-selecting a particular follower to bless with special powers to be used in service to him, without any formal organization behind it. I couldn't see him doing it with some big tough mounted knight type though. You'd end up with more of a quick scrappy little holy champion. Like some kind of smiting rogue, or divine-casting bard, or something.
Actually, that right there could make for a very interesting homebrew class now that I think about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The argument that any behavioral restrictions are lawful makes sense if you see Chaos as just an absence of Law. But my perspective on the alignment system is that it is essentially defined by values.
Good values others' wellbeing
Evil values your own wellbeing
Law values discipline and order
Chaos values individuality and adaptability
In the same way that Good sacrifices its own wellbeing to protect others while Evil sacrifices others for its own advantage, Law sacrifices self-determination in favour of an ordered society, and Chaos sacrifices stability in favour of individuality. Lawful Good defends laws that serve the people and changes those that don't, while Chaotic Good defends freedom and seeks to destroy any laws that are not essential to ensuring the wellbeing of the people.
CG values others' individuality and is thus required to respect it in the same way that LG is required to respect just laws.
A CG paladin has within the realm of his possible actions EVERYTHING a LG paladin might do. In ADDITION, he has a whole slew of possible actions that non-lawfuls can do without shame.
Here's an example of something that a Lawful Good paladin can do that a Chaotic Good paladin can't do without violating alignment.
Paladin and his friends track down an infamous murderer in the wilderness. In the course of the fight, the murderer is rendered helpless but not dead (through nonlethal damage, paralysis, sleep, etc). Being a merciful sort, the paladin restrains the murderer and restores his faculties so he can answer for what he has done. The murderer is unrepentant, but on realizing he has been caught, asks to be killed rather than taken prisoner or taken to applicable legal authority.
If the murderer is outside of any legal jurisdiction, a LG paladin may choose to honour his request or to bring him to the most relevant legal authority for trial and punishment.
A CG paladin must honour his commitment to self-determination and execute the murderer as per his own request. The CG paladin may not choose to bring him in live (perhaps to collect a bounty) because doing so would violate the murderer's right to freedom beyond what would be required to prevent him from killing others (the “good” half).
As for the CE paladin as a brutal protector of his tribe:
I think that really depends on how you define the "others" in "a Good person helps others." Most people would agree that a mass murderer who loves his son isn't "good," but there's also quite a bit of tolerance for violence performed by good characters. So what do you call an elf who faces death to defend his homeland, who never commits clear evils like torture, but who will kill any orc on sight? There's always some room for error or disagreement when we try to translate our world of moral ambiguity into a system of moral absolutes.
Dasrak, I'd recommend re-working the Paladin into the "Crusader." Give them an extreme dedication to a cause rather than an abstract alignment, and to detect and smite enemies of that cause. That allows the Crusader to have a strong conviction, strong enough to give him supernatural powers, without making any judgments about whether that conviction is right or wrong. Also, you can then have crusaders of opposed alignments that serve the same cause.
EDIT: Googleshng, that assumes that the paladin actually joins an organization where they train extensively and swear a formal oath. There's nothing wrong with a paladin being called directly into service by their god, Joan-of-Arc style, and learning as they go. Such a paladin could easily be chaotic.
However, to become a paladin of one of these two (or any homebrew god of any given alignment you might create) is still as rigorous and demanding as it is for one of the proper LG paladin orders. You're still spending years in training to become this elite disciplined warrior, with absolute devotion to your cause, and this sacred code of conduct you swear to uphold. The religion you're serving is relatively way more laid back, but as a paladin, you're still being held to this major, formalized standard, right?
Why? What if you are just trained as a warrior, are particularly pious, and the deity in question looks down and says "you'll do"?
I like the idea of the accidental paladin.
EDIT: Googleshng, that assumes that the paladin actually joins an organization where they train extensively and swear a formal oath. There's nothing wrong with a paladin being called directly into service by their god, Joan-of-Arc style, and learning as they go. Such a paladin could easily be chaotic.
Yeah, that's what I was going with with the holy rogue angle there. Traditionally, Paladins are a formal order, as reflected in the starting age by race/class rolls. I could totally see having a god not big on that just hand-picking a chosen holy warrior, Joan of Arc style, but I'd figure they'd have some bias. All the gods who seem like they'd want a knightly type as their champion lean LG, and would want a follower to do the same. CG gods would probably pick someone less inclined towards the traditional paladin schtick.
if he's letting others dictate terms of conduct, he's lawful, not Chaotic.
Caring about the well-being of other people and letting them dictate his conduct are two different things.
A chaotic evil Paladin will disobey the orders of his liege lord and execute prisoners because he believes his lord's decision is short-sighted. He is still unquestionably loyal, but he willingly defies orders he feels are not in the best interest of his cause.
Violence in defense of others is not considered evil.
Not necessarily, no. There is a continuum from clearly justifiable violence to acts that are simply unjustifiable. You can still be defending the interests of your people and commit horrible atrocities in the process. What defines the evil Paladin is that he is not only willing to cross that moral event horizon, but believes he is mandated to do so because others are too weak to follow through on what must be done.
If he doesn't choose the depths, he's not CE, and it's a moot argument
At this point, I feel our views on alignment are utterly irreconcilable. If loving your country and your people excuses horrific acts of depravity, then almost no one in human history would qualify for this alignment. In a similar vein, if you applied these standards to lawful good it would be basically impossible for someone with an adventurer lifestyle to maintain such unrealistically high standards, because any hatred, greed, or sin would be a disqualifier.
I think that really depends on how you define the "others" in "a Good person helps others." Most people would agree that a mass murderer who loves his son isn't "good," but there's also quite a bit of tolerance for violence performed by good characters.
Absolutely; there's a continuum from good down to evil. I'm not even bringing up edge-cases, I'm arguing people are unamibiguously evil... like "willing to commit genocide" evil.
Dasrak, I'd recommend re-working the Paladin into the "Crusader." Give them an extreme dedication to a cause rather than an abstract alignment, and to detect and smite enemies of that cause. Also, you can then have crusaders of opposed alignments that serve the same cause.
In many ways, you're not thinking too far off from me, just approached from the opposite direction. The way I've envisioned it, a Paladin is free to uphold any cause she deems fit, but the manifestation of her divine powers is based on her personal convictions (ie, alignment). Only the good-aligned "Paladin of Mercy" has the ability to smite based on alignments; the other four Paladin codes use different kinds of smite attacks. As I mentioned earlier, I still haven't figured that out mechanically (though I'm fairly certain evil-aligned paladins will get a watered-down version of "detect thoughts")
Paladins of opposed alignments certainly can serve the same cause, and the clauses in their codes of conduct referring to "association" offer them considerably more leeway, but they are bound to eventually come into conflict with eachother due to their irreconcilable differences.
At one time prior to 3rd Ed there was a Dragon Magazine that redefined the classic alignments in terms of a hierarchy of loyalties and superstitions. Can't remember the specific volume number, but it was in the 170's or so.
Lawful Good had a loyalty system with the individual at the bottom, and Chaotic Evil had a loyalty system with the individual at the top coupled with superstitions.
Weirdo, the CG paladin interpretation you've got is in error.
The CG Paladin has to follow his own internal laws, codes and beliefs, to the extent that they impose not upon others, or cause them harm. Furthermore, he has to respect the rights of others as an extension of his own rights...that's being Good.
Killing a criminal who would clearly rather die then face justice for his crimes?
The CG has the whole gamut of decision making available to him.
He can respect the man's wish and administer justice himself, saving the citizens a superfluous trial.
He can laugh in the bastard's face, and tell him how happy he's going to be watching the bastard's own laws convict him and send him swinging from a rope, exerting his own right to self-determination in his own interpretation of what a Good Deed is.
In other words, he can bring him in, or he can kill them. He is NOT BOUND TO A CODE the way a LG paladin is. He has the choice.
The only way a LG paladin should kill the criminal in the field is if he has the legal authority to do so, OR simply cannot transport the man back.
CG can bring 'em back dead or alive without testing his conscience or code in the slightest. What you're basically proposing is that he place the rights of the one man to force himself into a course of action, and I'm sorry, there's no way that criminal can force a CG into ANY course of action.
The beauty of being CG is flexibility, and honor can be oh so flexible.
==Aelryinth
Dasrak, you're going to have to explain 'horrible acts of depravity' to me, because it sounds like you're trying to apply them to LG.
War is war. It is neutral. Acts of terrible depravity is considerably different then fighting and dying for a greater cause.
If we're talking nazi death camps and the uninhibited slaughter of innocents, that's definitely LE, regardless of love for country.
If we're talking 'lebensraum' and kill everything and take their land, that's also Evil. Chaotic Evil is just really, really hard for us to do on a grand scale, because we're so damn organized nowadays. The closest equivalent would be mob rule, or tribal warfare and conflict you see in Africa where laws don't matter, only tribe and blood, and anyone not of the tribe is just something to be used to better it. Going past simple warfare to rape, torture and outright murder of anyone and everyone because you can get away with it is quite the essence of CE.
Sometimes innocents get in the way and suffer...it's a fact of life. Choosing to go after them is a different story.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Weirdo, the CG paladin interpretation you've got is in error.
No, the CG paladin interpretation I have is different from yours.
The CG Paladin has to follow his own internal laws, codes and beliefs, to the extent that they impose not upon others, or cause them harm. Furthermore, he has to respect the rights of others as an extension of his own rights...that's being Good.
Would we agree that one key component of a paladin is total commitment to an ideal? The LG Paladin is committed to among other things justice and honour. The CG Paladin is committed to freedom. The Paladin is who he is because he believes very strongly in one or more values and will not betray those values. It doesn't have to be a formal code. It's still the source of his moral strength.
If he has to respect the rights of others as an extension of his own rights, he has to respect the prisoner's right to freedom, which he values immensely, insofar as it doesn't conflict with the (Good) impetus to protect others. Therefore, he has to respect the prisoner's right to choose immediate death over trial, imprisonment, and public execution.
A CN character could laugh in the prisoner's face no problem. A CG character could refuse the prisoner's request, though it'd be a jerk move. The CG Paladin is held to a higher standard in terms of commitment to freedom.
Also, I consider the Neutral alignment to be most flexible, since the character has no particular moral leanings and is able to determine their actions in all scenarios independent of a moral framework. Chaotics have problems working inside a system. L-C Neutrals don't.
CG gods would probably pick someone less inclined towards the traditional paladin schtick.
There's nothing that locks the paladin class into the schtick of heavy armour and weapons. You could just as easily play a ranged paladin (perhaps with the divine hunter or holy gun archetypes) or a halfling in mithril chain on a riding dog.
Actually Weirdo you are the first person I have met that had an interpretation of Chaotic that involved things they must do. In every interpretation I have encountered up till now chaotic was treated as a very independent and individualistic person free to choose from moment to moment what to do in each situation. They reject any guiding authority over their own actions.
I always thought Druids were better representatives for all alignments.
I liked the UA idea of Paladins for the four extreme alignments.
How you interpret an CG paladin depends on how you interpret alignments in general.
Not liking that point of view og CG as "do anything I want on name of Good". To me, thats what NG is for; NG sometimes favor Lawful and sometimes Chaotic, whatever is aproppiate on the name of good. If chaotic good can act as lawful for the cause of good, what is the necessity for a Neutral Good alignement?
Im totally with Weirdo on this. Chaotic is no some kind of "easy alignment" and lawful "hard alignment". Really hate that vision of those tropes.
Chaotic is 'free'.
Everything a Lawful person can do, a Chaotic can do. It's within their realm of choice of actions.
There are plenty of things a Chaotic can do that a Lawful cannot do. Those are ALSO in their realm of actions.
BOTH of them have limitations on actions because they are Good.
A LE prisoner trying to impose his will upon a CG paladin? It will never fly. The CG paladin is free to choose his own course, he must NEVER knuckle down to another, especially someone of evil trying to escape the cost of his actions. What he is then doing is shirking responsibility and letting Evil have its day.
And not incidentally costing himself the glory and acclaim for bringing the dastard back. He IS chaotic good and out for himself, after all. If the bastard wanted to just die, he should have had the courage to commit suicide. Now, he pays the piper.
I'm afraid, Weirdo, that you are trying to build CG from the bottom up, attempting to define CG as this person's interpretation of things.
I look at the alignments as top down. Nobody can change the alignments...they simply are. The reason you are CG is because you adhere most closely to what CG represents. Paladins resonate most strongly with LG.
It doesn't matter if you love your country and your family, fight valiantly against those that threaten them, sacrifice much hold your people safe, and do battle with your enemies. If those actions are because you are a racist noble elitist cracking down on innocents harboring the revolutionaries trying to get rid of the caste system and slave state you are a proud member of, then you're LE. You don't get to rationalize...LE has claimed you, and you're stuck with it.
Likewise, a CG character believes in individual choice over law. That evil guy had his chance to make a choice, and he blew it. Now, he's got to live with CG's choice, which doesn't have to give a fig for him, and is likely to be entirely different then what he wants. Because Freedom of Choice applies to himself as well, and if there's a conflict, his own individuality wins out over the other guys'. A Lawful man might give them weight, but Chaotic? He's 'free' to make up his own mind on what to do...and he'll likely make a decision that benefits himself, and punishes the bad guy, because that's how CG rolls.
Also, remember that being Good doesn't mean you can't discriminate. Criminals and evildoers in ANY society are treated differently. What you're describing as zealotry and commitment to freedom is more a Neutral mindset, because it takes no Good into account...and it would not be Good to let Evil have its way, and get away with no punishment for its deeds. Your blind devotion to Freedom at all costs is CN, not CG..because CG will not pursue freedom at any cost. Freedom, too, has a price, and you must be willing to bear it.
Obviously, your LE prisoner is trying very hard NOT to bear it, he's trying to foist it on mr CG, who is simply dumping it back on him and saying "Live with your choices, berk, as I'll live with mine."
==Aelryinth
Actually Weirdo you are the first person I have met that had an interpretation of Chaotic that involved things they must do. In every interpretation I have encountered up till now chaotic was treated as a very independent and individualistic person free to choose from moment to moment what to do in each situation. They reject any guiding authority over their own actions.
I' going to agree with Aranna (and Aelyrinth) on this one. I don't think the prisoner's desires force the CG to do anything except consider them in light of the CG's personality and worldview. I blanch at the thought of a CG even having a "code of conduct" - codified behaviour is anathematic to a free-spirit. (And no, a code of no-code does not count!)
Chaotics value individuality, self-agency and freedom - the level to which they allow that to be infringed upon by others or delimit such in others is my interpretation of the good/neutral/evil sliding scale. A CG is likely to help others so long as it won't "fence him in", nor will he knowlingly allow innocents to come to harm - he may even "suffer" a constricted freedom temporarily to do so. A CN is a rogue agent, an absolute creature of whim, the ultimate self-involved narcissist. Desire and entropy wrapped together and made flesh. CE is manifestly more pain and harm focused version of CN. But there is little desire to make a systematic approach to woe, though again, the CE might just suffer a temporary bout of constricted freedom if they can focus long enough to achieve their aims.
And perhaps, if they stick to it, they... change. Like a beautful chysalis, metamorphosing into a shiny, spiky LE. Because for me, these LG LE and CG and CE are fundamentalisms, so similarly radical that when one does change it is rarely a slight moderation, but a flip-flop. Not wanting to get all real world philosophi-political here but I've seen this time and time again. Long-term left-wing radicals don't just mellow out and become middle of the road - their inbuilt zeal and desire for change merely changes its stripes to right-wing. Two wings of the same bird. :)
Oldskool grognards for paladins of every alignment.
I don't think CG is an "easy" alignment. I don't think any alignment is easy to play well at all - there are definitely some generalisations thrown about, but ultimately it's up to the DM to monitor and the players to attempt.
Dasrak, you're going to have to explain 'horrible acts of depravity' to me, because it sounds like you're trying to apply them to LG.
War is war. It is neutral. Acts of terrible depravity is considerably different then fighting and dying for a greater cause.
There is a continuum from good to evil, depending on the nature of the act and the circumstances around it. Killing an able enemy in battle and executing a helpless prisoner are completely different. Defending your homes from invaders and invading other lands with the intent of conquest are completely different. At a certain point, whatever your motivations or rationalization may be, you've crossed into evil territory.
The code of conduct of the evil Paladin requires him to defend the interests of his people "by any means necessary". This means he is not only willing, but mandated to commit horrific acts if he feels they are in the interests of his people. I'm going to use the example of genocide to keep things unambiguous. This is a person who will gladly extermine entire populations if it in some way a net benefit to his own people.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've spent quite a while now designing a campaign world in which the L-C axis is more important than the G-E axis, so I'm not surprised I have an unusual interpretation of Chaotic alignment.
It seems there's a lot of resistance to the idea that CG must do such-and-such. To clarify, I'm not saying that there's any formal code or external force that requires a chaotic person to act in a particular way. Its just that by definition a chaotic person will usually act in a way that is chaotic. To do otherwise is a violation of alignment, and paladins of whatever stripe are very sensitive to alignment violations.
The reason you are CG is because you adhere most closely to what CG represents.
Absolutely. But what chaotic represents isn't "I am equally able to follow the law or not follow it." It's "I actively dislike rigidity and hierarchy." Otherwise, as Alaryth said, what's the Neutral alignment for?
Because Freedom of Choice applies to himself as well, and if there's a conflict, his own individuality wins out over the other guys'.
No, because a Paladin-level Good person places others' needs first.
A Lawful man might give them weight, but Chaotic? He's 'free' to make up his own mind on what to do...and he'll likely make a decision that benefits himself, and punishes the bad guy, because that's how CG rolls.
No, the CN person acts to benefit himself. Good, again, especially paladin-level Good, is not permitted to be cruel in administering punishment.
Also, remember that being Good doesn't mean you can't discriminate. Criminals and evildoers in ANY society are treated differently. What you're describing as zealotry and commitment to freedom is more a Neutral mindset, because it takes no Good into account...and it would not be Good to let Evil have its way, and get away with no punishment for its deeds.
Evil is being punished in this scenario. Evil ends up dead.
Here's the CG paladin's thought process:
Imprisonment is torture. I cannot in good conscience torture this man. Therefore I cannot take him prisoner. However, he has killed people and will kill again if released. The only solution acceptable to my moral standards is to kill him now.
(Note also: the moral argument "imprisonment is torture" does not prevent the CG paladin from accepting surrender, since in that situation the defeated person consents.)
Actually Weirdo you are the first person I have met that had an interpretation of Chaotic that involved things they must do. In every interpretation I have encountered up till now chaotic was treated as a very independent and individualistic person free to choose from moment to moment what to do in each situation. They reject any guiding authority over their own actions.
When I was a CG fighter/wizard, I interpreted it so:
As CG, I adhere to MY OWN decision about good and bad- and stick to it. I can change my ideas. But after I fix my own standards, I have to live by those standards. Without a wavering.
|
I've always figured a CG paladin or paladin-analogue would be better off with a set of customized taboos or something similar rather than a straight-up code. Like Bardess, once chosen, they'd have to stick to it. "These are the lines I will not cross, and no one will force me to do otherwise." and all that.
That's pretty much how I'm playing my current CG holy barbarian*, and I believe I'm playing him just as Good as any LG paladin. His moral and cultural taboos have gotten quite a workout already in Jade Regent.
(never have been a fan of the perception of LG as Best Good that some older editions pushed myself, and I say that as a fan of LG paladins)
*Or at least as holy as he can be with the current mechanical options available. My GM had to homebrew changes to Spirit Totems to make it possible. C'mon Champions of Purity and Celestial Totems!
For those confused Neutral on the L-C axis stands for:
These people value structured behavior and established rules but lack the personal discipline to consistently life by them. They frequently lapse away from any guiding authority ("Hey, I am only human") but return to it after each lapse as they view anarchy of free form decision making to be unsettling. They want stable rules for society even if they don't always live up to them.
My Avenger/Garath Paladin would say:
"No, prisoner- I won't kill you. Because I don't take lives. You made a choice; it was a wrong choice; you now have to live with the consequences. Like everyone of us. I won't deny you the chance of changing your ways- if you ever decide to. I hope you will. Someday."
P.S.
When Law becomes Tyranny, Chaos has the STRENGTH (not the weakness/lack of discipline) to rebel. It's not that NG and CG characters don't believe in rules: they simply believe that no rule can be higher than your own personal code of right and wrong.
One note here, Weirdo:
Paladin level LAWFUL goodness considers the needs of others above their own...being lawful means being a part of society and trying to build and mold society.
Paladin level CHAOTIC goodness places your own good above that of society, but does not disregard the rights of others totally. Basically, you're free to do it if it benefits you and causes no harm. Chaos is about INVIDUALISM.
Good is about doing the right thing. The degree to which you follow that to benefit yourself or others is Lawful or Chaotic.
==Aelryinth
Umm... as a chaotic, I think that individuality is the right path to benefit myself and the others. As good, I will freely sacrifice myself for the good of others. That's how I see it.
I've always figured a CG paladin or paladin-analogue would be better off with a set of customized taboos or something similar rather than a straight-up code. Like Bardess, once chosen, they'd have to stick to it. "These are the lines I will not cross, and no one will force me to do otherwise." and all that.
That's pretty much how I'm playing my current CG holy barbarian*, and I believe I'm playing him just as Good as any LG paladin. His moral and cultural taboos have gotten quite a workout already in Jade Regent.
(never have been a fan of the perception of LG as Best Good that some older editions pushed myself, and I say that as a fan of LG paladins)
*Or at least as holy as he can be with the current mechanical options available. My GM had to homebrew changes to Spirit Totems to make it possible. C'mon Champions of Purity and Celestial Totems!
This reminds me of a favorite old Dragon magazine article about alignment.
Lawful characters had priorities and Chaotics had superstitions. Neutrals had a few of both.
Evil characters thought of themselves first while Good placed others before themselves.
Yeah, I can see Jeffrey Dahmer as Radical Competitive. That is so descriptive.
Alignments are big enough to handle different aspects. Lawful Good encompasses Righteous War, Justice, Mercy, Peace, Social Support, and Benevolent Rulership. Not all of these are the same, and Mercy and Justice are opposites yet complementary.
Alignment is bigger then any mortal soul can interpret. Rationalizing alignments to devalue their importance is quite common, and yet they still endure. Mock Hell and LE all you want...if you cleave to its standards, that's where you're heading.
==Aelryinth