| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with Markthus' representation of Chaotic Evil as a valid argument is that the baby-eating chaotic evil character is not being disruptive because of alignment, but instead is being disruptive and using alignment as a justification.
For an excellent example of a party consisting of two lawful goods, chaotic good, chaotic neutral, true neutral, and a chaotic evil all working quite well together, look at Order of the Stick*. The lawful good and chaotic evil don't like each other, but they work together for a common goal.
In that same series, even paladins were able to find a time and a place to work with a chaotic evil character.
"Chaotic Evil" does not mean "I have to check all of the boxes of behavior." It doesn't even mean, "I have to be disruptive." Instead, it means, "I care about myself most of all, and those I don't care about I feel free to do whatever I'd like."
Chaotic Evil characters are still people with emotions. They still have things they like and value. They will get mad when someone harms them. They are logical, but not infinitely so. They are emotional, but not infinitely so.
Lawful Good is the same way.
Paladins are the same way.
While it is not a great idea, it's entirely possible for a paladin to travel with, adventure with, and succeed with evil people of all alignments in their party.
A creature's alignment isn't based on a checklist of things they "must do". It's based on motivation, willingness, and internal decision making. If left entirely in a vacuum, that internal decision making results in outwardly <alignment appropriate> actions, however in certain circumstances (say, being friends with, being in love with, or simply seeking to save your own life through association with someone, as a minor example) that alignment might result in seemingly dissonant (but actually internally consistent) actions.
It doesn't matter what kind of alignment you have, creating a character who is disruptive to the rest of the party isn't a good idea.
*
|
"A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend."
What most people seem to be describing as Evil is actually neutral.
Evil is evil.
That is why it is called evil.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intelligent evil creatures are not compelled to eat babies.
Smart evil creatures can see how the land lies, and can choose to avoid doing things which will alienate their good allies, for purely selfish motives.
If they ally with good creatures it will be for a reason, so if they want to commit an act so evil that it would cause their allies to shun them (at the very least), they must make a judgement about which is more important to them right now: keeping the alliance and finding a way to defer/abandon the evil act or do the act and lose the allies and possibly get attacked.
If the reason for the alliance is important enough to the evil creature it might very well successfully control its darker impulses for a long time, especially in public.
|
|
1) "a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code."Yeah they would. A thief would be violating that whole 'respect legitimate authority' thing. Also might be using poison or lying or cheating.
The thief is not beholden to the paladin's code and the thief's actions cannot cause the paladin to fall.
The code forbids the paladin from doing such things. It says absolutely nothing about his buddy the thief doing them.
It says he can't hang out with the thief if he's a douche bag (ie. continuously doing things the paladin's alignment would not allow).
Order of the Stick
I'm not sure this is the example you want. Now, I'm not up to date on OotS but wasn't Belker's actions so disrupting that the "DM" put a Mark of Justice on him? And after tripping the mark, the other "players" wouldn't remove the mark because they felt he deserved it? And he was only able to get rid of the mark after he learned he had to tone it down?
Order of the StickI'm not sure this is the example you want. Now, I'm not up to date on OotS but wasn't Belker's actions so disrupting that the "DM" put a Mark of Justice on him? And after tripping the mark, the other "players" wouldn't remove the mark because they felt he deserved it? And he was only able to get rid of the mark after he learned he had to tone it down?
Yeah he almost died.
Consequently, Roy has also had to tone down his LG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, I have never actually played a paladin, but whenever I play any good character, I care about what the rest of the group is doing.
For me large chunk of being a good character is putting myself in harm's way to stop evil. If that evil is coming from my own group, it makes it that much easier to find...
As I tend to lean toward chaotic good, any baby eating evil characters would be liable to end up getting a coup de grace in the middle of the night. Since I am not a paladin, I don't have to do things the honorable way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take?
I have DMed for, played alongside of, and played as several paladins. The good ones (and I hope I was one of those) did not see their Code of Conduct as restrictions; they saw it as how their lives should be lived.
For example, I once played an 8th level (2nd edition) Paladin named Sir Reynard d'Montaigne. A friend of mine played my identical twin brother, a Chaotic Good ranger, Jean-Paul. Our DM laughed when we said we wanted to play twins--with the same array of stats. And he agreed that we could.
Sir Reynard was not an in your face, you better repent because I detected evil kind of paladin. He did not do Good because his Code required him to. He did good because he was GOOD. He spent his time off assisting the local friars at the church, making certain that no one in the community was going hungry, checking in on invalids. He didn't berate someone for doing something against his code. Because people are not perfect; people make mistakes. And not everyone is cut out to be a paladin.
He did not kill out of vengeance, but when the sword was the only answer, he would draw his weapon. He would accept surrenders, and do his best to see that justice was carried out. But he didn't put himself as judge, jury, and executioner. Not to say that any evil villan with a sob story could pull the wool over Reynard's eyes: he wasn't a fool.
But he would investigate claims of extenuating circumstances, he would get the clergy to question the prisioners under truth spells, he went the extra mile to ensure that his good acts were not preverted for evil means. His brother took a different path--and that was all right. Not everyone in the world is prepared to walk the road a paladin must.
He made the party mad as all Hells a time or two, especially when he would not let them slaughter orc children in a nursery. But, in the end, they knew they could trust him and they did. We were a party, and it was all good--even when they (or ME) screwed up.
I guess, the best advice I can give for someone playing a paladin is much the same advice I would give to someone playing an evil character in a good party: don't be a dick about it.
Simple, to the point, and covers just about all of it.
Master Arminas
Or to put it another way:
Why Lawful Good is the Best Alignment
I am a stalwart, honorable, champion of light and justice. I do not attempt to force others to my philosophy, but I lead through example. I show everyone that doing the right thing is always the best course of action. I am true to my word, I can be trusted in all things. Sadly, while I understand the reasons behind many who feel that they must break the laws of God and our Liege, there are other ways, other methods. Punishment for transgressions must be firm, but fair, and I shall tolerate no harsh treatment of those in my custody. There are those who must pay the ultimate price for their actions, but I can not and shall not turn to acts of evil in order to punish them.
Master Arminas
For a more detailed discussion of what I think about the Paladin's Code, feel free to take a look at My Perspective on the Paladin's Code.
MA
Chris, I didn't know I was insulting anyone. I'd love it if you PM'd me to tell me what I did. My apologies.
I think Pallys, along with Barbarians, are overpowered compared to Fighters. I know Fighters get tons of feats, but the uber saving throws, along with smite, divine bond, and swift action heals are ridiculously powerful.
The fighter is the offender here, and not in the overpowered sense. Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers are all pretty well balanced between each other (while the ranger doesn't get the saving throw bonuses that the others do, the ranger gets a lot of other cool stuff that makes up for it, like a pet, strong spells, more skills, blah blah blah). These martial classes work well alongside Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards. Which means the Fighter is the elephant in the room.
Core is more balanced than it has ever been! The only classes that are lagging from the core book are Fighter, Monk, and Rogue, and Paizo has been showing Monk a lot of love lately (which is making them more attractive if you don't mind pouring through splatbooks).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Antipaladins are humorously more party-friendly than Paladins are. Mostly because their code is a mockery of a code at all. One might wonder why they are chaotic evil until you notice that their code keeps making an exception if it doesn't jive with what the antipaladin wants to do (because they'll follow the rules right up until they don't want to anymore).
Meanwhile, their class features are more friendly to parties. Paladin auras in Pathfinder (without burning some feats) are much smaller than they used to be. A 10ft. aura of courage doesn't do much unless most of the party is also melee and clumped together as fireball-fodder. However, the antipaladin's aura of menace and despair affect the enemies the antipaladin is in melee with.
Basically, it's a martial who is A) strong and resilient, B) penalizes enemies by just being in their presence, C) removes immunities, D) is one of the most effective and spammable debuff-bombers in the game right now.
(I mean really, Antipaladins get huge returns for speccing Charisma, have a -2 to all saves aura, and can curse enemies with bestow curse effects with a touch attack that has a scaling save DC of 10 + 1/2 + Cha + feats. Literally an antipaladin can move into melee, and standard action touch. The target takes burst damage from the touch, takes a -2 penalty to the save, fails the save and takes a -4 penalty to every d20 roll they make until the curse is broken, so when the party's caster's turn comes up the enemy is saving at -6, possibly -8 if the Antipaladin's minion intimidates the target who has between a -6 to -10 to the Intimidate DC due to the Antipaladin's machinations.)
Meanwhile, antipaladins don't care about who they hang out with as long as they're displaying the raw awesomeness of uninhibited self-gratification. So while the GM is giving the Paladin player hell because Ranni the Thief picked the lock of a warehouse to search it for contraband (and the GM thinks that the paladin should not allowed the disrespect of legitimate authority that was the illegal breaking and entering of the warehouse in the name of vigilantism), the antipaladin brought a set of his own lockpicks and wouldn't mind smashing the door down under the cover of the cleric's silence spell if the picks fail.
I'm just curious how often the Lawful Good Demon shows up in games without Paladins.
Depends on how drunk I am.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of nice things*sniff* thank you, I do try my best.
And we love (to hate?) you for it! :D
This just adds to why my friend and I want to do a Paladin-combo in a party in some future campaign. I was going to play an female human antipaladin, and he a male human paladin. Siblings. Each with radically different ideas on what works and what's best for the world and those in it. Not killing each other because they are siblings and they love each other (because evil people can love too, even if they have a gross lack of empathy or sympathy for those they don't), the two trying to one-up each other.
Anti-Paladin: "See, the warehouse was full of drugs as we expected. If we had done it your way then they would have had plenty of time to move all the goods. Now the drugs are in flames and the evidence is literally shouting at everyone in town to see."
Paladin: "Why do you even care that the nobleman was involved in this drug trafficing? That seems a bit more noble than you usually let on. Is my little sister developing a conscience?"
Anti-Paladin: "Is that what people call it? I helped you because you're my brother, because you'd never get anywhere with your sissy ideals, and because I don't want some two-bit drug-dealers getting in my way."
Paladin: "Your way?"
Anti-Paladin: "...nevermind, big brother. We'd best clear out. But if it makes you feel any better, that guy killed a friend of mine a while back, so I wanted him dead anyway."
Paladin: "Retribution for the wicked is a noble goal, little sister."
Anti-Paladin: "I'm not that hypocritical."
That sounds like a DM call there, not mechanics, LazarX.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh, the antipaladin class has no patrons associated with it outside of specific campaign oddities. Likewise, you forget the antipaladin's code!
Code of Conduct: An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin's code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don't interfere with his goals.
Let's look at this. The antipaladin can freely commit good acts as long as it's because of his own interests (IE - if the paladin is motivated by selfishness, he has a blank check). Meanwhile, the code he follows specifically notes that formost he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don't interfere with his goals.
Again, a blank check. His code is - appropriately - a mockery of the Paladin's code in that it literally says he must do X unless he just doesn't want to. Chaos man. Chaos and Selfishness incarnate.
An antipaladin could be the greatest false-hero ever. Saving people for the praise, respect, and status it brought him, and never because the people are just simply in need. He could build an orphanage if he did it because it'd get him a tax break. He can be a nasty-stinky-pants and piss in some kid's icecream bucket, or...just not, because he doesn't feel like it today.
"I have one rule. There are no rules, except when they benefit me."
Ashiel's ideas are based on the mechanics.
If you want to be more heavy handed on what an anti-paladin can or can't do, its a DM call, as in you're going out of your way to contradict the mechanics.
Which is neatly and nicely covered under rule 0...
That sounds like a DM call there, not mechanics, LazarX.I'm a big believer in DM calls. No matter what game, campaign, you run, it can't be done without making DM calls... even in PFS. Ashiel sounds like she wants the Anti-Paladin to be played more like Frank Castle, than the Hannibal Lector or Dexter the class is supposed to represent.
I don't want the Antipaladin to be played like anything. One class does not equate to one character. I'm merely discussing the possibilities as defined in the rules. Just because you want to be an enemy to roleplaying or character development doesn't mean everyone else does.
Antipaladin could be...
1) A rampaging serial killer hobgoblin, bent on bending everyone and every thing under his iron grasp in his efforts to become warlord and spread his will across the land.
2) A cunning an saucy temptress (or tempter) who uses lies and deception to get what she (or he) wants, and uses her (or his) fiendish companion to plant evidence, spy, and otherwise play high-end highschool games with people's lives.
3) A cold-hearted warrior who has no sympathy or empathy for others, who does "heroic" deeds because it pays the bills and gets him (or her) laid on a regular basis. This person is actually a selfish ass who doesn't do anything unless it benefits his (or her)self.
Or countless more things.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds like a DM call there, not mechanics, LazarX.
Because being friendly to murder hobos is something players must do?
The Anti-Paladin is chaotic evil. For all the dancing lets look at what that means.
"A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend."
So not that fun at parties, I would say.
Now let us look at Lawful Good.
"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. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Lawful good characters are proficient at understanding bureaucracies, following laws, and cultivating order and structure in their own lives and in others'. They are naturally helpful, and others find them trustworthy, even if they don't share the same alignment. Additionally, lawful good characters are adept at deciding which actions are lawful and benefit society rather than the individual. With their focus on order, they can often build governmental stability where none previously existed. These characters sometimes have problems defying laws, even when the laws are unjust. Instead of disobeying or protesting against such laws, they work within the provided structure or system to change those laws, and they implore others to do so as well. They feel guilty lying to others, even if only asked to fib to provide a ruse for their companions. Similarly, they won't break the law to help good-intentioned party members perform actions that might have beneficial results.
When they're adventuring in urban areas with their companions, lawful good characters may feel compelled to excuse themselves from certain plans or attempt to reason with those more lenient in their interpretation of the law. It's much easier for lawful good characters to ignore the bad behavior of other party members when exploring ruins and wilderness areas outside the direct jurisdiction of a governing body.
Lawful good characters regard law as necessary for the welfare of society. They fight to abolish or change laws they deem unjust, and they always aid those in need. Lawful good characters strive to be forthright in their words and deeds, refuse to lie to others, and keep their covenants. They oppose evil wherever it is found, and avoid putting the good of the individual ahead of what is good for the masses. For these characters, the end rarely justifies the means. Characters drawn to honor, righting wrongs, or making sacrifices for others might be attracted to this alignment."
So when we actually look at the words, as written...
|
|
@Ashiel and Atari - You've both described mainly neutral, not evil.
#1. Evil
#2. Chaotic Neutral
#3. Also Chaotic Neutral
#4. Lawful Neutral to possibly evil.
"A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). a chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.
Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal."
Evil is evil. It takes more than being selfish to be evil.
|
|
Ashiel's ideas are based on the mechanics.
If you want to be more heavy handed on what an anti-paladin can or can't do, its a DM call, as in you're going out of your way to contradict the mechanics.
Which is neatly and nicely covered under rule 0...
Selective readings.
I can say I'm Chaotic Evil all I want, but if I don't actually act in a chaotic evil way, it's meaningless.
And we have definitions for Chaotic Evil.
There is far more flexibility to be a useful member of society in Lawful Good than Chaotic evil, by the actual writing in the book.
... are you suggesting that good in general, and lawful good in specific, is easier to go with a party than evil?
Because yes, I'd agree with that.
If you're suggestion is that you can't play an a character of a given alignment more than your personal interpretation of the general tendencies as given, then I disagree.
|
|
... are you suggesting that good in general, and lawful good in specific, is easier to go with a party than evil?
Because yes, I'd agree with that.
If you're suggestion is that you can't play an a character of a given alignment more than your personal interpretation of the general tendencies as given, then I disagree.
I am saying that if you are playing an Anti-Paladin, you have as much responsibility to actually be Chaotic Evil as a Paladin does to be Lawful good.
If you have a vague and fuzzy alignment, that is all well and good so long as you aren't doing things that require you to have a specific alignment.
If I call you evil, it doesn't particularly matter.
If you wish to be defined as evil, or good, to get a particular mechanic...well...you have to do that just as much as you need to do anything else that is a pre-requisite.
|
|
My assertion is that the Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil squares of alignment, both describe a big box of possible personalities and actions, it is simply my assertion that Paladins and Anti-Paladins are further constrained to operate with in a smaller Northwest or Southeast square of those repsective boxes.
Many, many players sincerely believe this.
It's a shame it's not supported by the rules.
Paladins are required to stay LG. Not some mythical NW corner of LG, but any LG.
This is simply, in RAW terms, not moving into LN or NG (or even further).
This is the RAW of the alignment part of the code. There are other parts of the code that are not directly tied to the alignment mechanic.
My assertion is that the Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil squares of alignment, both describe a big box of possible personalities and actions, it is simply my assertion that Paladins and Anti-Paladins are further constrained to operate with in a smaller Northwest or Southeast square of those repsective boxes.Many, many players sincerely believe this.
It's a shame it's not supported by the rules.
Paladins are required to stay LG. Not some mythical NW corner of LG, but any LG.
This is simply, in RAW terms, not moving into LN or NG (or even further).
This is the RAW of the alignment part of the code. There are other parts of the code that are not directly tied to the alignment mechanic.
Yes and no. The better way of putting it is that a paladin must stay LG and cannot commit certain actions.
A normal LG character can commit evil actions as long as overall they do significantly more good than evil. The paladin has a zero tolerance policy of certain types of actions.
My assertion is that the Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil squares of alignment, both describe a big box of possible personalities and actions, it is simply my assertion that Paladins and Anti-Paladins are further constrained to operate with in a smaller Northwest or Southeast square of those repsective boxes. They're both still big areas, but with tighter constraints. Roy Greenhilt has a larger area that he can operate in than Hjiro the Sapphire Paladin even though they both share the same alignment. And that's the way it should be.
And yet, under exceptional circumstances, not only was Hinjo capable of allying with Belkar, but he needed to in order to achieve anything at all. His alliance didn't cause him to fall, and Belkar saved many lives of Sapphire Guards by doing so (not that he'd care).
I think the paladin's code doesn't make the paladin be "more lawful" and "more good" than other lawful goods, but rather... follow the code.
In essence, I agree that paladins are restrained in their actions. But the restraint, as I see it, isn't one of alignment, it's one of the specific code itself.
Anti-paladins are, I think, similar in this regard. However, the kicker is that the anti-paladin code has a "hole" in it that permits them to do whatever they daggum well feel like so long as it's not truly altruistic. It does create scenarios where they can "fall" (or, I guess, "rise"?), but its much harder to do.
I do see what you're saying. I agree paladins (of both stripes) are restrained in a way. I think we just disagree on the idea that the paladin's code is the upper edge of both lawful and good. It's a fine distinction, and not one I care to argue, but one I did want to point out for clarity purposes. I'm not calling you wrong, I'm just disagreeing from a personal view.
As for ciretose, I think part of the disconnect was that with my alignment points I was mostly responding to the idea that any alignment was inherently disruptive.
I will say that some alignments tend to be viewed as more disruptive and, thus, tend to be disruptive in play. Even if the alignment could be played without the disruptive elements.
Certain classes - including the paladin - are this way, as well.
The reason the Paladin is disruptive, strangely enough, isn't because the Paladin is disruptive. It's because it's seen as disruptive.
Thus some players play terrible, immature, unpleasant paladins that no one likes. Thus some players become monsters just because "the paladin wouldn't like it". Thus some GMs come down hard on the paladin. Thus some players hate other players because "alignment".
The thing itself doesn't have to cause a disruption. The people who view it as disruptive create it nonetheless.
Frankly, I think the Paladin is great. I houserule the one alignment thing, but, you know, that's just me. I've played with people who interpret it more strictly, and I generally work with that where I can.
I do get why people don't like it. I also think that's a mistake.
I do get why people are very strict. I also think that's a mistake.
Unfortunately, being human, we all make those all the time. And it's not something that's going to be "fixed". Because, people, amirite?
I may well be wrong in my own interpretation, but I don't believe I am. And, as long I can disagree agreeably, that's fine.
...
... kind of like paladins!
|
|
My assertion is that the Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil squares of alignment, both describe a big box of possible personalities and actions, it is simply my assertion that Paladins and Anti-Paladins are further constrained to operate with in a smaller Northwest or Southeast square of those repsective boxes.Many, many players sincerely believe this.
It's a shame it's not supported by the rules.
Paladins are required to stay LG. Not some mythical NW corner of LG, but any LG.
This is simply, in RAW terms, not moving into LN or NG (or even further).
This is the RAW of the alignment part of the code. There are other parts of the code that are not directly tied to the alignment mechanic.
And if they don't reflect what is described under LG or CE...
