Hey everyone. Finally, after lurking around for a bit, I've decided to actually start contributing on the forums here.
Here is a bit of background on myself for anyone interested. I have only been playing tabletop games within the past half a decade or so, but in those years I have done quite a bit of playing, with a number of systems, homebrew creation for Pathfinder/D&D 3.5e, and I have also started working on my own tabletop game with a group of fellow college students. I am in college studying the design/development of video games, so i am very familiar with gaming as a whole.
But enough about myself, lets get on to what I am posting about.
A friend of mine, who I introduced to Pathfinder when I first started college, came to me with a question the other day. He asked me why it is that the Paladin class had to be of both the 'lawful' and 'good' alignments. Now, I originally figured this to be a straightforward question. My first inclination was to go into the standard talk about how Paladins are meant to champion the causes of justice and so on and so forth. However, I stopped myself. The 'good' alignment was easier to dissect. The Paladin is meant to be a warrior who champions for the cause of good, and is more often than not affiliated with a specific church. The proverbial knight in shining armor. For more neutrally inclined churches, in my beliefs, the need for paladins was unnecessary. Clerics inclined towards battle, as well as a few Inquisitors, would be more than enough. For evil churches, there exists the Antipaladin. However, with the Antipaladin, the 'chaotic' alignment requirement begs a few questions similar to those of the 'lawful' requirement of the Paladin.
Now, I could continue on about my thoughts on the two classes and their requirements, but that's not why I'm here.
I am here to ask this to everyone who cares to answer; Why do you think the Pathfinder design team chose to maintain the alignment requirements of 'lawful' for the Paladin, or 'chaotic' for the Antipaladin?
Also, as a side note here, if this discussion question has been posted before, I apologize as I haven't seen it in my time lurking around.
The short answer is that in a perfect world, paladins fight on the side of goodness and law while antipaladins fight on the side of evil and chaos. Paladins aspire to be angels while antipaladins are like demons.
Unfortunately, the world is not such a perfect place and the law and chaos often get uncoupled from the good and evil, making it so that you have lawful evil devils and chaotic good robin hood types. If forced to choose between Asmodeus and Robin Hood, a proper paladin will choose Robin Hood every time, while bemoaning the the fact that the rightful ruler is evil Prince John. On the other hand, an antipaladin, forced to choose between Asmodeus and Robin Hood, will pick Amodeus almost all the time since he's mostly in it for the evil while the chaos is just gravy. Of course, he might try working with Robin Hood to see if he could corrupt him, because that's always fun, and antipaladins don't lose their powers if they help a kid get a kitten down from a tree. Chaotic evil, even if not more forgiving, isn't that great at accounting.
The short answer is that in a perfect world, paladins fight on the side of goodness and law while antipaladins fight on the side of evil and chaos. Paladins aspire to be angels while antipaladins are like demons.
Unfortunately, the world is not such a perfect place and the law and chaos often get uncoupled from the good and evil, making it so that you have lawful evil devils and chaotic good robin hood types. If forced to choose between Asmodeus and Robin Hood, a proper paladin will choose Robin Hood every time, while bemoaning the the fact that the rightful ruler is evil Prince John. On the other hand, an antipaladin, forced to choose between Asmodeus and Robin Hood, will pick Amodeus almost all the time since he's mostly in it for the evil while the chaos is just gravy. Of course, he might try working with Robin Hood to see if he could corrupt him, because that's always fun, and antipaladins don't lose their powers if they help a kid get a kitten down from a tree. Chaotic evil, even if not more forgiving, isn't that great at accounting.
Not a bad explanation. However, I'd like to follow with this question: Why would the design team choose to make these classes follow this perfect world idea, and not design them to be more flexible? This may be just the groups that I have joined, but I have always founds players prefer a bit of moral ambiguity, as opposed to cut-and-dry worlds.
And I have a second question for you, and everyone else. Do you feel that this was a good design choice?
I think that if I were to do the classes over, or augment their current forms, I would remove the lawful/chaotic requirements from the classes. Personally, I find such a requirement too limiting to a character. To use your example, the Paladin who followed Robin Hood might eventually himself become chaotic through his actions and/or beliefs. And at that point, I believe he loses the great majority, if not all, of his Paladin powers because of it. I don't believe that such a punishment is befitting such character development.
Also, I would consider making an archetype for each of the specific alignments, to better match the different outsiders like Azata or Devils for example. Just a side thought.
The longer answer is that Paladins have existed since before 1st ed & the name originally derived from Medieval Legendry.
The original 'Paladins' were the 'peers' of Charlemagne, the term derived from 'Knights Palatine', there is some literary historical quibbling as to which really came first, Charlemagne's Knights Palatine, or Camelot's Knight of the Round Table, but the concept was much the same.
The Paladin's powers were consequently derived more from the Medieval concept of the 'Divine Right' of kings than a devotion to a deity.
Paladin's were the epitome knightly Valor & Piety, hence the Lawful Good Alignment when Gygax & Arneson first codified the ideas they had been fooling around with for a few years.
The Concept of the 'anti-Paladin' was almost wholly a game conceit & was originally wholly intended as an NPC.
Both have gone through a lot of conceptual evolution since that point however.
RPM-- As Irnk said, paladins have a lot of history, both in the game and before it. While I can't speak for the design team, from what they've said elsewhere, my take is that this whole scenario is done for backwards compatibility. You want to play your paladins in Pathfinder like you did in 3.5? Done. Like in 1st edition? Done. In any edition? Sure.
The definitions of good and evil, law and chaos, what sort of thing makes a paladin fall, and if redemption of a fallen paladin is even possible, are all sketched in in broad strokes so there's lots of room for interpretation for GMs, and the answer to all of these questions is generally "Ask your GM." This doesn't mean that huge amounts of pixels aren't taken up answering these questions, but it's always a judgement call.
With the Robin Hood situation, if your rightful rulers and their henchlings are all mustache-twirling evil, and the good people fighting against them are having to break the law to do it, well, your paladin has a momentary moral dilemma, but only a brief one. It's not choosing the lesser of two evils, it's just choosing to uphold goodness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really following... What's the 'hang up' with lawful? :-) Lawful isn't just about 'laws' but about order, process, chain of command, consistency of ethos, personal codes, et al. It's about working within a framework or attempting to change that framework from within the framework, rather than just disregarding it when the framework doesn't work as desired.
|
They were portrayed as LG, anyway, by the standards of their culture.
And I have a second question for you, and everyone else. Do you feel that this was a good design choice?
I have been arguing all over the forums that paladin alignment should be opened up a bit, or at least that variant paladins of other alignments should be available (and officially supported) as optional variants in campaigns that would benefit from them.
There's a lot of history, both gaming and real-world, in the LG paladin, and I can respect that history. There's also a perception (which I do not personally agree with) that LG is the highest good and CE is the worst evil, and an additional perception (which I also do not agree with) that a nonlawful character cannot follow a consistent personal standard of behavior, or at least that they will be less restricted and therefore conceptually inferior to or overpowered compared to the classic LG paladin.
However, I feel that the Paladin class can accurately represent champions of alternate moral ideals than LG, and that players should have the options to make these characters. PF to me is about playing the character you want to play, and there are so many options for doing that - the archetypes in particular are a wonderful way to fine-tune the classes. It's a shame to deny options to the character just because many feel that the LG paladin is iconic. Yes, it is iconic. But so is the paladin as the knight in heavy armor, and there are plenty of ways to build a paladin that violates that image - you can make a paladin who wears leather armour and wields a bow, and you even have an archetype that supports that option. Why not a CG Pally?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can have a CG paladin whenever you want to--all you have to do is Rule 0 it in. But the broader and more permissive you make the interpretation, the more meaningless it becomes. If you have LG paladins of Asmodeus (retconned out of Golarion, but in for a short time) and you then allow CG paladins, can you have a CG paladin of Rovugug? If paladins just become champions of their alignment, what's the difference between a paladin and an antipaladin, apart from perhaps a slightly different skills package, and could you then have a LG antipaladin?
I prefer my paladins as the old paragons of knightly virtue and goodness, personally.
|
|
If you have LG paladins of Asmodeus (retconned out of Golarion, but in for a short time) and you then allow CG paladins, can you have a CG paladin of Rovugug?
Paladins can be limited by the one-step alignment rule similar to clerics, meaning a paladin of Rovagug would have to be CE, CN, or NE. If I'm not mistaken, it's the same rule that currently limits Paladins to LG, LN, or NG deities. Alternatively - if paladins of any alignment are possible - may be required to match their deity's alignment. A Paladin of Sarenrae would then always be NG, and a Paladin of Abadar would be LN.
If paladins just become champions of their alignment, what's the difference between a paladin and an antipaladin, apart from perhaps a slightly different skills package, and could you then have a LG antipaladin?
I personally prefer to call a Paladin "any good" and an antipaladin "Any Evil." If you allow Neutral paladins you can allow them to use either paladin or antipaladin mechanics, similar to a neutral cleric of a neutral god's choice to channel positive or negative energy.
How come every time i read the title of the thread my brain automatically says
"A paladin and his alignment..... are soon parted"
according to my understanding they were alternat alignments avalible for paladins but they were to refered to as knights and i beleive to be listed in 2ed. i have not personaly see these but have had many conversations with older gamers that these esist. and they are very similar to the game rules that
lonewolf23k mentioned
|
And people again bring house rules where they are not needed. Can a single alignment or paladin discussion ever occur without people trying to push their house rules upon others?
There is a homebrew section for that.
If we are discussing a thing from the rules, there is absolutely no need to bring in unofficial rules into the mix and further confuse matters.
So stop.
I've always seen a paladin code as being the epitome of LG, but LG doesn't just mean that you follow the law and do good, that's the lazy high schooler's definition, some kid just trying to get his homework done.
Of course, it all depends on how you want to interpret it, but I've always seen the nine alignments as being separate animals all on their own, and not 2 individual alignments. That said, they can still be defined simply, then embeleshed upon to create what I call Character Philosophical Archetypes, which ultimately determine a PC's in game personality.
First, consider what the 2 axes are, Law/Chaos, and Good/Evil.
A characters alignment on the L/C scale has to do with their belief in order, and whether or not there should be an order to the world, if this carries into the way they interact with authority, or to adhering to a particular sect or church is up to the PC, but the concept of law is that order exists in the first place. Conversely, a character who leans towards chaos is one who doesn't believe in this order, whether they want to believe that the order is wrong, or doesn't exist in the first place is again, up to the PC.
The easiest example I can think of would be the social hierarchy, that is people believe that they are higher up on the social food chain, and that people lower than them don't deserve to talk to them. Imagine, if you will, someone hitting on a girl that shrugs him off. She'd be considered lawful in this case because she's adhering to the order that she believes in.
The G/E scale is much easier to understand, because it all has to do with your interaction with other people. Basically, it all comes down to whether or not you care about how other people feel. Does it bother you when someone is being bullied? Do you enjoy bullying them? Do you even care? Being good typically means you like helping others, and making them happy, and being evil usually means you enjoy hurting them and leaving them depressed.
Neutrality comes down to indifference to an extent. Combining these basic ideas creates philosophies that define what the alignments basically are, and I feel looking at things this way makes it much easier to understand how these characters interact, and makes it a lot easier to stray away from 'Lawful Stupid' role playing.
the roles the philosophies play comes in the format "politically, religiously, socially" followed by a description
"The judge, the agnostic, the objective" (Lawful Neutral) People with this mind set often see the world as having a set of rules and order, and they often aren't concerned with whether or not that order helps or hurts people. The girl I brought up earlier is a perfect example of this. She doesn't want to hurt the guy's feelings, but he has no place talking to her. Characters with this idea often have good relations with nobility and authority because they acknowledge the order. The downside is, they don't care who the order hurts, because you must obey the order. Should there be a tax that every family in a town must pay, but the man of the house has been sick and hasn't been able to work, too bad for him. He HAS to pay in.
"The noble, the devoted, the optimist" (Lawful Good) This mind set is the main one in question for regards of the thread, and it's often mixed with the last example of the LN philosophy, which leads to the creation of 'Lawful Stupid.' LG characters believe that order exists in the world, and that ultimately, that order is to do good for the world and people in it. Where a neutral Lawful character would worry more about a city's economic state, a LG character would worry about its people. The law should create harmony, not harm. If ever there is a law that threatens to be oppressive, or one that hurts people, then a truly LG character should not adhere to it with no threat of taking a hit to their alignment.
"The benevolent, the follower, the harmonizer" (Neutral Good) This is a very common mind set for people. He is the guy who went after the girl. Neutral Good characters are the ones who only care about the world being an ok place, and aren't necessarily gonna go out of their way to do something about it unless something really bad is happening. Sometimes it's ok to break the order or law, if it makes someone happy. That's why he asked the girl out in the first place. Many people IRL fall into this category. Would it hurt someone if I did this? No? Then why is it a problem? Ever download something that may be considered 'online pirating' but no one was hurt?
"The tyrant, the heretic, the selfish" (Lawful Evil) People of this mind set are the ones who look down on people and see them as peons and worthless. They truly believe they are above people and it is their place to rule, and demean them. The girl who rejected our guy earlier, has a boyfriend, and he falls into this philosophy perfectly. He's a jerk, and he thinks the world revolves around him. He takes pleasure in making other people feel bad, mostly by trying to make them feel inferior to him. These people often adhere to orders specifically to oppose goody-goods because they feel it is their responsibility.
"The existentialist, the atheist, the indifferent" (True Neutral) This character while seeming the simplest, actually may be the most complex, or somewhere in-between. Many times these characters come to believe that any order in the world is arbitrary, and can ultimately be destroyed by simply changing what you think. They also don't see a point in necessarily going out of their way to interact with other people. They seem to come to terms with the fact that they simply exist and do not bother themselves with ideas like policy and law. Their main goals usually end up being to continue existing, and doing whatever they have to do.
"The filibuster, the undecided, the devil's advocate" (Chaotic Neutral) CN people are often highly intellectual. Understanding the flaws of society they tend to spend a lot of time devoted to pointing out the flaws in people's systems, but never offering any fixes. They take pleasure in finding loopholes to rules and laws, and don't care, and aren't bothered if anyone gets hurt in the process. More often than not, PCs tend to pick this role and meta game behave this way.
"The vigilante, the extremist, the resistance" (Chaotic Good) CG is a fun alignment because basically every super hero or hero from lore falls into this category. Much like the CN guys above, they find flaws in systems. These guys however, try to fix them rather than simply point out that they exist. They are the Democrats to LGs Republicans, in that they often favor freedom of thought over order. Taking down evil kings and liberating cities is what drives these characters. They get along with LGs to an extent, often trying to find a happy middle between having order that lets people have their freedom of mind still.
"The politician, the false atheist, the scam artist" (Neutral Evil) These guys are good talkers. As in, they can talk their way out of things. Often selfish, NE characters don't bother caring about whether or not order exists, if they can abuse it to get their way, great, if not, oh well. They tend to use people, and not care about what happens to them. Unfortunately, a lot of people and players fall into this category like its NG counterpart. Very often players will go through quests not worrying if their actions hurt people in-game, so long as they get their loot.
"The anarchist, the cultist, the psychopath" (Chaotic Evil) CE is often called a hard alignment to play, because many times characters have a hard time interacting in a way that makes them capable of continuing a campaign. Being CE entails taking CNs idea of breaking a system, and making sure the authority of said systems knows it. You see it as your duty to hurt people's feelings who don't understand that you can ruin everything that they believe in, and you take pleasure from it. Basically any person whom you've seen in the news commit a mass shooting or bombing that beforehand went on a rant about the government is the example here.
And one wall of text later we can come back to the topic of the paladin and antipaladin codes being based on following a particular philosophy rather than adhering to a specific code. I think seeing things this way makes role playing a lot easier since combining the ideas of either axis really does create a whole new view point on the characters way of thinking.
Also hello, I'm new to the forums here, been a lurker much like the OP. Personally I just convinced my group to switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder and I've really been enjoying the switch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins can be limited by the one-step alignment rule similar to clerics, meaning a paladin of Rovagug would have to be CE, CN, or NE.
Where does it say that? I haven't found this in the paladin section of the PRD?
I personally prefer to call a Paladin "any good" and an antipaladin "Any Evil." If you allow Neutral paladins you can allow them to use either paladin or antipaladin mechanics, similar to a neutral cleric of a neutral god's choice to channel positive or negative energy.
Dunno about that. Most Paladins would argue that Law is intended to enforce Good in the first place. If the Law does not do so, it needs to be changed by Lawful means so that it does.
I never liked the idea of antipaladins or paladins of every alignment. Evil inherently does not trust a single, lone hero, the ethos tends to be more of using hordes of beasties/people to do its work. Neutrality just doesn't have the passion required, the "I'm on a crusade" mentality.
|
|
I believe the designers kept the alignment restriction because of tradition. I happen to agree with that tradition but many do not. I wont get into why its that way or why I believe it should be. I do believe so much heartache could have been avoided if the Paladin never was a core class but a prestige class. Too bad that cats out of the bag and not going back in at this point.
Paladins have had a LG alignment since I first started playing using the 1st ed rules. In those days it was a trade off. The paladin was much powerful than a standard fighter - but had behavioural restrictions.
It was a way of balancing the classes.
TBH, if a player came to me wanting to play a character with all the Paladin abilities but without the alignment restriction - I would turn the problem around and ask the player to explain why I should allow an exception to the rules in this particular case.
Assuming they can come up with a better explanation than "It would be cool" I would get them writing out the code of behaviour their paladin would stick to.
After that, if it all stacked up and balanced out - I might allow it. :)
Rather begs the question if Chaotic/Neutral Good deities can't be bothered to make their own Paladins.
Huh? Last time I checked, Paladins who are serving a neutral good deity were perfectly legit.
Assuming they can come up with a better explanation than "It would be cool" I would get them writing out the code of behaviour their paladin would stick to.
It is this very code what I perceive as a problem. The more you deviate from the Lawful prerequisite, the less believable it is that you are following a stringent code.
Assuming they can come up with a better explanation than "It would be cool" I would get them writing out the code of behaviour their paladin would stick to.It is this very code what I perceive as a problem. The more you deviate from the Lawful prerequisite, the less believable it is that you are following a stringent code.
Indeed, if they do follow the code they set out - they are actually behaving Lawfully and meeting all the Paladinic requirements :)
However, if players want those 'special advantages' that come from being a paladin, I as GM want something in return. *simples*
|
It is this very code what I perceive as a problem. The more you deviate from the Lawful prerequisite, the less believable it is that you are following a stringent code.
Not everyone agree with the "Personal Code implies Lawful" theory.
I believe that a character such as Robin Hood is Chaotic, yet follows a strict personal code. The Chaotic part comes from the fact that his code is far from the norm, and even at odds with the laws and traditions of his time and place.
In other words, he acts as he decides, not as other people or tradition tell him to. This is enough to be Chaotic in my book.
Actually, Robin Hood didn't really follow a strict code, apart from if robin wants it, he will do it. He fought Little John because he was crossing a bridge Robin wanted to Cross. He stole a wagon load of ale from Friar Tuck because his men wanted it. There are many other similar instances in the stories. Robin truly was chaotic he broke the law regularly for his own benefit. A nice bloke, but generally thinking of himself most of the time.
I always had a problem with Lawful meaning do as tradition tells you in a society made up of a number of different traditions and faiths - and laws that change from one side of the river to the next.
Erastil, Iomedae, Abadar and Pharasma (for example) all sit comfortably side by side in many areas. Loads of different approaches to tradition there. Even Amodeus runs along side those deities in some places. There are at least four different 'Traditions' going on at the same time :)
Nor does obeying the law in The River Kingdoms make a character lawful. It encapsulates the concept that the strong takes what they want - it rewards chaotics ...
In the end Lawful always comes down to an individual following a code - either a personal code or one that is imposed on them in the form of tradition and law. So how does a paladin in Cheliax work for you? Does he have to obey local laws and traditions? Or is he allowed to import his own?
everyone has their own personal code, of what they would and would not consider wrong
lawful is always in regards to someone (or something) separate judging your actions based on what they have decided is the order of wherever you are
with regards to authority its towns, cities, or kingdoms
with regards to faith, its everywhere you are
you can always judge someones affinity for being lawful by putting them in a situation where they have to choose between something they really want, and obeying the code
if its something they really want, their own personal code won't stop them from going for it, but an order or law might
obeying the law of the land vs. obeying an order of faith is really the question here, not adhering to personal belief, because anyone choosing to short them self on 'personal code' comes down to a code of faith
everyone has their own personal code, of what they would and would not consider wrong
Wrong? Surely that is a definition of the subjectivity of the Good / Evil debate - rather than Law / Chaos?
A chaotic person is one you can't predict. You never know quite what they are going to come up with next. Lawful people are predictable.
A chaotic person is one you can't predict. You never know quite what they are going to come up with next. Lawful people are predictable.
As a man in the psychology field, that is patently false. In fact, I find the more chaotic the person, the more predictable they are. You can always count on them to have a very short attention span, to not finish projects, etc.
Perhaps a better way to put it would be that Lawful people tend to consider what is best for the needs of society without really thinking about it consciously. It's where selfishness, which is related to chaotic in the D&D/Pathfinder concept, is concerned that people end up getting into trouble. Chaos inherently does not consider long term results, instead they think about what's best for me, or their cause, here and now.
|
|
The one thing I've learned about Law and Chaos from these kinds of discussions is that people can't agree on what they represent - even more than people can't agree on Good and Evil.
Paladins can be limited by the one-step alignment rule similar to clerics, meaning a paladin of Rovagug would have to be CE, CN, or NE.Where does it say that? I haven't found this in the paladin section of the PRD?
First, my post was not intended to say "paladins are limited." I used the word "can" in the sense of "could," as in "Paladins can/could be limited by the one-step alignment rule to prevent belief-straining things such as a CG Paladin of Rovagug or Lamashtu while not ruling out a CG Paladin of Callistra or Sarenrae."
Second, the limitation is not in core, it's PFS-specific rule.
Characters may elect to worship an evil god, but must always be within one alignment step of their chosen deity. For clerics, this is an especially important choice, since the deity’s alignment determines whether the cleric channels positive or negative energy, a decision with significant tactical implications for the cleric and her allies. Clerics, inquisitors, paladins, cavaliers of the order of the star, and samurai of the order of the star must choose a deity
Found on the forums here. The reasoning is that if you worship a deity more than one step away from your alignment your alignment and your deity will conflict too frequently, and this can be a bit of a problem for a paladin who will find themselves too-frequently having to violate their religious beliefs in order to uphold their alignment and code.
I personally prefer to call a Paladin "any good" and an antipaladin "Any Evil." If you allow Neutral paladins you can allow them to use either paladin or antipaladin mechanics, similar to a neutral cleric of a neutral god's choice to channel positive or negative energy.Dunno about that. Most Paladins would argue that Law is intended to enforce Good in the first place. If the Law does not do so, it needs to be changed by Lawful means so that it does.
Well, of course LG paladins would think that way. Being LG, they obviously think that the concept of Law is inherently beneficial and can and should align with the Good. A CG person (or CG paladin) might not have the same viewpoint.
I never liked the idea of antipaladins or paladins of every alignment. Evil inherently does not trust a single, lone hero, the ethos tends to be more of using hordes of beasties/people to do its work. Neutrality just doesn't have the passion required, the "I'm on a crusade" mentality.
Lawful Neutral can be plenty crusade-happy, maybe even more than a LG character because they don't have the same concern for lives. And while Good characters are usually more selfless, Neutral or even Evil characters could also have a cause that they'd be willing to devote their lives to.
TBH, if a player came to me wanting to play a character with all the Paladin abilities but without the alignment restriction - I would turn the problem around and ask the player to explain why I should allow an exception to the rules in this particular case.
Assuming they can come up with a better explanation than "It would be cool" I would get them writing out the code of behaviour their paladin would stick to.
I appreciate your flexibility. Which if any of the following reasons would you find sufficient?
1. I want to play a champion of Cayden Cailean (or Desna) and believe that a Lawful alignment would be inconsistent with this deity's ideals and those held by their champions.
2. I want to play a character who has seen too many people victimized by cruel but lawful authority. My character has vowed to champion these victims and assist those who have no lawful recourse for their protection. I feel this character concept is best represented by a CG paladin.
3. I want to play a paladin, but the other party members are all chaotic, and I do not want to risk creating party conflict by playing a character with strongly opposed moral views.
3. Keep also in mind that many of the core audience came to Pathfinder because they wanted a D+D 3.75, not a radically different game, which meant keeping as many of the sacred cows from the open source material within a reworked pasture as could be reasonably managed.
Except that we now have less access to non-LG paladins than we did in 3.5. In 3.5, alternate paladins were supported as variants by both Unearthed Arcana and Dragon Magazine. They weren't core, but they were there in the official material. They haven't been re-introduced in PF, so rather than "official variant," these types of paladins are now conversions, house-rules, or homebrew.
It is this very code what I perceive as a problem. The more you deviate from the Lawful prerequisite, the less believable it is that you are following a stringent code.Not everyone agree with the "Personal Code implies Lawful" theory.
I believe that a character such as Robin Hood is Chaotic, yet follows a strict personal code. The Chaotic part comes from the fact that his code is far from the norm, and even at odds with the laws and traditions of his time and place.
In other words, he acts as he decides, not as other people or tradition tell him to. This is enough to be Chaotic in my book.
Exactly.
A CG paladin would follow his own personal rules. He wouldn't kill a defeated enemy because "I don't do that", not because "it's the code of my god". But the result would basically be the same.Robin Hood had a set of rules for himself and his men to abide: don't hurt women, don't unnecessarily harm anybody, always be courteous even with enemies, etc. He's a very good example of Chaotic Good (but he was a ranger, not a paladin):
Hey everyone. Finally, after lurking around for a bit, I've decided to actually start contributing on the forums here.
And you decided to open with a discussion on Paladins? Yeesh.
Jokes aside, I think the Paladin alignment schtick is there mostly as a relic of days gone by to maintain compatibility, as well as a flavor reason (Paladins are supposed to be paragons of holy and righteous Good as well as strictly honorable and the epitome of Lawful, that's what they ARE, or have become in the context of RPGs), not a mechanical reason any longer. Paladins are not significantly stronger than any other class really, so they don't need the alignment balancing any more for that.
Though the question still remains how and why other alignment Paladins would exist. It would get very complex very quickly and I think the only real way to handle it would be to break it into 4 or 8 separate classes each with their own flavor, abilities, and deities that sort of exemplify a certain kind of outsider in human form (Archons for LG and Azatas for CG, Devils for LE and Demons for CE), but that would require a new version most likely and would kind of break the spirit of backwards compatibility.
|
A chaotic person is one you can't predict. You never know quite what they are going to come up with next. Lawful people are predictable.As a man in the psychology field, that is patently false. In fact, I find the more chaotic the person, the more predictable they are. You can always count on them to have a very short attention span, to not finish projects, etc.
Perhaps a better way to put it would be that Lawful people tend to consider what is best for the needs of society without really thinking about it consciously. It's where selfishness, which is related to chaotic in the D&D/Pathfinder concept, is concerned that people end up getting into trouble. Chaos inherently does not consider long term results, instead they think about what's best for me, or their cause, here and now.
You sound like the 'Law Party' spin doctor! Chaos=selfishness?
Here's a better way of presenting law vs. chaos:-
• if you think that individuals exist for the good of the state, then that is a lawful mind-set
• if you think that the state exists for the good of it's individuals, then that is a chaotic mind-set
Remember that we are talking about philosophical viewpoints, not mental illness! 'Chaos' in this context is not about 'randomness', it is about 'freedom'.
I would agree. A chaotic person can be dedicated to a cause, position, world-view (and of course the path of a class), but freedom is immensely important. Thus they easily get into conflict with law and order, bureaucrats, tax collectors, military folk, nobles and the clergy of a state or territory. As well as this, they are the stead-fast enemy of crazy new oppressive cults, young aspiring tyrants, and bandit-lords.
On the state for the good of its people, that could also be neutral good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, hey, it's the weekly Paladin alignment thread. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin upholds BOTH the Law and Good.
An example of a Paladin at work:
• LAW SIDE - The Paladin caught a pickpocket who has steal 1 too many times... he carries out the Law of the City he is in. In this case, he chops off 1 of the pickpocket's hands.
• GOOD SIDE - However, as the Paladin is a kind heart "aka, good" person. He will heal the wound so that the pickpocket does not bleed to death, then tries his best to ensure that the pickpocket can still live a life, even lacking a hand.
The Paladin may approach a charity organization to help facilitate the recovery and reintegration of the pick pocket back into society. Or even provide the pickpocket's family with housing, food, jobs... etc.
He will not just abandon the pickpocket, but will not refrain from punishing the pickpocket should he breaks the law again.
Conclusion,
A Paladin up holds the LAW, but is still a GOOD person at heart.
|
|
Unearthed Arcana was not 3.5 core nor was it particularly supported. It was a grabbag of miscellaneous optional rules which had pretty much the same standing as the optional rules of Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat have within Pathfinder, things that were thrown in for home gamemasters to experiment with. And pretty much that was all that was done with them. They're hardly part of 3.5's "sacred cows". just basically a bunch of unclassified splatbook material.
The true sacred cow of a Paladin was that he's the stalwart defender of Law and Good. That's been the tradition ever since the days of Gygax. Quite frankly I found the UA alternatives to be an inferior product.
3.5 heavily favoured the traditional LG Paladin, but it at least presented an alternative. It may not have been strongly supported or even terribly well done, but it was still a variant present in an official 3.5 product. There is not even the smallest nod to alternate paladins in any Paizo PF material that I know of, not even in the variant rules sections of Ultimate Magic or Ultimate Combat, and as far as I know it's not going to be in Ultimate Campaign. The result of this is that while a 3.5 player who wanted a CG paladin had a specific published reference to show the GM and say "I want to play this variant, will you allow it?" a PF player does not have a similar reference within the PF materials and unless the GM is open to 3.5 material the PF player will be starting from zero.
Keep in mind that you do get one of them, the LG's natural mirror, the CE AntiPaladin.
Not helpful for the average player in a game that doesn't allow CE characters. I'd prefer CG be available.
You sound like the 'Law Party' spin doctor! Chaos=selfishness?
Here's a better way of presenting law vs. chaos:-
• if you think that individuals exist for the good of the state, then that is a lawful mind-set
• if you think that the state exists for the good of it's individuals, then that is a chaotic mind-set
Remember that we are talking about philosophical viewpoints, not mental illness! 'Chaos' in this context is not about 'randomness', it is about 'freedom'.
No. There is a distinct difference between being self centered and selfish. Self centered is when you simply consider your own needs before those of anyone else, but not to the point of intentionally harming others. It's a fundamentally neutral concept between good and evil. The reason why I wrote that it was related is that at times, the self centered and selfish persons will act identically. Typically, a self centered person will be quite miserable once they realize their actions harmed others, but it takes time for that realization to hit and they don't always notice. Selfish people couldn't care less about how others feel, at least in specific instances.
By contrast, a Lawful Good person would believe that his code is the only correct one and that others should follow the same code.
Incorrect. By nature, a Lawful person will recognize that the Law varies depending on the area where one is in (nation, city-state, etc).
The Law is there because the people living in that area got together and decided that this was the way they wanted to live, their ethical code. As such, it represents the social contract that must be obeyed not only because of general principle, but also because it creates social harmony.
BTW, that social harmony concept is very Confucian.
Not helpful for the average player in a game that doesn't allow CE characters. I'd prefer CG be available.
The problem with a Chaotic mindset is that a Paladin is specifically there to uphold the social order. A Chaotic person is more inclined to go their own way, and couldn't care less if that way is illegal (against social mores).
I personally am just fine with a CG Ranger or a CG Barbarian, but not a CG Paladin (where Paladin means an exemplar of a specific alignment). The concept simply doesn't fit, and there would be no societal support of said individual unlike the standard LG Paladin. Most NPC's, for example, end up actually supporting the Paladin in their duties, because a Paladin is nothing if not LG, and thus concerned with the fate/well being of everyone in the area. That LG alignment is held accountable by the gods themselves, and cannot therefore be broken without obvious consequences.
A LN paladin would be more akin to an LN Inquisitor than a regular one. They couldn't care less if the overall effect is good or evil, just that it is according to the Law.
One of the major reasons why most Evil alignments aren't allowed in most campaigns is that if played accurately, they would end up screwing over the other players eventually. That is the nature of Evil. Unfortunately, this would also cause a problem in others' enjoyment of the game. A good example are most munchkins (a particularly rabid form of power gamer). The end result is a lot of distress in the other players, and a unenjoyable game overall.
Personally, I also believe that the Antipaladin is unnecessary, and counter to the concept of a Paladin as a socially accepted exemplar of alignment. Yes it is the polar opposite of the Paladin according to alignment, but the same effect could be achieved with a CE Rogue or Assassin.
except some DMs would say that chopping off the man's hands is a chaotic action and your paladin falls from grace.some dms would say that this action ofchopping off man's hand is an afront to your deity dogma, thus your paladin falls from grace.
some dms and players alike might find that chopping off the man's hand is an evil act and thus your paladin falls from grace.
That bit about chopping off the hand of a thief is actually from Islamic law, medieval to be precise. Doing so in that culture would be supported by Law. Whether or not it is a good or Evil act would depend on the GM's interpretation of the law in the area.
I think what he means is that it's a Chaotic act because the alleged thief was not put on trial to determine mitigating circumstances or possible leniencies, even if he WAS found guilty. It was still only 3rd offenders that had their hand cut off I believe.
|
|
As a man in the psychology field, that is patently false. In fact, I find the more chaotic the person, the more predictable they are. You can always count on them to have a very short attention span, to not finish projects, etc.
Perhaps a better way to put it would be that Lawful people tend to consider what is best for the needs of society without really thinking about it consciously. It's where selfishness, which is related to chaotic in the D&D/Pathfinder concept, is concerned that people end up getting into trouble. Chaos inherently does not consider long term results, instead they think about what's best for me, or their cause, here and now.
I fundamentally disagree that what you consider 'chaotic behaviour', which applies to certain definitions of 'chaotic',represents the typical behaviour of those creatures that have a chaotic alignment in this game!
In the philosophy of Law vs. Chaos, then having a chaotic alignment does not mean that you will demonstrate chaotic behaviour, in the way that behavioural psychologists in real life understand the term! In the game, if a character has a chaotic alignment this does not mean that this character has a tendency to selfishness, does not mean a short attention span, does not mean that they do not follow a personal code, does not mean that they won't follow through on projects.
Chaotic Good is not some lesser kind of good than Lawful Good, despite the writings of those with a lawful bent!
Chaos, in the game, represents freedom rather than restriction. If a chaotic society has laws then those laws will be worded to ensure the most freedom for all it's citizens. If a chaotic character has a personal code of behaviour, then it's one he made up himself, or chose for himself, rather than one imposed upon him. If something strange happens, then a chaotic character will make a judgement call, where a lawful character will believe that the closest written rule must be followed regardless of whether it would be a good idea or not in this strange circumstance.
A lawful character might say, 'I know it's stupid, but that's the rule.' A chaotic character might say, 'I know this rule is stupid in this circumstance, so I'll create a solution that is not stupid!'
When I was young someone tried to explain Law and Chaos using Moorcock's symbols: an arrow pointing straight up for Law and a point radiating eight arrows representing Chaos.
Law, he said, is like the arrow; straight up in one direction leading to heaven. Chaos, he said (as he drew eight arrows following each other, resulting in the eight arrows forming an octagon), is self-defeating, ending in a circle, going nowhere!
Even at my young age I thought that this is not an objective view, but from a Lawful point of view! Who says the single arrow has to point straight up? To Heaven? It's got just as much chance to point straight down, to Heck!!!
Chaos is infinite possibility! Chaos wouldn't follow each arrow in order! it would average out that way though, wouldn't it? No! With Chaos, there is no law of averages! Any possibility at any time.
Over the years, most definitions of Chaos as an alignment have been written from a Lawful perspective, making Chaos sound worse than Law, making LG a better kind of good than CG, making CE a worse kind of evil than LE.
From an objective point of view, they are equivalent! From my (CG) point of view, this has bothered me for over three decades!
Can you tell?
|
|
The problem with a Chaotic mindset is that a Paladin is specifically there to uphold the social order. A Chaotic person is more inclined to go their own way, and couldn't care less if that way is illegal (against social mores).
I personally am just fine with a CG Ranger or a CG Barbarian, but not a CG Paladin (where Paladin means an exemplar of a specific alignment). The concept simply doesn't fit, and there would be no societal support of said individual unlike the standard LG Paladin. Most NPC's, for example, end up actually supporting the Paladin in their duties, because a Paladin is nothing if not LG, and thus concerned with the fate/well being of everyone in the area.
...
Personally, I also believe that the Antipaladin is unnecessary, and counter to the concept of a Paladin as a socially accepted exemplar of alignment.
Who says that a paladin ought to be socially accepted?
Even the CRB says that the LG paladin's "convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save." No wonder, since even if he's legitimately only interested in everyone's wellbeing others might not have the same idea of what's right for them as the paladin does. The LG paladin will respect the social code and local traditions as much as possible, and this tends to minimize conflict, but sometimes his effectiveness is impaired by having to work within such a system. Perhaps the whole point of the CG paladin is the person who does what is right according to his personal values despite the fact that the social code disagrees with him. It's a different way of being, but as Malachi pointed out no less valid.
This might surprise you two, but I have no bias against CG, nor do I mystically consider it a lesser form of Good than LG.
Chaos by definition is simply far more self centered than Law could ever be. Law is concerned with society as a whole, Chaos is more concerned with the self. Reread the definitions, and try to take a few deep breaths, hey?
It IS less valid, simply because of the nature of Chaos in the first place. Again, go reread the chapter on alignment, please.