"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
|
Then he refuses, washes his hands of the ordeal, and the evil is on McBadGuy not the Paladin.
I believe: You are punished for what you do, not what you don't do.
The Paladin isn't killing them, McBadGuy is killing them. The Paladin is refusing to give aid (location/directions) to McBadGuy as his code says he must refuse.The code requires that you help those in need and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. If you stand by while McBadGuy harms innocents in a situation in which it is within your power to save them, you have failed to help those innocents and are guilty of a sin of ommission. Same as if a paladin sees a burning orphanage and sits down to watch it burn rather than try to save the kids.
A reasonable GM will give the paladin some kind of out here, but this is exactly the reason that people complain about fall-or-fall situations and the GMs who actually enforce them.
Completely different scenarios. In one, the Paladin has two bad choices which both result in bad outcomes (If I don't tell, these people die, if I do, other people die)
Neither action is an evil or neglectful action. It is simply which is the greater good.
In the case of the orphanage, there is a clear good action (save the children) and all other actions would be at best neutral (sitting and doing nothing) and would be, using your words a "sin of omission" unless there is some mitigating factor that would cause the greater good to occur with the orphanage burning.
As to your second point, why else would a Paladin follow a code? And if it is something you don't have to actually follow, can adjust as circumstances change, you aren't following a code, you are just doing what you want to do.
Your examples aren't of people following codes, they are examples of people making decisions.
If I follow a code where I don't drink and drive, I simply don't drink and drive because that is part of my code. Legality is irrelevent. If Drunk Driving is legalized, the person who follows a code that doesn't involve drinking and driving doesn't go "Cool, I don't have to follow that that code now."
@ Lamontius - Can you think of a more fitting morally ambiguitous thing?
That the question is uncomfortable is the point. Good and Evil actions aren't objective. Intentions, perhaps, but not actions.
|
Why does a cleric have to pray to get spells? Why does a Druid have to meditate and be neutral?
If you want to be the champion a deity, you don't have to be a Paladin. You can be a cleric or an Inquisitor, or even any non-divine class and just say "I fight for (insert deity here)".
But part of being a Paladin is following a code (not a cause, a code) and a code is a set of laws, and it doesn't get anymore lawful than that. Just like part of being a wizard is memorizing spells from a spell book.
Praying and meditating are words for "spending time to renew spell slots". It's a mechanical balancing mechanism for spell-casting. They don't need to pray or meditate for access to the rest of their class abilities (Neither does a wizard, for that matter).
You already know my opinion on global alignment restrictions, but the druid's alignment restriction is 1) within 1 step of the neutral entity that they revere, just like a cleric or inquisitor, and 2) diverse in that it allows 5 of the 9 alignments, making it possible to create a druid who isn't forced to act in one specific way, so I'm largely okay with it.
What default purpose does each of the deity-specific divine classes (Cleric, Inquisitor, Paladin) serve with respect to their deity?
|
|
And yet a Cleric will lose access to spells if they don't follow their deity. Is that also a "mechanical balancing mechanism for spell-casting"?
If the concept is just a path to the mechanics, you can play that way under house rules.
But there is probably a reason they decided that the first paragraph, before any mechanics, is the flavor for each class.
|
|
No, the codes sats you can't help those who will use the help for evil. So by helping him you fall.
You're helping the innocents that the evil guy is threatening to kill, not the evil guy himself (especially if you lie).
You don't have the power to save them just by telling him. He is evil. You have no way of knowing he will keep his word. Heck, he will likely kill them for the heck of it.
If Paladin sees a burning orphanage he goes to get help, not runs into building and dies a burning death. That helps no one.
Running into a burning building is risky but not suicidal - firemen do it all the time. If there is no other help available, running in might be the best chance of saving lives. And while you can't guarantee that the guy with the hostages will let them go if you give him the information he wants (or lie about it), he could always be a lawful evil villain who keeps his word, and you can be almost certain he will kill the hostages if you keep quiet. Lying to the evil guy is your best chance at saving lives despite the fact that it goes against the code. In a morally ambiguous situation you can't just say "I can't be doing anything wrong if I don't act" because if the evil caused by inaction is greater than the evil caused by action - if acting is the right thing to do - you must act.
There is no sin called sin of omission in any religion esceptr Catholics (who do silly things like buy away sins: did Atonement spell come from this practice?).
The concept is at least present in all of Christianity, and possibly other religions:
James 4:17, "Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin"
As to your second point, why else would a Paladin follow a code? And if it is something you don't have to actually follow, can adjust as circumstances change, you aren't following a code, you are just doing what you want to do.
Your examples aren't of people following codes, they are examples of people making decisions.
If I follow a code where I don't drink and drive, I simply don't drink and drive because that is part of my code. Legality is irrelevent. If Drunk Driving is legalized, the person who follows a code that doesn't involve drinking and driving doesn't go "Cool, I don't have to follow that that code now."
But the guy following the no-drunk-driving code isn't following a code because it was imposed by a higher authority and he doesn't necessarily think of himself as following a code at all, he just thinks "well, I think that it's wrong to drive drunk." And the behavior is identical to the guy who actually swears some sort of formal oath never to drive drunk.
Did I say he would automatically jump in?
I said he would want to save the person if he believed the person was good, because since he doesn't start off valuing law, any law that would kill a good person would be a law not worth following.
I construed "want to save" as "would try to save".
But there may be any number of reasons not to save the person.
In the Solitude example, if you have joined the Stormcloaks and believe in that cause (a very chaotic thing to do) you know immediately what is happening when you enter Solitude.
Does that mean you "must" act to stop the execution. No. It is pretty much a suicide mission.
Does that mean you disagree with the execution? Hell yeah you do! Skyrim is for the Nords, and that man is a g+%*!!n hero!
On the other hand, a lawful character is going to have much less of a problem with it, even if he agrees with what the person did, since that person clearly broke the law and the people executing him are just doing what the law demands. Dude was a traitor. No bones about that. People executing him are acting lawfully.
This makes your case a lot better than the initial posts IMO. I can agree that he would probably at least feel uneasy that this person was being executed for a morally ambiguous crime.
|
|
And yet a Cleric will lose access to spells if they don't follow their deity. Is that also a "mechanical balancing mechanism for spell-casting"?
If the concept is just a path to the mechanics, you can play that way under house rules.
But there is probably a reason they decided that the first paragraph, before any mechanics, is the flavor for each class.
I never said that all flavour is unacceptable in the CRB. There's a lot of flavour that I like.
I'm okay with the Cleric losing access to all of his abilities if he doesn't follow his deity's ideals (a restriction, I might add, that the Paladin doesn't have, as my Erastil/Abadar example above), as is it is a mechanical way to make sure he is using his powers as an emissary of his deity. I just don't agree with the flavour of the Paladin as presented in the CRB, for the reasons I and others have said earlier in the thread (too restrictive for a campaign neutral setting, etc).
It's because I want to understand/decide what default flavour the Paladin should have, and what restrictions should be placed on him, that I asked, and will ask again, this question:
What default purpose does each of the deity-specific divine classes (Cleric, Inquisitor, Paladin) serve with respect to their deity?
In addition, since I actually answered your rebuttal question about the Code giving the power, it would be nice if you also actually answer the question: Why is it that swearing to follow this highly specific deity-independent Code that gives him these powers?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did I say he would automatically jump in?
I said he would want to save the person if he believed the person was good, because since he doesn't start off valuing law, any law that would kill a good person would be a law not worth following.
I construed "want to save" as "would try to save".
But there may be any number of reasons not to save the person.
In the Solitude example, if you have joined the Stormcloaks and believe in that cause (a very chaotic thing to do) you know immediately what is happening when you enter Solitude.
Does that mean you "must" act to stop the execution. No. It is pretty much a suicide mission.
Does that mean you disagree with the execution? Hell yeah you do! Skyrim is for the Nords, and that man is a g+%*!!n hero!
On the other hand, a lawful character is going to have much less of a problem with it, even if he agrees with what the person did, since that person clearly broke the law and the people executing him are just doing what the law demands. Dude was a traitor. No bones about that. People executing him are acting lawfully.
This makes your case a lot better than the initial posts IMO. I can agree that he would probably at least feel uneasy that this person was being executed for a morally ambiguous crime.
And that is more or less what I am saying.
The reason you have the two axis is specifically because something can be both unlawful and good, or Lawful and evil.
Robin Hood is opposed to the law, actively engaged in theft, but is still "good"
The concept of a deal with the devil assumes that you can be evil, but still hold to laws and agreements.
If you agree a Paladin lives by a code (not a cause, but a code) then a Paladin is Lawful.
If you agree a Paladin must always try to be good...well he is good.
There is some leeway in both of those things. But I also think those are defining characteristics of the class.
They are defining characteristics of the class, yes.
I think someone accused me like 600 posts ago for "Trying to take his toys away from him like a bully" when I said that a while ago.
I still think that a separate class or number of archetypes with different, but similar powers of separate alignments would be fun and flavorful.
The mechanics are like halfway there for a Lawful Evil Paladin in a Hellknight, we've already got a Chaotic Evil version, so all we need is a Chaotic Good Paladin and we're set.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never said that all flavour is unacceptable in the CRB. There's a lot of flavour that I like.
I'm okay with the Cleric losing access to all of his abilities if he doesn't follow his deity's ideals (a restriction, I might add, that the Paladin doesn't have, as my Erastil/Abadar example above), as is it is a mechanical way to make sure he is using his powers as an emissary of his deity. I just don't agree with the flavour of the Paladin as presented in the CRB, for the reasons I and others have said earlier in the thread (too restrictive for a campaign neutral setting, etc).
It's because I want to understand/decide what default flavour the Paladin should have, and what restrictions should be placed on him, that I asked, and will ask again, this question:
What default purpose does each of the deity-specific divine classes (Cleric, Inquisitor, Paladin) serve with respect to their deity?
In addition, since I actually answered your rebuttal question, it would be nice if you also answered my question about what exactly is it about the Code gives the Paladin his powers. Why is it that swearing to follow this highly specific deity-independent Code that gives him these powers?
Let us look to the text.
Cleric:
"Called to serve powers beyond most mortal understanding, all priests preach wonders and provide for the spiritual needs of their people. Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods."
So they primarily spread the word, take care of follower, and act as emissaries of the god.
Paladin:
"Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful.
So they are primarily crusaders and law-bringers. Paragons, in a way.
Inquisitor
"Grim and determined, the inquisitor roots out enemies of the faith, using trickery and guile when righteousness and purity is not enough. Although inquisitors are dedicated to a deity, they are above many of the normal rules and conventions of the church. They answer to their deity and their own sense of justice alone, and are willing to take extreme measures to meet their goals."
Special Agents who can act outside of the rules that generally apply.
So the Cleric is the person spreading the word about the God.
The Paladin is going around smiting evil, bringing law to the lawless.
The Inquisitor is doing the dirty work of the church.
Three very different roles.
|
|
They are defining characteristics of the class, yes.
I think someone accused me like 600 posts ago for "Trying to take his toys away from him like a bully" when I said that a while ago.
I still think that a separate class or number of archetypes with different, but similar powers of separate alignments would be fun and flavorful.
The mechanics are like halfway there for a Lawful Evil Paladin in a Hellknight, we've already got a Chaotic Evil version, so all we need is a Chaotic Good Paladin and we're set.
I think the chevalier prestige class is about as close as you get.
|
|
If you agree a Paladin lives by a code (not a cause, but a code) then a Paladin is Lawful.
I'd like to further understand this definition of alignment.
If someone (not a Paladin), lives by this code:
I will lose all of my class features if I ever commit an evil act. I am also required to respect the personal freedoms of every individual (as long as those freedoms aren't used for evil), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
and every other part of his personality firmly sets him in the Chaotic alignment, is he still Lawful because he lives by this code?
I think the chevalier prestige class is about as close as you get.They are defining characteristics of the class, yes.
I think someone accused me like 600 posts ago for "Trying to take his toys away from him like a bully" when I said that a while ago.
I still think that a separate class or number of archetypes with different, but similar powers of separate alignments would be fun and flavorful.
The mechanics are like halfway there for a Lawful Evil Paladin in a Hellknight, we've already got a Chaotic Evil version, so all we need is a Chaotic Good Paladin and we're set.
Sure, a modified Chevalier as a full class. Because frankly that class looks pretty terrible.
So there we go then. The basis for all 4 "Paladins" exists, they just need to be made capable of being and worth using from levels 1-20.
I don't think anyone would really object to those classes being hypothetically expanded, do they?
|
|
If you live by a code, you live by a code. Anyone can live by a code. Marines (theoretically) live by a code.
I am not sure how you can be Chaotic and live by a code, unless I guess your code is something like "I must always bring chaos to everyone" in which case you aren't good.
You can live for a cause, but following a code is basically saying "I will follow these rules" which is about as lawful as it gets.
I think the chevalier prestige class is about as close as you get.They are defining characteristics of the class, yes.
I think someone accused me like 600 posts ago for "Trying to take his toys away from him like a bully" when I said that a while ago.
I still think that a separate class or number of archetypes with different, but similar powers of separate alignments would be fun and flavorful.
The mechanics are like halfway there for a Lawful Evil Paladin in a Hellknight, we've already got a Chaotic Evil version, so all we need is a Chaotic Good Paladin and we're set.
Sure, a modified Chevalier as a full class. Because frankly that class looks pretty terrible.
So there we go then. The basis for all 4 "Paladins" exists, they just need to be made capable of being and worth using from levels 1-20.
I don't think anyone would really object to those classes being hypothetically expanded, do they?
Not really, unlike smite evil he gets his 1/day (vs all opponents), bonus hit/damage equal to level. As a morale bonus it is boosted by the 1st level spell Moment of Greatness (cleric/Bard 1st).
D10 hp, 4+ Int skill, Good Fort/Will saves, full BAB
Simple/martial proficiency, full armor
1st level: Recklessness: vs all opponents (lasts till batle over), bonus hit/damage equal to level. 1/day and every 5 levels thereafter
2nd level: Aura of Courage,
3rd level: Smite Evil: 1/day, and every 3 levels after 3rd.
4th level: Controlled Charge, Bonus feat
5th level: Stubborn Mind, Recklessness 2/day
6th level: Poison Immunity, Smite Evil 2/day
And so on
Big question are we making a caster or just non-caster?
I am not sure how you can be Chaotic and live by a code, unless I guess your code is something like "I must always bring chaos to everyone" ...
You've never heard of honor among thieves?
What alignment is Robin Hood, the Doctor, the artful dodger, captain Jack Sparrow, Tyrion, or Han Solo? Are any of them Chaotic? If so why are they incapable of having a code?
|
|
Let us look to the text.
Cleric:
...
So they primarily spread the word, take care of follower, and act as emissaries of the god.Paladin:
...
So they are primarily crusaders and law-bringers. Paragons, in a way.Inquisitor
...
Special Agents who can act outside of the rules that generally apply.So the Cleric is the person spreading the word about the God.
The Paladin is going around smiting evil, bringing law to the lawless.
The Inquisitor is doing the dirty work of the church.
Three very different roles.
That's a decent interpretation. For the paladin, I would focus on these two parts:
paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful.
They strive to be the embodiment of their deity, more-so than the cleric who can focus on a specific set of aspects of their deity (like a LN cleric of Asmodeus who focuses on the contracts portfolio, with the Law and Magic domains). What is it about the current Code of Conduct that helps them become paragons of their deity, when most of it isn't necessarily even reflected in their god's ideals?
For being virtuous and good, they are rewarded with good-oriented (not lawful-oriented) abilities. These abilities would be useful to help further the ideals of any good-oriented deity. Why exactly are they not giving the abilities out? Because, as Kryzyn suggests, they can't be relied upon if they don't follow an arbitrary code? These people would already striving to embody the ideals of their deity, more so than the clerics, priests, or inquisitors.
I think expanding a chevalier-like thing to a full class would be fun, but I wouldn't really call that class a Paladin.
You seem to be stuck on the word 'Paladin' and all the literary baggage that comes with it. Why does the CRB campaign-neutral setting need to have an entire class devoted to such a specific concept, when it could be a specific part of a more diverse class? Especially when the concept/flavour itself seems to cause so much more strife than even the mechanical aspects of other classes?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be stuck on the word 'Paladin' and all the literary baggage that comes with it.
It's not even literary baggage, unless R.A. Salvatore now qualifies as literary. The "Lawful Good guy with a code who loses all powers and becomes a nobody if he frowns in the direction of an orphan" definition is pretty much exclusive to D&D and maybe a few derivatives.
|
|
It's not even literary baggage, unless R.A. Salvatore now qualifies as literary. The "Lawful Good guy with a code who loses all powers and becomes a nobody if he frowns in the direction of an orphan" definition is pretty much exclusive to D&D and maybe a few derivatives.
I was thinking less about that and more about the idea of the Paladin being the paragon of the lawful good knight. The Code just provides the player with incentive to stick to that concept (in the form of an earthbreaker being held over his head).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah nothing helps along a thread about an rpg game class and being a good rpg player like including in the discussion the morality or lack thereof associated with the usage of a nuclear weapon in world war II
throw in some religion and politics, a hitler reference and the sociological and discriminatory implications of whether or not the paladin iconic is LGBTQ while you are at it
oh man you guys were so close to hitting all the items I mentioned within just a few posts
plus I just totally quoted myself
yesssssss!
self hi5!
I, myself, do love to play characters with flaws. Where most of my friends wanted to play "perfect" characters, I always liked to play weak or flawed characters. A character with low Charisma should not be able to give orders to his comrades like a 18 charisma. He should not look healthy if he have a Con of 6.
Bravo for your player. I have played with so many "cheaters" and "roxxor" that its nice to see others playing flaws.
|
|
I am not sure how you can be Chaotic and live by a code, unless I guess your code is something like "I must always bring chaos to everyone" ...
You've never heard of honor among thieves?
What alignment is Robin Hood, the Doctor, the artful dodger, captain Jack Sparrow, Tyrion, or Han Solo? Are any of them Chaotic? If so why are they incapable of having a code?
Honor among thieves is a very relative thing, wouldn't you agree? Theft is theft, and nearly every honor among thieves trope I've seen is usually discussing someone not following it...because, you know, thieves.
I would argue all of them are chaotic (with the possible exceptions of the Doctor and Tyrion, who I don't watch enough to know one way or the other) as all of them fight against authority and define there own morality...quite loosely...they are against authority and any morality they don't personally define.
I think Robin Hood was the benchmark for Chaotic Good. He robs from the rich to give to the poor. Literally he ignores the law in order to do good.
Also, Han shot first.
|
|
If it's important that a paladin have a code rather than just a cause, can we figure out exactly what qualifies as a code?
A LG character does all the things described in the paladin's code (no lying, no poison, protect innocents, punish the guilty, respect authority, etc) but does not think of this as being a formal code. Can this character be a paladin?
A LG character does all the things described in the paladin's code, and thinks of this as being a formal code, but they constructed the code themself and did not receive it from a higher power. Can this character be a paladin?
On what table?
Your table?
My table?
Any table?
All tables?
I am not sure how you can be Chaotic and live by a code, unless I guess your code is something like "I must always bring chaos to everyone" ...
You've never heard of honor among thieves?
What alignment is Robin Hood, the Doctor, the artful dodger, captain Jack Sparrow, Tyrion, or Han Solo? Are any of them Chaotic? If so why are they incapable of having a code?
When you say the Doctor, you do realize each Doctor hs a different personality and alignment.
If it's important that a paladin have a code rather than just a cause, can we figure out exactly what qualifies as a code?
A LG character does all the things described in the paladin's code (no lying, no poison, protect innocents, punish the guilty, respect authority, etc) but does not think of this as being a formal code. Can this character be a paladin?
A LG character does all the things described in the paladin's code, and thinks of this as being a formal code, but they constructed the code themself and did not receive it from a higher power. Can this character be a paladin?
LG characters that aren't paladins use poison is they wish. They lie if they wish.
Other than that, I'd agree. Only Paladins can't use poison or lies for the greater good.
I am not sure how you can be Chaotic and live by a code, unless I guess your code is something like "I must always bring chaos to everyone" in which case you aren't good.
Chaotic Good people are people like Indiana Jones or Spiderman. They still live by a Code, but they dont have to follow the law. A Chaotic Good Paladin would be a guy that promote thinking by yourself, instead of people thinking for you.
Individuality instead of Unity.I also found this which is a custom Chaotic Good Paladin.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/house-rules/classes/pala din-of-freedom
Where a Lawful Good Paladin would say "This prisoner was found stealing bread, he will be put to trial and jail", the Chaotic Good Paladin would free the guy without killing the guards and give him some bread.
|
|
@Serum - You left out "In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline."
As in, you literally put in the sentence before and after this part.
Indeed, it's why I said "I would focus on". Good to know you didn't feel any of my post was worth respond7ng to, though.
How do ironclad laws of morality and discipline help him strive to embody tye teachings of his deity?
|
|
If it's important that a paladin have a code rather than just a cause, can we figure out exactly what qualifies as a code?
A LG character does all the things described in the paladin's code (no lying, no poison, protect innocents, punish the guilty, respect authority, etc) but does not think of this as being a formal code. Can this character be a paladin?
A LG character does all the things described in the paladin's code, and thinks of this as being a formal code, but they constructed the code themself and did not receive it from a higher power. Can this character be a paladin?
LG characters that aren't paladins use poison is they wish. They lie if they wish.
Other than that, I'd agree. Only Paladins can't use poison or lies for the greater good.
This is not about what LG characters who aren't paladins can do.
The question is, is a character who does all the things described in the paladin's code eligible to be a paladin, or do they also have to make a formal oath to a church knightly order?
On what table?
Your table?
My table?
Any table?
All tables?
1) At your table
2) According to the core rules (in your opinion).I hope no one here is trying to enforce their definition of a paladin on other tables (because you always have Rule Zero and the houserule), but I'm hoping to figure out both exactly how people personally define the paladin and also how they think that the paladin is defined according to the core rules.
1) At my table, any character with strong dedication to a cause can be a paladin even if they are not LG, though the cause must be clearly defined before play.
2) According to the core rules, only LG characters may be paladins and only if they behave according to the paladin's code, but I do not see anything in the core rules that requires that the character make a formal oath to follow that code.
I am not sure how you can be Chaotic and live by a code, unless I guess your code is something like "I must always bring chaos to everyone" ...
You've never heard of honor among thieves?
What alignment is Robin Hood, the Doctor, the artful dodger, captain Jack Sparrow, Tyrion, or Han Solo? Are any of them Chaotic? If so why are they incapable of having a code?
Honor among thieves is a very relative thing, wouldn't you agree? Theft is theft, and nearly every honor among thieves trope I've seen is usually discussing someone not following it...because, you know, thieves.
I would argue all of them are chaotic (with the possible exceptions of the Doctor and Tyrion, who I don't watch enough to know one way or the other) as all of them fight against authority and define there own morality...quite loosely...they are against authority and any morality they don't personally define.
I think Robin Hood was the benchmark for Chaotic Good. He robs from the rich to give to the poor. Literally he ignores the law in order to do good.
Also, Han shot first.
Sure. I agree. I have certainly seen the honor among thieves trope played straight (mistborn). But yes, I agree for the most part that honor among thieves is mostly relative.
Unfortunately, I can only say that people WANT all of these characters to be chaotic. Robin Hood fits boxes that don't include chaos but is BEST suited to the chaotic good box. I can agree with that. In the same way that the Doctor best fits Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral (generally speaking) but also fits Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral. But predominately I think most people would place these characters along the chaos axis. But I don't think there is any reason to believe that any of them are incapable of having a code. Many of them DO have a code. Just because it is a personal code and not the law doesn't mean that "I must always bring chaos to everyone" is their code.
|
|
If it's important that a paladin have a code rather than just a cause, can we figure out exactly what qualifies as a code?
A LG character does all the things described in the paladin's code (no lying, no poison, protect innocents, punish the guilty, respect authority, etc) but does not think of this as being a formal code. Can this character be a paladin?
A LG character does all the things described in the paladin's code, and thinks of this as being a formal code, but they constructed the code themself and did not receive it from a higher power. Can this character be a paladin?
Sure. Stealing a definition:
Ethical codes are adopted by organizations to assist members in understanding the difference between 'right' and 'wrong' and in applying that understanding to their decisions.
The distinction being you aren't following a personal code, but the code of an organization.
Given the Paladin is receiving power from a higher authority, they must conform to the code of the higher authority.
A personal code is all well and good, but you can't imbue yourself with divine powers. So why would they be granted power from a higher authority?
|
|
@Serum - You left out "In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline."
As in, you literally put in the sentence before and after this part.
Indeed, it's why I said "I would focus on". Good to know you didn't feel any of my post was worth respond7ng to, though.
How do ironclad laws of morality and discipline help him strive to embody tye teachings of his deity?
You can't simply ignore the sentence that follows and proceeds the other two.
|
|
@WPharolin - I would argue in those examples, the personal code is created in direct conflict with what is viewed as misplaced authority. Which is Chaotic.
I think there is far to much negative connotation to "Chaotic" and far to much positive toward Lawful.
Libertarians have a strong belief system, and I believe that they would be unquestionably categorized as chaotic simply because they are opposed to interference by legal authority.
The spectrum to me can be viewed as how much you are willing to submit to "Authority" as a general concept.
|
|
If it's important that a paladin have a code rather than just a cause, can we figure out exactly what qualifies as a code?
A LG character does all the things described in the paladin's code (no lying, no poison, protect innocents, punish the guilty, respect authority, etc) but does not think of this as being a formal code. Can this character be a paladin?
A LG character does all the things described in the paladin's code, and thinks of this as being a formal code, but they constructed the code themself and did not receive it from a higher power. Can this character be a paladin?
Sure. Stealing a definition:
Ethical codes are adopted by organizations to assist members in understanding the difference between 'right' and 'wrong' and in applying that understanding to their decisions.
The distinction being you aren't following a personal code, but the code of an organization.
Given the Paladin is receiving power from a higher authority, they must conform to the code of the higher authority.
A personal code is all well and good, but you can't imbue yourself with divine powers. So why would they be granted power from a higher authority?
So your answer is actually that neither of those characters is eligible to be a paladin despite strictly following the behavioral requirements because neither has formally dedicated themselves to the service of a higher power? The "sure" you started off with seems to contradict the rest of your post, which was about the importance of an organization or higher power.
Or are you saying "sure, these characters can be paladins, but there has to be a higher power who grants them their abilities whether there's a formal oath of service or not" ?
@WPharolin - I would argue in those examples, the personal code is created in direct conflict with what is viewed as misplaced authority. Which is Chaotic.
I think there is far to much negative connotation to "Chaotic" and far to much positive toward Lawful.
Libertarians have a strong belief system, and I believe that they would be unquestionably categorized as chaotic simply because they are opposed to interference by legal authority.
The spectrum to me can be viewed as how much you are willing to submit to "Authority" as a general concept.
This sounds about right to me. It's also why I think that the "lawful" requirement on paladins is unnecessary unless you require that the paladin's code always be received from an outside authority. Which as I've already stated I don't think the CRB actually requires for the LG paladin. The code applies to the paladin's behavior, and even the flavour text doesn't have anything in it that indicates that sort of submission is required:
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil.
Dedication to a cause, not a code or authority.
Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
This is the closest we get to requiring an external authority, but embodying the teachings of a deity is not the same as receiving your code directly from them, clerics and inquisitors can serve deities and embody their teachings without being lawful, and paladins don't actually need a deity, it's just typical.
In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline.
Indicates a behavior standard but does not specify that these "ironclad laws" must be external.
As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful.
This is the benefits package.
Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
Again, conviction and dedication to a cause doesn't have to mean submission to authority.
|
|
The sure was just to identify a definition of "Code" that made clear the distinction was it was to a higher authority, and not just what you decide to do.
I am saying that to be a Paladin you must submit to some higher power or authority from which you receive your power. That power is granted to you because you are doing Paladin things (aka spreading divine justice) and adhering to the code that embodies the teachings of the higher power/diety you serve.
Without the outside authority, there is no one to issue or rescind the power.
I am saying that to be a Paladin you must submit to some higher power or authority from which you receive your power. That power is granted to you because you are doing Paladin things (aka spreading divine justice) and adhering to the code that embodies the teachings of the higher power/diety you serve.
Sounds kind of odd. Paladin powers are granted to you because you have Paladin powers (IE - spreading divine justice). Makes perfect sense. /sarcasm
That also flies in the face of what you've already said. If you get Paladin powers for administering divine justice then either everyone gets it for adhering to the code and administering divine justice; UNLESS you must administer divine justice with Paladin powers, but then that's the requirement for getting Paladin powers, right?
Anyway, after talking with Lemmy, I think I'm gonna drop this thread. I've seen pretty much all there is to see here I think.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't simply ignore the sentence that follows and proceeds the other two.@Serum - You left out "In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline."
As in, you literally put in the sentence before and after this part.
Indeed, it's why I said "I would focus on". Good to know you didn't feel any of my post was worth respond7ng to, though.
How do ironclad laws of morality and discipline help him strive to embody tye teachings of his deity?
Alright, then. Since you're not interested in reading my posts for anything of value, there's not really any point discussing this with you.
As a final statement for anyone interested in what I have to say, and also ciretose:
Thematically, the current Paladin is the paragon of a medieval holy knight, not the embodiment of his deity's teachings. Depending on the deity he's allowed to follow, his code actually distracts him from what is supposedly truly important. By default, the Paladin does not need to belong to an order or organization, just like the cleric (who also has a code of conduct), does not. This Code is supposedly between him and his deity, but once the Code is sworn, it doesn't matter if the Paladin never even thinks about his deity again. The current Paladin class doesn't need to be connected to his faith at all. As long as he follows his code, the deity will do nothing (barring GM fiat). I believe that this is at least part of the reason why Paizo added a new (entirely optional, setting biased) set of codes in the Faiths Pathfinder Companion series so the current paladin class actually makes sense in Golarion.
I don't believe that there should be an entire class devoted to such a restricted character concept as the current Paladin class (the paragon of knighthood). As such, I've tried to decide what is a good fit with the paladin's actual abilities (which are all related to being good, and have nothing to do with being lawful), in addition to what role he has in a universe of clerics and inquisitors. The cleric strives to teach his deity's ideals to the faithful and faithless, and the Inquisitor roots out enemies of the faith and punishes them. I believe there's still room for a character who leads by example (yay Charisma), who actually embodies all of a deity's ideals as opposed to only needing to focus on some of them. When I look at the way he mechanically interacts with the world, he is in the front line, fighting those that would make mockery of his deity's ideals, protecting those that would be harmed from his faith's enemies; He is a bastion of good, and his deity's ideals. Why wouldn't any deity that values its followers want someone like that?
With that as a baseline, and anti-paladin the equivalent on the evil side, there's enough material and concept to cover a very large variety of alignments and characters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Serum - When you ask someone to ignore the part of the paragraph that specifically says the opposite of what you are arguing for, you aren't really interested in discussing the paragraph.
You just want to find a way around that sentence.
Edit: Also, how can you say they are"not the embodiment of his deity's teachings" when it literally says that they "embody the teachings of the virtuous deities"
I mean, it literally says that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people seem to be confusing "having a code" with being a good person. A chaotic good person would want to help good people and want to see evil fail but "I will help good and hurt evil!" is kind of weak for a code. They could swear to an exact code but if they were chaotic they would disregard the code when needed. If they swore an oath and executed their oath precisely without variation, then that sounds fairly lawful.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sure was just to identify a definition of "Code" that made clear the distinction was it was to a higher authority, and not just what you decide to do.
I am saying that to be a Paladin you must submit to some higher power or authority from which you receive your power. That power is granted to you because you are doing Paladin things (aka spreading divine justice) and adhering to the code that embodies the teachings of the higher power/diety you serve.
Without the outside authority, there is no one to issue or rescind the power.
1) The paladin class description which you have referenced as defining the class does not actually require a formal dedication to an outside authority, therefore the requirement for one is part of your personal interpretation of the class.
2) Paladin powers are by RAW granted by the forces of law and good, not their deity (and so serum is correct in saying that despite the mention of the deity in the class description, a paladin's adherence to their deities' specific teachings is lightly enforced at best - at least within the core rules, straying from your deity's teachings doesn't cause a fall).
3) If power is granted to you because you do paladin things, an outside higher authority (like the force of good) could grant paladin powers to any character who does paladin things without requiring a formal oath, and then revoke those powers should the character stop doing paladin things. There is still someone/thing to issue or rescind power, but this allows for paladins who don't think of themselves as paladins or who hear a more subtle call to serve the power's cause (concepts not disallowed by the rules or the class description).
I think some people seem to be confusing "having a code" with being a good person. A chaotic good person would want to help good people and want to see evil fail but "I will help good and hurt evil!" is kind of weak for a code. They could swear to an exact code but if they were chaotic they would disregard the code when needed. If they swore an oath and executed their oath precisely without variation, then that sounds fairly lawful.
I'm not confusing the two, I simply think that having a personal code (even a detailed one) is not incompatible with a chaotic alignment.
And ciretose, your agreement with Durngrun is in direct contradiction with your earlier statement that a Chaotic alignment is defined by its opposition to external authority, not any lack of a personal code or strong moral system.
I'm not confusing the two, I simply think that having a personal code (even a detailed one) is not incompatible with a chaotic alignment.
Sure they can have a personal code. They may even adhere to it. But they will also break it, because they are, you know, chaotic. A chaotic person with a code is basically someone who has rules he lives by, but reserves the right to change the rules at any time and for any reason they deem they need to. A lawful person lives by a code and doesn't deviate from it. A neutral person is in the middle, they'll violate their code, but they don't like doing it and try to avoid it.
Also note, those 'personal codes' can be chaotic too. A good example would be Two-Face, he lives by a very strict personal code, which is the essence of chaos, allowing chance and random coin flips to dictate his way in life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people confuse Chaotic with 'Random and idiotic'. It's not. Chaos has less to do with randomness than it does with a dislike of order. There is a subtle difference there. Chaos could be more accurately likened to a revulsion of stasis, while Law is a revulsion of change.
If you've ever played Whitewolf, they have a good take on it. Chaos is basically what is needed for life to be created, but Law (order) is required for life to survive past creation.
|
|
@Weirdo - But at the end of the day, and outside authority, be it a force or deity is granting you the power.
And the criteria to being grant or recind that power is determined by that authority.
A personal code has nothing to do with being lawful. Being lawful is about submitting to law, not writing your own.
Normally I would not do this but...
This is a paladin alignment thread.
So....
yeah nothing helps along a thread about an rpg game class and being a good rpg player like including in the discussion the morality or lack thereof associated with the usage of a nuclear weapon in world war IIthrow in some religion and politics, a hitler reference and the sociological and discriminatory implications of whether or not the paladin iconic is LGBTQ while you are at it
this thread is why fighters are just fine
because you don't have to deal with all this when you run into thread people at PFS or conventions
|
|
Godwin's law doesn't work if someone invokes it for the purpose of shutting down or poking fun at the discussion.
Sure they can have a personal code. They may even adhere to it. But they will also break it, because they are, you know, chaotic.
You can't say that someone may adhere to a code but will break it. You cannot have probability (keep code) > 0 and probability (not keep code) = 1.
Also note, those 'personal codes' can be chaotic too. A good example would be Two-Face, he lives by a very strict personal code, which is the essence of chaos, allowing chance and random coin flips to dictate his way in life.
Some people confuse Chaotic with 'Random and idiotic'. It's not. Chaos has less to do with randomness than it does with a dislike of order.
So a chaotic character can have a strict personal code, but they're required to break it, and this is neither random nor idiotic?
Please explain to me why this state of affairs makes sense to you, because I don't get it.
@Weirdo - But at the end of the day, and outside authority, be it a force or deity is granting you the power.
And the criteria to being grant or recind that power is determined by that authority.
A personal code has nothing to do with being lawful. Being lawful is about submitting to law, not writing your own.
All right, being lawful is about submitting to someone else's law, which is why we agree that it is possible for a chaotic character to create and adhere to a personal code.
But chaotic characters are able to enter into agreements. Chaotic Calvin is able to say "Hey Chaotic Charlie, I love your fresh-baked bread. I'll pay you if you bring me a loaf every day" and Charlie can agree. If Charlie stops bringing bread, Calvin stops paying. If Calvin stops paying, Charlie stops bringing bread for Calvin (though he might still bake for himself or for others).
Cayden can say "Hey Charles, I like your freedom fighting. Keep doing that and raise a mug of ale to me after your adventures and I'll give you some sweet powers that will help you."