|
The view that the needs of the individual are more important than the needs of the state is a chaotic view.
The view that the needs of the state are more important than the needs of the individual is a lawful view.
Both views can have fanatics, and both can have very strong personal codes regarding it. The idea that those that value freedom above order must be a bit wishy-washy about being unwavering in their beliefs is just a manifestation of yet another lawful view of what chaos is, in terms of 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.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.
Good thing I didn't Weirdo. You should parse things more closely.
Someone may go out in the rain.
But they also will not go in the rain today.
Both of these statements are true. The will in this case indicates they are willing to do so. Had I intended a statement of absolutes, I would have used an absolute. The chaotic person may live by a personal code, but they will never stick to it. See the absolute in there (never)?
Chaotic characters may have a code they live by. Chaotic characters will also break their own codes if they choose to. That's the essence of chaotic. They can change. Lawful can't.
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.
If you're going to be insulting, I'll flag your messages and stop responding. I agree you don't get it. Your inability to parse language and understand what was stated is not my problem, and I am not an idiot because you failed to comprehend. Watch your language.
Since your entire questions is based on your inability to comprehend, and since I already answered the question in part 1, thus hopefully allowing you to comprehend, I see no reason to copy/paste the answer again.
Godwin's law doesn't work if someone invokes it for the purpose of shutting down or poking fun at the discussion.
:-p
Yeah I know, I just could not resist.
Sorry for the derail enjoy the discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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).
By the alignment description, maintaining that agreement is a series of lawful actions. By maintaining the bargain, they each told the truth, kept their word, demonstrated trustworthiness and displayed reliability. For as long as their bargain is upheld, they are engaged in lawful behavior.
Now, since Calvin said that he *would* pay Charlie if Charlie brought him a loaf every day, and then Charlie brings him a loaf and Calvin decides he doesn't want the bread and *doesn't* pay, that's a chaotic act. That's Calvin only following through on the agreement when he felt like it.
Now it's possible that Calvin always feels like following through on his agreements. There's a word for Chaotic characters who always feel like behaving in a manner indistinguishable from a Lawful alignment.
Lawful.
:)
eta: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules
Personally I find it easier to treat alignment as descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Rather than saying Larry is Lawful and thus acts like this, or that Eddie is Evil and thus acts like that, it avoids a lot of problems if however their trend of actions develops determines their alignment. This way you play your character according to their personality and it's no sweat if the description of your alignment shifts frequently depending on your actions.
Now, for Paladins, the GM should probably warn then when they're drifting off target, since they're likely aiming for LG.
Personally I find it easier to treat alignment as descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Rather than saying Larry is Lawful and thus acts like this, or that Eddie is Evil and thus acts like that, it avoids a lot of problems if however their trend of actions develops determines their alignment. This way you play your character according to their personality and it's no sweat if the description of your alignment shifts frequently depending on your actions.
Now, for Paladins, the GM should probably warn then when they're drifting off target, since they're likely aiming for LG.
I basically do this.
In fact, two weeks ago I had a talk at the table about people and their alignments. I pointed out to the player of the Barbarian that he'd stopped being chaotic, and was actually a lot calmer and more rational in combat than he had been (I think it was the 3 fireballs in a row where he rolled 1 on his save and lost half his equipment each time, including a +2 mithral full plate and bag of holding with 80K of equipment in it).
By the same token, the player of the NG witch I had to tell to build his new character as a Chaotic alignment (the witch died) due to his inability as a player to play any other alingnment than CN, regardless of what his sheet said. Given this was echo'd by everyone else at the table, accompanied by much laughter (including from the witch player), I am confident my observation was pretty darn obvious. :)
|
|
The idea that chaotic characters don't feel the need to keep their word is just lawful propaganda.
A chaotic character may choose to give his word, and if he chooses to be the kind of person who keeps his word then that doesn't stop him being chaotic.
If a chaotic character is told he must make a promise, he feels no need to keep such a forced promise, while a lawful character may feel bound keep to that promise even if it was forced.
The idea that chaotic characters don't feel the need to keep their word is just lawful propaganda.
The idea that chaotic characters don't feel the need to keep their word is straight out of the rulebook.
Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
They keep promises if they feel like it. Or as I would phrase it, breaking promises is a chaotic action, keeping promises is a lawful action.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html#_alignment
In fact, two weeks ago I had a talk at the table about people and their alignments. I pointed out to the player of the Barbarian that he'd stopped being chaotic, and was actually a lot calmer and more rational in combat than he had been .
I'm with you on your second example, but "calm and rational in combat" doesn't seem to have much to do with lawful/chaotic.
I'm with you on your second example, but "calm and rational in combat" doesn't seem to have much to do with lawful/chaotic.
In fact, two weeks ago I had a talk at the table about people and their alignments. I pointed out to the player of the Barbarian that he'd stopped being chaotic, and was actually a lot calmer and more rational in combat than he had been .
When the character formerly ran out into the middle of combat, charged in first recklessly, didn't ask for any help, and over time has gotten to the point where he wants to plan out attacks, councils other characters on being foolishly reckless and generally plays safe and plays the odds now, then yeah, that's not chaotic, that's neutral.
When the character formerly ran out into the middle of combat, charged in first recklessly, didn't ask for any help, and over time has gotten to the point where he wants to plan out attacks, councils other characters on being foolishly reckless and generally plays safe and plays the odds now, then yeah, that's not chaotic, that's neutral.I'm with you on your second example, but "calm and rational in combat" doesn't seem to have much to do with lawful/chaotic.
In fact, two weeks ago I had a talk at the table about people and their alignments. I pointed out to the player of the Barbarian that he'd stopped being chaotic, and was actually a lot calmer and more rational in combat than he had been .
Wild behavior is chaotic in a dictionary sense, sure. But I don't think it's recklessly chaotic in the sense of alignments.
It doesn't have anything to do with breaking rules, or following one's own code, or lying, or resenting authority or challenging tradition. It's not in opposition to honor, or obedience to authority, or respecting tradition.
You could very well have a paladin who approached combat as a crazed berserker, ignoring all good sense and tactics in his mad rush to defeat the enemies of righteousness and order.
|
First let me address mdt's concerns since I offended him.
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.
If you're going to be insulting, I'll flag your messages and stop responding. I agree you don't get it. Your inability to parse language and understand what was stated is not my problem, and I am not an idiot because you failed to comprehend. Watch your language.
Since your entire questions is based on your inability to comprehend, and since I already answered the question in part 1, thus hopefully...
mdt, I apologize for not expressing my intent more clearly. I did not mean to offend. I wasn't calling you random or idiotic. I was calling a situation in which a chaotic character is required to break their own code idiotic - and I was asking you to explain your statement because it clearly made sense to you. I know this is a paladin discussion but I value a generally civil level of discourse. I appreciate that you took the time to further explain your position. Please allow me to address your explanation and hopefully we can reach an understanding.
Someone may go out in the rain.
But they also will not go in the rain today.
Both of these statements are true. The will in this case indicates they are willing to do so. Had I intended a statement of absolutes, I would have used an absolute. The chaotic person may live by a personal code, but they will never stick to it. See the absolute in there (never)?
Chaotic characters may have a code they live by. Chaotic characters will also break their own codes if they choose to. That's the essence of chaotic. They can change. Lawful can't.
So the "will" was intended as a statement of possibility, not the future tense of "to do." I think I understand now. Your statement is: a chaotic person always has the ability (willingness?) to break the code at some time in the future, but they can choose not to break it today.
I agree with this statement. I also think it does not exclude the possibility of chaotic paladins. A chaotic character has the ability to break the code at some point in the future. But he can choose to follow it today, and he can choose to follow it tomorrow and the next day and as long as he keeps choosing to follow the code what's the problem?
Any time any character of any alignment runs into a situation where their ideals are inconvenient they have to choose whether or not to follow them, and they can also choose the other way. A lawful character can also choose whether or not to abide by a code - agreeing to a code doesn't mean that you forfeit your free will, it's just a statement of intent to do a certain thing. Chaotics are more likely to change than lawfuls, and they value change more, but that doesn't mean that they can't have any consistency or that lawfuls can't have any change. These aren't inevitables and proteans we're talking about, they're mortals.
I agree with Malachai. Chaos is about putting individuality first which means that if you feel like keeping a particular promise, you're allowed to keep that particular promise and it isn't acting against alignment. Ximen Bao, it's right in the line you quoted.
Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
They can do what they promise if they feel like it and still be Chaotic. It's when they don't feel like doing what they promise and they do it anyway that it's lawful. And even then it's just one lawful act.
Now it's possible that Calvin always feels like following through on his agreements. There's a word for Chaotic characters who always feel like behaving in a manner indistinguishable from a Lawful alignment.
Lawful.
What if he also routinely disrespected authority, bucked tradition, promoted individual freedom, resented being told what to do, and valued adaptability? If you treat alignment as a descriptive of the character's overall tendencies it's entirely possible for a character to be reliable or trustworthy in one or two areas (minor lawful acts) but more often behave in a chaotic manner.
EDIT: Cayden Cailean is described as refusing to compromise his ideals and opposing tyranny and oppression on principle.
A paladin can't be chaotic, by the rules, because Law and Chaos are objective powers in the universe. They have their own planes, and at least part of the Paladin's powers are coming from the objective essence of Law (although most is coming from the objective essence of Good as well). For all intents and purposes, Law, Chaos, Good and Evil, as forces, are as real and concrete in PF/D&D worlds as Gravity, Speed of Light, Weak Nuclear Force, and Strong Nuclear Force are in the real universe. You don't fool gravity by throwing yourself at the ground and missing, you don't fool good by pretending to be lawful for 2 years straight just so you can have a laugh and be chaotic on the 731st day.
A lawful character may choose to break his code. If he does it often enough, he is no longer a lawful character, he's a neutral character.
Think of Superman. He's a jerk, but he has rules he follows. He doesn't always like them, but he follows those self imposed rules.
There have been story arcs where he's thrown those rules out, and even some where he got rid of them completely, and ended up being a villain because he went from 'good' to 'evil' by losing his own self control.
If you want the underlying definition of chaotic, it's someone who can live by a code, and discard it the instant he needs to and live by a different code without losing the ability to have self control. Basically, a lawful person doesn't have that ability to self reprogram, they are locked into a specific mind set. A chaotic person puts themselves into whatever mind set they want, and then discard it and put on a completely different mind set whenever they feel they need or want to without fundamentally changing who they are. That's really impossible for someone who's as rigid as a lawful person is. A paladin can't do that and maintain who they are.
They can do what they promise if they feel like it and still be Chaotic. It's when they don't feel like doing what they promise and they do it anyway that it's lawful. And even then it's just one lawful act.
What if he also routinely disrespected authority, bucked tradition, promoted individual freedom, resented being told what to do, and valued adaptability? If you treat alignment as a descriptive of the character's overall tendencies it's entirely possible for a character to be reliable or trustworthy in one or two areas (minor lawful acts) but more often behave in a chaotic manner.Now it's possible that Calvin always feels like following through on his agreements. There's a word for Chaotic characters who always feel like behaving in a manner indistinguishable from a Lawful alignment.
Lawful.
I don't disagree with you. If a chaotic character generally acts in a manner that matches the definition of chaotic, and some of those preferences match what a lawful character would do, that's to be expected. That character is still chaotic.
My objection was that is a chaotic character behaves indistinguishably from a lawful character, their lawful. If a chaotic character usually keeps it's promises, obeys the law, tells the truth, and obeys authority, it's not enough to say that they're following a personal code that demands they do these things. Those are all lawful acts and there's more to being a chaotic alignment than following one's own code.
To be considered chaotic, that code needs to involve bucking authority, overturning tradition, and following one's own conscience despite it's variance from societal norms.
I'll qualify that by saying this is only true IF you're running alignments by the book, which I think is really the only way to end an argument with players if alignment becomes an issue in your campaign. Otherwise it's just waves of subjectivity and a resented GM fiat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A chaotic character has the ability to break the code at some point in the future. But he can choose to follow it today, and he can choose to follow it tomorrow and the next day and as long as he keeps choosing to follow the code what's the problem?
Because he doesn't feel any allegiance to the code. A lawful character would see value in following the code for the code's sake (a lawful good character would have to choose a good code to follow). A chaotic character would feel its rediculious to follow the code if it became a burden.
I'M BACK!
After I left this topic about Paladins since my last (450th post here), you have made it all to... Holy Avengers! 965!
I don't have time to read all of it, but I approximately understand what's going on. Anyways, I'm doing my best to add something new in addition to my self-made puzzles, mazes, labyrinths, and beside those I started to make a crypt, and there will be more crypts, dungeons, caverns and other of these that could in the future make my GMing easy.
Ok, I know this is the topic about Paladins, but I'm currently making a Harrowing Deck ( I printed the cards, and now I'm sticking on "Hammer Papers" which the size of the cards), and I'm half way to finish them. Besides Harrowing Deck that could be very interesting in useful to maybe create something that could occur in the future sessions and give me new ideas about those future sessions, I thought to also introduce the HoMM famous Arcomage Deck.
I'm planning to make two Arcomage Decks, one for me and one for the PCs. I think it would be an interesting experience for the future PCs ( especially if there would be a rogue in a party) and use the Arcomage Deck for the purpose of gamble. I think that sometimes when PCs want to relax from rolling dices for atk, dmg and other, playing Arcomage with real self-made cards would make this very interesting.
Once again, I know that this isn't the right thread to post this, but since there are many good (and I hope good) PEOPLE here, I would like to hear some of your opinions (if you have one) about this.
In advance, thanks a lot.
AdrianGM
|
|
If you want the underlying definition of chaotic, it's someone who can live by a code, and discard it the instant he needs to and live by a different code without losing the ability to have self control. Basically, a lawful person doesn't have that ability to self reprogram, they are locked into a specific mind set. A chaotic person puts themselves into whatever mind set they want, and then discard it and put on a completely different mind set whenever they feel they need or want to without fundamentally changing who they are. That's really impossible for someone who's as rigid as a lawful person is. A paladin can't do that and maintain who they are.
Interesting perspective. Could you give a fictional example of a CG character who shows this level of change? First thing that comes to mind is Jack Sparrow, but he's not heroic enough. I guess Will and/or Elizabeth could count, but I don't think they have enough agency... Robin Hood would probably be out because he's very static.
A paladin can't be chaotic, by the rules, because Law and Chaos are objective powers in the universe. They have their own planes, and at least part of the Paladin's powers are coming from the objective essence of Law (although most is coming from the objective essence of Good as well
I accept that as the current state of the rules. However, my question is:
Is there any reason why the objective essence of Chaos can't also team up with the objective essence of Good and empower CG paladins? Or that the objective essence of Good can't just empower paladins on its own, since the mechanical abilities of the class are good-based and not law-based?
Changing the paladin alignment from "LG" to "Any Good" would be extremely easy, would open up a lot of character concepts without sacrificing the paladin concept, and might get rid of the paladin's reputation as the guy who spoil's everyone else's fun (because a chaotic party can have a CG paladin).
My objection was that is a chaotic character behaves indistinguishably from a lawful character, their lawful. If a chaotic character usually keeps it's promises, obeys the law, tells the truth, and obeys authority, it's not enough to say that they're following a personal code that demands they do these things. Those are all lawful acts and there's more to being a chaotic alignment than following one's own code.
To be considered chaotic, that code needs to involve bucking authority, overturning tradition, and following one's own conscience despite it's variance from societal norms.
Agreed. Which is why I think that a Chaotic paladin would have to make minor adjustments to the code in order to reflect this fact - a chaotic paladin doesn't follow a code requiring that he respect authority, he follows a code requiring he respect individual liberty.
I don't think that a CG character could follow the paladin's code as written (though I think a NG character could). I do think that a CG character could follow a very similar code with a similar level of faithfulness, and that this should be sufficient to allow the concept.
Because he doesn't feel any allegiance to the code. A lawful character would see value in following the code for the code's sake (a lawful good character would have to choose a good code to follow). A chaotic character would feel its rediculious to follow the code if it became a burden.
Does it matter if the character follows the code for the code's sake? If you're serving a chaotic power, they won't care if you feel allegiance to a code, they care if you feel allegiance to the values that inform the code. And while a chaotic character might not be a fan of rigid rules they could easily be firmly devoted to a set of values even if those values are inconvenient. Reference again CG god Cayden Cailean who was known for consistently fighting oppression even if it meant abandoning mercenary jobs and not getting paid.
If you want the underlying definition of chaotic, it's someone who can live by a code, and discard it the instant he needs to and live by a different code without losing the ability to have self control. Basically, a lawful person doesn't have that ability to self reprogram, they are locked into a specific mind set. A chaotic person puts themselves into whatever mind set they want, and then discard it and put on a completely different mind set whenever they feel they need or want to without fundamentally changing who they are. That's really impossible for someone who's as rigid as a lawful person is. A paladin can't do that and maintain who they are.Interesting perspective. Could you give a fictional example of a CG character who shows this level of change? First thing that comes to mind is Jack Sparrow, but he's not heroic enough. I guess Will and/or Elizabeth could count, but I don't think they have enough agency... Robin Hood would probably be out because he's very static.
Uruhara Kisuke (Bleach, the shop owner) pops to mind. He's good, but highly chaotic, and he is perfectly happy being a front line fighter, until he decides that it's more effective to be a court guard squad commander, then he alters his beliefs to be a good commander rather than a good commando. Then, when he's framed, he doesn't work within the rules to prove his innocence, he throws away his entire code, including protecting his squad, to hare off to the physical world and set up an entirely new life and lives by a different code. His goals change as well, from impressing his girlfriend, to being an innovative squad leader, to revenge. Each time his goals change, his code changes. Yet, through all of it, he's still basically interested in helping his fellow soul reapers, and the humans, and keeping them alive and safe while meeting his other goals. So, chaotic good.
Depending on the story, Green Arrow (DC Comics) could be seen to be like this. The current 'Arrow' show is a great example. He starts out as a CG spoiled rich kid (note, he's not Neutral Chaotic, he would donate to charity if someone points out one to him, he likes helping people, he's just got a low wisdom about it). Then bad things happen, and he throws away the code he lived his life by (give money, have fun, don't hurt anyone) and evolves another code (kill those who are dangerous to the city, avenge my father's death, etc), a very CG way of doing good, ignoring the law completely but only doing it to people in the book. Then, when his ally's begin to pull away because he's too bloodthirsty and narrow minded in his pursuits, he modifies his code again to include going after lesser criminals, and not restricting himself to the book. He even begins allowing people to live, if they undo the bad things they did. Not because he really believes they deserve it, but because it's the easiest way to keep his allies happy. Again, change of code to align with reality.
Han Solo could arguably be one like this. Although he starts out CN, and shifts to CG, so he's an iffy one.
Those are a couple at least, of examples. The problem being that while CG is a popular trope, actually showing the chaotic as anything other than 'I snear at lawful' is not popular.
A paladin can't be chaotic, by the rules, because Law and Chaos are objective powers in the universe. They have their own planes, and at least part of the Paladin's powers are coming from the objective essence of Law (although most is coming from the objective essence of Good as wellI accept that as the current state of the rules. However, my question is:
Is there any reason why the objective essence of Chaos can't also team up with the objective essence of Good and empower CG paladins? Or that the objective essence of Good can't just empower paladins on its own, since the mechanical abilities of the class are good-based and not law-based?
yes, because then they wouldn't be Paladins. They'd be Inquisitors, or Holy Fighters, or Combat Clerics, or something else. By the definition of the Paladin, he is all about order and good. He's the Knight in Shining Armor, and Knights are not Chaotic (those who are, are fallen Knights who no longer follow the rules of Chivelry).
Changing the paladin alignment from "LG" to "Any Good" would be extremely easy, would open up a lot of character concepts without sacrificing the paladin concept, and might get rid of the paladin's reputation as the guy who spoil's everyone else's fun (because a chaotic party can have a CG paladin).
No, it would get rid of the Paladin's reputation of being a Knight in Shining Armor, because he'd be the drunk in the corner that bashed in the skull of the local Duke because the duke threw out a widow that hadn't paid her taxes. Sure, he'd be a hero to the poor, but he'd also have created a succession issue, have killed a sitting ruler, and have caused a bunch of deaths in the battles over the duke's throne. But by god, that widow is still in her house.
Or, he'd be Robin Hood stealing from the tax collector to give the money back to the people, who are starving. Of course, the money then doesn't get spent on the military the king was building up, and the country is invaded by orcs and can't fight them off, but, by god, we made sure that greedy king didn't take the common folks money!
Law is there for a reason, a Paladin, due to his powers, needs to have structure, to weigh the consequences of his actions. Chaotic characters don't tend to think consequences through all that well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the Paladin as presented in the CRB, but as someone said, it should be setting-neutral. And they're right, as much as it pains me to admit it. Alignment restrictions should be a setting-based thing, not a core-rules thing.
Under this logic, barbarians shouldn't be barred from being lawful, and no class that can't fit into any generic world should be in the core books, because some worlds might not allow their concept.
For example, get rid of Sorcerers because some worlds might not allow spontaneously cast magic. Also bards, summoners, and Oracles.
Get rid of witches and wizards and magus's, because some settings might not allow for magic to be anything you can learn, it might have to be a talent (spontaenous only).
Get rid of barbarians, because not all settings will have barbarian cultures.
Get rid of druids, clerics, oracles, inquisitors, paladins, and rangers because some settings don't have gods to give divine magic.
Get rid of Monks, Ninjas, Samurai, and gunslingers, some settings don't have eastern or wild west influences.
Hmm, seems we're down to Fighters and Rogues. Only fighters and rogues should be in the core book, as they are generic.
Sorry, don't like that plan.
The rules are setting agnostic. If your setting doesn't have divine warriors then the paladin shouldn't be in your setting. The alignment has nothing to do with it. If your setting doesn't use alignments, again, the paladin shouldn't be in it. Make a cleric who fights.
Again though, Rocketman. The rules are agnostict. They put out things you can have in your game. As the DM, you are the final decider of what bits to use in game. That makes them agnostic. They don't care hwat game you run, because you choose what bits go into that game, and what bits don't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin
He doesn't give anyone that, "Oh, well if you truly sorry, then there is nothing i can do" shpeel. He coup de graces the evil, and enough times to make sure, because he is a freaking paladin! That's his job. To destroy evil.
It's not his job to be the shoulder to cry on for every CN, LE, NE, and CE punk out there saying "I'm only doing it because the world is unfair to me."
The paladin's rebuttal?
You know what's unfair? Knowing what kind of a person everyone is before you even talk to them. Just walking up to a person and smelling evil so vile and potent that you just want to start ripping it from his chest until the screaming stops. To have the psychotic urge to murder a complete stranger, because the divine powers of goodness decided to make you their right hand. THAT's unfair.
But instead of going on a killing spree, he just puts on his helmet and sharpens his sword. Walking through the crowds, sensing injustice, but holding back. Seeing good men and women being hanged while evil pulls the lever. Bottling it all up. Because he knows that he is a scalpel. He saves that anger and disgust for the needed battle. The battle that will remove the most important and specific evil.
Their code of honor doesn't bind them from using certain tactics in a fight. Once the fight starts, the Paladin goes hog wild using every trick in the book. The code is about avoiding the fight. Until that fated meeting the great and important evil keystone. This is also why he refrains from working with evil unless absolutely necessary. They'll just waste their power killing their "Ally".
Finally, The paladin does not avoid the fall. He looks forward to it. They don't spend all day trying to avoid evil. They seek out the evil the need to take down. Each time they face evil, The paladin always asks himself "Is this the evil I give up everything to take down? The one i forsake my power and my god to rid the world of?" And when the day comes and yes, it will come, when the paladin falls he will fall hard. He will fall so hard it would shatter the earth if it meant to rid the evil he sought out.
The paladin is a Powder keg full of his hatred and disgust for the world and he will explode. He just prays he is near evil when he does.
The paladin
He doesn't give anyone that, "Oh, well if you truly sorry, then there is nothing i can do" shpeel. He coup de graces the evil, and enough times to make sure, because he is a freaking paladin! That's his job. To destroy evil.
It's not his job to be the shoulder to cry on for every CN, LE, NE, and CE punk out there saying "I'm only doing it because the world is unfair to me."
The paladin's rebuttal?
You know what's unfair? Knowing what kind of a person everyone is before you even talk to them. Just walking up to a person and smelling evil so vile and potent that you just want to start ripping it from his chest until the screaming stops. To have the psychotic urge to murder a complete stranger, because the divine powers of goodness decided to make you their right hand. THAT's unfair.
But instead of going on a killing spree, he just puts on his helmet and sharpens his sword. Walking through the crowds, sensing injustice, but holding back. Seeing good men and women being hanged while evil pulls the lever. Bottling it all up. Because he knows that he is a scalpel. He saves that anger and disgust for the needed battle. The battle that will remove the most important and specific evil.
Their code of honor doesn't bind them from using certain tactics in a fight. Once the fight starts, the Paladin goes hog wild using every trick in the book. The code is about avoiding the fight. Until that fated meeting the great and important evil keystone. This is also why he refrains from working with evil unless absolutely necessary. They'll just waste their power killing their "Ally".
Finally, The paladin does not avoid the fall. He looks forward to it. They don't spend all day trying to avoid evil. They seek out the evil the need to take down. Each time they face evil, The paladin always asks himself "Is this the evil I give up everything to take down? The one i forsake my power and my god to rid the world of?" And when the day comes and yes, it will come, when the paladin falls he will fall hard....
Sadly there are mean DMs who would make such a Paladin fall.
DMs who think Coup de Grace is wrong vs evil.But good paladin example regardless.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yes, because then they wouldn't be Paladins. They'd be Inquisitors, or Holy Fighters, or Combat Clerics, or something else. By the definition of the Paladin, he is all about order and good. He's the Knight in Shining Armor, and Knights are not Chaotic (those who are, are fallen Knights who no longer follow the rules of Chivelry).
A paladin can wear light armour or no armour, they can use a bow or a polearm or even fight unarmed. These are not characteristic of the Knights in Shining Armour either, but they are allowed by the rules. The classic knight fights with sword and shield, and this is considered a non-optimal choice for the paladin. The word "chivalry" comes from horsemanship, but paladins can choose a weapon bond instead of a mount. Paladins make good knights, but they're not required to conform to the knight image.
Those are a couple at least, of examples. The problem being that while CG is a popular trope, actually showing the chaotic as anything other than 'I snear at lawful' is not popular.
Maybe, but authority vs individuality is as much a part of the law-chaos conflict as stability vs change. The problem is portraying the "changeable" element without going too far into randomness. One of my friends who played World of Darkness called these "fish-Malks," Malkavian PCs who would just hit you with a fish, because that's crazy, right?
Law is there for a reason, a Paladin, due to his powers, needs to have structure, to weigh the consequences of his actions. Chaotic characters don't tend to think consequences through all that well.
Some chaotic characters might have that problem, but not all of them. Chaotic good characters in particular need to be able to consider which of their actions might harm innocent people, because being unwilling or unable to consider that means that you're not actually good. My group had one PC act like this and there was quite a bit of debate over whether the PC was in fact CN or even CE.
A chaotic good character doesn't just kill a tyrant and let more prospective tyrants demolish the country, they abolish the office and replace it with a power structure that protects the individual, like a republic, or they decentralize the government. Robin Hood was stealing from a government that wasn't actually using the money to effectively protect its people - that money was being spent on unnecessary wars abroad. If there really was a military threat to the people a CG person would train people to defend themselves and form local militias so that they wouldn't have to rely on an oppressive government for basic safety - a CG person supports the right to bear arms to defend yourself both from other individuals and from an oppressive state.
Under this logic, barbarians shouldn't be barred from being lawful, and no class that can't fit into any generic world should be in the core books, because some worlds might not allow their concept.
...
Hmm, seems we're down to Fighters and Rogues. Only fighters and rogues should be in the core book, as they are generic.
Sorry, don't like that plan.
The rules are setting agnostic. If your setting doesn't have divine warriors then the paladin shouldn't be in your setting. The alignment has nothing to do with it. If your setting doesn't use alignments, again, the paladin shouldn't be in it. Make a cleric who fights.
I don't like it either. The solution is to allow everything (as long as it's balanced) and let the GM ban stuff that doesn't fit the setting. You know:
The rules are agnostic. They put out things you can have in your game. As the DM, you are the final decider of what bits to use in game. That makes them agnostic. They don't care hwat game you run, because you choose what bits go into that game, and what bits don't.
A setting-neutral system should be inclusive, allowing a GM to pick and choose exactly what bits go into their game without making them come up with new material from scratch to fill common but not universal concepts like wizards or gunslingers.
No guns in your world? Fine, you can ban the gunslinger from your game, but it's still a core class for worlds where guns exist.
No asian themes? Ban samurai, ninja, monks, and the associated gear from your game (or reflavour them if you prefer) but they're there for people who want to use those settings.
No arcane/divine/spontaneous/prepared magic? No magic at all? Ban those classes from your game, but they're still in the rules because most fantasy games like an assortment of magic to be available.
No room for paladins who don't follow classic chivalric values? Then ban non-LG paladins from your game. But they should still be allowed in the rules for the campaign settings and playstyles in which that concept fits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. Which is why I think that a Chaotic paladin would have to make minor adjustments to the code in order to reflect this fact - a chaotic paladin doesn't follow a code requiring that he respect authority, he follows a code requiring he respect individual liberty.
I don't think that a CG character could follow the paladin's code as written (though I think a NG character could). I do think that a CG character could follow a very similar code with a similar level of faithfulness, and that this should be sufficient to allow the concept.
I didn't realize you were arguing for CG paladins. I don't like that flavor at all.
The entire concept of a code is lawful (as I think someone else said). You lay out a set of behaviors and you stick to them. A Chaotic Paladin's 'code' would be "i do whatever I think is right at the time" and that isn't a code. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of a code.
All Paladins follow codes.
Codes are by definition inflexibile rules.
Following inflexible rules is pretty much the definition of lawful.
Codes are not by definition inflexible. They are literally a systematically arranged/comprehensive collection of laws/rules. Laws and rules are mutable by their nature.
Look at the Constitution. It is without a doubt a set of laws. It's been changed plenty of times.
In fact, many of those changes were brought about by "Chaotic" individuals so that they could then follow those laws in peace.
The difference between a Lawful Code and a Chaotic Code is that a Lawful Code is given to someone, and they follow it because it's the CODE and should be followed.
A Chaotic Code is created by the person who follows it. His Code aligns 100% with his conscience, and is personal to him alone. He follows his Code because that is what he believes is the right thing to do.
Yes, a Chaotic Code is likely to be less rigid, but it is in no way impossible for a Code to be "Chaotic Aligned".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful != legislation
lawful = adheres to order
All Paladins follow codes.
Codes are by definition inflexibile rules.
Following inflexible rules is pretty much the definition of lawful.
Codes are not by definition inflexible. They are literally a systematically arranged/comprehensive collection of laws/rules. Laws and rules are mutable by their nature.
Look at the Constitution. It is without a doubt a set of laws. It's been changed plenty of times.
In fact, many of those changes were brought about by "Chaotic" individuals so that they could then follow those laws in peace.
The difference between a Lawful Code and a Chaotic Code is that a Lawful Code is given to someone, and they follow it because it's the CODE and should be followed.
A Chaotic Code is created by the person who follows it. His Code aligns 100% with his conscience, and is personal to him alone. He follows his Code because that is what he believes is the right thing to do.
Yes, a Chaotic Code is likely to be less rigid, but it is in no way impossible for a Code to be "Chaotic Aligned".
So in what way is this concept of a chaotic code distinguishable from a chaotic character who follows his conscience without calling it a code?
|
Codes are written down instructions. Originally in stone. If the were mutable, they would be guidelines.
If you don't believe that, ask people who were convicted of laws that were later recinded (like during prohibition) if they automatically get out of jail.
Pro-tip: they don't because they still broke the law, even if the law was later deemed a stupid law.
|
|
I'm going to address the issue of law, flexibility and order later because this is moving too fast for me to keep up.
ciretose, you just said that being lawful was about submitting to someone else's law and that personal codes are not inherently lawful (also strongly implied here ). So do you agree or do you not agree that a chaotic character can follow inflexible rules as long as they are his own rules?
Your previous response was that the paladin's code is different because it is enforced by a higher power, to which my comment was:
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."
So what's to say that a Chaotic character can't follow some strict standards of behavior that constitute a personal code, which he adopted of his own volition, and some appropriately aligned higher power can't informally toss some paladin powers his way as long as he keeps feeling like following that personal code?
I didn't realize you were arguing for CG paladins. I don't like that flavor at all.
The entire concept of a code is lawful (as I think someone else said). You lay out a set of behaviors and you stick to them. A Chaotic Paladin's 'code' would be "i do whatever I think is right at the time" and that isn't a code. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of a code.
Which is why I was trying to discuss why a LG paladin does what he does - you say "CG Paladin" and a lot of people say "woah, I don't like that."
I was trying to establish that a LG paladin can do whatever he feels is right and as long what he feels is right just happens to fit the paladin's code, he can be a paladin. It follows from that that if a CG character does whatever he feels is right and that happens to fit an appropriate code, he should also be able to be a paladin. Or alternately, a LG character can independently arrive at the paladin's code, call it a formal code, and be a paladin, and a CG character should be able to do something similar with an appropriate chaotic-flavoured code.
Just because you don't like the flavour doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. And you didn't seem opposed to a chaotic code when you said:
To be considered chaotic, that code needs to involve bucking authority, overturning tradition, and following one's own conscience despite it's variance from societal norms.
Chaotic code = OK
Chaotic paladin = no.Why?
Codes are written down instructions. Originally in stone. If the were mutable, they would be guidelines.
If you don't believe that, ask people who were convicted of laws that were later recinded (like during prohibition) if they automatically get out of jail.
Pro-tip: they don't because they still broke the law, even if the law was later deemed a stupid law.
And yet the fact that laws are being rescinded, changed, and added in the first place kind of proves my point exactly, now doesn't it?
Codes are written down instructions. Originally in stone. If the were mutable, they would be guidelines.
If you don't believe that, ask people who were convicted of laws that were later recinded (like during prohibition) if they automatically get out of jail.
Pro-tip: they don't because they still broke the law, even if the law was later deemed a stupid law.
I believe you are mistaken in your reference. I don't believe that if a criminal law is repealed, then citizens may be kept imprisoned for violating a non-existent law. At least in the US. I can't find a definitive source for that, however.
Which is why I was trying to discuss why a LG paladin does what he does - you say "CG Paladin" and a lot of people say "woah, I don't like that."
I was trying to establish that a LG paladin can do whatever he feels is right and as long what he feels is right just happens to fit the paladin's code, he can be a paladin. It follows from that that if a CG character does whatever he feels is right and that happens to fit an appropriate code, he should also be able to be a paladin. Or alternately, a LG character can independently arrive at the paladin's code, call it a formal code, and be a paladin, and a CG character should be able to do something similar with an appropriate chaotic-flavoured code.
Just because you don't like the flavour doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. And you didn't seem opposed to a chaotic code when you said:
To be considered chaotic, that code needs to involve bucking authority, overturning tradition, and following one's own conscience despite it's variance from societal norms.
Chaotic code = OK
Chaotic paladin = no.Why?
Serves me right for being imprecise with game terms.
In the sense I was using it, "code" was indistinguishable from "conscience" and thus not a code in the sense of a set of behaviors the character feels bound to uphold.
|
|
And yet the fact that laws are being rescinded, changed, and added in the first place kind of proves my point exactly, now doesn't it?Codes are written down instructions. Originally in stone. If the were mutable, they would be guidelines.
If you don't believe that, ask people who were convicted of laws that were later recinded (like during prohibition) if they automatically get out of jail.
Pro-tip: they don't because they still broke the law, even if the law was later deemed a stupid law.
No. The Law being changed doesn't mean it was not, at the time, the law.
They didn't release all the people who sold illegal liquor when it became legal, because they were still breaking the law at the time.
The Law is a fixed set of rules. That Laws can be rescinded or modified doesn't mean that they aren't fixed rules. It just means we aren't crazy zealots who believe in inflexible original intent of documents (Points to anyone who can identify who I just took a shot at)
|
|
I believe you are mistaken in your reference. I don't believe that if a criminal law is repealed, then citizens may be kept imprisoned for violating a non-existent law. At least in the US. I can't find a definitive source for that, however.Codes are written down instructions. Originally in stone. If the were mutable, they would be guidelines.
If you don't believe that, ask people who were convicted of laws that were later recinded (like during prohibition) if they automatically get out of jail.
Pro-tip: they don't because they still broke the law, even if the law was later deemed a stupid law.
I can assure you they can and are imprisoned, because they did break the law, even if that law has since been rescinded.
They can appeal for a reduction or reconsideration, but you are legally found guilty for laws as written at the time of the offense, regardless of changed that go for or against you later.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ciretose, the chaotic paladin isn't giving up his free will by living according to a set of principles indefinitely any more than he's giving up his free will by bringing fresh bread to his neighbor indefinitely.
He thinks that doing X (delivering bread / following a power's teachings) is a good idea, so he does X. He always retains the right to not do X and the only penalty is that he doesn't get the benefits of doing X (being paid for bread / getting his paladin powers).
If a chaotic paladin changes their mind about their code, they will fall, but if there's a mechanic for switching over to whatever code seems like a better fit when they abandon the old one (or an option to retrain to a different class) it's not a big deal for the player. A LG paladin sees falling as a punishment. A CG paladin sees falling as "well, looks like this didn't work out, fun while it lasted." It's like the difference between a marriage with the attendant messy divorce and a long-term exclusive live-in romantic relationship which is much easier to end as long as both parties are aware it isn't necessarily permanent.
And the LG paladin isn't giving up his free will either, but nor is he just ignoring the rules. He decides to follow the rules because he thinks rules in general are important and because he believes that his code is the best possible set of rules. Following the rules is as much a decision as breaking them is. Action is a decision, inaction is a decision, letting someone else decide for you is a decision, letting chance make the decisions is a decision. The only way to stop deciding - to give up your free will - is to die or get yourself hit by Dominate Person or a similar effect.
Serves me right for being imprecise with game terms.
In the sense I was using it, "code" was indistinguishable from "conscience" and thus not a code in the sense of a set of behaviors the character feels bound to uphold.
As a lawful-ish person, imprecision bugs me. I think people are agreeing with my premise and then get confused when they don't agree with my conclusion. XP
So do you have a problem with a chaotic character who follows their conscience, but whose conscience consistently points them in the same direction?
Day 1: "I feel like slavery is bad today."
Day 2: "Still not feeling slavery today."
Day 10,000: "Slavery: still something I disagree with."
Day 1 : I know I'm chaotic today, but I feel like obeying all the laws and rules...
Day 2 : I know I'm chaotic today, but I still don't feel like breaking the rules...
Day 10,000 : Hmm, yeah, still not feeling the whole chaotic thing today...
Day 10,0001 : Hmm, maybe I'll go tell the king off for raising taxes.. nah, I think I'll wait and see how it go...
Goddess of Death : Harken forward Lawful Good Paladin.
Ghost : Uhm, I'm chaotic, it says so on my character sheet.
Goddess of Death : Oh my, I haven't laughed that hard in a thousand years, thank you Lawful Good Paladin. We judge you not on the words you speak, but the actions you live by, and your actions are Lawful.
Ghost : But uhm, the goddess of lust doesn't allow Lawful souls into her realm after death...
Goddess of Death : Oh, well, yes I know. But that's ok, the Goddess of Eternal Vigilance has a spot on her Wall of Watching for you to watch eternally for her enemies.
Ghost : Uhm, could I have another day to go prove I'm chao...
The Law is a fixed set of rules. That Laws can be rescinded or modified doesn't mean that they aren't fixed rules. It just means we aren't crazy zealots who believe in inflexible original intent of documents (Points to anyone who can identify who I just took a shot at)
So which is it? Are the laws immutable or can they be rescinded or modified? The two things are wholly incompatible. If it can be changed, then it is mutable.
You agree (in a sort of roundabout way) that one can be Lawful without being "A crazy zealot who believes in inflexible original intent", so what's the issue?
I have...honestly lost track at this point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character who consistently feels like obeying all the rules and respecting authority (and does so) is lawful.
A character who consistently feels like breaking tradition, undermining authority, protecting individual liberty, and liberating the oppressed (and does so) is chaotic.
If you are judged by your actions, and your actions are chaotic, the fact that your actions are also consistent does not make you lawful. Consistency is not sufficient for a lawful alignment, nor does it disqualify you from a chaotic alignment.
Day 1: "I feel like slavery is bad today."
Day 2: "Still not feeling slavery today."
Day 10,000: "Slavery: still something I disagree with."
Again, I just feel this is kind of a weak code. But let's look at this another way...
Do you change the alignments if your players are not acting according to their alignments? If the chaotic good fighter went around killing everything, no questions asked, would you change that character's alignment to evil at any point? (And if not, aren't you just doing away with alignment at this point?) Now the CG Paladin... If a chaotic good character followed a code religiously, even when it might go against his better judgement, would you ever change his alignment to lawful? (And if so, does this create a Paladin that falls if he follows his code?)
The far greater percentage of paladin hate on these boards does not come from somebody playing his paladin incorrectly. That does happen. But it's not where the hate comes from.
The hate comes from those who do not play paladins and do not like limitations, who feel a paladin in their group is something to ruin, and the player of the paladin is someone to mock. It comes from GMs who test their paladins beyond what is reasonable in the hopes of ruining them. In short, it comes from very small people with very small minds who cannot have fun if they are not raping, pillaging and impregnating the entire world they are adventuring in, and the 12-year-old-brained GMs who enable them.
Yes, sometimes the player of a paladin is too rigid for his group. Yes, some players are not a good fit for the role of paladin, and they try to bend it in ways that seem outrageous to rational minds. Yes, sometimes that is the complaint.
But most of the time, it is not as clear-cut and innocent an issue as the OP began this thread with. People are crappy. That is essentially why paladins get hate. Because people are small and childish. Be honest with yourselves. You do not hate paladins for being good. You hate paladins because they stop you from being wicked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think re-dedication or re-training options for fallen paladins are a good idea in general, because it allows a player to tell a story about a loss or change of faith without requiring that they drag around a stack of warrior levels for the rest of their career - or to address a problem paladin without just saying "you fell, new character."
While I strongly disagree with your long standing crusade for multi-alignment paladins....
I DO agree with you on this.
Ultimate Campaign is supposed to address some of this. But seriously, if a Paladin stops being a paladin.... he becomes a Fighter. I personally think an 'ex-paladin' should be a serioulsy feared foe. Not a weaker version of a standard fighter.
I think if a paladin fell... and he immediately transfered all his paladin ranks to fighter ranks, then there WOULDN'T be as many people complaining about falling. Nor would there be as many DM's trying to MAKE you fall.
There's something about PERMANENTLY screwing over a character and making ALLL those levels worthless that gets people so upset. A paladin turning his back on his faith should be a valid story plot, and could be interesting to play... but not if your completely screwed over on feats and abilities.
|
|
I forget sometimes not everyone works in a courthouse...
The Law is what is written down as Law at the time whatever happens, happens. It can not be changed by you, the citizen. You are subject to the Law, as dictated by whatever authority your society has deemed appropriate.
If something was a crime a week ago when you did it, it doesn't matter that is isn't a crime now. They didn't say "Nevermind" to everyone who had a possession charge in Colorado or Washington. That is still on their record, at least until they go to an authority figure and convince them to remove it.
Other than absolute monarchs, individuals have basically no control over the law. If the law changes tomorrow, wherever you live, you will have to follow that law or risk the consequences imposed by that law. The fact that it can be changed is no more relevant to a discussion of law than the fact that next year I will be older doesn't change how old I am right now, in this moment.
That change is beyond your control, you are subject to powers outside of your control.
What you decide to do, how you decide to live, is not defined. You can say "This is my code" and live by that, but if you have complete and total control over what those rules are, and when they need to be changed.
That isn't the case with a Paladin. A Paladin can't go "No, I realize now that part of the code is dumb, so I'm not going to adhere to that anymore."
That would make the very concept of falling impossible. Yet, if you write the code, you are the agent who also gets to change it...unless...
You aren't in charge of the code, and adherence to the code is determined by a higher power. In which case, you aren't doing what you want. You are following rules adjudicated by someone else.
You are submitting yourself and your actions to judgement of adherence to a code. And a code, functional, is a set of laws.
So...pretty much the definition of Lawful.
So the question is who is determining compliance. You or someone else?
If it is you...well, then how can you ever fall, since whatever you decide will comply with your decision of what you want to do.
If it isn't you...well then like I said, you are submitting to the judgement of someone else as to the interpretation of an inflexible code.
Do Laws change? Yes. But not through the control of the individual who is held to the law.