Weirdo |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weirdo wrote:Again, I just feel this is kind of a weak code.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."
That's because it's not a code. It's a value statement that might contribute a chaotic character's code, like the value statement "lying is wrong" might contribute to a lawful code.
Here is an example of a full CG code (slightly modified from this one, and inspired by the LG paladin's code):
"A paladin of freedom must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin of freedom's code requires that he respect individual liberty (eg not using compulsions, imprisoning others, or forcing others to make binding agreements), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for lawful or evil ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents or curtail personal liberty.
Associates: While he may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin of freedom will never knowingly associate with evil characters (except on some sort of undercover mission), nor will he continue an association with someone who consistently offends his moral code. A paladin of freedom may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are chaotic good."
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?)
Yes, I would change his alignment.
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?)
Like I said, I don't think chaos or consistency are incompatible, so a character who religiously followed a code like the one above would almost certainly be chaotic. A chaotic character can perform actions that are inconvenient for them because they believe those actions are morally correct ("I'm going to get in trouble for breaking the law, but the law is wrong"). They can also perform actions that have overall bad consequences as a matter of principle ("this thief will continue to steal if free, but allowing theft is better than supporting imprisonment" or "you may take our lives but you'll never take our freedom").
It would only become a problem if the chaotic paladin genuinely decided that the code was a bad idea and wanted to stop following it ("man, this king is great for the country, I was wrong about monarchy being evil"). In this case I'd make sure the character had a chance to adopt a new code (and keep being a paladin, possibly of a different alignment) or to retrain paladin levels (since I do believe a paladin needs some kind of code, even an informal one). This is the same option I'd give a LG paladin who suddenly said "look, this authority thing is messed up and honour isn't worth squat when it gets people killed."
While I strongly disagree with your long standing crusade for multi-alignment paladins....
Wow, I've been on the boards long enough to have a long-standing crusade. (And the rest of your post is pretty spot-on, too - it would probably help things a lot if falling wasn't seen as a punishment for the player.)
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.
Which is exactly what you're doing if you agree to provide someone with service X in exchange for payment Y. You can negotiate the exact specifications of your service with your customer/employer, but you agree that you will not expect payment unless you meet the requirements negotiated with the customer/employer. If you say you will make someone a chocolate cake and you make them a carrot cake, you will not get paid. If you agree to keep a person's lawn neat in exchange for regular payment and you let it get messy, you stop getting paid.
If you agree to fight tyranny in the name of Cayden Cailean and you then fail to do that, you will not get your paladin powers. If you stop fighting tyranny, you stop getting your paladin powers.
Is this type of agreement lawful? Is a chaotic person unable to hold down any sort of job, or to do any sort of commission work that depends on the satisfaction of their customers?
Weirdo wrote:A character who consistently feels like breaking tradition, undermining authority, protecting individual liberty, and liberating the oppressed (and does so) is chaotic.And this is the problem. You can't both undermine authority and submit to it.
Fine. But you can undermine authority and still be part of a team, partnership, or business relationship.
Rynjin |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weirdo wrote:And this is the problem. You can't both undermine authority and submit to it.
A character who consistently feels like breaking tradition, undermining authority, protecting individual liberty, and liberating the oppressed (and does so) is chaotic.
But Chaotic is not constantly trying to undermine authority.
It may be trying to undermine illegitimate or undeserving authority (unfit rulers and tyrants, for example) but a Chaotic person is not incapable of recognizing someone's authority. Chaotic aligned =/= Anarchist.
Durngrun Stonebreaker |
."A paladin of freedom must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin of freedom's code requires that he respect individual liberty (eg not using compulsions, imprisoning others, or forcing others to make binding agreements), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for lawful or evil ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents or curtail personal liberty.
Well you did just create a Paladin that falls for helping the town guard!
However, being consistent does not equal following a code, buying bread is not following a code (even if you do it every single day). You said a chaotic person could follow a code that they agreed with (like the one you listed) but that is not following a code. Following a code means substituting the code for your own judgement. That seems to be the antithesis of chaotic.SaveVsDeath |
In my games I solved the Paladin problem with two simple changes. First, Paladins are only required to be Nonevil and are not required to be Lawful. Second, I require paladin players to outline the code of their specific knightly order or their personal code if they don't belong to an order (In my game world, paladin-hood can pass on through inheritance or by undergoing the sacred rituals known by certain holy orders).
I now have two VERY different and interesting paladins; one Lawful Neutral and one Neutral Good.
Problem solved.
Ximen Bao |
"A paladin of freedom must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin of freedom's code requires that he respect individual liberty (eg not using compulsions, imprisoning others, or forcing others to make binding agreements), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for lawful or evil ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents or curtail personal liberty.
Part of lawful/chaotic is in how you act in relation to society, and the another part is how you act personally. To quote the alignment section again:
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
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.
Unless a character is dedicated to the idea of lawfulness or chaos itself, that character is going to have problems with entering a society with radically different laws. Going from an Authoritarian Slaver society to a Radical Libertarian society that doesn't even have jails is going to throw them for a loop.
What was subversive and chaotic in one location is respecting tradition in another. Most Lawful/Chaotic actions aren't objectively fixed in the way Good/Evil actions are in this system.
Some are. Lying vs telling the truth and keeping your word vs breaking them on a whim is the same regardless of society. The rest are not.
This creates problems for a hypothetical CG Paladin of Freedom, external and internal.
Externally, a CG Paladin could only comfortably exist in a state of constant rebellion against a society that fundamentally valued evil, the same way at LG Paladin could only comfortably exist in a state of adherence to societal values extolling good. That severely limits the scope of acceptable environments for a CG Paladin, more so than a normal one.
This is because a CG Paladin is self-defeating in ways that a LG Paladin isn't. Every victory that eliminates Evil makes society more Good. As society becomes more Good, it become Lawful to respect the traditions of that society, which means the CG Paladin creates his own alignment conflict. In contrast, the more Good the LG Paladin makes society, the easier it is for him to live within it.
Additionally, there is a fundamental conflict between supporting Chaos and supporting Good that doesn't exist between supporting Law and supporting Good. Actively supporting Chaos requires you to support people's freedom to be Evil. The Paladin of Freedom must fight against those who restrict people's freedom to commit evil acts, while also fighting against people who commit evil acts himself. The LG paladin has this problem only situationaly, not inherently. There's nothing inherently to actively promoting lawfulness regarding forcing people not to act evilly,
Internally, you have to continually maintain your promise to uphold a code. This is an explicitly lawful act. Every time you don't break your promise to be chaotic, you're being lawful. It's a contradictory position that requires too much contortion to justify.
Which is exactly what you're doing if you agree to provide someone with service X in exchange for payment Y. You can negotiate the exact specifications of your service with your customer/employer, but you agree that you will not expect payment unless you meet the requirements negotiated with the customer/employer. If you say you will make someone a chocolate cake and you make them a carrot cake, you will not get paid. If you agree to keep a person's lawn neat in exchange for regular payment and you let it get messy, you stop getting paid.
If you agree to fight tyranny in the name of Cayden Cailean and you then fail to do that, you will not get your paladin powers. If you stop fighting tyranny, you stop getting your paladin powers.
Is this type of agreement lawful? Is a chaotic person unable to hold down any sort of job, or to do any sort of commission work that depends on the satisfaction of their customers?
To the above quote:
A chaotic person that held down a job which required them to show up on time, on a regular basis, do what their boss told them, and follow workplace procedures would have to be doing a lot of actual chaotic stuff after-hours to counterbalance such a lawful workday.Every time a freelancer completes a task she's been contracted for, she's completed the lawful act of keeping her word. Chaotic characters are, by official definition, implicated as not trustworthy. Breaking promises and being unreliable is how chaotic is described.
Rynjin |
No it isn't. You just quoted what Chaotic was.
"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."
While you seem to be focusing on this line "do what they promise if they feel like it", you SHOULD be focusing on this line "Chaotic characters follow their consciences".
If their conscience tells them it's bad to break a promise...they won't break it. The difference between them being that a Lawful person makes every promise (likely even ones made under duress or ones that run counter to their goals) as a sacred oath. They will follow their Word to the letter, even though it could hurt them.
Meanwhile, the Chaotic person is perfectly able to keep his word, and can be trusted to do so as long as it follows his conscience. "Do your work, clean up that garbage, try not to lie" all of these things a Chaotic person will do.
However, that same person will be perfectly capable of promising that "I won't track you down and try to get my stuff back" to a thief and then saying "Yeah that's stupid I can't believe he fell for it" and then going after the bastard that stole his junk.
Ximen Bao |
No it isn't. You just quoted what Chaotic was.
"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."
While you seem to be focusing on this line "do what they promise if they feel like it", you SHOULD be focusing on this line "Chaotic characters follow their consciences".
If their conscience tells them it's bad to break a promise...they won't break it. The difference between them being that a Lawful person makes every promise (likely even ones made under duress or ones that run counter to their goals) as a sacred oath. They will follow their Word to the letter, even though it could hurt them.
Meanwhile, the Chaotic person is perfectly able to keep his word, and can be trusted to do so as long as it follows his conscience. "Do your work, clean up that garbage, try not to lie" all of these things a Chaotic person will do.
However, that same person will be perfectly capable of promising that "I won't track you down and try to get my stuff back" to a thief and then saying "Yeah that's stupid I can't believe he fell for it" and then going after the bastard that stole his junk.
I'm interpreting you as responding to the last sentence of my post where I said that breaking promises and being unreliable is how chaotic is described.
I'll agree that chaotic characters are described as keeping promises to do things they felt like doing anyway. I think that's a rather limited exception to the overall point. As to being described as unreliable, there's a clear and explicit contrast:
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.
Rynjin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CAN, not MUST include recklessness, resentment, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.
Remember, Chaos aligned people are all about personal freedom and choice. No two Chaotic people are going to be exactly alike in beliefs, attitude, and mannerisms (though there are some similarities between those following certain causes).
Chaotic people CAN be irresponsible, or responsible. They CAN be reckless, or reserved. They CAN be rigidly organized, or woefully disorganized.
The difference between an organized, responsible, and reserved Chaotic person and a Lawful person is a matter of choice and philosophy. That Chaotic person chooses to be those things because he likes being those things or they are useful qualities to have. A Lawful person embodies those things because that's how he truly believes life should be lived.
3.5 Loyalist |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CAN, not MUST include recklessness, resentment, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.
Remember, Chaos aligned people are all about personal freedom and choice. No two Chaotic people are going to be exactly alike in beliefs, attitude, and mannerisms (though there are some similarities between those following certain causes).
Chaotic people CAN be irresponsible, or responsible. They CAN be reckless, or reserved. They CAN be rigidly organized, or woefully disorganized.
The difference between an organized, responsible, and reserved Chaotic person and a Lawful person is a matter of choice and philosophy. That Chaotic person chooses to be those things because he likes being those things or they are useful qualities to have. A Lawful person embodies those things because that's how he truly believes life should be lived.
Rynjin seems rightjin.
Alignment should never be a straight-jacket. Chaotic isn't hard to play, and you don't have to play it one way.
Ximen Bao |
CAN, not MUST include recklessness, resentment, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.
Remember, Chaos aligned people are all about personal freedom and choice. No two Chaotic people are going to be exactly alike in beliefs, attitude, and mannerisms (though there are some similarities between those following certain causes).
Chaotic people CAN be irresponsible, or responsible. They CAN be reckless, or reserved. They CAN be rigidly organized, or woefully disorganized.
The difference between an organized, responsible, and reserved Chaotic person and a Lawful person is a matter of choice and philosophy. That Chaotic person chooses to be those things because he likes being those things or they are useful qualities to have. A Lawful person embodies those things because that's how he truly believes life should be lived.
I think we're at an agree to disagree point.
In my games a Chaotic characers who is indistinguishable in behavior from a Lawful one doesn't get to keep the Chaotic alignment because he's acting lawful due to personal preference.
Wind Chime |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A chaotic good character does what is right regardless of every other consideration, if the law promotes slavery a chaotic good person still free's slaves and punish those who mistreat them (breaking the law). If doing what is right is also what is lawful then the chaotic good character can still do what is right.
ciretose |
ciretose wrote:Weirdo wrote:And this is the problem. You can't both undermine authority and submit to it.
A character who consistently feels like breaking tradition, undermining authority, protecting individual liberty, and liberating the oppressed (and does so) is chaotic.
But Chaotic is not constantly trying to undermine authority.
It may be trying to undermine illegitimate or undeserving authority (unfit rulers and tyrants, for example) but a Chaotic person is not incapable of recognizing someone's authority. Chaotic aligned =/= Anarchist.
Yes, but Chaotic is also not constantly going to submit authority, which is what following the Paladin code is.
Constantly submitting to a code adjudicated by a higher authority.
ciretose |
A chaotic good character does what is right regardless of every other consideration, if the law promotes slavery a chaotic good person still free's slaves and punish those who mistreat them (breaking the law). If doing what is right is also what is lawful then the chaotic good character can still do what is right.
Yes. What they believe is right.
So does the Animal Liberation Front. But personal perception of what is right or wrong is personal perception, which is what makes them Chaotic rather than Lawful.
Just because goals generally align doesn't mean the reasoning behind the action doesn't come into play.
If you aren't interested in playing a character that submits itself to a code, you aren't interested in playing a paladin.
And a character who submit to always (not sometimes, always) following a code adjudicated by a higher authority isn't chaotic.
ciretose |
Fine. But you can undermine authority and still be part of a team, partnership, or business relationship.
I never said you couldn't be part of a team, partnership, or business relationship.
But there is a huge difference between, say, signing a mortgage and devoting yourself to following a code in all aspects of your life.
Malachi Silverclaw |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, there is a lot of confusion about what 'chaotic' means as a philosophy as opposed to an adjective.
'I disagree with your opinion, but would lay down my life to defend your right to express it.'
In a chaotic-aligned society, there will be laws and there will be penalties for transgressing those laws. The chaotic-aligned citizens will be happy to obey those laws all their lives, and they won't become lawful-aligned for doing so. This is because those laws will be about safe-guarding the freedoms of the individual!
Those who are fanatics for chaos can absolutely have a code and never, never waver from it, and fight for it until their swords are taken from their cold, dead hands! But they are fighting for freedom! They will never compromise in this!
Conflating chaotic behavior with chaotic alignment is why there is such disagreement on this subject.
However, while those who confuse the two are wrong, I will defend their right to be wrong. : )
Ashiel |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 Loyalist wrote:Chaotic hippies can fight the system, or they can chill out and not fight the system (and grow really good ganja).Technically, if ganja is illegal, they are fighting the system.
Does that mean their alignment changes depending on whether they're living in California or North Carolina? :P
Weirdo |
Weirdo wrote:Well you did just create a Paladin that falls for helping the town guard!."A paladin of freedom must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin of freedom's code requires that he respect individual liberty (eg not using compulsions, imprisoning others, or forcing others to make binding agreements), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for lawful or evil ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents or curtail personal liberty.
Which is not a problem in some campaigns. I've been in at least three campaigns where the guard was evil, corrupt, or controlled by someone evil or corrupt and helping the town guard (or respecting their authority) would have been a really bad idea.
However, being consistent does not equal following a code, buying bread is not following a code (even if you do it every single day). You said a chaotic person could follow a code that they agreed with (like the one you listed) but that is not following a code. Following a code means substituting the code for your own judgement. That seems to be the antithesis of chaotic.
A code is a set of instructions used to guide decision making. It's a shortcut. You take the time to figure out what you care about, and then when it comes time to make a decision you say "Right, when I had time to think about the consequences I decided it was important to do X" and do X. It doesn't remove the element of your own judgment, it just changes where relative to the decision that judgment takes place.
Unless a character is dedicated to the idea of lawfulness or chaos itself, that character is going to have problems with entering a society with radically different laws. Going from an Authoritarian Slaver society to a Radical Libertarian society that doesn't even have jails is going to throw them for a loop.
What was subversive and chaotic in one location is respecting tradition in another. Most Lawful/Chaotic actions aren't objectively fixed in the way Good/Evil actions are in this system.
If you find yourself in a society with no jails, and there's no one around who is threatening or curtailing personal liberty, all you need to do as a chaotic paladin following the code above is respect individual liberty yourself and you're fine. This is like saying “a chaotic person doesn't celebrate thanksgiving because it's a tradition.” A chaotic person has no love of tradition for tradition's sake, but they can enjoy a holiday just like everyone else and if they feel like turkey they can eat turkey (or they can have tofurkey and still enjoy the holiday).
This is because a CG Paladin is self-defeating in ways that a LG Paladin isn't. Every victory that eliminates Evil makes society more Good. As society becomes more Good, it become Lawful to respect the traditions of that society, which means the CG Paladin creates his own alignment conflict. In contrast, the more Good the LG Paladin makes society, the easier it is for him to live within it.
Not if the paladin makes the society more good by causing it to be more respectful of individual liberty.
Additionally, there is a fundamental conflict between supporting Chaos and supporting Good that doesn't exist between supporting Law and supporting Good. Actively supporting Chaos requires you to support people's freedom to be Evil. The Paladin of Freedom must fight against those who restrict people's freedom to commit evil acts, while also fighting against people who commit evil acts himself. The LG paladin has this problem only situationaly, not inherently. There's nothing inherently to actively promoting lawfulness regarding forcing people not to act evilly,
You can solve this problem pretty easily with the phrase “your rights end where mine begin.”
Killing people? Guess what, you just forfeited your right not to be stabbed by me.
Every time a freelancer completes a task she's been contracted for, she's completed the lawful act of keeping her word. Chaotic characters are, by official definition, implicated as not trustworthy. Breaking promises and being unreliable is how chaotic is described.
If their conscience tells them it's bad to break a promise...they won't break it. The difference between them being that a Lawful person makes every promise (likely even ones made under duress or ones that run counter to their goals) as a sacred oath. They will follow their Word to the letter, even though it could hurt them.
This exactly. A lawful person values keeping a promise for its own sake, regardless of what they promised to do. A chaotic person doesn't value promises and keeps or breaks them according to whether what they promised to do has any value to them.
lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability
Are all LG paladins self-righteous? No, in fact humility is considered to be desirable in a LG paladin. Does this mean that they are actually not lawful?
In my games a Chaotic characers who is indistinguishable in behavior from a Lawful one doesn't get to keep the Chaotic alignment because he's acting lawful due to personal preference.
They're not acting indistinguishably in behavior to lawful characters! They are exhibiting one lawful trait, while also exhibiting many chaotic traits like resenting and fighting against limitations on individual liberty, liking new ideas, and quite possibly being reckless and unreliable in areas not related to their personal code.
And if they really are difficult to assign on the law-chaos axis, that's what the neutral alignment is for!
But there is a huge difference between, say, signing a mortgage and devoting yourself to following a code in all aspects of your life.
You're right. It's difficult to oppose tyranny, explore the world, and do what you believe is right when you have a mortgage to worry about.
Coriat |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player of a very CN character with an ironclad personal code which he values far more highly than his life, who is respectful of his elders, who rarely sets out to undermine legitimate authority or to protect the individual liberty of others, and who strives to avoid recklessness in combat or out - etc etc - I look at this thread occasionally and smile.
ciretose |
Starbuck_II wrote:Does that mean their alignment changes depending on whether they're living in California or North Carolina? :P3.5 Loyalist wrote:Chaotic hippies can fight the system, or they can chill out and not fight the system (and grow really good ganja).Technically, if ganja is illegal, they are fighting the system.
Thought you left..
Edit: And no, it wouldn't. But let us use this as a teaching moment.
A Lawful person and a Chaotic person run two distillery prior to prohibition.
The Lawful person may protest the law, but will most likely follow it, because the believe the world works best when people follow the law.
The Chaotic person person may also follow the law if it is there best interests, but not because it is "the law", but because they don't want to be arrested.
ciretose |
As a player of a very CN character with an ironclad personal code which he values far more highly than his life, who is respectful of his elders, who rarely sets out to undermine legitimate authority or to protect the individual liberty of others, and who strives to avoid recklessness in combat or out - etc etc - I look at this thread occasionally and smile.
In what ways are you chaotic, if your code is ironclad. Serious question.
Malachi Silverclaw |
The Lawful person may protest the law, but will most likely follow it, because the believe the world works best when people follow the law.
The Chaotic person person may also follow the law if it is there best interests, but not because it is "the law", but because they don't want to be arrested.
I don't think this is true at all!
The lawful owner is just as likely to be motivated by not wanting jail time! He already wholeheartedly believes that alcohol is okay; he hasn't suddenly changed his belief because some Bible-bashers got a stupid law through Congress, nor will his belief magically return when the law is repealed!
And a chaotic abolitionist will believe the new law is better for society, and his tee-total behaviour will continue even when the law is repealed!
ciretose |
The whole concept of being lawful is putting the law above your personal wishes to preserve order over chaos.
This is the part that seems to be causing difficulty to understand. It doesn't matter to the Lawful character if they personally feel alcohol should be legal, if selling alcohol is going to put them in conflict with the preservation of order.
Conversely, the Chaotic characters could care less if some people can't hold their liquor, but he doesn't want to be locked up.
Different motivations, similar destinations.
WPharolin |
The whole concept of being lawful is putting the law above your personal wishes to preserve order over chaos.
This is the part that seems to be causing difficulty to understand. It doesn't matter to the Lawful character if they personally feel alcohol should be legal, if selling alcohol is going to put them in conflict with the preservation of order.
Conversely, the Chaotic characters could care less if some people can't hold their liquor, but he doesn't want to be locked up.
Different motivations, similar destinations.
No. The confusion comes from having rules that are not distinct, are vague and which require you to fill in the blanks for yourself. Law and chaos cause people to debate trivial things. In this thread we have definitions of law and chaos which make it impossible to tell what Martin Luther King jrs alignment would be. But does it matter? No.
When you drop vague labels and overlapping boxes in favor of clarity you open up the doors to players who wanna play their paladin like Joan of Arc, Lukien, Richard Rahl, or who ever, but who can't because the dms definition of law and chaos and codes is a useless ten page document hammered put over pages upon pages of forum debates with ideas rehashed over decades to try to validate a set of rules that doesn't actually do anything.
And when a player comes to me and says he wants his paladin to behave like superman: Be honorable, don't use poison, stand up for the weak, don't lie, save as many lives as possible, punish the wicked, etc. I'm not going to tell him "Sorry, superman isn't lawful."
ciretose |
None of whom were Paladins, but all of whom could be made in by the game.
Joan of Arc was not a Paladin (although she could have been IMHO, we'll come back to that in a paragraph or two). Lukien was not a Paladin. Richard Rahl was not a Paladin. Martin Luther King, was not a Paladin (but we'll come back to him too)
The Alignment System exists so everyone at the table can have a shorthand to roughly understand the character you are presenting. To use the example above, did you stop selling booze because you respect the law or because you don't want the consequences.
Understanding that distinction is very important in figuring out if a concept is going to work with a group dynamic.
But a Paladin, by definition submit to following a code. Adherence to that code is more important than they are. Which brings us back to your two real world examples, Joan of Arc and Martin Luther King. Two people who submitted entirely to what they perceived was the will of a higher authority, and arguably died as a result.
When Joan of Arc was tried for Heresy, she was famously asked if she knew she was in God's grace. She replied "'If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.'"
And in Martin Luther King's last speech, before he was assassinated, he said " And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will."
Both submitted to the laws and judgement of a higher authority. Neither were directly opposed to law, they just cited a higher authority that governed the order of the universe.
If you can't submit to authority, wholeheartedly, you can't be a Paladin. Because the class is based on submitting to following a code.
If you can't do that, being a paladin is a non-starter. You may still be able to be lawful good, but there is an even higher bar for Paladin.
Malachi Silverclaw |
To use the example above, did you stop selling booze because you respect the law or because you don't want the consequences.
You're example was flawed. Their motives (respect or fear) are totally unconnected to alignment. Either alignment could be motivated either way.
If you can't submit to authority, wholeheartedly, you can't be a Paladin. Because the class is based on submitting to following a code.
Agreed.
But that code could easily be a strict code to ensure the freedoms of the individual and determination to fight tyranny, and that code promotes the values of a chaotic alignment.
Chaotic aligned people can be just as dedicated to a cause as lawful people, and the insulting idea that chaotic alignment means chaotic behavior is a lie propagated by a lawful reading of the chaotic alignment.
Wind Chime |
For me the difference between lawful good and good can be seen in this scenario, a lawful good person sees an ambassador gleefully murder someone but does nothing because he has diplomatic immunity and it could cause a war.
A chaotic good person who believes that the wicked must be punished would attack or kill the offending ambassador even though the law forbids him too.
Now in one way the chaotic good person is more principled in that he followed through on what he believed at any cost whilst the lawful person compromised. If the chaotic good person believed that no-one is above (or at least their conception of it )and then punished the ambassador a lot of people would probably call them lawful good.
What is quite interesting is that in both situations me the person would choose to let the ambassador go because one life is worth hundreds but if the law agree with me I would be lawful good and if it disagrees with me I would be chaotic good even though I made the same action for the same reasons.
WPharolin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can submit to authority wholeheartedly without being lawful. And without rules that flag you as the law guy. You can make a class that has a code and mechanics that flavorfully inform style without ambiguity. And doing so will lose you nothing and grant you clarity.
Also the reason Lukien is not a paladin is because the paladin of D&D doesn't exist in most fantasy. It exists in video games. The characters we are describing are so one dimensional and rigid and boring that no characters fit the bill. Or at least an extremely few. I'm looking at the shelves around me, the Lord of the Rings, the Wheel of Time, the Sword of Truth, Kushiel's saga, Mistborn, Lord of the Isles, A Song of Ice and Fire, the Runelords, the Kingdoms, Dragonstar, the Name of the Wind ... it just isn't there. The closest I can find are characters who are very conflicted about there beliefs or who DO waver from their "code".
That Lukien plus holy magic doesn't equal paladin seems like a failure of the system to me.
As an aside, if alignment is nothing but shorthand than I'm glad to continue to avoid using it whenever I can. The most annoying annoying answer in the world to the question "So what is your character like?" Is when the person looks you dead in the eye and says "Chaotic good" and expects you to actually gleen some information about their character from that.
ciretose |
ciretose wrote:To use the example above, did you stop selling booze because you respect the law or because you don't want the consequences.You're example was flawed. Their motives (respect or fear) are totally unconnected to alignment. Either alignment could be motivated either way.
Quote:If you can't submit to authority, wholeheartedly, you can't be a Paladin. Because the class is based on submitting to following a code.Agreed.
But that code could easily be a strict code to ensure the freedoms of the individual and determination to fight tyranny, and that code promotes the values of a chaotic alignment.
Chaotic aligned people can be just as dedicated to a cause as lawful people, and the insulting idea that chaotic alignment means chaotic behavior is a lie propagated by a lawful reading of the chaotic alignment.
Dedicated to a cause is not the same as following a code.
As I said up thread (I think a couple of times actually...) the revolutionaries in Les Miserables were very much dedicated to a cause, and at the same time almost the definition of Chaotic.
On the other side, Javert followed a code beyond all reason or logic, and was almost the definition of Lawful.
And both were good, despite being on opposite sides.
Chaotic is to put your personal values and beliefs before authority, as your priority is not in maintaining order.
ciretose |
You can submit to authority wholeheartedly without being lawful.
Submitting to authority wholeheartedly is being lawful. Wholeheartedly being the key word.
Chaotic characters can and will submit to authority when it makes sense, but if they do it "wholeheartedly" they aren't chaotic.
It is literally against there nature to submit to authority wholeheartedly, as that is submitting to authority unconditionally.
Which isn't chaotic behavior.
You can make Lukien. You just can't have the all the mechanics of the Paladin class without being lawful good. Which is fine, because he doesn't have those mechanics.
You can get some of the features from other classes, but you can't be a Paladin.
Part of being a Paladin is the fact that you are a Paragon of virtue, and so when people find out you are a Paladin, that means something to them in the setting.
When you remove the restrictions, it then becomes less meaningful to be a Paladin. Saying "I am a Paladin" no longer conveys "I am beyond reproach, the epitome of lawful good."
It means "I'm a fighter with some divine spells."
Don't ruin the Paladin for the rest of us, because you want to make a concept you could make using an Inquisitor, Cleric, Chevalier, etc...
Wind Chime |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can submit to authority wholeheartedly without being lawful. And without rules that flag you as the law guy. You can make a class that has a code and mechanics that flavorfully inform style without ambiguity. And doing so will lose you nothing and grant you clarity.
Also the reason Lukien is not a paladin is because the paladin of D&D doesn't exist in most fantasy. It exists in video games. The characters we are describing are so one dimensional and rigid and boring that no characters fit the bill. Or at least an extremely few. I'm looking at the shelves around me, the Lord of the Rings, the Wheel of Time, the Sword of Truth, Kushiel's saga, Mistborn, Lord of the Isles, A Song of Ice and Fire, the Runelords, the Kingdoms, Dragonstar, the Name of the Wind ... it just isn't there. The closest I can find are characters who are very conflicted about there beliefs or who DO waver from their "code".
That Lukien plus holy magic doesn't equal paladin seems like a failure of the system to me.
As an aside, if alignment is nothing but shorthand than I'm glad to continue to avoid using it whenever I can. The most annoying annoying answer in the world to the question "So what is your character like?" Is when the person looks you dead in the eye and says "Chaotic good" and expects you to actually gleen some information about their character from that.
Examples of paladins in other media Eddard Stark, Suzaku Kururugi, Richard Rawl (kind off),Roland, Galahad and Arthur.
Rynjin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ciretose wrote:To use the example above, did you stop selling booze because you respect the law or because you don't want the consequences.You're example was flawed. Their motives (respect or fear) are totally unconnected to alignment. Either alignment could be motivated either way.
I...disagree.
While a Chaotic person may respect the law if it's one that lines up with his conscience, or may just follow it out of fear of reprisal, or even may break it because it's stupid, the Lawful person will respect the law simply because it's the Law, and the law should always be respected. If he didn't agree with it, the Lawful person would either deal with it or move elsewhere that doesn't have the restriction because he respects the fact that while he may not agree with the law, it's still the LAW.
ciretose |
If Joan of Arc and MLK Jr are lawful just for trying to live in accordance with what they saw as god's will then it should be impossible to have chaotic clerics.
Gods in this setting aren't Omnipotent or omniscient. They are based of the classic conception of gods as imperfect.
I highly recommend Karen Armstrongs "A History of God" as a great book explaining the evolution of conceptions of God.
MLK and Joan of Arc believed in an infallible, omniscient, God.
Very different than a Cleric of Cayden who knows he was and is no such thing.
WPharolin |
WPharolin wrote:Examples of paladins in other media Eddard Stark, Suzaku Kururugi, Richard Rawl (kind off),Roland, Galahad and Arthur.You can submit to authority wholeheartedly without being lawful. And without rules that flag you as the law guy. You can make a class that has a code and mechanics that flavorfully inform style without ambiguity. And doing so will lose you nothing and grant you clarity.
Also the reason Lukien is not a paladin is because the paladin of D&D doesn't exist in most fantasy. It exists in video games. The characters we are describing are so one dimensional and rigid and boring that no characters fit the bill. Or at least an extremely few. I'm looking at the shelves around me, the Lord of the Rings, the Wheel of Time, the Sword of Truth, Kushiel's saga, Mistborn, Lord of the Isles, A Song of Ice and Fire, the Runelords, the Kingdoms, Dragonstar, the Name of the Wind ... it just isn't there. The closest I can find are characters who are very conflicted about there beliefs or who DO waver from their "code".
That Lukien plus holy magic doesn't equal paladin seems like a failure of the system to me.
As an aside, if alignment is nothing but shorthand than I'm glad to continue to avoid using it whenever I can. The most annoying annoying answer in the world to the question "So what is your character like?" Is when the person looks you dead in the eye and says "Chaotic good" and expects you to actually gleen some information about their character from that.
I agree that all of these characters are paladins. But D&D does not. The thing tyat keeps them from bwing palasins is that they DO waver or change and their beliefs have turmoil that makes them thee dimensional and ineresting. You would be punished in PF for the very things that made those characters great.
Wind Chime |
Hold the g!# d@*n phone.
Did somebody just say Suzaku was a Paladin?
SUZAKU IS A PALADIN!?!
WHAT?
Either Mr. Wind Chime did not watch all of Code Geass and R2 or he got a VERY different impression from the patricide cum soldier cum "Hellknight" is the best analogue I can find.
Oh come on Suzaku is almost the perfect parody of a paladin he is perfectly lawful with a heart of gold he even drives the Lancelot and lets not forget this line "A victory won through dishonest means is no victory at all."
Wind Chime |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think any of the listed are Paladins, actually.
I could see it argued about Eddard Stark because there was this one time he was unfaithful to his wife, but even then he took responsibility for his mistakes and tried to make amends.
But King Arthur and the Paladin Roland are the legends that helped to define what a paladin is, they are the epitome of the lawful holy knight.
ciretose |
ciretose wrote:I don't think any of the listed are Paladins, actually.I could see it argued about Eddard Stark because there was this one time he was unfaithful to his wife, but even then he took responsibility for his mistakes and tried to make amends.
But King Arthur and the Paladin Roland are the legends that helped to define what a paladin is, they are the epitome of the lawful holy knight.
The are the epitome of the Chivalric knight. Saying they are Paladin is like saying the Pope is a Cleric.
Last I checked, he couldn't channel healing.
The fantasy world we are playing with is drawn from many sources, but it is also it's own unique place.
WPharolin |
ciretose wrote:I don't think any of the listed are Paladins, actually.I could see it argued about Eddard Stark because there was this one time he was unfaithful to his wife, but even then he took responsibility for his mistakes and tried to make amends.
But King Arthur and the Paladin Roland are the legends that helped to define what a paladin is, they are the epitome of the lawful holy knight.
Pretty much how I see it. If Roland isn't a paladin than no one is.
WPharolin |
Wind Chime wrote:ciretose wrote:I don't think any of the listed are Paladins, actually.I could see it argued about Eddard Stark because there was this one time he was unfaithful to his wife, but even then he took responsibility for his mistakes and tried to make amends.
But King Arthur and the Paladin Roland are the legends that helped to define what a paladin is, they are the epitome of the lawful holy knight.
The are the epitome of the Chivalric knight. Saying they are Paladin is like saying the Pope is a Cleric.
Last I checked, he couldn't channel healing.
The fantasy world we are playing with is drawn from many sources, but it is also it's own unique place.
I suggest reading about the origins of the word "paladin" Roland is the reason that class exists.
ciretose |
ciretose wrote:I suggest reading about the origins of the word "paladin" Roland is the reason that class exists.Wind Chime wrote:ciretose wrote:I don't think any of the listed are Paladins, actually.I could see it argued about Eddard Stark because there was this one time he was unfaithful to his wife, but even then he took responsibility for his mistakes and tried to make amends.
But King Arthur and the Paladin Roland are the legends that helped to define what a paladin is, they are the epitome of the lawful holy knight.
The are the epitome of the Chivalric knight. Saying they are Paladin is like saying the Pope is a Cleric.
Last I checked, he couldn't channel healing.
The fantasy world we are playing with is drawn from many sources, but it is also it's own unique place.
I am aware. I've read the Song of Roland (well, a translation). And again, the Pope can't turn undead and the Spanish Inquisition didn't involve monster lore.
Weirdo |
Then why expect the fantasy concept to perfectly match the real-life inspiration?
Why expect that a paladin (or any servant of a divine force) will behave like Joan of Arc or MLK when in the fantasy world the gods they serve are imperfect?
Why does a paladin have to submit wholly to a god rather than say "I am 100% behind the cause and values you represent and I want to further them in the world, but I need your help and guidance"?
Why does the god have to demand complete submission rather than saying "I will bless you as long as you remain sufficiently dedicated to my ideals"?
Don't ruin the Paladin for the rest of us, because you want to make a concept you could make using an Inquisitor, Cleric, Chevalier, etc...
Not if the concept is "charismatic divinely powered warrior." There is simply no other martial class that rewards charisma the way the paladin does. The cleric is the only one that even supports it.
And we're not trying to ruin the paladin for the rest of you. You can continue playing exclusively LG paladins, and continue to only allow LG paladins in your group. Just because there's a rule supporting other paladins, even just as an official variant in a supplement sourcebook, does not mean that you have to change how you play.