| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't understand is...
All these folks saying how chaotic people can be lawful...then just play lawful? If you believe a chaotic person can follow the paladin's code, or would play it that way, then just be lawful good instead of chaotic good, perhaps? If it's all the same thing in your mind anyway?
No! The fluff is rediculous! I can play a chaotic character that will do everything the lawful paladin would do!
lol wut?
|
What I don't understand is...
All these folks saying how chaotic people can be lawful...then just play lawful? If you believe a chaotic person can follow the paladin's code, or would play it that way, then just be lawful good instead of chaotic good, perhaps? If it's all the same thing in your mind anyway?No! The fluff is rediculous! I can play a chaotic character that will do everything the lawful paladin would do!
lol wut?
It's obvious that people aren't arguing that at all.
It's obvious that people aren't arguing that at all.What I don't understand is...
All these folks saying how chaotic people can be lawful...then just play lawful? If you believe a chaotic person can follow the paladin's code, or would play it that way, then just be lawful good instead of chaotic good, perhaps? If it's all the same thing in your mind anyway?No! The fluff is rediculous! I can play a chaotic character that will do everything the lawful paladin would do!
lol wut?
True. The argument is that adhering to a code that supports other people's chaotic behavior is chaotic. I don't think it is, though.
|
|
True. The argument is that adhering to a code that supports other people's chaotic behavior is chaotic. I don't think it is, though.It's obvious that people aren't arguing that at all.What I don't understand is...
All these folks saying how chaotic people can be lawful...then just play lawful? If you believe a chaotic person can follow the paladin's code, or would play it that way, then just be lawful good instead of chaotic good, perhaps? If it's all the same thing in your mind anyway?No! The fluff is rediculous! I can play a chaotic character that will do everything the lawful paladin would do!
lol wut?
adhering to a code that promotes chaotic and good behavior in yourself and others. As in, the only thing that would necessarily differentiate you from the archetypal chaotic good person is that you also follow a code that promotes chaotic good behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the trouble with the CG Paladin is you have to assume he never (or almost never) comes into conflict with his code so he doesn't have to defer to the code's judgement over his own. If he suppresses his own will to the code (enough times) then he becomes lawful and you've changed the basis of your character. If you never have to default to the code's judgement over your own and are just always doing what feels right, then why do you have a code?
|
|
I think part of our problem is that the law-chaos axis is even more poorly defined than the good-evil one.
In this thread alone, we've had definitions of the axis including:
Authority vs individuality
Stability vs change
Discipline vs impulsivity
And no one can even agree on what the authority vs individuality element actually means, plus there's a "logic vs emotion" element I've seen discussed elsewhere.
How the heck are people supposed to interpret alignment restrictions in any meaningful way when we can't even agree in the broadest terms who qualifies as a lawful character?
This isn't just a paladin issue - monks are defined as lawful purely because of the "discipline vs impulsivity" element, and the nonlawful barbarian seems to be based on that plus the "logic vs emotion" bit.
What I don't understand is...
All these folks saying how chaotic people can be lawful...then just play lawful? If you believe a chaotic person can follow the paladin's code, or would play it that way, then just be lawful good instead of chaotic good, perhaps? If it's all the same thing in your mind anyway?No! The fluff is rediculous! I can play a chaotic character that will do everything the lawful paladin would do!
lol wut?
I am not interested in a character who will act like a lawful character - respecting authority, laws, and tradition for their own sake, being honourable according to society's definition of honour, and resisting change.
I am interested in a character who reliably supports chaotic values - fighting oppression, reducing the power of government in general, respecting individual liberty above law or tradition, and adapting as long as their core values remain intact.
Actually, I'm not even really interested in that character at the moment, I'm just looking for a consensus that such a character can exist.
EDIT:
I think the trouble with the CG Paladin is you have to assume he never (or almost never) comes into conflict with his code so he doesn't have to defer to the code's judgement over his own. If he suppresses his own will to the code (enough times) then he becomes lawful and you've changed the basis of your character. If you never have to default to the code's judgement over your own and are just always doing what feels right, then why do you have a code?
Because it's easier to make tricky moral decisions fast if you've made them in advance. If you've got a split second to decide whether to help the guards arrest a political prisoner or let the prisoner escape, it helps to have said beforehand "I believe the guard's authority is important and will assist them when I can" or "I believe imprisonment is wrong and will always oppose it."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the trouble with the CG Paladin is you have to assume he never (or almost never) comes into conflict with his code so he doesn't have to defer to the code's judgement over his own. If he suppresses his own will to the code (enough times) then he becomes lawful and you've changed the basis of your character. If you never have to default to the code's judgement over your own and are just always doing what feels right, then why do you have a code?
Because you want to game the system and have all the niifty paladin abilities, but none of the paladin drawbacks?
That's the only thing I've been able to come up with after all this thread.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the trouble with the CG Paladin is you have to assume he never (or almost never) comes into conflict with his code so he doesn't have to defer to the code's judgement over his own. If he suppresses his own will to the code (enough times) then he becomes lawful and you've changed the basis of your character. If you never have to default to the code's judgement over your own and are just always doing what feels right, then why do you have a code?Because you want to game the system and have all the niifty paladin abilities, but none of the paladin drawbacks?
That's the only thing I've been able to come up with after all this thread.
Then you are either willfully ignoring the posts which define such a chaotic-aligned code, or you are in the slow reader group.
Having a dedicated group of freedom-fighters is not a contradiction in terms.
It is entirely reasonable to be absolutely unwavering in your dedication to the rights of the individual, and to dedicate your entire life to the fight against tyranny.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the trouble with the CG Paladin is you have to assume he never (or almost never) comes into conflict with his code so he doesn't have to defer to the code's judgement over his own. If he suppresses his own will to the code (enough times) then he becomes lawful and you've changed the basis of your character. If you never have to default to the code's judgement over your own and are just always doing what feels right, then why do you have a code?Because you want to game the system and have all the niifty paladin abilities, but none of the paladin drawbacks?
That's the only thing I've been able to come up with after all this thread.
Ah, the "The Code is a mechanical balancing mechanism" argument finally shows its head. I was wondering when the forum would start debating that again.
Let me also say (as a bit of a cop-out), while I dislike the idea of a CG Paladin, I am fine with a CG Charismatic Holy Warrior (although there is probably a better name). I don't mind reassigning the fluff of a class, I don't like throwing away fluff. If your freedom fighter is blessed by the gods, or can enter a zen like state of mind that increases his strength and makes him shrug off mortal wounds, that sounds really cool. What I don't like are flavorless mechanics.
"My character can do this because he is Jerry" (not that I'm saying this is what people are advocating, just explaining my position)
Now I've said that to say this: if you have changed the fluff of the class you should change the class's name. This will eliminate some of the confusion mentioned earlier. ("Why did your paladin burn down the barracks?" "Because of Freedom, man!")
Ah, the "The Code is a mechanical balancing mechanism" argument finally shows its head. I was wondering when the forum would start debating that again.I think the trouble with the CG Paladin is you have to assume he never (or almost never) comes into conflict with his code so he doesn't have to defer to the code's judgement over his own. If he suppresses his own will to the code (enough times) then he becomes lawful and you've changed the basis of your character. If you never have to default to the code's judgement over your own and are just always doing what feels right, then why do you have a code?Because you want to game the system and have all the niifty paladin abilities, but none of the paladin drawbacks?
That's the only thing I've been able to come up with after all this thread.
I didn't say it was a balance. I said it is a pain to deal with.
People seem to want to throw it away so they can play without it. That's cheesy to me, it's like saying 'I want to throw away the wizards spell book because it inhibits me when I play, and it costs money'. Or, 'I want to throw away the witch familiar because it's a pain to keep it alive'.
Basically, I want the benefit of class X, but I don't want any of the downsides of class X, be that a code, or a squishy familiar, or an expensive easily burned spell book.
|
|
Right, I'm just trying to get out of following the code, which is why my next character is going to be a LG barbarian who protects the innocent, respects elders and authority figures, never cheats or lies.
First off, we're not talking about getting rid of codes entirely, just adjusting them so the limitations are more character-appropriate. Like a wizard who uses a pictogram spellbook instead of one with writing, or a set of wooden runic tiles, or even one who consults their familiar for spells like a witch.
Second, if things are a pain and they don't add anything to your gaming experience, why keep them? No one gets this militant about the encumbrance rules. Some like them, some don't, but very few people are going to say you're ruining your game by hand-waving them.
Let me also say (as a bit of a cop-out), while I dislike the idea of a CG Paladin, I am fine with a CG Charismatic Holy Warrior (although there is probably a better name). I don't mind reassigning the fluff of a class, I don't like throwing away fluff. If your freedom fighter is blessed by the gods, or can enter a zen like state of mind that increases his strength and makes him shrug off mortal wounds, that sounds really cool. What I don't like are flavorless mechanics.
"My character can do this because he is Jerry" (not that I'm saying this is what people are advocating, just explaining my position)
Now I've said that to say this: if you have changed the fluff of the class you should change the class's name. This will eliminate some of the confusion mentioned earlier. ("Why did your paladin burn down the barracks?" "Because of Freedom, man!")
I respect that. I think most of the people arguing for a CG paladin option respect that. Which is why at least twice in this thread someone has suggested calling them "champions." As in "My character is a champion of Cayden Cailean. Because of his blessing, my character can heal and inspire others and does not know fear."
Then you can say that "paladin" is a title reserved for LG champions, which preserves its special flavour and the reputation of paladins.
adhering to a code that promotes chaotic and good behavior in yourself and others. As in, the only thing that would necessarily differentiate you from the archetypal chaotic good person is that you also follow a code that promotes chaotic good behavior.True. The argument is that adhering to a code that supports other people's chaotic behavior is chaotic. I don't think it is, though.It's obvious that people aren't arguing that at all.What I don't understand is...
All these folks saying how chaotic people can be lawful...then just play lawful? If you believe a chaotic person can follow the paladin's code, or would play it that way, then just be lawful good instead of chaotic good, perhaps? If it's all the same thing in your mind anyway?No! The fluff is rediculous! I can play a chaotic character that will do everything the lawful paladin would do!
lol wut?
I just don't see it. I just don't think you can ever get around the internal contradiction in, "I faithfully follow this code of behavior from which I shall not deviate, but in a chaotic and unlawful manner."
I get the argument that you're pledging to actively support chaoticness and that you might be chaotic in other ways, but when the foundation of the class concept is built on faithful obedience to a fixed set of precepts, I don't think it's enough.
I think the trouble with the CG Paladin is you have to assume he never (or almost never) comes into conflict with his code so he doesn't have to defer to the code's judgement over his own. If he suppresses his own will to the code (enough times) then he becomes lawful and you've changed the basis of your character. If you never have to default to the code's judgement over your own and are just always doing what feels right, then why do you have a code?Because you want to game the system and have all the niifty paladin abilities, but none of the paladin drawbacks?
That's the only thing I've been able to come up with after all this thread.
Just popping in because this aside interested me. I'll be out of your hair again shortly.
I don't think that the Paladin abilities are coming with drawbacks. There is absolutely no drawback if you play a character who naturally fits into the mold. I played a Paladin of Wee Jass who was both Lawful Good and followed the Code of Conduct (no lying, cheating; helped those in need; etc). That was, afterall, the character that I wanted to play. It was in many ways something that many here would see as a mockery of the Paladin (she was a Paladin of a goddess of undeath, she hung out with a Hellknight which bordered on a romance, etc), but the character perfectly matched the cookie cutter mold where it was important.
A drawback is an actual literal drawback. Oracle curses are a good example. You get something above and beyond, but you also lose something in return. That's a good example of a drawback. A wizard who makes other schools harder to use to specialize in another is a good example. A Barbarian's rage barring him from casting spells while raging is another. There is no drawback to playing a Paladin because it sits at "either you play this way, or you don't". If you want to play in accordance with the standard alignment and code then you can. The only "drawback" is that if you wanted a more rounded character, or you wanted to play a Paladin but fit into a party that would find the Paladin disruptive, then you cannot. That's a failing, not a real drawback.
There's no drawback to playing a Paladin based on its abilities. And it's mechanics are well balanced (it's on par with Barbarians and Rangers), so a drawback for nifty abilities is more or less pointless anyway (unlike in ye olde days where Paladins were just better).
|
Then you are either willfully ignoring the posts which define such a chaotic-aligned code, or you are in the slow reader group.
Having a dedicated group of freedom-fighters is not a contradiction in terms.
It is entirely reasonable to be absolutely unwavering in your dedication to the rights of the individual, and to dedicate your entire life to the fight against tyranny.
Repeating myself...
A cause is not a code. Storming the Bastille was a Chaotic acts of a group of people united for a cause.
You can be united in a cause and not submitting yourself to a code.
Stop trying to equate the two things.
|
|
Following the code of Hammurabi because you like your eyes and hands isn't the same as following it because you believe it is the best for society as a whole.
Having a code of valor that doesn't allow you to flee or give quarter is something a chaotic person could do if they choose to do it.
If they, personally, choose to do it.
If they are doing it because they were told by a higher authority to do it, that is a different circumstance entirely.
Penn and Teller are fairly chaotic people. They are both libertarians. Penn does not drink, smoke or use drugs. He chooses not to. He also thinks they should be legal for everyone, because he doesn't believe the government should dictate personal freedom.
A Paladin is literally going around and telling everyone how to live.
See the difference?
Not especially.
Actually, I'm not even really interested in that character at the moment, I'm just looking for a consensus that such a character can exist.
Sure it can! If your GM allows it.
It's obvious that people aren't arguing that at all.What I don't understand is...
All these folks saying how chaotic people can be lawful...then just play lawful? If you believe a chaotic person can follow the paladin's code, or would play it that way, then just be lawful good instead of chaotic good, perhaps? If it's all the same thing in your mind anyway?No! The fluff is rediculous! I can play a chaotic character that will do everything the lawful paladin would do!
lol wut?
Yes, they are. Arguing that a chotic character joining a cause for good is the equivalent to a Paladin's code implies you believe this is possible, or in your minds is the same thing.
A Chaotic Good character can fight for freedom, goodness, and all that.He can do it his entire life. He will make comprimises along the way that a Paladin would not. This is what seperates a Paladin from just another good fighter. They are a paragon of consistent honorable righteousness.
A LG Paladin can be trusted to always act in this manner because, barring a crisis of faith, he will. Every. Time. He is Lawful.
The core of his being is unchanging. He has chosen a path, and will not stray from it.
A chaotic chracter would not. A neutral character would not.
The reason there are Inquisitors and Clerics is because a CG or NG character's contributions are wanted and needed. They just can't measure up to being a 'paladin'.
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.
Because it isn't a matter of allegiance to the code (or to anything else). It is followed because he wants to and for no other reason. It derives its force from no authority other than his own individual will, and he does not (indeed, could not) go forth to impose it on others. There is no ultimate reward to courage - like all other things, courage meets oblivion when the battle for Creation is lost - so in a code that emphasizes unyielding courage, it is embraced for its own sake.
(Einar is a Norse-related character and deals in a lot of Norse-related tropes, though not all (no berserk battle rage here). And while Valhalla is of course an awesome place to be, it's not the point. Just the last, long feast before defeat.)
As for the other things, well, in a well-rolled fighter currently enjoying Int 17, Wis 19, Cha 17 superficial things like chaotic stupid combat tactics (or chaotic stupid roleplay) are inadequate.
|
|
@Coriat
And you can do that. But that doesn't mean you are a Paladin.
Because
1. Why should a divine power grant you the powers of a Paladin for doing what you were going to do anyway?
2. Even if they did, it is their code that they are judging you based on and they decide if you are in compliance, not you. They can rescind the power, not you.
@Jaelithe - It doesn't entitle the Paladin to anything. It is the just the entry requirements. But otherwise I think we aren't far from agreement on the overall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not especially.Then let me try this.
What do you view as the difference between Chaotic and Lawful?
They are incoherent applications of ideas that were originally used in fantasy to mean good and evil. The paragragh that discribes each axis and alignment are short and vague. Those paragraghs mean exactly what they say they mean. Which isnt much but they say Nothing more and nothing less. Everything else is just personal opinion used to justify a rule thats greatest contrabution to the game has been to confuse people and cause arguments.
I will restate that in my life, I have yet to see a definition of law/chaos that didn't A) Make law and chaos indistinguishable from one another, B) make one alignment objectively inferior to the other, or C) make them so ambiguous that it doesn't matter.
Even D&D can't deside what each of the alignments mean. They have changed in different editions or even within the same edition from book to book.
Your definition of law and chaos is LARGER than the definition in the book. That means you made it up. Just like everyone else.
|
|
Not especially.Then let me try this.
What do you view as the difference between Chaotic and Lawful?
They are incoherent applications of ideas that were originally used in fantasy to mean good and evil.
This is just false, and if this is the premise you are starting from you are simply mistaken and we have no chance of reaching consensus because you are rejecting the premise.
"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.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others."
There is no good or evil in those descriptions.
Not especially.Then let me try this.
What do you view as the difference between Chaotic and Lawful?
They are incoherent applications of ideas that were originally used in fantasy to mean good and evil.
This is just false, and if this is the premise you are starting from you are simply mistaken and we have no chance of reaching consensus because you are rejecting the premise
There is no good or evil in those descriptions.
That description is the decendant of another description which itself is a decendant of another description which itself is a decendant of yet another. Not all of which agreed and none of which were consistantly applied. But before RPGs existed law and chaos were just a stand in for good and evil. The evil forces of chaos decending upon the world. That is not false. It is a part of literary history. When attatched to D&D good and evil were removed clumsily. And in the decades they have been in the game they have yet to actually mean anything. So when I say they are incoherent applications of terms that originally meant something else, quoting this editions current incoherent idea of law and chaos doesn't really say much.
@Coriat
And you can do that. But that doesn't mean you are a Paladin.
Because [snip]
You'd probably have to add 3) because Einar thinks it is okay to kill people for fun. That is probably a huge strikeout for paladinhood right there.
However, it's certainly possible to have an ironclad Chaotic personal code.
Also however,
1. Why should a divine power grant you the powers of a Paladin for doing what you were going to do anyway?
Maybe because Chaotic Good divine powers value people doing good as a free choice rather than as instructed from on high. I dunno, though, I've never actually played a Holy Liberator type so it's not a philosophy I've given any deep thought to (unlike the CN personal code).
|
|
Which is why I said earlier I can see James Jacobs point about Chaotic Gods thinking Paladins are knobs and taking this approach to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it is also the current description in the current rule set we are currently discussing.
If we can't reach that framework, we may as well be talking different languages.
We are speaking different languages. That's the point. Your definition of law and chaos is just as fictional as everone elses. Every sentence you add that isn't in the original definition is just your personal opinion. You haven't created a definition that is any better or worse than anyone elses, and nobody has a definition that doesn't make law/chaos indistinguishable or makes one inferior to the other or makes them so vague its self defeating. But here we are asking players to be good and play by the rules they don't know and can't see and that are nothing more than gut feelings that are subject to change on a case by case basis based on the DMs delicate sensibilities while playing a game that has a history of not being consistant with its definition of ANY alignment. Meanwhile you could just remove the one sentence about having to be lawful good from the paladin which is a boring a flavorless restriction and clarify what is and is not honorable and all of a sudden we have a class that still has the exact same flavor and restrictions. Literally nothing is lost. The paladin you played last weak would be in every way the same. But what you gain is clarity and the elbow room for players to be neutral good paladins with a personality like superman.
This whole argument that somehow the paladins flavor will be lost if you take out the two words that say the absolute LEAST about him (lawful good) is silly. Being a virtuous and principled holy champion devoted to a code and cause is interesting. Being lawful good is meaningless.
|
|
You aren't even willing to use the definition in the book, in part I suspect because you reject the whole premise of an alignment system so you are waging a different war entirely.
I just laid out how the entire description of the class, and the code mechanics are based around the concept of Lawful Good in the book.
You seem to be rejecting that because you reject the alignment system, not because it isn't true.
|
|
The reason there are Inquisitors and Clerics is because a CG or NG character's contributions are wanted and needed. They just can't measure up to being a 'paladin'.
Then you are of the opinion that NG and CG are inferior to LG?
Which is why I said earlier I can see James Jacobs point about Chaotic Gods thinking Paladins are knobs and taking this approach to them.
Then why would they have religions and followers (clerics and inquisitors) at all? The whole point of that clip was that Brian was trying to reject being a religious figure in general, not just rejecting the idea of having militant followers.
ciretose, I think your current argument is circular in nature.
Some game designer somewhere decided that paladins should be lawful good.
~ They then wrote a description of a lawful good paladin.
~ You are now using that description to argue that paladins should be lawful good.
My position is that if you ignore the bias inherent in the system - the fact that the game developers including James Jacobs personally prefer LG paladins and wrote that into their definition - you will see that you can very easily envision a NG or CG paladin equivalent that makes just as much sense as the LG version:
"Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called champions, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights and holy warriors, champions seek not just to advance their divine causes but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to unshakable principles of morality (removed words 'and discipline'). As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future."
See how few changes that required - four small substitutions, plus the name change? See how coherent and reasonable the new concept is? Paired with an assortment of codes with various lawful and chaotic principles, this description could fit 'champions' of any good alignment.
So yes, I'm arguing against this particular fluff, a fluff that is overly narrow and doesn't actually improve the class. But I'm not arguing against fluff in general, nor am I arguing against characters having to make sense.
|
|
First, it isn't a circular argument to show that all evidence points to your conclusion.
It's presenting evidence.
The fluff is the description of the class. If you have change the description to make it work...well...there you go.
Second, there are followers and there are worshipers.
Chaotic Gods encourages freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. They don't need you to be like them to worship them. They probably find it a liability to have someone so inflexible as to be following a code of any kind. They want followers who help the things they want to happen to happen, as best they can.
Cayden doesn't care if you act like he acted, he just wants to enjoy booze and fight against unjust authority and oppression. And he will give power to whoever is working toward the goal of more drinking and less oppression.
Rovagug doesn't care if you want to be like him, he just wants to destroy and will give power to those who will make that happen.
On the other hand, Lawful Gods want people who keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and they will judge those who fall short of their duties.
It isn't a bias of the system that the described Paladin fits the lawful good description and is in opposition to the Chaotic.
It is exactly as designed for decades now.