in many religions suicide is a serious sin, therefore, a paladin could actually be committing an evil act by attacking something he has no hope of defeating
However numbers of those same religions revere martyrs who die, often in hopeless causes, while sticking to their beliefs against overwhelming odds.
Many make those people sanctified above normal people, so obviously dying in a fight against impossible odds is not viewed identically to suicide by those groups, no?
|
It isn't a huge leap at all.
Rather than citing an article written for Dragon Magazine (obviously for 3.5 and bordering on 3pp...) lets look at what it actually says in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. And I'll use bold, like you do.
"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."
Not much I need to add. Says it pretty clearly.
Yes it does, doesn't it!
Let me point out the crucial part of your own post:-
Those who promote chaotic behavior say...
|
Behavior as defined as how you act...
Or are you arguing they would seek out to be a paragon of hypocrisy by doing the opposite of what they believe?
And to be clear, I would be fine with a Paladin "like" concept that is chaotic, but they certainly wouldn't be following an inflexible code that would cause them to lose power if they veered from it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic alignment means you value the freedoms and rights of the individual over the rights of the state/organisation/tribe/etc. Such a person can easily, inflexibly make a life-long commitment to uphold and fight for those chaotic principles of his own free will.
So, about that swearing to follow a code...
Wouldn't you value your own rights over that of the code? And if the code is "I do whatever I want" how is that a code, again?
|
|
Behavior as defined as how you act...
Or are you arguing they would seek out to be a paragon of hypocrisy by doing the opposite of what they believe?
And to be clear, I would be fine with a Paladin "like" concept that is chaotic, but they certainly wouldn't be following an inflexible code that would cause them to lose power if they veered from it.
And yet the 'official' publishers of the 'official' paladin at the time wrote eight strict, fall-if-you-don't codes. Although Dragon Magazine wasn't official unless stated, those two issues' content was official, and the publishers of the game saw fit to include those strict codes for every alignment!
Most fantasy that includes the law/chaos axis equates law with good and chaos with evil. I found it very refreshing when I read The War Of Powers. Law was absolute unchanging order, until Chaos burst into reality as the big bang, and the chaotic gods were born. Ever since, the one god of law (and his only begotten son) have plotted to destroy all life and return to the eternal unchanging order of nothingness. Meanwhile, the gods of Chaos championed life. Guess which gods were the goodies in that book! A refreshing change!
In the acknowledgements of the first edition AD&D DMG, Gary Gygax mentioned (along with Tolkien and Vance and Poul Anderson and others), the influence Michael Moorcock had on the alignment system. I understand that before AD&D, there was no good or evil alignment, just law and chaos, and law=good and chaos= evil. What a surprise. Paladins first appeared under that alignment system, and were obviously lawful.
Moorcock himself was at pains to point out that neither law or chaos was good or evil, but that on specific worlds at specific times it may seem that one or the other was good or evil. Certainly, in the Young Kingdoms at the time of Elric, the gods of law seemed like the good guys.
In AD&D 1st ed, Druids had to be True Neutral. The game evolved. Now they can be any alignment that is at least partly neutral.
Thieves could not be LG. The game evolved. They now can be LG, and thieves have evolved into rogues.
Rangers had to be (any)good. The game evolved. They can be any alignment now.
Monks had to remain lawful. The reason was spurious, but at least in Pathfinder there exists an archetype that removes that pointless restriction.
The publishers of The Worlds Oldest Role-Playing Game moved to a 4th edition (Boo! Hiss!), and paladins evolved. Now any god could create paladins of its own alignment, with appropriate behavioural restrictions. In those two issues of Dragon, the designers of the game itself were happy to create strict codes for each alignment and their paladins.
The idea that only LG can have a paladin that makes sense is not shared by the company that owns the game that created the class, so your contrary assertion shows more about your beliefs than it does about theirs, and your beliefs are influenced by your eight hours a day working for the law courts.
You can have whatever subjective viewpoint you want, but that does not translate to an objective viewpoint that asserts that the paladin concept can only possibly support LG paladins! Evidence exists to the contrary!
I don't blame you for being influenced by the constant pro-lawful propaganda propagated by various sources, including from the writers of RPGs. Those biased descriptions of chaos must make sense to a lawful person. But not to a chaotic person!
I don't blame you for conflating chaotic alignment with chaotic behaviour. RPG writers do this themselves; you just posted one!
From an objective view neither law nor chaos is better or worse, or more good or evil. Alignments are properly understood as the philosophical battle between those who think that the state exists to benefit individuals (chaos), and those who think that the needs of the state outweigh the needs of the individual (law).
Lawful behaviour is simply behaviour that doesn't transgress any laws, and a persons philosophical alignment is a different subject altogether. In a nation such as the USA, whose laws were draughted to preserve individual freedoms, then obeying those laws, living unwaveringly by them and dying to preserve them won't mean that you are lawfully aligned, you're fighting for freedom!
Chaotic behaviour is a different thing than believing in freedom! I've had DMs from years ago who said that a chaotic aligned character must roll dice to randomly determine what decisions to take, as this is what they thought defined the chaotic alignment! Anyone who did this in real life would be in an institution! This is mental illness, not belief in freedom of the individual!
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.
This is a fairly decent description, in that it doesn't attempt to conflate alignment with behaviour, at least until the last, bolded part.
'He avoids authority, resents restrictions', sure, but a restriction chosen by his own free will (such as a code) won't be resented!
In contrast, the chaotic part of the 'Law Versus Chaos' section includes words like 'reckless', 'arbitrary actions' and 'irresponsibility'. Yet these are behaviours! They have nothing whatsoever to do with believing that the freedoms of the individual are paramount.
|
|
So, about that swearing to follow a code...
Wouldn't you value your own rights over that of the code? And if the code is "I do whatever I want" how is that a code, again?
Easy. If you choose to follow a code of your own free will, then you are choosing to restrict your own behaviour.
You are choosing your own behaviour; it is not imposed on you.
Following that code is doing 'what you want'!
Of course you can choose to break it. A LG paladin could choose to break his code. He would fall for it, but so would a CG paladin.
Ah, but a LG paladin wouldn't want to break his code, because that code encompasses his beliefs!
Yep! And the CG paladin wouldn't want to break his code, as that code encompasses his beliefs!
|
|
The people at Dragon at the time were writting what was less than equivalent to the people who wrote the article allowing a Paladin of Asmodeus. And we discussed that awhile back.
The Paladin is what it is.
A code adjudicated by someone else isn't your beliefs. It is someone elses beliefs.
Finally, using your citation
"A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it."
|
|
If every god could have paladins, then each would have a code. Each person would be free to choose a code (or not be a paladin), and if you choose to follow a code it's because you believe that the way it wants you to behave is the way you would behave anyway!
You would choose to follow your gods tenets. Do you really believe that chaotic aligned characters can't choose to follow religious tenets without losing their chaotic alignments? That is absurd, and demonstrably wrong given that chaotic gods have organised religions.
No part of 'A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions.' is incompatible with choosing a religion and following it's tenets of your own free will., because a chaotic person would choose a religion which coincides with the beliefs he already has.
It isn't a huge leap at all.
Rather than citing an article written for Dragon Magazine (obviously for 3.5 and bordering on 3pp...) lets look at what it actually says in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. And I'll use bold, like you do.
"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."
Not much I need to add. Says it pretty clearly.
You're not bolding the most important word of that passage, so I did.
Implies means that the following words are only suggestions. You don't have to follow any of those behaviors, and you could still be chaotic.
|
|
It isn't a huge leap at all.
Rather than citing an article written for Dragon Magazine (obviously for 3.5 and bordering on 3pp...) lets look at what it actually says in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. And I'll use bold, like you do.
"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."
Not much I need to add. Says it pretty clearly.
You're not bolding the most important word of that passage, so I did.
Implies means that the following words are only suggestions. You don't have to follow any of those behaviors, and you could still be chaotic.
If you don't follow the implied behavior, in what way are you chaotic?
It would me like saying "I don't follow laws, but otherwise I am lawful"
|
|
"He avoids authority, resents restrictions and challenges traditions." is pretty clearly not someone who is going to be locked into following a code adjudicated by someone else.
He's not going to be locked into a code by someone else; he's choosing to follow a code of his own free will, adjudicated by a god he chooses to worship, following tenets that coincide with his own beliefs, and behaving in a way that he would even without the code.
If he didn't want to follow a particular code then he wouldn't have chosen that code in the first place. His alignment is in no way incompatible with following a code of his own choosing of his own free will adjudicated by a god he chooses to worship that asks for behaviour he already displays.
"He avoids authority, resents restrictions and challenges traditions." is pretty clearly not someone who is going to be locked into following a code adjudicated by someone else.He's not going to be locked into a code by someone else; he's choosing to follow a code of his own free will, adjudicated by a god he chooses to worship, following tenets that coincide with his own beliefs, and behaving in a way that he would even without the code.
If he didn't want to follow a particular code then he wouldn't have chosen that code in the first place. His alignment is in no way incompatible with following a code of his own choosing of his own free will adjudicated by a god he chooses to worship that asks for behaviour he already displays.
This implies that you concede he wouldn't follow a code that included things he did not obey that his God then forced upon him. Is that what you think?
Say you had a CG character who followed a personal code (completely his own choosing) and Cayden (the deity) appeared and said "Hey, you've been doing good work. I'll imbue you with further powers but you also have to add X, Y, and Z (all CG behaviors) to your personal code. Do you accept?"
Do you think he can accept and continue to be chaotic?
"He avoids authority, resents restrictions and challenges traditions." is pretty clearly not someone who is going to be locked into following a code adjudicated by someone else.He's not going to be locked into a code by someone else; he's choosing to follow a code of his own free will, adjudicated by a god he chooses to worship, following tenets that coincide with his own beliefs, and behaving in a way that he would even without the code.
If he didn't want to follow a particular code then he wouldn't have chosen that code in the first place. His alignment is in no way incompatible with following a code of his own choosing of his own free will adjudicated by a god he chooses to worship that asks for behaviour he already displays.
This implies that you concede he wouldn't follow a code that included things he did not obey that his God then forced upon him. Is that what you think?
Say you had a CG character who followed a personal code (completely his own choosing) and Cayden (the deity) appeared and said "Hey, you've been doing good work. I'll imbue you with further powers but you also have to add X, Y, and Z (all CG behaviors) to your personal code. Do you accept?"
Do you think he can accept and continue to be chaotic?
If those were behaviors that fit into his personal code and didn't cause problems, or which he considered worth the cost; a chaotic isn't required to resist "just because" just like someone who is lawful isn't forced to approve of every law.
As evidence, chaotic aligned people exist in lawful societies without being in jail.
If those were behaviors that fit into his personal code and didn't cause problems, or which he considered worth the cost; a chaotic isn't required to resist "just because" just like someone who is lawful isn't forced to approve of every law."He avoids authority, resents restrictions and challenges traditions." is pretty clearly not someone who is going to be locked into following a code adjudicated by someone else.He's not going to be locked into a code by someone else; he's choosing to follow a code of his own free will, adjudicated by a god he chooses to worship, following tenets that coincide with his own beliefs, and behaving in a way that he would even without the code.
If he didn't want to follow a particular code then he wouldn't have chosen that code in the first place. His alignment is in no way incompatible with following a code of his own choosing of his own free will adjudicated by a god he chooses to worship that asks for behaviour he already displays.
This implies that you concede he wouldn't follow a code that included things he did not obey that his God then forced upon him. Is that what you think?
Say you had a CG character who followed a personal code (completely his own choosing) and Cayden (the deity) appeared and said "Hey, you've been doing good work. I'll imbue you with further powers but you also have to add X, Y, and Z (all CG behaviors) to your personal code. Do you accept?"
Do you think he can accept and continue to be chaotic?
But it is infringing on his personal freedom. Arguably the most important aspect of being chaotic (probably is, in my eye). If he suddenly says "I will sacrifice freedom to perform what I think is a greater good", I don't think it's a stretch to say he's no longer chaotic - probably NG, honestly.
Also, note the question again. He had a code. Cayden comes along and says "Add X, Y, and Z to it, and I'll grant you boon powers". These are things that were not in his code, for whatever reason.
Just as a side note, based on what I know about Cayden, I don't think he would actually do this. I suspect he would be more "You seem to be doing good things - keep it up" and grant a small benefit, with more to come if the behavior continued.
EDIT:
As evidence, chaotic aligned people exist in lawful societies without being in jail.
I don't really see what this has to do with anything. It's more about what the chaotic person is willing to do and what the society outlaws. Speaking out against all government is legal in the US, but it certainly isn't in other nations. An anarchist would therefore seek to spread his message here rather than a nation that would arrest him for it. It's just a matter of his own personal interests. But that affects everyone.
|
|
As evidence, chaotic aligned people exist in lawful societies without being in jail.
Some do. Some don't. Some follow the laws they think are just at the time and the rest they don't want to be locked up.
That is completely different than saying "I am going to follow a code adjudicated by someone else that judges my every action."
It would be difficult for to think of a less Chaotic thing to do.
Add to that, the entity judging if you are following the code would be, themselves, chaotic by nature and unlikely to believe any code should be consistently followed.
Do you honestly not see the problem with this equation?
Now if as TheRedArmy said there were a class where Chaotic Gods offer boons to people they like, say like the Chevalier Prestige class, sure.
But that isn't "Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve."
|
|
This implies that you concede he wouldn't follow a code that included things he did not obey that his God then forced upon him. Is that what you think?
Of course!
Say you had a CG character who followed a personal code (completely his own choosing) and Cayden (the deity) appeared and said "Hey, you've been doing good work. I'll imbue you with further powers but you also have to add X, Y, and Z (all CG behaviors) to your personal code. Do you accept?"
Do you think he can accept and continue to be chaotic?
He can; whether he will or not is completely up to him!
If he accepts then he chooses to accept. If he doesn't then he won't be empowered.
Choosing to enter into such a personal agreement with his god (true of paladins of any alignment) won't turn him lawful! His belief in freedom is not compromised by freely choosing to enter into an agreement!
If the code turns out to be too onerous a task then he can choose not to be bound to it any longer, and eventually fall. Y'know, just like any paladin.
You may say that a LG paladin is much less likely to choose to abandon his code if that code starts to feel wrong, but balancing that is the fact that a chaotic god (who wants to have paladins; by definition this is true for this example) is much less likely to have a code which would be difficult for a freedom-loving CG paladin of a freedom-loving CG god to follow.
|
|
And without a Code, it isn't a Paladin and we've come full circle to the root of the problem.Who's this aimed at?
I've seen no-one on my side of this debate suggest that a CG paladin wouldn't have a code!
The issue being following a code adjudicated by someone else is submitting to an authority, which is the opposite of being chaotic.
Which you are dancing around.
I've seen no-one on my side of this debate suggest that a CG paladin wouldn't have a code!
No but you refuse to accept a chaotic person would not accept a code.
And even in the off chance he did, there's nothing in the core fibers of his being that would make him follow it, if it caused him any trouble or became inconvenient. He would drop it in a heartbeat. You know, the whole "resents restrictions" thing.I can see a NG person trying to hang onto a code for his own benefit (powers gained) than a CG, and he is only indifferent to the idea of dedicating his life to following a code, not in opposition of it.
This implies that you concede he wouldn't follow a code that included things he did not obey that his God then forced upon him. Is that what you think?Of course!
I...thought that was kinda the crux of the argument. That a chaotic person would never do that sort of thing. Was I wrong?
Say you had a CG character who followed a personal code (completely his own choosing) and Cayden (the deity) appeared and said "Hey, you've been doing good work. I'll imbue you with further powers but you also have to add X, Y, and Z (all CG behaviors) to your personal code. Do you accept?"
Do you think he can accept and continue to be chaotic?
He can; whether he will or not is completely up to him!
If he accepts then he chooses to accept. If he doesn't then he won't be empowered.
Choosing to enter into such a personal agreement with his god (true of paladins of any alignment) won't turn him lawful! His belief in freedom is not compromised by freely choosing to enter into an agreement!
If the code turns out to be too onerous a task then he can choose not to be bound to it any longer, and eventually fall. Y'know, just like any paladin.
You may say that a LG paladin is much less likely to choose to abandon his code if that code starts to feel wrong, but balancing that is the fact that a chaotic god (who wants to have paladins; by definition this is true for this example) is much less likely to have a code which would be difficult for a freedom-loving CG paladin of a freedom-loving CG god to follow.
Of course he has the freedom to choose or not. That's equal to all characters.
His belief in freedom is not sacrificed by willingly limiting his own freedom for powers? (pause) I can...somewhat see that argument, but it's rather hard to swallow. Much easier to believe a LG character doing something like that than a CG character.
True - all paladins have the right to turn away. All characters from any deity or personal code, for that matter.
The argument against LG-only Paladins is finally making sense now. But I still think it's flawed. The current code is intentionally difficult. No lying. Act with Honor. Don't work with evil. Following a God imparts extra codes on top of that - so do the Oaths! They are intended to be difficult to uphold. By following the code, you are better than the evil and chaos you fight. Paladins are held to a stricter standard then any other character. By doing so, they are given special powers.
If the code is lax, you're not really making a sacrifice. You're doing things you most likely would be doing anyway, so where's this "paragon of virtue" as described in the class if you're the same as any other CG character of any class?
A LG Fighter can lie. A CG Fighter can lie. A LG Paladin cannot lie. A CG Paladin - can he lie? If he can, then he's not holding himself to a higher standard, like the LG Paladin. If he can't, then he is acting against his own individuality and freedom, making him more likely to be LG or at least NG. By itself, you can't really determine his alignment.
Don't you see kingdoms and the like which have their alignment, as such, listed as "chaotic". And you have official npcs for a long time that have been chaotic yet served kings and other authorities in a subservient position. If being chaotic meant never submitting to authority, how would those exist?
|
|
No but you refuse to accept a chaotic person would not accept a code.
And even in the off chance he did, there's nothing in the core fibers of his being that would make him follow it, if it caused him any trouble or became inconvenient. He would drop it in a heartbeat. You know, the whole "resents restrictions" thing.I can see a NG person trying to hang onto a code for his own benefit (powers gained) than a CG, and he is completely indifferent to the idea of dedicating his life to following a code.
And of course, topic all of this is a Chaotic god then keeping to his/her end of the bargain.
All of this, in complete opposition to the description of the class of course.
|
|
Don't you see kingdoms and the like which have their alignment, as such, listed as "chaotic". And you have official npcs for a long time that have been chaotic yet served kings and other authorities in a subservient position. If being chaotic meant never submitting to authority, how would those exist?
Don't you see kingdoms and the like which have their alignment, as such, listed as "chaotic". And you have official npcs for a long time that have been chaotic yet served kings and other authorities in a subservient position. If being chaotic meant never submitting to authority, how would those exist?
I don't think anyone is saying chaotic means 'never' submitting to authority. You would go to jail pretty quick in RL or PF in that case. But you weigh the benefits and downsides and do what you think it best for your situation - like all characters do. For that matter, like all people do in real life, too.
If a CN wizard is interested in studying a particular field (say, the Runelords), and a king comes along and says "I'll give you regular funding, and you can be on your own, doing your own thing most of the time, but when I need you because of some magical problem in the kingdom, you come help me solve it". The character weighs the benefits of regular funding and being the official court wizard of a king with the downsides of tying himself down to a region and having to surrender freedom when the King demands it. In the end he may accept, he may decline.
But he's still serving his own interests and is more interested in his individuality than the king's problems. If it becomes more trouble than it's worth, he simply leaves. A lawful character would more likely put in the equivalent of a two-week notice because even though the situation not to his liking anymore, he wants to do things the right way.
EDIT: I say "right way". I guess I more mean "Lawful way".
If you don't follow the implied behavior, in what way are you chaotic?
It would me like saying "I don't follow laws, but otherwise I am lawful"
Because you're choosing to follow the law/code because you agree with them, rather than because it's the law/code and the law/code should be followed.
Chaotic/Lawful has nothing to do with your actions, but everything to do with your mindset.
|
|
Don't you see kingdoms and the like which have their alignment, as such, listed as "chaotic". And you have official npcs for a long time that have been chaotic yet served kings and other authorities in a subservient position. If being chaotic meant never submitting to authority, how would those exist?
The 'inevitable betrayal' is characteristic of an evil alignment rather than a chaotic one, but yet again we have an example of a lawful person equating chaos with evil.
You really should be more self-aware. : )
|
|
I've seen no-one on my side of this debate suggest that a CG paladin wouldn't have a code!No but you refuse to accept a chaotic person would not accept a code.
That's right. He can accept a code if he wants to, and he certainly won't tolerate you telling him that he can't!
And even in the off chance he did, there's nothing in the core fibers of his being that would make him follow it, if it caused him any trouble or became inconvenient. He would drop it in a heartbeat. You know, the whole "resents restrictions" thing.
Yes, he can drop it if he wants to! Just like a LG paladin! And then fall!
I can see a NG person trying to hang onto a code for his own benefit (powers gained) than a CG, and he is only indifferent to the idea of dedicating his life to following a code, not in opposition of it.
So now you think that even a NG paladin would only follow the code out of selfish, power-grabbing reasons!
|
|
And without a Code, it isn't a Paladin and we've come full circle to the root of the problem.Who's this aimed at?
I've seen no-one on my side of this debate suggest that a CG paladin wouldn't have a code!
The issue being following a code adjudicated by someone else is submitting to an authority, which is the opposite of being chaotic.
Which you are dancing around.
I've been specific in my answer to this, but you seem to have a blind spot.
Honestly, I don't know what Ashiel sees in you! : )
Now that is honesty, also a good paladin virtue. That makes me a bit misty eyed and what not.
|
|
The argument against LG-only Paladins is finally making sense now. But I still think it's flawed. The current code is intentionally difficult. No lying. Act with Honor. Don't work with evil. Following a God imparts extra codes on top of that - so do the Oaths! They are intended to be difficult to uphold. By following the code, you are better than the evil and chaos you fight. Paladins are held to a stricter standard then any other character. By doing so, they are given special powers.
I agree with what you say here, apart from the bolded parts. I have no problem with the concept that CG paladins would be rarer than LG paladins, but remember that even LG paladins are extremely rare anyway.
The code is 'intentionally difficult'? Yes, but not in the way some might think.
Let me try an analogy. Imagine a mathematics exam, so difficult that those who get 90%+ are enrolled into a special program, and those getting less...don't. This test is very difficult indeed by the standards of typical mathematics ability, more difficult than college level, even hard for masters degree mathematitians. But a mathematical prodigy or genius would not only pass the test but would find it easy! Those who set the exam aren't going to make it even harder for those who find it easy! You either pass or fail, fairly!
The standards expected of a LG paladin would vary slightly from those expected of a CG paladin, but those standards are equally high. Now, those standards are very difficult indeed by the standards of normal behaviour, more difficult for even good people to live up to, even hard for the best of us. But a saint or a paragon of virtue would find living up to those expectations easy! The gods aren't going to make it even more difficult for saints! You're either good enough or you're not!
The kind of person who can and want to live up to these ideals is the kind of person who becomes a paladin! They don't find it hard if that's the kind of person they are anyway! They choose to live their lives in such a way that their morality matches that desired by the appropriate god!
If the code is lax, you're not really making a sacrifice. You're doing things you most likely would be doing anyway, so where's this "paragon of virtue" as described in the class if you're the same as any other CG character of any class?
The 'sacrifice' is putting your life on the line fighting evil! It's likely that your life will be nasty, brutish and short! You could have exactly the same standards as a paladin and not be one, and stay at home living an exemplary life! But paladins willingly sacrifice their short lives to actively seek out evil and destroy it.
If 'what your doing anyway' happens to coincide with the paladin ideal (LG or CG), then you are a paragon of virtue! You make it sound as if being that virtuous naturally, should somehow be a reason to disqualify you from paladinhood!
A LG Fighter can lie. A CG Fighter can lie. A LG Paladin cannot lie. A CG Paladin - can he lie? If he can, then he's not holding himself to a higher standard, like the LG Paladin. If he can't, then he is acting against his own individuality and freedom, making him more likely to be LG or at least NG. By itself, you can't really determine his alignment.
A CG paladin can lie but will fall for doing so; in this respect he is no different than a LG paladin. Remember, he freely chooses to act this way, would probably act this way even if he wasn't a paladin, because he believes that that is the kind of person he wants to be.
|
|
Don't you see kingdoms and the like which have their alignment, as such, listed as "chaotic". And you have official npcs for a long time that have been chaotic yet served kings and other authorities in a subservient position. If being chaotic meant never submitting to authority, how would those exist?
I don't think anyone is saying chaotic means 'never' submitting to authority. You would go to jail pretty quick in RL or PF in that case. But you weigh the benefits and downsides and do what you think it best for your situation - like all characters do. For that matter, like all people do in real life, too.
If a CN wizard is interested in studying a particular field (say, the Runelords), and a king comes along and says "I'll give you regular funding, and you can be on your own, doing your own thing most of the time, but when I need you because of some magical problem in the kingdom, you come help me solve it". The character weighs the benefits of regular funding and being the official court wizard of a king with the downsides of tying himself down to a region and having to surrender freedom when the King demands it. In the end he may accept, he may decline.
But he's still serving his own interests and is more interested in his individuality than the king's problems. If it becomes more trouble than it's worth, he simply leaves. A lawful character would more likely put in the equivalent of a two-week notice because even though the situation not to his liking anymore, he wants to do things the right way.
EDIT: I say "right way". I guess I more mean "Lawful way".
I don't really blame lawful people for not being able to understand CG paladins; they already believe that LG is better than CG. But us chaotic people have little difficulty.
I like your wizard analogy. If you were to change the alignment from CN to CG, and his class from wizard to paladin, then it would make just as much sense, but instead of serving merely his own interests he would be making the country a better, freer place for everyone! CG people care about everybody, but believe that individual freedom is the way to guarantee happiness, and want laws in place that will guarantee those freedoms for all. The Bill Of Rights is an excellent example of laws desirable to CG people!
That's right. He can accept a code if he wants to, and he certainly won't tolerate you telling him that he can't!
Petulant. Good trait for a Paladin. Errm...?
Yes, he can drop it if he wants to! Just like a LG paladin! And then fall!
That's ridiculous.
Paladin: Just not feeling it today...Their god: Hey! Why aren't you following the code anymore?
ex-Paladin: Meh. Don't feel like it today. Ask me again tomorrow.
Their god: Why do I keep doing this again?
I don't see any paladin doing this or having this attitude. But this is supposed to be fun to play? This type of paladin is missed at a gaming table?
So now you think that even a NG paladin would only follow the code out of selfish, power-grabbing reasons!
That's not a new thought. I've been saying this.
A person who is neutral towards law could or could not follow the code, for a while, but his core indifference to lawful behavior would win out, and eventually for whatever reason he follwoed it or tried to in the first place, wouldn't be enough.Or, he shifts to Lawful.
|
|
Paladin: Just not feeling it today...
Their god: Hey! Why aren't you following the code anymore?
ex-Paladin: Meh. Don't feel like it today. Ask me again tomorrow.
Their god: Why do I keep doing this again?I don't see any paladin doing this or having this attitude. But this is supposed to be fun to play? This type of paladin is missed at a gaming table?
I in no way envision CG people (paladins or anyone else) changing their morality or values on a daily basis!
Chaotic people are consistant in the beliefs that freedom is the best way to live! They don't change their minds about it every morning any more than they change their alignment every morning, and anyone who would is insane rather than chaotic!
Yet more lawful misunderstanding of the chaotic alignment.
It's not his morality that changes, it's his desire to not be bound by anything.
It says this in the frickin' description of alignments.
It's not his morality that changes, it's his desire to not be bound by anything.
It says this in the frickin' description of alignments.
Please show me where in the Chaotic alignment "A Chaotic aligned person may never follow any sort of Code, even one of their own making" and "A Chaotic person often radically shifts ideals from day to day".
Because I don't see that anywhere.
Morality/Ideals/Values is on the good/evil axis.
Desire to not be bound or constrained is in the chaos/law axis.
Morality/Ideals/Values is on the good/evil axis.
Desire to not be bound or constrained is in the chaos/law axis.
I'm not sure what this post has to do with anything whatsoever, but okay.
None of this explains to me where it says that a Chaotic person is random and inconsistent in his beliefs from one day to the next, which is what you're proposing is the case.
Morality/ideals is not as separate from Rules vs Choice as you seem to think.
It asnwers your question. Or what I think your question was.
In as much as, I did not say or imply what you think I did.
His desire to do good doesn't change in that example.
It's his desire to follow a code.
It asnwers your question. Or what I think your question was.
In as much as, I did not say or imply what you think I did.His desire to do good doesn't change in that example.
It's his desire to follow a code.
Why would his desire to follow a Code of his own choosing and/or one that reflects his morals and beliefs change from one day to the next, is what I'm asking.
Because he is chaotic. It's not in his nature to restrict himself, any more than he would allow others to do so. He may do so for a while, a short while for the greater good, for a single mission or goal, but he won't for any significant length of time. He simply can't. It's not in his nature to do so.
Because he is chaotic. It's not in his nature to restrict himself, any more than he would allow others to do so. He may do so for a while, a short while for the greater good, for a single mission or goal, but he won't for any significant length of time. He simply can't. It's not in his nature to do so.
But it's HIS Code. This is what I'm talking about. Either he's able to follow a Code of his own making, or he's unable to stick to any set of morals for any length of time (which you're advocating). Which is just silly. It even says in one of the Chaotic descriptions that Chaotic ISN'T random and inconsistent.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
I obviously am not explaining things in a sufficient manner.
It's 0130 here, and I no longer wish to try for now.
Have a good night.
Of course he has the freedom to choose or not. That's equal to all characters.
His belief in freedom is not sacrificed by willingly limiting his own freedom for powers? (pause) I can...somewhat see that argument, but it's rather hard to swallow. Much easier to believe a LG character doing something like that than a CG character.
True - all paladins have the right to turn away. All characters from any deity or personal code, for that matter.
The argument against LG-only Paladins is finally making sense now. But I still think it's flawed. The current code is intentionally difficult. No lying. Act with Honor. Don't work with evil. Following a God imparts extra codes on top of that - so do the Oaths! They are intended to be difficult to uphold. By following the code, you are better than the evil and chaos you fight. Paladins are held to a stricter standard then any other character. By doing so, they are given special powers.
If the code is lax, you're not really making a sacrifice. You're doing things you most likely would be doing anyway, so where's this "paragon of virtue" as described in the class if you're the same as any other CG character of any class?
A LG Fighter can lie. A CG Fighter can lie. A LG Paladin cannot lie. A CG Paladin - can he lie? If he can, then he's not holding himself to a higher standard, like the LG Paladin. If he can't, then he is acting against his own individuality and freedom, making him more likely to be LG or at least NG. By itself, you can't really determine his alignment.
I think i'm in love...
|
|
If you don't follow the implied behavior, in what way are you chaotic?
It would me like saying "I don't follow laws, but otherwise I am lawful"
Because you're choosing to follow the law/code because you agree with them, rather than because it's the law/code and the law/code should be followed.
Chaotic/Lawful has nothing to do with your actions, but everything to do with your mindset.
Which is why the concept of a chaotic person literally dedicating their life to following a code adjudicated by someone else makes little sense.
It isn't just "I am generally lawful, but sometimes I break the law" it is "I will base my entire life to following this code, adjudicated by a higher authority"
Chaotic can agree with laws, can follow laws, but the very idea of dedicating their life to submitting completely to an "authority" as the basis of their existence is not chaotic, by any of the definitions provided.
|
|
Don't you see kingdoms and the like which have their alignment, as such, listed as "chaotic". And you have official npcs for a long time that have been chaotic yet served kings and other authorities in a subservient position. If being chaotic meant never submitting to authority, how would those exist?
The 'inevitable betrayal' is characteristic of an evil alignment rather than a chaotic one, but yet again we have an example of a lawful person equating chaos with evil.
You really should be more self-aware. : )
I was just taking an opportunity to use a Firefly link, like any good browncoat should.
Browncoats being Chaotic.