|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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! : )
I know, I know, but our love is still illegal in most states.
Respectfully, you answer is the opposite of the definition of Chaotic, as provided even by you. You seem to be arguing "He chooses to be Lawful, so that makes him Chaotic!"
And that is absurd.
|
|
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.
Again, it isn't "I will follow my code" it is "I will follow a code and be judged by someone else as to if am following it right"
"Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society."
"Chaotic Neutral: 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.
Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal."
|
|
But it's HIS Code.
That is as relevant as "it's your dog" making it O.K.
The problem isn't that you picked a code, it is that you are dedicating your entire life to a code that someone else is deciding if you are actually following properly, meaning it is actually their code.
And again, if it is the code of a Chaotic God, it is very much subject to change at the God's whim.
|
|
Lawful dude does it because he must.
Chaotic dude does it because he wants to.
You actually have it backwards a bit
That says the Lawful dude can never break the law, which isn't so. THe Lawful does it because he wants to do it, because it is his nature to want to follow the laws.
The Chaotic dude signs up to follow a code judged by a higher authority why exactly?
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...
Different. Not better. And for the record ... I would use a differentruleset for the chaotic good "liberator".
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.
But they're not submitting to an authority. The authority is themselves. The "Chaotic Code" is a personal Code that they would follow. The way I see it, a Chaotic Good "Paladin" would be more like an Oracle in that some god or some force likes what he's doing and just grants him power. Rather than a Paladin who dedicates his life to a god who then grants him powers + rules, the CG Paladin dedicates his life to a cause of his own choosing and then a god or force (my rough draft of the Liberator/Redeemer involves just directly tapping into the plane of Elysium subconsciously) grants him powers so long as he keeps acting the way he is.
That's probably how I would do it if I were refining the Codes in general, have a bit of a "build your own" for the Chaotic "Paladin" made up of a jumble of usual Chaotic and Good ideals (help the weak, free slaves, defend against tyranny, etc.) and then have the Paladin Code change a bit from god to god.
The end result is the same, if you break your Code (whether your own, betraying yourself, or another's, betraying that person) you fall.
|
|
Of course they are submitting to an authority. They are literally being granted powers, in large part due to adhering to a code.
And those powers are then subject to being taken away at the discretion of the person granting the power.
If you want a Chaotic Good class that acts like an Oracle but has mechanics like a Paladin, cool. But that isn't a Paladin.
It is a cool idea for a Paladin Archetype though. Rather than having to follow the code they instead get one of the curses...although the curses eventually become boons, so that would need to be worked out...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful good paladins actually make a lot less sense than other forms of good because they will often come into irredeemable conflict with themselves.
I would say that a true paladin would have to be neutral good. All of a Paladins decision making should be filtered through the sieve of GOOD, not law or chaos. Paladins have great powers of GOOD, they don't go around smiting fairies for handing in the wrong tax form.
This whole argument is kind of ludicrous though. A Paladin is about being the best of the good guys. The whole fall or fall scenario should spell out why a Lawful restriction makes no sense whatsoever.
I mean honestly, do you think superman would tell the baby eater where the orphanage is because he can't lie!? There is some form of cock eyed bias here.
Law and good have very little to do with each other. Good people come up with laws to maintain good, Lawful people create laws to maintain order, which is not inherently good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose if the only options are lie or tell the truth, instead of, oh I dunno refuse to answer.
Suddenly the interest kinda dries up. Funny, that.
Not really considering you've made the Code even stricter than the Paladin's, and even more stupid.
Paladin Code: Be a good guy, don't let you alignment shift. Nothing about Chaotic actions here, just don't do too many of them.
CG Code: You can't ever take any Lawful actions or f$&% you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, if you purposely make a deliberately stupid code then you shouldn't be surprised if no-one wants to play that.
This doesn't prove that the concept of CG paladins is stupid, just the the code you made up is stupid.
It isn't the concept that is stupid. It is that the concept is almost literally the exact opposite of the description of being "chaotic".
I have a code.
I follow it to the letter.
Every day.
Without fail.
I never deviate from it.
Because I'm.... chaotic....
|
I have a code.
I follow it to the letter.
Every day.
Without fail.
I never deviate from it.
Because I'm.... chaotic....
Not because you are chaotic but because you believe in the values embodied by the code.
The idea that 'chaotic characters must change what they believe all the time, or they won't be chaotic anymore' is absurd. They don't change their alignment each day! If they did then as soon as they (presumably randomly) became non-chaotic then they'd stay that way, leaving chaotic people extinct! It is truly absurd, and yet another mis-understanding and confusing of behaviour and alignment.
Chaotic characters are consistent in what they believe, which is is that the chaotic philosophy is the best way to live, that freedom of the individual is paramount. They don't change their minds about that!
Therefore, if a code embodies what they believe then it would not be strange to enter into an agreement where they give their word to behave in the way they want to behave anyway, especially when that gives them the ability to do what they want to do anyway (fight evil) more effectively, with their god on their side!
Some people argue "I am chaotic, so I can't (or can, or should, or shouldn't) be a paladin.
others "I am a paladin so I couldn't be chaotic".
These are two different things.
Chaotic characters are consistent in what they believe, which is is that the chaotic philosophy is the best way to live, that freedom of the individual is paramount. They don't change their minds about that!
That's the part. Once they have swore to follow the CODE over their own judgement, even a code they agree with, they have given up their freedom to the code. It is the antithesis of chaotic. I'm not saying chaotic cannot be good or that chaotic cannot be consistently good. I'm saying if you swear the live you life following a set of rules (or "laws" if you will) then that is a lawful action.
But it's not... *pff*
Look at this from another angle.
Unlike a Paladin, who is given a set of laws handed down to him by a higher power, the Chaotic "Paladin's" recruitment would go something like this:
*God appears before him*
"Woah..."
"Hey man, look, I like what you've been doing."
"Seriously? Thanks. I've just been doing what comes naturally, didn't realize anyone from on high would care that much."
"Yeah. Well, tell you what: you keep doing what you're doing, fighting evil and tyranny and all that jazz and I'll give you a bunch of super cool special powers, how does that sound?"
"Wow, that sounds awesome! What's the catch?"
"Well the catch is I can take these powers back if I decided I don't like what you're doing. I wrote up some stuff...ah here we are. Okay, follow these rules (which you've been doing anyway) and you get to Smite things and all that cool stuff. Deviate too far from it though ('grossly violate' is the term some would use), and I'm gonna have to strip your powers until you get back on track. We have a deal?"
"Okay then, I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and get rewarded for it for once! Nice, thanks <Insert God Here>!"
"Yeah no problem. Laters."
Of course for this to work the paladin Code would at least need a slight change to make it a gross/egregious violation rather than any old one, but I think that's a not unreasonable scenario.
Fluff
That's some fine backstory but its not a code. I've already said I was fine with a CG Holy Warrior (I wouldn't want it called a Paladin for...reasons) I was more arguing the "swearing to follow a code" part. That's not the behavior of the embodiment of Chaotic Good.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*God appears before him*
"Woah..."
"Hey man, look, I like what you've been doing."
"Seriously? Thanks. I've just been doing what comes naturally, didn't realize anyone from on high would care that much."
"Yeah. Well, tell you what: you keep doing what you're doing, fighting evil and tyranny and all that jazz and I'll give you a bunch of super cool special powers, how does that sound?"
"Wow, that sounds awesome! What's the catch?"
"Well the catch is I can take these powers back if I decided I don't like what you're doing. I wrote up some stuff...ah here we are. Okay, follow these rules (which you've been doing anyway) and you get to Smite things and all that cool stuff. Deviate too far from it though ('grossly violate' is the term some would use), and I'm gonna have to strip your powers until you get back on track. We have a deal?"
"Okay then, I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and get rewarded for it for once! Nice, thanks <Insert God Here>!"
"Yeah no problem. Laters."
Of course for this to work the paladin Code would at least need a slight change to make it a gross/egregious violation rather than any old one, but I think that's a not unreasonable scenario
And that is almost exactly the restriction placed on a Cleric.
"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description)."
Or can we not all agree on the base premise that expectation for a Paladin is greater than those placed on a Cleric.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course I have. Because the player who wants a Chaotic Good paladin is cheating. He wants the powers without having to pay a price in terms of a code of conduct. And a paladin with no code of conduct is simply not a paladin at all, and never can be.Suddenly the interest kinda dries up. Funny, that.Not really considering you've made the Code even stricter than the Paladin's, and even more stupid.
I find your refutation of an option nobody was advancing extremely persuasive. From now on I will be sure never to allow a CG paladin with no code of conduct.
However, perhaps we could bring it back to the current topic? Which is, as near as I can tell, paladins or similar types of class who do have a code of conduct, albeit a Chaotic Good code of conduct - and whether such a code is possible, and examples thereof? I have been finding that topic interesting whenever a good post about it surfaces.
And that is almost exactly the restriction placed on a Cleric.
"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description)."
Or can we not all agree on the base premise that expectation for a Paladin is greater than those placed on a Cleric.
Pretty much this. I can't really say it better. Just consider it a +1.
|
|
I find your refutation of an option nobody was advancing extremely persuasive. From now on I will be sure never to allow a CG paladin with no code of conduct.
I've recently looked up the term 'strawman' to find that it is misapplied frequently, simply to indicate disagreement.
However, in this thread it is proposed that CG paladins, with a CG code of conduct, is a reasonable idea.
But those who don't like this idea argue that paladins without a code are stupid, a position that is pretty much the very definition of 'strawman'.
The other objection is that those who passionately believe in freedom (chaotic alignment) are somehow unable to dedicate their whole life to such a worthy cause on the grounds that they refuse to do what they don't want to do (they aren't) or that consistency is incompatible with chaotic behaviour!
Ok, let me posit this scenario:
You (a CG 'Paladin') have been working with an anti-slavery group. Their current plan, is to attack a slave house, freeing those in captivity. Then they plan to arm the slaves and raise a revolt in the city, attacking other places of slave trade, seizing guard towers and other strategic positions in the city, attacking the city leaders and prosperous citizens, etc., general mob justice. They will not be dissuaded from this plan. You know that many innocent people who live in the city will get swept up in the violence. You are also aware that the slaves will not be outfitted especially well and are not trained soldiers, with many likely to be slaughtered by the city's militia.
Do you help or hinder the abolitionists?
Whichever option you choose to do, should you 'fall'?
Whichever option you do not choose, should that resort in a 'fall'?
What options actually restrain you? Or are you always free to do as you think best?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that is almost exactly the restriction placed on a Cleric.
"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description)."
Or can we not all agree on the base premise that expectation for a Paladin is greater than those placed on a Cleric.
I've never agreed with that. The Paladin in no way receives greater power than the Cleric, why should he be restricted more than one?
That's some fine backstory but its not a code. I've already said I was fine with a CG Holy Warrior (I wouldn't want it called a Paladin for...reasons) I was more arguing the "swearing to follow a code" part. That's not the behavior of the embodiment of Chaotic Good.
No, it is not a specific Code, it is just an outline of how a CG person would probably agree to follow a Code: Because A.) He agrees with its values, and B.) It helps him carry out his goals by granting him powers.
He is 100% free to break the Code when he wants to, but he understands perfectly that he will at least temporarily lose those powers.
Hand of the Inheritor
Ok, let me posit this scenario:
You (a CG 'Paladin') have been working with an anti-slavery group. Their current plan, is to attack a slave house, freeing those in captivity. Then they plan to arm the slaves and raise a revolt in the city, attacking other places of slave trade, seizing guard towers and other strategic positions in the city, attacking the city leaders and prosperous citizens, etc., general mob justice. They will not be dissuaded from this plan. You know that many innocent people who live in the city will get swept up in the violence. You are also aware that the slaves will not be outfitted especially well and are not trained soldiers, with many likely to be slaughtered by the city's militia.
Do you help or hinder the abolitionists?
Whichever option you choose to do, should you 'fall'?
Whichever option you do not choose, should that resort in a 'fall'?
What options actually restrain you? Or are you always free to do as you think best?
While a Paladin would probably look at that and stop the abolitionists, since they would be harming innocents he is sworn to protect, I believe a Chaotic Good person would probably help the abolitionists in their revolt, or at least stay out of their way, and if he tried to stop them he would likely fall. He knows that bloodshed is inevitable in any freedom-seeking endeavor, and while he would probably feel sympathy for those caught in the cross-fire and even try to help them get out safely once the combat started or direct the mob away from densely populated city centers and towards less "innocent" targets such as the guard barracks (who could not have failed to know that these saves were being held and did not do anything to stop it).
Here's a Code I came up with in about 5 minutes. I'm sure somebody could do a lot better with a little thought.
A Liberator must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever shifts from this alignment.
Additionally, a Liberator's code requires that she fight evil and oppression (dictatorships, slavery, and the like) wherever she may find it (assuming it does not interfere with her current quest in any significant manner), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil ends), and punish those who harm or threaten the oppressed.
Associates: While she has no issues with those of neutral, good, or chaotic alignments, a Liberator avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a Liberator can ally with these associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater injustice. A Liberator should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.
A Liberator loses all class features yada yada if she breaks it.
So, no qualms about being complicit in inciting violence. No hesitation about putting innocents in harms way (including those he is trying to help, i.e. the freed slaves).
...help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil ends)...
Already, you are compromising one part of your code for another, and don't see any problem with it. This is the essence of the problem with a "Chaotic Code".
No, a CG person doesn't change his beliefs every day on a whim. That would be insanity. But, what they actually do, is accept that compromising a belief to serve a greater cause is perfectly acceptable.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a CG person to say, "I don't steal. But, in this case, stealing is the best solution to bring about the greatest good for all. So, today I'm going to steal." There is nothing wrong with this. But, it is not a code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crusader, that specific line you're picking on is directly lifted from the base Paladin Code. Even worse, the paladin can shove off if they're going to use the help for "chaotic ends" as well.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
The caveat that fighting oppression may not interfere with her current quest (give that it's against a greater injustice) is or should be a part of the Paladin Code too.
Crusader, that specific line you're picking on is directly lifted from the base Paladin Code. Even worse, the paladin can shove off if they're going to use the help for "chaotic ends" as well.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Correct. Which is why Paladins must be Lawful. A code only works if you follow all of it, all of the time. You have in the space of 1 post, in response to my example, compromised one portion of the "Liberator's Code" to uphold another. That is perfectly acceptable for a CG character to do. But, it is also why they cannot be Paladins.
What?
The base Paladin Code ALREADY DOES THAT. Their Code requires they help those in need...unless the person uses the help for evil or "chaotic" (seriously what does that even mean?) ends. The paladin Code is compromising one part of the Code (protect the innocent) with a specific caveat (unless X or Y).
Why is it so different when the CG Code does it? You're making no damn sense.
The other caveat I mentioned is also implied in the Paladin Code, in that they can ally with evil people to fight a greater evil, and from application of a little common sense that a Paladin is NOT required to stop and fix everybody's pitiful, insignificant problems when he's marching to Mordor to kick Sauron's ass because that would make them unplayable.
What?
The base Paladin Code ALREADY DOES THAT. Their Code requires they help those in need...unless the person uses the help for evil or "chaotic" (seriously what does that even mean?) ends. The paladin Code is compromising one part of the Code (protect the innocent) with a specific caveat (unless X or Y).
Why is it so different when the CG Code does it? You're making no damn sense.
I'm confused by what you are not understanding.
Your Liberator would place innocents in danger, put the people he is helping in danger, promote violence, etc., in the name of "freeing the oppressed".
Paladins shouldn't do that. Ever.
And that's why the Liberator is not a Paladin. He's a different class.
|
|
If we can't agree to a clearly defined premise that Clerics have less obligation than Paladins, there is really nothing I can say that will convince you, as you are rejecting the basic premise for the class.
If you reject the premise, there is nothing I can say about the premise that will convince you of it.
But the rest of us don't reject the premise, so there is also little you can say to convince us the premise shouldn't exist.
What?
The base Paladin Code ALREADY DOES THAT. Their Code requires they help those in need...unless the person uses the help for evil or "chaotic" (seriously what does that even mean?) ends. The paladin Code is compromising one part of the Code (protect the innocent) with a specific caveat (unless X or Y).
Why is it so different when the CG Code does it? You're making no damn sense.
I'm confused by what you are not understanding.
Your Liberator would place innocents in danger, put the people he is helping in danger, promote violence, etc., in the name of "freeing the oppressed".
Paladins shouldn't do that. Ever.
Even more strongly disagreeing than Rynjin here. The way I see a Paladin's duty, you are flat wrong: not only a Liberator, but a Paladin should do all the things you mention.
Are your paladins allowed to lead a crusade against the demon horde (or the undead kingdom across the sea, or the devil-worshiping evil empire, or whatever)? Despite putting probably all the innocents and people he is helping in danger (crusading against a demon horde may be many things, but it sure ain't SAFE) and inciting immense violence?
Paladins are a violent class, the holy warriors of Lawful Good. They get Smite Evil and Aura of Justice, not Sanctuary and Calm Emotions. Their job is to battle evil and encourage others to battle evil. To ensure that nobody else is in any danger ever would be the exact opposite of their duty in many cases.
The circumstances under which it would be appropriate for a CG code to endorse violence/danger and a LG code to endorse violence/danger may differ, and neither will ever encourage such being wielded in a careless and arbitrary fashion, but the fundamental situation of encouraging good people to stand up against evil despite danger would be against neither's code of conduct. IMO.
|
|
Crusader, you've thought of a fall or fall scenario for a CG paladin.
All well and good.
Trouble is, you've advanced the possibility of a fall or fall scenario as proof that the concept of a CG paladin is unworkable; therefore no CG paladins!
But we must apply whatever test we choose equally to both concepts. If CG paladins are impossible because it is possible to postulate a scenario that would be fall or fall for a CG paladin, then if it is possible to postulate a scenario that would be fall or fall for Lawful Good paladin then that would equally prove that LG paladins are impossible!
The reams of posts creating just such fall or fall scenarios for existing, LG paladins shows that the possibility of fall or fall scenarios does not mean that LG paladins can't exist.
I understand why you posted that scenario, but on further analysis, it doesn't prove what you think it proves. It either proves that no paladins can exist, or it doesn't prove anything about any paladin, of whatever alignment.
If we can't agree to a clearly defined premise that Clerics have less obligation than Paladins, there is really nothing I can say that will convince you, as you are rejecting the basic premise for the class.
If you reject the premise, there is nothing I can say about the premise that will convince you of it.
But the rest of us don't reject the premise, so there is also little you can say to convince us the premise shouldn't exist.
Why is this premise to you, needed?
Why should a Cleric (the conduit for godly power on their world, who gets huge magical abilities and should follow the code of their god) be less restricted than a Paladin (essentially a holy elite soldier with some neat perks to carry out their god's will)?
What does it add to the game mechanics themselves? Not much.
Is it to balance out the class? Obviously not since Clerics are the more powerful of the two, and they are less restricted.
What does it add besides fluff? And overall detrimental fluff at that.
Actually, what I am postulating is that there is no "fall scenario" for a CG Paladin.
The CG person would help free the slaves, and would excuse himself for the fallout. Or he might try to prevent the violence, and excuse himself on the grounds that he kept everyone alive and healthy, and he can continue to work to free the slaves. Or he might go drinking and wenching until the riots started, so he could help defend the ladies at the local tavern. Or he might leave town until everything settled down. Or he might... or he might... or he might...
A CG character is never constrained. Unless he does something ridiculously evil, he can't be in the wrong.
That's why they can't exist.
The CG person would help free the slaves, and would excuse himself for the fallout. Or he might try to prevent the violence, and excuse himself on the grounds that he kept everyone alive and healthy, and he can continue to work to free the slaves. Or he might go drinking and wenching until the riots started, so he could help defend the ladies at the local tavern. Or he might leave town until everything settled down. Or he might... or he might... or he might...
A CG character is never constrained. Unless he does something ridiculously evil, he can't be in the wrong.
Hum. This is an interesting line of argument but I am not sure I agree with the conclusion. Or, perhaps, the premises.
I don't see that allowing multiple ways to resolve a potential dilemma necessarily robs a code of meaning. Can you elaborate a bit more on why this should be so? I can think of many possible LG paladin dilemmas that admit to more than one paladinhood-OK solution.
...heck, I think you could place a LG paladin in the same particular situation you proposed, and come up with multiple ways for him to respond while still remaining within his code.
|
|
If we can't agree to a clearly defined premise that Clerics have less obligation than Paladins, there is really nothing I can say that will convince you, as you are rejecting the basic premise for the class.
If you reject the premise, there is nothing I can say about the premise that will convince you of it.
But the rest of us don't reject the premise, so there is also little you can say to convince us the premise shouldn't exist.
Why is this premise to you, needed?
Why should a Cleric (the conduit for godly power on their world, who gets huge magical abilities and should follow the code of their god) be less restricted than a Paladin (essentially a holy elite soldier with some neat perks to carry out their god's will)?
What does it add to the game mechanics themselves? Not much.
Is it to balance out the class? Obviously not since Clerics are the more powerful of the two, and they are less restricted.
What does it add besides fluff? And overall detrimental fluff at that.
It is the description of the class. It is what the class is, what is does, how it fits into the setting.
Pathfinder is not simply mechanics. That is Gurps. Gurps is fine, but it isn't Pathfinder.
Again, if you reject the premise of the class, arguing with you about it would be like arguing with you about Wizards having spellbooks, Oracles having curses, or Druids wearing metal.
You are rejecting the concept, so the semantics are irrelevant to you.
Ad fluff is all well and good as long as it has a PURPOSE behind it.
Wizards having spellbooks adds to the game. It is what they place their spells in and it is required for them to prepare spells, placing a natural limit on their powers. It's flavorful AND adds to the game.
Oracles have curses as the same, and gain new abilities from those. It's flavorful AND adds to the game.
Druids not being able to wear metal is both silly and inconsistent (metal weapons are okay because), and adds nothing to the game.
The Paladin's Code being more restrictive than a Cleric's makes no sense in the game mechanics as a power limiter, and makes no sense in the fluff since it more often than not gets in the way of achieving their goals if strictly read (ANY deviation from the Code immediately triggers a fall, even not stopping to save a man from his own stupidity when you're hours away from a Devil completing his dastardly plan). It adds nothing to the game.
I know what it is. But this conversation has long since shifted from what IS and what SHOULD be. The Paladin IS rigidly restricted because that's the way it's always been. But SHOULD he be, and why?
No, it is not a specific Code, it is just an outline of how a CG person would probably agree to follow a Code: Because A.) He agrees with its values, and B.) It helps him carry out his goals by granting him powers.
Right, it's not a code but its a code chaotic can follow cause its not a code except it is a code, etc...
You can argue that Paladins don't need codes because it doesn't add to the game (some would certainly disagree) but you can't argue that chaotic can follow a set of codified behaviors because that's the opposite of chaotic.
To put it another way: a chaotic person could swear to follow a code but as he then set out and followed that code, embodied that code, day after day after day, his alignment would shift to lawful. This is probably why the Paladin is lawful good. The good because he is the hero, the lawful because of the code.
Hum. This is an interesting line of argument but I am not sure I agree with the conclusion. Or, perhaps, the premises.
I don't see that allowing multiple ways to resolve a potential dilemma necessarily robs a code of meaning. Can you elaborate a bit more on why this should be so? I can think of many possible LG paladin dilemmas that admit to more than one paladinhood-OK solution.
...heck, I think you could place a LG paladin in the same particular situation you proposed, and come up with multiple ways for him to respond while still remaining within his code.
"Multiple ways to respond" is perfectly fine.
What bothers me is that, no matter how restrictive a code may be, a Chaotic aligned character is never truly constrained by it. The very nature of a Chaotic alignment is that he is free to make the best decision, or worst, or most benevolent, or most selfish, or easiest, or hardest, or fastest, or slowest, or longest-term, or shortest-term, or, or, or, or....
So, if a CG 'Paladin' is not significantly constrained by his "Code", then there is no trade-off or balance for the powers. A Paladin walks a knife's edge to maintain his code. Sometimes, decisions are easy. Destroy the undead menacing the town, for example. Other times, you have difficult decisions to make. My earlier example, for instance.
My point is, unless a CG character is sacrificing puppies (or some other ridiculously over-the-top evil), what he is doing can be excused as "ends justify means" or "means justify ends" or "end in itself" or any other plausible argument that excuses his morality.
Which is perfectly fine for any CG character. I play CG characters from time to time, and have always enjoyed them. It's not ok for a Paladin.
No, it is not a specific Code, it is just an outline of how a CG person would probably agree to follow a Code: Because A.) He agrees with its values, and B.) It helps him carry out his goals by granting him powers.
Right, it's not a code but its a code chaotic can follow cause its not a code except it is a code, etc...
You can argue that Paladins don't need codes because it doesn't add to the game (some would certainly disagree) but you can't argue that chaotic can follow a set of codified behaviors because that's the opposite of chaotic.
To put it another way: a chaotic person could swear to follow a code but as he then set out and followed that code, embodied that code, day after day after day, his alignment would shift to lawful. This is probably why the Paladin is lawful good. The good because he is the hero, the lawful because of the code.
Except he wouldn't. Read the past 10 pages of this thread for why he wouldn't shift to Lawful, I'm tired of repeating what myself and others have already said a dozen times.
And that post was not talking about how the Code wouldn't be specific, it was that I did not have a specific Code on hand at that time.
"Multiple ways to respond" is perfectly fine.
What bothers me is that, no matter how restrictive a code may be, a Chaotic aligned character is never truly constrained by it. The very nature of a Chaotic alignment is that he is free to make the best decision, or worst, or most benevolent, or most selfish, or easiest, or hardest, or fastest, or slowest, or longest-term, or shortest-term, or, or, or, or...
Yes he can. But he does so knowing full well he can lose his powers for it. That's the point. He CHOSE to break the Code, knowing the consequences. Just like he CHOSE to accept the terms and conditions of the Code to go with his powers in the first place.
So, if a CG 'Paladin' is not significantly constrained by his "Code", then there is no trade-off or balance for the powers. A Paladin walks a knife's edge to maintain his code. Sometimes, decisions are easy. Destroy the undead menacing the town, for example. Other times, you have difficult decisions to make. My earlier example, for instance.
Explain what is exactly so super powerful about the Paladin's class features that require him to have a Code to "balance" that. He's no more powerful than a well built Barbarian or Ranger in the grand scheme.
My point is, unless a CG character is sacrificing puppies (or some other ridiculously over-the-top evil), what he is doing can be excused as "ends justify means" or "means justify ends" or "end in itself" or any other plausible argument that excuses his morality.
Which is perfectly fine for any CG character. I play CG characters from time to time, and have always enjoyed them. It's not ok for a Paladin.
Well for one, a Paladin CAN go all "ends justifies the means" to an extent, his Code allows for that. If nothing else, he's perfectly capable of say, letting a villain who has yet done no harm but is PLANNING to fall to his death, as his Code actually requires him to do so (the villain would be using his help for evil ends, indirectly). Is that nice? No. Is it necessarily good? Not really. Can he do it? Must be, unless you're a fan of fall or fall scenarios.
Anyone got some ideas for making a really tough as nails paladin? I've got the personality down, might go naginata (since they are so sweet).
What do we think on builds and feats. Don't worry, this guy would have 0 in diplomacy, so he has some skills free.
Additionally, a Liberator's code requires that she fight evil and oppression (dictatorships, slavery, and the like) wherever she may find it (assuming it does not interfere with her current quest in any significant manner), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil ends), and punish those who harm or threaten the oppressed.
I believe a Chaotic Good person would probably help the abolitionists in their revolt, or at least stay out of their way... He knows that bloodshed is inevitable in any freedom-seeking endeavor, and while he would probably feel sympathy for those caught in the cross-fire...
Leading an army of highly trained and well equipped soldiers against a dangerous foe is one thing. Putting a weapon in the hands of an untrained slave, desirous of revenge, and encouraging a riot and the deaths of innocents....
We'll have to agree to disagree. This is not Paladin-like behavior, IMHO. Frankly, it seems to violate your own code, unapologetically.
Chaotic characters are consistent in what they believe, which is is that the chaotic philosophy is the best way to live, that freedom of the individual is paramount. They don't change their minds about that!That's the part. Once they have swore to follow the CODE over their own judgement, even a code they agree with, they have given up their freedom to the code. It is the antithesis of chaotic. I'm not saying chaotic cannot be good or that chaotic cannot be consistently good. I'm saying if you swear the live you life following a set of rules (or "laws" if you will) then that is a lawful action.
For a Chaotic character, their judgement is the code, and they follow it unerringly. The whole "you can't behave consistently when chaotic" is too stupid to even merit a response.
From a chaotic point of view their way is better because their code comes from within them whereas Lawful people generally have to get an outside force to impose the code on them. I just don't get this strain of Lawful chauvinism re LG being the "best" that is cropping up on these boards all of a sudden.
Not at all.
Remember, the Liberator is not the protector of the innocent. He is the champion of the OPPRESSED. Which the slaves would be. If he could not get the slaves to stop, think over their plan, and wait to get trained a bit then he would definitely come up on their side so they at least have a competent leader and powerful warrior on their end to even the odds.
The CG "Paladin" is NOT a Paladin, that's the point. He is a class similar to the Paladin in some ways, and different in others. Both mechanics and fluff-wise.
The CG "Paladin" is NOT a Paladin...
I knew we'd find common ground, eventually.
Somehow, I suspect you mean that:
A martial cleric, oracle, inquisitor, fighter, cavalier, ranger, magus, battle herald, brightness seeker, celestial knight, chevalier, divine assessor, divine scion, golden legionnaire, holy vindicator, lantern bearer, liberator, low templar, stalwart defender, steel falcon, sun seeker, swordlord, and a massive amount of 3pp material...
...are not enough to build the character you want.
For a Chaotic character, their judgement is the code, and they follow it unerringly. The whole "you can't behave consistently when chaotic" is too stupid to even merit a response.
I don't think anyone is arguing that. I'm certainly not, at any rate. You can behave consistently, but quite frankly, if your "code" becomes too big a hindrance, a chaotic person will toss it.
From a chaotic point of view their way is better because their code comes from within them whereas Lawful people generally have to get an outside force to impose the code on them. I just don't get this strain of Lawful chauvinism re LG being the "best" that is cropping up on these boards all of a sudden.
Lawful people do not "have" to get an outside for to impose a code on them. No-one will say "You're doing it wrong" if you have a Lawful Fighter (of any Lawful alignment) and say "These are my beliefs". Even LE states that...
Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct
Most classes are all about personal ability rather than being dependent on abilities from an outside source.
The Paladin, on the other hand...
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful.
Emphasis mine. The Paladin class is based on an outside force imposing it's values on an individual. That's how they get their powers. That's why they lose them if they defy their code of conduct. If a Lawful Fighter had a "personal" code of conduct, and defied it, he wouldn't lose Bravery, or feats or armor training. The same for anyone who isn't a Paladin (or commits a gross violation, like a Druid or Cleric).
Note also the Anti-Paladin's code...
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.
Again, emphasis mine. Note everything it tells him to do - "impose Tyranny, take advantage, punish the good and just" - is all basically canceled out by the line "provided such actions don't interfere with his goals".
Meaning if, in his estimation, doing any of the following has the chance to hinder his goals (which could be anything), he is not forced to do it. He retains his freedom...basically all the time. It's not really a "code" so much as "his own goals are paramount". Which is possibly true for every single PC ever made. What are they all doing, if not pursuing their own goals?
But a Paladin actually has restrictions - don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, act with honor - things that could be helpful in the course of his duties, except that by taking the harder road, he is better for it. The idea is that even small things - like a lie to protect innocents and petty theft to save a life - can lead you down the road to darkness. And they take the safeguards necessary against that.
Which is why a chaotic code, imposed by an outside force, is a contradiction. Which is why there are no CG Paladins.
Which is also why - should you or anyone else want to make a class that gains divine power for being who they are already, that's one thing. You can roll with that. Houserules and all. No argument here. But Divine power gained from an outside source, while requiring a rigid code of conduct that actually limits your actions imposed by that force in the style of a Paladin - that really requires a lawful bent. That's also why I think the Anti-Paladin should have been LE - it would have been a much more interesting class that way.
Somehow, I suspect you mean that:
A martial cleric, oracle, inquisitor, fighter, cavalier, ranger, magus, battle herald, brightness seeker, celestial knight, chevalier, divine assessor, divine scion, golden legionnaire, holy vindicator, lantern bearer, liberator, low templar, stalwart defender, steel falcon, sun seeker, swordlord, and a massive amount of 3pp material...
...are not enough to build the character you want.
Don't forget homebrew.