|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poor Malachi. I understand what he's saying: "you've confused chaotic alignment, with random/inconsistent behavaiour. Chaotic alignment doesn't mean that your actions should always be random or inconsistent.
The word chaotic has two uses in this regard. 'Chaotic' as a title for an alignment, and 'chaotic' as a description of a person's random/inconsistent behaviour. One does not describe the other.
By the way, lawful's unfortunate connotation with the 'law', is why threads have sprung up suggesting for it to be renamed to 'ordered'.
|
We have all posted the definition for chaotic alignment. It is completely inconsistent with submitting to a code adjudicated by another in the same way Lawful is completely inconsistent with rejecting all authority on principle.
It's connotation with the law comes from that word "Law" being the prefix, and "ful" being the suffix.
Any confusion comes from people not liking that this combination meaning "Someone who tends to follow the law"...
|
For anyone just joining us, this is clearly not my position. It is my summary of their argument.
Ok, so we have established that behavior has NOTHING to do with alignment.
We've established that 'behaviour' and 'alignment' are different things.
The concept that alignment has nothing to do with one's behavior totally blows my reality matrix into quantum figments.
/thread
Everyone go home, no use discussing anything any further. We're obviously in two different realities, and never the twain shall meet.
Neither of us agree with Mr. Stonebreaker on his idea that 'behaviour has NOTHING to do with alignment'.
I didn't believe it was your argument either; my tongue was firmly in my cheek, there.
But for a purpose. It was your summary of our argument, but it misunderstands and misrepresents our argument. Like us arguing that a CG paladin must follow his code, and then you guys representing our argument as saying that CG paladins don't need a code!
Alignment and behaviour are related, but different. The key difference is that chaotic behaviour includes some things that have nothing to do with philosophical alignment, then those who aren't chaotic complain about what chaotic-aligned people think is chaotic.
'Lawful' suffers this conflation of concepts, but not as badly as 'chaotic'.
To illustrate what I mean, let's take the idea of a law, or set of laws. The knee-jerk reaction is that LG people will obey the law and think it a good thing, and that CG people won't obey any law and think laws are a bad thing. This comes from the baggage that comes with the word 'lawful' in it's more general sense, and the idea that, since 'law' and 'chaos' are opposites on the alignment chart, then anything that lawful people think is good, chaotic people must think is bad.
But this is a misunderstanding of the philosophical alignment system. Those of a lawful good alignment believe that the good of the state/country/community must be maintained by the service of it's individuals. If there is ever a conflict between the rights of the individual and the needs of the state, then the state has priority, and any individual must 'take one for the team'.
Those of a chaotic good alignment believe that the state exists to benefit each of it's individuals. If there is ever a conflict between the rights of the individual and the needs of the state, then the individual's rights are sacrosanct.
So, both alignments, LG and CG want laws! Yes, even CG! But the laws each want have different emphases. A law or set of laws espoused by CG are all about guaranteeing the rights of the individual. The US Bill Of Rights is the best example I can think of off the top of my head. A set of laws desired by the lawful philosophy will set out the duties that each individual has to the state, including penalties for non-compliance. I don't have it to hand (so forgive the spelling) but the ancient Hammurabi code from one of the earliest cities in Mesopotamia was such a set of laws.
So, behaviour and alignment; how are they connected?
What a person chooses to do, i.e. his behaviour, reflects his beliefs (usually). If the lawful or chaotic behaviour we're talking about is pursuant to the philosophy in question (fighting for freedom, imposing civilisation on anarchy), then that behaviour is associated with that alignment. But valuing a law like The Bill Of Rights so highly that you willingly give your life to this chaotic-aligned cause does not move you away from your philosophy! Supporting a chaotic set of laws is not something a lawfully-aligned person is required to do to remain true to his beliefs.
Right now I'm a player in the Kingmaker campaign. We are a mainly chaotic, mainly good group. We have decided to enshrine the unofficial River Freedoms into the laws of our nascent state, a set of chaotic-aligned laws if ever there was! They are the laws of the land. But they are consistent with the chaotic philosophy. Believing that these particular laws are a good thing is consistent with the CG alignment, not the LG! What a LG person thinks of them is one thing, but he is likely to obey them because they are the law, but he might want to try to get new laws passed that are more consistent with a lawful mindset. Meanwhile, CG people absolutely love these laws! They want to keep them as they are, unchanging (the core values, at least)! Wanting everyone to abide by these chaotic-aligned laws does not turn them lawful!
That kind of behaviour is associated with the respective alignment. Other types of behaviour, such as randomly rolling to see what you'll do today, has absolutely nothing to do with alignment, and more to do with mental illness!
So, yes, CG people can absolutely choose to follow a strict code which is the same as their own morality, and by absolutely being faithful to it and it's chaotic good values will not turn them lawful!
|
|
At least Rynjin is honest in that his issue is the concept.
The thing most people who like playing Paladins will tell you they like about the class is the fact that they get to be exactly what Rynjin doesn't like.
An nigh-unattainable honorable, trustworthy, paragon of virtue.
It is the strict nature of Paladins that makes people love to play them.
I personally have no interest in playing a Paladin, as it isn't a concept I am interested in playing. But I understand the appeal of wanting to play that kind of over the top heroic unquestionably great hero of heroes.
Do you not get the distinction?
|
|
I guess the disagreement is over the code then. For your chaotic good Paladin the code is "do the good things I'm doing." For the lawful good it is "do good things the right way."
They both want to do good things the right way! They just disagree about what exactly 'the right way' means, precisely.
For most classes alignment is not a straitjacket but it is for the Paladin.
Paladins, right now, must remain LG. Quite a loose straitjacket when you think about it. They is no special 'higher' kind of LGness that must be attained by a paladin.
If paladins could be any good alignment, then losing that 'good' portion would certainly cause them to fall.
It has been said many times, The Paladin's class abilities all deal with fighting evil. So why LAWFUL good? Answer: the code. The code is LAW for the paladin. The paladin can make his own decisions within the context of the code but must always follow the code. I repeat, the code is law (for the paladin).
The code would also be law for a CG paladin.
Yes the CG paladin chose to follow the code but if he subverts his judgement for the code in what way is he chaotic (chaotic in this sense being individuality not consistent/inconsistent behavior)? How many lawful actions (again subverting your judgement, not acting consistently) does it take to change alignment?
He's in no way subverting his judgement! If he didn't already agree with it then he wouldn't have agreed to it. If he wants to stop obeying he can, and falls. This is true for both LG and CG paladins.
As mentioned above, following a chaotic philosophy to the letter doesn't make you lawful!
Can a LG paladin sacrifice babies to his LG deity and still be good? (Not asking about falling, asking if his alignment is still good) If not, why not? You're not judging his behavior are you?
No. Sacrificing babies would be an evil act, and would cause both LG and CG paladins to fall. Their god is not forcing then to do anything, but if a paladin of either alignment stops sticking to the agreement then the agreement is null and void, and the God's part in that agreement (granting paladin powers) also falls away at that point. Again, true for both LG and CG paladins.
If behavior and alignment are meaningless, why not just write LG on your sheet and go about your day?
They are not meaningless, and no-one on our side of this debate thinks that. Just being accused of that is not enough!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least Rynjin is honest in that his issue is the concept.
The thing most people who like playing Paladins will tell you they like about the class is the fact that they get to be exactly what Rynjin doesn't like.
An nigh-unattainable honorable, trustworthy, paragon of virtue.
It is the strict nature of Paladins that makes people love to play them.
I personally have no interest in playing a Paladin, as it isn't a concept I am interested in playing. But I understand the appeal of wanting to play that kind of over the top heroic unquestionably great hero of heroes.
Do you not get the distinction?
The problem is, you're limiting people who want to use the paladin mechanics to play something other than a "nigh-unattainable honorable, trustworthy, paragon of virtue."
Seriously, what is so terrible about the concept of a wandering knight, beholden to no one but himself and his god? About a slave who is chosen at an appointed hour to rally his fellow slaves and take the fight to the oppressive empire?
Paladin mechanics could be used to represent a whole range of characters. Why is that a bad idea?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An nigh-unattainable honorable, trustworthy, paragon of virtue.
Yes. This would also perfectly describe any paladin of any good alignment.
It is the strict nature of Paladins that makes people love to play them.
Each person gets to decide for himself why he loves to play a paladin!
I personally have no interest in playing a Paladin, as it isn't a concept I am interested in playing.
No s!~$!
But I understand the appeal of wanting to play that kind of over the top heroic unquestionably great hero of heroes.
Me too! But being the 'ultimate paragon of good' who wants to end slavery, even in societies where it is legal, is not a contradiction in terms.
I understand the implications of being chaotically aligned because I am chaotic aligned.
You think you understand the chaotic alignment because you read about it in a book, written by someone who was not necessarily chaotic. This explains why your continuing attempts to tell us what chaotic people would or would not do are consistently wide of the mark!
Where do you work again? Is it in the chaos courts?
|
|
At least Rynjin is honest in that his issue is the concept.
The thing most people who like playing Paladins will tell you they like about the class is the fact that they get to be exactly what Rynjin doesn't like.
An nigh-unattainable honorable, trustworthy, paragon of virtue.
It is the strict nature of Paladins that makes people love to play them.
I personally have no interest in playing a Paladin, as it isn't a concept I am interested in playing. But I understand the appeal of wanting to play that kind of over the top heroic unquestionably great hero of heroes.
Do you not get the distinction?
The problem is, you're limiting people who want to use the paladin mechanics to play something other than a "nigh-unattainable honorable, trustworthy, paragon of virtue."
Seriously, what is so terrible about the concept of a wandering knight, beholden to no one but himself and his god? About a slave who is chosen at an appointed hour to rally his fellow slaves and take the fight to the oppressive empire?
Paladin mechanics could be used to represent a whole range of characters. Why is that a bad idea?
Everyone has said it would be fine as an archetype or alternative to move some of the mechanics to a variant class.
But would you say "You're limiting people who want to use the Cleric mechanics to play something other than worshiper who prays and follows the teachings of a god or specific concept?"
Thanks for the kind words, Mr. Army!
It's true that real people are much more complex than the alignment system which purports to reduce personality to a game mechanic, but if I had to choose one alignment which most accurately describes me, that alignment is chaotic good.
I don't know you well enough to dispute that. I probably rate myself LG, if pressed.
|
|
You think you understand the chaotic alignment because you read about it in a book, written by someone who was not necessarily chaotic. This explains why your continuing attempts to tell us what chaotic people would or would not do are consistently wide of the mark!
So your argument is that your real world understanding of chaotic behavior is more relevant than the actual definition of how it works in the gaming system...which is actually what we are discussing.
Are you secretly arguing for my side of the argument at this point? Because you are doing a wonderful job.
|
|
Yes, ciretose.
An analogy is that a man is trying to tell a woman what being a woman is really like, and his 'appeal to authority' is that he has a book about women, written by a man.
Two things.
1. You are arguing that if I decide to always follow the law, I am chaotic because I decided to do it.
2. You are arguing that your opinion of what chaotic is, in real life, is more relevant that how it is defined, in the game, when we are discussing the game, and not real life.
Do I really need to explain to what is wrong about both of these statements?
|
|
Yes, ciretose.
An analogy is that a man is trying to tell a woman what being a woman is really like, and his 'appeal to authority' is that he has a book about women, written by a man.
Two things.
1. You are arguing that if I decide to always follow the law, I am chaotic because I decided to do it.
I'm arguing (and don't try to twist it) is that if you decide to follow a law that helps maintain a society as a chaotic society, then that is not a lawful act but a chaotic act.
2. You are arguing that your opinion of what chaotic is, in real life, is more relevant that how it is defined, in the game, when we are discussing the game, and not real life.
In the game, the mechanical effects of alignment are the game rules. How we understand the law/chaos philosophies is not a game mechanic issue, even if the result of a DM's subjective judgement about behavior may result in him applying a mechanical penalty.
The reason that there are so many threads about alignment is precise because it is not a mechanic, but an opinion; the reason there are so many complaints about that is the negative affect on games from the differing opinions on this fluff, when crunch punishments are applied.
2+2+4 is provable. What the game defines as a 'charge' is a game mechanic, and the definitive answer can be referenced in the rulebook when discussing 'charge' as a game action. 'Prone' has a game definition which differs from the RL definition. (In RL, 'prone' means 'face down'; 'face up' would be 'supine'). There are no arguments about it because it doesn't create any contentious issues.
Alignment involves both crunch and fluff in the game. We don't argue about the crunch, because it's not ambiguous, and the CRB can be referenced to clarify, with a degree of certainty, what spells with an alignment keyword mean to various casters, or how powerful an aura is in regard to detect spells, or if Smite Evil will affect a particular target.
Not so with the fluff part. This thread alone, if nothing else, illustrates that there is disagreement about how the personality and behaviour of our game characters should be defined in terms of good/evil, and to a greater extent law/chaos. Not surprising, since personality cannot by wholly defined by a rules mechanic.
This would not be a problem if it weren't for the fact that actual mechanics-based penalties are applied because of an imagined, disputed interpretation of some behaviour which cannot be accurately defined in terms of mechanics.
If behaviour were definable as a mechanic then we wouldn't be disagreeing about it any more than we would disagree about the 'prone' condition.
|
|
I'm not trying to twist it. I am simply pointing out the gaping flaw in the logic of submitting to follow code of conduct to demonstrate how you don't follow rules is just silly.
And Alignment doesn't exist outside of the game, so you are starting from a false premise and trying to rationalize it.
There is a definition of chaotic in the game. It directly contradicts your argument.
And since I am fairly certain the only way anyone will actually be a Paladin is in the game, that is the only definition that matters.
At least Rynjin is honest in that his issue is the concept.
The thing most people who like playing Paladins will tell you they like about the class is the fact that they get to be exactly what Rynjin doesn't like.
An nigh-unattainable honorable, trustworthy, paragon of virtue.
It is the strict nature of Paladins that makes people love to play them.
I personally have no interest in playing a Paladin, as it isn't a concept I am interested in playing. But I understand the appeal of wanting to play that kind of over the top heroic unquestionably great hero of heroes.
Do you not get the distinction?
The problem is, you're limiting people who want to use the paladin mechanics to play something other than a "nigh-unattainable honorable, trustworthy, paragon of virtue."
Seriously, what is so terrible about the concept of a wandering knight, beholden to no one but himself and his god? About a slave who is chosen at an appointed hour to rally his fellow slaves and take the fight to the oppressive empire?
Paladin mechanics could be used to represent a whole range of characters. Why is that a bad idea?
Everyone has said it would be fine as an archetype or alternative to move some of the mechanics to a variant class.
But would you say "You're limiting people who want to use the Cleric mechanics to play something other than worshiper who prays and follows the teachings of a god or specific concept?"
If someone wants to use Cleric mechanics to play a character that was, say, the child of a God (so all of their divine spells are from inborn power, and not worshipping a god or concept), then I say more power to them! Or they could use cleric mechanics to play an actual aspect of a God that was given human form for whatever reason. Heck, if the player wanted to flavor their spells as various fire-and-forget magitech devices, why not?
Maybe all of those characters aren't appropriate for all campaigns, but a Lawful Good incorruptible pure pureness character might not be appropriate for all campaigns. Should Paladin mechanics be off limits then, even if they could be used to support a character that would fit into a different campaign?
I think that classes should be able to support a broad range of characters. Paladins should be able to support a John Henry type character as much as a Lancelot type character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If behavior and alignment are meaningless, why not just write LG on your sheet and go about your day?
This.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If behavior and alignment are meaningless, why not just write LG on your sheet and go about your day?This.
Why does he get a favorite? I said it!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does he get a favorite? I said it!If behavior and alignment are meaningless, why not just write LG on your sheet and go about your day?This.
There, that help? :)
|
|
I'm not trying to twist it. I am simply pointing out the gaping flaw in the logic of submitting to follow code of conduct to demonstrate how you don't follow rules is just silly.
There's that misunderstanding again! It's not the purpose of chaotic people to continually demonstrate that they refuse to follow any rules, especially those which they think are a good idea!
The chaotic good alignment is not about refusing to follow rules; it's about making sure that the rules allow everyone the maximum personal freedom while ensuring that no-one impinges on anyone else's freedom. And CG characters will follow this rule to the death!
Chaotic good: 'Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins.'
Lawful good: 'Citizens may not swing their fists in a public place without a permit.'
If at first you don't succeed...
This is not about consistent vs. inconsistent.
This is not about following the law vs. breaking the law.
This is not about good vs. evil.
This IS about swearing to follow a code.
A LG Paladin swears to follow a code. You say a CG Paladin can swear to follow a code, if it is a code of his own choosing. Well of course he chose it, he is swearing to abide by it! Do you think the LG Paladin doesn't agree with his code? You say it is not lawful because he can choose not to follow it. Well the LG Paladin can choose to not follow his code, does that make him chaotic?
So what is it to swear to follow a code? To me, it is giving allegiance to the code. You are swearing to abide by the code, to substitute the wisdom of the code for your own judgement.
So what is the CG Paladin. To me, the CG Paladin should be the embodiment of Chaotic Good. They don't just have a chaotic good alignment, they are the perfect example of why chaotic good is the best alignment. They are champions of freedom, paragons of virtue. They are believers in the individual.
Why is the champion of freedom giving up his freedom (of choice) to fight for the freedom of others? Play a CG Paladin all you want but swearing to a code makes no sense to me. You are not doing good because it is the right thing to do. You are doing good because it is what you want to do.
There, that help? :)Why does he get a favorite? I said it!If behavior and alignment are meaningless, why not just write LG on your sheet and go about your day?This.
Yes, thank you!
So what is it to swear to follow a code? To me, it is giving allegiance to the code. You are swearing to abide by the code, to substitute the wisdom of the code for your own judgement.
Once again Durngrun seems to cut right to the heart of the matter.
The primary reason a person chooses a "Code" to govern their actions is because we are all emotional, inconstant, wildly changeable people who will scream "circumstance" or "justifiable" or "random excuse" at the first opportunity. So, in moments of sober contemplation, of sound, rational judgement, you choose a "Code" to live by, whether one written by you or one written by another, that you can reference in those moments of inconstancy and substitute its sober, solemn, rational judgement for your own.
"Lawful" people only differ from "Chaotic" people in this one regard. Saying that they are the same, even saying it over and over, doesn't make it true.
A "Chaotic" person believes that circumstance should govern his actions. He believes that his heart is true, and his head should follow. He believes that being flexible, nay changeable, makes him stronger and more suited to the challenges he will face. There is nothing wrong with any of this.
But, he doesn't live by a "Code"!
So what is it to swear to follow a code? To me, it is giving allegiance to the code. You are swearing to abide by the code, to substitute the wisdom of the code for your own judgement.Once again Durngrun seems to cut right to the heart of the matter.
This and a favorite in the same day! You guys are gonna give me a swelled head!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The primary reason a person chooses a "Code" to govern their actions is because we are all emotional, inconstant, wildly changeable people who will scream "circumstance" or "justifiable" or "random excuse" at the first opportunity. So, in moments of sober contemplation, of sound, rational judgement, you choose a "Code" to live by, whether one written by you or one written by another, that you can reference in those moments of inconstancy and substitute its sober, solemn, rational judgement for your own.
Definately one reason, may even be the primary reason (no way to know), but definately not the only reason.
Others include, but are not limited to:-
• A wiser, more articulate person has managed to put into words that which was always in your heart but couldn't articulate
• You passionately believe in the cause, you identify with those who espouse the code, and you want to declare to the world your allegiance
• The god you worship calls you to service. It's up to you to accept or decline, but of you enter into an agreement to behave in a way that is consistent with the code (and you live your life that way anyway), and your god will empower you to do it better. You can end this agreement at any time
"Lawful" people only differ from "Chaotic" people in this one regard. Saying that they are the same, even saying it over and over, doesn't make it true.
Not sure what you're referring to, here....
A "Chaotic" person believes that circumstance should govern his actions. He believes that his heart is true, and his head should follow. He believes that being flexible, nay changeable, makes him stronger and more suited to the challenges he will face. There is nothing wrong with any of this.
I agree with this.
But, he doesn't live by a "Code"!
He can if the code requires him to uphold the principles of chaos!
The principles of chaos have nothing to do with refusing to do what they want to do just because someone else also wants them to behave that way!
I get that lawful people don't really understand what makes chaotic people tick, nor how they behave or what motivates them. Chaotic people don't really understand the lawful mindset either! The lawful alignment doesn't force people to like any law, just cos, y'know, it's a law! Protesting on the streets trying to get an unjust law changed doesn't make them chaotic, and chaotic people campaigning for laws written to protect their freedoms doesn't make them lawful.
Do you imagine that chaotic people are unable to voluntarily enter into a completely binding agreement on the basis that they are pro-freedom? If that were true, how would they get a mortgage?
If a chaotic person entered into a binding mortgage agreement that wouldn't mean he can't really be chaotic. Nor would choosing to follow a binding code of conduct created by the god they worship.
They can swear to their god to follow certain commandments as part of their faith. Do you imagine that chaotic people can't have religion? The root of the word 'religion' has the same root as the word 'ligature'. It is a binding together of those with the same faith. Yet binding yourself in this way doesn't bar you from being chaotic!
This misunderstanding of what it means to be chaotic doesn't hold water. To be consistent in your rationalisation, you'd have to believe, not only that it's impossible for a CG person to be a paladin on the grounds that chaotic people by definition are literally unable to enter into a binding agreement, but also believe that chaotic people cannot get a mortgage, serve on a jury, get married and stay faithful, join a religious faith, etc. etc., all on the grounds that chaotic people are by definition unable to enter into a binding agreement.
But those beliefs about chaotic people are not shared by chaotic people! Especially married churchmen with a mortgage!
This is because your definition of chaotic alignment is simply wrong! Chaotic alignment has nothing to do with being unable to enter into a binding agreement, and all about being able to choose which agreements you enter and which you do not!
Well Mr. Silverclaw you are going to have to tell us what the chaotic alignment is since you are the only one who knows. I have been going by the definition in the rule book of the game that we are discussing and that seems to be causing some confusion.
(Of course, since you are chaotic you will have to randomly determine if it would inconsistent and illegal for you to answer!)
|
|
I'm not trying to twist it. I am simply pointing out the gaping flaw in the logic of submitting to follow code of conduct to demonstrate how you don't follow rules is just silly.There's that misunderstanding again! It's not the purpose of chaotic people to continually demonstrate that they refuse to follow any rules, especially those which they think are a good idea!
The chaotic good alignment is not about refusing to follow rules; it's about making sure that the rules allow everyone the maximum personal freedom while ensuring that no-one impinges on anyone else's freedom. And CG characters will follow this rule to the death!
Chaotic good: 'Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins.'
Lawful good: 'Citizens may not swing their fists in a public place without a permit.'
"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."
Adhering to a code adjudicated by someone else does not equal unfettered personal freedom.
|
|
Unrelated Stuff...Well then I'm out. I was discussing this within the context of the Pathfinder Role-Playing Game. Also, I was told there would be punch and pie!
Exactly.
At this point I feel like Malachi has realized that his argument is contradicted by the definition in the rules, so he is trying to make a broader argument about the libertarian philosophy.
Which is cool and all, but has pretty much nothing to do with the topic at hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just...wow.
The logic:
Dude 1: I can use a chainsaw anyway I want. (holds by the blade)
Dude 2: Umm...the manual says you shouldn't hold it like that.
Dude 1: Ha! I laugh at your ignorance! Just becasue you read a manual doens't mean anything. I'm chaotic!
Dude 2: Errm, ok? Meh. It's your hand, buddy... (backs away)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If chaotic alignment was based on behavior, then most game worlds would involve utterly insane events fomented by those of chaotic alignment. Durngrun actually says it himself with the silly chainsaw comment.
Trying to enforce your belief that people of chaotic alignment must be random seems disingenuous at best. At its worst, it completely destroys the D&D gaming universe.
|
|
If chaotic alignment was based on behavior, then most game worlds would involve utterly insane events fomented by those of chaotic alignment. Durngrun actually says it himself with the silly chainsaw comment.
Trying to enforce your belief that people of chaotic alignment must be random seems disingenuous at best. At its worst, it completely destroys the D&D gaming universe.
Where has anyone, anywhere, ever said anything remotely close to this.
Please cite.
What has been said is that if you want to describe your character as Chaotic, one would assume it is because they act in the way described in the book that is closest to that alignment.
To literally, not figuratively, literally, devote your life to following a code of rules, with the following of those rules being judged by someone other than you, you are the opposite of chaotic.
It would be like saying, "Sure, I randomly kill kittens, but since I amd good and I choose to randomly kill kittens, I am not evil"
I know your position Ciretose, I just don't agree with you. Your argument would destroy the alignment system utterly for me.
I still haven't had my question answered.
Why should legitimate character concepts that could be realized using Paladin mechanics be automatically disallowed because a few people are extra-sensitive that someone they don't know is using those mechanics in a way that they feel is "wrong"?
|
|
I still haven't had my question answered.
Why should legitimate character concepts that could be realized using Paladin mechanics be automatically disallowed because a few people are extra-sensitive that someone they don't know is using those mechanics in a way that they feel is "wrong"?
For the same reasons "legitimate" concepts that could be realized using Wizard mechanics are disallowed if they don't include spellbooks.
It is part of the class.
What you seem to want is GURPS. GURPS is great. Pathfinder is not GURPS.
I still haven't had my question answered.
Why should legitimate character concepts that could be realized using Paladin mechanics be automatically disallowed because a few people are extra-sensitive that someone they don't know is using those mechanics in a way that they feel is "wrong"?
For the same reasons "legitimate" concepts that could be realized using Wizard mechanics are disallowed if they don't include spellbooks.
It is part of the class.
What you seem to want is GURPS. GURPS is great. Pathfinder is not GURPS.
I just don't see why being inclusive instead of exclusive is a bad thing. Why is every super holy paladin suddenly rendered invalid by the inclusion of more freedom-oriented paladins?
|
|
I just don't see why being inclusive instead of exclusive is a bad thing. Why is every super holy paladin suddenly rendered invalid by the inclusion of more freedom-oriented paladins?I still haven't had my question answered.
Why should legitimate character concepts that could be realized using Paladin mechanics be automatically disallowed because a few people are extra-sensitive that someone they don't know is using those mechanics in a way that they feel is "wrong"?
For the same reasons "legitimate" concepts that could be realized using Wizard mechanics are disallowed if they don't include spellbooks.
It is part of the class.
What you seem to want is GURPS. GURPS is great. Pathfinder is not GURPS.
That is the setting.
Would you say it was a failure to be inclusive to not have dinosaurs in a d20 Modern Setting?
Not every setting has all things. And when you don't define things, such as classes, as specific within the setting, you have no setting. You have Gurps.
Can GMs be flexible if they want to? Yes. The GM can always do whatever they want, whenever they want.
Should we make that the default? No, because then there is no setting that is the default we all make changes to for our personal flavor.
If Paladins cease to be paragons of law and virtue, that changes the setting. People don't automatically trust Paladins, they aren't seen as unquestionably good and lawful, they lose a lot of what makes them cool and unique.
If you don't find that aspect cool and unique, you can change it, much like if you don't like walnuts, you can remove them from the recipe.
But "being inclusive" isn't how I would describe it. One person might think adding Jellybeans to a Steak is awesome, and not doing so is being "exclusive".
I think the game, as written, creates an interesting setting that everyone who sits down can understand quickly, much in the same way that saying "I am a Paladin" in game conveys a hell of a lot more to the people it is said to than the 4 words included in the sentance.
Some people on here don't value that (Rynjin), they are entitled to their opinion.
Others deny it exists at all, which is proposterous.
And some think any limit is limiting, which I think is naive, as that way leads to absurdity.