I believe the crux of this argument is that there are those claiming that one can hold personal beliefs that border on a personal law.
For example, I will point to Merisiel, who hates the thought of betraying a friend and would throw all her knives to a rust monster rather than do so.
Chaotic people can still hold principles, still possess lines they will not cross, even if they are not of Good alignment.
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...
Thing is, the Paladin concept is extremely restrictive. Even clerics, who have been held as an example of only being allowed to worship Gods, can actually worship elemental forces or demon lords if they so desire. Fighters can be self-trained farmboys or veteran soldiers. Rogues don't actually have to be thieves if they don't want to.
Why is there just one class that has all this unnecessary fluff? Why is "I am a Paladin?" more important then "I am a Fighter," which doesn't say anything about a character's motivations or personality?
Either all classes have to be restricted to one concept, or all of them should support multiple concepts. I just don't see why allowing Paladins to be knights errant suddenly makes it so that "YOU MUST INCLUDE ROBOTS IN EVERY FANTASY SETTING EVER AAAA"
I said no offense.
Either all classes have to be restricted to one concept, or all of them should support multiple concepts.
Why? Why does it have to be all or nothing? The fighter is a pretty wide open character, while the ranger comes with a little bit more flavor in regards to nature. Is this unfair? The various fluff provides setting. You, as GM can then alter that setting to your preference. If there is no fluff, there is no setting. Then you, as GM, have to create a setting out of whole cloth, then explain the setting to your players because no one has any frame of reference (which many people like and game that way).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why? Why does it have to be all or nothing? The fighter is a pretty wide open character, while the ranger comes with a little bit more flavor in regards to nature. Is this unfair? The various fluff provides setting. You, as GM can then alter that setting to your preference. If there is no fluff, there is no setting. Then you, as GM, have to create a setting out of whole cloth, then explain the setting to your players because no one has any frame of reference (which many people like and game that way).Either all classes have to be restricted to one concept, or all of them should support multiple concepts.
I don't see why providing more expansive fluff to the Paladin suddenly makes Pathfinder a fluffless wasteland inhabited only by munchkins and trolls.
Why is it all or nothing that the Paladin has to be lawful good or Pathfinder is ruined forever?
Why? Why does it have to be all or nothing? The fighter is a pretty wide open character, while the ranger comes with a little bit more flavor in regards to nature. Is this unfair? The various fluff provides setting. You, as GM can then alter that setting to your preference. If there is no fluff, there is no setting. Then you, as GM, have to create a setting out of whole cloth, then explain the setting to your players because no one has any frame of reference (which many people like and game that way).Either all classes have to be restricted to one concept, or all of them should support multiple concepts.
I don't see why providing more expansive fluff to the Paladin suddenly makes Pathfinder a fluffless wasteland inhabited only by munchkins and trolls.
Why is it all or nothing that the Paladin has to be lawful good or Pathfinder is ruined forever?
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. The pathfinder setting places various levels of restrictions on different classes. You can then add or remove restrictions as you see fit in order to tailor your specific setting. You have wide open classes like fighter or rogue. You have themed classes like ranger and Druid. Then you have the very restricted paladin. It adds variety to the game. Making everything open gives the players more options but it reduces the differences between the classes. (If that makes any sense.)
I just don't see why maybe lightening some of those restrictions completely destroys the fluff of the setting forever.
I'm not saying Wizards don't learn spells. I'm not saying that Gods don't exist. I'm just saying that maybe Paladins being champions of all kinds of good doesn't render Golarion invalid in any way, shape, or form.
|
I believe the crux of this argument is that there are those claiming that one can hold personal beliefs that border on a personal law.
For example, I will point to Merisiel, who hates the thought of betraying a friend and would throw all her knives to a rust monster rather than do so.
Chaotic people can still hold principles, still possess lines they will not cross, even if they are not of Good alignment.
Personal law is not the same as a law that is adjudicated by someone else.
Having a code is not the same as following a code.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(....slept now....feel better....)
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.
In the game, some things are only fluff, like your character's appearance.
Some things are only crunch, like Base Attack Bonus, or Swift Actions.
But some things are both fluff and crunch; they have an existence and a function as an actual game mechanic (understandable only to those who play RPGs), AND exist as a real object or actual concept beyond Pathfinder, beyond even RPGs.
Take the humble longsword. There is no doubt that the longsword is fully described in game mechanics. If someone wanted to know the threat range of a longsword, there won't be any threads of 1000+ posts arguing about semantics.
However, the concept of swords of different types exists beyond any RPG. Trouble is, when pointing to any real historical weapon, there is no absolutely clear, unambiguous divide between what historians may think of as a 'longsword', and what they may think of as a similar but different weapon.
When the contemporary sources talk about a knight's longsword, us RPGers may look at some examples and think that this weapon would be a bastard sword in game terms. Oh, look! A broadsword! Nope, according to the CRB there is no such thing as a broadsword! Those historians are wrong! I can prove it! See! Nothing in the CRB about broadswords! Therefore, there's no such thing! QED!
What a load of bull! The game may describe real things (and even fantastic things) in game rules, simply to enable us to play a game, but that in no way means that these concepts have no validity outside their definition in chapter six!
The concepts of good and evil exist beyond the CRB. Would it be a credible argument to say that, unless printed in chapter seven, then any concept of good or evil cannot be applied when adjudicating actions in the game? Is the entire concept of good limited to what is written in chapter seven?
Another analogy. Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God. But even Christians wouldn't imagine that God was limited by the words in a few thousand pages! God is infinite, according to Christianity, and the sum total of God cannot be contained in one book, no matter how many pages it may contain.
The concepts of good and evil are not limited to, nor limited by, those scant words in chapter seven of the PF CRB. So why would we imagine that the concepts of law and chaos are limited to or limited by what is written about them in chapter seven?
Granted, the good/evil concepts are much older and have many, many more scholarly works devoted to the understanding of them, but the concepts of law and chaos did not originate in D&D, and certainly not in Pathfinder!
To wilfully ignore the body of understanding on the concepts of law and chaos, and to limit yourself to a few paragraphs in the CRB, is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, 'LA LA LA, I can't HEAR you! LA LA LA!'
No-one is disputing the game mechanics of the alignment system in these threads, because the game mechanics are thingsike Spell Descriptors and who can cast those spells, allowed alignments per class or magic items useable. Detection of, kinds of outsider, etc. The trouble only comes when we try to mix the fluff version with the crunch version of a particular concept.
Sometimes it's easy. Broadsword, you say? Okay, let's call it either a longsword or a bastard sword; pick one!
Sometimes it's not so easy. Willingly swears to live by an unbending code to uphold the principles of freedom of choice? Well, we can see the difficulties in reaching a consensus right here in this thread!
Understanding the concept of the Christian god has led to tens of thousands of books on the subject. Theologians are people who dedicate their careers to understanding the subject, and while there may be many points of general agreement there remain some points of contention, even after 2000 years of dedicated thought by wise and learned men! These men didn't limit themselves to nothing except the Bible, even when believing the Bible to be the literal Word of God!
The concepts of good and evil have likewise been written about, discussed and theorised upon in tens of thousands of volumes. Wise and learned men agree on aspects, but still disagree on some.
One thing remains true: wise and learned is better than foolish and ignorant. When a wise and learned man states that he has read and studied the subject for forty years, written several books on the subject and those works have been lauded by his peers, this doesn't mean that everything he says on the subject must there fore be right! But, when given a choice between taking his advice on the subject, versus the advice of someone who has read about the subject on one page of one book written by one person, and who denies that any other source has any validity, who's advice would be likely to be more credible?
While the concepts of law and chaos have received nowhere near the amount of scholarly discourse as the concepts of good and evil, there exists much, much more on the subjects than is written in chapter seven of the PF CRB! The idea that it is somehow a virtue to limit your understanding to what is written there goes against reason!
What's worse is that some would have us change actual crunch game mechanics which are or can be fully defined and undeniable, based on flawed, debatable interpretations of fluff!
Is that Druid wearing metal armour or isn't he? Not really a difficult mystery to solve. (gauntlets, anyone?)
Does that wizard have access to his spellbook? Yes or no?
But would a paladin fall for telling the Nazi search party that there are no Jews in the attic make him fall? A paladin must act with honour! So, is it honourable to save lives by telling a lie? Is it honourable to let innocents be killed because you think your own conscience has greater priority over the lives of innocents? But paladins can't lie, can they? Well, they must act with honour, but the 'no lying' part is in brackets; does that mean it's just one example of honourable behaviour, or are paladins bound by it as strictly as the 'must act with honour' part? Surely, the paladin is expected to choose the most honourable (or least dishonourable) path?
Fortunately, those tens of thousands of volumes discussed earlier contain the answer. Two thousand years (and more) of thought by the wisest and most learned have wrestled with conundrums just like this. It must also be admitted that any good-aligned religion in our fantasy worlds will have similar bodies of work upon which to draw. Paladin organisations (from individual mentors to actual schools) will have studied the many hypothetical conundrums and reach definate conclusions to guide the less learned paladins out there.
Should DMs really limit themselves to a few paragraphs in chapter seven?
I think not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I do see how removing the fluff from classes makes the setting bland and boring, or worse a canvas for the ridiculous.
Part of the point of buying the rules for the setting is that it is written by people who are good at making interesting settings that mesh well together.
The point of buying the Core Rulebook is for the core rules of how to play the game. The core should only provide fluff suggestions, not fluff straightjackets.
The LG restriction isn't in the Inner Sea Guide. If it was, this wouldn't be an issue. Note that in the core rulebook, Clerics aren't restricted to worsjipping Gods, but in Golarion, they are. PF isn't restricted to Golarion. It can be used as the mechanical underpinnings for a multitude of fantasy settings. So why not make the core expansive, and then restrict rules for various campaign settings?
I'll reiterate. I'd be fine if the fluff said "Paladins are usually lawful good. In some campaigns, the DM may restrict the Paladin to be only lawful good." That would be okay.
But straightjacketing the paladin so that Paladins can't be wandering knight errants? So that Paladins cannot be flawed characters (since roleplaying those flaws will usually get your powers revoked)? That just seems mean-spirited.
|
|
And again, we are discussing these rules in this setting.
When Malachifinder is the best selling RPG (or even in the top 20) I will go to the board for Malachifinder and explain that these are the rules for the Malachifinder system, because it is for the Malachifinder setting.
But as far as I know, the Malachifinder system doesn't exist. I have no interest in the Malachifinder style or system, because it doesn't exist.
I do have an interest in being able to sit down at a table of people who have read the rules and have them all present something that fits in the setting.
In the case of a Paladin, when one of my friends says "I'm playing a Paladin" for me to have a rough idea of what that means, so I can create a character that works well with someone playing a paladin.
And when someone says I am Chaotic, Lawful, Neutrl, Good, Evil, etc...that also tells me enough about what they plan to do that I can adjust to make sure we all can work together.
Because, you know, that is kind of important in Pathfinder.
Maybe less so in Malachifinder.
Personal law is not the same as a law that is adjudicated by someone else.Having a code is not the same as following a code.
That still doesn't mean every position they take is going to be unpredictable.
Only a protean is that evershifting.
As well, if you have a code and live by it, aren't you therefore following your code?
|
|
And I do see how removing the fluff from classes makes the setting bland and boring, or worse a canvas for the ridiculous.
Part of the point of buying the rules for the setting is that it is written by people who are good at making interesting settings that mesh well together.
The point of buying the Core Rulebook is for the core rules of how to play the game. The core should only provide fluff suggestions, not fluff straightjackets.
Again that is GURPS.
|
|
Personal law is not the same as a law that is adjudicated by someone else.Having a code is not the same as following a code.
That still doesn't mean every position they take is going to be unpredictable.
Only a protean is that evershifting.
As well, if you have a code and live by it, aren't you therefore following your code?
And no one has argued for that strawman.
What is does mean, and what has been said, is that if you are chaotic you aren't going to devote your life to following a code adjudicated by someone else.
Which is what a Paladin does.
So if you would like to discuss that, great. But trotting out the strawman of "unpredictable crazy guy" over and over isn't going to mean anyone is arguing for it...unless you are?
I got the sense from reading certain that some people were misrepresenting the possible spectrum of chaotic action.
If no one has actually presented that position then I will stop discussing it.
I agree that a chaotic person isn't necessarily going to sit still for discipline to be enforced upon them by others if they think they know better, or that the law is stupid.
And again, we are discussing these rules in this setting.
When Malachifinder is the best selling RPG (or even in the top 20) I will go to the board for Malachifinder and explain that these are the rules for the Malachifinder system, because it is for the Malachifinder setting.
But as far as I know, the Malachifinder system doesn't exist. I have no interest in the Malachifinder style or system, because it doesn't exist.
I do have an interest in being able to sit down at a table of people who have read the rules and have them all present something that fits in the setting.
In the case of a Paladin, when one of my friends says "I'm playing a Paladin" for me to have a rough idea of what that means, so I can create a character that works well with someone playing a paladin.
And when someone says I am Chaotic, Lawful, Neutrl, Good, Evil, etc...that also tells me enough about what they plan to do that I can adjust to make sure we all can work together.
Because, you know, that is kind of important in Pathfinder.
Maybe less so in Malachifinder.
It looks like your basic argument is that it's too much work to say "I'm a Lawful Good Paladin."
Seriously. That's all you have to do. Just add two little words if Paladins are allowed to represent more character concepts.
|
|
I got the sense from reading certain that some people were misrepresenting the possible spectrum of chaotic action.
If no one has actually presented that position then I will stop discussing it.
I agree that a chaotic person isn't necessarily going to sit still for discipline to be enforced upon them by others if they think they know better, or that the law is stupid.
Exactly! And if they agree with whatever law, they won't be compelled to go against it just because 'it's a law!'
If they agree with the code and the adjudicator of that code that they willingly swore to (who is the god they choose to worship, after all), they won't be compelled to refuse it on the grounds that their god is watching and judging what they do! The god will do that anyway!
Yet again, it's lawful people telling chaotic people what chaotic people should be thinking.
Exactly! And if they agree with whatever law, they won't be compelled to go against it just because 'it's a law!'
Did Ciretose or others actually state at some point that a chaotic person is inherently against all law?
|
|
What I have said, from the beginning (and you can check) is that it is against the nature of a chaotic person to submit to follow a code that is adjudicated by someone else.
They can have a personal code, but that isn't the same as following a code dictated by someone else.
That is the distinction between Lawful and Chaotic. Lawful follows the rules of society, because that leads to the best outcomes. Chaotic does what they want, regardless of the rules of society, because they believe that leads to the best outcomes.
But since that pretty much kills the argument for a Chaotic person following someone elses code...well I guess improvisation was needed for the argument to continue.
I just don't understand how Paladins of any good alignment destroys Pathfinder fluff forever. I really don't. All I keep hearing is "PALADINS WON'T BE PALADINS ANYMORE EVERYTHING IS RUINED SHARK JUMP AAAA"
D&D survived Druids being allowed to be any neutral alignment. It survived Evil Rangers. Why is Paladins of any good alignment the straw that breaks the camel's back? Why is it an idea so abhorrent that anyone who asks about it is automatically labeled a munchkin powergamer weeaboo? How does it destroy the "Holy Crusader for Good" concept that is central to the Paladin? Why would it make Paladins who are incorruptibly pure suddenly meaningless?
|
|
I just don't understand how Paladins of any good alignment destroys Pathfinder fluff forever. I really don't. All I keep hearing is "PALADINS WON'T BE PALADINS ANYMORE EVERYTHING IS RUINED SHARK JUMP AAAA"
D&D survived Druids being allowed to be any neutral alignment. It survived Evil Rangers. Why is Paladins of any good alignment the straw that breaks the camel's back? Why is it an idea so abhorrent that anyone who asks about it is automatically labeled a munchkin powergamer weeaboo? How does it destroy the "Holy Crusader for Good" concept that is central to the Paladin? Why would it make Paladins who are incorruptibly pure suddenly meaningless?
It wouldn't!
Truth is, if the official PF rules for paladin were adjusted to be 'any good' in the manner I outlined a few posts ago, there would be absolutely no fluff or crunch changes to LG paladins, and very slight fluff changes for NG and CG paladins, with the sole crunch change being adding a handful of spells to the spell list.
No LG paladin (or paladin concept) would be harmed in the process!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that would change, which Ciretose mentioned...pffft waaay back, would be that Paladins would just be seen as very Good holy warriors instead of the absolute paragons of chivalry (and honesty) in the game world.
That's a bit of a valid point but I personally think that in practice it wouldn't change much since I don't recall Paladins ever getting a buy for being super honest anyway, they weren't taken at their word any more than any other character (mostly because how do you know he's a Paladin at all instead of a Fighter in shiny armor or Cleric/Inquisitor if they work magic?).
More unrelated stuff.
Again, no. I am discussing the Pathfinder Role Playing Game. I'm not interested in your "40 years of studying" something outside of the game. If you want to redefine alignment in your games that is your prerogative. Anybody else wishing to discuss Pathfinder, I will continue. My discussion with Mr Silverclaw is over.
I just don't understand how Paladins of any good alignment destroys Pathfinder fluff forever. I really don't. All I keep hearing is "PALADINS WON'T BE PALADINS ANYMORE EVERYTHING IS RUINED SHARK JUMP AAAA"
D&D survived Druids being allowed to be any neutral alignment. It survived Evil Rangers. Why is Paladins of any good alignment the straw that breaks the camel's back? Why is it an idea so abhorrent that anyone who asks about it is automatically labeled a munchkin powergamer weeaboo? How does it destroy the "Holy Crusader for Good" concept that is central to the Paladin? Why would it make Paladins who are incorruptibly pure suddenly meaningless?
I don't believe anyone said it would ruin the game, did they. My position, at least, is that in Pathfinder, Paladins are LG. If you want to change that for your games you can. Why must I change it for mine?
I have also said that using Pathfinder's definition of Chaotic Good, a CG Paladin would not swear to follow a code.
That is what I have been discussing. If you (or anyone else) wants to change the discussion then go ahead. Just don't try to say I'm wrong because you're talking about something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't understand how Paladins of any good alignment destroys Pathfinder fluff forever. I really don't. All I keep hearing is "PALADINS WON'T BE PALADINS ANYMORE EVERYTHING IS RUINED SHARK JUMP AAAA"
D&D survived Druids being allowed to be any neutral alignment. It survived Evil Rangers. Why is Paladins of any good alignment the straw that breaks the camel's back? Why is it an idea so abhorrent that anyone who asks about it is automatically labeled a munchkin powergamer weeaboo? How does it destroy the "Holy Crusader for Good" concept that is central to the Paladin? Why would it make Paladins who are incorruptibly pure suddenly meaningless?
I don't believe anyone said it would ruin the game, did they. My position, at least, is that in Pathfinder, Paladins are LG. If you want to change that for your games you can. Why must I change it for mine?
I have also said that using Pathfinder's definition of Chaotic Good, a CG Paladin would not swear to follow a code.
That is what I have been discussing. If you (or anyone else) wants to change the discussion then go ahead. Just don't try to say I'm wrong because you're talking about something else.
I dunno, all I've been hearing is that Paladins wouldn't be Paladins anymore, despite the fact that they'd still smite evil, lay on hands, and cast divine magic. And really, Paladins would still be LG. Opening up the Paladin to any good doesn't prevent a LG Paladin in any way, shape, or form.
So why not allow it? Individual DMs could restrict Paladins to LG in their home settings if they so desired, and people could play NG or CG Paladins at official events and such. Really, I don't see any downside for officially allowing Paladins be any good alignment.
|
|
My position, at least, is that in Pathfinder, Paladins are LG. If you want to change that for your games you can. Why must I change it for mine?
Changing the range of allowed paladins to 'any good' in the CRB wouldn't change your paladins at all.
The paladins who are LG before the change would still be LG after it. The emergence of NG and CG paladins would not alter existing LG paladins. It's not a reasonable fear. It's an unreasonable fear being used to limit the role-playing possibilities of other 'paragons of goodness'.
Did changing the alignment possibilities of Druids from 'must be TN' to 'any N' make existing Druids unplayable, or 'destroy the concept of a neutral defender of nature'?
|
|
I am discussing the Pathfinder Role Playing Game. I'm not interested in your "40 years of studying" something outside of the game. If you want to redefine alignment in your games that is your prerogative.
Would anyone really limit their understanding of the concept of 'good' to the few lines on it in chapter seven of the CRB? Would any exploration of the nature and meaning of good from any other source whatever be deemed irrelevant on the grounds that if it's not the exact words in the CRB then 'that's not what it says in the rules'?
| 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.
I don't believe this to be true of all people who choose a code, and I have roleplayed characters who lived by codes that they did not choose for this reason.
So where does that leave me with regard to your argument? Does the rest of it still stand?
I am still finding this discussion intriguing. On the one hand, I tend to agree with perspectives that draw distinctions between lawful and chaotic based on their relations with wider society, whether they look within or outside themselves to find justification.
On the other hand, I find it hard to reconcile that a Chaotic cleric can clearly handle submitting to have his access to his powers adjudicated by a third party based on his adherence to standards of conduct (or at least, I have seen nobody arguing that Chaotic clerics make no sense), but a Chaotic paladin cannot. Is there a difference of nature rather than of degree in the codes they must follow? If so, what?
Note: some edits have been made to this post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins would just be seen as very Good holy warriors instead of the absolute paragons of chivalryI see 'chivalry', as we understand it, to to embody the qualities of good, not law.
Therefore, paladins of any good alignment can still be 'paragons of chivalry'.
Nah.
Chivalry, in its purest form is the absolute epitome of "Honor before reason" (or "The Code ALWAYS takes precedence over common sense"). That, to me, goes against everything a Chaotic person believes in more than anything.
This is getting ridiculous.
Obviously we each have opionions that are opposed to the other's point of view. These arguments are becomming circular.
I think we're done here.
|
|
I find it hard to reconcile that a Chaotic cleric can clearly handle submitting to have his access to his powers adjudicated by a third party based on his adherence to standards of conduct, but a Chaotic paladin cannot.This!
Exactly! It's an indefensible double standard!
The Cleric isn't.
The standard of the Cleric isn't adhering to a code, it is
"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)."
You are really grasping at straws if you want to argue that not grossly violating a code of conduct that may or may not exist (as Chaotic Gods may or may not have a code of conduct...) is the same as saying you must adher to a specific code at all times, as adjudicated by someone other than you.
|
|
I tend to agree with perspectives that draw distinctions between lawful and chaotic based on their relations with wider society, whether they look within or outside themselves to find justification.
While the differences are crucial, they also have things in common by dint of us being social animals.
Although the different perspectives on the primacy of either freedom or conforming with society separates them, both LG and CG are very happy to live in a community of like-minded individuals, hope for the admiration of their peers (to a greater or lesser extent), desire laws which promote their (lawful or chaotic) approach to goodness, and want everybody to benefit from society, as they deliberately set up their society to live according to their (LG or CG) values.
There are those who misunderstand the chaotic alignment who would assert that chaotic people reject the very notions of laws, society, community, companionship, and a desire to share an existence with others with everyone being looked after by the community.
These virtues are neither lawful nor chaotic in and of themselves. These are the virtues of Good!
It is natural for those who, deep down, believe that law is 'better' than chaos, to ascribe these virtues to the lawful alignment, while denying them to the chaotic alignment. Subjectively, chaotic people believe the reverse! But objectively, these are just the virtues of good and are not tied to either law or chaos.
|
|
Paladins would just be seen as very Good holy warriors instead of the absolute paragons of chivalryI see 'chivalry', as we understand it, to to embody the qualities of good, not law.
Therefore, paladins of any good alignment can still be 'paragons of chivalry'.
Nah.
Chivalry, in its purest form is the absolute epitome of "Honor before reason" (or "The Code ALWAYS takes precedence over common sense"). That, to me, goes against everything a Chaotic person believes in more than anything.
And this is the core basis of the class.
As it is currently, yes. But we'd be coming full circle again if I just said "Why does it have to stay that way?" one more time.
|
|
Ah! It finally becomes clear to me!
Ciretose believes that paladins have a 'code' but clerics don't, because....
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god
....doesn't really count as a 'code', on the grounds that the code required by chaotic gods must be less strict than that required by lawful gods, therefore isn't really a code at all!
So your objections are based on poor semantics as well as a deliberately limited understanding of alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it hard to reconcile that a Chaotic cleric can clearly handle submitting to have his access to his powers adjudicated by a third party based on his adherence to standards of conduct, but a Chaotic paladin cannot.The Cleric isn't.
The standard of the Cleric isn't adhering to a code, it is
"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)."
Is there a difference of nature rather than of degree in the codes they must follow? If so, what?
I'm going to repeat the last part of my question: can you elaborate? It is evident you are drawing a distinction that makes a paladin's code of conduct a code of conduct but a cleric's code of conduct not a code of conduct, but I do not know what distinction you are drawing or how the distinction relates to the codes can only be lawful idea.
I don't think it is entirely unreasonable of me to question you if you state that what the rules you quoted describe as a "code of conduct" is not a code!
There is a fundemental difference between an arbitrary code a god has their clerics follow, and the unmistakeable set-in-stone code a Paladin must follow.
Not only that, but the cleric doesn't even have to follow it closely to keep in good standing with his god. "Grossly violates."
A Paladin has no such leeway. Big difference here.
First part is valid (the fact that it is a specific Code rather than what amounts to a multi-deific "WWJD?" thing for Clerics).
Second part is exactly what he was disputing, that it was more a matter of degree of severity/strictness rather than nature.
|
|
As it is currently, yes. But we'd be coming full circle again if I just said "Why does it have to stay that way?" one more time.
Which is why I respect your position while I feel like others in the thread are just grasping at straws to rationalize ways to access mechanics.
You don't like the concept, but you acknowledge it is a concept.
Not only that, but the cleric doesn't even have to follow it closely to keep in good standing with his god. "Grossly violates."
A Paladin has no such leeway. Big difference here.
Well, yes, but that would be a difference of degree (see my post that you quote). Both must follow a code, the paladin must follow it more closely. One might say exactly the same of a LG cleric and LG paladin, which is why I wanted to know if there is a difference beyond just a difference of degree.
There is a fundemental difference between an arbitrary code a god has their clerics follow, and the unmistakeable set-in-stone code a Paladin must follow.
What is it?
Also, what makes a Chaotic person able to follow the former but not the latter?
|
|
First part is valid (the fact that it is a specific Code rather than what amounts to a multi-deific "WWJD?" thing for Clerics).
Second part is exactly what he was disputing, that it was more a matter of degree of severity/strictness rather than nature.
Unfortunately for him, his argument falls apart, as you pointed out, specifically because what makes a paladin a paladin is the strict adherence to the code.
Which is why they include "grossly" to describe the violation.
As in, I can speed and violate the speed limit, but I am not necessarily grossly violating the speed limit.
I can be guilty of misconduct and not be guilty of gross misconduct.
The cleric doesn't have to follow the code in the same way I can go 60 in a 55 and not be following the speed limit, but generally be comfortable I won't be pulled over. So long as neither of us grossly violate the limits, no consequences.
Not so for the Paladin.
|
|
Not only that, but the cleric doesn't even have to follow it closely to keep in good standing with his god. "Grossly violates."
A Paladin has no such leeway. Big difference here.
Well, yes, but that would be a difference of degree (see my post that you quote). Both must follow a code, the paladin must follow it more closely. One might say exactly the same of a LG cleric and LG paladin, which is why I wanted to know if there is a difference beyond just a difference of degree.
There is a fundemental difference between an arbitrary code a god has their clerics follow, and the unmistakeable set-in-stone code a Paladin must follow.What is it?
Also, what makes a Chaotic person able to follow the former but not the latter?
A few things.
First, the Cleric has to be within one step of the deities alignment, meaning the chaotic person isn't following a lawful god, meaning there is not going to be a fixed, inflexible code. There may be a few rules, but, Chaotic Gods, by definition, don't require followers to follow strict codes.
Second, as I said above there is following a code and there is gross misconduct against a code, and they aren't the same thing. I am guilty of misconduct every time I steal a pen from work. But I'm not going to be fired unless I commit gross misconduct.
Cayden Cailen's Code of conduct:
Typically, priests are free to spread the ideals of their faith as they see fit; the priests of the Lucky Drunk are often barkeeps, freedom fighters, or adventurers traveling alone or as part of a group. Matters of ceremony and high society are often held as secondary considerations to such individuals, and the clergy reflects this by limiting its formal dress to a simple brown tunic or robe and a red stole bearing the holy symbol of its patron. Many members also include a tankard as part of their formal garb, for luck and as a matter of practicality.
Paladin's code of conduct:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
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.
One is not restricitve and easily followed by a chaotic person. The other is not.