| 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.
"Chivalry" is derived from the French word "Chevalier" which in turn is a bastardization of the Spanish word "Caballeros"...
"Chivalry" in its purest form... means you ride a horse.
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?
For what reason, then, did they follow the Code?
|
If you look to the roots of words to find meaning, rather than the actually current meaning, sure.
And you will have an awkward trip through life, finding yourself unable to interact with the world.
Also, you do realize there is a Chevalier prestige class that fits much of what has been requested, correct?
If you look to the roots of words to find meaning, rather than the actually current meaning, sure.
That was meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek.
|
|
For what reason, then, did they follow the Code?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?
Have you heard of this thing called "Religion"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One is not restricitve and easily followed by a chaotic person. The other is not.
I think it is probably fairly obvious that a LG code of conduct is not easily followed by a Chaotic person, and I am not sure this observation has any bearing on the ability of a Chaotic person to follow a chaotic code of conduct.
However, if we indeed admit that the existence of a Chaotic code of conduct, arbitrated by a second party (Cayden) is part of the game rules, then where, exactly, lies the distinction between a less well-defined and a more well-defined one that makes the latter impossible?
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.
If the implication is that Chaotic codes cannot draw lines in the sand, then I am not sure I agree. Can a cleric of Cayden work to promote tyranny and oppression, and continue to draw upon Cayden's divine powers in so doing?
There are still lines in the sand - to my thinking - in this Chaotic code. Not necessarily the same lines in the sand as a Lawful code, of course.
Have you heard of this thing called "Religion"For what reason, then, did they follow the Code?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?
If you follow a religion, then you are most certainly following a code for the exact reason I specified.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against. I specifically state that the reason to follow a code is to substitute the code's rationale for your own in times of trial. Religion is almost specifically that exact thing.
|
|
The problem come from the definition of a chaotic person being someone who does not submit to authority. That is the thing that makes them chaotic.
As to the second part, no a Cleric of Cayden could not work to promote tyranny and oppression and continue to draw upon Cayden's divine power, as that would be a gross violation. However the cleric isn't under any obligation to act to stop it, either. The cleric would be encouraged to do so, and would be likely held in greater favor, but no obligation.
Conversely, a Paladin must help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
See the difference?
Retreading this post because my thoughts can't always keep up with my fingers, and I went and took a walk and thought about things some more.
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.
I think I'd like to split this out. I broadly reject the first argument. It seems to me to be very clear by the game rules that Chaotic gods can require their followers to follow codes of conduct in which there exist clear do-not-cross lines.
The second, though, I'd like to explore a bit more. What about Chaos makes it necessary that a Chaotic code must allow minor violations of Chaotic principles, while still providing for it not to allow gross violations of Chaotic principles? Could a Chaotic code be imagined that also does not allow minor violations of Chaotic principles?
|
|
Have you heard of this thing called "Religion"For what reason, then, did they follow the Code?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?
If you follow a religion, then you are most certainly following a code for the exact reason I specified.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against. I specifically state that the reason to follow a code is to substitute the code's rationale for your own in times of trial. Religion is almost specifically that exact thing.
Not at all. You may actually believe that the rules are the will of a higher power.
Hence the hating of gays and shellfish.
And this is the distinction that is the rub for your side of the debate.
I can always decide to follow what I believe. That is free will.
A lawful character tends toward (and a Paladin must) follow the rules of who they deem to be the person in authority, putting their personal wants, needs and wishes second.
A Chaotic person thinks this is a mistake, and that you should do what you believe is right, even if someone in charge tells you otherwise.
Which is why you can't be a chaotic Paladin. And why some would argue Chaotic Gods wouldn't even want Paladins, which they would likely regard as annoying sycophants.
Kind of like how Rynjin sees them :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem come from the definition of a chaotic person being someone who does not submit to authority. That is the thing that makes them chaotic.
As to the second part, no a Cleric of Cayden could not work to promote tyranny and oppression and continue to draw upon Cayden's divine power, as that would be a gross violation. However the cleric isn't under any obligation to act to stop it, either. The cleric would be encouraged to do so, and would be likely held in greater favor, but no obligation.
Conversely, a Paladin must help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
See the difference?
I dunno, not acting to stop tyranny might be a gross violation on the part of Cayden's clerics.
Also, a chaotic cleric is submitting to Cayden's will, yes? That's what clerics do; submit themselves to a greater being for divine powers. By your definition of chaotic, there can be no chaotic clerics.
The problem come from the definition of a chaotic person being someone who does not submit to authority. That is the thing that makes them chaotic.
As to the second part, no a Cleric of Cayden could not work to promote tyranny and oppression and continue to draw upon Cayden's divine power, as that would be a gross violation. However the cleric isn't under any obligation to act to stop it, either. The cleric would be encouraged to do so, and would be likely held in greater favor, but no obligation.
Conversely, a Paladin must help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
See the difference?
Yes, and I'm going to take another walk and think it over some more. I see the distinction you're drawing here, and I will have to take a bit to think over how it might - if it does - apply to the idea of a Chaotic paladin-type.
I also have to decide whether I agree with the premise that a cleric of Cayden is under no obligation to oppose tyranny. I'm not entirely sure I would go with that one.
From the PathfinderWiki:
The faithful of Cayden Cailean hold their patron's two loves, freedom and drink, as the pillars of his church. Free to seek their own means of venerating the Drunken Hero, it's not uncommon for followers to take part in events involving one or both of these.
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...
Just thought I'd point out some highlights of this rigid taskmaster, who demands strict adherence to his rules... [/sarcasm]
The wording "code of conduct" isn't meant, obviously, for every cleric of every alignment. The wording more fits a lawful god and his clergy.
Well, clearly here is a potential root of disagreement. As above, I feel that gods of every alignment can impose lines in the sand as regards their followers' conduct. Whether looser or stricter, that is what a code of conduct is.
Also, since things like actual text and rules of the game have been referred to a lot by the (if I may) Lawful party, I might stick to my guns here when I do seem to have that on my side. In this case it would be me going by a plain reading of the game rules, which say "code of conduct," and you proposing that when the game rules say code of conduct they don't really mean a code of conduct per se. I'm kind of content to maintain that they do say what they mean in this case.
Going for that walk now!
From the PathfinderWiki:
Just thought I'd point out some highlights of this rigid taskmaster, who demands strict adherence to his rules... [/sarcasm]The faithful of Cayden Cailean hold their patron's two loves, freedom and drink, as the pillars of his church. Free to seek their own means of venerating the Drunken Hero, it's not uncommon for followers to take part in events involving one or both of these.
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...
That's kinda the point, actually.
The wording "code of conduct" isn't meant, obviously, for every cleric of every alignment. The wording more fits a lawful god and his clergy.Well, clearly here is a potential root of disagreement. As above, I feel that gods of every alignment can impose lines in the sand as regards their followers' conduct. Whether looser or stricter, that is what a code of conduct is.
Also, since things like actual text and rules of the game have been referred to a lot by the (if I may) Lawful party, I might stick to my guns here when I do seem to have that on my side. In this case it would be me going by a plain reading of the game rules, which say "code of conduct," and you proposing that when the game rules say code of conduct they don't really mean a code of conduct per se. I'm kind of content to maintain that they do say what they mean in this case.
Going for that walk now!
Yeah, thought about that and deleted the post.
And this is the distinction that is the rub for your side of the debate.
I don't know which side of this debate you think I'm on... Maybe you should go back and read some of my posts...
Not at all. You may actually believe that the rules are the will of a higher power.
What part of that, exactly, is different from "substituting the code's rationale for your own"...?
I'm still really not sure what you're arguing here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, a chaotic cleric is submitting to Cayden's will, yes? That's what clerics do; submit themselves to a greater being for divine powers. By your definition of chaotic, there can be no chaotic clerics.
No they are not submitting to his will. Clerics worship their deities and might try to emulate their teachings or behaviors.
There is a difference between a code of conduct and swearing to follow a code. Most workplaces have a code of conduct they expect their employees to follow (no sexual harassment, dress appropriately, etc) but would not have their employees swear an oath to live by the directives of the workplace (at least I would certainly hope not)
A cleric tries to interpret the teachings to the best of their ability. Both lawful and chaotic clerics use their own judgement as how best to act within those teachings.
A Paladin swears to follow a code. The Paladin substitutes his judgement for that of the code. The chaotic person values their own judgement.
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.
I didn't address this earlier because I was busy so sorry for the late reply
You are allowed. Pathfinder is built to be altered. If you want add, remove, or alter part of the game you are not only allowed but encouraged by the game itself. There is a whole section on these forums for house rules. So have at your CG and NG Paladins. Why do I have to change my game? I play Pathfinder with the fluff that was included because I like it. If I didn't like it, I would change. You want to change the CRB (at least this is the impression I'm getting, correct me if I'm wrong), which changes the game for me. So again, why can't you change your game? Why do I have to change my game?
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.
I didn't address this earlier because I was busy so sorry for the late reply
You are allowed. Pathfinder is built to be altered. If you want add, remove, or alter part of the game you are not only allowed but encouraged by the game itself. There is a whole section on these forums for house rules. So have at your CG and NG Paladins. Why do I have to change my game? I play Pathfinder with the fluff that was included because I like it. If I didn't like it, I would change. You want to change the CRB (at least this is the impression I'm getting, correct me if I'm wrong), which changes the game for me. So again, why can't you change your game? Why do I have to change my game?
How is it changing your game?
How is it changing your game?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.
I didn't address this earlier because I was busy so sorry for the late reply
You are allowed. Pathfinder is built to be altered. If you want add, remove, or alter part of the game you are not only allowed but encouraged by the game itself. There is a whole section on these forums for house rules. So have at your CG and NG Paladins. Why do I have to change my game? I play Pathfinder with the fluff that was included because I like it. If I didn't like it, I would change it. You want to change the CRB (at least this is the impression I'm getting, correct me if I'm wrong), which changes the game for me. So again, why can't you change your game? Why do I have to change my game?
I play Pathfinder with the fluff that was included because I like it. If I didn't like it, I would change it. You want to change the CRB (at least this is the impression I'm getting, correct me if I'm wrong), which changes the game for me.
To put it another way (I think you might be getting hung up on "my game"):
Why does the game itself have to change? You are allowed to alter any part of the game that you don't like. You can alter different parts in different games. However that doesn't seem to be enough. You want to change the game itself, not just at your table, and whoever likes it the old way can change it back, correct? Why is your version better?
i've actually been convinced. Paladins should remain lawful good.
Yea!
Yea!i've actually been convinced. Paladins should remain lawful good.
That's the true Paladin spirit! Lawful Good till the end! Yea! Yea! Oh yeah!!!
Iomedae, be with us now
Give us your judgemt clear and strong
Before your sword, we shall bow
That right may triumph over wrong
Give strength to those whose hearts are true
And give the guilty one his due
O let your will to us be known
Wisdom is found in thee alone
Wisdom is found in thee alone
O now we pray thee
Show us your light
Iomedae
Defend, defend the right!
|
|
The problem come from the definition of a chaotic person being someone who does not submit to authority. That is the thing that makes them chaotic.
As to the second part, no a Cleric of Cayden could not work to promote tyranny and oppression and continue to draw upon Cayden's divine power, as that would be a gross violation. However the cleric isn't under any obligation to act to stop it, either. The cleric would be encouraged to do so, and would be likely held in greater favor, but no obligation.
Conversely, a Paladin must help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
See the difference?
Yes, and I'm going to take another walk and think it over some more. I see the distinction you're drawing here, and I will have to take a bit to think over how it might - if it does - apply to the idea of a Chaotic paladin-type.
I also have to decide whether I agree with the premise that a cleric of Cayden is under no obligation to oppose tyranny. I'm not entirely sure I would go with that one.
It comes down to the question of if not supporting tyranny is opposing it, or must a Cleric actively save every person they come upon.
A Paladin has to help those in need. They are obligated.
A Cleric of Cayden should help those in need, but they don't HAVE to in order to be in compliance as long as they don't oppress people, which would a gross violation.
Omission vs Commission.
|
|
And this is the distinction that is the rub for your side of the debate.I don't know which side of this debate you think I'm on... Maybe you should go back and read some of my posts...
Not at all. You may actually believe that the rules are the will of a higher power.What part of that, exactly, is different from "substituting the code's rationale for your own"...?
I'm still really not sure what you're arguing here.
Because in many religions trying to understand the rationale of God is in and of itself a sin.
They aren't submitting rationale, they are submitting, period.
This is the difference between Lawful and Chaotic. Chaotic does what they believe is right, because they think they know best.
Lawful defers to those in Authority, assuming they know better than any single person what is best for everyone.
|
|
Iomedae, be with us now
Give us your judgemt clear and strong
Before your sword, we shall bow
That right may triumph over wrong
Give strength to those whose hearts are true
And give the guilty one his due
O let your will to us be known
Wisdom is found in thee alone
Wisdom is found in thee alone
O now we pray thee
Show us your light
Iomedae
Defend, defend the right!
Bolding, even though it is already repeated, because it is the key point.
|
Im sure this has been mentioned but Chaotic and Code are a contradiction.
You cannot follow a code if you are chaotic, especially if you are evil. Now that's not saying you can't have a single focus. A lot of chaotic characters who play mercenaries have a single purpose and that is usually money or fame. A chaotic person also follows rules as much as they have to but never would they follow a code.
I don't care what designer or what author tries to BS justify it, the two do not go hand in hand. You want an evil paladin that follows an evil code then you make him lawful evil. A code is still a code no matter how evil or how good it may be which is still lawful.
Ok, ciretose. I guess you're right. Submitting to an authority is completely different from substituting that authority's judgement in place of your own. Those are two completely different things. I'm not really sure how, exactly...
|
|
Ok, ciretose. I guess you're right. Submitting to an authority is completely different from substituting that authority's judgement in place of your own. Those are two completely different things. I'm not really sure how, exactly...
One is saying "I will follow that person because they are generally correct and I'm not sure what to do, so I'll just trust their judgement and defer."
One is saying "That person's interpretation is the literal definition of what is correct. If they say the sky is green, the sky is green."
|
|
To put it another way (I think you might be getting hung up on "my game"):
Why does the game itself have to change? You are allowed to alter any part of the game that you don't like. You can alter different parts in different games. However that doesn't seem to be enough. You want to change the game itself, not just at your table, and whoever likes it the old way can change it back, correct? Why is your version better?
This is actually a fair question.
The answer is this: most people don't want to impose homebrew on campaigns. Most don't want to change the rules in the book for a character concept (even if they think it's a great concept) because it feels like cheating.
Most hope that some new book will present a new feat or archetype or errata or something, anything, that will allow them to play a concept that they think is perfectly within the spirit of the game, but not currently supported by the rules.
When we played 3.5, there were certain class features and feats and alternate class abilities, and we created characters and concepts fully supported by the rules. If one or more of those rules didn't make it to PF, does that mean that our concept is somehow selfish? A concept that was entirely consistent with the then rules, full of admirable role-playing justification, suddenly seems like demanding special treatment. No third party crap in my game, thank you very much!
I can also understand the reluctance to accept things from older editions of the game. Has that player got some trick up his sleeve that I don't see now but will regret later?
Despite my advocacy of a change to 'any good' paladins, and despite wanting to play a CG paladin for about 35 years, I have never asked any DM to allow me to play one. I've always felt that monks having to be lawful didn't make sense, and always wanted to play a chaotic monk. I can now, with an archetype I don't particularly care for.
If the CRB evolved to allow CG paladins, I'd be all over it!
I've played paladins, on and off, for those 45 years. They've all been LG, with personalities apprpriate to their alignment. Usually, I emphasise the good; I think that the 'good' part is what defines the paladin concept. On those few occasions when I've wanted to highlight some of the mis-uses of the paladin concept, then I've emphasised the 'lawful' part, just to show what a complete and utter bastard such a paladin is allowed to be! I'm not wanting to just get those special powers; I can get them anyway!
Right now, I'm building a 4th level paladin as a replacement for my dearly departed Kingmaker PC. When going through all the possibilities I was initially attracted to the possibility of a Sacred Servant of Abadar. Perception as a class skill from Abadar's religion trait, +10-ft move so I could wear heavy armour and still be as mobile as the rest of my party (who all have 30-ft+, though the gnome has to ride his elk) from my domain, access to true strike, all sorts of good stuff!
But the party is mainly CG (tending towards TN). They have enshrined the River Freedoms into the laws of their new country. Slavery is a 'jihadable' offence, nigh on, while the dogma of Abadar is okay with it.
So instead I went with a vanilla paladin (that means no archetype, rather than the ice cream flavour[/rib-tickling]) of Shelyn. She was already establised as the patron of my previous PC, and I'd already stated that her replacement is her cousin, so Shelyn is the patron of the whole extended family. Because the goddess is NG, that means that following her code will be much less of a problem for my teammates, and much more agreeable for me. I'll still have to play him as lawful, but can play that lawful close to the border with NG.
But, if I was 'allowed' to play a CG paladin without asking the DM to be a special little snowflake, there's no doubt that I'd've created him to be CG!
It must be noted that, if the rules had indeed allowed 'any good' paladin, there would have been nothing to stop me from creating and playing a LG paladin! I would lose nothing, and nor would anyone else!
The game has evolved over the four decades of it's existence. Pathfinder is just the latest stage in it's evolution (though there's now a separate branch of the family tree that goes through 4th ed), and that evolution has tended toward relaxing alignment restrictions in the rules, still allowing home games to be more restrictive. This is the opposite design philosophy to the one where the game should be less inclusive and allow houserules to change aspects.
It's not just the alignment concept that fits this pattern of looser rules/restrictive variants. In Golarion, clerics and paladins must worship a deity (restrictive), while the general rules allow powers to be gained from philosophies (more inclusive). We're just asking the evolution of the game to be consistent with respect to paladins; more inclusive in the CRB, restrictions for specific campaigns.
DMs feel more comfortable stating the houserules for a particular campaign than players feel with insisting on inventing a houserule for their PC.
Ok, my last try before I give up and just assume ciretose is arguing just to argue at this point...
Which of those two scenarios you just listed fails to meet the definition:
"Substituting the authority's rationale for your own."
???
|
|
Im sure this has been mentioned but Chaotic and Code are a contradiction.
You cannot follow a code if you are chaotic, especially if you are evil. Now that's not saying you can't have a single focus. A lot of chaotic characters who play mercenaries have a single purpose and that is usually money or fame. A chaotic person also follows rules as much as they have to but never would they follow a code.
I don't care what designer or what author tries to BS justify it, the two do not go hand in hand. You want an evil paladin that follows an evil code then you make him lawful evil. A code is still a code no matter how evil or how good it may be which is still lawful.
This I disagree with.
A Chaotic person can come up with a code they personally believe and follow that code.
The can't follow anyone else's code, which is why if you have a code that someone else decides is "the" code, it doesn't work.
The whole point of being chaotic is going what you, personally, thing is right vs listening to other people and following their rules.
And the Paladin's code is, by definition, determined by someone else.
|
|
Ok, my last try before I give up and just assume ciretose is arguing just to argue at this point...
Which of those two scenarios you just listed fails to meet the definition:
"Substituting the authority's rationale for your own."
???
You aren't substituting anyone's rationale for your own. That assumes the rationale matters.
It doesn't.
You aren't submitting to a rationale, you are submitting to an order. Yours is not to wonder way, yours is just to do (and die)
Ok, guess I'm done with that section of debate. Would anyone like to discuss why Paladins must be Lawful, instead of telling me that my Lawful isn't Lawful-ly enough?
|
|
Im sure this has been mentioned but Chaotic and Code are a contradiction.
You cannot follow a code if you are chaotic, especially if you are evil. Now that's not saying you can't have a single focus. A lot of chaotic characters who play mercenaries have a single purpose and that is usually money or fame. A chaotic person also follows rules as much as they have to but never would they follow a code.
I don't care what designer or what author tries to BS justify it, the two do not go hand in hand. You want an evil paladin that follows an evil code then you make him lawful evil. A code is still a code no matter how evil or how good it may be which is still lawful.
This I disagree with.
A Chaotic person can come up with a code they personally believe and follow that code.
The can't follow anyone else's code, which is why if you have a code that someone else decides is "the" code, it doesn't work.
The whole point of being chaotic is going what you, personally, thing is right vs listening to other people and following their rules.
And the Paladin's code is, by definition, determined by someone else.
That's not really a code, it's more or less a drive. Making a code that says you don't harm children is lawful, not chaotic. A chaotic good person may still harm children but because of a greater good that may come out of it. A lawful good person would not if it's a part of the their code.
Someone may pay you not to hurt children so as long as you are being paid you will stick to that contract but in the end your loyalty is to the money and not some code.
|
|
Im sure this has been mentioned but Chaotic and Code are a contradiction.
You cannot follow a code if you are chaotic, especially if you are evil. Now that's not saying you can't have a single focus. A lot of chaotic characters who play mercenaries have a single purpose and that is usually money or fame. A chaotic person also follows rules as much as they have to but never would they follow a code.
Logic is like the rain; it falls on paladins and non-paladins alike.
To be consistent, if the phrase,'You cannot follow a code if you are chaotic' is true, then:-
* There are no chaotic good doctors in the world (Hippocratic Oath)
* There are no chaotic good judges, lawyers, policemen, detectives, jurors etc. in the whole world
* There were never any chaotic masons (or any other such secret organisation) ever
* No chaotic revolutionaries ever swore to give their lives to keep the secrets of the movement
...I could go on and on!
The idea that no chaotic good person could ever swear an oath to obey a code adjudicated by others is simply an absurd misunderstanding of what chaotic aligned people would or would not do.
Soldiers swear to serve their monarch or their country (or both). They are subject to the discipline of the army (or whatever service), they are continuously being supervised and their behaviour judged by those who have authority over them. To be consistent, you have to believe that no soldier in the history of the world was ever of the chaotic good alignment!
This is not a credible position!
There are plenty of people on these boards that are or were in service. Have any of you guys ever known a comrade who would best be described as chaotic aligned? Did that person swear an oath? Did that person willingly enter service, knowing that he'd put himself under the authority of someone else, who he may or may not agree with?
|
|
Im sure this has been mentioned but Chaotic and Code are a contradiction.
You cannot follow a code if you are chaotic, especially if you are evil. Now that's not saying you can't have a single focus. A lot of chaotic characters who play mercenaries have a single purpose and that is usually money or fame. A chaotic person also follows rules as much as they have to but never would they follow a code.
Logic is like the rain; it falls on paladins and non-paladins alike.
To be consistent, if the phrase,'You cannot follow a code if you are chaotic' is true, then:-
* There are no chaotic good doctors in the world (Hippocratic Oath)
* There are no chaotic good judges, lawyers, policemen, detectives, jurors etc. in the whole world
* There were never any chaotic masons (or any other such secret organisation) ever
* No chaotic revolutionaries ever swore to give their lives to keep the secrets of the movement
...I could go on and on!
The idea that no chaotic good person could ever swear an oath to obey a code adjudicated by others is simply an absurd misunderstanding of what chaotic aligned people would or would not do.
Soldiers swear to serve their monarch or their country (or both). They are subject to the discipline of the army (or whatever service), they are continuously being supervised and their behaviour judged by those who have authority over them. To be consistent, you have to believe that no soldier in the history of the world was ever of the chaotic good alignment!
This is not a credible position!
There are plenty of people on these boards that are or were in service. Have any of you guys ever known a comrade who would best be described as chaotic aligned? Did that person swear an oath? Did that person willingly enter service, knowing that he'd put himself under the authority of someone else, who he may or may not agree with?
Okay, nobody in real life walks around with stats above their head so trying to say that someone in real life is a certain alignment is just stupid.
Anyway.
I don't think some of you quite understand what exactly having a code means. You don't come with a code knowing that it's okay to break sometimes, that would make you chaotic in game terms.
Giving a chaotic person a code does not work because the moment that code gets in the way then the chaotic person is going to break it so the code has then become useless. Now a lawful person on the other hand is supposed to uphold that code no matter what and wi;; uphold that code to the best of his ability. He will not abandon that code by choice like a chaotic character would.
Having a code is pointless if the code in itself will get in the way of your very nature.
|
|
Ok, guess I'm done with that section of debate. Would anyone like to discuss why Paladins must be Lawful, instead of telling me that my Lawful isn't Lawful-ly enough?
It isn't that your lawful isn't lawful enough. It is that you are ignoring the fact that the Paladin isn't just Lawful, he is Uberlawful.
The Paladin is following a code because that is the code. Not because of shared rationale, or personal preference.
This is why I bolded the following line from the prayer to Iomodae
"Wisdom is found in thee alone"
Paladins try not to think for themselves, they try to figure out what the code is for the situation they are confronting.
Even if it makes no sense to them in any logical way.
It isn't just "I follow laws because laws are good". It is "This code is the only right way to do things and it can not be wrong."
|
|
Okay, nobody in real life walks around with stats above their head so trying to say that someone in real life is a certain alignment is just stupid.
While trying to assign an alignment to a real (or fictional) person is an inexact science, it must be conceded that the alignment system is trying to rate real behaviour and quantify it in game terms.
The upshot of this is that in any large population, there will be many people of each alignment, spread relatively evenly around the different countries, religions, races, genders, sexualities, whatever.
Different tendencies may occur that alter the ratios slightly, but not as much as people would like to believe.
An example is the priesthood. It is hoped and believed that there is a much greater concentration of 'good' people who are priests than the average for the general population. We want our priests to be 'good'.
But is it true! There are many priests who are good, but the priesthood is attractive to evil people too! A comfortable life, automatic respect from their community, protection from secular law, access to children who are told to trust them....
With the purpose of alignment to represent actual behaviour, it would be absurd to believe that no chaotic person ever chose to be a soldier or a doctor or willingly serve on a jury, etc.
And this gives the lie to the idea that chaotic people cannot willingly swear to submit themselves to another's authority!
In the American War of Independance, those people were motivated by the philosophy of freedom! Yet they swore to serve in the army!
So, is swearing to follow a code which promotes the ideals of the chaotic alignment a lawful act or a chaotic act? Would that act be more likely to be taken by a LG person or a CG person?
Having a code is pointless if the code in itself will get in the way of your very nature.
But a CG paladin would follow a code which is consistent with his nature.
|
|
the Paladin isn't just Lawful, he is Uberlawful
Although widely believed, this is provably untrue, in that nothing in the paladin rules require anything outside having to be LG, apart from not being able to commit a single evil act!
Commiting a single chaotic act won't be any problem whatsoever.
There is no special 'uberlawfulness' required to be a paladin.
|
|
My two cents on the main issue:
Usually PF players aren't real philosophers and PF isn't a forum for GMs to lecture on their real world morality to their players.
Provided that the player playing the Paladin believes he is playing it right and he isn't trampling on anyone else's fun, I think you should let it go, whatever it is, as a GM.
This!
Very much this!
|
|
the Paladin isn't just Lawful, he is UberlawfulAlthough widely believed, this is provably untrue, in that nothing in the paladin rules require anything outside having to be LG, apart from not being able to commit a single evil act!
Commiting a single chaotic act won't be any problem whatsoever.
There is no special 'uberlawfulness' required to be a paladin.
You mean a chaotic act like not following the code.