|
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.
The problem being if they define right as ignoring following a code.
So, according to Malachi, I can't truly comprehend Chaotic.
According to ciretose, I can't truly comprehend Lawful.
Therefore, I must be the EMBODIMENT OF ALL THAT IS NEUTRAL!!!
BEHOLD MY NEUTRALNESS AND DESPAIR, YE WHO ALIGN THYSELVES ALONG THE LEFT OR RIGHT SIDE OF THE DIAGRAM IN CHAPTER 7!!!
I have always believed that Paldins are, and should be, and in fact must be 100% Lawful Good.
But, ciretose is coming dangerously close to changing my mind.
I have always believed that Paldins are, and should be, and in fact must be 100% Lawful Good.
But, ciretose is coming dangerously close to changing my mind.
True, I think A NG Paladin with lawful tendencies (following the current Code of Conduct in PF) would work fine.
Because for the most part the code expects Good with a few Lawful things thrown in.|
|
I have always believed that Paldins are, and should be, and in fact must be 100% Lawful Good.
True, I think A NG Paladin with lawful tendencies (following the current Code of Conduct in PF) would work fine.
Because for the most part the code expects Good with a few Lawful things thrown in.
I don't think that you are using the word "True" correctly.
I haven't been arguing anything.
I posted a response to Coriat's response to my post about the purpose of ascribing to a code, and why a Chaotic aligned person would not likely do such a thing. You have been debating everything I've posted since by pretty much saying
The
Exact
Same
Thing
That
I
Have
Been
Saying!
I've pointed this out to you at least 4 times, now. Maybe I'm just not saying the same thing loudly enough. Should I repeat it in /b /bigger print?
|
Or, there is a difference between Lawful and Paladin Lawful.
You can be Lawful and not be Paladin Lawful.
But you can't be Paladin Lawful and not be at least Lawful.
If I were building a case against you, this would be part of the evidence that convicts you.
There is no such thing, in RAW, as 'paladin' lawful, beyond being the same kind of lawful as any other LG person.
Yet your case against the very possibility of CG paladins is that 'chaotics cannot follow a code', except when we show that they can, it doesn't really count as a code because it's not strict enough, and that's because you believe that paladins must be some kind of extra lawful beyond that stated in the rules!
|
|
I haven't been arguing anything.
I posted a response to Coriat's response to my post about the purpose of ascribing to a code, and why a Chaotic aligned person would not likely do such a thing. You have been debating everything I've posted since by pretty much saying
The
Exact
Same
Thing
That
I
Have
Been
Saying!
I've pointed this out to you at least 4 times, now. Maybe I'm just not saying the same thing loudly enough. Should I repeat it in /b /bigger print?
We aren't saying the same thing, even if we come to the same conclusion.
|
|
Or, there is a difference between Lawful and Paladin Lawful.
You can be Lawful and not be Paladin Lawful.
But you can't be Paladin Lawful and not be at least Lawful.
If I were building a case against you, this would be part of the evidence that convicts you.
There is no such thing, in RAW, as 'paladin' lawful, beyond being the same kind of lawful as any other LG person.
Yet your case against the very possibility of CG paladins is that 'chaotics cannot follow a code', except when we show that they can, it doesn't really count as a code because it's not strict enough, and that's because you believe that paladins must be some kind of extra lawful beyond that stated in the rules!
I thought you were trying to build a case against me.
The Paladin is held to a higher standard than a regular, every day lawful character.
And water is wet.
We aren't saying the same thing, even if we come to the same conclusion.
Actually, that's quite true. It is appalling to me that you would say "Paladins try not to think for themselves..." and it is absurd to say that there is a level of "Paladin Lawful" above regular Lawful.
I wasn't entirely joking when I said that you are coming close to talking me into the other camp.
|
|
Or, there is a difference between Lawful and Paladin Lawful.
You can be Lawful and not be Paladin Lawful.
But you can't be Paladin Lawful and not be at least Lawful.
If I were building a case against you, this would be part of the evidence that convicts you.
There is no such thing, in RAW, as 'paladin' lawful, beyond being the same kind of lawful as any other LG person.
Yet your case against the very possibility of CG paladins is that 'chaotics cannot follow a code', except when we show that they can, it doesn't really count as a code because it's not strict enough, and that's because you believe that paladins must be some kind of extra lawful beyond that stated in the rules!
I think the problem here is that alignment isn't used properly. Being lawful good doesn't mean that every single thing you ever do on a daily basis is going to be good and lawful but that is your overall nature. Lawful Good playets can get away with doing something not lawful and not good occasionally and still retain their alignment, most of the time.
A Paladin on the other hand is a whole nother kettle of fish. Like I have explained earlier, creating a code and following it all the way through makes you lawful. Anybody, no matter what their alignment is, can write a code on their character sheet and try to follow it but it's useless because the moment that code gets in the way then you break it so you actually discredit your own code.
|
|
Or, there is a difference between Lawful and Paladin Lawful.
You can be Lawful and not be Paladin Lawful.
But you can't be Paladin Lawful and not be at least Lawful.
If I were building a case against you, this would be part of the evidence that convicts you.
There is no such thing, in RAW, as 'paladin' lawful, beyond being the same kind of lawful as any other LG person.
Yet your case against the very possibility of CG paladins is that 'chaotics cannot follow a code', except when we show that they can, it doesn't really count as a code because it's not strict enough, and that's because you believe that paladins must be some kind of extra lawful beyond that stated in the rules!
I thought you were trying to build a case against me.
The Paladin is held to a higher standard than a regular, every day lawful character.
And water is wet.
Any crunch support for your assertion?
Does the code stipulate that a chaotic action is forbidden, beyond requiring the paladin to retain his LG alignment?
Y'know, the same LG alignment that applies to every LG creature?
Do you have some extra pages in your CRB (since you're restricting yourself to the CRB) that the rest of us don't have?
Is there a fold-out section of your CRB which details the lost 'tenth alignment', the legendary 'extra lawful-goodness' you keep telling us about?
|
|
There is no such thing, in RAW, as 'paladin' lawful, beyond being the same kind of lawful as any other LG person.Not everything is about RAW, Malachi. Pathfinder builds it's foundation on a lot of D+D tradition, and part of that tradition is the famous alignment graph which showed where various critters fit in on those two axes.
Paladins don't just occupy the Lawful and Good quarter of that graph, they're up in the NorthWest extreme of it.
An interesting take on paladins, though not an assertion supported by the rules. I'm aware of the alignment graph, and paladins can be anywhere in the lawful good section.
While you can easily think of a paladin as lawful in the extreme, it is just as easy to think of a paladin near the edge of NG but still well away from LN.
There is no such thing, in RAW, as 'paladin' lawful, beyond being the same kind of lawful as any other LG person.Not everything is about RAW, Malachi. Pathfinder builds it's foundation on a lot of D+D tradition, and part of that tradition is the famous alignment graph which showed where various critters fit in on those two axes.
Paladins don't just occupy the Lawful and Good quarter of that graph, they're up in the NorthWest extreme of it.
I disagree with this. A Paladin can fit anywhere on the LG section of the map. They can be Paragons of Order and Virtue, or they can toe the line of neutrality as close as they dare, resenting their calling, prevaricating, procrastinating, but always eventually doing the right thing.
|
|
We aren't saying the same thing, even if we come to the same conclusion.Actually, that's quite true. It is appalling to me that you would say "Paladins try not to think for themselves..." and it is absurd to say that there is a level of "Paladin Lawful" above regular Lawful.
I wasn't entirely joking when I said that you are coming close to talking me into the other camp.
It isn't that they don't think for themselves, it is that everything has a WWJD component.
In other words, they would love to do lots of things they don't do because they are Paladins, and Paladins don't do that.
Which is the conflict that is part of what makes the class compelling.
|
|
Or, there is a difference between Lawful and Paladin Lawful.
You can be Lawful and not be Paladin Lawful.
But you can't be Paladin Lawful and not be at least Lawful.
If I were building a case against you, this would be part of the evidence that convicts you.
There is no such thing, in RAW, as 'paladin' lawful, beyond being the same kind of lawful as any other LG person.
Yet your case against the very possibility of CG paladins is that 'chaotics cannot follow a code', except when we show that they can, it doesn't really count as a code because it's not strict enough, and that's because you believe that paladins must be some kind of extra lawful beyond that stated in the rules!
I thought you were trying to build a case against me.
The Paladin is held to a higher standard than a regular, every day lawful character.
And water is wet.
Any crunch support for your assertion?
Does the code stipulate that a chaotic action is forbidden, beyond requiring the paladin to retain his LG alignment?
Y'know, the same LG alignment that applies to every LG creature?
Do you have some extra pages in your CRB (since you're restricting yourself to the CRB) that the rest of us don't have?
Is there a fold-out section of your CRB which details the lost 'tenth alignment', the legendary 'extra lawful-goodness' you keep telling us about?
Other than the part that says what paladins have to do that other lawful classes don't?
I keep waiting for you to say "Just kidding!"
|
|
I think the problem here is that alignment isn't used properly. Being lawful good doesn't mean that every single thing you ever do on a daily basis is going to be good and lawful but that is your overall nature. Lawful Good playets can get away with doing something not lawful and not good occasionally and still retain their alignment, most of the time.
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.
Your assertion would only be true if a paladin fell by committing a single chaotic act. But it says nothing at all about being lawful/not being chaotic beyond remaining of the LG alignment.
So when you wrote, 'Being lawful good doesn't mean that every single thing you ever do on a daily basis is going to be good and lawful but that is your overall nature. Lawful Good playets can get away with doing something not lawful and not good occasionally and still retain their alignment,' that also applies to paladins.
The only alignment behaviour that is different between a paladin and any other LG person is that any LG person can commit a single evil act and his alignment may remain LG overall, but if a paladin did the same thing he might remain LG but would still fall for committing that single evil act.
But if either committed a single chaotic act, neither would lose their LG alignment and the paladin would not fall, because he hasn't broken his code.
|
|
Or, there is a difference between Lawful and Paladin Lawful.
You can be Lawful and not be Paladin Lawful.
But you can't be Paladin Lawful and not be at least Lawful.
If I were building a case against you, this would be part of the evidence that convicts you.
There is no such thing, in RAW, as 'paladin' lawful, beyond being the same kind of lawful as any other LG person.
Yet your case against the very possibility of CG paladins is that 'chaotics cannot follow a code', except when we show that they can, it doesn't really count as a code because it's not strict enough, and that's because you believe that paladins must be some kind of extra lawful beyond that stated in the rules!
I thought you were trying to build a case against me.
The Paladin is held to a higher standard than a regular, every day lawful character.
And water is wet.
Any crunch support for your assertion?
Does the code stipulate that a chaotic action is forbidden, beyond requiring the paladin to retain his LG alignment?
Y'know, the same LG alignment that applies to every LG creature?
Do you have some extra pages in your CRB (since you're restricting yourself to the CRB) that the rest of us don't have?
Is there a fold-out section of your CRB which details the lost 'tenth alignment', the legendary 'extra lawful-goodness' you keep telling us about?
Other than the part that says what paladins have to do that other lawful classes don't?
I keep waiting for you to say "Just kidding!"
I keep waiting for you to quote the CRB where it states that some lawful goods are not lawful good enough to be a paladin, as in 'A paladin must be of lawful good alignment'.
For those who do not understand how the Spirit of the paladin should be played refer yourselves to the Book of Exalted Deeds
If your DM is being anal about every single thing you do that could possibly in some way be misconstrued as evil then your DM is in the wrong...
interrogating a captured prisoner so that you make a more informed course of actions...
(interrogating= asking questions NOT "quick, grab the hot poker, I dont think this thing is telling us everything")
... is not evil just because the kidnapped toddlers could be killed in the meantime.
UNLESS the toddlers are in the immediant area and they are about to be IMMEDIANTLY slaughtered... and in this situation your paladin is being the "Lawful IDIOT!"
however if he had captured the cultist while he is travelling to the lair... when he stops for sleep, then he asks questions to the prisoner (While treating him with respect, and attempting to convert him to his way of thinking[AKA bringing him from Evil to Good] is perfectly acceptable...
|
|
You really like the bold feature.
If you are chaotic, by definition you believe you should do what you believe to be best, regardless of the opinion of any authority figure
In order to be a Paladin, you have to follow a code that is at minimum adjudicated by an authority figure. This code effects pretty much every aspect of your life.
Bold all you like, try to put words into my mouth all you like, the above statements are true, therefore your premise is false.
|
|
I keep waiting for you to quote the CRB where it states that some lawful goods are not lawful good enough to be a paladin, as in 'A paladin must be of lawful good alignment'.
I guess I can cite it again. I'll even bold the key words, since you like bold.
"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.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good. "
Compared to
"Lawful Good
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion."
I keep waiting for you to quote the CRB where it states that some lawful goods are not lawful good enough to be a paladin, as in 'A paladin must be of lawful good alignment'.
I guess I can cite it again. I'll even bold the key words, since you like bold.
"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.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good. "
Compared to
"Lawful Good
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion."
You should also have bolded legitimate authority
Because while the Paladin must respect authority, an evil baron who defies the king is not legitimate in the eyes of either the paladin, or the paladin's god of choice... Therefore ignoring the Evil Baron's order to cease and dessist the assault on my castle... Is not Unlawful because it comes from an unlawful source
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't disagree, but I was only making the point that you can be lawful good without being held to the standards of a Paladin (which I thought was obvious) but you can't be a Paladin if you don't meet the standards of Lawful good (Which should be obvious IMHO)
It's like being in the Navy vs being a Navy Seal.
|
|
I don't think you're using the bold function correctly. As you've seen, I've become fond of it ever since I was strongly encouraged to learn at least that much about computers; my previous habit of indicating emphasis by using capitals was frowned upon as it turns out that this represents shouting. I didn't know!
Anyway, the quotes you provided haven't said that a paladin's lawful goodness is a different kind of lawful goodness than anyone else's.
"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
You bolded the 'and', indicating that this one sentence is saying two things:-
1.) A paladin must be of lawful good alignmentAnd
2.) A paladin loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Still not seeing how a paladin must be extra lawful, just seeing how he must be extra good (or more precisely, must take care never to commit an evil act but need not worry about committing a chaotic act).
You go on to quote the rest of the code, bolding the (not disputed) 'requires' part. Completely agree on that requirement, disagree that following any code, no matter how chaotic the requirements of the code, is necessarily a lawful act. Following an evil code would be an evil act. Following a good code would be a good act. Following a chaotic code would be a chaotic act.
So your 'extra lawful' assertion must be supported in the specifics of the code:-
respect legitimate authority (lawful)
act with honour (good)
help those in need (good)
punish those who harm or threaten innocents (good; well, 'anti-evil')
Respecting legitimate authority (in general, rather than authority you acknowledge over yourself) is definately lawful, but hardly 'extra lawful'.
Then you quote the parts about associates (which mentions evil companions, but fails to mention chaotic companions), then cut&paste the CRB version of lawful good, which just re-inforces the assertion that lawful good is the same for paladins and non-paladins alike.
|
|
My assertion is they have to be Lawful Good AND other things.
Yes. But those 'other things' are not things that are 'extra lawful'!
EDIT: And they are required, not just encouraged. Must, not should.
No doubt. But a doctor is required to both swear and abide by the Hippocratic oath. But that does not mean that no doctors can be chaotic good, nor that doing the things required by the oath are lawful things; therefore obeying this oath is not in and of itself lawful. They can be fairly described as 'good', so following that particular code would be a good act.
If paladins could be 'any good', the only part of the code which would be modified is the 'respect legitimate authority' part, which would be replaced by something similar but generally good rather than generally lawful. The 'requirement' part would not be diluted into an 'encouragement' in the process!
(Oh sure, nobody's on when I'm up. Go to bed and there's a hundred posts!)
Let me try to get at it this way:
What is it to swear to follow a code (within the context of the Paladin)?
To me, the Paladin swears to follow the code because he believes in the code. He thinks the code is better than he is. If there is conflict between the code and what he thinks is the best course of action, the Paladin defers to the code because he believes the code is right and he is wrong.
Again, to me, this portrays a lawful mindset. The code is right, people are flawed. Trust in the code, not yourself, and you will be right.
So, can the CG Paladin believe in the truth of the code? Does the CG Paladin believe in the code over the individual? Is that a chaotic mindset?
|
|
(Oh sure, nobody's on when I'm up. Go to bed and there's a hundred posts!)
Let me try to get at it this way:
What is it to swear to follow a code (within the context of the Paladin)?
To me, the Paladin swears to follow the code because he believes in the code. He thinks the code is better than he is. If there is conflict between the code and what he thinks is the best course of action, the Paladin defers to the code because he believes the code is right and he is wrong.
Again, to me, this portrays a lawful mindset. The code is right, people are flawed. Trust in the code, not yourself, and you will be right.
So, can the CG Paladin believe in the truth of the code? Does the CG Paladin believe in the code over the individual? Is that a chaotic mindset?
What you describe here is a lawful attitude...to a lawful code.
For paladins to be able to be 'any good', then the code will have to be (very slightly) adjusted to focus on good, as that is the essence of a paladin which I'll expand upon when I've got more time.
However, as discussed above, although it's certainly possible to have a code which requires lawful actions from it's adherence, it's also possible to have an evil code which requires evil actions from it's adherents, and following that code would be an evil act (or several evil acts). It's also possible to have a good code (like the paladins code actually is in the main; much more so than lawful in what it requires of the paladin), and following that code will be a good act. It should come as no surprise that it's possible to have a chaotic code (promoting freedom and stuff; the Bill Of Rights, for example), and following that code would be a chaotic act.
Your post illustrates a lawful approach to a (lawful) code. It's not the only possible approach to a code.
While a lawful approach may involve sticking to it beyond all reason, on the grounds that submitting to authority is more important to you (as a lawful person) than your freedom of choice, chaotic people would take a different approach.
For chaotic people, submitting to authority against your will, or against reason, is anathema. But submitting to authority willingly, having reason to trust someone else's judgement, is well within their rights.
Chaotic people value the right to choose, but that doesn't mean that they think they are the wisest or most knowledgeable person in the world! It's okay to realise when someone else is smarter than you. Whether you trust them or not, or agree with them or not, is a separate issue! But if you do trust them, and believe that they are smarter than you or know more than you do on a particular subject, it's okay to take their advice or follow their lead or even obey their orders; you weren't subscripted, after all, you volunteered! This is demonstrated by the fact that chaotic people can be doctors or jurors or soldiers etc.
It's even more understandable when it's your own God's code! You chose to worship him, you chose to adopt the code, you must believe your god knows things that you don't and is smarter than you, and you certainly trust him!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, so,
Here's the issue, which seems to be being ignored by the CG Paladin crowd.
LG Paladin : If there is a difference between the Paladin Code, and the Paladin's Belief, he (as a lawful entity) goes with the code, or he fails as a Paladin.
CG Paladin : If there is a difference between the Paladin Code, and the Paladin's Belief, he (as a Chaotic entity) Fails. Either he violates the code (which fails him) or he follows the code (which eventually changes his alignment to LG, since he's obeying things he doesn't agree with, putting Law over Chaos).
In other words, the entire concept of a Chaotic Good Paladin is an inherent Paladin Falls situation, since you can't win in that situation.
And no, the argument 'but I always agree with my code' is not valid, there is always going to be instances where they don't, that's the whole point to a Paladin, they have a code, and eventually the code is going to require something they don't want to do. Whether it's a chaotic code or a lawful code.
|
|
CG Paladin : If there is a difference between the Paladin Code, and the Paladin's Belief, he (as a Chaotic entity) Fails. Either he violates the code (which fails him) or he follows the code (which eventually changes his alignment to LG, since he's obeying things he doesn't agree with, putting Law over Chaos).
If the CG paladin was trying to follow a lawful code you may be right. But following a good code makes you good and following a chaotic code makes you chaotic and following an evil code makes you evil.
If paladins were allowed to be 'any good', then the code they would follow would be good.
And no, the argument 'but I always agree with my code' is not valid, there is always going to be instances where they don't, that's the whole point to a Paladin, they have a code, and eventually the code is going to require something they don't want to do. Whether it's a chaotic code or a lawful code.
Even if that were true, that wouldn't prevent CG people from becoming paladins. It might make their average length of service shorter.
It's not up to anyone else to tell them they can't accept because they might think it won't last. It's up to the CG guy to accept this service or not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
CG Paladin : If there is a difference between the Paladin Code, and the Paladin's Belief, he (as a Chaotic entity) Fails. Either he violates the code (which fails him) or he follows the code (which eventually changes his alignment to LG, since he's obeying things he doesn't agree with, putting Law over Chaos).If the CG paladin was trying to follow a lawful code you may be right. But following a good code makes you good and following a chaotic code makes you chaotic and following an evil code makes you evil.
If paladins were allowed to be 'any good', then the code they would follow would be good.
So basically, you are saying that any code a non-lawful paladin would follow would be a non-restrictive code.
Not sure how you can figure out a code that isn't going to conflict with something the character watns at some point. I do notice you don't bother coming up with codes, because someone will poke a hole in your stance.
it seems to boil down to 'I follow a code that I always can agree with and never disagree with so it's ok and I can never come into conflict with it'. That honestly sounds to me more like 'I just want the powers, not the fluff, and I want a way to use smite and lay on hands and throw out everything else that limits me in any way'.
And no, the argument 'but I always agree with my code' is not valid, there is always going to be instances where they don't, that's the whole point to a Paladin, they have a code, and eventually the code is going to require something they don't want to do. Whether it's a chaotic code or a lawful code.Even if that were true, that wouldn't prevent CG people from becoming paladins. It might make their average length of service shorter.
It's not up to anyone else to tell them they can't accept because they might think it won't last. It's up to the CG guy to accept this service or not.
Basically, you're advocating then for a class that can't last much more than 1-3 levels before they become an Anti-Paladin.
I could live with that. Honestly. I could live in a game where you were able to be any non-LG Good Paladin you wanted, but, you would eventually fall and end up going the AP route.
The biggest problem I see with it is that LG paladins would soon begin putting any non LG paladin in jail, because they were inevitably going to fall to evil.
The code isn't lawful, the code is good. Submitting to the code is lawful. You can argue that the behavior of a chaotic good person could be entirely within the scope of a code but that is not "following" a code.
You could be a person who never lies because your not good at it, don't think it's right, didn't know it was a option, etc. That is different from swearing to never lie.
You could swear an oath not to lie on the witness stand. That is not following a code.
The easiest way to allow the CG Paladin is to do away with the code. You can still keep the mechanics of a fall if the behavior of the Paladin goes beyond acceptable behavior for a Paladin.
If nobody else says anything does that mean I win?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Curse you, Rocketman. I was so close.
I've never had a Paladin fall. Now I have also only played with close friends. I've never played Society games or a pick-up game at a local comic book store so my experience might be slightly skewed.
Note: the following is MY opinion.
I have found from reading on this website that a lot of the trouble with Paladins are caveats. Gamer A says, "would a Paladin fall if.." Gamer B, "no." Gamer A, "but with if.." Gamer B, "I don't think so.." Gamer A, "oh, and.." Gamer B, "well, maybe." Gamer A, "ha, you fall."
People want to know how the Paladin acts in the gray areas. He doesn't. The Paladin doesn't do gray. There is a thread, Should a Paladin lie to a Demon?. No. "But what if.." No. The Paladin doesn't lie. Now your group may differ from mine on what a "lie" is and that's fine. Different tables don't have to play the same.
So, why doesn't the Paladin do gray area? Because he has the code. You can say, "well, the code says..., but clearly in this situation." Again, no. When it comes to his morality, there is only the code. It might seem to be the greater good to do A even though the code says not to, but the Paladin trusts the code. Now this can be played in different ways from, kind benevolence to righteous a-hole. They're not all cookie cutter.
The Paladin is not the guy you play when you want to be the charismatic guy. Go play the bard (or some other class, whatever). The Paladin is not the guy you play when you want to be the religious guy. Go play the cleric (or, again, some other class). The Paladin is the guy you play when you want to be the good guy. If you're playing that character, you should want to be the good guy.
I don't know when being good became so hard. It's a game! You can't Not lie in a game! Now I'm not saying everybody has to be good or you always have to be good; but, if you want to play the good guy it shouldn't be that difficult (unless you want it to be but that's different.)
Now, people are gonna say, "that's the problem, everyone has a different definition of what it should be." But that brings us back to the OP (see I was going somewhere). If you are with a group of friends playing it shouldn't be that hard. If you are all reasonable people, it shouldn't be that hard. You only have to reach a consensus in that room. You do not have to convince the whole of the Internet before you start your game. If you cannot reach a consensus within that group then don't play a Paladin.
|
|
So basically, you are saying that any code a non-lawful paladin would follow would be a non-restrictive code.
NO!!!
Why is it that whenever we say 'a CG paladin would have to abide by their code or fall', what you guys hear is 'Oh, so you're saying you don't have a restrictive code then!'
Not sure how you can figure out a code that isn't going to conflict with something the character watns at some point.
Both CG and LG paladins are in exactly the same boat, there.
I do notice you don't bother coming up with codes, because someone will poke a hole in your stance.
I see that Perception isn't a class skill for you! In my post detailing what the rules for a paladin of 'any good' alignment would be, the code was addressed.
The only part of the code that had to be modified was the 'respect legitimate authority' line. CG paladins would already respect those who have authority over them, but LG paladins must respect any legitimate authority, even that which has nothing to do with the paladin. This is the only part of the existing code which is lawful but not good, therefore the only thing that needed to be changed (apart from the paladins own alignment having to remain 'any good', obviously).
My suggestion for a replacement line would be to 'respect the forces of good' in their fight against evil, but I'm sure someone can phrase it better.
|
|
The code isn't lawful, the code is good. Submitting to the code is lawful. You can argue that the behavior of a chaotic good person could be entirely within the scope of a code but that is not "following" a code.
Just to help those following this thread to get a handle on this part: this 'following a code' language is a bit misleading.
To illustrate what I mean, take the real world case of lawyers. Lawyers must tell the truth, right? Well, technically, no! The actual situation is that they cannot lie!
The difference is subtle but important. The reality is that 'following' a code actually entails 'not breaking' the code!
A LG paladin doesn't really 'stay a paladin' by 'following' the code. The reality is that a paladin 'doesn't fall' because he doesn't 'break' the code!
The code doesn't detail everything a paladin does so that he can't think! The code sets out 'fall conditions', and those conditions are either 'must behave in a certain way (but the way is very, very general) or fall', or that the paladin 'must not act in a certain (general) way or fall'.
'Must act honourably' is not a strict requirement in the sense that this is a specific action. There's a myriad of actions he can take, and if none of them are dishonourable then he's golden!
This is why a CG paladin is not destined to fall just because he's chaotic. Every single part of the code allows so many different ways to act without breaking any part of it, that the CG paladin doesn't feel trapped by it. It's the code he chose, after all. It's adjudicated by the god he worships that he acknowledges as greater than himself and who loves him.
The sum total of the code means that if you can act in ways that don't actually break any part of it then you don't fall, and there are so many ways in which to be sufficiently 'good' that any good aligned paladin won't feel restricted by it.
BTW, all this is just as true for LG paladins right now!
It must also be said that, along with a myriad of different actions that a paladin can take without breaking the code, there exists also a myriad of actions that would cause a paladin to fall, and paladins of whatever alignment would fall for those actions. Being CG would not create some kind of exemption.
|
|
My assertion is they have to be Lawful Good AND other things.Yes. But those 'other things' are not things that are 'extra lawful'!
Agreeing to following a code that will remove all of your powers if you fail to obey it isn't "extra" lawful? That is a requirement of all Lawful players in your game? A code that includes respecting legitimate authority, and acting with honor, again or you lose all your powers, isn't more of a lawful expectation than you put on Bill the LG fighter?
Really?
|
|
So basically, you are saying that any code a non-lawful paladin would follow would be a non-restrictive code.NO!!!
Why is it that whenever we say 'a CG paladin would have to abide by their code or fall', what you guys hear is 'Oh, so you're saying you don't have a restrictive code then!'
Because you don't seem to get that a Chaotic person is only chaotic because they want to do what they think is the best thing rather than what they are told to do by authority, so why the hell would they ever say "Well, I think this is best, but the higher authority says I need to do something else, so that is what I am doing..."
Which is the opposite of being chaotic.
|
|
The code isn't lawful, the code is good. Submitting to the code is lawful. You can argue that the behavior of a chaotic good person could be entirely within the scope of a code but that is not "following" a code.
It is actually both.
"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."
This is where the part not bolded earlier comes into play. Respecting legitimate authority = Lawful
|
|
Here is a helpful flowchart.
1. Do you follow an inflexible code. If yes 2, if no you are not a Paladin.
2. Do you personally decide if you are following the code or is it decided by someone else. If it is decided by you you, then you are not a Paladin, if it is someone else go to 3.
3. Are you Good and did you take any levels of Paladin, If yes, you may be a Paladin. If no, you are not a Paladin.
And if you follow an inflexible code adjudicated by someone other than you, you are not chaotic.
|
|
So, what does 'following the code' actually look like?
DM: Okay, Sir Shiny McKnight, it's your turn. What do you do?
SM: I follow my code.
DM: Okay....by doing what?
SM: I follow my code!
DM: ...That's not an action! What do you actually do?
SM: Okay, I run into the burning building toward the trapped orphans!
DM: Okay! No we're getting somewhere!
'Following the code' isn't an action. Alignment is tracked based on the actions a character actually takes. In the above example, the action taken, described in alignment terms, was a 'good' act. Was it lawful or chaotic? Well, it depends. Is there a law which requires bystanders to actually run into burning buildings? Even in our world, even in places with that kind of 'bystanders must help' law, there is no requirement to risk death to do so. Is there a law forbidding such actions as reckless? Unlikely, but possible. But would a paladin balance the lawful notion of not wanting to break that law against the good notion of rescuing innocents in danger, and really decide that obeying this law has greater priority than the lives of innocents? I'd seriuosly consider a fall for that!
So the action Sir Shiny actually took was good aligned; it was really not about law or chaos. In this case, 'following the code' was a 'good' action in alignment terms.
And in every single case, there is no action called 'following the code'. If there were, then that would be a lawful action. If CG paladins continually declared their action to be 'I'm following the code' then yes, their alignment would start to shift to NG then to LG. Note that this wouldn't make them fall because, to exist at all, this game has paladins of 'any good' alignment.
But there is no such action as 'following the code'. The actions that a paladin does take are the actions that allow us to track their alignment. If a code is good aligned (which it would be for 'any good' style paladins) then doing actions which don't result in a fall will either be good or neutral (not good or evil). The actions taken will be judged on their own merit. Sir shiny has just got a big tick in the 'good' column for his action. Does this also come with a lawful tick, on the grounds that he was 'following his code'? No! The actions he took were 'good'. That's what he gets judged on, both by the DM OOC and by his god IC.
There's no way that Sir Shiny's CG god Cayden would see this good act by Sir Shiny and conclude that he can't be his patron anymore because rescuing orphans doesn't break his code, therefore he's 'following the code', therefore he's LG!
The idea that 'following the code' is a lawful act is a fantasy, as there is no such act!
If there was an evil code, then 'following' it would be you doing evil things! 'Following' an evil code would be simply doing evil things. Following a chaotic code involves doing things which promote liberty and freedom. Following such a code involes committing acts of choas (alignment chaos, not chaotic behaviour).
DM: Okay, Sir Shiny Mcknight, it's your turn. What do you do?
SM: I follow my....sorry, sorry...I free the kidnapped princess from the slavers.
DM: The princess is gratefull. BTW, you just lost your paladinhood, and you've gained 61gp.
SM: WHAT?
DM: 61gp!
SM: No, the other thing!
DM: Oh, yeah, slavery is legal here. Freeing the princess was a chaotic act. You're no longer LG, you've become NG because of it. But you gained 61gp!
|
|
This is where the part not bolded earlier comes into play. Respecting legitimate authority = Lawful
Yep, this is why this clause is the one that must be changed to something like 'must respect the forces of good' or somesuch, at the same time as changing paladins to 'any good'.
I've mentioned it a couple of times already.
|
|
This is where the part not bolded earlier comes into play. Respecting legitimate authority = LawfulYep, this is why this clause is the one that must be changed to something like 'must respect the forces of good' or somesuch, at the same time as changing paladins to 'any good'.
I've mentioned it a couple of times already.
Then admit you are asking to change the premise of the class, like Rynjin is, and stop the charade of saying the class is what you describe.