It's a list of restrictions.....on the powers of the government.The Bill of Rights is a list of things that can not be forbidden by any authority. It is literally a list of things you must be permitted to do that authority can not forbid.
A Code is a list of restrictions.
Almost the opposite.
Isn't the government lawful?
Eh, I'll concede that point then. I only know the Cliffnotes version of the BoR anyway.
|
Being lawful isn't just about having a code. Anybody can say they follow a code but what makes you lawful is actually following that code. You invalidate a code if you change it on a day to day basis when it gets in the way of your nature. That is being chaotic and no it doesn't count as following a code.
You can't claim to follow a code that is written on a dry erase board.
|
|
Isn't the government lawful?It's a list of restrictions.....on the powers of the government.The Bill of Rights is a list of things that can not be forbidden by any authority. It is literally a list of things you must be permitted to do that authority can not forbid.
A Code is a list of restrictions.
Almost the opposite.
Not necessarily. Some in government want it to be more chaotic ('From my cold dead hands', 'Read my lips: no new taxes!', 'A thousand points of light, etc.)
Some want it more lawful. Remember, in this context, 'lawful' isn't about whether you want laws or not, it's about what you want those laws to actually do!
If you want laws which increase the power of the state over individual choice, then those laws are lawful. If you want laws that mean the government can't force their will upon you, then those are chaotic laws. I realise that it's unfortunate that the word we use for the lawful alignment is the same as we use for the rules that govern a nation, and even more unfortunate that the word we use for the chaotic alignment also means randomness and anarchy, but when being used to describe alignment the mean more specific things. So, yes, you can have 'chaotic' laws, desired by chaotic aligned people.
Good and evil laws also exist, and they interact with law and chaos in the usual nine-part alignment diagram.
Also, opinion on what laws would be good or evil is definately spilt; everyone thinks that their way is good! For example, I live in a country where medical treatment is free at the point of service, for everyone. It's the height of civilisation IMO. Civilisations are judged on how well they treat the worst off in their own society, so when I was growing up and watched American TV shows where people were dying because they couldn't afford medical bills, and yet they lived in the richest country in the world, I just couldn't understand it. Even now, it seems to me those who object to universal healthcare aren't opposed to having good healthcare themselves, they just don't want other people to have it. This does not seem 'good' to me.
I realise that opinion will vary on this topic; I chose it to illustrate that, although we could each put an alignment to a given law, we are unlikely to all agree!
And so it is with alignment in the game, and how it impacts paladins. That's why these threads bring out such passion, and each of us seems in continual disbelief that the other side can't see what's so obvious to you!
I'm still right, though. : )
My two coins.
Maybe we have to think outside the dry erase board.
I think that alignment play is so hard becuase people who lack both creativity and a measure of intelligence play these characters without recognizing their true character definitions. They do not act appropriately, becuase their is no script for them. Everything they play is whoever they are in real life, masked by a Chaotic Nuetral scribbling on their sheet, becuase they think that that is card blanc to do whatever they feel like at the time.
I believe that in real life, we are all a sum of all of our past experiences. Shaped, molded, and dedicated by our habits and principles.
For example, universally, Batman is iconically a "Good" guy, but why? He is Chaotic or Nuetral beyond his don't kill rule. Both his Charisma and wealth, and not in that order, help him hone his intellectual goals to rightfully elevate him to hero status. He, in my opinion, is a crazy inventor martial artist, fighting crazy scientists and doctors. Batman is paranoid, not a symbol of law becuase the order part is missing. If Batman had therapy and the right meds, he would still act the same way.
I sometimes play Lawful Great, not to channel negative energy, but becuase Nuetral Good or Evil is like the extreme left or right, and Chaos is counterproductive sometimes. I actually like, legal contract speak, and I like giving office hours and directions to the Chelaxian courthouse, or simply writing citations to watch the Gnome eat them ala the scene in the Breakfast Club. I think that knowing ( or creatively quoting imaginary rules) the rules sometimes is just as fun as breaking them.
I am retired, but still play, and I don't think you can "coach" a new player under a landslide of information that is now the frontend of gaming these days. I just have people jump in.
I have a Samurai who never speaks, becuase his edicts are to never lie, cheat, or steal. My backstory is brutal but more modules,feats and traits should support alignment play. I always thought for Society we could/can not play evil,did robbing a pregnant lady and the elders slip the watchful eyes of our bosses?
Zarta, who I love, and her missions aren't so so bad, but "This I do for Taldor!" and anything Sczarni-related is confusing sometimes for rookies?
I just feel like we are not managing wantingly evil acts as well as we could. Maybe banned play examples with associated consequences would help? Visually and dramatically, I love reading the scenes in the books, maybe, "Valeros, fakes his own death using 16 PPs, to regain his respect for goodness?". I know, it will never happen, but at GenCon maybe do Old school, Lawful Great table champion awards, boons, and kudos?
If we had a small blurp on anything, thousands read it, but I'm losing hope as I see more newbies disregard any symbolance of focus on this topic.
|
It's a list of restrictions.....on the powers of the government.The Bill of Rights is a list of things that can not be forbidden by any authority. It is literally a list of things you must be permitted to do that authority can not forbid.
A Code is a list of restrictions.
Almost the opposite.
Yes, which is pretty much the opposite of a personal code.
|
|
Not quite true as the "Rights" aren't absolute. After all you're not protected from the legal consequences of using your Right of Free Speech to yell "Fire" in a crowded music theatre, or calling in bomb threats on your favorite municipal building. Also the recent provision barring protests within a certain distance of military funerals isn't seen as something that can be contested on that basis.The Bill of Rights is a list of things that can not be forbidden by any authority. It is literally a list of things you must be permitted to do that authority can not forbid.
Your confusing interpretation of the limitations of the absolute rights with the intent of the document.
The Bill of Rights, as a document, list the things that government can not infringe upon. That the courts have defined certain things to not be included in these rights doesn't change the intent of the document.
In contrast, a code is a list of things a person must or cannot do. In the case of a Paladin's code, that list is adjudicated by a higher authority.
These are basically "laws" you live by.
The Bill of Rights list things that you can not make againt the law.
So again, almost the exact opposite of a code.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish the whole "code" thing would go away, honestly, as it's outlived whatever claim to usefulness it ever had.
In 1e, the paladin was straight-up better than a fighter. He got all of the fighter's abilities, plus a boatload of his own. For some reason, Gygax thought it made sense to balance a lot of mechanical goodies with some poorly-worded fluff.
Things have changed in the intervening editions, however. The paladin is now different from the fighter. He gets a lot of stuff the fighter doesn't, but he also doesn't get a lot of stuff that the fighter does. In other words, "paladin" went from being "fighter++" to being its own class. As a result, it no longer needs anything to make up for the "++" part.
If a player chooses to play a paladin with a strict moral code, that code and its interpretation should be up to the player. If a player chooses to play a paladin without that code, call the class "champion" or something to remove the flavor incompatibility that's so crippling to some people, and let him or her play that. Guess what: it won't break the game. It won't have any difference at all, except to prevent arguments and eliminate the need for all these paladin threads.
So now no alignment restrictions or codes.
How is this a Paladin, rather than run of the mill holy warrior?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So now no alignment restrictions or codes.
How is this a Paladin, rather than run of the mill holy warrior?
That might involve, you know, role-playing and stuff. Like I said, use two names for the same class if it bugs you. Players who choose to roleplay the whole crazy code thing get to call their character a "paladin," and the GM can make the NPCs "ooh" and "aah" over the distinction. People without it get the same bundle of class features, but they are "merely" playing Champions, rather than Paladins.
Balance the fluff of RPing a code with the fluff of awe in the NPCs' voices. But divorce all that from the mechanics.
Mechanics should balance mechanics. Fluff should balance fluff. The two shouldn't EVER try to balance each other, because the former is about the mathematical underpinnings of the game system, and the latter is about the story you're telling.
Otherwise, the paladin's code would need to get made into an actual mechanic, with legalese rules-based language, and stop being a source of argument by pretending to be a mechanic when it's not.
Oh, ok. Roleplay the code and alignment, but don't write it down, then.
Oh, ok. Roleplay the code and alignment, but don't write it down, then.
You might be trying for sarcasm, but that would actually work a lot better than the hash we've got now.
The code and the alignment justify the mechanics. It's a bit more than just fluff. When they conceptualized the paladin for pathfinder, they obviously thought it was important enough to the core of the class to keep the connection between how the paladin carries himself, and keeping their class abilities. They should not be easily dismissed as 'just fluff'.
IMHO, of course. If folks want a champion of CG to have smites n stuff, houserule it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The code and the alignment justify the mechanics. It's a bit more than just fluff.
1. The mechanics are already balanced as mechanics. They don't need additional mechanical balancing. If the paladin, in your opinion, needs to be all about LG and righteousness, that's great, but that's a story thing, not a rules thing. Like the people who claim all barbarians have to talk like Lou Ferrigno, or else they're "not barbarian-y enough" and should be banned.
2. The way the code is written is pretty much entirely fluff. To qualify for a mechanic, it would need to list actual triggering conditions -- using defined game terms -- and the associated conditions associated with them. The way it is now, it's like saying the rogue is balanced by his need to be sneaky. The Code of Sneakiness says, "If the rogue stops being sneaky, he loses all his class features and becomes an Expert instead." Sneakiness is a hallmark of the rogue, so we need that, right?
Or any class being "balanced" by a Code of Awesomeness. "If the character ever stops being aweseome, he or she loses all class features. The Code of Awesomeness has the following components: (1) The character must be awesome; (2) the player must play his or her character in an awsome manner; (3) the character must act in an awesome manner at all times; (4) the character will not tolerate not being awesome." Because if you don't have that, your character just isn't awesome, is he?
That's not a mechanic. It pretends to be, but it's not.
Eh, I'll concede that point then. I only know the Cliffnotes version of the BoR anyway.What point are you conceding?
That the BoR isn't a Chaotic Code. Doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it, it just means my understanding of the text in question is limited enough that I can't argue for it one way or the other.
Still waitin on that chaotic code.
I posted one a few pages back I came up with in about 5 minutes.
It's not perfect (or even good) but it's a Chaotic Code.
Anyone mentioned the Antipaladins code?
And if so what's the verdict on his Code of Conduct?
Code of Conduct
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.
Associates
While he may adventure with evil or neutral allies, an antipaladin avoids working with good characters or with anyone who consistently attempts to do good deeds. Under exceptional circumstances, an antipaladin can ally with good associates, but only to defeat them from within and bring ruin to their ranks. An antipaladin does not need an atonement spell during such an unusual alliance as long as his nefarious goals are met in the end—evil cares only about results. An antipaladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are chaotic evil.
Ex-AntiPaladins
A antipaladin who ceases to be chaotic evil, who willfully commits an good act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all antipaladin spells and class features (including the fiendish boon, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). He may not progress any further in levels as an antipaladin. He regains his abilities and advancement potential if he atones for his violations (see the atonement spell), as appropriate.
|
|
Anyone mentioned the Antipaladins code?
And if so what's the verdict on his Code of Conduct?
Code of Conduct
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.
Associates
While he may adventure with evil or neutral allies, an antipaladin avoids working with good characters or with anyone who consistently attempts to do good deeds. Under exceptional circumstances, an antipaladin can ally with good associates, but only to defeat them from within and bring ruin to their ranks. An antipaladin does not need an atonement spell during such an unusual alliance as long as his nefarious goals are met in the end—evil cares only about results. An antipaladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are chaotic evil.
Ex-AntiPaladins
A antipaladin who ceases to be chaotic evil, who willfully commits an good act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all antipaladin spells and class features (including the fiendish boon, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). He may not progress any further in levels as an antipaladin. He regains his abilities and advancement potential if he atones for his violations (see the atonement spell), as appropriate.
Technically the anti-paladins code invalidates itself. "Provided such actions don't interfer with his own goals".
Whoever came up with that "code" must have been drunk. You can't follow a code that grants uou permission to ignore it if it gets in the way.
It's just words on a sheet of paper.
Is it really bad for the personification of Evil and Chaos to break his own code? or at least in such a way that its for selfishness and such.
Shallowsoul that line is there do that they aren't chaotic stupid. Otherwise every time a good evil plan came up it would get side tracked by the need to promote tyranny and all that.
If he needs to impersonate someone to accomplish a goal then he can do so without stopping to burn down orphanages on his way( which might give him away)
The code and the alignment justify the mechanics. It's a bit more than just fluff.1. The mechanics are already balanced as mechanics. They don't need additional mechanical balancing. If the paladin, in your opinion, needs to be all about LG and righteousness, that's great, but that's a story thing, not a rules thing. Like the people who claim all barbarians have to talk like Lou Ferrigno, or else they're "not barbarian-y enough" and should be banned.
2. The way the code is written is pretty much entirely fluff. To qualify for a mechanic, it would need to list actual triggering conditions -- using defined game terms -- and the associated conditions associated with them. The way it is now, it's like saying the rogue is balanced by his need to be sneaky. The Code of Sneakiness says, "If the rogue stops being sneaky, he loses all his class features and becomes an Expert instead." Sneakiness is a hallmark of the rogue, so we need that, right?
Or any class being "balanced" by a Code of Awesomeness. "If the character ever stops being aweseome, he or she loses all class features. The Code of Awesomeness has the following components: (1) The character must be awesome; (2) the player must play his or her character in an awsome manner; (3) the character must act in an awesome manner at all times; (4) the character will not tolerate not being awesome." Because if you don't have that, your character just isn't awesome, is he?
That's not a mechanic. It pretends to be, but it's not.
I see you getting your snark on, so I can tell this must be in mild pet peeve territory. It's alright, I can let this go, but I don't agree.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, which is pretty much the opposite of a personal code.It's a list of restrictions.....on the powers of the government.The Bill of Rights is a list of things that can not be forbidden by any authority. It is literally a list of things you must be permitted to do that authority can not forbid.
A Code is a list of restrictions.
Almost the opposite.
I wasn't asked to give a personal code, just a chaotic code.
|
|
What is a paladin for? What is his reason for being?
Does the paladin do good to enable him to follow the code? Or does he follow the code in order for him to do good?
We know that if he takes an action which is compatible with both his code and doing good, then there is no problem. But what if he must choose between the two? Is fiollowing the code more important? Or is doing good more important?
Which one has priority?
Is following the code the reason for the paladins existence? Or is doing good the reason for the paladins existence?
I believe what is being stated is that there isn't distinction.
|
|
The Paladin is for someone who wants to play a Paladin, which is why we take issue with any effort to remove the paladin concept from the game.
It isn't a holy warrior for good. That is a Cleric or Inquisitor, or even a fighter who really loves his god.
A Paladin is a concept that involves extreme self sacrifice and commitment, and in exchange you are seen as a Paladin, the paragon of hono and virtue...because you are.
Watering that down just so you are able steal the mechanics without having to actually play the class they are attached to cheapens the class and the concept.
|
|
I wasn't asked to give a personal code, just a chaotic code.Yes, which is pretty much the opposite of a personal code.It's a list of restrictions.....on the powers of the government.The Bill of Rights is a list of things that can not be forbidden by any authority. It is literally a list of things you must be permitted to do that authority can not forbid.
A Code is a list of restrictions.
Almost the opposite.
It isn't even that.
If a code is a A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws, the bill of rights is a list of rights that are not subject to laws.
Shallowsoul is wrong, but so are you.
|
|
Still waitin on that chaotic code.You are wrong on this, and you are making those of us on the side of the argument for the Paladin remaining LG look bad by continuing this line of discussion.
Please stop. You aren't helping.
How am I wrong?
I want to see a code that a chaotic person can follow to the letter.
The anti-paladin's was posted and debunked so it proves my point that a chaotic character can't follow a code.
They can follow a code of their own devising. In the terms of this thread, it would be personal, not adjudicated by a higher authority, but still a set of rules followed by a chaotic person by choice.
|
|
They can follow a code of their own devising. In the terms of this thread, it would be personal, not adjudicated by a higher authority, but still a set of rules followed by a chaotic person by choice.
That's being lawful as well. That is what the monk does, he follows is own code.
Also, it depends on the wording.
Kill people is not a code.
|
|
They can follow a code of their own devising. In the terms of this thread, it would be personal, not adjudicated by a higher authority, but still a set of rules followed by a chaotic person by choice.
The second your code comes into conflict with a situation then you will ditch the code if you are truly chaotic which in turn invalidates the code. If you don't then you are lawful.
Even chaotic neutral people can have a set of lines they will not cross.
They can refuse to betray a friend or stab people they feel do not deserve it.
They can choose to obey laws that don't seem stupid to them.
Chaotic people are not proteans. They're mortals and therefore the average person of chaotic alignment isn't going to be totally random, or totally unpredictable.
A code need not be a formal written document, it can be as simple as unwritten or perhaps unspoken law.
|
|
Even chaotic neutral people can have a set of lines they will not cross.
They can refuse to betray a friend or stab people they feel do not deserve it.
They can choose to obey laws that don't seem stupid to them.
Chaotic people are not proteans. They're mortals and therefore the average person of chaotic alignment isn't going to be totally random, or totally unpredictable.
Only as long as it benefits them. The moment the tables turn then they would betray.
I believe you are thinking too much along the lines of a PC instead of the actual alignment
You may not play a chaotic neutral PC who doesn't betray his friends because some people would find that disruptive. Now if we look at the alignment itself then it's in your very nature tobetray if need be.
I'm not thinking of a normal PC, well technically a stand in for a PC and someone who has been played.
This is how Merisiel actually behaves. This is an iconic example of a chaotic neutral character in Pathfinder, if perhaps one influenced strongly by her friends of other alignments.
She does not betray friends. She chooses at times to obey rules that do not discomfit her, yet she is also an unrepentant thief for her own gain and will stab people she thinks are mean or jerks.
A chaotic person can and will choose to do things that benefit others for the sake of themselves. They follow their hearts and minds, and don't necessarily act chaotically simply for the sake of chaos.
Even chaotic neutral people can have a set of lines they will not cross.
They can refuse to betray a friend or stab people they feel do not deserve it.
Only as long as it benefits them. The moment the tables turn then they would betray.
He said Neutral, not Evil. Neutral might not go out of their way to help just anyone, but they aren't "stab you in the back" Evil because you ate the last chocolate bar.
Seems like chaotic can have a code, depending on their morality. A chaotic good person might "never intentionally harm an innocent", for example. Falls right in line with being Good, and doesn't hinder his Chaotic nature in any way.. he gets to decide how exactly he doesn't harm the innocent, as befits the situation. ;)
|
|
What is a paladin for? What is his reason for being?
Does the paladin do good to enable him to follow the code? Or does he follow the code in order for him to do good?
We know that if he takes an action which is compatible with both his code and doing good, then there is no problem. But what if he must choose between the two? Is following the code more important? Or is doing good more important?
Which one has priority?
Is following the code the reason for the paladins existence? Or is doing good the reason for the paladins existence?
I sense a reluctance to answer this question from some, perhaps because answering it honestly would reveal the flaws in their case.
The reason paladins exist is to do good. The only reason the code exists is to guide him in that task.
The moment the code prevents him from doing good, then it is not fit for purpose. He must choose good over law.
It's not an accident that he falls for a single evil act, but chaotic acts don't get a mention. As long as his average behaviour remains LG, then a chaotic act has no negative affect at all.
I believe the case is made that for certain paladins, and the people who enjoy playing them, the code is what defines their brand of conduct that is "good".
Others who are good may well disagree
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is a paladin for? What is his reason for being?
Does the paladin do good to enable him to follow the code? Or does he follow the code in order for him to do good?
We know that if he takes an action which is compatible with both his code and doing good, then there is no problem. But what if he must choose between the two? Is following the code more important? Or is doing good more important?
Which one has priority?
Is following the code the reason for the paladins existence? Or is doing good the reason for the paladins existence?
I sense a reluctance to answer this question from some, perhaps because answering it honestly would reveal the flaws in their case.
The reason paladins exist is to do good. The only reason the code exists is to guide him in that task.
The moment the code prevents him from doing good, then it is not fit for purpose. He must choose good over law.
It's not an accident that he falls for a single evil act, but chaotic acts don't get a mention. As long as his average behaviour remains LG, then a chaotic act has no negative affect at all.
Actually I answered it several times. But I'll answer it again.
The Code is what is good to the Paladin. It is, by definition, the right thing to do in all situations.
The Paladin believes in, and is based in, absolute morality.
The flaws inherent in such a mindset are part of the conflict that makes the Paladin interesting to play. The ends do not justify the means. The means are all that matters.
Consider the concept of the Light and Dark side. If you start bending the rules to serve good, you risk falling to the dark side. Power corrupts.
The Paladin believe in the corruptive effects of Power so much they completely abdicate themselves to following a code, even when it is hard, they follow the code.
What you keep trying to say about the Paladin existing to do good is wrong. The Paladin doesn't exist to do good. They exist to follow the code, which they believe will lead to Good.
Asking which one is the priority assumes there is a choice. There isn't. They follow the code, period, full stop. A choice only comes into play in areas where the code doesn't apply. When the code applies, they follow the code.
|
|
Still waitin on that chaotic code.You are wrong on this, and you are making those of us on the side of the argument for the Paladin remaining LG look bad by continuing this line of discussion.
Please stop. You aren't helping.
How am I wrong?
I want to see a code that a chaotic person can follow to the letter.
The anti-paladin's was posted and debunked so it proves my point that a chaotic character can't follow a code.
You are wrong because anyone can follow a code. Chaotic people who say "I will never submit to authority" are following a code. But it is a code of their own design and adjudication.
The difference between chaotic and lawful isn't consistency, it is authority. A chaotic person can very consistently follow a self imposed system of self-governace. But they aren't going to do it because someone told them to. They do it because they decided to. Libertarianism is itself a philosophical code.
A Lawful person submits to a higher authority, believing that those who fight authority bring chaos and anarachy, and society works best and the world runs smoothest when people follow the rules.
The code isn't why a Paladin must be lawful, the fact that the code is judged by someone other than themselves is why they must be lawful.
Something Malachi keeps not addressing...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Code is what is good to the Paladin. It is, by definition, the right thing to do in all situations.
It's not possible. If the only way to save an innocent is to lie, then the code, as written in the CRB and as interpreted by you, would cause a fall no matter what choice the paladin makes. Therefore, it is provably not the 'right thing to do in all situations'. If it was the right thing to do then you wouldn't fall.
If the code was written properly, according to a lawful good perspective (I'm talking about the code and the paladin as it is now), then it would be written along the lines of, 'no lying, except when it's the only way to save an innocent', or something like Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics where you must follow law 2 unless it conflicts with law 1.
The Paladin believes in, and is based in, absolute morality.
Yes. The morality of good is absolute, and if the philosophy of law gets in the way of doing good then the paladin must choose good every time, or risk falling for a single evil act.
The flaws inherent in such a mindset are part of the conflict that makes the Paladin interesting to play. The ends do not justify the means. The means are all that matters.
We agree here. Where we differ is that artificial 'fall or fall' scenarios, made possible only by an overly literal interpretation of the code from the CRB, are not what is interesting. Moral dilemmas will emerge without such unrealistic DM manipulation.
When Batman had to choose which person to save when he could only save one, that was an interesting dilemma. While Batman is not a paladin, if a paladin were put in such a situation, that would be interesting. It would not be made more interesting by his god removing his paladin abilities no matter which choice he made.
Consider the concept of the Light and Dark side. If you start bending the rules to serve good, you risk falling to the dark side. Power corrupts.
Allowing evil to happen in order to follow rules is choosing law over good. The paladin must choose good.
The Paladin believe in the corruptive effects of Power so much they completely abdicate themselves to following a code, even when it is hard, they follow the code.
What you keep trying to say about the Paladin existing to do good is wrong. The Paladin doesn't exist to do good. They exist to follow the code, which they believe will lead to Good.
Thank you for choosing.
Asking which one is the priority assumes there is a choice. There isn't. They follow the code, period, full stop. A choice only comes into play in areas where the code doesn't apply. When the code applies, they follow the code.
Most of the time there isn't a choice and there isn't a problem. When there is a choice, you would have paladins allow evil to triumph in order to avoid falling by not following the code. You believe that paladins exist to follow the code, and only do good because the code leads them to it. This also means that if the code allows evil to triumph then the paladin must allow it, or fall.
What a terrible vision of a paladin. Which god would empower such warriors (empowered to defeat evil, not chaos!) to allow evil to triumph?
Why would any god create something which only exists to follow a code? The code is to help them achieve a purpose; the code is not the purpose, it is an aid to achieving a purpose.
What you and I have in common in this debate is that we both view paladins from our particular perspectives; you from a lawful neutral perspective, and I from a chaotic good perspective. It shouldn't surprise us that when considering lawful good paladins, you see the essence of the class to be lawful and I see the essence of the class to be good. So you believe that following the code is more important than doing good and I see doing good is more important than following the code, for the paladin not for ourselves.
Where we differ is that I have rules support beyond our different understandings of alignment. I can point to the game mechanics of the paladin (including the code) which supports the paladin as empowered to fight evil, not law. Every single one of his powers would work unmodified if paladins could be NG or CG, but those powers would have to be substantially re-worked to allow paladins of LN or LE.
A paladin that allowed innocents to go to the wall just so he didn't break his code deserves to fall. It is not 'good' at all. A paladin is not like one of Asimov's robots; a paladin is expected to exercise his judgement wisely, in the pursuit of doing good and fighting evil. If circumstances require him to choose which of two parts of the code to break, he is expected to make the choice that does the most good he can do. If he instead chooses to prioritise his code then he's not much of a 'noble soul dedicating his sword and life to the battle against evil'!
I think the world is a better place with my vision of paladin than it would be with yours. I think your vision of a paladin would make Asmodeus proud.
|
|
Still waitin on that chaotic code.You are wrong on this, and you are making those of us on the side of the argument for the Paladin remaining LG look bad by continuing this line of discussion.
Please stop. You aren't helping.
How am I wrong?
I want to see a code that a chaotic person can follow to the letter.
The anti-paladin's was posted and debunked so it proves my point that a chaotic character can't follow a code.
You are wrong because anyone can follow a code. Chaotic people who say "I will never submit to authority" are following a code. But it is a code of their own design and adjudication.
The difference between chaotic and lawful isn't consistency, it is authority. A chaotic person can very consistently follow a self imposed system of self-governace. But they aren't going to do it because someone told them to. They do it because they decided to. Libertarianism is itself a philosophical code.
A Lawful person submits to a higher authority, believing that those who fight authority bring chaos and anarachy, and society works best and the world runs smoothest when people follow the rules.
The code isn't why a Paladin must be lawful, the fact that the code is judged by someone other than themselves is why they must be lawful.
Something Malachi keeps not addressing...
It's not so much about authority because if there is a fair and just law out there then a Chaotic Good pc will have no problem following it, as long as it doesn't get in his way. Chaotic people don't go around searching for laws to break, they act however they feel at the moment or will stand up to authority if need be.
Believe it or not, consistency plays a major role with regards to the two alignments.
A lawful person will continue to follow the law - Consistency.
A chaotic person will follow the law as long as it's beneficial or it doesn't impede him in any way. - Inconsistency.
|
|
The code isn't why a Paladin must be lawful, the fact that the code is judged by someone other than themselves is why they must be lawful.
Something Malachi keeps not addressing...
Perhaps I should label my posts more clearly...
You assert that the very fact that a person submits to a code judged by someone other than themselves means that they must be lawful (or at least not chaotic).
My answer to that was to point out that if your logic were sound then every single doctor or juror or soldier in history had a lawful alignment! That absolutely no-one who believes that a 'good' society is best achieved by laws which guarantee individual freedom rather than by laws in which individuals needs are irrelevant to the good of the community (like ants obeying their queen), can ever be a doctor because they would then have to swear the Hippocratic Oath and be judged by the General Medical Council or the equivalent! That no soldier ever swore to remain loyal to his country, putting himself under the authority of military discipline, while believing in the principles espoused by the Bill Of Rights!
But your logic is not sound. Chaotic people can certainly submit to an authority, if they agree with and trust that authority!
I'm not surprised that a lawful neutral guy like yourself doesn't 'get' what chaotic good people think!