|
@Malachi - The morality of Good is not absolute. However the code is. This is the flaw in your starting premise (which isn't substantanted...)that the Paladin is fundimentally a Warrior For Good. It isn't a view from a perspective, it is the actual description from the book, which is.
"Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline."
Good is quite often relative. This is exactly why the Paladin follows a code that dicates for them what is good and what is evil. Because they are not, strictly speaking, a warrior for good.
They are a Warrior Against Evil AND Chaos.
The code they follow is what they believe to be the path to defeating evil and chaos. That it differs from your personal morality in a given situation is irrelvent, it is what they feel they must do to combat evil, which constantly seeks to corrupt them.
For a minute you were being honest that you have the position Rynjin is taking that you dislike the Paladin as is, but now you are trying to go back to "The Paladin is" language which is provably wrong.
The Paladin is literally described as a "...law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve."
When you come up with a premise that isn't a false choice, something you have failed to do across multiple threads, maybe a choice would need to be made.
Until that point, what is clear is the Paladin as written both adhers to a code adjudicated by someone else (lawful), is defined as a law bringer who spreads divine justice (lawful), with whom "convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save..." (lawful)...etc...etc...etc...
You are entitled to your opinion that the class isn't what you want, but don't pretend all the facts don't rule against you that the class is what it is.
|
|
But your logic is not sound. Chaotic people can certainly submit to an authority, if they agree with and trust that authority!
Following an authority and submitting to an authority are two completely different things.
I may follow the laws to avoid the consequences because that benefits me or furthers my goals, but that doesn't mean I submit to the will of the King.
This is what you either don't get or are willfully ignoring.
The Paladin submits to a higher authority for judgement.
|
But your logic is not sound. Chaotic people can certainly submit to an authority, if they agree with and trust that authority!
Following an authority and submitting to an authority are two completely different things.
I may follow the laws to avoid the consequences because that benefits me or furthers my goals, but that doesn't mean I submit to the will of the King.
This is what you either don't get or are willfully ignoring.
The Paladin submits to a higher authority for judgement.
So do doctors.
Because you misunderstand the chaotic alignment, you try to assert that chaotic people cannot submit themselves to authority, when real-life chaotic aligned people do it all the time.
|
|
But your logic is not sound. Chaotic people can certainly submit to an authority, if they agree with and trust that authority!
Following an authority and submitting to an authority are two completely different things.
I may follow the laws to avoid the consequences because that benefits me or furthers my goals, but that doesn't mean I submit to the will of the King.
This is what you either don't get or are willfully ignoring.
The Paladin submits to a higher authority for judgement.
So do doctors.
Because you misunderstand the chaotic alignment, you try to assert that chaotic people cannot submit themselves to authority, when real-life chaotic aligned people do it all the time.
If you are talking about the Hippocratic Oath, who are they submitting to? If not, what are you talking about.
I believe they are submitting to their own personal judgment, not a higher authority. What do you believe?
Define your chaotic alignment, since you disagree with the one in the book? Because so far it seems to be "Whatever I can say to make my argument not fall apart in the face of what is actually written in the book."
|
|
"Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil.
Not chaos. Evil.
Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers,
Paladins include many people, some are knights, some are crusaders and some are law-bringers. But to imagine that all paladins are law-bringers based on this sentence (fluff) is to imagine that all paladins are also knights, a rank of nobility not able to be claimed by any Tom, Dick or Harry. And it's not the Toms or the Harrys that are the problem.
paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
This is their purpose.
In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline."
This is how they achieve their goal. It is not the goal itself.
In this long thread we have been talking about various things. One thing I've tried to do is advocate for a change to paladins, to allow them to be 'any good' alignment. I believe that the purpose and very essence of the class (which I love and hope to maintain) is irrevocably tied to virtue (good), and that the current way to achieve that (ironclad laws) is but one way to achieve that goal.
In order to make this change to 'any good', the fluff would need to be re-written, but only very slightly.
We've also explored the class as it is now, lawful good. The class as it is now is all about the good! How to achieve that good is by following the code. The code is slightly lawful in what it wants paladins to do (respect legitimate authority) but mainly good (everything else). Chaotic people will willingly submit to an outside authority of their choosing (the god they worship) and allow themselves to be guided by a wisdom that they acknowledge as greater than their own. Being chaotic doesn't mean that you think you are the wisest person in the world, nor does it make you think you are wiser than your god.
They are a Warrior Against Evil AND Chaos.
Provably untrue, as borne out by the blessings they are granted:-
Aura of Good, not law.
Detect Evil, not chaos.
Smite Evil, not chaos.
Holy Champion, not axiomatic champion.
Even the code itself points out that a paladin will fall for a single evil act, not a single chaotic act.
The kind of paladin you envision is one that would make Asmodeus proud, because that evil entity would like nothing better than to tempt paladins to value law over good, which would result in paladins allowing evil to happen to innocents as long as the paladin could claim that, although he could have prevented it, doing so would involve breaking some aspect of his code at the same time as following another part of it and falling. The paladin you describe values his own status more than the lives of innocents, and the kind of paladin I envision puts the lives of innocents before his own status.
I like my vision better.
|
|
I don't like your vision better. And since it isn't the one in the book, it is a non-issue for me. And you, since you can houserule.
Law-bringers, pretty clear. You bolded it even. Spread divine justice...pretty clear even without the bolding. Adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. I don't think it could be more clear.
You admitted it earlier, you should go back to that position.
|
|
If you are talking about the Hippocratic Oath, who are they submitting to? If not, what are you talking about.
I believe they are submitting to their own personal judgment, not a higher authority. What do you believe?
Doctors in my country are under the authority of the General Medical Council. This council adjudicates the actions of doctors, and can take away the licence to practice medicine. Other countries each have their own body with that function. This is mirrored in the paladins submissal to an outside authority with the power to take away his paladinhood.
Chaotic aligned people can be doctors despite submitting to an authority, therefore chaotic people can submit to a code despite it requiring a submission to authority.
Define your chaotic alignment, since you disagree with the one in the book? Because so far it seems to be "Whatever I can say to make my argument not fall apart in the face of what is actually written in the book."
I've defined the difference between LG and CG time and time again in this thread, you just choose not to see it.
What both alignments have in common is the desire to live in and promote the idea of a society that benefits each person in that society. In order to do so, there are laws which try to frame that society to achieve this, and freedoms that allow each person to pursue happiness in ways which cannot be achieved by an automaton.
Where LG and CG differ is in the way in which a 'good' society can be best achieved. Simply put, lawful good believes that the best way to achieve a 'good' society is by a system of laws in which the needs of the whole society outweigh the needs of any of it's individuals. An extreme version of this is an ant colony, not because ants are sentient but because the life or wellbeing of any single ant is irrelevant to what's best for the colony. I'm not suggesting that LG societies are that extreme, but LG is an area of the alignment graph, not a single point. A more human example is a communist super-state, where each individual is expected to conform, or they suffer.
In contrast, chaotic good believes that the best way to achieve a 'good' society is by a system of laws in which the rights of the individual has priority over the desires of the society as a whole, because the purpose of society is to make each of it's individuals 'happy', for whatever definition of 'happy' they prefer. It is necessary to have a system of laws to achieve this liberty, because one person's freedom cannot be allowed to infringe anyone else's freedom. 'Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins'.
An extreme version of this is one where there are no laws at all, just trusting to the 'innate goodness' of people, but while such a society may be able to do this on a small scale (like an extended family), most CG societies are less extreme because CG, like LG, is an area on the alignment diagram, not a point.
One more moderate example of a CG society is the U.S. as envisioned by the United States Bill Of Rights. Of course, the reality of life is more complex. : )
|
|
I don't like your vision better. And since it isn't the one in the book, it is a non-issue for me. And you, since you can houserule.
Law-bringers, pretty clear. You bolded it even. Spread divine justice...pretty clear even without the bolding. Adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. I don't think it could be more clear.
You admitted it earlier, you should go back to that position.
Trying to look at it objectively for a moment, it's no surprise that a LN person such as yourself should prefer a vision where paladins believe law is more important than good, nor is it a surprise that a CG person such as myself should prefer a vision in which paladins believe that good is more important than law. However, I have both fluff and crunch to point to while you have only fluff.
We disagree on the fluff (we cannot disagree on the crunch so you ignore it). I believe the fluff clearly shows that the only reason that paladins, as they are now, adhere to 'ironclad laws of morality (good) and discipline (law)' is to aid in their quest to serve good. You believe that they only serve good as a side-effect of obeying the code. Crucially, you believe that, given any conflict between the two, a paladin should choose law over good.
I realise completely that, as they are now, they achieve goodness through lawful means. My proposed change to 'any good' would allow paladins to achieve goodness through either lawful or chaotic means, while still sticking to a (strictly good) code. Although this is a change (and the fluff will have to be slightly re-written to allow for both approaches to achieving goodness), I believe that the essence of the paladin will be retained because achieving goodness is the essence of the paladin! You disagree because you believe law to be the essence, not good.
I'm pretty sure that neither of us thinks we can persuade the other at this point, but I think that our debate allows us to lay out our respective reasoning so that others can use it to help understand the 'truth', in a similar way that the adversarial court system is intended to help the jury come to the 'truth'.
|
|
If you are talking about the Hippocratic Oath, who are they submitting to? If not, what are you talking about.
I believe they are submitting to their own personal judgment, not a higher authority. What do you believe?
Doctors in my country are under the authority of the General Medical Council. This council adjudicates the actions of doctors, and can take away the licence to practice medicine. Other countries each have their own body with that function. This is mirrored in the paladins submissal to an outside authority with the power to take away his paladinhood.
Following the law is not submitting to authority. A Chaotic Doctor may or may not respect the authority of the General Medical Council, but if they don't follow the rules of it they lose their license so they make a choice based on that.
They aren't saying "The General Medical Council knows best, so if they say jump I say how high."
They are saying "Well, if I want to legally practice medicine..."
Now if the license is revoked, a Lawful person is going to generally accept it, while a chaotic person may say "screw that" and continue practicing medicine "illegally".
Ant Colonies aren't lawful. They will literally follow trails to the point of starvation because they are instinct based. You are now arguing that Lawful isn't a single point, after criticizing me earlier for pointing out degrees...but in spite of that let's continue and look at your analogies, as the are illustrative of what you don't seem to be understanding.
Your example of Communism, in and of itself, isn't Lawful. Socialism is maybe what you are looking for, and even that isn't specifically lawful. Let's go to the book.
"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."
Socialism isn't about truth, honesty, respecting authority or honoring traditions. Quite the contrary, it can be in direct opposition to honoring tradition and respecting authority as it calls for redistribution of wealth. Let's continue to the broader definition of Law.
"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should."
Following a Monarch is in direct opposition to communism and socialism. Yes it is definately Lawful. The concept of lawful springs from the idea that there is some agent, be it a person or group, the knows the right answer, and if we all defer to that agent then we would all be better off.
A Paladin defers to a code, generally of a deity. That code can vary from Deity to Deity, but what matters is the Paladin is saying "They know best." They believe if everyone just followed the rules, everything would be better, and that the problems come because people don't follow the rules.
Contrast this with the Chaotic Description.
"Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."
A Chaotic person doesn't believe others know better. They resent being told what to do by others, are open to new ideas, and understand that circumstances change, and so promises are circumstantial. Let's continue
"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
A Paladin's code is not adaptable or flexible. Personal freedom is second to following the code of values.
Finally let us look at Neutral.
"Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others."
Which sounds like most people. The United States is not Chaotic, it is Neutral. The Bill of Rights is not a Chaotic Document, it is a Neutral One.
A Paladin is not Chaotic, they are not Neutral, they are as Lawful as it gets. The description all but matches the definition.
If you reject the definitions in the book, you are houseruling.
Stop pretending otherwise. Be honest like Rynjin.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me there is a lot of variance in the concept of what it means to be chaotic, which appears to be providing fuel to this fundamental disagreement.
Some lawful types perceive chaotics as utterly unable to adhere to a code, therefore automatically in conflict with the core concept of paladinhood.
Some chaotic types perceive themselves as as crusaders for freedom, which to them is just as valid an objective as the desire to instill discipline and exert control is to the lawful types. They don't feel they are submitting to a code when they fight for freedom. "Code" is a word for lawful types. Chaotics would use something less rigid, like "cause"
A chaotic good "paladin" would risk falling if he ever allied with slavers, or tried to exert undue control over free people.
My idea of a chaotic good paladin would embody the ideals of Robin Hood, William Wallace, Thomas Jefferson, Frank Zappa, and Batman.
Sure, you can roleplay a chaotic good fighter, but why, thematically, should such a crusader for principles of freedom (chaos) and goodness (good) not be able to detect evil or lay on hands, when a crusader for law and goodness can do so? In this light, I would welcome the availability of other alignments to the paladin class. If the term "paladin" remains reserved for the lawful good flavor, so be it.
Please stop trying to apply the alignment system to real people. That is so wildly inaccurate, so monstrously insufficient, that as a real person, I find it nearly insulting. There is no such thing as a "chaotic aligned doctor". The alignment system simply does not apply to real human behavior.
It only applies to the game. And in the game, chaotic people are simply never oathbound dogmatists. Even to ideals they believe in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please stop trying to apply the alignment system to real people. That is so wildly inaccurate, so monstrously insufficient, that as a real person, I find it nearly insulting. There is no such thing as a "chaotic aligned doctor". The alignment system simply does not apply to real human behavior.
It only applies to the game. And in the game, chaotic people are simply never oathbound dogmatists. Even to ideals they believe in.
If there is no such thing as a "chaotic aligned doctor" then I think you're being too strict about what alignment means.
A doctor (or anyone, really) can be faced with a dilemma in which his decision favors either upholding the law or upholding principles of freedom. These tendencies exist in real people to varying degrees. Of course someone deeply committed to the cause of freedom (chaos) would not consider himself an oathbound dogmatist, but he may see the deeply lawful person that way, and he would be no less committed to his cause than that deeply lawful person. The deeply lawful person might very well consider himself to be highly disciplined, while regarding the chaotic person as intolerably unruly.
|
|
Following the law is not submitting to authority. A Chaotic Doctor may or may not respect the authority of the General Medical Council, but if they don't follow the rules of it they lose their license so they make a choice based on that.
And a paladin of whatever alignment may choose to break the code, and 'lose his licence to be a paladin' because of it.
They aren't saying "The General Medical Council knows best, so if they say jump I say how high."
Doctors do not actually worship the GMC, but doctors know that they are the arbiter of medical ethics in exactly the same way that a paladin's god is the arbiter of the code.
You are now arguing that Lawful isn't a single point, after criticizing me earlier for pointing out degrees.
Quite the opposite. LG, like alll the alignments, is an area rather than a point on the alignment graph. You asserted that paladins had to be more good and more lawful than LG, indicating a smaller area on the upper left corner of LG on that graph. I pointed out that this was not a rule for paladins and never has been. In every incarnation of paladin since the LG alignment existed in the game, paladins have been required to remain LG, not some restricted area of LG. They may aspire to be as high as possible on that diagram (don't we all. Wait, you don't, do you?) but they can be anywhere on that graph that is lawful good.
Your example of Communism, in and of itself, isn't Lawful.
In communism as it was practiced in the soviet union under Stalin and in other communist states following the same model, the needs of any individual were subsumed by the needs of the state.
Quoting chapter seven of the CRB just highlights how you limit your understanding of alignment to a few paragraphs. I've never admired the idea that 'less is more' when it comes to knowledge.
Chaotic people can certainly 'resent legitimate authority', when they disagree with it. They are not compelled to stop doing what they want to do just because someone else also ordered them to do it.
If CG paladins existed, they wouldn't be compelled to rebel against a code with which they agree just because their god has authority over them, and even chaotic people in our fantasy worlds recognise the authority of the god they choose to worship.
I know full well that paladins as they are now must be lawful. I've never disputed that. Where we disagree is that I believe that paladins of NG and CG alignments, with appropriate tweaking of the code and fluff (very little, actually), would still have the true essence of the paladin because I believe that essence is the paladins goodness, as reflected in his powers. You don't because you believe that the essence of paladins is lawfulness at the expense of goodness, as reflected in...no powers at all.
|
|
I know, I know, those are just the rules written down in the rule book for the game. I don't grok the truthiness you grok...
|
|
It seems to me there is a lot of variance in the concept of what it means to be chaotic, which appears to be providing fuel to this fundamental disagreement.
If only there were a page in the book that provided an explanation...that I literally cited, on this page.
I am sorry to be so blunt, but it seems we are now getting to a point where the description in the book of what alignment means is being pushed to the side because it is in opposition to what people want it to say.
In which case, if you have decided already you are going to ignore the alignment system as written, you are already house ruling the whole concept and the restrictions are meaningless anyway, since lawful isn't defined in your game as what is written in the book.
Interpretation varies greatly, even when its written in word.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect this won't have an impact, since it has all been quoted before... But,
Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
These are the game rules for Chaotic alignment in general and Chaotic Good alignment specifically. Almost every single sentence refutes the belief that they can follow a deity's strict Code of Conduct.
But your logic is not sound. Chaotic people can certainly submit to an authority,if they agree with and trust that authority!
Chaotic people do in fact have the option of going along with laws they find reasonable but when they are in conflict with some aspect it is likely they will ignore it or rebel against it if they are sufficiently motivated by something they see as an unjust restriction.
I agree with Deadmoon's description of this disagreement as being one between minute variance in people's interpretations. In my experience when it gets to this elemental level it is hard to get either side to back down.
|
|
Interpretation varies greatly, even when its written in word.Even more so when you reject what is written in favor of your own personal opinion, as Malachi is doing.
Just to clarify, what's written in the CRB about alignment is not being disregarded, but it must be realised that those few words are not the sum totality of the understanding of alignment.
It's not surprising that a short version lacks some of the nuances of longer versions, leading to misunderstandings and oversimplification.
Ciretose believes, as LN people tend to, that their literal interpretation of the written word is the only possible interpretation, and 'if it's not in the book then it doesn't count'.
Does anyone really think that the sum total of our understanding of the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' are contained in those few words on the subject in chapter seven of the CRB?
Of course not! There are tens of thousands of books on the subject. So why would we imagine that the sum total of our understanding of the concepts of 'law' and 'chaos' are contained in chapter seven?
It may comfort ciretose to avoid thinking and just quote something parrot fashion, but that leads to misunderstandings, like believing that the code is more important than doing good.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tried to quit this thread but it keeps popping back up...
Chaotic characters follow their consciences,
Which tells the CG paladin "you should follow this code because it's the right thing to do." resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.
Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Where is the problem?
A LG character can decide to live his life consistently and unfailingly according to LG ideals and become a paladin. A CG character can decide to live his live consistently and unfailingly according to CG ideals and become a paladin.
The only difference is that a lawful character would be more inclined to value a code for the sake of a code, while a chaotic character would value a code for its contents, but they could both value their respective codes equally and follow them just as wholeheartedly.
A Paladin's code is not his license to be a Paladin. It is who they choose to be.
And if the most important thing is who the paladin chooses to be, then why can't a chaotic person choose to be a paladin (by following a particular code)?
Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers,Paladins include many people, some are knights, some are crusaders and some are law-bringers. But to imagine that all paladins are law-bringers based on this sentence (fluff) is to imagine that all paladins are also knights, a rank of nobility not able to be claimed by any Tom, Dick or Harry. And it's not the Toms or the Harrys that are the problem.
I brought this up pages back and still haven't gotten an answer.
"Knight" "crusader" and "law-bringer" are adjectives applied to the paladin in the same place in the fluff, with equal emphasis, and apparently equal importance. It therefore follows that if you argue that "lawbringer" is absolutely essential as a description of all paladins then "knight" and "crusader" are also absolutely essential as a description of all paladins. Let's look at "knight."
Oxford english dictionary defines a "knight" as "a man who served his sovereign or lord as a mounted soldier in armour" or "a man awarded a non-hereditary title by the sovereign."
So if all paladins must be law-bringers, then all paladins must either have a horse or a noble title (preferably both).
Huh. Seelah doesn't have a horse. And as far as I know she doesn't have a noble title granted by a sovereign.
So either the iconic paladin isn't a paladin, or it is not mandatory that a paladin be a proper "knight" or by extension a law-bringer.
The CRB description of a paladin has two words ("law-bringer" and "ironclad laws") that suggest lawfulness, but that is because the person writing that description was describing a lawful good paladin. The description also references the "virtuous deities they serve," but outside of Golarion paladins are not required to have deities (though most do). It is therefore clear to me that the CRB description of the paladin concept represents a typical paladin, rather than being a strict list of requirements for all paladins.
|
|
Where is the problem?
A LG character can decide to live his life consistently and unfailingly according to LG ideals and become a paladin. A CG character can decide to live his live consistently and unfailingly according to CG ideals and become a paladin.
The only difference is that a lawful character would be more inclined to value a code for the sake of a code, while a chaotic character would value a code for its contents, but they could both value their respective codes equally and follow them just as wholeheartedly.
Because the Paladin isn't following a code they adjudicate. They are submitting to follow a code someone else adjudicates.
They are submitting to an authority that is judging if they are following the code.
If you are submitting, in virtually every aspect of your life, to follow a code that is being judged (and very arguably created) by someone else, you aren't Chaotic by the definition in the book.
You are Lawful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "knight" question. Ok. Using your logic (i.e. taking the oldest definition) the word "knight" is derived from a proto-germanic word "knecht", which literally translates as "boy". So, I guess now there's no girls allowed either...
But, to answer your real question: if you submit to another's authority, vow to live unceasingly by it, regardless of circumstance, you are lawful... even if the person in charge is random and changeable.
Again...
I find it funny that the self proclaimed chaotic guy wants the rules in the CRB changed so he feels better about playing a CG paladin.
|
|
I find it funny that the self proclaimed chaotic guy wants the rules in the CRB changed so he feels better about playing a CG paladin.
He wants a restriction removed. Makes sense to me. Especially since the existence of that restriction gives LG paladins a sense of legitimacy that CG paladins don't enjoy and makes some form members feel they have a right to look down on people who play or ask to play CG paladins.
The "knight" question. Ok. Using your logic (i.e. taking the oldest definition) the word "knight" is derived from a proto-germanic word "knecht", which literally translates as "boy". So, I guess now there's no girls allowed either...
See, I was going to point the gender bias out too, but I found this page on female knights which gave me reasonable doubt re: the exclusivity of gender.
But I wasn't talking "oldest definition" or etymology (for that, there's "chivalry" = horseman). I was talking "current number 1 definition from the Oxford English dictionary." It's also the definition you get if you plug "knight" into google. Seemed to me a pretty fair place to get the official modern usage of the term.
Even if we use a looser definition of "knight" the term is still distinct from "soldier" or "warrior" in that a knight is part of an elite, formally defined military group. This would make it impossible to have, say, a paladin who learned to fight in the militia and in a moment of truth swore a sacred oath to their deity of choice in exchange for the ability to save their town from some threat, if this paladin never signed on with a formal knightly order. I think that would cut out a lot of legitimate paladin concepts (including at least one that got some general approval on this thread around page 15).
But, to answer your real question: if you submit to another's authority, vow to live unceasingly by it, regardless of circumstance, you are lawful... even if the person in charge is random and changeable.
So would you allow / support paladins who while LG in formal alignment due following a strict code followed a code that promoted chaotic values and was dedicated to a chaotic god?
I have been thinking about this.
Please tell me your opinion on the following for a CG "Champion's Code".
I have included the original dictates of the Paladin's code for comparison.
Follow the dictates of your heart in the pursuit of Justice. The laws of the heart are truer than the laws of man.
Let your emotions flow and display them as you will but, act on those that serve the righteous.
Stand against tyranny and injustice in all forms.
Remember the sanctity of choice and oppose those who would take it from another.
Code of Conduct: A Champion must be of Chaotic Good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally a Champion may not use force to dictate the choices of others, those she may use force to oppose them, nor may she act in a way so as to deprive another of freewill through direct or indirect means, she must help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Ex-Champions
A Champion who ceases to be chaotic good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all Champion spells and class features (including the service of the Champion's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a Champion. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
|
|
What alignment would you call a person who joins an elite military group, where they will answer to one specific commander and that person only, in order to fight for freedom?
EDIT: Also, please answer my question about the horse and title.
Do they do what the commander says because they believe in following orders or because they have to in order to be a part of the group, and they personally want to be part of the group.
If it is because they believe in following orders, they are lawful and defiantly not chaotic. Otherwise...more follow up questions would be needed.
Your horse analogy is silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me make an attempt for the fun of it.
A chaotic paladin might come up with a personal code of behavior of his own that he agrees to hold himself to. If that code works for his god as well, a compact is made - as long as he holds himself to that code, the god will support him with divine influence; the code comes entirely from within that paladin: he made it. It's his, and his alone. It is part of a free agreement freely made between two free individuals. Every paladin of that god might have a differing personal code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it funny that the self proclaimed chaotic guy wants the rules in the CRB changed so he feels better about playing a CG paladin.He wants a restriction removed. Makes sense to me. Especially since the existence of that restriction gives LG paladins a sense of legitimacy that CG paladins don't enjoy and makes some form members feel they have a right to look down on people who play or ask to play CG paladins.
Who does this? I don't look down on people who play...well, anything.
You want to play Ponyfinder? I could care less.My point is with the ability to houserule, a chaotic person would simply say 'screw the rules, I'm playing my CG Paladin' instead of starting an effort to get the rules changed in order to legitimize his preferences.
Then again, maybe the definition of chotic that's being used here allows for lawful behavior. Who knows?
@Covent: By what objective measure could a DM determine that a CG Champion has failed to "Follow the dictates of [his] heart..."?
This hearkens back to a point I made pages ago, that unless you're doing something demonstrably and unequivacaly evil, there is no "Fall Scenario" for a CG Paladin.
Whether or not you care for the Code, the "fall from grace" (or the potential therein) is an integral part of what makes a Paladin. The CG equivalent can handwave it aside as "following my heart". That is where this ultimately breaks down.
|
|
Let me make an attempt for the fun of it.
A chaotic paladin might come up with a personal code of behavior of his own that he agrees to hold himself to. If that code works for his god as well, a compact is made - as long as he holds himself to that code, the god will support him with divine influence; the code comes entirely from within that paladin: he made it. It's his, and his alone. It is part of a free agreement freely made between two free individuals. Every paladin of that god might have a differing personal code.
The problem being the Chaotic Paladin isn't submitting to the judgement of the deity/higher power if they think they broke the code. If the Chaotic Paladin thinks what they did was fine but the god disagrees...
The only way this works is if everything the chaotic person does follows the code, no matter what. And that is, of course, silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. If the god no longer supports the paladin, he loses his powers. They both made a free choice; the paladin to break the code, the god to no longer support him. Unless you think it would be more to the chaotic liking to say the god should be FORCED to continue supporting him as long as the CG guy thought what he did was kosher. The paladin doesn't HAVE to follow the code. The god doesn't HAVE to supply him power. A chaotic good code would be more about supporting the spirit of the code rather than the letter, and in some ways that provides its own unique challenges for falling.
I know full well that paladins as they are now must be lawful. I've never disputed that. Where we disagree is that I believe that paladins of NG and CG alignments, with appropriate tweaking of the code and fluff (very little, actually), would still have the true essence of the paladin because I believe that essence is the paladins goodness, as reflected in his powers.
Your belief is wrong.
The essence of paladins is that they follow a strict code, that sometimes conflicts with optimal adventuring tactics.
Keeping to a code even when it is inconvenient is a lawful trait.
Because the code is inconvenient the universe (game system) compensates by granting them powers (which at least by 3.5 rules need have nothing to do with any particular god).
Less lawful characters would put their goals (which may be Good ones) ahead of keeping the code.
The archetypal paladin, the character the class was originally designed to emulate was not particularly religious. (In case you don't know he is the hero of Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Andersson.) He had problems sticking to the code - losing his protection from evil due to lustful thoughts towards his companion.Someone made a suggestion of a CG having a code against dealing with slavers. Taking an example from an historical novel, how would such a character handle being given some money with the request to use it to buy and free some slaves should he visit a place where there is a slave market? Stick to the code and avoid doing good?
I would think using the system to subvert the system could fit quite well.
|
|
Someone made a suggestion of a CG having a code against dealing with slavers. Taking an example from an historical novel, how would such a character handle being given some money with the request to use it to buy and free some slaves should he visit a place where there is a slave market? Stick to the code and avoid doing good?
I don't know whether you are referring to a post I made in reference to a chaotic good paladin being forbidden from allying with slavers, but it seems that simply dealing with slavers in such a nominally subversive fashion is not on its face inconsistent with the chaotic good ethos. There would have to be a determination to what extent the slave trade is supported vs. the extent to which it is undermined. If the freed slaves are simply recaptured and resold, then the paladin may be squandering anti-slavery resources by purchasing and freeing slaves. If so, his conscience may suggest a more effective (and direct) approach.
So... just a thought about paladins and a short story.
I found out the other day that my brother was told his paladin wasn't killing enough. He made the character so he wouldn't have to kill anyone if he didn't have to, but people still weren't happy. Suddenly not coup de' gracing everyone meant they would go on to do more evil. If he let it live he's an enabler, if he kills him he's a murderer.
I don't think you can make people happy.
|
|
I know full well that paladins as they are now must be lawful. I've never disputed that. Where we disagree is that I believe that paladins of NG and CG alignments, with appropriate tweaking of the code and fluff (very little, actually), would still have the true essence of the paladin because I believe that essence is the paladins goodness, as reflected in his powers.
Your belief is wrong.
The essence of paladins is that they follow a strict code, that sometimes conflicts with optimal adventuring tactics.
Keeping to a code even when it is inconvenient is a lawful trait.
Because the code is inconvenient the universe (game system) compensates by granting them powers (which at least by 3.5 rules need have nothing to do with any particular god).
Less lawful characters would put their goals (which may be Good ones) ahead of keeping the code.
The archetypal paladin, the character the class was originally designed to emulate was not particularly religious. (In case you don't know he is the hero of Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Andersson.) He had problems sticking to the code - losing his protection from evil due to lustful thoughts towards his companion.Someone made a suggestion of a CG having a code against dealing with slavers. Taking an example from an historical novel, how would such a character handle being given some money with the request to use it to buy and free some slaves should he visit a place where there is a slave market? Stick to the code and avoid doing good?
While the first use of the word 'paladin' was in relation to the Peers of Charlemagne, and they were obviously a major influence on Gygax's original class, we should not expect each PC paladin to be a knight (literally) in shining armour; a paladin from a stone-age culture is fine; I've played one.
While Gygax cited Three Hearts and Three Lions as an influence, and that paladin is an excellent example of both a paladin and a paladin's code, it should not be imagined that every paladin must be a clone of that paladin, nor that that code must be the only possible code.
Keeping to a purely 'good' code will be plenty inconvenient enough. There is no need for a code to support the lawful alignment for it to be inconvenient at times.
|
|
No. If the god no longer supports the paladin, he loses his powers. They both made a free choice; the paladin to break the code, the god to no longer support him. Unless you think it would be more to the chaotic liking to say the god should be FORCED to continue supporting him as long as the CG guy thought what he did was kosher. The paladin doesn't HAVE to follow the code. The god doesn't HAVE to supply him power. A chaotic good code would be more about supporting the spirit of the code rather than the letter, and in some ways that provides its own unique challenges for falling.
You are arguing the Chaotic Player made a free choice to follow the code of a higher authority that impacts nearly every aspect of their life and to submit to that higher authority for judgement of complaince with that code.
And they are chaotic how?
You can be chaotic and occasionally listen to things. You can be chaotic and choose not to break the law while your watched. Chaotic stupid on the other hand...
I'm sure theres a similar way to phrase it for lawful.
|
|
Because the god is free to take back what he is giving if the paladin fails to live up to his side, and the paladin leaves, no other strings attached, if he feels he can no longer act in accordance with the code. An amicable parting. If the partnership is no longer acceptable, he doesnt have to stay - but the deity is not obligedto keep providing the benefit.Are you saying, for example, that a chaotic good would never accept a contract where they recieve payment as long as they accomplish something to the employers satisfaction? I'm sorry, but I really don't get your particular hangup here, and I'm not being facetious.
The god is always free to take back what he is giving. They aren't submitting to the authority of the Paladin, the Paladin is submitting to them.
It isn't a partnership when one person has all the power. It is the Paladin entering into an agreement to submit to following a code that is judged by someone else.
Which is the opposite of being chaotic.