|
Chaotic aligned people are perfectly capable of freely entering into a binding agreement.
The way ciretose (mis)understands chaos, no chaotic person ever got a mortgage.
A mortgage is a contract between two parties where a trade is made. The bank lends you money, you pay back the money with interest, both sides benefit.
Submitting to a code isn't a trade. It is saying "I will follow this code of rules in all aspects of my life, and you can decide if I am doing it right, and if you decide I'm not I will lose all my powers and the deity will lose...nothing."
The Paladin is not entering into a contract, they are praying to a higher power and doing exactly what they are told to do by that higher power in all aspects of their life in the hope that the higher power will let them keep their powers. God says jump, you say how high.
Not. Chaotic.
|
|
If I was a new player and didn't understand the alignment system and came to you and said I had a concept for a character that was going to try and serve a deities by literally embodying the teachings of the deity, and that that character would adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline, holding onto their convictions even when might lead them into conflict with other souls they would try to save. That they would always follow a code that required them to respect legitimate authority, act with honor, and help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. What alignment would you say that character was.
|
ciretose seems to be trying to cram chaotics into a lawful box, and of course they don't fit, nor should they be expected to. A chaotic "paladin" would not have the same sort of relationships and obligations as the classical lawful paladin. Rigid adherence to a code greater than himself is naturally part of a lawful paladin's obligation. A chaotic paladin's obligation would be more like "consistency with an ideal"
The question should not be "Can paladins, with all of their existing baggage, be chaotic?"
It should be "Can there be a chaotic version of a paladin, in which their baggage is qualitatively different?"
Considering there is an officially sanctioned polar opposite in the anti-paladin, I don't see why not.
|
Submitting to a code isn't a trade. It is saying "I will follow this code of rules in all aspects of my life, and you can decide if I am doing it right, and if you decide I'm not I will lose all my powers and the deity will lose...nothing."
The paladin loses his powers....and the god loses the services of the paladin!
In just about any job of work, an employee submits to the authority of his employers. When they say jump, the employee says 'how high'. In return, they get paid. The employee can leave if he wants, and when he does he stops getting paid.
This is exactly similar to the paladin. Are you really saying that no chaotic person ever got a job!
The Paladin is not entering into a contract, they are praying to a higher power and doing exactly what they are told to do by that higher power in all aspects of their life in the hope that the higher power will let them keep their powers. God says jump, you say how high.
This is not even true of LG paladins now! The god doesn't control all aspects of life at all! What happens is the paladin chooses his own actions, and on the very rare occasions when the code pops up then the paladin may fall if what he chose to do is against the code.
Do you think that the paladin takes a bath according to a set procedure, laid down by his god, cleverly hidden between the lines of the code in the CRB? Does the paladin have to go shopping in a prescribed manner? The paladin is offered two sweets, one red and one yellow; which sweet does the code make him take so he doesn't fall? Are the red sweets evil? Must the paladin fight right-handed even if he is left-handed? What food must the paladin eat at the weekend to avoid falling?
The idea that the code is a strict straitjacket that dictates every aspect of a paladin's life is absurd. The paladin does whatever he wants, and he doesn't fall unless he does something that breaks the code.
There are many real world religions that prescribe behaviour in a much more comprehensive way than the paladin's code from the CRB. Fish on Friday? No seafood? Must be right handed? Must wash in a ritualised way? Must wear a certain type of clothing? All different requirements of different real religions; compare that to the code in the CRB! The idea that it is so restrictive that a CG person could not countenance submitting to it is absurd! Take away the requirement to respect legitimate authority and there is nothing in there that a CG paladin would find onerous in any way.
|
|
ciretose seems to be trying to cram chaotics into a lawful box, and of course they don't fit, nor should they be expected to. A chaotic "paladin" would not have the same sort of relationships and obligations as the classical lawful paladin. Rigid adherence to a code greater than himself is naturally part of a lawful paladin's obligation. A chaotic paladin's obligation would be more like "consistency with an ideal"
The question should not be "Can paladins, with all of their existing baggage, be chaotic?"
It should be "Can there be a chaotic version of a paladin, in which their baggage is qualitatively different?"
Considering there is an officially sanctioned polar opposite in the anti-paladin, I don't see why not.
No, I am pointing out that a Paladin must be lawful.
Which is exactly what the book says.
Malachi is the one trying to fit a chaotic concept into a lawful class.
|
|
ciretose seems to be trying to cram chaotics into a lawful box, and of course they don't fit, nor should they be expected to. A chaotic "paladin" would not have the same sort of relationships and obligations as the classical lawful paladin. Rigid adherence to a code greater than himself is naturally part of a lawful paladin's obligation. A chaotic paladin's obligation would be more like "consistency with an ideal"
The question should not be "Can paladins, with all of their existing baggage, be chaotic?"
It should be "Can there be a chaotic version of a paladin, in which their baggage is qualitatively different?"
Considering there is an officially sanctioned polar opposite in the anti-paladin, I don't see why not.
No, I am pointing out that a Paladin must be lawful.
Which is exactly what the book says.
Malachi is the one trying to fit a chaotic concept into a lawful class.
That you view his approach as "fitting a chaotic concept into a lawful class" is responsible for most of the disagreement. Your chief objection is that adhering to a code of conduct is antithetical to chaotics, but a code of conduct is explicitly and officially consistent with a chaotic ethos. The description of the anti-paladin proves it. Your belief about what chaotics may or may not willingly subject themselves to, and the implications for a chaotic paladin, are inconsistent with the example provided.
|
|
You have come to a 1700 post thread late. This has already been discussed, and it has nothing to do with the issue.
The Anti-Paladin Code is
"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."
Which basically means his code is to do exactly what he wants as long as it is evil and puts his desires above anyone elses.
Which is to say, be Chaotic Evil.
The issue is the Paladin Code says more or less "Be Lawful Good".
There is a prestige class that allows you to get access to some features of Paladins while being chaotic, but it is not a Paladin.
If there were an Archetype that had a code that was Chaotic in nature, I would be fine with that.
But what is absolutely ridiculous is to argue the current paladin could be Chaotic. It can not. That is the point. You can check over the last 1700 posts if you like, except the first few pages which were actually about the topic I raised in the Original post before the derail.
You've wandered into a movie halfway through, Donnie.
|
|
But what is absolutely ridiculous is to argue the current paladin could be Chaotic. It can not.
We know! That's why it needs changing!
But the change from 'must be LG' to 'must be any good', and the tiny change to the code, and the tiny change to the spell list, and the tiny change to the fluff, do not change the essence of the paladin, which is a warrior for good, supported by fluff, code and mechanics.
You have come to a 1700 post thread late. This has already been discussed, and it has nothing to do with the issue.
The Anti-Paladin Code is
"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."
Which basically means his code is to do exactly what he wants as long as it is evil and puts his desires above anyone elses.
Which is to say, be Chaotic Evil.
The issue is the Paladin Code says more or less "Be Lawful Good".
There is a prestige class that allows you to get access to some features of Paladins while being chaotic, but it is not a Paladin.
If there were an Archetype that had a code that was Chaotic in nature, I would be fine with that.
But what is absolutely ridiculous is to argue the current paladin could be Chaotic. It can not. That is the point. You can check over the last 1700 posts if you like, except the first few pages which were actually about the topic I raised in the Original post before the derail.
You've wandered into a movie halfway through, Donnie.
So Ciretose, just to make sure I understand you would have no problem with a class that had the same mechanical abilities as the current Paladin class, but used a code as I outlined in my last post in this thread and was titled "Champion" correct?
In short you are arguing that the current Paladin class has a baked in Lawful Good flavor and cannot be changed, but that it would be perfectly fine for carbon copy classes to exist with either neutral good or chaotic good flavor as long as they were called something else correct?
I agree that the current Paladin is Lawful Good by definition, but that is completely at this point a flavor issue, and it seems if re-fluffed, everyone would be fine as long as the flavors of LG,NG, and CG remained distinct fluff with identical mechanics.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a diehard Paladin's are LG fan, however I am planning on introducing a class called the Champion of the Kami in my next game, using the code outlined in my last post.
@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.
A champion who ceases to pursue Justice in the name of ease of interaction or expediency, or to follow the law of the land gives up on the dictates of her heart, as she is now doing what is easy or legal not what is right. This does not have to be anything evil, just unjust.
Personal liberty and fairness as defined by the Champion are paramount.
For example a Champion who allowed for a person who was trapped by completely legal debt to be used as a wage servant, when said person wanted to do nothing but leave would be in violation. This would be completely true even if the person was treated well, and not abuse.
For the sake of clarity this class is based in a culture where personal liberty is the most important thing in existence, and where things such as prison's and slavery are abhorrent. Offenders are either shunned, driven off, killed, or simply informed of their obnoxiousness depending on the nature of their crimes.
|
|
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.
Letting them live shows Mercy. It's not about them getting up to kill again, it's about the mercy you have shown that stands you apart.
I don't care about it myself. Was just a thought about how people react. It can be hard to make people happy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ciretose, I'm getting tired of you using a description of a LG paladin written by a person who believes paladins should be LG to argue that paladins are by definition LG and cannot conceivably be CG.
Here is a definition of Christmas written by a religious person: "Christmas is a holiday about the birth of Jesus Christ. It is celebrated by going to church, exchanging presents (some of which are said to be from by St. Nicholas), decorating a tree, eating traditional holiday food, singing religious songs, and spending time with family."
A: By that description it seems that religion is a pretty important part of Christmas - inseparable, even.
B: But what about all the holiday movies that say the true meaning of Christmas is generosity, compassion, and spending time with loved ones? What about people who celebrate Christmas but don't go to church or believe that Jesus is their lord and savior?
A: Clearly they're not celebrating Christmas. Christmas is historically a Christian holiday and "Christ" is even in the name.
B: What if we call it "winter holidays"? Then people who believe in Christianity can keep their special holiday centered on Jesus Christ and we can keep celebrating our holiday with tree decorating, good food, presents from Santa Claus, and family - just like Christmas except without Jesus. And we'll have our government agencies give "winter holidays" instead of Christmas holidays, and send out Holiday cards instead of Christmas cards so everyone is included.
A: You can celebrate whatever you want and I won't stop you, but I believe that it doesn't make sense to decorate a tree, give out presents, and eat candy canes and gingerbread unless it's about Jesus. And because the people who started this country believed in Jesus, and the people who currently lead our country believe in Jesus, you need to accept the fact that the government will celebrate Christmas, with Jesus, and no one will officially recognize your "winter holidays" as a real holiday. Maybe if someone made an official winter holiday without the tree decoration or candy canes, I would be fine with that.
Does position "A" make sense to you?
Submitting to a code isn't a trade. It is saying "I will follow this code of rules in all aspects of my life, and you can decide if I am doing it right, and if you decide I'm not I will lose all my powers and the deity will lose...nothing."
Like Malachi said, the deity loses the paladin. And the paladin loses nothing except what he gained from following the code in the first place. If a CG paladin breaks his code and falls he is in exactly the same boat as he was in before having agreed to the code.
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.
I linked to a thread a while back. A guy said "I am playing a chaotic paladin, please advise" and half the thread said "You are not playing a paladin." More people showed up to tell him he was Doing It Wrong than showed up to actually address his question. If Paizo produced even one paragraph in some supplement somewhere acknowledging the possibility of a chaotic paladin - even a variant rule clearly labelled as "GM permission required" - someone could ask for help picking a deity for a chaotic paladin without having to wade through posts telling him to play an Inquisitor instead.
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?
His definition of a chaotic ideal includes the Bill of Rights, which doesn't say "Congress can make laws that restrict individual freedoms, but congress is limited in its ability to enforce laws, so do whatever" but "Congress cannot make laws that restrict these freedoms." Given that Malachi self-identifies as chaotic by this definition it is unsurprising that he wants a CRB that has fewer restrictions, rather than a CRB with restrictions that are not enforced in practice.
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?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.
They personally want to be part of the group.
And if I can attempt to predict some of those follow-up questions:
1. They want to be part of the group because they feel it is the best way to promote freedom
2. They know and trust the commander they will be serving under and are confident that the commander shares their values and will give orders only for the good of the cause, not for the sake of exercising authority.
3. They know that the only penalty for disobedience is being immediately removed from the group.
Precisely. The Paladin would lose the powers given by the deity, the deity loses the services of the paladin.
I thought Paladins in pathfinder didn't get their powers from a diety, but from their own convictions, goodness, and righteousness.
ciretose, I'm getting tired of you using a description of a LG paladin written by a person who believes paladins should be LG to argue that paladins are by definition LG and cannot conceivably be CG.
A written description is a definition.
Since we're on a Paizo forum talking about Pathfinder, and in Pathfinder the Paladin is defined as "must be Lawful Good with a binding code" then you can't really be suprised when that's the point of view people here are arguing from. Especially if, like me, they believe that it is also the most correct definition of what a Paladin should be.The Paladin as defined in the CRB cannot be CG and keep his class abilities. Mechanicly, if a CG person follows a binding code, he slowly shifts to Neutral Good, then Lawful Good. Then he can be a Paladin. In Pathfinder, Paladin and CG are mutually exclusive.
Conceptually, in a homebrew or other classless system like GURPS, yes, you can call any old warrior for good a paladin, if you wish.
But we aren't talking about GURPS.
We are discussing Pathfinder.
|
|
But what is absolutely ridiculous is to argue the current paladin could be Chaotic. It can not.We know! That's why it needs changing!
But the change from 'must be LG' to 'must be any good', and the tiny change to the code, and the tiny change to the spell list, and the tiny change to the fluff, do not change the essence of the paladin, which is a warrior for good, supported by fluff, code and mechanics.
Except the essence of the Paladin isn't a warrior for good. Nearly all classes can meet that criteria. Most do.
Paladins are
"Holy warriors and defenders of the faith, paladins know that the only thing more abhorrent than an evil creature is a fundamentally good creature too timid to strive against the forces of darkness. Paladins are divine champions, gladly giving their lives in the service of light and justice, asking only that they may protect the innocent and cleanse the world to the best of their ability. Theirs is a hard path, requiring great sacrifice and ultimate devotion to a moral code, yet with her last breath a paladin can take comfort in a life of absolute righteousness."
or
"holy champions of law and good"
or
"true believers"
That is just from the non-core descriptions and none of them match your description. So house rule or create an alternate class.
You want the Paladin to be bland and flavorless, presumably so you can steal the mechanics.
Feel free to do so in your game.
|
|
So Ciretose, just to make sure I understand you would have no problem with a class that had the same mechanical abilities as the current Paladin class, but used a code as I outlined in my last post in this thread and was titled "Champion" correct?
Not quite. If there were a class that shared aspects and was not a Paladin, that would be fine. Paladins would still be Paladins and that other class would be, well, whatever that other class is.
The Chevalier for example has smite evil. It also has some charge mechanics stuff rather than saves and resistances.
I want being a Paladin to have meaning in the setting. If you run into a Paladin in the setting, you know quite a few things about them immediately. If you play a Paladin, quite a few things are conveyed to those you meet.
If you remove the meaning of the class, you diminish the class. That isn't a goal to pursue in my opinion.
|
|
ciretose, I'm getting tired of you using a description of a LG paladin written by a person who believes paladins should be LG to argue that paladins are by definition LG and cannot conceivably be CG.
You mean the developers of the game who wrote the rulebook, which is what I am quoting?
I am equally tired of you and Mal ignoring them and pretending Chaotic doesn't actually have a meaning that is defined in the game that contradicts your argument as it is just about the exact opposite of a Paladin.
|
|
Precisely. The Paladin would lose the powers given by the deity, the deity loses the services of the paladin.
So as I said before, the argument it that the Chaotic person's "code" is actually doing whatever they want, whenever they want, and so they would never be able to break the code.
OR
The code is created and adjudicated by someone else, in which case they are following the rules of a higher authority, which is the exact opposite of being chaotic.
The deity doesn't "lose the services of the Paladin" unless the Paladin is serving the Deity. And if the Paladin is serving the Deity, they aren't being Chaotic, are they?
Either the Paladin is a servant of the deity, who has to follow the code of the deity and they aren't Chaotic or they aren't and then they aren't a Paladin.
What possible definition of "Chaotic" is the servant of anyone by personal choice?
That's not a diety. If anything its a gift for being a good person. Doesn't sound much different to me, I could say thats a holy spirit within, or a gaurdian angel who's taken an interest in my activities. Does not mean someone who I am attached to, nor in a binding agreement with.
I'm pretty sure you don't need to have a named diety to have a paladin... but I might be crazy.
|
|
Weirdo wrote:
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?
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.They personally want to be part of the group.
And if I can attempt to predict some of those follow-up questions:
1. They want to be part of the group because they feel it is the best way to promote freedom
2. They know and trust the commander they will be serving under and are confident that the commander shares their values and will give orders only for the good of the cause, not for the sake of exercising authority.
3. They know that the only penalty for disobedience is being immediately removed from the group.
1. So the Chaotic person will leave the group if something else comes up that better "promotes freedom" and if the group ceases to have that as their primary mission, they will move on, correct?
2. And if he doesn't in a given situation, what do they do?
3. How do they know this?
|
|
That's not a diety. If anything its a gift for being a good person. Doesn't sound much different to me, I could say thats a holy spirit within, or a gaurdian angle who's taken an interest in my activities. Does not mean someone who I am attached to, nor in a binding agreement with.
I'm pretty sure you don't need to have a named diety to have a paladin... but I might be crazy.
Lawful and good.
But you do need to submit to the authority and follow their code. You are in a binding agreement if you have to follow specific rules they lay out that govern most aspects of your life or lose all power and ability to advance.
I keep linking to the Chaotic and Lawful descriptions for a reason.
I keep linking to the Chaotic and Lawful descriptions for a reason.
But Ciretose, you silly git! One cannot simply only use the rules in the game we are all talking about to define things in the rules we are all talking about! <scoff>
Oh, I was just asking becuase it seems theres this idea that a paladin has like some wierd holy contract in iron chains, that he absolutely has to listen to and knows about.
I'd argue if you remove the Legit authority section we'd have less arguements over lawful. Thats such a subjective way to put it. Who is a legit authority? The evil overlord? Baba Yaga? the owner of Ye ol' Tavern?
I don't actually see whats so lawful about the paladin beyond respecting authority, but a chaotic individual can do that and just have a very different idea of what a legit authority is. I'm sure that for some reason that means I need a long talking to about how morality works and what not. Its about good, and the paladin doesn't seem to hate chaos all that much in his class features.
|
|
But Ciretose, you silly git! One cannot simply only use the rules in the game we are all talking about to define things in the rules we are all talking about! <scoff>
I keep linking to the Chaotic and Lawful descriptions for a reason.
That is the part of this discussion that is actually irritating me (the rest I find amusing)
There is literally a description of each alignment that is completely in conflict with what they are arguing for, and now citing that page, in the rulebook, is being called dirty pool.
Every time they start talking about this weird "chaotic" that submits to follow the code of a higher authority, judged by that higher authority figure, I want to go..
|
|
Oh, I was just asking becuase it seems theres this idea that a paladin has like some wierd holy contract in iron chains, that he absolutely has to listen to and knows about.
I'd argue if you remove the Legit authority section we'd have less arguements over lawful. Thats such a subjective way to put it. Who is a legit authority? The evil overlord? Baba Yaga? the owner of Ye ol' Tavern?
I don't actually see whats so lawful about the paladin beyond respecting authority, but a chaotic individual can do that and just have a very different idea of what a legit authority is. I'm sure that for some reason that means I need a long talking to about how morality works and what not. Its about good, and the paladin doesn't seem to hate chaos all that much in his class features.
A chaotic person doesn't think any authority is legit.
That is what makes them chaotic.
They may follow the rules to avoid consequences or if they match what they want to do, but the whole point of being chaotic is that you don't submit to any authority but yourself.
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.
So if there is a higher power telling you what to do and judging you for it, a chaotic character resents that.
Thats a blanket statement. Lets say I'm chaotic, but its becuase I choose what authorities I want to listen to. I like to change and bend rules at the chance and when people aren't looking I'm not keen to follow them if I agree. Suddenly now if a chaotic person follows a law on accident or gives someone respect, you just put them into the lawful category!
Who's to say a paladin can't hate tradition, maybe its something that just doesn't look right to him. Does that make him lose all his paladin powers and fall on the spot? What if a chatoci person likes a law? Or maybe this is all neutral and only the truest extreme has an alightment.
Chaotic Clerics would like to have a word with you...
I think your taking it to an extreme...
|
|
Paladin's don't hate tradition. If they did, they wouldn't become Paladins. They would become fighters or clerics or inquisitors.
Chaotic has a meaning. If you don't fit that meaning, you aren't Chaotic anymore than if you don't fit the Lawful meaning you aren't lawful.
Neutral is very broad, Chaotic and Lawful have gradations, but they also have meanings.
Why the point of "Paladin are LG" became "Paladin are LG because of the code"???
Sure, a paladin strictly adheres to a code dictated by someone "higher up", and for this he is "generally" lawful, but is it really all there is to a paladin to be lawful? Just his code? Then how can other classes can be lawful if they don't have a code?
Don't get me wrong, i'm a huge fan of "Paladins are LG" but in this huge topic i can't stand on any side of the fence, because both are making points that are at least demeaning to the great concept that is a paladin.
Paladins are warriors of good, so they need to be good, and on this we agree... But the concept of paladin tells something else, and there are so many things it tells that reducing them to the code is... plain wrong.
Paladins train harder than most people to become strong in body and soul enough to fight evil till their body is lifeless... They need CONVINCTION, DEVOTION, DEDICATION, ENDURANCE and many other things... They have DISCIPLINE. That's what makes them lawful, not just THE CODE, the code is something that adds to it, not the sole reason a character is lawful.
Take the monk. The monk is a warrior who must be strong in body and mind (much like as a paladin must be strong in body and soul). The monk requirements say that he needs to be lawful, because he needs CONVINCTION, DEVOTION, DEDICATION, ENDURANCE and so on... They have DISCIPLINE.
Then a guy arrived with a concept and said: "hey, there's this other kind of monk, that fits in the concept of monk but not in the lawful one". He was right, he was kind of a monk too, so an archetype (and only one) was made to let a monk be not-lawful because it didn't fit.
Now, back to paladins. Paladins should have (more or less) the same discipline a monk need to attain, the same dedication to an objective, and that's what makes them lawful.
Then some guy arrives and says: "Hey,there's this other kind of paladin, that fits in the concept of paladin but not in the lawful one"... True... That could happen... I would be really happy if that happened.
But for now it hasn't. I read this discussion from the start and i didn't see a single "alternative paladin" that made me say "hey, that's true, that is a cool variant paladin that i would like to see official". Because every variant paladin taken as example didn't add anything the paladin already had. A paladin who oppose slavery? Who promotes liberty? Why do you need to change the paladin to make that? Paladins enforce the law for the sake of good, they don't enforce law for the sake of law (that's what hellknight does). I'm pretty sure between law-breaking and slavery, the most paladin-ish thing to choose would be law-breaking. So... do you really REALLY need a chaotic paladin to fight slavery?
This only makes me think you want the cool things a paladin get, without the "drawback" (as percieved by more chaotic oriented people) of being lawful. I see that as cheating your way out of a concept for the sake of "shiny cool powers". So i won't accept it, and i will oppose it being official (and i'm pretty everyone making a point about paladins only being LG agree).
When a concept that doesn't work in any way with the existing paladin or the Chevalier (ugh... how much i hate it...) prestige class, which everybody advocating in favor ignores and is the thing most close to a CG paladin, i will be happy to see it official. For now, paladin concept says they are LG and they should remain so (the reason are explained at the start of the post).
Just the two cents of a LG lover.
|
|
Your interpretation of the chaotic good alignment is given the lie by examples from real life.
You say that chaotic people could not follow a code adjudicated by anyone but themselves. If that were true then it would be impossible for any doctor, sworn to the Hippocratic Oath and his behaviour adjudicated by a council of medical professionals, to have ever been chaotic.
You say that a chaotic person would never willingly enter into a binding agreement that he can't break without punishment. If that were true then no chaotic person ever got a mortgage.
You say that a chaotic person could never subject himself to discipline, with those in authority over him being empowered to punish him for any infraction of the rules. If that were true then no member of any of our military forces was ever chaotic.
You say that the paladin, as written, is a rigid straitjacket controlling every aspect of a paladin's life, therefore no chaotic person could stand to be a paladin even if paladins were allowed to be CG. Yet the code, as written now, has only one lawful clause (respect legitimate authority), which could easily be replaced with something similar but good aligned (must respect the forces of good). The code is also not restrictive; it does not dictate the paladin's specific action in any situation. It doesn't tell him what to eat or wear, doesn't dictate his responses, doesn't give instructions.
'Must act with honour'. If the DM asks you what you're doing this turn and your reply is 'I act with honour!' That isn't an action! What are you actually doing? Acting with honour is not some straitjacket that a chaotic person is unable to follow!
'Help those in need'. Hardly a straitjacket; there are so many ways to do this, and a CG paladin is all about this! Being 'required' to do it won't make him suddenly not want to!
'Punish those who harm or threaten innocents'. How? Any way you damn well like! If you choose an evil method then you fall. There are a myriad of ways to do this without falling! Hardly a straitjacket. Hardly a restrictive code so oppressive that a chaotic person could never follow it.
Ah, but 'following a code' is a lawful action, therefore constantly following a code will shift alignment to the lawful, right? The fallacy here is that there is no such action as 'following a code'!
DM: It's your turn, Sir McShiny, what are you doing?
SM: I'm following my code!
DM: (Here we go again!) What are you actually doing!
Following a code is not an action. Agreeing to join an order that requires following a code may be a lawful action, but it is a single action and won't turn a chaotic person lawful. Following the code invokes either doing specific things or not doing specific things, even if those 'specific' things are as general and unrestrictive as the code in the CRB. But if the code leads you to take actions that are good then the only way following that code will affect your alignment is by moving it towards good. If a code required you to take actions which were chaotic then following that code would see your alignment drift to chaotic (because your actions are chaotic) not lawful (because 'following the code' is not an action).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose has said that he'd be okay with a CG paladin archetype. Here is a brief outline of one.
True Hero (paladin archetype).
Fluff: (Same as basic paladin, but reference to lawful examples are replaced by chaotic examples)
Alignment: A True Hero must be of chaotic good alignment. This replaces the requirement to be lawful good.
Code: Replace 'must respect legitimate authority' with 'must respect the forces of good'.
Spells: All lawful spells on the spell list are replaced by the chaotic equivalent.
That's it! The rest of the class fits perfectly; nothing else need change!
Just like any other archetype, a paladin with the True Hero archetype can have other archetypes so long as none of the other archetypes replace or alter any of the same class features from the core paladin that were replaced or altered by the True Hero archetype.
Well, now we're all happy and I shall expect ciretose to favourite this post and we can call this thread amicably resolved!
How many spells on the paladin list reference chaos? I'm not sure if thats entirely neccesary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your interpretation of the chaotic good alignment is given the lie by examples from real life.
There are no examples from real life.
Trying to reduce the human experience to the nine boxes of the d20 alignment system is foolish in the extreme. It cannot possibly measure the depth and breadth of the human psyche.
This is the most bizarre part of your argument. That you somehow understand some greater meaning of "chaotic" than what exists in the game rules. We are discussing an element
Even if you do have some deeper transcendental understanding of what "Chaotic Good" means in the greater world, it actually doesn't matter at all. All that matters is what "Chaotic Good" means in the Pathfinder RPG. In the Pathfinder RPG, Chaotic Good is incompatible with having a strict Code of Conduct, and Chaotic Good is incompatible with being a Paladin.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your interpretation of the chaotic good alignment is given the lie by examples from real life.There are no examples from real life.
Trying to reduce the human experience to the nine boxes of the d20 alignment system is foolish in the extreme. It cannot possibly measure the depth and breadth of the human psyche.
Agreed. However, trying to understand the complexities of personal combat cannot possibly measure the depth and breadth of the combat experience. Does that mean that we are not allowed to use real combat to check that our game construct of the combat system is a fair reflection of reality?
The alignment system is no more an accurate representation of the human psyche than the combat system is an accurate re-creation of combat, but the combat system we have makes the game playable, and to do so the results of that system should be a close enough match to the results of real combat that we accept it's limitations. Similarly, the alignment system with all it's drawbacks is an attempt to model the psyche in manageable game mechanics, and it is fully appropriate that we check with real life to make sure that it is fit for purpose.
The upshot of this is that we must assume that its model of the population reflects a fair spread of alignment. That those who are lawful and chaotic are both significant proportions of the population. The (mis)understanding that some (lawful) players have would result in those labelled as 'chaotic' being restricted to some inmates in various insane asylums! The idea that being philosophically chaotic means that you cannot have a job, serve in the military, be a juror, agree to a mortgage, be faithful to your wife, do what you yourself want to do on the grounds that someone in authority wants you do it also, have religious faith and put yourself in the hands of a higher power, etc. etc., would result in a model of the population where chaotic people are not a substantial minority, but limited to a few insane or sociopathic individuals. That is nothing more than lawful propaganda.
For the alignment system to have any use at all, the chaotic alignment cannot be reserved for those who cannot function in society; it must include those sane people who believe that societies that value the needs of the individual over the needs of the state result in a happier society. These individuals are perfectly capable of doing everything on that list. Including, submitting to the authority of a higher power that they worship of their own free will, choosing to accept the discipline of an organisation they choose to join, and follow a code that exemplifies the ethics that they espouse
In the Pathfinder RPG, Chaotic Good is incompatible with having a strict Code of Conduct
Upon analysis, the code in the CRB is not strict in terms of being so restrictive that a chaotic person could not abide to live their lives according to something like it. The only adjustment needed would be to the 'respect legitimate authority' part.
|
|
Paladins are warriors of good, so they need to be good, and on this we agree... But the concept of paladin tells something else, and there are so many things it tells that reducing them to the code is... plain wrong.
Paladins train harder than most people to become strong in body and soul enough to fight evil till their body is lifeless... They need CONVINCTION, DEVOTION, DEDICATION, ENDURANCE and many other things... They have DISCIPLINE. That's what makes them lawful, not just THE CODE, the code is something that adds to it, not the sole reason a character is lawful.
I agree with this. And that's why I believe that a CG person should also be allowed to be a paladin. The most important parts of a paladin are their conviction, devotion, dedication, endurance, and self-discipline - the code is just an expression and formalization of these things. And these things are not exclusive to Lawful characters. The only one that's even remotely associated with lawfulness is discipline. It appears in the LG description, but is not required by the general "Law" description and does not conflict with anything in the description for chaos assuming that the discipline is internal than nature (not enforced by an external force).
But for now it hasn't. I read this discussion from the start and i didn't see a single "alternative paladin" that made me say "hey, that's true, that is a cool variant paladin that i would like to see official". Because every variant paladin taken as example didn't add anything the paladin already had. A paladin who oppose slavery? Who promotes liberty? Why do you need to change the paladin to make that? Paladins enforce the law for the sake of good, they don't enforce law for the sake of law (that's what hellknight does). I'm pretty sure between law-breaking and slavery, the most paladin-ish thing to choose would be law-breaking. So... do you really REALLY need a chaotic paladin to fight slavery?
Maybe not, but it's appropriate, and depending on the exact motivations and other behavior of the character in question it might be more appropriate than running the same character as a lawful paladin.
My next character is a lawful barbarian. Could I have played the same character as a neutral barbarian if my GM insisted on keeping the restriction? Probably. But I want the character to have a strong sense of tradition and honour, always keep promises, never lie and dislike any form of deceit, submit to authority (particulary the character's instructor), and believe that the individual is less important than the collective. It seemed unsuitable to dilute that behavior for the sake of maintaining "RAW legal" nonlawful status, or to handwave it and call it "nonlawful" just because barbarians are defined as nonlawful (because rage is considered inherently chaotic).
Many people consider the code to be inherently lawful, or that a paladin's honour and discipline are inherently lawful. Some disagree. But even if it is inherently lawful, isn't it reasonable to say that a character who has these minor lawful traits but is otherwise chaotic in all respects ought to be chaotic, or at least nonlawful? And there are many chaotic traits that are not individually forbidden by the paladin class (valuing freedom as an inherent good, valuing new ideas and adaptability over tradition, disliking laws or institutions of authority that are not absolutely necessary in protecting the common good or that serve to restrict rather than protect freedom, disliking intimidation or coercion, following their conscience rather than social conventions in areas unrelated to the code).
A written description is a definition.
Since we're on a Paizo forum talking about Pathfinder, and in Pathfinder the Paladin is defined as "must be Lawful Good with a binding code" then you can't really be suprised when that's the point of view people here are arguing from. Especially if, like me, they believe that it is also the most correct definition of what a Paladin should be.
The Paladin as defined in the CRB cannot be CG and keep his class abilities. Mechanicly, if a CG person follows a binding code, he slowly shifts to Neutral Good, then Lawful Good. Then he can be a Paladin. In Pathfinder, Paladin and CG are mutually exclusive.
Conceptually, in a homebrew or other classless system like GURPS, yes, you can call any old warrior for good a paladin, if you wish.But we aren't talking about GURPS.
We are discussing Pathfinder.
I'm also discussing Pathfinder! I don't want a totally generic system! I want there to be a difference between a Fighter and a Paladin. I just think that the difference currently described within the first paragraph of paladin fluff is the wrong difference and unfairly excludes character concepts that fit the paladin concept more than they fit the fighter concept (or fighter/cleric, or inquisitor, or something+Chevalier). Just because classes are meaningful and have suggested fluff doesn't mean they lack (or should lack) flexibility in what class you can use for a given concept or what concepts you can play with a given class. I was just posting in a thread in which people advocated building a "witch" concept as a sorcerer because the player wanted more charisma and raw spellpower than the witch class gave.
I am equally tired of you and Mal ignoring them and pretending Chaotic doesn't actually have a meaning that is defined in the game that contradicts your argument as it is just about the exact opposite of a Paladin.
I accept the Chaotic alignment as described in the CRB with the qualifier that I don't think the fact that a chaotic character is required to be mutable or unreliable in areas that are important to them - they value adaptability and freedom but are still allowed to have firm convictions. Cayden Cailean does.
I described a page or two ago, line by line from the CRB, why I don't think there's a contradiction between either the Chaotic alignment in general or the Chaotic Good alignment specifically and following a strict code which they chose themselves and which they can abandon without losing anything that they actually had before taking on the code.
I am perfectly happy to discuss any element of the CRB that is related to alignment or paladins other than that one paragraph in front that describes a LG paladin, because I agree that it describes a LG paladin. I just don't think that taking away the word "law-bringer" and changing "ironclad laws or morality" to "unshakeable convictions of morality" makes any appreciable change to the paragraph. I'm even happy to discuss that paragraph if we can agree that it describes a typical paladin rather than strictly defining all paladins (like "the virtuous deities they serve" when paladins usually-but-not-always have a deity).
And no, while paladins currently get their powers from the forces of law and good, that in itself is not sufficient to convince me that paladins should always be LG unless you can argue why the forces of chaos and good would be logically unable to do the same.
A chaotic person doesn't think any authority is legit.
That is what makes them chaotic.
Then can I make a chaotic paladin who follows the code as written in the CRB, but doesn't respect any authority because they don't believe any authority is legit? Heck, can I make a NG paladin who does the same and who does't quite qualify as "chaotic" by your definition because they're following a code, but who is too anti-authority to be lawful? And if your answer is "no, the paladin doesn't get to judge what authority is legitimate" then doesn't that mean that a LG paladin has to respect and obey an evil king, because they are the correct heir to the throne?
The Chevalier for example has smite evil. It also has some charge mechanics stuff rather than saves and resistances.
It's also a prestige class. And it's a prestige class with only three levels. And it takes until at least 7th level to get anything paladin-ish at all (take your first level in Chevalier) and until 9th level to get one smite evil a day. No thanks.
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?
They personally want to be part of the group.
1. They want to be part of the group because they feel it is the best way to promote freedom
2. They know and trust the commander they will be serving under and are confident that the commander shares their values and will give orders only for the good of the cause, not for the sake of exercising authority.
3. They know that the only penalty for disobedience is being immediately removed from the group.1. So the Chaotic person will leave the group if something else comes up that better "promotes freedom" and if the group ceases to have that as their primary mission, they will move on, correct?
2. And if he doesn't in a given situation, what do they do?
3. How do they know this?
1. Yes, they will leave the group if the group ceases to serve the cause of freedom, though this is unlikely as the group has been very dedicated to freedom for some time.
2. If the chaotic person believes that the incident is minor and not worth the loss of the group benefits, they defer to the commander in that instance but make their disagreement known as soon as possible. If they believe that the incident is significant - if the commander is frivolous in his orders or gives orders that do not serve to promote freedom in the big picture - the chaotic person will leave.
3. Because that's what they were told by the commander, the group, and/or ex-group members before joining the group. They can also observe that ex-group members have not been treated punitively.
Well, I've been gone a couple of days and even though I have read everything to catch up, I'm not going to rehash all of it. I just want to say, all of you "chaotic people" are simply looking at it wrong.
This isn't some sort of deal or bargin between a Paladin and his deity. The Paladin follows the code because he believes in the code. The powers granted to him are a reward for his honor and virtue. They are NOT payment for services rendered. That is such a cheapening of what the Paladin is.
Again, the Paladin follows the code because of the code. He would follow the code even if he gained nothing. He follows the code when it is easy and he follows the code when it is hard. A Paladin does not fear falling, he abhors the thought of it. The code doesn't make the Paladin lawful.
His Desire to live by a code makes him lawful. You don't become lawful because you are a Paladin. You Are lawful, then you might become a Paladin.
This is not buying a house, it is not getting married or cleaning the grease traps for your boss. Being a Paladin is dedicating your life to something greater than yourself. If your idea is a chaotic person would be "willing" to operate within a code of conduct in order to "gain" the powers of the Paladin then you fail to understand what the Paladin is.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I've been gone a couple of days and even though I have read everything to catch up, I'm not going to rehash all of it. I just want to say, all of you "chaotic people" are simply looking at it wrong.
This isn't some sort of deal or bargin between a Paladin and his deity. The Paladin follows the code because he believes in the code. The powers granted to him are a reward for his honor and virtue. They are NOT payment for services rendered. That is such a cheapening of what the Paladin is.
Again, the Paladin follows the code because of the code. He would follow the code even if he gained nothing. He follows the code when it is easy and he follows the code when it is hard. A Paladin does not fear falling, he abhors the thought of it. The code doesn't make the Paladin lawful.
His Desire to live by a code makes him lawful. You don't become lawful because you are a Paladin. You Are lawful, then you might become a Paladin.
This is not buying a house, it is not getting married or cleaning the grease traps for your boss. Being a Paladin is dedicating your life to something greater than yourself. If your idea is a chaotic person would be "willing" to operate within a code of conduct in order to "gain" the powers of the Paladin then you fail to understand what the Paladin is.
This isn't some sort of master/servant relationship between a Liberator and his deity. The Liberator promotes his cause because he believes in the cause. The powers granted to him are a reward for his commitment and virtue. They are NOT payment for services rendered. That is such a cheapening of what the Liberator is.
Again, the Liberator promotes his cause because he believes in it. He would promote the cause even if he gained nothing. He promotes his cause when it is easy and he promotes his cause when it is hard. A Liberator does not fear falling, he abhors the thought of it. The cause doesn't make the Liberator chaotic.
His desire to promote the cause makes him chaotic. You don't become chaotic because you are a Liberator. You Are chaotic, then you might become a Liberator.
This is not behaving randomly, it is not breaking every law in existence, or behaving irrationally simply to be rebellious. Being a Liberator is dedicating your life to overthrowing tyranny, delivering freedom to the oppressed, and interfering with those that would coerce others, whether it be the schoolyard bully, the bureaucrat, the priest, or the king. If your idea is that a strictly lawful person would be "willing" to operate in accordance with principles of freedom in order to "gain" the powers of the Liberator, then you fail to understand what the Liberator is.
This isn't some sort of master/servant relationship between a Liberator and his deity. The Liberator promotes his cause because he believes in the cause. The powers granted to him are a reward for his commitment and virtue. They are NOT payment for services rendered. That is such a cheapening of what the Liberator is.
Again, the Liberator promotes his cause because he believes in it. He would promote the cause even if he gained nothing. He promotes his cause when it is easy and he promotes his cause when it is hard. A Liberator does not fear falling, he abhors the thought of it. The cause doesn't make the Liberator chaotic.
His desire to promote the cause makes him chaotic....
Right, no where in there does he follow a code. What are you arguing?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, no where in there does he follow a code. What are you arguing?
This isn't some sort of master/servant relationship between a Liberator and his deity. The Liberator promotes his cause because he believes in the cause. The powers granted to him are a reward for his commitment and virtue. They are NOT payment for services rendered. That is such a cheapening of what the Liberator is.
Again, the Liberator promotes his cause because he believes in it. He would promote the cause even if he gained nothing. He promotes his cause when it is easy and he promotes his cause when it is hard. A Liberator does not fear falling, he abhors the thought of it. The cause doesn't make the Liberator chaotic.
His desire to promote the cause makes him chaotic....
I'm saying that an alternate version of a paladin in a chaotic good flavor is a reasonable thing to permit. It doesn't matter whether we call it a paladin, or whether we call his ideals a code. In my opinion, tabletop gaming could use a paladin-equivalent who devotes his life to the cause of freedom, complete with powers to fight evil equal to the traditional paladin, but with an uncompromising attitude regarding oppression.
"But we're talking about Pathfinder!"
Golarion has the Eagle Knights of Andoran, whose members are primarily soldiers, paladins, and ex-adventurers. They are dedicated to fighting slavery, yet they are characterized as well-intentioned, yet "as insidious as many of the more evil organizations in Golarion."
The blurb for Pathfinder Companion: Andoran, Spirit of Liberty states that true Andorens believe in self-determination at all costs.
It seems to me like a chaotic good paladin, if such a thing were allowed to exist, would be more at home in the Eagle Knights of Andoran than the lawful good paladins who actually inhabit their ranks.
What lawful good paladin could possibly identify with a group that believed in self-determination at all costs, and that is as insidious as many of the more evil organizations in Golarion?
Could it be that lawfulness is not actually the essence of the paladin, but rather goodness is?
Or is unwavering dedication to freedom and self-determination actually consistent with a lawful ethos?
I'm saying that an alternate version of a paladin in a chaotic good flavor is a reasonable thing to permit. It doesn't matter whether we call it a paladin, or whether we call his ideals a code. In my opinion, tabletop gaming could use a paladin-equivalent who devotes his life to the cause of freedom, complete with powers to fight evil equal to the traditional paladin, but with an uncompromising attitude regarding oppression.
Then permit it. In your game (not going into that again). In my opinion, "opening up" the Paladin, "waters down" the Paladin.
As a side note, the idea that a lawful person couldn't oppose slavery is as false as chaotic must act randomly.
Well, I've been gone a couple of days and even though I have read everything to catch up, I'm not going to rehash all of it. I just want to say, all of you "chaotic people" are simply looking at it wrong.
This isn't some sort of deal or bargin between a Paladin and his deity. The Paladin follows the code because he believes in the code. The powers granted to him are a reward for his honor and virtue. They are NOT payment for services rendered. That is such a cheapening of what the Paladin is.
Again, the Paladin follows the code because of the code. He would follow the code even if he gained nothing. He follows the code when it is easy and he follows the code when it is hard. A Paladin does not fear falling, he abhors the thought of it. The code doesn't make the Paladin lawful.
His Desire to live by a code makes him lawful. You don't become lawful because you are a Paladin. You Are lawful, then you might become a Paladin.
This is not buying a house, it is not getting married or cleaning the grease traps for your boss. Being a Paladin is dedicating your life to something greater than yourself. If your idea is a chaotic person would be "willing" to operate within a code of conduct in order to "gain" the powers of the Paladin then you fail to understand what the Paladin is.
That does not match the concept of a lawful good paladin, no. Of course, it ISN'T a lawful good paladin. Its a chaotic good one. So its relationship with its god is, yes, different than a lawful good one. Obviously.
By concept, a chaotic evil anti-paladin already exists. Given that, why is a chaotic GOOD equivalent companion class to paladin so hard to imagine?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, "opening up" the Paladin, "waters down" the Paladin.
This is false. If the rules allowed NG and/or CG paladins, paladins could still be LG. Any LG paladin would be the same then as they are now. No part of that paladin would be 'watered down'. That fear is baseless.
As a side note, the idea that a lawful person couldn't oppose slavery is as false as chaotic must act randomly.
Agreed. But it is true that a LG paladin could abide slavery (Abadar) whereas a CG paladin could not.
Ciretose's idea of a paladin who must choose 'following the code' over either doing good or preventing evil would result in a paladin that is essentially lawful neutral. Since he is LN it shouldn't be a surprise that he thinks that behaving ultra-lawfully is the best way to be, conflating 'best way to be' with 'good'. As a CG person it is equally no surprise that I think that striving for the values inherent in CG are more heroic than those striving for LG values. No slavery for me!
However, I am objective enough to accept that LG, NG and CG can all pursue 'good' in their own way, and that 'good' is the essence of the paladin. If 'law' were the essence, then a paladin would have an Aura of Law, detect and smite chaos, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, "opening up" the Paladin, "waters down" the Paladin.This is false. If the rules allowed NG and/or CG paladins, paladins could still be LG. Any LG paladin would be the same then as they are now. No part of that paladin would be 'watered down'. That fear is baseless.
It is not false, it is inherit in your position. "The Paladin is A. Lets make him A,B, and C." You have already admitted to changing the Paladin to fit your vision of him. "Remove respect legitimate authority, take out the part about lying." How is that not watered down?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose's idea of a paladin who must choose 'following the code' over either doing good or preventing evil would result in a paladin that is essentially lawful neutral.
This is a false. There is no choosing the code over good. The code is good. The fact that you see it as a choice shows your lack of understanding of the Paladin.
|
|
This is a false. There is no choosing the code over good. The code is good. The fact that you see it as a choice shows your lack of understanding of the Paladin.
Ciretose's idea of a paladin who must choose 'following the code' over either doing good or preventing evil would result in a paladin that is essentially lawful neutral.
Oh, so you disagree with ciretose about this part?
|
|
Upon analysis, the code in the CRB is not strict in terms of being so restrictive that a chaotic person could not abide to live their lives according to something like it. The only adjustment needed would be to the 'respect legitimate authority' part.
This is like saying the law isn't strict in terms of being so restrictive that a cannibal can't abide to live their lives according to something like it, they would only need to adjust the "Not Murder and eat people" part.
Chaotic people don't like authority. That is what makes them chaotic people.