|
Also, I've no idea where you got the idea that I think paladins can be or could be LN or TN. Right now, paladins can be anywhere in that LG box. Some on this thread (mentioning no names but it rhymes with...er...'ciretose') believe that there is an even smaller box, entirely within the LG box, that occupies the extreme north west corner, that is a special kind of lawful goodness that applies only to paladins.Incorrect. Paladins should be operating within that small box of LG. Anyone can dwell within it, but that should be the standard that Paladins aspire to. They shouldn't be brushing against the border of Chaos or Evil. They shouldn't even be brushing against the borders of Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral. They should be distinctly more lawful than Neutral Good, and more Good than Lawful Evil.
I don't think your diagram looks the same as mine. In mine, LG is not bordering on LE.
And yes, RAW (for every single incarnation of the published paladin since the LG alignment existed), a paladin can be absolutely anywhere in that LG box. They certainly do not have to be in some secret corner of that box, whatever their aspirations.
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
If a paladins alignment leaves that imaginary extreme NW corner box of LG, but stays within the larger LG box, this does not make him fall.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have my own setting that I use to play Pathfinder. In my setting, elves and dwarves are almost none existent. Players can choose them with the understanding that elves are rare and revered as mythical creatures while dwarves are hated and face prejudice wherever they go. Does this match up with the CRB? No. Why should it? It is my game. I don't advocate that everyone should play my game. Why should we all play yours?
What you are doing with elves and dwarves in your game shows the correct approach. The CRB gives the general player base a wide choice of concepts, then individual DMs, players and campaigns can choose a narrower vision for their own game.
But what you support with paladins is the opposite! You are insisting that the CRB takes the narrow view. This is inconsistent with the design philosophy of the rest of the game, which is to give maximum choice.
What is being suggested is opening up the allowed alignments for paladins to 'any good'. This does not take away the 'code' requirement, nor alter the essense of the warrior for good that is the crucial part of the paladin's core purpose, as demonstrated both by his pro-good/anti-evil powers and his total lack of any pro-law/anti-chaos powers.
Whether lawful people can understand chaotic people having a code is not relevant. The chaotic paladins can can look after their own alignment, thank you very much!
|
|
GM: "what are you doing this round?"
Player: "well, I want to do A but the code disallows it so I will defer to the code's judgement and do B instead"
GM: "ok, since you always do that go ahead and change your alignment to lawful"GM: "what are you doing this round?"
Player: " well, I want to do A but the code disallows it but I'm sure it's the right thing to do so I'll go ahead and do it"
GM: "ok, that violates your code so you fall."
Another good illustration of my point. The above conversation is not a real example of a conversation! The 'A' and the 'B' are the crucial parts upon which the paladin is judged and his alignment tracked. The code is only checked to see if he broke it, not to say that if he didn't break it then his action was not really 'A' or 'B' but his action was really 'following the code'.
GM: "what are you doing this round?"
Player: "well, I want to lie to the nazis because if I don't then they will find and kill the children and I'm not powerful enough to stop them, but the code disallows lying so I will defer to the code's judgement and let my silence raise the nazis' suspiscions leading predictibly to the discovery and murder of those children instead"
GM: "ok, you just put your own well-being ahead of the lives of innocents. As allowing innocents to die just to save yourself the inconvenience of getting an atonement is a single evil act, you fall."
GM: "what are you doing this round?"
Player: " well, I want to lie to the nazis to save the lives of innocents but the code disallows it but I'm sure it's the right thing to do so I'll go ahead and do it"
GM: "ok, your code requires you to act with honour, and one example it gives of acting honourably is 'not lying'. In this case you risked your own soul to save the lives of innocents; I can't think of a more honourable response in the circumstances, and that's why your god chose you to be a paladin! Well done! BTW, if you're foolish enough to start believing that 'lying' in general is suddenly okay this could lead you to fall, so be warned. Meanwhile, that lie was a chaotic act, moving your alignment track closer to the border with NG. Be careful you don't do too many chaotic acts, because if your alignment shifts over the border into NG then you will fall."
N.B. There is no such action as 'following the code', therefore it is not an action that can be tracked on the alignment graph.
|
Whether lawful people can understand chaotic people having a code is not relevant. The chaotic paladins can can look after their own alignment, thank you very much!
In the current game, some paladins promote chaotic ideals while remaining blissfully lawful. The Andoran Eagle Knights are ostensibly lawful good, yet Andorens prioritize self-determination at all costs, and a paladin sits atop the leadership structure of the Eagle Knights.
The leader of the Eagle Knights, Reginald Cormoth is described as follows:
General Reginald Cormoth is the commander of the Eagle Knights of Andoran, a specialized military division. He also serves as the Lord of the Guardian Tower of the Golden Aerie in the city of Almas, and is often simply referred to as "The Old Man". He has a knack for strategy and tactics, and is rumored to have once been a member of the Twilight Talons, the Eagle Knights' spy branch. He is not against bending rules to get the desired result. He smokes tobacco leaves, and enjoys going undercover to surprise those under him who are lax at their positions
This high profile paladin:
1) is not against bending rules to get the desired result.2) enjoys going undercover, deceiving people as to his true identity.
3) leads an organization dedicated to promoting self-determination, not order
I guess the lawful good paladin has a lot more freedom to be chaotic than we thought.
|
|
And again, you can be lawful good and not be a Paladin.
The issue is being chaotic and submitting to follow the code of a deity or higher power that effects all aspects of your life.
Because that is what Paladins have to do.
Not all paladins have such a "submissive" relationship with their deity. You are projecting your biases here.
|
Not all paladins have such a "submissive" relationship with their deity. You are projecting your biases here.And again, you can be lawful good and not be a Paladin.
The issue is being chaotic and submitting to follow the code of a deity or higher power that effects all aspects of your life.
Because that is what Paladins have to do.
When you agree to follow someone else's code and let them decide if you are doing it right, you are submitting to their authority.
That isn't something a Chaotic Person would do.
It isn't any more complicated than that.
|
|
Not all paladins have such a "submissive" relationship with their deity. You are projecting your biases here.And again, you can be lawful good and not be a Paladin.
The issue is being chaotic and submitting to follow the code of a deity or higher power that effects all aspects of your life.
Because that is what Paladins have to do.
When you agree to follow someone else's code and let them decide if you are doing it right, you are submitting to their authority.
That isn't something a Chaotic Person would do.
It isn't any more complicated than that.
If my personal code is congruent with some deity's code, and I am following it anyway, and I would be as disappointed in myself as whoever else shares my code should I fail to live up to its ideals, then I fail to see how I am "submitting to authority" by choosing to follow such a code. I am under no onerous obligation, and the deity's favor is his to give or to withhold.
|
|
Heh! Reminds me of that line from Gene Hackman's submarine commander:
'We're here to save democracy, not practice it!'
I believe that's, "preserve democracy, not practice it."
I remember that in part for the alliteration, but mostly because it's a terrific line from a fairly good submarine film. It's no Hunt for Red October, but it's a good flick, nevertheless.
Sorry. Misquotes set off my OCD. We now return you to the art of gentlemanly discourse.
I stand corrected. : )
It really bugs me when people say or write 'OCD' when it should be 'CDO', in the proper alphabetical order....
|
|
Not all paladins have such a "submissive" relationship with their deity. You are projecting your biases here.And again, you can be lawful good and not be a Paladin.
The issue is being chaotic and submitting to follow the code of a deity or higher power that effects all aspects of your life.
Because that is what Paladins have to do.
When you agree to follow someone else's code and let them decide if you are doing it right, you are submitting to their authority.
That isn't something a Chaotic Person would do.
It isn't any more complicated than that.
If my personal code is congruent with some deity's code, and I am following it anyway, and I would be as disappointed in myself as whoever else shares my code should I fail to live up to its ideals, then I fail to see how I am "submitting to authority" by choosing to follow such a code. I am under no onerous obligation, and the deity's favor is his to give or to withhold.
I said this before, I will say it again. Respectfully, you seem to be arguing "He chooses to be Lawful, so that makes him Chaotic."
And that is absurd.
You don't share a personal code. That is why it is a "personal" code.
You can be chaotic and have a personal code, (shallowsoul I believe is wrong on this) but you can't follow a code that you aren't the one who decides if you are doing it right, and have it be a personal code.
And if it isn't personal, it is shared. And if someone else is judging it, it ain't your code. And if it ain't your code, and someone else is deciding if you are doing it right it is someone elses code you are following.
And if you are following someone elses code, you aren't chaotic, by definition.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incorrect. Paladins should be operating within that small box of LG. Anyone can dwell within it, but that should be the standard that Paladins aspire to. They shouldn't be brushing against the border of Chaos or Evil. They shouldn't even be brushing against the borders of Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral. They should be distinctly more lawful than Neutral Good, and more Good than Lawful Evil.
As is defined by RAW, I'm pretty sure a paladin would have to lie at the very top of the “Good” axis, but could fall anywhere in the top third of the law axis (the part that actually qualifies as “lawful”). One evil act is enough to fall, so they can't flirt with the evil side of the graph at all, but as long as they behave honourably and respect legitimate authority (which as Jaelithe said is not the same as always obeying that authority) and don't actually fall out of the “lawful” third of the chart they can perform not just one but a number of nonprohibited chaotic acts (such as disobeying an evil authority, fighting slavery in a place where slavery is legal, not following tradition, and encouraging others to follow their hearts rather than do what duty demands). Chaotic acts can eventually cause a paladin to fall if he drops out of the lawful third, but not if he merely drops out of the lawful top one-tenth. Just like chaotic acts can RAW cause a monk to “fall” if they cease to be lawful.]
This high profile paladin:
1) is not against bending rules to get the desired result.
2) enjoys going undercover, deceiving people as to his true identity.
3) leads an organization dedicated to promoting self-determination, not order
I guess the lawful good paladin has a lot more freedom to be chaotic than we thought.
See, I'd call this character NG, but I guess they're just barely lawful enough to qualify as a paladin. And I wouldn't want to require a character like this to play around with “just barely lawful enough” just for the sake of fitting into the paladin box when the concept better matches a NG alignment.
@Weirdo - Of course they are changing how they act. They are submitting to a code. That the code generally corresponds to what they would do already is irrelevant to the fact that they are now saying "I submit to following this code and being judged by that person."
Saying "I will follow this code" can be chaotic. Saying "I will follow this code that is adjudicated by someone else" is submitting to someone elses authority, as they get to judge you as to if you are doing the code correctly. They are the authority that tells you what to do and if you are doing it right, and you agreed to accept their judgment. You submitted to their authority.
If you want to get into RAW
"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."
"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."
Which is again a lawful code - a CG paladin would remove that one line from the code and replace it with "respect individual freedom" and they would be just fine.
And even a NG paladin could follow the "respect legitimate authority" clause given suitably flexibile definitions of “respect” and “legitimate” as Jaelithe pointed out.
And as for submission:
If my personal code is congruent with some deity's code, and I am following it anyway, and I would be as disappointed in myself as whoever else shares my code should I fail to live up to its ideals, then I fail to see how I am "submitting to authority" by choosing to follow such a code. I am under no onerous obligation, and the deity's favor is his to give or to withhold.
Not all paladins have such a "submissive" relationship with their deity. You are projecting your biases here.When you agree to follow someone else's code and let them decide if you are doing it right, you are submitting to their authority.
That isn't something a Chaotic Person would do.
It isn't any more complicated than that.
Exactly. This idea that the paladin is submitting utterly to the will of their deity comes from the tradition of Christian knights, who actually were called to submit before God the Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent. While this works fine in that tradition, it does not always translate properly into a world in which even the Omnibenevolent good-aligned gods are not either Omniscient or Omnipotent.
The deity has the authority to decide whether the paladin is acting in accordance with the code - whether the paladin is following in broad terms what the deity stands for. That's it, they don't control the paladin in all things. And even that isn't quite accurate, because paladins are ultimately powered by cosmic alignment forces which means that ultimately the deity is unnecessary and as long as the paladin keeps acting as an appropriate conduit for his alignment (strictly following the code, which currently boils down to "be LG, like this") he can be a paladin.
The paladin follows his deity. But he follows the code first, which is why in the event that the code disagrees with his deity (Abadar thinks slavery is OK, but slavery is evil) the paladin is supposed to pick the code. They don't fall for a single instance of going against their deity's teachings, they do fall for a single violation of the code.
And if it isn't personal, it is shared. And if someone else is judging it, it ain't your code. And if it ain't your code, and someone else is deciding if you are doing it right it is someone elses code you are following.
It's ultimately not about Iomedae or Cayden Cailean looking over your shoulder and deciding whether you're "doing it right." It's that a paladin falling suddenly loses the necessary quality of goodness that allows them to channel the powers of good. It's like a sorcerer who has been cha-drained or feebleminded - they are simply incapable of channelling that power. In the sorcerer's case they have lost the force of presence necessary to channel arcane power. In the paladin's case their lack of commitment to the ideals of their alignment has made them a metaphysically unsuitable vessel.
|
|
But someone is deciding if they are doing it right. That person has authority over the Paladin.
It isn't about good, it is about them falling because they couldn't live up to the code. Paladins aren't any more "Good" than a really good Chaotic Good Character.
In some circumstances, the Chaotic Good character may even be more "good" than the Paladin.
But the Paladin follows a code that they believe is "the way" to live. And they aren't the ones deciding if they are following the code correctly.
That ain't Chaotic, no matter how you slice it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I've been repeating myself for awhile now. So, this will be the last thing I say unless some new argument comes up but this:
But what you support with paladins is the opposite! You are insisting that the CRB takes the narrow view. This is inconsistent with the design philosophy of the rest of the game, which is to give maximum choice.
This is not an argument for CG Paladins. This is an argument for no restrictions. If you can have CG, why can't I have NE. Why call it "rage?" That restricts it to an angry concept, better change that to" adrenaline rush." Why can't Druids wear metal armor and why do they have to revere nature? That really limits choice and we want maxium choice, right? "Sneak" attack implies something underhanded, really the whole rogue label is limiting. That'll have to change. Why do sorcerers have "bloodlines?" Doesn't that "limit" my choice? What if I didn't want my power to be inherited. What if I wanted to make a character who used the mechanics of the monk class but instead of being from a monastery that taught martial arts, he is instead an acrobat who learned to fight growing up in the circus? Lets see, asking my GM about this particular character concept is, of course, out if the question. I would just feel weird asking a close friend that I game with week after week if I could try something new. We will just have to get rid of the flavor of the class. You know, for "maxium choice."
In what way is your argument not, "lets get rid of all flavor," hmm? You say, "no, I just want this thing changed?" Well, if Pathfinder gives in to your personal preference how do they say no to the next guy? If you say, "well, he'll still be the same." Then why do you need the change? Now, if you say, "oh I agree with all those changes, we should get rid of flavor." Then why are you playing Pathfinder with its "baked in" flavor when there are already systems that are just mechanics?
And of course, before I'm attacked for telling people they're doing it wrong. Any of the above changes are fine for your game. I don't want any of this forced on everyone.
(How am I doing with the bold? Too much? I'm still learning this whole "Internet" thing.)
|
|
I said this before, I will say it again. Respectfully, you seem to be arguing "He chooses to be Lawful, so that
makes him Chaotic."And that is absurd.
I'm not arguing "He chooses to be Lawful, so that makes him Chaotic."
A champion of freedom and self-determination is chaotic in the same way that a traditional paladin is lawful. They share an affinity for good, but go about achieving their noble goals in different ways. There is nothing about being a paladin that should preclude the possibility of a chaotic good version. Especially since there already is a chaotic evil version.
You don't share a personal code. That is why it is a "personal" code.You can be chaotic and have a personal code, (shallowsoul I believe is wrong on this) but you can't follow a code that you aren't the one who decides if you are doing it right, and have it be a personal code.
And if it isn't personal, it is shared. And if someone else is judging it, it ain't your code. And if it ain't your code, and someone else is deciding if you are doing it right it is someone elses code you are following.
And if you are following someone elses code, you aren't chaotic, by definition.
I think you are getting hung up on a narrow authoritarian view of the word "code." Let's drop the "code" terminology for a moment. People have belief systems that govern the way they behave. To the extent that two people have similar belief systems, they share values. None of this necessarily entails anybody passing judgment on someone else's conduct, deciding if they are doing it right. They don't even have to be aware of each other.
|
|
Heh, me too!
It's not 'all or nothing'! Just because the recent drift is towards more choice doesn't mean it's turning into GURPS. Just because we advocate 'any good' does not mean we advocate 'any alignment'. Why? Because we want to keep the flavour, the essence, of the paladin too! But we understand the essence of the paladin to be 'good', not 'law'. And we have sufficient reason to believe so.
We realise opinion is divided on this. That being the case, the way Paizo has dealt with this in the past is to increase choice in its non-specific products, and therefore have officially supported versions of lots of concepts, from which individual campaigns can pick and choose. Just like you did with your rare elf/dwarf game.
Doing it this way round allows officially supported NG and CG concepts, while not hurting LG paladin concepts in any way. Doing it the other way denies official support for those concepts, forcing the widely disparaged 'homebrew solution' onto those would like to play that concept.
|
|
I said this before, I will say it again. Respectfully, you seem to be arguing "He chooses to be Lawful, so that
makes him Chaotic."And that is absurd.
I'm not arguing "He chooses to be Lawful, so that makes him Chaotic."
A champion of freedom and self-determination is chaotic in the same way that a traditional paladin is lawful. They share an affinity for good, but go about achieving their noble goals in different ways. There is nothing about being a paladin that should preclude the possibility of a chaotic good version. Especially since there already is a chaotic evil version.
You don't share a personal code. That is why it is a "personal" code.You can be chaotic and have a personal code, (shallowsoul I believe is wrong on this) but you can't follow a code that you aren't the one who decides if you are doing it right, and have it be a personal code.
And if it isn't personal, it is shared. And if someone else is judging it, it ain't your code. And if it ain't your code, and someone else is deciding if you are doing it right it is someone elses code you are following.
And if you are following someone elses code, you aren't chaotic, by definition.
I think you are getting hung up on a narrow authoritarian view of the word "code." Let's drop the "code" terminology for a moment. People have belief systems that govern the way they behave. To the extent that two people have similar belief systems, they share values. None of this necessarily entails anybody passing judgment on someone else's conduct, deciding if they are doing it right. They don't even have to be aware of each other.
Just being a good and lawful person doesn't make you a Paladin. Being a Paladin included following a code. I'm "hung up on it" because it is part of the class.
You and Mal seem either seem want to be able to call a character Chaotic who clearly isn't acting a chaotic manner, or just don't agree with the definition of Chaotic that is actually in the book.
A Paladin is, by definition, a person who devotes themselves to following a code that someone else is judging them on.
I don't know if I could think of a less chaotic thing to do.
All of the things you describe don't require you to be a paladin to do. There are lots of other classes that can be what you describe.
It is like saying you want to be a Wizard who doesn't cast spells, or a Druid who hates nature. A Paladin follows a code, the code is judged by someone other than the Paladin.
What part of this is Chaotic?
|
|
I don't know if I could think of a less chaotic thing to do.
There's your problem, right there!
You can't think what chaotic people would or wouldn't do! Your attempts to do so in this thread have been laughable.
In a recent post you said that you think that the Bill of Rights is not a chaotic aligned document! That it's neutral! This is the very document that is the epitome of the chaotic philosophy!
And if the Bill of Rights is neutral, what do you think chaotic is like? According to previous posts, you obviously believe that chaotic people are so incapable of functioning in normal society that they would never be able to get a job, be a doctor, serve in the armed forces, serve on a jury, be faithful to a spouse or even get married, be faithful to a god, or even continue to do what they want to do if someone else were to order them to keep doing it! Your faulty perception of what chaotic people would or wouldn't do is obvious by your posts. Your perception of them is that they are either insane sociopaths or they're not really chaotic, only neutral!
On another matter, do you really think that the words that make up the code in the CRB are the exact same words known to every paladin in game? That player knowledge and character knowledge are the same in this regard?
You cannot believe that paladins, in game, have access to the CRB! You describe a temple to a former paladin god with the paladin's code detailed within. Is this detail simply cut&paste from the CRB? Because if they are not the same, then they must be different! What are those differences likely to be? A sensibly written code that avoids the pointless self-destructive fall or fall scenario?
|
|
I've just checked out a thread called 'Homebrew paladin derivatives' which has both lawful and chaotic good paladin variants. Both LG and CG are still paladins but both also have their own name; the LG variant is called 'paragon' and the CG variant is called 'crusader'. Both classes are very slight variations on the paladin. I'm afraid I don't have the skill to create a link, but it was only created 2-3 hours ago.
The reason I mention it here is that the CG version obviously has a code! There have been many requests for such a code to be posted here, so I reproduce it on that basis:-
Code of Conduct: A crusader must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a crusader's code requires that she fight against tyranny and oppression, respect and uphold the rights of others to live as they choose (so long as their actions harm no one or endanger the common good), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or lawful ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents or who attempt to curtail personal liberties.
This is exactly similar, clause for clause, to the current code in the CRB. there is no difference in it's objective 'strictness', nor is there any problem about a chaotic character being bound to a code.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin is, by definition, a person who devotes themselves to following a code that someone else is judging them on.
Except that once we realize that the paladin isn't empowered by a deity but an alignment, we realize that no one is actually judging them (aside from the GM in a metagame sense). The paladin either is Good enough to be a paladin or they are not Good enough to be a paladin. If they never perform an evil act, always help those in need, always protect innocents, and always punish those who harm or threaten innocents, then they are Good enough to be a paladin. Just like they are Good enough to be fully affected by Unholy Blight. No judgment necessary - his alignment is as much an inherent part of him as his ability scores.
Incidentally, the fact that the paladin is empowered by the force of Good (and by current RAW the force of Law) also explains why paladins are held to a higher standard than clerics, and why their alignment is defined by the class rather than their deity. The deity may allow their servants to get away with minor violations of conduct, but the impersonal forces that determine alignment are as implacable as the laws of physics. You step off a cliff, and you will fall.
Is a character lawful for abiding by the laws of physics?
This is not an argument for CG Paladins. This is an argument for no restrictions. If you can have CG, why can't I have NE.
Because it would make zero sense for a NE person to smite evil? There's a difference between removing fluff requirements that aren't dictated by the mechanics (paladins have no pro-law or anti-chaos powers, so CG fits the mechanics fine) and removing fluff requirements that are contradicted by mechanics (paladins have anti-evil powers, so an evil alignment does not fit the mechanics).
Why call it "rage?" That restricts it to an angry concept, better change that to" adrenaline rush."
Nothing in the CRB requires that your character experience the emotion of anger when they are "raging," just that they can't use abilities that require patience or concentration. Anger is suggested, but mechanically it is just an adrenaline rush. And if a GM tried to control my character's actions beyond "no patience or concentration" - say, by insisting that character finish off an unconscious foe - on the grounds that I'm Raging and therefore must be angry, I'd be pretty ticked.
Why can't Druids wear metal armor and why do they have to revere nature? That really limits choice and we want maxium choice, right?
The druid's nature-based fluff is rooted in mechanics in that most of their abilities are nature-based, just like most of the paladin's abilities are good-based. And even then I'm not sold on these restrictions. There's room for argument that in a setting-neutral game you should be able to get power over nature without necessarily revering nature, and the metal restriction is especially weird since they can take the Metal subdomain.
"Sneak" attack implies something underhanded, really the whole rogue label is limiting. That'll have to change.
Which is why they're no longer called "thieves," and players are encouraged to fluff their rogues however they like. "Thieves and gamblers, fast talkers and diplomats, bandits and bounty hunters, and explorers and investigators all might be considered rogues, as well as countless other professions that rely upon wits, prowess, or luck... In the end, any who desire to shape their fates and live life on their own terms might come to be called rogues."
Why do sorcerers have "bloodlines?" Doesn't that "limit" my choice? What if I didn't want my power to be inherited.
Despite the name, bloodlines don't have to be genetically inherited according to JJ (and like Rage, nothing mechanical enforces that fluff).
What if I wanted to make a character who used the mechanics of the monk class but instead of being from a monastery that taught martial arts, he is instead an acrobat who learned to fight growing up in the circus?
That's not even discouraged let along forbidden by the current fluff, which explicitly says a monk can be a "self-taught brawler."
Lets see, asking my GM about this particular character concept is, of course, out if the question.I would just feel weird asking a close friend that I game with week after week if I could try something new. We will just have to get rid of the flavor of the class. You know, for "maxium choice."
It is a little difficult to work up the courage if the first time you mention the concept online someone calls you an entitled player who just wants the power of a class without the responsibility of upholding its concept. Especially if you know your GM is strict about RAW, or if you haven't been playing with that GM for long.
In what way is your argument not, "lets get rid of all flavor," hmm? You say, "no, I just want this thing changed?" Well, if Pathfinder gives in to your personal preference how do they say no to the next guy? If you say, "well, he'll still be the same." Then why do you need the change? Now, if you say, "oh I agree with all those changes, we should get rid of flavor." Then why are you playing Pathfinder with its "baked in" flavor when there are already systems that are just mechanics?
As you can see, the only flavor above that is actually mandated by RAW is the druid's metal armour and nature reverence restriction. And even that I'm fine with loosening up. In the other cases, players are either allowed or explicitly encouraged in the case of the rogue and monk to consider other ways of approaching the class, ways that are allowed by the mechanics, that make classes more flexible, and give players more options on how they build their characters.
And of course, before I'm attacked for telling people they're doing it wrong. Any of the above changes are fine for your game. I don't want any of this forced on everyone.
Then how do you feel knowing that most of it already exists in RAW and hasn't been forced on you?
|
|
Says the person who rejects the definition in the book...I don't know if I could think of a less chaotic thing to do.There's your problem, right there!
You can't think what chaotic people would or wouldn't do! Your attempts to do so in this thread have been laughable.
My understanding of chaotic good comes from being chaotic good.
Your understanding of chaotic good comes from being lawful neutral and trying to interpret what a book says about chaotic good, through the lens of your lawfulness.
The best counter you have to my arguments is to cut & paste chapter seven, and make fun of my typing skills. Or, 'appeal to authority' and 'ad hominem argument'. Fallacies, and poor ones at that.
Do you believe that there are no chaotic people who are doctors, or serve in the military, or are religious, or who are faithful to their wife?
Do you believe that all paladins, in game, have access to the code as written in the CRB?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my groups we never really care about the paladins code. That's something that the paladin worries about and the DM question from time to time. We don't have bioware lawful/chaos good/evil bars that the paladin moves up and down based on every action, thought, and choice of words.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Says the person who rejects the definition in the book...I don't know if I could think of a less chaotic thing to do.There's your problem, right there!
You can't think what chaotic people would or wouldn't do! Your attempts to do so in this thread have been laughable.
My understanding of chaotic good comes from being chaotic good.
Your understanding of chaotic good comes from being lawful neutral and trying to interpret what a book says about chaotic good, through the lens of your lawfulness.
No, you're not. Neither is ciretose Lawful. Those descriptions are pathetically insufficient to describe you, or ciretose, or any other human being that has ever lived.
Do you believe that there are no chaotic people who are doctors, or serve in the military, or are religious, or who are faithful to their wife?
Yes, I do. And I believe you do them a tremendous injustice by trying to reduce them to something as inadequate as a nine-box alignment system.
The best argument you have is to claim you have a deeper understanding of chaotic good, and that we are somehow outsiders looking in. Fallacy. And a poor one, at that.
|
|
No, you're not. Neither is ciretose Lawful. Those descriptions are pathetically insufficient to describe you, or ciretose, or any other human being that has ever lived.
Yes, I do. And I believe you do them a tremendous injustice by trying to reduce them to something as inadequate as a nine-box alignment system.
The best argument you have is to claim you have a deeper understanding of chaotic good, and that we are somehow outsiders looking in. Fallacy. And a poor one, at that.
The imperfection of a classification system does not render the system entirely useless. The alignment category labels are appropriate to describe tendencies and preferences on the good-evil axis and the law-chaos axis. It does not claim that all people act the same way all the time. It is when you try to make definitive statements about people based upon such labels that you run into trouble, as ciretose has when suggesting that there is no way a chaotic person could live according to a set of principles (i.e. a code)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The imperfection of a classification system does not render the system entirely useless. The alignment category labels are appropriate to describe tendencies and preferences on the good-evil axis and the law-chaos axis.No, you're not. Neither is ciretose Lawful. Those descriptions are pathetically insufficient to describe you, or ciretose, or any other human being that has ever lived.
Yes, I do. And I believe you do them a tremendous injustice by trying to reduce them to something as inadequate as a nine-box alignment system.
The best argument you have is to claim you have a deeper understanding of chaotic good, and that we are somehow outsiders looking in. Fallacy. And a poor one, at that.
That is perfectly true. I believe the classification is wonderfully adequate to use for characters in a d20 RPG setting. Like, let's say, the Pathfinder setting. I'm just not willing to quote the Alignment Rules again. I don't feel like putting forth the effort, since it will largely be ignored.
But, feel free to access the PRD at your convenience.
You will discover that the tendencies and preferences along the law-chaos axis make it clear that chaotic individuals are not going to desire or be willing to maintain a strict code of conduct.
|
|
You will discover that the tendencies and preferences along the law-chaos axis make it clear that chaotic individuals are not going to desire or be willing to maintain a strict code of conduct.
It's been said several times in several ways how this is not a real issue. An exemplar of the chaotic good alignment need not feel shackled by such a code of conduct, even if retention of powers is contingent upon following it. The commitment to chaotic principles (freedom, self-determination) in his code of conduct is an integral part of his belief system, not a burden to be endured, or otherwise abhorred due to his chaotic, freedom-preferring nature. The lawful flavor of the paladin code is for lawful paladins. A chaotic flavor would be for chaotic ones.
|
|
Says the person who rejects the definition in the book...Rejection of book definitions has resulted in loosening of too-strict alignment requirements for multiple classes dating back to the 1970s, creating a better game.
House rules are awesome. I am all for anyone houseruling the Paladin as they like.
The rules are clear that the actual book definition of Chaotic is not a Paladin.
|
|
My understanding of chaotic good comes from being chaotic good.
This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in this thread. And that is saying something.
Unless you are a player in the d20 system who has somehow become real, you are not Chaotic Good. Chaotic Good does not exist outside of the game.
And if it did, your definition of it would be significantly less valid than the one in the book.
|
|
House rules are awesome. I am all for anyone houseruling the Paladin as they like.
The rules are clear that the actual book definition of Chaotic is not a Paladin.
You are willfully ignoring the point. Rules change. We affect the direction of change with discussion. Why don't you just say "I don't like the idea of chaotic paladins" and be done with it?
My understanding of chaotic good comes from being chaotic good.
This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in this thread. And that is saying something.
Unless you are a player in the d20 system who has somehow become real, you are not Chaotic Good. Chaotic Good does not exist outside of the game.
And if it did, your definition of it would be significantly less valid than the one in the book.
The concepts are universal, and describe tendencies that real people have. No matter how much you want to, you can't stop people from thinking about themselves in certain ways.
Poll: What's Your Real Life Alignment?
What is your personal real-life alignment (D&D)?
Subject: Real life Alignment
Your Real Life Alignment
What is your Alignment?
|
|
My understanding of chaotic good comes from being chaotic good.
This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in this thread. And that is saying something.
Unless you are a player in the d20 system who has somehow become real, you are not Chaotic Good. Chaotic Good does not exist outside of the game.
And if it did, your definition of it would be significantly less valid than the one in the book.
Yet you are happy to self identify as lawful neutral.
Are you really saying that there is no such thing as 'good' or 'evil' outside of the game rules?
That it makes no sense to try and see how real people match our understanding of good and evil?
I contend that good and evil are concepts which humanity uses to describe actual, complex behaviour in real people, and as imprecise as it is it remains a very useful intellectual concept. We use these concepts all the time, and we have found a use for these concepts in the game.
Just because the game uses these concepts as a game mechanic it does not mean that good or evil only exist in the game! It does not mean that we can't use these concepts to describe real people.
Although the concepts of 'law' and 'chaos', when discussing an alignment system, are much more recent, this does not mean that they are less valid intellectual concepts than good or evil. What holds true for good and evil holds true for law and chaos when using these concepts to describe actual people, even though we realise that any individual is more complex than two words can encompass.
The alignment system is a model of actual expectations of such behaviour for any given population. The construct assumes that some people are good and some are evil. We have exactly the same assumptions about people in real life. It's perfectly valid to ask if Hitler was evil. People have been doing that for a long time! They didn't have to wait for AD&D! And now that good and evil are part of our game construct this does not make such real-life comparisons invalid. Nor does their presense in the game invalidate the concepts of law and chaos, or deny us the right to measure real people in those terms.
The game construct of alignment expects not only that some people are good and some are evil, but also that some are lawful and some chaotic. And, just as we can use these concepts to describe game characters, we can use them to describe real people, for all the limitations that come with using a two-word shorthand.
The chaotic alignment is not reserved for the insane, or those unable to function in society! That you understand chaotic to mean that just shows that you don't understand it.
The way you describe what you believe chaotic people cannot do, you woukd have one third of the population unable to enter military service, get married, be faithful to their god, or be a doctor. This is not a credible model of the population of any world, real or fantastic! The only alternative is that you don't believe that one third of the population of our game worlds is chaotic, but that the chaotic alignments are limited to a few sociopathic individuals. This does not match either the game or reality. Your understanding is flawed.
Society varies greatly and inside it only the rulemakers win. I'm not sure if theres a really viable way to measure out the human population based on dnd's nine alignments. Unless you make devices to that measure lawful vs. Chaos and good vs. evil and put everyone in 9 boxes and count them out... but that sounds like more work than its worth.
So... how are we talking about this when we're talking about the paladin? Relating to the paladin... The Paladin doesn't have much wiggle room as other classes and acting out of alignment, even occasinally. He has a code of Conduct as a class feature that prohibits him from specific behavior, and the extent to which this code controls him varies from person to person, creating a bit of conflict.
Malachi, Ciretose has stated he disagrees with Shallowsoul about a chaotic person being capable of holding a personal code. Ciretose is not the one who has claimed it is impossible for a chaotic person to hold to principle.
Also where have you found Ciretose declaring himself as lawful neutral? You keep stating that and I've not seen it.
|
|
Malachi, Ciretose has stated he disagrees with Shallowsoul about a chaotic person being capable of holding a personal code. Ciretose is not the one who has claimed it is impossible for a chaotic person to hold to principle.
Also where have you found Ciretose declaring himself as lawful neutral? You keep stating that and I've not seen it.
In one of the 'What is your real-life alignment?' threads ciretose favourited the ''I am lawful neutral' post (that being how the poll was taken). He did that in May 2012, if memory serves.
Ciretose has said, many times, that the reason chaotic people could never be paladins, even if they were allowed to be, is because chaotic people are incapable of submitting to someone else's authority to follow a code adjudicated by someone else. I deconstructed that assertion by pointing out that serving in the military, having a job, etc., all involve doing exactly this. For ciretose to be correct, it follows that no chaotic person ever served in the military, had a job, etc., and since this doesn't hold water it must be that chaotic people can choose to submit to an authority. Therefore, if paladins were allowed to be CG then submitting to a code of their own choosing of their own free will is perfectly within their capability.
|
|
House rules are awesome. I am all for anyone houseruling the Paladin as they like.
The rules are clear that the actual book definition of Chaotic is not a Paladin.
You are willfully ignoring the point. Rules change. We affect the direction of change with discussion. Why don't you just say "I don't like the idea of chaotic paladins" and be done with it?
We are discussion the rules, not what you want the rules to be.
Chaotic Paladins are an oxymoron given the definition of Paladin and the Definition of Chaotic. It makes as much sense as Lawful Insurrection.
|
|
We are discussion the rules, not what you want the rules to be.
When the topic is chaotic paladins, it goes without saying that we are talking either hypothetically or about potential rule changes.
Chaotic Paladins are an oxymoron given the definition of Paladin and the Definition of Chaotic. It makes as much sense as Lawful Insurrection.
The American Civil War began in lawful fashion. Each state ratified an ordinance of secession, formally leaving the United States. President Buchanan saw no constitutional justification for preventing this, but Lincoln was willing to fight over it.
"I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty." -- Robert E. Lee
"Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly character." -- Robert E. Lee
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are discussion the rules, not what you want the rules to be.When the topic is chaotic paladins, it goes without saying that we are talking either hypothetically or about potential rule changes.
Chaotic Paladins are an oxymoron given the definition of Paladin and the Definition of Chaotic. It makes as much sense as Lawful Insurrection.The American Civil War began in lawful fashion. Each state ratified an ordinance of secession, formally leaving the United States. President Buchanan saw no constitutional justification for preventing this, but Lincoln was willing to fight over it.
"I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty." -- Robert E. Lee
"Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly character." -- Robert E. Lee
The American revolution. A formal Declaration of Independence, the second continental congress, articles of confederation ...
The American Civil War was primarily a dispute over whether the Federal government or the States were sovereign. Simply assigning final authority to another power does not make you chaotic. If anything, Lincoln was the more chaotic authority, as he deliberately ignored the Constitution, instituted martial law, and suspended habeus corpus, issued a proclamation that may have been entirely illegal, etc....
The "What's my Alignment?" threads are roughly analogous to the "Which Happy Days Character Are You?" quizzes on facebook. You can make comparisons. But, in reality it is far too inadequate to make a worthwhile summary of a persons personality. And no matter what, you are still using the definition in the CRB to make your determination. Some in this thread are suggesting that there is a definition of chaotic beyond what is printed... which is absurd.
|
|
The American Civil War was primarily a dispute over whether the Federal government or the States were sovereign. Simply assigning final authority to another power does not make you chaotic. If anything, Lincoln was the more chaotic authority, as he deliberately ignored the Constitution, instituted martial law, and suspended habeus corpus, issued a proclamation that may have been entirely illegal, etc....
Not sure if you thought I was saying the Confederacy was chaotic (I wasn't). The example was intended to show that there is nuance to law vs. chaos, and that things are not as clearly black and white as ciretose seemed to be claiming with his oxymoron.
The "What's my Alignment?" threads are roughly analogous to the "Which Happy Days Character Are You?" quizzes on facebook. You can make comparisons. But, in reality it is far too inadequate to make a worthwhile summary of a persons personality. And no matter what, you are still using the definition in the CRB to make your determination. Some in this thread are suggesting that there is a definition of chaotic beyond what is printed... which is absurd.
That is less absurd than the assertion that our thoughts and conversations are limited by Pathfinder rules. I would guess that fewer than 1% of people who have ever claimed to identify with a particular alignment have ever played Pathfinder, much less used the Pathfinder CRB definition to inform their beliefs.
That is less absurd than the assertion that our thoughts and conversations are limited by Pathfinder rules. I would guess that fewer than 1% of people who have ever claimed to identify with a particular alignment have ever played Pathfinder, much less used the Pathfinder CRB definition to inform their beliefs.
I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are saying here. If your point is that the nine-box alignment system used by d20 RPG's is absurdly inadequate to represent the psychology and social interactions of real people, then I wholeheartedly agree.
My point was that the alignment system defined by the game is only suitable to use for characters in the game. And if you are using the game rules, and assigning a character an alignment, then it is absurd to believe that the alignment you have chosen has some much deeper secret meaning beyond what is spelled out in said rules system.
|
|
I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are saying here. If your point is that the nine-box alignment system used by d20 RPG's is absurdly inadequate to represent the psychology and social interactions of real people, then I wholeheartedly agree.
My point was that the alignment system defined by the game is only suitable to use for characters in the game. And if you are using the game rules, and assigning a character an alignment, then it is absurd to believe that the alignment you have chosen has some much deeper secret meaning beyond what is spelled out in said rules system.
I am saying that good, evil, chaos, and law exist in the real world, and the nine-box alignment system developed for d20 RPGs represents an attempt to simplify the motivational and preferential complexity of characters in the game.
Conversely, using the d20 nine-box alignment system to describe real people is not to deny their complexity, but to make generalized statements about their tendencies.
If I say "I am chaotic good," I do not mean that encompasses the whole of my psyche. I do not mean that my behavior is reducible to a phrase. I do not mean that I am immune to a paladin's smite. I do not mean that all of the sentences in the CRB pertaining to chaotic good describe me perfectly. What I do mean is that of all the available alignment options, chaotic good fits me best, primarily because I highly value freedom, and voluntary sacrifice to help others, not to the exclusion of all other values, but other values are less important to me. I highly value honesty, and don't give my word unless I am sure I can live up to it, but if someone in authority is asking questions I don't think is any of their business, I will resist answering. My census survey form goes right into the trash. When they call me about it, I confirm my address and the number of occupants, but they don't need to know how many toilets I have or how much money I make. If mandatory firearm registration ever becomes a reality in the US, I will brazenly lie and hide my guns.
It doesn't ruin the game for me not to have an alignment champion available that matches my own beliefs, but it would add something to it for me if there were one officially available.
|
|
Some in this thread are suggesting that there is a definition of chaotic beyond what is printed... which is absurd.
Absurd? Let's test it. If you think that that alignment beyond the CRB is absurd, then any of the alignments would be equally absurd:-
Some in this thread are suggesting that there is a definition of evil beyond what is printed... which is absurd.
I'm confident that we can discuss evil beyond the PF rules. What's okay for evil is also okay for good, law and chaos.
Law and chaos, as philosophical viewpoints, did not originate in RPGs. These concepts exist beyond RPGs. It's okay to talk about the concepts and wonder which alignment best matches a real person or a fantasy character.
For the alignment system to be a useful tool in the game it must fairly reflect the spread of alignments in society, real or fantastic. If it doesn't then it wouldn't be fit for purpose. It would render the chaotic alignment only suitable to describe the insane. This is not to suggest that law/neutrality/chaos divides the population into perfect thirds, but it shouldn't be too far away when talking about the sum total of alignments in the game world. Individual cultures can have a bias; this is in fact one of the uses of the alignment system.
Usually Elven culture is thought of as chaotic good and dwarven culture is thought of as lawful good. Nothing wrong with that, and it makes exceptions to that generality stand out. If you had a lawful neutral Elven society, what would it be like? How would it subvert our stereotypes? This kind of thing shows how the alignment system we have can be a very useful role-playing tool.
So yes, alignment is a concept which exists outside of the game, and to be of value it must be compared to actual behaviour to ensure it's continuing usefulness.