As for the anti-paladin, I think that would have been much better as a LE class - with Asmodeus and the devils of Hell corrupting the champions of heaven and turning them into unholy knights.
Why not just any evil in case they didn't feel like dealing with that whole duty thing? Duty can work against your personal ideals. Variety is the spice of life...
How are paladins white knights? Why can't a CG or NG be a white knight?
Definitions and values change greatly between people. Similarly, you can be a champion of many things. An anti-paladin can be a champion of something, and a paladin can choose not to be a champion of anything. I guess its offtopic if its all opinion though.
Keep in mind that as a Paladin you have to be one step within your patron deity's alignment along the good/evil/lawful/chaotic axis.
Where's that rule?
Actually that's clerics not paladin.
"Alignment: A cleric's alignment must be within one step of her deity's, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis."
However, I do believe a paladin (who must be LG) can worship either LG, NG, or LN deity. As long as they approach their god's dogma, etc., in a LG way.
I think's that's what ScionOfKnight was trying to say.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that's what he's saying at all:
Keep in mind that as a Paladin you have to be one step within your patron deity's alignment along the good/evil/lawful/chaotic axis. That doesn't mean that you must strictly be LG or even GOOD at all. As a GM, I allow my players to play Dark Paladins (any of an evil alignment).
The point seems to be that since Abadar can have paladins, and clerics of Abadar can be LN or LE, you can have a LN or LE paladin of Abadar. This is not RAW since the list of deities with paladins is based on the LG alignment, not the other way around, but might make sense if you expanded paladin alignments.
Personally I think it depends on how closely a paladin is tied to his god. If a paladin is a champion of a deity, he should match his deity's alignment, because paladins are characterized by total commitment. If a paladin is a champion of an alignment, he may follow a deity with a different alignment, possibly even a partly opposed alignment, depending on how closely a member of a religion is expected to hold to that religion's alignment. PF tends to treat them as champions of alignment. They aren't required to have a deity, get their powers from Law and Good, and these powers are based on alignment (ie Smite Evil).
There's nothing RAW that says that paladins have to be within one step of their deity's alignment, but it's a common house rule due to the restriction on cleric and the fact that it's difficult to follow a deity whose alignment is opposed to yours on either axis, as James Jacobs explains here. Of course, right after that SKR says he wouldn't mind a LG paladin of Asmodeus, so it's clearly a matter of taste. For that matter, so is the issue of cleric alignments. The Eberron setting has distant gods and hypocritical clergy who don't have to have an alignment close to that of their god.
The Eberron setting has distant gods and hypocritical clergy who don't have to have an alignment close to that of their god.
You know I've never had someone ask me to play a cleric of a different alignment of their deity... Now I have to consider what to do when they ask! I could see that being weird and still being completely reasonable.
Alignment restrictions (heck, alignment en toto) should go the way of the dodo, IMNSHO.
Same here.
I've never really given alignment more than a token nod at my table, and the game has worked just fine without it.
It really doesn't come up for much more than... what? Detect alignment and protection from alignment spells, and sadistically tormenting the poor Paladins for no particularly good reason? (Which certainly is a tradition and fun in its own way, but it's not like the Paladin is an over-powered class that needs to be reigned in with arbitrary and annoying restrictions, right?)
I'm perfectly fine with a player designing a Paladin Code of Conduct of his/her own... so long as it's in the right spirit of things and helps with the party's immersion in the game world, I enjoy and encourage the players to try something new and different from a stereotypical Paladin (or Rogue, or Fighter, or Barbarian, or Monk or Cleric or Wizard or Ranger or whatever....)
So my question to the rest of you is how would this effect the rest of the game if I had a Paladin of Cayden Cailean who was CG at the table?** spoiler omitted **
Could your table abide having this kind of guy in the group who was a holy warrior?
Would this somehow unbalance the game or break it?
I am still wondering how what you describe here could not just as easily be LG. The move to CG means you shift the goalpost enormously in your favour from a mechanical and limitations standpoint, so no I'd insist if you want the Paladin package you have to buy the whole package.
How would it change the mechanical and limitations goalpost?
How are paladins white knights? Why can't a CG or NG be a white knight?
Because we call them Cavaliers, may I point you to the rather naughty Sir Lancelot, and a CG white knight named Ivanhoe who was in tight with his good friend Robin Hood.
Because cavaliers are mechanically identical sans alignment restriction to paladins right?
Lancelot is considered a paladin who gave in to individual weakness (i.e. chaotic actions). He never committed evil acts, and was exemplary in the martial arena even to the end. He just happened to love and be loved by the Queen.
Ivanhoe is a brawling roustabout who is never described as a paladin, he's just a mighty knight. And being a knight is about social status..he's effectively just a good-hearted fighter type.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would it change the mechanical and limitations goalpost?
Simple.
LG has many more constraints than the rather flexible CG.
LG to a great extent is informed by BOTH the internal and external mores of the character, whereas CG is happy to dispense with local dictates and customs that don't suit his personal moral compass.
This is contra to the burden the Paladin must bear.
Similarly, alignment has significant in game effects - there are spells and other such magic that reacts with differing alignments in very mechanical ways, one of the disadvantages of being a Paladin is that the bad guys know exactly what to target you with, being all of a sudden 'flexible' in your application of alignment reduces that vulnerability.
Don't like it? Play a Holy Warrior, a Cleric, a Multiclass Cav Cleric,you can still call it a 'Champion of Cayden' if you want, but if you want the Paladins grab bag of abilities, you take his grab bag of downsides too.
Play a Rogue, call him a Paladin, act as CG and white knight all you like, just dont try and sell us that he's an actual Paladin.
Because cavaliers are mechanically identical sans alignment restriction to paladins right?
Oh well at least you are being honest that you just want the mechanical advantages without the restrictions and that this has about as much to do with 'RP freedom' as a potato.
Ivanhoe is a brawling roustabout who is never described as a paladin, he's just a mighty knight. And being a knight is about social status..he's effectively just a good-hearted fighter type.
==Aelryinth
I pick him more as a Cav than straight up Fighter, so in answer to being a CG white knight I think he pretty much fits the bill :)
Because cavaliers are mechanically identical sans alignment restriction to paladins right?Oh well at least you are being honest that you just want the mechanical advantages without the restrictions and that this has about as much to do with 'RP freedom' as a potato.
Being condescending is not nice or productive. I didn't say anything like that.
I was responding to you telling people who wanted to play a paladin class to go play the cavalier class. The classes are mechanically very different.
Sorry if that's not what you meant, however in the context that is very much what you appear to be saying.
I want X because I want to be a CG/NG white knight (an RP construct) which could easily be accomplished by Y with no changes, but I don't want Y, I want X for the mechanics but without the limitations and obligations X comes with. Those people do not want to play a Paladin class, or they'd be playing an LG Paladin, they want to play the Cavalier with the benefits of a Paladin and none of the 'annoying' stuff.
How would it change the mechanical and limitations goalpost?Simple.
LG has many more constraints than the rather flexible CG.
LG to a great extent is informed by BOTH the internal and external mores of the character, whereas CG is happy to dispense with local dictates and customs that don't suit his personal moral compass.This is contra to the burden the Paladin must bear.
Similarly, alignment has significant in game effects - there are spells and other such magic that reacts with differing alignments in very mechanical ways, one of the disadvantages of being a Paladin is that the bad guys know exactly what to target you with, being all of a sudden 'flexible' in your application of alignment reduces that vulnerability.
Don't like it? Play a Holy Warrior, a Cleric, a Multiclass Cav Cleric,you can still call it a 'Champion of Cayden' if you want, but if you want the Paladins grab bag of abilities, you take his grab bag of downsides too.
Play a Rogue, call him a Paladin, act as CG and white knight all you like, just dont try and sell us that he's an actual Paladin.
Or the better option, make Paladins of all alignments available, and let the individual table/player decide if they want them to be LG-only. That way, everybody wins.
Or the better option, make Paladins of all alignments available, and let the individual table/player decide if they want them to be LG-only. That way, everybody wins.
Oh its the 'paragon' debate all over again.
Sits right up there with the playstyles of moral convenience that try palm off 'good necromancers' etc. Why can't I play a non-Evil assassin?
Or the better option, make Paladins of all alignments available, and let the individual table/player decide if they want them to be LG-only. That way, everybody wins.
GASP! But then we'd let the dirty rollplayers win. Everyone knows only dirty evil peoples who want to defile the name of the 'paladin' and want the mechanical benefits without a stick up the butt want to play that class without the restrictions. Only true roleplayers deserve that stick up the butt!
Or the better option, make Paladins of all alignments available, and let the individual table/player decide if they want them to be LG-only. That way, everybody wins.Oh its the 'paragon' debate all over again.
Sits right up there with the playstyles of moral convenience that try palm off 'good necromancers' etc. Why can't I play a non-Evil assassin?
Paragon debate? Is everyone supposed to know what this is? Can necromancers not serve good ends? Is everyone who kills a bad guy? Is fluff not mutable? Is this not about homebrew anyway?
Or the better option, make Paladins of all alignments available, and let the individual table/player decide if they want them to be LG-only. That way, everybody wins.Oh its the 'paragon' debate all over again.
Sits right up there with the playstyles of moral convenience that try palm off 'good necromancers' etc. Why can't I play a non-Evil assassin?
There's no reason you shouldn't. It ain't what you can do, it's what you do with it.
Paragon debate? Is everyone supposed to know what this is?
By now? Yes. The debate has been had on these boards a billion times already, there's literally hundreds and hundreds of posts, thousands even, in which you can go and have a read of the hows and whys on non LG paladins.
Paragon debate? Is everyone supposed to know what this is?By now? Yes. The debate has been had on these boards a billion times already, there's literally hundreds and hundreds of posts, thousands even, in which you can go and have a read of the hows and whys on non LG paladins.
I have my own ideas. Its not something everyone is going to know. I only joined this board a month or two ago. Worse you infer its an awful idea when you say it like that. I think its completely reasonable, and I've seen it done a dozen ways. Not saying any are worse or better than my own, but I do have my own way of going about it and have done it.
I personally like the idea of paladins with "any good" as their alignment...
This might surprise you, but "any good" composes HALF of the available alignments for PC's in the first place. Thus, your liking the idea is in error at best. It's not a restriction if it's "any Good", it IS a restriction if it has to be a specific alignment.
Lose the LG alignment, then you lose what makes a Paladin. Remember, most superheroes in comic books are LG. Have you noticed? Everybody from Green Lantern to Superman to Thor to....
Just gotta be heroic to play a Paladin, really. That code really isn't much of a restriction if you know how to play a hero.
I seem to recall 3.5 having alternate classes for LE, CE, and CG that were basically paladins with tweaks. My GM often reminisces about "paladins of freedom" that were apparently a thing back when Elves were canonically a CG culture and had their own CG deity.
If I were re-writing Pathfinder, I'd change the paladin's alignment from LG to "any non-neutral" and adjust Detect Evil, Smite Evil, and the paladin's code to compensate.
I do have a hard time imagining a neutral paladin though, even on one axis. What differentiates a paladin from a cleric or a LG cavalier, IMO, is true devotion in every thought and deed. Paladins get their power not so much from a deity, but from dedication so true it grants the paladin divine power as strong as any religion. I just can't see a character with an N on his alignment line putting himself so entirely into his ideals.
I whole heartedly agree with the idea of paladins having multiple alignment options (I think Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed did a good job with the champion class), and I too struggle with the Neutral Paladin.
On one hand, it seems non commital to be NG or CN and especially ambivalent to be N, but on the other a paladin of law or chaos or balance all seem reasonable crusaders to me, and the Warden in D&D Next is also a good example of a neutral crusader, though it usurps the ranger a bit.
I'd love to see paladins re-written with domains or portfolios that granted certain powers rather than a fix smite evil/good.
I personally like the idea of paladins with "any good" as their alignment...This might surprise you, but "any good" composes HALF of the available alignments for PC's in the first place. Thus, your liking the idea is in error at best. It's not a restriction if it's "any Good", it IS a restriction if it has to be a specific alignment.
Lose the LG alignment, then you lose what makes a Paladin. Remember, most superheroes in comic books are LG. Have you noticed? Everybody from Green Lantern to Superman to Thor to....
Just gotta be heroic to play a Paladin, really. That code really isn't much of a restriction if you know how to play a hero.
I know how to play the hero. I plan to make a paladin when my wizard bites the dust tonight. I have no problem with the Lawful Good restriction to the paladin (despite me saying I like the idea of an "any good" paladin). However, it seems many people don't know how to play with the heroic type, which is evidenced by the proliferation of Chaotic Neutral characters, with many of them played so close to Chaotic Evil. People would rather play the Punisher than Superman. And quite frankly, it gets really old. Yes, that's their playstyle, but it gets annoying having to change my playstyle so there is no unneeded drama that could lead to pvp. And lifting the "must be Lawful Good" from the paladin could see the class played more, with less drama and chance of pvp.
I know how to play the hero, but most people don't know how to play with the hero.
|
I always felt that a Paladin is more about abiding to a strict code than about being lawful good specifically. I feel LG, LN, and LE should all be permitted. For example, a LN Paladin of Abadar who is focused on what is best to create a structured and prosperous city-state. This Paladin, perhap a Dwarven Stonelord named Morgrym, would be fine with either an evil tyrant or a "fair and just" council as long as the city is structured and prosperous. It puts a bit of a slant on the character which can inspire interesting roleplay, but does rely on a player willing to be true to character AND not ruin the campaign by stabbing everyone in the back for fun then claiming "I am joining the BBEG he seems to be more effective." (The whole backstabbing thing does get a bit tempting tbh)
The "big" change between the alignments really only needs to be what alignment they detect, what alignment is targeted by their smite, and similar minor changes. Morgrym detects chaos, smites chaos, and has a Resolute Earth Elemental (Stonelord alternate class feature modified to Resolute).
I personally like the idea of paladins with "any good" as their alignment...This might surprise you, but "any good" composes HALF of the available alignments for PC's in the first place. Thus, your liking the idea is in error at best. It's not a restriction if it's "any Good", it IS a restriction if it has to be a specific alignment.
Lose the LG alignment, then you lose what makes a Paladin. Remember, most superheroes in comic books are LG. Have you noticed? Everybody from Green Lantern to Superman to Thor to....
Just gotta be heroic to play a Paladin, really. That code really isn't much of a restriction if you know how to play a hero.
Its a restriction if you say any evil, or if you say any good, or if its NG or CG. The code isn't all that heroic. It doesn't allow for vigilantes, and it has this weird thing about deciding what legitimate authority is, and is against the use of any kind of poisons ever. Even ones that are non lethal. Batman isn't a hero under the code. Guy uses shark repellant.
|
Does anyone see an Anti-Paladin more like a Shadowknight (everquest) or Deathknight (WoW)? I know there is a template for Graveknight, but I run into grief from my gaming group about using templates in our current game. Anyone have a link to a decent build that is close to what I am suggesting or can anyone make one? Trying to find something toned down that would be better than the current Pathfinder Anti-paladin. Also, I am not playing the character as CE. I think it's silly that the Anti-Paladin is CE. Thinking more LE or NE.
Just gotta be heroic to play a Paladin, really. That code really isn't much of a restriction if you know how to play a hero.I know how to play the hero. I plan to make a paladin when my wizard bites the dust tonight. I have no problem with the Lawful Good restriction to the paladin (despite me saying I like the idea of an "any good" paladin). However, it seems many people don't know how to play with the heroic type, which is evidenced by the proliferation of Chaotic Neutral characters, with many of them played so close to Chaotic Evil. People would rather play the Punisher than Superman. And quite frankly, it gets really old. Yes, that's their playstyle, but it gets annoying having to change my playstyle so there is no unneeded drama that could lead to pvp. And lifting the "must be Lawful Good" from the paladin could see the class played more, with less drama and chance of pvp.
I know how to play the hero, but most people don't know how to play with the hero.
LG is literally the essence of what it means to be a hero, a White Hat. And if the people in your group don't know how to play a hero, SHOW THEM.
Once upon a time, I asked a fellow player what he thought of my portrayal of a Paladin. He said that if we were being chased by a horde of demons (of certain death), and his character tripped, my Paladin would be the only one to turn back for him.
I can think of no higher praise than that. LG is heroic by nature. Show them what it means to be a true blue OMG hero.
They win others over by their sheer goodness and are VERY handy to have around to save your tuckus. This is a guy that would jump in front of a fireball to save your PC, someone that would never give up rescue if you had been captured, someone you can absolutely trust with ANYTHING so long as your intentions are good. Worried your sister might sleep with someone and get hurt? Trust the Paladin, even if he is really handsome. He'll not only refrain from taking your sister's virginity out of concern for her wellbeing, he will protect her whether she likes it or not until she finds someone that will stand by her even if she gets pregnant.
See what I mean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding alignment options to the Paladin doesn't take any of that away, Piccolo. It only adds options, it takes nothing away. If you think the Paladin should be LG only, then you can choose to only play LG Paladins, and only allow them at your table if running. This makes you happy. Meanwhile, the rest of us can play the way we want, and we're happy.
Everybody wins.
Is this going to turn into a my hero can beat your hero thing?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LG is literally the essence of what it means to be a hero, a White Hat. And if the people in your group don't know how to play a hero, SHOW THEM.
Once upon a time, I asked a fellow player what he thought of my portrayal of a Paladin. He said that if we were being chased by a horde of demons (of certain death), and his character tripped, my Paladin would be the only one to turn back for him.
I can think of no higher praise than that. LG is heroic by nature. Show them what it means to be a true blue OMG hero.
They win others over by their sheer goodness and are VERY handy to have around to save your tuckus. This is a guy that would jump in front of a fireball to save your PC, someone that would never give up rescue if you had been captured, someone you can absolutely trust with ANYTHING so long as your intentions are good. Worried your sister might sleep with someone and get hurt? Trust the Paladin, even if he is really handsome. He'll not only refrain from taking your sister's virginity out of concern for her wellbeing, he will protect her whether she likes it or not until she finds someone that will stand by her even if she gets pregnant.
See what I mean?
That's not exclusive to Lawful Good. When the level 1 party stumbled into a nest of ghouls, my NG druid delayed to make sure that everyone else got out first. She later had an argument with the CG paladin over who was going to play the prisoner in an infiltration mission (think Chewie in the start of Return of the Jedi). My friend had a CG Ronin who died next to my LG Inquisitor trying to protect an orc infant from a powerful genocidal NPC - we both knew it was suicidal.
Lose the LG alignment, then you lose what makes a Paladin. Remember, most superheroes in comic books are LG. Have you noticed? Everybody from Green Lantern to Superman to Thor to....
I would describe Thor as CG. Maybe NG. He strikes me as barbarian-ish. He's a Norse god, after all. In the recent movies, Iron Man is also very CG - the Avengers made a point about how even though he hasn't got the sense of discipline, honour, or respect for authority that Captain America does, he is just as willing to risk his life to save others, which makes him a big damn hero.
LG has many more constraints than the rather flexible CG.
False. In the description of alignment in the CRB, it says "Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel." This implies that Chaotic characters have a compulsion to rebel that is equal and opposite to a Lawful character's compulsion to obey. In my next campaign, CG paladins/champions actually have a harder time than their LG counterparts because the CG champions are driven to challenge the primarily LN government. It's not unusual for them to be executed for their commitment.
I always felt that a Paladin is more about abiding to a strict code than about being lawful good specifically. I feel LG, LN, and LE should all be permitted. For example, a LN Paladin of Abadar who is focused on what is best to create a structured and prosperous city-state. This Paladin, perhap a Dwarven Stonelord named Morgrym, would be fine with either an evil tyrant or a "fair and just" council as long as the city is structured and prosperous. It puts a bit of a slant on the character which can inspire interesting roleplay, but does rely on a player willing to be true to character AND not ruin the campaign by stabbing everyone in the back for fun then claiming "I am joining the BBEG he seems to be more effective." (The whole backstabbing thing does get a bit tempting tbh)
The "big" change between the alignments really only needs to be what alignment they detect, what alignment is targeted by their smite, and similar minor changes. Morgrym detects chaos, smites chaos, and has a Resolute Earth Elemental (Stonelord alternate class feature modified to Resolute).
In my next campaign paladins/champions pick a championed alignment with its associated opposed alignment and replace "good" and "evil" in the class description with the championed and opposed alignments, respectively. Normally I like heroic "any good" paladins but the setting of this campaign called for exactly the type of LN paladin you described. It also leads to the interesting situation of having LG paladins who are champions of good and LG paladins who are champions of law, with different opinions on how to act in a Law vs Good dilemma.
I'd love to see paladins re-written with domains or portfolios that granted certain powers rather than a fix smite evil/good.
Also something I'd like to see.
The Genius Guide to the Templar
Is that what this is?
By now? Yes. The debate has been had on these boards a billion times already, there's literally hundreds and hundreds of posts, thousands even, in which you can go and have a read of the hows and whys on non LG paladins.Paragon debate? Is everyone supposed to know what this is?Or the better option, make Paladins of all alignments available, and let the individual table/player decide if they want them to be LG-only. That way, everybody wins.Oh its the 'paragon' debate all over again.
And this is a thread entitled "Paladin Alignments - more than just LG?" Did you really expect that this debate wouldn't show up in this thread?
Sits right up there with the playstyles of moral convenience that try palm off 'good necromancers' etc. Why can't I play a non-Evil assassin?
Got no problem with either. Necromancy is a tool and can be used for good or evil, and if a good character can kill things why can't they be an assassin - the kind of character who can efficiently kill only the target, without causing collateral damage of random henchmen?
|
|
That's not exclusive to Lawful Good. When the level 1 party stumbled into a nest of ghouls, my NG druid delayed to make sure that everyone else got out first. She later had an argument with the CG paladin over who was going to play the prisoner in an infiltration mission (think Chewie in the start of Return of the Jedi). My friend had a CG Ronin who died next to my LG Inquisitor trying to protect an orc infant from a powerful genocidal NPC - we both knew it was suicidal.
1. #%^* yes. Lawful Good is not Best Good.
2. Those two characters are both equally good and #%^*ing awesome.
3. Seriously, those two are #%^*ing awesome. I'd roll with those guys any day. :)
Thought I should point out that by nature, Lawful takes into account what's best for society at large, not just their own interests. CG doesn't really care about what other people think, they just do what they feel is right and damn the consequences.
This doesn't mean CG is bad, just that it doesn't think about how the rest of the locals will react.
Thought I should point out that by nature, Lawful takes into account what's best for society at large, not just their own interests. CG doesn't really care about what other people think, they just do what they feel is right and damn the consequences.
This doesn't mean CG is bad, just that it doesn't think about how the rest of the locals will react.
Gosh, you make CG sound like sociopaths. Not caring about the law doesn't mean damn the consequences and forget everyone. That's a quick road to evil, and usually very selfish. Sometimes a hero does have to break a few laws though, that's my major complaint about lawful being a big restriction. When you take extremes, things go bad on both ends. Chaotic is also flexibility and adaptability, which are both positive traits. I should also note NG is a good alignment.
How I much I hate the "Lawful Good is the real good". I would prefer to alignments to disappear that give credit to that idea.
I have always liked the idea for the four extremes champions; LG Paladins, CG Liberators, LE Tyrants and CE Blackguards. But, in reality, I dislike all alignment restrictions, specially the ones for monks. Why can't there be True Neutral monks?
When you take extremes, things go bad on both ends.
This. SO MUCH THIS. I can't agree with this enough. There is such a thing as 'too lawful' and 'too chaotic' and even 'too neutral' (which I suspect would be expressed as utter apathy). This is where I think the Paladin's big problem is, is that 'too lawful' is ingrained into the class and you get hosed if you aren't 'too lawful'.
(Then, add in the fact that 'lawful', 'chaotic', 'good' and 'evil' are abstract, unquantifiable, subjective terms that philosophers have been struggling and failing to define for centuries if not millenia, and ...)
From a LG perspective, CG is just plain irresponsible, but not outright evil. It's the truth, CG never stops to think about how their choices affect society at large. They just do what they think is right at the time. Makes for a self centered streak in their personality, and a lack of real solid judgment, imho.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is still a misrepresentation of CG, taking it to an unhealthy extreme while not looking at what happens to LG when it leans too hard towards L.
The goodness of Chaotic Good is only as hobbled by chaos as LG's goodness is by Law. And law is not inherently more good than chaos.
Chaos is not simply entropy. It is creation.
Law is not simply stability. It is stagnation.
Both have their pros and cons.
Mr Sin has it right on his note about extremes.
From a LG perspective, CG is just plain irresponsible, but not outright evil. It's the truth, CG never stops to think about how their choices affect society at large. They just do what they think is right at the time. Makes for a self centered streak in their personality, and a lack of real solid judgment, imho.
Selfishness is the word used to describe evil alignment. Irresponsible is far from selfish. Arrogant maybe, but to be fair trying to weight the value of society's morals versus what's right in the moment isn't always the best thing.
Taking an extreme, LG doesn't do what's always right because he allows law to interfere. He's slow, he's conservative, I can't believe that he is a good guy even. He thinks tradition and the way they've always done it is okay. How is a guy who plays by all the rules heroic? He refuses to use poisons even if they just debilitate foes or if its his races natural weapon. He won't lie to save someone's life. He won't cheat even if the world is at risk.
Or... Mikaze can do a better job in shorter words than me.
Here is the 3.5 variant several have mentioned. I ran a game a while back that was not very LG friendly, it was the only paladin I allowed.
Paladin of Freedom Class Features
The paladin of freedom has all the standard paladin class features, except as noted below.Class Skills
Replace Diplomacy with Bluff on the class skill list.Aura of Resolve (Su)
Beginning at 3rd level, a paladin of freedom is immune to compulsion effects. Each ally within 10 feet of him gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against compulsion effects. This ability otherwise functions identically to the paladin's aura of courage class feature.Spellcasting
Remove the following spells from the paladin's spell list: death ward, discern lies, dispel chaos, magic circle against chaos, protection from chaos.Add the following spells to the paladin's spell list: 1st—protection from law; 3rd—magic circle against law; 4th—dispel law, freedom of movement.
Code of Conduct
A paladin of freedom must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin of freedom's code requires that he respect individual liberty, help those in need (provided they do not use the help for lawful or evil ends), and punish those who threaten or curtail personal liberty.Associates
While he may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin of freedom will never knowingly associate with evil characters (except on some sort of undercover mission), nor will he continue an association with someone who consistently offends his moral code. A paladin of freedom may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are chaotic good.
|
|
And another opinion on the LG/CG deal:
From a LG perspective, CG is just plain irresponsible, but not outright evil. It's the truth, CG never stops to think about how their choices affect society at large. They just do what they think is right at the time. Makes for a self centered streak in their personality, and a lack of real solid judgment, imho.
From a CG perspective, LG is just authoritarian, but not outright evil. It's the truth, LG never stops to think about how their rules stifle individuality. They just follow their codes and assume that's what's right all the time. Makes for a self-righteous bent in their personality, and a lack of real compassion.
Evil is self-centered.
Chaos is individual-centered.
A CG person doesn't care how their choices affect society because they don't think society is important - states and corporations do not have value to a Chaotic. A CG person does highly value other people as individuals and tries to help them and not harm them. That's what doing what they think is right means.
The difference between LG and CG is not in level of judgment, but the type of errors in judgment that they are likely to make. A CG person might cause suffering by encouraging someone to follow their heart rather than their social duty. A LG person might cause suffering by encouraging individuals to sacrifice their individual desires in favour of doing their duty.
there's a difference between self centered, and selfish.
self centered thinks about themselves primarily, but if they discover others are passionate about something, they take that into account when making their decisions. Thing is, that's not a habit.
Selfish doesn't give a rip about other's feelings, period.
Mikaze, I really think you should take a look at Lawful alignments. By nature, they first look at how their actions will affect everyone else. That's not necessarily good or evil, because that can be taken many ways. It just means that their focus isn't on themselves at nearly all times, as it would be for Chaotics. It's on society as a whole, the big enchilada. "Yeah, I could break this law, but why is the law there? Oh, it's to prevent (blank), and I agree that makes sense. I shouldn't break this law."
Meanwhile, a Chaotic type wouldn't even consider the law in the first place. They'd just think about what they figure is the right thing to do in their eyes, and do it. Good alignments might care about the direct consequences on the people involved, Neutral maybe maybe not, and Evil would only care if they themselves would suffer negative consequences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaos is not just Creation, it is dissolution and lack of focus.
Law is not merely stagnation, it is advancement and progress.
Law is about restrictions, Chaos is about no restrictions.
While LG is not inherently more 'good' then CG, it is inherently more limited and restricted in what 'good' actions it can take.
Because of this, it is seen as a purer alignment. The entire suite of actions available to LG is available to NG and CG. The reverse simply is not true.
So anyone good can be a Big Damn Hero. CG can also be a conniving, lying, duplicitous hero, and do it with charm. NG might be able to pull that off, occasionally. LG? Goes against everything LG stands for. Restricted actions.
As for IRon Man, he's way, waaaay too organized to be CG. He's CG by temperment, LG by need to seek order, so I'd label him NG by default. In the comics, he's definitely LG...he's almost as big a technocrat as Reed Richards, except he really does run a massive company, not let his girlfriend do it for him, and his interpretaton of the law was the whole catalyst behind the conflicts between heroes in the Marvel Civil War.
And us diehard paladin lovers love the fact that the paladin comes with that LG restriction on it. We tend to think people who want paladins of any alignment are simply power-gamers who want to corrupt the legacy of what being a LG hero means. Paladins get their powers because they are LG, not because they follow this or that god.
If you want to play a CG Big Damn Hero, play one. You can do it without playing a Paladin!
==Aelryinth