|
I know the issue of other alignment restrictions wasn't directed at me, but my problem is that they're based on narrow, stereotyped interpretations of the classes. The monk's lawful restriction is based solely on the idea that monks are very disciplined, but this one trait should not define a character's alignment. The barbarian's nonlawful restriction is based on the idea that Rage involves a loss of control. The druid's "some neutral" restriction is based on the idea of "balance" but extremists exist in non-neutral alignments (Judge Dredd is an example of an extremist LN). TN detachment doesn't work either since historical druids were members of a priestly caste that served their community by ensuring the land provided what they needed - very Erastil.
Why is the paladin LG? Because it's the attempt to force a player to play a truly classic heroic mold character, complete with all the do's and don'ts that come with it.
So now it's a good idea to force players to play particular concepts?
To compensate for the fact, you're given special powers so you're really good at your job, and someone without the same restrictions doesn't walk all over you.
What about games in which good behavior is rewarded rather than penalized? In that case the restrictions aren't a liability at all.
Why is the ranger good? Because rangers are definitely and completely based on the Aragorn of legend. 'ranger' means 'militaristic woodsman patrolling the frontier to defend against incursions of evil creatures' to people like us.
It does not mean 'hunter good at killing favored enemies.' A 'ranger' is a heroic word to us grognards. You want a hunter...a hunter can be of any alignment.
So all those people currently playing and enjoying nongood rangers are really just playing ranger wannabes? I get that a lot of classes, and particularly paladins, have strong associations for many players due to the fantasy inspirations and previous editions, but we're not playing LotR d20 or even AD&D anymore.
I would also like to point out that one of the things that the originial Paladin labored under was his tithing and wealth restrictions. To wit, he had to give away 10% of all his earnings to charity (usually his church), could not have more wealth then he could carry, and was limited to ten permanent magic items!
I actually like this, because tithing represents a mechanical penalty to balance the mechanical advantages the 2E paladin had over the fighter. However, the same does not apply to the current paladin's code.
It additionally does not hurt the CG paladin to lie, cheat and steal for a good cause. These are simply generic actions that are not allowed to LG paladins. The CG paladin is also perfectly free to tell the truth when it suits him, keep his word, and give generously to charity...all Lawful behaviors, but also good, and certainly not against his code.
1) Giving to charity is good but not lawful.
2) There are chaotic behaviors that a LG paladin can perform without breaking his code, like opposing tyrants or embracing change. CG does not have to be more permissive than LG.Paladins have a code of conduct they cannot deviate from. A character who does not break a code of conduct even if it seems to his best judgment that it's a really good idea to make an exception in a rare case is lawful.
CG paladin can make exceptions if he thinks it's a good idea. He just falls. Same deal as the LG paladin who decides to make an exception. Unless the GM decides that the paladin was actually right to make the exception, which sometimes happens with the LG paladin and it hasn't broken the class yet.
I think I'll try a building exercise real fast.
** spoiler omitted **
So we have Chevalier David, good and helpful guy and demon and undead slayer. David is not constantly stealing, breaking the law on purpose, or using underhanded tricks to get by, in fact he's actively proactive and helping people. He however, has little discipline, and even goes adventuring for his own reasons. Is David an okay idea for a CG holy warrior?
David is neutral good.
David is neutral good.I think I'll try a building exercise real fast.
** spoiler omitted **
So we have Chevalier David, good and helpful guy and demon and undead slayer. David is not constantly stealing, breaking the law on purpose, or using underhanded tricks to get by, in fact he's actively proactive and helping people. He however, has little discipline, and even goes adventuring for his own reasons. Is David an okay idea for a CG holy warrior?
Huh, explain the reasoning maybe? He isn't out to do good personally, is proactive, and non traditional and against discipline. He's not liked by the elderly, and makes a ruckus if anything. He is of course against evil, and actively fights it.
I'm seeing a lot of very amusing commentary and pushback on what was a direct question from Alaryth to me.
I'm not going to respond to any of it, because it's all out of context. He wanted an opinion and answer, and I gave it to him.
Although I have to say, Mr. Sin, you REALLY were stretching on a couple of those criticisms you had.
==Aelryinth
This was immediately after Set's rather enlightening post.
Are you just saying that to dodge responding to him directly and also dismiss what Mr. Sin had pointed out?
I'm just getting the impression that you're using "out of context" as an excuse because you have no proper counter to what people are saying.
I didnt read all messages BUT this is my opinion about these things: I like the concept of Holy Warriors tied to every god. But they are not paladins :) You caN play Holy Warrior from Inner sea guide (i PLay one of them).. Paladins is a style of play, i dont see their alignment as a restrinction but necessary. In the game concept of what a paladin should be we can have a lot of respectable ideas.. but i see a paladins as a Lightbringer. Where The Evil come down, when the darkness covers all the world and people start to lose their hope a paladin shed light with his valor, with his TOTAL respect for laws and all the other things a paladin IS. Paladins are example for other.. how could you be an example if you dont respect laws?? Sometimes people laugh at them for their code and sometimes people play them like a sort of stupid guys that break the party flavour but paladins ARE roleplay.
short answer: i think paladins should be LG. If u want to play an holy character with gods and whatever you prefer u have TONS of possibilities.
p.s. Playing with a a code and in respect of law doesnt mean that paladins are PERFECT.
Half curious / half annoyed... what are those "other options" for holy champion?
Cleric is a full caster that can go to melee, but is not my image for Holy Champion a la Paladin; too much caster, specially at high levels. Inquisitor is better for that, but too subtle to be a truly "Champion".
I suppose the best could be the Crusader archetype for cleric or the Battle Oracle, but frankly... seems a little short to be a true Holy Champion for non LG options. I don't see where are those martial champions of different moral options.
Huh, explain the reasoning maybe? He isn't out to do good personally, is proactive, and non traditional and against discipline. He's not liked by the elderly, and makes a ruckus if anything. He is of course against evil, and actively fights it.David is neutral good.I think I'll try a building exercise real fast.
** spoiler omitted **
So we have Chevalier David, good and helpful guy and demon and undead slayer. David is not constantly stealing, breaking the law on purpose, or using underhanded tricks to get by, in fact he's actively proactive and helping people. He however, has little discipline, and even goes adventuring for his own reasons. Is David an okay idea for a CG holy warrior?
You seem to have very predetermined definitions of the alignments then, which is the exact mentality that created lawful stupid in the first place. He is not lawful, you said that by saying he has problems respecting authority. He doesn't actively choose to break the law or rules, so he is not chaotic. But he is always trying to do good. Sometimes being LG, and sometimes being CG, but always being G makes him NG.
Aelryinth, thank you for the honest response. All that Alignment restrictions thing has always interested me for my personal history with D&D.
I arrived at D&D 2 Edition from The Lord of the Rings (red book, ICE). Then, I really liked the few tables. My first character was a bard elf for Dragonlance. She was CG, and I loved the character. Even today, half the characters I made for videogames are based on her. But halfway the campaign, reading the Player's Handbook I find, surprised, that the character was illegal; she couldn't CG, must be NG. I was shocked. The DM wanted to change the alignment to NG, but finally we agreed to continue as CG. And the character was better for that. Latter, on 3.0, the combination was suddenly legal, but the campaign has ended years before.
Every edition has less and less restrictions about character's building; 3.0 lacked the race/class limitations, and step by step the alignment ones are going away. None of the Pathfinder ones have that kind of limitations except antipaladin, a very special case. And I find that for the better. I'm pretty sure that when a new Edition of Pathfinder arrives, there will be less limitations still.
Edit: All that said, I'm a bit undecided on the Paladin. I love the four extreme options, and have been doing them for some time without problems. But I can understand the opposition for them. The others, specially Druid and Monk... kill it with fire.
The original bard concept is NOT based on the concept of the merry minstrel medieval rock star.
The original bard is a lord of lore, a traveler and neutral party linking locations, able to walk among high people and low, be heard in the courts yet comfortable on the street. The closest thing we have nowadays would be a tremendously respected traveling reporter. Such folk are famous for their impartiality, and their willingness to share the news and the truth with all parties who ask for it.The bard has been remade into the master of magical music, dilletante, artistic showman, what I like to call glorified minstrels. The historical, deeply respected tradition behind the original class is, like it's bond to the druidic faith, now gone. The name of bard has been moved from lorelord to performer.
The current bard does very, very well as CG. Actually, the 2E bard is the core class for the harpers, who are basically CG...they are people who live out the tales they relate to others with a song on their lips and hearts. Perfectly suited to their new, 'arcane' background.
====
"Ranger" in the grognard lexicon means 'noble woodsman guarding the lands from the incursions of enemies of the goodly races." Aragon and his sort were the inspiration, right down to giant slaying, minor druidic and wizardly skills. As Ranger had a specific meaning in middle-earth, that was actually ported over and became part of the 1E game. Rangers had to be of good alignment, and were special people with the blessing of woodland entities.
The current game takes the name and just makes them 'hunters'. It's like every special ops guy out there suddenly calling themselves 'SEALS'. It doesn't fit the history or tradition behind the title. So, yeah, the modern class is a ranger wanna-be, from the grognard view. The noble purpose behind the title of ranger has been replaced by a bunch of hunters of X.
Which, incidentally, is also why grognards get so uppity about 'paladins of every alignment'. 'Paladin' is a TITLE as well as it class. It literally means 'LG too good to be true hero'. Later people tend to equate 'paladin' with just a bunch of special abilities, and the whole idea of being limited to an alignment, of being forced to play a certain way and jump through hoops just to get all those cool powers...just irks grognards. The whole idea behind the paladin IS those limitations, of having to be that kind of hero to get those abilities.
Giving the abilities away without the limitations that come with them will never settle.
---
Mr. Sin, your 'CG' example is making a continuing error. You're somehow reading into what I type that ALL CG people have to lie, cheat and steal. That is not true. But all CG CAN lie, cheat and steal for a good cause...it's explicitly permitted by their alignment. Likewise, acting nice and honorable when they want to is ALSO permitted by their alignment. They are chaotic...they have to choice, and are beholden to no code but their own sense of what is right.
And sleeping around isn't considered 'highly chaotic'. It's considered chaotic. It does not show fidelity, faithfulness, respect, discipline, or loyalty. Weakness for sex is considered one of the primary moral failings...you're giving in to lust. It's a key way paladins are tempted, as well as all other sorts of heroes.
LOVE, now, love doesn't have that problem. But sleeping around? Definitely chaotic behavior. It's a moral failing for a paladin, even if it's not for a barbarian. Lust isn't one of the seven deadly sins for no reason, you know. The whole concept of courtly love exists as an outlet for paladins so they don't give into lust.
==Aelryinth
Ranger needs to be LG only on 1 Ed, right? I don't remember that one from 2 Ed, but have been many years.
Faithfulness, respect, and loyalty are NOT characteristics of lawfulness, but of goodness. And "Weakness for sex is considered one of the primary moral failings"... Moral: good, neutral, evil. Ethical: lawful, neutral, chaotic. You seem to be equating law with good, and chaos with evil. They are not the same.
And saying the paladin's "special powers" are derived from being lawful good, then why doesn't a lawful good wizard get special powers like a paladin? Or a lawful good fighter or cleric? I can choose to be a lawful good fighter, and yet I am the same as a chaotic neutral fighter, except I can't lie or cheat or steal or kill if someone makes me angry. Yet I don't have any special powers over a chaotic neutral fighter because I took on a lawful good "best good" alignment.
Rangers had to be of Good alignment, not lawful good. They did lose their ranger powers and become just fighters if they fell.
Faithfulness, respect and loyalty are lawful, all you have to do is 'without question' and they become zealotry, unthinking obedience, and blind conformity...traits most commonly associated with Law. I don't have to think, I just have to obey, and all...tempered with Goodness, they are highly respected values. Tempered with Evil, they are the tools of Tyranny.
Lust is one of the seven deadly sins, but sleeping around isn't naked lust...it's an individual failing, unless you really start giving into it. There's a big difference from a gigolo and a rapist, and there's the whole 'free luvvin' idea that gets in there. You certainly can't say having sex is evil, now, can you?
So, I'm not equating anything you're saying with how you're twisting the example, Adjule.
as for the lawful good alignment thing, you have hit the nail right on the head. WHy indeed should you play a Lawful Good fighter/mage/rogue, having to operate under all those restrictions, when somebody else gets exactly what you have, and can poison their blades, murder your wife, sell innocents into slavery, rape, pillage and burn, and there's no mechanical advantage?
Well, being a paladin IS that mechanical advantage for not being able to do all that stuff. You are being rewarded for sticking to a moral code.
They've actually started coming out with boons and blessings and stuff that also reward other characters for staying true to alignments. In 3.5, it was the Book of Exalted Deeds that did it. Here, the EMpyrean Lords offer rewards for normal character who adhere to holy standards of conduct.
Unfortunately, they aren't in core. There is NO REWARD for most people for adhering to a code of conduct, for being honorable, for being nice.
And it's this 'lack of a reward' which makes people tempted to go Evil, because you lose all the silly restrictions of being a hero, and you can just go pure pragmatic and win the game all the more easily. I get all the Fighter stuff, and I can use poison, too. Obvious win for side Evil.
The paladin is a reward class for being LG, which actually gives mechanical benefits for being a Big Damn Hero. And that's how grognards will always see the class. A LG fighter is not a paladin, even if he's pious. The fighter doesn't lose class abilities if he falls from his path. Likewise the cleric just finds a new god, the mage is still a caster.
And the cry for 'holy warriors' of other alignments just undercuts the essence of what a Paladin is.
===Aelryinth
Sleeping around could also mean business and social conduct, which is lawful behavior, but I feel like most anything I say about that is inappropriate and probably unneeded on a public forum. It does however prove a point that morality and ethics are subjective, which is one of the larger problems with the paladin class when it tries to give exact meanings to its values and in many cases take absolutes and extremes.
Also, I think you missed the point. If a wizard lost all his powers if he stopped being pious, should he get bonus powers? If all it is fluff, then you argument is just fallacious. Fluff does not balance mechanics. It should not create absolutes that we always adhere to. Things should be options, to help make everyone happy. I don't think "The cry for holy warriors" is about hating paladins, its about liking the mechanics and wanting to have something similar, though different. Anyone can be a holy warrior, even the fighter. Not everyone can smite, have auras, and cast spells. Again, if you allow people more options, it doesn't destroy the ones you have. If you restrict them arbitrarily, or for no reason more than "us grognards think" then you just hurt other people.
I always find it amusing and quite thought-provoking when talking about alignments on the forums. Some people can't break from their mind sets of how things have to be done to be a particular alignment. I feel that kind of mentality is pretty robotic especially when dealing with the LG-only Paladin. As I've stated since the beginning of this thread, this is to open up the class to a bit different play style and to me Holy Warrior is synonymous with Paladin.
If that holy warrior strictly adheres to his/her deity's codes/tenets/dogma there shouldn't be anything stopping that person from being called a paladin and granted all the paladin powers bestowed upon the normal LG warrior which we all know to be the paladin.
In regards to things being "easier" for a CG Paladin than a LG Paladin, that's all supposition. Each would have their own codes/tenets to follow and each would have a hard time dealing with specific people, cities, and situations based off their alignments and what god they follow.
The LG paladin does not have to recognize any law that fosters evil as legitimate. That includes those that endorse slavery.
The CG paladin can lie, cheat and bluff his way around, and will fit in much more easily then the LG paladin.
The 2nd example is more spot on. But the paladin can also determine if the ruler is a despot and should be overthrown. However, they will try to minimize the fallout and insure that there is a working civil order after the overthrow, and innocents are protected if at all possible. In essence, he has a far greater role of responsibility then the CG paladin, who will overthrow the tyrant and then ride away into the horizon, onto his next liberation, leaving the LG paladin behind to return peace and order to the people.
Paladins take responsibility even if they don't want to. CG? Not so much.
===Aelryinth
Sleeping around could also mean business and social conduct, which is lawful behavior, but I feel like most anything I say about that is inappropriate and probably unneeded on a public forum. It does however prove a point that morality and ethics are subjective, which is one of the larger problems with the paladin class when it tries to give exact meanings to its values and in many cases take absolutes and extremes.
Also, I think you missed the point. If a wizard lost all his powers if he stopped being pious, should he get bonus powers? If all it is fluff, then you argument is just fallacious. Fluff does not balance mechanics. It should not create absolutes that we always adhere to. Things should be options, to help make everyone happy. I don't think "The cry for holy warriors" is about hating paladins, its about liking the mechanics and wanting to have something similar, though different. Anyone can be a holy warrior, even the fighter. Not everyone can smite, have auras, and cast spells. Again, if you allow people more options, it doesn't destroy the ones you have. If you restrict them arbitrarily, or for no reason more than "us grognards think" then you just hurt other people.
You're again being perspacious.
If the wizard gained bonus powers for being LG, should he lose them if he fell?
Why, yes. He'd be just another wizard without the bonus feats, I gather.
You are being rewarded for being LG, and you are punished marginally if you deliberately fall. unswerving, unstinting, but very, very rewarding...that's the path of a paladin, and not all people can do it.
==Aelryinth
The LG paladin does not have to recognize any law that fosters evil as legitimate. That includes those that endorse slavery.
The CG paladin can lie, cheat and bluff his way around, and will fit in much more easily then the LG paladin.
The 2nd example is more spot on. But the paladin can also determine if the ruler is a despot and should be overthrown. However, they will try to minimize the fallout and insure that there is a working civil order after the overthrow, and innocents are protected if at all possible. In essence, he has a far greater role of responsibility then the CG paladin, who will overthrow the tyrant and then ride away into the horizon, onto his next liberation, leaving the LG paladin behind to return peace and order to the people.
Paladins take responsibility even if they don't want to. CG? Not so much.
===Aelryinth
You are twisting the words to make it seem like a CG code would be less restrictive, like, I can do all the LG stuff AND all the CG stuff and not be in trouble. This shouldn't be how a CG "paladin" should look. CG means you cannot act lawful, period. Not, "you can do both because that's what chaotic means" at least, not as far as the PFRPG/DND alignment system is concerned. Chaotic is the opposite of lawful, in this game, regardless of how many different connotations actually exist for the English word.
I wholeheartedly concur with @master_marshmallow - It's just another example of someone telling me or others how things should be done with a particular class and alignment. The restrictions are what you make of them as the GM and the table.
At my table when I institute the other paladins (and they WILL be called paladins), I will make sure that anyone who wants to play them reads up on their deity and said deity's tenets/codes. I will then tell them that they need to make sure to strictly adhere them. My biggest friends in this will be the Faiths of Purity and Faiths of Corruption as they both have in-depth paladin codes with all of their tenets.
If I feel that the PC isn't doing something within their code then I will give the player a warning just as I would if they were playing a LG paladin doing something questionable. To me this isn't that hard to grasp, but I can see how someone who is really set in their ways and how they believe a class should be played would have a hard time with it.
Luckily, I have a good gaming group who is willing to run with some house rules and are great role-players. I think a couple of the guys would absolutely love to play a variant aligned paladin and would do a fantastic job at it, making the campaign and character very memorable and enjoyable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Marshmallow there. The one who can do as he wish on the name of good is the NG, not the CG.
Be truly good should be it's own reward, there should not be a mechanical one. That kind of thing looks good on paper, but in reality, is better to have crunch and fluff separated; it's too much subjective to work well. The infinite+1 themes about Paladin falls made that clear.
And before... sorry, I meant "only Good" not "only Lawful Good" on the ranger question. Typing mistake.
At my table when I institute the other paladins (and they WILL be called paladins), I will make sure that anyone who wants to play them reads up on their deity and said deity's tenets/codes.
If the CG code, for example, is fully as restrictive as the LG code, and a character follows it, that character will be behaving in a lawful manner, because he will be adhering to a restrictive code written by others rather than the dictates of his own conscience.
I mean, it's right there in the definition of the alignment: "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him." Behavior, not beliefs, make an alignment. If a character adheres to any deity-written paladin-of-freedom "code" instead of doing what he thinks best, he's not behaving in a chaotic good manner.
But if the character does what he thinks is best in a given situation even if it contradicts the "code", he'll be violating his code. Either way, "chaotic good character who strictly adheres to a god's code" is a self-contradicting impossibility.
Not that a CG god would approve of any character who inflexibly adheres to a CG code. "Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility." "He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations."
This leads to an endless cycle though. You see, if you follow a code, that makes you lawful, if your code is to be chaotic, then your chaotic, but if you follow that code, your lawful because your following a code, but the code is chaotic so you have to be chaotic, but that code is still a code so you have to be lawful for code following but the code is to be chaotic so...
However, if the code was simple and about personal freedom and fighting tyranny and badness and being active, and possibly about what means your willing to use, then it might matter. "I will not file paperwork" doesn't sound that exciting however. I'm sure someone could make a good code however. I've seen good things out of people when they make their own code. It really varies based on the idea, deity, or organization. Sometimes its about personal ethic, rather than societies. Sometimes its cultural, such as a dwarf defending a mine or something they consider sacred(Dwarf protector of the keg made me laugh.) It really adds to the world and the character, and helps to make them unique.
As Alaryth said earlier, fluff and mechanics don't always mix well and I think its best to decide it as a table, especially if your going to decide on the specifics of something. You shouldn't have to worry about falling, your ethics should be a part of your character. While the paladin works great for some people as is, the code of conduct doesn't work for everyone and certainly not for many alignments. It also defines the class's fluff, which isn't something that's done with most of the other classes.(to an extent, this example is more extreme though)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At my table when I institute the other paladins (and they WILL be called paladins), I will make sure that anyone who wants to play them reads up on their deity and said deity's tenets/codes.If the CG code, for example, is fully as restrictive as the LG code, and a character follows it, that character will be behaving in a lawful manner, because he will be adhering to a restrictive code written by others rather than the dictates of his own conscience.
I mean, it's right there in the definition of the alignment: "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him." Behavior, not beliefs, make an alignment. If a character adheres to any deity-written paladin-of-freedom "code" instead of doing what he thinks best, he's not behaving in a chaotic good manner.
But if the character does what he thinks is best in a given situation even if it contradicts the "code", he'll be violating his code. Either way, "chaotic good character who strictly adheres to a god's code" is a self-contradicting impossibility.
Not that a CG god would approve of any character who inflexibly adheres to a CG code. "Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility." "He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations."
See, I disagree especially for Paladins. They have to do BOTH, currently Paladins have to be BOTH lawful and good. I'm moving the bar to allow for other types of good and evil. By definition at my table, in order to be a paladin and get the special powers that go along with the class that PC will have to put their tenets/code ahead of everything else, that's not being "lawful" because this isn't a law it's a belief in that the god's teachings are what are right, good, and true.
Now for a CG paladin, they will put that liberation, freedom, and for the good of all above the law of the land no matter what the law is. That's just how I see that kind of character playing out. They get their paladin powers from that deity so they won't want to stray from the dogma, not because it's lawful/unlawful, but rather it's not what they would think is right.
The LG paladin has to take the law into account and whether he believes it is legitimate or not. He has to follow his god's tenets/codes in addition to the laws of man.
It's a different beast that would be interesting to play to me and fun for my table.
I also understand that this is not for everyone and there will be varied opinions on whether I'm too far left or too far right with how this could be done, but that's also half the fun of the forum.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The current game takes the name and just makes them 'hunters'. It's like every special ops guy out there suddenly calling themselves 'SEALS'. It doesn't fit the history or tradition behind the title. So, yeah, the modern class is a ranger wanna-be, from the grognard view. The noble purpose behind the title of ranger has been replaced by a bunch of hunters of X.
Which, incidentally, is also why grognards get so uppity about 'paladins of every alignment'. 'Paladin' is a TITLE as well as it class. It literally means 'LG too good to be true hero'. Later people tend to equate 'paladin' with just a bunch of special abilities, and the whole idea of being limited to an alignment, of being forced to play a certain way and jump through hoops just to get all those cool powers...just irks grognards. The whole idea behind the paladin IS those limitations, of having to be that kind of hero to get those abilities.
If they're titles, then keep them titles and separate them from the class. Call the ranger class "hunters" or the paladin class "champions" and then let members of any class who follow a strict LG code of conduct take on the title of "paladin" (and characters who fight evil in the wilderness can join the "rangers").
Give these paladins (and rangers) some clear, unfalsifiable way to identify themselves. A halo or whatever. Then give them fluff benefits to go with the fluff restrictions. NPCs trust them from the start, or are more willing to do them small favours. The blacksmith takes the time to add the paladin's crest on their shield. The groom adds some extra oats and apples to the mount's saddlebags. The local lord grants them an audience immediately rather than making them wait several days. And make these benefits available to all characters to take on the paladin's code regardless of class - the "paladin" wizard gets the same consideration as the "paladin" champion due to abiding by the same sterling standard of behavior. And if they violate their code they lose their halo, lose these social benefits, and possibly suffer additional shame from those who know they have fallen from grace.
Or if you really, really want mechanical benefits for your fluff then make those feats like the ones in the Book of Exalted Deeds (or the new ones in Champions of Purity) and make them available to all characters who choose to "handicap" themselves with behavioral requirements.
But the current state of affairs is a bad move all around. Even ignoring "flavor should not balance mechanics" (SKR's opinion!), a base class can't serve as a reward to LG characters because there are tons of LG characters of other classes. All it does is portion off a specific mechanical concept (Cha-based divine warrior with weak casting) as LG territory in order to preserve a legacy from a game that also required these extra-heroic characters to be human (because no other races can be that heroic or dedicated?) and where half-orcs couldn't be raised from the dead because they didn't have souls.
There are better ways to encourage heroic characters and better ways to implement specific concepts like the classic paladin or the Ranger-as-Aragorn.
Actually, no, there aren't better ways to encourage people to be heroes then to give them blatant rewards for being heroic.
And the paladin is a blatant reward class for acting as heroic as possible.
--------
There is no such thing to CG as being unable to act lawful.
Keeping to your word is impossible?
Catching someone who broke the law and delivering them to justice is impossible?
adhering to local customs is impossible?
Riiiight.
CG can act however it chooses. It's the beauty of being CG. If you want to pretend to be Lawful Good, you can do it...it doesn't mean you believe it, but you can certainly act that way if it furthers your goals.
Likewise, you can act for lawful authorities if it falls within your realm of duties. Nothing like getting a reward for hunting down someone you were going to put to the sword, anyways!
Etc etc. Lawful behaviors are within the realm of chaotic possibility. Believing those are the best way is what makes LG, for CG it's just something they might do if they need to do so.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.
We can extrapolate from this that both 1) it is possible to have a restrictive code and still be considered Chaotic on the alignment scale, and 2) it is acceptable to "break" the code in extenuating circumstances so long as it furthers the overall goal of the character.
I'm not saying your CG Avenger/Vigilante/whateveryouwanttocallhim class needs to always lie, but in scenarios where he is considered to be providing testimony on an official basis, he needs to be willing to withhold and keep information to himself, because in most cases, you, being the CG paladin that you are, feel it is your job to go after evil things and deal with them your way.
It is in the same sense that a LG paladin could act "chaotic" when he encounters an evil tyrant oppressing the people. I don't think anyone would make a paladin fall if he stands up to an evil dictator to liberate the people.
The alignment system itself is so subjective that it makes it difficult to really enjoy the class imo. Too many people can "make an argument" about how any particular action could be regarded as evil, and thus could make the paladin fall for anything, even if he was helping get a kitten out of a tree.
Without any extremely clear definitions of it per RAW, we get people who say things like: anyone who has a code of conduct is Lawful, they don't have to follow local laws, or even national laws, they just have to have their own beliefs. (Regardless of the hyperbole that is finding someone without their own moral code.)
I think the alignment system, and especially the paladin code of conduct should just get nixed all together.
@MM - +1
I couldn't have said it better myself. Your arguments are sound and reasoning is perfect. That is precisely why I'm nixing the alignments in my home-brew games for Paladins.
I'm with the Marshmallow as well.
Huzzah the Marshmallow!
|
|
Actually, no, there aren't better ways to encourage people to be heroes then to give them blatant rewards for being heroic.
And the paladin is a blatant reward class for acting as heroic as possible.
What if you only like to play full casters, or just don't feel like playing a paladin this time? No reward for being heroic for you. Sure, it may be designed as a "reward class" but classes are bad rewards because they aren't available to all characters who deserve them. It's like giving every kid on the honour roll a free prom dress - about half the school gets little to no use of it and the reward means nothing to them. Hence (blatant) RP benefits or equal-opportunity feats are better rewards than the paladin class.
Also, your understanding of Chaos is in error. The CRB clearly states that a character who has neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel is neutral on that axis. A CG character who consistently performs an equal amount of chaotic and lawful actions - who has no clear preference between these actions - becomes NG.
The chaotic character isn't indifferent towards law, they actively think law is bad or wrong-headed and that cooperating with it is undesirable - they have a compulsion to rebel. They can sometimes work with law or perform lawful actions for some benefit, but it does not sit right with their sense of morality. A CG character feels as uncomfortable collaborating with the police as a LG character would feel collaborating with a thieves' guild. It's something they might do if they need to but they actively dislike it and avoid it wherever possible.
If we introduce a CG paladin as an analogue to the LG paladin, the CG paladin's compulsion to rebel must be stronger than that of the general CG character by just as much as the LG paladin's compulsion to obey is stronger than the general LG character. If the LG paladin can't "pretend to be chaotic" by breaking his word (like most LG characters could if pressed), the CG paladin can't "pretend to be lawful" by bowing before the king. In the CG paladin's eyes affirming the superiority of a holder of hereditary office is wrong and something he will not do because it's a paladin's job, even more than the ordinary good-aligned person, to do what's right.
What if you only like to play full casters, or just don't feel like playing a paladin this time? No reward for being heroic for you. Sure, it may be designed as a "reward class" but classes are bad rewards because they aren't available to all characters who deserve them. It's like giving every kid on the honour roll a free prom dress - about half the school gets little to no use of it and the reward means nothing to them. Hence (blatant) RP benefits or equal-opportunity feats are better rewards than the paladin class.Actually, no, there aren't better ways to encourage people to be heroes then to give them blatant rewards for being heroic.
And the paladin is a blatant reward class for acting as heroic as possible.
I wouldn't call it a reward class as much as a relic. Pathfinder did a lot to the class to make it actually attractive. Didn't do much for the code or anything about those issues(which is rather unfortunate) but it did a lot to make it viable through its auras, smite does an amazing number of things, lay on hands can be a swift, divine bond has an option other than a pony, better scaling on some abilities, some powerful spells(litanies!) and mercies. That's a number of really nice things!
In 3.5 the class was underpowered if anything. Tier 5. The rewards for being good or evil should be at the table I think, rather than built in. Its an opinion over the value of something.
Hero Points cover the 'rewards for being heroic' far better than the Paladin class does.
|
|
Which is my point. The paladin might be intended as a reward class, it might even have been an effective reward back when a paladin was basically "fighter but better." But in the current game there are much better ways to reward heroism, including non-class-specific mechanical rewards. So you can't justify the alignment restriction as a "reward." It seems to me that the real reason for it is nostalgia and territoriality - feeling the need to protect the paladin from those heretical, powergaming CG players.
There wouldn't be so much pressure to waive the alignment requirement for the paladin if that alignment requirement weren't instinctively considered a handicap. It is a restriction, and everyone knows it. And being forced to play that alignment and getting rewarded for playing by having stuff other characters don't is part and parcel of legendary fiction. Heroes triumph, evil doesn't get all the goodies AND the lack of morality advantage, too!
I already covered that Good heroes are at a mechanical disadvantage in the game vs their evil counterparts, simply because evil is not restricted on what tactics they use. Evil creatures also tend to be less vulnerable to evil creatures' tactics...let the pit fiend blasphemy, see if I care, and all that.
And that CG character will bow to the hereditary king, but not because he respects him. He will do it because otherwise everyone around will see it as the insult it is, and he'll likely be thrown in jail and if the ruler is particularly peevish, might lose his head.
Once out of the king's reach, he'll bad mouth him all day, but there's obeying tradition to be lawful and obeying tradition not to stand out and save your hide...the latter is a VERY chaotic, self-preservation motive, and works quite well. And certainly enough, if he believes the king is a worthy king, hereditary or not, he will bow his head...but it will be based on his own judge of character.
The quote for the anti-paladin's code was most timely. He can do 'good' deeds, but never for altruistic motives. The CG can act lawful, but he's never going to do it for lawful motives. He's just biding his time until he can act as he wishes. Generally speaking, he's responding to either superior force (compelled through self-preservation) or stealth to act differently then he would...but that's all good for him, it only makes the comeuppance the sweeter.
But c'mon, not being able to 'act' lawfully?
Paying a wealthy man an honest price for his goods is impossible, because you could just take it?
Being unable to uphold your given word, or a contract you entered into willingly and freely, is impossible?
Dealing with honest authorities over dishonest theives is not right?
etc etc.
===Aelryinth
Which is my point. The paladin might be intended as a reward class, it might even have been an effective reward back when a paladin was basically "fighter but better." But in the current game there are much better ways to reward heroism, including non-class-specific mechanical rewards. So you can't justify the alignment restriction as a "reward." It seems to me that the real reason for it is nostalgia and territoriality - feeling the need to protect the paladin from those heretical, powergaming CG players.
Can you name me a mechanical non-class reward for playing only LG vs 'any good'?
I can't think of any 'rewards' that don't involve spending feats or something, which isn't mechanical, it's elective.
And people will point out with excellent arguments that the paladin is a fighter, but better.
Didn't get weapon spec in 1E either, however! :)
==Aelryinth
There wouldn't be so much pressure to waive the alignment requirement for the paladin if that alignment requirement weren't instinctively considered a handicap.
No. This isn't how things works. Barbarian isn't lawful because he's a barbarian, monk is lawful because he always comes form a monastery. They are fluff, not balance. Its a fallacy. They are, if anything, legacies and relics from a bygone era. Its basing an argument on something completely incorrect. There is pressure to waive it because its arbitrary.
I should add, people like good guys. Its easier to make friends if your LG and help strangers and commit yourself to charity and helping people. In the meantime, if you have a reputation of lying or cheating, you might have trouble making deals or friends with the right crowd. Those are roleplaying related however, and can not be balanced by a class and certainly not expectations.
In general, for the purpose of interpreting alignment I tend to view chaos and law as more of a political ideal. Lawful people are traditionalists and believe in institutions, order and rules that are more important than the demands of the situation at hand. Chaotic types are more individualistic, often progressive and tend to see the current situation as the decisive factor.
That needn't mean the lawful character will seek to uphold the current order at any cost. S/he may believe in monarchy per se, but rebel against an unfit king. Likewise, a chaotic character might whole-heartedly support acting through legal measures if they are the best option in this particular case.
I fully support other alignment getting paladin-like champions, but I wouldn't call them "paladins" - after so long, I think this name is owed to the traditional LG types.
I can't think of any 'rewards' that don't involve spending feats or something, which isn't mechanical, it's elective.
==Aelryinth
just want to respond to this, even though no one in my group plays paladins. Every time you take a level in paladin, it's elective. Would people be more ok with an any good alignment if the Paladin only applied divine grace to reflex saves and smite didn't pass DR or improved further for undead, dragons, and outsiders?
Exactly. You're being rewarded for playing a Paladin. That's your election.
He was specifically saying there's rewards out there,mechanical ones, for being of Good alignment.
I go from level 5 to 6 of Class z, and stay good alignment. Where's my mechanical reward?
There isn't one. It's all fluff, at best.
If youz is da Paladin, youz gets some kewl shiznits, yo! An dats for bein' hero like my main man Supes, iddiz!
===Aelryinth
There wouldn't be so much pressure to waive the alignment requirement for the paladin if that alignment requirement weren't instinctively considered a handicap.No. This isn't how things works. Barbarian isn't lawful because he's a barbarian, monk is lawful because he always comes form a monastery. They are fluff, not balance. Its a fallacy. They are, if anything, legacies and relics from a bygone era. Its basing an argument on something completely incorrect. There is pressure to waive it because its arbitrary.
I should add, people like good guys. Its easier to make friends if your LG and help strangers and commit yourself to charity and helping people. In the meantime, if you have a reputation of lying or cheating, you might have trouble making deals or friends with the right crowd. Those are roleplaying related however, and can not be balanced by a class and certainly not expectations.
Does anyone really consider it a handicap that they can't play a lawful barbarian?
The answer is largely no, unless you're trying to multiclass with monk. Why? Because being non-lawful is hardly a playstyle restriction.
Do people want to play non-lawful monks? Oh, only for the last THIRTY YEARS. Why? Because lawful alignment is a straitjacket to styles of play.
Ditto paladins, wearing the heaviest damn straitjackets you can find, and still rocking it almost forty years later.
==Aelryinth
Exactly. You're being rewarded for playing a Paladin. That's your election.
He was specifically saying there's rewards out there,mechanical ones, for being of Good alignment.
I go from level 5 to 6 of Class z, and stay good alignment. Where's my mechanical reward?There isn't one. It's all fluff, at best.
Hero Points. Someone pointed that out. Those are pretty nifty. BoED had plenty, though pathfinder lacks them. There are a few feats in the champions of purity book that have requirements and vows. That might be more up your alley. Again, I like to keep my fluff separate from my mechanics. You can balance mechanics with each other, but not so much mechanics with fluff.
Also, paladin is a class. Its not a reward. Unless your giving them free levels in paladin over everyone else, its not a real reward. Its like saying a level in fighter is a reward for fighting.
Does anyone really consider it a handicap that they can't play a lawful barbarian?
The answer is largely no, unless you're trying to multiclass with monk. Why? Because being non-lawful is hardly a playstyle restriction.
Do people want to play non-lawful monks? Oh, only for the last THIRTY YEARS. Why? Because lawful alignment is a straitjacket to styles of play.
Ditto paladins, wearing the heaviest damn straitjackets you can find, and still rocking it almost forty years later.
You just said its a balance, then I show you its not. Now your say those don't count. I want lawful barbarians, I have several ideas for lawful barbarians. Especially with the controlled rage archetype. It also helps create a "serene rage" or "battle focus" gig instead of a "insane mouth frothing idiot" gig. Remember when they weren't even allowed to be literate? Never mind your backstory, you just couldn't read.
People also want non lawful monks because they want an acrobat or someone free spirited, instead of being from a monastery. That definitely doesn't hurt the game to exist. There are historically many chaotic martial artist, but somehow the acrobatics character that uses his fist is always a lawful man from a monastery.
Wearing a straight jacket is considered a bad thing. You want to wear one? Might be hard to type.
? It's a straitjacket. Those things they use to restrain patients in asylums, Mr. Sin. Google the word. It's not a typo.
You didn't show me a balance, you showed something that was imbalanced. Now you're the one saying they don't count. I'm showing you the double standard, and you're saying it doesn't exist.
Acrobats and monks aren't the same thing. Heck, martial artists and monks aren't the same thing. People wanted to play chaotic MONKS. You, you're trying to play someone with lawful RAGE, not a barbarian. You just want the buff...the absolute last reason to accomodate you.
But, they had something for you, anyways. The singh rager in 3.5 had to be LG, and could rage. So could the Matsu House Guard (which was based off the Singh rager). But they weren't barbarians. They just stole the rage mechanic.
People who want CG paladins want the goodies without the restrictions. And that's the last reason to accomodate them, too. Let them play a paladin of freedom from UA, or a liberator from Sword and Fist. Not paladins, not as good, and they shouldn't be.
==Aelryinth
It's a straitjacket. Those things they use to restrain patients in asylums, Mr. Sin. Google the word. It's not a typo.
I know what it is. You seemed to claim the paladin wore one. Was pointing out that's usually a bad thing to be in one. Unless all paladins need to be restrained as such for being insane.
People who want CG paladins want the goodies without the restrictions. And that's the last reason to accomodate them, too. Let them play a paladin of freedom from UA, or a liberator from Sword and Fist. Not paladins, not as good, and they shouldn't be.
Not everyone is a dirty punk power gamer out to defile the name of the paladin. Playing a paladin of freedom is exactly what's being suggested here. What did you think it was, playing a paladin who could burn a village and get away with it?
|
|
Alignment isn't supposed to be a straightjacket for a character, why should alignment restrictions be used to straightjacket an entire class? It's not about getting more power, it's about getting more concepts.
My next character is a LG barbarian. Could have done it NG but I felt like I wanted the character to be an ardent supporter of honour, duty, and tradition and a non-lawful alignment would crimp my style.
You, you're trying to play someone with lawful RAGE, not a barbarian. You just want the buff...the absolute last reason to accomodate you.
But why should I want to play a LG barbarian when I can play a paladin? That's supposed to be my reward for playing LG, right?
Exactly. You're being rewarded for playing a Paladin. That's your election.
But you're not rewarded for playing a LG character. The majority of LG characters (non-paladin) do not get a reward. At least, they didn't until Champions of Purity introduced feats that required the character to respect good-aligned codes. And a feat is a more accessible elective for the LG character than class levels.
And people will point out with excellent arguments that the paladin is a fighter, but better.
It's not better if you're playing a feat-heavy build or if you're in a campaign that has a lot of neutral-aligned enemies and few undead, outsiders, and dragons.
And on the last balance note, if the lawful alignment is more restrictive than the chaotic one and deserves rewards, why is the lawful monk generally considered underpowered compared to the unrestricted fighter?
|
|
And that CG character will bow to the hereditary king, but not because he respects him. He will do it because otherwise everyone around will see it as the insult it is, and he'll likely be thrown in jail and if the ruler is particularly peevish, might lose his head.
Once out of the king's reach, he'll bad mouth him all day, but there's obeying tradition to be lawful and obeying tradition not to stand out and save your hide...the latter is a VERY chaotic, self-preservation motive, and works quite well.
Some CG characters will comply, some won't. These women were kicked out of a mall for refusing to remove hats at the request of a security guard. According to these sources a teen was sentenced to death in France in 1766 for failing to remove his hat in front of a crucifix (along with other insults to the faith). And there are two separate spots in the bible where a total of four men faced the death penalty for refusing to bow to the king on religious grounds. A CG paladin is the kind of person who will face the death penalty for refusing to bow / remove hats on religious grounds. And the fact that you cold face the death penalty means it's not an easy restriction to follow (like "don't use poison" usually is).
Note that a LG character can also be threatened into breaking his word or the law - but a paladin shouldn't respond to these threats whether LG or CG.
And certainly enough, if he believes the king is a worthy king, hereditary or not, he will bow his head...but it will be based on his own judge of character.
Maybe, but personally I think it would be appropriate to show respect in other ways. For example, calling the king by a descriptive, complementary title ("the Wise") rather than "Your Highness" or toasting to him when he passes rather than remove a hat - this demonstrates specific individual approval rather than simple conformity and is thus a more powerful gesture.
But c'mon, not being able to 'act' lawfully?
You're suffering from the common misconception that not acting lawfully means always doing the exact opposite of whatever the law requires. This is clearly ridiculous because it would require a chaotic character to constantly murder, and thus CG would not exist.
Paying a wealthy man an honest price for his goods is impossible, because you could just take it?
The chaotic person respects individuals and is not required to steal from them, same as they're not required to murder them. However chaotics likely refuse to pay taxes even if they are otherwise generous with their money (because they don't like governments) and may prefer trading in commodities rather than currency (which is supported by a government).
Being unable to uphold your given word, or a contract you entered into willingly and freely, is impossible?
Like I said above, I believe the appropriate response to this is not giving your word due to the belief that this implies it's correct to hold people to their word. If the chaotic never makes promises he isn't beholden to either keep or break them.
Dealing with honest authorities over dishonest theives is not right?
From a CG perspective, not if we're talking about LN authorities vs CN thieves. The authorities are part of a system that serves to oppress the people and their honesty means very little in light of that fact. Good-evil concerns may still be relevant, though.
General note: chaotic characters are not required to always be 100% chaotic, and in fact a character who was wouldn't be human any more than a 100% lawful character would be. Even paladins are permitted to perform chaotic acts as long as these acts are not evil, don't fall into the short list of absolutely excluded acts (including lying), and aren't significant enough to shift alignment. CG paladin gets the same treatment - occasional lawful acts with a short list of absolute exclusions. No bowing is a good absolute exclusion as is using compulsions or forcing others into binding agreements, but there's certainly room for these "absolute exclusions" to be customized depending on personal philosophy.
As an example of proper chaotic behavior, a CN PC in a game I played refused to use any titles (he gave everyone nicknames), constantly insulted knights, and strove to demonstrate his own superiority, especially to anyone who attempted to tell him what to do or implied they had authority over him. He actually liked my LG inquisitor (a knight), but still repeatedly made fun of him on principle. The character was simply incapable of obeying.
Alignment isn't supposed to be a straightjacket for a character, why should alignment restrictions be used to straightjacket an entire class? It's not about getting more power, it's about getting more concepts.
My next character is a LG barbarian. Could have done it NG but I felt like I wanted the character to be an ardent supporter of honour, duty, and tradition and a non-lawful alignment would crimp my style.
You, you're trying to play someone with lawful RAGE, not a barbarian. You just want the buff...the absolute last reason to accomodate you.But why should I want to play a LG barbarian when I can play a paladin? That's supposed to be my reward for playing LG, right?
Exactly. You're being rewarded for playing a Paladin. That's your election.But you're not rewarded for playing a LG character. The majority of LG characters (non-paladin) do not get a reward. At least, they didn't until Champions of Purity introduced feats that required the character to respect good-aligned codes. And a feat is a more accessible elective for the LG character than class levels.
And people will point out with excellent arguments that the paladin is a fighter, but better.It's not better if you're playing a feat-heavy build or if you're in a campaign that has a lot of neutral-aligned enemies and few undead, outsiders, and dragons.
And on the last balance note, if the lawful alignment is more restrictive than the chaotic one and deserves rewards, why is the lawful monk generally considered underpowered compared to the unrestricted fighter?
1) It's also being rewarded for playing a difficult concept, which is the paladin class.
2-3)As you have just pointed out, the paladin is the only class where you get rewarded for playing LG with stuff other characters don't get. Sucks to be LG, eh?4) And feats are an elective choice unconstrained by class. The paladin is mechanical benefits rewarding the fluff of the class. If you elect to be a paladin, you automatically elect to be LG. Unlike any other class, you don't get to keep the benefits if you leave that one alignment.
Good feats aren't part of a character class. Nor are most of them constrained to LG (even in Book of Exalted Deeds, it was Any Good).
And your Chaotic Good characters are fairly extremist examples.
I'd also like to note that a person refusing to doff his hat to a cross could very well be lawful alignment and adhering to his own moral code in opposing an unjust law. In A Man for All Seasons, the protagonist is clearly LG, and willing to die rather then place his king over his faith. That's not a CG 'only me' attitude.
And CG aren't neccessarily opposed to governments. They like roads. They like cities. Armies come in very useful. The idea of personal honor and obligation to family and clan is tied up in the soul of CG quite heavily, as exemplified by many elves who would not think of shirking their responsibilities they undertake willingly, but might well be loathe to have such forced upon them...unless it led to greater glory, of course! As long as governments are run on personal respect between individuals, and not on the law being the top, CG doesn't have a problem with governments.
They likely have a problem with beauacracy.
I will note that in Planescape, the tax department of Sigil was run by the Takers, who are the CG faction. Their attitude was that if you weren't strong enough to keep your money, they had the right to claim it and spend it!
==Aelryinth
==Aelryinth
==Aelryinth
Wait, if Aelryinth is okay with a paladin of freedom why are we still talking? I thought that's what was being suggested in the first place.
No, the Paladin is not rewarded for being LG. He gets class features for being LG. That's a very different thing I think. Everyone gets class features. Your only rewarded if the Paladin is actually better than the other classes, which I don't think is the case here. Saying its a reward is in the same vein as being non lawful rewards you with rage for being a barbarian, or following a deity's tenants rewards you spells as a cleric. I could easily say a lot of things are "rewards" of the same type, that aren't really rewards. I think its best left to hero points, which are entirely left to GM's discretion, if you want a mechanically defined reward for heroism.
I'll agree that class features are not a reward. Several other classes receive comparable abilities without the restriction. The restriction itself is a legacy thing, as it is basically unchanged from what we had in the OGL. An errata to alleviate it wouldn't be too bad of a thing, even keep the LG but remove the ambiguous and easily abusable content of the wording contained in the code of conduct.
I once had a DM 'punish me and my party' because I found someone's stolen goods, and was required to not expect a reward due to my being LG, thus the party decided I could no longer be the party face, making my character borderline useless outside of combat. It was really disappointing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think the Takers are CG, then you either don't understand the Takers or you don't understand CG. 'The strong get what they want and deserve it for being strong' is firmly E.
In fact that's the problem I've noticed, Aelryinth; you definitely seem to think that LG is the highest form of 'good', and that law is just inherently better than chaos. For instance, viewing sleeping around as chaotic /and/ also a moral failing--which it isn't. It's only a moral failing to sleep around if you are doing so while in a committed, exclusive relationship, because then you're going against what you agreed to do/not do.
LG and CG are both selfless; that's what 'Good' means.
But no seriously the Fated are pretty much the opposite of CG, they are CN if you are being incredibly generous, at best.
I think Mystery Meep hit the nail right on the head there. To me good is good and evil is evil. There is no "better" good or "worse" evil out there as far as alignments go. The Lawful/Neutral/Chaos are about social issue and laws rather than beliefs and what is inside the heart of that person.
LG Paladins are archaic and should be put to rest in my opinion, that is why I started this thread and that is why I continue to believe that nixing all the alignment restrictions on them other than CN & TN will be good for my games and my table. Allowing different kinds of holy warriors (Paladins & Anti-Paladins) who get their powers from their gods because they follow said god's tenets/codes devoutly and above all else makes perfect sense to me.
A LG paladin doesn't get his "good" powers because he's lawful, he gets his powers because he devoutly follows a deity and believes in that deity's dogma wholeheartedly, he just so happens to obey the laws of man as well. Man makes the laws not the gods, gods have teachings on how they expect their followers to live their lives, but they don't take mortals to court, charge them with disobeying, and then sentence them to hard labor or execution. They either accept that mortal as they lived their lives as a whole into their heavenly plane or circle of hell.
I see way too many people on the boards argue about how a LG paladin should be played and they forget that the character is mortal and can make just as many mistakes as his friends. I see people talk about how a paladin shouldn't sleep with prostitutes, he shouldn't drink, and he shouldn't cuss. Those things in themselves are not unlawful or chaotic, they are being mortal. They are normal things that people do and as long as no one gets hurt in the process they aren't "bad." Now if someone WANTS to play a choirboy Paladin, that is their choice and I respect that is how they want to play their character, but when someone tells me that I'm doing it badwrongfun because it's not the way they view that class, that's when I take issue.
Really all it should come down to is that a holy warrior/paladin holds himself to a higher standard and keeps with his god's tenets/codes.
The funny thing is that despite my argument, I am traditionally in favor of LG-only paladin because of the weight of tradition, basically. It has a very specific meaning and that works... except that I've recently been convinced otherwise that protecting that very narrow niche is less important than allowing and encouraging the broader 'holy warrior' type that the cleric just doesn't do well enough.
Also alignment arguments have basically killed my fondness for alignment restrictions.