That's the crux of it right there Mystery Meep. It's "tradition" at this point in the hobby. Where I work things get done a certain way and when the question is asked, "Why, when there's a better way?" the answer is always "because it's always been done that way..." To me this is much the same, Paladins shouldn't be restricted on alignment based on tradition, they should be able to be played the way a player wants to play them and as long as that PC doesn't break from the codes/tenets of his/her god/goddess then that opens the game up for new experiences and allows some rather fun and memorable characters that normally wouldn't be allowed. This is why I felt it a worthy discussion in the house rules section as this will be done in my games at my table.
If we are to keep the alignment system as a means of enhancing the RP aspect of the game, then imo paladins should nix the code of conduct and simply have the restriction on alignment that says "any non-evil" allowing them to still hold the virtues of goodyness without restricting their RP options. I still cannot be evil, but I sure can smite it. Conversely, the antipaladin should have the restriction of "any non-good," have aspirations of taking over the world so everyone obeys you? (Tyranny is often considered to be a LE thing) Now you can!!!
I see no real problem with a LN, NG, or even TN paladin. Evil is still the enemy, you still do either good or law, depending on how you want to RP the character.
I find the fact that it keeps getting called an alignment restriction very telling.
If we are to keep the alignment system as a means of enhancing the RP aspect of the game, then imo paladins should nix the code of conduct and simply have the restriction on alignment that says "any non-evil" allowing them to still hold the virtues of goodyness without restricting their RP options. I still cannot be evil, but I sure can smite it. Conversely, the antipaladin should have the restriction of "any non-good," have aspirations of taking over the world so everyone obeys you? (Tyranny is often considered to be a LE thing) Now you can!!!
I see no real problem with a LN, NG, or even TN paladin. Evil is still the enemy, you still do either good or law, depending on how you want to RP the character.
In my games I'll still have a code of conduct for the paladins and anti-paladins based off their deity's tenets found in the "Faiths of ..." books. I can't see a CN or TN Paladin though as they aren't against good or evil, but I can see a paladin who follows a LN paladin who follows a LN deity and smites Chaos, but the mercies/auras would have to be reworked extensively which is why I wouldn't have them in my games yet. At least a LN would still have the "lawful" part of the original paladin and he's all about the law kind of like a Judge Dredd character.
TN would be too powerful and would break the game to me as they aren't against good or evil and wouldn't be able to smite anything, they also wouldn't be for law or for chaos. They wouldn't be effected by a lot of spells that target good, evil, law, or chaos.
CN I guess could go with a smite Lawful, but I think this would also cause some breakdowns as CN wouldn't really have codes/tenets to follow other than let there be chaos in whatever they want to do and trying only to destroy law if taken literally. Also the CN alignment is one of the most hotly debated and hardest to play, so having a holy warrior of plain chaos would probably be very difficult to play.
If we are to keep the alignment system as a means of enhancing the RP aspect of the game, then imo paladins should nix the code of conduct and simply have the restriction on alignment that says "any non-evil" allowing them to still hold the virtues of goodyness without restricting their RP options. I still cannot be evil, but I sure can smite it. Conversely, the antipaladin should have the restriction of "any non-good," have aspirations of taking over the world so everyone obeys you? (Tyranny is often considered to be a LE thing) Now you can!!!
I see no real problem with a LN, NG, or even TN paladin. Evil is still the enemy, you still do either good or law, depending on how you want to RP the character.
In my games I'll still have a code of conduct for the paladins and anti-paladins based off their deity's tenets found in the "Faiths of ..." books. I can't see a CN or TN Paladin though as they aren't against good or evil, but I can see a paladin who follows a LN paladin who follows a LN deity and smites Chaos, but the mercies/auras would have to be reworked extensively which is why I wouldn't have them in my games yet. At least a LN would still have the "lawful" part of the original paladin and he's all about the law kind of like a Judge Dredd character.
TN would be too powerful and would break the game to me as they aren't against good or evil and wouldn't be able to smite anything, they also wouldn't be for law or for chaos. They wouldn't be effected by a lot of spells that target good, evil, law, or chaos.
CN I guess could go with a smite Lawful, but I think this would also cause some breakdowns as CN wouldn't really have codes/tenets to follow other than let there be chaos in whatever they want to do and trying only to destroy law if taken literally. Also the CN alignment is one of the most hotly debated and hardest to play, so having a holy warrior of plain chaos would probably be very difficult to play.
Smite Evil would be unchanged, a TN paladin still smites evil. A CN paladin still smites evil. All your class features are still based on goodness. A CG paladin still smites evil. Evil is the enemy, and a paladin fights for good, regardless of where he falls on the law/chaos axis. That's the point here, I don't want to have to creat 9 different paladin archetypes to accommodate alignment, but your alignment will not matter to you class abilities, thus, why would you play a CN paladin when you don't care about smiting evil? It makes it the player's choice to not have the alignment match the class, rather than making the class match the alignment.
Smite Evil would be unchanged, a TN paladin still smites evil. A CN paladin still smites evil. All your class features are still based on goodness. A CG paladin still smites evil. Evil is the enemy, and a paladin fights for good, regardless of where he falls on the law/chaos axis. That's the point here, I don't want to have to create 9 different paladin archetypes to accommodate alignment, but your alignment will not matter to you class abilities, thus, why would you play a CN paladin when you don't care about smiting evil? It makes it the player's choice to not have the alignment match the class, rather than making the class match the alignment.
I guess I can't wrap my mind around CN/TN/LN being against evil though. As there are 3 different good/evil/neutral and why would good and neutral be against evil? It could go the other just as easily with those kinds of paladins smiting good rather than evil. That's why I figure to just have the Paladins being any good and Anti-Paladins being any evil at my table, makes things pretty simple without having to change powers/spells/abilities on the two classes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the fact that it keeps getting called an alignment restriction very telling.
Well, yes, alignment restrictions restrict your alignment to a particular choice (LG, any lawful, part neutral, any non-lawful, within one step of deity).
1) It's also being rewarded for playing a difficult concept, which is the paladin class.
LG paladin supporters keep telling me it's not a difficult concept unles you're a horrible person who doesn't understand what heroism means.
There are also plenty of concepts which are difficult to play. It's generally more difficult to play any evil PC in a nonevil party, or any PC who decieves their party members, than it is to play a paladin, because of the difficulty in RPing accurately without causing conflict. Should these be rewarded?
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?
And if you feel LG needs these rewards (I don't) the solution is to give non-class specific rewards to LG characters.
4) And feats are an elective choice unconstrained by class.
So you want all LG characters of all classes to be rewarded, but you don't want these rewards to be unconstrained by class? Are you recommending making a more powerful LG-specific version of every individual class?
The paladin is mechanical benefits rewarding the fluff of the class.
And mechanics should not be used to balance/reward fluff.
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.
Monks, barbarians, druids, and clerics all have similar restrictions with a little more room on the alignment board to work with. Certain multiclasses (druid/monk, monk-druid-bbn/cleric depending on deity alignment) also restrict you to one specific 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).
They tend to be linked to specific behaviors rather than alignments (ex: not lying, not dealing lethal damage, not owning a particular amount of property) which is better because it doesn't cause arguments about when exactly someone stops being lawful or exactly what constitutes an evil act and doesn't assume that a character with one lawful trait (discipline) must be lawful.
And your Chaotic Good characters are fairly extremist examples.
And a LG character who never lies under any circumstance is an extremist example. The current paladin is extreme. I'm demonstrating that it can be just as extreme if CG.
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.
CG is not an "only me" attitude, that's CN or even CE, and a person who follows their own moral compass as opposed to society's, assuming that compass is benevolent, is CG per the CRB.
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.
1) Then the CG must obsessively oppose bureaucracy. Similar overall effect. EDIT: In fact, they must oppose any governments or institutions that impose more restrictions on individual rights than absolutely necessary or that put the law/government on top.
2) If chaotics can be honourable and can feel a sense of obligation why is it unreasonable to have an honourable and dedicated CG paladin?
Conversely, the antipaladin should have the restriction of "any non-good," have aspirations of taking over the world so everyone obeys you? (Tyranny is often considered to be a LE thing) Now you can!!!
An anti-paladin that succeeds in conquering the world or reaching a goal can end up in a pretty awkward place in life.
I think CN could totally be a conviction. Its an odd one, but the conviction to chaos and creation does exist. CN clerics do exist. My last 2 characters worshipped Calistria. Gorum and Besmara are also CN. Holy warriors of Gorum and Law Smiting pirates of Besmara seems like it should be a thing to me.
Actually, I could buy neutral being against evil very, very easily. Neutral isn't altruistic as a rule, though they may be when it comes to specific people, because it's the details that matter to them; they don't care about the broad ideals of good or evil, necessarily, but about the people or societies important to them.
That said, 'good' isn't going to wreck your stuff just because it's in the way. Evil will! Opposing evil can be done through pure self-interest.
Actually, I could buy neutral being against evil very, very easily. Neutral isn't altruistic as a rule, though they may be when it comes to specific people, because it's the details that matter to them; they don't care about the broad ideals of good or evil, necessarily, but about the people or societies important to them.
That said, 'good' isn't going to wreck your stuff just because it's in the way. Evil will! Opposing evil can be done through pure self-interest.
I could say the same for evil though. A neutral character can easily lean more towards the evil in their own selfish self-interest. As you said evil could be in the way, the same could be said for good. A good character could be standing in the way of a neutral character achieving that self-interest by means that would be very questionable and a good character would classify as being unseemly, bad, or even evil depending on the society's rules, laws, and etiquette.
Neutral can swing in either direction based whether it be something they want, don't want, or whimsical. That's why I don't see neutral all the time siding with good vs evil or evil vs good. It's a THIRD alignment for a reason.
Oh, definitely. I could more easily see 'neutral will side with good more often than it does with evil' for the reasons I brought up, but not enough to justify evil-smiting neutral paladins absent another reason for them to exist, such as some religious issue.
If you're neutral and you want to avoid someone messing with your stuff, you're better off learning a way that works against any alignment.
Evil is just more likely to make a bad neighbor, since it's evil.
There's no such thing as leaning toward an alignment unless you are trying to justify being evil by saying you are chaotic neutral. That logic that you say you are one alignment, but taking actions that attribute another is another reason the alignment system doesn't work.
I don't mean leaning towards an alignment as in 'I'm sorta this...', though I think that's valid for someone who's in the process for an alignment shift.
I specifically mean that a neutral person, given the choice between good and evil, will probably pick the side that helps other people and not the side that is most likely to harm them. After all, would you rather have a neighbor who bakes cookies and shares with everyone, or a neighbor who might murder you?
(drastically simplified, yes)
There's no such thing as leaning toward an alignment unless you are trying to justify being evil by saying you are chaotic neutral. That logic that you say you are one alignment, but taking actions that attribute another is another reason the alignment system doesn't work.
That's my point. A neutral character can do both good and evil, hence why they are the third alignment of neutral. Sometimes they can toe more towards the good line and sometimes more towards the evil. They basically do as many "good" things as "evil" things in their lives, it all balances out (which is what neutral is defined as). If they do too many of one or the other then the GM and Player need to have a discussion about moving that alignment to where the PC generally finds themselves with their morals, ethics, and beliefs.
Alignment threads are usually very fun and thought-provoking to me to see where people draw their own lines and how they impose them upon the 9 alignments in the game system. I rather enjoy having the alignment system because I like the fluff it provides and there have been many memorable characters that I've played and seen played of the various alignments.
I don't mean leaning towards an alignment as in 'I'm sorta this...', though I think that's valid for someone who's in the process for an alignment shift.
I specifically mean that a neutral person, given the choice between good and evil, will probably pick the side that helps other people and not the side that is most likely to harm them. After all, would you rather have a neighbor who bakes cookies and shares with everyone, or a neighbor who might murder you?
(drastically simplified, yes)
I still have to disagree with you here Meep, you are imposing your own morality upon what neutral is, perhaps because you are a good person. A neutral person generally cares as much about helping other people as they do hurting them. They don't pick sides very often and when they do, it's to serve their own self-interest whether that is a good thing or evil thing. If they cared more about helping others then they aren't truly neutral because they'd rather be doing good in my opinion at least.
Awww, thanks! I appreciate the assumption, at least--but I think I'm not actually arguing with you about what we think we're arguing about.
It's less that I'm suggesting that a neutral character should be non-neutral, and more that, for reasons of that self-interest, if it came down to a choice they'd rather deal with a Good character than an Evil, purely on the basis of which is more likely to stab the neutral character.
Or at least, that's what I intend to suggest; I may have been unclear with it, too. Mostly, I imagine neutral characters simply don't think about good and evil terribly often, because I think the majority of neutral characters are neutral because their primary concerns are things other than morality. (Druidic neutrality, i.e. 'balance', is weird and different.)
But the overall point is that for the reason above, I could see a neutral character fighting evil. Not for general wish to protect others, but specifically to protect either themselves or those close to them from those who might try to harm them. Aside from that specific example (which I'm sort of pointing out just to be 'fair', it's still not good enough to suggest a CN evil-fighting paladin to me), I'm pretty much with you on neutrals.
Awww, thanks! I appreciate the assumption, at least--but I think I'm not actually arguing with you about what we think we're arguing about.
It's less that I'm suggesting that a neutral character should be non-neutral, and more that, for reasons of that self-interest, if it came down to a choice they'd rather deal with a Good character than an Evil, purely on the basis of which is more likely to stab the neutral character.
Or at least, that's what I intend to suggest; I may have been unclear with it, too. Mostly, I imagine neutral characters simply don't think about good and evil terribly often, because I think the majority of neutral characters are neutral because their primary concerns are things other than morality. (Druidic neutrality, i.e. 'balance', is weird and different.)
But the overall point is that for the reason above, I could see a neutral character fighting evil. Not for general wish to protect others, but specifically to protect either themselves or those close to them from those who might try to harm them. Aside from that specific example (which I'm sort of pointing out just to be 'fair', it's still not good enough to suggest a CN evil-fighting paladin to me), I'm pretty much with you on neutrals.
Hah np :P
I get what you mean now. It's kind of party make-up. Yeah I can see a your thought process of a neutral person who'd rather hang out and chill with "good" friends over "evil" friends because he does know what each is capable of.
That still doesn't change the fact that a neutral person could also just like to hang out with evil guys too (there are plenty of parties which have 2-3 evil PCs and a couple of neutral PCs with them), perhaps he grew up with some friends who are now evilly aligned and he doesn't care one way or the other what they do as long as it doesn't get him into too much trouble. Evil doesn't have to always harm, they have less scruples about doing it when it suits their desires, but they can go about doing their evil business without killing their whole lives if they wanted to. The neutral knows this as well. He just keeps his guard up and watches his coin purse a bit more carefully and knows that an evil guy won't judge him for doing something against the law.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. My favorite was a CN party member who was childhood friends with the other members of the group, and while their excesses sometimes seemed a little over the line to her, they were her friends, so she stuck with them. Her real motivation was <x personal thing> anyway.
Hooray clarity
And once again I stand by my statement that too many people will "make an argument" in favor of or agaisnt the paladin in any scenario. If your character hangs out with evil guys, then why are you the good paladin? If you are CN, you can just as easily be the evil version. Remember also, it's on the player now, to make that choice.
it's on the player now, to make that choice.
I feel so much more human when I'm given a choice in matters.
And once again I stand by my statement that too many people will "make an argument" in favor of or against the paladin in any scenario. If your character hangs out with evil guys, then why are you the good paladin? If you are CN, you can just as easily be the evil version. Remember also, it's on the player now, to make that choice.
Yep, that's why I think that a CN or TN person wouldn't make a good paladin and the reason behind me telling my table that a paladin can be "any good" and an anti-paladin can be "any evil." This way I won't have to work out all the tiny details of what would essentially be a new class of paladin dealing with all the intricacies of the neutral variants and my personal belief that the only real viable neutral paladin would be the LN type, but that could be a whole different discussion...
The good paladins would get all the same stuff as the current LG paladin and the evil would get all the same stuff as the CE anti-paladin. Very clean and neat with no adjustments other than to follow their deity's specific tenets in order to keep their god-bestowed powers. It'd just give more leeway to players in my campaigns regarding good vs evil and evil vs good.
Re: neighbors...
From a macro scale, you always want neighbors and friends who are nicer people then you are. That way, if you have to pull some extremely nasty crap, that's horrible, but at least you're 'their' badass nasty guy.
Thus, neutral communities and nations should always side with good nations/neighbors in a fight against evil people. Once the evil people are trounced, the neutrals can go back to manipulating the good guys and making an easy buck off them.
And besides, you kill good people, other good folks can get really, really riled up, even if its just business and nothing personal. You off the evil bastards, and the only people who care, well, nobody cares if you bump them off, either.
==Aelryinth
Re: neighbors...
From a macro scale, you always want neighbors and friends who are nicer people then you are. That way, if you have to pull some extremely nasty crap, that's horrible, but at least you're 'their' badass nasty guy.
Thus, neutral communities and nations should always side with good nations/neighbors in a fight against evil people. Once the evil people are trounced, the neutrals can go back to manipulating the good guys and making an easy buck off them.
And besides, you kill good people, other good folks can get really, really riled up, even if its just business and nothing personal. You off the evil bastards, and the only people who care, well, nobody cares if you bump them off, either.
==Aelryinth
Speculation, there are plenty of neutral communities in Golarion and in the real world who have good and bad neighbors. They basically stay out of any conflicts with either as they like to maintain their neutrality. They don't side with good or evil unless there is a big reason to do so, otherwise they don't involve themselves. I can see having good neighbors and rules as opposed to evil ones being a little more palatable, but really neutral just tries to stay out of any good vs evil stuff.
I'd suggest you read up on what the definition of neutral is again, because if anyone says that neutral people/communities always side with good, that's just plain wrong. Now if you want to play a character in PF who is neutral but rather hang out with good people that's your prerogative and I won't say one whit about it, but to always assume that a neutral person has the inclination or want to do so would be pure meta-game using your own personal moral codes (as a good person) on a neutral character. Always siding with good and doing good acts as a neutral character would have me (as a GM) move your alignment to the neutral good position.
Re: uber nerd
A neutral paladin should decide at first level whether or not he smites good or evil,.and after that, it cannot be changed.
See: neutral cleric
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.Lawful IS in general a more progressive alignment than chaos. Because at it's heart, chaos is for the individual, it's a me-centered alignment, whether for good, evil, or inbetween.
It's the lawful alignments who build cities, libraries, contribute to group efforts that ultimately move societies forward. And more importantly they build traditions of doing so that continue beyond the individuals who start them, that last from generation to generation. While Chaotics might do these things, it's entirely dependent on the individual whim. So for the species at large, lawful is the better alignment of the good spectrum.
Lawful is also stagnation and tradition. Mind you taking dangerous extremes on either end is where you run into trouble.
Insinuating that any alignment is inherently better or worse than the others is ludicrous. All alignments are equal.
The fact that people can choose to interpret them differently makes it very difficult to manage a mechanical system based on fluff.
LazarX--that's simply not accurate. Chaos is focused on 'the individual', not necessary 'me, myself'. Chaos supports overall freedom over restriction; they can work together in groups, they just prefer to do so without hierarchy, or on an ad-hoc basis.
What you say only holds true under a flawed understanding of the chaotic alignment. If it were just 'all the negatives of being non-Lawful', what possible purpose could its inclusion as distinct from the Good/Evil axis serve?
Chaotic characters can and do build lasting things.
Insinuating that any alignment is inherently better or worse than the others is ludicrous. All alignments are equal.
And insisting they'e all the same is even more assinine. Galt, which models France during the aptly named, Terror, is about as throughly a chaotic neutral nation as one can devise. Nidal pretty much ranks the stamp of neutral evil. Can you honestly say that both of these places are as good to live in as say, Andoran, or even Cheliax? One being good, and the other lawful?
Chaotic societies generally are those either in the pangs of accidental birth or in the final throes of destruction. You simply don't have nations that last for any reasonable length of time without tending towards law.
But does that make them 'better?'
If it's a place where I have both a longer life expectancy, and a better quality of life, then yes, it does.But does that make them 'better?'Insinuating that any alignment is inherently better or worse than the others is ludicrous. All alignments are equal.
And insisting they'e all the same is even more assinine. Galt, which models France during the aptly named, Terror, is about as throughly a chaotic neutral nation as one can devise. Nidal pretty much ranks the stamp of neutral evil. Can you honestly say that both of these places are as good to live in as say, Andoran, or even Cheliax? One being good, and the other lawful?
Chaotic societies generally are those either in the pangs of accidental birth or in the final throes of destruction. You simply don't have nations that last for any reasonable length of time without tending towards law.
But if you have to give up your own personal freedom and pay taxes on your hard earned land and income, then is it worth it?
It's all subjective is the point I'm trying to make.
Lawful Good is the most restrictive of alignments by simple fiat. Does this make it the 'best' or the 'purest' of alignments? No, it makes it the most restricted. And when you compare that to the other alignments and all the stuff that they ARE allowed to do, Lawful Good does indeed start looking 'better and better' in comparison.
And I'm not saying neutrals should go actively out looking for a fight. I'm saying they should pick their neighbors to be nicer people then they are, so they can continue going on and acting like neutrals, and if they have to pick allies, they should pick the good ones over the evil ones from a purely pragmatic "less likely to betray you and try to conquer you" standpoint.
Good's always easier to fool, anyways. The suckers always want to believe the best of you. Those evil guys, they just want to take everything you have and put a knife in you if you resist.
==Aelryinth
Your only as restricted as you make yourself.
Edit: and of course your house rules. Not a fan of this whole "Lawful Good is restricted and stupid" talk.
Lawful Good is the most restrictive of alignments by simple fiat. Does this make it the 'best' or the 'purest' of alignments? No, it makes it the most restricted. And when you compare that to the other alignments and all the stuff that they ARE allowed to do, Lawful Good does indeed start looking 'better and better' in comparison.
As far as lawful good looking better and better because of its restrictions, I don't really agree there either. Just because someone is lawful good doesn't make them better than a chaotic good character. That CG character can be just as "good" or more even more so in comparison because he doesn't have to worry about the law, especially if it's a borderline bad law administered by a legitimate government. The greater good is something that we have to take into account when talking about the good alignments. Lawful is only about following the laws that are man-made and when you take that out of the equation it all comes down to being good.
And I'm not saying neutrals should go actively out looking for a fight. I'm saying they should pick their neighbors to be nicer people then they are, so they can continue going on and acting like neutrals, and if they have to pick allies, they should pick the good ones over the evil ones from a purely pragmatic "less likely to betray you and try to conquer you" standpoint.
Neutrals will try to stay out of fights, they won't really care who their neighbors are as long as said neighbors leave them alone. Is a good neighbor better than an evil neighbor? Depends on how you look at it, perhaps the evil stick to themselves go out and commit crimes in other parts of the city and come home content to live peacefully and perhaps that good neighbor is always up in everyone else's business and constantly complaining to the local sheriff about every little thing they think is bad. See where I'm going with this? There is NO one "should" or "must" for neutral, they are a case by case basis where they decide based on what's best for them personally.
Neutral don't have to nor "should" they always pick good allies. Reason being that neutral doesn't care for good or evil or laws or chaos, so they can align with anyone that they feel like and have friends of any alignment because those things don't matter to them.
Good's always easier to fool, anyways. The suckers always want to believe the best of you. Those evil guys, they just want to take everything you have and put a knife in you if you resist.
==Aelryinth
Not true, evil can be just as easy to fool. There are gullible people of all alignments and putting good guys in this category carte blanche is pretty silly. This has to do with skill checks per RAW as well (sense motive anyone?), so that's just another reason I disagree with this statement. Evil guys don't always want to take everything you have, perhaps you don't have anything of value to them or use to them. A good person can covet something just as much as an evil person, they'd just go about getting it in a different way. Evil doesn't always resort to violent behavior, they have other options available such as lying, cheating, and stealing to name a few.
Lawful Good is the most restrictive of alignments by simple fiat. Does this make it the 'best' or the 'purest' of alignments? No, it makes it the most restricted. And when you compare that to the other alignments and all the stuff that they ARE allowed to do, Lawful Good does indeed start looking 'better and better' in comparison.
And I'm not saying neutrals should go actively out looking for a fight. I'm saying they should pick their neighbors to be nicer people then they are, so they can continue going on and acting like neutrals, and if they have to pick allies, they should pick the good ones over the evil ones from a purely pragmatic "less likely to betray you and try to conquer you" standpoint.
Good's always easier to fool, anyways. The suckers always want to believe the best of you. Those evil guys, they just want to take everything you have and put a knife in you if you resist.
==Aelryinth
They aren't more restricted. Their beliefs influence their decisions in a different way, if you call that a restriction, then you are missing something.
My character thinks we shouldn't break the laws of the city, because I don't want to deal with the local guard. It's not a restriction, it's a choice.|
|
Well, I don't know much about politics in Golarion, so I'm going to have to use real-world examples. It's a bit tricky to stick an alignment on real-life things but I think there are a few places we can identify societies as "more lawful" or "more chaotic."
(1) Tribal societies are generally characterized as chaotic (especially if we ignore the fact that honour and tradition are generally considered lawful). They certainly allow individuals quite a lot of freedom to shape their daily lives. And ancient tribal socities appear to provide quality of life - better diets, more leisure, similar or better lifespans - to their members than ancient hydraulic empires which had more lawful governments. Source (the whole book).
(2) The USSR had a more lawful government than the USA at that point in history - the state had more control over peoples' lives, there were fewer limitations on state power, and dissenting opinions were silenced. Living standards were higher in the USA.
(3) North Korea is currently very lawful - the individual is highly de-emphasized in favour of the state and the head of state. Also not a good place to live in.
(4) Democracies are generally considered preferable forms of government, and they are founded on the chaotic idea that all individual citizens should have a say in matters of government.
I don't think real world politics are a good idea on a conversation like that one. I think Weirdo is right, but really, real politics are better left outside.
I don't like alignment restrictions personally, but I think traditions are important. When it's necessary can be left behind, but are always a plus.
Modern democracies are lawful to neutral good...preserving individual rights, but still having rule of law. And they have been willing to trample individual rights on the sly if it means protecting the whole.
Lawful good is obeying the laws for the best of reasons. Not obeying stupid laws for stupid reasons. That's LN. Quit equating mindless obedience with LG. If anything, LG is more liable to take a stand of principle against an unfair law then a CG person will, who simply defies all laws for whatever reason they can think up.
Obeying the law because you don't want to call down the guard is, as you said, not lawful behavior. Obeying the law because it's the right thing to do is LG behavior, and we tend to trust and rely upon those types of people more then those who flout it whenever they can.
Seeing LG as the 'best' alignment is because of the restrictions. Wahibbism, the branch of Islam practiced by the Saudis, often gets the same perception. It throws out many reinterpretations of the Koran and tries to adhere very strictly to Islamic law. It is conservative, puritanical, and is perceived by many Moslem as the 'purest' form of Islam. Is it the RIGHT form of Islam? There's half a billion or more non-Wahabbi muslims who would argue extremely long and hard against it. Which does nothing to change the perch that the Saudis have carved for their brand of the faith.
LG has the same thing going for it.
==Aelryinth
Alignment doesn't restrict you at all. Alignment follows actions, not the other way around, and why you do it doesn't even enter into it. "I won't commit murder because it's the right thing" versus "I won't commit murder because I might get caught" doesn't matter.
"I'm Lawful Good, therefore I ..." is wrong. Absolutely nothing stops a Lawful Good character from getting angry, flipping his lid, and putting a beatdown on someone who hasn't done anything but needle him about his appearance. And unless such behavior becomes recurring, his alignment won't change; one isolated incident doesn't cause alignment shift.
"I (action), therefore I am (alignment)," is correct. People change, attitudes evolve over time. This is called 'character growth'. It's a good thing.
Paladins are only restricted because of the code, not because of their alignment.
LG holds the law above good. They can't do good outside the law, or they are breaking alignment and thus could be subject to an alignment shift, which would screw the paladin.
Let's say we have this scenario: A person is walking through the streets, and they hear the cry of "Thief!", and see someone runnning. The person follows and catches up with them. They make it to a run-down shack, with a dirty raggedy family of 4 (father [the thief], mother, son, daughter). The father pleads with the person, saying he stole to feed his family.
Person is LG: "Sorry, you broke the law. I must turn you in." Apprehends the father and takes him to the authorities.
Person is NG: "What you did breaks the law, but you did it to feed your family. I will pay for this, but don't make it a habit." Goes back to the clerk and pays for the stolen food.
Person is CG: "Sorry to have bothered you." Turns around and walks away.
Even though the man stole to feed his family, the LG person has an obligation to turn the man in, or else the LG person is also breaking the law (a good law against theft), and thus could be subject to an alignment shift, being a bigger detriment to a paladin moreso than a fighter. The CG person thinks nothing of breaking a law (even a good one, like a law against theft) if it means the outcome is for good. A NG person holds good above all, and will help a man like this father by not turning him in but also for making up for the crime (paying for the stolen food).
LG holds the law above good. They can't do good outside the law, or they are breaking alignment and thus could be subject to an alignment shift, which would screw the paladin.
Let's say we have this scenario: A person is walking through the streets, and they hear the cry of "Thief!", and see someone runnning. The person follows and catches up with them. They make it to a run-down shack, with a dirty raggedy family of 4 (father [the thief], mother, son, daughter). The father pleads with the person, saying he stole to feed his family.
Person is LG: "Sorry, you broke the law. I must turn you in." Apprehends the father and takes him to the authorities.
Person is NG: "What you did breaks the law, but you did it to feed your family. I will pay for this, but don't make it a habit." Goes back to the clerk and pays for the stolen food.
Person is CG: "Sorry to have bothered you." Turns around and walks away.Even though the man stole to feed his family, the LG person has an obligation to turn the man in, or else the LG person is also breaking the law (a good law against theft), and thus could be subject to an alignment shift, being a bigger detriment to a paladin moreso than a fighter. The CG person thinks nothing of breaking a law (even a good one, like a law against theft) if it means the outcome is for good. A NG person holds good above all, and will help a man like this father by not turning him in but also for making up for the crime (paying for the stolen food).
A LG player who pays for someone else's food is not breaking the law, he's paying for it to rectify the fact that the law was broken. Turning him in is LN.
|
|
I don't think that a LG person must always hold the law above the good and in fact I believe that a paladin in particular is required to put good above law (they fall for a single evil act, not a single chaotic act). A LG person could pay for the food a thief stole, though they are more likely than a NG person to require that the thief make some form of restitution for their crime (perhaps helping him to find gainful employment in the process).
However, Champions of Purity does clarify that LG characters "sometimes have problems defying laws, even when the laws are unjust." That is, civil disobedience is not typical of the LG alignment. It also says that "Instead of disobeying or protesting against such laws, they work within the provided structure or system to change those laws, and they implore others to do so as well." This is basically what I said earlier about lawful abolitionists going the slow route of trying to make slavery illegal, compared to chaotic abolitionists who help runaway slaves. Changing the law using lawful means is definitely helpful, but in the meantime people are suffering and the chaotics address that by saying "screw the law, I have principles."
Modern democracies are lawful to neutral good...preserving individual rights, but still having rule of law. And they have been willing to trample individual rights on the sly if it means protecting the whole.
They often do trample individual rights, but this is generally considered a bad thing - "they who sacrifice a little freedom for a little security deserve neither." Additionally, the law in modern democracies tends to protect the individual rather than the state. (1) Most crimes are against individuals (murder, assault, slander, theft), (2) it's relatively difficult to be prosecuted for treason (crimes against the state), and (3) there are generally laws preventing the government from infringing on certain individual rights. For example, the Bill of Rights in the USA protects freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, right to bear arms, right not to incriminate yourself, right not to be searched without probable cause of wrongdoing, etc.
I don't want to stick an exact alignment on IRL countries (I don't want to get that political), but we don't need to. The above standards of protections for individual rights - and the idea that the government exists only with the active permission and support of the people and that individuals should have a say in government - suggest that democracy is more chaotic, more individual-focused, than alternative governments even if it isn't actually a CG government.
Likewise, whether or not the USA was actually CG at any point in its history, it certainly was less lawful than the totalitarian USSR, where the government controlled everything. This should prove the point that more lawful is not always better.
Finally, Western government is generally individualistic as opposed to collectivist - Western culture places the individual before the group. This is pretty well established in social psychology and represents a basic example of a law/chaos difference. All other things being equal, an individualistic culture is more chaotic than a collectivist one. Though individualist democracies (ex: USA) aren't necessarily better than collectivist democracies (ex: modern Japan), they certainly aren't worse.
A LG player who pays for someone else's food is not breaking the law, he's paying for it to rectify the fact that the law was broken. Turning him in is LN.LG holds the law above good. They can't do good outside the law, or they are breaking alignment and thus could be subject to an alignment shift, which would screw the paladin.
Let's say we have this scenario: A person is walking through the streets, and they hear the cry of "Thief!", and see someone runnning. The person follows and catches up with them. They make it to a run-down shack, with a dirty raggedy family of 4 (father [the thief], mother, son, daughter). The father pleads with the person, saying he stole to feed his family.
Person is LG: "Sorry, you broke the law. I must turn you in." Apprehends the father and takes him to the authorities.
Person is NG: "What you did breaks the law, but you did it to feed your family. I will pay for this, but don't make it a habit." Goes back to the clerk and pays for the stolen food.
Person is CG: "Sorry to have bothered you." Turns around and walks away.Even though the man stole to feed his family, the LG person has an obligation to turn the man in, or else the LG person is also breaking the law (a good law against theft), and thus could be subject to an alignment shift, being a bigger detriment to a paladin moreso than a fighter. The CG person thinks nothing of breaking a law (even a good one, like a law against theft) if it means the outcome is for good. A NG person holds good above all, and will help a man like this father by not turning him in but also for making up for the crime (paying for the stolen food).
Letting a thief get away with theft is a non-lawful act. Turning him in is Lawful. But going back to pay for the food after turning in the thief would also be Lawful, and perhaps buying the family enough food to last them until their father gets out of jail would be a Good act.
Paladins are definitely not required to put the law above goodness. Even in the Koran, which stipulates a theif should get a hand severed, mercy is shown for those that steal for a family.
What you are advocating is Lawful Stupid, not even Lawful Neutral, and insisting that the Paladin cannot determine that mercy is more applicable then blind enforcement.
the paladin who does such a thing should also take responsibility for the theft. he must offer restitution, and in turn, he should seek such from the theif. If that means helping him become a productive citizen, taking him into service, or otherwise doing Good work...charity and enterprise at work, both Good virtues that should be upheld.
And that's how you play a lawful good hero type, not a Lawful Stupid type.
==Aelryinth
I'm not sure if real world analogies work that well with fantasy gaming, nor if they should be used as a base for subjective subjects such as morality in a group setting. Shouldn't things be flexible so everyone wins?
I'm not sure if real world analogies work that well with fantasy gaming, nor if they should be used as a base for subjective subjects such as morality in a group setting. Shouldn't things be flexible so everyone wins?
Eeeeeyup.
The entire concept is purely subjective. Game rules should be clear and concise, not ambiguous, and anything involving terms like 'good' or 'evil', which are impossible to define objectively, shouldn't be involved in them.
So, an LG character is able to differentiate between laws that are good and laws they should oppose, but a CG character is unable to differentiate between pointless, negative restrictions and 'something they'd do anyway'?
No, you're stacking the deck in favor of law.
Paladins are definitely not required to put the law above goodness. Even in the Koran, which stipulates a theif should get a hand severed, mercy is shown for those that steal for a family.
What you are advocating is Lawful Stupid, not even Lawful Neutral, and insisting that the Paladin cannot determine that mercy is more applicable then blind enforcement.
the paladin who does such a thing should also take responsibility for the theft. he must offer restitution, and in turn, he should seek such from the theif. If that means helping him become a productive citizen, taking him into service, or otherwise doing Good work...charity and enterprise at work, both Good virtues that should be upheld.
And that's how you play a lawful good hero type, not a Lawful Stupid type.
==Aelryinth
I'll agree with this. The main thing to note here is that said law breaker was not committing crime for the sake of evil, in fact, a CG person would most likely have helped him steal to provide for his family. A LG person would help pay to mitigate the fact that the law was broken. It's not theft if the food was paid for. In any case, the thief was not evil in this case, and helping good people not break the law is about as LG as it gets.