stuff that didn't quoteParagon, you just changed your argument and moved the goalposts, and are blaming me?
Excuse me, we're talking about the core game, not some homebrew. In a homebrew, you can do anything you want.
But the core game assumes alignments, those alignments are based on Western morality, and it doesn't matter where you come from or where you go, if you and the universe disagree on what is Good, the universe wins. Indeed, the delusion that people are doing good while actually doing the work of evil is one of Hell's classic ploys.
In a homebrew, you may do whatever you choose. I've never said otherwise. But in the default core game, it doesn't work that way.
==Aelryinth
So, you agree with me that what you do matters, not why you do it. Good. I accept your apology.
A normal LG person, maybe. But a Paladin isn't supposed to be just a normal LG person, he's not suppsoed to let his behavior skirt the boundaries of Lawful Good, he's supposed to exemplify those ideals, not pay lip service to them.
A LG person can lie, cheat, steal, and do all sorts of chaotic and evil acts. Are they going to do it wantonly? Probably not.A LG person can indeed perform all sorts of chaotic and evil acts, including lying, cheating, stealing, participating in a bar brawl, violating an unjust law (good but chaotic), enforcing an unjust law (lawful but evil), etc, without necessarily losing their LG alignment. How do we know this? Because the CRB says so.
Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.For a LG character, less in accord = minor chaotic or evil acts.
Which is because of the code, not his alignment. Without the code, a paladin could 'skirt the issue', so long as he didn't do it frequently and consistently.
The code doesn't always match up with what's right and just, which ideally is what it should be all about.
but we're in the homebrew section talking about the non LG paladins and how they would break your game. In my games we don't call them paladins usually. At least not unless they're LG, but that's more of a legacy gig.
@ OP, there have been several different variants officially published for previous iterations of the game for different alignments on the paladin.
Those paladin variants all had different auras, based on their axis of law/chaos, and their smiting and turning (channeling for us) was based on the axis of good/evil.
In pathfinder, you will find that all paladins of the LG alignment now get the same auras that the CG ones got in 3.5. Aura of Resolve replaced Aura of Courage, etc. For that reason, it would be much simpler to allow paladins of different alignments in your game, rather than try and invent 3 new types of paladins based on alignments. For that reason, I feel like it would be appropriate to allow paladins that had these alignments: LG, NG, CG, LN; and antipaladins that had the alignments: CE, NE, LE, CN; with the only "paladin" getting a choice being the true-neutral one, though I do not know how the language would work when describing it in the same terminology the books like to use.
So, you agree with me that what you do matters, not why you do it. Good. I accept your apology.stuff that didn't quoteParagon, you just changed your argument and moved the goalposts, and are blaming me?
Excuse me, we're talking about the core game, not some homebrew. In a homebrew, you can do anything you want.
But the core game assumes alignments, those alignments are based on Western morality, and it doesn't matter where you come from or where you go, if you and the universe disagree on what is Good, the universe wins. Indeed, the delusion that people are doing good while actually doing the work of evil is one of Hell's classic ploys.
In a homebrew, you may do whatever you choose. I've never said otherwise. But in the default core game, it doesn't work that way.
==Aelryinth
I'm sorry, but you're wrong? Okay. Acknowledged. You accepted it.
------------
And someone who continually keeps doing evil and chaotic acts IS going to drift from LG...and actually rather quickly. Why? Because he doesn't believe in LG. He's using C and E actions when it's easier to do so. That's a fundamental disbelief in LG...when it's important, he's NOT acting LG. When it's not, he is. Trying to game the system isn't going to work...the system is looking at your soul, not your rationalizations of your actions.
So, no, that guy's not going to stay LG, regardless of what he thinks. You're trying to play the 'zero sum' game of alignments, and ignoring the fact that someone who doesn't mind doing C and E acts doesn't really embrace LG...he's just playing at it. Especially if he doesn't do formal repentance...and doing THAT over and over is just trying to play the universe for a sucker, and isn't going to work, either.
After all, it's so much easier to be N and E then Good, and Chaos, well, that's about me instead of us, and also easier.
==Aelryinth
Again, I think your not okay with someone who's 90% good and 90% Lawful being lawful good. I disagree with that idea. I don't like the idea that people can be varied or have to act in a certain way. Being able to have choice is part of what makes the game fun for me.
Edit: I also don't think anyone is trying to "play the universe for a sucker". That sounds a little silly. Also the system looking your soul thing sounds a little crazy. The DM might, but the universe is really imaginationland isn't it? The not believing in Lawful Good thing is also taking a pretty big extreme.
@ OP, there have been several different variants officially published for previous iterations of the game for different alignments on the paladin.
Those paladin variants all had different auras, based on their axis of law/chaos, and their smiting and turning (channeling for us) was based on the axis of good/evil.
In pathfinder, you will find that all paladins of the LG alignment now get the same auras that the CG ones got in 3.5. Aura of Resolve replaced Aura of Courage, etc. For that reason, it would be much simpler to allow paladins of different alignments in your game, rather than try and invent 3 new types of paladins based on alignments. For that reason, I feel like it would be appropriate to allow paladins that had these alignments: LG, NG, CG, LN; and antipaladins that had the alignments: CE, NE, LE, CN; with the only "paladin" getting a choice being the true-neutral one, though I do not know how the language would work when describing it in the same terminology the books like to use.
You'd just call them 'holy warriors' and 'paladin' is the LG holy warrior.
Then you start watering down their powers the less restrictive the alignment and orienting them to their alignments.Different names already exist for the nine alignments, if you go look at the old Dragon Magazine 'paladins of other alignments'.
Myrikhan - NG ranger Holy warrior
Garath - CG church guardian Holy warrior
Lyan - LN OMFG Shiznit ar-holy warrior
Paramander/Paramander - TN Rogue-paladin/assassin- ar-holy warrior
Farath - CN tribal guardian ar-holy warrior
Illrigger - LE Assassin-Knight wowza dark unholy warrior
Aarikhan - NE anti-ranger unholy warrior
Anti-paladin - CE Unholy warrior.
Someone even went so far as to make the 7 up and attempt them as Paizo classes. Basically did it by combining the fighter with the other classes, like the paladin is a fighter-cleric combo. Not a bad effort either, although the Farath as an alchemist was a bit crazy....:)
==Aelryinth
Again, I think your not okay with someone who's 90% good and 90% Lawful being lawful good. I disagree with that idea. I don't like the idea that people can be varied or have to act in a certain way. Being able to have choice is part of what makes the game fun for me.
Edit: I also don't think anyone is trying to "play the universe for a sucker". That sounds a little silly. Also the system looking your soul thing sounds a little crazy. The DM might, but the universe is really imaginationland isn't it? The not believing in Lawful Good thing is also taking a pretty big extreme.
You're trying to 'zero-sum' again.
taking C and E actions when you are LG show you don't believe in LG. 90% L and G is someone who walks on the wrong side of the road sometimes, and doesn't believe in charity to the helpless, and is possibly an ardent nationalist, or a closet racist or speciest who doesn't let it interfere with what needs to get done.
It's not someone who occasionally goes out and murders someone, or starts a riot every so often for fun. The actions you are describing are not minor, and especially if done repeatedly, show lack of belief in LG. Be LG when it doesn't hurt, and C or E when it's needed. Sounds extremely Neutral to me.
==Aelryinth
It's not someone who occasionally goes out and murders someone, or starts a riot every so often for fun.
I did not say this. Quote me saying this if you want to say I said it, but this is you taking an extreme.
Taking Chaotic or Evil actions when your lawful good means your human. There are many aspects and traits to a single person. Again, I think your putting everyone in a box and telling them how to play. Do you tell your players on a regular basis "no you can't do that, that's not something X alignment would do?" Because that's always a pain to play with imo.
You're saying Evil and Chaotic actions.
Well, then, I'm giving examples of Evil and Chaotic actions, and suddenly you're saying 'no'.
So, either you can take the actions I'm saying, or you can't. Which is it?
I think you're hung up on 'LG purity' and 'not-so LG'. I can totally see not so pure LG. But the way you're defining it, you can do NOT GOOD and NOT LAWFUL and OPPOSED TO GOOD and OPPOSED TO LAWFUL, and repeatedly, without consequence, and still call yourself LG.
Which just ain't so.
As opposed to 'not really lawful or good, but not really chaotic or evil'.
==Aelryinth
If you can't see the problem with claiming Chaotic or Evil acts are specifically rioting and murder... Try using small acts as an example. A good trope for this is the inverse. Even evil has standards.
Your examples are pushing the bar a little too much I think. Back to the alcohol analogy, that's like occasionally having vodka and wine and binge drinking and making a mess in public, instead of occasionally having a lite beer at home.
So now, your example is only 'very little, harmless' chaotic and evil actions? As in, things that are so unimportant, you can't even really call them C or E? Just a little bit of straying from proper behavior, little moral weaknesses?
That's quite a bit different then blanket C or E actions, Sin.
==Aelryinth
Now your downplaying it. I also didn't say very little, nor harmless. Usually quotes are for things people say.
@ OP, there have been several different variants officially published for previous iterations of the game for different alignments on the paladin.
Those paladin variants all had different auras, based on their axis of law/chaos, and their smiting and turning (channeling for us) was based on the axis of good/evil.
In pathfinder, you will find that all paladins of the LG alignment now get the same auras that the CG ones got in 3.5. Aura of Resolve replaced Aura of Courage, etc. For that reason, it would be much simpler to allow paladins of different alignments in your game, rather than try and invent 3 new types of paladins based on alignments. For that reason, I feel like it would be appropriate to allow paladins that had these alignments: LG, NG, CG, LN; and antipaladins that had the alignments: CE, NE, LE, CN; with the only "paladin" getting a choice being the true-neutral one, though I do not know how the language would work when describing it in the same terminology the books like to use.
You'd just call them 'holy warriors' and 'paladin' is the LG holy warrior.
Then you start watering down their powers the less restrictive the alignment and orienting them to their alignments.
Different names already exist for the nine alignments, if you go look at the old Dragon Magazine 'paladins of other alignments'.
Myrikhan - NG ranger Holy warrior
Garath - CG church guardian Holy warrior
Lyan - LN OMFG Shiznit ar-holy warrior
Paramander/Paramander - TN Rogue-paladin/assassin- ar-holy warrior
Farath - CN tribal guardian ar-holy warrior
Illrigger - LE Assassin-Knight wowza dark unholy warrior
Aarikhan - NE anti-ranger unholy warrior
Anti-paladin - CE Unholy warrior.Someone even went so far as to make the 7 up and attempt them as Paizo classes. Basically did it by combining the fighter with the other classes, like the paladin is a fighter-cleric combo. Not a bad effort either, although the Farath as an alchemist was a bit crazy....:)
==Aelryinth
You see, all alignments are restrictive in their own way. Why do you think that certain alignments aren't? If you personally find it easier to play one alignment versus another it doesn't necessarily mean that alignment is harder to play.
Again, you aren't treating all alignments as equal, when you should be.
|
Aelryinth, we're not talking about someone who repeatedly murders or riots because it's easy or fun, we're talking about someone who believes that LG is the right thing - or usually the right thing - and lives by that most of the time, but makes mistakes sometimes or believes that compromises have to be made. People aren't perfect and good people can do bad things and still be overall good people.
MrSin's statement was that a LG person (not paladin) can perform "all sorts" of chaotic or evil actions, as long as the LG person didn't perform these acts wantonly - lightly or without cause. This is consistent with Paizo materials. The guidelines in Ultimate Campaign state that torturing a person for information is not enough to automatically turn a very good person evil, though it will place their soul/alignment in serious jeopardy. Killing a surrendered foe because it's inconvenient to take them prisoner is described as an example of an evil act that will only turn a good person neutral if they're already flirting with the border between alignments. So yes, a LG character can occasionally get away with murder.
But they can only do that if they work much harder at being good. Strengthening your alignment - any alignment, even evil or chaotic - is more difficult than weakening it. This prevents the "gaming the system" you mentioned but also indicates that it's just as difficult for a strongly chaotic character to avoid lapsing into lawfulness as it is for a strongly lawful character to avoid giving in to chaos.
And guess what? All characters suffer the exact same morale penalties for alignment change, no matter what alignment they're moving to or from!
You see, all alignments are restrictive in their own way. Why do you think that certain alignments aren't? If you personally find it easier to play one alignment versus another it doesn't necessarily mean that alignment is harder to play.
Again, you aren't treating all alignments as equal, when you should be.
That is patently not true.
The entire spectrum of lawful ACTIONS is freely available within the purview of Chaos, because Chaos includes ALL actions.
Likewise, all Good ACTIONS are within the purview of Evil, because Evil is free to undertake any activity, and Good is limited.
Saying the alignments are all restricted in the same way is outright wrong.
Just make a list of things your character who is LG will not do.
Compare to the list of things your CG character will not do.
THen the short list of things your LE character will not do.
And then the lack of a list of things your CE character will not do.
--------------
"Mistakes". "Compromises". You're talking little things that drift from the path.
You're also citing the word 'wantonly', which I'm assuming you're using in the way of 'randomly', 'frequently', or 'on a whim'.
There's also the very big problem that you are using the 'any actions', which means, quite inclusively, EVERYTHING. And then you are inferring the LG character can do so 'repeatedly'. Maybe not 'wantonly', but he can do so REPEATEDLY.
And you're now making qualifying statements to make sure the actions he can do are not 'any actions', but things limited by circumstances, or expediency, or extreme situations.
Which aren't 'any actions.'
Which means the words you are using to define the ability are not at all matching the examples another person is using to describe those actions.
I am taking you at your literal word. "Any actions", and he can do them repeatedly, as long as it's not 'wantonly.'
And that completely and utterly falls down in all cases.
In 'extreme' situations, under stress, or lack of proper alternatives, and not as something he would ever wish to do if he had no other choice, a LG person can do something he might regret, and it's probably going to shake his soul and be one of those life-altering events. If it's so minor he doesn't worry about it, you can probably chalk it up to personal interpretation of his own moral code.
But it doesn't mean he can burn a village to cleanse it of disease this month, murder a guard captain on the graft next month, petrify every beggar in the city so they stop clogging up the roads and won't starve, hang an innocent band of hunters out in the wilderness because he thinks they are and doesn't have the force to guard them and get them back to town, etc etc...because as he keeps making those decisions, he isn't going to be LG very long.
That's just how it is. It's not 'wantonly', but it is REPEATEDLY...and even excluding outright heinous acts, which are included in 'all actions', he's still going to fall fairly quickly.
===Aelryinth
Well usually what my group does because we dislike the rigidity of the alignment system is if there is a class with a required alignment like paladin I will talk with the player and create a code or set of moral (or lack thereof) that they would live by as a substitute for just say lawful good. If a Paladin is for example a lawful neutral worshiper of Abadar then they would follow the religions tenants and as a neutral character get to choose smiting good or evil depending on their own desires. I find this gives my players more room to expand their characters while still fitting in the requirements.
Aelryinth, I'm pretty sure no one is suggesting you go out of your way to burn a village once a month, nor petrify every commoner in a city (ever!).
The hyperbole isn't helping your argument, and no appreciates when you accuse them of things suggesting things they don't.
|
|
The entire spectrum of lawful ACTIONS is freely available within the purview of Chaos, because Chaos includes ALL actions.
Likewise, all Good ACTIONS are within the purview of Evil, because Evil is free to undertake any activity, and Good is limited.
If a CE character risks his life to save a stranger with no expectation of reward, I am bumping them to CN. And Ultimate Campaign agrees with me.
There's also the very big problem that you are using the 'any actions', which means, quite inclusively, EVERYTHING.
No, he said "all sorts" which when used conversationally typically means "a wide variety." And there are a wide variety of chaotic or evil acts that a LG person may perform without immediate alignment change - most of them, in fact.
And then you are inferring the LG character can do so 'repeatedly'. Maybe not 'wantonly', but he can do so REPEATEDLY.
Yes, he can perform an evil or chaotic action more than once. He doesn't lose LG status the second time he punches someone for being a jerk, kills an evil but helpless creature for pragmatic reasons, steals, breaks a significant promise, etc., assuming a sufficient level of LG-ness in the interval between.
Which means the words you are using to define the ability are not at all matching the examples another person is using to describe those actions.
I am taking you at your literal word. "Any actions", and he can do them repeatedly, as long as it's not 'wantonly.'
Which means that you are interpreting his argument in the manner that makes it easiest for you to argue against, not the manner in which he has repeatedly clarified he means. Hope you're having fun knocking down your strawman.
The entire spectrum of lawful ACTIONS is freely available within the purview of Chaos, because Chaos includes ALL actions.
This statement, and all recreations of it in your posts is incorrect.
Chaos cannot do lawful things, and still be chaos.If you testify with complete sincerity, you are being lawful. Period.
Not this "chaos can do whatever because that's what chaos is" crap, as far as the alignment system is concerned, chaos is the opposite of law.
Sure, you can connote the word to have other meanings in different vernaculars, but for the purpose of defining the game system mechanically, chaos is not superior to law. You aren't Chaotic until proven Lawful, you are either one or the other, and the game sees them as equal.
Chaotic people can testify truthfully occasionally without taking a hit to their alignment in the same way a paladin can tell a white lie if it's for the greater good.
And you do realize any list of things my lawful character would not do is literally infinite, right? What are you even saying?
Chaotic is restrictive, just like law is. If you cooperate with authority figures enough, and don't lie, cheat, or steal, your character isn't chaotic.
If committing an evil act throws you off the path of good, then If you commit a lawful act, and commit it repeatedly, you have fallen off the path of chaos. Reciprocal logic.
Chaotic and Lawful are different in a lot of ways though, but the idea that you can fall off the path of one alignment and not the other is just silly. If I commit myself to respecting authority and following laws and tradition, and preserving such, I'm probably not chaotic.
Um, no. You are wrong again.
A chaotic person can choose as his framework to be someone that brings down tyranny, infiltrates them, and brings them down from within.
90% of the time, because of his infiltration role, he is ACTING Lawful. His motivations may be completely different then a lawful person, but he is certainly acting that way.
A Chaotic can certainly testify completely truthfully if he wants to see someone punished. That is a horrible example. If his head is on the line, he can act as lawful as the next guy...he may not BELIEVE it, but he can ACT it. It's called 'acting' for a reason.
Mr. Sin, if you don't want to volunteer actual examples that fit your framework, that's fine, but don't call explicitly simple actions that are hardly 'extreme' and yet fit your criteria 'hyperbole'. 'all actions' is ALL inclusive, and 'repeatedly' is more then once. If your definition can't fit all examples, then don't use that language. The onus is on you to change the qualifier, not decry those that prove your words false.
Weirdo, your examples are again 'qualified'. Killing an 'evil creature', etc.. And I never said 'the instant he does X', I said if he does 'repeatedly'...which, I notice, you seem to stop after one or two times, instead of 'repeatedly'. Because if he does those things repeatedly, it's not an exception, it's proof of change.
And CE can act CN if it chooses. If it then KEEPS doing the action, maybe you can move it to CN for real...but then you have to determine if he's doing the rescue without thought of reward, which is HIGHLY unlikely. Saying a CE character pops suddenly into CN because it acted to kill something without reward from another is decrying the fact that the simple thrill of combat against a foe is completely reason enough for CE characters. The 'defended' creature may simply be immaterial to the CE's decision!
Everything in context. And it's much harder to rise into CN then fall to CE.
==Aelryinth