| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you didn't.
Chaotic Good wouldn't put ANYTHING into law. They would refuse the very idea that law is needed to require these things, that traditions, guidelines, and just "right thinkin'" would be all that's required, and mind yer own business and I'll mind mine.
Putting such things down on a piece of paper and making them Law would spoil it for true Chaotics as much as anything. You put them on paper, them become fixed and immutable, and lose what makes them special. Freedom is a living thing, and you can't bind it to paper. Trying to base a legal system on it would be self-defeating.
The River Kingdoms disagree. Despite being one of the most chaotic groups of nations on Golarion and clearly labelled as Chaotic in the Inner Sea World Guide, they still have a rudimentary set of laws.
We're not talking about the historical figures, but the romanticized Arthurian style tales of Charlemagne in the tales known as the Matter of France, which included The Song of Roland. The figures known as the Peers of Charlemagne were originally the Peers of Roland, which became absorbed into the growing myths surrounding the Holy Roman Emperor.
doesn't change the fact the peers of Charlegmane and the knights of the round table were really little more than brigands with fancy titles. the romanticized view excludes other divine knights of other religions and alternate alignments
plus there is nothing inherently lawful nor good about the mechanics themselves except maybe aura of good, smite evil isn't inherently good, it's merely anti-evil.
but the tales require a figure with which to base themselves on.
The River Kingdoms disagree. Despite being one of the most chaotic groups of nations on Golarion and clearly labelled as Chaotic in the Inner Sea World Guide, they still have a rudimentary set of laws.No, you didn't.
Chaotic Good wouldn't put ANYTHING into law. They would refuse the very idea that law is needed to require these things, that traditions, guidelines, and just "right thinkin'" would be all that's required, and mind yer own business and I'll mind mine.
Putting such things down on a piece of paper and making them Law would spoil it for true Chaotics as much as anything. You put them on paper, them become fixed and immutable, and lose what makes them special. Freedom is a living thing, and you can't bind it to paper. Trying to base a legal system on it would be self-defeating.
And why are they chaotic?
Because the laws and interpretations of them change constantly.
Galt is all about laws. Laws made on whims, without rhyme or reason behind them, to be swept away by the next group coming into power, to be enforced by the mob and emotions running rampant.
The rights of the River Kingdoms actually trump all laws...if you have the strength to do so. Basically, the overarching freedoms of the River Kingdoms only validate that you have the right to put a sword through someone else who tries to take them away, and get away with it.
That's not a Bill of Rights, and it's not a great document debated over by sages and put down on pen and parchment as a crowning achievement. It's words between men enshrined in tradition, sworn to by blood, and upheld so that tyrants aren't permitted to rise...which they've done, anyways.
==Aelryinth
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic Good wouldn't put ANYTHING into law. They would refuse the very idea that law is needed to require these things, that traditions, guidelines, and just "right thinkin'" would be all that's required, and mind yer own business and I'll mind mine.
This right here is where you've gone wrong! It's unfortunate that the English words 'law' and 'chaos' have their own meanings that refer to things that have nothing to do with the philosophies of our alignment system.
IRL, 'law' is about legally binding social contracts. These can be used to promote any kind of society you want! If your laws are framed such that dissent is a crime, then those laws are promoting what we would think of as a lawful society in alignment terms. If your laws are framed such that they hold personal liberty as sacrosanct, and impose limits on the government's right to curtail those liberties, then those laws are promoting and protecting freedom, which in alignment terms is chaotic.
The English word 'chaos' has connotations which are nearly always undesirable! But this has nothing to do with chaotic alignment, which philosophically is about the individuals personal freedom. Since 'selfishness' is neither lawful nor chaotic but evil, and 'altruism' is also neither lawful nor chaotic but good, then anyone who thinks "It's all about me!" is evil, not chaotic! The tyrant is lawful evil, and he definitely thinks "It's all about me!" Robin Hood doesn't think that! He's not trying to make himself richer by breaking the unjust laws, he's trying to free his people from tyranny!
The people who are philosophically chaotic good want the freedoms to be available for all, not just themselves. This wanting to benefit everyone (not just themselves) is the good component of CG, believing that guaranteeing personal freedom is desirable is the chaotic component of CG, and putting them together as CG results in guaranteeing personal freedom for everyone. They aren't knee-jerk against laws on principle, they are not anti-rules but pro-freedom, so write those laws to guarantee those freedoms.
Putting such things down on a piece of paper and making them Law would spoil it for true Chaotics as much as anything.
Why? If I benefit from a law which prevents the government for arresting me without good reason, judged by a competent person, why would I hate that law? Just because it's a 'law'? Rubbish! This is a very childish notion, and doesn't reflect chaotic good but chaotic evil.
You put them on paper, them become fixed and immutable, and lose what makes them special. Freedom is a living thing, and you can't bind it to paper. Trying to base a legal system on it would be self-defeating.
And yet the American legal system holds the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as sacrosanct! It's difficult sometimes, and requires constant monitoring and small changes over time to make sure that the law is actually doing what Americans want it to do: guarantee those freedoms! If America was philosophically lawful instead of chaotic, then 'The law is the law' and would never change once written down, even if those laws were revealed to lead to injustice.
This very real example shows that, 'You put them on paper, them become fixed and immutable, and lose what makes them special. Freedom is a living thing, and you can't bind it to paper. Trying to base a legal system on it would be self-defeating' is provably untrue.
|
|
The River Kingdoms disagree. Despite being one of the most chaotic groups of nations on Golarion and clearly labelled as Chaotic in the Inner Sea World Guide, they still have a rudimentary set of laws.No, you didn't.
Chaotic Good wouldn't put ANYTHING into law. They would refuse the very idea that law is needed to require these things, that traditions, guidelines, and just "right thinkin'" would be all that's required, and mind yer own business and I'll mind mine.
Putting such things down on a piece of paper and making them Law would spoil it for true Chaotics as much as anything. You put them on paper, them become fixed and immutable, and lose what makes them special. Freedom is a living thing, and you can't bind it to paper. Trying to base a legal system on it would be self-defeating.
And why are they chaotic?
Because the laws and interpretations of them change constantly.
Galt is all about laws. Laws made on whims, without rhyme or reason behind them, to be swept away by the next group coming into power, to be enforced by the mob and emotions running rampant.
The rights of the River Kingdoms actually trump all laws...if you have the strength to do so. Basically, the overarching freedoms of the River Kingdoms only validate that you have the right to put a sword through someone else who tries to take them away, and get away with it.
That's not a Bill of Rights, and it's not a great document debated over by sages and put down on pen and parchment as a crowning achievement. It's words between men enshrined in tradition, sworn to by blood, and upheld so that tyrants aren't permitted to rise...which they've done, anyways.
==Aelryinth
The River Freedoms are the unwritten law, and they are unwritten because they aren't a country so don't have any laws, by definition.
However, in our Kingmaker campaign we enshrined the River Freedoms into the law of the kingdom we established! They are law now! My paladin of Shelyn enforces those laws with zealotry! It's the only way he can cope. : )
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IRL, each country believes that they are good and the enemy is evil. When their soldiers kill ours then it's those evil murdering bastards slaughtering our brave boys in uniform who are only there to protect our loved ones. When our soldiers kill their's then our brave boys took the fight to the enemy, hampering their villainous plans for world domination. Spies working for our enemy are vile deceivers who worm their evil way into the affections of decent, honest folk so that they can murder and destroy in a most cowardly manner. Spies working for us are brave souls who risk life and limb to infiltrate the enemy and attempt...Yes, when two countries are at war they are enemies. However "good" countries follow a code of conduct and obey certain rules of war. Even ancient civilizations followed certain traditional rules in warfare.
Weeelll...yes and no.
The people in each country who advocate these 'rules of war' (like ceasefires at the end of the battle to enable both sides to see to their own wounded, non-combatant medics, prisoner exchange, ethical treatment of prisoners, etc.) may certainly be good aligned individuals, so I don't dispute that.
But these rules provide tangible benefits, and there are sanctions against those who break them. If you murder a prisoner, that risks the lives of your own people who have been captured. Countries obey these rules because it benefits them to do so.
Of course, the idea that everyone benefits is philosophically good...
But there are advantages foe evil countries to appear good...so evil countries obey those laws too...unless they can get away with secretly breaking them...!
If the allies had been able to assassinate Adolf H during WW2, would they? You bet! Would this be evil? Surely, if killing those who are trying to kill your families and invade your country is okay, then killing the guy who's making his countrymen do just that is okay too!
Commandos would do that in a heartbeat, if they could! Does that make commandos evil?
The point of all this is that I don't believe that being trained to assassinate makes you evil any more than I think being trained to kill with a greataxe makes you evil.
Given that, the assassin PrC could easily be alignment-free, and the assassins actual alignment be based on what he actually does, not what he knows.
Keep in mind that enshrining rights is not chaotic, it is GOOD. Putting them down in writing and making them the law of the land is indeed Lawful. The fact they have evolved over time is due to the fact they are still Good, and what we define as good has changed over time, and the standards have been forced to update and progress with them.
Lawful Neutral is the uncaring and unchanging law. Lawful Good is continually self-evolving towards a better state, that's what makes it Good.
The Greek GODS were CG, have no doubt on that. Greek society? Not so much. The Spartans, for example, were excessively lawful, likely LN if not LE. The Athenians were more liberal.
Norse? Yes, Chaotic. The strength of the individual was everything, your reach was what you could claim and hold against all comers. Very much a society built on conflict, and so chaotic in the way such a continually confronted society would be. Note that laws held very little sway over them, and traditions were things that had to be enforced. If you were strong enough, you could ignore them, or change them.
Nice example with the Kingmaker campaign. Enshrining them as laws gives a very different feeling from other kingdoms that basically just have to 'live with the codes'.
==Aelryinth
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the problem is with the Lawful side of paladinhood, why aren't there more complaints about monks? Or is everyone playing a "Martial Artist" instead of a lawful monk these days?
The paladin gets all the press because it's the poster-boy of unnecessary restrictions. But yes, the monk's restriction is equally unnecessary.
|
|
Keep in mind that enshrining rights is not chaotic, it is GOOD. Putting them down in writing and making them the law of the land is indeed Lawful. The fact they have evolved over time is due to the fact they are still Good, and what we define as good has changed over time, and the standards have been forced to update and progress with them.
Whether 'laws' are written down or are oral traditions has nothing to do with whether those laws are philosophically lawful or chaotic.
If every single person in a CG society were personally CG then there would hardly be a need to have laws (as long as the education system was robust), because we could trust each individual to act CG. But whatever the philosophical leanings of a society, it would be folly to imagine that there are no evil people about, ready to exploit naïveté. Knowing this, the wise create laws to protect those freedoms from those that would abuse them, whether from evil individuals or tyrranical governments.
Lawful Neutral is the uncaring and unchanging law. Lawful Good is continually self-evolving towards a better state, that's what makes it Good.
Agreed!
But anarchy is chaotic neutral. The desire to make sure everyone's freedoms are guaranteed is what makes it good!
Wow, that escaladed quickly O_o
As the topic creator, I'll just reform my point here, as a reminder: I was just wondering if Paizo could have broken the Paladin into 9 different versions (one for each alignment) instead of sticking with the LG version and then releasing the CE Antipaladin after. My "idea" was to renamed the Paladin "Crusader" and have 9 variants for each class ability. Furthermore, the text for each could have started as "Lawful Good Crusaders, also known as Paladins..." and "Chaotic Evil Crusaders, also known as Antipaladins...".
I'm not in favor of removing the class altogether, let's get this thing straight. I'm just saying that since Dragon magazine issues, archetypes and sources have broken down the class into variants, it would have been cool to get these variants from the get-go.
I have to disagree, Malachi.
Chaotic Good isn't necessarily concerned about everyone's freedoms. You are "personally" not going to intrude on other people's freedoms ...that's what Chaotic Good means. But you're not going to force others to think the same way.
That is very different then enshrining into law that 'EVERYONE shall not impede on these intrinsic freedoms.' The law is basically now enforcing what you knew to be right all along, but that doesn't make a law Chaotic. It now makes respect for rights, a Good Thing, apply to everyone, a Lawful Thing, instead of being an individual choice.
Chaos is about the individual. Law is about the whole. CG makes their choice, and doesn't let others do it for them. The Law says that THIS is the choice (and it's a Good Choice) and people follow it because it's The Law.
==Aelryinth
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic Good isn't necessarily concerned about everyone's freedoms. You are "personally" not going to intrude on other people's freedoms ...that's what Chaotic Good means. But you're not going to force others to think the same way.
That's odd, considering Chaotic Good is the freedom fighter liberating slaves from tyranny. I guess they don't mind you thinking that way, they're just going to stop you from acting on it. Lethally if necessary.
The paladin gets all the press because it's the poster-boy of unnecessary restrictions. But yes, the monk's restriction is equally unnecessary.If the problem is with the Lawful side of paladinhood, why aren't there more complaints about monks? Or is everyone playing a "Martial Artist" instead of a lawful monk these days?
The conspiracy theorist in me always though that monks were made lawful for the sole purpose of preventing barbarian/monk multiclass.
Chaotic Good isn't necessarily concerned about everyone's freedoms. You are "personally" not going to intrude on other people's freedoms ...that's what Chaotic Good means. But you're not going to force others to think the same way.That's odd, considering Chaotic Good is the freedom fighter liberating slaves from tyranny. I guess they don't mind you thinking that way, they're just going to stop you from acting on it. Lethally if necessary.
Which is about it. But Good people get involved when LE people would prefer they shut up and do nothing. CG defy their own authorities and get involved in causes.
Being Good makes them the liberator...they want other people to have the same choices that they do, they empathize, and are willing to sacrifice to give others the chances they have. Pure CG at its finest. But CG also includes isolationist elves who don't interfere with their neighbors at all, CG rangers on lonely individual patrols out in the woods, CG artistes out to explore life and let everyone go to their own way as long as they are free to explore their own, CG nobles who believe they always know best and defy attempts to rein them in, and CG gloryhounds out only for the excitement and thrill of it all (i.e. the Harper mentality).
Lots of selfishness in CG, along with the nobility.
I would also like to point out that in Andoran, liberating slaves is Lawful and Good, and paladins do it just like everyone else. It's not just a CG thing, it's a Good Thing.
==Aelryinth
|
|
But CG also includes isolationist elves who don't interfere with their neighbors at all, CG rangers on lonely individual patrols out in the woods, CG artistes out to explore life and let everyone go to their own way as long as they are free to explore their own, CG nobles who believe they always know best and defy attempts to rein them in, and CG gloryhounds out only for the excitement and thrill of it all (i.e. the Harper mentality).
Lots of selfishness in CG, along with the nobility.
Nah, sounds like Chaotic Neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic Good isn't necessarily concerned about everyone's freedoms. You are "personally" not going to intrude on other people's freedoms ...that's what Chaotic Good means. But you're not going to force others to think the same way.That's odd, considering Chaotic Good is the freedom fighter liberating slaves from tyranny. I guess they don't mind you thinking that way, they're just going to stop you from acting on it. Lethally if necessary.Which is about it. But Good people get involved when LE people would prefer they shut up and do nothing. CG defy their own authorities and get involved in causes.
Being Good makes them the liberator...they want other people to have the same choices that they do, they empathize, and are willing to sacrifice to give others the chances they have. Pure CG at its finest. But CG also includes isolationist elves who don't interfere with their neighbors at all, CG rangers on lonely individual patrols out in the woods, CG artistes out to explore life and let everyone go to their own way as long as they are free to explore their own, CG nobles who believe they always know best and defy attempts to rein them in, and CG gloryhounds out only for the excitement and thrill of it all (i.e. the Harper mentality).
Lots of selfishness in CG, along with the nobility.
I would also like to point out that in Andoran, liberating slaves is Lawful and Good, and paladins do it just like everyone else. It's not just a CG thing, it's a Good Thing.
==Aelryinth
From the rules:
"A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society."Chaotic good is concerned with others.
Much of what you described sounded much more like Neutral.
"Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way."
Aelryinth, I'm beginning to think that the problem is that you think that 95% of the "good qualities" of Chaotic Good come from the Good side, and that alignment could perfectly be named "Good in spite of chaotic", but you give the Lawful Good the "good qualities" that comes from the lawful side. If for you CG is so narrow, I can undestand why LG seems like the "Good +" alignment, something that I personally hate with all my heart. All good options must be equally good.
I personally will really like to eliminate all the alignment restrictions, Monk and Druid even more than the Paladin. I will never understand why you can not make True Neutral Monks and Chaotic Good/Evil Druids.
On the paladin side, I hope there will be archetypes for other alignments on the ACG, with that I think everyone will be happy; those that want more options will have them, but the "sanctity" of the LG paladin will be preserved.
|
|
Aelryinth, I'm beginning to think that the problem is that you think that 95% of the "good qualities" of Chaotic Good come from the Good side, and that alignment could perfectly be named "Good in spite of chaotic", but you give the Lawful Good the "good qualities" that comes from the lawful side. If for you CG is so narrow, I can undestand why LG seems like the "Good +" alignment, something that I personally hate with all my heart. All good options must be equally good.
I personally will really like to eliminate all the alignment restrictions, Monk and Druid even more than the Paladin. I will never understand why you can not make True Neutral Monks and Chaotic Good/Evil Druids.
On the paladin side, I hope there will be archetypes for other alignments on the ACG, with that I think everyone will be happy; those that want more options will have them, but the "sanctity" of the LG paladin will be preserved.
The eternal problem with Chaotic Good is generally the idea of 'chaos' is classically linked with 'evil.' The disorderly guy who doesn't see a need to keep his word, or the thief who steals and helps people too are not things which strictly speaking are 'good' in most moral systems.
I personally can see a chaotic good type working, but I tend to view them more as Captain Harlock types as opposed to say Jack Sparrow (who I'd peg as CN or lower).
While you never want to start a sideline argument about characters in an alignment thread/paladin thread, I find it easier to discuss alignments if you start trying to peg them off of fictional characters. That way you can easilly see where someone else stands and where hyou differ from them. Meaning that the geography of the discussion is a bit clearer.
And I'll state this again, as I end up in every paladin and alignment thread. Trying to RAW the Alignment by citing the Pathfinder definitions of those alignments, is pointless.
If the problem is with the Lawful side of paladinhood, why aren't there more complaints about monks? Or is everyone playing a "Martial Artist" instead of a lawful monk these days?
I've complained about the 'lawful' monk forever.
Because when I think 'monk,' I think about the unarmed kung-fu martial artist of media. And they aren't very lawful at all.
For every 'monastary-type' monk I've seen with his strict rules and rituals... there are a dozen Jackie Chan/Van Damme/Bruce Lee/Daredevil type of characters who excel at the flurry of blows and 'no armor' defense.
Heck... Bruce lee himself was VERY disciplined, but every character he played in a movie was chaotic and did what he wanted to regardless of what society norms told him was 'right'..
In a fantasy game THAT is what I want to play. The stereotypes and tropes. Not the 'reality.'
Paladins at their core are holy warriors. It's harder to seperate the Shining knight from his Code of chivalry.
Could they have done it? Sure? But they didn't for a very good reason. Pathfinder was being promoted as the 3.5 replacement when WOTC went to 4.0. It's major selling point is that it's very much the same game as D+D 3.5. Plus, James Jacobs had actually written a Dragon article about 7 additional Paladins besides LG, and CE, and even as the author, he had problems with it. (Understandable, a couple of them are virtually unplayable as party members.)
Hold on, James Jacobs himself said that he didn't like how the variants that he wrote come out? Yikes...
A couple of them seemed more suitable as encounters as a couple like the Pyrmandyr "you too lawful/chaotic/good/evil I kill you." really isn't much of a play nicely with other folks kind of guy. Presumably he wrote the article to fulfill an assignment for the themed issue.Could they have done it? Sure? But they didn't for a very good reason. Pathfinder was being promoted as the 3.5 replacement when WOTC went to 4.0. It's major selling point is that it's very much the same game as D+D 3.5. Plus, James Jacobs had actually written a Dragon article about 7 additional Paladins besides LG, and CE, and even as the author, he had problems with it. (Understandable, a couple of them are virtually unplayable as party members.)Hold on, James Jacobs himself said that he didn't like how the variants that he wrote come out? Yikes...
Yeah, but I feel that the problem there wasn't in concept, but in the way some of the alternatives (like the Pyrmandyr, as you said) were presented. Which is bound to happen, if the article was solely written because he was assigned to, not because he chose to.
From the rules:
"A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society."
Right there.
I'm not sure where the rest of your arguments are coming from. He acts as his conscience guides HIM. He doesn't press the belief on others. He doesn't let others tell him what to do, and that includes words written on paper. He's not going to force people into being CG, respecting the rights of others, etc. He truly isn't concerned too much with what other people think.
He will, however, FIGHT AGAINST those who abuse the rights of others, Particularly his own, regardless of what law and society may say. IF he's heroic, he'll do it for the benefit of others, if he believes in the strong standing up for the weak.
Chaos is about the individual, Law is about the whole.
And no, the examples I gave aren't CN. They are all exemplars of CG alignment, properly heroic, but concerned first and foremost with their own goals and desires while respecting and not oppressing others. CN people would only care about others to the amount of them not interfering with what you want to do. CE would actively do whatever they pleased and go off on whoever got in the way.
==Aelryinth
|
|
A couple of them seemed more suitable as encounters as a couple like the Pyrmandyr "you too lawful/chaotic/good/evil I kill you." really isn't much of a play nicely with other folks kind of guy. Presumably he wrote the article to fulfill an assignment for the themed issue.Could they have done it? Sure? But they didn't for a very good reason. Pathfinder was being promoted as the 3.5 replacement when WOTC went to 4.0. It's major selling point is that it's very much the same game as D+D 3.5. Plus, James Jacobs had actually written a Dragon article about 7 additional Paladins besides LG, and CE, and even as the author, he had problems with it. (Understandable, a couple of them are virtually unplayable as party members.)Hold on, James Jacobs himself said that he didn't like how the variants that he wrote come out? Yikes...
Exactly!
If he's given an assignment to write four pages of paladins of other alignments, he can't very well have an article that says:-
• change 'lawful good' to 'any good', adjust code and spell list like so
and then, two paragraphs later, the article is finished, even if this is the best answer!
As it happens, he doesn't think that paladins should vary from LG. However, if I was handing out this assignment I wouldn't give the assignment to write about paladins of different alignments to someone who doesn't think that paladins should be of other alignments! No wonder he didn't like the result. I didn't like the result!
I was really looking forward to the 'official' CG paladin. The 'champion of good' with a chaotic bent. But that's not what we got. What we got was someone who has no powers against evil, but can Smite Law! How can a champion of good be okay about Smiting LG but can't do a thing about NE or CE?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Malachi I have to say reading a lot of your posts in this thread and some others makes me very tired, and I think the exclamation marks are feeling overworked too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it sure ain't gonna unite D&Ders under one edition.
I don't think we'll ever see One Edition to Rule Them All.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but I feel that the problem there wasn't in concept, but in the way some of the alternatives (like the Pyrmandyr, as you said) were presented. Which is bound to happen, if the article was solely written because he was assigned to, not because he chose to.A couple of them seemed more suitable as encounters as a couple like the Pyrmandyr "you too lawful/chaotic/good/evil I kill you." really isn't much of a play nicely with other folks kind of guy. Presumably he wrote the article to fulfill an assignment for the themed issue.Could they have done it? Sure? But they didn't for a very good reason. Pathfinder was being promoted as the 3.5 replacement when WOTC went to 4.0. It's major selling point is that it's very much the same game as D+D 3.5. Plus, James Jacobs had actually written a Dragon article about 7 additional Paladins besides LG, and CE, and even as the author, he had problems with it. (Understandable, a couple of them are virtually unplayable as party members.)Hold on, James Jacobs himself said that he didn't like how the variants that he wrote come out? Yikes...
Yeah, all the paladin article demonstrates is that JJ had an off day. Which is no wonder, if he was writing eight additional special-snowflake paladin archetypes, complete with CoCs. One or two were bound to end up forced and I-don't-play-well-with-others-ish. The solution is simple, of course: drop the special snowflake CoCs!
Funny how nobody ever complains that clerics of whatever persuasion don't play well with others. Well, except when it's an evil-cleric-in-a-good-party situation, in which case his class is tangential. But of course "Just drop the paladin's alignment restriction, the CoC, and make these minor rule tweaks" doesn't take up much word count, or sound very writer-y.
Funny how nobody ever complains that clerics of whatever persuasion don't play well with others. Well, except when it's an evil-cleric-in-a-good-party situation, in which case his class is tangential. But of course "Just drop the paladin's alignment restriction, the CoC, and make these minor rule tweaks" doesn't take up much word count, or sound very writer-y.
Personally I'm still waiting for the thread where a cleric of Folgrit chastises the party bard for being a deadbeat dad.
Jokes aside, a CN cleric of Gyronna is the stuff party conflict is made off. Gyronna's portfolio is literally Hatred, Extortion, and spite.