| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh.
The very nature of Chaos includes all Lawful possibilities. Forcing a code on a Chaotic is a total contravention of what it means to be Chaotic - individuality is everything. On a micro level, sure, it might be restrictive...but on a macro level? Nope. Impossible.
To be honest, if you had a CG paladin, every single one of them would have to have a different, individual code. Which defeats the purpose of a code at all.
==Aelryinth
Meh.
The very nature of Chaos includes all Lawful possibilities. Forcing a code on a Chaotic is a total contravention of what it means to be Chaotic - individuality is everything. On a micro level, sure, it might be restrictive...but on a macro level? Nope. Impossible.
To be honest, if you had a CG paladin, every single one of them would have to have a different, individual code. Which defeats the purpose of a code at all.
==Aelryinth
What is the difference between how you describe the CG paladin and the Iroran Paladin? Sounds to me the game already allows the type of character you're "Meh" about.
"Irori offers no universal paladin code— each paladin in his service creates his own code as part of his spiritual journey, seeing the adherence to such a self-formulated creed as one of the many tests one must face to reach perfection." Sounds pretty CG to me...
EDIT: And all that seems strange from an archetype that gets an aura of law instead of good. :P
|
A Chaotic Good Paladin might be obligated to look for long-term solutions that promote personal freedoms, and be careful of solutions that lead to future tyranny by, say, getting people to rely too much on Paladins to solve their problems instead of solving things themselves.
Would a Chaotic Good Paladin even really have a code at all? By their definition - they'd be more than willing to violate their own code if they thought that they were helping someone out. Ex: Lying to a tyrant to free slaves etc.
Part of what makes a paladin a paladin is that EVERYONE trusts them. The common folk trust them to act like paladins. The nobles trust them to act like paladins. That evil necromancer might hate and fear paladins, but he trusts paladins to act like paladins.
Ex 1: A small group of super powerful adventurers go out into the town square and start ranting about an evil wizard and his diabolical schemes! The result? The common folk are nearly as terrified of the adventurers (not all of which are good) as they are of the potential evil wizard. Nobles wonder if there is really an evil wizard at all. Perhaps the adventurers are really trying to cause chaos to seize power for themselves. Such has happened before.
Ex 2: A small group of super powerful adventurers being 'led' by a paladin (he's the face) go out into the town square and explain about an evil wizard and his diabolical schemes. The result? The common folk trust him. The nobles believe him. If the paladin goes further and announces that they have no plans to take power for themselves, the nobles no longer fear them and will work with them. Stuff works out much better. That's the ADVANTAGE and PURPOSE of the paladin's code.
An order of holy warriors dedicated to Chaotic Good (assuming that there could be such an order; it seems a bit counter-intuitive to be organized in the same way... wasn't that basically what rangers started out as back in the day - only not really organized at all?) simply wouldn't be that consistent. They would undoubtedly do great goods - but they wouldn't be paladins.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what, I'm bored of arguments about what the alignments mean. You can't resolve them anyway because the descriptions of lawfulness and chaos are so vague that we can't agree on basic premises.
What does the possibility of a paladin falling actually do for your game? Either the player wants the code, in which case they'll only fall deliberately (setting a player up to fall is widely considered a dick move) or the player will resent the code, in which case you're likely to have arguments about what exactly will cause a fall and it will cause problems at table.
Heck, if you're serious about enforcing restrictions you can have arguments even when the player is acting in good faith, simply because you and the player have a slightly different interpretation of what is "evil" or "honourable" or what maintaining a "lawful good" alignment requires. Should my paladin fall for participating in an ambush? Disobeying higher-ranking members of the church? Killing goblin babies?
This is what I meant by it being either unnecessary or dangerous to bribe a player into playing a paladin. Inside the game world it's cool that these holy warriors will lose their powers if they transgress. But at the actual table, anytime that everyone isn't on exactly the same page about How To Paladin it causes table drama and so many internet arguments that there are guides and joke threads about it.
Is that fun for your table?
But when it comes to building societies.... Chaotic Good is essentially tribal level where as your great cities and civilisations with huge populations are almost always going to be lawful.
I'm not so sure about that. Tribal societies require a certain amount of respect for tradition and abiding by communal rules and expectations because you need to stick together and cooperate to survive. Urban societies may come with more complex hierarchies and codified legal systems, but they also come with a lot more potential for individuals to strike off in new directions. If anything, I would expect tribal societies to tend more to neutrality, with urbanized ones allowing more extremes in both lawful and chaotic directions.
Venn Diagram shows LG at the middle in terms of what is/is not permissible. Thus LG is the most restricted, and at the center.
{. . .}
Whose Venn diagram? Chaotics have restrictions too, even if they don't feel like restrictions -- they can't commit to too much obedience or other adherence to order, or they either go crazy or quit being Chaotic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this is a home game, you are the GM. Simply allow a CG paladin, end of story. If you want a rules as written loophole, there are two possibilities.
There is a Warpriest archetype that has a paladin like smite and abilities, called Champion of Faith. This is the most solid "By the book" method.
The other loophole is only for D&D legacy groups that would only agree if something was done similarly in "the olden days". In second edition D&D, deities book, a paladin of Horus could be chaotic good. That little loophole was quite the fun one in our D&D days some 25 years ago.
The other loophole is only for D&D legacy groups that would only agree if something was done similarly in "the olden days". In second edition D&D, deities book, a paladin of Horus could be chaotic good. That little loophole was quite the fun one in our D&D days some 25 years ago.
At first I was like "25? It couldn't have been that long ago..." then I was like "Oh god... 2nd ed was 25 years ago..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Venn Diagram shows LG at the middle in terms of what is/is not permissible. Thus LG is the most restricted, and at the center.
{. . .}Whose Venn diagram? Chaotics have restrictions too, even if they don't feel like restrictions -- they can't commit to too much obedience or other adherence to order, or they either go crazy or quit being Chaotic.
I seem to remember one discussion of Lawful societies versus Chaotic societies in specific reference to Chaotic societies having less means at their disposal to effect change.
If you're Chaotic, and loving of freedom and personal choice, and other people in your society are behaving in some manner that you disagree with, then you can try to use reason to present your case as to why a change should be made, but that's basically it.
In a Lawful society, on the other hand, the vehicle for change can be done by a presentation of reason or an appeal to authority. Forcing, by law or by arms, the change you want to happen. A Chaotic person (at least, where Chaotic is defined by individual choice) cannot utilize "Because I said so", because his fundamental belief is that "Because I said so", no matter who uses it, is bupkiss. A Lawful person has that additional tool.
If you have it, the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana has a CG Paladin. You can use it to adjust the regular Paladin.
Venn Diagram shows LG at the middle in terms of what is/is not permissible. Thus LG is the most restricted, and at the center.
{. . .}Whose Venn diagram? Chaotics have restrictions too, even if they don't feel like restrictions -- they can't commit to too much obedience or other adherence to order, or they either go crazy or quit being Chaotic.
I seem to remember one discussion of Lawful societies versus Chaotic societies in specific reference to Chaotic societies having less means at their disposal to effect change.
If you're Chaotic, and loving of freedom and personal choice, and other people in your society are behaving in some manner that you disagree with, then you can try to use reason to present your case as to why a change should be made, but that's basically it.
In a Lawful society, on the other hand, the vehicle for change can be done by a presentation of reason or an appeal to authority. Forcing, by law or by arms, the change you want to happen. A Chaotic person (at least, where Chaotic is defined by individual choice) cannot utilize "Because I said so", because his fundamental belief is that "Because I said so", no matter who uses it, is bupkiss. A Lawful person has that additional tool.
Actually, Chaotics tend to use force fo personality or force of arms to effect change...they appeal to emotion much more then logic or reason.
However, such influence is always 'small' in area. Basically, outside your personal influence, you only have name and reputation to back you, and people will just ignore you and do what they want, unless there's some greater threat (like, oh, that demon prince might torture you for a thousand years, or you might be banished from the Eladrin Court of Tales, or something).
--
As for the Iroran Paladin, she still has to obey a LG paladin's code, although what portion of it she emphasizes is up to her. That does NOT permit her to graft chaotic and evil behaviors onto her code, which seems to be what you are implying. The Iroran ability doesn't give you the ability to take any code and suddenly this kind of behavior is now Lawful...it must still satisfy the basic requirements of being a paladin's code.
==Aelryinth
In a game I'm currently playing I'm playing a Paladin, straight up LG. But... he's a Paladin of Desna.
Desna, unlike Shelyn and other NG gods, doesn't get a paladin write up in ISG. The way I'm looking at it is that a Paladin can be Lawful Good, by keeping, strictly, to a moral code. The fact that the code is based on CG principles does not, IMO, discount the fact that he abides by laws and does so both strictly and with the intention of increasing overall good in the community.
It's not quite the OP issue but it struck me as tangentially relevant at least. LG follows laws or a code, but what principles can that code be based on?
being LG and obeying a code built on CG principles means you are technically insane and/or in eternal conflict OR you are shamelessly subverting the teachings of your deity...being lawful about being chaotic is a total contradiction in terms.
Ergo, you're Chaotic and covering this up.
James Jacobs noted that kind of reasoning is inherently self-destructive and chaotic, and that's why Chaotic Gods don't have paladins or Lawful priests. You're basically believing in heresy.
Now, you can do what you like in your campaign, but that's the official stance on it. I wouldn't allow this to happen in my campaign, but as I said, if it works in yours, no bones.
==Aelryinth
In a game I'm currently playing I'm playing a Paladin, straight up LG. But... he's a Paladin of Desna.
Desna, unlike Shelyn and other NG gods, doesn't get a paladin write up in ISG. The way I'm looking at it is that a Paladin can be Lawful Good, by keeping, strictly, to a moral code. The fact that the code is based on CG principles does not, IMO, discount the fact that he abides by laws and does so both strictly and with the intention of increasing overall good in the community.
It's not quite the OP issue but it struck me as tangentially relevant at least. LG follows laws or a code, but what principles can that code be based on?
I think there is a misunderstanding about how a Paladin has to act.
First, and foremost, a Paladin can break their "God's" code all they want without falling as long as they don't alignment shift out of Lawful Good. They may lose their SPELLCASTING ability, but not their Paladin abilities.
I quote:
-----
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
-----So long as they don't commit evil acts, and so long as they specifically:
"Respect legitimate authority."
"Act with honor."
"Help those in need."
"And punish those who harm or threaten innocents."Then the Paladin can technically do whatever they please.
So for example, you can have a Paladin code that says, "Never spit on a sidewalk."
And you CAN totally spit on the sidewalk and 99.999% of the time nothing is going to happen. Its not an evil act, you aren't going to fall. Over time, constantly disregarding this might make you shift out of lawful, but even that is kind of a stretch.
This made no sense to me lols.
IF you code said , dont spit on the sidewalk and you did it anyway , then to me it would be the same to breaking any of the other code rules , which is an instant fall.
Ofc , lucky for the majority of the paladins , theirs dont.
A paladin that keeps breaking their code in effect is violating the letter AND spirit of the code. He in effect does not have a Code, even if he thinks he does.
Typical Chaotic thinking. It won't work.
==Aelryinth
If you mean the extra rule set a GM may add if you follow a deity?
To me those are rules you add actually , so lets say if you a paladin of shelyn , add her code from the inner sea gods to the code written on the paladin page and you have the final code of a paladin of shelyn.
So in my case , if you break shelyns rules , it would be the same of breaking normal code rules.
If you mean the extra rule set a GM may add if you follow a deity?
To me those are rules you add actually , so lets say if you a paladin of shelyn , add her code from the inner sea gods to the code written on the paladin page and you have the final code of a paladin of shelyn.
So in my case , if you break shelyns rules , it would be the same of breaking normal code rules.
Pretty sure the ISG codes are supposed to be alternatives, not additions. The CRB code works just fine for a Paladin of Torag but if you follow a god that's one step away then it starts to disagree with your patron.
Heh i thought it was written there you should add it , but it has been a while since i last checked it.
being LG and obeying a code built on CG principles means you are technically insane and/or in eternal conflict OR you are shamelessly subverting the teachings of your deity...being lawful about being chaotic is a total contradiction in terms.
Ergo, you're Chaotic and covering this up.
James Jacobs noted that kind of reasoning is inherently self-destructive and chaotic, and that's why Chaotic Gods don't have paladins or Lawful priests. You're basically believing in heresy.
There is a LG paladin of a CG goddess (Milani) in official lore. It's the guy who runs Liberthane in the River Kingdoms. The paladin does have to be lawful good, according to the rules, but they can theoretically worship any deity. In practice, obviously, this gets more untenable the further you get from the LG alignment and an evil deity would be out of the question. But there is precedent for a paladin following a chaotic deity.
Milani is an odd case herself: Chaotic Good, but up until the death of Aroden (Lawful Neutral), she was one of his saints. Wonder where she would have gone if Pathfinder had retained D&D (Editions 1.x - 3.5) half step alignment planes (I miss those . . .).
There is a LG paladin of a CG goddess (Milani) in official lore. It's the guy who runs Liberthane in the River Kingdoms. The paladin does have to be lawful good, according to the rules, but they can theoretically worship any deity. In practice, obviously, this gets more untenable the further you get from the LG alignment and an evil deity would be out of the question. But there is precedent for a paladin following a chaotic deity.being LG and obeying a code built on CG principles means you are technically insane and/or in eternal conflict OR you are shamelessly subverting the teachings of your deity...being lawful about being chaotic is a total contradiction in terms.
Ergo, you're Chaotic and covering this up.
James Jacobs noted that kind of reasoning is inherently self-destructive and chaotic, and that's why Chaotic Gods don't have paladins or Lawful priests. You're basically believing in heresy.
In Lore, there's paladins of Asmodeus, too.
Those have quietly been thrown out, as well. CG deities are not going to have Paladin followers. Bring that detail to James Jacobs' attention, and he's going to sigh over the editors letting something else slip past...
As a matter of fact, I'm sure it was brought up on his thread before, along with N undead from Juju oracles and other continuity errors.
===Aelryinth
^Unfortunately, you're probably right about this one. I sense enormous resistance from Paizo to having a true Paladin-style Holy Warrior of any alignment other than the bizarre ultra-dualistic set of Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil (and no, Warpriest doesn't cut it). (Although somebody did mention a really new Insinuator archetype of Antipaladin that doesn't have to be Chaotic, so will have to keep an eye out for that one.)
On a sort of (oppositely) related note, anyone have any idea whether the upcoming Hellknight book will have base classes or archetypes for Hellknights?
The management of Paizo wants LG paladins. They're a unique cornerstone of the game.
Clerics are the holy warriors of churches, and warpriests if you want a more martial bent. You don't 'need' a paladin. People just 'want' their CN paladin.
Meh, go play a Garath.
==Aelryinth
Meh, the managers of Paizo wanted CE Antipaladins too. They obviously changed their mind on that.
Honestly I feel like the slightly magical warrior dedicated to an alignment thing should have been divided among the alignments. One for good, one for law, one for chaos, and one for evil. Sure warpriest has an archetype for that now but I feel that's how i should have been from the start.
What?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/alternate-classes/antipaladin
There IS a Paizo antipaladin class. They got rid of the Blackguard, however...
==Aelryinth
What?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/alternate-classes/antipaladin
There IS a Paizo antipaladin class. They got rid of the Blackguard, however...
==Aelryinth
Insinuator archetype. It isn't on the PFSRD yet but Paizo is apparently quite willing to make non-CE Antipaladins.
Insinuator archetype. It isn't on the PFSRD yet but Paizo is apparently quite willing to make non-CE Antipaladins.What?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/alternate-classes/antipaladin
There IS a Paizo antipaladin class. They got rid of the Blackguard, however...
==Aelryinth
"Meh, the managers of Paizo wanted CE Antipaladins too. They obviously changed their mind on that."
what does non-CE antipaladins have to do with that statement? Typo?
Should've just called them Aarikhans and had done with it ;)
==Aelryinth
Antipaladins are "supposed" to be Chaotic Evil. Insinuator Antipaladins, on the other hand can be any evil alignment. How does that make any more or less sense than a Paladin archetype that can be any good?
Paladin as Lawful Good only or tied to a particular religion (or small set thereof) that happened to be of Lawful Good deities would have made sense -- except then it should have been a prestige class instead of a base class (a change which I think should be made anyway, as done in part of D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana(*) and in Kirthfinder), along the same kind of construction as Hellknights. Paladin as Lawful Good only for deities that are often significantly different from Lawful Good AND Antipaladin as Chaotic Evil only (pending general release of the Insinuator archetype) for deities that are often significantly different from Chaotic Evil DOESN'T make sense. Why then no Liberator base class and no Hellknight base class?
(*)Strangely, although D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana had the concept of Paladins of all 4 corner alignments and the concept of the Prestige Paladin (along with Prestige Ranger and Prestige Bard), it did not consider the combination of these concepts. In contrast, although Kirthfinder (last time I looked at it, which was a while ago) only presented a Lawful Good Prestige Paladin, it explicitly mentioned the possibility for building corresponding prestige classes for all alignments.
Insinuators are a pretty unique case as they're the ultimate opportunists instead of champions of evil
They're rather far than what you mean as non-chaotic Antipaladin
Otherwise everyone would be satisfied using Rangers
Antipaladins are "supposed" to be Chaotic Evil. Insinuator Antipaladins, on the other hand can be any evil alignment. How does that make any more or less sense than a Paladin archetype that can be any good?
You're contrasting stuff.
Putting restrictions on a Chaotic Evil class is the exact opposite of removing them from a LG class. Logically, such an archetype would have to adhere to LE standards to apply across all three alignments.
Then again, it could be another editor mistake. Hellknights are supposed to be the LE paladin, after all. I wouldn't be surprised if it's yet another editorial slip up.
Holding the paladin to LG standards is what makes him a paladin.
I find that I am supremely unconcerned if the Evil bastard in front of me has a code or not, you know?
TECHNICALLY...they should have made it up like the Hellknight, which is Lawful centered, and made an Evil-centered separate class you could enter from Fighter. Oh, well.
You know, if they made up a 'Heaven Knight' that was Good-centered, I wouldn't have a problem with it, either, although I DO find the idea of Paladin Hellknights to be VERY strange. Call it an Archknight and go to town. Probably dominated by CG folks!
==Aelryinth
Antipaladins are "supposed" to be Chaotic Evil. Insinuator Antipaladins, on the other hand can be any evil alignment. How does that make any more or less sense than a Paladin archetype that can be any good?You're contrasting stuff.
Putting restrictions on a Chaotic Evil class is the exact opposite of removing them from a LG class. Logically, such an archetype would have to adhere to LE standards to apply across all three alignments.
{. . .}
That makes NO sense. In order for the Insinuator archetype to apply across all three Evil alignments, it has to uphold Evil standards, but by definition cannot be restricted to LE, NE, or CE(*).
(*)Unless it turns out that it is actually 3 sub-archetypes, one for each Evil alignment.
Lawful Evil would be the most rigid and restricted of the 3 Evil alignments, so it sets the bar on what the class has to satisfy/not violate.
Which isn't a whole lot, given, you know, Evil.
==Aelryinth
^No, because then the class would be restricted to Lawful Evil. We'll have to wait until it is generally available to be sure, but it looks like the Insinuator archetype CAN be Lawful Evil, but doesn't have to be, so Lawful Evil doesn't set any more bar on it than Evil already does.
No, it means the bar would have to be pretty low (high?) so it didn't violate Lawful tenets, i.e. all anti-good, nothing about Law or Chaos at all. If it extolled non-Lawful behavior, such as easy Oathbreaking, then LE wouldn't qualify.
Most likely it's simply a class with VERY few reqs to it, alignment wise.
==Aelryinth
^That depends upon how much relative importance you ascribe to the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axes. For equal importance, any Evil has about half the alignment requirement of a specific Evil such as Lawful Evil. For Good-Evil being more important (as implied in the Paladin Code), any Evil retains most of the alignment requirements.
Which means, Like I said, means that it won't have any Lawful-breaking reqs to it. Pure Anti-good.
==Aelryinth
^Talking about the one of which the True Neutral version was the Paramander? That goes back a LONG way. And the Paramander had some really scary abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
gOOGLE 'A plethora of paladins' and it gives you the rest.
You want scary? You need only look at the lyan and the illrigger. The Lyan was like the Superman of Paladins. And the illrigger wasn't much worse.
Of course, you REALLY need to update the constant +1 th/dmg opposite alignment/class level effects...
But yeah, the biggest difference with the Plethora was they had completely different flavor then paladins, they didn't just repaint the alignment factors and call it 'balanced'.
Lyan - LN secret society of anti-chaos super knights. Complete with their own secret deity.
Illrigger - LE knightly assassin. Stealth, magic spells, fight, he could do it all.
Myrikhan - basically NG holy anti-evil ranger
Paramander - shameless TN manipulator of non-neutral alignments seeking balance, sort of a theif/knight
Paramandyer - TN version, except he kills extreme alignments.
Aarikhan - NE unholy death-dealer knights
Garath - CG holy church guardians (never got the flavor of this one...)
Fantra - CN guardians of barbarian tribes, who consider non-tribal members little better then talking animals.
==Aelryinth
|
If I remember correctly a paladin does not need to follow a LG God, the God just needs to be within two alignment steps from LG.
One thing that bugged me was the inability to play a Paladin of pharasma with the undead scourge archetype. Though I think I got it house ruled by the gm due to the archetype.
Technically, the paladin doesn't have to follow a god at all. He just can't associate with evil or anyone who offends his moral code, which would include his deity.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's get this out in the open: Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules.
We are aware that especially if you've been playing this game for a long time, you personally probably have an understanding of what you think Law and Chaos are supposed to mean. You possibly even believe that the rest of your group thinks that Law and Chaos mean the same thing you do. But you're probably wrong. The nature of Law and Chaos is the source of more arguments among D&D players (veteran and novice alike) than any other facet of the game. More than attacks of opportunities, more than weapon sizing, more even than spell effect inheritance. And the reason is because the "definition" of Law and Chaos in the Player's Handbook is written so confusingly that the terms are not even mutually exclusive. Look it up, this is a written document, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to stop reading at this time, flip open the Player's Handbook, and start reading the alignment descriptions. The Tome of Fiends will still be here when you get back. … There you go! Now that we're all on the same page (page XX), the reason why you've gotten into so many arguments with people as to whether their character was Lawful or Chaotic is because absolutely every action that any character ever takes could logically be argued to be both. A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book.