That situation would never come up in my games because I don't run games where anybody is KNOWN that they cannot lie. Someone might take an oath, but oaths only last so long as one's will to keep it does.
Well, except that one game where I borrowed Aes Sedai from Wheel of Time, they're known for not being able to lie... but being incredibly deceptive and manipulative while speaking the technical truth.
I agree. The paladin code -- for whichever group of paladins -- expands and alters what the base class mentions in the core rules. Much like the Heralds of Valdemar, for example, paladins may be known to be truthful (give or take for certain orders) but they can certainly be wrong. They can give unclear evidence. Their god may put more or less emphasis on truth over other facets.
As far as the other example, that hero on a hill could be any hero. Again, a shining hero isn't limited to Lawful Good or paladins. The hero on the hill could just have a good charisma, be a great leader, or simply have made a good roll.
That situation would never come up in my games because I don't run games where anybody is KNOWN that they cannot lie. Someone might take an oath, but oaths only last so long as one's will to keep it does.
Well, except that one game where I borrowed Aes Sedai from Wheel of Time, they're known for not being able to lie... but being incredibly deceptive and manipulative while speaking the technical truth.
I agree. The paladin code -- for whichever group of paladins -- expands and alters what the base class mentions in the core rules. Much like the Heralds of Valdemar, for example, paladins may be known to be truthful (give or take for certain orders) but they can certainly be wrong. They can give unclear evidence. Their god may put more or less emphasis on truth over other facets.
As far as the other example, that hero on a hill could be any hero. Again, a shining hero isn't limited to Lawful Good or paladins. The hero on the hill could just have a good charisma, be a great leader, or simply have made a good roll.
In Pathfinder the extra codes don't replace, they add onto, as per Faiths of Purity.
Save for specific areas of conflict.
Also Good Charisma doesn't help others against fear. That's the Aura of Courage and there's only 2 ways to get it. Both require Lawful Good.
I know the mechanics. However, village guy doesn't, and doesn't know if he is inspired by a leader to be fearless or if some magical force is doing it.
Since we are discussing non-standard paladins, the code is replaced or altered as necessary for the world. Having all paladins have "do not lie, do not poison, do not blah" leaves a very uniform sameness to them all that doesn't do justice to a living world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the more established and set the fluff is, the easier it is to immerse in the fantasy world.
Okay, how about something like this. If a character has no backstory, he is free to be whatever he wants. But, while the character with a backstory is not as free as the one without, they have certain frame of reference that ties them to the possible situation and makes it much easier to immerse yourself being that person.
Fluff really is a case of where (most of the time) more is simply more. The more fluff there is, the stronger all fluff in this established setting becomes. Mutable fluff on the other hand is same as no fluff. If it doesn't matter how much you change the fluff, it cannot be established so it cannot be connected. In the character backstory example, the backstory can be anything you want, but it will always be weaker if it is not tied to the setting GM is going to use, and if it is not related to the campaign GM is going to set up.
Just general thoughts about this current topic of fluff weight.
Let's admit it, the reason nobody complains about the naturalist theme being mandatory on the Druid is because CN and NE are allowed
You could also see it that since the druid supports good, evil, lawful, and chaotic alignments that it supports a range of different character types that the "LG-only" Paladin doesn't.
My question is, though, does anybody want to play non-good Paladins? What could you really do as a Neutral Good Paladin that you can't do as a Lawful Good one?
Maybe not NG but I can certainly see optimizers having a field day with CG. Desna's Shooting Star, a couple of strategic dips elsewhere and you can live the dream of the near 100% mono-charisma deathlord.
My question is, though, does anybody want to play non-good Paladins? What could you really do as a Neutral Good Paladin that you can't do as a Lawful Good one?
You could more easily fix the "I want to take this divine fighting style" problem with a trait that does something like "Choose a deity, you are considered to be a worshiper of that deity and of any required alignment for any effects connected to worshiping that deity" than by allowing CG Paladins. That trait would fix a lot of potential issues (finally, Rovagug-specific feats are available to PCs who are not complete jerks.)
There's a lot that Desna advocates for that a given Paladin might find admirable (traveling the world, ensuring the safety of the roads, meeting new people, helping them out, and learning from them, say) even if the actual "worship" thing isn't going to work out.
I generally avoid writing down an alignment on my character sheet until someone forces me to. The idea of who this person is, how they've been shaped by their experiences, what they believe and value, etc. comes before alignment.
A problem arises when a class forces a specific alignment or range of alignments. Sometimes this additional constraint enhances the creative process, but sometimes it might feel overly limiting. Since the Paladin is the only class that requires a specific alignment, it's going to run into the most "I feel limited by alignment restrictions" of any class.
It's totally reasonable for someone to think "I want to play a Paladin" and then regret that this previous decision forces them into a specific alignment.
Let's admit it, the reason nobody complains about the naturalist theme being mandatory on the Druid is because CN and NE are allowedI am not nobody, and I chafe under the druid restrictions far worse than the Paladin ones. Metals are, and will always be natural.
Alloys are not natural!
Down with alloys!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is suggesting removing the flavour. We are suggesting decoupling the flavour from the mechanics - especially really big mechanics like character classes.
As an example, in my current setting the paladin class is available to all alignments. I call it the "champion" class, and it only requires that your character derive power from some cause that they have absolute faith in (the details of which are worked out to the satisfaction of the player and myself).
In the setting I have an organization called the "paladins." They are the holy warriors of the sun god, a LG Iomedae/Ragathiel type. They follow a strict deontological version of the paladin's code that emphasizes justice and punishment. This is enforced by magical vows which leave a highly identifiable mark on the paladin. The order is primarily of the champion class, but also includes a small minority of battle oracles, bards, warpriests, etc who take the same vows (and lose their magical paladin's badge if they break them).
A second organization, the Spades, serves a nurturing and redemptive NG earth deity. They are sworn to protect the innocent and will not slay a creature that could be redeemed. They are called more generally to be models of virtue for the community, and while they are not strictly literally honest like the paladins they are considered highly trustworthy because of their dedication to help those in need - fugitives from unjust authority are more likely to approach a Spade than a Paladin. They consist of diverse classes of any Good alignment and though they bias slightly to Law over Chaos my friend's CG champion would fit in perfectly here.
Thirdly, the Knights of the Rose follow the CG deity of love, beauty, self-expression, and revelry (think Shelyn/Cayden/Milani hybrid). They're mostly made of champions and bards. They are sworn to bring hope to the downtrodden and while they're not well respected in society at large they are the heroes of the oppressed.
A man was found standing over the body of another man. He's covered in the other man's blood. He swears that he didn't do it, that he came across the man fighting another man, he drew his sword and attacked the other man (which is why there is blood on his sword) but he vanished. He's covered in blood because he tried to heal the downed man but it was too late.
You feel the courage coming off of the man, you saw him heal his wounds with his hands, he claims to be a Paladin and as near as you can tell, he is.
However another man, who also seems to be telling the truth, claims he saw the whole thing and saw the warrior kill the victim.
There were no other witnesses and even a truth spell didn't change either story. The victim was well loved and, based on evidence, the man you have in custody is guilty. He'll be put to death.
Paladins cannot lie. Thus the Paladin IS innocent. You let him go.
If I have access to truth magic then the fact that paladins can't lie is irrelevant because I already know he isn't lying. Of course, since the truth spell didn't change either story I know that something shady is going on and I'd better figure out what it is before executing anyone or letting a suspect go free just because I think he's probably a paladin.
So how do paladins of Torag and paladins of Shelyn manage to coexist?Shelyn doesn't break the core tenets of the base code that Paladins follow. Torag, I image, has a lot of friction with non-dwarven Paladins.
The point here is that different kinds of paladins already have pretty divergent philosophies and they haven't started a bloody war like your Crane school examples.
When I run games I don't use alignment. In this context, Paladins are not defined by their alignment but by their code. You lose your powers if you violate your code, and though the specifics will vary one's Paladin code generally puts them on the side of what is generally considered positive and desirable and in the camp of legitimate authority. But this does mean that the Paladin isn't serving two masters (alignment and code) and makes a lot of the moral reasoning a lot simpler.
But stripping "LG" from Paladins doesn't really muddy their definition at all, since they're still going to be the class most tightly bound by a personal code of behavior.
Honestly, the hardest part of the Paladin in a world without alignment is figuring how how exactly Smite works and what exactly they're detecting.
Naturalist theme? Can you elaborate on what you feel some may complain about?I agree with what he's sayin. Nobody complains about tied-to-class for ANY class other than Paladin.
All Wizards are smart and speak between 4-7 languages. They all need a spell book.
All Clerics are wise.
All Rogues are dexterous and have a wide range of skills.
All Barbarians are Chaotic and rely on rage.
All Druids must be Neutral and Revere Nature.
All Monks are Lawful.
Almost nobody EVER complains about those. Toss a Paladin in the mix and holy smite on a porta-potty people scream and complain.
Why? Because to get the full baseline version you need to be Lawful Good?
Heck Paizo even caved to the complaining and created a Gray Paladin that allowed non-LG Paladins.
People won't be happy until they rip out the core flavor of THE most unique class in D&D/PF.
They have loosened the restrictions again and again and again and people just won't accept anything less than to destroy it. It's sad.
As a gamer it's borderline sad enough that I might abandon the game line. In fact I DID abandon the D&D gameline after 4e and 5e disrespected the class. Now people demand it in PF too.
:(
People like different things. As a gamer, no matter what the game chassis does, no one is FORCED to keep facets of it or abandon a game over it. It's a house rule you may have to follow at some tables. Much like any part of the game, if you don't agree change it. No one is going to come over and slap you around over it.
|
|
All Barbarians are Chaotic and rely on rage.
All Druids must be Neutral and Revere Nature.
All Monks are Lawful.
Almost nobody EVER complains about those.
I've complained repeatedly about the alignment restrictions on all three of these classes. I want a CG druid with a fey nature, for crying out loud. There's even a perfect archetype for it but it's got the same roleplay restrictions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My question is, though, does anybody want to play non-good Paladins?
No, I don't. And one thing I've noticed, having read the entire thread, is that most of the people arguing for expanded paladin alignments have been arguing for allowing NG and CG paladins in one form or another.
What could you really do as a Neutral Good Paladin that you can't do as a Lawful Good one?
My answer is to create a genuinely "Good" character that I can believe in. This come from how importantly I view what "Good" is and just how challenging is to be good all the time and why it is a RP challenge.
The "Good" people who genuinely speak to me tend to be the ones who have the courage to question the world they live in, and have taken difficult steps that have often put them in conflict with the forces of law and politeness. For me it is about that still small voice in our hearts that whispers "this is wrong" and forces us to act in ways we never thought we could.
Good, genuine facing down the tanks good, is hard. And for me it is very much a chaotic good that has a hard time with the concept of Lawful Good. Seriously, I see laws as made by the powerful to protect their own interests. To me, customs and tradition create conformity rather than any sort of good.
I know this is my bias based in reality, and I have seen people who I think of as Lawful Good. Furthermore, I know some RL Lawful good people have my problem in the opposite way, i.e. wrapping their head around the Chaotic Good alignment I hope I live up to. That is probably in itself an argument for why NG is probably the goodest good in and of itself.
And it predisposes me to conclude that any argument that LG is some extra special good is utter BS.
But I still want to play a good charismatic warrior who can smite those evil types to kingdom come. And I see no logical reason why Milani would be less about granting the smite than Iomodae. I can't see any reason such a paladin wouldn't be as believable and logical and embedded in the world as her LG counterpart.
And so, for that very flavorish, non-munchkiny reason, I support NG and CG paladins.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know Lawful doesn't mean, "Believes in the local laws."
It just means to believe in order. A CG person CANNOT follow a code. They don't believe in any laws at all.
A NG person can... Until that code no longer is convenient.
So... A CG Paladin would literally be like:
"I will not lie... Unless you know I feel like it."
A NG Paladin would be like:
"I will not lie... Well... Until I need to lie because then that rule goes right out the window."
It's the "Stand up to a Tank."
I don't see a NG or CG guy doing that. CG wouldn't follow pacifist resistance. That requires adherence to a strict belief. CG can't do that. CG is more likely to fight violently.
NG is more likely to use violence if they think it would produce better results.
Those are some interesting takes on alignment. I still believe you have this feeling that anyone who isn't LG lies on a whim, cheats, doesn't follow rules and social norms and so on. It's not a take I've seen across the years of playing.
As far as your previous post regarding Gygax .. with all respect to the man's work, he also had a lot of ideas and ways of doing things that I disagree with. Many of his articles over the years left me with a poor opinion as well. The hobby owes the man a great deal, don't get me wrong, but that doesn't mean that a class he liked is untouchable.
And we're still coming back around to the idea that ONLY a paladin can be a shining knight, the only and bestest good hero. That smacks of the One True Way and doesn't match with what I have seen nor what I expect out of a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, it's funny: there's a thread exactly like this on over on ENWorld, but it's in the 5e subforum. Over there, I'm all, "Well, 5e Paladins have to live by the tenets of their oath, but there's no requirement of LG alignment mentioned in the class description, so rules lawyer one as you will; have fun!" On the Paizo boards, on the other hand, I got nothing. Paladins are LG, as stated in the CRB, end of discussion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My answer is to create a genuinely "Good" character that I can believe in. This come from how importantly I view what "Good" is and just how challenging is to be good all the time and why it is a RP challenge.
The "Good" people who genuinely speak to me tend to be the ones who have the courage to question the world they live in, and have taken difficult steps that have often put them in conflict with the forces of law and politeness. For me it is about that still small voice in our hearts that whispers "this is wrong" and forces us to act in ways we never thought we could.
Good, genuine facing down the tanks good, is hard. And for me it is very much a chaotic good that has a hard time with the concept of Lawful Good. Seriously, I see laws as made by the powerful to protect their own interests. To me, customs and tradition create conformity rather than any sort of good.
I know this is my bias based in reality, and I have seen people who I think of as Lawful Good. Furthermore, I know some RL Lawful good people have my problem in the opposite way, i.e. wrapping their head around the Chaotic Good alignment I hope I live up to. That is probably in itself an argument for why NG is probably the goodest good in and of itself.
And it predisposes me to conclude that any argument that LG is some extra special good is utter BS.
But I still want to play a good charismatic warrior who can smite those evil types to kingdom come. And I see no logical reason why Milani would be less about granting the smite than Iomodae. I can't see any reason such a paladin...
I feel like "Lawful" has a lot of baggage because of its name. It's better to think of the "Lawful" in "Lawful Good" in terms of norms and deontological ethics than in terms of honest to goodness laws.
Specifically, the Paladin believes that good ends are what we should strive for, but cutting corners to get there is bad, so we want to get good outcomes the right way. That's the sense in which the Paladin ought to earn the L in LG. I see a CG character as someone who's comfortable lying, cheating, and stealing in order to create a good outcome, and an NG character as one who can justify it from time to time.
But the dodge in alignment has always been that LG respects "legitimate" authority, and it's not generally difficult for a Paladin player to believe that laws which serve to elevate the powerful at the expense of everyone else, or norms that are actively destructive, are illegitimate and need to be opposed not only because they create bad outcomes but because they undermine the very notion of laws and norms being essential to society.
This is another reason that alignment really ought not be objective, because every LG character is free to ignore or oppose "bad" laws and norms. That's probably not an appropriate topic for the thread though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know Lawful doesn't mean, "Believes in the local laws."
It just means to believe in order. A CG person CANNOT follow a code. They don't believe in any laws at all.
Lawful does mean believing in a social order, that respecting customs and working through "the system" and defending said system and doing what is "expected" of you, whether it be customs or laws and persuing your goals, whether they be good or evil, within the context.
Good RL example is a Judge I know about who signed a death warrant, even though she personally is on the record as opposing the death penalty; because upholding the law as it currently stands is her duty. She'll write an opinion opposing the death penalty in a case arguing the merits of such a law, but that is not her job in this context.
It is marrying who your parents tell you to, because the customs of your society say that is what you do.
It is getting about getting of the way of the tank, because duly constituted authority has ordered you out of the way of the tank. How you square that with good when the tank is going to masacure unarmed civilans is beyond me. Perhaps by staying in your position and getting into a position of authority where you can reform the system from within?
Chaotic is about opposing those customs when, not upholding them or caring about them or letting them affect how you act. It is not about not having a code, doesn't matter if your poisoning the a city's water supply because you like to see people suffer (CE) or believing in "free love" because growing up you saw nothing but miserable marriages (cn to CG).
Any "code" they have is based on their own experinces rather than accumulated wisdom of custom and authority. As such, they are very often in reaction to the abuses of a "lawful" society.
Two good shows about mostly chaotic individuals as protagonists against lawful antagonists are "Firefly" and "Black Sails".
As I recall, there was an interesting article in an old issue of the Dragon talking about paladins fighting against each other. I'll try to dig it up, but I believe it was about an English paladin and a French paladin and how both were in the right and LG and yet still would fight.
One things that got me thinking is this spell:Haze of Dreams
It's a spell for followers of Desna. Desna is CG. It's listed as a spell for paladins.
How?
One things that got me thinking is this spell:Haze of Dreams
It's a spell for followers of Desna. Desna is CG. It's listed as a spell for paladins.
How?
Isn't that those spells despite the associations are available to non-worshippers?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know Lawful doesn't mean, "Believes in the local laws."It just means to believe in order. A CG person CANNOT follow a code. They don't believe in any laws at all.
That's patently untrue. Robin Hood's merry men had a clear code ("we don't steal for ourselves"), and their own internal laws and methods of punishment for those who break those laws.
CG societies, like elves, have laws too.
Other Real life cultures that can only be considered as chaotic, such as Tortuga's pirates, had their own codes too. Same goes with unorganized tribes like the beduins or tuaregs, which are not a rigid, structured society, but they still have their own honor codes
Desna, for example has the following code for her followers:
Be Ready for Challenges and Unexpected Friends: Worshipers should train in combat or magic so they can overcome adverse situations in their travels. They should be especially vigilant for agents of the Old Cults and harmful creatures from the Dark Tapestry, but should welcome friendly travelers from far places and distant stars.
Feet Are for Walking: Desna teaches that it's better to wander and explore than to stay home and grow stale in thought and habit. Those who can't wander in the flesh may still explore through their dreams and through the stories of others.
Follow a Hunch, but Bear the Consequences: If faced with a sudden problem, worshipers should be guided by intuition and emotions if reason doesn't provide an obvious answer. If this leads to something harmful, they are responsible for repairing the harm that is done.
Learn from What Is Different: Desna's followers should accept others who espouse friendship, regardless of race or religion. They learn redemption and acceptance from Sarenrae, appreciation of beauty from Shelyn, bravery from Cayden Cailean, passion from Calistria, magic from Nethys, combat from Gorum, nature from Gozreh, and more. Ignoring the teachings of other religions is ignoring the chance to learn.
Compare to other chaotic deities codes:
Know What Is Worth More Than Yourself: True devotion is the willingness to make sacrifices in order to protect something other than yourself. Whether this is a spouse, a child, your home, or freedom, by accepting responsibility for the things you love, you are given the choice to give up something to promote a greater good.
Peace, Love, Health, and Life: Also known as the "Four Pillars," these define the core of humanity's gifts. The cost of any action should be weighed against these ideals—promoting one at the cost of another might be worthwhile if the rewards outstrip the costs.
I devote myself to the pursuit of my passions.
I take what I desire, by trick or by force. If others resent my actions, they may attempt to take vengeance against me.
All slights against me will be repaid tenfold.
I am the instrument of my own justice. If I am wronged, I will take vengeance with my own hands.
Cowards Flee, Warriors Retreat: The subtle difference between these two ideas is lost on many who do not fully understand the nature of battle. Warriors retreat from battle because they want to win the next battle; cowards flee a battle because they fear death and wish to avoid the next battle. The Lord in Iron doesn't expect his followers to be fearless, but he does expect them to swallow their fear long enough to get the job done.
Will You Fight?: This simple phrase sums up almost the entirety of Gorum's philosophy. If a spindly youth wants to join an army, the priest of Gorum asks this question. If an injured orc struggles with a wound, his chieftain asks this question. Before a particularly bloody battle, the army commander asks this question. Those who will fight are the blessed, no matter how feeble their sword arms. Note that the question is not "Can you fight?" but "Will you fight?"—a crucial distinction.
All of them are chaotic, but they have different paths, different ethos, and different moral codes, which they follow
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of them are chaotic, but they have different paths, different ethos, and different moral codes, which they follow.
I feel like this underscores a lot of how making alignment the be-all-and-end-all of moral reasoning is overly simplistic. There are LG deities who believe strongly in redemption, and there are LG deities who believe strongly in punishing the wicked and their believers are expected to be on good terms because "they're both on the LG team".
I feel like the followers of an LG "redeemer" deity and an NG "redeemer" deity are going to be on much better terms than the followers of an LG "avenger" deity and an LG "redeemer" deity.
The one thing that seems clear about the codes different from Lawful religions and Chaotic religions, is that the latter codes tend to be much more about self-imposed structure while the latter are more about externally imposed structure.
But we probably owe ourselves to ask more subtle alignment questions than "Good (Y/N)?" How does one go about playing a Paladin who lives under and opposes an oppressive government? This should certainly be possible, but how would one go about it?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Robin Hood WASN'T Chaotic. Not by PF's standards. He was Neutral to Lawful.
Of course he was.
But if you want, I'll concede that point. It's irrelevant. What about the pirates in Tortuga? Where they Lawful too? Are the Tuareg tribes lawful? Are the followers of Desna Lawful?
My point is that your statement (those who are CG cannot follow a code) is patently untrue in the game. There are CG gods, that give their followers a code. Which they followers follow. Hence that's why they are called followers
So what if this oppressive rulership has been in charge of the country for thousands of years and the old laws that predate it aren't well known or are woefully outdated?
So for example there's no clear alternative to authority, it's just pretty clear that the authority, by dint of its actions, is not legitimate. The decision to oppose the government is arrived at, not by comparing it to some alternative, but simply by understanding that the system must be torn down before it can be replaced by something better.
That's certainly a valid perspective for a character who is paladin-ey as heck.
Could a Paladin dethrone an otherwise good king if they feel that a democracy is a better form of government for serving the people without falling?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of them are chaotic, but they have different paths, different ethos, and different moral codes, which they follow.I feel like this underscores a lot of how making alignment the be-all-and-end-all of moral reasoning is overly simplistic. There are LG deities who believe strongly in redemption, and there are LG deities who believe strongly in punishing the wicked and their believers are expected to be on good terms because "they're both on the LG team".
I feel like the followers of an LG "redeemer" deity and an NG "redeemer" deity are going to be on much better terms than the followers of an LG "avenger" deity and an LG "redeemer" deity.
The one thing that seems clear about the codes different from Lawful religions and Chaotic religions, is that the latter codes tend to be much more about self-imposed structure while the latter are more about externally imposed structure.
But we probably owe ourselves to ask more subtle alignment questions than "Good (Y/N)?" How does one go about playing a Paladin who lives under and opposes an oppressive government? This should certainly be possible, but how would one go about it?
This. The answer of said paladin depends not on his aligment, but on his ethos. His aligment influences his ethos, but it's not his ethos.
Compare the code of Lawful Good god Torag to his Paladins, which includes:
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
and
I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be.
with those of Iomedae's:
When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
and
I will suffer death before dishonor.
Both are LG paladins, following the codes of LG gods. You can't make a "catch them all answer" for what paladins will do in a given situation, just because they are LG. A Paladin of Ragathiel (god of Duty and Vengeance) and a Paladin of Erastil("My community comes first, and I will contribute to it all that I can. If I don’t give something back, who will?") will not answer the same to the same threats.
Could a Paladin dethrone an otherwise good king if they feel that a democracy is a better form of government for serving the people without falling?
A better question is "could a paladin dethrone a democratically elected president, if he's evil?"
And the answer, again, is "depends on that paladin's ethos". A paladin of Erastil will not act the same than a paladin of Torag, or Iomedae, or Irori, or Abadar, or Saerenrae.