|
| 2 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.
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.
Robin Hood WASN'T Chaotic. Not by PF's standards. He was Neutral to Lawful.Of course he was.
I feel like this is the core of the issue between the "LG paladins only" camp and the "Any-Good paladins camp."
We're saying "I want to play Robin Hood."
You're hearing "We want to play a dishonest, cheating scoundrel with no moral standards."
I think a big part of it is that "code" here is being used both to mean "laws" and "moral standards." A paladin has a strong code (moral standards) and chaotic characters don't like codes (laws) therefore a chaotic character can't be a paladin. But not all strong moral standards are laws.
PossibleCabbage's point about externally-imposed vs internally-imposed codes is a very good one. Look at the alignment description again:
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Lawful characters are going to have an easier time respecting an externally-imposed code that is supported by authority, tradition, and duty. Chaotic characters will resent an externally-imposed code "telling them what to do."
However, there is nothing suggesting a chaotic character would have trouble with an internally-imposed code, also known as "following their consciences."
I feel like this is the core of the issue between the "LG paladins only" camp and the "Any-Good paladins camp."
We're saying "I want to play Robin Hood."
You're hearing "We want to play a dishonest, cheating scoundrel with no moral standards."
Au Contraire. What I'm saying is that being chaotic has nothing to do with being a dishonest, cheating scoundrel with no moral standards.
Desna has moral standards. She is not dishonest, she is not a cheater, and she is not a scoundrel. She has a moral code, which her followers believe in. Yet she is Chaotic Good.
So is Robin Hood.
In fact, Robin Hood is so clearly an example of chaotic good, which is the example used back in the days when Gary Gygax was on command of the whole thing. Gygax said about the Chaotic Good: "To the chaotic good individual, freedom and independence are as important to life and happiness. The ethos views this freedom as the only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness.". In 3rd edition, the nickname for CG was "Rebel", which works perfectly for Robin Hood
Valuing freedom and independance, and looking for it, not only for himself but also for others, is a code of conduct.
EDIT: now that I re-read, I'm not sure if you are talking to me or to HWalsh, who is also quoted. Apologize if I misunderstood
Now, Law and Chaos are not really about moral values.
Good people do not need to agree how helping others should be organized. Is it more important to make sure everyone gets fair treatment or equal treatment? Should the society or each individual carry moral responsibility to help others? Should the nation have a strong centralized leader or fragmented local leadership?
Also first step to discussing alignment is to throw out the CRB definitions and looking at how the whole picture is painted. There are recurring themes in the different gods and powerful outsiders that give more nuanced view what each alignment might keep inside of it.
|
|
EDIT: now that I re-read, I'm not sure if you are talking to me or to HWalsh, who is also quoted. Apologize if I misunderstoodI feel like this is the core of the issue between the "LG paladins only" camp and the "Any-Good paladins camp."
We're saying "I want to play Robin Hood."
You're hearing "We want to play a dishonest, cheating scoundrel with no moral standards."
I am in the "Any-Good paladins camp" as I hope is clear from my posts in this thread.
The "we" in my statement is people such as myself who think you can play a CG paladin (commonly picturing Robin Hood).
The "you" is people who think a chaotic character would be a dishonest, cheating scoundrel with no moral standards (thus, not an acceptable paladin).
Basically:
What [people who want CG paladins are] saying is that being chaotic has nothing to do with being a dishonest, cheating scoundrel with no moral standards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're saying "I want to play Robin Hood."
>Implying Robin Hood wasn't an LG knight loyal to the absent King Richard and fighting the illegitimate Sheriff and King John
We're saying "I want to play Robin Hood.">Implying Robin Hood wasn't an LG knight loyal to the absent King Richard and fighting the illegitimate Sheriff and King John
Which he wasn't, in the original stories. through different eras, both ballads and plays or the real character that inspired the first ballads
In the first ballads, he was a yeoman and fought against king Edward I, not against King John. The original character that is supposedly the inspiration of the ballads fought against king Henry III.
Now, if this first Robin of the first ballads, which stole money from the rich to give it to the poor, was an outlaw, and fought against a legitime king, could or not be a paladin by pathfinder/D&d alignment system and paladin restrictions, is a different issue that if said Robin had a moral code of conduct. He had. Clearly. Because CG characters can and do have moral codes which they adhere to.
|
|
Robin Hood, like Batman, is subject to a certain amount of adaptation variation. The main issue is that we have very different pictures in our heads of what "CG" means. And if you think Robin Hood was faithful to the "legitimate" King and therefore should be LG - would you consider him less heroic if King John actually had a legal right to exploit the peasants?
For another example, let's say that we want to make an organization called "Way of the North Star." Its members have the following creed:
- We are all on a journey. I will assist, protect and guide my fellow travelers.
- By shining bright, I show the way. I must be steadfast and true so that others may rely on my light.
- However, not all stars are fixed, and each journey is different. I honour those whose paths lead them to dance in different ways.
- I will respect and learn from all travelers, though I do not hesitate to resist those who cause others harm.
1) What alignment would a typical member of this group be, assuming they consistently acted in accordance with this creed?
2) Could this group contain paladins? (EDIT: pretend alignment doesn't exist - does this behavior fit your image of a paladin?)
3) Could this group consider Desna its special patron?
My answer would be
1) CG
2) no by RAW, under current rules, which forces paladins to be LG. But yes, with a very minor change to the Paladin. D&D 5e follows the same philosophical division for alignments, and paladins can be of any alignment. The only reason why they can't be CG in Pathfinder, is because the rules say so. Same with Monks: they can't be Chaotic, because rules, except the archetype martial artist, who can be chaotic, because rules.
3) Yes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
As to why this is? The guy who created the AD&D Paladin, Gary Gygax, decreed it so. This was carried into D&D 3.x and, since Pathfinder is built from 3.5, it is so here.
{. . .}
Yes, I'm aware of that, but D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana had Paladins/Antipaladins of all 4 corner alignments, but for some reason it never caught on, even though Chaotic Evil Antipaladin (of 1st Edition origin) did. (The next closest thing I can think of, at least before D&D 5th Edition, is that Kirthfinder presented a Lawful Good Prestige Paladin as an example, but then explicitly encouraged building corresponding Prestige Paladin archetypes for the other alignments. Oddly, D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana also had a Prestige Paladin, but didn't offer any consideration of combining it with the other 3 corner alignments, with the closest thing being the Blackguard prestige class.)
So the question is: Why should Lawful Good get something special, but Neutral Good and Chaotic Good don't? It seems that designers from 1st Edition through 4th Edition couldn't truly comprehend an alignment system of 2 axes, so they subconsciously rotated the alignment grid to make Lawful Good the only true Good, and Chaotic Evil the worst Evil, with Lawful Evil through Neutral through Chaotic Good all being considered fairly close together in overall levels of goodness (and 4th Edition made this explicit with its weird Z-shaped alignment graph(*) that completely dispensed with 4 of the 9 alignments). Note that the Paladin/Antipaladin duo is NOT the only example of things that strongly suggest a subconsciously rotated alignment graph, again from 1st Edition through 4th Edition. (On grounds of having seen so much precedent, I'm going to hazard a guess that this persists in 5th Edition despite offering Paladins of any alignment, but I haven't seen enough of 5th Edition to be sure, having only read the free starter PDF and snippets of an extremely bare-bones online 5th Edition SRD.)
(*)Not that I ever saw a printed D&D 4th Edition alignment graph, but the corresponding text was clear enough to let me visualize such a graph within seconds of reading it. Although come to think of it, my visualizing a Z-shaped alignment graph is probably just me applying that text to the pre-4th Edition alignment graphs, and the writers probably really meant for the 4th Edition alignment graph to be a truly 1-dimensional progression from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil, with Good and Evil being mere 1/4 way and 3/4 way marks on either side of the 1/2 way mark Neutral/Unaligned.
Paladin and Antipaladin (Prestige or base class) having no other alignment counterparts makes sense on a 4th Edition (or early Basic/Expert D&D) alignment graph. This doesn't make sense on a 2-dimensional alignment graph, unless that is rotated as mentioned above.
Alignment alloys probably create stronger results than pure alignment.
Or produce more active results.
Which is why the alignment corners tend to get more screentime perhaps.
Also I would not really oppose there being a special class for each corner case. Paladin of Freedom from 3.5 was kinda lukewarm which I think made it leave such a weak impression on people. The new CG class should be lot more different from Paladin to truly catch wind maybe.
|
|
Robin Hood, like Batman, is subject to a certain amount of adaptation variation. The main issue is that we have very different pictures in our heads of what "CG" means. And if you think Robin Hood was faithful to the "legitimate" King and therefore should be LG - would you consider him less heroic if King John actually had a legal right to exploit the peasants?
I would actually, because Robin Hood, perhaps unthinkingly, is defending the legal right of somebody to exploit the peasants and his objection is that the wrong people are illegally exploiting the peasants.
He would be a lot like many rw Confederate officers, who were, by all accounts, honorable and decent people, but who had a blindspot as far as there own society is concerned.
You gave me a great idea for a Hellknight NPC.
For another example, let's say that we want to make an organization called "Way of the North Star." Its members have the following creed:
- We are all on a journey. I will assist, protect and guide my fellow travelers.
- By shining bright, I show the way. I must be steadfast and true so that others may rely on my light.
- However, not all stars are fixed, and each journey is different. I honour those whose paths lead them to dance in different ways.
- I will respect and learn from all travelers, though I do not hesitate to resist those who cause others harm.
1) What alignment would a typical member of this group be, assuming they consistently acted in accordance with this creed?
2) Could this group contain paladins? (EDIT: pretend alignment doesn't exist - does this behavior fit your image of a paladin?)
3) Could this group consider Desna its special patron?
1) Either CG or NG, because its empathisis is not particularly militant and in practice includes a lot of compromises with authority, though the self exploration makes it definitely chaotic.
1) By RAW, no. By what I think a Paladin should be, yes.
3) Yes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@HWalsh: Being Neutral Good, for instance, imposes its own requirements, even though they have less tendency to take the form of codified rules. As not just any Neutral Good character, but a paragon of Neutral Good, you have to put the wellbeing of others first, and figuring out just how to do this fairly and in a way that doesn't backfire gets very complicated, too much so to explain here in a single post of reasonable length, but you don't have the luxury of just letting someone spoon feed you rules on how to do it, because rules can be twisted into chains that will bind you into turning against justice; yet, you also have to figure out some rules to follow, because just letting everyone (including yourself) do what they want leads to corruption by baser urges. You have to do good both without the crutch of codified rules AND without the luxury of being sure that your instincts will lead you to do the right thing. This is inherently(*) the hardest of all the Good alignments to follow to the paragon level, and anyone who pulls it off deserves to get special powers for a prize.
(*)In the case of Humans in particular, for all their boasts of being able to have any alignment and being centered on Neutral overall, they actually seem to be centered noticeably Evil and somewhat Lawful relative to dead center, and at least in our world, true Chaotic Good people seem to be very rare, and tend not to survive very well. So anyone who actually manages to pull off being a paragon of Chaotic Good should get special powers as a prize for this as well.
As for Paladins getting their powers through obeying their code, and having Lawful be an inherent requirement of this, that falls apart when you see where on the alignment graph Antipaladins are -- not Lawful Evil(*), which is what would be expected if the following of codified strictures was what was driving them to be the Empowered Evil mirror of the Paladin, but Chaotic Evil.
(*)Until a couple of archetypes came out very recently to change this.
{. . .}
You are also told who you can HIRE and who you can allow to follow you. That dashing swashbuckler who is Neutral Good and is a brave hero? He wants to work with you? NOPE. You aren't allowed to accept him!
{. . .}
Huh? How do you get that a Paladin can't accept a Neutral Good character? If that were the case, Shelyn and Sarenrae, both of whom are Neutral Good, could not commission Paladins.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
"A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."
{. . .}
Which means that either the code is inherently broken, or having Paladins of any deities that are not exactly Lawful Good is broken.
Meanwhile, you can certainly accept a Neutral Good or other non-Evil character as an ally, just not in those particular positions . . . but it makes no sense to be not allowed to accept them in those positions(*), yet be able to work for a deity that is not exactly Lawful Good.
As for powers from things that must come together, why do no combinations other than Law + Good and Chaos + Evil produce anything special?
You want fire out of a water-soaked rag? If I have some metallic potassium to put on it, I won't even need the match. A fluorine atmosphere will also work, but is even more dangerous (the action of fluorine on various substances -- even glass -- is reminiscent of what traditional Antipaladins do).
It's not just a matter of wanting powers without baggage. It's also a matter of logic.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why this upsets people so much other than they want the powers of the Paladin but with none of the baggage. Heck, I want to be able to still do martial arts but since I'm going to be in a wheelchair for an unknowable length of time my body simply can't do it no matter how hard I want it.
Largely because you default to saying they want powers without baggage, thereby insulting their character ideas as morally lesser than yours, which creates resentment. Or at least that's why I find your arguments for Paladins only being Lawful Good extremely annoying and don't care about your desire to keep them 'Pure' at all.
For my part, I'm actually fine with Paladins only being Lawful Good. I love Paladins, my first real character was a Paladin. Just a nice and pleasant man who believed without any doubt that anyone could be redeemed, and all life is something beautiful and incredible. He redeemed a Blackguard while she had a sword inside his stomach, got fiends to lay down their arms, and was just constantly happy and annoying to the people trying to play darker and more ambivalent characters. You can imagine who my favorite Goddess in Golarion is. (Frustrated though I may be with certain aspects of her Church and their tolerance of things that they should be the greatest force against...)
But I believe in fairness, and I hate elitism, and that's what "Only Lawful Good gets to represent the Paragon of Goodly Ideals!" sounds like to me. I don't like the idea that Neutral Good or Chaotic Good are in any way lesser alignments, or not as set against Evil. So even if I don't really want a Chaotic Good Paladin myself, as I am with the baseline, I get why other people do. Or at least an equivalent, that doesn't suck mechanically. Something to say "Anyone with Good in their heart has the capacity to be a true Paragon, and a Light in the Darkness."
I know that's what my Paladin would say at least.
The Paladin isn't the Paragon of goodly ideals so much as a unique thing that has a rigid set of restrictions and, due to some of those restrictions, comes with a number of social advantages. Is a Paladin "more of a hero" than the previously mentioned in this thread Neutral Good Swashbuckler?
No.
The Paladin is a Paladin though.
Do you want to play a class that is Neutral Good, a martial-focused character that gets magical powers? There is the War Priest. Do you want to play a class that is Neutral Good, a martial focused character that gets powers based off of charisma? That might be a little harder but you have tons of options...
Bards, Oracles, Oracle-Fighter hybrids, which by-the-by are not too shabby.
The problem is that most people aren't really complaining about the alignment because they want to play a Paladin. Most people want the powers on non-Lawful Good characters. We all know why people want the powers... People want Divine Grace... That is *the thing* because for Sorcerers, Bards, and Oracles a 2 level dip into Paladin grants them amazing bonuses to saves.
I actually assumed the Golden Ticket would be Smite Evil. That's the real feature of the Paladin that marks it as *THE* class set against the forces of Evil. I know the Oath against Chaos exists, but I DESPISE the notion that a Paladin could or would Smite a GOOD aligned character, regardless of how many colors their tie-dye shirt has. Hehehe, I guess that's where I personally draw the line about what a Paladin should be allowed to do, and its already in print!
(Special Note: My Paladin would not adventure with anyone that had more than three colors on their shirt, and even that is pushing it. Every man has their limit...)
I mean, Divine Grace is definitely the bees knees, I can see why people would want it, and I wouldn't care if they got it in their Tie-Dye Paladin Package. But Smite Evil is where I'd assume the crux of the argument, flavor-wise, is. That's the one that doesn't seem like it should be tied just to Lawful. Anyone that believes strongly enough in the cause of GOOD should be able to empower themselves to fight Evil with that blessing. Its what makes me, at least, look at the Paladin as the paragon of Good. Not Good and Law, but Good. That commitment to fighting Evil, in any of its forms, is something I don't think needs to be limited to Lawful Good. Its also the most conspicuous thing the alternatives you listed lack, actual tools meant specifically and only to combat Evil. I have no idea if the Grey Paladin (Is that the one?) has it, I don't think I have whatever book that's in. I just hear people say it isn't very good, and since I don't have the book I'm inclined to just assume it probably isn't and sympathize that it isn't an equal to the true Paladin so its not a desirable option.
Though I will add the addendum that I actually agree nothing but a Lawful Good character should be called a Paladin. Or that'd be my personal preference in my games. I don't care too much about the abilities getting passed around to empower all characters that want to stand against Evil, frankly I love that, but I do enjoy some level of Paladin mystique and respect. I'd want the same level of respect for a Neutral/Chaotic Good 'Paladin', but in a different way. Living by a Code is annoying man, stop adding to it, and let my Samurai drink his tea in peace before I dishonor myself before Shizuru and cut the Amatasu Scions into chunky salsa! ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That lore has been "upset" more than a few times. There are many instances in Dragon magazine where alternate paladins have been introduced for each alignment. It's a name, nothing more. As I recall, they weren't called paladins, so that wouldn't even be a thing to bother you.
You could have a class called "exemplar" or whatever that encompasses all 9 alignments and includes the paladin and anti-paladin as well as the others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as they don't have the abilities and mechanics of the Paladin that is fine.
What, specifically, in the Paladin's list of class features do you think would be inappropriate to include it (or a variant thereof, i.e. "smite chaos" for the LN flavor) in a non-LG Paladin analogue?
Pathfinder is generally not adverse to giving "signature mechanics" of one class to a different one, after all (there's lots of ways to get Rage that aren't "be a Barbarian".)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
SKR has a very compelling argument why "Divine Grace is OP on CG Oradins but fine on LG Oradins" is bad game design.
You shouldn't balance flavor with mechanics, or vice versa*, so if there's a game mechanics cost, there should be a game mechanics reason for that cost.
* Otherwise you get things like "a character with the orc-hater kit gets a +5 bonus on attack and damage rolls against orcs and half-orcs, but can never have peaceable interactions with orcs or half-orcs, he has no choice but to fight them."
There is no game mechanics advantage to being of CG alignment, so there should not be a mechanical cost.
That is why they always go for a 2 level dip.
The CG paladin in my group had at least 5 levels in paladin (and a few in fighter) before taking a thematic and not particularly powerful prestige class.
For all the people who scream its not fair... Try starting a fire with a match and a water soaked rag. Then try it with a match and a gas soaked rag. Lawful is the gas. Good is the rag. The match is the empowering.
The physics of the game are decided by the developers, and the developers are capable of being fair and unfair. Imagine the devs said that only men were allowed to be paladins because the metaphysical energies of paladins were only attracted to maleness in this world's physics. That would clearly be unfair to people who wanted to play female paladins. And it would imply that men were somehow better because they were uniquely able to access this special energy, especially if there were no comparable female equivalent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I'm disappointed this didn't get more discussion rolling, but the "Way of the North Star" is actually designed as a summary of the paladin's code as interpreted by a Desnan worshipper.
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.
1) We are all on a journey. I will assist, protect and guide my fellow travelers.
2) By shining bright, I show the way. I must be steadfast and true so that others may rely on my light.
3) However, not all stars are fixed, and each journey is different. I honour those whose paths lead them to dance in different ways.
4) I will respect and learn from all travelers, though I do not hesitate to resist those who cause others harm.
Respect legitimate authority - line 4, the North Star respects everyone, unless they hurt or oppress others, in which case they're not legitimate.
Act with honour (not lying, cheating, etc) - line 2, North Star is steadfast & true, personal reputation is important.
Help those in need - line 1.
Punish those harming or threatening innocents - line 4.
In addition to the night/star/travel themes, Desnan respect for freedom and new ideas is reflected in line 3, respect others with different philosophies rather than judging them or imposing your rules on them, and line 4 which does double duty with the encouragement to learn from others (welcome new ideas) and resist oppressors (while, again, encouraging the North Star to respect authority figures that aren't oppressive, even if she doesn't necessarily agree with them).
(I forgot about the associates restriction, but line 4 requires the character to resist evil which should cover the "no evil associates" clause and forbidding the character to take henchmen or followers entirely eg "I will bind no one to walk my path with me" would remove the issue of what alignment those followers are as well as fitting an "independence and free will theme.")
Bringing alignment back into the picture I would describe it as a NG code with CG tendencies. It has enough room to cooperate with rules and authority that I wouldn't call it CG - but it places a stronger value on everyone doing what's right for them (as long as that doesn't hurt anyone else) than on everyone cooperating and living by the same set of rules. The code promotes personal reliability but in a way that is individual to the person following it and based on the consequences of that reliability rather than agreeing that it's an important end in itself.
And if you think Robin Hood was faithful to the "legitimate" King and therefore should be LG - would you consider him less heroic if King John actually had a legal right to exploit the peasants?I would actually, because Robin Hood, perhaps unthinkingly, is defending the legal right of somebody to exploit the peasants and his objection is that the wrong people are illegally exploiting the peasants.
I am confused. Do you prefer the LG or the CG interpretation? Because I'm asking if you think the clearly CG hypothetical (where Robin is defying a legitimate monarch) is less heroic, and you said yes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Weirdo, Yes, I would consider the Lawful version of Robin Hood less heroic because, while he is helping the peasants, he ultimately believes in a system that allows peasants to be exploited. He just feels that Prince John doesn't have the legal right to exploit the peasants. Once King Richard is back and the abuses are curbed, he can go back to being a noble and his former merry men can go back to being peasants, all be it under a more benevolent overlord.
CG Robin is creating an alternative society in the forrest that is relatively egalitarian, respects the dignity of all its members, and overthows the rotten corrupt system, creating by its example and planting the idea that such a system is possible and that the abusive mainstream system need not be the "norm".
Ultimately, it's subversive as heck, and that is gorgeously beautiful.
So yes, I think CG Robin is superior to LG Robin (basically the Micheal Pread BBC 80s version and Russell Crowd movie versions most recently).
The fact that I believe this is definitely tied to my wish to play a PALADIN of Milani.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as they don't have the abilities and mechanics of the Paladin that is fine.What, specifically, in the Paladin's list of class features do you think would be inappropriate to include it (or a variant thereof, i.e. "smite chaos" for the LN flavor) in a non-LG Paladin analogue?
Pathfinder is generally not adverse to giving "signature mechanics" of one class to a different one, after all (there's lots of ways to get Rage that aren't "be a Barbarian".)
1. If they are comparatively powerful to the Paladin they MUST have the same kinds of rigid restrictions that result in loss of class abilities if not followed we are specifically told in the Gray Paladin that is why they are weaker.
2. Smite Evil is fine. Divine Grace? Paladin only. Why? Because that is why people want it to be non-LG so they can Divine Grace on Sorcs, Bards, and Oracles more easily. So that is off the table. That stays with the LGs. The rest is fine.
3. They would need to, in their restrictions list, be prohibited from at least 3 tactics that are otherwise beneficial. The Paladin can't cheat, lie, or use poison. So one of the others would need to have something like will not strike an unarmed for, will not strike a prone enemy, or something like that.
Man, I must have missed all those heavy tactical and moral restrictions in the wizard class. Mind pointing out the wizard's alignment restriction?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why this upsets people so much other than they want the powers of the Paladin but with none of the baggage. Heck, I want to be able to still do martial arts but since I'm going to be in a wheelchair for an unknowable length of time my body simply can't do it no matter how hard I want it.Largely because you default to saying they want powers without baggage, thereby insulting their character ideas as morally lesser than yours, which creates resentment. Or at least that's why I find your arguments for Paladins only being Lawful Good extremely annoying and don't care about your desire to keep them 'Pure' at all.
{. . .}
But I believe in fairness, and I hate elitism, and that's what "Only Lawful Good gets to represent the Paragon of Goodly Ideals!" sounds like to me. I don't like the idea that Neutral Good or Chaotic Good are in any way lesser alignments, or not as set against Evil. So even if I don't really want a Chaotic Good Paladin myself, as I am with the baseline, I get why other people do. Or at least an equivalent, that doesn't suck mechanically. Something to say "Anyone with Good in their heart has the capacity to be a true Paragon, and a Light in the Darkness."
I know that's what my Paladin would say at least.
The Paladin isn't the Paragon of goodly ideals so much as a unique thing that has a rigid set of restrictions and, due to some of those restrictions, comes with a number of social advantages. Is a Paladin "more of a hero" than the previously mentioned in this thread Neutral Good Swashbuckler?
No.
The Paladin is a Paladin though.
Do you want to play a class that is Neutral Good, a martial-focused character that gets magical powers? There is the War Priest. Do you want to play a class that is Neutral Good, a martial focused character that gets powers based off of charisma? That might be a little harder but you have tons of options...
Bards, Oracles, Oracle-Fighter hybrids, which by-the-by are not too shabby.
So why no specially empowered d10 full BAB Paladin-like classes or prestige classes for Neutral Good and Chaotic good? Chaotic Evil gets one, and Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil now have versions that have some problems but are still more capable overall than Gray Paladin. Warpriests have their place (they are what Clerics should have been, and the 9/9 divine casters should have been d6, 1/2 BAB Priests and Oracles), but they don't cut it as Paladin equivalents (and Inquisitors might be more proficient as Paladin equivalents than Warpriests in some cases).
The problem is that most people aren't really complaining about the alignment because they want to play a Paladin. Most people want the powers on non-Lawful Good characters. We all know why people want the powers... People want Divine Grace... That is *the thing* because for Sorcerers, Bards, and Oracles a 2 level dip into Paladin grants them amazing bonuses to saves.
And why should no devout enough paragon of alignments other than Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil get something similar (doesn't have to have the same name)? As I said above, a properly constructed set of requirements (although it wouldn't usually be seen as a "code") for Neutral Good and Chaotic Good characters seeking Paladin-like powers would be just as much baggage for those characters to carry as the Paladin Code for Lawful Good characters. After all, as noted above, Chaotic Evil has an equivalent (and the Antipaladin archetypes for Lawful Evil and Neutral are in less need of tweaking than Gray Paladin to make them just as capable -- actually Tyrant Antipaladin looks pretty close already, mainly needing some fixes to editing oversights of the Chaotic-to-Lawful conversion, and Insinuator, which can be Any Evil but seems to fit best for Neutral Evil, seems not too far behind). So why the continuing allergy to Paladin-like classes or prestige classes for Good alignments other than Lawful Good?
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.
:(
I was reading the thread and had to respond to that. I HATE the restrictions on Monks and Druids far more than the Paladins one. Yes, the paladin is the more famous restrictions, but I find Druid and specially Monk restrictions far more absurd than the paladin one. And this is not the first time I have said it on the forums.
The thing is that when I wanted to make a CG druid or a NG monk (both things I have done in play), the DM says "ok, no problem", and you don't have to make changes (druid) or only minimal ones (monk). With paladins is not that easy, as the alignment thing has a heavy impact on mechanics too.Now, I will continue to read the rest of the thread to that point.
Agreed about the alignment restrictions on Druids and Monks, although that isn't what this thread was about. The alignment restriction on Druids is especially strange given that some Druids are closely associated with corner alignment deities (Erastil for LG, Desna for CG, Lamashtu for CE, and Zon-Kuthon for LE), but cannot match the alignment of their patron deity.
I would argue lot of corner alignments might have elements of nature in them, but also include elements that perverse nature.
Which is why they don't get whole druid support.
At least now there is an Archetype for Druids that make them match their deity alignment
@Weirdo, Yes, I would consider the Lawful version of Robin Hood less heroic because, while he is helping the peasants, he ultimately believes in a system that allows peasants to be exploited. He just feels that Prince John doesn't have the legal right to exploit the peasants. Once King Richard is back and the abuses are curbed, he can go back to being a noble and his former merry men can go back to being peasants, all be it under a more benevolent overlord.
CG Robin is creating an alternative society in the forrest that is relatively egalitarian, respects the dignity of all its members, and overthows the rotten corrupt system, creating by its example and planting the idea that such a system is possible and that the abusive mainstream system need not be the "norm".
Ultimately, it's subversive as heck, and that is gorgeously beautiful.
So yes, I think CG Robin is superior to LG Robin (basically the Micheal Pread BBC 80s version and Russell Crowd movie versions most recently).
The fact that I believe this is definitely tied to my wish to play a PALADIN of Milani.
Given the fact that the Glorious Reclamation, which is an army of Paladins, were totally fine with destroying an entire system of governance in a rebellion and ending legalized slavery, I'm not entirely sure that hypothetical LG Robin Hood would necessarily be unwilling to create a more equal society after the bad guys are defeated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like one of the reasons the Law/Chaos distinction is so hard to pin down is that it largely seems to hinge on how you justify what you're doing in your own head.
"We overthrow a country and end slavery" could be chaotic if it's a "down with the Man, man" thing or lawful if it's a "tyranny anywhere is a threat to a just society everywhere" thing.
So when you can't read someone's mind, it's really hard to tell whether they're being lawful or chaotic, it seems.
It seems like one of the reasons the Law/Chaos distinction is so hard to pin down is that it largely seems to hinge on how you justify what you're doing in your own head.
"We overthrow a country and end slavery" could be chaotic if it's a "down with the Man, man" thing or lawful if it's a "tyranny anywhere is a threat to a just society anywhere" thing.
So when you can't read someone's mind, it's really hard to tell whether they're being lawful or chaotic, it seems.
Yeah, to me alignment is more internal philosophy and intent than anything else. To me the best way to spot the subtle difference between alignments is by looking at Gods who embody alignment and nations that politically function within a certain alignment act in Golarion. Doing it that that way provides a much bigger picture than just looking at one particular fictional character or a specific code.
I guess the question I have then is that are there good actions which cannot be explained somehow as lawful in their motivation. After all, "good" does tend to benefit social order.
Like is there an action a character could take that, without reference to their internal motivations, is absolutely CG and not NG or LG?
Good, in Pathfinder's definition, is basically just being selfless and altruistic, which is something that can be achieved by creating laws, social norms, collective beliefs or traditions aka Lawfulness.
So, yeah, Good does tend to towards creating some kind of social order. That being said, laws, social norms, collective beliefs, traditions and basic social order aren't necessary (in Pathfinder's opinion anyway) to creating Good.
CG and NG are people that for whatever reason believe that Lawfulness doesn't need to exist or doesn't help to create Good behavior in others.
Think of it as LG people being folks who believe that there needs to be some kind of government/social order to get Good things done while CG people believe that anarchism is the best way to create Good. NG's are somewhere in the middle.
So I guess a good action that's not Lawful would be a CG person deciding to take down an evil empire but not creating any kind of alternative after the bad guys have been defeated.
Good action that isn't lawful:
Deposing and dismantling an evil regime without ensuring that a strong, good, regime is ready to take power.
I don't know if "forgetting to ensure a good government follows up the deposed one" can affect the ethical value of "deposing a tyrant" from the beginning. Actions ought to be judged independently, right? So the ethical value of "deposing a tyrant" is independent of "what happens after the tyrant is deposed."
Sure, "IDGAF who rules next, it's not my problem" isn't lawful, but it's probably not good either.
What if the character does work to ensure that a good government follows up the bad one, but "statecraft" is not their particular expertise so they leave it in the hands of people who they trust to be qualified and well intentioned? What if ten years later that trust proves to be misplaced? Do we go back in time and deem that act "no longer lawful"?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you honestly think if a Chaotic needed to get information from a person, to save the life of someone, and the person who had the information didn't do anything wrong and demanded that the character beat them in a game of chance BUT the character had the ability to cheat to ensure that he'd win and get the information that they likely wouldn't do it?
Do you know who would do that in Pathfinder?
A Lawful Good Paladin of Torag
And do you know why?
because the LG code of Torag says so
You are trying to shoehorn LG imto a single ethos. It is not. A dwarven Paladin of Torag would deceive and cheat to learn about the location of an an orcish chieftain and his tribe, and then kill them all, accepting no surrender.
And his LG God will Cheer him
You are pretendibg than all LG characters have to behave the same, and therefore there are just 9 possible ethos. That's nor true. Erastil, Iomedae, Torag and Ragathiel are all of them LG. They beheaviour are different
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to think of CG as naive and least far thinking form of good.
To explain it:
A person who is Chaotic Good wouldn't want any environmental regulations for businesses. Why? Because rules get in the way. Not that they'd want people to destroy the water, but you shouldn't try to force people to do anything.
A person who is Chaotic Good wouldn't want to have laws period. Laws get in the way, the people will sort out any problems. They make terrible society builders because they simply don't understand that most people aren't altruistic.
I'd modify that a bit. Just destroying something Evil and not caring about the replacement is not necessarily Good, although not necessarily Evil (maybe the Evil is unacceptably bad, but you CAN'T put in a replacement -- as we have seen on Earth, often an Evil government destroys all possibility of a Good replacement). The Chaotic Good character doesn't necessarily lack foresight, but may truly believe that attempting to regulate people into being Good simply won't work and will lead to tyranny in the long run. This happens to be factually incorrect, but not totally incorrect; the Lawful Good character would ignore the last part of that, and double down on regulation and expect that to work, while the Neutral Good character would push for regulation, but recognize that regulation is not enough -- you have to get people to care about Good values, or the regulation will not work (and going back to the Chaotic Good character, they would think that getting people to care is both the only way to uphold the Good value, and sufficient with no regulation).
Which one of these varieties is most likely to succeed at implementing Good will depend upon the particular situation. Unfortunately, as we have seen many times on Earth, in many situations NONE of them may succeed.
{. . .}
"A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."
{. . .}Which means that either the code is inherently broken, or having Paladins of any deities that are not exactly Lawful Good is broken.
{. . .}
To expand upon this, the reason that this part of the Paladin Code is inherently broken is that -- given that Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral deities can commission Paladins, Paladins of these deities can't accept the most true followers of their own deities according to that part of the Code.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to think of CG as naive and least far thinking form of good.
To explain it:
A person who is Chaotic Good wouldn't want any environmental regulations for businesses. Why? Because rules get in the way. Not that they'd want people to destroy the water, but you shouldn't try to force people to do anything.
A person who is Chaotic Good wouldn't want to have laws period. Laws get in the way, the people will sort out any problems. They make terrible society builders because they simply don't understand that most people aren't altruistic.
You are letting your own personal political views to interact with hiw the game treats alignments.
It's not true that CG societies don't have laws. They do. For example, "all men are created equal, nobody has the right to be called King just by virtue of his birthright" is a CG law. "There is a Hierarchy, and Pharaoh 's birthright cone from God and shall not be denied" is LG, assuming that God is also LG
CG can have rules too. The pirate code (while not "G" (nothing is,really "G" in real life) allowed every man a fair share of the plunder, gave the captains the same voice than the normal pirates in formal councils, and gave every man the right to duel other man to resolve grievances, but only when they were in the land. They also punished with marooning those who attack another mate while in the ship.
CG gods DO have codes too, and they punish those who break them. CG gods of strength and war, like Thor, punish the cowards, gor example. Just that their codes talk about individual freedom, not about sacrificing individual rights for a greater good.
I'm still not quite sure that CG societies would have laws or rules per se. At least not in the way that modern societies would understand them. I think CG nations (if they could even be called that) would have vague, simplistic and unwritten social mores and norms that aren't really enforced by any institution like police or government but are instead by any individual and/or group willing to enforce them. Vigilante justice, frontier justice, mob justice, etc are all examples of CG justice if done for noble purposes.
For instance, if a murderer was caught in a small CG town the townsfolk won't fall back on any straightforward way of processing said criminal but would instead argue amongst themselves as equal individuals until some kind of consensus was made and an unique decision was passed on how to deal with the situation. That, or they'd let the victims of the murderer do whatever they wanted to him/her short of capital punishment. Of course, this is just MHO.
In regard to whether a CG Paladin can have a code I think they can but it wouldn't be as organized or as omnipresent in their minds as LG Paladin's.
Chances are it would be like, "Don't be a jerk, but remember that sometimes you need to do whatever necessary to save people". CG's are moral relativists are after all so I can't see them sticking their code in any given situation.