Are you insinuating that a democratic system is a chaotic form of government? No. Just, no.
I'm not insinuating it. I'm saying it quite clear. Depends who you vote.there are more L and more C countries and parties
Hence against regulation.
So was, for example, Ronald Reagan. Are you insinuating that Ronald Reagan wasn't democratic?
If so, then you are letting your own political belief to blind you from how the game treats alignments.As I'm not even American, and could not vare less about partisan US politics, let's try with a fantasy example
Let's say there are two countries. One of them ban the use of magic by regular people. Only sanctioned wizards of the government can use it. That's Lawful. Now, let's suppose they have good intentions. They are not trying to keep the magic for themselves, but legitimately think that magic is dangerous, and don't let people dabble with it. That's LG. That LG govermebt might imprison those who practice magic, without being sanctioned state wizards. Of course, this means some sorcerers, or some healing witches (wise women in the forests, etc) will go to jail. Not burn at the stake, because they are good, but they are not allowed to be left free, so they have to eithercrefuse their powers, or go to prison
A second country happens to be followers of an elven chaotic good God of beauty, sun, arts and Magic. This country does not have kings, but elected Councils of Peers. That country considers magic to be sacred, so thay do have a rule in their constitution, that explicitly states that governent can't, by any means, remove the ability to use magic from the people. Rules exist that forbid the government to rule, for example, against selling magic items, or castings spells in public. Being in a frontier zone, full of orcs, it is expected that people have and use evocations and other damahing spells to protect themselves. Of course, being a good of beauty, art, Sun and magic, this el en god also hates necromancy and denonology, so those two kinds of magic are forbidden too.
There you go. A LG and a CG country. Noth with rules. The CG has rules that protect freedom, while the LG has rules that protect the hierarchy and the greater good.
Democracy is very chaotic. It's a slightly organized form of mob rule.
Could be good, could be evil' but hardly Lawful.
Depends on what kind of democracy were talking about. Direct democracy might be more Chaotic, but representative democracy might be more Lawful. If Andoran is any clue Paizo thinks that democracy is NG, but that might just be Andoran being a really nice place to live.
I always thought of Paladins as needing the code because they're not really the good guys. They are hammers of the Faith but that power is too much for many to handle. So the code exists to force them on the straight and narrow because they could be corrupted by it too easily.
Order of the Stick made the very reasonable point that Roy, the LG fighter, is good and lawful because that's what comes naturally to him. Miko has to have Good and Law forced on her because otherwise she would slice and dice anyone she thought was evil. That's the point of the paladin in my eyes.
Those who want Non-Lawful Paladins want their power without their price.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those who want Non-Lawful Paladins want their power without their price.
Or just believe that the most compassive goddess is Desna, and want to be a paladin of her, who has her own code
Those who want Non-Lawful Paladins want their power without their price.
What's wrong with that?
Why would a Chaotic Goddess create such a strict code to force her believers into acting similarly? She would want only followers who agree with her naturally.
I always thought of Paladins as needing the code because they're not really the good guys. They are hammers of the Faith but that power is too much for many to handle. So the code exists to force them on the straight and narrow because they could be corrupted by it too easily.
Order of the Stick made the very reasonable point that Roy, the LG fighter, is good and lawful because that's what comes naturally to him. Miko has to have Good and Law forced on her because otherwise she would slice and dice anyone she thought was evil. That's the point of the paladin in my eyes.
Those who want Non-Lawful Paladins want their power without their price.
Not at all. Those who want -- and indeed have them for some of us -- non-lawful paladins want a divine representative for each ethos, for each god. There is nothing inherently better or more deserving for Lawful Good.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feels no obligation to do good. Does good for personal joy rather than duty which is inherently not altruism.
But it is perfectly altruistic to do good because if you don't you'll lose your shiny paladin powers?
Why would a Chaotic Goddess create such a strict code to force her believers into acting similarly? She would want only followers who agree with her naturally.
Is it wrong to naturally never want to harm another person, see another person come to harm, or otherwise perform an evil action?
Why would a Chaotic Goddess create such a strict code to force her believers into acting similarly? She would want only followers who agree with her naturally.
Who says that the CG code would have to be as strict as a LG's?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a Chaotic Goddess create such a strict code to force her believers into acting similarly? She would want only followers who agree with her naturally.
Because contrary to what seems to be the popular belief here, algniments are not an end all catch all for ethos. CG have agendas too, and they pursue them.
Desna might retire her favor to th cleric rhat doesn't try to unveil a cult of ravavug. She might retire her favor to those who don't help a traveller. (Actually it says so in her code) She doesn't care if you run from combat, or you answer "I pass" to a test of strength. Thor, mighty god pf strength, storms and combat, will retire you his favor if you flee from combat, or refuse a might challenge.
CG gods (and people) arent a single, homogeneus blob with everybody having same agenda. Just like Torag takes no prisoners among the foes pf his people, and Iomedae does
gustavo iglesias,
I don't quite buy your example of a LG society. The idea that LG people would imprison people just because they can do magic and aren't legally sanctioned to sounds more LN to me. In fact, that nation reminds of Rahadoum which prosecutes those with divine magic "for the greater good."
Plus, the idea that LG countries don't also create rules to protect freedom is off to me. Rules against murder for example exists so a person's freedom/right to life is maintained.
Krynn's white tunics is a perfect example of a LG wizard organization that will pursue you just because you do magic. They don't see it as they are doing any harm, because unlike Radahoum, they don't just imprison you. They give you the choice of passing the test, and becoming a sanctioned wizard. They only imprison you or strips your magic if you refuse. Magic is dangerous and the greater good is more important. They just don't care if you are a witch with different religion or philosophy, or a sorcerer who just wants to live alone in the mountains and don't care about tunics and politics, if you don't pass the test, you are prosecuted. Demonology is dangerous, and they don't want to run the risk, even if you disagree
LG societies create rules against murder, so do CG societies. CG societies might also create rules that forbid the goverment to spy on you using scry, or use zone of truth, while LG might see it as a,fair price to pay. It's a little bit pf personal freedom in exchange of a lot of security for society (murderers are caught much easier if you could have a Big Brother with scry and zone of truth). CG societies might feel that's a slippery slope, and too much power given to the government (even if it is a good government).They might feel that freedom is worth more than security, and oppose surveillance, for example. Or State Sanctioned Magic that only let cast spells to people who pass a Detect evil test.
LG creates rules to protect pwople from each other, even if they disagree. CG create rules to protect people from hierarchy and the government, ecven if the government might be good natured
LG creates rules to protect pwople from each other, even if they disagree. CG create rules to protect people from hierarchy and the government, ecven if the government might be good natured
This might be another good example. A LG king, follower of Erastil, might ban a popular game about throwing knives to each other, trying to block them with a shield. They might think that the risk of an accident is high, and don't want his citizens being harm. It doesn't matter if peopke disagree with him, and the game is popular and they want to play it
A CG king, follower of Thor, might later unbN such thing. He might think that those who play do so voluntarely. They do it because they choose to do it. Being good, however, he might rule that a priest of Thor must be present, the game stops at first blood and people is healed. Accidents still may happen, but less frequently, and those who play, are aware of it.
Other LG king, follower of a LG god with a sexual taboo, might ban such sexual behaviour. Even if some people disagree with him, and like to do that sexual behaviour, he might ban it under the belief that, ultimately, he is saving their souls from sin, a greater good.
A CG king might decide that it is not the King's business who individuals have sex with.
In Assassins Creed, assuming both sides,are good natured and really believe that what they do is for the better, Templars would be LG, and the Creed would be CG.
Actually, both hard-core Law and hard-core Chaos are bad for democracy -- with hard-core Law, people are not allowed to make decisions for themselves, but with hard-core Chaos, people have no protection from the depredations of others except for whatever they can scrape together themselves and with the aid of friends, neighbors, and relatives. So Andoran being Neutral Good rather than Lawful Good or Chaotic Good sounds about right(*), although a Lawful Good or Chaotic Good nation that definitively prioritized Good above Law or Chaos could retain some democracy (although it would be strained).
(*)Now how long that can last is another question. From the example of Earth, it can't last very long, but in the case of Golarion, social evolution seems to proceed at a glacial pace apart from the occasional catastrophe, so Andoren democracy just might get a somewhat longer than expected.
At least now there is an Archetype for Druids that make them match their deity alignmentWhat archetype? And does it replace the usual alignment restrictions?
Nature Priest from the Healer's Handbook
It says you have to pick a deity and stay within one step
In Assassins Creed, assuming both sides,are good natured and really believe that what they do is for the better, Templars would be LG, and the Creed would be CG.
That's a bad assumption though, and even so their ends do not justify their means in any case.
The Templars only want world domination, and seem to do so just because they THINK they'd be better at it. Like Doctor Doom. Lawful Evil.
The Assassins basically just want to stop the Templars. They have no other goals. They want the Templars gone so one monolithic force doesn't control the world, but don't really give much of a s#$+ about who gets hurt or has to die in the process. If they're a target (even one who is largey innocent or a good person) or get in the way, they're donerino. Chaotic Neutral.
Templar goals tend to change a lot based on which leader is in charge.
That is to say, which game in the series they are in.
Templar goals tend to change a lot based on which leader is in charge.
That is to say, which game in the series they are in.
In what game is their ultimate goal not in line with Pinky and the Brain's daily refrain?
In what game is their ultimate goal not in line with Pinky and the Brain's daily refrain?Templar goals tend to change a lot based on which leader is in charge.
That is to say, which game in the series they are in.
They tried to explore Templars in different light as the series ventured more into modern times. While yes, Ezio saga had the evil super pope with his magical world domination staff, AC4 and Unity had more moderate Templar leaders.
And then they went back to 'stache twirling with the mess that was Syndicate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Doctor (all except perhaps the first, and I sure everyone here knows of whom I speak.) while not a Paladin mechanically definitely has a code and has fallen and atoned several times.
I think about 80℅ of us would agree he is the poster boy for why Chaotic Good is a splendid alignment.
Answer me this? Tell me why, other than current RAW mechanics, a fully functional paladin of Desna, differing only on tactics because of class abilities and power level, couldn't be modelled on the doctor?
Why or why not?
|
|
| 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 see you are subscribing to Option 1.
Optimal span of control is 3 to 5 people. Maybe Chaotic characters demand to personally control more units than that themselves and their lack of delegation ends up with a quagmire of incomprehensible proportions. Maybe Chaotic characters refuse to bow to authority at all and end up in units of one. Whatever the case, some DMs will have Law be well organized and Chaos be poorly organized. In this case, Law is objectively a virtue and Chaos is objectively a flaw.
Being disorganized doesn't mean that you're more creative or interesting, it just means that you accomplish less with the same inputs. In this model pure Chaos is a destructive, but more importantly incompetent force
|
|
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.
It sounds like you're thinking of alignments as being boxes rather than positions on two independent axes. That's causing you two problems.
First, a "CG" action doesn't have any independent property. Instead, it's an action that has both chaotic and good properties.
A LG character might also perform such actions because they are motivated by the "Good" element even if they are also opposed to the chaotic element of defying their government. However, they also might not: "These characters sometimes have problems defying laws, even when the laws are unjust" (Champions of Purity). It all depends on the relative strengths of the Good and Chaotic elements of the action and how the particular LG character weights those elements. If you're familiar with physics, you could picture this like a diagram of forces/motivations acting on the person.
In order to find actions that a CG character might perform but a LG character wouldn't, you need to look for actions in which the Chaos axis dominates the Good axis - like carelessly removing an oppressive power structure.
You can find analagous actions that are more Lawful than Good which a LG character would be on board with but a CG character wouldn't. For example, punishing a person disproportionately to the harm caused by their actions in order to discourage other people from acting similarly (possibly in more dangerous circumstances).
I could also see LG, but not CG, characters trying to institute a benevolent system or regulation without consulting the people they're trying to help - possibly running into problems if they're unaware of circumstances that would make such rules a bad idea. Maybe your tried and true farming system doesn't work in a different climate. Maybe banning an addictive substance only pushes addicts underground and fuels a black market.
Nature Priest from the Healer's Handbook
It says you have to pick a deity and stay within one step
Might have to buy that then. Not that my group enforces alignment restrictions, but it's nice to see the official take on that concept.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought of Paladins as needing the code because they're not really the good guys. They are hammers of the Faith but that power is too much for many to handle. So the code exists to force them on the straight and narrow because they could be corrupted by it too easily.
Must be why wizards and clerics get an even stricter code. They get even more power, so obviously they must have a stricter alignment restriction and a stricter code than paladins!
|
This may be a silly question, but, I have a player that really wants to play a paladin but the thing is most of the party is CG or CN. I was wondering if there is a paladin archtype/alternate class anywhere that does not require them to be LG with out being an anti paladin and thus evil.
Thank you ahead of time for your responses.
I'm pretty late to the party, but it sounds like the best option would be to play a Cleric Archetype called Crusader.
CRUSADER (ARCHETYPE)
Crusaders serve the militant arm of a church, ready to stand
guard over the religion’s holy places and to be its swift,
avenging arm against those who resist its truth.
Diminished Spellcasting: A crusader chooses only
one domain and gains one fewer spell of each level than
normal. If this reduces the number to 0, she may cast spells
of that level only if they are domain spells or if her Wisdom
allows bonus spells of that level.
Bonus Feat: A crusader gains a bonus feat at 1st level,
then again at 5th level and every five levels thereafter (to a
maximum of six at 20th level). These bonus feats must be
chosen from the following list: Heavy Armor Proficiency,
Improved Shield Bash, Martial Weapon Proficiency,
Saving Shield, Shield Focus, Tower Shield Proficiency, and
Weapon Focus*. At 10th level, a crusader may also choose
from the following feats: Exotic Weapon Proficiency,
Greater Shield Focus, Greater Weapon Focus*, Improved
Critical*, Shield Slam, Shield Specialization, and Weapon
Specialization*. At 20th level, a crusader may also choose
from the following feats: Greater Shield Specialization and
Greater Weapon Specialization*. Bonus feats marked with
an asterisk (*) must be applied to the favored weapon of
the crusader’s deity. A crusader need not meet the normal
class- or level-based prerequisites for these bonus feats.
Legion’s Blessing (Su): At 8th level, a crusader gains the
ability to confer beneficial spells quickly to a large group
of allies. As a full-round action, the crusader may confer
the effects of a single harmless spell with a range of touch
to a number of creatures equal to half her cleric level. The
spell’s range remains touch, so all intended recipients
must be within the crusader’s reach when the spell is
cast. Using the legion’s blessing expends the prepared
spell, but it also requires the crusader to sacrifice another
prepared spell three levels higher, as when spontaneously
using a cure or inf lict spell. The higher-level spell is not
cast but is simply lost,its magical energy used to power
the legion’s blessing.
It's not exactly a Paladin, but it does a nice imitation of one. My group had a hard time trying to fight a Crusader of Urgathoa as an NPC an even speculated I'd some how found rules on a corrupted Paladin that wasn't quite an Antipaladin.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hurts the lore, the canon, and those of us who played Paladin long before it was cool.
So, paladins are my favorite class. I love the mechanics, I love the flavor, I love the RP opportunities. I don't think I'd ever want to play the class anything other than LG.
However, your argument seems to boil down to "this is how I like it and if you like it differently you're wrong." At first I thought it was purely a flavor/lore thing because most of your posts revolved around that, but when the idea of classes that operated like paladins but were not paladins was brought up you then started talking about mechanics. Essentially every post you've made invokes wrongbadfun, at least as far as it seems to me. If you don't like NG paladins, don't allow them in your games, and let the rest of the player base play as they see fit.
EDUT: Also, you're coming across as really elitist, particularly with the whole "we were paladins before you were born, and we walked uphill, both ways, using only a discarded copy of the Monster Manual to beat off hoards of munchkins" stuff. If you're trying to convince people of your position, condescending to them isn't the strongest tactic.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At first I thought it was purely a flavor/lore thing because most of your posts revolved around that, but when the idea of classes that operated like paladins but were not paladins was brought up you then started talking about mechanics.
To take this a step further, when I see you, HWalsh, arguing in this way what I am hearing is:
"People who prefer LG-only paladins care about the flavour. People who want paladins of other alignments only care about the mechanics."
That seems very critical. It also implies that the person you are speaking to only defines their character by their abilities. That is, actually, a core insult used in the "roleplay" vs "roll play" arguments.
I always thought of Paladins as needing the code because they're not really the good guys. They are hammers of the Faith but that power is too much for many to handle. So the code exists to force them on the straight and narrow because they could be corrupted by it too easily.Must be why wizards and clerics get an even stricter code. They get even more power, so obviously they must have a stricter alignment restriction and a stricter code than paladins!
What is the alignment of someone who isn't malicious but has absolutely no sense of right and wrong?
On topic, the way I see it, there can be Clerics of any alignment, and Warpriests of any alignment, so there's no reason there can't be a direct Paladin-analogue for any alignment.
I always thought of Paladins as needing the code because they're not really the good guys. They are hammers of the Faith but that power is too much for many to handle. So the code exists to force them on the straight and narrow because they could be corrupted by it too easily.Must be why wizards and clerics get an even stricter code. They get even more power, so obviously they must have a stricter alignment restriction and a stricter code than paladins!What is the alignment of someone who isn't malicious but has absolutely no sense of right and wrong?
On topic, the way I see it, there can be Clerics of any alignment, and Warpriests of any alignment, so there's no reason there can't be a direct Paladin-analogue for any alignment.
Chaotic Blue. Or maybe Chaotic Orange.
|
|
Chaotic Blue. Or maybe Chaotic Orange.I always thought of Paladins as needing the code because they're not really the good guys. They are hammers of the Faith but that power is too much for many to handle. So the code exists to force them on the straight and narrow because they could be corrupted by it too easily.Must be why wizards and clerics get an even stricter code. They get even more power, so obviously they must have a stricter alignment restriction and a stricter code than paladins!What is the alignment of someone who isn't malicious but has absolutely no sense of right and wrong?
On topic, the way I see it, there can be Clerics of any alignment, and Warpriests of any alignment, so there's no reason there can't be a direct Paladin-analogue for any alignment.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the alignment of someone who isn't malicious but has absolutely no sense of right and wrong?
More seriously, I think it depends on why they have no sense of right and wrong.
Creatures such as animals that lack the reasoning ability to think morally are generally True Neutral.
The exception are mindless undead, which are generally NE with the official justification that they are empowered by evil forces.
We could extend that reasoning to aligned outsiders if you want them to be more alien - describe them as incapable, as physical souls literally made of good and evil, of comprehending any behavior outside of their own alignment.
Finally, if the character as "no sense of right and wrong" because of callous disregard for how their actions affect others, then they're some flavour of evil depending on how orderly they like things.
{. . .}
Paladins are a flavor class. They aren't just given powers from the gods (fun fact: you can anger your God as a Pallie and lose your spells but keep your other powers until your alignment changes or you do an evil act)They derive their powers from their alignment, the code, and their God by canon.
To turn it into, "Oh anyone, of any alignment can get the package!"
Hurts the lore, the canon, and those of us who played Paladin long before it was cool.
Not if you make the different Paladin-equivalents for each alignment have different flavor/lore. For base classes, Paladin combined with the various Antipaladin archetypes gets you part way there; Gray Paladin tried to expand upon this, but didn't do a very good job, so we can count it as Lawful Good + all Evil alignments, with slight presences at Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good (I'm not totally going to discount that somebody really creative with character building might figure out a way to make something workable out of Gray Paladin). Some parts of this picture are still missing.
A (sort of) currently existing incomplete example by prestige class (the preferred route) would be kitbashing into one system/edition the D&D 3.5 or Kirthfinder Prestige Paladin and the Pathfinder Hellknight, along with the D&D 3.5 Blackguard (prestige class). This gets you all Lawful alignments + Chaotic Evil, and then needs some further development to get you the equivalents for other alignments -- again, some parts of this picture missing.
A speculative future example would be a hypothetical Morrigan Knight analog to the Paladin (in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting having strong ties to Pharasma and/or the Psychopomps), that acts as a mortal enforcer of the prevention of both untimely death and escape from death (including Undeath). Alignment choices same as Pharasmin Clerics -- the ones on the Good side focus more on preventing untimely death and on fighting the Undead; the ones on the Evil side focus more on preventing escape from death; the ones on the Lawful side focus more on being legal or at least Law-oriented executioners; the ones on the Chaotic side focus on disrupting order that can lead to interference with the cycle of life and death. Smite works on Undead and creatures using directly life-prolonging abilities (such as the Wizard Immortality Discovery). Mercies replaced by Smite Talents that expand the list of targets that can be affected, such as monsters or spellcasters that have recently created or commanded Undead. This could be done as a prestige class (preferred, but only if Paladin is also prestige), base class/archetype, or perhaps even both.