What Would A CG Paladin Code Look Like?

[KingOfAnything]

MuddyVolcano wrote:

a lot of good stuff

I think that a chaotic code is going to be less about rules, and more about the ideals necessary to champion the cause.

[Xerres]

HWalsh wrote:

Furthermore, I will ask you to politely stop this "Best Good" stuff. I have never said that, in fact NOBODY on the LG side has said that. You are saying that we have been making an argument that none of us have made. It isn't very honest to do such a thing.

I will first say that I understand it is stressful to be the focal point on which arguments are made against, as you are the most vocal advocate of your side on this debate. And I'm not trying to add to any stress you're feeling about defending your point against multiple posts at a time.

But I will continue to contend that "Best" Good, even if not directly stated, is a fair interpretation of what your, and many other's, view on alignment creates.

From all arguments and posts I've seen, the set up Pro-Lawful Good Paladin Players have puts Lawful Good and Paladins on the top of the "Good" scale. And sometimes Chaotic doesn't make the scale at all.

I am not claiming that you're stating Lawful Good is Best Good. I don't think any "Pro Lawful Good" poster has said it. But I absolutely will continue to contend that in practice, that's what the views suggest by said posters amounts to. Intentional or not, I see Chaotic getting the short end of the stick in favor of the posters favored alignment.

[Steelfiredragon]

I dont think any one said best good. I do think it was felt that it was implied somewhere is all of these threads.

[HWalsh]

willuwontu wrote:

1.) How do they know the village north of them is going to fall?

Evidently it's far enough away that they can't split the group and manage to come back fast enough if needed. If it's a wizard with sending telling them it's under attack and they need help, that's also the same level that wizards get teleport.

They are called couriers. People who run messages. Also, even if they somehow do have a wizard, if they did the sending you are assuming they have multiple wizards, who are of the appropriate level, who have prepared the spell, and that is a lot of assumptions.

Quote:

Also if they're able to call for help, they'd have consulted with the higher ups in the command as well, before doing so, and you'd be able to legitimately go help them.

Not necessarily. In most war fronts the higher ups may be engaged in other battles. The orders to stay may have been issued weeks ago. That kind of thing is common.

Quote:

If the commander is legitimately telling the defenders of that village to throw away their lives, that's a definite sign of illegitimate authority and all the more reason for a LG character to ignore their orders and go help.

See above.

Quote:

2.) The paladin wouldn't get promoted from this battle for not having a fight and just sitting there. The only way he'd get that is if he was already going to get promoted anyways due to time in service.

Actually, historically this has happened numerous times. A leader holding the line despite having a number of reasons not to do so being rewarded.

Quote:

3.) Why/how were we enlisted?

If we were conscripted, pending the circumstances, that's some grounds for illegitimate authority and something that LG characters would be allowed to ignore (again pending circumstances).

If we signed up for it, well that's our own damned fault. But then why's our whole party staying with us instead of going off to assist the other village and just leaving us here.

There are tons of reasons a person or party can be enlisted in a time of war and just because someone was conscripted doesn't make them an illegitimate authority. That is pretty much how most kingdoms worked, heck it is how most modern governments work, even our government works that way in times of extreme need.

[KingOfAnything]

As someone who prefers LG Paladins, I can understand the feeling that some or all of us consider Lawful Good the Best Good in some way.

The set of ideals I associate with the paladin align solely with a LG alignment. Putting "any good" on the class would cheapen it in my view. I can understand that others view things differently.

A LG paladin doesn't mean that CG can't have nice things. I'd like to see a distinct CG champion class that is focused around different ideals than the paladin and that has similar, but distinct powers to reflect that difference.

[MuddyVolcano]

Xerres wrote:

But I will continue to contend that "Best" Good, even if not directly stated, is a fair interpretation of what your, and many other's, view on alignment creates.

From all arguments and posts I've seen, the set up Pro-Lawful Good Paladin Players have puts Lawful Good and Paladins on the top of the "Good" scale. And sometimes Chaotic doesn't make the scale at all.

I am not claiming that you're stating Lawful Good is Best Good. I don't think any "Pro Lawful Good" poster has said it. But I absolutely will continue to contend that in practice, that's what the views suggest by said posters amounts to.

I'm going to try and spread this out a little bit. Man, I hear you. ...have you considered though, the impact of this on others?

I mean, deliberately or not, rereading others' thoughts and words into this interpretation of them can feel like it pushes them into a stereotype. I understand that isn't intentional but--

--it can come across as pretty belittling. Again, I know it isn't intentional.

It's more than that, though, because that act can have a greater effect on cooperation, which I'm concerned about.

Why? Well, it risks ignoring the work and enthusiastic support others have given to a Chaos Knight/Warrior/Incinerator. It risks putting down anyone who's said they're willing to wait, just so that others could be happy. It risks putting down anyone who'd express story and tradition concerns, and rewrites--

--rewrites those into "you're just being arrogant." ...and again, I know you don't mean to do that. It's just that it can come across as belittling efforts and that seems to be pretty much the opposite of what you're trying to do.

Whew. Anyhow, I respect the ideas and thought you put into things, man. Just, this concerns me and I wanted to bring it up--because I think the different perspectives and ideas are important to have.

[Xerres]

KingOfAnything wrote:

As someone who prefers LG Paladins, I can understand the feeling that some or all of us consider Lawful Good the Best Good in some way.

The set of ideals I associate with the paladin align solely with a LG alignment. Putting "any good" on the class would cheapen it in my view. I can understand that others view things differently.

A LG paladin doesn't mean that CG can't have nice things. I'd like to see a distinct CG champion class that is focused around different ideals than the paladin and that has similar, but distinct powers to reflect that difference.

I prefer Lawful Good myself, and love my LG Paladins, which is why I get worked up by (As I see it) Lawful Good being held above the other Good alignments. Lawful Good to me is about fairness, and that's not fair, so off I go losing my mind.

I'd be happier with Lawful Good only Paladins, and a unique class for Chaotic Good. But not only do I believe a unique class for Chaotic Good has the same chance of showing up as a snowflake in Arizona, I also worry that because of how broad the Paladin is then the Chaotic Good class will get cheapened.

The most common focus for a Chaotic Good class I've seen says they go after tyrants and slavers. Meanwhile the Paladin is opposing ALL EVIL, which conveniently includes tyrants and slavers more often than not. Paladin just has such a broad base, and a hold on several aspects fundamental to the Good alignment. Opposition to Evil, protection of the innocent, healing the sick, empowering others.

With Paladin having all that, a Chaotic Good class getting some left over scraps would be an insult. Even assuming they ever got anything to begin with. With the Paladin so much more focused on Good than on Law, it seems like a far more likely solution to open it to "Any Good".

Its not perfect, but I think its far more fair. And that really matters to me.

[willuwontu]

Warning, this turned out to be way longer than I'd have liked.

MuddyVolcano wrote:

So...I've been one of the participants in this thread and while I've liked a lot of the ideas, something comes up every time. I'd like to bring up the Antipaladin's Code as an example of that concern.

Antipaladin wrote:

An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts.

Okay, so they can't be altruistic. Good so far.

Antipaladin wrote:

This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends.

This is the first stumbling block. When we read, "his own dark ends," it emphasizes from the start that the interpretation of their code is up to THEM, and not a greater purpose. This is Chaotic in its nature and the exact opposite of a certain class seeped in tradition.

And yet people keep saying that simply by having a code, it automatically makes you lawful. This is supposed to be a chaotic code.

Also note "the service of their own dark ends", this shows that they are supposed to only be doing things only to further their own ends.

That section could be manipulated into

wrote:

An chaodin must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly commits evil acts or acts that infringe upon the freedoms of others.

This does not mean that an chaodin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as lawful or infringing upon their freedoms, only that such actions must always be in service of goodness and freedom.

That's a good reference for a code idea for chaotic good.

wrote:

Antipaladin wrote:

An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else,

This is also highly personal, and personally interpretative.

And highly in touch with the Evil alignment of that character, they're not working for the greater good, they're in it for themselves.

wrote:

Antipaladin wrote:

...as well as impose tyranny,

This is often a thing Chaotic does. On the other hand, a LG will try to topple or change Tyrranical systems, because they're beholden to a Greater Good. Opposing Tyranny can be done for a lot of reasons, and isn't beholden to one alignment.

This is utterly and completely wrong, chaos is far from being about imposing tryanny, that is an evil concept. In fact if you were to apply the concept of tyranny to an alignment along the L-C axis, it'd be far more applicable to L than C.

wrote:

Antipaladin wrote:

...take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.

This part of the code specifically mentions "his goals," and the rest brings us back to personal interpretation and lack of a higher power. The chaotic code then, is mutable and changeable.

That makes sense, as chaos is most often associated with change.

The antipaladin code is opposed to the paladin's on every axis. It doesn't answer to a higher concept; it answers ultimately, to the self and such a code is squishy at best: is interpretable by the individual.

It definitely answers to evil.

Yes it is interpretable, but that's because unlike the paladin, which as you say below is steeped in tradition (unlike the tradition of fallen knights coming back and attacking their not fallen yet brothers and oppsing them in everyway possible, which totally doesn't exist),

wrote:

This creates a big, big issue when it comes to the Lawful paladin, which is a concept seeped in tradition, in the immutable concept of adhering to a Higher Good. Not that LG in itself is the Higher Good--it is more like a woman who has taken an oath /to/ that good, and follows it no matter what.

To me, see this is where the issue of the LG being the higher good is mistaken for being said. To me, "it is more like a woman who has taken an oath /to/ that good, and follows it no matter what", sounds like, "Only LG can truly embody good", when that's absolutely and incomparably wrong. If any good alignment was to be the higher good (i'm not saying there is one G alignment greater than the others), it'd be NG and they don't share with L or C at all.

wrote:

I know me saying that isn't going to make folks happy. I'm concerned too, on another front that us trying to make the paladin Chaotic also weakens the concept of Chaos.

Chaos needs love, though. I absolutely support a Chaos Warrior, Chaos Knight, Incinerator, etc. class for the alignment. I really do. However, by taking two opposites of an axis and declaring, "you're both round pegs!" it doesn't make sense.

By giving Chaos its own chassis, as it deserves, it not only preserves what Chaos is, it gives us a better chance to explore it...

...and bring in, in full, Chaos' own approach to heroism. Otherwise, we're trying to force two cats into the same bag, and ignoring the unique traits of both.

I actually really enjoyed the brainstorm thread for the chaos knight, it doesn't focus on being 1 corner, instead mechanically feeling like it suits the whole C axis. Just like how the paladin playstyle feels like it the whole G axis.

I also don't feel that a CG paladin should play like or have the same code and features as a LG paladin, but the LG paladin is a good starting spot for getting ideas (and using as a chassis) for building a CG paladin.

[MuddyVolcano]

Xerres wrote:

With Paladin having all that, a Chaotic Good class getting some left over scraps would be an insult. Even assuming they ever got anything to begin with.

Then let's make sure they get more than scraps.

I've started to wonder if a Pirate/Swashbuckling Sky Warrior might not be more excellent and fun in some ways. Once the rules come out, we'll be free to propose whichever chassis we want.

I'm writing this after a grueling day at the hospital getting scans, because I believe that fun is awesome. :)

[KingOfAnything]

About those ideals!

Freedom comes up a lot with regard to CG champions. I think that reflects both valuing self-determination and personal autonomy as well as opposing tyranny and slavery.

Good, of course, they share with the paladin. An abhorrence of evil actions.

The PF2 paladin is geared around protecting the innocent. I think of paladins as thoughtful, and perhaps overly cautious when deciding to act, and then stubbornly advancing straight at the enemy once they start moving. I think that the CG champion would be more eager to take the fight to the enemy, and more willing to find an alternative route. At the very least lie their way past the guards in order to challenge their boss.

Altogether, I think that some of the paladin's defensive abilities should be altered to tie to movement instead. The paladin may still have the best AC using their abilities, but the CG champion should be just as good in armor, and also more mobile when using theirs. I imagine immunity to paralysis instead of fear, lay on hands giving +5 move speed instead of AC, and abilities that enable and reward getting past your enemies.

In Overwatch terms, the CG champion would serve as a dive tank to the paladin's role as main tank.

[Xerres]

MuddyVolcano wrote:

I'm going to try and spread this out a little bit. Man, I hear you. ...have you considered though, the impact of this on others?

I mean, deliberately or not, rereading others' thoughts and words into this interpretation of them can feel like it pushes them into a stereotype. I understand that isn't intentional but--

--it can come across as pretty belittling. Again, I know it isn't intentional.

I'm more saying that their ideals about alignment, put into practice, have an end result that I consider distasteful. That being Lawful Good on top, Chaotic Good sometime nonexistent. There is a lack of respect for Chaotic Good, a blanket acceptance that it doesn't get as much and that's fine, and sorry to say but it cheeses me off dude.

MuddyVolcano wrote:

It's more than that, though, because that act can have a greater effect on cooperation, which I'm concerned about.

When it comes to Non-Lawful Paladins, there is little to be had in the way of cooperation. Has been made abundantly clear by many posters, compromise is not acceptable. And fair enough, they feel what they feel, but I don't have to just accept it.

MuddyVolcano wrote:

Why? Well, it risks ignoring the work and enthusiastic support others have given to a Chaos Knight/Warrior/Incinerator. It risks putting down anyone who's said they're willing to wait, just so that others could be happy. It risks putting down anyone who'd express story and tradition concerns, and rewrites--

And yet not bringing it up risks those ideas becoming/remaining the standard. With Chaotic Good being the realm of people that throw their morals away on a whim, and Paladins the shining example of Good.

Chaos Knight is a super cool idea, but it doesn't embody the Good alignment, which is the issue at hand here.

MuddyVolcano wrote:

--rewrites those into "you're just being arrogant." ...and again, I know you don't mean to do that. It's just that it can come across as belittling efforts and that seems to be pretty much the opposite of what you're trying to do.

Whew. Anyhow, I respect the ideas and thought you put into things, man. Just, this concerns me and I wanted to bring it up--because I think the different perspectives and ideas are important to have.

I read a serious lack of respect for Chaotic Good, and its just infuriating. I can get behind your sentiment here, and you may be right in the end. But when there's a suggestion that a follower of Cayden Cailean would get drunk instead of save innocent lives, that means something. That's the end result I'm talking about, where 'Chaotic Good' becomes an oxymoron and the alignment means nothing anymore.

Call me out whenever you feel a need to, because I honestly appreciate someone telling me to slow down and consider what I'm suggesting. I still think that my point is valid, that Chaotic Good is being marginalized and Lawful Good is shown favoritism, but I accept your points and think you could be right. Thank you for taking the time to make your thoughts heard, its good to have posters with sympathy to both sides.

MuddyVolcano wrote:

Xerres wrote:

With Paladin having all that, a Chaotic Good class getting some left over scraps would be an insult. Even assuming they ever got anything to begin with.

Then let's make sure they get more than scraps.

I've started to wonder if a Pirate/Swashbuckling Sky Warrior might not be more excellent and fun in some ways. Once the rules come out, we'll be free to propose whichever chassis we want.

I'm writing this after a grueling day at the hospital getting scans, because I believe that fun is awesome. :)

I had a bit of a tangent about romanticizing Pirates, but its not really needed. Safe to say: Pirates were nothing close to Good by any definition, but Swashbuckling Sky Warrior sounds utterly delightful.

And believe me, if there was any ball rolling for such a prospect I'd be on it. I don't have hope in seeing anything like it, but I'd be tickled pink to be wrong.

[willuwontu]

HWalsh wrote:

willuwontu wrote:

1.) How do they know the village north of them is going to fall?

Evidently it's far enough away that they can't split the group and manage to come back fast enough if needed. If it's a wizard with sending telling them it's under attack and they need help, that's also the same level that wizards get teleport.

They are called couriers. People who run messages. Also, even if they somehow do have a wizard, if they did the sending you are assuming they have multiple wizards, who are of the appropriate level, who have prepared the spell, and that is a lot of assumptions.

Yes and if couriers were able to go between the villages fast enough to be able to call for help to that village, if you're not under attack yet and the enemies aren't being found by your scouts, your men would easily be able to get back in time to assist you in battle (granted you'd have a rough start defending, but that's why you'd have been building defenses instead of lying on your butt while waiting for the enemy to come.)

Quote:

Quote:

Also if they're able to call for help, they'd have consulted with the higher ups in the command as well, before doing so, and you'd be able to legitimately go help them.

Not necessarily. In most war fronts the higher ups may be engaged in other battles. The orders to stay may have been issued weeks ago. That kind of thing is common.

And in that kind of situation where the commands are issued weeks ago, the commander of the army wouldn't give an order to bind yourself to the village without the ability to be able to request assistance, unless he was extremely incompetent, in which case you're screwed either way. This incompetence would also be a sign of corruption in the system, and ground for a LG character to ignore it.

wrote:

Quote:

If the commander is legitimately telling the defenders of that village to throw away their lives, that's a definite sign of illegitimate authority and all the more reason for a LG character to ignore their orders and go help.

See above.

And it's still applicable

Quote:

Quote:

2.) The paladin wouldn't get promoted from this battle for not having a fight and just sitting there. The only way he'd get that is if he was already going to get promoted anyways due to time in service.

Actually, historically this has happened numerous times. A leader holding the line despite having a number of reasons not to do so being rewarded.

Yes and historically nepotism and corruption are a common thing as well, and historically most of those figures who held the line, engaged in some kind of actual combat if they didn't fall under nepotism or corruption. Both of which would be reason enough for a LG character to be able to ignore his orders.

Quote:

Quote:

3.) Why/how were we enlisted?

If we were conscripted, pending the circumstances, that's some grounds for illegitimate authority and something that LG characters would be allowed to ignore (again pending circumstances).

If we signed up for it, well that's our own damned fault. But then why's our whole party staying with us instead of going off to assist the other village and just leaving us here.

There are tons of reasons a person or party can be enlisted in a time of war and just because someone was conscripted doesn't make them an illegitimate authority. That is pretty much how most kingdoms worked, heck it is how most modern governments work, even our government works that way in times of extreme need.

No, conscription just tends to follow the pattern of slavery (you have to do this and serve me) and historically conscripted soldiers are treated as cannon fodder, which is an evil act (and thus grounds for LG to ignore).

Unless it's an emergency conscription due to extenuating circumstances (we have to grab all the adventurers and form units with them in order to stop the lich's army of undead, that formed yesterday and is coming to attack us as we speak).

I'm avoiding political discussion (let's just say I know how the military and draft works).

[HWalsh]

Xerres wrote:

I had a bit of a tangent about romanticizing Pirates, but its not really needed. Safe to say: Pirates were nothing close to Good by any definition, but Swashbuckling Sky Warrior sounds utterly delightful.

And believe me, if there was any ball rolling for such a prospect I'd be on it. I don't have hope in seeing anything like it, but I'd be tickled pink to be wrong.

I'd be fully behind some kind of Chaotic Good only Swashbuckler type. Even moreso if it was a class limited to serving Cayden. Its not a Paladin, it wouldn't have Paladin abilities, it wouldn't have the same gravitas attached to it that Paladins have but I'd still be down for something like that.

[Jester David]

“I swear to follow my code and obey this oath until I feel like breaking it, which I will whenever it’s convenient.”

[MuddyVolcano]

HWalsh wrote:

Xerres wrote:

I had a bit of a tangent about romanticizing Pirates, but its not really needed. Safe to say: Pirates were nothing close to Good by any definition, but Swashbuckling Sky Warrior sounds utterly delightful.

And believe me, if there was any ball rolling for such a prospect I'd be on it. I don't have hope in seeing anything like it, but I'd be tickled pink to be wrong.

I'd be fully behind some kind of Chaotic Good only Swashbuckler type. Even moreso if it was a class limited to serving Cayden.

I brought it up because the swashbuckling is a popular and awesome concept--and is what many of my own players want when they go CG warrior.

It's more in the mindset of fulfilling something they'd love and enjoy...and I think for CG, has a hell of a lot of potential, and flavor.

...that could make a lot of people jealous. :D

[MuddyVolcano]

Jester David wrote:

“I swear to follow my code and obey this oath until I feel like breaking it, which I will whenever it’s convenient.”

Well...see, while I love my Lg paladins, I also want CG to get its own awesome. I've put forward ideas (Chaos Knight!), too!

If we can work together, I think we'll all be better off for it. :D

[HWalsh]

willuwontu wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

willuwontu wrote:

1.) How do they know the village north of them is going to fall?

Evidently it's far enough away that they can't split the group and manage to come back fast enough if needed. If it's a wizard with sending telling them it's under attack and they need help, that's also the same level that wizards get teleport.

They are called couriers. People who run messages. Also, even if they somehow do have a wizard, if they did the sending you are assuming they have multiple wizards, who are of the appropriate level, who have prepared the spell, and that is a lot of assumptions.

Yes and if couriers were able to go between the villages fast enough to be able to call for help to that village, if you're not under attack yet and the enemies aren't being found by your scouts, your men would easily be able to get back in time to assist you in battle (granted you'd have a rough start defending, but that's why you'd have been building defenses instead of lying on your butt while waiting for the enemy to come.)

Quote:

Quote:

Also if they're able to call for help, they'd have consulted with the higher ups in the command as well, before doing so, and you'd be able to legitimately go help them.

Not necessarily. In most war fronts the higher ups may be engaged in other battles. The orders to stay may have been issued weeks ago. That kind of thing is common.

And in that kind of situation where the commands are issued weeks ago, the commander of the army wouldn't give an order to bind yourself to the village without the ability to be able to request assistance, unless he was extremely incompetent, in which case you're screwed either way. This incompetence would also be a sign of corruption in the system, and ground for a LG character to ignore it.

wrote:

Quote:

If the commander is legitimately telling the defenders of that village to throw away their lives, that's a definite sign of illegitimate authority and all the more reason

...

Okay...

I didn't expect to have to get rules lawyer-y here but...

Realistic Scenario:

1. Your orders have been standing for 2 weeks. Protect your village, do not leave your post, do not reduce the forces at the village for any reasons.

2. How you take a town is by something called a siege. These sieges take multiple days. A common way to get help is to temporarily break a hole in the siege, or to send a runner before the siege can completely set up. In the case of using Pathfinder rules:

If the settlement is say 35 miles away, a courier on horseback can reach you in 1 day. (7 hours to be exact) Providing they don't have to evade pursuit.

So we have a timetable here:

Siege Hour 0 - Send out a courier requesting help.

Siege Hour 7 - The courier reaches you.

You gather your forces to send them out o reinforce, this takes around 2 hours.

Siege Hour 9 - You set out.

Your forces are an actual force, meaning not everyone is on horseback, and you don't want to forced march as long because you can't help with exhausted defenders. Meaning using overland travel you will reach there with your forces in approximately 1.5 days.

Siege Hour 45 - Your forces arrive.

That is the good scenario for reaching to aid the village.

Now, assuming it is a feint:

Their scouts detect you around an hour before you arrive. They ride back to their siege commander, and are ordered to notify the troops laying in wait to attack your village. Because they are one, and you are many, they move much faster than you do.

By the time you arrive in hour 45 they are on their way.

At hour 50 they reach their forces positioned 4 hours away from your village (Around 16 miles away from your village) and begin their march toward yours.

Your village has no defenders.

The fastest you can be notified and then make it back is around 45 hours.

This is a PERFECTLY reasonable time frame and turnaround, it is also reasonable to have standing orders that last for 2, 3, or even 4 weeks.

[johnlocke90]

A CG Paladin would fight all the things a LG Paladin would fight.

The concept is just as broad.

[Xerres]

johnlocke90 wrote:

A CG Paladin would fight all the things a LG Paladin would fight.

The concept is just as broad.

I have to imagine that's why there's such a push to open the class alignment. If it were more like a straightforward "Knight" that was a Fighter, but different, unlikely people would care. Be like the Barbarian, some interest in removing the alignment constraint, but overall people just going "Yeah, whatever, its not that big a deal."

Like the Monk I guess. Not often to have drag out fights about lifting the Lawful part, though I do see those arguments made. And personally agree with them.

Paladin though, having the 'Champion Against EVIL!" slot, really draws that "I want to do that my way!" sentiment like a lightning rod. And resentment that their Good isn't Good enough to have those powers. Dispute about why Lawful Good does the thing and others don't aside, and the eventual Warpriest sort of doing what people wanted. Paladin is such a cool class and idea, all kinds of cool places it can go. I understand why so many want in, just without being told their way is wrong.

[willuwontu]

HWalsh wrote:

Okay...

I didn't expect to have to get rules lawyer-y here but...

Realistic Scenario:

1. Your orders have been standing for 2 weeks. Protect your village, do not leave your post, do not reduce the forces at the village for any reasons.

2. How you take a town is by something called a siege. These sieges take multiple days. A common way to get help is to temporarily break a hole in the siege, or to send a runner before the siege can completely set up. In the case of using Pathfinder rules:

If the settlement is say 35 miles away, a courier on horseback can reach you in 1 day. (7 hours to be exact) Providing they don't have to evade pursuit.

So we have a timetable here:

Siege Hour 0 - Send out a courier requesting help.

Siege Hour 7 - The courier reaches you.

You gather your forces to send them out o reinforce, this takes around 2 hours.

Siege Hour 9 - You set out.

Your forces are an actual force, meaning not everyone is on horseback, and you don't want to forced march as long because you can't help with exhausted defenders. Meaning using overland travel you will reach there with your forces in approximately 1.5 days.

Siege Hour 45 - Your forces arrive.

That is the good scenario for reaching to aid the village.

Now, assuming it is a feint:

Their scouts detect you around an hour before you arrive. They ride back to their siege commander, and are ordered to notify the troops laying in wait to attack your village. Because they are one, and you are many, they move much faster than you do.

By the time you arrive in hour 45 they are on their way.

At hour 50 they reach their forces positioned 4 hours away from your village (Around 16 miles away from your village) and begin their march toward yours.

Your village has no defenders.

The fastest you can be notified and then make it back is around 45 hours.

It's like you're deliberately trying to create a kobayashi maru scenario, which I remember you saying something about.

So now they're defending a town, while I'm defending a village, yeah I'm not going to help. Any force large enough to take down a town (that now has proper fortification cause it's going to take days to siege it) would not be able to be taken down by the insignificant addition of my party (4 people). Instead that courier (and their commander would know this) would be better served being sent to retrieve the reinforcements.

Typical tactics is having reinforcements near enough that they can arrive within 48 hours or being notified at the location if needed, it'd take the courier roughly 15 hours to reach them, giving the town 63 hours they need to defend for in this days long siege, something easily achievable for them. If the reinforcements are farther because you're the advanced party (we're obviously not, we've been conscripted by an established kingdom) or due to stretched forces, they'd have to wait, and survive on their own.

If the enemy is instead seigeing a village now, I would realize that my forces wouldn't be able to make it in time (since village seiges last a day and half at most), and would instead dig in and prepare for the worst (the enemy joining up with the ones coming to attack me in a pincer attack.)

Quote:

This is a PERFECTLY reasonable time frame and turnaround, it is also reasonable to have standing orders that last for 2, 3, or even 4 weeks.

And typical standing orders would include room for commander discretion for such a long time period of them to last, as the commander would be well aware he can't notify you every day. Typically there'd be a clause saying you can request aid/assist each other (as you'd all have the same order for defending these villages).

[HWalsh]

willuwontu wrote:

It's like you're deliberately trying to create a kobayashi maru scenario, which I remember you saying something about.

Its not a kobayashi maru, as it isn't a no-win scenario. It is a scenario that could go good or bad depending on the circumstances. Also it isn't such a scenario because it is completely realistic, unlike the "must use infernal healing" one which has plot holes that even a dev came in and drove a truck through.

Quote:

So now they're defending a town, while I'm defending a village, yeah I'm not going to help. Any force large enough to take down a town (that now has proper fortification cause it's going to take days to siege it) would not be able to be taken down by the insignificant addition of my party (4 people). Instead that courier (and their commander would know this) would be better served being sent to retrieve the reinforcements.

You are making a number of assumptions, and splitting hairs. In this case town/village are interchangeable terms. I also said, in this, and the original that you had forces. Meaning it isn't just you and your party. It isn't just 4 people. Again this is a very common situation.

Quote:

Typical tactics is having reinforcements near enough that they can arrive within 48 hours or being notified at the location if needed, it'd take the courier roughly 15 hours to reach them, giving the town 63 hours they need to defend for in this days long siege, something easily achievable for them. If the reinforcements are farther because you're the advanced party (we're obviously not, we've been conscripted by an established kingdom) or due to stretched forces, they'd have to wait, and survive on their own.

Uhm, no. I outlined the exact time tables and used the math Pathfinder assumes.

Quote:

If the enemy is instead seigeing a village now, I would realize that my forces wouldn't be able to make it in time (since village seiges last a day and half at most), and would instead dig in and prepare for the worst (the enemy joining up with the ones coming to attack me in a pincer attack.)

Uh, day and a half?

Historically sieges last usually 2-5 days and in many cases many weeks.

You're not going to be able to beat the scenario. It is realistic, based on actual historical situations, and even clarified by the rules of Pathfinder. You may not like it, but it is there. It is also very good at presenting the possible actions a lawful good, neutral good, or chaotic good character could take.

It also presents very possible outcomes (Both good and bad) for both.

Sorry, but if you want to attack the scenario, its pretty iron clad.

[Steelfiredragon]

ng female elven paladin looks around said town and then looks at the people.

the people make thetown and not the stone and mortar. speaks with town leaders about evacuation.

if they agree, damage the town's defenses so it no longer holds any strategic value and rear guard the evacuees out of the opposing gate.

if they dont agree, see about increasing the town's defenses and keep negotiating for evacuation.

[Deadmanwalking]

Bodhizen wrote:

So... Sure, chaotic clerics are still going to have anathema, because anathema are more linked to the idea of, "If you do this, you piss God off" more so than "you're a goody-two-shoes all the time" or "you do what you feel like". Anathema are more about what you have to do in exchange for your power because God will take it away if you don't follow his/her commandments, even if those commandments are whimsical by nature. "Don't step in a turd on the third Tuesday of the month when the purple moon is in its waxing phase" might be oddly specific, and never happen... Except when it does, and that whimsical god might just say, "Whoa, buddy... You broke the one rule I had. Get ready for a whoopin'!" Might seem like something very "lawful" because of its specificity, but really just be that, "Even God didn't expect that to happen. Imagine that. He might just laugh it off... But he's probably going to kick your kiester."

Sure, but as of this moment, a Paladin needs to have a God. So...how would this explanation not work for Paladins as well?

Now, assuming a Paladin does not have or need a God it becomes trickier, I freely admit. But let's assume that you need a specific and extreme Code in order to gain powers as a Paladin. That seems a reasonable assumption (and is the heart of the 'four corners' Paladin Alignment suggestion, which I favor personally). If it's keeping to the Code that grants you powers, then breaking it deprives you of said powers, so while Chaotic Paladins might be more inclined to break certain parts of their Code, that'd just make them fall slightly more often on average, not make them impossible.

Bodhizen wrote:

The problem with the "chaotic" portion of a "code" is that chaos inherently conflicts with code. The neutral character would violate their "code" whenever it suits them. The chaotic character would be ten shades of, "F**k naw! You ain't restrictin' me with no code! Ain't no 'venturer got time fo' dat! I do what I wanna do!" It's not that chaotic characters can't follow a code, it's that they wouldn't ever want their own freedom of choice to be restricted in such a fashion, and would therefore never agree to it in the first place. It's why I think that Chaotic Evil doesn't work for Antipaladins.

There are two kinds of Chaotic Aligned characters in Pathfinder.

#1: People who are simply inherently Chaotic and lead chaotic lives. They may be perfectly nice (and indeed almost certainly are, if CG), but there's not a philosophy or Code there.

#2: People who are philosophically devoted to Chaos. They're devout believers or philosophers who have come to the firm and final conclusion that Chaos is correct, morally speaking. Among Good people this takes the form of a profound philosophical devotion to freedom of choice as the ultimate Good. They may also live chaotic lives, but it's at least partially from a place of philosophical principle.

Category #2 can easily have a very specific and thorough Code.

These categories also absolutely exist for other Alignments (and can be summed up as #1 being people who don't think through their moral or philosophical principles, and #2 being people who do think them through), and frankly, I think LG Paladins pretty universally fit into category #2 of that Alignment as well.

Bodhizen wrote:

The chaotic "paladin" would never let themselves be stuck in the box of "You're going to tell me what I can and cannot do." Having a code that says, "Be wild and free! Do what you want to do!" is actually functionally the same as not having a code.

This is true. It's also why any Code based Chaotic Class would need to have a Code significantly different from that one. I'll examine what that Code would need to be in a moment.

Bodhizen wrote:

I see a lot of people conflating what a neutral character would do when it comes to following a code of behavior versus a chaotic character would do. If your chaotic character would follow a code (when it suits them) and violate that code (when it suits them), there is no functional difference from the neutral character who follows a code (when it suits them) and violates that code (when it suits them). That's neutral (on the law-chaos axis) in a nutshell. They do what is most convenient for themselves at the time. The chaotic character should be ten shades of, "I could follow the code if I wanna 'cause that's my choice, but I ain't gonna follow no code 'cause I don't wanna. Butterflies are free, man! Butterflies are free!"

And we actually have the beginnings of a Code right there. See, a Chaotic Good person absolutely believes people should have freedom of choice. In the case of someone devoted enough to be a CG

Paladin they probably believe that to a rather extreme degree. And that's where the Code comes in.

See, respecting and never violating the freedom and personal autonomy of others to the profound degree someone like a CG Paladin might need to is hard. You could in theory not phrase it as a Code if you don't like Chaotic characters having one, but it's at least as restrictive as one in practice. It's a huge behavioral restriction to completely respect the freedom of pretty much everyone else even if there are loopholes for defending the innocent and the like.

Now, is that the kind of restriction a Chaotic person would accept? Not a CN or CE one, no. But a CG person of Type #2 listed above (someone philosophically devoted to freedom)? Yeah, they're probably on board for that, because they believe that freedom is the highest good and are Good and so want to give that freedom to everyone if possible. Some might even think of it as a sacrifice of some small amount of personal freedom in order to secure the freedom of others (and self sacrifice is a Good trait, not a Lawful one, remember).

And that's how someone Chaotic can wind up with a Code.

Bodhizen wrote:

Here's where the chaotic-good paladin fails, though... The chaotic-good paladin of Cayden Cailean, when confronted with Cayden Cailean's cardinal rule of "do good deeds" (if that's his cardinal rule) might say, "Y'know what? Screw that! Imma get (more) drunk. Those villagers can save themselves." Cayden Cailean as the functional god of a chaotic good paladin has to say, "Y'know, you just broke my rule. Bad boy. Go atone before I give you your powers back." Shoot. Boss is on my case, and I didn't do nothin'. F**k the man! I might go atone today, but if this jackass keeps on harshin' on my drink, Imma gonna go find myself another church, yo!

This is like saying that any Cleric of Cayden Cailean who fell would just leave and find another religion. It's not true and it unfortunately comes off as kind of insulting to those who identify with Chaos in real life (and yes, some people absolutely do).

In short, someone CN (because if you actually do this you sure aren't Good) who actually did this and followed Cayden Cailean would already fall short in their God's eyes, probably violate an Anathema, and just generally have screwed up as much as humanly possible.

It's like using the example of a LG Paladin taking escaped slaves back to their master (and then switch religions when their God did not approve) as evidence Lawful Paladins shouldn't exist. It's an example of Chaotic act that would cause a Paladin to fall, but no more so than many Lawful acts which would also cause that.

Bodhizen wrote:

Unless, y'know... They're not actually chaotic good paladins... They're another class entirely (like warpriests) that allow for that sort of thing without triggering a fall.

A Warpriest of Cayden Cailean who did that would pretty clearly fall immediately.

Bodhizen wrote:

Codes are intrinsically opposed to chaos, be they internal or external. If my code states, "Always be free", then it dictates a pattern of behaviour that prevents my character from accepting bondage in any form, be that physical, mental, or social. When presented with the choice to wear shackles or run from the character attempting to shackle me, I must (if I'm following a "code") choose the latter. It has dictated my pattern of behaviour, and patterns of behaviour are diametrically opposed to chaos.

This would be true if having a pattern of behavior were the only criteria for being Lawful and not having such a pattern were the only criteria for Chaos. But that's not quite how it works because both Law and Chaos have numerous connotations. If you have a Code that is paired with otherwise behaving in complete concert with all the other aspects Chaos, and indeed reinforces such things, then you remain Chaotic. It's a preponderance of traits not changed by a single one like having a Code.

[Dracala]

Steelfiredragon wrote:

I would alsolike ot point out, this thread as of this page is going down the road of all the other paladin threads

Hey Steel, do you know why its going down that road? Its because HWalsh Dragged it that way..... Like he ALWAYS does. (haven't read the third page yet)

HWalsh wrote:

See a code is inherently lawful.

There is no lawfuldin, or neutraldin, or chaodin.

There is a Paladin. A Lawful Good champion of justice.

Chaotic characters would have fast and loose personal codes, which is antithetical to Paladin codes

That's the first thing he came in and said, in a thread directly named: "What Would A CG Paladin Code Look Like?" and with his past history on these topics, yeah..... >.> And then he moved onto making an Argument that Specifically swayed in the favor of Law, without Ever trying to Actually Talk about what a Chaotic Good Champion, should have.

Also I'm of an opinion that is very disappointed with Paizo, because while Ok, the Paladin is still only LG, and they conceded they'll make other Alignment Champions down the line, I can accept that. What really disappointed me though, is that they have decided to Lock the Defense Class to one Alignment by making that the Paladin, that is now Their Niche..... Which to me is rather Sad.

[UnArcaneElection]

With respect to the village defense scenario described in several posts above:

Chaotic Good and Neutral Good do not mean stupid. Chaotic Good and Neutral Good defenders are capable of realizing that the attach on the remote town might be a feint/trick. They are also capable of realizing that their commander might have something planned for the defense of the remote town that they can't be told about (because the walls have ears), although in the case of the Chaotic Good defender (and to a lesser extent the Neutral Good defender), believing in this would require more personal level trust rather than organizational trust.

[Athaleon]

Dracala wrote:

That's the first thing he came in and said, in a thread directly named: "What Would A CG Paladin Code Look Like?" and with his past history on these topics, yeah..... >.> And then he moved onto making an Argument that Specifically swayed in the favor of Law, without Ever trying to Actually Talk about what a Chaotic Good Champion, should have.

Very strange indeed, for someone who likes to start threads with a supercilious litany of rules.

And again, I don't think a code is inherently Lawful:

- Cavaliers have Codes (many of which are compatible with a non-Lawful alignment), and no alignment restriction.
- Chaotic Evil Antipaladins have a Code (albeit a lax one).
- Chaotic deities still have rules that one must adhere to to gain their favor. So far there seems to be no provision for godless Paladins, but that's almost beside the point.
- A true champion of Chaos won't have fewer principles than Lawful characters, just different ones, to be held with the same conviction.
- Good itself requires one to accept a whole host of restrictions (do not murder, lie, cheat, etc.) as well as exhortations to donate one's time, money, and even life to Good causes. If one wants to claim that principles and conviction are inherently Lawful then Chaotic Good can't actually exist.
- The last two are enough to inform a Chaotic Good champion's Code of Conduct: One can essentially take the Paladin's Code and replace the last tenet with the obligation to fight oppression and tyranny, and to uphold the sovereignty of the individual over the will of the monarchy, state, or collective.

[Weather Report]

Elric was sworn to Chaos, but his behaviour was not always chaotic, and he had his own moral compass/code (hence not fitting in with his people).

[Athaleon]

Weather Report wrote:

Elric was sworn to Chaos, but his behaviour was not always chaotic, and he had his own moral compass/code (hence not fitting in with his people).

Most characters, even in settings that have alignment, don't slot neatly into one alignment. As far as classifying actions, you can't even start until you agree on whether to categorize them based on intent, results, or if the actions themselves are Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic.

[Bardess]

...Errrr.
I think we agree that the study of magic implies a great deal of discipline and self-control, right?
Learning to play a musical instrument is the same. It requires daily exercises, even when you're not in the mood.
Learning to use a sword is the same. No professional warrior can survive without training and self-discipline.
And yet chaotic wizards, fighters, and bards DO exist.
The difference? A lawful character endures her training because her parents enlisted her to the school.
A chaotic character endures her training because SHE FREAKING DAMN LOVES THIS AND WANTS TO DO IT.

[Jester David]

MuddyVolcano wrote:

Jester David wrote:

“I swear to follow my code and obey this oath until I feel like breaking it, which I will whenever it’s convenient.”

Well...see, while I love my Lg paladins, I also want CG to get its own awesome. I've put forward ideas (Chaos Knight!), too!

If we can work together, I think we'll all be better off for it. :D

There is an inherent paradox.

Chaotic Good is really persons who don't follow the rules. The Malcolm Reynolds or Han Solo that purposely defies expectations. That doesn't like to do what is expected of them.
And a CG paladin would be that to the next degree, as a champion of the alignment.

Thinking of a code or oath of a CG paladin is akin to thinking of the personal code and oath of an anarchist.

They're never going to swear a personal oath. A personal code is the best you could get, and likely one descriptive and variable. Or personal ethics that amounts to lines you don't cross.

You might get an oath with some general comments about freedom. "Live free or die" or "chains are meant to be broken". But that seems generic and really tied to slavery.

The best I can think of is "Never cruel or cowardly. Never give up. Never give in."

[Deadmanwalking]

Jester David wrote:

Thinking of a code or oath of a CG paladin is akin to thinking of the personal code and oath of an anarchist.

This is an interesting comment. Have you ever met an actual anarchist? Someone who seriously believed that having no government would be the best thing for everyone and had thought through why they believed that and how it would work? Because I have. Hell, my mother's an anarchist (of the most peaceful and law-abiding variety, mind you).

Anarchist philosophy tends to involve some rather extreme moral imperatives that you could easily frame as a Code. My mother's variety revolves around 'No initiation of force.' as an absolutely fundamental and inviolate moral principle, for example.

A CG Paladin Code could easily be built out of my mother's political philosophy.

[willuwontu]

HWalsh wrote:

willuwontu wrote:

It's like you're deliberately trying to create a kobayashi maru scenario, which I remember you saying something about.

Its not a kobayashi maru, as it isn't a no-win scenario. It is a scenario that could go good or bad depending on the circumstances. Also it isn't such a scenario because it is completely realistic, unlike the "must use infernal healing" one which has plot holes that even a dev came in and drove a truck through.

Except it isn't realistic, you've stated exactly what each alignment will do. It's quite reasonable depending on the situation for any competent military commander to do the LG, NG, or CG thing, while they may lean towards one way or the other, they'd

Quote:

Quote:

So now they're defending a town, while I'm defending a village, yeah I'm not going to help. Any force large enough to take down a town (that now has proper fortification cause it's going to take days to siege it) would not be able to be taken down by the insignificant addition of my party (4 people). Instead that courier (and their commander would know this) would be better served being sent to retrieve the reinforcements.

You are making a number of assumptions, and splitting hairs. In this case town/village are interchangeable terms. I also said, in this, and the original that you had forces. Meaning it isn't just you and your party. It isn't just 4 people. Again this is a very common situation.

Town and village are not interchangeable terms, that's why we have different purchase limits. Their sizes are defined within pathfinder, you don't get to math some stuff, and then handwavium others, while saying I can't do the same.

Also, since it's not just me and my party, then it wouldn't be unreasonable for my character and their party to leave the other defenders there and go off to assist on our own.

Quote:

Quote:

Typical tactics is having reinforcements near enough that they can arrive within 48 hours or being notified at the location if needed, it'd take the courier roughly 15 hours to reach them, giving the town 63 hours they need to defend for in this days long siege, something easily achievable for them. If the reinforcements are farther because you're the advanced party (we're obviously not, we've been conscripted by an established kingdom) or due to stretched forces, they'd have to wait, and survive on their own.

Uhm, no. I outlined the exact time tables and used the math Pathfinder assumes.

And I'm telling you from a tactics point, you have reinforcements within 48 hours (at latest) of where you are after being notified, when you perform an operation unless you're an advanced party (we're not in this situation, we're defending) or that forces are stretched so thin, that you'd realize you'd need to stay at the village to defend it, because the lack of manpower would make it unrealistic to go elsewhere.

Quote:

Quote:

If the enemy is instead seigeing a village now, I would realize that my forces wouldn't be able to make it in time (since village seiges last a day and half at most), and would instead dig in and prepare for the worst (the enemy joining up with the ones coming to attack me in a pincer attack.)

Uh, day and a half?

Historically sieges last usually 2-5 days and in many cases many weeks.

And historically you don't siege a village, if you have enough soldiers to siege it, you have enough to take it. Villages aren't protected by a giant walls and a breadth of militia. They might have a wooden palisade at the center area, and at most 10 guards, with the rest of the defenders being untrained farmers. In a world of magic, where alchemist fire is a cheap thing, the palisade amounts to nothing.

If it's a town on the other hand, sieges can take the course of weeks, and is a whole different scenario for a commander. You'd be less likely to go assist in defending a town under siege without orders, because doing so without proper coordination and maneuvering is more likely to result in your forces, who came to assist, getting wiped out.

Quote:

You're not going to be able to beat the scenario. It is realistic, based on actual historical situations, and even clarified by the rules of Pathfinder. You may not like it, but it is there. It is also very good at presenting the possible actions a lawful good, neutral good, or chaotic good character could take.

It also presents very possible outcomes (Both good and bad) for both.

Sorry, but if you want to attack the scenario, its pretty iron clad.

You're right I can't beat the scenario, cause it keeps changing to suit your own needs. It also pigeonholes the actions of each alignment, assuming that the characters of each act stupidly and ignore their experiences and training as a commander, along with basic military tactics and training being ignored.

[gustavo iglesias]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

I see Lawfuldins as having the code externally applied (I do this because it is the law and the rules), and Chaotidins as applying their code from within(I do this because this is where my seat of goodness is telling me to go).

And Neutradins as being a combination of the two.

I don't think any of them would go to the bar and get drunk if there was goodness to be done. Afterwards? Probably.

Leaving paladins aside, I feel that LG clerics follow a religion's tenet because it is gospel, while a chaotic good cleric follows it because it happens to agree with his view point. So por example if a LG God claimed that you can't eat certain food, or work in certain days, or dress in a certain way, followers will do it because it is gospel. God has misterius ways and they follow them. Chaotic followers probably won't, unless they also agree with that rule at a personal level.

[gustavo iglesias]

Jester David wrote:

Thinking of a code or oath of a CG paladin is akin to thinking of the personal code and oath of an anarchist.

True.

Quote:

They're never going to swear a personal oath. A personal code is the best you could get, and likely one descriptive and variable. Or personal ethics that amounts to lines you don't cross.

That is not true.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

I'm reminded of an old web-comic based on an old MMO, and a hapless citizen from the 'City of Heroes' ends up in the 'City of Villains' -- and the 'villain' had a much more robust and developed personality, code of ethics, and guidelines despite living in a free-wheeling and determinedly 'villainous' environment.

Something along the lines of "It takes *not* having laws and restrictions to act as 'training wheels' to allow one to develop properly as a person, and be a responsible contributing member of society in their own way."

[Bardess]

Jester David wrote:

MuddyVolcano wrote:

Jester David wrote:

“I swear to follow my code and obey this oath until I feel like breaking it, which I will whenever it’s convenient.”

Well...see, while I love my Lg paladins, I also want CG to get its own awesome. I've put forward ideas (Chaos Knight!), too!

If we can work together, I think we'll all be better off for it. :D

There is an inherent paradox.

Chaotic Good is really persons who don't follow the rules. The Malcolm Reynolds or Han Solo that purposely defies expectations. That doesn't like to do what is expected of them.
And a CG paladin would be that to the next degree, as a champion of the alignment.

Thinking of a code or oath of a CG paladin is akin to thinking of the personal code and oath of an anarchist.

They're never going to swear a personal oath. A personal code is the best you could get, and likely one descriptive and variable. Or personal ethics that amounts to lines you don't cross.

You might get an oath with some general comments about freedom. "Live free or die" or "chains are meant to be broken". But that seems generic and really tied to slavery.

The best I can think of is "Never cruel or cowardly. Never give up. Never give in."

The Doctor is a great example of a CG hero.

Han Solo could be trusted to never leave his friends in danger.
As a CG person (as I like to describe myself) I would not ever deviate from my ethics, even if I may change if I get to know better. And I made many oaths to myself in my life, even if I wasn’t always able to keep them all the time.

[Ckorik]

People are getting too convoluted in this - because the current code has nothing to do with being lawful.

Does the anti-paldin have a code? Yes. This is RAW now - so nothing about being 'chaotic' says you can't follow a code, rules as written, historically set in stone.

Does the current Paladin code say anything about committing a chaotic act? No - that language was removed with the 3.x code update.

There is nothing inherent to the code as written that precludes a NG or Chaotic good knight from following it. Nothing. Because as written the code is about two things: Being good, and being 'honorable'. As written a chaotic knight could follow the current Paladin code and never violate alignment rules. This is the problem people are having and wrapping themselves up over trying to explain - if you go back to 2nd ed. or 1st you can at least say they can't commit a 'chaotic act' - whatever that is?

So what is a 'chaotic act'? I'm going out on a limb and saying perhaps leaving choices up to randomness? Flipping a coin to make a choice rather than using your own judgment?

Someone else posted an example of following orders if a village was attacked - I submit that the 'stay and follow orders' isn't Lawful good at all - but Lawful neutral. Following the law regardless of the consequences is LN - it puts orders above things like good or evil.

[The Raven Black]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

I'm reminded of an old web-comic based on an old MMO, and a hapless citizen from the 'City of Heroes' ends up in the 'City of Villains' -- and the 'villain' had a much more robust and developed personality, code of ethics, and guidelines despite living in a free-wheeling and determinedly 'villainous' environment.

Something along the lines of "It takes *not* having laws and restrictions to act as 'training wheels' to allow one to develop properly as a person, and be a responsible contributing member of society in their own way."

I think that could be the ideal that the CG champion strives for

[The Raven Black]

My view on how the perceptions of Good champions might differ :

Chaotic rebels against the system. A Chaotic Good character will mistrust any system, even a LG one, because he sees how all these rules will be turned against the people and innocents will suffer

Lawful trusts in the system. A Lawful Good character will mistrust dissolution of rules, even by CG people, because he sees how anarchy will end up in law of the strongest and innocents will suffer

Neutral Good does not see either the system or anarchy having anything to do with Good or Evil. He cares only about whether innocents suffer, whatever the cause

[Neriathale]

As a minor sidetrack to this debate.... inspired by the whole paladin kerfuffle I've recently re-read the AD&D 1e and 2e rules. The 2e text on alignment is a lot more interesting than the PF equivalent, as it goes deeper into the philosophy of the concepts, saying, foe example that lawful characters see laws and rules as 'not created by man, but a natural law of the universe"', whereas chaotic characters 'see the universes as a collection of things and events, some related to each other and others completely independent.". Well worth a re-read if you can get hold of a copy.

[Pandora's]

HWalsh wrote:

Its not a Paladin, it wouldn't have Paladin abilities, it wouldn't have the same gravitas attached to it that Paladins have

Emphasis mine. You want your class to be better, more special, than other classes. I just wanted to draw attention to this in case anyone missed the pettiness and hypocrisy of championing your favorite class while belittling the favorite concepts of others, including outright stating that their concepts shouldn't be as important.

[Weather Report]

Neriathale wrote:

As a minor sidetrack to this debate.... inspired by the whole paladin kerfuffle I've recently re-read the AD&D 1e and 2e rules. The 2e text on alignment is a lot more interesting than the PF equivalent, as it goes deeper into the philosophy of the concepts, saying, foe example that lawful characters see laws and rules as 'not created by man, but a natural law of the universe"', whereas chaotic characters 'see the universes as a collection of things and events, some related to each other and others completely independent.". Well worth a re-read if you can get hold of a copy.

Yes, alignments (Law, Evil, etc) are cosmic forces in D&D, not RP straightjackets or tools for DM gotchas.

[Dave Justus]

I don't believe a paragon of chaotic good would have a code. They would believe that they know what is right to do, and that they will do that as the situation demands. Since they are good, a person would often be able to predict their behavior, but they wouldn't accept any rigidly defined defined set of rules as being applicable for all situations, and they wouldn't accept that anyone (even a deity) had the right to impose such a thing.

Another thing, I don't think a paragon of chaotic good would set out to be seen as a paragon of chaotic good, the way that Paladins do for lawful good. One difference between law and chaos is builders vs. destroyers. Lawful people want to set up systems, including things like symbols. Chaotic people want to break down these systems and would view any sort of symbol with skepticism. Obviously a chaotic good person would be breaking down evil systems and oppression, but the focus on being a symbol to inspire others just isn't something that fits with that philosophy.

[The Raven Black]

Zorro is CG in my view. Being a symbol is part and parcel of his job

Also Milani, Cayden Cailean ...

[MuddyVolcano]

Ckorik wrote:

People are getting too convoluted in this - because the current code has nothing to do with being lawful.

Does the anti-paldin have a code? Yes. This is RAW now - so nothing about being 'chaotic' says you can't follow a code, rules as written, historically set in stone.

Does the current Paladin code say anything about committing a chaotic act? No - that language was removed with the 3.x code update.

There is nothing inherent to the code as written that precludes a NG or Chaotic good knight from following it. Nothing. Because as written the code is about two things: Being good, and being 'honorable'. As written a chaotic knight could follow the current Paladin code and never violate alignment rules. This is the problem people are having and wrapping themselves up over trying to explain - if you go back to 2nd ed. or 1st you can at least say they can't commit a 'chaotic act' - whatever that is?

So what is a 'chaotic act'? I'm going out on a limb and saying perhaps leaving choices up to randomness? Flipping a coin to make a choice rather than using your own judgment?

Someone else posted an example of following orders if a village was attacked - I submit that the 'stay and follow orders' isn't Lawful good at all - but Lawful neutral. Following the law regardless of the consequences is LN - it puts orders above things like good or evil.

Hey, there. You know, I was starting to slide this or that way and then went back and reread the antipaladin code. The antipaladin code is very self-interpretive focused, very self-goal focused, and flexible.

The antipaladin opposes the paladin on every axis, you know? That includes Chaos and Law, not just Good and Evil. So, they'd be a good source.

You'd need to change the paladin Code to be mutable and self-interpretive, based on what we have in the antipaladin. It would also focus on the chaotic's personal goals, based on what we've seen.

[Deadmanwalking]

MuddyVolcano wrote:

You'd need to change the paladin Code to be mutable and self-interpretive, based on what we have in the antipaladin. It would also focus on the chaotic's personal goals, based on what we've seen.

I'd argue that the 'personal goals' part is due to the Antipaladin being Evil, not Chaotic. A Chaotic Code being more flexible is somewhat reasonable, but it being more selfish is not.

[Rob Godfrey]

Dekalinder wrote:

Well, since said paladin is Chaotic, he doesn't give two hoots about any rule or oath and can simply ignore any point he believe to be interfering with his cause of a greater good. So we can skip bothering with the code altogether.

doesn't work that way, Chaotic APs have a code, and Chaotic Deities have Anathema. Chaos doesn't mean no rules, it means no rules you don't agree to.

[johnlocke90]

The Raven Black wrote:

My view on how the perceptions of Good champions might differ :

Chaotic rebels against the system. A Chaotic Good character will mistrust any system, even a LG one, because he sees how all these rules will be turned against the people and innocents will suffer

Lawful trusts in the system. A Lawful Good character will mistrust dissolution of rules, even by CG people, because he sees how anarchy will end up in law of the strongest and innocents will suffer

Neutral Good does not see either the system or anarchy having anything to do with Good or Evil. He cares only about whether innocents suffer, whatever the cause

I would note that a lot of LG Paladin PCs aren't part of a system. They run the same APs as everyone else as wandering vagrants.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like the reason Antipaladins have a code is not that "Codes are part and parcel to chaotic evil" but because Antipaladins are deliberately a inversion of a lawful good thing, so the Antipaladin following the exact opposite set of rules is a deliberate mockery of the Paladin.

After all, there's very little more "chaotic evil" than taking something good and corrupting it to try to show the good thing was never to be valued to begin with.

[Rob Godfrey]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the reason Antipaladins have a code is not that "Codes are part and parcel to chaotic evil" but because Antipaladins are deliberately a inversion of a lawful good thing, so the Antipaladin following the exact opposite set of rules is a deliberate mockery of the Paladin.

After all, there's very little more "chaotic evil" than taking something good and corrupting it to try to show the good thing was never to be valued to begin with.

That would hold better as an argument if failing the code didn't have consequences and deities/demons didn't add more tenants.