What Would A CG Paladin Code Look Like?


Prerelease Discussion

151 to 200 of 473 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Were not antipaladins originally a githyanki and death knight thing?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

All chaotic have codes, even those who dont have paladins.. Milani has a code, which is different than calistria, or Gorum, or Cayden cailean.

This is further emphasized in PF2, with chaotic gods getting anathemas.

People start from a false premise ("chaotic can't have codes") and then reject any evidence of the contrary and accept only what fits their confirmation bias. But that does not make the false o premise any less false, or immune to disproof. Several examples of codes for chaotic beings exist. Several laws for chaotic societies. Several examples of chaotic characters holding their oaths. Refusing to acknowledge them will not make them go away


4 people marked this as a favorite.

People on the forum seem to think every chaotic good character in the world is either single, or commit adultery.

"sorry, darling. I really feel true love for you, but when we married I made an oath to be loyal, and I HAVE to break it. I cannot, in any way, shape or form, stay faithful because I'm forced by cosmic beings to break each and every promise I make"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pandora's wrote:
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.

Hardly.

I said "the same" which doesn't denote better, just different.

Wizard has its own gravitas and flavor. A master of the Arcane arts and secret lore. Something a Paladin doesn't have.

A Bard is an entertainer. Usually a master of legends, histories, and other bits of gossip.

A Rogue is going to be acrobatic, nimble, able to pick locks and disarm traps.

Etc...

You're literally looking for reasons to be offended at this point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:

The utter lack of respect for Chaotic Good as an alignment is staggering to me. And absolutely why I think it needs to get representation in the Paladin or otherwise, as a Champion of Good, a Champion against Evil, for the innocent, for the helpless.

Not a Champion of "Screw them, I got mine." like I so often see suggested.

Don't know what surprise you. People in this forum has said that they think Wolverine is Chaotic Good, and then, I a different post, that they hate Wolverine.

It does not need rocket science to connect the dots between those two sentences


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Hardly.

I said "the same" which doesn't denote better, just different.

Wizard has its own gravitas and flavor. A master of the Arcane arts and secret lore. Something a Paladin doesn't have.

A Bard is an entertainer. Usually a master of legends, histories, and other bits of gossip.

A Rogue is going to be acrobatic, nimble, able to pick locks and disarm traps.

Etc...

You're literally looking for reasons to be offended at this point.

Now you're backpedaling by pretending you don't know what gravitas means. Gravitas does not mean flavor or anything like it. It is not a uniqueness that comes in many varieties. There is no plural form of gravitas. It literally means

Google Dictionary wrote:
dignity, seriousness, or solemnity of manner.

Those are qualities you either possess or do not. So no, I don't believe your "everyone has their own gravitas" line. You either miscommunicated badly or are being disingenuous to justify yourself after being called out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Xerres wrote:

The utter lack of respect for Chaotic Good as an alignment is staggering to me. And absolutely why I think it needs to get representation in the Paladin or otherwise, as a Champion of Good, a Champion against Evil, for the innocent, for the helpless.

Not a Champion of "Screw them, I got mine." like I so often see suggested.

Don't know what surprise you. People in this forum has said that they think Wolverine is Chaotic Good, and then, I a different post, that they hate Wolverine.

It does not need rocket science to connect the dots between those two sentences

Only if you assume that hating Wolverine has to do with his personality rather than the fact that at one time Marvel had him appearing in 10+ books per month.

You're of course, referencing me heh.

Yup. Wolverine is Chaotic Good. I hate Wolverine. Johnny Storm is also Chaotic Good, and I love me some Human Torch. Beast Boy (comic version) is one of my favorite Titans and I'd rank him as Chaotic Good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pandora's wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Hardly.

I said "the same" which doesn't denote better, just different.

Wizard has its own gravitas and flavor. A master of the Arcane arts and secret lore. Something a Paladin doesn't have.

A Bard is an entertainer. Usually a master of legends, histories, and other bits of gossip.

A Rogue is going to be acrobatic, nimble, able to pick locks and disarm traps.

Etc...

You're literally looking for reasons to be offended at this point.

Now you're backpedaling by pretending you don't know what gravitas means. Gravitas does not mean flavor or anything like it. It is not a uniqueness that comes in many varieties. There is no plural form of gravitas. It literally means

Google Dictionary wrote:
dignity, seriousness, or solemnity of manner.
Those are qualities you either possess or do not. So no, I don't believe your "everyone has their own gravitas" line. You either miscommunicated badly or are being disingenuous to justify yourself after being called out.

No. You're looking for reasons to attack people. I'm not going to allow myself to fall into that trap. I choose to no longer engage with you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Pandora's wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Hardly.

I said "the same" which doesn't denote better, just different.

Wizard has its own gravitas and flavor. A master of the Arcane arts and secret lore. Something a Paladin doesn't have.

A Bard is an entertainer. Usually a master of legends, histories, and other bits of gossip.

A Rogue is going to be acrobatic, nimble, able to pick locks and disarm traps.

Etc...

You're literally looking for reasons to be offended at this point.

Now you're backpedaling by pretending you don't know what gravitas means. Gravitas does not mean flavor or anything like it. It is not a uniqueness that comes in many varieties. There is no plural form of gravitas. It literally means

Google Dictionary wrote:
dignity, seriousness, or solemnity of manner.
Those are qualities you either possess or do not. So no, I don't believe your "everyone has their own gravitas" line. You either miscommunicated badly or are being disingenuous to justify yourself after being called out.
No. You're looking for reasons to attack people. I'm not going to allow myself to fall into that trap. I choose to no longer engage with you.

He's right, you either have gravitas or you do not, it isn't flavour.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Pandora's wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Hardly.

I said "the same" which doesn't denote better, just different.

Wizard has its own gravitas and flavor. A master of the Arcane arts and secret lore. Something a Paladin doesn't have.

A Bard is an entertainer. Usually a master of legends, histories, and other bits of gossip.

A Rogue is going to be acrobatic, nimble, able to pick locks and disarm traps.

Etc...

You're literally looking for reasons to be offended at this point.

Now you're backpedaling by pretending you don't know what gravitas means. Gravitas does not mean flavor or anything like it. It is not a uniqueness that comes in many varieties. There is no plural form of gravitas. It literally means

Google Dictionary wrote:
dignity, seriousness, or solemnity of manner.
Those are qualities you either possess or do not. So no, I don't believe your "everyone has their own gravitas" line. You either miscommunicated badly or are being disingenuous to justify yourself after being called out.
No. You're looking for reasons to attack people. I'm not going to allow myself to fall into that trap. I choose to no longer engage with you.
He's right, you either have gravitas or you do not, it isn't flavour.

Yes it is part of the flavor.

Just as a bard is characterized as a group as being less than serious. A rogue is categorized too as being free and, in a way, possessing a devil-may-care attitude. A Paladin is a character with tremendous seriousness, dedication, and responsibility.

Gravitas is seriousness, dignity, and solemnity. The archetypal Paladin traits.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
No. You're looking for reasons to attack people. I'm not going to allow myself to fall into that trap. I choose to no longer engage with you.

That's fine. I'll continue to call out the unfortunate implications of the things you say. Convincing you of anything doesn't matter to me. Showing your ideas for what they are, however, will hopefully inoculate against their adoption. If you start expressing your opinions in good faith, it will no longer be an issue.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Gravitas is seriousness, dignity, and solemnity. The archetypal Paladin traits.

Aaand we're right back at it. According to the dictionary, the definition of dignity is

Google Dictionary wrote:
the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.

You've heard it from the horse's mouth. That's apparently a paladin trait.

I also can't help but notice that you've changed your line on gravitas being something that each class has their own version of. This is what I mean by argument in bad faith.


HWalsh wrote:


Only if you assume that hating Wolverine has to do with his personality rather than the fact that at one time Marvel had him appearing in 10+ books per month.

You were talking about antiheroes, and mentioned a bunch more besides Wolverine. It didn't look like this at the time, at least to me.

But I will take your word for it, so I stand corrected.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm gonna be honest here:

Paladins totally have more gravitas than most classes (at least on average). Indeed, Lawful alignments in general tend to have more gravitas/dignity than Chaotic Alignments (while Chaotic Alignments generally have more fun and creativity). At least going by the stereotypes of both.

And calling out HWalsh for saying as much is weird and inappropriate. You can disagree, but acting like it's a horrible and unreasonable thing to say? Not okay.

I strongly disagree with stuff HWalsh has said, and indeed think he's even been out of line on a few things from time to time, but he's not the one being unreasonable and out of line on this one.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. When a member of the community, while discussing a compromise with another member, says "you get your idea, I get my idea, but mine should get more dignity" I feel that is inappropriate and insulting to the ideas of others. If you disagree and think I'm out of line, feel free to report me.

Edit: I also genuinely apologize to the moderation team. I know these types of discussions create more work for them, and wish they could be avoided. However, I don't find ignoring denigration of the ideas of others to be a worthy alternative.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess it kind of depends on the connotation you associate with "dignity". Dignity

If it's "the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect", then absolutely, CG and LG both have dignity.

If, however, it's "a composed or serious manner or style", then LG definitely has more dignity than CG (in general).

That said, immediately jumping to the assumption that another user simply has their opinion in order to keep you from having fun is a little dramatic. And aggressively attacking someone for an opinion simply because you don't share it is out of line. In reality, the only denigration of others' ideas here is coming from you. It's come from others in the past, but right now it is not.


I know I'm quoting from pages ago, so please forgive me.

Xerres wrote:

Going by the many arguments of "Codes are hard, they must be rewarded." then the trading obedience for power is why Paladins follow their Codes in the first place.

Unlike noble Samurai, who follow their Codes of service without expectation of gain, Paladins are only in it for the power. Shiftless thieves, the lot of them, they'd steal a baby's lollipop if it gave them another use of Smite Evil.

And less jokey, Paladins still only follow the Code because something happens when they do. Or, if we accept that Chaotic Cleric submit themselves to the will of their Gods out of belief and devotion, accepting the 'rule' or 'guidance' of a higher power... then saying they can't follow a Code they believe in is absurd.

Paladins follow the codes they do not because they're hard, but because they believe that living by that code is the right thing to do. They don't get rewarded for their obedience half so much as they get punished by failing to live up to that obedience. From an in-character perspective, they receive power for obedience (or loyalty, if you will), but from an out of character perspective, they automatically gain their powers and lose them due to disobedience. Paladins gain power because they're obedient, not because they give up their free will. Players voluntarily give up some of their freedoms in exchange for the class abilities that paladins are granted. Paladins aren't in it for the power; they're in it for the faith. Players are in it for the power.

Having said that, when we go to the chaotic cleric, "God" doesn't expect as much from their clerics. Yes, PF2 introduces anathema to address some of that, but the fact of the matter is, God isn't expecting the cleric to go out there and bring the faith to the people by force. We're not expecting our Catholic priests (or priests of whatever religion) to be the holy warriors of old; we actually expect the opposite from them. I'm not saying that chaotic priests couldn't follow a code, just as I'm not saying that lawful priests couldn't break a code. They'd be completely unlikely to submit to a code in the first place because that's not in their nature. Ain't nobody gonna break-a my stride. Ain't nobody gonna hold me down, oh no, I gotta keep on movin'!

Xerres wrote:
Bodhizen wrote:
The neutral character would violate their "code" whenever it suits them.
No they wouldn't what are you even talking about? I am sorry, but this is absurd. A follower of Sarenrae does not turn away others seeking redemption on a whim, or whenever it suits them! A follower of Shelyn doesn't stand in the way of love when they can make a few bucks!

Actually, no it's not absurd. The neutral character explicitly gets to pick and choose when they want to follow the law (or a code) because it suits them, and when they don't want to, without violating their belief system. The chaotic character would actively avoid being put into a position where they have to follow someone else's rules because "f*** that". The lawful character is the guy who follows the speed limit because it's the law. The chaotic character is the guy who doesn't follow the speed limit because "f*** speed limits!" The neutral character is the guy who chooses to follow the speed limit when he feels like it, and when he's all alone on the road with little to no chance of getting caught, opens up the throttle. Can the lawful character speed? Sure, but not without violating his ethos. Can the chaotic character follow the speed limit? Sure, but he wouldn't just because the limit exists. He'd do it simply because he made the choice to do so, not because some damn sign said to do it.

Xerres wrote:
I apologize in advance for being rude, but this line of logic is upsetting to me, because its putting Lawful on a pedestal, and using alignment as an instrument to bludgeon other characters into their boxes. "You have [Blah] Alignment. You can't follow a Code. If you choose the same breakfast two days in a row you're Lawful."

I can see that this line of logic is upsetting to you, but it doesn't put lawful up on a pedestal. Lawful is hard. Following the rules all the time is hard. You don't get to break the rules every now and then and still be counted as having followed the rules 100% of the time (which is the expectation that the paladin is held to). In this context, you get some special toys for following the expectation, and if you break the rules, those toys get taken away from you (at least until God decides that you've learned your lesson).

Xerres wrote:
A Paladin can break their Code whenever they feel like, its how you get Fallen Paladins. They can decide the wind blew against their cheek too hard, and now the Code is out the window. There is nothing that stops them from breaking it, or a Chaotic character from keeping it. If we followed this extreme interpretation of what's Lawful and what's Chaotic then Chaotic Good wouldn't exist because not murdering the innocent is far too stable a position for a Chaotic character to have.

Yes, paladins can break their code and lose their powers as a result. That's kind of the point. The chaotic character isn't Two-Face, flipping a coin (or rolling a die) and letting fate decide what happens next. The chaotic character doesn't want to follow rules. They want to do what they want to do when they want to do it without anyone telling them they can't. That's precisely why giving them a code is nonsensical. That's telling them what they can and cannot do, which goes against their own personal ethos.

Xerres wrote:
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."

WHAT!?!

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say people just want Lawful Good to be Best Good, or True Good. A Chaotic Good character, especially a Chaotic Good follower OF THE GOD OF BRAVERY AND HEROISM! Does not abandon the innocent TO GET DRUNK!

I am very sorry, but this is the most absurd argument against Chaotic Codes I have ever seen. This is insulting a personal level to anyone who follows the Chaotic Good ideals. If Chaotic Good doesn't exist in your personal games then that is fine, but that is not the default of Pathfinder.

No, it's not that people want Lawful Good to be the "best good" or "true good". It's that chaotic good does good because they want to, not because they're expected to, or because someone tells them that they must. They wouldn't want to follow a Chaotic Code (again, chaos in this context and code are incompatible) because they don't want anyone telling them what to do.

So, that follower of Cayden Cailean would be unlikely to abandon the villagers, but (to use similar emphasis to yours) they could if they want to and it wouldn't violate their alignment one iota, unlike the paladin followers of Sarenrae who, by abandoning the villagers, would explicitly violate their alignment and Sarenrae's code.

What's actually insulting and what's actually absurd is that you made a lot of assumptions about what is and isn't in my games, that you seem to want to strawman and paint other posters with the "no true Scotsman" brush, and then there's your use of BIG BOLD TEXT in the context of a civil conversation (even with a difference of opinion), not the fact that we have different views. If that's too "insulting" for you, then you're welcome to see your way out. If you'd like to calm down and have a civil discussion, I'm happy to oblige. As Malachandra rightly points out...

Malachandra wrote:
That said, immediately jumping to the assumption that another user simply has their opinion in order to keep you from having fun is a little dramatic. And aggressively attacking someone for an opinion simply because you don't share it is out of line.

Best wishes!

Liberty's Edge

Bardess wrote:
Han Solo could be trusted to never leave his friends in danger.

But what oath would he swear? What cause would he dedicate himself to? What are the tenants and code of conduct of his faith?

Bardess wrote:
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.

I'm more Neutral Good myself. I like good laws, but don't feel compelled to obey all laws all the time. Because some laws are stupid. But that doesn't mean all laws are stupid. And I also feel that my minor civil disobedience isn't going to lead to anarchy.

(I think most people are probably in the range of NG...)

Being LG isn't about keeping all your oaths. It's about honestly trying to keep all your oaths. And believing that laws are worth having.

CG, by it's nature, is selfish good. It's about yourself. And selfish people aren't big on causes or things larger than themselves. They're not going to work for a god.

As an example:
What does a paladin of Cayden Cailean look like? What tennants of faith are expected from that paladin? What is their cause and holy quest?

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Jester David wrote:


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.

Then what is a good example of an oath that would be sword and kept by someone who doesn't believe in laws and acts primarily out of self interest?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Something people often forget when they say things like "Neutral characters break their oaths" is that Lawful characters break their oaths too. That's why some paladins fall. Because they make an oath, and break it, despite being lawful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Jester David wrote:


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.
Then what is a good example of an oath that would be sword and kept by someone who doesn't believe in laws and acts primarily out of self interest?

Several wrong things in your statement. To begin with, that a chaotic character acts primarily out of self interest. So trying to answer your question is a self-defeat, not because chaotic characters can't have oaths, but because you are not portraying chaotic characters, just your own caricature version of them. Yes, a person that only act out of self interest does not follow vows. That's not a chaotic person, tho.

An anarchist, for example, is chaotic by definition. He wants to bring anarchy, not out of self interest, but because he thinks the society is much better if there is no goverment at all. He truly believes he is doing the best thing for all of us. And some of those anarchist vow to defeat the (corrupt, in their view) goverment, even if they die trying. They also vow to never betray other comrades even if interrogated or tortured. And so on.

Liberty's Edge

Falling is a good point gustavo.

Falling from grace is a huge part of the paladin's identity. They can cease to be the class because of their actions. They can become an anti-paladin or a blackguard.
This is iconic and cool and the constant challenge of being a paladin. Doing the right thing or risking damnation. It's a unique part of the class that really should be retained.

But...

If a Chaotic Good paladin broke their oath, would you have them fall?

What would a CG paladin have to do to cease to become a paladin and be rejected by their god?

If CG paladins are given more leniency in actions than LG behaviour then it is mechanically advantageous to be a CG paladin as you don't have to walk the moral tightrope.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:


If a Chaotic Good paladin broke their oath, would you have them fall?

Yes. Why not?

Quote:
What would a CG paladin have to do to cease to become a paladin and be rejected by their god?

Break the God's tenets. You know, just like it happens to clerics. Do clerics of Cayden Cailean, the Drunken Hero, refuse challenges and run from combat without consequences?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Several wrong things in your statement. To begin with, that a chaotic character acts primarily out of self interest. So trying to answer your question is a self-defeat, not because chaotic characters can't have oaths, but because you are not portraying chaotic characters, just your own caricature version of them. Yes, a person that only act out of self interest does not follow vows. That's not a chaotic person, tho.

An anarchist, for example, is chaotic by definition. He wants to bring anarchy, not out of self interest, but because he thinks the society is much better if there is no goverment at all. He truly believes he is doing the best thing for all of us. And some of those anarchist vow to defeat the (corrupt, in their view) goverment, even if they die trying. They also vow to never betray other comrades even if interrogated or tortured. And so on.

Here is the thing... The thing that, I think, many of the Chaotic Good Paladin side keep forgetting...

Paladins are expected to uphold the vision of Lawful Good.

A lawful good character can, whenever they wish, disobey local laws. They can, whenever they wish, shirk responsibility in lieu of personal freedom. They can. They can do this and remain Lawful Good, as it takes more than one Chaotic act to alignment shift.

A Paladin is not just a Lawful Good character. Though they can, indeed, fall, they are held to a much higher lawful standard than other Lawful Goods.

They are also held to a much higher Good standard than other Lawful Goods, or other Goods in general. They are held to such a high standard that they fall if they ever commit an evil act.

Contrary to the assertion that they are doing this for selfish reasons, they are not. Paladins do what they do because they think it is right and just and because they feel that they have to embody the epitome of ideals. If they stumble, if they fall, then they lose that which makes them a Paladin because they believe that if they stumble, if they fall, they are not worthy of being a Paladin.

A Paladin will never curse his God for falling. They will never claim that it wasn't fair. They will take responsibility and accept that they fell because they were not strong enough, that they made a mistake, and that is why they seek atonement.

A character who believes that they didn't do anything wrong, by definition, cannot get atonement.

Now, some people will seek to twist the above into me saying, "Paladins believe they are better than others."

That isn't true, Paladins are held to a higher standard than others, that is just cold hard fact.

Because a Paladin is held to higher Lawful standards than other Lawful Good characters if there was some kind of Chaotic Good equivalent to the Paladin that class would have to be held to a higher Chaotic standard than other Chaotic Goods.

So, for example, they might have things that make them difficult to be played, such as:

Tenet 4: A Chaodin must not follow local laws, or respect local authority.

Since the Paladin, the Lawful equivalent, who is the diametric opposite, must do the opposite. Just like Paladins the Chaodin would be able to break this in the cases of a higher conflict. If the law says though that they can't jay walk, and doing so would put nobody in danger, than by god the Chaodin has to jay walk. Why? Because the Paladin can't.

If a suspect in a crime is holed up in his home, and the Paladin isn't a legal agent in the city, the best they can do is knock on the door and ask the person to speak with them. A Chaotic Good person has no issues kicking the door down to have a sit down conversation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

A Paladin will never curse his God for falling. They will never claim that it wasn't fair. They will take responsibility and accept that they fell because they were not strong enough, that they made a mistake, and that is why they seek atonement.

A character who believes that they didn't do anything wrong, by definition, cannot get atonement.

I missed the memo that explained chaotic cleric characters who failed to fulfill their gods tennets (losing their god's favor and thus spellcasting) would blame their gods and can never get atonement.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bodhizen wrote:
So, that follower of Cayden Cailean would be unlikely to abandon the villagers, but (to use similar emphasis to yours) they could if they want to and it wouldn't violate their alignment one iota, unlike the paladin followers of Sarenrae who, by abandoning the villagers, would explicitly violate their alignment and Sarenrae's code.

The bolded part of this is what I disagree with, for the record. Abandoning people to die when you can save them is Evil (well, it is without a heck of a reason anyway), and will make you non-Good very rapidly. It certainly won't effect the Chaotic part of their Alignment, but it sure would get rid of the Good part, and do so very quickly.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
If a suspect in a crime is holed up in his home, and the Paladin isn't a legal agent in the city, the best they can do is knock on the door and ask the person to speak with them. A Chaotic Good person has no issues kicking the door down to have a sit down conversation.

True.

And if a just and fair king makes a rule about keeping a list with the name of every witch in the kingdom, the chaodin will HAVE to oppose, while the paladin is not forced by his code to do so.

Because they are champions of different ideals.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
Bardess wrote:
Han Solo could be trusted to never leave his friends in danger.
But what oath would he swear? What cause would he dedicate himself to? What are the tenants anbd

He could swear an oath to never abandon his friends if they're in danger, obviously.

Jester David wrote:
Bardess wrote:
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.

I'm more Neutral Good myself. I like good laws, but don't feel compelled to obey all laws all the time. Because some laws are stupid. But that doesn't mean all laws are stupid. And I also feel that my minor civil disobedience isn't going to lead to anarchy.

(I think most people are probably in the range of NG...)

Being LG isn't about keeping all your oaths. It's about honestly trying to keep all your oaths. And believing that laws are worth having.

CG, by it's nature, is selfish good. It's about yourself. And selfish people aren't big on causes or things larger than themselves. They're not going to work for a god.

Chaotic Good isn't selfish. Chaotic Good is just as devoted as the other Goods to bringing out the best in people. It just has different ideas about what "best" means. Chaotic Good prioritizes agency. It prioritizes self-ownership, being free from control, but unable to use external influences and complications as a shield and taking full ownership of one's self and one's actions. Chaotic Good believes that people are at their best when they don't betray themselves; when they're given the freedom to express who they are without having to worry about their best qualities being suborned by anyone or anything else. Chaotic Good would want to encourage other people to be free, to create a society where no one has to feel like they're not allowed to be who they are or try and become who they want to become.

Chaotic Good is just as likely to value causes larger than themselves as the other Goods. A Chaotic Good character dedicated to fighting evil would do so with all of their heart, because that's who they are. Fighting evil, protecting the innocent and safeguarding the world is the cause in their hearts. If they did anything else with their life, it would be not only a betrayal of who they are, but a rejection of their self-hood. If you're one of those people who thinks that the only acts of real altruism require not wanting to help people but feeling obligated to, then sure. I guess you can call that self-centered. But I think that most people would consider someone who sees helping people and stopping villains from doing bad things to be part of who they are to be a good person.

Chaotic Good would follow a god who they felt aligned with their own views and goals, if they followed one at all. They wouldn't take orders, because they wouldn't need to. They and their god care about the same stuff and want to do the same stuff. Orders are redundant. If their god communicated with them at all, it would probably just be a revelation to make information available. How their adherent goes about making use of that information is to their discretion. Any god that has a problem with one of their adherents following their own path of justice probably isn't very chaotic in the first place.

Jester David wrote:

As an example:

What does a paladin of Cayden Cailean look like? What tennants of faith are expected from that paladin? What is their cause and holy quest?

I don't care. I'm the guy who wants paladins to be free from gods altogether.

Jester David wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Jester David wrote:


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.
Then what is a good example of an oath that would be sword and kept by someone who doesn't believe in laws and acts primarily out of self interest?

You're mis-characterizing Chaotic Good, so this line of questioning is invalid. They would swear the same oath that any other paladin would, but only because they really and truly believe in it at the core of who they are. Free from external influence, this is the kind of person they want to be. They won't let anyone else tell them how they should live or who they should be, but they will do everything in their power to live the kind of life that's most true to who they are and be the kind of person who's most true to who they want to be. The tenets of the oath are what they found when looked inside of their own heart. Breaking that oath means betraying themselves. When that oath breaks, so does their heart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

A Paladin will never curse his God for falling. They will never claim that it wasn't fair. They will take responsibility and accept that they fell because they were not strong enough, that they made a mistake, and that is why they seek atonement.

A character who believes that they didn't do anything wrong, by definition, cannot get atonement.

I missed the memo that explained chaotic cleric characters who failed to fulfill their gods tennets (losing their god's favor and thus spellcasting) would blame their gods and can never get atonement.

Sure they can, providing that they actually think what they did was wrong.

I find it really hard to believe, for example, a Chaotic Good character who falls for following the local authority and respecting it would actually think that they did something deserving of punishment.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Bodhizen wrote:
So, that follower of Cayden Cailean would be unlikely to abandon the villagers, but (to use similar emphasis to yours) they could if they want to and it wouldn't violate their alignment one iota, unlike the paladin followers of Sarenrae who, by abandoning the villagers, would explicitly violate their alignment and Sarenrae's code.
The bolded part of this is what I disagree with, for the record. Abandoning people to die when you can save them is Evil (well, it is without a heck of a reason anyway), and will make you non-Good very rapidly. It certainly won't effect the Chaotic part of their Alignment, but it sure would get rid of the Good part, and do so very quickly.

A more important fact, imho, in this debate.

Both the paladin of Cayden Cailean and the paladin of Saerenrae (Who is NG herself, btw) have the option to leave the villagers. BOTH. There is nothing in the alignment that can force you to do X. Your GM cannot tell you "you cannot do that, you are LG". At best, he can say you "You are no longer LG because you did X".

So both can run and let the villagers die. Both will lose their powers, because both Saerenrae and Cayden Cailean will not tolerate followers and champions that let the villagers die, because their own portfolios (heroism and bravery, redemption and kindness). Both will fall from being paladin in a blink, because both break their anathema.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
If a Chaotic Good paladin broke their oath, would you have them fall?

Yes. There are two possible explanations for Paladin powers:

#1: They are bestowed by a God. If you betray your Oath to the God in question? No more powers for you.

#2: The Paladin is empowered by the ideals they hold dear. They gain power from their own pure righteousness (or wickedness for an antipaladin). In this case, breaking with those ideals inevitably severs them from the source of their powers.

In neither case does their Alignment have much to do with this happening.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

A Paladin will never curse his God for falling. They will never claim that it wasn't fair. They will take responsibility and accept that they fell because they were not strong enough, that they made a mistake, and that is why they seek atonement.

A character who believes that they didn't do anything wrong, by definition, cannot get atonement.

I missed the memo that explained chaotic cleric characters who failed to fulfill their gods tennets (losing their god's favor and thus spellcasting) would blame their gods and can never get atonement.

Sure they can, providing that they actually think what they did was wrong.

I find it really hard to believe, for example, a Chaotic Good character who falls for following the local authority and respecting it would actually think that they did something deserving of punishment.

If you are a Chaotic Good follower of Cayden Cailean and you show yourself a coward, you lose your powers. It doesn't matter a damn thing if you believe you did the right thing, Cayden Cailean does not agree. And you need to attone, because your cowardice is unaceptable.

A CG follower of Cayden Cailean would not need to attone for following the local authority, because they would not fall for that. It seems like, as you believe LG paladin is the only true paladin, other paladins have to be a reflection of LG paladins, like a mirror image. They do not. They have their own codes, and fall for their own reasons. Just because a LG paladin will fall if he doesn't follow authority, does not mean a CG character will fall if he follows it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


Because a Paladin is held to higher Lawful standards than other Lawful Good characters if there was some kind of Chaotic Good equivalent to the Paladin that class would have to be held to a higher Chaotic standard than other Chaotic Goods.

So, for example, they might have things that make them difficult to be played, such as:

Tenet 4: A Chaodin must not follow local laws, or respect local authority.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. If this was how it worked, the Antipaladin would be required to never follow local laws, but that's clearly not the case, despite them supposedly being paragons of chaos and evil both. Indeed, there is no mention of local laws or authority in their code, so far as I can see. Beyond that, I'm not sure how it's considered good game design to go out of one's way to make a particular class more difficult to play for s&!!s and giggles.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:

Falling is a good point gustavo.

Falling from grace is a huge part of the paladin's identity. They can cease to be the class because of their actions. They can become an anti-paladin or a blackguard.
This is iconic and cool and the constant challenge of being a paladin. Doing the right thing or risking damnation. It's a unique part of the class that really should be retained.

But...

If a Chaotic Good paladin broke their oath, would you have them fall?

Yes, because the oath is a solidification of part of who they are. In violating the oath, they've betrayed themselves.

Jester David wrote:
What would a CG paladin have to do to cease to become a paladin and be rejected by their god?

Betray their own heart (which, in this case, is the oath). Chances are, a Chaotic god would want their followers to follow their own conscience and never compromise what they saw as right. Never let anyone, not even your god, tell you what's right and what's wrong, because you already know it. If they stopped doing that, if they went against their own conscience of their own free will and said it was just because they were doing what someone else told them to do, then that would be enough to drive a Chaotic Good god to disgust.

Jester David wrote:
If CG paladins are given more leniency in actions than LG behaviour then it is mechanically advantageous to be a CG paladin as you don't have to walk the moral tightrope.

They wouldn't be given more leniency. Not everyone who follows the code sees it as a tightrope, not even Lawful Good people.


Usmo wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Because a Paladin is held to higher Lawful standards than other Lawful Good characters if there was some kind of Chaotic Good equivalent to the Paladin that class would have to be held to a higher Chaotic standard than other Chaotic Goods.

So, for example, they might have things that make them difficult to be played, such as:

Tenet 4: A Chaodin must not follow local laws, or respect local authority.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. If this was how it worked, the Antipaladin would be required to never follow local laws, but that's clearly not the case, despite them supposedly being paragons of chaos and evil both. Indeed, there is no mention of local laws or authority in their code, so far as I can see. Beyond that, I'm not sure how it's considered good game design to go out of one's way to make a particular class more difficult to play for s$%%s and giggles.

We don't know anything about the Antipaladin code, if there even is one, in PF2

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
We don't know anything about the Antipaladin code, if there even is one, in PF2

Technically this is true, but we do know that the Paladin Code is almost identical to the one in PF1 except for the new hierarchy, and we do know Antipaladins exist (or will exist, at least thematically) in PF2 since an NPC adversary in Doomsday Dawn has been mentioned to be one.

Given those two facts, assuming it's pretty similar to the PF1 Antipaladin Code is pretty reasonable.


HWalsh wrote:
Usmo wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Because a Paladin is held to higher Lawful standards than other Lawful Good characters if there was some kind of Chaotic Good equivalent to the Paladin that class would have to be held to a higher Chaotic standard than other Chaotic Goods.

So, for example, they might have things that make them difficult to be played, such as:

Tenet 4: A Chaodin must not follow local laws, or respect local authority.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. If this was how it worked, the Antipaladin would be required to never follow local laws, but that's clearly not the case, despite them supposedly being paragons of chaos and evil both. Indeed, there is no mention of local laws or authority in their code, so far as I can see. Beyond that, I'm not sure how it's considered good game design to go out of one's way to make a particular class more difficult to play for s$%%s and giggles.
We don't know anything about the Antipaladin code, if there even is one, in PF2

Well, no, we don't, but we do know the AP code from 1e, and unless the definition of being chaotic is drastically changing between editions to something so unreasonable as you imply, I'm not sure where this requirement to go out of one's way to break local laws is coming from. Dunno how that would even work, really. If a government requires you to not build a house in an area because it's gonna flood every time it rains, do you just build there like a stubborn ass anyways? Seems to be a rather silly take on CG, I'd think.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bodhizen wrote:

Paladins follow the codes they do not because they're hard, but because they believe that living by that code is the right thing to do. They don't get rewarded for their obedience half so much as they get punished by failing to live up to that obedience. From an in-character perspective, they receive power for obedience (or loyalty, if you will), but from an out of character perspective, they automatically gain their powers and lose them due to disobedience. Paladins gain power because they're obedient, not because they give up their free will. Players voluntarily give up some of their freedoms in exchange for the class abilities that paladins are granted. Paladins aren't in it for the power; they're in it for the faith. Players are in it for the power.

Having said that, when we go to the chaotic cleric, "God" doesn't expect as much from their clerics. Yes, PF2 introduces anathema to address some of that, but the fact of the matter is, God isn't expecting the cleric to go out there and bring the faith to the people by force. We're not expecting our Catholic priests (or priests of whatever religion) to be the holy warriors of old; we actually expect the opposite from them. I'm not saying that chaotic priests couldn't follow a code, just as I'm not saying that lawful priests couldn't break a code. They'd be completely unlikely to submit to a code in the first place because that's not in their nature. Ain't nobody gonna break-a my stride. Ain't nobody gonna hold me down, oh no, I gotta keep on movin'!

Again, going by posters saying that the Code is hard so they need a reward, that's why Paladins follow them.

Bodhizen wrote:
Actually, no it's not absurd. The neutral character explicitly gets to pick and choose when they want to follow the law (or a code) because it suits them, and when they don't want to, without violating their belief system. The chaotic character would actively avoid being put into a position where they have to follow someone else's rules because "f*** that". The lawful character is the guy who follows the speed limit because it's the law. The chaotic character is the guy who doesn't follow the speed limit because "f*** speed limits!" The neutral character is the guy who chooses to follow the speed limit when he feels like it, and when he's all alone on the road with little to no chance of getting caught, opens up the throttle. Can the lawful character speed? Sure, but not without violating his ethos. Can the chaotic character follow the speed limit? Sure, but he wouldn't just because the limit exists. He'd do it simply because he made the choice to do so, not because some damn sign said to do it.

Minor-ish things, yeah, I'll agree Neutral or Chaotic are more likely to break them. Not because they can, but because they think that have to or should.

But a Code, something core to a character's sense of identity? No, they wouldn't break that flippantly. They can corrupt their Codes, like the Cult of the Dawnflower corrupted Sarenrae's mercy and redemption. But that isn't saying "Lol, screw the Code, I do what I want!", its specifically altering/corrupting it to fit a new purpose. A purpose they still hew to strongly.

Bodhizen wrote:
I can see that this line of logic is upsetting to you, but it doesn't put lawful up on a pedestal. Lawful is hard. Following the rules all the time is hard. You don't get to break the rules every now and then and still be counted as having followed the rules 100% of the time (which is the expectation that the paladin is held to). In this context, you get some special toys for following the expectation, and if you break the rules, those toys get taken away from you (at least until God decides that you've learned your lesson).

No it isn't. I play Paladins, and I play Lawful characters who follow even stricter Codes without any rewards. I do that because its fun, really fun. Characters with that sense of discipline and steadfast willpower are wonderful. And by playing Lawful I get the support of the community, I am more trusted, people feel they can rely on my characters, I am an upstanding citizen. And the duels! I love duels, and Lawful characters get to have that honorable one-on-one combat so much easier.

Chaotic is hard, at least for me. Less structure, less support. Always on the move, no foundation. Playing some wanderer leaves less of an identity for who you are, what you're really willing to stand for. I honestly flounder with Chaotic when I try to play the way you suggest they act.

But anyway, you're absolutely putting Lawful on a pedestal if you say Chaotic Good can leave people to die so they can get drunk. Because then Chaotic Good is for worthless lay-abouts who care for nothing but themselves, and Lawful Good is for the ones willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of all.

Sacrifice for others was supposed to be a Good aligned trait, not Lawful Good. Trying to squirrel it away from the other alignments is just cobbling together a fine pedestal for Lawful Good.

Bodhizen wrote:

No, it's not that people want Lawful Good to be the "best good" or "true good". It's that chaotic good does good because they want to, not because they're expected to, or because someone tells them that they must. They wouldn't want to follow a Chaotic Code (again, chaos in this context and code are incompatible) because they don't want anyone telling them what to do.

So, that follower of Cayden Cailean would be unlikely to abandon the villagers, but (to use similar emphasis to yours) they could if they want to and it wouldn't violate their alignment one iota, unlike the paladin followers of Sarenrae who, by abandoning the villagers, would explicitly violate their alignment and Sarenrae's code.

What's actually insulting and what's actually absurd is that you made a lot of assumptions about what is and isn't in my games, that you seem to want to strawman and paint other posters with the "no true Scotsman" brush, and then there's your use of BIG BOLD TEXT in the context of a civil conversation (even with a difference of opinion), not the fact that we have different views. If that's too "insulting" for you, then you're welcome to see your way out. If you'd like to calm down and have a civil discussion, I'm happy to oblige.

Whether its what they want or not, its what they are presenting. Saying that its Chaotic Good to leave innocent people to die because you want a drink creates a system where-in it is a lesser 'Good' than Lawful Good. And frankly not even on the scale of Good alignment at all by any reasonable measure.

Abandoning people to die so you can get drunk is not Chaotic Good. You can't save them? Okay, then you retreat. You're afraid? Weird for a follower of Cayden, but okay, fear overrides your morals. But you just want to get plastered more than you care about their lives That is not Good aligned. Its not a strawman on my part to say there's no Chaotic Good in your games, if you can say "You can abandon the innocent to die because you were thirsty, don't worry about your alignment."

And I want to know, truly, how I'm using 'No True Scotsman' anymore than you or anyone else in this thread is. You say Chaotics can't follow a Code, you say Chaotics can't do this, can't do that. I'm saying that if you think that letting innocent people die so you can get a drink is Chaotic Good, then you don't know what Chaotic Good is.

I mean seriously, the Cayden bit is the only real contention I have with you, because its what shows how this view of alignment leads to "Lawful Good = Best Good" whether its intended or not. So here's the definition of Good I'm picking from the Core Book:

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

So that's straight from the Core Book there, nothing in Chaotic Good opposes that. With your view that a follower of Cayden can abandon the innocent to get drunk we can scratch off altruism.

Protect innocent life? Hahaha! Oh man, that's a good one.

Concern for dignity of sentient beings. The example given doesn't address that, so moving on.

Make sacrifices to help others. In your version they won't even sacrifice a beer, so we can scratch that off.

No respect for life if its not worth more than a beer, so lets check the totals.

We're left with Caydenites maybe having one out of five aspects attributed to the "Good" alignment. And that's a shaky maybe.

You may be insulted that I said it, and my bold text may be over the line, but going by the Core description of alignment, your idea of Chaotic Good is not 'Good' at all. And I stand by my assertion: You don't have Chaotic Good in your game if they can abandon the innocent to get drunk without it changing their alignment. And that's a fine thing if that's how you play the game, honestly it is! I'll straight up apologize about my bold text and say it was an overreaction. But your view of Chaotic 'Good' is at odds with the alignments as portrayed in the Core book, so I find them drastically less relevant in discussions about a Chaotic Good Paladin Code.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Bodhizen wrote:
So, that follower of Cayden Cailean would be unlikely to abandon the villagers, but (to use similar emphasis to yours) they could if they want to and it wouldn't violate their alignment one iota, unlike the paladin followers of Sarenrae who, by abandoning the villagers, would explicitly violate their alignment and Sarenrae's code.
The bolded part of this is what I disagree with, for the record. Abandoning people to die when you can save them is Evil (well, it is without a heck of a reason anyway), and will make you non-Good very rapidly. It certainly won't effect the Chaotic part of their Alignment, but it sure would get rid of the Good part, and do so very quickly.

I get that, and I was explicitly non-specific there. Could there be a reason? Sure.

Xerres wrote:
Again, going by posters saying that the Code is hard so they need a reward, that's why Paladins follow them.

So... You're going by posters and not actually responding to things that I stated, yet in the same breath you're responding to me? Curiouser and curiouser.

Xerres wrote:

But anyway, you're absolutely putting Lawful on a pedestal if you say Chaotic Good can leave people to die so they can get drunk. Because then Chaotic Good is for worthless lay-abouts who care for nothing but themselves, and Lawful Good is for the ones willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of all.

Sacrifice for others was supposed to be a Good aligned trait, not Lawful Good. Trying to squirrel it away from the other alignments is just cobbling together a fine pedestal for Lawful Good.

You're reading a lot into what you're thinking that I wrote that is neither what I wrote nor what I intended. Good characters do things for all sorts of reasons. Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic good characters do things because it's the right thing to do. Lawful good characters also do those things because they're "supposed to"; someone external to them expects them to do it.

Xerres wrote:
Whether its what they want or not, its what they are presenting. Saying that its Chaotic Good to leave innocent people to die because you want a drink creates a system where-in it is a lesser 'Good' than Lawful Good. And frankly not even on the scale of Good alignment at all by any reasonable measure.

I never said it was chaotic good to leave innocent people to die (that wasn't even my example; there was nothing that ever said that anything happening to the villagers was ever lethal).

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."

You're reading things into what I wrote that I neither said nor implied. Ostensibly, the chaotic good character can choose to leave those villagers alone and not offer them aid for a variety of reasons (not limited to "they're getting help from the local militia and they've abused my aid one too many times") and still not violate his alignment. Good is not a strait-jacket any more than evil is.

Regardless of whether the example is lethal or not, the chaotic good character is not required by any extrinsic force (i.e. God, or a code, or "the law") to help. Even the lawful good paladin is not required to rush off to aid absolutely everyone who has a need (unless their god's code explicitly requires them to). So...

Xerres wrote:
Abandoning people to die so you can get drunk is not Chaotic Good. You can't save them? Okay, then you retreat. You're afraid? Weird for a follower of Cayden, but okay, fear overrides your morals. But you just want to get plastered more than you care about their lives That is not Good aligned. Its not a strawman on my part to say there's no Chaotic Good in your games, if you can say "You can abandon the innocent to die because you were thirsty, don't worry about your alignment."

This is another example of you assuming that the people you're responding to have no idea of how the alignment system works, and how you're deliberately misrepresenting my statements instead of asking for clarification when you're clearly misunderstanding. That's strawmanning. You're attempting to misrepresent what someone else has stated in order to tear down the other person's position.

Xerres wrote:
And I want to know, truly, how I'm using 'No True Scotsman' anymore than you or anyone else in this thread is. You say Chaotics can't follow a Code, you say Chaotics can't do this, can't do that. I'm saying that if you think that letting innocent people die so you can get a drink is Chaotic Good, then you don't know what Chaotic Good is.

Again, you misrepresent. I never said that Chaotic characters couldn't follow a code; in point of fact, I explicitly said the following:

Bodhizen wrote:
I'm not saying that chaotic priests couldn't follow a code, just as I'm not saying that lawful priests couldn't break a code. They'd be completely unlikely to submit to a code in the first place because that's not in their nature.
Xerres wrote:
I mean seriously, the Cayden bit is the only real contention I have with you, because its what shows how this view of alignment leads to "Lawful Good = Best Good" whether its intended or not.

I believe you've made that abundantly clear. You're like a dog with a bone.

Xerres wrote:
You may be insulted that I said it, and my bold text may be over the line, but going by the Core description of alignment, your idea of Chaotic Good is not 'Good' at all. And I stand by my assertion: You don't have Chaotic Good in your game if they can abandon the innocent to get drunk without it changing their alignment. And that's a fine thing if that's how you play the game, honestly it is! I'll straight up apologize about my bold text and say it was an overreaction. But your view of Chaotic 'Good' is at odds with the alignments as portrayed in the Core book, so I find them drastically less relevant in discussions about a Chaotic Good Paladin Code.

Again, you ascribe a single example (which I'll freely admit was a poor one) to an entire view of one of the systems used in Pathfinder. I'm really impressed by your crystal ball here, fellow, but you're looking inside someone else's head here, not mine. Check my reply to Deadmanwalking at the beginning of this post.

What I'm insulted by is the fact that you inexplicably seem to know everything at my gaming table, seem to be dictating to me my understanding of alignment, and the fact that you eerily zeroed in on a random (and again, poorly worded) example that you interpreted to mean a host of things that it doesn't actually mean, and then have the hubris to attempt to tell me that it does. And yet, none of this actually addresses the point that chaos and code are noncongruent, which was my entire point to begin with. Do you actually have anything meaningful to contribute here, or are you going to continue to dry-hump "Cayden Cailean's followers would never get drunk instead of doing good deeds" some more?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Edit: If you want me to in-depth respond to any other part of your post then I'll do that without issue. But your tone is plenty insulting to me as well. And fair enough, I 'fired first' there. If this post comes across as snarky, then snark back so I don't get the last snark. But then I'll admit I started it and just let it go.

Bodhizen wrote:
Stuff.

In the greater context of the debate going on, I say I see Lawful Good Paladin supporters marginalizing Chaotic Good as inept or less 'Good'. And then I used your example for Caydenite Paladin, which was a gloriously shining example of what I was talking about, and I've outright said its the thing I take issue with.

Since you're saying that Caydenites, Sarenites, Shelynites, and etc that aren't Lawful Good will abandon any 'Code' when it suits them, I did take your example as a standard presentation of how you use alignment.

If you'd said "Okay, Caydenite example was a bad one, let me use a different one." then I'd have dropped the bone. And hey, I was aggressive so defending the point is a natural reaction. Fine. But since you seemed to want to defend it as a legitimate point, I continued with it.

If that example is your typical definition of Chaotic Good, then indeed, I don't think your words have a lot of weight for a Chaotic Good Code. If that's not your typical definition, throw out another one, and I'll not be aggressive or use bolded text. Or if you don't want to, I won't keep mentioning it.

--- --- ---

So I'll start fresh with my base position:

Chaotic characters will follow a Code if they believe in the Code. The same as Lawful characters. And the power of a Chaotidin would work exactly the same as a Paladin: their strength of belief in their Code gives them power.

If a Chaotic character stops following their Code, its because they stopped believing in it, and so they lose their power.

I see no reason this conflicts with the flavor of a Paladin, outside following Laws in the Code, so I am interested in the purpose of this thread, to think of a 'Chaotic' Code for them to follow.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

what it seems here, and it may not be so, but itdoes look like alot of Lawful stupid and chaotic dumb going on....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:
what it seems here, and it may not be so, but itdoes look like alot of Lawful stupid and chaotic dumb going on....

A struggle against one's oppressors is never dumb! Vive la Resistance!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

After giving this thread some time and coming back to it, I see the alignment debate is still ongoing.

Guys (and gals), can we please stop this alignment debate in this thread.

This thread was made to get ideas of what a code for a CG paladin would look like, not to debate the in's and outs of alignments, please take your discussion on L vs C elsewhere (I'm sorry for contributing to this earlier).

If you feel that C characters can't have a code, respectfully know that I disagree, then don't post and move on.

If you feel that you want to contribute to the threads topic, please help continue it.

Last I checked, this was the code last proposed

Bardess wrote:

All right, I tried to put in all your best suggestions. It’s becoming beautiful!

1) You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it.

3) You should treat others with courtesy, dignity, and respect. Do not cheat, steal, or lie to others unless it is necessary to protect the life and freedom of innocents.

4) You must not violate another's free will, neither allow others to violate your own free will.

5) You must stand against tyranny, unjust impositions and privation of liberty, unless this violates a higher tenet.

6) You must be a beacon of hope, show mercy, be compassionate and sow joy in this world. How these are done is less important than leaving the world a better place than it was during your lifetime.

7) The greater good and the lesser good are not mutually exclusive. You must strive to find a solution that benefits both the community and the individual. No single life has more weight or importance than any other, and a single individual has the same importance on the cosmic balance as the destiny of a world.

I rather like this edition of it, any ideas on additions or changes to it?

I'm thinking 4 and 5 could be combined into

Quote:
4) You must stand against tyranny, unjust impositions and deprivation of liberty. You must not violate another's free will, neither allow others to violate your own free will.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I more or less stand by my proposed Code on the first page. Possibly with some better phrasing.


willuwontu wrote:

After giving this thread some time and coming back to it, I see the alignment debate is still ongoing.

Guys (and gals), can we please stop this alignment debate in this thread.

This thread was made to get ideas of what a code for a CG paladin would look like, not to debate the in's and outs of alignments, please take your discussion on L vs C elsewhere (I'm sorry for contributing to this earlier).

If you feel that C characters can't have a code, respectfully know that I disagree, then don't post and move on.

If you feel that you want to contribute to the threads topic, please help continue it.

Last I checked, this was the code last proposed

Bardess wrote:

All right, I tried to put in all your best suggestions. It’s becoming beautiful!

1) You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it.

3) You should treat others with courtesy, dignity, and respect. Do not cheat, steal, or lie to others unless it is necessary to protect the life and freedom of innocents.

4) You must not violate another's free will, neither allow others to violate your own free will.

5) You must stand against tyranny, unjust impositions and privation of liberty, unless this violates a higher tenet.

6) You must be a beacon of hope, show mercy, be compassionate and sow joy in this world. How these are done is less important than leaving the world a better place than it was during your lifetime.

7) The greater good and the lesser good are not mutually exclusive. You must strive to find a solution that benefits both the community and the individual. No single life has more weight or importance than any other, and a single individual has the same importance on the cosmic balance as the destiny of a world.

I rather like this edition of it, any ideas on additions or changes to it?

I'm thinking 4 and 5 could be combined into

-4) You must stand against tyranny, unjust impositions and deprivation of liberty. You must not violate another's free will, neither allow others to violate your own free will.-

I suppose they do cover a very similar ground. Though the hierarchy of tenets made violation of Free Will a more pressing issue than the Tyranny and Unjust Impositions. I kind of like that, it forces a Chaotidin to act in more direct and impulsive ways, when they can't sideline smaller injustices to affect wider scale change of tyranny. Not easily anyway.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I more or less stand by my proposed Code on the first page. Possibly with some better phrasing.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

My advised list would be something like this:

1) You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

3) You must always defend the autonomy of innocents from those who would violate it. If one person is forcing an innocent to do anything against their will, you must attempt to stop this act, using words if possible and force if necessary.

4) You must personally respect the autonomy of others, never forcing them to engage in any particular course of behavior. You may advise and admonish, but never actually force them to do as you wish them to. Except as necessary to fulfill the higher tenets, of course (ie: jailing a criminal who harmed or violated the autonomy of innocents is acceptable in order to prevent such behavior).

Its definitely more concise, and covers the general bases effectively. I do like your last provision there. Being unable to push other people into things has some interesting potential.

Question: Would you be allowed to concoct a situation where they were otherwise forced into something? Petty thief, stole [Important Item] that you need. He hasn't really hurt anyone to get it, but he's refusing to say where he put it. Chaotidin can't Zone of Truth him, and since he's fairly harmless (We'll say that [Important Item] didn't seem like a big deal to Petty Thief.) the Chaotidin doesn't want to hand him over to be brutalized by the guards.

Can Chaotidin let someone else Zone of Truth Petty Thief? Can they concoct some other circumstance of scaring him into thinking that he'll be turned over to the guards or a thumb breaker of some sort?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
what it seems here, and it may not be so, but itdoes look like alot of Lawful stupid and chaotic dumb going on....
A struggle against one's oppressors is never dumb! Vive la Resistance!

you forgot the french accented laugh.

ho ho ho ho- with french accent


Steelfiredragon wrote:
ho ho ho ho- with french accent

You're a poet Steelfiredragon, when we find the Singularity, we're going to send you in to describe it for us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I more or less stand by my proposed Code on the first page. Possibly with some better phrasing.

I do like your code, though I could see inserting

Quote:
3) You should treat others with courtesy, dignity, and respect. Do not cheat, steal, or lie to others unless it is necessary to protect the life and freedom of innocents.

into it, which would give us

Quote:

1) You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

3) You should treat others with courtesy, dignity, and respect. Do not cheat, steal, or lie to others unless it is necessary to protect the life and freedom of innocents.

4) You must always defend the autonomy of innocents from those who would violate it. If one person is forcing an innocent to do anything against their will, you must attempt to stop this act, using words if possible and force if necessary.

5) You must personally respect the autonomy of others, never forcing them to engage in any particular course of behavior. You may advise and admonish, but never actually force them to do as you wish them to, except as necessary to fulfill the higher tenets (such as jailing a criminal who harmed or violated the autonomy of innocents is acceptable in order to prevent such behavior).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:
Its definitely more concise, and covers the general bases effectively. I do like your last provision there. Being unable to push other people into things has some interesting potential.

Yeah, it's very restrictive in a way specifically in tune with the principles I'd expect a CG Paladin to espouse, which is what I was going for.

Xerres wrote:

Question: Would you be allowed to concoct a situation where they were otherwise forced into something? Petty thief, stole [Important Item] that you need. He hasn't really hurt anyone to get it, but he's refusing to say where he put it. Chaotidin can't Zone of Truth him, and since he's fairly harmless (We'll say that [Important Item] didn't seem like a big deal to Petty Thief.) the Chaotidin doesn't want to hand him over to be brutalized by the guards.

Can Chaotidin let someone else Zone of Truth Petty Thief? Can they concoct some other circumstance of scaring him into thinking that he'll be turned over to the guards or a thumb breaker of some sort?

Depends on whether the petty thief counts as innocent. Which is a GM call, but I'd be inclined to say yes.

If you say no, Tenet #3 includes no obligation to protect the non-innocent, so they can let other people do pretty much anything that isn't actually Evil to him, they just can't do it. They'd still probably prefer the solution below, though.

If you say yes like me, then the CG Paladin has to get clever. The easiest solution is probably to lie and offer to buy the item (or, heck, actually buy it) or otherwise trick him into letting its location slip. Unlike the LG Paladin, there's no prohibition on the CG one tricking or manipulating people into doing as they want them to as long as they don't actually cross the line into forcing them (which can get blurry...but so can honor, so I think it works).

This fact makes CG Paladins a lot more likely to be indirect and deceptive than a LG Paladin because they can[i] do that even as they [i]can't always take the more direct and forceful route of the LG version. I think that's pretty appropriate.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I more or less stand by my proposed Code on the first page. Possibly with some better phrasing.

I do like your code, though I could see inserting

Quote:
3) You should treat others with courtesy, dignity, and respect. Do not cheat, steal, or lie to others unless it is necessary to protect the life and freedom of innocents.
into it, which would give us

Personally, I think lying, cheating, and stealing are totally within the wheelhouse of a proper CG champion. I think Robin Hood would be an excellent CG Paladin, for example, and he does all of those, and not always directly to protect the lives and freedom of innocents.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I more or less stand by my proposed Code on the first page. Possibly with some better phrasing.

I do like your code, though I could see inserting

Quote:
3) You should treat others with courtesy, dignity, and respect. Do not cheat, steal, or lie to others unless it is necessary to protect the life and freedom of innocents.
into it, which would give us
Personally, I think lying, cheating, and stealing are totally within the wheelhouse of a proper CG champion. I think Robin Hood would be an excellent CG Paladin, for example, and he does all of those, and not always directly to protect the lives and freedom of innocents.

Fair enough.

151 to 200 of 473 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / What Would A CG Paladin Code Look Like? All Messageboards