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.
Chaotic good is, by no means, inept. But, there are distinctions for reasons, and I see a lot of "chaotic" get confused for "neutral", and vice versa. Lawful is a lot more clearly defined (because it really is easier to define).
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.
You say "will". I've repeatedly said "can".
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.
It isn't, but then again, you're not the arbiter of how much weight my arguments hold for a chaotic good code beyond your game table.
As I've repeatedly stated (in various forms), the chaotic good character will do good for goodness sake, but won't do good deeds because someone tells them that they have to. If they choose to do something that someone told them to do, "Rescue the princess, Mario!", it will be because they choose to do so, not because they're required by any sort of "anything at all that says that they must". This includes a "code".
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.
That's where we're at odds. Chaotic characters will not follow a code, because a code is rules, and "rules are for f***sticks", so "damn your rules, 'cause I'm gonna do what I wanna do". Chaotic characters are more likely to believe in their own inner strength or judgment, or awesomeness, or rightness of purpose than any external factor (such as a god's rules) simply because they do what they want to do, when they want to do it. That's pretty much the nature of the chaotic part of alignment, and it's supported by the alignment definition of chaos that you were kind enough to provide earlier in the thread. It's not that chaotic characters cannot have strength of purpose, but they do so by their own personal ethos rather than by the rules of some god.
So, let's look at these proposed rules.
1) You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.
The chaotic good character wouldn't do this because it would be evil... but that's more a factor of the "good" part of the alignment and doesn't interact much with the "chaotic" aside from the notion that it's a "rule" and "rules are for f***sticks".
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.
Again, great for the "good" portion. The chaotic portion would be ten shades of, "You can't tell me what to do!"
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.
Again, no conflict with the "good" portion, but the "chaos" portion grates against the "rules", and the "you tell me that I can't lie, steal, or cheat unless it's for some 'good' reason"? Rules, man. Rules. I'll lie if I want to. Little white lies don't hurt anyone. Cheating at a friendly game of cards (for no money) doesn't really hurt anyone, except maybe the people I'm playing with, but it doesn't do any real harm, so whatever, man.
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.
No problem with the "good" portion. The "chaos" portion bucks right up and says, "I must always"? Hell no! That sounds like you want to make me "the Man", and I ain't "the Man"! And what if I want to let my fist do the talking for me. Punching a Nazi is totally the right and righteous thing to do!
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).
So... I can't force anyone to follow rules? The "chaos" portion of the alignment code says, "Cool, bro! So why are you not respecting my personal autonomy with those other rules?"
These rules would work out pretty well for a neutral good character. The fact that these rules even exist would put a chaotic (anything) character into a tizzy of "I challenge your authority, and you can't make me follow your rules."
Best wishes!
Itd probably look like nothing because they don't exist.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Chaotic is the alignment of honor, dedication, honesty, and all about following codes... Which is what it seems like the argument here is...
Um...I think the argument is more that Good is the Alignment of dedication and that following Codes, while perhaps more typical of the Lawful, is universal in terms of Alignment (since even CE people do it).
And I actually just argued that someone CG could lie pretty readily, or do 'dishonorable' things if necessary, so I, at least, agree that honesty (or at least absolute honesty under all circumstances) and honor are pretty Lawful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic good is, by no means, inept. But, there are distinctions for reasons, and I see a lot of "chaotic" get confused for "neutral", and vice versa. Lawful is a lot more clearly defined (because it really is easier to define).
I find that basically everything can be Neutral for some reason or another, unless it is utterly extreme.
You say "will". I've repeatedly said "can".
Okay, my mistake. But Lawful "can" break their Codes, and do so, creating Fallen Paladins.
I can likely agree Lawful is less likely to break a Code on the principles of "I didn't write it, ain't my Code!" and that Lawful characters will accept what the Code says on the basis its the Code.
But I think when a Neutral or Chaotic character accepts a Code, it is not a flippant commitment. Less likely to accept a Code? I can certainly agree. But once its their Code, I think they follow through on it.
Easiest example: Gorum's followers being brave in battle. They're allowed to retreat from a battle they can't win, but to show outright cowardice in the face of the enemy is something I would say is vanishingly rare among Gorum's devoted.
It isn't, but then again, you're not the arbiter of how much weight my arguments hold for a chaotic good code beyond your game table.
As I've repeatedly stated (in various forms), the chaotic good character will do good for goodness sake, but won't do good deeds because someone tells them that they have to. If they choose to do something that someone told them to do, "Rescue the princess, Mario!", it will be because they choose to do so, not because they're required by any sort of "anything at all that says that they must". This includes a "code".
I'm not that arbiter at all, no. But I can definitely take your argument, say "This doesn't line up with any of the basic descriptions of alignment in the game." and then follow with "Since this is incongruous with everything established about the alignment we're discussing, I don't think it can really have any logical application to using said alignment." Just without the aggressive connotations it had before.
They'll do good deeds because they told themselves to though. "I chose this Code, I believe in this Code. This Code is mine, and I'm not giving it up no matter how much the world wants to break me from it."
You can't force a Code onto a Chaotic Good character, that's absolutely true. But you can't force one out of them either.
That's where we're at odds. Chaotic characters will not follow a code, because a code is rules, and "rules are for f***sticks", so "damn your rules, 'cause I'm gonna do what I wanna do". Chaotic characters are more likely to believe in their own inner strength or judgment, or awesomeness, or rightness of purpose than any external factor (such as a god's rules) simply because they do what they want to do, when they want to do it. That's pretty much the nature of the chaotic part of alignment, and it's supported by the alignment definition of chaos that you were kind enough to provide earlier in the thread. It's not that chaotic characters cannot have strength of purpose, but they do so by their own personal ethos rather than by the rules of some god.
I believe "Chaotic characters will not follow a code, because a code is rules, and "rules are for f***sticks", so "damn your rules, 'cause I'm gonna do what I wanna do". Is a needlessly extreme interpretation of the alignment. I am going to respond with a needlessly extreme interpretation of Lawful to illustrate that I believe you're handicapping CG.
"I am Lawful, and so I follow the rules. If there are no rules, I do nothing, because without rules telling me what to do, how do I know if I'm allowed?"
Chaotic characters will follow the rules they agree with, and fight against the ones they don't. I agree Chaotic characters will believe in their own judgement, but I think that they can judge a Code to be right and proper, and then choose to follow said Code.
These rules would work out pretty well for a neutral good character. The fact that these rules even exist would put a chaotic (anything) character into a tizzy of "I challenge your authority, and you can't make me follow your rules."
Outside the provision about following Laws, and your own belief that Codes are for Lawful characters, can you explain how the current Paladin Code is not just as well suited to a Neutral character? Because Neutral characters are the ones that basically get to do whatever they want without any real chance of someone arguing their alignment. So its really easy to say something fits them.
The fundamental divide I can determine is that I think Chaotic characters can't be forced into following rules, but they can absolutely decide to do it on their own. I think your view of Chaotic as an alignment is needlessly extreme.
And I also now realize that willuwontu wanted to stop continuing this debate. Should probably be a different thread made for arguing it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A bunch of stuffYes, you've made your view that you believe in the alignment triangle quite clear.
See, here is one question...
If Chaotic is the alignment of honor, dedication, honesty, and all about following codes... Which is what it seems like the argument here is...
Then what does Lawful mean?
Following external codes as opposed to internal ones.
Regardless, take your alignment debate elsewhere, this isn't the place for it.
I am sorry for helping to clog your thread. It may be a good idea to start a different thread with the current two front-runner ideas for a Chaotic Good Paladin Code, and make a provision of the thread that its not a place to dictate whether they can exist. Just for people who think they can to discuss it.
I find that basically everything can be Neutral for some reason or another, unless it is utterly extreme.
Yeah, that's certainly a problem with the alignment system.
Okay, my mistake. But Lawful "can" break their Codes, and do so, creating Fallen Paladins.
I can likely agree Lawful is less likely to break a Code on the principles of "I didn't write it, ain't my Code!" and that Lawful characters will accept what the Code says on the basis its the Code.
But I think when a Neutral or Chaotic character accepts a Code, it is not a flippant commitment. Less likely to accept a Code? I can certainly agree. But once its their Code, I think they follow through on it.
Easiest example: Gorum's followers being brave in battle. They're allowed to retreat from a battle they can't win, but to show outright cowardice in the face of the enemy is something I would say is vanishingly rare among Gorum's devoted.
Yeah, but there's a mechanical penalty for lawful characters breaking their code because they're lawful and codes are a lawful sort of thing to have. You can't really penalize a chaotic character for breaking a code when that's totally within the realm of expectation for a chaotic character. It sets them up for failure from the start, and I find that to be a flaw in the design of basing a chaotic good character's "quasi-paladin" status on a code of behavior. I've experimented with other ways to make chaotic "quasi-paladins" to varying degrees of success, and basing their power-set on codes almost always universally fails. I've had these discussions many a time at my gaming table, both from the GM perspective, and from the player perspective.
You're absolutely right that a neutral or chaotic character isn't necessarily going to make a flippant commitment. However, it's in their nature to break commitments for "reasons", be they "I don't believe the code causes me to behave appropriately in this situation" or "I refuse to be constrained by rules." You're right that Gorum's faithful would be highly unlikely to show signs of outright cowardice, but that doesn't mean that a follower couldn't justify some other means of retreat (that may seem cowardly to an observer, but be perfectly justifiable by some other metric).
They'll do good deeds because they told themselves to though. "I chose this Code, I believe in this Code. This Code is mine, and I'm not giving it up no matter how much the world wants to break me from it."
You can't force a Code onto a Chaotic Good character, that's absolutely true. But you can't force one out of them either.
The concern I have here is that the position you pose here works out great for the neutral character, who can adopt a code (or not) as they see fit, but one of the defining characteristics of a chaotic character is that they refuse to be bound by convention. They could adopt a code, sure... But would they actually follow it? Good says "yes, sure", chaos says "this is a temp job, baby". Eventually, the chaotic portion of their alignment spectrum is going to rear its head, and it's "off with the code". Then you're looking at a fallen chaotidin (as I believe it was called earlier in the thread) who, being true to that chaotic part of their alignment, might just say, "I tried that. It wasn't for me." and not go back. Far more likely to do so (being true to form) than a lawful character.
Chaotic characters will follow the rules they agree with, and fight against the ones they don't. I agree Chaotic characters will believe in their own judgement, but I think that they can judge a Code to be right and proper, and then choose to follow said Code.
They'll follow the rules they agree with because they feel like following them, not because someone says they have to. Neutral characters are more likely to be the type to pick and choose which rules to follow because sometimes rules are important to them, and sometimes they're not. Chaotic characters aren't going to buck rules just because they're rules, but they're not going to follow them because someone made rules, either. It has the same end result for chaotic characters as for neutral characters in many cases, but for entirely different reasons.
Yeah, they can judge a code to be right and proper, and then choose to follow said code... for a while... until the point where they don't want to follow rules anymore because they're not really rule-followers. They're not really the type to respect authority, and God's handing down those rules. They're no more likely to respect God's authority simply because it's God making the rules than they are to accept Billy-Bob's authority because some watery tart chucked a sword at him.
Outside the provision about following Laws, and your own belief that Codes are for Lawful characters, can you explain how the current Paladin Code is not just as well suited to a Neutral character? Because Neutral characters are the ones that basically get to do whatever they want without any real chance of someone arguing their alignment. So its really easy to say something fits them.
Sure. The neutral good character puts good above law and order. If a good deed breaks the law (or a part of a godly code), then they don't have too many qualms about doing the good deed and not respecting the law. Paladin codes are based upon the premise that if you break them, you're going to have to work to earn your special powers back, and that's fine and good because the lawful good character is supposed to be a rule-follower by nature. However, it penalizes the neutral good character for failing to follow the rules when it's in his nature to sometimes toss rules out the window.
The fundamental divide I can determine is that I think Chaotic characters can't be forced into following rules, but they can absolutely decide to do it on their own. I think your view of Chaotic as an alignment is needlessly extreme.
I believe the fundamental divide is that you conflate neutral and chaotic characters into the exact same behavior set with the exact same motivations behind that behavior set, thereby erasing the distinction between the two. I don't see my view of chaotic as an alignment as needless or extreme. From my perspective, your shoehorning chaos into neutrality out of what appears to be expedience (I apologize if it's not) to make a chaotic code work is needlessly extreme. You're absolutely right; chaotic characters can't be forced into following rules, and that's exactly what a code of behavior attempts to do at a very fundamental level. "You want these nifty powers? Follow these rules." A neutral character could decide to do it on their own, and get penalized for failing to follow those rules, which is unfortunate, but could end up being workable so long as they don't universally follow said code (which might be interpreted as a shift toward lawful). However, a chaotic character would not want to saddle themselves with rules in the first place, even if they made the conscious decision to do the same things that the rules tell them to do in the first place... Simply because they have a tendency to reject authority, acting in arbitrary fashion, recklessness, and hold a strong belief in unfettered personal freedom. Unfettered by what? Rules, man. Rules.
And I also now realize that willuwontu wanted to stop continuing this debate. Should probably be a different thread made for arguing it.
The amusing thing about this is that in the context of a discussion on a code of behavior for a chaotic good paladin-like character, a chaotic good paladin-like character would tell willuwontu that he cannot dictate their behavior, and they don't need to follow his rules.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't, but then again, you're not the arbiter of how much weight my arguments hold for a chaotic good code beyond your game table.
As I've repeatedly stated (in various forms), the chaotic good character will do good for goodness sake, but won't do good deeds because someone tells them that they have to. If they choose to do something that someone told them to do, "Rescue the princess, Mario!", it will be because they choose to do so, not because they're required by any sort of "anything at all that says that they must". This includes a "code".
It would include an externally imposed Code. But who says that Paladin Codes are externally imposed? I've always gotten the distinct impression they were something that the Paladin sought out or possibly even came up with themselves.
One obvious version is for anyone who abides by a certain Code perfectly develops Paladin powers. That's always been my impression of one way Paladins happen: Someone is just so Good and Righteous that they start channeling the power of Goodness itself and becomes a Paladin.
That's where we're at odds. Chaotic characters will not follow a code, because a code is rules, and "rules are for f***sticks", so "damn your rules, 'cause I'm gonna do what I wanna do". Chaotic characters are more likely to believe in their own inner strength or judgment, or awesomeness, or rightness of purpose than any external factor (such as a god's rules) simply because they do what they want to do, when they want to do it. That's pretty much the nature of the chaotic part of alignment, and it's supported by the alignment definition of chaos that you were kind enough to provide earlier in the thread. It's not that chaotic characters cannot have strength of purpose, but they do so by their own personal ethos rather than by the rules of some god.
Believing in one's own Code of behavior is totally a valid way to be a Paladin in PF1. And if Chaos were really as against following anyone else's dictates as you imply here, Chaotic Clerics couldn't exist.
So, let's look at these proposed rules.
Having come up with most of them, I'm pleased to. :)
The chaotic good character wouldn't do this because it would be evil... but that's more a factor of the "good" part of the alignment and doesn't interact much with the "chaotic" aside from the notion that it's a "rule" and "rules are for f***sticks".
Yup. The first two are purely Good and taken directly from the PF2 LG Paladin Code.
Again, great for the "good" portion. The chaotic portion would be ten shades of, "You can't tell me what to do!"
Chaos is not inherently against every possible restriction anyone could ever impose, not on a human scale anyway. A CG person, for example, is pretty okay with laws against torture and slavery existing. Someone Chaotic will want as few rules as possible in order to achieve the end of disallowing torture or slavery, but they aren't inherently against the idea of such rules existing.
Again, no conflict with the "good" portion, but the "chaos" portion grates against the "rules", and the "you tell me that I can't lie, steal, or cheat unless it's for some 'good' reason"? Rules, man. Rules. I'll lie if I want to. Little white lies don't hurt anyone. Cheating at a friendly game of cards (for no money) doesn't really hurt anyone, except maybe the people I'm playing with, but it doesn't do any real harm, so whatever, man.
I actually agree with this one. There's a reason that section was not in my original Code.
No problem with the "good" portion. The "chaos" portion bucks right up and says, "I must always"? Hell no! That sounds like you want to make me "the Man", and I ain't "the Man"! And what if I want to let my fist do the talking for me. Punching a Nazi is totally the right and righteous thing to do!
There's a reason that tenet only applies to defending innocents from oppression rather than everyone. Nazi punching is totally fine by it.
So... I can't force anyone to follow rules? The "chaos" portion of the alignment code says, "Cool, bro! So why are you not respecting my personal autonomy with those other rules?"
I actually went into that in my previous post responding to you. It comes down to someone philosophically devoted to the ideal of freedom being willing to give up a small amount of personal freedom to safeguard the freedom of others. Good is partially about a willingness to engage in self sacrifice, after all, irrespective of its ties to Law or Chaos.
For someone truly CG, rather than simply CN, the freedom of others is more important to them than their own freedom (or at the very least the freedom of others is more important than the small amount of freedom the Paladin Code causes them to give up).
These rules would work out pretty well for a neutral good character. The fact that these rules even exist would put a chaotic (anything) character into a tizzy of "I challenge your authority, and you can't make me follow your rules."
This assumes, once again, that Chaotic characters object to all rules (which I still think is an exaggeration), and that the code is externally imposed (which I wouldn't assume).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Chaotic Good character may hide their light under the bushel to not overly influence others to follow their path.
A Lawful Good character may show it off at weekday religious observances to prove how powerful their faith is.
...and I think that's part of why it frustrates me to see a lack of Humility from Lawful Good supporters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry for helping to clog your thread. It may be a good idea to start a different thread with the current two front-runner ideas for a Chaotic Good Paladin Code, and make a provision of the thread that its not a place to dictate whether they can exist. Just for people who think they can to discuss it.
Original poster here, and I've done just that. You can find it here: What Would A CG Paladin Code Look Like, Redux
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth I agree with other posters in that I don't really see honesty as a "Good" alignment trait but rather a Lawful one. Truth and lies are tools that can easily be wielded for both Good and Evil. Obfuscation is needed to bring Milani's rose into Cheliax, and brutal honesty is easily used to goad the rash into eternal damnation.
Anyway, let's talk about CG Paladins codes. With all paladins now being a champion with a divine sponsor, I think it's important to consider that there are two parties to the "paladin contract". It's not just the paladin that agrees to a code, you gotta think about the deity that's offering one as well. Let's consider some differences in how Iomedae and Desna might approach paladin orders:
Iomedae
I can definitely picture Iomedae descending from the heavens with a code of conduct (potentially literally) carved in stone that all her paladins take to heart. Iomedae seems like the kind of deity that favors a top down authority structure whereby accepting the power she offers you take up her cause, with all that that entails. Paladins, clerics, warpriests and inquisitors of Iomedae would be organized in a military organisation with a strong hierarchy and clearly defined areas of responsibility. Paladins that have questions or doubts about their code have councilors and priests made available to provide guidance. If a champion runs into a challenge that seems impossible for him to overcome on his own, he can call on the church to provide assistance (assuming his superiors agree that the cause is just and the need is sufficiently urgent). Iomedae's code would typically start with "you must/you must not":
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.
Desna
Rather than having a universal code of conduct and an organized church I could envision Desna seeking out worthy individuals and working out a unique code of conduct with each of her champions (typically appearing in a series of dreams or visions, either directly or via an avatar) that will both champion Desna's goals and appeal to the nature and personal priorities of each individual. Paladins of Desna would all first agree to follow some broad rules (similar to the "good"-focused parts of the LG code). Each code will typically start with "I will" or "I will not":
1) I will never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.
2) I will not take actions that I know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when I knew my action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force me to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice my life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.
Beyond that the code could be customized to fit each champion's personality and priorities. One champion of Desna could take up the cause of protecting traveling musicians and pilgrims, another would harry those who prey on people via rigged games of chance, a third would safeguard people's dreams by striking down monsters like night hags and Painajais. Since the goals of Desna's champions will differ, they'd be much more loosely organized. Each paladin would treat his code as a personal agreement between himself and his deity, and not something that's a concern to anyone else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth I agree with other posters in that I don't really see honesty as a "Good" alignment trait but rather a Lawful one. Truth and lies are tools that can easily be wielded for both Good and Evil. Obfuscation is needed to bring Milani's rose into Cheliax, and brutal honesty is easily used to goad the rash into eternal damnation.
Anyway, let's talk about CG Paladins codes. With all paladins now being a champion with a divine sponsor, I think it's important to consider that there are two parties to the "paladin contract". It's not just the paladin that agrees to a code, you gotta think about the deity that's offering one as well. Let's consider some differences in how Iomedae and Desna might approach paladin orders:
Iomedae
I can definitely picture Iomedae descending from the heavens with a code of conduct (potentially literally) carved in stone that all her paladins take to heart. Iomedae seems like the kind of deity that favors a top down authority structure whereby accepting the power she offers you take up her cause, with all that that entails. Paladins, clerics, warpriests and inquisitors of Iomedae would be organized in a military organisation with a strong hierarchy and clearly defined areas of responsibility. Paladins that have questions or doubts about their code have councilors and priests made available to provide guidance. If a champion runs into a challenge that seems impossible for him to overcome on his own, he can call on the church to provide assistance (assuming his superiors agree that the cause is just and the need is sufficiently urgent). Iomedae's code would typically start with "you must/you must not":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...
This is really interesting. Thank you so much. Would you be willing to share your ideas in the new thread?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is really interesting. Thank you so much. Would you be willing to share your ideas in the new thread?
Thank you for your kind words, and sure thing! :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You say "will". I've repeatedly said "can".
a lawful character can break a code too. That is why paladins fall, and seek attonement. Lawful doesn't mean "guided by an algorithm" like a robot. A GM cannot say "you can't do that because you are lawful."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth I agree with other posters in that I don't really see honesty as a "Good" alignment trait but rather a Lawful one. Truth and lies are tools that can easily be wielded for both Good and Evil. Obfuscation is needed to bring Milani's rose into Cheliax, and brutal honesty is easily used to goad the rash into eternal damnation.
who would you trust as honest, an Azata or a Devil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is really interesting. Thank you so much. Would you be willing to share your ideas in the new thread?Thank you for your kind words, and sure thing! :)
You're very welcome. Thanks for chiming in!
who would you trust as honest, an Azata or a Devil?For what it's worth I agree with other posters in that I don't really see honesty as a "Good" alignment trait but rather a Lawful one. Truth and lies are tools that can easily be wielded for both Good and Evil. Obfuscation is needed to bring Milani's rose into Cheliax, and brutal honesty is easily used to goad the rash into eternal damnation.
With zero context (including who I am) and no idea what they're even saying? I have no idea. I'd probably trust both the devil and the azata to be advancing their own agenda?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Devils revel in deceit, and although I get the impression that they prefer deceit by way of misleading presentation of the truth and/or by way of omission, they certainly aren't above disinformation and outright misinformation, and clouding of judgment.
An Azata's judgment might be a bit shaky, but at least they have their heart in the right place(*).
(*)Metaphorically speaking, of course. It is possible, although not known with certainty, that some of them may have their hearts in some pretty weird places, physically speaking.
|
|
A Chaotic Good character may hide their light under the bushel to not overly influence others to follow their path.A Lawful Good character may show it off at weekday religious observances to prove how powerful their faith is.
...and I think that's part of why it frustrates me to see a lack of Humility from Lawful Good supporters.
I think we should not confuse virtues of RPG characters and personality traits of real people
LG supporters strongly feel they are under attack for their view of what they enjoy in the game. Tempers get heated and posts too. I see this as human nature, not a sign of lacking Humility
Finally, I have not seen much Humility from the Chaotic Good supporters either
However I find value in this thread as I have discovered worthy aspects of people I often found too extreme in their views in the past
On this thread I found myself favoring in good faith both HWalsh and Gustavo Iglesias posts, so I think we are closer to a happy end on this sensitive topic
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, I have not seen much Humility from the Chaotic Good supporters either
For the record I've never claimed humility as one of my virtues. I always type IMO rather than IMHO because that H would be disingenuous. I do try to be polite, fair, and honest, but humble? Nah.
That's probably off topic, but it's late, I'm whimsical, and I felt like I should mention it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am describing all the characters used as examples of LG, and every time I have seen LG play. Arrogance and a need to enforce 'good' despite what others wish, combined with a need to crush all dissent. Every paladin ever, and all the LG only guys in this thread.no LG paladins swear to use violence to force others to follow their world view, that is the definition of tyranny, it might be a benevolent despotism, but it is tyranny, by doing os they make it clear they are brutal enforcers, nothing more. Chaotic and neutrak good are whefe you find mercy and freedom and justice, LG is where you find things being done 'for your own good'Uh... You're not describing lawful good at all...
I think you don't really understand lawful good... You're describing what I see usually in Chaotic Good.A Chaotic Good character may hide their light under the bushel to not overly influence others to follow their path.
A Lawful Good character may show it off at weekday religious observances to prove how powerful their faith is.
...and I think that's part of why it frustrates me to see a lack of Humility from Lawful Good supporters.
I am truly sorry for you to have had this kind of really bad experience with people playing LG PCs
I hate jerk people who tell you how you should play your character or insinuate that you do not play the right way aka BadwrongfunMy experience is that you will find jerk people playing all kind of Alignments. So much so that I think Jerkitude should be a third alignment axis measuring the PC's tendency to impose his worldview, his way of playing on other PCs
That last part on posters in this thread was uncalled for though
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, I have not seen much Humility from the Chaotic Good supporters eitherFor the record I've never claimed humility as one of my virtues. I always type IMO rather than IMHO because that H would be disingenuous. I do try to be polite, fair, and honest, but humble? Nah.
That's probably off topic, but it's late, I'm whimsical, and I felt like I should mention it.
I did not put you on that side and your posts strike me as even and seeking balance. Also refusing to claim humility is proof of a truly humble person ;-)
|
|
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!
Except when the oppressors exist mostly in the champion of the oppressed's head. Not saying that it is happening here BTW
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I realized one thing that makes me wish for corner "Paladins" only.
If we give Divine champions ("Paladins") to every alignment, it would make sense that all deities only have champions of their own alignment
Since we already have LG Paladins of non-LG deities, it follows that we cannot give each alignment its own Divine champion
So from now on I will support Divine champions for LG (already exists), CG, LE and CE.
A point might be made that TN should have one too so that Parasma, Gozreh and others get to have their champions too
This way, the CG deities can finally get the Divine champion they deserve
And I look forward to arguments between LG Paladins and CG Divine champions of the same NG deity
Or between LG Paladins and LE Divine champions of the same LN deity. I feel it can open up new paths for interesting stories and characters
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With zero context (including who I am) and no idea what they're even saying? I have no idea. I'd probably trust both the devil and the azata to be advancing their own agenda?who would you trust as honest, an Azata or a Devil?For what it's worth I agree with other posters in that I don't really see honesty as a "Good" alignment trait but rather a Lawful one. Truth and lies are tools that can easily be wielded for both Good and Evil. Obfuscation is needed to bring Milani's rose into Cheliax, and brutal honesty is easily used to goad the rash into eternal damnation.
Fine. I'll roll with that for now.
So both can lie then?If a creature made of [law] can be dishonest, then honesty is not a lawful trait.
A cop that cheat and plant false proof to jail someone is a LE cop. A bank that tries to deceive you adding dishonest small print clauses in your mortgage is LE. A corrupt judge that always favor the rich is LE. Being L does not preclude you from being dishonest. I'd trust Desna over Zon Kuthon if both tell me different things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With zero context (including who I am) and no idea what they're even saying? I have no idea. I'd probably trust both the devil and the azata to be advancing their own agenda?who would you trust as honest, an Azata or a Devil?For what it's worth I agree with other posters in that I don't really see honesty as a "Good" alignment trait but rather a Lawful one. Truth and lies are tools that can easily be wielded for both Good and Evil. Obfuscation is needed to bring Milani's rose into Cheliax, and brutal honesty is easily used to goad the rash into eternal damnation.
^Devils revel in deceit, and although I get the impression that they prefer deceit by way of misleading presentation of the truth and/or by way of omission, they certainly aren't above disinformation and outright misinformation, and clouding of judgment.
An Azata's judgment might be a bit shaky, but at least they have their heart in the right place.
I think that's a fair assessment. I may be biased, but I've found that devils are overall surprisingly honest and forthcoming in Paizo APs. At least the devils the AP expects you to talk to rather than, y'know, put down with extreme prejudice.
Speaking more broadly, if you look at the contract rules you'll note that devils almost convulsively rely on the truth when writing their agreeements. Some contracts are just plain honest, while others have hidden clauses. In the latter case, while the devil can try to obscure the clause or obfuscate it behind legalese that'll make a supreme court justice's head fly clean off his shoulders - the truth is still there if you just dig deep enough. Even a devil that's powerful enough to just rip the soul right out of you needs to have a contract in place - a written agreement.
Contrast that with a demon who'd just go "Sure, do what I want and I'll give you power" then eviscerate you, use your soul for tooth-floss and play Operation with your body for giggles. Devils may not be trustworthy, but they're not all pathological liars either.
Who would you rather trust to be truthful: a CG faerie dragon or a LE Hellknight from the Order of the Scourge? Again, it depends on the context. Will the faerie dragon tell you a tall tale to set up his next glitterbomb prank? Absolutely! Will he lie and tell you the rickety rope bridge he sabotaged to keep bandits away is perfectly safe, leading to you dashing your brains out on the improbably sharp rocks below? Probably not.
Similarly the Hellknight would probably tell the truth if you ask him for directions to the nearest constabulary but will happily lie through his teeth if he thinks it'll help him track down his next conspiracy plot.
Ultimately, it just isn't quite so black & white. As always, context is king.
With zero context (including who I am) and no idea what they're even saying? I have no idea. I'd probably trust both the devil and the azata to be advancing their own agenda?who would you trust as honest, an Azata or a Devil?For what it's worth I agree with other posters in that I don't really see honesty as a "Good" alignment trait but rather a Lawful one. Truth and lies are tools that can easily be wielded for both Good and Evil. Obfuscation is needed to bring Milani's rose into Cheliax, and brutal honesty is easily used to goad the rash into eternal damnation.
Fine. I'll roll with that for now.
So both can lie then?
If a creature made of [law] can be dishonest, then honesty is not a lawful trait.A cop that cheat and plant false proof to jail someone is a LE cop. A bank that tries to deceive you adding dishonest small print clauses in your mortgage is LE. A corrupt judge that always favor the rich is LE. Being L does not preclude you from being dishonest. I'd trust Desna over Zon Kuthon if both tell me different things.
Looks like we cross posted, but I'm pleased that I kinda answered your post anyway. What's been my experience is that devils can happily spin the truth like a US congressman on the election trail, but they rarely outright lie to your face. Half-truths, truths blanketed in conditionals and motivated by hidden agendas, sure. But outright lie? No, not really. The contract system shows that they rely on at least some level of straight play to function. I'd say the Evil in LE means they may try to corrupt and twist the truth, but the Law in LE but they rarely outright break it.
Contrast that with Azata who (as far as I know) just don't have any particular affiliation with the truth at all. They can tell the truth or lie any which way they please. They seem much more closely aligned with fey than angels or archons. While I'd generally trust an azata to look out for my well-being, I see no particular reason to consider them particularly honest.
But let's attack it from another angle: Who's more likely to lie to you, a lawful neutral Inevitable or a chaotic neutral Slaad?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
good stuff
I agree with your point, a Devil will probably try to mislead you more than outright lie.
However, we are talking about honesty. Not telling you about a small print clause in your mortgage that will make you lose your house if you put a hat on, then giving you a hat as a gift is not a lie. But it is dishonest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But let's attack it from another angle: Who's more likely to lie to you, a lawful neutral Inevitable or a chaotic neutral Slaad?
The slaad. However, I would not be so quick to judge if we are talking about a LN bank director or a CN follower of Gorum.
I agree with you that context is key. I am not arguing that L characters are more dishonest. I am saying that it is, in fact, a matter of context. You cannot be sure someone is honest because it says L in his alignment, and certainly you can't be sure someone is dishonest because it says C.
If there is a contract you have to sign, in a language you don't understand, and Desna tells you it is bad for you, and Zon Kuthon tells you it is good for you, who do you trust?
Actually, if it is Desna, and Iomedae, and both tell you it is good for you, I would be more suspicious about Iomedae. His opinion of what is Good for me might include "it saves your soul because it sacrifice you for the greater good" while Desna might think about me, as individual, over a greater good.
If there is a contract you have to sign, in a language you don't understand, and Desna tells you it is bad for you, and Zun Kuthon tells you it is good for you, who do you trust?
I'd definitely pick Desna over Zon. But again, not because I expect her to be inherently more truthful, but because I expect her to keep my best interests in mind whereas Zon is basically cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Honestly I never really got to grabs as to why he's a Lawful deity at all.
The second question is interesting... If Iomedae said "signing the contract is good for me" then I'd actually trust her over Desna. If she just said "signing the contract would be the best option" then I'd be leery. I could definitely see Iomedae have a "sacrifice one for the many" mentality, but I don't think she'd try to pull a fast one on me. I'd fully expect her to lay out the entirety of the contract, good and bad. I could also imagine her trying to strong-arm me into making whatever decision would serve her idea of the greater good.
Let's turn it on its head again. Who is more likely to lie to you in order to protect you - Desna or Iomedae? The Devil or the Azata? The Inevitable or the Slaad?
I'd argue it would be Desna (Iomedae would definitely withhold information to help you but would very likely be incapable of speaking a lie), the Azata (the devil couldn't care less if you get hurt) and the Slaad (honestly the Slaad could go every which way, but with a zero chance of the inevitable lying I'll still give it to the slaad).
Does the reason for lying matter when determining if a person is honest or not?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does the reason for lying matter when determining if a person is honest or not?|
No. But you can be dishonest, without lying. The mortgage hat clause above is an example.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you forgot the 'and examples used to describe LG.. Like Charlemagne, and Richard the Lionheart...I am describing all the characters used as examples of LG, and every time I have seen LG play. Arrogance and a need to enforce 'good' despite what others wish, combined with a need to crush all dissent. Every paladin ever, and all the LG only guys in this thread.no LG paladins swear to use violence to force others to follow their world view, that is the definition of tyranny, it might be a benevolent despotism, but it is tyranny, by doing os they make it clear they are brutal enforcers, nothing more. Chaotic and neutrak good are whefe you find mercy and freedom and justice, LG is where you find things being done 'for your own good'Uh... You're not describing lawful good at all...
I think you don't really understand lawful good... You're describing what I see usually in Chaotic Good.A Chaotic Good character may hide their light under the bushel to not overly influence others to follow their path.
A Lawful Good character may show it off at weekday religious observances to prove how powerful their faith is.
...and I think that's part of why it frustrates me to see a lack of Humility from Lawful Good supporters.
I am truly sorry for you to have had this kind of really bad experience with people playing LG PCs
I hate jerk people who tell you how you should play your character or insinuate that you do not play the right way aka Badwrongfun
My experience is that you will find jerk people playing all kind of Alignments. So much so that I think Jerkitude should be a third alignment axis measuring the PC's tendency to impose his worldview, his way of playing on other PCsThat last part on posters in this thread was uncalled for though
Those aren't examples of LG.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im pretty sure literally no real life ruler has ever qualified as lawful good. Especially not ones famous for declaring war on other religions
Those aren't examples of LG.
] you forgot the 'and examples used to describe LG.. Like Charlemagne, and Richard the Lionheart...
Richard The Lionheart - Lawful Evil or Chaotic Neutral? Discuss.
or possiblyRichard the Lionheart - worst monarch of England since 1066? Discuss.
I like how Lastwall is a Lawful Good society while also being militaristic dictatorship. Because that is what organized army is, it is very Lawful concept. You obey the hierarchy without question, you are not meant to disobey the orders. When the general sends you "to your death", that is not inherently malicious.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The literary version of Lionheart (the one you read in Ivanhoe, or RObin hood) is LG.
The real dude was not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the point that honesty is more a Good trait than a Law trait. Honesty isn't just speaking truthful words. It's being clear in your communication while also being truthful, so that you make your best effort to communicate your intent. A devil will say one thing but intend something else. It may be lawful, but it's still lying in my book.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Telling the truth exactly with the intent to mislead is textbook lawful behaviour. Telling a lie with the intent to lead someone to a truth, that seems perfectly chaotic. (Like lying that you witnessed something inorder to convince someone to go investigate a site, perhaps protecting a source)