Zorro is the first one that leaps to mind
Spartacus
Zorro is great, yes.
Daredevil is OBSESSED with Laws! XD
However, I tried to devise some Paladin codes for the most loved CG deities in my blog. See if you like!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cyclops, NO. Wolverine, YES. That’s why they argue all the time.
Nightcrawler, too. Charming, religious, self-conscious, and whimsy.
+1 to Nightcrawler. He literally went to heaven after dying then (after a very hard decision) bamf-ed himself back to earth to help his friends. Good is hard, indeed.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really seeing any of the examples being put forth as credible examples of a CG paladin, it's like the D&D warlord class conversations, suddenly every other character from literature and film is a warlord. "Remember when Sarah Connor tells Kyle "On your feet, soldier!", yeah, she's totally a warlord!"
Robin Hood and Zorro are pretty credible. As is Nightcrawler. Some of the others I may dispute but those three are very solid.
They don't have the powers, but then neither does basically any character from literature who'd be a LG Paladin inspiration prior to D&D getting popular.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the sake of stirring the pot a bit:
Malcom 'Mal' Reynolds (Firefly/Serenity): Sure he may be a bit of a desperado, but he typically does the 'right thing' (Though admittedly, I'd have him seeking an Atonement for the whole 'dealing with one of Lusca's thugs' thing).
Tony 'Iron Man' Stark : His conversion to 'Good' was punctuated by serious health issues and also a serious death wish. His entire life, despite having all the toys, was VERY chaotic (despite seemingly being organized). Even when he was trying to be orderly and lawful, he wasn't 'by the book' and that'd come back to bite him on a regular basis.
Superman Supes as Lawful Good was actually the Justice Lord version. No, I'm not saying what they were doing was *right*. But the Lords were attempting to maintain perfect Order in a way that the League was not.
The Question They dove down the rabbit hole so far that they were willing to risk a devastating civil war to bring out the Truth.
On Golarion, Cayden Cailean is the exemplar, so others would strive to follow his example but also have the humility to realize that they aren't Him, but do what they can just the same. In fact, it's part of their religion:
Question: "If you're so great, why don'tcha go take the Test of the Starstone, then?" "I may be great, but I'm no Cayden Cailean."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Captain America. Arguably so in the comics, where the iconic 'river of Truth' speech could certainly be read as rather Chaotic at heart, prizing individual convictions over authority and society, and basically saying, "if the law gets in the way of doing what's right, break that law without a second thought." *Definitely* so in the Marvel movies where the whole course of his arc has been to become more and more anti-authoritarian with each film, most especially culminating in his conviction that despite clear and present evidence of collateral damage in his activities thus far, government oversight of his vigilante activities was too great a risk to abide, because bureaucratic determinations of when it's appropriate to act will be too slow at best ad corrupt at worst. (Not to mention, it's the idea of Scarlet Witch being 'locked up without trial'--what Tony would call having a friend keep her out of the public eye--that scutters an olive branch extended around the halfway point of the movie.)
Jolee Bindo and to a lesser extent Qui-Gon Jinn--mystical religious space knights who don't totally reject the Jedi Code or the Light Side of the Force, but clearly feel that the Jedi Order is too hidebound by traditions that may even be counterproductive.
Except caiden is blatantly a swashbuckler and not a paladin.
It's a difficult question, because the paladin model includes religious belief, and real-world religions I know about/that inform cultures I know about are all pretty much lawful.
This is a reason it is so difficult for me to imagine a CG Paladin. All the examples given were of CG characters, (up to individual opinion of course) but did they have a Paladin feel to them? That IS a difficult question... But it seems like you guys are coming up with some interesting examples.
That said... my candidate for CG paladin is... Shane.
Heroic, decent, self-sacrificing, but in a tradition of individualism and not above using trickery in the defence of the greater good.
I'll bite, who's Shane?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except caiden is blatantly a swashbuckler and not a paladin.
I'll bite, who's Shane?
That said... my candidate for CG paladin is... Shane.
Heroic, decent, self-sacrificing, but in a tradition of individualism and not above using trickery in the defence of the greater good.
The title character in a 1953 Western. I'm a fan of the genre, and it occurred to me that a lot of Westerns involve the sort of lone heroes who do good outside the law that might qualify as CG paladinic-ish, this just happened to be one of the most famous examples. The Magnificent Seven was another film that I thought of when you asked the question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Among Golarion deities, Milani is the ideal CG counterpart to LG Iomedae
Milani is a very interesting Minor Deity. Never really noticed her before. From her descriptions that I have found, she's only chaotic in that she's anti-slavery/tyranny. (tho anti-slavery/tyranny is not a solely CG) In fact to me she sounds LG in many ways. The Inner Sea Gods book says that she was a soldier before her ascension, and still thinks like one. Furthermore, during wartime her followers are scouts, spies, and MILITIA COMMANDERS. (emphasis mine) The Pathfinder Wiki also states this: "Those devoted to her found the courage to organize the rebellions against the infernal takeover of the Chelish Empire, helping many of her outlying territories break free of its control. They fought against the slow slide into barbarism, restoring people's hope that a just and good society could be restored." I may be stirring the pot again, but I thought Chaotic characters chafe under the strict "Lawfulness" of the military. Which obviously she and her followers do not. Furthermore, what other way can one make a just and good society other than making Laws? Or is it she gives them hope that it'll happen, then peaces out once the process starts? She seems to me to be an enigma. Kind of like someone wanted to make an anti-slavery/tyranny deity, then slapped CG on her because that seemed to be the best alignment. Regardless if she is or not. My thoughts...
That being said, her relationship with Iomedae is pretty sweet.
Except caiden is blatantly a swashbuckler and not a paladin.fighting style does not a paladin make.
No but being a drunken lecher isn't very paladiny even if it isnt necessarily non-good.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No but being a drunken lecher isn't very paladiny even if it isnt necessarily non-good.
Cayden Cailean enjoys life, but there's little basis for calling him a lecher. I mean, there's evidence he hit on Calistria on at least one occasion...but she's the literal Goddess of Lust. That doesn't mean much. He's noted as flirtatious and a fan of bawdy songs, but that's a bit different from being a lecher.
He certainly is a drunk by some definitions, but on the other hand he specifically never broke with his own code of ethics, is probably the single most philanthropic of the main Gods (he's the only one who's notably a patron of orphanages other than Pharasma and the only one noted as a favored deity of philanthropists), and actively opposes tyranny at all times. He's not perfect...but then neither is Iomedae and she was a Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No but being a drunken lecher isn't very paladiny even if it isnt necessarily non-good.Cayden Cailean enjoys life, but there's little basis for calling him a lecher. I mean, there's evidence he hit on Calistria on at least one occasion...but she's the literal Goddess of Lust. That doesn't mean much. He's noted as flirtatious and a fan of bawdy songs, but that's a bit different from being a lecher.
He certainly is a drunk by some definitions, but on the other hand he specifically never broke with his own code of ethics, is probably the single most philanthropic of the main Gods (he's the only one who's notably a patron of orphanages other than Pharasma and the only one noted as a favored deity of philanthropists), and actively opposes tyranny at all times. He's not perfect...but then neither is Iomedae and she was a Paladin.
Nor was Lancelot, who is literally famous for his adultery...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nor was Lancelot, who is literally famous for his adultery...No but being a drunken lecher isn't very paladiny even if it isnt necessarily non-good.Cayden Cailean enjoys life, but there's little basis for calling him a lecher. I mean, there's evidence he hit on Calistria on at least one occasion...but she's the literal Goddess of Lust. That doesn't mean much. He's noted as flirtatious and a fan of bawdy songs, but that's a bit different from being a lecher.
He certainly is a drunk by some definitions, but on the other hand he specifically never broke with his own code of ethics, is probably the single most philanthropic of the main Gods (he's the only one who's notably a patron of orphanages other than Pharasma and the only one noted as a favored deity of philanthropists), and actively opposes tyranny at all times. He's not perfect...but then neither is Iomedae and she was a Paladin.
The event that would literally be the story of a paladin falling you mean?
I mean...he breaks his code due to lust..it causes disaster and he retires to a life of atonement. Thats pretty much the most paladin thing ever
Interesting, Paizos design goal for the Paladin code is to use the minimum amount of rules enforced externally. Which makes the code pretty chaotic.Chaotic is (on the human scale) 'the minimum amount of laws and rules enforced externally to have a functioning society' (hell check out he CE Drow they have laws, weird ones with loop holes but still laws, still have armies etc, as do the Slaad, the living embodiment of chaos.) You can be in an organised military (tho it specifically says militia, which are famously less disciplined to begin with) and not have pointless rules, rules have to have a point, and have as few as possible.Among Golarion deities, Milani is the ideal CG counterpart to LG IomedaeMilani is a very interesting Minor Deity. Never really noticed her before. From her descriptions that I have found, she's only chaotic in that she's anti-slavery/tyranny. (tho anti-slavery/tyranny is not a solely CG) In fact to me she sounds LG in many ways. The Inner Sea Gods book says that she was a soldier before her ascension, and still thinks like one. Furthermore, during wartime her followers are scouts, spies, and MILITIA COMMANDERS. (emphasis mine) The Pathfinder Wiki also states this: "Those devoted to her found the courage to organize the rebellions against the infernal takeover of the Chelish Empire, helping many of her outlying territories break free of its control. They fought against the slow slide into barbarism, restoring people's hope that a just and good society could be restored." I may be stirring the pot again, but I thought Chaotic characters chafe under the strict "Lawfulness" of the military. Which obviously she and her followers do not. Furthermore, what other way can one make a just and good society other than making Laws? Or is it she gives them hope that it'll happen, then peaces out once the process starts? She seems to me to be an enigma. Kind of like someone wanted to make an anti-slavery/tyranny deity, then slapped CG on her because that seemed to be the best alignment. Regardless if she is or not. My thoughts...
That being said, her relationship with Iomedae is pretty sweet.
Huh. Interesting. Thanks guys.
Nor was Lancelot, who is literally famous for his adultery...No but being a drunken lecher isn't very paladiny even if it isnt necessarily non-good.Cayden Cailean enjoys life, but there's little basis for calling him a lecher. I mean, there's evidence he hit on Calistria on at least one occasion...but she's the literal Goddess of Lust. That doesn't mean much. He's noted as flirtatious and a fan of bawdy songs, but that's a bit different from being a lecher.
He certainly is a drunk by some definitions, but on the other hand he specifically never broke with his own code of ethics, is probably the single most philanthropic of the main Gods (he's the only one who's notably a patron of orphanages other than Pharasma and the only one noted as a favored deity of philanthropists), and actively opposes tyranny at all times. He's not perfect...but then neither is Iomedae and she was a Paladin.
The event that would literally be the story of a paladin falling you mean?
I mean...he breaks his code due to lust..it causes disaster and he retires to a life of atonement. Thats pretty much the most paladin thing ever
That's what I love about those stories, they were epic yet flawed.
Be it some were more flawed than others... Compare Galahad to Lancelot. The fruit DID fall far from the tree.
{. . .}
Cayden Cailean enjoys life, but there's little basis for calling him a lecher. I mean, there's evidence he hit on Calistria on at least one occasion...but she's the literal Goddess of Lust. That doesn't mean much. He's noted as flirtatious and a fan of bawdy songs, but that's a bit different from being a lecher.He certainly is a drunk by some definitions, but on the other hand he specifically never broke with his own code of ethics, is probably the single most philanthropic of the main Gods (he's the only one who's notably a patron of orphanages other than Pharasma and the only one noted as a favored deity of philanthropists), and actively opposes tyranny at all times. He's not perfect...but then neither is Iomedae and she was a Paladin.
Be careful whom you look up to with respect to being a patron of orphanages . . . .
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be careful whom you look up to with respect to being a patron of orphanages . . . .
Asmodeus only does it when it gets him something (ie: the indoctrination of children). Cayden Cailean does it to help people, and is the Good Deity most involved in charitable giving.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except caiden is blatantly a swashbuckler and not a paladin.
you can be both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So...things I have learned from this thread. I suppose the main thing I've learned from this thread is that that as it has evolved, there is no functional difference between "Law" and "Chaos" and how they're played ingame.
I know that my saying this might prompt the immediate response, that immediate WANT to say, "but there is!" And that's natural. We want to point out the opposite, to look for flaws, to preserve a tradition.
...but think on it, yeah?
Chaos, apparently and as attested to by posters and Bestiary entries, has laws. Law has laws, and yet neither are defined defined by what's legal (otherwise, a PC's alignment changes when they cross a border, or you could simply 'outlaw evil' and other silly things). Either alignment, in the view of posters, may make broad, binding oaths and complicated arrangements. They have broad convictions, and intricate societies with levels of law and structure. Mercy, honor, and hope are not exclusive to either axis. .
..take a look at the thread.
I can't find a functional difference when you get into it. If there is one, it's so fine as to be a mouse's whisker.
Perhaps...there may be by now bare shades of difference, but those mostly lie in personal preference. Those mostly lie in phrases like, "I had a bad experience with organized religion" or, "I had a situation with my GM, and I didn't want to be told how to play my character; it wasn't that my character didn't respect the laws or order of where they were. It was more a personal, and OOC thing at the table."
I know the immediate response is: that can't be true! ...but read, reread. This is what folks are saying, about how they play at their table, and so on. Difference is just this...OOC preference. Functionally, as it's evolved, there is none.
This doesn't mean that there used to be though, you know?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No but being a drunken lecher isn't very paladiny even if it isnt necessarily non-good.Except caiden is blatantly a swashbuckler and not a paladin.fighting style does not a paladin make.
Being lustful does not break any paladin tenet. Cheating on someone's wife/husband would, that's true. But a paladin can get laid as much as he/she wants, as long as he/she targets only single people.
Similarly, getting drunk does not break any code.
No but being a drunken lecher isn't very paladiny even if it isnt necessarily non-good.Except caiden is blatantly a swashbuckler and not a paladin.fighting style does not a paladin make.Being lustful does not break any paladin tenet. Cheating on someone's wife/husband would, that's true. But a paladin can get laid as much as he/she wants, as long as he/she targets only single people.
Similarly, getting drunk does not break any code.
Except nearly any version of behaving with honor.
Also virtuous bravo is a standard LG paladin who uses a swashbuckler fighting style. Caiden is pretty clearly not that. He's described as a sellsword with a personal ethos, not a roving dogooder doing good for its own sake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No but being a drunken lecher isn't very paladiny even if it isnt necessarily non-good.Except caiden is blatantly a swashbuckler and not a paladin.fighting style does not a paladin make.Being lustful does not break any paladin tenet. Cheating on someone's wife/husband would, that's true. But a paladin can get laid as much as he/she wants, as long as he/she targets only single people.
Similarly, getting drunk does not break any code.Except nearly any version of behaving with honor.
Also virtuous bravo is a standard LG paladin who uses a swashbuckler fighting style. Caiden is pretty clearly not that. He's described as a sellsword with a personal ethos, not a roving dogooder doing good for its own sake.
Well, of course Cayden Cailean is not a by-the-book PF1 Paladin. He's not LG, to begin with.
That was not the question, tho. The question was who could be a CG Paladin. Obviously, those would be different than the LG ones.
They wouldn't be paladins, its a ludicrous concept.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So...things I have learned from this thread. I suppose the main thing I've learned from this thread is that that as it has evolved, there is no functional difference between "Law" and "Chaos" and how they're played ingame.
I got a different thing. Which is "alignments have a lot of things running, and you don't have to check EVERY box to be from one alignemnt, and being from one alignment do not forbids you to do some things that are boxes in other aligments".
Yes, tradition, oaths, rules, discipline, etc are typically Lawful. While creativity, individualism, etc are typically chaotic.
That does not mean if you are lawful, you automatically HAVE to be traditionalist, or that if you are chaotic, you cannot have any tradition, ever. You can be chaotic, and loyal to your wife, for example. There is no cosmic imperative forcing you to cheat your wife because you follow Desna.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They wouldn't be paladins, its a ludicrous concept.
Well, in the playtest, sure.
In the final game... that's to be decided.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question was who could be a CG Paladin. Obviously, those would be different than the LG ones.
Going by many of the posts above--from Greystone's onwards--there doesn't seem to be much of a difference in how actual play has evolved.
Things are to a point of, "give them the same Code." Which, given the essence of the paladin--there would be no breaking the Code, no "different shades of leniency" based on someone's personal beliefs.
The differences being pointed out/argued for now are minor nuance. I mean, if the main difference is, "Law just means more laws," then that is hardly a difference and is something of a false statement when broken down. The number of laws will forcibly scale as the size and complexity of a society does. There are more resources to manage, more people to take care of. :/ Small company versus large company, which makes it a natural effect of scale.
If we look at dedication to laws and oaths, it's been demonstrated in this thread how ordered, and dedicated chaotic followers are to these ideals and structures.
Heartfelt examples given from the Bestiaries.
Law cannot be slavish followers in contrast: again, with PCs completely rebuilding themselves once they cross a border. It turns the alignment into a zombie. o.O
...I am at a loss any more to see the differences, or argue for them in actual play, if these are what we go with. Allowing a CG paladin, while adding the needed: there is no difference in leniency in how the Code is followed, based on personal belief," only places a nail in the coffin of an old ideal even further.
Which may be no bad thing, overall.
And, we would not want the Code to be more lenient for one alignment over the other. To have an "easier route" would make a lesser paladin.
I don't want the code be more lenient, agree with you on that.
I think there is room to make different tenets for number 3 and 4.
For both kind of good paladins (asuming no NG for now), the main alignment is Good anyways. As it has been repeated for a while, they smite evil, not chaos. And most things in their code (don't harm innocents, do not cheat, etc) are things that are more related to goodness than to lawfulness. Devils can harm innocents, can cheat, etc, and are made of pure [Law].
I don't think "law just mean more laws" is correct. Lawful societies have laws that tend to improve lawfulness (order, tradition, status quo, etc). Chatoic societies also have laws, but are laws that focus more on typically chaotic traits. Drows have laws that tell you "matriarchs rule, because they are more powerful", and "you can betray and destroy other houses, but leave no witnesses". Those are 2 very CE things. They are still rules. And drow society follow those rules. Those who don't, get punished. A CG society would have rules about personal freedom (like freedom of speech, for example), which limit the power the goverment, the church, or the powerful/rich have over individuals. But those still are rules, and read "the right to XXXXX shall not be infringed"
I don't think "law just mean more laws" is correct. Lawful societies have laws that tend to improve lawfulness (order, tradition, status quo, etc). Chatoic societies also have laws, but are laws that focus more on typically chaotic traits. Drows have laws that tell you "matriarchs rule, because they are more powerful", and "you can betray and destroy other houses, but leave no witnesses". Those are 2 very CE things. They are still rules. And drow society follow those rules. Those who don't, get punished. A CG society would have rules about personal freedom (like freedom of speech, for example), which limit the power the goverment, the church, or the powerful/rich have over individuals. But those still are rules, and read "the right to XXXXX shall not be infringed"
Here is my general confusion. See, everything you'd listed could be an ordered trait, too. Old caste systems, the feudal system, were put in place in ways to ensure that power was maintained a certain way.
The leave no witness could be more of an evil trait than a chaotic one, in the end.
An ordered society would also need to have structures in place that argued for personal liberty--that is, limiting the ability of someone to murder one another, or the right of someone to speak out and to not be struck. It takes structures to enforce those limits--such as juries, or crafting laws that list rights which may not be taken. The traditional enemy of LG is LE, which is Tyranny.
With all of the gray inbetween, I am just not seeing much difference in real play, you know?
A poster upthread mentioned blending. The blending is one of the reasons I'm seeing: yeah, it's all one shade or the other, but ultimately the same box. When it comes down to it--
--we're debating the width of a cat's whisker, if that makes sense?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Law and Chaos are things that the game has never really clarified to the extent they have good and evil, and as a result I think different people look at them differently. In addition, how anyone defines them in relation to individuals isn't necessarily the same as defining them in relation to groups or societies, as some criteria apply to one, not the other.
For instance, predictable vs impulsive is a good law/chaos split for an individual, and collectivist vs individualist might apply to both, but autocracy vs democracy only applies to societies. Unless you define your personal sense of what is 'chaos' at the start, you aren't discussing the same thing.
FWIW I'm in the lawful = hierarchy, tradition and putting the needs of the community above the needs of the individual, chaotic = individualistic, entrepreneurial, revolutionary school.